Month: July 2024

My answer to the Quora question, “Are nature and characteristics the same?”

IMO, the nature of something is the sum of its characteristics. Others may disagree, particularly people who see the identity of something and its properties as different things, which seems to be a closely related issue. I see the essence or identity of something as simply the category you put it in due to its most crucial properties. Seeing it any other way is an unnecessary, unparsimonious dualism.

Except, perhaps, when it comes to the “essences” of sentient beings. Then “essence” takes on a new meaning. Living beings are holistic, mysterious and divine. Their essences are simple to understand intuitively, but transcend any conceptualization or attempts to analyze. I wrote more about this here: https://myriachromat.wordpress.com/2023/06/17/on-the-meaning-of-essence/

On another related subject, I believe form is function. You can’t possibly know anything about the form of something without interacting with it, and any behavior or response it has to your prodding it is necessarily part of its functionality. And everything is a process anyway: you can’t point to anything in the universe that’s static upon closer analysis, and if science shows us anything it’s that apparently static characteristics are actually emergent from physics operating over time on processes. Basically, a process can be seen as a function of change over time. If there were some immutable and inscrutable aspect to the object that’s the source of its functionality (which there isn’t), then that would be its essence or identity while its functionality would be able to be said to be a property, and as with the subject of identity versus properties, that would be an unnecessary and unparsimonious dualism.

My answer to the Quora question, “Why is the assumption that reality is based on physical laws commonly accepted, despite a lack of evidence? Are there other assumptions, such as spiritualism, that could also be considered valid?”

It’s debatable whether there’s a lack of evidence. What do you mean, exactly, by “a lack of evidence”? We have the entire body of physics, which is extremely successful in modeling, manipulating, predicting, and explaining physical phenomena. Some might even argue that it’s a nearly complete accounting for all of Nature, with just a few kinks left such as the question of what happens in the center of a black hole and how stuff behaved during the first 10⁻⁴³ seconds of cosmic inflation.

However, I would personally agree that the efficacy of physics doesn’t necessarily imply that reality is “based on physical law.” For any given physical law, we don’t know why things behave according to that law. Or if we do, we don’t know why things behave according to the laws that explain that law, etc. All we really know are patterns of how reality tends to behave wrt cause and effect.

And also, if reality is fundamentally based on physical law, what force is there that makes reality continue to adhere to that physical law? Further physical laws? And what force is behind the effecting of those physical laws? Ad infinitum.

So, it’s entirely possible that there’s an entire spiritual reality that underlies this cause and effect. For example, maybe we’re all parts of a collective consciousness that continually creates perceived reality second by second in accordance to what best serves everyone’s purpose(s).

Or, maybe we’re all basically asleep and blindly creating reality according to what we expect, and we’ve come to expect less and less magic and more and more mechanism, hence reality appears non-magical and mechanistic to us.

Or maybe we each create our own reality according to our wishes, but through the magic of a multiverse in which everything that could possibly happen does happen, we get to simultaneously share our realities with others who happen to have made the exact same choices in what reality should comprise…

Or maybe the only reason reality appears uniform and mechanistic is because we exist on a huge scale—our bodies contain trillions of cells, and those cells each contain trillions of atoms—so the underlying essentially non-mechanistic life is perceived by us in its purely aggregate form, which means its behavior is largely described by statistical mechanics.

So, why do people believe reality is based on physical law as opposed to any of the above possibilities and more?

  • I think people prefer the easiest, simplest, and most direct answer, especially when other answers can’t be empirically verified…
  • One could argue that the only possibility that accords to Occam’s razor is that reality is fundamentally based on physical laws.
  • One could argue that the only possibility that accords to Occam’s razor is that reality is fundamentally based on physical laws.

    Personally, I don’t think it’s that simple.

    For one, you have to crudely dismiss tons and tons of personal mystical and paranormal/parapsychological experiences people have—virtually everyone’s had them—for your “dataset” to be wholly compatible with physical law.

    Two, physicalism isn’t so much a particular physical theory, but more of a worldview or outlook, a paradigm, an epistemic approach to the world/existence. What if we ought to assume reality is as rich and full and magical as we can possibly imagine given the data at hand? We could still apply Occam’s razor where it obviously makes sense, such as, for example, using it to throw .out the pilot-wave theory of quantum mechanics.
  • Most people aren’t imaginative enough to see how various spiritualist explanations could be behind physics as we know it.
  • People prefer mundane explanations to “fantastical” ones, I suppose because they’re less unsettling. People don’t want to be jarred, and they especially don’t want to be jarred awake. (I put “fantastical” in quotes because exactly what counts as being fantastical or not depends on one’s fundamental episteme…)
  • People desperately want to believe that they can assimilate and understand all of reality under some simple paradigm/set of principles. To think that reality is fundamentally spiritual or psychological or whatever is essentially the same as believing in magic, and of course mystery. People abhor a mystery just as much as nature abhors a vacuum. We’ll do anything to come up with a “rational” explanation for anything we witness as soon as possible.
  • Since the advent of Newtonian mechanics and its extreme success in predicting physical phenomena, we’ve become accustom to seeing reality as being fundamentally mechanistic. This has only increased as physics has become more and more “complete.” And intuitively, a thing cannot be both mechanistic and alive. So, we’ve become accustom to seeing reality as being less and less alive. Even our own living flesh is seen as made up of dead matter. The sun is now seen as “just” a big ball of gas, etc. This is unfortunate because it deadens us and deadens our reality. And anyway, the point I’m making is that spiritual interpretations of the universe/existence are fundamentally alive, and hence they’re anathema.
  • I wrote about more reasons people disbelieve in spirituality, magic, psi, etc. starting at the sixth paragraph in https://myriachromat.wordpress.com/2022/01/23/psychism/.

So, I guess that’s all I have to say about that.

On a Derrida Quote: Poets, Philosophers, and Sophists…

Here’s a Derrida quote I just found out about:

“The poet…is the man of metaphor: while the philosopher is interested only in the truth of meaning, beyond even signs and names, and the sophist manipulates empty signs…the poet plays on the multiplicity of signifieds.”
— Jacques Derrida

Here’s my perspicacious response:

Eh, sounds mostly like gobbledygook. Kind of Sokal-esque. 😉

Yes, the poet is a man (or a woman) of metaphor, but their use of metaphor (among other devices) is not just “playing on the multiplicity of signifieds” as in decuple entendre; it’s a sneaky (and also clever, brilliant, creative, artistic, aesthetic, beautiful, playful, resourceful, articulate, expressive, eloquent, etc. (sigh, I included too many adjectives)) way to funnel meaning and truth of the most transcendental, mystical kinds into the minds of people who can read poetry but might never have accepted such truth if it were conveyed directly or overtly (in such cases where it even could have been conveyed directly or overtly). This makes poetry an even greater pursuit of truth than philosophy.

And as for philosophers, it’s not entirely true to say that they’re interested in truth beyond signs and names. A whole lot of philosophers spend a great deal of energy trying to “figure out” truths solely through formal/analytic manipulations of signs and symbols. And in fact, tell such a philosopher any kind of truth of the most profound order, and he’ll dismiss it and you as either crazy, irrational, purely speculative, baselessly assuming, nonsensical, magical-thinking, woo-woo, unscientific/antiscientific/pseudoscientific, religious, or cognitively biased, depending on the form or nature of the expression and the particular episteme of the philosopher.

And as for the sophist manipulating empty signs, I don’t even know that that means. What makes one sign more empty than another? Well, I can imagine a few things, but if the signs are manipulable at all, they’re no more empty than the signs a lot of philosophers manipulate. Rather, the thing that makes the sophist a sophist is that he manipulates them in a misleading way through cognitive “sleight of hand.” And actually, philosophers regularly do this too, but the real difference is that the sophist does it intentionally.

Half a Conversation

[Other person’s text]

I was just thinking about the idea of “thinking you’re a good person” while watching Inside Out 2 tonight. And I sort of realized that, while it can be an essential core belief, it’s actually very limiting—you’re locked into not doing anything “bad” lest you lose your self-worth.

Better is probably just to have an innate sense of your value that transcends all your characteristics and good deeds. Or maybe, more accurately, a lack of thinking of yourself (judging and condemning yourself) as being “bad” or unworthy in any way for any reason.

Then the brightness of your inherently divine essence can naturally flow and expand and you can feel joy. And you can more quickly work through the karma of your “negative” characteristics by allowing them to be expressed and observing consequences.

[Other person’s text]

Hmm, I wonder if that’s true. I guess “allowing decadence/degeneracy” is a thing.

[Other person’s text]

Ah, ok. (But do you literally think you’re not a good person? Even if you’re not exactly bad? And what does “not being a good person” mean, other than that your values aren’t what you think they should be? Or is that the sum of it?

[Other person’s text]

Ah, I don’t know if I do this myself, so maybe I should be “fixing” myself instead, but I think the ideal way to look at your own shortcomings is with a neutral eye. Just observe what you want to change. If it helps, you’re “good” for wanting to be better in the first place.

And as for comparing yourself to others, I think (though honestly I don’t actually feel this way) that nobody’s better than anybody else. In one of Neale Donald Walsch’s books, God says, “Is one finger better than the other?” We’re more like fingers distending from a greater whole than separate entities, and we each have our function. By comparing people to each other and you to others, you also internalize that scale and allow yourself to think of yourself as anything but 💯. Thanks for joining my TED talk. :P


Related post: https://myriachromat.wordpress.com/2017/05/21/goodness-compartments/