I like your work :up:

:up:

However, it is likely that many people would like to see their own view as the definitive one — Jack Cummins

It is the only way to form a conception of reality - via a paradigm based on our knowledge, that forms our consciousness, that creates our reality.

Would you say the below is a fair description of what Gödel is saying?

Whilst the equation is true according to the rules of the math. The rules of the math cannot prove the equation true. To prove the equation true we need to look outside the rules of the math.

Yes I think that is correct. As we have outlined earlier, it is not possible to reach that underlying reality absolutely, so we will only ever have interpretations of it. Some closer to the truth then others but none can ultimately be true! This is a long held belief in idealism, and is the best understanding in physics, as @Kenosha Kid has pointed out.

We can say we can never reach reality, or we can say it doesn't exist - that we in fact create it in our path, by collapsing interactions to conceptions. Either expression will do, imo.

0 Thanks for that. I didn't mean to be quite so flippant.

P.S. Is there an automatic way to quote other posts in the style most people do that here? It eludes my perception. — original2

If you highlight the text a quote option appears.

My gut tells me that if an entity is able to match information to patterns, it is a mark of consciousness, though not necessarily a big one. By pattern i mean some generalized, meta-information that describes information succintly. — original2

That is pretty close. I would say if information can be integrated and symbolized, and physical form is a symbol, imo. It has to start somewhere, and this way it starts at the beginning.

We should let Frank finish his excellent summary and perhaps discuss later. Anyhow, welcome to the forum.

↪Pop Well, ok, against my better judgement, ...didn't you say something abut everything being energy? — Banno

Oh! I'm a little slow with hints. Spirit fits, as it is a similarly uncertain substance, as does a god that is omnipresent but without definition. A melding of the concepts of energy and spirit and god would unify a lot of the narrative about it. My feeling is that it is something like this, but of course I don't have absolute logical proof. What is your feeling?

The point is a very difficult one, and my knowledge of it amateur, so I’ll leave it there. — Wayfarer

We can help each other out then. Physics is also my weakness.

However there might be a different explanation If decoherence is correct.
12 mins long.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wave%E2%80%93particle_duality

But the wave function is simply a distribution of possibilities, — Wayfarer

representing a wavicle.

↪Pop Not at all. — Wayfarer

:roll:

If collapse is true, then it is true for everything. This would mean naive realists would have to admit panpschism! :razz: It is the only way to maintain the paradigm if it is to remain coherent. Nothing could exist independently unless it was able to collapse a wavicle. The only time a wavicle can collapse is at a point of consciousness.

o

It suggests a just in time reality.
— Pop — Wayfarer

This would depend on an energy and information reality. Have you changed your mind about matter?

Positing the human observer as the actual collapse mechanism seemed to me to betray the sort of anthrocentrism that has marred human enquiry forever. — Kenosha Kid

It suggests a just in time reality. A reality that occurs just as we collapse it. It would fit into an energy and information paradigm. But I think it will be a while before the world is ready for that. :smile:

(...no, Banno, don't... just leave it...) — Banno

Do tell?

I cant see how that can possibly be. A mind has to interpret reality. You need only to look at the variety of responses to questions asked in various threads. Or to look across cultures and through history , how differently people have interpreted it. If you are talking about the image we see as we look out at the world, then that is a function of DNA data, that is very similar in each of us - it varies only slightly - but some lack colour vision, have synesthesia, etc. A naive person looking at a forest sees something very different to an ecologist. As we look at something, we do so through a paradigm, based on our knowledge, and all that gets mixed into the vision, If that helps.

What I am wondering about is what is energy exactly. I am sure that there is the formula, as expressed in physics. — Jack Cummins

We don't know what the inherent substance of energy is. What we know is E=mc2, and for @the mad fool E/c2=m. The c2 is a constant, so can be disregarded. We are left with E=m, which means Energy = mass, and only matter has mass. So energy is equal to matter. This has been well established and has resulted in the worlds nuclear arsenal.

Your best argument would be to say energy clumps together into an emergent property, thus into elementary particles, then atoms, molecules, etc. Thus is no longer just energy. I would counter argue that all you have done is symbolize different densities and entanglements of energy into the symbols: elementary particles, atoms, molecules. I would say If you strip away the symbols, all you would see is entangled densities of energy with emergent function. You would say no, and i would say yes, and we would be at the current stale mate. However our paradigm would lend its bias to the situation, and we would both walk away in the knowledge that we are right, although we disagree.

As @Wayfarer pointed out there is no mind independent observation, and all minds operate through a paradigm, which is biased towards that paradigm. It means there can be no reality, as envisaged by naive realists. What there is instead is interpretations of reality. It means nobody's interpretation of reality can have absolute authority. In reality there is no reality! :lol:

However there are interpretations and some are better then others an this is what we quibble over.

as distinct from……. — Wayfarer

Not sure what you mean?

This is a Phil papers survey Note the differences of opinion and paradigm. Each paradigm is a different reality. Each paradigm sees things slightly differently. Of course they know how to get on - they are well socialized. :smile: But they will put things together differently. Their observations will be biased by their paradigm. I've gota go.

undermined the idea that the object (read Universe) exists totally independently of the act of observation. — Wayfarer

That is one of the metaphysical problems - that it is not possible to make a mind independent observation. So reality at any level is a function of mind. To be continued.

If we are going to philosophize we have to be prepared to go wherever the logic takes us, imo. Otherwise we are like explorers who will only tread a paved path.

The quantum realm is also made of energy. The fundamental stuff is energy. It leads to a very different paradigm. I'm not sure its suitable for a public forum? And I have to go and make dinner! :smile:

Does E=mc2 prove materialism false?

I thought I was saying something like that. My expression often lets me down. Thanks

Not true If everything is made of energy. Energy has unlimited potential.

Your quote talks of something singular and all encompassing, all I can think of that fits the description is energy.

But what is God? If everything is the one substance, and that substances is God then I would agree. Then it would be that G=mc2! :smile:

Spirit / energy is till here Jack. The consciousness question has gone elsewhere.

I have found the eastern way of thought to be invaluable to myunderstanding. Chakra is great, but Osho I found to be the best source. It took a long time to get over the cloths and style however. :smile:
Not everything mind you. I'd say 50% is worthwhile, and of that 5% is invaluable, but then some of the other stuff I can not buy into.

In the west of course, a study of consciousness would clash with the soul, so would have been a no go area. Hence we only have a recent tradition of it.

Its amusing to see academics so knowledgeable about so many things, yet not having much knowledge about consciousness at all - beyond conscious / unconscious. And then again who would dare solve the problem of consciousness? As we said before, you really can only solve it for a particular paradigm at best. Still I find its something I can get my teeth into. Its a very interesting and challenging problem. I often wish I had as much energy for practical matters. :smile:

But you have to set up a framework within which it can be spoken of meaningfully, which is what I guess I'm attempting. — Wayfarer

Yes, its uncanny how there is an intuition about it, but the articulation just falls short of explanation.
Throughout my life I have heard vague mutterings from various sources how everything is consciousness. I could never quite understand it, and I wondered what sort of magical thinking is required for such ideation. But as I explore it myself from various paradigms - Cartesian, materialist, Yogic, Idealist, scientific it all points to it. But to articulate it in such a way so there is broad understanding may be beyond me. It may be beyond anyone. It really requires an articulation that at the same time unifies all the paradigms. What could that possibly be? How can that possibly be? Perhaps it cannot be. :smile:

I don't feel bad thanks. I realized that to continue my line of argument would clash with your paradigm, so I backed off.
I have skimmed through the book you mentioned - @gnomon recommended it a while back. It covers many areas rather inconclusively, as I suppose you have to, in order to show you know something about what you are writing about. The author makes one notable conclusion, which I would agree with - that things are relational, but pretty much ends there. However I did not really read it in great depth.

Imo, things are relational, and the first relation is energy and information, so I'll leave it at that. :smile:

What does 'access' mean? — Wayfarer

Get in touch with.

I'm not frustrated, I'm simply not agreeing. ;-) — Wayfarer

Fair enough. :smile:

it means 'irreducible' — Wayfarer

That is exactly what energy is: an irreducible simple. We only have access to it by way of information. In the stated case: amplitude, frequency, charge, polarity, etc

Information is a fundamental simple - we only have access to anything by way of information, and the information reaches us by way of energetic frequency and vibration, to become vision and hearing.

We don't interact with things, we interact with the information we have of things. Information is the thing that links everything, or perhaps better put: everything that is linked can be thought of as being linked by information.

I guess this is the difference between realism and a more idealistic understanding. Information flow is really quite simple to understand if you are already idealistically inclined. I imagine your frustration is in part that an idealistic paradigm is being forced upon you?

I think defining consciousness using only the flow of information is lacking. For starters I'd include that conscious entity needs to recognize patterns in this information. — original2

A conscious entity would need to interpret the information flow. But what does interpret mean? In the broadest sense even a rock interprets the information flow in its form and position.

According to Fritjof Capra: "cognition is a reaction to a disturbance in a state." And it would seem everything is a system in a state.

I think the energy is related to the spirit / soul we feel ourselves to be
— Pop

What about intelligence? Or mind? Where does that fit into the picture? Is it ‘a product of’ energy? I think not.
— Wayfarer @Wayfarer

A shame that Pop missed this. I'd like to hear an explanation of the relation between spirit and energy, too. — Banno

Out of respect for Jack's thread, lets continue this here.

I think the energy is related to the spirit / soul we feel ourselves to be
— Pop

What about intelligence? Or mind? Where does that fit into the picture? Is it ‘a product of’ energy? I think not.
— @Wayfarer @Banno

If the current paradigm does not provide understanding, why support it? If things do no fit one way, I try a different way.There is no one reason that leads me to this way of thinking, but a number of reasons that converge to point to this. Unfortunately none of them would constitute an absolute logical proof, but I'll keep working on it. :smile: The below is an idea in principle that relates directly to your question. It requires an open mind.

1 Information and energy are fundamental

2. If information and energy are fundamental, then everything is made of information and energy.

3. If everything is made of energy and information, then so is consciousness.

Assuming information and energy is fundamental, then the most fundamental particle is a wavicle of sorts. It possesses energy and information in the form of frequency and amplitude. This wavicle interacts with another wavicle, and 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 symbolizes the interaction of the first two wavicles. The third wavicle is a symbol of the interaction of the two first wavicles. The information of the first two wavicles has been integrated and symbolized in the form of the third wavicle.

Information has been integrated to symbol.

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

Consciousness integrates specifically this sort of information – information in the form of energetic frequency and vibration. Frequency and vibration in the form of light and sound hits the edge of a self. The self itself is fundamentally frequency and vibration, so two wavicles of sorts interact and modulate. The sensed frequency and vibrations are symbolized - pattern recognition style, where each pattern has its own symbol. The symbols are related and a big picture is created, similar to the pixels of a computer screen, only in 3D.

This fundamental interaction has the quality of consciousness – it integrates information to a symbol – there is no need for a consciousness to emerge, the information integrating function is already present. In time, It just evolves in complexity, and is able to integrate more and more information.

A shame that Pop missed this. I'd like to hear an explanation of the relation between spirit and energy, too. — Banno

Science tells us that everything is fundamentally made of energy!
So sayeth @Adughep and Einstein, E=mc2

We speak of a spirit or soul that we feel ourselves to be. I imagine even you have one of these Banno?
If so, what is its substance? What do you feel it to be? If it is something energetic, then is it this energy, entangled in your own particular way, that creates your being?

If so, is the energy that you entangle at peace with its current arrangement? Or is it something that has far more potential, something that you cannot quite put your finger on, but it feels itself to have great possibility, far more then it is currently realizing? Does it feel like it could possibly end? You and me will end some day, but does our energy feel like it will? Or does it continue on confidently as if there will be no end?

I tend towards the view that things are configurations of consciousness — Wayfarer

I agree. In my model the pattern is the information. The energy is the fundamental substance being entangled. It is best revealed in the metaphysics of a wavicle. I'll try to articulate it better at some stage. I don't have anything ready, and I have stuff to do.

You asked me whether I feel that I am information or energy. I would probably go for energy, because I am organic. I wonder if others wonder whether others feel that way or differently, but it may be a starting point for phenomenological approaches. — Jack Cummins

Yes , I would go for energy also. I think the energy is related to the spirit / soul we feel ourselves to be. Over a lifetime the information changes, but a spirit ( energy ) always remains. And yes again, this relates to phenomenology. The state of energy is disturbed upon cognition ( Capra ), which is felt as emotion. This is still pretty fuzzy in my mind, and perhaps some day I will lay it out in a more coherent manner.

Reality however is a concept that describes the underlying understanding that creates it. It is derived from DNA data, experience, and perspective ( relativity ). So is something slightly different at every point of consciousness. Responses to this thread are a great example of this. What is interesting is that the different points of consciousness exchange information and energy ( communicate ), which forces a modulation on every point such that a self organization starts to form - in the style of a neural network. From this perspective our interaction starts to self organize, so acts like consciousness itself.
( this can not happen abruptly, but over time the collective consciousness forms and evolves, and through this interaction so does the individual consciousness ).

In short, communication is an orientation in each others reality, whilst reality is a function of consciousness, where consciousness is an integration of ones DNA data, experience and perspective
( in relativity we each have our own time and space, so our own individual perspective).

In a sense we are a node, interacting with other nodes within a larger nodular collective, and it would seem it is all made of information and energy. This is how I understand panpsychism - in that "self organizing information and energy" is really all there is.

That's how I see it anyway. :smile:

FYI: Physics is my weakness also. Ive found Sabine Hossenfelder to be of great help.

What is the simple? What is real? — Banno

A chocolate cake made from cheese. :lol: