Not trying to nitpick, but isn't your philosophy supposed to be like the USA is - welcoming to all, and I mean people from every corner of the world by that (inclusive)? Given so I find it hard to tally that with you engaging in arguments, even those involving naysayers (exclusive).

If you think you understand quantum mechanics, you don't understand quantum mechanics. — Richard Feynman

Not trying to nit pick or fault you, but isn't your philosophy supposed to be like the USA is - welcoming to all, and I mean people from every corner of the world by that (inclusive)? Given so I find it hard to tally that with you engaging in arguments, even those involving naysayers (exclusive). — Agent Smith

No, you still miss the complementary perspective of BothAnd. It doesn't accept all opinions as equally true, but within any whole system, there is overlap in the middle, part true part false. As illustrated by a Venn diagram in Logic -- where True & False overlap -- there is an imperfect mixture of both red & blue opinions. Absolute truth could be anywhere in the diagram, but a human, standing on his local spot on the globe, can't see beyond his own horizon. Yet, we know by reasoning & experience that Relative Truth is often good enough for practical purposes, and it can often be found within your own shadow, but on your neighbor's side of the fence. For Absolutists & Perfectionists though, the other side of the fence, is by definition, False.

In the YinYang symbol, the same principle is illustrated by putting a small circle of the opposite color within each complementary half of the big circle. The ancient chinese sages intuited what Einstein discovered mathematically : that what you see (and believe to be true) is relative to the observer's frame of reference. Hence, only omniscient G*D can see the Truth in any situation. But Einstein, briefly imagining himself as omniscient, realized that "truth is relative". And he was modest enough to know that his imaginary G*D was on his side, only when he was on G*D's side, mathematically. :smile:






Unfortunately, some people are absolutists, and can't accept watered-down truth, to contaminate their idealized politicized (us vs them) worldview--- yes, I'm talking about you 180Boo. To Black vs Whiters, a fact is a fact, and there is no gray in-between. So, in order to make sense of apparently intelligent people holding contrasting opinions, they tell themselves that the one holding a "wrong" opinion is, at best mis-informed, or at worst a blithering idiot, pretending to engage in philosophical discourse. Fortunately, such extreme Contrast (100%True versus 100%False) thinkers are rare. But, online philosophical forums allow them to imagine the majority is on their side. Like bulldogs though, once they bite, they can't let go. In their two-value world there is no middle-ground between Macho-Male and Effete-Female, no LGBTQ alphabet queers.

Fortunately, the rational methods of Philosophy were developed to allow us to meet-intellectually (on the sidelines Stoa) without coming to blows (in the Agora, with the masses). We lay down our weapons by emulating Socrates -- "all I know is that I know nothing" -- and Isaiah -- "come, let us reason together". There are two dictionary definitions of "argument" : 1. an exchange of diverging or opposite views, typically a heated or angry one. 2. a reason or set of reasons given with the aim of persuading others that an action or idea is right or wrong. When I first started posting on this forum, I had some philosophical discussions with 180, in which we exchanged opinions & reasons. And I thought we not very far apart in our views. But something about my Enformationism & BothAnd worldviews struck him as dangerously heretical (i.e anti-science*1). Since then he has not pretended to offer rational arguments (def #2), and presents only emotional outbursts (def#1) "your'e wrong, wrong wrong". No more middle ground, and no more Mr. Nice Guy.

So, for the most part, I have simply ignored his booing & hissing. When, I recently responded to an apparently innocent comment, it simply gave him an opening for invective & evisceration. (note the bold philosophical terms in the following post). Although, I remain open to philosophical dialog, I will refuse to engage in political debates. However, If you feel lucky, you are free to get down in the mud, and start slinging. 180 has made it clear that he is not an open-minded BothAnder, but a my-way-or-wrong-way take-no-prisoners Heresy Inquisitor. In time-honored tradition, you can volunteer to be my champion to defend my sullied honor, by "engaging with the nay-sayers". Know the risk though, before you admit to any eccentric opinions. Good luck, you'll need it. :joke:

COME, LET US REASON TOGETHER.
NO, SCREW THAT, JUST BURN THE BASTARD


*1. Anti-science : I prefer Sabine Hossenfelders open-minded term "ascientific" for non-empirical philosophical questions.

I don't see how subscribing to a yin-yang model and then delegitimizing opposition to that model is being faithful to one's philosophy. Even this position I adopt, against you, is/should be part of the whole you talk about. It's actually in your favor to engage with your detractors - it reinforces your position, specifically its BothAnd aspect.

By the way, great post!

I see I have been summoned away from wooing the gaps to talk quantum mechanics sans mechanics! I'm in the process of authoring a paper on consciousness, one entry in the photonics movement that may initiate a revolutionary synthesis of physics, neuroscience and psychology. Wisely minimizing my use of the term ''quantum'' so as to not disillusion the quants from my ultrarealist panprotopsychism.

Anatomy of the neuron suggests that these cells are fundamentally structured around electrical coherence, call it quantum if you want, but the role of light as binding agent for percepts insofar as they arise from electromagnetic matter is more uncertain and requires further research, though showing much promise so far. I hypothesize that modulation of infrared radiation produced by electric currents within neurons is root source of the functional spectrum, interacting with atoms to constitute the brain's participation in forming the perceptual field. Anyone interested can read the first draft of my paper on the topic as OPs of my thread Uniting CEMI and Coherence Field Theories of Consciousness, The Sequel .

Feel welcome to criticize, that's the entire purpose of this forum as far as I'm concerned!

I don't see how subscribing to a yin-yang model and then delegitimizing opposition to that model is being faithful to one's philosophy. Even this position I adopt, against you, is/should be part of the whole you talk about. It's actually in your favor to engage with your detractors - it reinforces your position, specifically its BothAnd aspect. — Agent Smith

What are you calling "de-legitimizing" the opposition? I do make it a policy to avoid debating those who are dug-in. Dialoguing (win-win) is two-way sharing of views, and is the purpose of this forum. But Debating (win-lose) is a power struggle to defeat the other "position". Even in monistic Buddhism "It is not uncommon to find a variety of seemingly conflicting religious practices incorporated into the lives of Buddhists". That's one way to make peace, set-aside areas of conflict as unimportant. But 180 is not a Buddhist, and he is not compromising of his orthodox beliefs.

Again, you have misunderstood the "BothAnd" philosophy, so, we continue to dialogue in order to construct a mutual meaning that we can both accept. For 180, it may mean "selling-out to the enemy." To you, it seems to mean : "it's all good". To the contrary, "BothAnd" does not mean that Evil is just misunderstood Good, or that a whole is the arithmetic sum of its parts. I engage in vigorous back & forth dialogs on this forum all the time -- with posters who seem flexible in their opinions. So, 180 is the only "opponent" I typically ignore, to avoid wasting time on pointless power struggles. I have no wish to convert him to my own philosophical worldview. But he seems to find it offensive, and is motivated to show me the error of my beliefs. Or, at least to prove who is smarter.

180's arguments are typically articulated in the form of "you're wrong! and here's an orthodox science book that proves it!". Frustratingly, he seldom cites "book, chapter & verse". Like most religious true believers though, he places high value on authoritative Orthodoxy. Yet, to him, I suppose non-classical Quantum physics was like the Protestant Reformation : a slap in the face*1. Anyway, as I said above, I used to engage with 180 before I learned the wisdom of the old saying "don't wrestle with a pig, you'll both just get dirty . . . and the pig likes it". By now, he knows I'm just poking the pig to hear him squeal. Do you think less of me for that sardonic philosophical humor?

You seem to have misunderstood the BothAnd philosophy as a naive idealistic attitude, like that of the founding fathers of the USA : "all men are created free & equal". That high-minded phrase was interpreted by Emma Lazarus : "Give me your tired, your poor, Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, The wretched refuse of your teeming shore". Yet in the news today, the governor of Florida has imported wretched Mexicans from Texas, and exported them to Massachusetts. The Founders were well-intentioned, and their ideal was good, but in practice not all of those "yearning to breathe free" are welcome in Florida or Texas. Even those idealistic political Patriots, immediately ceased dialoging with their Fatherland, and declared war on jolly old England. That's how most Political arguments are resolved. But BothAnd is not a Political philosophy; it's a Philosophical philosophy. Unfortunately, 180 treats it like a Political assault on Scientific Orthodoxy, or a Religious heretical movement.

Perhaps BothAnd reminded you of Rousseau's rousing phrase, "man is born free, but he is everywhere in chains," The BothAnd holistic worldview is not intended to address such real-world political or physical problems. It's not an attack on anything. So, I have never understood what set 180boo in antithetical opposition to such an inoffensive personal attitude : "be open-minded, look at alternatives before you choose a path". His dismissive responses to my posts seems to have something to do with my unconventional usage of the old Theological term "Metaphysics".

Yet, I have repeatedly explained that I'm not referring to Catholic Theology, but to the kind of topics that Aristotle discussed in the Metaphysics volume of his treatise on Physics : e.g. existence, objects and their properties, space and time, cause and effect, and possibility*2. None of which is a physical object or substance, and none subject to empirical falisifiability. All of which are still topics of Philosophical discussion to this very day. Ironically, the first six volumes, which the Catholics labeled The Physics (Nature) introduced the notion of a god-like First Cause *3. So, 180 would do just as well to debate with Aristotle on Physics. Unless you are personally motivated to dialogue with a demagogue. Is that "delegitimizing", or simply calling a spade a shovel? He's called me worse, and it doesn't hurt my feelings. :joke:

PS___The smilie has ironic tongue-in-cheek, not tongue sticking out. But, 180 may interpret it as a juvenile counter-attack. I try to use humor to defuse, but some don't get the joke..
"If you say something tongue in cheek, you intend it to be understood as a joke, although you might appear to be serious".


*1. Seven Decades of Heresy in Quantum Physics :
Although quantum mechanics has predicted an extraordinary range of phenomena with unprecedented accuracy, it remains controversial. Bohr and Heisenberg pronounced it `a complete theory' in 1927, but Einstein never accepted it, and as late as 1989 John Bell charged it with dividing the world of physics. David Wick traces the history of this controversy and shows how it affects our very conception of what a scientific theory is all about.
https://www.nhbs.com/the-infamous-boundary-book

*2. What topics did Aristotle write about? :
His writings cover many subjects including physics, biology, zoology, metaphysics, logic, ethics, aesthetics, poetry, theatre, music, rhetoric, psychology, linguistics, economics, politics, meteorology, geology, and government.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aristotle

*3. Aristotle Physics :
The Physics takes its title from the Greek word phusis, which translates more accurately as “the order of nature.” The first two books of the Physics are Aristotle’s general introduction to the study of nature. The remaining six books treat physics itself at a very theoretical, generalized level, culminating in a discussion of God, the First Cause.

Let me be honest here, I really like your EnformAction idea and its BothAnd foundation. Religion needs an update and pronto; the best way to do that is with the aid of science which has in recent times becoming an opponent of religion, but that doesn't mean there's no middle ground! You have, by proposing a synthesis of the two, found that middle ground (BothAnd). I applaud you for it! :100: :party:

The opposition from the science guys and the lukewarm reception from religious folks you're met with is in my humble opinion because ...

Too mathematical religious for musicians scientists and too musical scientific for mathematicians the religious. — Numerius Negedius (comment on Leonhard Euler's Tentamen novae theorae musicae)

In attempting to unite two rivals for our attention not to mention benefit, you've lost the support of both. This however doesn't mean your philosophy is wrong/bad; what it actually means is that the chimeric philosophy you've developed fits like a glove with reality as we know it. In most cases, I've noticed, people are happy only when they get what they want and utterly disappointed by hard facts.

Good day!

The opposition from the science guys and the lukewarm reception from religious folks you're met with is in my humble opinion because ... — Agent Smith

I think I see what you are suggesting. But Enformationism is neither Mathematical (intellectual) nor Musical (emotional), it is instead a general philosophical & metaphorical Worldview, which reveals no new scientific or mathematical facts to the stock of human knowledge. Its primary contribution is to support ancient Holistic (e.g. Taoism ; Idealism ; Stoicism , etc) philosophies with cutting-edge (reductive) scientific knowledge (e.g quantum & information), and Einsteinian Relativity (POV framing).

So the "lukewarm" reception is due primarily to its negative implications for some dearly-held beliefs, such as the modern ideology of Scientism. It also has little aesthetic appeal to most religious people, because it offers no plan of salvation in the hereafter, and no consoling symbolism & ceremonies in the here & now. So, what limited appeal it may have is for rational intellectuals with a mostly pragmatic way of thinking. Ironically, antipathy & opposition comes mainly from those who believe they have arrived at unassailable Truth, in the form of some Orthodox doctrine or scientific model of reality.

But, even among those rational & philosophical types, some are activists, motivated to change the world*1, not just to understand it and adapt to it. They will be disappointed with Enformationism. Also, even traditional religious types, with an intellectual bent -- such as my family -- their hopes for a better world tomorrow were raised along with their upbringing. And the only hope they see for a "fallen" world is a supernatural Messiah. Enformationism does not describe a world-fallen-from-grace though, but a world that is evolving exactly as intended by the First Cause "Programmer".

In the gradual unfolding of the Evolutionary Program, pain & suffering and dashed hopes are due, not to demonic beings, but to inherent natural laws & forces. This Stoic*2 attitude toward the Real world has been taught by sages for ages, from Plato to Lao Tse to Buddha to the post-enlightenment Deists. However, in view of our post-enlightenment power over Nature, we find our remaining powerlessness hard to accept. Our aspirational moon rockets still blow-up, not due to divine opposition, but to 14 billion-year-old natural laws, and human errors.

Unfortunately, human reasoning is always based on limited information, and is influenced by history & tradition. So its prescriptions & solutions for the "human condition" can be expected to to conflict with one another. For example, general Deism*3 has fragmented into a variety of -isms over the years : PanTheism, PanDeism, PanEnDeism, etc. Enformationism is none of those, and all of those. It proposes no official orthodox position on any topic. Due to our limited access to factual information on our lonely little blue planet, and also to the ambiguity of "facts" on the Quantum foundation of Physics right under our feet, all truths are temporary & contingent. Does that sound like a religion to you? Admittedly, it has some similarity to New Age worldviews, but only in so far as they accept various ancient holistic & naturalistic, but non-fatalistic philosophies. :cool:


*1. “The philosophers have hitherto only interpreted the world in various ways,” he famously said. “The point, however, is to change it.” ___Karl Marx
Note -- philosophers "change" the world with their ideas (living memes), not with guns (death). And such change-of-mind takes generations, requiring stoic patience.

*2. Stoicism :
an ancient Greek school of philosophy founded at Athens by Zeno of Citium. The school taught that virtue, the highest good, is based on knowledge; the wise live in harmony with the divine Reason that governs nature, and are indifferent to the vicissitudes of fortune and to pleasure and pain.
https://languages.oup.com/google-dictionary-en/

*3. Deism :
Derived from the Latin deus, meaning "god") is the philosophical position and rationalistic theology that generally rejects revelation as a source of divine knowledge, and asserts that empirical reason and observation of the natural world are exclusively logical, reliable, and sufficient to determine the existence of a Supreme Being as the creator of the universe. Or more simply stated, Deism is the belief in the existence of God solely based on rational thought without any reliance on revealed religions or religious authority. Deism emphasizes the concept of natural theology (that is, God's existence is revealed through nature).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deism

To me Enformationism, what I could grasp of it, manages to capture all 3 aspects of God: [omni]benevolence (stoic virtue, living in accord with the laws of nature), [omni]science (science), and [omni]potence (EnFormy, the creative force).

I know your philosophy isn't theistic in the sense that Christianity is, but I couldn't help but notice the connection between it and the Christian God's attributes as outlined above. A happy coincidence? Hard to say, but worth investigating in my humble opinion. Maybe it reveals an underlying imtuition that is universal, differing only in the specifics while being same in spirit if you catch my drift.

That's all I have for now. Good day mate!

:smirk:

Its ["Enformationism' "BothAnd" "Meta-Physics"] primary contribution is to support ancient Holistic (e.g. Taoism ; Idealism ; Stoicism , etc) philosophies with cutting-edge (reductive) scientific knowledge (e.g quantum & information), and Einsteinian Relativity (POV framing). — Gnomon

1. Why do "ancient Holistic philosophies" need non-philosophical "support"?

2. What is such "support" suppose to change about or with "ancient Holistic philosophies"? And change for whom?

3. Lastly, insofar as scientifically literate philosophers / students of philosophy tend to dismiss your repetitious (mis)uses of scientific theories and their findings coupled with your own (disingenuous?) confession to being a neophyte in both philosophy and natural sciences, how do you know, Gnomon, that the pervasive "lukewarm reception ,"is due to "reductive scientistic bias" and not due to well-founded learning that is philosophically and/or scientifically superior to your own? What does overlooking or denying the more likely prospect of the latter possibility say about the "openness" – or lack thereof – of your "mind", sir?

Addendum to ...

I like Gnomon's idea in a very general sorta way, s/he probably needs to work on the specifics.

I’m starting at a position of non-belief prior to even hearing any of the arguments. It’s the position of ignorance, which seems to necessarily be the default position, since one can’t start at a position of knowledge. — Pinprick

No. Atheists have heard all the arguments, all their lives. They have no reason to believe there's a god without evidence, and yet no atheist says that he KNOWS there's no God, or she shouldn't. there could be. There could be fairies and leprechauns too.

They have no reason to believe there's a god without evidence, and yet no atheist says that he KNOWS there's no God, or she shouldn't. — GLEN willows

I think this depends on how g/G is defined or described. Consider positive atheism. :halo:

To me Enformationism, what I could grasp of it, manages to capture all 3 aspects of God: [omni]benevolence (stoic virtue, living in accord with the laws of nature), [omni]science (science), and [omni]potence (EnFormy, the creative force).

I know your philosophy isn't theistic in the sense that Christianity is, but I couldn't help but notice the connection between it and the Christian God's attributes as outlined above. A happy coincidence? Hard to say, but worth investigating in my humble opinion. Maybe it reveals an underlying imtuition that is universal, differing only in the specifics while being same in spirit if you catch my drift. — Agent Smith

Your grasp of Enformationism is still incomplete : it's not about God, but about Nature*1. However, as far as we know, Nature is not eternal or self-existent, so a philosophical First Cause is still necessary to explain the Big Bang beginning of the on-going creative process of Evolution*2. And it would be an astronomically unlikely "coincidence" for a random thermodynamic process to begin with fine-tuned settings that are essential for the emergence of living & thinking organisms*3.

Darwin's evolutionary process --- of random errors (mutations) woven into self-correcting organisms by goal-directed selection criteria --- is obviously not entirely materialistic & mechanistic*4. That's because, in our experience, undirected mechanisms (e.g. perpetual motion machines) do not produce self-reproducing baby mechanisms. The only natural mechanisms that do perpetuate themselves are Holistic organisms, which are more-than the sum of their parts. The "more-than" is goal-directed design criteria (information), as in computer programs. So, the logical necessity for a goal-setting Programmer, or some kind, is a logical leap into the unknown time-before-time. Even atheistic cosmologists make that pre-bang "set-up" assumption, including pre-existing Energy (causation) and eternal "laws" to control the interactions of matter & energy. They don't deny the "fine-tuning", but merely the intention behind those "anthropic" settings.

One name for that eternal fine-tuning Programmer is "Multiverse", which merely multiplies what already exists in the physical world, in order to explain its beginning without recourse to an intentional Creator*5. But, in any computer program, it's the ultimate Intention (question) of the Programmer that sets the initial state (hence the aim) of the computation process (output or answer). I don't know the question or the answer, and I know nothing about the First Cause of the universe, but I can make some educated guesses about the FC's "attributes". The basic logical assumption is that there can be nothing in the Effect that was not Potentially in the Cause. But, clearly there's no Omniscience, or Omnipotence, or Omnibenevolence in the creation, so we can only infer such qualities in an eternal (timeless) & infinite (spaceless) Creator.

In eternity, anything that can happen will happen. Or at least, that's the assumption behind the Multiverse hypothesis. But, Nature has none of those properties, so I don't attribute them to my Spinozan Nature-G*D. Which is definitely not patterned after the Christian God. However, as you noted,
almost all philosophical & religious traditions have intuited a basic set of attributes for their First Cause postulations : Brahman, Tao, Logos, Allah. But the existence of evil in our world implies that Omnipotence and Omnibenevolence are antithetical. :cool:

*1. Specifically, about Nature, in view of non-classical & counter-intuitive Quantum Physics, and the non-physical forms of Generic Information (e.g. ideas, thoughts, feelings, etc.)

*2. Plato & Aristotle assumed their world was eternal, but other evidence led them to infer that a First Cause of Causation (motion, change, evolution) was logically necessary.

*3. Since the Greeks were avid mathematicians & rationalists, they inferred that the First Cause of the world must be orderly & reasonable (not random & irrational), hence LOGOS was their label for a non-physical non-anthropic Creator. Cynics today though, tend to downplay human intelligence. Because it is not perfect & omniscient, compared to what?

*4. Darwinian Programming : "There is a famous [mis]quote attributed to Darwin: ‘ It is not the strongest of the species that survives, nor the most intelligent that survives. It is the one that is the most adaptable to change. While most likely Darwin didn’t say it, the principle behind it still stands. Nowadays this property is known as ‘evolvability’." https://accu.org/journals/overload/20/109/ignatchenko_1911/
Note -- Adaptability requires A> intentions, B> feedback loops, C> course changes. A + B + C + ? = Holistic Intelligence (? = interaction, interdependence, sharing of information). Humanity as a species, has occupied almost all ecological niches on Earth, and are in the process of colonizing off-worlds. What were the odds of that eventuality when the Singularity went Bang?

*5. Fine Tuning : Skeptical physicist Hossenfelder asks : "isn't it peculiar, they ask, that the universe is the way it is, so we can be the way we are?" That's an "ascientific" philosophical question. So, later she says, "most scientists dismiss this idea out of hand, but I think it's worth thinking about" (philosophically, not scientifically).
"The issue is this. The currently known laws of nature contain twenty-six constants. . . . It's extremely unlikely that these constants would just coincidentally happen to have exactly the values that allow for our existence. Therefore, the universe as we observe it requires an explanation . . . . However, the multiverse hypothesis doesn't explain anything". Existential Physics
Note -- If a shooter at a target range hits the center twenty-six times in a row, would you look for an abnormal explanation : super-human marksmanship, or magic, or cheating?

:up:

:sparkle: :rofl:

Disbelief in God, which some atheists claim is their stance, is simply reverting back to the starting line of all epistemic enterprises which is, in this case, one step before the point where one goes "God may exist".

Yeah, but which "god may exist"?

Yeah, but which "god may exist"? — 180 Proof

All Gods are possibilities we can't rule out with 100% certainty. Every hypothesis has a loop hole that can be plugged to stop fatal hemorrhaging ad hoc. Hence novacula occami which isn't about truth but about simplicity - there was no one but Smith in the room, the door was locked from the inside, no windows; surely Smith took his own life now that he's lying on the floor, stiff as a board and bright green! Simple!

↪Gnomon
:up: — Agent Smith

Note -- If a shooter at a target range hits the center twenty-six times in a row, would you look for an abnormal (Preternatural*1) explanation : super-human marksmanship, or magic, or cheating? — Gnomon

Is the analogy accurate? If so, how would Ockham answer the question?

180boo challenges the logical possibility of a First Cause (pre-existent marksman) with a sarcastic "Yeah, but which god may exist?". The intention is to get you to commit to a particular anthro-morphic god model. Which he can shoot-down with Science.

However, Enformationism is not a scientific thesis, and does not pretend to have direct evidence or revealed knowledge to support any traditional god-model. That's why I use ambiguous terms (e.g. "G*D") to describe the Big Bang sharp-shooter. Impersonal abstract attributes are inferred from real-world evidence*2 that some kind of First Cause is logically necessary to explain the contingent existence of our space-time world. That's not religious Belief, just philosophical Logic.

Ancient philosophers, using unaided reasoning, labeled that same existential necessity with different names for the same abstract concept : Brahman, Tao, Logos, etc.*3. What would you call the Initial Step in 14-billion-year series of events? A cosmic coincidence??? :cool:


*1. Preternatural : "beyond what is normal or natural".

*2. Astronomical evidence points back to a dimensionless point in sub-Planck time before space-time. A common retort is that the concept of time-before-time is like "what's north of the north pole?" But that physical spherical geometric analogy does not apply to a dimensionless Singularity. So, If you take that evidence at face value, you are faced with scientific evidence for a "creation event" of something from nothing. What would you call the Cause of such an un-natural event : a reverse Black Hole? Where's the evidence?

*3. "[u]Brahman[/u] is a metaphysical concept of Hinduism referring to the ultimate unchanging reality, that is uncreated, eternal, infinite, transcendent, the cause, the foundation, the source and the goal of all existence."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brahman

All Gods are possibilities we can't rule out with 100% certainty. — Agent Smith

What do you mean by "possibilities"?

What do you mean by "possibilities"? — 180 Proof

By possibilities I mean those multiple hypotheses that square with data. For instance if I give you the sequence 2, 4, 8, ... the pattern could either be

1) 2ⁿ, where n = 1, 2, 3
2) 2, 4, 8, 14, 22, ...

These two patterns are possibilities.

That doesn't clarify what you meant by "all gods are possibilities" ... possibilities of what?

That doesn't clarify what you meant by "all gods are possibilities" ... possibilities of what? — 180 Proof

Why? There are many definitions of God - from the OOO God to a malus Deus - and all of them jibe with or can be made to with what we know as reality. In short we can't rule out any of 'em as incompatible with our experiences. If you follow the theism-atheism feud, the back and forth between these two warring factions, you'll immediately see what I mean.

In short we can't rule out any of 'em as incompatible with our experiences. — Agent Smith

I disagree completely.

Agent Smith
The only deity consistent with a world (it purportedly created and sustains) ravaged by natural disasters, man-made catastrophes & self-inflicted interpersonal suffering is either a Sadist or a fiction – neither of which are worthy of worship.
— 180 Proof
Just sayin ... — 180 Proof

This excludes an "OOO" deity. :halo:

Besides, Smith, none of the classical arguments^^ for the possibility of g/G°°are sound whereas, on the other hand, there are quite a few sound arguments (including my own**) for the impossibility of g/G.°°

(transcendent facts (vide Spinoza) aka "magic")°°

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/653775 ^^

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/463672 **

I would have to defer to your good judgment on this one! It looks like God is the square peg in the round hole of reality - just won't fit! Either we're too small or He's too big! Most/how unfortunate!

If atheism is defined as a disbelief in the existence of gods, then how does logic apply to that? I’m not sure logic is needed to justify a non-belief. — Pinprick

Logic can be used for both beliefs and non-beliefs. "I believe that you lie" and "I don't believe that you say the truth" mean almost the same thing. One is belief and the other is disbelief or non-belief. One can give reasons --i.e. use logic-- for either of them.

Atheism too, is also defined as belief --i.e. that there is no God-- and as disbelief or non-belief --i.e. lack of belief that God exists. You can meet both definitions around. And you can find a big deal of literature on the subject. In which of course a lot of reasoning is used. But, as you say, " logic is needed to justify a non-belief.". Well, I'm more radical about this: I say that there's even no meaining in talking about the subject. First of all, what kind of God an "atheist" refers to? Your God? My God? The God as presented in the Bible? And so on. Then, if I believe that none of these "Gods" exists, trying to prove the truth of it has no meaning and worst, it is an impossible task. How can I prove that there is not an invisible man walking on the street?

That doesn't clarify what you meant by "all gods are possibilities" ... possibilities of what? — 180 Proof
Why? There are many definitions of God - from the OOO God to a malus Deus - and all of them jibe with or can be made to with what we know as reality. In short we can't rule out any of 'em as incompatible with our experiences. If you follow the theism-atheism feud, the back and forth between these two warring factions, you'll immediately see what I mean. — Agent Smith

The origin of our world in a sudden act of creation is now generally accepted as a scientific fact, not a religious myth. But Science is limited by tradition and methodology to post-Big Bang evidence. So, any speculation beyond that limit is inherently ascientific, but legitimately philosophical. Undaunted, some curious scientists have put on their philosophical hats (dunce caps??) and projected from what is known, with reasonable probability, to what is unknown & unknowable & improbable. Such conjectures may be in the realm of statistical possibility, but can't be quantified in terms of probabilities, due to lack of evidence.

That the initial conditions (e.g. max energy potential, min entropy ; something from nothing) are highly unlikely is undeniable. Yet, we can A> ignore it as an unimportant detail, or B> label it as an inexplicable mystery, or C> accept it as a challenge to human reasoning. For example, particle physicists may not concern themselves with why the original "particle" (Singularity) miraculously blinked into existence already charged with the potential energy & laws for a whole universe. But Astrophysicists, cannot just ignore the obvious implications (logical possibilities) of such an astronomically unlikely initial state. The best they've come-up with to-date though, is magical Inflation (The Great Inflator), or unfalsifiable Multiverse (The Great Beyond) : artificial God substitutes.

The beginning of the reality curve has been calculated down to subatomic Planck scale. So, we can logically extrapolate the curve backward using mathematical analysis*1. But, because the odds against the BB are so incredibly high, we have good reasons "to be suspicious"*2 . So, we are faced with three options: A> don't worry about it ; B> postulate a pre-existing universe to lower the odds ; or C> hypothesize a pre-existing Dealer to stack the deck*3. Hence, it comes down to a choice between ODDS or GODS. The only physical evidence for either is Reality with a big question mark (?).

Multiverses and Gods are imaginary possibilities of something-from-nothing-for-no-reason versus something-from-Potential-on-purpose. The OOO gods and the Great Flying Spaghetti monster are both satirical absurdities, and not intended to be taken seriously. But creator deities have been taken seriously by most wise men down through the ages. Ironically, a great unknowable Universe of Universes is taken seriously today by a few gambling speculators, based on minuscule mathematical possibilities. :smile:

*1. Billions of years of normal evolution compressed into an instant vertical line (by magic?)


*2. When we observe low-probability events in our Universe, we have every right to be suspicious.
https://medium.com/starts-with-a-bang/how-probability-misleads-us-about-the-universe-4f96f17d5b5f

*3. Eternal SpaceTime or Eternal Deity :
The preexisting spacetime would be quantized (preexisting meaning the matrix universe within which the fluctuation would occur) and
A fluctuation would give rise to a virtual particle or virtual energy which would be so massive that its conjugate duration of time of allowed existence, under the Heisenberg formula, would be bigger than the reigning quantum of time in the matrix universe, so that the only outcome allowed under the math would be that said particle becomes real : BANG)
https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-probability-of-a-Big-Bang-occurring-right-now-due-to-quantum-fluctuations

GOD PARODIES : GOLB and GROB GOB GLOB GROD


https://adventuretimeconspiracies.tumblr.com/post/48374563533/deities-of-ooo-a-compilation

I was thinkin' more along the lines of ODDS is GODS. Miracles are highly improbable, not impossible (re the problem of induction), events and they're considered divine acts. In addition, the god of the gaps clearly demonstrates we worship ignorance.

Probability is the math of ignorance — Wikipedia

the god of the gaps clearly demonstrates we worship ignorance. — Agent Smith

:100: :up: ... aka "illusions of knowledge" (i.e. not knowing that / what we do not know).