↪Gnomon
Both can't be right because they're mutually contradictory. As part of yin-yang duality, they're mutually annihilatory, not complementary. What we can do is find the middle ground i.e. find a compromise and say that the subjective and the objective are two very different windows to reality with no overlapping magisteria. So if I say God exists, I don't mean it in an objective, provable sense and when I say God doesn't exist, I don't mean it in a subjective, unprovable sense. — Agent Smith

BothAnd doesn't mean both parts of a duality are right or true, but merely that both extremes are parts of a larger whole unitary system -- because they are interrelated. As says, it's a YinYang concept. The opposing forces don't annihilate, like antimatter, but merely moderate each other.

The universe is a single system AFAIK, but it is driven by opposing forces -- Energy & Entropy -- to follow a median path through space-time, neither too hot, nor too cold, but "just right" as Goldilocks gushed. That's not a fact. but an expression of preference for a median temperature. Out in space the temperature is near absolute zero. And in stars it's matter-melting hot. But, on our home planet, those extremes are moderated into a livable range. For which the Chinese philosophers were grateful to the Tao : the middle path.

In philosophical dialog, one person may say "Yaweh exists" while another says "god is dead". Though diametrically opposing opinions, together they cover most of the range of opinions on the god question. A BothAnd position on such unverifiable questions would be Agnostic (possible but unknowable), or Deistic (another name for impartial Nature, or Tao). Which opinion would you choose, if you were describing the ultimate philosophical fact of your world? :smile:


Yin/Yang
Yin and yang (/jɪn/ and /jæŋ/) is a Chinese philosophical concept that describes opposite but interconnected forces. In Chinese cosmology, the universe creates itself out of a primary chaos of material energy, organized into the cycles of yin and yang and formed into objects and lives.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yin_and_yang

Are metaphysical doctrines such as aesthetics and ethics really "branches" of philosophy, or are they just thinly disguised poetry? The propositions issuing from metaphysics and philosophy seem logically and epistemologically distinct. — Zettel

Your objection to the conventional definition of "Metaphysics" touches on one reason why I prefer to define my own interpretation in posts of philosophical opinions, instead of scientific facts. The label itself was applied by Christian theologians centuries after Aristotle wrote his encyclopedia on "phusis" (Nature). In the first volume he described the contemporary understanding of the natural world, as observed via the senses. But in the second volume, he discussed various ideas & opinions that observers had postulated in order to make (rational) sense of the world as presented to the physical senses. So, volume 1 is what we would call "Science" today, yet volume 2 goes beyond (meta) the sensory observations of the external world, into internal ideas, opinions, concepts that observers have imagined in order to explain what they saw.

Therefore, I define "Meta-Physics" as being about the mental subjects instead of the physical objects. Hence, "metaphysics" is about Subjective Science instead of Objective Science. Unfortunately, while two people can agree on what both see with their eyes, they often disagree about the meaning & significance of those facts. Hence, Meta-Physics is the general subject/object of Philosophy. Even among scientists, there are few disputes about specific facts, but many divisive doctrines about general implications of those facts.

Unfortunately, whenever I use the term "Meta-Physics" --- referring to non-physical mental aspects of the world --- some TPF posters interpret that special spelling as a theological term, referring to imaginary gods & ghosts. And they don't seem to care what Aristotle intended, when he divided his treatise between physical observations and non-physical opinions. For me, Philosophy is all about Meta-physics, consisting of reasoned opinions instead of observed facts. Unlike pragmatic Science, theoretical Philosophy is endlessly debatable. :smile:


Subjective Meta-Physics vs Objective Science :
Generally speaking, subjective is used to describe something that exists in the mind of a person or that pertains to viewpoints of an individual person. . . . Subjective observation is centered on a person’s own mind and perspectives, as opposed to being general, universal, or scientific. In this way, describing an observation as subjective often implies that it comes with (or is based on) personal biases.
https://www.dictionary.com/e/subjective-vs-objective/

As a human, I'm inclined to agree, we have both objective and subjective aspirations. However, the objective and the subjective sides tend to contradict each other e.g. the classic case of belief in a deity in the absence of evidence and just like that we're faced with an intractable dilemma, a choice hasta be made between the two and it's an either-or, not a BothAnd. — Agent Smith

Who is forcing you to make a choice of one belief system or another? What if both are part right and part wrong? The BothAnd philosophy leaves you the freedom to choose the best parts of each complex multi-faceted belief system. Remember, like a see-saw, contradictory positions always have a balancing pivot-point between them. But maintaining the precarious balance requires philosophical agility.

For example, religion-in-general has existed among humans for eons. So there must be something good (useful) in viewing the world as something like a super-organism, or of humanity as a family of semi-deities (ruling over animals & plants). Most primitive religions have been rather innocent & childlike. And some, like Buddhism, are essentially private self-help therapies. But those religions associated with political empires may wield the power of life & death (burning at the stake) over its citizens. So, you might want to choose to avoid those that are oppressive, and to emulate those that are humane.

Likewise, Science-in-general is simply the human quest to understand the natural world, in order to tame its wildness. Yet, on the other hand, the amoral & reductive practice of scientific investigation into the underpinnings of Nature have lead to the god-like (thermo-nuclear) power to destroy all life on this planet*1. So again, you can choose the paths of science that lead to "better living through technology", and to avoid those paths that lead to environmental pollution.

That's the beauty of BothAnd, the chooser is free to determine the pertinent criteria for his own selections. :cool:


*1. As he witnessed the first detonation of a nuclear weapon on July 16, 1945, a piece of Hindu scripture ran through the mind of Robert Oppenheimer: “Now I am become Death, the destroyer of worlds”. ___spoken by Hindu deity Vishnu
https://www.wired.co.uk/article/manhattan-project-robert-oppenheimer



https://bothandblog.enformationism.info/page2.html

I think the verbal boxing between you is not severe. I have witnessed far, far worse. — universeness

I agree. I don't take 's verbal punches as seriously as he seems to take my timid rejoinders. Most of his swings are whiffs anyway, because he fails to see the essential point of my thesis. Besides, he seems to think his mission on this forum is to be a Socratic gadfly, pointing out both their factual errors, and the errors in reasoning of those whose views contradict his own. I find his earnestness amusing, so I often conclude my posts to him with a "joke" emoji. :joke:

PS__The Joke symbol is supposed to be "tongue in cheek", but it looks more like sticking your tongue out. Which could be misconstrued. Maybe he thinks I'm razzing him. Or maybe those high-proof beverages make him hyper-sensitive. :wink:

PPS__My non-creedal Enformationism worldview is a calmly reasoned philosophical interpretation of 21st century Information & quantum theories; not an emotional eternal life expectation. So, when reply posters get riled-up, I don't get upset, because I understand that they don't understand what I'm proposing. They are reacting to the perceived evils of oppressive religion, or to the perceived folly of an anti-science belief system, instead of groking the mind-boggling possibilities of a novel information-centric philosophical worldview. :nerd:

Gadfly : (god fly)
According to the words put into his mouth by Plato, Socrates believed that he had been sent by the gods to act as a “gadfly” to the Athenian state.
https://oll.libertyfund.org/quote/socrates-as-the-gadfly-of-the-state-4thc-bc

I appreciate your offer of links to attempts to 'bridge gaps between science and religion.' But, I assign very little value to such notions. — universeness

OK

I can only speak for myself. The root of my interest in philosophy is a need for self-awareness — T Clark
The radix of all philosophy is the desire need to know reality, in and for itself and/or as a path to success, not as a businessman, not as a king, not as an engineer, not as a doctor, but as a human. — Agent Smith

I agree that the original root motive of ancient Greek Philosophy was the need to understand physical Reality. But that practical "need" is now being filled by empirical Science. So, modern Philosophy has been left holding the bag of trying to understand the elusive Self.

Aristotle covered both of those needs/desires in his Physics and Metaphysics. However, some posters on TPF seem to think that understanding objective Reality via modern Science, obviates the need to understand subjective Ideality. Hence, Subjective introverts and Objective extroverts (philosophically speaking) tend to talk past each other, with different vocabularies. Making dialog difficult. And yet, we press on. :smile:

"I coined the term EnFormAction to encapsulate the directional (teleonomic) causation of Evolution." __Gnomon
I think there is no teleological connection to natural evolution via positing a universal data fundamental.
I think the current position that disorder can become order due to very large variety randomly combining in vast numbers of ways. Natural novelty need no teleological input. Teleology only comes into play via human design/intent/purpose. — universeness

Did you notice that I used the term Teleonomy*1 instead of Teleology? It's that kind of talking past each other that makes communicating with 180 so difficult. He substitutes his favorite antiscience terminology in place of my philosophical concepts. We are contrasting personal worldviews & opinions & beliefs*2, not scientific facts & truths. Serial Monologing with makes three years feel like ten. :smile:


*1. Teleonomy is the quality of apparent purposefulness and of goal-directedness of structures and functions in living organisms brought about by natural processes like natural selection.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teleonomy

*2. Replace "I think" with "I believe", and you will see the problem with trying to discuss empirical facts on a philosophical forum.

I think he is responding, but not directly to you. I think he has chosen to maintain a political approach to you and I would personally prefer he responded to you directly. — universeness

Almost 10 years ago, when I first began to post on this forum, I did take seriously, and was impressed with his extensive knowledge of philosophy. But after he made it clear that any of my responses to his comments would be treated as the repugnant babblings of an idiot, I eventually decided not to engage with him in political polemics.

Your science-based worldview seems to be similar to his in general, but you are less directly abusive in your responses to ideas that you find anti-scientific (i.e. metaphysics). So, I'm OK with your careful critiques of my personal worldview. Yet now, you seem ready to dis-engage. :sad:

PS__180 likes to imagine Gnomon as a tree-hugging hippie Hindu Buddhist Romantic, reciting poems of universal peace & love while lighting candles and smoking weed, despite his sentient crystals being made of synthetic zircon. But that could hardly be farther from the fact. Instead, Gnomon is a forty year subscriber to Skeptical Inquirer & Scientific American magazines. And Gnomon's 21st century Science is built upon a mushy quantum foundation of uncertainty & indeterminism that undermined the faith in Realism of Classical Physics.

PS__Where I view the universe as evolving in a positive direction (Enformy) 180 seems to agree with suicidal Macbeth :

Macbeth to himself :
Tomorrow, and tomorrow, and tomorrow,
Creeps in this petty pace from day to day,
To the last syllable of recorded time;
And all our yesterdays have lighted fools
The way to dusty death. Out, out, brief candle!
Life's but a walking shadow, a poor player,
That struts and frets his hour upon the stage,
And then is heard no more. It is a tale
Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury,
Signifying nothing.

But do you think this 'capability of self-comprehension,' is only emergent through US and lifeforms such as us, or is he positing a general panpsychism, in the sense that, 'rocks contain some ingredients that could become part of a conscious combinatorial?' Would this have to follow if human consciousness is fundamentally information, and information is ubiquitous? — universeness

Although his concept of Dataome may sound similar to Panpsychism, as a professional scientist, Scharf would be loathe to use terminology that would incite ridicule from his peers. However, he does make use of edgy words like "hive mind" and "superorganism". As as non-professional amateur philosopher though, I'm not afraid to call a spade a pointy shovel, or a universal field of Data/Information a big Idea.

No. sentient rocks are not implied by the concept of Dataome. In any case, only a tiny fraction of the embodied information in the universe has developed the emergent quality of Sentience. But if pressed, Scharf might agree that the universe has indeed become self-reflective, by means of its sentient creatures. He does admit that "There is little doubt that something is going on with our species . . . ." I'll let you read the book, to fill-in the ellipsis. :smile:

Do you disagree that empirical science must be the final arbiter of theoretical philosophy? — universeness

Yes. Empirical Science may be the final arbiter of pragmatic Empirical questions, but theoretical Philosophy is still arbitrating questions that remain unanswered by classical scientific methods*1. A century later, the practical significance of sub-atomic physics remains debatable. Yes, the get-er-done engineers have developed technologies for manipulating invisible particles of stuff. But physicists are still debating the common-sense meaning of such non-sense as Superposition and Quantum Leaps. Philosophy is not about Matter, but Meaning.

Those spooky questions*2 remain under the purview of Theoretical Physics*3, which is essentially a narrow specialty of Philosophy. Einstein was not a mystic or religious believer, but he resorted to philosophical & poetic metaphors to convey unsettled ideas about physical facts. Ironically, some posters on this philosophical forum seem to believe that such ideas as Emergence can be finally settled by empirical methods. :smile:

PS__Just as Steven Jay Gould separated Religion & Science into non-overlapping magisteria, Philosophy & Science are not competitors in the same arena.

*1. Physics vs Metaphysics :
Physics is defined, in its simplest form, as the study of matter and energy and how those two interact, while metaphysics deals with the ideas that don’t abide by scientific logic and theories.
https://allthedifferences.com/metaphysics-vs-physics/

*2. Quantum Questions :
Here is a collection of writings that bridges the gap between science and religion. Quantum Questions collects the mystical writings of each of the major physicists involved in the discovery of quantum physics and relativity, including Albert Einstein, Werner Heisenberg, and Max Planck.
https://www.shambhala.com/quantum-questions-1226.html

*3. What’s behind a science vs. philosophy fight? :
In fact, most of the scientists I know are strictly theoretical. They don’t dirty their hands with experimental testing. ___Rebecca Newberger Goldstein
https://bigthink.com/hard-science/why-are-scientists-philosophers-fighting-again/

Yes. I'm also not interested in air conditioning or folk dancing. Unlike you perhaps, I am not overcome with the need to make meaning or find 'ultimate realty'. I am content and mostly satisfied by life as it appears and frankly whatever ontological beliefs we hold, the moment we leave home we are all naïve realists. :wink: — Tom Storm

Pardon my probing for meaning : How do you characterize your "indifference" to philosophical Ontological origins*1? Is it aggressive Atheism, or apathetic Agnosticism, or mundane Traditionalism*2, or some other pre-Philosophy understanding of the natural world*3? Or just Anti-Religion, as the parallel to politics for the cultural powers-that-be to dominate the common people? Or perhaps merely Anti-Ontology as a feckless waste of time in a heartless/mindless/pointless material world? :joke:

*1. Ontology :
In metaphysics, ontology is the philosophical study of being, as well as related concepts such as existence, becoming, and reality.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ontology
Note -- the search for "ultimate reality"

*2. In pre-science Traditional cultures, for most people, the existence of gods or natural forces is not a well-reasoned philosophical worldview, but merely going along with the majority, and taking the conventional doctrines of sages for granted. In National Geographic, primitive cultures don't practice formal creedal religions, but mere follow ancient un-written assumptions & practices (natural magic) that seem pragmatic to them. Their gods & spirits are equivalent to what moderns call Natural Laws and Forces. And they tend to be satisfied with metaphorical myths & analogies that seem (to non-philosophers) to be plausible explanations for ultimate origins.

*3. Primitive gods :
Before we go further we must get clear the difference between magic and religion, for there has always been a good deal of confusion. Magic then or art-magic resembles religion in dealing with unseen powers, so that it is entirely distinct from what is called sympathetic magic. This last is not properly magic at all, but the science of the savage, by which he tries to bring rain, make the crops grow, or do other things which he believes he can do himself. This may be crude science; but there can be no question of either magic or religion till he comes to things which he believes can only be done by the unseen powers. Magic may also be like religion in outward form, and sometimes even becomes religion when our relation to the unseen powers is differently conceived. The distinction is in this relation; and it is absolute. In magic we do not trust the unseen powers we are dealing with: in religion we do.
https://www.giffordlectures.org/books/knowledge-god-and-its-historical-development-volume-1/lecture-10-primitive-religion-1

Where do you think your enformation, etc posits, takes us, FROM the current position, as established by Jim Al-Khalili's video above. — universeness

In recent years, I've seen several videos by Al Khalili on YouTube -- including this one -- and find them very informative (pardon!). I have to leave soon, so I only watched a few minutes of this video. A significant point was noted right away : "invisible information". The general thrust of the video seems to be similar to the book I'm currently reading : The Ascent of Information, by Caleb Scharf. He refers to the ubiquity of Information in the physical, mental, & technological universe as the Dataome (holistic concept similar to Genome)*1.

Both Scharf and Al Kalili are scientists, and focus primarily on the practical Technological products (looms & computers) of understanding that abstract Information is more fundamental than concrete Matter, and can be manipulated meta-physically by the human mind. For my own personal purposes though, I am focusing on the impractical Philosophical aspects of universal Information, especially its causal powers in the form of Energy & Entropy*2. Not any particular causal event, but the general invisible force behind all change in the universe. This "force" is responsible for what we call Natural Evolution, which is characterized by creative Emergence of novelty. Yet, aimless randomness creates only Entropy, while Natural Selection (teleonomic Choice) creates the "order" (stable & beautiful patterns of inter-relationships) that Al Khalili finds so wonderful.

I'm not sure if Jim would agree, but I also view Information as "immaterial" in its invisible mental forms of Concepts, Ideas, Feelings, etc. All of those are interrelated patterns that could be reduced to abstract mathematical ratios, by omitting the personal meanings as Shannon did. Meanings exist only in the individual human mind -- in the self-Consciousness that has "miraculously" emerged from a seemingly mechanical series of operations on matter. Unfortunately, those memes (units of memory) can only be exported from intangible minds by transforming them into conventional physical symbols. That ability to transform from Mind to Matter and back, is the key power of Generic Information*3. And that telenomic understanding of Evolution may "take us" in a new direction from the useful-but-short-sighted and out-dated paradigms ofMaterialism and Reductionism.

I have to go. But if you have specific questions, raised by the video, I'll be glad to respond as I get time. :smile:


*1. In the final chapter of his book, Scharf finally reveals the motivation for his interpretation of the philosophical importance of Information : "The greater mystery is that the universe is actually capable of self-comprehension".

*2. I coined the term EnFormAction to encapsulate the directional (teleonomic) causation of Evolution. The act of enforming creates novelty out of directionless randomness. For example, that's what happens when Quantum superposition (disorganized randomness) suddenly "collapses" into an organized physical particle of matter.

*3. Introduction to Enformationism :
“A philosophical worldview grounded on the 20th century discovery that Information, rather than Matter, is the fundamental substance of everything in the universe.”
https://bothandblog6.enformationism.info/page80.html
Note -- If that blog post is too long for you, here's a shorter version :
https://bothandblog3.enformationism.info/page24.html

We want our values to triumph or to muffle the opposition — Andrew4Handel

I think you have answered your own question. In my experience on this forum, posters rarely get "upset" with routine exchanges of views. But when a post "gets real" -- invades someone's home turf : their core belief system ("values") -- you can almost feel the "ouch!" as toes get stepped on. Most of us are like ballroom dancers, who try to ignore the occasional toe stepping. But for some true believers, the pain is too much to bear. So, they will push or punch the toe-steppers to "muffle" their offensive words. This despite the philosophical adage or precept : “Sticks and stones may break my bones, but words will never hurt me”. :smile:

Here's food for thought: Cold isn't really a thing, as much of a thing as heat is and darkness is also not really a thing, as much of a thing as light is. Is Enformy a thing, or are you making the same mistake as the Hindus (zero) made as according to the Greeks who asked "how can nothing be something?" :cool: — Agent Smith

True. "Cold" only has meaning relative to Hot, so it exists meta-physically as a relationship concept in the mind. Yet, "Hot" is also a non-thing, with only a relative existence, as measured in artificial degrees. Enformy is not a thing, it's a causal process like Evolution, except with a positive meaning, relative to inquiring humans. Unlike "Hot" you can't sense Enformy physically, you can only infer it Rationally. Both concepts, Enformy & Evolution, exist meta-physically like Zero*1 : the imaginary concept of Nothingness.

However, "Zero" has a parallel in Terrence Deacon's Absence*2, the metaphysics of incompleteness. Again, Absence is not a physical thing, but the meta-physical Potential for something. And Potential only has meaning relative to Actual. Deacon's Absential is only Nothing in a physical sense, which for Materialists is all there is -- no place for non-things . But for Philosophers, Potential has always been the solution to mysterious Emergences*3, which is what we call the occasion when some new properties or qualities are manifested from something old : i.e. Holism. Absence, in the sense of Incompleteness, implies Teleology/Teleonomy, which is a pulling force from a future metaphysical state (the goal or end or telos or Final Cause of a process).

All of those no-thing concepts are absent from the Physicalist*3 worldview. Which is why some anti-metaphysical posters on this forum are like the ancient Greeks & Hindus, in denying the reality of Zero. Yet again, it's nothing but a mental philosophical concept : an idea, lacking all the substance of Matter. But then, ideas are the essential substance & subject of Philosophy. n'est ce pas? :cool:

PS__I apologize for getting carried away with references to Emergence below*3 *4 *5.

*1. Zero : The Biography of a Dangerous Idea :
Zero is the fascinating story of a number banned by the ancient Greeks and worshipped by ancient Indians
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero:_The_Biography_of_a_Dangerous_Idea

*2. Absence :
Deacon's 2011 work Incomplete Nature has a strong triadic structure, inspired perhaps by an important influence from semiotics—the philosopher Charles Sanders Peirce's triad of icon, index, and symbol. Deacon's triad levels represent the material, the ideal, and the pragmatic. The first two levels reflect the ancient philosophical dualism of materialism and idealism, or body and mind, respectively. The major transition from the nonliving to the living - the problem of abiogenesis, and the introduction of telos in the universe - happens in Deacon's third level. . . .
Appreciating Deacon's argument is easier with a little history. Claude Shannon's information theory produced an expression for the potential information that can be carried in a communication channel. It is the mathematical negative of Boltzmann's formula for entropy.
https://www.informationphilosopher.com/solutions/scientists/deacon/

*3. Mystery of Emergence :
Strong Emergence as a Defense of Non-Reductive Physicalism
https://www.jstor.org/stable/4545239

4*. Emergence :
"Emergent behaviors, like games, are all about living within the boundaries defined by rules, but also using that space to create something greater than the sum of its parts" __by Steven Johnson
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergence:_The_Connected_Lives_of_Ants,_Brains,_Cities,_and_Software

*5. The Emergence of Everything :
"Because of the Pauli principle [exclusion], matter is informatic, and something akin to mind has already entered the universe" __Harold Morowitz, biophysicist
Note-- "informatic" = imparting information

Hi Gnomon, my ontology centers around non-physical things such as time, space, certain forms of energy, logic, number, and information. Some of my philosophy resembles yours, and i'm curious to know what your thoughts are on where information comes from? How is it created at the most fundamental level? or what allows it to be possible (a sub-structure perhaps)? — punos

Some posters on this forum will reject your notion of "non-physical", partly because they associate that label with "spiritual", and partly because their Materialism/Physicalism worldview lumps all the things you mentioned under the heading of Physics. That's also why some of the pioneers of Quantum Theory were labeled as "mystics" when they borrowed some holistic Oriental terminology to help understand the non-reductive & counter-intuitive & non-classical weirdness of the sub-atomic realm. So, be aware that "non-physical" may be interpreted as meaning "meta-physical", which to some is about spiritual gods & ghosts, instead of about immaterial ideas & concepts : not Reality, but Ideality. It's about theoretical Philosophy, not empirical Science.

Energy is indeed physical in the sense that it is the primary concern of physicists. But it's not a material object, and has no atomic structure. Instead Energy*1 is the process of Causation that produces changes in material objects. But some treat that process metaphorically as-if it is a flowing stream of fluid energy-stuff. In the book I'm currently reading, The Ascent of Information, astro-biologist Caleb Scharf says : "Many of us have gotten used to thinking of the closely related properties of energy and entropy as tangible things. In truth, they are really just concepts that help predict or explain why matter behaves the way it does". So those who imagine Energy as a "tangible thing" (physical fluid?) are taking the symbolic figure-of-speech metaphor literally. And that's a common conceptual problem in philosophical dialog.

Scharf goes on to be more explicit about "non-physical" Energy*2 : "But it's hard to point at any phenomenon in nature and say, 'that is energy'. A photon is not energy. . . . . It's one reason physicists always wince when a science fiction tale mentions anything being made of 'pure energy', because that's just wrong". However, you may be thinking of "non-physical" Energy as an abstraction equivalent to "pure energy". And such abstractions include Mathematical ratios such as those of Thermodynamics. Also, in my personal worldview of Enformationism, I equate Energy with Generic Information : the power to enform, or to change forms. :smile:


*1. What is Energy? :
But, what is Energy or Force anyway? For scientific purposes, it is a general property (Causation) of the universe as a system, which causes changes in material substances. Some religions also view Spiritual Energy (Life Force or Soul) as a universal property, that manifests in changes not only to physical bodies, but also in non-physical minds. So which is it? Sadly, these are not physical, but metaphysical queries. Hence, any answers we propose can never be proven true or false by means of empirical evidence. In the Quora quotes below, Neuroscientist Rosseinsky, indicates that we can construct logical explanations, given specific premises, for both possibilities, but we can't prove that one is a fact and the other a fantasy. Each may be valid within its own purview. That's why I prefer to make a key distinction between mundane Reality and sublime Ideality.
https://bothandblog.enformationism.info/page26.html

*2. Energy is Information in action :
Energy is the relationship between information regimes. That is, energy is manifested, at any level, between structures, processes and systems of information in all of its forms, and all entities in this universe is composed of information.
https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/22084/how-is-information-related-to-energy-in-physics
Note -- given time, I could link to many opinions of scientists who equate Information & Energy. But some posters will think that notion is either irrelevant or heretical to their belief system.

i'm curious to know what your thoughts are on where information comes from? How is it created at the most fundamental level? or what allows it to be possible (a sub-structure perhaps)? — punos

Where does Information come from? It's like Energy, which physicists now define as inherent in empty space : vacuum energy. Likewise, the source of Information/Energy has been inherent in the non-physical Potential*3 of virtual energy Fields (empty space) from the beginning of space-time. How that non-physical creative power got embedded in the physical world is not a scientific question. Yet some imaginative physicists have speculated on various unproveable scenarios : including an infinite regression of Big Bangs, or an unbounded Universe of Many Worlds. Your guess is as good as mine. But I too have speculated on the origins of both Energy & Matter*4. The BothAnd Blog goes into some deep detail to support those non-scientific conjectures. :nerd:


*3. Potential & Actual :
Potential is unactualized power to cause change; to enform. It's not real, and it's non-physical. Yet the Field Theory of physics assumes (imagines without physical evidence) that empty space contains unactualized Energy that can emerge from not-yet-real Virtual Particles. I agree, but I refer to that hypothesis as a meta-physical concept.

*4. Infinite Un-bounded Potential :
Langan calls the source of being, the UnBound Telesis, meaning something like an infinite intentionality, or eternal Will. UBT sounds equivalent to my notion of eternal Chaos, an infinite unformed pool of potential, which like Plato's ideal Forms can become realized into physical things or processes. But, Actualization requires Causation, which is an act of creation. My own term for the old Greek concept of “the ground of being” is simply BEING : the power to exist. So that's another way to describe G*D functionally without defining the deity phenomenologically.
https://www.bothandblog.enformationism.info/page48.html

I think I will just drop this issue now as I am probably not helping improve the impasse between you both. I was just trying to reduce the barrier between you both, that's all. You both seem to be reasonable folks to me. — universeness

Thanks for the effort, but you are not likely to resolve "the impasse", because for it seems to be an ideological war of Good vs Evil (Scientism vs Spiritualism???). I assume that attitude is partly due to his belief that most-if-not-all philosophers up until the 17th century -- most of whom included G*D in their world models -- were simply practicing irrational Religion in words instead of deeds. (Please don't take this characterization-out-of-context literally)

I have enjoyed the opportunity to respond to your non-abusive questioning. The exercise helps me to refine my own emerging philosophical worldview. But you still seem to miss the this-worldly focus of Enformationism, due to its "contamination" with a speculative god-concept. Ironically, like Spinoza's "god of the philosophers", I'm not making any factual claims about super-natural beings. Unless, that is, you categorize Energy (invisible causal power) and Information (creative power to enform) as supernatural concepts. I don't expect to make converts on this open forum, but merely to freely exchange philosophical ideas, no matter how far out.

180 finds it easy to pick & squish the low-hanging fruit of an uncredentialed unpublished amateur philosopher, whose ideas are "unworthy", simply because they are not in the mainstream of holy Science. "No credentials, no credence". But that's an odd attitude for a forum of amateur philosophers, most of whom also have no credentials in Science -- or Philosophy. As long as he views Creativity*1 as a taboo supernatural power, the core concept of Enformationism (Energy = natural power to enform & transform = EnFormAction = the cause of Emergence) will be anathema (something or someone that one vehemently dislikes). But I'm cool with that, as long as we maintain a respectful distance. :cool:

*1. Creativity is a phenomenon whereby something new and valuable is formed. The created item may be intangible (such as an idea, a scientific theory, a musical composition, or a joke) or a physical object (such as an invention, a printed literary work, or a painting).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creativity

Looking on past the links you provided above. I did notice that Gnomon does not respond to many of your questions. He is welcome to reconsider, that and respond to the points you made, if he wants to. — universeness

FYI. I have explained many times before why I ceased responding to 's "inconvenient questions". It's primarily because his snarky responses, besides irrelevant, are mostly abusive instead of reasonable.

If you want to see some of my indirect answers to his rarely relevant ridicule, just check-out my replies to , who has inadvertently become the middle-man mediator between combatants. It's a who-hit-who-first abusive relationship, which I long ago decided to divorce from. :smile:

There's nothing accomplished by invoking god in any context I can think of, unless you happen to have particular questions that seem better when stoppered up by a magic man. — Tom Storm

Yes. Atheism is a response -- part rational, part emotional -- to traditional religious god-models of a "magic man" in the sky. But philosophers typically avoid anthro-morphic definitions for their ultimate/universal (non-particular) Ontological theories. And, since their logical models are hypothetical, they don't claim to have physical evidence to support their notions of Logos or First Cause.

So, what if the "god" invoked by Enformationism is a hypothetical meta-physical Principle or Property or Qualia, like insubstantial Pure Energy/Causation*1, instead of an imaginary anthro-morphic wizard, hiding behind the curtain of Quantum Uncertainty*2. Can you think of any "particular questions" about the opaque shroud of fuzzy randomness that caused Quantum pioneers to turn to Eastern philosophies for metaphorical answers?*3 What if it's the god-like gap-stopper of the Quantum mass gap*4.

Perhaps you "don't care" about the esoteric mysteries of Eastern Religions or Quantum theory, but they undermine the "solid" foundation of classical physics and materialistic philosophy with open questions. And the esoteric mystery of Ontological origins is a fundamental philosophical concern. :smile:


*1. Pure Energy :
"Pure energy" doesn't mean anything in physics. Energy can take many forms (mass, kinetic energy, or any of many forms of potential energy), but no one of them is "pure" in any sense, no more so than any other form.
Energy is a property of light and matter and not a substance in itself.
https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/15122/what-is-pure-energy

*2. Quantum Weirdness :
Phillip Ball introduces his topic by clarifying the murkiness of Quantum Physics : “what has emerged most strongly from this work on the fundamental aspects of quantum theory is that it is not a theory about particles and waves, discreteness or uncertainty or fuzziness. It is a theory about information.” [My emphasis] He then admits that “quantum information brings its own problems, because it raises questions about what this information is . . . because information is not a thing that you can point to . . .”
http://bothandblog7.enformationism.info/page43.html

*23 The Evolution of God : by science writer Robert Wright
The Progression of Human Understanding
Although he says “’materialist’ is a not-very-misleading term for me”, and that he wrote this book “from a materialist standpoint”, he still concludes that the “religious worldview” may have some validity. “The story of this evolution itself points to the existence of something you can meaningfully call divinity”. But quickly concedes “that the kind of god that remains plausible . . . is not the kind of god that most religious believers currently have in mind.” Instead, it seems to be the kind of First Cause Creator that Bloom called the “Inventor”, and that I call “G*D” or “Logos”.
http://bothandblog7.enformationism.info/page43.html

*4. Why is Yang-Mills mass gap important? :
The mass gap is an important challenge because solving it should force mathematical physicists to confront directly the messy question of exactly what the observables of QCD are.
https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/9704/why-is-the-yang-mills-existence-and-mass-gap-problem-so-fundamental

You haven't. I don't consider you a crank. It can be very tough indeed to try to occupy any 'middle ground' between two diametrically opposed groups. I do have a scientism, in that I champion science over theism or any supernatural posits, completely. I wear that definition of 'scientism,' with as much joy as any halelujah chorus. — universeness

Thanks for the vote of confidence. But, some on this forum have accused me of overweening ego for promoting a new paradigm based on the emerging science of Information. likes to say I'm "making sh*t up", although my modest contribution to the emergent information-centric worldview is to make-up some neologisms to convey the unconventional (post-Shannon) concepts that emerge from the new understanding of the ubiquitous role of Information in the universe : including both Mind & Matter. For example, what I call "EnFormAction" (energy + laws) is just a new name for the causal "phenomenon at the root of things"*1.

Perhaps my role is more like Darwin's Bulldog, Thomas Huxley, who didn't "make-up" the theory of Evolution, but promoted it among his incredulous peers in science. In fact, even Darwin's theory was an assemblage of ideas that were already "in the air" so to speak*2. Even his own father, Erasmus, seems to have coined the technical term "Evolution" to describe his own concept of descent from a common ancestor. It would be hard for me to designate the "Darwin" of Enformationism, because dozens of scientists & philosophers have contributed to the knowledge-base. But my go-to guy is physicist Paul Davies, who has written a long string of books on various information-centric ideas, including The Mind of God : The Scientific Basis for a Rational World. A philosophical promoter is The Information Philosopher*3, who has also never heard of Enformationism.

My problem with Scientism is that it typically denigrates not just irrational Religions, but also rational-but-non-empirical Philosophy itself. Philosophical posts on TPF --- that don't conform to the ancient belief system of Materialism/Atomism as canonized in 17th century classical physics --- are shouted-down as religion-in-disguise. Yet Enformationism is compatible with Physics, Chemistry, & Biology up to the point of explaining the emergence of Life, Mind, & Memes. In 1973, Theodosius Dobzhansky asserted "nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution". Now, 50 years later, Gnomon goes on record to say that "nothing in Evolution makes sense except in the light of Information". Is that a case of overweening ego? Judge for yourself *4. :smile:


*1. quote from Caleb Scharf in The Ascent of Information, who has never heard of Enformationism .

*2. Evolution : Charles Darwin is commonly cited as the person who “discovered” evolution. But, the historical record shows that roughly seventy different individuals published work on the topic of evolution between 1748 and 1859, the year that Darwin published On the Origin of Species.
https://hmnh.harvard.edu/event/who-discovered-evolution

*3. Information philosophy is a dualist philosophy, both materialist and idealist. It is a correspondence theory, explaining how immaterial ideas represent material objects.
https://www.informationphilosopher.com/

*4. The EnFormAction Hypothesis : Emergent Evolution
Without understanding how the process of en-formation works, the emergence of Mathematical Physics & self-organizing Life & metaphysical Mind must be taken on Faith, as miraculous bootstrap (self-starting) events.
https://bothandblog3.enformationism.info/page23.html.

If you're not a theist, then you're an atheist. Don't be afraid of the word. If you are not a believer in any kind of deity then you're effectively an atheist. I think many people with 'spiritual beliefs' are atheists. — Tom Storm

Ha! That's an Atheist twist on a typical Christian argument. I suppose you're saying that the god-question is binary (either-or). But Agnosticism takes the third option : that a supernatural deity is unknowable by the ordinary means of Epistemology (knowable world). In that case, suspension of both belief and dis-belief is the reasonable stance. Or, blind faith replaces knowledge.

However, unlike physicists, rational philosophers do not limit their mental explorations to the physical sensory milieu. So, a fourth option is Immanentism, which defines the logical (mathematical) & self-organizing (life-like) attributes of Evolution are limited to space-time Nature itself, while making no hypothesis about eternal-infinite origins. Then, there is a fifth option, that of Deism. In that case, the logical inference of a First Cause is made, based on the arrow of causation pointing away from the beginning of world development. Thus, implying a Creator without defining that concept in mundane terminology.

Hence, Deists do not claim to have super-natural knowledge. So the specific "nature" (attributes) of that Prime Mover are not knowable. Nevertheless, both Plato and Aristotle used abstract analogies & metaphorical language, instead of concrete anthro-morphic descriptions, to label their notions of what we moderns call the "Big Bang" & beyond (multiverse?). For example, "Logos" merely implies that the emergence of Reason in the world must necessarily have a Rational*1 origin. Likewise, "First Cause" or "Prime Mover" simply means that the known process of Causation in nature, must logically have an Impetus*2 .

Those Agnostic alternatives to Atheism, avoid commitment to any particular form of Theism as a doctrine. So, they don't deserve to be lumped into a category that they are designed to avoid. Don't you agree? :wink:


*1. Rational : ability to evaluate relationships -- ratios -- between things as meanings

*2. Impetus : the force that makes something happen

Notice though that atheism is also the stance that god doesn't exist which is a belief. Clearly, this is inconsistent with atheism being a lack of belief, unless, as you seem to think, withholding belief = belief that false. — Agent Smith

I'm late to the party here, so I'm not sure if key terminology has been defined and agreed upon. I am neither an Atheist nor a Theist, but like all humans, I do have personal beliefs about Ontology (existence) & Epistemology (justified belief), which are still debatable after all these millennia.

For me, a Belief is a feeling, not a fact; a stance, not a truth. And dis-belief in the creator hypothesis indicates more confidence (credence) in empirical Science (what is) than in theoretical Philosophy (what might be). Besides that basic preference for objective evidence vs subjective inference, Atheism seems to be an emotional response to certain aspects of Theism, especially the notions of divine intervention and ultimate damnation. So, you are correct that Atheists are not withholding belief, but holding a stance. Suspension of belief or disbelief, on moot points, is the stance of Agnostics, who admit that ultimate questions are unprovable, and merely inferrable. Si, no? :smile:


Belief is not true/false, but good/bad for me :
Beliefs are inherently subjective. Individually and collectively, we may hold a belief for which we have a particular sense of certitude and conviction. Now, this does not mean that just because one is certain that one’s belief is true, that it is not infallible. Believing in something does not necessarily make it true.
https://ineducationonline.org/2021/01/29/knowing-our-own-truth-belief-vs-facts/

Note -- "Incredulity" is negative belief, and an antipathetic feeling toward some conjecture.
"Credulity" is a positive feeling toward a postulation. "Skepticism" is a temporary suspension of belief, pending further empirical or logical evidence. True or False?

No mockery intended Gnomon, but your words here are a little messianic and sacrificial sounding. Always be on your guard against any seedlings of a Christ complex. — universeness

Ha! No messianic salvation intended. Just philosophical enlightenment. And one of my many messiahs is physicist Paul Davies. :joke:

However, my straightforward presentation of a novel scientific & philosophical concept has been affected by aggressive attacks & mockery on this forum over the last few years. I've been forced into a defensive position in response to binary polemics (good vs evil) defending a strongly-held but un-named belief system. Since Enformationism is intended to be a non-religious philosophical update to the worldview of Materialism/Physicalism, I must assume that the emotional responses to an alternative worldview are motivated by what Christians refer to as the humanistic religion of Scientism. If that's your belief system, I apologize for stepping on your toes.

Ironically, Christians would probably refer to my position as "humanistic", since it offers no divine intervention to direct the world toward a Heavenly home or an earthly Utopia. Instead, it's all up to us humans to learn from trial & error, the error of our ways, and the way (Tao) of the world. :smile:

PS__My personal worldview has some similarities to holistic oriental philosophies -- Taoism, Buddhism, Confucianism, etc. -- but is not beholden to their religious doctrines.
PPS__Thanks for moderating your mockery. Some posters are not so tactful in their ridicule of rival "religions".

Taoism Salvation :
Unlike Confucianism, Taoism is a salvation religion which seeks to guide its believers beyond this transitory life to a happy eternity. There is a belief in an original state of bliss, followed by the fallen state. And there is reliance on supernatural powers for help and protection.
https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-1-349-22904-8_7

Scientism :
The main difference between science and scientism is that science is the study of nature and behaviour of natural things and knowledge obtained through them while scientism is the view that only science can render truth about the world and reality.
https://pediaa.com/what-is-the-difference-between-science-and-scientism/
Note -- "only science" means that theoretical Philosophy is not accepted as a path to Truth.

I always try to avoid ossifying when it comes to my viewpoints. I am sure you do the same.
Well if you have such significant support from the scientific community then I am sure I will hear a lot more about Enformationism and your BothAnd proposals. From sources other than its author. — universeness

Yes. Most belief systems are conservative, and don't change with every shift of the wind. Old paradigms give way to new worldviews only as old believers die out. That's why I don't expect many physical scientists to accept the new way of understanding the world. But I provide links to the few pioneers that do -- all you have to do is click.

Regarding information theory, Mathematicians & Theoretical physicists are quicker to see the broader implications of Information theory than Experimental Physicists and Chemists. Even Einstein, as a theoretician, was loathe to accept the uncertain statistical basis of Quantum Theory : "God doesn't throw dice". So I just patiently chip away at one philosophy forum, to see if theoretical thinkers are quicker to see the value of fundamental causal Information, than pragmatic doers. Acceptance of new paradigms usually take generations to become "settled science". At this stage, very few members of the "scientific community" are aware of a post-Shannon interpretation of Information. But if you want "sources other than the author" just follow the links.

Since I have no academic or professional qualifications, I'd have to possess a monumental ego to expect anyone to take my amateur opinions as truths. That's why I provide plenty of links to professional opinions for those willing to click & comprehend. I'm just hoping that a few will grok the cosmic scale of the new Information paradigm. The negative feedback from this forum allows me to stay humble & flexible, and to "avoid ossifying" the initial insight of Enformationism. About 15 years ago, an article by a quantum physicist was trying to explain why sub-atomic physics seemed to be so weird & counterintuitive compared to the neat orderly intuitive classical physics of Newton. At one point, he exclaimed "it's all information!". Thus my personal philosophical quest began : to understand the invisible structure (Form) of Reality. :smile:

Paradigm Shift :
“A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it.”
― Max Planck, Scientific Autobiography and Other Papers

Paradigm Power :
Those belief systems or paradigms are quite simply, the way in which we see the world. As such they constitute our reality. All of our actions, our personal life choices, our professional and our medical practice decisions are heavily influenced and at times, strongly directed by our personal paradigms.
https://www.vin.com/apputil/content/defaultadv1.aspx?id=5709902&pid=11372&print=1

How Paradigms Fall : a general assessment, not specifically about the Information paradigm
***Thomas Kuhn’s iconic work The Structure of Scientific Revolution . . . talk about the patterns that occur when a paradigm shift is about to happen. . . . When paradigms begin to show initial signs of failing or shifting, there are usually some very loud supporters of certain ideologies who do not want to see that the world is changing. . . . “First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win, ” . . . . Over the past 3.8 billion years Nature has demonstrated patterns that emerge when it is ready to let go of a form that no longer serves the higher purpose of the system. . . . Just like Nature, human systems are required to evolve and transform in order to survive.
https://kathleenallen.net/how-paradigms-fall/

Quantum Weirdness :
Many of the QT pioneers (e.g. Neils Bohr), inadvertently gained a reputation for mysticism, due to some of their attempts to explain its strangeness, to Western eyes, in terms of metaphors borrowed from Eastern philosophy. So, although it is now labeled as “the most successful theory ever formulated”, it still predicts behaviors that seem more magical than mechanical.
http://bothandblog7.enformationism.info/page43.html

Yes, they will! It will ever be your burden to deal with that then until you can provide convincing empirical evidence to support your hypothesis. — universeness

You will find lots of empirical evidence to support my thesis in the links to articles by professional scientists. But, only the Enformationism thesis will provide the logical connections between bits & pieces of physical evidence and professional opinions that add-up to the conclusion that the physical world has "at bottom . . . an immaterial source and explanation". That may sound like "nonsense" to you. But I'll let you argue with a prominent physicist about the scientific details of his thesis : an information-centric participatory universe. :smile:

It from bit symbolizes the idea that every item of the physical world has at bottom...an immaterial source and explanation...that all things physical are information-theoretic in origin and that this is a participatory universe.
___John Archibald Wheeler, quantum physics pioneer

“Recent decades have taught us that physics is a magic window. It shows us the illusion that lies behind reality—and the reality that lies behind illusion. Its scope is immensely greater than we one realized. We are no longer satisfied with insights only into particles, or fields of force, or geometry, or even space and time. Today we demand of physics some understanding of existence itself.”
― John Archibald Wheeler, Quantum Theory and Measurement

You maybe guilty of over-dramatising any current gaps between the physics of the macro and the physics of the subatomic or gaps between classical physics and quantum physics. — universeness

Skepticism toward unorthodox notions is essential to a scientific worldview. But openness to novelty is also necessary for advancement of knowledge, and to avoid fossilized orthodoxy. Perhaps, you may be guilty of over-minimizing complex concepts that don't fit your current belief system. :joke:

Skepticism :
I have made a ceaseless effort not to ridicule, not to bewail, not to scorn human actions, but to understand them.
___Baruch Spinoza

This just leaves folks to assume neutral or anti, when you type not pro and pro when you suggest not anti. In science, the term 'novel,' just means 'new.' All together, I think the quote above is far too broad to be of much use to our discussion. — universeness

OK. Here is a definition from the BothAnd Blog. If that's not narrow enough for you, I have more. BothAnd is a philosophical concept not a scientific term. But it is related to the scientific notions bolded in the quote below. :smile:

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 ofset 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.
https://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page10.html

I think the 'but' above is nonsense — universeness

The "but" paragraph is merely referring to primitive notions that are describing the same kind of phenomena that scientists study, but without the intervening centuries of learning. Their ideas may seem like "nonsense" to you, but they conveyed meaningful philosophical information to them*1. For example, early humans seemed to assume that anything that moved was animated by the same invisible force that motivated humans. The analogy to "breath" was a metaphor based on the observed fact that Life requires breathing. The Bible says that "life is in the blood", but today we would add that oxygen in the blood is essential to life. It's easy for moderns, after centuries of scientific investigation to feel intellectually superior to ancient philosophers*2. For example, Aristotle used the Greek word "energeia" meaning : activity, operation, vigour. workmanship. supernatural action, cosmic force. But today, we have a mathematical definition of "energy"*3. Same general understanding, with more decimal places. :nerd:


*1. Don't you think the humans of the far future Singularity will dismiss your own primitive notions of "Energy" (ability to do work) as mere metaphors for concepts you barely understand? Enformationism merely goes one step forward by defining "Energy" in terms of mathematical ratios (i.e. abstract information).

*2. A superiority complex is a belief that your abilities or accomplishments are somehow dramatically better than other people's.
https://www.webmd.com/mental-health/what-is-a-superiority-complex

*3. "Eugenius says that 'the moderns have profited by the rules of the ancients' but moderns have "excelled them."
Sir Isaac Newton, the famous English scientist, once said, “If I have seen further, it is by standing on the shoulders of giants.”

Why is intelligence the yardstick for emergence? — Agent Smith

The yardstick should be chosen to suit the object to be measured. If we are discussing the evolution of physical/material stuff of the Earth, a physical instrument would be appropriate. But the topic of this thread -- 'information/technological singularity" -- is about Cultural/Technical evolution. So the proper way to measure such a not-yet-real future state of human ingenuity would be to apply the philosophical tool of Reason, which seems to be directly related to Intelligence, n'est-ce pas?

The topical question is about "credence", not substance. So, on what basis would you believe a description of some projected event that has not yet come to pass? Some thinkers seem to take it on faith, in human intelligence/ingenuity, that a techno-utopia will eventually come to pass. Personally, unlike some philosophical pessimists, I agree that cultural evolution -- both ethical & technical -- is generally progressing in a positive direction. But my notion of Utopia is different from that of Vernor Vinge and Ray Kutzweil.

As an amateur philosopher, I'm more inclined toward the information-systems interpretation of progress, than the technology-faith scenario. Yet I remain agnostic about the teleological or teleonomic destiny of the world. So, my Enformationism graph of Hegelian progress (not to scale) ends with a question mark. :smile:



Note -- The Hegelian ups & downs are smoothed-out at this cosmic scale. From our local earth-scale perspective the up-jumps & set-backs may appear like like a chain of mountains.

what is your enformation fundamental? — universeness

Your proposed "fundamental" particles may be appropriate for a scientist in a lab to use as a guide. But I'm not a scientist, and my lab is my mind*1. So, the "fundamental" element of Information is Difference*2*3. You are talking in terms of Physics (e.g. Matter ; Particles ; Objective), while I'm talking about Meta-physics (e.g. Mind ; Meaning ; Subjective). :smile:

*1. Someone once asked Einstein, "if you are a scientist, where is your lab?". He silently held up a pencil. Albert was a theoretical scientist, a philosopher who focused his razor sharp mind on abstractions (e.g. Energy) that can't be seen under a microscope or dissected with a razor-sharp blade.

*2. Difference is a key concept of philosophy, denoting the process or set of properties by which one entity is distinguished from another within a relational field or a given conceptual system. ___Wikipedia

*3. Information :
Knowledge and the ability to know. Technically, it's the ratio of order to disorder, of positive to negative, of knowledge to ignorance. It's measured in degrees of uncertainty. Those ratios are also called "differences".So Gregory Bateson* defined Information as "the difference that makes a difference". The latter distinction refers to "value" or "meaning". Babbage called his prototype computer a "difference engine". Difference is the cause or agent of Change. In Physics it’s called "Thermodynamics" or "Energy". In Sociology it’s called "Conflict".
https://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page11.html
Note -- Atoms of knowledge & meaning are invisible bits (binary distinctions) of Information. Those bits are mathematical relationships (ratios : rational) that add-up to bytes, then to concepts, then to personal meanings : relationship to self. If that sounds like religious dogma to you, then our worldviews & vocabularies are incompatible or immutual.

GENERAL COMMENTARY

A. Physical Science has no need for metaphysical gods & spirits. But, scientists use different names for similar concepts. Instead of divine Creation, they may call it "instant Inflation". In place of animated Spirits, they call it Energy. Same thing, different terminology.

B. Since the Big Bang beginning of physical reality sounds like a creation event, some scientists get around that meta-physical implication by noting that the "bang" is not a part of our inflating universe. Some religious believers would agree that their infinite-eternal creator-god is not immanent in the space-time creation. In either case, that outside Cause is Meta-Physical, and only knowable by inference from physical events. Another way to explain away the sudden emergence of Something (our everything) from Nothing (ultimate set) is to use the mathematical vocabulary of an "empty set", or "vacuum energy", to avoid the implication of ex nihilo by "divine fiat". Same notion, different words.

C. In order to explicate the Enformationism thesis, I have developed my own alternative philosophical vocabulary, intended to avoid the doctrinal presumptions of both religious and scientific language. Unfortunately, some readers will still tend to read-into those novel terms, their own Spiritualism or Materialism prejudices. "vive la difference!"

BothAnd Blog Glossary : https://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/index.html
Note -- this list of Enformationism terminology is out-of-date, because the science of Information (and my understanding) is progressing so rapidly.

Well, the exchange between us here seems to consolidate around what credence level either of us assigns to the existence of and value of any references to the supernatural. — universeness

I appreciate your willingness to engage in philosophical dialog, even though my posts may express a worldview that at first glance appears to violate your personal belief system. Some offended posters are motivated to express their anger & incredulity in the form of political-style put-downs. FWIW, I assure you that my BothAnd philosophy is not anti-science or pro-religion. However, it's also not pro-classical-science or anti-religious-philosophy. Instead, it views those contentious belief systems from a novel perspective, that may seem wrong-headed to those on one side or the other of the credence abyss.

Since Enformationism does make philosophical inferences that go beyond the knowable origins of Nature though, you could be forgiven for categorizing those conjectures as "super-natural". Yet quite a few professional scientists have put-on their philosophical hats, and conjectured non-empirical notions (e.g. Multiverse ; Cosmic Inflation) about the time-before-Time, and the pre-Big-Bang nature of Nature. So, I'm just doing similar philosophical postulating, but without the aura of authority that allows professional scientists to get-away with going beyond the limits of empirical methods. Remember, some of Einstein's colleagues cringed at his poetic references to God, but didn't attack him openly. :smile:

Misunderstanding the position of others is always an issue. I am trying my best to understand your viewpoints and idea's in the area of what you think is 'emergent,' in human beings and based on the content of my OP. If you think I am misinterpreting your ideas then I look forward to your continued corrections, so that I can gain a better understanding of your position. — universeness

I have posted hundreds of "continued corrections" (clarifications) on my blog and in this forum. But you are not alone in mis-understanding my unconventional worldview. Some are content to just pigeon-hole the strange ideas into old familiar categories. For example, Emergentism is a feature of Holistic worldviews, which to detractors indicates an Anti-reductionism (hence anti-science) Oriental religious belief. But it is also held by several prominent Quantum scientists. Also, Reductionism is an appropriate method for dissecting physical objects, but not very effective for parsing philosophical concepts.

My worldview is best explained at length in the Enformationism Thesis, and the BothAnd Blog. In forum posts, my unconventional position must be explained only in bits & pieces, hence may be interpreted by others in more conventional terms. You won't find my personal worldview in any Science or Philosophy textbook, so I rely on links to recently published authors, who are exploring the uncharted Information territory from a perspective similar to my own. Since the links are usually un-clicked, I typically include a brief quote to indicate the pertinent flavor of the ideas therein. :nerd:

Emergence :
Cognitive historian Y.N. Harari, in Homo Deus, foresees the emergence of a “cosmic data processing system . . . like God”, yet entirely natural and matter-based. On the other hand, I have deduced, from the same database, that the materialist's arbitrary “laws” of physical evolution are more like purposeful metaphysical codes.
https://www.bothandblog.enformationism.info/page16.html

Emergentism :
In philosophy, emergentism is the belief in emergence, particularly as it involves consciousness and the philosophy of mind. A property of a system is said to be emergent if it is a new outcome of some other properties of the system and their interaction, while it is itself different from them.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergentism

How can an idea be a update of materialism if your 'update,' "is not intended to be judged by material scientific criteria?" That seems to contradict!
In what sense are you using the term 'spiritualism,' here? — universeness

My information-centric update of the philosophical implications of classical Materialism is mostly based on the current understanding of reality provided by Quantum science. It would indeed be a conflict, if I pretended to be a physical scientist. For example, Einstein & the Quantum pioneers "updated" Newton's mechanical physics, to much consternation at first. So, my philosophical interpretation of "scientific criteria" is primarily based upon sub-atomic physics, which has discovered the key role of mental & mathematical Information in the foundations of physical reality.

I use the term "Spiritualism" in a provocative manner, to provide a strong contrast with "Materialism". Both are belief systems & worldviews that hark back to ancient Atomism and Animism. Today, Quantum theory has pulled the materialistic rug out from under Atomism. And Einstein's equation of intangible Energy with measurable Mass/Matter, has given us a modern way to interpret the invisible causes of Nature. :cool:

Quantum Physicist John A. Wheeler :
Wheeler's "it from bit" concept implies that physics, particularly quantum physics, isn't really about reality, but just our best description of what we observe. There is no "quantum world", just the best description we have of how things will appear to us.
https://plus.maths.org/content/it-bit

Information, Physics, Quantum: The Search for Links :
This report reviews what quantum physics and information theory have to tell us about the age-old question, How come existence?
https://philarchive.org/rec/WHEIPQ

So when most people say 'reason' in effect they mean 'scientific reason' which operates within constraints that are rarely made the object of explicit awareness. Philosophers (or some philosophers) are well aware of this. — Wayfarer

Ironically, that Empirical, tangible-results-oriented, understanding of "Reason" is common even on The Philosophy Forum, where we don't do anything remotely empirical. Materialism, as a belief system, sometimes seems to be the un-official doctrine of TPF. :sad:

PS__For the record, Enformationism does not deny the validity of Materialism, as a guide for empirical research. And it does not advocate Spiritualism, as a guide to heaven. It does however assume that philosophical reasoning is a valid approach to evaluating immaterial ideas & beliefs.


Materialism, also called physicalism, in philosophy, the view that all facts (including facts about the human mind and will and the course of human history) are causally dependent upon physical processes, or even reducible to them.
https://www.britannica.com/topic/materialism-philosophy

Philosophical Materialism states that everything that truly exists is matter; everything is material, thus all phenomena we see are a result of material interactions.
https://thedecisionlab.com/reference-guide/philosophy/materialism

Such teleology, only has value from the perspective of human intent and purpose, through their imposition of selective evolution via such tech as genetic engineering. No god posit, Platonic logos/form or Aristotelian first cause, has any contribution to make, imo. — universeness

True. If you are a pragmatic scientist with the intention of making a material difference in the world, there is no need to consider generalizations or ultimates. But, if you are a philosopher, hoping to answer Ontological & Existential questions, considering First & Last & Ultimate Intent would be a part of your job description. I'm not a materials scientist or genetic engineer, but merely an amateur philosopher, posting on a philosophy forum, just for funsees.

So, I hope you will forgive me for doing what feckless philosophers do to while-away their spare time : studying not material objects & "how" questions, but mental beliefs & "why" questions. I'm aware that some posters on TPF seem to believe that this is, or should be, a scientific forum, or that Impractical Theoretical Philosophy must be subordinate to Pragmatic Empirical Science.

If the traditional philosophical term "Teleology" sets your teeth on edge, how about "Teleonomy"? Enformationism is compatible with both understandings of natural progression. :smile:


Ultimate :
1. a final or fundamental fact or principle.
2. being or happening at the end of a process; final.

Quora :
A philosopher is a scientist who studies what cultures, countries groups and individuals believe and do and why they believe and do the things they believe . . .

Teleonomy :
Teleonomy is sometimes contrasted with teleology, where the latter is understood as a purposeful goal-directedness brought about through human or divine intention. Teleonomy is thought to derive from evolutionary history, adaptation for reproductive success, and/or the operation of a program.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teleonomy

God and Other Ultimates :
What it takes to be ultimate is to be the most fundamentally real, valuable or fulfilling among all that there is or could be
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/god-ultimates/

PS__For the record, Enformationism does not deny the validity of Materialism, as a guide for empirical research. And it does not advocate Spiritualism, as a guide to heaven. It does however assume that philosophical reasoning is a valid approach to evaluating immaterial ideas & beliefs. Yet it does deny the bolded words in the definition below.

Materialism, also called physicalism, in philosophy, the view that all facts (including facts about the human mind and will and the course of human history) are causally dependent upon physical processes, or even reducible to them.
https://www.britannica.com/topic/materialism-philosophy

Picking up where I left off, this thread must necessarily discuss the criterion for existence - the commonsense one used by the man on the Clapham omnibus, the scientific one, the philosophical one, the religious one, any idiosyncratic ones as well. — Agent Smith

The commonsense definition for existence is indeed that of the common man (and common animals), who believe only what they can see. But philosophers are not limited to the physical senses to understand the world. Instead, where their senses fail to see, they infer the invisible links of geometry. So they turn to metaphors (analogies to concrete things) in order to communicate their idiosyncratic understanding of the unseen world. That's why I call Reason : "the sixth sense", which is uncommon even among human animals.

Pragmatic Scientists are also sometimes forced to rely on imaginary metaphors to fill-in the blanks of understanding. For example, Virtual Particles have never been seen via telescopes or microscopes, because they are imaginary. But such non-things would not make sense to the commonsense of the common man. Moreover, the un-common-sense of Ontology will never put virtual food in the bowl for your commonsense dog. :joke:

Well, that's what we are discussing. 'Immaterial,' has no demonstrable existent, if it is being used to propose something supernatural. — universeness

No. That is a mis-interpretation of my intent. "Im-material" simply means not-made-of-matter. It does not mean super-natural. Are the ideas & ideals in your mind super-natural, if we can't see them under a microscope? Are Virtual Particles super-natural simply because they have "no demonstrable existent"? VPs are simply mathematical metaphors for sub-atomic physics that must be inferred instead of empirically demonstrated. Mathematics consists of inferred (mental) immaterial inter-relationships, not on observed (objective) physical connections between values. Unfortunately, Pythagoras did interpret his harmonies & ideal solids in the spiritual terminology of his day, 2500 years ago.

insists on the same mis-use of my novel & unconventional, but philosophically & scientifically defined, terminology. Unfortunately. my non-textbook definitions for
Enformationism can't overcome the prejudice of Materialism/Physicalism as a belief system. So, due to our divergent vocabularies, we have ceased to communicate on topics that go beyond the 18th century concepts of classical Newtonian physics. :smile:

Forget Space-Time: Information May Create the Cosmos :
So, the question then becomes how to understand "information," a common term whose technical or scientific sense can be disruptive. . . .
What are the basic building blocks of the cosmos? Atoms, particles, mass energy? Quantum mechanics, forces, fields? Space and time — space-time? Tiny strings with many dimensions? . . .
A new candidate is "information," which some scientists claim is the foundation of reality. The late distinguished physicist John Archibald Wheeler characterized the idea as "It from bit" — "it" referring to all the stuff of the universe and "bit" meaning information. . . .
So here's the deep question: Is information the ultimate constituent from which the cosmos is constructed? I started as a skeptic. Information as reality seems so outlandish, so trendy — a metaphor on steroids. ___Robert Kuhn
https://www.space.com/29477-did-information-create-the-cosmos.html

Virtual particles are only used to satisfy mathematical requirements and are not real in any sense of the word. They have not been proven in any way to really exist, except mathematically,
https://www.quora.com/Is-there-any-proof-that-virtual-particles-actually-exist

Ok, but again we diverge here, as I give no credence or value to the Platonic concept of ideal or perfect forms. I refer to Platonic forms described in wiki as: — universeness

We are discussing a philosophically divisive topic here. And judging by the unusual number of replies to my posts, my unconventional (immaterial) worldview has hit an emotional hot button for otherwise placid philosophers. Where you give "no credence" to Plato's Forms, it's the foundation of my personal En-Form-Action thesis. Plato's theory of Forms was not talking about material objects (teapot orbiting the moon) but about human ideas about (aboutness) physical objects. Forms are mental metaphors, not material things. Do you deign to "give credence" to your own ideas, or just to other people's invisible intangible ideas. Obviously, you are misinterpreting my ideas, due to lack of understanding of its scientific & philosophical foundation.

I'm pretty sure that astrobiologist Caleb Scharf has never heard of Enformationism. But in his 2021 book, The Ascent of Information, he makes some assertions that would also touch a nerve on this forum. From the cover : "a universe built of and for information" ; "information is, in a very real sense, alive" ; "it's an organism that has evolved right alongside us". These are not materialistic scientific statements, but philosophical interpretations of cutting-edge science (quantum, not classical). Likewise, my view of the role of Information in the universe is not intended to be judged by materialistic scientific criteria. Instead, it's supposed to be an update of ancient belief systems : both Material-ism and Spiritual-ism.

Due to the sudden explosion of incredulous responses to my posts on this Emergent thread, I may not have time to address all of your credibility concerns individually. But I have already covered most of them in the Enformationism thesis, and the BothAnd blog, in case you are really interested in a novel synthesis of modern Science and timeless Philosophy. :smile:

Enformationism :
http://enformationism.info/enformationism.info/

BothAnd Blog :
https://bothandblog.enformationism.info/

PS__The incredulous remark about Plato & Idealism reveals a watershed in our worldviews. Philosophical Mathematician A.N. Whitehead once commented on Plato's thought: “The safest general characterization of the European philosophical tradition is that it consists of a series of footnotes to Plato." Since mathematicians deal with abstract ideas instead of concrete matter, an openness to Idealism might be expected. But philosophers are also manipulators of abstractions ; yet some have come to view Empirical Science as getting closer to Truth, because it manipulates real tangible objects and produces real world material results. Ironically, in a matter-based world, symbolic money buys real goods, while philosophical metaphors & analogies yield nothing tangible. So, what is the value of Wisdom (sophos), and what is its material substance?

PPS__The screenname "Universeness" seems to imply an open-ness to the intangible qualia of the world. Ironically, in the Enformationism thesis, Generic Information is the substance of Both quantitative Matter & qualitative Mind ; also of everything, and non-thing (e.g. Virtual Particles), in the Universe.

The suffix "-ness" means "state : condition : quality" and is used with an adjective to say something about the state, condition, or quality of being that adjective.
https://www.britannica.com/dictionary/eb/qa/Nouns-ending-in-ness

PPPS__Enformationism is an Emergence & Systems theory about the Holistic qualities of the world that emerge from the evolution of malleable matter & causal energy.

Emergence : In philosophy, systems theory, science, and art, emergence occurs when an entity is observed to have properties its parts do not have on their own ; (i.e. Holism).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergence

There is no criterion for existence and that's that! — Agent Smith

Is your existence the result of a long chain of random accidents, or specified by Darwinian Natural Selection? Does evolutionary selection operate without specific criteria? If so, how do mutating genes know how to maintain a consistent lineage of inheritance over eons of time? Just asking. :joke:

Evolutionary Selection Criteria :
In order for natural selection to operate on a trait, the trait must possess heritable variation and must confer an advantage in the competition for resources. If one of these requirements does not occur, then the trait does not experience natural selection.
https://www.globalchange.umich.edu/globalchange1/current/lectures/selection/selection.html
Note -- Who decided on those critical standards for evolutionary survival? Happenstance?

Information as a universal fundamental has to be a credible position to take at some level imo.
Information is however 'labelled data,' so would 'data' not be the fundamental as opposed to information? Is that not a critical distinction? — universeness

I typically use the word "Information" in a more general sense than "Data". The original etymological usage of "Information" referred to the meanings stored in human Minds (ideas ; concepts)*1. But modern computer terminology has popularized the notion of "Data", which is Information stripped of personal meaning*2. That abstraction makes it more narrowly specific for digital computers, but almost meaningless for human comprehension. That's why code compilers must be used to translate semantic human Information into computer Data.

In the book I'm currently reading, The Ascent of Information by Caleb Scharf, he coins a new term "Dataome" (compare to biological Genome)to represent the kind of information that humans have off-loaded from brains to man-made inventions for external storage & processing. His usage may be closer to what you have in mind. But my philosophical concept of Information is coming from a completely different direction. Rather than modern science & technology, my definition of "Information" goes back to Plato's notion of "Form" as the essence of all things, including ideas*3. :smile:

*1. Etymology : The English word "information" comes from Middle French enformacion/informacion/information . . . . Latin informatiō(n) 'conception, teaching, creation'. . . . Information is not knowledge itself, but the meaning that may be derived from a representation through interpretation. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Information
Note -- Another definition of "meaning" is "aboutness', mental reference to something relevant to the thinker.

*2. Information is :
*** Claude Shannon quantified Information not as useful ideas, but as a mathematical ratio between meaningful order (1) and meaningless disorder (0); between knowledge (1) and ignorance (0). So, that meaningful mind-stuff exists in the limbo-land of statistics, producing effects on reality while having no sensory physical properties. We know it exists ideally, only by detecting its effects in the real world.
*** For humans, Information has the semantic quality of aboutness , that we interpret as meaning. In computer science though, Information is treated as meaningless, which makes its mathematical value more certain. It becomes meaningful only when a sentient Self interprets it as such.
*** When spelled with an “I”, Information is a noun, referring to data & things. When spelled with an “E”, Enformation is a verb, referring to energy and processes
http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page11.html
Note -- Shannon Information (data) is Syntactic (rules), but traditional Information is Semantic (meaning)

*3. What is Information ? :
The power to enform, to create, to cause change, the essence of awareness. . . . .
http://bothandblog6.enformationism.info/page16.html

Why bring in a term such as 'Immaterial intelligence?' You would first have to convince me/others that such a term has any meaningful existent. What evidence do you have of immaterial intelligence? — universeness

I apologize if my word choice conjured up an image of Einstein's ghost. I was just thinking of the Intelligence usually associated with "information" as an abstract quality instead of a physical thing or being. Perhaps I should ask if "material intelligence" has any meaningful existence for you. Like many forms of Information, the existence of IQ must be inferred rationally, instead of proven empirically. Was Einstein's superior "intelligence" known by means of material evidence?

Anyway, as I said, Intelligence seems to be a function of material complexity. But a "function" is also not a material object. Like many forms of Information, it's a relationship between variables, such as input & output. In the case of intelligence, the function is a relationship between Brain complexity and Mental output : novelty of ideas, etc. But even "complexity" is a mental concept (evaluation), not a physical organ. :yikes:

But how could a random process of matter mutation produce the technological & self-conscious minds that are imaginative enough to speculate that humanity could evolve its own artificial intelligent species of organism/mechanism? Logically, such positive progressive evolution (natural technology) must be non-random & possibly intentional. — Gnomon
I agree but why use an 'immaterial of the gaps' approach? — universeness

Again, "intelligence" is an immaterial quality. So, why not use an "immaterial" concept to fill the gap in knowledge? Besides, the kind of Information that my thesis is concerned with is more like immaterial Energy than material Matter*4. For example, a Photon is supposed to be the carrier of Energy, but its existence must be inferred from its effects on matter, because Energy itself (apart from matter) is invisible & intangible*5. The description of "energy" in the link below is essentially the same as that of Causal Information*6. Ironically, many intelligent people think of Energy and Information as forms of matter, when in reality it's just the opposite. :nerd:

*4. How is information related to energy in physics? :
Energy is the relationship between information regimes. That is, energy is manifested, at any level, between structures, processes and systems of information in all of its forms, and all entities in this universe is composed of information.
https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/22084/how-is-information-related-to-energy-in-physics

*5. 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

*6. Information causality :
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Information_causality

Koch's and Tononi's theories raise another question : if information is ubiquitous in the universe, why is the biological human mind its most powerful processor? — Gnomon
I can't answer such a 'why' question. . . . Do you think we are trying to gain the same ability as what you muse as 'the immaterial?' — universeness

I suppose the author of that quote was implying that the human mind was "designed" to be a powerful Information processor. Whether by God or by Nature, the ability to understand that "information is ubiquitous" allows us to control its manifold forms via Science and Philosophy. Chemistry manipulates its material physical forms (e.g. elements) , and Physics attempts to master nature's immaterial Forces (e.g. potential & kinetic energy), while Philosophy deals with its immaterial mental forms (e.g ideas). Yes, all of those empirical & theoretical professions are trying to gain dominance over Nature, in all its forms & expressions : objects, processes, & meanings. :cool:

This is where we diverge. These are just too close to god of the gaps arguments for me, and take us nowhere. — universeness

If you would take the time to read the Enformationism thesis, you'd discover that its "god" is more like the impersonal rational Logos of Plato, and the logically necessary First Cause of Aristotle, than the intervening deity of the Abrahamic religions. By interpreting those ancient non-religious philosophical concepts in terms of our modern understanding of Enforming & Causal power of Generic Information (both Syntactic & Semantic), we should indeed diverge from the outdated philosophies of Materialism & Spiritualism. Where that new vector leads ultimately, depends on the interpreter. As an amateur philosopher, I prefer to focus on the semantic meaning of information, instead of the mechanical rules. If you are an empirical scientist, the syntax of information may be more important. Both Forms are logically contingent upon some ultimate Enformer : the cause or our world's "forms most beautiful" (Darwin). :wink:

PS__Back to the original post about an "information/technological" singularity. In The Ascent of Information, by astrophysicists Caleb Scharf, he says : "Anything that reduces the meaning of human information threatens the balance . . . between us and our future selves in a way no less profound than in biological evolution" My thesis is about the emergent teleological aspects of Evolution, not biological, mechanical, or technological. So, that may be where our opinions diverge.

To what extent do you think that human beings are 'information processors?' — universeness

My personal philosophical worldview is entitled Enformationism. It's based on emerging evidence that the whole universe is an information-processing system, similar to a cosmic computer program. Evolution is the general program for causing novel forms of matter to emerge from the interaction of Energy & Natural Laws (computer operating system?). That inherent code (evolutionary DNA?) contains the information necessary to combine causal Energy & malleable Matter into more & more complex forms ; hence the emergence of sophisticated organisms from simpler raw materials.

Immaterial intelligence seems to be directly connected to complexity of functional organization, such as found in the human brain. But how could a random process of matter mutation produce the technological & self-conscious minds that are imaginative enough to speculate that humanity could evolve its own artificial intelligent species of organism/mechanism? Logically, such positive progressive evolution (natural technology) must be non-random & possibly intentional. :nerd:

Integrated Information :
Koch's and Tononi's theories raise another question : if information is ubiquitous in the universe, why is the biological human mind its most powerful processor?
https://www.bothandblog.enformationism.info/page13.html

How much credence do you give to the idea that we are heading towards an 'information/technological singularity? — universeness

I tend to agree with : "I guess it's plausible but not inevitable." The notion of human Culture playing the role of technological evolution, by producing novel systems of organization, makes sense if you understand that Culture itself is an emergent organization from Natural Evolution. But, like all complex novelty-generating processes, the future of uber-complex Culture is unpredictable, and no particular projection from now-to-then is inevitable. :smile:


Technological Singularity :
Futurist & transhumanist Ray Kurtzweil has optimistically conjectured that a mindless-but-lawful universe is accidentally stumbling toward a universal mind of god-like proportions. And cognitive historian Y.N. Harari, in Homo Deus, foresees the emergence of a “cosmic data processing system . . . like God”, yet entirely natural and matter-based. On the other hand, I have deduced, from the same database, that the materialist's arbitrary “laws” of physical evolution are more like purposeful metaphysical codes. Historically and theoretically, Evolution proceeds via the inventive interaction between random Chance and contextual Choice. That progressive process is not aimless though, as some would have it, but pointed in a positive direction, as measured by one-way Time, as recorded in human history, as inferred from Archeology, and as conjectured in Cosmology. Such an apparently teleological universe must have originated from an intentional source of some kind. Since mathematical Information seems to be the coded language of evolution, I like to call that cosmic “Programmer”, the “Enformer”.
https://www.bothandblog.enformationism.info/page16.html

I might start a thread inspired by your post regarding, How do we define progress? I hope you can join. — Shawn

My personal philosophical worldview, Enformationism, is not exactly Pollyanna optimism, but it does have a positive outlook, based on the evidence for upward-trending cosmic complexification, due to the self-organizing ability of Nature. Moreover, one offspring of Nature : human Culture, in modern times, is accelerating the progression of life-sustaining organization -- even as it creates more ways to dominate each other.

From that pragmatic perspective, things are looking-up. But, for me personally, my economic status varies with the general economy of the US, and in step with worldwide recessions and booms. So, my Stoic attitude gets me by whenever I'm scraping the bottom of the economic middle class. Compared to the "huddled masses", though, I have no reason to complain. :smile:


PS__I just noticed the new heading for this thread. So, I see that some on this forum don't share my Stoic optimism that, if we learn to control our unruly emotions, Reason will forge a path to a better life. But, some of us seem to be so depressed by life's imperfections that species suicide is an attractive option.

The new age positivists label was directed at entrepreneurship and huge stores of money in Silicon Valley to alleviate said lack and suffering, through technology. — Shawn

The innovative & pioneering & super-rich entrepreneurs (go-getters), including Elon Musk, do indeed seem to be optimistic about their technological innovations improving life conditions for all of mankind. But their risk-taking positive attitude may be based on a "trickle down" economic theory, in which the rich get richer and the poor get less-poor. But, in practice the 1 or 2% at the top get richer faster than the 98%, upon whose shoulders they are standing . That's why political progressives are impatient with the long wait for signs of progress at the bottom of the pyramid.

Regarding the question of "better for whom", abstract statistics seem to tell a different story from emotional politics. Gradual natural evolution took 13 billion years to get us to the point of primitive human culture. Since then, various technologies have been incrementally chipping away at the inequities of the economic pyramid. However, because human societies seem to be inherently hierarchical*1, instead of egalitarian, we may never reach the ideal of total eradication of poverty & suffering. But, we should be grateful for any changes that put more power in the hands of people-in-general to control their own conditions of life.

The site linked below*2 provides statistics on progress using various measures : economic status, literacy, health, mortality, etc. Unfortunately, the charts are typically based on raw population numbers, instead of percentages of the global community. Also, Steven Pinker's Skeptical Inquirer article, Progressophobia*3, provides lots of reasons for informed optimism, instead of news headline pessimism regarding social progress.

Admittedly, it's mostly those near the peak of the socio-economic pyramid who feel optimistic about their own future, and for the trickle-down improvement for all of mankind : "better living through technology"*4. Those near the bottom typically require some kind of supernatural promises, or a turtle-shell shield like meditation. So, it may be up to us philosophically-inclined thinkers to focus on the long-term evolution of human culture, and for short-term Stoicism, to keep us keeping-on toward the goal of improvement in living conditions for our fellow men. :smile:


*1. Human Hierarchy :
The presence of a drive for dominance is clearly present in humans and has been documented through various psychological constructs.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/agricultural-and-biological-sciences/dominance-hierarchy

*2. STATISTICAL EVIDENCE FOR PROGRESS ON POVERTY

https://www.vox.com/the-big-idea/2016/12/23/14062168/history-global-conditions-charts-life-span-poverty

*3. Progressophobia :
Why Things Are Better Than You Think They Are
https://skepticalinquirer.org/2018/05/progressophobia-why-things-are-better-than-you-think-they-are/

*4. Better living through technology :
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Better_Living_Through_Chemistry

that the issues brought up by pessimists do seem true, yet life is getting better because of these truths and the work our forefathers and science and the new age positivists are making the world better off. — Shawn

I agree that life on Earth is not an idylic Garden of Eden, but as you implied, we human care-takers are assiduously working to improve a less-than-perfect situation. We haven't eradicated suffering and unequal distribution of benefits, but Philosophical Pessimism is not going to produce a Utopia. On another thread, I've been engaged with pessimists in a Science vs Religion debate. Whereas most Religions put their faith in all-powerful gods or nature spirits to alleviate their suffering, modern Science is learning to control the vicissitudes of nature directly via Technology. Even so, some posters remain pessimistic in the face of implacable & all-powerful thermodynamic Entropy driving the world toward destruction. However, I am endorsing Enformy*1 as an inherent positive counter-agent to Entropy.

I'm not sure who you are referring to as "new age positivists", but most New Age religions are still relying on Nature to fix its own shortcomings in human relations. On the other hand, modern ecologists, both science-based and religiously-motivated, are espousing a return to human caretakers working hand-in-hand with Nature to keep the Garden and its inhabitants healthy. Unlike the anthro-morphic gods who supposedly answer prayers, Nature/Entropy seems to be deaf to human pleas. However, impassive Nature is inherently balanced between positive & negative forces as it evolves toward more complexity and intelligence. So, you could say that Nature has bred its own race of gardeners. :smile:


*1. Enformy :
"My own interpretation of Enformed history is not based on divine revelation. Yet I remain somewhat optimistic that the self-organizing natural force of Enformy will prevail over disorganizing Entropy in the end (Omega Point)."
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/13862/the-self-under-materialism

*2. Ecologist :
a person who studies the relationship between living things and their environment.