I share 180 Proof's 'impatience,' with your attempts to deny that your enformer, IS a god of the gaps posit. If you had honestly and earnestly stated your enformer as a theological proposal from the start, — universeness

As usual, you and interpret my philosophical & technical terminology differently from my intention. You are reading meanings into my words, instead of taking them as I define them in the posts. Apparently, 180 feels that his mechanical matter-based worldview (belief system, religion???) is threatened by an information-based philosophy. Which is true*1, but not in the way he imagines. :wink:

There is no religious cult of Hippie Informationists, coming to pry his beloved Matter from his cold dead hands. Instead, a new worldview is gradually emerging as Science advances --- not due to onslaughts by religious philistines, but due to gradual internal evolution of the "scientific" worldview*2. There is indeed a knowledge gap in modern science, but it cannot be filled by oldfashioned traditional religions, or by outdated classical mechanisms. That's because it's an Epistemological gap, not a Revelation lack or Empirical unknown. :nerd:

So the problem is not that I am concealing my intentions, but that you are imputing old familiar (traditional ; religious) meanings into the strange new (emergent ; mental) terminology of Quantum & Information Science. As a lone prophet (of science) "crying in the wilderness", I have no communal religion to to push. But I do have an idiosyncratic personal (non-religious) philosophical worldview, upon which all of my posts are based. The Enformer is a philosophical hypothesis, not a doctrinal "god of the gaps" that can be dismissed as non-empirical. However, if you are not interested in that new way of looking at the world (framing), you can just relax and ignore my "ravings"*3, as the imperial Romans ignored the insignificant uncultured barbarian invaders, until it was too late. :joke:

From that "outlandish barbarian" perspective, the world is no longer matter-based, but founded on invisible information. Yet to 180, any belief in invisible things can only be religiously motivated. He seems unaware that Quantum Science deals with, not only invisible (fields) but also not-yet-real (superposed) things. For classical common sense, such non-things may seem as un-real as pixies & unicorns. Do you believe in non-local Fields & Entanglement (holism) & Superposition (supernatural positions)? Do you take the existence of such non-sense on faith in physicists. If you do, does that make you an adherent of a Quantum Religion? No? Then maybe you can join the Quantum Information Club, and enjoy the incomprehension of the uninformed infidels. :smile:

PS__Please pardon my eccentric sense of humor, I'm seriously kidding --- in attempt to convey unwelcome ideas without giving offense.

*1. The existential threat is not just a feeling, but imminent --- In the same sense that 20th century Quantum Theory eventually undermined the foundational assumptions of Classical physics. In the 21st century, non-local quantum fields & spooky action-at-a-distance have replaced Newton's particular & local mechanisms -- for theoretical applications, if not for pragmatic purposes. Yet, most of us still think in classical terms, because they are familiar & intuitive, and appeal to common-sense. The post quantum world, by contrast, is unfamiliar & weird & non-sensical. On top of that new-wave Science, Information theory has opened-up novel ways to interpret the fundamental workings of the world. And the notion of Emergence is essential to its holistic functioning. Which is why I was trying to introduce some (non New Age) Holism into the conversation on this thread. 180 is stalwartly defending the borders of his embattled belief system.

*2. Since the emergence of non-mechanical quantum "mechanics" the classical scientific worldview has been fragmented into many divergent threads. But that's a topic for another thread.

*3. "A prophet is not without honour, but in his own country, and among his own kin, and in his own house". That's not a religious belief, but a commonsense aphorism.

I'd recommend engaging with people on their own terms. . . . This is diving straight in with no thought for the reader. Why would anyone be interested in this? — bert1

OK, what are your "terms" for discussing a novel philosophical worldview? 180's terms seem to be those proposed by the Vienna Circle (materialism ; atheism). But that concession would eliminate all metaphysical postulations from discussion. Yet, the basic concept of Enformationism is that Information is both physical (Material ; scientific) and metaphysical (mental ; philosophical). For some people that's like saying Fire & Water can mix to become Aether : absurd!

The thesis website begins at the beginning with "thought for the reader" -- including a glossary of technical terminology -- but few posters are interested enough to read a long sci-phil essay that is not a graded academic requirement. So, they casually (mis) judge the thesis based on isolated excerpts in posts on various topics. Enformationism is a radical philosophical concept, that can't be grasped "at first glance". Even those who seem to agree with the general thrust of the thesis, typically don't take the time to really understand the science behind it, and the philosophical implications of replacing elemental Matter with fundamental Information (sorry for the random capitals). Like Quantum Physics, it sounds absurd & unrealistic on the face of it. So, I don't expect casual readers to give it the time of day.

Regarding "Give us a reason to read it", I can lead a horse to water, but I can't make him drink. There must be a thirst for knowledge to provide motivation. So, I just keep plodding away in the forum, not to recruit followers, but to develop the thesis under skeptical challenges. Just as Quantum Entanglement took years to reach general comprehension and grudging acceptance, the Enformationism postulation, which also uses esoteric terminology and exotic ideas, may eventually seep into the consciousness of the informed public. Or maybe not. Hey, it's just a personal worldview. :smile:



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

The universe is not locally real :
One of the more unsettling discoveries in the past half century is that the universe is not locally real. In this context, 'real' means that objects have definite properties independent of observation . . . . the evidence shows that objects are not influenced solely by their surrounding, and they may also lack definite properties prior to measurement. . . . the demise of local realism has made a lot of people very angry . . . . Blame for this achievement has now been laid squarely on the shoulders of three physicists : John Clauser, Alain Aspect , and Anton Zeilinger. They equally split the 2022 Nobel Prize in Physics."
Scientific American Magazine, January 2023
Note -- Enformationism proposes that universal Information (energy + laws) is the cause of mundane Reality, and of quantum absurdity.

↪Gnomon
Ad hominems, strawmen & non sequiturs-riddled rationalizations of your "enformer"-of-the-gaps poor reasoning are empty and boring. — 180 Proof

He says that Gnomon's reasoning is "empty and boring", but 180's countless repetitious replies imply that something about those reasons is hitting home. Unfortunately, he seems to think that redundant accusations -- throwing mud on the wall -- will serve as philosophical arguments.

Since he won't listen to me -- except for highlighting god-posits -- maybe you can ask him about the "home" that my postuations are hitting, at the heart of his own vulnerable belief system. Does he acknowledge any "gap" beyond the Big Bang beginning that remains to be filled by verifiable empirical evidence? If there is a scientific gap-filler, what is it, and what evidence supports it? If there is no satisfactory gap-filler, why are philosophers attempting to do what physicists have been unable to do*1? If it is a "closed question" why does it keep coming up in Science and Philosophy forums?

Empirical cosmology has provided us with mathematical evidence pointing backward to a pin-point origin of the physical universe. Unfortunately, at that point, the math shoots off into infinity, and the computers "halt & catch fire". But what are those infinite vectors pointing at? That may not be a viable empirical question, but it's a legitimate philosophical "open" question, is it not? Is 180 blinded by (faith in) Science, or simply by skepticism toward the open (empty) questions of Philosophy*2? What is it about that god-gap that hurts his heart? I need to know, so I can avoid offending him in the future with my open-ended reasoning. Or maybe he could just ignore my "boring" personal optional opinions without getting riled-up. That would be easier on his tender heart. :smile:

PS__Why is the very mention of the "G" word so offensive to him? Most other posters can take it in stride.


*1. What Happened Before the Big Bang? The New Philosophy of Cosmology :
On the big questions science cannot (yet?) answer, a new crop of philosophers are trying to provide answers.
This question of accounting for what we call the "big bang state"—the search for a physical explanation of it—is probably the most important question within the philosophy of cosmology,
https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2012/01/what-happened-before-the-big-bang-the-new-philosophy-of-cosmology/251608/

*2. "Philosophical questions are questions not answerable empirically or mathematically, with observations or calculations. They are open questions, that is, questions that remain in principle open to informed, rational, and honest disagreement . . . . Recall that questions are here understood as genuine requests for information."
___Luciano Floridii, prof of philosophy at Oxford; The Logic of Information
Note -- 180 bitterly rejects my hypothetical Enformer as the First Cause of the Big Bang. But he has not yet offered an empirical alternative gap-filler. If he believes there is no gap, then why is he so upset by my "vain" attempts to answer a question that has bedeviled both Philosophers and Scientists throughout history? Have I condemned his soul to eternal torment? Have I belittled his faith in fruitful empiricism? Or have I merely posited an answer to the most universal of all questions, that reminds him of the big-scary-monster-deity of his childhood?

The annointing of some of the Greek philosophers as 'Christians before Christ' was partially a recognition of Greek wisdom, and also a way of trying to harmonise Greek philosophy with Biblical revelation. — Wayfarer

Most world religions are motivated by faith in a cultural worldview, and/or by obeisance to a politico-religious regime. Yet Christianity was unique in its adoption of critical Reason, in addition to compliant Faith : both mindless repetitious "works" (sacrifices ; rituals), and critical "faith" (justification of faith)*1.

The Jews of Jesus' era, with no central temple, had become characterized by argumentative critical faith, due in part to its decentralized local synagogues, and in part to the imperial influence of the analytical Greek culture. Early Christians merely built upon that foundation, even as they rejected the "primitive" origins of Hebraism/Judaism in idolatry.

So, yes. I think they were impressed by the superior "wisdom" of the Greco/Roman culture, that allowed it to dominate the known world militarily and culturally. Yet those who did not wish to "harmonize" with "barbarian" gentiles remained isolated as non-conforming Jews. And that "arrogant" independence has caused them to be persecuted outcasts, even among those who claimed to worship the God of Abraham. :smile:


*1. The fundamentalist religion of my youth was a "critical faith". We learned to defend our Faith with reasons, and to be skeptical of other people's Faith, that did not conform to our rationale. Ironically, I turned that outward skepticism inwardly toward my own bible-based-beliefs. The faithless result was a philosophical Agnostic.

↪Paine
Is it ironic then that the New Advent encyclopedia, in its entry on Logos, says
It is in Heraclitus that the theory of the Logos appears for the first time, and it is doubtless for this reason that, first among the Greek philosophers, Heraclitus was regarded by St. Justin (Apol. I, 46) as a Christian before Christ. — Wayfarer

I think the Author of John's gospel was trying to rationalize the death of the Christian Messiah/King before his mission was accomplished. So, he argued that the messianic prophecies referred to an eternal spirit being instead of a temporal physical person. In other words, an abstract principle, not a flesh & blood human leader, as the Jews assumed. Hence, today a leather-bound book can be called "The Word" of God.

The original Greek term referred not to a messianic personal savior, but to a universal timeless Potential for rational thinking (expressed in words), that was Actualized in homo sapiens. Hence, John deliberately changed the referent to suit his own rationale for the death of the son of God : the god-man may have died physically, but the revelation (message) is immortal.

Heraclitus -- who died 3 centuries before the crucifixion of Jesus -- obviously was not an actual Christian. But his philosophical notion of an eternal principle of Logic was Christianized by a Greco-Jew, probably under the influence of Paul's spiritualized Judaism. Ironically, John's appropriated "Word" is now better-known than Heraclitus' original "Logos". My 2cents worth. :smile:


Logos :
What is the definition of logos? The Lexham Bible Dictionary defines logos (λόγος) as “a concept word in the Bible symbolic of the nature and function of Jesus Christ. It is also used to refer to the revelation of God in the world.” Logos is a noun that occurs 330 times in the Greek New Testament. Of course, the word doesn’t always—in fact, it usually doesn’t—carry symbolic meaning. Its most basic and common meaning is simply “word,” “speech,” “utterance,” or “message.”
https://www.logos.com/grow/greek-word-logos-meaning/

You will NEVER get past your gap god deity (deism), by trying to dress it up as a fake 'abstract philosophical principle.' You would be as well to claim that pixies, orcs, unicorns and the flying spaghetti monster are also important abstract philosophical principles. — universeness

Since I have no formal training in Philosophy, it has taken me a while to realize that you and are arguing from a Logical Positivism position, which says that there are no “open questions”, hence nothing for philosophers to contribute. Which explains why our vocabularies don't align. Ironically, the Vienna Circle argued themselves out of a job, since they claimed that empirical methods should replace the rational methods of traditional philosophy. That attitude makes the set of philosophical (open) questions empty. For example, Steven Hawking asserted that “philosophy is dead”. In which case this forum – including Uni & 180 -- is a major contributor to global warming : producing nothing but hot air. Hawking went on to say “Philosophy has not kept up with modern developments in science, particularly physics”. Based on that prejudice, he dismissed one Open Question : “did the universe need a creator?” I don't think he was dissembling, but he seems to be unaware of professional physicists (e.g. Paul Davies ; Santa Fe Institute), who do consider that to be a valid question, especially in the light of open-ended Quantum Physics.

Your derision of my "god posit" is understandable from the worldview of Logical Positivism*1. But that outdated position of Certainty is no longer valid in the world of Quantum Uncertainty*2. Besides, can you find any instance in my posts where I have posited a super-natural explanation for a natural phenomenon that has been sufficiently explained by physical evidence? Isaac Newton's Principia explained most celestial phenomena in terms of a clock-like mechanism*3. But he was baffled by the non-mechanical "spooky action at a distance" of Gravity. So, he declined to propose a mechanical explanation, and instead he filled that gap in understanding by invoking the Christian God*4. Was Newton a religious idiot, or a genius scientist to whom the notion of "super-natural" was a problem for Physics, but not for Metaphysics*5. As a metaphysical philosopher, not bound to physical explanations, I can "feign" a hypothesis to fill the same gap recognized by Multiverse & Many Worlds proponents. None of which are verifiable in a positive sense, but which are logical as philosophical gap-filling posits*6.

You and 180 are broadly interpreting my meta-physical "principles" far beyond my own application. The only "gap" that I fill with a god-concept is the eternal abyss, of causal potential, metaphorically "before" the Big Bang. The mythical beings you list are merely analogies to creatures in the Natural world. Hence subject to validation or invalidation. But sober Scientists have postulated preter-natural pre-existent gap-fillers of their own, such as hypothetical Multiverses & Many Worlds*6. Do you take them to be empirical postulations or philosophical conjectures? If invalid, what alternative gap-filler, to something-from-nothing, can you posit? BTW, I have been lax in my ir-religious duties. Have I ever asked if you have a personal relationship with the Flying Spaghetti Monster? Have you been touched by his "noodly appendage". That's how you get to the meatball of his existence. :wink: :joke: :cool:



*1. "Logical positivism is not a philosophy of science according to the textbook. Positivism states you can only attribute cause to things you objectively know exist ... "
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logical_positivism

*2. Logical Positivism panned :
“The verifiability criterion made universal statements 'cognitively' meaningless, and even made statements beyond empiricism for technological but not conceptual reasons meaningless, which was taken to pose significant problems for the philosophy of science. . . . Even philosophers disagreeing among themselves on which direction general epistemology ought to take, as well as on philosophy of science, agreed that the logical empiricist program was untenable, and it became viewed as self-contradictory: the verifiability criterion of meaning was itself unverified . . . . Popper finds virtue in metaphysics, required to develop new scientific theories. And an unfalsifiable—thus unscientific, perhaps metaphysical—concept in one era can later, through evolving knowledge or technology, become falsifiable, thus scientific. ”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logical_positivism

*3. Action at a Distance :
The Newtonian view of the universe may be described as a mechanistic interpretation. . . . Newton did not address this question, but many of his contemporaries hypothesized that the forces were mediated through an invisible and frictionless medium which Aristotle had called the ether. The problem is that everyday experience of natural phenomena shows mechanical things to be moved by forces which make contact. Any cause and effect without a discernible contact, or action at a distance, contradicts common sense and has been an unacceptable notion since antiquity. Whenever the nature of the transmission of certain actions and effects over a distance was not yet understood, the ether was resorted to as a conceptual solution of the transmitting medium. By necessity, any description of how the ether functioned remained vague, but its existence was required by common sense and thus not questioned.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Action_at_a_distance
Note -- the necessity for an aethereal medium for action-at-a-distance has been revived in the 21st century by quantum physicists.
https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg24432543-300-einstein-killed-the-aether-now-the-idea-is-back-to-save-relativity/

*4. “We can see that Newton made direct use of the God of the Gaps approach, whereupon God is invoked to explain something science can't.”
https://www.npr.org/sections/13.7/2015/04/08/398227737/what-the-god-of-the-gaps-teaches-us-about-science

*5. Hypotheses non fingo :
I have not as yet been able to discover the reason for these properties of gravity from phenomena, and I do not feign hypotheses. For whatever is not deduced from the phenomena must be called a hypothesis; and hypotheses, whether metaphysical or physical, or based on occult qualities, or mechanical,have no place in experimental philosophy. In this philosophy particular propositions are inferred from the phenomena, and afterwards rendered general by induction.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypotheses_non_fingo

*6. Multiverse not science :
Even though certain features of the universe seem to require the existence of a multiverse, nothing has been directly observed that suggests it actually exists. So far, the evidence supporting the idea of a multiverse is purely theoretical, and in some cases, philosophical.
https://www.nationalgeographic.com/science/article/what-is-the-multiverse

As carbon based lifeforms, we eventually 'emerged' . . . This got me thinking more about 'emergence.' To what extent do you think that human beings are 'information processors?' — universeness

I originally posted on the Emergent thread because the general concepts of "emergence" and "information processing" are essential to my idiosyncratic personal worldview. I had no intention of discussing "gods" or "religions". But I did propose to engage in a philosophical dialogue, not a scientific debate. However, I was forced, by persistent skeptical challenges, to explain how I arrived at some of my opinions about "emergence" & "information", and the origins of those ongoing processes. Yet hypothetical postulations about Ultimate Emergence and Origins of Forms, led to unfounded accusations of religious motivations, instead of philosophical curiosity. Unfortunately, that refocus of the thread let us far off-topic.

and teamed-up to quash any non-empirical answers to the OP questions. Despite inviting non-professional Opinions instead of authoritative Facts, they seem to think this forum is a place for only empirical/physical (scientific) answers, and not for theoretical/metaphysical (philosophical) guesses. But I continued to insist that the whole point of a philosophical forum was to discuss Open Questions*1 that have not been settled (closed) by experimental results or mathematical calculations (Quanta). Such unresolved queries tend to be about Universals & Logical Possibilities (Qualia) that are not sorted-out by Observations or Algorithms. Yet the A-team demanded empirically verifiable closed-system answers only : Demonstrate or Calculate!

They seem to be practicing radical Humean skepticism*2. Ironically, as a philosophical method, it is self defeating, because it denies the possibility of theoretical knowledge or pragmatic belief*3. It closes the door to Epistemology. That's why Bayesian Probability was developed, to provide a means to make uncertain information useful. Quantum physics would be useless if we demanded final facts (Quanta) and rejected informed opinions (Qualia). Quantum scientists resolved the dilemma of statistical uncertainty by voting on imperfect-but-actionable beliefs, as summarized in the Standard Model. Philosophers seldom deal with questions that have final satisfactory answers. Which is why we are still arguing open-ended Socratic questions to this day, 2500 years later.

Happenstantially, my Enformationism worldview is informed in part by an essential principle of Quantum Science : Uncertainty (undecidable ; in-calculable ; non-algorithmic). That fundamental fact reveals that Nature is inherently statistical & probabilistic. Hence, not amenable to comprehensive answers, only serviceable limited applications. So quantum scientists had to learn to be satisfied by Open Ended probabilities instead of settled certainties. Practical, but not perfect conclusions. Likewise, my responses to the topical questions are inherently Philosophical (possible ; probable), not Scientific (empirical ; factual), but also not Religious (wishful ; emotional).

Statistical solutions, like Open Questions, are indefinite & elliptical, hence extend beyond space-time to include Infinity & Eternity. For example, what are the odds that our universe is self-existent, and did not emerge from any prior causal system? Did the Real world emerge from timeless statistical Potential, or from an infinite regression of Actual turtle-worlds? Did space-time-matter-energy begin with a bang, or is it eternally recycling? Did homo sapiens emerge from random evolution as an incidental accident -- is that a fact or conjecture? How did humans learn to process abstract information, such as mathematics, unless the potential for that talent was inherent in the information-processing system of Evolution? This is just a sample of open-ended questions that philosophers engage with, but have no hope for empirical resolution. I certainly don't have the final answers, do you? :smile:



*1. Open Questions :
An open-ended question is a question that cannot be answered with a "yes" or "no" response, or with a static response.
__Wiki
Note -- For example : is the fundamental element of physics Particular or Holistic? Statistical quantum duality (wave-particle) is a philosophical conundrum : moving Wave or static Object ; local Atom or non-local Field ; Part or Whole ; Yes, No, or Maybe?

*2. “If we take in our hand any volume; of divinity or school metaphysics, for instance; let us ask, Does it contain any abstract reasoning concerning quantity or number? No. Does it contain any experimental reasoning concerning matter of fact and existence? No. Commit it then to the flames: for it can contain nothing but sophistry and illusion.”
― David Hume
Note -- Taken literally, this declaration equates "abstract reasoning" concerning Qualia or Infinity with Sophistry. In which case, Quantum Physics & Philosophical Epistemology are illusory, and deceptive.

*3. Radical skepticism (or radical scepticism in British English) is the philosophical position that knowledge is most likely impossible. Radical skeptics hold that doubt exists as to the veracity of every belief and that certainty is therefore never justified. To determine the extent to which it is possible to respond to radical skeptical challenges is the task of epistemology or "the theory of knowledge".
___Wiki

My God is unstable; I describe myself as a reluctant theist, — Agent Smith

Sounds like you are an Agnostic. Which is a legitimate philosophical position on the notion of an invisible causal force in the world. Are you also "reluctant" about Energy? Have you ever seen that omnipresent creative/destructive power? Or do you just take it on faith in the testimony of theoretical physicists?

According to most physicists, there is no such thing as Energy. It's merely a label for the Cause of physical Change. Like the concept of Creator, It's a mental metaphor, not a material object. Is that something you can believe in? :smile:

Agnostic :
a person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God or of anything beyond material phenomena; a person who claims neither faith nor disbelief in God.
__Google

Who is the Hindu god of creation and destruction? :
Brahma is the creator of the universe while Vishnu is the preserver of it. Shiva's role is to destroy the universe in order to re-create it. Hindus believe his powers of destruction and recreation are used even now to destroy the illusions and imperfections of this world, paving the way for beneficial change.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/hinduism/deities/shiva.shtml

Types of Energy :
Energy is invisible yet it's all around us and throughout the universe. We use it every day, we have it in our bodies and some of it comes from other planets! Energy can never be made or destroyed, but its form can be converted and changed.
https://ypte.org.uk/factsheets/energy/types-of-energy
Note -- Does that description of Eternal Energy sound suspiciously like a Hindu deity to you?

You know what, my money is on Gnomon's G*D/Enformer resembling Fortuna more than YHWH! — Agent Smith

Thanks, but my idiosyncratic god-model doesn't even fit the Fortuna pigeonhole. Did you notice the PS in my previous post? :cool:

It's irrational to suggest someone else is cherry picking, when, in reading the above definition, you seem to have 'missed' the words 'god, theology and divine' and refuse to cognise their connection to theism and almost every practiced religion. You keep trying to grab at anything to try to hide behind. — universeness

Speaking of "cherry picking" you are selecting only the low-hanging fruit of religious meanings of "god", and ignoring the philosophical meanings. Do you think Spinoza used the word "god" in a religious sense? He is often identified as an early Deist, as well as a Pantheist/Pandeist. Some deists imagined God as the exogenous creator of the world, but others viewed God as immanent in the world. My personal Information-based understanding of "G*D" is BothAnd : PanEnDeism. In any case, most Deists were anti-religious. So their notion of "god" was equivalent to an abstract philosophical Principle.

Unfortunately. we are still using different vocabularies. And you won't find my terminology in a dictionary. Therefore, if you want to know what I mean by a word, all you have to do is ask me. :smile:

PS__You and have been trying to label me with a well-known woo-woo pigeon-hole that you can dismiss with a wave of the trite "god of the gaps" hand. But I don't even fit neatly into the amorphous Deism category. So, if you ask judgmentally, "are you now, or have you ever been, a Deist" I can truthfully answer : no. That's because my personal worldview is new & novel & unique. So it's an octagonal peg that doesn't fit into any pre-existing round-or-square, theist-or-atheist-or-ass-hole. Since I have been pre-judged, in a woo-woo kangaroo court, I'll have to plead the fifth. :joke:


Why Spinoza is Intolerant of Atheists :
Spinoza explicitly contrasts his view, based on a deist conception of God, with that of Hobbes.
https://phil.washington.edu/research/essays-articles-and-book-chapters/why-spinoza-intolerant-atheists-god-and-limits-early

Deism :
More simply stated, Deism is the belief in the existence of God solely based on rational thought without any reliance on revealed religions or religious . . . The most natural position for Deists was to reject all forms of supernaturalism, including the miracle stories in the Bible.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deism
Note -- Do you classify science-based Multiverse & Many Worlds hypotheses as "super-natural"? The G*D concept is a philosophical hypothesis, not a religious creedal belief. Do you understand the essential distinction between Philosophy and Religion?

FWIW, THIS IS WHAT GNOMON MEANS BY THE WORD "DEISM'
Just opinions. No-one speaks authoritatively for the non-religion of Deism

the Greeks, for some reason, thought it necessary to find the arche. Quare? — Agent Smith

If by "the Greeks" you mean philosophical thinkers, the necessity for knowing the "arche" is inherent in the frame of reference. Typically, most people, are proximate thinkers, restricting their observations to what's directly in front of them. But philosophers seem to be, by nature, ultimate thinkers. They see, with physical eyes, the proximate reality, but then look up and seek, with metaphysical vision, the beginnings & endings of the presumed continuum of reality. Generally, they do it by extrapolation (inference) from the known to the unknown. Hence, if they notice that nature has produced the inborn talent for rational thinking in humans, they presume that the ability to "seek" logical patterns must have originated in the eternal Essence of Reality.

Therefore, having no notion of a Big Bang beginning (something from nothing) they reasoned that a logical principle must have existed eternally, beyond space & time. Ordinary concrete-thinking Greeks referred to that immortal Source of human-like reasoning*1 as "God" or "gods". But, the abstract-thinking philosophers preferred a pure Source beyond the reach of human deception. And they labelled that hypothetical ultimate origin as "Principle"*2. Those un-real imaginary concepts were idealized as straightforward and non-devious, hence trustworthy.

Likewise, Pythagoras seemed to imagine all eternal principles as Mathematical abstractions of real-world geometry, with crystalline purity. Mathematics (art ; information) was understood as the underlying immaterial cause & structure of reality. But some of his concrete-thinking followers began to worship those mysterious mystical non-things as-if they were humanoid gods. So, it seems that most people prefer to think of their Arche in familiar personal real forms, instead of alien impersonal ideals. Which view is correct may depend on the pre-conceptions of the thinkers. :smile:



*1. Reasoning :
Inference from sensory knowledge (percepts) to extra-sensory (imaginary) knowledge (concepts).
Note -- Since most animals seemed to lack such extra-sensory perception, the average person assumed that it was a magical ability. Hence, from a divine source. But, philosophical thinkers tended to be skeptical of shamanic trickery. So, they offered the abstract notion of natural-but-non-human Ultimate or Eternal Principles.

*2. Principle :
a fundamental truth or proposition that serves as the foundation for a system of belief or behavior or for a chain of reasoning.

It seems to me that Earth’s person Gods are childish creations of human imagination. On the other hand, the absolute, ultimate ground of existence God seems credible to me. — Art48

I agree. But, considering the limited range of world experience of ancient people, it's understandable that even smart adult people would imagine their deity in concrete metaphors. The abstract hypothetical notion of an Eternal/Infinite ground-of-being would appeal only to a minority of abstract philosophical thinkers. Ultimates & Generalizations don't put food on the table. So the remote fleshless ghosts of hypothetical principles typically have little appeal to those whose Reality is limited to what they can see & touch. Ironically, that description fits some on this forum. :smile:

The second meaning of reductionism is the assertion that all sciences should reduce to physics (just as Apollo did). The argument for this hinges mainly on the success of physics up to this point. At least methodologically, scientists should continue to stick to what's been working for thousands of years. We should approach all topics available for scientific inquiry as if the goal is further reduction to physics. — frank

Those "shoulds" imply a moral obligation to the "truth" of Physics, as opposed to the "falsehoods" of Religion. The assertion of final authority for Empirical Physics was indeed the underlying ideology of Classical Physics since the 17th century. But the 20th century threw a monkey wrench of doubt (Quantum Uncertainty) into the works of that non-religious belief system .

The ancient & classical faith in an unbroken chain of causal Destiny was based on the unfounded assumption of Determinism -- by divine or physical Laws -- and "worked" for three centuries of empirical dominance. But confidence in that premise was shaken by Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle. In response to quantum indeterminism, AlanTuring began to look into the plausibility of Free Will within the "boundary conditions" (established by the statistical Schrodinger equation) of quantum physics. Quantum scale "laws" are fuzzy, so future states are statistical, instead of deterministic.

The Aaronson article, mentioned before, reviews Turing's reasoning in some detail (85 pages). So, what do you think? In view of Quantum Holism & Uncertainty, should we continue to bow before the Physics idols of Atomism & Destiny? :smile:


Physics and Determinism and Reductionism :
In honor of Alan Turing’s hundredth birthday, I unwisely set out some thoughts about one of
Turing’s obsessions throughout his life, the question of physics and free will. I focus relatively
narrowly on a notion that I call “Knightian freedom”: a certain kind of in-principle physical unpredictability that goes beyond probabilistic unpredictability. Other, more metaphysical aspects
of free will I regard as possibly outside the scope of science.
I examine a viewpoint, suggested independently by Carl Hoefer, Cristi Stoica, and even
Turing himself, that tries to find scope for “freedom” in the universe’s boundary conditions
rather than in the dynamical laws.
The Ghost in the Quantum Turing Machine ___Scott Aaronson
https://www.scottaaronson.com/papers/giqtm3.pdf


Quote : "Science is a differential equation. Religion is a boundary condition.” __Alan Turing
Differential = relationships between unknowns.
Boundary conditions = limitations on possibilites

What personal 'two values' do you think constitute my worldview, that you claim you affront? — universeness

I don't know. What do you think are your absolute values? True vs False? How do you know which is which? Whatever they are, they seem to be toward the opposite ends of my broader range of values. Which includes "maybe" or "I don't know". :joke: :cool:

Black and white thinking is a thought pattern that makes people think in absolutes.
https://www.webmd.com/mental-health/black-and-white-thinking

Multi-valued orientation is for things to be ranged on a scale. Two values orientation is used for the "absolutes". Instead of having a scale of values, the "absolutes" are used.
https://www.123helpme.com/essay/A-Comparison-Of-Multi-valued-Orientation-And-49481

Your description of deism is simply wrong. You have no ability to usurp a well entrenched label for your own purposes without first gaining massive popular support to do so. . . . .
"Deism . . . (derived from the Latin deus, meaning "god") is the philosophical position and rationalistic theology that generally rejects revelation as a source of divine knowledge, and asserts that empirical reason and observation of the natural world are exclusively logical, reliable, and sufficient to determine the existence of a Supreme Being as the creator of the universe". — universeness

Whoa! That's an emphatic two-handed rejection. I described Deism simply as a "non-religious philosophical position". How does your quote differ, except for more words? It says nothing about Religion. So, I assume that you must interpret "supreme being" as a taboo religious concept. I don't. And many philosophers & scientists through history have held notions of a First Cause or "Supreme Being" while eschewing the revelations and creeds of religions. Who's doing the "usurping" here?

Note the reference to "empirical reason" in your definition. Picking nits : in my understanding of Deism, I would replace the word "to determine" with "to imply". The implicit immaterial First Cause is not "determined" in the empirical sense of a direct observation of physical evidence*1, but merely a conclusion "inferred" from a discernible pattern of circumstantial evidence (clues)*2. I'm merely trying to anticipate your objection here, based on a narrow cherry-picked meaning of the word "to determine".

Yet again, different meanings for same words. Which makes philosophical communication difficult. So, what's "simply" wrong with my definition? Sounds like "what's wrong" is simply that you don't like the philosophical implications of an Ultimate Cause or Supreme Being or Cosmic Programmer or Creator. How can we communicate if we don't share that emotional bias?*3 Perhaps you prefer to assume that the evolving ever-changing physical universe is Self-Existent or Self-Created? Based on what evidence? :smile:


*1. Can physical evidence be circumstantial evidence?
Physical evidence can be direct and all but prove the guilt of the accused, or it can be merely circumstantial. For example, a shoe print is an example of physical evidence. But just because the accused wears similar shoes as the person who committed the crime does not prove the accused did it.
https://catanzarolaw.com/2021/06/differences-between-physical-and-circumstantial-evidence/
Note -- many crimes are solved solely on the basis of circumstantial evidence. Is that OK with you? In this case the crime is Creation.

*2. To Determine :
1. cause (something) to occur in a particular way; be the decisive factor in.
2. ascertain or establish exactly, typically as a result of research or calculation.
3. to settle or decide by choice of alternatives or possibilities
4. to find out or come to a decision about by investigation, reasoning, or calculation
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/determine

*3. We Just Disagree :
So let's leave it alone 'cause we can't see eye to eye
There ain't no good guy, there ain't no bad guy
There's only you and me and we just disagree
___Song by Dave Mason, 1977
Sorry, that's just my weird sense of humor again. :joke:

I perceived no language barrier between us, and I find such camouflaged insults, rather puerile. — universeness

The insult is in your interpretation. FWIW, I never intend to offend. The wry remark was intended as an ironic all-too-true joke-poke, to be accepted with philosophical grace. Yet I anticipated that you might take the metaphor literally, just as you do with so many of my other "puerile" multi-value*1 tropes that affront your personal two-value worldview. BTW, if I intended to insult you, I wouldn't have to "camouflage" it. My personal worldview is fundamentally different from yours, so a implication in one "language" does not translate to the other. :joke:

The irony is that you "perceived no language barrier", when our dialects are so far apart as to convey opposite meanings. The tongue-in-cheek-joke was referring to the same old barrier-to-understanding that prompted Voltaire to advise, for all who engage in philosophical dialogues, “If you want to converse with me, first define your terms”,. Unfortunately, for those with Black vs White mindsets, there is no common ground for defining terms across the umbra. :meh:


*1. BothAnd : a multivalued worldview, as opposed to an Either/Or attitude toward truth.

The notion of emergent phenomena is closely related to holism. Am I correct? — Agent Smith

Yes. "Holism" and "Emergence" are essential concepts in the thesis of Enformationism, which derives from the epistemological (what can we know?) challenges of Quantum Entanglement and Complex Systems in general. The Santa Fe Institute was founded specifically to study Complexity via holistic methods, instead of the traditional reductive methods of classical Science. :smile:
But don't take my word for it. Here's some other opinions :


Strong Emergence Is Holism, Not Magic :
To a reductionist, this seems magical: How do qualitatively different properties “emerge” (in irony quotes) from complex aggregates of fundamental particles of matter? Proponents of strong emergence (or holism), however, argue both that the potential for higher-level, qualitatively distinct properties is written into the laws of nature (laws of emergence, so to speak) and that what look like relatively mundane or boring fundamental particles of nature actually have immense creative potential to instantiate higher-level entities and properties when arranged in complex ways.
https://www.zacharyfruhling.com/philosophy-blog/strong-emergence-is-holism-not-magic

Holism, reductionism and emergence :
Emergence is the opposite of reduction. Holism is the opposite of separability.
The difference is subtle, but emergence and reduction are concerned with concepts, properties, types of phenomena, being deducible from other (lower level) ones, while holism is concerned with the behaviour of parts being independent from relational aspects, or their pertaining to a whole.
Following holism, the whole system should be considered, not only its parts and their interactions. A typical example is entanglement in quantum mechanics. That does not mean that new irreducible higher level concepts have to be used to address the whole system.
https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/questions/21419/holism-reductionism-and-emergence

Holism in science :
Holism in science, holistic science, or methodological holism is an approach to research that emphasizes the study of complex systems. Systems are approached as coherent wholes whose component parts are best understood in context and in relation to both each other and to the whole. Holism typically stands in contrast with reductionism, which describes systems by dividing them into smaller components in order to understand them through their elemental properties.
Proponents claim that Holistic science is naturally suited to subjects such as ecology, biology, physics and the social sciences, where complex, non-linear interactions are the norm. These are systems where emergent properties arise at the level of the whole that cannot be predicted by focusing on the parts alone, which may make mainstream, reductionist science ill-equipped to provide understanding beyond a certain level.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holism_in_science


What they say about us ... This is the Santa Fe Institute, a sort of Justice League of renegade geeks, where teams of scientists from disparate fields study the complexity of evolving worlds.
https://www.santafe.edu/about/overview

I hope that your first quote above bears some useful fruit for both of us, as we both continue to seek truth.
I think I have faced your arguments head on and have not merely dismissed your speculations out of hand. — universeness

Yes. Thanks for engaging in an extended dialogue, which is probably frustrating for you, due to the language barrier. The basic problem is that we assign different meanings to key words, such as "Emergent". For me that is a Holistic Philosophical concept, but apparently for you its a Reductive Scientific term, even though there is no physical evidence, only inferences & opinions. Also, "Deism" for me is a non-religious philosophical worldview; but for you there is no significant difference from "Theism". Hence, most of your "head-on" answers to my arguments have been off-target.

When I started engaging with , I soon felt like I was trapped in a Joe McCarthy "witch hunt" : Q. "are you now, or have you ever been a Communist (Theist ; pseudo-scientist) ; A. No sir, I'm a Socialist (Deist ; meta-physicalist) ; Q. "Same difference" (i.e. no difference). Consequently, anything I might say in my defense could serve as linguistic evidence against me. In my non-elite, common-sense, language, as for the ancient Greeks, Metaphysics (ideas, not things) is what philosophy is all about. It focuses, not on the furniture of the world, but on its design.

I have found that a common understanding of the Philosophical endeavor -- on this forum -- is that it came to an end in the 17th century, when empirical results began to replace theoretical & theistic models. And its true that Philosophy, as profession, went into a long decline, and lost its aura of authority to Physics. Academic Philosophy began to devolve into endless pointless linguistic debates about finer & finer points of abstruse nonsense. But in the 20th century, both Science & Philosophy, were forced to grapple with bizarre concepts that would have boggled the mind of Isaac Newton --- whose side passions, besides Astronomy & Mathematics, were Alchemy (pre-Chemistry) & biblical mysteries.

Anyway, my philosophical ideas on this forum come primarily from Quantum & Information theorists, who are trying to make sense of a Reality that is influenced by its observers, and cannot be dissected down to tangible atoms of matter. So, I have lept over the "modern" phase of Philosophy, and landed in the quagmire of post-quantum reality, where the Whole is more-than the sum of its Reductive parts. It also raises debatable questions regarding what we can "know" about Reality under the surface impressions of our 5 senses, and our technically-extended senses. Fortunately, Philosophy's only tool is the 6th sense of Reason, which is well-adapted to "see" whole Systems and non-physical Functions. :smile:



Philosophy Has Lost Its Way :
In the world of academia, philosophy has become this weird playground of technicality and complexity that separates the curious masses from the intellectual elite.
https://moretothat.com/philosophy-has-lost-its-way/

When Philosophy Lost Its Way :
Having adopted the same structural form as the sciences, it’s no wonder philosophy fell prey to physics envy and feelings of inadequacy. Philosophy adopted the scientific modus operandi of knowledge production, but failed to match the sciences in terms of making progress in describing the world. . . . . Having become specialists, we have lost sight of the whole.
https://archive.nytimes.com/opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2016/01/11/when-philosophy-lost-its-way/?smid=fb-share

The weirdness of quantum mechanics forces scientists to confront philosophy :
Despite the tremendous success of quantum physics, scientists and philosophers still disagree on what it’s telling us about the nature of reality. Central to the dispute is whether the theory is describing the world as it is or is merely a mathematical model. Attempts to reconcile the theory with reality have led physicists to some strange places, forcing scientists to grapple with matters of philosophy.
https://bigthink.com/13-8/quantum-mechanics-philosophy/

You keep struggling against the ropes you tied around your own wrists. — universeness

No. I'm merely trying to untie the ropes of anti-metaphysical prejudice that dump all non-physical notions into the anti-science (religious) waste-bin. My wrists are still wiggling to escape your doctrinal bonds. But they are somewhat easier to deal with than 's dogmatic repression of philosophical speculation. That's why I have continued to dialog with you, and not with him. But, I see that you are getting weary of shooting down the same old intangible spooky spy balloons.

The positive aspect of our dialogue is the unraveling exercise your meaning-twisting accusations give me. They force me to expand my philosophical research into unfamiliar areas.The negative side of the physics vs metaphysics debate is that it always comes back to physical evidence, and neglects rational or circumstantial evidence (logical inference from patterns). By "denying the legitimacy" of metaphysics as a way to understand reality, you legislate away all of my arguments, instead of dealing with them. Which, in a court of law, is prejudicial to the witness. :smile:


The Problems of Metaphysics: the “New” Metaphysics :
An anti-metaphysician in the contemporary sense is not a philosopher who denies that there are objects of the sorts that an earlier philosopher might have said formed the subject-matter of metaphysics (first causes, things that do not change, universals, substances, …), but rather a philosopher who denies the legitimacy of the question whether there are objects of those sorts.
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/metaphysics/

Most atheists I've encountered these days say they are agnostic atheists - for reasons I described earlier. I think this makes sense. One claim goes to knowledge, the other goes to belief. It is entirely possible not to know if god exists but also to not hold a belief in any god/s. — Tom Storm

Yes. I sometimes identify myself as an agnostic Deist. I have no direct experience of the putative deity of my theory, merely circumstantial evidence, sufficient for conviction of creation. But from what I've learned from Philosophy & Science -- especially Quantum & Information theories -- leads me to infer that some metaphysical (Potential) First Cause is necessary to explain the physical (Actual) existence of the world of our experience. Logic, not Faith.

A Big Bang (something from nothing) is no explanation, just a dramatic gap-filler. Several prominent scientists have reached the same conclusion, but avoid using the taboo term "god" as a conventional label for that preternatural causal force. The essential role of causal & meaningful Information in the world led me to the thesis of Enformationism. And the thesis pointed to the logical necessity of a Programmer to write the Program that is unfolding as the process of Evolution, "creating this immense and wonderful universe" *1.

Since my youthful experience of an austere religion was "mostly harmless", I never developed antipathy toward the almost universal cultural belief in an unseen power organizing the world. I have merely adopted the philosophical notion of an abstract impersonal Principle (energy + law) instead of the traditional prescientific humanoid entity to rule the world. Personally, I don't take the god-concept literally, but figuratively. An open-ended worldview is very modern (supercilious), but it leaves Ontological questions unanswered. To seek such universal general knowledge is what philosophers, and Deists *2, do, yet what pragmatic specific scientists avoid -- deeming Philosophy feckless. :smile:


*1. “Another source of conviction in the existence of God, connected with the reason and not with the feelings, impresses me as having much more weight. This follows from the extreme difficulty or rather impossibility of conceiving this immense and wonderful universe, including man with his capacity of looking far backwards and far into futurity, as the result of blind chance or necessity. When thus reflecting I feel compelled to look to a First Cause having an intelligent mind in some degree analogous to that of man; and I deserve to be called a Theist.”
—Charles Darwin, the founder of evolutionary biology, as cited in his autobiography.
Note -- A philosophical "First Cause", perhaps even the faceless-timeless-spaceless Creator of the Genesis myth, but not the tyrannical Lord of Judaism & Christianity. Toward the latter, I am indeed an Atheist. Darwin has been pictured as an Atheist by atheists. But, in his 'confessions" sounds more like an Agnostic or perhaps a Deist.

*2. " No atheist, Darwin deliberately avoided bashing religion. ... properly speaking, he was more deist than theist during this period."
https://www.faraday.cam.ac.uk/news/darwins-religious-beliefs/

Some theists will point to personal experiences as evidence, but these experiences can be subjective and interpreted in different ways. — Thund3r

As Kant pointed out, personal experiences are the only evidence of ding an sich Reality that we humans have, from which to construct our worldviews and belief systems. Everything else is hearsay. Our supposedly objective Science is merely a conventional model of Reality agreed-to by others with similar motivations. Theistic beliefs may be motivated, in part, by the visceral need for emotional social bonding (group identification), and in part, by the ideals of purity, perfection & salvation . On the other hand, Atheistic beliefs may be motivated, in part, by the visceral rejection of sheep-like social bonding, and in part, by the intellectual need for ideal perfection found only in logic & mathematics. But both seem to need the comfortable feeling of Certainty & Predictability. So, they make a leap of faith, as a knee-jerk response to the pain of uncertainty.

On the other hand, Agnostics seem to be able to function under uncertainty -- to tolerate the pain. They are able to suspend both belief and unbelief, pending a stastical assessment of Bayesian probability. Is that a superior adaptation to the incomplete information & knowledge of the human condition? In a quote often attributed to Immanuel Kant: “Someone's intelligence can be measured by the quantity of uncertainties that he can bear”. I don't know if that assertion is true. But I can live with the uncertainty. :joke:

The virtues of uncertainty :
A second type might be called the atheistically-inclined agnostics. Bertrand Russell was one. . . . Russell adopted his position for strictly philosophical reasons. He recognized that any purported proof for God's non-existence could never be completely convincing. So his atheistic inclinations had to do with intuitive feeling as well as pure logic. Together, they led him to live life as if the cosmos were godless.
In contradistinction to Russell's agnosticism is a third kind – religiously-inclined agnosticism – and it is this type, I think, that is the most interesting. Individuals who find themselves in this camp agree that the question of God is likely never to be settled. However, they nonetheless suspect that there's something at the heart of the religious way of life that can be of extraordinary value.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/belief/2009/apr/13/religion-philosophy-atheitsm-agnosticism

Agnostic belief embraces uncertainty :
In truth, agnosticism is less about belief in a god and more about knowledge, or lack thereof. Some agnostics will say they think there is a God, and others will say they do not, with the caveat, of course, that there is no evidence to support either of these thoughts. Theists and atheists hold a strong belief (or disbelief) in the existence of a higher power. The key difference is in how secure the person is in those beliefs – an agnostic will recognize a realistic possibility that their beliefs are incorrect, whereas a theist or atheist generally will not.
https://www.themiamihurricane.com/2017/12/01/agnostic-belief-embraces-uncertainty/

Kantian Agnosticism :
Kant also proposed that because of our lack of information and tangible evidence, it is impossible to know whether or not God, or an afterlife, really exists. He put forward the sentiment that people are justified in believing in God, despite not being able to know of it’s existence.
https://www.orionphilosophy.com/stoic-blog/immanuel-kant-greatest-quotes

Gnomon, did you know, your Enformationism bears an uncanny resemblance to String Theory - everything is but different frequencies of vibration of a/the fundamental stuff of the universe - (mathematical) strings. In the case of Enformationism, everything is different ? of information. What concept would replace the ? in the previous sentence? — Agent Smith

No. I did not know that. Any resemblance to String Theory is coincidental, not intentional. But, I guess I can see a family resemblance, in that Strings are abstract mathematical concepts, and abstract ideas (meaning) are the currency of Information. :smile:

Particles of stuff (atoms), as the elementary element of Physics, has been gradually & grudgingly superseded by nonlocal continuum Fields of information patterns, consisting of an imaginary grid of mathematical points with no extension in space. — Gnomon

This is not true. — T Clark

Wow! Total rejection. Can you be more specific about which part of that assertion seems to be untrue to you : "nonlocal" or "continuum" or "fields" or "information patterns" or "imaginary" or "points", or all of the above? Information theory assigns value to the pattern of relationships (geometry) even if the dimensionless-point-in-space has no physical substance. Such an abstract notion is difficult to grasp, but it is essential to Quantum & Information theories. :smile:

Real talk: Everything is made of fields :
“To understand what is going on, you actually need to give up a little bit on the notion of particles,” physicist Sean Carroll said in the June lecture.
Instead, think in terms of fields.
Carroll’s stunner, at least to many non-scientists, is this: Every particle is actually a field. The universe is full of fields, and what we think of as particles are just excitations of those fields, like waves in an ocean. An electron, for example, is just an excitation of an electron field.
This may seem counterintuitive, but seeing the world in terms of fields actually helps make sense of some otherwise confusing facts of particle physics.
https://www.symmetrymagazine.org/article/july-2013/real-talk-everything-is-made-of-fields
Note -- Can you imagine a mathematical point in empty space getting excited? It's a philosophical metaphor attempting to make an invisible abstraction imaginable. Like much of Quantum Physics, such notions are counter-intuitive and seemingly paradoxical.

FIELDS AND PARTICLES :
Broadly speaking, a field is a collection of properties ascribed to regions of space (one might also speak of the region itself as being "the field"); if the properties are quantifiable then the field is a mathematical function of spatial coordinates,
https://www.encyclopedia.com/humanities/encyclopedias-almanacs-transcripts-and-maps/fields-and-particles

"In vector calculus, a field is an assignment of a value (vector value for a vector field, scalar value for a scalar field) to every point in space".
https://www.quora.com/What-is-a-Field-mathematics

"What is a Point in Math? :
In classical Euclidean geometry, a point is a primitive notion that models an exact location in space, and has no length, width, or thickness.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Point_(geometry)

Lazy god posits are simply too irrational for me and my atheism often reaches ignostic/igtheism levels, when someone posits yet another, first cause mind variant. — universeness

In the introduction to my new book, The Logic of Information, by philosopher Luciano Floridi, I found an attractive concept that reminds me of our dueling accusations of toxic religion. "Systemic Attractors : if a new idea looks a bit like an old idea we already have, then the old one is a magnet to which the new one is powerfully attracted, almost irresistibly. We end up thinking that 'that new' is really just like 'this old', and if we do not like 'this old' then we dislike 'that new' as well. Bad philosophy indeed, but it takes mental strength and exercise to resist such a powerful shift". But lazy thinking allows such magnetic misconceptions to overpower Reason. That's what we call "prejudice" or "implicit bias".

In our dialogues, "the old" is irrational religions in general, while "the new" is merely a logical inference from the evolving Information structure of our universe : nothing to something to energy to matter to mind to imagination. A causal sequence that logically requires an implicit-but-not-specific First Cause. I have to smile, when I think of the spooky woowoo voodoo savage rituals that you envision Gnomon practicing in his new/old "religion". Perhaps worshiping the abstract First Cause (or "First Mind") --- from which our Information-structured world emerged --- by abandoning Reason in mindless shows of subservience. Whatever your mental model of The Enformer might be, it's a "lazy god posit" passively pulled by the "Systemic Attractor" of remotely similar, but unrelated ideas. That seems to be how many prejudicial beliefs get started. :smile: :cool:


Naturalism as anti-supernaturalism and anti-preternaturalism :
"On the one hand, science holds a firm and reasonable commitment to a healthy naturalistic methodology . . . . On the other hand, contemporary science is also inextricably and now inevitably dependent on ever more complex technologies, especially Information and Communication technologies . . . . Yet such technologies are increasingly 'artificializing' or 'denaturalizing' the world, human experiences, and interaction, as well as what qualifies as real. . . . If you are a naturalist, I am afraid I believe you are mistaken. . . . Naturalism is not a bad position to hold. It is a dominating Ur-philosophical thesis . . . and a widespread faith."
The Logic of Information, Luciano Floridi, Oxford

:wink:

Pross claims that the rejection of reductionism is a mistake. That's why I'm wrasseling. I think he's wrong, but I'm reevaluating my position. — T Clark

There's no need to "reject" Reductionism as the method for scientific analysis (dissection) of Nature into its elements. There's still some de-construction work to do. But as your quote implied, you can't construct a real material universe from squishy superposed (not yet real) Quantum non-particles. Nevertheless, according to some physicists, the world now appears to be organized from fundamental "bits" of information (Wheeler's "it from bit").

Since the 20th century, belief in tiny (invisible) Particles of stuff (atoms), as the elementary element of Physics, has been gradually & grudgingly superseded by nonlocal continuum Fields of information patterns, consisting of an imaginary grid of mathematical points with no extension in space. At least that is true for theoretical (mathematical) physicists. Meanwhile, some empirical scientists, and Materialist philosophers continue to view the world in terms of ancient Greek atoms and 17th century Newtonian matter .

In the 21st century, the Santa Fe Institute, of which Anderson was a founding member, focuses on "Complex Systems" in which inter-relationships (Information) are more important than the nodes of the grid. YouTube physicist Sabine Hossenfelder seems to think that reductionist physics has lost its way. Maybe a "bit" of Holistic Physics can put it back on track. In any case, philosophers don't construct their models from particles of matter. :smile:

Physicists Debate Whether the World Is Made of Particles or Fields :
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/physicists-debate-whether-world-made-of-particles-fields-or-something-else/

Santa Fe Institute :
But the way in which complex phenomena are hidden, beyond masking by space and time, is through nonlinearity, randomness, collective dynamics, hierarchy, and emergence — a deck of attributes that have proved ill-suited to our intuitive and augmented abilities to grasp and to comprehend.
https://www.santafe.edu/what-is-complex-systems-science

What is it from bit theory? :
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
https://www.themarginalian.org/2016/09/02/it-from-bit-wheeler/

What's Going Wrong in Particle Physics? :
Sabine Hossenfelder (This is why I lost faith in science.)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lu4mH3Hmw2o&t=254s

↪Agent Smith
I agree, I think that would be an unfair assumption. He may just be very passionate, regarding his need for an omnipotent mind to exist. Regardless of how this manifests in his psyche. This can give a lot of comfort against primal fear. — universeness

Although dispassionate & boring in person, Gnomon is passionate & evangelistic in writing, about his personal worldview, which serves as a late-blooming philosophical replacement for the religious worldview of his youth : "fear God and keep his commandments". Yet, his "need" is not for divine omnipotence, but for philosophical understanding. I suppose your "need" is for a solid tangible classical foundation to the world, which was undermined by quantum fuzzy logic.

Tu quoque, you seem to be just as passionate about defending your own implicit Materialism/Physicalism [or fill-in your favorite belief system here] worldview from false prophets. And your visceral fear of the implications of Enformationism is appropriate, even if un-founded. As an antithesis to old-fashioned Naturalism, It doesn't substitute physical Matter with spooky Spirits, but with ubiquitous mundane Information, which is both Material & Immaterial, both Physical & Metaphysical, both Real & Ideal.

That may sound confusing or spooky to you. Yet it's not recycled woo-woo mumbo-jumbo, but the novel notion of an emergent phase in the evolution of the physical world, and of metaphysical human culture ; of physiology and technology. :smile:

PS__I suppose we have established, in our dueling dialogues, that for Uni : "sh*t happens", while for Gnomon : "sh*t happens for a reason". :cool:

PPS__In Enformationism, G*D's commandments are the Laws of Nature, which we "keep", or reap the consequences. :joke:

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

No. If anything, I'm trying to dampen down your prejudiced incredulity level. This is not a Physics forum, so I am not claiming to have physical evidence for my Philosophical speculations about the immeasurable knowledge gap*1 before the beginning of our world. My "speculative" thesis is not about that cognitive vacuum; and it's not about Gods & Religions; but about how our own home-world works : via EnFormAction. How many times do I have to say that? The gnarly "gap god" is a figment of your fearful imagination, not a core feature of the information thesis, except as an implicit logical necessity.

How much more "upfront" can I be than to refer to my G*D concept as an "unproveable axiom"*2. I have posted the definition below many times before. Scientists, Philosophers, and Mathematicians commonly use Axioms as a premise or starting point for reasoning. The subsequent reasoning is about the ubiquity & consequence of the understanding that immaterial Information is the fundamental element of our real world. You seem to be gagging on the idea of the medicine, not the medicine itself.

Once again, I'll say that you are incredulous about a scary-image in your own mind, not mine. I don't care if you despise the notion of a World Creator. The point of my thesis is to develop (not originate) a new philosophical model of Reality, with Information instead of Matter as the basic building block. I refer to the opinions of Quantum and Information scientists to support the information-centric post-materialism paradigm, not to prove the existence of a hypothetical Programmer. However, if our world is indeed information-based, it is logical to assume that an Enformer of some kind is responsible for the ongoing process of En-Form-Action (energy + laws) that we blithely refer to as "Evolution" (emergence ; development : progression). And It-from-Bit "quantum phenomena" are circumstantial evidence from which to infer an information foundation of physical reality*4.

doesn't seem to be a practicing Theist, but as an inquisitive philosopher, he is open to the notion of a metaphysical Logos concept to provide an axiomatic starting point for the story of information-centric Evolution. But, you and are so wary about pollution of Philosophy with Religion, that you are jumping at shadows. Relax, there are no ravening G*Ds or Demons out there coming to get you, and drag you down to a Hellish Matrix of your own imagination. :smile:


*1. Nothingness North of the North Pole :
Many scientists immediately objected to the Big Bang theory, because it reminded them of the Genesis creation myth. So, they began to conjecture materialist myths of their own : Steady State (no evidence) ; Multiverse (no evidence) ; Many Worlds (no evidence) ; beginningless & endless succession of Black Holes (no evidence). Even more incredible : Creation by god-like Aliens in a cosmic laboratory.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/was-our-universe-created-in-a-laboratory/

*2. G*D :
An ambiguous spelling of the common name for a supernatural deity. The Enformationism thesis is based upon an unprovable axiom that our world is an idea in the mind of G*D. This eternal deity is not imagined in a physical human body, but in a meta-physical mathematical form, equivalent to Logos. Other names : ALL, BEING, Creator, Enformer, MIND, Nature, Reason, Source, Programmer. The eternal Whole of which all temporal things are a part is not to be feared or worshipped, but appreciated like Nature.
I refer to the logically necessary and philosophically essential First & Final Cause as G*D, rather than merely "X" the Unknown, partly out of respect. That’s because the ancients were not stupid, to infer purposeful agencies, but merely shooting in the dark. We now understand the "How" of Nature much better, but not the "Why". That inscrutable agent of Entention is what I mean by G*D.
https://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page13.html
Note -- You can substitute physical "Momentum" for metaphysical "Entention" if it makes you feel better.

*3. A proposed new Worldview :
The Enformationism hypothesis is proposed as a possible scientific replacement for the fruitful, but aging, paradigm of Materialism. This new way of thinking about Reality suggests some counter-intuitive responses to those old puzzlers :

#. What is the world made of?
Old – Solid Matter and zippy Energy; atoms & space.
New – Immaterial Information patterns and relationships, including holistic wave/particles and our notion of location in Space/Time.

#. How does it work?
Old – By transformation of Energy into Matter, and vice-versa.
New – By transformation of raw information/data/ideas into powerful Energy and malleable Matter and curving Space and cycling Time.

#. Why does it work like that?
Old – Science doesn’t answer “Why” questions.
New – Because the physical universe is essentially an idea in a metaphysical, universal Mind.
Note -- You can substitute a Simulated Reality instead of Universal Mind, if you like. But the simulated worlds of video games always originate in the mind of the Programmer.
http://enformationism.info/enformationism.info/page4.html

*4. The Foundation of Reality: Information or Quantum Mechanics? :
https://www.technologyreview.com/2009/05/18/213077/the-foundation-of-reality-information-or-quantum-mechanics/

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

Yes, my philosophy is BothAnd, not Either/Or. So, my responses are not wishy-washy, but simply tailored to how the question is framed. As the PhysicsForums quote said : "The universe is analog. period. when we make simulations we use a digital aproximation". Holistically : the universe is continuous and analog. Reductively : the universe is simulated as particular and digital. Both answers are true, in context. :smile:

but such purpose is not universal, it is discrete and ONLY via individual lifeforms such as US (we can also work in common cause) and the first cause of that imo, is when Earth species, especially hominid species, became fully self-aware and could demonstrate intent and purpose. — universeness

Your matter-bounded interpretation of causation seems to imagine that the chain of Cause & Effect began miraculously (serendipity or chance) in the Big Bang, with no antecedent and no Purpose or Reason. By contrast, Aristotle reasoned that no Actual thing in Nature emerges unless the Potential for that Effect was already inherent in the logical structure of the system -- or imported from outside the system. In this case, the un-bounded (infinite) system of Potential or Possibility is antecedent to space-time reality. I call that logically necessary Principle (Omnipotence -- unlimited power of causation) : LOGOS . :nerd:

Potential vs Actual :
Aristotle delineates his subject matter in a different way, by listing the problems or perplexities (aporiai) he hopes to deal with. Characteristic of these perplexities, he says, is that they tie our thinking up in knots. They include the following, among others: Are sensible substances the only ones that exist, or are there others besides them? Is it kinds or individuals that are the elements and principles of things? And if it is kinds, which ones: the most generic or the most specific? Is there a cause apart from matter? Is there anything apart from material compounds? Are the principles limited, either in number or in kind? Are the principles of perishable things themselves perishable? Are the principles universal or particular, and do they exist potentially or actually? Are mathematical objects (numbers, lines, figures, points) substances? If they are, are they separate from or do they always belong to sensible things? And (“the hardest and most perplexing of all,” Aristotle says) are unity and being the substance of things, or are they attributes of some other subject?
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/aristotle-metaphysics/

Big Bang non-sense :
The ambition to find the ultimate reason for the existence of everything may be acceptable as a (pseudo-) religious quest but hardly as an objective and rational scientific endeavour. It is obvious that the assumption of a 'creation' is logically inconsistent with the scientific principle of cause and effect. Any valid scientific approach is therefore necessarily tied to the infinite dimensions of space and time as the forms of existence (the argument of cosmologists that time and space came only into existence at the 'time' of the big bang is a logical contradiction in itself and therefore scientifically nonsense).
https://www.physicsmyths.org.uk/cosmology.htm
Note : The "scientific approach" is self-limited to Physics. But the Philosophical approach of Meta-Physics places no such limits on human reason & imagination. Ironically, this quote goes beyond its own limitations, by assuming, without evidence, an eternal unbounded Antecedent of the Big Bang. Perhaps a non-empirical hypothetical Multiverse. But Einstein defined the physical universe as "finite, but unbounded", as in a sphere existing in eternal space-time. So what lies beyond the bounds?

Greek "Logos", not the Christian "Word" :
As implied by the asterisk in the spelling, this G*D model is not a traditional religious deity, created in the image of his worshippers. It won't be found in any ancient religious texts. However, it has much in common with many philosophical and scientific models of ultimate reality. Plato & Aristotle argued their theories from the assumption of Logos as the creator of Cosmos from Chaos. The Hindu Vedas gave the masses dramatic stories of heroic human-form gods. But among the thinkers themselves they referred to undefined ultimate reality as Brahman, with no human characteristics. The Buddha told his disciples not to worry about any of those fictional devas, but his worldview seemed to tacitly assume an Impersonal Absolute equivalent to Brahman, as an explanation for existence.
http://bothandblog2.enformationism.info/page35.html

To be clear, Enformationism does not "assign intent or human qualities to Nature". Instead, Nature is coasting on momentum from the initial impetus of goal-directed Intention. The only "human qualities" in the natural world, so far, are found in the homo sapiens species. — Gnomon
Again you seem to back peddle here. The two underlined phrases directly contradict each other! If the above quote is true then why do you keep trying to promote the concept of a manifest 'enformer,' as your 'novel' label for a first cause mind? — universeness

No. It's your interpretation that is contradictory. Any signs of direction or intention in Nature are due to the original impetus of the First Cause or Big Bang, whichever you prefer. An arrow shot from a bow will hit the target, not due to any arrow-intention but to the bowman aiming. So I was not assigning intention to the arrow. But in this metaphor, the momentous arrow has spawned a little splinter with a mind of its own. :wink:

Vacuum Energy :
Prior to the 20th century, the notion of Nothingness with causal properties would be tantamount to the ancient concept of eternal infinitely powerful Spirit (i.e. God). But scientists can now get away with such literal nonsense, in part, because Quantum physics has forced them to accept paradoxical & counter-intuitive properties in Nature. — Gnomon
No, that's merely your personal interpretation. This is no such reality as a state of nothingness as you need 'something' to even attempt to contemplate such a notion. — universeness

Again, your interpretation is different from my intention. The original meaning of "Vacuum" was emptiness or void or nothingness. The notion of "vacuum energy" was paradoxical until quantum field theory was interpreted to imply that the field "must be quantized at each and every point in space". Today the notion of energy in emptiness is just another of the many logical paradoxes of quantum theory. When you say "there's no such reality as a state of nothingess" you are referring to the same old paradox of "Zero". Which is an idea, not a real thing. :cool:

A vacuum is essentially a great lack of something https://www.vocabulary.com/dictionary/vacuum

Avoiding religious implications, leaves you with equally woo woo theistic implications.
You are conflating, when you try to connect 'logos' with G*D(or G-D, in Jewish tradition).
Logos can be used to refer to the concept of a deity, but, is also used as: — universeness

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

What a deep faith in the rationality of the structure of the world and what a longing to understand even a small glimpse of the reason revealed in the world there must have been in Kepler and Newton to enable them to unravel the mechanism of the heavens in long years of lonely work!
___Albert Einstein

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

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

Your enformer manifestation has the basic same bad attributes as the gods in the abrahamic religions. — universeness

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

At most, the cosmological apologetics of theists paradoxically gets them only as far as deism (or god-of-the-gaps like e.g. Gnomon's "enformer"). — 180 Proof
:clap: Yes, I think all such 'theistic apologetic style,' rumination, leads inevitably back to an 'of the gaps,' supernatural first cause, and for me, that suggestion would be the worst outcome possible, as we would be nothing more, than a product of a dissatisfied deity. If a god wanted/needed to create us, then it cannot be a god, imo. — universeness

Your visceral antipathy is duly noted. But, for a more sympathetic interpretation, consider that Deism has been called the "god of philosophers" or "god of nature', and is consistently rejected by Theists, due to its lack of a path to salvation from cruel & indifferent Nature. It's also the "god of reason" instead of revelation. Until the 20th century, most philosophers & scientists held some notion of Creator or First Cause to explain the ultimate "why" questions of Cosmology*1.

Even "impious" Aristotle referred to Theology (ultimate knowledge) as "First Philosophy"*2. There is indeed a "gap" in physical Science : it is forced by its physicalist creed to take the causal & organizing forces of Nature for granted -- blind faith in infinite mechanism -- so it has no plausible explanation for our contingent temporal Existence : being & becoming (Ontology)*3. The perverse Multiverse notion merely kicks-the-can of origins down the road to infinity.

Another more positive understanding of Deism is that the Enformer -- far from being an evil tyrant -- as similar to a philosopher or scientist, in that the reason for creation was not due to "dissatisfaction" or narcissistic "need" for worship & adulation, but to curiosity : e.g. "what will happen if I create an autonomous universe with self-conscious creatures, who can reason themselves to a rapport with Nature.

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



*1. Deist Philosophers & Scientists :
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_deists

*2. Aristotle developed rival philosophies of metaphysics which to some extent could be understood as an attempt to construct a rational account of the world while explicitly rejecting the superstitious pantheism of their contemporaries. From this point of view, one might even call him an atheist, and certainly he would have been viewed by contemporaries outside the philosophical school as radically impious.
However, Aristotle did clearly believe in some sort of God - as, arguably, did Plato - although what exactly is meant by “God” in either case may not be entirely obvious and familiar to those of us raised with Abrahamic monotheism. In his metaphysics, Aristotle posited that there must be some single, immortal, unchanging being that was responsible for the wholeness and orderliness of the world, as well as suggesting that there must be “unmoved movers” who were causally responsible for all action in the universe, but who were not themselves causally influenced by actions.
https://www.quora.com/Was-Aristotle-an-atheist-agnostic-or-a-pious-man-Do-his-writings-give-any-clue

*3. Metaphysics as being qua Being :
Aristotle himself described his subject matter in a variety of ways: as ‘first philosophy’, or ‘the study of being qua being’, or ‘wisdom’, or ‘theology’.
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/aristotle-metaphysics/

*4. Albert Einstein's religious views have been widely studied and often misunderstood. Albert Einstein stated "I believe in Spinoza's God". He did not believe in a personal God who concerns himself with fates and actions of human beings, a view which he described as naive.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_and_philosophical_views_of_Albert_Einstein

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

Yes. That's because rapid Cultural Evolution has emerged from plodding Natural Evolution -- presumably as intended by the Programmer. However, human culture is an emergent continuation of natural evolution, but with focused Logic (Reason) and Energy (Intention). That's what I call "Intelligent Evolution"*1. :nerd:

*1.Intelligent Evolution :
This essay lays-out my hypothesis of how the Creator, in the Enformationism worldview, programmed a physical universe that could in-effect create itself from scratch. By that, I don't mean from absolutely nothing, but from a metaphorical seed or egg of cosmic mathematical potential that cosmologists call the Singularity. From that point of beginning, Evolution began some say, not with a literal bang, but with a magical "voila!" of instant inflation. Since then, our world has been emerging from potential to actual more-or-less as scientists have documented.
https://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page14.html

I agree that he is being a bit outrageous. He seems to be enjoying his work and he seems to support the viewpoint (unlike you) that the structure of the universe is fundamentally data based. At no point in his work does he support deism or suggest a mind with intent, as the first cause of our universe, in the ways that you do — universeness

Yes. He specifically denies any external intention behind the logical processing of Data in the world : "To say that corgs came from elsewhere, outside of the world would be a type of the pathetic fallacy (of assigning intent or human qualities to nature) taken to the idiotic extremes of creationism or intelligent design." To be clear, Enformationism does not "assign intent or human qualities to Nature". Instead, Nature is coasting on momentum from the initial impetus of goal-directed Intention. The only "human qualities" in the natural world, so far, are found in the homo sapiens species.

So, presumably, Scharf, like most cosmologists, just takes for granted (axiomatic) that the Energy & Laws of Nature are eternal*2. But then our physical world was shown by cosmologists to not be Eternal. So, the source of those Causal & Logical inputs can only be external & prior to the finite space-time bubble that we humans inhabit. And that's all I'm saying in the Enformationism thesis : that evolution shows signs of upward progress and purpose*3.

Yet, due to my lack of knowledge (information) about anything super-natural, I take pains to explain that the origin of creative Purpose is not attributed to the anthro-morphic God of Genesis. Instead, I refer to the Source of Information & intention as a logical Principle. So I use labels, such as G*D, Logos & First Cause to avoid the religious implications of more traditional terms. That's also the stance of the non-religious philosophy of Deism*4.

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

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

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

*3. Purpose & Intention :
Scharf skirts around the notion of Purpose in Nature. However, right after the disparaging quotes above, he does rhapsodize that "The universe is spectacular because it is an engine of invention . . ." Doesn't that sound like Design & Intention instead of Blundering & Accident to you? He goes on to exclaim that "evolution on Earth is like a single run of a single algorithm that invented all of nature".
Note -- To Invent : create or design (something that has not existed before); be the originator of.
Doesn't "invent" imply "intent"?

*4. Deism :
An Enlightenment era response to the Roman Catholic version of Theism, in which the supernatural deity interacts and intervenes with humans via visions & miracles, and rules his people through a human dictator. Deists rejected most of the supernatural stuff, but retained an essential role for a First Cause creator, who must be respected as the quintessence of our world, but not worshipped like a tyrant. The point of Deism is not to seek salvation, but merely understanding.
https://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page12.html

Anyway, in relation to Gnomon's dialectic there is no memory of the life in the womb as such; there is no event, nothing much happens; "there's absolutely no strife, living the timeless life". Birth is the antithesis of life in the womb, the first event, and awareness is the first synthesis. Thus is the problem of evil easily answered: without the pain and terror, there would be no awareness, no subjectivity. — unenlightened

I suppose what you're implying is that "pain is a necessary evil". Hence Evil is not optional for a learning & growing process. Positive & negative feedback are how we learn in a heuristic (trial & error) process. But a nudge in the right direction should be sufficient, so why the torment of cancer? What do we learn from pain without a lesson? Maybe bad things happen to good people, simply so we can learn that "God is no respecter of persons" (Romans 2:11). Without experience of Evil (Satan), we would not recognize Good (God) -- life would be meaningless. "No awareness, no subjectivity", no cognizance, no knowing. . . . no progress, no growth, no maturation. :smile:

Is pain a necessary evil? :
No. Pain is a vital function of the body to indicate something is wrong. Without pain, we’d leave our hands on hot stoves, or walk on nails. We’d never seek treatment for many life-threatening things. We may not even notice we’re injured, or that our appendix ruptured, etc. Pain is a very, very important part of life.
https://www.quora.com/Is-pain-a-necessary-evil

Technology to the rescue ... again? Yep, I concur, it seems possible to turn earth into a paradise, but then when yin peaks, yang is just around the corner. — Agent Smith

“Being challenged in life is inevitable, being defeated is optional.” – Roger Crawford

How much credence do you give to the idea that we are heading towards an 'information/technological singularity? Is an tech singularity emergent? and (I know this is very difficult to contemplate but) what do you think will happen as a result of such a 'singularity?' — universeness

Back to the OP topic regarding the probability of evolutionary emergence of a Technological Singularity. In astro-biologist Caleb Scharf's, The Ascent of Information, he eventually gets around to speculation on the future development of his technological analogy to the biological genome. He calls it the Dataome*1, and instead being made of amino acids, it consists of core algorithms ("corgs"). Although it requires physical machines as hosts, the world-wide Dataome is essentially made of mathematical information.

Like their biological predecessors, the "corgs" evolve, and new properties emerge from the same interactive mutating & weeding (heuristic) processes of the cosmic evolutionary algorithm. He muses philosophically : "For the dataome, humans generate the one thing that we have yet to see machines or artificial algorithms produce : original information, real innovation, and open-ended novelty." Yet, he goes on to explore the possibility of something really new. "When we speculate about human transcendence, or technological singularities, or post-human futures, we're missing what's right in front of us". [my bold] Then, he addresses a side-issue : "In science we often struggle with the notion that there is something special about humans, something unique." Our superior information-processing powers (reasoning) perhaps?

In the final chapter, he discusses the roles of Energy, Entropy & Information in bringing about the next stage of Evolution. And he has the temerity to take physicist John A. Wheeler's "it from bit" conjecture seriously. "It from bit symbolizes the idea that every item of the physical world has at bottom . . . . an immaterial source and explanation . . ." [my bold] Ironically, he never uses the sci-fi term "Cyborg" (cybernetic organism), but that seems to fit his general direction*2. However, he does liken this evolutionary process to "an informational experiment". Which raises the question -- that as a scientist he is not allowed to ask -- "who is the Experimenter?" My own non-expert thesis does address such logical implications : Who asked the incalculable question*3 about "life, the universe and everything"? To whom does it matter how the cosmic experiment turns out? Who wants to know? :smile: :cool: :nerd:


*1. The Selfish Dataome :
Does the data we produce serve us, or vice versa?
https://nautil.us/the-selfish-dataome-237229/

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

*3. The cosmic question is open-ended. Hence it can only be answered by running the experiment in real-time & real-space. So here we cybernetic organic humans find ourselves as lab-rats with philosophical questions of our own.

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

I just wanted to source a couple of 'expert' type responses, to our analogue/digital exchange, I know the discussion on this site must favour 'philosophical' musings, but useful input from expertise in an issue under discussion can assist the direction of any philosophical musings on said issue, imo. — universeness

The discrete vs continuous confusion seems to derive from two ways of interrogating Reality. Natural processes are continuous & analog, while human analysis (mathematics) is discontinuous & digital. We perceive the movie, but we conceive the individual frames. Besides, holistic Philosophical "musings" are mostly concerned with general systems, while reductive Scientific analysis is focused on parts & details.

Apparently, even the "experts" are confused about how best to "frame" reality. Google "physics analog or discrete", or "physics analog vs digital", and you will get a long list of arguments & interpretations pro & con. That either/or question seems to be a long-running debate on Quora. So, I doubt that the philosophical implications (Holism vs Reductionism) will be finally settled anytime soon.

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


"Simply put, “analog” and “digital” refer to two different methods of encoding information on to a signal"
__Bob Myers, Quora

"Both are the two parts of ONE process".
__Prasad Kulkarni, Quora

What all these “things” have in common is that they deal with signals from the real world: analog to digital. The real world is analog — fundamentally nature is not digital — and that’s where our story begins.
https://engineering.utdallas.edu/news/archive/2018-summer/the-real-world-is-analog/

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

The confusion about wave-nature versus particle-nature in quantum physics was partly solved by the Field Theory, which simply kicks-the-can down the road. But the notion of fields-of-Potential-in-empty-space is fundamental to the emerging Information-centric worldview. The Field per se*1 is nothing-but abstract mathematical information : relationships between ideal points in space. But with the Potential to exhibit materialistic particle properties, or holistic wave properties, "depending on how you look at it".

That last remark is what caused the quantum pioneers to conclude that the intentional-mind-of-the-observer is a participant in the observation : "what you see is what you are looking for". or "reality doesn't exist until you measure it". That spooky mind-power is what Einstein objected to*2, although his own Relativity principle also implied that your Reality depends on your local reference Frame. The (future) "state of the system" is statistically Possible/Probable until it has been Actualized by a dynamic disruption, an intentional act, of the stable state of not-yet-real. Metaphorically, the holistic timeless immaterial balloon of statistical possibility is popped, by a pointed act-of-intention, leaving behind a particular piece of space-time matter.

All of this un-reality is what makes Quantum Theory seem weird to realistic thinkers, and Information theory to seem unreal to concrete thinkers. However, quantum scientists eventually came to accept that both individual Particle state and holistic Wave state are inherent in the mathematical statistical foundations of Nature. That's how I came by the "have your cake and eat it too" BothAnd Principle*3 of my thesis. Einstein objected to the implication that quantum "duality" would undermine his Realistic worldview, based on the classical matter-based physics of Newton. Ironically, both Materialism and Idealism are real & true, depending on how you frame your questions. :smile: :cool:


*1. In quantum theory, "the fields themselves" are like Kant's "ding an sich" : unreal, except to the mind's eye, from an ideal perspective.

*2. Einstein saw Quantum Theory as a means to describe Nature on an atomic level, but he doubted that it upheld "a useful basis for the whole of physics."
https://www.amnh.org/exhibitions/einstein/legacy/quantum-theory

*3. Both/And Principle :
*** My coinage for the holistic principle of Complementarity, as illustrated in the Yin/Yang symbol. Opposing or contrasting concepts are always part of a greater whole. Conflicts between parts can be reconciled or harmonized by putting them into the context of a whole system.
*** The Enformationism worldview entails the principles of Complementarity, Reciprocity & Holism, which are necessary to offset the negative effects of Fragmentation, Isolation & Reductionism. Analysis into parts is necessary for knowledge of the mechanics of the world, but synthesis of those parts into a whole system is required for the wisdom to integrate the self into the larger system. In a philosophical sense, all opposites in this world (e.g. space/time, good/evil) are ultimately reconciled in Enfernity (eternity & infinity).
*** Conceptually, the BothAnd principle is similar to Einstein's theory of Relativity, in that what you see ─ what’s true for you ─ depends on your perspective, and your frame of reference; for example, subjective or objective, religious or scientific, reductive or holistic, pragmatic or romantic, conservative or liberal, earthbound or cosmic. Ultimate or absolute reality (ideality) doesn't change, but your conception of reality does. Opposing views are not right or wrong, but more or less accurate for a particular purpose.
*** This principle is also similar to the concept of Superposition in sub-atomic physics. In this ambiguous state a particle has no fixed identity until “observed” by an outside system. For example, in a Quantum Computer, a Qubit has a value of all possible fractions between 1 & 0. Therefore, you could say that it is both 1 and 0. ( see Fuzzy Logic )
https://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page10.html

↪Gnomon
It seems your Enformationism, since it requires an equilibrium between negentropy/Enformy and entropy, is fully compatible with evil (re BothAnd) and there you rock religion's boat (religion dedicates itself to uprooting evil from society).
True, we're teleologically-oriented people and we work towards an ideal - we want, sensu amplissimo, a long (eternal), happy life, but this is exactly what The Architect and Agent Smith say we rejected in The Matrix. Hence, I suppose, me question. — Agent Smith

I'll quibble with your term "requires equilibrium". The thesis merely accepts as a fact of life, that this world is not perfect for human needs & desires, so it's necessary for us humans to work within the physical constraints of the natural world. In that case, equilibrium would be like a Mexican Standoff, in which nobody wins. Despite the odds stacked against us, we "teleological" people tend to aim for perfection (Heaven). But a fatalistic "happiness" is to settle for stable equilibrium. Yet, in the Hegelian dialectic, notice the dashed arrow down the middle of the zig-zag path of evolutionary progress. That is an interpolation of the average path through history. It's neither Good nor Evil, but acceptable, it's OK..

However, as you said, humans are both teleological and idealistic. So we shoot for the stars, and settle -- temporarily -- for a small hill. The ancient Greeks tended to be Pragmatic and Fatalistic. So, the Stoics advised that we avoid setting our sights too high, because failure to achieve your aims can lead to anxiety & depression. Nevertheless, humanity as a collective does have more control over Nature & Fate, than as individuals. Therefore, even though equilibrium allows us to barely survive, shooting for the moon (dis-equilibrium), can give us a "leg-up" (advantage) over implacable Nature. If we settled for equilibrium, we'd still be chimps climbing trees.

But that ambitious path is full of hardships & disappointments. So, while we fight Fate, we must be prepared to take our lumps without quitting. For example, putting a man on the moon was a human dream for ages. But only when technology caught up with our teleology, did that idealistic ambition become practical. In that case, persistent progressive Enformy (Good) won a round against big bad digressive Entropy (Evil).

The primary difference between the Religious "boat" and the Technological rocket is hard work instead of blind faith. 2000 years ago, one upstart Religion aimed for Heaven, but waited for a miracle. A century ago, rocket scientists made practical plans to put a man on the moon. And voila! We can now see boot prints in moon dust on YouTube. So, the lesson of Enformationism is : Nature rules, but humans are unruly. :smile:


Fatalism (revised):Everything happens due to a cause, but due to proximate and accessory causes, not to perfect and principal causes.
https://uh.edu/~cfreelan/courses/fate.html

Stoic acceptance is about accepting what is outside of what is under one's control. Human minds are prone towards agonizing over the future or the past.
https://stoameditation.com/blog/the-four-pillars-of-stoicism/

"Ah, but a man's reach should exceed his grasp, Or what's a heaven for?"
___Robert Browning

BLUE = GOOD ; GREEN = BAD ; PINK = ONE STEP FORWARD (one giant step for mankind)

THE RESULT OF BLOOD, SWEAT & TEARS, AND INTELLIGENT AIMS

I have enjoyed the exchange as well Gnomon. You are an interesting intellect with some rather eccentric notions, imo (no camouflaged insult intended). — universeness

Compared to the repressive & un-camouflaged put-downs of my un-named non-interlocutor on TPF, that is high praise! My posts are not intended to be regurgitations of conventional philosophical or scientific doctrines (approximations of truth). Instead, they are my idiosyncratic interpretations of the leading edge of an emerging new information-centric paradigm. Novelty usually emerges from off-center. :smile:

Enformationism :
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


“We are all agreed that your theory is crazy. The question which divides us is whether it is crazy enough to have a chance of being correct. My own feeling is that it is not crazy enough.”
― Niels Bohr to Wolfgang Pauli

“One of the favorite maxims of my father was the distinction between the two sorts of truths — profound truths recognized by the fact that the opposite is also a profound truth, in contrast to trivialities where opposites are obviously absurd.”

“How wonderful that we have met with a paradox. Now we have some hope of making progress.”

“Every sentence I utter must be understood not as an affirmation, but as a question.”
— Bohr

See, you do have the basic ingredients to weave some form of salvation into your Enformationism. Anyway, what I find intriguing is that in your theory the simulation is reality, making the idea of moksha moot. Your point seems to be that The Architect of The Matrix is your Enformer aka G*D. Remember what Agent Smith says to Morpheus - we rejected the first Matrix (no evil/paradise) for the current version of The Matrix (with evil)? That says a lot, oui? We're not actually interested in liberation/salvation. What then is the deal here? What exactly do we want? — Agent Smith

What do we want? As teleological-thinking beings, we want what we do not have, but can imagine : Perfection. We can envision a new improved simulation of reality, and we can try to work together to make our imaginary future Utopia into a here & now real Reality*1. Unfortunately for us Idealists, only the Architect of the Matrix controls the whole complex system from a central Nexus (the program of evolution). All we humans can do is fiddle with peripheral levers & dials of Nature. Which is what pragmatic scientists attempt to do . . . . with mixed results. We are only interested in Salvation from the less-than-ideal results of natural & cultural changes.

Each of us humans is an architect of our own simulation of Reality : our personal imaginary worldviews. The only problem with living in a private subjective simulation of an abstract Ideality, is that Nature has constructed a material world that is not so easily modified by the personal Soul/Mind to suit our individual preferences. Moreover, that external world is populated with other Avatars (Souls) that are playing by their selfish internal values. Thus, creating obstacles to our own little plans.

Why does the second simulation of Matrix/World incorporate Evil into its design*2? Logically, Progress (growth & learning) are impossible without empty space in which to evolve. Morally, that undefined space in between fixed mandates is optional (neutral). Hence, our individual selfish choices can have good or bad effects on the overall (objective) system. Literature is full of examples of Evil results caused by short-sighted choices. The Enformationism world was also designed to be autonomous, to find its own way into the future via trial & error. The errors are what we call "Evil" or "Bad" depending on degree of severity*3. Nature, like any computation, must deal with internal errors of Syntax (rule violations). But complex Culture is faced with errors of Semantics (meanings : values)

Presumably, the evolving Universe, viewed as an autonomous computer program (sovereign, self-determining, independent), is running on schedule ; with internal error corrections ; not knocked off course by our insignificant human glitches ; and not requiring maintenance & repair interventions by the IT-tech/Programmer. For us Avatars/Earthlings inside the cosmic program, the ups & downs of Hegelian dialectic are perceived as Good or Evil : relative to our own personally-plotted course into the future*4. Fortunately, the program includes exit visas (limited lifespan) to terminate the agony & ecstasy. Another way out (salvation) of this on-course cruise through time is via the Escape pod (esc button) of voluntary death (suicide). Or, you could hit ctrl-alt-del and reboot. However, in order to go to Heaven or Samsara, you'd have to create it first. From scratch. As your personal simulation. :cool:


*1. True Reality :
On the other hand, all humans are constantly exposed to reminders that the world we experience is both Real and Ideal. Yet, we instinctively know the difference between the material things out there, and our immaterial thoughts in here. We can distinguish between physical sensations, and our feelings about those perceptions. We easily discern the difference between public phenomena, and the private meanings or values of those sensory experiences. For empirical scientific purposes, those ideal aspects of the world can be safely ignored. But for theoretical personal reasons we have no other choice but to deal with the unreal.
https://bothandblog.enformationism.info/page30.html

*2. Designer Universe :
Even so, they may wonder why an ideal divine designer, working from scratch, would make an imperfect world with ongoing conflicts between good & evil, vestigial organs, and eyeballs with light receptors behind a veil of veins. The only logical answer to the Evil conundrum is that imperfections are inherent in a space-time fragment of Enfernity (Eternity/Infinity), and that defects are to be expected in the incomplete on-going creative process of evolution. Only in a transcendent changeless state-of-being could you presume to find absolute perfection and categorical Holiness; to find G*D. And you can’t expect that perfect BEING to act like an imperfect human designer, who makes mistakes from ignorance. Instead, you’d expect any “defects” to be intentional and necessary to the ultimate goal of the system. Hence, that teleological purpose would be known only to the Great Intender.
https://www.bothandblog.enformationism.info/page49.html

*3. Evil is the failure of Perfection :
Smith said that the first Matrix was built to ensure that the people who were plugged into it did not experience any negative emotion, there was no suffering, everything was perfect.
He said it was a disaster, and it ultimately failed. The Architect said this too in the 2nd movie.
Why though? What exactly happened with that version of the Matrix that caused it to fail? Did the people who were plugged into it, eventually realize that everything was fake because they thought it was too good to be real? . . . .
The problem was choice.
https://www.reddit.com/r/matrix/comments/b3ociq/why_did_the_first_matrix_fail/

*4. Evil is the cost of Choice :
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

PS__Quote from Quora :
Q. If the universe is a simulation, why did our ''masters'', or the person who is running this simulation, allow us to become smart enough to wonder if the universe was a simulation?
A. If the universe (or our perception of it) is in fact just some giant simulation (and, for the record, I do not discount that possibility as wildly crazy), then there must be a very good chance the whole point of the simulation is to see how long it takes us to reach self awareness.
Note : others have speculated that the Teleology of this simulation is to create Demigods. But I have no idea about the end goal (telesis) ; only the inference that physical/mental Evolution is causing the emergence of more physical complexity, which allows nonphysical concepts to emerge, some of which are teleological. So, it's reasonable to infer that the Great Simulator had the Potential for end-directed programming.

PPS__
"Goal-Driven Software Development Process (GDP) is an iterative and incremental software development technique. Although similar to other modern process models, GDP is primarily focusing on identifying goals before setting the requirements and explicitly utilizing the bottom-up design approach."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goal-Driven_Software_Development_Process
Note -- From an information-centric perspective, Natural Evolution seems to be a "bottom-up" design process, as contrasted to the "top-down" approach of Genesis.