Yeah. I'm reading that. Not so impressed.
There's a trend for engineers and physicist to move in to philosophy. What I've noticed is that they at first suppose that they have the answer to an age-old philosophical issue; they present this to the community, and are taken aback that it is not just accepted. Often, what happens is that they have only a superficial grasp of the issue, and so are not seeing the full breadth of the issue.
I'll have more to say when I finish Hoffman. — Banno

Don't take the title of the book too literally. It was intended to be provocative. Hoffman said that he began as a "naive realist". But after years of research into perception & conception, he has evolved to a more nuanced philosophical view of reality --- a virtual reality. He's another pragmatic scientist, who was forced by the direction of the data to "move into philosophy" : Ontology & Epistemology. So back to the question of this thread : is it a bad thing for serious scientists to dabble in "trivial" philosophy? Is philosophy the underachieving poor relation of science?

The video linked below might "impress" you more than the book. A writer can present his views in a logical linear manner. But, when challenged man-to-man & face-to-face, a "superficial grasp of the issue" might begin to unravel to reveal kinks in the logic. Michael Shermer is a science-defending skeptic by trade, and few people can go toe-to-toe with him and come out with their dignity intact. :smile:

SKEPTIC interview with Hoffman :
https://www.skeptic.com/michael-shermer-show/donald-hoffman-case-against-reality-why-evolution-hid-truth-from-our-eyes/

"take it seriously, but not literally"

As I see it Kant doesn't offer the thing-in-itself as an explanation of anything, other than to point out that if something appears it seems to follows that there must be something which appears. and we seem to have no reason to believe that that which appears is the exactly the same as its appearance, or even anything at all like it. — Janus

...and no reason to think that it might be other than it appears. Kant is just using language badly. — Banno

Hoffman sheds new light on the old ding an sich question : evolution, via conditional survival, has taught us to treat "appearances" as-if they are the real thing. If you follow his evidence and reasoning, it should make sense. But, if you judge it by common sense, it may sound like non-sense. :smile:

The Evolutionary Argument Against Reality :
The cognitive scientist Donald Hoffman uses evolutionary game theory to show that our perceptions of an independent reality must be illusions.
https://www.quantamagazine.org/the-evolutionary-argument-against-reality-20160421/

So what makes them informative? Well, when they have a use. So this view is mote sympathetic to Hossenfelder, that if a theory can't be checked against the world, can't be made use of, then it amounts to little. — Banno

Hossenfelder is/was an empirical scientist, and she insists that "Physicists must stop doing metaphysics"*1. Ironically, the same warning could apply to this forum : Philosophers should stop pretending to do Physics. Science is the search for practical knowledge that has a pragmatic "use" in the real world (e.g. food & clothing). But philosophy, by definition, is a search for abstract "wisdom" (e.g. to mature our minds). So, the "use" (purpose) of Wisdom is Discernment or Judgment : "ability to reach intelligent conclusions".

Both approaches (exploring outer & inner worlds) can be "informative" and useful, but Science is supposed to use its information to navigate the Real world of Nature, and Philosophy uses its wisdom to negotiate the Ideal world of human Culture. Is natural information (facts) more "informative" than inter-personal information (beliefs & values)? Is putting a man on Mars a practical "use" of Science? Is the Search for Extra-Terrestrial Intelligence (SETI) a pragmatic "use" of scientific knowledge, or is it feckless Philosophy? Is Cosmology "informative" or merely a vain attempt to see the world from a divine perspective? :wink:

*1. "Don't confuse science with philosophy".
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mCZh4VE0k-0

As for Kant, there's been some developments in philosophy over the last two hundred years. You wouldn't think so looking around here, but that's part of the oddity of these fora. — Banno

Yes, but this thread applies Kant's 400 year old antinomies to 21st century Cosmology : Philosophical Science and/or Metaphysical Physics? And the jam-fingered people quantum-tunneling through the imaginary wall between pragmatic physics & idealistic metaphysics are the professional physicists that Hossenfelder shakes her mommy-finger at*1.

Hence, the topic of this thread*2. Should we try to prohibit (legislate) Theoretical Scientists from practicing Theoretical Philosophy, or vice-versa*3? Is it even possible to completely separate Natural Philosophy from General Philosophy : separation of powers ; non-overlapping magisteria? 2500 years ago Aristotle divided his encyclopedia of Nature into observational (physics) and theoretical (metaphysics) volumes. And we are still trying pretend that human knowledge must be either utilitarian or irrational, with no middle ground? :nerd:


*2. Transcendental Cosmology :
What are your thoughts on existential Transcendence? Is it irrational to imagine the unknowable "What-If" beyond the partly known "What-Is"? Should we "fall-down & prostrate"? or just "shut-up & calculate"? Or is it reasonable for speculative Philosophers & holistic Cosmologists daring to venture into the "Great Beyond" where pragmatic Scientists "fear to tread"? ___original post

*3. Einstein's Quest to 'Know God's Thoughts'
"In 1925, Einstein went on a walk with a young student named Esther Salaman. As they wandered, he shared his core guiding intellectual principle: "I want to know how God created this world. I'm not interested in this or that phenomenon, in the spectrum of this or that element. I want to know His thoughts; the rest are just details."
The phrase "God's thoughts" is a delightfully apt metaphor for the ultimate goal of modern physics,"
https://www.livescience.com/65628-theory-of-everything-millennia-away.html

It's not merely a grammatical matter... — Janus
Underestimating grammar's capacity to mislead is the source of metaphysics, don't you think? — Banno

Perhaps. But overestimating the proper scope of Physics might also have bad consequences. Blocking access to metaphysical ideas would turn Philosophy into Empirical Physics --- and by what authority?. Would Physical Philosophy be a desirable alternative to the current unverifiable & unregulated metaphysical speculations of Philosophers & Cosmologists?

Grammar is merely the structure of language, while Semantics is the content. So you could equate Grammar with Empirical Physics, and Semantics with Theoretical Metaphysics. Universal Grammar is a constraint on language, while the meaning of our words is malleable and subject to personal interpretation in variable applications. But somehow we manage to communicate, despite the cacophany.

Should we take away the freedom of poets to interpret the world? Should we legislate against Metaphysics, as the Marxists attempted to do? Or should we continue to openly debate Transcendent ideas, in the free market of ideas, as philosophers have always done? Let's not over or under-estimate, but aim for the Golden Mean. :smile:


Grammar refers to the structure of language: how words are used in speech and how groups of words are put together in patterns. Semantics refers to the literal meaning of the words we use. Both concepts are connected to the use of language, but are different aspects of language function.

Universal Grammar is usually defined as the “system of categories, mechanisms and constraints shared by all human languages and considered to be innate”

"Language allows us to transcend time and space by talking about abstractions, to accumulate shared knowledge, and with writing to store it outside of individual minds"
"The Origins of Us: Evolutionary Emergence and the Omega Point Cosmology (The Science and Philosophy of Information Book 1)" by Alex M. Vikoulov

The issue then becomes what "limit" might mean, in regard to space-time. And it's not going to be the same now as it was for Kant.
This by way of showing that there is nothing in the antinomies themselves. — Banno

I suppose the "antinomies" are merely polar opposite positions that we could take in philosophical arguments. As you implied, Kant was not concerned with the antinomies per se, but with the conflict that arises from such black-vs-white opinions. That's also why Aristotle advised us to aim at the Golden Mean, instead of "either of two abstract things that are as different from each other as possible".

I'm just guessing that what Kant meant by "limitation" on space-time was implicit in his use of "Transcendence" to describe our philosophical speculations beyond the boundaries of space-time into infinity-eternity --- both of which are merely abstract ideas. And that's the topic of this thread : Is it acceptable for philosophers & cosmologists to make conjectures about anything not directly perceptible by the physical senses? If not, then they are wasting everybody's time with literal non-sense : "passing wind". In that case, this whole forum could be characterized as nothing but a collective fart.

Whereas Locke & Hume proposed a "blank slate" model of the human mind, Kant argued that "the blank slate model of the mind is insufficient to explain the beliefs about objects that we have; some components of our beliefs must be brought by the mind to experience"*1. Empiricism implies "garbage-in, garbage-out" (GIGO), with nothing contributed by the information processor. Yet, Steven Pinker studied the tabula rasa question, and concluded that the human brain is born with innate categories, into which sensory inputs are sorted.

Pinker is an advocate of the Computational Theory of Mind*2. The result of that computing & processing is not GIGO, but novel ideas that add a personal perspective (qualia ; beliefs) to the objective facts. To filter out the garbage requires Judgement & Wisdom. Which is the whole point of Philosophy, is it not? Empiricism collects raw facts, while Rationalism selects & cooks those facts*3, sometimes combining antinomies of sweet & sour. :smile:



*1. Empiricism vs Transcendence :
Since the human mind is strictly limited to the senses for its input, Berkeley argued, it has no independent means by which to verify the accuracy of the match between sensations and the properties that objects possess in themselves. . . . Hence, while Kant is sympathetic with many parts of empiricism, ultimately it cannot be a satisfactory account of our experience of the world.
___Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy
https://iep.utm.edu/kantmeta/

*2. Computation of Mind :
In philosophy of mind, the computational theory of mind (CTM), also known as computationalism, is a family of views that hold that the human mind is an information processing system and that cognition and consciousness together are a form of computation. . . . The computational theory of mind asserts that not only cognition, but also phenomenal consciousness or qualia, are computational
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computational_theory_of_mind


*3. The main difference between Rationalism And Empiricism is that rationalism is the knowledge that is derived from reason and logic while on the other hand empiricism is the knowledge that is derived from experience and experimentation. Rationalism is about intuition while empiricism is about visual concepts.
https://byjus.com/free-ias-prep/rationalism-vs-empiricism/

I apologize for the muddled message. It was not intended as a formal mathematical definition, but more like a poetic metaphor of mirrored universes — Gnomon
Thanks for the reply. Neat image. :cool: — jgill

Yes, the cosmic sausage-link image does neatly encapsulate the "Big Bounce" theory of cyclic universes pinched-off from previous 'verses. But such information leakage models require some exotic physics. And the accelerated expansion models seem to turn the bounce into a "Big Rip". Those one-way models assume a single line of linear time. Yet other Cosmological models envision multiple miniverses budding-off from a singular central Multiverse. However the point of the original post is that all of these math-supported speculations, while internally logical, are not scientific theories, but philosophical conjectures that attempt to deny the unique creation-event implications of the Big Bang theory..

Meanwhile, other thinkers limit their speculations to the knowable world. And a popular cosmological model (Tipler 1995) begins and ends with a Singularity, sometimes labeled "Alpha & Omega Point" theories. Ironically, both Singularities are defined as "God". Others label the future Omega Point as a Technological Singularity (Vikoulov 2020). How can these confusing Ontologies be simplified into a plausible Epistemology? :smile:

Alpha and Omega: The Search for the Beginning and End of the Universe
by Charles Seife, author of ZERO : Biography of a dangerous idea
https://www.amazon.com/Alpha-Omega-Search-Beginning-Universe/dp/0142004464

ONE & DONE : EXPANSION + ACCELERATION

BIG RIP

BIG BUDS from Multiverse

RHIZOME (rootlike) Multiverse

I was using quibbleable "atomic" in the original Greek sense of irreducible. — Gnomon
:up: I guess I can't steal that word "quibbleable" now. You own it. — L'éléphant

That's easy for you to say. :joke:

Scholar T R V Murti notes in his 1955 book, The Central Philosophy of Buddhism, that there are considerable similarities between this list and Kant's antinomies of reason, particularly the first four. (The book contains many comparisions of Buddhist philosophy and Kant, for which it is nowadays mainly criticized.) The Buddhist attitude towards such imponderables is expressed by the 'simile of the poisoned arrow', in which a wanderer is shot by a poisoned arrow, but rather than seeking to have it removed, wants to know who fired it, what it was made of, etc, and consequently dies as a result. The Buddha's teaching is to 'remove the arrow', i.e. overcome the cankers and cravings, rather than think about unanswerable questions such as these. — Wayfarer

Yes, the Buddha seemed to be a practical empiricist instead of a theoretical metaphysicist, focused on the concrete here & now instead of imponderable possibilities. Even so, he postulated a few metaphysical notions, such as Nirvana & Non-Self, in order to explain why we should do what he prescribed. Perhaps his avoidance of metaphysics made his philosophy more palatable to pragmatic modern Western minds, even though his own people quickly turned his austere science of the mind into ritualistic religion of the senses. :smile:

Reason doesn’t concern itself with the reality of appearances, nor imagining ideals. Reason is a logical function, by which the principles we understand in support of science, are applied to that which science doesn’t support, or hasn’t yet supported. Sometimes it works, re: chasing light beams and standing in free-falling elevators, sometimes it doesn’t, re: an unconditioned cause. — Mww

I agree. Such speculations are metaphysical, not physical. Obviously, reasoning from experience with conditional causes to an unconditioned First Cause cannot provide empirical evidence for the actual existence of such a transcendental entity. But perhaps such reasoning beyond experience can point to a plausible explanation for existence : Ontology. Theoretical Philosophers can "boldly go" where empirical science cannot. And that's what theoretical Cosmologists have done with their conjectures of a time-before-Time. Is that a waste of time, or merely a way to put our brief time on Earth into a larger perspective?

The quoted science articles at the beginning of this thread indicate that some Big Thinkers think that our world must have emerged from something instead of nothing : "Cosmic silence before the Big Bang" and "Before the Big Bang". Yet, philosopher of science Bjorn Ekeberg, in The Delusions of Cosmology, admitted that even the Big Bang was a metaphysical hypothesis. So, he seems to be implying that Cosmology is not Science, but Philosophy. As such, it uses logical extensions from known information to make its conjectures seem plausible. Therefore, if you disagree with the logic, you can deny the premises. Do you think Big Bang and Multiverse have been validated? Do you think Cosmology is an appropriate topic on a Philosophy Forum? :smile:


You can't build a cosmological model without metaphysics :
From the outset, the 'Big Bang' was always a hypothetical premise - if t=0, then... it allowed for calculation of scenarios. When this in turn could yield models that conformed to observations, it was seen to validate the original premise. . . . . My point is you can't build a cosmological model without metaphysics; to think cosmology is pure science is delusional. . . . The Enlightenment ideal is still vitally important to science but the belief that the universe is made of math and that the role of physicists is to reveal its 'secret code' is a pervasive strand of thought in modern science that is indistinguishable from faith. ___Bjorn Ekeberg
https://iai.tv/articles/the-delusions-of-metaphysics-auid-2145

Skipping over a couple of hundred years of disenchantment, it occurs to me to ask: are people today enchanted by magic spells? Off the top of my head, and not all equally relevant to power, here are some candidates:

Conspiracy theories
Demagoguery, nationalism, the alt-right
Science (as scientism)
New Age spirituality: "I'm spiritual but not religious"
Progress/Decline/Catastrophe
Consumerism — Jamal

Yes. Magic, like Marketing, is in the business or creating desirable images in the mind of observers. The power of mis-direction does not force, but merely leads the sheep willingly to the fold. That's only a bad thing when mutton is on the menu. :smile:

The question of free will then only applies when we come to that fork in the road. — invicta

Yes. A driverless car, approaching a fork in the road, would normally plow straight ahead. But with natural or artificial intelligence, it could choose to take the fork that leads to its intended destination. Unless of course the destination has not been pre-selected by an intentional agent. :smile:

Sorry to quibble, but quarks are sub-atomic, not atomic, and considered to be the smallest particle.

Then on the non-quibble, is Kant's work really a good example to use for your topic?
If your critique is on cosmology, why not use Ptolemy and Thales? What's so special about Kant? His transcendental idealism? This is the wrong application of Kant's work. — L'éléphant

I was using quibbleable "atomic" in the original Greek sense of irreducible.

This thread was inspired by the Big Think article, which mentioned "Kant's First Antinomy". The rest is just me babbling about Transcendence --- about which, according to Kant, I know nothing. But, per Kant, as a philosophical thinker, I can't help but transgress beyond the transcendental boundaries in the ship of Pure Reason. Besides, Cosmologists have already made in-roads into the Terra Incognita. So, even amateurs like me can experience little adventures into unverifiable Possibilities. :smile:

The antinomies themselves merely demonstrate, on the one hand, reason’s proclivity to transcendental illusion, and on the other, the very same reason’s exposition of the error contained in it. — Mww

So, was Kant saying that his own Transcendental Idealism is an illusion and an error? Or was he merely warning about how easy it is for reason to accept "appearances" as reality, and also to imagine "ideals" as more real than the testimony of the senses? Apparently, Science can play it safe by avoiding Metaphysics altogether. but Philosophy's job description is to explore the un-mapped territory beyond the known safe zone. :smile:


Kant’s Critique of Metaphysics :
Very generally, Kant’s claim is that it is a peculiar feature of reason that it unavoidably takes its own subjective interests and principles to hold “objectively.” And it is this propensity, this “transcendental illusion,” according to Kant, that paves the way for metaphysics. Reason plays this role by generating principles and interests that incite us to defy the limitations of knowledge already detailed in the Transcendental Analytic. . . . .
Kant, however, complicates things somewhat by also stating repeatedly that the illusion that grounds metaphysics (roughly, that the unconditioned is already given) is unavoidable. Moreover, Kant sometimes suggests that such illusion is somehow necessary for our epistemological projects.
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/kant-metaphysics/


Kant’s Transcendental Idealism :
In the Critique of Pure Reason Kant argues that space and time are merely formal features of how we perceive objects, not things in themselves that exist independently of us, or properties or relations among them. Objects in space and time are said to be “appearances”, and he argues that we know nothing of substance about the things in themselves of which they are appearances. Kant calls this doctrine (or set of doctrines) “transcendental idealism”
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/kant-transcendental-idealism/

Is scientific Cosmology trespassing in the domain of Theology, when it tries to explain the implicit existence of a mathematical point-of-convergence (zero point singularity) between Space-Time and Infinity-Eternity? — Gnomon
Not sure what this means in a math context. The north pole of the Riemann sphere is, in a sense, "the" point at infinity in the complex plane. So in the chordal metric one gets closer and closer to "infinity". — jgill

I apologize for the muddled message. It was not intended as a formal mathematical definition, but more like a poetic metaphor of mirrored universes : before & after the Singularity. In Multiverse theory the chain of universes would continue in both directions : infinite past & infinite future. The implicit point is that the beginning point of our universe would not be Singular, but Incidental.

The image below may be closer to what I was trying to express in inadequate words : that The Multiverse (portrayed as a singular thing) implicitly minimizes the significance of our own universe's birthday (Copernican Principle). Matter, Energy, and Natural Laws eternally evolving new worlds, but without end or purpose.

The intended question was whether imagining the source of our existence as an all-encompassing Multiverse (Eternal/Infinite existence with unlimited Potential) could be considered as a god-like Creative Power (including the innate potential for Life & Mind). For scientific purposes of course, that limitless Power is assumed to be Accidental, instead of Intentional : perhaps containing little minds, but mindless as a whole system : a blind groping demi-deity. :nerd:

Singular : exceptional ; uncommon
Incidental : accompanying but not a major part of something.
Multiverse :
The multiverse is a hypothetical group of multiple universes. Together, these universes are presumed to comprise everything that exists: the entirety of space, time, matter, energy, information, and the physical laws and constants that describe them. ___Wikipedia


A schematic representation of a generic Big Bang singularity , corresponding to a (0) = 0. The universe can be continued before the Big Bang without problems.
https://www.researchgate.net/figure/A-schematic-representation-of-a-generic-Big-Bang-singularity-corresponding-to-a0-0_fig2_51966428

In the next post, I'll provide some ruminative commentary on Kant's Antinomies, as they relate to Transcendental Cosmology — Gnomon

Outline : https://facultystaff.richmond.edu/~ggoddu/modern/272h-k1.html

# 1st Antinomy
Thesis : The world is limited with regard to (a) time and (b) space.
Antithesis : The world is unlimited with regard to (a) time and (b) space.

Comment --- Big Bang theory provided circumstantial reasons for assuming that space-time is existentially bound in the past, by infinity-eternity. But the future seems bounded only by Entropy. Einstein hypothesized that the physical shape of the universe is finite but unbounded. which describes a static sphere. However, the expanding universe seems to be unconstrained in volume and surface area. So, the physical boundaries are somewhat flexible.

In response to the ex nihilo implications of instant emergence, the formerly singular universe (Nature) has been hypothetically multiplied into an infinite-eternal Multiverse, presumably unlimited in space & time, and inexhaustible in Creation & Causation. How plausible is that unlimited higher-dimension “super-nature” into which our space-time-bounded balloon universe is expanding? Do such unverifiable cutting-edge concepts qualify as non-scriptural theological god-posits, or as non-empirical atheist god-surrogates?

# 2nd Antinomy
Thesis : Every composite substance in the world is made up of simples.
Antithesis : No composite substance in the world is made up of simples.

Comment --- Modern Science has been pursuing the holy grail of Atomism for centuries. But each presumed (and hailed) fundamental particle has been superseded by another hypothetical “Simple”. Currently Quarks are no longer pictured as atomic, but composite. So the material world may also be flexible in space & time. What then, what does this unfulfilled quest tell us about rock-solid Materialism? Do we have to go out of this world to find the ultimate transcendent Simple : the essential element from which reality is built?

“In contemporary mereology, a simple is any thing that has no proper parts. Sometimes the term "atom" is used, although in recent years the term "simple" has become the standard.” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simple_(philosophy)

Traditional Atomism asserts that all physical objects consist of different arrangements of eternal atoms and the infinite void in which they form different combinations and shapes. There is no room in this theory for the concept of a God, and essentially it is a type of Materialism or Physicalism. https://www.philosophybasics.com/branch_atomism.html


# 3rd Antinomy
Thesis : There is freedom in the world.
Antithesis : There is no freedom in the world.

Comment --- Free-Will arguments typically hinge on the notion of an unbroken chain of Causation & Determinism. But Quantum Theory introduced random statistical states-of-being that seem to be a-causal and indeterminate. But are statistical states real, or just mathematical abstractions? If Math is the logical foundation of Science, how can it allow ontological freedom : gaps in the chain of causal determination?

Psychologist Karl Jung postulated an Acausal Connecting Principle ("Synchronicity") related to Awareness, Meaning & Time. While that anything-goes notion may make sense for Metaphysics, is antithetical to Classical Physics. Can it be reconciled with the queerness of Quantum Physics?

A-Causal : isolated event or thing existing without a known provenance.

“Acausal” means not having a cause. In classical physics all events are believed to have a cause; none are acausal. In quantum physics, some interpretations of quantum theory allow for events to occur without a cause, that is, they are acausal.
http://www.quantumphysicslady.org/glossary/acausal/

Ontological Freedom :
To claim that human beings possess freedom is one way to resolve this conflict, but the existence of freedom raises problems of its own—in addition to concern over the source of this freedom and its manner of interacting with the causal chains in which it supposedly interferes, the existence of freedom seems to undermine our ability to explain any events according to causal rules, insofar as those rules lose their universality and applicability to a large range of events in the world. https://digitalcommons.lsu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1013&context=gradschool_theses

# 4th Antinomy
Thesis : A necessary being is either part of or cause of the world.
Antithesis : A necessary being is not (a) part of the world or (b) cause of the world.

Comment --- Everything in space-time seems to be contingent on prior causes. Except of course, the first step in the physical chain of causation : the Singularity that banged. Everything after that first event in the 14 billion year series of transitions, from nothing to something, has been contingent. Was the mathematical Singularity somehow exempt from the laws of physics? Was the Singularity super-natural? Is there a higher law of Necessity that transcends contingency? If Logical Necessity preceded the beginning of Time, is it a Being, or a Simple, or a rational Principle?

Summary :
Posters on The Philosophy Forum often run afoul of supposed limiting Laws of Ontology & Epistemology. The transgression occurs when we try to extend our metaphysical Minds beyond the physical limits of space-time-matter-energy. Is that excursion even permissible in modern empirical Philosophy? Can we "cognize transcendent reality by means of pure reason"? Or is Philosophy limited, like Science, to physical means of knowing, and to the mental margins of space-time? If we somehow quantum-tunnel through the invisible walls around Reality, are we in danger of losing our sanity? Is scientific Cosmology trespassing in the domain of Theology, when it tries to explain the implicit existence of a mathematical point-of-convergence (zero point singularity) between Space-Time and Infinity-Eternity?

Considering that we have only one instance of Reality for evidence, is the expansive notion of an Infinite Regression of Bangs (serial Singularities ; repetitive Black Hole leaks ; cyclic-creation-events) a plausible scientific solution to the enigma of existence? What can Multiverse or Many Worlds theories tell us that we don't already know? Wouldn't Ockham's Razor prefer a more parsimonious postulation? Can we condense the various pre-bang scenarios into a singular Eternal Potential? Would that explain more or less than more-of-the-same-stuff hypotheses?

_In the next post, I'll provide some ruminative commentary on Kant's Antinomies, as they relate to Transcendental Cosmology — Gnomon

KANT'S ANTINOMIES :
*1. "The antinomies, from the Critique of Pure Reason, are contradictions which Immanuel Kant argued follow necessarily from our attempts to cognize the nature of transcendent reality by means of pure reason".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kant%27s_antinomies
Note -- Transcendent Reality : is this an oxymoron ; antinomy ; contradiction ; paradox?
Oxymorons may seem illogical at first, but in context they usually make sense
*2. Kant calls transcendental realism the “common prejudice” https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/kant-transcendental-idealism/
*3. Meaning of Infinite Transcendent Reality:
“This being is transcendent, meaning that it is beyond the normal range of our experience of our material universe. At the same time this being is a reality in the human life process.”
*4. “Pure Reason seeks answers about topics that are beyond the five senses (also called metaphysical questions, e.g. about God, Creation, Soul, etc.). Practical Reason is content with answers about topics within the realm of the fives senses, e.g. questions about Economics, Psychology, Science. “
https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-difference-between-pure-reason-and-practical-reason

↪Gnomon
That's you: Bart Simpson, The Great Enformer. :rofl: — 180 Proof

I feel your pain. Having a cow can stretch your cant. :joke:

"Clowns to the left of me ; Jokers to the right
Stuck in the middle with you"
Stealer's Wheel, 1972

how computation is instantiated in the world. . . . . Computation is what defines mathematical/abstract objects rather than it being some activity that you do with them. — Count Timothy von Icarus

I do have a theory of how "computation is instantiated in the world". But first, I must take issue with "computation" as a Definition rather than an Action*1. If you can accept -- as a philosophical postulation -- the notion that Evolution is a process of Computation (a la Tegmark), then my own unorthodox thesis might make sense.

It begins from the assumption that everything in this world is a form of Generic Information (Energy + Logic). The mathematical Logic of Nature gives direction to the propulsion of Energy. If so, then we can use a neologism to label that creative Enforming process : EnFormAction*2. I won't try to explain that novel concept further, unless you think that it could be a viable answer to your topical question : natural computation is instantiated via En-Form-Action -- the act of evolutionary computation of novel forms of being from previous entities. :smile:



*1. Computation : the action of mathematical calculation.
___Oxford
Note -- calculation adds or multiplies two or more values in order to derive a third value. Metaphorically, that's also what Evolution does, as it creates novel forms of being.

*2. EnFormAction :
That neologism is an analysis and re-synthesis of the common word for the latent power of mental contents : “Information”. “En” stands for energy, the physical power to cause change; “Form” refers to Platonic Ideals that become real; “Action” is the meta-physical power of transformation, as exemplified in the amazing metamorphoses of physics, whereby one kind of thing becomes a new kind of thing, with novel properties. In the Enformationism worldview, EnFormAction is eternal creative potential in action : it's how creation-via-evolution works.
https://bothandblog3.enformationism.info/page23.html

Supernatural as a concept is intelligible. But declaring something supernatural seems, to repeat myself, presumptuous and foolish. — Art48

I almost agree. Since our Epistemology (knowledge) is entirely based on sensory perceptions, we can never know anything that is outside-of (or above) Nature. However, since Ontology (being) is derived from rational inference, we can follow a chain of reasoning back toward it's source, even back in time : as Astrologers did to conclude that the beginning of our space-time (world-being) was an ex nihilo emergence from an unknown source.

Hence we have no empirical knowledge of anything before the beginning. So making positive epistemological "declarations" would be presumptuous. But it would not necessarily be "foolish", if our love of wisdom (philosophy) leads us to speculate into the darkness beyond the bang. As you said, we can conceive of a supernatural existence, but we can't perceive such a thing. Therefore, supernatural "declarations" are unsupportable, but preternatural "speculations" are legitimate for both scientists (multiverse) and philosophers (creator). If you are philosophically curious, it may enhance your personal worldview to bracket your known-world with a pre- and post- existence ontology. :smile:

PS__"In the beginning, God . . ." is a declaration. But, before-the-Big-Bang is like north-of-the-North-Pole" is an analogy. And the number-before-number-one is merely a mathematical challenge. Negative number, infinite number, imaginary number?

I interpret this phrase to mean that, as God is the sole real substance (or subject), then causal relations are subordinate to logical dependence. What we see as contingent is in reality strictly determined by God's omnipotence of which logical necessity is a manifestation. — Wayfarer

The notion of "Logical Necessity", as a manifestation of God's omnipotence, reminded me of another aspect of Spinoza's "Deus sive Natura" that is similar to my own unorthodox god-concept --- First & Final Cause of the creative process (causal chain) that is constructing our unfinished world. Godless worldviews must assume that the Energy & Laws for evolution are inherent in Nature. And Spinoza might agree, yet he labelled that causal & directional force : "Omnipotence". Besides, we now know that Nature is not Eternal, but bounded in Space-Time. So, the only preternatural miracle to explain is the ex nihilo (step one) beginning of natural Causation.

Since I'm not a Spinoza scholar like , I have to rely on secondhand interpretations of his god-model & worldview. The Wiki quote below*1, although expressed in different words, sounds amenable to my own non-miraculous PanEnDeistic worldview, in which the Creator is depicted as the Programmer of the Evolutionary process of ongoing Creation*2. However, I disagree with Spinoza's view that human behavior is also fully determined by the Omnipotence of the Natural program. I won't go into that now, except to note that emergent self-awareness might provide more options for human autonomy to exploit, resulting in the offshoot of Nature we call "Culture".

Obviously. this postulated Programmer is not a conventional religious god-model. But it could serve as the basis of a world-model, in which natural laws are simply programmatic declarations or definitions that limit the options for selecting the next generation of in-program states, but also allow some flexibility for adaptation to changing conditions. Obviously, Spinoza did not imagine his Deus as a Programmer, but his "Logical Necessity" could be construed today in terms of computer logic. "Causal Relations" are essentially Logical Relations tied together by Natural Necessity. I'm guessing that the link between Logical & Causal Necessity is divine intention, as postulated by Spinoza. :smile: pace 180 :cool:



*1. Epistemic theory of miracles :
In Chapter Six of Spinoza's Theologico-Political Treatise ("Of Miracles"), Spinoza claims that the universal laws of nature are decrees of God. Hence, any event happening in nature which contravened nature's universal laws, would necessarily also contravene the Divine decree, nature, and understanding; or if anyone asserted that God acted in contravention to the laws of nature, he, ipso facto, would be compelled to assert that God acted against His own nature—an evident absurdity.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epistemic_theory_of_miracles

*2. Deism ; no miracles :
Olson makes a surprising admission that I agree with, "There is no evidence from nature and reason alone that God is good. Nor is there any evidence from nature or reason alone that the good life includes care for others unless it benefits oneself " . Indeed, his Old Testament god intervened frequently and directly in the affairs of his chosen people. But elsewhere in the world other cultures blamed miracles & calamities on their local gods. And in all times & places, bad things happened to good people, and vice-versa — as-if the gods were randomly pushing buttons on the control panel of their little domains. So I have concluded, not that the G*D of Nature is erratic or impotent, but that the old pre-scientific notion of gods as specific material causes of natural events, was off the mark. Instead, I think the creation was intended to be autonomous, with no divine interventions necessary to correct either natural or cultural mistakes.
https://www.bothandblog.enformationism.info/page69.html

*3. Evolutionary programming is one of the four major evolutionary algorithm paradigms. It is similar to genetic programming, but the structure of the program to be optimized is fixed, while its numerical parameters are allowed to evolve.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolutionary_programming
Note -- In order to evolve viable forms, it is necessary for program elements (including people) to adapt to their dynamic environment.

I wasn't responding to a post with any philosophical content, so I gave what I got, sir. — 180 Proof

I apologize for tripping your Anti-Theism Firewall*1 -- AGAIN! -- with trigger-words such as "Deus". But I was just curiously exploring ideas related to the Spinoza Philosophy topic. Apparently you don't consider comparisons to Spinoza's "Deus", or responses to Stanford Encylopedia of Philosophy, as philosophical content. Do you deny that postulations-following-"therefore" qualify as legitimate philosophical reasoning : "Therefore, some kind of ultra-mundane cause (Spinoza's Deus ; my Enformer) seems to be necessary to initiate the logical causal chain of evolution (en-formation ; transformation)". Did you find any personal attacks in my post to provoke your ad hominem response? It's very difficult to avoid giving offense, when the trip-wire is so exquisitely sensitive to unstated-but-presumed viruses of mind. :joke:


*1. Informational Skepticism :
"If anything goes, if there are no firewalls against idiocy and irrationality, If we create an information vacuum, then any bogus belief has an equal right to be sold in the market of ideas."
___Oxford philosopher Luciano Floridi, The Logic of Information
Ironically, the author's own speculations & open questions, would be rejected under the purview of Logical Positivism. So, he provides a whole chapter on that road-block to philosophical explorations --- which he defines as "the study of open questions".
Do you think Spinoza's "Deus" is a closed question, settled by physical evidence? Or does it remain an open question, centuries later? According to Discover magazine (M/A 23) modern cosmologists vigorously debate a variety of unverifiable alternative pre-bang god-substitutes, such as Marvel Comics Multiverses, Big Balloon Inflation, and Too Many invisible Worlds. So, on a philosophy forum, why not allow open discussion of philosophical alternatives to ultimate Ontological questions? :nerd:


HAVA NAGILA!

"Don't Have a Cow, Man" is a parody of Israeli folk Jewish song "Hava Nagila".
often used when someone is becoming enraged, as an admonishment that their anger is out of proportion to the inciting incident.
https://grammarist.com/idiom/have-a-cow-and-have-kittens/

Thanks again for the uncharitable ad hominem critique. But based on our fraught history, I wasn't expecting your expert opinion or your support. Just using your post as a springboard for expressing some ideas that were on my mind, as a means to develop my personal philosophy. As usual, the bounceback is polemical instead of philosophical. I apologize for rousing you from your "dogmatic slumber". :smile:

That's the most charitable surmise I can make of Copelston's interpretation of Spinoza. I think one has to study Spinoza directly in order to better comprehend the nuances and depths of his conceptions which are not nearly as Anselmian (i.e. of Catholic scholasticism) as Copelston's mention of "the ontological argument" might suggest. — 180 Proof

What little I know of Spinoza's worldview is second-hand, not directly from the source. Nevertheless, I often note the similarity of his Deus Sive Natura god-model to my own PanEnDeistic model ; which, in my Enformationism thesis, I label with various made-up, un-official, non-committal, non-creedal names : G*D ; Enformer ; First Cause ; etc. Like him, I didn't set out to alienate Atheists or Theists, who hold antithetical views. Instead, my information-based god-model is not beholden to doctrinal "Catholic Scholasticism" or to dogmatic Logical Positivism. So, in view of our uncertain knowledge of Ontology, it is viewed as a sort of BothAnd bridge between those opposite shores. Sadly -- just as Spinoza was condemned by true-believers among both Atheists & Theists -- any moderate view can be taken as an affront by those who have extreme (absolutely certain) beliefs on the topic.

These amateur remarks are based on the Spinoza article in the Stanford Encylopedia of Philosophy (https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/spinoza/) as quoted below :

"His extremely naturalistic views on God, the world, the human being and knowledge serve to ground a moral philosophy centered on the control of the passions leading to virtue and happiness. They also lay the foundations for a strongly democratic political thought and a deep critique of the pretensions of Scripture and sectarian religion. " ___SEP

My own secular worldview can be construed as a "critique of the pretensions of scripture", and of traditional religions. But it was also intended to provide a cosmic understanding of the Ontological question (whence Being?) as inferred from 21st century Science. I was not trying to justify any prior religious or philosophical arguments. Yet, my novel postulations are typically critiqued, not on their own merits, but as-if they were merely a recycling of tried & failed solutions to the big-why questions. However, my proposed worldview is also "naturalistic", in that it does not require or allow any miraculous interventions into the heuristic (trial & error) program of Evolution. Yet, it does mandate a hypothetical Programmer to write the algorithmic rules of natural laws.

Spinoza's 17th century science assumed that Nature itself had existed eternally. So equating the creation with the Creator was a no-brainer. However, in view of the 21st century Cosmology of an ex nihilo beginning, I began to refer to the metaphorical fuse-lighter of the Big Bang (a hypothetical First Cause of Nature), as "Transcendent", in order to provide an Information-based explanation for the implicit eternal void (gap) before the "Bang". This is the same "god-gap" that various cosmologists have tried to fill with non-empirical infinite Multiverses (matter), and hyper-mathematical Inflation of a tidal-wave in space-time (energy). My real-world model is not portrayed as eternal though, but limited by the boundaries of space-time (between Big Bang and Long Sigh). Only an unbounded pre-space-time abyss can be logically described as Timeless & Spaceless, yet with infinite statistical Potential.

Therefore, some kind of ultra-mundane cause (Spinoza's Deus ; my Enformer) seems to be necessary to initiate the logical causal chain of evolution (en-formation ; transformation). Darwinian Evolution is obviously not Deterministic, but seems to be exploring many possible forms (mutations) that are "selected" based on some logical criteria. Hence, whence the statistical potential and whither the goal-directed logic? Likewise, Quantum Physics is inherently uncertain & indeterminate (not physical & actual, but merely Potential : probability distribution of possibilities) .

So, to deny the reality of a philosophical Absolute (Deus) is consistent with the dubious nature of Nature. Yet, philosophical god-denials are typically presented as-if based on Scientific Certainty, as-if quoted from some imaginary bible of scientific revelation. One example of such philosophical negation is The Grand Design, by Steven Hawking & Leonard Mlodinow. It proposes to offer scientific answers to several non-empirical philosophical enigmas :
1. Why is there something rather than nothing?
2. Why do we exist?
3. Why this particular set of laws and not some other?

After famously claiming that “Philosophy is Dead”, the authors ironically use non-empirical philosophical arguments to prove their own Model-Dependent Realism. Yet, one book review labels the authors' worldview as metaphysical “anti-realism”*1. That's because their argument denies the existence of an independent source of verification. Hence, like most philosophical reasoning, the truth of their belief is dependent upon the structure of its own internal Logic, not on empirical facts. Therefore, despite their satirical title, the argument denies the possibility of a Designer to produce the “Grand Design”*2 of Nature. Yet, if no Designer, whence the "design" ; no Organizer, whence the "order" ; no Enformer, whence the Information? :smile:

TO BE CONTINUED . . . . . .


*1. Anti-Realism :
“In anti-realism, the truth of a statement rests on its demonstrability through internal logic mechanisms, such as the context principle or intuitionistic logic, in direct opposition to the realist notion that the truth of a statement rests on its correspondence to an external, independent reality.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-realism

*2. Einstein's Grand Design :

I have a question about Copleston’s descriptions of Spinoza‘s philosophy.
What is the difference between logical order and causal order? (i know causal order but maybe i don't know what is logical order). — Ali Hosein

I'm not an expert on Spinoza. but due to some similarities between his Deus sive Natura god-model and my own information-centric First Cause model, I am somewhat familiar with his ideas. In the quote linked below, Copleston seems to think that Spinoza did use the term "Deus", not in the sense of pantheism, but as a reference to a "First Cause"*1. To equate Nature with Pantheism is, as Shopenhauer noted, redundant. But a First & Final Cause*2 must be, in a philosophical sense, external & preternatural to the chain of causation that we experience in the world. It must be Eternal or Self-Existent. Yet, Spinoza lived long before modern cosmology found evidence that our natural causal sequence had an ex nihilo beginning, not just in time, but of space-time. Nevertheless, he came to the same conclusion : that a Creation Event was logically necessary to explain the Ontology of Reality.

In my own personal thesis, that "causal order" is indeed equivalent to "logical order". That's because modern physics has learned that the causal force we call "Energy" is itself a form of Information. And long before Claude Shannon labeled his digital communication element as "information", that term always referred to the contents of a conscious mind. So, if you follow the logic from modern computer data to the initial Big Bang Singularity, it's all information, all the way down. Moreover, Plato, long before Spinoza, reached a similar conclusion in his eternal principle of Logos. In his theory of Forms, Logos*4 was essentially a timeless causal power enforming all things in the world. So, it's both a universal logical Principle ("order"), and an ongoing causal Force (organizing).

Similarly, I have inferred that Plato's "Logos" is not just the evolutionary principle in Nature, but also the non-anthro-morphic logical/causal Programmer of our organic world. The information-processing computer of the world consists of organized Matter, but its evolved output includes immaterial Life and Mind. So, what's the difference between Causal Order and Logical Order : Causation is physical, while Logic is mental, but both are forms of Generic Information (Logos). Therefore, Spinoza's worldview was not simply a "superfluous synonym" : PanTheism (world is god), but a meaningful addition to the obvious : PanEnDeism*5 (world is within god). :smile:



*1. First Cause :
In an essay on pantheism Schopenhauer observes that his chief objection against it is that it says nothing, that it simply enriches language with a superfluous synonym of the word “world.” It can hardly be denied that by this remark the great pessimist, who was himself an atheist, scored a real point. For if a philosopher starts off with the physical world and proceeds to call it God, he has not added anything to the world except a label, a label which, if we take into account the ordinary significance of the word “God,” might well appear unnecessary and superfluous: one might just as pertinently say that the world is the world as that the world is God. Neither the Jew nor the Christian nor the Moslem understand by “God” the physical world, so that, if someone calls the physical world God, he cannot be taken to mean that the world is God according to the Jewish or Christian or Moslem understanding of God. Does he mean any more than that the physical world is ultimately self-explanatory, that no Cause external to the world, no transcendent Being is requisite or admissible, i.e. that there is no God? If that were all there is in pantheism, the latter would indeed be indistinguishable from atheism, and those who called Spinoza an atheist would be fully justified. ___F. C. Copleston
https://philpapers.org/rec/FCCPIS

*2. Universal Cause :
Spinoza first treats God as a universal or general cause.
https://monadshavenowindows.wordpress.com/2012/12/22/spinoza-on-the-causality-of-god/

*3. The mass-energy-information equivalence principle :
Landauer’s principle formulated in 1961 states that logical irreversibility implies physical irreversibility and demonstrated that information is physical. Here we formulate a new principle of mass-energy-information equivalence
https://aip.scitation.org/doi/10.1063/1.5123794

*4. Plato's Logos :
Plato's Theory of Forms was located within the logos, but the logos also acted on behalf of God in the physical world.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logos

*5. PanEnDeism :
Panendeism is an ontological position that explores the interrelationship between God (The Cosmic Mind) and the known attributes of the universe. Combining aspects of Panentheism and Deism, Panendeism proposes an idea of God that both embodies the universe and is transcendent of its observable physical properties.
https://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page16.html

I will admit I am interested in Bernardo Kastrup's 'analytical idealism'. — Wayfarer

Kastrup seems to be swimming in the same esoteric waters that my own thesis merely dabbles in.
The main difference is that he claims to have personally experienced "The Other" (Universal Mind?), while I lack such adventures into the non-physical. For me, "Other" and "G*D" are rationally inferred & hypothetical , not directly known & experiential. Anyway, his "analytical idealism" seems to be generally amenable to the fundamental role of abstract information as described in Enformationism.

However, since my mundane experience seems to fit the ordinary sensations of the majority of people, for all practical purposes (science) I accept the existence of an "external reality", as a communal mental model (paradigm). But for impractical philosophical purposes, I entertain the possibility that Rational Information (including Mathematics) is more fundamental that Physical Matter. For hardline Atheists, that puts me into their broad sh*t-can category of religious believers in invisible gods & ghosts & spooks & spirits. And those scathing skeptics won't accept my protestations to the contrary.

Instead, I believe that the purpose of Philosophy is to explore the metaphysical realm of "Ideas", beyond the physical limits of empirical science, while avoiding the slippery slope into blind faith. Does that openness to possibilities make me an un-skeptical believer in Idealism, as an irrational religious faith? I hope not. :smile:

Information Realism :
Artificial Intelligence researcher, Kastrup, seems to be finding evidence to support the ancient philosophy of Idealism, which further weakens the equally venerable Atomic & Materialistic paradigms of modern science. He is the author of a book, The Idea of The World, which argues for the “mental nature of reality”, also known as “metaphysical realism” . In this article he discusses “information realism”, and begins by quoting physicist Max Tegmark, author of the Mathematical Universe Hypothesis. “For Tegmark, the universe is a ‘set of abstract entities with relations between them,’ . . . Matter is done away with and only information itself is taken to be ultimately real.” Kastrup then describes how reductive methods failed to find the definitive atom, and instead discovered only amorphous fields. “At the bottom of the chain of physical reduction there are only elusive, phantasmal entities we label as “energy” and “fields”—abstract conceptual tools for describing nature, which themselves seem to lack any real, concrete essence.” This is the conceptual conundrum that launched by own investigation into “the mental nature of reality”, which I call Enformationism.
http://bothandblog4.enformationism.info/page18.html

Contra Idealism :
I develop this unresolved paradox into a rigorous argument against Analytic Idealism. . . . . Some of the omissions of this model given its theorising are that it fails to adequately account for:
1. The apparent fine-tuning of the universe: it proposes that mind at large is unreflective and non-self-aware, and it is hard to see how it could then be intelligent - which would seem to be required to design our universe.
2. The existence and extent of evil in our reality. A monistic theory (single subject of consciousness; single ontological substance) somehow has to reconcile the bad and the good, whereas a dualistic theory (distinct subjects of consciousness with differing essential natures, both good and evil) assumes no need for reconciliation. ]
https://creativeandcritical.net/ontology/analysing-the-analytic-idealism-of-bernardo-kastrup
Note -- My own thesis does attempt to account for those apparent deficiencies of Reality, primarily by denying the Genesis account of the intention behind Creation.

My claim, then, is that even when operating without empirical evidence, it still seems like we can apply probability to our experiences. — Thund3r

Yes. That's the purpose of Bayesian Probability. In some scientific and philosophical investigations, the empirical evidence is frustratingly incomplete & inconclusive. So Bayes developed a statistical technique, to update the original plausibility of a conjecture as more information becomes available. Unfortunately, the essential uncertainty remains, so in the final analysis, we tend to fall in the direction in which we are leaning. :smile:

Bayesian probability is an interpretation of the concept of probability, in which, instead of frequency or propensity of some phenomenon, probability is interpreted as reasonable expectation representing a state of knowledge or as quantification of a personal belief.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bayesian_probability

↪gevgala
Having sidetracked the thread with the Dickinson poem, I should comment on your OP. My spontaneous response is - yes, so what? Are you preaching to believers, trying to shake their faith? You're not really putting forward a philosophical argument. Sure, the quest for knowledge of the divine, if I could put it that way, operates by different standards to empirical science and peer-reviewed journal articles. But there are domains of discourse, communities of faith, within which that quest is intelligible, and which contain those quite capable of judging whether an aspirant is progressing or not. — Wayfarer

Since "God" questions are very common on this forum, it's clear that the ultimate notion of "deity" is not yet dead among philosophical thinkers, even though the savage sword of doubt is aggressively wielded against the retreating shield of faith. Consequently, I would expect TPF to be a "domain of discourse" for topics that don't conform to "different standards of empirical science". Yet, some dedicated anti-theists are still trying to drive a physical Science stake into the heart of an immortal metaphysical faith, that just won't die a natural death. It's the undying hope of Philosophers, that Mother Nature is, in some sense, rational & directional rather than random & aimless.

Apparently, for many of us wisdom lovers, "Better an ignis fatuus ; Than no illume at all". Yet, Compared to tangible Empirical evidence, fleshless Philosophical arguments are will-o-wisps that provide only ineffectual ethereal illumination. So, why bother? Why not just accept that the omnipotent hand of God, has been amputated? Why not substitute faith in all-powerful Technology for the impotent absent God? I can think of only one reason for a god-like answer to Ontological & Epistemological questions : the unknowable abyss of "Why", that remains after all "How" questions have been turned into high-tech.

Nature was long presumed to be God's hand, working in the world. But now Culture has extended the reach of the human hand beyond natural bounds. Unfortunately, Phusis has always been indifferent to human needs & desires, despite prayers & sacrifices. So, we turn to Technology to grant our individual wishes, all-too-often to the detriment of collective needs. Tech's reductive methods are inherently amoral, leaving the huddled masses of low-tech humans to suffer from un-met needs. Mech-Tech also disrupts the functional neurology of Nature, allowing Mother Earth to wither away. (hug a tree today)

Therefore, for ethical philosophers, there remains a need for, at the very least, a metaphorical bonding & governing power to hold the disparate parts together. But the notion of ethical Holism is irrelevant to the heartless machines that run the modern world. Can we rely on efficient Science to light the way, or is there a role for feckless Philosophy, to "keep the ends out for the tie that binds"? Is the logical necessity for an ultimate organizing force Real or merely Ideal? Does it matter? :smile:


Those—dying then,
Knew where they went—
They went to God’s Right Hand—
That Hand is amputated now
And God cannot be found—

The abdication of belief
Makes the Behavior small—
Better an ignis fatuus
Than no illume at all--

___Emily Dickinson

A. In science, what specifiable problem does "Enformationism" solve falsifiably? — universeness

Although your question is completely off-target, I'll answer a similar unstated question, which is pertinent to this thread. This response is mainly for the benefit of open-minded onlookers to this mudslinging street brawl, who may not presume that everything is about Physics. As I have repeated repeatedly, Enformationism is not a scientific theory, so it does not offer empirically falsifiable solutions to physical problems. It does instead present a hypothetical philosophical conjecture on ancient Meta-physical (Ontology & Epistemology) questions as noted below. :smile:

What is the thesis about? :
This informal thesis does not present any new scientific evidence, or novel philosophical analysis. It merely suggests a new perspective on an old enigma : what is reality? The so-called “Information Age” that began in the 20th century, has now come of age in the 21st century. So I have turned to the cutting-edge Information Sciences in an attempt to formulate my own personal answer to the perennial puzzles of Ontology, the science of Existence.
http://enformationism.info/enformationism.info/page2%20Welcome.html
Note -- The thesis assumes, like most philosophical treatises throughout history, that Philosophical reasoning does not stop at the Big Bang barrier of space-time.

Philosophical fallacies — Gnomon
Interesting list.
I would add "Zeno-type pseudo-paradoxes -- Dividing the indivisible (Dichotomy of space and time)"
(One of my favorite fallacies to talk about.) — Alkis Piskas

Sadly, Fallacy lists can be used by both sides in a debate. For example, often labels me as slander slinger of "Ad Hominems", when that is his own favorite arguing tactic. Another trick is to corral your opponent into a biased category that is easier to dismiss with a wave of the hand : "Strawman". I suspect that, when a dialogue descends to the point of Fallacy listing, it has long since fallen into repetitive Circular Reasoning.

"Dividing the Indivisible" sound like a very technical approach. Where did you run into such an infinitesimal argument? :smile:

Our exchange regarding your enformationism and your enformer has again reached a panto style exchange of 'oh yes it is,' and 'oh no it's not,' impasse.
I don't respect paganistic viewpoints that anthropomorphise nature as a single entity with intent.
To compare your debate with me and 180 Proof with references to Nazism and the actions of Putin in Ukraine, leave me thinking that you may be a little bit mad, and inebriated with your own vernacular. — universeness

That's because my replies are tailored to the posts I'm responding to ; reflecting biases back to you. may be a bit more absolutist (Black vs White) than Uni, but both tend more toward Left vs Right ideological debates than philosophical possibility dialogues. My communications with other, less antagonistic, posters are much less combative. I continue to respond to your Either/Or categorizations, mainly because they are very narrowly targeted, and help me to find possible weaknesses in my own worldview. If you are offended, it's from looking in a mirror.

For example, 180 refers to my "willful misunderstanding" of Einstein, when I use him as an example of a rational scientist who is not a hardline Atheist. This was a response to 180's insistence that I must be either a Theist or an Atheist : no middle ground. But Einstein was quoted, in his own words, saying "I am not an Atheist". By your Yes-or-No definition, does that make him a Theist? In contrast to 180's mis-characterization, Enformationism is intended to be a moderate position, between Theism and Atheism, more like Deism. But he and you place Deism in the same pigeonhole with Theism. So, who is "inebriated with his own vernacular" -- a language of White vs Black labels, which omit the whole range in between extremes?

Like Einstein, "I am not an Atheist". And I'm also not a Theist --- not that there's anything morally wrong with that. Most of the people I know & love are Theists, and are morally good(-ish) people. Yet, like Albert, I view Nature as functionally equivalent to the traditional notions of pagan or universal gods. Einstein replied to a similar attempt to pin him down : “I believe in Spinoza’s God”. Nature may not be a loving father or a vengeful spirit, but it is a source of information for us humans to tap into. As Einstein advised "Look deep into nature, and then you will understand everything better". The only problem with Spinoza's God, is that it does not account for a space-time creation event, satirically labeled "The Big Bang". Einstein's "Steady State" alternative does not fit the evidence, and is now considered, by most cosmologists, to be passé*1.

Your mischaracterization of Enformationism as "paganistic viewpoints that anthropomorphise nature as a single entity with intent", illustrates your own misinterpretation, not my own intent. Instead, I portray Nature as a program processing information without intent of its own. However, like many philosophers faced with evidence of a creation event, I look beyond the Big Bang for the Logos*2 that is playing-out in Evolution. I have never claimed to know what that ultimate Purpose is. And I do not have a personal relationship with the Programmer. It's just a philosophical postulate to explain the evidence that is emerging within Quantum Theory and Information Theory. You are welcome to your own explanation for that pre-bang explanatory gap. But the existence of Causal Energy & Natural Laws must be accounted for in any gap-filler. :smile:

PS___The Nazi reference was merely to illustrate how much easier it is to argue ideologically (via labeling) instead of philosophically (via reasoning). Are you aware of the hypocrisy of Putin's validation of his invasion? I was not calling anyone on this forum a Nazi. But I have been labelled a Theist, with the same diversionary intent.

*1. Big Bang or Steady State? :
For most purposes, however, the debate between the big bang and the steady state was over in 1965, with big bang the clear winner.
https://history.aip.org/exhibits/cosmology/ideas/bigbang.htm

*2. Logos :
A principle originating in classical Greek thought which refers to a universal divine reason, immanent in nature, yet transcending all oppositions and imperfections in the cosmos and humanity. An eternal and unchanging truth present from the time of creation, available to every individual who seeks it.
https://www.pbs.org/faithandreason/theogloss/logos-body.html
Note -- Einstein's aphorism "look deep into nature" for understanding, may have been referring to the Logos logic programmed into Nature.

The only thing "spooky woo woo" about Einstein is your (willful?) misunderstanding of him and his work to suit your "Enformer"-of-the-gaps tilt at windwills. :sparkle: — 180 Proof

"Who's zooming who?" __Aretha Franklin

"Intolerant AntiTheism uses emotional WooBoo labels as substitutes for logical arguments" __Gnomon

Philosophical fallacies :
Ad Hominem -- label philosophical opponent as woo-monger
Strawman -- define philosophical god-concept as religious god-model
Ignorance -- denying the pre-big-bang epistemological gap
False Dilemma -- Religion vs Science ; Theism vs Atheism
Slippery Slope -- any god-posit will lead to religious irrationalism
Causal Fallacy -- Asserting or denying a causal relationship based on the fact that the proposed cause does not immediately, absolutely, or uniquely determine the effect.

Einstein's Nature God compared to Enformationism's Nature God :

A. "He could not conceive of a God who punished and rewarded people (partly because he was a thoroughgoing determinist). He repeatedly distanced himself from the idea of a personal God." ___CHECK.

B. "This was not the personal God of the Abrahamic faiths, but nor was it the idiomatic “God” of atheism."
___CHECK

C. “I’m not an atheist and I don’t think I can call myself a pantheist,” he once said when asked to define God. “I believe in Spinoza’s God,” he told Rabbi Herbert Goldstein of the Institutional Synagogues of New York, “who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists.”
___CHECK

D. "There are still people, he remarked at a charity dinner during the War, who say there is no God. “But what really make me angry is that they quote me for support of such views.” “There are fanatical atheists whose intolerance is of the same kind as the intolerance of the religious fanatics,” he said in 1940."
___CHECK
https://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/philosophy/did-albert-einstein-believe-in-god

Note -- The "idiomatic" GOD of Atheism is not the First Cause of philosophical Enformationism.

To me, you painted your metaphysical floor in theistic shades — universeness

No. It was you & 180 who painted Enformationism as "Theistic". Gnomon denied that denigrating mis-characterization, but accepted the philosophical label of rational "Deism"*1. Which you quickly re-defined as "Theistic", even though reason-based Deism was intended to be a naturalistic (nature as organism instead of mechanism) alternative to Theism. It was also an attempt to avoid the excesses of Imperial religions that resulted from authoritarian political power.

Both Theists and Atheists belittled Deism for its do-nothing-deity. But Enformationism offers a quantum science update that envisions the Enformer/Programmer more like a do-everything First Cause, which works via bottom-up Natural processes (Causation ; En-formation) instead of top-down Miraculous interventions. That thesis is neither faith-based Religion nor evidence-based Science, but reason-based Philosophy. As a freely-chosen personal philosophical worldview, it has no dominion over the beliefs of un-believers, such as Atheists. It does however, have one thing in common with New Age philosophies : it treats Nature respectfully as a living organism, not an inorganic machine to be used & abused by money-motivated men*2.

Putin ironically defined his invasion of Ukraine, reminiscent of the Nazi invasion of Poland, as a purge of Nazis from a sovereign nation. So, even though he is not obtaining his real objective, he can still withdraw and declare that debacle a victory. The party that unilaterally defines the battle, also defines the terms of success. An old saying advises the invader to "declare victory and depart". But Putin may be too stubborn to admit defeat, until both sides are devastated. Are you & 180 still doing the victory dance over your vanquishment of a religion of your own devising? :smile:


*1.Deism beyond Reason :
In his respectful critique of Deism, he makes one telling observation : "Most deists I know do believe in more (about God) than what natural, unaided reason can discover." Although Reason is their raison d'etre, Deists cannot deny that some of their beliefs and hopes are not derived from pure Reason, but from reason supplemented with hope or speculation. So the original post-enlightenment boast of a “rational religion”, was true only by comparison to the more dogmatic Faith religions of the day.
Olson admits, "I think there’s some truth in the claim that deism is (or can be) more rational than full, robust Christianity." But he doesn't agree that Reason is sufficient to make a worldview into a religion. And I happen to agree with him. But, Olsen goes on to point-out the problem with an austere, abstract, logic-driven, Spock-like worldview. "A religion that doesn’t go beyond reason has no place for love or sin or care for the weak or hope for an ultimate triumph of good over evil. And its god would seem to me to be bad insofar as he is omnipotent but never intervenes in history or persons’ lives."
https://bothandblog.enformationism.info/page69.html

*2. Einstein -- New Age nut? :

https://www.nytimes.com/1972/03/29/archives/the-einstein-papers-a-man-of-many-parts-the-einstein-papers-man-of.html

Note -- I look forward to the next smirking reply from satirizing Einstein's spooky woo-woo nature-worship.

↪universeness
↪Gnomon
In other words: "Stop picking on my Enformer-of-the gaps!" :lol: — 180 Proof

No. In Wilfred Sellars words : "stop attacking your own Manifest Image, then claiming to vanquish Gnomon's metaphors". :joke:

You are welcome! It's bizarre to me that Gnomon actually thinks we are doing him a favour, by encouraging him to explain more about his motivations and personal reasons for inventing and blogging about his personal theocratic musings that he labels enformationism and the gap god he has titled 'the enformer.' — universeness

It's amusing to picture you and celebrating & high-fiving & thumbs-uping your victorious vanquishing of a mythical dragon. Unfortunately, that supernatural serpent exists only in your imagination. Yet, it emerged into your fanciful personal reality (worldview) due to your misinterpretation of my use of the “G*D” label to describe the hypothetical ultimate source of natural Reality*1. As a moderate skeptic myself, I understand & appreciate your stance against religious “Supernaturalism”. But, other than "preternatural", I didn't have a official dictionary word to describe the nature of a Hypothetical entity. So, I made-up a neologism, based on its role in traditional cultures.

Just today though, I came across the high-tech philosophical term : “Manifest Image”*2 , in which “G*D” is a semantic device (artefact), not a physical thing subject to empirical proof or disproof --- a conceptual gap filler*3. In The Logic of Information, professional philosopher Floridi says “the normative and semantic environment – the manifest image of the world – is built by our minds, but it is no less real. . . . it is the contribution that the mind makes to the world.” MI is human imagination, not perception, yet it is how we know (cognize) reality (Kant). So, due to your "encouragement", I have learned a technical term that is above my amateur pay-grade.

Such mental images are integral parts of our worldviews, but they are Cultural instead of Natural. Hence, they cannot be proven or disproven by scientific methodology. Semantic MI, such as quantum wave-particles, become useful elements of our Kantian reality. But their normative existence is meta-physical, not physical. In Sellars' sense, they are non-natural (cultural ; mental), but not super-natural (spiritual). Consequently, they are detected, not by what they are (material), but by what they do (role).

Floridi says that the “explanatory gap” is due to the “artefactual nature of the natural”. That's because “we know, semanticize, and explain reality through the construction, expansion, and refinement of our semantic artefacts . . .” For example, “we know there is no God's-eye perspective”, but Cosmologists & Philosophers feel free to construct “manifest images” to represent such an outside-in worldview. He goes on to conclude that, for homo sapiens, “the non-natural is our first nature, and the natural is our second nature". Therefore, we humans don't just perceive physical nature, we conceive Nature meta-physically, in terms of Manifest Images.

I don't expect this semantic excursion to change your mind. It's merely an attempt to express the G*D concept in terms less likely to be interpreted based on the historical prejudicial antipathic antimony of religion vs science, where the same word can have opposite meanings. :smile:


*1. Science and Ultimate Reality : Quantum Theory, Cosmology, and Complexity
This volume provides a fascinating preview of the future of physics. It comprises contributions from leading thinkers in the field, inspired by the pioneering work of John Wheeler.
https://www.amazon.com/Science-Ultimate-Reality-Cosmology-Complexity/dp/052183113X

*2. Manifest Image (Wilfred Sellars) :
“his development of a coherentist epistemology and functional role/inferentialist semantics, for his distinction between the “manifest image” and the “scientific image” of the world, for his proposal that psychological concepts are like theoretical concepts, and for a tough-minded scientific realism” . . . . The scientific image grows out of and is methodologically posterior to the manifest image, which provides the initial framework in which science is nurtured,
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/sellars/

*3. The manifest image contrasts with the scientific image, which deals in the behaviour of conglomerates of the physical particles postulated by scientific theory. What Sellars called the ‘perennial philosophy’ from Plato onwards accepts the reality of the elements and features of the manifest image, but it is also a perennial problem to compare and reconcile its claims with that of the scientific image, which is in reality the arbiter ‘of what is, that it is, and of what is not that it is not’.
https://www.oxfordreference.com/display/10.1093/oi/authority.20110803100130832;jsessionid=0297B7D765A0033DE113DE8550B5341A

Thanks for your thoughts on information and it does lead me to think of systems theory. I can remember how when I was studying biology, it made so much sense of everything by seeing the integral links. This did involve the connections between the mind and body, such as how the vague nerve, in response to stress leads to an increase in blood pressure, as well as the whole process of homeostasis in the body. The whole processes of minds or minds also make sense in the cybernetic theory of Gregory Bateson. — Jack Cummins

Unfortunately, when I refer to the feedback loops in Mind & Nature, in terms of "Holism", I get negative feedback -- as-if the notion is anti-scientific. Even when I switch to "Systems Theory" the scent of New Age Consciousness theories remains. Bateson's ideas and terminology were quickly adopted by New Agers, so he is also sometimes tarred with the feather of pseudo-science. Yet Consciousness has always lingered just beyond the reach of Reductive Science. So, I'm willing to give Holistic (Systems) Science a shot at understanding the "difference that makes a difference", along with the connections that make a conception. Bateson referred to his Holistic worldview as an "Ecology of Mind". :smile:

I had never thought of it as information until I read a couple of threads on this site on consciousness and information. To some extent, that perspective works, but what seems to be missing is both sentience and narrative identity in the construction of an autobiographical sense of self identity. — Jack Cummins

Yes. Some theories of Consciousness as a form of Information (e.g. Integrated Information Theory) attempt to construct Self-Awareness by adding-up bits of encompassing environmental information until the aggregate seems to automatically point inward toward the Observer. This is a Holistic concept, but reductive analysis will miss the essential element that binds isolated parts into functioning wholes : a complete circuit. Metaphorically, the light goes-on when the circuit is complete.

Self identity is relative to the larger system of which one is a component. So the missing element is what causes material objects to integrate into a hierarchy of systems within systems (entanglement). I call that Causal Cybernetic*1 Information : EnFormAction (Energy + regulation + feedback). It's the internal feedback loops that provide self-knowledge back up to the observing Mind. The whole system is not just internally integrated, but globally coherent. In other words, both independent Whole and interdependent Holon*2.

Yet, to be useful, the Self must be distinguishable from Other, as-if a thing-unto-itself. And that's a whole 'nother story. :smile:


*1. Cybernetic :
A communication system in which Information flows both top-down and bottom-up. Like a program with a circular flow of data, beginning with original intention and enhanced via feedback (metaphorically, self-knowledge)

*2. Holon :
An individual is autonomous, but also part of a family, which is part of an extended family, which is part of a community, etc.
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/holon
Note : a Holon is a whole/part : it is linked upward & downward within the system

Thanks for allowing me to continue my exploration of the Enformationism conjecture. — Gnomon
You are welcome to your speculations. — universeness

Since you have me pegged as an anti-science god-fearing religious nut, I feel obligated to tell you what I'm giving-up for Lent : Epistemic Gaslighters. :joke:

a quantum Field is not a physical Object, but a metaphysical (mathematical) Concept. — Gnomon
Well, hang on. If it is the direct 'cause' of there being physical objects, then isn't it in some strong sense 'entangled' with and by the concept of 'physical-objectness'? Perhaps physical objects themselves do not perfectly exemplify 'physical-obectness' either? — Pantagruel

Perhaps I should have added (material) after "physical" in the quote. For most of us, "physical" implies "matter-based", and "mathematical" implies logical relationships*1. However, in my personal worldview both Matter & Math are forms of generic Information*2. Our senses detect Weight, but our minds interpret Mass, and imagine Matter/Object (Kant). I refer to Mathematics as "metaphysical" in the Platonic sense, that many mathematicians accept, but physicists tend to reject. So yes, physical Objects and metaphysical Fields are "entangled", in the sense that both can be reduced (mentally) down to patterns of relationships (ratios ; information ; meaning). :smile:


*1. Mass :
Mass (symbolized m) is a dimensionless quantity representing the amount of matter in a particle or object.
https://www.techtarget.com/whatis/definition/mass-m
Note -- Mass is dimensionless because it is an idea, not a thing. It's a symbol (qualia) representing a quantity of matter. But the symbol or metaphor is not the thing or object.

*2. It from Bit :
It from Bit symbolizes the idea that every item of the physical world has at bottom — at a very deep bottom, in most instances — an immaterial source and explanation; that what we call reality arises in the last analysis from the posing of yes-no questions and the registering of equipment-evoked responses;
https://www.themarginalian.org/2016/09/02/it-from-bit-wheeler/
Note -- this idea was proposed by quantum physicist John A. Wheeler. Again mathematicians & physicists may differ on the plausibility of this postulate.

Your attempts to insult 180 Proof by your patronising claim, that you find me more palatable, is almost school yard debate tactics. I find such, pretty low brow. — universeness

Tu quoque. :joke:

I stopped responding to , not because I was offended by his skepticism of an unorthodox philosophical concept, or even his off-target debasive tactics, but because he seemed to insist that philosophical questions must be settled by empirical methods. He also accused me of making pseudo-scientific assertions, even though for support, I quoted the opinions of professional scientists, not religious theologians. Ironically, I have subscribed to both SKEPTIC & Skeptical Inquirer magazines for over 40 years, plus Scientific American magazine. So, I'm pretty well-informed about pseudo-science. Quantum Physics is indeed weird, but it only seems "pseudo" because of its Holistic & Transcendent*1 implications. And its philosophical connotations would be labeled by Materialists as "pseudo", except for the fact that it works -- pragmatically and without magic. My moderate position falls somewhere in between the New Age religious interpretations, and the Old Age classical physics paradigm.

Just today, in Skeptical Inquirer, March-April 2023, I found some relevant comments. "Our emphasis is on empirical, scientifically testable claims". Then, "the committee takes no position regarding nonempirical or mystical claims. . . . Those concerned with metaphysics an supernatural claims are directed to those journal of philosophy and religion dedicated to such matters". The Enformationism thesis is indeed "non-empirical". But whether it is "mystical" depends on your attitude toward un-solved mysteries. I was forced to remind 180 repeatedly, that TPF is a Philosophy forum, for discussing debatable ideas, not a Physics forum for exchanging factual information and verifiable guesses.

My thesis is definitely not a "what is" assertion, but a "what if" question. For example, it does not claim, as a fact, that there is a transcendent entity responsible for the existence of our contingent world. (do you accept that it is not self-existent?) Even if there is indeed a transcendent First Cause, the thesis points out that, due to the dialectic of Good vs Evil, divine intervention to correct such imperfections is not plausible --- especially if one assumes that the deity is the God of Abraham. That deity has a recorded history of failing to make good on his promises to protect his chosen people from harm. When grievous harm does repeatedly befall them, the record blames that Badness on the hapless people themselves. Instead, my postulated First Cause is totally responsible for both the Good and the Evil of the effects of ongoing causation.

I do postulate that Evolution is progressing in an upward direction, from an almost nothing Singularity toward, perhaps, a Technological Singularity --- from simplicity toward complexity. But that is hardly a traditional religious concept. No offer of direct intervention or salvation. Instead, it is more like an open-ended scientific experiment, to see how things turn out. Of course, those who want a comforting religious worldview can (and do) easily interpret the open-ended uncertainty of quantum science in religious metaphors, such as "transcendence of death". Meanwhile, those who prefer a closed mechanical classical physics paradigm can (and do) interpret the same quantum evidence to mean that "what was is what will be". Do you expect any future surprises like the, so-far inexplicable, emergence of Life & Mind from random roiling of matter?

Thanks for allowing me to continue my exploration of the Enformationism conjecture. :smile:


*1. Transcendent Causation :
The point we wish to make here is that there can never be a "theory of everything" possible unless physics can come up with an adequate theory of a universal and singular causation of everything , both quantum and physical.
https://www.academia.edu/24843805/Physical_causation_transcendental_causation_and_a_theory_of_everything

So, attempting an analogy here, is it that enformaction is like computer code, and information is like the GUI we see on the computer screen? — ucarr

EnFormAction is envisioned somewhat like a computer program processing Information (matter & energy) in order to produce the phenomena that we interpret as Reality. Regarding the perceptive GUI analogy, I'll simply refer you to Donald Hoffman's counterintuitive notion of our mental interpretation of sensory inputs as, not Reality per se, but an "interface" for the underlying ding an sich. :nerd:

In computing, an interface is a shared boundary across which two or more separate components of a computer system exchange information.

Reality is not what you see :
cognitive scientist Hoffman has produced an updated version of Kant’s controversial Occult Ontology
https://bothandblog6.enformationism.info/page21.html

So, from what I conjecture from your two above quotes, physicality extends all the way into the metaphysical ground of existence; this one can claim since both information and enformaction interface the physical_cognitive? Does this possibility suggest semi-metaphysicality instead of metaphysicality? — ucarr

As Kant argued, our physical senses detect abstract information (similar to dots & dashes of Morse code) which our minds interpret into the imaginary models that we accept intuitively as Reality. Deacon updated that physical/metaphysical distinction with a modern computer interface analogy. But the notion that our Ideal mental models are the only Reality we have access to, is anathema to Materialists & Realists. For them, any reference to "Metaphysics" betrays a religious commitment. And I suspect that various worldwide religious notions of a hidden or parallel reality (or spirit realm) may derive from a vague pre-scientific grasp of the fact that : what you see Physically ain't necessarily what-is Ontologically. If, by "semi-metaphysicality" you mean a blend of physical & metaphysical worldviews, I suppose that describes the Hylomorphism of Aristotle. :brow:

Aristotle's hylomorphism is, roughly speaking, the idea that objects are compounds consisting of matter and form.
https://metaphysicsjournal.com/articles/10.5334/met.2
Note -- what he called "Form" (the idea or design or pattern of a thing) is what I call "Generic (non-specific) Information", which can be enformed into a material instance of the general concept.

Well, you say your worldview is fundamentally inferential so... your conclusions are not reached on the basis of evidence and reasoning? — ucarr

I don't remember saying that the worldview is "fundamentally inferential" in so many words, but I suppose that's true. But then, what is "reasoning" if not the practice of Inference? Maybe what you meant was "imaginary". If so, no. Although imagination is necessary to see anybody's mental model of the world. :nerd:

An inference is an idea or conclusion that's drawn from evidence and reasoning. An inference is an educated guess. We learn about some things by experiencing them first-hand, but we gain other knowledge by inference — the process of inferring things based on what is already known.
https://www.vocabulary.com/dictionary/inference

Is it correct to say the essence of your enformaction theorem is Wheeler's It-From-Bit idea? — ucarr

Yes, but I didn't realize the full meaning of that expression until years later, when I read an article on Quantum Physics in which the author exclaimed in reference to wave/particles, "it's all information, nothing but information" I suspect that Wheeler's postulate was ignored by pragmatic physicists, who gave-up trying to understand the meaning of quantum weirdness, and decided to just "shut-up and calculate". Similar unorthodox expressions by quantum pioneers (e.g. Bohr & Heisenberg), were ridiculed as Eastern religious beliefs. But what all those weird notions have in common is Holism, which was originally a scientific concept that was later adopted by New Agers. :cool:

Holism and FreeWill Versus Reductionism and Fatalism :
http://bothandblog7.enformationism.info/page24.html

Is it correct to say your Singularity has components both physical and cognitive? — ucarr

No, a dimensionless Singularity is a mathematical (cognitive) definition, not a physical object. If the Singularity was a physical container, it would have compressed all the matter in the universe into a dimensionless dot. An infinity-to-one compression ratio.

Spacetime within the context of Relativity is most assuredly physical. General relativity, being the geometric theory of gravitation -- including warpage of spacetime -- makes the case for this.
How can you justify your above claim in light of this? — ucarr

For Einstein, the curvature of non-physical space was a mathematical (geometrical) concept, not intended to be taken literally. Yet, it's now a stock gimmick of sci-fi stories. Likewise, the "fabric" of spacetime is a metaphorical analogy, not an invisible kind of cloth. Can you stick yourself on the point of a geometric triangle? :joke:

Spacetime Curving :
There is no evidence that there is any “actual” (as in real or physical) space-time, much less that there is any actual curvature thereof.
https://www.quora.com/Can-you-actually-warp-the-fabric-of-space-time

I'm thinking the above statements contain a thicket of issues: a sphere, by definition, has boundaries (every point on its surface is equidistant from its center). More generally, a shape, by definition, has boundaries. Finally, if a physical object doesn't extend indefinitely, it has a shape. Do you think otherwise? — ucarr

No, according to Einstein, the universe, like a spherical surface (no innards), is unbounded. By contrast, a cube is bounded by edges. :wink:

As an example of an unbounded Universe, imagine a sphere in 3D space.
https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/247864/what-does-finite-but-unbounded-universe-mean