So math does bring some clarity to the problem of uncertainty and how that uncertainty impacts our decisions. The idea is to maximize our odds of success/gettin' it right as it were given there's a chance factor at play.

Skepticism can be tamed then, even if only in principle. The reason why true blue skeptics recommend epoché isn't because they're ignorant of mathematical probability, but because they know all possibilities under consideration are equiprobable. What sayest thou?

“The deepest sin against the human mind is to believe things without evidence.”
— Thomas Huxley

Refraining from belief without sufficient evidence is indeed a virtue for every sceptic, scientist or Agnostic. Many people are not comfortable with ignorance and prefer to believe false things over admitting ignorance.
But sometimes indecision is not a reasonable option. When we are forced to make decisions without proper knowledge, mathematics is a tool to make the best decision given the circumstances. We may still not know if all possibilities are equiprobable but we can guestimate the best path of action by combining the values of the outcomes with their assumed probabilities.

So you don't want to disturb the peace so to speak. You're happy with existing paradigms such as materialism, spiritualism, etc. and would like to preserve instead of discard/replace 'em. However, doesn't that mean your thesis makes no practical difference whether it's true/false? — Agent Smith

So to speak. I simply re-define some outdated notions, such as "Matter" & "Spirit", in terms of the Enformationism thesis. To wit, my "spiritual" family members don't like my "atheism"*1, but we get along fine as long as we don't discuss Philosophy or Salvation. For me personally, what used to be known as "Spirit" or "Soul" is merely the form of Generic Information that we know as "Mind", which is simply the "Function" of the brain (not what it is, but what it does). A Function is invisible & intangible, but is reasonable & knowable. For instance, the immaterial Function*2 of a material automobile is Transportation (potential for action, not an actual thing). Likewise, the Mind is intangible & invisible, like a Soul or Spirit. But it is not an independent agent that can roam apart from the brain. You can't separate Transportation from the Vehicle; Function from Form*3.

Similarly, Materialism is a practical way of thinking about physical objects. But, it ignores non-physical aspects of the object. For example, when a Biologist dissects a frog, it is no longer a living animal. That's because Life is a Function of biological complexity. Life is what organic bodies do. So, if you take away the (holistic) Life function of the organism, what you have left is lifeless Chemistry. Therefore, if you are a Bio-chemist, it makes "no practical difference" whether your subject is alive or not. But, if you are a Biological Naturalist, it makes a categorical difference. And as Anthropologist Gregory Bateson surmised : "information is the difference that makes a difference". Difference (1) is a physical variation, but Difference (2) is a meaningful (metaphysical) distinction.

So yes, those old paradigms still have their role in human society. But, for philosophers, Quantum & Information theories have revealed that the foundation of Classical Science is built upon nothing of substance, except Generic shape-shifting Information (energy-matter-mind). And that makes all the difference in the world. As Einstein showed us, "all things are relative". What's "true" in one context may not be true from another perspective. :blush:


*1. For Christians, Agnosticism is just a wishy-washy form of Atheism. It avoids commitment one way or the other. But for me, "Agnosticism" simply means "I don't know". If something is invisible, I don't see it (a-blepo ; Gk "to not see"). But I may imagine something not seen : (Gk. eidos ;to imagine). Believers in the unseen God, know the deity by Faith, by imagination. In a similar manner, I can imagine a pre-big-bang First Cause, even though it does not exist in the physical world of vision. Yet, I remain Agnostic, because my imagination is not verifiable.

*2. A Function is an information relationship between things that is known only by Reason, not by Vision. Function is integral to Form, in that it is an essential aspect of all complex systems. Function is the immaterial part of a physical thing by which we know its role or relationship to the observer. For me, the role of my silver SUV is Transportation. For someone else, the essence of their red sports car is to serve as a chick-magnet.

*3. For Scientists & Builders In the real world, "Function follows Form". But for a Designer, Enformer, Creator , Form (physical arrangement) follows Function (intention ; output ; teleology).

Quantum paradox points to shaky foundations of reality :
https://www.science.org/content/article/quantum-paradox-points-shaky-foundations-reality

How can a simulation simulate itself? — Agent Smith

In the context of my post (& links), what part of 'self-organizing quantum simulation' (à la autopoiesis) is confusing you? Consider: there are only fermions & bosons with which to simulate "fermions & bosons" (i.e. planck scale events simulating "planck scale events"), no? :chin:

There's no difference between simulator and simulated. A distinction without a difference!

Exactly. Bostrom's argument is DOA. :up:

Exactly. Bostrom's argument is DOA. :up: — 180 Proof

I see.