BothAndBlog Forum

Creation-Stories
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussi ... ent/483793

So this is a non-scientific, fictional ("create a myth") kind of discussion? Neat if so. — Outlander

The OP requested "philosophical" theories, not "fictional" stories. Unlike Physicists, philosophers can indulge in Meta-physical theorizing to illustrate possible scenarios, but not to the point of fantastic narratives. Even such fictional characters as Unicorns are not beyond belief : in the course of evolutionary mutations, a horse could conceivably grow a horn. The absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Like a Black Swan, it could happen. So, let's not get too crazy here. :joke:

Black Swan : The black swan theory or theory of black swan events is a metaphor that describes an event that comes as a surprise, has a major effect, and is often inappropriately rationalised after the fact with the benefit of hindsight

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/ ... _jan09.jpg

That a state of nothingness cannot be forces the existence of a state of absolute existence. — Daniel

That's why I have concluded that the explanation for the existence of our world, is not just eternal Energy or persistent Matter, or even creation ex nihilo, but the essential power or potential to exist --- which I call "BEING". So, my creation myth begins with Ontology.

BEING :
In my own theorizing there is one universal principle that subsumes all others, including Consciousness : essential Existence. Among those philosophical musings, I refer to the "unit of existence" with the absolute singular term "BEING" as contrasted with the plurality of contingent "beings" and things and properties. By BEING I mean the ultimate “ground of being”, which is simply the power to exist, and the power to create beings.
Note : Real & Ideal are modes of being. BEING, the power to exist, is the source & cause of Reality and Ideality. BEING is eternal, undivided and static, but once divided into Real/Ideal, it becomes our dynamic Reality.
http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page10.html

Ergo, the creator needn't be more or even as complex as the universe. — TheMadFool

Yes. In my creation story, BEING is simply No-thing, except infinite Potential. Hence, nothing is Actual . . . until Actualized or Realized or Enformed. So BEING, in Dawkins' simple-to-complex conundrum, is Nothingness. And you can't get much simpler than that. But then, how can we explain how Something came from Nothing? That's easy, if No-thing is Potential.

For example, the Big Bang Singularity ( a hypothetical simple mathematical point with no extension in space or time) somehow "existed" prior to space-time. And it was too tiny to contain a universe of Energy or Matter. That is, unless it contained universal Potential . . . perhaps in the form of immaterial Enformation : the power to enform.

Aristotle describes potentiality and actuality, or potency and action, as one of several distinctions between things that exist or do not exist. In a sense, a thing that exists potentially does not exist, but the potential does exist.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Potential ... _actuality

I want to explore this idea of nothing as infinite potential a little more. Infinite potential can be taken to exert a "existential pressure" of equivalent magnitude and by "existential pressure" I mean that which makes the possible/potential actual/real. So, nothing as infinite potential exerts infinite "existential pressure" and something, perforce, comes into being - the real/actual pop out of this field of infinitie potential/possibility. Nothing then can't exist for the infinite potential in it exerts an infinite "existential pressure" that makes things (something) come into existence. There, you have your creation story based on nothing as infinite potential. No god though unless, of course, you call the infinite, in infinite potential, god. Nothing as infinite potential as infinite possibilities is reminiscent of omnipotence? — TheMadFool

I'm not sure I understand what you mean by "existential pressure". Your implication seems to be that "infinite existential potential" works like a balloon that inevitably goes "pop" when punctured. But the question arises, who or what does the puncturing? In a physical system, the internal pressure obeys the Pressure Law as defined by Boyle, but -- post pop -- the final arrangement of gas molecules is always random & disorganized. That eventual disorder may also apply to a Quantum Fluctuation in an amorphous mathematical field.

My notion of Infinite Potential, though, is a meta-physical concept, in that no physical things (such as gases) exist a priori. Instead, it's the transformation of inert Potential (think Plato's Forms) into Actuality, that creates the real things we call "gases". The potential exists timelessly & spacelessly as the idea or design of a possible thing. But the transformation (or EnFormAction) from Ideal to Real requires a causal act, in the form of an intention or decision. For example, in billiards, the 8 ball in a rack has the statistical potential to end-up in any pocket. But, until the shooter aims & acts intentionally, there is no ball in any pocket. The Potential is converted to Probability only after the stack is broken by the cue ball, imparting direction (laws) and momentum (energy) to each ball. That kind of "creation" results in teleological order : an organized goal-directed System.

In that metaphorical analogy, the "existential pressure" of the shooter is his mental Intention or teleological aim, which is the Final Cause of the Creative Act, The future pattern of actual balls in real pockets is a result of the Action of moving the cue-stick guided by Aim So, I don't think the improbable existence of our universe was an accidental release of "existential pressure". Instead, some kind of Intention (plan), by some kind of Mind, was necessary --- not to pop the balloon into random motion, but to Activate the Big Bang into the teleological process, we call Evolution. Randomness merely causes variations on a theme (Ideal Form), from which the "Program" naturally Selects the varieties (real forms) that meet certain criteria of fitness.

Since I know nothing about the hypothetical shooter -- who popped the Big Bang from a static stack of Potential, into a dynamic Organic system -- I don't claim to know the Mind of God. But, since, evolution shows signs of intention (teleology), I call that mysterious World Creator -- not the infinite Potential but the Actualizer -- by the suggestive but ambiguous name "G*D".


Platonic Forms : The Platonic Forms, according to Plato, are just ideas of things that actually exist. They represent what each individual thing is supposed to be like in order for it to be that specific thing. For example, the Form of human shows qualities one must have in order to be human. It is a depiction of the idea of humanness.
https://owlcation.com/humanities/An-Int ... y-of-Forms

Law of Meta-physics :
Since the mechanical laws of physics don’t explain the emergence of metaphysical Life & Mind & Qualia, we must assume that the program for our evolving world includes algorithms for the immaterial aspects of reality. Exactly what those “laws” might be, remain to be discovered. But, like the regularities of physics they are probably mathematical and proportional in nature.
http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page14.html

Aristotelian Final Cause : End or Purpose: a final cause is that for the sake of which a thing is changing. The design intent or goal.

Infinite Potential : In ancient Greek creation myths Chaos was the void state preceding the creation of the universe or cosmos. It literally means "emptiness", but can also refer to a random undefined unformed state that was changed into the orderly law-defined enformed Cosmos. In modern Cosmology, Chaos can represent the eternal/infinite state from which the Big Bang created space/time. In that sense of infinite Potential, it is an attribute of G*D, whose power of EnFormAction converts possibilities (Platonic Forms) into actualities (physical things).
http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page12.html
Note -- "Infinite Potential" is another term for Omnipotence.

↪Gnomon
We don't see eye to eye regarding your concept of infinite potential as pertains to nothing. For me, the infinite potential of nothing would, of its own accord, bring something into existence. There would be no need for "...some kind of Mind" to actualize the potential. What's the point of having infinite potential if it needs something else to get things moving? In fact the infinity in infinite potential is reminiscent of the divine and I expected you to grab that opportunity to introduce god into your theory. It turns out, I was wrong. — TheMadFool

Sorry to disappoint you. I only refer to Infinite Potential as "no-thing" to indicate that -- as Pure Potential, it contains nothing Actual --- just as a blueprint is not a physical building, but merely a teleological description of a future structure. However, part of the Ultimate Potential of the whole design-build system is the power to execute the design, resulting in a real brick & mortar house.

Unfortunately, calling something "Nothing" sounds paradoxical. So, I prefer to use the ancient notion of "Chaos" as an analogy of unlimited Potential. This is not an indication of "chaos" in the conventional sense as "complete disorder and confusion", but of un-formed randomness as raw fodder for en-formation. Hence, I think of Chaos in the Platonic sense of "a pre-existent chaos to generate the ordered universe" Plato typically avoided using the term "god" to label his workmanlike creator (demiurge). Yet, he implied that the Workman was merely carrying out the plans of The Architect. In my myth, they are one and the same. But, If you prefer the workman analogy, I also call it "EnFormAction", which is my term for directed Energy.

Unlike Plato, I see no need for "something else" to cause random Chaos to become orderly Cosmos. Infinite Potential (omnipotence) iherently includes the power to actuate. Another term I use instead of Chaos is "BEING" : the unlimited power to be, and to become. However, although I see evidence of Teleology and Intention in the evolving world, to avoid biblical inferences, I have been forced to likewise remain ambiguous about the nature of my hypothetical deity, which I sometimes label "G*D". Is that close enough for you?


Chaos :
In ancient Greek creation myths Chaos was the void state preceding the creation of the universe or cosmos. It literally means "emptiness", but can also refer to a random undefined unformed state that was changed into the orderly law-defined enformed Cosmos. In modern Cosmology, Chaos can represent the eternal/infinite state from which the Big Bang created space/time. In that sense of infinite Potential, it is an attribute of G*D, whose power of EnFormAction converts possibilities (Platonic Forms) into actualities (physical things).
http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page12.html

Platonic Chaos : In the Timaeus Plato presents an elaborately wrought account of the formation of the universe and an explanation of its impressive order and beauty. The universe, he proposes, is the product of rational, purposive, and beneficent agency. It is the handiwork of a divine Craftsman (“Demiurge,” dêmiourgos, 28a6) who, imitating an unchanging and eternal model, imposes mathematical order on a preexistent chaos to generate the ordered universe (kosmos). The governing explanatory principle of the account is teleological: the universe as a whole as well as its various parts are so arranged as to produce a vast array of good effects. For Plato this arrangement is not fortuitous, but the outcome of the deliberate intent of Intellect (nous), anthropomorphically represented by the figure of the Craftsman who plans and constructs a world that is as excellent as its nature permits it to be.
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/plato-timaeus/

I identify an energy as that it has an excess and a deficient. Energy is always in constant motion and is always trying to balance/compete with the other(like your two feet walking), but the question is: Who set the pendulum in motion? What is it that could unify these extremes in all the energies of the universe to create one that is alive and full of dances? A universe in which it is most certainly abound with creative potential? I feel like one of those questions should be unanswered and the other self-evident. What is your take?↪Gnomon — Thinking

Energy is a general name for Change. And change occurs when a whole is divided into parts, that are then attracted to each other as positive & negative charges. Negative Change (Entropy) is destructive, while positive Change (En-formation) is constructive. In a polarized state, positive & negative are separated, with no in-between. That results in maximum attraction, as in the poles of a magnet. But most things are not completely polarized, so there is a continuum, which gradually shades from positive to negative. Energy "flows" from the hot (excess) pole to the cold (deficit) pole, so that eventually the system becomes balanced as "warm" (unified, complete). For example, a battery has positive & negative poles, but its energy is only Potential or Virtual, until the circuit is completed.

In my Enformationism thesis, everything in the world, both physical & metaphysical, is a form of Generic Information. And, as Shannon discovered, Information boils down to 1s & 0s : the ratio (percentage) between Everything and Nothing. Once you grasp the significance of that simple notion, the attractive force between Polarity & Continuity, you have the basis for a Theory of Everything.

"Creative Potential" is what I call Enformy as the opposite of Entropy, and EnFormAction as the creative power to give form to the formless. As to Who or What "set the pendulum -- of construction (Enformy) and destruction (Entropy" -- in motion", Aristotle called it the "Prime Mover" or "First Cause". But a more common term is "Creator" or "God". For theists, the Creator is self-existent, hence eternal. But for atheists, the ongoing Causation is due to self-existent Energy + Laws. However, "a rose by another name would smell as sweet". So, I compromise, and sometimes call the pendulum pusher by the ambiguous label "G*D". That Prime Mover is a combination of Power (energy) and Intention (laws).

Energy :
Scientists define “energy” as the ability to do work, but don't know what energy consists of. They assume as an unproven axiom that it's an eternal causal force that existed prior to the Big Bang, along with mathematical laws. Energy is a positive or negative relationship between things, and physical Laws are limitations on the push & pull of those forces. So, all they know is what Energy does, which is to transform material objects in various ways. Energy itself is amorphous & immaterial. So if you reduce energy to its essence of information, it seems more akin to mind than matter. Likewise, all we know of G*D is what it does : create. That's why I think of Energy as the “power” aspect of the willpower of G*D, which is guided by the intentional (lawlike) “will” aspect. Together I call them :EnFormAction.

Generic Information :
Information is Generic in the sense of generating all forms from a formless pool of possibility -- the Platonic "Forms".
http://bothandblog2.enformationism.info/page29.html

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.
http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page10.html

Creative Potential :
Enformy, in the sense of positive change; counter-balanced with Entropy as negative change. The +/- values are relative to the original design intent.
Note : Energy is merely Change that can go both ways.
http://bothandblog2.enformationism.info/page76.html

What is EnFormAction? : http://bothandblog2.enformationism.info/page29.html

Taking it a step higher all matter can be boiled down to information or energy. Then, perhaps information and energy are synonymous. Okay, then it goes that the universe is comprised of these opposites(1s and 0s). With this principle in mind (no pun intended) what came before the universe of 1s AND 0s is the universe of 1s OR 0s, or you could say the existence before this one was filled with extremes and only extremes of energy(1s OR 0s). — Thinking

Yes, our space-time universe is indeed a dynamic system of oppositions, with a historical pattern similar to Hegel's zig-zag Dialectic. The Multiverse Theory assumes that our world is just one of an infinite series of dynamic worlds, with no point of origin. But that's not how I imagine the static eternal state from which our time-bound world emerged.

Of course, I don't know any of this from personal experience. But, in my Enformationism worldview, I picture the Source of our Reality in the metaphor of Plato's Chaos : infinite Potential, nothing Actual. So, since our finite world is a dynamic competition of oppositions (Life vs Death), I conclude that anything infinite/eternal must be balanced & harmonious, or it would eventually tear itself apart. So, the Source was not "filled with extremes of energy" but with the inert Potential for patterns, forms, and oppositions. That un-actualized Potential is Hofstadter's "eerie type of order" . You could call it "occult order", but I don't like the spooky implications of that term. So I simply call it "The Unknown G*D".

Randomness is defined as the quality or state of lacking a pattern or principle of organization. In that case, you can't tell the 1s from the 0s, so to speak, because they are all mixed-up, like gas molecules. However, mathematical Randomness is also full of Potential for an infinite variety of forms, once some input force has knocked it off-balance. From that point onward, it displays patterns where groups of elements are clustered into recognizable forms.

What we call "Energy" in the real world is the flow of Changes due to the imbalance of 1s & 0s, of Hot & Cold, of excess & deficit. Yet, in "the existence before this one" there was no dynamic Energy, but only a Static, Virtual, Potential & Pent-up Organizing Force --- Nothing happens until an intentional Act releases the Force. And that "pop" is the origin of our crazy mixed-up world.

Chaos : the formless immaterial substance supposed to have existed before the creation of the enformed universe.

"It turns out that an eerie type of chaos can lurk just behind a facade of order - and yet, deep inside the chaos lurks an even eerier type of order"
-- Douglas Hofstadter


PATTERNLESS RANDOMNESS
https://previews.123rf.com/images/annag ... fallin.jpg
PATTERN WITHIN RANDOMNESS
https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com ... SY606_.jpg

I would certainly like God to have an intelligence so it fit neatly into many concepts, but to how far could this intelligence fathom? Mayhaps unfathomable with our limited intellect. Anywho, what do you think on the rationality and anti-rationality duality of the universe in aiding it's creation? — Thinking

Since I have no personal revelation from G*D, all I can say is that the Creator of this world necessarily had the Potential for Life, Intelligence, and Rationality, among other features of the creation. But one characteristic that my Holistic G*D could not have is Duality. That imperfection may be an intentional "flaw" in the Creation.

So, yin-yang = opposites. What exactly do you mean by opposites? — TheMadFool

Sorry for butting-in. But . . .

Yin Yang : Taoism is China's indigenous religion. It's also a religion of unity and opposites, as evident in its best-known symbol, the circle of yin and yang. This represents two primal opposite forces in the universe: light and dark, male and female, hot and cold.
https://news.cgtn.com/news/3d3d674d7a45 ... index.html

Complementary Opposites : This article is an attempt to incorporate Taoist wisdom into contemporary process theory, and clinical and social philosophy. It highlights the coexistence of opposites (harmony and conflict, creation and decay, union and separation) in varying proportions, and the priority of differentiation over synthesis, and of creation over decay. Opposites are complementary, and complementaries are opposite, both synergic and antagonistic. Opposites coexist (dialectics) but separated (logic). Interacting opposites co‐create novelty, complexity and diversity. Life and culture emerge from the intercourse of opposites. Creation requires and fosters diversity.
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs ... 0.CO%3B2-T

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 Complement-arity, 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).
* 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.
http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page10.html

↪Gnomon
It's not the same if you study yin-yang further my definition is different, it is also slightly different from what you explained — Thinking

I haven't studied Taoism or Yin-Yang in depth. My definitions are tailored to fit my own personal philosophical worldview. I was not intending to adopt the "Chinese indigenous religion". Instead, I was only interested in the general concept of a natural balancing & harmonizing trend that is similar to my own BothAnd Principle.

The Taoism definitions in my post above came from websites. And the BothAnd definition was only intended to show a family resemblance to Lao Tse's philosophy. But, I would be interested in hearing about any important differences you see between our worldviews.