If you have specific, credible, referenced, scientific information that describes or explains mental processes, please post it. That's what this thread is about. — T Clark

Since I'm not a practicing scientist, I don't presume to provide "specific, credible, referenced, scientific information". So, as an amateur philosopher, on a philosophy forum, I have to limit my posts to philosophical theorizing & speculation.

However, in my blog posts, I do include copious references to the informed opinions of professional scientists. And Information Theory is on the cutting edge of Mind research. I thought that might be relevant to a thread on the underlying causes of mental processes. But I now see that the OP assumes a narrow definition of what constitutes Science. So, I'll tune out. :smile:

I was clear. This is a discussion about mind from a scientific point of view, so there is no door open to "metaphysical philosophical concepts" unless they have specific, direct scientific consequences. — T Clark

Ironically, the "scientific point of view" has changed since the 20th century, in order to grapple with the non-classical & counter-intuitive aspects of Quantum & Information theory. For example, "quantum mechanics" is a misnomer, because that sub-atomic realm is neither quantized nor mechanical. Instead, it seems to be fuzzy & acausal. Hence, more amenable to philosophical methods. :smile:

But this is exactly what the people I have referenced are doing successfully. They are using standard scientific methods to study the "basic building block of Mind." apokrisis has suggested looking at mind from point of view of function rather than of process. I think that's similar to what you are proposing - a more holistic understanding. I'm still working on my response to him. — T Clark

Yes. I think of Mind as the "function" of the brain : what it does instead of what it is. In that case, the "basic building block" of mind will be an action instead of an object. That's why standard (reductive) scientific methods have given way to the novel (holistic) methods of Systems Theory, which is more like ancient theoretical & speculative Philosophy than classical empirical & factual Science.

Essentially, I view Mind as more closely related to causal Energy than to malleable Matter. Maybe the atom of Mind is an Erg (unit of work). But, I have coined my own philosophical terms, to describe Mind's relationship to Information, and the power to Enform (to cause change). However, I will follow your thread to see where it leads. :smile:

Systems Theory is the interdisciplinary study of systems, i.e. cohesive [holistic] groups of interrelated, interdependent components that can be natural or human-made. ___Wikipedia

I made a mistake. I stuck my nose into the quantum effects on thinking trap when I didn't have to. I should have kept my mouth shut. That's not what this thread is about. It's about scientifically supported ways of thinking about mental processes not including consciousness. — T Clark

Oh, I see! You are interested in Neurobiology instead of Psychology -- neural nets & nodes instead of meanings & feelings. Apparently, you have a novel philosophical angle on that topic -- using plumbing metaphors -- that has not already been covered by Neuroscientists, who normally use flow charts & wiring diagrams. Unfortunately, by referring to "Mind" instead of "Brain", you opened the door to metaphysical philosophical concepts, instead of physical engineering diagrams.

I apologize, if my link to Enrique's posts has deflected your thread off-course. But I thought his expressed intention was similar to yours : The Physics of Consciousness. Maybe he sees a broader scope for Physics than you do. Even so, he also felt, at first, that my inclusion of Quantum and Information theory was off-topic. I suppose that's because he was thinking of "mental phenomena" in terms of classical Physical Phenomena : visually observable things and events.

However, as the OP expressed it, Mind is a continuous "process" (movie), not a single thing or event (snapshot). And ongoing processes cannot be observed via the physical senses. We only know Change by means of the the eye-of-the-mind, Reason, which cognizes (sees) invisible relationships between things & events. Yet, Cognition is not itself a material object, or a string of events, but something more ethereal : awareness, or as Damasio put it : "the feeling of what happens".

Consequently, trying to explain "mental processes" in terms of physical events seems to be a category error. But Shannon inadvertently gave us a clue to the Mind, when he applied the traditional word for the intangible contents of Mind, Information, to the coded data of computers. But those codes (strings of 1s & 0s) are merely symbols for meanings, such as "something" or "nothing". And meanings & feelings are hard to represent in still-shot graphic diagrams. Which is why philosophers and theoretical scientists resort to fanciful Analogies & Metaphors. :cool:


Neural engineering is an emerging interdisciplinary field of research that uses engineering techniques to investigate the function and manipulate the behavior of the central or peripheral nervous systems.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/neuroscience/neural-engineering

NEUROMORPHIC ANALOG IMPLEMENTATION OF NEURAL ENGINEERING

I don't see the ideas I've described as reductionist at all. If they seem that way, it's probably because I cut off chunks to highlight the aspects I find particularly interesting. — T Clark

By "reductionism", I'm referring to the method of Atomism : dissect the material word far enough down to its foundations, and you will find atoms of Mind. Scientists have been using such methods for centuries, but still have not found the the basic building block of Mind (ideas ; knowledge ; awareness). Yet, they are still looking for the elusive "ghost in the machine". At least, Enrique is looking for a whole system (Cohesion ; Integration), not a sub-Planck-scale bit of matter (Atom). :smile:


Atoms of Mind: The "Ghost in the Machine" Materializes
https://link.springer.com/book/10.1007/978-94-007-1097-9

Is quantum physics behind your brain's ability to think? :
From consciousness to long-term memories, the human brain has some peculiar computing abilities – and they could be explained by quantum fuzziness
https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg22830500-300-is-quantum-physics-behind-your-brains-ability-to-think/

panprotopsychist perspective, — Enrique

In order for the information paradigm to work, we will have to redefine what a bit is on multiple occasions. Maybe I'm not grasping an important aspect of the paradigm at this point, but information theory almost seems to me like materialism reified, with empirical content abstracted away from the episteme's foundation — Enrique

I parse "panprotopsychist" as : all + before + mind. But "proto" could also mean "earliest or most primitive form". If so, are you proposing some element of reality that is even more fundamental than Energy & Natural Laws? In the Enformationism thesis that primordial factor is EnFormAction (EFA ; the causal power to enform, to create novelty; to change ; to evolve ; the prototype of Energy). And the kind of Information we associate with minds (& computers) is just one form of the omni-potent EFA. As theoretical physicists have proposed, Matter & Energy are also forms of Generic Information (EFA). A religious term would be "the Will of G*D". But a philosophical term is Plato's "LOGOS" (the logical laws of reality). A scientific label might be something like "Energy + Coded Laws" (causation & direction).

In the Enformationism paradigm, a "bit" could be defined as an instance of EFA : an act of Creation or a bit of Being. Just like Shannon's "bit", those instances are uncountable. So, it is defined statistically as anything from Zero to 100% of all possibilities. Rather than defining Enformationism as "materialism reified" I would call it "materialism idealized" or "abstracted". That's because Shannon's "data" is purely abstract, and defined only in terms of numbers (math). Although the Information in your mind is abstract, in the sense of leaving behind the material flesh, it is metaphorically concrete, in that your mental images are skeletal representations of physical objects, as perceived by the physical senses. The abstract image in your mind is like the logical bones of a physical object. They can only be "seen" by Reason, not by the eyes.

So, the "important aspect" of Information that you are not grasping is the Meta-Physical element. I use the term "metaphysical" in the Aristotelian sense of "non-physical" : meaning "mental", "imaginary", "psychological", "philosophical". These aspects of our world are not subject to cyclotron splitting by physicists, or laboratory dissection by biologists. They must be experienced as conscious feelings or impressions. Yet, they can be communicated between Minds in the form of Words (abstract meanings ; ideas ; Logos). Hence, they will not be found in a search for the Physics of Consciousness. :nerd:

Matter, Energy and Information :
In the realm of physics, everything is matter-energy, a single element that takes two basic forms as explained in special relativity. Then Cybernetic systems came along, which described systems in terms of matter-energy interactions, but added the element of information, which creates a feedback loop for the system.
http://www.esalq.usp.br/lepse/imgs/conteudo_thumb/Matter-Energy-and-Information.pdf

So, down to work. I have presented some ideas about how the mind works from scientists I consider credible whose ideas make sense to me. I’d like to discuss what the proper approach to thinking about the mind is. I consider these good examples. My conclusion - the mind is not magical or even especially mysterious, although there is a lot we don’t know. Mostly it’s just a foundation of business-as-usual biology resulting in the very powerful and complex thinking, feeling, seeing, remembering, speaking faculties of the human beings we all are.

And please - no discussion of consciousness experience or awareness. — T Clark

, in The Physics of Consciousness thread*1 is also pursuing a physical explanation for how the mind works, without assuming any non-physical contributions. His theory is based on a technical concept of "Cohesion", which could be imagined as a novel physical force, but that I interpret in terms of "Holism" or "Systems Theory". However, both of those alternative approaches to Reductionism are more rational than empirical, hence more philosophical than scientific.

Anyway, it seems that excluding the non-physical aspect of mental processes runs into a blank wall on the Quantum level. There, "business-as-usual-biology" becomes logically fuzzy, mathematically uncertain, and physically unpredictable, as we approach the foundations of reality. Ironically, there is no there there.

So, the only way I see to find our way through the sub-atomic fog is to make use of a semi-physical tool : Information --- found in nature in three forms : energy, matter, mind. I agree that the mental functions of the brain are "not magical". But they are Meaningful ; which is inherently a "conscious experience or awareness". :nerd:


*1. The Physics of Consciousness
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/724342

As for the way measurement collapses superpositions into a particulate state, I think this must involve some kind of physical process — Enrique

Oh, it definitely involves a physical process, but it also seems to require a mental action, such as Intention*1 (goal-setting ; aiming ; direction ; purpose). In Beyond Weird, Philip Ball discusses the still unresolved "measurement problem". And he notes that "everything that seems strange about quantum mechanics comes down to measurement". Moreover, the non-physical aspect of an experimental setup*2 is the intention of the Experimenter/Observer. That's why I mentioned that the Latin root of "to measure" is mensura, and the root of mensura is mens-, meaning "mind" or "intention". That may be why physicists, such as John A. Wheeler, concluded that the Mind of the Observer "participates" in the experiment. So, a quantum measurement involves both physical apparatus, and a psychological act of intention.

Consequently, I interpret the act-of-measurement as the extraction of binding-integrating Information from the superposed wave into the mind of the experimenter. Thus, metaphorically, popping the non-local whole balloon into a particular entity, with both position & velocity in space. Over the last century, physicists & philosophers have argued back & forth about the role of the observer. But, from the perspective of Information theory, I have concluded that it's the non-physical Mind that makes the difference between a continuous wave of potential, and a localized particle of energy. It's not magic, but it is a sort of mind-over-matter causation. The wave is omni-directional & omni-potential, but the arbitrary choice of physical setup*2 forces it to reveal some otherwise hidden information (e.g. interference patterns ; like a herd of horses squeezing single-file through a gate in the corral )

That holistic non-scientific analogy also helps to explain why some information theorists go back to a time before Shannon inadvertently changed the meaning of the word "information" from "knowledge in a mind" to "digits in a computer". Hence, they emphasize the meaningful mental form of Information, instead of the abstract mathematical form. At the same time, a few physicists were beginning to use the term "Information" to describe something more fundamental than even Energy. Recently, physicist Melvin Vopson resurrected Landauer's speculation that abstract & meaningful Information can also become Physical, and has proposed experiments to test the theory.

I apologize, if I'm going off on a tangent from your OP. But I immediately saw the potential for combining your key notion of Cohesion (unity ; bonding ; continuity ; integration ; wholeness) with my notion of the essential inter-relating role of Information*3 (both physical & mental) in the universe. Those invisible, but logical, relationships are what makes Quantum theory seem spooky, when viewed as simply a mindless machine. The potential for Mind was in the material world from the beginning. It just needed to be cohered (squeezed ; channeled ; condensed) into a sentient form of Energy : e.g. Technology. :nerd:

PS__With Einstein's formula "E=MC^2" in mind, I have proposed that the cosmic constant "C" linking Energy & Mass is not just a meaningless abstract ratio, but defines*4 the relationship between Energy & Matter with specific information; like a setting on a dial.


*1. Intention : In billiards, the intention of the pool-shooter is what makes the difference between random scattering of the opening shot, and the subsequent non-random placing of balls in pre-specified pockets.

*2. Setup : like corralling horses, the wide-open terrain transforms into a fenced-in enclosure, as intended by horse-riding humans

*3. Information : (noun) data ; (verb) to transform ; to create meaning in a mind.
Note -- in its active form (to enform) I spell it with an "E" to indicate its relationship to causal Energy.

*4. To Define : to delimit ; to identify essential qualities (definition is a form of information)

The mass-energy-information equivalence principle :
Landauer’s principle formulated in 1961 states that logical irreversibility implies physical irreversibility and demonstrated that information is physical. Here we formulate a new principle of mass-energy-information equivalence proposing that a bit of information is not just physical, as already demonstrated, but it has a finite and quantifiable mass while it stores information.
https://aip.scitation.org/doi/10.1063/1.5123794

Information :
* Knowledge and the ability to know.
* Technically, it's the ratio of order to disorder, of positive to negative, of knowledge to ignorance.
* It's measured in degrees of uncertainty. Those ratios are also called "differences". So Gregory Bateson* defined Information as "the difference that makes a difference". The latter distinction refers to "value" or "meaning". Babbage called his prototype computer a "difference engine".
* Difference is the cause or agent of Change. In Physics it’s called "Thermodynamics" or "Energy". In Sociology it’s called "Conflict" or "Cooperation".
http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page11.html

Cosmic Constant : This ratio is usually denoted by ΩΛ and is estimated to be 0.6889±0.0056, according to results published by the Planck Collaboration in 2018.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmological_constant
Note -- "Hawking proposed that the cosmological constant is probably zero in quantum cosmology". Its closeness to Zero may explain why the expansion of the universe is so finely balanced between Eternal Inflation & Eventual Collapse.

Idealism: Other minds exist!
Solipsism: Other minds don't exist! — Agent Smith

A direct & succinct answer to the OP.

However, both are unprovable inferences from Descartes' intuitive introspective "I am" argument. From that axiom, we can a> optimistically reason that similar minds exist in the bodies of our fellow philosophers. Or, we can b> pessimistically conclude that nothing exists apart from my own inner world model.

Both can be argued for or against, but not proven empirically. Yet, according to b>, even empirical evidence could be a product of my own world-modeling mind. We know both possibilities, only by reading our own minds.

From personal experience though, my own intuition is not smart enough to make-up all the observed complexities of reality. So, I have to assume that those counter-intuitive ideas & opinions are coming from external minds with different life experiences. :cool:

Coherence field theory isn't holistic or reductionistic so much as staunchly realist. I think it should be possible to integrate with information theory as an emergent level of conceptualization, but at this stage that would deviate from an essential facet of my realist approach, which is to be firmly rooted in the "atomic facts" of material processes. — Enrique

Perhaps a "staunchly realistic" perspective would include both General (holistic) and Particular (reductive) facts. Shannon reduced Information theory to atoms of data called "bits" & "bytes". But other information theorists have broadened their scope to include "ideas" & "meanings". Reality consists of both Isolated Parts (holons) and Integrated Systems (wholes). One kind of undivided system is a Quantum Field of Superposition. Only when you pop the bubble with a measurement, does a detached particle appear, as-if from nowhere.

A quantum theorist once said something like : "the quantum atom is a field"; implying that the fundamental substance is not a particle, but a whole integrated system of (virtual ; potential) bits & bytes. If so, then "material processes" are ultimately processing Information. Admittedly, such a complex holistic view is more philosophical (generalization) than scientific (simplification). So it may not suit your "firmly rooted" approach. Holistic facts are not isolated cells, but entangled snarls of roots. Glattfelder calls it "the rhizome of reality". :joke:

Information - Consciousness - Reality :
He then offers two ways of understanding this dynamic world : in Aristotelian terms as “the entelechy of existence”, and the metaphor of “the rhizome of reality”. Later, he mentions a more technological way to think of reality, as a mathematical structure forming “the software that connects us, that enables all distributed systems, including life itself”. However, he seems to think of this evolving complexifying mechanism as more like a living cosmic organism. Hence, the notion that it is becoming self-reflective, as some of its creatures have become capable of forming mental models of the whole cosmic system.
___James Glattfelder
http://bothandblog7.enformationism.info/page18.html

Entelechy :
Philosophy
1. the realization of potential.
2. the supposed vital principle that guides the development and functioning of an organism or other system or organization.

Are quantum fields real or merely a mathematical tool used to describe elementary particles? :
https://www.quora.com/Are-quantum-fields-real-or-merely-a-mathematical-tool-used-to-describe-elementary-particles

AN ENTANGLED RHIZOME OF ROOTS

It is perhaps more accurate to consider light and atoms as part of a larger energy field that is fundamentally nonelectromagnetic, through which coherent energy can in many cases flow without being restricted to electromagnetism's speed limits and characteristic shieldings of force. Phenomena of consciousness seem to necessitate that this is the case, but macroscopic coherence among electromagnetically homogeneous systems has not been effectively modeled to this point. — Enrique

I don't have the technical qualifications to follow your argument for a "Coherence Field". But in my own layman's musings, I have developed a philosophical worldview that seems to be amenable to your more scientific theory. My own thesis is coming from a different direction, but arrived at a similar conclusion.

My personal notion of a "non-electromagnetic" field is Information-centric instead of Matter/Energy based. I won't go into the details here, but some avant-garde scientists have concluded that Matter & Energy are actually special forms of the Universal Power to Enform -- that I call "EnFormAction". EFA includes the ability to animate material bodies (Life), and to produce (inform) abstract ideas in a neural network (Mind). Similar ideas are especially associated with physicist & cosmologist Paul Davies*1, and with neuroscientists Giulio Tononi and Christof Koch*2. Perhaps an even bolder proposal is the new information-based paradigm by physicist/complexity-theorist James Glattfelder*3.

So, maybe your "model" of (logical??) Coherence can dovetail into these other non-reductive, non-traditional theories of how some physical systems came to be conscious. Imagined as a bonding or integrating force, Coherence may explain how novel holistic properties emerge from collections of non-sentient matter I don't want to deflect you from your own path, but maybe some of these other approaches could inform your thesis. :smile:



*1. From Matter to Life : Information and Causality,
___Davies, et al

*2. Integrated information theory attempts to provide a framework capable of explaining why some physical systems are conscious, . ___Tononi

*3. Information -- Consciousness -- Reality : an information-theoretic ontology
The primacy of consciousness
___James Glattfelder

Information Field :
My guess, as expressed in the Enformationism theory, is that Life & Mind are phase changes of energy as it transforms over time and in space. Here’s a Cliff Notes synopsis : Energy begins as a continuous field of potential, then emerges as discrete particles of matter. Later, from the complex interplay of energy & matter, stars & stuff, animated Life emerges. Then, as Life interacts with other life – as social groups or predator/prey interactions – Mind arises to control external behavior. Finally, Consciousness emerges to moderate the flow of internal thoughts. So, the Brain/Mind Paradox is a problem only because they are intimately connected at the root, while displaying different qualities at the crown.
http://bothandblog2.enformationism.info/page70.html

A Coherence Field Theory of Physics and Consciousness . . . .
I think it's apparent that consciousness can be profoundly reduced to physical processes, but what these processes are at base, presuming a foundation even exists, is not known. — Enrique

Some have expressed concern about using Reductive methods to study a Holistic phenomenon like Consciousness. But I notice that you refer to your CFT as a "coherent field" theory. Which indicates that you recognize that examining individual particles as Things will not reveal much about the Systems and Processes they contribute to. For example, an electron is sometimes treated as-if it's an isolated particle of solid Matter, when it is actually more like an integrated drop in the ocean of an electromagnetic field. Consequently, studying a drop of salty water will not tell you much about the ocean as a whole. That's why the original Reductive methods of empirical Science have lately made room for the Holistic methods of Systems Theory.

Likewise, the reductive search for the seat of consciousness (e.g. Pineal gland?)*1 in the brain has not been very fruitful. That's because Consciousness is not that simple. Instead, it emerges from a complex, multi-organ integrated unified process. Each of those organs, and sub-processes, contributes to the immaterial Function we call "Knowing", but no particle alone is sentient. That's why a reductive microscopic view will not yield the secret to Sentient Matter. Hence, Consciousness must be studied in vivo, not in vitro. Neuroscientists have "profoundly reduced" Consciousness to physical neural processes (physiology, not psychology), but have not yet reached the foundation of a knowing Mind. Now it's time to put all those processes back together, to see what the jig-saw puzzle will look like as meaningful image.

Ironically, Systems Theory is more of a philosophical approach (using innate Reason & Logic) than a scientific method of extending the reach of sensory organs with mechanical tools. For example, the only tool that can be used to dissect an invisible intangible Quantum Field is Mathematics, which is simply formalized Reason & Logic. I suppose that's why they call it a hypothetical "theory" instead of a physical "measurement". Therefore, calling your CFT a "field theory" seems to indicate that it is basically a Systems Theory. Is that correct? :smile:


*1. The Pineal gland is sometimes referred to as the "third eye" because it secretes Melatonin, which is sensitive to light, but not for vision. Instead, it controls the Circadian Rhythm, which is a continuous cyclic process, not a single isolated thing.

Systems Theory :
A holistic view of a system encompasses the complete, entire view of that system. Holism emphasizes that the state of a system must be assessed in its entirety and cannot be assessed through its independent member parts.
https://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Systems_Theory/Holism

This raises the suspicion that equilibrium actually violates the laws of physics. Which means either one of two things: either a). Equilibrium can never be reached or b). The state of equilibrium is inherently unstable and thus produces inequality so that energy can persist. — Benj96

The third law (T3) is universal, but there are local exceptions. If Entropy was as all-powerful as the thermodynamics law makes it seem, then you would not be here to ask rhetorical questions. In reality though, there is an important exception to the general rule. Physicists call that natural hack "negentropy". But I call it "Enformy" : the power to create novel forms within a stable system ; asymmetrical forces are non-linear, indeterminate, & ever-changing.

Absolute Entropy is destructive of order & organization, and if un-opposed would cause the Big Bang to wink-out in an instant. But something --- Lucretius called it "the clinamen" (swerve ; inclination) --- has allowed local pockets of dynamic equilibrium (cycling homeostasis) that have produced important anomalies within T3 (e.g. Life & Mind). Hence, on one Pale Blue Dot, in a remote corner of a minor galaxy, there is just enough "inequality" (imbalance) to allow energy to cycle within a coherent system (organism) long enough to become Animated (self-moving). And those animated lumps of protoplasm have endured and inter-acted long-enough to eventually evolve functional Sentience (awareness). Moreover, those "violations" of homeostasis (stable state) have eventually resulted in extravagant Consciousness (self-awareness).

So, it seems that even Newton's Third Law (equal & opposite reaction) has its own exception. In practice, the combined actions of two or more bodies is not always directly opposed, but somewhat eccentric. The aberrant result is what makes the game of billiards interesting : a new vector that departs from the original course. Consequently, even though Life is technically illegal, there is a thriving black market in living & thinking in the dark alleys of the universe. :cool:

To Hack : . . .the act of attempting to manipulate outcomes of . . . behavior through orchestrated actions.

Hack : A clever or elegant technical accomplishment, especially one with a playful or prankish bent.
https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=hack

Dynamic Equilibrium : a state of balance between two or more continuing processes.

"The Swerve" refers to a key conception in the ancient atomistic theories according to which atoms moving through the void are subject to clinamen: while falling straight through the void, they are sometimes subject to a slight, unpredictable swerve.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Swerve
Note -- Some pool sharks are able to curve the path of their ball to go around another ball, thus violating another law of Newton (straight line momentum) with ulterior intentions. Which raises the question : who hacked (swerved) the Big Bang?

Every scientific explanation is an exercise in reductionism, are we to assume that consciousness can be reduced? what if it cannot be? — Sherlock Holmes

I can't speak for Enrique. but his Coherence Theory seems to be more Holistic than Reductive. Admittedly, that is more of a philosophical approach than scientific, but he proposes to explain his thesis in terms of physical processes, rather than spiritual. The problem with Holistic concepts is that you have to swallow it whole. But if you list the particular ingredients of the red pill, at least you can know that you are getting some nutrients, and not just a sugar pill. :joke:

I'm not an adherent of the "existence is fundamentally information" framework, but I think it might become possible to scientifically test your hypothesis that the universe is an integrated consciousness once we comprehend the physics of consciousness' basic building blocks. — Enrique

In my thesis, EnFormAction (generic information) is simply the causal-power-to-enform : to cause isolated unrelated things to cohere into a functional unity : a recognizable purposeful Form. One kind of "functional unity" is Consciousness, which is the functional (purposeful output) of integrated (coherent) neurons. Neurons themselves are merely channels (conduits) for energy*1. But, by working together as a goal-directed system, those neurons, and other supporting structures, become Sentient.

That transformation is not magic though, it happens everywhere everyday. It's more like a physical Phase Transition, in which the functional properties of H2O are transformed. So, I would assume that the same kind of scientific testing, that parses Phase Change into a logical operation, might serve to test the hypothesis that the whole universe is a Cosmic Information Processor (CIP), converting raw material into things & meanings. :nerd:

PS__One metaphorical method to make sense of the abstruse account above is to imagine that Information is the Essence of Energy. Just as Einstein showed that Matter is "fundamentally" Energy, Quantum physics is beginning to indicate that physical Energy is essentially one aspect of the universal power to Enform (to cause change of form). And the causal power is in the relationships, the ratios, such as Hot vs Cold, Positive vs Negative. In Einstein's formula, the constant "C" is basically the ratio of lightspeed to zero velocity (changelessness).


*1. In my thesis, Energy is one form of Generic Information (EnFormAction). The other forms are Matter & Mind. Matter is a physical (massive) form of invisible intangible Energy (E=MC^2). And Mind is a metaphysical (immaterial) form of coherent Information. Mind is simply the ability to cognize, to know, to become aware of the other forms of EnFormAction. The act of Enforming (causation) produces Form-Change in both Physics (Matter) and Metaphysics (Mind).

*2. A Phase Transition is a change of state (mode of being). Functionally water is different from ice & steam. But each phase or mode has a practical role in physics. Likewise, a phase transition from tangled masses of neurons to logical cognition has a meaningful purpose in the operation & evolution of the information-based universe.

So you don't want to disturb the peace so to speak. You're happy with existing paradigms such as materialism, spiritualism, etc. and would like to preserve instead of discard/replace 'em. However, doesn't that mean your thesis makes no practical difference whether it's true/false? — Agent Smith

So to speak. I simply re-define some outdated notions, such as "Matter" & "Spirit", in terms of the Enformationism thesis. To wit, my "spiritual" family members don't like my "atheism"*1, but we get along fine as long as we don't discuss Philosophy or Salvation. For me personally, what used to be known as "Spirit" or "Soul" is merely the form of Generic Information that we know as "Mind", which is simply the "Function" of the brain (not what it is, but what it does). A Function is invisible & intangible, but is reasonable & knowable. For instance, the immaterial Function*2 of a material automobile is Transportation (potential for action, not an actual thing). Likewise, the Mind is intangible & invisible, like a Soul or Spirit. But it is not an independent agent that can roam apart from the brain. You can't separate Transportation from the Vehicle; Function from Form*3.

Similarly, Materialism is a practical way of thinking about physical objects. But, it ignores non-physical aspects of the object. For example, when a Biologist dissects a frog, it is no longer a living animal. That's because Life is a Function of biological complexity. Life is what organic bodies do. So, if you take away the (holistic) Life function of the organism, what you have left is lifeless Chemistry. Therefore, if you are a Bio-chemist, it makes "no practical difference" whether your subject is alive or not. But, if you are a Biological Naturalist, it makes a categorical difference. And as Anthropologist Gregory Bateson surmised : "information is the difference that makes a difference". Difference (1) is a physical variation, but Difference (2) is a meaningful (metaphysical) distinction.

So yes, those old paradigms still have their role in human society. But, for philosophers, Quantum & Information theories have revealed that the foundation of Classical Science is built upon nothing of substance, except Generic shape-shifting Information (energy-matter-mind). And that makes all the difference in the world. As Einstein showed us, "all things are relative". What's "true" in one context may not be true from another perspective. :blush:


*1. For Christians, Agnosticism is just a wishy-washy form of Atheism. It avoids commitment one way or the other. But for me, "Agnosticism" simply means "I don't know". If something is invisible, I don't see it (a-blepo ; Gk "to not see"). But I may imagine something not seen : (Gk. eidos ;to imagine). Believers in the unseen God, know the deity by Faith, by imagination. In a similar manner, I can imagine a pre-big-bang First Cause, even though it does not exist in the physical world of vision. Yet, I remain Agnostic, because my imagination is not verifiable.

*2. A Function is an information relationship between things that is known only by Reason, not by Vision. Function is integral to Form, in that it is an essential aspect of all complex systems. Function is the immaterial part of a physical thing by which we know its role or relationship to the observer. For me, the role of my silver SUV is Transportation. For someone else, the essence of their red sports car is to serve as a chick-magnet.

*3. For Scientists & Builders In the real world, "Function follows Form". But for a Designer, Enformer, Creator , Form (physical arrangement) follows Function (intention ; output ; teleology).

Quantum paradox points to shaky foundations of reality :
https://www.science.org/content/article/quantum-paradox-points-shaky-foundations-reality

Would I be correct if I were to say that your metaphysics (ontology, etc.) is grounded in epistemology (information/knowledge)? — Agent Smith

Yes. But I have no formal training in those fields of philosophy. Enformationism is a sort of Cosmology, which generally explains the nature of Nature (Being) in terms of Information Theory (IT) and Quantum Physics (QP). IT defines what & how we can know, and QP reveals that the foundation of material reality is immaterial logical relationships. Everything else (e.g. Ethics) depends on the understanding that everything in the world is a form of Generic Information (energy + matter + mind). The thesis website says that Enformationism is intended to be an update to the ancient worldviews of Materialism (Atomism) and Spiritualism (Mind = Soul). Just as Quantum Theory does not negate Newtonian physics, but puts it in a larger context, the Information-Centric worldview does not replace Reductive Science or Holistic Religion, but merely looks at them from a different perspective.

For example, Materialism still works for Chemistry, and Spiritualism still works for Sociology. For example, William James said “We must judge the tree by its fruit. The best fruits of the religious experience are the best things history has to offer. The highest flights of charity, devotion, trust, patience, and bravery to which the wings of human nature have spread themselves, have all been flown for religious ideals.” (e.g. Gothic Cathedrals ; charities) For collective endeavors, people are inspired by beliefs that may or may not be empirically true, but plausible enough to motive them to work together for the common good (God, community, humanity). But Enformationism puts those beliefs into a new light, for those inclined to look in dark corners.

Speaking of different perspectives, in a previous post you mentioned "virtual worlds". And I just read an article on one kind of virtual reality : a computer simulation (see below). Here's a couple of quotes that might apply to the OP topic : Agnosticism. the author mentions The Matrix and Nick Bostrum's “Are You Living in a Computer Simulation?”. Then, he concludes that "It could very well be simulations all the way down." Since he is a gamer, such a turtles-all-the-way-down solution makes more sense than the quantum-fluctuation-in-nothingness & inflating-bubble-from-nowhere theories, which make no attempt to nail-down a philosophical First Cause. So, I may be in the minority of posters who feel the need for a one-big-turtle explanation. :blush:

PS__Since my eccentric personal worldview is easy to laugh at, I have to maintain an humble sense of humor, in hopes of keeping philosophical bullies from pounding the annoying nerd. :nerd:

Of Course We’re Living in a Simulation :
"The best theory physicists have for the birth of the universe makes no sense. It goes like this: In the beginning—the very, if not quite veriest, beginning—there’s something called quantum foam. It’s barely there, and can’t even be said to occupy space, because there’s no such thing as space yet. . . . Besides, that’s not even why the theory makes no sense. It makes no sense for the same reason every creation myth since the dawn of, um, creation makes no sense: There’s no causal explanation. What, that is to say, made it happen in the first place?"
https://www.wired.com/story/living-in-a-simulation/

I sympathize with your views if only for the reason that coders have been creating virtual worlds (e.g. video games) since the 1990s and, in line with your thesis, they do so with information. — Agent Smith

Yes. The coder's "virtual worlds" are simplified analogies to the Enformer's real world. Each imaginary world is conveyed from the coder's mind to the player's mind via meaningful Information.

I see that you are grasping at analogies to help you understand the complexities of the Enformationism Thesis. Perhaps something like Einstein's formula "E=MC^2" that is compact enough to put on a T-shirt. For example, Plato's non-traditional god-model was summarized as "LOGOS", which encapsulated the concept of Reason & Logic & Math into a common word for Design (rational planning). Likewise, ancient Chinese philosophers used the common words for Sun/Male (Yang) and Moon/Female (Yin) to compress the many forms of Oppositions into a single easy-to-remember two-word phrase. And, back to the OP, both Plato and Aristotle used the non-religious (agnostic) words "First Cause" to indicate the role of a logically-necessary Creator. They carefully avoided anthro-morphizing their "god of the philosophers".

For similar reasons, I have coined some simple neologisms to summarize complex philosophical concepts. For example, EnFormAction functions in a manner similar to the LOGOS, as the rational creative power of G*D, which works in the physical world to organize matter & energy into the things we know via our senses. However, the logical (mathematical) order or pattern (essence) of those things is not sensible, but intuitive & rational. And this is the kind of thinking that Materialists cannot grok. I also use the coined term "BothAnd" in a manner similar to "YinYang", but I was not thinking in terms of Chinese or New Age philosophy when I arrived at that summation of how the dialectic world-system works.

Even Einstein's formula can be interpreted in terms of Enformationism : a> "Energy: is Causation, Power ; b> "Matter is that which is caused to change (the medium) ; and c> the cosmic constant "C" is merely an abstract ratio of hidden Potential (energy density ; vacuum energy). Together, these properties constitute EnFormAction : the power to transform Potential into Actual. There are websites on the net that will put "EnFormAction" on a T-shirt for you. :wink:

Note : 180 will disagree with my novel interpretations because they don't conform to the dictionary dogma of the 20th century scientific/philosophical Paradigm. Such information-centric notions probably won't make it into authorized (canonized) definitions until the end of the 21st century. Remember, you heard it here first. :joke:


EnFormAction :
* Metaphorically, it's the Will-power of G*D, which is the First Cause of everything in creation. Aquinas called the Omnipotence of God the "Primary Cause", so EFA is the general cause of everything in the world. Energy, Matter, Gravity, Life, Mind are secondary creative causes, each with limited application.
* All are also forms of Information, the "difference that makes a difference". It works by directing causation from negative to positive, cold to hot, ignorance to knowledge. That's the basis of mathematical ratios (Greek "Logos", Latin "Ratio" = reason). A : B :: C : D. By interpreting those ratios we get meaning and reasons.
* The concept of a river of causation running through the world in various streams has been interpreted in materialistic terms as Momentum, Impetus, Force, Energy, etc, and in spiritualistic idioms as Will, Love, Conatus, and so forth. EnFormAction is all of those.
http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page8.html

In 2019, physicist Melvin Vopson of the University of Portsmouth proposed that information is equivalent to mass and energy, existing as a separate state of matter, a conjecture known as the mass-energy-information equivalence principle.
https://www.zmescience.com/science/news-science/information-energy-mass-equivalence/

EnFormAction is an attempt to scientize the almost universal intuition, as evidenced by creation stories in all cultures, of a primum movens (first cause). I appreciate the effort and the key ideas present and active therein, but only veteran philosophers will be able to judge the quality of the output! — Agent Smith

Actually, it was practicing scientists that "scientized" the intuitions of Holism & Information-as-causation (per my previous links). All I've done is to gather their ideas under the heading of Enformationism. However, "veteran philosophers" such as 180 can be expected to judge the "quality of the output" in terms of their outdated personal paradigm. He can be dismissive of my personal qualifications to promote a new kind of science. But, I'll be content to let him argue with "Bob Doyle" (see below), a "veteran" scientist/philosopher, who is promoting the Information-centric worldview. For him, and for me, the relevance of Information to ancient myths only came after its relevance to today's reality was apparent.

This clash of paradigms has happened before. For example, the novice philosopher Spinoza outraged his fellow Jews and Christians (including some veteran theologians) by introducing a new science-based concept of God-as-Natural-instead-of-Super-natural (deus sive natura). Enformationism posits a similar god-concept, formalized in the philosophical concept of PanEnDeism (all in god). In other words, G*D is the whole of Nature, in which we humans are integral parts of an evolving emerging system of En-formation. The Enlightenment era paradigm shift marked the beginning of methodical Classical Science, which endured another radical perspective shift due to 20th century's Relativity & Quantum theories, that are now grudgingly accepted as technical scientific facts, despite their challenge to common sense.

Spinoza was influenced by the scientific philosophy of Descartes. But Rene is best known today for his dualistic compromise solution to the Mind/Body problem : non-overlapping magistera. Yet four centuries later, Quantum & Information science have pointed to a monistic solution : universal & causal information. The Enformationismthesis is merely one of several strands of Information-centric departures from the classical worldview of Newton. But, it may take an information atomic bomb to convince some classical scientists that invisible immaterial things must be taken seriously. :nerd:


Descartes as scientist :
Apart from his work in philosophy, Descartes was a leading mathematician and scientist. He invented the Cartesian coordinate system, developed analytic geometry and laid the foundation for the development of calculus. He also did groundbreaking work in physics most prominently in the field of optics.
https://learnodo-newtonic.com/rene-descartes-contribution

The Mind-Body Problem :
"Information philosophy views the mind as the immaterial information in the brain, which is seen as a biological information processor. Mind is software in the brain's hardware.
The "stuff" of mind is pure information. Information is neither matter nor energy, though it needs matter for its embodiment and energy for its communication".
https://www.informationphilosopher.com/problems/mind_body/
Note 1 -- Physicists are beginning to see that Matter & Energy & Mind are all various forms of the Generic power-to-enform.

Note 2 -- The Information Philosopher could be construed as a "veteran philosopher". Since I am indeed a novice philosopher, with no advanced degrees, I'll let 180 argue with Bob Doyle about the scientific & philosophical merits of Information-centric science & philosophy. Bob Doyle[/u] is the Information Philosopher. He earned a Ph. D in Astrophysics from Harvard and is now an Associate in the Harvard Astronomy Department.

"Instead of a closed universe that is winding down deterministically from an initial state of high information, we find the universe is open and increasing information indeterministically from an initial state of relatively high entropy and low information. Information is being continuously created in the universe, not least by human beings who are just learning that they are part of the cosmic creative process."
https://www.informationphilosopher.com/introduction/

Well, it's just a feeling, an intuition you could call it. Can't name any particular idea that looks promising except for these two: — Agent Smith

I suspect that you still haven't grokked the central idea of Enformationism. That "failure to communicate" may be due to your trying to piece together bits & pieces of the thesis from loosely-related forum posts. The best way to understand this new paradigm is to read some of the scientific books & articles I link to in my posts. My thesis is merely a philosophical expansion of an emerging scientific paradigm, which combines Quantum Physics with Information Theory.

Or, if you are really interested, you could take the time to read the actual Enformationism thesis. It's available online, and is written mainly in layman's language, except for a few neologisms I have coined in order to encapsulate a complex concept into one word. For example, EnFormAction is a portmanteau word to signify the multiple roles of Information in the world.

The BothAnd philosophical principle (Yin-Yang) notion is merely a corollary of the scientific necessity for a Holistic approach to Quantum physics*1. Classical Reductive methods cannot make sense of Quantum queerness. That's why Feynman admitted that "nobody understands quantum mechanics". It's because the quantum foundation of reality is not mechanical & linear-logical, but holistic & fuzzy-logical. :nerd:

*1. seems to think my use of "BothAnd" & "YinYang" exposes an underlying New Agey mystical worldview. But that erroneous interpretation is a sign that he too is unable to grok a new Holistic scientific paradigm, so he conflates it with pre-scientific philosophical*2 attempts to understand how & why the world works as it does. Does the BothAnd definition below sound New Agey to you? If so, then Einstein & Schrodinger were also new age nuts, so I'm in good company.

*2. I find the ancient philosophies of Hindu, Chinese & Greek cultures still useful after all these years. But I have no use for the religious beliefs, rituals, & dogmas that grew-up around those core philosophical worldviews.

Grok : to understand (something) intuitively or holistically, rather than rationally or analytically.

Portmanteau :
1. literally a compartmented suitcase.
2. A portmanteau word is a blend of words in which parts of multiple words are combined into a new word, with interrelated meanings.

EnFormAction :
For technical treatments, I had to make-up a new word to summarize the multilevel and multiform roles of generic Information in the ongoing creative act of Evolution. I call it EnFormAction.
That neologism is an analysis and re-synthesis of the common word for the latent power of mental contents : “Information”. “En” stands for energy, the physical power to cause change; “Form” refers to Platonic Ideals that become real; “Action” is the meta-physical power of transformation, as exemplified in the amazing metamorphoses of physics, whereby one kind of thing becomes a new kind of thing, with novel properties. In the Enformationism worldview, EnFormAction is Creative Potential in action : it's how creation-via-evolution works.
http://bothandblog3.enformationism.info/page23.html

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

“The intuitive mind is a sacred gift and the rational mind is a faithful servant. We have created a society that honors the servant and has forgotten the gift.”
— Albert Einstein

my coherence field theory to neuroscience for your entertainment — Enrique

Unfortunately, your articles are way over my head. So, I'm not able to evaluate their validity. But I have seen a variety of attempts by physicists to show neuroscientists how Physics can explain Consciousness. For example, British physicist Johnjoe McFadden "posits that consciousness is in fact the brain's energy field". His theory seems to be a physicist's version of Tononi's Integrated Information theory. Could your "Coherence Field" be related to those other theories, in that the key feature is Holistic unification or integration (cooperation ; working together) of independent elements, such as neurons? :smile:

New Theory of Consciousness :
I argue here that nearly all examples of so-called ‘integrated information’, including neuronal information processing and conventional computing, are only temporally integrated in the sense that outputs are correlated with multiple inputs: the information integration is implemented in time, rather than space, and thereby cannot correspond to physically integrated information. I point out that only energy fields are capable of integrating information in space. ____McFadden
https://neurosciencenews.com/electromagnetic-consciousness-17191/

Integrated information theory attempts to provide a framework capable of explaining why some physical systems are conscious, why they feel the particular way they do in particular states, and what it would take for other physical systems to be conscious. ___Wikipedia

"e pluribus unum" : one out of many
Coherence
Integration
Organization
Unification
Cooperation
Holism
Enformation : to cause unrelated things to function as one interrelated system

Is Gnosis a useful source of knowledge and/or wisdom? — Bret Bernhoft

The gate to the Oracle at Delphi bore this inscription : "gnothi seauton" (know thyself). That kind of "direct" (introspective) gnosis is indeed necessary for wisdom. But, pretending to know something via indirect channels -- hidden from Reason & human eyes -- may be wise like a wiley serpent. The ancient Gnostics got a bad reputation for claiming to reveal occult esoteric spiritual truths that are necessary for salvation. And that tactic worked well on gullible people, who put their trust in con-men. But philosophical wisdom must be amenable to Reason, and not just taken on Faith. Confer "Trump Truth". :nerd:

PS__OccultGnosis is indeed "useful" for separating money from naive or emotionally needy people. My trusting sister was just conned into giving-out her bank account information to an Indian Microsoft "expert" who claimed to be able to fix a technical problem with her computer, that was caused by his own virus. I don't think she was so naive, but merely confused & frustrated by the sudden craziness on her computer. Fortunately, she called her skeptical brother, before any real damage was done.

It looks like the two of you have to fight (with each other) tooth and nail, to the finish. BothAnd or Yin-Yang requires you two do so! We'll have medics stationed on site to render emergency care if one/both of you sustain(s) life-threatening injuries! :grin: — Agent Smith

He'll have to catch me first. :joke:
Actually, the cooperative BothAnd philosophy "requires" us to avoid fighting, if possible. That's why I'm in the middle, and he's swinging for an imaginary extreme. He doesn't realize that I'm just playing rope-a-dope. :cool:

Rope-a-Dope : a boxing tactic of pretending to be trapped against the ropes, goading an opponent to throw tiring ineffective punches.

All I'm saying is 180 Proof's opposition completes your thesis (re BothAnd/yin-yang). You shouldn't reject him because if you do, you're contradicting yourself. — Agent Smith

OK. I accept that, in a YinYang world, the opposite of Good is Evil. But does that mean I should wallow in the evil, just for the sake of Holism? I'm kidding. And I don't reject 180 personally. On other topics he is able to make constructive criticisms. But on Enformationism-related topics, he only makes destructive comments. But hey, it's a free forum. So he's entitled to his opinion. However, I'm not obliged to get down in the mire with the pigs, even though they are otherwise admirable creatures.

I think you are still misinterpreting the YinYang concept. It merely means, for example, that a male body and a female body are complementary, for the purposes of procreation. But, for other purposes, male & female may have other priorities. The YinYang balance is not static, but dynamic. And each side has the potential for upsetting the ideal harmony of the system. I can move toward the middle, but If I go all the way to the opposite side, I may contribute to dis-harmony. It takes two to tango around the pivot-point of a see-sawing system. :joke:

I feel you should encourage strong but genuine, well-considered opposition to your thesis as it would validate your BothAnd philosophy. If no one can do that, you yourself should take up this task - either you complete your system or you test how strong it is. It's a win-win as far as I can tell. — Agent Smith

I have been exposing my thesis to unsympathetic comments for years, and usually get good "well-considered opposition" (feedback) from other posters on the forum. But 180 is determined to stop me from discussing an emerging new paradigm of Science & Philosophy -- which conflicts with his established classical worldview -- by emotional ridicule instead of rational argument. His legalistic approach is like a defense attorney saying, "your honor, the prosecution witness' testimony contradicts the defense witness' testimony. Therefore, the prosecution witness is either lying or stupid, and his testimony should be stricken from the record . . . . . I rest my case". Does that sound like a win-win contest to you? Do you think I should continue to engage 180 in such a circular dialogue (circa-logue)? :joke:

You might like "Information and the Nature of Reality," which Davies edited with Niels Henrik Gregson. Good combo of articles on information theoretic approaches from physics, biology (some by Terrance Deacon, who I always appreciate), semantic information/consciousness, and even theology at the end.

It's my late night book for when Floridi's Philosophy of Information stops making sense. That book is good too but very technical. I am regretting getting it instead of his Routledge Handbook of the Philosophy of Information, which is apparently more accessible. — Count Timothy von Icarus

I have read most of Davies' books. His Information-centric worldview seems to be very similar to my own. And Terrance Deacon has offered a novel way to think of the ding an sich problem. Floridi's book, Philosophy of Information, stuck a little too close to Shannon's narrow mechanical application of "Information" for my taste. I prefer the books that are presaging a broader new paradigm of science & philosophy. :smile:

So your thesis has an antithesis which is as legit as your thesis and should be incorporated into your thesis (BothAnd). Shouldn't you be more welcoming of opposition to your ideas then? For example 180 Proof's objections should be part and parcel of your system, based as it is on yin & yang. — Agent Smith

The BothAnd philosophy doesn't legitimize one side or the other of any opposition. Instead, it allows each person to cross philosophical-political dividing-lines lines as the context demands. For example, I live in a very conservative part of the US, and my religious training was fundamentalist. But, although I don't repudiate the good parts of Conservatism, as an adult I have crossed over into enemy territory. Today, I don't call myself a Conservative or a Liberal, but something like a Liberative or Conserveral (i.e. Moderate). The downside of a moderate position is that you get shot at by both sides. The right-wing-conservatives will view you as a lily-livered-liberal, and the left-wing-radicals will decry you as a cold-hearted-conservative. The point here is that the BothAnd sweet-spot of harmony & balance is not in the exact middle of any philosophical continuum, but depending on the context, may shift left or right to maintain a dynamic balance -- like a tightrope walker.

When I first joined The Philosophy Forum, I felt that might be a kindred spirit. His general philosophical worldview seemed to be compatible with mine. But eventually, he began to see my personal philosophy as anathema (something or someone that one vehemently dislikes). I still don't know for sure what the point-of-contention is, except that it has something to do with my unconventional usage of the tainted word "Metaphysics" (non-physical ; as in abstract concepts)*1. Since then, his "opposition" has been expressed in ad hominem arguments -- against an imaginary position that I don't actually hold -- instead of philosophical arguments. So no, his (NAZI vs Commie) "objections" are not "part & parcel" of my own system. I welcome philosophical discussion of specific ideas, but not a political-smear-campaign of a general multi-faceted worldview. Even so, I bear no ill-will toward 180 -- his knowledge of Philosophy is admirable -- I just refuse to engage in below-the-belt philosophy. Hopefully though, maybe some day we will again be able to sit around the philosophical campfire and sing Kumbaya (harmony & goodness). :smile:

*1. Actually, I think he feels threatened by the emerging Holistic & Information-centric scientific paradigm, which to him smacks of old age Religion and New Age nuttiness.

BOTH/AND = DYNAMIC BALANCE

Since your idea has, as a component, the yin-yang duality of opposites, you surely expect it to be critiqued/opposed/attacked. That's exactly how it should be then, in accordance to your BothAnd concept, oui?
How would you respond to this comment? — Agent Smith

Oui-oui. It's mostly "attacked" emotionally (good vs evil) & politically (us vs them), instead of "critiqued" rationally & philosophically. For example, quote : "Your usual non-answer. That's a tell, sir. :yawn: " The implicit critique can be eloquently summed-up as "boo, hiss".

Apparently, a Reductive/Materialistic paradigm is antipathetic (showing or feeling a strong aversion) to a Holistic/Metaphysical worldview. And a significant proportion of posters on this forum are allied with the belief system known as Scientism. It began during the Reformation /Enlightenment era, when the hegemony of the State Church was rejected by Freethinkers. One vector of that Hegelian dialectic clash was fragmented Protestant religions & general Secularization, and the other was modern empirical Science & pragmatic Materialism.

From that cynical (dog-eat-dog) perspective though, Philosophy in general, and especially Metaphysics, is viewed as allied with supernatural Religion. Hence, any ideas that go beyond Physical are presumed to be Metaphysical, as defined by the early Catholic Church theologians. Although many world religions are based on a Holistic model, many secular philosophies (e.g.Taoism, Confucianism) throughout history also assumed that the Dualistic forces of the world are ultimately & delicately balanced into a Holistic monism (Yin/Yang). Hence, optimistic instead of fatalistic.

By contrast to the black vs white, Science vs Religion opposition, your own reaction has been a philosophical blend of both Curiosity (exploring) and Skepticism (defending). And that is a good example of the BothAnd approach to knowledge : "open-minded, but not so open that your brains fall out". :smile:


Scientism :
Science is about descriptive facts; philosophy is often about that but is also about normative and evaluative truths (if such truths exist). Science is about physical objects; philosophy is often about that but is also about abstract objects (if they exist).
https://1000wordphilosophy.com/2018/02/13/philosophy-and-its-contrast-with-science/

What is scientism, and why is it a mistake? :
Science is a method of inquiry about nature, while scientism is philosophy. And scientism is no longer up to the challenge of meeting the most pressing issues of our day.
https://bigthink.com/13-8/science-vs-scientism/
Note -- Scientism is dualistic Either/Or philosophy. It has that in common with dualistic Good/Evil religions. By contrast, the BothAnd philosophy is ultimately Monistic.

I can only applaud in admiration at your idea - it seems to be well-thought-out. Not many can say that of their own worldviews. I'm still trying to grasp the essence of it. Give me time. — Agent Smith

Take your time. I've been working on the Enformationism thesis for about 14 years. It had been simmering for a while in the background. But I finally formalized it while I was unemployed due to the 2008 Great Recession. I gathered my notes & essays into a webpage, and using the Matrix movie as a metaphor, presented the core idea, not in the form of an Academic Thesis, but as a non-commercial, un-conventional argument in a semi-public arena. In some ways, it was inspired by Devin Giorbran's book & website Everything Forever, which presented a novel scientific-philosophical perspective of the whole universe. But the focus of Enformationism is more down-to-earth. Both are neither True nor False, but merely a different way to look at Reality : a proposed new Paradigm.

Most of us are living in an artificial simulation of reality : created in the public mind, not by rogue AI, but by social conventions and news media. The civilized world-view has evolved along a zig-zag path of Hegelian oppositions. For example : Fascism, Communism, & Capitalism in the 20th century. But, even more subtle may be the various scientific & philosophical paradigms of the 21st century, especially Quantum Theory and Information Theory. The world is still gradually emerging from the pre-scientific worldviews of its various religions, especially the Judeo-Christian-Islamic traditions, and from the radical 17th century revisionist worldview of what we now call Classical or Newtonian Science.

The dominant paradigms of each era serve as focusing frames through which to view the incomprehensible complexities of the world. For example, the common view of human nature swings back & forth between the optimism of first century Christianity "work out your own salvation", to the pessimism of Calvin's "Total Depravity" ; from the optimism of the Scientific Enlightenment, to the pessimism of modern philosophies (e.g. Antinatalism). Compared to those historical dialectical digressions, the Enformationism thesis could be just one man's perspective, that will die with him. Fortunately, I am not alone in this quest for a plausible 21st century worldview. So, if some form of this novel information-centric concept of how the world works -- by processing Information in various ways -- catches-on, It could become the seed for the next dominant philosophical paradigm . Only time will tell. :nerd:

Everything Forever : Learning to See The Timelessness of the Universe
"Zero is powerful because it is infinity’s twin. They are equal and opposite, yin and yang. They are equally paradoxical and troubling. The biggest questions in science and religion are about nothingness and eternity, the void and the infinite, zero and infinity. The clashes over zero were the battles that shook the foundations of philosophy, of science, of mathematics, and of religion. Underneath every revolution lay a zero – and an infinity."
-Charles Seife
Zero; The Biography of a Dangerous Idea
http://everythingforever.com/
Note -- at first glance, to someone grounded in conventional classical science, this may sound like a bunch of hippie non-sense. But, by looking at the flip-side of space-time, a new understanding of what's-really-going-on could emerge.

Paradigm :
A paradigm is a standard, perspective, or set of ideas. A paradigm is a way of looking at something. It's a worldview.
https://www.vocabulary.com/dictionary/paradigm

Information -- Consciousness -- Reality :
How a new understanding of the universe can help answer age-old questions of existence
https://www.goodreads.com/en/book/show/45153601

Enformationism website :
It's not something to believe, but something to think
http://enformationism.info/enformationism.info/

I don't know if it's actually true but, for obvious reasons, your thesis feels biocentric (pro-life) - the name EnFormAction suggests a bias towards life (EnFormy being anti-entropy, entropy being anti-order and thus an anti-life force we havta deal on a daily basis). Do you consider this to be a feature/bug in EnFormAction? — Agent Smith

Yes. Like Energy, EnFormAction, can have both positive and negative effects. For example, Lightning splits air molecules into Nitrogen & Oxygen, both essential for life (organism). But, if a bolt from the blue strikes your living body, the result is instant death (dis-organism). But, after billions of years of Dialectic inter-action, we see a distinct bias (trend) toward Complexity & Organism & Life. Therefore, it's obvious that disorganizing Entropy is not absolute, so there must be some countervailing force to nudge evolution toward Life & Mind, and away from Death & Insentience. That implicit force is what I call "Enformy" (the power to enform ; to organize). :nerd:

Buddha (anicca) & Laozi (yinyang), Democritus (atomic swirling) & Heraclitus (everything flows), Boltzmann (thermodynamics) & Heisenberg (quantum uncertainty), Penrose (conformal cyclical cosmology) & Deutsch (quantum turing computation) are some examples thinkers for whom "motion (change)" is the fundamental – acausal – independent variable. — 180 Proof

As usual, this haughty reposte is based on prejudiced premises. It's intended to deny the necessity for a First Cause. From a narrow-nose perspective, cycling Change seems to be fundamental to Physics, with no beginning or end. But from a broader Philosophical worldview, even the Big Bang beginning of our universe must, logically, have a cause. That's why cosmologists have been proposing various speculative schemes to explain the time-before-time : Inflation, Many Worlds, Multiverses. There's no evidence for such ideal mathematical scenarios. But there is real physical evidence for a directional evolving universe from Past to Future. In the cosmological diagram below, the beginning & end states are implied, but fuzzy, due to lack of empirical evidence.

Penrose's abstract Causality Diagrams, like Minkowski's imaginary Block Time (static space-time), are deliberately simplified : a> by removing the complexity of Change, and b> by assuming internal, mutually-neutralizing, Symmetry of forces. In practice though, such a mathematically ideal world would be eternal & unchanging. But both of those models are like snapshots of reality, frozen in time. And are useful only for simplifying the complex mathematics of Dynamics (change ; motion). So, their idealized Acausal models are intentionally non-realistic. :cool:

Acausal Motion :
“Acausal” means not having a cause. In classical physics all events are believed to have a cause; none are acausal. In quantum physics, some interpretations of quantum theory allow for events to occur without a cause, that is, they are acausal.
The usual way to say this is that in quantum physics, there is “true randomness.” In true randomness, we don’t know the cause and also there is none. In classical physics, nothing happens randomly. If a billiard ball is picking up speed to the right, it’s because some force is pushing it in that direction. If we don’t know the nature of the force, it might seem like it’s random motion. But be assured, there is a causal force.
http://www.quantumphysicslady.org/glossary/acausal/

THE DIRECTIONAL ARROW OF EVOLUTION

Correct me if I'm wrong, the whole idea of your EnFormAction theory boils down to, from the little that I know, yin & yang (the interaction of opposites) &Hegelian dialectics, both of which remind me of Heraclitean dualism (thesis-antithesis dynamics). — Agent Smith

Yes, the role of EnFormAction (energy, causation) in physics is to cause change-of-form (geometry, interrelationships). However, perhaps due to the curvature of Angular Momentum, the direction of change (motion) varies (not a straight line). Hence, the convoluted pathways of billiards and Brownian Motion.

Therefore, like billiard balls, any causal input (action) results in inter-action (collisions). And the result is something like Hegelian Dialectics (literally "cross-talk"). So, geometrically, any collision of two forces (added momentum) produces a new angular momentum (vectors) [see Dialectic below]. A more complex version of the flow of EFA (causation) through the world is illustrated in the math of a Random Walk [see Squiggles below]. Thus, Positive (aggregating) complexification results in Organization and organism. but Negative (segregating) action results in Disorganization.

Heraclitus postulated two opposing forces in the world, which work together to cause change. Today, we call those oppositions "Positive" & "Negative" -- or in a different context : "Good" & "Evil" -- and they can be illustrated by Vectors (arrows) in which the angle represents geometric direction and the length represents the amount of Force (energy ; momentum). In Taoism, those dual forces are labeled Yin (dark ; female) and Yang (light ; male) -- pardon the implicit misogynism. :wink:

INTERACTION OF OPPOSITES

COMPLEX DIALECTIC = RANDOM WALK = BROWNIAN MOTION

EnFormAction
General ideas:
1. Primum movens aka EnFormer/Intender
2. BothAnd (yin-yang)
Specific ideas:
1. Information-based theory
2. EnFormy (anti-entropy, vide supra BothAnd) — Agent Smith

Good summary! You are open-minded and reasonable enough to entertain unfamiliar (weird) ideas, and attempt to make sense of them, in order to learn new ways of philosophizing. But you also apply a healthy dose of skepticism toward unproven philosophical conjectures. Unlike some Trolls, who just repeat "j'accuse", but provide no viable alternative ideas -- only standardized (settled ; classical) conventions to be taken on faith.

If the Enformationism hypothesis doesn't seem plausible -- it's a lot to take in -- you are not expected to believe its information-centric worldview. But once you grok the ubiquity & activity of Generic Information, your eyes will be opened to a whole new world of non-classical Possibilities (as in Quantum Theory). :cool:

A1. Philosophers & Physicists agree that all motion (change) must have a Prime Mover to impart momentum into the system of Causation. But some disagree on the nature of that First Cause : Intentional vs Accidental.
A2. BothAnd Complementarity : Physics
"the concept that two contrasted theories, such as the wave and particle theories of light, may be able to explain a set of phenomena, although each separately only accounts for some aspects."
___Google

B1. Information-Centric Worldview :
"Noted English mathematical physicist Sir Roger Penrose theorizes that at the level of the Planck scale (an unfathomably small and unimaginably energetic scale at which even quantum field theory breaks down) the entire universe is actually pure, abstract information."
http://www.esalq.usp.br/lepse/imgs/conteudo_thumb/The-Illusion-of-Reality---The-Scientific-Proof-That-Everything-is-Energy-and-Reality-Isnt-Real.pdf
B2. Enformy :
“Enformy is the principle of creation. Life didn't just happen. Life had to happen. Enformy compelled it. Enformy compelled DNA to organize."
https://vxm.com/link.enformytheory.html
Note : Watson's Theory of Enformed Systems is more liberal & literal than my own conservative & metaphorical interpretations of the logical concept of Enformy (negentropy).


PS___Enformationism takes current knowledge and projects (speculates) into the unknowable time-before-time, in order to grasp at answers to ancient philosophical questions of Ontology and Epistemology. Theism and Atheism are both gnostic worldviews, that claim to know for sure, either by revelation or by reason, what it's possible to Know about Existence. But Agnosticism (Epoché) understands that Reason is not bound by physical barriers, so we can legitimately conjecture on concepts that we can't prove empirically. What matters is only that it makes sense -- not necessarily in a conventional belief system, but in the light of Reason.

Let's test how good your idea is: Try and harmonize the following thesis-antithesis pairs:
1. Theism-Atheism (everyone's favorite don't-get-along-at-all couple).
2. Rationalism-Empiricism (another such pair). — Agent Smith

The BothAnd principle is Holistic. It assumes that all apparent oppositions in the natural world are ultimately complementary. For example, Matter & Antimatter, when brought together, commit mutual suicide. And yet, the energy they are composed of is not lost, but returns to the universal thermodynamic system from whence it came. Positive & Negative energy are harmonized in the Neutrality of the whole.

Likewise, clashes between Theists & Atheists, can be reconciled in Agnosticism and Deism. The material world is obviously temporary & contingent. So, even atheist scientists concede that there must have been an external cause of the Big Bang, that is not a part of the expanding system itself. The well-aimed cue-ball requires an aim-er with a cue-stick (creative power). But as arrogant Atheists, they cannot admit that a mind is needed to explain Evolution. So, they merely imagine another dumb cue-ball zooming-in from off-table, which accidentally impacted the BB cue-ball. On the other hand, prideful Theists do see the need for an intentional mind to aim the stick or ball. But they take their ability to imagine a divine pool-shooter (Faith) as logical evidence. However, humble Agnostics are aware that their Logic is derived only from evidence inside the system. So, they don't pretend to know anything about the logical, but imaginary Who, out there in the great beyond. Hence, they stand in the middle of the argument, and say "can't we all just get along"?

Early philosophy was mostly a rational exercise of discovering logical patterns for How & Why the world works as it does. But around the time of Aristotle, they began to physically analyze (dissect) the world around them, in order to discover the hidden mechanisms inside. The hands-on (empirical) approach soon proved to be very effective in leveraging the human mind to control the natural world. Yet, they found that the immaterial mind itself is not so easy to dissect. So the early Psychologists (Freud) were essentially impractical philosophers, using pure Reason as a scalpel to analyze minds. Now we have more empirical methods for mind-reading, but the meaning of MRI blobs still have to be interpreted rationally & logically. So, to this very day both Rationalism and Empiricism are working together to advance our understanding of How & Why the mechanics of Physics has evolved Metaphysical Minds, whose inner thoughts still resist the crude empirical methods of Trepanation (drilling holes in the skull) and Magnetic Imaging (MRI).

So, you see, Theism & Atheism and Rationalism & Empiricism can harmonize like Ebony & Ivory, if we give them a chance. :cool:


Both/And Principle :
My coinage for the holistic principle of Complementarity, as illustrated in the Yin/Yang symbol. Opposing or contrasting concepts are always part of a greater whole. Conflicts between parts can be reconciled or harmonized by putting them into the context of a whole system.
http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page10.html

Ebony and Ivory :
Ebony and ivory live together in perfect harmony
Side by side on my piano keyboard, oh Lord, why don't we?
We all know that people are the same whereever you go
There is good and bad in ev'ryone
We learn to live, when we learn to give
Each other what we need to survive, together alive
___Paul McCartney

It generalizes the intuition/rationale of the multiple hypotheses floatin around such that each one fits with your x-based EnformAction thesis; how snugly is up to how good is your generalization is of course. — Agent Smith

Yes. Philosophy is all about generalizing Principles from specific Instances. The operative Variable "X" is the shape-shifting power to enform, that we generically call "Information". That word originally refered to the contents of a mind (knowledge, meaning, intelligence, etc). But Shannon applied that term to non-specific "Data", which could be anything meaningful to a mind. The range of meanings or values is encoded from 1 (100% ; rigid order) to 0 (zero ; total randomness). Ironically, Shannon also realized that the potential of his data carriers (bits & bytes) can be evaluated in terms of Entropy, which is the ashes of Energy. Yet, the flip-side of Entropy is Enformy [see below].

More recently, physicists have realized that the essence of Information is equivalent to what we know as Energy : the power to cause change. In the Enformationism thesis though, I expand the range of Information to include a> Energy, b> Matter (E=MC^2), c> Intention (design ; mental causation), and various other instances of Form Change, such as physical Phase Transitions. FORM is essentially a meaningful or structural pattern, such as Morse Code or DNA. In general, I call that Causal Information "EnFormAction". It's what allows the random mutations of Evolution to produce non-random Forms (organisms) that survive & reproduce; to progress. Hence, Natural Selection is a form of Intention ; it chooses only the mutations that meet its standards of fitness.

Harking back to the OP, the biggest variable of all is the mysterious Enformer or Intender, Who defined the rules of Natural Selection. Most physicists are functionally Agnostic, in that they just take those evolutionary standards and natural laws for granted. And assume that the laws keeping our world on track are random & arbitrary. But then, they proceed to rely on the mathematical exactness of those regulations as-if they are orderly & absolute. As an Agnostic myself, I don't claim to know anything specific about the X-factor (the Who) serving as the Initial Cause of the chain of causation that we know as evolution. But, I can see the fingerprints of the culprit all over the natural world. :nerd:


Information :
(1) : knowledge obtained from investigation, study, or instruction. (2) : intelligence, news. (3) : facts, data.
Merriam-Webster

Data : Philosophy
things known or assumed as facts, making the basis of reasoning or calculation.
Oxford Dictionary

EnFormAction :
Intentional Causation. A proposed metaphysical law of the universe that causes random interactions between forces and particles to produce novel & stable arrangements of matter & energy.
http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page8.html

Enformy :
In the Enformationism theory, Enformy is a hypothetical, holistic, metaphysical, natural trend or force, that counteracts Entropy & Randomness to produce complexity & progress.
http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page8.html

With regard to information, are you proposing a reductionist thesis - that everything boils down to information? As I suggested to you earlier, in addition to positing a who (created the universe)? - your Enformer - you might also wanna explore how (the universe was created) - with information. — Agent Smith

In accordance with the BothAnd philosophy, Enformationism is both Reductive (it all boils down to Information Bits as the atoms of reality), but it's also Holistic (as in PanEnDeism : all is in G*D). If you're no comfortable with the G*D terminology, you can just as well call it "LOGOS" per Plato, or "TAO" per Lao Tse. Whatever you call it, "the Who" or "The All" is the potential source of all actual things and processes in the contingent world. "Sufficient Reason" will tell you that much, with no need for divine revelation.

Even Atheist scientists have conceded that something with the ability to Create (Enform) a new world from scratch (mathematical Singularity) is logically necessary. But they tend to think of Materialistic causes, such as eternal regression of Multiverses (tower of turtles), or Many Worlds (hypothetical parallel universes), or Materialistic Magic (Instantaneous "Inflation" of a universe from a minuscule quantum fluctuation). All of these scenarios presume eternal Space & Time, and Energy & Laws. So, Enformationism lumps all those resources under the heading of "Causal Information", otherwise known as "Intention". But the Power of Intention is found only in Living & Thinking things -- not in space-time or energy/laws -- which have the ability to imagine the future, and to progress toward a preset goal.

I call that creative power in the universe "EnFormAction" (the ability to transform Potential into Actual). So, the creative act of enforming -- via the mechanism of Evolution -- progresses toward some unknown (to us) teleological destination. However, it's obviously not top-down Teleology (as in Genesis), but bottom-up Evolution, with only the standards of Natural Selection to guide the program toward the Intended Final State.

Hows that, for "how the universe" is creating itself via innate Intention? :nerd:

Intention :
1. a thing intended; an aim or plan or program.
2. stretching or leaning toward something
3. purpose ; design

In essence, how do we/should we deal with doubt and uncertainty, and possibility? — Agent Smith

Are you familiar with the Enlightenment era philosophy of Deism? They were Agnostic about the G*D of Theism, specifically Judeo-Christianity, but they continued to accept the logical necessity for a First Cause of some unspecified kind. So, they doubted the existence of the Bible God, and were uncertain of the characteristics of the rationally revealed "G*D of the philosophers". Yet, they dealt with their lack of empirical evidence, by trusting in their own reasoning ability. Ironically, the Faith religions advise us to doubt our own ability to make sense of the world, and to trust some ancient prophets & scribes to tell us what to believe. If it comes down to Faith vs Reason, which are you more likely to trust? :halo:

Deism Beyond Reason :
In his respectful critique of Deism, he makes one telling observation : "Most deists I know do believe in more (about God) than what natural, unaided reason can discover." Although Reason is their raison d'etre, Deists cannot deny that some of their beliefs and hopes are not derived from pure Reason, but from reason supplemented with hope or speculation. So the original post-enlightenment boast of a “rational religion”, was true only by comparison to the more dogmatic Faith religions of the day.
http://www.bothandblog.enformationism.info/page69.html

I've always had (major) issues with logic - I think I'm a right-brained person and hence reasoning is not my strong suit. — Agent Smith

If the formal Logic of Pure Reasoning is not amenable with your right-brain Holistic thinking, maybe you can dabble in Practical Reasoning. What difference does it make to you, whether there is a transcendental deity to serve as an explanation for existential questions : such as "why is there something rather than nothing?" What are the logical possibilities : a> eternal evolving Matter, or b> eternal creative Mind? Is your matter permanent? Is your mind creative? :nerd:

PS__Atheists will challenge the practical aspects of a transcendent deity : "what has he done for you lately?" (i.e. miraculous interventions). But Deists would answer, she/he created the magnificent world "in which we live & breathe and have our being". Is that enough of a miracle for you? Although astronomers have been looking-in-vain (100 years) for extra-terrestrial life, as far as we now know, our "blue dot" is unique in the universe.

Critique of Pure Reason :
* Immanuel Kant, in his 1781 treatise, distinguished between Pure and Practical reasoning.
* Early Deists of the same era, idolized the transcendental form of reasoning. But in practice, their thinking was contaminated with the same worldly concerns that have always led men from the “true path”.
* However, a BothAnd combination of Pure philosophical reasoning, and Practical scientific problem-solving can allow us to contemplate transcendental possibilities without the risk of believing in impossible things.
* G*D is a transcendental concept, hence with no practical applications. Yet, the notion of an ideal Being can have important theoretical implications. Yes, G*D is just a theory, but also a reasonable inference from the meta-physical aspects of physical reality.
http://www.bothandblog.enformationism.info/page69.html

Practical reasoning is basically goal-directed reasoning from an agent's goal, and from some action selected as a means to carry out the goal, to the agent's reasoned decision to carry out the action.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Practical_reason

Look, I wouldn't dare to say I understood your EnFormation thesis or its auxiliary idea BothAnd. — Agent Smith

The core idea of Enformationism is simple : everything in the world is a form of Generic Information. That's illustrated most succinctly in Einstein's formula E = MC^2. Energy is invisible & intangible*1, so we know it only by its effects on Matter. Hence, Energy is the physical power-to-enform (to cause changes in material form). But the less well known application of the power-to-enform is the metaphysical ability to change minds. I won't go into that right now, but it's covered in the blog.

Anyway, some related 21st century scientific concepts are a> the Mathematical Universe theory*2, and b> the Computer Universe theory*3. In both of those hypothetical worldviews, the basic substance of reality is Information, not Matter or Energy. And Evolution is really processing (computing) Information, not Matter. The BothAnd (yin/yang) philosophy is a corollary of the Enformationism worldview. If you are interested in how they are interrelated, I can give you links to the blog. All you have to do is ask, and you shall receive. :smile:

*1. Why is energy invisible? :
Energy is invisible yet it's all around us and throughout the universe. We use it every day, we have it in our bodies and some of it comes from other planets! Energy can never be made or destroyed, but its form can be converted and changed.
https://ypte.org.uk/factsheets/energy/types-of-energy

*2. Mathematical universe hypothesis :
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathematical_universe_hypothesis

*3. Is the Universe Actually a Giant Quantum Computer? :
http://cmsw.mit.edu/angles/2015/is-the-universe-actually-a-giant-quantum-computer/

Anyway, a question. If mind has anything to do with the quantum world, why on Earth is quantum physics so hard to understand? — Agent Smith

Some physicists routinely use Quantum Theory in their work, even though they find it philosophically absurd. But my response is that QT is not "absurd", just coy (shy ; reluctant to reveal information). Pragmatic scientists don't understand QT, because they are trying to comprehend the math from a materialistic perspective. In his book, Quantum Weirdness, Phillip Ball informs us that "it is not a theory about particles and waves, discreteness or fuzziness. It is a theory about information". In a YouTube video, he says "Quantum Mechanics Isn’t Weird, We’re Just Too Big". So, if you want to grasp the meaning of the quantum foundation of the world, you'll need to look at it from an Information-Centric perspective, where abstract information is the focal point. :nerd:

Quantum Mechanics Isn’t Weird :
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HaqwlJtrakw

Gnomon might wanna respond. I'll wait. — Agent Smith

I no longer respond to those who think "boo, hiss" is a philosophical argument. But I'll let you decide if his assertion is plausible : that the "no [physical] boundary conjecture"*4 eliminates the philosophical (logical) necessity for a First Cause. When I speak of a pre-big-bang Causal Agency, I'm not talking about anything physical or material ; but about an Enforming Mind. If you don't believe in Metaphysical (non-physical) Minds, the idea of a primordial Timeless Mind will seem absurd. :cool:

Hartle-Hawking Conjecture :
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hartle%E2%80%93Hawking_state

*4. A sphere has no geometric point-of-beginning, and no final boundary. But, if it exists in reality, even a sphere must have an existential point-of-being.

But it is default evidence that materialism is false. And pretty powerful evidence too. — Bartricks

That's a bold statement, even on a philosophical forum. But, I think I see how you equate Materialism and Temporalism as subjective beliefs. For example, Einstein's Relativity (block time) posited that there is no knowable objective time. Hence my T1 and your T1 may not be simultaneous. Our intuitive sense of time, and its passage, is inherently subjective. For an astronaut on Mars, and a scientist on Earth, there is a significant time-delay, even at the light-speed of radio transmissions.

But idealistic humans have built conventional & technological means to synchronize our cultural Time -- measured ever more minutely -- allowing us to pretend (as-if) it is objective. Yet that factual Time assumption is similar to the factual Matter presumption of classical physics. Both were called into question by 20th century Relativity and Quantum fuzziness. Atoms of time, and atoms of matter are now viewed by woke scientists as conventional beliefs, instead of physical facts.

Wheeler's Delayed Choice thought experiment, and various Illusion of Choice experiments, seem [subject to alternative interpretations] to indicate that our sense of control over time and matter are retrospective, not causal. But, the point here is that Subjective Reality is actually Ideality (i.e. mental, not physical). As Kant pointed-out, we only know phenomena as interpreted into mental ideas (noumena).

So, it seems that Plato's postulated perfect "Ideality" may be closer to truth, than our conventional "Reality" of absolute objective Truth and physical Facts. A truly Objective Ideal observer would necessarily be viewing from an omniscient perch outside our system of Space & Time. Those of us players in the Real World game, view the environment from a mobile perspective, in both space (matter) & time (change). From our self-centered viewpoint, Time & Space are synchronized to the beat of our own heart. :cool:


Delayed-choice experiment :
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wheeler%27s_delayed-choice_experiment

From an information theoretic perspective this also makes little sense. — Count Timothy von Icarus

Most of the economic math and speculative predictions are way over my head. But "information-theoretic" is right down my philosophical alley. What does your IT perspective say about the near future? In view of the current inflationary bubble, is a serious Recession inevitable? I have no upwardly mobile "stonks", and I don't have any money to invest in EFTs. So, maybe I'll just hunker-down in my non-fungible cave, where I have nothing to lose, and try to ride it out. :cool:

If I may be so bold as to make a suggestion, there's ample room in your EnFormAction for science by treating it as answers to how G*D (primum movens) created and runs the universe. Aristotle's 4 causes (material, efficient, formal, final) is just what the doctor ordered for the inclusion of science in EnFormAction. — Agent Smith

Yes. That's what I'm doing in the BothAnd Blog. I now take the necessity for a First Cause (Enformer) for granted. Beyond that axiom, I don't concern myself with super-natural matters, such as miracles & magic. Instead, I apply the principles of Quantum uncertainty and Information ubiquity to understanding how the Natural (material) & Cultural (mental) world works : "how G*D . . . runs the universe", as you expressed it. Reductionist & Empirical Science does a good job of revealing the deterministic mechanical workings of Nature. But it has been less successful in understanding the non-linear vagaries of the Quantum Queerness, inextricably entangled with the human Mind, and its cultural extensions.

Did you get the idea that Enformationism excludes modern science? That's what the woo-fighters on this forum assume, due to their prejudice against Metaphysics. But my thesis is built upon two cutting-edge sciences -- Quantum & Information -- that deal with the non-classical underbelly of reality. So, those who are uncomfortable with non-mechanical non-deterministic systems & processes, close their eyes & ears, while chanting the woo-woo mantra to drive away the evil spirits of the mysterious human Mind.

I'm currently reading a science book by Phillip Ball -- former editor at the technical journal Nature. The title of the book is Beyond Weird, and it deals with the natural phenomena that Einstein rejected as "God [nature] playing dice" and as "spooky action at a distance". Since then, pragmatic empirical scientists [see below], have decided not to concern themselves with the weird stuff, but to just "shut-up and calculate". Unfortunately, I'm not a math maven. So, in my waning years, my interests are directed toward the mundane stuff that has occupied philosophers for millennia : not Physics, but Meta-Physics, the non-physical (mental) aspects of our material world.

I assume that "weird" Metaphysics is what you are suggesting is a waste of time. The woo-birds treat that topic as mere Mysticism. And indeed, the pioneers of Quantum science -- Bohr, Heidegger, Schrodinger, Bohm, etc -- were accused of being mystics, when they suggested that the human mind has some causal effect on matter. So, I'm in good company. Since then, despite Feynman's quip, other scientists have made some progress toward understanding how that natural magic might happen. The key to that perception is the connection between Quantum Physics and Mental Information. Which is the insight that led me to the -- seemingly "weird" but actually natural & normal -- Enformationism thesis. :nerd:


Quantum Weirdness :
Phillip Ball introduces his topic by clarifying the murkiness of Quantum Physics : “what has emerged most strongly from this work on the fundamental aspects of quantum theory is that it is not a theory about particles and waves, discreteness or uncertainty or fuzziness. It is a theory about information.” [My emphasis] He then admits that “quantum information brings its own problems, because it raises questions about what this information is . . . because information is not a thing that you can point to . . .” Consequently, his book is more about Philosophy than Science. Ironically, the exotic mathematics of Quantum Theory has become the foundation of 21st century science, even though its implications cannot be understood intuitively, or in terms of 19th century Classical Physics. Hence the so-called “weirdness” of QT has remained as queer as ever over the last century.
BothAnd Blog, post 125

Nature :
First published in 1869, Nature is the world's leading multidisciplinary science journal.
https://www.nature.com

Quantum Mysticism :
https://phys.org/news/2009-06-quantum-mysticism-forgotten.html

DON'T TRY TO UNDERSTAND QM
JUST SHUT-UP AND CALCULATE