our Mars ambitions, let them be fulfilled not by terraforming (adapting the planet to us), but via evolution (adapting us to the planet). — Agent Smith

In the Sci-Fi TV series Expanse, Earthlings who lived for generations on Mars, became adapted to its low gravity. Unfortunately, upon return to Earth gravity, that evolved change became a mal-adaptation. :gasp:

Since this is the case, can it be rational to think premises of a deductive argument are true and yet waver on the conclusion being true? — MichaelJYoo

I don't know if "this" is the case, but rational thinkers can provisionally, or temporarily, accept stated premises, without committing to a conclusion drawn from them. Unfortunately, most people are poor judges of statistical probability. That's the whole point of Bayesian Inference or "subjective probability".

Since the information (facts?), upon which we reason, is always limited, and possibly incomplete or erroneous, it makes sense to recalculate your initial estimate of truth (probability) as more information comes availiable. Modus Ponens is an idealized model of reasoning, and may be how computers think, in principle (garbage in-- garbage out). But human reasoning is usually influenced by prior beliefs, momentary feelings, and areas of ignorance or misinformation. So, it's reasonable to doubt your own reasoning in uncertain situations. Our brains evolved to make quick intuitive judgments from incomplete information. Not to statistically analyze precise premises for numerical probability. :nerd:


Bayesian inference is a method of statistical inference in which Bayes' theorem is used to update the probability for a hypothesis as more evidence or information becomes available.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bayesian_inference

Judgment Under Uncertainty :
People appear to be poor at Bayesian reasoning (just as Tversky & Kahneman claim) when they are given problems that express the relevant information as percents and that ask them to judge the probability of a single event (e.g., “What is the chance that a person who tests positive for the disease actually has it?”). But a different picture emerges when information is presented in a more ecologically valid format.
https://www.cep.ucsb.edu/topics/stats.htm

↪Gnomon
:up: — Agent Smith

Note -- If a shooter at a target range hits the center twenty-six times in a row, would you look for an abnormal (Preternatural*1) explanation : super-human marksmanship, or magic, or cheating? — Gnomon

Is the analogy accurate? If so, how would Ockham answer the question?

180boo challenges the logical possibility of a First Cause (pre-existent marksman) with a sarcastic "Yeah, but which god may exist?". The intention is to get you to commit to a particular anthro-morphic god model. Which he can shoot-down with Science.

However, Enformationism is not a scientific thesis, and does not pretend to have direct evidence or revealed knowledge to support any traditional god-model. That's why I use ambiguous terms (e.g. "G*D") to describe the Big Bang sharp-shooter. Impersonal abstract attributes are inferred from real-world evidence*2 that some kind of First Cause is logically necessary to explain the contingent existence of our space-time world. That's not religious Belief, just philosophical Logic.

Ancient philosophers, using unaided reasoning, labeled that same existential necessity with different names for the same abstract concept : Brahman, Tao, Logos, etc.*3. What would you call the Initial Step in 14-billion-year series of events? A cosmic coincidence??? :cool:


*1. Preternatural : "beyond what is normal or natural".

*2. Astronomical evidence points back to a dimensionless point in sub-Planck time before space-time. A common retort is that the concept of time-before-time is like "what's north of the north pole?" But that physical spherical geometric analogy does not apply to a dimensionless Singularity. So, If you take that evidence at face value, you are faced with scientific evidence for a "creation event" of something from nothing. What would you call the Cause of such an un-natural event : a reverse Black Hole? Where's the evidence?

*3. "[u]Brahman[/u] is a metaphysical concept of Hinduism referring to the ultimate unchanging reality, that is uncreated, eternal, infinite, transcendent, the cause, the foundation, the source and the goal of all existence."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brahman

To me Enformationism, what I could grasp of it, manages to capture all 3 aspects of God: [omni]benevolence (stoic virtue, living in accord with the laws of nature), [omni]science (science), and [omni]potence (EnFormy, the creative force).

I know your philosophy isn't theistic in the sense that Christianity is, but I couldn't help but notice the connection between it and the Christian God's attributes as outlined above. A happy coincidence? Hard to say, but worth investigating in my humble opinion. Maybe it reveals an underlying imtuition that is universal, differing only in the specifics while being same in spirit if you catch my drift. — Agent Smith

Your grasp of Enformationism is still incomplete : it's not about God, but about Nature*1. However, as far as we know, Nature is not eternal or self-existent, so a philosophical First Cause is still necessary to explain the Big Bang beginning of the on-going creative process of Evolution*2. And it would be an astronomically unlikely "coincidence" for a random thermodynamic process to begin with fine-tuned settings that are essential for the emergence of living & thinking organisms*3.

Darwin's evolutionary process --- of random errors (mutations) woven into self-correcting organisms by goal-directed selection criteria --- is obviously not entirely materialistic & mechanistic*4. That's because, in our experience, undirected mechanisms (e.g. perpetual motion machines) do not produce self-reproducing baby mechanisms. The only natural mechanisms that do perpetuate themselves are Holistic organisms, which are more-than the sum of their parts. The "more-than" is goal-directed design criteria (information), as in computer programs. So, the logical necessity for a goal-setting Programmer, or some kind, is a logical leap into the unknown time-before-time. Even atheistic cosmologists make that pre-bang "set-up" assumption, including pre-existing Energy (causation) and eternal "laws" to control the interactions of matter & energy. They don't deny the "fine-tuning", but merely the intention behind those "anthropic" settings.

One name for that eternal fine-tuning Programmer is "Multiverse", which merely multiplies what already exists in the physical world, in order to explain its beginning without recourse to an intentional Creator*5. But, in any computer program, it's the ultimate Intention (question) of the Programmer that sets the initial state (hence the aim) of the computation process (output or answer). I don't know the question or the answer, and I know nothing about the First Cause of the universe, but I can make some educated guesses about the FC's "attributes". The basic logical assumption is that there can be nothing in the Effect that was not Potentially in the Cause. But, clearly there's no Omniscience, or Omnipotence, or Omnibenevolence in the creation, so we can only infer such qualities in an eternal (timeless) & infinite (spaceless) Creator.

In eternity, anything that can happen will happen. Or at least, that's the assumption behind the Multiverse hypothesis. But, Nature has none of those properties, so I don't attribute them to my Spinozan Nature-G*D. Which is definitely not patterned after the Christian God. However, as you noted,
almost all philosophical & religious traditions have intuited a basic set of attributes for their First Cause postulations : Brahman, Tao, Logos, Allah. But the existence of evil in our world implies that Omnipotence and Omnibenevolence are antithetical. :cool:

*1. Specifically, about Nature, in view of non-classical & counter-intuitive Quantum Physics, and the non-physical forms of Generic Information (e.g. ideas, thoughts, feelings, etc.)

*2. Plato & Aristotle assumed their world was eternal, but other evidence led them to infer that a First Cause of Causation (motion, change, evolution) was logically necessary.

*3. Since the Greeks were avid mathematicians & rationalists, they inferred that the First Cause of the world must be orderly & reasonable (not random & irrational), hence LOGOS was their label for a non-physical non-anthropic Creator. Cynics today though, tend to downplay human intelligence. Because it is not perfect & omniscient, compared to what?

*4. Darwinian Programming : "There is a famous [mis]quote attributed to Darwin: ‘ It is not the strongest of the species that survives, nor the most intelligent that survives. It is the one that is the most adaptable to change. While most likely Darwin didn’t say it, the principle behind it still stands. Nowadays this property is known as ‘evolvability’." https://accu.org/journals/overload/20/109/ignatchenko_1911/
Note -- Adaptability requires A> intentions, B> feedback loops, C> course changes. A + B + C + ? = Holistic Intelligence (? = interaction, interdependence, sharing of information). Humanity as a species, has occupied almost all ecological niches on Earth, and are in the process of colonizing off-worlds. What were the odds of that eventuality when the Singularity went Bang?

*5. Fine Tuning : Skeptical physicist Hossenfelder asks : "isn't it peculiar, they ask, that the universe is the way it is, so we can be the way we are?" That's an "ascientific" philosophical question. So, later she says, "most scientists dismiss this idea out of hand, but I think it's worth thinking about" (philosophically, not scientifically).
"The issue is this. The currently known laws of nature contain twenty-six constants. . . . It's extremely unlikely that these constants would just coincidentally happen to have exactly the values that allow for our existence. Therefore, the universe as we observe it requires an explanation . . . . However, the multiverse hypothesis doesn't explain anything". Existential Physics
Note -- If a shooter at a target range hits the center twenty-six times in a row, would you look for an abnormal explanation : super-human marksmanship, or magic, or cheating?

The opposition from the science guys and the lukewarm reception from religious folks you're met with is in my humble opinion because ... — Agent Smith

I think I see what you are suggesting. But Enformationism is neither Mathematical (intellectual) nor Musical (emotional), it is instead a general philosophical & metaphorical Worldview, which reveals no new scientific or mathematical facts to the stock of human knowledge. Its primary contribution is to support ancient Holistic (e.g. Taoism ; Idealism ; Stoicism , etc) philosophies with cutting-edge (reductive) scientific knowledge (e.g quantum & information), and Einsteinian Relativity (POV framing).

So the "lukewarm" reception is due primarily to its negative implications for some dearly-held beliefs, such as the modern ideology of Scientism. It also has little aesthetic appeal to most religious people, because it offers no plan of salvation in the hereafter, and no consoling symbolism & ceremonies in the here & now. So, what limited appeal it may have is for rational intellectuals with a mostly pragmatic way of thinking. Ironically, antipathy & opposition comes mainly from those who believe they have arrived at unassailable Truth, in the form of some Orthodox doctrine or scientific model of reality.

But, even among those rational & philosophical types, some are activists, motivated to change the world*1, not just to understand it and adapt to it. They will be disappointed with Enformationism. Also, even traditional religious types, with an intellectual bent -- such as my family -- their hopes for a better world tomorrow were raised along with their upbringing. And the only hope they see for a "fallen" world is a supernatural Messiah. Enformationism does not describe a world-fallen-from-grace though, but a world that is evolving exactly as intended by the First Cause "Programmer".

In the gradual unfolding of the Evolutionary Program, pain & suffering and dashed hopes are due, not to demonic beings, but to inherent natural laws & forces. This Stoic*2 attitude toward the Real world has been taught by sages for ages, from Plato to Lao Tse to Buddha to the post-enlightenment Deists. However, in view of our post-enlightenment power over Nature, we find our remaining powerlessness hard to accept. Our aspirational moon rockets still blow-up, not due to divine opposition, but to 14 billion-year-old natural laws, and human errors.

Unfortunately, human reasoning is always based on limited information, and is influenced by history & tradition. So its prescriptions & solutions for the "human condition" can be expected to to conflict with one another. For example, general Deism*3 has fragmented into a variety of -isms over the years : PanTheism, PanDeism, PanEnDeism, etc. Enformationism is none of those, and all of those. It proposes no official orthodox position on any topic. Due to our limited access to factual information on our lonely little blue planet, and also to the ambiguity of "facts" on the Quantum foundation of Physics right under our feet, all truths are temporary & contingent. Does that sound like a religion to you? Admittedly, it has some similarity to New Age worldviews, but only in so far as they accept various ancient holistic & naturalistic, but non-fatalistic philosophies. :cool:


*1. “The philosophers have hitherto only interpreted the world in various ways,” he famously said. “The point, however, is to change it.” ___Karl Marx
Note -- philosophers "change" the world with their ideas (living memes), not with guns (death). And such change-of-mind takes generations, requiring stoic patience.

*2. Stoicism :
an ancient Greek school of philosophy founded at Athens by Zeno of Citium. The school taught that virtue, the highest good, is based on knowledge; the wise live in harmony with the divine Reason that governs nature, and are indifferent to the vicissitudes of fortune and to pleasure and pain.
https://languages.oup.com/google-dictionary-en/

*3. Deism :
Derived from the Latin deus, meaning "god") is the philosophical position and rationalistic theology that generally rejects revelation as a source of divine knowledge, and asserts that empirical reason and observation of the natural world are exclusively logical, reliable, and sufficient to determine the existence of a Supreme Being as the creator of the universe. Or more simply stated, Deism is the belief in the existence of God solely based on rational thought without any reliance on revealed religions or religious authority. Deism emphasizes the concept of natural theology (that is, God's existence is revealed through nature).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deism

Daoism . . . . Does the God piece fit with reality as we know it. The problem is that the God that we want is incompatible with reality and the God that is compatible is one we don't want. Wicked! — Agent Smith

Good point! That's the problem with presenting a philosophical god-model that "fits with reality". Most people don't like Reality -- it hurts -- so they want their G*D to be ideal, like a knight in shining armor. Taoism was intended to be more realistic than that. Lao Tse did not describe the TAO as a conventional prayer-granting ancestor deity, and the word for "God" only appears once in the Tao De Ching. Nevertheless, the popular religions that sprang from the Tao root did include a variety of deities to be worshiped and prayed to.

So, I interpret the Tao, as more like Spinoza's impersonal-god-of-the philosophers (i.e. deus sive natura) The point you noted is that that the typical worshiper doesn't want an abstract nature-god, they want a god with the super-natural power to adapt capricious reality to their personal needs & wishes. Instead, Lao Tse faced the facts, and advised that we adapt ourselves to the reality of Nature. Such a nature-god is "compatible with reality" and with empirical Science; but not with human desires for a more perfect world. The "real world" is as good as it gets*1. And the natural "Way" follows the "path" of least resistance*2. Which is also a basic principle of Physics.*3 *4

Even theistic religions have been forced by centuries of poor response to prayers, to postpone perfection to a New World and a second Life. Consequently, parallel to their idealized & romantic god-models, most religions also offer pragmatic advice similar to that of Lao Tse's golden rule : " “If only the ruler and his people would refrain from harming each other, all the benefits of life would accumulate in the kingdom.”— Tao Te Ching. :smile:


*1. best of all possible worlds, in the philosophy of the early modern philosopher Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz (1646–1716), the thesis that the existing world is the best world that God could have created.
https://www.britannica.com/topic/best-of-all-possible-worlds
Note -- a perfect world would be purely deterministic ( a heaven), but a world with rational free-will physical creatures must be less than perfect, in order to allow options. So Leibniz' "best" compromise solution to the Freewill within Determinism paradox was to make a good, but imperfect world. For example, the metaphorical Garden of Eden was perfect, but the humans were mere instinctive animals, with no way to reason between Good & Evil. After expulsion into the Real World, they had to learn to adapt to a less-than-perfect environment. If they felt cold, they learned to killed cold-adapted furry animals, and to wear their skins as clothing. Their food no longer hung low on trees, so they learned to eat the flesh of those cute furry animals.

*2. The path of least resistance is the physical or metaphorical pathway that provides the least resistance to forward motion by a given object or entity, among a set of alternative paths.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Path_of_least_resistance

*3. Principle of Least Action :
"“That is what we are going to use to calculate the true path. "
https://www.feynmanlectures.caltech.edu/II_19.html
Note -- "Tao" = path of least resistance

*4. The Principle of Least Action says that, in some sense, the true motion is the optimum out of all possible motions, The idea that the workings of nature are somehow optimal, suggests that nature is working in an efficient way, with minimal effort, to some kind of plan.
https://www.damtp.cam.ac.uk/user/nsm10/PrincLeaAc.pdf
Note -- "Tao" = Stoic acceptance of imperfections

I don't see how subscribing to a yin-yang model and then delegitimizing opposition to that model is being faithful to one's philosophy. Even this position I adopt, against you, is/should be part of the whole you talk about. It's actually in your favor to engage with your detractors - it reinforces your position, specifically its BothAnd aspect. — Agent Smith

What are you calling "de-legitimizing" the opposition? I do make it a policy to avoid debating those who are dug-in. Dialoguing (win-win) is two-way sharing of views, and is the purpose of this forum. But Debating (win-lose) is a power struggle to defeat the other "position". Even in monistic Buddhism "It is not uncommon to find a variety of seemingly conflicting religious practices incorporated into the lives of Buddhists". That's one way to make peace, set-aside areas of conflict as unimportant. But 180 is not a Buddhist, and he is not compromising of his orthodox beliefs.

Again, you have misunderstood the "BothAnd" philosophy, so, we continue to dialogue in order to construct a mutual meaning that we can both accept. For 180, it may mean "selling-out to the enemy." To you, it seems to mean : "it's all good". To the contrary, "BothAnd" does not mean that Evil is just misunderstood Good, or that a whole is the arithmetic sum of its parts. I engage in vigorous back & forth dialogs on this forum all the time -- with posters who seem flexible in their opinions. So, 180 is the only "opponent" I typically ignore, to avoid wasting time on pointless power struggles. I have no wish to convert him to my own philosophical worldview. But he seems to find it offensive, and is motivated to show me the error of my beliefs. Or, at least to prove who is smarter.

180's arguments are typically articulated in the form of "you're wrong! and here's an orthodox science book that proves it!". Frustratingly, he seldom cites "book, chapter & verse". Like most religious true believers though, he places high value on authoritative Orthodoxy. Yet, to him, I suppose non-classical Quantum physics was like the Protestant Reformation : a slap in the face*1. Anyway, as I said above, I used to engage with 180 before I learned the wisdom of the old saying "don't wrestle with a pig, you'll both just get dirty . . . and the pig likes it". By now, he knows I'm just poking the pig to hear him squeal. Do you think less of me for that sardonic philosophical humor?

You seem to have misunderstood the BothAnd philosophy as a naive idealistic attitude, like that of the founding fathers of the USA : "all men are created free & equal". That high-minded phrase was interpreted by Emma Lazarus : "Give me your tired, your poor, Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, The wretched refuse of your teeming shore". Yet in the news today, the governor of Florida has imported wretched Mexicans from Texas, and exported them to Massachusetts. The Founders were well-intentioned, and their ideal was good, but in practice not all of those "yearning to breathe free" are welcome in Florida or Texas. Even those idealistic political Patriots, immediately ceased dialoging with their Fatherland, and declared war on jolly old England. That's how most Political arguments are resolved. But BothAnd is not a Political philosophy; it's a Philosophical philosophy. Unfortunately, 180 treats it like a Political assault on Scientific Orthodoxy, or a Religious heretical movement.

Perhaps BothAnd reminded you of Rousseau's rousing phrase, "man is born free, but he is everywhere in chains," The BothAnd holistic worldview is not intended to address such real-world political or physical problems. It's not an attack on anything. So, I have never understood what set 180boo in antithetical opposition to such an inoffensive personal attitude : "be open-minded, look at alternatives before you choose a path". His dismissive responses to my posts seems to have something to do with my unconventional usage of the old Theological term "Metaphysics".

Yet, I have repeatedly explained that I'm not referring to Catholic Theology, but to the kind of topics that Aristotle discussed in the Metaphysics volume of his treatise on Physics : e.g. existence, objects and their properties, space and time, cause and effect, and possibility*2. None of which is a physical object or substance, and none subject to empirical falisifiability. All of which are still topics of Philosophical discussion to this very day. Ironically, the first six volumes, which the Catholics labeled The Physics (Nature) introduced the notion of a god-like First Cause *3. So, 180 would do just as well to debate with Aristotle on Physics. Unless you are personally motivated to dialogue with a demagogue. Is that "delegitimizing", or simply calling a spade a shovel? He's called me worse, and it doesn't hurt my feelings. :joke:

PS___The smilie has ironic tongue-in-cheek, not tongue sticking out. But, 180 may interpret it as a juvenile counter-attack. I try to use humor to defuse, but some don't get the joke..
"If you say something tongue in cheek, you intend it to be understood as a joke, although you might appear to be serious".


*1. Seven Decades of Heresy in Quantum Physics :
Although quantum mechanics has predicted an extraordinary range of phenomena with unprecedented accuracy, it remains controversial. Bohr and Heisenberg pronounced it `a complete theory' in 1927, but Einstein never accepted it, and as late as 1989 John Bell charged it with dividing the world of physics. David Wick traces the history of this controversy and shows how it affects our very conception of what a scientific theory is all about.
https://www.nhbs.com/the-infamous-boundary-book

*2. What topics did Aristotle write about? :
His writings cover many subjects including physics, biology, zoology, metaphysics, logic, ethics, aesthetics, poetry, theatre, music, rhetoric, psychology, linguistics, economics, politics, meteorology, geology, and government.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aristotle

*3. Aristotle Physics :
The Physics takes its title from the Greek word phusis, which translates more accurately as “the order of nature.” The first two books of the Physics are Aristotle’s general introduction to the study of nature. The remaining six books treat physics itself at a very theoretical, generalized level, culminating in a discussion of God, the First Cause.

The universe is inside Krishna (you)! — Agent Smith

This thread should have a warning sign : "twisty Metaphors ahead, not to be taken literally".
Metaphors can't be refuted with empirical evidence, you either get the oblique inference, or you don't. If you do, it's safe to proceed slowly, and you might learn something -- something meta-physical. :smile: .

Not trying to nit pick or fault you, but isn't your philosophy supposed to be like the USA is - welcoming to all, and I mean people from every corner of the world by that (inclusive)? Given so I find it hard to tally that with you engaging in arguments, even those involving naysayers (exclusive). — Agent Smith

No, you still miss the complementary perspective of BothAnd. It doesn't accept all opinions as equally true, but within any whole system, there is overlap in the middle, part true part false. As illustrated by a Venn diagram in Logic -- where True & False overlap -- there is an imperfect mixture of both red & blue opinions. Absolute truth could be anywhere in the diagram, but a human, standing on his local spot on the globe, can't see beyond his own horizon. Yet, we know by reasoning & experience that Relative Truth is often good enough for practical purposes, and it can often be found within your own shadow, but on your neighbor's side of the fence. For Absolutists & Perfectionists though, the other side of the fence, is by definition, False.

In the YinYang symbol, the same principle is illustrated by putting a small circle of the opposite color within each complementary half of the big circle. The ancient chinese sages intuited what Einstein discovered mathematically : that what you see (and believe to be true) is relative to the observer's frame of reference. Hence, only omniscient G*D can see the Truth in any situation. But Einstein, briefly imagining himself as omniscient, realized that "truth is relative". And he was modest enough to know that his imaginary G*D was on his side, only when he was on G*D's side, mathematically. :smile:






Unfortunately, some people are absolutists, and can't accept watered-down truth, to contaminate their idealized politicized (us vs them) worldview--- yes, I'm talking about you 180Boo. To Black vs Whiters, a fact is a fact, and there is no gray in-between. So, in order to make sense of apparently intelligent people holding contrasting opinions, they tell themselves that the one holding a "wrong" opinion is, at best mis-informed, or at worst a blithering idiot, pretending to engage in philosophical discourse. Fortunately, such extreme Contrast (100%True versus 100%False) thinkers are rare. But, online philosophical forums allow them to imagine the majority is on their side. Like bulldogs though, once they bite, they can't let go. In their two-value world there is no middle-ground between Macho-Male and Effete-Female, no LGBTQ alphabet queers.

Fortunately, the rational methods of Philosophy were developed to allow us to meet-intellectually (on the sidelines Stoa) without coming to blows (in the Agora, with the masses). We lay down our weapons by emulating Socrates -- "all I know is that I know nothing" -- and Isaiah -- "come, let us reason together". There are two dictionary definitions of "argument" : 1. an exchange of diverging or opposite views, typically a heated or angry one. 2. a reason or set of reasons given with the aim of persuading others that an action or idea is right or wrong. When I first started posting on this forum, I had some philosophical discussions with 180, in which we exchanged opinions & reasons. And I thought we not very far apart in our views. But something about my Enformationism & BothAnd worldviews struck him as dangerously heretical (i.e anti-science*1). Since then he has not pretended to offer rational arguments (def #2), and presents only emotional outbursts (def#1) "your'e wrong, wrong wrong". No more middle ground, and no more Mr. Nice Guy.

So, for the most part, I have simply ignored his booing & hissing. When, I recently responded to an apparently innocent comment, it simply gave him an opening for invective & evisceration. (note the bold philosophical terms in the following post). Although, I remain open to philosophical dialog, I will refuse to engage in political debates. However, If you feel lucky, you are free to get down in the mud, and start slinging. 180 has made it clear that he is not an open-minded BothAnder, but a my-way-or-wrong-way take-no-prisoners Heresy Inquisitor. In time-honored tradition, you can volunteer to be my champion to defend my sullied honor, by "engaging with the nay-sayers". Know the risk though, before you admit to any eccentric opinions. Good luck, you'll need it. :joke:

COME, LET US REASON TOGETHER.
NO, SCREW THAT, JUST BURN THE BASTARD


*1. Anti-science : I prefer Sabine Hossenfelders open-minded term "ascientific" for non-empirical philosophical questions.

I see that you're utilizing your BothAnd concept to full effect! Bravo! — Agent Smith

I try to practice what I preach, but it's hard to get Either/Or thinkers to view anything from a perspective other than their own ingrained point of view. Apparently 180BooBoof looks to Trump for philosophical arguing tips. Just accuse the other guy of doing exactly what you are doing. Or at least distract the attention from your own faults. A finger pointing away, reliably distracts bystanders from looking at you. That's not a complementary BothAnd perspective, but merely the old "don't look at me . . . hey, look over there" trick. That's not Philosophy, it's Sophistry. And it's childish. :cool:

DON'T ACCUSE ME OF RACIST POLICIES,
JUST LOOK OVER THERE AT THAT RACE PERSON

The OP is my attempt to understand a phenomena I've witnessed many times. It contains the example of King David's census, but multiple similar examples could be given. The OP presents a thesis, a possible explanation, but doesn't not present a proof. — Art48

I like the metaphor of a god-mold, filled with locally-available god-stuff. Which historically, has been mostly based on personal experience with physical human people in political positions of near-absolute power. And, it seems to be a novel take on the old "god shaped hole in the heart" argument.

The OP begins with some examples of questionable behavior by "person gods". Presumably, the intent is to suggest a viable alternative : a non-person god. But that concept may not make sense to most on this forum, especially those with an unimaginative Materialistic worldview. So, they react as-if you are proposing just-another-anthro-morphic-god. Perhaps, you could get it back on track by presenting your thesis without reference to the Judeo-Christian-Islamic traditions, and without reference to individual personal experiences. Though, that may be too abstract, and too non-sciencey, for those same Realist/Materialists. Law courts are often tied-up for days with "what did you know (i.e. experience) and when did you know (experience) it?"

Maybe you could shift the focus to the art of transfer molding. That would avoid getting personality traits & behaviors confused with the notion of god models. With no physical human example to create the mold from, any resemblance to a "mere" human would be lost. And the artist would have to create his mold-model from scratch. :smile:

AN ARTISTIC IMPRESSION OF ARIES, DAVID ???

Yes, you & the Woo-Crew quote the likes of Rovelli, Stenger, Carroll, Deutsch, Hawking, et al without the slightest comprehension of what he says. I wear your Dunning-Kruger ad hominems, sir, as badges of honor. :clap: — 180 Proof

There's no honor in pretending to be intellectually superior. Even Trump can barely pull it off. Besides, isn't it hard to make a supercilious smirk-face with your tongue sticking out? Hey, trading insults, instead of ideas, is fun. But, you don't get no badges for your political playground philosophy, sir! Just kidding . . . or am I? :joke:

PS__No offense intended. The smiley has tongue-in-cheek, and no wiggling ears.

While Feynman's comment suggests any theory/idea based on Quantum Mechanics is a case of obscurum per obscuris, I find it quite fascinating that anyone would lay a foundation of ignorance for their knowledge claims. — Agent Smith

Hey! Don't blame Feynman. It was the obscure First Cause that laid the foundation for Quantum obscurum. Feynman was a genius, but not smart enough to make sense of a system that functions both deterministically and randomly.

My Enformationism thesis accepts that such nonsense was necessary to produce a self-organizing world that also has an element of freedom. A straightforward computer program would be self-organizing, but it would be very limited in novelty. That's why the Evolutionary program was a stoke of genius. It allows simple repetitive cause & effect actions to go creatively crazy sometimes. That's because linear logical predictable Cause-Effect is built on an unstable foundation of non-linear absurd unpredictable Background-Hiss. And I'm not talking about 180. :grin:


How Randomness Can Arise From Determinism :
This dichotomy between unpredictable individual behavior and precise group behavior is not unique to quantum mechanics.
https://www.quantamagazine.org/how-randomness-can-arise-from-determinism-20191014/

↪Agent Smith
:smirk:
Addendum to ↪180 Proof
... It is with sadness that every so often I spend a few hours on the internet, reading or listening to the mountain of stupiditie dressed up with the word 'quantum'. Quantum medicine; holistic quantum theories of every kind, mental quantum spiritualism – and so on, and on, in an almost unbelievable parade of quantum nonsense. — Carlo Rovelli, Hegoland, pp. 159-60
↪Gnomon
↪Enrique
↪Wayfarer
et al.
(re: TPF's Quantum-Woo Crew :sparkle:) — 180 Proof

Thanks for that sincere confession of faith in Scientism : Reductionism & Materialism. Ironically, the "woo-crew" typically quotes the informed opinions of physicists, such as Rovelli to support their philosophical ideas. Whereas, "The Boo Hiss crew" (180Proveit) typically spouts expressions of faith in generic scientific doctrine, and of intellectual superiority to freewheeling philosophers.

Speaking of "woo of the gaps", highly credentialed physicist Hossenfelder interviewed Mathematical physicist Roger Penrose, about the physical cause of consciousness. His theory is that quantum scale microtubules mysteriously produce consciousness when measured. He's a Nobel Prizewinner, but Sabine found such woo-of-the-gaps "quantum spiritualism" hard to accept, because the gap between non-conscious tubes of protein and conscious minds is filled with unspecified and unwarranted assumptions. "I find that stunning, because it's telling us that your belief that the system works is stronger than the system itself. What are you doing that enables you to transcend the system?" Fortunately, he admitted that it was just a hypothesis, not a doctrine.

180's faith in the system of science also transcends any specific evidence within the system. He dresses up his quips, not with the ambiguous word "Quantum", but with vague references to intuitive, but outdated, Classical Newtonian Physics. By avoiding references to quantum weirdness, I suppose he feels that his bold accusations of woo-mongering are on safe ground. Because, with no details, they're not subject to the Holistic interpretations of the quantum pioneers. That sounds like the Trump technique, when challenged he points the finger at the other guy and calls him unflattering names. Is that legitimate TPF philosophy? :joke:

WOO-FREE AND ARGUMENT-FREE "BOO-HISS" PHILOSOPHY

This has so many practical verification as many practical denials. Empty statement, lacking wisdom. But it is with wisdom that the followers fill it with, and therefore the followers of Ching work with the substantial, but it is the voidful emptiness of this aphorism that they use. — god must be atheist

I'm not aware of any practical empirical way to verify the usefulness of emptiness, except to put stuff in it. Then it's simply a rational conclusion from experience, that empty space is a place to put things. This is the basis of the old glass "half-empty" vs "half full". That's not a true/false statement, but a matter of opinion, depending on how you see the future : pessimistic vs optimistic.

When realtors advertise a house for sale, do they promote the physical studs & bricks, or the beauty of its organization & the utility of its spaces? Because there's nothing there, and some people can't imagine filled emptiness, many sellers use rental furniture to assist their imagination, to "fill it with wisdom". Homebuyers pay good money for such insubstantial non-things as Beauty & Utility. Perhaps because their future usefulness is only apparent to those who can "see" what's not there. Due to "quantum weirdness", even pragmatic Scientists have been forced to redefine common-sense "empty space" as "potential energy".

In psychology, it's called "figure ground perception". And in architecture, the empty space between buildings is known as "negative space". That's because some short-sighted people are biased to view emptiness as nothingness, instead of potential usable space. Faithful Materialists have a practical prejudice against nothingness, because it is commonly equated with spirits & ghosts. But Neuroscientist Terrance Deacon has developed a detailed theory, that is just as reasonable as Darwin's Evolution of living organisms from non-living substance. But it fills the gap between Matter & Life, with a modern computer analogy for the power of Potential to create something new & meaningful from something that is not-yet-real. Don't judge without knowledge. Read it for yourself. :smile:

The Power of Absence :
There is a glaring gap in modern science, and Terrence Deacon aims to close it – in part by explaining how material things can have “aims”, and how “absence” can serve to fill functional gaps. He is a neuro-scientist whose expertise straddles the borders between Classical & Quantum, Physics & Metaphysics, and between Science & Philosophy. Deacon says, “we need a theory of everything that does not leave it absurd that we exist”. Ironically, his central thesis sounds absurd on the face of it : that non-existence can affect existing things. Although “absence” may be irrelevant to “inanimate things, it is a defining property of life and mind.” So, he hopes to open a dialogue “between our currently incompatible cultures of knowledge, the physical and the meaningful”. He laments that “scientific knowledge is viewed with distrust by many, as an enemy of human values, the handmaid of cynical secularism, and a harbinger of nihilism”. He aims to regain that trust by showing that Science is relevant to heart-felt human interests.

Although Deacon's theory challenges the philosophy of Materialism, he takes great pains to avoid the slippery slope into Spiritualism as an explanation for meta-physical phenomena. Instead, he offers a naturalistic account for Life, Mind, Soul, Sentience, Consciousness, and most other immaterial features of the world. My own thesis of Enformationism also attempts to bridge the conceptual chasm between Physics and Meta-physics. But the main difference, is that I didn't automatically reject the possibility of a supernatural agent to serve as the First Cause of everything. Instead, I proposed something like a LOGOS, who created the plenipotent Information system that enforms the world via teleological power : a plan for the development of a cosmos. Of course, the deistic inferences I'm drawing from his evidence are precisely the ones he's trying to avoid. And I view his “Absence” as a religiously neutral term for causation that used to be known as incorporeal “Spirit”, but is now known as incorporeal "Energy".
http://bothandblog4.enformationism.info/page17.html

Universal Negation :
All roads are blocked to a philosophy which reduces everything to the word ‘no.’ To ‘no’ there is only one answer and that is ‘yes.’ Nihilism has no substance. There is no such thing as nothingness, and zero does not exist. Everything is something. Nothing is nothing.
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/nothingness/

FIGURE - GROUND vs NOTHING - SOMETHING vs REAL - POTENTIAL

Are the posters on this forum just talking cartoon animals? Or, is there a good reason for speculating beyond the limits of the senses? Are we on this forum just pounding words, for no better reason than a quick snack? — Gnomon
I think we are just pounding words, and testing ideas we are cartoon animals and searchers for truth. — Tom Storm

OK. Fair enough. Though dismissive of word-pounding Philosophers. But, when philosophical searchers go looking for truth, is there any good reason to explore beyond the limits of human senses, and their mechanical extensions? That's what Art seems to be doing with his "mold theory of personal gods". I'd never heard of that particular argument, but it seems reasonable enough. Not necessarily true, but worth thinking about.

Ancient humans knew nothing about modern Science, so they depended on Intuition for answers to questions that were not obvious. The only causal actors they were familiar with, were intentional animals & humans. So, they could be forgiven for assigning personal intention to the invisible forces of Nature. We now call it "Energy", but the ancients called it "Spirit", using an analogy with invisible breath, that can leave the body at death, with no measurable physical changes.

We now know more about internal physical changes at the precipice of death, but none of them individually accounts for the undeniable difference between a living willful human and an inanimate inert physical body. So, what is that difference? Is it some physical Quanta, as Reductionists tend to assume? Or some non-physical Qualia, as Holists postulate? If the latter, then the notion of an "invisible bodiless spirit" animating & directing Nature might make sense.

In my own postulate-pounding, I propose Enformed Energy (Enformy : energy + information) as a meaningful description of how the random directionless accidents of Evolution, chosen & collated by Natural Selection, eventually produced intentional creatures who wonder about their own origins. That's how Evolutionary Programming works to design things that are difficult to define in advance. And that may also be the kind of abstract/mathematical/logical Creator (empty enforming mold) that Art is proposing. So, let's hear him out. :smile:


In terms of application, Evolutionary Programming is most commonly used in constrained environments such as scheduling and routing, power systems, and designing systems
https://towardsdatascience.com/unit-5-evolutionary-programming-cced3a00166a
As a designer myself, I am acutely aware that design is an open-ended art. Hence difficult to define, except by describing a desired end-state (teleology). Computers are much better than humans for pounding-away at seemingly pointless mathematical computations of value & probability.

We mold clay into a pot, but it is the emptiness inside that makes the vessel useful. We fashion wood for a house, but it is the emptiness inside that makes it livable. We work with the substantial, but the emptiness is what we use.
___Tao Te Ching

↪Art48
Indeed and the speculative constructions and reinventions can go on forever. But why? — Tom Storm

Finally, at least that's a philosophical question, not a physical "how" question. So, it's appropriate for The Philosophical Forum. It's so important to humans that sages have been trying to answer it for thousands of years. But, it's even more difficult than a moon-shot, because we know exactly where that shining orb is located. So maybe, Art is trying to suggest a new way (a logical extension ladder?) to get closer to that ancient quest. Remember, "they said it couldn't be done". But then, someone said we'll do it, "not because it is easy, but because it's hard".

Perhaps we tackle the hard questions, because we like challenges. Maybe it's because you and I exist, and we have no better explanation for temporal contingent existence, than something self-existent, hence not subject to space-time attacks. If the god-question does not interest you, perhaps an empirical science forum would suit you better. Philosophy is about immaterial Ideas, not material objects. It's reasonable to be skeptical of unsupported ideas, but the only support for philosophy is logical reasoning (i.e. other ideas).

Is philosophy a pointless pastime? Or is human Reason a way of seeing without eyes, and Knowing without direct experience? Are the posters on this forum just talking cartoon animals? Or, is there a good reason for speculating beyond the limits of the senses? Are we on this forum just pounding words, for no better reason than a quick snack?

I know you know better than that. And you have seen plenty of tired Old arguments before. But Art's argument is philosophical, not empirical, rational, not religious. It's not necessarily true, but maybe, he has some good points, that are not easily defeated by tired old "show me the money" retorts. Logical relationships can only be deconstructed by better logical arguments. Admissions of exasperation don't count. Just sayin. :cool:

On a more serious note, monism can be justified if we, Daniel Dennett style, say that the other offending opposite is an illusion. So declare the mind is an illusion and we have materialism; on the other hand, if we state that matter is an illusion, we have idealism. The other option is to assert the official positions of these two antithetical ideas i.e. matter depends on mind in one case and that mind depends on matter in the other. — Agent Smith

Yes, a common rhetorical tactic is to point the finger of stupidity at the "other" deluded "mind". In my experience though, those who "state that matter is an illusion" are a tiny minority of modern philosophers. Instead, today's idealists have no illusions that matter per se is imaginary. If they were that foolish, they could be disillusioned by running the idea we call a knife across their hand. Or by walking through a solid wall, as illustrated in the video below.

Plato had no "idea" of imaginative neural networks that function like a homunculous in the brain. He merely noted that the Idea of a thing is not a physical object. It's merely an immaterial construct of concepts, an imaginary representation of a thing seen, or an emergent property, or a system of many interacting things like "The United States". Those are Holistic Ideas. Perhaps, more common today is Pragmatic Idealism, which imagines a perfect Ideal, to serve as a goal for Ethical & Functional behavior. That's what Plato was talking about.

On this forum, Reductionists, who see no "physical evidence" for an immaterial Mind, are more common. Because they trust only what they see (vision), not what they think (reason). They have no use for immaterial Systems or functional Holism. So, they imagine the so-called "Mind" as, not a homunculus, nor a Cartesian observer, but as a knowing Neural Net. Which of those imaginary IDEAS is REAL? Hint : none of them. :cool:


Pragmatic Idealism ... Every decision a person makes stems from the person's values and goals. People can have many different goals and values;
https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/pragmatic.en.html
Note -- what is the substance of "goals" & "values"?

THAT WALL IS NOTHING BUT AN ILLUSORY IDEA IN YOUR IDEA OF A MIND

https://youtu.be/zsHBoXfvh-8

NEURONS IMAGINED AS CARTESIAN OBSERVER


SMART MATTER ???
SHOW ME THE MEANING

The "Butterfly Effect" is an example of order emerging from chaos. — Gnomon

No, just sensitive dependence on initial conditions. — jgill

Well, that too. :smile:

In chaos theory, the butterfly effect is the sensitive dependence on initial conditions in which a small change in one state of a deterministic nonlinear system can result in large differences in a later state.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Butterfly_effect
Note -- Differences are the essence of meaningful Information (order).

This phenomenon, pioneered by Lorenz and others, has found widespread application as deterministic chaos.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2018/02/13/chaos-theory-the-butterfly-effect-and-the-computer-glitch-that-started-it-all/?sh=1fea912569f6
Note -- Determinism is the antithesis of True Chaos, and yet, apparent chaos can produce predictable consequences.

Does order come from chaos?
Chaos may indeed accumulate in a system over time as ordered structures break down, but at the same time order can continue to emerge from chaos within the system as long as energy is available to drive the chaotic processes which produce that order.
https://tasmaniantimes.com/2015/08/order-emerges-out-of-chaos-the-fundamental-d1/

Is there any reason for monism rather than dualism/pluralism? — Agent Smith

Descartes proposed Substance Dualism as an alternative to the monism of Materialism, which denied that Mind was immaterial (spiritual). But e pluribus unum (plurality is fundamental) versus e unum pluribus (unity is essential), is an ancient unresolved philosophical argument, dating back to the Greeks. For example, Atomism was both pluralistic and monistic, depending on how you frame the situation. If the atom is defined as having no smaller parts, it is locally monistic. But, if an indivisible atom is just one of a multitude of elementary objects, it is globally pluralistic. Apparently, the reason for making such fine distinctions is to give us something to argue about. :smile:

I prefer to follow the work of Stuart Hameroff and Roger Penrose on the question of human consciousness. The posit that a 'supernatural' (first cause) mind took over 13 billion years to reproduce something with a mind is rather mindless and akin to such nonsense as the kalam cosmological argument. — universeness

The Kalam argument says that "whatever begins to exist has a cause of its existence, (ii) The universe began to exist, and (iii) Therefore, the universe has a cause of its existence". Which is undeniably true of anything within the cause & effect chain of Space-Time. But, it implies that the First Cause is external & eternal, hence not subject to the restrictions of space-time or matter-energy-entropy.

Any postulated First Cause is necessarily "Supernatural", in the same sense that the Big Bang Singularity is "Preternatural" (prior to space-time). Hence, both are "ascientific" in Hossenfelder's terms. Consequently, they have no more empirical (observational) authority than the Kalam argument. Any speculations beyond the origin of space-time are philosophical conjectures, even when postulated by scientists. Is your preference for sciency-sounding BS over theological BS? It's all philosophical BS. :wink:

Astrophysicist Ethan Seigel :
Contrary to recent headlines and Penrose’s assertions, there is no evidence of “a Universe before the Big Bang.”
https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2020/10/08/no-roger-penrose-we-see-no-evidence-of-a-universe-before-the-big-bang/?sh=473bfdcc7a0f

I don't consider happenstance or random combination, accidental. Everything that can combine will combine as time passes. If it can happen, it will happen somewhere at some time. — universeness

So, you consider the existence of sentient humans just the luck-of-the-draw? It may be true that "anything that can happen will happen" given infinite time. But 14 billion years is just a fraction of eternity. Besides the House sets the odds, so who is the House in this analogy : Fate or G*D? :confused:

Happenstance : synonyms
fate, fluke, chance, hap, incident, event, luck, serendipity, certain, accident and fortuity.
https://thesaurus.yourdictionary.com/happenstance

Fate : synonyms
destiny · chance · fortune · luck · nemesis · predestination · providence.
https://www.collinsdictionary.com/us/dictionary/english-thesaurus/fate

Sure, so we are aware of that. I don't see how that adds to the credence of a first cause mind. — universeness

A scientific "frame" is limited to the boundaries of space-time. But, a philosophical "frame" extends beyond those empirical limits into the realm of Theory. For example, the expansion of the universe is an empirical conclusion. But the Singularity from which it emerged is a theoretical construct, with no empirical support. A theory only "adds credence" if it is logical. Do you ever rely on Logic to support a belief? :nerd:

"No. Logic is not empirical. No mathematical theory is empirical."
https://www.quora.com/What-is-logic-Can-it-be-an-empirical-science-or-non-empirical-science-like-mathematics-If-yes-how-Is-reasoning-an-actual-mental-process-employed-by-a-thinking-being-when-reasoning

Not functional selection but natural selection which has no intent. — universeness

If Natural Selection has no future-oriented "intent", then how is organic (producing organisms) Selection different from entropic (disorderly) Randomness? A "functional" selection has a causal relationship to the effect we call "order" or "organization". Why did Darwin feel the need to postulate "Natural Selection" if not to provide a hypothetical alternative to "Supernatural Selection"? :halo:

Proof Finds That All Change Is a Mix of Order and Randomness
https://www.quantamagazine.org › math-proof-finds-all...

You pick your team, and you raise your standard in that camp. It has always been and always will be thus. I see no credence in the evidence you have provided for your first cause mind with intent posit. — universeness

I was a team of one, long before I read Sabine's book. So, maybe she joined my team, by using the same philosophical framing to go beyond empirical Science. You seem incredulous. Is that because Sabine's frame is different from your own faith-frame? Just kidding. :joke:

So, what evidence from the random chaos of quantum fluctuations within quantum fields do you suggest supports the anthropic principle? — universeness

Quantum Fields are imaginary metaphors. So there is no hard "evidence" of creative "fluctuations". However, there is evidence of order arising within apparent Chaos. The "Butterfly Effect" is an example of order emerging from chaos. But the seeds of order seem to be innate (iceberg hidden in the fog), and require only statistical "coincidences" (crossing paths) to reveal themselves.
Note : In this analogy, the "order" is simply a change of form from sailing ship to sinking wreck. In the Anthropic theory, the order is the highly unlikely coincidence of randomly swirling atoms magically taking on the form of a thinking being in a vast mindless universe. I'm just looking at the "evidence" through a wider frame of reference. :yum:

The ability to mimic that which already has existence and is knowable and can be studied and analysed and reverse engineered, is no evidence that the process was started by a first cause supernatural mind. — universeness

So, if not due to "that which already has existence", what is that mathematical-point-of-origin (Singularity) evidence of? Existent Something from pre-existent nothing? :cool:

You have a lot more weeding to do but you are certainly not alone in that venture. — universeness

Thanks for lending me your sharp weeding implements. That's what philosophical forums are for : sharing of ideas & experiences & beliefs & opinions & theories. Incestuous Reasoning in a Solipsistic world only breeds monsters. :gasp:

WHAT YOU BELIEVE DEPENDS ON HOW YOU FRAME THE EVIDENCE

What about the fact that when Lawrence Krauss' book A Universe from Nothing came out philosophers wasted no time in distancing themselves from Krauss, saying the nothing of physics is not the nothing of philosophy i.e. Krauss failed to answer the philosophical question why is there something rather than nothing? — Agent Smith

Yes. Krauss had to admit that "something" (space, time, matter, energy, laws) must exist (presumably eternally) prior to the ex nihilo emergence of our physical world. I differ with him only in that I think it's necessary to add Math & Mind to that list of pre-existing factors, in order to explain the emergence of logical thinking creatures from an otherwise mindless process. Potential Mind (LOGOS) is the presumptive cause of Actual minds emanating from a substrate of Matter & Energy. :nerd:

PS__Most of those pre-existing factors (space, time, energy, laws, mind, math) are immaterial, hence not subject to Entropy. And Matter itself is an effect of space-time & energy + laws. Hence, subject to reduction into its essential elements. You can guess why Krauss didn't mention Mind & Math (Logic) under the heading of Nothing.

But if a wave-particle duality is mere confusion and not real what then becomes of your BothAnd idea? It's all dressed up with nowhere to go! — Agent Smith

Not true! My BothAnd principle can "go" to both Wave and Particle, and to both sides of a coin. Just not at the same time. It's like Superman & Clark Kent are never seen in the same place at the same time. :joke:

You suggested that a mind could be responsible for creating this Universe, it's your responsibility to make crystal clear the level of personal credence you assign to such a posit. — universeness

If you have the time, I have the text. My website & blog attempt to make "crystal clear" why I have concluded that an intentional First Cause is necessary to explain how a heuristic process (evolution) could produce an effect (sentience) that can conceptualize its own heritage. Bottom line : nothing Actual in the Effect that was not Potentially in the Cause. The leaf stems from the root. :smile:

The EnFormAction Hypothesis :
http://bothandblog3.enformationism.info/page23.html

A computer program is not a happenstance, no. Life in this Universe is happenstance, yes. — universeness

And you know this how? Could the seed of that conclusion have been in the original belief in creative accidents? What you see depends on your frame. Evolution is creative of novelty, not because of random Mutations, but due to functional Selection. A selection is a choice. And, by definition, a choice is not accidental, but intentional. A choice is a Cause. Life happened, not by stance or chance, but by Causation. Barrow & Tipler's Anthropic Cosmological Principle does the math for you. :nerd:

A cause-and-effect relationship is claimed where the following conditions are satisfied: the two events occur at the same time and in the same place; one event immediately precedes the other; the second event appears unlikely to have happened without the first event having occurred.
https://www.oxfordreference.com/view/10.1093/oi/authority.20110803095555997
Note -- Intention (aiming) makes an effect more likely by narrowing the statistical probability. Aimed arrows are statistically more likely to hit a specified target, than random arrows.

Yeah, and theoretical physicists such as Sean Carroll and Alan Guth who favour the many worlds proposal would not refer to the proposal as an ascientific belief and would disagree with Sabine, with all due respect of course. — universeness

Of course. As true believers, they would be offended by the accusation of "ascientific" faith. But Sabine says "show me the evidence" for imaginary worlds or 'verses beyond the one we can test empirically. :wink:

The most likely explanation for this is that no such prime mover has ever existed. — universeness

The Anthropic book actually calculates the likelihood of directional motion without an intentional mover. It's analogous to a pool-cue-ball accidentally putting the eight-ball in a side pocket without intention or aiming. :confused:

I have a mind, so I can. That's why computer programs don't spontaneously appear and that's why the mind of a first cause does not manifest. It has no existence to enable it to. — universeness

Ironically, that's exactly why I concluded that creative ability requires can-do Mind. Your programming mind does not "manifest" to me, except in its effects : the programs themselves are the evidence of the intent. We know the "mind" of the programmer by examining the program. In my example, creative Evolution, which modern programmers are learning to emulate. :yum:

Evolutionary programming :
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolutionary_programming

The latter is based on REAL science, although it could still be wrong, — universeness

Hossenfelder labels Cosmic Inflation theories as "ascientific" because they're non-empirical. It's a hypothetical story to justify a prior opinion. Notice, in the chart below, that Inflation assumes, without evidence, some Cause prior to the Big Bang. Hence external to the "real" universe.

NEGATIVE POINTS in the Time before Time ARE NON-REAL

Trust me, based on the question posed, the fictional deep thought supercomputer gave a shit answer and needs to be reprogrammed or replaced. — universeness

Can your programs calculate the answer to universal questions? If not, maybe they need to be reprogrammed by a Universal Programmer. :joke:

Thanks for the questions & challenges. They help me to weed-out my own self-justifying opinions. :grin:

No, it simply means that a program needs a programmer, it does not then follow that a universe needs a first cause, apart from in your own musings and those who agree with you. — universeness

Your knee-jerk reaction indicates that you have pigeonholed me & my "musings" along with those who you disagree with. Ironically, most of those fellow pigeons think I'm a science-blinded Atheist.

Do you deny that the mind of the programmer is the intentional cause of a computer program? Do you know of programs that cause themselves? Or do you agree with : no cause (intention), no program (plan of action)? Even AI is not able to bootstrap itself to write a program, without some prodding from a curious human who wants to know the answer. I happen to think of Evolution, allegorically, as a program for creating a universe. And some prominent physicists & biologists have a similar idea. My postulated Programmer is a metaphor, not a myth. :nerd:

In what way is this universe 'carefully orchestrated,' when it contains so many redundant objects — universeness

Do you think of the universe as a disorganized & hostile place? If so, you are missing its beautiful organization, and its ability to create living & philosophizing organisms from essentially nothing. Some people have postulated that the world began as a perfect Garden of Eden, but then was ruined by arrogant humans who thought they could manage the garden better.

Instead, I view the universe as beginning from nothing and evolving through eons of lifeless & mindless stages until living & thinking being emerged, and worked their way to the top of the food chain. Moreover, the "orchestration" is still underway, and may be working toward future harmony. Perhaps, by weeding out the discord of grumpy pessimists, among other downers. :joke:

There is grandeur in this view of life,
with its several powers,
having been originally breathed
into a few forms or into one;
and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on
according to the fixed law of gravity,
from so simple a beginning
endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful
have been, and are being, evolved.
___Charles Darwin

I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it. (Albert Einstein, 1954)

I believe in Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with the fates and actions of human beings. (Albert Einstein)

“The most important decision we make is whether we believe we live in a friendly or hostile universe.”
___Albert Einstein

Well, to do so is to surrender to woo woo proposals and a god of the gaps approach to science. — universeness

No. To use the metaphor of a programmer for evolution is to accept modern science, instead of old myths. Which were the best guesses of wise men in an age before theoretical Philosophy gave birth to empirical science. Yet, some of today's scientists still fill the gaps in knowledge -- "beyond what we can observe" with "woo woo proposals" (mathematical myths), such as hypothetical Multiverses, Many Worlds, and something-from-nothing Inflation. Theoretical physicist Sabine Hossenfelder calls such speculative-stories-sans-evidence "ascientific beliefs". :cool:

"I am saying that what's beyond what we can observe is purely a matter of belief".
"This isn't a particularly difficult argument, so I find it stunning that my physics colleagues can't seem to comprehend it"
___Hossenfelder, Existential Physics

Why did this mind you refer to, need us or the universe at all? — universeness

I have no idea what prompted the Prime Programmer to write the algorithms for an evolving world. She didn't include an Easter Egg to explain Her motives. Why do you write your programs? What is it you "need"? Could you program without an imaginative Mind? Or, is it because you want an answer to a question that can only be found by running the experiment? Universal & Existential questions are of the open-ended type : no short-cuts

I'm not interested in "creationist mind fables" or inflationist myths -- such as ballooning of a vast universe from a dimensionless mathematical quantum fluctuation. My philosophical curiosity is the same mystery that prompted Plato to postulate a logical First Cause to fill the Origin Gap in his understanding of how & why we are here to wonder about such impractical questions. And curious Cosmologists are still questing to this very day. :smile:

"Take author Douglas Adams’s popular 1979 science-fiction novel The Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy, the first in a series of five. Toward the end of the book, the supercomputer Deep Thought reveals that the answer to the “Great Question” of “Life, the Universe and Everything” is “forty-two.”
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/for-math-fans-a-hitchhikers-guide-to-the-number-42/

which materialists are cold-hearted and don’t believe qualia like love are important. Can you name one specific thinker and some of his/her writing? — GLEN willows

I was kidding with Agent Smith, and he knows what I was talking about . . . . and it wasn't you. No offense intended. :smile:

The non-materialist's impossible burden is to explain ... the difference betwixt the immaterial and nothing. Mayhaps that is what non-materialism is all about - a study of nothing! — Agent Smith

Yes. Non-materialists are aware that such mundane non-sense as Love & other abstractions are physically nothing. But unlike cold-hearted materialists, they feel that immaterial non-things are meta-physically important. Sometimes more dear than Life itself, another nothing. :wink:

PS__The vacuum of space is literally nothing, but it has been found, from studies of the nothing between material things, to have enormous Potential for energy, including the power to push space itself to expand & accelerate into the emptiness beyond the material universe.

First let me confess I don't fully understand what you'rr trying to get at.
That outta the way, my understanding of the multiverse, why it was posited, involves the resloution of the contradiction Schrödinger's cat being both dead and alive. An additional universe is necessary so that in one the cat is alive and in the other it is dead. — Agent Smith

Again, you have put your finger on the reason why you don't understand the BothAnd concept. Schrodinger's thought experiment was not intended to be taken literally, but metaphorically. A physical cat that is both dead and alive, would indeed be a paradox. But the idea of something that seems to be both a wave and a particle is simply confusion, not contradiction. If you shift your perspective a bit, you can see that the wave function describes a Potential statistical state, not an Actual physical object. And the act of measurement does not magically split the universe into two miniverses. That's simply an as-if metaphor that some people take literally. Perhaps because they don't grok the difference between mathematical statistical averages, and actual physical objects.

Superposition is an imaginary state described by mathematics, while Measured Position is a physical location in the only universe we can take the measure of in standard real world units. Physicist Sabine Hossenfelder sums-it-up with, it's an example of "what can go wrong with using intuitive language for abstract math . . . . And that's what superposition is : a sum . . . . So where did all the fabled weirdness go?". Most, if not all apparent paradoxes result from taking imaginative metaphors as descriptions of reality. Metaphors are useful in Science and Philosophy, as thought experiments, but they are not actual physical observations. Using the BothAnd method, you can look at both aspects of a paradox, to determine which is Ideal, and which is Real. Or as Hossenfelder puts it : ascientific or scientific. Speculative philosophy, and conjectural metaphors, are ascientific, until proven otherwise. Not necessarily wrong, just unproven, and perhaps unproveable. :smile:


Ideality vs Reality :
Matter & Literal (physical) exist in Reality, but Mind & Metaphors exist in Ideality
1. Materialists deny the existence of such immaterial ideals, but recent developments in Quantum theory have forced them to accept the concept of “virtual” particles in a mathematical “field”, that are not real, but only potential, until their unreal state is collapsed into reality by a measurement or observation. To measure is to extract meaning into a mind. [Measure, from L. Mensura, to know; from mens-, mind]
http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page11.html

PS__Like Yin-Yang, the BothAnd philosophy does not require you to accept Black as White, or Evil as Good, It merely suggests that you look for the moderate gray or OK area in between the extremes.

Even though being an Eliminative Materialist didn't make me many friends. — GLEN willows

I have no formal philosophical training, and I read mostly the works of philosophical scientists, instead of professional philosophers. So I had to look-up the term "eliminative materialist". I think you should get a positive reception from many Materialist posters on TPF. And, although I am not a Materialist of any prefix, I can agree with Churchland's assertion (stating the obvious) that "beliefs are not ontologically real" Such mental states are, however, ontologically Ideal, in the sense that they exist as metaphysical*1 concepts not physical objects. I don't understand how anyone posting on a philosophy forum could deny the importance of immaterial*2 ideas to humans, and perhaps to some animals.

Homo Sapiens is differentiated from other mammals in its use of imagination to "feel" things that are not real (e.g. Love), and to "see" things that are not yet real (e.g. Possibilities & Probabilities), and to "know" things they have never personally experienced. Such non-physical subjects are not studied by Chemists & Physicists, but by Psychologists & Philosophers. Ironically, there is a segment of posters on TPF that seem to be embarrassed to engage in such trivial pursuits, that cannot be verified or falsified, but only reasoned & argued. It would seem to be a paradoxical waste of time for an Eliminative Materialist to engage in the exchange of unreal Ideas & Opinions on a disembodied Forum that does not exist in any particular place & time. :smile:

PS__Maybe there's more to EM, than the Wiki article indicates. I assume it's a reaction to some specific ideas & opinions, that I'm not aware of.

*1. Metaphysical :
Literally, not physical, hence not subject to the laws of physics.
I'm not referring to religious Theology, but to secular Philosophy.

*2. Immaterial : literally, not made of matter.
But ideas, & feelings & opinions & beliefs are important to their holders, even if they can't see & touch them. So, why denigrate them with a dismissive "eliminative" philosophical attitude? Such "attitudes" are also un-real & immaterial & ascientific (outside the purview of physical science).

Just as valid to 'infer,' no first cause required, .
My programs work as soon as I choose 'Run' in my chosen editor. Well, after I fix all the syntax errors and the runtime errors. — universeness

That inference would only be "valid", if you have good reasons to assume that our universe is just one of many, or a single instance in an eternal cycle of universe creation & execution. But your own example illustrates why a carefully orchestrated program needs a First Cause (Chooser) to create flow-charts & algorithms, then to push the "Enter" button, to start it running. It may be conceivable for an advanced AI program to create & execute a sub-program of its own. But in an infinite Multiverse, who was the AI who designed the master program of the programmer of circular sub-programs? Eternal Entropy -- what a waste of energy!

It's easy to imagine a fictional beginningless & endless cycle of cycles [see below], but in the real world we have zero experience of such a perpetual motion device. It would have to be self-existent, operate with no outside input, and pull itself up by its own bootstraps to get off-the ground. Except for the pointless reiteration, that sounds like a description of an old-fashioned god. So, why not just call that Perpetual Program a god simulation? Oh, I see, it's not supposed to be a sentient or purposeful or progressive goal-oriented process. More like adolescent drivers drifting & spinning for no good reason : just round & round & round, ad infinitum. Does that make sense to you? :halo:

PS__If the hypothetical First Cause wanted to give its World Game avatars some free-will, it would have to offer some challenges to keep it interesting. So, what the survival-seeking characters experience as syntax or runtime "errors", might be a feature not a fault.

It seems that mass-energy is convertible to spacetime. Does that argue for monism, the idea that the universe is an expression of one entity, an entity that underlies mass-energy and spacetime? — Art48

I haven't watched the video, and I don't know exactly how "mass-energy is converted into space-time". Yet, the notion of "conversion" of energy into different forms sounds plausible in view of my own understanding of "Generic Information"*1. From that philosophical perspective, everything in the universe is a unique instance of the universal power to enform (to shape or create). This is not a common conventional idea, but it is derived from the modern understanding that a> Mass (matter) is a form of Energy, and b> that Energy is a form of Information*2, and c> that Information is the content of Consciousness.

Based on that equation of Mind & Matter & Energy, I have developed a philosophical thesis which concludes that the Big Bang was a creative act of En-formation, and that Evolution is the process of creating a world from scratch, and that EnFormAction*3 is the active principle of Causation. Since Matter requires Space, and Change requires Time, space-time was perhaps the first Form to emerge from the Singularity. All other aspects of our current world, including Life & Mind, are the result of on-going formation of specific novelties from original general Potential (latent energy).

However, since thermodynamic Energy has a natural tendency toward disorder (Entropy), the fact that Life & Mind emerged from downhill Evolution implies that a countervailing force allows for pockets of order within the general trend of dissipation of creative Energy. Ironically, scientists call that positive force "Negentropy". But I prefer to think of it as a form of Generic Information that I call "Enformy"*4.

This is, of course, not a scientific theory, because it speculates on events of a pre-bang era. So, it's merely a philosophical thought-experiment, But we can infer that the Singularity was programmed by a Mind (First Cause). Hence, it "argues for Monism", due to the logical necessity for a unique "entity" with the power to En-form a world from nothing-but the power to enform (EnFormAction). It's also not a religious doctrine, because the only reliable revelation from that presumptive monistic entity is the physical world in which we live, and wonder how & why? :smile:



*1. Generic Information :
Information is the Promethean power of transformation. In the form of kinetic Energy, it is also the cause of all change. Information is Generic in the sense of generating all forms from a formless pool of possibility : such as the Platonic Forms.
http://bothandblog2.enformationism.info/page29.html

*2. Is information the fifth state of matter? :
In 2019, physicist Melvin Vopson of the University of Portsmouth proposed that information is equivalent to mass and energy, existing as a separate state of matter, a conjecture known as the mass-energy-information equivalence principle.
https://www.zmescience.com/science/news-science/information-energy-mass-equivalence/

*3. EnFormAction :
Ententional Causation. A proposed metaphysical law of the universe that causes random interactions between forces and particles to produce novel & stable arrangements of matter & energy. It’s the creative force (aka : Divine Will) of the axiomatic eternal deity that, for unknown reasons, programmed a Singularity to suddenly burst into our reality from an infinite source of possibility. AKA : The creative power of Evolution; the power to enform; Logos; Change.
http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page8.html

*4. Enformy :
In the Enformationism theory, Enformy is a hypothetical, holistic, metaphysical, natural trend or force, that counteracts Entropy & Randomness to produce complexity & progress. [ see post 63 for graph ]
1. I'm not aware of any "supernatural force" in the world. But my Enformationism theory postulates that there is a meta-physical force behind Time's Arrow and the positive progress of evolution. Just as Entropy is sometimes referred to as a "force" causing energy to dissipate (negative effect), Enformy is the antithesis, which causes energy to agglomerate (additive effect).
2. Of course, neither of those phenomena is a physical Force, or a direct Cause, in the usual sense. But the term "force" is applied to such holistic causes as a metaphor drawn from our experience with physics.
http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page8.html

So, you mean to say that all so-called quantum weirdness goes away once you approach the quatum world from a holistic point-of-view. You made an interesting point when you said that the results of the double-slit experiment makes complete sense if we consider electrons as both a wave and particle. I guess this ties into your BothAnd idea. Interesting stuff except that from a classical logic POV, its a contradiction, what's a wave isn't a particle and vice versa. How do you respond? — Agent Smith

I wouldn't be quite so bold. But, if you imagine the Superposition postulate as an integrated Holistic state, instead of an undecided lonely particle, you can reconcile both before & after in terms of Potential & Actual. Some people have difficulty making a distinction between specific "Potential" & general "Possible". "Possible" only means that some future state is not impossible, perhaps because it doesn't violate any known laws of nature. But "potential" implies that the future state is not only possible, but statistically likely to occur. That's because the particle's historical path can be projected into the future, to see if its trajectory passes through a particular future point on the curve. Like any conjecture about the future, unanticipated forces could alter the path. That's why statistical predictions are not divinely-inspired prophecies, but merely mathematically-calculated guesses.

However, some quantum physicists took the mysterious notion of Superposition to imply multiple simultaneous levels of Reality. But that's not what BothAnd means. It simply says that in order to see the whole truth, you need to look at both sides of the same coin. That's not a logical contradiction, but a complementary perspective. And the "looking" is mental, not physical. As the name implies, the BothAnd worldview looks for the whole truth, not just the part I'm most familiar with, or that suits my expectations. Viewed that way, in hypothetical Superposition there is no Actual particle, only the reasonable expectation (Potential) for a future manifestation of mathematical Probability. Comprenez-vous?

While discussing Many Worlds & Multiverse & Inflation theories, physicist Sabine Hossenfelder remarked on the belief that "all possible values exist somewhere in a multiverse". She pointed out that we don't know, and cannot know, those "possible" values, because they are not Actual values. Hence, such imaginary extrapolations from Superposition, are "pure conjecture". Those "beliefs" are not necessarily wrong, but merely "ascientific". That term also applies to any Philosophical conjectures that are not grounded in falsifiable physical facts. And it includes my own speculations on the possible Cause of pre-Big-Bang initial conditions, that limited the future path of evolution for a world governed by restrictive laws and definitive constants.

The BothAnd worldview has a place for both Science and Philosophy. But some people have difficulty distinguishing between freewheeling Philosophy and buttoned-down Science. Philosophy is only limited by Logic, while Science is restricted by Evidence. So, in Hossenfelder's term, philosophical conjectures are not necessarily wrong, but merely "ascientific". However, the best scientists & philosophers (e. g. Einstein and Hossenfelder herself) look at both sides. But they are careful not to be misled by their own illusions. :cool:



Both Sides Now
I've looked at clouds from both sides now
From up and down and still somehow
It's cloud illusions I recall
I really don't know clouds at all
___Joni Mitchell

Is the multiverse science fiction only? Sabina seems to think so. — TiredThinker

If you feel gracious, you could label Many Worlds and Multiverse theories" as what-if "thought experiments". But, a lot of science fiction probably starts out that way. However, Some prominent scientists seem to take those conjectures seriously, as valid interpretations of Big Bang & Quantum paradoxes. Perhaps, because they see no other viable alternatives to the religious implications of a Creation Event, and an upward-pointing vector of Evolution & Time. However, Sabine prefers to call a spade a spade, and an imaginary reality an article of faith.

Yet, in Existential Physics, she does say, as a sop to serious scientists, that "it's a science-compatible belief system" But, after asking "are they real?", she replies : "unobservable universes are by definition unnecessary to describe what we observe". So, at the bottom line, she derisively labels MV, the "MultiWorse". Yet, she then adds, "you are welcome . . . to believe that copies of you exist, if you want, but there is no evidence this is actually correct". [my emphasis] :smile:

. guided by natural laws and initial conditions toward some ultimate Ontological State. If we could do the math, we might even be able to compute that Final State. — Gnomon
What a reductionist thing to say? :smirk: — 180 Proof

No. It was a conditional (if) statement. A confident Reductionist (see below) would say that, given complete information, we can compute the future. But a diffident Holist could say that we can't possibly compute the destiny of the universe, because it's not that simple. We can't even predict the weather more than a week ahead.

That's because the evolutionary system of Nature does not just replicate initial conditions, it produces Novelty. Where, in the inferred laws & measured constants, do we find any implications for Life or Mind? Perhaps, the secret sauce is hidden, not in fine-tuning of abstract numbers, but in the intention behind the enumeration. And a positive inclination may be inferred from the direction chosen by Natural Selection : not toward maximum Entropy, but toward second-law-denying Complexity & Integration. So far, after 14 billion cycles, it's obvious that the computation of those pre-set conditions has not "added up to nothing".

Speaking of intended consequences, the quest of Science is to "know the mind of God", as Stephen Hawking expressed it. He was confident that we would attain that enigmatic knowledge by the end of the 21st century. But Scientific American writer, John Horgan, interviewed a wide range of scientists for his book, The End of Science, in which he concluded that "the scientific age is in its twilight, because we have already discovered all the major things about the world there is to know". So, which prophet do you think is correct : the reductive optimist, or the show-me-the-money pessimist?

Pick your numbers now, and the lucky winner of the God-Mind lottery will be revealed in a few billion earth years, give or take. Meanwhile, the improbable emergence of Man-Mind seems to be the high-point of blind rambling meta-morphing Evolution, to date. :joke:


“Stephen Hawking said that his quest is simply "trying to understand the mind of God".”
― Stephen Hawking

“My prediction is that we will know the mind of God by the end of this century." According to Hawking, who died in March, the universe is the ultimate free lunch and if the “universe adds up to nothing, then you don't need a God to create it”.
https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/magazines/panache/theres-no-god-no-one-directs-our-fate-says-stephen-hawking-in-final-book/articleshow/66273272.cms?from=mdr

“No attempt to explain the world, either scientifically or theologically, can be considered successful until it accounts for the paradoxical conjunction of the temporal and the atemporal, of being and becoming. And no subject conforms this paradoxical conjunction more starkly than the origin of the universe.”
― Paul Davies, The Mind of God : The Scientific Basis for a Rational World

PS__No attempt by 180 to present a philosophical counter-argument, just a supercilious "smirk". :smirk:

The only book I read that discusses the fine-tuning argument is Martin Rees' Just Six Numbers - the gist of the book is that 6 physical constants have values that make life possible with very little margin for error. Even the smallest deviation from measured values would mean a lifeless, barren universe. — Agent Smith

Yes. But those abstract ratios have little meaning for the average person. It's the metaphorical interpretation that makes the difference. In that case, someone already inclined toward the concept that the world is not a barren hostile environment, but a milieu favorable for human flourishing, will tend to interpret the ambiguous evidence as a "glass half full". Yet, someone else, who already feels the world is antagonistic to their own personal flourishing, may logically infer a universe "going to hell in a hand cart". As you said, it only takes the "smallest deviation" (in interpretation) to turn a positive value to negative. That's why soft metaphorical Philosophy, unlike hard empirical Science, is always debatable. So, each of us has to make his own personal interpretation. Mine leans toward "half full", but is technically BothAnd.

As for the limits of reductionism, — Agent Smith

This very morning, I read in Existential Physics, that "without quantum mechanics, the laws of nature are deterministic". And, I might add : Reductive. Yet, when we look at the foundations of physics, Determinism & Reductionism seem to transform (illogically) into Probability & Holism. To which, Einstein objected that (his classical) "God doesn't play dice". In her book, Hossenfelder discusses the "double slit" experiment as the crux of quantum "weirdness". But it's merely a matter of interpretation. For instance, if you (reductively) imagine a single particle passing through two slits at the same time, it doesn't make classical (reductive) sense. But, if instead you imagine the particle entangled in a holistic ocean of statistical probability, then it looks like normal wave behavior. So, the paradoxes of Quantum Weirdness arise due to the conflicting metaphors we imagine, not from any contradictions in reality.

I subscribe to some form of emergentism which to my reckoning is the position that an additional ontological level arises from but is more than the level below it, complete with its own set of laws. — Agent Smith

Yes. Those "ontological levels" are metaphors for emergent behaviors in physics. In my thesis, I use the term "Phase Transition" to illustrate how a continuous process can seem to be a sudden transformation, from one state-of-being (e.g. fluid water) to something with completely different observed properties (crystalline ice or ethereal gas). The transformation is not magic, but merely emergent. And Emergence is a holistic (systemic) phenomenon. The (reductive) parts (H2O) remain the same, but their (holistic) system behavior is objectively different.

From Hossenfelder's discussion, it occurred to me that spooky-entanglement-at-a-distance, and holistic-ontological-level-superposition are not so weird, if we just view them as descriptions of mathematical sums instead of physical particles. To be specific, the Wave Function merely describes the probable future state (ontological level) of an integrated system. A "function' is just a mathematical statement of a (holistic) group interrelationship. By using The Calculus method, we compute the sum of all points below a curve via the technique of Integration. The individual points are still there, but they have been integrated into a system, from which we can extract an average (holistic) value. I suppose this is also the mathematical basis of Integrated Information Theory.

What does all this have to do with the OP? Merely, that some view the Big Bang, and subsequent Evolution, as the behavior of isolated particles, instead of an integrated system. The particles may behave (reductively) randomly, but the (holistic) process behaves as an interrelated system, guided by natural laws and initial conditions toward some ultimate Ontological State. If we could do the math, we might even be able to compute that Final State. :nerd:

The fine tuning argument amounts to saying that if things were different they would not be as they are. — Fooloso4

I'm not sure which "fine tuning argument" you are referring to, but the Anthropic Cosmological argument makes a completely different assertion : “mathematical physics possesses many unique properties that are necessary prerequisites for the existence of rational information-processing and observers similar to ourselves”. If that is a true statement, then "if things were different", Fooloso4 would not be here to point-out the circularity of some religious arguments. :smile:


“The Anthropic Principle may be a remarkable starting point, allowing us to place constraints on the Universe's properties owing to the fact of our existence, but that is not a scientific solution in and of itself”.
____Ethan Seigel
Yes. It's an unprovable philosophical postulate for rational rumination.

Anthropic Cosmological Principle :
In the foreword, prominent physicist John Archibald Wheeler summarized the philosophical meaning of this scientific data : “It is not only that man is adapted to the universe . . .”, as implied by Darwin’s Theory of Evolution, but that, “the universe is adapted to man.” He goes on to assert the “central point of the anthropic principle”, that “a life-giving factor² lies at the centre of the whole machinery and design of the world.” He made that assertion, despite knowing that “design” is a dirty word in the vocabulary of most scientists
http://bothandblog7.enformationism.info/page10.html

For the 'ontology of information'[/quote]

My last post on the Quantum Mechanics . . . etc thread*1 is relevant to the OP of this thread on Fine Tuning. It offers a philosophical postulate for how the "fine-tuning" information of the Big Bang could have gotten into the initial Singularity. As a thought experiment : What kind of "Programmer" do you suppose could have encoded those set-up criteria into a pre-space-time register made of nothing but Potential? :chin:

PS__The OP seemed to be pointing out a flawed assumption in the biblical description of creation, not so much about "fine tuning" per se, but about divine intentions.


*1. Quantum Mechanics, Monism, Isness, Meditation
<< Most physicists, though, treat the original Singularity either 1> as-if it just accidentally happened, "something from nothing for no reason", or 2> as-if it was just a recycling of old worlds through the garbage grinder of pre-historic Black Holes. But in my Enformationism thesis, I give it a philosophical definition, based on Information Theory. There, I treat that pin-point-of-potential as-if it was the DNA from which space-time was created, and then filled with the stuff we see around us." >>
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/738021

Ontology : How did the world come to be? How did Information come to be?

Registers are a type of computer memory, a container for information.

The degree of fine-tuning in our universe — and others :
Both the fundamental constants that describe the laws of physics and the cosmological parameters that determine the properties of our universe must fall within a range of values in order for the cosmos to develop astrophysical structures and ultimately support life.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0370157319300511

ANTHROPIC ASSUMPTIONS :
A. We can identify which natural properties are necessary or compatible for life
B. Evolution follows natural laws and inherent limitations set by initial conditions & constants
C. The element Carbon, only produced in certain stars, is essential to life, but is rare (.025%) on Earth
D. The initial conditions of our universe were selected from all possible logical (mental) or actual (multiverse) combinations
E. The complex pathway to Life has a low statistical probability
F. An unlikely occurrence is not necessarily a miracle, but must have some ultimate Cause
http://bothandblog7.enformationism.info/page10.html

Shannon was not in the least bit (pun unintended) concerned about philosophical information (what information means to philosophers) if you catch my drift. — Agent Smith

Exactly! Shannon was not an experimenting knowledge-seeking scientist, he was a pragmatic solution-seeking engineer. So his concern was about as far from feckless philosophy as you can get. Moreover, once-dominant Philosophy -- among intellectuals at least -- has been plagued with an inferiority*1 complex --- ever since younger sibling Science has become richer and more famous. Nevertheless, even some scientists still see a need for the wider scope of Philosophy to keep near-sighted Science from straying into dangerous territory.

The author of my current book, Sabine Hossenfelder, is a theoretical physicist, hence closer to a philosopher than her hands-on fellows, smashing atoms in a cyclotron. Speaking as a credentialed scientist though, she says "philosophy is where our knowledge ends, and the scientific method is no exception". So, philosophy picks-up where science cannot go. For example the fine-tuning "argument", although based on scientific evidence, is not a scientific theory. And beyond presenting a long list of coincidental dimensionless numbers as evidence, it may never be fully quantified. In other words, it's a philosophical "argument" not a scientific "theory".

In her interview with prominent physicist David Deutsch, The Fabric of Reality, they discuss the "limits of Reductionism", both scientific "theory reductionism" and philosophical "ontological reductionism". For example, he asks "if the atoms can't be subdivided, how come they have different properties? . . . . there has to be an underlying structure". The "structure" he's referring to is not physical, but meta-physical, and the "properties" are inferred Qualia, not observed Quanta. That's why, in the 21st century, the fundamental "atom" is portrayed as a universal foggy field of influence instead of a compact condensed particle.

Deutsch himself has proposed a "Constructor Theory"*2 to explain the concept of a universal Turing computer. But reductive opponents reject the idea, mostly because it seems to imply deterministic teleology. And that's also the scientific objection to the philosophical argument for "fine tuning" of initial conditions, which seem to be "programmed" to evolve living & thinking creatures. Of course, there is no reductive scientific way to prove that theory, because you would have to go outside the universe to look at it objectively. But philosophers do that kind of generalizing & universalizing all the time. They just can't prove it or quantify it.

Although Hossenfelder carefully avoids using touchy terms like "Holism" and "Metaphysics", the whole point of this chapter is to reveal the philosophically restrictive limits of Reductionism & Physicalism. Apparently, Deutsch is not quite so careful, because he says, in summing up : "and this is my view of the role of particle physics, reductionism, and holism". [my emphasis] The advantage of quantitative reductive methods is that it produces saleable products : physical stuff with added value : like a foldable phone screen, made possible by lab-laboring scientists. Sadly, the only product of qualia-questing pencil-pushing Philosophy is life-enhancing Wisdom. :nerd:


*1. Why exactly is philosophy considered inferior to science in terms of predicting power? :
The goal of philosophy is NOT predictive power.
This is another of those presumptuous questions one often finds on Quora.
One might as well ask, “Why exactly is music considered inferior to mathematics in terms of enjoyment-potential?
https://www.quora.com/Why-exactly-is-philosophy-considered-inferior-to-science-in-terms-of-predicting-power

*2. Constructor Theory :
"The goal of constructor theory is to rewrite the laws of physics in terms of general principles that take the form of counterfactuals"
https://www.quantamagazine.org/with-constructor-theory-chiara-marletto-invokes-the-impossible-20210429/
"Constructor theory 'has a radically different mode of explanation, where the main objects are physical transformations, or tasks.' "
https://turingchurch.net/thoughts-on-david-deutschs-constructor-theory-7be91dca4a92
"Transformations" are the result of en-formation. Which is how Generic Information functions as causal Energy. "Counterfactuals" are hypothetical statements that are not actual, but serve to express a philosophical concept.

Well, as far as I can tell, your theory hasn't been quantified and unfortunately what John Collier, who you quoted, is bang on target in re Shannon's theory of information. I feel it too! — Agent Smith

Quantification & mathematical modeling are necessary for acceptance of theories of physical (material) science. But, Enformationism is primarily a theory of meta-physical (mental) science. Shannon was able to quantify his theory of Information by ignoring its meta-physical meaning. That's useful for physical transmission of abstract symbols -- like numbers & letters -- but useless for conveying meaning & feeling. You understand the real-world-referrent of words typed-out on your screen, only because you already know their semiotic significance. Shannon's symbols only remind you of what you have stored away as personal connotation.

Shannon's quantified Information left meaning behind, and only transmitted conventional coded symbols, like Morse Code -- learned by education, not from electrons. Anyone who can't understand the philosophical significance of that difference, shouldn't be posting on a philosophy forum. But, I suspect you're just being swayed by the aggressive physical-philosophy-faction on the forum. They believe that metaphysical Philosophy has been made obsolete by physical Science. And yet, here we are, debating ideas that don't add-up to a round number. Information must overcome uncertainty, not with numerical superiority, but with conceptual understanding.

The closest anyone has come to quantifying Information theory is Tononi's Integrated Information Theory. If you want numbers, look at his website. But, the numbers he comes up with are associated with the physical underpinnings of Consciousness, not with Awareness itself. The ding an sich of Consciousness will always remain in the realm of noumena, not of numbers. However, Generic Information is not limited to immaterial Ideas & Thoughts; it also crosses over into Actions & Things, and Mind & Life. Which makes it difficult to pin-down to a traditional scientific category, and almost impossible to quantify. On a scale of 1 to 10, how do you feel about "The Fine-Tuning Argument"?

I'm an amateur philosopher, with no academic connections. So, my personal "theory" has not been submitted for official vetting. It is only offered for free online, and in forum posts, for non-numerical philosophical critique : the Socratic Dialog, not Mathematical Calculus. As befits The Philosophy Forum, it deals with Qualia, not Quanta. The only criteria is whether it makes sense to you. Anyway, you're not wasting my time. You ask good challenging questions. That's the whole point of posting on a philosophical forum. And we don't get graded on a curve. :nerd:



Integrated Information Theory is one of the leading models of consciousness. It aims to describe both the quality and quantity of the conscious experience of a physical system, such as the brain, in a particular state.
https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fams.2020.602973/full
Note -- IIT has had more success with Quantifying the physical system, than for Qualifying the meaning or feeling of the information.

In philosophy, a noumenon is a posited object or an event that exists independently of human sense and/or perception. The term noumenon is generally used in contrast with, or in relation to, the term phenomenon, which refers to any object of the senses. ___Wikipedia

CAN YOU GROK THIS SHANNON INFORMATION?
WHERE'S THE MEANING? HOW DOES IT MAKE YOU FEEL?

Interesting to learn of the various ways the word Singularity is used. In the simplest math it's just where a denominator equals zero. But in the complex plane the function f(z)=e1z is a world of trouble for
z=0 — jgill

Yes. The Big Bang Singularity has a simple mathematical definition : to paraphrase, it's where finite math goes off the charts, to infinity and beyond. In the form of an asymptotic curve, the historical trace of space-time evolution approaches-but-never-reaches infinity. Beyond that finite curve, we have no access to factual information. Hence, we can only guess about the Time before Space-Time.

For variety, Kutzweil gives the notion of "Singularity" a technological twist, in which a brave new future world will be created by smart machines. Most physicists, though, treat the original Singularity either 1> as-if it just accidentally happened, "something from nothing for no reason", or 2> as-if it was just a recycling of old worlds through the garbage grinder of pre-historic Black Holes. But in my Enformationism thesis, I give it a philosophical definition, based on Information Theory. There, I treat that pin-point-of-potential as-if it was the DNA from which space-time was created, and then filled with the stuff we see around us.

The size of the hypothetical Singularity was sub-Planck-scale. So, it couldn't possibly contain any space-occupying matter. Yet it could conceivably contain non-spatial Energy in the form of Latent Potential. And it could possibly contain mathematical information in the form of a computer algorithm, encoded with instructions for evolving a world from scratch. Does that make any sense to you? :smile:


Potential energy is the latent energy in an object at rest, and is one of two forms of energy. The other form, kinetic energy, is the energy expressed by an object in motion. Potential energy is a core concept of any physics-based discussion, and one of the most influential variables in the formulas that describe our known universe.
https://www.livescience.com/65548-potential-energy.html

Latent : (of a quality or state) existing but not yet developed or manifest; hidden or concealed.
https://languages.oup.com/google-dictionary-en/

Singularity :
A singularity is literally something unique or unusual. As a mathematical concept it is an object that is undefined due to its proximity to infinity. For Systems Theory a Singularity is a tipping point where a small change can cause a large effect. In physical Cosmology, it is the hypothetical mathematical point of infinite density before quantum fluctuations caused the Big Bang that created the Universe.
1. In Enformationism theory, the initial singularity was a mathematical formula or equation encoded with information & instructions for creating the physical universe from meta-physical Potential, equivalent to Platonic Forms.
http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page18.html