Comments

  • Does Entropy Exist?
    My claims[speculations] are falsifiable... — ucarr
    How so? For example –
  • Does Entropy Exist?
    Since you're dismissing the metaphysics of my super-naturalistic universe as fiction — ucarr
    I have asked you to physically square the supernaturalistic circle, so to speak, and you've not done that. If I was merely "dismissing ... as fiction", then I wouldn't have asked you for a speculative account that is at least consistent with known physics. Your pseudo-scientistic supernaturalism, ucarr, is unintelligible – mostly word-salad – to me. Regardless of whether or not I'm guilty of "naturalist monism", my objection to your claim of "causal non-closure of the universe" is physical (i.e. theoretical-observational), not yet metaphysical (i.e. a categorical interpretation of physical theory), because to begin with you get the known physics wrong (re: "Does entropy exist?") As far as I'm concerned, sir, you might as well be speculating (in pseudo-scientistic terms) on the physics of "Middle-Earth" (Arda) instead. :sparkle: :eyes:
  • Does Entropy Exist?
    The supernatural? If so, that's just not good enough! For many many reasons, including the fact that the supernatural or super-nature or god, are unfalsifiable proposals. — universeness
    :100:
  • To be an atheist, but not a materialist, is completely reasonable
    The amount of wisdom [insights] that can be sussed out from the Hindu traditions is mind boggling. — Bret Bernhoft
    Yeah, I agree, especially (for me) the Cārvāka, Advaita Vedanta & (heretical) Theravāda traditions. :up:
  • To be an atheist, but not a materialist, is completely reasonable
    A good word for it is "Kundalini". — Bret Bernhoft
    :sparkle: Oh....
  • To be an atheist, but not a materialist, is completely reasonable
    There are obviously forms of energy that strict materialists don't embrace. — Bret Bernhoft
    Such as? :chin:
  • Does Entropy Exist?
    If it's incorrect to consider your acceptable universe an example of naturalist monism, then please explain why. — ucarr
    Non sequitur again. A further example of us talking past each other – I'm talking about the problematic implications of your speculative claims with respect to known physics and you're talking about what metaphysics you surmise is implied by my objections to your supernaturalistic (i.e. substance dualist) metaphysics. We're at an impasse, ucarr, so long as your 'transcendent speculations' do not account (at least to my philosophical satisfaction) for the / any known constraints of physical laws on the observable (post-planck era) universe.
  • What are you listening to right now?
    Well, as a dialectical counterpoint to
    ↪Jamal
    ' re: Zappa's anti-pop :wink:

    OTD 60 years ago, another brand new release in the US ...

    "She Loves You" (2:18)
    A-side single, 16Sept63 (US) & 23Aug63 (UK)
    writers Lennon-McCartney, 1963
    The Beatles

    :clap: Fab gear!
  • To be an atheist, but not a materialist, is completely reasonable
    I'm sure there are many fantastic arguments in the world against materialism, but I suspect they mostly come from people who [don't] know what materialists think. — flannel jesus
    :clap: :up:

    In fact, religion limits [retards] moral development. — praxis
    :100:
  • Does Entropy Exist?
    Is causally closed somewhere in the neighborhood of necessarily closed? — ucarr
    I don't know.

    Is speculative, causal, non-closure in the neighborhood of necessarily open?
    I don't know.

    Do you think my supposed quest for a necessarily open universe is a quest for establishment of cosmic sentience?
    You tell me, ucarr. The term "cosmic sentience" seems to me oxymoronic.

    Do you think a causally open universe implies an increase of mass_energy that violates the 1st law of thermodynamics?
    Yes, either net increase or net decrease.

    Do you think a causally closed universe entails a partially deterministic universe?
    No.

    Conjecturing a causally open universe that is transcendent non-ontically, what do you imagine such a universe would look like structurally speaking? Would it be consistent with conservation?
    I've no idea. Inconsistent (i.e. theoretically incompatible with fundamental physics).

    Do you see that one implication of your statements is that atheism is predicated upon a monist metaphysics?
    No.

    Do you see that an implication of monist metaphysics is that the metaphysics of theism, with its dualism of mass_energy/spirit, propounds a false binary?
    I think substance dualism (i.e. "mass-energy / spirit") is inconsistent – theoretically incompatible – with fundamental conservation laws and the principle of causal closure in physics.
  • To be an atheist, but not a materialist, is completely reasonable
    ↪Gnomon
    :lol: Nice try.
  • Does Entropy Exist?
    Are you asking how an open network of subsystems configures conservation within its domain? — ucarr
    No.

    Do you perceive a conflict between conservation and and something implied by an open network of subsystems?
    Yes.

    What does it mean to talk past someone?
    I'm talking about known physics and, as far as I'm concerned, you are not.

    Why should not the general public talk about the concept "universe"?
    N/A

    What did you think I was saying about the concept "universe"?
    I think you're claiming that the universe is not causally closed and therefore the effect of 'some ontologically transcendent cause'.

    Why was your impression of what I might be saying about the concept "universe" of interest to you?
    I was interested in your 'speculative causal non-closure' which is inconsistent with the fundamental conservation laws of physics.
  • To be an atheist, but not a materialist, is completely reasonable
    ↪Tom Storm
    :up: :up:
  • What happens to reality when we sleep?
    I wonder what happens to reality when we sleep. — Cidat
    What are the grounds to "wonder what happens"? Sleeping is real, ergo (at least that aspect of) "reality" happens.
  • To be an atheist, but not a materialist, is completely reasonable
    @Bret Bernhoft :point:
    ↪180 Proof


    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:
  • Quantum Entanglement is Holistic?
    ↪T Clark
    :100: :up:
  • Culture is critical
    ↪Vera Mont
    :up:
  • Culture is critical
    ↪universeness
    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.
  • Culture is critical
    ↪universeness
    How about this – Only the Tech Singularity can save us? :nerd:
  • Culture is critical
    ↪universeness
    Well, on this precipitous down slope, comrade – paraphrasing a "revered" old Nazi – only a Singularity can save us. :smirk:
  • Does Entropy Exist?
    ↪ucarr
    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".
  • The Problem of Universals, Abstract Objects, and Generalizations in Politics
    Nonviolent coexistence is not a thing, I’m afraid. — NOS4A2
    Yeah, evidently veraphobia. :mask:
  • Does Entropy Exist?
    ↪ucarr
    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.
  • Does Entropy Exist?
    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
  • Culture is critical
    ↪universeness
    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:
  • The Problem of Universals, Abstract Objects, and Generalizations in Politics
    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) ...
  • Does Entropy Exist?
    ↪ucarr
    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?
    ↪A Realist
    "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....
  • The Insignificance of Moral Realism
    ↪Bob Ross
    :ok: Thanks.
  • The Insignificance of Moral Realism
    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.
  • To be an atheist, but not a materialist, is completely reasonable
    ↪flannel jesus
    :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.
  • US Election 2024 (All general discussion)
    ↪frank
    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
  • Culture is critical
    ↪universeness
    :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".
  • To be an atheist, but not a materialist, is completely reasonable
    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).
  • To be an atheist, but not a materialist, is completely reasonable
    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:
  • To be an atheist, but not a materialist, is completely reasonable
    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"?
  • A Case for Objective Epistemic Norms
    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).
  • A Case for Objective Epistemic Norms
    ↪Bob Ross
    :ok: But why do you call this substance – existence itself – "mind"? Seems to confuse more than it clarifies ...
  • A Case for Objective Epistemic Norms
    ... 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:
  • The Complexities of Abortion
    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?
Home » 180 Proof