Im writing a philosophy book and I want to ask your opinion about this one, i think rather unique, notion of mine. The tl;dr is
>Everything is Subtance, and from the fusion / interaction of substance with other parts of itself (particles interacting, for instance), a weird kind of "pattern" or "algorithim" emerges, like the laws of physics
Here is a long paragraph trying to summerize my idea. Imagine the universe is made of one big soup called substance. Tiny things like energy, particles, and stuff too small to see. When that soup mixes itself, bumps into itself, and stirs around, patterns start to form, like ripples, shapes, or rhythms. Those patterns don’t come from a rulebook or someone writing code they just happen naturally, when stuff moves and interacts for a long time. Over time, those patterns become things like gravity, light, atoms, and even our brains. So instead of the universe following pre made rules, it makes up its own rules by just "being itself" over and over again. The rules are like routines it builds by repeating the same patterns. An algorithim that originates from the active mixture, fusion, combining parts of all substance. From this emergences the world we know and underlying it, the algorithmic structures. Such as the laws of physics, things adhere to a kind of "pattern" or "algorithmic" chain of events. The material involved such as subatomic atoms and energy constitutes substance itself, as subatomic particles and energy constitutes all known substance we know of. The process of substance interacting with itself over time appears to generate "algorithmic" like properties. An algorithm, in this view, does not preexist the universe like a cosmic blueprint. Instead, it emerges from the active fusion and interaction of all substance. From the primordial depths, where raw substance combines, collides, and folds into itself, pattern begins to form. Through these patterns, subatomic particles and fields of energy are born. The most radical potential implication of this theory is that what we call "the laws of physics" are possibly not best defined as absolute decrees, but rather they are stabilized consequences of this primal algorithim.

One problem with this is that substance means fundamental something. It's what really exists "underneath it all," when all the "aspects" of the substance are understood in their subordinate relation to the really actually underlying and perduring sub-stans. Ancient substance discourse gets formalized by Neoplatonism into schematic metaphysical systems and loses much of this abstract generality, but Descartes and his successors (like Leibniz and Spinoza but even Locke as well) open it up again and begin looking for substances in the most general sense. Hence Descartes' wax thought experiment: what changes / what is accidental in something vs. what is the really underlying "thing?" Wax can change color, shape, etc., but the underlying wax is what is really real, it's the substance.

Descartes looks at the world and sees that God is the ultimate underlying thing since he is the cause that generates everything else, but he creates two "proximate" substances: mind (res cogitans) and matter (res extensa), the two things that Descartes can't reduce or analyze to something more primordial, and this includes not being able to reduce either one of them to the other, as subsets or modifications of the other. This is the (in)famous Cartesian dualism. It's incidental for Descartes is not atomistic but mathematical-geometrical.

Spinoza modifies this by going further than Descartes and saying that the really underlying Substance is, as it is for Descartes, God, but instead of God creating specifically two proximate substances, there are no proximate substances, instead there are "modes" of the one Substance, God. And to prevent asymmetry or arbitrariness, instead of having two modes (matter / mind), Spinoza concludes that God has infinite modes, it's just that we only interact with the two we know. Spinoza's system leads him to determinism and disbelief in individuality, and Leibniz reacts against this in horror by positing that there are actually many substances created by God, and these are monads (souls or minds). We are the monads, and what we experience as the distinct substance matter is actually just modifications in our mental apparatus, modifications coordinated by God.

>>24520572
The point of all this is simple: each of these thinkers were forced by logical necessity to reduce substance as much as possible to the most parsimonious possible set and arrangement of primordial, really existing things. Spinoza is forced to posit an "even" infinity of modes to remove contingency from Substance/God, and Leibniz is forced to reduce matter to modifications of mind (which Descartes was unwilling to do). Both looked at Descartes, appreciated the quest for substance, but saw that he hadn't taken the logic far enough. Likewise, they would both see your proposed system and say: "Wait, wait, wait, you're saying that the universe is one big substance (so you're a pantheist or panentheist), but you're saying it's a 'soup' which implies that it has a multiplicity of parts or things inside it. Then you say that these things are particles, energy, and even more 'stuff' - all of which is multiplicity in the primal unity. Why this particular multiplicity?" Spinoza would say "You should make the contents (modes) of the soup infinite like I did and like some ancients did." Leibniz would say you're positing a divided, and contingently divided, God.

Then you say that the soup "bumps into itself." But a sensitive metaphysician would then ask again: so it has differentiated parts? Empedocles was rightly criticized for having multiple substances, multiple primal things, PLUS more substantial things: the laws governing the interaction of the former things. That's six substances.

Aside from this problem of what we could call insufficient substantial primordiality or analysis, and the resultant introduction of contingency into world-spirit, your system comes close to the emergentist emanationism of Bergson's (Creative Evolution), Whitehead (Process and Reality), and Rupert Sheldrake's morphic resonance. It's specifically not a Neoplatonic emanationist scheme, since those are based on proodos and epistrophe (procession and return), with a foreordained and already (in God) "completed" emanation. (This is also Hegel's view and probably Schelling's in Schelling's, e.g. in Ideas for a Philosophy of Nature. Herder is similar but would probably entertain more indeterminate emergentism.)

All of these systems are poetically beautiful but basic questions arise quickly: How contingent, how random, is the process of emergence? If everything goes by "tendency," then why doesn't some tendency just accumulate and become overwhelming at the beginning of the emergence/emanation process? How does novelty emerge at all? Do you have to introduce some kind of irreducible "swerve" (clinamen) of randomness like the atomists to explain why novelty is possible? How does this work, when and where and how does it intervene, how does it act upon quasi-determinate "tendency" to prevent the latter from being preponderant and snowballing?

>>24520577
All of these authors answer this in different ways. I think you should probably clarify your proof of the nature of primordial substance, maybe by reading Proclus' Elements as a foil, since he DOES begin with logical proofs of the necessity of DETERMINATE, viz., non-emergentist emanation. If you are going to posit primordial multiplicity in the primordial unified substance, especially contingent multiplicity (why not infinite Spinozist variations? but then how do you get determinate, "finite" results from an infinite superstate-substance? and other questions: why would even a Parmenidean unity-of-infinite-modes emanate or "enter" temporality at all?) you have to justify it or it becomes poetic and merely suggestive rather than philosophical and apodeictic. But you should also think about how to "show the work" of the world-spirit's development.

Hegel has it easy since he can work backward from what exists to the logical necessity of it existing: all finite phenomena are reconciled in an in-finite precursor form, which is revealed (for some reason) through successive "determinate negations" of finite moments. The negations are determinate because they were always already reconciled in their infinite form, which preeexisted their "fall" into temporality and self-forgetting, and which they will meet again by pushing forward to the end, which brings them back around to the beginning. You have the problem that you want a kind of clinamen-emanation that ALSO isn't merely random Heraclitean flux, it's iterative-emergentist. This raises logical problems of the metaphysical status of the rule(s) governing iterative emergence. They essentially have to reconcile freedom and necessity: they have to govern free emergence in a necessary way.

I think you might be at the phase of what Hegel would call Vorstellen, literally "placing in front," but often translated as picture-thinking and representation. You've got various metaphors representing substance and its modes and functions (like emergence), but they're not sufficiently reconciled conceptually. They're clashing and bumping into one another like the particles in your primordial soup. To be a coherent theory of substance (like Proclus' or Hegel's, however much we agree with their conclusions), the soup has to become a puree, but a puree capable of explaining how and why it solidifies into things (at least seemingly) other than itself.

>>24520425 (OP)
It is completely incomprehensible to most of the population, so I expect to see your name in the list of the greatest philophers soon!

You should abandon this. No one will ever read it, it will leave no impression, and it will not improve any of your skills.

>>24520425 (OP)
Anon, I'm glad you've been thinking about these problems deeply. I've had musings that I've been working on maturing myself, but I've started to notice a disturbing pattern in that the most coherent and complete metaphysical and cosmological explanations seem to boil down to a "Berkeleyan" answer, that we are all figments of an eternal God's imagination.
>Parmenides
>Aristotle and the active intellect/unmoved mover
>Some schools of Vedanta
>Spinoza and substance
>Leibniz and monadology
>Berkeley (ofc)
>Peirce and the relationship between the universe and infinite semiosis
I do not know what to make of this.

But anyway, enough of me. Let's talk shop.
>From this emergences the world we know and underlying it, the algorithmic structures. Such as the laws of physics, things adhere to a kind of "pattern" or "algorithmic" chain of events
I am detecting a lot of Charles Sanders Peirce and Rupert Sheldrake here. Are you familiar with them? I think you would love their thought.

One thing I would want you to consider: how much of these patterns are wholly novel, and how much of these patterns were already "laid out in advance", perhaps as potentials which are then merely being actualized in due time? A common problem in philosophy is "creation ex nihilo", and it is best to avoid it as much as possible due to the logical problems it creates.

>>24520577
oops, spoke too soon. There's your Sheldrake lol.

This is ok satire but i honestly had to stop reading after
>From this emergences the world we know and underlying it, the algorithmic structures.

>>24520425 (OP)
>Im

Don't. Go back to playing with crayons instead OP

>>24520577
it only APPEARS to become a multiplicity (or unity) through the active eternal changing process of "substance" would be, I think, OPs answer possibly

>>24520586
>CIA Agent typing furiously.png

>>24520572
if im reading you right, you are kinda saying to better rework my theory, I should better define / investigate more in depth what substance is, and why the algorithm and substance is able to form into a semi choesive ordered world instead of complete metaphysical mush so to say?

>>24520425 (OP)
You should learn Latin and Greek and then read Hegel

>>24520643
My particular notion here is, in simpler terms, I think maybe the patterns in the world, like how things fall, grow, or move, weren’t always there. They didn’t exist before. Instead, they showed up over time, as the tiny stuff that makes everything (like energy and particles) kept bumping into itself and mixing around. As that stuff kept doing the same things again and again, it started making patterns, kind of like routines. And those routines became the rules we now call the laws of nature, like gravity or how animals change over time. The world didn’t start with rules. The rules came to be by the world doing things over and over. the patterns dont exist at all in advance. The "algorithmic structures" or patterns that come about in nature are just the current solidified patterns which we call stuff like the laws of physics, and by extention evolutionary biology, everything. The patterns come into existance as they formuate over time, through the "routines" or "algorithms" or patterns of substance, which are formed by a process of substance interacting with itself over time. But hey, thats just a theory, a GAME theory.

>>24520425 (OP)
Matter is only an illusion of perspective.
Everything real is made of Spirit.
Everything manifest is made by Mind.
Outside Mind there can be no order or multiplicity.

>>24522118
What makes a substance different from another substance? If the substance is all the same thing, how can a relation like pattern exist?

>>24522098
Your "philosophical idea" is a longwinded explanation of a footnote of a better philosopher with the word algorithm needlessly introduced

>>24522220
u r mean >:(
Anyways, here is a more concise summary:
Algorithmic Ontology is a theory of being which proposes that all existence, what we will refer to as substance, is defined not by static essence, but by intrinsic properties, that generate structure and order through self interaction over time. Rather than reality being built upon eternal, pre given laws, the laws themselves emerge from the interaction of substance's inherent behaviors or intristic properties. These behaviors function like rules or tendencies or "abilities" embedded in each portion of substance, not imposed from outside, but arising from what each thing uniquely is.Through continuous interaction, repetition, and reinforcement, stable patterns, or routines, form, which we come to recognize as: The laws of physics.Biological evolution.Consciousness. Causality. Logic itself.
These stable outcomes are the result of a kind of emergent algorithm, not a prewritten code, but a dynamic, evolving pattern built from the bottom up.
Definitions:
Substance: The universal condition of being. Anything that exists is a form of substance.
Intrinsic Properties: Self expressing behaviors inherent to each form of substance.
Emergence: Regularities (like physical laws) arise from recursive interactions of Substance and the various Intristic Properties composing Substance over time.
Algorithm: A metaphor for the evolving structure that emerges from these interactions, not fixed, but stabilizing through repetition.
Implications:
The universe is not following a blueprint. It is generating its own structure through being.
Laws are routines of substance, not commands from above. What exists has Intrinstic Properties, and the world is the result of the interactions between Intrinstic Properties throughout Substance, building on each other over time, presumably eternally.

I'm also working on philosophy and I think I share some of your concepts. I'm torn in how I feel about this: I like that the more significant part of my mind has commonality with someone else's but I'm also mortally afraid of being out-competed. You had better agree to play your role in my delusions of grandeur once the entire world chokes on my eight inches, OP.

I will withhold explicit explanation but generally, here is what I suggest, not terribly surprising. When you picture in your mind your ontological scheme, ask why. Why should your primordial substance be the answer to your inquiry? Of course, you've got an answer already but continue to push the chain of justification back until you hit a wall. What axiom can't you look behind? What is your choice of solution to the Münchhausen trilemma and why? Why follow the law of non-contradiction? An ontological system should have close relation to those fundamental epistemological questions such that the sub-fields bleed into each other.

I get a sense that you're hostile to conventional materialism and don't want to listen to scientists' smug insistence on the unparalleled value of empirical data. That's good. Those are people whose philosophical positions are skewed and shaped by their passion, their limited focus and their educational and occupational pathway. They don't know better about reality as a whole just because they learn the details of a thing. Regardless, I think your reaction to the physical is a little different from mine. I ask why. Why should this universe with its group-theoretic structures underlaying quantum mechanics and its specific geometrical qualities be the one and not any other. One could ask the same thing for the mind too. Why this? Why not that? Is it perfect like prime numbers, like black and white? No, it's absurd. It's randomly chosen from many possibilities. What is your interpretation of absurdity?

You say that the laws of physics are stabilized patterns converged from a "primordial algorithm". But what patterns are these? The human observer picked them out, but humans are retarded. It's a very ancient insight that the true nature of reality is hidden behind a veil and you can see that from the perspective of knowing the sheer scale of subsets, transformations, permutations and internal relations of the things we percieve that doesn't appear to us due to cognitive limits. The physicist may see that fermions obey certain transformation rules due to spin but what is he missing? A mountain of interrelated rearrangements that don't all even appear relevant to monkey mortals. Who's to say a pattern is really a pattern anyway? A pattern that breaks is only unacceptable if you arbitrarily choose to expect the pattern to persist. A pattern that does persist exists because what? Because of another pattern? Why that pattern? Why not a different one that gives the same result? Because god buddy said so?

>>24522392
>You say that the laws of physics are stabilized patterns converged from a "primordial algorithm". But what patterns are these? The human observer picked them out, but humans are retarded. It's a very ancient insight that the true nature of reality is hidden behind a veil and you can see that from the perspective of knowing the sheer scale of subsets, transformations, permutations and internal relations of the things we percieve that doesn't appear to us due to cognitive limits. The physicist may see that fermions obey certain transformation rules due to spin but what is he missing? A mountain of interrelated rearrangements that don't all even appear relevant to monkey mortals. Who's to say a pattern is really a pattern anyway? A pattern that breaks is only unacceptable if you arbitrarily choose to expect the pattern to persist. A pattern that does persist exists because what? Because of another pattern? Why that pattern? Why not a different one that gives the same result? Because god buddy said so?
fascinatingly astute observation and question anon, im glad you understood me very well. Now, to answer you a lil bit though im just speculating, playing with the idea : You ask
>You say that the laws of physics are stabilized patterns converged from a "primordial algorithm". But what patterns are these?
In my view, the patterns we can see are stuff like, idk, the laws of physics, chemistry and evoltion are the best examples. But i would love to look into how these patterns or as i call them "algorithms" work on a deeper level, what forms the laws of physis would be the boldest question here
great post btw

>>24522460
To know what forms the laws of physics would first be to understand them in greater detail through formal experimentation and mathematical insight but I think what you're referring to are the ontological foundation of physics that empirical data can't capture. As I alluded, that dips into concepts that exist in mathematical logic as does phenomenology. Materialists have a shitty attitude about qualia but aspects of qualia can catch description by pointing to ontological qualities that also exist in mathematical logic.

If you're really interested in scaffolding together some big fat truth like how I delude and embarass myself, it requires learning the skeletal basics of some STEM subjects. I haven't finished learning everything I think is required but for a finished work, it is required.

The appropriate expertise for advancing physics is probably not fit for the philosopher, unless you have extraordinarily high 160+ IQ and can just learn anything and everything like it's easy as piss, which is vanishingly rare. So, you can find very wonderful, significant insights in the relationships between physics, chemistry and biology by just understanding their basic foundations, especially if your fundamental ontology underlying it all is a good one. It's a cause for gratitude for a learned person to see and feel how different layers of the physical world relate to one another.

>>24522563
>If you're really interested in scaffolding together some big fat truth like how I delude and embarass myself
yes i am interested, and would like to stand proudly along side you and every other philosopher in doing so :)
thanks for the responces guys, im gonna write up a really great philosophy book by the end of this year

>>24520425 (OP)
isnt this the theory of evolution applied to cosmology?. once you have a "substance" then you have permanent changes based on its interrelationships. I assume there is an underlying theory like that behind the creation of planets, stars etc.
your insight is that there is no real fixed real laws behind, i mean, you are talking more here to the dogmatics scientists who really believe there are laws in existence than to a really overall theory of reality. isnt it?
anyway they deserve it. if your book help to make even a hint of doubt to a tiny portion of scientists, then it is worth it.
or if it is really a innovative idea it really feel pretty organic to the zeitgeist.

being and time shouldn't have been published

>>24520425 (OP)
This is sophism. And pointless.

>>24523110
I'm not reading all that bullshit but at a glance it merely looks like Heraclitean fire with modern terminology and physics thrown in.

>>24523113
All metaphysics is just different rewordings of Heraclitean fire. You might be a pragmatist and rely on this observation to discard the entire field, but in that case this isn't a thread for you.

>>24520425 (OP)
>Everything is Subtance, and from the fusion / interaction of substance with other parts of itself (particles interacting, for instance), a weird kind of "pattern" or "algorithim" emerges, like the laws of physics
okay, but why would I care?
>Subtance

I hope you're having fun tinkering with your idea, but I fail to see whats the point of yet another definition of substance. Don't you got better things to do?