The point remains the same, even if you express it in this way. All that meaning between 1 and 0 cannot be expressed in the digital system. — Metaphysician Undercover

Yes, but the digital system is just one facet of the whole system -- the Universe. Our world is a two-sided coin. You can't see both sides at the same time. But you can choose which side to look at. In the communication of Information, Shannon chose not to look at the intentional Meaning of its contents, but to focus on the Container, which is neutral toward Meaning. The point being, that the invisible side of the cosmic coin is still there, like the dark side of the moon. See image below. :smile:

Right, that's why all that meaning (information) ends up being contradictory and "un-knowable". — Metaphysician Undercover

Quantum information that is in superposition is indeed "un-knowable" until a measurement is taken. The measurement is a Choice of what to look at. Quantum theorists have argued about the significance of a Delayed Choice experiment. But don't ask me to make sense of it in this context --- it's just an analogy. Superposition may be confusing, but not necessarily contradictory. :grin:

Delayed Choice : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_eraser_experiment

That's why the Shannon use of "information" is distinct from most common usage. — Metaphysician Undercover

Yes. But it's the Distinction-that-made-a-Difference in causing a Phase Change in history from the Industrial Age to the Information Age. By changing how we think of Information, he was able to gain power over it. For example, the Bit is a distinction -- a difference (1) that makes a difference (2). The first difference is physical (an empirical observation), and the latter difference is personal -- meaning (a theory or feeling). That's why some people feel that Shannon's indirect creation (Robots) are like Frankenstein's soulless monsters.

Information Age : This surprising result is a cornerstone of the modern digital information age, where the bit reigns supreme as the universal currency of information.
https://www.quantamagazine.org/how-claude-shannons-information-theory-invented-the-future-20201222/

The point being that I don't see any evidence of rules of semantics, and the rules of syntax need to be interpreted. — Metaphysician Undercover

The rules of Syntax (structure) are partly objective, and can be applied to any language or culture. But the "rules" of Semantics (meaning) are partly subjective & personal, yet may also be embedded in Jung's Collective Consciousness, or in Freud's Unconscious, or Chomsky's Deep Structure. Don't take those metaphors literally. They merely indicate that part of what-we-know-intuitively, and the rules-of-behavior we follow, are inherited with the human body. Hence, such standards, while important, are not inherently formal or rational. :nerd:

Rules of Semantics : Semantic rules make communication possible. They are rules that people have agreed on to give meaning to certain symbols and words. Semantic misunderstandings arise when people give different meanings to the same words or phrases
http://www.ai.mit.edu/projects/dm/theses/jackendoff69.pdf

Both Sides Now

Harry Hindu is speaking of this as a matter of following rules, but I don't see any evidence of any such rules. — Metaphysician Undercover

Perhaps he is referring to the rules of Syntax, which are conventional, and the rules of Semantics, which are mostly intuitive. :smile:

If that is your view, and belief, how do you account for all that meaning which is excluded as not meaningful, by that position, as I explained above? Do you believe that it is acceptable to exclude any meaning which cannot fit into the digital representation, as not meaningful? Isn't that contradictory? — Metaphysician Undercover

I assume that by "excluded", you are referring to "discarding, all that meaning which falls in between, as neither 0 nor 1". But that's not how I understand the digital compression process. Instead, it's similar to Quantum Superposition, in that all values between 0 and 1 are possible, but not actual, until the superposition is "collapsed" by a measurement. The original Intention is still in-there, but un-knowable until the meaning is "measured" by a mind that "resonates" with the intent. In other words, the receiver must already know something about the significance of the communication.

I'm not into all the technical details, but some Information theorists view the secret to compression as, not either/or, but as all-of-the-above. However, exactly what triggers the decompression is just as unclear as in Quantum Theory. It seems to have something to do with a Conscious Mind extracting Information as a Measurement of Meaning. That notion fits into my Enformationism thesis, even though I can't spell-out the exact mechanics of it. I simply liken it to a physical Phase Change, such as water to ice.

Besides there is no actual Meaning transmitted in a Shannon communication --- only abstract mathematical symbols, that can be used to define conventional relationships, which the receiving mind interprets as Meaning. Anything deeper than that vague summary is way over my pointy head. :cool:

Superposition of meaning : Shannon's theory of information was built on the assumption that the information carriers were classical systems. Its quantum counterpart, quantum Shannon theory, explores the new possibilities arising when the information carriers are quantum systems.
https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rspa.2018.0903

Phase Transition : Phase transitions occur when the thermodynamic free energy of a system is non-analytic for some choice of thermodynamic variables
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phase_transition
Note : I interpret "non-analytic" to mean that nobody knows what the intermediate steps are, between before & after the change. It's like magic. :joke:

Meaning Communication :In the philosophy of language, metaphysics, and metasemantics, meaning "is a relationship between two sorts of things: signs and the kinds of things they intend, express, or signify"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meaning_(philosophy)
Note : it takes two to tango : sender & receiver must have something in common -- they must be on the same wavelength.

Digital information is conveyed in the abstract language of binary numbers that have the potential to encode any meaning. — Gnomon
But do they? Or, do you really believe this? — Metaphysician Undercover

It's not just me. See the link to Universal Language in the previous post. I'm making a broad general statement, that you may be interpreting in a narrow sense. I'm merely repeating the opinions of serious scientists -- Wheeler, Tegmark, Fredkin, Lloyd, etc -- that the physical reality of our universe may be viewed as our sensory interpretation of abstract mathematical Information --- see Interface Reality below.

Of course, this is not a mainstream view, but I'm using it for personal philosophical purposes, not an academic technical thesis. These mathematical-minded scientists are implying that we are living in the Matrix, running a digital program. I don't take that metaphor too literally, but as a metaphor, it fits neatly into my Enformationism worldview. So, yes, I believe it --- provisionally. :joke:

Digital Physics : In physics and cosmology, digital physics is a collection of theoretical perspectives based on the premise that the universe is describable by information. It is a form of digital ontology about the physical reality. According to this theory, the universe can be conceived of as either the output of a deterministic or probabilistic computer program, a vast, digital computation device, or a mathematical Isomorphism to such a device.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_physics

Interface Reality : http://bothandblog6.enformationism.info/page21.html

In Spinoza's philosophy, which I'll take to be paradigmatic for philosophy generally in this case, the only real substance ('substance' being nearer in meaning to 'subject' or to 'being' than the current conception of 'substance') is self-caused, it exists in itself and through itself. In other words, it is not derived from anything, whereas everything else is derived from that. (This is Spinoza's doctrine of God as nature.) — Wayfarer

Yes. My Enformationism thesis can be viewed as an update of Spinoza's worldview, in light of Quantum Physics, bottom-up Evolution, and Information Theory. :smile:

Spinoza's Universal Substance : Like Energy, Information is the universal active agent of the cosmos. Like Spinoza's God, Information appears to be the single substance of the whole World.
http://bothandblog2.enformationism.info/page29.html

Raw Energy is first transformed into active Life, and then into sensing Mind, and ultimately into knowing Consciousness. — Gnomon
Transformed by what, and how? — Wayfarer

The world-creating Potential of the Big Bang Singularity was transformed (enformed) into Life, the Universe, and Everything by the power of EnFormAction. This is a novel notion, perhaps even radical. But it is being studied by serious scientists -- some of whom even entertain the taboo concept of Deity, or Panpsychism. I have simply translated that unconventional interpretation of Generic Information into a new myth of creation, that I call Enformationism. This is based on Einstein's theory of E = MC^2, and the current understanding of physicists that Information transforms into Energy, which transforms into Matter, and vice versa. See the Hypothesis below for the "how". :nerd:

The mass-energy-information equivalence principle :
https://aip.scitation.org/doi/10.1063/1.5123794

Generic Information : Information is Generic in the sense of generating all forms from a formless pool of possibility -- the Platonic Forms.
https://enformationism.info/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=3&p=837#p837

EnFormAction :
Ententional Causation. A proposed metaphysical law of the universe that causes random interactions between forces and particles to produce novel & stable arrangements of matter & energy. It’s the creative force of the axiomatic eternal deity that, for unknown reasons, programmed a Singularity to suddenly burst into our reality from an infinite source of possibility. AKA : The creative power of Evolution; the power to enform; Logos; Change.
http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page8.html

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

I think that what happens is that at each distinct level there is an inversion of importance, from the particular to the general, and then back again when you cross the next level. — Metaphysician Undercover

Yeah! That's the ticket : "Inversion" -- a mental flip of the coin. When I said that Shannon's Information substituted "generality" for "specificity", I was referring to the meaning of communication. Shannon's technique was to eliminate the specific intended meaning of Words for enigmatic numerical Bytes. Digital information is conveyed in the abstract language of binary numbers that have the potential to encode any meaning. It's a sort of universal language. But Mathematics is divorced from concrete Reality, in that it is universal instead of specific. That's why String Theory makes sense to mathematicians, and not to laymen, but cannot be empirically tested in the real world.

Therefore, in order to be meaningful to non-computers, that general (one size fits all) language must be translated (inverted) back into a single human language with a narrowly-defined (specified) range of meanings for each word. In its encoded form, the message is scrambled into apparently random noise, that could mean anything (1) or nothing (0). Ironically though, even chaotic randomness contains some orderly potential. And Shannon found the key to unlock that hidden Meaning in Boolean Algebra, which boils Significance down to its essence : 1 = True (meaningful) or 0 = False (meaningless).

So, as you said, Shannon "inverted the importance" of Meaning in order to compress it down to its minimum volume. But the communication is not complete until it is converted back into verbose messy, often ambiguous, human language. Individually, the ones & zeros mean nothing more complex than the simple dichotomy of Either/Or. And that is also the ultimate goal of objective reductive physical Science. But subjective holistic metaphysical Philosophy's goal is to restore the personal meaning of knowledge.

Shannon's reductive method : By focusing relentlessly on the essential feature of a problem while ignoring all other aspects.
https://www.quantamagazine.org/how-claude-shannons-information-theory-invented-the-future-20201222/

Physics & Metaphysics :
Two sides of the same coin we call Reality. When we look for matters of fact, we see physics. But when we search for meaning, we find meta-physics. A mental flip is required to view the other side. And imagination is necessary to see both at the same time.
http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page14.html

Universal Language : https://www.bhp.com/sustainability/community/community-news/2017/07/learning-the-universal-language/

I don't see how you can describe that as a matter of reducing specificity for an increase in generality. It's the very opposite of that. — Metaphysician Undercover

Sorry for the confusion. As an amateur philosopher, I'm in over my head. But, if you have any interest in a deeper discussion of what I'm talking about, I can direct you to several books by physicist Paul Davies, and associates, who are exploring the concept of Information far beyond Shannon's novel use of the old word for personal-Knowledge-encoded-in-a-physical-brain to a new application of abstract-Values-encoded-in-the-meaningless-mathematics-of-Probability. :brow:

Paul Davies : https://www.amazon.com/s?k=paul+davies&link_code=qs&sourceid=Mozilla-search&tag=mozilla-20

Thinking that this is an accurate representation of "information", is the problem of representation, or narrative, which Plato warned us about. We have three layers, the real natural thing, the artificial thing which goes by the same name, but is just a shallow reflection of the thing — Metaphysician Undercover

Apparently, I haven't clearly conveyed that my intention is to understand "the real natural thing" instead of "the artificial thing which goes by the same name". Don't worry about the "specificity" and "generality" of information. That's a tricky technical distinction for information specialists to gnaw on. For the rest of us, the important distinction is between statistical Probability and meaningful Aboutness. :cool:



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

You might be interested in this academic. He sounds a bit fringe to me, but I have to admit, his electromagnetic theory of consciousness seems plausible (although I must confess to scepticism about anything authored by someone who calls themselves 'Johnjoe'. :worry: ) — Wayfarer

Unfortunately, that's his real name. And he is fringey, in the sense of revolutionary. I have read a Kindle copy of his book, Quantum Evolution, because it seemed have some parallels to my own edgey Enformationism thesis of how evolution works. He concluded that there seemed to a "force of will" behind biological evolution. And I have concluded that the Generic Form of Information -- that I call EnFormAction -- is poetically analogous to the Will-of-God in religious myths of creation. So, I find his combination of Quantum Theory and Biology to be interesting -- and provocative, if not provable. But of course, it doesn't fit neatly into the dominant scientific worldview of Materialism.

MeFadden's new theory of Electromagnetic Consciousness may also parallel some of my ideas of how Consciousness emerges from a biological brain. He "posits that consciousness is in fact the brain’s energy field". But I would go a step farther, to posit that Consciousness is an emergent quality of universal Information : a MindField, if you will. Physical Energy is merely a causal form of Generic Information. And the human Mind is a metaphysical effect, a Function, of information processing in the brain. By that, I mean Raw Energy is first transformed into active Life, and then into sensing Mind, and ultimately into knowing Consciousness. :smile:

Quantum Evolution presents a revolutionary new scientific theory by asking: is there a force of will behind evolution?
https://www.amazon.com/Quantum-Evolution-Multiverse-Johnjoe-McFadden/dp/0006551289/ref=sr_1_1?dchild=1&keywords=quantum+evolution&link_code=qs&qid=1609092555&sourceid=Mozilla-search&sr=8-1&tag=mozilla-20

Generic Information : Information is Generic in the sense of generating all forms from a formless pool of possibility -- the Platonic Forms.
http://bothandblog2.enformationism.info/page29.html
Note -- this use of "Generic" is not based on the common dictionary definition, but on the root meaning : "to generate novelty" or "to produce offspring".

Shannon might have coined the term 'bit' for 'binary digit' - and transmitting them through a medium. Why it is now taken to have a profound meaning about the nature of reality baffles me a little. — Wayfarer

The profundity of Information Theory is only partly due to it's opening the door to the Information Age. But we have, since Shannon's re-definition of Mind Stuff, begun to go far beyond mere artificial computer brains, to glimpse an answer to the "hard question" of natural Consciousness. Shannon's narrow definition of "Information" is blossoming into a whole new worldview. :wink:


We live in the information age, which according to Wikipedia is a period in human history characterized by the shift from industrial production to one based on information and computerization. . . . So it is not entirely crazy to speculate about what might lie beyond the information age.
https://www.wired.com/insights/2014/06/beyond-information-age/

I would say that you might have this backward. The computer can't handle uncertainty, that's why there must be a built-in code-key to eliminate any uncertainty. People, having free will choice have no such built-in code-key, and that capacity to choose regardless of uncertainty, allows them to live with and cope with ambiguity. — Metaphysician Undercover

I agree with your version, but what I said was that "by reducing specificity" -- which increases generality -- Shannon's definition of Information "maximizes the Potential" carrying capacity (bandwidth) of a transmission. That was the point of his research. By using only an austere two digit code, instead of noisy redundant human languages, he was able to compress more information into the same pipes. Just as with Morse code though, the specific meaning is restored by translating the abstract code back into a concrete language. Only then, does it become Actual Information -- meaning in a mind; actionable knowledge.

In the shipping analogy, Shannon didn't make the ships bigger, he made the cargo smaller -- by reducing redundancy, as noted by TMF. Thus, increasing the carrying capacity at no extra cost to the shippers. But, in this thread, that's a minor point. What really matters is that by using an abstract code -- stripped of meaning -- he overcame a major technical hurdle : bandwidth. But in order for the code to be meaningful to humans, it must be decompressed and converted back into noisy redundant "natural" language. Unfortunately, his new terminology. equating "Information" with destructive Entropy, diverted attention away from the original constructive essence of Information : aboutness -- the relation between subject & object. :smile:

Natural Language : In neuropsychology, linguistics, and the philosophy of language, a natural language or ordinary language is any language that has evolved naturally in humans through use and repetition without conscious planning or premeditation. Natural languages can take different forms, such as speech or signing.

Aboutness : https://press.princeton.edu/books/hardcover/9780691144955/aboutness

What is this "common usage" of "information" that you speak of? — TheMadFool

See my reply to above. :smile:

Information : For humans, Information has the semantic quality of aboutness , that we interpret as meaning. In computer science though, Information is treated as meaningless, which makes its mathe-matical value more certain. It becomes meaningful only when a sentient Self interprets it as such.
http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page11.html

If the accepted "information theory" represents information in a way other than the way that we normally use the word "information", and cannot account for the existence of information, according to how we normally use the word, as that which is transmitted in a message, then surely we are justified in "raising philosophical objections to it". — Metaphysician Undercover

Charged with maximizing the flow of communication, Shannon was interested in measuring the carrying capacity of the system, not the meaningful content of each message. That's like a shipping company, which is more interested in the potential (carrying capacity) of its empty vessels, while the shippers are interested in the cash-value (meaning) of the actual cargo.

Toward that end, Shannon focused on the Syntax of Information (structure ; volume) instead of its Semantics (meaning ; content). Ironically, he measured Information capacity in terms of emptiness & negation (Entropy), instead of its fullness & positive aspects (Energy). Even more ironically, scientists have referred to those purposeful features as "negentropy" (negative negation). Likewise, scientists focus on the "uncertainty" of information, rather than its "novelty". But it's the unexpected that is most meaningful to humans. So, I agree that philosophers have good reasons to "raise objections".

"Information", as Shannon defined it, is akin to Fuzzy Logic, which is ambiguous & uncertain, but -- like the Enigma code -- capable of carrying almost infinite values : between 0 and 100%. By reducing Specificity, it maximizes Potential. Hence, each bit/byte, instead of carrying meaning, is an empty container capable of carrying multiple meanings. That kind of communication is good for computers -- where the translation code-key is built in -- but not for people, who can't handle uncertainty & ambiguity.

That's why neuroscientist & anthropologist Terrence Deacon said, "this is evidence that we are both woefully ignorant of a fundamental causal principle in the universe and in desperate need of such a theory". The Enformationism thesis is my contribution toward that end. :smile:


Negentropy : Negentropy is reverse entropy. It means things becoming more in order. By 'order' is meant organisation, structure and function: the opposite of randomness or chaos.
Note -- I give it a more positive name : "Enformy" -- meaning the power to enform, to create novelty.

Fuzzy Logic :
Fuzzy logic is a form of many-valued logic in which the truth values of variables may be any real number between 0 and 1. It is employed to handle the concept of partial truth, where the truth value may range between completely true and completely false.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuzzy_logic

Enformy :
In the Enformationism theory, Enformy is a hypothetical, holistic, metaphysical, natural trend, opposite to that of Entropy & Randomness, to produce Complexity & Progress. It is the mysterious tendency for aimless energy to occasionally create the stable, but temporary, patterns we call Matter, Life, and MInd.
http://bothandblog2.enformationism.info/page18.html

"Information" Is an ambiguous term which allows the modern materialist, or physicalist, through the use of illusion, to escape the need for God in metaphysics. — Metaphysician Undercover

Yes. Like Pierre Simon Laplace, Claude Shannon had "no need for that [God] hypothesis" in his definition of Information. In both cases the researcher was following the principles of Methodological Naturalism. As the quote below indicates, by eliminating supernatural causes from consideration, scientists could avoid getting entangled in insoluble perennial philosophical / theological wrangling over intangible & non-empirical Metaphysical concepts.

Ironically though, as the 20th century progressed in its understanding of Quantum foundations of the natural world, the less physical and more metaphysical it seemed. Now, instead of hard little atoms of matter, Physicists talk about cloud-like "Fields" composed of intangible "Virtual" particles. So, the term 'virtual" is another smokescreen "to give the appearance of solidity to pure wind" [Orwell on political speech]. Such terminology is only illusory if taken to refer to Actual existence, when they only point to Potential existence. They seem to be potential in the same sense as Plato's Forms : the general potential to enform particular things.

Now, the 21st century descriptions of Nature are technically Meta-beyond-Physical, and are literally ambiguous : "wave-particle". So, it's not surprising that most physicists prefer not to consider philosophical questions about the mushy foundations of Physics. But not all. Paul Davies is a highly credentialed physicist with a philosophical inclination, who does not shy away from the "hard problems". So, he uses the "G" word openly in his books. And he is not alone. Many of his fellows have come around to see that Information is not just ideas in a mind, or just data in a computer, but also the creative power of Energy. Still, he is careful to avoid committing to any traditional god-myth. Specifically, his notion of God is not the supernatural bible-god, but a natural information-god : The Enformer/Creator of everything in this world, both Matter & Mind. :smile:

Methodological Naturalism : Methodological naturalism, as a definition of the scientific method, is rather ill defined except for its main idea, namely that science, explicitly, by fiat, and with malice a-fore-thought, rejects God, gods, and the supernatural from all its considerations. . . . But Laplace gave the real reason for God’s absence: parsimony—there is no need of that hypothesis
https://www.quantumdiaries.org/2011/09/16/there-is-no-need-for-god-as-a-hypothesis/

Potential vs Actual : Aristotle describes potentiality and actuality, or potency and action, as one of several distinctions between things that exist or do not exist. In a sense, a thing that exists potentially does not exist, but the potential does exist.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Potentiality_and_actuality

The Mind of God : The Scientific Basis for a Rational World
https://www.amazon.com/Mind-God-Scientific-Basis-Rational/dp/0671797182/ref=sr_1_2?dchild=1&keywords=paul+davies&link_code=qs&qid=1608860627&sourceid=Mozilla-search&sr=8-2&tag=mozilla-20

God and the New Physics :
https://www.amazon.com/God-New-Physics-Paul-Davies/dp/0671528068/ref=sr_1_3?dchild=1&keywords=paul+davies&link_code=qs&qid=1608860774&sourceid=Mozilla-search&sr=8-3&tag=mozilla-20

I think science majors are for researching the laws of the world, so I think philosophy should be the science of general laws, but to understand the general law, we can't just thinking about it purely but we should understand and learning other majors as a specific knowledge for understanding the world asthe whole big picture. — Anh

Yes, The focus of exploratory Science is on the reductive details . . . piece by piece; pixel by pixel. Since the modern analytical materialist sciences have the bits & pieces covered, what's left for philosophers to understand is a holistic synthetic overview of the "big picture", in order to learn, or relearn, the general or universal principles that hold the parts together. :smile:

Yes, causality = information = meaning. However, I don't understand your aversion to synonyms. Do you not use some words interchangeably? Also, I think "information" provides that sense of aboutness that "causality" does not seem to imply. — Harry Hindu

Good point! That is why I say that Energy is Information (the power to enform), but Information is not just mechanical Energy. Information also causes Meaning in a mind. :smile:

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

I have concluded that our world is not a random accident, but a product of Intention. — Gnomon
This is still a Mind as being First, aka 'God'. — PoeticUniverse

Yes. Most scientists ignore the clear signs of Intention in the evolution of our world. For example, "Natural Selection" was the analogy used by Darwin to describe the process of weeding out un-favored stock from those that met the requirements of the breeder's intention. Unfortunately, before we learned about genetics, selective breeding often had unintended consequences. So, we might wonder if Natural "breeding" also results in occasional monstrocities. But, that should never happen with a biblical God in charge.

In any case, if sheep breeders intend to produce sheep with thicker or finer wool, and pigeon breeders intend to produce certain homing traits or color patterns, then I must infer that evolution was programmed to produce creatures with special characteristics. There seems to be some mysterious intention behind its "selection" of hardy breeds from among the weak & monstrous results of random mutations. Randomness alone is aimless; but AI computers also use random heuristic searches to find forms that meet the intended criteria specified by the programmer.

So yes, that notion does sound a lot like a god-like breeder, with the intention of producing intelligent creatures from raw matter. Ironically, some of those imaginative creatures have learned to create artificial intelligences, that could turn-out to be Frankenstein monsters. :joke:

Evolutionary Programming :
Special computer algorithms inspired by biological Natural Selection. It is similar to Genetic Programming in that it relies on internal competition between random alternative solutions to weed-out inferior results, and to pass-on superior answers to the next generation of algorithms. By means of such optimizing feedback loops, evolution is able to make progress toward the best possible solution – limited only by local restraints – to the original programmer’s goal or purpose. In Enformationism theory the Prime Programmer is portrayed as a creative deity, who uses bottom-up mechanisms, rather than top-down miracles, to produce a world with both freedom & determinism, order & meaning.
http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page13.html

In my DIKW definition framework, I expect generating the Platonic Forms aremore about knowledge than information, as they are generic (ideal) knowledge about how to structure and constrain and use a category of imperfect yet very similar objects. Thus, Platonic Forms are very much like ideal models and general templates of expected/experienced objects. — Sir Philo Sophia

But "information" is "knowledge" . . . and much more.

Your narrow reductive definition of "Information" omits most of its overall "generic" meaning, just as Claude Shannon's engineering definition did. For example, the original meaning of the word was "knowledge in a mind". Shannon discovered that the concept of Information could also be applied to knowledge stored in machines. He noted that the Uncertainty of a piece of Knowledge is equivalent to physical Entropy. Since then, scientists have realized that even natural Energy is essentially a form of Causal Information.

But most of these scientific applications are only indirectly "applicable to human thought or reasoning". I originally got the impression that your theory was intended to be broadly applicable to Science in general, not just to the contents of minds. So, again, I apologize for diverting your thread. :cool:


Information : noun. knowledge communicated or received concerning a particular fact or circumstance; news: information concerning a crime. knowledge gained through study, communication, research, instruction, etc.; factual data: His wealth of general information is amazing. the act or fact of informing.
https://www.dictionary.com/browse/information

Information : can be thought of as the resolution of uncertainty; it is that which answers the question of "What an entity is" and thus defines both its essence and nature of its characteristics. The concept of information has different meanings in different contexts.[1] Thus the concept becomes related to notions of constraint, communication, control, data, form, education, knowledge, meaning, understanding, mental stimuli, pattern, perception, representation, and entropy.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Information

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".
http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page11.html

At one point my friend said the universe unfolds as it should. Does that and your comment on Intention suggest Determism? — Brett

No. Not in the usual sense of top-down determinism. Based on my Enformationism worldview, the top-down design theory doesn't fit the facts on the ground. It has all of the problems that Atheists have pointed-out in Biblical creation stories.

So, instead of miraculous creation in seven days, I see ongoing natural creation in roughly 14 billion years. The creative process is similar to a computer program starting with a kernel (Singularity) of encoded Information and initial conditions, then calculating toward a final solution to some Programmer's question. This is a bottom-up construction from a "Genetic Code", to simple elements, on up to more complex things, and eventually to living & thinking things.

However, since I don't know the kernel code, I can't predict where this evolutionary process is going. But that doesn't stop me from speculating. Anyway, I'm somewhat optimistic about the "destiny" of the universe. So I could agree with your friend, that in the words of the poem Desiderata :

And whether or not it is clear to you,
no doubt the universe is unfolding as it should.
Therefore be at peace with God,
whatever you conceive Him to be.
And whatever your labors and aspirations,
in the noisy confusion of life,
keep peace in your soul.

With all its sham, drudgery and broken dreams,
it is still a beautiful world.
Be cheerful. Strive to be happy.
___ Max Ehrmann © 1927

Bottom-up Creation : http://www.bothandblog.enformationism.info/page16.html

I stil can't see how 'generic information' is a meaningful concept. In your schema, 'enformation' is just the name you give for the place in metaphysics formerly occupied by religious concepts, such as spirit, chi, pneuma, and so on - you say so yourself. — Wayfarer

Yes. That's why I give my own custom definition. The term "genetic information" would completely miss the point of my useage. So I adapted "generic" to my purposes, despite it's common meaning of "general, common, & non-specific. It's a couple of other synonyms that hit the target for me : "universal, all-inclusive & all-encompassing". https://www.thesaurus.com/browse/generic

I do accept that my use of "Information" applies to old religious and mystical concepts, such as "Spirit, Chi & Pneuma". But in my definition there is nothing mysterious or supernatural about it. Instead, Information is the fundamental element (essence) of Nature. For example, in place of the obsolete notion of a spooky Ghost, presumably consisting of pseudo-scientific "ectoplasm", I would substitute the information pattern that defines the essence of a person. By analogy, that's the data read & transmitted by the Star Trek Transporter. Scientists are currently working of something like that, so they take the possibility of decoding a complete human (body & soul) seriously. I don't think they are even close, but the idea is plausible.

I'm not personally religious, but I'm also not an Atheist. So I can relate to pre-scientific notions, without accepting their supernatural baggage. And I can go beyond the self-imposed limitations of reductive materialistic Science, to explore philosophical possibilities.

My use of "Information" and "Enformation" is much broader than just a replacement for obsolete religious names. It's also a substitute for some out-of-date scientific terms, such as "Energy", which is more properly EnFormAction : the act of changing form. :smile:

Don't know what Energy is? : I believe if we went back and re-defined the nature of energy, which is the intimate driving force of the universe, our theories would move out of this 40 year stagnation.
https://www.quora.com/Is-it-true-that-no-one-knows-what-energy-is-and-energy-is-just-a-name-to-a-phenomenon-that-nobody-understands/answer/Laszlo-Petruska?ch=99&share=7bba0361&srid=ozk3M

Transporting Information : In the quantum world, teleportation involves the transportation of information, rather than the transportation of matter.
https://www.nsf.gov/discoveries/disc_summ.jsp?cntn_id=300854&org=NSF&from=news

that is fine, and could be interesting to me if useful and applicable to human thought or reasoning. — Sir Philo Sophia

OK. Sorry for intruding on your thread. I suspect that you are more likely to get the kind of feedback you're interested-in on a science forum.

FWIW, one of my sources is Information and the Nature of Reality : From Physics to Metaphysics. It's written by almost 20 professional Physicists, Chemists, Biologists, Neuroscientists, and Philosophers. But, apparently no Psychologists. Most of it is way over my head, but it also may be too metaphysical for your taste. :smile:

Note : This book may be more pertinent to your reductive definition of Information. And it does include Psychologists among the almost 40 scientist authors from around the world.
From Matter to Life Information & Causality :
Fresh insights from a broad and authoritative range of articulate and respected experts focus on the transition from matter to life, and hence reconcile the deep conceptual schism between the way we describe physical and biological systems. A unique cross-disciplinary perspective, drawing on expertise from philosophy, biology, chemistry, physics, and cognitive and social sciences, provides a new way to look at the deepest questions of our existence. This book addresses the role of information in life, and how it can make a difference to what we know about the world.
https://www.amazon.com/Matter-Life-Information-Causality/dp/1107150531

So, please specifically read the definition you question and specifically point out where it is flawed in achieving the goals of an ideal definition (be it scientific or Philosophical). — Sir Philo Sophia

No need to get defensive. I wasn't critiquing flaws in your definition of Information, etc, but merely offering my observations from a different perspective. I'm not trying to prove you wrong. For your scientific purposes, your definition may be spot-on. But I have a more general & pragmatic usage in mind. The concept of "Generic Information" can be applied to just about any philosophical question. But it's not formulated for use in chemistry or physics experiments. :smile:

Generic Information : Information is Generic in the sense of generating all forms from a formless pool of possibility -- the Platonic Forms.
http://bothandblog2.enformationism.info/page29.html

-- this use of "Generic" is not based on the common dictionary definition, but on the root meaning : "to generate novelty" or "to produce offspring".

Origin of generic
1670–80; <Latin gener- (see gender1) + -ic
also *gen-, Proto-Indo-European root meaning "give birth, beget,"

So, please clearly state your Philosophical definition of "Information" in functional terms that is consistent with and predicts all known observations, and point out how it performs that better than my proposal. Thx. — Sir Philo Sophia

Since my understanding of the universal role of Information in the universe diverges radically from most particular & reductive mainstream concepts, I've had to create dozens of definitions to suit a variety of contexts.

We are not in competition here. Your proposed definition may suit your "scientific theoretical" purposes, but my understanding of Information is "philosophical theoretical", with no pretensions to be empirical or mathematical. But FWIW, here's one definition that is somewhat technical, but includes psychological and sociological applications. :smile:

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".
http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page11.html

All is field. The excitations are what we call 'particles'. From them, the, born of simplicity, the complex universe. — PoeticUniverse

Ah . . . I remember the joys of the simple-minded particular faith of Reductionism! Sadly, I have abandoned the simplicity of near nothingness, for the integrity of Unity and Holism --- which includes everything and excludes nothing. :joke:

No election?
No direction?
Only reduction
to the simplest element of all :
Nothingness.

My friend was raised in a very religious family. At some stage he broke away from their beliefs and declared he was an atheist. My feeling is that he isn’t, that he has moved sideways to this theory he has, unconsciously or not, that requires an intender, which he cannot admit to. — Brett

I can relate to that story. I never claimed to be an convinced Atheist, but did call myself an open-minded Agnostic for years. Yet, late in life, I also made a side-ways move. As an agnostic, my self-education consisted mostly of scientific topics and skeptical periodicals. But eventually, my philosophically-motivated exploration of Quantum Physics and Information Theory led me down a side-road back to the ancient G*D solution to insoluble philosophical and scientific conundrums. This is not the God of religion, or the Faith that is anathema to Science. But it is a personal Theory of Everything, that satisfies my curiosity, except for my eternal destiny. Which I don't worry about anymore.

I have concluded that our world is not a random accident, but a product of Intention. My current position may be what science writer John Horgan called "Negative Theology" or "Rational Mysticism". But it serves my philosophical needs, and does not require unquestioning faith in the transient truths of Science, or the sectarian Truth of Religion. Of course, my non-mainstream position doesn't permit the emotional benefits of social bonding with fellow believers or both kinds. :smile:

Negative Theology : Arguments about which interpretation is “true” cannot be resolved, because our preferences are matters of taste, not truth.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/quantum-mechanics-the-mind-body-problem-and-negative-theology/

towards answering your question above, please review my proposed "Scientific Definition of Living vs inanimate matter" here: — Sir Philo Sophia

I assume the referenced question is about "how the mechanism of organism works". And your "definition" makes the most obvious distinction between Mechanism and Organism : Mechanisms are passive media through which energy passes, while Organisms are active agents that turn some of that energy to their own personal purposes. As you noted above, that redirection of energy seems to be a "primitive form of Free Will". Of course, in the simplest organisms, like viruses, the self-directed "choice" may not be a conscious decision. :smile:

My definitions are based on the physics "principle of least action (PLA)". — Sir Philo Sophia

I would refer to the PLA more colloquially as the "Path of Least Resistance". Mechanisms tend to efficient in in passing energy along pre-defined channels to outputs, that have nothing to do with the mechanism itself. By contrast, a living organism uses some of the channeled energy internally & selfishly, for metabolism & reproduction. The energy "lost" due to internal resistance, is turned into Life. Plus, the output of energy is expressed in self-directed behavior (animation) that we interpret as a sign of Life. :blush:

wherein the means or goal to Self-replicate or gain potential energy (PE) is not programmed or directed by an external consciousness or entity. — Sir Philo Sophia

That's what I mean by "self-directed" energy usage. :nerd:

self-determined, unpredictable, path . . . an act of living primitive free will — Sir Philo Sophia

Freewill allows the organism to "choose" how to allocate its internal energy, rather than passively moved by external inputs. :nerd:

preserving the most potential energy or negentropy possible — Sir Philo Sophia

I give a more positive name to "negentropy". I call it "Enformy". :cool:

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

Dissipation-Driven Adaptive Organization :
A new theory in Physics “that life exists because the law of increasing entropy drives matter to acquire lifelike physical properties”.
http://bothandblog2.enformationism.info/page77.html

Dissipative structures :
Refers to steady-state systems that are mechanisms for channeling energy in order to maintain their form. They re-direct the raw power of creative potential.
http://bothandblog2.enformationism.info/page76.html

Gnomon
Neutrinos are things that travel through my vacuum
Their existence is recognized by their effect
Much like human interaction
One doesn't have to be visible to have an impact — Rxspence

Yes. Both energy and matter can propagate through empty space. But a Neutrino is like a Photon, in that it can indeed "travel through a vacuum". So it is imagined as a tiny bullet (a particle of mass). But the wave nature of a Photon, and presumably of a Neutrino, was a puzzle for early physicists. How can a wave propagate without some physical medium to compress & release?

One proposal was the Luminiferous Aether, which was hypothesized to be almost as close to nothing (i.e. mass) as a Neutron. When researchers found no evidence (measurable effects) for aether, the theory dropped out of favor. But Einstein, while abandoning that discredited term, attributed aether-like properties to his hypothetical Gravity Field. In that theory, empty space was treated metaphorically as a physical substance (e.g. fabric of space). Unfortunately, to this day, the "fabric of space" is undetectable by physical means. So, it remains a metaphysical concept, defined in abstract ethereal mathematical terms. Hence, the vacuum of space is still as close to nothing as ever. :smile:

Luminiferous Aether :
Albert Einstein sometimes used the word aether for the gravitational field within general relativity, but this terminology never gained widespread support. We may say that according to the general theory of relativity space is endowed with physical qualities; in this sense, therefore, there exists an aether.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aether_theories

This “fluctuation”, I think he regards this as when things become unbalanced. But I can’t get a clear understanding of what causes the imbalance, because surely we have to maintain this on a physics level and not suddenly switch to “something”? — Brett

What scientists call a Quantum Fluctuation is "temporary random change in the amount of energy in a point in space". The key concepts here are "random", meaning Un-caused, and "change", meaning Causation. So, there seems to be an inherent contradiction between the presumption of acausal randomness and the unbroken Chain of Causation, which is a common assumption of philosophers & scientists, but implies Determinism.

So, I would say the "fluctuation" may appear Random, because there is no evident specific prior cause. But, in order to make sense, there must always be some cause for every effect. And the most general cause in the physical world is Energy. Thermodynamic Energy is literally an "imbalance", an unequal ratio of Hot vs Cold, so to speak. So, when nothing is changing we must assume that the situation is balanced. But what causes that imbalance of Potential (un-actualized power)? I won't go into the gory details here, but one answer to that question is Intention, which is a disposition or inclination in one direction or another. But then, who or what is the Intender????? :chin:

Chain of Causation : And they nearly always assume that physical causes are the only kind of causes that could really matter in a scientific explanation of anything. But how can this be, when talk of causes only rarely arises in physics, and talk of "causal chains" is practically nonexistent? Won't this imprecision inevitably lead to confusion?
https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/questions/70930/is-the-idea-of-a-causal-chain-physical-or-even-scientific

Energy :
Scientists define “energy” as the ability to do work, but don't know what energy is. They assume it's an eternal causative force that existed prior to the Big Bang, along with mathematical laws. Energy is a positive or negative relationship between things, and physical Laws are limitations on the push & pull of those forces. So, all they know is what Energy does, which is to transform material objects in various ways. Energy itself is amorphous & immaterial. So if you reduce energy to its essence of information, it seems more akin to mind than matter. Likewise, all we know of God is what it does : create. That's why I think of Energy as the “power” aspect of the willpower of G*D, which is guided by the intentional (lawlike) “will” aspect. Together I call them : EnFormAction.
http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page8.html

Intention : In order for anything to happen, there must be a slight imbalance, an inclination, an intention, a choice.
http://bothandblog2.enformationism.info/page76.html

“The vacuum contains an infinity of virtual particles embedded in a foamy space time matrix.” — Brett

I could rephrase that assertion as : the vacuum is spacetime with no material extension or physical change, but only the un-actualized Potential for containing things. Virtual Particles are not real things but the statistical mathematical property of potentiality to become something. A "foamy space-time matrix" sounds like a good gimmick for a Science Fiction story : "I took a bubble bath in empty space". :grin:

Newton's conception of Space, the existence of space, or extension, follows from that of anything whatsoever; but extension does not require a subject in which it "inheres", as a property; and it can be conceived as existent without presupposing any particular thing, God included.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extension_(metaphysics)
Note : Newton rejected the eternal "extension" hypothesis as atheistic.

“Nothing contains the power to make everything.” — Brett

No-thing comes from nothing. The Vacuum is nothing-but empty Potential. It is Zero Point energy with zero power -- until nothingness accidentally or mysteriously "fluctuates". :wink:

Potential : Aristotle describes potentiality and actuality, or potency and action, as one of several distinctions between things that exist or do not exist. In a sense, a thing that exists potentially does not exist, but the potential does exist.

Vacuum Energy : Vacuum energy is an underlying background energy that exists in space throughout the entire Universe. Its behavior is codified in Heisenberg's energy–time uncertainty principle. Still, the exact effect of such fleeting bits of energy is difficult to quantify.

Implicate Order : Bohm believed that there was a deeper reality beneath the quantum level, a subquantum field he called the quantum potential.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Implicate_and_explicate_order

“A vacuum is not empty, it contains space time.” — Brett

The Vacuum is an empty container, which contains empty space-time. :razz:

The container theory of space is a metaphysical theory according to which space is a background against which objects rest and move, with the implication that it can continue to exist in the absence of matter.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Container_space

In relation to your post this seems to be my friend’s position. — Brett

So far, his "position" on Nothing is nowhere. He's trying to define "Nothing" in terms of "Something". He needs to explain the "deeper reality" that is "uncertain" and "difficult to quantify". Bohm was accused of taking a mystical metaphysical stance on physical reality. The uncertainty of Quantum theory has forced Materialistic Scientists to think in terms of philosophical Metaphysical concepts. :cool:

So the premise that information is fundamental, implies that God is even more fundamental. But this implication is simply ignored or denied by the informationist. — Metaphysician Undercover

Yes. I was led by my exploration of the Enformationism thesis to conclude that something like a Divine Creator -- or First Cause of our space-time sequence of secondary causes -- is reasonable to assume; perhaps even necessary to believe. But the very generality & universality of Information in the real world, does not specify any particular traditional deity concept. Nor does it imply any humanoid characteristics, such as motherly love or fatherly commandments.

That's why, in my thesis and blog, I refer to the Enformer by many names, including the deliberately non-specific term "G*D". I take the necessary existence of The Programmer as an axiom in my worldview. But even more fundamental than a creative Prime Cause is the eternal power to exist, which I call BEING. Yet I don't have any reason to expect the Designer of Evolution (The Lawgiver) to make an exception to the universal rules of Nature, for poor little me. I also don't see any evidence of a revelation, apart from that which Science uncovers, to any particular tribe of humans.

So all those Metaphysical roles affect me in a philosophical way, but not in any particular physical difference or emotional charge. Like the Supreme Being of Deism, my G*D does not not intervene in the implacable automatic execution of the Evolutionary Program. Hence, while I am sympathetic to traditional notions of Supernatural Gods, I don't have any motive to worship or pray-to that Universal Agency. Enformationism is a philosophical worldview, not a romantic religion. :cool:

PS___I assume the "informationist" you refer to is restricted to the technical mechanical Shannon interpretation, and omits the Bayesian criterion, which includes a parameter for personal beliefs and opinions.

Well, all due respect, I don't think you've really clarified it. But then, it's a very deep question. — Wayfarer

As you said, the ontological status of "Information" is a complex topic with many aspects. In order to understand my personal attempt at clarification, you'd have to read the whole Enformationism thesis. Some may find it tedious and irrelevant to science, but I think it's a novel, even radical re-interpretation and consilience of the original meaning of "Information" as Knowledge in a mind, and the new concepts of "Information" as an abstract code, and as the essence of causal Energy : the ability to enform, :smile:

Consilence : agreement between the approaches to a topic of different academic subjects, especially science and the humanities.

Did you notice the brief discussion of Hubert Yockey in that paper? — Wayfarer

Yes. I think he's missing the key point of the Enformationism thesis : that information is not just a carrier of Data, but of Mind and Life. How do you think DNA information can enform not only proteins, but put them together into a living body? As a god-fearing person might ask, "at what step in the development of an embryo is the Soul imparted?" Maybe the potential for Life & Mind was in there from the beginning as Intention or Purpose or Teleology. :cool:

A friend of mine is trying to explain his theory of “nothing” through quantum mechanics. My feeling is that the very nature of quantum mechanics precludes it from doing this and that we can only approach it through philosophy. — Brett

Your friend may be making a distinction between the physicist's concept of relative "nothing", and the philosopher's notion of absolute "no-thing".

When physicist Lawrence Krauss wrote his book, A Universe From Nothing, his "nothing" turned-out-to-be nothing-but amorphous Energy & Laws. Yet even the energy was imagined as a seething Quantum Field bubbling with Potential Energy, in the form of Virtual Particles. However, Aristotle made a pertinent distinction between Actual & Potential things. In his theory of HyleMorphism (Form + Matter), the Potential "Form" was essentially a timeless/spaceless intentional design concept, while the Actual "Thing" was a spacetime material object.

As I interpret Krauss, his "Form" (sculptor, designer) aspect took the form of Natural Laws, while the "Hyle" (marble, material) was plenipotential-but-aimless Energy, that could be converted by an act of en-formation into various forms of Matter. So, his "nothing" was something with eternal creative Potential, for which he carefully avoided using the traditional pre-scientific term "God", or the juristic term "Law-giver".

Technically, for philosophers, "nothing" is non-being. But for theologians, God is eternal BEING (the power to exist and to create). Yet for materialist Scientists, "nothing" must be something --- because "nothing comes from nothing". Still, they don't think of that initial creative power as a First Cause, because that would imply an intentional Causer, or Creator. Instead, they imagine the original essential "something" as a forever cause, with no ultimate explanation --- it just is; statistical probability (Potential) is "nothing-but" . . . . . . . . :smile:


What do physicists mean when they talk about nothing? : when physicists talk about nothing, they mean empty space (vacuum). This may sound straightforward, but experiments show that empty space isn't really empty – there's a mysterious energy latent in it which can tell us something about the fate of the universe.
https://phys.org/news/2018-08-physicists.html

Avoiding the Void : Aristotle strongly disagreed with the "atomists." To him, “Nature abhorred a vacuum”: the void was impossible.
https://www.npr.org/sections/13.7/2010/11/17/131383533/avoiding-the-void-a-brief-history-of-nothing-ness

A Universe from Nothing : nothing upsets the philosophers and theologians who disagree with me more than the notion that I, as a scientist, do not truly understand “nothing.” (I am tempted to retort here that theologians are experts at nothing.) ___JACOB BRONOWSKI
https://www.amazon.com/dp/B008383GE8/ref=dp-kindle-redirect?_encoding=UTF8&btkr=1

I’m reading Demon in the Machine. — Wayfarer

FWIW, my review of Paul Davies' book :
http://bothandblog6.enformationism.info/page6.html

Scientific Theoretical framework and Definitions of Data, Information, Knowledge, and Wisdom, — Sir Philo Sophia

If you have any interest in a Philosophical framework & definition of "Information", the linked thread below discusses the Epistemological & Ontological status of that traditional & technical term.

Information Philosophy : https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/481620

But I still say the idea of ‘generic information’ is self-contradictory. Information has to specify something or inform something specific. It’s like the equivalent of Aristotle’s ‘prima materia’ which is a metaphysical idea, not something that exists in reality. — Wayfarer

That's exactly the point of the Enformationism thesis. Generic (general, universal, creative) Information is Meta-physical. But it has the power to transform into Physical things,including living things --- just like Energy --- and like Plato's Forms. This radical notion is explained further in the thesis and the blog. The "specification" is in the Intention. And in Evolution, the fittest physical form is "selected" (specified) from among a random assortment of potential forms. Natural Selection is an algorithm. :smile:

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

Evolution Algorithm :
A genetic algorithm is a search heuristic that is inspired by Charles Darwin's theory of natural evolution. This algorithm reflects the process of natural selection where the fittest individuals are selected for reproduction in order to produce offspring of the next generation.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=natural+selection+algorithm

The ‘information signature’ which is associated with life is morphological - it is information that gives rise to biological forms. — Wayfarer

That invisible intangible Energy can somehow transform dead matter into living beings is well known. Many ancient traditions have postulated some kind of Vital Force or Chi or Prana or Soul. Since these "energies" have not been found by Physical Science, the names must refer to some Meta-physical power. In the Frankenstein novel, even the raw power of lightening was imagined as the vitalizing force. But nobody knows exactly how the "mechanism of organism" works. It seems to be related to the phase change from a collection of parts, to a single unified organic biological Whole.

I can't specify all the transitional steps from Matter to Life to Mind, but it seems to be merely a highly-evolved kind of Phase Transition --- like liquid to gas to solid. Terrance Deacon uses terms like "Morphodynamics", "Teleodynamics", & "Emergent-dynamics" to describe some of the higher-level phase transitions.

To clarify, I don't consider EnFormAction to be a magical force, but it is meta-physical in the sense that the origin of natural Energy is unknown, and is assumed to exist eternally, like Plato's Forms. :nerd:

Terrance Deacon : . . . phase transition between morphodynamics and teleodynamics . . .
https://informationphilosopher.com/solutions/scientists/deacon/

Meta-Physics :
* "Physics" refers to the things we perceive with the eye of the body. Meta-physics refers to the things we conceive with the eye of the mind. "Meta-physics" includes the properties, and qualities, essences, and functions that make a thing what it is. Matter is just the clay from which a thing is made. Meta-physics is the design (form; purpose; cause); physics is the product (shape; stuff; effect). The act of creation brings an ideal design into actual existence. The design concept is the “formal” cause of the thing designed.
http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page14.html

Morphological : relating to the form or structure of things.
Note -- EnFormAction is Morphological.

(Actually I have a ref to provide also, Marcelo Barbieri, What is information?. — Wayfarer

Barbieri : What is not clear, however, is the ontological status of information,
The "ontological status of information" is the subject of the Enformationism thesis.

to make universal claims has a downside to it viz. the loss of meaning: — TheMadFool

Yes. It's well-known in philosophy that Universals and Generals are abstract and non-specific, hence lacking in concrete specified meaning. But that very abstract universality of Shannon's code (1s & 0s) is also its power. The two-digit code can carry any of zillions of possible meanings. But the specific intended meaning must be interpreted by a trained mind similar to that of the encoder. :smile:

For humans, Information has the semantic quality of aboutness , that we interpret as meaning. In computer science though, Information is treated as meaningless, which makes its mathematical value more certain. It becomes meaningful only when a sentient Self interprets it as such.
http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page11.html

John Searle's Critique of Computer Cognitivism : "if left un-interpreted the symbols will not carry semantic information".

Are you suggesting then that Measuement/ inference is a human action and so has an affect on the physical world? — Brett

Not necessarily. It's possible that the Universal Observer (measurer) is God, as proposed by Berkeley :

There was a young man who said "God
Must find it exceedingly odd
To think that the tree
Should continue to be
When there's no one about in the quad."

Reply:
"Dear Sir: Your astonishment's odd;
I am always about in the quad.
And that's why the tree
Will continue to be
Since observed by, Yours faithfully, God."
___Ronald Knox

In any case, I'm not convinced that the human mind has direct power over the material world. Mind-over-matter notions such as Psychokinesis have not produced any empirical evidence. But, since the minds of human scientists are just as much a part of the real world as quantum particles, I can't deny that there may be some indirect influence. For example, when a scientist decides to shoot an electron at a quantum scale object, the electron's energy is a significant proportion of the object's mass. It might be like shooting a naval vessel with a ship-size shell --- that would make a pretty big wave function, followed by measurable effects. :joke:

Consciousness Causes Collapse : The von Neumann–Wigner interpretation, also described as "consciousness causes collapse", is an interpretation of quantum mechanics in which consciousness is postulated to be necessary for the completion of the process of quantum measurement.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Von_Neumann%E2%80%93Wigner_interpretation

Quantum physical empiric evidence for a universal observer :
http://101.0.115.80/~thedebri/articles/natural-theology/universal-observer-quantum-physical-evidence/

Although Shannon's work was specifically about transmission of information through communications systems. — Wayfarer

Yes, but the meaning of those transmissions is extracted from the digital code by the mind of the receiver. As philosopher Edward Feser noted : "Shannon was concerned with information in a syntactical rather than semantic sense". Syntax is the formal structure (grammar) of information transmission, and the vehicle or carrier of Meaning (Semantics). Syntax is like Morse code, which is nothing but conventionalized dots & dashes. Those abstractions have no specific concrete meaning until extracted by a conscious mind, trained to interpret the code. A biological analogy is the chemical arrangement of DNA, which is inert & meaningless, until interpreted by transcription factors into proteins. :smile:

Again, I'm questioning whether information can be regarded as 'an element' on the basis that it's not 'elementary'. — Wayfarer

Information is not found in the Periodic Table of Chemical Elements. And Shannon didn't think of Information as elementary or fundamental. It was just a useful tool for his engineering purposes. But physicists are now coming to the conclusion that quantum scale Information is the fundamental "substance" of physical reality. It's a Primary Substance in the Aristotelian (ousia ; essence)) sense, and the Universal Substance in the Spinozan (God-Nature) sense. Physicist Paul Davies proposed "grounding [natural] laws . . . in information considered as the 'ontological basement' level of physical reality". This unconventional view of immaterial Information --- as the basic element of Matter, Energy, and SpaceTime --- is not yet accepted by all scientists, but it is an idea on the leading edge of scientific progress. :nerd:


Is Information Fundamental ? : https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/article/is-information-fundamental/

Is information the only thing that exists? : Physics suggests information is more fundamental than matter, energy, space and time
https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg23431191-500-inside-knowledge-is-information-the-only-thing-that-exists/

Is Information Fundamental? : Could information be the most basic building block of reality?
https://www.closertotruth.com/series/information-fundamental

The basis of the universe may not be energy or matter but information : In this radical view, the universe is a giant supercomputer processing particles as bits.
https://bigthink.com/philip-perry/the-basis-of-the-universe-may-not-be-energy-or-matter-but-information

So the general definition of information (GDI) is: — frank

Here's my own personal general definition of Information :

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".

I also distinguish Semantic Information from Shannon Information :

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

Mathematical patterns are hypothetical after the fact descriptions. How could they organize anything else but other numbers? — magritte

They work their magic via statistics. Probability is a way to predict the future state of a system via the math of Normal Distribution (Bell Curve). Even random chaotic patterns have some essence of order that can be determined mathematically. Much of modern Science is based on the faith that statistical analysis is an accurate approximation of Actual or Potential physical patterns. Quantum Theory indicates that what we interpret as physical objects on the macro scale are ultimately intangible mathematical patterns and interrelationships of virtual (metaphysical) reality --- imagined as fields of one dimensional points. Ultimately, all things are forms of mathematical Information. How do I know that? I have a thesis. :joke:


Statistics : the practice or science of collecting and analyzing numerical data in large quantities, especially for the purpose of inferring proportions in a whole from those in a representative sample.

Some have even used it to argue that the quantum world is influenced by human consciousness, giving our minds an agency and a place in the ontology of the universe — Brett

Yes. Exactly how & why a mental measurement "causes" changes in physical objects is still a mystery, and a topic of debate among Scientists, Philosophers, and Parapsychologists.

In my Enformationism thesis, I refer to the Latin word for "to measure" (-mensura), which comes from the root (-mens) meaning "Mind" or "Intellect". So, I infer that a quantum measurement is an extraction of Information (knowledge, meaning) from the target. And, just as Energy adds Information to something, Measurement (inference) subtracts Information. This notion works metaphorically & metaphysically, but I don't know how it might work physically.

In physics, both positive & negative actions cause a change of some kind in the target acted-upon. And the causation can be imagined as an exchange of causal Information. Of course, this mind-power interpretation may not make sense, if you are not familiar with the general Enformationism thesis : that everything in the world is a form of Generic (universal) Information --- which, in its energetic form, I call EnFormAction .

If this causal relationship between Mind & Matter is true, then the mind does have the power of causal agency in the physical world. But, the history of Psychokinesis (moving objects with the mind) has produced no reliable evidence that the mind has effects on the macro scale of the world. So, perhaps the mind's use of Information only works on other minds, and on the micro-scale of the physical world. I don't claim to know for sure how the trans-form-ation occurs. :nerd:

Latin: mens, mentalis -- mind, intellectual faculties; mental; memory
https://wordinfo.info/unit/1289

EnFormAction : Ententional Causation. A proposed metaphysical law of the universe that causes random interactions between forces and particles to produce novel & stable arrangements of matter & energy. It’s the . . . creative power of Evolution; the power to enform -- Energy, Causation, Logos; Change.
http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page8.html

What is EnFormAction? : http://bothandblog2.enformationism.info/page29.html

Causal Information :
https://www.mis.mpg.de/ay/index.html?c=projects/causality/causality.shtml

Psychokinesis : Bending keys and spoons with the mind is a simple magic trick, involving misdirection. The "magic" is in distracting the observing mind : Mind over Mind.