Hi, pardon the post. Would someone be able to help me make sense of what the prompt is saying? I'm not looking for answers or analyses, just a much simpler explanation of whatever this means:

"The “life-world” (“the Lebenswelt”) for Edmund Husserl is a critique of what he calls the “mathematization of nature.” As Husserl defines it in “The Crisis of European Sciences and Transcendental Phenomenology,” the “life-world” is “the spatiotemporal world of things as we experience them in our pre-and extra-scientific life.”

Put another way, Husserl inquires into the historical origins of the “objective, mathematical world of the physical sciences” to determine how the “mathematical world” arose out of the pre-mathematical and subjective realm of individual experience. Galileo’s mechanics of body and motion, predicated on Euclidean geometry, serves as the paradigmatic example of the historically emerging “mathematization” of the “life-world” at the center of Husserl’s critique:

The mathematician, the natural scientist, at best a brilliant technician of the method . . .  is normally not at all able to carry out such reflection. In his actual sphere of inquiry and discovery, he does not know at all that everything these reflections must clarify is even in need of clarification, and this for the sake of that interest, which is decisive for a philosophy of science, i.e., the interest in a true knowledge of the world itself, nature itself. Knowledge is thus a process of understanding the object of knowing and at the same time understanding the process of knowing itself (emphasis mine).

Explain how, according to Husserl, the “historicity of the subjectivity” is implicit in, but is not properly developed by, Galileo, Locke, Descartes, and Kant, because of which each of these thinkers has, in different ways, fallen prey to the “quantitative-mathematical world” view to the neglect of the view offered by the “life-world.”  

Even though I've been able to follow most of the material this semester and I'd like to consider myself somewhat intelligent, I'm completely lost here. Thanks for any and all input.

https://medium.com/@noketheking/unveiling-the-cosmic-symphony-the-equation-that-rewritten-the-laws-of-the-universe-30f3da426fa0

Some very smart individuals told me to drop this here.

Is the tree really a “tree” and “green”? Perhaps these things only exist because it’s the only way for higher or lower dimensions to keep track of information. A green tree is just another way of expressing a number only computable through separate dimensions other than it’s origin. Similar to a tesseract.

Title: Exploring Multiversal Dynamics: The Influence of Brane Interactions on Information Evolution

Abstract: This research paper delves into the concept of brane interactions within the framework of string theory and brane cosmology, aiming to elucidate their implications for the evolution of information within the cosmos. Drawing inspiration from speculative theories, such as the "Big Spill" of information from one brane to another, we examine how these interactions give rise to the formation of new branes and perpetually influence each other's dynamics. Through a comprehensive analysis of theoretical frameworks and potential observational signatures, this paper sheds light on the interconnectedness of branes within a higher-dimensional space and their role in shaping the multiverse.

Introduction: String theory and brane cosmology propose the existence of multiple branes within a higher-dimensional space, offering a rich tapestry of possibilities for understanding the universe's evolution. This paper explores the concept of brane interactions, where the "Big Spill" of information between branes leads to the emergence of new branes and influences information dynamics across the multiverse.

Theoretical Framework: In the framework of string theory, branes are fundamental objects that can exist within higher-dimensional spaces known as the bulk. Interactions between branes, mediated by strings or higher-dimensional objects, result in the exchange of energy and information. These interactions give rise to phenomena such as brane collisions, mergers, and the formation of new branes, perpetually shaping the landscape of the multiverse.

Conceptual Analogy: Early in this paper, we introduce a conceptual analogy termed the "Big Spill," akin to pouring red liquid from one cup into another containing blue liquid. This analogy illustrates how interactions between branes can lead to the emergence of new branes in a higher-dimensional space, perpetually influencing each other's dynamics and evolution. Another possibility is that both cups overflow with information, causing a mixture of purple information in potentially eleven new spatial dimensions, including time.

Implications for Information Evolution: The concept of brane interactions has profound implications for information evolution. These interactions can give rise to a multitude of phenomena, including the generation of new universes, the formation of cosmic structures, and the modulation of fundamental constants. By examining potential observational signatures, such as gravitational waves and cosmic microwave background radiation anomalies, we can probe the influence of brane interactions on the observable universe, providing valuable insights into the underlying dynamics of the multiverse.

Conclusion: The study of brane interactions within the framework of string theory and brane cosmology offers a compelling avenue for understanding the evolution of information within the cosmos on both theoretical and observational fronts. By elucidating the interconnectedness of branes within a higher-dimensional space, this research opens new vistas for exploring the nature of the multiverse and the fundamental laws governing its dynamics. Through continued theoretical advancements and observational efforts, we strive to unravel the mysteries of brane interactions and their profound implications for information evolution.

I will try to briefly to show that there are parallels or similarities between the logic of the ontological argument and the infinity of objects.

1. **The Ontological Argument**:

   - The ontological argument posits that God, as the most perfect being conceivable, must necessarily exist because existence is a part of perfection.

   - In other words, if we can conceive of a supremely perfect being, then that being must exist in reality because existence is a greater attribute than mere conceptual existence.

   - This argument has been debated for centuries and has various formulations, but the core idea remains consistent: God's existence is inherent in the concept of God.

2. **Here's a simplified explanation on how the argument works**:

   - We start with the limitations of our human experience: we observe man with limited power, with limited knowledge, and limited quantities...etc

   - From these finite limited realities, we abstract the ideas of limitless power, limitless knowledge, and limitless quantities.

   - This process is an ascent from real particulars (our finite limited experiences) to ideal universals (infinite concepts).

3. The argument concludes therefore God exists, and the flaw is simply a jump in logic. From an idea which is universal, immaterial (infinite perfection), it doesn't follow that it exists in the real world.

Now, let's just assume this is a valid refutation (I think it is, but this is not something I want to argue about).

**II. Ascending to the Ideal Universal Infinite**:

- Consider natural numbers. We begin by counting real quantities of objects: 1, 2, 3, and so on.

- Through abstraction, we strip away the specific objects we counted and arrive at the concept of infinity. The natural numbers extend infinitely without bounds.

- This ascent from finite particulars to the ideal universal infinite mirrors (it seems to me) the ontological argument's ascent from our experience of less perfect and limited to the concept of absolute and infinite perfection.

- Having reached the ideal universal infinite, we now descend back to reality.

- Just as the ontological argument concludes that God exists in reality because perfection includes existence, proponents of infinity argue that infinite quantities (such as the set of infinite natural numbers) also exist.

- They assert that infinitude is not merely a conceptual abstraction but has a counterpart in the real world.

In summary, both arguments involve abstraction from finite particulars to ideal universals, followed by a descent back to reality. While the ontological argument pertains specifically to God, the concept of infinity shares a similar logical structure.

So it seems to me, the very persons who rejects, denie the ontological argument, calls it false, are using the same logical structure to argue for the infinity of objects, causes...etc.

I am curious what yo guys think about these parallels!

I study YouTube and youtubers and run interviews with content creators from different niches. If you have a YouTube channel, I'd love to have an interview with you to learn about your niche, about your content, how you come up with ideas for videos and what are some of your biggest struggles.

So far I've had 11 interviews with creators from the travel, gaming (3x), fishing, science, books, entertainment and dog training niches. In each interview I try to share as much as I can from what I've learned during the previous interviews.

Typically an interview lasts about an hour. Discord, Google Meet, Zoom and even Skype are fine.

If you have any questions, I'll be happy to answer them.

Wish you best of luck with your channels. I hope we will all soon see more views on our channels than we can hope for.

Basically these seem to be the 4 things from stopping me from actually making progress in my belief system.

To start, let’s just assume the best case scenario. That all things are indeed themselves, things can only hold one truth value, there are only two truth values (true and false), and we can’t be wrong about sound deductive argumentation.

So to start, we can just add the truth value false to the proposition “things can only hold one truth value”. This is because when u add it, you’re making it not be the case in addition to being the case. Since by adding the value false, it’s still consistent because when you add the false value, you’re making it false, thus being able to contain the value false.

So now that we see it could be the case that it’s both true and false that things only hold one truth value, it’s therefore false, which means we have opened the possibility to adding false to all the other propositions.

So now it could be the case that it’s true and false that “all things are themselves”, “there are only two truth values”, and “sound deductive argumentation proves something for 100% certainty”.

But wait there’s more. Now that it could be false that there are only two truth values, now we have to consider more than two truth values applying to everything else again.

So now for all 4 of the propositions mentioned they could all hold three or more truth values.

So it seems that even if I can prove what I want to prove (the 4 propositions I mentioned), it just doesn’t even matter since it spirals into incoherent jiberish out of my comprehension again. So it’s like can I not prove anything?

We will analyse Euklids axioms of (plane) geometry. They are:

1. you can draw a straight line from any point to any point.

2. you can produce (extend) any finite straight line continously in a straight line.

3. you can draw a circle with any centre and radius.

4. all right angles are equal.

5. the parallel postulate.

Theory is the set of all truths that logically follow (are neccessary, are generated) from axioms. First four axioms are constructive. Adding any of the first four axioms to the other four adds complexity to the theory, it increases the number of truths in theory, it generates additional truths. The parallel postulate is reductive. It reduces the number of truths in the theory. It colapses the theory of geometry into the theory of Euclidian geometry, a smaller, special case.

Third and fourth axiom define distance and angle and are implied and not relevant to us. Equivalent statement of first two axioms is:

1. there is a point in between any two points.

2. every point is in between two other points.

This generates a line. We can generate further dimensions by adding any number of copies of axiom:

3. there is a point that is not part of the theory as constructed so far.

This generates a plane. Additional copies generate new directions. It is a constructive axiom, 3-D geometry is bigger, it consists of more thruths than 2-D geometry and it includes it. The question remains What is a point? and What is in between?. In between comes from order theory, deeper in mathematics and it is well defined and very common there. Point is emergent and it's what we care about. Definition of point is given by the axioms:

Point is anything that is in between two other points and has another point in between itself and any other point, or:

If S is a set and

if every element of S is in between two other elements of S and

if there is an element of S that is in between any two other elements of S

than S is (general) space and its elements are points.

Anything that is as above is a point and all of them span space and entire geometry, as all truths of geometry are true if above is true, as proven by Euclid. For example, real numbers are as above. Every real number is in between two other real numbers and there is a real number in between any two real numbers, thus the number line and coordinates and you can prove geometry theorems just by proving analogue theorems of number theory, as famously done by Gallois. This has a cool name which I forgot. Another example is particle positions. Every possible position is in between two other possible positions and in between any two possible positions there is a possible position, hence the real space. This is almost true, that's why we have almost classical universe. Pressure, volume and temperature of gas also gives you pVT space. All spaces are emergent, space is a set of all positions, what is the ontology of position doesn't matter, as long as they satisfy above.

This is what emergence is but should perhaps be called convergence, or:

If different ontologies produce the same axioms than they generate the same theory.

Let's generalize.

Computers are emergent. By computer I mean this: Computer is a set of following objects: processor, hard drive, ram... that can be used to read this post. Everyone think they know how computers work and they do know on this level. This is possible because it doesn't matter how they work on deeper levels. Semiconductors, electrons, the standard model of particle physics they don't matter because if different ontologies produce the same axioms than they generate the same theory. It doesn't matter whether it's Sony or Samsung, silicon or germanium, electronics or pneumatics. Anything, any ontology, that behaves like ram, that gives you correct output given correct input is ram and can be used to build a computer.

This post is also emergent phenomenon. It doesn't matter whether written or spoken, english or klingon, the meaning of this post is the same. It doesn't matter what is the ontology of its words it has the same meaning.

Chemistry is emergent. Chemical elements are its axioms, hence the name. It doesn't matter what is the ontology of elements. Matter or antimatter, protons or antimuons, C-12 or C-13 they all give you toluene.

Molecular biology is emergent. It doesn't matter what is the ontology of genes. DNA, RNA or entirely artifical RNA factory. They all give you functioning cells.

Every emergent phenomena has one special ontology, mathematical one that is predetermined and unchangeable.

Is Buddhism a spiritual practice, religion, or metaphysics? This question often sparks contemplation and debate among those interested in Buddhism and many who seek the meaning of truth. To some, it offers a practical philosophy for living a meaningful life; to others, it's a profound spiritual journey. And for many, it's a way of life deeply rooted in tradition and practice.

For anyone interested, I have authored an analysis of the contemporary landscape of the modern Buddhist institution (from the perspective of Theravada Buddhism in Thailand) and explained the essence of truth, according to a Buddhist perspective, without using Generative AI. You can find the full analysis at the following link: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1V37yO8l3TLKJUOnGk_BYtGMHRkamqQcx/view?usp=sharing

To keep things shorter, I will use the word I came up with which means "greater than infinite", which is "tranxenda infinite".

When I say tranxenda infinite, I do not mean a set of infinity which is greater than another set of infinity, I instead mean something which is longer than forever and thus has no application to mathematics but instead philosophy.

Also, here are two words I came up with some time ago to add a more specific depth to the meaning of the word nothing which is relevant to my explanation:

First word, Non-Applicable Existence (noun):

Definition: An existence that is not relevant or applicable to a particular context or situation.

Second word, Less Than Non-Applicable Existence (noun)

Definition: A hypothetical state of existence that is so insignificant and irrelevant to a particular context or situation that it cannot be distinguished from not being there at all. It denotes a level of existence that is so minimal that it has no practical or observable impact on the world or any system.

More detailed explanation: Try thinking about it this way, there could be an object that you will never think about, but that doesn't mean that object that you will never think about isn't a real thing, it just means that you'll never think about it.

+++

You might argue that nothing is tranxenda infinite, and you would be correct, but the issue here is understanding what nothing means. Nothing, is simply said understanding where your understanding suddenly cuts out. A non-applicable existence is something which exists, but not in whatever is applicable to you at that given time, in other words, you don't understand how it could apply in that situation since it lacks an applicable existence.

Less than non-applicable existence is an existence which not only you don't understand as being an applicable existence in a certain context, but you also can't understand how it would be an applicable existence in other situations since you have not yet gained awareness of it.

Tranxenda infinite is not only something you can't understand at all, but it's also something greater than infinite. But it being greater than infinite is not you understanding it any, it's understanding that after understanding infinity your understanding of there being anything more than that cuts off. Some conclude that this means they understand what that means, but that's because they incorrectly think they can understand nothing due to mixing up the non-value that the word nothing represents, as well as the word nothing itself, in other words, thinking they understand a hole in the ground by thinking the hole is both the ground surrounding the hole as well as the absence of dirt at the same time. It's true, that we oftentimes understand the value and non-value of the hole at the same time, but those two things are not the same thing, if this were not true, the number 0 would not exist since such a non-value that zero represents would not exist as applicable to our lives at all. Not only all that, but we would also understand everything since nothing would be in our understanding of things, it would not be separate from it, but in such a situation nothing would not be nothing anymore, it would be something which causes everything to make sense somehow with no lack of understanding remaining.

But here's where it gets interesting, if there is no tranxenda infinite, why is it possible to think there could be tranxenda infinite? If infinity is all that there is at the most, then it would stand to reason we would be able to think of no greater possibility, and yet here we are with tranxenda infinite as a possibility, implying that no, it's not a mere possibility, but actually real.

+++

Edit: I'm seeing a lot of comments of people who clearly don't understand my post by making counter arguments that don't work because they're not actually understanding my explanation in the first place. There can be nothing greater than tranxenda infinite because to say so would be like saying that nothing is greater than nothing, we lack understanding of tranxenda infinite to make such a statement, but we can say that nothing is greater than infinite because we understand infinity enough to use it as a basis to say that nothing is greater than infinite. If infinite were nothing to us as tranxenda infinite is, then we would not be able to say that nothing is greater than infinite because infinite would be nothing to us, thus it would be like saying that nothing is greater than nothing because infinite would be nothing.

Also, a "hole" is a word which is used for two different things, but people often think you can use the word hole to mean both of those two different things at the same time (which is the absence of dirt and the ground around the hole affecting the value of the hole).

In math, a hole would not be the dirt around the hole when trying to figure out how much dirt you have in a certain space, it would be 0. But if you're trying to figure out how much space you have available, it would be a positive value (something you understand), and the dirt would be 0 (something you don't understand as being available space). However, in the case of the hole being a positive value in math, the dirt around the hole would be right next to the borders of the hole, giving the dimensions needed to understand the amount of space in the hole via math formulas. But even in that situation, the dirt is not something you understand as a positive value, it's the exact point that you can't understand which causes you to "see" the dimensions of the hole via the max limit of the space available (the edges of the space).

But if you mix those two types of holes up, you see it as both a positive and non-value, or in other words, a type of nothing you understand, which is illogical.

It's obvious to us our conscious is real. Our experience of existing is so deeply and clearly evident to us. I think all of the collective experiences of conscious beings eventually point to asking the question of what we even are and what is existence itself. Consciousness itself can't be defined, it has no weight or physical properties but it's ever present. Something that completely present but unobservable could be infinitely large or infinitely small or both at the same time. One of the limitations we commonly experience has to do with the nature of our macro universe and that is that everything has a start. I don't think something of the nature of consciousness or existence itself needs a start or an end to exist at all.

If you exist with no beginning and for no reason, then the question of why you exist, or what you are, is impossible to resolve. So the two considerations here are, we know we exist, and lets assume there is no beginning to the existence of consciousness itself. It creates an impossible paradox capable of trapping existence itself in a tight loop of questioning it's own existence. I think the universe is a buffer that causes that loop to slow down and expand outward.

I think that the rules of the universe make perfect sense if you interpret them as abstract nonsense designed to obfuscate efforts to find the answer. No matter how small we look we keep finding things smaller and smaller and it gets increasingly difficult to see what's happening. We just got the higgs boson but i suspect it'll keep going and going. The rules seem to keep changing and we both make more progress and the rules start to make less sense. I think the effort to find the "answer" on the small end will run off to infinite computational complexity and is impossible to solve.

The same problem happens if you look out to the big, the edges of the universe the rules get more and more complicated, and the more we learn the more new obstacles get in the way, like dark energy, dark matter, and the changing hubble constant. I think the computational complexity of looking outward will also grow to infinity and be impossible to solve. Similar things apply to looking both forward and backwards in time conceptually, for example seeing past the big bang or the end of the universe.

There's no logical reason that a universe that does exist, however unlikely for a universe to even exist, should be that hard to understand. It makes the most logical sense if the universe has a purpose and it is specifically meant to evade our understanding. Uncertainty appears to grow infinitely as you try to approach the answer on the small scale or big scale. Other features lie in line with this train of thought. Including the limitations of the speed of light and the universes potential expansion past that speed. Quantum mechanics where you can only know the possibilities and their probabilities with no certainty. I believe those two things combined mean it's fundamentally impossible to know everything happening everywhere with certainty even if you had unlimited computing power.

So if all this is the case, the only possible proof i can think of is that there will never be a unifying theory, because the attempt to bridge the biggest scales of the universe, and the smallest scales of the universe, are meeting on all sides of consciousness itself, which simply can't be defined. No matter which way we look we'll find more and more plausible theories that aren't quite right. The impossible nature of defining the universe is exactly equal to the impossible nature of defining consciousness because the impossibility itself is the foundation for both.

So could it be that the universe itself is a sort of reciprocal of consciousness, like an inverted mirror being pushed outward by the mere attempt to understand itself. Impossible to see directly, so the entire universe is created as a sort of bubble around it.

-by Swami BV Tripurari

Vedānta maintains that denying that consciousness is causal is illogical. In Western philosophy such denial has been called a “performative contradiction.” This contradiction was mentioned earlier in our discussion of the jñānī’s notion of consciousness as primal, a notion that is shared by the yogī and the devotee. A performative contradiction is an instance when a claim is at odds with the presuppositions or implications of the act of claiming it. Such is the denial of a causal role to consciousness, for the very act of denying requires consciousness. David Ray Griffin makes the following insightful observation:

​

Three of our (hard-core) commonsense beliefs are our presuppositions (1) that we have conscious experience, (2) that this conscious experience, while influenced by our bodies, is not wholly determined thereby but involves an element of self-determining freedom, and (3) that this partially free experience exerts efficacy upon our bodily behavior, giving us a degree of responsibility for our bodily actions.

​

Griffin distinguishes hard-core beliefs from soft-core beliefs. Hard-core convictions cannot be denied without self-contradiction. Such hard-core beliefs are universal in human society and are differentiated from soft-core common sense beliefs in that soft-core sensibilities “are not common to all peoples and can be denied without self-contradiction.” Any number of superstitions are soft-core beliefs, a kind of common sense that observation later demonstrates to be false.

​

Griffin’s three hard-core beliefs are common to everyone, be they spiritual or materialistic in their worldview. A worldview that denies these beliefs is illogical and contradictory. Such a worldview also relativizes our moral life in that it leaves no one responsible for behavior good or bad. It also renders our human discourse no more truly meaningful than the sound of raindrops falling from above, reminding us of the caustic remarks of Whitehead: “Scientists animated by the purpose of proving themselves purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study.”

​

Griffin’s three beliefs are those that we all presuppose in practice, and thus to verbally deny their validity is self-contradictory. One cannot implicitly affirm something that one explicitly denies and expect to be taken seriously. For example, one cannot meaningfully say, “I am dead.” These three beliefs are as old as humanity, but unlike other beliefs of old, they are not superstitious.

​

As Griffin points out, unfortunately all of the existing reductive notions of consciousness from philosophy and neuroscience deny at least one and in most cases all three of these hard-core beliefs. Thus such naturalist or materialist notions of consciousness are counterintuitive, lack strong common sense, and are arguably irrational.

​

In her book, Consciousness: A Brief Insight, Susan Blackmore writes that ninety percent of the people in the world are dualists, including herself in the ten percent that are not. Dualists basically think that consciousness is in some way different from their brain and body and that consciousness plays a causal role in our lives. I would disagree with Blackmore: one hundred percent of people are dualists, including Blackmore herself, inasmuch as actions speak louder than words. That is, in our everyday practical life we act as though our thoughts influence our physical actions. To believe otherwise—that consciousness or the mind is physical and noncausal—is highly irrational.

The truth is we are all one . A think veil of maya separates us from the Truth. Think about like this every computer has an OS , for us the OS is time and space within time and space are all of us actions ,feelings and thoughts recorded. Now as we strip away the maya of our subjective experience and see the objective reality , we will realize that essentially we are all one . An OS that runs in all of us the things that makes us conscious , the observing mind . But we can’t separate ourselves from our OS God is within us and is everywhere not as a personified being but as an OS or will that makes us conscious and lets the universe experience itself. The reason I say that conscious is like an os (operating system) is because whatever humans create , we create it by peaking into a slice of the grand tapestry of reality. So when I use the OS analogy here I am essentially looking at what we have made. Then reflecting back on why we made it that particular way. So if we look at ecosystem created by Samsung and Apple , we can see that there’s one software running in all the devices with each device being more or less similar . In the same way we human are like that . Same OS permeating through us all , giving rise to our individualities and at the same time our “oneness”

Hi everyone.

I have recently become interested in the possibility of atheistic or non-theistic views that are neither traditionally theistic (of course) or a nihilistic form of atheism. Essentially, I want to look at and learn more about philosophical positions or metaphysical systems that reject both traditional theism and atheistic nihilism, arguing instead for (or simply developing) more normatively unique and metaphysically exotic forms of atheistic and non-theistic philosophical worldviews (such as not being specifically reductionistic, eliminativist, or nihilistic in a materialist manner).

So, is it possible to have atheistic and non-theistic worldviews that defend forms of metaphysical idealism, forms of atheistic axiarchism, forms of "natural teleology" and even a possible "Cosmic Purpose" (all this teleology and purpose being independent of the theistic God). 

I am also especially interested in the possibility of a so-called "atheistic" form of Thomism – this would be an Aristotelian-like worldview incorporating an atheistically-construed Thomistic "Being Itself" at reality's foundation. Another unique variation I am potentially interested in is what could be described as a so-called "Atheistic Neo-Platonism" or "non-theistic neo-Platonism" – this type of ontology I imagine would have an impersonally-construed Neo-Platonic One at reality's foundation. 

I would appreciate any help or guidance when it comes to exploring this under appreciated topic in greater detail.

Thank you. 

Hi everyone. I am still trying to come to terms with Arthur Schopenhauer’s metaphysical system (which seems to me to begin by building from Immanuel Kant’s transcendental idealism). The “Will” is clearly of the highest importance for Schopenhauer’s entire philosophy. From my understanding so far, Schopenhauer believed that this Will was eternal, transcendent, singular, a-causal, non-spatial, non-temporal, impersonal and irrational. It would seem then that all the multiplicity that we find in the world — between different objects and events (and even potentially different selves or miniature “wills”) — are only part of the world of “appearance” (or representation), while this Will is the only concrete reality.

Given this, is it true then that “the physical universe,” and all of the physical objects in the world, are nothing but mere illusions (for Schopenhauer), and all that really exists is this transcendent Schopenhauerian Will? Does this mean that all physical truths and facts are really just phenomenal/mental truths and facts for Schopenhauer?

Also, at a fundamental level, what exactly is this “Will?” If it somehow produces the entire cosmos, then what is this singular entity ‘in-of-itself’ for Schopenhauer? Usually, the term “Will” in philosophy, is a feature of mind. Is it therefore the case that for Schopenhauer, this Will is fundamentally mental or possesses some experiential or mind-like quality?

I appreciate any help with someone helping me come to terms with Schopenhauer’s metaphysics. Thanks!

I'd like to start by saying that it's only been a few months that I'm researching and learning about free will. It mainly started out of me not wanting there to be no free will.

I have no problem in believing something which has no definite proof and taking a leap of faith but I do have a problem in taking a leap of faith to believe in something that makes no sense. For example if I want to believe in flat earth no matter how much I try I could never take a leap of faith because it obviously doesn't make sense and isn't true.

My belief in free will is that our choices are influenced by past events and external and internal (emotions, motivations, desires etc.) factors but that they do not fully determine our choice and that in process of decision making also comes mechanisms of free will which we don't know how exactly works. I believe we have a soul and I believe there is a God so maybe that is how we have free will but we can't understand it. Could it also be possible that choices don't have to be determined, random or probabilistic but something fourth?

When making a choice we usually say "I made a choice X for reasons A, B, C" and that sounds like it was determined by those factors and since we don't control those factors it seems like there is no free will. But could it be said that it doesn't have to imply determinism because while reasons A, B, C were present there were also reasons D, E, F to choose choice Y. So what that sentence would actually mean is "I made a choice X for reasons A, B, C, but I could have made choice Y because reasons D, E, F were also present".

So in the end if I, for example, decide to go to the gym instead of stay in bed and sleep it was influenced by my desire to look better, my current motivation, emotinal state etc. but there was also influence of me wanting to sleep so what decided it wasn't deterministic "algorithm" but my free will which I don't know how it works and where it comes from.

Is this believe incoherent or dishonest or irrational? Thanks in advance

1) I know facts about the future
2) if I know facts about the future, either I have epistemic access to the future or future facts entail my present mental state
3) if future facts entail my present mental state, determinism is true
4) from 1, 2 and 3: either I have epistemic access to the future or determinism is true
5) if I have epistemic access to the future, naturalism is false
6) naturalism is true
7) from 4, 5 and 6: determinism is true.

Personally, I reject the first premise, but I think all the assumptions are dubious. Does anyone find the argument persuasive?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x-WrTO5cW94&t=4615s

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x-WrTO5cW94&t=4615s

Hi everyone. A recent area of metaphysics I have become interested in is dispositions. Disposition is a term used in metaphysics usually to indicate a type of property, state or condition. Such a property is one that provides for the possibility of some further specific state or behaviour, usually in circumstances of some specific kind. As an example: consider fragility. If a glass is suitably struck, it will break. Fragility is a property of the glass that accounts for this breaking. We can therefore see that paradigmatic examples of dispositional properties include fragility, solubility, and flammability. Many philosophers consider dispositions (also referred to as: powers, capacities, propensities, tendencies, and so on) to be a major ontological category, on a par with objects, properties, events, and causes.

With all this in mind, it appears that the historically popular metaphysical account of dispositions was a Humean ‘categoricalist’ approach. This can be considered an anti-realist view of dispositions. However, there has been a greater increase in the popularity of an opposing metaphysical account of dispositions, known as ‘dispositional essentialism’ or a ‘powers ontology’. From my reading, this position can be considered a realist view of dispositions as it seems to claim that causal powers and dispositions are fundamental (even though I don’t know what this exactly means or indicates). It also seems that a powers ontology has been gaining in popularity because it could be important in others areas of philosophy (such as potentially accounting for mental causation).

I am very new to this area, and so I was wondering if it is possible for someone to explain in a detailed and simple manner for me, what exactly is ‘dispositional essentialism’ or a ‘powers ontology’ when it comes to dispositions? What makes these class of views unique and how do they differ from the dominant ‘neo-Humeanism’ categoricalist understanding of dispositions? Cheers 🍻

Also, why cant a nessacary being be made up of parts?

She opened a metaphysical college in 1881.

Excerpt from her book, Science and Health:

“The first school of Christian Science Mind-healing was started by the author with only one student in Lynn, Massachusetts, about the year 1867. In 1881, she opened the Massachusetts Metaphysical College in Boston, under the seal of the Commonwealth, a law relative to colleges having been passed, which enabled her to get this institution chartered for medical purposes. No charters were granted to Christian Scientists for such institutions after 1883, and up to that date, hers was the only College of this character which had been established in the United States, where Christian Science was first introduced.”

What books on metaphysics would you recommend to an absolute beginner who is new to philosophy as a whole.

Hello, I invite you to join this newly created discord community where we discuss Eastern Philosophies and Religions. Here you could find friends who might be in a similar predicament as you!

Server invite: https://discord.gg/sangha-1186306502663876628

I am also open to any questions regarding Philosophy or Buddhism, so feel free to message me on discord about anything!

Hi everyone. I am creating this post because I am wanting to clarify a philosophical question I have been pondering recently in metaphysics and the philosophy of mind.

I have become very interested in idealism (along with panpsychism) — which stands opposed to both dualism and physicalism. However, at the moment, I am an atheist, and it appears that most historical idealists (such as Berkeley, Leibniz or Hegel) have been theists of some kind (or belonging to some religious faith). Even further, other people I have spoken with recently about the notion of ‘atheistic idealism’ or ‘non-theistic idealism’, have also said that it is “virtually impossible” to affirm atheism (or naturalism or non-theism) while maintaining an idealist metaphysics.

Due to this, I was therefore wondering do you think it is either coherent or possible to affirm both idealism and atheism (or non-theism, in-general) together? Have there been any prominent philosophical idealists (either today or in the past) who have affirmed both idealism and atheism/non-theism simultaneously? Would it be possible to have an ‘atheistic’ or ‘non-theistic’ idealistic metaphysical system for either a stricter all-encompassing 'monistic idealism' or more ontologically diverse 'pluralistic idealism' (the same could apply to forms of 'objective idealism' and 'subjective idealism')? 

I appreciate any help with this. 

Thank you. 

I used to study philosophy in past and debated a lot of people about abstract stuffs but at some point I have realized that there is literally no point in it. there is literally no point in these mental gymnastics and I can be convinced that something is true but that doesn't mean it's actually true. Literally every philosopher in history differed with each other on fundamental points of metaphysics and epistemology yet all of them were convinced that they were true and they all had their own logic for defending their views. at some point i think we need to mature and understand that we can not really know anything through mental gymnastics. You can use all the reasoning you want to contemplate about what's inside a black hole but that won't mean anything at all. I do believe in existence of Allah because existence of a creator seems really intuitive and basic to me