Sabine Hossenfelder argues that the multiverse is “no better than God”

AD @358:

WJM have you read any Robert Lanza?

No, I've only read what's available on Amazon about his books. I've never read his actual books though. William J Murray

Querius

This type of behavior refutes the assertion that “objective reality” exists only in the mind, which I believe is a rash conclusion.

Agreed, and thanks for that explanation which was very helpful. I just came across this excerpt from "A Sense of Self: Memory, the Brain, and Who We Are" ...

The brain’s exposure to physical reality initiates its ability to gather, organize, and remember. Renowned neuroscientists like Oliver Sacks are beginning to examine the truth of this capacity with experimentation. In his article “To See and Not See,” Sacks discusses a man who, after nearly a lifetime of blindness, grows able to see. The world wasn’t immediately familiar to him, though; rather, he had to accustom himself to it as if it was the site of some alien planet, rather than a home he’d inhabited his entire life. Studies like this prove that to get a foothold in the world, the brain must first ingest it, taking it in, churning it up, and hopefully turning it into something that resembles its environment.

I had not heard of that experiment before but it would seem to refute the idea again that there is no external reality and everything is mind. Someone could say that the "universal mind just created the impression that eyes actually see an external world, so that when you're blind you don't see the idea of the external world, then when you see (which you don't really see but are just made to think that you see) then you have to adjust your mind." But that is convoluted at best and doesn't make sense as I see it. Why have eyes at all if your mind is just being implanted with ideas? Then, when you're blind and can see again, why would it be a struggle to adjust to the external world if it never existed anyway? The idea that matter is not little clumps of stuff but rather energy and information and even that consciousness affects reality does not require that there is no external world. Silver Asiatic

I agree with Silver Asiatic @359. I noticed that Dr. Marcella made similar slips in his book, but wisely refrained from either making or avoiding philosophical conclusions. That "things" can exist as perturbations in a field or exist outside space-time, doesn't mean that everything is an illusion in our minds. Such a conclusion is non-scientific. To the points that Kairosfocus made in 354 about Marcella's quotes, I agree. However, the wave nature of light seems to be a mathematical probability wave. This is something that might someday be confirmed or falsified with a super sensitive gravity detector. I also agree that Marcella should not have concluded that "things" outside of space-time are causeless and are completely random. As I mentioned before, Chaos Theory resides somewhere between determinism and randomness. Furthermore, as "things" scale up, they become more and more deterministic. This is also an attribute of Chaos Theory. Here's one way to look at it . . . Print a color copy of the Mandelbrot Set and affix it to a dart board. Try to hit the center black area. As you move away from the dartboard, the dart will land more and more on random colors, but as you move closer to the target, you can usually pick the color you want to hit. This type of behavior refutes the assertion that "objective reality" exists only in the mind, which I believe is a rash conclusion. -Q Querius

As much as we would like it to be otherwise, there is no objective reality on the atomic level. Atoms are not just tiny things that happen to exist in microscopic space-time. They do not obey the principles of separability and locality, and quantum events truly do occur for no reason.

Can we see the contradiction expressed in language here? There is no objective reality. Atoms do not obey various principles, instead they act for no reason. The term "they" in that last sentence, contradicts the claim that there is no objective reality. Far beyond that, to claim that something occurs for "no reason" is to claim omnipotence at the level of God the creator of all things. Again, randomness is not a cause. Nothing occurs without a cause, at least ultimately given that all things must come into existence from something that pre-existed them. Silver Asiatic

WJM have you read any Robert Lanza? AnimatedDust

WJM This is because reality is not an objective phenomena;

Then none of your statements are objective ... and everything subjective has no relevance for the truth. ;) Stop stepping on the rake because always hit you in the face. Sandy

This quote is probably outside of a greater context, but:

As much as we would like it to be otherwise, there is no objective reality on the atomic level. Atoms are not just tiny things that happen to exist in microscopic space-time. They do not obey the principles of separability and locality, and quantum events truly do occur for no reason.

Perhaps the wider context of the book makes it clear that those events do not occur for any innate physical or energetic reason, but to proceed as if it did not: This is what happens when a person first starts trying to reconcile the evidence from quantum physics research with the normal patterns of their mind, both in the conception of reality and in how to talk about it If there is no objective reality in the quantum world itself, what does it mean to say a "quantum event" occurs? What would you even be talking about? This is because reality is not an objective phenomena; it is subjective and, in the case of what we call the physical world, transpersonal. Reality exists in the subjective experience of those observing. The only quantum events that occur, occur in our subjective experiences, and we already know the reason why those events occur: they occur in our experience because of the nature of our observation. People are just so patterned to think that "reality" means "objective reality," they cannot think clearly about all of this. Kastrup and others have the same problem. The concept of an "objective world independent of mind" is a very powerful and deep subconscious program and shreds attempts like this to explain it or characterize it. They keep using terms, without caveats, that cannot apply. Reality is primarily a personal experience, secondarily (as a subset of personal experience) a transpersonal experience. We have our "reality situation" exactly reversed, or upside-down, in the way we normally think about it. "Objective reality" can only exist in mind in the form of self-evident or necessarily true statements. I call this things "experiential unavoidables." The are recognized as necessarily true for all possible conscious beings having any kind of comprehensible experience. William J Murray

F/N, Perhaps, we should consider whether we asked our parents for consent for our conception. Then let us consider the estimate that there is conception about 1 in 200 acts of intercourse. I would think on the whole, the ethically reasonable response is to be grateful for the gift of life and such nurture and guidance as was provided, imperfect though such inevitably is. Then, extend to how a child is a bundle of possibilities, opening up new worlds that turn on the blessing of freedom, including thought, creativity, love, good. However, these require wisdom and imply other choices as also possible, given freedom. Of course, we must consider the disadvantaged, physically, mentally, emotionally and linked requirements of unconditional love. And more. Then, extend to God as super parent of all of humanity. Contrast, resentment towards parents and the disciplinary aspects of nurture. Blend in the social psychology of cognitive dissonance and defence mechanisms such as projection to the resented other. So, out of the fog swims a disturbing thought, our guilt speaks, and its echoes lie in our complaints. KF kairosfocus

Q, to claim there is no objective reality at microscopic, atomic level is a bit of a poorly phrased statement. What may be better is to say that while observations and the math speak for themselves, what they point to is utterly unlike what we are used to at macro level. A good example is the wave-particle duality noted a century ago; think interference effects with particles and the photoelectric effect with light known since 200 years ago to be a wave -- with interference phenomena key to that. Entanglement is again a strange effect, especially when macro separation is large scale. However, the micro level acts collectively to sustain the macro -- often, classical -- level we are familiar with. What we struggle with is to make conceptual sense, e.g. the whimsical wavicle etc. KF PS: Wiki may help:

Quantum mechanics allows the calculation of properties and behaviour of physical systems. It is typically applied to microscopic systems: molecules, atoms and sub-atomic particles. It has been demonstrated to hold for complex molecules with thousands of atoms,[4] but its application to human beings raises philosophical problems, such as Wigner's friend, and its application to the universe as a whole remains speculative.[5] Predictions of quantum mechanics have been verified experimentally to an extremely high degree of accuracy.[note 1] A fundamental feature of the theory is that it usually cannot predict with certainty what will happen, but only give probabilities. Mathematically, a probability is found by taking the square of the absolute value of a complex number, known as a probability amplitude. This is known as the Born rule, named after physicist Max Born. For example, a quantum particle like an electron can be described by a wave function, which associates to each point in space a probability amplitude. Applying the Born rule to these amplitudes gives a probability density function for the position that the electron will be found to have when an experiment is performed to measure it. This is the best the theory can do; it cannot say for certain where the electron will be found. The Schrödinger equation relates the collection of probability amplitudes that pertain to one moment of time to the collection of probability amplitudes that pertain to another. One consequence of the mathematical rules of quantum mechanics is a tradeoff in predictability between different measurable quantities. The most famous form of this uncertainty principle says that no matter how a quantum particle is prepared or how carefully experiments upon it are arranged, it is impossible to have a precise prediction for a measurement of its position and also at the same time for a measurement of its momentum. Another consequence of the mathematical rules of quantum mechanics is the phenomenon of quantum interference, which is often illustrated with the double-slit experiment. In the basic version of this experiment, a coherent light source, such as a laser beam, illuminates a plate pierced by two parallel slits, and the light passing through the slits is observed on a screen behind the plate.[6]:102–111[2]:1.1–1.8 The wave nature of light causes the light waves passing through the two slits to interfere, producing bright and dark bands on the screen – a result that would not be expected if light consisted of classical particles.[6] However, the light is always found to be absorbed at the screen at discrete points, as individual particles rather than waves; the interference pattern appears via the varying density of these particle hits on the screen. Furthermore, versions of the experiment that include detectors at the slits find that each detected photon passes through one slit (as would a classical particle), and not through both slits (as would a wave).[6]:109[7][8] However, such experiments demonstrate that particles do not form the interference pattern if one detects which slit they pass through. Other atomic-scale entities, such as electrons, are found to exhibit the same behavior when fired towards a double slit.[2] This behavior is known as wave-particle duality. Another counter-intuitive phenomenon predicted by quantum mechanics is quantum tunnelling: a particle that goes up against a potential barrier can cross it, even if its kinetic energy is smaller than the maximum of the potential.[9] In classical mechanics this particle would be trapped. Quantum tunnelling has several important consequences, enabling radioactive decay, nuclear fusion in stars, and applications such as scanning tunnelling microscopy and the tunnel diode.[10] When quantum systems interact, the result can be the creation of quantum entanglement: their properties become so intertwined that a description of the whole solely in terms of the individual parts is no longer possible. Erwin Schrödinger called entanglement "...the characteristic trait of quantum mechanics, the one that enforces its entire departure from classical lines of thought".[11] Quantum entanglement enables the counter-intuitive properties of quantum pseudo-telepathy, and can be a valuable resource in communication protocols, such as quantum key distribution and superdense coding.[12] Contrary to popular misconception, entanglement does not allow sending signals faster than light, as demonstrated by the no-communication theorem.[12] Another possibility opened by entanglement is testing for "hidden variables", hypothetical properties more fundamental than the quantities addressed in quantum theory itself, knowledge of which would allow more exact predictions than quantum theory can provide. A collection of results, most significantly Bell's theorem, have demonstrated that broad classes of such hidden-variable theories are in fact incompatible with quantum physics. According to Bell's theorem, if nature actually operates in accord with any theory of local hidden variables, then the results of a Bell test will be constrained in a particular, quantifiable way. Many Bell tests have been performed, using entangled particles, and they have shown results incompatible with the constraints imposed by local hidden variables.[13][14] It is not possible to present these concepts in more than a superficial way without introducing the actual mathematics involved; understanding quantum mechanics requires not only manipulating complex numbers, but also linear algebra, differential equations, group theory, and other more advanced subjects

Here, there be dragons and bug-bears. Shrug. We just have to accept that Mathematics is capable of expositing the logic of structure and quantity regarding micro phenomena, and that such may not correspond well with our imaginations shaped by macro scale experiences. For me, the probability cloud illustrations of electronic orbitals in atoms were an eye opener, setting aside the sun-planets rings taught in 3rd or 4th form. Then came energy bands required for solid state phenomena with electronic devices. For example, transistors, diodes and light emitting diodes. Lasers too. The old saying was, shut up and calculate. To which we add, observation rules (not expectations). kairosfocus

AnimatedDust,

You can’t make this stuff up.

No, you can't. And it's not just because they didn't watch daytime TV, either. -Q Querius

Beautifully stated, Q. Those Bronze Age goat farmers had quite an imagination to come up with verbiage like that. You can't make this stuff up. :) AnimatedDust

AnimatedDust @347, Great insights! I agree that there are many places where there's imagery and symbolism between different parts of the Bible. It's there in plain sight, but easy to miss or misunderstand. There is an analogue to how physicists and cosmologists struggle to try to find an answer to the question, "Why is there something rather than nothing?" They still chase Materialism when even the basic building blocks of reality turn out not to be real themselves. I just finished Thomas Marcella's excellent book, Quantum Physics and the Loss of Reality (2018). He 's a nuclear physicist and retired professor from UMass. In it, he makes no attempt to force quantum mechanics into classical physics. He just lets patterns emerge as simply as possible without a philosophical agenda. I respect that! Dr. Marcella writes that electrons are not real in the same sense that a baseball is real. They emerge from entanglement. For example on page 198, he states the following:

But quantum things do not exist in space-time. They are not 'separated' and there is no 'distance' between them in the entangled whole.

As much as we would like it to be otherwise, there is no objective reality on the atomic level. Atoms are not just tiny things that happen to exist in microscopic space-time. They do not obey the principles of separability and locality, and quantum events truly do occur for no reason.

So, if our universe fundamentally emerges from an existence outside of space-time, it destroys Materialism and Determinism, and obviates the need for a quasi-religious retreat into the Multiverse as Sabine Hossenfelder noted. This also reminds me of what the Apostle Paul wrote in a more general sense about Jesus Christ:

The Son is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. For in him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things have been created through him and for him. He is before all things, and in him all things hold together. And he is the head of the body, the church; he is the beginning and the firstborn from among the dead, so that in everything he might have the supremacy. For God was pleased to have all his fullness dwell in him, and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether things on earth or things in heaven, by making peace through his blood, shed on the cross.- Colossians 1:15-20 (NIV)

-Q Querius

WJM if God created me, God could not have asked me for my consent.

:) To talk about "your consent" is to imply that God hasn't wanted for you the best possible good. When you imply obviously wrong things your worldviews will be fascinatingly wrong . Lieutenant Commander Data

Hey, the quoting worked. :) AnimatedDust

WJM @ 342:

I think you’re projecting other people’s arguments and perspectives onto me. I live in constant, wondrous appreciation and gratitude. I have no complaints about the way this world is – I love it and enjoy it immensely.

I think that's a fair accusation. I agree.

No, it’s a simple, trivially true statement: if God created me, God could not have asked me for my consent. You may not like this phrasing, but under Christianity it is true nonetheless. Stating a simple truth doesn’t indicate I’m rebelling against anything.

I didn't mean "state of rebellion" as something afflicting you alone. I meant it in the collective, though your inference is understandable. I don't write as carefully here as I would in an opinion piece for publication, and that's on me. State of rebellion is another way of describing the fall, or our fallen nature, collectively. God has his reasons for creating a world with divine hiddenness, and I suspect that if you had the full picture at this point, you'd likely not even consider the thought of having been created without your consent. But it sets the stage for free will, and to decide what choices we want to make in life to that end. What we do here matters.

Then there is the issue of my own personal, physical, fully conscious experiences of the afterlife, and the confirming experiences of that afterlife world by other people. Am I supposed to ignore all that? Why would I dismiss ongoing, fulfilling, loving, wondrous personal, first-hand experience and confirming experiences from other people I fully trust? Why would I ever do that? Would you?

Absolutely not. I am fascinated by your experiences, and the mechanics of how you make that happen. I am still unclear as to how you do so. AnimatedDust

Q, the things that emerge from the texts are amazing. If there ever was a God, and we have some sense of what we think he should be, Jesus Christ fits the bill perfectly. In a world where the rich get richer and the poor get poorer, with no justice for most, (Haiti earthquake this weekend, anyone?) Jesus declares: The first among you will be last, and the last will be the first. I'm a fan. That means the people who live off landfills in Guatemala might have a higher place in heaven than me? Who am I to argue otherwise? That shows a divine justice, that would put things to right, in the end. I want a God who is capable of all that I observe, and yet demonstrates such humility, that he washes the feet of sinful people, as a gesture of how low he is willing to place himself in the pecking order. Rock bottom, by the author of life itself, even unto death for a species that has rejected him, even though often, they know not what they do. Only one figure in human history was so completely counter-cultural, (Love your enemies), and challenged everyone, everywhere to think of things differently. Most people don't realize how tightly interwoven the Bible is. For example, how the convenant ritual described in Genesis 15 between Abraham and God is a direct reference to Jesus Christ, HUNDREDS of years later. And how much Revelation is a consistent exposition of the OT. Fascinating. And for anyone questioning it all, I never recommend just reading the Bible, without substantial scholarly assistance. You miss too much, and judge through the lens of the current cultural moment, and interpret incorrectly. Happy Sunday. :) AnimatedDust

AD, use blockquote html tags, with angle brackets and the slash for close tags. KF kairosfocus

AnimatedDust @341, My feelings and experiences exactly! As I look into different translations including the Septuagint, the Dead Sea Scrolls, the Syriac Peshitta, and other ancient biblical documents, I'm astounded at the profound wisdom and insights that emerge! Rather than "play church" as a nominal Christian, I'm determined to live it authentically. The result has been deep peace and joy, blessings, and a hope beyond my temporary physical death. How awesome is that! -Q Querius

AD: Go here: https://www.geeksforgeeks.org/html-blockquote-tag/ Scroll down to where it says "Syntax" in bold. William J Murray

Thank you for your reply WJM. Can someone clue in the clueless on how to produce the quotes of others in replies, as is so often done here? AnimatedDust

AD, I take all of your criticisms in #339 as constructive and from a friendly and respectful perspective.

For WJM, it seems like in many ways, he can’t think of good reasons why God operates the way he does. ... We give the most powerful intellect in existence zero credit for having the slightest clue for how humans might best flourish, while we are not of a mind to even give him credit for our being here typing on computers while bitching about what a screw up he is, in the first place. Move along, no miracles to see here…

I think you're projecting other people's arguments and perspectives onto me. I live in constant, wondrous appreciation and gratitude. I have no complaints about the way this world is - I love it and enjoy it immensely. To be clear, God under MRT is perfectly understandable to me. It is the God proposed in Christianity that I find baffling, but not because I find that God reprehensible or awful or anything like that for creating this particular world. I'm just talking about the logic involved in some of the fundamental claims that don't require any deep understanding of apologetics or internal reasoning. For example, the idea that at some point God chose to create one particular space-time universe. I can't make logical sense out of that concept not because I disagree with the particular one that proposed version of God chose, but rather the states and "process" or "sequence" that claim entails in principle.

For you to characterize things as you do, with the summation that you were created without your consent, is a reflection of the state of rebellion.

No, it's a simple, trivially true statement: if God created me, God could not have asked me for my consent. You may not like this phrasing, but under Christianity it is true nonetheless. Stating a simple truth doesn't indicate I'm rebelling against anything.

Would you have preferred to erase your existence, and never know the love of Irene? Would that have been better?

That depends on what comes after this life. Never existing at all would be preferable to me than bearing an eternity with the knowledge that she is forever lost to me.

Go spend time watching YouTube videos of NDEs.

I've spent decades researching NDE information in many forms. I'm well aware of that information. I presented links to some of it in that other thread - you know, the one where BA77's argument was not that all NDEs reflected a Christian afterlife, but rather his argument was that Christian NDE's were "far better" than non-Christian NDEs. You and he can ignore the evidence for non-Christian NDEs if you wish, and I don't have a problem with that, but the evidence exists all the same. Then there is the issue of my own personal, physical, fully conscious experiences of the afterlife, and the confirming experiences of that afterlife world by other people. Am I supposed to ignore all that? Why would I dismiss ongoing, fulfilling, loving, wondrous personal, first-hand experience and confirming experiences from other people I fully trust? Why would I ever do that? Would you? William J Murray

Thanks, Q, that's nice to hear. I am so often in awe of the intellects here, I sometimes feel like a misfit. But you're right about honest and open, that's me. It wasn't always, but it is now. I do battle from time to time on Facebook with atheists. I did so, more five years ago, and it's exhausting. I feel like the poster child for Dunning Kruger effect, but these are questions that take a lifetime of study. We tend to prefer our Christianity in small doses in the West. An hour on Sundays, and that $%$#% preacher better wrap it up! I am now inconsistent in formal worship attendance, but most of my fulfillment comes from study and reading. IRT is the best new thing to come along in a while. The intransigence of the atheistic scientism community that we are all mud to Mozart is really frustrating and getting old. As an aside, regarding NDEs, the people who describe seeing the heavenly realm all talk about the inadequacy of speech to convey the majesty. One really captured me recently. Nothing was dead there! Think about that. We can't look anywhere in nature and not see death. Whether it be rotting road kill on the highway, or dead leaves at the base of a tree. So true. What does it look like where there is NO death? Fascinating stuff. AnimatedDust

Thank you AnimatedDust @339, Very nicely summarized with great insights! I enjoy conversations with people who are sincere and open, willing to consider different values and viewpoints, or who bring significant information into a conversation. But people who become disingenuous, recite popular but baseless assertions, or hand out "homework assignments" to others that they then automatically reject, are simply a waste of precious time in my opinion. -Q Querius

SA at 332. Excellent. One of the entailments of a fallen nature is confusion, and things like frustrated thinking, error, and blind spots. It's far more than just evil. Our first impulses are most often harmful and wrong. The fallen nature is real. Young children never have to be taught to lie, cheat, or steal. They must be taught the opposite. Hmmm. I sense a blind spot in WJM's thinking with regard to what Christianity really is in his mind. That's why they're called blind spots. I am very impressed with his words and arguments, his perfect English composition and near flawless grammar and spelling, his reasoning and how he argues it. The intellect is giant. And without formal higher education. Impressive! Truly a gift. SA is right that all you could ever want is there, and with Him. You just don't clearly know that yet. The veil that you're under now, is a by-product of free will, and the ability to refuse. For you to characterize things as you do, with the summation that you were created without your consent, is a reflection of the state of rebellion. Would you have preferred to erase your existence, and never know the love of Irene? Would that have been better? One of the most frequent occurrences in fallacious thinking, I believe, occurs unconsciously. We don't even realize we do it. Happens all the time. It goes something like this: Because I can't think of a good reason for X, that means there can't be one. I see it a lot in uneducated criticism by the public in judging police uses of force. Justified force often looks VERY similar to unjustified force. And people very often judge that, consult their moral compass, and think, because I can't think of a good reason why that cop did X to that citizen, that means there can't be one. And then they are met with information that they had no idea about, or some element of the law they were unaware of, and the scenario suddenly looks completely different. For WJM, it seems like in many ways, he can't think of good reasons why God operates the way he does. What is getting him to that judgmental latitude and longitude? I can't think of a good reason to create people without their consent, have them live miserable short lives often in squalor, with no justice for most, and if they don't pick right before they die, they get extended to that existence for eternity. We give the most powerful intellect in existence zero credit for having the slightest clue for how humans might best flourish, while we are not of a mind to even give him credit for our being here typing on computers while bitching about what a screw up he is, in the first place. Move along, no miracles to see here... And as such, can't he can't envision satisfactory reasons for God to do what he does, or not. Given the limited vantage point of his perspective, that's a pretty hubristic way to be. (I don't mean that personally but that everyone suffers from this to an extent.) A humble approach acknowledges our inadequacy, our position in the created order, and says, I am not the center of my universe, despite my propensity to be. You are, and every breath I take is solely as a result of your having allowed it. I thank you for that, and ask for your forgiveness for my lack of appreciation for that. Maybe bend a rhetorical knee to the intellect that put together this whole show, and admit, I don't know everything. I really don't know anything, but I want you to reveal yourself to me, if you exist. If you (WJM) asked with a pure heart, and a mind open to the possibility, even without moving your lips, you might be surprised what happens. (This paragraph reads to me like I am taking you to task, personally WJM, and I am not. This is for everyone, an amalgamation of Western First World attitudes about the creator over everything.) Go spend time watching YouTube videos of NDEs. BA77 has done a magnificent job of finding some of the best ones. The remarkable consistency, the overwhelming beauty, love, sense of no longer being time, seeing dead loved ones, and NO ONE ever prefers to come back, given their druthers. The ones that do are sometimes told, you have work left to do, or your time has not yet come. Others don't want to leave family yet. Many of them are baloney, too. Lots of hucksters out there. Many have had direct conversations with Christ. Face to face. Mary Neal, an orthopaedic surgeon is one. He told her that her oldest son would die when he was 19. The NDE was a few years beforehand. It came to pass. Fascinating story. She was underwater for more than 30 minutes. She suffers no lingering debilitation, cognitive or otherwise. Coincidence? I think not. You've spent time elucidating that not all NDEs are Christian. Could be. Seems like that might also be a desire that your preference also be true. The wish is the father of the assertion? That'll do for now. I hope you're enjoying your Saturday, all. AnimatedDust

Jack, who is no longer with us

Unfortunately there are reincarnations on UD. Maybe there should be a way of having people like Jack and Karen who appeared before him, argue on an anti-Christianity thread. They will soon disappear from such a thread. But then some of the eternally hopeful here will go there and try to reason with them. I find it interesting that Jack invoked DaveScot as an ideal moderator. How did he know about what it was like back then. Aside: I liked Dave a lot. He got me unbanned by Dembski. jerry

My apologies as I did not know that you had already taken out the trash. ET

ET, there is no need to further excoriate Jack, who is no longer with us. KF kairosfocus

It's OK that Jack makes himself the fool and an imbecile. Why does Jack think that its ignorance is an argument? ET

AD said:

At the risk of sounding like a universalist, I would say, maybe. Just like anyone who’s never heard of Christianity, or infants or children, they’re all going–I think it’s possible for this loving God, if he is who he claims to be, knows every thought and every heart, I would trust that he knows who wants what, perfectly, and therefore, maybe so.

Jerry said:

They could. I believe some forms of Christianity have not ruled this out.

If that is the case (if it turns out this form(s) Christianity is all that is necessary to enter heaven,) then I will be judged the same way my loved ones have been and/or will be judged - by the content and quality of my heart, not the specifics of my beliefs. I'm entirely good with that. If my loved ones and I are separated for eternity, then it really doesn't matter where I end up, because it will be an eternity of suffering either way. William J Murray

are the ones I love who have never believed in Christianity going to heaven?

In the Catholic Faith, a person is judged by the level of knowledge and moral responsibility they have. The billions of people who never even heard of Christianity cannot be condemned on that basis. Even those who heard of it but had incorrect knowledge will be seen in the light of their sincerity and commitment to the Good - in other words, how they responded to their conscience. So the idea that all of those people will not go to heaven is not supported. Silver Asiatic

WJM

(1) virtually nobody I love will be making it to that heaven;

When you think about the love you have for your wife, for example - the origin of the love is from God. The love you have for her is multiplied to an infinite level for the God who created her and gave her to you in your life. I mean, that is one way to look at it.

(2) absent a nearly complete mind-wipe of who I am as an individual, there’s no way I can possibly be happy there,

In the traditional Christian view, everything that could possibly make you happy is there. Actually, you can apply some of the reasoning of MRT to this. All of the information that creates the experience of happiness for you now, and which you use to judge heaven, was created by God and given to you by Him so you would know what happiness is and thus desire it eternally.

and (3) I’d have to completely ignore a lifetime of experiences and dismiss them as delusional or from some “evil” influence.

Or you could reinterpret them from a different perspective perhaps. Silver Asiatic

are the ones I love who have never believed in Christianity going to heaven?

They could. I believe some forms of Christianity have not ruled this out. But are these discussions coming to what is really important to some people and underlying most of the dissension, not ID but Christianity. jerry

At the risk of sounding like a universalist, I would say, maybe. Just like anyone who's never heard of Christianity, or infants or children, they're all going--I think it's possible for this loving God, if he is who he claims to be, knows every thought and every heart, I would trust that he knows who wants what, perfectly, and therefore, maybe so. For someone like Jack, I would say no, for hell for Jack would be an eternity with the one he so despises. I don't believe in Universalism, because it renders the concept of justice incoherent. It puts Hitler, Mao, Stalin in an eternal reward, and to do so castrates justice before it even hits puberty. Maybe. AnimatedDust

WJM, your being under duress your entire life is a choice, not a requirement.

No. Under the premise, I did not choose to come here.

What do you lose by surrender?

Everything I love.

He is no fool who gives up what he cannot keep to gain what he cannot lose.

When what I cannot keep is everything I love, and what I cannot lose is something I have no love for, it's a no-win situation as far as I'm concerned.

I just think you’re basing your conclusions about what it is and isn’t, not from deep lifelong study and clear apprehension of the tenets, with the help of trusted scholars, but a misunderstanding of them. I could be wrong.

The only question that needs to be answered is simple: are the ones I love who have never believed in Christianity going to heaven? William J Murray

When you follow the case that Charles made for the supernatural prophecy in Daniel 9 foretelling the precise arrival of Christ 487 years later, you can't just dismiss the Bible as another book. People like Jack can handwave it away and call Jesus Christ a monster, but that doesn't change anything about what's reality or not. Jesus Christ is the exact opposite of a monster. And loves us despite our rejection of him, and the free gift of eternal life. Could I be wrong? Sure. But since the entire Bible is about Jesus Christ, and no figure in human history has had more of a positive impact on the this terrible fallen world, if his message is properly understood and carried out, this figure deserves our attention. All of it. And if we are wrong, it's just lights out, if you're a materialist, but not really, because we know materialism as the explanation of how we came to be is false. And the other two systems we are talking about involve life beyond death, as you and Irene appear to have already demonstrated. Regardless, if this universal consciousness follows the IRT model, or the Christian model, the one thing we can't get away from is the designing intelligence. If Kastrup and Irwin, and you, for that matter, think that it's just infinite informational potential, without a causal agent, that seems more like avoidance, than any attempt at hard science. The atheistic scientific community has been doing that for a 150 years. That's why their evolutionary papers are so ridiculous. They get jammed up the moment they start to describe purpose, which is inextricable from living systems. The most amazing design we know, and can see the moment we are observing our hand open and close, knowing what's going on behind that simple movement. AnimatedDust

WJM, your being under duress your entire life is a choice, not a requirement. What do you lose by surrender? He is no fool who gives up what he cannot keep to gain what he cannot lose. The E ticket ride has never been cheaper. Though I often declare that the worst thing about Christianity is the Christians, and that's true, Christianity has done more positive in the world than any other system of belief. I just think you're basing your conclusions about what it is and isn't, not from deep lifelong study and clear apprehension of the tenets, with the help of trusted scholars, but a misunderstanding of them. I could be wrong. Regardless what I am seeing from Klee Irwin, is that his musings are trying to solve the mysteries of IRT without the mind in the equation. It's more folly, just like materialism. But I am exposing myself to it, and appreciate your taking me in this direction. AnimatedDust

Hey Jack, why so bitter? Why are you not that bitter about the tooth fairy? Or Santa? You don't get to simultaneously hate God, and declare his inexistence. You'd be more honest if you'd just admit it: He's real, and you know it, and you hate him. Now, how do you turn that heart of stone into a heart of flesh? Choose wisely. AnimatedDust

WJM, did you notice the shift from warrant towards truth, to worldview preference in the just above? That, by the back door, highlights the significance of first duties of reason and the tied point that the due end of reason is truth, accurate, reliable grasping of reality. KF kairosfocus

Vivid & Jack, IMO once you adopt the premises, the internal logic of Christianity is fine. Apologetics has been refining those arguments for centuries. Also, there's evidence that supports Christianity, including the evidence of the experiences of countless Christians. My fundamental issue with Christianity is that, even agreeing arguendo that it is all entirely true, (1) virtually nobody I love will be making it to that heaven; (2) absent a nearly complete mind-wipe of who I am as an individual, there's no way I can possibly be happy there, and (3) I'd have to completely ignore a lifetime of experiences and dismiss them as delusional or from some "evil" influence. The additional problem is, the premises themselves don't make any sense to me. I understand this is just my personal reaction, but as Jack alluded to, under that premise I did not agree to any of this; from my perspective looking at the premises, I was deliberately forced into existence by a conscious, sentient being and forced into life in a system created by that being. I was given an unknown but very short period of time to make decisions that will determine my eternal fate after I die. Even in law, making a decision under duress is not considered legally binding, yet from the moment I'm born until the day I die I would be living in constant existential duress under such a system. And, I'm supposed to love the person that did this to me with all my heart, and see it all as some wondrous gift to be grateful for? As others here have said about MRT (which I understand and accept,) it's not only that I cannot wrap my mind around that, I don't even want to. I don't ever want to be the person that figures out a way where deliberately forcing that kind of existence on others is okay with me, much less something those created people should be grateful for. I apologize if Christians here find that perspective incendiary, but that is honestly how I see it. I realize Christians don't see it that way, and I respect that perspective. It's just one I will not choose to adopt for myself. William J Murray

Vivid, kindly, note my PS for the perplexed at 321. The onward references will come up in searches. KF kairosfocus

Jack Jack August 13, 2021 at 10:42 pm “KF, the phantom you worship is a monster. “Who tortures fallible persons forever”. “You should be ashamed for worshipping such a monster (who doesn’t exist.)” “Shame on you.“” Jack I understand how you can feel this way. I go a bit down that path myself from time to time.any fair observer by just looking at the history of one shit show after another has good preason to call Him a monster. Dare I say it is like he has abandoned his creation. Why should I go to hell I made no decision to be born and now that I am I would rather not be born. I understand where you are coming from Vivid vividbleau

The underlying trifecta fallacy at work is to drag a red herring distractor across the track, led away to strawman caricatures soaked in ad hominems and set alight to cloud, confuse, poison and polarise the atmosphere, frustrating discussion. Sometimes that is subtly done, but often it is quite crude. Just a note for record, so we can see why -- for cause -- those who insistently play trollish sock puppets need to be removed from UD's discussion threads. PS: If someone perplexed needs to ponder issues on the sins and blessings of our civilisation and its Judaeo-Christian heritage, here on may help. kairosfocus

Kf, Shut up. You;re just making a fool of yourself. Jack

Jack, these fallacious accusations have long since been adequately answered and those perplexed are directed to sites that have answers to village atheist, evil bible type objections as part of their remit, try Reasonable Faith, Paul Copan and others. There is no good reason to go into a crocodile death roll on them again. You have here chosen to pose needless toxic distractors and to insist on them in the face of appeal to return to reasonable discussion. That's sad. KF kairosfocus

KF, the phantom you worship is a monster. Who tortures fallible persons forever. You should be ashamed for worshipping such a monster (who doesn't exist.) Shame on you. Jack

I trust that you will not repeat such puerility. PS: Boethius might be a useful reflection, in a book written as he was going to be judicially murdered because of nasty court intrigues in the post Empire era in Italy:

“If God exists, whence evil? But whence good, if God does not exist?” [in, Consolation of Philosophy]

kairosfocus

You can block me if it makes you feel good, but... Your god is a monster. That god doesn't exist. And shame on you for believing in such a monster. Jack

KF, umm, yeah Jack

Jack, is attitude and accusation what you have? If it is, I suggest you would be well advised to reconsider. KF kairosfocus

The real creator is not your god. You guys are just holdovers from an ancient tryant god who tortures most of his creations without the creations having any sort of full disclosure about their reality. You should be ashamed of yourselves. Your awful tyrant god doesn't exist. Shame on you for having such a god in your mind. People like you are a problem on this planet. Jack

Your god is a torturerer. To MOST of his creations. Jack

WJM, the problems with Kastrup are apparently general ones for worldviews that end in simulationism with it being denied or doubted that there is an objective physical world in which we participate by embodiment as rational, responsible, significantly free creatures; i,e. to the concept that the "external world" is a dubious and/or false theory. This is beyond errors such as claiming that consciousness is our only certainty etc. Could you kindly provide specific reasons as to why the concerns stated do not relate to what you have advocated. KF kairosfocus

AD

If consciousness is primary, and matter is derivative, which I think we all agree on, excepting the atheists here, then a mind is behind ALL of this. That is a mind not to be trifled with. Information is at the core of it all? Then it came from mind, not mud.

That is good. I think that's also the basis of ID theory when we get to the core of it. There is a Designing Intelligence. It has to be so powerful and essential that it is the primary cause. WJM takes it a lot farther. that there is something outside of ourselves. Otherwise, God and myself are the same thing. Even though, as WJM says, we are just a part of God. A slice of apple pie is 100% apple pie. Instead though, we are created by God but not equivalent to God. That's a big difference with MRT. Silver Asiatic

SA got to my answer to your question tangentially, and I didn't mind a bit--but first let me say I also appreciate your kind words. I am certainly taking my worldview and seeing if MRT is the neural scaffolding of sorts, as to how God might have done things that way. A peek behind the curtain, so to speak. If we don't overcomplicate it, any intellect that is capable of creating all that we are able to apprehend, that is one giant, powerful mind. That should be obvious. I start with the premise that is lifted straight from Genesis. That God created this world and all the heavens, and did it for us and it was perfect. The big thing that emerges from the description of creation is that it's all for relationship. That undergirds everything else. And so, being the very essence of perfect righteousness, unwilling to be anywhere where sin resides, yet knowing that the love element to our existence, has to involve the ability to say no for it to be real and authentic, he created this temporal place for us to exist in fallen form, just as it is claimed. For us, whatever role consciousness ultimately plays, he intended for this realm to be tangibly real, just as it is to us. What excites me about IRT is that it could be a glimpse into a bit of the HOW, that the Bible is in such short supply on. I find that exciting. If we take seriously the nature of God, as is revealed in Scripture, it seems prudent to think that what he says is important should be taken as important, and doing his will is very very important as well. The ticket into the afterlife is of a realm that makes this indeed seem like "light and temporary troubles." From what people consistently describe during brushes with death during NDEs, it makes it breathtakingly apparent that the realm we are to occupy WITH him, is vastly superior to a world with sin and death. As designed, we can apprehend the infinite and the eternal, and the one thing we want more than anything else is for love that lasts forever. That's part of the promise. You get victory over death, and eternal life with the lover of your soul. Count me in. After more than three decades of police work, I am more than ready to live forever in a world without crime and hate and brokennes and violence--a world infinitely more beautiful than this one, and the creator of the universe to answer all my stupid questions about how he did this and that. If consciousness is primary, and matter is derivative, which I think we all agree on, excepting the atheists here, then a mind is behind ALL of this. That is a mind not to be trifled with. Information is at the core of it all? Then it came from mind, not mud. Some random thoughts on it all. AnimatedDust

WJM

Let me say this: from my perspective: the idea that this is the way God set things up provides high-value meaning in your life. That is obvious. Because of that, I agree 100% with your rejection of MRT. You SHOULD reject it, IMO, and I certainly have no reason to want to try to talk you out of it, even if were possible to do so.

That is respectful - thank you. I think the same way about MRT and actually all other religions where people have belief in God. But I also believe there is "more correctness and less correctness" in theological belief systems, so I would always try to offer something if invited to do that, or in an open debate. Silver Asiatic

SA said:

I jumped onto your response to AD – sorry for that. Yes, you’re right. I’m only using my own perspective on it and I will leave it at that.

These are public comments on a public forum, man.. Feel free to comment and criticize. It's all good. I understand there's more to this for you than for me, in the sense that you're concerned about my future. I always keep that in mind when interacting with you, KF, AD, BA77, etc. You're good guys. I respect that. William J Murray

SA @303, Fair enough. I mean, I could explain all of that from the MRT perspective where we haven't lost any of that under MRT, and that the MRT version of those things is all we actually have anyway, but once again we'd hit the reasoning barrier between our perspectives. Let me say this: from my perspective: the idea that this is the way God set things up provides high-value meaning in your life. That is obvious. Because of that, I agree 100% with your rejection of MRT. You SHOULD reject it, IMO, and I certainly have no reason to want to try to talk you out of it, even if were possible to do so. William J Murray

WJM - not at all, and thanks for the explanation. I jumped onto your response to AD - sorry for that. Yes, you're right. I'm only using my own perspective on it and I will leave it at that. Thanks. Silver Asiatic

SA, I didn't want you to think I'm ignoring your comments, but since you made it clear you're not interested in understanding the reasoning of MRT from its own premises, I'm assuming that what you are doing is criticizing it from your ERT/Theological perspective. Which is totally fine, but I'm just assuming you're not really interested in going down that road again, so responses from me are really not what you're trying to elicit. William J Murray

WJM

Here’s a question for you. What’s the point of God creating an entirely different realm of existence

It's a great question and I think it's the only way to really evaluate MRT or dualism worldviews - by looking at the nature of God and the purposes of God. Because we can't evaluate MRT by science alone. It goes far beyond science. We have to think about God as the cause of whatever world we are thinking about. Either MRT or a physical world. So, why would God create an intermediate "external" or material world? There is a huge difference between this and "God just putting the thoughts in our head". The main thing is that "God is Creator". And He loves human beings. In the Christian view, He is our loving Father. So, we are like His children - part of His family. What God is doing, all of the time - is teaching us, showing us, guiding us to learn and understand. Thus, the intermediate world of things, material, beings - teaches a lot. It gives humans ownership over things. It makes individuals truly able to possess themselves, thus have responsibility for things. Plus, it helps people realize that their actions have consequences that are due to their own free will decisions. So, they can't just blame God for everything. Otherwise, it would be "God just put the concept in my head". Instead, we can participate in the created world. We can see the difference between real things. Finally, I tried to explain this but it was not very successful, but trying again: to rationally understand things you have to be able to compare one with another. We have to know what the word "real" means. That way, we know that "illusion" means. We have to know what "product of mind" is, versus something else which was not produced by mind. God created an intermediate world so we could make those comparisons. Thus, logic, rationality, understanding makes sense. Silver Asiatic

AD: Here's a question for you. What's the point of God creating an entirely different realm of existence - the material/physical world; imbuing it with one kind of transferrable information; creating a translation protocol to turn that that information into electro-chemical representations, then creating a transmission and translation system from that into our conscious awareness, and fine-tuning our conscious awareness to turn that into the sensory product we experience, the experiences he wanted us to have (seeing bananas as yellow, the smell of sulphur, the feel of bark on a tree, the flavor of food, etc.), when God could just put those mutual, physical-world experiences directly into our experience as we go about our lives? What would be different? We'd experience all the same things. We'd have all the same choices. What'd the point of taking what God had designed in his Mind for us to experience, instantiating a preliminary form of information into physical form with informational commodities, linking it through two sets of receivers and translators, only to get the same thing, at the experience end, as if He just directly fed what He had in mind into our mind as experience? Why go through all that apparently unnecessary trouble to put what was in His mind for our common world of experience into our mind as our common world of experience? Why not just do it directly? William J Murray

AD

Our eternal destiny is not non-physical. It is physical, and immortal, imperishable, incorruptible. Life after life after death, as NT Wright is wont to say.

True but it is a different kind of physical. As explained, Jesus' resurrected body has a different character than what we consider "physical" bodies today. However, many of the Christian saints, while living, manifested these characteristics in their bodies (bi-location, levitation, etc). So, what we consider "physical" is actually a limited perspective of what really exists. At the same time, there is something more than just "mind". There are bodies. Jesus made that clear. A body was given him by the Father - for the incarnation, and so He could offer His body in sacrifice. Silver Asiatic

WJM

I’m not here to defend Kastrup’s version of MRT. I linked to that website to show Jerry that people do actually believe in it.

Fair enough. His is one example of MRT. We can see the flaws with it.

For example, what does he mean by “evolutionary?” I don’t see how he can make that word work for his theory from any context, but I haven’t finished the video series yet.

Agreed. He's using materialism to prove that there is no material world. Supposedly, evolution shaped our brain so that we do not see reality. But evolution should not even exist in that world. It's self-refuting contradiction. I cannot see how MRT could be anything but that, except for someone to say "everything is an illusion, including Darwinian evolution, but the illusion makes our brains believe things, even though we don't have brains". Anything can be justified this way, including contradictions to logic. It's all just "information" coming from somewhere in one universal mind, that makes it seem like people exist.

The only new thing now is that we have 100 years of scientific evidence that some form of MRT is true.

You're assuming that from an MRT perspective we can trust the science, and that the science provides metaphysical proofs, and that the science interprets itself. None of that is necessarily true and as I see it - it is all false.

Nobody knows how “what we see” is actually produced in personal qualia, because those qualities cannot be found in the electro-chemical processes or the physical brain.

Let's start there. It goes beyond "nobody knows what we see". The fact is, nobody knows "what seeing is". So, to claim that since "qualia cannot be found in the physical brain" that the physical world does not exist is speculative at best. Science does not demand that conclusion.

At best what exists “out there” are electromagnetic fields and states that interact with the electromagnetic fields and states of of our bodies, or chemicals interacting with other chemicals at the molecular level. There is no “yellowness” to those things. No flavor in them. No sound in them, in and of themselves.

This is contradictory. You're analyzing things "out there" by saying there is no yellow in them, but then saying there "is no out there". I disagree that "yellowness" does not exist. Science cannot tell us what reality is. If we are never observing anything "out there" then science has nothing to say about it. So, we have the MRT world which cannot be validated, or we have intuition and common sense that tells us that "yellowness is real" and also "there is a lot more to reality than can be understood by science". The common sense view fits reality much better than MRT does. It is less contradictory. Even the idea that "we don't see things" or that "the external world does not enter our mind" is not provable by science. God can make our soul able to receive true images from the external world he created. This obviously cannot be validated by science.

There’s certainly none of that in the electrochemical properties of our brains.

You're assuming those are the only properties involved in seeing, knowing, thinking.

Where do these qualities come from, then?

They come from the immaterial nature and forms and substances of things, built into them by God. These are inaccessible to science and non-reducible to the physical matter of a brain.

They cannot be coming from what it is we are experiencing, because they do not have these qualities to provide – given the physicalist or dualist interpretation of these things.

In Thomistic hylomorphic dualism those things do, indeed, have the qualities that we experience. They are built in substance, nature and essence of things as they were created by God. Silver Asiatic

Jerry you are clearly not capable of grasping the concept, even on a fundamental level. You’ve become a gadfly on the discussion. Why do you insist on remaining? AnimatedDust

Can we stop all this nonsense. We are down to physical human bodies and how they react and process external stimuli. Very interesting but not a make believe world. Actually amazing design. jerry

The hard problem of consciousness, of the experience of qualia, is not just explaining the existence of consciousness, it's also about: where does qualia come from? What are qualia? As Kastrup explained fairly well, colors, taste, music ... none of this exists "out there." At best what exists "out there" are electromagnetic fields and states that interact with the electromagnetic fields and states of of our bodies, or chemicals interacting with other chemicals at the molecular level. There is no "yellowness" to those things. No flavor in them. No sound in them, in and of themselves. There's certainly none of that in the electrochemical properties of our brains. Where do these qualities come from, then? They cannot be coming from what it is we are experiencing, because they do not have these qualities to provide - given the physicalist or dualist interpretation of these things. William J Murray

I'm not here to defend Kastrup's version of MRT. I linked to that website to show Jerry that people do actually believe in it. I agree that Kastrup seems to be trying to present his case in a materialist and evolutionary manner, which compounds the difficulty he faces as he slips back and forth between perspectives. For example, what does he mean by "evolutionary?" I don't see how he can make that word work for his theory from any context, but I haven't finished the video series yet. Anyway, my point I think has been made about the fact that there are many people who do take MRTs seriously. Some form of MRT has been argued throughout the ages. The only new thing now is that we have 100 years of scientific evidence that some form of MRT is true. Jerry asks:

Why not answer the question and show why it is dumb?

Let me say this: when Jerry or KF or anybody says that what MRT is saying is that the physical world isn't real and that MRT says it is all a mental illusion, those statements are 100% true from their perspectives about what reality is. However, from the MRT perspective of what reality is, the physical world is still 100% real, the computer is 100% real, hunger is 100% real, our need for food is 100% real, etc, because MRT defines what reality is made of, and how it occurs, in fundamentally different terms. SA said:

But to do it, he is destroying human nature and destiny.

Perhaps your concept of human nature and destiny, but certainly not all versions of those things.

This is really the core idea. Supposedly, we are not seeing “light out there” but only the electrical responses in our brain.

We're not even seeing that. Nobody knows how "what we see" is actually produced in personal qualia, because those qualities cannot be found in the electro-chemical processes or the physical brain. You might find physical things that seem to correlate to those experiences of qualia, but they are not the qualia themselves. at best, like the electrical impulses that feed the TV, they represent the qualia, but where is the TV itself? There is no physical TV, there is only the person watching. What is the consciousness observing then? We don't see electro-chemical impulses. We don't see biological cells. We don't see the brain. Where's the TV? William J Murray

F/N: More from Dr Kastrup:

Just what is real? How do we define real? The world each one of us lives in is the subjective inner world of our own perceptions and experiences. If our reality is the experiences we go through in our lives, then a private, imaginary experience is just as real as an objective one shared with other individuals. The most obvious difference between these two categories seems to be the following: in a private, imaginary experience the story is unconstrained; on the other hand, in an objective experience the story is somehow synchronized across the individuals sharing the experience so they all witness the same thing. The mechanisms for such synchronization are what we call the laws of nature, or the laws of physics. Such laws provide seemingly external constraints that ensure all participants share a common, consistent experience we call reality. The mainstream scientific worldview adopted in our modern society informs us that the laws of physics are external to us and that we are merely a result of their operation. We are also informed that the laws of physics are objective; that is, that they operate regardless of our belief in, as well as of our understanding and perception of, them. As such, they provide a robust and reliable, external synchronization mechanism that ensures certain modalities of our experiences are consistent across individuals. This way, when awake and in ordinary states of consciousness, most of us agree on what we experience together. In fact, it is this very consistency across the experiences of multiple individuals that motivates us to believe in an objective reality “out there,” operating regardless of our beliefs and worldviews. But there is circularity in this line of reasoning. To illustrate it, allow me to tell you a little tale about an imaginary universe called “Dhiiverse”… Dhiiverse is a universe different from ours in one very fundamental way: there, the laws of physics are not fixed and objective. Instead, reality is a projection of thought patterns imagined by its conscious inhabitants. These thought patterns, while being imagined, are projected onto a multi-dimensional fabric of space-time. Life in Dhiiverse is life in a kind of palpable, semi-autonomous, enduring dream. The inhabitants of Dhiiverse are people much like us: our brothers and sisters of a parallel reality, if you will. But, unlike us, the reality they live in is a complex amalgamation of their collective dreams. [Dreamed up World, O Books, UK, 2011]

In short, networked simulation world, where our senses and self-awareness systematically mislead us to imagine an objective, external, physically instantiated reality. The Plato's Cave pattern is plain, and the linked issue of grand delusion of minds misled to imagine that the world as commonly understood is actual. That fundamental discredit immediately raises the issue of an onward chain of delusions, etc. Such would systematically undermine credibility of mind and of views held by mind subject to such a delusion. Self-referential absurdity. In response to the notion that the laws of physics create the illusion of a shared reality, the first observation is, such laws are causally passive. They describe and summarise patterns, they do not impose. We look elsewhere to find active agents. This second passage also allows us to see that the issues and concerns raised since March have been on the money. We are dealing with a panpsychism, with a networked mind and a simulation world, which is for cause a self-referential inference of grand delusion. It thus undermines and discredits itself by making mind and belief as well as reasoning suspect. As for, oh one's thoughts are always real, yes, as thoughts. To be true, they must accurately describe states of affairs. Our reality on this model is not materially different from our delusion. A more prudent approach would take common sense and first facts of our self aware experiences seriously and would recognise that worldviews that imply or invite grand delusion inferences are self-referentially self defeating by undermining credibility of mind. And oh yes, the answer to accusations that worldviews are question-begging, is to subject them to comparative difficulties across factual adequacy, coherence and explanatory power/balance. That is a service provided by this world model, it allows us to see why it is reasonable to reject it and take a greater respect for common sense than is commonly entertained in our current intellectual climate. Evolutionary Materialistic Scientism, of course, is similar in this regard. Further to all of this, we see underscored the centrality of the problem of the one and the many since Thales of Miletus. KF kairosfocus

SA, a spirit does not have flesh and bone as you see I have. Our eternal destiny is not non-physical. It is physical, and immortal, imperishable, incorruptible. Life after life after death, as NT Wright is wont to say. Suffering in this world and bliss in the next is intact in this paradigm. If God is at the helm, all the old rules still apply. (Not all the OT rules, but rules about suffering and death and two destinations. And of course, the judgment.) AnimatedDust

because we’re observing our brain’s recreation of the data

This has been known since the beginning of time. Not the science of it but the phenomenon.

he is saying it does not exist. It doesn’t matter because we’re observing our brain’s recreation of the data.

I have made the comment several times that all Murray has shown is that we have a mind. One of the more trivial observations of all time. But millions observe the same external source and react the same so the internal image must be very similar if not essentially identical. This is all about nothing. jerry

:) What is the difference between you thinking/dreaming/imagining yourself drinking water and you actually drinking water. If is no difference then yes MRT is true if is a difference then ...insanity. Sandy

Jerry

If the image in our brain is different somewhat from the image in another’s brain, or the image in our brain is not a direct reactions to the external photons, so what.

That's WJM's point. If the image in our brain is not a direct expression of the external world, then so what. The external world might be totally different, or he is saying it does not exist. It doesn't matter because we're observing our brain's recreation of the data. In my view, our brain reflects the real thing that is out there and does it accurately. Silver Asiatic

In other words, we only see the image that is created in our brain.

Have a thousand people look at the same external image. A thousand people will describe the same thing if it is clear enough. No trick images. That’s the real physical world. If the image in our brain is different somewhat from the image in another’s brain, or the image in our brain is not a direct reactions to the external photons, so what. The effect is the same on our understanding and behavior. We can then turn around and produce other phenomena that when witnessed by others and will be described the same way by each person. Millions of people in a large city go about their day without much mishap because they essentially see the same external physical world. jerry

Here's the whole thing: The guy says - think about something you see. Are you really seeing the thing itself? He then says, "no, you're not". He says: "the photons coming from ‘out there’ are absorbed in the retina, and from this point on there are only electrical spike trains traveling inside your dark skull, so that the light you experience cannot be the light ‘out there." In other words, we only see the image that is created in our brain. We don't have a photo of a chair inside our brain, but only the synapses that create the image (in a primitive way of explaining). I disagree with his interpretation and conclusions but that's the basis of MRT. Silver Asiatic

Annnnd, Jerry keeps saying dumb things

Why not answer the question and show why it is dumb? jerry

Jerry: How can one write an article or produce a video then published on a website, all obviously from the physical world, to say the physical world does not exist? Annnnd, Jerry keeps saying dumb things. :D Jack

If one breathes MRT is nonsense. I believe Murray admits to breathing. His near clone, Jack, admits to dying if he didn’t breathe. If one eats, MRT is nonsense. If one drinks, MRT is nonsense. If one sleeps, MRT is nonsense. Murray admits to sleeping. If one has children, MRT is nonsense. Murray said he has children, grandchildren and great grandchildren. If one has/had a job, MRT is nonsense. Murray has had more than one job. If one lives in a physical place, MRT is nonsense. Murray lives in the USA. If one publishes a book, MRT is nonsense. Murray has published a book. If one has used a computer, MRT is nonsense. Murray uses a computer. The list could go on and on. jerry

what is your response to that?

Nonsense. No one understands quantum theory well and its effects on the real world. But what they do know supports the physical world. Isn’t appealing to quantum theory, admitting to a physical explanation for everything. All what we know is done with physical world experiments. From the Great Course - sounds like the physical world to me.

Quantum mechanics has a reputation for being so complex that the word “quantum” has become a popular label for anything mystical or unfathomable. In fact, quantum mechanics is one of the most successful theories of reality yet discovered, explaining everything from the stability of atoms to the glow of neon lights, from the flow of electricity in metals to the workings of the human eye. At the same time, quantum mechanics does have a mysterious side, symbolized by the famous thought experiment concerning the fate of Schrödinger's cat, a hypothetical feline who is both dead and alive in a quantum experiment proposed by Austrian physicist Erwin Schrödinger.

Quantum physics is more than just a fun intellectual exercise. It is the key to countless technologies, and also helps to explain how the natural world works, including living systems. Professor Carlson discusses many such examples, among them: Color vision: What we perceive as color has its origin in quantum events in the outside world, which produce photons of visible light. Color-sensitive cones in our eyes detect some of these photons. Depending on their wavelength, the photons trigger quantum reactions that our brains interpret as different colors. Global Positioning System (GPS): GPS satellites are essentially atomic clocks in orbit, sending out very accurate time signals based on tiny transitions in energy states of cesium atoms. The time for the signal to reach Earth gives the distance to the satellite. Signals from four GPS satellites suffice to fix a position exactly. Flash memory: Smart phones, solid-state hard drives, memory sticks, and other electronic devices use flash memory to store data with no need for external power to preserve information. When it's time to erase the information, quantum tunneling allows electrons that encode the data to be quickly discharged. Superconductivity: Dr. Carlson covers the crucial difference between the two classes of subatomic particles—fermions and bosons. Then, in a later lecture, she shows that, under special conditions, fermions can be induced to behave like bosons, leading to a frictionless state of zero electrical resistance known as superconductivity.

jerry

AD

I think he’s rethinking the materialist paradigm. That may be where he’s trying to break free from.

The more I think about it, the more problems I find. The MRT view also has to deal with human suffering. It's a failed attempt to deal with that. In fact, it causes great harm to the human family by claiming, essentially "your suffering doesn't exist". That's similar to Buddhism, where all suffering is considered to be caused by the person themselves, by their own ego. Then, a true enlightened one, overcomes suffering by meditation. Or the Hindu view deals with suffering by saying it's your fault for sins of a previous life. But the fact is, people really suffer and to say that it's just "all in your mind" and doesn't really exist is harmful. In the Christian view, Jesus elevated suffering as redemption. It's a view of justice - because sin and evil deserve punishment, but through charity and love of other people, suffering can be offered to redeem those who are trapped in their own sins. Nothing like that can exist in the MRT view. Silver Asiatic

AD That's a good insight because we would have to say, with orthodox Christian teaching that Jesus' resurrected body is "not really material" as we know matter in a body to be. He was able to appear anywhere, enter a room through the walls, and then ascend up to heaven where He continues to live. Then the second thing is that we know the temporal earth will end one day and all who rise with Christ will have new bodies - like that of Jesus. Thus, we can say that "there will not be a material world" like the one we know. So, that's something we believe already. But that hasn't happened now, and plus there are many other big problems such as "there is only one mind, only one experiencer", that everything is a "shared dream" that all people have together, thus there are no individuals. But sin and redemption and judgement are done on an individual, personal basis. We repent for our own sins. We can't blame anyone else. We can share the blessings of others and their good deeds, but each person has the responsibility for themself. We can't just say "everybody is just one thing". Silver Asiatic

Thanks SA. I think he's rethinking the materialist paradigm. That may be where he's trying to break free from. I am a convinced, persuaded Christian. I see the God of the Bible and Jesus Christ/Holy Spirit at the very root of this giant THING we are discussing. Fits perfectly for me in my early stages of learning about IRT/MRT. But that could be confirmation bias, too. AnimatedDust

KF

That’s seriously problematic from the title page, subtitle. We see already, a hyperskepticism root and denial of a basic fact of life. One might consider whether it is intended as a rhetorical hyperbole to deny extinction of all existence at death [the materialistic view] but that would then be a case of discrediting idiosyncratic use. Actually, it seems the context is that as all of reality is mental, he seems to imply there is no dead body that separately exists and goes through decay after death.

True. As I said before, he is attacking materialism - and that's good. But to do it, he is destroying human nature and destiny. That's the danger of completely wiping out the material world in the interest of trying to refute materialism.

This is fairly familiar and leads straight to the concerns long since put on record. It is not true that consciousness is all we can be certain of, for there are many self-evident truths (ponder 2 + 3 = 5, error exists, first principles of logic and other first principles etc) and more broadly certainty comes in degrees starting with moral certainty.

True. There has to be an origin or source. There's a communication network. A sender, medium, receiver and then translation process. So, the mind has to receive a source. Consciousness is "about" something. It must receive. That means there is an outside - it does not just circle on itself. Rationality requires comparison - thus dualism. As quoted:

From a philosophical perspective, this notion is entirely coherent and reasonable, for conscious experience is all we can be certain to exist. Entities outside consciousness are, as far as we can ever know, merely abstractions of mind. Taking consciousness to be an ontological primitive also circumvents the ‘explanatory gap’ and the ‘hard problem of consciousness,’ since both only arise from the attempt to reduce consciousness to matter.

They choose only one option: "reducing consciousness to matter". Then to solve the problem, they say that matter does not exist and the only thing that exists is consciousness. They do this because they think quantum physics has refuted dualism, but it has not. The immaterial exists, and the material exists - both. They are not separate (like Decartes thought) but combined by immaterial form (soul) as united with matter (body). It's strange that anti-materialists will have to be the ones defending the idea that "matter actually does exist". Silver Asiatic

AD @ 275 That is a good reference - thank you. Just at the beginning he says:

You may then challenge her with the fact that the photons coming from ‘out there’ are absorbed in the retina, and from this point on there are only electrical spike trains traveling inside her dark skull, so that the light she experiences cannot be the light ‘out there’. She may now admit that our subjective experience is a virtual reality show, but at the same time, she will probably insist that this show is created by our evolutionarily optimized brain in a way that faithfully represents the true world around us, because otherwise we could not survive.

This is really the core idea. Supposedly, we are not seeing "light out there" but only the electrical responses in our brain. But I believe the light out there caused the synapse response. But this author says, no - it's an illusion caused by evolution.

At this point of the discussion, you could argue that precisely because evolution wants us to survive, it will not show us the world as it really is, but rather a mental ‘desktop’ of dumped-down, fitness-oriented ‘icons’ that stimulate us to act in the right way.2

That's the consequences of Darwinism and materialism. As he says, evolution basically tricks our brain so we do not see reality. That makes perfect sense from a Darwinist view. Evolution does not show us reality, since there would be no reason for that as a survival advantage. Instead it shows illusions. Silver Asiatic

F/N: I looked around, ran across:

How Materialism is Baloney: How true skeptics know there is no death and fathom answers to life, the universe and everything, Dr Bernardo Kastrup, iff Books, 2014

That's seriously problematic from the title page, subtitle. We see already, a hyperskepticism root and denial of a basic fact of life. One might consider whether it is intended as a rhetorical hyperbole to deny extinction of all existence at death [the materialistic view] but that would then be a case of discrediting idiosyncratic use. Actually, it seems the context is that as all of reality is mental, he seems to imply there is no dead body that separately exists and goes through decay after death. Later we see:

recent and powerful physical evidence indicates strongly that no physical entity or phenomenon can be explained separately from, or independently of, its subjective apprehension in consciousness. This evidence has been published in the prestigious science journal Nature in 2007.48 If this is true, the logical consequence is that consciousness cannot be reduced to matter –for it appears that it is needed for matter to exist in the first place – but must itself be fundamental. From a philosophical perspective, this notion is entirely coherent and reasonable, for conscious experience is all we can be certain to exist. Entities outside consciousness are, as far as we can ever know, merely abstractions of mind. Taking consciousness to be an ontological primitive also circumvents the ‘explanatory gap’ and the ‘hard problem of consciousness,’ since both only arise from the attempt to reduce consciousness to matter.

This is fairly familiar and leads straight to the concerns long since put on record. It is not true that consciousness is all we can be certain of, for there are many self-evident truths (ponder 2 + 3 = 5, error exists, first principles of logic and other first principles etc) and more broadly certainty comes in degrees starting with moral certainty. That is, the book's claims seem to lack due consideration of key philosophical and general considerations; on fair comment, significantly damaging credibility. In that context, self-aware consciousness is not an empty thing, it has aboutness and delivers as first facts our embodiment and interaction with a wider world. This leads to the problem of being, appearance and credibility of mind long since highlighted. If our consciousness is taken as fundamentally dubious in the first facts through which we experience other facts of our senses and activities, then it is dubious period, i.e. a grand delusion plato's shadow show that we are embodied fatally undermines the faculty we may use to infer such. This is a typical fate of hyperskepticism, self-referential undermining of rationality. Further to such, we see the monism resort and failure to resolve the problem of the one and the many. A better solution would take mindedness and embodiment seriously, including of course death. This last brings us back to waking awareness vs dreams, visions and dream-scapes, simulations etc. The cease breathing for an hour thought exercise is sufficient to show that a distinction exists and that death is a significant matter. KF PS: Those imagining that such ideas are theologically sound would do well to ponder the centrality of resurrection of the dead in Christian, NT thought and why certain Greeks found it absurd. The Christian faith agrees that in him we live, move and have our being, accepts God as creator-sustainer who upholds all things by his powerful word. Mind is involved in the origin, operations and ends of creation and creatures, but this does not require or invite that the physical world is some sort of simulation etc. But that is just a side-note. kairosfocus

Jerry, When someone says, "there is no material world, and this is proven by Quantum Physics" - what is your response to that? In this thread: https://uncommondesc.wpengine.com/intelligent-design/at-mind-matters-news-how-philosopher-john-locke-turned-reality-into-theatre/#comments post #4 - BA77 says this:

"As the following Wheeler Delayed Choice experiment that was conducted with atoms found, “It proves that measurement is everything. At the quantum level, reality does not exist if you are not looking at it,”"

He says something like that just about every day (or at least every time he mentions quantum anything). Right? Silver Asiatic

AD

Interested, as an aside, why you choose to identify Kastrup as “highly Jewish.” I have heard that kind of description before, but we don’t say people are highly French or highly Mexican. Just curious about that.

True, we wouldn't say "highly French" like that. But Judiasm is a belief-system, culture and worldview. A person can be shaped and formed by it more or less. A person, for example, who was taught in a rabbinical school from youth and attends synagogue every day (if it was possible) - probably would be "highly Jewish" in outlook. This has nothing to do with ethnicity. Probably most Jews intermarry with each other so they are of one kind of nationality. But liberal Jews intermarry with all sorts of people. So, it's the belief-system that is the identifying factor, not the biology. Silver Asiatic

How can one write an article or produce a video then published on a website, all obviously from the physical world, to say the physical world does not exist? By the way, Murray has written a book with a physical cover and published on a physical website which can be delivered to your house to be held in your hand and read by your eyes. He obviously thinks this not a problem in his world. Is this how MRT works? jerry

Great post at 274, SA. I have only read one article, and this from a German physicist, whom I think does a good job of laying the foundation as understandable to a layman. https://www.essentiafoundation.org/reading/can-a-physicist-embrace-idealism/ Interested, as an aside, why you choose to identify Kastrup as "highly Jewish." I have heard that kind of description before, but we don't say people are highly French or highly Mexican. Just curious about that. AnimatedDust

WJM

It’s interesting that Kastrup refers to those philosophers about nature, essence and being and explains them in video #4, quotes them, and explains them in terms of MRT.

I took the time to go through it. Here are my impressions: I searched but could not validate for certain, but I consider Kastrup a Jewish philosopher (or heavily influenced by Judaism). The Essential Foundation has a full explanation of "Kabbalistic panpsychism" which is basically what the whole thing is. I believe Kastrup contributed to analyses on the Talmud - and it struck me immediately upon encountering his work before even knowing about him "This guy is very Jewish". Some key indicators - he's struggling against materialism, but uses an entirely scientistic view. There's the classic ambivalence towards God and at the same time the religiosity that one finds in Judiasm, all pointed to pan-psychism. Finally, you referred to the philosophers he quoted but he did most of his explanation on Spinoza - a highly Jewish philosopher who hailed from the Netherlands, as does Kastrup. So, Kastrup did a passionate defense of Spinoza - even though Spinoza's thought conflicts with Kastrup, but that's just his loyalty for a home-boy as I see it. So, what does it mean to me? Kastrup does not understand realist-philosophy and has no category for an understanding of the nature of God. His ideas are all built on materialism and evolution - and he is struggling the best he can to get some kind of meaning out of it, thus "the universal mind". From the Transcript:

There is not any fundamental ontological distinction between experience and experiencer. Why? Because if we made an ontological distinction between the two we would run into all kinds of problems namely how can the experience relate to the experiencer how does the experience the experiencer feel the experience if the two are completely separate and distinct ontologically so you get into the interaction problem for instance of substance dualism and a number of other problems not the least of which is parsimony so to avoid this we are going to say that an experience is a excitation of the experiencer in the same way that ripples are an excitation of water or that dance a choreography is an excitation of the dancer there is nothing to the dance but the dancer in movement in excitation there is nothing to ripples but the water in which they ripple there is nothing to ripples but watery movement

That's just flat out wrong. Obviously, the water does not move itself. But this is the contradiction between potency and act, as well as subject and object. And this MRT destroys causality. In this case, "experiences" are the same as the person experiencing. But actually - there is only one experiencer ... thus, the human person, as defined by Christian theology is destroyed. In the Jewish view, there is no incarnation and God is not three Persons - or even a Person.

i want to argue that as we've seen there is an experiencer. I want to argue that there is only one experiencer. If there are multiple fundamentally distinct experiences we run into all kinds of problems again like why would nature be such that fundamentally distinct experiences just pop and how do they interact if they are fundamentally and ontologically distinct again the interaction problem to make sense of reality by postulating only one experiencer and then finding a way to explain how seemingly distinct minds how seemingly distinct subjects of experience arise from this one fundamental experiencer

Again, there's just one experiencer, one universal mind. This destroys the notion of Creator and creature - subject and object. Kastrup does nothing to reconcile this.

The network structure of the universe and the network structure of neuronal networks they are uncannily similar and we know of no reason why they should be so similar that physics provides us with absolutely no reason or biology with no reason whatsoever to expect this similarity this uncanny uh similarity so this is not just images that look alike this is the

Yes, he's absolutely right. However, if we only use physics and biology, "we know no reason" why the universe should resemble neuronal networks. Thus, materialism is lacking. However, we do have use of philosophy and theology which both give us good reasons why the cosmos resembles the cell. But Kastrup avoids that. Instead:

under the premises of analytic idealism if matter all matter if all what everything that is displayed on the screen of perception is simply how inner conscious life presents itself to observation in other words how mental states that constitute the world outside as it is in itself how they present themselves in the dials of our dashboard of dials if that's what matter is then it's no surprise that the universe as a whole should have some degree of similarity is the following the mathematical structure

If there's one universal mind, then "there's no surprise" that there are similarities in the design. Ok, but if God exists as traditional theology speaks, then I think we already had that answer without the need to propose a universal mind somewhere.

of the fundamental laws of physics is compatible with with the mathematical structure of how a neuronal network performs computations and learns in other words the laws of physics of that learning process that we perceive and call the laws of physics so the regularities we call the laws of physics are expressions of an underlying learning process of of a neural network now what is it that learns uh when we talk about learning what are we referring to usually we refer into a mind a mind learns so you could say that this paper is providing at least some indication that underlying and imminent in the entire physical universe there is a mind that is learning and the laws of physics the regularities we call the laws of physics are an expression of this learning process

It's pan-psychism or pantheism or animism of a sort. But the problem is that it does not explain the origin except to propose Mind. It does not respond to the need for a First Cause.

to the endogenous character of those experiences in other words the experiences of this one universal mind are akin in some way to our ideas and emotions but not identical to them because this universal mind is not a human being evolution has found a way to leverage this impingement and the result is what we call the screen of perception evolution has found a way to zero in on that subtle impingement and amplify it and display it to us at a glance on the screen of perception and what way is that that's the dashboard that we talked about in part one the dashboard that instrument panel full of dials that contain information about the world those dials are they are representations of natural naturals they are symbols and icons that point at natura naturals they are the appearance of natura naturan and what those appearances are they are the classical physical world the world of solid objects spread across space and time well as we've seen mental activity across the dissociative boundary can impinge on it which evolution has leveraged in order to create the screen of perception our

Evolution made it appear that real things exist but actually they are just projections on a "screen of perception". Bottom line for me - he did nothing to respond to classical realist philosophy and the critique there, and he said nothing at all about the nature of God. His reference to older philosophers (Kant and Schopenhauer) are early idealists who shared the same view. I think there are many in the Jewish theological community who would find Kastrup hopeful and encouraging. He relies entirely on a atheist-scientistic basis to undermine materialism, and that's a refreshing thing for a world where atheism is dominant (41% of Jews do not believe God exists). But from the Christian view, Kastrup's world is dark and confused. God is (maybe but not even mentioned as) some sort of distant universal mind and actual people do not exist. It's all just "one experiencer". What this says about sin, redemption and destiny is - nothing coherent, really. For me, in the end - it's a religious question. Revelation from God teaches us things about reality that science and philosophy cannot teach. Silver Asiatic

My sense about it is, these kinds of discussions are only psychological, and have nothing to do with logic and science. People should be indoctrinated into creationism, so that they comprehend subjectivity and objectivity. So they are useful people, to themselves, and others. mohammadnursyamsu

WJM at 255. Agree completely. AnimatedDust

SA said:

But he holds that both minds and souls (spirit) exist.

What I said is that my MRT treats minds and souls as the same thing.

WJM denied that his system was a monism.

Well, what I said was that someone else put that label on it. I don't think I said it wasn't a monism. I'm just saying that those are labels for categories of concepts. Calling it any category of idea is really only serving to allow people to come up with rote criticisms that may or may not actually apply to the actual theory. Absent understanding the actual theory, all criticisms against it can only be made out of assumptive ignorance. William J Murray

My wife just made the most accurate assessment

It’s such a crock

jerry

Jerry

Does MRT obviate God and religion?

It's a good question. In WJM's view, God exists but is not a "being". God is "a ground" of all possible beings. So, God is a composite of individuals. All people are a part of God and they all make up what God is. There are a lot of problems with this view. It directly contradicts the idea that God cannot be a composite, made up of parts (how did the parts come together and what holds them together and are some parts different than others, and how did they get that way? Do the parts change over time? Is one part dependent on another - and therefore of unequal value?) In the classical view, God is the unified, simple, complete and perfect Being - the fullness of Being with no parts or potential. Everything is fullest, actual perfection. Something made of various parts cannot be that.

It certainly obviates Christianity since that supposedly happened in a physical world with a crucifixion and resurrection.

Well, Christians hold MRT and people are able to interpret the Bible in any imaginable way and call it Christian so I don't think that's going to work. But I do think Jesus made a very clear and specific point that the real world exists when he told the apostle St. Thomas to "touch" His wounds. He was saying there is a difference between what is real and what is an hallucination. That's a clear refutation of MRT (although MRT could say that Thomas' touch was still just in his mind - and that seems truly absurd to me, but that's the way it is).

And MRT obviates miracles such as loaves and fishes.

Even more, I think miracles would make no sense in MRT since any imagination you have is "real" so why would anyone care about a miracle? But God gave us miracles so we could realize there is another world beyond the material. So, the material, external world must exist for miracles to have meaning. Otherwise, miracles are just one illusion on top of another. Silver Asiatic

Arguing from the consequences of the idea is not the best refutation, but it does play a part.

P=> q. Not q=> not p. jerry

KF

Note, a monism that imposes a network of nodes is still a monism, and dream scapes or visions are very different from the terminal consequences of ceasing to breathe for sufficiently long.

In fairness or for accuracy - WJM denied that his system was a monism. I'm not sure who introduced the term for his view. But he holds that both minds and souls (spirit) exist. This is more dualistic depending on how you define soul. In the classical sense, souls are forms of the body. They are existent things and not just mental images. But it's a conflict in WJM's view that "everything is mind" since souls are not Mind alone (mind is part of a soul). MRT threatens to destroy individuality in that sense. So, the individual person would not exist - since all real boundaries are removed if "everything is one". Just as with materialism. If everything is just molecules - there is no real distinction between things. The table is the same as the floor as the earth it sits on. We only "see" a difference, but if we could see pure molecular level, no objects would exist. Nothing would be separated by color or shape dimension components, etc.

Such a monism may appeal to some but the implicit grand, Plato’s Cave delusion about embodiment and the common world is too high a price to pay, by way of implications of delusional self-reference.

The price to pay is very high. It destroys our understanding of being, and the Creator-to-creature relationship, as well as the nature of God (who would be a composite and not a unity). The fact that MRT does not show these negative aspects as yet is because very few hold it, and also, like atheism or materialism, MRT continues to borrow from a real-world perspective to keep itself sane. But if that real-world fully disappeared, then some very strong consequences would follow. Arguing from the consequences of the idea is not the best refutation, but it does play a part. Silver Asiatic

SA said:

By its nature it’s a direct contradiction to the realist philosophy that gave us the understanding of God’s nature, essense and being. MRT removes those categories.

It's interesting that Kastrup refers to those philosophers about nature, essence and being and explains them in video #4, quotes them, and explains them in terms of MRT. You kind of have to acclimate to the theory in #1-3 before you get to #4, because #4 is built on the prior videos. I mean, if you or anyone is interested. William J Murray

MRT removes those categories.

Does MRT obviate God and religion? It certainly obviates Christianity since that supposedly happened in a physical world with a crucifixion and resurrection. And MRT obviates miracles such as loaves and fishes. Do animals/fishes exist in MRT? I would think it obviates Islam with specific events and places and all other religions too.

I mean, if you or anyone is interested.

Here Murray refers to videos to defend MRT. How is that possible? Aren’t videos in the real world? Also aren’t websites in the real world? It entails too many absurdities. jerry

WJM

Do you think it’s possible you haven’t found, examined every possible MRT to make that assessment?

You're the strongest advocate of MRT I've ever encountered and you haven't come up with anything even close. The early advocates of Idealism were working directly against realist-based theology, so they wanted the conflict. But I'm open to anything new on this. Of course I haven't investigated every idea that's out there.

Why do you think certain ideas are impossible to develop under any MRT?

By its nature it's a direct contradiction to the realist philosophy that gave us the understanding of God's nature, essense and being. MRT removes those categories. Silver Asiatic

you think I’m smarter than some of the most respected and published physicists and philosophers around

Published where and by whom? In the real world or a make believe one?

the ideas go back to Descartes

All Murray has done is say we have minds. That is all Descartes was saying too with “Cogito ergo sum.” Big deal. Everyone had known this since the beginning of time. By the way, I understand almost none of your explanations. It isn’t coherent so my assessment is that no one understands it if you or no one else cannot explain it. It seems all you are saying is impressions appear in minds and you call this information but if there is no associated event in a physical world, the impression/information is bogus and really is meaningless. So any impressions in MRT have no real association with anything. Don’t you find it ironic that Murray constantly uses the real world to explain his make believe world? jerry

SA: If there is only mind, it’s not possible to develop those ideas. Do you think it's possible you haven't found, examined every possible MRT to make that assessment? Why do you think certain ideas are impossible to develop under any MRT? William J Murray

WJM

The same isn’t true with MRTs in general.

I haven't seen any so far that really do. In classical philosophy, God is first cause and creator. Non-contingent. He creates contingent reality. If there is only mind, it's not possible to develop those ideas. Silver Asiatic

SA:

But MRT does not work well with those concepts.

MY MRT does not work well with it. The same isn't true with MRTs in general. My MRT takes into account lines of evidence I don't think Kastrup addresses, like cultural differences in NDEs, astral projection experiences, communication with the dead, etc. William J Murray

Jerry said

I don’t think he [Murray] is stupid. He doesn’t believe what he is saying.

I don’t believe Murray believes any of what he says. No one could be that dumb.

Also Jerry:

There will always be some who will believe anything.

Also Jerry:

No, I was not referring to anyone specific.

I'm sorry, Jerry, are you saying it's impossible for me, personally, to believe this, while other people, like Kastrup, can believe it? Do you think Kastrup and the physicists that agree with him over at Quantum Gravity Research are "dumb?" Or are you saying that you think I'm smarter than those guys, so there's no way I could personally believe what I'm saying here? I guess I should be flattered; apparently you think I'm smarter than some of the most respected and published physicists and philosophers around ... even in history .. because you think there's no way that I, personally, can possibly believe what I'm saying, which is essentially the same thing those guys are saying or have said. William J Murray

WJM

That said, I’ve never understood the resistance to MRT from a theological perspective; it actually fundamentally reinforces the theological perspective as necessary (universal mind) and is highly explanatory, dissolves the problem of substance interaction and the production of experiential qualia, solves the hard problem of consciousness, provides fundamental free will, accounts for the existence if individual people and physical experience, and is completely supported by 100 years of quantum physics research.

As above, Bishop Berkeley held an extreme idealist position - like an early MRT concept. So, Christian believers have adopted this thinking. However, in my view, MRT/Idealism has a radical conflict in our understanding of God. To me, that's the strongest criticism. Because you have to view God in a very different way than classical Christian thought has done. I asked you about this previously - if you accepted the attributes of God as classically given: Eternal, Immutable, Omnipotent, One, Non-composite, Simple, All-Knowing, etc. But MRT does not work well with those concepts. And those attributes come from the idea that God is a Being who has created the visible universe - which really exists. So, God's creative power is challenged in MRT also. But a person can fully accept ID theory and also have MR theory - so it's not a problem for ID. Silver Asiatic

Jerry

How do years happen in MRT? Is there an Earth and Sun? Are there seasons. I had this impression that it was very hot yesterday. How does temperature happen in MRT?

100% of the things you are talking about are reduced in MRT to "information". Silver Asiatic

Jerry

MRT is absurd. No one could possibly believe it.

What WJM has come up with is not unique to him. In fact, it's not really even that new. As I explained, the ideas go back to Descartes. Remember? Cogito ergo sum. I think therefore I am. Notice, Descartes says that his proof for his own existence is in his own mind. I disagree with this view, as I have repeated frequently. But I have also given my arguments. From Descartes we move along to Berkeley. He was a Christian of some sort - in fact, an Anglican clergyman (bishop). Berkeley believed that everything we sense - see, feel, hear, smell - etc, is 100% in our own mind. He was saying the same thing WJM is - but back in the 1700s. Again, for the umpteenth time, I reject this view. I believe in Thomistic-realist philosophy. Hylemorphic dualism - where there are real things in the material world, and spiritual forms which shape them. That is the classical Western philosophy. I don't know if you have heard of Dinesh D'Souza, but he's a popular political commentator. I was reading his book on Life After Death, and his "refutation" of materialism was to refer to Bishop Berkeley's ideas - that basically, "the material world does not exist". As with WJM, yes - that is a refutation of materialism. But it's like trying to get rid of one's personal enemies by dropping an atom bomb on your own city. You're going to destroy your enemies, yes sure - but you lose everything else. This is the great danger of using Quantum Physics to say that "materialism is false because matter does not exist". If matter does not exist - then we have WJM's worldview. But nobody is really dealing with that if we just say "he's crazy". Again, it's like saying "materialists are insane". Certainly, they may well be insane - but that's not going to do much to refute them. UD is a debating site, in a lot of ways - so I think we ought to look at the proposal. If WJM's view was just religious or something like that, I wouldn't start arguing about it. But I think his MRT actually is incompatible with ID - when you really get down to it. I think ID requires that a real, material world exists. Just saying "you bumped your toe on a rock" doesn't do it. Because your toe is sensing information from the rock. But if the rock "wasn't really there" and it was just "information" coming into your toe - then you'd have MRT. The information would be "a visual that looks like a rock in your brain, sense data that feels like a rock, and sense data that feels like pain". It's a simulation. Ok, one more time ... Just because I try to explain this worldview, does not mean I agree with it. In fact - I don't agree with it. I believe it is false. Information requires an interpreter. Information is "about" something - and that something must be real. If everything was "just information" with no real things that it refers to, then we wouldn't be able to have real knowledge. The argument against this is "what about dreams"? We see a flying pink elephant in the dream, so we know what the flying pink elephant is. But not really. There's no validation. There's no science. When I drink coffee, it's just my mind telling me what is happening. Silver Asiatic

AD, The thing to remember is that Kastrup himself admits that his MRT is just one of many that are being developed by many well-qualified people, so he's not describing "the" MRT, just one of many. That said, I've never understood the resistance to MRT from a theological perspective; it actually fundamentally reinforces the theological perspective as necessary (universal mind) and is highly explanatory, dissolves the problem of substance interaction and the production of experiential qualia, solves the hard problem of consciousness, provides fundamental free will, accounts for the existence if individual people and physical experience, and is completely supported by 100 years of quantum physics research. I don't see anything in the general model that contradicts Christianity. My personal iteration of MRT is that Christianity is but one kind or set of realities that one can experience, but that perspective is certainly not necessary to all MRTs. I don't even think my perspective is shared by Kastrup, but again, it appears that may be because I have a different set of experiences than Kastrup is addressing (at least so far, I'm on the 4th video now.) William J Murray

The Kastrup website looks like a treasure trove. Thanks for the link. KF, the God of the Bible could certainly have created "reality" this way. I'm beginning to understand why you don't see it. AnimatedDust

This sounds like you’re admitting that it’s at least possible that I actually believe what I’ve been talking about for a year and a half.

No, I was not referring to anyone specific. There will always be people believing in absurd ideas. Schizophrenics believe in things that don’t exist. Others have dreams they believe are true in real life. Fake news is a thriving business because people believe it or want to believe it. And there will be those who take advantage of those who believe or want to believe in absurd things. Nearly all of us like to watch magicians and we pay money to be deceived. But neither we nor the magicians believe something magical happened. jerry

Jerry said:

MRT is absurd. No one could possibly believe it.

The next day, Jerry sys:

There will always be some who will believe anything.

Uh oh, Jerry. Be careful. This sounds like you're admitting that it's at least possible that I actually believe what I've been talking about for a year and a half. William J Murray

nobody really believes this stuff.

There will always be some who will believe anything. Some mental image about some of the people all the time comes into my mind. But what does it mean to be a person? How does one go to school in MRT? Are there teachers? Is there a diploma and graduation ceremony? Are there other students? What does one learn in such a school? Is there a classroom and school building? How do years happen in MRT? Is there an Earth and Sun? Are there seasons. I had this impression that it was very hot yesterday. How does temperature happen in MRT? Was there always an internet? If not how did that come about? Is there history in MRT? How does one communicate in MRT? Does San Diego exist in MRT? How does one have children, grandchildren, great grandchildren in MRT? Are they all just some minds existing some place? If so where/what is that place? How does one come into existence in such a place? For that matter, what does the concept of place mean? When the lawn people come and cut the grass of o house, is that all just in one’s mind. I ask because it happened at our house yesterday but in MRT my house doesn’t exist. Or does it? Did the lawn people exist? How did the grass get cut? Does grass exist? The questions are endless. As someone said, some of the people all of the time. jerry

PPPS, one of the stranger phenomena of humanity is that self-referential and otherwise incoherent views and beliefs can be held at the same time. Where some beliefs are central to an individual, such can be held with a fierce determination, almost regardless of evidence. This is part of why comparative difficulties analysis across factual adequacy, coherence and balance of explanatory power, informed by first duties of reasoning and seasoned with due common sense, is so important. kairosfocus

PS: Mental monist reductionism is subject to the same problems as materialistic, evolutionary reductionistic monism; to wit the failure of monisms to satisfactorily resolve the problem of the one and the many, on the table ever since Thales of Miletus c 585 BC, sitting on the docks in that port town for Ephesus. I note here, again (as explained here) that the key challenge is

ONE AND MANY CHALLENGE: to account for unity and diversity in a coherent domain, reality, with room for responsible, rational, morally governed contingent creatures such as we are; on pain of collapse of credibility of our very rationality to think about such. Such self-defeat is a sign that a view is absurd.

Monisms fail because of the consequences of the move summed up in the Indian aphorism, one is the number of truth, two that of error. That is, suppression of diversity as an aspect of reality. This leads to a breakdown of coherence typically manifest in addressing human rational responsible freedom (as we are a microcosm of the problem, a facet that is a window to the whole and contributes to the whole). Typically, materialisms reduce rational free inference to GIGO-limited computation, poof there goes credibility of reason. (Other forms end up smuggling in diversity in the back door of poof-magic unexplained emergence. This last is common in Sci Fi.) "Mentalisms" end up reducing our common world and our involvement and interaction with it through embodiment, to utter dubiousness and/or unbridgeable knowledge gaps. The Kantian ugly gulch between appearance and being is a classic illustration; one answered over a century past by F H Bradley's observation that the claim of unknowability of things in themselves is a particularly strong knowledge claim about such things in themselves. So, there is a fundamental incoherence at outset, a fatal foundational flaw. The principle of explosion then applies, entailment loses significance as the fundamentally false indiscriminately chains to what is so and to what is not so. So, while it seems to be extraordinarily powerful as an all-embracing explanation, it has lost the power to claim to be a framework of truth. Seeming empirical adequacy is not a reliable criterion of truth, especially when possibility or actuality of incoherence is on the table. likewise, we must beware of procrustean bed simplisticness that chops off what does not fit or forcibly warps other things to fit. That is, we need both the unity and the diversity and also the significance and credibility of human mind all together at once. (This also includes a reasonable answer to the challenge of good vs evil.) A scheme that implies, invites or enables inference to hyperskeptical doubts or else undermines credibility of our thinking on the whole expresses or opens the way to grand delusion. This is instantly self-referentially absurd and self-falsifying. Ability to seemingly explain reality then becomes of no significance given the principle of explosion, from the false what is true or false flows logically. Jack, I am looking at you on this, as a caution. Going on, trying to drag in quantum weirdness and the like fails to appreciate the principle of correspondence, that is while it is interesting to look at micro scale substructures and dynamics, the macro scale has its own legitimacy and credible reality. Once we have enough that something like temperature or pressure or magnetic induction [the B field] etc apply [key thermodynamic state variables], causal-temporal energy dynamics, Gibbs Free Energy and time's arrow are relevant. Solids are real, bodies of liquid, gases etc. And science pivots on objective observable entities in the common world. Reduce such to GIGO driven simulations and its empirical foundations are undermined. Dream-worlds and visions are similar, I have already put on the table the one hour breathing cessation point regarding embodiment. Note, a monism that imposes a network of nodes is still a monism, and dream scapes or visions are very different from the terminal consequences of ceasing to breathe for sufficiently long. Such a monism may appeal to some but the implicit grand, Plato's Cave delusion about embodiment and the common world is too high a price to pay, by way of implications of delusional self-reference. And no the gnosticisms of dismissing the herd as ignorant, stupid idiots failing to understand the subtleties of some esoteric scheme failed by 1700 years ago. In short, there are manifold good reasons to accept as fundamentally valid, our first fact of self-aware conscious experience, that it has a key aboutness content. That is, it is experience OF embodiment and interaction with a wider physical world, starting with breathing. It is through that first common sense fact that we access other experiences IN the world and it is AS living bodies that we reason, converse, decide and act. So, while it is readily seen as self-evident that error exists, there is no good reason to globalise error or to fear its globalisation. Common sense defaults of the rational, experiencing, acting embodied individual are a useful start point. Likewise, the conclusion, grand delusion is instantly absurd as a key coherence criterion for worldviews. And yes, that eliminates monisms and for that matter pluralisms without a centre that can hold all together. More can be said, the remarks in this comment are sufficient as record and reference. KF PPS: I again point out my remarks on points on record since March. kairosfocus

Essentia Foundation website: https://www.essentiafoundation.org/ - Founded by Kastrup From https://www.essentiafoundation.org/about/

Essentia Foundation aims at communicating, in an accurate yet accessible way, the latest analytic and scientific indications that metaphysical materialism is fundamentally flawed. Indeed, clear reasoning and the evidence at hand indicate that metaphysical idealism or nondualism—the notion that nature is essentially mental—is the best explanatory model we currently have. Essentia Foundation questions metaphysical materialism and argues for the plausibility of idealism by leveraging the exact same epistemic values our culture reifies today: coherence, internal logical consistency, conceptual parsimony, empirical adequacy and explanatory power. We show that, if applied objectively and consequently, these values point directly at idealism, while contradicting materialism. Operationally, Essentia Foundation identifies and helps to promote scientific and philosophical work relevant to metaphysical idealism or nondualism.

From here:

Essentia Foundation communicates, in an accessible but rigorous manner, the latest results in science and philosophy that point to the mental nature of reality. We are committed to strict, academic-level curation of the material we publish.

They offer a free video course:

This entirely video-based course has been in the making since early 2021! According to Bernardo Kastrup, it is the most complete, in-depth video series he has ever produced on Analytic Idealism. Don’t miss out on the chance to follow it and become conversant in the most compelling and well-substantiate metaphysical alternative to physicalism currently available. Analytic Idealism maintains that the universe is experiential in essence. That does not mean that reality is in your or our individual minds alone, but instead in a spatially unbound, transpersonal field of subjectivity of which we are segments. Analytic Idealism is one particular formulation of Idealism, which is based on and motivated by post-enlightenment values such as conceptual parsimony, coherence, internal logical consistency, explanatory power and empirical adequacy. It’s a formulation that will appeal to intellectually hard-nosed, left-brained, science-oriented people, but isn’t the sole formulation of Idealism.

But according to Jerry, nobody really believes this stuff. William J Murray

Folks, there is no reason now or over the past several months since I and others found ourselves constrained after much prodding to state concerns for record about gaps and incoherence, to resort to personalities. KF kairosfocus

AD, I'm a 62 yr old high school graduate. Jerry said:

He has admitted in the past to not telling the truth. Then when caught says he didn’t mean it.

This is not true. What I said was in the context of KF's discussion about duties to truth, wherein I was trying to explain that my duty was not to truth, but to enjoyment. I said that there have been situations in my life, which I would think everyone has been in, where telling the truth is going to unnecessarily cause a very unenjoyable situation for everyone, so yes, I have told lies, fudged the truth here and there, committed some lies of omission, etc. Has nobody else here ever done the same? I also said that everything I say here, I'm being 100% honest because it wouldn't serve my purpose here to lie about anything here. I don't enjoy lying for it's own sake; I actually enjoy being as honest as I can, given the situation, because it just generally makes life much easier for me. I don't enjoy "being disruptive." I enjoy challenging conversations about things that interest me, and understanding the perspectives of others in order to see if there is something of their perspective I would enjoy adding to my own. I'm always on the lookout for more enjoyable ways of thinking about things.

MRT is absurd. No one could possibly believe it.

Do you think Bernardo Kastrup, who wrote: The Idea of the World: A Multi-Disciplinary Argument for the Mental Nature of Reality, doesn't believe in MRT? https://www.amazon.com/Bernardo-Kastrup/e/B004OFGCA4%3Fref=dbs_a_mng_rwt_scns_share William J Murray

Jerry is a poster child of cognitive dissonance and outright ignorance, mind-reading, with selective memory to boot. It's hilarious that he thinks WJM is the one doing all the "attacking" to KF, and not the other way around. Hard to believe, really. But not really. Even though Jerry's hissy fit reveals a deep ignorance, it's kinda fun to watch. ;) Jack

YOU are the one who is just trying to be disruptive. You're not the thought police. You appear to know nothing about quantum physics. I know precious little, but I do know that the external world is meant to be our perception, but isn't what it is actually composed of. Do some homework. His perspective has merit. I'm still learning it, and so far, it's taking me deeper into the claims of Christianity. Seems completely congruent with them. He doesn't. You're just howling at the moon. Stop it. AnimatedDust

I respect your views, but you’re not taking in the information I provided to explain, and you’re firing shots that are widely missing any target.

What information to take in? I know of none that is coherent. Why don’t you explain it? it has been going on for over a year and a half.

calling him stupid. What good is that going to do?

I don’t think he is stupid. He doesn’t believe what he is saying. So look for an alternative explanation. I suggest you consider how he has been attacking Kf for several months now. And why?

Do you think that he believes there are no “ideas of a garden” in the world?

How does one work hard in a garden in a mental world? Another reference to the physical world which he denies exist. That is just one his many absurdities.

. Ok, you’re just saying that he’s lying. But you haven’t explained why MRT is “dumb”.

MRT is absurd. No one could possibly believe it. Everyone of us experiences physical things the same way. Not exactly the same at first but after reconsideration almost identically. How do you think millions of people go about their days without a common understanding about most essential day to day things. Do you think they don’t exist? Murray doesn’t believe in MRT. He constantly refers to an external world to explain himself. That’s why I say he doesn’t believe it. He has admitted in the past to not telling the truth. Then when caught says he didn’t mean it. It seems you have bought into his nonsense. I have essentially ignored it but he keeps pushing his nonsense and the interesting thing is people take him seriously. He is probably laughing at each person he catches. How can one convert someone’s point of view to a reasonable one when they essentially don’t believe what they are saying and are just trying to be disruptive? jerry

Jerry, you've become an annoying distraction. No one is forcing you to read his "nonsense." Completely optional, yet here you remain. Just go away and work on becoming more a more positive mental consciousness projection. AnimatedDust

WJM, just curious-- How old are you? What does your formal education consist of? Thanks. AnimatedDust

One of the claims of Christianity is that what we are in, this "universe," is really all about/for us. The entire reason for creation, in fact. Sure, highly anthropocentric, but entirely consistent with the claims of Christianity. It would have made no sense for Genesis 1-3 to talk about quantum mechanics, but the why that creation is the way it is, is solidly there. One giant thought, from the originator of all thought. AnimatedDust

Just for the heck of it, Jerry ... I respect your views, but you're not taking in the information I provided to explain, and you're firing shots that are widely missing any target.

Could this explain Murray?

That's just an insult - calling him stupid. What good is that going to do?

He only recently talked about how hard he works in his garden as to why the lives of medieval serfs was not so bad.

Do you think that he believes there are no "ideas of a garden" in the world? That his mind is just a blank slate with nothing in it?

Someone in the external world referred to their life and others as nasty, brutish and short. Of course you reacted to others dying young by commenting all have to die.

You don't like his ideas on social/political organization. That's an argument against MRT?

I don’t believe Murray believes any of what he says. No one could be that dumb. Look for another motive.

Ok, you're just saying that he's lying. But you haven't explained why MRT is "dumb". You're letting him skate away with the idea and not directing your arguments against it. It's like telling a materialist, "you can't really believe that everything is matter and God does not exist". Sure, you might be right, but that's not much of an argument. You have to engage it as if they believe and are convinced. Anyway - just throwing that out there for you. I understand the interest in just shutting it down and getting rid of the topic, but why not work on better arguments that would more conclusively refute it? Silver Asiatic

Could this explain Murray? https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/a79090168646b1ff9763780bc1ea424c0f55d16d1fd403afe0529c4678a06bb6.png jerry

Thanks - you too! I appreciate your effort to explain and work through the questions and issues. Silver Asiatic

SA said:

I think the experience of touch does not occur in the mind alone – thus I do not accept MRT.

Fair enough. It's been a pleasure having this conversation. You have a great day! William J Murray

I think the experience of touch does not occur in the mind alone - thus I do not accept MRT. Silver Asiatic

SA said:

You’re saying that robots have the conscious mental experience of touch?

I guess you didn't click on the link. I didn't say robot; I said a robotic hand. The robotic hand was attached to a person. Was the experience of touch occurring in the robotic hand of the person it was attached to, or was in occurring in the mind of the person? But, from your comment, I think you understand what I'm saying: the experience of touch does not occur in the fingers or the hand; under ERT, all the hand does is take information to the mind which translates that information into the experience of touch. The actual experience occurs in mind. Information provides for the experience; it is not the experience itself (in ERT perspective.) At best, under ERT, what we actually experience of the "external world" is a mental simulation experience that corresponds to that external world. It is not, and cannot be, a direct experience because it goes through at least two translation stages; the translation into electro-chemical information, and the translation into mental experience. William J Murray

WJM

Regardless of any ontological theory, all experience occurs in mind anyway – see definition of mind above.

Yes, that's your view. I disagree with this, as explained. But that's the way it is. Not much more to do with it at this point. Silver Asiatic

WJM

That is how you are conceptually organizing the two experiences. There are other ways of conceptually organizing those two experiences.

Yes, I fully accept that. I think my way is right, but I accept that people take other approaches. I think IRT has a lot of problems, but I accept that you adhere to it as best you can. You're trying to create a worldview from that model. I don't agree but I know what you're attempting - and you're validating on personal experiences you've had that confirm things to you. I can't judge those - like people who have mystical experiences. I can't really judge it. Like someone who has a near death experience. It's just something to consider. Silver Asiatic

WJM

Can a robotic hand feel things? If not, then where is the experience of touch occurring?

You're saying that robots have the conscious mental experience of touch? Robots are using sensors to take in information and then process. The information is not generated in their "mind" first. Of course, you could create a robot that just had information built into it, with no need for receiving any by sensors - but it wouldn't be a very useful robot. We want the robot to "sense" things. They do that in the fingers that touch or the lasers in their eyes or whatever sensor they have. The sensor in my car wheels retrieve information from the tires, then communicate to the controller (mind) and then display on dashboard when air is low. The information is not just created in the processor - it comes through the sensors from external data. It reads the external world, the gives information to the mind. That's how my fingers work. Silver Asiatic

SA said:

Plus, when I dream of an object that I am not sensing, my mind is just remembering what it feels like. It is re-using information that the senses gave it. Then, eventually, I realize that I wasn’t “feeling” the physical object in my dream at all.

That is how you are conceptually organizing the two experiences. There are other ways of conceptually organizing those two experiences. This is indicative of what I said about evaluating or criticizing MRT from an ERT ontology. You have to understand the difference between the fact of the experience (physicality, touch, sight, sound, etc.) and the ontological interpretation of what those experience mean or represent. William J Murray

SA said:

He’s saying all of that just happens in his mind. It’s basically like Solipsism, except a little different for reasons I don’t understand.

Regardless of any ontological theory, all experience occurs in mind anyway - see definition of mind above. The only thing that allows any ontological perspective to exclude solipsism (either as matter or in mind or in spirit) is the premise that other individuals as distinct, free will, conscious entities, exist and that we are interacting them as distinct identities separate from our own. MRT provides that like any other non-solipsistic theory of existence. William J Murray

WJM

When you dream, and you reach out with your hand and touch a physical object, are your fingers having the experience of the physical solidity of the thing you are touching?

When I dream, a lot of things are going on. If I'm lying on a beach and sleeping, my body feels the sand - takes that sensory information into my mind - and this informs the dream. It's not my mind feeling the sand, but my body lying on it. The sand is real, my dream is not. Plus, when I dream of an object that I am not sensing, my mind is just remembering what it feels like. It is re-using information that the senses gave it. Then, eventually, I realize that I wasn't "feeling" the physical object in my dream at all. Because when I wake up and I taste an orange or hold the coffee cup, I fully understand the difference of feeling real objects and having remembered/imagined experiences in dreams. That's why IRT does not work for me. I know the difference between dream and real. I also know that my senses bring in data and information from real things they encounter in the world. I see, touch, hear real things outside of me. I hear with my ears, not with my mind. I take in the sound and process with the mind. I see with my eyes, not with the mind. I'm not looking at things in my head, but things in the world. I know the difference between imagination/thought and real things in the world. Silver Asiatic

What I actually said was that absent the capacity to talk to serfs and get their experience from their perspective, we don’t know how “bad” their experience was to them.

That’s the external world. And you did justify their experience may not be so bad by referring to you hard work in the garden as a positive experience. One of the more perverse comments made here. Someone in the external world referred to their life and others as nasty, brutish and short. Of course you reacted to others dying young by commenting all have to die. jerry

Jerry said:

He only recently talked about how hard he works in his garden as to why the lives of medieval serfs was not so bad.

What I actually said was that absent the capacity to talk to serfs and get their experience from their perspective, we don't know how "bad" their experience was to them. William J Murray

SA, When you dream, and you reach out with your hand and touch a physical object, are your fingers having the experience of the physical solidity of the thing you are touching? Can a robotic hand feel things? If not, then where is the experience of touch occurring? https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2019/jul/24/at-last-feel-again-robotic-hand-user-sense-touch-grapes-eggs William J Murray

WJM

All this back and forth produced a definition of what I mean by “mind:” the capacity to receive, process, produce or interpret information as a personal experience.

I think the term "receive" there in your definition is going to cause you problems eventually. You're pointing to a source. The classic view is that the mind "receives" information from the senses, then processes. Silver Asiatic

He’s saying all of that just happens in his mind.

No! He’s referring to experiences in the external world to justify his nonsense. He only recently talked about how hard he works in his garden as to why the lives of medieval serfs was not so bad. jerry

Jerry

But he has referred to his own personal experiences in this external world hundreds of times.

He's saying all of that just happens in his mind. It's basically like Solipsism, except a little different for reasons I don't understand. But supposedly, when we see a chair or a tree or a cat - we're not seeing real things that are material (since quantum physics supposedly disproved that there is anything like "matter") but it's all just ideas inside of our head. So, everything WJM experiences or says or encounters - he will always say "it's just ideas in my mind". If he feels something, it's just his own mind creating the feeling. Like his mind creating a movie that he's watching. He's not actually looking through his eyes at anything.

You are just the latest fish he has caught.

What do you mean? I have given long explanations on why I reject that worldview. Silver Asiatic

WJM

Well, I’m setting aside the idea of mind-spirit dualism, because I’m incorporating mind and spirit into the same theory. Someone else originally called my theory monistic and I just picked it up. “Mind” is a categorical descriptor of what “experience” is and how it occurs: it’s all informational in nature. Information is abstract; abstract things are generally considered to be of and in mind.

Ok, that's fine but I just wasted numerous posts arguing about the irrationality of monism, and now you (rightly) are rejecting that concept. You're merging mind and spirit together, and that's more reasonable, but it makes a huge difference because now we have to understand how there is both a mind and soul. This means, there is "something more than just mind". The soul has greater powers than the mind. This says a lot about the nature of God also. Silver Asiatic

He is saying that “there is no external world”

But he has referred to his own personal experiences in this external world hundreds of times. That’s why I say don’t believe anything he says. He doesn’t believe any of it. He’s playing games. You are just the latest fish he has caught. jerry

WJM

Hey! Lookee there! All this back and forth produced a definition of what I mean by “mind:” the capacity to receive, process, produce or interpret information as a personal experience.

That's a benefit of a lot of discourse - so it's a good thing. But I think we can all wonder how anyone could accept MRT when a key component "the mind" just now was defined, and by yourself without any other validation or analysis by opposition. In other words, there's quite a lot of room to disagree with what you're saying and adhere to time-tested realist philosophy. Silver Asiatic

WJM

No, your fingers don’t experience anything. Does your cut off hand have the mental experience of the table if I lay that hand on the table?

Did you read my reply in 211? The difference between my hand cut off of my living body and a dead hand? Silver Asiatic

Hey! Lookee there! All this back and forth produced a definition of what I mean by "mind:" the capacity to receive, process, produce or interpret information as a personal experience. William J Murray

Jerry

The only thing Murray has said that makes sense is that we have minds that process the information from the external world. No one since the hunter gathers has thought any different.

No. He's not saying that - on the contrary. He is saying that "there is no external world". The classical view (the one I take) is that "we take in information from the external world from our senses, then process in the mind". That's the true view, as I see it. WJM's IRT is that "There is no external world. We don't take in information from senses. Instead, all our experience is information inside of our mind. Nothing outside exists - only thoughts. So, the sun in the sky is a thought in our head. It's not really in the sky. It's not really a sun. It's just the projection of a image. I know you're not that interested but you might as well just get what WJM is saying correct - that way you can refute it if you want. To just say "it's crazy" - is pretty good - but it's not going to really get at the heart of things. Silver Asiatic

SA said: And my fingers feel the table, not thoughts of the table. So, mental monism is falsified in that. No, your fingers don't experience anything. Does your cut off hand have the mental experience of the table if I lay that hand on the table? IF I cut out hour eyes, take them to the other room and place them in front of a painting, do those eyes experience the sight of the painting? 'How does one “shut off the mind”? You mean, if I am dead? I can recognize things by my soul when I am dead." Well, I'm setting aside the idea of mind-spirit dualism, because I'm incorporating mind and spirit into the same theory. Someone else originally called my theory monistic and I just picked it up. "Mind" is a categorical descriptor of what "experience" is and how it occurs: it's all informational in nature. Information is abstract; abstract things are generally considered to be of and in mind. Even the ERT model describes this as information of the surface of the table being translated into bioelectric and chemicals that carry that representative information to the brain. Can you open the brain at that point and see the solidity of the table in the brain? Can you see the table in the brain? No. Somehow, those electro-chemical signals are translated into mental experiences (under current ERT) that we experience as personal noumena. Even under ERT, it is representative information that moves through our bodies and is somehow translated into experience. So, what I mean by "shutting off your mind," I mean cut off your capacity to receive, process, produce or interpret information. William J Murray

WJM

These people literally live in fear of being vilified, ridiculed, losing their jobs and being ostracized by their own family and friends if they talk openly about their ongoing experiences.

Ok, but you're talking on an ID site. We know what all of that is like. We have had to create strategies to gain a hearing. I know, we complain about persecution also, but the reality is, we have to convince the powers-that-be that we're right. The same for MRT advocates. As it stands, the vast majority of people are just going to say that it's crazy. Speaking of ID, MRT is actually not very friendly to the idea that "we observe evidence of intelligent design in nature" since one can say that "there is no nature". It's all just "information" in the mind that we selected. How MRT can claim that "all possible thoughts are actual" is also loaded with problems. Obviously, possible thoughts include many contradictory ideas. If all of them are actualized, then this kills the Law of Non-Contradiction and thus is irrational. For example, Materialism is a thought. So, materialism is actual. But so is non-materialism. In IRT, both things occur. Silver Asiatic

WJM

Do you know that there are, very conservatively, hundreds of thousands of people who use various forms of MRT theories, and methods described by those theories, to actively “create” reality in their lives, and who testify in various venues about their successes? There are hundreds of books and websites describing these methods and techniques. There are classes you can take both in physical locations and online.

I don't know the number but I imagine there are many, as you say. There are millions of Hindus who believe in reincarnation. Millions of Buddhists who believe in astral projection and ascended masters who are godlike and live in the mystic kingdom of Shambala. A million Mormons believe they will become gods of their own planet. There are probably a million people who believe in the power of crystals, tarot cards and/or wicca. I don't dismiss your beliefs out of hand. What you're saying does not seem coherent or reasonable, but you've got first-hand experience of various things which I would not argue against. Those are your testimonies and I trust what you're saying. However, I would argue against your conception of God, since it does not make sense and leaves too much unanswered or contradictory. Silver Asiatic

For example, we notice that the sun appeas to move in a regular pattern through the sky.

Are we taking about the external material world? The only thing Murray has said that makes sense is that we have minds that process the information from the external world. No one since the hunter gathers has thought any different. Amazing insight!!! For that we get 20,000+ comments on the obvious. All nonsense. Now astral travel. That’s really different. Aside: I don’t believe Murray believes any of what he says. No one could be that dumb. Look for another motive. jerry

WJM

Because you don’t feel things “in your fingers.” If I chop your hand off, take it with me into the other room, and throw it into the fire, are you going to feel it burn? No.

Right, because those are no longer alive as "my fingers". They're dead body parts. Once you cut them off from my soul, they are no longer alive and thus cannot feel. When they are alive, and filled with life from my soul - then I feel with my fingers, not my mind. And my fingers feel the table, not thoughts of the table. So, mental monism is falsified in that. The table is required and then the sensation in my fingers which does not require mind takes in information - my mind processes it later.

as my If I shut off your mind, what do you think you’re going to experience while your mind is shut off?

How does one "shut off the mind"? You mean, if I am dead? I can recognize things by my soul when I am dead. But I do not require my mind to sense things. I can look at clouds mindlessly. Where does science define what the mind is? What measurements does science give us on how far the mind extends? I haven't seen the science on that because the mind is an immaterial entity. So the claim that "everything is mind" is speculative and can be denied, as I have done. I do not believe the mind is everything. For me, the mind is a part of the soul. The soul has powers that are greater than the mind. God can communicate directly with the soul - and the soul can transcend what the mind can do. No science can help with this. Science cannot tell us the difference between mind and soul - nor can it tell us how consciousness functions, what components it has or its extent. Science cannot measure immaterial entities. Silver Asiatic

SA, Do you know that there are, very conservatively, hundreds of thousands of people who use various forms of MRT theories, and methods described by those theories, to actively "create" reality in their lives, and who testify in various venues about their successes? There are hundreds of books and websites describing these methods and techniques. There are classes you can take both in physical locations and online. I've personally encountered hundreds of people who have similar experiences as I have had my whole life. It's astounding how many people have had these kinds of experiences that they normally just don't talk about because it makes them sound crazy, or like they're just making stuff up. These people include scientists, research scientists, teachers, psychologists, medical doctors, and a former materialist/professional skeptic ("fact checker") who, prior to having their own experiences, considered all of this a bunch of delusional or deceptive nonsense. KF and your "common sense" extrapolation of "common experience" accounts for these experiences by, one way or another, brushing them aside and taking them out of consideration. These people literally live in fear of being vilified, ridiculed, losing their jobs and being ostracized by their own family and friends if they talk openly about their ongoing experiences. This perspective is not uncommon and it is growing, as science progresses and more and more people find private or anonymous venues where they can share their experiences and thoughts. William J Murray

AD asks:

Whose path is true, and whose isn’t? Both? Neither?

That depends on what you mean by "true." Do you mean which path ultimately leads us to experience what our path predicts, I guess we'll find out. If you mean, which theory better explains the totality of the evidence to date, I'm confident MRT/IRT is the better theory. ERT cannot explain a substantial amount of evidence already in hand, and IRT can. SA said:

They don’t make sense to anyone else. It’s like Alice and Wonderland or Dorothy on the yellow brick road. Once you go into the Looking Glass or the World of Oz – then things make sense. Outside, it’s nonsense.

The problem is that quantum physics research is dragging us through that looking glass, or down that rabbit hole, whether like it or not, whether we deny it or not, whether people are generally aware of or understand that evidence or not. This is why physicists are moving into MRT and information theories about the nature of reality; it is the basis of the research being currently conducted by the quantum gravity group I've linked to several times. "The atoms or elementary particles themselves are not real; they form a world of potentialities or possibilities rather than one of things or facts." - Werner Heisenberg, German theoretical physicist and one of the key pioneers of quantum mechanics. Heisenberg was awarded the 1932 Nobel Prize in Physics. "Observations not only disturb what is to be measured, they produce it." - Pascual Jordan, German theoretical and mathematical physicist who made significant contributions to quantum mechanics and quantum field theory. "The doctrine that the world is made up of objects whose existence is independent of human consciousness turns out to be in conflict with quantum mechanics and with facts established by experiment." - Bernard d'Espagnat, French theoretical physicist and philosopher of science. "In the beginning there were only probabilities. The universe could only come into existence if someone observed it. It does not matter that the observers turned up several billion years later. The universe exists because we are aware of it." - Martin Rees, British cosmologist and astrophysicist "A fundamental conclusion of the new physics also acknowledges that the observer creates the reality. As observers, we are personally involved with the creation of our own reality. Physicists are being forced to admit that the universe is a “mental” construction. "Pioneering physicist Sir James Jeans wrote: “The stream of knowledge is heading toward a non-mechanical reality; the universe begins to look more like a great thought than like a great machine. Mind no longer appears to be an accidental intruder into the realm of matter, we ought rather hail it as the creator and governor of the realm of matter. Get over it, and accept the inarguable conclusion. The universe is immaterial-mental and spiritual." RC Henry, a professor of physics and astronomy at Johns Hopkins University, William J Murray

In all monist ideas, there is no room for what is subjective. It is all fact, fact, fact. And the IRT is no different. It is all heresy, in denial of God the holy spirit, and denial of the human spirit, people's emotions and personal character. KF also, is focused on fact, fact, fact again. Creationism is the proper foundation, validating both subjectivity and objectivity. 1. Creator / chooses / spiritual / subjective / opinion 2. Creation / chosen / material / objective / fact mohammadnursyamsu

SA said:

As I said, I do not need my mind to take in sensory stimuli through my senses (touching a block of wood – my fingers recognize that the wood is real and it is there, then my mind processes after). Where does science prove this wrong?

Because you don't feel things "in your fingers." If I chop your hand off, take it with me into the other room, and throw it into the fire, are you going to feel it burn? No. If I shut off your mind, what do you think you're going to experience while your mind is shut off? Are the fingers themselves going to experience the pain of burning?

WJM agreed that I could not do so unless I accepted his world first.

I think what I actually said was that, like my trying to understand KF's argument about "First Duties," absent the kind of experiences I and others have had that lead us to this theory or versions of it, it may not be possible to understand it. It certainly cannot be understood if one refuses to agree to it arguendo and try to follow the logic without comparing it to their ontologically-based rational system. Jerry said:

Isn’t this one of those self contradictory statements? He is using science that only exist in the external world to prove. the external world doesn’t exist. So he is using an imaginary thing (something that exists in the external world) to prove the external world doesn’t exist.

SA replied:

Right, that doesn’t make sense and is contradictory. I suggested that he needs scientific reports done from the IRT point of view, not from the normal science point of view.

This is bad reasoning. I'll explain why. At its heart, science is a process of pattern recognition, then creating models that explain that pattern and using that theoretical model to make predictions that can be verified or falsified via experimentation. Experimentation is one means of gathering evidence that will either support of undermine the model; it doesn't undermine the pattern. More details about the pattern can be found that we use to modify or change the model. For example, we notice that the sun appeas to move in a regular pattern through the sky. We create a model - a common sense one - that the sun is revolving around the Earth. We experiment with that model by using telescopes and other means to make predictions. of the behaviors of the things we observe. We gather up facts and change the model to a helio-centric model. Science disproves models all the time. Because of the way science is conducted, it doesn't matter what model you are conducting science under; it doesn't matter what your assumptions are. This holds true whether we live in an ERT or MRT world because of the way science is conducted, not because of the assumptions anyone has regarding what it is they are observing and testing. Assuming MRT true, all this time science has been examining, even though they didn't see it exactly this way, mutually verifiable, repeatable, and predictable phenomena in our common experience. We experience those patterns prior to any scientific investigation whatsoever regardless of what we assume it is we are experiencing. If MRT is true, that doesn't invalidate the patterns we mutually experience and have found via scientific investigation over the centuries; it only changes our concept of what those patterns are of and represent. The model changes, not the pattern - just as we have changed models in the past to fit our observations and the results of experiments. 100 years of quantum physics research and experimentation has demonstrated that our model of what we are investigating is in error. That is not in question, and it doesn't invalidate any of the patterns we mutually experience and verify. The mental monism model doesn't invalidate any of the prior evidence or any of the patterns we have thus far experienced and mutually verified. The idea that I cannot point to evidence collected or the experiments conducted under ERT to support MRT is as irrational as saying that Copernicus could not use the evidence and observations that Ptolemy collected, or the patterns that had been observed since well before any formal science was created, for the creation of his model. That doesn't make any sense and it is not how science is conducted. The only question is: does the IRT/MRT better explain the current evidence and make predictions about the mutually verifiable patterns of phenomena in our experience that the ERT-assumptive model cannot? The answer is yes, and those predictions have been supported both by 100 years of quantum physics research done under the assumption of ERT, and also by current physicists who have recently gravitated over to IRT models of reality. IRT could have been disproved long, long ago. We could have found that matter actually exists; we found out that it did not. We could have found out that energy actually exists; we found out that it does not (it never did, because "energy" is itself has always been abstract model that predicts behaviors, like gravity, entropy, etc.) We could have found "things" that have innate states or characteristics independent of observation: we did not. In fact, we found out something very startling: there are no innate, independent states or characteristics of "things" external of our observational experience. We found that what we call "reality" only exists in our experience, not in "things" assumed to be external of that experience. MRT doesn't invalidate the evidence gathered and patterns we've observed under the old assumptions; it only does what science is supposed to do: in light of new evidence that disproves the old model, construct a new model that incorporates the new evidence. That's exactly what MRT does. It is no different in principle than moving from geocentrism to heliocentrism (and, via BA77's evidence, to universal geocentrism) because of new evidence. William J Murray

Well said, KF@205. Keep teaching him. Maybe one day he will understand the truth. You can explain it to him, but you cannot comprehend it for him. Bravo for trying. You are a saint. Truth Will Set You Free

Jack, perhaps I should note to you that EVERY worldview of consequence has a framework for how other worldviews are. Second, one of the broader lessons from Godel and from Popper is to be very cautious with what explains "everything," as that can be a property of incoherent systems, per the principle of explosion, from what is false anything follows, where the incoherent is necessarily false. As a result, one may happily spin out a scheme that covers the whole world, only to find that it rests on a fatal foundational crack. And in the case of the sort of panpsychism, nodal network simulationism [note how external reality, i.e. our embodiment . . . including our brains . . . and participation in a physical world are viewed as so dubious as to be practically false] in view, there is indeed a foundational challenge. I focussed it on the thought exercise of ceasing to breathe for an hour, which in dreams, visions and simulations is of no consequence, but in waking reality would be terminal, as in don't try this at home. The denial of embodiment as our first fact of self-aware consciousness through which we access all other facts -- notice, the general impact implied -- is not merely an unusual view, it entails grand delusion, thus discrediting our rationality. It matters not, that our bodily sensors have limitations and use signal processing and compression, nor that the macro-level of solid bodies, liquids and gases rests on a microstructure with quantum effects and dynamics, london force intermolecular interactions giving rise to contact forces etc and statistical thermodynamics giving rise to causal-temporal flow in time constrained by Gibbs Free Energy [a direct extension of the 2nd law of thermodynamics] etc, we are looking at fundamental incoherence and that is to be duly noted. Indeed, the Science we note pivots on recognising that observable, intelligible in part world we share with other creatures. We here have a failure due to fundamental incoherence. Such may not seem so to you, but it is readily recognisable and it is reasonable, fair comment to note that such is the case. KF kairosfocus

SA, thank you sincerely for your engagement. You seem like a good natured person who genuinely wants to understand.

Thanks, Jack. I don't agree with your point of view but I appreciate the opportunity to learn about what you believe. I consider it a belief system - in other words, theological and religious. It's like Hinduism or pantheism, a statement about God and the world. ID is open to believers of all kinds. For example, I disagree with Mormonism, but this wouldn't be the place to debate that. Mental monism, of what you guys propose is more than just religion though. You're making scientific and philosophical claims also, and those should be debated.

Your reality is fundamentally (and ever will be) mind-centric. And there’s nothing you can do about it.

The one thing I can do about it is disagree and refuse to accept it. Also, you're saying "fundamentally" and "centric" but what you mean is "only mind". It's not just "fundamental" to reality, in your view. But notice how you even worded your own belief as if mind is just "centric" and not the whole thing. Just "fundamental" and not entire. It makes me suspect the level of belief you have in that view when you leave the door open like that.

And… modern science conclusively supports our mental-centric view.

Well, no - it really doesn't. Science cannot even tell us what "mind" is. Because science doesn't know. it doesn't know what "mind" does either. It doesn't know what consciousness is or does. Because those are immaterial essences, and science is incapable of observing and analyzing the immaterial. For example, where does science prove that "mind is all there is"? Or even, "all we know is experience"? As I said, I do not need my mind to take in sensory stimuli through my senses (touching a block of wood - my fingers recognize that the wood is real and it is there, then my mind processes after). Where does science prove this wrong? Also, there is something more than mind because my soul recognizes the grace of God without need for thought at all. The grace and spirit of God comes directly into my soul without the use of mind. So, mind is not all there is. Where does science refute this and explain that "no, God does not speak directly to the soul and the only thing that exists is mind?" I haven't seen that sort of science. Silver Asiatic

Interesting is that WJM's (and my) worldview can subsume the alternatives. But the alternatives cannot subsume our mental-centric view. And... modern science conclusively supports our mental-centric view. It's not even debatable unless you're ignorant of what's been happening in in the world of quantum physics in the last 100 years. (Sidebar #1: One possible "out" is if you deny free will. It's logically possible, but a difficult route for the materialists to brazen out, and I will assume that's not a live issue in this thread.) (Sidebar #2: WJM and I may not agree on every particular, but fundamentally we're in the same philosophical space. I don't speak for him, and he doesn't speak for me.) Jack

Jerry: Jack like Murray has also discovered that humans have minds. Well, Jack like Murray has discovered that it's all mind. Jack

I don't agree with having these many points of view. The foundation is creationism, which validates the concepts of personal opinion (like opinion on beauty) and fact. discourse. Everyone is already forced to accept creationism, because of creationist logic being engrained in common discourse. And no one can avoid using the logic of common discourse, even if they tried. But besides it being forced by nature, creationism should also be enforced by morality. Because it is immoral not to acknowledge people's emotions, and only creationism ensures that. My judgement about it is, that all the other theories fail to properly acknowledge people's emotions, let alone God. It is not acceptable, and the other theories that compete with creationism must be thrown out. mohammadnursyamsu

WJM: Enjoy your path. I’m thoroughly enjoying mine. Whose path is true, and whose isn't? Both? Neither? Square circle? AnimatedDust

Jack has a short memory. Jack like Murray has also discovered that humans have minds. jerry

Folks, your entire existence is consciousness-centric. Everything byond that is inferences from mere logic, which is good, but it can't tell you the nature of reality. And those inferences are happening in... wait for it... in your mind. Your reality is fundamentally (and ever will be) mind-centric. And there's nothing you can do about it. Love, God. ;) Jack

Jerry: Jack thinks the Tooth Fairy is a legitimate world view. I have no reason to think that. Bizzare comment, Jerry. Leave it to SA. He discusses things in good faith. Your comment is just trollism. Whatever turns you on. At any rate, you don't seem to undertand the topic. Maybe you should be humble and sit it out. Or not. I don't care. ;) It's entertaining at very least. Jack

Dinner is great under the fading sun. People have minds. Amazing. I rest my case. Aside: Jack thinks the Tooth Fairy is a legitimate world view. Maybe in Murray's world. Maybe it's part of aztral traveling. jerry

SA, thank you sincerely for your engagement. You seem like a good natured person who genuinely wants to understand. Jerry: Isn’t this one of those self contradictory statements? He is using science that only exist in the external world to prove. the external world doesn’t exist. No. The "external world" is not necessary to "do science." Your have "external senses" (states of mind) and "science" is about making hypotheses about the "sense data" (states of mind) and testing them in your... wait for it... mind. "Science" is an idea. In your mind. All ideas exist in your mind. All ideas about ideas exist in your mind. There is never any experience of logic, math, "outside world", "science", that doesn't exist in your mind. In. Your. Mind. Wash. Rinse. Repeat. :) It's a mind-centric world. And there's nothing you can do about it. ;) Jack

Jerry

Isn’t this one of those self contradictory statements? He is using science that only exist in the external world to prove. the external world doesn’t exist. So he is using an imaginary thing (something that exists in the external world) to prove the external world doesn’t exist.

Right, that doesn't make sense and is contradictory. I suggested that he needs scientific reports done from the IRT point of view, not from the normal science point of view. At any rate, hope you enjoy your dinner. I would like to see if anyone understands it also - pinging Jack for the third time. Silver Asiatic

Jerry

I’m off to dinner some place with a house guest. It will be interesting if anyone can find something coherent about Murray? I assume the answer is no. There has been a year and half and nothing has appeared yet.

Ok, "something coherent" is different than "an insight" as you said first. So in that case, no I haven't found anything coherent, but I was glad that WJM agreed that I could not do so unless I accepted his world first. Silver Asiatic

Interesting, is how do people die in his world? What does pleasure mean in his imaginary world?

I've concluded that it doesn't make sense. WJM, to his credit, accepted and agrees that it couldn't make sense from my worldview. I would have to accept his idea in order for anything to make sense. Like I said, it's like Alice in Wonderland. You go through the Looking Glass and there are talking animals, a turtle with the head of a calf and a playing card that rules the land. Once you go into Wonderland, then everything is ok. But if you haven't gone through the Looking Glass, you can't judge it. I think he said that people don't really die they just change locations. There's no real reason for things - it's all just information in a mind. The idea that "everything that is possible is actual" is a core belief. I find that irrational and impossible to understand, but it is what it is. Silver Asiatic

if he’s correct about what the science proves

Isn't this one of those self contradictory statements? He is using science that only exist in the external world to prove. the external world doesn't exist. So he is using an imaginary thing (something that exists in the external world) to prove the external world doesn't exist. Is that an insight? No, it's gobbledegook. I'm off to dinner some place with a house guest. It will be interesting if anyone can find something coherent about Murray? I assume the answer is no. There has been a year and half and nothing has appeared yet. jerry

But, why don’t you point to some non trivial insight he has had. Since you are trying to understand what he is saying.

Just because I try to understand, doesn't mean I agree with it. But anyway, in my view, there's really only one point at issue. So, the one insight - or the one core argument is this:

It’s important to note that 100 years of experiments have been conducted from the ERT perspective that have, cumulatively, led to a recent expansion of idealism or MRT theories and more experimentation. In those hundred years of experiments, scientists using the ERT perspective were trying to establish a necessary entailment of ERT theory described in such experiments as “local reality,” or that discrete states and characteristics exist independent of observation as their own, independent (of the observational experience) “things.” They not only failed to do this, they proved it wasn’t possible even in principle. The “common sense” concept of reality has been scientifically disproved by those seeking to prove it from the perspective that it “must” exist.

He's saying that it's scientifically proven that the external world does not exist. That our common understanding of things has been disproven by science. That's either true or false. if false, then the whole MRT thing collapses. If true, then any sort of crazy ideas can follow. I don't think WJM is claiming to have an original insight on this. He's just claiming philosophical idealism based on quantum physics. The non-trivial insight is that if he's correct about what the science proves (that the external world does not exist) then some sort of "reality" has to be constructed, and it could be whatever anyone wants to come up with. Silver Asiatic

offers some element of science, some of philosophy, some of religion

Where his personal pleasures take precedence over other people dying. Interesting, is how do people die in his world? What does pleasure mean in his imaginary world? Whenever pushed, he reverts to physical world explanations/experiences. No, it's all BS and he gets upset when one points out his hypocrisy or personal animosity. But, why don't you point to some non trivial insight he has had. Since you are trying to understand what he is saying. jerry

Jerry

Did you miss his astral travel ideas?

Ok, fair enough. WJM offers some element of science, some of philosophy, some of religion -- and some of personal experience that is pretty weird, as in that case. The science, philosophy and maybe religion are one thing. The personal things maybe are like someone talking about miracles that happened to them, or weird personal events. There's nothing to discuss there - and some is too weird to understand (in my view).

Also, he is especially focused on showing Kf wrong.

True. Things gets testy and sometimes irate - and I admit get lost trying to decipher both sides. Silver Asiatic

So for me, it’s necessary to understand this viewpoint

Murray has been espousing this viewpoint for about a year and half. There has been nothing but nonsense since he has done so. One does not get a free pass because they once were coherent. The only thing that Murray has shown is that we all have minds and there are different perceptions for the same phenomenon. Something everyone since the hunter gatherers have know. Did you miss his astral travel ideas? Also, he is especially focused on showing Kf wrong. jerry

Jerry @ 185 For me it is important because MRT is a form of idealism (IRT) which was an attack on Realist Philosophy by Descartes to Kant to Berkeley and all the modern forms today. WJM won't be the last to hold this idea. It's just a little different now with supposed support from Quantum observations which are extrapolated to a philosophical view. So for me, it's necessary to understand this viewpoint - because I oppose it, and I also see that it has huge consequences for society, culture and religion - among many things. If people believe that there "is no external reality", I think it's important to take a position on it - for or against. Does quantum physics really prove there is no external world? As an ID-advocate and intelligent poster here for a decade or more, I think WJM deserves the time to understand what he is saying. If someone knowledgeable as himself can believe IRT, what is the attraction? Why does it make sense to him? One insight that can be found in IRT/MRT is that anybody can create a worldview for himself (maybe we already knew that, but anyway.). Once inside that view, a person can create it so things "make sense". They don't make sense to anyone else. It's like Alice and Wonderland or Dorothy on the yellow brick road. Once you go into the Looking Glass or the World of Oz - then things make sense. Outside, it's nonsense. WJM admits this, and I think that is good - I found that a very good insight. For me, it's a matter of realizing the strength of the commonsense view of the world and of realist philosophy from Aristotle on down to today. I also have learned that the claim that "everything is personal experience" is not necessarily a fact. There's no way to prove that from science. In the realist-view, not everything is reducible to "mind" either. We take in information from the senses, then process in the mind. When I put my hand on the table, I experience the table, not just my thoughts. When I sense the table, it is not my thoughts doing the sensing, but my hand. Plus, there's a big problem for IRT regarding God. In classic theology, God can communicate to a person without requiring mind, thoughts or information - but directly to the soul. For IRT (WJM's version) God is a composite. Is "the IRT God" worthy of being worshiped? This is radically different from classical theism, where creatures are not "parts" of God (God would not be composed of parts) but have been made in the image of God, and yet are independent beings. I oppose Descartes, Berkeley, Kant, Hume and the Idealists. I see them as the foundation for modern atheism. One problem we run into when arguing against materialists is to say that "the material world does not exist since quantum experiments prove that". So, materialists are refuted, but the external, material world is lost in the argument also. So, there's no God who created the universe, but just a Mind or even a collection of individual minds. But Quantum observations do not prove that the external world actually does not exist. That's the point in contention. WJM insists that 100s of experiments prove there is no external world. I don't think that's the case - and that's the real essence of the debate. The IRT/MRT just comes after the belief that quantum physics shows there is no external reality. Silver Asiatic

If anyone reading this can point to one thing that Murray has said that is insightful, please post it so we can possibly gain this insight too. I have yet to see anything. jerry

I'm going to stay a second longer to post this. SA said:

But that really wouldn’t be the case since MRT is a method that “works” for some people in circumstances and makes sense in ways to them.

Exactly. Thank you for that. Now for that nap ... William J Murray

SA said:

Logic is a part of rational thought, but if you’re saying that there is something more than logic needed to argue rationally, then yes.

Exactly. Two different rational systems can both have no logical faults, but one cannot be used to understand or criticize the other.

Plus, nobody signed up for wanting to learn it in the first place. Why not create an “IRT Site” somewhere, where the whole thing is done in the IRT language and has no ERT in it? Then, just point people to that site.

Fair enough. I guess the short way of saying this is, why are you subjecting us to a theory nobody here wants to take the time or effort to understand? IOW, if I am looking to enjoy the experience of having valid criticisms and challenges presented, why am I repeatedly returning to sources that have no capacity or intention of providing that enjoyment? My answer is: I don't really expect anyone here to be able to offer a valid criticism; I'm using the exchanges as a kind of information pool to see if I, as someone who understands it, can, from that pool, come up with valid criticisms. Sort of like a brainstorming session where all kinds of suggestions are thrown out from various perspectives, hoping that something said can trigger a perspective or criticism I hadn't thought of before. This is how I have developed and refined my theory for years. Now, why subject you and others to this? My answer is: I'm not subjecting anyone to anything. I'm not forcing anyone to engage with me. Why do you and KF engage with anything I write here? IT's not like I bogart most threads here with my IRT perspective. Look at my comments in KF's various political threads. Not a trace of MRT. Most threads here I don't even participate in. There are commenters here that say things, or outline perspectives of, that are not of interest to me; I don't engage them. Why would I? When I interacted with BA77 about the evidence and his argument for geocentrism, I didn't introduce a word about MRT because I wanted to understand his argument and the evidence. It was interesting to me. The same thing happened when I asked Upright Biped to explain his semiotics argument and evidence. I engage people on their subjects because the subject interests me and I want to understand their perspective. I did the same with the whole "First Duties" argument; I was trying to understand KF's perspective. Ultimately, I had to write it off as something KF and others experience that I just don't experience. I couldn't find a way to understand his argument. That's probably equally true for many who may try to understand MRT; they just can't, probably because they don't experience some of the things I experience. The real question is: why are you engaging me in a discussion about something you have no interest in understanding? Why would anybody? I expect that the bulk of people here who are not engaging me have no interest in doing so. If I'm delusional or irrational, what does anyone hope to gain by engaging my comments? Perhaps it's to demonstrate to onlookers that I'm delusional, irrational, or a troll so they don't get tripped up by or sucked into my way of thinking? I mean, engage or not, it's your choice. Try to understand or not, it's your choice. The subject either interests you for discussion, or it doesn't. Until Mr. Arrington kicks me out, I'll continue enjoying what participation here provides me until it doesn't provide me enough enjoyment to continue participating. Now, I'm sorry I'm leaving questions unanswered, and forgive me if I forget about some questions, but this old man has to take a nap and do other things for a while. Have a great rest of your day! William J Murray

I stand by my comment. Murray has been spouting nonsense for nearly a year and a half. Nothing positive has come out of responding to him. Some of the side conversations have been useful though. Kf has published numerous OP’s in response to Murray’s nonsense but also to the worsening world situation essentially correct and has been unmercifully attacked. jerry

WJM

On the other hand, how can you understand what it offers if you don’t even understand it?

Well, the effort to understand it is considerable and if the benefits were very marginal, I don't think anybody would spend the effort. But you offered some benefits - so that's good.

Second, it provides a model that is subject to logical examination, resulting in conditional models that I can experiment with in a practical sense. It provided a model by which I could use certain methods and techniques to physically visit with my wife after she died.

I don't think IRT can be logically examined from an ERT perspective, as you said previously. But perhaps there's some way to do it once you accept the IRT view. That seems difficult. You have to accept the IRT view first, then apply its own brand of reasoning, to test the IRT view. It's just validating itself within itself as it seems.

My wife and I used it to realize our idyllic fantasy life here on Earth, with everything we ever wanted, completely satisfied and fully enjoying our lives here. We did not have to plan it or figure out how to get from where we started to where we ended up. All we did was apply the methods described by the model and everything just naturally came to us, often in mind-blowing, inexplicable ways. I’ve found this perspective very useful because it’s made all my dreams, thus far, come true.

I can't argue with that and I accept your testimony. But I also accept that people find value and meaning in diverse religious beliefs - from Buddhism, Hinduism, Islam, Judiasm , etc. People experience great things and find God's presence and feel they are growing morally and spiritually. To me, all of this is good and I don't argue against it -- as in your case. I only enter into it if the person finds something lacking or missing - or if it's pushed on me as necessary. I think, at times, you take that approach - that we necessarily have to adopt MRT. But that really wouldn't be the case since MRT is a method that "works" for some people in circumstances and makes sense in ways to them. Silver Asiatic

Jerry @ 176

I have no idea what the implications are for any of his nonsense. I assume that breathing is admitting there is a world in which this non mental activity was necessary and so must exist.

I think breathing is just an idea of an experience. There's no non-mental idea in this view and I think the term "exist" doesn't mean what we normally think. Everything is just information and a universal mind with various beings that are information processors/selectors who are all parts of God. As WJM said - it cannot even be rationally evaluated by the ERT (the normal, common, mostly-universal) method of understanding.

All I know is that other commenters here as well as Murray desperately want this nonsense to continue. So they feed his nonsense with replies to his comments as if they were seriously trying to clarify nonsense. And Murray replies with more nonsense.

I would prefer a detailed page with definitions, explanations and Q&A things - then just point to that. That cuts out all the discussion on any topic. Someone here says something, and the response can always be: "You're wrong. Just look at this IRT page that tells you why". It's all about one world view versus another. No sense in arguing about detail by detail - in fact, as WJM says, we can't even understand what MRT/IRT is at that level. You have to buy the whole thing on its own terms. Silver Asiatic

WJM @ 175 Thank you - I appreciate it. I think you're doing a good job explaining. You're just openly saying what it is. Yes, I think you skipped over a number of questions and issues, but for me the key point is that you've got your own worldview with its own rules and concepts. I would try to understand it, but maybe also in your own responses here on UD, you would always keep in mind that you're not just arguing a point here and there, but you're saying to people that their entire worldview is wrong. I think its very difficult and unreasonable for you to expect that anybody here on UD is going to accept your MRT - at least not without a huge investment. So, if true, that's going to be frustrating for you - and perhaps cause some sniping and irritation with people. For me, I think eventually it's going to appear that you're off in the stratosphere somewhere - actually quite literally in a different universe. I'm not pushing you there, but I don't know how anyone could reach you. I appreciate your efforts to explain. I'm sure people are tired and bored with it, but you probably could put together an FAQ page somewhere with all of these questions and answers - then just point to it and avoid long-drawn out discussions like this. Just a thought. Silver Asiatic

SA asked:

That could be true. I also do not see a good motive to even try to adopt that entirely new perspective. What good does it do for anyone?

Well, it only does anyone any "good" if that perspective provides for the acquisition of practical results one desires. If you don't desire anything the perspective has to offer, there's no reason to engage it. On the other hand, how can you understand what it offers if you don't even understand it? Let me give you a personal example. First, what this perspective offers me is a conceptual framework that accounts for a lifetime of uncommon and ongoing experiences that are inexplicable, except as some kind of delusions, under ERT ontology and reasoning. Second, it provides a model that is subject to logical examination, resulting in conditional models that I can experiment with in a practical sense. It provided a model by which I could use certain methods and techniques to physically visit with my wife after she died. That experiment was a success. My wife and I (and countless others) have used this model (which is an ongoing thing, like scientific models that evolve and grow and change because of the results of experimentation,) to great practical effect for decades. Others use models like this in achieving the kind of experiences they desire, like finding better jobs to a loving partner to acquiring more money to having OBE's and "astral projecting" to different "worlds." Some have used it or similar models to increase their height, lose weight, etc. My wife and I used it to realize our idyllic fantasy life here on Earth, with everything we ever wanted, completely satisfied and fully enjoying our lives here. We did not have to plan it or figure out how to get from where we started to where we ended up. All we did was apply the methods described by the model and everything just naturally came to us, often in mind-blowing, inexplicable ways. I've found this perspective very useful because it's made all my dreams, thus far, come true. William J Murray

WJM

I can’t make him understand MRT according to the rules of common sense rationalism. It’s just not possible.

Right. You have to insist that everybody uses MRT rules. That''s everybody - including scientists and philosophers and people you cite in your research. They need to use MRT ideas, not ERT. Failing that, both sides cannot communicate. Do we want to resolve that problem? If so, then that's a topic. If not, then both sides just don't communicate. They're speaking different languages.

It is also the burden of those who wish to fairly criticize it to accept it on its own terms for the sake of discussion and debate. You have to accept the burden of at least trying to understand it, on its own terms.

True. But a system that insists on its own rules can only be criticized within its own worldview. One side can make up its own rules, its own exceptions to the rules. It plays its own game. Today a baseball player gets 4 strikes. Tomorrow 5. The next day 1. Why not? It just makes up rules to match what it wants, or for no reason. Then, the opponent to that game has to "play by our rules, not your rules of baseball". It's like a materialist saying that you can only use materialism to criticize their view.

There is a difference between logic and a system of rational thought that supports/explains a particular ontology.

Logic is a part of rational thought, but if you're saying that there is something more than logic needed to argue rationally, then yes. Realty contains many things that are not reducible to strict logic, but they are rational to understand. What MRT does, I don't know. Why should it use logic? Why not make up rules as it goes? Why do rules need to be consistent in MRT? Anything that is possible can be a rule, they can change, they can be arbitrary, they're just rules for experience. Is God bound by rules that He did not create? Who created them? Why is He bound to them? Is His power limited? What limited His power and when did this limit take place over the course of infinite eternity? None of those things makes sense in ERT really, but for MRT - why not? There's no reason for me to expect MRT/IRT to make sense at all. No reason for logic to have any value at all in IRT. It might as well be Alice in Wonderland. It's a bunch of ideas, whatever they are, they don't need to make sense.

What good would coming up with a new vocabulary do, if it is still being interpreted and evaluated from an ERT perspective?

Because you're trying to explain things and most importantly, because our vocabulary today is from an ERT perspective. So, you can't expect it to reflect MRT. A new vocabulary seems necessary. You have to change the meaning of commonly understood terms, it's better to come up with new terms, I'd think.

I’d have to come up with an entirely different language rooted in an entirely different conceptual basis, but again, what good would that do? You’d still be interpreting and evaluating anything expressed in that language in terms of ERT rationality.

It may reduce this problem you're referring to. If, instead of the word "being" you said wakiåyaå, and then said "I don't know what the word "being" means because that's not in my worldview", then it might avoid people interpreting your view as consistent with ERT.

I can only do so much at my end, and I feel like I’m doing the best I can by patiently, painstakingly repeating definitions, concepts, going at it from different angles, using different analogies, fielding every question (well, every one I notice and don’t forget because of interruptions and distractions on my end,) not getting defensive and being as civil and as charitable as I think anyone could expect from a normal human being.

From my perspective, I think you would need to detach yourself more from ERT. It's like wanting to explain your native language by coming on a site that speaks only English. So, you use English to explain your language - but nobody's going to understand your new language. Plus, nobody signed up for wanting to learn it in the first place. Why not create an "IRT Site" somewhere, where the whole thing is done in the IRT language and has no ERT in it? Then, just point people to that site. Otherwise, trying to get a bunch of ERT people to understand your view, and most don't find a reason to want to do it, causes frustration. I think it's like some Native American people who have their own language and religion and philosophical concepts. Generally, it stays with their tribe. They would universalize it if they could but it just doesn't gain traction.

i don’t know how more direct it gets than that. The “common sense” rationality based on our “natural” interpretation of what our “common experience” is, and is about, has been scientifically demonstrated to be in error.

It's not that direct or simple. It's a problem of circularity. ERT is wrong. We proved that by using ERT to evaluate data and the results showed that ERT is wrong. That's a double-negative. We used an incorrect method to show results that invalidated the method. So, if the method was wrong (ERT) the results cannot be conclusive. Instead, you should show scientific work that uses your IRT with its own concepts - not ERT concepts. Silver Asiatic

Murray breathes. He admits it. I have no idea what the implications are for any of his nonsense. I assume that breathing is admitting there is a world in which this non mental activity was necessary and so must exist. All I know is that other commenters here as well as Murray desperately want this nonsense to continue. So they feed his nonsense with replies to his comments as if they were seriously trying to clarify nonsense. And Murray replies with more nonsense. This cycle has been going on for over a year. It does not reflect positively on anyone. jerry

SA, I just want to make this comment by itself. I really appreciate what you're doing here. It appears you may be actually trying to understand IRT. This is the kind of questioning one must do if they wish to attempt fair evaluation and criticism. Please be aware that this is a pretty intensive and extensive Q &A session and I'm just a normal human being, with various distractions on my end. If I fail to address some questions, it's not because I'm deliberately ignoring them or avoiding them. I'm honestly trying to do the best I can here. Also, I'm an old man and I grow mentally tired and my concentration more diffuse as a day wears on; I'm liable to miss some things, or postpone responding to the next day, and then just forget about them. I also greatly appreciate the civil tone and respect for me as a person you are displaying. Thank you for that. William J Murray

SA said:

That is honest and insightful. I’ll have to agree that from the perspective of the continual understanding of human experience (common sense), there’s no way to understand MRT/IRT. It simply does not make sense. But I think that’s the challenge for IRT – it has to become understandable somehow.

I agree. My perspective makes no sense under the "common sense" principles of Reid(particularly #5,) which KF keeps using to inappropriately evaluate MRT. But, what can I do here if he refuses to set aside that perspective? I can't make him understand MRT according to the rules of common sense rationalism. It's just not possible.

This is what we mean by saying IRT is irrational. There has to be a “different kind of rationality” to explain it. But that’s the burden for IRT.

It is also the burden of those who wish to fairly criticize it to accept it on its own terms for the sake of discussion and debate. You have to accept the burden of at least trying to understand it, on its own terms. That means asking a lot of questions, as you are doing. You have to be at least willing to set your own perspective aside and try.

It’s coming up with new vocabulary, new logic.

There is a difference between logic and a system of rational thought that supports/explains a particular ontology. MRT fully accepts and operates under, and is subject to, the fundamental principles of logic. What good would coming up with a new vocabulary do, if it is still being interpreted and evaluated from an ERT perspective? I'd have to come up with an entirely different language rooted in an entirely different conceptual basis, but again, what good would that do? You'd still be interpreting and evaluating anything expressed in that language in terms of ERT rationality. I can only do so much at my end, and I feel like I'm doing the best I can by patiently, painstakingly repeating definitions, concepts, going at it from different angles, using different analogies, fielding every question (well, every one I notice and don't forget because of interruptions and distractions on my end,) not getting defensive and being as civil and as charitable as I think anyone could expect from a normal human being.

Make sense. I just suggest that it’s more than a matter of being taught ERT. The idea that there is a “world outside of us” and experience is outside – is “natural”.

Well, I'll agree that it's natural to those of us in the set of experiential parameters we call "this world." I can't say what is natural for other beings in other sets of common experiences to think.

It doesn’t need to be taught. Every child sees and accepts it – it’s an inherent idea within every human being. To believe otherwise requires a lot of non-intuitive education.

Or, as I told KF, it requires sufficient uncommon experience. Common sense from common experience fails given an individual that has ongoing uncommon experiences.

The very same science you put all this confidence in, comes out of the ERT worldview that you’re rejecting.

I try not to throw babies out with the bathwater. I don't reject something just because of its provenance.

You’d need to show quantum experimental interpretations that are doing from the IRT worldview perspective, which as you admit, very few would understand.

Which is why I have repeatedly linked to the quantum gravity research website and have quoted from various published articles. BA77 has offered a mountain of such experiments and research. It's important to note that 100 years of experiments have been conducted from the ERT perspective that have, cumulatively, led to a recent expansion of idealism or MRT theories and more experimentation. In those hundred years of experiments, scientists using the ERT perspective were trying to establish a necessary entailment of ERT theory described in such experiments as "local reality," or that discrete states and characteristics exist independent of observation as their own, independent (of the observational experience) "things." They not only failed to do this, they proved it wasn't possible even in principle. The "common sense" concept of reality has been scientifically disproved by those seeking to prove it from the perspective that it "must" exist. i don't know how more direct it gets than that. The "common sense" rationality based on our "natural" interpretation of what our "common experience" is, and is about, has been scientifically demonstrated to be in error. William J Murray

WJM Here's what I've gathered: IRT actually uses different terminology and definitions for terms commonly understood and defined within classical Western philosophy. For example, we would say that God is fully-actualized Being, and Being is Existence. All creatures of God are given existence from the source of Being which is God. But for IRT - there is a different definition of Being, as well as for God and individual and existence and reality.

Ground, in this sense, is that which provides capacity for all individual experience. Because we are all individuals with individual experiences within that ground, it cannot be understood as a “what it is” other than that. You can also call it “universal mind.”

In the classic sense, if ground is "that which", then it exists and is a being. Therefore "a ground" has some kind of origin, comes from somewhere and is comparable with other beings. It has properties of some kind, or attributes. It has causes and can be rationally understood. In IRT, you're saying "a ground" is something that is not a thing, not a being. It's some other undefinable thing, like "a mind" which is also not a thing, but is a container of things. Again, I'm grateful that you accept that this is impossible to understand using ordinary philosophical terminology.

As I defined and described before, a “being” is “individual arrangement of self and context” which selects, filters and interprets information for conscious experience.

So we select information for our conscious experience. All possible information is available, and information provides experience. Therefore, each person, selects for themselves, all the experiences they have. Therefore, whatever bad may happen to them is their fault - right? They have chosen bad experiences for themselves. That's the Hindu idea essentially. We suffer because of karma, and in fact, it's not a good idea to help people who are suffering because that takes away the repair they are doing to improve their karma. If we choose our own bad experiences, we wouldn't help others improve because we would interfere with their choice of suffering for reasons known to themselves. That has serious social implications in India, for example, with the caste system and a very large lower class that suffers. I would see the same thing with IRT - no real reason for charity towards those in need since they chose their experience for reasons known to them.

The phrase “beings do not have a mind” is an improper arrangement of those words under MRT and refers to non-IRT concepts

Ok, I know what the phrase means, and so do you. But we can't use it in IRT. Communication just breaks down and I can't see a good reason to attempt it, really. IRT does not seem to offer any additional value and much more, it creates a lot of problems and work that has no pay-off. ERT has tremendous advantages in this case - at least we can communicate with ERT believers and use the immense resources of that worldview. For IRT, we have to give all of that up and gain nothing from the exchange.

Experiencing all possible experiences is not possible, because to experience, say, hunger, I cannot also be experiencing “not being hungry.” This is basic, fundamental logic, where every A is a particular experience, and “not-A” = is some other particular experience that is not that particular experience.

Yes, but you stated that God experiences all possible things (I think you stated that), so God does this illogical thing. If God can do it, why cannot the "parts of God" do it?

No being, defined under MRT as a particular assortment of experiences, can also experience a logically contradictory set of experiences. I cannot experience being 6? tall and simultaneously experience being 5? tall.

The universal mind can do it - why can't you? Who set the limits and rules? Why are those limits for you and not for God?

So, you are eternal, uncreated and a part of God. Yes.

You existed for all of eternity as a conscious being. How far back does your memory go and why does it only go back that far? Or perhaps it goes back infinitely? You experienced things eternally? If not, why not?

They are ultimately and literally self-imposed because they are literally what defines one self from another. Self IS a set of limitations imposed BY the self. Our free will is, ultimately, free of the confines of self. IF it were not, we could never meaningfully change the pattern sets we experience as our current “world.”

Ok, as above - it seems that you have chosen for yourself, the level and kind of experiences you have in life. Everything is reducible to your self, in what you have selected for your life. This doesn't answer why some select some things and others other. Why doesn't someone select "the maximum possible goodness for myself" (and that is equivalent to perfect, eternal, infinite, perfect goodness. Why would anyone select less than that? Why did you choose less than moral perfection and all the beatitude that entails?

Free will is our capacity to intentionally direct our experience however we wish. It is beyond the limits of the self;

Ok, but why does the self have limits? That's what I've been getting at.

it provides the capacity to change from one particular informational self/other structure to a different structure, thus have different kinds of experiences.

Does IRT propose a hierarchy of values? Or are all values (moral for example, or consequences, pain, pleasure, charity, cruelty) all equal? Have you chosen for yourself, moral perfection? If not, why not? Silver Asiatic

SA said:

What is “a ground”?

Ground, in this sense, is that which provides capacity for all individual experience. Because we are all individuals with individual experiences within that ground, it cannot be understood as a "what it is" other than that. You can also call it "universal mind."

Is God “a mind”?

God is universal mind.

You stated that “mind” is “where all abstract information exists and all experiences occur for all beings”. So, beings do not have a mind – only God does.

As I defined and described before, a "being" is "individual arrangement of self and context" which selects, filters and interprets information for conscious experience. The phrase "beings do not have a mind" is an improper arrangement of those words under MRT and refers to non-IRT concepts

You are part of God, but do not have a mind. You are a being, without a mind.

Another improper arrangement of words as they apply to IRT.

God is not a being, but has all abstract information and experiences.

This is a proper arrangement of words and concepts under IRT.

Why cannot an individual arrangement be arranged to experience all possible things?

So, you have to understand what a "thing" is under IRT; things are experiences. So, even though the ERT basis for language here is problematic, what the meaning here is: experiencing a thing = having a particular experience. Experiencing all possible experiences is not possible, because to experience, say, hunger, I cannot also be experiencing "not being hungry." This is basic, fundamental logic, where every A is a particular experience, and "not-A" = is some other particular experience that is not that particular experience. No being, defined under MRT as a particular assortment of experiences, can also experience a logically contradictory set of experiences. I cannot experience being 6' tall and simultaneously experience being 5' tall. I cannot experience my current thoughts while simultaneously experiencing an entirely different set of thoughts. Etc. I cannot simultaneously experience any A and contradictory B. Again, that's fundamental logic.

Ok, you think you are God.

I didn't say that. I said what I meant, and explained it.

You are a small part of God – and God is the sum of all conscious beings.

Fair enough.

So, you are eternal, uncreated and a part of God.

Yes.

As a tiny part – are you bigger than other parts? Or are all parts the same size? Can you become bigger or smaller, gain or lose any powers?

That would depend on how you do your measuring. Let's take ERT vs MRT. MRT, obviously, allows for infinitely diverse "worlds." ERT, as you and KF argue it, does not allow for infinitely diverse "worlds". But, that is only one way of measuring. How much depth is there to a particular "world?" How much of that experience can only occur if one dives deep into particular world? You can have experiences I cannot have (unless I change.) One example is your sense of "first duties" and "morality," your sense of justice, good and evil, etc. I do not have access to the same experiences of universal "purpose" that can give you the kind of deep, gratifying, and satisfying value of those things you derive from your perspective. It all depends on how you measure "bigger" and "smaller;" it's relative to what it is you are measuring, and how you measure it.

I’m asking where these limits come from.

They are ultimately and literally self-imposed because they are literally what defines one self from another. Self IS a set of limitations imposed BY the self. Our free will is, ultimately, free of the confines of self. IF it were not, we could never meaningfully change the pattern sets we experience as our current "world." Free will is our capacity to intentionally direct our experience however we wish. It is beyond the limits of the self; it provides the capacity to change from one particular informational self/other structure to a different structure, thus have different kinds of experiences. William J Murray

Note to Jack:

Here’s the whole problem in these exchanges: the ERT or Dualism perspective cannot understand the MRT/IRT mental monism perspective. It just cannot be done. IRT cannot be assessed or even rationally criticized from the ERT framework perspective.

Please observe the above. WJM just said it clearly and honestly. Rocket science is done from an ERT perspective. Please read the above and re-think your claim about supposed "imbeciles" who don't understand MRT/IRT. Silver Asiatic

WJM

Here’s the whole problem in these exchanges: the ERT or Dualism perspective cannot understand the MRT/IRT mental monism perspective. It just cannot be done.

That is honest and insightful. I'll have to agree that from the perspective of the continual understanding of human experience (common sense), there's no way to understand MRT/IRT. It simply does not make sense. But I think that's the challenge for IRT - it has to become understandable somehow.

IRT cannot be assessed or even rationally criticized from the ERT framework perspective.

This is what we mean by saying IRT is irrational. There has to be a "different kind of rationality" to explain it. But that's the burden for IRT. It's coming up with new vocabulary, new logic. Until it does that, nobody can be blamed for not understanding IRT since the default position is dualism. This is not really similar to materialism since the default position since the beginning of human history was theism, but even still. We attempt to communicate with materialists by reaching into their worldview. IRT, if it is to be comprehended by most people, needs to do the same. You have to accept that IRT cannot be understood in our common understanding.

It’s extremely difficult to not interpret the things I say into that perspective and respond from that perspective.

It's good to see that you understand that.

Questions that seem perfectly reasonable from the ERT perspective are not even valid questions under IRT, because the question, even the words used, deeply assumes some aspect of ERT.

Make sense. I just suggest that it's more than a matter of being taught ERT. The idea that there is a "world outside of us" and experience is outside - is "natural". It doesn't need to be taught. Every child sees and accepts it - it's an inherent idea within every human being. To believe otherwise requires a lot of non-intuitive education.

To understand MRT requires the capacity to think from an entirely different perspective; in my experience, most people just can’t do that because their very identity is thoroughly enmeshed in the ERT perspective.

That could be true. I also do not see a good motive to even try to adopt that entirely new perspective. What good does it do for anyone?

The problem for them, however, is 100 years of repeated quantum experimental evidence.

The problem may be that you're applying interpretations of those scientific experiments to a metaphysical level and in reality, they cannot be extrapolated as far as you would wish. The very same science you put all this confidence in, comes out of the ERT worldview that you're rejecting. You'd need to show quantum experimental interpretations that are doing from the IRT worldview perspective, which as you admit, very few would understand. So, the very fact that we use ERT to understand the science, argues against the idea that we should adopt IRT. Silver Asiatic

Here's the whole problem in these exchanges: the ERT or Dualism perspective cannot understand the MRT/IRT mental monism perspective. It just cannot be done. IRT cannot be assessed or even rationally criticized from the ERT framework perspective. AS KF pointed out, from early childhood we are ingrained with the ERT perspective. It permeates the language. It is a deep and broad perspective, so much so that to even question it seems like an excursion into the irrational. It's extremely difficult to not interpret the things I say into that perspective and respond from that perspective. Questions that seem perfectly reasonable from the ERT perspective are not even valid questions under IRT, because the question, even the words used, deeply assumes some aspect of ERT. To understand MRT requires the capacity to think from an entirely different perspective; in my experience, most people just can't do that because their very identity is thoroughly enmeshed in the ERT perspective. The problem for them, however, is 100 years of repeated quantum experimental evidence. This is the same problem materialists have, and why they are cognitively blind to even the most obvious evidence and arguments that demolish that perspective. William J Murray

I asked:

God experiences all things. But other beings do not experience all things? Why is that? Do some beings experience more than others? Why the inequality? If God does not deliberately create unequal experiences, how do they occur?

WJM replied:

God is not a “being;” God is the ground for all beings.

What is "a ground"? Is God "a mind"? You stated that "mind" is "where all abstract information exists and all experiences occur for all beings". So, beings do not have a mind - only God does. You are part of God, but do not have a mind. You are a being, without a mind. God is not a being, but has all abstract information and experiences.

No being (as I have defined it previously as an individual arrangement of self and context) experiences all possible things because that’s a contradiction of the very definition I provided.

Why cannot an individual arrangement be arranged to experience all possible things? Who is doing the arranging? Why are there individual arrangements - what causes them? Did they begin to exist at one point or always exist in that form?

I don’t know how you contextualize “more” and “inequality of amounts of experience” here.

It's ordinary and clearly understandable to say that someone has more experiences than someone else. But in your view, you don't know how to explain that? I asked:

Do some beings experience more than others? Why the inequality? If God does not deliberately create unequal experiences, how do they occur?

Again - anybody at all can understand that some people experience more than others. In fact, I don't think I could find a person who said "I don't understand that" - so I'm sure you do understand. But in your worldview, I believe you're saying that you don't understand what it means that there are unequal experiences among the diversity of people who live and have lived. I just asked why this diversity exists.

I don’t know if there’s an way to meaningfully describe that, but perhaps this addresses it: the more confined and limited one’s sense of identity and reality context is, the more confined and limited their experiences are.

I'm asking where these limits come from. You're saying that some people have "more confined and limited experiences", and then you say you don't know what I mean when I asked why there is inequality of experience. Then finally, you don't explain why the inequality exists. Some have more some less - where did this come from? Silver Asiatic

WJM

Inasmuch as I’m a tiny, tiny, tiny part of that whole.

Ok, you think you are God. You are a small part of God - and God is the sum of all conscious beings. So, you are eternal, uncreated and a part of God. As a tiny part - are you bigger than other parts? Or are all parts the same size? Can you become bigger or smaller, gain or lose any powers?

Just because you can think a series of words, like “square circle,” doesn’t mean experiencing what that sequence of words would represent is possible.

Are God's thoughts limited to words and what words mean?

It’s a logical absurdity, just like “square circle”

Is God limited to logic? He is bound to the laws of logic? If so, where did logic come from? Who created those laws (Laws imply a law-maker)? If God is limited to logic, then no true paradoxes exist? What about the paradoxes that Jesus taught - which are logical absurdities? (in dying you live, in hating self you love self, etc?)

No individual identity can experience non-individual identity.

There is no such thing as a group identity?

There’s no such thing; it’s a string of words that represents a true logical absurdity.

Why does that string of words exist then? Silver Asiatic

SA said:

God experiences all things. But other beings do not experience all things? Why is that? Do some beings experience more than others? Why the inequality? If God does not deliberately create unequal experiences, how do they occur?

God is not a "being;" God is the ground for all beings. No being (as I have defined it previously as an individual arrangement of self and context) experiences all possible things because that's a contradiction of the very definition I provided. I don't know how you contextualize "more" and "inequality of amounts of experience" here. I don't know if there's an way to meaningfully describe that, but perhaps this addresses it: the more confined and limited one's sense of identity and reality context is, the more confined and limited their experiences are. William J Murray

SA asks:

Do you identify yourself with God?

Inasmuch as I'm a tiny, tiny, tiny part of that whole.

Does any person who thinks he is God (since that thought is possible) then necessarily become God?

Just because you can think a series of words, like "square circle," doesn't mean experiencing what that sequence of words would represent is possible. I can think the word "non-experience," but I can't experience "non-experience." It's a logical absurdity, just like "square circle" No individual identity can experience non-individual identity. There's no such thing; it's a string of words that represents a true logical absurdity.

Do you accept the traditional theistic definitions of the attributes of God (omnipotent, infinite, eternal, immutable, omniscient, simple, all-good, all-wise, all-just, perfect)?

No. William J Murray

WJM

I’ll go ahead and answer SA’s questions he posed to Jack, in case there are differences between Jack’s perspective and mine.

The challenge was to see if Jack even understood what you are saying, but anyway - now that you gave your views, he can just say "Yep, I fully understood all of that". The point here - I find it hard to believe that he understood what you are saying. I find it very difficult to understand your worldview, even after many questions, many explanations and a lot of writing you have done on this topic over many months. Silver Asiatic

WJM

It is, in two different senses, both correct and incorrect to say we are all God’s “creations.” God did not create us deliberately

You explained why it is incorrect to say that we are God's creations. But you did not explain why it is also correct to do so.

God isn’t governed by or exist in a linear time state; the ground of experiential existence both provides for the coherent sequential experience necessary for all possible conscious, self-aware beings and necessitates their existence as such.

Why was a sequential experience chosen and not a simultaneous, non-linear experience? Why is God's experience different than ours? If he did not deliberately create that (as you stated) how was it selected for us?

Cumulatively, God is all possible conscious beings having all possible individual experiences in all possible “worlds.”

If God is all possible conscious beings, where do unconscious beings come from?

The only way God can “select one” is through an individual; but that’s not really a good way of saying it, because God isn’t selecting one;

If it's not a good way of saying it, why did you just say it that way?

God is the simultaneous, higher-dimensional “now” of all possible beings experiencing all possible things.

God experiences all things. But other beings do not experience all things? Why is that? Do some beings experience more than others? Why the inequality? If God does not deliberately create unequal experiences, how do they occur?

Now, do we as individuals have free will? Certainly. AS a conscious individual within the context of sequentialized, coherent, rational experience, we can do what appears to be, from our perspective, choosing any experiential pathway forward we desire; every possible experience is – eventually, from our perspective, available to us; however, in order to experience any fundamentally different thing than what we experience now, we must ourselves change the informational structures that define us by selecting the current information and translating it into our experience the way it does now. IOW, if we solidly remain who we are now, we will of course experience the same fundamental things the same fundamental way.

I have multiple questions about what that means. In other words, I do not understand what you are saying. But perhaps it's best to leave it for Jack to explain. Or, anyone else here on UD. Could you kindly explain what that paragraph means? With detail, please - detailed explanation. Thank you. Silver Asiatic

I'll go ahead and answer SA's questions he posed to Jack, in case there are differences between Jack's perspective and mine.

What do you mean by “mind”? What is that?

Under IRT, "mind" is where all abstract information exists and all experiences occur for all beings.

How is it different from one’s soul?

The term "soul," if it need be used, would identify an individual conscious being (see more through explanations of what a conscious being is under MRT/IRT)

Can God communicate to a person via the soul and not the mind? Why or why not?

God is in constant communication with all souls (see above explanations and descriptions) because God is all information and all individual identities.

What is the difference between the mind of someone living and someone dead?

They are (usually) experiencing different locations, so to speak.

What is the difference, therefore, between life and death and why does that difference exist, if you think it does?

Death is the process of changing experiential locations and qualities, to some degree. It depends on how you look at it. If "what the afterlife is" is part of your identity, that's generally the kind of location you will experience when you die. This is supported by many sources of credible information, including NDE reports.

What is the difference between yourself, Jack, and God?

God is the whole; I am a particular being with a particular perspective within that whole

Is God “outside” of you? Or are you God?

See the above answer. William J Murray

Again, Jack - please explain post 157. Should be fairly easy to do - only an imbecile wouldn't understand it, right? Silver Asiatic

WJM

Why on Earth would you do that, after Jack himself has said our views are not identical?

I should have said "I assume Jack understands your views", sorry. Jack said that anyone who doesn't understand your views is an imbecile. I'd like to hear where and how his views differ. I asked him to explain your views already and he didn't take that up yet. Silver Asiatic

WJM

It is the ground of being. It has no origin. It is God.

Do you identify yourself with God? Does any person who thinks he is God (since that thought is possible) then necessarily become God? Do you accept the traditional theistic definitions of the attributes of God (omnipotent, infinite, eternal, immutable, omniscient, simple, all-good, all-wise, all-just, perfect)?

There is no “why” to it: it is the causeless, necessary ground of all that exists. It is that which provides the ground for any and all things to exist within that universal ground.

As the ground for all that exists, does it cause things to exist?

It is that which provides the capacity for all experience and thus all purpose.

I asked what it's purpose is and you explained what it is. What is its purpose, goal, meaning. Does it have a will to choose, or are its actions determined by something? Does it create? Are the "things which exist within it" (as you describe them) co-eternal? Or were they created?

Universal mind holds all possible information, including subject/context information that provides for the existence of many (all possible) self-aware individuals.

Is it possible that all individuals could go out of existence, cease to exist, or never existed? What are the limits on possibility, why do those limits exist, who created the limits? Is the universal mind bound by laws? If so, where did the laws come from?

A self-aware individual, or a being, is identified as such by a specific perspective of ongoing self and other, which is a specific subset of infinite information (like information on a hard drive) being selected by another set and arrangement of information (a particular program also on the hard drive) and translating that first set of information into experience (visuals on your monitor that behave a certain way.)

WJM,, just interrupting the discussion here for a moment ... If Jack is reading - question for Jack. Aside from asking you to explain WJM's ideas (not rocket science?), could you explain the paragraph above to me? WJM - back to you.

A self-aware individual,

Are there non-self aware individuals?

or a being,

All beings are self-aware individuals? What distinguishes the boundaries between one being and another? Why do those boundaries exist? In a monism, there are no real boundaries, so why should there be in a mental monism?

is identified as such by a specific perspective of ongoing self and other,

What does "ongoing self" mean? What is a "non-ongoing self"?

which is a specific subset of infinite information (like information on a hard drive) being selected by another set and arrangement of information (a particular program also on the hard drive)

What is the reason that specific information is selected? A software program will have intelligence built in, to select functions - for specific purposes. That was my question: why is specific information selected and not other information? Why are specific functions programmed to be selected? If all possible ideas are real or actualized or existent, what does it mean to "select information". Is the selected information different than "possible information"? What do the terms "real", "actualized" and "existent" mean - given that all possible ideas are real, actualized and existent?

translating that first set of information into experience (visuals on your monitor that behave a certain way.)

Is there information that is not-translated into experience? If so, why? Our particular informational self is that which contextualizes our conscious experience into self-hood, consciousness being a mental aspect of God that can only be achieved via this process. “God” cannot, as a whole, be “consciously aware” (logical impossibility.) So, it may do to characterize it this way: God is the infinite, universal unconscious ground of existence, which experiences conscious awareness and particular experiences through all possible individuals and experiences. I a manner of speaking, existence is an eternal “now” state of God knowing itself. How does every possible potential become actual? What causes this? In mental reality theory, “actual” refers to what any individual actually experiences. However, under MRT, all potential experiences are being experienced by all possible individuals, therefore, all potentials are, somewhere, by someone, actual. Silver Asiatic

SA said:

Thank you for the explanation. I’ll assume that WJM agrees with your views on this.

Why on Earth would you do that, after Jack himself has said our views are not identical? William J Murray

To continue the more philosophical description of my MRT/IRT: It is, in two different senses, both correct and incorrect to say we are all God's "creations." God did not create us deliberately or pick single world to create. God isn't governed by or exist in a linear time state; the ground of experiential existence both provides for the coherent sequential experience necessary for all possible conscious, self-aware beings and necessitates their existence as such. Cumulatively, God is all possible conscious beings having all possible individual experiences in all possible "worlds." The only way God can "select one" is through an individual; but that's not really a good way of saying it, because God isn't selecting one; God is the simultaneous, higher-dimensional "now" of all possible beings experiencing all possible things. Now, do we as individuals have free will? Certainly. AS a conscious individual within the context of sequentialized, coherent, rational experience, we can do what appears to be, from our perspective, choosing any experiential pathway forward we desire; every possible experience is - eventually, from our perspective, available to us; however, in order to experience any fundamentally different thing than what we experience now, we must ourselves change the informational structures that define us by selecting the current information and translating it into our experience the way it does now. IOW, if we solidly remain who we are now, we will of course experience the same fundamental things the same fundamental way. William J Murray

Jack

Yes. That’s it. Everything you know, experience, ideas, ideas of ideas, ideas of ideas of ideas, ad nauseam, exists in your mind. There is nothing you know that isn’t mental. Conjectures about things “out there” are mental ideas about “out there.” The very idea of “out there” is mental. What exists in your reality that isn’t in your mind? “Well, what about Pluto, before humans discovered it?” “Pluto” is an idea. “Discovery” is an idea. “Interaction with Pluto” is an idea. All these ideas are mental. You can’t escape it. There’s nothing that you know, can think about, can experience, that isn’t mind. Your reality is self-mind concentric whether you like it or not, and there’s nothing you can do about it.

Thank you for the explanation. I'll assume that WJM agrees with your views on this. What do you mean by "mind"? What is that? How is it different from one's soul? Can God communicate to a person via the soul and not the mind? Why or why not? What is the difference between the mind of someone living and someone dead? What is the difference, therefore, between life and death and why does that difference exist, if you think it does? What is the difference between yourself, Jack, and God? Is God "outside" of you? Or are you God? Silver Asiatic

SA asks:

what’s [the mind – or the mental monism’s] origin?

It is the ground of being. It has no origin. It is God.

Why does [the mind – or the mental monism] exist?

There is no "why" to it: it is the causeless, necessary ground of all that exists. It is that which provides the ground for any and all things to exist within that universal ground.

What purpose does [the mind – or the mental monism] serve?

It is that which provides the capacity for all experience and thus all purpose.

Why does [the mind – or the mental monism] communicate specific information?

Not sure what you mean by this. Universal mind holds all possible information, including subject/context information that provides for the existence of many (all possible) self-aware individuals. A self-aware individual, or a being, is identified as such by a specific perspective of ongoing self and other, which is a specific subset of infinite information (like information on a hard drive) being selected by another set and arrangement of information (a particular program also on the hard drive) and translating that first set of information into experience (visuals on your monitor that behave a certain way.) Our particular informational self is that which contextualizes our conscious experience into self-hood, consciousness being a mental aspect of God that can only be achieved via this process. "God" cannot, as a whole, be "consciously aware" (logical impossibility.) So, it may do to characterize it this way: God is the infinite, universal unconscious ground of existence, which experiences conscious awareness and particular experiences through all possible individuals and experiences. I a manner of speaking, existence is an eternal "now" state of God knowing itself.

How does every possible potential become actual? What causes this?

In mental reality theory, "actual" refers to what any individual actually experiences. However, under MRT, all potential experiences are being experienced by all possible individuals, therefore, all potentials are, somewhere, by someone, actual. William J Murray

Jack Mental monism: everything is mind. The very idea of “out there” is mental.

:) You can check if everything is mind by not giving to the brain the water ,nutrients and O2 it needs to function properly. Just think of water,nutrients and O2 and don't give to your body the real matter of water,nutrients and O2. :))) Lieutenant Commander Data

SA, WJM has proposed a sort of nodal mind for his monism. He refuses to acknowledge the implication of such monism, grand delusion regarding embodiment in the physical world via pervasive error on the first facts of our experience, embodiment through which we observe and participate in then reflect on our common world. Such is self-referentially utterly discrediting of rationality. At this stage, we duly note and draw conclusions for cause. KF PS: Note the gambit of reducing the first facts of experience to a "theory" -- his phrase being external reality theory. The implication is, our experience of embodiment and involvement in an independent physical world are a plato's cave grand delusion. I pointed out long since, once such is in the door there is no reason to imagine that exposure of the fire and parapet with puppets etc is not equally delusional, nor the experience of an alleged outer world, or any further experience. This would utterly discredit mind and rationality, destroying knowledge including Science. Which of course pivots on the veridicality of observations of our common going concern world. Including quantum science and the thermodynamics behind the arrow of time etc. kairosfocus

WJM, your oh you don't understand does not change the impact of the problem of the one and the many, neither does it sidestep the aboutness of mental phenomena, nor does it allow evasion of self-referential incoherence as was just outlined to Jack. KF PS: The result of ceasing to breathe for an hour breaks the comparison you hope to impose. There is distinction and waking reality is warranted as what we primarily experience, with aboutness. kairosfocus

Jack, please look in the mirror, the issue is captured in the concept monism, here in the form panpsychism with nodes that in effect turn the physical world into a simulation and it runs into the problem, the one and the many. Yes, ideas are mental, yes experience is mental but at once the relevant first facts are experiences OF something, a key content, embodiment and involvement in a common world which is independent and physical. Where the reduction attempt here implies radical delusion regarding the first facts of mind through which we encounter other facts and reflect on them. As has been long since pointed out for cause, this reduces credibility of mind to radical doubt and/or grand, Plato's cave delusion. Strawman caricatures on your part do not change that problem, which is decisive as it is self-referential and discredits your own ideas. KF PS: At least, you recognise death, which severs embodiment. Which points to our status of being living bodies, i.e. minded, experiencing embodiment. There is no good and non self-refuting reason to then infer that the body is a figment rather than being just as real as anything else. The consequences of doing so lead to the incoherence and discrediting of mind as pointed out. kairosfocus

SA: Mental monism: everything is mind. Yes. That's it. Everything you know, experience, ideas, ideas of ideas, ideas of ideas of ideas, ad nauseam, exists in your mind. There is nothing you know that isn't mental. Conjectures about things "out there" are mental ideas about "out there." The very idea of "out there" is mental. What exists in your reality that isn't in your mind? "Well, what about Pluto, before humans discovered it?" "Pluto" is an idea. "Discovery" is an idea. "Interaction with Pluto" is an idea. All these ideas are mental. You can't escape it. There's nothing that you know, can think about, can experience, that isn't mind. Your reality is self-mind concentric whether you like it or not, and there's nothing you can do about it. Jack

KF @137 It's like trying to put a cat in cage that just refuses to go in, and it bites and it hisses and it scratches and it lashes out. You just don't get it. It 's not that you don't agree with the ideas. (Nobody cares about that.) You just don't seem to understand the ideas. Or you're pretending not to understand. Bizarre. KF: "what would happen in case of ceasing to breathe for one hour" I assume my body would expire. Has nothing at all to do with the topic at hand. You just don't seem to understand what the topic is. Jack

I asked

what’s its origin? Why does it exist? What purpose does it serve? Why does The Mind project the illusion of an external reality that actually doesn’t exist?

WJM says:

It’s kind of hard to figure out what the “it” is you are referring to.

What options are you giving me? As I understand it, mental monism is a monism. That means, there is only one thing - mind. That's what monism is. Everything is of one thing. Material monism: everything is matter. Mental monism: everything is mind. So, you ask "what is the "it"? Again, what choices do I have aside from "The Mind" that is the monism? But again, perhaps you have various causal entities within your "monism", I don't know.

There just isn’t anything external of mind – of the mental monism.

So, we could try again: what’s [the mind - or the mental monism's] origin? Why does [the mind - or the mental monism] exist? What purpose does [the mind - or the mental monism] serve? Why does [the mind - or the mental monism] communicate specific information? How does every possible potential become actual? What causes this? Silver Asiatic

this is comparable to the Turing test, where the AI cannot understand the concepts, but just responds automatically to certain key-words and phrases with a wrote response that has nothing to do with the conceptual meaning of the words. William J Murray

KF, I know you can't understand this, but every post you make screams out that you have not even a remote understanding of anything I've said about IRT. It's really quite remarkable that you think these comments actually address IRT as I've explained it over the past year or so. You are addressing a complete straw man. It's like you have your fingers in your ears just repeating the same thing over and over and over, totally oblivious to anything I've said. William J Murray

NB: No, I do not depend on all things being as they appear, but have for many years argued that error exists is a first self evident undeniable truth; which WJM you have known for years as a regular participant at UD. My point is, once one denies the basic credibility and default of mindedness one opens the door to self-referential, absurd hyperskepticism. Errors there are but we must have enough right to be able to recognise and correct errors. For example, we must be willing to accept that our first facts of embodiment in a common world are the means to other facts. If we sweep these away, we utterly undermine ability to access and reason about facts. And WJM you must know this, it is enough of clever hyperskeptical intellectual games and entertaining oneself on the patience of others. KF kairosfocus

F/N: I put up the PS to my just now comment as a follow up before noticing that as it went up the dismissiveness of the plight of the child needing to have start points for secure reasoning was flicked away as childishness. I believe my PS is a sufficient word on the issue, at least for a start. KF kairosfocus

KF's argument depends on this maxim: "Things are as they appear to be." Yes, I agree with how KF has characterized this perspective. It is childish. Anyone that has reached mental adulthood realizes that things are very often not what they appear to be. Case in point, pertinent to this discussion: "matter." What something "appears" to be is often a conceptual interpretation. As a child, we have rudimentary conceptual interpretations of our experiences. As we become adults, we understand that many of those thoughts were interpretations of ontology and epistemology. As children, we don't realize this. KF, apparently, has chiseled his childhood interpretation of things and etched them into marble, refusing to accept it as an interpretation, but rather has committed to that childish interpretation as "manifest fact." William J Murray

PS: Hold up two fingers and three fingers, put together, you get five. But, what if all of that is some sort of dream that has no hard anchor? Are there really fingers or figments and since when do figments have to be logical? Are you really there as teacher, or is that a dream that has no anchor, and if I think it is the ideas that tie together logically, why should I trust that level of dream any more than the others? For that matter, what if these questions are just so much more noise without meaning and I am dreaming that there is meaning . . . ad infinitum . . . kairosfocus

KF: some of us have set aside childish things. If you wish to continue with your childish perspective of existence, go ahead on, my brother. William J Murray

WJM, I am not concerned over my worldview, my concern is to first have a recognition that to think we need to have credible, responsible, rational freedom and ability to achieve accurate description. That is why I am in effect starting with the young child as s/he grows up and interacts with embodiment, perception, proprioception, others in community of conversation etc. Any scheme of thought that sows acid all-devouring hyperskepticism on such and crashes the credibility of mind is inherently absurdly irrational and self-defeating. That blunder goes all the way back to Plato and the parable of the cave. It isn't new and it is just as self-defeating today as it was then. Start with the little child and how s/he is to have confidence in credibility of mind and intelligibility of the world, then ask what happens if we sow doubts down to the level of denial of the conscious self-awareness of embodiment as a living body. KF kairosfocus

Jack, kindly answer the thought exercise, ...

.... says the guy who refuses to directly answer a single simple question or entertain any other premise arguendo for the sake of an honest debate. William J Murray

SA said:

As someone else wondered – what’s its origin? Why does it exist? What purpose does it serve? Why does The Mind project the illusion of an external reality that actually doesn’t exist?

It's kind of hard to figure out what the "it" is you are referring to. If you are referring in all those cases to "the illusion of an external reality" that mind is projecting, what do you mean by "external?" If you mean "external of self," then you clearly do not understand the theory as proposed; of course there exists stuff that is external of self because we're not experiencing everything that can be experienced as individual, experiential selves (as defined under IRT). There just isn't anything external of mind - of the mental monism. Your question might mean something more like, "why is mind projecting the illusion of world independent of our experience?" Well, the mind is not and has never projected any such thing. Everything we experience has always occurred in mind. We just assumed those mental experiences were about something not mind. It is not an "illusion." There is just a categorical mistake about the nature of what it is we are experiencing. You know, like the categorical mistake we made for thousands of years that we are experiencing matter. William J Murray

Jack, rhetorical glibness does not answer to bedrock reality. The principle of distinct identity is clear and various dream or vision or simulation states all can simply be restarted or defy physics, chemistry and physiology. Waking, embedded reality cannot, and graveyards testify to the consequence. The true issue then becomes, why is it so many are trying to deny first facts of consciousness, embodiment in a common world, and willing to accept the chain of self-referential discredit of mind. The answer to beat is tied to the impact of hyperskepticism on western thought, which has led it to be haunted by all-devouring doubt. Which then opens the door to a world where truth is dead and relativism rules. We want to make over truth into "my truth," and so forth. Fail, fail i/l/o the first facts of consciousness and first requisites of sound reasoning aka common sense. KF PS: Playing quantum games fails to recognise that for quantum results to be empirically validated, macro observations have to be valid, a facet of the correspondence principle. As for oh quantum does away with classic laws of logic, actually to do simply the math, distinct identity [thus non contradiction and excluded middle, close corrollaries] has to be there from the first step. We have equations, with distinct symbols, all with distinct meanings or we have nothing. And much more. PPPS: Much the same happens with time, which is why I said above, the second law of thermodynamics called and wants time's arrow back. Yes we can have weird and striking quantum effects but as we go to a level of aggregation where we have a temperature or pressure or volume or magnetic induction or specific constant volume or pressure heat capacity etc, the macro results obtain, as a direct result of the underlying statistics. Consequently at lab, general life and cosmic scale we have the causal temporal relationships of thermodynamics such as Gibbs Free energy etc. Micro vs macro has to be borne in mind and the macro has just as much validity in physics as in economics. This extends to say, atomic/molecular structure, solidity vs liquidity and gaseous states then onward more exotic things like glasses, plasmas, thixotropic liquids etc etc. We have learned that solidity is an expression of London forces in action, giving rise to repulsion at a certain separation. That does not mean that solids are not solid -- resisting shear and other forms of distortion so up to elasticity they retain shape, volume. Liquids shear and flow under their own weight, gases have no defined volume or shape. So the macro is just as valid as the micro. PPPS: Energy is a deeply abstract entity, yes. That does not change its significance as a key accounting issue for physical process. kairosfocus

AD: You ask why I and this world exist. This particular "world" exists because all possible "worlds" exist. I exist because all possible beings exist. You compare the framework for finding truths that KF offers to my arguing the tiny minutiae of IRT mental monism theory. I think it's you, rather, that isn't seeing the forest for the trees. KF is arguing about what, under IRT, is a tiny speck in an infinite ocean of available, eternal experience. As I agreed before, KF's ontological/epistemological arrangement is fine in terms of what set of experiences it serves. That set of experiences includes his particular concept of this "world" and, in KF's case, the particular other "afterlife" world KF holds as true in his heart. I fully expect KF and BA77 et al will experience what they believe and argue here. But, that entire arrangement - KF's "this world" and his idea of "the afterlife," is but a tiny, tiny fraction of what is available under IRT, worlds and experiences that countless people have been exploring, have had contact with, have been and are communicating with. It is one tree in an endless forest. I've visited some of those worlds. I've talked with people there. You, KF and others are free to live in your set of worlds. You've made that choice. I'm sure the experience will be everything you guys think it will be. As I've said before, I'm not trying to talk anyone out of their beliefs. I don't mind heartfelt sermons. I enjoy and appreciate them far more than I appreciate lectures that are repeated over and over and over. Enjoy your path. I'm thoroughly enjoying mine :) William J Murray

Jack, I don't think KF is a troll or stupid. What I think is like many of the great minds who were immovable materialists because of their own certainty of their worldview, he has a cognitive blindness to any evidence or argument that, if he could see it, would crash his worldview. He, like those materialists, has invested too much of his own identity in it. I mean, how many great minds couldn't even see that they were destroying their own argument when they claimed we did not have immaterial free will? It's the simplest thing for others to see, but those super-intellects couldn't see it. I don't know how more simple it gets than the fact that science has disproved Reid's principle #5. That's not even up for debate; that's just a scientific fact. KF won't admit it, because everything else he is and believes in depends on it; it is the lynchpin for his entire ontology and epistemology, for his faith and his identity. William J Murray

Jack

Given the fact that I, Jack McGregor, can understand what WJM is saying (it isn’t rocket science)

Could you explain what he is saying? Silver Asiatic

It looks like you have determined from outset of stepping out from left wing curtains, to embrace self-referential absurdity.

As someone else wondered - what's its origin? Why does it exist? What purpose does it serve? Why does The Mind project the illusion of an external reality that actually doesn't exist? Silver Asiatic

KF, Moreover... I have read WJM's writings for some time now, what he writes is interesting, and is fairly close (but not exactly) to how I view reality. But whether or not you agree with what WJM writes, is entirely beside the point. You don't seem to even remotely understand what he is saying. It's like someone is saying "red is not blue" and you keep saying, "red is blue, red is blue, gosh darn it, red is blue!" It's that ridiculous. Given the fact that I, Jack McGregor, can understand what WJM is saying (it isn't rocket science), says to me that you are simply an ibicile, or you're a troll. I don't know which is true, but one of those options must be true. Anyway, WJM, I don't know why you put up with this. But I will say, it is entertaining. :) Jack

KF, @130 proves (once again) you are clueless about what the discussion is about. Bizarre. What's with the cowardice with your drive-by monism thread? I guess Barry and Denise don't care any more how low this site will go. Sad. RIP to the late great Uncommon Descent of yesteryear. Jack

Jack, kindly answer the thought exercise, what would happen in case of ceasing to breathe for one hour for cases: [a] a dream, [b] a vision, [c] a simulation, [d] waking, embodied reality. I suggest to you our world's graveyards are a demonstration of d, including those for five ancestral generations for me. That you would imagine that endorsing an attempt to blur the difference and the decisive fact under d is to be commended speaks for itself in this latest sock puppet version, if I read you right. That blurring imposes grand delusion thus a cascade that is self-referential and undermining of rationality. It looks like you have determined from outset of stepping out from left wing curtains, to embrace self-referential absurdity. Notice, do not buy a used car from Jack. KF kairosfocus

Jack And the brilliant WJM whips the philosophical kiddie butts again. Over and over. It’s a lovely thing to watch.

Brilliant now there are 2 people who believe in MRT and soon will surpass Christianity. This unless is not WJM with second account. Lieutenant Commander Data

WJM: A is not B: KF: A is B. And because of that blah blah blah. WJM: But... A is not B: KF: A is B: And because of that blah blah blah. Endless loop Haha Jack

And the brilliant WJM whips the philosophical kiddie butts again. Over and over. It's a lovely thing to watch. Jack

AD, the thought world test shows the difference between waking reality and imaginary states accessible through dreams and visions etc. Thus, it applies distinct identity to mark a key difference, and in fact will one day be done in reality by each of us. This then speaks to realities of embodiment. I simply note for record, for whoever may be perplexed by the arguments put forward that try to throw the first fact of consciousness, our embodied presence in a common world under hyperskeptical doubt. It is also still quite clear that if the condition through which we access other facts is held dubious, rationality loses credibility, a self referential absurdity that gives a big clue that it is false. KF kairosfocus

WJM, pulling back a bit, and considering what your worldview looks like, at least to me, I offer some hasty thoughts. You’ve lately been spending your mornings taking on all comers, and batting them down with high grade intellectual minutiae. It appears you may have lost the forest for the trees. Regardless of the entailments of your IRT, the one thing that continues to escape your concern is the “why.” Why are things the way they are? Why is this universe the way it is, and why are we constructed the way we are? Why do these cells provide us our senses in the way that they do? The five windows on the world are there for some reason, and unless I have missed it, much of what is missing from your worldview is the why. The purpose. The Telos. I have read both of your books, and most of what you’re bantering about with KF. His responses can be repetitive and tedious. (KF, enough with the hold your breath for an hour thought experiment, complete with warning for every instance not to actually do it. Like you actually could.) But he is trying to provide cohesion in the form of asking within the framework of how conscious humans determine truth and what’s real or not, while you’re arguing the tiny points of monisms and such. You’ve revealed that likely the most important thing in your life is your relationship with your wife. And that you are willing to move heaven and earth to continue your relationship with her. I would argue that you have done a great deal of that movement already, at least philosophically and psychologically, and that you have claimed that the relationship is real, ongoing, and that the afterlife is kind of meh, but at least you have her. (If I have that right.) And so, you’re good. You know I am coming at this from the Christian perspective, and that along with BA77, hold that Jesus Christ is the correct theory of everything, and especially on the point that you seem to spend no time on: Why are things this way? Why not go down the road of cause and effect? You seem to want to have eternity on your terms, rather than as a participant in a universe that seems to have just what you want anyway, but not on your terms. An eternal relationship with your wife, only far better than it was, or even is now. So, more on the why. We live out our days, capable of engaging our senses and consciousness, and participating in relationship. One of the claims of the Bible is that relationship is at the very foundation of why we are all here. As we go about our days, we interact with a quantum synthesis that very capably matches up with our senses, our consciousness, and powers of observation. So much we find that causes certain things in us. The appreciation of beauty, how a mountain vista makes us feel. The ridiculous complexity and sublime beauty of a hummingbird. The smell of lilacs. The taste of our favorite meal. Yes, my filet is a quantum arrangement of stuff, but that stuff tastes sublime. We interface with these things, and ought to ask more why. As Lewis has said, we are hungry because there is such a thing as food. We have the capacity for many things. And we hunger for things like justice, and righteousness. We can all envision a place where there is no wrongdoing, or evil. Sign me up. But I digress. This milieu screams design. And anyone capable of creating something that magnificent, here, where death resides, beauty and barbed wire, and all of the magnificent handiwork that we see, is certainly capable of constructing a realm of many dimensions, including one where time no longer exists, nor entropy. BA has touched on this many times. A realm that many claim, after having flirted with death, contains our departed loved ones. Including Irene. Among the many things he gave as gifts to his children, was the intellect that he gave WJM, “Bill” Murray. One that you have wielded with great ferocity along the intellectual quanta of your life. Same with BA and KF. Intellectual gifts, as I see it. But you seem to insist that eternity must be on your terms. And why wouldn’t you, if you’ve already achieved what you want? But if this God, whom you pay no mind, truly exists, and is a person, as the designer of the “whole show,” it seems prudent that we defer to his terms for what he thinks is best for us. Yet, time after time, we demonstrate how “wise we are in our own eyes.” And how that is repeatedly warned against as being a really bad idea. Some of the smartest atheists on the planet have been wise in their own eyes. Sagan Hawking Tyson Krauss (even so much that nothing can create everything, and I can get rich off a book about nothing!) Hitchens Russell Dawkins True, they are exercising their free will, and in the end, I believe God will give (and gave) them what they want, which is an eternity without him. But the true intellectual giants who have bent a knee to the God who shows himself everywhere he is sought, have the true wisdom that comes from that humility. I’m just typing thoughts quickly, and so that’s become a bit of a sermon, but all this to say, whatever ends up being true, we need to give William of Occam (Ockham) his due. It’s far more likely that God created the heavens and the earth, than nothing in particular did, and this milieu we inhabit has no one in particular at the helm, and we know it’s not reductionistic materialism, but a creator isn’t necessary and I have Irene now. You’ve enjoyed your relationship with Irene, likely more than anything else. And yet what is promised, is only a foretaste of what depths of love (are claimed to) exist elsewhere (outside of?) this quantum cosmos. And an eternal physical immortal embodiment is one of the eventual central claims. Be a shame if you insist, until you die, that you have had the answers all along, and your intellectual shortcomings, or things you didn’t/wouldn’t consider, turned out to be true, despite your preferences otherwise. Your MRT/IRT theory and your encounters with your wife remind me of the movie, Somewhere in Time, where Christopher Reeve falls in love with a photograph of Jane Seymour, who was an old woman by the time he met her. He fell so in love with her, that he willed himself back to 1912, when she was young, and they fell in love, and even physically consummated that love. He had bought period clothes, and lay down on his bed and mentally (MRT anyone?) made himself actually travel to 1912. It was all good until he dug in his pocket and pulled out a coin from 1979. It sucked him back to the present, when the subsequent lovesickness led him to stop eating and led to his death. Of course, in the movie, they reunited in heaven in the end, and lived happily ever after. Perhaps you’ve seen it. I’d say, don’t be Reeve. Explore the path lit by the one who loved you before he laid the foundations of the world. This universe screams design. When you put it all together, as BA and KF and gpuccio and SA and others do here on a regular basis, you won’t, none of us will be able to claim, we didn’t have enough evidence. The why of everything, not the how, seems to be the big piece missing in your puzzle. The Bible is all about why. And it cares not a whit about how. Thanks for your time. AnimatedDust

WJM, without common sense defaults that are open to local correction but cannot fall into grand across the board sweeping error, you don't get TO science. That is what needs to sink in first. KF kairosfocus

There, I think I have adjusted Reid's list to take in the past 100 years of quantum physics experimental results, so that it still works and maintains the bulk. If "common sense" is going to completely ignore 100 years of repeatedly verified scientific experiments, it might be time to make some adjustments. William J Murray

Let me see if I can salvage Reid's rules in light of current scientific evidence: 1) Everything of which I am conscious really exists [–> but exactly as what, and in what way, is up for debate and further scientific scrutiny as to what "exists" means.] 2) The thoughts of which I am conscious are the thoughts of a being which I call myself, my mind, my person. 3) Events that I clearly remember really did happen. 4) Our personal identity and continued existence extends as far back in time as we remember anything clearly. 5) Those things that we clearly perceive by our senses really exist [--> but as what, and in what way, is up for debate and scientific scrutiny, and logical evaluation of various models as to what "exist" means] 6) We have some power over our actions and over the decisions of our will. 7) The natural faculties by which we distinguish truth from error are not deceptive. 8) There is life and thought in our fellow-men with whom we converse. 9) Certain features of the face, tones of voice, and physical gestures indicate certain thoughts and dispositions of mind. 10) A certain respect should be accorded to human testimony in matters of fact, and even to human authority in matters of opinion. 11) For many outcomes that will depend on the will of man, there is a self-evident probability, greater or less according to circumstances. 12) In the phenomena of Nature, what happens will probably be like what has happened in similar circumstances. William J Murray

According to Reid, anyone who doubts these principles will be incapable of rational discourse and those philosophers who profess to doubt them cannot do so sincerely and consistently.

Sounds to me like Reid and Davidson found a convenient way of dismissing everyone who disagrees with them However, here's where KF's perspective on this breaks down:

5) Those things that we clearly perceive by our senses really exist and really are what we perceive them to be.

What does "really exist" mean here? What does "really are what we perceive them to be" mean? If by this wee go to KF's perspective, this has been proved false by science in a very serious, fundamental way. Matter is not "really what we perceive it to be," if by that we mean actual matter that has states and characteristics independent of mind/observation. We know this is not true. Since we know this is not true, then there is something wrong with either Reid's list or KF's interpretation of what Reid means at #5 . I don't think KF is misinterpreting what Reid likely meant: I think Reid meant what KF thinks he meant. Reid has been proved false. We clearly are not experiencing "things" in terms of independent entities with innate states and characteristics; we are experiencing observation-determined extracts of abstract, potential information. Best devise a replacement for #5. William J Murray

F/N: For record let's bring forward:

REID’S RULES OF COMMON SENSE REALISM 1) Everything of which I am conscious really exists [–> at minimum as an object of conscious awareness, and often as a particular or abstract entity, the presumption is, if I perceive a world with entities, it is by and large real] 2) The thoughts of which I am conscious are the thoughts of a being which I call myself, my mind, my person. 3) Events that I clearly remember really did happen. 4) Our personal identity and continued existence extends as far back in time as we remember anything clearly. 5) Those things that we clearly perceive by our senses really exist and really are what we perceive them to be. 6) We have some power over our actions and over the decisions of our will. 7) The natural faculties by which we distinguish truth from error are not deceptive. 8) There is life and thought in our fellow-men with whom we converse. 9) Certain features of the face, tones of voice, and physical gestures indicate certain thoughts and dispositions of mind. 10) A certain respect should be accorded to human testimony in matters of fact, and even to human authority in matters of opinion. 11) For many outcomes that will depend on the will of man, there is a self-evident probability, greater or less according to circumstances. 12) In the phenomena of Nature, what happens will probably be like what has happened in similar circumstances.

Davidson comments, for cause:

According to Reid, anyone who doubts these principles will be incapable of rational discourse and those philosophers who profess to doubt them cannot do so sincerely and consistently. Each of these principles, if denied, can be turned back on the denier. For example, although it is not possible to justify the validity of memory (3) without reference to premises that rest on memory, to dispense with memory as usually unreliable is just not philosophically possible. Reid qualifies some of these principles as not applying in all cases, or as the assumptions that we presume to hold when we converse, which may be contradicted by subsequent experience. For instance with regard to (10) Reid believes that most men are more apt to over-rate testimony and authority than to under-rate them; which suggests to Reid that this principle retains some force even when it could be replaced by reasoning. I endorse Reid’s principles as normally true and what we must assume to be true to engage in argument and discussion. But, as Reid acknowledges, not all may be true all the time. I thus see Reid’s principles as epistemological rather than metaphysical. Psychologists might point to such things as optical illusions, false memory, attentional blink, hallucinations and various other interesting phenomena which might throw some doubt over some of Reid’s assertions. But these are nonessential modifiers that if entertained as falsifications of these principles would lead to the collapse of all knowledge. Very few philosophers have not acknowledged that the senses can deceive us or that reason is fallible, but to say the senses consistently deceive or that reason is impotent is too big a sacrifice. That the senses can deceive and reason is fallible is good reason to be cautious in our conclusions but not a good reason to dispense with observation and reason all together.

Fair comment, events since mid April bear this out. KF kairosfocus

Nope, I guess KF can't even consider the possibility he's wrong. Oh, well. William J Murray

The “common sense” interpretation of what matter is has been scientifically demonstrated false.

You need common sense to do science therefore science cann't prove common sense false . Lieutenant Commander Data

PS: I think thermodynamics' second law called and says it wants the arrow of time back, ASAP. kairosfocus

WJM, common sense is not in dispute, and there has actually been considerable explanation at OP level, starting with Reid down to Plantinga with Moore along the way. The undermining of common sense is a futile self-referential absurdity that discredits rationality. One absurdity then piles on another. See here https://uncommondesc.wpengine.com/logic-and-first-principles-of-right-reason/lfp-40-thoughts-on-neo-reidian-common-sense-realism/ and here https://uncommondesc.wpengine.com/logic-and-first-principles-of-right-reason/lfp-40-thoughts-on-neo-reidian-common-sense-realism/#comment-728459 KF kairosfocus

KF, you keep referring to "common sense" interpretations of experience. The "common sense" interpretation of what matter is has been scientifically demonstrated false. The "common sense" interpretation that we are passively observing independently real states and characteristics of various phenomena has been scientifically demonstrated false. The "common sense" interpretation that cause and effect only goes forward in time has been scientifically demonstrated false. Does that mean we have fallen into a grand delusion because these fundamental, common-sense interpretations of things have been shown to be false? Of course not. We have carried forward, rationally, logically, scientifically, even so. William J Murray

KF, it would be great if, just for a while, you could consider the possibility that you're wrong, that it is possible to formulate a theory of mental monism that provides for: 1. The existence of the many, as different categories of mind with distinct characteristics that are comparable to each other and distinguishable from each other; 2. The absolute validity of logic and reason; 3. Non-solipsism; and 4. Mutually verifiable, testable domains of experience that can be scientifically investigated and which are predictable, We might be able to proceed with a good discussion and an intellectually honest debate under this premise. William J Murray

KF claims his interpretation of physical experience to be a "fact." What does he mean by this? Some definitions: Common:: A thing that is known or proved to be true. In science: an observation that has been confirmed repeatedly and is accepted as true (although its truth is never final.) In logic: Logical truths are generally considered to be necessarily true. This is to say that they are such that no situation could arise in which they could fail to be true. The view that logical statements are necessarily true is sometimes treated as equivalent to saying that logical truths are true in all possible worlds. If we take first definition, can it be known or proved that KF's interpretation of physical experience is true? First, it cannot even in principle be known or proved true because, even if it were true, all we have access to would be a simulation of that world in our minds. We cannot get outside of that simulation to prove it exists independently, much less that it actually corresponds faithfully to the mental simulation. (An aside: it's ironic that KF laments that under mental monism, our physical world becomes a simulation, when logically, dualism necessarily makes our physical experience a simulation by definition - it is a mental simulation of something else, an extra-mental world. It is only under mental monism that our experience is factually not a simulation.) If we go the scientific route, note that it is framed as an observation, which is a mental experience. If the observation is repeatable (and mutually verifiable,) it is considered a fact. However, these are definitionally facts about observations, which is mental experience. The idea that these facts refer to an extra-mental world is a theoretical assumption, which has credibly been falsified by 100 years of repeated, mutually verified quantum experiments. These experiments reveal that the facts of our observations are not about an extra-mental world. We are left with logical, necessary truths, where KF's interpretation of physical experience immediately breaks down as it is not a necessary truth. He would have to show that mental monism is logically impossible, not that it "undermines the credibility or rationality," which is an improper assessment of monism from a dualistic perspective that circles back on his ontologically interpretive claim of "first fact." So, KF's claim of "First Facts" is a misappropriation of the term "fact" under any definition, and is his way of claiming by inappropriate terminological fiat the sovereignty of his ontological interpretation of physical experience. William J Murray

WJM, You will see that I provided a note that gives the context for monism [we are dealing with metaphysical monism] and ties it to the one and many, outlining and illustrating what happens when the fail is on the 1 only side I don't think there is need to elaborate on the poly-side save to note it is a recipe for chaos not cosmos, all linked to this thread, so discussion can be better informed here. Let me highlight the core challenge:

ONE AND MANY CHALLENGE: to account for unity and diversity in a coherent domain, reality, with room for responsible, rational, morally governed contingent creatures such as we are; on pain of collapse of credibility of our very rationality to think about such. Such self-defeat is a sign that a view is absurd.

This is the challenge. I guess I can note here that good and evil is a facet as is our particular nature as microcosm of unified but diverse reality. I can note in brief that the only effective solution to the one and many challenge is Creation by a Supreme, supremely good and wise being who in making man opened up the domain of moral good driven by free choice to love and to act aright. Creation removes headaches from the artificial problem of mind effectively interacting with matter while being independent . . . matter came from mind. (Quantum influence with a Smith cyberloop and with oracular supervisor in a two-tier controller is a context for development of discussion.) The freedom of mind breaks the bondage of computationalism. Freedom and opening up the domain of rational love points to the free will defence that resolves the logical form problem of evil. We do not need to worry that our proprioception, sense of embodiment and sense of the world is a grand delusion plato's cave shadow show, though we can deal with errors and limitations on a common sense basis. And so forth. The problem with this view is it cuts against the grain of a radically secularist climate, but that is attitude not substance. Such is comparative difficulties not question begging, in a nutshell. And yes, here I stepped for a moment out of the mode of dealing with ourselves at baseline, common sense level. How does a child build up a sound view of the world, how does civilisation build up a tradition that can confidently educate children in the teeth of radical hyperskepticism. Let me advance the Paley clip in 85:

Notice, the aboutness threshold [ --> experience has Experience of-X as real or apparent internal/external state of affairs, thus aboutness . . . so, Nagels' what is it like to be a bat or a man or a child etc]. As Paley wrote, we stumble over a rock in a field, that for all we know has sat there for ages. It exists but is neither artifact nor itself a conscious, experiencing entity, it is purely dynamic-stochastic, it fails the self-moved test [--> allusion to Plato, The Laws Bk X, life is self-moved and exhibits soul thereby, of course our souls are rational and morally governed]. Now shift to finding a watch, say a few dozen steps on, this moves internally but in accord with contrivance and focussed expression of energy flows in designed causal chains. Indeed, it is an analogue computer whose output is an analogue of time used as a standard metric for before/after and duration. This too has no experiences but expresses in refined rock the handiwork of experiencing, self-moved design. Where, the man walking on the path experiences his embodied, world oriented physical frame, self-aware and self moved in a field. He accesses the encounters and senses then ponders what he encounters, relying on common sense. There is no good reason to toss such into a self-defeating chaos of self-referential hyperskeptical doubts. Is the man going to do the same to his food and drink, until he wastes away into death? So, why shouldn’t he take embodiment, self-directed walking, the rock, the field and the watch seriously? Each, with its own import?

Now, to turn such into a shadow show simply sets off a cascade of invitations to doubt basic veridicality and ends in undermining credibility of rationality. I have noted the cease breathing for one hour thought exercise as able to distinguish waking reality from dreamscapes and visions etc, through a sharp consequence that highlights embodiment and linked Oxygen dependent metabolism. I could go on and on in an endless discussion but I doubt it would be profitable. There is no good reason to propagate a potentially endless distractor in thread after thread. So, no, it is not cowardice on my part, though I find the endless repetition of a claim that undermines itself to be less than helpful. Enough has been given for now. KF kairosfocus

Until KF fairly debates MRT/IRT under its own premise, he is being intellectually dishonest.

There is nothing to debate about MRT . Probably if you speak about MRT to people on the street there are very big chances to take a beating. KF was indulgent, tolerant, kind, patient, gracious with you and in exchange you call him dishonest after you openly admitted that your "enjoyment" and your preferences are important for you and not the truth and morality? Lieutenant Commander Data

KF said in his closed comment thread on monism:

Mental type monisms, equally for cause, turn our first fact of conscious experience, embodiment and participation in a common world as living bodies, into a Plato’s cave type shadow show, a grand delusion.

He doesn't argue that it is impossible for mental monism to produce our experiences. Instead, he claims that this interpretation turns our physical experience into "grand delusion." This is a fundamental error of logic; he is judging that interpretation from a dualism framework. This is like handing out penalties in an American football game from the soccer rulebook. Yes, under dualism, that interpretation would be a grand delusion, as he points out with the example of Plato's cave. But, that is not what is going on under mental monism. Our physical, waking world experiences are not delusions or simulations; they are mutually verifiable real experiences of reality that can be measured, investigated, mutually verified and validated, unlike imaginative fantasy or common dreams. KF seems fond of this particular straw man perspective:

I have suggested a thought test: cease breathing for an hour, in a dreamscape or vision or simulation, no consequences of significance; in waking reality, fatal consequences

So what? Nobody said that the category of "waking reality" experiences had all the exact same qualities as dreams, visions or simulations. There are distinct categories of mental experiences that have different qualities. Our mental experience of logic, dreams, memory, and imaginative fantasy have distinctly different qualitative characteristics. Does KF have trouble differentiating this mental experiences? Does he distrust logic because both it and imaginative fantasy are mental experiences? Does he confuse memory and imaginative fantasy? What exactly does KF's argument about "holding your breath" meant to prove? His comparison to holding your breath in dreams seems to be making the case that holding your breath in dreams cannot kill you, so therefore the "waking reality" experience must be something entirely different than mental. In the first place, that's a non-sequitur, even if it were true, which it is not. That logic depends entirely on what the person who dies actually experiences themselves when they die in order to make the comparison between a dream death and a waking world death. Has KF ever experience death in a dream? I have, both a drowning death and falling to my death. In the drowning dream, the feeling of needing air was just as powerful as the feeling I had when I almost drowned in my waking life when I was a child. Both times, at the point of death, I woke up. Does KF know for certain that death in waking life is not similar? NDE reports indicate that it is indeed similar. However, the point he was making, I think, is that mental phenomena cannot kill you like physical phenomena in our waking life. He is demonstrable wrong about this: the nocebo effect has been shown to, in some cases, cause all kinds of physical symptoms, including physical death. From: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/2650014/ Until KF fairly debates MRT/IRT under its own premise, he is being intellectually dishonest. He does not get to insert is ontological interpretation of physical experience for free. He cannot use a dualism ruleset to judge a monism as "grand delusion." Now, he can argue that our experience of physicalism cannot be produce in a mental monism: but he has never made that argument. Instead, he insists on his ontological interpretation and tries to establish it by fiat as a necessary interpretation. As long as KF does not make the case that mental monism cannot produce all of our physical experiences, he is implicitly agreeing that his interpretation is just that - an interpretation and not a fact. William J Murray

KF, I see you made a post about mental monism, asserted your reasoning why it fails, and turned off the comments. How very brave of you. Make the big post, assert you reasoning and don't let anyone respond or challenge your reasoning. Typical of someone who will not engage in fair debate and will not even directly answer a simple question. William J Murray

KF @105: ROFL !!! Unbelievable. William J Murray

SA,

Monism does not permit this.

Mental monism allows you to create any sort of pairs of concepts and compare the concepts against each other.

you can’t have a distinction in substance, essence or existence between various concepts.

There isn't a distinction in substance, essence or existence between various concepts because they're all mental concepts. All concepts exist in mind. William J Murray

Sorry, I didn't realize this post was still getting comments. Is this the same WJM that once successfully argued that he only does (i.e., thinks) anything because it provides enjoyment? The same WJM who thereby sawed off the very limb on which he might have once metaphorically sat? And who is still (in this thread) arguing for stuff just because arguing provides him enjoyment? Time to move on, folks. WJM> "Put up or shut up." Isn't the internet great? Nobody has to shut up anymore. Pre-internet, we used to have to occasionally shut up. But now we can just keep typing... EDTA

WJM, you were already answered, in substantial detail. You are asking for me to exemplify square circles, given what has already been shown, simulations, networks and nodes etc, all collapse, after physicalist monism, collapse as it says on the tin, due to self-referential absurdity. Simulations by a super intellect or hyper machine are not setting up agents, only representations. Networks that have nodes running in effect sims of embodiment and perceiving such to be real and gateway to an equally simmed pseudoreality are exhibiting grand delusion and discredit their own reasoning. Fail. We are back to the need to respect that there is no good reason to immerse our first fact experience in acid hyperskepticism. KF PS: As I noted to SA, the non-experience issue is adressed on Paley walking across a field, in 85 i/l/o 84. There is no need to belabour that agents have experiences which are always OF something, there is content. Rocks have no dreams and clocks only play out the vision of a designing agent, they too are passive. kairosfocus

WJM - you asked me to explain "non-experience" but you will not define the term. You call it a "hypothetical concept". So, you know something about it. You just compared "non-experience" with concepts, and segmented "non-experience" with hypothetical concepts. So, "experience" then, in your view, is a "non-hypothetical concept". So, you did, in fact, compare non-experience with experience when previously you stated: "You cannot compare experience to non-experience unless you can tell me what non-experience is like." Now, you explained that "non-experience" is a hypothetical concept so it is different than "experience" - thus, it has been compared. You did this without having to know "what non-experience is like". You merely used "hypothetical concept" as an opposition to "non-hypothetical concept". If a person said "this is a non-hypothetical concept", they affirm that there are "hypothetical concepts" also. Monism does not permit this. Even in mental monism, you can't have a distinction in substance, essence or existence between various concepts. A square-circle is a concept. It's information. That's why we know it is hypothetical or illogical. But that's the problem with mental monism. Square circles exist as concepts, just as circles, squares or other concepts do. Some are hypothetical others not. We know what is meant by a square-circle, even if we cannot picture it or define it mathematically. We know what the concept is intended to portray (an illogical shape).

It, too, is conceptual nonsense.

A mental monism does not prevent the existence of conceptual nonsense and in fact, nothing that is thought of mentally has any greater or lesser value than good sense or nonsense. It's all just projections of information. Silver Asiatic

SA said,

That is, how do you define the term. What does the term mean?

The only value the term has is in conceptual, hypothetical relationship to experience. Such as, A and not-A. In this case, there is no "not-A" we have access to in order to actually compare A against a hypothetical "not-A." There are no actual comparatives available. Since all we have is the A of mental experience, we cannot compare it against any not-A "non-mental" experience." Other than just saying the term "non-experience," there are no descriptive values it can be assigned. You're not actually pointing at anything other than a hypothetical concept. A "square circle" is also a hypothetical concept that refers to squares and circles. It, too, is conceptual nonsense. William J Murray

WJM @ 100 You didn't answer the question. I'll repeat:

What do you mean by the term “non-experience”?

That is, how do you define the term? What does the term mean? Silver Asiatic

KF: Prove me wrong and answer this question directly: Is it possible that a mental monism can generate all of our experiences? William J Murray

SA asks

What do you mean by the term “non-experience”?

I meant it (obviously) as means to demonstrate the absurdity of your comment that monism is an irrational consideration unless there is an actual 'non-monism" to compare it against. We don't have anything to compare experience against. It's all we have. We don't have anything to compare mental experience against. It's all we have. All we can do is compare mental experiences (for example, waking physicality) against mental experiences (for example, dreams and imagination) using mental experiences (logic, math, etc.) We can't compare experience against non-experience. Unless, that is, you can tell me what it is like. We can't compare mental experiences against any extra-mental world even if it existed because you cannot have a non-mental or extra-mental experience. That's where "experience" occurs. In mind. William J Murray

WJM, enough has long since been said, and there is no call for accusations. KF kairosfocus

Q said:

Read yer own freaking posts!

I pointed out that MRT/ERT provides the same bulwark against solipsism as any non-solipsistic or ERT ontology. Faith. That doesn't represent anything but a small part of MRT/ERT (or any other ontology), nor does it represent the bulk of how I come to my beliefs (beliefs in that I act and think as if true, but don't hold them to actually be true.) I hold beliefs pragmatically. Not all my beliefs are represented by the IRT/MRT model I argue. William J Murray

KF: The first fact of this debate is that you refuse to engage it honestly. William J Murray

SA, I already drew it out, using Paley walking across a field. See 85 i/l/o 84. KF kairosfocus

FTR on Monism and the linked challenge of the one and the many https://uncommondesc.wpengine.com/philosophy/fyi-ftr-what-is-monism/ kairosfocus

This is getting hilarious! William J Murray lashed out with

Where did I say my beliefs are based on faith alone?

In response to my question about how MRT is distinguishable from solipsism, he directed me to a link. In good faith, I actually took the time to read the link he provided along with the posted comments: https://uncommondesc.wpengine.com/intelligent-design/the-boy-who-cried-solipsism-the-mrt-delusion-objection-is-unfounded/ He expands on the OP in this unsupported assertion in comment #24:

The only bulwark against solipsism in any cosmological perspective is faith, even materialism. For materialists, it is infinitely more likely that we exist as a Boltzmann Brain imagining a material world than an actual physical world with billions of years of history that led to our existence. By “faith,” I mean any view that adopts the extra burden it requires, as you mentioned.

Thus, we can clearly read that William J Murray is able to distinguish/separate/differentiate MRT from solipsism with the "bulwark" of faith. And now William J Murray issues the challenge:

Where did I say my beliefs are based on faith alone?

Read yer own freaking posts! If your MRT uses "faith" as a "bulwark" against solipsism, then MRT is based on faith, being otherwise indistinguishable from solipsism. You might argue that so's everything else, but I'd strongly disagree! Even the materialism that you derided is supported by pragmatic experience and not just faith! Perhaps, you watched too much cartoon physics as a child . . . Sorry, but your credibility is pegged at zero. -Q Querius

WJM

You cannot compare experience to non-experience unless you can tell me what non-experience is like.

What do you mean by the term "non-experience"? Silver Asiatic

WJM, bluster does not change the balance on merits. There literally is no good reason for us to doubt the first facts of consciousness that we are embodied, self aware creatures who share a common physical world. As for why monisms cannot credibly account for such, there is already quite enough to make the point clear. KF kairosfocus

SA said:

I do not need to tell you “what non-experience is like” to know that it exists. It’s a category that we make comparisons with – thus, it’s “dualistic”, not monistic.

Good luck with that. You cannot compare experience to non-experience unless you can tell me what non-experience is like. Also, you cannot tell me what an extra-mental world is like unless you can have a non-mental experience of that supposed extra-mental world. It's not MRT/IRT that is fundamentally irrational; it is ERT. The only thing anyone can possibly describe are mental experiences. That's all anyone can have TO describe. William J Murray

WJM

Guess what SA failed to do? He failed to tell me what non-experience is like. ... There’s a reason you cannot describe non-experience and why you cannot actually compare experience to it, which demonstrates SA’s utter lack of reasoning skills when he says you cannot make claims about something that is ubiquitous, like a ontological monism.

Your argument is missing the target and you're making a mistake here. We do not need to experience the thing to know that it logically exists. I do not need to tell you "what non-experience is like" to know that it exists. It's a category that we make comparisons with - thus, it's "dualistic", not monistic. That's the point - rationality requires comparison. Monism does not permit that, but it is therefore irrational. When we say "everything is mind", we can't know what the term "mind" means unless we compare it with "non-mind" - and therefore, "non-mind" must exist. When you speak of "non-experience", I know what you mean because the term "experience" is compared with that. If "everything was experience" there could be no "non-experience". This is merely the First Principles of Logic put into action. The Law of Identity disproves monism. When we identify "a thing" (even something like "experience" or "mind") it is a unique entity, circumscribed by our definition. As such, it is necessarily and logically compared with "the absence of that thing". We describe "x" as "mental monism". Thus, "not-x" necessarily exists. Otherwise, you can't speak of x in logical terms. When you ask about "non-experience" - that's the same thing. I do not have to "experience non-experience" to know that it exists, logically. A simple example: "Describe what existed before the universe came into existence". It's not right to say "since you didn't experience it, you can't accept that it exists". If the universe came into existence, then there was something prior to that state. That's the Kalam argument. If x = mind, then non-mind is Not-x. But if "everything is mind", then you can't have a logical formula. "Mind" would be both x and Not-x. And this is exactly the problem with mental monism. Logic requires a real world where the Law of Identity prevails. It requires that we can understand "what is really true" versus what is false, and this is verifiable only with an external referent. Again, if an imagination has the same truth and reality-value as a conscious, sensory experience, validated by repetition and consent then we would have something like this: x = I perceive with my senses that it is raining today Not-x = It is not raining but is very sunny. It is the logical negation of x. So, I perceive that is raining today, but I imagine that it is not raining. So, x equals the negation of x (Not x). This is why mental monism is irrational. Silver Asiatic

Here's a simple, direct, non-trick question for KF: is it possible, or not possible, for a mental monism to provide all the experiences we have? Prediction: He will refuse to answer this question directly, but will instead regurgitate more canned exposition about how how all idealisms fail to provide a basis for rationality. Note: KF has never said it is impossible. He hasn't said he doesn't know if it is possible or not. Why is that? I think it's because he knows it is possible, but he doesn't want to just admit it without contextualizing his answer in terms of why one shouldn't hold such a view. IMO, he doesn't want to agree to argue from the premise (and the entailments of my particular MRT/IRT) because he knows that agreeing to do so eliminates all of his canned arguments that depend on the premise and entailments of his ontological/epistemological perspective. There's really a very simple reason behind all of this: if KF admits it is possible that mental monism can provide for all the experiences we have, then we have lost absolutely - literally - nothing by abandoning the idea of a world external of mind. We still have mutually verifiable experiences that can be scientifically investigated. We still understand the necessary, inescapable nature of logic, math, etc. Reason still applies in comparing our different experiential categories and evaluating them, just like it always did. Other people still exist. And, IRT/MRT perfectly accounts for 100 years of quantum experimentation. William J Murray

KF, Put up or shut up. You know where you can find the premise. If you agree to it arguendo, we can go from there. If you believe it is impossible, say so and explain why. All of your diatribe about how monisms fail due to the breakdown of rationality is putting the cart before the horse. William J Murray

WJM, your repetition of a strawman caricature fallacy does not advance the matter. If you are concerned regarding the mind-body problem as a microcosm of the issue of the one and the many, you might find my op yesterday on the 3n + 1 problem interesting. I see but little point in trying to chase rabbit trails on monism's inability to address diversity and our rational responsible freedom as embodied agents when the matter has already been brought out in substantial summary, with demonstration that it cannot merely be worldview question begging and the obvious differentiation of the no breathing thought exercise. There comes a time where endless unyielding assertion of the patently self-referentially absurd makes it clear that the man one would buy a used car from test has been decisively failed. Sad, but the ball is in your court to show sprouts of springtime. KF kairosfocus

KF continues to do exactly what I said he'd do: refuse to take up the challenge for a good faith argument and begin with the premise I offered, and just reiterate his own perspective over and over. At this point, predicting what KF will do is like predicting that the sun will come up in the east and set in the west.

non-experience is like what rocks dream of,

says KF, who I assume has never been a rock, or talked to a rock and asked about it's dreams, which leaves his description of non-experience nothing more than distraction. There's a reason you cannot describe non-experience and why you cannot actually compare experience to it, which demonstrates SA's utter lack of reasoning skills when he says you cannot make claims about something that is ubiquitous, like a ontological monism. And here's the ironic part that is inescapably true: it's literally impossible to experience anything outside of mind, because that is where all experiences occur. Nobody here can describe any supposed extra-mental world because it cannot be experienced. All you can describe are the mental experiences you label as such. You might as well be trying to describe non-experience because you're trying to describe what is outside of experience. Good luck with that. William J Murray

PS: Notice, the aboutness threshold. As Paley wrote, we stumble over a rock in a field, that for all we know has sat there for ages. It exists but is neither artifact nor itself a conscious, experiencing entity, it is purely dynamic-stochastic, it fails the self-moved test. Now shift to finding a watch, say a few dozen steps on, this moves internally but in accord with contrivance and focussed expression of energy flows in designed causal chains. Indeed, it is an analogue computer whose output is an analogue of time used as a standard metric for before/after and duration. This too has no experiences but expresses in refined rock the handiwork of experiencing, self-moved design. Where, the man walking on the path experiences his embodied, world oriented physical frame, self-aware and self moved in a field. He accesses the encounters and senses then ponders what he encounters, relying on common sense. There is no good reason to toss such into a self-defeating chaos of self-referential hyperskeptical doubts. Is the man going to do the same to his food and drink, until he wastes away into death? So, why shouldn't he take embodiment, self-directed walking, the rock, the field and the watch seriously? Each, with its own import? kairosfocus

WJM, non-experience is like what rocks dream of, and yes that's a slight adaptation of Aristotle's definition of nothingness. Howbeit, experience has in it the inherent OF-ness, i.e. there is content, there is context. In our case, there is the further factor of finiteness, fallibility, moral struggle, too often ill will and/or stubbornness. This is a context where we distinguish first facts of perception and proprioception from more interpreted contexts such as "reading" a social situation or for that matter a beach's underwater configuration on its signs. We are self-aware, conscious, and unquestionably among the first deliverances of consciousness is of sensing our embodiment and bodily orientation in a world shared with other similar creatures. The refined rock of brains cannot account for the self aware, rational, responsible freedom, the first deliverances, first facts of waking reality present us with embodiment in a world. This cannot be reduced to in effect a simulation, dream or vision without decisively undercutting credibility of mindedness. Thus, we are a microcosm of the Thales-ian question of the one and the many. KF kairosfocus

SA said:

We cannot speak about experience if we do not have a category for non-experience. If everything is experience, then the term is meaningless. It cannot be defined.

I asked:

Tell me what non-experience is like, then. Or non-existence.

SA then proceeds to describe various experiences, compare them, what those experiences would mean, what claims about those experiences would indicate:

If you were to say that you experienced me praising your theory and going on television to proclaim it to the applause of the world, I would know that you are lying or delusional. Because that is a not an experience that anyone could have in reality. One could hallucinate, dream or imagine but that’s different than experiencing (witnessing) in reality.

Guess what SA failed to do? He failed to tell me what non-experience is like. William J Murray

Q said:

If your beliefs are based on faith alone as you stated, then what’s the point of my presenting an argument?

Where did I say my beliefs are based on faith alone?

You’re the one with the ex nihilo axiom, so either provide logical, historical, or empirical support for your faith.

What is my ex nihilo axiom?

It’s not up to me or anyone else here to disprove your faith, nor will anyone be able to do so unless they can displace your faith with another faith that has more logical, historical, or empirical support behind it.

FYI, I don't argue my beliefs. I have presented a theory about MRT/IRT for argument. Those are two different things.

If you have no support behind your axiomatic faith (besides a sort of “prove me wrong”), then *any* other faith whatsoever is at least equal to if not more compelling than MRT.

If you're talking about the MRT/IRT theory, I've presented both evidence and logical argument and have provided links and sources and the argument multiple times. I said I have experimented with it and have had decades of practical results. Countless other people have experimented with and have had success with similar models. Many physicists are moving towards mental models of reality due to the results of 100 years of quantum physics experimentation and research. Have you not been paying attention? William J Murray

Querius

If you have no support behind your axiomatic faith (besides a sort of “prove me wrong”), then *any* other faith whatsoever is at least equal to if not more compelling than MRT.

That's a key point. Just intuition and common sense are a stronger foundation for a worldview. So why tie your head in knots for an imaginary proposal. I can't see that the mind-based reality contributes anything significant to our understanding of nature or the meaning and purpose of human life, or our relationships, or our moral growth. I think the only benefit it has is that it is a weapon against materialism. But there are other, better, weapons for that. Silver Asiatic

Waking reality certainly affects one's dreamscapes, but it's hard to imagine how a dreamscape can alter waking reality . . . of course there's always this:

Last night, I had a vivid dream about eating a giant marshmallow. And in the morning, my pillow was gone!

-Q Querius

WJM the timeline remains, contradicting your claims and the radical difference between waking reality and dreamscapes etc makes a decisive application of distinct identity. KF kairosfocus

William J Murray @60, If your beliefs are based on faith alone as you stated, then what's the point of my presenting an argument? You're the one with the ex nihilo axiom, so either provide logical, historical, or empirical support for your faith. It's not up to me or anyone else here to disprove your faith, nor will anyone be able to do so unless they can displace your faith with another faith that has more logical, historical, or empirical support behind it. If you have no support behind your axiomatic faith (besides a sort of "prove me wrong"), then *any* other faith whatsoever is at least equal to if not more compelling than MRT. -Q Querius

WJM

Tell me what non-experience is like, then.

If you were to say that you experienced me praising your theory and going on television to proclaim it to the applause of the world, I would know that you are lying or delusional. Because that is a not an experience that anyone could have in reality. One could hallucinate, dream or imagine but that's different than experiencing (witnessing) in reality. More significantly, if you said that you experienced in reality watching me murder your parents, again I would know you are lying or delusional because that is a non-experience. That's the difference between experience and non-experience. It's a significant part of our judicial system. If a person says that he saw something, he has to mean that he saw it and not imagined or dreamed it.

Or non-existence.

We experience the non-existence of many things. It's hot and I want to go swimming. But there is a non-existent pool so I can't do it. I experienced the non-existence of the pool and remained hot. Silver Asiatic

WJM

Do you want to argue IRT/MRT or not?

I would think that this topic is going to just play itself out eventually. You don't seem to be adding much new to the understanding of this. In the end I don't think this topic is doing much at all for ID. The good thing is that you're willing to argue and dialogue and that's keeping conversation alive. But if you're willing to say that God Himself couldn't prove to you that you're mistaken, or that He couldn't give conclusive, irrefutable evidence that He exists as your Creator, an independent Being who is not a mental projection ... then I can't understand your views and they don't resonate at all with the truth as I see it. Silver Asiatic

KF keeps doing exactly what I predicted he will do, and refuses to take up my challenge in good faith. William J Murray

WJM, I do not concede your strawman caricature and have pointed out two key correctives. First, the timeline of the one and the many problem, antecedent to any Western worldviews. Second, we can readily differentiate between dreams, visions, simulations and waking reality: stop breathing for one hour, and see the consequences, though of course I do not recommend actually doing this. It is clear that the arguments you have been raising do in fact fail the one and many test and fail the breath test. KF kairosfocus

SA said:

We cannot speak about experience if we do not have a category for non-experience. If everything is experience, then the term is meaningless. It cannot be defined.

Tell me what non-experience is like, then. Or non-existence.

So, you position yourself as knowing what “all ontologies” are.

No, I position myself as knowing the definition of ontology. William J Murray

You’re assuming that God does not exist, or that if He does, He lacks the power to prove His Being as distinct from our own.

No, I"m not.

You rightly speak of the necessity of faith. But there’s good reason to put faith in the idea that God actually created the universe and created each person – in reality, not just as mental structures.

There's good reasons to believe all sorts of things. So? Do you want to argue IRT/MRT or not? William J Murray

LCD said:

To do science first condition is to accept there is an outside world to be studied . To bring science in your help it’s a contradiction because your theory first denies science and then you bring science as “evidence”.

All untrue. You don't have to accept there is an extra-mental world to do science. Science is at it's root finding patterns and developing theories about the nature of mutually verifiable and repeatable experiences. As long as MRT/IRT accounts for the existence of mutually verifiable, repeatable phenomena in our experiences, no extra-mental world is required. William J Murray

WJM

IRT/MRT accepts this; ERT is a theory about something you can never, even in principle, validate, prove, or even acquire evidence for.

You're assuming that God does not exist, or that if He does, He lacks the power to prove His Being as distinct from our own. You rightly speak of the necessity of faith. But there's good reason to put faith in the idea that God actually created the universe and created each person - in reality, not just as mental structures. Silver Asiatic

William J Murray The reason we need to begin at the premise is because people (KF, etc) tend to argue against MRT/IRT from an entirely different ontological perspective. Agreeing on the premise helps to keep the argument within the entailments and descriptions offered by the theory, so it can be criticized and judged internally on it’s own merit within the logic that proceeds from the premise.

Your theory denies outside world and common sense. To do science first condition is to accept there is an outside world to be studied . To bring science in your help it's a contradiction because your theory first denies science and then you bring science as "evidence". Lieutenant Commander Data

SA said:

See #56. It’s not possible. A monism is an incoherent concept – as explained. Even the terminology refutes itself. “A monism” – uses the article (“A”) to create and separate an entity. But monism cannot have entities to which it can be compared.

You're right in that an actual existent monism cannot be compared to an an actual existent dualism or a different, actual existent monism because those other things would not actually exist. But, that's not what we're doing. We're comparing concepts. The concept of a dualistic existence can be compared to the concept of a monistic existence. That's what is going on here. As I demonstrated here: https://uncommondesc.wpengine.com/intelligent-design/mental-reality-theory-vs-external-reality-theory-checkmate/ All experience occurs in mind. All arguments about concepts of what that experience represents occur in mind. The logic we use to evaluate and compare those concepts exists in mind. The idea that a world external of mind exists is a concept held in mind. IRT/MRT accepts this; ERT is a theory about something you can never, even in principle, validate, prove, or even acquire evidence for. If you want to claim knowledge of an external world or validate it, guess what? You'll have to go outside of your own mental experience to do that. Good luck with that. William J Murray

WJM

This is the same as saying that one cannot say what experience is, or make statements about it, or develop a theory about it, without “getting outside of experience” or experiencing non-experience. That’s nonsense.

We cannot speak about experience if we do not have a category for non-experience. If everything is experience, then the term is meaningless. It cannot be defined.

All ontologies make statements about the nature of existence without looking at existence “from the outside.”

You just made a statement there by adopting a position "outside". You state "all ontologies". So, you position yourself as knowing what "all ontologies" are. You draw a circle around all ontologies - create a set of things called "all ontologies" and then talk about it. In creating a boundary to the set - by defining it, you created something "outside the set". That's a dualistic approach. There's "all ontologies" and then everything that is "not in the set of all ontologies" (outside). The same with mental monism. To define it is to create what is "outside of it", thus denying that there is a monism. Silver Asiatic

I'll even help out if anyone wants to argue that IRT/MRT is impossible. Pick an experience that cannot be had under IRT, and explain why it cannot be had under the the premise. William J Murray

WJM

Premise: A mental monism that produces or provides for all of our current experiences, including the categorical experience of physical embodiment and a physical environment (along with all other categories of experience, such as logic, dreams, imagination, etc.) ... you can explain why the premise is not a possibility ...

See #56. It's not possible. A monism is an incoherent concept - as explained. Even the terminology refutes itself. "A monism" - uses the article ("A") to create and separate an entity. But monism cannot have entities to which it can be compared. If it did, then it wouldn't be monism. It would be "a mental monism" plus whatever else exists by which we are able to understand (categorize, establish, boundary, set apart) what "a monism" is and therefore something other than the mental monism would necessarily have to exist. Something "outside" the system provides its definition and boundary. So, the concept is irrational. Silver Asiatic

Now, either agree to the premise arguendo, make your case that it is impossible, or refuse to take up he debate. Otherwise, you're not engaging in a good faith debate. That includes anyone who wishes to try. William J Murray

Silver Asiatic @56 said:

The statement “everything is mind” is a contradiction. In order to make a summary statement about “everything”, one must have a view outside of “everything’ in order to summarize it. One must be able to compare mind with non-mind in order to identify what it is.

This is the same as saying that one cannot say what experience is, or make statements about it, or develop a theory about it, without "getting outside of experience" or experiencing non-experience. That's nonsense. All ontologies make statements about the nature of existence without looking at existence "from the outside." William J Murray

The reason we need to begin at the premise is because people (KF, etc) tend to argue against MRT/IRT from an entirely different ontological perspective. Agreeing on the premise helps to keep the argument within the entailments and descriptions offered by the theory, so it can be criticized and judged internally on it's own merit within the logic that proceeds from the premise. William J Murray

Silver Asiatic: Begin by responding to the premise question I asked KF. KF: You're not engaging in a good faith argument until we agree on the premise. The premise can be found at #34 and #52. William J Murray

Q, if you would like to engage the premise and make an argument (including copying/pasting other people's arguments about it,) you can begin by responding to the premise. Do you agree, at least arguendo, that it is possible for a mental monism to produce all of our experiences? The argument must proceed from an established premise. William J Murray

I’d also assume that while Silver Asiatic provided some logic that demonstrates mental monisms to be irrational, you’ll also wave his reasoning off with a statement of faith.

Nobody knows whether or not other people are sentient, self-aware, conscious beings. They act like it and talk like it, but you cannot know because experience is subjective (personal) in nature. There's just no way to prove it. Under MRT/IRT, however, one of the entailments of the theory is that potential = actuality. If the potential exists for other self-aware beings, they exist. The potential obviously exists, therefore other conscious, self-aware beings exist. William J Murray

William J Murray @53, In your link, you stated that

In any coherent existential theory, the only bulwark against solipsism is faith; that that other actual individuals with free will and their own mental experience exist. All any theory has to do to avoid this is to simply provide a reasonable model that allows for the existence of other conscious, free will people, and faith that this is so does the rest of the work.

I also thought you received cogent replies and challenges from Sandy, EDTA, and others. You summed it up in your final response indicating that the solipsism objections were ultimately addressed by "faith" in MRT. I suppose the linked thread addresses my question of how to MRT can be differentiated from the possibility of solipsism--your answer seems to be faith. I'd also assume that while Silver Asiatic provided some logic that demonstrates mental monisms to be irrational, you'll also wave his reasoning off with a statement of faith. So, how is your faith in MRT justified? Is it simply an ex nihilo axiom? Before you resort to QM, consider that while it's now believed that quantum tunneling is responsible for fusion in the sun, I'm sure that you're not asserting that the sun shines for some people and not for others in the same location, right? No pizza jokes, please. -Q Querius

WJM, the strawman fails. What part of Thales on the dock in Miletus BEFORE any particular western worldview was elaborated, pondering the one and the many did you fail to register, why? Worldviews need to answer to the problem, which is not internal to them, simply on timeline. Worldviews that self-referentially undermine our rational, responsible, morally governed freedom fail at outset. And that not only includes materialistic computationalism but the delusional import of idealist themes that -- whether you acknowledge it or not -- turn the first facts of our self-awareness into a delusion. If you doubt the relevance work through the difference between ceasing to breathe for an hour in a dream world or vision and the same in embodied real life. The literally vital difference is decisive and compelling, to the point that I do not recommend practically doing the exercise. KF kairosfocus

WJM I will give an attempt. Proposal: “all mental monisms discredit rationality”. I would take it farther that, they are all irrational. 1. The statement "everything is mind" is a contradiction. In order to make a summary statement about "everything", one must have a view outside of "everything' in order to summarize it. One must be able to compare mind with non-mind in order to identify what it is. Once there is a view that puts "everything" into a category or set, then there's a distinction between mind and non-mind creating the boundary of the set called "everything". Thus, this is not monism. Claiming that it is would be irrational in itself. All you could do is say that you don't know. Monism tells you something and there's no good reason to talk about it since you can't or don't need to know if it is true, false, valuable or useless. 2.

The way ERT advocates deal with the problem of delusion is by asserting there is an objective world outside of mind that gives us an external, consistent reference point across individual perspectives.

It's not just ERT advocates that require an objective, real-world validator - but human reason itself requires that. Without a real world validation or reference, then there is no rationality - thus, monism is irrational. You made that clear:

What we commonly call a “delusion” would be individual (or small group) deviations from “universal” shared experiences. That doesn’t make that experience “not real;” it just makes it not part of the “universal” shared experience. It’s a different category of mental experience.

In bold - delusions are as real as any other idea. So, that which is false is equally as real as what is true. The statement "I exist" is not more true that "I do not exist". Both are just informational statements produced and directed somehow to consciousness. If there is no distinction in reality between truth and falsehood, and there couldn't be in a monist system, then there can be no rational thought. We could say that a universal mind creates the illusion of rational thought, but an "illusory rationality" is in itself irrational. If the "real" answer to what is 2 + 2 is "anything at all", then this is illogical. In monism there is just "is". One cannot even know what "everything is" since there is no boundary between everything and non-everything (as point one about indicates). 3. Illusion presupposes reality. As above, in any monist system, one cannot compare illusion and real - therefore, neither can exist. The best you could say is "something exists" but you would not know how to identify it. You could say "an idea was put into my mind about reality but I cannot know if it is true or false". However, in all of your arguments you continually refer to what is real and what is valid. That is not a monist system. Nor do you say (that I have seen) "none of my ideas are based on reality but are the same as any illusion or falsehood". That would be a lack of commitment to your own worldview. The idealist reality theory is basically the same as materialism. All of the problems in saying "everything is matter" appear in saying "everything is mind (or anything)". For materialist monism there is just "is". There can be nothing outside of material. That's irrational because material cannot create itself, and material has boundaries. But even so, it would be impossible to know what material is without an understanding of non-material. If one can understand "non-material", then this is not a monist system. In the same way, one cannot know what illusion is if everything is illusion. There must be the concept of real. If real and illusion are the same thing (as in your view) but just majority vs minority view, then even the distinction made there is a false one. To say that the difference between false and true is actually a false one - is incoherent and irrational. Truth relates to reality. Error relates to non-existence or unreality. Error exists. To deny that is to be contradictory and irrational. But that's what IRT does - it says that the statement "Falsehood exists" is false. That's illogical. Thus, monism is self-evidently false. A dualist system of theism, for example, avoids this because one can speak of God and created things. Silver Asiatic

Note that KF has done exactly what I predicted at the bottom of my comment i#52:

I predict he will not do it. Instead, he will continue to issue forth canned statements from his own ontological perspective as if his ontology is a valid basis to evaluate all other ontologies.

He, as predicted, refuses to enter a good faith debate beginning with the stated premise by appropriately responding to the premise itself as I outlined:

Premise: A mental monism that produces or provides for all of our current experiences, including the categorical experience of physical embodiment and a physical environment (along with all other categories of experience, such as logic, dreams, imagination, etc.) KF, you can either agree with that premise as a possibility, and we continue; you can agree arguendo and we can continue; you can explain why the premise is not a possibility; or you can refuse to take up the challenge.

KF refuses to take up the challenge. William J Murray

WJM, no, I gave an adequate, though outline response as to why monisms fail to address adequately the diversity within the human being, per first facts of self-awareness, an embodied cybernetic entity with mind serving as in effect an oracle and supervisor. Materialistic views cannot account for freedom to think rationally and idealistic reductions to one mental substance, end in self-referential grand delusion thus discredit of contents, perceptions and reasonings of mind. Whether that is palatable or not, it is a valid answer. The human being is a microcosm of the one and many core challenge of philosophy and that challenge calls for solutions that give a unified reality [not a chaos] with room for diverse substances and for responsible, rational, morally governed freedom. The problem is antecedent to Western philosophy, indeed, it seems to be a root problem pondered by Thales sitting on the docks at Miletus. It is not bound to any account of the nature of reality, it poses the comparative difficulties challenge that all must answer to, on pain of self-referential collapse of responsible rational freedom. KF kairosfocus

Q said:

William J Murray simply retreats into fatuous responses rather than seriously considering a challenge to his position.

If this is in regard to the pizza joke, i have addressed solipsism several times here, in depth, including: https://uncommondesc.wpengine.com/intelligent-design/the-boy-who-cried-solipsism-the-mrt-delusion-objection-is-unfounded/ I have repeatedly said that under my MRT/IRT all potential conscious beings necessarily exist. That's hardly solipsistic. William J Murray

KF @47: So, KF has backed out of supporting his claim that ALL monisms fail because he refuses to address whether or not he accepts the monism premise I offered in #34 for debate. To be clear, @14 KF made the following claim:

Monisms all end in self-referential absurdity, undermining credibility of reason.

@15 I challenged KF to make his case for that claim:

I challenge you to put your money where your mouth is. Start a post and title it “All Monisms Are Self-Referentially Absurd.” Begin with a definition of “self-referentially absurd.” Make your case. Let’s see how it holds up.

@16, I added:

Also, you might want to define what you mean by “Monism.” Just to get the basic definitions out of the way.

This is how a good faith begins and should proceed: a proposition, and defining the terms of the claim so there is clarity about what is being said. KF @18:

As for the monist idealist, s/he then faces the first fact of self-aware consciousness, physical embodiment in a physical world, leading to implied grand delusion, thus self-referential self-defeat through rendering mind dubious. We need instead a unified view that can handle unity and diversity in all its guises.

The problem here is obvious, and I have pointed this out several times. His particular ontology is dualistic and he interprets the experience of physicality as evidence for duality, and then insists that all other perspectives fail because they do not interpret that experience the same way his dualistic ontology does. KF considers it a "discredit of rational thinking leading to grand delusion" to interpret the fact of physical experience as anything other than dualism. After some back and forth where I tried to point out that this was not a good faith argument about how "all monisms discredit rationality," (it uses the conclusions of one ontology to evaluate another,) I decided the best good faith way forward was to challenge his assertion with a particular monistic premise.

Premise: A mental monism that produces or provides for all of our current experiences, including the categorical experience of physical embodiment and a physical environment (along with all other categories of experience, such as logic, dreams, imagination, etc.) KF, you can either agree with that premise as a possibility, and we continue; you can agree arguendo and we can continue; you can explain why the premise is not a possibility; or you can refuse to take up the challenge. If you agree to the premise of the mental monism challenge at least arguendo, this removes other ontological interpretations of physical experience from the discussion, and we can proceed with your objection that the premised mental monism fails by discrediting rationality.

KF has thus far refused to engage in a good faith debate about this premise, which must begin with addressing the premise itself in the way I described above. At this point I'm not even asking that he make his case against "all mental monisms;" all he has to do is make his case against one particular mental monism. IMO, the reason KF refuses to do this is because he knows his only argument against mental monism comes from his dualistic interpretation of the experience of physicality. Absent that, he has no valid argument. He knows he cannot reject the premise on grounds that it is "not possible," because in prior threads he has admitted it is possible and rejected it because it "discredits rationality," which circles back to his dualistic interpretation of physical experience. If he were to reject it as "not possible" he'd have to make the case it is "not possible," and he knows he cannot make that case. If he accepts the premise arguendo, he knows he cannot argue from his dualistic "first fact" interpretation of physical experience, and that is the only argument he has against the premise (that I've seen thus far, anyway.) He would have to argue from the premise and the entailments of the premise itself - which is how a good faith argument about any premise continues after the acceptance of the premise. So, KF has backed out of supporting his assertion that "all mental monisms discredit rationality," even though I've limited his burden to support that claim to a single mental monism by presenting a specific premise for a specific mental monism - the one I would defend, if he would but agree to argue from that premise in good faith. I predict he will not do it. Instead, he will continue to issue forth canned statements from his own ontological perspective as if his ontology is a valid basis to evaluate all other ontologies. William J Murray

Bornagain77 @49, Haha! And after René Descartes made his famous assertion, Cogito ergo sum, he realized that thoughtlessness was an existential threat! -Q Querius

Zweston @48, William Lane Craig handles Alex's speculation brilliantly--and Alex is both intelligent enough and honest enough to recognize where the logic (and concomitant price tag) leads. In contrast, William J Murray simply retreats into fatuous responses rather than seriously considering a challenge to his position. What William Lane Craig might also have introduced is that for anything to "pop into existence" (even probabilistically)--observable or not--requires TIME to exist. Non-existence cannot assume that space-time exists for anything to happen within it. Even TIME cannot simply pop into existence as we are assuming that there was a time where it didn't exist. Genesis starts out with "In the beginning (TIME), God (efficient cause) created the heaven (SPACE) and the earth (MASS-ENERGY)." The Gospel of John starts out, "In the beginning was the Word (Gr. logos) and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." Logos is defined in Strong's as

3056 lógos (from 3004 /lég?, "speaking to a conclusion") – a word, being the expression of a thought; a saying. 3056 /lógos ("word") is preeminently used of Christ (Jn 1:1), expressing the thoughts of the Father through the Spirit. [3056 (lógos) is a common term (used 330 times in the NT) with regards to a person sharing a message (discourse, "communication-speech"). 3056 (lógos) is a broad term meaning "reasoning expressed by words."]

Logos is where we get the word, LOGIC from and implies intelligence, purpose, information, and consciousness. William Lane Craig could also have asked Alex whether consciousness is an innate property of matter that emerges somehow in sufficiently complex arrangements of matter and why. Thanks for sharing the clip. -Q Querius

Querius at 42: Sheldon tells a joke #1 (The Big Bang Theory) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o4eO7SIZ45Y Sheldon tells a joke #2 (The Big Bang Theory) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M3isrIwVckM bornagain77

This mini clip of a conversation between "Cosmic Skeptic" and William Lane Craig is I think edifying regarding the emergence of something from nothing and the intellectual cost of atheism. Overall, the behavior of the two participants is really admirable and useful contrary to most conversations like them. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pmWgdUAivsM zweston

WJM, already sufficiently answered. KF kairosfocus

WJM, seeing as you are the one claiming that you can create universes, with "No “super-intelligence” required", I figure you making yourself grow taller or shorter should be a piece of cake for you. (I backed off asking you to change a universal constant since I didn't want you to accidentally blow the universe up with us in it,, :) And please tell me, since we are on the subject of you wanting to do God's job for Him, how hard was it for you to create your very own 'beyond belief' brain? Was it, or Would it be, harder or simpler than you making yourself grow taller or shorter? :)

The Human Brain Is 'Beyond Belief' by Jeffrey P. Tomkins, Ph.D. * - 2017 Excerpt: The human brain,, is an engineering marvel that evokes comments from researchers like “beyond anything they’d imagined, almost to the point of being beyond belief”1 and “a world we had never imagined.”2,,, Perfect Optimization The scientists found that at multiple hierarchical levels in the whole brain, nerve cell clusters (ganglion), and even at the individual cell level, the positioning of neural units achieved a goal that human engineers strive for but find difficult to achieve—the perfect minimizing of connection costs among all the system’s components.,,, Vast Computational Power Researchers discovered that a single synapse is like a computer’s microprocessor containing both memory-storage and information-processing features.,,, Just one synapse alone can contain about 1,000 molecular-scale microprocessor units acting in a quantum computing environment. An average healthy human brain contains some 200 billion nerve cells connected to one another through hundreds of trillions of synapses. To put this in perspective, one of the researchers revealed that the study’s results showed a single human brain has more information processing units than all the computers, routers, and Internet connections on Earth.1,,, Phenomenal Processing Speed the processing speed of the brain had been greatly underrated. In a new research study, scientists found the brain is 10 times more active than previously believed.6,7,,, The large number of dendritic spikes also means the brain has more than 100 times the computational capabilities than was previously believed.,,, Petabyte-Level Memory Capacity Our new measurements of the brain’s memory capacity increase conservative estimates by a factor of 10 to at least a petabyte, in the same ballpark as the World Wide Web.9,,, Optimal Energy Efficiency Stanford scientist who is helping develop computer brains for robots calculated that a computer processor functioning with the computational capacity of the human brain would require at least 10 megawatts to operate properly. This is comparable to the output of a small hydroelectric power plant. As amazing as it may seem, the human brain requires only about 10 watts to function.11 ,,, Multidimensional Processing It is as if the brain reacts to a stimulus by building then razing a tower of multi-dimensional blocks, starting with rods (1D), then planks (2D), then cubes (3D), and then more complex geometries with 4D, 5D, etc. The progression of activity through the brain resembles a multi-dimensional sandcastle that materializes out of the sand and then disintegrates.13 He also said: We found a world that we had never imagined. There are tens of millions of these objects even in a small speck of the brain, up through seven dimensions. In some networks, we even found structures with up to eleven dimensions.13,,, Biophoton Brain Communication Neurons contain many light-sensitive molecules such as porphyrin rings, flavinic, pyridinic rings, lipid chromophores, and aromatic amino acids. Even the mitochondria machines that produce energy inside cells contain several different light-responsive molecules called chromophores. This research suggests that light channeled by filamentous cellular structures called microtubules plays an important role in helping to coordinate activities in different regions of the brain.,,, https://www.icr.org/article/10186

bornagain77

Q asks:

How is your theory differentiable from solipsism?

The pizza tastes better in my theory. William J Murray

KF, waiting on you going to respond to #34. William J Murray

Yet, contrary to what WJM claimed, the finely tuned laws are not derived from the math.

WJM never claimed they were.

WJM punts as to answering if he has ever personally done it, and then links to a google list of various other people claiming to have willed themselves to grow taller.,

If you're going to discount testimony, why ask for it? I'm over 6' tall, so no, I've never tried to make myself taller. It's never occurred to me to try to make myself taller. Are you a shorter person who always wanted to be taller? I ask that because I found that particular challenge petty bizarre in terms of something you think I would have already tried to do. I have conducted other successful experiments, but again, if you're going to discount testimony, why bother asking for it? William J Murray

Dang, I thought my noticing him would cause his wavefunction to collapse and he would reappear asking me what *my* definition of solopsism is. Or maybe I have it backwards. By him not responding would result in my decoherence and I would cease to exist and simply vanish into a sea of probability waves! If I even exist, I'll have to think about it some more. (smile) -Q Querius

Anyone who responds to Murray as if he is serious has fallen into the trap. Little if anything he says is serious so it is those who respond who are mainly responsible for his ongoing nonsense. He doesn’t believe any of it. jerry

I guess I forgot to observe William J Murray and he ceased to exist. Sorry, William. -Q Querius

William J Murray @37, The Wigner's Friend paradox seems to indicate serial entanglement, first of the observerA-photon system and then of the observerB(observerA-photon system) system. How is your theory differentiable from solopsism? -Q Querius

WJM states, "It doesn’t care." Right, It can't 'care' WJM then states, "The “collapse” only occurs in the experience of the observer, as demonstrated in recent experiments." And what in blue blazes does Wigner's friend experiment have to do with the fact that 'infinite potential' "doesn't care"? WJM then states, a “physical law” is a euphemism for the mathematically predictable behavior of phenomena we experience. Yet, contrary to what WJM claimed, the finely tuned laws are not derived from the math. As Luke Barnes stated, "to make these predictions, we have to plug in some numbers that cannot themselves be calculated but are derived from measurements of some of the most basic features of the physical universe" Hence these finely tuned laws, since they do not arise from the math, must arise from elsewhere. i.e. The Mind of God.

The Fine-Tuning of Nature’s Laws - Luke A. Barnes - Fall 2015 Excerpt: Today, our deepest understanding of the laws of nature is summarized in a set of equations. Using these equations, we can make very precise calculations of the most elementary physical phenomena, calculations that are confirmed by experimental evidence. But to make these predictions, we have to plug in some numbers that cannot themselves be calculated but are derived from measurements of some of the most basic features of the physical universe. These numbers specify such crucial quantities as the masses of fundamental particles and the strengths of their mutual interactions. After extensive experiments under all manner of conditions, physicists have found that these numbers appear not to change in different times and places, so they are called the fundamental constants of nature. These constants represent the edge of our knowledge. Richard Feynman called one of them — the fine-structure constant, which characterizes the amount of electromagnetic force between charged elementary particles like electrons — “one of the greatest damn mysteries of physics: a magic number that comes to us with no understanding by man.” An innovative, elegant physical theory that actually predicts the values of these constants would be among the greatest achievements of twenty-first-century physics. Many have tried and failed. ,,, Tweaking the Constants Let’s consider a few examples of the many and varied consequences of messing with the fundamental constants of nature, the initial conditions of the universe, and the mathematical form of the laws themselves. You are made of cells; cells are made of molecules; molecules of atoms; and atoms of protons, neutrons, and electrons. Protons and neutrons, in turn, are made of quarks. We have not seen any evidence that electrons and quarks are made of anything more fundamental (though other fundamental particles, like the Higgs boson of recent fame, have also been discovered in addition to quarks and electrons). The results of all our investigations into the fundamental building blocks of matter and energy are summarized in the Standard Model of particle physics, which is essentially one long, imposing equation. Within this equation, there are twenty-six constants, describing the masses of the fifteen fundamental particles, along with values needed for calculating the forces between them, and a few others. We have measured the mass of an electron to be about 9.1 x 10^-28 grams, which is really very small — if each electron in an apple weighed as much as a grain of sand, the apple would weigh more than Mount Everest. The other two fundamental constituents of atoms, the up and down quarks, are a bit bigger, coming in at 4.1 x 10^-27 and 8.6 x 10^-27 grams, respectively. These numbers, relative to each other and to the other constants of the Standard Model, are a mystery to physics. Like the fine-structure constant, we don’t know why they are what they are. However, we can calculate all the ways the universe could be disastrously ill-suited for life if the masses of these particles were different. For example, if the down quark’s mass were 2.6 x 10^-26 grams or more, then adios, periodic table! There would be just one chemical element and no chemical compounds, in stark contrast to the approximately 60 million known chemical compounds in our universe. With even smaller adjustments to these masses, we can make universes in which the only stable element is hydrogen-like. Once again, kiss your chemistry textbook goodbye, as we would be left with one type of atom and one chemical reaction. If the up quark weighed 2.4 x 10^-26 grams, things would be even worse — a universe of only neutrons, with no elements, no atoms, and no chemistry whatsoever. ,,, Compared to the range of possible masses that the particles described by the Standard Model could have, the range that avoids these kinds of complexity-obliterating disasters is extremely small. Imagine a huge chalkboard, with each point on the board representing a possible value for the up and down quark masses. If we wanted to color the parts of the board that support the chemistry that underpins life, and have our handiwork visible to the human eye, the chalkboard would have to be about ten light years (a hundred trillion kilometers) high.,,, http://www.thenewatlantis.com/publications/the-fine-tuning-of-natures-laws

WJM then referenced, "How Does Focused Attention Interact with Light?", yet WJM forgot to mention that the results from that experiment (from Dean Radin) were far from conclusive. In fact, if I recall correctly, the results did not even reach the Sigma 5 threshold for deviation from random. I remember very well holding out much hope for these experiments, but then being very disappointed in how weak the results actually were. Lastly, I asked WJM , "can you, merely by taking thought, add one cubit to your stature?" WJM punts as to answering if he has ever personally done it, and then links to a google list of various other people claiming to have willed themselves to grow taller., First link stated, "I grew 8 inches in two months at the age of 17." https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1Eboe5YJRpDxe8H46Dj-SCk7ICZeXbAax Well golly gee whiz, I might as well list National Enquirer as a reliable source from now on! :) After I stop laughing at how gullible WJM apparently is, perhaps WJM can forgive me when I point out that his list is a very long way from being scientific. In short, WJM you got nothing but your own imagination and your own self-deceptive word play to support your insane belief that you can be better at God's job than God is. As I said before WJM, I suggest that you humble your grandiose delusions about your own ability to 'create universes' and let God be God. He might be better at being God than you are. After all, He has being doing that God thing, like, forever. :) bornagain77

BA77 said:

In your supposed ‘explanation’, an adequate cause and effect relationship for explaining quantum wave collapse is thrown completely out the window with your hand-waving term “infinite potential”. i.e. Why should this ‘infinite potential’ of a infinite dimensional, infinite information, quantum wave state, even care about how I, via the free will of my own immaterial mind, choose to measure?

It doesn't care. The "collapse" only occurs in the experience of the observer, as demonstrated in recent experiments. From https://www.technologyreview.com/2019/03/12/136684/a-quantum-experiment-suggests-theres-no-such-thing-as-objective-reality/

They use these six entangled photons to create two alternate realities—one representing Wigner and one representing Wigner’s friend. Wigner’s friend measures the polarization of a photon and stores the result. Wigner then performs an interference measurement to determine if the measurement and the photon are in a superposition. The experiment produces an unambiguous result. It turns out that both realities can coexist even though they produce irreconcilable outcomes, just as Wigner predicted.

BA77 said:

As far as I can tell, your supposed explanation for fine-tuning, is not even in the ballpark of being scientifically testable. i.e. For instance, aside from your own imagination, have you yourself ever personally changed a finely tuned law of nature? Even a little bit? i.e. Did you change the fine-tuning of gravity from 10^40, to 10^39 or to 10^41?

First, a "physical law" is a euphemism for the mathematically predictable behavior of phenomena we experience. This brings into question, what would your challenge of changing that behavior entail? How would we construct a proper scientific experiment to test those entailments? In light of my link above about an experiment that disproves the idea of an "objective reality" in terms of experiences of physical and/or energetic phenomena, and in light of what "physical laws" actually are (mathematical representations of the experienced behavioral pattern of phenomena,) my "changing the physical law" would only be applicable "in the experience of the observer." IOW, I can't "change the law" or, more directly, change the pattern of behavior that all other people experience because that is locally determined by consciousness. So, the real question here is, can I mentally change the behavior of physical/energetic phenomena locally to deviate from the pattern described by the "physical law" math? Can this be demonstrated scientifically? Yes. It has been done and verified many times in many experiments. Here's a link to one set of such experiments: https://noetic.org/blog/how-does-focused-attention-interact-with-light/ Deviations from mathematically described expected behaviors of physical phenomena ("physical laws") can be achieved via focused attention. No "super-intelligence" required.

WJM, until you can do something as simple as willing yourself to be taller or shorter, I suggest that you humble your grandiose delusions about your own ability to create universes and let God be God.

What does physical height have to do with changing the behavior of otherwise mathematically predictable patterns of physical/energetic phenomena with thought? I'm sure you are aware of the placebo effect, and you are probably aware of the great effect of mind when it comes to our physical body. Do you think nobody has done this? Here is a link to dozens of testimonials from people who used thought change their bodies in significant ways, including increasing their height. https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1Eboe5YJRpDxe8H46Dj-SCk7ICZeXbAax No "super-intelligence" required. William J Murray

WJM, your 'clarification' for quantum wave collapse, to put it mildly, lacks much to be desired. In your supposed 'explanation', an adequate cause and effect relationship for explaining quantum wave collapse is thrown completely out the window with your hand-waving term "infinite potential". i.e. Why should this 'infinite potential' of a infinite dimensional, infinite information, quantum wave state, even care about how I, via the free will of my own immaterial mind, choose to measure? It takes a Mind to know and care what other minds may or may not do. A Mindless, and therefore by definition 'unaware', infinite potential cannot possibly know or care what I may or may not choose to do in my measurements. There are many such examples of you throwing such hand-wavy terms around when you want to avoid God as an explanation For instance, and to repeat, you stated that “No need to invoke “God” as a super-intelligent designer when logic and math as innate, necessary guiding qualities of experience do all the high-resolution fine tuning automatically.” Sorry WJM, but this is just plain friggin incoherent word salad dressed up to look like it has semblance of sanity. As far as I can tell, your supposed explanation for fine-tuning, is not even in the ballpark of being scientifically testable. i.e. For instance, aside from your own imagination, have you yourself ever personally changed a finely tuned law of nature? Even a little bit? i.e. Did you change the fine-tuning of gravity from 10^40, to 10^39 or to 10^41? Or to make the scientific test of your supposed scientific theory even simpler for you, (and since you have dared put yourself in the place of God), can you, merely by taking thought, add one cubit to your stature?

Matthew 6:27 Which of you by taking thought can add one cubit unto his stature?

WJM, until you can do something as simple as willing yourself to be taller or shorter, I suggest that you humble your grandiose delusions about your own ability to create universes and let God be God. After all, if I recall correctly, someone else also once thought that he could do God's job better than God could do it. Needless to say, it did not end well for him.

Isaiah 14:13-15 You said in your heart, "I will ascend to heaven; I will raise my throne above the stars of God; I will sit enthroned on the mount of assembly, on the utmost heights of the sacred mountain. I will ascend above the tops of the clouds; I will make myself like the Most High." But you are brought down to the grave, to the depths of the pit.

bornagain77

BA77 said:

One wonders, (since WJM holds that there is “No need to invoke “God”),

That's not what I said. I said:

“No need to invoke “God” as a super-intelligent designer when logic and math as innate, necessary guiding qualities of experience do all the high-resolution fine tuning automatically.”

The quality of "super-intelligence" (of God or any other being) doesn't need to be invoked because logic and math are not things even God can "create," they are unavoidable, necessary, existential qualities that undergird and allow all possible sentient experience on both the experienced and experiencer sides of the equation. I didn't say "God" doesn't have to be invoked at all, for anything.

where all this innate logic and math, (that he holds are, as ‘qualities of experience’, doing all this “high-resolution fine tuning automatically”), come from?

See above. Even God cannot violate logic and math.

But alas, like the question of where WJM’s own mind came from, and since WJM has rejected God,

. That never happened.

we are left WJM claiming that his own mind, with its ‘innate’ ability for logic and math, has always existed,, forever and ever.

I refer you back to a link I provided previously: https://quantumgravityresearch.org/ and their theory, which a good way to frame this. What we perceive as the past (or the future) is analogous to different locations that all simultaneously exist in the "meta-now" of a higher-dimensional framework. In that sense, my conscious mind in my particular, perceived location has, in fact, always existed at this location.

To more clearly demonstrate WJM’s severe confusion between mere perception of the universe and outright creation of the entire universe, it is importation to look at quantum wave collapse.

You are taking my use of the word "creating" here out of the context of years of explanation and description. As I've said before, all possible things always exist (refer to that link I provided.) I've often used the terms "creating reality," or "moving our experience into different realities," etc. I'm "creating" my personal "reality experience" by moving through reality potentials that already exist, via a mixture of deliberate and subconscious factors. Obviously, I did not create "all that exists." Nobody did. All that exists exists because logically it must. There's a whole logical argument about that. Collectively, "all that exists" is well-labeled, IMO, as God.

Before we choose, via our free will, how and what to measure, and/or how and what to perceive, (and therefore prior to the quantum wave collapsing to a single bit state), the quantum wave of the photon and/or subatomic particle is, mathematically, held to exist in an ‘infinite dimensional’ state,

This is perfectly in line with MRT, and infinite potential that is rendered as a particular state by conscious observation.

As should be needless to say, this presents are insurmountable difficulty for WJM who has rejected God and presented himself as “creating the universe”.

Only, I never said the former and the latter is completely out of context of the full weight of my arguments for and descriptions of MRT. William J Murray

Let me try this from a different angle. KF, you have said that all monisms fail due to the discredit of rationality. Premise: A mental monism that produces or provides for all of our current experiences, including the categorical experience of physical embodiment and a physical environment (along with all other categories of experience, such as logic, dreams, imagination, etc.) KF, you can either agree with that premise as a possibility, and we continue; you can agree arguendo and we can continue; you can explain why the premise is not a possibility; or you can refuse to take up the challenge. If you agree to the premise of the mental monism challenge at least arguendo, this removes other ontological interpretations of physical experience from the discussion, and we can proceed with your objection that the premised mental monism fails by discrediting rationality. William J Murray

In this thread WJM has claimed,

“No need to invoke “God” as a super-intelligent designer when logic and math as innate, necessary guiding qualities of experience do all the high-resolution fine tuning automatically.” in·nate adjective: innate inborn; natural. "her innate capacity for organization"

One wonders, (since WJM holds that there is “No need to invoke “God”), where all this innate logic and math, (that he holds are, as 'qualities of experience', doing all this "high-resolution fine tuning automatically"), come from? But alas, like the question of where WJM's own mind came from, and since WJM has rejected God, we are left WJM claiming that his own mind, with its 'innate' ability for logic and math, has always existed,, forever and ever. HMMM,,, Something tells me that WJM has not quite worked out all the details of his MRT, IRT, (or whatever he is calling his theory this week).

Is God Real? Evidence from the Laws of Logic - J. Warner Wallace Excerpt: The Objective Laws of Logic Pre-Existed Mankind The transcendent and timeless nature of logical laws indicates they precede our existence or ability to recognize them. Even before humans were able to understand the law of non-contradiction, “A” could not have been “Non-A”. The Laws of Logic were discovered by humans, not created by humans. (2) All Conceptual Laws Reflect the Mind of a Law Giver All laws require law givers, including conceptual laws. We know this from our common experience in the world in which we live. The laws governing our society and culture, for example, are the result and reflection of minds. But more importantly, the conceptual Laws of Logic govern rational thought processes, and for this reason, they require the existence of a mind. (3) The Best and Most Reasonable Explanation for the Kind of Mind Necessary for the Existence of the Transcendent, Objective, Conceptual Laws of Logic is God The lawgiver capable of producing the immaterial, transcendent laws preceding our existence must also be an immaterial, transcendent and pre-existent mind. This description fits what we commonly think of when we think of a Creator God.,,, https://coldcasechristianity.com/writings/is-god-real-evidence-from-the-laws-of-logic/ John 1:1 “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God” What is the Logos? Logos is a Greek word literally translated as “word, speech, or utterance.” However, in Greek philosophy, Logos refers to divine reason or the power that puts sense into the world making order instead of chaos.,,, In the Gospel of John, John writes “In the beginning was the Word (Logos), and the Word was with God, and the Word was God” (John 1:1). John appealed to his readers by saying in essence, “You’ve been thinking, talking, and writing about the Word (divine reason) for centuries and now I will tell you who He is.” https://www.compellingtruth.org/what-is-the-Logos.html

WJM has also claimed in this thread,

We have experimental evidence that each individual consciousness is “creating the universe” with each observation and thought. Not only do countless universes exist; countless designers exist as well.

WJM is severely confusing the fact that we, via our free will, are now shown in quantum mechanics to have a very 'negligible' role in determining what type of reality gets presented to us with his belief that we are each quote unquote “creating the universe” As KF rightly noted in response

WJM, perceiving is not creating,

To more clearly demonstrate WJM's severe confusion between mere perception of the universe and outright creation of the entire universe, it is importation to look at quantum wave collapse. Before we choose, via our free will, how and what to measure, and/or how and what to perceive, (and therefore prior to the quantum wave collapsing to a single bit state), the quantum wave of the photon and/or subatomic particle is, mathematically, held to exist in an 'infinite dimensional' state,

The Unreasonable Effectiveness of Mathematics in the Natural Sciences – Eugene Wigner – 1960 Excerpt: We now have, in physics, two theories of great power and interest: the theory of quantum phenomena and the theory of relativity.,,, The two theories operate with different mathematical concepts: the four dimensional Riemann space and the infinite dimensional Hilbert space, http://www.dartmouth.edu/~matc/MathDrama/reading/Wigner.html Wave function Excerpt "wave functions form an abstract vector space",,, This vector space is infinite-dimensional, because there is no finite set of functions which can be added together in various combinations to create every possible function. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wave_function#Wave_functions_as_an_abstract_vector_space

Moreover it is also, mathematically, held to take an infinite amount of information to describe the photon and/or electron properly while it is existing in its infinite dimensional state, (i.e. in its unobserved, uncollapsed, quantum wave state).

Explaining Information Transfer in Quantum Teleportation: Armond Duwell †‡ University of Pittsburgh Excerpt: In contrast to a classical bit, the description of a (quantum) qubit requires an infinite amount of information. The amount of information is infinite because two real numbers are required in the expansion of the state vector of a two state quantum system (Jozsa 1997, 1) http://www.cas.umt.edu/phil/faculty/duwell/DuwellPSA2K.pdf Quantum Computing – Stanford Encyclopedia Excerpt: Theoretically, a single qubit can store an infinite amount of information, yet when measured (and thus collapsing the Quantum Wave state) it yields only the classical result (0 or 1),,, http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qt-quantcomp/#2.1

As should be needless to say, this presents are insurmountable difficulty for WJM who has rejected God and presented himself as “creating the universe”. Unless WJM wants to claim that he himself has the attributes of omnipresence and omniscience, and that he himself therefore has to capacity within himself to collapse the infinite dimensional-infinite information wave function to its single bit state, then WJM is 'stuck' having to appeal to the Mind of God in order to explain wave function collapse. Again, quantum mechanics has 'merely' shown that we, via our free will, have a very negligible role in determining what type of reality gets presented us, (which I admit is a wonderful finding). Yet this is a very far cry from WJM's claim that we are quote unquote 'creating the universe'. Of supplemental note: Although free will is often thought of as allowing someone to choose between a veritable infinity of options, in a Judeo-Christian view of reality that veritable infinity of options all boils down to just two options in the end. Eternal life with God, or Eternal life without God. Moreover, the Christian Theist can appeal to our most powerful theories in science to support his belief that there are, in the end, only two options:

January 2021 Whereas atheists have no observational evidence that the Multiverses that they postulated to ‘explain. away’ the fine tuning of the universe are real, nor do Atheists have any evidence that the ‘parallel universes’ that they postulated to ‘explain away’ quantum wave collapse are real, Christians, on the other hand, can appeal directly to Special Relativity, General Relativity, and Quantum Mechanics, (i.e. our most precisely tested theories ever in the history of science), to support their belief that God really does uphold this universe in its continual existence, as well as to support their belief in the reality of a heavenly dimension and in the reality of a hellish dimension.” https://uncommondesc.wpengine.com/intelligent-design/closer-to-truth-are-there-really-extra-dimensions/#comment-722947

Video and Verse:

Jesus Christ as the correct "Theory of Everything" - video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vpn2Vu8--eE Colossians 1:15-20 The Son is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. For in him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things have been created through him and for him. He is before all things, and in him all things hold together. And he is the head of the body, the church; he is the beginning and the firstborn from among the dead, so that in everything he might have the supremacy. For God was pleased to have all his fullness dwell in him, and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether things on earth or things in heaven, by making peace through his blood, shed on the cross.

bornagain77

KF, I didn't really expect you to directly answer the question, but from your indirect answer, I'll assume that your answer is either "yes" or "I don't know." This allows us to proceed (at least arguendo) under the premise that monistic mind is capable of producing everything we currently experience. Thus, we come to the 2nd aspect of your attempt to prove your claim against "all possible monisms:" that described in your comment above thusly:

Simulation worlds imply profound discredit to the rationality of minds of actors within the simulations, whether Boltzmann brains or networked panpsychism or some scientist’s hypercomputer world, etc.

However, under a monistic mind premise, we are not talking about a "simulation" world. A simulation is an imitation of something else, a fake version of the real thing. If we live in a mental monism, the mind is not "simulating" anything; the experiences we have are the reality of what existence in a mental monism is like.

Monism tries to reduce the many to the one and thus becomes problematic in accounting for rational, responsible freedom and embodiment.

Unless you are going to say that monism cannot produce our experience of embodiment, the "embodiment" aspect of this now irrelevant. This is why I asked you to directly answer the prior question. Are you saying that mental monism cannot produce our embodiment experience? This leaves us with "rational, responsible freedom."

From the monism of the physical, mind becomes dubious software on a computational substrate.

I don't think this is well said, because you insist on conflating "physical" with "material." Material monism eliminates free will and thus rationality.

From the idealistic side it becomes a false or dubious local world-picture.

But, you fail to explain why. Please explain why idealism, or mental monism, "becomes a false or dubious local world-picture." William J Murray

WJM, you have had an adequate answer to the material issue. Simulation worlds imply profound discredit to the rationality of minds of actors within the simulations, whether Boltzmann brains or networked panpsychism or some scientist's hypercomputer world, etc. Monism tries to reduce the many to the one and thus becomes problematic in accounting for rational, responsible freedom and embodiment. From the monism of the physical, mind becomes dubious software on a computational substrate. From the idealistic side it becomes a false or dubious local world-picture. We need a worldview that balances one and many while preserving rational, responsible, morally guided freedom and intelligibility of truth for us. Otherwise, intellectual discussion -- the context for what is going on here -- evaporates and arguments become literally meaningless. Plato is knocking and says he wants his cave back. KF PS: The cease breathing for an hour thought exercise is decisive on distinct identity. The experience of an embodied individual ceasing to breathe will differ decisively from a dream or vision or simulation etc. A super-mind contemplating a world with simulated individuals in it is different in another way, e.g. simulated individuals are not actualised free agents. Free means free. kairosfocus

KF, Actually, the question is extremely pertinent to the issue of whether or not you can make good on your assertion about "all monisms." The question is: is it possible for a monistic mind to produce all of our experiences? Have you ever had a dream where you were drowning? The sensation that you are going to die is quite real, complete with panic and fear and a desperate desire to get to the surface and take a breath. I know, you'll say, "but you don't actually die in a dream," but this is where your objection to the dream comparison fails: you haven't actually died, so you don't have any experience or evidence that, for the person experiencing death in the dream, experiencing death in our waking life is not something comparable. In fact, NDE evidence supports the idea that "dying" in our waking life is very similar to dying in a dream. People often feel like they have (1)"woken up," (2) the afterlife "feels" more real than this life, (3) afterward, no longer fear death, but know it is a continuation of their existence, and (4) experience the continuation and enhancement of a completely physical existence. You are not arguing in good faith, KF. You and I both know that the mind is fully capable of producing everything we currently experience or else we would not experience it. The only argument is about where the information comes from. So, please respond in good faith with a simple, direct answer so we can move forward: is it possible for a monistic mind to produce everything we currently experience? I'll make it easy for you. Here are the three all-inclusive answers to that particular question: yes, no, and "I don't know." William J Murray

WJM, the issue is not as phrased, whether a mind can project the full orbed experiences of embodiment in our world but whether our admittedly fallible minds are held to be currently doing so. If so, the possibility of error is globalised, there is no difference between waking reality, dreamscapes and outright full bore delusions, logic becomes as dubious as anything else etc, in short, grand delusion cascade absurdity. The answer is, cease breathing for one hour, what happens. Dreams of embodiment etc, nil, on to the next dream. Actual embodiment, death; that's a thought exercise test, a proof. The plain truth is, our first fact through which we perceive others is of embodiment as a rational, responsible creature. Once that is dissolved by the acid of hyperskepticism -- needlessly -- all else dissolves as the fundamental discredit of mind and self-aware consciousness has been put in place. Therefore, the responsible thing is to accept common sense realism starting with our being living bodies intersecting physicality and the life of the ensouled, with mind a key faculty. Dreamscapes and visions or delusions are different from physical reality, and minds routinely differentiate. I recall the movie scene with John Nash waving goodbye to the little girl, who never grew up as she was a figment, and would ask students if strange figures are there for them too. We could go on but the point is made. KF kairosfocus

KF, I challenge you to directly answer this question: Is it possible or not possible for the mind to produce all the qualities of experience of what we call our waking life absent any material or substance other than mind? IOW, is a monistic world a possible world, and could it provide all of the physical experiences, including embodiment, that we have? William J Murray

Murray was challenged months ago if he ate, drank or breathed. He refused to answer. He does have ice cream preferences though. But he claimed to have published books in the make believe world and was a successful businessman in this make believe world. jerry

WJM, reducing awake consciousness to comparability to dreams says it all, inadvertently. I have used the thought exercise -- don't try this at home -- of ceasing from breathing for one hour . . . feasible in a dream or imagination but not in full embodied reality without death. The point remains. KF kairosfocus

Multiverse won't explain the "emergence" of information(that is mind dependent) and don't escape of explaining how appeared something from nothing or /and don't escape of bringing scientific evidences for existence of a "perpetuum mobile" mechanism that would prove a cyclical infinity of multiverse. Desperation and Insanity of materialists need a "miracle". Lieutenant Commander Data

William J Murray do you interpret that dream experience differently than you interpret your waking state experience of physical embodiment in a physical world?

:) Everybody knows that dreams are not reality and are irrelevant . Except you.

This clearly demonstrates that your “first fact” is not a “first fact” at all;

This clearly demonstrates that you shouldn't drink too much alcohol before posting a message. Lieutenant Commander Data

Given the evidence provided by dreams, it is clearly possible that our waking experience is also produced in mind by immaterial information. So, what KF is left with is how this monistic interpretation necessarily puts us at greater risk of "self-referential grand delusion." To make that claim, KF needs to adequately define what he means by "self-referential absurdity" or "grand delusion" or "self-referential grand delusion," and then make his case how this monistic model indicates that outcome. Further, he claims that this interpretation "undermines the credibility of reason." He needs to explain why this is so. As far as I've been able to understand, his arguments about "grand delusion" and "undermining of reason" all stem from what he calls the "denial" of what he calls the "first fact of physical embodiment in a physical world." Yet, as I've demonstrated in #22, that's not actually a first fact; it is his interpretation of our physical experience and what it means. It seems to me that his arguments about grand delusion, self-referential absurdity and the breakdown of the credibility of reason all stem from a simple error on KF's part: mistaking his interpretation of a fact for the fact itself. Indeed, KF's argument about "all monisms" begins with asserting as "fact" an interpretation of experience that definitionally puts monism at odds with that "fact." Only, as we can clearly see, what he claims to be a fact is not a fact at all. If the experience of being consciously embodied and operating in an external, physical environment necessarily means actual embodiment in an actual, physical external world, then dreams would be proof that other worlds exist and that we can somehow visit them. William J Murray

Let's look at KF's "first fact," that he uses in #18:

As for the monist idealist, s/he then faces the first fact of self-aware consciousness, physical embodiment in a physical world,

A couple of questions can easily show the problem with this so-called "first fact:" First question: do you factually experience being a self-aware consciousness physically embodied in a physical world in a dream? I'll assume the answer is "yes." Second question: do you interpret that dream experience differently than you interpret your waking state experience of physical embodiment in a physical world? Again, I'll assume your answer is "yes." I'm assuming these answers because I don't expect you to answer them directly, since you never have before. This clearly demonstrates that your "first fact" is not a "first fact" at all; it is an interpretation of a fact. The actual "first fact" is that we have the experience of being physically embodied in a physical world, but the fact of that experience does not necessarily mean we are actually embodied in an actual physical world, because we interpret that same experience differently when they occur in different contexts. This means the experience is open to interpretation, and to the exploration of various contexts that might provide for those experiences that differ from your particular interpretation. You don't get your particular contextual interpretation of those experiences as included in "all monisms" because not all monisms share that interpretation. You have to make your case, wrt my monistic theory, according to how it interprets and contextualizes that experience, on its own terms. That is why you have failed. Care to try again? William J Murray

KF, My monism doesn't include the same "first fact" you refer to. You said all monisms. Therefore, you have failed. We can do this here, if you like, or make a thread for it. Your choice. William J Murray

WJM, the just above gives a substantial answer in a nutshell. KF kairosfocus

KF, I'll take that as you being unwilling to take up the challenge. Not really a surprise. William J Murray

Q, sadly yes. He knows that monism is one of the attempted answers to the core phil problem of the one and the many . . . one is the number of truth, two that of error . . . so all is reduced to one substance or entity. He knows that materialism reduces mind to a GIGO-limited dynamic-stochastic computational substrate so that it loses freedom to be rational, which then swings back on the materialist thinker. As for the monist idealist, s/he then faces the first fact of self-aware consciousness, physical embodiment in a physical world, leading to implied grand delusion, thus self-referential self-defeat through rendering mind dubious. We need instead a unified view that can handle unity and diversity in all its guises. KF kairosfocus

Please note that William J Murray is handing out homework assignments again . . . -Q Querius

Also, you might want to define what you mean by "Monism." Just to get the basic definitions out of the way. William J Murray

KF said:

Monisms all end in self-referential absurdity, undermining credibility of reason.

I challenge you to put your money where your mouth is. Start a post and title it "All Monisms Are Self-Referentially Absurd." Begin with a definition of "self-referentially absurd." Make your case. Let's see how it holds up. William J Murray

Monisms all end in self-referential absurdity, undermining credibility of reason. We need a worldview that embraces both our embodiment and our rational, responsible, morally governed freedom. kairosfocus

It appears dualists are the new materialists. No amount of evidence can pry them from their beliefs. William J Murray

TLH, most physics is not about cosmology and multiverse models. Those models are in a sense invited by the math, though for especially infini-verse speculations esp dynamically branching ones, I wonder if people have thought through issues of playing with claimed actualised infinities. Quasi-infinite is more reasonable, translating to practically countless. KF PS: Not even an infini-verse would eliminate implications of grounding reality. We have good reason to see that our cosmos is at so rare a node that to get to it you have to explain why the cosmos bakery pops up such as opposed to the far more likely Boltzmann Brain type fluctuation or why it doesn't simply skip or miss this. Such, is Leslie's fly on wall smacked by a bullet point. Even were there patches on a long, long wall with fly carpets so hitting one there is easy, hitting a lone deeply isolated fly calls for a marksman wielding a tack driver of a rifle properly sighted in. PPS: Walker and Davies:

In physics, particularly in statistical mechanics, we base many of our calculations on the assumption of metric transitivity, which asserts that a system’s trajectory will eventually [--> given "enough time and search resources"] explore the entirety of its state space – thus everything that is phys-ically possible will eventually happen. It should then be trivially true that one could choose an arbitrary “final state” (e.g., a living organism) and “explain” it by evolving the system backwards in time choosing an appropriate state at some ’start’ time t_0 (fine-tuning the initial state). In the case of a chaotic system the initial state must be specified to arbitrarily high precision. But this account amounts to no more than saying that the world is as it is because it was as it was, and our current narrative therefore scarcely constitutes an explanation in the true scientific sense. We are left in a bit of a conundrum with respect to the problem of specifying the initial conditions necessary to explain our world. A key point is that if we require specialness in our initial state (such that we observe the current state of the world and not any other state) metric transitivity cannot hold true, as it blurs any dependency on initial conditions – that is, it makes little sense for us to single out any particular state as special by calling it the ’initial’ state. If we instead relax the assumption of metric transitivity (which seems more realistic for many real world physical systems – including life), then our phase space will consist of isolated pocket regions and it is not necessarily possible to get to any other physically possible state (see e.g. Fig. 1 for a cellular automata example).

[--> or, there may not be "enough" time and/or resources for the relevant exploration, i.e. we see the 500 - 1,000 bit complexity threshold at work vs 10^57 - 10^80 atoms with fast rxn rates at about 10^-13 to 10^-15 s leading to inability to explore more than a vanishingly small fraction on the gamut of Sol system or observed cosmos . . . the only actually, credibly observed cosmos]

Thus the initial state must be tuned to be in the region of phase space in which we find ourselves [--> notice, fine tuning], and there are regions of the configuration space our physical universe would be excluded from accessing, even if those states may be equally consistent and permissible under the microscopic laws of physics (starting from a different initial state). Thus according to the standard picture, we require special initial conditions to explain the complexity of the world, but also have a sense that we should not be on a particularly special trajectory to get here (or anywhere else) as it would be a sign of fine–tuning of the initial conditions. [ --> notice, the "loading"] Stated most simply, a potential problem with the way we currently formulate physics is that you can’t necessarily get everywhere from anywhere (see Walker [31] for discussion). ["The “Hard Problem” of Life," June 23, 2016, a discussion by Sara Imari Walker and Paul C.W. Davies at Arxiv.]

kairosfocus

WJM, perceiving is not creating, even were there good reason to infer systematic grand delusion so that the perception was internal and on the whole false and utterly misleading as opposed to limited. Or in being limited, having local errors or distortions etc. KF PS: You again underscore the summary: simulationism as noted, panpsychism, distributed network mind with nodes and perceiving at individual level. kairosfocus

We have experimental evidence that each individual consciousness is "creating the universe" with each observation and thought. Not only do countless universes exist; countless designers exist as well. William J Murray

Great points, TAMMIE LEE HAYNES and ET. One might as well argue that to get away from a Designer, one can easily hide behind an infinite number of random universes miraculously appearing by chance over an infinite amount of time. And Stephen Hawkins claimed that all one needs is gravity. So where ya gonna get gravity before the universe existed? All this beggars credibility far more than any other option and sounds like a materialistic version of God at best or simply a fantasy creation myth on par with Greek mythology at worst. -Q Querius

A multiverse would be just more evidence for Intelligent Design. Materialism can't account for a universe, so a multiverse would increase the impossibility. :cool: :) ET

Dr Hossenfelder is, at the bottom line, just another Atheist, misleading us. She says the that The Multiverse Is “No Better Than God” True enough. So she's not lying. But she is misleading. Here's why The multiverse is "no better than God". As an explanation of reality, it is far far worse than God. In olden days, Physics depended on empirical evidence. But that was then and now is now. In about 1930, Physics began supporting to Creationism. So the top Atheist Physicists like Brian Greene, Alan Guth, Steven Hawking etc etc, they came up with nonsense, with zero empirical evidence. Like the Multiverse. What nonsense.? Here's what nonsense, straight from MIT's very Dr. Guth "In the infinite multiverse anything that can happen, consistent with the laws of conservation, will happen, infinitely many times. Atheist Physics, isn't it a howl?. So if you don't approve of pompous and arrogant agenda drive activists milking the public, modern Physicists are scamsters, like internet con men. But then if believe that its good to milk the public with nonsensical grants from the NSF, then modern Physics is great. . TAMMIE LEE HAYNES

necessary guiding qualities of experience do all the high-resolution fine tuning automatically.”

Yay magical thinking!

When the fine tuning of the cosmos for humans is understood as the non-linear, necessary product of human consciousness, at least those of us who find ourselves “here,” it makes a great deal of sense.

Yeah, exactly. I know it might be really improbable that all the matter that makes up planet earth and the flora and fauna which exist therein could have arranged itself last Thursday. We are, after all, no more than arrangements of matter. I know it's really, really improbable. But we're here, so it makes sense. Yarrgonaut

And how does one go about testing this bold conjecture? Or is testing no longer needed for the science that we're now supposed to follow? -Q Querius

There is nothing wrong in speculating about multiverses. Even if the concept turns out to be a dead end, ruling out "bad' theories is still useful to science. If there is no obvious way of testing the idea then there is nothing wrong with people playing around with it. The only problem might be if it were found that it was distracting attention and diverting resources from potentially more fruitful lines of inquiry. Remember that Popper encouraged scientists to be bold in their conjectures. Seversky

HMMM,,, "No need to invoke “God” as a super-intelligent designer when logic and math as innate, necessary guiding qualities of experience do all the high-resolution fine tuning automatically." One just isn't enough https://twinsdaily.com/gallery/image/702-facepalm-double/ bornagain77

When the fine tuning of the cosmos for humans is understood as the non-linear, necessary product of human consciousness, at least those of us who find ourselves "here," it makes a great deal of sense. No need to invoke "God" as a super-intelligent designer when logic and math as innate, necessary guiding qualities of experience do all the high-resolution fine tuning automatically. William J Murray

As to: "Sabine Hossenfelder Argues That The Multiverse Is “No Better Than God” Actually, compared to God, and via Penrose, “these world ensemble hypothesis are worse than useless in explaining the anthropic fine-tuning of the universe”.

Multiverse and the Design Argument – William Lane Craig Excerpt: Or again, if our universe is but one member of a multiverse, then we ought to be observing highly extraordinary events, like horses’ popping into and out of existence by random collisions, or perpetual motion machines, since these are vastly more probable than all of nature’s constants and quantities’ falling by chance into the virtually infinitesimal life-permitting range. Observable universes like those strange worlds are simply much more plenteous in the ensemble of universes than worlds like ours and, therefore, ought to be observed by us if the universe were but a random member of a multiverse of worlds. Since we do not have such observations, that fact strongly disconfirms the multiverse hypothesis. On naturalism, at least, it is therefore highly probable that there is no multiverse. — Penrose puts it bluntly “these world ensemble hypothesis are worse than useless in explaining the anthropic fine-tuning of the universe”. http://www.reasonablefaith.org/multiverse-and-the-design-argument Does a Multiverse Explain the Fine Tuning of the Universe? – Dr. Craig (observer selection effect vs. Boltzmann Brains) – video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pb9aXduPfuA

,,,,, the multiverse is a 'worse than useless" hypothesis that "entails a nihilistic irrationality that destroys the very possibility of science."

GORDON: Hawking irrational arguments Theoretical physicist takes leave of his senses By Bruce L. Gordon - October 1, 2010 Excerpt: For instance, we find multiverse cosmologists debating the “Boltzmann Brain” problem: In the most “reasonable” models for a multiverse, it is immeasurably more likely that our consciousness is associated with a brain that has spontaneously fluctuated into existence in the quantum vacuum than it is that we have parents and exist in an orderly universe with a 13.7 billion-year history. This is absurd. The multiverse hypothesis is therefore falsified because it renders false what we know to be true about ourselves. Clearly, embracing the multiverse idea entails a nihilistic irrationality that destroys the very possibility of science. https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/oct/1/hawking-irrational-arguments/ But Who Needs Reality-Based Thinking Anyway? Not the New Cosmologists – Denyse O’Leary January 2, 2014 Excerpt: Logic and reason are likewise irrelevant. Consider the multiverse claim that there are “infinite copies of you and your loved ones leading lives, up until this moment, that are absolutely identical to yours.” Mathematician George F. R. Ellis notes that, if so, the deep mysteries of nature are too absurd to be explicable and that the proposed nine types of multiverse in one scheme are “mutually exclusive.” True, but in a multiverse, “inexplicable” is okay. “Absurd” and “mutually exclusive” are meaningless concepts. It is equally meaningless to assert that one event is more probable than another. As David Berlinski puts it, “Why is Newton’s universal law of gravitation true? No need to ask. In another universe, it is not”(Devil’s Delusion, p. 124).,,, http://www.evolutionnews.org/2014/01/but_who_needs_r080281.html

Thus, not only is the multiverse 'not science', as Hossenfelder holds, but these multiverse scenarios are actually 'anti-science' in that "it makes scientific rationality impossible.'

The End Of Materialism? - Dr. Bruce Gordon * In the multiverse, anything can happen for no reason at all.? * In other words, the materialist is forced to believe in random miracles as a explanatory principle.? * In a Theistic universe, nothing happens without a reason. Miracles are therefore intelligently directed deviations from divinely maintained regularities, and are thus expressions of rational purpose.? * Scientific materialism is (therefore) epistemically self defeating: it makes scientific rationality impossible. - The Absurdity of Inflation, String Theory and The Multiverse - Dr. Bruce Gordon – video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ff_sNyGNSko

Supplemental note: Via Stephen Meyer’s new book “Return of the God hypothesis”, here are the three necessary Christian presuppositions that lay at the founding of modern science in Medieval Christian Europe.

“Science in its modern form arose in the Western civilization alone, among all the cultures of the world”, because only the Christian West possessed the necessary “intellectual presuppositions”. – Ian Barbour Presupposition 1: The contingency of nature “In 1277, the Etienne Tempier, the bishop of Paris, writing with support of Pope John XXI, condemned “necessarian theology” and 219 separate theses influenced by Greek philosophy about what God could and couldn’t do.”,, “The order in nature could have been otherwise (therefore) the job of the natural philosopher, (i.e. scientist), was not to ask what God must have done but (to ask) what God actually did.” Presupposition 2: The intelligibility of nature “Modern science was inspired by the conviction that the universe is the product of a rational mind who designed it to be understood and who (also) designed the human mind to understand it.” (i.e. human exceptionalism), “God created us in his own image so that we could share in his own thoughts” – Johannes Kepler Presupposition 3: Human Fallibility “Humans are vulnerable to self-deception, flights of fancy, and jumping to conclusions.”, (i.e. original sin), Scientists must therefore employ “systematic experimental methods.” – Stephen Meyer on Intelligent Design and The Return of the God Hypothesis – Hoover Institution https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z_8PPO-cAlA

Verse:

38: 1-10 Then the Lord spoke to Job out of the storm. He said: “Who is this that obscures my plans with words without knowledge? Brace yourself like a man; I will question you, and you shall answer me. “Where were you when I laid the earth’s foundation? Tell me, if you understand. Who marked off its dimensions? Surely you know! Who stretched a measuring line across it? On what were its footings set, or who laid its cornerstone— while the morning stars sang together and all the angels shouted for joy? “Who shut up the sea behind doors when it burst forth from the womb, when I made the clouds its garment and wrapped it in thick darkness, when I fixed limits for it and set its doors and bars in place, when I said, ‘This far you may come and no farther; here is where your proud waves halt’?

bornagain77