@Bret Bernhoft :point:

I don't imagine the origin of the world as a biblical Genesis, but Plato/Aristotle's abstract notion of LOGOS & Prime Mover suits me for philosophical purposes. — Gnomon

Well, I find Spinoza's non-transcendent substance, or natura naturans, much more parsimonious and elegant (as do e.g. Hegel, Schopenhauer, Nietzsche ... Einstein, Bohm, Wheeler, Everett ... David Deutsch, Seth Lloyd et al). Btw, Epicureans & Stoics are also immanentists, to wit: "the source of energy" is existence itself (à la the vacuum); thus, "creationism" by any other name, whether biblical or onto-theological – multiplying (transcendent) entities – is both philosophically and scientifically unnecessary. :smirk:

:100: :up:

:up:

Well, I haven't been a humanist since Old World conquistadors and colonial settlers genocided New World peoples and built empires via the Atlantic slave trade and centuries of indentured seritude. I've also given up on utopias since the Stalinist purges, Mao's "Cultural Revolution" and the fall of "The Thousand Year Reich". And what has the "Greatest Generation" wrought with the "freedom" they have defended or won? Corporate globalism and its laissez-faire collapsing of the Holocene (aka "the Anthropocene" of accelerating catastrophic climate change, etc). The tragic mismatch of Stone Age brains – amplified by our primate glands and Bronze Age superstitions – with the current Information Age is undeniable: h. sapiens is, in the main, a delusional, tribalistic species

Perhaps, if our species continues long enough to be very lucky, 'networks' of local / micro, post-scarcity, economic democracies (e.g. self-sufficient space habitats / terrestrial arcologies) will be achieved — 180 Proof

If I had to bet on 'our future', I'd bet on the posthuman tribes of less than a few percentages of the teeming global population in the coming decades or centuries. Our synthetic children might be our genome's salvation.

How about this – Only the Tech Singularity can save us? :nerd:

Well, on this precipitous down slope, comrade – paraphrasing a "revered" old Nazi – only a Singularity can save us. :smirk:

No thanks. We're now talking past each other (and neither of us are physicists anyway). I'm no longer interested in what I thought you were saying about the concept "universe".

Nonviolent coexistence is not a thing, I’m afraid. — NOS4A2

Yeah, evidently veraphobia. :mask:

You're speculating outside of known physics (i.e. absent a falsifiable theory of QG) yet I'm asking you to reconcile known physics with another speculative claim you've made about the universe itself. Metaphysics that does not account for, or is not grounded in, well-established physics is indistinguishable from pseudo-science or worse, IMO. I wonder if I'm taking your statements here too seriously.

QM tells us particle pairs entanglements are instantaneous across distance. — ucarr

I don't think so. QM suggests that "distance" – spacetime (i.e. gravity) – does not obtain at planck scales. Conservation laws, derived from Noether's theorem(s), make QM possible (or intelligible) as well as being classically observable. Anyway, I assumed from what you wrote previously that you were referring to the post-planck era of "the universe" ... I don't see how either QM or entanglement relevantly address my question:

Well, if "the universe is an open network of subsystems", tell us what accounts for e.g. the inviolability of fundamental conservation laws. — 180 Proof

Change is inevitable, "progress" is not (and fleeting, or fragile, when attained). IMO, "true socialism" is – has always been – incompatible with scarcity-commons, though the alternatives, which are more compatible because they are less equitable, less sustainable & less progressive, are worse. Perhaps, if our species continues long enough to be very lucky, 'networks' of local / micro, post-scarcity, economic democracies (e.g. self-sufficient space habitats / terrestrial arcologies) will be achieved – though almost certainly not in our lifetime by this (G7/G20) transnational corporate hegemony. :mask:

Extraordinary, that there are folk who believe in incorporation but not in society. — Banno

:smirk: :up:

It's like being a gardener who also denies that nature exists.

So what thing or things in the world should these institutions work for? — NOS4A2

To start, nonviolent coexistence (i.e. sustainable eusociality) ...

Why do you (seem to) equate "incompleteness" with "openness"? For instance, a transcendental number such as Pi is closed (i.e. defined) even though its expression is incompletable (i.e. unbounded). — Maybe the comparison doesn't work because Pi is an abstract entity and "the universe" is a / the concrete entity. — Well, if "the universe is an open network of subsystems", tell us what accounts for e.g. the inviolability of fundamental conservation laws. :chin:

"What is real?" My guess – Horizons. Ineluctable relations (i.e. whatever is hazardous to ignore ... that which is the case whether or not we know (or believe) it to be the case ... mind/subject-POV/language/gauge-invariant referents). Contingent facts. The whole of existence....

:ok: Thanks.

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/835493

Continuing from the post linked above, @Bob Ross, tell me what is "subjective" about the form of this (ethical / medical / ecological) hypothetical imperative ...

If X deprived of Y, then do Z in order to restore X by mitigating Y

 (where X = homeostasis or health-fitness or sustainability, respectively).

Whether or not one chooses to do a moral, or right, action (i.e. a hypothetical imperative to reduce harm) is no more "subjective" than whether or not one chooses to solve a mathematical equation because both are, I argue contra the OP, equally objective operations.

:up: :up:

What I oppose about materialism is that it is exclusively the domain of what is real; of reality. — Bret Bernhoft

In other words, you believe that reality is also "immaterial"? If so, how does the immaterial affect the material and vice versa?

By "reality" I mean that which we encounter and can verify or measure.

Give a couple of examples of how "we encounter and ... verify or measure" the immaterial. Thanks, Bret.

Putin's Bitch definitely won't be the GOP nominee, Sleepy Joe might not be on the ballot either and I haven't seen a thing in the last seven or so months to change my mind in either case. I suspect, though, that if Harris is the nominee, low voter turnout will definitely benefit the GOP candidate. IMO, either Gavin Newsom and/or Gretchen Witmer would win at least as decisively as Biden won in 2020.

From four months ago, my predictions have been on track and in some ways better than I'd imagined ...
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/807006

:fire:

Going out and drinking and catering to one's impulses in the moment is a life without purpose. Family and saving Grace gives one's life purpose and this might be better than indulging one's impulses at the moment. — Athena

"Family and saving Grace" also traumatize many in various ways which drive them into a "life without purpose" of "catering to one's impulses" via incessantly "going out" to self-medicate – numb themselves – with alcohol, drugs, porn / sport-effing, gambling, conspicuous consumption, bible-thumping literalism, magical / conspiracy groupthink, gang violence, gun-fetishism, etc as a social normative corollary of living in this highly atomized – individualistic – near-sociopathic, neoliberal republic (i.e. post-war corporatocratic America).

The Hellenistic philosophies of ataraxia / eudaimonia had developed in response to the turbulent decadence of waning Greek and Roman imperialisms but the Epicureans, Stoics Kynics & Pyrrhonians could not prevent the inevitable (i.e. entropic) collapse of those Classical civilizations. Cultivation of philosophical practices as a way of life (P. Hadot) had in ancient times given many lives "purpose" (independent of "family and saving Grace" which had served – ideologically justified – tyrannies as they cannibalized their respective societies.)

'Pax Americana' is the latest and greatest civilizational collapse due, in no small part, to its near-century long, corporatizing / plutocratic policies of atomizing decadence that has now become impervious to attempts at viable, effective public reasoning and equitable public cooperation. Conspicuously, (if we are honest enough to admit it to ourselves) the US is a failed state, riven by homegrown, populist tribalism since our national founding, that has become an unsustainable empire. For most Americans under fifty, I suspect "going out and drinking and catering to one's impulses in the moment" is what gives their postmodern (i.e. politically as well as philosophically disenfranchised) lives some solipsistic "purpose".

Good reasoning requires following some laws of logic and your post is not a good example of that. — Athena

Silly projection.

What are the differences between ma[tt]er and energy? — Athena

Fermions and bosons. Nothing 'immaterial'. :roll:

Sounds rather Stoic and, therefore, preferable as such things go, to me at least. All that acts or can be acted upon are "bodies" and therefore part of Nature, or the Universe. There are different kinds of bodies, though. — Ciceronianus

:fire: Yes! Also sounds Democritean-Epicurean (& Lucretian).

All materialists believe that matter moves around, right? And matter requires energy to move and interact and change directions and so forth, right?

I've never met a materialist who doesn't believe in energy. — flannel jesus

:100: :fire:

NB: ... "yinyang" ... "atoms swirling swerving in the void" ... "E=mc²" ... "fermions & bosons", wtf are woo-ologists talking about? :sweat:

It is mind-blowing to me that we are still materialists. Everything is energy. — Athena

"Everything" which causes changes is material, ergo "energy" is material, no?

I might be playing the same game as theism, by looking to "a beyond" for something better. — Bret Bernhoft

How can "a beyond" the here and now provide "something better" to us within the here and now?

I am not a materialist. — Bret Bernhoft

As a non-"materialist", what is it (ontically? epistemically?) about the material that you oppose?

More simply, reality is mind/mental.

What do you mean by "reality"?

I would say that the type of existence is ‘mental’, which just signifies a nice shorthand for ‘everything that exists is mind’; but, of course, someone could point out that existence itself is mind-independent and is ‘physical’ in that sense. — Bob Ross

A physicalist would say 'mind is physical' (just as processes like digestion and vision are physical).

:ok: But why do you call this substance – existence itself – "mind"? Seems to confuse more than it clarifies ...

... everything is mind-dependent in the sense that everything that exists is mind-dependent, but not ... existence itself, taken up as an entity itself, is mind-dependent. — Bob Ross

So to paraphrase in Schopenhauerian terms: "everything that exists" is phenomenal, or only appearances (i.e. Representations), but "existence itself" is more-than-appearance, or noumenon (i.e. Will). :chin:

Is this close to what you're claiming, Bob?

And, as per the OP, "objective epistemic norms" are, in effect, justified by, as Schopenhauer argues, the (Platonic / Leibnizian) Principle of Sufficient Reason (à la "The Fourfold Root of ...")?

Btw, my take on Bernardo Kastrup is that his "objective idealism" (cosmopsychism?) isn't much more than a quantum woo-woo riff on Spinoza's acosmism (or Hindu Brahman). He seems slightly more rigorous (or strenuous) than ... Deepak Chopra. :roll:

I don't see how that's slavery. — RogueAI

Here is what I actually wrote if you care to critically assess my legalistic analogy instead of ToothyMaw's "stupid" (lazy) strawman:

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/566082

In other words, how is forced pregnancy substantially different from forced labor?

IIRC, either Pythagoras or Plato has a stronger claim than Berkeley to being "the father of idealism in general" (in the western philosophical tradition). As for "misreading" what you actually wrote, Bob, I don't think so. And your attempt to clarify doesn't help.

So, leaving aside Berkeley, you're not a Leibnizian? not a Kantian? not a Hegelian? ... but rather, an 'idealist' in the vein of Gabriel Markus? or Donald Hoffman? or Bernardo Kastrup? ...

... another comment that made me think that the poster had not read anything in my essay [my entire, overly long, OP]. — Brendan Golledge

:up:

In a similar sense as @FrancisRay's question: How can we know that what we "experience as God" is in fact "God" (especially if "God" is not one discrete fact among all other facts)?

I can't follow your inconsistencies, Bob.

I do not think that 'being' unfolds from a mind, as that mind would be 'non-being' then, which makes no sense to me. — Bob Ross

Mind is non-being?

Instead, there exists, fundamentally, one mind (at-large) of which we are minds within it.

Ergo, "mind (at-large)" is being?

This is what I think objective idealist theories tend to purport, but of course there are theistic accounts that posit God as some sort of producer of even existence itself.

This account reminds me of Berkeley's subjective idealism (or Leibniz's monadology).

I think both are distinctions without explanatory or ontologucal differences. The link provided, IMO, renders each functionally redundant in the 'cosmological picture' under consideration.

:up:

:chin: In other words,

'the universe' is like a Möbius loop – an eternal cycle – wherein the topological 'twist' (ouroboros-like) corresponds to big bangs/big crunches (or white holes/black holes) Q-tunneling between bi-polar (i.e. positive-to-negative / matter-to-antimatter), quantum gravity manifolds consisting of strange-looping (or fractal-like) configurations (entropy gradients) of variable mass-energy densities ...

Okay, as far as it goes; but it seems to me that Occam's Razor dispenses with ad hoc – unwarranted – notions like "panpsychism" and "super-nature" .

@universeness

:100:

Well, (your) mind is nonmind-dependent unless solipsism obtains (which, of course, it does not).
—180 Proof

I don’t believe that is true at all. — Bob Ross

Okay.

All that is required for idealism ... is that existence itself is mind-independent

A typo – don't you mean "mind-dependent" instead?

... not that there exists any mind-independent entities within it.

Non sequitur

... idealism (and solipsism I might add: not that they are similar at all) ...

I didn't imply or state that they were.

completely reasonable — Bret Bernhoft

Clarify what you mean by "reasonable" in this context. Thanks.

It seems to me you both make valid points. I don't bother engaging directly with NOS4A2, I just ridicule his nonsense by linking him to posts wherein I update the latest facts – nails in the proverbial coffin – damning RICO-defendant1 & other MAGA morons. I rub NOS' denial in his cult's shitstorm which has been for years my way of both dismissing his self-deceiving bs and countering it. You're right, Clark, we don't have to waste time arguing with incorrigible – disingenuous – Trumpster idiocy but, like @Benkei, I don't leave that noise unchecked, using it/NOS like a rhetorical piñata whenever it suits me. :smirk:

:up:

And so on and so on ...

"Post-subjective anti-capitalism" :eyes:

I WOULD PREFER NOT TO.

:sweat:

:up:

You aren't the only one here being stupid, but you are the worst offender — ToothyMaw

Your vacuous projection is duely noted.

No. I have strong affinities for Spinoza's dual-aspect ontology (though pragmatically I prefer property dualism) and so l'm neither a neutral monist nor a Kantian empiricist.