I suppose your "need" is for a solid tangible classical foundation to the world, which was undermined by quantum fuzzy logic. — Gnomon

Not at all! quantum physics is wonderful and inspiring and awesome. The universe is even more interesting than I thought it was. Lazy god posits are simply too irrational for me and my atheism often reaches ignostic/igtheism levels, when someone posits yet another, first cause mind variant.

I just don't recognise the 'visceral fear of the implications of enformationism,' you claim I am demonstrating. Give me one example of an implication your enformationism proposes, that you are convinced I am viscerally afraid of? It, can't be it's proposal of a first cause mind, as the creator of our universe, as why would I be afraid of something I am convinced has no existent?

Mainly because the term is new to me. — Tom Storm

From wiki:
Ignosticism or igtheism is the idea that the question of the existence of God is meaningless because the word "God" has no coherent and unambiguous definition.

I would be interested in your opinion of the terms described in the wiki link above and how they may or may not relate to you when you consider the OP in terms of 'An agnostics perspective.'

How much more "upfront" can I be than to refer to my G*D concept as an "unproveable axiom"*2. I have posted the definition below many times before. — Gnomon

You are just trying to play switcheroo, by basically responding to me with 'no YOU are,' suggestions.
That just reduces our exchange to a panto style exchange and indicates impasse between us.
You offer nothing other than repeats of your previous claims.
I think you should be more upfront and present your enformationism as a god of the gaps proposal, that you seem to need to nurture, due to your own primal fears.
I tried to give you the opportunity to provide arguments that would show your proposal to have more to it than your personal fear based, first cause mind with intent. You have window dressed it, as best you can, but your proposal has nothing more to offer than dressed up deism.
Thanks for your exchange, but unless you have something better to offer than the arguments you have used so far, we will remain at impasse.

Just interested on your attraction to the labels agnostic atheist, as an accurate combination, for you Tom.
Why are you not more attracted to Ignostic atheist?

You will not be surprised to read that I think atheism is more plausible, than any of the other flavours of theism you cite.

I agree, I think that would be an unfair assumption. He may just be very passionate, regarding his need for an omnipotent mind to exist. Regardless of how this manifests in his psyche. This can give a lot of comfort against primal fear. I prefer to 'have faith,' in my fellows and in human science to protect me more and more from existential threat, and increase the robustness and longevity of our species. I think science's ability to replace the need for a superhero, divine protector is emergent!
WE and all other forms of life in this universe, inherit the legacy of evolution and natural selection.
We have reached a stage where YOU and I can affect our environment, our universe, in a physically significant manner. Much more so, than any god posit has been able to demonstrate. You can demonstrate such ability, RIGHT NOW! or anytime you are asked to. God seems utterly unable to demonstrate an equal or superior ability to do the same, in any way, that can hold up to scientific scrutiny.
We need to reject the theist putdown, that we are flawed, or have sinned in any way, that is worse, or even equally as bad, as any god, posited by any religious doctrine.
The universe is free space. The intent of lifeforms, can affect it and its contents, as we are part of it.
Just like your internal parts can affect you, we as parts of the universe, can affect it, especially the parts of us that contain intent (the human brain).

Plant you flag accordingly sir!
That's why YOUR intent and YOUR decisions matter more than any gods or enformer.
The burden lies with Gnomon and god and the notion of a manifest enformer to PROVE a first cause WITH INTENT, a first cause with a cunning plan! It does not matter if you label it 'enformer,' 'big bang,' 'singularity,' etc, etc. IF you assign it intent or give it a 'mind' status, then you are firmly and irrefutably in gap god territory, no matter how much you insist you are not, imo.
You surely MUST see that sir!

I think it is theism/deism in disguise. He himself, has compared his enformationism to deism and has declared them compatible. He posts about a first cause with intent and has labelled such a notion 'enformer,' or in a recent post above:

An arrow shot from a bow will hit the target, not due to any arrow-intention but to the bowman aiming. So I was not assigning intention to the arrow. But in this metaphor, the momentous arrow has spawned a little splinter with a mind of its own. — Gnomon

Does the bowman have intent here? Is Gnomon suggesting this metaphorical bowman represents his enformer? He places the emphases on the arrow as not having intent to distract from the intent of the bowman. He then brings in a wooden splinter from the arrow, which either represents the 'happenstance' moment when the intent of lifeforms arrived or he is suggesting that this arrow splinter was part of he cunning plan of the prime mover bowman who represents divine hiddenness! :roll:

for lack of a better term, force which he calls Enformy — Agent Smith

What's the difference? God the old white guy with a big beard who exists in spacetime or/and outside of spacetime or god the 'force,' called enformy?

Your matter-bounded interpretation of causation seems to imagine that the chain of Cause & Effect began miraculously (serendipity or chance) in the Big Bang, with no antecedent and no Purpose or Reason. — Gnomon

No, I assign some credence to concepts such as CCC or Mtheory etc. More credence that I have for your gap god 'enformer.' I am also content with my 'I don't know,' the origin of the universe status, but that does not compel me, to assign any credence at all, to utter speculations, such as an 'enformer' prime mover.

By contrast, Aristotle reasoned that no Actual thing in Nature emerges unless the Potential for that Effect was already inherent in the logical structure of the system -- or imported from outside the system. In this case, the un-bounded (infinite) system of Potential or Possibility is antecedent to space-time reality. I call that logically necessary Principle (Omnipotence -- unlimited power of causation) : LOGOS . — Gnomon

Aristotle was wrong, as there is zero evidence of 'outside' this universe.
Your last sentence is another demonstration of your conflation of LOGOS with omnipotence.
Omnipotence is a nonsense word that has no existent. Are you putting logos in the same category or do you wish to save it as a useful label which is equivalent to it's more modern variant, 'logic' or 'employing reason?'

Holistically : the universe is continuous and analog. Reductively : the universe is simulated as particular and digital. Both answers are true, in context. — Gnomon

You are the one who regresses cause and effect into a need for a first cause origin point. That first cause has to be singular, it cannot be both analogue and digital in structure or fundamental state.
I have little interest on what you posit as a 'simulation' or even 'emulation' of the 'state' of your first cause. I am only interested in what state you assign to your notion of a REAL first cause. Analogue or digital or both?

Apparently, you are appalled by the imperfect world you live in. Yet, you have no one to blame. In my thesis, I blame both the Good and Evil of the world on the hypothetical amoral Experimenter. Fortunately for you, I have broad shoulders, so you can offload your heavy load of disgust onto me. — Gnomon

Not at all. I remain full of personal wonder and awe regarding life, the universe and everything. I have defeated any woo woo thinking based on personal primal fear, as I OWN my awe and wonder. I don't give humble thanks for it, to any notion of some first cause deity.
I am trying to help you conquer your primal fears and your need for a superhero protector. I have no burdens to offload on you.

Again, your mis-interpretation is colored by your prejudice against Metaphysical concepts, and not my hypothesis of an amoral First Cause. The "bad attributes" you refer to are endemic to Reality. So, unless you are ready to abandon Nature, you'll just have to suck-it-up like the rest of us. :joke: — Gnomon

I have no such prejudice. The burden of proof of existence lies with the presence YOU label 'an amoral first cause,' and with it's proponents, such as you. I don't share your need for such to exist.

Any signs of direction or intention in Nature are due to the original impetus of the First Cause or Big Bang, whichever you prefer. — Gnomon

This really is an obvious attempt to camouflage or 'dampen down,' the credence level you obviously assign to 'god of the gaps posits' or a first cause mind with intent, as the creator of our universe.
It is irrelevant whether or not you portray your gap god as non-intervening or not. I could accept your position more, if you were more upfront about it and stated your 'enformer,' as 'utter speculation,' with no evidence at all, and did not try to project it, from current knowledge of quantum phenomena.
My personal credence level for your notion of an enformer remains 0%.

An arrow shot from a bow will hit the target, not due to any arrow-intention but to the bowman aiming. So I was not assigning intention to the arrow. But in this metaphor, the momentous arrow has spawned a little splinter with a mind of its own. — Gnomon

Yet another god of the gaps statement, you have manifested, as a wood splinter from an arrow, (which you also try to drammatise with 'momentus,' but leave yourself an escape route from such accusations, due to the scientific label 'momentum.'), fired by a HUMAN. :roll:

The original meaning of "Vacuum" was emptiness or void or nothingness. — Gnomon

That's the good thing about science. The detailed meaning of a label can change. New knowledge, such as quantum fluctuations and 'energy state changes,' cause field 'excitations,' to pop-in and pop-out of existence, within tiny durations of time, suggest that there is no moment in a spacetime co-ordinate when NOTHING is happening.

Today the notion of energy in emptiness is just another of the many logical paradoxes of quantum theory. When you say "there's no such reality as a state of nothingess" you are referring to the same old paradox of "Zero". Which is an idea, not a real thing. — Gnomon

Their is no logical paradox here, there is just more conformation that labels such as god, g*d, g-d, gd, first cause mind, enformer, flying spaghetti monster, orc, elf, perfection, angel, devil, NOTHING, have NO EXISTENT, and never have had any existent.

For the record, "G*D" (non traditional deity concept) is not equivalent to Jewish "G-D" (fear of offending Yahweh by using his personal name). Here, you are doing the conflating. My reference to Plato's "LOGOS" was explicitly not to a theistic Deity, but to a philosophical Rational Principle in the real world. — Gnomon

As I read more and more of your posts here, you have confirmed to me that you are indeed a god of the gaps deist, who seeks REAL evidence of the existence of the supernatural, as your personal primal fears have manifested a strong need for such, in you. You need some, all powerful creator mind, to exist, that cares about you. This personal need, is more powerful than your rationale.
You may not even recognise this, in your psyche, but I think it's definitely there!
I doubt our exchange here will lift your fog, but you are a deep thinker, so I hope the FOREVER, divine hiddenness of your gap god, will eventually demonstrate it's non-existence to you. Just like the fact that YOU will never experience 'nothing,' even after you die, as you won't exist anymore.

We again seem to be talking past each other. It sounds like an assertion of one thing out of which everything is composed, like you could break a quark apart into them. If you don’t mean that, I don’t get what you mean. — noAxioms

I do mean that. A quark may be a vibrating string state, for example, in common with all field excitations.
A 'string state' may be physically representable/storable, as a data file. So the data in the data file would be the fundamental, that when processed, produces a vibrating string state called an up-quark or a photon.

They do that now, albeit with difficulty. Far easier to create say a positron out of a not-positron. Happens naturally all the time. — noAxioms

No they don't. A process is not yet available that can create a photon from the data stored in a datafile.
Science can manipulate natural processes, to create a photon, yes, but it can't create a Tbone steak in the way they do it in a star trek food replicator.

Sounds like an energy conservation violation to me. Even the fictional food replicators needed raw material from which to make its stuff, which is why you’d donate your dishes, dirty laundry and sewage back into the system. — noAxioms

I don't see why? Energy would still be conserved, it would just be converted from massless energy into a Tbone steak.

Yeah, so you have got past the a wave is made of quanta
A wave of what? A quanta of what? — noAxioms

A wave of light(electromagnetic radiation) and the quanta of photons, for example.
A wave of light is made of photons, which are waves of light made of photons ........

No. Gravity is treated as a force under Newtonian mechanics. I made no mention of frames in that statement. — noAxioms

But all Newtonian mechanics are within relative reference frames. Are you moving at 75 mph whilst sitting in a car or are you moving at that speed relative to an observer on the pavement?
What is your speed relative to an observer in a space station? Is it the rotational speed of the Earth + the speed of the car?
The speed of light is non-relativistic. It is the same, no matter what reference frame you use.
The law is 'You SHALL NOT add your speed, to the speed of light!'

I don’t know what a relativistic frame is as distinct from a non-relativistic one. There are different kinds of frames, but they’re all just arbitrary abstract coordinate systems. — noAxioms

If I am being honest here, then I don't have a strong grasp on the clear difference between relativistic and non-relativistic frames, as described in quantum phenomena, but I have tried my best, many times to follow content such as presented in a physics stack-exchange discussion here.

Consider the following, as a response to a google search of 'does gravity have a non-relativistic reference frame?':
"Yes, in fact one of the comments made to a question mentions this. If you stick to Newtonian gravity it's not obvious how a photon acts as a source of gravity, but then photons are inherently relativistic so it's not surprising a non-relativistic approximation doesn't describe them well."

and

"Yes, You can show via conservation of energy arguments that photons confined within a volume (for the sake of argument, the inside of a sealed box with totally reflective surfaces) must produce the same gravitational effect as an amount of matter in the same volume which would have a mass equivalent to the energy of the photons."

From another physics stack exchange discussion here.

Agree to all, but that’s not metadata — noAxioms

I don't fully agree with your assessment of what the term 'data redundancy' encompasses in the field of computing science, but it's a minor difference between us. I had many such differences of opinion with colleagues in the computing science world, during my career.
I once resigned as an examiner and exam setter, due to an academic disagreement with the principle assessor, for a computing science exam level in Scotland.

I had asked what the recognition was. Your answer was ‘nothing special’. That sounds like poor motivation. No, I had not suggested leaving people to freeze and starve — noAxioms

My answer was those who contributed most, would naturally be most revered. Rewards such as fandom, do not justify such imbalanced outcomes, as becoming obnoxiously rich and powerful.

If they’re automated, then we live in a zoo. If the tasks are shared, then there needs to be motivation to do your part. The middle suggestion evades the question. The guy who should best do it is busy writing a book nobody will read. — noAxioms

A zoo suggests the existence of outside visitors who will come and be entertained by viewing your captive status. Who would they be, in your zoo imagery?
Does the fact you are dependent on water, make you a zoo resident? Dependence on automated systems does not assign you zoo status, it's just more efficient than when you had to collect your water from a river. The imperative for doing your part is that everyone will get what they need. The guy writing the book, may also enjoy helping the infirm eat their food etc. You wont know until you sit down and talk with him/her/gender variant, in a reasonable way.

. A life of zero responsibility where all your needs are met by somebody/something else. — noAxioms

I have no idea where you get any notion of 'zero responsibility,' from. The complete opposite is the expectation. From each according to their ability, to each according to their need IS the responsibility of all. The punishment for not helping, where you can, and are able to, is not the threat of removing your access to your basic needs, it's the constant non-violent disapproval and ostracisation of what you term layabouts. Perhaps, a very small minority, will suffer, but I am not convinced that an acceptable, individually tailored, solution, could not be found, when any such case arises. If some really do choose to live their life as a curse, then I would still make sure they get what they need to live. We currently do that for serial killers and rapists etc in prison, yes? Not a good life choice imo. Better to find something you 'want to do,' to positively contribute. Especially when you can no longer use poverty, or a lack of access to what you need or being treated unjustly as excuses for bad behaviour.

How does one stop black markets from operating? — noAxioms

Black markets are money based. People can swap/exchange stuff with other people as much as they want, perfectly legal.

More to the point: an 'anthropomorphic, anthropocentric, supernatural and teleological deity' like the God of Abraham didn't make any sense to him by his late teens during rabbinical studies, and vocalizing this 'theistic skepticism' eventually got Spinoza excommunicated (cherem) from the very insular, observant Sephardic community (ghetto) of Amsterdam. Reason – freethought – "motivated" Spinoza. :fire: — 180 Proof

:clap:

PS__I just came across an interview with mathematician, cosmologist, and consciousness theorist Roger Penrose. In response to a question about inherent meaning in the universe, he said "In a very certain sense you might say that the universe has a purpose, but I'm not sure what the purpose is." (my bold) That's also my position in the Enformationism thesis. He continues : "However, I would not say that there is something going on that might resonate with a religious perspective." Would you agree, though, that Purpose in Nature should resonate with a Philosophical perspective? — Gnomon

I have probably watched the same interview, and all other offerings, which involves Roger on YouTube.
You will not be surprised that my interpretation is different from yours. To me, Roger makes such statements in a similar vein to the idea that 'in a very certain sense,' the sun rises and sets (because that's exactly what it appear to do, in the sky) when in fact, its the Earth that turns.

Philosophically, yes, it's rational to posit that 'the universe has a purpose,' (because it can seem like that is the case,) and I think that is what Roger is referring to, but such purpose is not universal, it is discrete and ONLY via individual lifeforms such as US (we can also work in common cause) and the first cause of that imo, is when Earth species, especially hominid species, became fully self-aware and could demonstrate intent and purpose.
This may have happened earlier somewhere else in the universe but purpose and intent does not exist 'outside' of this universe or within it, for the majority of the past 13.8 billions years since the big bang.
No deity required, as Roger also often states.
Purpose in nature CAN resonate with a philosophical perspective, BUT there may be no value in proposing any purpose in nature other than through the purpose lifeforms such as humans can demonstrate. Such purpose was not INTENDED by the universe, it is an ability humans can demonstrate as a consequence of natural happenstance and the results of intentionless natural selection.

Until the 20th century, most philosophers & scientists held some notion of Creator or First Cause to explain the ultimate "why" questions of Cosmology — Gnomon

I think that's because most of them were too scared not to. I suspect many many many were actually atheists, but religion was so successful as a weapon of fear and as an opiate of the masses, that it was very dangerous to be an atheist in those less enlightened times.

You said that Scharf -- "unlike you" (Gnomon) -- "supports the viewpoint that the structure of the universe is fundamentally data based". Which is also the viewpoint of Enformationism, except that, in place of the narrow term "Data" (datum), I use the more inclusive term "Information" (meaning). So, he & I are in agreement on that fundamental concept. We are not necessarily on the same team, but we are not opponents — Gnomon

This viewpoint differs in emphasis, from what you posted to @Alkis Piskas with:

But the physical universe is analogue, not digital.
— Alkis Piskas
Good point. Physical nature is analogue, despite "Planck's quanta". Quanta are mental analogies to gaps in our knowledge of holistic physical systems. Causation is continuous, but our perception is inherently discrete. Emergence of novelty (e.g. Phase Change) is also continuous, but rapid transformations make it seem instantaneous. On the quantum scale, the gaps in our perception make quantum leaps appear to be superluminal & supernatural. However, the universe, as a whole, including physical (material) & metaphysical (mental), seems to be both digital and analog. :smile:
Is Quantum Reality Analog after All? :
Quantum theorists often speak of the world as being pointillist at the smallest scales. Yet a closer look at the laws of nature suggests that the physical world is actually continuous—more analog than digital
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/is-quantum-reality-analog-after-all/
The universe is analog. period. when we make simulations we use a digital aproximation
https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/is-the-universe-analog-or-digital.12214/ — Gnomon

What are you prioritising most here? An enformation posit that supports information, as the universal fundamental for the structure of the universe or the idea that you agree with those who state we don't know if the fundamental structure of the universe is analogue or digital? You seem to significantly alter your emphasis, depending on who you are responding to?

Yes. That's because rapid Cultural Evolution has emerged from plodding Natural Evolution -- presumably as intended by the Programmer. However, human culture is an emergent continuation of natural evolution, but with focused Logic (Reason) and Energy (Intention). That's what I call "Intelligent Evolution — Gnomon

You try to jump a massive chasm here. Human intention IS the ORIGIN point of anything that can be labelled as capable of 'intelligent design.' Any suggestion that 'intent' of any kind existed BEFORE LIFE with intent (such as human or hominid life) arrived in this universe, is pure theism/deism. and I totally reject such notions, as woo woo of the gaps. Human intent is NOT a continuation of natural evolution, it is a consequence of natural evolution. It is a 'singularity' happenstance, easily equal to the projected future 'human designed,' tech singularity moment, suggested as ASI.

To be clear, Enformationism does not "assign intent or human qualities to Nature". Instead, Nature is coasting on momentum from the initial impetus of goal-directed Intention. The only "human qualities" in the natural world, so far, are found in the homo sapiens species. — Gnomon

Again you seem to back peddle here. The two underlined phrases directly contradict each other! If the above quote is true then why do you keep trying to promote the concept of a manifest 'enformer,' as your 'novel' label for a first cause mind?

So, presumably, Scharf, like most cosmologists, just takes for granted (axiomatic) that the Energy & Laws of Nature are eternal — Gnomon

In the same tradition, you seem to be acting like most theists, you try to turn the work of scientists like Caleb Sharf, into conflated support mechanisms for an 'enformer' of the gaps posit.

Vacuum Energy :
Prior to the 20th century, the notion of Nothingness with causal properties would be tantamount to the ancient concept of eternal infinitely powerful Spirit (i.e. God). But scientists can now get away with such literal nonsense, in part, because Quantum physics has forced them to accept paradoxical & counter-intuitive properties in Nature. — Gnomon

No, that's merely your personal interpretation. This is no such reality as a state of nothingness as you need 'something' to even attempt to contemplate such a notion.

I take pains to explain that the origin of creative Purpose is not attributed to the anthro-morphic God of Genesis. Instead, I refer to the Source of Information & intention as a logical Principle. So I use labels, such as G*D, Logos & First Cause to avoid the religious implications of more traditional terms. That's also the stance of the non-religious philosophy of Deism — Gnomon

Avoiding religious implications, leaves you with equally woo woo theistic implications.
You are conflating, when you try to connect 'logos' with G*D(or G-D, in Jewish tradition).
Logos can be used to refer to the concept of a deity, but, is also used as:
Logos (UK: /ˈloʊɡɒs, ˈlɒɡɒs/, US: /ˈloʊɡoʊs/; Ancient Greek: λόγος, romanized: lógos, lit. 'word, discourse, or reason') is a term used in Western philosophy, psychology and rhetoric and refers to the appeal to reason that relies on logic or reason, inductive and deductive reasoning.

but to curiosity : e.g. "what will happen if I create an autonomous universe with self-conscious creatures, who can reason themselves to a rapport with Nature. — Gnomon

How dare this 'curious' god you invoke, take such an irresponsible action, and then accept no responsibility for the consequences and the horrific suffering it caused. This is a vile, self-indulgent, entity you posit, by any decent standard of human morality.

Your "worst outcome possible" is "nothing more" than the super-natural Tyrant of the Abrahamic religions. But your disgust should not apply to the "god of Einstein"*4. Spinoza's rational deity was identified with Nature, but then he assumed that our Cosmos is eternal. If you update Spinoza's god-concept to the 21st century, it would be very similar to that of Enformationism — Gnomon

Einstein and Spinoza had no god posits imo. They just employed wise PC phrases in the times they lived in. They were both atheists imo. The only intent and purpose, that has ever existed, is that which manifests in lifeforms. The most advanced manifestation of such intent and purpose, that we are aware of, is in US. I think Einstein and Spinoza would completely agree with that, if they lived now.
Your enformer manifestation has the basic same bad attributes as the gods in the abrahamic religions.

Sometimes your actions as a humanitarian, seem to clash with your somewhat pessimistic viewpoints of what it is to be a human being. You regularly state, that you think people are not treated fairly, in any currently active system of governance and within any current system of control, over the means of production, distribution and exchange, but you don't seem to support the only effective ways of changing things for the better.
Statements such as

In our abundance we imagine things like the Venus Project, but exactly what has the Venus Project contributed to the world? — Athena

just how hard it is to feed the world — Athena

,
don't help, as they contradict. How does 'our abundance' balance with 'hard to feed the world?'
Sounds to me, like the solution IS ideas like the Venus project, which have never been enacted.
Secular humanism, alongside true democratic socialism, ARE the solutions. A resource based, money free, secular humanist, socialist society has never yet been achieved by any human group. Perhaps that's because, too many humans, still think we CAN ONLY live under primeval jungle rules.

At most, the cosmological apologetics of theists paradoxically gets them only as far as deism (or god-of-the-gaps like e.g. Gnomon's "enformer"). — 180 Proof

:clap: Yes, I think all such 'theistic apologetic style,' rumination, leads inevitably back to an 'of the gaps,' supernatural first cause, and for me, that suggestion would be the worst outcome possible, as we would be nothing more, than a product of a dissatisfied deity. If a god wanted/needed to create us, then it cannot be a god, imo.
So, I am atheist, and our strong need for science, is strong evidence, that there are no gods.
Not even a deist god, as if such an entity can create, then it follows that it can intervene, and if it chooses not to, then it is as well not existing, as either way, It's the same result for us. No help from god (no god exists.)

Well, I think @180 proof was just typing about the fact that all current religions, fall very short in offering a credible deity, that could be the first cause mind with intent, that they insist MUST exist, to create our universe. An individual theist can 'invent' their own deity, and coin a new name for it, such as 'enformer.'
As you know, a theist need not have any connection with any 'established' or historical religion.
Theosophists like Aleister Crowley or Rasputin or even satanists or pagans, are all still theists imo.

Yeah but not the "god of religion" ...
— 180 Proof — Agent Smith

Yep, the only use of the god label for me (and it remains a very weak tether), is as a 'notion' of omniscience, to asymptotically aspire to. I assume we DO NOT want to aspire to the vast majority of the morality standards set out in any religious scripture.

Which raises the question -- that as a scientist he is not allowed to ask -- "who is the Experimenter?" — Gnomon

Any scientist is completely free to as such questions. Many scientists (too many imo.) remain theists.

Do you find the Cyborg notion credible? It combines evolving biology with emergent technology, while, unlike the Borg, presumably retaining top-down control for each cyborganism. — Gnomon

Yes but I think there will be a big difference between a HUMAN cyborg or augmented human and an AGI with biological components. Biological computing is still very much in it's infancy. Any transhuman must be still a free independent with full 'human' rights to autonomy.

The cosmic question is open-ended. Hence it can only be answered by running the experiment in real-time & real-space. — Gnomon

Seems a reasonable way to describe the status quo.

So here we cybernetic organic humans find ourselves as lab-rats with philosophical questions of our own. — Gnomon

No, we are only lab rats, if god exists. We have scientific questions as well as philosophical ones.

Back to the OP topic regarding the probability of evolutionary emergence of a Technological Singularity. — Gnomon

Well ,let's be careful in the terms we employ here. I am not suggesting a NATURAL evolutionary emergence of a tech singularity (or significantly pivotal breakthrough moment in AI). I am suggesting the future creation of an ASI system via HUMAN intent or even HUMAN intelligent design.

In astro-biologist Caleb Scharf's, The Ascent of Information — Gnomon

Mr Sharf has obviously used Jacob Bronowski's The Ascent of Man, as the inspiration for his book title.
Mr Sharf has decide to present his notion of the 'Dataome' as something which could have it's own sense of being. In an interview with Columbia News, he states:
"In fact, I propose that the dataome is an alternate living system, in a deeply symbiotic relationship with us. That may sound outrageous, but it seems to fit with many ideas about the nature of information as a thing—akin to energy or entropy—and what we think life is. In a sense, life is what happens to matter when information takes control."

I agree that he is being a bit outrageous. He seems to be enjoying his work and he seems to support the viewpoint (unlike you) that the structure of the universe is fundamentally data based.
At no point in his work does he support deism or suggest a mind with intent, as the first cause of our universe, in the ways that you do. He admits to employing various techniques to attract as many people as possible to his viewpoints. In defense of metaphors in science writing: Caleb Sharf writes,
"I've also had critics say that they wish I'd just 'stick to the numbers' in describing things like the mass of black holes or the collections of hundreds of billions of stars that constitute galaxies. No talk of buzzing swarms of bees, or vast dandelion heads, or swirling stellar pizzas. According to these readers there is no need, or desire, to try to bring such cosmic structures 'down to earth'. It's a fair point, sometimes you want to feel that such things are untouchable, unknowable. But the simple truth is that scientists themselves constantly make use of analogies, metaphorical devices, and similes. Sometimes it's the only way to build an intuition for a problem, by relating it to something else - Richard Feynman was perhaps one of the greatest players of this game, turning spinning plates into cutting-edge quantum physics and Nobel prizes."

I think you have taken Mr Sharfs metaphor of his dataome as a self-aware entity, too seriously.

Natural processes are continuous & analog, while human analysis (mathematics) is discontinuous & digital. — Gnomon

In what way are natural processes such as sand production, falling rain, falling snow, seed production etc, etc, analogue?

Besides, holistic Philosophical "musings" are mostly concerned with general systems, while reductive Scientific analysis is focused on parts & details. — Gnomon

I broadly agree but I am more interested in what IS, rather than holistic philosophical musings (as useful as such, can be).

Apparently, even the "experts" are confused about how best to "frame" reality. — Gnomon

I agree, and I admire the fact that they remain uninterested in trying to fill any gaps with pure conjecture.

That either/or question seems to be a long-running debate on Quora. So, I doubt that the philosophical implications (Holism vs Reductionism) will be finally settled anytime soon. — Gnomon

I agree. That's why no-one should say, I KNOW that the structure of the universe is fundamentally digital, or I KNOW the structure of the universe is fundamentally analogue, because, no one KNOWS for sure, yet. So, a statement such as:

The real world is analog — fundamentally nature is not digital — and that’s where our story begins. — Gnomon

is 'silly.'
If you read through the source you provided, you will see that you cite a privately owned organisation, and they make statements like:
“TI reached a decision before TxACE was formed that the best market opportunities for us would be in analog. And in embedded processing, which together enable ubiquitous systems supporting the entire analog-to-digital-to-analog signal-chain.”
I assign very little credence to privately owned concerns, driven by 'market opportunities,' instead of factual science.

But, that's not a problem for my BothAnd worldview. In any case, "philosophical musings" and "scientific expertise" are different ways of looking at one Reality. Philosophical musings (analogue) are about mental meanings, while Scientific analysis (reductive) is about physical results. Unfortunately, Quantum Physics is interrogating Nature on a fundamental level, on the borderline between analog wholes and digital distinctions. Thus, as usual, the confusion arises from failure to define our frames of reference : Science or Philosophy ; little pieces or big picture — Gnomon

But for me, the problem is, that you try to assign the SAME credence levels, to your philosophical musing, as you do to scientific proposals. In fact, on occasion, you even seem to assign a higher credence to your philosophical musings, than you do to current scientific theory.
I have strong objections to that approach.

This makes it sound like quarks are not fundamental. There’s different kinds, but they’re not made of ‘parts’ like say a proton is. — noAxioms

Quarks would not be fundamental, if the smallest bit of the information which 'defines' a Quark or a photon, is THEE fundamental of the structure of the universe.

Perhaps one day we will have the tech to create a REAL up-quark instead of a simulated or emulated one, displayed on some output media.
Ah, you seem to be talking about some kind of simulation. Most simulations don’t find the need to put every simulated bit on any kind of output media. Mostly they need to know how it behaves, say if a simulated chip performs according to specifications. If it works, great. If it fails, they probably want to dig down to what part didn’t do what was expected, something perhaps not saved on the first pass. — noAxioms

No, not a simulation or emulation. I used the word REAL. So, to convince me that information is THEE universal fundamental, I would need to witness a REAL machine like the food replicators on Star Trek, producing REAL food, from information only, not naturally produced seeds or animal flesh/produce!

That part is actually pretty clear. Even without a theory of quantum gravity, the alternative (a classical universe) has long since been falsified. It’s quantum, we just don’t have the unified theory yet. — noAxioms

Yeah, so you have got past the a wave is made of quanta, which are waves, made of quanta, which are waves .........?

Gravity doesn’t travel. — noAxioms

Gravitons are the delivery/messanger particle of gravitational waves (that which LIGO detects), and not of gravity (that which your bathroom scale arguably detects). — noAxioms

Gravitational waves transmit changes to the gravitational field (the geometry of spacetime). Gravitational waves are energy, lost pretty much permanently every time masses rearrange themselves. For instance, Earth’s orbit about the sun radiates gravitational waves at the rate of about 200 watts, which, barring everything else, will eventually spin all the planets into the sun after some obscene amount of time. Earth’s orbital distance is currently changing for 4 different reasons, and that one has the least effect, but will also continue longer than the others. — noAxioms

So gravitational waves quantise to gravitons but gravity does not consist of gravitons, gravity is not a force under relativity. So, are you saying gravity IS a force in a non-relativistic frame and if it is, are you suggesting that in a non-relativistic frame, gravity is quantisable or not?

You have a very funny definition of ‘redundant’ then. I’ve never seen the term used that way, nor have I ever seen metadata referred to as redundant, and I’m in that biz. — noAxioms

I taught computing science for 30+ years. Data redundancy is wide ranging. Duplicated data in database systems, too many copies of data, out-of-date data.
In data packets, error detection and correction data has always been called redundant data.
From wiki:
Data redundancy
In computer main memory, auxiliary storage and computer buses, data redundancy is the existence of data that is additional to the actual data and permits correction of errors in stored or transmitted data.
The payload in a data packet is the highest priority, just like the contents of a snail mail parcel is the most important part of the parcel. I fail to understand why you have a problem (as an IT specialist) in accepting the term redundant data for any data in a transmittable data packet, which is not part of the payload. It is redundant because it is disposable. The fact that something is ultimately redundant, does not mean it cannot be used for a function before confirming its redundancy fate. The term 'disposable' is a similar concept.

You did great! You get to live. You over there, you don’t do anything! You also get to live. Yay system. — noAxioms

You prefer a system based on 'you don't do anything, that I or even WE, subjectively, decide has not met OUR standards,' so you will be left to rot and starve or freeze to death?

Somebody has to do the unpleasant jobs. You make it sound like everybody pursues their hobbies and nothing actually gets done. — noAxioms

Such jobs will be automated or done by those who don't find them unpleasant or will be done by everyone on a shared basis. Everything that needs done, will get done, and your job can also be your hobby. I think if a person was given everything they need for free, then they would be very willing to share, in helping to do some of the more unpleasant, but necessary jobs, that cannot yet be automated, for let's say, 1 day a week.

Anyone can publish (we are kind of there now, with some free publishing sites).
We are there. Anyone can blog for instance. Lots (most) of it dies in obscurity, hardly considered a vocation from the viewpoint of the system. — noAxioms

Who knows what the future holds for a particular item of work memorialised by someone. Most of the most revered works available today were created by people who got very little or no recognition during their lifetime and died in poverty.

Would you allow people to end their life, if continuation means daily suffering with no or very little chance of improvement?
Oh yes. ‘Do no harm’ is a joke when the ending torture is considered ‘harm’. But keeping bright and comfortable person sedated deprives them of years of quality life.
What would you have done differently for your grandparent, when you consider her medical status at the time?
Screw the sedation at least. If there was unacceptable suffering going on, then yes, she should be allowed the choice. I wasn’t aware of any, and she was actually quite fine about a month before when they reduced the sedation long enough for my mother’s visit. I wasn’t there at the time. — noAxioms

In all honesty, it seems to me that your judgement of those who administered palliative care for your grandparent, may be very harsh, but I suppose, such judgements are within your prerogative.

I mean the indoctrination of the masses with lies designed to alter the behavior of the population in favor of whatever goals the administer desires. — noAxioms

Yeah, manipulating people, trying to fool all of the people all of the time! So, not brain wiping but indoctrination.

I’m only against the lies that benefit special interest groups instead of the whole. — noAxioms

:grin: Yeah, I have been typing about my secular humanist stance for quite a while now.

There are good lies and bad lies, even critical lies. I believe certain things that I rationally know for a fact are false. Sounds contradictory, but its how it works. — noAxioms

That's just confused thinking imo.

Trump’s chosen secretary of education whose family actually funded construction of my high-school. Good school too, regularly placing tops in academic ratings. — noAxioms

I am against all private school education, as they are full of indoctrination, bias and they are discriminatory. A good education, only if you can afford one, is a vile concept.
I am also against all religious schools.

And yet the total available renewable energy is fixed. — noAxioms

No it's not, as we can create extraterrestial renewable energy, such as solar power generation stations, built in space. Also renewables can be augmented, by perhaps, new future tech, such as cold fusion. So your worry that demand may utterly outstrip supply in the future remains a concern for now, not a fact.

Do you see what I’m trying to illustrate? A line that is going up has to eventually cross a horizontal one. — noAxioms

Yes, might never happen, it's not a fact that it will, for many reasons such as the ones I have suggested above.

The question had been about other star systems, not stuff in local orbit. But I cannot find it economical to even do it in orbit. — noAxioms

I have suggested making use of the resources available in other planets, moons, and debris belts in THIS solar system, not other star systems. The E-ring around Saturn, produced by the moon Enceladus, for example, may be a source of water, that could be used for further space exploration and development.

The energy needed to supply food to Earth from orbit seems vastly larger than the gain from the food — noAxioms

Future tech such as spacelifts, might be very efficient.

My point is, for the most part, interplanetary and especially interstellar trade isn’t worth the effort for most trade goods. — noAxioms

Your musings are in quicksand as you insist on wearing a 'current tech' hat, instead of musing on what future tech may allow us to achieve.

but an interstellar probe wouldn’t have that problem if complex lab analysis is a requirement. — noAxioms

Maybe, maybe not. It's not a vital point, as long as the necessary info is returned to those who need it, on Earth or otherwise.

I differ with you on two of your main projections.
1. No first cause is necessary.
2. No mind with intent is necessary in the creation of the universe.

:halo: Fair enough Alkis, I appreciate you taking the time to read what I posted nonetheless.

:up:

Nae bother man!

Here is another great answer from a PHD in electrical engineering, that you can read or choose to ignore. I know this is TPF and not Quora so I don't want to piss off too many moderators here, by copying screeds from other sites, so I hope I am not 'pushing it,' by copying and pasting the two Quora posts I have.
I just wanted to source a couple of 'expert' type responses, to our analogue/digital exchange, I know the discussion on this site must favour 'philosophical' musings, but useful input from expertise in an issue under discussion can assist the direction of any philosophical musings on said issue, imo.

FROM: Kip Ingram
PhD in Electrical Engineering, The University of Texas at Austin Cockrell School of Engineering (Graduated 1992)Dec 17
All quantum entities are described by wave functions (when you are using standard quantum mechanics). You can associate a wave function with each boson (or with each group of bosons - when you’re dealing with a group you can’t always identify well-defined wave functions for the individual bosons).

You can’t observe a system’s wave function, but there are things you can observer. When you do so, you will get some value for the thing you are observing, and you will send the system into a new quantum state. What quantum state it goes into depends on what you are observing. For example, there is a particular set of possible new wave functions associated with position observation, and there is another particular set associated with momentum observation. Because position and momentum are “conjugate variables,” these to sets do not overlap - their intersection is empty. There is no wave function that corresponds to both a well-defined, exact position and a well-defined, exact momentum. This is the origin of the Heisenberg uncertainty principle.

Wave particle duality is a simple consequence of the fact that some observations (like position observations) will leave the quantum system in a “particle-like state,” while others (like momentum observation) will leave it in a “wave-like state.” There is no mystery here - how the system behaves depends on what state it’s in, and what state it’s in after you do something to it depends on what you do to it. Do something different to it, it may behave differently. This shouldn’t surprise you at all.

What makes all of this “interesting” and unusual to us is the fact that quantum systems can manifest either of these behavioral types, depending on how you interact with them. Classical systems generally have either wave-like or particle-like behavior, and they stick with it throughout all of our observations. It’s the way quantum systems can morph back and forth between the two that makes them exotic to us.

You can think about something similar involving light. Say you have a beam of light come past you. it’s a plane wave - a big one that stretches out beyond you a long way on all sides. The light is purely of one frequency. It’s been going on for a long time, and will continue for a long time. You’re just in this “bath” of purely mono-chromatic light. Ok, you know that beam is made of photons, but what you might not know is that those photons will each carry precisely the same momentum. You are dealing with photons of a very precise, fixed and constant momentum value. But there is no fixed position - there are photons everywhere, all around you.

What if you wanted a bundle of light that had a very tightly defined position? This would be a little pulse that was all bundled up in one spot. You can have that kind of light too, but if you break that pulse down into a frequency spectrum using Fourier analysis, you’ll find that it’s a mixture of photons of many different momenta, and hence many different frequencies. You have a tightly defined position now, but the momenta are all over the map. This is an example of wave particle duality that’s not quite so completely quantum (it really still is, but it’s just a little easier for us to “intuit” about).

I think what I’m trying to say here is that it’s not so much that bosons have wave/particle duality. They do, but that duality is really just a characteristic of our desire to observe conjugate variables. “Particle behavior” goes with tightly defined positions; “wave behavior” goes with tightly defined momentum. You can have either, but you can’t have both.

Stay safe and well!

Kip

I was sent this entry from Victor Toth (popular physics poster on Quora) by the Quora system.
It was his response to the question:
Do all bosons have particle-wave duality?

I found his answer informative, as it highlights some of the confusions that people have, out in the lay world (me included). I think its related to our exchange here, regarding an analogue/discrete fundamental structure to our universe. Sorry it's physics based (Alkis) but I think it IS informative.

No, neither bosons nor anything “has” wave-particle duality; it is a fancy phrase that is used sometimes by way of a vague explanation of how subatomic particles behave.

Before I explain further though, let me ask a much more mundane question. Does light have “wave-particle” duality? And I don’t mean the quantum field theory of light, just ordinary, classical, 19th century optics.

I mean, we know that light is a wave, right? Yet sometimes, we see pencil sharp rays of light. Lenses focus images with amazing clarity. How can that be a “wave”?

Ask anyone with a decent understanding of wave optics and they’ll give you a sensible answer: yes, there’s a wave front formed by that lens. But those waves arrive, say, at your projection screen (or the retina of your eye) in such a way that most of the waves cancel each other out. One wave arrives with a positive phase, another with a negative phase. The result is zero. Only in select spots will the interference be mostly constructive. And lo and behold, these select spots correspond to the Newtonian (of Fermatian?) view of light as particles following the path of shortest time from the point of emission to the point of absorption.

In other words, under a broad range of circumstances something that is fundamentally wavy can mimic particle-like behavior. We have electromagnetic waves, yet we end up seeing rays of light and can even conceptualize light, in the form of geometric optics, as a stream of tiny particles.

How tiny? Our best theory of matter, the Standard Model of particle physics, is a theory of interacting quantum fields. Just like in the case of wavy classical fields, we can also have wavy quantum fields do constructive and destructive interference and exhibit “geometric” behavior. One crucial difference is that when we work out a quantum field, its energy levels at any given frequency will be quantized, coming in discrete steps. Consequently, when the geometric behavior becomes prominent, we will see a “ray” as a series of particles (individual units of quantized energy at that particular frequency): photons in the case of light, other particles in the case of other fields.

But, I hope, the above description of how wavy light can still produce geometric light rays perhaps helps remove a little bit of the mystery hidden behind fancy phrases like “wave-particle duality”.

Then again, this phrase also has another meaning, albeit closely related. In the quantum theory of particles (that is, ordinary quantum mechanics, not quantum field theory) a particle is still a point-like thing that exists on its own right, not as an excitation of some field. But where it is remains indeterminate to some extent: its location is given in the form of the wavefunction, a probability amplitude that tells us not where the particle is but the probability of finding it at different places. So there is a probability wave vs. a supposedly physical particle.

But I mentioned this last because quantum particle theory is not considered fundamental anymore, more like a limiting case of quantum field theory. Of course there’s still also a wavefunction in quantum field theory, representing the state of the system, but it is not to be confused with the fields themselves that constitute the system… but I digress. Keep that thing about optics in mind. An ordinary ray of light can be seen as either a wave or as a ray of tiny particles depending on how you look at it.

Good choice of quotes! Long may your quest for new knowledge continue.
All hail true seekers! :flower:

:blush: :up:

Anyway, I think it remans very difficult to prove that at a fundamental level, the universe is quantum, as we have no current (EDIT: accepted as correct), quantum theory of gravity. No graviton has ever been found yet, but perhaps gravity is not a force and therefore has no delivery/messenger particle. I wish I had a physics PHD.