https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussi ... erless-god
this argument is not seeking to feminize God but rather to view God as a genderless being. — Bridget Eagles
The so-called "philosopher's god" was typically viewed as an abstraction with no physical features. But the gods of traditional religions typically reflected the stratified social conditions of ancient times. Tribal gods would tend to be more egalitarian, but the gods of urbanized people were modeled on their kings, who were almost always militaristic males. They wouldn't have viewed their gods as oppressive to women, since they didn't see their wives as oppressed, but merely playing different roles in society, a step above children and slaves.
Women in our modern cultures, who have jobs outside the home, and mechanical slaves to do much of the scut work, live in a different world. But they are still dominated by men, simply because the male gender characteristics (e.g. aggressiveness) haven't evolved to suit the more integrated organization of society. But women can now imagine a deity who is more female friendly than those arrogant ancient tyrants.
In my personal worldview, there is still a role for a First Cause deity. However, that role is defined not to reflect modern, slightly more democratic & equitable social conditions, but to suit the logical requirements of an immaterial world creator outside of space & time. My G*D is an abstract metaphysical entity, with mental properties similar to those of humans, but no material physical body. That means no hormones or emotions, and no genitals or gender. Not even a hermaphrodite.
Unfortunately, I suspect that such a vaguely defined deity would not appeal to most people, including theistic feminists. It would be suitable only for those who are philosophically inclined, and who have less need for the community of the various religious tribes who still try to maintain a tenuous connection to those ancient personalized gods & goddesses.
Philosopher's god : "The God of the ancient philosophers is an abstract object; he has all the reality of the square root of 16. This so-called God is not alive. He is beyond time and change, not the Ancient of Days but the Eternal One. The God of the philosophers is passionless, incapable of being moved to hot anger and tears by the human condition. He is serene and untroubled. . . . "
http://home.nwciowa.edu/wacome/gbgp.htm
Phil Forum : Metaphysics
Re: Philosophy Forum
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussi ... what-is-it
The teleology of evolution: a big question. I tend to reject the idea. — Janus
Then you would be in step with the majority of materialist scientists, who see evolution as a "random walk". But I see evolution as a "hockey stick" path of upward emergence. I won't go into the technical details, but which pattern you "see" will determine your position on Teleology.
Random Walk : http://gnomon.enformationism.info/Image ... 20walk.png
Hockey Stick Path : http://gnomon.enformationism.info/Image ... 0graph.jpg
knowledge of the Universe is somehow held in what he calls the "Akashic Field" — Janus
Akashic and Quantum "Fields" are mathematical abstractions. And nobody knows how Quantum Entanglement works. So you could attribute any sort of powers to them, and rest assured that you wouldn't be proven wrong. Only the First Cause is logically necessary to explain everything in the evolving universe, born in an act of cosmic creation. That Creative Cause was either an accident or intentional. Which kind of cause you "see" will determine your position on Intention.
Are you suggesting something like a Hegelian dialectical logic or logos that drives the evolution of the Universe, — Janus
Yes. Something like that. But I call it EnFormAction because of the universal role of Information in evolution.
I see no need to speak of intention at all — Janus
If evolution was completely random, with no directional patterns at all, then there would be no need to speak of intention. But, if evolution appears to display tendencies (directional change), then the cause of that consistent non-random behavior would be an intention (goal-directed purpose). In the real world, perfect randomness is never seen, because there is an inherent countervailing tendency toward order. Indeed, the predictability of that emergent order is the foundation of Science. So, the question remains, what caused the "swerve" from random Chaos to orderly Cosmos; from Entropy to Enformy?
Random : lack of pattern or predictability in events; does not follow an intelligible pattern
Tend : regularly or frequently behave in a particular way or have a certain characteristic.; go or move in a particular direction.
The teleology of evolution: a big question. I tend to reject the idea. — Janus
Then you would be in step with the majority of materialist scientists, who see evolution as a "random walk". But I see evolution as a "hockey stick" path of upward emergence. I won't go into the technical details, but which pattern you "see" will determine your position on Teleology.
Random Walk : http://gnomon.enformationism.info/Image ... 20walk.png
Hockey Stick Path : http://gnomon.enformationism.info/Image ... 0graph.jpg
knowledge of the Universe is somehow held in what he calls the "Akashic Field" — Janus
Akashic and Quantum "Fields" are mathematical abstractions. And nobody knows how Quantum Entanglement works. So you could attribute any sort of powers to them, and rest assured that you wouldn't be proven wrong. Only the First Cause is logically necessary to explain everything in the evolving universe, born in an act of cosmic creation. That Creative Cause was either an accident or intentional. Which kind of cause you "see" will determine your position on Intention.
Are you suggesting something like a Hegelian dialectical logic or logos that drives the evolution of the Universe, — Janus
Yes. Something like that. But I call it EnFormAction because of the universal role of Information in evolution.
I see no need to speak of intention at all — Janus
If evolution was completely random, with no directional patterns at all, then there would be no need to speak of intention. But, if evolution appears to display tendencies (directional change), then the cause of that consistent non-random behavior would be an intention (goal-directed purpose). In the real world, perfect randomness is never seen, because there is an inherent countervailing tendency toward order. Indeed, the predictability of that emergent order is the foundation of Science. So, the question remains, what caused the "swerve" from random Chaos to orderly Cosmos; from Entropy to Enformy?
Random : lack of pattern or predictability in events; does not follow an intelligible pattern
Tend : regularly or frequently behave in a particular way or have a certain characteristic.; go or move in a particular direction.
Re: Philosophy Forum
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussi ... what-is-it
Insofar as you posit an intentional entity as first cause and director, I would say you have moved well beyond information theory, and into spookier regions than Lazlo and Bohm. — Janus
If you feel that my notion of an intentional G*D is spooky, that's probably because you're thinking of the gods of Religion, instead of the god of Philosophy. The intention of G*D is encoded into the logical mathematical program we call Nature. There's no magic or mysticism in nature; it's all in the minds of people who are fearful or credulous.
I don't think Laszlo and Bohm were intentionally into spooky stuff, but some of their hypothetical postulates have been equated by New Agers with Eastern esotericism. And speaking of supernatural spookiness, Madame Blavatsky (Theosophy) borrowed the pre-scientific Hindu hypothesis of an Etheric Plane for her theory of the Akashic Field, as a pseudo-scientific explanation for various traditional spiritual notions.
That non-Christian account of impersonal good versus evil forces may have inspired the fictional religion of The Force in Star Wars. Except that The Force was supposedly generated by an energy field within all living beings. For those with a high Midichlorian count, magical and mystical powers were available. For example, Darth Vader could choke people without touching them. So I find the New Age notion of the powerful, but non-conscious & non-intentional, Akashic Field -- as a substitute for traditional intervening & meddling supernatural gods -- to be associated with some weird magical & mystical & unnatural & spooky stuff.
"In theosophy and anthroposophy, the Akashic records are a compendium of all human events, thoughts, words, emotions, and intent ever to have occurred in the past, present, or future. They are believed by theosophists to be encoded in a non-physical plane of existence known as the etheric plane. There are anecdotal accounts but there is no scientific evidence for the existence of the Akashic records." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Akashic_records
Insofar as you posit an intentional entity as first cause and director, I would say you have moved well beyond information theory, and into spookier regions than Lazlo and Bohm. — Janus
If you feel that my notion of an intentional G*D is spooky, that's probably because you're thinking of the gods of Religion, instead of the god of Philosophy. The intention of G*D is encoded into the logical mathematical program we call Nature. There's no magic or mysticism in nature; it's all in the minds of people who are fearful or credulous.
I don't think Laszlo and Bohm were intentionally into spooky stuff, but some of their hypothetical postulates have been equated by New Agers with Eastern esotericism. And speaking of supernatural spookiness, Madame Blavatsky (Theosophy) borrowed the pre-scientific Hindu hypothesis of an Etheric Plane for her theory of the Akashic Field, as a pseudo-scientific explanation for various traditional spiritual notions.
That non-Christian account of impersonal good versus evil forces may have inspired the fictional religion of The Force in Star Wars. Except that The Force was supposedly generated by an energy field within all living beings. For those with a high Midichlorian count, magical and mystical powers were available. For example, Darth Vader could choke people without touching them. So I find the New Age notion of the powerful, but non-conscious & non-intentional, Akashic Field -- as a substitute for traditional intervening & meddling supernatural gods -- to be associated with some weird magical & mystical & unnatural & spooky stuff.
"In theosophy and anthroposophy, the Akashic records are a compendium of all human events, thoughts, words, emotions, and intent ever to have occurred in the past, present, or future. They are believed by theosophists to be encoded in a non-physical plane of existence known as the etheric plane. There are anecdotal accounts but there is no scientific evidence for the existence of the Akashic records." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Akashic_records
Re: Philosophy Forum
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussi ... what-is-it
To me eternal means non-temporal and infinite means non-finite. These are to be understood only in an apophatic sense, not to be reified as substantive entities. Of course the tendency to do that reification is apparently perfectly natural for humans. I don't want to make any metaphysically positive claims on the basis of what seems merely "logically necessary". — Janus
Yes. Until astronomers calculated that the universe suddenly emerged into space-time from nowhere and nowhen, the philosophical concepts of a supernatural God were inherently apophatic (definition by negation). But now we have positive evidence that the temporal physical universe is necessarily non-eternal. Which logically implies that some kind of cause must necessarily exist beyond space-time in the imaginary realm we call Eternity.
Plus, modern developments in mathematics have forced philosophers to take Infinity seriously, as a "substantive" concept, in the sense of "essential". Infinity and Zero are not assumed to be physical entities, but metaphysical concepts that have a strong relationship to reality. They are not reified though, but merely accepted as logically necessary axioms for reasoning beyond the normal limitations of our experience. For example, before the Calculus was invented, prejudices against infinities prevented mathematicians from being able to calculate non-Euclidian geometry.
Likewise, the sciences of Quantum Physics would be impossible, if practitioners were unable to accept paradoxical results as "logically necessary".
To me eternal means non-temporal and infinite means non-finite. These are to be understood only in an apophatic sense, not to be reified as substantive entities. Of course the tendency to do that reification is apparently perfectly natural for humans. I don't want to make any metaphysically positive claims on the basis of what seems merely "logically necessary". — Janus
Yes. Until astronomers calculated that the universe suddenly emerged into space-time from nowhere and nowhen, the philosophical concepts of a supernatural God were inherently apophatic (definition by negation). But now we have positive evidence that the temporal physical universe is necessarily non-eternal. Which logically implies that some kind of cause must necessarily exist beyond space-time in the imaginary realm we call Eternity.
Plus, modern developments in mathematics have forced philosophers to take Infinity seriously, as a "substantive" concept, in the sense of "essential". Infinity and Zero are not assumed to be physical entities, but metaphysical concepts that have a strong relationship to reality. They are not reified though, but merely accepted as logically necessary axioms for reasoning beyond the normal limitations of our experience. For example, before the Calculus was invented, prejudices against infinities prevented mathematicians from being able to calculate non-Euclidian geometry.
Likewise, the sciences of Quantum Physics would be impossible, if practitioners were unable to accept paradoxical results as "logically necessary".
Re: Philosophy Forum
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussi ... ent/334779
Now I'm not sure whether you think Eternity is real or imaginary. — Janus
As I said, "the imaginary realm we call Eternity". Reality is typically defined as that which is objective (you and I can both experience it). Ideality is that which is subjective (only I can directly experience it). But humans can share their experiences in the form of words. And words may be misinterpreted, depending on the varieties of personal experience. Have you ever experienced Eternity or Infinity? No, but you can imagine a timeless non-spatial state by analogy with your experience with space-time. Our metaphors are useful for conveying qualities that may not be apparent to others. But they can also be misleading when taken literally. That's why I say Eternity is not real . . . it's ideal.
I'm not sure what you mean by " a strong relationship to reality". — Janus
There is no Zero (non-existence) in reality (physical existence). But we find that unreal notion useful as a negation of reality. Again, we can imagine non-existence as a way to describe something that could possibly exist, but is missing in actuality. In mathematics, numbers are names for things that can be counted physically, but zero is the name for something that cannot be counted. Although "zero" is literally non-existent, it still has a function in math. It has a functional relationship to reality. Similarly, I can say that your Mind is not real (I can't see it), but it obviously has a function that is related to the real brain that I could see if I opened your head. Functions are not real, but they are relevant. So, we sometimes give names to functions, as-if they were real. Ideality is as-if.
Are you suggesting that infinity and zero are real in the sense of being more than mere concepts? — Janus
No. They are not real, but they are useful concepts. "Functions" are links between Cause & Effect, but they are not physically real things. As Hume noted, Causation is something we infer, not something we actually experience. Likewise, Infinity and Zero are functions (ideas) that we infer from our experience with space-time. Zero is a function of (1 thing minus 1 thing).
If we speak of the transcendent, as opposed to the merely transcendental (what is beyond our experience and understanding), then we are departing from our justified mode of apophasis and moving into the unjustified mode of kataphasis, that leads straight to reification, superstitious beliefs, dogma and fundamentalism. — Janus
"Transcendent" is another word for that which is not real -- it is assumed to "exist" beyond the bounds of reality. Reality is space-time, so something Transcendent is assumed to be non-local and non-temporal. But we often imagine such non-things metaphorically as-if they are real things (i.e. reification). Christians subjectively experience "evil" and imagine that adjective as-if it were an objective living being, and give it a name : Satan. In that case, they may be deceiving themselves with scary stories of "your adversary the devil, as a roaring lion, walketh about, seeking whom he may devour".
On the other hand, mathematicians find reification useful, when they give a name to non-existence (Zero). Are Transcendental Numbers, Imaginary Numbers, Infinite Numbers (Pi), real? Likewise, I gave the name "G*D" to a necessary function (creation) to serve as a place-holder for something transcendent and unreal, but definitely relevant to our desire to understand the origin of our world. G*D is not real, but ideal . . . and useful. It's when you make-up elaborate as-if myths about those unknowable abstractions that reification becomes superstition.
BTW, my Enformationism theory is all about the role of information in the Real world. The transcendent G*D concept is merely an unprovable Axiom, used as-in mathematics as a starting point for developing a provable theory. Scientists are currently proving the practical role of information in Physics, Biology, and Psychology. I merely look at the system of enformation as a whole.
Axiom : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axiom
Now I'm not sure whether you think Eternity is real or imaginary. — Janus
As I said, "the imaginary realm we call Eternity". Reality is typically defined as that which is objective (you and I can both experience it). Ideality is that which is subjective (only I can directly experience it). But humans can share their experiences in the form of words. And words may be misinterpreted, depending on the varieties of personal experience. Have you ever experienced Eternity or Infinity? No, but you can imagine a timeless non-spatial state by analogy with your experience with space-time. Our metaphors are useful for conveying qualities that may not be apparent to others. But they can also be misleading when taken literally. That's why I say Eternity is not real . . . it's ideal.
I'm not sure what you mean by " a strong relationship to reality". — Janus
There is no Zero (non-existence) in reality (physical existence). But we find that unreal notion useful as a negation of reality. Again, we can imagine non-existence as a way to describe something that could possibly exist, but is missing in actuality. In mathematics, numbers are names for things that can be counted physically, but zero is the name for something that cannot be counted. Although "zero" is literally non-existent, it still has a function in math. It has a functional relationship to reality. Similarly, I can say that your Mind is not real (I can't see it), but it obviously has a function that is related to the real brain that I could see if I opened your head. Functions are not real, but they are relevant. So, we sometimes give names to functions, as-if they were real. Ideality is as-if.
Are you suggesting that infinity and zero are real in the sense of being more than mere concepts? — Janus
No. They are not real, but they are useful concepts. "Functions" are links between Cause & Effect, but they are not physically real things. As Hume noted, Causation is something we infer, not something we actually experience. Likewise, Infinity and Zero are functions (ideas) that we infer from our experience with space-time. Zero is a function of (1 thing minus 1 thing).
If we speak of the transcendent, as opposed to the merely transcendental (what is beyond our experience and understanding), then we are departing from our justified mode of apophasis and moving into the unjustified mode of kataphasis, that leads straight to reification, superstitious beliefs, dogma and fundamentalism. — Janus
"Transcendent" is another word for that which is not real -- it is assumed to "exist" beyond the bounds of reality. Reality is space-time, so something Transcendent is assumed to be non-local and non-temporal. But we often imagine such non-things metaphorically as-if they are real things (i.e. reification). Christians subjectively experience "evil" and imagine that adjective as-if it were an objective living being, and give it a name : Satan. In that case, they may be deceiving themselves with scary stories of "your adversary the devil, as a roaring lion, walketh about, seeking whom he may devour".
On the other hand, mathematicians find reification useful, when they give a name to non-existence (Zero). Are Transcendental Numbers, Imaginary Numbers, Infinite Numbers (Pi), real? Likewise, I gave the name "G*D" to a necessary function (creation) to serve as a place-holder for something transcendent and unreal, but definitely relevant to our desire to understand the origin of our world. G*D is not real, but ideal . . . and useful. It's when you make-up elaborate as-if myths about those unknowable abstractions that reification becomes superstition.
BTW, my Enformationism theory is all about the role of information in the Real world. The transcendent G*D concept is merely an unprovable Axiom, used as-in mathematics as a starting point for developing a provable theory. Scientists are currently proving the practical role of information in Physics, Biology, and Psychology. I merely look at the system of enformation as a whole.
Axiom : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axiom
Re: Philosophy Forum
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussi ... ent/334843
The problem often lies with terminology. — Janus
If you have a problem with my Enformationism terminology, you are welcome to consult the Glossary http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/
For me the real is what is, not (necessarily) what we experience. — Janus
How, then, do you know "what is" apart from experience? Do you have extra-sensory perception? We make guesses about what "could" be, by extrapolating from sensory experience to what seems statistically possible.
So I would say that what we think of as the eternal is either real or ideal, and that we don't know which. — Janus
Please clarify your terminology. In what sense would you say that "the eternal" is Real? Is it a parallel reality, existing beyond the scope of our time-bound senses? Or is it like the position & velocity of an electron, existing in super-position, so that we cannot measure those properties? Are your categories of "real" and "ideal" so indeterminate that humans can't decide which is which?
There are inherent problems, in any case, with pushing the bounds of language and then imagining that there is some "objective reality" which could be somehow isomorphic with our reifications. — Janus
Yes. That's how people imagine "evil" as a human-like entity, and give it a personal name. Can you discriminate whether Satan is Real or Ideal? Is he a maybe?
I would say the transcendental is real, but we cannot say what it is. — Janus
Why not? "Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent." ___Wittgenstein
Space-time is not all of reality, but is just the empirical part. It makes no sense to me to say that something could "exist" beyond the bounds of reality. — Janus
Yes. That's why I try to make a clear distinction between Actual (space-time; empirical; Real) and Potential (imaginary; theoretical; Ideal).
The term "exist" normally refers to physical, empirical stuff. But in what sense do Ideas exist? If they are not real, why do we speak of ideas as-if they have some meaning, some relevance? Hamlet spoke of "to be, or not to be", as-if it was a viable option. In order to discuss philosophy, we must come to terms with ideas and ideality, or else we can only do pragmatic Science. Is Science a real thing? Does Science exist?
So, the quantum vacuum, or the akashic field, or the apeiron, or god or nature or substance or whatever you want to call it is real, but virtually, not empirically so. — Janus
Is the Akashic Field real in the same sense that a Quantum Field is real? The latter is pure mathematical imagination with no empirical substance. Yet, we find the concept useful for mathematical calculations. Physicists created the concept of a Virtual Particle out of pure imagination, as a place-holder for something indeterminate (superposition) because it exists only as statistical potential, but is useful for calculations. What is the Akashic field good for, other than for story-telling? Is Virtual Reality really real, or is it an idea in the mind of the beholder (hence Ideal)?
I'm not convinced that unprovable axioms can be used to develop provable theories. In mathematics they may be used to develop provable theorems, — Janus
I used the term "provable" in the sense of "testable", not in the sense of "certainty". Science has come to terms with uncertainty, but they still test their hypotheses in order to weed out those that have no pragmatic usefulness. Darwin's hypothesis of the evolutionary process won't be absolutely proven for a million years. But, meanwhile it serves as a framework for understanding biology. The G*D hypothesis, as I said, is unprovable, but useful for making sense of the role of ideal immaterial information in the real material world.
"Nothing in biology makes sense, except in the light of evolution." ___Theodosius Dobzhansky
"Nothing in reality makes sense, except in the light of EnFormAction." ____Gnomon
The problem often lies with terminology. — Janus
If you have a problem with my Enformationism terminology, you are welcome to consult the Glossary http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/
For me the real is what is, not (necessarily) what we experience. — Janus
How, then, do you know "what is" apart from experience? Do you have extra-sensory perception? We make guesses about what "could" be, by extrapolating from sensory experience to what seems statistically possible.
So I would say that what we think of as the eternal is either real or ideal, and that we don't know which. — Janus
Please clarify your terminology. In what sense would you say that "the eternal" is Real? Is it a parallel reality, existing beyond the scope of our time-bound senses? Or is it like the position & velocity of an electron, existing in super-position, so that we cannot measure those properties? Are your categories of "real" and "ideal" so indeterminate that humans can't decide which is which?
There are inherent problems, in any case, with pushing the bounds of language and then imagining that there is some "objective reality" which could be somehow isomorphic with our reifications. — Janus
Yes. That's how people imagine "evil" as a human-like entity, and give it a personal name. Can you discriminate whether Satan is Real or Ideal? Is he a maybe?
I would say the transcendental is real, but we cannot say what it is. — Janus
Why not? "Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent." ___Wittgenstein
Space-time is not all of reality, but is just the empirical part. It makes no sense to me to say that something could "exist" beyond the bounds of reality. — Janus
Yes. That's why I try to make a clear distinction between Actual (space-time; empirical; Real) and Potential (imaginary; theoretical; Ideal).
The term "exist" normally refers to physical, empirical stuff. But in what sense do Ideas exist? If they are not real, why do we speak of ideas as-if they have some meaning, some relevance? Hamlet spoke of "to be, or not to be", as-if it was a viable option. In order to discuss philosophy, we must come to terms with ideas and ideality, or else we can only do pragmatic Science. Is Science a real thing? Does Science exist?
So, the quantum vacuum, or the akashic field, or the apeiron, or god or nature or substance or whatever you want to call it is real, but virtually, not empirically so. — Janus
Is the Akashic Field real in the same sense that a Quantum Field is real? The latter is pure mathematical imagination with no empirical substance. Yet, we find the concept useful for mathematical calculations. Physicists created the concept of a Virtual Particle out of pure imagination, as a place-holder for something indeterminate (superposition) because it exists only as statistical potential, but is useful for calculations. What is the Akashic field good for, other than for story-telling? Is Virtual Reality really real, or is it an idea in the mind of the beholder (hence Ideal)?
I'm not convinced that unprovable axioms can be used to develop provable theories. In mathematics they may be used to develop provable theorems, — Janus
I used the term "provable" in the sense of "testable", not in the sense of "certainty". Science has come to terms with uncertainty, but they still test their hypotheses in order to weed out those that have no pragmatic usefulness. Darwin's hypothesis of the evolutionary process won't be absolutely proven for a million years. But, meanwhile it serves as a framework for understanding biology. The G*D hypothesis, as I said, is unprovable, but useful for making sense of the role of ideal immaterial information in the real material world.
"Nothing in biology makes sense, except in the light of evolution." ___Theodosius Dobzhansky
"Nothing in reality makes sense, except in the light of EnFormAction." ____Gnomon
Re: Philosophy Forum
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussi ... ent/335334
although I wouldn't say that they are "axioms" as Gnomon does, but that they are conjectures as Popper says or speculations. — Janus
My notion of G*D is indeed a speculation or conjecture, because I have no real-world experience with anything outside of space-time. But it is also an Axiom in the sense that G*D is "a premise or starting point for reasoning." Enformationism is intended to be a 21st century update of ancient Materialism and Spiritualism. Since mundane Information consists of immaterial ideas as the content of material "carriers", it is necessarily an Ideal "object", not a real thing.
So, in order to establish a rational foundation for a real world in which Information is ubiquitous -- I.e. reality functions like a computer program -- I must assume the "existence" of an Enformer or Programmer. And since there is a common conventional name for that Creator function, I decided not to use some abstruse philosophical term, but to merely make a spelling change to indicate that this is not your Priest's or Pastor's ancient obsolete notion of a heavenly king, but a novel concept in keeping with our modern understanding of the Cosmos.
we can treat them as provisional ideas to be entertained to see where they might lead our thought. — Janus
Precisely.
I'm not saying the eternal is real, — Janus
That's why I try to make a clear distinction between Real and Ideal, Experiential and Imaginary. Imaginary things are usually abstractions from reality. And as such, may be plausible and generally acceptable, or dubious and subject to skeptical analysis. That's why I accept the notion of "Eternity" as a rational inference from the spatial & temporal limitations of Reality, logically requiring a First Cause of space & time to explain how reality came to be.
I don't know if the Akashic Field is real. — Janus
I don't have a problem with the mathematical concept of "fields" to describe something that is logically necessary, but actually abstract (not real). It's an aid to visualization of abstractions. The Akashic Field is an ancient philosophical attempt to make sense of the abstract-Mind vs concrete-Body mystery. But, over the years, the general concept has collected a lot of mystical baggage that is no longer necessary, since we now have more mundane explanations for strange observations.
For example, some explanations for Out of Body Experiences (OBEs) assume that those experiences can only be understood as taking place in real-but-parallel planes of existence. Yet modern science has given us more insight into how the brain converts sensory experiences into mental images. So, a more practical assumption for OBEs is that they are similar to dreams. In fact, I had OBEs and NDEs when I was young. But having no mystical assumptions, I merely interpreted them as strange dreams.
I now have an Information-based explanation for both Akashic and Quantum Fields.
"In theosophy and anthroposophy, the Akashic records are a compendium of all human events, thoughts, words, emotions, and intent ever to have occurred in the past, present, or future. They are believed by theosophists to be encoded in a non-physical plane of existence known as the etheric plane. There are anecdotal accounts but there is no scientific evidence for the existence of the Akashic records." ___https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Akashic_records
although I wouldn't say that they are "axioms" as Gnomon does, but that they are conjectures as Popper says or speculations. — Janus
My notion of G*D is indeed a speculation or conjecture, because I have no real-world experience with anything outside of space-time. But it is also an Axiom in the sense that G*D is "a premise or starting point for reasoning." Enformationism is intended to be a 21st century update of ancient Materialism and Spiritualism. Since mundane Information consists of immaterial ideas as the content of material "carriers", it is necessarily an Ideal "object", not a real thing.
So, in order to establish a rational foundation for a real world in which Information is ubiquitous -- I.e. reality functions like a computer program -- I must assume the "existence" of an Enformer or Programmer. And since there is a common conventional name for that Creator function, I decided not to use some abstruse philosophical term, but to merely make a spelling change to indicate that this is not your Priest's or Pastor's ancient obsolete notion of a heavenly king, but a novel concept in keeping with our modern understanding of the Cosmos.
we can treat them as provisional ideas to be entertained to see where they might lead our thought. — Janus
Precisely.
I'm not saying the eternal is real, — Janus
That's why I try to make a clear distinction between Real and Ideal, Experiential and Imaginary. Imaginary things are usually abstractions from reality. And as such, may be plausible and generally acceptable, or dubious and subject to skeptical analysis. That's why I accept the notion of "Eternity" as a rational inference from the spatial & temporal limitations of Reality, logically requiring a First Cause of space & time to explain how reality came to be.
I don't know if the Akashic Field is real. — Janus
I don't have a problem with the mathematical concept of "fields" to describe something that is logically necessary, but actually abstract (not real). It's an aid to visualization of abstractions. The Akashic Field is an ancient philosophical attempt to make sense of the abstract-Mind vs concrete-Body mystery. But, over the years, the general concept has collected a lot of mystical baggage that is no longer necessary, since we now have more mundane explanations for strange observations.
For example, some explanations for Out of Body Experiences (OBEs) assume that those experiences can only be understood as taking place in real-but-parallel planes of existence. Yet modern science has given us more insight into how the brain converts sensory experiences into mental images. So, a more practical assumption for OBEs is that they are similar to dreams. In fact, I had OBEs and NDEs when I was young. But having no mystical assumptions, I merely interpreted them as strange dreams.
I now have an Information-based explanation for both Akashic and Quantum Fields.
"In theosophy and anthroposophy, the Akashic records are a compendium of all human events, thoughts, words, emotions, and intent ever to have occurred in the past, present, or future. They are believed by theosophists to be encoded in a non-physical plane of existence known as the etheric plane. There are anecdotal accounts but there is no scientific evidence for the existence of the Akashic records." ___https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Akashic_records
Re: Philosophy Forum
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussi ... what-is-it
I'm not sure that Quantum theorists would agree with you that the quantum field has nothing more than an abstract reality. — Janus
Some would and some wouldn't. I was referring to the mathematical definition of a Field :
"In mathematics, a field is a set on which addition, subtraction, multiplication, and division are defined, and behave as the corresponding operations on rational and real numbers do. A field is thus a fundamental algebraic structure, which is widely used in algebra, number theory and many other areas of mathematics." ___https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Field_(mathematics)
Is a "Set" or "Algebraic Structure" concrete or abstract, real or ideal? That depends on how you look at it.
The various fields are defined in terms of hypothetical dimensionless mathematical points. Yet, it's not the substanceless points that are important, but the relationships (ratios) between them, as in geometry and trigonometry. That is also how Information works in the real world. A "bit" of Information is a relationship between two or more objects (basically 1 or 0). Multiple bits add-up to physical fields, and fields add-up to matter (fluctuations in the field are what we detect as particles). When human beings observe those physical objects, the mind detects those ratios (physical information), and interprets them as meaning (mental information).
<<Note : interpretation of RATIOS is the basis of REASONING.>>
Electromagnetic Fields and Quantum Fields are just special cases of the universal Information Field. I could also say that the Information Field is an update of the ancient notion of the Akashic Field.
Physicist Victor Toth answered the question, "What is a quantum field?" in this manner :
"But no, quantum fields do not interact with matter. Quantum fields are matter." ___ https://www.forbes.com/sites/quora/2017 ... 0495928c4a
That would also be my answer to "What is an Information Field?" : the information field does not interact with matter, it is matter.
These ideas are far outside the understanding of the "man on the street". And even for philosophers and physicists are so unconventional as to sound absurd. The Enformationism Thesis attempts to begin at the beginning, and to build-up a worldview based on Information rather than Matter or Spirit.
Enformationism : http://enformationism.info/enformationism.info/
I'm not sure that Quantum theorists would agree with you that the quantum field has nothing more than an abstract reality. — Janus
Some would and some wouldn't. I was referring to the mathematical definition of a Field :
"In mathematics, a field is a set on which addition, subtraction, multiplication, and division are defined, and behave as the corresponding operations on rational and real numbers do. A field is thus a fundamental algebraic structure, which is widely used in algebra, number theory and many other areas of mathematics." ___https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Field_(mathematics)
Is a "Set" or "Algebraic Structure" concrete or abstract, real or ideal? That depends on how you look at it.
The various fields are defined in terms of hypothetical dimensionless mathematical points. Yet, it's not the substanceless points that are important, but the relationships (ratios) between them, as in geometry and trigonometry. That is also how Information works in the real world. A "bit" of Information is a relationship between two or more objects (basically 1 or 0). Multiple bits add-up to physical fields, and fields add-up to matter (fluctuations in the field are what we detect as particles). When human beings observe those physical objects, the mind detects those ratios (physical information), and interprets them as meaning (mental information).
<<Note : interpretation of RATIOS is the basis of REASONING.>>
Electromagnetic Fields and Quantum Fields are just special cases of the universal Information Field. I could also say that the Information Field is an update of the ancient notion of the Akashic Field.
Physicist Victor Toth answered the question, "What is a quantum field?" in this manner :
"But no, quantum fields do not interact with matter. Quantum fields are matter." ___ https://www.forbes.com/sites/quora/2017 ... 0495928c4a
That would also be my answer to "What is an Information Field?" : the information field does not interact with matter, it is matter.
These ideas are far outside the understanding of the "man on the street". And even for philosophers and physicists are so unconventional as to sound absurd. The Enformationism Thesis attempts to begin at the beginning, and to build-up a worldview based on Information rather than Matter or Spirit.
Enformationism : http://enformationism.info/enformationism.info/
Re: Philosophy Forum
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussi ... ent/335736
Whats the standard for Mind/Body
What is the standard to prove to you mind body dualism? — MiloL
The ancient Mind/Body conundrum is based on a false assumption : that the Mind/Soul is a thing apart from the Brain/Body. Like the "Hard Problem" of consciousness, it derives from the human propensity to reify abstractions.
In fact, the Mind or Soul is merely the Function of the Brain/Body : to produce Consciousness & Life.
Transportation is the function of an Automobile, but we don't imagine it as a spooky doppelganger of the car. Likewise, Mind is merely what the Brain does. So, scientific experiments should be trying to clarify exactly how the brain does what it does, and not looking for mysterious Ghosts or Homunculus operators of the body. It would help to view the Mind/Body as an integrated whole system instead of as a loose association of parts.
Whats the standard for Mind/Body
What is the standard to prove to you mind body dualism? — MiloL
The ancient Mind/Body conundrum is based on a false assumption : that the Mind/Soul is a thing apart from the Brain/Body. Like the "Hard Problem" of consciousness, it derives from the human propensity to reify abstractions.
In fact, the Mind or Soul is merely the Function of the Brain/Body : to produce Consciousness & Life.
Transportation is the function of an Automobile, but we don't imagine it as a spooky doppelganger of the car. Likewise, Mind is merely what the Brain does. So, scientific experiments should be trying to clarify exactly how the brain does what it does, and not looking for mysterious Ghosts or Homunculus operators of the body. It would help to view the Mind/Body as an integrated whole system instead of as a loose association of parts.
Re: Philosophy Forum
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussi ... ent/336043
The problem though, is that matter itself is just an idea, a concept. — Metaphysician Undercover
Yes. According to Idealism, ultimately, everything in reality is an idea in the mind of G*D. Enformationism is essentially an update of ancient Idealism, using our modern understanding of Information to clarify such enigmas as how Minds can emerge from Matter. Answer : It's all mind.
That doesn't mean that you and I are ghosts, though. For us physical beings, what we perceive as real is as real as it gets. Since we are inside the Cave or the Matrix, so to speak, we can only imagine the "true" reality, unless someone like Plato comes along to unshackle our bodies, or like Morpheus to offer us the Red Pill.
So, for all practical purposes, Matter is what the world is made of. And divine Mind is merely an idea.
If that statement sounds like a reversal of the conclusion in the first paragraph, that's because Enformationism is a BothAnd worldview : our world consists of metaphysical Information in the Mind of G*D, but we perceive that Information as physical stuff. So, which is "true" depends on whether you are looking at the world from the Inside (subjective) or from Outside (objective). But we can "see" objectively only in imagination -- and then, only "in a glass darkly".
The problem though, is that matter itself is just an idea, a concept. — Metaphysician Undercover
Yes. According to Idealism, ultimately, everything in reality is an idea in the mind of G*D. Enformationism is essentially an update of ancient Idealism, using our modern understanding of Information to clarify such enigmas as how Minds can emerge from Matter. Answer : It's all mind.
That doesn't mean that you and I are ghosts, though. For us physical beings, what we perceive as real is as real as it gets. Since we are inside the Cave or the Matrix, so to speak, we can only imagine the "true" reality, unless someone like Plato comes along to unshackle our bodies, or like Morpheus to offer us the Red Pill.
So, for all practical purposes, Matter is what the world is made of. And divine Mind is merely an idea.
If that statement sounds like a reversal of the conclusion in the first paragraph, that's because Enformationism is a BothAnd worldview : our world consists of metaphysical Information in the Mind of G*D, but we perceive that Information as physical stuff. So, which is "true" depends on whether you are looking at the world from the Inside (subjective) or from Outside (objective). But we can "see" objectively only in imagination -- and then, only "in a glass darkly".
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests