Amen, inclusivism is the way forward. That all religions possess the same truth yet there is one religion who possess the highest clarity and in this case it is Catholicism. All religions can be found in Catholicism, even Hinduism and Buddhism is found in Catholicism.

I still think communism is more likely. Fascism and communism are not far off different actually and we can verify this.

There are good inequalities and bad inequalities. A good inequality is a due inequality. A bad inequality is a condition where there is privation of a due equality. In this case we have to introduce equality to face the inequality.

Number has both mentality and physicality. The material world is expressive of the mental number. And all design and art is fundamentally founded upon number. Blessed be he who sees number for he sees God.

There are no good arguments for physicalism. Unless we want to say that reality is one and that everything has both a mental and a physical aspect to that. The primacy of physicality is possible but still inferior to the primacy of mentality.

Contemplation in itself is neutral, it is literally just vision. Vision is good or bad depending on the object of intentionality of vision. I have witnessed "hell" or the vision of logical contradiction, but I also have the vision of logical order. As such, this requires prudence and wisdom to do.

There are principles in the occults saying, The Universe is Mental. Mentality does hold primacy over physicality. Yet there is still a higher one, the One or Echad. That which transcends even mentality and physicality.

Logic literally means Order. According to the order of order, it is necessary that there is a First Cause being Order itself. If Logic is the source and principle of all reality, then Logic or Logos is the First Cause. So foolish are those atheists who deny God because they are denying Logos itself.

I disagree. Instead it is because God is Simple and Uncaused that He is Free. Consider this. God is like a "container". This container in itself is necessary. Yet the content of that container is not necessary. Thus God as Being Himself is necessary, yet what He does cannot possibly be necessary as He is uncaused.

I cannot provide an actual answer as I am ignorant of the true metaphysical principles of reality. However, it would seem that the distinction is not so clear. Even so as I find little distinction between what is "logic" and what is "metaphysics".

Interesting, but what does it mean for something to be physical?

What's voidism?

Political authority is derived from the fundamental concept of hierarchy, that there is something higher than something else. Say A is higher than B, then A has every right to control B. To deny political authority is to deny hierarchy, it is to accept that everything is exactly the same and identical to one another. This is not necessarily false, but it is to accept that there is only one thing and one thing only.

What is reason? What is rationality? Who defines the laws of reason and is the authority of that reason? Is it us humans or is it something else? It would seem weird that we are the authority of reason, unless we are actually forms of the laws of reason itself, we are its manifestations such that we are equivalent to that authority of reason.
Now, philosophy is critical and subversive, but one must realize that after all things are destroyed by philosophy, then it only has one thing left to destroy, that is itself. What will happen when philosophy becomes the new religion and must kill itself?

Why posit monism? Because that is the truth. Monism is true and when the time comes everyone will acknowledge monism. The one supreme reality that is held by monism goes under many names. Many people along with I call it God. It is relatively easy to prove monism. Here we go. You first acknowledge that there is one existence, then you acknowledge that such existence exists. You then acknowledge that everything is a derivation of Existence, and nothing else. Even nothing is a derivation of Existence. Existence is Infinity, and that does mean Existence is both finite and infinite at the same time. When we look at Existence, we can use logic and laws to reason about Existence, but if we look inside of Existence, then we shall know that even logic and law is a derivation of Existence and not a supreme reality.

This really does depend on the definition of "science" and "religion". You can have science presented as this systematic method of studying reality and religion as mere appeal to authority. You can also have science presented as being dogmatic and religion as being more rational than science. I would say you need to define clearly your terms. However, I read from your post that science is meant to be more truthful while religion is meant to be more ethical. The thing is, Goodness and Truth are really the same thing, at least in Catholic theology.

From a brief gloss of other comments, I would agree that religion is quite heterogenous. I am not even sure what is the clear unifying aspect of all religions. Though perhaps most are based on mystical experiences or encounters with beings or Being other than our own being as humans. In this case, I don't think science will replace religion, instead science will merge with religion and synthesize to form the single understanding of Reality as it is. A replacement of religion implies the utter annihilation of mystical experiences, at least in the majority. Yet in so far mystical experiences are experiences like any other, they will eventually be tackled by science as well, if science can be purified from some dogmatic assumptions as well such as materialism, or at least shallow materialism.

Before I can respond any further, I must ask to clarify the meaning of the terms written here. First of all, what does "fundamental" mean? Does it mean something which is in a term, the basis or source of things which are not fundamental? Second, when you distinguish between weak and strong emergence, do you mean that strong emergence is when a property not found in the fundamental reality appears out of seemingly nowhere? Finally, I really want to understand the model of the possibilities. If I and II combine to form 100% of all possibilities, how can I and II by themselves already be 100%?

Finally, a possible reality which is excluded from this model as I understand is a reality of a single object. Absolutely only one object. No distinctions at all. This means there can be no relationships of fundamentality or emergence.

From a religious perspective, God is more pleased by a genuine search of the truth instead of a blind assent to authority. That is besides the point though. Philosophically speaking, truth must be searched and questioned absolutely until it is found absolutely and can no longer be questioned absolutely. Recognizably, this is not easy, yet Christ has taught that the Christian life is not easy. However, you are correct that questioning one's beliefs can actually strengthen those beliefs, or if one discovers the truth, destroy that belief. Yet if you discover the truth, then those beliefs were better off gone. Truth is the ideal principle of Christianity, as Christ is in the faith, Truth Himself. At least, this is what Christ intended, but that many Christians do not practice Truth, or even understand the truth of Truth, is reality.

I would be honest, this is borderline mysticism in the deepest heart of philosophy. This is not a negative comment by any means. But I must make a comment on religion. Religion is simply a fuller expression of a particular philosophical understanding combined with experiences based on that philosophy. As a Catholic who enjoys philosophy, I acknowledge that we make a severe philosophical distinction between God and Man. Yet to the mystic and to the philosopher, there shall be an acknowledgement that everything is simply a manifestation or projection of Reality. The core of every reality is, Reality.

I must apologize for my incoherency or my seeming disrespect. I hold no disrespect, only disagreements. However, if my words indicate any disrespect, I apologize. I do not say they are lying, because I believe they are sincere in their words. Also, I think it's better we move on, I do not see the value in trying this over.

I am not sure how this relates to my post, may you clarify the connection to me?

Interesting, though I would ask in what way is materialism dead?

Pardon me if you consider that as an ad hominem and an unnecessary one at that. However, I cannot apologize for another reason that is I don't consider it as an ad hominem. My words can certainly be interpreted as an ad hominem, but I myself interpret something as ad hominem if they directly attack the person, that is to make an actual moral evaluation of their character in an attempt to derail the argument. If you have your own argument on why my statements are ad hominem, please tell me and I will consider my words once more.

In my defense, my words are not ad hominem because I am simply describing the phenomenon of the matter, or at least an interpretation of the phenomenon. I am also not attacking anyone at all, I am merely describing things in my view. So I find it interesting that you would accuse me of ad hominem.

The evidence that I have that they choose not to see is frankly simple and non-existent at the same time. It is non-existent as they will say that they do not see not because they choose not to see, but because there really is nothing else to see according to their opinion. Yet in simple view, many other people do see something else than just matter stuff, are you willing to categorize these people as being deluded, in a morally neutral way, and say that they are just making stuff up?

Good, thank you
1. What is true, what is truth, and how do we discover or determine them?
2. What is considered to be "natural"?

Thank you, continuing on with further questions.
1. What is a fact?
2. What does it mean to be "physical"?

What does it mean to be objective and material, if you may explain?

I believe most materialists would have some knowledge if not a complete one of the opposing worldviews. For a materialist to have absolutely no knowledge of the opposing worldviews would be, interesting, much so in the age of the internet. So perhaps there is meaning in discussing it with them. It's not that they actually can't see, they certainly can see, unless they are truly blinded. Instead they chose actively to ignore the "otherworldly" and thus they do not see. And anything is meaningful if you can make it meaningful. Though on this particular case, what purpose do you want to achieve by speaking about materialism to materialists?

Thoughts, they are such a fickle thing. Now most people will not deny the "validity" of the process and product of thought, however they will surely debate the nature of this thought. In what way does a thought exist, what kind of thought exists? What does it mean for the thought to exist? I say anything distinguishable in the human experience from another thing, is something which exists and is real. So yes, there are thoughts, and they are the one of the closest (it is close to us to access) manifestations of the incorporeal or the immaterial.

I believe we have different conceptions of what is an ultimate reality. If ultimate reality is just a human construct, then for sure it has no absolute power against us apart from that power which we grant that construct over us. The other alternative, is a bit more deadly, and I admit I am basing this line of thought from biblical thought, that human contact with God leads to the death of the man, in one way or another. If ultimate reality is something which exists outside of the human mind, with a true parallel on the outside world, then well again it does depend on what definitions are you using to define this ultimate reality. I have no idea what your views are, so I cannot say about it, but I know my own so I can say it. My view is that ultimate reality is for the very least, the union of all reality. If a man is to witness this kind of radical union directly with their own soul or body, would it not kill them, in a sense or two of the word "kill"? Though you are right, there is no real certainty as of to whether encounters with the divine, that is the ultimate, are deadly or not.

I believe access here means even fundamental knowledge of the existence of an ultimate reality. To me, knowing what the ultimate reality is "like", and whether it exists barely or not, is the best bet we can have. Then again, it depends on the definition of existence, or the perspective on what constitutes as existence. It is most likely, in my view, that one cannot access ultimate reality in a full way on this mortal life. Because the brain and body and this universe is not designed to contain ultimate reality, it will kill us.

That is a very nice way of life and thinking. I had an ethical thought back then based on "acceptance", making peace with all of reality, even the worst of all, is a good way to have some joy even in the darkest of times. Honestly I've given up on true certainty, the foundational block of my entire mind, God, is no more than an object of faith, in multiple senses of that expression. It is by no means blasphemy, for God knows this Himself, that He cannot be grasped by human reason, only by faith.

Thanks for your welcome. I have been here for some time, but the tension of philosophical debate always messes up with my heart and mind. Only now I find some strength to face the fear of criticisms and perhaps even worse, accusations. So, if science tells us about the world "as it appears to us", is there any way to get to know the world as it actually is, that is beyond the appearance, or is there only the appearance?

I am not a materialist or a physicalist. Your post seems to be more of a lamentation over the current state of philosophy, and frankly, the current state of the world.

Are there any non-physical aspects of reality that are proper topics of calm collegial philosophical dialog? — Gnomon

I do not know the answer to this question. For I fear that the immaterial, or the metaphysical, or the non-physical, or whatever we want to call it, is long gone trampled underfoot by the immense pressure of the materialist or the physicalist. In my view, it is interesting that the primary cause for this total rejection of the non-physical is well, non-physical.

I like your idea and honestly I am happy more than ever that someone has responded to me, especially someone who seems like a veteran to me.

My emotions aside, then what tells us all about the actual world?

I have read some of what the others said and my good question is, what kind of infinite are you looking for? As long as you live this mortal life, you will not possess any knowledge of the True Infinite, aka God, at least in the sense that you will have no real evidence of this mysterious Infinity. Any belief in the Infinite must be accepted with faith. And to an extent, even lesser infinities are unknown, until you actually encounter them. Before that, we can only speculate on the nature or existence of infinities.

I agree with your words very much, this is a sound logical argument. Perhaps we may add it with the idea that Nothing can lead to something greater than itself. Consider that a finite object can only lead to the equivalent of itself or something lower. A finite object A may be transmuted into another finite object B using some change of arrangements, but if it has finite power, then it can only be transmuted into another finite object the equivalent of itself. The Absolutely Infinite Being which some or many or we call God cannot lead to something greater, for the Absolutely Infinite is the upper limit of all things. However, God can lead to something lesser, that is the realm of the finite.

Greetings everyone,

It is the intuition that there is a complementary set for every single set. However, intuition is not always true. Intuition, in my opinion, is the result of the conditioned mind which is so used to seeing multiplicity and difference. However, there are not 2 universal sets, there is only one universal set, the set of Reality. Now there is such a thing as relative reality and absolute reality, both of which are part of absolute reality. Relatively speaking, things are "not real" when they contradict the greater experience or the rest of experience. For example, if I say "The red car on my porch", then it is false and said red car is not real because I don't have a red car on my porch. However, is the absence of the red car a result of my limited perception or an independent existence of its own? Because I can certainly say that I and everyone else simply cannot perceive the red car. So let us say, "The red car on my porch which can be sensed by a specific set of people that is the set of all people which are not hallucinating."

However, what is a hallucination? Is a hallucination simply bogus perception or are they really seeing into a different reality, or seeing more of reality? Well let's say there is a universe where nobody, not even alien lifeforms, can see the red car on the porch. Then finally we can say the red car is not real, right, right? Well, which is more correct, the red car is not real or that nobody can see the red car? Those 2 statements means 2 different things. The first is that the red car truly isn't part of reality such that nobody can see it, the second means nobody can see the red car but it doesn't mean the red car isn't real.

Alright, thanks for this chance to show off my philosophical exercise. The real answer is that everything is real, what differs is a different variable called actuality, at least that's what I call it. Actuality is what applies in the world such that we experience that particular reality. Different consciousness (people) have different actualities. This actuality does lead to infinite layers of actuality, let me demonstrate. So the red car is real but it is not actual. Then where is the actual red car? Well that's not actual. So where's the actual actual red car? Well that's not actual, and so on. However, it all means the same thing, I can't see the red car and probably nobody else can, but there is one Being which can see that red car, God. So reality is absolute, but actuality is relative.

Though then again, "real" might mean different things for other people. Some may differentiate "real" from "exist" or "being". I don't. In my paradigm, reality is simple the collection of all existence, and being is just a synonym for existence. As such, the unreal does not exist, there is no "unreal". What exists is relative perception and relative experience. The unreal is not real, so I guess the unreal does exists and is thus real. However, we can say that "The only member of the complementary set of Reality is the complementary set of Reality." Because the set contains itself, then we go into an infinite dive, but it means the same thing, Non-Reality is part of itself.

Greetings everyone,

I'll be honest, I am a monist, but not the same kind of monist as the article presupposes. I recall there was a thread about monism in this forum but I forgot most of the contents of that thread, only that it seems to describe that all monism is the same, which is certainly interesting. Okay sorry for not answering the question directly. It seems yes, the article is implying that science has to be false for dualism to be true.

I am not an expert in dualism or what it actually claims, though I have a bare understanding that dualism means there are 2 kinds of fundamentals in reality. This I "agree" with. It is clear from reflection and contemplation that there are at least 2 fundamentals in this reality, that which is finite and that which is infinite. The finite, most represented by matter are by definition, finite. They have form which represents a finite existence across a greater infinite existence. The Infinite, most represented by God are by definition, infinite. It has no form which represents an infinitely "large" existence.

The author of that article may have misunderstood science or dualism or just doesn't understand both, which is okay, everyone develops at different paces. I don't see how science must be wrong if dualism is true. Science and dualism can be both true at the same time. The author doesn't even argue about why science has to be false if dualism is true. So I really have nothing to argue against. It is true that science has been plagued and ruled by materialism since a long time. However, it is also important to remember that Christianity, a dualistic system, plays a great role in developing science. So science is birthed out of dualism or something holding that idea. And the author wishes to say that dualism and science is against each other? I pray for his enlightenment.

I can see your logic and I agree with your conclusion that there has to be a first cause. I read a bit through the other arguments and saw that your point is that infinite causality requires still an explanation of why it is. The answer that "It simply is" reveals that there is a "Law" or "Rule" which regulates reality such that infinite causality is the case. In my own journey, I discovered that all sequences of causation and change are eventually caused either by laws/rules/instructions of reality which dictates how change must happen, and these objects don't have an actual cause to them. Even in the case of an infinite causality, there is a higher law which regulates that infinite causality or sequence to such degree. This higher law might be your first cause.

Some argue that if we lived forever that life would be greatly depreciated in value. But does its value largely come from its brevity, finitity, and frailty? Is the argument that life in the universe is only possible within like 0.0000001% of the history of the universe an argument for the value of life, or its insignificance, and likihood that it was more of a mistake? Surely its value is mostly in the experience of life and not the relative span of time? — TiredThinker

If life's value is in its relative span of time, then God would probably be rather miserable, contrary to the teachings that God is in an infinite state of happiness. However, the perceived value of life can proceed from the brevity, finitity, and frailty of life. One may possible perceive that human life is valuable only because it is short, finite, and frail. Life may be treated as a mere commodity in which scarcity increases value and abundance decreases value.

On the contrary, the intrinsic value of life is independent of what humans perceive of it, and as such cannot merely come from the relative span of time of that life. I believe you are correct in saying that the value of life is mostly in the experience of life, how we live life, how we experience life, how we make our choices, those are all which makes life meaningful, instead of simply the relative span of time. In my own view, the value of life comes from the usefulness of life for us conscious beings, that is happiness and goodness (both may be seen as synonymous in our universe).

Things have value "objectively" because they lead us to the greater good that is the greater happiness. I sincerely think that the economic perspective of scarcity and value makes little sense in the greater framework of ethics and value theory. I believe the value of things are not determined by their scarcity, instead it is a general rule of reality that things which are of greater value require greater effort to attain and thus are generally more "scarce". Perhaps we may say that scarcity is a consequence of value, not the other way around.

As such, the value of life is in its capacity to lead us to goodness and happiness, and perhaps in some perspectives, life is the only way for us to attain goodness and happiness, outside of which we are faced with oblivion and nothingness.