Unifying Monistic Idealism & Classical Theism / Thomism?

[NormalBeliever]

Recently, I’ve been researching Catholic philosophy.

Basically classical metaphysics, classical theism & divine simplicity, dualism, materialism, the works.

So I understand that Catholic theology holds that God is wholly and divinely simple, Being Itself.

We can say God is Intellect Itself, and that he has power and love and goodness, but we can say them only analogically as God is of a completely different kind from us and the rest of existence.

But I’ve also been aware for quite some time of Idealism and it’s various derivations from both philosophical argumentation and scientific experimental evidence from quantum physics.

Now to start this off, here are a few videos to begin this with:

youtube.com/watch?v=4l1lQMCOguw&list=PL1mr9ZTZb3TViAqtowpvZy5PZpn-MoSK_&index=8

This first video is called The Introspective Argument.

It makes an argument for Idealism, the idea that matter doesn’t exist independent of observation and is actually made out of the same substance as the mind.

I would like to know what you guys over here have to say about this argument, especially if you’re acquianted with Thomistic metaphysics and philosophy and could analyse it from that perspective.

Now here are several videos trying to deduce Idealism from quantum mechanics. Specifically the double-slit experiment:

youtube.com/watch?v=qB7d5V71vUE&index=4&list=PL1mr9ZTZb3TViAqtowpvZy5PZpn-MoSK_

youtube.com/watch?v=vOv8zYla1wY&index=5&list=PL1mr9ZTZb3TViAqtowpvZy5PZpn-MoSK_ (especially this one)

youtube.com/watch?v=42skzOHjtA&list=PL1mr9ZTZb3TViAqtowpvZy5PZpn-MoSK&index=7

So what do you think about these scientifically based attempts to validate Idealism?

Does anyone here who has advanced enough knowledge about quantum mechanics who could commentate on these things?

Now to move on to arguments that try to use the latest science to prove that our universe is simulated in a cosmic mind (God) and that information is more fundamental than space and time:

youtube.com/watch?v=3uGgPACZI3Q

youtube.com/watch?v=QiZLlpqAQ7U&t=5s

youtube.com/watch?v=v2Xsp4FRgas&index=1&list=PL1mr9ZTZb3TViAqtowpvZy5PZpn-MoSK_

Among other things, these videos try to argue that consciousness is actually an Integrated Information System according to a certain scientific theory in quantum mechanics.

Now the theory of consciousness being explained by science as an IIS is interesting on it’s own terms, but what these arguments show is that the entire universe is being controlled by a wave-function that is being collapsed by a single IIS outside of the universe.

In other words, experimentally verifiable evidence for the existence of God.

Now these theories, if correct, have some pretty weird consequences.

For one, all matter is actually made out of mind stuff, or one single substance.

The Wheeler DeWitt equation, which is used as experimental evidence of a mind outside of the universe keeping it in existence (God), also seems to implicitly suggest, at least by those in the above videos, that God is a mind.

But under classical theism, God cannot be a mind nor be made out of a substance, as he is Being Itself, or rather, Existance Itself.

Now we can surely speak of the mind of God or God’s divine intellect, but only analagously so because classical theism holds God isn’t a particular instance of a kind.

But my main questions are: If this scientific evidence and it’s interpretation is correct, than how do we reconcile this with Aristotelianism or classical theism?

If consciousness is an Integrated Information System, then what consequences does this have for classical philosophy of mind?

If the Wheeler DeWitt equation, experimentally verified in 2013, shows the universe is being collapsed by a conscious state outside the universe, then what consequences does THAT have?

Or can we reinterpret this to be perfectly compatible with classical theism?Say, the equation only captures conscious awareness of the universe by God, but doesn’t tell us much else about Him.

And there are some interesting parallels between Prime Matter, which is found in Aristotelian philosophy, and consciousness, which could give us room to accept the scientific data & Introspective Argument or even a certain type of idealism:

maverickphilosopher.typepad.com/maverick_philosopher/2011/08/indeterminate-yet-existent.html

So what do you guys all think about this?

Can we unify classical theism and Thomistic philosophy with monistic idealism in some way?

Or is this a philosophical Mission Impossible and we would have to conclude that these philosophical arguments & scientific interpretations are all suspect?

 

[EnosJadon]

Recently, I’ve been researching Catholic philosophy.

Basically classical metaphysics, classical theism & divine simplicity, dualism, materialism, the works.

So I understand that Catholic theology holds that God is wholly and divinely simple, Being Itself.

We can say God is Intellect Itself, and that he has power and love and goodness, but we can say them only analogically as God is of a completely different kind from us and the rest of existence.

But I’ve also been aware for quite some time of Idealism and it’s various derivations from both philosophical argumentation and scientific experimental evidence from quantum physics.

Now to start this off, here are a few videos to begin this with:

youtube.com/watch?v=4l1lQMCOguw&list=PL1mr9ZTZb3TViAqtowpvZy5PZpn-MoSK_&index=8

This first video is called The Introspective Argument.

It makes an argument for Idealism, the idea that matter doesn’t exist independent of observation and is actually made out of the same substance as the mind.

I would like to know what you guys over here have to say about this argument, especially if you’re acquianted with Thomistic metaphysics and philosophy and could analyse it from that perspective.

Now here are several videos trying to deduce Idealism from quantum mechanics. Specifically the double-slit experiment:

youtube.com/watch?v=qB7d5V71vUE&index=4&list=PL1mr9ZTZb3TViAqtowpvZy5PZpn-MoSK_

youtube.com/watch?v=vOv8zYla1wY&index=5&list=PL1mr9ZTZb3TViAqtowpvZy5PZpn-MoSK_ (especially this one)

youtube.com/watch?v=42skzOHjtA&list=PL1mr9ZTZb3TViAqtowpvZy5PZpn-MoSK&index=7

So what do you think about these scientifically based attempts to validate Idealism?

Does anyone here who has advanced enough knowledge about quantum mechanics who could commentate on these things?

Now to move on to arguments that try to use the latest science to prove that our universe is simulated in a cosmic mind (God) and that information is more fundamental than space and time:

youtube.com/watch?v=3uGgPACZI3Q

youtube.com/watch?v=QiZLlpqAQ7U&t=5s

youtube.com/watch?v=v2Xsp4FRgas&index=1&list=PL1mr9ZTZb3TViAqtowpvZy5PZpn-MoSK_

Among other things, these videos try to argue that consciousness is actually an Integrated Information System according to a certain scientific theory in quantum mechanics.

Now the theory of consciousness being explained by science as an IIS is interesting on it’s own terms, but what these arguments show is that the entire universe is being controlled by a wave-function that is being collapsed by a single IIS outside of the universe.

In other words, experimentally verifiable evidence for the existence of God.

Now these theories, if correct, have some pretty weird consequences.

For one, all matter is actually made out of mind stuff, or one single substance.

The Wheeler DeWitt equation, which is used as experimental evidence of a mind outside of the universe keeping it in existence (God), also seems to implicitly suggest, at least by those in the above videos, that God is a mind.

But under classical theism, God cannot be a mind nor be made out of a substance, as he is Being Itself, or rather, Existance Itself.

Now we can surely speak of the mind of God or God’s divine intellect, but only analagously so because classical theism holds God isn’t a particular instance of a kind.

But my main questions are: If this scientific evidence and it’s interpretation is correct, than how do we reconcile this with Aristotelianism or classical theism?

If consciousness is an Integrated Information System, then what consequences does this have for classical philosophy of mind?

If the Wheeler DeWitt equation, experimentally verified in 2013, shows the universe is being collapsed by a conscious state outside the universe, then what consequences does THAT have?

Or can we reinterpret this to be perfectly compatible with classical theism?Say, the equation only captures conscious awareness of the universe by God, but doesn’t tell us much else about Him.

And there are some interesting parallels between Prime Matter, which is found in Aristotelian philosophy, and consciousness, which could give us room to accept the scientific data & Introspective Argument or even a certain type of idealism:

maverickphilosopher.typepad.com/maverick_philosopher/2011/08/indeterminate-yet-existent.html

So what do you guys all think about this?

Can we unify classical theism and Thomistic philosophy with monistic idealism in some way?

Or is this a philosophical Mission Impossible and we would have to conclude that these philosophical arguments & scientific interpretations are all suspect?

Many of the conclusions presented in the referenced videos make no sense. What I find fascinating however, is that you don’t seem to realize that they make no sense.

I find this phenomenon to be true in many instances, people don’t seem to realize that what they believe, isn’t logical…but they choose to believe it anyway. To me, this is one of the most fascinating aspects of reality…and one which often leads me to question its nature…because people believe that which isn’t logical to believe.

But why do people do that, and I don’t?

The simplest answer is that I do, but that I simply don’t realize it. But this explanation is incorrect. You and I do not think alike…WHY? Why am I rational, and you’re not?

One of the most overlooked indications that reality is in fact a simulation, is that the people in it…although supposedly rational like me…don’t behave like me. They behave irrationally.

To me…of all the signs that reality isn’t real, the most compelling one is the behavior of the people in it.

 

[STT]

I will comment on the first video first. I will discuss the rest later.

Recently, I’ve been researching Catholic philosophy.

Basically classical metaphysics, classical theism & divine simplicity, dualism, materialism, the works.

So I understand that Catholic theology holds that God is wholly and divinely simple, Being Itself.

We can say God is Intellect Itself, and that he has power and love and goodness, but we can say them only analogically as God is of a completely different kind from us and the rest of existence.

But I’ve also been aware for quite some time of Idealism and it’s various derivations from both philosophical argumentation and scientific experimental evidence from quantum physics.

Now to start this off, here are a few videos to begin this with:

youtube.com/watch?v=4l1lQMCOguw&list=PL1mr9ZTZb3TViAqtowpvZy5PZpn-MoSK_&index=8

This first video is called The Introspective Argument.

It makes an argument for Idealism, the idea that matter doesn’t exist independent of observation and is actually made out of the same substance as the mind.

I would like to know what you guys over here have to say about this argument, especially if you’re acquianted with Thomistic metaphysics and philosophy and could analyse it from that perspective.

There is an argument against idealism:

1. Mind is fundamental (idealism)
2. Every point in space and time is similar to mind (there is no difference between different point of space and time from mind point of view, mind has no location)
3. This means that the experience should be non-local (one should experience everything in space and time)
4. Our experiences however are local in space and time
5. Therefore Idealism is wrong

 

[Anthony_V]

Can we unify classical theism and Thomistic philosophy with monistic idealism in some way?

Idealism does not square with the Aristotelian-Thomist package. If you start pulling at threads, the whole thing comes apart. The formal and material causes are analogous to being-in-act and being-in-potency. Form is the actualization of matter, which is the potency. Without matter, you don’t have substances, but separated substances. So everything would be a subsistent form, just like angels (and the rational part of deceased human souls). But that’s problematic, since we will be unable to explain substantial corruption and generation. All change would be accidental, which is clearly false.

Neither does idealism seem to square with Catholic dogma. It would be impossible to account for the Incarnation.

My recommendation : study Edward Feser’s works, especially Aquinas and Scholastic Metaphysics. Also, Christopher Shield’s Aristotle. When you’re ready, read Wippel’s The Metaphysical Thought of Thomas Aquinas, and Aquinas’ Commentaries on the Physics and Metaphysics.

Keep up the reading! It’s well worth all the effort.

We can say God is Intellect Itself, and that he has power and love and goodness, but we can say them only analogically as God is of a completely different kind from us and the rest of existence.

Not a “completely different kind.” An analogous kind. That’s the point of analogy. It steers us into the middle ground between univocity and equivocity. If He were completely different, we could say nothing about Him. Aquinas took it as evident that we could say something about Him, so he rejected equivocity. But Aquinas also rejected a so-called univocity of being, where being is predicated the exact same of everything. That would effectively turn being into a genus. (Duns Scotus has other ideas about this, but he makes subtle distinctions to try and get around it.)

But I’ve also been aware for quite some time of Idealism and it’s various derivations from both philosophical argumentation and scientific experimental evidence from quantum physics.

Quantum physics operates on a different conceptual level than metaphysics. While interesting, it is irrelevant to whether Aristotelian-Thomism and idealism are compatible.

It makes an argument for Idealism, the idea that matter doesn’t exist independent of observation and is actually made out of the same substance as the mind.

Take this argument. Matter and form have different properties. Suppose there was a single metaphysical substrate with both kinds of properties. If there is a contradiction of properties, then there cannot be one substrate. There is a contradiction, because matter and form are irreducibly distinct (as act and potency are) because being cannot be a genus. Therefore, they cannot be the same. It’s not all spelled out there obviously, but that’s a first pass at a counter-argument.

So what do you think about these scientifically based attempts to validate Idealism?

I think they operate on a lower conceptual level than metaphysics does.

But my main questions are: If this scientific evidence and it’s interpretation is correct, than how do we reconcile this with Aristotelianism or classical theism?

The scientific evidence itself has nothing to say about Aristotelian-Thomism or classical theism. It depends on how the interpretation bears on the act-potency distinction and upon hylemorphism directly.

And there are some interesting parallels between Prime Matter, which is found in Aristotelian philosophy, and consciousness, which could give us room to accept the scientific data & Introspective Argument or even a certain type of idealism:

maverickphilosopher.typepad.com/maverick_philosopher/2011/08/indeterminate-yet-existent.html

It’s one thing to call out the similarities between things. It is another to identify them. As a professor once told me, “Similar is similar to the same, but it is not the same as the same.”

 

[NormalBeliever]

Idealism does not square with the Aristotelian-Thomist package. If you start pulling at threads, the whole thing comes apart. The formal and material causes are analogous to being-in-act and being-in-potency. Form is the actualization of matter, which is the potency. Without matter, you don’t have substances, but separated substances. So everything would be a subsistent form, just like angels (and the rational part of deceased human souls). But that’s problematic, since we will be unable to explain substantial corruption and generation. All change would be accidental, which is clearly false.

Neither does idealism seem to square with Catholic dogma. It would be impossible to account for the Incarnation.

Quantum physics operates on a different conceptual level than metaphysics. While interesting, it is irrelevant to whether Aristotelian-Thomism and idealism are compatible.

The scientific evidence itself has nothing to say about Aristotelian-Thomism or classical theism. It depends on how the interpretation bears on the act-potency distinction and upon hylemorphism directly.

Hmm…

In one of the videos above, specifically about the so-called Measurement Problem, they showcase evidence of the wave-function of a particle being collapsed by a conscious observer only by observation.

The conclusion from this is that matter, which is a wave-function or a set of probabilities, only exists when we observe it.

Thus, mind is more fundamental than matter.

But that interpretation isn’t a popular one among physicists, even though they also showcase evidence that is supposed to refute the objections for that interpretation of the data, which is also called the Copenhagen Interpretation.

But if the Copenhagen Interpretation was in fact correct, then what would that mean for Aristotelianism?

We would have experimental evidence of matter only being collapsed when we make an observation, thus falsifying the view of naive realism, that the objective world exists independent of observation.

Another piece of evidence they use is findings in recent theoretical physics which indicate that time and space are not fundamental, but information is.

Don’t know if that is sufficient to make the case though.

Another interesting thing is the theory that consciousness can be explained scientifically as an Integrated Information state.

It’s up there in that 50-minute or so video about whether or not our universe exhibits properties of functioning like it is being simulated.

They then show how the Wheeler-DeWitt equation in quantum physics shows that the entire wave-function of the universe is being collapsed by an Integrated Information state outside it

The Wheeler-DeWitt equation has been experimentally verified in 2013.

Thus, the universe is being collapsed by a cosmic mind outside the Universe.

Therefore God exists.

However, the implications from this seem to be that of God being an instance of a kind, rather than Existance Itself in classical theism.

But there may be a way to reinterpret that, IF the idea that consciousness is explainable scientifically as an Integrated Information state is correct.

The integrated information state keeping the universe in being could be evidence of God’s will or intellect or even consciousness, without devolving away from classical theism

But it already seems very sketchy, as terms like God’s will or consciousness can only be applied to God analogically, not univocally.

But then again, maybe Integrated Information cannot explain consciousness.

After all, the mathematical formulation of the theory describes what happens in our brains at a quantum level when we are fully consciouss

Information is entangled in an integrated manner, but not when we aren’t fully conscious, thus the physicists who discovered that used inductive reasoning to conclude consciousness is an integrated information state.

But they could perhaps be wrong about that conclusion.

Or, and this is the most likely conclusion, the Integrated Information equation only correlates to consciousness, but that doesn’t mean it actually is awareness.

Just like the fact that our thoughts create a pattern of molecules which we can use to visually reconstruct what one is thinking of doesn’t mean that these molecule ARE that thought.

It’s a correlation, but it’s not the actual thing, only a physical correlate.

But if THAT is the case, then the fact that our universe is being collapsed by an Int-Inf state could be used to show God exists, without identifying Him with that very Integrated Information state.

But that would mean God is still a single consciousness, and the Integrated Information state evidence he has accidents.

Which is incompatible with classical theism.

Which means the Integrated Information approach is flawed or false.