To cut the long story short, scientism, if it means science is about truths, is completely baseless. Science isn't about reality, it's about constructing best explanations of reality and that's a different story altogether. — Agent Smith
I agree. Science is about provisional facts. But some of us still feel the need for some ultimate arbiter of Truth. That feeling may be the same imperative need that motivated the ancient prophets, who tried to go over the head of irascible autocratic kings, by appealing to a King of Kings. In this case though, the Truth-giver is imagined as a sort of a collective hive-mind, composed of officially-frocked scientist priests. Anyway, for the prophets of Absolute Truth, there is no room for independent-minded, woo-mongering, uncertain, flakey philosophers.
Why Science Is Not Final Arbiter of Truth :
For far too long, science has been shrouded in a cloak of unquestionable authority as the final arbiter of all knowledge (except, of course, when the research has been funded by business, which for some makes it necessarily suspect).
* What drives us onward in the work of science is precisely the sense that there are truths out there to be discovered, truths that once discovered will form a permanent part of human knowledge.--Steve Weinberg, 2001 (1)
* ...all scientific knowledge, however acquired, is inherently provisional.--Ian Tattersall, 2008 (2)
* It is a fact that we are cousins of gorillas, kangaroos, starfish, and bacteria. Evolution is as much a fact as the heat of the sun. It is not a theory, and for pity's sake, let's stop confusing the philosophically naive by calling it so. Evolution is a fact.--Richard Dawkins, 2005 (3)
* Science is not about final truth or "facts"; it is only about continually testing and trying to falsify our hypotheses, until they are extremely well-supported.--Donald P. Prothero, 2007 (4)
https://www.independent.org/news/article.asp?id=2681
TPF : Scientific Grounds for God
Re: TPF : Scientific Grounds for God
Evolution is a fact.--Richard Dawkins, 2005 (3) — Gnomon
This is exactly the kind of misleading rhetoric that we should be worried about in my humble opinion. It encourages scientism (science as an absolute infallible authority). It is, in a sense, a betrayal of those who kicked off the scientific revolution which was a painful and sometimes deadly struggle against religious dogmatism. — Agent Smith
To give a prominent scientist his due, I suspect that Dawkin's bold assertion was expressed in frustration with the antagonistic Creationism movement, which often belittled Darwin's insight into the mechanism of speciation as "just a theory". After a century & a half of research, his theory is supported by lots of data-points of Fact. And there's little evidence to contradict Darwin's general description of the process of emergence, in which new "forms" originate (branch off) from old forms.
However, the presumption that Darwin's theory explains the origin of Life on Earth is still open to dispute. And that is the point the Creationists hammer on. Some modern theologians have given-up the outdated notion of special creation of each "kind", as described in Genesis. But, they still discern the necessity for an "intelligence", of some kind, to "design" the program of creative evolutionary progression. I'm no longer a theist, but I too, infer a logical role for a Programmer to map-out a scheme, whereby an almost infinite universe could be produced from the DNA-like information in a tiny, Planck scale, bit of potential energy & instructions for causing Matter & Mind to evolve over time, from almost nothing, in-the-beginning. The odds of that happening by Chance, seem more than infinity-to-one.
I understand that defenders of Scientism may feel justified, by Darwin's "Fact", in their dogged struggle against dogmatic Religious Creationism. But, my position is somewhere in the middle, between Cosmic Accident and Special Creation. The only way to know for sure how & why the world began & developed as it did, would require direct revelation from the Originator. I assume that's why various prophets, over the centuries, have claimed to be conduits for divine inspiration. But, I find their diverse & contradictory stories to be unbelievable, as the word of God. So, I have been forced to develop my own patchwork theory of creation & evolution, cobbled-together from bits & pieces of plausible information. It's a philosophical hypothesis, not a scientific fact or theory. Yet, it serves my personal need for a comprehensive worldview. And it all comes down to one simple fact of nature : Information (the power to enform) is fundamental & ubiquitous in the real world.
Evolution as fact and theory :
Many scientists and philosophers of science have described evolution as fact and theory, a phrase which was used as the title of an article by paleontologist Stephen Jay Gould in 1981. He describes fact in science as meaning data, not known with absolute certainty but "confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional assent"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution ... and_theory
Special Creation :
In creationism, special creation is a belief that the universe and all life in it originated in its present form by fiat or divine decree.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_creation
Evolutionary Programming :
Special computer algorithms inspired by biological Natural Selection. It is similar to Genetic Programming in that it relies on internal competition between random alternative solutions to weed-out inferior results, and to pass-on superior answers to the next generation of algorithms. By means of such optimizing feedback loops, evolution is able to make progress toward the best possible solution – limited only by local restraints – to the original programmer’s goal or purpose. In Enformationism theory the Prime Programmer is portrayed as a creative principle (e.g. Logos), who uses bottom-up mechanisms, rather than top-down miracles, to produce a world with both freedom & determinism, order & meaning.
BothAnd Glossary
Is Information Fundamental? :
Could information be the most basic building block of reality?
https://www.closertotruth.com/series/in ... undamental
This is exactly the kind of misleading rhetoric that we should be worried about in my humble opinion. It encourages scientism (science as an absolute infallible authority). It is, in a sense, a betrayal of those who kicked off the scientific revolution which was a painful and sometimes deadly struggle against religious dogmatism. — Agent Smith
To give a prominent scientist his due, I suspect that Dawkin's bold assertion was expressed in frustration with the antagonistic Creationism movement, which often belittled Darwin's insight into the mechanism of speciation as "just a theory". After a century & a half of research, his theory is supported by lots of data-points of Fact. And there's little evidence to contradict Darwin's general description of the process of emergence, in which new "forms" originate (branch off) from old forms.
However, the presumption that Darwin's theory explains the origin of Life on Earth is still open to dispute. And that is the point the Creationists hammer on. Some modern theologians have given-up the outdated notion of special creation of each "kind", as described in Genesis. But, they still discern the necessity for an "intelligence", of some kind, to "design" the program of creative evolutionary progression. I'm no longer a theist, but I too, infer a logical role for a Programmer to map-out a scheme, whereby an almost infinite universe could be produced from the DNA-like information in a tiny, Planck scale, bit of potential energy & instructions for causing Matter & Mind to evolve over time, from almost nothing, in-the-beginning. The odds of that happening by Chance, seem more than infinity-to-one.
I understand that defenders of Scientism may feel justified, by Darwin's "Fact", in their dogged struggle against dogmatic Religious Creationism. But, my position is somewhere in the middle, between Cosmic Accident and Special Creation. The only way to know for sure how & why the world began & developed as it did, would require direct revelation from the Originator. I assume that's why various prophets, over the centuries, have claimed to be conduits for divine inspiration. But, I find their diverse & contradictory stories to be unbelievable, as the word of God. So, I have been forced to develop my own patchwork theory of creation & evolution, cobbled-together from bits & pieces of plausible information. It's a philosophical hypothesis, not a scientific fact or theory. Yet, it serves my personal need for a comprehensive worldview. And it all comes down to one simple fact of nature : Information (the power to enform) is fundamental & ubiquitous in the real world.
Evolution as fact and theory :
Many scientists and philosophers of science have described evolution as fact and theory, a phrase which was used as the title of an article by paleontologist Stephen Jay Gould in 1981. He describes fact in science as meaning data, not known with absolute certainty but "confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional assent"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution ... and_theory
Special Creation :
In creationism, special creation is a belief that the universe and all life in it originated in its present form by fiat or divine decree.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_creation
Evolutionary Programming :
Special computer algorithms inspired by biological Natural Selection. It is similar to Genetic Programming in that it relies on internal competition between random alternative solutions to weed-out inferior results, and to pass-on superior answers to the next generation of algorithms. By means of such optimizing feedback loops, evolution is able to make progress toward the best possible solution – limited only by local restraints – to the original programmer’s goal or purpose. In Enformationism theory the Prime Programmer is portrayed as a creative principle (e.g. Logos), who uses bottom-up mechanisms, rather than top-down miracles, to produce a world with both freedom & determinism, order & meaning.
BothAnd Glossary
Is Information Fundamental? :
Could information be the most basic building block of reality?
https://www.closertotruth.com/series/in ... undamental
Re: TPF : Scientific Grounds for God
Darwin's theory (to my knowledge) has never attempted to explain life on earth. — Tom Storm
Actually, he did speculate on how life began in terms of his evolutionary theory : the warm puddle hypothesis. And other biologists have attempted to find hard evidence to support that notion. Even physicists have tried to expand the Darwinian theory back to the origin of everything. But, it was astronomers who found circumstantial evidence, in the expanding universe theory.
Yet even that evolutionary cosmology ran into mathematical infinities in the minuscule Planck Time, near the creation event we now call the Big Bang. Even so, theorists like Allan Guth & Andrei Linde subdivided the BB era into even tinier fractions of a second. Yet, they still haven't reached the Holy Grail of explaining "something from nothing". All theories to-date stop short of the beginning-of-the-beginning : asymptotic to infinity.
So, the field remains open, even for philosophical conjectures. Such as where did the initial energy & laws originate? FWIW, my amateur summary of the phases of evolution is pasted below. And Life emerged in the middle, at step seven. Presumably, because the potential for Life was already programmed in the First Cause. But, by whom?
Charles Darwin's hunch about early life :
Darwin was proposing that life began, not in the open ocean, but in a smaller body of water on land, which was rich in chemicals. This is in essence the primordial soup idea, but with one advantage: in a pool, any dissolved chemicals would become concentrated when water evaporated in the heat of the day.
https://www.bbc.com/future/article/2020 ... ife-theory
Is The Inflationary Universe A Scientific Theory? Not Anymore :
The problem with inflation isn't the idea per se, but the overproduction of useless inflationary models. ___Sabine Hossenfelder, theoretical physicist
https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswith ... f51ea1b45e
Phases of Evolution :
0. Omega Point :
Who knows?
9. Reiterate
Ongoing Emergences
8. Artificial Forms :
Machines, Computers
8. Metaphysical Forms
Reasoning & Designing
7. Organic Forms :
Life, Minds, Societies (consciousness)
6. Physical Forms :
Stars, Galaxies, Planets
5. Matter :
Primitive Particles
4. Energy :
Unformed Plasma
3. Quantum Field :
Statistical Possibilities
2. Big Bang :
Start the computation
Start the clock of Time
Set initial conditions
1. Singularity :
Design, Codes, Laws (the evolutionary Program)
0. Infinity :
Omni-potence, Omni-science,?
Note --- Hume : "like causes like"
nothing in the effect that was not potentially in the cause
e.g Life from Life & Mind from Mind
Actually, he did speculate on how life began in terms of his evolutionary theory : the warm puddle hypothesis. And other biologists have attempted to find hard evidence to support that notion. Even physicists have tried to expand the Darwinian theory back to the origin of everything. But, it was astronomers who found circumstantial evidence, in the expanding universe theory.
Yet even that evolutionary cosmology ran into mathematical infinities in the minuscule Planck Time, near the creation event we now call the Big Bang. Even so, theorists like Allan Guth & Andrei Linde subdivided the BB era into even tinier fractions of a second. Yet, they still haven't reached the Holy Grail of explaining "something from nothing". All theories to-date stop short of the beginning-of-the-beginning : asymptotic to infinity.
So, the field remains open, even for philosophical conjectures. Such as where did the initial energy & laws originate? FWIW, my amateur summary of the phases of evolution is pasted below. And Life emerged in the middle, at step seven. Presumably, because the potential for Life was already programmed in the First Cause. But, by whom?
Charles Darwin's hunch about early life :
Darwin was proposing that life began, not in the open ocean, but in a smaller body of water on land, which was rich in chemicals. This is in essence the primordial soup idea, but with one advantage: in a pool, any dissolved chemicals would become concentrated when water evaporated in the heat of the day.
https://www.bbc.com/future/article/2020 ... ife-theory
Is The Inflationary Universe A Scientific Theory? Not Anymore :
The problem with inflation isn't the idea per se, but the overproduction of useless inflationary models. ___Sabine Hossenfelder, theoretical physicist
https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswith ... f51ea1b45e
Phases of Evolution :
0. Omega Point :
Who knows?
9. Reiterate
Ongoing Emergences
8. Artificial Forms :
Machines, Computers
8. Metaphysical Forms
Reasoning & Designing
7. Organic Forms :
Life, Minds, Societies (consciousness)
6. Physical Forms :
Stars, Galaxies, Planets
5. Matter :
Primitive Particles
4. Energy :
Unformed Plasma
3. Quantum Field :
Statistical Possibilities
2. Big Bang :
Start the computation
Start the clock of Time
Set initial conditions
1. Singularity :
Design, Codes, Laws (the evolutionary Program)
0. Infinity :
Omni-potence, Omni-science,?
Note --- Hume : "like causes like"
nothing in the effect that was not potentially in the cause
e.g Life from Life & Mind from Mind
Re: TPF : Scientific Grounds for God
Abiogenesis may lead to evolution but evolution does not lead to abiogenesis — Tom Storm
Good point! That's why I have concluded that the potential for Life & Mind, must have been "programmed" into the evolutionary scheme that we now call the Singularity. Physicists define it as a mathematical point, with no extension in space or time. So, there was no room for actual Energy or Matter. Only the Logical "design concept" for those inherent properties of physical evolution would fit into a spaceless container. Logic & Math consist of abstract mental relationships, not actual material objects. For example : how big is the number "four"?
This notion of Causal Abstraction should be compatible with some hypothetical Mathematical Universe and Anthropic Principle conjectures. So, I assume the proponents must imagine that "abiogenesis" was originally an abstract mathematical-logical definition or algorithm of some kind. Of course, MUH is a controversial concept, and the only supporting evidence, so far, is logical consistency. So, I don't take it literally.
But something along those lines would answer some of the fundamental Origin-of-Everything questions. One of which is : how could any material object (not to mention any living thing) survive the holocaust of a Cosmic scale eruption of space-time-energy-laws?? Perhaps the big bomb was merely a mathematical abstraction itself. And we only imagine it in familiar terms of physical explosions, such as those in Ukraine.
Mathematical universe hypothesis :
Tegmark's MUH is: Our external physical reality is a mathematical structure. . . .
In any mathematical structure complex enough to contain such substructures, they "will subjectively perceive themselves as existing in a physically 'real' world". . . .
The MUH is based on the radical Platonist view that math is an external reality.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathemati ... hypothesis
Note -- the virtual reality of the Matrix was a mathematical structure (simulation), that its inhabitants accepted as real.
Good point! That's why I have concluded that the potential for Life & Mind, must have been "programmed" into the evolutionary scheme that we now call the Singularity. Physicists define it as a mathematical point, with no extension in space or time. So, there was no room for actual Energy or Matter. Only the Logical "design concept" for those inherent properties of physical evolution would fit into a spaceless container. Logic & Math consist of abstract mental relationships, not actual material objects. For example : how big is the number "four"?
This notion of Causal Abstraction should be compatible with some hypothetical Mathematical Universe and Anthropic Principle conjectures. So, I assume the proponents must imagine that "abiogenesis" was originally an abstract mathematical-logical definition or algorithm of some kind. Of course, MUH is a controversial concept, and the only supporting evidence, so far, is logical consistency. So, I don't take it literally.
But something along those lines would answer some of the fundamental Origin-of-Everything questions. One of which is : how could any material object (not to mention any living thing) survive the holocaust of a Cosmic scale eruption of space-time-energy-laws?? Perhaps the big bomb was merely a mathematical abstraction itself. And we only imagine it in familiar terms of physical explosions, such as those in Ukraine.
Mathematical universe hypothesis :
Tegmark's MUH is: Our external physical reality is a mathematical structure. . . .
In any mathematical structure complex enough to contain such substructures, they "will subjectively perceive themselves as existing in a physically 'real' world". . . .
The MUH is based on the radical Platonist view that math is an external reality.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathemati ... hypothesis
Note -- the virtual reality of the Matrix was a mathematical structure (simulation), that its inhabitants accepted as real.
Re: TPF : Scientific Grounds for God
↪Gnomon
What I would like to stress on is if it's (genesis of the universe and life) is goimg to be, as you claim, bottom-up (for me this means going from the simple to the complex), there really is no need to posit an intelligence. It could proceed quite naturally, on its own accord, without the intervention of a "higher power". — Agent Smith
Yes, but. The hypothetical Singularity (non-dimensional point in non-space) is about as simple as it gets. It's essentially a mathematical concept, with no moving parts. Consequently, the philosophical question arises : how does real complexity arise from unreal (ideal) simplicity. I turn to Aristotle for the answer. He distinguished between Potential & Actual. But the problem is that a Potential thing is like a Platonic Form : it doesn't exist in the real physical world. So, in what sense does "Potential" exist?
Based on the sub-quantum sciences and information theories, I have concluded that Potential exists in the same sense that mental Information (ideas ; thoughts ; meaning) exists : as Ideal Forms. And AFAIK, Meaning exists only in Minds. Although, probably to avoid confusion with humanoid Greek gods, Plato tended to avoid personal terms, such as "Mind", his "Ideal Forms" were clearly non-physical abstractions equivalent to ideas or definitions in a human mind. But he didn't specify whose mind, except to imply that his hypothetical impersonal Logos was the ultimate source of all mental attributes. Some, less scrupulous, later philosophers have interpreted his Ideal realm as the "Mind of God".
For the same reason, I refer to the Mind, in which the mathematical Singularity was conceived, by various descriptive but non-personal names -- beginning with Logos, which is indeed an imaginary "higher power". Materialists refer to the same hypothetical Ultimate Source of our orderly world with "invented" abstract models : Multiverse, Many Worlds. Yet, they are portrayed as mindless impersonal accidental systems of energy, matter, & laws. In which case, they have no explanation for the emergence of the non-physical non-things that are of highest importance to mortal humans : Life, Mind, Ideas, Meanings, Feelings, Reasons, Love, etc.
Our world does indeed seem to be self-organizing (bottom-up evolution), requiring no divine intervention to correct its course. Once the evolutionary process gets started, "it proceeds naturally". But, unlike pragmatic scientists, philosophers are also interested in Ontology (being). So, they ask impractical questions, such as "why is there something instead of nothing"? And Multiverse theories just take existence for granted, even though non-being is just as likely. So, the beginning of Being is an open question. Since my thesis is based on Information, I like to use computers as a metaphor for the real world. A computer program is self-organizing, and works from the bottom-up, from original algorithm to final output. And it requires an external Mind to build the computer, to input the algorithm, to define the problem to be solved, and to push the Start button.
So, like Plato, I try to avoid attributing personal attributes to an abstract concept, beyond my ken. I merely imagine a job description for the "Programmer" (the Intelligence, the Enformer), who input the Energy & Laws (the algorithm) to initiate the smooth-running & creative & progressive process that we call Evolution.
Potentiality and actuality :
Aristotle describes potentiality and actuality, or potency and action, as one of several distinctions between things that exist or do not exist. In a sense, a thing that exists potentially does not exist, but the potential does exist.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Potential ... _actuality
Note -- Potential exists as a mental concept, not a material object
What is the relation of Plato's Forms to things? :
For Plato, Forms or Ideals (eidos ; ideas) are essences or originals of qualities or things.
Because Plato managed to do something THAT NO BODY ELSE HAVE MANAGED TO ACCOMPLISH ON THIS PLANET at least in his scale. . . . . Namely He spoke about the invisible abstract world without the use of advanced technology or through Deamons(Magic). . . .He described something that only advanced technology today can some times prove that exists. He spoke about the blue prints of this universe. He described the world of IDEAS a world that is stable in contradiction to our world where everything are subjected to degradation and death.
https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-relat ... -to-things
Note -- empirical scientists don't do essences; that is left up to impractical philosophers.
BEING :
In my own theorizing there is one universal principle that subsumes all others, including Consciousness : essential Existence. Among those philosophical musings, I refer to the "unit of existence" with the absolute singular term "BEING" as contrasted with the plurality of contingent "beings" and things and properties. By BEING I mean the ultimate “ground of being”, which is simply the power to exist, and the power to create beings.
Note : Real & Ideal are modes of being. BEING, the power to exist, is the source & cause of Reality and Ideality. BEING is eternal, undivided and static, but once divided into Real/Ideal, it becomes our dynamic Reality.
BothAnd Blog Glossary
Programmer vs Creator vs Recycler :
Admittedly, the hypothetical Cosmic Creator or Prime Programmer of this thesis is nothing more than a job description, and we can imagine a variety of office-holders to fill the prescribed roles. For those who prefer a transcendent ultimate entity, an unimaginable deity like Allah or Brahman would fill the bill. For others, more modernistically & humanistically inclined, a clean-cut white-haired Architect, as in the Matrix movie, might suffice to symbolize the Designer. Or for those who prefer a more abstract and impersonal concept, a Multiverse of eternally cycling energy, creating a variety of material forms out of nothing more substantial than the power-to-enform, might sound more scientific. But it still must somehow explain the emergence of conscious minds. Moreover, any intervention from above by any of these role-models would have to work from the bottom up, in order to agree with the observed mechanisms of reality. Which of these role-models would best suit this new worldview for the 21st century, wherein Reality is founded upon immaterial yet potent information?
BothAnd Blog, post 4
Self‐organization is a core concept of Systems Science. It refers to the ability of a class of systems (self‐organizing systems (SOS)) to change their internal structure and/or their function in response to external circumstances.
https://link.springer.com/referencework ... 0440-3_475
Note -- SOS are able to evolve to suit changing environments. But they must be designed to do so. Self-organization doesn't happen accidentally. Presumably, what Darwin called "Natural Selection" is a programming function, like a "subroutine".
What I would like to stress on is if it's (genesis of the universe and life) is goimg to be, as you claim, bottom-up (for me this means going from the simple to the complex), there really is no need to posit an intelligence. It could proceed quite naturally, on its own accord, without the intervention of a "higher power". — Agent Smith
Yes, but. The hypothetical Singularity (non-dimensional point in non-space) is about as simple as it gets. It's essentially a mathematical concept, with no moving parts. Consequently, the philosophical question arises : how does real complexity arise from unreal (ideal) simplicity. I turn to Aristotle for the answer. He distinguished between Potential & Actual. But the problem is that a Potential thing is like a Platonic Form : it doesn't exist in the real physical world. So, in what sense does "Potential" exist?
Based on the sub-quantum sciences and information theories, I have concluded that Potential exists in the same sense that mental Information (ideas ; thoughts ; meaning) exists : as Ideal Forms. And AFAIK, Meaning exists only in Minds. Although, probably to avoid confusion with humanoid Greek gods, Plato tended to avoid personal terms, such as "Mind", his "Ideal Forms" were clearly non-physical abstractions equivalent to ideas or definitions in a human mind. But he didn't specify whose mind, except to imply that his hypothetical impersonal Logos was the ultimate source of all mental attributes. Some, less scrupulous, later philosophers have interpreted his Ideal realm as the "Mind of God".
For the same reason, I refer to the Mind, in which the mathematical Singularity was conceived, by various descriptive but non-personal names -- beginning with Logos, which is indeed an imaginary "higher power". Materialists refer to the same hypothetical Ultimate Source of our orderly world with "invented" abstract models : Multiverse, Many Worlds. Yet, they are portrayed as mindless impersonal accidental systems of energy, matter, & laws. In which case, they have no explanation for the emergence of the non-physical non-things that are of highest importance to mortal humans : Life, Mind, Ideas, Meanings, Feelings, Reasons, Love, etc.
Our world does indeed seem to be self-organizing (bottom-up evolution), requiring no divine intervention to correct its course. Once the evolutionary process gets started, "it proceeds naturally". But, unlike pragmatic scientists, philosophers are also interested in Ontology (being). So, they ask impractical questions, such as "why is there something instead of nothing"? And Multiverse theories just take existence for granted, even though non-being is just as likely. So, the beginning of Being is an open question. Since my thesis is based on Information, I like to use computers as a metaphor for the real world. A computer program is self-organizing, and works from the bottom-up, from original algorithm to final output. And it requires an external Mind to build the computer, to input the algorithm, to define the problem to be solved, and to push the Start button.
So, like Plato, I try to avoid attributing personal attributes to an abstract concept, beyond my ken. I merely imagine a job description for the "Programmer" (the Intelligence, the Enformer), who input the Energy & Laws (the algorithm) to initiate the smooth-running & creative & progressive process that we call Evolution.
Potentiality and actuality :
Aristotle describes potentiality and actuality, or potency and action, as one of several distinctions between things that exist or do not exist. In a sense, a thing that exists potentially does not exist, but the potential does exist.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Potential ... _actuality
Note -- Potential exists as a mental concept, not a material object
What is the relation of Plato's Forms to things? :
For Plato, Forms or Ideals (eidos ; ideas) are essences or originals of qualities or things.
Because Plato managed to do something THAT NO BODY ELSE HAVE MANAGED TO ACCOMPLISH ON THIS PLANET at least in his scale. . . . . Namely He spoke about the invisible abstract world without the use of advanced technology or through Deamons(Magic). . . .He described something that only advanced technology today can some times prove that exists. He spoke about the blue prints of this universe. He described the world of IDEAS a world that is stable in contradiction to our world where everything are subjected to degradation and death.
https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-relat ... -to-things
Note -- empirical scientists don't do essences; that is left up to impractical philosophers.
BEING :
In my own theorizing there is one universal principle that subsumes all others, including Consciousness : essential Existence. Among those philosophical musings, I refer to the "unit of existence" with the absolute singular term "BEING" as contrasted with the plurality of contingent "beings" and things and properties. By BEING I mean the ultimate “ground of being”, which is simply the power to exist, and the power to create beings.
Note : Real & Ideal are modes of being. BEING, the power to exist, is the source & cause of Reality and Ideality. BEING is eternal, undivided and static, but once divided into Real/Ideal, it becomes our dynamic Reality.
BothAnd Blog Glossary
Programmer vs Creator vs Recycler :
Admittedly, the hypothetical Cosmic Creator or Prime Programmer of this thesis is nothing more than a job description, and we can imagine a variety of office-holders to fill the prescribed roles. For those who prefer a transcendent ultimate entity, an unimaginable deity like Allah or Brahman would fill the bill. For others, more modernistically & humanistically inclined, a clean-cut white-haired Architect, as in the Matrix movie, might suffice to symbolize the Designer. Or for those who prefer a more abstract and impersonal concept, a Multiverse of eternally cycling energy, creating a variety of material forms out of nothing more substantial than the power-to-enform, might sound more scientific. But it still must somehow explain the emergence of conscious minds. Moreover, any intervention from above by any of these role-models would have to work from the bottom up, in order to agree with the observed mechanisms of reality. Which of these role-models would best suit this new worldview for the 21st century, wherein Reality is founded upon immaterial yet potent information?
BothAnd Blog, post 4
Self‐organization is a core concept of Systems Science. It refers to the ability of a class of systems (self‐organizing systems (SOS)) to change their internal structure and/or their function in response to external circumstances.
https://link.springer.com/referencework ... 0440-3_475
Note -- SOS are able to evolve to suit changing environments. But they must be designed to do so. Self-organization doesn't happen accidentally. Presumably, what Darwin called "Natural Selection" is a programming function, like a "subroutine".
Re: TPF : Scientific Grounds for God
Evolution is a fact.--Richard Dawkins, 2005 (3) — Gnomon
This is exactly the kind of misleading rhetoric that we should be worried about in my humble opinion. It encourages scientism (science as an absolute infallible authority). It is, in a sense, a betrayal of those who kicked off the scientific revolution which was a painful and sometimes deadly struggle against religious dogmatism. — Agent Smith
To give a prominent scientist his due, I suspect that Dawkin's bold assertion was expressed in frustration with the antagonistic Creationism movement, which often belittled Darwin's insight into the mechanism of speciation as "just a theory". After a century & a half of research, his theory is supported by lots of data-points of Fact. And there's little evidence to contradict Darwin's general description of the process of emergence, in which new "forms" originate (branch off) from old forms.
However, the presumption that Darwin's theory explains the origin of Life on Earth is still open to dispute. And that is the point the Creationists hammer on. Some modern theologians have given-up the outdated notion of special creation of each "kind", as described in Genesis. But, they still discern the necessity for an "intelligence", of some kind, to "design" the program of creative evolutionary progression. I'm no longer a theist, but I too, infer a logical role for a Programmer to map-out a scheme, whereby an almost infinite universe could be produced from the DNA-like information in a tiny, Planck scale, bit of potential energy & instructions for causing Matter & Mind to evolve over time, from almost nothing, in-the-beginning. The odds of that happening by Chance, seem more than infinite-to-one.
I understand that defenders of Scientism may feel justified, by Darwin's "Fact", in their dogged struggle against dogmatic Religious Creationism. But, my position is somewhere in the middle, between Cosmic Accident and Special Creation. The only way to know for sure how & why the world began & developed as it did, would require direct revelation from the Originator. I assume that's why various prophets, over the centuries, have claimed to be conduits for divine inspiration. But, I find their diverse & contradictory stories to be unbelievable, as the word of God. So, I have been forced to develop my own patchwork theory of creation & evolution, cobbled-together from bits & pieces of plausible information. It's a philosophical hypothesis, not a scientific fact or theory. Yet, it serves my personal need for a comprehensive worldview. And it all comes down to one simple fact of nature : Information (the power to enform) is fundamental & ubiquitous in the real world.
Evolution as fact and theory :
Many scientists and philosophers of science have described evolution as fact and theory, a phrase which was used as the title of an article by paleontologist Stephen Jay Gould in 1981. He describes fact in science as meaning data, not known with absolute certainty but "confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional assent"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution ... and_theory
Special Creation :
In creationism, special creation is a belief that the universe and all life in it originated in its present form by fiat or divine decree.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_creation
Evolutionary Programming :
Special computer algorithms inspired by biological Natural Selection. It is similar to Genetic Programming in that it relies on internal competition between random alternative solutions to weed-out inferior results, and to pass-on superior answers to the next generation of algorithms. By means of such optimizing feedback loops, evolution is able to make progress toward the best possible solution – limited only by local restraints – to the original programmer’s goal or purpose. In Enformationism theory the Prime Programmer is portrayed as a creative principle (e.g. Logos), who uses bottom-up mechanisms, rather than top-down miracles, to produce a world with both freedom & determinism, order & meaning.
BothAnd Glossary
Is Information Fundamental? :
Could information be the most basic building block of reality?
https://www.closertotruth.com/series/in ... undamental
This is exactly the kind of misleading rhetoric that we should be worried about in my humble opinion. It encourages scientism (science as an absolute infallible authority). It is, in a sense, a betrayal of those who kicked off the scientific revolution which was a painful and sometimes deadly struggle against religious dogmatism. — Agent Smith
To give a prominent scientist his due, I suspect that Dawkin's bold assertion was expressed in frustration with the antagonistic Creationism movement, which often belittled Darwin's insight into the mechanism of speciation as "just a theory". After a century & a half of research, his theory is supported by lots of data-points of Fact. And there's little evidence to contradict Darwin's general description of the process of emergence, in which new "forms" originate (branch off) from old forms.
However, the presumption that Darwin's theory explains the origin of Life on Earth is still open to dispute. And that is the point the Creationists hammer on. Some modern theologians have given-up the outdated notion of special creation of each "kind", as described in Genesis. But, they still discern the necessity for an "intelligence", of some kind, to "design" the program of creative evolutionary progression. I'm no longer a theist, but I too, infer a logical role for a Programmer to map-out a scheme, whereby an almost infinite universe could be produced from the DNA-like information in a tiny, Planck scale, bit of potential energy & instructions for causing Matter & Mind to evolve over time, from almost nothing, in-the-beginning. The odds of that happening by Chance, seem more than infinite-to-one.
I understand that defenders of Scientism may feel justified, by Darwin's "Fact", in their dogged struggle against dogmatic Religious Creationism. But, my position is somewhere in the middle, between Cosmic Accident and Special Creation. The only way to know for sure how & why the world began & developed as it did, would require direct revelation from the Originator. I assume that's why various prophets, over the centuries, have claimed to be conduits for divine inspiration. But, I find their diverse & contradictory stories to be unbelievable, as the word of God. So, I have been forced to develop my own patchwork theory of creation & evolution, cobbled-together from bits & pieces of plausible information. It's a philosophical hypothesis, not a scientific fact or theory. Yet, it serves my personal need for a comprehensive worldview. And it all comes down to one simple fact of nature : Information (the power to enform) is fundamental & ubiquitous in the real world.
Evolution as fact and theory :
Many scientists and philosophers of science have described evolution as fact and theory, a phrase which was used as the title of an article by paleontologist Stephen Jay Gould in 1981. He describes fact in science as meaning data, not known with absolute certainty but "confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional assent"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution ... and_theory
Special Creation :
In creationism, special creation is a belief that the universe and all life in it originated in its present form by fiat or divine decree.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_creation
Evolutionary Programming :
Special computer algorithms inspired by biological Natural Selection. It is similar to Genetic Programming in that it relies on internal competition between random alternative solutions to weed-out inferior results, and to pass-on superior answers to the next generation of algorithms. By means of such optimizing feedback loops, evolution is able to make progress toward the best possible solution – limited only by local restraints – to the original programmer’s goal or purpose. In Enformationism theory the Prime Programmer is portrayed as a creative principle (e.g. Logos), who uses bottom-up mechanisms, rather than top-down miracles, to produce a world with both freedom & determinism, order & meaning.
BothAnd Glossary
Is Information Fundamental? :
Could information be the most basic building block of reality?
https://www.closertotruth.com/series/in ... undamental
Re: TPF : Scientific Grounds for God
Darwin's theory (to my knowledge) has never attempted to explain life on earth. — Tom Storm
Actually, he did speculate on how life began in terms of his evolutionary theory : the warm puddle hypothesis. And other biologists have attempted to find hard evidence to support that notion. Even physicists have tried to expand the Darwinian theory back to the origin of everything. But, it was astronomers who found circumstantial evidence, in the expanding universe theory.
Yet even that evolutionary cosmology ran into mathematical infinities in the minuscule Planck Time, near the creation event we now call the Big Bang. Even so, theorists like Allan Guth & Andrei Linde subdivided the BB era into even tinier fractions of a second. Yet, they still haven't reached the Holy Grail of explaining "something from nothing". All theories to-date stop short of the beginning-of-the-beginning : asymptotic to infinity.
So, the field remains open, even for philosophical conjectures. Such as where did the initial energy & laws originate? FWIW, my amateur summary of the phases of evolution is pasted below. And Life emerged in the middle, at step seven. Presumably, because the potential for Life was already programmed in the First Cause. But, by whom?
Charles Darwin's hunch about early life :
Darwin was proposing that life began, not in the open ocean, but in a smaller body of water on land, which was rich in chemicals. This is in essence the primordial soup idea, but with one advantage: in a pool, any dissolved chemicals would become concentrated when water evaporated in the heat of the day.
https://www.bbc.com/future/article/2020 ... ife-theory
Is The Inflationary Universe A Scientific Theory? Not Anymore :
The problem with inflation isn't the idea per se, but the overproduction of useless inflationary models. ___Sabine Hossenfelder, theoretical physicist
https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswith ... f51ea1b45e
Phases of Evolution :
0. Omega Point :
Who knows?
9. Reiterate
Ongoing Emergences
8. Artificial Forms :
Machines, Computers
8. Metaphysical Forms
Reasoning & Designing
7. Organic Forms :
Life, Minds, Societies (consciousness)
6. Physical Forms :
Stars, Galaxies, Planets
5. Matter :
Primitive Particles
4. Energy :
Unformed Plasma
3. Quantum Field :
Statistical Possibilities
2. Big Bang :
Start the computation
Start the clock of Time
Set initial conditions
1. Singularity :
Design, Codes, Laws (the evolutionary Program)
0. Infinity :
Omni-potence, Omni-science,?
Note --- Hume : "like causes like"
nothing in the effect that was not potentially in the cause
e.g Life from Life & Mind from Mind
Actually, he did speculate on how life began in terms of his evolutionary theory : the warm puddle hypothesis. And other biologists have attempted to find hard evidence to support that notion. Even physicists have tried to expand the Darwinian theory back to the origin of everything. But, it was astronomers who found circumstantial evidence, in the expanding universe theory.
Yet even that evolutionary cosmology ran into mathematical infinities in the minuscule Planck Time, near the creation event we now call the Big Bang. Even so, theorists like Allan Guth & Andrei Linde subdivided the BB era into even tinier fractions of a second. Yet, they still haven't reached the Holy Grail of explaining "something from nothing". All theories to-date stop short of the beginning-of-the-beginning : asymptotic to infinity.
So, the field remains open, even for philosophical conjectures. Such as where did the initial energy & laws originate? FWIW, my amateur summary of the phases of evolution is pasted below. And Life emerged in the middle, at step seven. Presumably, because the potential for Life was already programmed in the First Cause. But, by whom?
Charles Darwin's hunch about early life :
Darwin was proposing that life began, not in the open ocean, but in a smaller body of water on land, which was rich in chemicals. This is in essence the primordial soup idea, but with one advantage: in a pool, any dissolved chemicals would become concentrated when water evaporated in the heat of the day.
https://www.bbc.com/future/article/2020 ... ife-theory
Is The Inflationary Universe A Scientific Theory? Not Anymore :
The problem with inflation isn't the idea per se, but the overproduction of useless inflationary models. ___Sabine Hossenfelder, theoretical physicist
https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswith ... f51ea1b45e
Phases of Evolution :
0. Omega Point :
Who knows?
9. Reiterate
Ongoing Emergences
8. Artificial Forms :
Machines, Computers
8. Metaphysical Forms
Reasoning & Designing
7. Organic Forms :
Life, Minds, Societies (consciousness)
6. Physical Forms :
Stars, Galaxies, Planets
5. Matter :
Primitive Particles
4. Energy :
Unformed Plasma
3. Quantum Field :
Statistical Possibilities
2. Big Bang :
Start the computation
Start the clock of Time
Set initial conditions
1. Singularity :
Design, Codes, Laws (the evolutionary Program)
0. Infinity :
Omni-potence, Omni-science,?
Note --- Hume : "like causes like"
nothing in the effect that was not potentially in the cause
e.g Life from Life & Mind from Mind
Re: TPF : Scientific Grounds for God
Abiogenesis may lead to evolution but evolution does not lead to abiogenesis — Tom Storm
Good point! That's why I have concluded that the potential for Life & Mind, must have been "programmed" into the evolutionary scheme that we now call the Singularity. Physicists define it as a mathematical point, with no extension in space or time. So, there was no room for actual Energy or Matter. Only the Logical "design concept" for those inherent properties of physical evolution would fit into a spaceless container. Logic & Math consist of abstract mental relationships, not actual material objects. For example : how big is the number "four"?
This notion of Causal Abstraction should be compatible with some hypothetical Mathematical Universe and Anthropic Principle conjectures. So, I assume the proponents must imagine that "abiogenesis" was originally an abstract mathematical-logical definition or algorithm of some kind. Of course, MUH is a controversial concept, and the only supporting evidence, so far, is logical consistency. So, I don't take it literally.
But something along those lines would answer some of the fundamental Origin-of-Everything questions. One of which is : how could any material object (not to mention any living thing) survive the holocaust of a Cosmic scale eruption of space-time-energy-laws?? Perhaps the big bomb was merely a mathematical abstraction itself. And we only imagine it in familiar terms of physical explosions, such as those in Ukraine.
Mathematical universe hypothesis :
Tegmark's MUH is: Our external physical reality is a mathematical structure. . . .
In any mathematical structure complex enough to contain such substructures, they "will subjectively perceive themselves as existing in a physically 'real' world". . . .
The MUH is based on the radical Platonist view that math is an external reality.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathemati ... hypothesis
Note -- the virtual reality of the Matrix was a mathematical structure (simulation), that its inhabitants accepted as real.
Good point! That's why I have concluded that the potential for Life & Mind, must have been "programmed" into the evolutionary scheme that we now call the Singularity. Physicists define it as a mathematical point, with no extension in space or time. So, there was no room for actual Energy or Matter. Only the Logical "design concept" for those inherent properties of physical evolution would fit into a spaceless container. Logic & Math consist of abstract mental relationships, not actual material objects. For example : how big is the number "four"?
This notion of Causal Abstraction should be compatible with some hypothetical Mathematical Universe and Anthropic Principle conjectures. So, I assume the proponents must imagine that "abiogenesis" was originally an abstract mathematical-logical definition or algorithm of some kind. Of course, MUH is a controversial concept, and the only supporting evidence, so far, is logical consistency. So, I don't take it literally.
But something along those lines would answer some of the fundamental Origin-of-Everything questions. One of which is : how could any material object (not to mention any living thing) survive the holocaust of a Cosmic scale eruption of space-time-energy-laws?? Perhaps the big bomb was merely a mathematical abstraction itself. And we only imagine it in familiar terms of physical explosions, such as those in Ukraine.
Mathematical universe hypothesis :
Tegmark's MUH is: Our external physical reality is a mathematical structure. . . .
In any mathematical structure complex enough to contain such substructures, they "will subjectively perceive themselves as existing in a physically 'real' world". . . .
The MUH is based on the radical Platonist view that math is an external reality.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathemati ... hypothesis
Note -- the virtual reality of the Matrix was a mathematical structure (simulation), that its inhabitants accepted as real.
Re: TPF : Scientific Grounds for God
↪Gnomon
What I would like to stress on is if it's (genesis of the universe and life) is goimg to be, as you claim, bottom-up (for me this means going from the simple to the complex), there really is no need to posit an intelligence. It could proceed quite naturally, on its own accord, without the intervention of a "higher power". — Agent Smith
Yes, but. The hypothetical Singularity (non-dimensional point in non-space) is about as simple as it gets. It's essentially a mathematical concept, with no moving parts. Consequently, the philosophical question arises : how does real complexity arise from unreal (ideal) simplicity. I turn to Aristotle for the answer. He distinguished between Potential & Actual. But the problem is that a Potential thing is like a Platonic Form : it doesn't exist in the real physical world. So, in what sense does "Potential" exist?
Based on the sub-quantum sciences and information theories, I have concluded that Potential exists in the same sense that mental Information (ideas ; thoughts ; meaning) exists : as Ideal Forms. And AFAIK, Meaning exists only in Minds. Although, probably to avoid confusion with humanoid Greek gods, Plato tended to avoid personal terms, such as "Mind", his "Ideal Forms" were clearly non-physical abstractions equivalent to ideas or definitions in a human mind. But he didn't specify whose mind, except to imply that his hypothetical impersonal Logos was the ultimate source of all mental attributes. Some, less scrupulous, later philosophers have interpreted his Ideal realm as the "Mind of God".
For the same reason, I refer to the Mind, in which the mathematical Singularity was conceived, by various descriptive but non-personal names -- beginning with Logos, which is indeed an imaginary "higher power". Materialists refer to the same hypothetical Ultimate Source of our orderly world with "invented" abstract models : Multiverse, Many Worlds. Yet, they are portrayed as mindless impersonal accidental systems of energy, matter, & laws. In which case, they have no explanation for the emergence of the non-physical non-things that are of highest importance to mortal humans : Life, Mind, Ideas, Meanings, Feelings, Reasons, Love, etc.
Our world does indeed seem to be self-organizing (bottom-up evolution), requiring no divine intervention to correct its course. Once the evolutionary process gets started, "it proceeds naturally". But, unlike pragmatic scientists, philosophers are also interested in Ontology (being). So, they ask impractical questions, such as "why is there something instead of nothing"? And Multiverse theories just take existence for granted, even though non-being is just as likely. So, the beginning of Being is an open question. Since my thesis is based on Information, I like to use computers as a metaphor for the real world. A computer program is self-organizing, and works from the bottom-up, from original algorithm to final output. And it requires an external Mind to build the computer, to input the algorithm, to define the problem to be solved, and to push the Start button.
So, like Plato, I try to avoid attributing personal attributes to an abstract concept, beyond my ken. I merely imagine a job description for the "Programmer" (the Intelligence, the Enformer), who input the Energy & Laws (the algorithm) to initiate the smooth-running & creative & progressive process that we call Evolution.
Potentiality and actuality :
Aristotle describes potentiality and actuality, or potency and action, as one of several distinctions between things that exist or do not exist. In a sense, a thing that exists potentially does not exist, but the potential does exist.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Potential ... _actuality
Note -- Potential exists as a mental concept, not a material object
What is the relation of Plato's Forms to things? :
For Plato, Forms or Ideals (eidos ; ideas) are essences or originals of qualities or things.
Because Plato managed to do something THAT NO BODY ELSE HAVE MANAGED TO ACCOMPLISH ON THIS PLANET at least in his scale. . . . . Namely He spoke about the invisible abstract world without the use of advanced technology or through Deamons(Magic). . . .He described something that only advanced technology today can some times prove that exists. He spoke about the blue prints of this universe. He described the world of IDEAS a world that is stable in contradiction to our world where everything are subjected to degradation and death.
https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-relat ... -to-things
Note -- empirical scientists don't do essences; that is left up to impractical philosophers.
BEING :
In my own theorizing there is one universal principle that subsumes all others, including Consciousness : essential Existence. Among those philosophical musings, I refer to the "unit of existence" with the absolute singular term "BEING" as contrasted with the plurality of contingent "beings" and things and properties. By BEING I mean the ultimate “ground of being”, which is simply the power to exist, and the power to create beings.
Note : Real & Ideal are modes of being. BEING, the power to exist, is the source & cause of Reality and Ideality. BEING is eternal, undivided and static, but once divided into Real/Ideal, it becomes our dynamic Reality.
BothAnd Blog Glossary
Programmer vs Creator vs Recycler :
Admittedly, the hypothetical Cosmic Creator or Prime Programmer of this thesis is nothing more than a job description, and we can imagine a variety of office-holders to fill the prescribed roles. For those who prefer a transcendent ultimate entity, an unimaginable deity like Allah or Brahman would fill the bill. For others, more modernistically & humanistically inclined, a clean-cut white-haired Architect, as in the Matrix movie, might suffice to symbolize the Designer. Or for those who prefer a more abstract and impersonal concept, a Multiverse of eternally cycling energy, creating a variety of material forms out of nothing more substantial than the power-to-enform, might sound more scientific. But it still must somehow explain the emergence of conscious minds. Moreover, any intervention from above by any of these role-models would have to work from the bottom up, in order to agree with the observed mechanisms of reality. Which of these role-models would best suit this new worldview for the 21st century, wherein Reality is founded upon immaterial yet potent information?
BothAnd Blog, post 4
Self‐organization is a core concept of Systems Science. It refers to the ability of a class of systems (self‐organizing systems (SOS)) to change their internal structure and/or their function in response to external circumstances.
https://link.springer.com/referencework ... 0440-3_475
Note -- SOS are able to evolve to suit changing environments. But they must be designed to do so. Self-organization doesn't happen accidentally. Presumably, what Darwin called "Natural Selection" is a programming function, like a "subroutine".
What I would like to stress on is if it's (genesis of the universe and life) is goimg to be, as you claim, bottom-up (for me this means going from the simple to the complex), there really is no need to posit an intelligence. It could proceed quite naturally, on its own accord, without the intervention of a "higher power". — Agent Smith
Yes, but. The hypothetical Singularity (non-dimensional point in non-space) is about as simple as it gets. It's essentially a mathematical concept, with no moving parts. Consequently, the philosophical question arises : how does real complexity arise from unreal (ideal) simplicity. I turn to Aristotle for the answer. He distinguished between Potential & Actual. But the problem is that a Potential thing is like a Platonic Form : it doesn't exist in the real physical world. So, in what sense does "Potential" exist?
Based on the sub-quantum sciences and information theories, I have concluded that Potential exists in the same sense that mental Information (ideas ; thoughts ; meaning) exists : as Ideal Forms. And AFAIK, Meaning exists only in Minds. Although, probably to avoid confusion with humanoid Greek gods, Plato tended to avoid personal terms, such as "Mind", his "Ideal Forms" were clearly non-physical abstractions equivalent to ideas or definitions in a human mind. But he didn't specify whose mind, except to imply that his hypothetical impersonal Logos was the ultimate source of all mental attributes. Some, less scrupulous, later philosophers have interpreted his Ideal realm as the "Mind of God".
For the same reason, I refer to the Mind, in which the mathematical Singularity was conceived, by various descriptive but non-personal names -- beginning with Logos, which is indeed an imaginary "higher power". Materialists refer to the same hypothetical Ultimate Source of our orderly world with "invented" abstract models : Multiverse, Many Worlds. Yet, they are portrayed as mindless impersonal accidental systems of energy, matter, & laws. In which case, they have no explanation for the emergence of the non-physical non-things that are of highest importance to mortal humans : Life, Mind, Ideas, Meanings, Feelings, Reasons, Love, etc.
Our world does indeed seem to be self-organizing (bottom-up evolution), requiring no divine intervention to correct its course. Once the evolutionary process gets started, "it proceeds naturally". But, unlike pragmatic scientists, philosophers are also interested in Ontology (being). So, they ask impractical questions, such as "why is there something instead of nothing"? And Multiverse theories just take existence for granted, even though non-being is just as likely. So, the beginning of Being is an open question. Since my thesis is based on Information, I like to use computers as a metaphor for the real world. A computer program is self-organizing, and works from the bottom-up, from original algorithm to final output. And it requires an external Mind to build the computer, to input the algorithm, to define the problem to be solved, and to push the Start button.
So, like Plato, I try to avoid attributing personal attributes to an abstract concept, beyond my ken. I merely imagine a job description for the "Programmer" (the Intelligence, the Enformer), who input the Energy & Laws (the algorithm) to initiate the smooth-running & creative & progressive process that we call Evolution.
Potentiality and actuality :
Aristotle describes potentiality and actuality, or potency and action, as one of several distinctions between things that exist or do not exist. In a sense, a thing that exists potentially does not exist, but the potential does exist.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Potential ... _actuality
Note -- Potential exists as a mental concept, not a material object
What is the relation of Plato's Forms to things? :
For Plato, Forms or Ideals (eidos ; ideas) are essences or originals of qualities or things.
Because Plato managed to do something THAT NO BODY ELSE HAVE MANAGED TO ACCOMPLISH ON THIS PLANET at least in his scale. . . . . Namely He spoke about the invisible abstract world without the use of advanced technology or through Deamons(Magic). . . .He described something that only advanced technology today can some times prove that exists. He spoke about the blue prints of this universe. He described the world of IDEAS a world that is stable in contradiction to our world where everything are subjected to degradation and death.
https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-relat ... -to-things
Note -- empirical scientists don't do essences; that is left up to impractical philosophers.
BEING :
In my own theorizing there is one universal principle that subsumes all others, including Consciousness : essential Existence. Among those philosophical musings, I refer to the "unit of existence" with the absolute singular term "BEING" as contrasted with the plurality of contingent "beings" and things and properties. By BEING I mean the ultimate “ground of being”, which is simply the power to exist, and the power to create beings.
Note : Real & Ideal are modes of being. BEING, the power to exist, is the source & cause of Reality and Ideality. BEING is eternal, undivided and static, but once divided into Real/Ideal, it becomes our dynamic Reality.
BothAnd Blog Glossary
Programmer vs Creator vs Recycler :
Admittedly, the hypothetical Cosmic Creator or Prime Programmer of this thesis is nothing more than a job description, and we can imagine a variety of office-holders to fill the prescribed roles. For those who prefer a transcendent ultimate entity, an unimaginable deity like Allah or Brahman would fill the bill. For others, more modernistically & humanistically inclined, a clean-cut white-haired Architect, as in the Matrix movie, might suffice to symbolize the Designer. Or for those who prefer a more abstract and impersonal concept, a Multiverse of eternally cycling energy, creating a variety of material forms out of nothing more substantial than the power-to-enform, might sound more scientific. But it still must somehow explain the emergence of conscious minds. Moreover, any intervention from above by any of these role-models would have to work from the bottom up, in order to agree with the observed mechanisms of reality. Which of these role-models would best suit this new worldview for the 21st century, wherein Reality is founded upon immaterial yet potent information?
BothAnd Blog, post 4
Self‐organization is a core concept of Systems Science. It refers to the ability of a class of systems (self‐organizing systems (SOS)) to change their internal structure and/or their function in response to external circumstances.
https://link.springer.com/referencework ... 0440-3_475
Note -- SOS are able to evolve to suit changing environments. But they must be designed to do so. Self-organization doesn't happen accidentally. Presumably, what Darwin called "Natural Selection" is a programming function, like a "subroutine".
Re: TPF : Scientific Grounds for God
Have you ever considered that you could be, by limiting yourself to a binary system (for vs. against), alloying the two belligerent sides on any issue, you could very well be committing the false dichotomy fallacy or the argumentum ad temperantiam fallacy. — Agent Smith
Apparently, you have misunderstood the point of the BothAnd philosophy. In practice, the BothAnd principle considers all possibilities between 0 & 1. But tries to find the point of balance & harmony. It is intended to be an alternative to the typical unbalanced binary all-or-nothing Either/Or posture. But it doesn't prescribe a position in the exact middle of the range of views. Each observer will have personal reasons for emphasizing certain aspects over others. However, it is generally aligned with Aristotle's Golden Mean, and Buddha's Middle Path, and Taoism's Yin/Yang. As a rule-of-thumb, it simply means "nothing to excess".
Both/And Principle :
* My coinage for the holistic principle of Complementarity, as illustrated in the Yin/Yang symbol. Opposing or contrasting concepts are always part of a greater whole. Conflicts between parts can be reconciled or harmonized by putting them into the context of a whole system.
* The Enformationism worldview entails the principles of Complementarity, Reciprocity & Holism, which are necessary to ofset the negative effects of Fragmentation, Isolation & Reductionism. Analysis into parts is necessary for knowledge of the mechanics of the world, but synthesis of those parts into a whole system is required for the wisdom to integrate the self into the larger system.
BothAnd Blog Glossary
For instance, in the debate between atheism and theism, is it possible that, instead of trying to unify the two into a whole, you could reject both and contemplate on a third alternative which is neither theism nor atheism, and not some amalgamation of the two (the middle), but something else entirely. Have you come across Nagarjuna's terralemma? — Agent Smith
Yes, The BothAnd principle does seek a third option, which is the balance point between excess & deficit. I'm not familiar with "terralemma", but having to juggle four alternatives, instead of two or three, may violate Ockham's Razor. The term "BothAnd" merely acknowledges that most philosophical debates tend to force participants to defend one extreme or the other. By contrast, "moderation in all things" advises us to compromise, so as to avoid mutual annihilation, or a Mexican stand-off. :joke:
PS__This very thread illustrates the Either/Or policy. If someone proposes a moderate position, others will immediately attack it as-if it was a totalitarian rejection of their position. My stance on the god question is in the middle : Theism - Deism - Atheism. But a Theist would consider me to be an Atheist, and vice-versa.
Why Compromise? :
Like the philosophy of Pragmatism, the BothAnd principle, requiring accommodation to seemingly extraneous factors, could be dismissed as a weak policy of compromising eternal principles for temporary goals. But that sneer misses the point of taking the broader view, seeking harmony & balance instead of victory & triumph. So, the idea is to make practical concessions to the fact that each person, social group, nation, planet, and galaxy is but a small part of a greater whole.
BothAnd Blog, post 2
Deism :
An Enlightenment era response to the Roman Catholic version of Theism, in which the supernatural deity interacts and intervenes with humans via visions & miracles, and rules his people through a human dictator. Deists rejected most of the supernatural stuff, but retained an essential role for a First Cause creator, who must be respected as the quintessence of our world, but not worshiped like a tyrant. The point of Deism is not to seek salvation, but merely understanding.
BothAnd Blog Glossary
Apparently, you have misunderstood the point of the BothAnd philosophy. In practice, the BothAnd principle considers all possibilities between 0 & 1. But tries to find the point of balance & harmony. It is intended to be an alternative to the typical unbalanced binary all-or-nothing Either/Or posture. But it doesn't prescribe a position in the exact middle of the range of views. Each observer will have personal reasons for emphasizing certain aspects over others. However, it is generally aligned with Aristotle's Golden Mean, and Buddha's Middle Path, and Taoism's Yin/Yang. As a rule-of-thumb, it simply means "nothing to excess".
Both/And Principle :
* My coinage for the holistic principle of Complementarity, as illustrated in the Yin/Yang symbol. Opposing or contrasting concepts are always part of a greater whole. Conflicts between parts can be reconciled or harmonized by putting them into the context of a whole system.
* The Enformationism worldview entails the principles of Complementarity, Reciprocity & Holism, which are necessary to ofset the negative effects of Fragmentation, Isolation & Reductionism. Analysis into parts is necessary for knowledge of the mechanics of the world, but synthesis of those parts into a whole system is required for the wisdom to integrate the self into the larger system.
BothAnd Blog Glossary
For instance, in the debate between atheism and theism, is it possible that, instead of trying to unify the two into a whole, you could reject both and contemplate on a third alternative which is neither theism nor atheism, and not some amalgamation of the two (the middle), but something else entirely. Have you come across Nagarjuna's terralemma? — Agent Smith
Yes, The BothAnd principle does seek a third option, which is the balance point between excess & deficit. I'm not familiar with "terralemma", but having to juggle four alternatives, instead of two or three, may violate Ockham's Razor. The term "BothAnd" merely acknowledges that most philosophical debates tend to force participants to defend one extreme or the other. By contrast, "moderation in all things" advises us to compromise, so as to avoid mutual annihilation, or a Mexican stand-off. :joke:
PS__This very thread illustrates the Either/Or policy. If someone proposes a moderate position, others will immediately attack it as-if it was a totalitarian rejection of their position. My stance on the god question is in the middle : Theism - Deism - Atheism. But a Theist would consider me to be an Atheist, and vice-versa.
Why Compromise? :
Like the philosophy of Pragmatism, the BothAnd principle, requiring accommodation to seemingly extraneous factors, could be dismissed as a weak policy of compromising eternal principles for temporary goals. But that sneer misses the point of taking the broader view, seeking harmony & balance instead of victory & triumph. So, the idea is to make practical concessions to the fact that each person, social group, nation, planet, and galaxy is but a small part of a greater whole.
BothAnd Blog, post 2
Deism :
An Enlightenment era response to the Roman Catholic version of Theism, in which the supernatural deity interacts and intervenes with humans via visions & miracles, and rules his people through a human dictator. Deists rejected most of the supernatural stuff, but retained an essential role for a First Cause creator, who must be respected as the quintessence of our world, but not worshiped like a tyrant. The point of Deism is not to seek salvation, but merely understanding.
BothAnd Blog Glossary
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: Gnomon and 5 guests