On the purpose of metaphysics, historically and today

[Geoff]

@MrAuthoritarian

A modern Marxist and communist with visions of post-modern political reforms.

I am not a Marxist, but I am a realist and we cannot ignore what is happening in China.

The Metacrisis and Ecocivilisation | Two-Phase Cosmology

not the beginning

Ecocivilisation, China and the West**

Ecocivilisation (Ecological Civilisation) is any form of human civilisation which has established a stable long-term balance with the ecosystem in which it is embedded and upon which it depends, and is therefore sustainable indefinitely. The final state or stage of the evolution of human social organisation.

The concept of ecocivilisation is currently in only fringe use in Western politics and philosophy. It was first used by academics in the Soviet Union in 1984, then in China from 1987. In 2012 the Chinese government made ecocivilisation one of its five national development goals.

In China the concept is already closely bound to policy and governance, and rooted in the ancient philosophical-religious tradition of Taoism. The Chinese do, obviously, acknowledge the existence of different forms of society, and they define ecocivilisation as the final state “for a given society”. Of particular relevance here is that China’s political system is authoritarian: it is possible for the leadership to commit the nation to ecocivilisation without having to worry about winning the next election. This difference is crucial, because democracy is one of the hallmarks of Western civilisation, and is very likely to pose multiple show-stopping problems for a Western version of ecocivilisation.

China has already demonstrated the power of its authoritarian system to make essential ecological choices that would be impossible in any existing Western democracy…

continues $$

[anew1]

@Geoff

Sorry, but this smells far too much like theology to me. Just an intuition, I could be wrong.

Can I clarify with you what part, exactly, made you “smell like it is far too much like theology”, to you, exactly?

After all, there was not a word about theology nor even one that implied anything theological.

[anew1]

@Geoff

Hello. I have actually been here before…18 years ago. I have no memory of it, although I remember that time in my life very well. I have been on quite a philosophical journey since then. It has taken me until now to get my position straightened out!

What is ‘your position’ that you say you have gotten straightened out, exactly?

[anew1]

@MrAuthoritarian

It has taken me quite a few decades as well to figure things out philosophically.

What things, exactly, have you figured out, philosophically?

[anew1]

@Geoff

Each time I failed I learned something new about why the problem was so hard to solve.

What was the ‘problem’, exactly, which you claim was ‘so hard to solve’?

[Geoff]

@anew1

What is ‘your position’ that you say you have gotten straightened out, exactly?

A new kind of neutral monism.

The Sacred Structure of Reality / Two-Phase Cosmology and a Metaphysics for the Quantum Age | Zenodo

Introduction | Two-Phase Cosmology

[Geoff]

@anew1

What was the ‘problem’, exactly, which you claim was ‘so hard to solve’?

How Western civilisation can avoid total collapse and re-invent itself as an Ecocivilisation. None of the simplistic answers are any good, because the problem is devilishly complicated.

The Metacrisis and Ecocivilisation | Two-Phase Cosmology

[anew1]

@Geoff

@anew1

What is ‘your position’ that you say you have gotten straightened out, exactly?

A new kind of neutral monism.

What was the old kind of ‘neutral monism’, and how does ‘that kind’ differ from the ‘new kind of neutral monism’, exactly?

[anew1]

@Geoff

@anew1

What was the ‘problem’, exactly, which you claim was ‘so hard to solve’?

How Western civilisation can avoid total collapse and re-invent itself as an Ecocivilisation.

How and why would the total collapse of so-called ‘western civilization’ by any sort of so-called ‘problem’ at all.

After all, if the whole so-called ‘western civilization’ collapsed completely, then this would benefit not just all of the existing human beings but also all of the animals and even earth and the environment as well.

@Geoff

None of the simplistic answers are any good, because the problem is devilishly complicated.

But, there is NO meaningful ‘problem’ that can’t be very easily and simply solved already.

As can be proved True if and when anyone puts forth any Truly meaningful ‘problems’ here. But, I will have to add that an ‘actual problem’ here is a question posed for a solution.

[Geoff]

@anew1

What was the old kind of ‘neutral monism’, and how does ‘that kind’ differ from the ‘new kind of neutral monism’, exactly?

There have been many kinds of neutral monism, from Spinoza onwards. What makes this one different is its relationship to modern physics. Most neutral monisms involve a neutral substrate which is neither mental nor physical, but 2PC splits physical into two. Or rather, it just acknowledges that physics has been split in two for a century now, and nobody has been able to fix the split (we have no quantum theory of gravity). 2PC says the idea that gravity should be quantised is a category mistake, because QM and General Relativity (GR) apply to different phases or levels of physical reality. QM belongs to (or describes) the neutral, informational Phase 1. Gravity only applies in classical, material Phase 2, which only exists from the perspective of a conscious observer (which is why it is relativistic…something Einstein never explained).

2PC is a quantum process neutral monism.

[Geoff]

@anew1

After all, if the whole so-called ‘western civilization’ collapsed completely, then this would benefit not just all of the existing human beings but also all of the animals and even earth and the environment as well.

Yes, I am aware that some people make that argument. I make a similar one – that we should view collapse as a pre-requisite for transformation. This is a bit like a caterpillar going into a pupa --its body has to break down in order for something new to arise. We aren’t going to let go of radical individualism and our addiction to economic growth voluntarily, so nature will teach us the hard way.

And it is not just the West that is going down. I focus on the West because it is us who invented industrialisation and radical individualism, and also because I am western myself and do not pretend to understand how non-Western societies work. I have enough trouble understanding US politics and culture (I am British). China is already committed to ecocivilisation as a national goal. Just imagine the cultural transformation required before that is possible in the US.

[anew1]

@Geoff

@anew1

What was the old kind of ‘neutral monism’, and how does ‘that kind’ differ from the ‘new kind of neutral monism’, exactly?

There have been many kinds of neutral monism, from Spinoza onwards. What makes this one different is its relationship to modern physics.

But what happens when so-called ‘modern physics’ becomes ‘old physics’ and there is a ‘new’ ‘modern physics’?

@Geoff

Most neutral monisms involve a neutral substrate which is neither mental nor physical, but 2PC splits physical into two. Or rather, it just acknowledges that physics has been split in two for a century now, and nobody has been able to fix the split (we have no quantum theory of gravity). 2PC says the idea that gravity should be quantised is a category mistake, because QM and General Relativity (GR) apply to different phases or levels of physical reality.

But actually they do not.

What actually exists is just ‘an appearance’ of different phases or level of physical reality, but there are not. There is only One Reality, only.

@Geoff

QM belongs to (or describes) the neutral, informational Phase 1. Gravity only applies in classical, material Phase 2, which only exists from the perspective of a conscious observer (which is why it is relativistic…something Einstein never explained).

Where do you imagine or envision the different levels or phases exist, exactly? And/or, what is the actual thing that is separating them , exactly?

@Geoff

2PC is a quantum process neutral monism.

If you say so, but I am not sure if you answered and clarified the actual question I asked you.

[anew1]

@Geoff

@anew1

After all, if the whole so-called ‘western civilization’ collapsed completely, then this would benefit not just all of the existing human beings but also all of the animals and even earth and the environment as well.

Yes, I am aware that some people make that argument.

What argument?

I just pointed out a Fact.

@Geoff

I make a similar one – that we should view collapse as a pre-requisite for transformation.

I am not sure if anyone could view collapse as being any other way.

The whole point of the ‘apocalypse’ story is to explain that with the end of the ‘old life’, the ‘old way’, or this ‘current world’, then a ‘new world’ will begin. That is; ‘the world’ that ‘we’ ALL Truly want and desire for “ourselves”.

In fact, the word ‘afterlife’ is in direct relation to this ‘current’ greedy, selfish, stressful, pollution-riddled, war-torn world ending, and the ‘new world’, also known as ‘heaven’, beginning.

But, because some people had become so self-centred, they Wrongly envisioned the ‘afterlife’ word was in relation to “their death”, and not in relation to the True and Right meaning of ‘the death of this current world’, when this is being written.

@Geoff

We aren’t going to let go of radical individualism and our addiction to economic growth voluntarily, so nature will teach us the hard way.

@Geoff

This is a bit like a caterpillar going into a pupa --its body has to break down in order for something new to arise.

The last part is VERY True. If human beings collectively do NOT change, for the better, then their whole downfall and demise is imminent and approaching closer all the time.

However, human beings can learn best by the mistakes they have made. Human beings generally only realise how much they would prefer to be alive and monetarily broke than be ‘dead’ when they are on or closer to ‘their death bed’, as it is sometimes called. So, through Nature’s natural order of removing or getting rid of ‘that’ which is putting Nature ‘out of balance’, when adult human beings collectively finally become Truly Aware and realise, fully, WHY they have ALL become very greedy and selfish individuals, with really only one thing always being thought about - to get more money -but they realise what is actually MORE IMPORTANT is really children’s overall happiness and well being, then, and only then, will they, voluntarily, change for the better.

Adult human beings actually do let go of their selfishness (radical individualism) and greed (addiction to or love of, more money) voluntarily, and this is HOW and WHY human beings can and do end up living in Peace and Harmony together, as One, here on earth as it is in Heaven.

[anew1]

@Geoff

And it is not just the West that is going down. I focus on the West because it is us who invented industrialisation and radical individualism, and also because I am western myself and do not pretend to understand how non-Western societies work. I have enough trouble understanding US politics and culture (I am British). China is already committed to ecocivilisation as a national goal. Just imagine the cultural transformation required before that is possible in the US.

When you have a ‘cult/ure’ and a group people who would vote for and elect in a so-called “leader” who if it is not completely absolutely delusional, then it is close enough to it, that to imagine the ‘cult/ural transformation’ that would required, which you mention here, seems like it would be an absolute impossibility.

However, luckily the answer and formula that can and will solve ALL of the ‘problems’ here works on those types of people as well. In fact, the solution only really works when it is being applied to absolutely EVERY one.

[Geoff]

@anew1

But what happens when so-called ‘modern physics’ becomes ‘old physics’ and there is a ‘new’ ‘modern physics’?

I have no reason to believe that is going to happen, and if it does then I will cross that bridge when I come to it. You certainly can’t give that as a justification for rejecting the theory. It’s like asking “But what happens when we find a fossil that evolution can’t explain?”.

But actually they do not.

What actually exists is just ‘an appearance’ of different phases or level of physical reality, but there are not. There is only One Reality, only.

That is not what the mathematics indicates. If there is only one level, it should be possible to get the numbers to add up. But they don’t add up - we end up with unwanted, unresolvable infinities.

Where do you imagine or envision the different levels or phases exist, exactly? And/or, what is the actual thing that is separating them , exactly?

Quantum reality doesn’t have any “where”. It’s non-local. This was proved by Bell’s theorem, and it is why entangled quantum particles can be directly connected even if they are on different sides of the galaxy. They exist in an information space, inside The Void. In other words, they exist in the same sort of way that Pythagoras’s “realm of number” and Plato’s ideal forms are claimed to exist.

“Where” implies 3-dimensional space, and that only exists in Phase 2.

[anew1]

@Geoff

@anew1

But what happens when so-called ‘modern physics’ becomes ‘old physics’ and there is a ‘new’ ‘modern physics’?

I have no reason to believe that is going to happen, and if it does then I will cross that bridge when I come to it. You certainly can’t give that as a justification for rejecting the theory.

I do not do ‘theory’ so I do not reject.

@Geoff

It’s like asking “But what happens when we find a fossil that evolution can’t explain?”.

But, to me, it was nothing like this at all.

@Geoff

But actually they do not.

What actually exists is just ‘an appearance’ of different phases or level of physical reality, but there are not. There is only One Reality, only.

That is not what the mathematics indicates. If there is only one level, it should be possible to get the numbers to add up. But they don’t add up - we end up with unwanted, unresolvable infinities.

you people might. But, again, this is just because of ‘the way’ you ‘look at’ and ‘see’ things here.

Some of you are also under a False pretence that maths will answer questions for you.

@Geoff

Where do you imagine or envision the different levels or phases exist, exactly? And/or, what is the actual thing that is separating them , exactly?

Quantum reality doesn’t have any “where”. It’s non-local.

Yet you will still believe one exists.

@Geoff

This was proved by Bell’s theorem, and it is why entangled quantum particles can be directly connected even if they are on different sides of the galaxy.

LOL This gets repeated over and over again and again as though it has been tested and verified.

@Geoff

They exist in an information space, inside The Void. In other words, they exist in the same sort of way that Pythagoras’s “realm of number” and Plato’s ideal forms are claimed to exist.

So, ‘this one’ insists that ‘there is a divide and separation’. So, I ask for clarification about WHERE this could be, and HOW it could exist.

But ‘look at’ the response I get.

@Geoff

“Where” implies 3-dimensional space, and that only exists in Phase 2.

In other words, ‘you’ have no idea, right?

[Geoff]

@anew1

LOL This gets repeated over and over again and again as though it has been tested and verified.

It has.

In other words, ‘you’ have no idea, right?

No. Why should reality have to be spatio-temporal? Why can’t a non-local reality exist?

[anew1]

@Geoff

@anew1

LOL This gets repeated over and over again and again as though it has been tested and verified.

It has.

LOL, LOL, LOL

‘These people’ make me laugh.

LOL They just believe things, without ANY enquiry AT ALL. And, LOL no matter how illogical, irrational, and impossible they even are.

Some people “science” are far more ‘religious’ than some are in “theology”.

@Geoff

In other words, ‘you’ have no idea, right?

No. Why should reality have to be spatio-temporal?

But there is NO such thing as ‘time’.

So, ‘Reality’ never has had to do with ‘spatio-temporal’, as you are assuming and asking here?

@Geoff

Why can’t a non-local reality exist?

But anything can exist, in concept.

[Geoff]

OK. I think we’ve taken this as far as it constructively go.

You are selling something, and I’m not interested in buying it. Have a nice day.

[anew1]

Says ‘the one’ who believes something and so is the one “selling something” by wanting others to agree with and accept true what they believe is true.