Philosophy - Science method

According to one popular interpretation of quantum mechanics, if you are experiencing a challenging life, there exists a universe where you are thriving. Meanwhile, in another universe, you might be a mighty king or queen who is unmatched in power and fame. This idea, known as the "Many-Worlds Interpretation," suggests that every decision and action lead to the creation of a new universe.

For example, when you come to a junction and decide to turn left, an entirely new universe is created where you turned right. In this view, billions of new universes are created in the blink of an eye, constantly branching out from every possible event or choice.

This raises an interesting question: When was our universe created? Was it 40 years ago when a young bachelor proposed to his girlfriend, and she rejected him, causing the creation of our universe where she joyfully accepted the ring, leading to their happy life together? Or was it just three years ago when a toddler fell ill and died in his mother's arms, causing the creation of our universe where he survived?

Given this perspective, can we really determine the age of our universe? Traditional physics suggests that our universe began about 13.8 billion years ago with the Big Bang, but quantum mechanics introduces the possibility of infinitely branching timelines. While we may be able to measure the age of our observable universe, the idea of multiple universes complicates the notion of a singular timeline or fixed creation point. Thus, determining the age of our universe in this context may ultimately be impossible.

Please comment.

1)

2)

My best strategy is to make my body of work on metaphysics so big and rigorous that, people will ponder "how would he have done this without a doctorate?"

1)

2)

3)

4)

5)

Mansfield, Harvey. "Niccolò Machiavelli". Encyclopedia Britannica, 30 Apr. 2024, https://www.britannica.com/biography/Niccolo-Machiavelli. Accessed 8 May 2024.

1)The most consistent politicians don’t get to the highest office(President):

Britannica, The Editors of Encyclopaedia. "Ron Paul". Encyclopedia Britannica, 29 Apr. 2024, https://www.britannica.com/biography/Ron-Paul. Accessed 8 May 2024.

McNamee, Gregory Lewis. "Bernie Sanders". Encyclopedia Britannica, 8 May. 2024, https://www.britannica.com/biography/Bernie-Sanders. Accessed 8 May 2024.

2)Liberals correctly interpret authority as necessary evil thus, liberalism is the dominant ideology

Enough to expand science.

1)

2)

1)

2)

3)

PROBABLY not because:

1)

2)

3)

4)

1)

2)

3)

1. World Order has shown changes, especially after 2020 in almost all major fields of Politics, Economics, Social, Geopolitical etc.

2. Where the world order in real is diverting?

3. What will be the ultimate outcomes?

4. The alteration & changes of systems on Earth will change anything in Space?

5. Which systems will lose centuries-long grounds and what new will rise?

6. Is the current scenario being same as the Rise/Fall of Nations, Games of Thrones etc. or there is something significantly different this time?

7. Ultimately what impact will the Next World Order make on the entire human race and especially on the Bio-sphere?

8. How much was any World Order got impacted/formed/shaped through/by religious education directly/indirectly and why did such neuroplasticity/mind exercises base practices remain an integral part of World Orders in past? Can humans afford to continue past practices to build any new future?

9. What changes do you suggest in Next World Order, and Why?

10. Are Human going to accept defeat & surrender in front of Alien powers like gods, AIs, energy, any other life forms etc.?

11. How long more humans have the current status of rapidly shrinking freedom?

12. Will the current form of human life exist after such surrenders and what will be the expected shape of any of such life?

13. Its understood that human have to sacrifice current systems and life forms for existence, but, Is it necessary? Any workable solutions ?

1)No one can predict the future completely accurately.

2)So, all beings probably have a unique enough form.

3)Plus, the most fundamental essence of reality is unknown.

4)Thus, upon death, each being probably doesn't return.

5) https://www.researchgate.net/publication/377663987_Respectfully_and_Unfortunately_The_Improbability_of_and_Danger_in_Believing_in_Reincarnation

I expect downloadable book

Dear connections,

I am undertaking a Master of Philosophy in IT and as so far progressed with my thesis writing and nearing completion.

I am kindly seeking if anyone is interested in helping me review my thesis, please contact me so that I can share the copy with you as I need your feedback/reviews/comments before I finalize for submission.

I truly appreciate your assistance.

Best Regards

Desmond Narongou

What are the requirements to start a Reform Jewish Temple?

My latest work:

1)Maybe I'm slightly less intuitive. I

consider myself kind of a skeptical empiricist/critical rationalist.

2)I don't believe concepts are eternal because they need to be adjusted to avoid contradictions.

3)Without some transcendence beyond materialism, we would NOT be able to reason.

4)Maybe reason is the ONLY absolute CONCEPT. And reason derives from God.

5)Concepts also aid execution thus, maybe I'm a more skeptical Aristotelian.

Sources:

1)

2)

If you had to publish a book in philosophy of language-in-cognitive-sciences that is definitely not "continental" but also not strictly analytic, and discusses empirical (psychological, ethnolinguistic) studies too -- where would you submit your proposal?

CUP, for instance, explicitly restricts its field of interest to analytic philosophy of language.

I think there is a big confusion between qualities / universals and physical properties. We speak of properties of things in physics, chemistry, biology, etc. In my opinion, properties are sets of general qualities. But are these qualities in physical science and the qualities in philosophy the same? Are there essential differences between them in science and in philosophy?

We hear a lot about the comparability between biological "algorithms" and digital algorithms. But: what are the distinctions between biological "algorithms" and digital algorithms? Are there also causal distinctions between them, or merely conceptual?

Observe how even today linguistic empiricism via direct denotative reference and sense, via linguistic-analytic philosophies, reigns supreme in philosophy. It is superfluous here to cite how Frege, Russell, Wittgenstein, the Vienna Circle, etc. have used the merely directly denotative sense to define sense, reference, proposition, truth value, and so forth.

The natural but extreme consequence from the Frege-Wittgenstein tendency is linguistic idealism, whereby somehow language and – for them consequently – even logic and mathematics (!) are made not only to define but also to determine the world. Berkeley would have done it better!

Justifiably enough from the necessary nature of derivation of linguistic idealism from direct linguistic and logical denotation, Richard Gaskin, a philosopher of language, aesthetics, and literature, has come upon this conclusion – presumably determined also by the necessity to bring aesthetic and literary worlds under the aegis of linguistic use and produce a language philosophy of aesthetic and literary experience.

But this motive would not suffice to posit linguistic idealism as a philosophical solution.

Linguistic analytic philosophy seems to be the philosophy of the day -- represented more than 60% or 70% of academic philosophers in some or other manner. What Frege, Wittgenstein, etc. have said do contain a lot of truth, but should their claims and critiques be the broadest of truths? An example: Later Wittgenstein's insistence that very use of language is the working definition of language. Can we not say this of many other things?

"Motion" is to be found in everything. And why do these philosophers not "use", for example, the notion of "motion" as the fundamental instrument of analysis of everything?

"Interpretation" is yet another concept that may be used in order to analyze everything, and why not? In short, merely because the use-theory of language is useful, we cannot use this theory to analyze everything! But why this addiction in the minds of analytic thinkers with language?

I have mentioned one inconsistency of linguistic philosophy here. In the course of our discussion many more will emerge. I would myself contribute some more.

Bibliography

(1) Gravitational Coalescence Paradox and Cosmogenetic Causality in Quantum Astrophysical Cosmology, 647 pp., Berlin, 2018.

(2) Physics without Metaphysics? Categories of Second Generation Scientific Ontology, 386 pp., Frankfurt, 2015.

(3) Causal Ubiquity in Quantum Physics: A Superluminal and Local-Causal Physical Ontology, 361 pp., Frankfurt, 2014.

(4) Essential Cosmology and Philosophy for All: Gravitational Coalescence Cosmology, 92 pp., KDP Amazon, 2022, 2nd Edition.

(5) Essenzielle Kosmologie und Philosophie für alle: Gravitational-Koaleszenz-Kosmologie, 104 pp., KDP Amazon, 2022, 1st Edition.

For millennia the questions of CAUSALITY and FREEDOM have been conceived as opposites in both sciences and philosophies. If they can be unified (possibly, freedom brought under the other's explanation), is it possible to bring the physical, natural, and social sciences together under one set of basic notions?

I have a unique manner of argument in the direction of a solution for the reconciliation of causality and freedom.

DOES THE WORLD HAVE A CLEARLY HOLISTIC FUTURE IN SCIENCE, SOCIETY, POLITICS AND PHILOSOPHY?

The world is used to thinking in terms of emotions and thoughts. But the stark difference between acts of emotion and acts of thought at the theoretical and practical levels can be bridged. The reason suggested is the following.

EVEN IF THERE IS NO ABSOLUTE CONTINUITY AND CONNECTION BETWEEN EACH ACT OF THOUGHT AND EACH ACT OF EMOTION, THERE EXISTS PARTIAL CONTINUITY BETWEEN ANY FINITE NUMBER OF SUCH PROCESSES, AND HENCE, ALL OF THEM ARE SOMEHOW CONNECTED. THIS CONNECTION IS CAUSAL, AND NOT MERELY MATHEMATICAL OR QUANTUM-PHYSICAL.

As a result, even esthetic acts can be connected to the acts of thinking in the sciences, philosophy, literature, music, etc., both theoretically and practically. Neuroscience too can profit out of this paradigm change.

Further, when emotions, imaginations, reasonings, etc. are brought under the ambit of acts of logical reasoning, what would change in the theoretical acts of logical conclusions in the sciences, philosophy, literature, and other disciplines?

Naturally, also the character of the persons who are supposed to express thoughts, emotions, etc. in various ways for the good of humankind will take precedence. This is what value epistemology insists on.

As a result, the personalities behind and within the sciences, philosophy, literature, music, other performing arts, and also in the fields of teaching and other services, will be influenced and transformed substantially.

DOES THE WORLD HAVE SUCH A FUTURE? IF IT HAS, IT IS BETTER TO PRECIPITATE SUCH A FUTURE.

We see many theories in physics, mathematics, etc. becoming extremely axiomatic and rigorous. They call themselves or attempt to be as quantitative as possible. But are adequate comparisons between mathematics, physical sciences, biological sciences, human sciences, and philosophy, and adequate adaptation of the axiomatic method possible by creating a system of all exact, physical, and human sciences that depend only on the quantitively qualitative proportionalities and call them invariables?

They cannot do well enough to explain Reality-in-total, because Reality-in-total primarily involves all sorts of ontological universals that are purely qualitative, and some of them are the most fundamental, proportionality-type, quantitative invariables of all physical existents in their specificity and totality in their natural kinds. But as the inquiry comes to Reality-in-total, ontological qualitative universals must come into the picture. Hence, merely quantitative (mathematical) explanations do not exhaust the explanation of Reality-in-total.

Existence as individuals and existence in groups are not differentiable and systematizable in terms of quantitatively qualitative universals alone. Both qualitative and quantitatively qualitative universals are necessary for this. Both together are general qualities pertaining to existents in their processual aspect, not merely in their separation from each other. Therefore, the primitive notions (called traditionally as Categories) of Reality-in-total must be ontological qualitative universals involving both the qualitative and quantitative aspects. The most basic of universals that pertain properly to Reality-in-total are now to be found.

Can the primitive notions (Categories) and axioms of the said sciences converge so that the axioms of a system of Reality take shape from a set of the highest possible ontological Categories as simple sentential formulations of the Categories which directly imply existents? This must be deemed necessary for philosophy, natural sciences, and human sciences, because these deal with existents, unlike the formal sciences that deal only with the qualitatively quantitative form of arguments.

Thus, in the case of mathematics and logic there can be various sorts of quantitative and qualitative primitive notions (categories) and then axioms that use the primitive notions in a manner that adds some essential, pre-defined, operations. But the sciences and philosophy need also the existence of their object-processes. For this reason, the primitive axioms can be simple sentential formulations involving the Categories and nothing else. This is in order to avoid indirect existence statements and to involve existence in terms exclusively of the Categories.

Further, the sciences together could possess just one set of sufficiently common primitive notions of all knowledge, from which also the respective primitive notions and axioms of mathematics, logic, physical and human sciences, and philosophy may be derived. I support this view because the physical-ontological Categories involving the existence of Reality and realities, in my opinion, must be most general and fully exhaustive of the notion of To Be (existence) in a qualitatively universal manner that is applicable to all existents in their individual processual and total processual senses.

Today the nexus or the interface of the sciences and philosophies is in a crisis of dichotomy between truth versus reality. Most scientists, philosophers, and common people rush after “truths”. But who, in scientific and philosophical practice, wants to draw unto the possible limits the consequences of the fact that we can at the most have ever better truths, and not final truths as such?

Finalized truths as such may be concluded to in cases where there is natural and inevitable availability of an absolute right to use the logical Laws of Identity, Contradiction, and Excluded Middle, especially in order to decide between concepts related to the existence and non-existence of anything out there.

Practically very few may be seen generalizing upon and extrapolating from this metaphysical and logical state of affairs beyond its epistemological consequences. In the name of practicality, ever less academicians want today to connect ever broader truths compatible to Reality-in-total by drawing from the available and imaginable commonalities of both.

The only thinkable way to accentuate the process of access to ever broader truths compatible to Reality-in-total is to look for the truest possible of all truths with foundations on existence (nominal) / existing (gerund) / To Be (verbal). The truest are those propositions where the Laws of Identity, Contradiction, and Excluded Middle can be applied best. The truest are not generalizable and extendable merely epistemologically, but also metaphysically, physical-ontologically, mathematically, biologically, human-scientifically, etc.

The agents that permit generalization and extrapolation are the axioms that are the tautologically sentential formulations of the most fundamental of all notions (Categories) and imply nothing but the Categories of all that exist – that too with respect to the existence of Realit-in-total. These purely physical-ontological implications of existence are what I analyze further in the present work. One may wonder how these purely metaphysical, physical-ontological axioms and their Categories can be applicable to sciences other than physics and philosophy.

My justification is as follows: Take for example the case of the commonality of foundations of mathematics, logic, the sciences, philosophy, and language. The notions that may be taken as the primitive notions of mathematics were born not from a non-existent virtual world but instead from the human capacity of spatial, temporal, quantitatively qualitative, and purely qualitative imagination.

I have already been working so as to show qualitative (having to do with the ontological universals of existents, expressed in terms of adjectives) quantitativeness (notions based on spatial and temporal imagination, where, it should be kept in mind, that space-time are epistemically measuremental) may be seen to be present in their elements in mathematics, logic, the sciences, philosophy, and language.

The agents I use for this are: ‘ontological universals’, ‘connotative universals’, and ‘denotative universals’. In my opinion, the physical-ontological basis of these must and can be established in terms merely of the Categories of Extension-Change, which you find being discussed briefly here.

Pitiably, most scientists and philosophers forget that following the exhaustively physical-ontological implications of To Be in the foundations of science and philosophy is the best way to approach Reality well enough in order to derive the best possible of truths and their probable derivatives. Most of them forget that we need to rush after Reality, not merely after truths and truths about specific processes.

Bibliography

I get surprised each time when some physicists tell me that either the electromagnetic (EM) or the gravitational (G) or both the forms of energy do not exist – that EM and G are, are "existent" neither like nor unlike material bodies – but that EM and G are to be treated or expressed as mathematical waves or particles propagated from material objects that of course exist for all sciences.

Some of them put in all their energies to show that both EM and G are mere mathematical objects, fields, etc., and not physically existent objects or fields of energy emissions that then become propagations from material bodies. If propagation from material bodies, then their nature too would have to be similar to that of material bodies!!! This is something that the mathematical realists of theoretical physics and cosmology cannot bear!!!

This is similar in effect to Newton and his followers thinking honestly and religiously that at least gravitation and perhaps also other energies are just miraculously non-bodily actions at a distance without any propagation particles / wavicles. But I admit that I explained certain things in the first paragraph above as if I myself were a Newtonian. This has been on purpose.

Even in the 21st century, we must be sharply aware that from the past more than 120 years the General Theory of Relativity with its various versions and especially its merely mathematical interpretations have succeeded in casting and maintaining the power of a terrifying veil of mathematical miracles on the minds of many scientists – miracles such as the mere spacetime curvature being the meaning of gravitation and all other sorts of fields. The mathematics did not need existence, and hence gravitation did not exist! But the same persons did not create a theory whereby the mathematics does not need the existence of the material world and hence the material world does not exist!!

A similar veil has been installed by quantum physics on the minds of many physicists and their audience too. We do not discuss it here. Hence, I have constructed in four published books a systemic manner of understanding these problems in cosmology and quantum physics. I do not claim perfection in any of my attempts. Hence, I keep perfecting my efforts in the course of time, and hope to achieve some improvement. The following is a very short attempt to summarize in this effort one important point in physics, cosmology, and the philosophy of physics and of cosmology.

There exists the tradition of lapping up whatever physicists may say about their observable and unobservable constructs, based on their own manner of using mathematics. The mathematics used are never transparent. Hence, the reader or the audience may not have the ability to makes judgements based on the minimum physical ontology expected of physicists. I believe that this should stop forever at least in the minds of physicists. Moreover, physicists are not to behave like magicians. Their readers and audience should not practice religious faithfulness to them. Nor should physicists expect it from them.

When the search is for the foundations of any science, it is in fact for the invariant aspects of all the realities of that science, and not merely for the invariant aspects of some parts of the realities (object-set/s), methods, conclusions, etc. This does not suffice for science for maximizing success. This is because, any exclusive search for the foundations of the specific object-set or of the discourse of the specific object-set will further require foundations upon the totality of all specific object-sets and their discourse.

We find ourselves in a tradition that believes that proportionality quantities are to be taken as the invariables in physics. But I used to reduce into universal qualities the quantitative-structural aspect of all sciences, that are represented in mathematics as the ontological quantities dealt with in science. The real invariants of physics are not the ontological quantities or proportionalities of certain quantities being treated in physics.

The latter, being only the constant quantities, are one kind of ontological qualities, namely, (1) the quantitatively expressible qualities of processes, e.g., ‘quantity’, ‘one’, ‘addition’, etc. are explicable, respectively, as the qualities: ‘being a specific quantity’, ‘being a unity’, ‘togetherness of two or more units’, etc. The other kind is (2) the ontological qualities of processes in general (say, malleability, toughness, colour, redness, etc.) which cannot directly be expressed as ontological quantities of processes. This shows that pure ontological qualities are a more general notion than ontological quantities and includes the latter.

Explaining ontological qualities in terms of physical quantities cannot be done directly by fundamental physical quantities, but by physical properties that involve fundamental physical quantities. Properties are a mix mainly of ontological qualities and of course includes ontological quantities, of which some are the fundamental physical quantities. Hence, the invariants must be qualities that are generative of and apply to both quantities and non-quantities. These invariants then are fully qualitative.

If the invariants apply to all physical processes, these invariants are qualities ontologically universal to all of them in the specified group. Out of them are constructed properties by mixing many qualitative and quantitatively qualitative universals. Clearly, universals applying to all existents are the real invariants of all Reality – which is a matter to be discussed later.

Since universals are all qualitative and some of them are quantitative as qualities, ontological qualities are broader than mathematical in scope, because, the moment mathematics uses quantities, the use is not of quantities devoid of qualities, but instead, of the quantitative variety of general / universal qualities.

Qualities can also behave as some of the primitive notions that underlie all of physics and other sciences – but this will not exhaust the most necessary foundations of physics and other sciences, because these sciences require the general qualities of all existents, and not merely those of mathematics. These are the axiomatically formulable Categorial notions of philosophy, which latter is thus a general science.

In short, quantitative proportionalities as invariants are very partial with respect to existent processes and their totality. Naturally, philosophy too needs general qualities and not merely quantitative qualities to base the discipline.

We see many theories in physics, mathematics, etc. becoming extremely axiomatic and rigorous. They call themselves or attempt to be as quantitative as possible. But are adequate comparisons between mathematics, physical sciences, biological sciences, human sciences, and philosophy, and adequate adaptation of the axiomatic method possible by creating a system of all exact, physical, and human sciences that depend only on the quantitively qualitative proportionalities and call them invariables?

They cannot do well enough to explain Reality-in-total, because Reality-in-total primarily involves all sorts of ontological universals that are purely qualitative, and some of them are the most fundamental, proportionality-type, quantitative invariables of all physical existents in their specificity and totality in their natural kinds. But as the inquiry comes to Reality-in-total, ontological qualitative universals must come into the picture. Hence, merely quantitative (mathematical) explanations do not exhaust the explanation of Reality-in-total.

Existence as individuals and existence in groups are not differentiable and systematizable in terms of quantitatively qualitative universals alone. Both qualitative and quantitatively qualitative universals are necessary for this. Both together are general qualities pertaining to existents in their processual aspect, not merely in their separation from each other. Therefore, the primitive notions (called traditionally as Categories) of Reality-in-total must be ontological qualitative universals involving both the qualitative and quantitative aspects. The most basic of universals that pertain properly to Reality-in-total are now to be found.

Can the primitive notions (Categories) and axioms of the said sciences converge so that the axioms of a system of Reality take shape from a set of the highest possible ontological Categories as simple sentential formulations of the Categories which directly imply existents? This must be deemed necessary for philosophy, natural sciences, and human sciences, because these deal with existents, unlike the formal sciences that deal only with the qualitatively quantitative form of arguments.

Thus, in the case of mathematics and logic there can be various sorts of quantitative and qualitative primitive notions (categories) and then axioms that use the primitive notions in a manner that adds some essential, pre-defined, operations. But the sciences and philosophy need also the existence of their object-processes. For this reason, the primitive axioms can be simple sentential formulations involving the Categories and nothing else. This is in order to avoid indirect existence statements and to involve existence in terms exclusively of the Categories.

Further, the sciences together could possess just one set of sufficiently common primitive notions of all knowledge, from which also the respective primitive notions and axioms of mathematics, logic, physical and human sciences, and philosophy may be derived. I support this view because the physical-ontological Categories involving the existence of Reality and realities, in my opinion, must be most general and fully exhaustive of the notion of To Be (existence) in a qualitatively universal manner that is applicable to all existents in their individual processual and total processual senses.

Today the nexus or the interface of the sciences and philosophies is in a crisis of dichotomy between truth versus reality. Most scientists, philosophers, and common people rush after “truths”. But who, in scientific and philosophical practice, wants to draw unto the possible limits the consequences of the fact that we can at the most have ever better truths, and not final truths as such?

Finalized truths as such may be concluded to in cases where there is natural and inevitable availability of an absolute right to use the logical Laws of Identity, Contradiction, and Excluded Middle, especially in order to decide between concepts related to the existence and non-existence of anything out there.

Practically very few may be seen generalizing upon and extrapolating from this metaphysical and logical state of affairs beyond its epistemological consequences. In the name of practicality, ever less academicians want today to connect ever broader truths compatible to Reality-in-total by drawing from the available and imaginable commonalities of both.

The only thinkable way to accentuate the process of access to ever broader truths compatible to Reality-in-total is to look for the truest possible of all truths with foundations on existence (nominal) / existing (gerund) / To Be (verbal). The truest are those propositions where the Laws of Identity, Contradiction, and Excluded Middle can be applied best. The truest are not generalizable and extendable merely epistemologically, but also metaphysically, physical-ontologically, mathematically, biologically, human-scientifically, etc.

The agents that permit generalization and extrapolation are the axioms that are the tautologically sentential formulations of the most fundamental of all notions (Categories) and imply nothing but the Categories of all that exist – that too with respect to the existence of Reality-in-total. These purely physical-ontological implications of existence are what I analyze further in the present work. One may wonder how these purely metaphysical, physical-ontological axioms and their Categories can be applicable to sciences other than physics and philosophy.

My justification is as follows: Take for example the case of the commonality of foundations of mathematics, logic, the sciences, philosophy, and language. The notions that may be taken as the primitive notions of mathematics were born not from a non-existent virtual world but instead from the human capacity of spatial, temporal, quantitatively qualitative, and purely qualitative imagination.

I have already been working so as to show qualitative (having to do with the ontological universals of existents, expressed in terms of adjectives) quantitativeness (notions based on spatial and temporal imagination, where, it should be kept in mind, that space-time are epistemically measuremental) may be seen to be present in their elements in mathematics, logic, the sciences, philosophy, and language.

The agents I use for this are: ‘ontological universals’, ‘connotative universals’, and ‘denotative universals’. In my opinion, the physical-ontological basis of these must and can be established in terms merely of the Categories of Extension-Change, which you find being discussed briefly here.

Pitiably, most scientists and philosophers forget that following the exhaustively physical-ontological implications of To Be in the foundations of science and philosophy is the best way to approach Reality well enough in order to derive the best possible of truths and their probable derivatives. Most of them forget that we need to rush after Reality, not merely after truths and truths about specific processes.

The problem of axiomatizing philosophy, and/or philosophy of science, and/or all the sciences together is that we need to somehow bring in the elemental aspects of existence and existents, and absorb the elemental aspects of non-existence and non-existent objects that pertain to existents. Here it should be mentioned that axiomatizing mathematics and logic does not serve the axiomatization of philosophy, and/or philosophy of science, and/or all the sciences together. So far in the history of philosophy and science we have done just this, plus attempts to axiomatize the sciences separately or together by ignoring the elemental aspects of non-existence and non-existent objects that pertain to existents.

Existence (To Be) is not a condition for the possibility of existence of Reality-in-total or specific processual objects, but instead, To Be is the primary condition for all thought, feeling, sensation, dreaming, etc. All other conditions are secondary to this. If To Be is necessary as the condition for the possibility of any philosophy and science as discourse, we need to be axiomatic in philosophy and science about (1) existence (To Be, which is of all that exist) and/or (2) the direct and exhaustive implications of existence.

It is impossible to define existence without using words that involve existence. But it is possible to discover the exhaustive implications of To Be in order to use them in all discourse. Therefore, towards the end of this short document, I shall name what could be the inevitable primitive notions that are exhaustive of To Be and that may be used to create axioms for both philosophy and science together.

To put it differently, I attempt here to base all philosophy and science on the concept of existence of Reality-in-total as whatever it is, by deriving from the concept of the existence of all that exist the only possible (i.e., the exhaustive) implications of To Be.

Of course, the basic logical notions of identity and contradiction will have to be used here without as much danger as when we use them in statements on other less fundamental notions. I would justify their use here as the rational inevitabilities in the foundations – not as inevitabilities in the details that issue later. The inevitabilities in the later details need never to be realized as inevitabilities, because To Be implies some fundamental notions which will take case of this.

That is, the various ways in which the principles of identity and contradiction should be seen as inexact and inappropriate may be discovered in the in fields of derivation beyond the provinces of the fundamental Categorial implications of To Be. This latter part of the claims is not to be discussed here, because it involves much more than logic – in fact, a new conception of logic, which I would term as systemic logic.

Let me come to the matter that I promise in the name of the foundations of ‘Axiomatic Philosophy and Science’. First of all, to exist is not to be merely nothing. In this statement I have taken access to the Laws of Identity, Non-Contradiction, and Excluded Middle at one go in that whatever is, must be whatever it is, and not its opposite which is nothing but nothing, nor a middle point between the two extremes.

Therefore, existence must always be non-vacuous. That is, the primary logical implication of To Be is the non-non-being of whatever exists. But such a logical implication is insufficient for the sciences and philosophy, because we deal there with existents. Hence, let us ignore the logical implication as a truism. The existential implications of To Be are what we need.

I have so far not found any philosopher or scientist who derived these implications. But let us try, even if the result that obtained may be claimed by many ancients and others as theirs. In fact, theirs were not metaphysical / physical-ontological versions. Their epistemic versions of the same have been very useful, but have served a lot to misguide both philosophy and science into give “truth/s” undue importance in place of “Reality”. My claim about the exhaustive physical(-ontological) implications of To Be that I derive here is that they do not incur this fallacy.

To Be is not a thing. It is, as agreed at the start, the very condition for the possibility of discourse: philosophy, science, literature, art … and, in general, of experience. The To Be of existents is thus not a pre-condition for To Be – instead, it is itself the source of all conditions of discourse, not of existence.

If To Be is non-vacuous, it means that all existents are something non-vacuously real. Something-s need not be what we stipulate them to be, both by name and qualifications. But the purely general implication is that existents are something-s. This is already part of philosophical activity, but not of the sciences. We need to concretize this implication at the first tire of concrete implications. Only thereafter are sciences possible.

To be something is to be non-vacuous, i.e., to be in non-vacuous extendedness. However much you may attempt to show that Extension does not follow from the notions of To Be, something, etc., the more will be extent of your failure. You will go on using the Laws of Identity, Contradiction, and Excluded Middle, and never reach any conclusion useful for the sciences. Then you will have to keep your mouth and mind shut. I prefer for myself meaningful discourse in science and philosophy – when I meditate I shall attempt to keep my mind and lips as “shut” as possible.

As said above, Extension is one of the primary physical-ontological implications of To Be. Nothing exists without being extended, without being in Extension. Extended something-s are not just there in Extension. If in Extension, everything has parts. Thus, having parts is one of the primary implications of being something in existence. I term it alternatively also as Compositionality.

It is the very implication of being something that something-s are in Change. The deepest and most inevitable form of implication of Change is this: nothing that is in existence with parts can have the status of being something existent without the parts impacting at least a few others. This is the meaning of Change: impact-formation by extended parts. Any existent has parts existing in the state of impact formation in other parts and in themselves.

Hence, Change is the only other implication of To Be, not second to but equally important as Extension. I call it differently also as Impact-Formation. The notion of motion or mobility does not carry the full weight of the meaning of Change.

There cannot be any other implication equally directly derivable from To Be as Extension and Change can be. In other words, all other implications can be found to be sub-implications of Extension-Change, i.e., involving only Extension-Change. Showing them as involving only Extension-Change would suffice to show their sub-implications status with respect to Extension-Change.

Existence in Extension-Change belongs to anything existent, hence ubiquitous – to be met with in any existent. This is nothing but existence in the ubiquitously (to be met with in any existent) extended form of continuance in ubiquitous (to be met with in any existent) impact formation. What else is this but Universal Causality?

If you say that causation is a mere principle of science – as most philosophers and scientists have so far thought – I reject this view. From the above paragraphs I conclude that Causation is metaphysically (physical-ontologically) secondary only to existence. Everybody admits today that we and the universe exist. But we all admit that every part of our body-mind and every existent in the world must be causal because we are non-vacuously existent in Extension-Change.

This means that something has been fundamentally wrong about Causality in philosophy and science. We need to begin doing philosophy and science based fully on To Be and its implications, namely, Extension-Change-wise continuance, which is nothing but being in Universal Causation. It is universal because everything is existent. Universal Causality is the combined shape of Extension-Change. Causation the process of happening of Extension-Change-wise continuance in existence. Causality is the state of being in Extension-Change-wise continuance in existence.

Note that what we measurementally and thus epistemically call as space is metaphysically to be termed as Extension. Space is the measuremental aspect of the primary quality of all existents, namely, of Extension. That is, space is the quantity of measurement of Extension, of measurements of the extended nature of existents. In this sense, space is an epistemic quality.

Further, note also that what we call time is the measuremental aspect of the primary quality of all existents, namely, of Change. If there is no impact-formation by parts of existents, there is no measurement called time. Hence, time is the epistemic quality of measurements of Change, which is the impact-formation tendency of all existents.

Immanuel Kant termed space as the condition for the possibility of sensibility, and Edmund Husserl called it as one of the fundamental essences of thought. Space and time in Kant are epistemic since they are just epistemic conditions of possibility; and essences in Husserl are epistemic, clearly as they are based on the continuous act of epochḗ.

Nothing can exist in epistemic space-time. That is, language and mind tend to falsely convert space and time into something that together condition existents. Thus, humans tend to believe that our measuremental concepts and derivative results are all really and exactly very essential to existent something-s, and not merely to our manner of knowing, feeling, sensing, etc.

This is the source of scientific and philosophical misconceptions that have resulted in the reification of the conclusions and concepts of thought and feeling. Thus, this is also the source of conceptual insufficiencies in philosophical and scientific theories. Scientism and scientific and mathematical instrumentalism justify these human tendencies in the name of pragmatism about science and thought.

Reification of certain statistical conclusions as probabilities and the metaphysicization of probable events as the only possible events are not merely due to the above sort of reification. It is also by reason of the equivocation of probability with possibility and the reification of our scientific and statistical conclusions of probabilities as real possibilities. Humans tend to forget that a certain amount of probability is exactly and properly the measure of the extent of human capacity (and by implication, of human incapacity), at a given instance and at a given measuremental moment of history, to use instruments to get at all the existents that are the causes of a given process.

As we know, To Be is not a Category / Quality. It is the very condition that is the same as the existence of something-s as whatever they are. This is a tautology: To Be is To Be. If To Be is a metaphysical notion, the physical-ontologically and scientifically relevant metaphysical implications of To Be are Extension-Change. These are the highest and only highest Categories of all philosophy and science. Universal Causality is the notion of combination of Extension-Change. It is not an indirectly derived notion.

If scientists tend to relegate such notions as philosophical, they are trying to be practical in a silly manner. Even scientific results need the hand of proper and best possible formulations of notions and theoretical principles. Theoretical principles (say, of causation, conservation, gravitation, matter, mass, energy, etc., which may clearly be formulated in terms of Extension-Change-wise existence and existents) must be formulated in the most systemic manner possible.

I would call Extension, Change, and the combination-term Universal Causality not merely as the highest metaphysical Categories. They are the very primitive terms in addition to terms like ‘existent’, ‘matter-energy’, etc., which are necessary for an axiomatic formulation of the foundations of the sciences. Hence, we need to formulate axiomatically both philosophy and science.

Universal Causality may hereafter also be taken as an axiom in philosophy and the sciences. An axiom is a formulated basic principle. In that case, why not formulate also the primitive notions (Categories) of Extension and Change as axioms? In short, the difference between mathematical-logical axiomatic foundations and physical-philosophical axiomatic foundations is that in the former set primitive notions are not axioms, and in the latter primitive notions may be formulated as axioms.

In the light of the above discussion, it becomes clear that Einstein’s postulation of gravitation and matter-energy as space-time curvatures is at the most a formulation of these notions in terms of the mathematical necessity to use space-time (epistemic) measurements and theorize based on them in theoretical physics.

Einstein was immersed in the neo-positivism and logical positivism of his time. Hence, he could not reason beyond the use, by mathematics, of quantitative notions as concrete measurements. Scientists and philosophers who still follow Einstein on this sort of a misguided reification of epistemic space and time are taking refuge not on Einstein but on his theoretical frailties. Even today most scientists and philosophers are unaware that quantities are in fact quantitatively characterized pure qualities – and not properties that are combinations of qualitative and quantitatively qualitative notions.

Minkowski formulated the mathematics of space-time and thus reduced space-time into a sort of ether in which physical processes take place gravitationally. Einstein put gravitation into this language and mistook this language (the language of mathematical space-time) to be the very matter-energy processes that curve according to gravitational processes. For the mathematics this is no too great error, because it worked. This is why some physicists even today consider gravitation and/or all energy forms as ether, as if without this stuff in the background material bodies would not be able to move around in the cosmos! A part of the cosmos is thus being converted into a background conditioner!

Only formal functioning has so far been found necessary in mathematics. Derivation from the metaphysical sources of existents and non-existents has not so far been found necessary in mathematics. But, note here also this: for more than 100 years physicists and philosophers of physics lapped up this substitution of the language of mathematics for the actual, physically existent, processes, which otherwise should have been treated also metaphysically, and if possible, in a manner that is systemically comprehensive of the sources of all sciences.

The implications of existence, non-existence, existents, and non-existents too can help to make the mathematical adaptations work pragmatically. Hence, clearly it does not suffice that only the mathematical formalism attained so far be used in physics and the sciences. The project of science, philosophy, mathematics, and logic must grow out of their limits and become parts of a systemic science with foundations in the implications of existence, non-existence, existents, and non-existents.

I have been attempting to explain in these pages a limited realm of what I otherwise have been attempting to realize. I show only that there are two physical-ontological Categories and some derived axioms (out of these many axioms, only one is discussed here, i.e., Universal Causality), using which we need to formulate not merely philosophy but also physics and other sciences.

But I suggest also that the existence-related and non-existents-related mathematical objects too must be formulated using some primitive terms and axioms that are compatible with the philosophical and physical primitive terms and axioms that may facilitate a systemic approach to all sciences.

The awarding of the Nobel Prize 2023 for quantum informatics to Alain Aspect, John F. Clauser, and Anton Zeilinger does not, therefore, mean that all of quantum physics and their assumptions and results are ‘the realities’ behind the ‘truths’ formulated. Instead, it means only that the truths they have formulated are relatively more technology-productive within the context of the other truths and technologies that surround them in physics. Quantum informatics works at a level of effects where we involve only those movements and processes that result in the resulting discoveries, general truths, and the derivative technology.

Similarly, the successes of engineering, informatics, medical processing technology, and the medical science that (as of today) are based on these need not be a proof for the alleged “absolute truth status” of the theories based on Newtonian physics, of molecular and atomic level chemistry and biology, etc. These sciences use only certain contextual levels of interaction in the physical world.

Recollect here the ways in which occidental philosophers dating at least from Parmenides and Heraclitus and extending up until today have been mistaking space and time as (1) two metaphysical categories, or (2) as mere existents, or (3) as illusions.

Oriental philosophies, especially Hindu and Buddhist, have been the best examples of rejecting space-time as metaphysical and as equivalent to permanent substances in a manner that made some Occidental thinkers to look down on them or to reject all of them. In the course of conceptualization that is typical of humans, having to create further theoretical impasses is necessarily to be avoided as best as we can. Such an ideal requires the help of Extension, Change, and Universal Causality.

In the foregoing paragraphs I have only hinted at the necessity of axiomatic philosophy and science. I have only suggested some basic notions in this systemic science. I do also use these notions and some axioms developed from them to formulate a new philosophy of mathematics. I have already published some books based on these and have been developing other such works. I hope to get feedbacks from earnest minds that do not avoid directly facing the questions and the risk of attempting a reply to the questions themselves.

Bibliography

Como viver fora das leis universais?

Without AT LEAST limited free will, humans would NOT be able to measure parsimony.

1)

2)

1)

2)

The unwritten rule is "don't look suspicious. If people do look suspicious then they either get destroyed or subvert enough TO survive."

Sources:

1)

2)

Words get thrown around. Terminology changes. Therefore, syntax is center of linguistics.

We used to have some project that discussed these interesting topics. I hope some of you will start this discussion going from your own perspective. How does art connect with science? My husband works in science and I am definitely one of those "mind wanderers" who get so easily distracted because in art we think associatively.

I almost daily have to think why I don't mind how my mind works. What are your thoughts in these two very different styles of cognitive activity?

I think the leading parapsychologist is me.

1)

2)

You agree with this definition:

The concept of a PhD, or Doctor of Philosophy, is a high-level academic degree that is awarded to individuals who have completed advanced study and research in a specific field. It signifies a deep understanding and expertise in that field, as well as the ability to conduct original research and contribute to the knowledge base of the discipline. Earning a Ph.D. typically involves coursework, comprehensive exams, and the completion of a dissertation or thesis. It is often a requirement for pursuing careers in academia, research, and other specialized fields.

If humans are so "complex", is it always harder to understand human behavior [patterns] than to understand similarly functioning patterns in other animals? NO !!

Of course not: we see as other humans see and, to some notable extent, what they see; we hear what they can hear; we smell what they can smell; we understand the types of things they are trying to understand and master; and we understand (roughly) what they are trying to accomplish at each stage of life ('stage' both in the strict sense, of the ontogeny that is child development, and otherwise). WITH RESPECT TO NO OTHER ANIMAL DO WE HAVE THESE COMMONALITIES TO USE AS PART OF OUR UNDERSTANDING.

Then, how is it that all this does not help us; I , for one, am not willing to believe that we are yet otherwise extremely complex to any point of not being able to come to understand humans (ourselves). [( In most cases, claims of complexity can be regarded as simply indications of confusion* (and ignorance) -- and not necessarily anything more. And, the confusions are often not necessary at all, even in the first place.)]

FOOTNOTE: Try the proposed word substitution ("confused/confusion" for "complex/complexity") and see.

Let me explain:

It is as if bad philosophy has put a "spell" (actually: blocks and limitations, over-generalizations and other wrongful mental behavior patterns, aka "thought") on us that incapacitate our moving forward, thinking along/upon more constructive lines such as (in small part) indicated above [(but much more clearly indicated, and then outlined, in other parts of my writings)]. We very much too often ask "what have the philosophers thought?" when, frankly, that hardly matters at all (they may have had some point sometimes at some junctures but, with their same body of philosophy, they commonly very much over-"define" (notably wrongly and falsely), and then overgeneralize their 'position' to make unsubstantiated CLAIMS -- yet these thought-out armchair claims are accepted!! BIG EXAMPLES OF THEIR WRONGFULNESS COME UP in statements beginning "ONLY Man can ... ". And this is in addition to THEM saying in other ways (which I am now characterizing in vague outline and obviously paraphrasing): only some 'this' or 'that' [way] will work or only some 'this' or 'that' can be the "way it is", as they "determined". They analyze any single words they choose (e.g. how we can supposedly "understand" our "will" or understand certain particular other things) as if any of these are well established concepts, when they are not; THEY then "define" other things and move on from there, both of these wrongful ways [further] making a fundamental breach with empiricism and then necessarily also with science (AND all this CAUSES CONFUSION (and it should be clear it is based on ignorance)).

Those large aspects of many, many of the philosophies are not only incongruent with science, but lead to unnecessary confusions (on larger "related" topics, like "consciousness" -- something they go on to develop ideas about, based on their initial "definitions", all that yielding the "complex" "understanding" and then also "finding" that which "cannot be understood" (e.g. the " 'hard problem' of "consciousness" " -- [a problem I see as nonexistent from another standpoint]) .

I begin scientific inquiry by somewhat philosophizing. Science approximately derives from philosophy. Engineering is roughly derived from science.

To be developed.

How would you start your own accredited university?

I have written a book on the philosophy of science. The book is highly innovative, hence the publishers of high reputation are not accepting it. I have two options: The B P International and Natural Science (NS). Which of them is better?

Hello,

Does altruism exist in human , or is it just another facet of selfishness?

It is with altruistic behavior, does the human not seek to satisfy an interest (material or emotional) specific to him, and in this case he finds himself in behavior which has a selfish purpose?

My most thought provoking posts so far:

10)

9)

8)

7)

6)

5)

4)

3)

2)

1)

Collating research work on revising the Curriculum Guide for Introduction to the Philosophy of the Human Person.

If there's one question designed to irk everyone and stop them in their tracks it's 'How do you know?'

Its pseudo scientific gravitas has done more to destroy the West than anything else apart from yoga.

How do I know?

Exactly.

One can even do it to oneself to over self-check one's thoughts.

So the question is not just 'How do you know?' but also how does one deal with the question 'How do you know?' AND the questioner.

Filipino Philosophy is a mere course in Higher Education. I think that it is better to teach Filipino Philosophy as a core subject at the Senior High School Level.

This research aims to investigate the impact of New Age philosophies on various aspects of women's well-being, including physical, mental, and emotional health. By delving into how women engage with and are influenced by these philosophies, this study seeks to uncover potential correlations between New Age practices and women's overall wellness. Through surveys, interviews, and qualitative analysis, it aims to provide valuable insights into the role of New Age concepts in shaping women's lives and health outcomes.

"From science to law, from medicine to military questions, artificial intelligence is shaking up all our fields of expertise. All?? No?! In philosophy, AI is useless." The Artificial Mind, by Raphaël Enthoven, Humensis, 2024.

Hi mate,

If I have a mixed method explanatory sequential research. I have chosen the pragmatic philosophy and I have no theory or hypothesis. The study will explore Math's teachers attitudes towards one type of the evolution they get to ensure their quality. The first phase will be through questionnaire (100 teachers) the sample will be chosen using stratified approach. the second phase interviews (10 teachers) the sample will be (purposive) based on their responses to the questionnaire. The population will be math teachers in one city.

My questions:

1- I do not know the sample of the population so what is the limitation here? could it be representative? can I generalize the findings on the population? or is the study will be exploratory and I can not generalize the findings?

2- What limitations could be in the size of the sample?

thank you all in advance

Given the amount of abominations that neuroscientists recite, like the dogma that we are nothing but the brain, how come part of their training/Pavlov conditioning, they are not being offered a course in at least Philosophy of Mind ? How come they don't even know what the word "consciousness" means, when it is supposed to be the very subject that they pretend to study ?

I am using document analysis to explore how Christian philosophies of education are presented.

I guess the literal epistemological plausibility of a belief system is almost impossible to measure. An important question is for whom is both the sustainability and vastness of the belief system.

Direct confrontation often ONLY generates resentment. I think my premises, although somewhat derived from philosophy(as all science is), are rigorous(examples are all my publications on ResearchGate). I come to my conclusions with EMPIRICAL evidence AND logic. I also still seek a PhD by publication.

The self is NOT an illusion or reason would be impossible.

Respectfully, which esoteric beliefs are the least plausibly true ? Why?

1)Scientific materialism because the fundamental choice to reason, DESPITE UNCERTAINTY, requires more than material. Source:

2)Reincarnation because if every entity is unique, or might as well be due to UNCERTAINTY, then sharing spirits is less likely. Source:

Afterlife: Universalist Christian Heaven

Epistemology: falsifiability and skeptical empiricism

Ethics: deduced from tradition, then risk analysis, and lastly skin in the game. Manifested as natural law(moderation and negative utilitarianism), political correctness.

Politics: progressivism and open society.

Source:

Source:

NEW STIMULUS:

My POTUS takes:

I think Joe Biden will be the kindest to Palestinians, out of our current options. I think Trump is and will continue as a Zionist. I predict all the other candidates will probably lose.

Sources:

Who agrees philosophies can make interesting acronyms? How? Why?

My answer: My condensed philosophy is Humanitarianism, AntiRacism and transhumanism. Which makes the acronym HAT. I am no longer Marxist because materialism no longer appeals to me( hence my philosophical acronym used to be ATM standing for AntiRacist, Transhumanist and Marxist).

Reasons I am no longer a materialist:

(Souls Probably Exist) Source: ).

After the spread of artificial intelligence day after day, what will the nature of philosophy be in light of this spread, especially since artificial intelligence has begun to depend on it for many practical and life tasks? Will reliance on artificial intelligence lead to the decline of philosophical thinking? Or will philosophy adapt itself in the age of artificial intelligence?

Who agrees both the lack of absolutes and the uniqueness of each entity, suggest an all knowing and all powerful creator? I welcome elaborations.

Philosophy is allowed on ResearchGate to uphold freedom of inquiry. And philosophy can lead to science:

Bio-mimicry has helped me a lot to understand many things and especially humans. After a succession of disappointments about the true nature of humans, I turned to understanding the "psychology" of other living organisms and it was at this moment that I began to discover several lies, the the greater is the one who considers humans as models of goodness and altruism. Far from it, I have very great doubts that it is a model compared to other species, unless it draws inspiration from other species.

I reject the idea that the human is a model of good and altruism, this comes after an in-depth bibliographical research on the psychology of the human being and on his prosocial behavior and his intentions and his motivations, I based myself, during this reflection, on biomimicry and on the idea that science is not free from lies.

In this type of reflection I make the difference between science and intelligence (the majority confuse between these last 2), what is certain is that the future does not belong to the human brain and its intelligence.

I think bureaucracy goes against human nature and thus brings out a lot of aggressive impulses.

the accepted definition of a quantum particle is subject to Schrödinger dynamics as opposed to Newtonian dynamics.

But  we can find many interpretations of the quantum particle concept which we present in the following :

1-SE implies a certain limitation on the size or volume of the quantum particle V.

In other words there exists a critical volume Vc where if V<< Vc the particle obeys quantum dynamics and for V >> Vc the particle is subject to Newtonian classical mechanics.

As a first estimate, the critical size Vc is that of a single atom.

2-A quantum particle has a wave function which is the solution of the Schrödinger equation, with the Hamiltonian the Hamiltonian of the single particle, defined as an operator in Hilbert space.

3-A particle whose de broglie wavelength (for example h/mv) is much smaller than the physical size of the particle is a classical particle. otherwise it's quantum.

4-The exact definition of quantum particles: A particle that could exist in several positions at a given time on its path.

5-. Classical physics can be seen as an emergence from the decoherence of quantum states. Disturbances from the outside world “observe” the particles in question and locate them. The scale Vc therefore depends both on the particle considered and the environment.

6-what is “particle”? ” and “what is “quantum”?”

Matter” – and therefore everything in Matter, i.e. “particles”, “fields”, etc., “Consciousness”, “Space”, “Time”, “Energy”, “Information”; which are basically completely transcendent/uncertain/irrational in mainstream philosophy and science, including mainstream physics, and so in any case, when the mainstream tackles a truly fundamental problem, then the result is completely inevitably something something transcendent/mystical.

7-The quantum particle itself has a wave function which is the Schrödinger solution which extends (to the outer limit of the spatial phase of the a priori entity).

In contrast, the world of quantum particles is that which is estimated to be equal to or smaller than an atom (atomic and subatomic world), which means that Vc is approximately the size of an atom.

8- A quantum particle is a “portion” that cannot decrease further.

. . .

Of course, some definitions are better than others, but which ones?

How often is introspection conflated with self pity? Elaborations welcome.

Who would like to elaborate on the platitudes in the description? How? Platitudes: Of course everyone wants a perfect life but, for whatever reason, imperfections exist, thus, on the bright side, the imperfect adds interest to life.

Who agrees deduction practically begins theology and epistemology? How? Why?

My answer: I agree deduction practically begins theology and epistemology because so many answers are unknown, thus deducing is a useful method. Stimulus:

As far as I know, these ideas have been used mainly in theological discussions. However, it seems to me that such ideas would also have application in more general discussions of Cartesian dualism and the mind–body problem, e.g. they could be used to describe what happens to the Cartesian soul or mind when one is sleeping dreamlessly or when one is unconscious.

What are the etymological similarities between Diogenes and Dionysus? How? Why?

We invite researchers in the field of Islamic Philosophy and Sufism to publish the results of their research in Kanz Philosophia for Vol. 10, Number 1 June 2024, and Vol. 10, Number 2 December 2024.

The manuscript must be written in good academic English.

Local Author: IDR 700,000

Foreign Author: Free

Local Author Collaboration with Foreign Author: IDR 420,000

📕Vol. 10, Number 1 June 2024, 15 April 2024

📗Vol. 10, Number 2 December 2024, 15 October 2024

🌐Register and Submit Manuscripts: https://journal.sadra.ac.id/ojs/index.php/kanz

Which subject studies the possibility of an afterlife? The answer may be theology and or philosophy. I wish we had a subject that more probabilistically and scientifically studied the possibility of an afterlife.

Out of critical rationalism and skeptical empiricism, which philosophy is more practical? Why? How?

I propose a discussion on the PDF-PowerPoint "Paulo Freire’s Philosophy of Education: A Global View". I used this PDF-PowerPoint for the lecture held on 11th December 2023 at the One-Day National Webinar on "Office for International Affairs“ - Theme: Internationalization of Higher Education in India, UGC-Human Resource Development Centre, North-Eastern Hill University, Shillong, India. I am working on a draft which develops the ideas expressed in the PowerPoint.

How are ethics usually derived, regardless of their effectiveness on survival? Why? How? Metaphysics(because that reflects the afterlife and our eternalness of consciousness), then epistemology(because philosophy of knowledge informs the consequences of acts), then aesthetics(because emotions and perceptions of beauty dictate how one will execute acts), and finally ethics. As far as what DOES lead to survival, those are tradition(what has worked for ancestors to reproduce into the current practicers), risk analysis(because all acts are executed on incomplete knowledge, thus risks have to be analyzed for survival), then finally skin in the game(because paying a price for being wrong is most effective on the individual level of survival, even though individual acts almost inevitably affect others).

Could a historical pattern exist in which a realist philosophy is used to justify a theology? How? Why? Saint Thomas of Aquinas utilized Aristotle’s realism to support Christian philosophy. And now I am using Ayn Rand’s epistemology to support my theology( EXAMPLES: https://www.researchgate.net/post/Randian_Objectivism_is_devoutly_atheist_yet_could_expanding_identity_to_fit_physics_generate_insight_about_the_afterlife_Why_How2 , https://www.researchgate.net/post/How_related_is_the_Law_of_Identity_to_the_Fundamental_Theorem_of_Calculus ).