TPF : Arche -- philosophical ultimates ; first principles ; God

[Gnomon]

ARCHE -- First Principles
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussi ... ent/782499

the Greeks, for some reason, thought it necessary to find the arche. Quare? — Agent Smith

If by "the Greeks" you mean philosophical thinkers, the necessity for knowing the "arche" is inherent in the frame of reference. Typically, most people, are proximate thinkers, restricting their observations to what's directly in front of them. But philosophers seem to be, by nature, ultimate thinkers. They see, with physical eyes, the proximate reality, but then look up and seek, with metaphysical vision, the beginnings & endings of the presumed continuum of reality. Generally, they do it by extrapolation (inference) from the known to the unknown. Hence, if they notice that nature has produced the inborn talent for rational thinking in humans, they presume that the ability to "seek" logical patterns must have originated in the eternal Essence of Reality.

Therefore, having no notion of a Big Bang beginning (something from nothing) they reasoned that a logical principle must have existed eternally, beyond space & time. Ordinary concrete-thinking Greeks referred to that immortal Source of human-like reasoning*1 as "God" or "gods". But, the abstract-thinking philosophers preferred a pure Source beyond the reach of human deception. And they labelled that hypothetical ultimate origin as "Principle"*2. Those un-real imaginary concepts were idealized as straightforward and non-devious, hence trustworthy.

Likewise, Pythagoras seemed to imagine all eternal principles as Mathematical abstractions of real-world geometry, with crystalline purity. Mathematics (art ; information) was understood as the underlying immaterial cause & structure of reality. But some of his concrete-thinking followers began to worship those mysterious mystical non-things as-if they were humanoid gods. So, it seems that most people prefer to think of their Arche in familiar personal real forms, instead of alien impersonal ideals. Which view is correct may depend on the pre-conceptions of the thinkers.



*1. Reasoning :
Inference from sensory knowledge (percepts) to extra-sensory (imaginary) knowledge (concepts).
Note -- Since most animals seemed to lack such extra-sensory perception, the average person assumed that it was a magical ability. Hence, from a divine source. But, philosophical thinkers tended to be skeptical of shamanic trickery. So, they offered the abstract notion of natural-but-non-human Ultimate or Eternal Principles.

*2. Principle :
a fundamental truth or proposition that serves as the foundation for a system of belief or behavior or for a chain of reasoning.

[Gnomon]

↪Paine
Is it ironic then that the New Advent encyclopedia, in its entry on Logos, says
It is in Heraclitus that the theory of the Logos appears for the first time, and it is doubtless for this reason that, first among the Greek philosophers, Heraclitus was regarded by St. Justin (Apol. I, 46) as a Christian before Christ. — Wayfarer

I think the Author of John's gospel was trying to rationalize the death of the Christian Messiah/King before his mission was accomplished. So, he argued that the messianic prophecies referred to an eternal spirit being instead of a temporal physical person. In other words, an abstract principle, not a flesh & blood human leader, as the Jews assumed. Hence, today a leather-bound book can be called "The Word" of God.

The original Greek term referred not to a messianic personal savior, but to a universal timeless Potential for rational thinking (expressed in words), that was Actualized in homo sapiens. Hence, John deliberately changed the referent to suit his own rationale for the death of the son of God : the god-man may have died physically, but the revelation (message) is immortal.

Heraclitus -- who died 3 centuries before the crucifixion of Jesus -- obviously was not an actual Christian. But his philosophical notion of an eternal principle of Logic was Christianized by a Greco-Jew, probably under the influence of Paul's spiritualized Judaism. Ironically, John's appropriated "Word" is now better-known than Heraclitus' original "Logos". My 2cents worth.


Logos :
What is the definition of logos? The Lexham Bible Dictionary defines logos (λόγος) as “a concept word in the Bible symbolic of the nature and function of Jesus Christ. It is also used to refer to the revelation of God in the world.” Logos is a noun that occurs 330 times in the Greek New Testament. Of course, the word doesn’t always—in fact, it usually doesn’t—carry symbolic meaning. Its most basic and common meaning is simply “word,” “speech,” “utterance,” or “message.”
https://www.logos.com/grow/greek-word-logos-mean

[Gnomon]

The annointing of some of the Greek philosophers as 'Christians before Christ' was partially a recognition of Greek wisdom, and also a way of trying to harmonise Greek philosophy with Biblical revelation. — Wayfarer

Most world religions are motivated by faith in a cultural worldview, and/or by obeisance to a politico-religious regime. Yet Christianity was unique in its adoption of critical Reason, in addition to compliant Faith : both mindless repetitious "works" (sacrifices ; rituals), and critical "faith" (justification of faith)*1.

The Jews of Jesus' era, with no central temple, had become characterized by argumentative critical faith, due in part to its decentralized local synagogues, and in part to the imperial influence of the analytical Greek culture. Early Christians merely built upon that foundation, even as they rejected the "primitive" origins of Hebraism/Judaism in idolatry.

So, yes. I think they were impressed by the superior "wisdom" of the Greco/Roman culture, that allowed it to dominate the known world militarily and culturally. Yet those who did not wish to "harmonize" with "barbarian" gentiles remained isolated as non-conforming Jews. And that "arrogant" independence has caused them to be persecuted outcasts, even among those who claimed to worship the God of Abraham.


*1. The fundamentalist religion of my youth was a "critical faith". We learned to defend our Faith with reasons, and to be skeptical of other people's Faith, that did not conform to our rationale. Ironically, I turned that outward skepticism inwardly toward my own bible-based-beliefs. The faithless result was a philosophical Agnostic.

[Gnomon]

The Philosopher will not find God
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussi ... ent/783386

Sure, the quest for knowledge of the divine, if I could put it that way, operates by different standards to empirical science and peer-reviewed journal articles. But there are domains of discourse, communities of faith, within which that quest is intelligible, and which contain those quite capable of judging whether an aspirant is progressing or not. — Wayfarer

When I joined this forum, being rather naive of the current state of philosophy, I was surprised to have my philosophical reasoning & conjectures challenged for empirical evidence, rather than logical reasons. I thought that was the whole point of Philosophy : to go where Science cannot. Yes, philosophies often evolve into restrictive religions, but they may also free us from misconceptions.

Empirical investigations are limited by the physical properties of their tools. But Philosophy's only tool is metaphysical Reason. Which can easily transcend material barriers. Yet, some attempt to block such transcendence, with socio-cultural taboos. My latest run-in was with the Logical-Positive belief system, which constructs artificial fences around Logic ; functioning like electronic ankle cuffs, to limit the range of Reason to verifiable empirical questions. In other words, forcing Philosophy to obey the rules of Science.

Ironically, even law-abiding scientists sometimes form beliefs that could be described as Blind Faith. Like religious beliefs, they are taken to be Facts & Truths. But as long as we are free to exchange opinions, we may be able to refine our opinionated beliefs in order to get Closer to Truth. Avoidance of Open Questions will allow them to fester in the dark.

[Gnomon]

Specifically, all of the claims to reductively explain mind via matter are themselves just hypotheses. Moreover, since they are hypotheses, and hypothesizing exemplifies what we mean by thinking, they seem to be inherently and obviously self-contradictory. Which is more unlikely, that matter produces thought, or that thought produces matter? Most likely we are looking at the twin poles of a dynamic system, substance and form, or hylomorphism. At least that's the direction I'm looking. — Pantagruel

Yes. Those who are arguing against my Information-based thesis, are treating it as-if it's a Theistic Religious doctrine, which subordinates Science to Faith. I can agree with most of their rational arguments against traditional religions. But they are missing the central point of the thesis*1, and introducing their own atheistic biases into their counter-arguments. By that I mean they are not arguing against Enformationism, but against Theism. My BothAnd worldview is like Hylomorphism : Matter plus Form ; Science plus Philosophy ; Empirical plus Theoretical.

*1. Which I assume they have never read.

[Gnomon]

Oh come on Gnomon!! enough of the 'I am being treated unfairly,' on repeat, through your loudspeaker.
I DO NOT, refute your right to philosophise as YOU see fit, and as makes logical sense to YOU.
I have already posted, that I think you do, genuinely, seek truth. — universeness

Oh no, you've got me pegged. Just in the wrong hole. You get frustrated by my denials of your peg-holes. Which leads you to conclude that I'm being equivocal about my true beliefs. Yet it's not my beliefs that I'm denying, but your beliefs about my beliefs. That's because I'm not a two-value (true-false) True Believer, but a multi-value (maybe) truth-seeker. If you'd stop shooting at my feet, I could stop dancing in the street.

Apparently, you and 180 believe that everybody should be either an up-front Theist, or an authentic Atheist. But, regarding topics that are open-ended (un-verifiable), I'm an Agnostic*1. Some Agnostics are indeed religiously inclined. But others are Scientifically & Skeptically inclined. And my position is closer to the latter. My Enformationism thesis is a philosophical elaboration of Quantum Uncertainty*2, and of Information Theory Subjectivity . So, although my personal worldview includes a role for a First Cause/Prime Mover, it prescribes no creedal beliefs or communal practices. And it does not claim to "know the mind of God".

Therefore, If I'm being evasive, it's because you keep trying to pin a label on me that does not represent my personal worldview, or my multi-valued reasoning*3. Aristotle's formal Logic was two-valued because, in the interest of precision, it arbitrarily excluded moderate positions. Yet, the reasoning underlying Enformationism leads to a moderate position between Revealed Religion and Gnostic Atheism*4.

If I knew for sure that there is an Eternal Enformer, I'd admit it freely. But it's just a logical conclusion based on circumstantial evidence, which I delineate in the thesis. Most of the evidence pointing in that direction (the great beyond) is found in Quantum Physics and Information Theory, not in any traditional religious doctrines. And the most important pointer is the unpredented Big Bang theory, which leaves the Cause of that sudden emergence of something from who-knows-where as an Open Question.

Cosmologists are aware of the implications of that Eternal Gap*5, but most of their gap-fillers are based on classical doctrines of Materialism & Physicalism. But they have no explanation for the Energy & Laws that caused & coordinated the Original Explosion into a progressively evolving mechanism that produced Life & Mind for no apparent reason. Of course, I don't know the Enformer's intentions, because I'm just an avatar in the Reality Game.

*1. Agnostic :
a person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God or of anything beyond material phenomena; a person who claims neither faith nor disbelief in God.
Note -- But lack of empirical knowledge does not hamper philosophical speculation -- including conjectures about emergence of Artificial Super Intelligence from far-future Singularities.

*2. Virtues of Uncertainty :
a little over one third of British respondents said they were agnostic, about the same as said they believe in a "supreme being", and about twice the number who said they were atheists. . . . . Principled agnosticism, then, is the practice of a kind of humility. Why should it be valued? It sounds paradoxical, but because an agnostic spirit actually broadens the mind.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... gnosticism

*3. Many-valued logic :
Many-valued logic (also multi- or multiple-valued logic) refers to a propositional calculus in which there are more than two truth values. Traditionally, in Aristotle's logical calculus, there were only two possible values (i.e., "true" and "false") for any proposition. . . . In fact, Aristotle did not contest the universality of the law of excluded middle, but the universality of the bivalence principle: he admitted that this principle did not all apply to future events
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Many-valued_logic

*4. The Gnostic Atheist :
I think I probably align more with agnostic atheism today because I see it as being somewhat more consistent with skepticism and not because I think there is anything wrong with gnostic atheism.
https://www.atheistrev.com/2019/01/the- ... heist.html

*5. Stephen Hawking's big bang gaps :
The laws that explain the universe's birth are less comprehensive than Stephen Hawking suggests. . . . Cosmologists embrace these features by envisaging sweeping "meta-laws" that pervade the multiverse and spawn specific bylaws on a universe-by-universe basis. The meta-laws themselves remain unexplained –eternal, immutable transcendent entities that just happen to exist and must simply be accepted as given. In that respect the meta-laws have a similar status to an unexplained transcendent god.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... g-bang-gap
Note -- The "meta-laws" that some cosmologists take for granted are precisely those that imply both Creative Power (Energy) and Intelligent Design (Natural Laws). My interpretation differs from Genesis though, so I call it "Intelligent Evolution", in which the "design" produced not a perfect world, but a program for evolving an imperfect world toward some unknowable Final Cause : the answer to an unknown ultimate "what if" question. Hey, it's just a theory.

[Gnomon]

So you do propose that the mind of god has a manifest existent! That makes you a theist! or if you think your first cause/prime mover has not been in touch with it's creations (or maybe just us) then you are a deist! either flavour belongs to a theological belief for the origin story of the universe and absolutely nothing to do with the science of quantum physics. I don't need to peg you falsely, your theological origin claim for the universe is crystal clear. I have no idea why you are so averse to being labelled a theist/deist/theologian. — universeness

# Manifest existence? : yes, the real physical world (Spinoza's Substance*1). # Deism = Theism? : philosophical Deists will disagree. Deist? Yes / Theist? No. Regarding Theism, I'm an Atheist*2. # Quantum Physics? : a quantum Field is not a physical Object, but a metaphysical (mathematical) Concept. # I admit that the error of these Yin/Yang ideas is "crystal clear" to your dichotomous Black vs White worldview. (Suum cuique)

Regarding Deism, I'm an Agnostic. But you wouldn't understand, because in your two-value Logical Positivism belief system such median distinctions are not allowed. Yet in my Enformationism there is a categorical difference between Theism (religion) and Deism (philosophy). In a Deistic sense, the Creator of the world is immanent in the creation. By that I mean, the physical world is made of (consists of) Information. For most people today, "Information" is equated with Data (meaningless isolated Bits). But the Enformationism thesis has concluded that "Information" is essentially Mind (meaning ; concepts : intention ; causation).

Pioneer quantum Physicist John A. Wheeler deduced that, in his professional opinion, material things have an immaterial Source : "It from Bit" (Information = the creative power to enform = Causation). From that insight, physicists have gone on to conclude that physical Energy is actually metaphysical Information in action : EnFormAction. Based on such counter-intuitive notions from scientists, my amateur philosophical hypothesis worked back to the beginning of the world, to infer that Nature also has an immaterial Source : the First Cause. I have provided links to all these non-religious scientific inferences. So, since I have no formal qualifications, I'll let you argue with the experts, and accuse them of being dogmatic Theists.

I'm averse to being "labelled a theist/deist/theologian" because those labels are not intended to contribute to discourse, but to "peg" my ideas in a category that you can simply dismiss as irrational & unscientific, hence not worthy of a philosophical dialogue. Ironically, you are so averse to the god-posit that you waste enormous amounts of personal time & energy trying to debunk my puny little personal opinion.

PS__I continue to reply to your disparaging comments -- not in hopes of convincing you -- but in order to test my amateur reasoning against people with strong opposing views. At least, you make counter-arguments in a form that I can work with. But I stopped responding to ↪180 Proof , because he was not dialoguing or debating, but simply debasing.

*1. Spinoza's Substance :
He defines God as a substance consisting of infinite attributes
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/spinoza-attributes/
Note -- Was Spinoza a theist?

*2. Spinoza Theist? :
Spinoza was considered to be an atheist because he used the word "God" [Deus] to signify a concept that was different from that of traditional Judeo–Christian monotheism.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baruch_Spinoza

[Gnomon]

Your attempts to insult 180 Proof by your patronising claim, that you find me more palatable, is almost school yard debate tactics. I find such, pretty low brow. — universeness

Tu quoque.

I stopped responding to ↪180 Proof , not because I was offended by his skepticism of an unorthodox philosophical concept, or even his off-target debasive tactics, but because he seemed to insist that philosophical questions must be settled by empirical methods. He also accused me of making pseudo-scientific assertions, even though for support, I quoted the opinions of professional scientists, not religious theologians. Ironically, I have subscribed to both SKEPTIC & Skeptical Inquirer magazines for over 40 years, plus Scientific American magazine. So, I'm pretty well-informed about pseudo-science. Quantum Physics is indeed weird, but it only seems "pseudo" because of its Holistic & Transcendent*1 implications. And its philosophical connotations would be labeled by Materialists as "pseudo", except for the fact that it works -- pragmatically and without magic. My moderate position falls somewhere in between the New Age religious interpretations, and the Old Age classical physics paradigm.

Just today, in Skeptical Inquirer, March-April 2023, I found some relevant comments. "Our emphasis is on empirical, scientifically testable claims". Then, "the committee takes no position regarding nonempirical or mystical claims. . . . Those concerned with metaphysics an supernatural claims are directed to those journal of philosophy and religion dedicated to such matters". The Enformationism thesis is indeed "non-empirical". But whether it is "mystical" depends on your attitude toward un-solved mysteries. I was forced to remind 180 repeatedly, that TPF is a Philosophy forum, for discussing debatable ideas, not a Physics forum for exchanging factual information and verifiable guesses.

My thesis is definitely not a "what is" assertion, but a "what if" question. For example, it does not claim, as a fact, that there is a transcendent entity responsible for the existence of our contingent world. (do you accept that it is not self-existent?) Even if there is indeed a transcendent First Cause, the thesis points out that, due to the dialectic of Good vs Evil, divine intervention to correct such imperfections is not plausible --- especially if one assumes that the deity is the God of Abraham. That deity has a recorded history of failing to make good on his promises to protect his chosen people from harm. When grievous harm does repeatedly befall them, the record blames that Badness on the hapless people themselves. Instead, my postulated First Cause is totally responsible for both the Good and the Evil of the effects of ongoing causation.

I do postulate that Evolution is progressing in an upward direction, from an almost nothing Singularity toward, perhaps, a Technological Singularity --- from simplicity toward complexity. But that is hardly a traditional religious concept. No offer of direct intervention or salvation. Instead, it is more like an open-ended scientific experiment, to see how things turn out. Of course, those who want a comforting religious worldview can (and do) easily interpret the open-ended uncertainty of quantum science in religious metaphors, such as "transcendence of death". Meanwhile, those who prefer a closed mechanical classical physics paradigm can (and do) interpret the same quantum evidence to mean that "what was is what will be". Do you expect any future surprises like the, so-far inexplicable, emergence of Life & Mind from random roiling of matter?

Thanks for allowing me to continue my exploration of the Enformationism conjecture.


*1. Transcendent Causation :
The point we wish to make here is that there can never be a "theory of everything" possible unless physics can come up with an adequate theory of a universal and singular causation of everything , both quantum and physical.
https://www.academia.edu/24843805/Physi ... everything

[Gnomon]

a quantum Field is not a physical Object, but a metaphysical (mathematical) Concept. — Gnomon
Well, hang on. If it is the direct 'cause' of there being physical objects, then isn't it in some strong sense 'entangled' with and by the concept of 'physical-objectness'? Perhaps physical objects themselves do not perfectly exemplify 'physical-obectness' either? — Pantagruel

Perhaps I should have added (material) after "physical" in the quote. For most of us, "physical" implies "matter-based", and "mathematical" implies logical relationships*1. However, in my personal worldview both Matter & Math are forms of generic Information*2. Our senses detect Weight, but our minds interpret Mass, and imagine Matter/Object (Kant). I refer to Mathematics as "metaphysical" in the Platonic sense, that many mathematicians accept, but physicists tend to reject. So yes, physical Objects and metaphysical Fields are "entangled", in the sense that both can be reduced (mentally) down to patterns of relationships (ratios ; information ; meaning).


*1. Mass :
Mass (symbolized m) is a dimensionless quantity representing the amount of matter in a particle or object.
https://www.techtarget.com/whatis/definition/mass-m
Note -- Mass is dimensionless because it is an idea, not a thing. It's a symbol (qualia) representing a quantity of matter. But the symbol or metaphor is not the thing or object.

*2. It from Bit :
It from Bit symbolizes the idea that every item of the physical world has at bottom — at a very deep bottom, in most instances — an immaterial source and explanation; that what we call reality arises in the last analysis from the posing of yes-no questions and the registering of equipment-evoked responses;
https://www.themarginalian.org/2016/09/ ... t-wheeler/
Note -- this idea was proposed by quantum physicist John A. Wheeler. Again mathematicians & physicists may differ on the plausibility of this postulate.

[Gnomon]

Thanks for allowing me to continue my exploration of the Enformationism conjecture. — Gnomon
You are welcome to your speculations. — universeness

Since you have me pegged as an anti-science god-fearing religious nut, I feel obligated to tell you what I'm giving-up for Lent : Epistemic Gaslighters.

↪180 Proof