In a non-deterministic universe that would all be true. But, this isn't a non-deterministic universe, is it? — Wallows

It's both. I view the universe metaphorically as a computer program processing Information. The mechanics of the process is predetermined, but the output is open to serendipity (random chance). Hence, there is FreeWill within Determinism. The end-state is not pre-determined.


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. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolutionary_programming

"the structure of the program to be optimized is fixed, while its numerical parameters are allowed to evolve."

PS__I have an information-based theory of state transformations (novel state spaces) in the real world. But it's probably not technical enough for your needs. — Gnomon
Please share that too. — Wallows

Here's a link to the EnFormAction Hypothesis. The popup in Note 2 gives more details on Emergence, Phase Transitions and Quantum Leaps. But the essay is not supported with mathematical calculations. It's just a metaphorical myth, to illustrate my Information-based worldview.

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

I guess the question is whether the universe expands or contracts more rapidly in our universe as opposed to some other one? — Wallows

You'll have to ask someone familiar with simulated universes. I only know a little about how the real universe (base reality???) works. But I guess any expansion or contraction would depend on the specific simulation program, and initial conditions, which are both forms of Information. What prompted such a question?

PS__I have an information-based theory of state transformations (novel state spaces) in the real world. But it's probably not detailed enough for your needs.

I'm into Information theory, but I don't understand the question.

What are these mysterious phenomena both internal and external to mind, which create the appearance of the world while being simultaneously informed by environments, both inside and outside of particularized matter as we know it intuitively? — Enrique

Although my thesis is intended to reunite metaphysical Qualia with physical Quanta in 21st century Science, the quantum level implications are outside my limited range of knowledge. So, I don't really know what I'm talking about. FWIW though, here's some off-the-top-of-the-head speculations :

Some phenomenon extremely basic to not just current biological functionality but the structure of mind as such must exist, embodied in all these hugely variant life-forms as a foundational dynamic of cognition, — Enrique

The fundamental phenomenon, that produces both Qualia and Quanta, is what I call "Information". In its dynamic form I call it EnFormAction : the creative power to enform, or to transform.

where the translation of light into kinetic energy at any point in the electron field generates a holistic ripple effect that never fails to evince the statistical signs of reaction center activation — Enrique

Yes. As waves begin to cohere, they begin to differentiate into particles, but remain somewhat entangled in the fluid field. Those first "particles" are called Photons. But as the speed of propagation of Light-waves slows down, due perhaps to interactions with other fields, it "condenses" into particles (drops) of Matter. Each such change should produce an equal & opposite reaction of some kind, which we know as Thermodynamics.

a categorically different phenomenon of hybridized “coherence field”. — Enrique

I assume that a "coherence field" is essentially an entangled system of particles. But "hybridized" with what?

How does a Coherence Field relate to an Energy or Force Field? Coherence is the essential quality of a holistic system. Perhaps it's similar to what I call an "Enformation Field", which causes novel & unique things (wholes) to appear where there was only statistical potential before. The EF is not a material field, but merely a mathematical operator, like addition.

Entanglement is, by definition, the sign of a whole system, composed of at least two inter-related parts. The parts are interconnected via a valence (+/-) relationship, in such a way as to always be complementary (always add-up to 1 or 0). Which is why change to one-half of a partnership automatically means the other is of opposite value. Anyway, perhaps entanglement of parts on the quantum level is the first step toward greater wholes on the macro level.

How do qualia give rise to the qualitative “experience” of a perceiver? — Enrique

My guess is that the property of Coherence is what converts a quantum singleton into a system of many parts (wholes). And perhaps the mind is designed to detect signs of coherence in the environment as significant objects (holons) that may have the potential to affect the well-being of the perceiving organism. Incoherent things are random noise, which can be ignored.

To quantify something is to count individual parts. To qualify something is to attribute personal value or meaning to a thing or system of things. So qualification is merely the act of evaluation relative to Self, which we interpret as meaning. It gives personal significance (quality) to an otherwise abstract sensory experience.

It seems the structure of macroscopic bodies must impose some level of constraint on the ability of these coherence fields alone to adequately manage an organism’s behavior. — Enrique

"Structure" is, by definition, a constraint that makes a group of individuals into an interactive system. That constraint can be either a physical energetic force, or a metaphysical meaning relationship. The process of Enformation creates internal structure, giving Form to the formless.

Qualia themselves, as a basic facet of matter, may be more fundamental than the modular experiencing we call “mind”. — Enrique

What you are calling “Qualia” above, is what I call “EnFormAction” : the power to create meaningful forms (ideas, things). It's more like a "facet of energy" than matter. It is also more fundamental than Mind, because Consciousness emerges at a late stage in evolution. EFA begins as Energy, then transforms into Matter, and then Mind emerges as the function of highly organized Matter.

qualia may be as ancient as the universe itself. — Enrique

Yes. Qualia (information) is primordial.

but even if conscious experience does someday turn out to operate according to fixed mathematical laws that resemble human engineering, its mechanisms must far surpass any theoretical idea we have even remotely entertained. — Enrique

That's why I have concluded that there must have been a Primordial Engineer or Prime Programmer. In my thesis the Mathematician itself consists, not of matter, but of infinite Information (potential ratios, relationships). Which is why Reason or Logos or Structure is the essence of everything we know. Since I don't know anything about that hypothetical entity, I simply call it G*D, and define it by its observed effects in the world.

So I've got time, change and experience as fundamentals. — Siti

All of those essential elements are emergent properties of the more fundamental principle of my theory : EnFormAction. EFA can be imagined as a Program of Information, that creates (computes, reckons, realizes) Change (Energy), Duration (Time), and Experience (Mind). Information is meaningful relationships (A:B), mathematical ratios (X/Y), and values (A=B).

Time is not a thing itself, it's a mental construct to explain Change. Change is not a thing, but merely a mental construct to explain Difference. Experience is not a thing, just the mental concept of Things that Change over Time (i.e. Difference).

All of those boil down to Information, which is responsible for both Matter & Mind. To explain Things & Events is to know their relationships within the matrix of reality.

In terms of Physics, EFA is equivalent to Energy and the Laws that regulate change. In terms of Metaphysics, EFA is equivalent to Elan Vital (the organizing principle) that leads to Life & Mind. In terms of your post, you could call it "a panexperiential, evolutionary relational process of physical reality...all the way down".

That essential principle of reality works "all the way down" from Big Bang to today's lunch. And presumably, it works "all the way up" to the Mind that wrote the Program --- unless of course, you prefer an eternal random number generator.

Any questions? :nerd:


Program : a set of related measures or activities with a particular long-term aim.

Information : "the difference (1) that makes a difference (2)"
Difference (1) is Change over time; difference (2) is Experience registered in a mind.

Why then, did cosmologists feel the need to invoke a "supernatural agency" to explain the logically "prior" cause of the Big Bang? — Gnomon
I suppose for the same reason that ancient cartographers used to write "here be dragons" at the edges of their maps. — Siti

I doubt you really believe they imagined a Multiverse to fill-in a scary blank in our knowledge by warning people away from the unexplored territory. My theory is that they created the Multiverse myth because it was necessary to indicate that there's nothing special about our world (Copernican Principle). Before the Big Bang discovery, atheists could feel confident (faith?) that the physical world was simply a brute fact, with no need for a First Cause or Creator. Then, the physical evidence upset that smugma (smug-dogma) by indicating mathematically that space-time had a beginning-point that begged for an explanation : either nothing-special randomness, or (heaven forbid!) special-creation.

For similar reasons, Atheists are confident (faith?) that we will soon find evidence of other inhabitable planets with alien life-forms out there in the vast cosmos, to prove once & for all that there's nothing special about humans. Yet again, the physical evidence, that we know at this moment, indicates that homo sapiens is the apogee of evolution. So, some imagine that, if not aliens, then at least dolphins will soon replace us as the singular moral agents in the world. This would prove what they already believe : that there's nothing special about humanity.

For all I know --- I'm agnostic --- there might be nothing special about our universe. My hypothetical axiomatic G*D is perfectly capable of creating billions of worlds. But this is the only one I have any experience with. Everything else is mere possibility. And you have nothing to fear from my feckless imaginary G*D. So no need to put warning signs at the frontier to keep adventurers and speculators away. You might as well say, "here be Unicorns".

There's no harm, but how does it help? — Siti

Just as the Multiverse hypothesis gives Cosmologists a possible explanation for everything physical in this world, my G*D hypothesis gives me a plausible explanation for everything metaphysical in this present world. But the materialistic dogma of modern Science leaves the most important features of this world, to humans, inaccessible.

Such mysteries as how Minds emerged from Matter may be clarified, if we assume the potential for Consciousness was already programmed into the primordial substance of the world : Energy & Laws that I refer to as EnFormAction. If Biochemists were to approach their work with that possibility in mind, they might discover some missing clues to the origin of Life & Mind. Their materialistic worldview has allowed no further progress since the Miller-Urey experiment. Darwinian evolution leaves the origin of Life as an unexplained miracle of chemistry, performed by some yet-to-be-discovered magic enzyme. But, my theory sees such mundane miracles everywhere in the world : phase changes, speciation, emergent properties, etc.

The "magic" is in the dual functions of Information : it's both energy & ideas, both matter & mind. And that notion didn't just spring full-blown from my layman's fervid imagination. I can link you to hundreds of books & articles, by credentialed scientists, who have come to the same conclusion : that immaterial information is the essence of reality.

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

There is - in my opinion - no need to invoke some kind of supernatural agency, — Siti

Why then, did cosmologists feel the need to invoke a "supernatural agency" to explain the logically "prior" cause of the Big Bang? Scientists are now producing arguments in favor of the Multiverse Theory that resemble ancient theological arguments for the existence of God. My G*D theory is just an alternative speculation based on the duality/unity of Information, rather than the dogma of atomic Materialism.

Here's a brief selection of related topics from Google :
5 Reasons We May Live in a Multiverse
10 Reasons the Multiverse is a Real Possibility
This Is Why The Multiverse Must Exist
Scientific Theory And The Multiverse Madness
The Multiverse Idea Is Rotting Culture
Why the Multiverse Isn't Just Madness

Beyond the veil of observable physical reality, is there really a qualitatively different realm of disembodied "wizardry" that gives rise to the illusion of materiality? . . . . Physicality and mentality inextricably entwined. — Siti

Yes. But, the realm of Ideality, "beyond the veil", is actually made of the same essential stuff as Reality : mundane Information. The difference is that Ideality is unrealized Potential, while Reality is actualized. It's a statistical difference : an immaterial Possible state and a physical Actual state.

Yet, there is a continuity between the stuff on the inside of the physical world, and the stuff outside. However, the "outside" is not a different place in space & time, but merely the difference between the idea of a thing (coffee cup) and the actuality of the cup. There is one general definition of a cup, a container for liquids, but many different instances, "greatest Dad ever" cup; tin cup, cupped hands. G*D is the definer of Reality.

The difference between the inside (reality) and outside (ideality) is indeed qualitative, not quantitative; theoretical, not actual; ideal, not real, possible, not actual. When you begin to mold clay into a cup, you convert a "disembodied" mental image into an embodied physical object. Is that "wizardry"? Or, is it statistics : the distinction between Possible (0%) and Actual (100%)?

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


Opposing the Multiverse :
The very nature of the scientific enterprise is at stake in the multiverse debate. Its advocates propose weakening the nature of scientific proof in order to claim that the multiverse hypothesis provides a scientific explanation. This is a dangerous tactic. . . . . Despite this, many articles and books dogmatically proclaim that the multiverse is an established scientific fact.
https://academic.oup.com/astrogeo/article/49/2/2.33/246813

As long as it's just a hypothesis, serving to guide our search for understanding, there's no harm in imagining an unseen world beyond the veil of our local space-time. But, when G*D or Multiverse become dogma, they transcend the realm of Science, and enter the realm of Religion.

What kind of subject matter comes to mind when people hear the term “philosophy”? — Pfhorrest

I don't know about most people, but for me, Philosophy is simply Rational Inquiry (Science), as contrasted with the automatic un-examined learning of animals and humans. It's an act of information-seeking and validating.

The kind of knowledge sought is both self-understanding and practical environmental knowledge. But since pragmatic Science has taken-over most of the physical inquiry, and Psychology is probing into the Self and Society, what's left for Philosophy is mainly metaphysical subject matter : the spooky stuff that remains mysterious. The moral & mental questions were left to religious philosophers for many millennia. But now we can use the discoveries of physical Science to validate some of the ancient insights that were expressed in emotional and magical terminology. Today, Philosophy is Metaphysical Science.

Metaphysics : Metaphysics is a type of philosophy or study that uses broad concepts to help define reality and our understanding of it. Metaphysical studies generally seek to explain inherent or universal elements of reality which are not easily discovered or experienced in our everyday life.
https://www.pbs.org/faithandreason/gengloss/metaph-body.html

The comparision between entanglement and idea conception is interesting. — Enrique

The notion that physical entanglement implies a metaphysical holistic state appeals to me. But the technical details of how that might work are beyond my limited understanding. And a relationship between the entangled state and human perception of Qualia, sounds possible, but working out the details is not in my job description.

Maybe a sort of clock mechanism exists in the brain for making coherence fields more synchronized, analogous to a CPU — Enrique

There's definitely a biological clock in the brain that coordinates inner activity with the environment. And it may also serve as CPU timer to keep neural pulses from stepping on each other. But how that might relate to "coherence fields" is beyond me. What is a "coherence field"?

Biological Clock : https://www.sleepfoundation.org/articles/sleep-drive-and-your-body-clock

Maybe the presence of a "clock mechanism" correlates with self-awareness? — Enrique

Interesting idea. Any thoughts on how that temporal correlation might produce self-awareness? Maybe by synchronizing information-processing feedback-loops?

Of course, it’s all speculation. — Possibility

I have no problem with informed speculation. But some concrete or metaphorical examples, as requested in my previous post, would help me to understand your 5D/6D worldview, and your special interpretation of Possibility and Probability and Potentiality. Discussions of higher dimensions in terms of abstract mathematics gives me little personal experience to build a concept around. Einstein's notion of a 4D world is easy enough to imagine, by simply thinking of Time as a dimension. But I have no idea what the 11 dimensions of String Theory are referring to.

The 5D conceptual view of the universe explored by physicists looks precisely at attempting to unify the potentiality fields this thread tackles. — Possibility

Can you give me a link to a site that discusses the "5D conceptual view" in terms a layman can understand? Are "Potentiality fields" the same as Physical fields, like EMF, or something different?

The way I see it, ‘actuality’ refers to an awareness of 4D information only. ‘Cause and effect’ re-imagined as a 5D relation refers to ‘metaphysical will’: — Possibility

I'm not well-informed on higher levels of abstract mathematics. Is this Fifth Dimension a conventional mathematical concept, or something you came up with yourself? You seem to think of 5D (probability??) as something like the Will of G*D, which sounds pretty far-out even for a String theorist. What's the Sixth Dimension : Divine Possibility? I'm grasping here, but my own ideas sound far-fetched to most people who are not familiar with the fringes of Science. I have referred to my own notion of EnFormAction metaphorically, as the Will of G*D operating in the world to cause Change.

5D : A five-dimensional space is a space with five dimensions. If interpreted physically, that is one more than the usual three spatial dimensions and the fourth dimension of time used in relativistic physics.[1] It is an abstraction which occurs frequently in mathematics, where it is a legitimate construct. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Five-dimensional_space

Its relation to ‘cause and effect’ as we understand it is mathematically constructed as probability, — Possibility

Does that mean the Will of G*D is perfectly random, so "miraculous interventions" seem like accidents? I have a different explanation for why divine causation is not apparent in the world. The intentional goal of evolution is preset in the original Program, but the actual Path to the goal is heuristic, seeming like random trial & error. So, the only "miracle" is the creation of a real world (computer) to calculate the program in real-time.

The actuality of improbable possibility, what seems to be a ‘miracle’, is simply an event whose obvious possibility we have yet to map in relation to our current map of potentiality. — Possibility

Can you give me an example of a miracle that was inevitable, but seemed improbable because we are looking at the wrong map?

I think it won’t just be scientists who are going to have to rely more and more on probability calculations or potentiality maps as sufficient evidence — Possibility

If I experience an African elephant suddenly appearing in my living room, how can I calculate the probability of that occurrence to prove it was an act of G*D? How can non-mathematicians read a "potentiality map"? Will these maps draw direct lines between dimensions to show "as above, so below"? Will the Probability Map look like a Bell Curve, with a You-Are-Here arrow?

and then predict and plan actions that were once considered improbable, even ‘impossible’. — Possibility

They said it couldn't be done, but then I found this 5D map. Is that the kind of "meat" you're talking about? I'm having difficulty imagining all this within the limitations of my 4D mind.

A mathematically non-negligible disjunct between phases and energies exists of course, but the impression of "solid", "liquid" or "gas" is a construction of consciousness. — Enrique

I'll have to take your word for the first phrase, but the second part about phase transitions being a construction of consciousness is what I'm referring to in the blog post. I think of Phase Transitions in terms of Emergence, which I personally define in terms of the limitations of human perception, rather than magical appearances from nothing.

So it seems to me that matter is fundamentally closer to superposition than spatio-temporal particularity, and an argument could be made for entanglement, coherence and tunneling also, with our cognition performing the act of resolving these non-local phenomena into the locality of organic bodies and atomic theory, — Enrique

Again, the first part is above my pay grade, but the second part about "entanglement" etc, is right down my alley.

Entanglement in Cosmic Mind : The American philosopher Jonathan Schaffer argues that the phenomenon of quantum entanglement is good evidence for holism. Entangled particles behave as a whole, even if they are separated by such large distances that it is impossible for any kind of signal to travel between them." So, the holistic notion of Panpsychism can explain how two or more entangled particles can behave as-if somehow connected across space into a single entity. That “spooky action at a distance” is possible because the particles themselves are not isolated things, but more like the simple ideas that make-up a complex concept. Ideas are not bound by the limitations of space & time.
http://bothandblog.enformationism.info/page52.html

I don't identify the substance of relatively non-local matter with ideations such as Platonic forms beyond agreeing that our structure conceiving is infinitely adaptable to any possible perception if we employ mathematics. — Enrique

The association of Virtual Particles with crossing over into an ideal Platonic realm stems from my original insight : that Information is both Mind & Matter. That notion was developed into the concept of EnFormAction (energy that transforms into matter & mind) in the Enformationism thesis.

Without an understanding of that Cosmological thesis for a foundation, most of my later interpretations of Information will seem absurd to most scientists. Siti is a Chemist, and finds the notion of "crossing over" from Real to Ideal to be unscientific. But, Enformationism is not intended to be a scientific theory. It's merely a novel approach to the perennial philosophical paradoxes of Ontology. You can take all that Ideal stuff as metaphors, which they are by necessity. But I take them seriously as philosophical ways of thinking about the cosmos.

FWIW, here's another quote from the same blog post ---
Virtual is Ideal :A "virtual" particle is defined as " . . . not a particle at all. It refers precisely to a disturbance in a field that is not a particle." And a quantum field is a place that is not in space, but merely a mathematical description of the probability for real particles to appear from nowhere. This sounds a lot like Plato's ideal Forms, that under the right conditions can become real Things. So a virtual particle is essentially the idea of a real particle. Which sounds like a mental concept. But in whose mind?
http://www.bothandblog.enformationism.info/page52.html

Since we're talking about how organic matter produces mind and plugging our blogs, I've been giving consideration to exactly this subject, and you guys should read my essay The Origins and Evolution of Perception in Organic Matter. I think it could be a good supplement to the discussion. — Enrique

I have read your article on the Evolution of Perception, and it seems to be heading in the same general direction as my own musings on the Emergence of Consciousness. Apparently, you are much better informed on the technical details of Quantum Physics. My blog post on The EnFormAction Hypothesis has a similar underlying assumption, but makes no attempt to get into technicalities that are way above my pay grade.

The first assertion that caught my eye was "Phenomena of non-locality seem to have causal primacy over three-dimensional forms". This may be referring to what I might call the "transition from holistic unitary Ideality to multi-dimensional Reality". For example, I assume that a Virtual Particle has no detectable location or velocity, because it is no longer an independent part of a multi-part system, but has merged into the Oneness of Ideality : like a drop of water into the ocean. In this analogy, my Ocean is their Vacuum : nothing real, but infinite potential.

Quantum theorists imagine that Virtual particles are constantly & randomly popping into & out of Actual existence in the form of Vacuum Energy. So, when a particle emerges from Virtuality into Actuality, it causes changes to the local system. In that sense, non-locality is more fundamental than locality, because it's the source of all change (EnFormAction) in the dimensional world. IOW, EFA enters Reality from Ideality and causes a succession of changes that scientists attribute to Energy.

Unfortunately, "oneness of ideality" sounds more like New Age guru-jargon than scientific terminology. So, I haven't attempted to develop that notion beyond the stratified phase layers of the blog post. I simply imagine that the local-to-non-local transition is a metaphorical membrane that divides the dimensional Real world from the holistic Ideal world. And only EnFormAction can penetrate that barrier in order to cause physical changes in the world. A quantum scientist would find this notion to be "utterly absurd", so I won't try to make a formal case for my own personal fantasy.


The EnFormAction Hypothesis : http://bothandblog3.enformationism.info/page23.html
Step 0 is the membrane between Reality and Ideality.

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

Virtual Vacuum is Fundamental : https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn16095-its-confirmed-matter-is-merely-vacuum-fluctuations/

I don't think I've understood it yet. Any help will be deeply appreciated. — TheMadFool

Perhaps Kant was saying that the existence of a metaphysical God is not something that can be predicated (asserted) in the usual empirical manner of physical Science. Religions predicate the existence of their intangible gods as an item of Faith.

Well I did say there considerable gaps to be filled in - qualia clearly arise at somewhat higher levels of complexity - but fundamentally, are they not still relational aspects of our experience of the world? — Siti

Yes. Qualia are relational aspects of reality, but not in an abstract geometric sense. Feelings are relational to a unique being, who experiences energy inputs and outputs just like any material object. But unlike most of the material world, some lumps of matter have a self-image, and an imperative for self-preservation, that causes them to evaluate energy inputs personally, rather than neutrally. As I see it, the common denominator between an atoms's "experience" and a man's feelings is generic Information : the power to enform --- to cause change. An atom's internal change, due to energy input, involves shifting electron orbits. but a man's internal change, due to information input, involves a memory of the event (experience), and an evaluation of the significance of the event for the person's future well-being (meaning).

Generic Information is plentipotent in that it can cause different effects in different contexts. The "higher levels of complexity" are what I call "phase changes", which seem to be inherent in the
"program" of EnFormAction. EFA doesn't just hit & run, it makes a meaningful difference.

Infinite regress is hard to get the head around, but an eternal first cause that is (at least before the start of 'causation') timeless and changeless. I find that notion utterly absurd - how can something changeless be a reasonable explanation for the most momentous change imaginable? — Siti

I resolved that no-place-to-turn-around-in-infinity problem, by making a distinction between physical change, and meta-physical change. Physical events clearly occur in space & time. But where do meta-physical events occur? When you change your mind, is it in four dimensions? Donald Hoffman has offered a useful metaphor for this dilemma, but it is a brain-twister. You might even call it "utterly absurd". He makes an analogy between space-time as "appearances", and Ideality as the ultimate eternal reality. IOW, Common Sense reality is an illusion, that evolved to enhance fitness for brainy creatures. Can you wrap your head around that non-sense? Can you grok Kant's Transcendental Idealism?

The Reality Interface : Reality is not what you see. Space-Time is a mental construct
http://bothandblog6.enformationism.info/page21.html

Are you sure its humanistic - or unjustifiably anthropocentric? — Siti

It's both. My thesis is humanistic in that it gives preference to the human perspective over the presumably omniscient and impersonal view of Materialism. And it's anthro-centric relative to the non-human majority of Nature. Whether that's justifiable depends on where you place humans in the hierarchy of Natural Evolution --- at the top, in the center, at the bottom, irrelevant? Personally, I place people at the pinnacle (temporarily). But the king of the mountain can always be toppled by the next challenger. Are Dolphins plotting a take-over? :wink:

Ideally, Science is supposed to be an objective search for truth. But so is Philosophy. And in Reality, both disciplines are practiced by opinionated human beings. This forum is an example of how debatable most of those "truths" are. Only G*D, as an outside disinterested observer could be absolutely objective about this world. So it seems that, for now, we have to rely on anthropically-biased humans for knowledge of truth about space-time. Until, of course, a superior race of aliens comes along to save us from ourselves. :nerd:

Is Science 100% Objective? : https://www.quora.com/Is-science-100-objective

PS___Postmodernists were correct that Science is inherently subjective, but their every-man-for-himself alternative was a reaction in the wrong direction.

The individual nature of THIS or THAT atom consists of the spatio-temporal relationships that this or that atom 'experiences' (and has 'experienced') with the other stuff around it. — Siti

Again, to use "experience" for spatio-temporal relationships seems to be referring to an unqualified [no qualia] event, with numerical instead of meaningful values. But the term "experience" can denote simply "an inscrutable cause-effect event", or it can refer to the "conscious knowledge of that event".

The mechanical (cause-effect) occurrence is what Materialism considers fundamental, while most humans feel that the significance (cause-effect-meaning) of the event is more essential. Traditionally, that conscious experience was the purview of Spiritualism, and is associated with ghosts. Which is why I prefer to call it Enformationism, which is explanatory for the natural world, but remains neutral toward supernatural explanations, with one exception : EnFormAction is causation, and must either have an eternal First Cause, or an infinite mechanism of causation.

Since we don't normally associate consciousness with cog & wheel mechanisms, a Mind of some kind seems to be a better metaphor. I think of it as a more humanistic worldview.

Since we're talking about how organic matter produces mind and plugging our blogs, I've been giving consideration to exactly this subject, and you guys should read my essay The Origins and Evolution of Perception in Organic Matter. I think it could be a good supplement to the discussion. — Enrique

Thanks, I've downloaded a copy of the Medium.com article, and will check it out.

Siti and I seem to have drifted off-topic, as we often do. We've just gone deeper than mere Human Nature to the essence of all Nature. As Siti says, "The essential nature of atoms, consists of the spatial, geometric regularities that distinguish atoms from other stuff - like electrons and elephants..."

For me, that essence is called "Information" (the creative power to enform), and for him it's "experience", which I assume, for an atom, is referring to what-it's-like-to-be enformed as a cog in the inanimate cosmic mechanism . For inorganic matter though, we have no way to empathize with their "spatial, geometric" experience, so it would be totally abstract for us, perhaps expressible only in numbers. At least for organic Bats, we have some basis for imagining what-it-feels-like to experience their world, even if it's still only via human-biased metaphors.

I guess I’m not willing to leave it as metaphor. I personally think the conceptualisation has more meat on it than that, and I think the ultimate aim is to develop it towards testable hypotheses. — Possibility

Do you think Possibility (G*D) directly intervenes in Reality (Actuality) in such a way that scientists can observe and test those cause & effect changes empirically? Are you talking about a miracle, or something else with "meat" on it? :smile:

Actually, I do have an idea - I think "mind" is essentially the relational part of the "process-relational" way the universe seems (to me) to work...you have stuff - and it "minds"...i.e. it relates to other bits of stuff — Siti

Yes. That is why Enformationism attempts to explain why Matter (noun) has the ability to Live (verb) and to Mind (adverb), not in the technical details of "How", but in the philosophical sense of "Why". Information is all about Relationships, including geometrical and meaningful. My broad definition of Mind is that it's what the Brain does, its function. Yet Function is both a mathematical relationship, and a meaningful correlation. And Information is the common denominator, both abstract and personal. But materialistic science has no answer to the how mathematics and thermodynamics in nature give rise to consciousness and meaning in Culture. So, like many others in recent years, I have looked into the ancient notion of Panpsychism, to see if the dual nature of Information can help to explain how and why Darwinian winnowing of random mutations can produce creatures of both directed Energy (life) and purposeful Entention (mind).

Adverb : a word or phrase that modifies or qualifies an adjective, verb, or other adverb or a word group, expressing a relation of place, time, circumstance, manner, cause, degree, etc.

I prefer to call this idea by David Griffin's term "pan-experientialism" - some call it "pan-psychism" but I don't like that term because its too easily associated with new-age nonsense — Siti

I agree. That New Age nonsense, such as the psychic-power of crystals, was also a motivation for my using the term "Information" as opposed to "consciousness" to describe those "occasions of experience". But I also avoid the term "experience" for the same reason : it implies that atoms have a personal perspective. Instead, Information functions more like un-intentional Energy at the lower levels of reality. Only in more highly-evolved forms does Energy become Animation, then Entention & Experience. Information is simply abstract mathematical ratios and relationships, that also function as physical Hot or Cold (density of energy), and have evolved into metaphysical feelings of Hotness or Coldness (occasions of experience).

I have no idea how time might have worked "before" the Big Bang, but I'm pretty convinced that cause still preceded effect. — Siti

I understand why you find the notion of Timelessness and Spacelessness absurd. That's because it's counter-intuitive. We humans live immersed in a sea of time and space, so, like the proverbial fish in the water, we take our environment for granted. But science is continually, opening our eyes to features of reality that were once unimaginable.

For example, in the Bronze Age, people assumed that the stars were simply decorations on the ceiling of the sky , just a short distance above the mountaintops of a flat Earth. So, in the Renaissance, you can understand why the church found Gallileo's notions about planets many earth-diameters away patently absurd. Now, we are told by astronomers that the universe is not just the Earth & Sky, but a an inconceivable cosmos of almost infinite magnitude. Likewise, the ancient notion of finite Atoms clustering into all the various forms of the world, is passe. Quantum Theorists now ask us to believe that the micro-cosmos is also almost infinitely endless in the opposite direction from outer space. But, some people accept those absurd beliefs, not because they are intuitive, but because they are the doctrines handed-down by our high-priests of Science. Others reject them because they clash with the dogma of desert-dwelling Bronze Age priests, who spent a lot of time looking at the sky-ceiling just beyond the reach of human hands.

However, some of us now accept those formerly ridiculous notions, because the preponderance of evidence adds together into a cohesive worldview. And recent developments in science --- from Information Theory to Quantum Theory --- are suggesting that the world may be even bigger than the finite limits of Big Bang Theory, and local Physics. Which is why materialists look beyond the former "beginning of finite space-time" to imagine an infinite regression of little bubbles of space-time. But they can only justify that fantasy by assuming as an unprovable axiom, that space-time and matter-energy are eternal. Yet the only scientific evidence we have points to a finite Physics, within a mysterious realm of non-local Metaphysics. So, I have found philosophical evidence that our world is indeed embedded within a greater Reality of Pure Information (the power to enform).

If not, then there is no hope of us making any sense of anything prior to or beyond the universe as we (barely) know it. — Siti

Don't give-up hope. Science is propelled by human Reason, which can imagine things-not-seen, and tie disparate facts into convergent concepts. Just as materialists place their hope for a Theory of Everything on an imaginary random Multiverse or Omniverse. I have staked my hope for a consistent worldview upon an imaginary ententional Enformer. In both cases, it's just a hypothesis, but only the latter directly addresses the human concerns for Meaning and Life and Love. Not Mind from Matter, but Mind from Mind, as cause & effect. :nerd:

if you are invoking infinity, eternity or unlimited potentiality (or whatever) - there is absolutely no need for an intelligent creator - if you are invoking an intelligent creator, there is no need for infinity, eternity or unlimited potentiality (or whatever). To have both is introduce infinite redundancy. — Siti

Actually, the notions of G*D and Multiverse are both infinitely redundant. But if you accept the physicists' Multiverse theory, you still have no explanation for the Metaphysical Ontological problem : how did Mind arise from Matter? What is it about Matter that causes Ideas, Imagination, and Love? If you don't care about such immaterial ideas, there is no need for a theory of an Infinite Enformer. But I know you love me. :cool:

No I don't - personally, I think it is the height of absurdity to suggest that the most significant event could possibly have happened "outside of time" - no time, no change, no change, no ... anything ... tick, tock, tick tock - nothing happens outside of time - how could it? — Siti

Are you talking about Clock Time or Block Time? The latter is Everything Forever. Can you wrap your mind around that? Your incredulity about Eternity is because it is counter-intuitive. But then, Quantum Theory is counter-intuitive. So, what?

Eternalism : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eternalism_(philosophy_of_time)

No you didn't, I did. I suggested that the "primordial" IDEA - i.e. the starting point of the "process of creation" - if it were truly unlimited (as in an unlimited 'pool of potentiality') - would be exactly equivalent to "no idea at all". — Siti

Since I don't have any experience with infinity (no beginning, no end), I can only guess what the possibilities are, but by definition they would be unlimited. For example, the Number Line of mathematics is presumed to have no beginning and no end. So, I figured that we had a practical real-world hint about*1 unlimited potential of the values that the human mind has a limited grasp of. Hence, to paraphrase your question, is the Number Line "no number at all", or all possible values? In Philosophy, "Value" is not just sequential position, but significance to a mind. And Mind is the ultimate Ontological problem.

According to many other ontological guesses over the centuries about*1 Infinity, if temporal Mind is possible, Infinite Mind should add-up to Omniscience. Since Materialistic concepts of Reality reach a dead-end at the Big Bang, I decided to explore beyond that scientific bottle-neck to see if I could imagine some plausible explanation for the existence of anything in general, and of our world in particular. Cosmologist's Multiverse theories are attempts to address the Ontological problem of Physics : "How did Matter and Energy get started? They didn't, but have existed forever". In other words, they are "self-existent", just like G*D, and must be taken on faith, as Axioms for theorizing.

However, my thesis attempted to focus on the Ontological problem of Metaphysics : "How did Mind and Qualia come to be?" Materialism simply assumes, without evidence, that there is a missing link between Matter and Mind, which would explain how such non-physical properties could emerge from physical processes. So, my thesis has given a name to that missing link : Information. Which is currently assumed by some cutting-edge credentialed scientists to be the essence of Reality. Claude Shannon's Information Theory applied that ancient metaphysical (mental) term to physics, initiating the Information Age, and opening the door to Artificial Intelligence (assuming they can fill the gap between Matter & Mind). Unfortunately, Natural Intelligence has yet to be explained in physical terms. So, I hope you'll forgive my non-scientific philosophical foray into what I call Meta-Physics.

Information is more fundamental than Energy : https://bigthink.com/philip-perry/the-basis-of-the-universe-may-not-be-energy-or-matter-but-information

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

Meta-Physics : http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page14.html

But this is what I don't get - how could it have been known that it was even possible to "stumble upon" any solution - let alone an optimum one — Siti

I feel your puzzlement. :smile:

All I can say is that Omniscience and Omnipotence would have a much better chance of Knowing the future than my little space-time mind. If you can entertain the notion of an infinite regression of Multiverses, it shouldn't be too hard to imagine that everything possible has been tried, at least in principle. So that is a deep pool of "statistical significance" to draw upon. But to make it more plausible for my thesis, I assume that a combination of the mental trait of Information (to know) and the physical power of Energy (to enform) is even more likely to predict the outcome of a chain of changes, than zillions of mindless atoms bouncing around like un-aimed billiard balls.

Besides, I have concluded that, by choosing such a heuristic path into the physical future, the Prime Programmer must have a good reason for not going directly from A to Z, by-passing all the trials and errors. In Theodicy, that reason is given as The Freewill Argument.

Freewill Argument : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_free_will
(I have my own deistic version of the FWA)

None of it happens outside of space and time. Is there any compelling reason to assume that any other cause-effect processes are any different? — Siti

How do you know that no cause & effect events happen outside of space-time? Is that an unfounded assumption, or is it based on evidence? Don't you assume that the Big Bang was caused by some event prior to the emergence of our little pocket of space-time?

The Singularity of the Big Bang was defined mathematically as a point at which a given mathematical object is not defined or not "well-behaved", for example infinite or not differentiable (indistinguishable). But scientists were not deterred from speculating about that infinite or holistic state, by imagining that what's out-there is more of the same as what's in-here. The only difference with my speculative undefined state is that it's based on 21st century Information and Quantum Theories, instead of ancient Atomistic and Materialistic assumptions.

Emergent SpaceTime : http://guava.physics.uiuc.edu/~nigel/courses/569/Essays_Spring2018/Files/gupta.pdf

What is SpaceTime? : https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg24332470-500-what-is-space-time-the-true-origins-of-the-fabric-of-reality/
(in my thesis, Quantum Entanglement is what happens when particles become holistic in eternity-infinity.)

Illusion of Space-Time : for Einstein, space-time is not a thing, but an idea. And for Donald Hoffman, space-time is an "evolutionary illusion".
https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg24332472-900-bye-bye-space-time-is-it-time-to-free-physics-from-einsteins-legacy/


*1 About : sorry about the use of that taboo term. :nerd:

PS___Think of my little G*D theory as science-fiction, instead of pseudo-science religion, and it may sound a little more palatable. I don't claim it's true in any ultimate sense, merely useful for inquiring into Ontology.

According to Aristotle, all objects that present themselves to us in experience appear as substances. — PessimisticIdealism

I may be an Optimistic Idealist, because I have found a way to reconcile Aristotle's Metaphysics with modern Quantum Physics, which is inherently absurd according to classical Newtonian Physics.

Matter is that which accounts for the individuality of the substance. Form accounts for a substance’s “thingness” or “kind” and is immanent in the substance as opposed to existing in a disembodied or transcendent state — PessimisticIdealism

In my Enformationism thesis, Matter is a form of Energy, and Energy is a form of Information. That statement won't make sense without an understanding of the fundamental premise of the thesis : that Quantum and Computer Science have equated Mental Information (conscious ideas) --- in its original meaning --- with Physical Information (material objects) --- in Shannon's definition, where all things in the world can be reduced down to immaterial mathematical ratios, encoded in 1s and 0s.

According to Einstein, Matter is also a form of Energy, which is the cause of all physical changes. The counter-intuitive conclusion from that duality of Information --- Physical and Metaphysical (mental), Matter & Mind --- is that everything in the world, from ideas to objects, is a form of Generic Information : mathematical ratios, mental relationships, logical proportions, X : Y :: Y : Z

If that notion is correct, then Hylomorphism is an accurate definition of physical "substance" : real Matter + ideal Form. Every physical object has a defining pattern of information : a design. So, if we take seriously Plato's theory of Ideal Forms, "primal matter" should be construed as "primal Form". And his Forms exist in an ideal state beyond space & time, just like Mind. As a metaphor, we can imagine abstract Forms as ideas in the mind of an eternal Enformer, which is indeed a "transcendent state".

It can neither exist nor be known without form. In a word, it is potency.” . . . “the principle of its action as well as of its being.” . . . “the final cause, like the efficient, is, in ultimate analysis, identical with form; it is the form of the effect, presented in intention and considered as a motive, inasmuch as by its desirability it impels the agent to act.” — PessimisticIdealism

Again, I interpret the dual nature of physical Information as both Energy & Matter, both Efficient Cause and Formal Cause. But I go beyond physical Dualism to a metaphysical Monism, which I call EnFormAction, the power to Enform, the Final Cause. It is metaphorically defined as the Potential and Intention of an ultimate Agent to act in the world. Ironically, I arrived at this Aristotelian metaphysical interpretation of Form & Substance by beginning from the paradoxical implications of Quantum Physics. The negative causation in the world is called "Entropy", so I coined the term "Enformy" to mean the creative causation of EnFormAction.

The unity of material potency and formal actuality is a substance. . . . The form is the enforming cause . . . there must be a relation holding the two terms together. . . . The question now is how substance, a unity, harmonizes the diversity of its material and formal attributes. — PessimisticIdealism

The "relation" holding energy & matter (cause & effect) together is the fundamental ratio of Zero to One (0:1), nothing to something. Which is the essence of creativity. The ultimate "form" of this relationship is what Spinoza called the Universal Substance, or God. I'm an agnostic, but the reasoning behind my thesis requires a First Cause of some kind, which I spell as "G*D" to avoid any anthro-morphic notions.

Matter has no being apart from being “enformed” by a given form, nor does the “enforming” form have any being apart from the matter which it adheres to. — PessimisticIdealism

The ultimate G*D of my thesis is defined as eternal BEING, the power to be; the power to enform; the ground of being. This is not a case of defining something into existence, but of creating an Axiom for further reasoning. This definition cannot be construed as ideally True, but only as pragmatically Useful for philosophical inquiry.

A “thing” is not identical to one of its properties; — PessimisticIdealism

Physical things are countable Quanta, while metaphysical properties are conceptual Qualia, attributions by a subjective mind onto an objective thing.

“the property of being enformed” . . . Thus, as it stands, we are doomed to suffer an infinite vicious regress, for we cannot seem to figure out how to unite matter with form. . . . surely the unity of matter and form in substance would be intelligible — PessimisticIdealism

The inevitable infinite regress of materialistic definitions of reality may be avoided only by going beyond the space-time limitations of Physics into the spaceless-timeless realm of Metaphysics. Which is the abode of G*D. By beginning from a state with no beginning and no end, we may "figure out how to unite matter with form". Which is is the problem that Enformationism was intended to resolve. Unfortunately, the essential concept, that Real is Ideal, is foreign to those of us raised with a materialistic worldview.

Nevertheless, I believe that your intuition was correct, that "surely the unity of matter and form in substance would be intelligible". The problem is how to reconcile Intuition with Reason. And I have concluded that the only way to do that is to follow Aristotle beyond the bounds of Physics into the mysterious realm of Metaphysics. Which is anathema to materialistic scientists, but is the stock-in-trade of philosophers. :smile:


Enformationism : http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page8.html

EnFormAction : http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page8.html

Enformy : http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page8.html

Enformationism Thesis : http://enformationism.info/enformationism.info/page11.html

This is not what I am thinking. It is difficult to describe.. Not "things" that you can understand, in the normal sense of understanding. Let's say irrational stuff, pro-logic. In this sense, it is logic that killed philosophy. — Pussycat

Maybe what you have in mind is Intuition versus Reasoning. Philosophy has always been a logical rational approach to the world. But, it cannot abandon the Intuition that sparks a chain of reasoning. Philosophy without Logic or Reasoning would be Faith and Religion. But to depend on logic alone, is the mistake of Logical Positivism. Man cannot live by logic alone.

How can pleasure and pain be explained, why is damage to the body or satiation accompanied by a qualitative feeling rather than simply being perception together with functional stimulus and response? — Enrique

Currently, those percepts are "explained" by labeling them as "Consciousness", which explains nothing, or as "Neural Correlates", which also explains nothing. My thesis of Enformationism is an attempt to explain such perplexing topics from a cosmic perspective.

Unfortunately, in order to grasp the basic concept, we will have to look beyond the modern conceptual boundaries of Space-Time, and Materialism. And that may sound closer to Religion than Science. But, it's intended to be merely an update of Science and Philosophy, with Religion as an optional consideration. It's not a simple explanation, because it requires a shift in worldview.

The percepts of Pleasure and Pain, are conceived in religious terms as Good and Evil, or in scientific terms as Negentropy or Entropy. But in my thesis all of these percepts and concepts are defined in terms of the 21st century notion of ubiquitous Information, which bridges the old gap between Body & Mind, Science & Religion, Sensation & Feelings, and between Quanta & Qualia. But that's probably not the kind of answer you were hoping for.

To the OP though, no, science is not inherently atheistic. It is inherently naturalistic, but there could in principle be a natural god that is amenable to scientific inquiry. Turns out there’s not, but in principle there could be. — Pfhorrest

I agree. Science is equivalent to the topics discussed in Aristotle's Physics, which was limited to various elements of the natural world. But then, he added a second volume to discuss, from a holistic perspective, how humans understand the world, and the human condition.

The latter tome came to be called Meta-Physics, and became associated with Religion and Mysticism. But Aristotle's primary concern was with what we now call Psychology and Sociology and Humanities. Eventually, modern empirical Science divorced itself from theoretical Metaphysics, and left those other-worldly topics to effete impractical Philosophers and Theologians. So, philosophers are freed-up to discuss ideas (such as God) that are important to human beings, but not amenable to empirical evidence. Philosophy is not necessarily Theistic, but it fills the gap left behind when Science converted to faith in Materialism.

My goodness. So you say that P=V*T is an evil, while V=P/T is goodness? — god must be atheist

You're putting words in my mouth. :grin:

Are you saying that the preservation of momentum is actually really evil, while the preservation of energy is goodness itself? — god must be atheist

No.

Yeah, I think that philosophy spent too much time with the sciences, that started to believe and eventually convinced herself that she is one of them — Pussycat

Yes. Logical Positivism was an attempt to bring metaphysical Philosophy closer to physical Science. But it missed the point of Metaphysics : to understand "things" that are not material, but mental.

I’m a little confused by your use of ‘potential’ and ‘possible’, and how they relate to G*D, enformaction and spacetime. Because I don’t recognise mentality as being IN spacetime, so I’m not sure how this ‘illogical and irrational mentality’ suddenly becomes ‘possible’ in spacetime, when it’s not possible ‘in the unitary state of Ideality’. — Possibility

In my worldview, Enfernity (eternity-infinity) is completely neutral, because it's all possibilities at once --- positive and negative cancel out. Nothing happens in Enfernity, because there's nowhere to go, and no time to get there. This notion is equivalent to the Greek concept of Chaos. Enfernity is "Ideal" in the sense of Plato's Forms as timeless, absolute, unchangeable ideas, that are not real.

Therefore, in order to convert an infinite pool of Possibility into finite Actuality, G*D must create a little pocket of space-time as a place for Change. And the tool for Change is EnFormAction, which can be imagined as the Will of God acting in the real world. So, in Enfernity, all things are possible, but nothing is actual. Yet the manifestation of EnFormAction transforms impotent Possibility into the world-changing Power of Energy, which ultimately changes (via evolution) mundane Matter into Mind, a spark of the divine.

This is all very esoteric, and hypothetical, so I wouldn't worry too much about getting it right. This is not presented as absolute Truth, it's just my way of thinking about the unknowable in terms of metaphors.


EnFormAction : analogous to Energy; the power to enform, to cause change; energy is just one form of Generic Information --- Mind is another.

Chaos : In ancient Greek creation myths Chaos was the void state preceding the creation of the universe or cosmos. It literally means "emptiness", but can also refer to a random undefined unformed state that was changed into the orderly law-defined enformed Cosmos. In modern Cosmology, Chaos can represent the eternal/infinite state from which the Big Bang created space/time. In that sense of infinite Potential, it is an attribute of G*D, whose power of EnFormAction converts possibilities (Platonic Forms) into actualities (physical things).
http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page12.html

Potential vs Possible : example --- Battery voltage is Potential electricity, not Actual electricity, because no energy is flowing. However, you could say that it's Possible for energy to flow, conditional upon a complete circuit. Enfernity is infinite Potential, but only in Space-Time is it Possible for that energy to flow. Space-Time is the complete circuit that allows the power of G*D to flow into the world and back again.
https://hinative.com/en-US/questions/2553858

This transcendent G*D is also immanent in my theory - which is not panENdeist, — Possibility

A non-personal deity who is both Transcendent and Immanent is, by definition, PanEnDeism.

It is at this point (in the ‘mind’) that all illogical possibilities are ignored, isolate or excluded from the eventual actuality of the universe, but not from G*D. — Possibility

Of course, illogical concepts are possible in the dualistic state of Reality, but not in the unitary state of Ideality. Eternal LOGOS includes all logical possibilities, including negations, which offset to neutralize each other to Zero values. But space-time opens Pandora's Box to all kinds of illogical and irrational mentality.

Yes, the "fitness function" requires a choice (natural selection) between good & bad outcomes. All creatures make what seem to them at the time & place to be logical choices. But the veil of Time does not allow them to see the future consequences of those choices. So, they get the grade now (life or death) and the lesson later (ooops! bad choice). :cool:

This makes me think plato never completed his meditations which would have logically led him to the buddhist concept of the cycle of death and rebirth, where all of this good and bad are simply our own creations, which is a whole other discussion. — One piece

Plato may have believed in Reincarnation, but probably not in Karma. However, there is a more modern assessment of the human condition, that includes an up-dated understanding of History, Physics, and Evolution. It's the notion that Good & Evil are inherent in the Thermodynamic duality of our temporal world. Every physical event in the world results from an exchange of energy from Hot to Cold. So that clash of opposites is inherent in every aspect of the universe, including psycho-social events. Physical Entropy is equivalent to Metaphysical Evil, and Negentropy (Enformy) is analogous to Good.

One proponent of that idea was Harold Bloom in The Lucifer Principle, who "argues that "evil is a by-product of nature's strategies for creation and that it is woven into our most basic biological fabric": His book antagonized lots of people for various reasons, but mostly by those who misunderstood his assessment of individual versus group evolution. My own concept of Enformy is another attempt to answer the age-old plaint, :"why does Evil exist?" : It's essential to evolution in space & time. So, the only way to avoid Evil & Suffering is to go completely out of this world, by the usual means of physical Death, or perhaps by the psychological suicide of Nirvana.


Enformy : In the Enformationism theory, Enformy is a hypothetical, holistic, metaphysical, natural trend or force, that counteracts Entropy & Randomness to produce complexity & progress.
1. I'm not aware of any "supernatural force" in the world. But my Enformationism theory postulates that there is a meta-physical force behind Time's Arrow and the positive progress of evolution. Just as Entropy is sometimes referred to as a "force" causing energy to dissipate (negative effect), Enformy is the antithesis, which causes energy to agglomerate (additive effect).
2. Of course, neither of those phenomena is a physical Force, or a direct Cause, in the usual sense. But the term "force" is applied to such holistic causes as a metaphor drawn from our experience with physics.
3. "Entropy" and "Enformy" are scientific/technical terms that are equivalent to the religious/moralistic terms "Evil" and "Good". So, while those forces are completely natural, the ultimate source of the power behind them may be supernatural, in the sense that the First Cause logically existed before the Big Bang.
http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page8.html

I just quoted that phrase "Philosophy is dead" to highlight the point that philosophy or philosophies in our age have not come along with the somehow rapid changes in our lives and environment. — David Jones

That's because, originally, Philosophy included aspects of Physical Science, Metaphysical Philosophy, and Sociological Religion/Politics. Christianity made Philosophy subservient to the Church (Theology). Politics, as usual, revels in Sophistry. And Science has left both Religion and Philosophy in the dust as the best source of knowledge about the real world. What's left for modern Philosophy is the stuff that very few people care about : the esoteric topics we discuss on this forum. :smile:

PS___If you want to revive philosophy, simply ask "what's for dinner tonight?". In many modern families a heated debate will ensue. :razz:

Thus, qualitative consciousness actually precedes awareness, for qualia can exist and perform a functional role in consort with quantum effects and additional gradations of non-local reality while an organism almost entirely lacks executive, centralized control in the form of intentions. — Enrique

As far as I know, Hoffman didn't speculate much on the precise steps by which Consciousness gradually emerged from quantum level exchanges of energy (information). But he quotes John Wheeler : "Each elementary quantum phenomenon is an elementary act of 'fact creation'" Which seems to imply that any permanent change in a particle is essentially a memory. So fluctuations in the EMF, that result in a propagating pattern (e.g. standing waves) would be similar to brain waves that signal information processing. Whether you could call those "facts" Qualia is beyond the scope of my understanding.

Like Hoffman, I simply assume that there was a continual gradual emergence of more complex and long-lasting quantitative changes that added-up to the ethereal holistic quality we call "Mind". The "executive, centralized control" of thoughts and memories is a high-level form of simple feedback-loops in computation. How that translates into intention is beyond me. I'll leave any further insights to those who are more qualified. :smile:


Quantum Consciousness : Whether or not quantum effects influence thought is a valid topic for scientific investigation, but simply stating "quantum effects cause consciousness" explains nothing unless scientists can come up with some suggestion about how quantum effects could possibly cause consciousness. The argument goes:
I don't understand consciousness.
I don't understand quantum physics.
Therefore, consciousness must be a function of quantum physics!
https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Quantum_consciousness


Qualia are Quantum Leaps : https://arxiv.org/abs/1104.2634

But I've been trying to figure out how philosophy relates to protests — Windward

Public protests are failed philosophical-political debates taken to the streets. They are continuation of rational debate by irrational means. Most philosophers are thinkers, not doers. After debating, they tend to agree to disagree. But passionate people are more political, in that what's important is not Truth, but Power : Who rules? Who gets their way?

Philosophers and Historians have learned that War is not the answer. But some have also concluded that we must stand-up to bullies, or remain as slaves. In general, philosophers, such as Stoics, have preferred to remain above the fray, and to turn the other cheek. But that leaves them open to abuse. So, the answer to your question hinges on whether you are Philosophical or Passionate? :nerd:

Santayana : "Those who do not learn history are doomed to repeat it."

Karl Marx : "Philosophers have hitherto only interpreted the world in various ways; the point is to change it."

Klauswitz : "War is the continuation of politics by other means."

Marvin Gaye : "War is not the answer"

The focus is an ontological one. What is the world fundamentally made up of? It's not the ordinary stuff we experience everyday. As contemporary physics becomes further removed from the ordinary, the question is whether materialism is the right term for saying what the fundamental stuff or reality is. — Marchesk

That's exactly why I developed the Enformationism Thesis. It's intended to be a 21st century update to ancient theories of Atomism, Materialism, and Spiritualism. Information is all of the above. In modern physics, Information is Matter & Energy & Mind. Information can be imagined as a Mind Field permeating the real world, and manifesting in many different forms. If you doubt that assertion, I have lots of essays presenting my evidence and reasoning. :nerd:

Information : http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page11.html
also see the sidebar

This makes some sense to me - although your list of alternative terms suggests prior knowledge of an endpoint, which I dispute. The way I see it, this transcendent G*D refers to a relation of all possible information, including illogical possibilities, such as squaring the circle, and love. — Possibility

I refer to Evolution as Ententional, because it has a direction of progression toward some unknown future state. I can only guess what that "Omega Point" might be. (see Graph below) But, because Evolution is progressing in a zig-zag path via Hegelian dialectic, I assume that the end-point is not pre-destined, but only the parameters of success are predefined --- as in Evolutionary Programming (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolutionary_programming). It's just a guess.

Since G*D is presumed to exist infinitely and eternally, the "ALL" characterization includes all logical possibilities, but the "LOGOS" label prohibits "illogical possibilities. Yet, again, I'm just guessing.


Human Nature : Essentialism
reply to Siti, page 5
. . . . . In my analogy between Intelligent Evolution and Genetic Design, I indicated that the designer (human or deity) used the heuristic search process, specifically because there was no viable path directly to the goal. In the “evolved antenna” design, the barrier was computing power. So, they established parameters to be met, and let their artificial intelligence computers “stumble” upon the optimum solution by a process of trial & error. Our Programmer was a wise-wizard, in that S/he started before the beginning. It's called a "program" : a plan of action.

In the Intelligent Evolution theory, I postulate that the Programmer had no entention of creating dumb creatures like Adam & Eve, but merely had the “idea” of creating semi-autonomous intelligent creatures --- little avatars for entertainment. So, S/he simply designed a process that would “stumble” upon an optimum solution --- within the constraints of space & time, and natural laws --- by learning from its own mistakes. The design criteria & parameters are assumed to be working via Natural Selection. So the final goal was specified only in terms of a problem description. And the zig-zag path to that goal was what Hegel called “The Dialectic Process”, as contrasted with the “Didactic Process” of Intelligent Design. The Process is the Product. Playing the game is the point, not the final score. "The play's the thing". ___Shakespeare, Hamlet

Dialectic : a back & forth philosophical argument between Good & Evil. Bottom-up design.
Didactic : an autocratic method of instruction by commandment. Top-down design



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

Cosmic Progression Graph : http://bothandblog3.enformationism.info/page28.html

But there is a six-dimensional level of relation, which is meaning as pure relation, or ‘love’, from which all potentiality - as a reduction of all possible metaphysical information from all possible relations - is manifest. — Possibility

I'm not sure how you arrive at that multi-dimensional hierarchy of Information. But, in my thesis, the next higher level above immanent EnFormAction is simply transcendent G*D. In some speculative philosophies, such as Kabbalah and Theosophy, all of the lower level manifestations are emanations of the unmanifest, unknowable God : "a unitary divine principle". Their analysis of metaphysical realms is similar to my own concept, except that they are assuming that the Torah is a revelation from God. They were good guesses for their times, but I abandoned biblical revelation years ago.

So, my own "revelations" are drawn from modern science, especially Cosmology and Quantum Theory. I draw no religious implications from this personal worldview. It's not a revelation from on high, but merely an attempt to make sense of the paradoxes of the post-Big-Bang, and post-Quantum world. Since the infinite potential of G*D is all possibilities, S/he is necessarily both Love & Hate, Good & Evil, Male & Female, Positive & Negative. Any comprehensive philosophical worldview, could be turned into a religion for the masses, only by choosing one side of the coin, and by taking its metaphors literally : "God is Love". Also, by turning the abstract deity into Santa Claus or Satan.

In my thesis, the infinite creative power of G*D, EnFormAction, is manifested in reality as Energy, which is the cause of all physical change in the world. But eventually Energy has manifested as Mind, and is responsible for all cultural change in the world. Since the early 20th century, Gallieo's and Newton's cosmologies have become almost as out-dated as the Bronze Age Bible's understanding of how the world works. The 21st century is the Age of Information.


Emanationism : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emanationism

EnFormAction : Active Information. 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 (aka : Divine Will) 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 : Energy; Change; The Creative Power of Evolution; the Power to Enform;

G*D : other terms for the axiomatic First Cause : LOGOS, ALL, BEING, MIND, Creator, Enformer, Nature, Reason, Source, Programmer. These names and associated qualities are attributed to the unknown unknowable deity as logical inferences from observation of the Creation.

PS__I have read Rovelli's, Reality Is Not What It Seems

'wise fool' . . . They don't usually start from "no idea at all" as far as I can tell — Siti

I assume you are referring to the programmers of mundane Evolutionary Programming, But, did I say anything about “no idea at all”? In my analogy between Intelligent Evolution and Genetic Design, I indicated that the designer (human or deity) used the heuristic search process, specifically because there was no viable path directly to the goal. In the “evolved antenna” design, the barrier was computing power. So, they established parameters to be met, and let their artificial intelligence computers “stumble” upon the optimum solution by a process of trial & error. Our Programmer was a wise-wizard, in that he started before the beginning. It's called a "program" : a plan of action.

In the Intelligent Evolution theory, I postulate that the Programmer had no entention of creating dumb creatures like Adam & Eve, but merely had the “idea” of creating semi-autonomous intelligent creatures --- little avatars for entertainment. So, S/he simply designed a process that would “stumble” upon an optimum solution --- within the constraints of space & time, and natural laws --- by learning from its own mistakes. The design criteria & parameters are assumed to be working via Natural Selection. So the final goal was specified only in terms of a problem description. And the zig-zag path to that goal was what Hegel called “The Dialectic Process”, as contrasted with the “Didactic Process” of Intelligent Design. The Process is the Product. Playing the game is the point, not the final score. "The play's the thing". ___Shakespeare, Hamlet

Dialectic : a back & forth philosophical argument between Good & Evil. Bottom-up design.
Didactic : an autocratic method of instruction by commandment. Top-down design

what is an elephant with no 'elephant-aboutness'? — Siti

An elephant who doesn't recognize himself in a mirror? :razz:

Actually, Aboutness is a property of the observing subject, not the observed object. “Aboutness “is a mental arrow pointing to an object. “Aboutness” is conception, not perception. It's a mental image of something that is not present in space & time. Its essence -- to get back on topic -- is Information in the form of an immaterial Concept --- a not-yet-realized idea, design, or purpose.

Of course, Daniel Dennett redefined "Aboutness" as the “Intentional Stance”, in which the subject imputes goals & beliefs to the object. So, maybe you are confusing my “Ententional Evolution” notion with Dennett's strategy for understanding another agent. In my concept of Intelligent Evolution, the designer did indeed have a “mental image of something not present” and an “entention” to realize it --- make it real : Teleology. I admit to attributing these ideas and ententions to an unreal agent. It's my strategy for understanding an otherwise absurd world --- whether that of Religion or of Science.

but the 'ententionalities' are (I am suggesting) the 'mental poles' of the emerging realities - inseparable from and necessarily coexistent with the 'physical pole' substrates on which they (ententionalities) 'supervene' — Siti

This is where we typically part ways. You assume that all “events” occur in space & time : the existing evolving reality. But, if intent & goal (cause & effect) occupy the same space & time, what's the point? They may of course occupy the same time-line, which may be what you have in mind. But my Ententional Agent is supposed to be outside space-time; which I know does not compute for you. Yet, Eternity and Infinity are common concepts in human discourse, and they are assumed to be non-real, like the so-called Imaginary Numbers & Zero & Infinity of mathematics . Which is true, because they exist only in what I call Ideality : the Mind of G*D. In the MoG, there are no “mental poles” or “physical poles”, because G*D is unitary, holistic, non-dual. But those are just qualities that I attribute to "something that is not present in space-time", due to my Intentional Stance. It's a hypothesis, not a belief system. Did I mention that my G*D is a mathematician and a metaphysician? :smile:


Mathematical Metaphysics : Platonism about mathematics (or mathematical platonism) is the metaphysical view that there are abstract mathematical objects whose existence is independent of us and our language, thought, and practices.
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/platonism-mathematics/

Edit: by non presentism I actually meant mysticism. — Brett

Presentism is the view that only actual & physical & temporal things exist. A more general term would be Realism. But human discourse has always included abstract concepts that are not actual, or physical, or real in any space-time sense. Is Beauty present? Is Love a thing?

My response to the Either/Or attitude that conflates not-present or un-real with Mysticism is the BothAnd principle, and the notion of Meta-Physics. Mystical and Magical concepts take advantage of the ambiguity of Abstraction to deceive those who are confused about what is Present and what they imagine to be present. In such cases it's good to be a little skeptical, but don't throw-out the Beauty with the Bullsh*t.


BothAnd Principle : http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page10.html

Meta-Physics : http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page14.html