BothAndBlog Forum

Monism: the idea that only one supreme reality exists. Why posit monism? — Art48

For Materialists, the term "Universe" is the ultimate reality. But philosophers have long postulated that there may be more than meets the eye. And we "see" that More in imagination. In some contexts, I call it "Ideality" as a parallel to "Reality". Since that unreal something More cannot be empirically proven to exist, I suspect that some philosophers created the Ontological term Monism (one substance) to represent both the physical substance of Universe, and the metaphysical substance*1 of The Whole --- including whatever gods may be, and abstract/ideal principles, such as Logos.

So, "why posit monism"? Probably because Monism is a philosophical ideal : unattainable perfection, by contrast with the complexities & contradictions of Pluralistic Dualism. Reductively, if you trace the evolution of everything real & knowable (the Universe : single circle : all encompassing) back in spacetime, you eventually arrive a singular point, at which Time & Space disappear into the immeasurable : Infinity. And that innumerable number has always seemed both scary & significant for philosophers, along with the all-encompassing notion of Unity : the bookends of reasoning : the Beginning and the End. E Pluribus Unum. Why stop short of perfection; even if it's only an Ideal?

Even before modern science began to put numbers on everything --- including invisible intangible things --- mathematical thinkers could imagine that all number series must begin with the concept of Infinite Possibility subsumed in Monism. Mundane Plurality is the beginning point for physical Science, which aspires to reduce complex things down to an essential Atom : the essence of Form. But Quantum Physics has discovered that it may be impossible to touch the bottom of an Infinite regression. So, the scientists eventually gave up on Atomism, and posited a singular universal virtual Energy Field of all physical possibilities. Yet, they still resist defeat of their doctrine of infinite Reductionism in the non-reductive concept of Monism/Holism/Infinity. That would be admission of a physical limit to human Reason. Which would require resort to the metaphysical Imagination of Philosophical postulation.

All encompassing Unity (real + ideal) is the ultimate goal for meta-physical {e.g.. the realm of ideas ; the Ideosphere ; the Dataome} Philosophy, which seeks to understand physical Reality by discovering what all things have in common : their Ultimate Pre-physical Source : The One. Ironically, both reasoning methods can only work with that which lies in between the imaginary brackets of First & Last : All = Alpha & Omega = Unity = The One = the Ultimate Category for both Reductionists and Holists. For all practical purposes, Infinity = Emptiness = Ultimate Ground : the limit of human Reason & Existence. Ooops! Is all that included in Monism? Metaphysical Ontology can get out of hand. And this stuff is over my head.



*1. Infinity and Unity : Mathematics and Metaphysics :
According to Leibniz, any living being admits of both infinite complexity and strict unity. The author develops an analogy between numerical and metaphysical unity: while substantial unities are presupposed by aggregates, a substantial unity is also presupposed by a substance’s infinite qualities, or by its sequence of states and perceptions. This point is exemplified and developed through Leibniz’s use of a law of a series to define an individual substance. The author seeks to show that Leibniz’s qualification of a substance as “one being” is primarily intended to emphasize the essential unity and indivisibility of a substance. This claim can also be expressed by noting that unity per se (or an indivisible unity) implies numerical oneness but not vice versa.
https://academic.oup.com/book/34904/cha ... m=fulltext

Plotinus' philosophy was enormously influential on the successive ages of philosophy, up until and including Hegel, although subsequently deprecated, at least in English-speaking philosophy. The point being, that something like this 'unitive vision' is required to make sense of philosophical monism, if it is not to be reduced to a kind of caricature which takes 'the one' to consist of a kind of agglomeration of everything that exists. It is within the context of that unitive understanding that the distinction between 'what is real' and 'what exists' is, at least, intelligible, and which provides a framework for the meaning of monism. — Wayfarer

Thanks. I know very little about Plotinus and Neoplatonism, but the notion of "unitive vision" seems to be common to both Early Greek and Eastern philosophies. I suppose that today we would call it subjective "Intuition", as opposed to objective "Observation".

The "distinction between 'what is real' and 'what exists' " may be the crux where Materialism and Monism part ways. For a materialist, the physical/material Universe is all that exists, excluding all metaphysical (mental) phenomena, and mathematical possibilities. Apparently, for Monists, "all" is more inclusive, going beyond the scientific Real, that can be observed, into the realm of philosophical Possibility & Potential.

Yet the same anti-metaphysical "deprecation" is applied to both Spiritualism and Holism. Although they are not the same thing. As you implied, the monistic Whole is not just an "agglomeration" of many parts, but a separate entity in its own right*1, with global properties/qualities that do not exist in isolated components. Ironically, Quantum Physics has discovered a new kind of Holism in the strange physical phenomena of Entanglement*2 : unreal statistical/relational existence*3. What then, is the nature of such incorporeal existence?


*1. A Spiritualist might call it "God" ; presuming to attribute humanlike properties to The One. But a Holist, lacking direct revelation, must be satisfied with a more abstract conception.

*2.Merelogical Holism :
A composite quantum system has properties that are incompatible with every property of its parts. The existence of such global properties incompatible with all local properties constitutes what I call "mereological holism"--the distinctive holism of Quantum Theory.
https://arxiv.org/abs/2102.01438

*3. In logic, philosophy and related fields, mereology is the study of parts and the wholes they form. Whereas set theory is founded on the membership relation between a set and its elements, mereology ... Wikipedia

I found kind of a bridge to Catholicism through the Christian mystics and ecumenicals, like Thomas Merton. There's actually a thriving albeit small sub-cultural grouping of Zen Catholicism. The Sermons of Meister Eckhardt are a perennial favourite. I like Richard Rohr. — Wayfarer

I suppose my boring non-Catholic, non-mystical Fundamentalist Protestant upbringing didn't prepare me for mystical experiences. The Bible was not taken as fantasy or mystery, but a literal history & prophecy of mundane events in the past, and things to come. We didn't do any of the fun stuff, like speaking in tongues of angels, or preaching "words of knowledge", or faith healing by laying-on of hands.

In Fire In The Mind, by George Johnson, he reviewed the history of Quantum Physics in Los Alamos & Santa Fe, New Mexico. The subtitle is Science, Faith, and the Search For Order. So he compared & contrasted the rational faith of the scientists, with the ancient mystical beliefs of local Indians (indigenous people). He also noted that the converted Indians found compatible expressions for their traditional mystical experiences in their own local brand of Catholicism.

In the final chapter, A Leap Into The Unknown, the author made this comment : "As we learn from the particle physicists, if we ascend to a higher level of abstraction, things that seem different on the surface suddenly appear as manifestations of a deeper unity". Could that "unity" be the same Monism that we are discussing in this thread?

'd question that - it is because it is interpreted through the subject-object perspective that we fail to grasp its import. This interpretation subjectivizes or relativizes insight, making it a personal matter, whereas its import is precisely that it is transpersonal. Many will say that there is 'no intersubjective validation' available for such insights, but that is because today's criteria are generally empirical, recognising only what can be observed and validated by sense-perception. — Wayfarer

I just started reading an internet article on the topic of Quantum Theology. Disclosure : Theos Think Tank is a Christian organization "researching the relationship between religion, politics and society". Since I have no religion to defend, my interest in Quantum Theology is related to Phillip Ball's recent book on the philosophy of Quantum Physics : "Beyond Weird".

In the article, what caught my eye was the phrase : "using language to describe things that can’t really be described". In my experience, philosophers have always used specialized language (metaphors, symbols, allegories, etc) to describe concepts that can't be described in physical terms. Ironically. the pioneers of Quantum Physics were forced to describe the objects of their study in unconventional meta-physical language : "non-locality ; "entanglement" ; "superposition", etc. I suspect that the "weirdness" of many of those queer notions derives from the difference between Monistic (metaphysical) and Pluralistic (material) worldviews.

I suppose that ancient mystics were faced with the same problem : how to describe their metaphysical experiences (feelings & imagery) in common subject-object language. Since I have had no experience with "extra-sensory" phenomena, I'm in a similar position with the Mystical realm as to the Quantum realm. I have to try to interpret the esoteric metaphors into concepts that I can relate to. Some people may take their analogies -- e.g. an atom as a miniature solar system --- too literally, because of the limitations of their experience and vocabulary.

I'm not trying to become a mystic --- too old and set in my real-world ways. But I've been led down the meta-physical road by my Information & Quantum based thesis : Enformationism. So, on TPF, I'm just trying to understand what some serious thinkers on this forum are talking about. And why other posters react emotionally/politically to the foreign language of "woo". Other than immersing myself in mystical literature, do you have any suggestions?


Quotes from essay :
"First, this essay draws from Philip Ball’s recent book Beyond Weird: Why everything you thought you knew about quantum physics is different. Ball is Britain’s leading popular science writer"

"I suspect there are implications in quantum physics for the kind of universe in which believers think they live,if only by casting shadows over the allegedly closed and deterministic Newtonian universe in which, for centuries, we were told we lived. As we will see, it is easy to see why so many philosophically–minded believers, whether religious, spiritual, new agey or secular, make this move."
https://www.theosthinktank.co.uk/commen ... m-theology

Quantum Weirdness : Blog post
http://bothandblog7.enformationism.info/page43.html

As to the culture wars and woo - I'm often accused of that myself so whatever I say is going to annoy someone. My take is that there really is a battle going on between the materialist worldview and its opponents, but I think that hardcore materialism is loosing that battle. — Wayfarer

Although I don't practice any formal religion, including New Age beliefs & practices, I'm often accused of pushing "woo" whenever I mention "Metaphysics". That's ironic, because -- for me -- metaphysical inquiries are all that remain for "feckless" philosophers to do ; since Empirical Science became the dominant practice of rational thinkers, by producing tangible money-making products instead of debatable worthless theories. Until, that is, Quantum Physics pulled the material rug out from under the axioms & assumptions of Classical Physics.

From my superficial study of Aristotle, I concluded that he deliberately divided his encyclopedia of Nature into Material Physics (observations of natural phenomena) and Mental Meta-Physics (ideas about ideas). The former is what later became the focus of Modern Physics & Chemistry & Mechanics. But the latter was eventually adopted by early Catholic theologians as the rules for their philosophical studies.

Those unquestionable authoritative concepts & rules, from "The Philosopher", served them well for the purpose of justifying some counter-intuitive (mystical) notions, such as the Trinity (three persons in one god). A time-honored authority figure wouldn't have been necessary though, if the plebeian Jesus cult hadn't evolved into a world empire, modeled on the official polytheistic state religions of Imperial Rome. Christian theologians were tasked with distinguishing the "True Religion" from both Polytheism and from competing Monotheisms. Their "woo-woo" inter-faith arguments were mostly about un-provable metaphysical beliefs, instead of empirical facts*1.

It's those non-sensical notions that were intellectually offensive to some of the early empiricists, such as Galileo. So, materialistic science could be construed as a protestant movement away from theological "woo". But today, the spiritual authority of ancient theologians & philosophers was undermined by the flood of empirical gadgets to make this mundane life materially better. Until that is, conventional Physics eroded its own material foundation with the discovery of immaterial & non-mechanical Quantum mathematics, where spooky-action-at-a-distance must be accepted as a real thing, and sub-atomic Quanta are no longer deterministic or quantifiable, and hard little atoms have evaporated into ethereal Quantum Fields of inter-relationships*2.

Many of the quantum pioneers began to engage in woo-ish philosophy, as they struggled to understand the real-world implications of mystifying quantum experiments. Yet, more pragmatic scientists decided to ignore the Ideal meanings, and to focus on the Real material products : to "shut-up and calculate". Consequently, Materialism has survived & thrived based on its effectiveness in producing technological tools & marvels. Meanwhile, the philosophy of Quantum reality languishes on opinion-swapping forums.

I have no problem with the Materialism embodied in my cell-phone. But I do take issue with ignoring the philosophical questions raised by the spooky foundations of the material world. If we can't discuss the intellectual products of modern science on a philosophy forum, what's the point of having a theory only forum? The woo-boo-birds don't see a problem with ignoring metaphysics, but I agree with you that the separation of Science (Realism) & Philosophy (Idealism) is a "culture war". And the materialists have the Atomic Bomb on their side (the ethics of power). However, since there is no actual engagement ---between Materialistic Pluralism and Idealistic Monism --- how can we tell who's winning?



*1. Theological Woo :
"How many angels can dance on the head of a pin?" is a phrase that, when used in modern contexts, can be used as a metaphor for wasting time debating topics of no practical value, or on questions whose answers hold no intellectual consequence, while more urgent concerns accumulate. ___Wikipedia

*2. Quantum Particles are now Continuous Fields :
In the end, we’ve learned that quantum mechanics is fundamentally flawed on its own. That’s not because of anything weird or spooky that it brought along with it, but because it wasn’t quite weird enough to account for the physical phenomena that actually occur in reality.
https://bigthink.com/starts-with-a-bang ... particles/

please explain why you claim that a metaphysics of materialism is "anti-metaphysical" — 180 Proof
The term "metaphysical" refers to concepts or principles that transcend the physical or empirical realm and are typically associated with supernatural aspects of reality (bearing in mind that the Greek-derived 'metaphysical' is a synonym for the Latin-derived 'supernatural'). — Wayfarer

I don't remember ever making such an assertion about "anti-metaphysics". What I usually say, when challenged for evidence, is the obvious fact that metaphysical topics are not amenable to empirical Science*1. Hence, Metaphysics is not provable ; not subject to physical/material evidence. As you noted, such topics "transcend" the classical physics of Newton, and cross-over the invisible line between modern Science and ancient Religion, into a no-man's land of quantum mysticism*2.

Instead, it's usually the Materialists who deny or denigrate traditional metaphysical arguments, on topics such as Consciousness. They seem to be requiring physical evidence of Consciousness, in all the wrong places, such as Neural Substrates. Personally, I don't know what the causal "substrate of Consciousness" is. Only that it is typically associated with Brains & Nerves. So, my discussions usually assume that "C" is not a material object, but a holistic function of material substrates.

On TPF, in posts by presumptive Materialists, the notion of Holism is typically rejected as mystical "woo". Even though the only mysterious feature in question is something like, "what is it like?" (i.e. what does it feel like; what is the form of personal experience?) Yet, when I point out that the term "holism" was actually coined in the 20th century by a Western-trained thinker, they still remain convinced (prejudiced) that it is a nutty New Age notion. Moreover, the basic concept --- although originally presented in terms of Evolutionary theory --- is amenable to Quantum Physics*3, if not to Classical Physics. That may be why several of the quantum pioneers turned to Eastern philosophy for insights into the non-classical, non-mechanical,immaterial aspects of quantum science*2.

As I said before, I have no problem with the pragmatic physical products of material science. It's only the non-physical philosophical mis-interpretations that I take issue with. And I don't substitute Spiritual theories for Mechanical explanations. I try to remain as close to the established physics as possible. Yet, any non-classical physics is quickly dismissed as spiritualistic "woo". So, I have learned the hard way to avoid getting into red-faced Political arguments with hard-line believers (defenders of classical Truth) in the ancient doctrine of Materialism.

*1. Metaphysics :
It is not easy to say what metaphysics is. Ancient and Medieval philosophers might have said that metaphysics was, like chemistry or astrology, to be defined by its subject-matter.
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/metaphysics/
Note -- Ironically, the term "subject-matter" is biased toward Materialism, and seems to exclude immaterial ideas about the material world. For me though, the subject of Meta-Physics is the non-physical aspects of the world. Specifically the mental Ideality of the human mind.

*2. Quantum Mysticism :
Pauli favored a hypothesis of “lucid mysticism,” a synthesis between rationality and religion.
https://phys.org/news/2009-06-quantum-m ... otten.html
Note -- Wolfgang Pauli was a one of several quantum pioneers who acknowledged the limits of classical mechanical matter-based physics to make sense of the sub-atomic foundation of the real world.

*3. Quantum Holism :
A composite quantum system has properties that are incompatible with every property of its parts.
https://arxiv.org/abs/2102.01438

↪180 Proof

I don't remember ever making such an assertion about "anti-metaphysics". — Gnomon
Well, here's a post in which you use "anti-metaphysical prejudice" ...
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussi ... ent/781277
... and elsewhere "opposes / blocks philosophical speculation" (i.e. metaphysics) and "anti-philosophical". Remember now? — 180 Proof

FYI, the reference to "anti-metaphysical prejudice" was about the "pro-science, anti-philosophy" attitude common to devotees of Materialism*1. Not to anything that could be interpreted as "anti-metaphysics" on my part. Ooops! apparently, your "anti-metaphysical prejudice" did cause you to make that reversal of my intention. This is just another instance of the reason I tried to stop giving you fodder for exercising your preconceptions against non-empirical philosophical Meta-physics*2. Which you smirkingly interpret as "super-natural"*3. Oooops! I did it again -- trying to reason with a shuttered mind. It's like looking into a warped fun-house mirror.

As I have explained repeatedly though, I am not aware of anything supernatural in the natural world*4. The Meta-Physics I talk about is simply the products of a human mind : Ideas. Apparently, Materialists are forced by their dogma to assume that Ideas are material objects, that can be probed by the tools of physical science. By the same presumption, Consciousness would not be a debatable metaphysical notion, but a provable empirical physical object --- or collection of objects such as the Neural net.

FWIW, I don't think Consciousness is a super-natural phenomenon. It's a mundane feature of the real world, inhabited by thinking & sensing creatures. But Consciousness per se is a holistic Function of the neural net, not something physical. A Function is not a thing, but a relationship between things in a holistic system. For example, the function of the eye is Vision. You could destroy Vision by removing the eye. But unless you could reattach all the rest of the occular system, that eye alone would be blind. Vision is not in the eye, but in the system of interrelationships. BTW, the practical scientific application of Holism is known as "Systems Theory".

PS__ I use the term "Materialism" -- descriptively, not derogatorily -- to describe your standpoint in contrast to my own personal worldview. Yet, I could also use "Physicalism" or "Naturalism" or "Realism". Your criticism of my posts seems to indicate an antipathy to what you imagine to be "Spiritualism". But I labeled my personal worldview as Enformationism, because Quantum science & Information theory have discovered that Information plays two different roles in reality : both Matter and Mind. You may not agree with that interpretation, but it's my personal opinion, not a formal religion --- no spooky ghosts or supernatural magic --- just spooky "action at a distance", and the mundane mystery of Consciousness. Hence, no reason for hostility. Unless, you are afraid it is an aggressive challenge to your own personal belief system. It's not intended that way. For all Practical purposes, I am also a Materialist. It's only in impractical Philosophical purposes that I feel free to look at reality from a different perspective.


*1. Gnomon reply to Universeness on the Emergence thread :
No. I'm merely trying to untie the ropes of anti-metaphysical prejudice that dump all non-physical notions into the anti-science (religious) waste-bin.
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussi ... ent/781277

*2. Ironically, you keep trying to re-open a dead-end dialog. If you think Gnomon is such an idiot, why bother? Yet "blind faith" can be defined as doing the same thing, while expecting different results. Dialoging is not about winning.

*3. Smirk : one of your favorite smilies :
to smile in an irritatingly smug, conceited, or silly way.
Note -- a smirk usually is a sign of a supercilious attitude :
behaving or looking as though one thinks one is superior to others.

*4. Super-natural :
When a philosophical dialogue goes beyond the limits of the Natural universe, we are treading on Super-Natural turf. You may imagine the hypothetical Multiverse or Many Worlds theories as-if they are natural things, but they are definitely not subject to empirical proving. Hence, by my definition, they are just as super-natural as a Heavenly World. Or perhaps, since those theories exist in human minds. they must be natural. Be careful how you use that notion. It could work both ways.

Materialism is a metaphysical standpoint. Metaphysics is not restricted to "concepts or principles that transcend the physical or empirical realm and are typically associated with supernatural aspects of reality". Also 'metaphysics' is not synonymous with 'supernatural'; the former term, in its "popular" sense may share some associations with 'supernatural', but not so in its philosophical sense. There is no 'philosophy of the supernatural'. — Janus

That may be true. But the pertinent point in this thread is that Materialism is presented as a natural fact, while alternative metaphysical notions are rejected as Super-natural fictions. It's like an old western showdown : there ain't no room in this town (Truth) for both tangible Matter and intangible Mind.

Some posters may imagine that Mind & Consciousness are ghostly spirits floating around in space. But in most of the dialogs I'm familiar with, Mental phenomena may be described as immaterial-but-natural Functions dependent on material substrates. We could debate about which came first -- Mind or Matter -- but that would be simply a contrast of personal opinions, not of objective Truths vs subjective Fictions. Even Objectivity is a subjective metaphysical concept, an Ideal to aspire to.

↪Gnomon
Mental states, if they are equivalent to brain states, may be material. Abstractions generally are not material (IE they are not objects of the senses) but concepts, not physical, but conceptual. Calling such things "immaterial" is tendentious, in my view. — Janus

My use of "immaterial" is indeed "tendentious". It's intended to discriminate between tangible objects and intangible feelings. For example, Nagel's question "what is it like to be a bat?" is not inquiring about the stuff we can see or touch, but about the inner being : the sense of self. Even the terms "sense" & "feeling" may be biased (tendentious) toward materialism, in their literal reference to the five senses. That's why I sometimes refer to "Reason" as a sixth sense. It's a way of knowing that is not limited to physical sensations. By that, I don't mean that Reason is Extra Sensory Perception in the mystical meaning of that term. But merely that the brain can produce abstract concepts from concrete experience : by metaphorically removing the material flesh from the immaterial bones. Reason goes beyond the physics of matter (meta-physics). So, Materialism is literally irrational in that it excludes the immaterial function that we call "Reason".

As you said, Abstractions are not material objects. Which is why they can be described as immaterial. I don't mean that mental images are Spiritual, but merely that they are Ideas or Theories or Generalizations that have left behind their material substance, and exist in the Mind as imaginary Concepts, not sensory Percepts. Ghosts & Spirits are abstractions from real-world experience. But some people interpret those mental images as-if they are external objects in the real world, instead of internal ideas about the real world. "I ain't afraid of no ghosts", because ideas can't hurt my flesh.

Our matter-based vocabularies are problematic for philosophers, when we try to discuss anything that is not material. That may be why Aristotle made a distinction between "Substance" and "Essence". But some philosophers, such as Spinoza, used "substance" to refer to what Aristotle defined as "essence". In one sense, the essence of a thing is "what it's like" to be that thing. But in another sense, "essence" is the logical or ontological structure of a thing. Yet again, the word "structure" has a material bias, which makes it difficult to make sense of abstractions without sounding like non-sense.


PS__A Brain State is not a physical object but a functional property or quality of interrelated inter-operating neural elements. A neurosurgeon can't remove a specific brain state with his scalpel, It's not a physical organ. Brain states are excluded from literal Materialism.

To Abstract : existing in thought or as an idea but not having a physical or concrete existence.
Note -- In my vocabulary, Abstractions (ideas) are "immaterial". Thus, excluded from the Materialistic worldview.

That's pertinent in many a thread. This is why I keep referring to Thomas Nagel's essay, Evolutionary Naturalism and the Fear of Religion, although it is often misconstrued as an apologetic for religion, which it isn't. What Nagel is saying, is that there are certain avenues of thought that are cut off because of their association with religious ideas. And it is very much relevant to the point you're making. — Wayfarer

Yes. The materialistic Enlightenment era not only categorically rejected all Religious doctrines, it also rejected all philosophical beliefs that "go beyond" actual/factual descriptions of the world based on the five senses (meta-physics). It's such a categorical exclusion that makes calm reasoned discussions almost impossible, for those who wish to discuss anything that exists mentally but not materially : such as Consciousness or Monism.

Back when I tried to justify my rejection of my youthful religion, I had to make clear that I was not debating personal beliefs, but merely that I had found the material Bible --- often carried around like an ancient idol --- to be an unreliable foundation for such beliefs. Now, I'm having to reverse that strategy; to provide specific material facts for my worldview. Today, my philosophical beliefs are often categorically characterized as New Age instead of Christian. That's because Materialism ( a metaphysical system of belief) leaves no other trash can to put ideas about ideals into.


Note -- In the old TV series Dragnet, no-nonsense detective Sgt. Joe Friday often cut-off his rambling witnesses with : Just the facts ma'am". Ironically, Philosophy doesn't deal with "facts". That's the job of science.