Talk:Metaphysical naturalism

Section Name?
Anyone have a better name for the subsection "Ancient Period"? Sanjat312, 06:15, 12 December 2006‎ (UTC)

I changed the diambiguation page. As such I think both articles are wrong headed. I suggest leading out the arguments page until someone reads something written by someone with some qualifications ;) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.143.67.120 (talk) 11:01, 7 January 2007‎ (UTC)

Ricard Carrier has written this entry AND recommended his book/work in it! I think it needs to be rewrtten for thsi reason alone! Also, I don't think the arguments against section is neutral: most end in claims that the argument is incorrect, surely there is some academic disagreement as to whether e.g. the existence of qualia undermines naturalism? And why demand scientific evidence for supernatural causes, surely this is impossible as what was considered supernatural would then be natural? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.134.77.22 (talk) 20:59, 12 January 2007‎ (UTC)

Make paragraph: the personocratic impossibility
The personocratic possibility hasn't a 50% chance when compared to all possible naturalistic theories in physics.

It has a 0% chance, because personhood according to Mary Anne Warren's "criteria for personhood", personhood isn't cosmogonic nor the foundation/the metatheory of physics.


 * explicitly personocratic: god being a person

Personhood is one option. The possible impersonal mathematical systems are infinite. Also if personhood were cosmogonic, being non arbitrary it would have been mathematically describable. Actually there are ways to represent biological brains and artificial neural networks. These thinking machines/brains are mathematically described as simulations and every year evolve. Personhood has nothing to do with cosmogony and the metatheoretical foundation of physics.

Some theists claim that the ousia/substance/essence of god is responsible for cosmogony and not his personhood; thus god has more fundamental components than his all, thus himself cannot be god being nonfundamental but a result of interacting components.

If the divine substance of god is tautological to his personhood, then any person can be god.


 * implicitly personocratic: an impersonal divine field being the projection of human biases as values of order outside physics
 * intermediately personocratic: for example the kami are not one, are not precosmic nor cosmogonic; also are presented as autistic, missing components of personhood (they exhibit limited behavioral patterns and means of communication/approach)

Make paragraph, and also page (in the namesake page include the theistic criticism/opinions): antiagnosticism

 * Greek antiagnostic poster/rationalist nontheist

Agnosticism opens the door to/the possibility of validity of metaphysical personocracy (explicitly as [a] person-god[s] or implicitly as projected personocratic bias [based on what makes sense to a thinker who fulfils Mary Anne Warren's criteria for personhood] unto an impersonal divine field [or fields]), or in the case of agnostic atheism, it closes the door to sound and complete treatises on metaphysical naturalism.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:587:4102:F9F8:B96A:16F4:EEF3:E944 (talk) 01:45, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

This is the view of metaphysical naturalists
..., but we need the general page on metaphysical personocracy (omnidominance of personhood - why omnidominace and not cosmic dominance? omni- means everything; religious adherents claim that there are exocosmic truths [they have to be covered]).
 * against metaphysical personocracy

We didn't mention some of their goals

 * *


 * renormalization of the wave function of the universe: universe's wave function renormalization (we don't have that page; 1. formulas/cosmogonic theories to be tested, 2. necessary astronomical data to be discovered in the future, 3. space-array interferometry in order very long primordial gravitational waves expose the protocosmic state... etc.)