Ontological arguments in philosophy have been used over the centuries to support a variety of ideas mostly commonly serving as purported proofs of the existence of God. Although these arguments have often been dismissed by philosophers, nevertheless, ontological thinking offers a powerful tool in the arsenal of the serious thinker.
My question relates the fundamental limits of knowledge that might necessarily arise if we live in a universe that 'is its own reason for being'.
I am interested in this question because if it can be show that there must be a fundamental 'blind spot' in a formal and quantitative approach to the understanding of an ontological universe then, although there may be no way to work out what it is we may nevertheless be in a privileged position to know what it is!
For over two thousand years we have been bending our minds into Gordian Knots attempting to show that what we suspect to be true may, in fact, not be!
Perhaps it is time to admit that consciousness is transparent to physics - and to attempt to answer the question why?
The idea of an "ontological universe," or a universe that exists necessarily and has its own reason for being, indeed raises intriguing questions about the limits of knowledge and the role of consciousness in our understanding of reality. If we do indeed live in such a universe, it may suggest that certain aspects of reality are fundamentally beyond the reach of traditional physics, which primarily deals with the quantitative and objective aspects of the natural world.
One way to approach this question is through the study of the philosophy of science and the nature of scientific explanation. Traditional physics has been enormously successful in uncovering the quantitative and causal relationships between various phenomena, yet it remains silent on the deeper, more qualitative aspects of reality, such as the nature of consciousness and the subjective experience of the world. This limitation is sometimes referred to as the "hard problem of consciousness," which is the challenge of explaining why and how subjective experiences arise from physical processes.
If there is indeed a fundamental "blind spot" in our understanding of an ontological universe, it might be related to the limitations of our scientific methods, which are primarily geared towards understanding the objective and quantitative aspects of reality. As a result, we might need to consider alternative frameworks, such as the philosophy of mind, phenomenology, or even contemplative traditions, to explore the subjective dimensions of reality that might be transparent to physics.
Another way to approach this question is through the lens of ontological arguments and their implications for our understanding of the ultimate nature of reality. If we assume that there is a necessary being or a fundamental principle that grounds the existence of the universe, this might suggest that our scientific understanding will always be limited by our inability to fully grasp the nature of this necessary being or principle.
Furthermore, if consciousness is indeed transparent to physics, it might imply that our understanding of the universe will always be limited by our subjective perspective as conscious beings. In this sense, even if we can't directly know the nature of the ontological foundation of the universe, we might still be able to appreciate its implications through our subjective experiences and by reflecting on the limits of our knowledge.
In conclusion, the idea of an ontological universe poses deep and challenging questions for our understanding of reality and the limits of our knowledge. While traditional physics may not be equipped to fully address these questions, alternative frameworks and philosophical perspectives may offer valuable insights into the nature of consciousness and the fundamental "blind spots" in our understanding of the universe.
Christopher James Davia,
I have published a book in this regard: GRAVITATIONAL COALESCENCE PARADOX AND COSMOGENETIC CAUSALITY IN QUANTUM ASTROPHYSICAL COSMOLOGY, 2018.
Some RG discussions that I have initiated are:
https://www.researchgate.net/post/Gravitational_Coalescence_Paradox_GCP_Introduction_to_Gravitational_Coalescence_Cosmology
https://www.researchgate.net/post/3
https://www.researchgate.net/post/If_the_cosmos_is_1_finite-content_or_2_infinite-content_Is_there_finite_or_infinite_creation
https://www.researchgate.net/post/Can_the_cosmic_or_local_black_hole_singularity_be_of_infinite_density_and_zero_size
Christopher James Davia We need to agree on the definition of an ontological universe. Looking up the definition of ontology I would suggest “A universe that can be classified and explained “.
As a further step it would be great if we could find one fundamental thing (just as Thales of Miletus was looking for one fundamental thing).
I do believe we have found such a fundamental. It is the medium of space which provides a transport medium for waves including light and matter particles.
Once we have defined matter in terms of this fundamental thing we can investigate how the brain works. Consciousness is then the subjective experience that we have from the operation of our brain.
Richard
Dear Agnieszka Matylda Schlichtinger
You wrote: "Traditional physics has been enormously successful in uncovering the quantitative and causal relationships between various phenomena, yet it remains silent on the deeper, more qualitative aspects of reality, such as the nature of consciousness and the subjective experience of the world. This limitation is sometimes referred to as the "hard problem of consciousness," which is the challenge of explaining why and how subjective experiences arise from physical processes."
The nature of consciousness, or awareness, may be a "hard problem" in traditional physics, but it has been extensively analyzed in neurophysiology for the past century:
Article Advancement on the Mechanics of Conceptual Thinking (Republication PI)
Best Regards, André
André Michaud
Christopher James Davia
Agnieszka Matylda Schlichtinger
This paper explains how the subjective experience of consciousness arises from the operation of the physical brain:
Preprint The Conscious Brain
Richard
“…If we live in an 'ontological universe' - then would we expect there to be something fundamental and yet fundamentally transparent to physics?…..”
- the question above is a typical mainstream philosophical question; and, since in the mainstream philosophy and sciences, including physics, all really fundamental phenomena/notions, first of all in this case “Matter”– and so everything in Matter, i.e. “particles”, “fields”, etc., “Consciousness”, “Space”, “Time”, “Energy”, “Information”, are fundamentally completely transcendent/uncertain/irrational,
- so in every case, when the mainstream addresses to some really fundamental problem, the result completely obligatorily logically is nothing else than some transcendent mental construction.
Including that really is in the question introduction , which uses the standard mainstream notion “ontological arguments” - despite that it relates to the really fundamental problem “what is ontology of Matter”, i.e. what is scientifically the observed by humans a huge system of some elements, and why it is as it is?,
- and , since any really scientific answers to the question above in the mainstream are fundamentally impossible, really the “ontological arguments” fundamentally aren’t some real just “arguments”, that are principally only some transcendent – including frankly transcendent religious – wordings.
Including in the mainstream “an 'ontological universe'” fundamentally cannot be, and so isn’t, anything that would be “fundamental and yet fundamentally transparent to physics”.
The ontologies of the fundamental phenomena/notions above can be, and are, really scientifically explained only in framework of the philosophical 2007 Shevchenko-Tokarevsky’s “The Information as Absolute” conception, recent version of the basic paper see
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/363645560_The_Information_as_Absolute_-_2022_ed
- where the phenomena/notions above are rigorously scientifically defined,
- and concretely relating to physics in the Shevchenko-Tokarevsky’s informational physical model , two main papers are
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/354418793_The_Informational_Conception_and_the_Base_of_Physics, and
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/355361749_The_informational_physical_model_and_fundamental_problems_in_physics;
- where, correspondingly, more 30 really fundamental physical problems are solved or essentially clarified. More see the links above, to read SS posts in the threads
https://www.researchgate.net/post/Are_there_any_other_theories_similar_to_Participatory_Universe_or_SuperDeterministic_Universe/2 , and
https://www.researchgate.net/post/What_is_time11#view=63c940bafa2ccd380d0b4943/6 , it useful in this case as well.
Cheers
There are a couple of “grand theories” but these theories are in conflict with each other. For example in quantum theory time is a constant (quantum time) and in the theory of Special relativity time is not a constant (relative time). But in spite of all these theoretical problems most theorists will agree that our universe is one “tangible” system that must be quite simple at the smallest scale size.
Observable reality (detectable reality) is about the mutual relations between the observable and detectable phenomena. We have quantized these mutual relations and the result is the SI System of units. The consequence is that we cannot “detect” absolute reality – “the ontological universe” – because mutual relations are nothing more than mutual differences. Because differences don’t represent absolute reality, differences are just a part of absolute reality and represent the variable properties of “the ontological universe”.
But the latter doesn’t mean that it is impossible to understand the "tangible" properties of “the ontological universe”. Because humans use reasoning and concepts to construct what they cannot observe/detect in a direct way.
With kind regards, Sydney
The momentum energy of elementary charged particles is absolute, not relative:
Article Demystifying the Lorentz Force Equation
Consequently, it is possible to understand the "tangible" properties of “the ontological universe”, because humans use reasoning and concepts to successfully reverse-engineer what they cannot observe/detect in a direct way, as was successfully done already for all processes on which all of our modern technology is successfully grounded.
Agnieszka Matylda Schlichtinger
The best reason I've encountered for a so-called ontological universe:
Q: Why is there something rather than nothing?
A: Because there's no alternative. 🤷🏾♂️
🤡
- Badges
- Science topic