↪TheMadFool
Well God could have invented evolution, if that's your point. — fishfry
Sorry to butt-in again . . . . but that is exactly the point of my Enformationism thesis. I didn't set-out to prove or disprove the existence of God. But since meaningful Information (the power to enform) is a product of intentional minds, I concluded that Aristotle's First Cause logically must have been a Mind of some kind. But, I long-ago lost faith in the humanoid deity of the Bible. So, when I refer to that unknown entity I use the ambiguous spelling "G*D", to indicate that it's not the traditional superhuman of most world religions. It's closer to the unconditional and unknowable "Tao" of Lao Tse.
I have no problem with Darwin's theory of Evolution, as a means to explain the Origin of Species. Or of the general Big Bang theory of cosmic creation. But they don't even begin to explain the Origin of Energy or Life or Mind. So, I have proposed a hypothetical process that I call Intelligent Evolution. The "mechanism" of evolution is viewed as something like a program written by a Programmer, and encoded in the Singularity that preceded the Big Bang. Since this scenario is a product of my fallible mind, and not of infallible revelation, I refer to it as just another "Creation Myth" among thousands, but based on the latest scientific understanding of our world. In my blog, I have even addressed the logical question of "why would a god choose to create a world by such a slow and meandering procedure as Natural Evolution, instead of an instant, or seven-day miracle?"
Intelligent Evolution : A 21st Century Creation Myth
http://gnomon.enformationism.info/Essay ... 120106.pdf
TOF : Mind -- No Mind paradox
Re: TOF : Mind -- No Mind paradox
Who created the Great Programmer? All creation myths that depend on an 'original intelligence" have a regress problem. — fishfry
That is a typical short-sighted Materialist response to any notion of Transcendence. It assumes that the Programmer is a player in his own program, and subject to its rules. But the most reasonable solution to the eternal "regress problem" is to assume that the Programmer is self-existent. In my thesis, the "Creator" of our evolving world is not a humanoid deity existing in space-time, but an eternal principle existing in timeless Eternity and spaceless Infinity.
Of course, there are no such unlimited things in our physical world, but we can imagine unreal concepts like "Zero" and "Infinity", which have proven to be quite useful in higher mathematics, such as Calculus. In fact, most mathematicians assume that the axioms of their trade are timeless. And most physicists assume, without evidence, that causal Energy and natural Laws are eternal, and not created in Big Boom explosions. Without causal power, and logical limits, our world would be chaotic.
That's why materialist Multiverse proponents must assume, without evidence, that the Forces and Rules-for-their-application logically pre-exist any functioning world or mini-verse. The Multiverse theory itself takes for granted that there is something which transcends the beginning of our little pocket of space-time. In order for anything to exist in space-time, something must exist necessarily (i.e. not on our local clock).
That's why my thesis takes as a logically necessary Axiom, that the power-to-be (exist) is eternal, or self-existent, and not limited to any particular instance of physical reality. My name for that power-to-exist is BEING. "To be, or not to be", does not apply to the Programmer, who is Being per se.
Self existent : existing independently of other beings or causes ; un-conditional ; non-contingent
Necessary Existence : To say that a being necessarily exists is to say that it exists eternally in every logically possible world; such a being is not just, so to speak, indestructible in this world, but indestructible in every logically possible world
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
That is a typical short-sighted Materialist response to any notion of Transcendence. It assumes that the Programmer is a player in his own program, and subject to its rules. But the most reasonable solution to the eternal "regress problem" is to assume that the Programmer is self-existent. In my thesis, the "Creator" of our evolving world is not a humanoid deity existing in space-time, but an eternal principle existing in timeless Eternity and spaceless Infinity.
Of course, there are no such unlimited things in our physical world, but we can imagine unreal concepts like "Zero" and "Infinity", which have proven to be quite useful in higher mathematics, such as Calculus. In fact, most mathematicians assume that the axioms of their trade are timeless. And most physicists assume, without evidence, that causal Energy and natural Laws are eternal, and not created in Big Boom explosions. Without causal power, and logical limits, our world would be chaotic.
That's why materialist Multiverse proponents must assume, without evidence, that the Forces and Rules-for-their-application logically pre-exist any functioning world or mini-verse. The Multiverse theory itself takes for granted that there is something which transcends the beginning of our little pocket of space-time. In order for anything to exist in space-time, something must exist necessarily (i.e. not on our local clock).
That's why my thesis takes as a logically necessary Axiom, that the power-to-be (exist) is eternal, or self-existent, and not limited to any particular instance of physical reality. My name for that power-to-exist is BEING. "To be, or not to be", does not apply to the Programmer, who is Being per se.
Self existent : existing independently of other beings or causes ; un-conditional ; non-contingent
Necessary Existence : To say that a being necessarily exists is to say that it exists eternally in every logically possible world; such a being is not just, so to speak, indestructible in this world, but indestructible in every logically possible world
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
Re: TOF : Mind -- No Mind paradox
When did you butt out? How did you butt in without butting out? — TheMadFool
The post was not addressed to me. So, I butted-in without giving you a chance to respond. For that breach of etiquette, I apologize.
The post was not addressed to me. So, I butted-in without giving you a chance to respond. For that breach of etiquette, I apologize.
Re: TOF : Mind -- No Mind paradox
Well then why can't the world be self-existent without the need for the Great Programmer? — fishfry
Before the Big Bang theory became accepted by physicists and cosmologists -- including Einstein -- their unproven assumption was that the physical world had always existed in some form. One theory was the Steady-State or Continuous Creation postulation, in which new energy & matter was constantly emerging to replace that lost to Entropy. But when astronomers proved conclusively that the whole universe was expanding like a balloon, from a single point of space & time, the notion of a sudden creation act was no longer scientifically deniable. Ironically, the best alternative to the Big Bang theory is the various versions of Multiverse theories, which are merely updates to the old Continuous Creation concept. Moreover, just like the creation myth in Genesis, the Multiverse Myth has to be taken on faith, because there is no physical evidence to support it.
Continuous Creation :
https://sc663henad.weebly.com/steady-state-theory.html
Cosmic Constant : Einstein -- "my biggest blunder"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmological_constant
I don't necessarily regard myself as a materialist, but I don't find non-material explanations satisfying. — fishfry
I apologize, if my descriptive, not pejorative, label offended you. Some on this forum prefer the label "Physicalist". But most of us are Materialists in practical matters. We assume that the wooden table in front of us is solid matter. But Quantum Physics asks us to believe that 99% of that table is empty space, and even the atoms of wood are in constant motion. The reason you find Meta-physical explanations un-satisfying is that the evidence is purely subjective. But then, your personal subjective mental image of reality is the only reality you have any direct experience of. Most of the "objective facts" presented by Science -- especially those of Quantum "reality" -- must be taken on faith in the abstruse knowledge of the researchers. I've never seen a Quark, have you?
That's why materialist Multiverse proponents must assume, without evidence, that the Forces and Rules-for-their-application logically pre-exist any functioning world or mini-verse. — Gnomon
A criticism I myself have leveled at the physicists. — fishfry
But still, you prefer their Physical "assumptions" to any Meta-Physical "conjectures", no? Most people are not familiar with the subject matter of Aristotle's second volume, commonly known as The Metaphysics.
Meta-physics :
The branch of philosophy that examines the nature of reality, including the relationship between mind and matter, substance and attribute, fact and value.
1. Often dismissed by materialists as idle speculation on topics not amenable to empirical proof.
2. Aristotle divided his treatise on science into two parts. The world as-known-via-the-senses was labeled “physics” - what we call "Science" today. And the world as-known-by-the-mind, by reason, was labeled “metaphysics” - what we now call "Philosophy" .
3. Plato called the unseen world that hides behind the physical façade: “Ideal” as opposed to Real. For him, Ideal “forms” (concepts) were prior-to the Real “substance” (matter).
4. Physics refers to the things we perceive with the eye of the body. Meta-physics refers to the things we conceive with the eye of the mind. Meta-physics includes the properties, and qualities, and functions that make a thing what it is. Matter is just the clay from which a thing is made. Meta-physics is the design (form, purpose); physics is the product (shape, action). The act of creation brings an ideal design into actual existence. The design concept is the “formal” cause of the thing designed.
5. I use a hyphen in the spelling to indicate that I am not talking about Ghosts and Magic, but about Ontology (science of being).
http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page14.html
But your "most believe" formulation is surely false, since most haven't given the matter a moment's thought. — fishfry
Perhaps, "most assume without question" would suit you better, than "most believe". It's true, that Russell and Whitehead attempted to validate mathematical axioms once & for all. But then their dream of certainty was undermined by Goedel's Incompleteness Theorem, among other Uncertainty principles. Math is supposed to be the bedrock foundation of Science. Yet we now know, but prefer not to accept, that all of our knowledge is conditional. And that includes both Physical and Meta-Physical knowledge.
philosophical expositions make my eyes glaze — fishfry
The Enformationism thesis is non-academic and non-professional. So its "exposition" may not be as dense & dull as a lot of philosophical arguments. It does however, present a lot of terminology coined specifically for a novel non-traditional worldview. that's why it has both an internal Glossary of Terminology, and a more extensive blog-glossary to explain those neologisms in ordinary language.
http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/index.html
Before the Big Bang theory became accepted by physicists and cosmologists -- including Einstein -- their unproven assumption was that the physical world had always existed in some form. One theory was the Steady-State or Continuous Creation postulation, in which new energy & matter was constantly emerging to replace that lost to Entropy. But when astronomers proved conclusively that the whole universe was expanding like a balloon, from a single point of space & time, the notion of a sudden creation act was no longer scientifically deniable. Ironically, the best alternative to the Big Bang theory is the various versions of Multiverse theories, which are merely updates to the old Continuous Creation concept. Moreover, just like the creation myth in Genesis, the Multiverse Myth has to be taken on faith, because there is no physical evidence to support it.
Continuous Creation :
https://sc663henad.weebly.com/steady-state-theory.html
Cosmic Constant : Einstein -- "my biggest blunder"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmological_constant
I don't necessarily regard myself as a materialist, but I don't find non-material explanations satisfying. — fishfry
I apologize, if my descriptive, not pejorative, label offended you. Some on this forum prefer the label "Physicalist". But most of us are Materialists in practical matters. We assume that the wooden table in front of us is solid matter. But Quantum Physics asks us to believe that 99% of that table is empty space, and even the atoms of wood are in constant motion. The reason you find Meta-physical explanations un-satisfying is that the evidence is purely subjective. But then, your personal subjective mental image of reality is the only reality you have any direct experience of. Most of the "objective facts" presented by Science -- especially those of Quantum "reality" -- must be taken on faith in the abstruse knowledge of the researchers. I've never seen a Quark, have you?
That's why materialist Multiverse proponents must assume, without evidence, that the Forces and Rules-for-their-application logically pre-exist any functioning world or mini-verse. — Gnomon
A criticism I myself have leveled at the physicists. — fishfry
But still, you prefer their Physical "assumptions" to any Meta-Physical "conjectures", no? Most people are not familiar with the subject matter of Aristotle's second volume, commonly known as The Metaphysics.
Meta-physics :
The branch of philosophy that examines the nature of reality, including the relationship between mind and matter, substance and attribute, fact and value.
1. Often dismissed by materialists as idle speculation on topics not amenable to empirical proof.
2. Aristotle divided his treatise on science into two parts. The world as-known-via-the-senses was labeled “physics” - what we call "Science" today. And the world as-known-by-the-mind, by reason, was labeled “metaphysics” - what we now call "Philosophy" .
3. Plato called the unseen world that hides behind the physical façade: “Ideal” as opposed to Real. For him, Ideal “forms” (concepts) were prior-to the Real “substance” (matter).
4. Physics refers to the things we perceive with the eye of the body. Meta-physics refers to the things we conceive with the eye of the mind. Meta-physics includes the properties, and qualities, and functions that make a thing what it is. Matter is just the clay from which a thing is made. Meta-physics is the design (form, purpose); physics is the product (shape, action). The act of creation brings an ideal design into actual existence. The design concept is the “formal” cause of the thing designed.
5. I use a hyphen in the spelling to indicate that I am not talking about Ghosts and Magic, but about Ontology (science of being).
http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page14.html
But your "most believe" formulation is surely false, since most haven't given the matter a moment's thought. — fishfry
Perhaps, "most assume without question" would suit you better, than "most believe". It's true, that Russell and Whitehead attempted to validate mathematical axioms once & for all. But then their dream of certainty was undermined by Goedel's Incompleteness Theorem, among other Uncertainty principles. Math is supposed to be the bedrock foundation of Science. Yet we now know, but prefer not to accept, that all of our knowledge is conditional. And that includes both Physical and Meta-Physical knowledge.
philosophical expositions make my eyes glaze — fishfry
The Enformationism thesis is non-academic and non-professional. So its "exposition" may not be as dense & dull as a lot of philosophical arguments. It does however, present a lot of terminology coined specifically for a novel non-traditional worldview. that's why it has both an internal Glossary of Terminology, and a more extensive blog-glossary to explain those neologisms in ordinary language.
http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/index.html
Re: TOF : Mind -- No Mind paradox
Spinoza's pure immanence isn't "materialist". Neither is the rejection of transcendence by Absurdists (e.g. Nietzsche, Zapffe, Camus) nor by Schopenhauer "materialist'. I'm curious, Gnomon, how you account for these so-called "short-sighted responses" by non-materialists. — 180 Proof
I often refer to Spinoza's theory of Universal Substance as a forerunner of my own Enformationism thesis. But, I also note that Spinoza lived long before the Big Bang theory put a damper on early astronomer's unproven assumptions that the physical world is eternal, and self-existent. Now, even "short-sighted materialists" have been forced to postulate the existence of something that transcends our space-time world. Which we now know had a sudden beginning (along with space-time itself) from some pre-existing ghostly Singularity, that either "gave birth to" or "created" our universe, depending on your preference of descriptive terminology. Moreover, as I noted above to ↪fishfry the only scientific alternative to "creation from nothing" is the Multiverse conjectures, which are merely updates of the discredited notion of Continuous Creation.
Therefore, I stand by my description of Materialist or Non-transcendental theories to explain the conditional existence of our universe. Which are all dependent on some implicit creative act that preceded the Big Bang. And that includes the Inflation theory -- instantaneous emergence from a transcendent (pre-existing) quantum field -- which seems even more like a magical "voila", than the explosion of a non-dimensional Singularity.
PS__ I don't waste much time on the writings of Nihilists and "Absurdists", who seem to reject both Science and Philosophy, in their cop-out from a rational approach to understanding the world, in which "they live and breathe and have their being". At least, Mysterians don't ridicule the power of the human mind that raised us from hooting apes to tweeting geeks.
Absurdism : the belief that human beings exist in a purposeless, chaotic universe.
scientific assumptions :
Nature is orderly, and the laws of nature describe that order. ...
We can know nature. ...
All phenomena have natural causes. ...
Nothing is self evident. ...
Knowledge is derived from acquisition of experience. ...
Knowledge is superior to ignorance.
I often refer to Spinoza's theory of Universal Substance as a forerunner of my own Enformationism thesis. But, I also note that Spinoza lived long before the Big Bang theory put a damper on early astronomer's unproven assumptions that the physical world is eternal, and self-existent. Now, even "short-sighted materialists" have been forced to postulate the existence of something that transcends our space-time world. Which we now know had a sudden beginning (along with space-time itself) from some pre-existing ghostly Singularity, that either "gave birth to" or "created" our universe, depending on your preference of descriptive terminology. Moreover, as I noted above to ↪fishfry the only scientific alternative to "creation from nothing" is the Multiverse conjectures, which are merely updates of the discredited notion of Continuous Creation.
Therefore, I stand by my description of Materialist or Non-transcendental theories to explain the conditional existence of our universe. Which are all dependent on some implicit creative act that preceded the Big Bang. And that includes the Inflation theory -- instantaneous emergence from a transcendent (pre-existing) quantum field -- which seems even more like a magical "voila", than the explosion of a non-dimensional Singularity.
PS__ I don't waste much time on the writings of Nihilists and "Absurdists", who seem to reject both Science and Philosophy, in their cop-out from a rational approach to understanding the world, in which "they live and breathe and have their being". At least, Mysterians don't ridicule the power of the human mind that raised us from hooting apes to tweeting geeks.
Absurdism : the belief that human beings exist in a purposeless, chaotic universe.
scientific assumptions :
Nature is orderly, and the laws of nature describe that order. ...
We can know nature. ...
All phenomena have natural causes. ...
Nothing is self evident. ...
Knowledge is derived from acquisition of experience. ...
Knowledge is superior to ignorance.
Re: TOF : Mind -- No Mind paradox
Nothing you said was responsive to my point. There is no difference between an eternal universe and an eternal creator that creates a short-lived universe. — fishfry
Apparently, you missed the distinction between a random accidental event as the beginning of our world, and a programmed intentional act of creation. If that makes "no difference" to you, then you are wasting your time with science & philosophy. You'd do better to just "eat, drink, and be merry . . . for tomorrow we die". For me, it's the difference between a meaningless absurd universe, and a world that grows & matures like a living organism.
As for the "short-lived" creation, I must ask, relative to what? Compared to your individual life, the span of the universe is close to infinite. But when compared to a timeless Creator, this experiment in living & thinking is a mere momentary blip in eternity. ↪180 Proof mentioned the "rejection of transcendence by Absurdists". They must have been appalled by the new science of Quantum Theory, which seemed absurd compared to the intuitive Classical worldview. But those who actually study, and engage with, the Quantum realm are excited by the opportunity to explore "strange new worlds". Instead of retreating into pessimism, they view this opportunity almost like a vacation trip to exotic locales. It allows us to momentarily "transcend" our mundane classical reality, and to experience a "higher" ideality. Does String Theory seem realistic to you?
You have no idea what "most mathematicians" believe. And if R & W are your idea of mathematicians, you are making the same mistake made by many philosophers, which is to imagine that mathematics is what philosophers of math were doing in 1900. — fishfry
I suppose then, that you do have an idea of "what most mathematicians believe". You claim to know that "most give the matter no thought at all". Does that defect make you feel superior to B. Russell and A.N. Whitehead? What do you know that they didn't, a century ago? What novel philosophical insights to reality are revealed in non-linear or differential geometry? Have you found a topological path around the roadblock of the Incompleteness and Uncertainty principles? If not, what's your point?
I find metaphysical explanations unsatisfying is because they don't explain anything. — fishfry
Apparently, you think Meta-Physics is a perverse attempt to "explain" the mechanisms of Matter. But Aristotle's purpose in his second volume, was not to explain Physics, but to set out some principles of Logic & Reason, in order to explain the mysterious workings of the human mind. Now 2500 years later, physical science has made great progress in inventing gadgets like Cell Phones and Nuclear Weapons. But the Quantum Leap from objective neurons to subjective consciousness remains a "hard question". Aristotle's Physics is completely out-of-date. But his Meta-Physics is still debated by scientists and philosophers. Science is good at explaining the mundane Mechanisms of things, but not so much for explaining the sublime Meaning of inter-relationships.
You admit that "In the end science itself tells us what but not why". But, if you are not interested in "why" questions, why are you posting on a feckless philosophy forum, instead of discussing Physics and Formulas?
But science has one big advantage: It makes specific, measurable predictions. That makes science preferable to God as an explanation. — fishfry
If you are only interested in measurable "how" explanations, this is the wrong forum for you. Can science measure Morality? Can it predict the overthrow of US Democracy by a mendacious Autocrat? Can physics explain why people fall for Fascism? Maybe a better understanding of the human mind can help us to understand the "whys" & "wherefores" of this crazy mixed-up world. But then, the simple notion of a Programmer of this Cosmos will not explain all of our questions. However, if we can understand better how & why the "Program" works as it does, we may alleviate some of our existential angst.
PS___I'm currently reading a book by physicist Carlo Rovelli, Helgoland. And he takes a rather metaphysical approach to understanding the apparent absurdities of Quantum Physics. He advocates a different path to explaining its counter-intuitive aspects in terms of "the relational interpretation of quantum theory". And that is exactly the point of the Enformationism thesis. What's philosophically important is not physical objects but the metaphysical relations between them.
Apparently, you missed the distinction between a random accidental event as the beginning of our world, and a programmed intentional act of creation. If that makes "no difference" to you, then you are wasting your time with science & philosophy. You'd do better to just "eat, drink, and be merry . . . for tomorrow we die". For me, it's the difference between a meaningless absurd universe, and a world that grows & matures like a living organism.
As for the "short-lived" creation, I must ask, relative to what? Compared to your individual life, the span of the universe is close to infinite. But when compared to a timeless Creator, this experiment in living & thinking is a mere momentary blip in eternity. ↪180 Proof mentioned the "rejection of transcendence by Absurdists". They must have been appalled by the new science of Quantum Theory, which seemed absurd compared to the intuitive Classical worldview. But those who actually study, and engage with, the Quantum realm are excited by the opportunity to explore "strange new worlds". Instead of retreating into pessimism, they view this opportunity almost like a vacation trip to exotic locales. It allows us to momentarily "transcend" our mundane classical reality, and to experience a "higher" ideality. Does String Theory seem realistic to you?
You have no idea what "most mathematicians" believe. And if R & W are your idea of mathematicians, you are making the same mistake made by many philosophers, which is to imagine that mathematics is what philosophers of math were doing in 1900. — fishfry
I suppose then, that you do have an idea of "what most mathematicians believe". You claim to know that "most give the matter no thought at all". Does that defect make you feel superior to B. Russell and A.N. Whitehead? What do you know that they didn't, a century ago? What novel philosophical insights to reality are revealed in non-linear or differential geometry? Have you found a topological path around the roadblock of the Incompleteness and Uncertainty principles? If not, what's your point?
I find metaphysical explanations unsatisfying is because they don't explain anything. — fishfry
Apparently, you think Meta-Physics is a perverse attempt to "explain" the mechanisms of Matter. But Aristotle's purpose in his second volume, was not to explain Physics, but to set out some principles of Logic & Reason, in order to explain the mysterious workings of the human mind. Now 2500 years later, physical science has made great progress in inventing gadgets like Cell Phones and Nuclear Weapons. But the Quantum Leap from objective neurons to subjective consciousness remains a "hard question". Aristotle's Physics is completely out-of-date. But his Meta-Physics is still debated by scientists and philosophers. Science is good at explaining the mundane Mechanisms of things, but not so much for explaining the sublime Meaning of inter-relationships.
You admit that "In the end science itself tells us what but not why". But, if you are not interested in "why" questions, why are you posting on a feckless philosophy forum, instead of discussing Physics and Formulas?
But science has one big advantage: It makes specific, measurable predictions. That makes science preferable to God as an explanation. — fishfry
If you are only interested in measurable "how" explanations, this is the wrong forum for you. Can science measure Morality? Can it predict the overthrow of US Democracy by a mendacious Autocrat? Can physics explain why people fall for Fascism? Maybe a better understanding of the human mind can help us to understand the "whys" & "wherefores" of this crazy mixed-up world. But then, the simple notion of a Programmer of this Cosmos will not explain all of our questions. However, if we can understand better how & why the "Program" works as it does, we may alleviate some of our existential angst.
PS___I'm currently reading a book by physicist Carlo Rovelli, Helgoland. And he takes a rather metaphysical approach to understanding the apparent absurdities of Quantum Physics. He advocates a different path to explaining its counter-intuitive aspects in terms of "the relational interpretation of quantum theory". And that is exactly the point of the Enformationism thesis. What's philosophically important is not physical objects but the metaphysical relations between them.
Re: TOF : Mind -- No Mind paradox
When the ad hominems start I always know I'm in the presence of a superior mind. Teach me, oh wise one. — fishfry
What did you interpret as an ad hominem? Is "missed the distinction" a personal attack? I'll have to be more careful in stating any disagreement, to avoid cracking your "thin shell". Ooops! There I go again.
Finite compared to infinite. Was the Great Programmer always there? How's that any different from a universe that's always there? — fishfry
First, according to modern Science, the knowable universe cannot be infinite, since it had a specific origin. Any speculations about an a priori infinite Multiverse are just that : conjectures with no evidence. So my conjecture of a pre-existing Programmer is just as valid as any other. A popular question asked of Astronomers is "what existed prior to the Big Bang?". And their guess is usually "more of the same". Which is not a conclusive answer, but a "turtles all the way down" non-conclusion. Simply "being there" does not explain why the world works as it does, and gives no hint of where it's going.
Second, did our universe write its own program? Do, you think the Chance + Choice evolutionary algorithm was an accident? If not, does the self-existent universe do what it does with an intended goal in mind, or is its evolution totally random? It's the signs of teleology that allow me to infer the necessity for a Programmer. If you're interested, those "signs" are discussed in the Enformationism thesis and in the BothAnd Blog.
"Turtles all the way down" is an expression of the problem of infinite regress.
And when someone uses the phrase, "close to infinite," I know I'm in the presence of someone who hasn't given five minutes thought to their own words. — fishfry
Ouch! Was that remark an ad hominem? "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone".
Something I said pushed your buttons, and that was not my intention. I only stated my opinions. — fishfry
My buttons are hard to push, because my emotions are well-balanced. My intention here is to share opinions. And I enjoy having my ideas challenged. That's what philosophy is all about. But in a text only format, it's all to easy to offend others by challenging their certainty. That's why I use a lot of smilies & emojis : to indicate that I mean no offense. If I step on your toes, it's either because they were in the wrong place at the right time, or because I'm clumsy, but not malicious.
You're gonna blow a gasket, man. Do you understand you're arguing with someone who's not arguing back? — fishfry
Yes. You seem to be playing rope-a-dope, by making evasive maneuvers. But I get that a lot, from those who have no answers to hard questions. Besides, I'm not boxing with you, but merely using you as a sparring partner to develop my own skills. As long as you're willing to play the game, I can do this all day.
Rope-a-dope : a boxing tactic of pretending to be trapped against the ropes, goading an opponent to throw tiring ineffective punches.
You're going to wear out your smiley button. — fishfry
See above.
I hope you can find peace in this life that doesn't involve converting me to a point of view that you're not articulating very well. — fishfry
Apparently, you don't understand the purpose of a philosophy forum. It's not intended to reinforce your own beliefs & biases, but to have them tested by others, who don't share your point of view. I don't have any religion to convert you to. And I don't think the Programmer will send you to Hell if you don't believe as I do.
Site Guidelines : Don't start a new discussion unless you are:
a) Genuinely interested in the topic you've begun and are willing to engage those who engage you.
but your own passion for ... something or other ... is blinding you to the points I'm making, and upsetting you besides. — fishfry
I could say the same about you. But I won't. I do indeed have a "passion" for my personal worldview, and like to share it with others. That's why I responded to the OP : "In other words, and here's where it gets interesting, mindless evolution through random mutation is exactly what a mind which is as intelligent as us would do given the way things were, are, will probably be." The "intelligent mind" behind the evolutionary algorithm is what I call "The Programmer". But, obviously, you take exception to any suggestion of intelligence in Evolution. Preferring instead to believe that this world is a cosmic accident. Is that true, or another ad hominem?
I did say that I do not find "God did it" helpful in the least, because it explains nothing. — fishfry
Do you have another answer to the "why" of our existence, that explains everything? Or do you prefer the attitude of Nihilism? "It just is, and always has been", explains nothing. How would you describe your personal worldview? If you would be less evasive, and more forthcoming, perhaps I could avoid stepping on your toes. If you are not interested in "why" questions, why are you posting on a Philosophy Forum? Philosophy "explains nothing" about the physical world, but focuses on understanding the meta-physical aspects of the world.
"The problems that metaphysics attempts to solve are existential, essential, and origin-al. But philosophy covers these and more. . . . We could say: metaphysics ⊆ philosophy, but vice versa is not true." ___ Quora
What did you interpret as an ad hominem? Is "missed the distinction" a personal attack? I'll have to be more careful in stating any disagreement, to avoid cracking your "thin shell". Ooops! There I go again.
Finite compared to infinite. Was the Great Programmer always there? How's that any different from a universe that's always there? — fishfry
First, according to modern Science, the knowable universe cannot be infinite, since it had a specific origin. Any speculations about an a priori infinite Multiverse are just that : conjectures with no evidence. So my conjecture of a pre-existing Programmer is just as valid as any other. A popular question asked of Astronomers is "what existed prior to the Big Bang?". And their guess is usually "more of the same". Which is not a conclusive answer, but a "turtles all the way down" non-conclusion. Simply "being there" does not explain why the world works as it does, and gives no hint of where it's going.
Second, did our universe write its own program? Do, you think the Chance + Choice evolutionary algorithm was an accident? If not, does the self-existent universe do what it does with an intended goal in mind, or is its evolution totally random? It's the signs of teleology that allow me to infer the necessity for a Programmer. If you're interested, those "signs" are discussed in the Enformationism thesis and in the BothAnd Blog.
"Turtles all the way down" is an expression of the problem of infinite regress.
And when someone uses the phrase, "close to infinite," I know I'm in the presence of someone who hasn't given five minutes thought to their own words. — fishfry
Ouch! Was that remark an ad hominem? "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone".
Something I said pushed your buttons, and that was not my intention. I only stated my opinions. — fishfry
My buttons are hard to push, because my emotions are well-balanced. My intention here is to share opinions. And I enjoy having my ideas challenged. That's what philosophy is all about. But in a text only format, it's all to easy to offend others by challenging their certainty. That's why I use a lot of smilies & emojis : to indicate that I mean no offense. If I step on your toes, it's either because they were in the wrong place at the right time, or because I'm clumsy, but not malicious.
You're gonna blow a gasket, man. Do you understand you're arguing with someone who's not arguing back? — fishfry
Yes. You seem to be playing rope-a-dope, by making evasive maneuvers. But I get that a lot, from those who have no answers to hard questions. Besides, I'm not boxing with you, but merely using you as a sparring partner to develop my own skills. As long as you're willing to play the game, I can do this all day.
Rope-a-dope : a boxing tactic of pretending to be trapped against the ropes, goading an opponent to throw tiring ineffective punches.
You're going to wear out your smiley button. — fishfry
See above.
I hope you can find peace in this life that doesn't involve converting me to a point of view that you're not articulating very well. — fishfry
Apparently, you don't understand the purpose of a philosophy forum. It's not intended to reinforce your own beliefs & biases, but to have them tested by others, who don't share your point of view. I don't have any religion to convert you to. And I don't think the Programmer will send you to Hell if you don't believe as I do.
Site Guidelines : Don't start a new discussion unless you are:
a) Genuinely interested in the topic you've begun and are willing to engage those who engage you.
but your own passion for ... something or other ... is blinding you to the points I'm making, and upsetting you besides. — fishfry
I could say the same about you. But I won't. I do indeed have a "passion" for my personal worldview, and like to share it with others. That's why I responded to the OP : "In other words, and here's where it gets interesting, mindless evolution through random mutation is exactly what a mind which is as intelligent as us would do given the way things were, are, will probably be." The "intelligent mind" behind the evolutionary algorithm is what I call "The Programmer". But, obviously, you take exception to any suggestion of intelligence in Evolution. Preferring instead to believe that this world is a cosmic accident. Is that true, or another ad hominem?
I did say that I do not find "God did it" helpful in the least, because it explains nothing. — fishfry
Do you have another answer to the "why" of our existence, that explains everything? Or do you prefer the attitude of Nihilism? "It just is, and always has been", explains nothing. How would you describe your personal worldview? If you would be less evasive, and more forthcoming, perhaps I could avoid stepping on your toes. If you are not interested in "why" questions, why are you posting on a Philosophy Forum? Philosophy "explains nothing" about the physical world, but focuses on understanding the meta-physical aspects of the world.
"The problems that metaphysics attempts to solve are existential, essential, and origin-al. But philosophy covers these and more. . . . We could say: metaphysics ⊆ philosophy, but vice versa is not true." ___ Quora
Re: TOF : Mind -- No Mind paradox
But again, if you are agnostic, why did something I said get you to respond to me with such ... well, interest, passion, anger, whatever word you like. I said something that triggered you. Why else would you repeatedly say I don't belong on this forum, only in the end to completely agree with everything I said? What was it all about? — fishfry
Nothing you said "got to me", and nothing "triggered my anger". To the contrary, I got the impression that you were offended by my reference to the "G word", or to my use of the term "metaphysical". Personally, I don't care what you believe about Gods or UFOs. And I have no religious Faith to foist on you. I continued sparring with you though, because that's what I do on this forum. I have dialogs with many posters who don't agree with my worldview. But we are usually able to have calm, rational philosophical communication -- up to a point. And those who do get riled-up tend to gag on the notion of Meta-Physics.
So, I must ask why you continue to reply to my posts, even though both of us have said that we have nothing further to talk about. Apparently, something "got under your skin". And I suppose it's because your definition of "Metaphysics" is radically different from my definition of "Meta-Physics". FWIW, I'll give you my definition again, below.
:joke: 
PS__I never said that you "don't belong on this forum". I merely asked why you post on a philosophical forum, when you only want to talk about physical (empirical) evidence. Philosophers are theorists -- they don't do empirical research. Abstract, theoretical entities, such as gods & ghosts & neutrinos & dark matter, are "super-sensual" (i.e. no-one has ever seen or touched a chunk of Dark Matter, because "it's just a theory"). And reasonable people remain "agnostic" about things that seem plausible but can't be verified by personal experience.
PPS__Dark Matter has measurable effects on the physical world even though it is invisible --- just like the ancient weather "gods" and the "angels" that pushed planets around. They were like "Dark" Agents of change. :joke:
PPPS__ I can go on like this as long as you hold-up your end of the dialog. :halo:
See! -- "no blood, no foul".
What is the difference between Philosophy and Metaphysics? :
". . . . the difference between philosophy and metaphysics is that philosophy is an academic discipline that seeks truth through reasoning rather than empiricism while metaphysics is the study of a supersensual realm or of phenomena which transcend the physical world.
https://wikidiff.com/philosophy/metaphysics
Meta-physics :
The branch of philosophy that examines the logical nature of reality, including the relationship between Matter & Mind, Substance & Attribute, Fact & Value, and Quanta & Qualia.
1. Often dismissed by materialists as idle speculation on topics not amenable to empirical proof.
2. Aristotle divided his treatise on science into two parts. The world as-known-via-the-senses was labeled “physics” - what we call "Science" today. And the world as-known-by-the-mind, by reason, was labeled “metaphysics” - what we now call "Philosophy" .
3. Plato called the unseen world that hides behind the physical façade: “Ideal” as opposed to Real. For him, Ideal “forms” (concepts) were prior-to the Real “substance” (matter).
4. Physics refers to the things we perceive with the eye of the body. Meta-physics refers to the things we conceive with the eye of the mind. Meta-physics includes the properties, and qualities, and functions that make a thing what it is. Matter is just the clay from which a thing is made. Meta-physics is the design (form, purpose); physics is the product (shape, action). The act of creation brings an ideal design into actual existence. The design concept is the “formal” cause of the thing designed.
5. I use a hyphen in the spelling to indicate that I am not talking about Ghosts and Magic, but about Ontology (science of being).
http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page14.html
Nothing you said "got to me", and nothing "triggered my anger". To the contrary, I got the impression that you were offended by my reference to the "G word", or to my use of the term "metaphysical". Personally, I don't care what you believe about Gods or UFOs. And I have no religious Faith to foist on you. I continued sparring with you though, because that's what I do on this forum. I have dialogs with many posters who don't agree with my worldview. But we are usually able to have calm, rational philosophical communication -- up to a point. And those who do get riled-up tend to gag on the notion of Meta-Physics.
So, I must ask why you continue to reply to my posts, even though both of us have said that we have nothing further to talk about. Apparently, something "got under your skin". And I suppose it's because your definition of "Metaphysics" is radically different from my definition of "Meta-Physics". FWIW, I'll give you my definition again, below.
:joke: 
PS__I never said that you "don't belong on this forum". I merely asked why you post on a philosophical forum, when you only want to talk about physical (empirical) evidence. Philosophers are theorists -- they don't do empirical research. Abstract, theoretical entities, such as gods & ghosts & neutrinos & dark matter, are "super-sensual" (i.e. no-one has ever seen or touched a chunk of Dark Matter, because "it's just a theory"). And reasonable people remain "agnostic" about things that seem plausible but can't be verified by personal experience.
PPS__Dark Matter has measurable effects on the physical world even though it is invisible --- just like the ancient weather "gods" and the "angels" that pushed planets around. They were like "Dark" Agents of change. :joke:
PPPS__ I can go on like this as long as you hold-up your end of the dialog. :halo:
See! -- "no blood, no foul".
What is the difference between Philosophy and Metaphysics? :
". . . . the difference between philosophy and metaphysics is that philosophy is an academic discipline that seeks truth through reasoning rather than empiricism while metaphysics is the study of a supersensual realm or of phenomena which transcend the physical world.
https://wikidiff.com/philosophy/metaphysics
Meta-physics :
The branch of philosophy that examines the logical nature of reality, including the relationship between Matter & Mind, Substance & Attribute, Fact & Value, and Quanta & Qualia.
1. Often dismissed by materialists as idle speculation on topics not amenable to empirical proof.
2. Aristotle divided his treatise on science into two parts. The world as-known-via-the-senses was labeled “physics” - what we call "Science" today. And the world as-known-by-the-mind, by reason, was labeled “metaphysics” - what we now call "Philosophy" .
3. Plato called the unseen world that hides behind the physical façade: “Ideal” as opposed to Real. For him, Ideal “forms” (concepts) were prior-to the Real “substance” (matter).
4. Physics refers to the things we perceive with the eye of the body. Meta-physics refers to the things we conceive with the eye of the mind. Meta-physics includes the properties, and qualities, and functions that make a thing what it is. Matter is just the clay from which a thing is made. Meta-physics is the design (form, purpose); physics is the product (shape, action). The act of creation brings an ideal design into actual existence. The design concept is the “formal” cause of the thing designed.
5. I use a hyphen in the spelling to indicate that I am not talking about Ghosts and Magic, but about Ontology (science of being).
http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page14.html
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests