Neutral Substance Monism - Any Modeling Potential?

[Les Sleeth]

The only reason a block of ice can move through water is because of the space between water molecules (and because the bonds between molecules are not rigid). You cannot solve the problem of movement without space by analogy to any known situation, simply because we do not know of any situation in which no space exists.

It wasn't a perfect analogy because there is nothing in physicalness that is perfectly homogeneous. But in the concept of monism there is no true space. There is only relatively less or more concentrated areas of the ground state substance. Areas that are more concentrated can move about in areas that are less contrated. According to this model, we ourselves are in a highly concentrated state (i.e., the CSN), so the areas between objects only appears devoid of substance, when really it's our concentrated state which prevents us from experiencing the far more subtle esse that composes what we call "space" (that is, except for skilled meditators ).

Edit: By the way, since you are wondering about the modeling potential of monism, you might want to check out the physics of Leibniz, which I believe was based on the idea that the universe was a plenum. I'm not sure that his model was monistic, but I'm pretty sure it did not include space. The verdict from modern science, of course, is that Newton's model, which included space, was a better model, but you can still take a look to at least see how others have done the nuts and bolts part of the modelling, which is going to be important if you truly want to overcome the types of objections that will be raised such as that raised by Castlegate.

You might have missed my comments to someone that Leibniz (along with Plotinus, Russell, Spinoza, Eckhart, Bohm, Fuller, the Buddha, et al) was part of my first exposure to monism. However, Castlegate's objections so far haven't been based on understanding the implications of a single uncreated, homogeneous ground state substance. In fact, I've yet to see anyone here model comfortably with it.

 

[Les Sleeth]

Disagree. Absence of Esse does not imply dualism.

Whether you "disagree" or "agree" really doesn't explain anything. It doesn't help me understand what you see as wrong with the concept to simply say "absence of esse does not imply dualism." Why is that so?

I chose that statement to quote because it seems to be your general objection. Here's why I say esse and esse-absence is duality. (Keep in mind, the theme of this thread is substance monism, so dualism is in relation to that concept.)

Let's say you have a zillion to the zillionth power miles of esse, and then nothing. Does nothing have consequences?

Where there is esse, all we have is one substance. It is like charged particles versus a neutral particle. A charged particle can only be said to exist in relation to another condition particles can be in. So you can't just have a concept for "positive" particles. No matter what the negative side is, the fact of positiveness creates "twoness." A neutral particle, however, requires no counterpart.

Similarly, if you have existence (esse), and then total non-existence (which true nothingness would be), then there is a duality. Only if all is esse, or if all is nothing, can we avoid duality.

[Unrelated question. I can't edit my posts. Is anyone else having this problem?]

 

[moving finger]

Hi Les

I take your point, and have reconsidered my objections as follows :

Esse cannot have been created. If it were created, there must have been a time when it didn’t exist, and that gives us a duality of exist and not exist (duality and monism are mutually exclusive).

Disagree. The argument is basically that there cannot have been any time when esse did not exist (hence esse could not have been created at any point in time). However this does not necessarily imply that esse was not created; it is possible that time and esse were created together, thus there was no “time” before the point of creation of esse.

Esse cannot NOT exist. For similar reasons as above. Esse can only exist, have always existed, and will always exist.

Disagree, see above. This boils down to “there cannot be any time, past or future, when esse does not exist”. But if time was created along with the creation of esse, and if time is destroyed along with the destruction of esse, then there is no time when esse does not exist. Hence it is possible that there is a finite yet unbounded temporal coordinate for esse.

Esse must reside in an infinite continuum. If there were any boundary, even a zillion zillion light years away, then we again have duality.

Disagree. This argument changes the time coordinate to a spatial coordinate. It boils down to : “there can be no space which does not contain esse”. However it is still possible for esse (and space) to be finite and yet unbounded.

Esse must be absolutely homogeneous. For the same reason. Even if there were only an infinitesimally minute bubble of nothingness, then it creates the duality of esse and not-esse.

Agree.

Everything that we know to exist must be a form of esse. If there is only one absolute substance, then the different things we see, from physicalness to consciousness, must be esse in some form.

Agree

Since there can be no spatial breach, the forms esse take (like a planet or ourselves) are understood to not only be composed of and within the primordial continuum of esse, but also wholly connected to (or one with) it.

Agree

To avoid any sort of duality, esse must be seen as true absoluteness in the sense there is nothing more basic or greater than it; there is nothing before or beyond it; there can be no discontinuance of it; there is nothing that is not a manifestation of it; and there is no appearance or behavior which is not 100% (i.e., absolutely) determined by its potentials and limitations.

Mostly agree, except for the limitations to temporal and spatial extent mentioned above. It is possible that esse is finite in both temporal and spatial axes.

MF

 

[loseyourname]

It wasn't a perfect analogy because there is nothing in physicalness that is perfectly homogeneous. But in the concept of monism there is no true space. There is only relatively less or more concentrated areas of the ground state substance. Areas that are more concentrated can move about in areas that are less contrated. According to this model, we ourselves are in a highly concentrated state (i.e., the CSN), so the areas between objects only appears devoid of substance, when really it's our concentrated state which prevents us from experiencing the far more subtle esse that composes what we call "space" (that is, except for skilled meditators ).

To be honest, I still find it terribly difficult to grasp what it is you mean, and I think a lot of us do. No analogy really seems to capture what it is that you want to say. For instance, even the idea of "concentration" requires space (or at least multiple substances). A higher concentration of substance in location A than location B simply means there is more of the substance in relation to either another substance or space in location A than in location B. I think this is why you see the very earliest monists (going all the way back to the pre-Socratics) positing motion as illusory. Actually, my impression of Spinoza was that he did the same, although his whole concept of "modes" is rather confusingly somewhere between illusion and reality. Even Leibniz with his "well-grounded phenomena" and others levels of realness, can become very difficult to follow. I can appreciate that these writings speak to you, but to me they're like reading Greek - I can read Greek, but only by translating it into English in my mind as I read. I haven't yet learned to think like a Greek.

You might have missed my comments to someone that Leibniz (along with Plotinus, Russell, Spinoza, Eckhart, Bohm, Fuller, the Buddha, et al) was part of my first exposure to monism.

I know that you're familiar with his works that I'm familiar with, like the monadology, but I'm referring here to his actual physics. I'm pretty sure that he laid out a system of equations that modeled motion, just as Newton did, only based on the idea that the universe was a plenum. I had the impression that you were seeking in this thread to see what a scientific model based on monism might look like, and I think that Leibniz's physics is probably the closest thing we now have. I'm not personally familiar with his system, however, so don't take my word for it.

On another note, have you ever considered writing a book? Academic philosophy, at least in the US, almost completely neglects the neo-Platonics and really mysticism in general. Medieval philosophy is treated as scholasticism, the Port Royal school, and that's it. I was delighted to recently read a book by Kolakowski that included discussion of Eckhart and Plotinus, men that are all but ignored in most histories of philosophy.

 

[Les Sleeth]

The argument is basically that there cannot have been any time when esse did not exist (hence esse could not have been created at any point in time). However this does not necessarily imply that esse was not created; it is possible that time and esse were created together, thus there was no “time” before the point of creation of esse.

I am not trying to be difficult but it doesn't seem like we are talking about the same thing. There is no issue about esse being created, it is a basic assumption of this theory. If we are going to talk about monism, which is total oneness in every respect, then the object of the exercise is to avoid all duality.

If you read my debate with Tournesol on time ("The Past is Real?" in general philosophy), I argue that time is merely our observation of change, specifically the rate of entropic change. Applied to the monistic idea, time is the rate of change of "forms" of esse. So say we have two concentrations-forms of esse that are deconcentrating, and one is deconcentrating faster than the other, then we'd say slower deconcentrating form has more "time" before it returns to its ground state condition of formless esse. In this model, it is obviously impossible for time to have been created along with esse.

It is also impossible for esse to be created and avoid dualism. I don't think you quite get how strictly monism holds to oneness (as well as how utterly resistant I personally am that something can come from nothing). If you say esse was created, what created it? Even if we allowed that nothing can create something, right there you have the duality of creator and created, or nothing and something. That is not monism.

All of your arguments might be true, but they fail to create a monistic model. If you want to model within the confines of monism, you cannot allow duality of any sort. So an end of esse (a boundary) is two things--esse and no-esse-- and it's the same thing with any sort of temporal or spatial limitations.

Oneness is just one thing, what we've been calling esse. There is nothing else in essence, but there are a huge variety of "forms" of esse.

 

[moving finger]

Hi Les

Have considered the remainder of your initial post, my thoughts as follows :

Since there can be no spatial breach, the forms esse take (like a planet or ourselves) are understood to not only be composed of and within the primordial continuum of esse, but also wholly connected to (or one with) it.

This seems rather obvious. If esse is “all there is” then anything and everything in the universe must be wholly connected with esse.

To avoid any sort of duality, esse must be seen as true absoluteness in the sense there is nothing more basic or greater than it; there is nothing before or beyond it; there can be no discontinuance of it; there is nothing that is not a manifestation of it; and there is no appearance or behavior which is not 100% (i.e., absolutely) determined by its potentials and limitations.

Again, rather obvious that this should be the case. If esse is all there is then it follows that there is no appearance or behaviour which is not 100% determined by esse.

Substance monism seems to give us the means for eliminating some long standing philosophical problems, such as the first cause, infinite regress, and the silly “something from nothing” dilemma.

For example, if we assume that some potential of esse has brought about creation, then to answer first cause we’d reason that there must be conditions present in the infinite eternal esse continuum which can result in our finite temporal universe.

This presumes that creation was “within time and within esse”, however it is possible that both esse and time were created together. Nevertheless both time and esse may be finite yet unbounded, and it may make no more sense to ask “what was before esse?” or “what was before time?” than it makes sense to ask “what is south of the south pole?”

Are there clues in creation which might tell us anything about such conditions in the esse continuum? Logic suggests any traits which are universally present throughout creation are the best candidates for exhibiting the nature of the ground state, as well as the conditions which prevail in the esse continuum.

As stated above, the esse continuum may be finite yet unbounded. I do not see how “logic suggests any traits which are universally present throughout creation are the best candidates for exhibiting the nature of the ground state”.

The next few paragraphs of the first post in this thread go on (rather long-windedly imho) to explain how it may be some form of initial concentration of esse which is responsible for the observed “dispersion” of matter that we see today. But…… how can we have varying concentrations of esse without invoking dualism? A “concentration” of something implies there are a certain number of molecules/particles/grammes/litres (choose your units) of that “something” in “something else”. Thus to have a varying concentration of esse we must be able (in principle) to specify the quantity of esse per unit volume of non-esse. But to do this implies a duality of esse and non-esse.

Can you explain how the concept of a varying concentration of esse makes any sense when esse is supposed to be “all there is”? (It’s abit like saying that water is all there is, there is nothing else in creation apart from water, and then suggesting that there can be varying concentrations of water……). I hope you get my point.

Thanks

MF

 

[moving finger]

I am not trying to be difficult but it doesn't seem like we are talking about the same thing. There is no issue about esse being created, it is a basic assumption of this theory.

In your first post (if I understand it correctly) you try to argue that it is necessary that esse be neither created nor destroyed (for creation or destruction of esse would imply duality), and this therefore also implies that esse is infinite in both temporal and spatial extent. What I am saying is that this does not necessarily follow - it is possible to have a universe which is finite both spatially and temporally and yet which is at the same time unbounded. The monism constraint does not therefore (imho) necessitate that the universe (and esse) be infinite either spatially or temporally.

If you read my debate with Tournesol on time ("The Past is Real?" in general philosophy), I argue that time is merely our observation of change, specifically the rate of entropic change. Applied to the monistic idea, time is the rate of change of "forms" of esse. So say we have two concentrations-forms of esse that are deconcentrating, and one is deconcentrating faster than the other, then we'd say slower deconcentrating form has more "time" before it returns to its ground state condition of formless esse. In this model, it is obviously impossible for time to have been created along with esse.

It is not "obviously impossible" from where I am standing. Imagine that the time coordinate is like the position of latitude on earth. As one descends from the equator to lower and lower latitudes (towards the south pole) then esse (possibly) becomes more concentrated as we go to earlier and earlier times, to reach a singularity at the south pole (-90 degrees latitude). The south pole represents the lowest possible latitude, but there is no boundary or discontinuity in either esse or in time at this point; it makes no sense to talk of latitudes "less than -90 degrees", just as it maybe makes no sense to talk of time before the big bang. In this analogy the south pole can be considered as the temporal coordinate at which esse and time are "created" together, even though there is no boundary and no discontinuity, there is nothing before esse because there is no time before esse.

It is also impossible for esse to be created and avoid dualism. I don't think you quite get how strictly monism holds to oneness (as well as how utterly resistant I personally am that something can come from nothing). If you say esse was created, what created it?

You are assuming that something external to esse must have created it, and you are still also locked in your monotonically increasing time idea. One possible solution is that esse creates itself, and that time creates itself. imho you are perhaps too locked into the idea that oneness implies infinite extent in both time and space, which is what I fundamantally disagree with.

Even if we allowed that nothing can create something, right there you have the duality of creator and created, or nothing and something. That is not monism.

You still insist on viewing this as if it is taking place on a monotonically increasing time axis, where "esse" is necessarily preceded in time by "non-esse". That is not what I am saying at all. I am saying that there is no time at which esse does not exist, and yet esse has not necessarily existed for an infinite time - that it is possible there is an "earliest time" before which there was neither esse nor time. If the concept of time does not exist prior to this point then it makes no sense to talk of creation of anything "in time". Just as it makes no sense to talk of "what is south of the south pole".

All of your arguments might be true, but they fail to create a monistic model.

I disagree. I am arguing simply that a monistic model is not necessarily infinite in spatial and temporal extent, something that you seem to think is necessary.

If you want to model within the confines of monism, you cannot allow duality of any sort. So an end of esse (a boundary) is two things--esse and no-esse-- and it's the same thing with any sort of temporal or spatial limitations.

Please read my posts again. I specifically refer to the fact that the universe may be finite in space and yet unbounded in space, it may be finite in time and yet unbounded in time. I am not suggesting any kind of boundary - you seem to be misreading the posts, sorry.

MF

 

[Les Sleeth]

To be honest, I still find it terribly difficult to grasp what it is you mean, and I think a lot of us do. No analogy really seems to capture what it is that you want to say. For instance, even the idea of "concentration" requires space (or at least multiple substances). A higher concentration of substance in location A than location B simply means there is more of the substance in relation to either another substance or space in location A than in location B.

Hmmmmm. Imagine all the universe is an ocean of water. And just for a moment, imagine that water is not made of molecules, it is only say, a clear wet substance; that is, you can not reduce its basic properties any further. So if you put water under a microscope all you see is clear wetness no matter how much you magnify it. This is what I mean by "absolute homogeneity."

In addition to clear wetness, there are the dynamics of the ocean, so there is wave-ness, whirlpool-ness , flowing-ness, etc.

Now, let's say that rather than temperature creating ice, concentration creates ice in our hypothetical ocean universe, so in various areas of the ocean are chunks of ice, all floating around in the less-concentrated "ground state" condition of fluid water. In this model, "space" is simply room in the water for ice to exist.

Why does it appear to you like space is nothing but an empty area? Well, you are made out of ice, and your eyes are too, and that limits their ability (as long as you only "see" with your eyes) to detect the subtlety of the ground state that's behind everything, and from which all ice-forms have arisen. So what you see instead is different forms of ice, and nothing in between those forms. But something is there, and it is exactly what the ice itself is ultimately made of.

I know that you're familiar with his works [Leibnitz] that I'm familiar with, like the monadology, but I'm referring here to his actual physics. . . . On another note, have you ever considered writing a book? Academic philosophy, at least in the US, almost completely neglects the neo-Platonics and really mysticism in general. Medieval philosophy is treated as scholasticism, the Port Royal school, and that's it. I was delighted to recently read a book by Kolakowski that included discussion of Eckhart and Plotinus, men that are all but ignored in most histories of philosophy.

Meister Eckhart and others who had monistic insights had a powerful impact on me very early, and I didn't even realize it until I started writing my book. Yep, I'm working on one (for more years than my wife is happy about), with a deadline of next June. It isn't neo-Platonism however, but a realistic attempt at a what I call a creationary model. If you are interested, here's a few of the book's opening paragraphs:

This is a book for thinkers who tend to believe that ultimately everything makes sense, and who long to see plausible explanations for how the deepest aspects of creation came to be. Plausibility is worked toward in this book through developing a theoretical model of the source and make up of the universe’s originating forces—the so-called "creationary environment." Such a model obviously can’t be like an airplane model where all the parts and instructions come with one’s purchase; rather, it must be more like a model archaeologists attempt for an extinct Neolithic culture. In that effort researchers unearth ancient buildings, tools, weapons, grains preserved by scorching, pottery, religious relics and so on in order to reconstruct a model of Neolithic life from surviving artifacts. Since Neolithic culture as a whole is invisible to prehistorians, that’s the only way they have of gaining insight into it.
This type of modeling relies on inductive reasoning, which is a fancy logic term that means, in this case, to study the available “parts” of a situation in order to make inferences about the makeup of an unobservable “whole”. In terms of a creationary environment, are there actual “parts” like those we might find at a Neolithic dig? In a way there are, it’s just that recognizing them requires the specialized inductive approach that characterizes this book.
The approach begins by isolating what’s referred to as "foundational gaps." The gaps are long-standing absenses in scientific explanations for factors needed to account for the foundation of creation. The reference to archeology was apt because after the gaps are identified, the middle of the book is organized somewhat like an “excavation” where clues dug out of the ancient philosophies of India, China, and the West and used to guide explanations developed for the missing foundational factors. Since the foundational factors appear uncaused by anything within creation, they are assumed to be derived from an undetected set of conditions in a creationary milieu outside the universe, and as such are gradually assembled into a creationary model.
Overall the idea is to give creationary plausibility an earnest effort, and to check it as rigorously as any non-empirical theory wishing to be taken seriously can be. Therefore, the book’s last section tests the creationary model by seeing what it might contribute to understanding key features of the universe we require to exist— creation’s physical, living, and conscious aspects.


I first joined PF to test out my ideas, and I've been doing so ever since. If you ever read the book, you will see many of the I've issues raised here. I started this monism thread, for instance, partly because I think one of the missing "foundational factors" is a ground state substance and its ground state conditions, but mostly because people seem to have a hard time with substance monism. I am trying to figure out how to communicate the concept better.

In the last section of my book, I test the monistic model by modeling (among other things) our universe's physics (in broad paint strokes to be sure). I have accounted for all the big stuff like how the ground state substance can manifest as an atom, gravity, light speed, relativity, time, energy, mass, etc. Some of my older threads were testing those ideas, and some people here really helped me (such as Tom, Janus, Nereid) even if they didn't know it.

Sometimes I know I am going to get blasted for an idea, like the Phillip Johnson thing, or when I challenge the belief that we have all we need for an abiogenesis or evolution theory. I want to see how I can handle the arguments, and how mine hold up (I also am usually directed to new information I can study that helps me understand better). I know I am at a science site. But for the kind of realistic philosophy I want to write, I need my arguments grounded in facts as much as possible, and that's why the explanations science types force me to produce are invaluable.

Anyway, maybe that will help you understand the exceedingly rare occasions of my confrontive attitude a little better.

 

[Les Sleeth]

In your first post (if I understand it correctly) you try to argue that it is necessary that esse be neither created nor destroyed (for creation or destruction of esse would imply duality), and this therefore also implies that esse is infinite in both temporal and spatial extent. What I am saying is that this does not necessarily follow - it is possible to have a universe which is finite both spatially and temporally and yet which is at the same time unbounded. The monism constraint does not therefore (imho) necessitate that the universe (and esse) be infinite either spatially or temporally.

First, all I meant by "boundary" is where you might come to the extent of esse.

Also, I don't see our universe as the beginning of time or anything else except for this universe. It seems like you are trying to fit monism to the creation of this universe, and if so I say you have left open the the problem of first cause. The universe got started at some point by something that caused the BB. What is the something that caused the BB, and the something that caused that, etc.? How do we get out of that modeling dilemma without resorting to some nonsensical or exotic something-from-nothing explanation?

I don't think we will ever agree from the things you are saying. To you it is perfectly okay to say esse is finite, or to say esse is creating itself, and still believe you are talking about monism. Whereas to me, once you reach a point where esse is no more, or wasn't to begin with . . . then I think something else, or nothing at all, has to be beyond or before or after where esse is, was, or will be. That gives us at least two things and/or conditions, not one.

Besides not getting around duality to say esse creates itself, there's the problem of where the material coming from for the new esse! It's like the concept of the universe "bubbling up from quantum fluctuations." Quantum fluctuations of what? To say esse is creating itself and the spac to expand into is falling into same trap of infinite regress, or of something from nothing, to explain where it all originates.

I cannot see any way out of infinite regress and something from nothing except to say something has always existed, and it exists everywhere.

 

[Castlegate]

Originally Posted by Les Sleeth
it exists, and cannot NOT exit

By Castlegate
Seems like a duality to me.


Posted by Les Sleeth
How so? All I am saying is that esse is pure existence. That's about as monistic as it gets.

I fail to see how anything can be understood in a monistic scenerio. I'd have to ask where the concept of Non-Existence came from. If all there is is Existence, how did we manage to create a concept that does not exist. It is sort of like saying all there is is Yes, and there is no such animal as no. In fact the word (no) wouldn't be a part of our vocabulary, and in this scenerio no understanding at all is possible, because (yes) has no meaning without the buttress of (no).

What I'm saying is all that is, is equally dependent on what it is not. In the case of Existence, we must accept a Non-Existence right next door in order to carry some kind of understanding. It just can't happen the way you are trying to describe.

 

[moving finger]

Hi Les

I know and understand exactly what you are saying, but (with respect) you seem to be blind to other possibilities.

First, all I meant by "boundary" is where you might come to the extent of esse.

Let me repeat once again to make it crystal clear - I am not suggesting any kind of boundary to esse, either temporal or spatial. I am also not suggesting there is any part of space or time where esse does not exist. Please let us get this quite clear before we move on. I really do not understand why you keep inferring from my posts that I am suggesting any kind of spatial or temporal boundary.

Also, I don't see our universe as the beginning of time or anything else except for this universe.

"Universe" by definition is "all there is". It makes no sense to talk of "this universe" as opposed to any other universe, because by definition "this universe" is all there is. If time is finite that does not necessarily mean there is a beginning of time, any more than a finite space implies a beginning of space. The Earth is finite but as a 2-dimensional being you can travel as far as you like on the surface of the Earth and never find a beginning or an end to the surface that you are traveling on. Space and time could be the same.

You seem to assume that time and space must both be infinite in extent. It is well accepted within cosmology that this need not be the case. Both time and space can be finite and yet at the same time unbounded. This is perfectly possible, and figures as the basis for a number of cosmological models. A finite space does NOT necessarily mean that there is any edge or boundary to space; if space is filled with esse then a finite space does not necessarily mean that there will be a discontinuity where we go from space with esse to space without esse (as you seem to assume). The same argument applies to time - if time is filled with esse (ie esse exists at all times) then a finite time coordinate does not necessarily mean that there will be any discontinuity where we go from time with esse and time without esse (as you seem to assume).

It seems like you are trying to fit monism to the creation of this universe, and if so I say you have left open the the problem of first cause. The universe got started at some point by something that caused the BB. What is the something that caused the BB, and the something that caused that, etc.? How do we get out of that modeling dilemma without resorting to some nonsensical or exotic something-from-nothing explanation?

I am not trying to fit monism to anything - I am trying to show that monism does not necessitate an infinite spacetime as you assume. It is possible that the universe is finite in time and space, and still totally self-consistent in the sense that its very existence supports itself without any need for any external cause (by external here I mean external to the finite time and space of the universe). This is one speculation.

An alternative speculation is that the universe is caused, but caused by an agent which is outside of our universe and outside of our time and space. I know you will object that this once again opens the door to dualism, but this is not dualism "within our universe", it is only a dualism in the sense that there may be some form of non-esse which exists exterior to our spacetime, which non-esse was the cause of the creation of our spacetime and our universe, but which non-esse does not play any part in the evolution of our universe. In this speculation our universe is then monistic; dualism only enters the scene when we consider dimensions outside of our spacetime.

I don't think we will ever agree from the things you are saying.

We will never agree as long as you misinterpret what I am saying in terms of boundaries :)

To you it is perfectly okay to say esse is finite, or to say esse is creating itself, and still believe you are talking about monism. Whereas to me, once you reach a point where esse is no more, or wasn't to begin with

But Les, Les, Les, my dear friend... this is where you are going wrong. Spacetime and esse can both be finite but this does NOT mean that "you reach a point where esse is no more, or wasn't to begin with", any more than you will fall off the edge of the finite Earth if you travel too far!

Besides not getting around duality to say esse creates itself, there's the problem of where the material coming from for the new esse!

There is an accepted hypothesis that the entire mass-energy of the universe is zero - gravitational energy exactly cancels out mass and other energy. Therefore it is possible that there is no "problem of where the material came from".

I cannot see any way out of infinite regress and something from nothing except to say something has always existed, and it exists everywhere.

What is wrong with a never-ending cycle of creation and destruction, where space and time are created along with esse? Is this any more unpalatable than your infinite spacetime?

All I am trying to do is to open your eyes to other possibilities. But they say there are none so blind as those that will not see.

Cheers

MF

 

[Les Sleeth]

I am going to start with these statements of yours you made at opposite ends of your post:

I know and understand exactly what you are saying, but (with respect) you seem to be blind to other possibilities. . . . All I am trying to do is to open your eyes to other possibilities. But they say there are none so blind as those that will not see.

There is no eyes-closed obstinacy going on here. I have been trying to model monistically full-time since 1991, so trust me when I say I am extremely open to anything that works. In fact, that's the reason I started this post. I have tried your version, almost obsessively at first, because it best fits with modern cosmological theory. The only reason for my current version is because I couldn't make a finite thing work, and because it doesn't account for certain experiences I and others have had about something basic which seems uncreated.

And respectfully, since you haven't answered my objections yet, I can't see how, as you say, you "understand exactly what [I am] saying."

Let me repeat once again to make it crystal clear - I am not suggesting any kind of boundary to esse, either temporal or spatial. I am also not suggesting there is any part of space or time where esse does not exist. Please let us get this quite clear before we move on. I really do not understand why you keep inferring from my posts that I am suggesting any kind of spatial or temporal boundary.

You don't say it directly, but it is the conclusion I must come to by the way you are modeling.

"Universe" by definition is "all there is". It makes no sense to talk of "this universe" as opposed to any other universe, because by definition "this universe" is all there is.

Well, here is exactly why we are unable to agree. The universe is not by definition all there is unless you use the term "universe" to refer to our physical universe. It may be all we can know empirically, but then there are some who develop experiential abilities that the sense-bound empiricist won't know.

This is what I meant about why we are on totally two different pages. This universe seems puny, minute, absolutely tiny to me when considering it against the infinite ocean of esse. It's a speck.

If you want to limit a base substance to this universe to help with modeling strictly within known scientific concepts, that's fine with me. It seems like a practical, sort of Bohm-like idea. But it doesn't satisfy my goal of explaining the origin of all, it isn't what I am talking about.

The empiricst wants it explained one way, but the introspectionist wants more. These words of the Buddha I've quoted many times describe the expansion of existential concepts that would incorporate what some of us have experienced inwardly, “There is, monks, that plane where there is neither extension nor motion. . . there is no coming or going or remaining or deceasing or uprising. . . . There is, monks, an unborn, not become, not made, uncompounded . . .

If time is finite that does not necessarily mean there is a beginning of time, any more than a finite space implies a beginning of space. The Earth is finite but as a 2-dimensional being you can travel as far as you like on the surface of the Earth and never find a beginning or an end to the surface that you are traveling on. Space and time could be the same. . . .
There is an accepted hypothesis that the entire mass-energy of the universe is zero - gravitational energy exactly cancels out mass and other energy. Therefore it is possible that there is no "problem of where the material came from"

That pretty much proves you are just talking physicalness. You seem to think esse would be in the realm of the physical, and it isn't. The physical descends from the absoluteness of esse (in the monistic model).

You seem to assume that time and space must both be infinite in extent.

You really aren't getting the concept. There is no space, there is no time in esse! They are illusions of "form."

It is well accepted within cosmology that this need not be the case. Both time and space can be finite and yet at the same time unbounded. This is perfectly possible, and figures as the basis for a number of cosmological models.

I know what's accepted. You apparently think I am unfamiliar with the current theories, but you are wrong. I know them and can't make sense of the ultimate origin of things with them. It is you who doesn't get the monism I'm proposing. You are stuck in the science box.

What is wrong with a never-ending cycle of creation and destruction, where space and time are created along with esse? Is this any more unpalatable than your infinite spacetime?

I've already explained what's wrong with them. You aren't buying my objections. I can't fathom, for instance, why you think it's fine for esse to create more esse out of ? What, nothing? Where's the material for creation coming from? I am quite familiar with this concept, I alluded to it before in the idea of our universe "bubbling up out of quantum fluctuations." It's the same nonsensical (to me) idea that you can bubble up a megamassive existence simply from a fluctuation, without anything of substance to compose it.

Maybe we should just stop here since you don't seem to want to temporarily suspend your physicalistic concepualizations to see this very different way of looking at origins. No judgement intended, I am just not interested in trying to model origins within the confines of modern cosmology since I am certain there is something prior to and more basic than that.

 

[Les Sleeth]

I fail to see how anything can be understood in a monistic scenerio. I'd have to ask where the concept of Non-Existence came from.

There is no such thing as non-existence in essence! Think about this for a second. Using the water/ice analogy again, if water were uncreated, and has always existed, then that is existence. Ice may form in it, and then return to the lasting form of water. To the ice there is existence and non-existence, but to the water, there is just existence, and temporary "forms" existence takes.

We humans are in "form," and we see the end of it coming sooner or later. To us it means non-existence, but once we are formless, we simply exist without form.

If all there is is Existence, how did we manage to create a concept that does not exist. It is sort of like saying all there is is Yes, and there is no such animal as no. In fact the word (no) wouldn't be a part of our vocabulary, and in this scenerio no understanding at all is possible, because (yes) has no meaning without the buttress of (no).

You are kidding, right? We can conceptualize anything. Being able to conceptualize doesn't mean it has anything to do with the ultimate nature of reality. We conceptualize non-existence based on appearances, not on actually knowing what happens when we lose form.

In absoluteness there is only "yes." But once you enter the world of form, there is yes, no, maybe, and plenty of other variations.

What I'm saying is all that is, is equally dependent on what it is not. In the case of Existence, we must accept a Non-Existence right next door in order to carry some kind of understanding. It just can't happen the way you are trying to describe.

In the relative world of form, you are right. But you haven't yet grasped that the type of modeling I am proposing begins in the formless realm of the absolute which cannot NOT exist.

 

[Paul Martin]

A question for Les Sleeth: In your view, does esse have the ability to know?

Paul

 

[moving finger]

A question for Les Sleeth: In your view, does esse have the ability to know?

Sorry to interject, but if this question were asked of me I would of course answer "yes" (esse is defined as all there is).

MF

 

[Castlegate]

You are kidding, right?

Actually I'm quite serious. We are able to think, not because we are made of Esse. We are able to think because we have a contradiction such as something up against nothing.

From Paul Martin and moving finger.

I would submit that the Esse is not conscious. Moving finger makes a good point that the Esse would be conscious because that's all there is, but that assumes that Esse is possible in the first place. That's why I question the infinitely composed Esse, which means there is an infinitely small fundamental entity, by which we must ascertain properties. I find it difficult to pass off properties to something that has no size. I.E. A fudamental entity of Esse has smalled it way out of Existence. It is not possible to take a fundamental unit of Esse and say it measures Yea by yea (there is no measure), and if I can't give it this kind of reality, it does not exist.

 

[moving finger]

Hi again Les

I have been trying to model monistically full-time since 1991, so trust me when I say I am extremely open to anything that works. In fact, that's the reason I started this post. I have tried your version, almost obsessively at first, because it best fits with modern cosmological theory. The only reason for my current version is because I couldn't make a finite thing work, and because it doesn't account for certain experiences I and others have had about something basic which seems uncreated.

Can you share with us your reasons for believing that a finite spacetime “will not work”? You have not done so thus far (you simply implicitly assume that spacetime must be infinite without rigorously showing why it must be infinite).

And respectfully, since you haven't answered my objections yet, I can't see how, as you say, you "understand exactly what [I am] saying."

I apologise if you believe I have not answered your objections, but I have been trying to do just that. Unfortunately your objections seem to centre on the problems created by “boundaries” in space or time, but as I have said many times already I am not proposing or suggesting any boundaries in space or time, hence I do not see where your objection arises. I understand what you are saying (about your objections to boundaries) but I do not understand why you are saying it (when I am not proposing any boundaries).

Perhaps you can explain why you think a finite spacetime containing esse necessarily has a boundary, such that there would be regions of space without esse and regions of time without esse?

I am not suggesting any kind of boundary to esse, either temporal or spatial.

You don't say it directly, but it is the conclusion I must come to by the way you are modeling.

Sorry, but you are mistaken. Why do you (erroneously) conclude this? Am I correct in thinking you are assuming that any finite space containing esse must necessarily have a spatial boundary such that there is space without esse? This does not necessarily follow. If you do not understand why then please take some time to study some of the modern cosmological/topological models of spacetime. It is well known and accepted in both cosmology and topology that any N-dimensional space (a surface, or a volume of space, or a time) can be both finite and unbounded. Don’t just “intuitively disbelieve it”, read up about it, please.

In other words, what I am saying is your inference that a finite space must necessarily create a boundary (where there is then space without esse) is incorrect. The same reasoning applies to time.

"Universe" by definition is "all there is". It makes no sense to talk of "this universe" as opposed to any other universe, because by definition "this universe" is all there is.

Well, here is exactly why we are unable to agree. The universe is not by definition all there is unless you use the term "universe" to refer to our physical universe. It may be all we can know empirically, but then there are some who develop experiential abilities that the sense-bound empiricist won't know.

Sorry, the reason we disagree (with all due respect) is because you are misreading me (yet again). I did not say the universe is “all we know empirically”, I said the universe is “all there is”. If the universe is as large and expanding as fast as some think, there are necessarily some parts of the universe which are and will always be beyond our ability to communicate with (ie they are beyond our event horizon). We can never experience those parts of the universe, but nevertheless they are still part of the universe.

This is what I meant about why we are on totally two different pages. This universe seems puny, minute, absolutely tiny to me when considering it against the infinite ocean of esse. It's a speck.

Then (with respect) you do not understand the concept of universe. By definition, universe is “all there is”. You seem to prefer a different definition which somehow limits the universe to….. what?

If you want to limit a base substance to this universe to help with modeling strictly within known scientific concepts, that's fine with me.

What do you mean by “base substance”?
I am not trying to impose any limits, I am simply confirming what “universe” means to most (scientific) people. It means “all there is”. Period.

It seems like a practical, sort of Bohm-like idea. But it doesn't satisfy my goal of explaining the origin of all, it isn't what I am talking about.

With respect, your search for the “origin of all” seems locked in the idea that space and time must proceed on some kind of linear progression (this is imho why you believe that a finite spacetime implies some kind of boundary). Please try to see that this is not necessarily so. There are many more possible topologies for spacetime than a simple linear progression.

The empiricst wants it explained one way, but the introspectionist wants more.

lol – so now I am a simple empiricist and you are an introspectionist? Is that what I am supposed to understand from this?

These words of the Buddha I've quoted many times describe the expansion of existential concepts that would incorporate what some of us have experienced inwardly, “There is, monks, that plane where there is neither extension nor motion. . . there is no coming or going or remaining or deceasing or uprising. . . . There is, monks, an unborn, not become, not made, uncompounded . . .

I’m no monk, but does “esse” exist in this “plane” that you refer to?

If time is finite that does not necessarily mean there is a beginning of time, any more than a finite space implies a beginning of space. The Earth is finite but as a 2-dimensional being you can travel as far as you like on the surface of the Earth and never find a beginning or an end to the surface that you are traveling on. Space and time could be the same. . . .
There is an accepted hypothesis that the entire mass-energy of the universe is zero - gravitational energy exactly cancels out mass and other energy. Therefore it is possible that there is no "problem of where the material came from"

That pretty much proves you are just talking physicalness. You seem to think esse would be in the realm of the physical, and it isn't. The physical descends from the absoluteness of esse (in the monistic model).

No, I am in fact talking about space and time (which is what you introduced into the discussion). I have made no reference to “physicalness” or “absoluteness”, whatever they might be (can you elucidate?). Is esse physical or absolute?

Pardon me, but doesn’t your distinction between the “physical” and the “absolute” imply a dualism? Is “esse” absolute, or physical? Surely all is esse?

You really aren't getting the concept. There is no space, there is no time in esse! They are illusions of "form."

With respect, you really are grasping at straws here. I refer to your first post where you say quite clearly “Esse cannot have been created. If it were created, there must have been a time when it didn’t exist”. If time is (as you say) an illusion, why should it matter whether or not there was a time (which is an illusion) when esse did not exist? Similarly you say “Esse must reside in an infinite continuum. If there were any boundary, even a zillion zillion light years away, then we again have duality.” Clearly you refer here to a space continuum. If space is (as you say here) an illusion, why should it matter whether or not there was a space (which is an illusion) where esse does not exist?

I know what's accepted. You apparently think I am unfamiliar with the current theories, but you are wrong. I know them and can't make sense of the ultimate origin of things with them.

Where is the “ultimate origin” of a circle? Or a sphere?
With respect, Grasshopper, perhaps you should consider that one possible explanation as to why you cannot make sense of these models is because you are “stuck” in your present ways of thinking, and too blinkered to accept new ideas.

It is you who doesn't get the monism I'm proposing. You are stuck in the science box.

And what do you propose as an alternative? Logic and rationality are the only ways to true understanding. Or perhaps you disagree? Should we instead be looking for divine inspiration from Buddha?

What is wrong with a never-ending cycle of creation and destruction, where space and time are created along with esse? Is this any more unpalatable than your infinite spacetime?

I've already explained what's wrong with them. You aren't buying my objections.

Your objections seem to be based on the inferred presence of a “boundary”, when I have countless times stated that there need be no boundary.

I can't fathom, for instance, why you think it's fine for esse to create more esse out of ? What, nothing?

Does a circle create a circle from nothing? Does a sphere create a sphere from nothing? Yet both objects are finite and unbounded. Both objects exist as objects without any need for creation. This is something that should appeal to a mystical (as yours, with respect, seerms to be) as opposed to a scientific mind .

Where's the material for creation coming from?

You are (with respect) stuck in your idea of a linear spacetime. The material need not “come from” anywhere. Material is simply energy in another form; and there are accepted models of cosmology where the total energy is zero.

I am quite familiar with this concept, I alluded to it before in the idea of our universe "bubbling up out of quantum fluctuations." It's the same nonsensical (to me) idea that you can bubble up a megamassive existence simply from a fluctuation, without anything of substance to compose it.

Then (with respect) you do not really understand the concept. I suggest you read up a bit more about cosmology and theories about how the total energy of the universe could be zero.

Maybe we should just stop here since you don't seem to want to temporarily suspend your physicalistic concepualizations to see this very different way of looking at origins.

Sorry, Les, that you want to give up on trying to understand. Can’t you see that your insistence that “there must be an origin” is at the core of the problem? With respect, it is not I who does not want to suspend conceptualisations, it is you who refuses to open your mind to alternative ways of looking at things. You seem insistent on forcing your ideas that “spacetime MUST be infinite” without seriously considering other possibilities. What a pity.

I am just not interested in trying to model origins within the confines of modern cosmology since I am certain there is something prior to and more basic than that.

You say “I am certain”., but you cannot/will not argue the case rationally? With respect, this sounds similar to the theist argument for a belief in God, based on faith rather than rationality. Is that what your theories boil down to? Please don’t go down that path…….

MF

 

[Les Sleeth]

Sorry, Les, that you want to give up on trying to understand.

You are so obvious. Have a nice day.

 

[moving finger]

Hi Les

You are so obvious. Have a nice day.

But that is what it boils down to, doesn't it? I am trying hard to understand your objections, I am asking you for further clarification where your views seem obscure, and your response is simply "I'm not interested in discussing it further". I wonder why this could be? With respect, not the reaction I would expect from someone who genuinely wants to improve their understanding...

Take Care

MF

 

[Paul Martin]

Sorry to interject, but if this question were asked of me I would of course answer "yes" [,esse has the ability to know] (esse is defined as all there is).

Don't be sorry; it is I who have butted in on your conversation. But it appears that this might be the right time to do so, since you and Les have reached an impasse similar to that of Sikz and Nameless in the "prove existence" thread, and it seems for the same reason. Les claims that you are limited by your "physicalist" view and you claim that he holds seemingly contradictory views which he can't explain.

But since you answered my question, let me use that in an attempt to reconcile your two views and maybe toss some additional grist into the mill.

I expressed my concern to Les some time ago that his view of esse involved infinity. I have strong objections to that notion. Les, if I remember right, said that I had inferred that in error and that he didn't require infinity. Maybe he meant that he didn't require infinite space, or infinite time, but IMHO the notion of infinity is nonsense no matter what is considered to be infinite. I believe nothing in nature is infinite and I challenge anyone to demonstrate the contrary. I think you have described what is actually going on, and that is that whatever structures there are in reality, they are all finite, and some of them are also unbounded (your circle example being among the simplest).

I think the definition of 'universe' is causing much of the misunderstanding between you and Les. You claim that 'universe' means all that is, yet you seem to limit the notion of universe to the space-time continuum of cosmological theories with the extension to regions of that same continuum which is in principle inaccessible to us. I think Les, and certainly I, would claim that there is a possibility that reality (another synonym for 'universe' but without the physicalist baggage) consists of vastly more beyond any space-time continua. The "more" is not space-like nor time-like, so it is beyond and outside of what I think is your notion of 'universe'. In Les' view, the physical space-time continuum in which the big bang occurred, and which contains the farthest reaches of space, and the remotest time in either direction, is a mere speck in the total context of reality. I happen to agree with Les on this.

Now let me tie this back to my question which you answered. You agreed with me that esse must be conscious, even though among the three of us (You, me, and Les) we haven't really come to an agreement on what esse is. But I think this lack of agreement is OK. I think we are all considering esse to be some unknown, but instead of calling it 'X' as we would in algebra, we are simply using the symbol 'esse' instead. This allows us to discuss it, as I did by asking about its ability to know.

Not knowing whether Les agrees that esse can think, let me proceed assuming that he does. The question at hand is what exactly is this esse? Or what is esse like? Or what can we say about esse? I think the learned mystics would say that those questions are unanswerable, or that any answer to any of them expressed in language would be wrong if not meaningless. I am not prepared to accept that. I think that we just might be able to learn and understand something about esse if we work at it. I think Les would agree with that because he seems to have been working on those very questions for a long time.

So my approach would be to consider some candidate answers for the questions, and for each one, ask "What if esse were like X?", etc. So, for example, What if esse were a false vacuum? Well, people have investigated that possibility to great length and we have discovered that the phenomenal world behaves, more or less, according to laws of physics. I say "more or less" because there is a lot of behavior here on Earth that is subject to some kind of psychological laws. For example I might drive my car up to the top of a hill which sort of defies the laws of physics. Yes, the laws of physics can explain how energy in the gasoline was converted to the increased potential energy of the car, but it can't explain at all why I drove the car up there in the first place.

In my view, the scientific explanation of the "universe" is limited to the behavior of matter and energy in a space-time continuum, and this limitation, in the view of many, does not, and cannot, explain consciousness in any of its aspects. It cannot explain what consciousness is; it cannot explain how consciousness arises in physical structures like brains; it cannot explain how (or even be sure that) consciousness can have a causal effect on matter; and it cannot explain how perceptions of phenomena can be known, remembered, and recalled.

What I would humbly suggest is that we take consciousness itself as the candidate to consider to be esse. I think it is a good candidate because we each know what it is from direct experience. No one has to explain to us what conscious experience is. If there are some zombies reading this, they might object and say "Wait a minute, I have no idea what you are talking about", but for the rest of us, I think we all know what I am talking about. So we have something well known, if not well defined.

Now we know that conscious experience changes. Does that mean that esse changes? And if esse does not change, does that mean that there is a "dualism" between consciousness and conscious experience? I am not as hung up on "dualism" as I think others are and it doesn't matter to me whether something is called "dualistic" or not. The important thing to me is the logical consequences of assuming that consciousness = esse.

Since esse is one, then one consequence would be that there is only one consciousness. I have tried to explore the implications of this in the thread "Implications of a single consciousness". I'm not sure anything was resolved there, but at least I didn't encounter anything that would refute the assumption.

Since conscious experience changes, there must be a temporal parameter which could lead to the definition of a temporal dimension, or simply time. Even though science has made exquisite and precise definitions and measurements involving time (leading to Special Relativity, GPS, and other stunning marvels), the fact (posited) that esse does not change opens the door to the possibility that "between" esse and the changing world of physics and cosmology, there might be other temporal dimensions not participating in the laws of physics. I maintain that anyone who has been knocked unconscious, or even gone to sleep, has directly experienced a time that is not the same as the time of our physical clocks and calendars.

I have given the idea of multiple temporal dimensions some thought, and without going into a lot of detail, let me just suggest that it might be possible that esse (since we agree it is able to think) has thought up a pattern of information which it can store in a more or less permanent form (the memory and recall capability of consciousness that we all experience). This pattern could be thought of as a painting, or as the space-time continuum of science where the "past" and "future" ends of the continuum are permanent and accessible to esse (i.e. they "exist" in our common vernacular). Then esse would, at his/her/its pleasure, be able to attend to a temporal sequence of events in the continuum (think of it as a path, or world line, tangent to a Killing vector in the space-time). I think that if this model were developed, it could explain not only the basis for physical reality with its laws of physics, fundamental constants, and initial conditions, but it could also resolve the problem between QM and GR and provide an interpretation for QM which would make intelligible sense.

I also think that both Les' and your notions of reality would comfortably fit within that picture.

I'd be interested in what you think.

Paul

 

[Les Sleeth]

But that is what it boils down to, doesn't it? I am trying hard to understand your objections, I am asking you for further clarification where your views seem obscure, and your response is simply "I'm not interested in discussing it further". I wonder why this could be? With respect, not the reaction I would expect from someone who genuinely wants to improve their understanding...

My last objection has to do with wanting to maintain the integrity of my own thread. I asked people to consider substance monism as I presented it, and to contemplate what potential it might have, if any, for modeling the universe. I found myself in a fight with someone who seemed to want to relocate all ideas into the standard cosmology model, and to discuss things in terms of that. I already know what the standard model is, I was asking what a new idea might have to offer. If you want to talk about how the Casimir force etc. might explain origins, then I think you should start your own thread.

And then, you really didn't answer my objections to the standard model. I know how the gaps are filled, and because I don't think what's proposed to fill them really does is why I suggested substance monism in the first place. I could tell by everything you said you really hadn't grasped what I saw wrong with how the "gaps" are filled. You just wanted to repeat over and over how the standard model fills the gaps. So again, it seemed like you just wanted to turn my thread into a discussion about what you believe.

Also, you insist on saying everyone agrees the term "universe" means all that is. Well, even modern cosmologists don't agree about that. Why else would physicists postulate multiple universes? And in philosophy, there is no freakin' way you will get consensus about that. Yet you were rigid about the definition of universe, and so for me that left no room for any sort of creative discussion.

Finally, I didn't like this statement, "You say 'I am certain,' but you cannot/will not argue the case rationally? With respect, this sounds similar to the theist argument for a belief in God, based on faith rather than rationality. Is that what your theories boil down to? Please don’t go down that path……."

Grrrrr. I am so tired of rationalists (and physicalists) assuming they have the inside track to the whole truth before they've demonstrated they do. What if knowing the whole truth requires, in addition to rationality, a level of feeling you haven't even imagined yet? Likewise, the "Please don't go down that path . . . " is nauseatingly condescending. All people who have faith aren't stupid or deluded, some have actual reasons for their faith.

My statement that you are "obvious" comes from lots of debates I've been in where someone thinks if only I (and all people who don't buy rationalist/physicalist theory) were educated more then I/we would see the truth.

I offered you a chance to step out of your belief system and contemplate creation a different way. If you prefer not to, then I am okay with that. If you want to, I am happy to play the intellectual game of "neutral substance monism."

 

[Les Sleeth]

Actually I'm quite serious. We are able to think, not because we are made of Esse. We are able to think because we have a contradiction such as something up against nothing.

Yes, but where are the contradistinctions? In essence, or in form? I agree that thinking requires something against which we can juxtapose our ideas, but that isn't what you said. You claimed we couldn't even have a concept of existence without nonexistence.

If we talk about "form," then, according to the monistic model, there is existence and nonexistence (i.e., of form). But if we are talking about what composes the form (esse), then there is only existence. You are mixing up concepts. Esse can't not exist, but forms of esse can.

I would submit that the Esse is not conscious.

Absolutely! That's what I've said from the start.

I find it difficult to pass off properties to something that has no size. I.E. A fudamental entity of Esse has smalled it way out of Existence. It is not possible to take a fundamental unit of Esse and say it measures Yea by yea (there is no measure), and if I can't give it this kind of reality, it does not exist.

Hmmmmm. I am trying to understand your problem with that concept. Why don't you have a similar problem with the smallest possible unit of . . . whatever? Esse (or should I make clear, the CONCEPT of esse . . . i.e., I am not saying esse actually exists, I am just asking people to contemplate the idea) is continuous, and so isn't composed of "units." It is just one thing, uninterrupted.

Could it be that your experience with this physical reality, which is 100% unit-bound, has conditioned you so that you can't imagine a unit-less substance?

Keep in mind, esse is being proposed to be the most basic state of existence. In the "ground state" esse is nothing but potential (judged from our perspective of seeing all the esse-forms that exist). Only when in form does esse appear to be a collection of units.

 

[Castlegate]

Yes, but where are the contradistinctions? In essence, or in form? I agree that thinking requires something against which we can juxtapose our ideas, but that isn't what you said. You claimed we couldn't even have a concept of existence without nonexistence.

As I was trying to explain in the other thread {The universe is the reality of Non-Existence}. The postulate is that the universe came from nothing. Also to say that all fundamental units in this universe are composed of one nothing, and that all of these units are conscious.The reason why these units are conscious is the contradiction of each and every unit. Also that Existence is not physical, but conceptual. The rationale that Existence is conceptual is because Non-Existence is conceptual only, and being that we are the reality of Non-Existence, we must accept only what we are dealt with. We can't slip in another card and cheat our way into physical Existence. We can only escape Non-Existence by way of conceptual means {period}.

Getting to the question

As stated elswhere - A fudamental unit is equal to one nothing. In other words - A form of nothing. It is the form that exist and the composition that doesn't. These are the ingredients for consciousness. A fundamental unit knows what it is, because it knows what it is not. This is Existence smack up against Non-Existence, within the same unit (pure contradiction). Proof of consciousness comes in the way of interaction with other units. If there is an effect, and there always is. We can surmise with confidence that not only are fundamental units self aware, but aware of other units as well.

Could it be that your experience with this physical reality, which is 100% unit-bound, has conditioned you so that you can't imagine a unit-less substance?

I have yet to express the universe as a physical entity, and that definition will not be forthcoming.

Should one try to examine one nothing - it will be found that there are no units within it's form, so I (can) imagine that which is unitless.

I am just asking people to contemplate the idea) is continuous, and so isn't composed of "units." It is just one thing, uninterrupted.

This is asking for too much IMO. We can make things out of playdough, but making things out of nothing but playdough seems to push the envelope.

 

[Les Sleeth]

This is asking for too much IMO. We can make things out of playdough, but making things out of nothing but playdough seems to push the envelope.

I wasn't proposing playdough, but rather a substance of such maliable properties that would allow it exist in a great variety of forms. The exercise is to try to imagine what sort of properties that substance would need to have for that.

The postulate is that the universe came from nothing. Also to say that all fundamental units in this universe are composed of one nothing, and that all of these units are conscious.

You mean your postulate. I guess you too have decided not to contemplate substance monism afterall.

As stated elswhere - A fudamental unit is equal to one nothing. In other words - A form of nothing. It is the form that exist and the composition that doesn't.

Boy, it is really hard to understand why you don't see that as total nonsense, but good luck with it.

If you haven't already, you might want to study the substantial objections philosophers have made over the centuries to what you seem devoted to . . . philosophical idealism. My main objection is that if one maintains one's theories only in the mind, then one can imagine anything to be true and go on to build an entire philosophy out of it. There is no way to test it, and therefore prove or disprove it.

People today might say, if we concentrate a beam of light sufficiently, then it can burn a hole through metal. If they just imagine it, then it is nothing more than one of a zillion theories. But when someone actually builds such a device and demonstrates it, then because it "works" according to the proposed principles we know they've understood something about the nature of reality.

But where is your test? Well, you don't need one because no matter what anyone suggests you can counter it with whatever you decide to imagine; and since the universe is purely conceptual and based on nothing, your concept becomes as true as anyone else's.

No, the exploration of the nature of reality has firmly turned in favor of the experientialists, not the conceptual idealists. Experientialists have always been the realizers and achievers, it's just that it took a couple of thousand of years of useless rationalistic philosophizing before someone recognized it and formulated it into empirical philosphy (though I prefer to call it "experientialistic philosophy"). That's why even a theoretical model such as yours has to account for what's been observed (i.e. experienced).

 

[Castlegate]

You mean your postulate. I guess you too have decided not to contemplate substance monism afterall.

You asked for an explanation, and I gave it. Of course there is no likeness here to monism. What were you expecting?

I wasn't proposing playdough, but rather a substance of such maliable properties that would allow it exist in a great variety of forms. The exercise is to try to imagine what sort of properties that substance would need to have for that.

Well let's read some details. You do know the devil is in the details ...right? Make me a gumby out of this substance you call Esse. Tell me how this works.

My main objection is that if one maintains one's theories only in the mind

You simply misunderstand. I may have said that all that exist is not physical, but I didn't say that all that exist does not move. So if I say that a non-physical entity moves from point A to point B, Whats the difference if it is physical or not? The observation of reality is still the same

 

[nameless]

...a substance of such maliable properties that would allow it exist in a great variety of forms. The exercise is to try to imagine what sort of properties that substance would need to have for that.

The 'substance' of imagination?
What are the 'properties' of imagination? Consciousness?
Would something that had 'properties' at all be sufficiently 'malleable' for the purposes you propose? Perhaps something 'property'-less? Like Consciousness?
*__-

 

[moving finger]

I think the definition of 'universe' is causing much of the misunderstanding between you and Les. You claim that 'universe' means all that is, yet you seem to limit the notion of universe to the space-time continuum of cosmological theories with the extension to regions of that same continuum which is in principle inaccessible to us. I think Les, and certainly I, would claim that there is a possibility that reality (another synonym for 'universe' but without the physicalist baggage) consists of vastly more beyond any space-time continua. The "more" is not space-like nor time-like, so it is beyond and outside of what I think is your notion of 'universe'. In Les' view, the physical space-time continuum in which the big bang occurred, and which contains the farthest reaches of space, and the remotest time in either direction, is a mere speck in the total context of reality. I happen to agree with Les on this.

With respect, it is not "I" who claim that universe means "all there is", this is the generally accepted meaning of universe in the English language, and that is the basis of my interpretation of universe.
We can argue about whether "all there is" intrinsically limits the universe to “what is accessible to us” or not, but “what is not accessible to us” must always be the subject of speculation and/or faith, and any attempt at rational discussion on “what is not accessible to us” (though metaphysically possibly very intriguing) is ultimately intellectually fruitless.
(an analogy : would anyone be interested in discussing with me the fairies which live at the bottom of my garden? Oh, I can’t see them of course, in fact I have no way of demonstrating that they really exist, but I simply KNOW that they are there……what, nobody believes me? How strange……)
If either you or Les has a different interpretation of "universe" then with respect the onus is on you to explain what that definition is…….

Now let me tie this back to my question which you answered. You agreed with me that esse must be conscious, even though among the three of us (You, me, and Les) we haven't really come to an agreement on what esse is.

By definition, all is esse. Therefore if anything is conscious then it must be esse which is conscious.

I might drive my car up to the top of a hill which sort of defies the laws of physics. Yes, the laws of physics can explain how energy in the gasoline was converted to the increased potential energy of the car, but it can't explain at all why I drove the car up there in the first place.

I would argue that science has the potential (at least in principle) to explain most of your behaviour, but the reason it cannot do so precisely is basically the same as the reason why we cannot perfectly forecast the weather – a combination of insufficient data, inadequate computing power, and chaos.

In my view, the scientific explanation of the "universe" is limited to the behavior of matter and energy in a space-time continuum, and this limitation, in the view of many, does not, and cannot, explain consciousness in any of its aspects. It cannot explain what consciousness is; it cannot explain how consciousness arises in physical structures like brains; it cannot explain how (or even be sure that) consciousness can have a causal effect on matter; and it cannot explain how perceptions of phenomena can be known, remembered, and recalled.

I disagree. Whilst we do not yet have a complete understanding of how consciousness arises and operates (the human brain is after all the most complex machine that we know), I believe that consciousness can be eventually explained scientifically.

What I would humbly suggest is that we take consciousness itself as the candidate to consider to be esse.
I think it is a good candidate because we each know what it is from direct experience.

I disagree that we necessarily have the same concepts. I know that I am conscious, and I know what that feels like, but I have no idea whether you are conscious or not, or what that feels like to you. It is therefore a “leap of faith” to say that we are talking about the same things.

Now we know that conscious experience changes.

Consciousness is a dynamic process. If everything stayed the same there would be no consciousness. Hence change is a necessary pre-requisite for consciousness. But it is possible to perceive in principle of a universe where nothing changes, hence there would be no consciousness. What happens to esse in this case?

Since esse is one, then one consequence would be that there is only one consciousness.

Does not follow. Its like saying “if we assume esse is silly-putty, then since esse is one this implies there is only one silly-putty”.

Since conscious experience changes, there must be a temporal parameter which could lead to the definition of a temporal dimension, or simply time. Even though science has made exquisite and precise definitions and measurements involving time (leading to Special Relativity, GPS, and other stunning marvels), the fact (posited) that esse does not change opens the door to the possibility that "between" esse and the changing world of physics and cosmology, there might be other temporal dimensions not participating in the laws of physics.

How can you use the logic that “esse is one therefore there is only one consciousness” and at the same time accept “consciousness changes but esse stays the same”?
You ask me what I think……excuse me, but I cannot help feeling this is all becoming metaphysical mumbo-jumbo and flights of fancy….
Now, anybody want to chat about those fairies in my garden?
With respect
MF

 

[Tournesol]

By definition, all is esse. Therefore if anything is conscious then it must be esse which is conscious.

All is esse. Therefore, if anyting is a teapot, esse is a teapot.

(NB the difference between

"esse is a teapot as a result of having the form and behaviour of a teapot
as secondary qualities"

and

"esse is inherently and intriniscally teapot-ish in all its forms".)

 

[moving finger]

Hi again Les

My last objection has to do with wanting to maintain the integrity of my own thread. I asked people to consider substance monism as I presented it, and to contemplate what potential it might have, if any, for modeling the universe.

You asked for opinions, Les. I gave you my opinion – that I think one of your assumptions is flawed. I asked you to justify your assumption that the universe is necessarily infinite in spatial and temporal extent, and you refuse.

I found myself in a fight with someone who seemed to want to relocate all ideas into the standard cosmology model, and to discuss things in terms of that.

Incorrect. I was always approaching this as an intellectual and rational debate. If you see it as a “fight” then I am sorry. I am simply looking for justification of your assumption of necessarily infinite spacetime, that is all. The only reasons I referred to cosmological models was by way of illustration, because you seemed to think finite spacetimes necessarily implied some kind of boundaries, which they do not.

I already know what the standard model is, I was asking what a new idea might have to offer. If you want to talk about how the Casimir force etc. might explain origins, then I think you should start your own thread.

Casimir force? You have lost me here. (oh, I know what it is, I just have no idea why you suddenly refer to it here).
All I am trying to do, Les, is to point out errors in your logic. If you choose to ignore these errors that is fine, but it doesn’t make the errors go away.

And then, you really didn't answer my objections to the standard model.

With respect, Les, you never raised (to my knowledge) any objections to any parts of the standard model in this thread, except that you said you could not make sense of them :

I know them and can't make sense of the ultimate origin of things with them.

That is not an objection, simply a statement of your lack of understanding.

I know how the gaps are filled, and because I don't think what's proposed to fill them really does is why I suggested substance monism in the first place. .

What gaps? Can you elucidate?

I could tell by everything you said you really hadn't grasped what I saw wrong with how the "gaps" are filled.

What gaps? Can you elucidate?

You just wanted to repeat over and over how the standard model fills the gaps.

What gaps? Can you elucidate?

So again, it seemed like you just wanted to turn my thread into a discussion about what you believe.

No, I wanted you to understand the error in your logic, that is all, and to open your eyes to more possibilities by understanding where that error was.

Also, you insist on saying everyone agrees the term "universe" means all that is.

No, I never said that “everyone agrees”, that is a fallacy. I said the definition of “universe” is “all there is”. If you have a different definition of “universe” can you please let us know, or is it a secret?

Well, even modern cosmologists don't agree about that. Why else would physicists postulate multiple universes?

Many physicists would insist this is in fact an incorrect use of English and we should be talking of “many worlds” rather than “multiple universe”. The generally accepted term for this theory by the way is the Many Worlds Theory, not the Multiple Universe Theory. Not everyone always uses English correctly, and since we are all imperfect humans we all make mistakes from time to time (including me). The important thing to know when making a mistake is to own up to it when it is pointed out to you, and then move on.

And in philosophy, there is no freakin' way you will get consensus about that.

I am not asking for concensus. However, in order for any rational discussion to proceed the participants must agree on definitions of terms. I offered a definition of universe. You seem not to like that definition; the rational step would then be for you to offer an alternative definition that we could discuss…….. will you do that?

Finally, I didn't like this statement, "You say 'I am certain,' but you cannot/will not argue the case rationally? With respect, this sounds similar to the theist argument for a belief in God, based on faith rather than rationality. Is that what your theories boil down to? Please don’t go down that path……."
Grrrrr. I am so tired of rationalists (and physicalists) assuming they have the inside track to the whole truth before they've demonstrated they do.

I’m sorry you did not like the statement, Les, but hey, I am not the one saying that “I have the truth” here! I am instead objecting to someone who says quite openly “I am certain” and then is unwilling to respond to criticism of their logic and is unable or unwilling to rationally justify their feeling of certainty.

What if knowing the whole truth requires, in addition to rationality, a level of feeling you haven't even imagined yet? Likewise, the "Please don't go down that path . . . " is nauseatingly condescending. All people who have faith aren't stupid or deluded, some have actual reasons for their faith.

Please see my earlier response to Paul Martin, where I said :

any attempt at rational discussion on “what is not accessible to us” (though metaphysically possibly very intriguing) is ultimately intellectually fruitless.
(an analogy : would anyone be interested in discussing with me the fairies which live at the bottom of my garden? Oh, I can’t see them of course, in fact I have no way of demonstrating that they really exist, but I simply KNOW that they are there……what, nobody believes me? How strange……).

I have no objections to faith, or people who have faith. I respect others’ beliefs. But with respect the reason I said “please don’t go down that path” is because I suggest this is not the forum for discussing issues which are matters of faith.

I offered you a chance to step out of your belief system and contemplate creation a different way.

Now who is being condescending? That is very gracious and generous of you. Les. But with respect I would rather not restrict my beliefs to models involving infinite spacetimes. I prefer instead to keep an open mind and consider all logical and rational possibilities, including those involving a finite spaetime. Perhaps you should consider the same.
With respect
MF

 

[moving finger]

All is esse. Therefore, if anyting is a teapot, esse is a teapot.

Agreed. Esse is a teapot. It is also a daisy, and a sunflower.

consider the universal set {esse}
every member of this set is esse
consciousness is a member of this set
all teapots are members of this setMF