BothAndBlog Forum

G.W.F. Hegel
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussi ... f-hegel/p1

So maybe the question is, if there is and can be something infinite, what would that be? — Gregory

Although I've never read any of his writings, I'm superficially familiar with Hegel, due to his prominence in modern philosophical discussions. But, I'm not qualified to speculate on his particular notion of "absolute" or "something infinite". On the other hand, this thread may not really be about Hegel's formulation, but about any unwarranted assumption of an extra-sensory "something infinite" underlying the 4-Dimension world we all know via the physical senses. FWIW, my personal opinion of Infinity is based more on scientific concepts than on philosophical theories.

Unlike impractical Philosophy, for its pragmatic purposes, empirical Science typically ignores infinities as mathematical nuisances. That's because Logical thought requires well-defined boundaries. However, modern Cosmology --- a hybrid of science & philosophy --- has not been able to dismiss the real possibility of "something" outside the rational brackets of space & time. Which may also be free from the limiting laws of physics, hence essentially Absolute. Anything unconditional may not play by the conventional rules of human Reason, though.

The Big Bang theory, although initially met with derision by some anti-creation Astronomers, is now as fundamental to Cosmology as Evolution is to Biology. Yet, "what had a beginning" implies a Creation event, and leaves open the child-like question of what caused the Bang, and set the initial conditions for evolution to expand on. That's why, In the 21st century, some theoretical Astrophysicists, lacking experimental evidence, have begun to explore a variety of pre-Bang scenarios mathematically, since empirical methods are useless for a place-beyond-Space and a time-before-Time.

For instance, Inflationary Universe theories instantaneously expanded in the literature, but the fervor now seems to have cooled. Likewise, serious Multiverse and Many Worlds proposals have become staples of Science Fiction, but not of practical Science. Yet, mathematical physicist Max Tegmark continues to develop his theory of an immaterial time-free Mathematical foundation of the Reality we observe with our space-time senses. But, for the most part, speculations on Infinity & Eternity have been left behind as playthings for feckless philosophers. . . . including yours truly.

That said, all I can say is that whatever-it-might-be, the "something infinite" is not likely to be a being in any empirical or anthro-morphic sense of existence. Which may be why the ancients conjectured about some imaginary immaterial forms of being : such as Souls & Spirits. And Pure Math, per Tegmark, may be a modern term for immaterial "spiritual" existence. Mathematics is the science and study of quality, structure, space, and change. Those are abstractions that exist in rational minds, not in in the physical objects to which they are attributed. Hence, as ideal metaphysical concepts they are literally infinite ; not bound by the laws of physics.

However, mental abstractions do exist in some sense, don't they? Where is the realm of ideas? Plato postulated in his Theory of Forms, that they are timeless, absolute, and unchangeable. Likewise, my own notion of The Infinite, is built upon the concept of Form, defined as the active, determining principle of a thing. As we experience it in the 4D world, that Principle is equivalent to causal Energy plus defining Pattern/Code. I call it EnFormAction. But what is the ultimate Source of Guided Causation in the Real world? Frankly, I don't know. But, as an un-employed amateur philosopher, nothing in the world is keeping me from guessing about that mysterious "something" outside the world.


PS___My take-away from the philosophically floundering fact-free fairytales of Infinity is that it's a fool's errand. Yet, a philosophical forum is a fool's paradise. We can freely speculate without fear of consequences, except for derision by those defending fact-based belief systems such as Materialism & Realism. But ridicule is not a legitimate philosophical argument. So, "sticks & stones" . . . .


Is The Inflationary Universe A Scientific Theory? Not Anymore :
Inflation was proposed more than 35 years ago, among others, by Paul Steinhardt. But Steinhardt has become one of the theory’s most fervent critics. . . . “Inflationary cosmology, as we currently understand it, cannot be evaluated using the scientific method.”
https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswith ... t-anymore/

Is the universe written in math?
That is, the physical universe is not merely described by mathematics, but is mathematics — specifically, a mathematical structure. Mathematical existence equals physical existence, and all structures that exist mathematically exist physically as well. Observers, including humans, are "self-aware substructures (SASs)". . . . The MUH is based on the radical Platonist view that math is an external reality
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathemati ... hypothesis

I have no problem with scientific philosophy. Physics, as you say, is half philosophy, half empirical. What floats my spiritual boat is God as forms. But words like God or Deus is not really important. When i see a lion, i can cognate ever deeper understanding of its nature and animality. There is some kind of dualism that seems nevessary within our consciousness — Gregory

I assume that your equation of God with Platonic Form*1 may imply A> a separate-but-equal dualism of Ideal & Real, or B> a hierarchical superior vs inferior or ultimate vs proximate Reality (Heaven vs Earth). My philosophical BothAnd*2 dualism has a similar motivation, in that it attempts to reconcile Physical Reality, consisting of material objects & causal forces, with Metaphysical Ideality, consisting of imaginary concepts in individual human minds. Yet for religious purposes, those notions are typically projected into a unitary universal Mind. Which may seem philosophically necessary, but beyond the bounds of science, hence unprovable.

However, that Ideality may or may not be actually a supernatural Platonic realm of perfect Forms, or ding an sich perfections in the Mind of God. As far as I can tell, those higher realms are imaginary, existing in individual human minds, hence opinions that must be accepted by faith in the myths we tell each other. The commonality of supernatural notions among mankind, may or may not indicate that there really is some mysterious Force or Form or Agent in the Great Beyond. So, we disagree on the exact nature (features) of the inferred Absolute Form or form-maker.

Despite the uncertainty, we like to think of Ideality as a super-reality --- more real than apparent Reality. For the purposes of my own "scientific philosophy", I sometimes use the concept of G*D metaphorically to represent the unknowable pre-BigBang source of the energy & laws that necessarily existed prior to space-time, in order to explain the HOW questions of the BB. However, since I have no direct channel of communication to that hypothetical Designer, I must remain agnostic about the WHY questions. That's also a Deistic philosophy.



*1. Plato's Theory of Forms :
In basic terms, Plato's Theory of Forms asserts that the physical world is not really the 'real' world; instead, ultimate reality exists beyond our physical world.
https://study.com/learn/lesson/plato-th ... sical.html

*2. Both/And Principle :
*** My coinage for the holistic principle of Complementarity, as illustrated in the Yin/Yang symbol. Opposing or contrasting concepts are always part of a greater whole. Conflicts between parts can be reconciled or harmonized by putting them into the context of a whole system.
*** The Enformationism worldview entails the principles of Complementarity, Reciprocity & Holism, which are necessary to offset the negative effects of Fragmentation, Isolation & Reductionism. Analysis into parts is necessary for knowledge of the mechanics of the world, but synthesis of those parts into a whole system is required for the wisdom to integrate the self into the larger system. In a philosophical sense, all opposites in this world (e.g. space/time, good/evil) are ultimately reconciled in Enfernity (eternity & infinity), the whole of which our perceived reality is a part.
*** Conceptually, the BothAnd principle is similar to Einstein's theory of Relativity, in that what you see ─ what’s true for you ─ depends on your perspective, and your frame of reference; for example, subjective or objective, religious or scientific, reductive or holistic, pragmatic or romantic, conservative or liberal, earthbound or cosmic. Ultimate or absolute reality (ideality) doesn't change, but your conception of reality does. Opposing views are not right or wrong, but more or less accurate for a particular purpose.
*** This principle is also similar to the concept of Superposition in sub-atomic physics. In this ambiguous state a particle has no fixed identity until “observed” by an outside system. For example, in a Quantum Computer, a Qubit has a value of all possible fractions between 1 & 0. Therefore, you could say that it is both 1 and 0.
https://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page10.html