And I regret to say that I invariably find your 'enformationism' mere hand-waving. — Wayfarer

I was surprised my your description of my "enthusiastic" presentation of Enformationism as "mere handwaving" (empty gestures)*1. My intention is more like Teaching or Preaching, which often involve emphatic use of the hands to emphasize a point. Understandably, preaching is typically not well-received on this forum, and is often shouted-down*2. But, a certain amount of Teaching is necessary, because most members of this forum are only vaguely familiar with Shannon's use of the term "Information" in the context of Entropy (i.e. dis-information). As Dr. Frankenstein's fire-fearing creature might say : "Entropy bad!" So, Information itself has been pegged with a negative connotation as something to be avoided. Ironically, in Shannon's sense of "uncertainty" and "surprise", "more entropy means more information".

By contrast to the engineering usage, my philosophical application of Information Theory is focused on its positive aspects (Energy/Enformy as contrasted to Entropy/Deform). In the book by astrophysicist Caleb Scharf, The Ascent of Information, he recounts a story of how Shannon came to connect disrupted messages on noisy phone lines with thermodynamic Entropy (all the ways it could go wrong). John von Neumann suggested that abstruse technical term, and added that "since most people didn't understand what entropy really was, he would always have the advantage in an argument". Unfortunately, for my philosophical purposes that mis-understanding is a disadvantage. Thus, the necessity for teaching -- and yes, for gesturing -- in order to put Information into a more positive light.

Even a century after Shannon's engineering insight, businesses still invite speakers to teach their employees about how easy it is for things to go wrong with their enterprises. And some philosophers view Evolution, not as a creative process, but as a one-way trip to Entropy Hell. So, I have an uphill battle to present a more optimistic side of the thermodynamic equation. The main element of Information that Shannon's "purposefully austere mathematical evaluation" omitted was Meaning. Enformationism, though, is intended to fill that gaping gap with Life & Mind & Meaning*3. :smile:


*1. Hand Waving :
the use of gestures and insubstantial language meant to impress or convince.

*2. Preaching : I suspect that it's my evangelical approach to Enformationism as a worldview is what offends the most. Ironically, his worldview seems to be pretty close to my own in many ways. But, he seems to think I'm an annoying born-again "Enformationist" (cringe) preaching the gospel of G*D.

*3. Enformationism :
A philosophical worldview or belief system grounded on the 20th century discovery that Information, rather than Matter, is the fundamental substance of everything in the universe. It is intended to be the 21st century successor to ancient Materialism. An Update from Bronze Age to Information Age. It's a Theory of Everything that covers, not just matter & energy, but also Life & Mind & Love.
http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page8.html

But I don't believe it is meaningful to speak of 'information' as if it is the fundamental substrate or foundation of all that exists. . . .
And I regret to say that I invariably find your 'enformationism' mere hand-waving. — Wayfarer

As a proposed comprehensive belief-system, an -ism, my personal philosophy should be approached with skepticism. But also with an open mind toward novel philosophical models. It has implications for both scientific paradigms and religious beliefs. It doesn't directly contradict the prevailing Materialism of science & philosophy, but it does propose a new way of understanding the physical world, that doesn't ignore the emerging role of non-physical Mind/Culture, and causal Information.

Do you disagree with the statements of the professional scientists quoted in my posts? Or do you merely disagree with my amateur interpretation of their collective opinions? Since I have no professional or academic qualifications, I have to rely on their expertise to ground my philosophical system-building. So you should feel free to critique my reasoning, as a few have done on this forum over the last few years. Like Quantum Theory, it's hard to wrap your mind around the idea of Information as the foundation of both Reality and Ideality.

Enformationism is not a scientific theory, and should not be judged by scientific criteria. And even the quoted scientists are not presenting settled-science, but merely their own personal opinions.
You might better understand their "meaning" if you would read their own words. That's why I provide internet links and book titles. Can you provide a specific instance of "hand-waving"? Even hand waving is a form of Information transfer. :smile:

Enformationism :
***This website is a place to explore the meaning and ramifications of a new philosophical hypothesis that I have chosen to call Enformationism. The term spelled with an "I" had already been used elsewhere in various contexts and meanings, so I looked for an alternative name. Since the new scientific term Enformy was already in use, with a meaning similar to what I had in mind, I simply chose to change the spelling of my proposed coinage.
***This informal thesis does not present any new scientific evidence, or novel philosophical analysis. It merely suggests a new perspective on an old enigma : what is reality? The so-called “Information Age” that began in the 20th century, has now come of age in the 21st century. So I have turned to the cutting-edge Information Sciences in an attempt to formulate my own personal answer to the perennial puzzles of Ontology, the science of Existence.
*** I am neither a scientist, nor a philosopher, so the arguments herein carry no more authority or expertise than those of anyone else with an interest in such impractical musings. This is intended to be an open-ended thread, because it’s a relatively new and unproven concept, and because the ideas presented here are merely a superficial snapshot of what promises to be a whole new way of understanding the world : philosophically, scientifically, and religiously.
http://enformationism.info/enformationism.info/page2%20Welcome.html

Information is physical e.g. DNA, circuit-switches, computer programs, heat, etc. Every physical transformation is information; translating (i.e. compressing) information into an algorithm is abstraction (i.e. code). Yeah, abstract = nonphysical (insofar as 'nonphysical' means not causally related). — 180 Proof
Yeah, but if information isn't conserved and if matter & energy (physical) are then ... — Agent Smith

Yes, and then . . . the beat goes on. I don't know how you would physically determine if non-physical forms of Information are conserved. But since, in my thesis, Generic Information can be transformed into Energy, and Energy into Matter, then Matter into Entropy, which can be stored in Black Holes like a deep freeze, it seems that Information cycles without ceasing. Presumably. the original Information (the program code) of the Big Bang Singularity has been recycled for 14 billion years, without any loss of information from within the closed system. Some theorists even speculate that Black Hole information can be recycled; hypothetically *1. Is that conservative enough for you?

defines "non-physical" as "not causally related". But some scientists have concluded that Information transfer is a causal relationship*2. Unfortunately, non-physical information transfer (memes to minds) are not measurable in a physical sense *3. So the definition is moot. :smile:


*1. Information Recycling :
The "black hole information paradox" refers to the fact that information cannot be destroyed in the universe, and yet when a black hole eventually evaporates, whatever information was gobbled up by this cosmic vacuum cleaner should have long since vanished. The new study proposes that the paradox could be resolved by nature's ultimate cheat code: wormholes, or passages through space-time.
https://www.livescience.com/black-hole-paradox-solution

*2. Information causality is a physical principle suggested in 2009 . . . . The principle assumes classical communication: if quantum bits were allowed to be transmitted the information gain could be higher as demonstrated in the quantum superdense coding protocol [this is debatable as superdense coding requires sending as many qubits - including auxiliary channels - as there are classical bits to transfer]. The principle is respected by all correlations accessible with quantum physics
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Information_causality
Note -- "information gain" is a net change, caused by input of information.

*3. Information causality as a physical principle :
Information causality may therefore help to distinguish physical theories from non-physical ones.
https://www.proquest.com/docview/204560784
Note -- Only physical properties are measurable in quantitative terms. Non-physical qualities are knowable only by conscious minds.Do you have any memes in your mind? How much do those massless objects weigh? How many degrees of uncertainty can your mind contain?

Information : (my definition)
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".
http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page11.html

I have adopted the modern notion of "Information" to describe the essence of all things.
— Gnomon
Given that "essence" denotes that which non-impermanently makes something what is and not something else (to paraphase Plato/Aristotle(?)), why isn't there a "law of the conservation of information" like – complementary to or entailed by – the conservation of mass-energy law, for instance? Why isn't "information" (i.e. "pattern", as you say, Gnomon) conserved in physics? — 180 Proof
To tell you the truth, a Google search on conservation of energy was negative although there was something in The black hole information paradox (Susskind, Hawking et all). — Agent Smith

's question is treating "Information" as-if it is nothing-but Physical. Yet, in the sense of "essence of all things" Information is both physical and metaphysical. Consequently, in its physical forms (e.g. energy/matter) Information must obey physical laws, but in its metaphysical forms (e.g. mind/ideas) information must obey logical laws. However, when physicists talk about conservation laws, they are referring to energy in the conventional scientific sense, not to its unconventional philosophical sense of EnFormAction -- which I assume they have never heard of. This forum has an exclusive on that outré notion.

I am currently reading a book by astrophysicist Caleb Scharf, The Ascent of Information. In the first chapter he says, "a number of thinkers over the years have asked whether information itself may be the fundamental currency of the universe -- superseding our comparatively parochial ideas of what makes biology, and chemistry, or even physics tick". His term "fundamental currency" is what I referred to as "the essence of all things". Since 180proof is still thinking in terms of "parochial ideas" (having a limited or narrow outlook or scope), he does not agree with those innovative thinkers.

Scharf has coined the neologism "Dataome"*1 (compare to Genome) to encapsulate his own outré concept of Universal Information. Raw "data" is appropriate for Claude Shannon's narrow definition of Information. But, from the Enformationism perspective, Data is a basic form of Information that doesn't have any inherent significance or purpose or meaning -- it's unprocessed information. That's why Scharf goes on to say that "real information is that data organized and assembled and structured to provide meaning and context". Likewise, the ideal mental construct of "Self" -- pointing to a specific body -- is a metaphysical meaningful structure that exists upon a physical substrate, but is not itself physical. It exists in the same sense that the concept of "Universe" does, pointing to a physical expanse of matter.

Universal Information is more comprehensive in scope than mere Data. Which is why I coined the term Enformationism to encapsulate the universal & essential role of the cosmic Causal-power-to-enform (to organize into physical or meaningful structures or patterns). Therefore, in a physical format an enformed structure must comply with the conservation law. But in a metaphysical form, the applicable law is Logic (rules & tests of sound reasoning). Which may also be conservative, but not in the same sense. :smile:


*1. Dataome : the class of all forms of information, from abstract data to meaningful ideas to material objects.
Note 1 -- Scharf compares his coinage to "Noosphere" (universal scope of mind), coined in the 1920s by paleontologist Pierre Teilhard deChardin and geologist Vladimir Vernadsky to encompass their notion of an emerging stage of evolutionary development, due to the expanding role of non-physical Consciousness in the physical world. Physicist John A. Wheeler introduced a similar novel notion (It from Bit) around 1989, to encapsulate his concept of an information-based world.
Note 2 -- Noosphere is a no-no for Materialists, who don't "see" how a metaphysical Mind could exist apart from its substantial substrate. Yet, it does exist, as an abstract idea (e.g. prescient Purpose), in the same sense that a future-oriented Function exists for any physical machine. No original intentional metaphysical Purpose >>> no Cause >>> no Machine >>> no Function >>> no physical Output >>> no satisfied Objective. :cool:

I am myself a materialist (in the sense that I believe the material world is primary and that our subjective experiences arise directly from the physical) and have been trying to reconcile the idea of the "self", with a materialist worldview. The self, as I see it, is the "fundamental essence" of who we are; this sense of "I" we are all likely familiar with. — tom111

I don't label myself (my personal Self) as Materialist. But I also don't define Me as Spiritualist. Ironically, one definition of Spirit is "the essence of a thing". So, your definition of The Self could be construed as a spiritual concept; which may trigger the trolls. Therefore, due to the contentious religious baggage of "spirit", I have adopted the modern notion of "Information" to describe the essence of all things. Unfortunately, the trolls can sniff-out the implicit spiritual (essential) connotations.

From that Information-centric perspective, your Self is merely the Information (pattern ; arrangement ; structure ; relationships) that defines your Material (physical) & Mental (phenomenal) form. Unfortunately, you can't see a pattern with your eyes, but you can infer it with your reason, by detecting invisible inter-relationships. (see image below) :smile:


Spiritual Essence (psychology) :
And now we come to the Spirit—the Essence that animates the mind and body.
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/counseling-keys/202009/how-our-spiritual-essence-can-heal-us

What is Information Pattern? :
An information pattern is a structure of information units like e.g. a vector or matrix of numbers, a stream of video frames, or a distribution of probabilities.
https://www.igi-global.com/dictionary/information-pattern/14438

Is ‘Information’ Fundamental for a Scientific Theory of Consciousness? :
Re : physicist John A. Wheeler's "It from Bit" interpretation of Quantum & Information theories.
"In his proposed conception of the world, information is truly fundamental and is comprised of dual aspects—corresponding to the physical and the phenomenal features of the world."
https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-981-10-5777-9_21

Information philosophy is a dualist philosophy, both materialist and idealist. It It is a correspondence theory, explaining how immaterial ideas represent material objects.
https://www.informationphilosopher.com/
Note -- in my thesis, that Both-And relationship adds-up to Monism : one essence, many manifestations.

Materially, we can define a "self" based on one of two quantities; the actual matter that makes up a thing, or simply just the arrangement of matter. — tom111

The "arrangement of matter" is its Form. And Matter is merely a "form" of Energy that our senses can detect (E=MC^2). So, I have concluded that Energy is transformed into Matter, via a process that I have labeled as EnFormAction, in order to suggest its relationship to Information-in-General (the generic ability to enform ; to create forms/patterns ; to cause change ; to carry meaning ). Energy is all around us, but invisible to human senses, until it takes on a measurable Material form : Mass/Matter/Substance. With that scientific knowledge in mind, your notion that the human Self is "just the arrangement of matter" makes sense.

The philosophical problem arises when we consider that the essence of Matter is invisible & intangible in its massless form (e.g. photons) Which raises the old Matter vs Spirit controversy. Since causal Energy can transform from immaterial Potential to material Actual, and back again, you can avoid the Ship of Theseus problem. Nature is not replace physical parts of a thing, it is merely changing the essential Form (arrangement) that makes a thing what it is. Even says that "Self does not exist" as a material / physical thing". So, the Ontological question is this : in what sense does the Self/Soul exist? :nerd:

Under conventional, religious dualism, generally, a human can be divided into two distinct parts; material and immaterial. — tom111

That conceptual Dualism can be resolved into Monism, if we understand Body & Self as merely different aspects (instances ; expressions ; manifestations) of the EnFormAction process. For example, as an individual Photon is zooming through the cosmos, that building block of matter is invisible & massless. But when it energizes the visual purple chemicals in the eye, that photon is transformed into matter, and then back into energy (neural pulses). :smile:

Light is invisible because light does not emit light. To see something this something needs to emit, or reflect light
https://www.quora.com/Why-is-light-invisible
Note -- Photons are Potential Energy & Potential Matter. Only after transformation into Actual matter can they absorb & reflect light. This may sound counter-intuitive, but it's simply Quantum queerness.



The blocks represent physical things, or parts of things. But the arrows represent inferred functional (or meaningful) inter-relations. So, the Pattern per se is a mental construct.

There's a lot yet to explain in cosmology/cosmogony/astronomy. Did you read 180 Proof's reply to me? There are some mathematical models which purport to account for the low entropy state of the universe - our universe is a white hole who's low entropy state is offset and exceeded by the high entropy state of a black hole "at the opposite end". That would mean your Enformy is actually entropy (of the black hole paired with our universe). — Agent Smith

180disproof :joke: likes to throw-out abstruse stuff that he knows you & I are not familiar with. And I suspect -- brilliant as he is -- 180poo doesn't understand those esoteric math & physics conjectures himself. As usual, this ploy misses the point of my personal philosophical thesis. Which does not "purport" to be a scientific explanation of anything.

My coinage of Enformy, which he labels as "woo woo", is simply a combination of Energy (cause) & Form (orderly pattern). And its philosophical meaning is simply Regulated Causation, as opposed to Random Disorder or Destruction. The "woo" arises when I infer that the "Natural Laws" that regulate evolution, are Intentional Organization instead of Accidental Design (oxymoron). The undeniable logical & predictable arrangement (order) of our world is what scientists depend on to construct their hypotheses & models. And it's the exact opposite of what you would expect (anomaly) from an Entropy dominated process : an actual "white hole" instead of a hypothetical reverse black hole.

I'm not a mathematician or cosmologist, so I can't comment on the "mathematical models" that "purport" to explain the low-entropy-high-order beginning of the universe*1. As an amateur philosopher, what matters to me is the simple observed fact that our Cosmos began with all the energy & laws necessary to construct the world we now enjoy after billions of solar years of en-formation & con-struction. 2500 years ago, Plato postulated that our orderly Cosmos (regulated by natural laws) emerged from a pre-existing Chaos (infinite Potential). But even that "deterministic" Chaos was not dominated by Entropy, because it turned-out to be creative instead of destructive*2.

Don't be misled by his White Hole or White Rabbit distraction. On this forum, what "matters" is not Physics (ideas about matter), but Metaphysics (ideas about ideas). :smile:

*1. What Was The Entropy Of The Universe At The Big Bang? :
The second law of thermodynamics is one of those puzzling laws of nature that simply emerges from the fundamental rules. It says that entropy, a measure of disorder in the Universe, must always increase in any closed system. But how is it possible that our Universe today, which looks to be organized and ordered with solar systems, galaxies and intricate cosmic structure, is somehow in a higher-entropy state than right after the Big Bang? . . . .So why was the early Universe so low-entropy? Because it didn't have any black holes. ___Physicist Ethan Siegel
Note -- The absence or presence of black holes does not explain the "why" of the low entropy origin. It merely distracts your attention from the philosophical enigma.

*2. On the Origin of the Universe: Chaos or Cosmos? :
I would like to consider the Universe according to the standard Big Bang model, including various quantum models of its origin. In addition, using the theory of nonlinear dynamics, deterministic chaos, fractals, and multifractals I have proposed a new hypothesis, Macek (The Origin of the World: Cosmos or Chaos? Cardinal Stefan Wyszyński University (UKSW) Scientific Editions, 2020). Namely, I have argued that a simple but possibly nonlinear law is important for the creation of the Cosmos at the extremely small Planck scale at which space and time originated. It is shown that by looking for order and harmony in the complex real world these modern studies give new insight into the most important philosophical issues beyond classical ontological principles, e.g., by providing a deeper understanding of the age-old philosophical dilemma (Leibniz, 1714): why does something exist instead of nothing? We also argue that this exciting question is a philosophical basis of matters that influence the meaning of human life in the vast Universe.
https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-030-96964-6_21
Note -- That hypothetical "non-linear law" sounds similar to what I call "Enformy".

*3. White Hole : a hypothetical celestial object that expands outward from a space-time singularity and emits energy, in the manner of a time-reversed black hole.
Note -- Doesn't that sound like our expanding, energy recycling, universe?
A white hole is a bizarre cosmic object which is intensely bright, and from which matter gushes rather than disappears.
Note -- Now who's making sh*t up??? Ask 180 if anyone has ever detected a hypothetical White Hole. If he can't document its existence, you can accuse him of promulgating "woo woo". :joke:


PS__Many of 180's counterarguments to Enformy are based on an erroneous premise : that I am making factual statements about physics, instead of personal opinions about metaphysics. For example, I didn't make-up the idea that the universe began in a low entropy state of raw energy & natural laws. It was scientists, whose job it is to determine such things, who offered their professional opinions about that oddity. Yet, some of them, faced with an anomaly, also asked the philosophical question "why?" (for what purpose).

Some of them also proposed physical "how" answers, such as imaginary White Holes. But, 180 thinks my imaginary metaphysical answer to a philosophical question is inadmissible as evidence. Ironically, scientists had already found a similar counter-entropy force in physics, that they labeled "negentropy". I merely gave that concept an information-centric label. 180 doesn't argue with the logic of my inferences from inter-related facts, but attacks Gnomon's credentials as a scientist.

The Remarkable Emptiness of Existence :
Note -- Contrary to expectations, even the vacuum of space, lacking actual stuff, was found to contain lots of potential energy. Is that physics or metaphysics? From my personal information-based perspective, that's what I call EnFormAction : the Cosmic power to enform, to create matter & mind from Potential Energy. Isn't Nature spooky? Woo-woo!
https://nautil.us/the-remarkable-emptiness-of-existence-256323/

There's this riddle if youtube videos are to be believed that scientists haven't yet solved: why was the early universe in a low entropy state? Must be the Enformer. — Agent Smith

Yes. According to my non-scientific thesis, the Origin of our universe (closed system), which began with all the energy it would ever have*1, implies energy & regulatory input from outside the system. But other theories assume the eternal existence of Energy & Laws (Potential + Logos), from which our little 'verse obtained its head start. One version of that notion is the Multiverse Theory, asserting that Ultimate Reality has been recycling its energy & laws forever. Unfortunately, that is not an empirically testable theory, hence Philosophy instead of Science. Another hypothesis is Cosmic Inflation*2, which assumes that Space & Time have existed forever, along with the potential energy presumed to be inherent in Empty Space. Yet, again there is no way to confirm that speculation.

The physical & philosophical problem with all of those physical pre-BigBang theories is that they contradict the so-called Laws of Thermodynamics. In order to recycle, a roller-coaster multi-universe would have to pull itself up by the bootstraps in order to get back to the low Entropy/high Enformy starting point. That's why the Enformationism thesis proposes a Meta-Physical (mental ; information) First Cause (creator of Space & Time, Energy & Matter) to explain -- logically, not physically -- how our local 'verse could begin at the top of the Energy/Entropy hill*3. :smile:


*1. Universe began at top of roller coaster hill :
The Universe Began In A State Of Extraordinarily Low Entropy
Based on an elaboration of a 2004 proposal by Sean Carroll and Jennifer Chen, there is a possibility of a new solution to the age-old problem of the arrow of time. This work, by Sean Carroll, Chien-Yao Tseng, and me, is still in the realm of speculation, and has not yet been vetted by the scientific community. . . . The most attractive feature is that there is no longer a need to introduce any assumptions that violate the time symmetry of the known laws of physics.
https://www.edge.org/response-detail/25538

HOW DID THE PRIMORDIAL UNIVERSE GET TO THE TOP OF THE ENERGY CURVE ?


*2. Cosmic Inflation, instantaneous exponential expansion, assumes super-natural (extra-natural) forces that don't exist in the Nature that Physics observes. Hence, it's equivalent to magical creation from super-nature into nature, as in Genesis : creatio ex nihilo, or creatio ex materia. To produce something new from something absent, or from pre-existing (pre-nature) material. That kind of theory only makes sense to those who hold a prejudice against philosophical Metaphysics : Metaphysics is the branch of philosophy that examines the fundamental nature of reality, including the relationship between mind and matter, between substance and attribute, and between potentiality and actuality.

*3. Why we’ll never see back to the beginning of the Universe :
the hot Big Bang has since been shown to be preceded by the inflationary Universe, . . .
Of all the questions humanity has ever pondered, perhaps the most profound is, “Where did all of this come from?” . . . any information about the beginning of the Universe is no longer contained within our observable cosmos.
https://bigthink.com/starts-with-a-bang/never-see-beginning-universe/
Note -- The Inflationary thesis leaves us in suspense, with a "hidden" creator, just like all other First Cause theories. If the Cause is design-by-accident, no revelation would be expected. But if the Prime Cause was intentional, some identifying information might be found within the creation itself. That is the premise of Enformationism. But you won't see such embedded revelation unless you are looking for it.

Have you heard of Boltzmann brains? Read, quite interesting and might help buttress your argument for Enformy. — Agent Smith

The Boltzmann brain thought experiment suggests that it might be more likely for a single brain to spontaneously form in a void (complete with a memory of having existed in our universe) rather than for the entire universe to come about in the manner cosmologists think it actually did. Physicists use the Boltzmann brain thought experiment as a reductio ad absurdum argument for evaluating competing scientific theories.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boltzmann_brain
I get enough of 180's accusations of "absurdity", without providing him with more ammunition to ridicule the notion of "spontaneous" generation of brains/minds. My thesis proposes the long & winding road of natural Evolution, from spontaneous (?) Big Bang to computing brains with reflective minds. :joke:

"when you discover an anomaly, look for the cause". — Gnomon
What is an anomaly? Why does it beg/demand for an explanation? — Agent Smith

In science, an Anomaly is a "glitch" : data that contradicts the norm. Literally, the word means "irregular" ; metaphorically it means : "does not fit the expected pattern". The link below indicates that new paradigms ("new physics") in science typically emerge from discovery of anomaly. So, what I'm saying here is that Enformy is not what you would expect from the typical definition of Thermodynamics. If Entropy was so all-powerful, the Big Bang would have snuffed-out in a few light-seconds -- like New Year's fireworks. But contrary to expectations, after billions of solar years, it continues to expand, and to self-organize, and to produce living globs of thinking matter, that ask "why" questions. Don't you think that anomaly demands an explanation? :smile:

The Power of Anomalies :
Progress in science is sometimes triggered by surprises. Data collection resembles gathering of new pieces in a jigsaw puzzle and placing them together. Sometimes one of the pieces does not quite fit. It is natural for scientists to instinctively argue that such a piece does not belong; perhaps it is an artifact driven by uncertainties in the data or a misinterpretation of the experiment. This might indeed be the case in most instances. But every now and then, an anomaly of this type signals a real discrepancy from expectations, either a violation of a highly respected but incomplete law of nature—namely an exception to the rule, or an unexpected surprise—signaling the possibility of “new physics.”
https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/the-power-of-anomalies/

Glitch : a small problem or fault that prevents something from being successful or working as well as it should
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/glitch

Please brush up on your math - the graphs are identical, but I know what you wished to convey and perhaps you thought your audience would be smart enough to do the math themselves. — Agent Smith

The contrasting graphs are illustrations -- no math required to see the implication. Obviously, I just turned the original graph up-side-down, to figuratively demonstrate the difference between 180's worldview and my own. In terms of meaning though, the graphs are not identical. One shows Entropy completely dissipating Energy from an initial state of order to a state of utter disorder. The other portrays Neg-entropy (Enformy) organizing raw Energy (potential) into the elaborate structures that we see all around us. The up-side-down graph is what you would get if you place a minus sign in front of the Entropy equation to represent Neg-entropy (Enformy).

The third graph shows what happens to a universe when "the math" allows self-organizing systems to emerge, against the general rules of thermodynamics. That's why there are exceptions to the first & second laws, to make allowance for Open Systems. The linked article by The Information Philosopher provides a plethora of information on the topics of Self-Organization, Complexity, and Enformy (negentropy). On his website, he even gets into the "Math" that I tend to skip-over, because I am neither a scientist nor a mathematician. :nerd:

Entropy :
A quality of the universe modeled as a thermodynamic system. Energy always flows from Hot (high energy density) to Cold (low density) -- except when it doesn't. On rare occasions, energy lingers in a moderate state that we know as Matter, and sometimes even reveals new qualities and states of material stuff .
   The Second Law of Thermo-dynamics states that, in a closed system, Entropy always increases until it reaches equilibrium at a temperature of absolute zero. But some glitch in that system allows stable forms to emerge that can recycle energy in the form of qualities we call Life & Mind. That glitch is what I call Enformy.
http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page8.html
Note -- 180's notion of Entropy envisions a closed system. But Gnomon's Enformy is based on an open system (e.g. Earth) which is able to borrow energy from outside its own sub-system.

Negative Entropy :
Entropy is the amount of disorder or randomness within a system. As the disorder of a system increases, so does entropy. The universe naturally moves to a state of increased disorder or randomness, which means the universe naturally moves to a state of increased entropy.
What is the opposite of entropy? Negative entropy refers to a system becoming less disordered or more ordered. Negative entropy is also known as negentropy.
https://study.com/academy/lesson/negative-entropy-definition-lesson.html
Note -- the effect of Negative Entropy (Energy ; Enformy) is to produce positive Work instead of just Waste.

Dissipative Structures :
In his 1945 essay What is Life?, Schrödinger would say that "life feeds on negative entropy." Schrödinger described this as "order out of order" that distinguishes life from the "order out of chaos" exhibited by many complex physical systems studied today.
Ilya Prigogine and his collaborator Isabel Stengers titled their 1984 book Order Out Of Chaos. In it, they focused on physical systems far from equilibrium which exhibit the flow of matter and energy from the environment through an open system. Prigogine called them "dissipative structures" and developed the non-linear thermodynamics needed to describe them mathematically.
Prigogine thought these dissipative systems showed "self-organizing" characteristics similar to those of biological systems.
https://www.informationphilosopher.com/freedom/complexity.2.en.html

So, in a sense, this Enformy (order) is a "pattern" in Entropy (chaos). 180 Proof would agree, I recall him saying something to the effect that order is (merely) a phase in chaos. — Agent Smith

Yes. Enformy is an anomaly*1, in a process characterized mostly by Entropy. Yet, you could say that it's "the exception that proves the rule". The 'rule' being emergence of organization despite the obstacle of Entropy. Also, the progressive pattern of Enformy has been consistent in our own backyard for billions of years. And exponentially progressive human Culture is an anomaly within gradually evolving Nature.

With those anti-entropy developments in mind, I would rephrase 180's pessi-missal (pessimistic dismissal) of Order as merely a meaningless gap in Disorder : "Life is merely a phase in death". If that was true, what is the significance of your own Life? A rule of thumb for both scientists and philosophers is "when you discover an anomaly, look for the cause". Creative Progress proceeds from anomaly to anomaly. And you can quote Kuhn on that.

For me, the "true state of the universe" is the state of progression from nada (scratch) to those who scratch their heads at anomalies*3. :smile:


*1. Law-like Anomalies :
Scientific development depends in part on a process of non-incremental or revolutionary change. Some revolutions are large, like those associated with the names of Copernicus, Newton, or Darwin, but most are much smaller, like the discovery of oxygen or the planet Uranus. The usual prelude to changes of this sort is, I believed, the awareness of anomaly, of an occurrence or set of occurrences that does not fit existing ways of ordering phenomena. The changes that result therefore require 'putting on a different kind of thinking-cap', one that renders the anomalous lawlike but that, in the process, also transforms the order exhibited by some other phenomena, previously unproblematic.
— Thomas S. Kuhn, The Essential Tension

*2. Is the true state of the Universe order or chaos? :
What is orderly are the physical laws, that seem to be the same everywhere we look: the electron always has the same mass and so forth.
What is chaotic arises from the laws of thermodynamics. Entropy always increases in systems, and entropy measures disorder.
Pockets of order get created − stars and solar systems for example. Gravity is a big help in doing that, along with radiation to take heat out of systems.
But overall the universe is heading toward apparent eternal expansion and cooling off −
heat death. __Stephen Perrenod
Note -- The "true state" depends on where you look, and on what you mean by "true". On our local exceptional "pocket of order" (Earth), Enformy has scored a big lead, against the predicted odds of Entropy winning the long game. As for the rest of the universe, several scientists have enough faith in Natural Laws to bet on Enformy's creative power to produce, not just Life, but intelligent Minds. For my own personal purposes, I'm only betting on the home team : Earth. Even so, what has a beginning, can be expected to come to an end. Some call that far-off finale, "Heat Death", others "Omega Point" (a new beginning).

*3. "The true state of universe is non-dual - its neither the state of “order” nor the state of “chaos” - it is state that is to be called “forward motion of time”. Here is some brief explanation…" __Arun Jagatheesan
Note -- Another word for "Forward motion" is "Progress". Another term for "Duality" is BothAnd Unity.

180'S VIEW OF ENTROPY

GNOMON'S VIEW OF ENFORMY

COSMIC EVOLUTION from scratch to head-scratchers to the ultimate anomaly???

The point of course is to shed metaphysical baggage and isolate and purify and zero in on The Cause. — Agent Smith

Why worry about THE unseen ultimate metaphysical Cause? Why not just accept what we know about obvious median physical causes? In his non-science writing, Isaac Newton freely admitted his belief in "God" as the ultimate "Why"*1. But, regarding the mysterious force of Gravity, he avoided the ancient-but-un-scientific metaphysical dodge of "god did it", which doesn't explain how that spooky-action-at-a-distance happens*2. For the same reason, claiming that "Chance is The Cause", is un-scientific, because it doesn't explain how Randomness can result in rationally knowable Patterns of Organization. In human experience, order arises from Intention, not accident*3. Science is intended to Specify Proximate causation, but Philosophy attempts to Generalize about Ultimate causation*4. :smile:


*1. What is Newton's vision of God? :
The God that Newton believed in was a God that not only created the world, but remained in dominion over the world, and had a ``propensity to action'' within the world. Newton's scientific writings, as well as his theological writings, reflected these beliefs.
https://web.media.mit.edu/~picard/personal/Newton.php

*2. Newton's own motto, "hypotheses non fingo" was, in a sense, disregarded by Newton himself: he rejected hypotheses only where they violated his own "regula philosophandi", that is to say, his principle of their strict parsimony. In terms of present-day methodology, we reject hypotheses as scientifically meaningless if they are incapable even of indirect test; and we reject them as superfluous or as implausible if they are too complex and artificial to conform with well established canons of inductive probability. But freedom of scientific theorizing must be preserved wherever the conditions of meaningfulness and of economy appear to be satisfied. ___Arthur Beer (ed.), Vistas in Astronomy https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Arthur_Beer

*3. In Architecture School we were once assigned a project called "Design by Accident". The point was to illustrate the difference between Design by Intention, and the noisy patterns of Accidental Coincidence (TV screen). The human mind can interpret noise as signal, by imputing new information (added outlines). And some abstract art depends on the human talent for "reading into" randomness, instead of "reading out" of intention.

*4. 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/


RANDOM PATTERNS WITH IMPUTED MEANING

RANDOM PATTERN WITH IMPUTED OUTLINES

CAN YOU SEE THE IMAGE WITHIN THE NOISE?

Physicalists get rid of this problem by simply deleting the right side of this "equation" and claiming that there is no consciousness at all. — Wolfgang

I made a copy of your long post to read at my leisure. But for now, I'll just note that your metaphor of a Mind/Body Equation may have some merit. Personally, I have resolved the Mind vs Body or Physics vs Metaphysics "problem" with a BothAnd approach. Since an equation is supposed to balance out, arbitrarily assigning a value of zero to one side is a cop-out. Instead, we need to take the value of both sides seriously.

For at least 6000 years, humans have assumed that there is an unseen "vessel" that contains their thoughts & feelings. Even though that receptacle, and its contents, are not knowable by the physical senses, humans have a sixth sense (Reason) that produces representations of "things unseen". And we tend to place great value on those imaginary models. So, merely dismissing them as pseudo-science or meta-physics (i.e. mental models) is not addressing the M/B problem at all. Instead, it merely denigrates the public value of those private tokens, while admitting their existence.

For example, Non-fungible Tokens (intellectual property) have no intrinsic value, but only a mutually negotiated innate value. Therefore, to assign a zero value to mind-stuff is simply refusing to negotiate. Which is your prerogative ; but those who do play the game may gain some personal profit from their participation. Even if the token is as trivial as a Donald Trump trading card with buffoonish images, they seem to have non-zero value to some people. :smile:


Innate Value :
Since the word "innate" is defined as; originating in or derived from the mind or the constitution of the intellect rather than from experience
https://www.quora.com/What-is-innate-value

:up: I'm unaware of the reason for the inference from improbable to agency (god/man behind the curtain). Improbable doesn't imply impossible. Now if a person didn't buy a lottery ticket and won the jackpot we have strong justification to employ the phrase "some kinda weird shit is goin' down bruh!" — Agent Smith

Unaware? You need to be woke, bro! :joke:

Cosmic Agency is indeed a rational inference, not a direct observation. The presumed Agent of Creation & Evolution does seem to hide behind a curtain of randomness*1. But perceptive observers can see the patterns within Chaos, which imply the actions of a Pattern Maker. For example, although he is most famous for defining Evolution in terms of Random Mutations, Darwin also realized that randomness is non-directional. So, he added the filter of Natural Selection to weed-out the unfit, and to choose which mutations meet the organizational requirements for replication & survival. To select is to carefully choose as being the best or most suitable.

Although he was disappointed in the religious doctrines of his day, Darwin could not deny the philosophical evidence pointing to a First Cause of some kind*2. He reached that Agnostic position based on the "impossibility of conceiving this immense and wonderful universe . . . as the result of blind chance or necessity"*3. His neither-Theist-nor-Atheist position was equivalent to what later became known as Deism.

Those who do put their faith in Blind Chance*4 -- as the creator of this almost infinite living organism we blandly call "The Universe" -- are not un-intelligent. But they do seem to be blinded by emotional reactions to the intellectual blinders (Blind Faith) imposed by the Abrahamic religions of their personal experience. Gamblers, those who do believe in Fortune & Chance for the brave, tend to become addicted to the random rewards (Vegas jackpots), that they interpret as blessings for the faithful.

However, the consistency of the Cosmic Jackpot*5 (14 billion years of continuing complexification) is not what a reasonable thinker would expect from the dominance of Randomness & Entropy. So, the only viable explanation for positive evolution is the innate fitness rules that guide the progress of the universe*6. But, why would the Programmer of an evolutionary project remain anonymous to He/r creatures? I don't know the answer, but some computer programmers are content to embed "Easter Eggs" for motivated seekers to find. :smile:


*1. Why hide? Your guess is as good as mine. Vulcan-like lack of human Ego? A weird sense of humor? Enjoyment of riddles & secrets?

*2. First Cause or Creator :
"The question is of course wholly distinct from that higher one, whether there exists a Creator and Ruler of the universe; and this has been answered in the affirmative by some of the highest intellects that have ever existed" . . . . "The idea of a universal and beneficent Creator does not seem to arise in the mind of man, until he has been elevated by long-continued culture."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_views_of_Charles_Darwin

*3. Intelligent Evolution :
“Another source of conviction in the existence of God, connected with the reason and not with the feelings, impresses me as having much more weight. This follows from the extreme difficulty or rather impossibility of conceiving this immense and wonderful universe, including man with his capacity of looking far backwards and far into futurity, as the result of blind chance or necessity. When thus reflecting I feel compelled to look to a First Cause having an intelligent mind in some degree analogous to that of man; and I deserve to be called a Theist.” —Charles Darwin,
https://godevidence.com/2018/12/quote-of-the-day-charles-darwin/

*4. Conscious Cosmic Agent :
In his article for the online Aeon Magazine, Is The Universe A Conscious Mind?, philosopher Philip Goff begins with the current consensus of cosmologers, that the universe seems to be fine-tuned to produce living beings. Then he proposes a conscious universal agent to explain how that improbable scenario came to pass. But first, he acknowledges that, "Some take the fine-tuning to be simply a basic fact about our Universe: fortunate perhaps, but not something requiring explanation." However, some experts, such as Lee Smolin, have calulated the seemingly impossible odds against the emergence of Life, simply by random chance. Which makes it sound like a miracle.
http://bothandblog.enformationism.info/page53.html

*5. Cosmic Jackpot: Why Our Universe Is Just Right for Life :
physicist and cosmologist Davies discusses the implications of the fact that the conditions of our universe are "just right" for life to exist: a concept known as the anthropic principle.
https://www.amazon.com/Cosmic-Jackpot-Universe-Just-Right/dp/0618592261

*6. Order within Chaos :
Order illustrates that a system has responded to a rule or rules that have made the system behave in a manner that is expected.
https://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Systems_Theory/Order-Chaos
Note -- the rules (laws) that govern a contingent system, such as the physical universe, are contingent upon the "expectations" of a law-maker

DARWIN IMPRESSED BY NATURAL BEAUTY

↪Agent Smith
So "bringing together" e.g. astronomy & astrology (or chemistry & alchemy) is, in your mind, good for what??? — 180 Proof

As usual, 180poof :joke: has completely missed the point of Enformationism. As a philosophical perspective, It does not pretend to be an empirical science. So the disdainful comparisons to pre-scientific Astrology & Alchemy *1 *2 are not appropriate. However, in the sense that empirical Astronomy & Chemistry were built on top of centuries of philosophical research into Cosmos & Matter, the parallel may suggest that new empirical scientific paradigms can evolve from older hypothetical worldviews.

For example, Astrology was intended to be a practical method for determining the will of the gods -- who took the form of points of light circling the Earth. And Alchemy was supposed to be a pragmatic method for manipulating Matter. Both were highly regarded forms of Natural Philosophy, and Academic Practice. Yet, they were based on hypothetical models that later were proven to be mistaken. Moreover, similar meaningful metaphors have also mis-led modern scientists. Remember that Rutherford and Bohr made progress in understanding atomic structure based on models that later proved to be inaccurate*3.

It seems that 180degreewrong :joke: considers those ancient proto-scientists (including Isaac Newton*4) to be blithering idiots bowing to imaginary "gods" : invisible forces like Energy/Entropy, that we still today submit to. From that supercilious perspective, Neils Bohr was a cretin making-up unreal models of reality. Fortunately for him though, modern science was, at the same time, developing the technology to produce images of atoms, so they no longer had to rely on imagination. Bohr was also accused of being a mystic*5 because he used ancient oriental notions as metaphors to make Quantum queerness more comprehensible. What were those analogies & metaphors "good for". Did they facilitate gradual progress in pragmatic scientific understanding, even as some were content with religious interpretations & applications of the symbolic imagery.

Enformationism is not a scientific practice, but it is a philosophical worldview based on the latest scientific models of reality : specifically Quantum & Information theories. Both of those sciences have been "good for" radical transformations of technology & culture. And by combining the knowledge from those disparate models into a holistic worldview, we may gain even more insight into the operation of Nature & Culture ; Matter & Mind. :smile:

PS__For those not familiar with the 180proof form of argumentation, it consists primarily of ridicule & mockery. Hence the tongue-in-cheek repartee.

*1. Throughout most of its history, astrology was considered a scholarly tradition and was common in academic circles,
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Astrology

*2. Alchemy is an ancient branch of natural philosophy, a philosophical and protoscientific tradition that was historically practiced in China, India, the Muslim world, and Europe
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alchemy

*3. In science, analogies have been used to make hypotheses on the structure of atoms since the technology did not exist to be able to see inside it. In 1897, English scientist J.J Thomson made a contribution to atomic theory by suggesting that there was some matter that was even smaller than the atom: the electron. His theory was called the “Plum Pudding model”, using an analogy to map his prediction. He used plum pudding as a source to describe the target, the structure of the atom. Electrons are like the raisins in the desert, which is the atom. This theory was later disproved by physicist Ernest Rutherford who found that atoms have positively charged centers, and described his understanding of the atom as a cherry, where the nucleus was like the pit. Danish scientist Niels Bohr in 1913 then used the solar system analogy to show people that there were also electrons orbiting around the nucleus. In the 20th century, a number of scientists showed that actually, electrons do not orbit the nucleus in neat orbits like the solar system, but instead move around like particles in a cloud. Despite the fact that some analogies have not stood the test of the time, they were useful tools to help the public understand scientific theories and make sense of complex phenomena.
https://thedecisionlab.com/reference-guide/psychology/analogy

*4. Isaac Newton's occult studies :
any reference to a "Newtonian Worldview" as being purely mechanical in nature is somewhat inaccurate.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isaac_Newton%27s_occult_studies

*5. Niels Bohr, a founder of quantum mechanics, was a Mystic :
Modern physics leads to mysticism. Why? What do we find when we pull apart reality? Perhaps that we can’t ultimately pull it apart.
https://www.niels-bohr-a-founder-of-quantum-mechanics-was-a-mystic/

Can you summarise in some brief, plain English sentences what you consider to be the transformative power of this hypothesis? — Tom Storm

Your use of the evocative term "transformative power" has coincided with the book I'm currently reading about the transformation of Judaism to Christianity. So I'm still riffing on that theme, as well as the topic of this thread : materialistic Science vs spiritualistic Religion. Unlike Paul though, I'm not the cause of that transformation, but merely a reporter on the emerging Paradigm Shift..

Just as Apostle Paul, almost single-handedly, converted the ancient narrative of Judaism -- which had already evolved through several major cultural changes -- by creating a Metanarrative : a new story built on top of an older story*1. At the beginning of the second century AD, bishop Ignatius haughtily referred to Judaism as an "antiquated myth". Likewise, I could refer to previous scientific & philosophical paradigms as "outdated myths", but that would not be accurate. Because those previous worldviews still retain some validity & vitality.

I had never thought about it this way, but my personal Enformationism thesis is essentially a Metanarrative, constructed on the archaeological foundations of previous -isms. For example, even though Quantum Theory was a radically different concept of how the fundamental processes of Nature work, it did not replace or supplant the macro facts of Classical physics. Likewise, Enformationism does not denigrate or dismiss the practical features of ancient Spiritualism (energy, forces, causes) and Materialism (matter as fundamental substance). They still retain some usefulness within the limited scope of their application.

But post-quantum cutting-edge scientists are now saying that intangible Information may be the fundamental "substance" of reality*2. Its application is not just in studies of Computers or Consciousness, but also for understanding Matter & Energy on the quantum-scale foundations of physics. However, on the macro scale of normal human experience, Materialism still makes sense, while invisible Energy & Forces take the place of antiquated notions of Spirits & Ghosts. By comparison to those limited applications, Enformationism seems to be more a comprehensive understanding of the Cosmos, the Milieu, and the Mental aspects of the known world. :smile:

PS__ might say that that last claim is egotistical. However, the focus should not be on the coined term "Enformationism" -- to encapsulate a variety of scientific & philosophical postulations -- but on the consilience of evidence*3.


*1. A metanarrative is a narrative about narratives of historical meaning, experience, or knowledge
___Wiki

*2. Is Information Fundamental? :
What if the fundamental “stuff” of the universe isn’t matter or energy, but information?
https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/article/is-information-fundamental/

*3. Consilience :
agreement between the approaches to a topic of different academic subjects, especially science and the humanities. ___Oxford
Consilience: The Unity of Knowledge is a 1998 book by the biologist E. O. Wilson, in which the author discusses methods that have been used to unite the sciences and might in the future unite them with the humanities. ___Wikipedia

Upon thorough examination, the idea of a "self" is as arbitrary as the idea of a "chair", or any other object. In a purely material world, concepts like these simply don't exist. — tom111

If you think of "Self" as a representation -- a self-image or mental model, not a ding an sich -- Its relation to material reality may become clearer. We can assume that all sentient creatures have some kind of self-image. But that intuitively constructed image is inward looking, not an external observation. The Self may begin simply as proprioception due to feedback to the brain about location of body parts. But for self-conscious beings, that abstract representation may become more complex, including comparisons to other beings. So, your self-image is similar to an avatar in a digital world, that you can manipulate intentionally. Yet, like a digital avatar or mirror image, the inner Self is not a physical object. Instead of a physical Being, it's a meta-physical Meaning. And Meanings don't exist in a purely physical world*1. Hence, our reality is both Physical and Metaphysical.

As 180proof noted, Anomalous Monism*2 views mental phenomena as Real but not Physical. Your Self is arbitrary in that it is to some degree under your rational control : a creation of your own mind. It's real in the anomalous sense that it is an exception to the rule, that most things are physical. And it's monistic in that it does exist in the same universe that all sentient beings share. So, the key to understanding the Ontological status of a Self-Image*3 is to accept that Reality consists of both Matter & Mind, both Physics & Metaphysics, both Things & Ideas-about-things. :smile:


*1. Purely Physical World :
The universe prior to emergence of self-conscious brains was also mindless & pre-metaphysical

*2. Anomalous Monism is a theory about the scientific status of psychology, the physical status of mental events, and the relation between these issues developed by Donald Davidson. It claims that psychology cannot be a science like basic physics, in that it cannot in principle yield exceptionless laws for predicting or explaining human thoughts and actions (mental anomalism). It also holds that thoughts and actions must be physical (monism, or token-identity). Thus, according to Anomalous Monism, psychology cannot be reduced to physics, but must nonetheless share a physical ontology.
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/anomalous-monism/

*3. What is Self-Image in Psychology? How Do We Improve it? :
Self-image and self-concept are strongly associated, but they’re not quite the same thing. . . .
Similarly, self-image has a lot to do with self-esteem. . . . Identity is also a closely related concept but is also a larger and more comprehensive one than self-image.
Note -- Proprioception is not arbitrary. But Self-Image (visual) & Self-Esteem (emotional) & Self-Identity (social) are partly conscious constructs. Hence, some choice (conscious or sub-conscious) is involved.

How does this change, if at all, how we live our lives? As far back as the 1980's I recall my science teacher was saying that all of reality is information. I think he had maths in mind. Either way, we still have to set our alarm clocks and go to work, still have to shower and pay bills, still have to find a parking space near the supermarket, right? Can you summarise in some brief, plain English sentences what you consider to be the transformative power of this hypothesis? — Tom Storm

Enformationism is a personal philosophical worldview, not a Religion for the masses. So it doesn't offer the life-transforming*1 power of hope for salvation from mundane reality*2. It's also not a Science; so it doesn't provide the culture-transforming power of technological innovation*3. Instead, as an esoteric philosophical worldview, this new Paradigm could change your own attitude toward everything. And the transformation "pay-off" depends on your personal situation : where you're coming from.

However, just as the scientific Quantum paradigm is still philosophically controversial a century later, the Information-Theoretic and Systems*4 view of reality may remain tendentious for at least another generation. In my blog, I discuss a variety of applications of Enformationism*5 to philosophical worldviews. However, since it is based on intellectual & esoteric concepts from science & philosophy, I don't expect it to transform the lives of the masses, as computer technology and Paul's spiritual innovation have done. A holistic concept is hard to "summarize" without getting reductive. :smile:


*1. Life Transforming :
Transforming your life involves going beyond the way you live, co-creating a better life for yourself, and changing the way you live. You do this by using your thoughts, visualization, words, faith, actions, or a combination of them.
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/7-steps-to-transform-your_b_7302904

*2. In the book I mentioned before, Paul and Jesus, the messianic Jews under roman rule only aspired to go back to the life they had under Jewish kings. But Paul, seeing that the Messiah died without leading a rebellion against Rome, provided life-transforming hope, by changing the place & time of the Kingdom of God to an immanent spiritual realm. Even that failed to come to pass during Paul's lifetime. But his re-interpretation of pragmatic prophecies (defeat the Romans) into spiritualized salvation (heavenly kingdom to come) transformed a radical revolution into passive Christian acceptance of the status quo, until this very day, or until Jesus decides the time is right. The spiritual "pay-off" is like compounded interest : the longer you wait the bigger the reward. Enformationism does not offer any dramatic conversions, or spiritual transformations. Unless, by "spirit" you mean simply a change of Mind, your attitude.

*3. Life transforming technology :
https://www.cnet.com/tech/tech-industry/25-technologies-that-have-changed-the-world/

*4. The Systems View of Life: A Unifying Vision :
a new systemic conception of life has emerged at the forefront of science. New emphasis has been given to complexity, networks, and patterns of organization, leading to a novel kind of “systemic” thinking.
This volume integrates the ideas, models, and theories underlying the systems view of
life into a single coherent framework. Taking a broad sweep through history and across sci-
entific disciplines, the authors examine the appearance of key concepts such as autopoiesis,
dissipative structures, social networks, and a systemic understanding of evolution. The
implications of the systems view of life for healthcare, management, and our global eco-
logical and economic crises are also discussed. ___Fritjof Capra and Pier Luigi Luisi
https://assets.cambridge.org/97811070/11366/frontmatter/9781107011366_frontmatter.pdf

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

Given that we're doing metaphysics, I suppose my and others' very non-metaphysical criticisms are out of place. Reminds of Bartricks's rule: it hasta make sense and from my interactions with your philosophy, it makes sense alright. Positing entities and forces e.g. Enformy are part and parcel of theorizing/hypothesizing, a very scientific activity. So here's what I think is the good news - Enformationism explains well enough the goings on in the world; now the bad news - Enformationism doesn't make any predictions which could be tested. Is me foot in me mouth? Have I cleared you of all charged and still declared you guilty? — Agent Smith

I just want to clarify that I am not "postulating entities & forces", because I am not a scientist. What I am doing is looking at known forces from a new perspective. The Enformationism worldview is based on cutting-edge scientific theories postulating that Energy (causation) is a form of Information*1 (power to enform ; to integrate into a system), and Entropy is a form of dis-information (dis-integration).

My personal (not institutional) thesis attempts to pull several threads of Information theory together into a unified philosophical weltanshauung. So, what I'm doing is a very philosophical activity : system building. And my system is intended to replace ancient Spiritualism and outdated Materialism. When viewed from one of those outmoded perspectives, Enformationism won't "make sense". That's because it postulates a new Paradigm shift*2.

Since Enformationism is a holistic way of looking at the world, not a reductive scientific theory, it does not make Predictions, only Observations from a new perspective. If you want predictions of physical behavior, look to Science. But if you want simplified understanding of complex physical actions (e.g. Quantum non-mechanics), look to Philosophy. Baffled quantum pioneers turned to ancient Holistic religions for philosophical insights, when their Reductive methods didn't make sense.

So yes, you still seem to be influenced by 180's accusations that I'm doing illegitimate Science. Perhaps he thinks that modern physical (ideas about matter) Science has supplanted metaphysical (ideas about ideas) Philosophy. If so, then this forum is a complete waste of wishy-washy words. And should be posting on a Physics forum. :smile:


*1. The basis of the universe may not be energy or matter but information :
There are lots of theories on what the basis of the universe is. Some physicists say its subatomic particles. Others believe its energy or even space-time. One of the more radical theories suggests that information is the most basic element of the cosmos.
https://bigthink.com/surprising-science/the-basis-of-the-universe-may-not-be-energy-or-matter-but-information/
Note -- From the Enformationism perspective, Information is Fundamental.

*2. Paradigm Shift :
a fundamental change in approach or underlying assumptions.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=paradigm+shift

CAUTION : OLD PARADIGM WASHED-OUT

I believe your arch foe is William of Occam; metaphysics was always a bit superfluous.
What if I told you that Enformy is a phantasm, an illusion like e.g. the Wagon Wheel effect? How would you respond? — Agent Smith

Every generalization*1 is imaginary -- including "Energy", as the invisible*2 cause of all physical effects -- because it is not an empirical observation, but a rationalization (abstraction) from many specific instances to a single holistic conceptualization*3. You won't find any wild Abstractions in the Natural world, because they are denizens of the philosophical Mind -- which is not a tangible thing, but an abstract concept.

What if I said that Energy is a "phantasm" or "fantasy"? Can you show me a physical instance of Energy? Have you ever seen a Photon, which is purportedly the "carrier" of Energy, as a pickup truck carries a load of dirt? Is Energy a feature of your reality? If so, why not accept Enformy, which is merely an information-theoretic term, linking Causation with Organization. Energy is metaphysical, because it has to be inferred instead of observed. Raw energy (random change) is like an atomic bomb, ruthlessly destroying all orderly structures in the vicinity. By contrast, Enformy is the notion of Energy-plus-Regulation (natural law) that non-randomly produces order & organization in the world. The pay-off of "success" for Enformy may be the advent of Culture in a Natural world. Would you prefer to go back to a pre-human pre-metaphysical state-of-nature : red in tooth & claw? Unfortunately, on this forum metaphysical arguments too often become red in ridicule & dis-respect.

Your skeptical questions are relevant -- and I enjoy responding to them -- but they reflect the influence of modern prejudice against Metaphysics, which is merely ideas-about-ideas. Physical Science has allowed some "successful" Materialists to feel superior to "feckless" Philosophers, who have nothing to show for their word-shuffling & idea-shoveling. Ironically, most of the posters on this forum have never successfully produced any objective physical objects that add to the "progress" of Science. Instead, they deal in ideas about ideas (e.g. notion of "progress"), which is what Metaphysics*4 is all about. So, they cut the ground from under their own feet, by denigrating the reasoning that generalizes from instances.

Therefore, Ockham*5 is not a foe of Enformationism, but of unnecessary complexity of conceptualization. I consider Enformy to be a simplification of Negentropy which is a superfluous double negative. The thesis could be considered a form of Nominalism, in that it is all about Essences, like Energy & Enformy :smile:

*1. Generalization :
A generalization is a form of abstraction whereby common properties of specific instances are formulated as general concepts or claims.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generalization

*2. 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

*3. Induction :
Inductive reasoning begins with observations that are specific and limited in scope, and proceeds to a generalized conclusion that is likely, but not certain, in light of accumulated evidence.
http://www.butte.edu/departments/cas/tipsheets/thinking/reasoning.html

*4. Metaphysics and Philosophy of Religion :
Metaphysics chiefly addresses questions about what is ultimately real and important. Philosophy of religion explores and evaluates religious views of reality and seeks to understand religious practice. Metaphysics chiefly addresses questions about what is ultimately real and important.
https://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.ca/en/article/philosophy-metaphysics-and-philosophy-of-religion
Note -- Can you distinguish the general "philosophy of religion" from the specific doctrines & practices of world religions?

*5. Ockham Metaphysics :
In metaphysics, Ockham champions nominalism, the view that universal essences, such as humanity or whiteness, are nothing more than concepts in the mind. He develops an Aristotelian ontology, admitting only individual substances and qualities.
https://iep.utm.edu/ockham/
Note -- Essences are meta-physical because they are nominal, merely names for concepts that are not knowable by physical senses.

"So, by this concept, nature – the universe / multiverse – is merely the physical aspect of a greater, non-physical entity (deity, creator, process) aka "Enformer" ... and yet, Gnomon, there is not any evidence for or sound argument demonstrating that in order for nature to be intelligible, and explicable, nature requires a non-physical entity ("Enformer") of which to be a part."

As usual, 180 {insert denigratory label here} seems to be insisting that "nature requires a physical entity" in order to be intelligible, as Einstein remarked. That's why he rejects my hypothesis of an entity that pre-dates the Big Bang (yes, I'm aware of the north-of-the-north-pole retort). Ironically, my theoretical Enformer is generally amenable to Spinoza's deus sive natura (nature god), except that Baruch's worldview was based on an eternal physical world.

I merely update his 17th century deity definition in view of our modern understanding : that the physical universe is not eternal, but emerged from "north-of-the-north-pole" -- along with space-time & energy-law -- into measurable reality only a fraction of a light-year ago. So, I merely ask the obvious philosophical question : when & where was the deus in the "time before time". Is that a legitimate philosophical query?

The notion of a "natural deity" was addressed by physicist Paul Davies, in his 1983 book : God and the New Physics*1*2. In a chapter regarding the theological/cosmological notion of "the end of the universe", he noted : "There are many mysteries about the natural world that would be readily explained by postulating a natural Deity". That seems to be what Spinoza intended. Yet Davies then continued : "to invoke God as a blanket explanation of the explained is to invite eventual falsification, and to make God the friend of ignorance". [my bold]

That said, he offered an alternative to a "natural deity", that couldn't explain the origin of temporal Nature itself. In the final chapter of the book, Davies made a disclaimer about Truth : "Physics . . . is not about truth at all, but about models" Likewise, my own Cosmological theory makes no claim on absolute truth. It's merely a philosophical model representing one possible way to understand the ultimate Ontological questions, which are not addressed at all by Physics.

So Davies merely posits a meta-physical (noological*2) notion for consideration : "The existence of mind, for example, as an abstract, holistic, organizational pattern, capable even of disembodiment, refutes the reductionist philosophy that we are nothing but moving mounds of atoms". In following books, he further explored the application of Information Theory -- and its close inter-relationship with Mind -- to those Ontological & Cosmological questions that might possibly offer some philosophical insights into the gaping gap that lies above and beyond the north pole, and the Big Bang. How better to make the natural world "intelligible" (comprehensible) to human minds, that to construct it out of non-physical mental stuff : Enformation (energy + law = power to enform) ? :smile:


*1. God and the New Physics :
https://www.amazon.com/God-New-Physics-Paul-Davies/dp/0671528068

*2. "New Physics" is a reference to Quantum Theory, compared to Newton's old-fashioned mechanical physics.

*2. Noology, derives from the ancient Greek words νοῦς, nous or "mind" and λόγος, logos. Noology thus outlines a systematic study and organization of thought, knowledge and the mind. ___Wiki

Stop the name calling. You are more than capable of criticism without insults. Or ignoring them. — fdrake

Don't worry. It's our little not-so-private running joke. This diabolical dialog has been going on for several years. 180 calls me by a slew of sarcastic names, and I indirectly return the favor with tongue-in-cheek, except that I'm not nearly as creative or prolific in my labels.

I tried to ignore 180's insults long ago, but he just can't let it go. So, now I don't respond directly, and address my answers to Agent Smith -- who is in on the joke -- because he serves as a middle man between two posters who have stopped talking (civilly) to each other. FWIW, 180 seems to be serious about his anti-metaphysical mission, but I'm just kidding. And, mommy, he hit me first!!! :joke:

Philosopher-on-Philosopher Insults :
But for truly epic bitchiness and egotism, you need look no further than that most storied and venerable of academic disciplines: philosophy! The history of Western thought is peppered with thinkers taking aim at their peers — sometimes in a genteelly intellectual manner, and sometimes… um, less so (yes, Friedrich Nietzsche, this means you)
https://www.flavorwire.com/469065/the-30-harshest-philosopher-on-philosopher-insults-in-history

180 Proof, for my money, has one gripe against your theory viz. the fact that it seems impossible to retain design (Enformy, teleology, etc.) without a designer implicit. So thought you try valiantly to distance yourself from religion, it comes off as incoherent at best or deception at worst.

Another thing, please take this as constructive criticism, your theory relies on controversy (dueling physicists) rather than solid facts - its home is in the darkness of our ignorance rather than the light of our knowledge. Given your caliber, I'm expecting a first class response from you. — Agent Smith

I appreciate your "constructive criticism" by contrast with 180boo's dueling physicists. Although you have been influenced by the anti-design arguments, you remain open-minded to alternatives*1.

Yes, I have concluded that the apparent design*2 -- the "marvelous structure" (Einstein) -- of the universe logically implies a designer, planner, creator. That's why Einstein, and several of the founding fathers of Quantum Theory reached that same conclusion. So, since 180boo responds to my theories with dueling physicists, I'll be glad to let him argue with Einstein. What say you : does the "comprehensibility" of the universe imply a random accidental origin, or an intentional designer*3 of some kind? Even Atheists admit that the emergence of a self-organizing system of Causation (energy) & Regulation (laws) requires something more than shuffling cards for a long, long time.

I have indeed, distanced myself from all religions -- including the indoctrination of my childhood. And I have no inclination to worship the Enformer of my own thesis. It's just an idea. But it's an informed idea : a philosophical hypothesis, like Plato's Logos*4. Since there is no empirical proof for any of the postulated precedents of our universe, your guess is as valid as mine, but mine has a detailed thesis (philosophical argument) to support that logical conclusion.

Regarding "controversy" vs "solid facts", are you aware of any philosophical concept that is uncontroversial? It's the job of empirical science to provide "solid facts" to put an end to controversies, such as phlogiston. But, are you aware of any "solid facts" that terminate all Ontological questions? Are you afraid of controversial topics and the darkness of our Ignorance? If so, you should shy away from philosophical forums. :smile:


*1. I too, reject the magical implications of Intelligent Design proponents, but not necessarily the physical & philosophical evidence they present. As you well know, I don't depend on Biblical authority to support my ideas. Instead of the Instantaneous Design by Fiat of Genesis, I have adopted the Gradual Design by Evolution of Darwinian Teleology. I simply call it "Intelligent Evolution", guided by Laws, not by Chance.

*2. What is the basic definition of design? :
to create, fashion, execute, or construct according to plan
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/design

*3.  The Enformer :
AKA, the Creator. The presumed eternal source of all information, as encoded in the Big Bang Sing-ularity. That ability to convert conceptual Forms into actual Things, to transform infinite possibilities into finite actualities, and to create space & time, matter & energy from essentially no-thing is called the power of EnFormAction. Due to our ignorance of anything beyond space-time though, the postulated enforming agent remains undefined. I simply label it "G*D".
http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page8.html
Note -- I don't quote the Bible to support the Enformer hypothesis, but the opinions of professional scientists. So, the Enformer is not identical with any of the traditional creator gods, but merely a novel theoretical Principle derived from 21st century science. AFAIK, that hypothetical entity is worshiped by no religion, and has made no threats of eternal damnation. Hence, it's no more scary than the only viable alternative : an eternal regression of self-existent & self-organizing worlds (Multiverse).

*4. LOGOS :
With Plato the story gets a bit more complex, since he had a variety of ways he used this term. Maybe the most straightforward one would be the understanding of logos as opposed to mythos (μῦθος), where logos is perceived as the true, analytical account.
In Phaedo, Plato explained that the characteristic of the true knowledge is the ability to give account, logos, of what one knows. In Theatetus, Socrates described logos as the distinguishable characteristic of a thing.
With Aristotle, we approach the definition of logos that is close to Latin ratio, as well as the modern notion of logos. Aristotle understood logos as the reason and rationality, especially in the ethical sense.
He also used it in the meaning of a mathematical proportion, which we can see in the English word ratio, but this can probably be traced back to Pythagoras.
https://www.pbs.org/theogloss/logos-body.html

This sounds a little passive aggressive - did you intend it this way? — Tom Storm

No. I typically apologize when my "exploring elaborate explanations " pushes someone's buttons, and they take offense. That's not "passive aggressive" but merely respectful politeness that is necessary to maintain calm rational dialog on a controversial forum.

What I do intend is to do what philosophers do : "inquiry into fundamental questions". Studying "settled" questions of science, may produce simple explanations, such as E=MC^2. But exploring unsettled, and unsettling, questions of philosophy, often requires "elaborate explanations". So, if you prefer simple or facile explanations, Classical Science can provide them : Isaac Newton -- His third law states that for every action (force) in nature there is an equal and opposite reaction. But many of the fundamental & existential questions of Classical Philosophy remain unsettled after 2500 years of exploration and elaboration. :smile:


What is the work of a philosopher? :
Philosophy encourages critical and systematic inquiry into fundamental questions of right and wrong, truth and falsehood, the meaning of life, and the nature of reality, knowledge and society.
https://philosophy.as.uky.edu/where-can-philosophy-take-me

Philosophical Questions :
Philosophy raises questions that address fundamental issues and beliefs and which require complex thinking rather than empirical research to answer. . . .
“Philosophy attempts to clarify and illuminate unsettled, controversial issues that are so generic that no scientific discipline is equipped to deal with them” (Lipman, 1988, p. 91).
https://www.encyclopedia.com/education/applied-and-social-sciences-magazines/philosophical-questions-their-nature-and-function

What draws people to religion? Is it just a verbal pledge of a safety net to catch a believer's fall? Religions tend to be factually barren and yet, people by the millions end up believing in one god or another and even diehard atheists sometimes admit to having doubts about their own beliefs or lack thereof. Scientists like Albert Einstein were deists; perhaps deism is nothing more than the dying embers of theism, the last gasp of breath one sucks in as one passes on. — Agent Smith

What "draws" people against religious philosophies, that have no power to enslave their holders in a particular authoritarian system? Since you have become the designated go-between for the vs Gnomon controversy, I'll take this opportunity to respond to his latest polemical diatribe without actually engaging in dialog. You seem to think that the BothAnd philosophy requires such intercommunication, but I prefer not to get involved in political squabbles.

I do think Deism may be the skeletal remains of religious belief for some people. But, as a rational philosophical stance, it lacks the emotional vibe that "draws" people to religion. My position is a kind of Deism, specifically PanEnDeism. But even that may be too close to religious belief for 180wooboo to abide. So, what "draws" people to Philosophy instead of religion? Certainly not the need for a "crutch" or "safety net". Perhaps instead, the "draw" is insatiable curiosity, as Einstein noted in his case.

In his counter-attack to my post above 180alcoholcontent, made a series of assertions -- not arguments -- supported by quotes from authoritative sources. My post observed that "the Cosmos is distinguished from Chaos in that it is precisely enformed : apparently structured to serve some overall purpose. I don't know what that ultimate goal might be, but the physics of the universe seems to be finely tuned to distinguish organization (Enformy) from dis-organization (Entropy)". To that, he responded :

ENTROPY

"Contrary to the pseudo-"philosophical perspective" above: as the universe develops from minimum disorder to maximum[ disorder on a (non-constant) gradient, any 'order' is a temporary, dissipative phase-state of disorder. The asymmetric direction of cosmological development does not indicate a "purpose" any more than an avalanche down a mountainside indicates its "purpose". To quote a Nobel laureate theoretical physicist: The more the universe seems comprehensible, the more it also seems pointless". — Steven Weinberg

1. His reversed reference to "minimum disorder" at the Big Bang betrays his prejudice toward Entropy as the dominant dis-organizing principle of the universe. To the contrary, if the universe developed from a state of "minimum disorder" that means it was maximally organized. If so, the philosophical question, that Atheists avoid like the plague, is how did the initial Singularity get organized enough to create a world from scratch? As the link below says, we can distinguish between dissipative (entropy) "natural" and "cultural" (enformy) processes by noting the arrow of Entropy. Which points away from Order (max energy) toward Disorder (max Entropy). Likewise, we can discern Natural processes from Super-natural in the same manner. For example, how did the Singularity get organized into "minimum disorder / max order" prior to the BB? I don't know, but I can guess. 180 is entitled to a personal opinion that the world is a "hostile" place; but I respectfully disagree.
To quote a Nobel laureate theoretical physicist :
"One cannot help but be in awe when he contemplates the mysteries of eternity, of life, of the marvelous structure of reality". ___Einstein

Entropy: the disorder of the universe
On the other hand, entropy is also how humans distinguish between natural and man-made structures. If you saw a pile of logs neatly stacked up on the ground, you would probably think that a human—more specifically, a lumberjack—had done it. But why? Because nature tends to push things to become more disordered. A neat pile of logs is not disordered, but randomly strewn-out logs are. Our brains are able to make a distinction between what is and what isn’t natural based on how random it appears.
https://thestrand.ca/entropy-the-disorder-of-the-universe/
(i.e. how Purposeful it appears)

A dissipative structure is a form of organization (order), which means that the entropy (disorder) of the system concerned is not maximum.
https://global4cast.org/2019/06/dissipative-structures-explained-part-3-modern-thermodynamics/

COMPREHENSIBILITY

2. Compare Weinberg's negative attitude to Einstein's more positive view. Which is more authoritative?

"The most incomprehensible thing about the universe is that it is comprehensible" ___Einstein

"You find it strange that I consider the comprehensibility of the world (to the extent that we are authorized to speak of such a comprehensibility) as a miracle or as an eternal mystery. Well, a priori, one should expect a chaotic world, which cannot be grasped by the mind in any way .. the kind of order created by Newton's theory of gravitation, for example, is wholly different. Even if a man proposes the axioms of the theory, the success of such a project presupposes a high degree of ordering of the objective world, and this could not be expected a priori. ___Einstein

TELEOLOGY

3. I had a brief dialog with Stenger many years ago, and he did indeed dismiss my musings about directionality of evolution. But then, he was a physicist, not an evolutionary biologist. So, the Darwinian Teleology was not apparent to him.

Ironically, it was Science, not Religion, that revealed the teleological tendencies of the natural world -- that it is evolving in a positive direction. Most traditional religions have always assumed a steady-state universe that either stays the same forever, or simply goes around in circles. But agnostic or godless scientists determined that the evidence from Biology, Geology, and Paleontology indicates that many small random changes add-up to progressive evolution toward increasing order and complexity -- at least in the corner of the cosmos we can study in detail.
http://www.bothandblog.enformationism.info/page29.html

Why did evolutionary biologist J.B.S. Haldane quip that "teleology is like a mistress to a biologist : he cannot live without her, but he's unwilling to be seen with her in public."? Why is the notion of directional progression in evolution so repellant to mainstream scientists?
http://bothandblog3.enformationism.info/page25.html

Even Darwin himself admitted, regarding “blind chance or necessity”, that “I am compelled to look to a First Cause having an intelligent mind in some degree  analogous to that of man and I deserve to be called a theist”. Perhaps not a biblical Theist, but an enlightenment Deist. Even theistic botanist, Asa Grey, noted that, “Darwinian teleology has the special advantage of accounting for the imperfections and failures as well as for successes”. And that is also the case for the Intelligent Evolution corollary to the thesis of Enformationism.
http://bothandblog7.enformationism.info/page14.html

Note : see my post above for application of the term "Teleonomy" (future + reason) in place of "Teleology" burdened by its historical connection to Theology.

FINE TUNING

180 quoted Stenger : "The universe is not fine-tuned to us; we are fine-tuned to our particular universe." So, you can choose which theoretical physicist you find to be more authoritative.

4. In the foreword, prominent physicist John Archibald Wheeler summarized the philosophical meaning of this scientific data : “It is not only that man is adapted to the universe . . .”, as implied by Darwin’s Theory of Evolution, but that, “the universe is adapted to man.” He goes on to assert the “central point of the anthropic principle”, that “a life-giving factor lies at the centre of the whole machinery and design of the world.” He made that assertion, despite knowing that “design” is a dirty word in the vocabulary of most scientists. The authors mention several key assumptions, (see side-notes left), that also apply to the Enformationism thesis. Yet, Wheeler goes further out on a limb to contend that, “This amazing prediction looks like being some day testable and therefore would seem to count as ‘falsifiable’ in the sense of Karl Popper”. He may be best known for his provocative “It from Bit” hypothesis, that everything in the material world is created from the immaterial essence that we now know as “Information”. Which is the core concept of my own philosophical worldview.
http://bothandblog7.enformationism.info/page10.html

SUPERNATURAL ELEMENT

5. Although I didn't mention a supernatural God, he again quoted Stenger : "We have yet to encounter an observable astronomical phenomenon that requires a supernatural element to be added to a model in order to describe the event...Observations in cosmology look just as they can be expected to look if there is no God." Compare that Atheistic assertion to Einstein's Deistic attitude.

“We see a universe marvelously arranged, obeying certain laws, but we understand the laws only dimly. Our limited minds cannot grasp the mysterious force that sways the constellations". ___Albert Einstein

"It is enough for me to contemplate the mystery of conscious life perpetuating itself through all eternity, to reflect upon the marvelous structure of the universe which we dimly perceive, and to try humbly to comprehend an infinitesimal part of the intelligence manifested in nature." __Albert Einstein

END OF DUELING PHYSICISTS

I thought I was clear - I am not much interested in people's pet theories about how this particular messiah myth was tweaked/distorted over time. — Tom Storm

I apologize for bothering you with my personal interest in the "details" of a myth that was the foundation of my worldview in my youth. Although I no longer believe the myth, I am not hostile to current believers, including my own family. Instead, I understand how compelling such a fundamental narrative can be to those faced with a puzzling and sometimes threatening world. :smile:

I’m not a theorist or system builder. You can find anything you want about the 'true' story of Islam or Christianity, etc, in a myriad of (often contradictory) books. These publishing phenomena are tendentious and mainly driven by commercial or ideological interests and for the most part don’t interest me. I have no need for the a god or messiah hypothesis however it is expressed. When it comes to the Jesus myth, it was clearly inflicted upon the world by the Roman Empire and enforced as an institutional truth by society for centuries. The specific details of the myth's development and its evolution don’t much matter. — Tom Storm

The book referenced is a history book, not a religious treatise. Do you feel that the details of history "don't much matter"? Maybe you missed the intended point of the post in the midst of indirect contextual commentary*1. What I was getting around to though, is a response to your implied parallel between religious & scientific belief in Progress*2. Since Science inspires hope for Physical progress in controlling Nature, it has something in common with religions that preach reasons for hoping that Ethical progress -- to control human nature -- will follow from socio-cultural change.

We evaluate scientific progress by the leverage it gives humanity over the impartial forces of Nature, turning them to our own advantage. But putting such power in the hands of ethically-challenged humans can easily turn pro-gress into re-gress. For example, the Manhattan Project scientists, who gave us the tools to exploit nuclear power, later began to regret their role in unleashing such fraught forces upon a world lacking the necessary moral code to control god-like power*3.

Since the Enlightenment era, progressive Science has been deemed to require an open-minded amoral (factual) stance ; leaving ethical considerations to feckless (non-progressive) philosophers. Yet Science gives us tools that, like a hammer, can be used for both constructive and destructive purposes. Although religions often control human behavior via top-down coercive methods, the philosophical underpinnings*4 of those religions are intended to give us tools for self-control. With that in mind, I was merely expanding on what you intuitively implied : that Science & Philosophy should work hand in hand to advance the interests of humanity in an otherwise indifferent world. :smile:


*1. Context that was meaningful to me -- due to my religious background -- if not to you.

*2. " Perhaps the belief in the progress of science is a secular variant, but at least it pays off now and again" ___Tom Storm

*3. Oppenheimer's Regret :
"I remembered the line from the Hindu scripture, the Bhagavad-Gita. Vishnu is trying to persuade the Prince that he should do his duty and to impress him takes on his multi-armed form and says, 'Now, I am become Death, the destroyer of worlds.'"
http://large.stanford.edu/courses/2016/ph241/anderson1/

*4. Including Agnosticism, Atheism, Buddhism, Christianity, Hinduism, New Age, etc . . .
https://www.josh.org/what-are-the-top-religious-philosophies/

I spent quite a few years in the company of theosophists, Buddhists, Gnostics, and assorted New Age devotees. What struck me was the complete lack of transformational power their beliefs had for them. They were as anxious, ambitious, jealous, substance dependent and vulgarly materialistic as any group of hedge fund managers. It's a rare person who can escape the need for metanarratives as a bulwark against fears of anonymity and meaninglessness. Perhaps the belief in the progress of science is a secular variant, but at least it pays off now and again. :wink: — Tom Storm

I am currently reading the 2012 book by historian James D. Tabor, Paul & Jesus : How the Apostle transformed Christianity. The author presents his interpretation of Christianity as the religion of Paul instead of Jesus. Many years ago, I came to the same conclusion. The inspiring story that Jesus preached was itself a metanarrative*1 of second temple Judaism, as interpreted by the apocalyptic monks we know as the Essenes. But Paul basically spiritualized their worldly anticipation of the Kingdom of God, by transferring it to a heavenly dominion, instead of a return to the golden age of Solomon's reign. For those living under the exploitative oppression of Rome, even a retro-action could be viewed as progressive*2.

Understandably, after the death of their Priest-King Messiah, Jesus' disciples were dispirited & despondent. So Paul saw a new direction for reviving those old this-worldly prophecies, in a way that would give them new hope. Unfortunately, those here & now disciples, expected Jesus to physically rise from the grave, to rule a restored Jerusalem, rid of Romans. But when the annointed king didn't come back to walk the Earth in physical form, Paul reinterpreted the prophecies to foretell that the Lord would instead sit on a heavenly throne in a spirit body to rule the whole world, both Jews & Gentiles. That is about as Meta (above & beyond) as it gets. His metanarrative*3 was intended to re-inspire the hopes & dreams of the Jews, and also to broaden its application to include the Gentiles.

The narratives of Science have also been transformed by new ways of looking at the world. Those "fact-based" meta-narratives are what we call Paradigms (generally accepted worldviews). For example, Gallileo changed our understanding of the stars, from circulating angels or gods to mere lumps of matter following paths prescribed by what later came to be known as abstract Gravity. From that first step, Classical Science began to take a modern materialistic form, in place of the ancient Greek interpretation of astrophysics, in which the agents of change (forces ; energy) were assumed to be intentional, but now viewed as accidental movements of mindless matter. More recently, Quantum Theory began to chip away the materialistic foundation of classical Science. So physicists are again in need of a new paradigm or metanarrative*4 to inspire hope for progress*5. :smile:

1. Metanarrative :
An overarching account or interpretation of events and circumstances that provides a pattern or structure for people’s beliefs and gives meaning to their experiences.

*2. The brief rule of the 2nd century Maccabean kings after revolt against the Greek rulers, could have been interpreted as a "pay off" for their religious "science". Which probably gave the later revolutionaries hope that indomitably keeping the faith would again "pay off" against the Romans.

*3. What is the Biblical Metanarrative? :
The biblical metanarrative is the overall story-line ​by which we can understand the Bible as a whole.
https://www.postmodernpreaching.net/the-biblical-metanarrative.html

*4. Scientific Progress :
Science is often distinguished from other domains of human culture by its progressive nature: in contrast to art, religion, philosophy, morality, and politics, there exist clear standards or normative criteria for identifying improvements and advances in science.
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/scientific-progress/

*5. Technological Progress :
The technological singularity—or simply the singularity—is a hypothetical future point in time at which technological growth becomes uncontrollable and irreversible, resulting in unforeseeable changes to human civilization.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technological_singularity

IS SCIENTIFIC PROGRESS REAL ?

https://mathscholar.org/2019/01/is-scientific-progress-real/

Jokes aside, I'd say there is order, but it's local and temporary; chaos, on the other hand, is both global and permanent and increasing, exponentially. Stars, our only hope, burn for billions of years, but they die eventually.
What chance does Enformy have against Entropy - it's a losin' battle and therein lies the rub, eh mi amigo? — Agent Smith

As far as I know, the special kind of order (Life & Mind) we humans experience on Earth is rare in the universe. But my personal concern is local, so I don't worry about the order, or lack thereof, in the un-inhabitable areas of the cosmos. Nevertheless, like the ancient Greeks and modern Einstein, I do marvel at the beautifully organized structure of the universe. Beautiful, compared to what? To mess, chaos, confusion, squalor, disorder, disarray, clutter, etc. To the effects of Entropy.

From a philosophical perspective though, my interest is universal & cosmic. And modern Cosmology has confirmed the intuition of the ancients, that the Cosmos is distinguished from Chaos in that it is precisely enformed : apparently structured to serve some overall purpose. I don't know what that ultimate goal might be, but the physics of the universe seems to be finely tuned to distinguish organization (Enformy) from dis-organization (Entropy). For example, Evolution seems to function like a computer program, to begin with a loosely-defined goal and to seek-out intermediate solutions leading toward resolution of that cosmic equation : A + B + C . . . . = X.

Like Einstein, I'd like to break the code of that cosmic computer program. Unfortunately. lacking Albert's genius, all I can do is construct crude philosophical approximations of the enigmatic machine that is cranking-out bits of information (energy ; matter) from which to construct a complete cosmic "miracle".
Was Albert a pollyanna, looking only at the bright side of the world? Or a pragmatist, who understood that "all things are relative". Relativity is the reference frame (attitude ; perspective) through which you see one side or another of Reality. So, we only see the part of the universe that happens to be framed within our personal perspective. If you are looking for reasons to despair, aim your frame at Entropy. "Aye, there's the rub." :smile:


“There are only two ways to live your life. One is as though nothing is a miracle. The other is as though everything is a miracle.”
"One cannot help but be in awe when he contemplates the mysteries of eternity, of life, of the marvelous structure of reality."
― Albert Einstein

Einstein's special theory of relativity is based on the idea of reference frames. A reference frame is simply "where a person (or other observer) happens to be standing".
https://science.howstuffworks.com/science-vs-myth/everyday-myths/relativity5.htm

Teleology :
Philosophical term derived from Greek: telos (end, goal, purpose, design, finality) and logos (reason, explanation). Philosophers, from Aristotle onward, assumed that everything in the world has a purpose and a place in the scheme of history. As a religious concept, it means that the world was designed by God for a specific reason, such as producing sentient beings to stroke His ego with worship & sacrifices.
1. In Enformationism theory, Evolution seems to be progressing from past to future in increments of Enformation. From the upward trend of increasing organization over time, we must conclude that the randomness of reality (Entropy) is offset by a constructive force (Enformy). This directional trajectory implies an ultimate goal or final state. What that end might be is unknown, but speculation abounds.
2. Teilhard de Chardin postulated that God created the world to evolve toward perfection, eventually to become god-like. He called that end-state the Omega Point.
3. In Chris Langan's CTMU theory, the term "unbounded Telesis" refers to the infinite creative power of God for "planned progress".
4. <<By "spirit" Montesquieu meant "causes" from which one could derive "laws" that govern [physics & societies] . . . The necessary relations derived from the nature of things.>> Shermer, The Moral Arc
http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page20.html

Teleonomy :
Although evolution is obviously progressing in the direction of Time's Arrow, it is treated by Science as if it is wandering aimlessly in a field of possibilities limited only by natural laws and initial conditions. But philosophical observers over the centuries have inferred that evolution shows signs of rational design, purpose, and intention. Traditionally, that programmed progression has been called "Teleology" (future + reason), and was attributed to a divine agent.
   Teleonomy (purpose + law) is another way of describing the appearance of goal-directed progress in nature, but it is imagined to be more like the step-by-step computations of a computer than the capricious interventions of a deity. Since the Enformationism thesis portrays the Creator more like a computer programmer than the Genesis wizard who creates with magic words (creatio via fiat), "Teleonomy" may be the more appropriate term to describe the creative process of a non-intervening deity.
http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page20.html

interesting. I would say it's the other way around - materialistic religion (most instantiations of religion) and spiritualistic science (how science is generally understood) are in direct competition as explanations of life on earth, not to mention the compass by which we navigate values and meaning. The naturalistic fallacy isn't much of an impediment to most practical people, who look to science as an effective path to understand reality, while religion ( often a series of fallacies in search of purpose) diminishes in importance, except amongst the fanatics who view religion as a set of vulgar terrestrial commands. — Tom Storm

Ironically, The Hebrew religion was materialistic, morally pragmatic, and this-worldly (no afterlife), so their explanations for existence & evolution were mostly naturalistic, except for the creation of something from nothing. However, the Christian religion was spiritualized, not by Jesus (human messiah), but by Paul, who preached the divine Christ myth to the Gentiles. I suspect that most ancient religions were likewise materialistic, except for their invisible Nature gods, who performed the natural functions that we now assign to invisible Energy. But Christians look forward to salvation from the bonds of Materialism. Even mostly naturalistic Buddhism anticipates a sort of impersonal salvation in non-self Nirvana.

Again, ironically, Quantum Theory does sound a lot like "spiritualistic science", with angelic Virtual Particles existing in immaterial (mathematical) quantum fields of un-real Potential, until manifested to human observers. But I suspect that most modern scientists, including quantum theorists, would object to the idea that they are playing the same game as religion : to reveal the divine purpose of temporal existence in a material world. In Classical Science, meaningful Teleology, or Positive Progress, was a no-no. But some science-based theorists today look forward to a future species salvation in a Technological Singularity. That's not necessarily a Naturalistic Fallacy, but a Cultural Optimism envisioning collective purpose, to aim at the stars. :smile:

Quantum Spirituality :
Could the great challenges of the world, and our lives, be solved through the wisdom of the past merged with the best science of today?
https://www.amazon.com/Quantum-Spirituality-Amit-Goswami-Ph-d/dp/9353479339

Maximum entropy (omega) is the terminus of all sequences. "Progress" is a parochial illusion like the apparent flatness of the Earth. — 180 Proof
The net entropy, you're right on the money, increases. Was there any order to begin with or was it always chaos and then more chaos? Gnomon. — Agent Smith

The topic of this thread seems to be based on a Category Error : assuming that materialistic Science and spiritualistic Religion are competing in the same game, on the same field. Even Aristotle, who was not known for promoting Religion, placed his scientific observations (Physics) into a different chapter from his philosophical commentary (Metaphysics). But conflation of categories is typical of 180's polarized polemics.

180 asserts his personal opinion (belief) on Progress (nada) as-if it was a statement of Fact. But that negative attitude toward history is just as much of an "illusion" (mental model) as the more positive assessments. Both Optimism & Pessimism are subjective judgments "of the heart" instead of value-neutral objective descriptions. Personally, I'm a Peptomist : the world in which I live has both good and bad effects on my evaluation of whether life is worth living.

Scientific Cosmology makes no good/evil evaluation of the beginning of the world. It merely notes that everything now existing was constructed & organized from a hypothetical dimensionless point-of-beginning (Singularity). But, Philosophical Ontology allows us to imagine what that POB was like, based on what we now know about the organization of the world. Plato & Aristotle proposed a scenario in which the infinite potential of Chaos was converted into the finite actuality of Cosmos. Do you have any better answer to the something-from-nothing conundrum? :smile:

The Illusion of Progress :
Progress is an illusion – a view of human life and history that answers to the needs of the heart, not reason. In his book The Future of an Illusion, published in 1927, Freud argued that religion is an illusion. Illusions need not be all false; they may contain grains of truth.
https://www.amacad.org/publication/illusion-future

What is progress in philosophy? :
Philosophical proponents of progress assert that the human condition has improved over the course of history and will continue to improve. Doctrines of progress first appeared in 18th-century Europe and epitomize the optimism of that time and place. Belief in progress flourished in the 19th century.
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/progress/

Pessimism :
(Philosophy) a belief that this world is as bad as it could be or that evil will ultimately prevail over good. ___Oxford
Note -- 180's anti-religious belief in the dominance of destructive & disorganizing "Entropy" reveals a pessimistic assessment of the historical trend of the world. Yet it ignores the contribution of constructive Energy in the organization of the Cosmos. As for most religious faith, his personal belief is presented as-if it is absolute Truth. Do you believe that the world is "as bad as it could be"? Or do you agree with Shakespeare : “There is nothing either good or bad, but thinking makes it so” The world is simply what it is, but your imaginary or illusory worldview may be seen through rose-colored or dark glasses.

The BothAnd of Enformstionism surely does explain the, how shall I put it?, the dialectical (+ vs. -) nature of interactions in reality - from a cooling cuppa tea on your table to this debate the three of us are engaged in, it's all duality at work. — Agent Smith

Whew! These 180wooboo bushwacks are antithetical & polemic & off-topic. He seems to feel that an Idealistic or Holistic worldview is anti-science, and takes every opportunity to counter-attack what he interprets as an assault on "settled" Science. Yet, Enformationism is not presented on this forum as a scientific paradigm, so it makes no attempt to "explain" any scientific evidence. It does however interpret some bits of scientific evidence -- specifically Quantum Theory and Information Theory -- in terms of a personal philosophical worldview. So, Gnomon's Information-theoretic arguments are merely personal opinions, not assertions of physical fact. You are free to decide if a dualistic (complementary forces) & dialectic (decision tree) worldview makes sense for your own philosophical purposes --- higher dimensions or not.

Of course, an Idealistic Dialectical interpretation of Natural & Cultural "interactions" is significantly different -- not necessarily diametrically opposite -- from Materialistic Realism, including Marx's Dialectical Materialism. A dialectic view merely acknowledges the observed fact that natural forces have counter-forces : for every action there is an opposing reaction (that may or may not be equal). Newton was making an idealized equation. But in real-world interactions those impacts are seldom perfectly offset -- see Dialectic Diagram at bottom. That's why natural progressions typically follow a zig-zag or up & down path instead of a back & forth stasis, or circular recycling. Of course, the judgment of overall, or historical, direction-of-progression may be subject to personal values. :smile:

Hegel’s Dialectics :
As in Plato’s dialogues, a contradictory process between “opposing sides” in Hegel’s dialectics leads to a linear evolution or development from less sophisticated definitions or views to more sophisticated ones later.
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/hegel-dialectics/
Note -- Some diagrams of these dialectic interactions are presented as non-progressive : simply marching in place, or going in circles. But most Evolutionary Dialectic diagrams show the pro-cess (to go forward) making progress from imperfect toward more perfect states. But the concept of pro-gression (to go forward) requires philosophical evaluation, whereas Scientific views are supposed to be value-neutral.

ZIG-ZAG MODEL OF EVOLUTION :


EVOLUTIONARY PROCESS : progressive or circular, by whose values ?
Note : The march of evolution actually had a few stumbles along the way. In this diagram the Antithesis set-backs were omitted. And the white guy leading the way is debatable.


EVOLUTIONARY PROGRESS : is complexity a higher value than simplicity?

It seems then that these two mechanisms work antagonistically, opposing each other through, rather ironically, piggybacking of the innate properties of the other. — Benj96

It's true that creative Energy and destructive Entropy are opposing forces in the world. But ultimately, they are working together -- like warp & woof -- to produce the fabric of Reality : a self-organizing universe from the otherwise annihilating explosion of the Big Bang. In my personal BothAnd worldview, the evolutionary process works like a computer program, interpreting Potential (stochastic probability) into Actual (physical organism), and Nothing (0) into Something (1). Evolution is a heuristic learning process, based on trial & error, in search of functional physical Forms that are "fit" (suitable) for specific niches.

So the result of that seemingly random process is self-discovery : finding novel workable solutions to some teleological problem. That's how AI programs work : by "piggybacking" positive & negative forces into systems that are complex enough for self-reference (feedback loops), but also simple enough to maintain structure despite the de-structive forces of Entropy. The whole system evolves in a manner similar to the growth of an organism : beginning with encoded information (natural laws functioning like DNA).

Therefore, the evolution of our Cosmos is not simply the antagonism of Energy vs Entropy -- leading to Heat Death -- but a cooperative system of positive & negative values that work toward some un-manifest ultimate pattern. We may be currently near the halfway point of that progression from raw Potential (the Bang) to ultimate Actualization (Omega Point). Lacking complete information though, we can only guess about the final output of the computation. However, the fortuitous eventual emergence (manifestation) of Life & Mind & Purpose seems promising. :smile:


Evolutionary Programming :
Special computer algorithms inspired by biological Natural Selection. It is similar to Genetic Programming in that it relies on internal com-petition between random alternative solutions to weed-out inferior results, and to pass-on superior answers to the next generation of algorithms. By means of such optimizing feedback loops, evolution is able to make progress toward the best possible solution – limited only by local restraints – to the original programmer’s goal or purpose.
http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page13.html

Evolutionary Programming :
as a learning process
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolutionary_programming

Entropy :
A quality of the universe modeled as a thermodynamic system. Energy always flows from Hot (high energy density) to Cold (low density) -- except when it doesn't. On rare occasions, energy lingers in a moderate state that we know as Matter, and sometimes even reveals new qualities and states of material stuff .
   The Second Law of Thermo-dynamics states that, in a closed system, Entropy always increases until it reaches equilibrium at a temperature of absolute zero. But some glitch in that system allows stable forms to emerge that can recycle energy in the form of qualities we call Life & Mind. That glitch is what I call Enformy.
http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page8.html

Enformy :
In the Enformationism theory, Enformy is a hypothetical, holistic, metaphysical, natural trend or force, that counteracts Entropy & Randomness to produce complexity & progress.
http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page8.html
Note -- The coined term is a play on Entropy, combining Energy & Form.

Note : Natural Selection seems to be a mathematical information process that both multiplies (random variations) and divides (de-selection of unfit variants) to calculate solutions to Necessity. Positive values are expressed in terms of Energy, while negative values are called Entropy, and Necessity is the Equals sign connecting Before with After, to represent the whole system over time. Creative Energy randomly produces novel forms (en-formation) via bonding forces, then weeds-out the weak (un-fit) via loosening those bonds. In Information Theory, certainty becomes uncertainty.


OPPOSING WARP & WOOF THREADS PULL TOGETHER

The Enformer is an organizing energy/principle (opposed to entropy according to Gnomon) that's behind the order we see in the universe. This is likely not scientifically valid, but quite clever, wouldn't you agree? — Agent Smith

180wooboo accuses Gnomon of "making sh*t up". And the gnarly gnome does make-up new terms to describe scientific terms that miss an important philosophical aspect of a physical concept. For example, Claude Shannon adopted the physics notion of Entropy for his theory of Information. But that only describes the negative un-informative result of disintegration of Information (e.g. disinformation). So the Gnome proposed the coinage "Enformy" to label the positive progressive feature of Nature that physicists dismissively mislabeled as "Negentropy" (negation of a negation). If creating new names for new concepts is "making sh*t up" then that's what philosophers and scientists do when faced with unprecedented concepts turned-up by pioneering investigators.

In recent years, professional physicists have begun to the equate the positive constructive features of Information*1 (Enformation ; power to enform) with the invisible causal physical agent we know as "Energy" (Negentropy). I assume that 180's philosophical "seasoning" did not include such cutting-edge science. In any case, the notion of a positive causal force organizing randomness into organization may be too woo for his taste. Cleverness aside, does it seem to be "scientifically valid", or philosophically reasonable to you? :smile:


*1. Notes on The Energy Equivalence of Information :
such information is the negative of entropy (negentropy) and is the equivalent of a cost in energy.
https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/acs.jpca.7b09528
Note -- Energy (EnFormAction) is a Credit, while Entropy (dis-enformation) is a Debit in the ledger of Physics.


ENERGY / INFORMATION EQUIVALENCE

I view Gnomon as some sort of negotiator/arbiter, trying to find the middle ground between science and faith and, to my reckoning, he's made considerable progress - more needs to be done, but he regularly tests his ideas, against seasoned philosophers like yourself for example.
Of course this doesn't mean Gnomon is correct, but he makes sense to me at some level. You seem to have found flaws, small & big, in Enformationism and hence your hostile pronouncements; alas, I'm not privy to them. — Agent Smith

I hadn't thought of myself as a "negotiator", but maybe I'm a navigator. Trying to negotiate a safe passage between the Scylla of Science and the Charybdis of Faith. seems to be unaware that I long-ago left-behind my childhood indoctrination in the philosophy of Faith. But I am also aware that empirical (materialistic) Science has a sort of blind spot (inherent in the philosophy of Materialism) : the non-physical (mental ; cultural ; informational) aspects of reality. To me, the advent of Rational Mind in a material world is much more important than the advent of a sentimental Savior in an imperial Roman world. However, I don't pretend to be so morally or intellectually superior to those who still cling to their Faith (including my own family), that has been stretched over 2000 years, but hasn't completely snapped yet.

My personal BothAnd philosophy may be a modern version of Aristotle's Golden Mean*1 -- advising moderation in all things. In my experience, Either/Or extremism is the root of all kinds of evil. 180wooboo is indeed a "seasoned philosopher", but he seems to find Aristotle too wishy-washy for his more critical taste. I am merely an amateur dabbler in philosophy, and most of my seasoning has been in the scientific fields of Quantum Theory and Information Theory. Hence, instead of quoting Wittgenstein, I quote Einstein ; instead of linking to abstruse tomes by Kierkegaard, I often link to the "improvisatory" writings of Donald Hoffman*2 *3 (revolutionary cognitive scientist). So, 180 has good reasons to feel superior to Gnomon . . . . as a philosopher.

Typically, his "found flaws" are focused on any of my ideas that don't conform to the "settled" classical science of the 18th & 19th centuries, which rejected the theological science of 13th century Catholicism. Hence, his "hostile pronouncements" on concepts that seem to imply divine intervention, or transcendence in general, or higher dimensions. However, I assure you, it is not my intention to ratify the doctrines of Imperial Religion, or ancient Oriental beliefs.

One reason you are "not privy" to 180's "found flaws" is that he tends to make broad general denunciations instead of tailored specific arguments. Which is why he seems to be frustrated by Gnomon's refusal to dialogue with his diatribes. So, in order to untwist his mis-interpretations of Gnomon's "folly", I like to engage with those who are not so prejudiced against non-mainstream ideas. :smile:


*1. Faces of Moderation: The Art of Balance in an Age of Extremes :
Aristotle listed moderation as one of the moral virtues. He also defined virtue as the mean between extremes, implying that moderation plays a vital role in all forms of moral excellence.
https://polisci.indiana.edu/research/publications/faces-of-moderation-the-art-of-balance-in-an-age-of-extremes.html

*2. Q: “Is Donald Hoffmans Interface theory of perception largely accepted? Or do most scientists think evolution has meant we perceive the world relatively accurately?”
It is not largely accepted, but it is also not largely rejected. It provides an interesting way to work with the world, so it sits there as most theories do, considered whenever perception is considered, but not driving how we consider it.
https://www.quora.com/Do-you-have-any-proof-to-disprove-Donald-Hoffman-s-interface-theory-of-perception

*3. The Case Against Prof. Donald Hoffman’s Case Against Reality :
https://medium.com/@paulaustinmurphy2000/the-case-against-prof-donald-hoffmans-case-against-reality-f5fdf692a1c1

Whenever I hear someone equate "astral projection" or "afterlife" with "higher dimensions" what I hear them really saying is "otherworldly" (i.e. woo woo-of-the-gaps). Folks just make shit up, especially when they don't know that they don't know what they're talking about. — 180 Proof
... says the guy whose astral projection is off the charts! :grin: — Agent Smith

As you well know, thinks my use of the philosophical term "Meta-Physics" is a reference to "otherworldly" dimensions. Hence, his "woo-woo" sneers. This despite any "astral projection", "afterlife", or "higher dimension" assertions. My worldview is indeed BothAnd, which includes both empirical science and theoretical philosophy as overlapping magisteria. Apparently, his view is Either/Or (Black or White -- no overlap), so his snide responses are shooting at the wrong target, in the gray area ("the gap") beyond the scope of physical science. I hope you don't make the same mistake.

From his Physical vs Anti-physical perspective, even the mental aspects of the Real world must fall under the category of Physical. So, the Mind must be identical with the brain. But the emergence of animal Minds in the world is a recent innovation of physical evolution, and left no physical fossils for evidence. Moreover, human Minds appeared on the scene only a few thousand years ago. Then, in the blink of an eye -- on the time frame of evolution -- those minds took over the creative role of Evolution. But it wasn't just tangled webs of physical neurons that accelerated the rate of evolution via Culture. Instead, it was the advent of metaphysical Reason that made the difference that makes an enormous difference in the character of the universe.

So, you could ask him what kind of physical stuff Reason is made of, and what physical forces force Reason to follow a particular path. Of course his answer will be to presumptuously equate Reason with Brain. Which would make the professions of Psychology & Philosophy subject to the same physical laws that make apples fall to the ground. But even gravity is Metaphysical, in the sense that Newton implied*1 *2. In that case, one of the founders of Classical Physics would be guilty of committing "woo-woo".

In my own transgressions across the forbidden line, I refer to the Agent behind all energies & forces of the world by various terms, such as : First Cause. And that's as "otherworldly" or "higher dimensional" as I get. In my defense though, even respected scientists also conjecture extra-dimensional worlds : as in Many Worlds and Multiverse theories. So, it seems that I am in good company, when I make philosophical "woo" postulations ; while admitting, like Newton, that I don't know anything specific about the ultimate Causal Agent of this world. And I don't "just make sh*t up" to fill that pre-big-bang gap. :smile:


*1. Gravity may put the planets into motion, but without the divine Power, it could never put them into such a circulating motion as they have about the Sun; and therefore, for this as well as other reasons, I am compelled to ascribe the frame of this System to an intelligent Agent. ___ Isaac Newton
https://www.brainyquote.com/authors/isaac-newton-quotes

*2. Gravity must be caused by an Agent acting constantly according to certain laws, but whether this Agent be material or immaterial is a question I have left to the consideration of my readers. ___ Isaac Newton
https://www.newtonproject.ox.ac.uk/view/texts/normalized/THEM00258

What is metaphysical? Just like virtual particles that can become real in our scientific sense? Is spiritual stuff outside of both physical and metaphysical stuff? — TiredThinker

I like to use the taboo term "Metaphysics" in the Aristotelian sense of Mental vs Material objects. So yes, when scientists use the term "Virtual" regarding particles of matter, they are obliquely referring to statistical potential (probability) as if those mathematical (imaginary) objects were already real & actual. The existence of Virtual particles (dimensionless points in an imaginary matrix) is Meta-Physical*1, in the sense that they have no physically measurable properties. Their mathematical properties are known by logical inference, not by physical observation. The ancients imagined that Life & Mind existed in some invisible parallel "spiritual" realm. But those abstract features of the real world are no more spiritual than mundane Mathematics*2.

Unfortunately, the Latin descriptive term (after the Physics) was applied to Aristotle's second volume of his Physics, by theologians. In volume two, he discussed, not sensory observations of physical objects, but imaginary philosophical ideas about both mental & material aspects of the world. To this day, those ideal mental models are the "stuff" of philosophy. On this forum, as amateur dabblers in philosophy, we use Reason as a microscope to examine the metaphysical objects of other minds (their ideas). Fortunately, those non-physical mind-objects exist in the real world of human minds, not in some inaccessible alternative world. :smile:

*1. Meta-physics :
The branch of philosophy that examines the nature of reality, including the relationship between mind and matter, substance and attribute, fact and value.
1. Often dismissed by materialists as idle speculation on topics not amenable to empirical proof.
2. Aristotle divided his treatise on science into two parts. The world as-known-via-the-senses was labeled “physics” - what we call "Science" today. And the world as-known-by-the-mind, by reason, was labeled (by theologians) as “metaphysics” - what we now call "Philosophy" .
3. Plato called the unseen world that hides behind the physical façade: “Ideal” as opposed to Real. For him, Ideal “forms” (concepts) were prior-to the Real “substance” (matter).
4. Physics refers to the things we perceive with the eye of the body. Meta-physics refers to the things we conceive with the eye of the mind. Meta-physics includes the properties, and qualities, and functions that make a thing what it is. Matter is just the clay from which a thing is made. Meta-physics is the design (form, purpose); physics is the product (shape, action). The act of creation brings an ideal design into actual existence. The design concept is the “formal” cause of the thing designed.
5. I use a hyphen in the spelling to indicate that I am not talking about Ghosts and Magic, but about Ontology (science of being).
http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page14.html

*2. What is mathematics? :
Mathematics is the science that deals with the logic of shape, quantity and arrangement. Math is all around us, in everything we do.
https://www.livescience.com/38936-mathematics.html

Maybe I'm missing something? Maybe there is a dark side to Stoicism that I'm not appreciating. Which is exactly why I'm starting this thread; to peek behind the veil. — Bret Bernhoft

I don't "practice" Stoicism or Buddhism in any doctrinal sense, but my personal philosophy could be characterized as "stoic", in a general sense. The only "dark side" I'm aware of is a tendency toward Fatalism. Most ancient Greeks, culturally, were fatalists : submissive toward the divine Fates, and compliant toward the fickle fortunes of human destiny (like the oppressed proletariat of most cultures). But they also applauded the few romantic heroes who defied Fate against all hope, and accepted the inevitable consequences, as in Homer's Odyssey.

So, if you believe in human Free Will (heroically denying Determinism), to deliberately practice passive Stoicism might cause you to adopt an attitude of resignation, and a slide into personal apathy, angst and homelessness. On the other hand, Stoicism, with a touch of Optimism, could allow you to enjoy the benefits of Apatheia (freedom from worry or anxiety), while following your dreams. :smile:

Stoic Fatalism — Is it Bad? :
The original Stoics were indeed fatalists in the deterministic sense. In other words, they thought that all actions were predetermined by nature. According to Jordan (1987), the Stoics thought that “God, who is Nature, knows the whole system of interrelated causes and ‘what every future event will be,’ including every event in the life of each person. Any freedom of the human will is therefore, on the face of it, out of the question” .
https://chadebrack.com/stoic-fatalism-is-it-bad/

Since yours is a monist view, I assume all people in your view are also patterns at the end of the day correct? Wouldn't that result in fictional people "existing" in the same way you and I exist? — khaled

My worldview is Monist in the sense that it assumes, as an axiom, a single ultimate Origin of all particular patterns (entities). That hypothetical-but-logically-necessary Source is what I call "The Enformer" or "First Cause". But our physical senses are tuned to detect & interpret physical patterns, not the meta-physical "Pattern Maker". However, we can infer the Necessary Being*1 as a transcendent creative force via Reasoning from mundane experience with phenomena and causation.

I'm not sure what you mean by "fictional people". In the movie The Matrix, Neo is a fictional character, who is portrayed as a personal pattern in two fictional worlds : A> simulated normal reality (computer-generated data patterns) and B> gritty actual reality (nature-generated data patterns). Presumably, human viewers of the movie can tell the difference between imaginary movie characters and observed reality people. Yet, the movie presents a philosophical dilemma in which the simulations are so close to real phenomena that they seem to "exist" in the same way you and I do. However, in the physical world, we can't be so easily fooled by single-sense appearances, because we have multi-sense sensors. Unfortunately, the movie presumes that the AI simulation -- converted by the pods into dream language -- is so sophisticated that a fictional steak can taste "juicy and delicious"*2.

Nevertheless, even if we flesh & blood humans can't distinguish between a high-resolution simulation and actual reality, the Programmer of Nature should know which is which. So, from that higher perspective, any fictional people will "exist" in a different sense : artificial creations existing only in the imagination of natural creatures. For example, Neo first existed as an imaginary (abstract pattern) character in the mind of the factual (concrete pattern) story creators, then was repeatedly re-created in the minds of movie-goers. Ironically, the fact that we can imagine such paradoxical situations may be what made Philosophical Skepticism necessary. :smile:


*1. Logically, The Transcendent Being persisting beyond space-time would not "exist" in the same way as you and I do, within the constraints of Space & Time. Ironically, that implication would also apply to any "fictional people". Hence, the difficulty of distinguishing between "Inferred" and "Imagined" characters.

The notion of necessary being, applied to God and withheld from man, indicates that God and man differ not merely in the characteristics which they possess but more fundamentally, in their modes of being, or in the fact that they exist in different senses of the word 'exist'. https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/scottish-journal-of-theology/article/abs/necessary-being/828B48FABE8B24A8567A8D2BF450D80B

*2. Cypher in the fictional Matrix :"You know, I know this steak doesn't exist. I know that when I put it in my mouth, the Matrix is telling my brain that it is juicy and delicious. After nine years, you know what I realize? . . . . Ignorance is bliss."
https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0133093/characters/nm0001592

I have heard many metaphysical people that believe in afterlife, psychics, and the like talk about other dimensions or even higher dimensions. But what exactly do they mean other than places that aren't here? To my knowledge dimensions are only things that have been applied to mathematics? — TiredThinker

Before the 20th century, the meaning of "Dimension" was obvious : a physical measurement, typically expressed with a vector of compass direction & measured magnitude. Then, Einstein muddied the waters by merging the three spatial (physical) dimensions with the singular temporal (mental) dimension. Next, Quantum Theory proposed the physically-vague-but-mathematically-useful notion of Meta-Physical (mathematical) Fields, imagined as extended in space, but consisting of 0-dimensional points that are defined only by reference to an imaginary grid. Eventually, the hypothetical notions of Many Worlds & Multiverses extended the range of discussable dimensions to infinity. Meanwhile, the Physical meaning of "Dimension" has been applied to various Meta-Physical (mental ; non-physical) postulations.

Last year, TPF had a thread based on the notion of a 5th Dimension of Mind/Consciousness. But when I asked the poster for a specific definition of that "dimension", she refused, on principle --- implying that I should just accept it on faith. She also declined to describe how that "dimension" could be measured. So, I concluded that she was simply applying the "5th Dimension" label to the ancient concepts of Platonic Ideals (potential Forms) and Aristotelian Metaphysics (ideas about ideas). But they weren't talking about "afterlife" or "psychic phenomena" and such.

Therefore, I concluded that postulating a "5th dimension" was merely a sneaky way to make metaphysical concepts sound more sciency. Personally, I find "Idealism" & "Metaphysics" to be more useful terms for talking about mental objects (ideas ; Philosophy), but not for discussing physical bodies & forces (corporeal ; Science). Since the topical subject "matter" of Mathematics is ideas about immaterial philosophical abstractions, it is a proper venue for discussions about higher dimensions. But, due to the non-physical intellectual nature of such abstract concepts, as with all philosophical postulates, we need to be willing to carefully define terms. And to expect some skepticism about things you can't put a finger on. :smile:

The chief difficulty with Platonism is that while proposing a distinct type of reality of mathematical entities, it must then explain how this reality interacts with everyday things. — Banno
Good question What do you think of the following explanation for explaining interaction? . . . .
In this view, mathematical entities are not a distinct type of reality. They are ideas, just like “tree.” — Art48

My tentative explanation of how Ideas interact with Real things is similar, but based on a philosophical simulation of Quantum & Information Theory. The dual entities are distinct only in the sense that the same mind can distinguish between a Thing and the idea of the Thing. Real & Ideal things are conceptually distinctive, but not epistemologically exclusive -- they are not in parallel worlds, but in the same world. You don't have to go out of this world to create an imaginary replica of a physical object.

Plato's Ideals are often portrayed as existing in some aethereal heavenly realm. But they are differentiated from mundane Reality only in the sense that mental Meta-Physics is distinct from material Physics. The human brain is physical, and interacts (communicates) with its own material body via electro-chemical signals (material information). Meanwhile, the brain also interacts (communicates) with its own ideas via something like Quantum Signal Processing : conversion of physical processes to mathematical ratios & algorithms.

In other words, specific physical energy patterns are converted into coded information functions -- in this case, the function we call "imagination" or "conception". This transformation from physical Energy to Meta-physical Information happens within the holistic system of a Person, not in some parallel world.
Of course, the detailed "how" is far over my pointy little head. So, this is just a crude macro description of the micro mechanics of Thinking. Perhaps it could only be really/ideally understood by a Mathematical Physicist. :smile:

PS__The Brain deals with Material neuro-logical patterns while the Mind works with Logical/Mathematical patterns : inter-relationships.

Quantum Signal Processing is a Hamiltonian simulation algorithm
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_signal_processing

The Hamiltonian of a system specifies its total energy—i.e., the sum of its kinetic energy (that of motion) and its potential energy (that of position)
https://www.britannica.com/science/Hamiltonian-function

I was into astrology for a while in my late teens, and I found myself seeing people's star signs in their personality. I suspected myself of confirmation bias so I tried predicting people's star signs before they told me. Absolutely hopeless. My success rate was probably worse than chance. — bert1

That was also my experience. Although skeptical of the stellar mechanism, I was impressed by the array of symbols & archetypes that had been assembled over time into a relatively simple, but sufficiently comprehensive, pattern of options from which to assemble a meaningful story. Consequently, found the personality charts of sun signs more useful than the astronomical data. For example, I typically view Donald Trump as a prideful Leo*1, but he could also be a two-faced Gemini, depending on your observations & assumptions.

So, Astrology seems to be a pseudoscience, but still useful for human-interest purposes. Also, like Alchemy & Chemistry, centuries of trial & error & imagination finally resulted in something more reliable -- not for predicting human fates, but for predicting star & planet futures via Astronomy. :smile:

*1. Typical sun in Leo traits include being confident, comfortable being the center of attention, drama-adoring, ambitious, loyal, fiercely protective of their nearest and dearest, generous, luxury-loving, sunny, and big-hearted.