Therefore using same logic, Spinoza's view that God = nature and nature = God is imperfect as well. — SpaceDweller
Is anything in this world perfect? My religious up-bringing repeatedly pointed to the imperfection of humans, and human logic. But then, it pointed to a leather-bound book, and declared that it was "perfect" as a revelation from God.
Yet, after the age of reason I concluded, via my imperfect logic, that the man-made book was so obviously imperfect, that I couldn't believe a word it said. Since the only thing Perfect is ALL (1) or NOTHING (0) only death will make my life perfect. In the meantime, I simply deal with uncertainty, and make-do with good-enough for pragmatic purposes.
PS___I accept that Nature is G*D, in the sense that the First Cause created the world out of H/er own substance : Information (the creative power to enform). So, the space-time creation is imperfect and evolving; but the Enfernal (eternal-- infinite) Creator must be perfect, in the sense of Whole, Complete, ALL.
PanEnDeism :
Panendeism (all-in-god) is an ontological position that explores the interrelationship between God (The Cosmic Mind) and the known attributes of the universe. Combining aspects of Panentheism and Deism, Panendeism proposes an idea of God that both embodies the universe and is transcendent of its observable physical properties.
http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page16.html
TPF : Universe from Nothing theory
Re: TPF : Universe from Nothing theory
It fails. Our universe is not perfect, nor it is completely mathematically elegant, for there are superfluous entities in it, along with a lot of waste. — PoeticUniverse
My worldview acknowledges the imperfections of our beloved world, and offers a rationale for a less-than-ideal creation of a World Creator : it ain't perfect until it's over. Nothing that changes will ever be perfect (whole, complete), until it ceases to change. Perfection has no room for evolution. So, our role is merely to evolve, until we can't go no mo'.
Only ALL (1) or NOTHING (0) or Full-Circle are complete and perfect. Since we are somewhere in the middle of those extremes, we can only assume that the world is still evolving from Alpha toward Omega. Hence, imperfect creatures cannot expect a perfect creation. However, it's good-enough for my moderate needs and expectations. So, I'm content (dare I say "happy"?) with Aristotelian Moderation in all things. That's a philosophical/Stoic attitude toward a less than perfect world. Are you a frustrated perfectionist?
PS___are you disappointed in your imperfect world?
How to beat Perfectionism :
Perfectionism rarely begets perfection—only disappointment.
The Stoics understood how pointless—and dangerous to our mental health and progress in life—those thoughts were.
https://dailystoic.com/perfectionism/
My worldview acknowledges the imperfections of our beloved world, and offers a rationale for a less-than-ideal creation of a World Creator : it ain't perfect until it's over. Nothing that changes will ever be perfect (whole, complete), until it ceases to change. Perfection has no room for evolution. So, our role is merely to evolve, until we can't go no mo'.
Only ALL (1) or NOTHING (0) or Full-Circle are complete and perfect. Since we are somewhere in the middle of those extremes, we can only assume that the world is still evolving from Alpha toward Omega. Hence, imperfect creatures cannot expect a perfect creation. However, it's good-enough for my moderate needs and expectations. So, I'm content (dare I say "happy"?) with Aristotelian Moderation in all things. That's a philosophical/Stoic attitude toward a less than perfect world. Are you a frustrated perfectionist?
PS___are you disappointed in your imperfect world?
How to beat Perfectionism :
Perfectionism rarely begets perfection—only disappointment.
The Stoics understood how pointless—and dangerous to our mental health and progress in life—those thoughts were.
https://dailystoic.com/perfectionism/
Re: TPF : Universe from Nothing theory
So, we uncertainly infer by "fact and reason" that 'The Mind' just happens to be sitting around as First, — PoeticUniverse
Yes. Do you have a better explanation for a palpable universe from who-knows-what?
Multiverse theories infer that an unknowable eternal universe has always existed, and froths with bubble universes that come & go. A likely story, but based on what "facts & reason"? Even within our knowable universe, scientists have imagined an unreal period of hyper-inflation --- fraction of an instant; near zero to astronomical size --- which fortuitously exceeds the speed limit of our own bubble universe.
The mathematical reasoning for that magical "presto!" appearance of something-from-nothing simply worked backwards from a desired conclusion to a highly improbable and unnatural process. Apparently, materialists faced with an apparent Creation Event, can imagine a variety of alternative explanations, and even make them seem reasonable by plucking numbers out of the air. Anything prior to the Big Bang beginning is uncertain, even when postulated by eminent scientists.
Cosmic inflation is a faster-than-light expansion of the universe . . . .
https://www.newscientist.com/definition ... inflation/
Presto : 1 : suddenly as if by magic
Hail to the Imperfect Mind that made a universe that will fall apart. — PoeticUniverse
I'll ignore the blasphemy. A mind capable of designing an evolutionary process, and then implementing it in malleable physical stuff, could hardly be called imperfect. So, I conclude that the tendency to "fall apart" was intentional. Perfecting is a process, Perfection is an end. So to get from imperfection to perfection requires a period of weeding out the unfit. A sculptor begins with a blank block of marble, and carves away everything that is not a "perfect" imitation of the model in his mind.
“When carving stone, the sculptor removes everything that is not the statue."
___Judith Hanson Lasater
So, how did 'The Mind' and its information, out of thin air, such as it is, not the best, get programmed? Or do we just have to explain an event such as our universe, but not anything much wider in scope — PoeticUniverse
That's easy. Our space-time world is limited by program parameters, but the Programmer (Enformer) of the world exists outside the space-time program. Is that so hard to imagine? A computer programmer is not "in" the computer, hence not bound by its rules. Instead, the computer is created to serve the purposes of the Programmer. The realm outside the confines of the computer is "much wider in scope" than anything within the low-resolution program.
If our world is a space-time bubble, whatever is outside the membrane is Not Space Time, hence could be eternal. Even the imaginary Multiverse is assumed to have always existed. So who programmed the Multiverse, with Natural Laws & Energy & Matter? If you like, you can imagine the Programmer of our world as an ever-growing tower-of-turtles, but only an Eternal Programmer can end the inconclusive ellipsis of open-ended existence. . . . . . . . . . .
When philosophers and scientists begin to develop an explanatory theory for a mystery, they usually begin with an Axiom : an unproven assumption. G*D, Logos, First Cause, Prime Mover is the all-encompassing axiom upon which my thesis is founded. That simple assumption is postulated as a beginning point for further argumentation. The rest of the argument is in the Enformationism website, and the BothAnd Blog. Any questions?
Axiom : An axiom, postulate or assumption is a statement that is taken to be true, to serve as a premise or starting point for further reasoning and arguments.
Pragmatic Idealism :
the kind of Pragmatic Idealism I'm envisioning does not replace scientific Realism --- and doesn't endorse fantasies of magic, miracles & monsters --- because every thing or fact in the “real” parts of the world is subject to logical validation or empirical testing prior to belief. Only the unreal (ideal) Deity is, by necessity, taken for granted as an axiom.
http://bothandblog.enformationism.info/page9.html
Enformationism : http://enformationism.info/enformationism.info/
http://enformationism.info/enformationi ... 7d7_06.png
Yes. Do you have a better explanation for a palpable universe from who-knows-what?
Multiverse theories infer that an unknowable eternal universe has always existed, and froths with bubble universes that come & go. A likely story, but based on what "facts & reason"? Even within our knowable universe, scientists have imagined an unreal period of hyper-inflation --- fraction of an instant; near zero to astronomical size --- which fortuitously exceeds the speed limit of our own bubble universe.
The mathematical reasoning for that magical "presto!" appearance of something-from-nothing simply worked backwards from a desired conclusion to a highly improbable and unnatural process. Apparently, materialists faced with an apparent Creation Event, can imagine a variety of alternative explanations, and even make them seem reasonable by plucking numbers out of the air. Anything prior to the Big Bang beginning is uncertain, even when postulated by eminent scientists.
Cosmic inflation is a faster-than-light expansion of the universe . . . .
https://www.newscientist.com/definition ... inflation/
Presto : 1 : suddenly as if by magic
Hail to the Imperfect Mind that made a universe that will fall apart. — PoeticUniverse
I'll ignore the blasphemy. A mind capable of designing an evolutionary process, and then implementing it in malleable physical stuff, could hardly be called imperfect. So, I conclude that the tendency to "fall apart" was intentional. Perfecting is a process, Perfection is an end. So to get from imperfection to perfection requires a period of weeding out the unfit. A sculptor begins with a blank block of marble, and carves away everything that is not a "perfect" imitation of the model in his mind.
“When carving stone, the sculptor removes everything that is not the statue."
___Judith Hanson Lasater
So, how did 'The Mind' and its information, out of thin air, such as it is, not the best, get programmed? Or do we just have to explain an event such as our universe, but not anything much wider in scope — PoeticUniverse
That's easy. Our space-time world is limited by program parameters, but the Programmer (Enformer) of the world exists outside the space-time program. Is that so hard to imagine? A computer programmer is not "in" the computer, hence not bound by its rules. Instead, the computer is created to serve the purposes of the Programmer. The realm outside the confines of the computer is "much wider in scope" than anything within the low-resolution program.
If our world is a space-time bubble, whatever is outside the membrane is Not Space Time, hence could be eternal. Even the imaginary Multiverse is assumed to have always existed. So who programmed the Multiverse, with Natural Laws & Energy & Matter? If you like, you can imagine the Programmer of our world as an ever-growing tower-of-turtles, but only an Eternal Programmer can end the inconclusive ellipsis of open-ended existence. . . . . . . . . . .
When philosophers and scientists begin to develop an explanatory theory for a mystery, they usually begin with an Axiom : an unproven assumption. G*D, Logos, First Cause, Prime Mover is the all-encompassing axiom upon which my thesis is founded. That simple assumption is postulated as a beginning point for further argumentation. The rest of the argument is in the Enformationism website, and the BothAnd Blog. Any questions?
Axiom : An axiom, postulate or assumption is a statement that is taken to be true, to serve as a premise or starting point for further reasoning and arguments.
Pragmatic Idealism :
the kind of Pragmatic Idealism I'm envisioning does not replace scientific Realism --- and doesn't endorse fantasies of magic, miracles & monsters --- because every thing or fact in the “real” parts of the world is subject to logical validation or empirical testing prior to belief. Only the unreal (ideal) Deity is, by necessity, taken for granted as an axiom.
http://bothandblog.enformationism.info/page9.html
Enformationism : http://enformationism.info/enformationism.info/
http://enformationism.info/enformationi ... 7d7_06.png
Re: TPF : Universe from Nothing theory
↪PoeticUniverse
So about 1/27 of the total volume of space in the present universe came to exist. Can space itself expand with a faster than light velocity? Hmm... A length of space larger than the diameter of the present-day observable space came into being during that inflation period. But were things moving FTL? — Verdi
Good question. The FTL Inflation Theory (from almost nothing to everything in an immeasurable fraction of time) is either super-natural or magical, or both. For my own worldview, I prefer to move any postulated preternatural events outside of the natural space-time margins. Since we have no empirical evidence for anything that is not subject to the limitations of space-time, outside the known anything is possible. But to imagine such lawless behavior within the bounds of reality is un-realistic.
That's why I'm surprised that so many scientists accept such an egregious hypothesis, simply because it seems to replace divine Creation, with a smoke & mirrors Magic Act. I'm neither a Theist nor Atheist, so I'm not desperate enough to accept Scientish Magic in place of Religious Magic. So, my thesis is not based on Faith, but on rational inference --- from what-is to what-might-be. It's just a philosophical thesis, not an emotional religion.
Preternatural : beyond what is normal or natural.
Egregious : extraordinary in some bad way; glaring; flagrant: an egregious mistake;
Zeptosecond - the smallest time unit ever measured
https://www.google.com/search?client=fi ... on+of+time
Is The Inflationary Universe A Scientific Theory? Not Anymore :
Inflation was proposed more than 35 years ago, among others, by Paul Steinhardt. But Steinhardt has become one of the theory’s most fervent critics. In a recent article in Scientific American, Steinhardt together with Anna Ijjas and Avi Loeb, don’t hold back. Most cosmologists, they claim, are uncritical believers. . . . . “inflationary cosmology, as we currently understand it, cannot be evaluated using the scientific method.”
___Sabine Hossenfelder
Sabine is a theoretical physicist specialized in quantum gravity and high energy physics.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswith ... b8aefab45e
So about 1/27 of the total volume of space in the present universe came to exist. Can space itself expand with a faster than light velocity? Hmm... A length of space larger than the diameter of the present-day observable space came into being during that inflation period. But were things moving FTL? — Verdi
Good question. The FTL Inflation Theory (from almost nothing to everything in an immeasurable fraction of time) is either super-natural or magical, or both. For my own worldview, I prefer to move any postulated preternatural events outside of the natural space-time margins. Since we have no empirical evidence for anything that is not subject to the limitations of space-time, outside the known anything is possible. But to imagine such lawless behavior within the bounds of reality is un-realistic.
That's why I'm surprised that so many scientists accept such an egregious hypothesis, simply because it seems to replace divine Creation, with a smoke & mirrors Magic Act. I'm neither a Theist nor Atheist, so I'm not desperate enough to accept Scientish Magic in place of Religious Magic. So, my thesis is not based on Faith, but on rational inference --- from what-is to what-might-be. It's just a philosophical thesis, not an emotional religion.
Preternatural : beyond what is normal or natural.
Egregious : extraordinary in some bad way; glaring; flagrant: an egregious mistake;
Zeptosecond - the smallest time unit ever measured
https://www.google.com/search?client=fi ... on+of+time
Is The Inflationary Universe A Scientific Theory? Not Anymore :
Inflation was proposed more than 35 years ago, among others, by Paul Steinhardt. But Steinhardt has become one of the theory’s most fervent critics. In a recent article in Scientific American, Steinhardt together with Anna Ijjas and Avi Loeb, don’t hold back. Most cosmologists, they claim, are uncritical believers. . . . . “inflationary cosmology, as we currently understand it, cannot be evaluated using the scientific method.”
___Sabine Hossenfelder
Sabine is a theoretical physicist specialized in quantum gravity and high energy physics.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswith ... b8aefab45e
Re: TPF : Universe from Nothing theory
'Nothing' cannot even be meant. — PoeticUniverse
Zero: The Biography of a Dangerous Idea :
The Babylonians invented it, the Greeks banned it, the Hindus worshipped it, and the Christian Church used it to fend off heretics. Today it's a timebomb ticking in the heart of astrophysics. For zero, infinity's twin, is not like other numbers. It is both nothing and everything.
https://www.amazon.com/dp/B082LN7XPV/re ... TF8&btkr=1
Zero: The Biography of a Dangerous Idea :
The Babylonians invented it, the Greeks banned it, the Hindus worshipped it, and the Christian Church used it to fend off heretics. Today it's a timebomb ticking in the heart of astrophysics. For zero, infinity's twin, is not like other numbers. It is both nothing and everything.
https://www.amazon.com/dp/B082LN7XPV/re ... TF8&btkr=1
Re: TPF : Universe from Nothing theory
The One of Necessity that has to be, per Parmenides, as the simplest base. The least can lead to the great, albeit temporary, as seen in our universe. — PoeticUniverse
Exactly! Before the Big Bang Theory, most scientists, including Einstein assumed that the physical universe had always existed ; although perhaps cyclical, but not progressive. But the evidence for expansion from an infinitesimal point (something from nothing), undermined their faith in a stable static predictable universe.
Necessary Being :
Parmenides held that the multiplicity of existing things, their changing forms and motion, are but an appearance of a single eternal reality (“Being”),
https://www.britannica.com/biography/Pa ... hilosopher
The religious thinkers face the haunt of the regress that dooms their notion once they propose the lesser from the greater. — PoeticUniverse
Yes. That's why I avoid postulating humanoid deities that, even though presumed immortal, are not necessarily eternal. Leaving open the question of turtle-like regression. Instead, my hypothetical "Programmer" is defined as Meta-physical -- hence not locked in the cycle of birth & death -- and as Enfernal (eternal & infinite) -- neither progressive not regressive, merely Potential. You may ask how I know that? I don't. I merely infer the definitive attributes of a Necessary Being. I can't prove empirically that there IS such a Being. But, I can prove Logically, that there must be a Necessary Being.
Exactly! Before the Big Bang Theory, most scientists, including Einstein assumed that the physical universe had always existed ; although perhaps cyclical, but not progressive. But the evidence for expansion from an infinitesimal point (something from nothing), undermined their faith in a stable static predictable universe.
Necessary Being :
Parmenides held that the multiplicity of existing things, their changing forms and motion, are but an appearance of a single eternal reality (“Being”),
https://www.britannica.com/biography/Pa ... hilosopher
The religious thinkers face the haunt of the regress that dooms their notion once they propose the lesser from the greater. — PoeticUniverse
Yes. That's why I avoid postulating humanoid deities that, even though presumed immortal, are not necessarily eternal. Leaving open the question of turtle-like regression. Instead, my hypothetical "Programmer" is defined as Meta-physical -- hence not locked in the cycle of birth & death -- and as Enfernal (eternal & infinite) -- neither progressive not regressive, merely Potential. You may ask how I know that? I don't. I merely infer the definitive attributes of a Necessary Being. I can't prove empirically that there IS such a Being. But, I can prove Logically, that there must be a Necessary Being.
Re: TPF : Universe from Nothing theory
The religious thinkers . . . . . but don't question that since they've granted immunity to its prosecution by merely just declaring it to be supernatural and hyperphysical, and, to protect it even more add infinite scope to its Mind — PoeticUniverse
It's not just "religious thinkers" who extend their inquiring minds beyond the limited scope of space-time. Many non-religious scientists are also not willing to be bound by physical restraints and provable postulations, when their imagination can make quantum leaps into the Great Unknowable beyond the Big Bang beginning. String Theory, Big Bounce, Multiverse, Many Worlds, Bubble Universes, etc. Can those conjectures be dismissed as "religious non-sense", simply because they are literally "super-natural" (outside of knowable Nature) and "hyper-physical" (meta-physical) and "infinite" (external to space-time)? They are literally super-Science in that they go beyond the pragmatic & legal limits of the scientific method. But then, philosophers are not sworn to abide by the laws of Science.
I would think that a practicing programming poet would feel a kinship with those who explore imaginative What-Ifs instead of just prosaic What-Is. Poetry is not subject to empirical testing, only to subjective meaning. Poetry is neither True nor False, but Fictional Facts that resonate with human feelings. My "religion", if you insist on calling it by that name, is to appreciate the poetry of Reality and Ideality. Philosophy is an onerous search for hidden truths, but Poetry reveals the truths that are right in front of us. Poetry doesn't have to prove anything to you ; it makes no claim to objectivity.
As a moralist, Plato disapproves of poetry because it is immoral, as a philosopher he disapproves of it because it is based in falsehood. He is of the view that philosophy is better than poetry because philosopher deals with idea / truth, whereas poet deals with what appears to him / illusion.
Despite the clear dangers of poetry, Socrates regrets having to banish the poets. He feels the aesthetic sacrifice acutely, and says that he would be happy to allow them back into the city if anyone could present an argument in their defense.
“That which is impenetrable to us really exists. Behind the secrets of nature remains something subtle, intangible, and inexplicable. Veneration for this force beyond anything that we can comprehend is my religion.” ― Albert Einstein
What happened before the Big Bang? :
Before the beginning
https://www.space.com/what-came-before-big-bang.html
"According to a recent survey, the most popular question about science from the general public was: what came before the Big Bang?"
It's not just "religious thinkers" who extend their inquiring minds beyond the limited scope of space-time. Many non-religious scientists are also not willing to be bound by physical restraints and provable postulations, when their imagination can make quantum leaps into the Great Unknowable beyond the Big Bang beginning. String Theory, Big Bounce, Multiverse, Many Worlds, Bubble Universes, etc. Can those conjectures be dismissed as "religious non-sense", simply because they are literally "super-natural" (outside of knowable Nature) and "hyper-physical" (meta-physical) and "infinite" (external to space-time)? They are literally super-Science in that they go beyond the pragmatic & legal limits of the scientific method. But then, philosophers are not sworn to abide by the laws of Science.
I would think that a practicing programming poet would feel a kinship with those who explore imaginative What-Ifs instead of just prosaic What-Is. Poetry is not subject to empirical testing, only to subjective meaning. Poetry is neither True nor False, but Fictional Facts that resonate with human feelings. My "religion", if you insist on calling it by that name, is to appreciate the poetry of Reality and Ideality. Philosophy is an onerous search for hidden truths, but Poetry reveals the truths that are right in front of us. Poetry doesn't have to prove anything to you ; it makes no claim to objectivity.
As a moralist, Plato disapproves of poetry because it is immoral, as a philosopher he disapproves of it because it is based in falsehood. He is of the view that philosophy is better than poetry because philosopher deals with idea / truth, whereas poet deals with what appears to him / illusion.
Despite the clear dangers of poetry, Socrates regrets having to banish the poets. He feels the aesthetic sacrifice acutely, and says that he would be happy to allow them back into the city if anyone could present an argument in their defense.
“That which is impenetrable to us really exists. Behind the secrets of nature remains something subtle, intangible, and inexplicable. Veneration for this force beyond anything that we can comprehend is my religion.” ― Albert Einstein
What happened before the Big Bang? :
Before the beginning
https://www.space.com/what-came-before-big-bang.html
"According to a recent survey, the most popular question about science from the general public was: what came before the Big Bang?"
Re: TPF : Universe from Nothing theory
As such, the idea of a God, an ultimate thing or being that puts all universal laws into place is not contradicted by nothingness. As "true nothingness" is an impossibility, and nothingness itself as described with ρ still has an effect on the relationship of objects despite not being physical. — SpinOwOza
Throughout history, and probably pre-history, humans have generally agreed that the notion of a Creator makes sense. What they argued about was specific attributes (human form?) & interests (chosen people) of that axiomatic deity. Only since the Enlightenment has the concept of a meaningless godless world become imaginable. Ironically, in that case the rational designing deity is typically replaced with, not Nothing, but irrational random accidents & chaotic cosmic coincidences. Personally, I don't accept the specific god-models & creeds of most religions, but I also can't accept the notion of an accidental real world with laws & organisms. Something from Nothing, non-sense! There must be something out there.
Throughout history, and probably pre-history, humans have generally agreed that the notion of a Creator makes sense. What they argued about was specific attributes (human form?) & interests (chosen people) of that axiomatic deity. Only since the Enlightenment has the concept of a meaningless godless world become imaginable. Ironically, in that case the rational designing deity is typically replaced with, not Nothing, but irrational random accidents & chaotic cosmic coincidences. Personally, I don't accept the specific god-models & creeds of most religions, but I also can't accept the notion of an accidental real world with laws & organisms. Something from Nothing, non-sense! There must be something out there.
Re: TPF : Universe from Nothing theory
Yes, nonsense, and worse nonsense if they aren't referring to something physical. — PoeticUniverse
True, but trivial. What we dialog about on The Philosophy Forum is literally "non-sense" and "beyond physical". Look at the topics --- how many are about "something physical"?
Metaphysics is all about Non-Sense. It's what feckless philosophers do : talk about things-that-are-not-things, but ideas-about-things. And when Poets write about Feelings, Qualities, Love, and other illusions & delusions, they are also doing Metaphysics. Philosophers and Poets don't build monuments or cure cancer. All they do is spout abstract non-sense to each other. Are you guilty of such extra-sensory time-wasting?
MetaPhysics :
The title was probably meant to warn students of Aristotle's philosophy that they should attempt Metaphysics only after they had mastered “the physical ones”, the books about nature or the natural world—
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/metaphysics/
Meta-Physics :
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.
http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page14.html
"Metaphysics, it turns out, is the science of essence." [not objects]
Metaphysics : " It is an inquiry to the nature of the Reality as a whole." [not the parts]
"Metaphysics is the philosophical investigation of the ultimate nature of reality." [not proximate]
True, but trivial. What we dialog about on The Philosophy Forum is literally "non-sense" and "beyond physical". Look at the topics --- how many are about "something physical"?
Metaphysics is all about Non-Sense. It's what feckless philosophers do : talk about things-that-are-not-things, but ideas-about-things. And when Poets write about Feelings, Qualities, Love, and other illusions & delusions, they are also doing Metaphysics. Philosophers and Poets don't build monuments or cure cancer. All they do is spout abstract non-sense to each other. Are you guilty of such extra-sensory time-wasting?
MetaPhysics :
The title was probably meant to warn students of Aristotle's philosophy that they should attempt Metaphysics only after they had mastered “the physical ones”, the books about nature or the natural world—
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/metaphysics/
Meta-Physics :
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.
http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page14.html
"Metaphysics, it turns out, is the science of essence." [not objects]
Metaphysics : " It is an inquiry to the nature of the Reality as a whole." [not the parts]
"Metaphysics is the philosophical investigation of the ultimate nature of reality." [not proximate]
Re: TPF : Universe from Nothing theory
No, my main categories are the human condition, science, and the universe. I don't post the non physical. — PoeticUniverse
Are Love & Hate included in the "human condition"? Can you show me a picture of such "physical" things? Are questions about the "human condition" limited to Quantitative physics & chemistry, or do they include the intangible Qualia that discriminate between "animal condition" or "vegetable condition" and "human condition"? Does your "universe" include "happiness" or "sorrowfulness", or "ugliness", or any of a zillion other mental states? Does your "Science" include Principles that are universals, not particulars? If so, what's physical about a Principle?
Admittedly, some posters on this forum seem to imagine they are doing physics, when they take a Materialist or Naive Realist philosophical stance. But, that Frame-of-Mind itself is still Meta-physical, unless you know of a physical instance of an Attitude. :joke:
-ness. a native English suffix attached to adjectives and participles, forming abstract nouns denoting quality and state
Note -- are "abstractions" real & physical? Can they be found in Brains and dissected? Or, are they limited to abstract Minds, and analyzed rationally?
Naive Realism :
In philosophy of perception and philosophy of mind, naïve realism (also known as direct realism, perceptual realism, or common sense realism) is the idea that the senses provide us with direct awareness of objects as they really are
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Na%C3%AFve_realism
What's going on here, in physical terms? :
https://cdn.vox-cdn.com/thumbor/iIEVnrO ... 1948.0.jpg
Are Love & Hate included in the "human condition"? Can you show me a picture of such "physical" things? Are questions about the "human condition" limited to Quantitative physics & chemistry, or do they include the intangible Qualia that discriminate between "animal condition" or "vegetable condition" and "human condition"? Does your "universe" include "happiness" or "sorrowfulness", or "ugliness", or any of a zillion other mental states? Does your "Science" include Principles that are universals, not particulars? If so, what's physical about a Principle?
Admittedly, some posters on this forum seem to imagine they are doing physics, when they take a Materialist or Naive Realist philosophical stance. But, that Frame-of-Mind itself is still Meta-physical, unless you know of a physical instance of an Attitude. :joke:
-ness. a native English suffix attached to adjectives and participles, forming abstract nouns denoting quality and state
Note -- are "abstractions" real & physical? Can they be found in Brains and dissected? Or, are they limited to abstract Minds, and analyzed rationally?
Naive Realism :
In philosophy of perception and philosophy of mind, naïve realism (also known as direct realism, perceptual realism, or common sense realism) is the idea that the senses provide us with direct awareness of objects as they really are
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Na%C3%AFve_realism
What's going on here, in physical terms? :
https://cdn.vox-cdn.com/thumbor/iIEVnrO ... 1948.0.jpg
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 29 guests