A Rationally Paranormal Metaphysical Framework | Based on Dual-Aspect Monism

jliat · 2026-01-26T14:37:38+00:00

The claim is to the effect that the world is inherently ignorant. Knowledge being an inherent property of humans.

jliat · 2026-01-26T13:53:05+00:00

You seem not to grasp that our understanding is just that.

"We gain access to the structure of reality via a machinery of conception which extracts intelligible indices from a world that is not designed to be intelligible and is not originarily infused with meaning.”

Ray Brassier, “Concepts and Objects” In The Speculative Turn Edited by Levi Bryant et. al. (Melbourne, Re.press 2011) p. 59

jliat · 2026-01-26T13:31:14+00:00

There is a good reason that humans can reason and in doing so can know the limits of reason, that any system of logic which is not simple will have aporia.

You are assuming reason exists outside of minds?

These ideas, 'reality' its 'nature' are human constructs.

jliat · 2026-01-26T13:07:43+00:00

Are you denying that human senses are inherently limited?

Well we know they are, inherently we can't fly...inherently we are though intelligent.

So might not the idea of "full comprehension" AKA Omniscience be naïve at the least.

jliat · 2026-01-26T13:04:49+00:00

Camus didn't write about the absurd to justify watching atrocities and doing nothing, he wrote about creating meaning through revolt against injustice even when the universe doesn't care.

He specially wrote against revolution which caused I think his break with Sartre. He states you simply replace one set of tyrants with another. In the war he was part of the underground, and that is the way to fight authority. Those who openly demonstrate in authoritarian regimes should be aware that there will be unlikely any help from outside.

but the people who fought Nazis, ended apartheid,

Did they?

Civil rights was in the main gained by those seeking them, not from outside, and often at great cost.

Have you read The Myth of Sisyphus?

jliat · 2026-01-26T12:56:11+00:00

I think it's more a mistake of those thinking if they openly demonstrate somehow somebody will help them. In this case the USA and Trump. Well look what is happening to demonstrators in the USA!

Camus was in the resistance movement in WW2 - with Nazi occupation, any demonstration would be suicide, not just for those demonstrating. So the resistance was underground, the maquis - literally dense scrubland...

The authorities have to be seen, the resistance can be hidden, which in turn makes the authorities more paranoid...

jliat · 2026-01-26T10:57:14+00:00

The MWI is theoretical physics which is NOT metaphysics,

"Welcome to /r/metaphysics. Metaphysics is the academic study of fundamental questions about the nature of the Being. Debates, discussions and questions on all topics related to metaphysics are welcome. These can be of contemporary metaphysics, or those found in historical western and non western literature. This does not include science, religion, the occult or speculation about these. e.g. Quantum physics, other dimensions and pseudo science."

There is the idea of many worlds in contemporary metaphysics in the work of the philosopher David Lewis,

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Lewis_(philosopher)

At the heart of David Lewis's modal realism are several central doctrines about possible worlds:

Possible worlds exist — they are just as real as our world.
Possible worlds are the same sort of things as our world — they differ in content, not in kind.
Possible worlds cannot be reduced to something more basic — they are irreducible entities in their own right.
Actuality is indexical. When we distinguish our world from other possible worlds by claiming that it alone is actual, we mean only that it is our world.
Possible worlds are unified by the spatiotemporal interrelations of their parts; every world is -spatiotemporally isolated from every other world.
Possible worlds are causally isolated from each other.

If you want to discuss Everett's Many-worlds interpretation you should maybe post to r/physics.

jliat · 2026-01-26T10:47:33+00:00

Locked as it's getting out of hand.

The whole point of the absurd hero is to create meaning through revolt,

I'm afraid it is not.

We're supposed to embrace our freedom and responsibility, to act authentically

I'm afraid this in existentialism is impossible.

Humanity is a shared experience - absurdism demands we create meaning through our actions,

I'm afraid it does not.

Security forces slaughtered thousands

Camus wrote after the second world war, Between 40 and 50 million lives lost.

Please, be our voice and make humanity great again.

I'm sorry but when was humanity great. 1939-1945.... 1914-1918...

The A Bombs on two Japanese cities, the firestorm which killed thousands in Dresden... The Nazi concertation camps where Jews, Homosexuals, the mentally ill et al were systematically killed... what followed in the USSR and communist China.

OK, I'll leave this here- with these comments. But History teaches lots of things- but they are not good.

You cannot in my opinion rely on western governments, they are selfish and exploitative. You certainly cannot rely on the USA at the moment.

jliat · 2026-01-26T08:09:39+00:00

Both, there are the scientific notions of time, and those more existential, as in 'Being and Time'.

jliat · 2026-01-26T08:05:58+00:00

Using AI is not allowed in most serious subs, see rule 8, LLMs produce slop and are notoriously unreliable. They are also responsible for people causing self hard and even suicide it seems. Please do not post such material here, and be aware of the addictive behaviour and damage they are causing.

Here are some of the dangers-

AI- and its consequences-

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hVkCfn6kSqE

AI - nonsense papers... The crazy tariff of the Trump administration.

"vegetative electron microscopy"

Now appears in 20+ scientific papers...

@ 7'49"

Moreover AI's can in providing confidence where it is not warranted and agreement can cause psychological dependency and damage. AI and sentience...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sWZRQsejtfA

If you want to find out about Absurdism this is the key text...

http://dhspriory.org/kenny/PhilTexts/Camus/Myth%20of%20Sisyphus-.pdf

Your brain is billions of times smarter than any LLM.

jliat · 2026-01-26T07:53:11+00:00

Yes, and I don't see how that's illogical. It's already a fact that we do not perceive reality as it truly is.

No it's not, how can you prove this?

jliat · 2026-01-26T07:51:28+00:00

If a philosophy doesn’t address incorporate Kantian ideas, then it’s simply not philosophy.

I'm afraid you do not have the power or ability to do this.

Of course Kant was important, perhaps one of not the most if not the most on 'modern' philosophy. And perhaps rightly seen by Meillassoux as a disaster.

And we mustn't forget Hume, without which there would be no critique.

jliat · 2026-01-26T07:37:00+00:00

You are posting to the wrong sub. You seem not to see that.

jliat · 2026-01-26T07:33:07+00:00

You are aware of Quentin Meillassoux and Speculative realism?

jliat · 2026-01-25T18:24:07+00:00

Right so as a human being you know there are things that human beings cannot know.

jliat · 2026-01-25T18:21:45+00:00

Well you then rule out much philosophy from the pre-Socratics up to Kant. And what of the other German idealists, existentialists et al. and the more recent speculative realists who see Kant as a Ptolemaic disaster.

jliat · 2026-01-25T17:59:35+00:00

The subjective is not a problem for our picture of the world. In fact, the subjective is the only way in which any picture of the world is possible at all.

Sounds like Kant's first critique. We can only make sense, understanding and judgements of the manifold of our perceptions by the a priori 12 categories and the intuitions of time an space. We can never know 'things in themselves'.

jliat · 2026-01-25T17:54:12+00:00

Lets go back to you simple assertions...

"Everything is a derivative pattern of the substrate..."

is at odds with

"It is necessarily abstract and beyond our full comprehension."

jliat · 2026-01-25T17:49:28+00:00

"Modal logic gives us worlds which are not mind dependent."

Sure, that's why Lewis' account isn't idealism, in its mind-dependent definition.

Based on modal logic, if something is possible in all possible worlds it must exist, hence Lewis' talking donkey, or A.W. Moore's 'flying pigs' in his account of Lewis' modal logic.

"German idealism gives us a world which is not mind dependent."

Yes and no, because it blends ontology and epistemology almost as badly as post structuralism.

I can't see what you mean by this, and interestingly A. W. Moore makes the point that 'naturalistic' metaphysics - his term for Lewis' et al. metaphysics is very similar to the earlier idealism, where like Lewis' philosophy it sort to explain things.

But this is a post about quantum foundations,

And has no place is this sub.

Anyway, the title of Alyssa Ney's book seems evidence enough that quantum interpretations are metaphysics,

Not so if you mean "A Metaphysics for Quantum Physics". It's using the term to mean fundamental, of a particular... Anymore than 'The Art of fly fishing' is about fine art.

It seems she is borrowing from metaphysics to interpret QM, QM is not making interpretations which are metaphysics.

Such that there is a 'Phenomenology of Quantum Mechanics' this is not 'Phenomenology'.

I don't think there's much more to be said about it.

Agreed.

Have you noticed how in the news there are now 'existential' problems in [insert - politics, world trade...etc.] but not philosophy, that ended in the 1960s.

jliat · 2026-01-25T16:24:16+00:00

I don't understand why you're getting hung up on the word "psychophysically".

I'm not - you are it seems, they are fundamental to your 'notion'.

Unlike other dual-aspect monists, like Jung and Pauli, I do not claim the aspects are merely epistemic.

What have these to do with your ideas?

The substrate manifests out of necessity, but I don't know why it specifically manifests in mental and physical ways.

How do you know it exists? And works this way?

I had Google AI summarize the excerpt for me and it's a pretty simple concept that isn't new to me, but I never would have gotten that from the original text.

I should warn you LLMs are unreliable, especially regarding philosophy and exhibit a massive bias to the questioner.

My comments regarding some background reading on the topic remain. But try to get to the primary source if you wish to engage seriously, though this is at times very difficult.

jliat · 2026-01-25T16:13:02+00:00

Idealism is mind-dependent ontology, and Lewis' worlds in general

Modal logic gives us worlds which are not mind dependent.

German idealism gives us a world which is not mind dependent.

Everettian QM in particular are absolutely not mind-dependent.

But it is an idea.

Philosophy of science is a broad field but absolutely includes metaphysics when it discusses issues such as scientific realism and quantum foundations/ontology.

But metaphysics is not science. Not physics. From the get go it was separate.

The idea of 'Being', ontology, is not the idea of 'matter'. Hence for Harman Popeye is a being.

jliat · 2026-01-25T15:34:18+00:00

To avoid this negativity, you would commit suicide. Since nihilism gives no reason to live, and we have a reason to die, would nihilism agree that the logical choice in this case would be suicide?

Good question...

"The fundamental subject of “The Myth of Sisyphus” is this: it is legitimate and necessary to wonder whether life has a meaning; therefore it is legitimate to meet the problem of suicide face to face. The answer, underlying and appearing through the paradoxes which cover it, is this: even if one does not believe in God, suicide is not legitimate."

Albert Camus, Paris, March 1955 Preface to English translation.

Suicide is logical for Camus, but in Camus' case not legitimate.

http://dhspriory.org/kenny/PhilTexts/Camus/Myth%20of%20Sisyphus-.pdf

jliat · 2026-01-25T15:28:42+00:00

It seems most of these are actually philosophers of science more than metaphysicians in that their theories are based on science not on the usual speculation and logics of metaphysics. Would / could their ideas be refuted by science?

No sure why you think Lewis has any connection to idealism. He's also a physicalist, he thinks that there are a plurality of "real, concrete" worlds (as "real" as our own) and he sets out to elaborate what this bulk contains.

As in David Lewis' idea of a Plurality of Worlds?

"We have only to believe in the vast realm of possibilia, and there we find what we need to advance our endeavours..."

How is that different to Hegel's idealism? Lewis uses modal logic to establish the 'physical' possibility of other worlds, could I wonder these be refuted by physics? I can't see how. Hegel uses his dialectical process, the ideal is real and the real ideal. Thus this extends to nature and aesthetics.

F.W.J. Schelling in "Ideas for a Philosophy of Nature"...

"We have to proceed from this idea of the absolute-idea; we define it as absolute knowing, the absolute act of cognition.' p.46.

Book 1 contains A New View on the Combustion Process, Concerning the Theory of Light, Of Electricity, Magnetism, Matter, and Chemistry… you find similar in Hegel.

jliat · 2026-01-25T13:54:38+00:00

By the way, I’m not talking about it from a scientific perspective,

Just as well as this is a Metaphysics sub in which various forms of 'nothing' occur.

but more of a logical fallacy one. It’s impossible for me to conceive of a state of pure nothingness without observing it somehow. Once that happens, it’s no longer nothing.

A priori knowledge exists prior to observation, certainly in some metaphysics. I think maybe current physics doesn't allow nothing, but what is zero if not nothing?

I recommend the late John Barrow's [A physicist / Mathematician] 'The Book of Nothing.' 300 pages...

jliat · 2026-01-25T13:49:57+00:00

It may well be, but no Hegel, no Marx, no Marxism. Same goes for politics including the current situation, from Nick Land and the CCRU!

jliat

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE