I do agree that energy can probably be seen as the underlying aspect behind existence, and it is likely that it is evolving. And, indeed, this works for a realist or idealist perspective of mind. — Jack Cummins

Energy ( electromagnatism ) is the fundamental stuff of physics. We have knowledge of it through the information we have of it. So really it is "energy and information" that is fundamental. Energy and information is equal to matter ( E=mc2 ). Physics has traditionally tried to understand the world in terms of matter in motion, but an alternative way to understand it ( more relevant to philosophy ) is as energy and it's information. In this view, as energy interacts it creates more information, and subsequently everything there is, is due to this, and becomes a process of energy interacting and accumulating and integrating information. So, everything becomes a system that is in the process of accumulating and integrating information, including us. The only difference between these self organizing systems is the complexity of information they are composed of ( can memorize ), and manipulate and integrate.

In this energetic paradigm, everything is made of energy and is composed of the information it has accumulated. Does this make sense to you?

What can I say? It is a very impressive body of work you have.

I watched the entire video. It is excellent! A little slow moving in this context,but I would recommend it to everyone.

Anton Zeilinger, in a famous statement concluded, "Randomness is the bedrock of reality", after proving it in his state of the art laboratory to a degree of 3-sigma or more. — PoeticUniverse

Quantum Information and RandomnessJohannes Kofler and Anton Zeilinger

Abstract:
"In this regard, in 1999, one of us (A.Z.) has put forward an idea which connects the concept of information with the notion of elementary systems. For the subsequent line of thought, we first have to make ourselves awareof the fact that our description of the physical world is represented by propositions, i.e. by logical statements about it. These propositions concern classical measurement results. Therefore, the measurement results must be irreducible primitives of any interpretation. And second, that we have knowledge or information about an object only through observations, i.e. by interrogating nature through yes-no questions. It does not make any sense to talk about reality without the INFORMATION about it."

My bold and Caps. It is very simple. Consciousness only processes information. Nothing else. For this reason alone, information has to be the fundamental stuff - of course it is a co-element, not existing on its own

Noise is signals.
— Pop
Okay. :rofl: Have a good one. — 180 Proof

Noise is information

Wikipedia:
Types of noise
Signal processing noise can be classified by its statistical properties (sometimes called the "color" of the noise) and by how it modifies the intended signal:

Additive noise, gets added to the intended signal
White noise
Additive white Gaussian noise
Black noise
Gaussian noise
Pink noise or flicker noise, with 1/f power spectrum
Brownian noise, with 1/f2 power spectrum
Contaminated Gaussian noise, whose PDF is a linear mixture of Gaussian PDFs
Power-law noise
Cauchy noise
Multiplicative noise, multiplies or modulates the intended signal
Quantization error, due to conversion from continuous to discrete values
Poisson noise, typical of signals that are rates of discrete events
Shot noise, e.g. caused by static electricity discharge
Transient noise, a short pulse followed by decaying oscillations
Burst noise, powerful but only during short intervals
Phase noise, random time shifts in a signal

(It will move or else you can click on it to get it to move.) — PoeticUniverse

cool! :up:

Yeah, that the noise is nore fundamental – deeper – than the signals. — 180 Proof

Noise is signals.

Information is the fundamental stuff - For all intents and purposes it is our bedrock of reality.

Only "a nothing" can provide "no" information. Everything else provides information of its nature - we know it's nature through the "information" we have of it.

A glance at the starry sky will provide you with information about it.

That's like saying "signals without noise" — 180 Proof

So "information" is a fundamental stuff - it will be a factor at rock bottom, though it can not exist on its own - must exist as the description of something ( the form giving co-element of something ). — Pop

https://www.informationphilosopher.com/introduction/information/entropy-expansion.gif

:up:

The sequence of subsequent states evolving according to the dynamical rule describes a
trajectory in state space. In the case of continuous time, the system is defined as a flow.” — Joshs

I agree that the idea of a 'spontaneous production of something from nowhere' is interesting with regard to how anything ever came into existence at all — Jack Cummins

We don't need omniscience to know something. And curiosity is also a thing. — jorndoe

you're still confusing (your) maps with the territory. Re: anthropic fallacy (on the basis of a misplaced concreteness fallacy in your assumptions). — 180 Proof

Have you ever considered whether information is the fundamental stuff? That everything is a system in the process of accumulating and integrating information?

Energy ( electromagnetism ) is currently the fundamental stuff, we know of it via information we have about it. We don't know its ingredients, but when we do find out, we will know of them via their information. Information is the constituent factor. If a first cause was found, we would know about it via its information. So "information" is a fundamental stuff - it will be a factor at rock bottom, though it can not exist on its own - must exist as the description of something ( the form giving co-element of something ). This is necessarily so from a mind dependent perspective ( idealist ), but works equally well from a realist perspective.

It is information that is evolving, in a non linear and emergent process, creating existence.

Well, I guess, when you're a flathead driver everything looks like a screw. — 180 Proof

You got me there! :chin:

There are many possible answers, but among them some will be better then others, though none will be absolutely true. Not knowing the foundation of reality is a real bummer! :smile:

However all of the answers will be made of information, and they will all come from a self organizing system, that relies upon the anthropic principle for its existence. Within such an overview some answers have already arisen, and more may yet arise. We cannot know for sure, until we try and either fail or succeed.

For an idealist the maps are the territory.
No doubt. On this basis – conflation of epistemology with ontology (i.e. fallacious reifications e.g. platobic forms) – idealism only concerns the imaginary and not the factual, and is thus useless except for idle speculations and religious (e.g. woo-of-the gaps) apologetics. — 180 Proof

Except that the "laws of physics" only refer to the invariant structures of our physical models which are highly correlated with observations of regularities of the universe but are not "caused" by the universe. Only our physical models are "anthropic" because they are man-made to suit human purposes — 180 Proof

- an idealist argument - I love it! :smile:

Do you have territory without maps?
— Pop
Check the pre-hominid fossil record. — 180 Proof

What with, If not a map?

↪Pop No, you're still confusing (your) maps with the territory. — 180 Proof

Ha, Ha. Do you have territory without maps? For an idealist the maps are the territory.

BUT, now that we have reduced the universe to a pocket of order, my argument stands. :razz:

Except that the "laws of physics" only refer to the invariant structures of our physical models which are highly correlated with observations of regularities of the universe but are not "caused" by the universe. — 180 Proof

Ha, Ha That's a good point. Laws of physics are mind dependent, so only relate to the observable universe. So we are really saying that the anthropic principle applies to a phase state of the observable universe - a pocket of order. I would accept that. :grimace:

I'm not arguing that the universe and we exist by design. Whether it arose by chance or not, the reason we are here is because the laws of the universe are such that they permit our existence. Change the laws of physics a little ( 5% ) and the universe would collapse - Would not be as it is, and so neither would we? This is a first cause, I'm not drawing any conclusions ( god ) from the cause.
Personally I believe ours would be a bubble universe caused in a larger big bang that created many universes, but this is immaterial to the topic at hand.

Can there be an explanation that does not admit further inquiry, even in principle? — jorndoe

Perhaps not, but this fact itself is part of the answer to the question. No? Or do we just stop enquiring?

Science cannot solve the ultimate mystery of nature. And that is because, in the last analysis, we ourselves are part of nature and therefore part of the mystery that we are trying to solve. — Max Planck

That is very solipsistic of Max. I can just imagine him getting the Planck length down to 10^-40 odd, and saying - I've had my fill of this! :lol:

My point is, and as others have intimated, saying we "don't know" becomes an epistemic stance, which further understanding is built upon. So you don't get to sit this one out - whether you have a stance of understanding, or a stance of no understanding, you still have an understanding.

I'm with @Philosophim ( but not the god part :smile: ). There has to be a first cause. I think the anthropic principle is water tight. I think those who say there can be no understanding would, at least, have to find fault with the anthropic principle, for their argument to be logical.

What say you naysayers? Can you find fault with the anthropic principle? :smile:

That does sound like Varela: — Joshs

It has a variety of sources. Determinism with a slight element of randomness comes from Neile Theise, Informational understanding is from all over the place.

“ It is perhaps is best to start with the notion of a state or phase space — Joshs

Yes, for me it starts in a phase of order. A thermodynamic / energy state that causes things to self organize, as apposed to very high energy state where this would be impossible, where chaos would prevail.

Theories need a unifying concept, for you it is time, for some it is entropy :grimace: , I'm thinking information may do it for me.

No 29 is my favorite. I think you have a good understanding. :up: :smile:

I stand corrected! Very nice, thank you.

It seems that enactivism may shift that thinking a bit, giving the self-organizing system a normative unity that is perpetually oriented toward purposes — Joshs

Rather, a radical interaction between subjectivity and objectify leads to a thinking which is neither of pure chance nor of foundational purpose. — Joshs

:up: I think there is a determinism with a slight element of randomness. It is enactivist. In the enactive interrelationship of subject and object the slight randomness causes emergence / creativity

** For the most part our actions are determined ( determined by the information that composes us ), but in any moment of consciousness a multiplicity of causal information intersects, with some randomness, such that the unforeseen arises..

Thanks for the link. It is such a difficult thing to express, isnt it? I think you have done well. Just one little quibble. You also focus on entropy, when in fact we are an integrated self ordering system. Perhaps a work that expresses the strong anthropic principle might be in the offing?

We can discern a cause, but a cause is not a purpose. To discern a purpose we would need to know what reality is founded on absolutely. Not having access to the absolute foundation of reality, the only way to discern reality is to relate one bit of information to another - thereby creating informational structure. And through this informational structure ( personal knowledge ) we construct purpose, reason, etc. IMO.

I have often thought about existential thoughts and meaning of life, .etc.
I believe that emotions have become unnecessary in this modern world, and that the future doesn't need it anymore. — Kinglord1090

If you acquaint yourself with the philosophical zombie argument, you will see that without emotion, there would be no experience, and so there would be no consciousness. Experience = Consciousness. You cannot have one without the other. Every moment of consciousness has its corresponding feeling / emotion. A being without emotions / feelings has no impetus to act, since they are indifferent to everything - whether they live or die or anything in between is all the same to them.

but I am a little unclear about your view on this. — Jack Cummins

There is so much misinformation on entropy. So much focus on it when in fact natural systems are dissipative systems:

"It is now generally recognized that in many important fields of research a state of true thermodynamic equilibrium is only attained in exceptional conditions. Experiments with radioactive tracers, for example, have shown that the nucleic acids contained in living cells continuously exchange matter with their surroundings. It is also well known that the steady flow of energy which originates in the sun and the stars prevents the atmosphere of the earth or stars from reaching a state of thermodynamic equilibrium.
Obviously then, the majority of the phenomena studied in biology, meteorology, astrophysics and other subjects are irreversible processes which take place outside the equilibrium state.

These few examples may serve to illustrate the urgent need for an extension of the methods of thermodynamics so as to include irreversible processes." - Ilya Prigogine -Introduction to Thermodynamics of Irreversible Processes, 1955,

Natural systems are dissipative ( open ) systems - they dissipate entropy. And entropy in the universe is decreasing as a percentage of total space. So the universe is becoming more ordered. https://www.informationphilosopher.com/introduction/information/entropy-expansion.gif Or at least the pockets of the universe that we have information of, are becoming more ordered ( are in a phase of order ). Order arises due to the "Self Organization" that creates it. What is self organizing is the information. I have found that by focusing on the history and evolution of the "self organization of information", that an understanding of consciousness can be found. Consciousness is Information integration for the purpose of Self organization - it has an evolutionary history. People ( and all things ) are really a bundle of information accumulated over a lifetime. Their bodies are articulated by information, and all they are juggling in mind is information. So the history of a person, is really a history of information accumulation and integration, as is the history of anything. And, the interesting thing is, information is self ordering - It can not fit together any old way. It insists on being integrated - this is why we exist. If information did not insist on being integrated nothing would exist. But due to the strong anthropic principle the laws of the universe combine such that information integrates, and due to this we are able to ask the question why we exist.

Why do WE exist - self organization! :smile:

But point taken. :up:

All the why questions related to natural phenomena, can be answered by "self organization". I think you will understand what I mean.

Why does a fish have scales, why do birds fly?

I'm saying structure is information integrated by the environment of other dissipative structures — 180 Proof

I agree with this - it relates back to the metaphysical need to relate one thing to another.

Do you agree that consciousness is integrated information?
It could be. Or it could be more than just that. — 180 Proof

Certainly it is more than that. Once you can integrate information in a self organizing manner, there is no end to what is possible.

Information integration, and self organization are phenomena that exist everywhere, so why would they not also exist in human consciousness?

I find your expressive style quite difficult to follow. But not a bad answer, on the whole. So you are saying you do not have to integrate information in order to have structure?

Do you agree that consciousness is integrated information?

That things emerge is still a function of integrated information. Emergence is a function of self organization. In the process of self organization a dominant structure arises. It is an isomorphic phenomena- similar no matter the stuff being organized - why is that? ( strong anthropic principle ) - the reason for self organization - the same reason things emerge at the fundamental level. The form of what is self organizing differs, but in the end the group of elements integrate to a structure of some sort - of course it is an evolving structure.

The most fundamental particle is a wavicle of sorts. It possesses energy and information in the form of frequency and amplitude, charge, polarity, etc. This wavicle interacts with another wavicle, and they self organize in the interaction - the frequency and amplitude ( information ) of the two wavicles modulate to form a third wavicle. This third wavicle in its form of frequency and modulation is an integration of the "information" of the first two wavicles.

Information has been integrated and memorized to a symbol.

This is what consciousness does, it integrates information, and memorizes it to a symbol.

This is what human consciousness still does. Information arrives to us via frequencies and vibrations, and consciousness works with that and translates it to anthropocentric symbology.

IIT scientists would be finding measurable "consciousness" literally everywhere — 180 Proof

That is the aim.

To my way of thinking, "consciousness" as a still under-determined concept is like the heap from the sorites paradox — 180 Proof

A solution is possible from an "information" perspective, where "consciousness is information integration for the purpose of self organization."

In a universe that has structure, consciousness is fundamental. Or put another way, in a universe that has structure, information integration is fundamental .
— Pop
No. The degree (density) of "information integration" manifest as "consciousness", however, is emergent (e.g. multicellular organisms) and not itself "fundamental" (e.g. single cell organisms).

Yes. — 180 Proof

No. If you agree that consciousness is a state of integrated information, then you don't know that the higher forms of it are not, at their most basic level, functioning identically to the lower level forms of it.

You are comparing the highest form of consciousness with the lowest, and concluding that they are not equal. They are not equal, but in fact, human consciousness at its base level functions identically to all other consciousness. At base level, information is integrated - that is all that is necessary. In this universe information is integrated fundamentally. Nothing would exist otherwise.

Consciousness had to evolve and the lowest form of information integration is still present in all forms of consciousness. As the foundation of consciousness, it has to be preserved.

For instance, the minimum information that a mind can integrate is to relate one thing to another ( metaphysics ). Agreed? Without this base function, there can be no consciousness. But this base level of functioning, of relating one thing to another, is ubiquitous in the universe! Such as when we relate a quantum field to an excitation, or a string to its vibration, or a wave to its particle of energy. Structure begins in the relationship of one thing to another. Note, for it to become structure, the information has to be integrated. Structure = integrated information. Matter = integrated information. And integrated information = consciousness - this is what IIT aims to prove with PHI.

Intentional agency (aka "consciousness") is an emergent complex structure irreducible to less complex structures ... or to simple (almost) structure-less structures. (See cellular automata, Conway's "Game of Life", Wolfram's computational irreducibility, etc.) — 180 Proof

Computational automata may not be reducible, but cellular automata certainly is - have you heard of the RNA world? In the real world things are caused, so there is a causal chain for everything's existence. Every step relies upon the integration of information. It is a nonsense to state a cell only becomes functional after it is fully evolved - this is in effect what you are saying!


** Do you agree that in order to have structure you need to integrate information?


If you are saying consciousness arises only at a certain density of information, then you would have a definition of consciousness to that effect, that can be tested, and a line in the sand of where in evolution this occurs? If not, then it is only a vague notion that you are expressing.

As for the latter, do you think the universe is processing information?

Are we not part of the universe? — TheMadFool

:up: :smile:

Something OR Nothing — TheMadFool

Information integration = consciousness

In a universe that has structure, consciousness is fundamental. Or put another way, in a universe that has structure, information integration is fundamental .

I think you would agree that in order to have any sort of structure, you have to integrate information to create it – you have to relate one thing to another to create structure. No?

If so, it follows that consciousness was present at the most fundamental level, since structure was plainly created.

Its well worth checking out. I don't agree with all his conclusions, but his explanation of information is spot on, imo.

:up:

In Yogic logic, increasing one's self awareness to encompass the universe is a way to reach a higher reality. One can do this by identifying with the universe.

Might sound crazy to some, but then who in their right mind would argue that they are not an element of the universe?

At first glance this would appear to defy entropy. — Cheshire

What defies entropy is the progressive self organization of the universe. This seems to be possible because far more space is created in the universe then entropy ( due to expansion ), such that the universe becomes progressively more ordered , rather then disordered.

The evolution of information in the universe - from its beginnings - creating structure from energy, and then that structure snowballing into more complex structure as material things, due to the integration of initially energetic information, is a great way to understand what consciousness is, and how it arises.

** To put it another way: the rate of space creation in the universe is greater then the rate of entropy creation, so as a percentage of the total space, entropy is decreasing. This permits "order", where order is created by self organization, which relies on information integration. https://www.informationphilosopher.com/introduction/information/entropy-expansion.gif

I do believe that it does lead to the question of why anything exists at all, — Jack Cummins

Before anything can exist at all, information has to be integrated. So in this universe things exist as self organizing things that integrate information. All things posses a modicum of this facility, the more complex the thing is, the more developed is its information integrating ability.