Anyway, I'll go on: my point – maybe not quite the OP's – is not that "logic is inherent in existence" but, parsimoniously, that logic is existence (i.e. 'universes' themselves are logico-computable processes ...) about / from which we (can) derive abbreviated syntaxes & formulae ... — 180 Proof

Physicalism provides a very good reason to think we have similar "inner-lives": we have a similar physical construction. — Relativist

The success of physics, in particular, provides good reason to believe that the observable universe is natural and operates in strict accordance with laws of nature. The question remains: does it account for the mind? At the onset of the investigation, I expect that it should - because we're part of the universe, and there's no evidence of anything else existing that is nonphysical or exempt from laws of nature.

Physicalist theory proposes models that account for the functional and behavioral aspects of mind (beliefs,learning, dispositions, the will, perceptions, "mental" causation...). — Relativist

I am not sure that it is possible for time to end. That is partly because I am inclined towards a cyclical picture of the universe and see the idea of 'nothingness' before or after the existence of life in the universe as rather dubious. — Jack Cummins

[N]aturalism and physicalism ignore the foundational, disclosive role of consciousness at the basis of scientific theorising. — Wayfarer

[T]he real question of philosophy is ‘know thyself’’ — Wayfarer

Cite a single non-idealist philosopher who says 'the material world is the whole story'.
— 180 Proof

Thomas Hobbes (d.1679) – Argued that all phenomena, including thought, are explicable in terms of matter in motion. Leviathan opens with: “The universe is corporeal; all that is real is body.” — Wayfarer

Julien Offray de La Mettrie (d. 1751) – In L’Homme Machine, he argues that humans are essentially sophisticated machines, governed entirely by physical processes.

Baron d’Holbach (d. 1789) – In The System of Nature, he writes: “Man’s life is a line that nature commands him to describe upon the surface of the earth, without his ever being able to swerve from it... his ideas are the necessary effect of the impressions he receives.” That’s full-blown deterministic materialism.

Ludwig Büchner (d.1899) – In Force and Matter, he argues that all spiritual phenomena are explicable through matter and force.

J. J. C. Smart (d. 2012) – A champion of the mind-brain identity theory: mental states just are brain states.

David Armstrong (d.2014) – Argued that mental states are physical states with a certain functional role.

Paul Churchland (b. 1942) & Patricia Churchland (b. 1943) – Advocates of eliminative materialism, which holds that beliefs, desires, and intentions as ordinarily understood don’t really exist; they’re just folk-psychological illusions awaiting replacement by neuroscience.

Daniel Dennett (d. 2024) – A leading proponent of functionalist materialism, famously dismissive of qualia and any notion of non-physical mind. See: Consciousness Explained (1991).

Alex Rosenberg (b. 1946) – Author of The Atheist’s Guide to Reality, where he asserts that physics is all there is, and that even meaning and morality are illusions.

But my thesis & blog treat Consciousness and Life as philosophical subjects, not scientific objects of study. — Gnomon

... explains nothing. It opens up possibilities, but possibility is cheap. — Relativist

transcend Reality — Gnomon

It’s not that the material world is unreal—it’s that it cannot be the whole story. — Wayfarer

What lies behind the traditional philosophical denial of common sense would seem to be the assumption that this world, not being perfect, cannot be the true world. The human desire for a transcendent reality, as opposed to this "mere shadow world" [ ... ] — Janus

Suppose cosmologists develop a testable theory that accounts for the conditions at the big bang? Would you abandon your hypothesis, or revise it? — Relativist

You sound confident about the independence of our world from any uncaused First Cause. — Gnomon

[W]hat is the "exact nature" of that prior state, ...

... and what is the evidence for it?

Have those cosmologists solved the "puzzle" of the hypothetical "prior state" with facts that us amateur philosophers don't know, ...

... or are they just guessing, ...?

That there are things which "be". That implies non-being — AmadeusD

What exists today is a consequence of what existed before. — Relativist

Do you not find it mysterious how non-being eventually turned into being? — kindred

Cosmology has not concluded our world is dependent on anything. — Relativist

Apparently 180 doesn't see any purpose to an evolving world that began with nothing (zero) but Potential (infinity) and has produced inquiring Minds that explore the mystery of Being. — Gnomon

So much thinking may become so concrete, as if models, including the mathematical and scientific ones, are seen as all encompassing. This may show a bias and diminishing of human reason — Jack Cummins

Is story and metaphor central to all understanding of 'truth'? — Jack Cummins

The fact that you replied to me shows that the world is pretty much as it seems. — Banno

We are all mortal beings as we pursue the philosophical questions. Everything in life is impermanent and all exploration occurs within the uncertainties of an unknown future. — Jack Cummins

Thunderbolt and lightning,
very, very frightening
me
(Galileo)
Galileo,
(Galileo)
Galileo,
Galileo Figaro,
magnifico ...

There is no such thing as truth. — Kurt

logos has been used to demythologize – but cannot fully eliminate – mythos — 180 Proof

Idealists don't play in traffic? — RogueAI

what if what I am seeing is not what is really there, ...? — Kurt

What do you think about the juxtaposition between ]logos and myth in the scheme of philosophical understanding? — Jack Cummins

I'm suspicious of using this explanatory gap as an excuse to believe in some sort of spiritualism. — Relativist

If such a God is woo-woo nonsense, then so is Zero & Infinity. — Gnomon

I embrace physicalism because (AFAIK) it's the best general answer to the nature of reality. I don't have some undying faith in it, and I know it has its limitations. But I treat it as the premise when analyzing everything in the world. This seems the most pragmatic approach — Relativist

Behold, the enemy! — unenlightened

I am thinking that your issues may come down to diabetes, which is so prevalent. — Jack Cummins

embodied beings

[W]e're not in a position to know whether people care about others or not. We can only judge by actions, not by sentiment or professed values. What do people actually do? — Tom Storm

I go with the theory that once upon a time, nothing existed. Then all of a sudden, something came into existence. — alleybear

[A]ll I know about this logical necessity ... — Gnomon

... how we, and our world, evolved from mathematical Big Bang Singularity

Are you familiar with D M Armstrong? — Wayfarer

[P]hysics is based on a useful abstraction, which has yielded enormous physical powers, but at the expense of excluding fundamental aspects of human existence. — Wayfarer

... thinking about the nature of compassion. — Jack Cummins

Does Empathy Always Lead to Sympathy?

I see this question as particularly significant as so much is becoming 'robotic' and machine-based?

Is it leading to moral indifference and based on the philosophy of the objective idea of the importance of 'emotional detachment as an ethical ideal?

What do you think about the ideas of sympathy, empathy and its relevance for life?.

Logic is not inherent in existence itself, whatever that means. To the extent it is a discovery, it is a discovery about the way our minds work, not about anything in the world outside ourselves. — T Clark

So - magical? Well, I think not, but something even greater in some respects
— Wayfarer
This is what I see as an enormous problem in your position. It depends on uncritically accepting the existence of magic (or "something even greater"). I've seen no justification for this other than arguments from authority (the ancients had this view) and arguments from ignorance (physicalism's explanatory gap). — Relativist