I was agreeing that thigs are relational, and I was trying to point out how this is related to the limits of thinking. Logic at its most fundamental is the relation of one thing to another. Like a field and its excitation, or the substance energy and its information. — Pop

And what I was saying is that Logic at its most fundamental is just relation as an unformed ideal. No ‘one thing’ distinct from ‘another’, no field as distinct from its excitation; no difference, no action.

Systems theory is essential knowledge for any philosopher. — Pop

You seem to be assuming that I don’t understand it yet. I follow what you’re saying here - I’m pointing out your assumptions at the most fundamental level. You assume that something exists to be aware of information as form - this is why you keep ending up at the anthropic principle, or G*D. You need to answer the question: what is logic before anything exists? Before it can even be ‘the relation of one thing to another’?

Yes, Information is the catalyst of evolution. But if we are to arrive at a definition of information, we need to capture all information, in every circumstance. Whilst there are some differences, I think what is significant is that one system causes the other to change - this is information.
We tend to miss the catalysing effect of the process of information, and instead just focus on the result, that data has been transferred. But if we change the focus to how information causes change, then we are closer to getting a fix on it, imo.

Ultimately, we are exchanging information, and being changed in the process incrementally. This is an important consideration in this information age, imo. — Pop

Information refers to the significance of one system causing another to change. Significance, potential, value - this underlies causation.

At least we are getting closer. :smile:

At the most fundamental level. Your most fundamental thought, is a mirror image of fundamental reality. Nothing exists before this, as far as we are concerned. This is where mind arises, as the distinction of one thing to another. Before that, everything was **timeless and indistinct. No mind – but a grey nothingness.

Your most fundamental thought, is a mirror image of fundamental reality — Pop

I don't think this is in keeping with neuroscience, is it?

You and Pop must go back a ways and I haven't read it all but I think you are saying logic first is a good principle to follow as you approach this problem.

Your most fundamental thought, is a mirror image of fundamental reality. — Pop

Maybe it's a logic problem. Fundamental thought is the only tool we have to explore fundamental reality. But the tool itself seems to emerge from fundamental reality.

Your most fundamental thought, is a mirror image of fundamental reality. — Pop

I don't think so. There is no fundamental thought That assumption assumes the existence of a fundamental. What is considered as derived from the fundamental in this view can in fact be equal to all forms. It could be that there is no hierachy. With fundamental slaveforms at the bottom and and a tirant form at the top.

I don't think this is in keeping with neuroscience, is it? — frank

I think it is. I think neuroscience would say without the physical neural change, no externalities could register. But what I was referring to, in that particular statement is something entirely conceptual.
Logically there is a minimum requirement to register a distinction, which is the relation of one thing to another. And at the same time we see fundamental theory must start with: a nothingness and a big bang, order and entropy, a wave and its frequency, a field and its excitation, a string and it's vibration, a blank sheet of paper and it's scribble, 1+1. So it makes me wonder?

I would think our evolution as an informational body, would be equal to what happens to all informational bodies in the universe, including the ordered universe itself. So the limits of logic would have their parallels in the universe, as it relates to structured bodies. So the limits of thought would be equal to the limits of structure in the universe. Hence a fundamental thought is a mirror image of fundamental reality.

I wish somebody would comment in the definition of information thread so this story can continue?

I don't think so. There is no fundamental thought That assumption assumes the existence of a fundamental. What is considered as derived from the fundamental in this view can in fact be equal to all forms. It could be that there is no hierachy. With fundamental slaveforms at the bottom and and a tirant form at the top. — Prishon

I agree with what you mean. It is something that must arise in tiny increments. But how we conceive it is limited to the relation of one thing to another. So how I imagine the situation you are referring to evolves, is as a state of consciousness existing in a form, being disturbed by information changing its state, in an ongoing process, at all levels of an evolving system. See my reply to Frank. Consciousness in this case is a state of integrated information. This is the primary form that is evolving, in parts, and as a whole, in a sequence of one card being laid upon the integrated form of the preceding others imo.

Maybe it's a logic problem. Fundamental thought is the only tool we have to explore fundamental reality. But the tool itself seems to emerge from fundamental reality. — Mark Nyquist

Yeah. Fundamental reality, is something we have to conceive, given we have no access to it's cornerstone. I would agree with you that informational structure would take the same fundamental form wherever it occurs, so it seems a reliable thing to say that fundamental thought is equal to fundamental reality, at least the structured elements of that reality. Outside of the structure, would be chaos, and according to the definition form cannot interact with something that is formless.

I cannot believe there is not one comment in the definition thread. :sad:

The black hole information paradox is where my interest in it started. — frank

Via footnote 4:

As you have probably noticed, I didn’t say anything about information. That’s because really the reference to information in “black hole information loss” is entirely unnecessary and just causes confusion. The problem of black hole “information loss” really has nothing to do with just exactly what you mean by information. It’s just a term that loosely speaking says you can’t tell from the final state what was the exact initial state. — Sabine Hossenfelder

As well as being a term that strictly speaking says all sorts of interesting things that can and should be stated perfectly well in terms of entropy. Whether or not the equivocation between loose and strict has been helpful to physicists, it seems to have been disastrous for philosophical discussion of 'information'.

So how I imagine the situation you are referring to evolves, is as a state of consciousness existing in a form, being disturbed by information changing its state, in an ongoing process, at all levels of an evolving system. See my reply to Frank. Consciousness in this case is a state of integrated information. This is the primary form that is evolving, in parts, and as a whole, imo. — Pop

Totally agreed! I forgot to mention Forms of Nature developing indeed! (after I mentioned somewhat similar to this on philosophy stack exchange my answer was deleted and downvoted a number of times... God forbid!). Wel totally almost. Or almost totally. I dont think this addresses the hard problem of consciousness. However complicated the inner and outer Forms are (with the bodily mixed Form in between), it cant account for actually FEELING stuff.

However complicated the inner and outer Forms are (with the bodily mixed Form in between), it cant account for actually FEELING stuff. — Prishon

These forms are forming for some reason. Forces acting on them? Surely they would feel forces acting on them?

after I mentioned somewhat similar to this on philosophy stack exchange my answer was deleted and downvoted a number of times... — Prishon

One of the things I like about the format here is that popular opinion has to engage with you before it can knock you down. But sadly not many people do engage with me. So I imagine popular opinion would not think much of my thinking also.

But sadly not many people do engage with me. — Pop

One already suffices. :wink:

One already suffices. :wink: — Prishon

Its great to find another that understands :up:

These forms are forming for some reason. Forces acting on them? Surely they would feel forces acting on them? — Pop

I dunno... For example, when a dog of us died, this was a strange experience. She had a hard time. The vet couldnt come because of lady Corona. And it was maybe for the best. She laid sick on her favorite spot. I was singing for her a bit (Im that a lunatic!). Then it looked the pain she had subsided a bit.. I laid my hand on her, together with my wife. We felt her heart beating. And then it stopped. I almost get tears now! But why telling you this? Because the very experience I had just cant be explained by Forms. I think. It was a feeling that she was showing her love. Waiting for us and her to be one befors leaving to who knows where. It was a kind of religious experience. Only god knows the true Nature or something like that. :cry:

Its great to find another that understands :up: — Pop

There you go!!! ☺

1

These forms are forming for some reason. Forces acting on them? Surely they would feel forces acting on them — Pop

I just realized. Maybe the force is the feeling! In physics gauge fields ( taking care of interactions) are strange fields. So maybe you're right! :up:

I think. It was a feeling that she was showing her love. Waiting for us and her to be one befors leaving to who knows where. It was a kind of religious experience. Only god knows the true Nature or something like that. :cry: — Prishon

I'm sorry to hear that. Pets are family in our house. They are as entitled as any member, so I can relate to your loss. That our feelings are related to bosonic forces does not diminish their significance, but amplifies them and unifies us to the larger picture evolving, imo. In my view, we can never loose touch with those feelings in this universe, no matter our form. :halo: Yogic logic suggests a similar story, and ultimately my philosophy is one of universal togetherness. Please don't puke when reading this. :smile:

I just realized. Maybe the force is the feeling! In physics gauge fields ( taking care of interactions) are strange fields. So maybe you're right! :up: — Prishon

I'm not familiar with gauge fields, so will look in to it. Thanks

That our feelings are related to bosonic forces does not diminish their significance, but amplifies them and unifies us to the larger picture evolving, imo. In my view, we can never loose touch with those feelings in this universe, no matter our form — Pop

WOW! ☺

As well as being a term that strictly speaking says all sorts of interesting things that can and should be stated perfectly well in terms of entropy — bongo fury

This short 10min video is a great primer in systems thinking, and it answers why entropy is not enough.

I have the view that signifIcantly more is going on. If you expand brain state to BRAIN(mental content) and further expand to BRAIN(content representing physical matter) and BRAIN(content representing things that are physically non-existent) and further expand to BRAIN(specific mental content) then you may at some point realize *** B O O M *** that brain content representing the non-physical can control physical matter. — Mark Nyquist

I agree that there’s more going on, but brain information (ie. the physical information formed in the brain) is nevertheless four-dimensional. How that manifests, forms and changes depends on the structures of the interacting systems.

Brain information doesn’t actually differentiate between physical and non-physical representations. The ‘code’ it’s written in, as far as I understand it, is a wavefunction of affect: reduced to a relation between qualitative attention and quantitative effort as a distribution of energy over spacetime. This is in much the same way as DNA code is written as energy distribution in three dimensions, with a chemical structure that is irreducibly both quantitative and qualitative. So I would argue that it’s possible to dispense with the physical/non-physical distinction, which complicates so many structural explanations for the universe, as a mere heuristic device - an epistemic cut - specific only to one dimensional level of awareness at a time.

Interestingly, the Tao Te Ching uses the qualitative/quantitative distinction of traditional Chinese ideographic language to create a similar ‘code’ by separating ‘desire’ or affect, the directional flow of energy (chi), from a five-dimensional description of human experience. The TTC says it isn’t about ‘control’, which is only ever temporary, but about wu-wei, or minimising quantitative effort by maximising qualitative attention.

At least we are getting closer. :smile:

At the most fundamental level. Your most fundamental thought, is a mirror image of fundamental reality. Nothing exists before this, as far as we are concerned. This is where mind arises, as the distinction of one thing to another. Before that, everything was **timeless and indistinct. No mind – but a grey nothingness. — Pop

I think we keep dancing around the same disagreement. As an idealist, you’re assuming that ‘mind’ arises from this ‘grey nothingness’. I’m saying that a vague, qualitative difference of potentiality/significance/value arises from the most fundamental level of reality, and that mind or thought isn’t even in the picture yet. You call it ‘mind’ because that’s the only quantifiable ‘thing’ you feel certain exists in five dimensions. But this involves prematurely positioning yourself in the description. Humans are not fundamental, and mind is inseparable from a living organism. It is your feelings about the existence of mind that are complicating the discussion.

Brain information doesn’t actually differentiate between physical and non-physical representations. — Possibility

I agree. I tried to write it that way.
As for 'non-physical' representations, it would be hard for us to function without them and we all use them all the time...try never doing math. It's just better to understand than not.
This mental ability is also unique to us(humans) on planet earth and we don't know of it anywhere else in the universe. That is a stark contrast to the everything is information definition of information.

You and Pop must go back a ways and I haven't read it all but I think you are saying logic first is a good principle to follow as you approach this problem. — Mark Nyquist

Pop and I have had lengthy discussions before.

My approach to logic is probably a little unusual. I think where Pop and I run into disagreement is where he sees logic as mental only, rather than a fundamental aspect of reality. Modern thought has a tendency to focus on quantifiable logic, and we forget about qualitative logic such as geometric structures and dimensionality, because we take it for granted in three-dimensional descriptions of the world.

is a wavefunction of affect: — Possibility

Did you miss that mental content (as contained) is unaffected by physical matter?

This short 10min video is a great primer in systems thinking, — Pop

No doubt :up:

and it answers why entropy is not enough. — Pop

Not at all. Possibly it argues why physics is not enough, and we need a science of complex systems. Fine.

But that science won't thank you for spreading information woo, based on confusions about physics.

If I was too succinct:

As well as being a term that strictly speaking says all sorts of interesting things that - in the present context which is physics - can and should be stated perfectly well in terms of entropy. — bongo fury

But that science won't thank you for spreading information woo, based on confusions about physics. — bongo fury

I don't understand what you mean by woo? Whatever I have stated, I have backed up with references, and argument. You are free to make a counter argument with counter references.

I am referencing science, but I don't see that you are referencing anything.

https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1301/1301.2515.pdf

Not at all. Possibly it argues why physics is not enough, and we need a science of complex systems. Fine. — bongo fury

This is what I meant. Not that systems theory replaces entropy and physics, but that it compliments it.

I’m saying that a vague, qualitative difference of potentiality/significance/value arises from the most fundamental level of reality, and that mind or thought isn’t even in the picture yet. — Possibility

Did you observe this, or was it something you thought up? :smile:

What I meant is that fundamental reality is a conception. It used to be that God made fundamental reality in seven days, and this has had many different permutations since. I am pointing out that we need to conceive fundamental reality, and perhaps we still have a way to go in this regard?

Ask a fundamentalist, from any religion, what fundamental reality is, and feast on the variety of fundamental reality.

It would be great to explore how information creates fundamental reality in the definition of information thread? How information changes us?? This thread is getting too long. :sad:
Surely you have some objection to what I wrote, or you have some observations to add?

answers why entropy is not enough. — Pop

Maybe an analogy can illuminate the issue. The entropy of you and me is about the same (entropy as defined by S=lnOMEGA (where is that Greek symbol button??). Nevertheless, we are completely different forms. Like the huge variation of animals. Biodiversity. All living thinga have developed between the sweet heat of the Sun and the ultracold darkness on the other sjde of the rotating Earth.