Ontology and theology cannot be combined if ontology excludes non physical causes. This paper examines some possibilities for ontology to be combined with theology in so far as non physical causes are permitted. The paper builds on metaphysical findings that shows that separate ontological domains can interact causally indirectly via interfaces. As interfaces are not universes a first universe is allowed to be caused by an interface without violating the principle of causal closure of any universe. Formal theology can therefore (...) be based on the assumption that the (first) universe is caused by God if God is defined as the first cause. Given this, formal theology and science can have the same ontological base. (shrink)

Standard definitions of causal closure focus on where the causes in question are. In this paper, the focus is changed to where they are not. Causal closure is linked to the principle that no cause of another universe causes an event in a particular universe. This view permits the one universe to be affected by the other via an interface. An interface between universes can be seen as a domain that violates the suggested account of causal closure, suggesting a view (...) in which universes are causally closed whereas interfaces are not. On this basis, universes are not affected by other universes directly but rather indirectly. (shrink)

manuscript delves into the philosophical debate surrounding the Special Composition Question (SCQ), focusing on the causal relationships between objects and their constituent parts. By distinguishing between Weak and Strong Causal Composition, the article explores how causal mechanisms underpin the composition of objects. Theories from notable philosophers, including van Inwagen and Leibniz, are evaluated. This study seeks to bridge the gap between common sense perspectives and principled ontological theories by introducing the concepts of Weak and Strong Causal Composition. The analysis reveals (...) how a causal approach can offer insightful resolutions to longstanding debates in mereology and ontology, emphasizing the role of causality in understanding the essence of material composition. The proposed causal perspective encourages further philosophical inquiry into the foundational principles governing the composition of objects. (shrink)

Here A, B, C, D, I, X and “Philosophy” discuss some features of the relation between identity and love.

The basic fault in the philosophy of science is simple enough to put in words and now it is time to do that. This basic fault puts the food on the table for philosophers and scientists, so it is hard to actually get the word out. That is not my problem, though. The basic fault is that we still assume that there is some kind of stuff that ‘everything’ consists of. My aim is to show how we can make it (...) right. (shrink)

In this dialogue a sceptic meets one that convinces him that he is safe from the void of Nothingness although it exists.

In this dialogue P F and Jeito talk about nothing and something.

In this dialogue Jeito and Immanuel K. tries to navigate in a sea filled with philosophy, God and Nothingness. They conclude that they are safe from the void of Nothingness.

I explain Loophole Theory (LT) and show some applications of it. The basic element of LT is the truism that everything physical is physical. Any ontological domain that can be defined according to this template (everything X is X) is called a universe. LT allows causal relations between universes via the notion of interfaces. Interfaces are hypothetical domains that are not universes. The idea is that the one universe can be followed by another universe via an interface. Interfaces are defined (...) as being composed of, at least, parts of two universes. Some examples could be the mind/body interface, the physical/mathematical interface and the something/nothing interface. (shrink)

Samuel seeks out Kurt at a pub and initiates a discussion. Soon Kurt becomes engaged. What is it that is incomplete?

In this Reply, I explain why the “loophole view” of causal closure is independent of the reasons why the Principle of the causal closure of the physical was introduced.

We define a set of things of one singular kind as the set of all things that can causally affect one another. To enable causal interaction between such sets, we define a thing that is of a non-singular kind as consisting of more than one singular kind. Such a thing of a non-singular kind supervenes on things of singular kinds and is open to causally intervene between sets of things of different singular kinds without violating the definition of a set (...) of things of one singular kind. With the empty set as a set of things of one singular kind, we define Mem as ‘either the smallest element of intervening sets in the indefinite set of sets of things of a singular kind and the intermediate supervening sets, or, if nothing exists, the empty set’. Thus, Mem exists. Comment. The argument focuses on a definition of a supervening set of things of a non-singular kind. Besides that, it really only claims that if we define Mem as some set of existing things or the set without elements, Mem exists. That, though, is tautological. The argument, thus, can only be interesting if anything besides the empty set exists. That only the empty set would exist, however, is refuted by this very claim. (shrink)

In my old manuscript “Formal Theology” that now is out as a preprint I show that science and theology can be founded upon the same set of basic assumptions. I now follow up this idea with the thought that Formal Theology may be used to ground also a religion. “Religion“, in this regard, as related to beliefs. I’m not going into any details, neither concerning the original manuscript, nor this new idea. The important thing, I think, is to explore if (...) this kind of “religion”, in any way, can be accommodated with “ordinary” religions. I leave more rigorous work to myself or to others for the future. (shrink)

In this dialogue Otto K. and The Professor talk about how experiences from war can affect subjects over generations.

As a writer, it is hard to defend oneself from the accusation of being a robot. Even though the argument is ad hominem it perhaps is too difficult to create a “reversed” Turing test. It is suggested in this article that editors of flesh and blood still are necessary.

This is a conceptual attempt to integrate the major current psychotherapeutic methods via the introduction of Macro Psychology. The idea is fully philosophical, and the aim is to spur debate. Clinically, we land in the following picture: Scenarios with a maltreated dog, its owner, and a therapist. Conditioning: The therapist takes the dog to a safe environment. Behavioral therapy: The therapist instructs the owner to take regular long walks with the dog, to feed it regularly, to let it have access (...) to fresh water, and to stop hitting it. Cognitive behavioral therapy: The therapist instructs the owner to take regular long walks with the dog, to feed it regularly, to let it have access to fresh water, and to stop hitting it. The therapist also tells the owner why. Psychodynamically oriented therapy: The therapist tries to help the owner to reconnect to repressed parts that care for the dog. (shrink)

I don’t believe in the foundation of our current scientific-philosophical paradigm. What does that matter? It matters because I have dug deep, especially into the body-mind issue, and found that it is something wrong with our paradigm. There is an anomaly. I haven’t realized, though, that this anomaly may be my own construction. I have been frustrated and have been acting out on the frustration. I’m sorry for that. I think, though, that a paradigm shift may be near. There are (...) many important things that need to be approached in new ways from the academies. -/- . (shrink)

In this dialogue, Anna and Alan talk about consciousness and its relation to self-consciousness. Could there be consciousness without self-consciousness? If not, what are the consequences? If it is possible, what are the consequences? How can we know of consciousness without self-consciousness?

This dialogue turns into a discussion between three people. The interlocutors are Socrates, Jeito and finally also Plato. The dimensions of Time, Space and Person are occasionally transgressed. The conclusion is that information seems to be unidirectional concerning life and death.

I show that general relativity and quantum mechanics, broadly construed, are consistent in relation to the singularities inside of black holes, if the singularities inside of black holes are interfaces.

In this dialogue, Mileva and Albert start to talk about physics and its subject matter, the physical. They end up in a situation that permits causal dependence between separate ontological domains. In this possible world, they continue talking. First, they Socratically agree that the physical is physical and only physical. Then, they call the physical an ontologically homogeneous domain. They then generalise the principle that the physical is causally unaffected by anything non-physical, into the principle that ontologically homogeneous domains do (...) not cause ontologically homogeneous domains. From a modern point of view talking about black hole singularities, they continue discussing the Chandrasekhar limit and the collapse of the physical laws as we know them. Mileva carries a burden and Albert stands up and carries it with her. The burden is an implication of the generalised principle. Relying on parsimony, only ontologically homogeneous domains are forbidden to cause ontologically homogeneous domains. This leaves the door open for ontologically heterogeneous domains to cause ontologically homogeneous domains. Also relying on parsimony, only ontologically homogeneous domains are forbidden to be caused by ontologically homogeneous domains and this allows ontologically heterogeneous domains to be caused by ontologically homogeneous domains. Ontologically heterogeneous domains, thus, are allowed to causally link ontologically homogeneous domains. Albert realises that the mathematical could qualify as an ontologically homogeneous domain and that the theoretical difficulties that are foreseen beyond the Chandrasekhar limit could be addressed by expanding physics into a context that contains also an ontologically heterogeneous domain. The theoretical difficulties beyond the Chandrasekhar limit would be due to an emergent mathematical-physical domain. Mileva concludes that Albert’s theory is not faulty but regional. A global theory would have to include the explanation of the mathematical-physical. (shrink)

This is an attempt to axiomatise the natural laws. Note especially axiom 4, which is expressed in third order predicate logic, and which permits a solution to the problem of causation in nature without stating that “everything has a cause”. The undefined term “difference” constitutes the basic element and each difference is postulated to have an exact position and to have a discrete cause. The set of causes belonging to a natural set of dimensions is defined as a law. This (...) means that a natural law is determined by the discrete causes tied to a natural set of dimensions. A law is defined as “defined” in a point if a difference there has a cause. Given that there is a point for which the law is not defined it is shown that a difference is caused that connects two points in two separate sets of dimensions. (shrink)

K has a prepaid appointment with J. She wants to talk about philosophy even though the appointment is for psychotherapy. It seems she really just wants to leave and eventually she does. When she returns the subject is the meaning of life in a world without a God. Together they manage to sort some things out.

In this dialogue Zhuangzi and Jacob discuss nothing and something and their relation with God.

In this dialogue Thomas A and Jeito intuitively discuss the difference between a miracle and a fact. They conclude that the doings of God aren’t miracles.

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. (shrink)

In this paper we begin categorizing a plurality of possible worlds on the basis of permitting or not permitting ontologically different things to be causally connected. We build the work on the dual principle that all universes are causally closed either because no universe causes anything outside itself or because no universe has anything in it that is caused by another universe.