Categories
Conference paper

Metaphysics uniting theology and science — back to the basics (as in back to the basic assumptions). Gamper 2021 (forthcoming)

Abstract

I have had the fortune to find a way to unite theology and science. It is and has been a bit overwhelming. My aim was to integrate science and hermeneutics but I ended up with a theory that integrates pretty much everything. In this paper I focus the fundamental principle that seems so simple that it could taken for a tautology but it is not. The principle, or, rather, the basic assumption, is that an ontologically homogeneous domain does not cause an ontologically homogeneous domain. By this device all ontologically homogeneous domains are causally closed in relation to other ontologically homogeneous domains. Ontologically heterogeneous domains, on the other hand, are permitted to cause and to be caused by ontologically homogeneous domains. The very first ontologically homogeneous domain, also, is permitted to be caused by an ontologically heterogeneous domain. Science, therefore, would concern inquiries into all ontologically homogeneous and heterogeneous domains except for the first ontologically heterogeneous domain. The first ontologically heterogeneous domain would be the field of interest for theology. Consecutive ontologically homogeneous domains could be the platonic mathematical universe, the physical universe and ourselves as subjects.

Universes and interfaces

Friends, it is time to reconcile science with theology. Science builds upon the basic assumption that the physical is causally unaffected by anything non-physical. That leaves science detached from theology. If we instead see the physical for what it is, an ontologically homogeneous domain, we can let science be based upon the basic assumption that an ontologically homogeneous domain does not cause an ontologically homogeneous domain. By that we let science leave the door open for ontologically heterogeneous domains. Heterogeneous domains consist of more than one ontological kind whereas homogeneous domains consist of only one ontological kind. We call ontologically homogeneous domains universes and ontologically heterogeneous domains interfaces. The physical, thus, is a universe. Based on the basic assumption that universes do not cause universes it is allowed that interfaces both can be caused by and cause universes. The physical universe, therefore, can be caused by an interface.

Vertical interfaces

If we let interfaces that cause universes be called vertical interfaces the very first universe would be caused by a vertical interface. As the first cause, therefore, God is a vertical interface, a realm with more than one ontological kind.

Horizontal interfaces

We can also look at the event that there are interfaces that do not cause universes. We call such interfaces horizontal interfaces. A specific kind of horizontal interfaces are horizontal interfaces that are caused by universes. This kind is of foremost interest for science. The combination of vertical and horizontal interfaces opens up for causal interactions between universes. The basic assumption that universes do not cause universes forbids direct causal interactions between universes but with help of vertical and horizontal interfaces there is room for indirect causal interactions. We have two immediate applications of this option. For science this is a door to a new scientific revolution.

Black holes and the original singularity

The platonic mathematical universe can be viewed as a homogeneous domain. If we take it that the mathematical universe can produce a mathematical singularity that turns into an interface that singularity can be viewed as the original singularity behind the Big Bang. That singularity, then, would be the cause of the physical universe, a vertical interface. In the next step we know that the physical universe can produce black holes as consequences of gravitational collapses, that is, singularities. We can assume that those singularities — the black hole singularities — are horizontal interfaces not causing any universes.

Consciousness and self-consciousness

We can now turn to biology and the rise of consciousness. A neglected part in the philosophy of mind is the distinction between consciousness and self-consciousness. If I see you I may be aware of it. The question is if I must be able to be aware of my seeing you to be able to see you? If that is the case only those with the capacity for self-consciousness can see or hear things. That is an option. The other option is that for instance cats can see me but that they do not have the capacity to know that they see me. In the latter case we can proceed to something substantial. In that case the very being able to see, or to be able to be conscious of something, is the first mystery, the first thing to account for in the philosophy of mind. I suspect that this very consciousness is the vertical interface causing the mind, or our subject. The next thing to account for is the subject being able to be conscious of its very consciousness— the self-consciousness. I suspect that the self-consciousness is a horizontal interface.

Extended interfaces

I will now close the circle. Say that there are yet more kinds of interfaces. One possibility is that the first cause is part of horizontal interfaces. A horizontal interface, then, without the first cause, would be a horizontal interface. A horizontal interface with the first cause, on the other side, would be an extended interface. Two options are that the first cause is part of black hole singularities and/or is part of our self-consciousness. With these options God also would be horizontal interfaces.

Reconciling science with theology

We can now reconcile science with theology if science can acknowledge that it concerns one or more ontological domain and if theology can be said to concern an existence that concerns more than one ontological domain. Via the concept of interfaces science can no longer claim the non-existence of God as the first cause. God as the first cause is an open question for science. With the introduction of the concept of a mathematical-physical ontologically heterogeneous domain, however, the burden of proof is now on the scientific side. If there is one interface there is an enormous push for God as the first cause. Science now has to prove that black hole singularities are not interfaces to secure the claim of physicalism. Another difficulty for science is the explanation of the mind-body relation. Without interfaces there is still no account for the relation. Traditional science, therefore, is inclined to explain the very mind away.

Gamper, Johan, Metaphysics uniting theology and science — back to the basics (as in back to the basic assumptions), in Metaphysics 2021. Proceedings of the Eight World Conference on Metaphysics 2021, 27-29 de octubre de 2021, FISER, FFR, UTPL

Categories
Uncategorized

Preparations ahead of August 5th

Please give these questions some room

– Is everything physical physical?

– Is everything physical only physical?

– Can you consider the physical an homogeneous ontological domain?

/Johan

Categories
Seminar

God in perspective. On demand.

“Science builds upon the basic assumption that the physical is causally unaffected by anything non-physical. That leaves science detached from theology. If we instead see the physical for what it is, an ontologically homogeneous domain, we can let science be built upon the basic assumption that ontologically homogeneous domains do not cause ontologically homogeneous domains. Doing so we let science leave the door open for ontologically heterogeneous domains.We call ontologically homogeneous domains universes and ontologically heterogeneous domains interfaces. The physical, thus, is a universe. Based on the basic assumption that universes do not cause universes it is allowed that interfaces both can be caused by and cause universes. The physical universe, therefore, can be caused by an interface.” (Gamper, 2021)

Reference

Metaphysics uniting theology and science — back to the basics (as in back to the basic assumptions). Gamper 2021 (forthcoming)

Categories
Seminar

Biological Energy. On demand.

“A general definition of energy is that energy is tied to an object’s ability to do some work. So, biological energy would be the ability of a biological object to do some work. At closer inspection this can be further analyzed into two parts: the objects potential ability to do some work and the actual work being done by the object.

In physics we talk about an object’s potential energy and its kinetic energy. An object gains potential energy if it is positioned higher above the ground and it can use the energy to gain speed (kinetic energy). A steel ball that is moved in this way is intact and “has” and “loses” energy while remaining the same object. The opposite is true if we look at nuclear energy. When we extract nuclear energy the object losing energy does not remain the same. Obviously, therefore, there are two kinds of energy in regard to a system or an object. The one kind permits the object to gain and lose energy while being intact whereas the other kind of energy destroys the object carrying the energy if it is used.

Concerning biological objects this distinction is crucial but previously unnoticed in the literature. Traditional “biological “energy is mixed up with chemical energy. What we look for is a concept of biological energy that permits the object to do some work while remaining intact. It should therefore correspond to the concepts of potential and kinetic energy in physics. Since there is no concept of biological energy as such in the literature the first step towards such a concept is a leap into the unknown. From an abstract perspective, however, we can construe all biological activities as efforts of biological organisms to recover from load upon them. From here the next step is easy. We let biological energy be defined as the biological object’s ability to recover from load upon it.

The suggested definition of biological energy is that biological energy is the biological object’s ability to recover from load upon it. For practical reasons we will not say much about load as such. The basic assumption is that biological organisms constantly need to recover and they need to recover from the load that is put on them. One thing, however, must be sorted out immediately. We have discussed that ability to recover, or, energy, is related to load. We have also stated that the organism has an amount of energy, at any given moment, that it either uses or has to its disposal, or any mix of the two. The thing that has to be sorted out is the relation between load and energy.

As noted above the basic assumption is that biological organisms constantly need to recover and they need to recover from the load that is put on them. We can therefore postulate that load and need of recovery has a positive relation; the more load, the more need of recovery. We can now use the concept of need of recovery to link load to energy or ability to recover.

As need of recovery can be thought of as increasing with load up until a point where the organism simply collapses (dies), the organism’s level of kinetic energy will not increase in the same manner. An implicit basic assumption behind the energy-concept is that biological organisms allocate resources for recovery continuously. The organism allocates more resources for recovery purposes, if it can, the more it needs to, that is, the more load there is. At low levels of load, therefore, the kinetic energy is low whereas the potential energy is high. At intermediate levels of load the kinetic energy also is intermediate. At the same time the level of potential energy is intermediate.

The hypothesis is that need of recovery has a positive relation with load. At low and moderate levels of load the level of kinetic energy matches what is needed for recovery. When load exceeds what is possible to recover from right away the level of kinetic energy decreases.” (Revised excerpt from Gamper, 2021.)

Reference

Gamper, J (2021). Biological Energy and the Experiencing Subject. Axiomathes 31, 497–506.

Categories
Psychotherapy Workshop

Macro Psychology and the Foundation of Psychotherapy. On demand.

This workshop is primarily for philosophers and practitioners of psychotherapy.

Summary

The workshop builds upon the paper Biological Energy and the Experiencing Subject (Gamper, J, Axiomathes, 2020). The focus is to show how the idea of an experiencing subject can be conceived of within modern psychotherapy. We follow the track from conditioning for animals (without concern for an experiencing subject), via behavioral therapy for humans with an experiencing subject and cognitive behavioral therapy for humans with an experiencing subject where we give the subject a rational for the behavioral modification, to psychodynamically oriented therapy where we confront the very subject without going via her behavior. The three methods are explained within the context of macro psychology, a psychology extracted from the paper Biological Energy and the Experiencing Subject. Conditioning concerns therapeutic methods that does not address subjective experiences of the patient and neither address subjective experiences methodologically. For instance, you do not give the patient instructions since you do not rely on the patients ability to understand them. Behavioral therapy concerns methods that that are mediated by instructions. The patient is told to follow a procedure. Cognitive behavioral therapy adds explanations to the behavioral therapy. Psychodynamically oriented therapy concerns the subject’s tendency to repress difficult inner material to feel better. This material is focused in the therapy and the patient is informed about how the therapist understands the dynamic. The framework, thus, that is presented, encompasses the major psychotherapeutic methods of today.

© 2022 Johan Gamper

Categories
On demand

Self-consciousness and Black Hole Singularities – a Formal Link.

Talk about the metaphysical key to the coexistence of body and mind ― cosmological interfaces.

Subrosa KB

Vendelsö, Sweden