However, for philosophical purposes, you have a valid point. Information, as used by those physical scientists, is not a "metaphysical primitive"*3 or even a physical object. Instead, it's the creative process of enforming : giving form to the formless; meaning to the meaningless. — Gnomon

The philosophical question is What creates?

I understand and just a suggestion, if the aim is to bring science and religion under one roof, you must pay heed to objections/criticisms/opposition from scientifically-minded folk like 180 Proof. I'm rather surprised that you're getting neither a yea nor a nay from the religiously-minded. — Agent Smith

In my TPF posts, I am not trying to appeal to religious believers, but to philosophical reasoners. I abandoned my own religion many years ago. And I don't try to convert my still-religious siblings to my personal worldview. They may think that I'm going to Hell for my unbelief, but I don't believe in Hell, so I'm not worried about their afterlife. Most religiously-minded people have little-to-no interest in the unsentimental abstractions of Philosophy, that have no regard for people's feelings.

I'm also not trying to bring Science & Religion "under one roof". Instead, I agree with Steven Jay Gould that they are "non-overlapping magisteria". As Galileo put it : "The Bible shows the way to go to heaven, not the way the heavens go". Religion has more in common with Politics than with Science. Religion & Politics are programs to control human behavior, while Science is a method for controlling Nature. However, Gnomon may be aiming to bring Science & Philosophy back under one roof. :smile:

However, for philosophical purposes, you have a valid point. Information, as used by those physical scientists, is not a "metaphysical primitive"*3 or even a physical object. Instead, it's the creative process of enforming : giving form to the formless; meaning to the meaningless. — Gnomon
The philosophical question is What creates? — Wayfarer

My philosophical answer to that question is the Natural analog Program we call Evolution. As to Who the creator might be, all I can do is use metaphors. Religious thinkers use the analogy of a human Father who wants to replicate in order to create a loving & obedient family. Science prefers to use less anthro-morphic metaphors, such as Nature or Probability to represent the self-organizing process of inter-acting bits of Space & Time. Gnomon analogously thinks of the creative "What" as a computer Programmer : the Enformer. But the motive for creating a gradually evolving organism of Matter & Mind is beyond me. Unfortunately, I have no revelation from the Great What to tell me the Big Why. :smile:

To Evolve synonyms : develop ; progress ; advance ; mature ; etc.

I am myself a materialist (in the sense that I believe the material world is primary and that our subjective experiences arise directly from the physical) and have been trying to reconcile the idea of the "self", with a materialist worldview. The self, as I see it, is the "fundamental essence" of who we are; this sense of "I" we are all likely familiar with. — tom111

What we are (in the materialist view) are simply piles of carbon,... using past memories and experiences to compile a constant "self" that simply doesn't exist; a human being is empty of essence.

Upon thorough examination, the idea of a "self" is as arbitrary as the idea of a "chair", or any other object. In a purely material world, concepts like these simply don't exist. — tom111

In the first quoted paragraph, you write about subjective experience with language that assumes it is an existing (therefore real) thing.

In the second quoted paragraph, you write about "self" as an existing thing, an idea. You also write about thorough examination of "self" (through a materialist lens), concluding it's a concept that doesn't exist. This statement is complicated logically because you name a concept whose existence you subsequently deny. You also label an attribute of "self" as "essence," declaring human being lacks it. Again, in naming something you subsequently deny, you paradoxically posit its existence.

In the third quoted paragraph, you resolve the paradox of material body/immaterial "self" by denying existence of the latter.

Do you understand yourself to be a material body exclusively?

In your rejection of immaterial self, do you reject those personal memories of yourself mentioned above?

Do you understand your "self" to be a material body?

That you don't conclusively understand your "self" to be a material body is suggested to me when you write,

...our subjective experiencesarise directly from the physical) — tom111

Do you understand your "self" to be a physical epiphenomenon of your material body?

I have been trying to reconcile the idea of the "self", with a materialist worldview. — tom111

Here I see your effort to decide upon the physicality/non-physicality of the "self" unresolved.

Have you studied meta-physics? Do you have a response to it?

Would you consider this a useful refinement of Plato's idea of instantiation? Does Aristotle still propose a realm of forms? — Tom Storm
Now there's a great thread topic, but we'd need input from some of the more experienced readers in that subject. (AFAIK, Aristotle rejects the 'realm of forms', but I think it's far from clear what was meant by that in the first place, or what precisely is being rejected.) — Wayfarer

It may be presumptuous of me, but I have interpreted the ancient usage by Plato & Aristotle -- of the ancient word for "Form"*1 -- in terms of modern Information & Quantum Theory. Most physicists have concluded that the ultimate Essence or Substance of our evolving world is the change agent we know as "Energy"*2. But a few intrepid scientists have postulated that even Energy is a form of Generic Information. Hence, the notion that massless Information (idea ; design ; form) is the essence of Reality.

Plato postulated a variety of non-physical things & states (Chaos ; Logos) from which the physical world of the senses emerged. But Aristotle, probably assuming that the material world is itself eternal, dismissed the necessity for such out-of-this-world Universals*3. Hence, he located his Forms in material objects*4. Depending on your perspective & purpose, both of these views could be correct.

However, the Enformationism thesis accepts the current scientific model of a world with a sudden inexplicable beginning of Something from Nothing (no material things). For Gnomon's purposes that "nothing" is immaterial Potential*5 : the unactualized ability to create change. So the spooky notion of an Ideal realm of Forms (statistical possibilities) makes sense, in view of what we now know about Collapse of statistical Superposition into physical particles of stuff. :smile:

*1. Form : The Ancient Greek term θεία ουσία (theia ousia; divine essence) was translated in Latin as essentia or substantia, and hence in English as essence or substance.

*2. Energy is a form of Information :
Energy is the relationship between information regimes. That is, energy is manifested, at any level, between structures, processes and systems of information in all of its forms, and all entities in this universe is composed of information.
https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/22084/how-is-information-related-to-energy-in-physics

*3. Plato vs Aristotle Form :
Plato believed that concepts had a universal form, an ideal form, which leads to his idealistic philosophy. Aristotle believed that universal forms were not necessarily attached to each object or concept, and that each instance of an object or a concept had to be analyzed on its own.
https://www.diffen.com/difference/Aristotle_vs_Plato

*4. Hylomorphism :
Aristotle famously contends that every physical object is a compound of matter and form. This doctrine has been dubbed “hylomorphism”, a portmanteau of the Greek words for matter (hulê) and form (eidos or morphê).
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/form-matter/
Note -- Ironically, although Ari dismissed Plato's ghostly realm of Ideas, his definition of a physical object combined both Matter (hyle) and Idea (eidos). The analogy of a physical house would say that it is composed of Matter (bricks & lumber), but also that it would not exist apart from Mind (Intention & Design).

*5. Potential :
In philosophy, potential and potentiality refer to the capacity, power, ability, or chance for something to happen or occur.
https://www.gotquestions.org/actuality-potentiality.html

In my TPF posts, I am not trying to appeal to religious believers, but to philosophical reasoners. I abandoned my own religion many years ago. And I don't try to convert my still-religious siblings to my personal worldview. They may think that I'm going to Hell for my unbelief, but I don't believe in Hell, so I'm not worried about their afterlife. Most religiously-minded people have little-to-no interest in the unsentimental abstractions of Philosophy, that have no regard for people's feelings.

I'm also not trying to bring Science & Religion "under one roof". Instead, I agree with Steven Jay Gould that they are "non-overlapping magisteria". As Galileo put it : "The Bible shows the way to go to heaven, not the way the heavens go". Religion has more in common with Politics than with Science. Religion & Politics are programs to control human behavior, while Science is a method for controlling Nature. However, Gnomon may be aiming to bring Science & Philosophy back under one roof. — Gnomon

:up: Superb!

Like you've said countless times - your philosophy, despite borrowing some ideas from religion, doesn't offer salvation or succor from grief/anxiety; of course contained within it are some ideas that might just come in handy towards those ends. Nevertheless, they're secondary to the primary aim which is to generate the mother of all models, one that encompasses both philosophy and science.

Bonam fortunam (broken Latin for good luck).

Like you've said countless times - your philosophy, despite borrowing some ideas from religion, doesn't offer salvation or succor from grief/anxiety; of course contained within it are some ideas that might just come in handy towards those ends. Nevertheless, they're secondary to the primary aim which is to generate the mother of all models, one that encompasses both philosophy and science. — Agent Smith

In my reply to 's comment about "hand-waving, I noted that seems to think that my enthusiastic presentation of Enformationism is a form of evangelism for some kind of religious belief system. Until then, I had never thought of my posts on this forum as evangelistic. But now I see that there may be some truth in that put-down portrayal. First, I was raised in an evangelistic religion, but eventually lost my enthusiasm for its blind-faith biblical beliefs. Also, although I came of age in the 1960s, I was never involved in any Oriental or New Age religions*1. I did however experiment with meditation for a while, but found that rational philosophizing was more my style.

However, Enformationism is indeed a belief system, in the same sense as Materialism. For me though, it merely serves as the foundation for a Philosophical BothAnd worldview. And I do think the world would be a better place if people exchanged their ancient Spiritualism & Materialism beliefs for a more up-to-date understanding of how & why the world works as it does. So, I hope my fellow posters can forgive me for a bit of "hand-waving" from time to time. :smile:


Introduction to the BothAnd Blog :
World history has again reached a dangerous tipping-point, precariously poised over the abyss of Armageddon. However, from a historical perspective, it’s also showing some potential for a new unified worldview, and the possibility of a more orderly & peaceful future. From a philosophical point-of-view, I think the current “Mexican stand-off” in politics & religion results from a few extremists on left & right imposing their adamant Either/Or worldviews upon the more moderate masses, with the effect of almost eliminating the middle ground of peace & harmony. So, my proposed solution to the polarization problem is to adopt a moderate & inclusive Both/And attitude toward the world and its vicissitudes. In this initial blog I will define the concept of BothAnd. Then in subsequent issues, I'll discuss a variety of related topics, Some may be adapted from posts on internet forums, and some may be direct responses to comments on previous articles. Be warned : these articles are not twitter feeds, and some are very long, complex, cross-referenced, footnoted, and full of technical terminology. The ecumenical compromising attitude of these blogs will elicit angry responses from unforgiving extremist black & white hardliners, but may appeal to those of more modest & humble dispositions, who are not expecting the ultimate Truth, and will accept a few feeble attempts to get closer to mundane truths about the big questions of “God, The Universe, and Everything”.
http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page2.html

*1. Ironically, I spent a good chunk of the '60s in Vietnam, "killing the little yellow man". Just kidding. I never personally killed anybody. :joke:

Religion & Politics are programs to control human behavior, ... — Gnomon

:up:

... while Science is a method for controlling Nature.

Technology controls nature whereas science explains nature. No doubt, the latter is the force-multiplier of the former.

However, Gnomon may be aiming to bring Science & Philosophy back under one roof.

This move is a regressive turn to pre-modernism akin to (e.g.) scholasticism or neo-platonism or (late) stoicism, etc. https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/772323
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/772379

Like you've said countless times - your philosophy, despite borrowing some ideas from religion, doesn't offer salvation or succor from grief/anxiety; of course contained within it are some ideas that might just come in handy towards those ends. — Agent Smith

All religions are based on some kind of philosophical worldview. And most include a dualistic Manichean assessment of world history as a struggle between Good vs Evil. However, even a dispassionate monistic philosophy like Enformationism could be interpreted as a binary religious model. That's because Natural Evolution is described as maintaining a tenuous balance between constructive Enformy*1 and destructive Entropy*2.

My own Fundamentalist bible-based religion warned us of dueling gods. In 2 Corinthians 4:4, the "god of this world" -- Satan : opposed to the God of Heaven -- used "fake news", among other tactics, to deceive the elect, and to win them over to the Hell-bound masses. On this forum seems to interpret Entropy as the "lord of this world", who is winning the battle between Good & Evil. Despite that thermodynamic Mexican Standoff*3 though, the Christian Bible asserts that the God of Heaven is still the sovereign of the material world, even though super-power Satan is pounding us like Russia devastating the sovereign state of Ukraine.

My own interpretation of Enformed history is not based on divine revelation. Yet I remain somewhat optimistic that the self-organizing natural force of Enformy will prevail over disorganizing Entropy in the end (Omega Point). But, I don't expect to be around to celebrate that victory. So, the "salvation" of this world may not benefit me personally.

What do you think? Are we all going to Entropy Hell in a hand-basket, or are we holding-on by our fingernails like the Ukranians? Or are we enjoying the Stoic life of ups & downs without worrying about the ultimate destiny of the world? In any case, Evolution has been walking the tight-rope for 14 billion years, without falling into the Entropic Abyss of thermodynamic Armageddon. :smile:


*1. 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

*2. Entropy : lack of order or predictability; gradual decline into disorder.

*3. A Mexican standoff is a confrontation in which no strategy exists that allows any party to achieve victory.