https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussi ... ent/336043
Real. Hence the fundamental truth of mathematical Platonism: that intelligible objects are real, but they're not material in nature — Wayfarer
Yes. That's why I prefer to avoid the Real/Unreal dichotomy, and refer to Mathematical "structures" as Metaphysical, and material structures as Physical.
As to number: I imagine most people would say it is real. It is as real as difference. Likewise with geometry: it is as real as form and measure, and I doubt you would find many who deny the reality of those. — Janus
Philosophers have argued about what's real for millennia, and the beat goes on. So, I simply say : "it's both/and".
The BothAnd philosophy : http://bothandblog5.enformationism.info/page6.html
Phil Forum : Metaphysics
Re: Phil Forum : Metaphysics
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussi ... what-is-it
But none of this tells us anything about what might be actually real beyond an empirical context. — Janus
Yes. That's why I prefer to make a different distinction from the usual Real/Ideal, Empirical/Theoretical Materialism/Spiritualism dichotomies. Materialism typically treats anything Ideal as non-existent. But then the Materialism hypothesis is itself an idea, so what is the status of its reality? Since we tend to accept our own ideas, memories, attitudes, feelings, and such as part of our personal reality, we need a name for that kind of non-physical realness. I suspect that the perceived need -- for a name with which to refer to mental intangibles (e.g. numbers, principles) collectively -- caused some ancient thinkers to adopt the informal title of Aristotle's second volume of his lectures on Nature (Physics) to cover everything immaterial. The Physics books discussed things we know via our senses (things-that-change in space & time, matter, hyle). But the Metaphysics books were mostly about human ideas, opinions, and theories regarding the external furnishings of Nature. You might call them the furniture of the mind.
Meta-Physics : http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page14.html
we are firmly committed to saying that something was real prior to the advent of the empirical context. — Janus
The existence of the universe prior to the emergence of human consciousness is not empirically justified, because it is just a theory based on projection of current events into the past. We assume that physical reality was trucking along just fine with no minds to perceive it. Yet Bishop Berkeley argued that the world was being perceived, not just by humans, but also by God. So, when he asserted that “esse est percipi” (to be is to be perceived) he was not referring just to human observers. That may also be relevant to the interpretation expressed by quantum theorists, that the Quantum Observer Effect means that a particle doesn't really exist until it is measured. “To Measure” is from the root “mens-” meaning “mind”. So you could say that reality is what has been “touched” by a mind. In other words, what we take to be real is a subjective opinion, that must be carefully compared to opinions of other perceivers in order to assign it the imprimatur of Objective reality.
Divine Observer : https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/261761 ... -must-find
In the case of the earlier-than-human history of the Earth the best we can do is to imagine what we would have seen if we had been there. — Janus
That is exactly what astronomers were doing, in the 1920s, when they calculated the trajectory of all observable matter back to the point of coincidence. Many of us now accept their, then controversial, interpretation that the real world did not exist 15 billion years ago, but suddenly emerged in the so-called Big Bang. Yet again, that is an expert opinion, based on their translation from abstract mathematical calculations into an imaginary scenario that the rest of us can visualize. So, you could reasonably say that “reality is a theory”.
Reality is a Theory : http://bothandblog5.enformationism.info/page15.html
Reality is Ideality : http://bothandblog5.enformationism.info/page17.html
I'm also interested to know how you interpret the idea of an intentional creator. — Janus
The Enformationism worldview is based, in part, on my interpretation of the process of Evolution (En-form-ation) , not as a random chaotic mess, but as an orderly progression in the direction of Time's Arrow, toward some ultimate denouement, a resolution to this ongoing narrative. Of course, I have no idea what form that final summing-up will take, but it seems as certain as the Big Bang. The current scientific opinion is that reality will just fade away into the sunset. But other interpreters of evolution, such as Teillard deChardin, refer to the final chapter as the Omega Point, and describe it as the universe becoming something like a god. I'm not bold enough to go that far, but one allegorical scenario would be that our emerging world is like a fetus developing into the offspring of G*D. I wouldn't take that metaphor, or any other imaginary analogies too literally, but it gives us a way to imagine where we stand in the otherwise mysterious process of natural and cultural evolution. If that scenario is anywhere close to true, then we would have to attribute the human-like property of goal-oriented Intention to the First Cause and Prime Mover. Here's a chart I drew up to illustrate my concept of evolution from beginning to end.
Cosmic Progression Chart : http://bothandblog3.enformationism.info/page28.html
If not are all outcomes precisely planned or was the creator like a computer programmer, producing an algorithm that is left to run and produce unpredictable outcomes? Is the creator sentient and sapient? Loving? Omnipotent? Infallible? Did the creator produce the laws of nature or must it work within them. Is the creator consciously aware of all events in its creation, or only some of them, or none of them? — Janus
I don't claim to know anything about the Creator of our world beyond the properties that are logically necessary for such a Creation to exist. But my guess is that what I call "G*D" is more like a computer Programmer than the Great Magician portrayed in Genesis. This blog post may answer your other questions.
The EnFormAction Hypothesis : http://bothandblog3.enformationism.info/page23.html
But none of this tells us anything about what might be actually real beyond an empirical context. — Janus
Yes. That's why I prefer to make a different distinction from the usual Real/Ideal, Empirical/Theoretical Materialism/Spiritualism dichotomies. Materialism typically treats anything Ideal as non-existent. But then the Materialism hypothesis is itself an idea, so what is the status of its reality? Since we tend to accept our own ideas, memories, attitudes, feelings, and such as part of our personal reality, we need a name for that kind of non-physical realness. I suspect that the perceived need -- for a name with which to refer to mental intangibles (e.g. numbers, principles) collectively -- caused some ancient thinkers to adopt the informal title of Aristotle's second volume of his lectures on Nature (Physics) to cover everything immaterial. The Physics books discussed things we know via our senses (things-that-change in space & time, matter, hyle). But the Metaphysics books were mostly about human ideas, opinions, and theories regarding the external furnishings of Nature. You might call them the furniture of the mind.
Meta-Physics : http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page14.html
we are firmly committed to saying that something was real prior to the advent of the empirical context. — Janus
The existence of the universe prior to the emergence of human consciousness is not empirically justified, because it is just a theory based on projection of current events into the past. We assume that physical reality was trucking along just fine with no minds to perceive it. Yet Bishop Berkeley argued that the world was being perceived, not just by humans, but also by God. So, when he asserted that “esse est percipi” (to be is to be perceived) he was not referring just to human observers. That may also be relevant to the interpretation expressed by quantum theorists, that the Quantum Observer Effect means that a particle doesn't really exist until it is measured. “To Measure” is from the root “mens-” meaning “mind”. So you could say that reality is what has been “touched” by a mind. In other words, what we take to be real is a subjective opinion, that must be carefully compared to opinions of other perceivers in order to assign it the imprimatur of Objective reality.
Divine Observer : https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/261761 ... -must-find
In the case of the earlier-than-human history of the Earth the best we can do is to imagine what we would have seen if we had been there. — Janus
That is exactly what astronomers were doing, in the 1920s, when they calculated the trajectory of all observable matter back to the point of coincidence. Many of us now accept their, then controversial, interpretation that the real world did not exist 15 billion years ago, but suddenly emerged in the so-called Big Bang. Yet again, that is an expert opinion, based on their translation from abstract mathematical calculations into an imaginary scenario that the rest of us can visualize. So, you could reasonably say that “reality is a theory”.
Reality is a Theory : http://bothandblog5.enformationism.info/page15.html
Reality is Ideality : http://bothandblog5.enformationism.info/page17.html
I'm also interested to know how you interpret the idea of an intentional creator. — Janus
The Enformationism worldview is based, in part, on my interpretation of the process of Evolution (En-form-ation) , not as a random chaotic mess, but as an orderly progression in the direction of Time's Arrow, toward some ultimate denouement, a resolution to this ongoing narrative. Of course, I have no idea what form that final summing-up will take, but it seems as certain as the Big Bang. The current scientific opinion is that reality will just fade away into the sunset. But other interpreters of evolution, such as Teillard deChardin, refer to the final chapter as the Omega Point, and describe it as the universe becoming something like a god. I'm not bold enough to go that far, but one allegorical scenario would be that our emerging world is like a fetus developing into the offspring of G*D. I wouldn't take that metaphor, or any other imaginary analogies too literally, but it gives us a way to imagine where we stand in the otherwise mysterious process of natural and cultural evolution. If that scenario is anywhere close to true, then we would have to attribute the human-like property of goal-oriented Intention to the First Cause and Prime Mover. Here's a chart I drew up to illustrate my concept of evolution from beginning to end.
Cosmic Progression Chart : http://bothandblog3.enformationism.info/page28.html
If not are all outcomes precisely planned or was the creator like a computer programmer, producing an algorithm that is left to run and produce unpredictable outcomes? Is the creator sentient and sapient? Loving? Omnipotent? Infallible? Did the creator produce the laws of nature or must it work within them. Is the creator consciously aware of all events in its creation, or only some of them, or none of them? — Janus
I don't claim to know anything about the Creator of our world beyond the properties that are logically necessary for such a Creation to exist. But my guess is that what I call "G*D" is more like a computer Programmer than the Great Magician portrayed in Genesis. This blog post may answer your other questions.
The EnFormAction Hypothesis : http://bothandblog3.enformationism.info/page23.html
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 16 guests