• Gnomon
    We have no idea what's going on, do we?TheMadFool
    We philosophers are free to speculate from ignorance, because we practice Nescience (why?) instead of Science (what). :joke:

    Then the question is what exactly is it that flows through the posited feedback loops? Unclear!TheMadFool
    From behind the speculating spectacles of Nescience, it's clear to me. It's all EnFormAction all the time. :nerd:

    EnFormAction :
    Metaphorically, it's the Will-power of G*D, which is the First Cause of everything in creation. Aquinas called the Omnipotence of God the "Primary Cause", 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.

  • TheMadFool
    Aquinas called the Omnipotence of God the "Primary Cause",Gnomon

    Food for thought:

    Why there is something rather than...


    p = potentiality, a = actuality. P(a) = probability of an actuality (something)

    Nothing has infinite potentiality.

    [Infinite potentiality = (God's) omnipotence!]


    Something will actualize.
  • Manuel

    It's impossible to say. It's also astonishing how quickly we've learned so much, we've only had about, what, 300 to 400 years of science. Imagine if we had discovered it earlier, where would we be now?

    What makes these people geniuses was that, despite rhetoric from certain public intellectuals, they saw and understood a lot given what they had.

    I highly doubt that if you take even the most prestigious physicist today and sent him back in time, would be able to make such contributions as Aristotle or Descartes or Hume. She would only be able to develop on field of knowledge extensively, but this field does not cover most of what we're interested: psychology, sociology, ethics, epistemology, etc., etc.

    Is the mind in what is understood, or in the way in which it understands?Pantagruel

    I'd say the latter. The mind (though we should speak of persons actually, not mind) is what the mind is capable of doing and understanding, what is understood happens to coincide with a mind like ours.
  • Pantagruel
    I highly doubt that if you take even the most prestigious physicist today and sent him back in time, would be able to make such contributions as Aristotle or Descartes or Hume.Manuel

    Interesting. And this is the kind of thing that makes me think that cultural contents (what is understood) are as important as the thought process itself.....
  • Gnomon

    Nothing has infinite potentiality.
    [Infinite potentiality = (God's) omnipotence!]
    Yes. That equation works, if you define "nothing" as "no-real-thing but all-ideal-possibilities". Of course, empirical scientists don't believe in Ideals, such as Plato's Forms. For example, pragmatic skeptics find "something-from-something" to be logical, and "nothing-comes-from-nothing" as a fact. And that's true in our imperfect real world. But philosophers are theorists, who are not bound by pragmatic reality. For example, Einstein could envision riding on a photon at light speed. So, just as we can imagine the concepts of Zero & Infinity --- which are never found in Reality, but are useful in the Ideal Realm of Mathematics --- the notions of unlimited Possibility and infinite Potential are serviceable only for hypothetical purposes. That's why we eventually have to make our liberal hypotheses conform to conservative reality.

    Unfortunately, for those who expect their "omnipotent God" to intervene on their behalf in the Real World, that hypothetical hope can only be fulfilled in imagination, in the form of idealized Faith. Even Plato's ideal Forms lose their perfection when transformed into real Things. That's because there is a logical categorical barrier between Ideal and Real ; between Idealism and Realism. Ideals are perfect immaterial meta-physical models, while Reality is an imperfect physical system. So, just as the Map is not the Terrain, our possible mental models are not actual physical things. Each realm has its own set of rules & laws.

    The Relative laws of physical Reality are derivatives of Thermodynamics : the fractional ratio between this & that, hot & cold, simple & complex. But the Holistic laws of meta-physical Ideality are logical : 1 or 0, all or nothing, and-or-not. So, there is no imperfect in-between. The Ideal Omnipotent God either is (ideally) or is not (really). Yet, that black & white logic doesn't apply in the fractal Real world, where things may approach infinite perfection, but never reach that impossible dream. Reality always remains asymptotic to its boundary (the imaginary line between Real & Ideal ; Finite & Infinite ; Defined Order & Undefined Chaos). Perhaps that's why Fractals always fade to black before reaching infinity --- no matter how far in-or-out you zoom. :cool:

    FRACTAL ZOOM : animated link
Add a Comment

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.