Now, I see the idea of disembodied consciousness as problematic, especially in the absence of sentience. — Jack Cummins

The creative human mind can imagine "disembodied consciousness", just as it can imagine big-headed Klingons from a distant galaxy. But, in appropriate contexts, we can distinguish science-fantasy from science-facts. If Consciousness was a physical object --- like a brain --- it could exist apart from the human body. But, if you remove the brain from the body, something bad happens : Life & Mind cease. That's because they are on-going Processes produced by and dependent on material Mechanisms, not localized objects in space. That's why I prefer Whitehead's Process Philosophy to the notion of Ghosts who walk around with transparent ectoplasmic bodies. :joke:

GHOST GIRL

Oh yes these are serious questions, it is not an apophatic OIZ concept, I have said that-and I repeat- I do not follow the apophatic way strictly to make things easier. — Illuminati

OneInfinityZero are abstractions that refer to what we do not see & sense (that which doth not appear*1) in physical reality. So descriptions of such notions are necessarily negations of what we do see & sense. Hence, we can only discuss them with metaphors drawn from the real material world : Unity vs Multiplicity ; Infinity vs Finitude ; Zero vs Instance. Most philosophical dialogs are composed of such abstractions & metaphors. What is an easier "way" to follow OIZ, than to imagine negations of material things? Direct experience, via apparition, meditation or psychedelics? :smile:

*1. 1 John 3:2, which states, "Beloved, now are we the sons of God, and it doth not yet appear what we shall be: but we know that, when he shall appear, we shall be like him; for we shall see him as he is." One, Infinite, Dimensionless . . . .

You are asking what is the moral ground of this all if that exists . . . .
A key concept in this is the concept of Karma as described by me. . . .
The One means that there is no other One, it is Unique and Simple — Illuminati

My religious training summarized the universal "moral ground" in the words of Jesus : "do unto others as you would have them do unto you". Most world religions & philosophies agree on that basic rule of human interaction.

The fatalistic notion, that what you do will eventually be done to you, only makes sense to those who believe in reincarnation. I don't. So, the assumption that you only get one chance to learn & practice morality works better with the Golden Rule.

Yes. The Hebrews were told by Moses that Yahweh --- formerly a local storm god --- was henceforth the One Infinite Eternal God, and to worship no other gods (finite material idols) above Yahweh. But humans seem to instinctively prefer more humanoid space-time deities. Hence the Catholic paradox of one God in three persons . . . . and dozens of saints. :wink:

Like I mentioned there is no such thing as "dimensions", this is an illusion caused by the mind (twice, once in the world we see and again when being interpreted by the brain). — Illuminati

That may be true in the infinite "OIZ" non-dimension. But in the real world, things are knowable in various dimensions, depending on how you measure them. For the human mind --- here in the cave-world of Platonic illusions --- what is immeasurable (infinite) is unknowable and meaningless, hence we measure them with metaphors & negations.

Apparently, you are the escapee, who has returned to tell us benighted souls about a better, realer world out there in the great beyond. I have used similar analogies & metaphors in my own speculations. So, I'm not mocking you, I'm just not waiting for the all-powerful all-knowing aliens to come down and free us slaves from bondage to matter. :sad:

-In the beggining everything was non-deterministic (Chaos) and existed as One thing, then it was determined as specific and separate things. — Illuminati

I have also used Plato's model of a Cosmos from Chaos as a metaphor of how the material world came into being. And it's possible that such Infinite Potential is still out there, waiting for this world to burn itself up. But for my little pea brain, it's just a metaphor. And I don't know how to live in a metaphor. :cool:

The One Infinite Zero (OIZ) is presented as the ultimate, transcendent, and ineffable principle of all existence. It is immortal, eternal, zero in its sum, infinite, and unmoving. Beyond any determination or description: it has no properties, belongs to no category, and is neither this nor that. It is not a being (Ον) because even “being” implies distinction. Formless, indeterminate, non-discrete, without beginning or end, it precedes existence, time, intellect, and multiplicity. Complete and self-sufficient, it requires nothing beyond itself to exist and lacks nothing. Undivided and homogeneous, it does not consist of parts and cannot be truly divided or cut; any perceived divisibility is phenomenal and internal. The “normal” state is non-existence, referred to as Chaos or Zero, which is not an absolute absence but an undifferentiated, formless, and unrestricted unity – a state of absolute potential. — Illuminati

Now that I am aware of the apophatic "OIZ" concept, what's the next step? Am I required to worship a formless featureless non-entity? Am I expected to join a Faith Community? Should I change my errant life in some mysterious ways? Can I become One with "OIZ"? These are serious questions.

In my post-retirement philosophical explorations I have come across many of the religious & spiritual & mystical concepts*1 mentioned in the OP. But so far, I haven't been sufficiently motivated to do anything different from my mundane daily activities. So my interest in surreal spirituality is not much more than child-like curiosity about what other people believe.

The book I'm currently reading says that a few intrepid adventurers have accessed the infinite dimensions and "diamond light" of The Divine or The Absolute by using psychedelic drugs. Like you, the author seems to possess an encyclopedic knowledge of esoteric information, but with a focus on 21st century science & philosophy & psychonaut "masters". Yet I remain stolidly locally-lucid and drug-free. Does that mean I am not a candidate for enlightenment? :smile:


*1. So What Is The Perennial Philosophy, According to Aldous Huxley? Huxley identifies a few basic tenets from which the perennial philosophy is composed: There is a transcendent divine — an eternal ultimate reality. There is an immanent divine — a ground of being and spiritual nature within the world.
https://medium.com/skeptical-spirituality/book-review-the-perennial-philosophy-by-aldous-huxley-af4584816dde

Thank you for the summary of Whitehead's philosophy relating to panpsychism. I will try to explore his ideas further because immanence and transcendence seem both important. I am not convinced that transcendence and the experience of the numinous can be reduced to the physical completely. — Jack Cummins

Transcendent & Numinous experiences are not real phenomena. but ideal imaginary models of unseen things. So, they are obviously not out-there in the Real world. Philosophers like to explore such exotic possibilities, but our material bodies necessarily remain behind in the physical world that sustains their life functions. For me, I treat such explorations of the un-mapped territories like going to the movies : at the end of the Platonic shadow-show, I always go home to my immanent abode. :wink:

PS___ When you die in the real world, you don't survive to make another movie. Unless, you believe --- without evidence --- in reincarnation. Your living body does depend on stuff that, for practical purposes, can be reduced to the physical. For the life of the Mind though, some people can live on fantasies. That's why they go to rom-com and super-hero movies.

This is not philosophy vs Science, Science has its roots in Metaphysics and Theology and Epistemology among others. Our Grand Masters went the other way around, understood the One to understand the universe. And so can we. — Illuminati

My philosophy leans much more toward empirical Science & Ontology than to mysticism or spiritualism or Henology. I also tend to be skeptical of ideas that are outlandish & unconventional. But for philosophical learning, I try to defer judgement and keep an open mind, in order to broaden my worldview.

I explore some of those far-out notions only out of intellectual curiosity, not religious motivation. Since non-empirical entities cannot be proven True, in the empirical sense, I don't concern myself with their big-T Truth. I'm currently reading a big book that begins with a review of the current state of Science, but then delves into Natural Magic & Shamanic & Psychedelic adventures in "other dimensions". I have no personal experience with mind-altering drugs, so their exploits in parallel worlds with transcendent Intelligences & Mother Universes are treated as creative Fiction or Fantasy, not mundane Facts.

I also read the "bible" of Scottish Rite Freemasonry by 33rd degree Albert Pike. But I am not a mason. I found it interesting, but not relevant to my mundane world. Although they use the metaphor of Great Architect, the Mason's God seems more like your OneInfiniteZero than the God of Abraham, Isaac & Jacob. All I know about the Grand Masters of the Illuminati is rumors & conspiracy theories. So, I'm not likely to accept anything the GMs say as sublime Truth. :smile:

Note --- Potential has no measurable "volume". Like "Zero", it's just an idea or concept with no material instance. — Gnomon
Then why dont you agree that space itself among everything else is the realization of the potential and this potential is completelly fake, space is not made of space, colour is not made of colour, do you see where Im getting with this? — Illuminati

Yes, I see where you are going with such negations of mundane reality : toward Idealism & Spiritualism & Neo-Platonism. But I am much more comfortable with my familiar "fake" world. I explore such otherworldly realms only to put my this-worldly experiences into a mid-range context between tangible Materialism and intangible Idealism. Platonic Ideals & Transcendent Deities inform my worldview on the margins. But I always return to my warm cave with a fire casting shadows on the wall, where I can see the space-time silhouettes with my own eyes. :joke:

If light is the fabric of everything else it shouldnt be composed of something else, yet it is. For this reason it may not be a fundamental essence. Please elaborate. — Illuminati

In physics, Light is described as a quantum phenomenon, and the quanta of light are called Photons (packets of energy). But that materialistic definition is true only for convenience in mathematical calculations. However, Einstein equated causal Energy with measurable Mass and tangible Matter.

For philosophical purposes though, Energy is essential to everything that changes, including Life and Mind. According to the Big Bang theory, the universe began from nothing (no matter) as a burst of causal Energy, suspiciously similar to the "let there be light" in Genesis. But that raw Energy necessarily included Information (natural laws) to guide the processes of Evolution. My term for that combination of Causation & Direction is EnFormAction*1 : the power to transform, to evolve.

Therefore, Light (energy) is the metaphorical essence & fabric of the universe, both Matter & MInd. If you are interested in an amateur theory-of-everything, my Information-based thesis & blog "elaborate" further, in great detail. :nerd:

PS___ Since Light-Energy is essential & fundamental, it is not composed of "something else". Ultimately, physical Energy is actualized from immaterial Potential. For Materialists though, Potential does not exist, because it is immaterial (not yet real).

*1. EnFormAction :
# Metaphorically, it's the Will-power of G*D, which is the First Cause of everything in creation. Philosophically, it's Schopenhauer's Will & Idea. So EFA is the general cause of everything in the world. Energy, Matter, Gravity, Life, Mind are secondary creative causes, each with limited application.
# All are also forms of Information, the "difference that makes a difference". It works by directing causation from negative to positive, cold to hot, ignorance to knowledge. That's the basis of mathematical ratios (Greek "Logos", Latin "Ratio" = reason). A : B :: C : D. By interpreting those ratios we get meaning and reasons.
# The concept of a river of causation running through the world in various streams has been interpreted in materialistic terms as Momentum, Impetus, Force, Energy, etc, and in spiritualistic idioms as Will, Love, Conatus, and so forth. EnFormAction is all of those.
https://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page8.html

This is true in a way but shouldnt Enformy mean both negentropy and entropy since these two are one phenomena? — Illuminati

Enformy*2 is my coined term for what Schrodinger called "negentropy", referring to Free Energy that is available to do work. By contrast, Entropy is Wasted Energy that is no longer able to cause constructive change. Therefore, I consider Entropy to be Negative (disorder, disorganization), and Enformy to be Positive (order, organization) forces in Evolution. They are mirror images (thesis/anti-thesis) of "one phenomena" : Causation. :smile:


*2. Enformy :
In the Enformationism theory, Enformy is a hypothetical, holistic, metaphysical, natural trend or force, that counteracts Entropy & Randomness to produce complexity & progress. [ see post 63 for graph ]
#. I'm not aware of any "supernatural force" in the world. But my Enformationism theory postulates that there is a meta-physical force behind Time's Arrow and the positive progress of evolution. Just as Entropy is sometimes referred to as a "force" causing energy to dissipate (negative effect), Enformy is the antithesis, which causes energy to agglomerate (additive effect).
#. Of course, neither of those phenomena is a physical Force, or a direct Cause, in the usual sense. But the term "force" is applied to such holistic causes as a metaphor drawn from our experience with physics.
#. "Entropy" and "Enformy" are scientific/technical terms that are equivalent to the religious/moralistic terms "Evil" and "Good". So, while those forces are completely natural, the ultimate source of the power behind them may be supernatural, in the sense that the First Cause logically existed before the Big Bang. [ see ENTROPY at right ; Extropy ]
https://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page8.html

Can you explain in terms of physics if space itself requires spatial integration (meaning a pre-existing or newly created space) and if so how does this volume appear if nothing can be created from nothing according to science? If this volume is pre-existent how is new space being added? We know that space stretches, meaning space is not being added. If this space is pre-existent how was it formed if there was no matter or anything at all("back then") which is now contained in space? — Illuminati

"Nothing from nothing" is true within the physical/material universe. But the Big Bang theory logically implies that Something (our everything material world) was created from no-thing (some unknowable transcendent Potential)*3*4. Physicists typically stop their researches at that space-time boundary. But philosophers are not bound by the requirement for empirical evidence. Anyway, the pre-bang-potential is not Real (no space, no time, no matter), but Ideal & speculative (no practical applications). Hence, useful only for philosophical argumentation. :cool:

Note --- Potential has no measurable "volume". Like "Zero", it's just an idea or concept with no material instance.

*3. Cosmos from Chaos :
The Big Bang theory describes the origin of the universe, suggesting it expanded from an extremely hot, dense state, not from nothing. While often described as "something from nothing," the theory actually posits that all of space, time, matter, and energy originated from that initial state, not that they came from a pre-existing void.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=big+bang+something+from+nothing

*4. Cosmos from Chaos :
In Plato's cosmology, as presented in the Timaeus, the universe (cosmos) is not created from nothing but rather emerges from a pre-existing state of chaos . . . . .
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=plato+cosmos+from+chaos
Note --- Chaos, here, refers to Plato's realm of Ideal Forms, that are not Real, but only Potential, until Actualized by the Demiurge.

I haven't read Whitehead but would like to, in order to consider the idea of 'God' as imminent or transcendent. Of course, it does go back to debate ranging from Kant, Schopenhauer and Spinoza. The idea of pantheism is relevant to this. — Jack Cummins

Whitehead described his God as both transcendent and immanent. So any divine actions in the physical world are Natural, not supernatural interventions from heaven. His theology was labeled, by his associate, as Panentheism. But I prefer to spell it PanEnDeism, in order to avoid the doctrinal associations of Theism.

Whitehead's philosophy was also labeled as Panpsychism. But he typically reserved the term "Consciousness" for humans, and used generic "Experience" to refer to other dynamic-but-meaningless interactions, such as exchanges of Energy. I think that term still sounds absurd, implying sentient atoms. So, I use different terminology, that is intended to be less spooky or strange. :smile:

PS___ My first attempt to read his book left me feeling inadequate to the task. I eventually got a better understanding from third-person accounts of Process Philosophy.

*1. Whitehead's panpsychism, or more accurately, his process-relational philosophy, posits that mentality is a fundamental and ubiquitous aspect of reality, not just a characteristic of humans or animals. His view differs from traditional panpsychism by emphasizing the "experiential" nature of all entities, rather than just consciousness.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=whitehead+panpsychism

Separation is an illusion of the mind, we are all One light fragmented into many colours.
All object and phenomena are made of the same original building block. — Illuminati

That's a poetic metaphor of how the One became Many, or the Singularity became a Cosmos. Here's a recent blog post*1 to indicate that I have been thinking along similar lines, but in different terms*2. My background is more physical than philosophical. So, my metaphors are often derived from Physics instead of Metaphysics. :nerd:

*1. Light is Enformy :
In the Enformationism thesis, I have concluded that Light itself is the universal reference field, as well as the basic form of causal Energy. Hence, Light is the universal measuring stick of all things. Another way to look at it is to view light-energy as the “fabric” of space-time, as it interweaves all matter into a universal system. Light is the background reference for everything in the world, because, wherever you look, light is already there. But, it’s invisible until detected by a sentient sensor, such as the human eye.
https://bothandblog8.enformationism.info/page48.html

*2. Enformy :
The organizing principle of the universe. A postulated natural force/principle that opposes Entropy in that it causes an evolutionary tendency toward order, and away from chaos.
Note : Scientists call it Negentropy.

Whole : Speaking of a "creator" we cant possibly say that the creation itself is separate from the One because there cant be something which is not part of the whole, — Illuminati

My philosophical worldview is also Holistic, as opposed to Reductionist. Are you familiar with the 1920s book by Jan Smuts?*3 : Holism and Evolution : The Synthetic Tendency in the Universe.

I have to be careful about using the term "Creator" on the forum, because it typically brings to mind the creation myth of Genesis. Personally, to avoid bringing religion into a philosophical exploration, I often refer to the Big Bang creation myth. Which leaves the "who" & "why" questions unanswered and open to hypothesizing. :smile:

*3. Holism and Evolution :
Unfortunately, Holism is still controversial in Philosophy. That is primarily due to the practical and commercial success of reductive methods in the physical sciences. Methodological Reductionism attempts to understand a composite system by breaking it down into its component parts. And that approach works well for mechanical devices, but not so well for living beings.
https://bothandblog8.enformationism.info/page33.html

PS___ The 17th & 18th century Illuminati were supposed to be opposed to the Catholic Church, and enlightened by the emergence of empirical Science. Does that historical ideology have anything to do with your 21st century philosophy?

I will gladly provide with the PDF and any explanation on the contents as well. If you understand modern Greek it would be better as the original is written in Greek and is a better and superior version.
If you find any potential errors let me know. — Illuminati

Thanks for the offer, but I may be too old to jump into such a complex & comprehensive work of philosophical art. I'm currently skimming the summary of Page 13 & 14. I may have a few questions and comments later.

So, far it looks compatible with my own musings on the First Cause & Prime Mover & Chaos of Plato & Aristotle*1. A simple but vague explanation of what-caused-the-Big-Bang is "Infinite Potential". But some on this forum don't believe in anything that is not Actual, including Zero.

If I was not so accustomed to it, the impolite & irrational & dogmatic responses on this thread would embarrass me. But OneInfiniteZero is not allowed (taboo) in the immanent belief system of Materialism, with its multiplicity of finite things. So, what you are talking about sounds absurd & blasphemous to them. :smile:

PS___ My religious upbringing introduced be to a few words of Biblical Greek translated into 17th century English. So, I would not be able to read the original version of your work.


*1. https://gnomon.enformationism.info/Essays/Intelligent%20Evolution%20Essay_Prego_120106.pdf

I do not want to hurt you or make you feel bad, but please read and study more. — Ulthien

Sticks & stones may break my bones, but Forum posts can't hurt me. So, when someone says "read and study more" I assume they are referring to a 'thus saith the Lord" Bible, and a revealed Faith. Thanks, but I don't do Faith anymore. Besides, for me, the provenance of Consciousness is just a philosophical curiosity question, not of eternal salvation. :cool:

Living organisms dissipate entropy to maintain homeostasis, and this principle is deeply rooted in thermodynamics. — Ulthien

Energy and Entropy are not material substances that can be concentrated or watered-down. They are actually statistical measures of potential for work (for physical change). But, for convenience, we often refer to them metaphorically as-if they are tangible things. How is my metaphor wrong, and yours is right? :smile:

In the beginning was the One.
At the beginning of everything - not chronologically, but logically
and ontologically - was the One. — Illuminati

I haven't had time to read your whole post. But, after skimming, I can say that your OneInfiniteZero is very close to what I call "God of the philosophers" to distinguish it from the God of Abraham, Isaac & Jacob. Your definition seems to fit my own non-religious philosophical worldview. Later, I may request a PDF or hard copy. :smile:

Panpsychism may be an attempt to understanding creativity in the universe, or consciousness in the unconscious. — Jack Cummins

I'm sure that Panpsychism has always been a serious attempt to understand how such imperceptible phenomena as Life & Mind can exist in an obviously material world. But it's based on an ancient notion of Psyche as a wandering Spirit or embodied Soul. Generally, Spirit was added to Matter to animate it. And Soul was added to matter to produce sentient Mind. Together those ghostly essences were supposed to explain the creativity of the living & thinking world, as contrasted with a universe of dull dead Matter. Modern scientists who advocate All-Mind are more sophisticated than primitive animists. But they still find it difficult to reconcile immaterial Mind with substantial Matter, without relying on spooky ghost-stuff.

However, modern science has given us a much more complete understanding of how the world works. Unfortunately, the 17th century model of a mechanical world is still common today. So, those who advocate All-Mind seem to be reacting to the dullness & deadness of an All-Matter universe. But Materialists deny & decry the religious & anti-science backlash against mechanical Science, that resulted in the Spiritualism of the 19th century. So, who's right and who's wrong?

Maybe both worldviews are partly correct and part erroneous. For example, A.N. Whitehead proposed a 20th century worldview that incorporated some aspects both ancient Religion and modern Science*1. His notion of the Will of God, acting in the world, is closer to Schopenhauer's Will & Idea than to the Holy Spirit of the Bible. And his updated notion of Spirit & Soul is closer to modern Energy, than to ancient Animism*2, with body-hopping ghosts that convert dead matter into living & thinking organisms.

If you are inclined to think that Spiritualist seances actually call-up ghosts from a parallel spirit-realm, you won't like Whitehead's version. The 21st century variety of All-Mind includes another century of scientific development since Whitehead. Modern scientists who advocate Panpsychism are imagining Consciousness as-if it is something like Causal Energy : invisible, but effective. And some try to dissociate their definition of Consciousness from spooky Spiritualism, and to avoid dealing with the notion of sentient Atoms --- which do input & output Energy, but show no signs of Sentience.

Therefore, I see no need to wrestle with the contradiction of "consciousness in the unconscious". Even rocks play the thermodynamic game with Energy. And plants go a step further by evolving life-nurturing metabolism, converting Energy into structure & maintenance. But only the most recent stages of evolution display evidence of Awareness and knowing-that-you-know. Some even seem to possess Self-Awareness (Soul) as the pinnacle of emergent Consciousness. :smile:


*1. 20th Century Spirituality :
Alfred North Whitehead's philosophy, often called Process Philosophy, offers a unique perspective on spirituality that moves away from traditional, static views of reality and God. Instead of focusing on fixed substances or a transcendent, uninvolved deity, Whitehead emphasizes the dynamic nature of reality as a process of becoming, with God being both immanent and transcendent, actively involved in the world's evolution
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=whitehead+spiritualism

*2. Animism & Spiritualism :
Animism is a belief system that attributes a spiritual essence or soul to all living and non-living things, including plants, animals, objects, and natural phenomena. It's not a formal religion itself, but rather a worldview that can be found within various cultures and religions. Animism emphasizes relationships and interactions between humans and the spiritual world, often involving rituals and practices to connect with or appease spirits.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=animism

*3. Experiential Energy :
In Alfred North Whitehead's process philosophy, energy is not just a physical property, but a fundamental aspect of all reality, interwoven with experience and becoming. Whitehead views energy not as inert substance, but as dynamic activity, with subjective feeling or potential for experience at all levels. This means even seemingly inanimate objects have a degree of experience or feeling associated with their energy.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=whitehead+process+energy
Note --- His Experiential Energy is similar to my notion of EnFormAction. It's primal energy that had the innate potential to produce matter, and to organize it into living & thinking systems. I suppose you could call it Panpsychism without wandering ghosts & suffering rocks.

PS___ Contra Frankenstein, you can't animate a dead body with pure energy (lightening). Instead, you need enformed (programmed) Energy : EnFormAction. The secret ingredient is encoded Information. And, yes, that implies a Big Bang Programmer similar to Whitehead's transcendent/immanent "God".

Theories of morphic resonance or memes also do not explain shifts in the different kingdoms in evolution, such as the shift from.mineral to vegetable, or animal to human. They require a higher organisation factor beyond mere memory.

It is about creativity inherent in nature. The shifts in the emergence of the kingdoms is of significance in the evolution of both sentience and knowledge, with the animal and human kingdom both having sentience and the human having consciousness of knowledge, especially through language for the development of ideas. — Jack Cummins

In my own personal philosophical worldview, that "organization factor" is called EnFormAction*1, and the "creative" trend of evolution is Enformy*2. Both terms are derived from an Information-Centric philosophy*3, in which Generic Information works like a computer program in the physical world. It's a combination of Causal Energy and Logical Information. And it assumes that Enformation (power to transform) is more essential than Matter. Hence, Consciousness is an emergent quality, and not fundamental as Panpsychism postulates.

Working together, these physical (energy) & meta-physical (logic) forces are responsible for creating a complex Cosmos from an initial explosion of Energy (Big Bang) and Information (Natural Laws). Materialists tend to ignore or misinterpret the directional guidance of those laws, including Thermodynamics [hot vs cold = change] and Dialectic [sequential Logic is directional]. Absent those taken-for-granted Laws, the BB would be a pop & poof flash-in-the-pan followed-by-a-fizzle, like fireworks --- instead of the orderly organizing system we now observe.

The source of those original logical & limiting laws in the initial conditions of our universe is a mystery. Some think an eternal mechanical-yet-creative multiverse would explain the explosion of bounded something from unbounded nothingness. Others, prefer to imagine an eternal God, with a human-like Mind, to design & program a statistical Singularity into a burst of let-there-be-light. I have seen no hard evidence for either, so both are hypothetical scenarios. Hence, my thesis begins after the Beginning. :smile:

PS___ Panpsychism is not an illusion. It's just an incomplete explanation.


*1. EnFormAction :
Energy + Form + Action = Information
Directional Causation. A proposed metaphysical law [or force] of the universe that causes random interactions between forces and particles to produce novel & stable arrangements of matter & energy. It’s the creative force (aka : Divine Will or Schopenhauer's Will) that, for unknown reasons, programmed a Singularity to suddenly burst into our reality from an infinite pool of possibility (un-actualized Potential). AKA : The creative power of Evolution; the power to enform; Logos; Change.
https://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page8.html

*2. Enformy :
In the Enformationism theory, Enformy is a hypothetical, holistic, metaphysical, natural trend or force, that counteracts Entropy & Randomness to produce complexity & progress. Mislabeled in science as Negentropy.
https://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page8.html

*3. An information-centric philosophy, in its broadest sense, views information as a fundamental aspect of reality, potentially even more fundamental than matter or energy. This perspective suggests that the universe, including consciousness and human existence, can be understood as expressions or patterns of information. It challenges traditional, human-centered or matter-centric views of the world and proposes that information processing is key to understanding phenomena like consciousness and the nature of reality.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=information-centric+philosophy

BANG, FLASH, & FIZZLE

Yes, it would seem that my definition of philosophy is spot-on:
"Philosophy := The study of questions without answers." p3 How I Understand Things. The Logic of Existence — Pieter R van Wyk

Since feckless Philosophy has not solved all the world's problems in 2600 years, would you characterize your alternative program --- to achieve "a well-balanced coexistence with our environment and among ourselves" --- as Science or Politics or Religion, or perhaps a fusion of all of the above? Working independently, none of those problem-solving procedures has come close to a real-world solution.

Empirical Science has made some progress in dealing with Natural Evils, mostly by isolating humans from Nature. Which has introduced some problems of its own. Spiritual Religion has addressed the world's problems primarily by promising salvation in another life, or a parallel world, or in drug-fueled dreams. But most philosophical solutions --- Stoicism, Buddhism, Taoism --- deal with "The Problem", not by perfecting Nature, but by making an attitude adjustment in the mind of the sufferer.

I tend to view Nature (Universe) as an ongoing holistic program/system that is made creative & dynamic*2 by its internal conflicts & contradictions*3, and by having open options (freewill) at decision points. That's not a paradox, but a necessity for any living & evolving system. So, the only way to fix our careering Cosmos may be to go back to the beginning and work from the top-down, perhaps with Pre-destination. :wink:


*1. Questions Without Answers :
While philosophy certainly grapples with fundamental and enduring questions, the idea that it's solely "the study of questions without answers" is an oversimplification. Philosophy involves rigorous inquiry into fundamental questions about existence, knowledge, values, reason, mind, and language, often with the aim of finding answers or at least deeper understanding, even if definitive solutions remain elusive. . . . . .
Philosophy explores complex, abstract questions that often lack easy or universally accepted answers. These questions challenge our assumptions and push us to think critically about the world and our place in it.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=Philosophy+%3A%3D+The+study+of+questions+without+answers

*2. Creativity often thrives on internal conflicts and contradictions, rather than being hindered by them. These tensions can be a source of inspiration and drive innovation, forcing individuals to reconcile opposing ideas or navigate complex emotions. . . . .
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=creativity+internal+conflicts+%26+contradictions

*3. Good vs Evil : in physical terms, boils down to the conflict between constructive Energy/Forces and destructive Entropy. The universe so far seems to have negotiated a compromise or stand-off between those positive & negative powers. But the emergence of Life & Mind may indicate a slight balance-tipping advantage toward order & organization & complexity & harmony.

I am asking this after a conversation with a friend about energy, causation and consciousness with a friend. During the discussion I became aware that I have mixed thoughts on pansychism, the notion that objects have some rudimentary consciousness. — Jack Cummins

Some sober scientists are taking the notion of Panpsychism seriously. But I think their definition is too broad. I prefer to make a clear distinction between Conscious Awareness and Causal Forces. FWIW, here's a recent relevant post on my blog. :smile:

Enformationism vs Panpsychism :
The notion of an incorporeal Idea as the cause of real-world effects on palpable matter is not commonly held by Physicalists & Materialists. . . .
In his book on the philosophy of Panpsychism, Peter Ells makes an affirmation of belief in a “sensuous cosmos” : "To actually or concretely exist . . . is precisely to be an experiential entity, or to be composed of experiential entities"
The language of that assertion is my primary disagreement with Panpsychism : the term “experiential” implying that everything in the universe is sentient (sensing + knowing). But, in what sense is a rock sentient? How does it know? It exchanges abstract Energy/Entropy with its environment. But does a rock remember the “experience” of flowing in the form of homogeneous red-hot magma inside the Earth, then at a later time, the thrill of being spewed-out onto the surface of a cooling planet, where new experiences as dis-aggregated fragments await? . . . .
https://bothandblog8.enformationism.info/page7.html

BTW, even Bohm's*4 "realistic perspective" is typically labeled as a form of Idealism — Gnomon
Bohmian mechanics is just straightforward realism that happens to involve non-locality. — Apustimelogist

Unfortunately, for quantum pioneers, trained in classical physics, non-locality was not as "straightforward" as you imply. :smile:

*1. Is reality not locally real? :
“Local” means that objects can be influenced only by their surroundings and that any influence cannot travel faster than light. Investigations at the frontiers of quantum physics have found that these things cannot both be true.
https://dangaristo.com/portfolio/the-universe-is-not-locally-real-and-the-physics-nobel-prize-winners-proved-it/
Note --- That's why common-sense classical physics is no longer the standard model for 21st century physicists.

I can't see how idealism is able to explain three things - or perhaps better, in offering explanations it admits that there are truths that are independent of mind and so ceases to be different to realism in any interesting way.
Novelty.
We are sometimes surprised by things that are unexpected. How is this possible if all that there is, is already in one’s mind?
Agreement .
You and I agree as to what is the case. How is that possible unless there is something external to us both on which to agree?
Error.
We sometimes are wrong about how things are. How can this be possible if there is not a way that things are, independent of what we believe? — Banno

Depends on how idealism is interpreted. — Wayfarer

Banno's questions seem to be based on an Either/Or dichotomy between Realism/Idealism or Subject/Object ; in which reasonable people must accept one perspective and reject the other. Hence, if you are an Idealist, then for you (the subject) there is no (objective) Reality. Berkeley did seem to imply that material reality is a figment of human imagination, since the non-self world is a figment of God's imagination.

Since I don't know how to read the mind of God, I must take for granted that sensable phenomena (appearances) are signals from something (material) out there (Johnson's stone). From my BothAnd perspective, the world/mind (real/ideal) go-between is Energy (Information ; EnFormAction). So, Johnson's stone is not an invention of his imagination. But the pain in his foot is.

The bottom line is that my worldview is not Either/Or, but Both/And. What do you think? Is there a Real world out there that is independent of my mind? Or is there a Great Gulf (dichotomy) between God-mind and Man-mind, that we observers cross only by a leap of Faith? As Banno seems to interpret Idealism. :smile:


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.
https://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page10.html
Note --- For Berkeley, the "whole system" would be the Mind of God. For others, it may be simply everything in the post-Bang world, including Mind and Matter.

Not really sure what this is trying to convey. Thefe are several coherent realist perspectives on QM which don't invoke any form of collapse, such as Bohmian, Many Worlds, Stochastic mechanics and possibly others — Apustimelogist

I'm sure that is aware of those other scientific "perspectives"*1 --- or interpretations --- which postulate something like a parallel reality that is "not directly observable" : hence not empirical. But among Philosophers, the Copenhagen version*2 may be the most popular*3 --- if that matters to anyone. It may lack philosophical rigor, and due to inherent Uncertainty, a single coherent explanation, but it is a fertile field for philosophical exploration.

For hypothetical scientific purposes, one or more of those alternative perspectives may better suit a materialist frame of mind*3. But, on a philosophical forum, and for philosophical purposes (introspecting the human mind), some form of Idealism, with a 2500 year history, may be more appropriate. BTW, even Bohm's*4 "realistic perspective" is typically labeled as a form of Idealism. :smile:



*1. Realist perspectives on quantum mechanics generally assert that quantum phenomena reflect an underlying reality, even if that reality is not directly observable or fully understood. This contrasts with interpretations that view quantum mechanics as purely a tool for prediction or a description of our knowledge rather than a reflection of objective reality.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=realist+perspectives+on+quantum+mechanics

*2. The Copenhagen interpretation is widely accepted as a foundational framework for understanding quantum mechanics, though it's not universally embraced. It's often the first interpretation presented in textbooks and forms the basis for much of the standard quantum mechanics curriculum. However, it's not without its critics, and alternative interpretations like the Many-Worlds interpretation or pilot-wave theories exist and have their proponents.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=copenhagen+interpretation+is+accepted

*3. Physicists still divided about quantum world, 100 years on :
More than a third -- 36 percent -- of the respondents favoured the mostly widely accepted theory, known as the Copenhagen interpretation.
https://www.nbcrightnow.com/national/physicists-still-divided-about-quantum-world-100-years-on/article_af1d9414-7a94-5378-88fa-1c0f40dacdad.html

*4. David Bohm's philosophical perspective, often termed "Bohmian idealism," posits a unified, interconnected reality where consciousness and the physical world are not separate but rather different expressions of a deeper, underlying order.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=bohm+idealism

In this view, to know something is not simply to construct a mental representation of it, but to participate in its form — to take into oneself, immaterially, the essence of what the thing is. — Wayfarer

Aristotle postulated a primitive definition of Energy (energeia) as the actualization of Potential. And modern physics has equated causal energy with knowledge (meaningful Information)*1*2. For which I coined the term EnFormAction : the power to transform. Until now, I hadn't thought of that transformation from potential to actual as participation*3 in the Platonic form of an object : the importation of some property/qualia into oneself.

Example : A photon --- atom of energy --- somehow picks up information about an apple as it reflects off the surface. When that photon is absorbed by a receptor in the retina, the colorless energy is converted into electrical signals that the brain can interpret (meaning) as redness. So you could say that the brain/mind*4 has been informed of a quality of appleness. The image in the brain or meaning in mind is not a chunk of apple matter, but a "bit" of appleness : the essence of a round red fruit out there in the real world.

If Aristotle was correct, a free photon (kinetic energy) is not yet a carrier, but a Potential for conveying Energy/Information from one place to another. . . . from matter to mind. Hence, our sponge-like minds are continually soaking-up essences from the material world : participating in its existence.??? :nerd:


*1. Information is Energy :
This book defines a dynamic concept of information that results in a conservation of information principle. . . . . conservation of energy . . .
https://link.springer.com/book/10.1007/978-3-658-40862-6

*2. Information as a basic property of the universe :
A theory is proposed which considers information to be a basic property of the universe the way matter and energy are.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/8734520/

*3. Participation : "participation" means the act or state of sharing, partaking, or receiving a part of something.
The "part" in question is what philosophers call Essence, or Qualia.

*4. Brain/Mind is a system ; brain is structure ; mind is function

One clear example of possible panpsychism is 'sick building syndrome', in which it as if the energy fields seem disturbed. Here, it would suggest that matter has some inherent consciousness. . . . I am asking about illusory appearance as a basis of belief and it is a little different from. the idea of delusion, which is a falsehood. — Jack Cummins

Panpsychism is a currently popular philosophical worldview, even among scientists. So, the notion that mental phenomena are inherent in the natural world has some validity. But to imagine that a brick & mortar building can feel sick is pretty far-out.

Therefore, to explain "sick building syndrome" with mental energy fields seems to be an anthro-morphic analogy with a "sick human" whose problem is mental instead of physical. Years ago, when Investigators couldn't find a physical cause, they sometimes concluded that the "syndrome" was hysterical or viral memes in people, instead of fumes or germs*1 in buildings. Eventually, fungal mold became a common culprit because it was often hidden behind sheetrock walls where rain or plumbing leaks kept things damp. Consequently, insurance companies began to pay-out millions of dollars for mold remediation. I suppose you could imagine that's like a doctor treating a sick patient.

Perhaps, those predisposed to spiritual themes could easily imagine that an inanimate material object could be possessed by an energy/mind field. For some, such mysteries evolved into conspiracy theories, involving invisible agents. But pragmatic & skeptical investigators*2 are likely to view such mysteries more as a problem with human minds than with spirit-possessed buildings. Ironically, even practical scientists are mystified by brainless slime molds that can navigate mazes, as-if they possessed rational minds*3. Ooooh, spooky! :naughty:


*1. 6 Things That Cause Sick Building Syndrome
Mold is the leading cause of Sick Building Syndrome and can have dire effects on your health. In fact, in about 80% of sick building syndrome cases, mold infestations (black mold and other types) are the main cause of illness.
https://rtkenvironmental.com/health/sick-building-syndrome/

*2. SKEPTIC Magazine :
In the absence of toxins or pathogens, investigators look to behavior patterns for clues.
https://www.skeptic.com/article/mystery-illness-strikes-boston-choir-but-was-it-all-in-their-heads/

*3. How Brainless Slime Molds Redefine Intelligence
Single-celled amoebae can remember, make decisions and anticipate change, urging scientists to rethink intelligent behavior.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/brainless-slime-molds/

Published by Essentia Foundation, which is Kastrup's publishing house. I like Glattfelder but my interests are a little more prosaic, he's a bit too far out when he gets into shamanism and psychedelics. — Wayfarer

Me too! But, his encyclopedic knowledge of "footnotes to Plato" seems to be second only to your own. So, I'm learning a lot about both objective and subjective aspects of the physical & meta-physical world. From his review of shamanism & psychedelic drugs, I learn more about human creativity, as evidenced in our ingrained love for fictional storytelling.

Because of my rational-religion background though, I'm cautious about anything that smells like Mysticism & Spiritualism. That's why I spell the common term for a transcendent deity : G*D. For my BothAnd philosophy, it combines the philosophical concepts of Brahman (infinite & impersonal) and Atman (local & personal). What Glattfelder calls the Sapient Cosmos is to me more like Lao Tse's Tao. The First Cause of our universe necessarily had the Potential for Sentience & Sapience, but I would reserve the term "sapient" for someone we could communicate with, mind to mind. :smile:

PS___ Besides, he describes a primary role for Information --- my own personal pet --- in his philosophy of a material world full of immaterial ideas.

Abstract: Berkeley’s idealism should be reinterpreted not as an outmoded metaphysical theory, but as a philosophically astute protest against the “great abstraction” initiated by the scientific revolution — a defense of the primacy of experience and the indispensability of the observer, in a historical moment when knowledge was being severed from consciousness in favor of a disembodied ‘view from nowhere’. — Wayfarer

Berkeley's Idealism may still be a relevant metaphysical theory, but the general physical understanding has evolved beyond primitive Materialism since the 17th century. For example, I'm currently reading a science/philosophy book by James Glattfelder --- physicist, financial quant, and complexity theorist --- The Sapient Cosmos. A key conclusion is that the physical universe is guided by a Teleological Purpose, somewhat more cryptic than the Genesis gene-centric command : "be fruitful and multiply . . . . fill the Earth and subdue it".

He includes a chapter entitled, A New Perspective, which reviews "The Demise of Physicalism" and "the Rise of Idealism". The chapter discusses Information-Theoretic Theories of Everything (e.g. Tononi's IIT), the Analytical Idealism of Kastrup, and several other unorthodox worldviews that place cosmic Mind over Mundane Matter. But his preferred MoMM philosophy seems to be Syncretic Idealism*1, which incorporates a variety of interpretations of the role of Mind, Consciousness, and Information in the post-quantum world*2.

I am leaning in a similar direction, but I'm not sure I can agree with some of the theorists' surreal interpretations of a Sapient Cosmos. Are you familiar with these cutting-edge updates of Berkeley's model of a Mind Created World? Do you think the Cosmos is currently Conscious, or is it evolving toward Collective Sentience, or was the First Cause of the evolutionary program Sentient in some sense? :smile:


*1. Syncretic idealism is a philosophical proposition that combines aspects of various forms of idealism with elements from other philosophical systems and insights from physics, particularly information theory. It aims to create a unified worldview by integrating concepts previously considered in isolation, offering a new understanding of reality, information, consciousness, and meaning. Essentially, it's a way of synthesizing different philosophical ideas to create a more comprehensive and coherent picture of existence. . . . .

Syncretic idealism often incorporates concepts like:
# Ontology: The study of being and existence, with syncretic idealism proposing a multi-tiered ontology that bridges the gap between abstract potentiality and concrete actuality.
# Information Theory: Drawing from physics, it emphasizes the role of information in shaping reality and the universe's structure.
# Consciousness: A central element, with syncretic idealism exploring the emergence of consciousness and its role in a sentient cosmos.
# Teleology: The idea of a guiding force or purpose in the universe, with syncretic idealism suggesting a "will to complexity" that drives the evolution of the cosmos
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=syncretic+idealism


*2. The aim of the chapter is to gently introduce the reader to all the concepts heavily condensed into the following information-rich sentence: Syncretic idealism presents a multi-tiered ontology, describing the transition from abstract quantum potentiality to the manifestation of complex actuality, outlining the assembly of physicality from the ontological fields of information fueling the computational engine at the core of reality, unveiling a teleological ordering force — a will to complexity — sculpting manifestations of increasing complexity resulting in sapience and disclosing the final emergence of dissociated centers of consciousness, yielding a sentient cosmos.
https://medium.com/@jnode/the-sapient-cosmos-in-a-nutshell-02c3479cca4b

For more than 2,600 years philosophers has studied and contributed to our knowledge and understanding but we still suffer from strife, civil disobedience, revolution, and war. "The only results I see from philosophy are a world in which we are: unable to have peace, unable to eradicate poverty and hunger, and a world in which a well-balanced coexistence with our environment and among ourselves is but a pipedream!" (from How I Understand Things. The Logic of Existence). Why is this? — Pieter R van Wyk

FWIW : Ervin Laszlo was a child prodigy in classical music, who eventually became a non-academic philosopher of science, with a focus on Consciousness. He is now described as a Systems Theorist and Integral Theorist. Obviously, an autodidact genius, and nominated for a Nobel Peace prize. Since his "new paradigm" & Integral Systems worldview seems to be similar in some ways to your own Logic of Existence, maybe he, or someone in his orbit, would be capable of discovering a Fatal Error, if any, in your theory. Unfortunately, I am not in his orbit, or in his intellectual class. :cool:


Ervin Laszlo identifies a convergence of crises, including environmental degradation, social instability, and economic challenges, as major world problems. He argues these issues stem from a fragmented, ego-driven worldview and call for a shift towards a holistic, interconnected perspective. Laszlo emphasizes the need for a collective awakening and a move towards unity and compassion to navigate these turbulent times
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=ervin+laszlo+world+problems

Ervin Laszlo --- Home Page
"We have reached a historic turning point - a "point of bifurcation" - at which we must find new ways to upshift our individual and collective consciousness to ensure the desired resolution of these crises."
https://ervinlaszlobooks.com/

I would go further and say that natural selection is itself a teleological explanation. It is a teleological explanation that covers all species instead of just one (i.e. it is a generic final cause). — Leontiskos

That's an interesting observation, since deniers of end-driven processes feel confident that Darwin's randomized mechanical procedure*1 obviates the need for First & Final causes. Just as Quantum processes are statistically randomized, biological mutations seem haphazard, going nowhere.

As you noted though, Natural Selection (choice, election, preference) gives direction to what is otherwise an erratic path of cause & effect. So, the question arises : whence the criteria for fitness that determine the survival of an organism? If you trace evolution back to its origin in the Big Bang, the Primary Measure of fitness seems to be inherent in the laws of thermodynamics : Energy ~= Life : Entropy ~= Death. And some thinkers have extended the coasting mechanical chain to its fated eventual End in "heat death".

Yet, they fail to explain how a small blue planet, on the cusp of an ordinary spiral galaxy has somehow evaded the Second Law Sword, and produced Living & Thinking lumps of animated matter. How to account for that side-track from a one-way trip to Frozen Hell? :wink:


*1. The relationship between Darwin's theory of evolution and teleology is complex and debated. While Darwin's theory is often seen as replacing teleology (the idea of goal-directedness in nature) with a mechanistic explanation of natural selection, some scholars argue that he actually re-invented or adapted teleological thinking. . . . .
While using teleological language, Darwin's theory does not imply a pre-determined direction for evolution
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=darwin+teleology
Note --- Teleology is based on the inference from emergent examples of orderly & organized anti-entropic features, such as Life & Mind that should not be possible if chaotic Entropy ruled the world. The observed direction of Time' Arrow seems to be pointed toward increasing structural order & functional complexity, such as the human brain.

Here is a glimpse - recognising that this post could be construed as "self promotion" that might lead to me being banned from this forum: — Pieter R van Wyk

I think "self-promotion" on the forum is a problem only if you make money from clicks or book sales. I frequently provide links to my own website. But there is no pay-wall, so the information is free . . . . and worth every penny. :joke:

Geodesic of Knowledge where any point on this geodesic is some assumed truth and the lines are inferences to deduced truths. This geodesic is unnavigable — Pieter R van Wyk

I know what a "geodesic" is in non-Euclidean geometry. But I have no idea how or why it would apply to universal human problems. So, right off-the-bat, your Problem Statement is over my head, and above my pay grade . . . . hence "un-navigable. :wink:

Zeroth Argument of Understanding — Pieter R van Wyk

This "beyond first principles" concept is not in my amateur philosopher vocabulary. It seems to open the door to "to radical innovation and a deeper, more expansive understanding of reality". But not for my little untrained pea brain. Perhaps there is a website for Mathematical or Meta-mathematical Philosophy, where someone could communicate on your level. :nerd:

Here I argue that the Geodesic of Understanding and Knowledge, I proposed in my first chapter – my problem statement, is in fact a viable alternative to 2,600 years of philosophical endeavour. It does not provide answers to all problems but it does provide a fundamental structure for a better understanding of life, the Universe and anything. — Pieter R van Wyk

That is indeed a bold statement. But I am not qualified to accept or deny it. I have my own notion of a "fundamental structure" --- Holism --- that points toward an answer to Douglas Adam's query about : "Life, the Universe, and Everything". But I don't think the final answer is "42". Good luck with your attempt to root-out any possible "Fatal Flaw" in your non-philosophical reasoning. :smile:


PS___ In your OP, you quoted Stephen Hawking and Leonard Mlodinow : "Traditionally these are questions for philosophy, but philosophy is dead.
So, it seems that you are trying to communicate with philosophical zombies. :joke:

I have stated, categorically, in my opening statement, that I am not au fait with the 'ism' and 'ology' languages - however, I am pretty convinced that no study of "metaphysical philosophy of materialism" would explain to me why the world is as it is; why we still have poverty and hunger, revolution and war. — Pieter R van Wyk

I'm still playing along with your cryptic statement of "The Problem", hoping to get a glimpse of
The Solution without having to buy the book. But all I get is a statement of the obvious : that after 2600 years, linguistic Philosophy has not solved the problem of physical & social friction (discord, strife, conflict, discontent, dissention, antagonism). As far as I can see : nor have spiritualistic Religion and empirical Science brought an end to "poverty and hunger, revolution and war). All of those disciplines have attempted to explain "why the world is as it is" to no avail. And, so far, after 2.5 millennia of -isms, -ologies, & messiahs, Salvation remains firmly lodged in the prospective future.

Like you, the Buddha made no attempt to philosophize about the sad state of the world, and offered no magical rectification. He simply accepted the imperfect planet Earth as it is, and concluded that the world's problem is not your personal problem, but each person's emotional reaction to imperfection creates internal problems. So, his Stoic solution was not to change the world, but to change your mind. Of course, ignoring the general Problem will not make it go away, hence "we will still have poverty & hunger, revolution & war".

If the Buddha's fatalism is not to your liking, other more sanguine thinkers have posited aggressive positive action to deal with The Problem. For example, Transhumanists depend on science & technology to fix what's wrong with the hand we've been dealt. Extropy*1 is essentially an optimistic reliance on Science, instead of God, to solve the world's perplexing predicament*2 . But I have concluded that the world may have a built-in long-term solution to the thermodynamic & socio-dynamic problem of Entropy & dissipation & devolution. I coined the term "Enformy"*3 to suggest that Nature is not passively going-to-hell-in-a-handbasket. And without human husbandry, things could get worse. What's your verbal or actionable resolution to The Problem? :joke:


*1. Extropy, in the context of transhumanism and futurism, is a concept that represents the potential for positive change, growth, and the enhancement of life. It's often viewed as the opposite of entropy, emphasizing increasing order, complexity, and intelligence. Extropy is a guiding principle for those seeking to optimize human existence and societal structures through technology and innovation.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=extropy

*2. The Human Dilemma :
Entropy, Extropy or Enformy?
In his recent book, Heavens on Earth, Michael Shermer said, "the Second Law of Thermodynamics leads to the First Law of Life, which is to get your life in order". For that purpose, he proposed the philosophy of Extropianism, which is a key concept from the ideology of Transhumanism. In a Skeptic Magazine article, Shermer offered the technological optimism of Extropy as an alternative to Jordan Peterson's more tragic heroic stance in 12 Rules For Life, An Antidote to Chaos. The human dilemma ackowledged by both authors is the same : if humanity were to passively acquiesce to Fate, the world would soon revert to a state of nature, "red in tooth and claw". Some people think that would be preferable to the mess that human intervention has gotten us into. But when God created his earthly Paradise, he made a man from clay "and put him in the Garden of Eden to work it and take care of it." [Gen. 2:9,10,15] That's because the pastoral environment that humans find pleasant tends to revert to tangled jungle or thorny wilderness in the absence of human husbandry.
https://bothandblog3.enformationism.info/page16.html

*3. Enformy, was defined as the organizing principle of the universe. Now I wish to build on that foundation to construct a philosophical, scientific, and religious paradigm suitable for our current level of understanding. But first I have coined another new label to distinguish this fledgling worldview from other old and new conceptions of physical and metaphysical reality. Enformity is a salient quality of our universe which has been overlooked by materialistic science, and taken for granted by spiritualistic theologies.
https://www.enformity.enformationism.info/page2%20welcome.html

↪Gnomon
just wanted to add a connection that could be found between information and and Dissipation-driven Adaptive Organization (DDAO) physical law. — Danileo

Yes. Living organisms exist in a state that is far from the equilibrium of Entropy, and successfully dissipate Energy, as they use it to generate their own Body, Life & Mind. Ironically, that un-numbered "physical law" is contrary to the the presumably universal Second Law of Thermodynamics. So some explanation for the "spontaneous" local violations of the dissipative law should be forthcoming from Science or Philosophy.

That anti-entropy process was labeled by Schrodinger as "negative entropy" (negentropy) in his essay What Is Life? In my own information-centric thesis of Enformationism, I call it "Enformy"*2. My amateur explanation of how Life & Mind emerged from a generally dissipative system assumes that : A> Information is fundamental, while Consciousness is emergent ; and B> Information (EnFormAction) is essentially Energy*3 (power to transform) ; and C> the anti-entropic Causal force (Enformy) weaves Actual Reality, including Matter & Mind, from a pre-Bang Pool of Potential.

Of course, that POP is a philosophical inference, not an empirical observation. But, if you accept the conjecture, then the OP could be reworded to say that "The precursor of Consciousness is fundamental". :smile:


*1. Dissipation-driven adaptive organization,as theorized by Jeremy England, proposes that systems, including living organisms, can spontaneously self-organize into more complex structures to efficiently absorb and dissipate energy from their environment. This process, driven by thermodynamic principles, suggests that the emergence of life and its complex structures can be understood as a consequence of systems optimizing their ability to dissipate heat.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=information+and+and+Dissipation-driven+Adaptive+Organization

*2. Enformy :
In the Enformationism theory, Enformy is a hypothetical, holistic, metaphysical, natural trend or force, that counteracts Entropy & Randomness to produce complexity & progress. [ see post 63 for graph ]
#. I'm not aware of any "supernatural force" in the world. But my Enformationism theory postulates that there is a meta-physical force behind Time's Arrow and the positive progress of evolution. Just as Entropy is sometimes referred to as a "force" causing energy to dissipate (negative effect), Enformy is the antithesis, which causes energy to agglomerate (additive effect).
#. Of course, neither of those phenomena is a physical Force, or a direct Cause, in the usual sense. But the term "force" is applied to such holistic causes as a metaphor drawn from our experience with physics.
#. Destructive "Entropy" and Constructive "Enformy" are scientific/technical terms that are equivalent to the religious/moralistic terms "Evil" and "Good". So, while those forces are completely natural, the ultimate source of the power behind them may be preter-natural, in the sense that the First Cause logically existed before the Big Bang. [ see ENTROPY at right ; Extropy ]
https://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page8.html

*3. The concept of "information is energy" suggests that information, like energy, is a fundamental aspect of reality with the capacity to cause change. While not universally accepted as a strict equivalence, several viewpoints highlight the close relationship between information and energy. Information can be seen as a form of energy, or at least closely intertwined with it, as it requires energy to be stored, transmitted, and processed.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=information+is+energy

With due respect, this discussion misses some 75 years of prior research :P
"The English School of Information Theory emerged in the mid-20th century as a counterpoint to Claude Shannon’s mathematically driven theory of communication. Rather than focusing on signal transmission, this school emphasized the semantic, epistemic, and physical dimensions of information — especially how it relates to scientific measurement and observer knowledge. — Ulthien

Although Information Theory is an essential component of my Enformationism*1 thesis, I am not very familiar with the "English School". However, my thesis does not view Consciousness as fundamental. Instead, Awareness, and specifically self-awareness, seems to be an emergent property of material evolution. So, what is fundamental to physical reality is Causal Energy, which can transform into Matter. Moreover, cutting-edge science, has recently equated causal Energy with semantic Information*2. So, I have concluded that EnFormAction*3 (energy + form + action) is the causal power-to-transform. that is fundamental to our evolving material & mental world. Does, any of that make sense to you? :smile:


*1. Enformationism :
A philosophical worldview or belief system grounded on the 20th century discovery that Information, rather than Matter, is the fundamental substance of everything in the universe. It is intended to be the 21st century successor to ancient Materialism. An Update from Bronze Age to Information Age. It's a Theory of Everything that covers, not just matter & energy, but also Life & Mind & Love.
https://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page8.html

*2. The statement "energy is information" highlights a deep connection between these two fundamental concepts. While not a strict equivalence, it suggests that information, in its broadest sense, can be understood as a form of energy, and that energy plays a crucial role in the existence and manipulation of information.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=energy+is+information

*3. EnFormAction :
Ententional Causation. A proposed metaphysical law of the universe that causes random interactions between forces and particles to produce novel & stable arrangements of matter & energy. It’s the creative force (aka : Schopenhauer's Will) of the axiomatic First Cause that, for unknown reasons, programmed a Singularity to suddenly burst into our reality from an infinite source of possibility. AKA : The creative power of Evolution; the power to transform; Logos; Change.
https://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page8.html

PS___ For more info on Enformationism, see my reply to Danileo below.

And, NO, my understanding is NOT based on any philosophy. It is based on the conditional assumption of the existence of physical things, the things that consist of mass OR energy. You can either agree with this logical assumption OR not. — Pieter R van Wyk

How are the "conditions" of your assumption different from the metaphysical philosophy of Materialism*1? As a pragmatic position, I do assume that physical objects exist in my environment. But I didn't arrive at that conclusion by logical reasoning. It's just the cultural default assumption for making your way in the world. From my reading of physics though, I also understand that the material substance of those objects is essentially a "frozen" or stabilized form of dynamic Energy. So, it seems that causal Energy is more fundamental*2 than malleable Matter. That's a concept, not a direct observation.

Be that as it may, the existence of Matter & Energy is not in question. But the "core argument" of your Logic of Existence remains to be derived from the bare fact of a material world. You seem to be denying the ability of philosophical concepts to produce useful answers to Ontological questions : " It challenges the idea that existence can be adequately captured by concepts, whether through rationalist or phenomenological approaches" If the essence of Existence cannot be encapsulated in concepts or words, what is the alternative : direct unmediated Experience via meditation or drug trips*3?

Anyway, I suppose your "conditional assumption" is what logicians call an Axiom, and is accepted as self-evidently true, without relying on empirical evidence. But obviously, your "understanding" goes beyond the bare existence of a material world. So, what does it say about the Ideal world of concepts? Does it deny the validity of Idealistic philosophy? Or does it explain how a material world could evolve creatures who engage with the physical world by means of metaphysical ideas & concepts, as mediators of ultimate ding an sich (noumenal) Reality? :smile:



*1. Materialism is a form of philosophical monism in metaphysics, according to which matter is the fundamental substance in nature, and all things, including mental states and consciousness, are results of material interactions.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Materialism

*2. In modern physics, the concept of energy is often considered more fundamental than matter. While matter and energy are interconnected and can be converted into each other (as described by Einstein's famous equation E=mc²), energy is seen as the underlying principle that gives rise to all physical phenomena.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=energy+more+fundamental+than+matter

*3. According to James Glattfelder in The Sapient Cosmos : "the psychedelic experience conveys 'unitary' knowledge". He's referring to direct access to a parallel reality, from which the conventional world of our physical senses emerges." Since I have no psychedelic experience, I cannot concur with that assertion.

Put simply: Teleological explanation requires a fixed end or final cause. But in a probabilistic system, the future is open at every step. To say that events are happening as a means to reaching some future state C, is nonsensical considering state C isn't even guaranteed. — tom111

I think you have identified an important distinction between a scientific (mechanistic) and a philosophical (probabilistic) worldview. Classical physics was based on mathematical logic, in which an effect necessarily follows a cause. But Quantum physics revealed a statistical logic, in which there is an element of uncertainty between Cause & Effect. As you implied, a Teleologically-evolving system must have a pre-defined goal. But a Teleonomically-progressing*1 world can explore many options as it proceeds, not to a fixed end, but toward an optimized solution to a general problem, or question.

For example : self-adjusting Evolutionary Programming*2, using digital computers, can emulate analog evolution and even quantum computing, by utilizing the near-infinite options of random code variations to add flexibility to the rigid mechanical operations of older two-value (1 or 0) information processing. Ironically, Darwin's evolution assumed god-like pre-selection of criteria for success. For instance, sheep would be bred for maximum wool production : an empirically measurable goal. But Natural Selection may be more open-ended ; as illustrated by Evolutionary Programming : "EP algorithms can adjust their own parameters (like mutation rates) during the search process". The code itself is modified by the transformative procedure.

I don't know if your OP was intended to apply to the initiation and evolution of our physical universe. But my own worldview interprets the Big Bang as a creation event. In which case, the question arises : who or what caused the Bang? And to what end? The Genesis myth may have made sense 3000 years ago. But a modern explanation for Being (Ontology) and Purpose (Telos) would have to take 21st century science into account. Hence, the new definition of natural evolution would be Probabilistic instead of Deterministic. :nerd:

*1. Teleonomy :
# Although evolution is obviously progressing in the direction of Time's Arrow, it is treated by Science as if it is wandering aimlessly in a field of possibilities limited only by natural laws and initial conditions. But philosophical observers over the centuries have inferred that evolution shows signs of rational design, purpose, and intention. Traditionally, that programmed progression has been called "Teleology" (future + reason), and was attributed to a divine agent.
# Teleonomy (purpose + law) is another way of describing the appearance of goal-directed progress in nature, but it is imagined to be more like the step-by-step computations of a computer than the capricious interventions of a deity. Since the Enformationism thesis portrays the Creator more like a computer programmer than the Genesis wizard who creates with magic words (creatio via fiat),"Teleonomy" may be the more appropriate term to describe the creative process of a non-intervening deity.
https://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page20.html

*2. Evolutionary programming (EP) is a computational method that mimics biological evolution to solve optimization and search problems. It's a type of evolutionary algorithm (EA) that uses mutation as the primary operator to evolve a population of potential solutions. Unlike genetic algorithms, EP traditionally emphasizes mutation over crossover.
1. Initialization:
A population of solutions is randomly generated or initialized with some prior knowledge.
2. Evaluation:
The fitness of each individual is assessed based on the problem's objective function.
3. Variation (Mutation):
New solutions are created by applying mutation to the existing individuals. In some cases, a small amount of crossover (combination of solutions) might be included.
4. Selection:
Individuals are selected based on their fitness, with better solutions more likely to survive and reproduce.
5. Repeat:
Steps 2-4 are repeated for a set number of generations or until a satisfactory solution is found.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=evolutionary+programming

Surely, artificial intelligence mimics reasoning — but does it actually reason? For that matter, what does it mean to reason? Is reason something that can be described in terms of algorithms, inputs and outputs? Or is there something deeper at its core? — Wayfarer

Charchidi touches on that "deeper" question. He notes, "although some scholars argue that language is not necessary for thought, and is best conceived as a tool for communication". For example, animals communicate their feelings via grunts & body language, their vocabulary is very limited. But human "reasoning" goes beyond crude feelings into differences and complex interrelationships between this & that. How do you understand human thought : Is it analogous to computer language, processing 1s & 0s, or more like amorphous analog Smells?

One feature of human Reasoning is the ability to trace the chain of causes back to its origin or originator, either a mechanical cause or a creative agent. This is a necessary talent for social creatures. Reasoning is logic-based ; which is relationship-based ; and which, in a social context, is meaning-based. But algorithms are rule-based, not meaning-based. However, as computer algorithms get more complex and sophisticated, they may become better able to simulate human reasoning (like a higher resolution image). Yet, without a human body for internal reference, the simulation may be lacking substance. A metal frame robot may come closer to emulating humanity, but it's the frailties of flesh that human social groups have in common. :smile:

In conclusion to this discussion then: Philosophy have no defence against "The only results I see from philosophy are a world in which we are: unable to have peace, unable to eradicate poverty and hunger, and a world in which a well-balanced coexistence with our environment and among ourselves is but a pipe dream." — Pieter R van Wyk

Are you blaming Analytical*1 Philosophy for all the problems of the world? If so, do you think Holistic/Systems philosophy will cure all the ills of incompletely-evolved human culture? That's a pretty big "if".

Karl Marx's sociological theory placed most of the blame for poverty, hunger, & war on the unbalanced economic System of Capitalism that ruled the world for at least 2600 years. That out-of-whack system placed almost all of the labor on the lower classes (98%), but allocated most of the rewards of labor to the upper classes (2%). His simple solution to the world's inequities was to allow Capitalism to eventually collapse due to its internal contradictions. Ironically, those inspired by his theory were not patient enough to wait for social evolution to do the job, and turned to violence & vengeance to do the job. So, can we now look back on Communism as a failed Grand Scheme, or perhaps a "pipe dream"?

Marx wrote that "The philosophers have only interpreted the world, in various ways. The point, however, is to change it." His philosophy has changed the world positively in some ways : allowing liberal Labor Parties of the masses to compete on a slightly more level playing field with Conservative elites. But currently, a conservative backlash is set on erasing most of those gains in social equity.

With that historical record of "changing the world" via Philosophy, how do you envision your Systems Philosophy solving the 2600 year old Problem of "strife, civil disobedience, revolution, and war" and also " to have peace, and to eradicate poverty and hunger." How will you convince the masses and the elites of the Logic of Existence? How can a theoretical philosophical revolution/transformation restore the balance of Justice & environmental Harmony? Can we fast-forward humanity to a Utopian stage of evolution? :cool:

PS___ Are these practical questions answered in detail in the book? If so, it might be worth the price of admission.

*1. I used "analytical" as a contrast to "holistic", not in the modern sense.


SEE-SAW OF SOCIAL, ECONOMIC, & ENVIRONMENTAL BALANCE

I'm very suspicious of the idea that we, or the universe, are progressing anywhere - though I know full well that things are always in the process of change. Everything changes, except change itself. — Ludwig V

Some secular scientists describe the universe as simply wandering, with no apparent direction or goal. Yet, Theologians tend to take for granted that the world has a goal : A> to produce worshipers that will stroke the imperial ego of the supreme Lord on his heavenly throne ; and/or B> to save those faithful servants from the wrathful destruction of his own imperial Garden of Eden (obviously, Noah's Flood didn't finish the job). Although I was indoctrinated, as a child, with various versions of those options, as an adult, those self-defeating plans don't make any sense to me . . . . except as a capitulation to the win-lose Game of Thrones against a demonic anti-god, with humans as expendable pawns.

However, my own 21st century worldview, acknowledges the Progress that has been made in space-time since the Big Bang : from a dot-like Singularity --- doorway to infinity? --- beginning with nothing-but World-creating Energy & Natural Cosmic Laws to a near-infinite-yet-still-expanding universe full of countless blazing stars, and at least one blue planet of thinking & feeling & philosophizing meat entities. I had come to that conclusion long before I discovered that a 20th century genius had beaten me to it : A.N. Whitehead's Process and Reality*1. :smile:

*1. Evolutionary Process and Cosmic Reality :
Process Metaphysics vs Substance Physics
https://bothandblog8.enformationism.info/page43.html

I can't think of a Cosmic Mind except as a huge version of the collective mind that seems to emerge in crowds. — Ludwig V

My own notion of G*D*2 in a participatory universe is similar to the concept of Group Mind, except that it must also account for a First Cause of some kind to program the Singularity with enough Energy & guiding Laws to produce an evolving sphere of Actualizing Potential. That's where the Mind & Matter potential of Information Theory comes in. :nerd:

*2. G*D :
An ambiguous spelling of the common name for a supernatural deity. The Enformationism thesis is based upon an unprovable axiom that our world is an idea in the mind of G*D. This eternal deity is not imagined in a physical human body, but in a meta-physical mathematical form, equivalent to LOGOS. Other names : ALL, BEING, Creator, Enformer, MIND, Nature, Reason, Source, Programmer. The eternal Whole of which all temporal things are a part is not to be feared or worshiped, but appreciated like Nature.
# I refer to the logically necessary and philosophically essential First & Final Cause as G*D, rather than merely "X" the Unknown, partly out of respect. That’s because the ancients were not stupid, to infer purposeful agencies, but merely shooting in the dark. We now understand the "How" of Nature much better, but not the "Why". That inscrutable agent of Entention is what I mean by G*D.
https://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page13.html

"System := Components (things that are) and the interactions between these components (things that happen), contributing to a single unique purpose." p27, p135 — Pieter R van Wyk

Yes. That's one way to describe the notion of Holism. Systems Theory was developed --- by Bertallanffy, et al --- primarily for pragmatic scientific or engineering purposes. But Holism was intended by Jan Smuts mostly for philosophical applications, such as understanding the Hows & Whys of natural Evolution. Here's my own definition of Holism :

Holism ; Holon :
Philosophically, a whole system is a collection of parts (holons) that possesses properties not found in the parts. That something extra is an Emergent quality that was latent (unmanifest) in the parts. For example, when atoms of hydrogen & oxygen gases combine in a specific ratio, the molecule has properties of water, such as wetness, that are not found in the gases. A Holon is something that is simultaneously a whole and a part — A system of entangled things that has a function in a hierarchy of systems.
https://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page11.html

"The Demarcation Meridian then states that there exist no shared collection between the Rules of Man and the Laws of Nature" p69 Solving the demarcation problem. — Pieter R van Wyk

I assume that instead of "collection" you meant "connection". Physically, a "demarcation meridian" is simply a point of reference for defining boundaries. But I suppose your DM is a philosophical assertion that Natural & Cultural laws are categorically distinct, with no overlap, no connection. But how does that "solve" the problem of distinguishing between Science and Pseudoscience? Are you saying that Science is natural (hence factual) and Pseudoscience is cultural (hence imaginary or counterfactual)? That seems to be merely a restatement of the problem, not a solution. :wink:

I can even tell you that holism and reductionism is simply two sides of the same coin. "It (my systems theory) describes a logic of understanding any part of a whole and any whole as a part." — Pieter R van Wyk

Yes. Reductionism is basically the Scientific Method devised in the 17th century. That's a practical way for humans to break Nature down into analytically understandable puzzle pieces. But 20th century Holism is a Philosophical method --- "a logic of understanding" --- for viewing a collection of entangled holons as integral & functional parts of an interacting System, with novel functions of its own. :nerd:

The New Physics :
“The advent of holism in the 20th century coincided with the gradual development of quantum mechanics. Holism in physics is the nonseparability of physical systems from their parts, especially quantum phenomena. Classical physics cannot be regarded as holistic, as the behavior of individual parts represents the whole.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holism
https://bothandblog8.enformationism.info/page33.html


PS___ I included the Academia link in my last post because C. van Wyck is a scholar of Holistic Science, and he may be related to you :
Claudius van Wyk
https://claudiusvanwyk.academia.edu/

And Kant concluded that Ultimate Reality (noumenon) is fundamentally unknowable to humans. He seems to be implying that philosophers are just ordinary humans, who have made it their business to guess (speculate) about non-phenomenal noumena. — Gnomon
It’s more a question of intellectual humility - no matter how much we know there’s still a sense in which we lack insight into how things really are. Human knowledge is necessarily incomplete, in that sense. — Wayfarer

I just came across a quote in the book I'm currently reading, after the author discussed Aldous Huxley's notion : "that our entire perception of reality is a hallucination". That's a strange way to think about the "reality" philosophers have striven to understand rationally for 3000 years. He then quotes neuroscientist David Eagleman :
". . . . what we call normal perception does not really differ from hallucinations, except that the latter are not anchored by external input. . . . . . Instead of reality being passively recorded by the brain, it is actively constructed by it."

That's a big exception for rational thinkers. But does the notion that humans "actively construct" their worldview resonate at all with your concept of a Mind-Created World? :smile:

Your *1 Thank you for putting this on this forum. The one issue I have is that the responses you quote (Core argument, Beyond conceptualisation, ...) is generated by artificial intelligence, which is (currently still) incapable of abstract thought. I will address your notes: — Pieter R van Wyk

Hopefully, semi-sentient but heartless AI will be able to scan your words, and summarize them, without a personal agenda, to warp your intended meaning. Unfortunately, I can't say the same for my own understanding of "the problem" with analytical philosophy. I may have opinions of my own.

I can understand your reticence to reveal bits & pieces of your thesis on the "TPF inquisition" forum, which may evoke unsympathetic & prejudiced responses, by those who enjoy pointing-out Flaws more than noticing Virtues. Any “flaw” in your reasoning would most likely be found in the intuitive or inferential leap from parts to whole. But analytical minds may more easily see the flaws in isolated parts than the synthesized system. :smile:

I propose an understanding that is NOT based on 2,600 years of philosophical endeavour BUT on a fundamental, deduced from 'first principles', definition of a system - now looking for a possible fatal flaw in my reasoning. — Pieter R van Wyk

For those of us on the outside, can you summarize your “System”, and its Principles, in a single paragraph? If so, I may be able to determine if it is A> of interest to me, and B> within my range to understand. However, due to my own limitations & flaws, I may or may not be able to discern the "fatal flaw" in your reasoning. I'm currently reading a large book on a similar controversial topic : "to expose the fallacies of some of our culture's deepest metaphysical convictions". So I may not be able to get into your book for a while. :meh:
Note --- According to the Wiki quote below, the philosophical quest for wisdom seems to be an abject failure. And yet, some of us still quest-on.
"Philosophy is the study of wisdom, understood as the ability to conduct the human activities; and also as the perfect knowledge of all the things that a man can know for the direction of his life, maintenance of his health, and knowledge of the arts". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principles_of_Philosophy

Very valid questions, but easily resolved with a valid solution to the "demarcation problem" in philosophy. — Pieter R van Wyk

The “demarcation problem” is a struggle to distinguish between Science and Pseudoscience. And I don't have a simple solution. Sometimes today's Woo becomes tomorrow's Wow! : e.g. Plate Tectonics & Germ Theory. Those conjectures were only accepted after they were defined in enough detail to fit a puzzle piece into the whole picture. Can you express your "solution" in a single sentence? :wink:
Note --- If you don't want to over-simplify, in view of trolls & critics, you can message me in the Inbox.

I have started reading some of your musings on 'enformationism' - my first response is: be very careful of what I call a "philosophical trap", you only end up with oxymorons like "ethics of science". "The Laws of Nature have no morality, no honour nor any legal standing." — Pieter R van Wyk

I define Laws of Nature simply as “limitations on change”. No ethical implications intended ; unless you imagine those laws as discriminating between Good & Evil, from the perspective of the Programmer. From my cog-in-the-works perspective, they simply steer the evolving cosmos in the direction of Time's Arrow. :nerd:

Excerpt from another reply :

The question that I claim to have found an answer to is: Is there a different foundation from which answers, to this question (why are all these problems so pervasive and seemingly unsolvable) and these problems (poverty and war), could be sought. I claim the answer is in a general systems theory deduced from first principles. — Pieter R van Wyk

What you call General Systems Theory may be what Jan Smuts encapsulated as Holism. Which is one of the basic principles of my own thesis. It's fundamental to my worldview. :cool:

Holism and Evolution
Orderly Cosmic Transformation
https://bothandblog8.enformationism.info/page33.html
Note 3. What is complex systems science? :    “Complex phenomena are hidden, beyond masking by space and time, through nonlinearity, randomness, collective dynamics, hierarchy, and emergence”.
https://www.santafe.edu/what-is-complex-systems-science

Claudius van Wyk
https://claudiusvanwyk.academia.edu/

The point I'm pressing is the distinction between the empirical facts of science, which I'm not disputing in the least, and the grounding of these facts in the philosophical and scientific framework through which we understand them. That argument is that our knowledge of the physical universe (world, object) is not knowledge of the universe as it is in itself but of how it appears to us. — Wayfarer

Personally, I have a very parochial view of the world. Except for four years in the navy, my body, with its sensory organs, has seldom experienced the wider world beyond my location, within a radius of a few miles, on the North American continent. Since I live in a small city, I seldom see any stars, except for Venus. So, my "knowledge of the physical universe" is not "as it is in itself", but as reported by humans who have made it their business to explore parts of the universe beyond my ken.

Presumably, those reports --- from scientists, philosophers, explorers --- describe the universe "as it appears" to them. From those varied accounts, I have stitched together a worldview of my own. But, it's still a patchwork, and not knowledge of the world "as it is". And Kant concluded that Ultimate Reality (noumenon) is fundamentally unknowable to humans. He seems to be implying that philosophers are just ordinary humans, who have made it their business to guess (speculate) about non-phenomenal noumena.

And yet, mystics, shamen, prophets, psychonauts, etc, have claimed to see beyond the limits of human senses, with introspection, or extra-sensory perception, or drugs that dull the left brain (rational mind). Should I take their reports as descriptions of what the world is really truly like --- or as it "appears to them"? :wink:

Thank you for the invitation to join this forum. I am joining with some trepidation - I am not a philosopher and I have not any formal qualification in philosophy. But then, according to Jostein Gaarder in 'Sophie's World' - "...the only thing we require to be good philosophers is the faculty of wonder ..." I also have to admit that I do not speak any of the peculiar languages 'ology', 'ism' and such, I prefer plain English.
The Problem, from my "faculty of wonder": For more than 2,600 years philosophers has studied and contributed to our knowledge and understanding but we still suffer from strife, civil disobedience, revolution, and war. "The only results I see from philosophy are a world in which we are: unable to have peace, unable to eradicate poverty and hunger, and a world in which a well-balanced coexistence with our environment and among ourselves is but a pipedream!" (from How I Understand Things. The Logic of Existence). Why is this? — Pieter R van Wyk

I too, have no training as a philosopher, and most of my relevant reading prior to retirement has been in the empirical sciences : especially Quantum Physics and Information Theory. But I do "wonder" about non-empirical problems & "why?" questions. So, my retirement hobby is to explore the practical & theoretical implications of my personal worldview*2, which is explained in a website and blog*3.

I haven't read your book, but I have scanned the Google summary*1. Based on that overview, it seems that our worldviews may have some ideas in common, but others that may clash. I'm not familiar with Meta-Mathematics, but I do know a bit about Systems Theory & Holism. I don't meditate, and don't do drugs ; so if we have anything to inter-communicate, it will have to be done in conventional English language, with allowances for a few necessary neologisms. :smile:


*1. How I Understand Things. The Logic of Existence :
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=How+I+Understand+Things.+The+Logic+of+Existence

Core argument : "It challenges the idea that existence can be adequately captured by concepts, whether through rationalist or phenomenological approaches".
Note --- If we can't understand the world conceptually, and put it into words, do you think we can only explore the world system experientially, via meditation or drugs?

Beyond Conceptualization :
"It argues that existence is not solely a concept but is inherent in the act of being itself, and that we often lose sight of this when trying to define it through language."
Note --- Again, this "argument" seems to dismiss rational Western Philosophy as incapable of dealing with the ontological problems of humanity. Are you recommending something like Sartre's "being-in-itself" or the spiritual awakening of Ram Dass : "Be Here Now"?

Reception and Criticism :
"The book is described as a potentially controversial work, challenging established philosophical ideas.
It has received criticism for its lack of concrete examples and its potential to alienate readers familiar with traditional philosophy."
Note --- My own amateur personal philosophy questions both "established" philosophical concepts, and "classical" concepts of Newtonian Physics.

Summary :
In essence, the book invites readers to question their assumptions about existence and to consider the possibility that a more fundamental understanding of being is needed to address the complexities of human existence and the world around us.
Note --- I don't know if my Information-theoretic worldview provides a "more fundamental understanding of being", but it is certainly different from both traditional religious & scientific ideologies. If your responses seem encouraging, I may even attempt to read your book.



*2. ENFORMATIONISM
A philosophical worldview or belief system grounded on the 20th century discovery that Information, rather than Matter, is the fundamental substance of everything in the universe. It is intended to be the 21st century successor to the ancient worldviews of Materialism and Idealism. An Update from Bronze Age to Information Age. It's also a Theory–of–Everything that covers, not just matter & energy, but also Life & Mind & Love.
https://bothandblog8.enformationism.info/page44.html

*3. Introduction to Enformationism :
From Form to Energy to Matter to Mind to Self
https://bothandblog6.enformationism.info/page80.html

Yes, according to modern cosmology, the physical universe existed for about 10 billion years without any animation or "cognition" : just malleable matter & causal energy gradually evolving & experimenting with new forms of being ; ways of existing. — Gnomon
Where does the measure 'years' originate, if not through the human experience of the time taken for the Earth to rotate the Sun? — Wayfarer

Obviously, the human mind is doing the measuring in terms of locally conventional increments. But the point is that the physical universe existed long before metaphysical minds. So, logically, the mechanisms of Physics must have had the Potential (the "right stuff") for mental functions all along. Apparently, it just took Time to evolve mental mechanisms (thinking organisms) from the raw materials of Matter & Energy, wondrously produced by the explosion of a long long long ago Black Hole Singularity. Something from What-thing?

Yet, where did that un-actualized pre-bang Potential come from? Is that unknowable Source of Probability (creative power) temporal or eternal? Is it Mathematical (statistical) or Mental (ideal) or Spiritual (G*D)? How and why did the evolving universe of mostly simple hydrogen atoms assemble simple holons (parts) into complex wholes that can self-reflect, and can imagine countless balls of radiant energy (stars) as a living & thinking Cosmos?

Some scientists are now exploring the notion that the Cosmos is a computer*1, processing Information (raw data) into complex Forms with novel functions, such as Thinking & Feeling. But who or what is the Programmer that set-up the system to pursue a Teleology leading to observant & reflective Minds? How do those mindful brains create an ideal mental world within the real physical world? :smile:

PS___ Which came first Mind or Potential?


*1. The idea that the universe is a computer is a fascinating and complex concept explored in digital physics and simulation theory. It suggests that the universe operates based on fundamental principles of computation, where physical laws and processes can be understood as algorithms and information processing. While not universally accepted, this idea has gained traction, particularly with the development of quantum computing and the exploration of the universe's computational capacity.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=universe+is+a+computer

On the empirical level, of course we say the cosmos existed long before us. But from the standpoint of critical philosophy, what we mean by “cosmos,” “existence,” or “visibility” only makes sense within the framework of our cognitive faculties. — Wayfarer

Yes, according to modern cosmology, the physical universe existed for about 10 billion years without any animation or "cognition" : just malleable matter & causal energy gradually evolving & experimenting with new forms of being ; ways of existing. So, you could say that the universe was not awake or aware until the last 4 billion years : the fourth trimester. Could that pre-conscious era be described metaphorically as Gestation : the period between Conception and Birth?

The book I'm currently reading is entitled, The Sapient Cosmos, by James Glattfelder. It's published by Essentia Books, which produces "scholarly work relevant to metaphysical idealism". The author was trained as a physicist, and practiced as a mathematician. But he now goes beyond the pragmatic limits of both professions, to explore the world philosophically ; which is to say "meta-physically". He refers to his methodology as "Empirical Metaphysics". What he finds most interesting is the emergence of Meaning in a material world.

Greek "Cosmos" simply means orderly or organized, but it also seems to imply some Teleological Purpose. The Latin root of "Sapient" means, not just cognitive, but also "wise". At this 1/3 point of the book, I'm not sure if the appellation is intended to apply to the physical universe or to the Organizer, whose purpose is being implemented in material & mental forms. As far as I can tell, the author is simply presenting "brute facts", if you can call philosophical deductions factual. And he is not presenting "institutional facts" under the auspices of Science or Religion. Yet, the question remains : did cosmic Mind exist before the emergence of embodied personal Minds? Or, as some postulate, did our accidental (fortuitous) collective human minds merge into a Cosmic Mind?

Personally, I am not inclined to worship a sentient world, or the implicit Inventor of a "mind-created world", nor to join a social group centered on a relationship with a Cosmos that doesn't communicate or correspond with me. I'm just exploring the wider world to satisfy my own philosophical curiosity. Am I missing some deeper meaning here? :smile: