You seem to however tend towards seeing the world as Maya, which I don't believe. — Gregory
No! I don't view the Real World as an "illusion", in the sense that the Buddha meant it. I do however, accept Donald Hoffman's Evolutionary Argument Against Reality.
PS___Siddharta's mother was named "Maya", so make of that what you will. Freud?
In Buddhism, the term maya preserved its meaning of “illusion” but with the distinction that, according to Buddhists, nothing actually exists, and therefore there is nothing, of which maya can create an illusory reflection. In Buddhist philosophy there is no prime substance or cause regarded as eternal or endless.
Against Reality :
https://www.quantamagazine.org/the-evol ... -20160421/ . That's another thing altogether.
TPF : On Physics
Re: TPF : On Physics
1) Feser believes that objects are composed of both a quasi-spiritual "form" and a "prime matter" that is so purely potential that "God" didn't even create it properly speaking. I've talked to Feser. He doesn't really understand what matter is. Descartes tried to point all this out to Aristotelians but calling matter "extension" is not precise enough on the other hand — Gregory
Apparently, Feser's Aristotelian definition of Matter (hylemorphism) differs from your understanding, based on modern physics (E=MC^2). But, Aristotle's definition was Meta-Physical, not Physical. Remember, he was laying the foundation for modern science almost 2500 years ago. But his book on Physics, is almost completely useless now, for modern scientific purposes. However, his second book, Meta-Physics is still relevant for modern philosophical discussions, because we continue to use the conceptual terminology he established.
Our understanding of Matter & Energy is much more detailed now. But the broad general notions Aristotle laid down still apply, especially from the perspective of Information Theory. In his two-part definition of Matter, the "hyle" is equivalent to our term "matter", but the "morph" or "form" is only "quasi-spiritual" in the sense that Forms (design, patterns, relationships) are mental, not material. So, most physicists ignore the immaterial part of matter, and leave it up to feckless philosophers to study things that don't literally matter.
As long as your understanding of Matter is stuck in 19th century materialism, the notion that Matter is essentially Information won't make any sense to you. There is a new paradigm emerging, which places impalpable Information at the foundation of Reality. And Feser is well-informed on that 21st century scientific worldview. Unfortunately, he remains stuck in the 16th century religious domain.
Information Realism : Matter is done away with and only information itself is taken to be ultimately real.
https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/ob ... y-to-mind/
2) Einstein had a vague notion of a Spinozian God who had the absolute reference frame. Latter physicists dismiss this and say there is no absolute reference frame, but I wonder how they keep matter as matter in that case — Gregory
Some physicists accept the Block Time worldview, which can only be observed from a privileged perspective outside of the universe. Yet, some can't accept any concept of matter that implies a God, whether Spinozan "Substance" or Mosaic "Creator". What's important is how you are able to reconcile Einstein's Relativity with our commonsense notion of sequential Time. Personally, I think Block Time is essentially Eternity, which is only "real" for an observer outside of space-time, and is "ideal" for humans.
3) putting information as the substrate of matter seems to misunderstand matter's palpability. But again, I will get back to you on that — Gregory
Do you realize that you can never actually touch a material object? That's because your atoms and those in the object repel each other, so that they maintain a minimum distance. But your nerves interpret that resistance as palpable pressure. That quantum gap is also why Enformationism is so hard for most people to wrap their minds around. But, so is Quantum Theory. Both are non-sensical to common-sense. That's why philosophers have to learn to think outside the box.
Why Physics Says You Can Never Actually Touch Anything :
https://futurism.com/why-you-can-never- ... h-anything
Apparently, Feser's Aristotelian definition of Matter (hylemorphism) differs from your understanding, based on modern physics (E=MC^2). But, Aristotle's definition was Meta-Physical, not Physical. Remember, he was laying the foundation for modern science almost 2500 years ago. But his book on Physics, is almost completely useless now, for modern scientific purposes. However, his second book, Meta-Physics is still relevant for modern philosophical discussions, because we continue to use the conceptual terminology he established.
Our understanding of Matter & Energy is much more detailed now. But the broad general notions Aristotle laid down still apply, especially from the perspective of Information Theory. In his two-part definition of Matter, the "hyle" is equivalent to our term "matter", but the "morph" or "form" is only "quasi-spiritual" in the sense that Forms (design, patterns, relationships) are mental, not material. So, most physicists ignore the immaterial part of matter, and leave it up to feckless philosophers to study things that don't literally matter.
As long as your understanding of Matter is stuck in 19th century materialism, the notion that Matter is essentially Information won't make any sense to you. There is a new paradigm emerging, which places impalpable Information at the foundation of Reality. And Feser is well-informed on that 21st century scientific worldview. Unfortunately, he remains stuck in the 16th century religious domain.
Information Realism : Matter is done away with and only information itself is taken to be ultimately real.
https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/ob ... y-to-mind/
2) Einstein had a vague notion of a Spinozian God who had the absolute reference frame. Latter physicists dismiss this and say there is no absolute reference frame, but I wonder how they keep matter as matter in that case — Gregory
Some physicists accept the Block Time worldview, which can only be observed from a privileged perspective outside of the universe. Yet, some can't accept any concept of matter that implies a God, whether Spinozan "Substance" or Mosaic "Creator". What's important is how you are able to reconcile Einstein's Relativity with our commonsense notion of sequential Time. Personally, I think Block Time is essentially Eternity, which is only "real" for an observer outside of space-time, and is "ideal" for humans.
3) putting information as the substrate of matter seems to misunderstand matter's palpability. But again, I will get back to you on that — Gregory
Do you realize that you can never actually touch a material object? That's because your atoms and those in the object repel each other, so that they maintain a minimum distance. But your nerves interpret that resistance as palpable pressure. That quantum gap is also why Enformationism is so hard for most people to wrap their minds around. But, so is Quantum Theory. Both are non-sensical to common-sense. That's why philosophers have to learn to think outside the box.
Why Physics Says You Can Never Actually Touch Anything :
https://futurism.com/why-you-can-never- ... h-anything
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests