Perhaps this thread demonstrates not that one doesn't care about mysticism, but rather there is little interest in the philosophy of mysticism. I.e., one may care about mysticism, but have low tolerance for the philosophy. Except for a few posters. Just a thought. — jgill

What you are not, you cannot perceive to understand; it cannot communicate itself to you-AH Maslow

SS!

Have you considered one's own stream of consciousness, as being the analogous illusionary free will? For example, when driving, meditating, etc. random thoughts just 'appear' in consciousness. And due to those causes, choice is [often] made. (Or like in other modes of logicizing/cognition.) So, random thoughts, or in this case randomness, can contribute to that 'cause and effect' viz the illusion of free will. This suggests both randomness and determinism at work. (Also, see Wheeler's Cloud/20-questions.)

Likewise, according to some interpretations of quantum mechanics, we can’t precisely predict the motions of single particles. In the infamous double-slit experiment, we cannot predict where exactly an individual photon passing through two slits will land on the photo-sensitive wall on the other side. But we can make extremely precise predictions of the distribution of multiple particles (to many decimal places what the distribution of billions of photons shot at the double slit will look like).

And lastly, have you considered Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle and Gödel's incompleteness theorem in any theories relative to free will?

It is not, however, that the interaction exists before the objects exist since I think that is impossible. How could there exist a capacity of performing an action x without that which performs the action? — Daniel

Because the universe is in some sense compelled to eventually have conscious and sapient life emerge within it. (Otherwise, how would you explain Emergence?) The universe's fine tuning seems to be the result of selection bias (specifically survivorship bias) in that, only in a universe capable of eventually supporting life will there be living beings capable of observing and reflecting on the matter.

But as far as why there is something and not nothing (if that's what you mean) it's almost like asking what happened before the Big Bang (causation)?

The other subcategories of the Anthropic principle seem to rely more in the existence of conscious beings. Again, I completely disagree with that. — Daniel

Daniel!

Can you elaborate on that one a bit? Are you saying that an experiential world has no relevance or meaning there?

In other words, the distinction PAP makes is that it requires a subject/object relationship. An interconnectedness that without, would preclude the phenomenon of life itself/conscious existence. In a cosmological sense, it could be argued that it (the subject/object relationship) requires logical necessity to work.

Please feel free to poke holes... .

Have you considered the Participatory Anthropic Principle? Or in layman's terms, the law of attraction.

All that is similar to the Observer Effect in physics (QM). We are all interconnected Beings.

Gnomon!

Just another thought. I did not see Sentience in your Glossary. I would consider adding the concept to your informational theories if you haven't already… . Here are a couple sound bites for you to chew on:

Sentience is a multidimensional subjective phenomenon that refers to the depth of awareness an individual possesses about himself or herself and others. When we ask about sentience in other animals, we are asking whether their phenomenological experience is similar to our own. Do they think about themselves the way we do? Do they ponder their own lives? Do they know that other individuals have feelings and thoughts? And, do they have an autobiographical sense of the past and future?

Sentience is the capacity to feel, perceive, or experience subjectively.[1] Eighteenth-century philosophers used the concept to distinguish the ability to think (reason) from the ability to feel (sentience). In modern Western philosophy, sentience is the ability to experience sensations (known in philosophy of mind as "qualia"). In Eastern philosophy, sentience is a metaphysical quality of all things that require respect and care.

There is a fundamental harmony and purpose to the physical reality and to the spiritual reality and to their inherent relationship with one another. It ultimately has to do with who you are, where you came from, why you are here and where you are destined to go. This holds true for sentient life everywhere, regardless of the vast differences in appearance, environment and understanding.

The freedom that must be emphasized is a greater internal freedom—the freedom to find the way to Knowledge, the deeper intelligence that God has placed within you and within all sentient life.


Gnomon, I didn't see Material Reductionism in your Glossary either. Point being, you can contrast the above thoughts on sentience, with how self-awareness and consciousness is not likely to have emerged from a piece of wood :chin:

The trouble is, you think you have time - Buddha.

The distinction between the past, present and future is only a stubbornly persistent illusion-Einstein.

With respect to matter, energy and information, here's a short Whitheadian interpretation of the primacy of change/events that Possibility alluded to... . This is in contrast to say Platonism, relative to cosmology/metaphysics/unchanging things-see process theology.

However, it is important to note that in Panentheism, as Davies posits, the Di-polar God is that where both timeless and temporality are folded into one entity. A combination of both determinism and indeterminism on a quantum scale. A God that is both imbedded in the stream of time, yet retains it's eternal an unchanging character. (Wheeler's game of 20-questions illustrates by that by analogy.)

Anyway, here's the 101 on the former interpretation of process philosophy:

I like how you think. We are trapped in time.And I really like that you’re syscant and don’t blather on.
However, the reality is we are chemical beings. — Becky

Becky!

Can you elaborate on what you mean by 'chemical beings'?

except in terms of Mathematical and Logical relationships. :nerd: — Gnomon

Personally, I would say: mathematical and illogical relationships. Meaning, a place (our existence) where Godel/Heisenberg meets Platonism :cool:

That would work better since everything is information, that is providing for clues, which in turn are paradoxical. Being and becoming. Temporal and a temporal. Necessity and contingency. Changing and unchanging. Time-dependent and timelessness.

Logical impossibility.

personally don't see the problem. The present merely moves forward constantly within metaphysical nothing. Time exists but past doesnt. The future doesn't exist except as a present. So I don't see a true paradox. Whether the present is in our heads or outside i don't find to be a fruitful topic of discussion. — Gregory

Gregory!

Just a few things to wet your whistle both related to metaphysics and logical impossibility.

- how does our sense perception perceive time?
- do time zones (East v. West) present paradox? (Can I re-live lost time traveling west to east?)
-is eternity time or time eternity?
- is time subordinate to change or is change subordinate to time? (Does change affect time or does time affect change.)
-how thick is present time? (When I cognize about that question, I need the past/future to answer the question.) What then constitutes present.
-is mathematics a timeless truth?
-do clocks measure time or change?
-does mathematics have biological survival value?

Just a few things to consider :smile:

Have you considered Aristotle's metaphysics viz time?

"It can be said that the world of mathematics exists in an eternal present, a state in which neither the past nor the future have any meaning; there is no significance to the questions of what came before, or of what will happen next... Within the sphere of mathematics, the moment of time is always 0. In other words, time has neither meaning nor significance within mathematical operations."

https://www.oxfordscholarship.com/view/10.1093/0199247900.001.0001/acprof-9780199247905

http://www.torahscience.org/mathematics/time1.html

And of course the so-called infamous Aristotelian paradoxes of same:

I wasn't referring to any Spiritual context. Here, this might help (with respect to your Glossary/Time):

http://www.torahscience.org/mathematics/time1.html

Gnomon!

As a favor, I'm offering a critique of your Glossary Page. Maybe I missed it , but why did you not include Time? It is no doubt one of the most intriguing mysterious spanning science and philosophy. Becoming and Being-something you alluded to... .

Not to beat you up about it, but go to the 20-min. mark and you'll hear Davies discussing your favorite topic :snicker:

The only absolute in my thesis is the axiomatic BEING from which all finite & relative beings are created. This is Aquinas' Necessary Being. Everything in the space-time world is contingent. — Gnomon

Gnomon!

Yes, thanks, but not really novel, nor a paradigm buster. :snicker:

On the other hand, you may or may not find this novel interpretation of an old topic intriguing... . In the end, (as Paul Davies has suggested in his book The Mind of God)) it may be that a whole different language (of information) is required for something like a ToE.

This article certainly hints to it (one of your favorite topics) LOL:

https://phys.org/news/2020-06-black-holes-hologram.html

I leave that job to more imaginative people. Black Holes are like Dark Matter, and Dark Energy, in that they reveal more about our ignorance, than of our knowledge of cosmic science. Imagination fill holes in knowledge with maybes. :smile: — Gnomon

Are there any absolute's in your theory (s)?

Please enumerate if you could, then we can take them one at a time :gasp:

Thanks for that interpretation of matter, energy and information. After doing a TPF search, it appears you have studied Whitehead's cosmology/metaphysics. Does he happen to provide for any insights into any of our informational theories?

Just wondering... .

Gnomon!

I've been meaning to ask, and I keep forgetting so I'll ask now, does your theory consider any old- school Hermetic philosophy/cosmology? ( It seems to dovetail a bit with PAP/Panentheism. .)

Another suggestion that a Black Hole might be a portal to another galaxy, civilization, dimension, etc. etc. The funny thing is, apparently when you enter, you can't get out :

It’s like anthropomorphizing the universe, but if I’m not mistaken, you said that’s laughable, so, not sure where I’ve gotten lost. — praxis — Possibility

Praxis!

What is your take on Wheeler's PAP?

Did Wheeler use terms like "other dimensions" in his musings on " matter, energy, and information"? Did he associate Information with physical Electro-Magnetic fields? — Gnomon

Gnomon!

Within the contextual framework of his participatory anthropic principle (PAP) as mentioned previously, those EM fields can be detected like 'Geons' (GR & EM). That foregoing experiment of those fields emanating from Black Holes could infer conscious activity from another dimension. Of course, it could also be other forms of energy waves like light and heat, etc.. Or, there is no reason why it could not be all of the above...refer to the video.

But specifically no, I have not found where Wheeler has used the phrase ' 5th Dimension' beyond the usual 4 Dimensions of space and time.

Since you don't seem to be offended by my unusual worldview, I'd like to see how you would summarize, in your own words, the Theory of Information that is the topic of this thread. — Gnomon

I interpret your Theory of Information as a combination of Wheeler's PAP and Davies' Panentheism
(not Pantheism). With respect to the latter, God's body is the metaphorical universe. With objective certainty, we can use mathematical abstracts to describe the information about the human structure, yet the mind of God is not known to us except through the subjective certainty of PAP.

In this interpretation, the body provides for your informational theory from which we dissect as clues. And the mind (subjective self-awareness/consciousness) is only known to us through the phenomenon of QM/PAP. Both of which remains a source of information.

Putting some of that together with your theory is yet just another theory relative to self-awareness/conscious existence. As Wheeler alluded,"... at the heart of everything is a question, not an answer. When we peer down into the deepest recesses of matter or at the farthest edge of the universe, we see, finally, our own puzzled face looking back at us."

I thought this was a cool picture of Wheeler and Einstein (Wheeler on the far right):

Its both a quality of energy and matter - fundamental to the universe. — Benj96

I picked the prevailing thought process there (45%). Consciousness can be thought of as "held" in both places; in the mind itself as a receiver as well as a transmitter to the universe, like the law of attraction( QM).

However, in more than one episode, the writers explored the mind-bending question : is the reconstituted body really my Self/
Soul, or a new person altogether? :chin:


Gnomon

17 hours ago — Gnomon

Gnomon!

Interesting. Sort of goes along with the notion that energy is never lost or destroyed. On a slightly similar note, for whatever reason, my Kantian intuition (and for the longest time) made/makes me think of 'Black Holes' as a beam-me-up-Scotty moment as it were. Meaning, perhaps storage of other EM field's of consciousness exist in yet another Dimension. That intuition is not completely absurd (or maybe it is) when considering physicist Wheeler's anthropic views (PAP) about his observations of wave pulses coming from Black Holes:




Of course, lots of big name dropping here (Davies, Wheeler, Tipler, etc): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropic_principle#Variants

I’m with you here. Not sure how it applies to my comments, though. — Possibility

I was simply making an analogous assertion that defining the terms, is paramount to any spirited discussion.

recognise the need to re-define old-school belief systems, and I think Gnomon is aware of my affinity with his theory and this aim in particular. I don’t believe the way to achieve this is by coining new terms, though, but by broadening awareness and removing limitations on the isolating and ignorant definitions of existing terms. — Possibility

Indeed, well, how would you suggest we reconcile novel approaches to new/old concepts? No pun intended however, living in the 'information age', is it appropriate that we frame our new paradigms with similarly new words/concepts (I'm not a Lexicographer, but don't dictionaries evolve)?

Thanks! The whole point of Enformationism is "paradigm busting", not merely saying the same old thing in strange words. — Gnomon

You're welcome!

It's been a very intriguing thread. I'm a John Wheeler/Physicist fan, and enjoy reading his theories about Information, thus (excerpt from a paper on conscious thoughts occurring 'outside' the brain/ Dirk K.F. Meijer, University of Groningen, The Netherlands) :


"Can our personal information survive?

This is where the "information theory", mentioned above, comes into play. Assuming with Wheeler that everything in the universe is composed of matter, energy, and information, according to the “Energy Conservation Law”, energy cannot be destroyed. It follows that also the information that constitutes us, may not disappear altogether. In this context, Prof. Meijer brings me back to the supposed consciousness workspace, that preserves an up-to-date picture of our total personal state of art. "If quantum information, like energy, cannot be destroyed, it is theoretical possible that when our brain dies, when we pass away, the information stored around our brain survives in some other dimension, an aspect that may be revealed in NDE conditions. "

The instance of the word or text is the event, the definition the machine, and language the rules and laws - but meaning is what all this ultimately refers to: the relation between possibility and impossibility, and the ‘undecidable’ difference that manifests. I would have thought this renders the possibility of a consistent worldview relatable and yet indefinable as such. Neologisms don’t solve the problem, they’re just an attempt to control the uncontrollable. — Possibility

Hi Possibility!

No exceptions taken on the jist of your reply, but just some clarifications if I could. I was trying to make two points.

1. The argument from 'iterability of meaning' (refer to video if you like) was that which I was referring to, where there is need to reach consensus in (contextual) definitions first, before proceeding into a debate or discussion etc. about the concept. In other words, agree (or disagree) on the definitions about the subject matter beforehand.

Another spirited/working example comes from the doctrine of vagueness:

"Where does the tail of a snake begin? When posed as a rhetorical question, the speaker is hinting that there is no definite answer. But the tail can be located by tracing down from the snake’s rib cage. A false attribution of indeterminacy will lead to the premature abandonment of inquiry. The risk of futile inquiry into questions that cannot be answered must be balanced against the risk of abandoning questions that are actually answerable. "

Anyway, you get the idea, here: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/vagueness/


2. IMO, your point about Neologisms is well taken, in that " all talk and no substance" is indeed a frustration tantamount to philosophical gibberish. Nevertheless, from my specific understanding, the context in which Gnomon posits his theories is where there is merit. Meaning, as being a sort of paradigm-buster myself (in his case him being a recovering Fundy), I have argued or suggested in the past that in the 21st century we needed to re-define many old-school belief systems that are either unsophisticated, oppressive, or otherwise deleterious to our way of Being (part of the problem and not the solution). Similarly, Derrida's work in part, was an effort in the 60's socio-political movement where change was much needed at the forefront of Vietnam war, civil rights, women's rights, etc..

Anyway, just a minor summary point about iterability:

I understand your preference for neologisms in order to ‘control its meaning precisely’. The amount of posts arguing over definitions and meaning of terminology on this forum seem to outweigh all other posts. — Possibility

Hi Possibility!

I did a cursory read of the entire thread, and wanted to bring to light a simple or obvious but often overlooked component to Philosophy, which is the logic of words.

"Philosophy lives in words, but truth and fact well up into our lives in ways that exceed verbal formulation."— William James

Just as a matter of formality, what you seem to be saying is that you may not value the deconstruction (the existential meaning not the Platonic one) between the meaning of words (AKA: Derrida) and reaching a holistic or consistent world view. The relationship between text and meaning is still a problem that consistently requires attention.

Don't mean to disparage any of your discussion points, but as you've alluded, on a public forum like TPF, it is more often than not very helpful (if not fundamental) to agree on the meaning of terms, words, definition standards, etc..

Do bats eat cats? — Banno

This is what we call philosophical analysis. — Banno

Banno!

How is that working for you!?

LOL

When you get time (no pun intended) I think we would still love to learn about your description of Time without paradox!

This is what we call philosophical analysis. — Banno

Are you absolutely certain about that?

Please share your description of time without paradox.

I'm not so sure. — Banno

Banno!

Good point The beginning of knowledge is the discovery of something we do not understand. Uncertainty is the only certainty there is, and knowing how to live with insecurity is the only security.

the universe itself is not made up out of statements that can contradict eachother, so it doesn't make sense to say that contradictions or paradoxes are build into the universe. — ChatteringMonkey

Are you sure? Isn't mathematics yet another metaphysical language or conceptual abstract that describes the universe? Accordingly, how should one reconcile things like the Time paradox, expanding Universe/space v. static Galaxies, etc. through what means and method?

Short of the usual language paradox's associated with a priori logic (self referential statements) you seem to be excluding the deeper questions of existence.The perception of time is the most obvious unresolved paradox that is built into the universe, otherwise, physicists would have discovered a ToE.

Consider breaking down the definition of human perception. Is the perception of time a language onto itself? What means and method is not contradictory in perceiving time? Is self-awareness a metaphysical language?

Contradictions are a language thing only. — ChatteringMonkey

For those who believe it is exclusively a language thing, what transcends language?

Example: A physical paradox is an apparent contradiction in physical descriptions of the universe.
(What can transcend physical descriptions; what is our perception of Time itself?) In other words, objectively describe your perception of Time.

So why on earth would paradoxes be built into the universe? — Benj96

Nice OP!

One can easily think of paradox as the metaphoric intrinsic evil (tree of knowledge), or lack of perfection and/or inability to understand the true nature of our existence, so on and so forth. Kant, was one of many who raised the concern. Metaphysical questions try to help satisfy this curiosity and/or sense of wonderment.

One could also imagine a possible world where a different vocabulary or language could help resolve or even completely eliminate paradox, based upon the so-called cosmological conditions (think of the idea behind Glossolalia/speaking in tongues). In short, imagine a world where there is no contradiction and paradox, would there exist a different vocabulary… .

Is there anything in common that links paradoxes together? — Benj96

We know the sciences discovered paradox (physics and cognitive). And we know Philosophy uncovered it. Christian philosophy tried to capture it in the book of Ecclesiastes. And the concept of Love still brings that notion of perplexity into reality-what is perfect Love.

When I find paradox, contradiction, or similar irrational behavior I find truth. A common truth of being in a state of finitude if you like. Ask why movies with an underlying existential theme like Forrest Gump (or at least some scenes in Scarface, Castaway, etc., etc.) were so popular back in the day.

Cognitively, as it relates to the human condition, I wonder if fear has something to do with it... (?). In other words, should we embrace paradox and contradiction, or try to deny its existence. (Should we care about it or ignore its implications.) What kinds of truth's are worth exploring, and can the way we think about truth help mitigate this angst...

Again, nice Post!

Interesting...sounds like you are referring to Einstein's Block Universe theory, where time is just an illusion...(?).

Please share.

However, we say that there is heat within the thing itself, so the thing has a temperature regardless of whether it's measured, just like time passes regardless of whether it is measured. — Metaphysician Undercover

Sure, however, please be aware that temperature is different from heat, although the two concepts are linked. Temperature is a measure of the internal energy of a system, while heat is a measure of how energy is transferred from one system (or body) to another, or, how temperatures in one system are raised or lowered by interaction with another. Hence the notion of change as a driving force.

But maybe another rather intriguing question (but maybe not) would be relative to homeostasis. If a temperature of an object never changes, could that be a metaphor for timelessness/eternity?

The existence of change takes primacy over the concept of time, which is the measurement of change done by comparison. But the existence of time, as the thing measured, is measured by change (the turning of the earth measures a day) and this takes primacy over change. — Metaphysician Undercover

Indeed therein lies one of the paradoxes of Time MU. Similarly, one could ask, does a clock measure change, or does it measure time(?).

That's another reason why one can make a case for such an abstract model of time. The perception of time itself is not concrete or physical. Actually you being a Metaphysician, you should feel quite comfortable with that. One of the great cosmological mysteries of the Universe...

Right, the clock measures time, so time cannot be abstracted away from the clock. You do not agree with this? Then what does the clock do? — Metaphysician Undercover

Yes but time itself is the abstract, not the object itself. It's a means to an end, the end being the calibration of time itself. But in the temporal world of time the genesis of time is the change component. The clock changes in order to measure time, right?

Another example is the sundial. It is a simple object that measures the change in positioning of the sun (through time of course). Changes of events in time.

If we knew temporal time (the Big Bang) always existed then I would say Time takes primacy over change. And I suppose if one believes eternity (timelessness) is the objective absolute that exists in another world, then in theory yes time would take primacy. But not in our world.

And so to human's, time remains an abstract existence. (Example: In a concrete way, how do we perceive time itself, through change?)

So if you say that time is just a concept, with nothing corresponding to it, you have no possibility of truth. — Metaphysician Undercover

Consider God working outside of time/timeless (eternity) in order to initially create time (Big Bang). The paradoxical truth behind what God was doing prior to that creation of time is not known to us.

To say that we (objectively) know and understand the mind of God would be to say we are God.

So, "time" cannot simply be abstracted away from change and only exist as a concept, just like "green" cannot be abstracted away from green objects. — Metaphysician Undercover

MU!

Thanks for your reply. I realize there will be some paradoxical reasoning here, however, I would take exception to the analogy. The aforementioned quote would only be like saying " Time cannot be abstracted away from a clock", which makes it obvious (which is only to say) that Time and the object known as a clock is synonymous with the measurement of time.

However, the subordination v. primacy of time is what is at issue. In other words, much like existence over essence, the existence of change takes primacy over the measurement of it. The measurement known as time.

Take time zones for example. Traveling from west to east means you do not get to re-live lost time. And so the arbitrariness of the time measurement is secondary to change.

Also, consider Relativity. Time changes with speed. This suggests change takes primacy over the actual measurement of same.

Yet another analogy is the phenomenon of the music analogy. The sounds from animals, birds, human instrument's came before someone intellectually figured out the structure of it, which includes the time signature's of same (4/4 time, 2/4 time, 3/4 time, etc).

And so the point is to assign primacy over the phenomenon of time and change. Existentially, one could say then, that the existence of change takes primacy over the essence of time. Essences are metaphysical abstracts. Of course, it doesn't mean essences are not perceived, it's just that we don't know their true objective nature. But we do know and can understand the existence of change through most observation.

"Insofar as time is something different from events, we do not perceive time as such, but changes or events in time." https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/time-experience/