Has anyone else noticed the blatant political flavor of many sciencey mags these days?

_{Denyse O'Leary

March 5, 2022

Climate change, Culture, Intelligent Design, Media, Science}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

Yes, it was always there but recently, as the editors become ever more self-righteous (= Us vs. the Unwashed), it has become more open and that sure isn’t an improvement. Two items noted in passing:

Big Climate:

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is an important organization with a primary purpose to assess the scientific literature on climate in order to inform policy…
Regrettably, the IPCC WG2 has strayed far from its purpose to assess and evaluate the scientific literature, and has positioned itself much more as a cheerleader for emissions reductions and produced a report that supports such advocacy. The IPCC exhorts: “impacts will continue to increase if drastic cuts in greenhouse gas emissions are further delayed – affecting the lives of today’s children tomorrow and those of their children much more than ours … Any further delay in concerted global action will miss a brief and rapidly closing window to secure a liveable future.”
The focus on emissions reductions is a major new orientation for WG2, which previously was focused exclusively on impacts, adaptation and vulnerability. The new focus on mitigation is explicit, with the IPCC WG2 noting (1-31) that its focus “expands significantly from previous reports” and now includes “the benefits of climate change mitigation and emissions reductions.” This new emphasis on mitigation colors the entire report, which in places reads as if adaptation is secondary to mitigation or even impossible. The IPCC oddly presents non-sequiturs tethering adaptation to mitigation, “Successful adaptation requires urgent, more ambitious and accelerated action and, at the same time, rapid and deep cuts in greenhouse gas emissions.”
Roger Pielke, Jr., “A Rapidly Closing Window to Secure a Liveable Future” at The Honest Broker Newsletter/Substack (March 2, 2022)

The relentless drum-banging will probably have the opposite effect of the one desired, especially when (as is sure to happen) some emission reduction strategies do much more harm than good and the boosters are running for cover, misrepresenting those outcomes in the name of “Trust the Science.”

And then there are the ridiculous efforts in popular science media to snuff out any awareness of the possibility that the virus that causes COVID-19 escaped from the Wuhan lab doing research on making viruses more powerful. How awful of any of us to suggest such a thing! Here’s an intro to a podcast on the topic:

We have featured the work of science writer Matt Ridley on several occasions over the years. Now he is the author (with Alina Chan) of the new book Viral: The Search for the Origin of Covid-19. Brendan O’Neill has recorded a podcast with Ridley to discuss how the Covid-19 virus might have leaked from a lab in Wuhan and how scientists tried to suppress the lab-leak origin theory. Spiked has posted the podcast here. I have embedded it below.
The New York Times continues to flog the alleged natural origin of the plague. Most recently, the Times has promoted “new research” pointing to the live animal market in Wuhan as the origin: “Analyzing a wide range of data, including virus genes, maps of market stalls and the social media activity of early Covid-19 patients across Wuhan, the scientists concluded that the coronavirus was very likely present in live mammals sold at the Huanan Seafood Wholesale Market in late 2019 and suggested that the virus spilled over into people working or shopping there on two separate occasions.” However, “some gaps” in the evidence still remain. “The new [unpublished] papers did not, for example, identify an animal at the market that spread the virus to humans.”
Scott Johnson, “The case for the lab-leak theory” at Powerline Blog (March 4, 2022)

More re Viral

Science writer Matt Ridley thinks science is reverting to a cult. Maybe his next book should be about that.

Comments

SA, you write again, "For example, when we identify that which is “all physical nature” (the universe) we necessarily have that which is non-physical." How do you know that there is not some type of physical nature similar to ours outside of our universe? How do you know that our universe is the only instance of physical nature?Viola Lee_{April 1, 2022
April
04
Apr
1
01
2022
07:50 AM
7
07
50
AM
PDT}

VL
I appreciate very much your engagement in the conversation. We paid attention to each other, responded to comments and questions the other had made, and worked to establish the things we agreed on.
Thank you, Viola Lee - I feel the same. You are an excellent conversationalist and you provided some very worthwhile thoughts to consider. I appreciate your courtesy and the respect you gave to my comments even in areas where there was disagreement.Silver Asiatic_{April 1, 2022
April
04
Apr
1
01
2022
07:25 AM
7
07
25
AM
PDT}

CD Just returning to your comments ...
I think this is the great paradox that religionists seek to avoid.
Again, for the record - you are a religionist. You belong to the Deist religion. Therefore, you believe the universe has a first cause which is God, and in fact, the Deist God actually created the universe through divine power. So - are you saying that you're "seeking to avoid" your own beliefs? If not, could you explain why you think the universe had a divine first cause?Silver Asiatic_{April 1, 2022
April
04
Apr
1
01
2022
07:21 AM
7
07
21
AM
PDT}

Seversky
As I understand it, the “necessary being root of reality” is simply a different label for the uncaused first cause that is posited as the only way to close off an infinite causal regress.
These are not merely "labels" but descriptives. For example, when we identify that which is "all physical nature" (the universe) we necessarily have that which is non-physical. When we combine the two, we necessarily have a termination of the infinite regress. That's necessary being (along one path). The same is true of whatever is held together as a composition of parts. "All physical" and "All non-physical" are a composition with a relationship. By necessity, this is held together by that which is a unified entity - transcendent to what which is merely physical or immaterial alone. It necessarily explains the relationship. The same is true of potentiality. The universe has potentiality and that which is contingent in immaterial essences has potentiality also. But no potentiality can exist without the possibility that it is actualized. So, the necessary being is entirely acualized as the reason for the existence of potentiality. There can be no infinite regress beyond all physical and all immaterial. It would require some third category. The only category is the absolute cause of both entities. Since what is possessed in the effect must exist in the cause, then there is a first cause of all the effects - itself not a cause. It's the same with what is derived of being. All things that exist derive their existence from something else since they are contingent and do not explain their own existence. So, you cannot have derivative being without a source for it - and that is absolute being.
The standard objection to that proposition is that, if the existence of this Universe demands a primary cause, then why does this primary cause not also demand a causal explanation of itself?
Because there is nothing that could cause it. This is obvious by the statement "All physical reality was caused by a physical object.". We can see why that's illogical. "All red balls were created by a red ball". That doesn't work. If all physical reality has a cause, then the cause cannot be a physical being. If all contingent entities, held together as compositions of potential and actual have a cause, then by necessity is it through a non-contingent, fully actualized being. There's no third option. You can't have a regress of non-existent causes (like a physical cause that creates all physical things - that's illogical).
If its existence was not caused then it must always have existed and be infinite in extent, in other words, it is the infinity it was intended to preclude.
No, its obviously a different kind of infinity. Absolute being which is fully actual, is that which is non-contingent. Infinity of a physical universe over time is subject to all of the problems that physics would show (entropy and finite sources of matter and energy as well as "nothingness at the boundaries which is impossible). An infinite regress of first causes proposes that there can be more than one absolutely infinite being. But that's obviously false. There an be no cause to absolute being, because that cause would have to possess something that absolute being did not possess - and that's illogical. There cannot be two absolutely infinite beings. So, there can be no regress of causes. An absolute being is the fullness of actualized existence - and that's where all existence takes its source. If there were more than one absolute being, then none of them would be absolute - each would have part of the total, each would be dependent on each other, each would limit each other. This just violates what is meant by the first cause.
If it is not infinite then it must have been called into existence at some point, in other words, it had a cause which in turn had a cause and we are back to an infinite causal regress.
. Yes, that's right. An infinite, fully actualized, non-contingent, absolute being is not merely a placeholder to end a regress. It's the necessary source of contingent beings. It is self-existing and self-caused because there is nothing that could cause it. A fully actualized being, which actualizes all potentials, cannot be created by anything since it possesses no potentials - it is fully real, fully complete as a being. All other existence and being is dependent upon it. So the cause of all material and contingent immaterial reality was caused by something need more than just the statement "there was some other cause". What sort of being could cause that and where could that being derive existence (since all existence is exhausted in what is considered the first cause).Silver Asiatic_{April 1, 2022
April
04
Apr
1
01
2022
07:18 AM
7
07
18
AM
PDT}

CD As a deist, you have some answers -given that the basics in deist thought align exactly with the philosophy of uncaused first cause - as well as the deist God as creator of the universe. So, in arguing against those things you're trying to defeat your own proclaimed deist-worldview. You seem to do that quite frequently. If you have a position, then you should put it forward and defend it. Attacking all notions of God makes it appear that your own claims of deism are insincere. You apparently arrived at the idea that God exists. Let's hear what convinced you of that.Silver Asiatic_{April 1, 2022
April
04
Apr
1
01
2022
06:54 AM
6
06
54
AM
PDT}

Good post, CD, and I agree.Viola Lee_{April 1, 2022
April
04
Apr
1
01
2022
06:44 AM
6
06
44
AM
PDT}

Seversky @ 825 I think this is the great paradox that religionists seek to avoid. The typical response is that you cannot impose on God the same causal rules that apply to humans. But that simply begs the question. I think the question you raise is as much a psychological issue as a philosophical (ontological) one. I don't think we humans are very good at living with ambiguity and uncertainty, so we concoct pseudo-explanations for irresolvable problems, e.g., who created God, who created the world, how can paradoxical notions like the trinity exist, the problem of evil, and so on. It gives philosophers and theologians something to do. In this regard, however, I don't think anyone has solved the problem and Aristotle's unmoved mover hasn't seemed to have moved an inch in 2300 years. To me, there is a provocative beauty in ambiguity and uncertainty, knowing that there are things that you can't know, problems that will likely never get solved, what happens when we die, etc. But, I just don't think most people are comfortable in that world...chuckdarwin_{April 1, 2022
April
04
Apr
1
01
2022
06:32 AM
6
06
32
AM
PDT}

to Sev at 825, and to SA: Yes to Sev. This attempt to use pure logic, starting from propositions which embed unfounded assumptions without any evidence, is bound to lead to the difficulty that you describe so well. In the case of my conversation with SA, it led to the inevitable special pleading, as documented below: SA wrote at 814,
As I explained, the LOI terminates in a being that is beyond the combination of all physical and all immaterial. We could call this a monism, yes. But there is a very big exception to any other monist system in that we’ve traced physical and non-physical nature to pure actuality – that being only who is capable of creating and binding the composite of potential forms (physical and non-physical). ... We cannot fully ascribe A=A to that kind of being because it cannot be circumscribed, but we trace causality (and the cause of the rational process itself) to that “monism”, and thus it is not an irrational monism that cannot create distinctions ... The LOI ultimately terminates in absolute being.
This is my big takeaway from the conversation: it confirms, to me, my statement from way back at 661: SA had written “They’re not really big leaps if you follow each step carefully” and I replied,
And those steps are full of assumptions that do not follow from the experimental evidence.
Those assumptions are necessary to land on the primary desired conclusion that there is an absolute being, and they are necessary to avoid the infinite regress we run into if we think pure logic can tell us anything about ultimate reality. And this is before we tried to go on to establish further characteristics of this supreme being, but I’m sure the same problems arise there, also. to SA: I appreciate very much your engagement in the conversation. We paid attention to each other, responded to comments and questions the other had made, and worked to establish the things we agreed on. These are things which contribute to a productive discussion. Among other things, I now understand why you considered the LOI so important from the beginning. Frankly, I was a bit baffled that anyone could doubt it, and I didn’t understand why, when I tried to extend the discussion to the role of logic in general, you kept coming back to the importance of the LOI for you. Now I understand why it plays such a central part in your argument, the key line being “We cannot fully ascribe A=A to that kind of being because it cannot be circumscribed”. So thanks for the conversation.Viola Lee_{April 1, 2022
April
04
Apr
1
01
2022
06:24 AM
6
06
24
AM
PDT}

Sev, no, as the formation on a negative just obfuscates. The issue is, we have already had in hand the first triad of logic pivoting on distinct identity: A is itself i/l/o its core characteristics. So, we can turn to a next question, informed by possible worlds speak: if A is, or is not or may be or is impossible to be, why is that the case, in hope of a reasonable answer. This is logic of being, and PW speak allows us to see that such a weak inquiry form principle of sufficient reason [wif-PSR] is not only unobjectionable but allows us to powerfully answer to what is etc. Some things, such as a square circle or the like, are impossible of being as required core characteristics are incoherent, so we know LOI has existential significance. Similarly, we can consider A as a bright red ball on a table in world W, then ponder W' in which there is no ball on the table, but is a close neighbour otherwise. The difference, W - W' allows us to identify causes of the ball and its presence on the table, i.e. we have defined cause, which then is seen to imply possible being that may be in at least one PW but not in a neighbouring one, revealing cause. But then, we see another case of possible being, necessary being. Note, for W to be different from W' we see W = {A|(W' = ~A)}, and already a distinct possible world necessarily involves duality, 2 is part of the fabric of any possible world. Indeed as | is empty so is 0, A is a unit so 1, and ~A is complex so we see contrasting forms of the unit, simple and complex or composite unity; beyond on von Neumann lie N,Z,Q,R,R*,C etc and a huge core of trans-world valid mathematics, answering Wigner's wonder.. Now, there is no possible world without 2, it neither began nor can end, 2 is a necessary albeit abstract entity, a necessary being. Such are a-causal, but are prior to causality. As we can readily review our world is causal-thermodynamic-temporal, succeeding by years etc, CTTh. We can see that a transfinite suggested past cannot be traversed stepwise, and so we come to the root issue: 0, circularity, necessary being terminus. The first two fail the something from nothing, utter non being test so there is a necessary being world root. This must be adequate to sustain all worlds that are or may be. Including ours and our own existence. Such is pregnant with onward considerations, it is not empty as would be "acausal." KFkairosfocus_{April 1, 2022
April
04
Apr
1
01
2022
06:09 AM
6
06
09
AM
PDT}

As I understand it, the "necessary being root of reality" is simply a different label for the uncaused first cause that is posited as the only way to close off an infinite causal regress. The standard objection to that proposition is that, if the existence of this Universe demands a primary cause, then why does this primary cause not also demand a causal explanation of itself? If its existence was not caused then it must always have existed and be infinite in extent, in other words, it is the infinity it was intended to preclude. If it is not infinite then it must have been called into existence at some point, in other words, it had a cause which in turn had a cause and we are back to an infinite causal regress. Neither of these alternatives are satisfactory, unless you are trying to establish your preferred deity as the uncaused first cause but there seems to be no way around the dilemma by our current understanding.Seversky_{April 1, 2022
April
04
Apr
1
01
2022
05:26 AM
5
05
26
AM
PDT}

WJM, you are feeling your way back to the necessary being root of reality. We are contingent and experience any number of things that are antecedent to us and that are independent of but interact with us. But tracing to the root, we find a soul that is prior to and source of all worlds beyond himself as World Zero, the root. KFkairosfocus_{April 1, 2022
April
04
Apr
1
01
2022
04:54 AM
4
04
54
AM
PDT}

WJM, a soul experiences, as a self moved entity [see Plato's equating of the self moved with life in The Laws Bk X], a rational soul, is governed by the first principles and duties of reason, and so may come to adequately warrant what is perceived, reflected on or experiences so it rises above instinct and error prone subjectivity to rational, responsible, freely thought through and acknowledged - objective - knowledge. KFkairosfocus_{April 1, 2022
April
04
Apr
1
01
2022
04:45 AM
4
04
45
AM
PDT}

So, I'm talking about what must be a pre-experiential cause. That doesn't necessarily mean that the pre-experiential cause cannot itself be experienced, but it would be causing what I experience that cause as. I can't get "behind" the experience it is causing because I am the experience (Qua) it is causing. "It' is not not an experience, "it" is causing experience. "It" is not "me," because "I," in any meaningful sense of the term, am an experience, a combination of "observer" and "observed." "It" is not "the observer" because "observer" is an experience. Well here's another thought .... can the cause of Qua even be thought of as separable from the Qua, or as preceding qua? Hmm.William J Murray_{April 1, 2022
April
04
Apr
1
01
2022
04:42 AM
4
04
42
AM
PDT}

F/N: SEP, in re qualia https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qualia/
Feelings and experiences vary widely. For example, I run my fingers over sandpaper, smell a skunk, feel a sharp pain in my finger, seem to see bright purple, become extremely angry. In each of these cases, I am the subject of a mental state with a very distinctive subjective character. There is something it is like for me to undergo each state, some phenomenology that it has. Philosophers often use the term ‘qualia’ (singular ‘quale’) to refer to the introspectively accessible, phenomenal aspects of our mental lives. In this broad sense of the term, it is difficult to deny that there are qualia. Disagreement typically centers on which mental states have qualia, whether qualia are intrinsic qualities of their bearers, and how qualia relate to the physical world both inside and outside the head. The status of qualia is hotly debated in philosophy largely because it is central to a proper understanding of the nature of consciousness. Qualia are at the very heart of the mind-body problem.
Then, there is Wiki:
In philosophy of mind, qualia (/?kw??li?/ or /?kwe?li?/; singular form: quale) are defined as individual instances of subjective, conscious experience. The term qualia derives from the Latin neuter plural form (qualia) of the Latin adjective qu?lis (Latin pronunciation: [?k?a?l?s]) meaning "of what sort" or "of what kind" in a specific instance, such as "what it is like to taste a specific apple?—?this particular apple now". Examples of qualia include the perceived sensation of pain of a headache, the taste of wine, as well as the redness of an evening sky. As qualitative characters of sensation, qualia stand in contrast to propositional attitudes,[1] where the focus is on beliefs about experience rather than what it is directly like to be experiencing. Philosopher and cognitive scientist Daniel Dennett once suggested that qualia was "an unfamiliar term for something that could not be more familiar to each of us: the ways things seem to us".[2] Much of the debate over their importance hinges on the definition of the term, and various philosophers emphasize or deny the existence of certain features of qualia. Consequently, the nature and existence of various definitions of qualia remain controversial. While some philosophers of mind like Daniel Dennett argue that qualia do not exist and are incompatible with neuroscience and naturalism,[3][4] some neuroscientists and neurologists like Gerald Edelman, Antonio Damasio, Vilayanur Ramachandran, Giulio Tononi, Christof Koch and Rodolfo Llinás state that qualia exist and that the desire to eliminate them is based on an erroneous interpretation on the part of some philosophers regarding what constitutes science.[5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14][excessive citations]
Food for thought. KFkairosfocus_{April 1, 2022
April
04
Apr
1
01
2022
04:39 AM
4
04
39
AM
PDT}

All experiences and all potential experiences in a Qua are, as a valid tautology, internal of that Qua. Even if there was a world external of Qua, every experience caused by that external world would have to be already in the Qua's internal potential. To say we experience an external world is nonsense because all experience is entirely within Qua. All experience is internal. The external cannot be experienced" even if it can cause experience. Oh, there it is! The cause of an experience is not the experience that is being caused. Wow. This is a conceptual error on the same order of mistaking a model of behavior for the cause of the behavior, like "gravity." We think the experience is causing the experience. Something is causing Qua, both the experience of self and other, on every level, because all of that is an experience. Experiences do not cause themselves. Well, this is quite the rabbit hole. What the heck is causing Qua, meaning the full experience of "self" and "other," which is a non-separable whole?William J Murray_{April 1, 2022
April
04
Apr
1
01
2022
04:07 AM
4
04
07
AM
PDT}

SA said:
This is where defining “Qua” is essential.
Which I did in 797 before I brought the "I" in to the equation. WJM said:
Qua is the capacity of any being as an “I” to have any experience whatsoever, in any way. We call certain sub-categories of Qua mind, soul, awareness, unconscious, subconscious, physical senses, etc, but they are capacities of the subject, the “I,” to experience in different ways. Qua represents the full capacity of the “I” to experience.
Note that in that post there are two unanswered questions at the end:
1. If I shut down your Qua permanently, is it rational to say “you” still exist? (And remember, Qua includes any form of thought, which are experiences.) 2. Would you agree that Qua is necessarily subjective in nature? (Note, I’m not talking about what the experiences are of, I’m talking about the experiential capacity itself. I grant that we can have subjective experiences of something that exists objectively, and we can recognize that the thing we are experiencing is objective in nature, but the experience itself is not objective.)
It was here that I realized that the "I" cannot be separated from what I defined as the "Qua." If you separate an I from all experience, there is no I left and there is no experience. It is a tautology - a valid one, as far as I can tell. It looks to me to be trivially true. Self requires experience; experience requires self. One cannot exist without the other. Self=experience, so self/experience is Qua. Qua would be the correct way to identify an individual as an entity with identifiable boundaries; the boundary at a given time would be the full range of all experience having any internal effect whatsoever, providing a boundary and internal "state of Qua." Within that Qua lies all potential experience for that Qua. If it's not in Qua to be able to be in a particular state of experience, that experience can never occur in that Qua, regardless of any possible external stimuli or conditions. Even if the potential for that experience exists within Qua, the current state of that Qua must be capable of making that potential active whether any cause is internal or external. IOW, unless the internal conditions allow for an experience to be drawn from the potential, no cause can effect that experience. The question is, once again: is it rational to say something external of Qua can cause an occurrence of experience in that Qua? More in the next comment.William J Murray_{April 1, 2022
April
04
Apr
1
01
2022
03:10 AM
3
03
10
AM
PDT}

SA & VL, before LOI is examined as the root principle of right reason, we must observe that it is a principle of being and communication. We live in a somehow unified domain with diverse particulars that are stable, even with change, starting with experiencing ourselves and others. This is part of why I keep noting, Law or Principle of DISTINCT Identity, a recognition of A being itself i/l/o its core characteristics. Morning and Evening star were experienced as objects that could have been distinct, until it was realised, they were the same object, a planet in different phases of its astronomical motion. There was a common identity, where time of observation was in a sense secondary so morning and evening star were consistent with both being Venus as it was called from ancient days. Thales sitting on the wharf, speculating financially and philosophically was spotting a key issue, one and many. I of course use possible worlds speak as it allows greater flexibility and power in our reasoning, also reminding us that this universe does not necessarily exhaust reality, especially if one entertains physicalist notions. As for God being monist, we can immediately consider the diversity of worlds in the mind of God, who is Mind himself. Our world is significant as it is instantiated physically, not because it exhausts possibilities and diversity. KFkairosfocus_{March 31, 2022
March
03
Mar
31
31
2022
09:59 PM
9
09
59
PM
PDT}

William J Murray @803, Yes, I basically agree. What we experience might also not be material or tangible. Again, this debate is between materialists (the brain is a computer out of which emerges consciousness and higher cognitive activities) and dualists (the brain is a receiving station of a non-material conscious spirit). Did you watch my link to Dr. Egnor's presentation on local brain functions and the discoveries around "free will and "free won't"? You might enjoy it! -QQuerius_{March 31, 2022
March
03
Mar
31
31
2022
05:55 PM
5
05
55
PM
PDT}

re 814, to SA. “You write, “When we say that “A is a red ball”, that’s not accurate. We’re saying, by identity: “A is This red ball”. From that, we know that Not-A is the direct negative of that. By its nature, it negates the affirmation. So, Not-A is “everything that is not That ball”. There can be millions of red balls, but Not-A negates the identification of the one.” I agree. I meant “this red ball” but I wasn’t explicit. You write, “If I say “here is all physical reality” – that’s an identity. Not-A cannot say “AND there is some physical reality over here also”. That contradicts LOI.” But this contradicts what you just said, I think. Here is “all physical reality in this universe.”. That is this red ball. That doesn’t mean that there might not be other places where there is physical reality, just as there can be other red balls. So I’ve added a clarifying clause to what you wrote, “It is therefore clear, when “this is all physical reality (the universe)” then Not-A is necessarily an existing entity that is “everything existing which is not physical reality in this universe”. Note well: I am not talking about any theories about multiverses or anything having to do with evidence (we seem to have skipped right over that part of the search for truth.) I am saying that your logical argument based on the LOI is assuming without justification or evidence that the physical reality that exists in our universe is the only physical reality there is, and we don’t know that. I also want to reiterate that in consider our universe to contain both mental and physical aspects, so this whole argument, for me, is certainly not about materialism. My interest is in ascertaining what we can know, or not know, and I don’t think the LOI by itself gets you the conclusions you want it to. ===== Different topic: monism. You write
As I explained, the LOI terminates in a being that is beyond the combination of all physical and all immaterial. We could call this a monism, yes. But there is a very big exception to any other monist system in that we’ve traced physical and non-physical nature to pure actuality – that being only who is capable of creating and binding the composite of potential forms (physical and non-physical). Thus, we have the creation of our dualist view which makes human rationality possible.
Saying that “The LOI ultimately terminates in absolute being” is a special pleading. The Tao of Taoism makes the same claims. It is a metaphysical belief that likewise makes rationality possible. Claiming that there is one exception to the LOI, God, is a religious belief that is far, far beyond going “in steps” from the LOI to that assertion. And last, and again, you write, “thus it is not an irrational monism that cannot create distinctions (the way a materialist monism would be, for example).” I am not discussing materialism. ===== And responding to 815, which I just saw: yes, multiple religions, including Eastern ones which are quite different than Western monotheism, ultimately end in a God (a monistic one) who then creates the world. But I’ll conclude, and there may not be much more to say, that a) this is not a conclusion that follows from the LOI, and b) this is not a conclusion for which we have actually evidence.Viola Lee_{March 31, 2022
March
03
Mar
31
31
2022
02:28 PM
2
02
28
PM
PDT}

VL mentioned Christian theology but these ideas are not limited to Christian thought:
Xenophon describes Zeus as “of all the gods the one who orders and sustains the whole universe.” (Memorab., IV, 3, 13.) Varro says: Jupiter the almighty, the father of kings and of all things and of the gods and goddesses, the one sole God.*' (Ap. Aug. de civit. Dei, VII, 9.) Horace, in speaking of Jupiter, says: “He alone rules the sluggish earth and stormy sea, cities and the regions of the dead, gods and mortals alike with his impartial sway.” (Carm., Ill, 4, 45.) “The very worshippers of the gods, when they swear, or utter prayers and thanksgivings, do not mention Jupiter or many gods, but simply God.** (Lactantius, div. instit., II, i.) According to Plato, God is the supreme good and the supreme. Spirit, the source of all goodness and beauty. (Soph., p. 248, 265; de leg., X, 892, 898.) According to Aristotle, God is the principal or source of all life, one both in nature and in number. (Metaphys., XII, 8, 10.) (Cf. the quotation from Xenophon, page 34.)
Silver Asiatic_{March 31, 2022
March
03
Mar
31
31
2022
01:37 PM
1
01
37
PM
PDT}

VL
No, not-A doesn’t mean the negative of A. If we consider the red ball as A, not-A doesn’t mean that not-A is not red nor that not-A is not a ball. Not-A is not even a “thing” in the same sense that A is. Not-A is just everything that is not the ball. That is all.
Not-A is necessarily an existent entity that is "not what we have identified as A". When we say that "A is a red ball", that's not accurate. We're saying, by identity: "A is This red ball". From that, we know that Not-A is the direct negative of that. By its nature, it negates the affirmation. So, Not-A is "everything that is not That ball". There can be millions of red balls, but Not-A negates the identification of the one. If I knew "these are all of the red balls in the universe right here" - that is A=A. What that means, necessarily is that Not-A has "Zero red balls in it". That's a direct negation. That's necessarily how Not-A creates the definition. If a person says "Not-A tells us nothing about red balls" then would have a scenario where it is said "here are all the red balls" A=A. Then at the same time "there are some red balls over there also". Clearly, that's a violation of LOI. You cannot have "all the red balls" in one place and at the same time "some of them in another place". If they are all in one place, then Not-A is the negation of red balls. It means, there are zero red balls anywhere else. If I say "here is all physical reality" - that's an identity. Not-A cannot say "AND there is some physical reality over here also". That contradicts LOI. It is therefore clear, when "this is all physical reality (the universe)" then Not-A is necessarily an existing entity that is "everything existing which is not physical reality". As I explained at length to Seversky in post 804, Not-A cannot be a non-existent entity. Otherwise you would have: Not-A is non-existent (or nothing). So, "nothing is Not-A" That's another way of saying "everything is A" - and that destroys the LOI. So, when it is established that "this is the universe" - then Not-A is the existent entity that is "everything which is not the physical universe". When we have an entity that is "not included in the physical universe", that entity is necessarily "non-physical". We call that an immaterial entity. Because the universe is A=A, then Not-A is "everything that is not the physical universe (and it cannot be nothing)" - so Not-A is the existing, non-physical (immaterial) entity that necessarily exists.
In Christianity, an eternal God at some point creates the world. How is this also not “monism”?
As I explained, the LOI terminates in a being that is beyond the combination of all physical and all immaterial. We could call this a monism, yes. But there is a very big exception to any other monist system in that we've traced physical and non-physical nature to pure actuality - that being only who is capable of creating and binding the composite of potential forms (physical and non-physical). Thus, we have the creation of our dualist view which makes human rationality possible. But the LOI is applicable on the human scale. For a being that transcends both physical and immaterial temporal essences - a being that is pure act which enables all potentialities to exist, that's the "ground of all being". That sort of "monism" does not destroy rationality, but rather is the basis for rationality since it is the origin of identity itself. We cannot fully ascribe A=A to that kind of being because it cannot be circumscribed, but we trace causality (and the cause of the rational process itself) to that "monism", and thus it is not an irrational monism that cannot create distinctions (the way a materialist monism would be, for example). The LOI ultimately terminates in absolute being.Silver Asiatic_{March 31, 2022
March
03
Mar
31
31
2022
01:06 PM
1
01
06
PM
PDT}

SA, I continue to think that you are ascribing more meaning to the LOI that it really has as an element of logic in order to try to bring in assumptions: rather than provide evidence you are thinking that logic will somehow provide that which evidence cannot. You write, “When we say “the universe” we’re talking about the physical universe. So, Not-A is that which enables the boundary – so the entity which is non-physical or immaterial. “ No, not-A doesn’t mean the negative of A. If we consider the red ball as A, not-A doesn’t mean that not-A is not red nor that not-A is not a ball. Not-A is not even a “thing” in the same sense that A is. Not-A is just everything that is not the ball. That is all. We live in a bounded universe A with certain characteristics. For those of us who believe that mind, whatever that is, is part of the universe, we can say that our universe contains both physical and mental phenomena. Not-A just means everything that is not a part of our universe, of which we have no direct experience. Not-A could also contain both physical and mental phenomena, and it could contain phenomena utterly beyond our comprehension. Just because A is physical doesn’t mean not-A is not physical, any more than not-“the red ball” is not red nor a ball. It is making a false and unjustified dichotomy to say that since our universe is physical what is outside our universe must be something different. Therefore, it continues to be an imposition of un-evidenced concepts such as immaterial, supernatural, etc. I think you are “smuggling in” metaphysical concepts that are not at all consequences of the LOI ==== A separate point. In another post you write, “That reality is “being” since if it was non-being it would not exist.” If you are just using “being” to mean “existing”, that is one thing. However, it is easy to slide over to “being” meaning a sentient identity, which is a large metaphysical difference. ==== As to monism, since it looks like we are going way past logic and evidence, I’ll say this. In Eastern philosophy the undifferentiated One produces the world, which is characterized by duality and “restless multiplicity”.In Christianity, an eternal God at some point creates the world. How is this also not “monism”? A single, undifferentiated all-everything being, existing outside of time–a monistic being, from whom things, and thus duality, arises?Viola Lee_{March 31, 2022
March
03
Mar
31
31
2022
11:35 AM
11
11
35
AM
PDT}

WJM
Whether the idea that something external of Qua (the set of experiencer and experience) can be rationally said to cause any experience in that Qua.
This is where defining "Qua" is essential. If we said it was strictly "conscious awareness" then there are exceptions (regarding experiences that occur unaware). If we said, however "self" - that might work but it comes too close to a tautology (Self is required for self to experience something). I look at more esoteric ideas that come from spiritual teachings on contemplation and meditation, where the self is transcended. Now we could say that is the "oneness" that you are referring to and I could accept that to a degree. It's only that to arrive at that state of transcendence (beyond self-consciousness), we are reaching something beyond what I think you're calling Qua. You might be able to figure out another way to define this that would include both transcendence of self (including direct communication to soul by-passing self-consciousness) and that all experience is generated from within. I would think some Buddhist and Hindu teachings would offer something like this that provide some answers along the lines you're thinking of, but I still see several problems with both of those when sorting out our individual experiences and the concept of everything merging into a oneness monism.Silver Asiatic_{March 31, 2022
March
03
Mar
31
31
2022
09:44 AM
9
09
44
AM
PDT}

re 800, to WJM. You write, "The specific characteristics of “A” don’t tell you anything about the nature of “not-A,” because all it takes for something to be not-A is changing one tiny characteristic. A exact duplicate of the red ball on the table can be on the kitchen counter, but it is still not the red ball on the table." True, but not-A also includes things totally unrelated to the red ball, such as a rock on planet circling a star in a distant galaxy. As I want to emphasize is that knowing something about the characteristics of A tells us nothing else about not-A. Not-A is not a distinct thing with an identity such as A has: not-A is just a the collection of all the things that are not A (notice the absence of a hyphen here.)Viola Lee_{March 31, 2022
March
03
Mar
31
31
2022
09:41 AM
9
09
41
AM
PDT}

VL
Let us assume that there is “something” other than the universe. Then the union of the universe A and all that is “not the universe” not-A creates a larger comprehensive set: a bigger universal set, perhaps called Universe(2), or U2.
The reason that does not work and there is no infinite regress is that A=A has to refer to something identifiable. When we say "the universe" we're talking about the physical universe. So, Not-A is that which enables the boundary - so the entity which is non-physical or immaterial. That necessarily exists as a defining feature of what is physical (I provided the definition). Otherwise, the term "physical" is meaningless. Now, you propose that the combination of the two (the entire physical and entire non-physical) provides a new Not-A "outside" of that. But there's no possibility left since we have exhausted all possibilities already with the physical A and immaterial Not-A. We'd have to have some kind of third thing "not physical and not immaterial". What we rightly could say at this point, for the third thing - is that we have the combination of two contingent realities. Physical requires a non-physical entity to exist. That which is outside that particular boundary can only be non-contingent - not dependent on one or the other. It cannot be a composition of physical/non-physical, but a single unity beyond both of those aspects. So, we have the non-contingent, indivisible unity - we have a real entity that cannot be potentially one or the other. Here's where A=A terminates. That ends the infinite regress. That's what exhausts all possibilities. In this third being which is non-contingent and is "outside" the physical/non-physical boundary we no longer have something that can be circumscribed by LOI because it is the only being that can explain the analysis that follows. Once we have a non-contingent, non-temporal, "outside" physical and non-physical, fully actualized being, we have an explanation for the duality that LOI provides.Silver Asiatic_{March 31, 2022
March
03
Mar
31
31
2022
09:36 AM
9
09
36
AM
PDT}

SA said @806:
I’m not fully following your distinctions, but I think you’re also looking to eliminate a third-party in the formula. There’s the experience, experiencer – and then “the cause of the experience” which in my view, can be the experiencer in some cases, but also be something (or someone) not either the experience itself or the experiencer.
That's what I'm working on. Whether the idea that something external of Qua (the set of experiencer and experience) can be rationally said to cause any experience in that Qua. More normally stated as: can something external cause an internal experience?William J Murray_{March 31, 2022
March
03
Mar
31
31
2022
08:47 AM
8
08
47
AM
PDT}

re 804, to SA regarding his comments to Sev. I understand that Sev’s thoughts about the possibility that the universe is all there is is a topic of much interest to you, as evidenced by your post. However, I see you have also responded to my post at 799, which makes different points than Sev, but I’ve already written this, so I’ll post it first. But, in response to Sev’s point and your response: In logic it is customary to consider the set of all possible things as the Universal set U, so that the union of A and not-A is U. (I can’t type the union symbol.) In Venn diagram terms, if you draw U as a rectangle, as is customary and A as a circle in the rectangle, then not-A is everything in the rectangle that is not in the circle. (See here for a little explanation of some basic ideas.) So Sev is proposing that perhaps the universe is U itself, so there is nothing outside of it. SA says no, if we consider the universe A, then not-A says there is something beyond the universe: something bigger than contains the universe as well as “something else.” I happen to agree with SA about there being more than the universe, but I don’t think SA’s argument involving the LOI establishes that. Here’s why. Let us assume that there is “something” other than the universe. Then the union of the universe A and all that is “not the universe” not-A creates a larger comprehensive set: a bigger universal set, perhaps called Universe(2), or U2. However, if we consider U2 an an A and apply the same reasoning that there must be a not-A of things that are in U2, so now have a U3. This process obviously can be repeated, so we now have an infinite set of larger and larger rectangles representing an infinite set of nested Universes. The dreaded infinite regress again rears its ugly head! So I don’t think you can use the LOI argument to “prove” there is something outside the universe without bringing in the same infinite regress problems that shows up elsewhere. You ether accept the infinite regress problem or you accept (as an assumption) that there truly is something that is the Universal set, so to speak, that has nothing outside of itself.Viola Lee_{March 31, 2022
March
03
Mar
31
31
2022
08:20 AM
8
08
20
AM
PDT}

KF
We apply these to logic of being and make use of possible worlds thought.
Exactly. It's the logic of being. I have avoided possible worlds formulations so far and I've taken a different approach. First, with A=A we have an absolute truth. Secondly, we affirm that the truth aligns with "what is real" or reality. We can validate A=A. So, accessing the truth brings us to a logic of being. We understand existing entities by identification and separation. I took it a little farther by aligning the truth about things with "value" - or "the good". We are oriented to truth (LOI) and seek it (continually in our rational thought, even if we tell a lie there's an underlying need for truth) - we do this because "the truth is good (has value, is right, is justified) and what is false or illusion is "less good" (or bad). With that: Truth -> Being -> Goodness, we have a foundation.Silver Asiatic_{March 31, 2022
March
03
Mar
31
31
2022
08:18 AM
8
08
18
AM
PDT}

WJM
At a more fundamental level, we have two root concepts: observer and observed, experiencer and experienced, regardless of how you categorize aspects of either side of that fundamental dualism of self and other.
I'm not fully following your distinctions, but I think you're also looking to eliminate a third-party in the formula. There's the experience, experiencer - and then "the cause of the experience" which in my view, can be the experiencer in some cases, but also be something (or someone) not either the experience itself or the experiencer.Silver Asiatic_{March 31, 2022
March
03
Mar
31
31
2022
08:01 AM
8
08
01
AM
PDT}

VL
A simple example that has been used before: suppose you have a red ball on a big table. (I will forego adding a picture). The ball is A. Not-A is everything else in the whole universe. The only thing you can say about not-A is that it is not the ball. Other than that, you know nothing specific about not-A.
Here you're comparing a red ball with the entire universe. We can observe what A is - that's how we determined identity. "This red ball". That doesn't mean that Not-A has no identity. No - in fact, we know that Not-A is a real entity. Plus we can compare it with A to validate LOI. "Yes, the entire universe is not the same as the red ball" - so A=A is validated. I think we can know something more about Not-A than merely "the entire universe is not just a red ball". We might say "the entire universe is bigger than a red ball." We could say it has more potential for being (since it is a foundation that brings being into emergence), it has more energy and capability. Actually, I think there's a lot we could say about that comparison. What is the difference between a red ball and the entire universe (not including that ball)? A=A means we made a real distinction between the two and to do that, we know something about both entities - enough to separate them. It's the same with what I already said - we have "physical nature". That's A=A. Thus, we have Not-A. You opposed this. An example might be, let's say I'm an artist and I created 10 paintings in my life. I put all those paintings in one room. Now I can say "All of my paintings are in that room". That's LOI. I identified something. Thus, A=A. We know for certain, all my paintings are there - no more exist, and none can possibly exist since I know that I only painted those 10. Thus, what precise thing (important thing) can we say about Not-A. We can say, with 100% certainty - as an absolute truth: "Not-A does not contain a single one of SA's paintings. Not-A has absolutely Zero of those paintings. So, Not-A is a "non-SA-painting entity" - it's a reality that contains none of my paintings. Now we apply the same to "the physical world", "the universe" or to "nature". By definition: The physical world is where "all physical reality is". That's the room with the paintings. So, all physical world in that A=A. That's LOI - with identity. We know for certain therefore, that Not-A - with absolute certainty "contains none of the physical world". What we call that is "not physical". Substitute "material" - some thing. We have "all of what we call material here" A=A. Thus, Not-A has nothing of what we define as material. You are thinking that this is "the opposite" of one or the other, but no - it's just the necessary alternative. It's the negation. "All of the universe is temporal reality, bound by time. What we call non-temporal is "transcendent" by defintion". If A is "all temporal reality" - then Not-A is the transcendent reality that must exist. That reality is "being" since if it was non-being it would not exist and we would have no A=A and be reduced to a monist system which is irrationalSilver Asiatic_{March 31, 2022
March
03
Mar
31
31
2022
07:51 AM
7
07
51
AM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3 4 … 29 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply