It generalizes the intuition/rationale of the multiple hypotheses floatin around such that each one fits with your x-based EnformAction thesis; how snugly is up to how good is your generalization is of course. — Agent Smith

Yes. Philosophy is all about generalizing Principles from specific Instances. The operative Variable "X" is the shape-shifting power to enform, that we generically call "Information". That word originally refered to the contents of a mind (knowledge, meaning, intelligence, etc). But Shannon applied that term to non-specific "Data", which could be anything meaningful to a mind. The range of meanings or values is encoded from 1 (100% ; rigid order) to 0 (zero ; total randomness). Ironically, Shannon also realized that the potential of his data carriers (bits & bytes) can be evaluated in terms of Entropy, which is the ashes of Energy. Yet, the flip-side of Entropy is Enformy [see below].

More recently, physicists have realized that the essence of Information is equivalent to what we know as Energy : the power to cause change. In the Enformationism thesis though, I expand the range of Information to include a> Energy, b> Matter (E=MC^2), c> Intention (design ; mental causation), and various other instances of Form Change, such as physical Phase Transitions. FORM is essentially a meaningful or structural pattern, such as Morse Code or DNA. In general, I call that Causal Information "EnFormAction". It's what allows the random mutations of Evolution to produce non-random Forms (organisms) that survive & reproduce; to progress. Hence, Natural Selection is a form of Intention ; it chooses only the mutations that meet its standards of fitness.

Harking back to the OP, the biggest variable of all is the mysterious Enformer or Intender, Who defined the rules of Natural Selection. Most physicists are functionally Agnostic, in that they just take those evolutionary standards and natural laws for granted. And assume that the laws keeping our world on track are random & arbitrary. But then, they proceed to rely on the mathematical exactness of those regulations as-if they are orderly & absolute. As an Agnostic myself, I don't claim to know anything specific about the X-factor (the Who) serving as the Initial Cause of the chain of causation that we know as evolution. But, I can see the fingerprints of the culprit all over the natural world. :nerd:


Information :
(1) : knowledge obtained from investigation, study, or instruction. (2) : intelligence, news. (3) : facts, data.
Merriam-Webster

Data : Philosophy
things known or assumed as facts, making the basis of reasoning or calculation.
Oxford Dictionary

EnFormAction :
Intentional Causation. A proposed metaphysical law of the universe that causes random interactions between forces and particles to produce novel & stable arrangements of matter & energy.
http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page8.html

Enformy :
In the Enformationism theory, Enformy is a hypothetical, holistic, metaphysical, natural trend or force, that counteracts Entropy & Randomness to produce complexity & progress.
http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page8.html

Let's test how good your idea is: Try and harmonize the following thesis-antithesis pairs:
1. Theism-Atheism (everyone's favorite don't-get-along-at-all couple).
2. Rationalism-Empiricism (another such pair). — Agent Smith

The BothAnd principle is Holistic. It assumes that all apparent oppositions in the natural world are ultimately complementary. For example, Matter & Antimatter, when brought together, commit mutual suicide. And yet, the energy they are composed of is not lost, but returns to the universal thermodynamic system from whence it came. Positive & Negative energy are harmonized in the Neutrality of the whole.

Likewise, clashes between Theists & Atheists, can be reconciled in Agnosticism and Deism. The material world is obviously temporary & contingent. So, even atheist scientists concede that there must have been an external cause of the Big Bang, that is not a part of the expanding system itself. The well-aimed cue-ball requires an aim-er with a cue-stick (creative power). But as arrogant Atheists, they cannot admit that a mind is needed to explain Evolution. So, they merely imagine another dumb cue-ball zooming-in from off-table, which accidentally impacted the BB cue-ball. On the other hand, prideful Theists do see the need for an intentional mind to aim the stick or ball. But they take their ability to imagine a divine pool-shooter (Faith) as logical evidence. However, humble Agnostics are aware that their Logic is derived only from evidence inside the system. So, they don't pretend to know anything about the logical, but imaginary Who, out there in the great beyond. Hence, they stand in the middle of the argument, and say "can't we all just get along"?

Early philosophy was mostly a rational exercise of discovering logical patterns for How & Why the world works as it does. But around the time of Aristotle, they began to physically analyze (dissect) the world around them, in order to discover the hidden mechanisms inside. The hands-on (empirical) approach soon proved to be very effective in leveraging the human mind to control the natural world. Yet, they found that the immaterial mind itself is not so easy to dissect. So the early Psychologists (Freud) were essentially impractical philosophers, using pure Reason as a scalpel to analyze minds. Now we have more empirical methods for mind-reading, but the meaning of MRI blobs still have to be interpreted rationally & logically. So, to this very day both Rationalism and Empiricism are working together to advance our understanding of How & Why the mechanics of Physics has evolved Metaphysical Minds, whose inner thoughts still resist the crude empirical methods of Trepanation (drilling holes in the skull) and Magnetic Imaging (MRI).

So, you see, Theism & Atheism and Rationalism & Empiricism can harmonize like Ebony & Ivory, if we give them a chance. :cool:


Both/And Principle :
My coinage for the holistic principle of Complementarity, as illustrated in the Yin/Yang symbol. Opposing or contrasting concepts are always part of a greater whole. Conflicts between parts can be reconciled or harmonized by putting them into the context of a whole system.
http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page10.html

Ebony and Ivory :
Ebony and ivory live together in perfect harmony
Side by side on my piano keyboard, oh Lord, why don't we?
We all know that people are the same whereever you go
There is good and bad in ev'ryone
We learn to live, when we learn to give
Each other what we need to survive, together alive
___Paul McCartney

Nice!

EnFormAction

General ideas:

1. Primum movens aka EnFormer/Intender
2. BothAnd (yin-yang)

Specific ideas:

1. Information-based theory
2. EnFormy (anti-entropy, vide supra BothAnd)

EnFormAction
General ideas:
1. Primum movens aka EnFormer/Intender
2. BothAnd (yin-yang)
Specific ideas:
1. Information-based theory
2. EnFormy (anti-entropy, vide supra BothAnd) — Agent Smith

Good summary! You are open-minded and reasonable enough to entertain unfamiliar (weird) ideas, and attempt to make sense of them, in order to learn new ways of philosophizing. But you also apply a healthy dose of skepticism toward unproven philosophical conjectures. Unlike some Trolls, who just repeat "j'accuse", but provide no viable alternative ideas -- only standardized (settled ; classical) conventions to be taken on faith.

If the Enformationism hypothesis doesn't seem plausible -- it's a lot to take in -- you are not expected to believe its information-centric worldview. But once you grok the ubiquity & activity of Generic Information, your eyes will be opened to a whole new world of non-classical Possibilities (as in Quantum Theory). :cool:

A1. Philosophers & Physicists agree that all motion (change) must have a Prime Mover to impart momentum into the system of Causation. But some disagree on the nature of that First Cause : Intentional vs Accidental.
A2. BothAnd Complementarity : Physics
"the concept that two contrasted theories, such as the wave and particle theories of light, may be able to explain a set of phenomena, although each separately only accounts for some aspects."
___Google

B1. Information-Centric Worldview :
"Noted English mathematical physicist Sir Roger Penrose theorizes that at the level of the Planck scale (an unfathomably small and unimaginably energetic scale at which even quantum field theory breaks down) the entire universe is actually pure, abstract information."
http://www.esalq.usp.br/lepse/imgs/conteudo_thumb/The-Illusion-of-Reality---The-Scientific-Proof-That-Everything-is-Energy-and-Reality-Isnt-Real.pdf
B2. Enformy :
“Enformy is the principle of creation. Life didn't just happen. Life had to happen. Enformy compelled it. Enformy compelled DNA to organize."
https://vxm.com/link.enformytheory.html
Note : Watson's Theory of Enformed Systems is more liberal & literal than my own conservative & metaphorical interpretations of the logical concept of Enformy (negentropy).


PS___Enformationism takes current knowledge and projects (speculates) into the unknowable time-before-time, in order to grasp at answers to ancient philosophical questions of Ontology and Epistemology. Theism and Atheism are both gnostic worldviews, that claim to know for sure, either by revelation or by reason, what it's possible to Know about Existence. But Agnosticism (Epoché) understands that Reason is not bound by physical barriers, so we can legitimately conjecture on concepts that we can't prove empirically. What matters is only that it makes sense -- not necessarily in a conventional belief system, but in the light of Reason.

Philosophers & Physicists agree that all motion (change) must have a Prime Mover to impart momentum into the system of Causation. — Gnomon

So "causation" is caused, huh? :rofl:

Buddha (anicca) & Laozi (yinyang), Democritus (atomic swirling) & Heraclitus (everything flows), Boltzmann (thermodynamics) & Heisenberg (quantum uncertainty), Penrose (conformal cyclical cosmology) & Deutsch (quantum turing computation) are some examples of thinkers for whom "motion (change)" is the fundamental – acausal – independent variable.

News flash: Newton's Laws of Motion dispense with (your speculative(?)) anachronistic Creationist/Teleological dogmas.

Answering these few questions rather than regurgitating well-worn sophistries, Gnomon, may make your "speculation" (to extend, not contradict, human understanding of nature) persuasive. :chin:

Most interesting. — Ms. Marple

Correct me if I'm wrong, the whole idea of your EnFormAction theory boils down to, from the little that I know, yin & yang (the interaction of opposites) & Hegelian dialectics, both of which remind me of Heraclitean dualism (thesis-antithesis dynamics).

I don't know if it's actually true but, for obvious reasons, your thesis feels biocentric (pro-life) - the name EnFormAction suggests a bias towards life (EnFormy being anti-entropy, entropy being anti-order and thus an anti-life force we havta deal on a daily basis). Do you consider this to be a feature/bug in EnFormAction?

to extend, not contradict, human understanding — 180 Proof

:fire: You da man!

Correct me if I'm wrong, the whole idea of your EnFormAction theory boils down to, from the little that I know, yin & yang (the interaction of opposites) &Hegelian dialectics, both of which remind me of Heraclitean dualism (thesis-antithesis dynamics). — Agent Smith

Yes, the role of EnFormAction (energy, causation) in physics is to cause change-of-form (geometry, interrelationships). However, perhaps due to the curvature of Angular Momentum, the direction of change (motion) varies (not a straight line). Hence, the convoluted pathways of billiards and Brownian Motion.

Therefore, like billiard balls, any causal input (action) results in inter-action (collisions). And the result is something like Hegelian Dialectics (literally "cross-talk"). So, geometrically, any collision of two forces (added momentum) produces a new angular momentum (vectors) [see Dialectic below]. A more complex version of the flow of EFA (causation) through the world is illustrated in the math of a Random Walk [see Squiggles below]. Thus, Positive (aggregating) complexification results in Organization and organism. but Negative (segregating) action results in Disorganization.

Heraclitus postulated two opposing forces in the world, which work together to cause change. Today, we call those oppositions "Positive" & "Negative" -- or in a different context : "Good" & "Evil" -- and they can be illustrated by Vectors (arrows) in which the angle represents geometric direction and the length represents the amount of Force (energy ; momentum). In Taoism, those dual forces are labeled Yin (dark ; female) and Yang (light ; male) -- pardon the implicit misogynism. :wink:

INTERACTION OF OPPOSITES

COMPLEX DIALECTIC = RANDOM WALK = BROWNIAN MOTION

I can only applaud in admiration at your idea - it seems to be well-thought-out. Not many can say that of their own worldviews. I'm still trying to grasp the essence of it. Give me time.

I don't know if it's actually true but, for obvious reasons, your thesis feels biocentric (pro-life) - the name EnFormAction suggests a bias towards life (EnFormy being anti-entropy, entropy being anti-order and thus an anti-life force we havta deal on a daily basis). Do you consider this to be a feature/bug in EnFormAction? — Agent Smith

Yes. Like Energy, EnFormAction, can have both positive and negative effects. For example, Lightning splits air molecules into Nitrogen & Oxygen, both essential for life (organism). But, if a bolt from the blue strikes your living body, the result is instant death (dis-organism). But, after billions of years of Dialectic inter-action, we see a distinct bias (trend) toward Complexity & Organism & Life. Therefore, it's obvious that disorganizing Entropy is not absolute, so there must be some countervailing force to nudge evolution toward Life & Mind, and away from Death & Insentience. That implicit force is what I call "Enformy" (the power to enform ; to organize). :nerd:

Buddha (anicca) & Laozi (yinyang), Democritus (atomic swirling) & Heraclitus (everything flows), Boltzmann (thermodynamics) & Heisenberg (quantum uncertainty), Penrose (conformal cyclical cosmology) & Deutsch (quantum turing computation) are some examples thinkers for whom "motion (change)" is the fundamental – acausal – independent variable. — 180 Proof

As usual, this haughty reposte is based on prejudiced premises. It's intended to deny the necessity for a First Cause. From a narrow-nose perspective, cycling Change seems to be fundamental to Physics, with no beginning or end. But from a broader Philosophical worldview, even the Big Bang beginning of our universe must, logically, have a cause. That's why cosmologists have been proposing various speculative schemes to explain the time-before-time : Inflation, Many Worlds, Multiverses. There's no evidence for such ideal mathematical scenarios. But there is real physical evidence for a directional evolving universe from Past to Future. In the cosmological diagram below, the beginning & end states are implied, but fuzzy, due to lack of empirical evidence.

Penrose's abstract Causality Diagrams, like Minkowski's imaginary Block Time (static space-time), are deliberately simplified : a> by removing the complexity of Change, and b> by assuming internal, mutually-neutralizing, Symmetry of forces. In practice though, such a mathematically ideal world would be eternal & unchanging. But both of those models are like snapshots of reality, frozen in time. And are useful only for simplifying the complex mathematics of Dynamics (change ; motion). So, their idealized Acausal models are intentionally non-realistic. :cool:

Acausal Motion :
“Acausal” means not having a cause. In classical physics all events are believed to have a cause; none are acausal. In quantum physics, some interpretations of quantum theory allow for events to occur without a cause, that is, they are acausal.
The usual way to say this is that in quantum physics, there is “true randomness.” In true randomness, we don’t know the cause and also there is none. In classical physics, nothing happens randomly. If a billiard ball is picking up speed to the right, it’s because some force is pushing it in that direction. If we don’t know the nature of the force, it might seem like it’s random motion. But be assured, there is a causal force.
http://www.quantumphysicslady.org/glossary/acausal/

THE DIRECTIONAL ARROW OF EVOLUTION

I can only applaud in admiration at your idea - it seems to be well-thought-out. Not many can say that of their own worldviews. I'm still trying to grasp the essence of it. Give me time. — Agent Smith

Take your time. I've been working on the Enformationism thesis for about 14 years. It had been simmering for a while in the background. But I finally formalized it while I was unemployed due to the 2008 Great Recession. I gathered my notes & essays into a webpage, and using the Matrix movie as a metaphor, presented the core idea, not in the form of an Academic Thesis, but as a non-commercial, un-conventional argument in a semi-public arena. In some ways, it was inspired by Devin Giorbran's book & website Everything Forever, which presented a novel scientific-philosophical perspective of the whole universe. But the focus of Enformationism is more down-to-earth. Both are neither True nor False, but merely a different way to look at Reality : a proposed new Paradigm.

Most of us are living in an artificial simulation of reality : created in the public mind, not by rogue AI, but by social conventions and news media. The civilized world-view has evolved along a zig-zag path of Hegelian oppositions. For example : Fascism, Communism, & Capitalism in the 20th century. But, even more subtle may be the various scientific & philosophical paradigms of the 21st century, especially Quantum Theory and Information Theory. The world is still gradually emerging from the pre-scientific worldviews of its various religions, especially the Judeo-Christian-Islamic traditions, and from the radical 17th century revisionist worldview of what we now call Classical or Newtonian Science.

The dominant paradigms of each era serve as focusing frames through which to view the incomprehensible complexities of the world. For example, the common view of human nature swings back & forth between the optimism of first century Christianity "work out your own salvation", to the pessimism of Calvin's "Total Depravity" ; from the optimism of the Scientific Enlightenment, to the pessimism of modern philosophies (e.g. Antinatalism). Compared to those historical dialectical digressions, the Enformationism thesis could be just one man's perspective, that will die with him. Fortunately, I am not alone in this quest for a plausible 21st century worldview. So, if some form of this novel information-centric concept of how the world works -- by processing Information in various ways -- catches-on, It could become the seed for the next dominant philosophical paradigm . Only time will tell. :nerd:

Everything Forever : Learning to See The Timelessness of the Universe
"Zero is powerful because it is infinity’s twin. They are equal and opposite, yin and yang. They are equally paradoxical and troubling. The biggest questions in science and religion are about nothingness and eternity, the void and the infinite, zero and infinity. The clashes over zero were the battles that shook the foundations of philosophy, of science, of mathematics, and of religion. Underneath every revolution lay a zero – and an infinity."
-Charles Seife
Zero; The Biography of a Dangerous Idea
http://everythingforever.com/
Note -- at first glance, to someone grounded in conventional classical science, this may sound like a bunch of hippie non-sense. But, by looking at the flip-side of space-time, a new understanding of what's-really-going-on could emerge.

Paradigm :
A paradigm is a standard, perspective, or set of ideas. A paradigm is a way of looking at something. It's a worldview.
https://www.vocabulary.com/dictionary/paradigm

Information -- Consciousness -- Reality :
How a new understanding of the universe can help answer age-old questions of existence
https://www.goodreads.com/en/book/show/45153601

Enformationism website :
It's not something to believe, but something to think
http://enformationism.info/enformationism.info/

:up:

Since your idea has, as a component, the yin-yang duality of opposites, you surely expect it to be critiqued/opposed/attacked. That's exactly how it should be then, in accordance to your BothAnd concept, oui?

How would you respond to this comment?

Your usual non-answer. That's a tell, sir. :yawn:

Your usual non-answer. That's a tell, sir. :yawn: — 180 Proof

Do you realize that by disagreeing (with Gnomon), you're actually agreeing (with him/her)? [Re his/her yin-yang (BothAnd concept)].

It's not something to believe, but something to think — Gnomon

:fire:

Both are neither True nor False, but merely a different way to look at Reality : a proposed new Paradigm. — Gnomon

:fire:

We've been too long under the spell of so-called truth.

Stop using his "BothAnd" bastardization of yinyang and thereby embarrassing yourself, Smith. Complementarity is not synonymous with contradiction (pace Hegel). I take issue with Gnomon's "Meta-physics" because it's a self-refuting pseudo-scientific speculation that he "defends" with incoherent sophistry. I don't "disagree" with him; I expose him by calling-into-question his crypto-creationist/New Age "Enformation" nonsense, and yet he seems incapable of giving any clear, cogent, non-fallacious answers or rebuttals to my questions.

Will comply (for now)!

I just find Gnomon's thesis interesting, that's all. From what I can gather s/he seems to have done his/her homework. Gnomon gives me the impression of a well-read scholar. Note, this ain't a bromance - his Matrix analogy ain't the reason that Agent Smith likes his ideas.

I wanna run something by you, it's about yin-yang. You seem to be aware that yin-yang is ambiguous in that it stands for both annihilatory pairs like atheism-theism (both can't exist, one of 'em hasta go) and also complementary pairs (both can exist; each completes the other as it were) e.g. man and woman (family) or geometry and arithmetic (coordinate geometry).

Do you have anything to say regarding this?

As I wrote in my last post

Complementarity is not synonymous with contradiction (pace Hegel). — 180 Proof

I understand yinyang only as complementary and not contradictory in the least since each complement contains – not negates – the other; yin is a variation – not opposite – of yang and vice versa. Read Laozi & Zhuangzi. Read Plato's early dialogues. At least read this

↪Agent Smith
Dialectical monism. — 180 Proof

In my humble opinion, a thing and its anti-thing should also be included in yin-yang à la Hegelian dialectics. E.g. radical doubt ends up in absolute certainty (re Descartes' cogito ergo sum). Likewise, absolute certainty leads to (hyper)skepticism (re Agrippa's/Münchhausen trilemma). Too good and you're bad and too bad and you're good. Emphasis on the too (re aureum mediocritas).

:eyes:

Since your idea has, as a component, the yin-yang duality of opposites, you surely expect it to be critiqued/opposed/attacked. That's exactly how it should be then, in accordance to your BothAnd concept, oui?
How would you respond to this comment? — Agent Smith

Oui-oui. It's mostly "attacked" emotionally (good vs evil) & politically (us vs them), instead of "critiqued" rationally & philosophically. For example, quote : "Your usual non-answer. That's a tell, sir. :yawn: " The implicit critique can be eloquently summed-up as "boo, hiss".

Apparently, a Reductive/Materialistic paradigm is antipathetic (showing or feeling a strong aversion) to a Holistic/Metaphysical worldview. And a significant proportion of posters on this forum are allied with the belief system known as Scientism. It began during the Reformation /Enlightenment era, when the hegemony of the State Church was rejected by Freethinkers. One vector of that Hegelian dialectic clash was fragmented Protestant religions & general Secularization, and the other was modern empirical Science & pragmatic Materialism.

From that cynical (dog-eat-dog) perspective though, Philosophy in general, and especially Metaphysics, is viewed as allied with supernatural Religion. Hence, any ideas that go beyond Physical are presumed to be Metaphysical, as defined by the early Catholic Church theologians. Although many world religions are based on a Holistic model, many secular philosophies (e.g.Taoism, Confucianism) throughout history also assumed that the Dualistic forces of the world are ultimately & delicately balanced into a Holistic monism (Yin/Yang). Hence, optimistic instead of fatalistic.

By contrast to the black vs white, Science vs Religion opposition, your own reaction has been a philosophical blend of both Curiosity (exploring) and Skepticism (defending). And that is a good example of the BothAnd approach to knowledge : "open-minded, but not so open that your brains fall out". :smile:


Scientism :
Science is about descriptive facts; philosophy is often about that but is also about normative and evaluative truths (if such truths exist). Science is about physical objects; philosophy is often about that but is also about abstract objects (if they exist).
https://1000wordphilosophy.com/2018/02/13/philosophy-and-its-contrast-with-science/

What is scientism, and why is it a mistake? :
Science is a method of inquiry about nature, while scientism is philosophy. And scientism is no longer up to the challenge of meeting the most pressing issues of our day.
https://bigthink.com/13-8/science-vs-scientism/
Note -- Scientism is dualistic Either/Or philosophy. It has that in common with dualistic Good/Evil religions. By contrast, the BothAnd philosophy is ultimately Monistic.

As you can see from Gnomon's reply, he cannot directly address criticisms of his pet dogma, I think, because, though well-documented, it's vacuous. :sweat:

So your thesis has an antithesis which is as legit as your thesis and should be incorporated into your thesis (BothAnd). Shouldn't you be more welcoming of opposition to your ideas then? For example 180 Proof's objections should be part and parcel of your system, based as it is on yin & yang.

I like Gnomon's ideas, especially its yin-yang theme. I see great potential in it. What gets me stoked is how, in a sense, enemies are friends (vide supra).

So your thesis has an antithesis which is as legit as your thesis and should be incorporated into your thesis (BothAnd). Shouldn't you be more welcoming of opposition to your ideas then? For example 180 Proof's objections should be part and parcel of your system, based as it is on yin & yang. — Agent Smith

The BothAnd philosophy doesn't legitimize one side or the other of any opposition. Instead, it allows each person to cross philosophical-political dividing-lines lines as the context demands. For example, I live in a very conservative part of the US, and my religious training was fundamentalist. But, although I don't repudiate the good parts of Conservatism, as an adult I have crossed over into enemy territory. Today, I don't call myself a Conservative or a Liberal, but something like a Liberative or Conserveral (i.e. Moderate). The downside of a moderate position is that you get shot at by both sides. The right-wing-conservatives will view you as a lily-livered-liberal, and the left-wing-radicals will decry you as a cold-hearted-conservative. The point here is that the BothAnd sweet-spot of harmony & balance is not in the exact middle of any philosophical continuum, but depending on the context, may shift left or right to maintain a dynamic balance -- like a tightrope walker.

When I first joined The Philosophy Forum, I felt that might be a kindred spirit. His general philosophical worldview seemed to be compatible with mine. But eventually, he began to see my personal philosophy as anathema (something or someone that one vehemently dislikes). I still don't know for sure what the point-of-contention is, except that it has something to do with my unconventional usage of the tainted word "Metaphysics" (non-physical ; as in abstract concepts)*1. Since then, his "opposition" has been expressed in ad hominem arguments -- against an imaginary position that I don't actually hold -- instead of philosophical arguments. So no, his (NAZI vs Commie) "objections" are not "part & parcel" of my own system. I welcome philosophical discussion of specific ideas, but not a political-smear-campaign of a general multi-faceted worldview. Even so, I bear no ill-will toward 180 -- his knowledge of Philosophy is admirable -- I just refuse to engage in below-the-belt philosophy. Hopefully though, maybe some day we will again be able to sit around the philosophical campfire and sing Kumbaya (harmony & goodness). :smile:

*1. Actually, I think he feels threatened by the emerging Holistic & Information-centric scientific paradigm, which to him smacks of old age Religion and New Age nuttiness.

BOTH/AND = DYNAMIC BALANCE

A most commendable response!

I feel you should encourage strong but genuine, well-considered opposition to your thesis as it would validate your BothAnd philosophy. If no one can do that, you yourself should take up this task - either you complete your system or you test how strong it is. It's a win-win as far as I can tell.

Clearly, there's no point in questioning Gnomon's dogmas further, so I rest my case. :smirk:

I rest my case. — 180 Proof

:smile:

I feel you should encourage strong but genuine, well-considered opposition to your thesis as it would validate your BothAnd philosophy. If no one can do that, you yourself should take up this task - either you complete your system or you test how strong it is. It's a win-win as far as I can tell. — Agent Smith

I have been exposing my thesis to unsympathetic comments for years, and usually get good "well-considered opposition" (feedback) from other posters on the forum. But 180 is determined to stop me from discussing an emerging new paradigm of Science & Philosophy -- which conflicts with his established classical worldview -- by emotional ridicule instead of rational argument. His legalistic approach is like a defense attorney saying, "your honor, the prosecution witness' testimony contradicts the defense witness' testimony. Therefore, the prosecution witness is either lying or stupid, and his testimony should be stricken from the record . . . . . I rest my case". Does that sound like a win-win contest to you? Do you think I should continue to engage 180 in such a circular dialogue (circa-logue)? :joke:

:rofl:

All I'm saying is 180 Proof's opposition completes your thesis (re BothAnd/yin-yang). You shouldn't reject him because if you do, you're contradicting yourself.