What constitutes “observation” (/“measurement”)

[SanteriSatama]

Yes fair point, we should “steel man” the dualist position and use the modern versions (although you still see similar versions of these). I must admit that I hadn’t really thought about a field as a physical form. Isn’t the physical form what the field does, rather than what it is? Also you only have the three fields (or maybe one if we get a TOE), so I don’t really see how it could ever be seen as a “physical form”? Or do you mean EM fields?

I guess I'm referring primarily to Quantum Field Theories, in the steelman sense. Which in mathematical physics consist of mathematical objects called "physical fields". But those lose meaning if you stop believing in the absurd BS of "real numbers".

There is another, non-mathematical meaning of 'field'. Biological fields aka morphogenetic fields suggested by Rupert Sheldrake. And at least in my experience these are much better empirically grounded, as bodily awareness/sentience feels continuously field-like. There's certainly some interactions between biological fields and empirical (ie. directly felt) aspect of electromagnetic fields, but biological fields are also beyond limits of quantitative measuring by standard scientism. Science - at least physicalism - has no good answer to the most simple question: "How do you know where your hand is?"

[Simon Adams]

I think I see part of the confusion here when you keep referencing "pantheism". You seem to think I am speaking of a situation where God and the Universe and man are naturally at the same 'level' of spiritual development. Under pantheism of that sort, God and the Universe are unified in the sense that when we speak about one we are practically speaking about the other. That is not at all what I hold to. That is why I try to avoid all such labels but if I were forced to choose one, it would be "panentheism". What I hold to is what is bolded above - a continual process of ascension towards the Divine. This process is from the bottom-up and from the top-down, so to speak; attracting and being-attracted; saving and being-saved.

Yes I agree labels can often be unhelpful, and I have tried to avoid using this one, but I felt we were going in circles and it’s part of the difference between our views. The challenge is that panentheism is a really wide spectrum. At the end where you have Palamism, it’s absolutely fine with me. However once you get to Whitehead and process theology, god has disappeared. Then there is just the universe and the processes in it, all evolving together with no rhyme or reason other than what happens to appeal to it. There is a kind of sacredness in the universe, just stilling the mind can help you to see this, or spending time in nature. But it’s an order of magnitude separated from the sacredness that is in god, and this is lost from sight as soon as you move down the panentheism scale.

In some ways I wish I could use the term panentheism for my views, but in +90% of the panentheism I have read, the significant otherness that made me change from Buddhism to Catholic is missing. The absoluteness of the glimpses of god, the still beginning and end of all things, seems to loose all but name. Otherwise I may as well have stayed Buddhist, as they have the ‘how’ expertise for transcending the ever changing realm of experience.

I also think you are ignoring the highly esoteric origin and nature of these symbols you are referencing in the early Church and medieval period. But leaving all of that aside for now, what is your response to my original question - how is your view of God practically any different from the dualist view of "mind", where it is forever beyond rigorous and detailed study?

How are you not 'pushing back' the "completely subjective" and dualist interaction problem (how does mind interact with matter) onto your God-concept, so that the latter becomes the Subjective perspective which cannot be studied and has no specified means by which the phenomenal world we experience comes into existence and is sustained throughout our experience (other than simply calling it a "miracle")?

As I mentioned to Santeri, with idealism you move a fold down a step into reality, and see that the whole universe is just mind. So matter becomes just an image of the processes of mind. Nonetheless you still use the physical world to live your life, and use the science conducted on physical properties to inform your wider understanding. You know that it’s just a surface expression of the reality, but it’s a necessary context to accept at some level just to navigate life.

The consequences are even more extreme if you collapse the final step of the duality between god and the universe, for then there is only god. There is unchanging infinite eternal omniescence. There is no universe, and no us. So whilst I agree this is the ultimate foundation of everything, and should be admitted and respected as such, there is nowhere you can go with this in terms of what you call “rigorous and detailed study”. The closest we can get to understanding this is the state best described as “I look at god, and god looks at me”. There is nothing else to study at that level.

I agree but you are explicitly making him two by separating Him as Creator from our-Selves as created in our essence.

Our essence is from god, but it is not him, so how can I be making him two? Because it’s from him, and is sustained by him, it is only ever truly at rest when filled with him. But this is a merging of creator and created, there is never a split in the creator.

We do not need special revelation to see the basics of how these things work (or rather what we call "revelation" is what the Spirit is constantly doing through our Thinking, if we do not artificially divide ourselves from that Spirit). In your own experience of Being, there is clearly more than one single perspective at work. We see that scientifically via RB and LB distinction, but you can also hold a finger in front of your eyes and close each one to see the shift in perspective. That is what we all are in essence - manifold perspectives of the One - and we mostly experience the other perspectives as living personalities, so why assume they are anything different? (mostly because we normally no longer experience the mineral and plant kingdoms in the way, but, as I mentioned in the TMT Part 3 essay, we can always trace back the underlying principles of those kingdoms to living agencies).

This One you talk of is not the One that I talk of, in my opinion anyway

[Simon Adams]

I guess I'm referring primarily to Quantum Field Theories, in the steelman sense. Which in mathematical physics consist of mathematical objects called "physical fields". But those lose meaning if you stop believing in the absurd BS of "real numbers".

Can you call them objects? It seems there are at most four fields; gravity, EM, strong, weak. As far as I’m aware, everything is seen as patterns in these fields, but there may only be one field and the distinction between the four is itself just categories of patterns. That said, I have seen physicists referring to particles as discrete fields, and I’m not sure whether that is a hang up, or if they have a reason for that. Either way of course, all boson particles themselves (such as photons) can occupy the same point in space and time.

What makes them discrete ‘wholes’ is the mystery. Like all the ‘laws of nature’, it seems to be some kind of limit on what can be done, in this case the degrees to which the field can ‘move’. Without these limits, there would be no universe, at best just chaos.

Interestingly, when trying to understand this, physicists are being led back yet again to Plato;

Gone is the picture of particles colliding in space-time and setting off chain reactions of cause and effect. “We’re trying to find these objects out there in the Platonic world of ideas that give us [causal] properties automatically,” Arkani-Hamed said. “Then we can say, ‘Aha, now I can see why this picture can be interpreted as evolution.’”

This is from a good article -> https://www.quantamagazine.org/what-is- ... -20201112/

There is another, non-mathematical meaning of 'field'. Biological fields aka morphogenetic fields suggested by Rupert Sheldrake. And at least in my experience these are much better empirically grounded, as bodily awareness/sentience feels continuously field-like. There's certainly some interactions between biological fields and empirical (ie. directly felt) aspect of electromagnetic fields, but biological fields are also beyond limits of quantitative measuring by standard scientism. Science - at least physicalism - has no good answer to the most simple question: "How do you know where your hand is?"

Yes one of the clearest experiences of this I’ve had was when I used to practice Tai Chi, the sense of these fields was really tangible. One of those things that science assumes is some kind of illusion because it’s instruments can’t detect anything, but ‘subjectively’ there is something there. It’s difficult to just pass these real experiences off as illusion just because there is no ‘physical’ evidence for it.

[AshvinP]

I think I see part of the confusion here when you keep referencing "pantheism". You seem to think I am speaking of a situation where God and the Universe and man are naturally at the same 'level' of spiritual development. Under pantheism of that sort, God and the Universe are unified in the sense that when we speak about one we are practically speaking about the other. That is not at all what I hold to. That is why I try to avoid all such labels but if I were forced to choose one, it would be "panentheism". What I hold to is what is bolded above - a continual process of ascension towards the Divine. This process is from the bottom-up and from the top-down, so to speak; attracting and being-attracted; saving and being-saved.

Yes I agree labels can often be unhelpful, and I have tried to avoid using this one, but I felt we were going in circles and it’s part of the difference between our views. The challenge is that panentheism is a really wide spectrum. At the end where you have Palamism, it’s absolutely fine with me. However once you get to Whitehead and process theology, god has disappeared. Then there is just the universe and the processes in it, all evolving together with no rhyme or reason other than what happens to appeal to it. There is a kind of sacredness in the universe, just stilling the mind can help you to see this, or spending time in nature. But it’s an order of magnitude separated from the sacredness that is in god, and this is lost from sight as soon as you move down the panentheism scale.

In some ways I wish I could use the term panentheism for my views, but in +90% of the panentheism I have read, the significant otherness that made me change from Buddhism to Catholic is missing. The absoluteness of the glimpses of god, the still beginning and end of all things, seems to loose all but name. Otherwise I may as well have stayed Buddhist, as they have the ‘how’ expertise for transcending the ever changing realm of experience.

I also think you are ignoring the highly esoteric origin and nature of these symbols you are referencing in the early Church and medieval period. But leaving all of that aside for now, what is your response to my original question - how is your view of God practically any different from the dualist view of "mind", where it is forever beyond rigorous and detailed study?

How are you not 'pushing back' the "completely subjective" and dualist interaction problem (how does mind interact with matter) onto your God-concept, so that the latter becomes the Subjective perspective which cannot be studied and has no specified means by which the phenomenal world we experience comes into existence and is sustained throughout our experience (other than simply calling it a "miracle")?

As I mentioned to Santeri, with idealism you move a fold down a step into reality, and see that the whole universe is just mind. So matter becomes just an image of the processes of mind. Nonetheless you still use the physical world to live your life, and use the science conducted on physical properties to inform your wider understanding. You know that it’s just a surface expression of the reality, but it’s a necessary context to accept at some level just to navigate life.

The consequences are even more extreme if you collapse the final step of the duality between god and the universe, for then there is only god. There is unchanging infinite eternal omniescence. There is no universe, and no us. So whilst I agree this is the ultimate foundation of everything, and should be admitted and respected as such, there is nowhere you can go with this in terms of what you call “rigorous and detailed study”. The closest we can get to understanding this is the state best described as “I look at god, and god looks at me”. There is nothing else to study at that level.

I agree but you are explicitly making him two by separating Him as Creator from our-Selves as created in our essence.

Our essence is from god, but it is not him, so how can I be making him two? Because it’s from him, and is sustained by him, it is only ever truly at rest when filled with him. But this is a merging of creator and created, there is never a split in the creator.

As we saw from the finger in front of your eye example, realizing you are a unique perspective of God does not inhibit your ability to function or know about the world. In fact, it gives you a much more harmonious understanding of the world you are functioning in. You go from, "I have two eyes redundantly showing me the same world" to "I have one eye providing me a perspective, and another eye providing another perspective, and they both integrate to give me a more whole perspective on the world." That is what we call 'physical' knowledge by way of the Spirit's illumination. There is no discontinuity between the two forms of knowledge, but there is also no possible way you could get from the first understanding to the second understanding from merely studying the physical components of the eye, without the Spirit's illumination (in this case our Reasoning activity).

That same logic applies to all physical processes. That is what your view is missing - the spiritual (Thinking) component. You are assuming there is an external world to you which is complete in itself and that your eyes-mind take that complete picture and tries to recreate it within you. That is the standard flawed assumption of nearly all post-Cartesian science and philosophy. We can dispel that assumption by reasoning through the nature of our thinking activity. All of that reasoning is provided by Steiner in his PoF and also Goethean Science. In a nutshell, our thinking activity takes incomplete percepts of the world and unites them with their proper concepts to form Unities of experience. That is why we can say we are truly co-creating the phenomenal world. Of course this will make little sense unless you actually go through the reasoning for yourself.

You are making Reality two by claiming God's essence creates another essence when creating us (and presumably all other creatures). It is a very simple thing I am pointing out to you, so simple that it easily goes unnoticed. The thing is, I am not interested in convincing you my view is more "sacred" than yours. If you get a feeling of more sacredness by thinking of God as other than man, or by whatever mystical experience you have had in the context of your faith, then that is just the way it is and I cannot write anything to change that. But, ideally, that would be stated upfront - that the separation of God from man is based only on faith and/or mystical experience and not on reasoning - so that I do not assume you are looking for reasoned arguments.

Your OP certainly gives the impression that you are looking for such reasoned arguments to discuss the essence of what occurs in the Universe, and the only place such questions could naturally go is to the essence of spiritual Reality. Perhaps you do not expect that because you hold spiritual Reality to exist in a completely different domain of inquiry (or non-inquiry) than the workings of the Universe, an expectation which I claim is an obvious artifice of Cartesian-Kantian dualisms. When we inevitably arrive at the spiritual Reality, then it becomes entirely a matter of feeling and faith for you. I would say the sacred feeling you get in the context of Catholic faith is actually intimation of the higher spiritual Reality I am speaking of, despite the rigid Church dogma, and it should prompt you towards seeking higher resolution of the spiritual workings behind the phenomenal world.

Right now it seems to me your position is summed up by Kant when he said, "I had to deny knowledge to make room for faith".

[SanteriSatama]

Can you call them objects? It seems there are at most four fields; gravity, EM, strong, weak. As far as I’m aware, everything is seen as patterns in these fields, but there may only be one field and the distinction between the four is itself just categories of patterns. That said, I have seen physicists referring to particles as discrete fields, and I’m not sure whether that is a hang up, or if they have a reason for that. Either way of course, all boson particles themselves (such as photons) can occupy the same point in space and time.

For physicalism everything is an object, it's all about inventing object called "nature". "Force" and "field" are not same, though often related concepts in their language. What they mean by physical field is numerical value/variable at each "point" of space-time. What they mean, to begin with, by their "point"-object beats me, as they can't explain and I don't take seriously something that nobody can coherently explain in what is supposed to be clearly communicable rational language. So I don't believe that their "points" exist even and especially mathematically.

Gone is the picture of particles colliding in space-time and setting off chain reactions of cause and effect. “We’re trying to find these objects out there in the Platonic world of ideas that give us [causal] properties automatically,” Arkani-Hamed said. “Then we can say, ‘Aha, now I can see why this picture can be interpreted as evolution.’”

It's natural for mathematical physics to abandon "physical" aka phenomenal and go full math, but the problem is that coherently to do that they would need to accept idealism, and hence intuitionist philosophy of mathematics, and abandon the formalist-materialist math they've been stuck with for a long time. They would need to abandon real numbers and accept mathematics as an empirical science.

Yes one of the clearest experiences of this I’ve had was when I used to practice Tai Chi, the sense of these fields was really tangible. One of those things that science assumes is some kind of illusion because it’s instruments can’t detect anything, but ‘subjectively’ there is something there. It’s difficult to just pass these real experiences off as illusion just because there is no ‘physical’ evidence for it.

Yep. They tend to badly confuse numerical quantification with measurement. Tai Chi, nice!

[SanteriSatama]

As we saw from the finger in front of your eye example, realizing you are a unique perspective of God does not inhibit your ability to function or know about the world. In fact, it gives you a much more harmonious understanding of the world you are functioning in.

To give some weight also to other perspectives, it's good to remember that for engineers "harmonious bridge building" is a dirty joke, because "harmonious" starts to resonate and wobble and then collapses. And then the disharmony-harmony of screams of drowning people who marched in the harmony of same rhytm.

Why would focused gaze be more whole than unfocused gaze? More full view, why not both, and also experimenting and investigating in between of focused-unfocused? Layman's double slit experiment, be empirical!

[AshvinP]

As we saw from the finger in front of your eye example, realizing you are a unique perspective of God does not inhibit your ability to function or know about the world. In fact, it gives you a much more harmonious understanding of the world you are functioning in.

To give some weight also to other perspectives, it's good to remember that for engineers "harmonious bridge building" is a dirty joke, because "harmonious" starts to resonate and wobble and then collapses. And then the disharmony-harmony of screams of drowning people who marched in the harmony of same rhytm.

Why would focused gaze be more whole than unfocused gaze? More full view, why not both, and also experimenting and investigating in between of focused-unfocused? Layman's double slit experiment, be empirical!

There is a simple pragmatic answer here - "harmonious" is whatever works to bring about that "more full view" of Reality. So if some mix of focused and unfocused fits that bill, then that is what is "harmonious". But if whatever works happens to take us in a direction we don't prefer at first, we should not use that as an excuse to stop moving in that direction or reverse course. It is easy to see why the integral "higher resolution" direction is not preferred by most people - it simply means a lot more discipline and effort than we are accustomed to. And I don't exclude myself, because I could certainly be operating at a much higher capacity if I had more discipline and put forth more effort. What is always surprising to me is how much a little more effort in this regard can truly go a long way - the fruits of the Spirit spoken of in scripture are 100% real deal.

[SanteriSatama]

It is easy to see why the integral "higher resolution" direction is not preferred by most people - it simply means a lot more discipline and effort than we are accustomed to.

I would not use the word 'effort', but that's just me. From my perspective most people do and try way too much - and been guilty of overdoing also myself. Do less, be more!

[Simon Adams]

As we saw from the finger in front of your eye example, realizing you are a unique perspective of God does not inhibit your ability to function or know about the world. In fact, it gives you a much more harmonious understanding of the world you are functioning in. You go from, "I have two eyes redundantly showing me the same world" to "I have one eye providing me a perspective, and another eye providing another perspective, and they both integrate to give me a more whole perspective on the world." That is what we call 'physical' knowledge by way of the Spirit's illumination. There is no discontinuity between the two forms of knowledge, but there is also no possible way you could get from the first understanding to the second understanding from merely studying the physical components of the eye, without the Spirit's illumination (in this case our Reasoning activity).

What part of that is any different if I am a unique being, connected to and part of the cosmos, in the image of god?

That same logic applies to all physical processes. That is what your view is missing - the spiritual (Thinking) component. You are assuming there is an external world to you which is complete in itself and that your eyes-mind take that complete picture and tries to recreate it within you. That is the standard flawed assumption of nearly all post-Cartesian science and philosophy. We can dispel that assumption by reasoning through the nature of our thinking activity. All of that reasoning is provided by Steiner in his PoF and also Goethean Science. In a nutshell, our thinking activity takes incomplete percepts of the world and unites them with their proper concepts to form Unities of experience. That is why we can say we are truly co-creating the phenomenal world. Of course this will make little sense unless you actually go through the reasoning for yourself.

I don’t think the “external world is “complete in itself”. However it has a level of reality given to it by god, for a purpose. You cannot just turn the starving family you perceive in the house next door into teapots, and ignore them because you don’t fancy tea. Some cultures tend to treat animals very cruelly as they see them as not much different to tractors, does that make the reality they “co-create” real?

I know what your answer to this will be, but I actually see a danger in this because it makes the spiritual journey monotone. We are grounded and given spiritual food to sustain us by turning our hearts and mind to god, by connecting at the deepest level into the vine through the eucharist, and by finding some silence in the storms that can rage there. We are fulfilled by then turning that inward love from god outwards into the world, by helping in small ways the people/creatures/environment in their needs. We are improved by understanding and acknowledging or failings, our shadow, and putting effort into improving our thoughts, words and actions. And finally we have an opportunity to enjoy life, to appreciate and be thankful for the good things we have been given.

These are not things that happen just through a correct understanding of our perception. They are about choices, and a journey, and as someone who has spent a big chunk of his life being selfish and foolish, these are the things that are slowly turning the ship around so that it’s path now at least has a compass.

In the words of the bard,

All the world’s a stage,
And all the men and women merely players;
They have their exits and their entrances;
And one man in his time plays many parts

Shakespeare was referring to the phases of our lives, but there is a sense in which we can chose the characters we play. To me, your focus is on designing the set, and rewriting the play. I think we can do both to some extent, but far more important is the choice of who we play, ensuring our script and our performance are true. This is enough of a challenge, and understanding how the stage lights work is just a ‘nice to have’ part of the wider story.

You are making Reality two by claiming God's essence creates another essence when creating us (and presumably all other creatures).

Yes I am, it’s only when we are “born again in the spirit” that we take on participation in god’s spirit. This is how we become children rather than creations. He did not create us as his essence.

It is a very simple thing I am pointing out to you, so simple that it easily goes unnoticed. The thing is, I am not interested in convincing you my view is more "sacred" than yours. If you get a feeling of more sacredness by thinking of God as other than man, or by whatever mystical experience you have had in the context of your faith, then that is just the way it is and I cannot write anything to change that. But, ideally, that would be stated upfront - that the separation of God from man is based only on faith and/or mystical experience and not on reasoning - so that I do not assume you are looking for reasoned arguments.

It’s based on several ways of knowing, including experience, reason and faith. There must be a balance in these things to understand where things fit correctly.

Your OP certainly gives the impression that you are looking for such reasoned arguments to discuss the essence of what occurs in the Universe, and the only place such questions could naturally go is to the essence of spiritual Reality. Perhaps you do not expect that because you hold spiritual Reality to exist in a completely different domain of inquiry (or non-inquiry) than the workings of the Universe, an expectation which I claim is an obvious artifice of Cartesian-Kantian dualisms. When we inevitably arrive at the spiritual Reality, then it becomes entirely a matter of feeling and faith for you. I would say the sacred feeling you get in the context of Catholic faith is actually intimation of the higher spiritual Reality I am speaking of, despite the rigid Church dogma, and it should prompt you towards seeking higher resolution of the spiritual workings behind the phenomenal world.

It’s fine to try to understand these things, but go back to the analogy of us being actors on a stage. By the time you work out how the writer of the play got the script to the director, how the director got the script to you, you summarised the key themes and decided the parts of the script you wanted to change, the play will be over. The reviews will say there was this one actor who just stood there staring at a bit of paper in his hand.

Right now it seems to me your position is summed up by Kant when he said, "I had to deny knowledge to make room for faith".

Kant was a protestant, so that’s not a surprise

[Simon Adams]

For physicalism everything is an object, it's all about inventing object called "nature". "Force" and "field" are not same, though often related concepts in their language. What they mean by physical field is numerical value/variable at each "point" of space-time. What they mean, to begin with, by their "point"-object beats me, as they can't explain and I don't take seriously something that nobody can coherently explain in what is supposed to be clearly communicable rational language. So I don't believe that their "points" exist even and especially mathematically. [/quote]

To be fair I think some see it as continuous, and the points as an abstraction for calculation purposes. Also we know that particles are discrete, so maybe some imagine space made up of planck packets, although I agree that doesn’t make any sense at all.

It's natural for mathematical physics to abandon "physical" aka phenomenal and go full math, but the problem is that coherently to do that they would need to accept idealism, and hence intuitionist philosophy of mathematics, and abandon the formalist-materialist math they've been stuck with for a long time. They would need to abandon real numbers and accept mathematics as an empirical science.

I agree you need a kind of idealism, but there is no reason where it can’t be a platonic idealism where real numbers are an aspect of the foundation. Part of the reason the natural platonic understanding of mathematicians falls down so easily is they have their natural idealist/platonic sense of numbers confined to the world of maths, not as a wider metaphysics. So that “platonic realm” becomes a separate place “out there” rather than “in here”. Once you do that, then pi, 0.5, Cos 50, i, etc are all an expression of ‘real numbers’…