• Does everything exist at once?
    Timelessness and spacelessness, is a good default, or baseline. But it is a dead end when it comes to intellectual inquiry. — Punshhh
    Yes. That's why I don't claim to have any direct knowledge about Enfernity. For my worldview, It's merely a baseline for everything else. It's the empty-set outside our Reality-set circle (the universe). For the purposes of "intellectual inquiry", it serves as Plato's realm of Ideal Forms.

    Enfernity is a limiting assumption, as in a mathematical asymptote or the speed of light, we can approach the boundary of Reality in imagination, but never cross-over. However, by defining the limits of Reality, the not-concept allows us to understand everything we want to know by comparison to the absolute, which is both Zero and Infinity (nothing & ALL) : the brackets within which "we live and move and have our being".

    Enfernity : My coinage for eternity-infinity. It's not two things, but a single un-defined state. For philosophical purposes, it's "defined" by putting a negative on everything we know in the real world : not-time, not-space, not-matter. And, since reality is bounded by, and originated in, space & time, we must assume that pre-existence was in non-space/non-time.

    Like Plato's Ideality, Enfernity is the limitless Potential from which all Actual things are created. Potential is not-actual, un-realized, un-defined. But, since we experience the existence of "actual, real, and finite" in space-time, we can assume their origin was in a timeless, spaceless state with the power to transform and enform into the things we know.
  • Modern Realism: Fieldism not Materialism
    Information is a continuum that bridges the imaginary gap between Physics and Metaphysics, between mathematical and human values. — Gnomon

    What I’m most interested in is the bridge itself: what is the conceptual structure of that ‘continuum’ — Possibility
    In literary analysis, structural inter-relationships are usually broken-down to Syntax, Semantics, and Pragmatics. So, if you are interested in a corporeal “bridge” you should look for a Physical connection (material) between elements. If the interest is in a meaningful link between elements the connection would be Metaphysical (mental, immaterial). If however, your interest is in the various common usages of the notion of a relationship between elements, you'd have to look at Abstract Geometry, Steel Bridges, and Romantic Love.

    A physical system manifests itself only by interacting with another. The description of a physical system, then, is always given in relation to another physical system, — Carlo Rovelli, ‘Reality Is Not What It Seems’
    The Rovelli quote seems to be looking at the notion of “correlation" from the perspective of a Classical Physicist, which requires some kind of physical contact to form a relationship. But he's a Quantum Physicist, and must deal with “spooky action at a distance” in which no material crosses the gap between particles. What does fill the vacuum between particles in space is metaphysical Information, a continuum that I call EnFormAction : the power to cause Change. In some cases it works like flowing energy, by direct contact. Yet it also works like Gravity (or Love), by mutual attraction, not like a Star Trek Tractor Beam, imagined as a stream of magnetic particles. It also manifests like Quantum Entanglement in that the only connection is logical or historical, i.e. metaphysical. So, Cosmic Enformation is like a universal Information Field : a continuum that binds all elements into a dynamic system.


    Meta-physics : The branch of philosophy that examines the nature of reality, including the relationship between mind and matter, substance and attribute, fact and value.
    http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page14.html
  • Does everything exist at once?
    I can’t answer the question because I’m only just getting my head around the theory of Eternalism which I find supportive of my OP. — Brett
    Some people interpret Block Time and Eternalism as-if our experience of sequential space & time is an illusion due to our warped view from Relativity. So, the speculative inferences they draw are pretty far-out. But we need to remember that Block Time is a mathematical theory with no empirical evidence. Therefore, unless you are a theoretical physicist, I wouldn't worry too much about the weird implications of Block Time.

    In my own worldview, I assume that Eternity-Infinity (timelessness and spacelessness) is the default state of BEING. But nobody is "there" to experience the infinite possibilities except G*D. This notion contrasts with Multiverse Theory (again, no empirical evidence), in which Space-Time is the default, and physical mini-universes are popping-up all over the place. Since G*D is defined as "everything possible forever" (an assumption taken as an axiom) our space-time world is analogous to a tiny bubble in the ocean. This perspective is called PanEnDeism : all-in-G*D.

    This means that we humans are creatures of space-time, and would be out of our element in eternity-infinity. Yet, our rational minds can transcend space-time, to imagine intangible and irrational concepts (ideas). So we too-often confuse those Ideal notions with Real things. If we were to leave the Real world, and go to the Ideal world, we would have to abandon our 3D bodies, and become fleshless ghosts. Unfortunately, we also have no empirical evidence of humans "crossing-over", just imaginary stories of "the other side". Hence, if you want to believe that you will someday experience Eternalism, no one can prove you wrong --- or right.


    G*D : An ambiguous spelling of the common name for a supernatural deity. The Enformationism thesis is based upon an unprovable axiom that our world is an idea in the mind of G*D. This eternal deity is not imagined in a physical human body, but in a meta-physical mathematical form, equivalent to Logos. Other names : ALL, BEING, Creator, Enformer, MIND, Nature, Reason, Source, Programmer. So, the eternal Whole, of which all temporal things are a part, is not to be feared or worshiped, but appreciated like Nature.

    I refer to the logically necessary and philosophically essential First & Final Cause as G*D, rather than merely "X" the Unknown, partly out of respect. That’s because the ancients were not stupid, to infer purposeful agencies, but merely shooting in the dark. We now understand the "How" of Nature much better, but not the "Why". That inscrutable agent of Entention is what I mean by G*D.


    PanEnDeism : Panendeism is an ontological position that explores the interrelationship between G*D (The Cosmic Mind) and the known attributes of the universe. Combining aspects of Panentheism and Deism, Panendeism proposes an idea of G*D that both embodies the universe and is transcendent of its observable physical properties.

    1. Note : PED is distinguished from general Deism, by its more specific notion of the G*D/Creation relationship; and from PanDeism by its understanding of G*D as supernatural creator rather than the emergent soul of Nature. Enformationism is a Panendeistic worldview.
  • Does everything exist at once?
    If our fate already exists out there, waiting for us, then does everything exist at once? And if so does that mean no time? — Brett
    This may be off-topic, but Gevin Georbran, wrote a book presenting a novel approach to understanding the space-time universe in a larger context. At first it may seem mind-boggling, and it won't tell you anything about your personal Fate, but it does address the literal meaning of your thread title. Unfortunately, like too many geniuses, he committed suicide shortly after uploading the web site. Maybe he saw his own fate, and decided to deny Fate with an act of Will.

    "This website literally journeys through the timeless realm, presenting a panoramic God’s eye view of the big picture. What is timelessness? To the surprise of many, all the world's greatest physicists such as Albert Einstein, Richard Feynman, Stephen Hawking, and also David Bohm, concluded during their lives that past, present, and future all exist simultaneously. What then is the timeless universe like?"

    Everything Forever : Learning to see the timelessness of the universe.
    http://everythingforever.com/

    PS___I don't agree with all of his ideas, but this worldview was an influence on my own.
  • Does everything exist at once?
    This is a problem, isn’t it? Things of the imagination are not real. Real things are temporal. Only unreal things can exist externally and because they don’t exist they don’t count. — Brett
    It's the essential problem of Ontology (understanding of Being). Ideal non-things are un-real, because they are immaterial, and don't matter. But, if they "exist" eternally, then their Being is essential, even if they don't count.

    "To Count" means to enumerate individual things. In a reductionist materialistic worldview --- abstractly imagined in the concept of money --- whatever is uncountable (i.e. immaterial) does not matter. So such abstract human concepts as "freedom, good and evil, love, idealism, success, morality, money" don't matter, because they don't exist in a physical form.

    In a Holistic worldview, though, countable parts are important only in their contribution to the whole system. In a human system, imagination is un-real, but it can refer to concrete countable things in terms of abstract symbols, concepts, and ideas. In Plato's theory of ideal Forms, those eternal unreal concepts were of more value than the specific instances in the real world, because they are more than the sum of all things.
  • What the study of Quantum Theory has taught me about Reality
    Possibly he is referring to the "Actuality" and just not explicitly verbalizing the distinction. "Reality" typically is loaded with the presumption of a state description. — jambaugh
    Since he wanted to be taken seriously as a scientific researcher, Hoffman alluded to some Ideal or Transcendent Reality without being very specific. He pointedly avoided discussing god/heaven concepts. But I got the impression that he was referring to something like Plato's Ideal realm of Forms, and Kant's ding-an-sich (thing-in-essence).

    In my own thesis, I distinguish that Ultimate Reality -- which I call "Ideality" -- from Proximate Reality by labeling Forms as "Potential", and their material instances as "Actual". Which seems to be just the opposite of your usage of "Actuality". My "Actual" is equivalent to material Reality, which is "loaded with the presumption of a state" that we can describe in physical (space-time) terms. Ironically, Hoffman's theory indicates that even the Reality we interface with is imaginary --- a mental state.

    My concept of "Ideality" is transcendent, in the sense that it is beyond space-time --- a timeless state (eternity) within which the Big Bang signaled the start of space-time. With that concept in mind, I interpret such Quantum phenomena as Virtual Particles in terms of Potential, and Physical (measurable) Particles as Actual. Other absurd Quantum behaviors -- entanglement, tunneling, etc -- are also interpreted as transitions between space-time Actuality and eternal Potential. Likewise, the Big Bang is imagined as the transition of a Virtual World (concept, design, Form) into an Actual World (space-time, matter/energy). Potential is like Energy that has not been activated (actualized). Unfortunately, this notion can get confusing if we don't agree on the meaning of such terms as "actual".


    Ideality : http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page11.html
  • Does everything exist at once?
    I’m not sure what you mean in relation to that post. — Brett
    Reality is a space-time world. But Archetypes and Forms are "things" (ideas) that are assumed to have always existed. Yet we only have access to them in imagination. Real things are temporal. So they couldn't have always existed. Only unreal things can exist eternally.
  • Does everything exist at once?
    It seems to me that when we invent we apply the knowledge we have if things that always existed, like maths. — Brett
    Some people believe in Archetypes, while others believe in Platonic Forms. The problem is how can we access those abstractions in the real world.
  • Does everything exist at once?
    Why, then, do we experience 'becoming'? Somehow, we are traveling through the Everything Block along some particular path. — PoeticUniverse
    :up:
  • Art, Autonomism & Moralism
    I'm surprised that there's such a thing as autonomism because it implies that the so-called artistic license includes even a license to kill i.e. immoral things can be done in the name of art. — TheMadFool
    Never heard of Autonomism, and don't know how it has been applied to morality. But in general, art has been held to be beyond Good & Evil, because it is a subjective (private) value system, and Morality is a value system between moral agents (public). So, an artist may feel justified in displaying a crucifix in a vat of urine, because it's art, a communication between aesthetic agents. But, insofaras art has emotional effects on people, there is always an element of morality. Yet, in the interest of free expression we make allowances for some moral indignation, as long as people are free to ignore the insult. A Jew must tolerate Neo-Nazi soapbox rhetoric, as long as he is free to walk on by. The problem of censorship applies to Art only in where to "draw" the line between tolerable and intolerable.


    "Your freedom to swing your arm ends at my nose".___Oliver Wendell Holmes
  • What the study of Quantum Theory has taught me about Reality
    What I now understand is that there is a natural independent realm of activity, the actuality of our environment which is truly "out there" and independent of us. — jambaugh
    In his most recent book, The Case Against Reality, cognitive scientist Donald Hoffman, discusses the distinction between our relative perspective of Reality, and the Ultimate Reality itself. His analysis is not primarily about Quantum paradoxes. But he does mention Quantum Bayesianism, which says that “quantum states describe not the objective world but the beliefs of agents about the consequences of their actions.” Although his worldview is essentially Idealism, he does not deny an ultimate Reality, but says, like Kant, that we don't know it directly, but through a self-constructed "interface" that he compares to icons on a computer screen. That interface (belief system) displays our own personal model of Ultimate Reality.

    What that has to do with Qualia like Love, I don't know. But it supports the notion that "Love is in the eyes of the beholder".


    Reality Interface : http://bothandblog6.enformationism.info/page21.html
  • Negation across cultures
    Since Descartes, science has taken a path of slicing and discarding (negation as rejection) that which is a contradiction, — Mapping the Medium
    Descartes introduced a "pragmatic" dualism in order to avoid a violent conflict between Science and Religion in his day. Monolithic Catholicism was fragmenting into rebellious Protestant sects, and Science was beginning to challenge the Church for revelation of Truth. By drawing an imaginary line between Fact and Faith (Non-Overlapping Magisteria), he hoped to avoid an all-out war that would likely snuff-out the tiny flame of Empirical Reason. Even his Deism may have been a pragmatic compromise between evidence and intuition.

    My BothAnd philosophy is also a pragmatic (non-ideal) solution to the current clash of values in the world, as exemplified by religious terrorists and angry atheists. It requires self-doubt and compromise in place of absolute Faith and Jihad/Crusade against infidels. The destructive Negation problem is due to Either/Or absolutism on both sides.

    Both/And Principle : My coinage for the holistic principle of Complementarity, as illustrated in the Yin/Yang symbol. Opposing or contrasting concepts are always part of a greater whole. Conflicts between parts can be reconciled or harmonized by putting them into the context of a whole system.
    http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page10.html
  • Modern Realism: Fieldism not Materialism
    I agree that every concept can be evaluated according a logical structure - but not all information. The process of ‘boiling down’ information to ratios and proportions is limiting or reducing that information to what fits into a particular value structure before you’re even aware of what information is available. The way I see it, the common experience that what’s valuable to me may not be logical to me refutes the idea that we’re talking about a simple continuum here. — Possibility
    In my thesis, Information is the basis of Logic and Math : a relationship between two values. The key word there is "value". Relationships and Ratios are nothing until evaluated (interpreted) by a mind. But Information is also the basis of Physics : Thermodynamics. So, Information is a continuum that bridges the imaginary gap between Physics and Metaphysics, between mathematical and human values.

    Information : Information has a well-defined meaning in physics. In 2003 J. D. Bekenstein claimed that a growing trend in physics was to define the physical world as being made up of information itself . . . . In thermodynamics, information is any kind of event that affects the state of a dynamic system that can interpret the information.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Information

    It necessarily positions ‘objectivity’ outside of all value structures, logical or otherwise (which may be another discussion). — Possibility
    For another take on Time and Objectivity, check-out Donald Hoffman's concept of "Model Dependent Realism".

    Objective Time : As Einstein put it, “Time and space are modes by which we think, and not conditions in which we live.” One interpretation of Quantum Theory, Quantum Bayesianism10 (QB) says that “quantum states describe not the objective world but the beliefs of agents about the consequences of their actions.”
    http://bothandblog6.enformationism.info/page23.html


    Exploring the human experience in relation to information theory can get confusing, because computer-based information is only every binary, whereas the human experience of information takes into account the integration of four, five and even six dimensional ratios in a complex interacting system of interacting systems of interacting systems. — Possibility
    That's because Computer information processing is Binary, while human brains are Analog. Like Quantum Computers, the human brain can evaluate an infinite continuum of information from Zero to One. The logical mathematical basis of Information is a binary ratio, but analogous human reasoning goes way beyond the basics to consider fractional ratios and even irrational numbers.

    Digital vs Analog : A digital signal is a signal that is being used to represent data as a sequence of discrete values; at any given time it can only take on one of a finite number of values.[1][2][3] This contrasts with an analog signal, which represents continuous values; at any given time it represents a real number within a continuous range of values.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_signal
  • Does everything exist at once?
    If our fate already exists out there, waiting for us, then does everything exist at once? And if so does that mean no time? — Brett
    Sounds like you are talking about the notion of Eternalism, which is a modern version of Fatalism. Its scientific justification is based on the concept of Block Time, which is an inference from Einstein's Theory of Relativity. All I can say about that hypothetical possibility is, if you experience change (flowing time) in your world, and don't experience Stasis, then Eternalism is not real for you.

    Regarding Fatalism, if you are anxious about the future, by all means consult a psychic or fortune-teller, and you will feel better. But it won't change your fate.

    Eternalism : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eternalism_(philosophy_of_time)
  • Does everything exist at once?
    So does that deny the possibility of everything already existing? — Brett
    I don't think that parable had any bearing on such an ontological question. It was just a demonstration of the Socratic method of indirect teaching, not of human omniscience, or a static universe.
  • Does everything exist at once?
    I don’t think he does mean it as a metaphor. The exercise he carried out wasn’t a metaphor. — Brett
    The exercise only proved that the human brain works with an inherent logic : a mathematical logic, including basic arithmetic. If Socrates had asked for the answer to a calculus problem, do you think Meno would have had a "true opinion" about that kind of knowledge? Sages like Socrates often made bold general statements without qualification or limitation. They may be true metaphorically without necessarily being true in detail. Like Jesus' parables they are intended to convey a general impression, not to be taken literally or historically. Socrates was teaching by leading instead of by lecturing.
  • Does everything exist at once?
    Why not? — Brett
    Because I assume it's a metaphor. It's as-if.
  • Donald Hoffman and Conscious Realism
    But if Hoffman thinks the world is a computer game, — Gregory
    He doesn't. It's a metaphor.
  • Does everything exist at once?
    Socrates infers that the knowledge we possess is already within us. — Brett
    I don't pretend to know what Socrates meant by that assertion, but I don't take it literally. Perhaps he was referring to the metaphor that man is a micro-cosmos, containing the essence of the whole world, including mathematics, within himself.
  • Modern Realism: Fieldism not Materialism
    but the classical concept of ‘potential’ as inherent in the actual object makes it difficult for some people to grasp the metaphysical nature of potentiality. — Possibility
    That's why philosophers are forever defining and redefining terms. :smile:
  • Modern Realism: Fieldism not Materialism
    But ‘structure’ - this second definition - is not necessarily ‘logical’. — Possibility
    By "logical" I meant "rational", in the sense of : defined by ratios and proportions. That definition includes emotions and human values, since in Enformationism, everything in the world boils down to Information : ratios and proportions; some of which are meaningful to humans.

    In common usage of "logical" and "rational", the terms are deliberately intended to contrast with "emotional" and "valuable" --- as in Vulcan Logic. But in the BothAnd philosophy, it's all a matter of degree, a continuum. Everything and every idea in the world has a logical structure. But humans assign personal values to them on a good vs evil scale. Those values are relative (rational) to the evaluator. What's logical and valuable to a man, may not matter to an ant.

    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
  • Why we don't live in a simulation
    Therefore if we don't specify our own processes and prove that they are somehow necessarily hugely more represented in simulated worlds than in non-simulated worlds, we most likely live in a non-simulated world. Any thoughts? — Qmeri
    I'm only superficially familiar with Simulated World theories, and mostly with those of Tegmark's Mathematical Universe and the Matrix movie. But I note that most of those theories seem to assume that the processor is a space-time machine limited by the laws of physics. But what if the processor actually creates Space-Time? I'm referring to Donald Hoffman's concept of space-time as the interface of our reality. In that case, physical objects are symbols (icons on a screen) referring to metaphysical Forms. If so, the hypothetical simulated worlds would be simulations within a simulation.
  • On the nature of happiness, misery, and peace.
    I do not see peace as the balancing of happiness and misery, but the absence of both. . . . I believe that happiness and misery are tied so tightly together that they can be seen as one entity; — PoorAt99
    That's probably why you are unhappy. Your black & white belief makes happiness impossible. Philosophical optimism does not deny the duality of reality, but merely ignores the extremes of Good & Evil to focus on the attainable middle ground of OK. That's Aristotle's Golden Mean. Change your belief, change your attitude, change your mood.

    If you are the driver of your car, steer for the middle of the road, not the ditches.
  • Negation across cultures
    I would like to know a little about how members here interpret negation. — Mapping the Medium
    I have no idea what Pierce meant by "negation". But there is an important distinction between NOT (contradiction) and NOT (absence), The latter is an existential qualifier : does not exist. In that sense, it is not just contradictory of the postulate, but destructive.

    "That's a negatory, Big Daddy" :smile:
  • Modern Realism: Fieldism not Materialism
    I think in my mind I've conflated the fields with the probability waves. — fishfry
    That's understandable, because field theory crosses the line from material Physics into immaterial Metaphysics. The "field" is just a hypothetical "place where something happens", imagined as a body of water. The waves are changes in the field, imagined as ocean waves. So, they are not material things, but mathematical relationships. Waves of Probability are "made" of statistics, not matter. Both Fields and Waves are abstractions.

    Metaphysics : "the branch of philosophy that deals with the first principles of things, including abstract concepts such as being, knowing, substance, cause, identity, time, and space. . . . abstract theory with no basis in reality."
  • Modern Realism: Fieldism not Materialism
    Understanding that structural relationship is the key to a holistic worldview. — Possibility
    Apparently, when you say "structural" relationship, you are actually referring to an immaterial "logical" or mathematical relationship : this is related to that by this value. I was assuming you were looking for some physical connection between Mind & Matter or Fieldism and Materialism. Maybe something like the "silver thread" that connects body & soul in an out-of-body experience. :smile:

    The logical "structure" of the Yin/Yang symbol is central to my BothAnd philosophy. My "focus on the commonalities" was simply an attempt to establish the analogy between Universal Mind (EnFormAction) and the various fields postulated by physicists to explain "spooky action at a distance", such as gravity. Just as gravity is interpreted as a physical "force", EnFormAction is the creative "force" of evolution : the elan vital. But it's not a physical force; it's a metaphysical (mathematical) force :the power of ratios and relationships.

    Yin-Yang Symbolism : As exemplified in the harmonious Yin/Yang symbol, the black or white halves would struggle for supremacy if not for the restraint of the encircling holistic power of the whole, like gravity pulling all toward the center. http://www.bothandblog.enformationism.info/page5.html

    This is not how I imagine a magnetic field, and I don’t think the field is intended to be as materialistic as that. — Possibility
    I suspect that Maxwell's original notion of an electro-magnetic field was intended to be a metaphor. But some modern physicists think of it in more materialistic imagery, such as the notion that a field occupies space. In the quote below, "physical quantity", "number", "tensor", and "value" are all mathematical concepts that have logical (informational) definitions, but no material substance or physical dimensions.

    Physical Field : In physics, a field is a physical quantity, represented by a number or tensor, that has a value for each point in space-time. ... In the modern framework of the quantum theory of fields, even without referring to a test particle, a field occupies space, contains energy, and its presence precludes a classical "true vacuum".
    https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=concept+of+field+in+physics

    All of these are relationships of potentiality: — Possibility
    Precisely. That's why I distinguish between Real (Actual) and Ideal (Potential), between Physical (matter) and Metaphysical (mental). The "Mind Field" is EnFormAction, which is the potential to cause change, which is similar to the physical notion of Energy, which is not a material thing, but the potential to cause change. Just as immaterial Energy can transform into Matter (E=MC\2), metaphysical EnFormAction can create all of the physical things in the world.

    The way I see it, these relationships of potentiality - the combined ‘field’ of mind - all refer to five-dimensional information: potential and value. — Possibility
    Three spatial dimensions plus potential and value?



    PS___I have frequently been forced to explain that the word "Structure" has two meanings : 1> the bricks and steel beams that a building is constructed of , and 2> "the arrangement of and relations between the parts or elements of something complex." [the logical structure]
  • Modern Realism: Fieldism not Materialism
    In this discussion, I think your use of a mathematical concept as metaphor to connect physics to ‘mind’ is murky at best. — Possibility
    Apparently, I misunderstood your intention for this thread as similar to my own usage of the term "Field" to denote the distinction between Realism and Idealism. So, when you contrasted "Fieldism" with "Materialism", I immediately thought of my own notion of a "Mind Field". The only hit I got on Google for "mind field", though, was for a TV documentary that has nothing to do with my concept, except that it is an evocative word-play. I thought the metaphor would be more apparent and common. I was wrong. If I have hi-jacked your thread, I apologize.

    A magnetic field is imagined as pervading the universe with little dimensionless magnets (illustrated with arrows) at every vector point in space. Likewise, I imagine the Mind Field as pervading the universe with little dimensionless information elements (bits) at each mathematical (value) point in space. The usual definition of a field is intended to be materialistic, but the points or vectors that make-up the field are not made of matter or even energy, but of immaterial potential. Information is also Potential and Value..

    Note: Technically, the MInd Field metaphor may be more like a Gravity Field in that its arrows are uni-polar and universal, rather than being generated in specific locations by flowing energy. The gravity arrows point toward any center of mass. The Information arrows point toward Intention; but that's another just-so story.


    Magnetic Field (vector field): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetic_field

    Mind Field : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mind_Field

    Potential : http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page16.html
  • Donald Hoffman and Conscious Realism
    I am having problems with what he is saying. — Floyd714
    Hoffman has responded to many of the objections raised against his earlier presentations in his latest book : The Case Against Reality. I recently posted a book review on my blog, that might help to clear-up some of the misunderstandings of his modern version of Platonic Idealism, and Kant's Transcendental Idealism . Unfortunately, the commentary in the review is based on my own unorthodox worldview, which some people have trouble grasping, because it looks at the world from a similar unconventional and unfamiliar perspective.

    By the way, Hoffman doesn't deny Ultimate Reality, he just shows that it ain't what you perceive, but what you conceive. He doesn't claim that the world itself is conscious, but that Consciousness rather than Matter is the essence of Reality. As a professional scientist, he avoids going into the religious implications of that assertion.


    Against Reality : http://bothandblog6.enformationism.info/page21.html
  • Modern Realism: Fieldism not Materialism
    the connection you make between science and poetry is murky. — Possibility
    Do you mean that I don't make a clear distinction between them? If so, that's probably because my BothAnd philosophy is Holistic, and looks for commonalities where most people only see differences. BothAnd is a Yin/Yang worldview in which the line between Black & White is arbitrary, indicated graphically by a white dot in the black area, and a black dot in the white area. So, in reality the whole circle is a gradual shade of gray. That may be what you call "murky". If not, please give me a specific example of murkiness.

    Yin-Yang : https://ed.ted.com/lessons/the-hidden-meanings-of-yin-and-yang-john-bellaimey

    wpe8c96add_06.png

    It is this structural connection that I’m most interested in, — Possibility
    Please give me an example of a "structural connection" between Science and Serendipity that would satisfy your need for clarity.

    Materialist assumptions aren’t tools you can pick up and put down - an inability to make sense of the ‘mental’ and ‘mystical’ is inherent in the assumptions, not the science. — Possibility
    That's true, but most people, including scientists, are intuitive dualists, and require a "structural" division between dichotomies. A few scientists can bridge that gap to get the best of both worlds, mechanical and mystical. And, as a rationalist-rhetorical type, I am still learning to deal with the intuitive poetic side. I am also leery of the tendency for people to lapse into anti-science magical thinking, when they try to deal with murky mystical concepts. My worldview has much in common with New Age philosophy, but I try to avoid the spooky paranormal, pseudo-scientific side-tracks. I am not a romantic or mystic by nature.

    Back in the 80s, I was introduced to this holistic-science idea in The Tao of Physics : An Exploration of the Parallels Between Modern Physics and Eastern Mysticism, by Fritjof Capra. In it, the author said "Science does not need mysticism and mysticism does not need science. But man needs both." He may have been the first Hippie Scientist.

    NOTE : In China, the home of Confucius and Lao Tse, many people try to combine the doctrinal, rational, conventional, prosaic, pragmatic, communal attitude of Confucianism with the ineffable, irrational, unorthodox, poetic, romantic, individualistic attitude of Daoism. But for most humans that is a tricky and frustrating balancing act.


    I think your use of a mathematical concept as metaphor to connect physics to ‘mind’ is murky at best. — Possibility
    Please do explain. The basic problem here is that abstract poetic & mystical & mental concepts can only be discussed in terms of concrete metaphors. Unfortunately, many people take metaphors and analogies literally, so they completely miss the point, hidden in the gray area between as-is and as-if.
  • Modern Realism: Fieldism not Materialism
    Actually John Searle has claimed that the average man on the street is a Cartesian, and I tend to agree with him. — Pantagruel
    I agree. But, in my reply to Trooper, I was referring to the typical non-scientist's acceptance of the materialist worldview --- as it relates to Science. As intuitive Cartesians, they tend to separate their scientific understanding from their religious beliefs. Of course there are exceptions, but most folks seem to be "content" to accept the authority of scientific experts on materialistic matters, and religious experts on religious matters. They are not concerned with abstruse philosophical or theological arguments about dualistic reality. This is just my personal observation, so I don't have survey numbers.

    PS__Besides, my own worldview could be considered as Dualism within Monism, since I make a philosophical distinction between Matter & Mind, but combine both under the heading of EnFormAction. I don't have a problem with Decartes' pragmatic resolution to the contentious Body/Soul, Science/Religion debate. But, for my own purposes, ultimately it's all ONE. For a materialistic analogy, the Big Bang Singularity gave birth to the Multiplicity of the universe. Like a biological cell, one thing divided into two, and from that point forward Duality, Symmetry,and Complementarity were inherent in reality.
  • Modern Realism: Fieldism not Materialism
    just lacking in structural relations to reality, — Possibility
    I didn't feel disrespected --- just misunderstood; in that you think I'm ignoring Science. Your knowledge of my thesis may be limited to the few posts on this forum. But it's much more comprehensive than that, more scientific and more structural. However, it is mostly concerned with the cutting edge of Physics, which encounters paradoxes that could be better understood in terms of Information Theory. Information has a mathematical logical "structure" of its own.

    I’m certainly not a materialist, but the topic here is modern realism, so I think it’s useful to see how a theory incorporating ‘fieldism’ stacks up to materialism in relation to reality. — Possibility
    Actually, I think "materialism" is an appropriate assumption for classical Physics, including Chemistry and Biology. It's only when research focuses on cosmic and quantum scale "reality" that Materialism becomes misleading and self-defeating. Likewise, Psychology and Sociology can make valid discoveries using materialist assumptions. But when they get into some mental or mystical topics, an understanding of the ubiquitous role of immaterial Information would be helpful.

    It’s a shame you seem overly attached to a particular structure — Possibility
    What particular "structure" is that?

    And ‘non-dimensional points in space’ doesn’t make sense: space IS a dimensional relation, so all points in space are dimensional. — Possibility
    I was referring to the mathematical definition of a generic Field, as an "algebraic structure" composed of dimensionless points. In Field Mathematics, a point is assumed to have a location in space, but no size. Maxwell and others used this abstract concept to describe such intangible things as electro-magnetic fields. Those imaginary points are assigned an X-value, as-if they were real material objects. But it's just a metaphor.

    Field Definition : A field is thus a fundamental algebraic structure which is widely used in algebra, number theory, and many other areas of mathematics. . . . The best known fields are the field of rational numbers, the field of real numbers and the field of complex numbers.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Field_(mathematics)

    You can’t go ‘clear out of the material world’ and expect to remain inseparable from it. — Possibility
    I didn't say that G*D is "inseparable" from the material world. The concept of G*D is an abstraction, similar to the Tao of Laozi. It is both transcendent and immanent. The physical world is made of G*D-stuff, which is Information, or EnFormAction as I call it. It's difficult to discuss such formless notions in materialistic language, which is why the Dao De Ching is mostly poetry, and my thesis requires portmanteau (BothAnd) words.

    The information processing of the individual human mind already transcends space-time, — Possibility
    I would say that the information "processing" of the brain is a physical mechanism. It's only the information itself (meaning) that transcends space-time. Meaning has no spatial coordinates, and is not bound by time. Meaning is the content of physical vehicles (material symbol vs referent). So, like most topics in Enformationism, it's BothAnd.

    The way I see it, there is a universality that transcends even this concept of ‘mind’. — Possibility
    Something that transcends space-time? Something infinite and eternal? That's what I refer to as G*D, as an analogy to the ancient philosophical notions of Brahman, Logos, God, Allah, Tao, etc. Another definition of G*D is the "ground of being and becoming", which I call simply BEING.

    Dao : "In the beginning was the Dao, which is changeless, formless, and indivisible, but also generative, transforming, and fertile." God Is Not One, by Stephen Prothro


    PS___I didn't begin to develop the thesis of Enformationism from a prior notion of traditional gods. Instead, as I constructed a scientific worldview for the 21st century, the parallels with ancient religious/philosophical concepts became apparent.
  • Modern Realism: Fieldism not Materialism
    your use of created terminology to avoid (or delay) the scientific or philosophical rigour of relating your worldview to established concepts - either in science or philosophy. — Possibility
    I don’t think a modern philosophy can afford to isolate its terminology from science anymore, — Possibility
    I use my own coined terms (neologisms) specifically because of the broad range and technical complexity of the subject. Enformationism is Science, Religion, Philosophy, and Cosmology all combined into a cohesive worldview. It's my own personal Theory of Everything. My special terminology is intended, not to "avoid or delay scientific or philosophical rigor", but to present my ideas in words that mean what I intend them to mean, not as they are used in various conventional contexts (pigeonholes). If you will look at the Introduction of the Enformationism thesis, you will see that the concept originated from layman's study of the sciences of Quantum Theory and Information Theory. It is not intended to be isolated from Science, but to be integrated with it.

    Since I am neither a conventionally trained scientist nor a philosopher, my vocabulary is unabashedly un-conventional. I have an extensive Glossary and a Blog to give specific meanings and contextual applications of each term. Is it quackery or philosophy? --- you decide.

    I think your use of the term ‘field’ is misleading . . . . if this ‘universal mind’ has the capacity to combine these field formulae with the other nine — Possibility
    I used the mathematical notion of a "field" as an analogy, not as a literal description of the universal Mind. Besides, a mathematical "field" is not a physical object, but a metaphysical metaphor, treated as-if there was an infinite array of non-dimensional points in space. I think you took my analogy too literally.

    If you want to get to a universality beyond the emotions, fears and beliefs of an integrated ‘mind’ (one inseparable from its physicality), — Possibility
    The "Universal Mind" that I am referring to is already beyond "emotions, fears and beliefs" because it is non-physical. It is not in the universe, but the world is in the Mind. It is separable from physicality only in the sense that it transcends space-time. So, if you want to get on the same page with me, you'll have to go clear out of the material world.


    Enformationism : http://enformationism.info/enformationism.info/index.html

    Glossary : http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/index.html

    PanEnDeism : All-in-G*D; the physical world is a creation of universal Mind : the Enformer.
  • Are there any prophecies in the Bible that are known to have gone fulfilled or unfulfilled? T
    How would we prove this to be true either way. Why the use of the word apparently? I think chapter 4 of the book of Daniel (could be a different chapter) was actually written by Nebuchadnezzar the 2nd himself. How would we go about proving for sure whether the book of Daniel was written at the time of Nebuchadnezzar the 2nd or at a much later date? It appears it would be highly beneficial to those who hate religion to say it was written much later. — christian2017
    The book doesn't say who wrote the book about a Jewish prophet. What makes you think it was written by a Babylonian king? How would you prove it either way, except by textual exegesis and historical records? I say "apparently" because I was not there to witness the events related. Besides, if we can't prove it either way, why believe it?

    Historically, the book of Daniel was not written during the time of Babylonian captivity, hence not by the hero of the story. It was not accepted into the official canon of the Torah until many years later, and then it was placed at the end, in the miscellaneous Writings, rather than in the section devoted to prophets. For Jews, it was treated as a novel -- like the book of Esther -- telling the exploits of a heroic Jew and fortune teller. But for Christians, the book of Daniel was full of marvelous gory imagery that could be interpreted as prophecies of the Messiah in Roman times. Its graphic symbolism lent itself to various interpretations, similar to the poetic imagery of Nostradamus. Both are still being re-interpreted millennia later to fit our modern events, that have no logical connection to sixth century Babylon.

    So, it seems to be "beneficial to those who hate" Reason to say that Daniel was written by the hero of the story, just as the first four books of the Torah were attributed to Moses, who died in the middle of the story. :smile:


    PS___Sorry, I wouldn't normally get involved in such a topic on a philosophy forum, but I couldn't resist the opportunity to review some of the eye-opening research that taught me to regard Bible prophecies as no more valid than those of internet Psychics, and horoscope Astrologers.

    Book of Daniel : http://jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/4874-daniel-book-of
  • Modern Realism: Fieldism not Materialism
    We eventually came to a simplified conclusion that Biology is a process of Physics which operates via Chemistry.

    Don't know why, but that gave me a sense of contentment.     — Trooper149
    If that materialistic worldview gives you a feeling of contentment, join the club. It's the default worldview of most simple-minded humans since time began : "what you see is all that matters" --- except for the spooky stuff of gods & spirits. But complex thinkers like philosophers are not content with the superficial appearances of physics and chemistry. Instead they also wonder about the unseen mysteries of psychology. And by including the role of Information in the real world, we can finally begin to understand that spooky stuff, as we learn how the mind works : the thinking function of biology.

    In my simple worldview, Physics evolved into Chemistry, which evolved into Biology, which evolved into Psychology. And the last phase is currently mastering all the previous phases. :nerd:
  • Modern Realism: Fieldism not Materialism
    I'll quibble with your quibble, since the original derivation of physics - phusis or nature - arguably generalizes to all of the natural sciences, not only physics. — Pantagruel
    Exactly. That's why Aristotle didn't make a hard distinction between the topic of Nature (physics), and the topic of Human Nature (metaphysics). It was only centuries later that Human Nature was separated from Nature by labeling volume two as Metaphysics, and reserving its study for effete philosophers, and eccentric mystics, instead of practical down-to-earth scientists.

    Now, the modern realism of Quantum Theory is beginning to reunite Man and Nature into a single dynamic system with many functions and roles. :nerd:
  • Modern Realism: Fieldism not Materialism
    It can refer to BOTH energy AND communication (information) - but I’m not convinced that a new term is either necessary or helpful, and I don’t think adding interaction as another ‘field’ separate from gravity, electromagnetism, etc makes sense, either. — Possibility
    If the term "Information" can refer to both topics, why not use a term that combines them into a single concept? My BothAnd philosophy is similar to the Yin/Yang worldview of Taoism. Science studies fragments, while philosophy (metaphysics) studies Wholes. EnFormAction is not intended to be a scientific term for labeling parts, but instead, a philosophical concept for understanding the whole cosmos. It doesn't add "another" field, it combines all of the above into a single Information Field. With that kind of holistic terminology, we can study the universe as-if it is not just atoms-in-the-void, but a universal Mind, processing Information. That's not an empirical scientific perspective; but I think it is a valid philosophical worldview.

    Holism : http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page11.html
  • Modern Realism: Fieldism not Materialism
    By definition Metaphysics and science are different things and play different roles. — Pantagruel
    I'll quibble with your equation of "science" with "physics". Actually, the general term "science" simply refers to knowledge. And that knowledge can be drawn from investigations into the physical world of atoms; but it can also be drawn from investigations into the metaphysical world of mind. Aristotle wrote two volumes on the current knowledge of his era. Very little of the subject matter of the Physics volume is now accepted by modern scientists. But the discussions in the Metaphysics volume were focused. not on the material world itself, but on how humans perceive and understand their relationship to reality. Thus, many of the topics of Metaphysics are now studied in the sciences of Psychology, Sociology, History, and Philosophy.

    So, I would say that, by definition, Metaphysics and Physics are different subjects, with different roles in gaining knowledge and understanding. Physics looks at the outside world, while Metaphysics looks within. Materialist scientists, at least since Descartes, have drawn a hard line between Mind & Body in order to exclude Metaphysics from being a valid subject of empirical study. Unfortunately, Quantum Physics has blurred that line, with its discovery that the "objective" observer cannot study his subject without becoming a part of the system being studied. Consequently, empirical methods leave scientists struggling with paradoxes and absurdities.

    That's why, when I use the term "Metaphysics", I'm merely momentarily focusing on the Yin aspect of reality, while ignoring the Yang. But ultimately, I am aware that they are one and the same. And some mainstream Quantum scientists have come to the same conclusion. Hence, they are forced to use both physical (empirical) and metaphysical (philosophical) techniques.


    Quantum Metaphysics : https://ndpr.nd.edu/news/quantum-ontology-a-guide-to-the-metaphysics-of-quantum-mechanics/
    https://www.researchgate.net/publication/283352753_Quantum_Metaphysics_A_New_Paradigm
  • Are there any prophecies in the Bible that are known to have gone fulfilled or unfulfilled? T
    For a prophecy to be verifiable as having been fulfilled, — BBQueue
    For a modern prophecy to be verified is relatively easy. For example, Herbert W. Armstrong claimed to to be a prophet, and he predicted (in writing) that he would live to see the return of Jesus, Armageddon, and the Wonderful World Tomorrow. Since he lived into his nineties, I had to wait about 10 ten years. But sure enough, he eventually died, and as far as I can tell his prophecy was unfulfilled.

    But verifying ancient prophecies is completely dependent on subjective interpretations of scripture and of history, based on sketchy information. Most academic bible scholars consider typical Old Testament prophecies to be merely get-right-with-god bluster, and not to be taken literally. Some, such as those in Daniel were apparently written years after the events prophesied, hence retro-prophecy. But biblical literalists would not accept such non-faith-based interpretations. The internet is full of discussions about prophecy, but most of it is of the faith-based kind. If you want skeptical validation, you'll have to look long & hard.

    Sample : https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Biblical_prophecies
  • Modern Realism: Fieldism not Materialism
    Just like how discussions of the mind should be informed by neuroscience. Espousing a theory of mind at odds with neuroscience would be empirically invalid. — Marchesk
    On my blog, I just posted a book review of Donald Hoffman's, The Case Against Reality, which makes an attempt to explain human consciousness in a manner that takes the paradoxes and abnormalities of Quantum Theory to be natural and normal. He doesn't deny Reality, but merely offers an analogy to help us make sense of why Consciousness doesn't seem to fit into our current understanding of physical Nature. Hoffman is a cognitive researcher, but his theory is at odds with current neuroscience, specifically the Incredible Hypothesis by Francis Crick that the mind is nothing more than nattering neurons. Hoffman presents a clever metaphor to illustrate his theory that the human mind creates a mental model of Reality, which it then treats as-if it is real.
  • Modern Realism: Fieldism not Materialism
    Notice how fields are different than old fashioned materialism. They're invisible and intangible except when generating forces and particles that we can interact with, such as with gravity or photons. — Marchesk
    In my personal worldview, Enformationism, I place all the various fields postulated by quantum theorists under the heading of a general Information Field. This is based on the little-known fact that what used to be called Metaphysical (Mental) Information is also Physical, in the sense that it can be quantified (Shannon bits). Some researchers are even treating Energy as a form of Information, since the deconstruction of Information is Entropy. Putting together the original Mental meaning and the modern Physical usage of Information, my thesis proposes that the general Information Field of the universe is equivalent to an Energy Field, that I call EnFormAction. It's the cause of all change in the world.

    The way I see it, what is most fundamental in the universe is not ‘stuff’, but interaction. — Possibility
    That fundamental "Interaction" sounds like a reference to Energy. But it could also refer to Communication. My term EnFormAction unites both of those meanings into a universal causal field, from which both Matter and Mind eventually emerge from evolution. It's fundamental in that it is the essence of everything in the universe.

    The world isn't material. It's something else. — Marchesk
    That something else is what I call EnFormAction. Which is a combination of Energy and Intention (guided force), similar to the concept of Will. This is not a religious concept, but it is Metaphysical, in the sense of "something else" than matter. It is also related to Plato's theory of Forms.

    Are you suggesting that science grounds metaphysics? Metaphysics isn't the same as science. — Pantagruel
    Newtonian Science is the basis of Classical Physics. But Quantum Physics cannot be fully reconciled with Classical Materialism. Instead, by introducing concepts such as immaterial Fields, and Virtual Particles, physics is now encroaching on the old philosophical specialty of Metaphysics.

    Panpsychism would be an alternative that's fundamental. — Marchesk
    The Information Field is similar to the ancient notion of Panpsychism, except that Consciousness is a late development from the evolution of EnFormAction.



    Enformationism, EnFormAction, Enformy, Energy : http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page8.html

    Energy is Information : https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/22084/how-is-information-related-to-energy-in-physics
    https://physicsworld.com/a/information-converted-to-energy/
Home » Gnomon