seeds wrote: ↑Fri Jan 15, 2021 12:08 am
seeds wrote: ↑Thu Jan 14, 2021 3:44 am
Now I am not implying that I can’t be wrong, but for more than a dozen years now, not only have I bored the members of this and other forums with my incessant (and illustrated) description of what I believe is the creative source of this universe
...but I have also explained why it is necessary for that source to remain hidden from us.
And oddly enough, that last part is relevant to the title of this thread.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Thu Jan 14, 2021 5:19 am
I have not come across your link before.
I will have a look at your detailed explanation later.
, I can say your hidden creative source of this universe
is not likely to be real.
As Wittgenstein stated,
“Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent
In this case of metaphysics, what is hidden is what cannot be spoken of.
As such you have no choice but to literally 'shut up' about what is hidden in this case.
So then, according to the VA approach to philosophy, out of the fear of possibly being wrong, one must never use one’s imagination in the search for the ultimate truth of reality.
Indeed, one must simply be satisfied with whatever knowledge one can derive from examining the material features of our phenomenal surroundings.
Got it. Great plan! A revolutionary approach to philosophy of which thinkers such as Plato, for example, should simply have remained silent about his concept of “ideal forms” or of his allegory involving deluded humans trapped in a cave.
Nope I never said the above!
Philosophy is open-ended and and not be fearful thus we need to explore and question whatever is concluded which should always be provisional. I quoted Russell on this many times.
In exploring and question one need to know the tools one is using, i.e. whether it is based on imagination, intellect, or one is using Pure Reason.
Thus any one [Plato and others
] can explore freely, but one must make sure one had not jumped and got stuck in la la land
From 'No Man's Land' to 'La La Land'
In Plato and your case, you have strayed off the empirical [known and not yet known] and landed on the fence between the 'No Man's Land' and 'La La Land'.
As a philosopher, Plato would have of course, welcome criticisms of his theories.
Since then Plato's theories had been criticized by many as too metaphysical and not realistic.
Here's Kant on Plato [mine
Kant wrote:It was thus that Plato left the World of the Senses, as setting too narrow Limits to 2 the Understanding, and ventured [too far] out beyond it on the wings of the Ideas, in the empty Space [ edge of la la land] of the Pure Understanding.
He [Plato] did not observe that with all his efforts he made no advance meeting no resistance that might, as it were, serve as a support upon which he could take a stand, to which he could apply his powers, and so set his Understanding in motion.
Plato thought the laymen were deluded, not knowing that he himself was deluded at a more refined level of Pure Reason.
Here is Kant again [mine
They [conclusions] are sophistications not of men but of Pure Reason itself.
Even the wisest of men [including Plato] cannot free himself from them [the illusions].
After long effort he perhaps succeeds in guarding himself against actual error; but he will never be able to free himself from the Illusion, which unceasingly mocks and torments him.
What is real [known and yet to be known] most effectively
must be verifiable and justifiable empirically plus philosophically within a credible framework and system of knowledge.
Thus I can speculate there are human-liked aliens in a planet 100 light years away; all variables here in are empirically possible.
But to speculate your GOD [essence, substance, etc.] is like speculating a square-circle exists somewhere which is not possible to be real at all.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Thu Jan 14, 2021 8:40 am
You wrote therein;
"Which means that the fundamental essence that forms the "physical" reality of the universe behaves in the same way as the essence that forms our dreams and mental images
In a way what you are proposing is based on Substance Theory
...Let me know, if your theory is not related to 'substance theory.'
My theory is loosely
related to several of the theories under the heading of Substance Theory.
However, I don’t like associating it with the morass of confusing language and ideas that the old philosophers use to explain those theories; most of which (just like the world’s religions, or even science) are completely lacking in any kind of satisfying answers to the ultimate questions of reality.
On the other hand, I suggest that my
theory is much easier to understand. And that’s because an accessible model for it resides right within our own skulls.
In other words,...
(and pretty much confirmed by quantum theory)
...the entire universe seems to be created from an infinitely malleable (informationally-based) substance that is capable of being formed into absolutely anything “imaginable,
” - just like the substance from which our thoughts and dreams are created.
Now if you have been checking out my website,...
(and, again, I’m not implying that I cannot be wrong)
...then you should be able to understand what I am getting at by describing the universe as having “mind-like”
The main reason
and drive relating to the 'substance theory' and all its derivatives is due to the mind seeking consonance to deal with the inherent dissonance.
If you are relying on quantum theory, note that is based on the scientific framework and system [FSK] and its sub QM FSK.
But scientific truths are merely polished conjectures, therefore it follow whatever you concluded based on this premise is merely a polished conjecture.
If you claim "the universe as having “mind-like”
properties" then it must have some sort of mind-power
to enable its creations.
If you don't claim your 'universe' [thing, GOD-X] is omnipotent, then you will leave room for a thing or GOD-Y that is greater than your GOD-X.
As such, logically, you have to claim your GOD-X is an ontological God, i.e. a Being than which no greater can exists.
If your God-X is ontological, then it is impossible to exists as real empirically and philosophically.
Granted you accepted you could be wrong, BTW, what are the benefits and utilities to humanity if your theory is right??
I am confident you are wrong because your theory is not realistic at all plus there are so many counters and alternative theories to your claims.
I claim, the only effective benefit is merely for your psychology, i.e. as a consonance to relieve the inherent dissonance.