However you turn it around it doesn't make sense because the real question underneath is - why is there something rather than nothing? And whatever answer goes there must seem magical to us. — Zelebg

The only reasonable answer to that fundamental question is "creation" ex nihilo. Which is why I assume that the Creator must exist eternally outside of space-time (i.e. nothingness). In Eternity, all things are possible. But in space-time only some things are actual. In the Real World creation ex nihilo is impossible, hence magical. From our perspective in the conditional world, the Creator is a magician, capable of doing the physically impossible.

However, since I define G*D as BEING (the power to exist), creation (making things exist) is simply inherent in the job description. As PoeticUniverse noted : existence is essential, and must be taken for granted by those of us who know we exist. So, no BEING, no beings; no things. QED

agnosticism is more to do with the concept of knowledge than it is a deity really. — Mark Dennis

Yes. For me, as an Agnostic Deist, the First Cause of our world is like a Black Box. I can see what came out of it, but I don't know what's inside. So, beyond labeling by its apparent function, world creation, I make no further claims about the mysterious Jack-in-the-Box. I am more concerned with the implications of creation in reality, than in the unknown "Creator" --- which I also call "G*D" for purposes of communication.

This tries my patience almost beyond endurance. Science looks for causes (in the most modern and scientific sense of "cause," the which by traditional and ordinary usage is in effect not anything understood by "cause"). — tim wood

I'm sorry my wording offends you. So perhaps I should disclaim. I said that Science (Big Bang, Information Theory, Quantum Theory, etc) "hints" at design. In fact, that's why Astronomer Fred Hoyle scoffed at the radical notion that the universe had a beginning, which to him implied (hint, hint) a creation event --- which tried his patience no end --- so he coined an absurd term to describe it : "Big Bang".

Since then, Atheists have come to terms with the fact that space-time seems to have suddenly appeared from out of nowhere, and have looked for alternative explanations, such as an un-caused eternal Multiverse, for which they have no evidence. Since the origin of the Singularity is logically prior to the Bang, its "cause", as you pointed out, cannot be a physical action of the sort that scientists normally look for. Instead, it must be a metaphysical First Cause as postulated by Philosophers over the ages.

Regarding signs of "Design", you may be thinking of instantaneous creation as in the Myth of Genesis. But my personal myth is of gradual "Intelligent Evolution" instead of "Intelligent Design". I can go into much deeper detail, if your patience has any elasticity remaining. :smile:

So perhaps consciousness, as well as being how we see the world, is what the world, the multiverse, is made of: the unifying field, full of meaning, as in our Goldilocks planet - and the non-random appearance of DNA. — Chris Hughes

Yes. My worldview is similar to Panpsychism, but I prefer to use the abstract term "Information" in reference to the enformed structure of the world, in place of "Consciousness" or "Psyche". That's because some people imagine that rocks & atoms are conscious in the same sense that humans are. Physicists sometimes speak metaphorically about a particle "feeling" a force. But they don't mean it literally.

DNA conveys information (meaning) to the degree that its structure is non-random.

It's physically based and so is not floating around as an 'All' or such. Koch adds in a footnote that it is intrinsic in the sense of being internal, but not in the sense of something like mass — PoeticUniverse

Yes. My personal consciousness is intrinsic to my body as a holon. But Cosmic Consciousness of the ALL is intrinsic to the universe as a whole. In my thesis, the physical universe is analogous to the fleshly body of a conscious human. But the quality of consciousness is not located in any part of the world. So, you could say that it's "floating around" out there in the great beyond. In other words, immaterial Consciousness is non-local. :smile:

With all the thinking/doing of the brain areas already done and finished and represented as qualia, sequential consciousness is too late in the cycle to do any conscious thinking of its own, but the cycle continues… — PoeticUniverse

If you are referring to the time gap between intention and action as determined by Benjamin Libet, his results can be interpreted as allowing time for an intentional veto. Thus, retaining a role for agency in the ongoing cycle of life. :cool:

" Libet's results thus cannot be interpreted to provide empirical evidence in favour of agency reductionism, "
"Daniel Dennett argues that no clear conclusion about volition can be derived from Libet's experiment because of ambiguities in the timings of the different events involved."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benjamin_Libet

Selection determinator can be passive and inanimate against some dynamics, like A shaped roof selects which raindrops go to one or the other side. So evolutionary selector can be amount of light, heat, acidity... stuff like that. — Zelebg

Yes. The selection criteria for evolution are encoded in the universal laws of Math/Logic/Physics and in the Initial Conditions. So the geometric shape of a roof can passively divide random raindrops into two categories, which will determine the future direction of flow. But the "intention" I mentioned was in the mind of the encoder/programmer, who tilted the playing field in order to influence the outcome without presetting all the intermediate details. Thus, allowing a degree of freedom within determinism.

That's why, in my thesis, the creative act occurred before the Big Bang beginning, but the creative process of Evolution is still underway. Since we humans find ourselves in the middle of the journey, and our understanding is limited by the time/light horizon, we can infer the intended end-state only by looking in the direction of Time's Arrow. But the fact that there is a direction (tendency) in Nature indicates that there was conscious intention in the mind of the pool shooter (Programmer), who aimed the cue stick, and then allowed physics to guide the ball to the selected pocket.

Having read and agreed with radical biologist Rupert Sheldake, whose views, I'd say, coinicide with Idealism, — Chris Hughes

FWIW, I just came across an old blog post that specifically addresses the differences between Sheldrake's Morphogenesis theory and my own theory of Enformationism.

Morphogenesis and Enformationism : http://bothandblog2.enformationism.info/page55.html

Paul Davies on Morphogenesis : http://bothandblog6.enformationism.info/page8.html

one would also think that a whole can only be expressed as a Whole in a holistic way. Consciousness solved! — PoeticUniverse

Irony or Sarcasm or Tautology?

Or it is that the Boss has no doing associated with it, per Koch, and the nonconscious guys continue to attend to the goings on by voting or whatnot. — PoeticUniverse

My personal interpretation of Koch's IIT Consciousness --- in view of Dennett's "Multiple Drafts" model and Minsky's "Society of Mind" --- is that 98% of human behavior is carried-out by subconscious automatic instinctive & Intuitive processes. Which leaves only the most important 2% of decisions for the the CEO (the Conscious Whole) to approve or veto. It's only that final say-so (judgment) that we can truly call Free Will. At best, we are absentee (golf-course) executives. Otherwise, we are all philosophical zombies.

If you are a zombie, you're an exceptionally insightful automaton. :smile:


Multiple Drafts : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consciousness_Explained

Society of Mind : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Society_of_Mind

PS__The weak point of these Subconscious Mind theories is "what to do in case of a tied vote by the underlings?" Do nothing, or kick it upstairs to the boss? Those who get emotionally tied-in-knots are acting irrationally. Rare rational thinkers make an executive or judicial decision and move-on.

How could it have? There's no agreed possible process via which DNA could have appeared. It certainly didn't evolve, as evolution depends on self-replication, only possible with DNA! — Chris Hughes

I was talking about DeoxyRibonucleicAcid. The organic molecule that acts as a carrier of information (instructions, recipe) for construction of an organism.

I assume you are talking about the coded Information itself, which is immaterial. IMHO generic Information (EnFormAction) is the essence and cause of reality itself. Metaphorically, it functions as the "Will of G*D", if you will. But your personal DNA is the physical result of a 14 million year chain of cause & effect development (Intelligent Evolution). It is unique only in the sense that any particular thing is unique : it is characterized by a difference-that-makes-a-difference (specified information). The mathematical code that creates and maintains your material body is not a miraculous addition to a soul-less husk, but is the algorithmic essence of your Self, both Physical and Metaphysical.


EnFormAction : http://bothandblog2.enformationism.info/page29.html

Intelligent Evolution : The Program of Development for creation of a world via random heuristics and the Programmer's selection criteria.

Very interesting! May I refer you to my thread, "The significance of meaning" which asks if DNA could be the result of random events? — Chris Hughes

The Chinese Room thought experiment illustrates that randomness can simulate intelligence (as-if), but cannot create meaning (as-is). So, while DNA most likely evolved via Random processes, any meaning encoded in the chemistry is a product of Selection, which implements Intention.

Chinese Room : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_room

I've barely started reading Koch's 'The Feeling of Life Itself', and can already see that a certain part of the brain has been identified to be involved with consciousness, this at least localizing thee 'mystery'. — PoeticUniverse

Yes, but Koch still maintains that Consciousness is a holistic function of the body/brain. The "correlates of consciousness" are locations on a map, not the Terrain itself.

The Whole can also be well spoken of
To communicate with others, (as well as
Globally informing other brain states,
For the nonconscious knows not what it made.) — PoeticUniverse

The conscious whole is experienced as the "feeling of being", but is represented to others as the Self -- symbolized as a homunculus : a Mini-Me. The Self functions as the CEO of the corporate body, accepting or rejecting policies (ideas) and plans of action (feelings) submitted by the sub-conscious VP's in charge of various sub-functions of the body. Only the CEO is conscious of the whole system, but even then, only in a general, superficial sense. The Boss may not know exactly where those ideas and feelings came from, but merely judges : "sounds good to me", or "no, that will conflict with other goals".

The OP"s got a point, though. I've always felt rather smug and superior calling myself agnostic. But he's right - it is a bit of a cop-out. It allows supernatural explanation. — Chris Hughes

I don't see Agnosticism as a cop-out, but as a Conditional & Complementary belief, as illustrated in the Yin/Yang symbol. My general philosophy is summed-up in the BothAnd Principle*1.

From the evidence so-far produced by Science, I have inferred that the Big Bang, Physical Laws, and Initial Conditions were not accidental, but were the Direct Effect of some First Cause. Since that Causal Agent logically existed prior to the Big Bang, it is also beyond the scope of space-time Nature as we know it : hence, Super-Natural. But since I have no direct knowledge of anything supernatural, I must limit my belief in the necessary existence of the Prime Mover with a dose of doubt appropriate to the magnitude of the question.

Hence, I believe there must be some kind of Creator, but my knowledge is limited to observation of the Creation, and is subject to being mis-interpreted. So, while I am literally an A-Theist regarding the humanoid deity of world religions, I must remain A-Gnostic regarding any specific characteristics of the First Cause, beyond the functional requirements of the Philosopher's God of Deism*2.


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

*2 Conditional belief in Deity :
"However, at this point in time, science is pointing toward a designer / creator behind the universe / life. The complexity of the DNA code is one example. The fine-tuning of the universe’s cosmological constants is another. What science is hinting at is that something, or someone, appears to have a hand in designing the cosmos as we know it, in order for life to exist. While the same science points toward a Big Bang event, what is unknown is what caused the Big to go Bang.

Physics states that every action has an equal and opposite reaction. Unless you suspend the laws of physics, then what equal force in a “nonexistent universe” could possibly have caused the Big Bang? Did something come from nothing, or, did a transcendent force (God), that we do not yet comprehend, serve as the catalyst when supposedly nothing else existed?

In the meantime, deists are firmly planted in their belief, and with good reason!"
Excerpt from Quora post by Christopher Finch : https://www.quora.com/profile/Christopher-Finch-5

Would we be able to understand something if it was nonexistent? — Cyrill

Yes. But only relative to existence. The mathematical concept of Zero (non-existence) was rejected by philosophers for ages, until it became impossible to do advanced math without it. See Zero.

In his book on how life emerged from non-life, Incomplete Nature, Terrance Deacon makes frequent use of the ironic concept of the "Power of Absence". It's not easy to grasp, but once you get it, you'll see it everywhere.

ZERO : https://www.amazon.com/Zero-Biography-Dangerous-Charles-Seife/dp/0140296476/ref=sr_1_1?keywords=zero+charles+seife+summary&link_code=qs&qid=1573326967&sourceid=Mozilla-search&sr=8-1

Incomplete Nature : https://www.amazon.com/Incomplete-Nature-Mind-Emerged-Matter/dp/0393049914/ref=sr_1_1?crid=2N86AB5T4TU7S&keywords=incomplete+nature+deacon&qid=1573327076&sprefix=incomplete+nature+deacon%2Caps%2C216&sr=8-1

But how funny if this turned out to be the answer we could then perhaps even be able to read thoughts and watch dreams. We would know how it works, but we would still not really know why, and I am afraid that would again leave us feeling the mystery was not actually solved at all. — Zelebg

Researchers have been "reading thoughts" and "watching dreams" for several years using fMRI to display brain-function patterns, and artificial intelligence to interpret those neural patterns as "correlates of consciousness". That's amazing, but objectively observing someone else's subjective consciousness will remain a Holy Grail for years to come.

So...intelligent design? — Chris Hughes

No. Intelligent Evolution.
http://gnomon.enformationism.info/Essays/Intelligent%20Evolution%20Essay_Prego_120106.pdf

"Enformity" is a coined term defined as the essential quality of an enformed system (e.g. a designed universe as opposed to an accidental universe) — Gnomon

Enformy :
In the Enformationism theory, Enformy is a hypothetical, holistic, metaphysical, natural trend or force, that counteracts Entropy & Randomness to produce complexity & progress. [ see post 63 for graph ]
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

Having read and agreed with radical biologist Rupert Sheldake, whose views, I'd say, coinicide with Idealism, I’d be interested to know - if it's not a diversion - what you (and others here) think of his morphic resonance idea, which hypothesises that self-​organising systems inherit memory and habit from previous similar systems. — Chris Hughes

Years ago, I was impressed by Sheldrake's theory of Morphic Resonance, when he observed that cells of growing plants appear to know what to do, and where to go, in order to construct the characteristic final form of its species. It's as-if the cells were following a blueprint. Since then, he has broadly expanded his theory into some pretty far-out notions, such as "the feeling of being stared at". But empirical Science is not content with weaving stories around "as-if" metaphors. Instead, it looks for "as-is" mechanisms.

Although his thesis is ultimately Idealistic, in the sense of Plato's eternal Forms, and it has a role for Information similar to my own worldview, I'm not convinced that his interpretation is correct. It provides a rationale for psychic and magical phenomena, that I think are better explained in terms of human psychology, and statistical probability. Admittedly, his metaphors are easier for the average person to grasp, but I'm currently pursuing my own abstruse Theory of Everything that I call Enformationism. Unfortunately, that TOE has no place for magic in the real world. :smile:

That we converged to this point from widely separated fields of natural investigation is not insignificant. — Zelebg

I too have noticed a distinct convergence of opinion on Consciousness in recent years, with non-materialistic interpretations. But there is still plenty of divergence on the details.

Perhaps experiments could be designed to test that fascinating theory. The problem is that no "respectable" scientists would want to challenge the current it's-all-in-the-brain paradigm. — Chris Hughes

Actually, there are plenty of respectable scientists who are challenging the materialist paradigm. But their tests are necessarily thought experiments, which don't carry much weight with empirical scientists.

For example, Bernardo Kastrup is a computer scientist who has worked at CERN in Switzerland. He is a proponent of an Idealist explanation for Consciousness. Based on his Artificial Intelligence research, he concludes that, "one universal consciousness gives rise to multiple, private but concurrently conscious centers of cognition," Along with two psychiatry researchers, he explains in a Scientific American magazine article that the unitary Cosmic Mind produces individual human minds by analogy with Dissociative Identity Disorder.

I'm not so sure about the validity of that comparison, but he has arrived at an Idealist worldview similar to mine, but coming from a different direction. His Universal Consciousness concept also has some similarities to Akashic Field and Quantum Field theories. Which are likewise approaching the Hard Problem of Consciousness from divergent directions.

Could Multiple Personality Disorder Explain Life, the Universe and Everything? :
https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/could-multiple-personality-disorder-explain-life-the-universe-and-everything/

Reality is Ideality : http://bothandblog5.enformationism.info/page17.html

Thats why it's a metaphor not an analogy. — Chris Hughes

"The brain is like an antenna" is an analogy. "The brain is an antenna" is a metaphor. And metaphors are too often taken literally, leading to erroneous conclusions. :wink:

I believe that there is no reason to be "agnostic" because saying that you would become theistic if presented with evidence or saying that you are open to the idea of god is non-practical. — nr2004

Apparently you see the question of "God" in terms of "Yes or No", with no room for doubt. Yet, like Socrates, I tend to doubt the completeness and accuracy of my own knowledge. If you claim to have the final word on the ancient mystery of "God", then you must either have some direct knowledge of his existence or non-existence, or you have faith that makes knowledge unnecessary. But, how do you know non-existence?

Theists and Atheists are Gnostics, in the sense that they claim to know for sure (by faith) that God is or isn't. But I'm not so sure; hence I'm Agnostic : A-Theistic, but Deistic, not due to black/white knowledge, but to shades-of-gray possibility.

Gnostic : relating to knowledge, especially esoteric mystical knowledge.

Below is a personal computer hardware configuration for which I claim is conscious, self-aware, and free willing. — Zelebg

The subtitle to Koch's book, The Feeling Of Life Itself, is Why Consciousness is Widespread but Can't Be Computed.

And the definition of consciousness is: "act of self-observation". — Zelebg

FWIW, I think feedback loops and self-reference are necessary, but not sufficient, to produce consciousness. Again Koch's book gets into the details of how that works.

Is there any other referrence to "antenna" in relation to mind or sentience you know of? — Zelebg

I'm sure there are plenty of "antenna" references out there but I haven't taken the time to look for them, since I think they are taking the analogy too literally.

A similar concept is that of the HIndu "Akashic Field" theory, which Ervin Laszlo has updated as a reference to the universal Quantum Field. Yet again, I can accept it as a metaphor, but not as a mechanism. It proposes that the field is like a universal mind, including memory, that humans can tune into. I don't know how you could verify such a theory empirically. I'm much more interested in how the human brain generates consciousness. And Christof Koch's book is the latest and best I've seen on that topic.

How about I say consciousness is a separate feeling with its own sense, its own receptors like that of taste or smell? — Zelebg

If you're saying that the brain is a sensory organ for meaning, that pretty well sums it up. But there are no dedicated sensors (like eyes) specifically for Consciousness. Some have postulated that the brain works like an antenna to receive transmissions from out in the ether. That may be a crude analogy, but there are no aliens out there trying to contact us: it's just Mother Nature calling. Besides, the "feelings" associated with meanings are ordinary emotions evoked by their relevance to me.

IMHO, Consciousness is not a thing or a signal or a sensation, or a soul, but a holistic process. It's merely what highly organized brains do --- as a whole system. All of your physical senses detect energy in various wavelengths and the brain interprets the dots & dashes into meaning. As in Morse code, the interpreter must already know the code. We are born decoders of meaning. If you want something more technical than that, check out Koch's book.

Thanks. Is there some site where I could find recent papers on the subject free to download? — Zelebg

Christoph Koch on Consciousness

The Wikipedia page has lots of references : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christof_Koch

2018 article : https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-018-05097-x

personal site papers: https://christofkoch.com/my-books-and-papers/

Scientific American articles : https://christofkoch.com/category/sciam-column/

And if you don't like that neither then tell me, is consciousness a type of feeling at all, and if not, then what in the world is it? — Zelebg

If you're looking for a philosophical definition of "Consciousness", you may find that each poster has his own opinion. But if you're looking for a cutting-edge treatment of the latest scientific research on the Mind/Body question, check out Christof Koch's latest book : The Feeling of Life Itself. The title expresses Koch's personal answer to your question.

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

"Consciousness is experience. . . . consciousness is lived reality. It is the feeling of life itself. It is the only bit of eternity to which I am entitled."

".. . experience. It is the one fact I am absolutely certain of. Everything else is conjecture, including the existence of an external world."

Can we have true progress in one of these dimensions only, or is culture ultimately a product of the integration of all of them? — Pantagruel

I suppose "progress" is in the eyes of the beholder. It depends on your definition, and on your ability to see long-term trends in history. If you are wandering aimlessly, as many believe the universe is doing, just putting one foot in front of another is minimally progressive. But, if you have a specific goal, and the will to reach it, then progress will be apparent as you get closer to that destination, even if it's ultimately unreachable. For most living things in this world though, progress is simply living for one more day, since the "goal" of their genes is to reach sexual maturity, to reproduce, and to leave behind copies of your genes. Yet, for a few creatures, who can imagine the future and plan for it, more specific and arbitrary goals provide a sort of "pull" in a particular direction, which may not coincide with the "aims" of genes, or the "dialectic" of the world. In any case, Progress is measured relative to the plotted course toward a desired or specified end.

Nietzsche is famous for seeing no ultimate point to the arbitrary path of history : just change for the sake of change; going around in circles, the "eternal return". Others, such as Hegel, saw a progressive pattern in the zig-zag path of history, seemingly guided by a worldwide "will" : the "spirit of history". But the most adamant historical progressives are also pessimistic about Natural or Cultural progress, relying instead on divine Will to propel the world toward a final reckoning : Apocalypse. Most philosophers seem to be cautiously optimistic, in the sense that Ethical behavior is worth the effort.

Based on the Enformationism worldview, my position on progress falls somewhere in the middle range. LIke Hegel, I perceive a heuristic-but-progressive path of development across all the indicated domains : technological, scientific, aesthetic, historic, ethical. Of course, Technological progress is undeniable (e.g. Moore's Law) even though the long-term outcome may be debatable. But, like Steven Pinker in Better Angels of Our Nature, and Michael Shermer in The Moral Arc, I think even Moral progress is evident in history, for those who look beyond the front page Fake News. So yes, I believe the world, in all dimensions, is progressing in an overall upward arc toward some unknown ultimate over-the-horizon finale. Unfortunately, my personal path of self-interest may be unrelated to the Cosmic Progression, except to the extent that it gives me a reason for general optimism. :cool:


The Better Angels : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Better_Angels_of_Our_Nature

The Moral Arc : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Moral_Arc

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

All that said... do you find it rather odd and marvelling, regadrless of your existential values, that we are standing here, incessantly peering and probing not just into our origins but into the origins of the very system that phoduced us? — staticphoton

Yes. And all humans of all times have been intrigued by the enigma of existence with no definite cause. Yet, the only solution that makes sense requires Eternity, which is not found in Nature. The Greek First Cause was necessarily eternal. The Hindu Brahman was inherently timeless. The creator in Genesis was assumed to exist forever outside the creation. Tegmark's Mathematical Universe theory assumes that the immaterial laws of Logic & Math pre-existed the origin of it's material manifestation. And even the Materialist Multiverse is defined as existing prior to the beginning of space-time in the Big Bang, and of course un-caused or self-existent.

So, I think it's undeniable that the only viable explanation for our contingent being is something prior to space-time, hence literally super-natural. I call it G*D. But beyond that Prime Mover axiom we can only speculate. So, without a direct revelation from beyond, the mystery remains. And your guess is as good as mine. :smile:

Yes, that's why I say you didn't need to preamble with a digression about Marxism, just talk about the article, but if you do preamble about Marx then it's fair to expect more digression about Marx. — boethius

I'm sorry if my assertion about Marxism being "out of date", offended you. However, it wasn't a digression, but integral to my understanding of the article as an "update" of older theories, such as Smith and Marx. Besides, I was directly responding to the Marx reference in the original quote.

Do you think it's unfair to interpret the new statistical economic model as a valid "update"? I saw it as similar to Newton's law of gravity, which was updated and refined by Einstein, but not invalidated. I have no training in economics, and only a philosophical (not political) interest. So I may have overstated the importance of the Capitalist Casino concept.

I saw in it a more politically neutral view of who's at fault for the money/power inequities of the world. If the Matthew Effect*1 is inherent in any economic system, then there should be mathematical/rational solutions that men of Good Will*2 can agree on. Rather than relying on civil wars and military revolutions to throw the rascals out, perhaps -- in some Utopian future state -- we can keep the economy balanced with win-win strategies, instead of win-lose. Is that totally naive? :cool:

Matthew Effect*1 : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matthew_effect

Good Will*2 : this assumes that "bad will" is a minority trait

As far as the same principles applying to physics, keep always in mind that human societies are just another physical system subject to the laws of thermodynamics, and that wealth is basically just an evaluative perspective on the same old matter and energy, so flows of wealth will be bound to the same rules as flows of energy in the end. — Pfhorrest

Yes. Money is a metaphysical form of Energy, which can be both constructive and destructive. The trick is to control the flow to maintain a safe level of warmth (profit) while avoiding burning down the house. All of the political and economic systems we've tried so far have found it difficult to hit the sweet spot. Some tend to enrich the rich, and others to impoverish everyone. Venezuela is an example of a nation with vast resources that are squandered due to lose/lose political squabbles : Marxists versus Capitalists, and apolitical masses in the middle get trampled.

Economics is not for nothing called the "dismal science". But I am encouraged by this new economic model to hope that both Socialist and Capitalist economists will be able to agree on the numbers, if not the specific goal : free market vs balanced distribution. If both sides can at least agree on the mathematical facts, maybe they can find a way to meet in the middle with win/win solutions, rather than to swing to one extreme or the other. Thinkers in the past -- Adams, Marx, Carlyle -- have intuitively grasped the inherent disparities in resource and wealth distribution. But more accurate mathematical models should allow for better rational planning, and less political footballing. One can hope. :smile:

"Dismal science is a term coined by Scottish writer, essayist, and historian Thomas Carlyle to describe the discipline of economics. The term is said to have been inspired by T. R. Malthus' gloomy prediction that population would always grow faster than food, dooming mankind to unending poverty and hardship." https://www.investopedia.com/terms/d/dismalscience.asp

The neocons are having an orgy given that they convinced the masses that trickle-down works. — Wallows

The article says, " these mathematical models demonstrate that far from wealth trickling down to the poor, the natural inclination of wealth is to flow upward, so that the 'natural' wealth distribution in a free market economy is one of complete oligarchy. It is only redistribution that sets limits on inequality." Now, the masses will have the authority of mathematics on their side of the debate about "confiscation" versus "redistribution".

But I'm putting my money on the house to win in the end. :wink:

Someone should invent a game to illustrate this startling novelty. "Monopoly" has a nice ring for a name — unenlightened

Maybe now kids on the short stack of the Monopoly bank will be able to calculate their way out of poverty. :joke:

I see nothing in the paper nor in what you present to lead to the conclusion that such a numerical simulation is needed to arrive at the conclusion (just as numerical simulation wasn't needed to find Neptune or to tell us the sun will rise in the East tomorrow, though will simply confirm these conclusions). — boethius

Sorry, I have no training or aptitude for economics or politics. So this article was news to me. I was surprised to hear that laws of physics also apply to metaphysics, i.e. economics. :smile:

PS__I didn't intend to disparage Marx, but to promote the linked article.

Basically this “new” research is just reinforcing what Marxists have always been saying. — Pfhorrest

I suspect that Marx may have been talking about a problem that was endemic in Europe prior to the French Revolution. "Under the ancien régime, ennobled families were granted privilege in the literal sense; that is, they answered to a different set of laws ("privy": private, "leges": laws). In particular, they were exempt from taxation." [see the article below]. The rich and powerful have always enjoyed special exemptions not available to the hoi poloi. And vice versa : The article quoted James Baldwin, "anyone who has struggled with poverty knows how extremely expensive it is to be poor."

The article reveals that the inequalities of economies is as old as bartering. So, the question now is, what are we going to do with this new insight? Join the class revolution, and hope the "inevitable" dialectic is swinging in our direction? Or join the political system and work together for a more equitable tomorrow? Pessimists will choose one solution, and optimists another. But the laws of statistics will always prevail. And the same law will apply to the Many and to the Few. Since mathematics is amoral, the "law" will be on the side of those who know the Law. At least now we know that the Casino is inherently rigged, and can make human laws to offset the "natural" physics of power . . . along with the artificial leverage of of politics : Privilege.

. . . and the dialectic goes on . . . :smile:


Privilege : https://hedgehogreview.com/issues/identitieswhat-are-they-good-for/articles/privilege

Why is Marx old news but not Adam Smith? — boethius

Both are "old news". Any 21st century solution to the problem of economic inequality will have to take into consideration the "invisible left hand" of the market casino.

I cannot see how humanity could have developed to the point we’ve reached today without sprouting from a natural destructive inclination. Do you agree that we grew from a destructive disposition rather than a more cooperative one? Or if you think it was an admixture which way would you say we leaned more? — I like sushi

I don't think humans are inherently more destructive than any other predatory animal. For example, if wolves had the ability to develop technological extensions of their bodies, they'd quickly drive their prey to extinction. But humans are omnivores, with both predator and prey characteristics. We are capable of both competitive and cooperative behaviors. But, unlike most predators, we have no other species to counter our aggressive drives, as huge herds of ungulates tend to out-breed their small packs of predators.

Instead, the world itself is inherently moderated by a thermostat in that constructive Energy is offset by destructive Entropy, and Hot is balanced by Cold to maintain a livable temperature. So, in a Yin/Yang world, the dual nature of humans is adapted to compete where necessary, and to cooperate where possible. But, our big brains give us an unfair advantage. The only counter-balance to human predation may be our own collective conscience. That's why, as a species, we have an angel on one shoulder and a demon on the other, in a wrestling match for our collective soul. Our intelligence allows us to turn natural forces to our own advantage, and to find ways to repair the damage when those short-term advantages turn-out to have negative long-term consequences. Such as using fossil fuels to warm our cozy little homes, that in turn threaten to heat the whole planet to an unlivable degree.

We're not gods, so we learn by trial and error. But the wide-spread cynicism, that views humanity as a cancer on the face of Gaia is due in part to another positive-negative technology : modern drama-driven media that report in bold print all the raping & pillaging by oligarchs, autocrats, and technocrats, while relegating all the millions of mundane-but-positive efforts to the back page. So no, I disagree that humanity is a race of destructive demons. Instead, we are a Yin-Yang race in a Yin-Yang world, with both positive and negative characteristics that generally balance well enough to keep evolution on an upward arc. Think positive. :smile:


The Moral Arc : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Moral_Arc

The Better Angels of Our Nature : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Better_Angels_of_Our_Nature

The Upward Arc of Evolution : http://bothandblog3.enformationism.info/page28.html

The BothAnd Principle : http://www.bothandblog.enformationism.info/page5.html

And all possible things happen — PoeticUniverse

Not necessarily. Hence the information content is One. :smile:

“‘Veni, Vidi, Velcro’; I came, I saw, and I stuck around.” — PoeticUniverse

Whew! :joke:

No input; no cause; no information; nothing specific; nothing more; everything possible; many worlds; multiverse; the tenth dimension; the Library of Babel; no meaning; no opposite; no alternative. — PoeticUniverse

Nothing but BEING : the power and potential for existence. In BEING, all things are possible.

Deus cogito, ergo sum. G*D thinks, therefore I am. :smile:

Can anyone even conceive a theoretical model where such thing, an event that's caused by something other than a past event or randomness, is possible? — philsterr

existence is an unstoppable eternal loop — OmniscientNihilist

Yes, my worldview is grounded on the notion of Eternal BEING : the power to exist. All other concepts assume that " existence precedes essence ". No being, no properties. In the chain of causation, the "buck" stops at existence. You can call that ultimate origin point God or G*D or BEING. But, once existence is established, all other causes flow from the First Cause : Eternal Existence. Whether there can be loops in eternity is debatable. :smile:

Was this violating Job’s free will and thus being unjust?
Does this looks bad for God and thus for theists who define God as all good, powerful and just?
I am genuinely not sure where I stand on this dilemma and would be very interested to hear thoughts on this. — PhilosophyAttempter

As a Deist, here's my thoughts on Divine Justice, as revealed in the story of JOB.
http://www.bothandblog.enformationism.info/page59.html