I'm not arguing a "first cause", I am arguing a cause of material existence. This is an actuality which is prior to material existence, as cause of material existence. Since it is prior to material existence it is immaterial. — Metaphysician Undercover
What we have here is a case of human reason not operating in accordance with reality. Reality, as we know it, is that all things have a cause (principle of sufficient reason). So when we allow ourselves to say that such and such a thing has no cause, we are really allowing our reasoning to be not in accordance with reality, by accepting this premise. — Metaphysician Undercover
Why must there be a cause of material existence? — Janus
The point is why could the cause of material existence or the first cause not be physical? — Janus
"Reality as we know it" is reality according to human thinking, so it is circular to then say that the idea that something might have no cause is not in accordance with reality. — Janus
What we should say is it would not be in accordance with reality as we know, that is reality according to human judgement, to say that an event could have no cause. But saying that tells us nothing other than about the nature of our own thinking. And that also assumes that there is just one version of human judgement on this issue of cause. — Janus
it says something about reality, as the subject. — Metaphysician Undercover
:fire: :100:[ ... ] Wheeler conceived of information, not as non-physical, but as "a fundamental physical entity"!
@Gnomon :point: You also might want to read this to educate yourself as to the diversity of views on the matter of information.
This is nice apt summation:
According to Aristotle biological beings are a single physical entity. There are no separate forms and hyle floating around waiting to be combined. There is not one without the other, substantiated in living physical entities, that is, substances.
— Fooloso4 — Janus
It says something about reality as you judge it to be. Other may not judge reality to be as you do, and reality may not be as anyone judges it to be, if we are talking about anything other than what is observable. — Janus
Yes. That's why I referred to it as "cutting edge". As I said, the reference to Classical Science was not intended to be derogatory. No need to take offense, because the majority of people today, including philosophers, seem to take intuitive Classical Newtonian Physics for granted, and ignore counter-intuitive Quantum Physics as mysticism unrelated to their daily lives. The notion that Information occurs in both material and non-material forms is a minority concept. But it is essential to my own personal information-centric worldview, including my understanding of Monism. Are you laughing at my mindset, or at the novel ideas of professional physicists, or both?The idea that information is ontologically fundamental, not to mention non-physical, is very far from being a consensus view among contemporary physicists as far as I am aware, so your lame attempt to cast my questioning of the idea as coming from a mindset mired in classical physics is laughable. — Janus
in the context of Monism, the question of information is very messy. — Mark Nyquist
The Big Bang model posits nothing physical or otherwise before the first physical event. — Janus
There is a lot of documentation nowadays on the fundamental cosmological constraints that must be the case in order for a cosmos to form, and not simply dissipate into plasma or collapse into a mass of infinite density. These can't be explained in terms of consequences of the singularity as they must exist as causal constraints. I think they bear at least a suggestive similarity to a priori conditions of existence (see for example Just Six Numbers, Martin Rees.) — Wayfarer
No need to take offense — Gnomon
at the novel ideas of professional physicists, or both? — Gnomon
... why would you accept Fooloso4's assessment that for Aristotle there are no independent forms? — Metaphysician Undercover
I cannot find this post (wherein I "agree"), reply with a link please.Fooloso4's statement — Metaphysician Undercover
I'm thinking the best approach is brain state, a singular definition, existence in the present moment only, and physically based on neurons holding specific content. — Mark Nyquist
We have big brains that are very adaptive. — Mark Nyquist
I cannot find this post (wherein I "agree"), reply with a link please. — 180 Proof
[ ... ] Wheeler conceived of information, not as non-physical, but as "a fundamental physical entity"!
@Gnomon :point: You also might want to read this to educate yourself as to the diversity of views on the matter of information.
This is nice apt summation:
According to Aristotle biological beings are a single physical entity. There are no separate forms and hyle floating around waiting to be combined. There is not one without the other, substantiated in living physical entities, that is, substances.
— Fooloso4
— Janus
:fire: :100: — 180 Proof
I agree.So, in the context of Monism, the question of information is very messy. Going point by point there is little consistency and little consensus. — Mark Nyquist
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.