So here's what I think is the good news - Enformationism explains well enough the goings on in the world; now the bad news - Enformationism doesn't make any predictions which could be tested — Agent Smith

I do not discern any substantive differences between (neo-Aristotlean) "Enformationism" and (neo-Thomistic) "Intelligent Design" — 180 Proof

:sweat: Critic & amanuensis agree! :clap:

:smile: @Gnomon is no fool. If anything his website which I visit on occasion and his posts indicate erudition, intelligence and experience . I can't wait to hear his response. The fact that this battle of wits between the two of you has remained amicable & educational is testament to his and of course your wisdom. Don't be so dismissive 180 Proof. :smile:

Don't hold your breath, Smith. Past is prologue with this old "Enformer". :smirk:

Don't hold your breath, Smith. Past is prologue with this old "Enformer". :smirk: — 180 Proof

:smile: You mean to say Gnomon's reading The Book of Life backwards! Awesome! :cool:

Given that we're doing metaphysics, I suppose my and others' very non-metaphysical criticisms are out of place. Reminds of Bartricks's rule: it hasta make sense and from my interactions with your philosophy, it makes sense alright. Positing entities and forces e.g. Enformy are part and parcel of theorizing/hypothesizing, a very scientific activity. So here's what I think is the good news - Enformationism explains well enough the goings on in the world; now the bad news - Enformationism doesn't make any predictions which could be tested. Is me foot in me mouth? Have I cleared you of all charged and still declared you guilty? — Agent Smith

I just want to clarify that I am not "postulating entities & forces", because I am not a scientist. What I am doing is looking at known forces from a new perspective. The Enformationism worldview is based on cutting-edge scientific theories postulating that Energy (causation) is a form of Information*1 (power to enform ; to integrate into a system), and Entropy is a form of dis-information (dis-integration).

My personal (not institutional) thesis attempts to pull several threads of Information theory together into a unified philosophical weltanshauung. So, what I'm doing is a very philosophical activity : system building. And my system is intended to replace ancient Spiritualism and outdated Materialism. When viewed from one of those outmoded perspectives, Enformationism won't "make sense". That's because it postulates a new Paradigm shift*2.

Since Enformationism is a holistic way of looking at the world, not a reductive scientific theory, it does not make Predictions, only Observations from a new perspective. If you want predictions of physical behavior, look to Science. But if you want simplified understanding of complex physical actions (e.g. Quantum non-mechanics), look to Philosophy. Baffled quantum pioneers turned to ancient Holistic religions for philosophical insights, when their Reductive methods didn't make sense.

So yes, you still seem to be influenced by 180's accusations that I'm doing illegitimate Science. Perhaps he thinks that modern physical (ideas about matter) Science has supplanted metaphysical (ideas about ideas) Philosophy. If so, then this forum is a complete waste of wishy-washy words. And should be posting on a Physics forum. :smile:


*1. The basis of the universe may not be energy or matter but information :
There are lots of theories on what the basis of the universe is. Some physicists say its subatomic particles. Others believe its energy or even space-time. One of the more radical theories suggests that information is the most basic element of the cosmos.
https://bigthink.com/surprising-science/the-basis-of-the-universe-may-not-be-energy-or-matter-but-information/
Note -- From the Enformationism perspective, Information is Fundamental.

*2. Paradigm Shift :
a fundamental change in approach or underlying assumptions.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=paradigm+shift

CAUTION : OLD PARADIGM WASHED-OUT

The basis of the universe may not be energy or matter but information :
There are lots of theories on what the basis of the universe is. Some physicists say its subatomic particles. Others believe its energy or even space-time. One of the more radical theories suggests that information is the most basic element of the cosmos. — Gnomon

How does this change, if at all, how we live our lives? As far back as the 1980's I recall my science teacher was saying that all of reality is information. I think he had maths in mind. Either way, we still have to set our alarm clocks and go to work, still have to shower and pay bills, still have to find a parking space near the supermarket, right? Can you summarise in some brief, plain English sentences what you consider to be the transformative power of this hypothesis?

How does this change, if at all, how we live our lives? As far back as the 1980's I recall my science teacher was saying that all of reality is information. I think he had maths in mind. Either way, we still have to set our alarm clocks and go to work, still have to shower and pay bills, still have to find a parking space near the supermarket, right? Can you summarise in some brief, plain English sentences what you consider to be the transformative power of this hypothesis? — Tom Storm

Enformationism is a personal philosophical worldview, not a Religion for the masses. So it doesn't offer the life-transforming*1 power of hope for salvation from mundane reality*2. It's also not a Science; so it doesn't provide the culture-transforming power of technological innovation*3. Instead, as an esoteric philosophical worldview, this new Paradigm could change your own attitude toward everything. And the transformation "pay-off" depends on your personal situation : where you're coming from.

However, just as the scientific Quantum paradigm is still philosophically controversial a century later, the Information-Theoretic and Systems*4 view of reality may remain tendentious for at least another generation. In my blog, I discuss a variety of applications of Enformationism*5 to philosophical worldviews. However, since it is based on intellectual & esoteric concepts from science & philosophy, I don't expect it to transform the lives of the masses, as computer technology and Paul's spiritual innovation have done. A holistic concept is hard to "summarize" without getting reductive. :smile:


*1. Life Transforming :
Transforming your life involves going beyond the way you live, co-creating a better life for yourself, and changing the way you live. You do this by using your thoughts, visualization, words, faith, actions, or a combination of them.
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/7-steps-to-transform-your_b_7302904

*2. In the book I mentioned before, Paul and Jesus, the messianic Jews under roman rule only aspired to go back to the life they had under Jewish kings. But Paul, seeing that the Messiah died without leading a rebellion against Rome, provided life-transforming hope, by changing the place & time of the Kingdom of God to an immanent spiritual realm. Even that failed to come to pass during Paul's lifetime. But his re-interpretation of pragmatic prophecies (defeat the Romans) into spiritualized salvation (heavenly kingdom to come) transformed a radical revolution into passive Christian acceptance of the status quo, until this very day, or until Jesus decides the time is right. The spiritual "pay-off" is like compounded interest : the longer you wait the bigger the reward. Enformationism does not offer any dramatic conversions, or spiritual transformations. Unless, by "spirit" you mean simply a change of Mind, your attitude.

*3. Life transforming technology :
https://www.cnet.com/tech/tech-industry/25-technologies-that-have-changed-the-world/

*4. The Systems View of Life: A Unifying Vision :
a new systemic conception of life has emerged at the forefront of science. New emphasis has been given to complexity, networks, and patterns of organization, leading to a novel kind of “systemic” thinking.
This volume integrates the ideas, models, and theories underlying the systems view of
life into a single coherent framework. Taking a broad sweep through history and across sci-
entific disciplines, the authors examine the appearance of key concepts such as autopoiesis,
dissipative structures, social networks, and a systemic understanding of evolution. The
implications of the systems view of life for healthcare, management, and our global eco-
logical and economic crises are also discussed. ___Fritjof Capra and Pier Luigi Luisi
https://assets.cambridge.org/97811070/11366/frontmatter/9781107011366_frontmatter.pdf

*5. The EnFormAction Hypothesis :
http://bothandblog3.enformationism.info/page23.html

Thanks. When I used to term 'transformative' I really just meant how potentially might a person's life changed in more quotidian terms, but your answers are good.

I wonder how much you've really thought through these statements. You don't elaborate much about it, so you end up with cliche: science good/true/real, religion bad/false/fictional. — Mikie

I've thought about them a great deal. Something I'm currently working on.
https://adamford.com/NTheo/NewTheology.epub
https://adamford.com/NTheo/NewTheology.pdf

Can you summarise in some brief, plain English sentences what you consider to be the transformative power of this hypothesis? — Tom Storm

Your use of the evocative term "transformative power" has coincided with the book I'm currently reading about the transformation of Judaism to Christianity. So I'm still riffing on that theme, as well as the topic of this thread : materialistic Science vs spiritualistic Religion. Unlike Paul though, I'm not the cause of that transformation, but merely a reporter on the emerging Paradigm Shift..

Just as Apostle Paul, almost single-handedly, converted the ancient narrative of Judaism -- which had already evolved through several major cultural changes -- by creating a Metanarrative : a new story built on top of an older story*1. At the beginning of the second century AD, bishop Ignatius haughtily referred to Judaism as an "antiquated myth". Likewise, I could refer to previous scientific & philosophical paradigms as "outdated myths", but that would not be accurate. Because those previous worldviews still retain some validity & vitality.

I had never thought about it this way, but my personal Enformationism thesis is essentially a Metanarrative, constructed on the archaeological foundations of previous -isms. For example, even though Quantum Theory was a radically different concept of how the fundamental processes of Nature work, it did not replace or supplant the macro facts of Classical physics. Likewise, Enformationism does not denigrate or dismiss the practical features of ancient Spiritualism (energy, forces, causes) and Materialism (matter as fundamental substance). They still retain some usefulness within the limited scope of their application.

But post-quantum cutting-edge scientists are now saying that intangible Information may be the fundamental "substance" of reality*2. Its application is not just in studies of Computers or Consciousness, but also for understanding Matter & Energy on the quantum-scale foundations of physics. However, on the macro scale of normal human experience, Materialism still makes sense, while invisible Energy & Forces take the place of antiquated notions of Spirits & Ghosts. By comparison to those limited applications, Enformationism seems to be more a comprehensive understanding of the Cosmos, the Milieu, and the Mental aspects of the known world. :smile:

PS__ might say that that last claim is egotistical. However, the focus should not be on the coined term "Enformationism" -- to encapsulate a variety of scientific & philosophical postulations -- but on the consilience of evidence*3.


*1. A metanarrative is a narrative about narratives of historical meaning, experience, or knowledge
___Wiki

*2. Is Information Fundamental? :
What if the fundamental “stuff” of the universe isn’t matter or energy, but information?
https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/article/is-information-fundamental/

*3. Consilience :
agreement between the approaches to a topic of different academic subjects, especially science and the humanities. ___Oxford
Consilience: The Unity of Knowledge is a 1998 book by the biologist E. O. Wilson, in which the author discusses methods that have been used to unite the sciences and might in the future unite them with the humanities. ___Wikipedia

:eyes: :roll: :sweat: :smirk: :ok:


"Science is prayer." (Spinoza & Einstein couldn't have said it better) :fire:

:up:

Good move o grandmaster. So Enformationism basically brings together the various strands of worldviews/philosophies out there, two major ones being science and religion, and unites them (metanarrative/holism) into a whole! There is a grandeur in this which appeals to me and perhaps others as well. Godspeed mon ami, godspeed!

So "bringing together" e.g. astronomy & astrology (or chemistry & alchemy) is, in your mind, good for what???

So "bringing together" e.g. astronomy & astrology (or chemistry & alchemy) is, in your mind, good for what??? — 180 Proof

When we combine these various worldviews, we're in essence trying to harmonize the rational with the irrational; let's face it, irrationality plays a big part in our lives and better to work with it than against it for the simple reason that that strategy invariably blows up in our face. Too, who's to say, chaos (irrationality) is order (rationality) undeciphered (ununderstood)?

What sayest thou?

... good for what??? — 180 Proof

:brow:

... irrationality plays a big part in our lives and better to work with it than against it for the simple reason that that strategy invariably blows up in our face. — Agent Smith

How does reducing, or overcoming, "irrationality" "invariably blows up in our faces"? Explain how "working with" alchemy, for instance, makes chemistry "better".

How does reducing, or overcoming, "irrationality" "invariably blows up in our faces"? Explain how "working with" alchemy, for instance, makes chemistry "better". — 180 Proof

Those are tough questions your honor :smile:

The struggle against Foolery (re 180 Proof) is a lost cause, you know that. Simple math based on the fact that most people are fools irrational. We're all mad sir! :cool:

The struggle against Foolery (re 180 Proof) is a lost cause, you know that. — Agent Smith

C'mon, amigo, that's like saying the struggle for health against illness "is a lost cause". :roll:

C'mon, amigo, that's like saying the struggle for health against illness "is a lost cause" — 180 Proof

Your honor, I believe the trick to good health is to get the right disease. :lol:

@180 Proof & @Gnomon

Corrigendum (of sorts)

In Christianity and by extension in religion as a whole, there's ample room for the skeptic ( re Doubting Thomas) - the irrational (blind faith) acknowledges and includes in its fold the rational (reason) and it only seems fair that this basic courtesy be reciprocated by reason (in its modern avatar, science).

What sayest thou?

You lost me.

↪Agent Smith
So "bringing together" e.g. astronomy & astrology (or chemistry & alchemy) is, in your mind, good for what??? — 180 Proof

As usual, 180poof :joke: has completely missed the point of Enformationism. As a philosophical perspective, It does not pretend to be an empirical science. So the disdainful comparisons to pre-scientific Astrology & Alchemy *1 *2 are not appropriate. However, in the sense that empirical Astronomy & Chemistry were built on top of centuries of philosophical research into Cosmos & Matter, the parallel may suggest that new empirical scientific paradigms can evolve from older hypothetical worldviews.

For example, Astrology was intended to be a practical method for determining the will of the gods -- who took the form of points of light circling the Earth. And Alchemy was supposed to be a pragmatic method for manipulating Matter. Both were highly regarded forms of Natural Philosophy, and Academic Practice. Yet, they were based on hypothetical models that later were proven to be mistaken. Moreover, similar meaningful metaphors have also mis-led modern scientists. Remember that Rutherford and Bohr made progress in understanding atomic structure based on models that later proved to be inaccurate*3.

It seems that 180degreewrong :joke: considers those ancient proto-scientists (including Isaac Newton*4) to be blithering idiots bowing to imaginary "gods" : invisible forces like Energy/Entropy, that we still today submit to. From that supercilious perspective, Neils Bohr was a cretin making-up unreal models of reality. Fortunately for him though, modern science was, at the same time, developing the technology to produce images of atoms, so they no longer had to rely on imagination. Bohr was also accused of being a mystic*5 because he used ancient oriental notions as metaphors to make Quantum queerness more comprehensible. What were those analogies & metaphors "good for". Did they facilitate gradual progress in pragmatic scientific understanding, even as some were content with religious interpretations & applications of the symbolic imagery.

Enformationism is not a scientific practice, but it is a philosophical worldview based on the latest scientific models of reality : specifically Quantum & Information theories. Both of those sciences have been "good for" radical transformations of technology & culture. And by combining the knowledge from those disparate models into a holistic worldview, we may gain even more insight into the operation of Nature & Culture ; Matter & Mind. :smile:

PS__For those not familiar with the 180proof form of argumentation, it consists primarily of ridicule & mockery. Hence the tongue-in-cheek repartee.

*1. Throughout most of its history, astrology was considered a scholarly tradition and was common in academic circles,
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Astrology

*2. Alchemy is an ancient branch of natural philosophy, a philosophical and protoscientific tradition that was historically practiced in China, India, the Muslim world, and Europe
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alchemy

*3. In science, analogies have been used to make hypotheses on the structure of atoms since the technology did not exist to be able to see inside it. In 1897, English scientist J.J Thomson made a contribution to atomic theory by suggesting that there was some matter that was even smaller than the atom: the electron. His theory was called the “Plum Pudding model”, using an analogy to map his prediction. He used plum pudding as a source to describe the target, the structure of the atom. Electrons are like the raisins in the desert, which is the atom. This theory was later disproved by physicist Ernest Rutherford who found that atoms have positively charged centers, and described his understanding of the atom as a cherry, where the nucleus was like the pit. Danish scientist Niels Bohr in 1913 then used the solar system analogy to show people that there were also electrons orbiting around the nucleus. In the 20th century, a number of scientists showed that actually, electrons do not orbit the nucleus in neat orbits like the solar system, but instead move around like particles in a cloud. Despite the fact that some analogies have not stood the test of the time, they were useful tools to help the public understand scientific theories and make sense of complex phenomena.
https://thedecisionlab.com/reference-guide/psychology/analogy

*4. Isaac Newton's occult studies :
any reference to a "Newtonian Worldview" as being purely mechanical in nature is somewhat inaccurate.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isaac_Newton%27s_occult_studies

*5. Niels Bohr, a founder of quantum mechanics, was a Mystic :
Modern physics leads to mysticism. Why? What do we find when we pull apart reality? Perhaps that we can’t ultimately pull it apart.
https://www.niels-bohr-a-founder-of-quantum-mechanics-was-a-mystic/

Why is there anything at all? :smirk:

A man wins a lottery that makes him fabulously wealthy. Now he has plenty of leisure time and eventually a question nags him to distraction. The question is: "Why me?" He understands the probability of winning the lottery but, to his mind, that only tells him How he won and not Why – "Why me instead of anybody else?" The man convinces himself that there is something more at work than merely brute probability, something that intended – someone who selected – him to win. Suddenly, winning the lottery feels meaningful, more intentional than "random chance", and therefore he feels that his new wealth has a "purpose" which he must dedicate himself to divining.

@Gnomon calls this intention, selection, purpose the "Enformer" (i.e. intelligent designer / cosmic programmer, unmoved mover, first cause, occult telos, woo-of-the-gaps, "man behind the curtain", etc). :yawn:

:up: I'm unaware of the reason for the inference from improbable to agency (god/man behind the curtain). Improbable doesn't imply impossible. Now if a person didn't buy a lottery ticket and won the jackpot we have strong justification to employ the phrase "some kinda weird shit is goin' down bruh!"

$\forall x(Lx \to \exists y(Py \land (Gxy \lor Fxy)))$

:eyes: wut ...

I wanted to copy that predicate logic statement. It can't be done! :lol:

:up: I'm unaware of the reason for the inference from improbable to agency (god/man behind the curtain). Improbable doesn't imply impossible. Now if a person didn't buy a lottery ticket and won the jackpot we have strong justification to employ the phrase "some kinda weird shit is goin' down bruh!" — Agent Smith

Unaware? You need to be woke, bro! :joke:

Cosmic Agency is indeed a rational inference, not a direct observation. The presumed Agent of Creation & Evolution does seem to hide behind a curtain of randomness*1. But perceptive observers can see the patterns within Chaos, which imply the actions of a Pattern Maker. For example, although he is most famous for defining Evolution in terms of Random Mutations, Darwin also realized that randomness is non-directional. So, he added the filter of Natural Selection to weed-out the unfit, and to choose which mutations meet the organizational requirements for replication & survival. To select is to carefully choose as being the best or most suitable.

Although he was disappointed in the religious doctrines of his day, Darwin could not deny the philosophical evidence pointing to a First Cause of some kind*2. He reached that Agnostic position based on the "impossibility of conceiving this immense and wonderful universe . . . as the result of blind chance or necessity"*3. His neither-Theist-nor-Atheist position was equivalent to what later became known as Deism.

Those who do put their faith in Blind Chance*4 -- as the creator of this almost infinite living organism we blandly call "The Universe" -- are not un-intelligent. But they do seem to be blinded by emotional reactions to the intellectual blinders (Blind Faith) imposed by the Abrahamic religions of their personal experience. Gamblers, those who do believe in Fortune & Chance for the brave, tend to become addicted to the random rewards (Vegas jackpots), that they interpret as blessings for the faithful.

However, the consistency of the Cosmic Jackpot*5 (14 billion years of continuing complexification) is not what a reasonable thinker would expect from the dominance of Randomness & Entropy. So, the only viable explanation for positive evolution is the innate fitness rules that guide the progress of the universe*6. But, why would the Programmer of an evolutionary project remain anonymous to He/r creatures? I don't know the answer, but some computer programmers are content to embed "Easter Eggs" for motivated seekers to find. :smile:


*1. Why hide? Your guess is as good as mine. Vulcan-like lack of human Ego? A weird sense of humor? Enjoyment of riddles & secrets?

*2. First Cause or Creator :
"The question is of course wholly distinct from that higher one, whether there exists a Creator and Ruler of the universe; and this has been answered in the affirmative by some of the highest intellects that have ever existed" . . . . "The idea of a universal and beneficent Creator does not seem to arise in the mind of man, until he has been elevated by long-continued culture."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_views_of_Charles_Darwin

*3. Intelligent Evolution :
“Another source of conviction in the existence of God, connected with the reason and not with the feelings, impresses me as having much more weight. This follows from the extreme difficulty or rather impossibility of conceiving this immense and wonderful universe, including man with his capacity of looking far backwards and far into futurity, as the result of blind chance or necessity. When thus reflecting I feel compelled to look to a First Cause having an intelligent mind in some degree analogous to that of man; and I deserve to be called a Theist.” —Charles Darwin,
https://godevidence.com/2018/12/quote-of-the-day-charles-darwin/

*4. Conscious Cosmic Agent :
In his article for the online Aeon Magazine, Is The Universe A Conscious Mind?, philosopher Philip Goff begins with the current consensus of cosmologers, that the universe seems to be fine-tuned to produce living beings. Then he proposes a conscious universal agent to explain how that improbable scenario came to pass. But first, he acknowledges that, "Some take the fine-tuning to be simply a basic fact about our Universe: fortunate perhaps, but not something requiring explanation." However, some experts, such as Lee Smolin, have calulated the seemingly impossible odds against the emergence of Life, simply by random chance. Which makes it sound like a miracle.
http://bothandblog.enformationism.info/page53.html

*5. Cosmic Jackpot: Why Our Universe Is Just Right for Life :
physicist and cosmologist Davies discusses the implications of the fact that the conditions of our universe are "just right" for life to exist: a concept known as the anthropic principle.
https://www.amazon.com/Cosmic-Jackpot-Universe-Just-Right/dp/0618592261

*6. Order within Chaos :
Order illustrates that a system has responded to a rule or rules that have made the system behave in a manner that is expected.
https://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Systems_Theory/Order-Chaos
Note -- the rules (laws) that govern a contingent system, such as the physical universe, are contingent upon the "expectations" of a law-maker

DARWIN IMPRESSED BY NATURAL BEAUTY

In my thread Is Chance A Cause?, I draw the distinction between nature of phenomena (?) and cause of phenomena (a particular combination of causal factors) . I tagged you in one of my posts (you didn't post/reply).

Anyway, to repeat ... a coin toss outcome is for all intents and purposes a chance event but each outcome has a specific cause comprised of the way you positioned your hand, how much force you applied, the strength and direction of local air currents, etc.

Some say the existence of the universe is a fluke however this only describes the nature of the phenomenon; we still need a cause of the phenonemon - some call it Allah, you call it G*D/Enformer. They're all different names for the same thing, I call it The Cause. The point of course is to shed metaphysical baggage and isolate and purify and zero in on The Cause.


In short, arguing for The Cause from improbability is unnecessary. Whether highly likely, unlikely, probable, or improbable, The Cause always exists.

The Cause always exists. — Agent Smith

And the cause of "The Cause" ...?

And the cause of "The Cause" ...? — 180 Proof

A good ol' question. Hypothesis non fingo.