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

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

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

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

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



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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

As for the limits of reductionism, — Agent Smith

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

For the 'ontology of information'[/quote]

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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



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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

How many bits (of information) is absence? — Agent Smith

Since you sincerely asked the question, I'll answer it, from the Shannon perspective, with a quote from Quanta magazine :

"If someone tells you a fact you already know, they’ve essentially told you nothing at all. Whereas if they impart a secret, it’s fair to say something has really been communicated.
This distinction is at the heart of Claude Shannon’s theory of information. Introduced in an epochal 1948 paper, “A Mathematical Theory of Communication,” it provides a rigorous mathematical framework for quantifying the amount of information needed to accurately send and receive a message, as determined by the degree of uncertainty around what the intended message could be saying.
Which is to say, it’s time for an example.
In one scenario, I have a trick coin — it’s heads on both sides. I’m going to flip it twice. How much information does it take to communicate the result? None at all, because prior to receiving the message, you have complete certainty that both flips will come up heads."
www.quantamagazine.org
/how-claude-shannons-concept-of-entropy-quantifies-information-20220906/

Technically, this example is not about "Absence" (0 bits) but about "Certainty" (1 bit). But, if you already possess the information, its additional value is zero, nothing, nada, absentio. :smile:

It is speculated (theorized?) that time began with this event called the BIg Bang, as did space, in the context of spacetime. So there is no "before" the BB. So originally there was complete monism that fragmented as time progressed. Well, just more babble (rubble) I suppose. — jgill

Just as some people can't accept that Life ends with Death, others can't believe that continuous Time began with a Bang. One alternative rationale is to assume that space-time itself is eternal. Hence, contingent worlds like ours are just a drop in a bottomless bucket. Another desperate diversion was to slice the Big Bang into imaginary bits of sub-planck-time, in order to allow enough temporal "space" for hypothetical super-luminal Inflation to organize the unformed Potential of the Singularity into actual physical patterns that we can detect in the Cosmic Microwave Background. In that case, Time is like Water (fluid monism), it has no obvious joints, so you can carve it arbitrarily fine. Bubble, rubble, boil & babble. :joke:



It would be nice if we could, as Plato wrote, carve nature at its joints: 'Plato famously employed this “carving” metaphor as an analogy for the reality of Forms (Phaedrus 265e): like an animal, the world comes to us predivided. Ideally, our best theories will be those which “carve nature at its joints”.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7518925/

How many bits (of information) is absence? A hint: Any letter in the English alphabet e.g. "a" is 1 byte in Windows text document. Even empty space (absence) " " is 1 byte.
By the way, arigato gozaimus for the patience you've shown me as you walk me through this. — Agent Smith

Apparently, you are trying to make the holistic Enformationism thesis fit neatly into Shannon's particular Information theory. Shannon was a Reductive engineer, whose interest was in numerical carrying capacity instead of conceptual meaning. But my philosophical interest is in the personally significant contents, not the empty container. Focusing on the abstract numbers misses the whole point of Information Communication. It's the emptiness (absence) inside the container that has functional human value (to convey meaning). Therefore, I wouldn't worry about insignificant bits when the OP question is about philosophical arguments for a Cosmic Creator. [♾️bits & bytes ]

Information : Shannon vs Deacon :
Originally, the word “information” referred to the meaningful software contents of a mind, which were assumed to be only loosely shaped by the physical container : the hardware brain. But in the 20th century, the focus of Information theory was on its material form as changes in copper wires & silicon circuits & neural networks.
Now, Terrence Deacon’s book about the Causal Power of Absence requires another reinterpretation of the role of Information in the world. He quotes philosopher John Collier, “The great tragedy of formal information theory [Shannon] is that its very expressive power is gained through abstraction away from the very thing that it has been designed to describe.” Claude Shannon’s Information is functional, but not meaningful. So now, Deacon turns the spotlight on the message rather than the medium.
http://bothandblog4.enformationism.info/page26.html

PS__Be careful how you hang around with Freethinkers on this forum. is the self-appointed Chief Heresy Inquisitor. And he might hang us both with our own rope : personal opinions.
Dou itashimashite :cool:

“We must all hang together, or most assuredly we will all hang separately."
___Benjamin Franklin

Monism is the philosophy that everything in the universe is a manifestation of a single thing. . . . Science seems to be going in the direction of monism. — Art48

The current scientific model of reality is indeed grudgingly Monistic, but most scientists are more interested in the Pluralistic parts. When the Big Bang theory implied that the universe (one world) had a Monistic beginning in a mathematical Singularity, some offended scientists immediately began to look for models more compatible with their Reductionist perspective. A popular alternative to a unique act of creation is the concept of a Multiverse. Which implies that our Miniverse (many worlds) is just one meaningless instance in a beginningless series of bangs like an unbounded pan of popcorn. Ironically, the all-encompassing Multiverse itself is conceptually singular & infinite & eternal & creative. Almost like a traditional god, except it's imagined as mindless & purposeless. But, if so, whence the purposeful minds in our little corner of this bubble universe? :joke:

Does your theory quantify information like Claude Shannon's does? I noticed that you didn't answer my question. Lemme ask again: Is there any message in Enformationism whose information content is 0 (bits)? Explain both yes and no answers to that question ... please. — Agent Smith

I did answer your question, not with scientific quantitative data, but with philosophical qualitative "absence". Unfortunately, even Qualia would have to be quantified into 1s & 0s, in order to transmit it over the internet. Unless, of course, you just feel what I feel. It's a both-Yes-and-No answer. "You feel me?"

Feel me is a term used to see if someone understands what you are talking about.
Example #1
Some guy: absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, you feel me?
Another guy: Yeah.
https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Feel%20Me
Dig me : Get where I'm coming from.
https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=dig%20me
Note -- "Grok" is another term for qualitative understanding.

On a topic more closely related to the OP, "Holism" is not quantifiable, because it is not reducible to particular isolated atoms or bits -- electrons & grains of sand are interchangeable, but the whole system is unique (one of a kind). Entropy fragments, but Enformy unifies.

I'm currently reading a book by German theoretical physicist Sabine Hossenfelder : Existential Physics. In which she explains some physical concepts from a philosophical perspective. Today's chapter is entitled : "Are you just a bag of atoms?". She claims that she is "not a reductionist hardliner". but then admits : "If you say 'holism", I hear 'bullshit' ". The chapter is about Reductionism vs Holism, and Monism vs Dualism. So, she admits to a professional prejudice : "having said that, as a particle physicist by training, I have to inform you that the available evidence tells us that the whole is the sum of the parts, not more and not less." [emphasis in text]

However, a bit of Holism sneaks in by the back door. She discusses the scientific method of "coarse graining", in which "irrelevant information" is discarded via abstraction. But, what's irrelevant to a pragmatic scientist may be essential to a speculative philosopher. At the end of the chapter, she summarizes her answer to the topical question. "the characteristic features of a creature or object are the relations and interactions among many constituent particles, not the particles themselves." Ironically, that is a concise definition of Holism : what makes a whole system is not a pile of parts, like grains of sand, but the relations & interactions that bind those loose grains into a solid block of concrete. You could quantify the millions of grains of sand, but there is only one whole concrete block. "You dig me?". :joke:

PS___"Relations" are mental, not physical. And "interactions" are functional, not material.

EnFormAction :
Plato’s Forms were described, not as things, but as the idea or concept or design of things. The conceptual structure of a thing can be expressed as geometric ratios and relationships which allow matter to take-on a specific shape. So, in a sense, the ideal Form of a real Thing is the mathematical recipe for transforming its potential into actual.
http://bothandblog2.enformationism.info/page29.html

If that's the case, I feel that everything is, in line with your theory, information. In other words "O bits/bytes" never applies!? — Agent Smith

Yes. The realization that "everything is information" was the insight that led me to the Enformationism thesis. Others have come to a similar conclusion. For example, physicist Max Tegmark has developed a hypothesis that everything in the universe is Mathematics, as in the coded programs running on the Matrix. I agree, to a degree. But Mathematics is completely abstract, and seems to need something else to put flesh on the bones. In my thesis, that "something extra" is Intention or Direction. That's what causes a coded program to "seek" an answer to a specific problem. In the case of our universe, I don't know what the Ultimate Question was. But, from our position in the middle of the calculation, it seems to be about Complexity & Consciousness.

In Isaac Asimov's short story The Last Question, the protagonist asked the most powerful computer of the 1950s, Multivac, "how can the net amount of entropy of the universe be massively decreased?" [Note : decreased Entropy means increased Order, and I call that anti-entropy principle : Enformy -- the power to enform; to increase order ; to make something where before there was nothing.] Unfortunately, the computer popped a few vacuum tubes, and wearily replied : "insufficient data for a meaningful answer". And that's what the anti-fine-tuning posters are saying, implicitly. Because, they are not aware of the power of Absence.

When you said "0 bits/bytes never applies", you are ignoring the fact that binary computer codes use just as many zeros as ones [see below]. The ancient Greeks abhorred the notion of Nothingness. Hence, their math had no place for Zeros. So, it took centuries for mathematicians to realize that math was much easier to do, if you included a symbol for Nothing. That symbol had no positive or negative value, so it served only as a placeholder. In other words, the Zero was a symbol of un-actualized Potential. And the power of Potential is still under-appreciated to this day. Yet, even materialist physicists were forced to conclude that the vacuum of space is not nothing. It has the inherent Potential for energy & particles. Hence, empty Space is just a placeholder. And Zero sometimes "applies" to Reality. :nerd:


Power of Absence :
Terrence Deacon's 2011 book, goes into great detail to create a plausible hypothesis for solving the mystery of how living organisms suddenly emerged on Earth, after billions of years of spatial expansion & material aggregation had managed to build only simple inorganic chemical systems that strictly obeyed the zero-sum 2nd law of Thermodynamics. Those structures, such as stars, converted raw energy into lifeless lumps of matter that did little to slow the astronomical waste of energy known as Entropy. So what's the difference between stars and the organic chemistry we now know as Biology? What changed a zero-sum world into a non-zero (positive) environment suitable for human habitation?

Deacon thinks the answer is “Constraints”, which are not physical fences, but metaphysical patterns of Potential. He calls these statistical opportunities “Absences”, because they are merely empty spaces that can be filled by actual things ─ like those in a jigsaw puzzle. The puzzle solver that decides what will fit those gaps is active Information (e.g. natural selection). In terms of my Enformationism thesis, Information (passive) is stored or constrained energy (potential), and Enformation (active) is directed or channeled energy (kinetic). Information can be stored in a mind as meaning, or in a battery as electric potential. EnFormAction is energy "flowing" in an organized system. Organs are channels for energy flow, or corrals for storage. Organisms redirect energy for their own purposes.
http://bothandblog3.enformationism.info/page33.html


BINARY REALITY IS BUILT ON THE DISTINCTION BETWEEN SOMETHING & NOTHING

A point against fine-tuning which I didn't mention is that a great deal of the surface of the Earth (oceans, deserts, top of mountains) are hostile to human life in that a unclothed human being would soon die. And in 99.999999... percent of the universe, a human being would die instantly. — Art48

True. And yet, on a blue speck of dust, in a remote arm of a minor galaxy, in the midst of millions of apparently lifeless galaxies, against impossible odds, something unusual happened. Dust became Life, and Life became Mind, and Mind is on the verge of populating the solar system, by making uninhabitable places conform to its needs. Obviously, the gambling odds against such a cosmic accident are astronomical (bet on the underdog : take Accident plus 999999999 points).

So, the initial conditions of our world were undoubtedly "special", But does that mean "specified"? In the absence of a "smoking gun", your interpretation of the circumstantial evidence is necessarily subjective, and may be biased by prior beliefs (glass half empty vs half full?). Nevertheless, philosophically -- on the face of it -- does this set-up sound more like a cosmic accident, or a divine miracle, or just Nature being creative? :joke:


The arrow of time and the initial conditions of the universe :
The existence of a thermodynamic arrow of time in the present universe implies that the initial state of the observable portion of our universe at (or near) the “big bang” must have been very “special”.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1355219806000396


Fine-tuning is a scientific observation, but why? is a philosophical question :
Even atheistic scientists have been baffled and fascinated by the “Cosmological Coincidences” they encounter as they scan the physical universe. Puzzling over the practical implications of a variety of otherwise meaningless “dimensionless ratios”, some of those seekers reached an intriguing interpretation. It appears that those abstract aspects of the universe’s structure imposed “conditions necessary to generate observers”. Which raised the non-scientific, but philosophical question, “why?” Was the eventual emergence of questioning creatures merely an accidental effect of random evolution? Or was the creation of homo sapiens intentional?
http://bothandblog7.enformationism.info/page16.html

PALE BLUE DOT AS SEEN FROM SATURN

Even nothing is information. What do you suppose this means for your theory? I'm curious. — Agent Smith

In your computer, even opening & closing a file changes at least one bit in a register. So, the memory reported that change in terms of its minimum value : a byte -- indicating something changed but nothing remains. Still curious? Read on :

Claude Shannon realized the significance of Nothing. That's why his information-carrying digits are 1s & 0s : something & nothing. That nothingness-has-value is essential to my "theory". A key concept, that is also counter-intuititve, but makes sense from a BothAnd perspective, is the Power of Absence. Mathematician & Science writer Charles Seife wrote a best-seller book on the novel notion of nothing : Zero, Biography of a Dangerous Idea. Check it out.

Also, my blog post What is EnFormAction refers to Terrence Deacon's seminal book Incomplete Nature, How Mind Emerged From Matter, in which he introduces the eyebrow-raising concept of Causal Absence. Metaphorically, you can understand that "Gravity sucks", even though it is not a material thing or physical force. Although Gravity is merely the geometry of empty space, nothingness, it causes the whole universe to conform to its absential shape.

Since you may not click on many of the links in my posts, I have pasted part of the EFA post below, for your edification. EFA is just a post-quantum angle on the vague classical definition of Energy -- as a mysterious "ability" of Nature. EFA focuses on the power of Potential (non-actual ; virtual) and on the universality of Information (power to enform). "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence", though. And absence may even be evidence for fine-tuning of the initial conditions from which our physical world emerged : Teleology -- the future end state defines the path (say what??). :nerd:

PS__Holism, which 180 mistakenly equates with pseudoscientific "woo", also includes undetectable, but inferrable, meta-physical Absence as a binding force of multi-part organizations : Systems Theory.
"In physics — Holism in science, holistic science, or methodological holism is an approach to research that emphasizes the study of complex systems."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holism_in_science
PPS__Incidentally, in Chinese, "woo" means "none". And "woo-woo" refers to ghosts. Ni hao!


EnFormAction is not a physical force, pushing objects around. It’s more like Gravity and Strange Attractors of Physics that “pull” stuff toward them. It is in effect a Teleological Attractor. How that “spooky action at a distance” works may be best explained by Terrence Deacon’s definition of “Absence”.
http://bothandblog2.enformationism.info/page29.html

What is EnFormAction? :
Literally, the act of enforming --- to fashion, to create, to cause.
1. Metaphorically, the Will of G*D flowing through the world to cause evolutionary change in a teleological direction.
2. Immaterial Information is almost always defined in terms of its physical context or material container. (e.g. mathematical DNA code in chemical form)
3. Raw En-Form-Action has few, if any, definable perceivable qualities. By itself, Information is colorless, odorless, and formless. Unlike colorless, odorless, and formless water though, Information gives physical form to whatever is defined by it.
4. Like DNA, Information shapes things via internal rather than external constraints. Like the Laws of Physics, Information is the motivating & constraining force of physical reality. Like Energy, Information is the universal active agent of the cosmos. Like Spinoza's God, Information appears to be the single substance of the whole World.
5. Information is the Promethean power of transformation. Information is Generic in the sense of generating all forms from a formless pool of possibility : the Platonic Forms.
http://bothandblog2.enformationism.info/page29.html

EFFECTIVENESS OF EMPTINESS

I believe what you said in a previous post obtains - I'm unable to grok your theory of EnFormaction. Perhaps, like some quantum physicists claim, uncertainty (yin/true/1 OR yang/false/0) is a feature (of reality) and NOT a bug (in our epistemic methodology). Ignorance (noise) is part and parcel of knowledge (signal). Gracias, good day. — Agent Smith

What I said was, that you seem to have a problem with Holism, the ability to see both Forest and Trees. The exclusive Either/Or Reductionism of modern Science & Philosophy is directly opposed to a more inclusive BothAnd Holistic worldview.

Uncertainty is indeed a dubious feature of our world. Yet Information is the key to reducing uncertainty, by replacing ignorance with knowledge ; or mis-information with verity. So, perhaps you are simply missing some information, that might plug the holes in your understanding of the essential & universal role of Information in the physical world. Or you may have some outdated information (intuition?) that conflicts with a novel concept (Creative Energy). Random Energy alone can be destructive (Entropy ; Noise), but Non-random Energy is constructive (Organization ; Signal). Hence, EnFormAction accounts for all of the emergent novelty of heuristic Evolution.

Actually, my coined term (EFA) is not so difficult to grok, if you are able to look at both sides of the same coin at the same time. That made-up word merely refers to the common combination of Energy & Information. For example, a guided missile is not just a bomb, but a bomb with a mandated mission. The explosive side of the missile is energetic matter, visible & tangible. But the guiding side is invisible & intangible coded information on how to seek & destroy a moving target. Just as some trained hands were necessary to put together the dangerous chemicals of the dumb bomb, a trained mind was required to organize the instructions for guiding the physical chemicals to their intended target. It's the specified intention that makes the difference between the blind bombs of WWII and Ukranian drones. De nada. :wink:


How information is related with uncertainty? :
Uncertainty is viewed as a manifestation of some information deficiency, while information is viewed as the capacity to reduce uncertainty.
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1002/0471755575.fmatter

Introduction to Enformationism :
Like Einstein’s Theory of Relativity and the various theories of Quantum Mechanics, Enformationism is a simple, but counter-intuitive, concept that requires curiosity and motivation to reach a general understanding.
http://bothandblog6.enformationism.info/page85.html

The EnFormAction Hypothesis :
EnFormAction is intended to be an evocative label for a well-known, but somewhat mysterious, feature of physics : the Emergent process of Phase Change (or state transitions) from one kind (stable form) of matter to another.
http://bothandblog3.enformationism.info/page23.html

If gravity isn't actually a force and it curves space but we don't notice it perhaps we only see 3 dimensions of space when there are actually 4 or more? We look straight and see different things from where we'd ultimately end up if there was a strong gravity. If we saw 4 dimensionally would we not see things only as if there were only straight lines and have it be accurate? — TiredThinker

I wouldn't worry about how many dimensions there are -- as long as you are not walking near a cliff. All dimensions are inferred, hence imaginary. What you infer depends on what you are looking for. And mathematicians are comfortable with models of abstract (less than real) worlds. For example, some physics theories say the world must have 11 dimensions, and some mystical theories postulate a fifth dimension of mind. Also the currently popular Holographic theory says that our reality exists on the surface of a 2 dimensional bubble. Which implies that we are all Flatlanders, with no cliffs to worry about. :joke:


The Entire Universe as a Two Dimensional Object :
That means that every single bit of information that we see in three dimensions is encoded somewhere on the “surface” of the universe in only two dimensions.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/fernandezelizabeth/2020/01/21/could-our-universe-be-2-dimensional-black-holes-offer-a-clue/?sh=27579d6bfc9a

Isn't there something philosophical that one can state about lucid dreaming? — Shawn

For me, lucid dreaming was more pragmatic than philosophical. Years ago, I had been reading about human attempts to fly like a bird, and also about the physics of wings. So, one night, I consciously imagined my "Self" on a sloping grassy field with a winged apparatus, similar to Leonardo's, on my back. As I slipped into a half-dream, I ran down the hill and lifted off. Then, I flew soundlessly above the tree tops, and heard dogs barking below. It was so cool, I wanted to do it again. It was easy to flap & fly in the dream, but not very practical in real life, for the pectorially-deficient.

Therefore, on subsequent nights, I began to add a battery-powered back-pack, and to redesign the wings themselves, in order to make them more functional. Since, bat-wings were not ideal for my purposes, and I couldn't fabricate frilly feathers -- I told you this was a pragmatic dream -- I used something more like thin flexible over-lapping scales. Long story short, I continued to experience the ethereal feeling of flying, without ever leaving the ground -- or crashing. And I wasn't hallucinating, so the experience was no more mystical than an ordinary dream.

Consequently, my philosophical insight was that sentient dreaming was merely my brain creating fictional stories out of semi-random bits of personal experience and learned knowledge, plus a subliminal desire or remembered intention. If I had been taking a hallucinogenic drug, like ayahuasca, I might have later believed that I had been magically transformed into a bird or a jaguar. But, my bed-bound "trips" were merely mundane fantasies that I had some conscious control over. :cool:

To me, reality is the computation of probability. In this way one would eventually be living. I have no idea what probability has to do with a creator. Does anyone else? — Josh Alfred

One way to look at that question is to think of the physics of the Big Bang. The theory implies that a pre-existing dimensionless Singularity began in a highly improbable state of low Entropy. If you bisect a Bell Curve graph, call the left side The Past and the right side The Future. Now, place the BB Singularity at the peak of the curve, where Potential Order is maximum and Entropy is minimum. Then ask the question : how did the universe get that head-start? How did the roller-coaster get to the top of the hill? Statistically, that highly-improbable initial condition is almost impossible.

There are two ways to explain such an unlikely state of Nature. 1> An infinite Multiverse (maximum space-time-matter-energy) spawned a mini-verse by donating a bit of organizational potential. Or, 2> an eternal Mathematician imagined a game that begins in crystalline order, then proceeds to roll the dice "chanting seven-come-eleven". As luck would have it, the result was more wins (order) than losses (disorder). Thus a randomized process increased in organization and complexity, despite the thermodynamic law of Entropy. So, we can infer a counter-force that I like to call "Enformy", to convert vague possibility to likely probability, then to real actuality. :smile: :meh: :gasp:

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

Let's discuss the binary yin-yang aspect of your theory if you don't mind. According to skepticism, pragmata (issues, topics, etc.) are adiaphora (logically undifferentiated) and for that reason both thesis & antithesis exist as part of our lives, which is true is anepikrita (undecidable). In other words in the ideaverse at least the yin-yang state of affairs is not because we possess information but because we lack information to help us determine the truth. What sayest thou? — Agent Smith

The binary-within-unity Yin-Yang philosophy is neither Pollyanna nor Candide. It admits that "bad sh*t happens", but on-the-whole the good vs evil struggle averages-out to good-enough. Otherwise, life would be intolerable, and homo sapiens would never have survived long enough to infer generalities (wholes) from specifics (parts). So yes, Yin-Yang, and my own BothAnd worldview, are acknowledgements of the evolutionary Hegelian Dialectic : the world progresses despite conflicts & contradictions.

Our limited experience of the world, and our limited imagination of possibilities, sometimes causes us to see only the trees, and to remain ignorant of the forest. Holism -- the unifying circle around the dualistic Yin/Yang -- is not an observation, but an inference. So, it requires both factual information and counter-factual imagination. When Yin & Yang are equal, the result is harmony. But such a balanced win-win system is also "undecidable", in that there is no clear winner. In that case, win-lose Black vs White thinking is frustrated. Is that blockage due to "lack of information" or to deliberate ignorance of the other side of the equation? :nerd:

Thou Art That (Tat Tvam Asi) : relation between individual & absolute ; between part & whole


YIN + YANG = PROGRESS (please ignore the Marxist propaganda)

TRANSFORMATION = INFORMATION

Gimme time to process all that. Ciao! — Agent Smith

"There's no time like the present".

I'm currently reading a book by theoretical physicist Sabine Hossenfelder. In a chapter entitled, Is Math All There Is, she interviewed physicist Tim Palmer, who studies the chaos of climate using AI. They made a comment that has an indirect bearing on this thread. We "independently arrived at similar conclusions about the lack of progress in the foundations of physics. We both pointed the finger at physicist's overreliance on reductionism" [bold in text] . Hence, the need for a judicious use of holistic methods to understand the mushy quantum foundations of physics. And that also applies to understanding the foggy initial conditions of the Big Bang, upon which the inference of "fine tuning" is based.

Referring to both the Big Bang and to religious creation myths, she asked "What do we mean by this word creation anyway?" She then discusses the meta-physical [my word] mathematical methods of physics. "Is an atom just mathematics? Is mathematics all that is? Or is there something, a substance or something, that makes stuff real and is not part of the modern scientific canon?" [my bold]. To that, my answer is yes : Generic Information. Just as Einstein equated insubstantial Energy with substantial Matter, I equate ideal EnFormAction with all the physical stuff of Reality. From a Reductive approach, that does not make sense. But from a Holistic perspective, it not only makes sense, it makes substance. :nerd:

PS___Take your time. With patience, a meaningful image may appear from within the noise of nonsense.


"I am not trying to advocate this . . . but you could say God created the universe as a piece of mathematics" ___mathematical physicist Tim Palmer

Information :
Knowledge and the ability to know. Technically, it's the ratio of order to disorder, of positive to negative, of knowledge to ignorance. It's measured in degrees of uncertainty. Those mathematical 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" or "Co-operation".
http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page11.html

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

What is EnFormAction? :
4. Like DNA, Information shapes things via internal rather than external constraints. Like the Laws of Physics, Information is the motivating & constraining force of physical reality. Like Energy, Information is the universal active agent of the cosmos. Like Spinoza's God, Information appears to be the single substance of the whole World.
http://bothandblog2.enformationism.info/page29.html

Is This a Designer Universe? :
However, another path of Logic assumes that the most important aspect of reality to non-scientists is personal Consciousness — the essence of humanity — which can't be adequately explained as the output of material mechanisms. So the most reasonable candidate for the source of such noumenal Qualia would be a creative mind of some kind : Mind makes minds. That's why most thinkers, until recently, have imagined their hypothetical uber-mind in allegorical terms of a bigger & better human awareness. Unfortunately, that reasonable supposition included some extra baggage in the form of human emotions that are inherent functions of the physical human body, and may not apply to discarnate spiritual entities. Which is why most philosophers, not concerned with religious myth-making, have portrayed the transcendent ultimate Mind in terms of abstract principles with no physical form, as exemplified in Brahman, Tao, Dharma, Logos, and Spinoza's Pantheistic “substance”.
http://www.bothandblog.enformationism.info/page49.html

IMAGE APPEARS FROM BACKGROUND NOISE

So you're asking me to "zoom out" to get an idea of what Holism is all about. That maketh sense!, I wonder though whether this conforms to the standard interpretation of monism (don't you havta zoom in?) — Agent Smith

Ha! This is what I was referring to in the note about language. One way to understand the term "Monism" is as a huge Atom, with no internal parts -- just one big thing. But, as 180 pointed out, philosophers had to clear-up the confusion by creating the concept of Dialectical Monism*1. Yet, for some, it may only confuse them further, because it adds the scary notion of "transcendence". My substitute for that baggage-laden word is the equally fraught "Meta-Physics", referring to the aspects of our world that are not physical -- such as Mathematics, Logic, & Mind. They have no space-time dimensions, and are holistic (general) in their function, as immaterial connectors or links between otherwise isolated things or ideas.

When a Whole System is defined as "more than the sum of its parts", the extra piece of the puzzle is metaphysical (i.e. transcendental). It transcends Physics in the sense that it has no physical properties, except a geometric relationship. That holistic binding "force" can only be measured by its observed effects (form changes) on physical objects. [unlike the Tractor Beam in Star Trek, which is a visible ray of something like narrowly focused gravity]. The Holistic Force is more like an invisible intangible ghost that pulls heavy books off a shelf. But you can understand it metaphorically, as-if some new hypothetical physical Force appears to bond independent things into a single object. For this discussion, we can call that imaginary glue : the Systematizing Force. (Physicists also have an imaginary or metaphorical force that holds sub-atomic particles together : Gluons)*2.

Another way to "zoom out" is to first zoom in. Your desk or table appears to you as a single solid object (a whole system) with a special function : to hold your laptop off the floor. But, if you zoom-in to take a closer look, you see molecules of cellulose, held together by lignin. And their function is not to hold up laptops. Zoom-in even further, and you see various carbon & hydrogen atoms swirling around, yet again, those parts of the whole have nothing directly to do with supporting laptops. Go deeper into the queer quantum level of reality, and you find parts of your desk that are invisible to the naked eye. In fact, the atom itself is 90% empty space. And what little Matter is there, consists of mathematical Mass, that can only be defined in terms of Einstein's equation of weightless Energy with inertial Mass, multiplied by a dimensionless number "C". Energy itself is statistical potential, and its function is only to cause change in material objects by clipping-apart-or-together the bonding forces of Mass.

So yes, you have to 'zoom-in" toward the metaphysical Essence*3 of particular things, before you can appreciate the Whole, by "zooming-out" to see combined form of all those tiny-tings, bound together by the transcendental Substance of systems. And in my own thesis, both essence and substance are the same stuff : EnFormAction -- the power to cause change of form. :nerd:



*1. Dialectical Monism :
Dialectical monism, also known as dualistic monism or monistic dualism, is an ontological position that holds that reality is ultimately a unified whole, distinguishing itself from monism by asserting that this whole necessarily expresses itself in dualistic terms. For the dialectical monist, the essential unity is that of complementary polarities, which, while opposed in the realm of experience and perception, are co-substantial in a transcendent sense.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dialectical_monism

*2. Gluon :
a. The meaning of GLUON is a hypothetical neutral massless particle held to bind together quarks to form hadrons.
b. an unobserved massless particle with spin 1 that is believed to transmit the strong force between quarks,

*3. Aristotle : A substantial form is the essence of a substance

Pardon my obtuseness, but I still don't get monism. Lemme try and explain my bewilderment. Light means not dark and vice versa. So, my brain tells me, that light and dark can't be unified as one. My intuition is probably flawed but, in my defense, I offer an example: Both good & evil can't originate - they're contradictory i.e. if one is the other isn't and if the other is, the one isn't - from the same source and hence God & Satan. Contradictions/opposites are destructive to monist philosophies in my humble opinion. — Agent Smith

I can pardon obtuseness of ignorance, but not the bias of Materialism. :joke:

You don't "get" Monism, because you don't "grok" Holism. It's a general statistical concept, not a specific sensory physical observation ; probabilities, not actualities. For example, upon close examination, your computer screen is composed of black & white pixels. But, when you zoom-out, you no longer see individual pixels, but an average of blacks & whites, that you perceive as gray. The black & white pixels are still there, and they are still opposites in degree of light reflection (100% vs 0%). But, your brain merges & interprets those zillions of points of light & dark, as a shade of gray. The key piece of information here is "interpretation". Your senses perceive (actual) physical values, but your mind conceives (probable) metaphysical meanings.

Most of us naively assume that what we perceive is what's real. But our physical perceptions only detect abstract patterns of energy inputs of various values, light & dark. Which our brains interpret into a few common patterns we recognize as forms. Then, our rational minds interpret those forms into significance for Self. So, patterns are physical (material), but meanings are meta-physical (mental). That's why Kant concluded that we never directly see the ding an sich (ultimate Reality), but only the images of reality constructed by our sense-making minds (personal Ideality).

In terms of my personal Enformationism thesis, the basic substance of reality is the same everywhere (Potential). But it changes form in different contexts (Actual). For example, the individual pixels on your screen are physical phosphors or doped silicon, that convert electric inputs into photons of light. When those massless photons impact the retina of your eye, they transform into chemical energy, which then transforms into electrical energy, and so forth, until finally those individual inputs are merged into patterns, which the mind mysteriously transforms into non-physical meaning relative to the observer. It's all Information, all the way down. But the original isolated pixels are ignored, and only their statistical average is converted into merged holistic images that remind us of something we are already generally familiar with (meaning). So, your things are statistics and your Reality is Imaginary. :nerd:


Philosophy of Statistics :
A statistical hypothesis is a general statement that can be expressed by a probability distribution over sample space, i.e., it determines a probability for each of the possible samples.
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/statistics/

Why Our Brains Do Not Intuitively Grasp Probabilities :
We are not equipped to perceive atoms and germs, on one end of the scale, or galaxies and expanding universes, on the other end.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/why-our-brains-do-not-intuitively-grasp-probabilities/

Note : Our language is based on physical Percepts not metaphysical Concepts. Which is why such words as "observation", "pattern", & "substance" can be confusing, unless we are careful to define what we mean in each case. In this context, "substance" does not mean material stuff, but mental ideas about stuff.

HOLISM IS STATISTICAL UNITY OF ACTUAL PLURALITY

By quieting the stream and searching within. Meditation. Sitting in a quiet room. But the stream goes on. I relive experiences and thoughts of the day. But if I sit long enough, the stream flows more slowly. If the stream stops, you may experience yourself as Isness itself, as “Uncreated Light”—or so they say. Sadly, I don’t speak from experience. — Art48

I have practiced meditation -- including Alpha-Theta monitoring and the sensory deprivation of an isolation float chamber -- but so far have experienced no "uncreated light". Those who did psychedelic drugs in the 60s, often referred to mysterious lights, sometimes in the shape of a mandala. But such experiences can be traced to mis-firing neurons in the visual cortex. Therefore, like you, the notion of "isness", or "BEING" as I call it, remains an abstract imaginary concept.

I have read The New Theology thesis down to page 20 of 67. And I find most of it in agreement with my own post-theological worldview. Yet, I have had no mystical experiences to emotionally confirm what my dispassionate Logic has concluded about the Monad (Monism) that hypothetically contains the multitudes of pluralistic reality. I'll keep plugging-away though, and maybe I'll eventually achieve some form of Enlightenment. :cool:

I'm still not clear about the rationale for monism. If eventually one has to resort to some form of dualism/pluralism, monism feels more like wishful thinking/optional than fact/necessity. Do you have anti-information (noise) as the opposite of information (signal) in your theory? :chin: — Agent Smith

You seem to be thinking in terms of scientific Reductionism, as opposed to philosophical Holism. Apparently, you are not familiar with the philosophical concept of Integrated Systems (Wholes)*1, which is essentially the same as Monism (unified parts). Part & Whole coexist simultaneously. But the Parts may be real & physical (Quanta), while the Whole is entirely ideal & metaphysical (Qualia)*2. The parts may be in opposition to each other, like electrons (negative) and protons (positive), that working together, form the neutral Whole we call an "atom". The modern atom is not the singular (uncuttable) thing imagined by Democritus. It is an identifiable system of smaller components that are bonded & inter-related in order to serve a physical function in a larger material system. If you are interested in where the modern (pre-New Age) scientific notion of Holism came from, I suggest you get a copy of the book : Holism and Evolution*3.

Regarding "anti-information", I suppose that would be what we call "False" or "Negative", while "information" is presumed to be "Truth" or "Positive". Or, in a computer analogy, Information would be a "1" (something) and anti-information would be "0" (nothing). Those ones & zeros are like matter & antimatter : when they merge, they annihilate each other into a neutral value. But, when they are linked together by logic -- analogous to the weak & strong forces in an atom -- they can work together to absorb & transmit holistic meaning from one place to another, even though they retain their original separate values. The Whole is more than the sum of the parts (Quanta); and the "more-than" is Meaning (Qualia). That immaterial Meaning may be what you are calling "wishful thinking", because it literally doesn't matter. :cool:


*1, Holism ; Holon :
Philosophically, a whole system is a collection of parts (holons) that possesses properties not found in the parts. That something extra is an Emergent quality that was latent (unmanifest) in the parts. For example, when atoms of hydrogen & oxygen gases combine in a specific ratio, the molecule has properties of water, such as wetness, that are not found in the gases. A Holon is something that is simultaneously a whole and a part — A system of entangled things that has a function in a hierarchy of systems. . . .
http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page11.html

*2. Part/Whole : I am a physical citizen of the United States (quanta - countable in a census). But the US is a complex system, composed of over 300 million parts, bound together -- in principle -- by loyalty to the ideas engraved in the Constitution. Yet, the "United States" is merely an immaterial idea (qualia) in human minds. It's not even a single place on a map, but could be a ship on the ocean flying the US flag.

*3. Holism (from Ancient Greek ὅλος (hólos) 'all, whole, entire', and -ism) is the idea that various systems (e.g. physical, biological, social) should be viewed as wholes, not merely as a collection of parts. The term "holism" was coined by Jan Smuts in his 1926 book Holism and Evolution.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holism

To me, QM seems to say that monism is possible; not proven, just possible. Monism is the philosophy that everything in the universe is a manifestation of a single thing.. . . . If onlyIsness exists, then either Isness is God, or God doesn’t exist in the absolute sense. — Art48

Since my own personal philosophical worldview is Monistic & Holistic, the title of your OP caught my eye. I developed my Enformationism thesis from certain aspects of Quantum & Information theories. But I'm not sure how you derived philosophical Monism from the typical scientific interpretations of Quantum theory. For example, the article linked below somehow connects the Multiverse hypothesis with Monism, but I don't follow. Anyway, I down-loaded your New Theology thesis, and will look it over, as I get time.

At the moment, I'm not sure what you mean by "isness", but it sounds similar to my own notion of "BEING", as the essential "ground of being", or the "reason for existence of something instead of nothing", or the ultimate Cause of mundane beings. Exactly what the nature of that "isness" is, is hard to pin down. But for most people, it is equated with their concept of a divine creator. Yet my notion is more like a Universal Principle, like Plato's LOGOS. So, to avoid committing to any particular religious doctrine, I sometimes spell it "G*D" . Something like BEING or ISNESS must exist of necessity, or we wouldn't be here speculating. However, maybe it's none of my business, what Isness is. :joke:


BEING :
In my own theorizing there is one universal principle that subsumes all others, including Consciousness : essential Existence. Among those philosophical musings, I refer to the "unit of existence" with the absolute singular term "BEING" as contrasted with the plurality of contingent "beings" and things and properties. By BEING I mean the ultimate “ground of being”, which is simply the power to exist, and the power to create beings.
Note : Real & Ideal are modes of being. BEING, the power to exist, is the source & cause of physical Reality and mental Ideality. BEING is eternal, undivided and static, but once divided into Real/Ideal, it becomes our dynamic Reality.
http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page10.html


Quantum Monism Could Save the Soul of Physics :
The multiverse may be an artifact of a deeper reality that is comprehensible and unique
https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/quantum-monism-could-save-the-soul-of-physics/

Your theory, I realize, is reminiscent of how Thales thought of water as the arche & how Heraclitus declared fire was the arche. A monistic stance alright but what I don't get is why? Is it just our natural instinct to simplify despite the cost which is internal contradiction (how can light & dark be one?). Even you, an information monist, had to posit a yin-yang duality. — Agent Smith

Thales may have been motivated by confusion, to simplify the profusion of things down to a single amorphous substance : Water, which conforms to its container. But also by the philosophical urge to generalize : to trace the plethora of specific instances back to some ultimate Source. Likewise, Plato reasoned that the manifold & various instances of reasoning beings evolved from a monistic Potential : LOGOS. In any case, there is no "internal contradiction" between the pluralistic parts, and the monistic Whole. So, I am both a Monist and a Holist, who doesn't deny the Duality of Reality. Monism is inclusive, not exclusive.

The Yin/Yang worldview acknowledges contrasting Black & White, or Good & Evil, but the enclosing circle represents the Whole, containing & organizing disparate parts into a single functioning system. Even modern Physical scientists assume that our current complex world of manifold things is the emergent offspring of an original "Singularity". And most admit that they have no idea where that Cosmic Seed came from. Plato proposed that our complex-but-orderly real world originated from primordial ideal Chaos. Which was not chaotic in the modern sense, but merely amorphous (formless), yet pregnant with the potential for all the profusion of forms in the world today.

Therefore, even I, "an information monist", was forced by innate logic to "posit a yin-yang duality" within a Holistic Monism. You can call it The One, or the Monad, or The Singularity, or G*D, or The Enformer. Whatever makes sense to you. But it all comes down to a unique concept : the Potential to Enform -- to create novel Actual forms from amorphous Omni-Potency. In the beginning there was One, and One became two, and two became four, and so-on until the world was populated by countless things, but all bearing the genetic code of the original One. :nerd:


Arche = first, beginning, origin, source, primary, primordial

Thales was the founder of the philosophy that all of Nature had developed from one source. According to Heraclitus Homericus (540–480 BCE), Thales drew this conclusion from the observation that most things turn into air, slime, and earth. Thales thus proposed that things change from one form to another.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/engineering/thales-of-miletus

Potential of Chaos :
"The modern idea of chaos—something totally without order and seemingly disruptive by nature—was formed during Roman times.
Before that, the Greek Chaos (Khaos) was understood as a gap filled with fertile potential from which everything and anything could come."
https://wciw.org/creativity-general/chaos-and-potential/

Potential & Actual :
"Actuality and Potentiality are constrasting terms for that which has form, in Aristotle‘s sense, and that which has merely the possibility of having form.
Actuality (energeia in Greek) is that mode of being in which a thing can bring other things about or be brought about by them, the realm of events and facts.
By contrast, potentiality (dynamis in Greek) is not a mode in which a thing exists, but rather the power to effect change, the capacity of a thing to make transitions into different states."
https://www.the-philosophy.com/actuality-potentiality-aristotle

EnFormAction = the natural power to effect change of form ; causation : energy


"The circled dot was used by the Pythagoreans and later Greeks to represent the first metaphysical being, the Monad or The Absolute"


"Yin and yang is a Chinese philosophical concept that describes interconnected opposite forces. In Chinese cosmology, the universe creates itself out of a primary chaos of material energy, organized into the cycles of yin and yang and formed into objects and lives"

Your weltanschauung is impressive mon ami! It touches a chord in me - it's not just the rhetorical flourish in your posts, there's depth & breadth in it which I can sense but as of yet don't fully grasp.
I think the expression "hunting with the hounds and running with the hares" very nearly approximates but still fails to pin down your views regarding my comment on a malus deus. — Agent Smith

My weltanshauung is broad in application, but narrow in focus. It's based on the single simple inference*1 that everything in this world is a form of Generic Information (EnFormAction = causal energy + directional intention). It assumes that the pin-point singularity of the Big Bang contained no matter or energy, but only omni-potential Information, in the form of a computer-like program code. Everything else resulted from the "fine-tuning" and execution (running) of that program of gradual-but-progressive-evolution. Tegmark calls that cosmic code "Mathematics". But the more comprehensive term "information" includes the possibility for all of the above : Logic, Math, Mind, Mass, Matter, Energy, etc. For me it's the abstract-primordial-fundamental Substance*2.

The First Law of Thermodynamics says that Energy is neither created nor destroyed, but is continuously recycled. Yet, that description makes more sense with shape-shifting Information as the fundamental substance. Generic Information is the creative Potential for everything in the universe. For example : EnFormAction transforms into Energy, then into Mass, then into Matter, then into Life, then into Mind, then into Entropy (death), and the cycle begins again. That's an oversimplification, but you get the idea.

Probably the reason such a portmanteau concept (causation + information) is "hard to grasp" is that it's not yet part of the lexicon of Science or Philosophy. Like the non-classical theory of Quantum non-mechanics, it seems weird at first glance. But, when you get comfortable with the monistic notion that everything in the world is a form of Generic Information, it makes sense of some vexing physical & philosophical quandaries. One might even exclaim in relief, "mon Deiu!" :halo:


*1. How I arrived at that inference, based on cutting-edge Quantum & Information theories, is explained in the Enformationism Thesis. I'm not a practicing scientist or philosopher, so I don't concern myself with practical applications of this emerging understanding of reality. I merely use it as the basis of my personal philosophy as a retired layman.
http://enformationism.info/enformationism.info/

*2 Substance : "The most distinctive aspect of Spinoza's system is his substance monism; that is, his claim that one infinite substance—God or Nature—is the only substance that exists."
https://iep.utm.edu/spinoz-m/
"Aristotle analyses substance in terms of form and matter. The form is what kind of thing the object is, and the matter is what it is made of."
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/substance/
"In Aristotle it is the tension between essence, which makes the individual intelligible, and existence, which gives individuation to the entity,. . ."
https://ndpr.nd.edu/reviews/being-essence-and-substance-in-plato-and-aristotle/
Note -- Plato tended to emphasize the Essence (intelligibility), and Aristotle the Existence (material being), but both are included in the modern understanding of Information as the ability to Enform (to give meaningful-material Form to something).

Matter-Energy and Information :
Statistical entropy is a probabilistic measure of uncertainty or ignorance; information is a measure
of a reduction in that uncertainty
http://www.esalq.usp.br/lepse/imgs/conteudo_thumb/Matter-Energy-and-Information.pdf

SHAPE-SHIFTING INFORMATION

Please note, your argument is novel and interesting and as far as I'm concerned the only way to counter it was to replace a benevolent god with a malus deus. — Agent Smith

My own interpretation of an evolving world --- which has produced organisms that can wonder about how & why they exist --- is somewhere in between the All-Good & All-Bad theories of Ontology (the nature of being). It's more like the abstract LOGOS of Plato, which is neither good nor bad, but merely Logical, in the sense of Mr. Spock*1. Presumably, the First Cause -- of the effect we call "our world" -- had the creative Potential for Logos-Ethos-Pathos*2, since we find expressions of all those "forces" in our contingent reality.

Yet, since this world began in an unformed state, and is still working toward its final form, it is -- and always has been -- imperfect. Hence, we humans encounter both life-affirming and life-denying "forces". In our struggle to survive & thrive, we learn that evolution is neither all-bad nor all-good, but sometimes arduous & sometimes pleasant. So, the original cause of this heuristic experiment in gradual bottom-up construction necessarily included the possibility for ups & downs. But the net result is Neutral, some good, some bad. That's what I call BothAnd*3. Therefore, the mysterious Source of an expanding Singularity, which emerged from who-knows-where, was Creative, but not Malicious.

In that case, the current top-dogs of the sentient creature hierarchy -- half-formed homo sapiens -- are merely the beneficiaries of the evolutionary lottery, not the darlings of the deity. And we are not necessarily the ultimate inheritors of the world. Evolution seems to be only halfway to its final state. Consequently, whatever this experiment was "fine-tuned" for, is an Epistemological mystery. So, the Anthropic Argument*4 is a bit premature. But, it seems to be a good guess, based on incomplete evidence. :cool:


*1. "Logic is the beginning of wisdom ... not the end." - Spock,

*2. Logos-Ethos-Pathos :
Modes of rhetoric; persuasion.
But also modes of creation -- Reason, Intention, Emotion -- logical structure, ultimate goal, & bonding inter-relationships. The mathematical & logical structure of the world is obvious. But the end state can only be guessed from minimal evidence. Yet, what holds the evolving system together during trials & tribulations is unifying cohesion.

*3. Both/And Principle :
My coinage for the holistic principle of Complementarity, as illustrated in the Yin/Yang symbol.
http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page10.html

*4. Anthropic Argument :
http://bothandblog7.enformationism.info/page10.html

BALANCE OF GOOD & EVIL

So, why would God bother to create an intricately fine-tuned universe for the sake of souls who don’t need one? — Art48

I would guess that the universe was designed, not for free-floating souls, but for embodied souls. In this case, the word "soul" refers to sentient selves -- including some animals -- not to angelic beings inhabiting a non-space-time realm. Furthermore, the "design" is still being implemented after 14 billion years, and is still not completed. So, the "fine-tuning" was merely the preset limits (natural laws) within which the evolutionary process operates. Consequently, I imagine the Singularity as a program for the creation of a self-organizing world from scratch. Design criteria were programmed into the Singularity to guide the process from Big Bang beginning to Big Sigh ending.

Who the Programmer was, and why s/he choose to create an imperfect physical world with not-yet-perfect metaphysical Minds, is beyond my ken. The most common answers to "why" have been some variation on the theme of a power relationship, that : a> a Ruler requires some rulees ; b> an all-powerful Tyrant must have some powerless slaves/serfs to push around ; c> a perfect G*D needs an ego-boost from being worshiped by lesser beings ; or c> a loving Father/Mother necessarily wants to produce children to love & nurture. None of those bottom-up perspectives makes sense from the viewpoint of a Being with the power to create worlds from scratch. So, my answer to "why" would be "huh?". :confused: :chin: :brow:


The Anthropic Cosmological Principle :
I had heard of the Anthropic Argument -- that the world was designed specifically for human habitation -- but didn’t really scrutinize it until recently. The core concept was implicit in the Intelligent Design theories of Christian apologists. And I understood the general reasoning --- from an array of puzzling scientific “coincidences”, such as the unique “initial conditions” and “fine-tuned constants” that seemed arbitrarily selected to produce a world with living & thinking creatures --- they concluded that there must be a logical reason for our being.
http://bothandblog7.enformationism.info/page10.html

You use the word "science" in the same way I use "science (modern meaning)" in the OP. In that sense, I agree with you that math, logic, epistemology, metaphysics and ethics do not fall under science (modern meaning) but under philosophy (modern meaning). — A Christian Philosophy

Yes. Those thought-experiment tools (logic, etc) are used to extract general or universal meaning from personal & local experience. As a matter of fact, theoretical & mathematical physicists (e.g. Einstein & Tegmark) are actually doing philosophy, leaving the messy hands-on mechanic-work to others*1. Ironically, some believers in Scientism act as-if the reductive & empirical methods of modern Science, have eliminated the need for the ancient holistic & intuitive methods of Philosophy. Which also provided the illuminating metaphors that inform the various worldviews of Religion (e.g. Plato's LOGOS vs John's Logos).

Unfortunately. that questionable exclusionary presumption often leaves stalwarts of Sovereign Science unable to articulate the general significance of their abstruse findings*2. Hence, their explanations sometimes take the sole-authority form of "because . . . science". In other words, their proof is based on the authoritative status of the "scientific method", which differs from Philosophy in its use of telescopes, microscopes, and cyclotrons. On the other hand, Philosophy is essentially Science without artificial tools -- using only your god-given reasoning ability : both deductive and abductive.

The distinction you seem to be making is that Scientism tends to lump Philosophy & Religion together as faith-intuition-based reasoning. Whereas, another way to look at those relationships is to view Religion & Science as the offspring of Philosophy. In that case, Science concerns itself with Physics (Matter-Energy), and Religion with Metaphysics (Mind-Soul), while Philosophy covers both aspects of this "blue dot" in the cosmos, inhabited by thinking lumps of matter : Reality & Ideality. :cool:

*1. Einstein's lab is a pencil :
"The supreme task of the physicist is to arrive at those universal elementary laws from which the cosmos can be built up by pure deduction. There is no logical path to these laws; only intuition, resting on sympathetic understanding of experience, can reach them."
https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Albert_Einstein
Note -- a child once asked Einstein, "if you are a scientist, where is your laboratory?". To which he replied, wordlessly, by holding up a pencil.

Deduction : Literally subtraction of parts from wholes, specific from general, particular from universal ; analysis of integrated systems into isolated components.

Intuition : acquiring knowledge without recourse to conscious reasoning ; to know without proof ; instinctive ; holistic insights.
That's OK for the individual. But others may not intuit exactly what you feel "rings true". Hence, the necessity for logical or empirical demonstrations that are not peculiar to a single person. Yet, skeptical sounding may find that the bell is cracked, contrary to faith-based assumptions.

*2. Thus, the many Science-for-Dummies videos on YouTube, such as Science Without the Gobbedygook and Complex Questions Answered Simply.

PS___We can't depend on Empirical Physics to test the validity of Metaphysical beliefs. Skeptical Science may discover little evidence for the physical existence of Jesus (e.g. bones in a cave ; Roman records). But belief in the role of the Christ is predicated upon the axiom of a non-physical Father in Heaven. And the only evidence to support or deny that common concept is metaphysical in (super) nature, hence a Philosophical question.

Thanks for sharing. All I can respond is keep searching for truth. I'll do the same. If one of the religions is true and can be found, then philosophy, being the search for truth, will sooner or later find it. — A Christian Philosophy

FWIW, my "search for truth" was never emotionally motivated (e.g. to find a warm & welcoming religious community to replace the ultra-conservative clique I was born into)*1. Instead, it was simply a dispassionate (agape) love of Wisdom (i.e. philosophy).

My current view is that all religions are "true" for people of faith, but are "false" for those outside the faith community. So, my current "church" is a community of one not-so-true believer. Hence, I'm standing up here alone, preaching to the invisible choir. I don't recommend it for die-hard truth-seekers. :joke:

*1. That's only partly true. After I got out of the Navy, I started going to a Unity church. But that was mostly to meet "nice" girls, and only partly out of curiosity about the way-liberal Unitarian off-shoot of the Christian religion. They had a sort of Pagan/New Agey truish Truth, but it wasn't my kind of truth. The girls were nice though.

Robert Grosseteste¹ was not a 20th century "Catholic priest" but a 13th century Bishop. (re: De Luce, 1225 CE)² — 180 Proof

Thanks for the obscure info. I had never heard of Grosseteste. I was referring to Lemaître in the 20th century. And the oblique reference was merely intended to suggest that the notion of a sudden beginning to space-time would seem more reasonable to a Christian than to an Atheist. Ever since, Atheists have been trying to find alternative philosophical (hypothetical ; speculative) explanations for the scientific evidence of a creation event (something from nothing). And they are still at it. (see below). :wink:


The Big Bang no longer means what it used to :
The idea that the Universe had a beginning, or a "day without a yesterday" as it was originally known, goes all the way back to Georges Lemaître in 1927.
Although it's still a defensible position to state that the Universe likely had a beginning, that stage of our cosmic history has very little to do with the "hot Big Bang" that describes our early Universe.
Although many laypersons (and even a minority of professionals) still cling to the idea that the Big Bang means"the very beginning of it all," that definition is decades out of date.
https://bigthink.com/starts-with-a-bang/big-bang-meaning/
Note -- In place of a magical act of creation, this article is based on the magical notion of instantaneous Inflation ("Presto!") of a universe from a random "fluctuation" in a hypothetical "field" of nothing-but Potential.

Is The Inflationary Universe A Scientific Theory? Not Anymore :
Inflation was proposed more than 35 years ago, among others, by Paul Steinhardt. But Steinhardt has become one of the theory’s most fervent critics.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2017/09/28/is-the-inflationary-universe-a-scientific-theory-not-anymore/?sh=1832b18fb45e

Sounds like a good approach to me. If you already accept a being that is the First Cause, then here is a simple argument to tie it to the God of the bible: — A Christian Philosophy

Using personal Experience and innate Reason to hack a path through the jungle of religious beliefs was my only philosophical option. A common religious/political solution is to eliminate those who believe differently (excommunicate, burn at stake). Anyway, even though I had doubts about some aspects of my childhood religion, I could think of only two explanations for why-there-is-something-instead-of-nothing : A> Eternal Something (objects) or B> Eternal Potential (creative force). Before I was born, a Catholic priest proposed a controversial scientific point-of-origin hypothesis. Shortly afterward, Astronomical evidence for expansion of everything from a single speck of space-time began to pile-up. From those bits of logic & evidence, the Big Bang theory was formulated. Which called into question, the long-standing scientific & philosophical presumption that our physical world (something) was eternal, and all there is.

At first, that idea sounded heretical to most empirical scientists. Probably because, if you accept that our Something (universe) is contingent upon some Unknown Factor outside of spacetime, the notion of an intentional world-creator begins to make sense. But those opposed, on principle, to the creator-concept preferred to imagine an infinite super-universe of randomly popping Big Bangs, and space-time without beginning or end. From the premise that some essential something (e.g. matter & space & energy & time & laws) abides forever, you can reason-out the Axiom underlying the Multiverse theory. Unfortunately, that precept is no more provable than the traditional Creator & Law-Maker assumption. It has to be taken on Faith.

But to common-sense, ever-changing (entropic/self-destructive) matter/energy is an unlikely candidate for an everlasting substance or eternal essence. So, the remaining contender is the governing Laws of organization (LOGOS), that are not subject to thermodynamic decay. That seems to be a more promising postulate for the First Cause of -- and reason for -- the Big Bang. Furthermore, since Natural Laws are a form of immaterial Information*1, I think of the presumptive Law Maker as The Enformer. Which is a Causal*2, but non-anthro-morphic, concept. And that became the axiom for my personal (philosophical, not religious) Enformationism thesis. Consequently, my worldview is not exactly Atheistic, or Pantheistic, but PanEnDeistic. Moreover, since I can't prove empirically that such a super-universal entity exists, I must remain religiously Agnostic.

Even with a philosophical First-Cause-concept, I don't "tie" that god-model to the Hebrew/Jewish/Christian/Islamic/Mormon scriptures. Based on my rational/critical investigations, none of those books "rings true" as of the Word of God. Yet, all of those "Holy Books" are accepted, on faith by millions, as authentic revelations (attested to by witnesses) from God directly, or from Angels, or other Divine Beings. From an outsider perspective though, they all have the earmarks of ordinary human fiction*3. My own religion, was a Protestant sect --- a stem off a limb branched off from the Catholic tradition. Which placed its faith in the earthly authority in the Church (i.e. Pope), instead of the canonized collection of first-century writings, assembled & edited by its own in-house redactors. Ironically, by rejecting the sovereignty of the human Pope, Protestants were forced to rely on unaided fallible human Reason to interpret their inherited Catholic scriptures. And the result of that freedom of interpretation is the cacophony of Christian sects we have today.

Therefore, the foundation of my back-to-the-bible religion was undermined by my own Reasoning. So, like the Atheists, I found that I could only rely on my own personal Power of Inference, to discern the "truth" of how & why there is something-instead-of-nothing. Yet, my rational philosophical approach didn't find evidence to support the notion of accidental emergence of our self-organizing world from the random roiling of self-existent atoms & forces. Instead, it came to the same conclusion that Spinoza was excommunicated for. What Blaise Pascal derisively labeled : "the god of the philosophers" (nature god). However, Spinoza assumed that the lawful physical world itself was eternal, whereas I think it was the pre-big-bang Lawmaker (the Enformer) that logically must be self-existent. Beyond that general notion derived from "the inner light" of fallible reasoning, I have no direct revelation from the LOGOS. Hence, no mandate for a worshipful or ceremonial religion. And, I can't even say, for sure, that contrary opinions are wrong. Does that sound pathetic to you? :cool:

*1. What is Information? :
Information is the power to enform, to create
http://bothandblog6.enformationism.info/page16.html

*2. Causal Information :
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Information_causality

*3. It's easy to be skeptical & critical of other people's weird beliefs. But not so toward your own principles, premises & passions.
Note -- Empirical philosopher David Hume once said that "reason is, and ought to be, the slave of the passions". He's merely saying that reason, or logic, does not produce actionable beliefs. Apparently, he exempted freethinking philosophers from that servitude.

“Science is what you know. Philosophy is what you don't know” – Bertrand Russell

“Metaphysics is a dark ocean without shores or lighthouse, strewn with many a philosophic wreck” – Immanuel Kant

“Philosophy is at once the most sublime and the most trivial of human pursuits” – William James

“The only thing I know is that I know nothing” – Socrates

It would be easier to engineer an artificial virus than an artificial mind. So fear the nanobot pandemic first. — apokrisis

Ouch! Is that why I feel so itchy & drippy around artificial organisms? :joke:

And then life and mind become the mechanical addition to this base layer of "pure organicism". — apokrisis

Ironically, the emergence of Life & Mind from the heuristics of evolution, is what resulted in Human Culture. And intentional artificial culture is now evolving much faster than the blind groping of the natural process. Anyway, I think the Simplistic Mechanistic products of techno-culture are merely the low-hanging fruit. We may have to climb the organic tree to get at the more functionally-organized systems. Systems Science is still waving a rattle in the cradle. So, there's hope that holistically-designed systems might eventually reach the sophistication of self-organized organisms that took billions of years to create. You might call it "alloyed organicism" :cool:


Evolutionary Design :
Special computer algorithms inspired by biological Natural Selection. It is similar to Genetic Programming in that it relies on internal competition 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
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolutionary_programming

Do you think artificial consciousness/ sentience is possible without understanding exactly how consciousness works? — Benj96

Possible?, maybe. Probable?, who knows? Advisable?, pioneers are seldom deterred by lack of understanding. Dangerous?, a shot in the dark is always perilous.

The physicists creating the first atomic bomb were painfully aware that they did not fully understand how splitting of atoms worked. And some even worried that such a powerful bomb might set-off a chain reaction that would ignite the atmosphere of the whole world. Yet, they persevered, because of the "better-us-good-guys-than-those-bad-guys" reasoning. Likewise, some scientists at CERN were concerned that smashing atoms together might create a black hole, that would swallow the whole world.

This is not Luddite thinking, but merely reasonable caution ( or worst case scenario), when entering unknown territory. Since we have survived both of those scary situations, I wouldn't worry too much about AI. The writers of post-apocalyptic movies do enough of that wolf-crying for the rest of us. Did you survive the Y2K, and other technological end-of-world-as-we-know-it, predictions of how meddling-with-what-we-don't-yet-understand-might-come-back-to-bite-us-in-the-end? The Stoics had a solution to such techno-fear : "what, me worry?"

My worst case fear of semi-sentient AI, developed before we even understand how natural intelligence works, is that some of those sketchy moral agents might move into my neighborhood, and lower property values. :cool:

I've studied this very issue for a long time. And as an ardent holist and organicist myself, the great irony has been to discover that life and mind – representing the highest levels of "organismic complexity" – came about by semiosis, or the ability to organise nature by employing the constraints of a mechanistic causality. — apokrisis

This is slightly off-topic, but I just read a book review in Philosophy Now magazine (issue 150), which reminded me of this thread. The name of the book is Organicity : Entropy or Evolution. Written by an Architect & Urban Planner, the book proposes an attitude of "organicity", to guide those involved in trying to deal with cultural entropy by aligning with the organic-systems-approach of Nature. This is not a new idea --- in the early 20th century, Frank Lloyd Wright called his design-with-nature approach "organic architecture" --- but the book uses some novel terminology. For instance, he labels Mechanistic Thinking (dominant & competitive) as "machinic" to contrast with "organic" (cooperative & mutual aid).

His political and economic philosophy seems to be openly socialistic. Yet he refers to it as "anarcho-communism", and says its socially-responsible adherents are "communists who won't wait for the state". He also insists, ominously, that "Nature is going to compel posterity to revert to a stable state on the material plane and to turn to the realm of spirit for satisfying man's hunger for infinity". That latter remark doesn't sound like Marx's atheistic prescription for the ills of industrial & mechanistic society. So, I suppose he's merely acknowledging that the human "spirit" cannot live on mass-manufactured bread alone (Matt 4:4). :smile: