Reading: Review Session 2

Why don't we have a short review of where we are and how we got here? Before we go ahead with what a non-reductionist theory of reality and knowledge would look like, I think that'll be helpful. Here's our review.

Let's contrast what I've called the triple A view of God and His attributes with what I'm calling the Orthodox reformational view. The first thing is that according to the tradition from Augustine, Anselm, and Aquinas, God's attributes are self-existent perfection. According to the Orthodox and reformational view, God's attributes have been created by God. They depend on God for their existence. There never was a time God didn't have them. But from all eternity, he has brought it about that he has maximum great love and great pity, that he's in charge of every power in heaven and earth. He knows everything, all things. But that's all because of what God has chosen to do.

Then, the next point was that, with the triple A view, God shares perfection with creatures, especially humans. And in the case of humans, that means, despite their best intentions, humans are partially divine. I don't see how they can escape from that. According to the Orthodox and reformational view, God shares his attributes, many of them, not all, but many of them with creatures.

And then, finally, on the triple A side of the ledger, we need a reductionist theory of reality and theory of knowledge to explain the world, to explain creation. And over here, the way is open for a non-reductionist theory of reality and theory of knowledge.

That's where we left off I think last time, that's as far as we got.

Now, the first thing to deal with is this issue of whether God's attributes should be thought of as self-existent or created. I've already given you the biblical evidence for saying that they're to be regarded as created. Wisdom is explicitly said to have been created by God, and to have guided God then in the creation of the rest of the world, and then finally to be shared with humans. We've seen that the doctrine of the Incarnation favors that as well. Are there other reasons for saying this? And the answer to that is yes. I'm about to give you that argument.

The argument is an experiment in thought, which means that you have to try to think of it as I describe it to you. You have to perform the experiment to really get the force of it and to appreciate it. Let's take, as an example, a particular perfection, let's just say it's goodness.

God has created a world in which some things are really good, and some are really evil. He reveals that fact to us in Scripture. Can we conceive of goodness, though, as a perfection? That's what the triple A view would have us believe: that it makes perfect sense to talk about attributes of God being self-existent and not needing anything else to exist. I'm going to ask that we do an experiment of trying to conceive of goodness that way.

What happens when we really take all these things away? Do we end up with a leftover that's pure goodness? Can we conceive of this as self-existent, existing all by itself? If we subtract all other kinds of properties, and it seems to me that we would then also have to do away with linguistic properties. And if we can't talk about it at all, what is the pure goodness that's left over here?

Now, maybe you think this just worked out this way because I took a property that's esoteric, like goodness. But what if you took something more concrete, like physical properties?

There are many philosophers today who are materialists. They think the fundamental reality is physical matter. Can we conceive of the physical in itself as self-existent? What is matter, that has no amount, is nowhere, isn't logically distinguishable from anything else, and can't be spoken of in any language? Nothing.

The experiment in thought that we're performing here has shown us that the idea that any of the kinds of properties and laws we find in our experience of the world cannot be isolated from all the other kinds of properties and laws without losing their meaning. It doesn't become a concept of pure goodness or pure matter; it becomes a concept of nothing. This is an argument in favor of perfections not being self-existent. So, if you want to make the theory that they exist in some pristine, solitary existence, it's a theory that you'll never be able to provide a good reason for or confirm, because you can't even conceive of it that way.

This argument supports the insight that kappa Doshi and said that if there are perfections, God created them. They don't exist as their own self-existent, independent realities. They're created and sustained by God. These are created and sustained within the context of having all their relationships, all the other kinds of properties and laws that things exhibit in God's creation.

I don't want you to misunderstand this argument, and I don't want to undersell it. It's extremely important. If it turns out that no one can conceive of anything as being purely physical, then there is no good reason to believe there is anything that's purely physical. If there is no good reason to think that anything can be pure ethical goodness, justice, or righteousness all in itself, remember, that's what Plato wanted in one of his dialogues. He says, "I'm asking what justice is. I don't mean which things have it. What is justice, in itself, to chaos tau alto? What is it itself? Apart from anything else?" The answer is nothing. You don't get pure justice; you get zilch. You don't get pure matter; you get nothing. Neither the forms nor matter can so much as be conceived as existing independently. No one ever succeeds in doing it. The way they are conceived and spoken of indicates that they have relationships that are qualified by all other properties and laws all the time.

This means that this thought experiment confirms that the perfections we think God possesses (which we call God's attributes) don't exist independently. They're not self-existent. But neither are they within the rest of creation. Whether we're discussing quantity, space, matter, sensations, logical operations of our minds, society, ethical goodness, aesthetic beauty, or whatever, they all exist in relation to one another and qualify one another. This is another foundational element in the quest for a non-reductionist theory of reality. It gives us a reason to start by saying that isolated concepts like X, Y, and Z cannot be the foundations or reasons why everything else exists. You can never get pure X, Y, and Z, regardless of whether they're meant to be physical, mathematical, or logical. The experiment reveals that isolating such concepts is futile.

Consider the idea that everything is made of numbers. Things we experience have various properties and laws, undergoing changes, shifting shapes, and so forth. But underneath are pure quantity units that never change and lack the qualities of the entities they comprise. These qualities, be they physical, sensory, or logical, emerge from pure numbers. But when you try to imagine a pure quantity not located in space, not perceivable, and not distinguishable from everything else, it's challenging. Math relies on language and logical laws, the identity of each number, and clear mathematical operations. The aim to isolate any properties or laws we find in the world around us, be it quantitative, spatial, physical, sensory, logical, or linguistic, proves difficult. None of them is conceivable as self-existent. Consequently, none can serve as the ultimate reality that everything depends on. While this doesn't prove the existence of God, it does indicate that no aspect of our universe can replace Him.

Given all this, what would a non-reductionist theory of reality look like? It wouldn't consider any of these properties or laws as capable of self-existence or being what everything else depends on. How then do we construct a theory of reality? I must give credit where it's due. The man who proposed such a theory was the professor of philosophy and law at the Free University of Amsterdam, Herman delivered. He taught there for many years and passed away in 1977. His goal was to craft such a theory of reality. While he also touched upon a theory of knowledge in a few essays, providing hints on its direction, I intend to explore that topic further myself.

Okay, so now that we know who first proposed this, I'm going to sketch it in as simple terms as I can. I'll try to make the basics clear, not the details. I'm not assuming that you're a philosopher, or that you're planning to abandon your life up till now and become one. I'm assuming that you're at least curious about what a non-reductionist theory would look like. What would it appear as if we don't absolutize or deify God's attributes and make them equal to Him? If we don't identify Him with them but instead view them as things that God created?

Well, let's start with the kinds of properties and laws that things exhibit. That is to say, kinds of properties ordered in some way so that there are necessary truths about how they relate. The first one I'm going to mention is quantitative. I'll arrange them in a specific order, which will prove to be essential later. I'm writing it on the side for now. And when I edit, I'll be able to flip it.

Now, the reason for this order I'll explain shortly. Things also exhibit spatial properties, such as size, shape, and location. Then, there are kinetic properties, properties of motion and change. For example, when Galileo formulated the law of free fall for an object in the gravitational field of the Earth, he described a kinetic law. Following this, things have physical properties and laws like solidity, mass, weight, density, specific gravity, charge, and more.

Things also exhibit sensory properties and laws. These pertain to colors, tastes, smells, and how sensations are perceived by creatures capable of sensing them. Beyond this is logic. Higher animals, particularly humans, possess the ability for logical thought. They can differentiate, form concepts, and make inferences. The next realm is what he termed historical or formative.

Here, consider human actions. Humans take natural materials and create something new. We term these creations as artifacts, which aren't limited to tangible items like tables and chairs. Language, for instance, is an artifact. Humans utilize sounds produced by their mouths and vocal cords, turning them into symbols representing other concepts. This capacity allows humans, with their active logical life, to shape natural materials into previously non-existent forms. This transformative ability ties to human culture, where people mold natural resources into new entities—be it architectural styles, roads, clothing, or tools. This phenomenon is what Aristotle struggled to explain, given his belief in the eternality of forms.

A significant outcome of this human transformation is language. Through language, individuals can share their thoughts, emotions, desires, aversions, and objectives. This communication enables human society, a concept distinct from the societal structures seen in insects or animals. It pertains to the awareness of social status, mutual obligations, and related facets.

When we delve into the social, we uncover social properties and laws. Some relate to acquisition and trade, tying in with the economic law of supply and demand. Hence, we identify economic properties like scarcity and abundance and laws such as diminishing returns.

Continuing, we have aesthetic and ethical domains. And lastly, there's an area concerned with faith. It's essential to clarify that recognizing an aspect of life related to faith isn't an assumption of God's existence. It doesn't aim to sway atheists; it's about trust. Humans find certain experiences trustworthy, extending to varying degrees across all creation, especially towards other people.

After listing these varied characteristics and features that things can possess and acknowledging that each has its unique order, we can discern laws governing different aspects. There are laws for quantities, spatial relations, kinetics, and physical properties. For example, sensory laws dictate that an object cannot simultaneously appear entirely blue and red. Logical laws state that something cannot be true and false simultaneously in the same sense, a notion Aristotle understood well.

There are also norms for how history progresses, linguistic formation laws, and social, economic, aesthetic, and ethical standards. Unlike rigid laws, norms can have exceptions. For instance, the law of supply and demand in economics typically holds, but there can be deviations. Similarly, ethical laws aren't absolute; while negative actions might often have consequences, they aren't guaranteed.

Professor Deleuze and I differ in our views on which aspects possess norms versus laws. While he sees logic as having both rigid laws and norms, with subsequent areas relying on norms, I believe biological, sensory, and logical aspects all have both norms and laws. For example, species can vary biologically, leading to new breeds or even unique occurrences. An example from my childhood involves discovering a two-headed piglet, a rare occurrence but within the realm of genetic norms.

And they operate in percentages. That's the way they hold and govern things. And the same is true for these others. I think we're capable of having normal or abnormal sensations. We frequently tell people that the sensations or feelings they have are not normal. And I believe that's good evidence of normativity. That aspect has norms as well as laws.

Similarly, with logic, Dewey himself noticed that logically, nothing can really be and not be in the same sense at the same time. That's a rigid law. You ought to conceive of things in a way that they don't have contradictory properties. But you can break this rule. You can have an inconsistent theory or concept and not realize it. Some people, when they realize this, still want to say it's true, which by that time, they should know it can't be. So, there's a difference we can introduce here.

Now, what's the purpose of all this? Why do we care about the kinds of properties things exhibit? Whether they have rigid laws that hold among the properties? Or if there are only norms? What are we trying to achieve? Well, let me clarify. I don't want to erase everything and start over, mainly out of laziness.

What we want to discuss now are things: rocks, mountains, clouds, trees. We want to discuss human beings. We want to talk about creatures and how these properties are true for them. For instance, consider a rock. What I want to say about the rock is that it has quantitative properties, and it has them actively. The rock's properties don't depend on how other things, particularly humans, relate to it. It doesn't have quantity only because we measure it. It has quantity, which is why we can measure it. The rock occupies space and has a shape, even if irregular. The rock functions actively in various aspects, from spatial to kinetic. However, when it comes to biological properties, the rock isn't alive. It doesn't have active sensory properties either. The rock can't conceive or participate in societal activities. Yet, in many of these properties and laws, it functions passively.

In the quantitative, spatial, kinetic, and physical aspects, the rock functions both actively and passively. But how does a rock function passively in biological aspects if it isn't alive? It depends on its relationship to living things. For example, a seagull might use a rock to crack open a clam, or a bird might swallow small rocks to help grind its food. Though the rock isn't alive, it indirectly participates in the life processes of living beings.

This rock can undergo transformations. We can carve it or use it as a foundation for a house. When used in a house's foundation, it gains a passive social function. We can trade or sell rocks, giving them economic properties. Rocks can even have ethical and justice-related passive properties. For instance, a rock could be a murder weapon or evidence in a trial. It can also be an object of love or hate, reflecting its ethical properties.

Herman Dooyeweerd termed these properties as "aspects of reality." I appreciate that term. It signifies a basic kind of properties and laws evident in our experience. This forms the basis of a theory of reality. How do things bear their properties? A rock does it in one way, while a tree does it differently since it's alive and grows, matures, dies, and reproduces.

These examples contrast with humans. Humans are unique in the cosmos because they function actively in all the aspects, both actively and passively. Humans recognize and represent quantities, spatial shapes, and locations. They understand the laws of motion, physics, principles of biology, sensory properties, and logic. They also form things historically, like languages for communication.

Unfortunately, we've run out of time for today. However, I want to delve deeper into this topic in our next session and show the potential of this non-reductionist way.

Unedited Transcripts

Why don't we have a short review of where we are how we got here? Before we go ahead with what a non reductionist theory of reality and knowledge would look like. think that'll be helpful. Here's our review. And let's contrast what I've called the triple A view of God and His attributes with what I'm calling the Orthodox reformational view. The first thing is that according to the tradition from Agustin Anselm, Aquinas, God's attributes are self existent perfection. According to the Orthodox and reformational view, God's attributes have been created by God. They depend on God for their existence. There never was a time God didn't have them. But from all eternity, he has brought it about that he has maximum great love. Great pity that he's in charge of every power in heaven and earth. They knows everything, all things. But that's all because of the gods what God has chosen to do. Then the next point was that when the triple a view over here that God shares perfection with creatures, especially humans, and in the case of humans, that means, despite their best intentions, that humans are partially divine. I don't see how they can escape from that. According to the Orthodox and reformational view, God shares his attributes, many of them, not all of them, but many of them with features.

And then, finally, on the triple A side of the ledger, we need a reductionist theory of reality and theory of knowledge to explain the world to explain creation. And over here the way is open for a non reductionist theory of reality and theory of knowledge.

That's where we left off I think last time, that's as far as we got. Now, the first thing to deal with is whether is this issue of whether God's attributes are be thought of as self existent, are created. I've already given you what biblical evidence there is for saying that they're to be regarded as created. Wisdom is explicitly said to have been created by God, and to have guided God then in the creation of the rest of the world, and then finally, be shared with humans. And we've seen that the doctrine of the Incarnation favors that as well. Are there other reasons for saying this? And the answer to that is yes. I'm about to give you that argument. The argument is an experiment in thought, it means that it's something you have to try to think of, as I describe it to you, you have to perform the experiment to really get the force of it. And to appreciate it. Let's take as an example, a particular, perfection, let's just say it's goodness.

God has created a world in which some things are really good, and some are really evil. And he reveals that fact to us in Scripture. Can we conceive of goodness, though, as a perfection? But is does it have? Can we conceive of it as existing independently of everything else?

That's what the triple A view would have us believe that it makes perfect sense to talk about attributes of God being self existent, but not needing anything else to exist, and so forth. So I'm going to ask that we do an experiment of trying to conceive of goodness that way. Let's try to think of goodness, that doesn't have any other kinds of properties. It's pure goodness. So we're going to put here is goodness in itself, without anything else. And let's say that, but the goodness here, we're thinking of ethical goodness. We have to be specifically, it's not whether a roast is a good meal, or that over there is a good suit of clothes, we're talking about being ethically good rather than ethically evil. Can we conceive of this as self existence existing all by itself? If in order to do that, we would have to think away, we'd have to take our concept of goodness and subtract from it. All other kinds of properties, and laws. We're interested in the ethical alone. So one of the things that we're not interested in one of the things we have to subtract from our concept is quantitative properties. The properties that we represent by numbers, ethics isn't mathematics, mathematic mathematics deals with quantitative properties, and the laws that hold among them. So we have to subtract from our idea of goodness, if it's to be pure goodness, in itself, apart from anything else, then it doesn't have any quantitative properties. And no quantitative laws govern it. That next thing we'd have to do is take away any spatial properties or laws. So goodness, all by itself, doesn't need to be in a certain location doesn't have a size or shape. You think that pretty obvious anyway, so there's no harm in taking that one away. And likewise, then we would have to subtract from it. And the physical properties. Goodness doesn't have specific gravity, density, mess. Wait, velocity? That doesn't make any sense. Of course, it doesn't. Those are all properties, that are physical properties that are related to one another by physical laws. But then it too, we would have to take away any sensory properties, right? Goodness all by itself wouldn't have a color, or a feel or a taste or a sound. Those don't apply. So we're subtracting them as well. And then we would also have to subtract any logical properties. There's, this is a little more problematic, isn't it? But logical properties or properties such as valid, invalid, consistent, inconsistent and also such passive properties as being able to be conceived, being logically distinct from something else. But clearly logical properties are related to each other by the law of logic, the law of non contradiction, the law of ID Under the in the law of excluded middle, they're not themselves, goodness in all of its pristine purity. So we're we'd have to chuck that too. And it seems to me that we would then also have to do away with linguistic properties. Properties such as being able to be referred to in language, that's a passive linguistic property. Now, it's important to notice that things can have properties either actively or passively.

Since this is an important point, and I'm assuming it in this list I just made, let's spend a little time with that something could have quantity actively, that means it doesn't require any thing else, anything, knowing it in order to have that quantity. So let's say the planet Earth is the third planet from the Sun, I would say that's a, that is a property that the Earth really has. It's the third planet from the Sun, it is whether anybody knows that or not. If nobody knows that, it still has the disposition to be recognized as the third property, the third planet from the sun. And it's still, the quantitative property has to do with the laws of quantity, the numerical series and so on. Now, the Earth doesn't have that property actively that is the Earth doesn't count. And it doesn't rank itself. It has to be counted and ranked by people who have an active mathematical or quantitative capacity. But the earth passively has to be able to be counted. And it has to really have that property in order to be the third be known as the third property from planet, that property, the third planet from the sun. So if we are to know that it has to be able to be counted, so passively, it has to have a mathematical property. Also, the Earth has a spatial property. It's locatable in space, and has a certain size and shape. And that's also true of it. And it's true passively. The Earth has physical properties, actively and passively. It really has solidity, it really has a certain amount of mass, it really is, in the gravitational relationship with the sun and with other planets. The Earth has sensory properties. It doesn't self perceive, but can be perceived, and it can be perceived as changing color, and so on. It has the logical property of being able to be distinguished from any other planet. And finally, as the linguistic property of being able to be represented in human language, symbolically represented, so we use the word Earth, another language is you another language uses Terra, another Elijah. Still the meanings the same, it's the reference to the the planet we inhabit. Now what happens to goodness? If we really take all these things away? Do we end up with a leftover that's pure goodness, is that what we got? What is goodness now that can't be counted. Or given given a number given an identity number that has no quantity, whatever, but also is nowhere in space. Even if you think the property properties of goodness, ethical goodness, don't take up space. They surely can be located to it we can eat we often do talk about a good that's being done over here that's being ignored over here. The good is spatially located then. Even if it doesn't have a size in the shape. It has a location. But we got to take that away. Goodness can't be counted or numbered. Neither can it be assigned to any place. Of course it's not physical. It doesn't have mass weight and solidity and other physical properties. But then to it's not sensory, is it really true that we can never see goodness being done, being put into practice and so on. But that's being erased. Now, if we're to arrive at pure unadulterated Did goodness? And what about the logical characteristic of being able to be distinguished? Or conceived to be logically conceived by us? We'd have to have that. And we would know it. If we couldn't distinguish goodness, from anything else, we wouldn't be able to tell the difference, then we really wouldn't know it from our elbow, would we? And what about linguistic, if we can't talk about it at all? What is the pure goodness that's left over here? If we take away all amount of it, any location for it, any perception of it, any conception of it? Any any ability of that it be represented in language can even speak of it? What's left? I don't get pure goodness left, I get nothing. You take all the other kinds of properties away from it. And it's zero, it disappears that evaporates along with them. Now, maybe you think this just worked out this way? Because he took a property that's kind of esoteric anyway, it's goodness. I mean, what if you took something like, physical properties. After all, Plato and Aristotle both wanted to say that part of the world was pure matter. as over against form. So we have to distinguish between matter itself, and the form principles that give Matter organization and make it into a definite kind of thing, a tree house, the cloud a person in the horse. So pure matter. Can matter alone be conceived? Let's do the same thing. Let's perform the same experiment. We have the list over here, only now we're not going to talk about goodness in itself, we're going to talk about physical matter. In itself, there are many philosophers today who are materialists, that doesn't mean they're out for all the money they can get in philosophy. Materialism means you think the fundamental reality, the self existent reality that generates everything else is physical matter. And it doesn't wouldn't make any difference whether you thought that that was some kind of Newtonian idea of matter, or a more Einsteinian idea, or a quantum physical idea. Whatever matter is, it's the ultimate reality. Can we conceive of the physical in itself is self existent? Apart from anything else, let's try it. What would matter be, when we subtract from our concept, or quantity, there's no amount of it. Nothing can be measured mathematically. When we take away all spatial size, shape, and location, when we take away all that is sensory, we've taken away quantity space, we take away any sensory perception of it. No perception, no feeling, no sight, no touch, no taste, no smell. And then we take away all this logical. Matter doesn't have the property then of being logically distinguished from what isn't matter. We take away the property, being able to conceive of it. And finally, we take away its length, linguistic, linguistic aspect of it, which means that it is capable of being symbolically represented in a language. What is matter, that has no amount is nowhere isn't logically logically distinguishable from anything else, and can't be spoken of in any language. Nothing. Nada, it's gone. Nothing is left. The experiment in thought that we're performing here has had the result of showing us that the idea that any of the kinds of properties and laws we find in our experience of the world around us cannot be isolated from all the other kinds of properties and laws and still have any meaning whatsoever. That if we isolate, try to isolate something from all the rest, it doesn't become a con concept of pure goodness or pure matter, it becomes a concept of nothing whatsoever. It's all gone. This is an argument in favor of Perfections not being self existent as far as we can know them, they depend on their relationships to all the other kinds of properties and laws. So if you want to make the theory that they exist, however, in some kind of pristine, austere, solitary existence, it's a theory that you're never going to be able to give a good reason for or confirm, because you can't even conceive of it that way.

This argument supports the insight that kappa Doshi and said that if there are perfections, God created them, and they don't exist on their own, self existent independent realities. They're created and sustained by God. And they're created and sustained within the context of having all their relationships, all the other kinds of properties and laws that things exhibit in God's creation. I don't want you to misunderstand this argument. And I don't want to undersell it. It's extremely important. If it turns out that no one can conceive of anything as being purely physical, then there is no good reason to believe there is anything that's purely physical, if there is no good reason to think that anything can be pure ethical goodness, or justice or righteousness all in itself. Remember, that's what Plato wanted. In one of his dialogues. He says, I'm asking what justice is I don't mean which things have it. What is justice, in itself to chaos tau alto, what is it itself? Apart from anything else? Apart from anything else? Nothing. That's the answer. You don't get pure justice, you get zilch, you don't get pure matter, you get nothing. Neither the forms nor matter, can so much as be conceived, as existing independently. No one ever succeeds in doing it. The way it's the way they are conceived of and the way they are spoken of is that they themselves have relationships that are qualified by all the other kinds of properties and laws all the time. And that means that this experiment, and thought not only confirms that the the perfections that we think a God had so when we call God's attributes, perfections don't exist independently, they're not self existent. But neither are they within the rest of creation. That whether we're talking about quantity, or space, or matter, sensations, logical operations that we perform with our minds, whether we're talking about society, whether we're talking about ethical goodness, aesthetic beauty, whatever, no matter what it is, they're all embedded in a world in which they are karlitz, correlates. They all exist in relation to one another, and they all qualify one another. And that is another brick in the foundation of looking for a non reductionist theory of reality. It's another good reason to start that way. Rather than say, I've isolated X, Y, and Z. And they're the foundations. They're the reasons why everything else exists. I can never isolate X, Y, and Z. You can never get pure X, Y and Z doesn't matter what they are, doesn't matter whether they're supposed to be purely physical, purely mathematical, purely logical, it doesn't work. You perform this experiment and you find you get nothing if you try to isolate.

Here's another example that the factory and said everything was made of numbers. So the things that we experience, they have all kinds of properties in laws, they come into being and pass away, they have colors and they change shapes and they have the blah, blah, blah, blah, all that but underneath our pure quantity units that never change. And don't have any of the qualities that that the things they comprise exhibit. All those other qualities, such as physical qualities, sensory qualities, logical they all just surface. They're all cause they only merge from the the numbers the pure number and then you try to conceive a pure quantity. What's pure quantity that is is not locatable in space, not perceivable, and not logically different from everything else, it's can't be logically distinguished, or linguistically referred to. What's left is in math. Math takes place in and in language. Math takes place, assuming logical laws, assuming the identity of each number, the distinctness of quantities, the clear concept of certain logic, mathematical operations performed. In other words, the program of trying to isolate any of the kinds of properties and laws we find exhibited by the things around us in the world, whether that's quantity, quantitative, spatial, physical, sensory, logical, linguistic, there are a lot more, no matter what it is, none of them is conceivable, as self existent. Therefore, none of them is suitable candidate candidate for the divine reality that everything depends on. And of course, that in that way, this experiment and thought also confirmed something else. It doesn't prove that God exists the God that we believe in. But it does show that nothing about the universe we live in, could be a proper substitute.

So given all this, what would a theory of reality look like? That's not reductionist, that doesn't take any of these different kinds of properties and laws that we experienced the universe to exhibit? It doesn't take any of them as capable of self existence, and of being what everything else depends on? How do we construct a theory of reality. And once again, I had to give credit where credit is due. The man who worked out this proposal was the professor of philosophy and law at the Free University of Amsterdam, and his name was Herman delivered. And he taught at the Free University there in Amsterdam for many years. And he died in 1977. His project then was to construct just such a theory of reality. He didn't construct also a theory of knowledge. He published a couple of essays on what theory of knowledge ought to look like, given what his theory of reality was, but they were hints for the direction in which it could go. And I'm going to have a shot at that myself after. 

Okay, so now that we know who first proposed this, I'm going to sketch it in as simple terms as I can. And then try to make the basics clear, not the details. I'm not assuming that you're a philosopher, or planning to abandon the your life up till now and become one, but that you're at least curious as to what a non reductionist theory would look like, if we don't absolutize, deify God's attributes and make them equal to Him, identify him with him, but instead, they're things that God created. Well, then let's start with the kinds of properties and laws that things exhibit, that is to say, kinds of properties ordered in some way so that there are necessary truths about how they relate. So the first one I'm going to put down here is quantitative. Now I'm going to put them in a certain order and that's going to go to turn out to be important. It's writing it on the side. Yeah, also, when I edit it, I'll be able to flip it, okay. Okay. And it me again, okay. All right, we're gonna keep going here. Now, the reason for this order I'll explain in a moment, it's going to become important. There are things also exhibit spatial property, size, shape, location, and so on. Then things exhibit kinetic properties, properties of motion and change. The when Galileo formulated the law of freefall for an object in the gravitational field of the Earth, that's a kinetic law. All right, then, things have physical properties and laws. And I've named a number of them already. But solidity, mass, weight, density, specific gravity charge, there are a lot of them physical. And then two. Things exhibit sensory properties, and laws. These have to do with colors, shapes, I'm sorry, colors, tastes, smells, touches, how something is sensed by those creatures that have the capacity for that. And then beyond that, logical.

Some higher animals and human beings have the capacity for logical thoughts, draw distinctions, the form concepts to make inferences. And then we have next one that he called historical, or formative.

Now, here, we think about what humans do humans, especially take in some natural material, and make something new out of it. When they do that, we say that they've created an artifact. They're all kinds of artifacts, artifacts aren't just tables and chairs. Language is an artifact, humans take sounds that they can make with their mouth, and their vocal cords. And they make those sounds to be symbols that stand for other things. And, and they speak then in language. So what do I really saying here is that humans, because they have an active logical life, then turn it to natural materials and form things that were not there before. And we call that historical because it has to do with human culture. Whatever humans form, whatever they take natural materials and turn them into, is part of human culture. So styles of buildings and roads, clothing, the formation of tools to make other things, these are all cases of humans, forming natural materials to make new things. This is remember what Aristotle couldn't account for, because all the farms were supposed to be eternal and existing forever, and all the instances of them never failing to exist. So he couldn't explain how anything could be new. what humans do in the course of history, human culture, form new things, and one of the most important things that they form is language. And the fact that they form a language and can communicate with one another means they can tell one another, what they each person could tell what he or she thinks, feels, wants, hates, is trying to avoid is trying to obtain. It makes all that possible. And that's what makes possible human society. This is not the an analogical use of the term society we sometimes use for the way insects or animals grouped together. But this has to do with awareness of social rank and position, awareness of mutual duties and things like that. And once we get a social, we recognize that there are social properties and laws, we can recognize that some of this has to do with obtaining things trading things, and has to do with economic law of supply and demand. So that there are economic properties, scarcity and plenty, for example, and economic laws such as the law of supply and demand, diminishing returns and so on. Well, there are more. There are Stetic. Ethical and finally, there's an area that has to do with faith. Now, let me say that putting an area of life as having to do with faith is not assuming that God exists, this is not slipping one over on you, if you're an atheist or something, we're talking about faith in the sense of trust. It's what a what a human being finds trustworthy. And everything that we experience, we trust or distrust in some way, or we could trust or distrust in a number of different ways. This does specially have to do with what people trust most. That part's true, that is the whatever people whatever is at the upper level of the trust, whatever people trust most is what they regard as divine. Why do they trust it most, because if that's what self existent, everything else depends on it, it's the most reliable thing there can be. But trust doesn't apply only to what we think is divine. There are degrees of trust, we exercise with regard to all sorts of things in creation, and including, and especially other people. So faith is is a type of experience, it's going to kind of properties that things have of being trustworthy or not, and our judgments as to what that is. Now, having listed all these different kinds of characteristics, features properties that things can have. And having seen that each has its own internal kind of order, right? There are laws that hold between quantities, there are laws that hold between shapes, locations, there are kinetic laws of physical laws, there are sensory laws, nothing can be up here, both both blue and red all over at the same time to anyone. That's unnecessary truth. And it's about sensory properties. There are logical laws, nothing can be both true and false at the same sense at the same time, I think Aristotle got that, right. That's the main logical law. And there are laws about how history proceeds. There are laws of linguistic formation, that we have social and only we it in these aspects where we come to the history, history, language, sociology, sociology, economics, aesthetics, ethics, we don't usually call them laws, but what we call them for these are norms. That is, their rules for how these things go together. But they're not exception lists, such as laws in the early aspects of quantity, space, and physics, for example, the law of gravitation guarantees that if you step out the 22nd story window, you're going to have a trip. There are no exceptions. The law of supply and demand and economics works most of the time. Right? It's a norm, it means that it's a kind of order to economic properties, that works the majority of the time. Are there exceptions yes, there can be exceptions. So in these later among these later types of kinds of properties and laws, there are norms that hold rather than rigid laws. There are exceptions. So if somebody violates an economic norm and gets rich anyway, you telling me he was damn lucky, and he probably won't happen again. But it's not a rigid law that guarantees that if he does the wrong thing, he goes down the chute. Similarly, we have norms in ethics. Let's take the ethical as an example. The laws of ethics aren't like the laws of physics. It's it's not that if you if you rob somebody maligned someone, assault them or something, that it's an absolute rigid certainty that you will pay the price. No, unfortunately, lots of times people get away with wrongdoing. It means that there will be a tendency for you to pay the price. Especially in the minds of other people who feel they've been wronged by you. They may take it upon themselves to see to it that you pay the price. But there's no guarantee. It's not like the law of gravity. And so we call that a norm, a rule that is that impacts us and binds us as to what we should do, but allows us the freedom not to do it. We have the freedom to break to violate norms, whereas we can't even can't violate laws. Now as to which of these aspects have norms which have laws, I have somewhat of a difference from Professor delivered. And we go back here. He says that from the logical onward what we have are, that the laws of logic are both laws of reality, they're rigid laws, and they are norms. And the, the Historical Linguistics, social, economic, aesthetic, and ethical and so on, all have norms. And I think myself that there are norms why I left the aspect of this is embarrassing. Right? The biotic comes in here, and I apologize to you. I think it starts after the physical, that there are biological norms and laws, sensory norms and laws, logical norms and laws. So I put the norms starting down there. Why? Because there are some things that you can violate, you do have the freedom to violate, and they don't always turn out to be a disaster, beginning with the biological species can vary, you can get a new variety of something, and then even the new species of something just by breeding it a certain way, or accidents of breeding can happen that produce what we call freaks. I remember, as a kid rummaging around in the attic, and I found something my father acquired many years before, it was a baby pig melted on a piece of wood that had two heads, branded, it didn't last too long, but such a thing was possible. So the laws of genetics are norms. And they operate in

with percentages, they that's the way they hold, they govern things. And same is true for these others I think we are we're capable of having normal or abnormal sensations. We frequently tell people that sensations feelings or sensations they have are not normal. And I think that's good evidence that that's a normativity. That aspect has norms as well as laws. And the same thing for logic. Do we read himself notice that about the logical nothing can really be and not be in the same sense of time, the same time, that's a rigid law, you are to conceal things so that they don't have a not have property that you can break, you can have an inconsistent theory or an inconsistent concept and not realize it. And some people when they realize that want to say it's true, anyhow, which they know it by that time they ought to know it can't be. So that's a that's a difference we can introduce here. Now, what's the purpose of all this? I mean, why are we why do we care about what kinds of properties things exhibit? And whether they have rigid laws the hold among the properties? Or are there only norms among the more that they're both? What are we trying to do here? Well, let me see if I can't make that clear, without erasing this whole thing. Because I don't want to have to draw it again. But the only reason for that is laziness, or just lazy. Okay? What we want to do now is talk about things. rocks, mountains, clouds, trees. We want to talk about human beings. We want to talk about creatures, and how these, these kinds of properties are true of them. So I'm going to take an example. And I'm going to whoops, there we go. And I'm going to draw something like this and suggest you that that's a rock. Here's a rock.

What I want to say about the rock is that the rock has quantitative properties, and it has them actively. That means the rocks having them doesn't depend on how some other thing relates to them, particularly humans relate to them. It doesn't have quantity only because we we measure it. That's quantity, which is why we can measure it. The Rock occupies space and has a shape even if it's very irregular. So the rock functions actively in the spatial the rock up functions. actively in the kinetic, it can move it can fall and so on. And that action, it has its properties actively in the physical aspect that means it has such properties as solidity, mass, weight and so on. But when it comes to the biotic the rock is not alive. So it doesn't have active biotic properties, the rock does not perceive, so it doesn't have active sensory properties. The Rock does not conceive of anything, so it doesn't have active logical properties, the rock doesn't form something else or develop a language, it doesn't participate in a society of rocks, and do economic exchanges and create art. No, in all of those different kinds of properties in laws, it functions passively. And that's what the dotted line means here. So, in the quantitative spatial kinetic and physical aspects, it functions actively and passively. Right, it has quantity and it can be counted. It has a spatial location and it can be located. It has the ability to act can fall and move. And it can be tracked. It has physical properties actively, and also passively. It can be struck and smashed, for example. But in the sensor in the biotic aspect, it's not alive. So how does it have a passive function, but Well, that depends on its relationship to things that have an active biological nature. So living things can act upon the rock in such a way as to include it in their life processes. For example, if the rocks a fairly big one, it could be one that a seagull flies over and drops clam on it in order to open it come down and eat it. If the rock is small enough tiny rocks can be swallowed by a bird go into its gizzard and help grind up its food. It participates in the life processes of living things without itself being alive. So it has a passive biological function. It doesn't have any active, it doesn't have an active sensory function either doesn't perceive. But it can be perceived that's passive. It doesn't have an active logical function doesn't form concepts of anything. But it can be conceived of by us, it can be logically distinguished from other rocks, and we can have a concept of what a rock is. Similarly, we can the rock can undergo historical transformation, we can take the rock and carve, make a sculpting out of it, or we could pick the rock up and put it in the foundation of a house. It's undergoes transformation. And it functions in a different way. Once we do that, it has only a passive social function, for example, but that passive social function is activated when we put it into the foundation of a house. Now it supports a house. And that's a real social function though a passive one, the rock could be something that we trade or sell or want to buy it can even economic passive properties, it can ethical passive properties. And in fact, I should have included in here that there are also properties of justice. So it could be how can a rock have a passive property in in the realm of justice? Well, it could it could be a murder weapon. It could be evidence in a trial. And it could be have ethical, passive properties as well because it may be an object of my love or hate. I may wish I really hate that rock of the back part of my yard, I wish I could get rid of that damn thing. And I can't, it's too big. People have come by with a little sonar device and showed me that the rocks really half the size of my backyard would take an incredible amount of equipment and a lot of money to get it out of there. And I hate the thing every time I see it. It's passively an object of my love or hate. That's what ethics is about. And then finally, the last of these kinds of properties in laws is the faith kind. I can trust or distrust a rock. That rock can be the object of my trust when I put it into the foundation of the house that it's going to support help to support the house or I can disrupt that I can say, look at that thing. I think that's cracked already get it out of here, I'm not using that I'll use something else. Now, Herman do we were used the term aspects of reality, for these kinds of properties that are related to one another, each by its own kind of laws, or norms. I like that term, I think it's a good one, he takes an ordinary English term, and now he invests it with a specific sort of meaning, a basic kind of properties and laws exhibited in our experience. And that's how the theory of reality begins. How do things bear their properties? A rock does it this way. A tree I would have to make a different make represent differently on this chart, a tree has an active biotic function, the tree is actually alive. That means it grows, it matures, it dies, it reproduces, these are all biological functions. So the tree is actively biologically and then passive, only passive and all the other kinds of properties and laws. This these two examples contrast importantly, with a human being a human being is the only being that we know of. In the cosmos, it functions actively in all of the aspects, which means actively and passively. Whenever something functions actively, it's also it also can be passive, but it can be passive where it's not active. Humans, however, are active in every one of these aspects. Humans have the capacity to recognize quantity and represented by numbers. They represent they recognize spatial shapes and locations and do geometry. They recognize the laws of motion and physics, the principles of biology laws that hold among sensory properties, and then logical, they form things historically. And one of the things they form are marks and sounds they make with their mouths to be a language so they can communicate, and so on all the way up. We've run out of our time, and that's all we're going to be able to cover today. But I want to come back and develop this even further and show you what can be done in the non reductionist way. So till next time, I'll see you then.