Isn't Hegel's view of humanity disproved by entropy?
https://www.quora.com/Isnt-Hegels-view- ... 3566059645
12/12/2018
Adam Voight
“So long as evolutionary improvement can outpace entropy, then life can go on. “
Many scientists have taken the second law of Thermodynamics to heart as a sign to “abandon all hope, ye who enter herein” to Entropic Hell. They don’t deny the obvious local increments of progress in technology, but seem to despair of any moral progress in sociology. Yet Stephen Pinker, a social scientist, has published an encyclopedic work of research* to document the moral progress of civilization -- specifically in terms of mankind’s seeming propensity for violence.
Personally, I see a more general universal trend toward progress, in terms of improvement of the meaningless material world with the emergence of Life & Mind, which has eventually allowed the very notion of Progress to arise from the dust. I have a name for the implicit positive “force” that works in opposition to Entropy : Enformy** (see also "Extropy" and "Negentropy"). Wouldn't you agree that a world that can reflect on its own existence is an *improvement* over a one-way trip to anonymous heat death?
So I am not persuaded by materialist pessimists that Hegel’s dialectic ladder of progress is dis-proven by the dominance of Entropy. He may be wrong in some details, but the general trend is obvious. Remember, our mammalian ancestors began as tiny animals scurrying under the massive feet of dominant dinosaurs. But now who’s on top?
* The Better Angels of Our Nature - Wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Bette ... Our_Nature)
**Either/Or . . . . Enformy (http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page8.html)
Quora Questions Continued
Re: Quora Questions Continued
Is philosophy the bane of religion? If so, how?
https://www.quora.com/Is-philosophy-the ... -If-so-how
12/17/2018
Christopher Finch
“They don’t allow you to question anything, or think outside of the box.”
That may be the primary distinction between doctrinal religions and philosophies such as Deism : religions demand obedience, while philosophies require questing (search for truth).
Of course, some “religions” are more philosophical than others, e.g. Buddhism, but almost all popular (for the masses) religions discourage individualistic philosophical thinking, except for a few experts (theologians), who are trained to be able to “handle the truth” without losing faith.
Deism is not a religion, it has no founder or doctrine, but merely a philosophical teleological worldview based on the notion that the world was created for some reason, and is working its way to some goal. We may not know for sure what those motives and goals are, but agree that all signs are pointing out there somewhere “outside the box”.
Unfortunately, it seems that most of us are "sheeple" who graze in flocks within the box. But Deists are the black sheep, who graze where the grass is greener, un-trampled by the herded hooves.
https://www.quora.com/Is-philosophy-the ... -If-so-how
12/17/2018
Christopher Finch
“They don’t allow you to question anything, or think outside of the box.”
That may be the primary distinction between doctrinal religions and philosophies such as Deism : religions demand obedience, while philosophies require questing (search for truth).
Of course, some “religions” are more philosophical than others, e.g. Buddhism, but almost all popular (for the masses) religions discourage individualistic philosophical thinking, except for a few experts (theologians), who are trained to be able to “handle the truth” without losing faith.
Deism is not a religion, it has no founder or doctrine, but merely a philosophical teleological worldview based on the notion that the world was created for some reason, and is working its way to some goal. We may not know for sure what those motives and goals are, but agree that all signs are pointing out there somewhere “outside the box”.
Unfortunately, it seems that most of us are "sheeple" who graze in flocks within the box. But Deists are the black sheep, who graze where the grass is greener, un-trampled by the herded hooves.
Re: Quora Questions Continued
If Deism is true, does the Creator love me personally?
https://www.quora.com/If-Deism-is-true- ... personally
Knuje Mapson, author of Pandeism
Human love is both a physical emotion and a mental concept (relationship pattern & evaluation). So G*D, as the-whole-of-which-we-are-parts, might be expected to love all of He/r components in an abstract manner. But the warm fuzzy feeling of love between flesh & blood individuals probably wouldn’t translate to the holistic universe level of “experience”. We can only project our own feelings onto the unfathomable Cosmos. Who knows how G*D feels?
https://www.quora.com/If-Deism-is-true- ... personally
Knuje Mapson, author of Pandeism
Human love is both a physical emotion and a mental concept (relationship pattern & evaluation). So G*D, as the-whole-of-which-we-are-parts, might be expected to love all of He/r components in an abstract manner. But the warm fuzzy feeling of love between flesh & blood individuals probably wouldn’t translate to the holistic universe level of “experience”. We can only project our own feelings onto the unfathomable Cosmos. Who knows how G*D feels?
Re: Quora Questions Continued
Would deism solve the religious differences in the world? Would it help usher in an era of peace?
https://www.quora.com/Would-deism-solve ... a-of-peace
reply to Christopher Finch
“Would Deism usher in an era of peace?”
In theory, yes. But in practice, not likely. That's because Deism is a personal philosophical worldview, not a public religious practice. It acknowledges a creator, but has no revelations of that deity's true intentions for the world. All it offers is vague inferences and personal opinions. The nebulous notion of ententional evolution (similar to Taoism) may allow us to align ourselves with the flow of Nature, but offers no promises of salvation from the obvious evils of the physical world. Like Buddhism, each “enlightened” person can only “save” himself, while abandoning unenlightened loved ones to their own fate.
So, in order to replace traditional religions in the hearts of men, Deism would have to transform into an evangelizing religion for the masses. That would entail all the positives (in-group cohesion), and negatives (divisive dogma), of all political (collective) systems. Religions rule subservient multitudes, but Philosophies build autonomous personal character. Religions appeal to hot passions, while philosophies work via cool reasons. Reason is the “slave of the passions”, hence it may be strong in individuals, but weak in groups (herd mentality). That's why secular governments must block major religious sects from taking unfair advantage of their power over the passions of people. The problem with Religion is not any particular doctrine or ideology, but in its tribal & sectarian (“chosen people vs gentiles”, “saved vs lost”, “us vs them”) focus.
The bottom line is that Religions lead to violent conflicts because they appeal to the base emotions and tribal instincts of ordinary people. Despite peaceful teachings, over the centuries only a few philosophers and reclusive monks have been able to remain above the fray of competition for physical resources and emotional needs. Siddhartha preached non-violence, and Jesus was the “prince of peace”, but religions founded in their names have practiced and justified violent acts upon those outside the fold. Even the harmonious secular system of Confucius, and the philosophical worldview of Lao Tse didn't usher in an era of lasting peace. But on a more optimistic note, two atheists have deduced that, for “reasons” unrelated to religion, the world is gradually becoming more peaceful.*
* Stephen Pinker, The Better Angels of Our Nature
Michael Shermer, The Moral Arc
Disclaimers :
I think of Deism in terms describing Jorge Luis Borges, metafictional Argentine writer of mid-20th century : "Attracted by metaphysics, but accepting no system as true . . ."
I imagine God as Borges enigmatically asserted : "God is an intelligible sphere whose center is everywhere, and whose circumference is nowhere".
And I think of religious doctrine as Borges admonished : "God must not engage in theology; the writer must not destroy by human reasoning the faith that art requires of us."
https://www.quora.com/Would-deism-solve ... a-of-peace
reply to Christopher Finch
“Would Deism usher in an era of peace?”
In theory, yes. But in practice, not likely. That's because Deism is a personal philosophical worldview, not a public religious practice. It acknowledges a creator, but has no revelations of that deity's true intentions for the world. All it offers is vague inferences and personal opinions. The nebulous notion of ententional evolution (similar to Taoism) may allow us to align ourselves with the flow of Nature, but offers no promises of salvation from the obvious evils of the physical world. Like Buddhism, each “enlightened” person can only “save” himself, while abandoning unenlightened loved ones to their own fate.
So, in order to replace traditional religions in the hearts of men, Deism would have to transform into an evangelizing religion for the masses. That would entail all the positives (in-group cohesion), and negatives (divisive dogma), of all political (collective) systems. Religions rule subservient multitudes, but Philosophies build autonomous personal character. Religions appeal to hot passions, while philosophies work via cool reasons. Reason is the “slave of the passions”, hence it may be strong in individuals, but weak in groups (herd mentality). That's why secular governments must block major religious sects from taking unfair advantage of their power over the passions of people. The problem with Religion is not any particular doctrine or ideology, but in its tribal & sectarian (“chosen people vs gentiles”, “saved vs lost”, “us vs them”) focus.
The bottom line is that Religions lead to violent conflicts because they appeal to the base emotions and tribal instincts of ordinary people. Despite peaceful teachings, over the centuries only a few philosophers and reclusive monks have been able to remain above the fray of competition for physical resources and emotional needs. Siddhartha preached non-violence, and Jesus was the “prince of peace”, but religions founded in their names have practiced and justified violent acts upon those outside the fold. Even the harmonious secular system of Confucius, and the philosophical worldview of Lao Tse didn't usher in an era of lasting peace. But on a more optimistic note, two atheists have deduced that, for “reasons” unrelated to religion, the world is gradually becoming more peaceful.*
* Stephen Pinker, The Better Angels of Our Nature
Michael Shermer, The Moral Arc
Disclaimers :
I think of Deism in terms describing Jorge Luis Borges, metafictional Argentine writer of mid-20th century : "Attracted by metaphysics, but accepting no system as true . . ."
I imagine God as Borges enigmatically asserted : "God is an intelligible sphere whose center is everywhere, and whose circumference is nowhere".
And I think of religious doctrine as Borges admonished : "God must not engage in theology; the writer must not destroy by human reasoning the faith that art requires of us."
Re: Quora Questions Continued
Would deism solve the religious differences in the world? Would it help usher in an era of peace?
https://www.quora.com/Would-deism-solve ... a-of-peace
reply to Mike Organ, Gods absence leads me to conclude that god does not exist.
“But anyway what is the difference between Deism and Atheism. In effect the end product is exactly the same. So why be a Deist?”
As Christopher Finch noted above, Deism is not a religion, but a philosophical worldview. It is also not “the anarchism of religion”, because it is not in competition with religion or politics for power over people. So, as a private personal search for wisdom, it can co-exist with popular belief systems and political loyalties . . . and scientific theories.
Like Agnosticism, Deism may be more of an alternative to Atheism than to Theism, as a secular worldview. I sometimes refer to myself as an Agnostic Deist, in the sense that I don’t have to know for sure that a Cosmic Mind is running the show, in order to guide my life by that axiom. Ancient Taoists*1 didn't concern themselves with objective evidence of a Cosmic Principle, they merely aligned their minds with the path of least resistance in Nature. As philosophers, instead of scientists, they could appreciate the power of Emptiness*2. In his book of science & philosophy, Incomplete Nature, Terrence Deacon explains the power of Absence*3 in non-mystical technical terms.
Deists and Taoists observe the teleodynamic behavior of the material world. From these clues, they infer a cosmic purpose, even though they can't claim to have a revelation (gnosis) of the ultimate beginning or end of The Path. Atheists explain the obvious order & progression of the universe mythically, as a serendipitous accident emerging non-miraculously from the random chaos of infinite Multiverses, which like God must be taken on faith. Yet Deists interpret the existence of ideas & values in the world as signs of entention from a creative Mind of some kind -- what I call G*D -- which like the Multiverse is an imaginary inference from limited evidence*4.
The "end product" of Atheism is a worldview of forking paths with no map for guidance. But the Deist worldview envisions a Path (the Tao) marked by the spoor (constraints) of G*D. In both cases we are wandering in a labyrinth, but in the latter we have a thin thread to follow.
*1. “My teachings are easy to understand
and easy to put into practice.
Yet your intellect will never grasp them,
and if you try to practice them,you'll fail.
― Lao Tzu, Tao Te Ching
*2. “The pot's use comes from emptiness.”
― Lao Tzu, Tao Te Ching
*3. Power of Absence : http://bothandblog3.enformationism.info/page33.html
*4. The G*D Concept : http://bothandblog2.enformationism.info/page35.html
“In harmony with the Tao,
the sky is clear and spacious,
the earth is solid and full,
all creatures flourish together,
content with the way they are,
endlessly repeating themselves,
endlessly renewed.
when man interferes with the Tao
the sky becomes filthy,
the earth becomes depleted,
the equilibrium crumbles,
creatures become extinct.”
― Lao Tzu, Tao Te Ching
“Some say that my teaching is nonsense.
Other call it lofty but impractical.
But to those who have looked inside themselves,
this nonsense makes perfect sense.
And to those who put it into practice,
this loftiness has roots that go deep.”
― Lao Tzu, Tao Te Ching
Mike Organ response, 5/7/2109 :
Absolute nonsense. Tao and Deism come from different cultures and to try and force them together is ridiculous. But then both are ridiculous just in different ways.
You are one of those people who have read a little about eastern mysticism and a lot less of Spinoza then fall into the prickly pear trap never to be able to crawl out.
Reply to Mike Organ, 5/7/2019 :
"Absolute nonsense"
Metaphysics does sound like BS to those who "sense" only reductive classical physics. But Newton's gravity was accepted by those who did the math, even though his "spooky action at a distance" sounded like magic. Einstein's metaphorical description of gravity, as the warped fabric of empty space, sounded like metaphysical BS to classical physicists, until they did the math. The hypothetical deity of Deism can't be proven by crunching numbers though, because S/he is the essence of mathematics : Spinoza's singular self-subsistent substance. Yet, little by little, we are climbing out of the "trap" of Materialism, epitomized long ago as Atomism, but now diluted into the nothingness of the Quantum Field. Virtual particles are literally non-sense.*1
I'm neither a Materialist nor a Spiritualist; I'm somewhere in between. I think most Religions are right about the Big Picture, but wrong about the Details, such as gods & ghosts. I also think Science is right about the Parts (physics), but wrong about the Whole (metaphysics). My hope is to have the best of both worldviews : reductive-rational-analytical and holistic-intuitive-synthetical. Balancing the conflicting Yin-versus-Yang into a harmonious Yin/Yang is difficult, but necessary for personal integrity.
"Tao and Deism come from different cultures and to try and force them together is ridiculous."
All religious cultures are different in the details, yet the core philosophy has always been the same : that there is more to reality than meets the eye. But humans have interpreted that intuitive truth in various ways. For some, the "more than" is imagined as "more of the same, only different" (e.g. ghosts are ectoplasmic bodies). For others the "more than" is "turtles all the way down" (matter > atoms > multiverses). For a few, the "more than" is The Whole, The ALL, The One. The eye of the body can only see collections of Parts, while the eye of the mind can see the System. Is that ridiculous?
The Deist philosophy is not a god-worshipping Religion, but merely a practical way of life, in view of natural laws established by the Creator. So, there's no need to force Taoists to become Deists. We merely acknowledge the perennial philosophical concepts that we hold in common (e.g. holism). The superficial differences are what people have always fought about. But there's one key insight that most philosophers of mind agree on : Materialism is how the world looks to the primitive animal mind. Only evolved (enlightened)*2 minds can see the invisible patterns that make matter manifest. When Scientists, Mathematicians, and Philosophers see patterns in nature, they are reading the mind of G*D.
Deism has something in common with all world Religions, and with modern Science. But it also dispenses with most of the superfluous baggage, such as Spiritism and Scientism. Ideally, Deism is parsimonious, eliminating superfluous details that divide us, and focusing only on the essence that unites.
NOTE : Early forms of Deism were basically Christianity Lite, and followed the teachings of Jesus rather than Paul. As time went by, Deist beliefs were informed more by modern science than by ancient scriptures. They also became acquainted with holistic oriental traditions that seemed simpatico. The latest development, as far as I know, is labeled "Neo-Deism" to differentiate from earlier stages of enlightenment. After the application of Occam's Razor, its definition is pared down to essentially : Science + G*D. *3
*1. Subatomic Realism : https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.10 ... -33732-4_8
*2. Enlightenment is a process, not a sudden revelation.
*3. NeoDeism : https://www.neodeism.com/
https://www.quora.com/Would-deism-solve ... a-of-peace
reply to Mike Organ, Gods absence leads me to conclude that god does not exist.
“But anyway what is the difference between Deism and Atheism. In effect the end product is exactly the same. So why be a Deist?”
As Christopher Finch noted above, Deism is not a religion, but a philosophical worldview. It is also not “the anarchism of religion”, because it is not in competition with religion or politics for power over people. So, as a private personal search for wisdom, it can co-exist with popular belief systems and political loyalties . . . and scientific theories.
Like Agnosticism, Deism may be more of an alternative to Atheism than to Theism, as a secular worldview. I sometimes refer to myself as an Agnostic Deist, in the sense that I don’t have to know for sure that a Cosmic Mind is running the show, in order to guide my life by that axiom. Ancient Taoists*1 didn't concern themselves with objective evidence of a Cosmic Principle, they merely aligned their minds with the path of least resistance in Nature. As philosophers, instead of scientists, they could appreciate the power of Emptiness*2. In his book of science & philosophy, Incomplete Nature, Terrence Deacon explains the power of Absence*3 in non-mystical technical terms.
Deists and Taoists observe the teleodynamic behavior of the material world. From these clues, they infer a cosmic purpose, even though they can't claim to have a revelation (gnosis) of the ultimate beginning or end of The Path. Atheists explain the obvious order & progression of the universe mythically, as a serendipitous accident emerging non-miraculously from the random chaos of infinite Multiverses, which like God must be taken on faith. Yet Deists interpret the existence of ideas & values in the world as signs of entention from a creative Mind of some kind -- what I call G*D -- which like the Multiverse is an imaginary inference from limited evidence*4.
The "end product" of Atheism is a worldview of forking paths with no map for guidance. But the Deist worldview envisions a Path (the Tao) marked by the spoor (constraints) of G*D. In both cases we are wandering in a labyrinth, but in the latter we have a thin thread to follow.
*1. “My teachings are easy to understand
and easy to put into practice.
Yet your intellect will never grasp them,
and if you try to practice them,you'll fail.
― Lao Tzu, Tao Te Ching
*2. “The pot's use comes from emptiness.”
― Lao Tzu, Tao Te Ching
*3. Power of Absence : http://bothandblog3.enformationism.info/page33.html
*4. The G*D Concept : http://bothandblog2.enformationism.info/page35.html
“In harmony with the Tao,
the sky is clear and spacious,
the earth is solid and full,
all creatures flourish together,
content with the way they are,
endlessly repeating themselves,
endlessly renewed.
when man interferes with the Tao
the sky becomes filthy,
the earth becomes depleted,
the equilibrium crumbles,
creatures become extinct.”
― Lao Tzu, Tao Te Ching
“Some say that my teaching is nonsense.
Other call it lofty but impractical.
But to those who have looked inside themselves,
this nonsense makes perfect sense.
And to those who put it into practice,
this loftiness has roots that go deep.”
― Lao Tzu, Tao Te Ching
Mike Organ response, 5/7/2109 :
Absolute nonsense. Tao and Deism come from different cultures and to try and force them together is ridiculous. But then both are ridiculous just in different ways.
You are one of those people who have read a little about eastern mysticism and a lot less of Spinoza then fall into the prickly pear trap never to be able to crawl out.
Reply to Mike Organ, 5/7/2019 :
"Absolute nonsense"
Metaphysics does sound like BS to those who "sense" only reductive classical physics. But Newton's gravity was accepted by those who did the math, even though his "spooky action at a distance" sounded like magic. Einstein's metaphorical description of gravity, as the warped fabric of empty space, sounded like metaphysical BS to classical physicists, until they did the math. The hypothetical deity of Deism can't be proven by crunching numbers though, because S/he is the essence of mathematics : Spinoza's singular self-subsistent substance. Yet, little by little, we are climbing out of the "trap" of Materialism, epitomized long ago as Atomism, but now diluted into the nothingness of the Quantum Field. Virtual particles are literally non-sense.*1
I'm neither a Materialist nor a Spiritualist; I'm somewhere in between. I think most Religions are right about the Big Picture, but wrong about the Details, such as gods & ghosts. I also think Science is right about the Parts (physics), but wrong about the Whole (metaphysics). My hope is to have the best of both worldviews : reductive-rational-analytical and holistic-intuitive-synthetical. Balancing the conflicting Yin-versus-Yang into a harmonious Yin/Yang is difficult, but necessary for personal integrity.
"Tao and Deism come from different cultures and to try and force them together is ridiculous."
All religious cultures are different in the details, yet the core philosophy has always been the same : that there is more to reality than meets the eye. But humans have interpreted that intuitive truth in various ways. For some, the "more than" is imagined as "more of the same, only different" (e.g. ghosts are ectoplasmic bodies). For others the "more than" is "turtles all the way down" (matter > atoms > multiverses). For a few, the "more than" is The Whole, The ALL, The One. The eye of the body can only see collections of Parts, while the eye of the mind can see the System. Is that ridiculous?
The Deist philosophy is not a god-worshipping Religion, but merely a practical way of life, in view of natural laws established by the Creator. So, there's no need to force Taoists to become Deists. We merely acknowledge the perennial philosophical concepts that we hold in common (e.g. holism). The superficial differences are what people have always fought about. But there's one key insight that most philosophers of mind agree on : Materialism is how the world looks to the primitive animal mind. Only evolved (enlightened)*2 minds can see the invisible patterns that make matter manifest. When Scientists, Mathematicians, and Philosophers see patterns in nature, they are reading the mind of G*D.
Deism has something in common with all world Religions, and with modern Science. But it also dispenses with most of the superfluous baggage, such as Spiritism and Scientism. Ideally, Deism is parsimonious, eliminating superfluous details that divide us, and focusing only on the essence that unites.
NOTE : Early forms of Deism were basically Christianity Lite, and followed the teachings of Jesus rather than Paul. As time went by, Deist beliefs were informed more by modern science than by ancient scriptures. They also became acquainted with holistic oriental traditions that seemed simpatico. The latest development, as far as I know, is labeled "Neo-Deism" to differentiate from earlier stages of enlightenment. After the application of Occam's Razor, its definition is pared down to essentially : Science + G*D. *3
*1. Subatomic Realism : https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.10 ... -33732-4_8
*2. Enlightenment is a process, not a sudden revelation.
*3. NeoDeism : https://www.neodeism.com/
Re: Quora Questions Continued
Why do atheists have such a hard time debating against deists? Why can't they take the same approach that they use against theists?
https://www.quora.com/profile/Christopher-Finch-5
reply to Finch
A MATHEMATICAL APPROACH
“However, this is what separates the deist from the atheist: science can’t explain many events just by ‘randomness.’ Whereas the atheist has to settle for, “I/we don’t know right now,” the deist takes a different approach.”
Deists are A-Theists, in the sense that they reject certain physical interpretations of ultimate reality by traditional religions : God or gods as super-humans, with physical needs and emotions.
But Deists are not Atheists, because they also reject certain physical interpretations of ultimate reality by materialistic Science : that reality is nothing but atoms randomly moving in space, with no discernible pattern or purpose.
So, that leaves us with only one reasonable approach to understanding the non-random evolution of the universe as a Cosmos : Metaphysics. A lot of meta-scientific meta-physics*1 is still mysterious, but what we do know right now is that the non-random aspects of reality are meaningful to humans, even though we may not fully understand them.
For example, when they realized the immaterial mathematical foundation of reality, the Pythagoreans correctly inferred that abstract number-logic was somehow transcendent, i.e. meta-physical. They envisioned the Creator or Cause of this wonderful numberland as an abstract Great Mathematician or Logos. Modern Deists come to the same conclusion, but most avoid falling into the trap of filling the gaps in understanding with spooky occult secrets, or of engaging in silly symbolic rituals.
There's nothing inherently wrong with religious practices, as long as we understand that they are culturally-flavored human-designed activities, not deity-defined duties. Such religious beliefs & practices are impressive to the masses of sheep, but they are a superficial overlay upon the fundamental insight that what you see ain't all there is. Some Deists enjoy the social aspects of religious institutions and the aesthetics of traditional rituals, but most don't get into mystical mumbo jumbo, including Numerology or Gnosticism. We can respect the unknown Logos Mathematician without filling the gaps in our ignorance with spooky occult secrets.
*1 Meta-physics : Logos . . . . Metaphysics (http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page14.html)
Notes on Meta-Physics :
The novel & non-random patterns (Forms) we experience in the real world cannot be explained by reference to Physics, which conforms to the law of destructive Entropy. Those signs of *Entention*1* can only be understood in terms of *Meta-Physics*2*, which is characterized by the constructive law of Negentropy, or as I call it : *Enformy*3*.
All of the meaningful order inscribed on a background of meaningless randomness can be boiled down to mathematics, which is not physical, not bound by space-time, and does not conform to Entropy. Mathematics is essentially mental, you can't see, touch, or taste it; you can only conceive it in your mind. Even Energy is not a physical substance, but merely a mathematical ratio -- such as Hot : Cold or High : Low, or 1 : 2 -- which define the direction of change.
Mathematics, as a noun, is Information; as a verb, it's *Enformation or EnFormAction*4*. Mathematical ratios and relationships are not tangible physical things, but intangible mental ideas. Mathematics is Metaphysics, which is Mind in action. When they realized the mathematical foundation of reality, the Pythagoreans correctly inferred that mathematics was somehow sacred , but then, like many others since, they went overboard on the mystical mumbo jumbo.
Tracing these various observations back to the beginning, it's clear that the logically necessary First Cause of the Big Bang cannot be a physical object, because the mathematical singularity from which our world emerged was dimensionless. So, it would be more appropriate to imagine the Creator of our world metaphorically as a Great Mathematician or a Prime Programmer, instead of a king on a throne, or an eternity of random noise. But to turn those abstract metaphysical symbols into concrete physical dogma, while appealing to the emotions, would be irrational and unwarranted.
*1 Entention : Entention - Wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entention)
*2 Meta-physics : Logos . . . . Metaphysics (http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page14.html)
*3 Enformy : Either/Or . . . . Enformy (http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page8.html)
*4 EnFormAction : Either/Or . . . . Enformy (http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page8.html)
https://www.quora.com/profile/Christopher-Finch-5
reply to Finch
A MATHEMATICAL APPROACH
“However, this is what separates the deist from the atheist: science can’t explain many events just by ‘randomness.’ Whereas the atheist has to settle for, “I/we don’t know right now,” the deist takes a different approach.”
Deists are A-Theists, in the sense that they reject certain physical interpretations of ultimate reality by traditional religions : God or gods as super-humans, with physical needs and emotions.
But Deists are not Atheists, because they also reject certain physical interpretations of ultimate reality by materialistic Science : that reality is nothing but atoms randomly moving in space, with no discernible pattern or purpose.
So, that leaves us with only one reasonable approach to understanding the non-random evolution of the universe as a Cosmos : Metaphysics. A lot of meta-scientific meta-physics*1 is still mysterious, but what we do know right now is that the non-random aspects of reality are meaningful to humans, even though we may not fully understand them.
For example, when they realized the immaterial mathematical foundation of reality, the Pythagoreans correctly inferred that abstract number-logic was somehow transcendent, i.e. meta-physical. They envisioned the Creator or Cause of this wonderful numberland as an abstract Great Mathematician or Logos. Modern Deists come to the same conclusion, but most avoid falling into the trap of filling the gaps in understanding with spooky occult secrets, or of engaging in silly symbolic rituals.
There's nothing inherently wrong with religious practices, as long as we understand that they are culturally-flavored human-designed activities, not deity-defined duties. Such religious beliefs & practices are impressive to the masses of sheep, but they are a superficial overlay upon the fundamental insight that what you see ain't all there is. Some Deists enjoy the social aspects of religious institutions and the aesthetics of traditional rituals, but most don't get into mystical mumbo jumbo, including Numerology or Gnosticism. We can respect the unknown Logos Mathematician without filling the gaps in our ignorance with spooky occult secrets.
*1 Meta-physics : Logos . . . . Metaphysics (http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page14.html)
Notes on Meta-Physics :
The novel & non-random patterns (Forms) we experience in the real world cannot be explained by reference to Physics, which conforms to the law of destructive Entropy. Those signs of *Entention*1* can only be understood in terms of *Meta-Physics*2*, which is characterized by the constructive law of Negentropy, or as I call it : *Enformy*3*.
All of the meaningful order inscribed on a background of meaningless randomness can be boiled down to mathematics, which is not physical, not bound by space-time, and does not conform to Entropy. Mathematics is essentially mental, you can't see, touch, or taste it; you can only conceive it in your mind. Even Energy is not a physical substance, but merely a mathematical ratio -- such as Hot : Cold or High : Low, or 1 : 2 -- which define the direction of change.
Mathematics, as a noun, is Information; as a verb, it's *Enformation or EnFormAction*4*. Mathematical ratios and relationships are not tangible physical things, but intangible mental ideas. Mathematics is Metaphysics, which is Mind in action. When they realized the mathematical foundation of reality, the Pythagoreans correctly inferred that mathematics was somehow sacred , but then, like many others since, they went overboard on the mystical mumbo jumbo.
Tracing these various observations back to the beginning, it's clear that the logically necessary First Cause of the Big Bang cannot be a physical object, because the mathematical singularity from which our world emerged was dimensionless. So, it would be more appropriate to imagine the Creator of our world metaphorically as a Great Mathematician or a Prime Programmer, instead of a king on a throne, or an eternity of random noise. But to turn those abstract metaphysical symbols into concrete physical dogma, while appealing to the emotions, would be irrational and unwarranted.
*1 Entention : Entention - Wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entention)
*2 Meta-physics : Logos . . . . Metaphysics (http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page14.html)
*3 Enformy : Either/Or . . . . Enformy (http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page8.html)
*4 EnFormAction : Either/Or . . . . Enformy (http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page8.html)
Re: Quora Questions Continued
What is the difference between evidence of God and evidence for God?
https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-diffe ... ce-for-God
Reply to Finch
“Evidence for God” is not as absolute in its conclusion. It merely indicates that certain pieces of evidence point toward the idea that God may exist. It is the same concept that the Big Bang Theory (*BBT*) is based upon.”
Christopher Finch’s Casio watch is reasonable evidence *for* a watch designer. But it is not physical evidence *of* the watch’s designer. To find *objective* evidence (physical body) of the Casio designer, Finch would have to go back to where it was created in Japan. To find *subjective* evidence (mental image) of the Cosmos’s designer, one would have to go back to where it was created — in the time before time.
Scientists are aware that the Big Bang theory implies the existence of some source of order (information) that existed prior to the BB. They speculate on an infinite regression of physical universes that are self-existent. But Deists are more interested in the metaphysical meaningful aspects of Cosmos, so they speculate on a designing mind of some kind, which is also self-existent.
Neither hypothesis presents evidence *of* the Source of order. But the multiverse notion serves the interests of pragmatic physicists, while the Designer-god notion serves the interests of theoretical metaphysicists*1. As in the Non-Overlapping Magisteria (NOMA) concept, there is no inherent conflict between Science and Deism. Those who have Faith in one may accuse the other of holding an illusion. But both are illusory, in the sense of positing imaginary objects that don't exist *in* this world.
*1 Metaphysics : http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page14.html
https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-diffe ... ce-for-God
Reply to Finch
“Evidence for God” is not as absolute in its conclusion. It merely indicates that certain pieces of evidence point toward the idea that God may exist. It is the same concept that the Big Bang Theory (*BBT*) is based upon.”
Christopher Finch’s Casio watch is reasonable evidence *for* a watch designer. But it is not physical evidence *of* the watch’s designer. To find *objective* evidence (physical body) of the Casio designer, Finch would have to go back to where it was created in Japan. To find *subjective* evidence (mental image) of the Cosmos’s designer, one would have to go back to where it was created — in the time before time.
Scientists are aware that the Big Bang theory implies the existence of some source of order (information) that existed prior to the BB. They speculate on an infinite regression of physical universes that are self-existent. But Deists are more interested in the metaphysical meaningful aspects of Cosmos, so they speculate on a designing mind of some kind, which is also self-existent.
Neither hypothesis presents evidence *of* the Source of order. But the multiverse notion serves the interests of pragmatic physicists, while the Designer-god notion serves the interests of theoretical metaphysicists*1. As in the Non-Overlapping Magisteria (NOMA) concept, there is no inherent conflict between Science and Deism. Those who have Faith in one may accuse the other of holding an illusion. But both are illusory, in the sense of positing imaginary objects that don't exist *in* this world.
*1 Metaphysics : http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page14.html
Re: Quora Questions Continued
What analogy can you use to describe the difference between Republican and Democrat politicians in the US?
https://www.quora.com/profile/Christopher-Finch-5
reply to Finch, 03/20/2019 :
The Republican party is equivalent to the British house of Lords, while the Democratic party is like the House of Commons. Their political differences stem from the contrast in perspective : Lords (few, rich) from the top-down , and Commoners (many, poor) from the bottom-up .
This is a broad generalization, but should serve as a simple analogy for understanding why they disagree on most purely political (power balance) issues.
PS__I suspect that a Libertarian third party would represent the middle class, composed, not of landowners (capital) or of peasants (labor), but of middle-man merchants (managers). Napoleon called Britain a “nation of shopkeepers”, and America is the epitome of that epithet.
https://www.quora.com/profile/Christopher-Finch-5
reply to Finch, 03/20/2019 :
The Republican party is equivalent to the British house of Lords, while the Democratic party is like the House of Commons. Their political differences stem from the contrast in perspective : Lords (few, rich) from the top-down , and Commoners (many, poor) from the bottom-up .
This is a broad generalization, but should serve as a simple analogy for understanding why they disagree on most purely political (power balance) issues.
PS__I suspect that a Libertarian third party would represent the middle class, composed, not of landowners (capital) or of peasants (labor), but of middle-man merchants (managers). Napoleon called Britain a “nation of shopkeepers”, and America is the epitome of that epithet.
Re: Quora Questions Continued
I am not religious, but I do believe in a god that exists outside of spacetime. What is this belief called?
https://www.quora.com/I-am-not-religiou ... ief-called
Answered Mar 28
If your belief is a result of philosophical reasoning from observed effects to most likely cause, it is Deism.
If it is a result of ancient traditions & practices, it is Religion.
If it is due to specific authoritarian doctrines, it is Theism.
PS__If the world had a big bang beginning, then the cause of that origin must be prior to space-time. That’s not religious faith, but rational logic. Yet if the universe is eternal, there is no need for a creator deity. Current evidence points to the emergence of space-time from who-knows-where-or-when. So you can call that unknown source “god” if you like. But is it Yahweh, Allah, Shiva? Who knows?
https://www.quora.com/I-am-not-religiou ... ief-called
Answered Mar 28
If your belief is a result of philosophical reasoning from observed effects to most likely cause, it is Deism.
If it is a result of ancient traditions & practices, it is Religion.
If it is due to specific authoritarian doctrines, it is Theism.
PS__If the world had a big bang beginning, then the cause of that origin must be prior to space-time. That’s not religious faith, but rational logic. Yet if the universe is eternal, there is no need for a creator deity. Current evidence points to the emergence of space-time from who-knows-where-or-when. So you can call that unknown source “god” if you like. But is it Yahweh, Allah, Shiva? Who knows?
Re: Quora Questions Continued
What is the war on conservative values all about?
https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-war-o ... -all-about
Reply to Dima Vorobiev
"If you boil down everything that conservative values are meant to oppose, repel, and defeat— it’s “change”.
If you like the status quo, you'll love Conservative Values of fixed hierarchy. But if you are currently at the bottom of the socio-economic ladder, you may prefer the Liberal Values of social mobility. The ruling class typically believes in the divine right of kings to rule. While the lower classes want to believe that God loves all his children equally. Different *strokes* for different folks.
Thus the eternal debate. Which view is true : predestined hierarchy, or egalitarianism, or something in between? Is Progress an illusion?
https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-war-o ... -all-about
Reply to Dima Vorobiev
"If you boil down everything that conservative values are meant to oppose, repel, and defeat— it’s “change”.
If you like the status quo, you'll love Conservative Values of fixed hierarchy. But if you are currently at the bottom of the socio-economic ladder, you may prefer the Liberal Values of social mobility. The ruling class typically believes in the divine right of kings to rule. While the lower classes want to believe that God loves all his children equally. Different *strokes* for different folks.
Thus the eternal debate. Which view is true : predestined hierarchy, or egalitarianism, or something in between? Is Progress an illusion?
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 34 guests