Philosophical Speculations

E: all just is. Period. And nothing can be said about it. The ontological primal ground (Being) is infinite and eternal and not within space and time. It can not be grasped or described from a perspective of space and time, wherein thinking and language operate. In this metaphysical position mind a...

I would say, instead, that idealists, and only idealists, can relate to Being. My definition of idealism is that there is only conscious activity (only conscious activity "is"), and knowing is a conscious activity, so idealists know Being. Of course they only know (experience) a small par...

E would need qualification of how philosophy mathematics relates to Being, before Being could be classified as monism, dualism etc. Is being unity, multiplicity, both, neither? "One and the same thing" would seem to refer to Being as monism, but in that case Being becomes a subject of God...

Can you help me with metaphysical Isms!? In my understanding there are five fundamental positions: A all is mind - Idealisms B all is matter - Realisms / Physicalisms / Materialisms C all is either mind or matter - Dualisms D all is mind and matter - Panpsychism E all just is. Period. And nothing ca...

You’re probably best to post that on a physics board, but there are some things we can say about particles ‘before’ they interact. For example, a single photon passes through both both slits in the Young's experiment if not measured, so there is this ‘wave of possible paths’ aspect in relation to s...

If we believe, for example, that there is a starting point for creation, what can our thinking tell us about that point? After all, our thinking connects things to things, and at this starting point there was nothing to which thought could connect I think we could say about the starting point, that...

1. Relational interpretation , posing that physics should only study relations without assuming what is exactly being correlated: "correlations without correlata" as they say Isn´t that a very profound ontological statement!? It basically says ontology is not a subject of science. That is...

I´m working on a systems theory of consciousness which I ultimately will have to ground on a “systems theory of physics” to meet arising metaphysical questions. In this enterprise I would be happy to get some critics, comments, or inspirations on my thoughts. The basic assumption of my approach to t...