TPF : Spinoza's God -- PanEnDeism?

A place for discussion of ideas presented in the BothAndBlog, or relevant to the Enformationism thesis.
User avatar
Gnomon
Site Admin
Posts: 3287
Joined: Thu Sep 14, 2017 7:07 pm

Re: TPF : Spinoza's God -- PanEnDeism?

Post by Gnomon » Thu Apr 15, 2021 7:37 pm

I didn't expect a scientific theory in Spinoza, but more like a logical flow. — Eugen

Spinoza wrote his Ethics in the format of logical geometric proofs. And I would love to be able to put my thesis into a bare-bones logical form. But, I have no formal training in Philosophy or Mathematics. So, I'm waiting for someone more qualified to take on that task. However, I do explicitly identify the First Cause/G*D of my thesis as a self-evident axiom. And that is how formal proofs begin. But some thinkers would deny the necessity for an absolute god-like axiom, preferring instead to assume an infinite regress of "bubble" worlds. Would you like to take the job of converting the Enformationism Thesis into a set of logical proofs? :smile:

User avatar
Gnomon
Site Admin
Posts: 3287
Joined: Thu Sep 14, 2017 7:07 pm

Re: TPF : Spinoza's God -- PanEnDeism?

Post by Gnomon » Thu Apr 15, 2021 8:03 pm

The problem is that when I'm asking guys if Spinozism would be false if we couldn't obtain consciousness from something with 0% consciousness, they tell me that my question makes no sense. Am I really missing something here or they're just fucking with me? — Eugen

I suspect that they are just "pulling your whiskers". As soon as you postulate a conscious First Cause to explain consciousness in its real world effects, many on this forum will pull the old "makes no sense" diversion, because "it's meaningless Metaphysics". But, Logic is also metaphysics. And, logically, nothing exists in reality that did not exist potentially in past causes. So, they are simply trying to knock you off track, even though they simply take consciousness for granted (Mysterianism) , and make no attempt at a Physical explanation.

Therefore, you need to ask them if they have a better solution. Can they explain how the mathematical Singularity of Big Bang theory could evolve thinking beings, if there was no potential for Consciousness in the original formula? They seem to accept that Matter could emerge from Cosmic Energy. But how could Mind emerge from a confluence of matter & energy, unless Energy itself was a form of Cosmic Mind?
:smile:

Energeia & Entelechy : The entelecheia is a continuous being-at-work (energeia) . . . All things that exist now, and not just potentially, are beings-at-work, and all of them have a tendency towards being-at-work in a particular way that would be their proper and "complete" way.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Potential ... _actuality

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 12 guests