What difference does it make if you call quantom particles, or whatever, matter or information? — praxis

How much time do you have? The full answer is in the Enformationism Thesis, if you have nothing better to do on a Sunday afternoon.

But for a short answer, I'd say that quantum particles --- the "atoms" of the 20th century --- are both physical substance and metaphysical Information; both Matter and Mind, both Science and Philosophy. both Mechanics and Meaning. It's the "difference that makes a difference" to an inquiring mind. "Vive la difference". :nerd:

Enformationism : Mass-Energy-Information equivalence is the subject of this thesis.
http://enformationism.info/enformationism.info/

For the spiritualist/materialist rift that you mention, are you suggesting that because matter is really information, that spirits can exist, and that materialists can accept the existence of spirits because they no longer distinquish between matter and information? — praxis

No. We can distinguish between invisible Matter (quarks) & invisible MInd Stuff (ideas), because they come in meaningfully different Forms. And "spirits" were simply an ancient term for causal forces and energy. What used to be called Spirits, Souls, Chi, or Prana, are simply different forms of Information. The same information that constitutes Matter and Mind, computer programs and human feelings. Isn't that weird? :joke:

What difference does it make if you call quantom particles, or whatever, matter or information?
— praxis

I'd say that quantum particles --- the "atoms" of the 20th century --- are both physical substance and metaphysical Information; both Matter and Mind, both Science and Philosophy. both Mechanics and Meaning. It's the "difference that makes a difference" to an inquiring mind. "Vive la difference". — Gnomon

Again, if something is both A and B, what difference does it make if you call it A or B?

Isn't that weird? — Gnomon

We say something is weird when we can’t explain it.

Worth repeating @Gnomon

Again, if something is both A and B, what difference does it make if you call it A or B? — praxis

:up:

Again, if something is both A and B, what difference does it make if you call it A or B? — praxis

Apparently, you missed the point of Enformationism. For the purposes of my thesis, Information is equivalent to Spinoza's "Single Substance". Generic (creative) EnFormAction is the whole, of which every thing in the world is a part. Spinoza called his universal substance "God", but he was not referring to the Yahweh or Jehovah of the Bible. Instead, his Aristotelian "substance" was more like what we now call "Nature", or metaphorically "Mother Nature". So, it definitely makes a meaningful difference if you are referring to "A" or "B" or to "the alphabet". A & B are both individual letters (with functions of their own), and components of the whole alphabet. Get it?

Please keep sniping at my thesis. I enjoy defending it against outdated conventional views. :yum:

Single Substance : "According to monistic views, there is only one substance. Stoicism and Spinoza, for example, hold monistic views, that pneuma or God, respectively, is the one substance in the world."
"Thus, in his [Aristotle] hylomorphic account of change, matter serves as a relative substratum of transformation, i.e., of changing (substantial) form." [En-Form-Action]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Substance_theory

That’s what my book is meant to be: the thing I came to philosophy looking for, but never found. And it’s targeted at people like me from 20 years ago, who are looking for the same thing I was, and who have just learned that something called “philosophy” is where something like that may be found, but don’t yet know the first thing about it. — Pfhorrest

As usual, this thread has strayed from the original topic. And I'm partly to blame, for defending some of my statements in terms of my own personal worlview.

Anyway, I just found another online article that is relevant to your own plight . . . at least, in the title. Umberto Eco’s Antilibrary: Why Unread Books Are More Valuable to Our Lives than Read Ones.
https://getpocket.com/explore/item/umberto-eco-s-antilibrary-why-unread-books-are-more-valuable-to-our-lives-than-read-ones?utm_source=pocket-newtab

My own website is technically not a book, but it is generally "unread". That's due in part to my own failings, but also to the incomprehension of those who can't grok an unconventional idea. Most people are "looking for" new ideas that fit neatly into their pre-existing worldview, rather than ideas that challenge old views. Are your ideas so far out of the mainstream that they are incomprehensible to those who "don't yet know the first thing about" philosophy? Or are they so radical that they offend those who think they know a lot about philosophy? Or are they so abstruse that they don't appeal to those who don't care anything about philosophy? In bookstores, the philosophy shelf is a fraction of the fiction shelves.

Ironically, you were expecting to find a select few readers on this forum that do understand and appreciate philosophical thinking. But many, like me, are so involved in their own little projects, that they don't have time for yours. So tell me : how does your book relate to my personal philosophical interests? In general terms, what is "the thing" you were looking for but never found? :nerd:

Grok : understand (something) intuitively or by empathy.

Are your ideas so far out of the mainstream that they are incomprehensible to those who "don't yet know the first thing about" philosophy? Or are they so radical that they offend those who think they know a lot about philosophy? Or are they so abstruse that they don't appeal to those who don't care anything about philosophy? — Gnomon

I think my views are a refined version of pre-philosophical common sense views, shored up to withstand the attacks on that common sense that bad philosophy has levied over the ages. I expect that most people have been exposed to some form of such bad philosophy, and so hold what they think are sophisticated views superior to that pre-philosophical common sense, which I aim to disabuse them of. Most of the pieces of my philosophy should be at least passingly familiar to anyone who has actually studied the subject, though.

I heard an adage once that went something like “Before walking the path to enlightenment, tables are tables and tea is tea. While walking the path to enlightenment, tables are no longer tables and tea is no longer tea. Upon reaching enlightenment, tables are again tables, and tea is again tea.”

So tell me : how does your book relate to my personal philosophical interests? In general terms, what is "the thing" you were looking for but never found? — Gnomon

Your interests seem very similar to mine, in that you are trying to forge a balanced middle path between two extremes. You call them spiritualism and materialism, I call them fideism and nihilism. I don’t think those are exactly the same things as each other, but they seem to share a common theme. Your information ontology is also very similar to mine.

The thing I never found was one comprehensive philosophy that took the good arguments from every side on every philosophical topic, eschewing the bad arguments, and put them all together in a systematic way, so it’s not just a hodgepodge of “things I like”, but a consistent complete picture where the positions on every topic are each held on the grounds of the same common principles as the positions on other topics.

Again, if something is both A and B, what difference does it make if you call it A or B?
— praxis

A & B are both individual letters (with functions of their own), and components of the whole alphabet. — Gnomon

You claim that everything is information (A). If everything is information then whatever it is that we "conventionally" call matter (B) is A (information). That being the case, it wouldn't seem to matter if we call matter Information or matter since they are the same thing.

So to me your response is that A (information) and B (matter) are components of X (unknown but more primary than information).

So I'm not sure if I should ask the same question a third time or ask what X is.

So to me your response is that A (information) and B (matter) are components of X (unknown but more primary than information).
— praxis

It seems to me that he is saying that both “matter” and “spirit” are reducible to “information”. Your B is a subset of A, not coextensive with it. C (spirit) is also a subset of A. If I understand him correctly. — Pfhorrest

He makes a distinction between "physical substance and metaphysical Information." Presumably, "spirits" are metaphysical, so your C is A, and not a subset of A.

Again, if something is both A and B, what difference does it make if you call it A or B? — praxis

"You keep asking the same question and expecting a different result". — praxis

OK, here's the same answer in a different Form : A coin has two sides : Heads or Tails. What difference does it make if you call the Tail side the Head? it's still the same coin, but if you flip it and claim it came down Heads, when it's actually Tails, you'll be accused of cheating. Although both sides belong to the same coin, there is a meaningful difference between the sides. The difference is in the distinction between Parts and Wholes. The coin is both A> Heads and B> Tails. I assume "Holism" is not in your vocabulary. :yum:

A (information) and B (matter) are components of X (unknown but more primary than information).

A (tails) and B (heads) are components of X (coin).

It appears to me you're claiming that information is a component of information. Is this the weird (inexplicable) part you keep mentioning?

He makes a distinction between "physical substance and metaphysical Information." — praxis

Yes. Information is both metaphysical mind-stuff, and physical material stuff. Information is the "Single Substance" of Spinoza's worldview. That's the novel notion that I call Enformationism. If you don't believe me, I have lots of scientific documentation in my boring "weird" thesis. :nerd:

PS__The Brain is Physical information, but the Mind is Metaphysical information. Information is that which gives meaning or useful Form to objects and subjects.

Ideas, Ideals, Principles : "Metaphysics is about things that do not change"
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/metaphysics/

Metaphysical : relating to the part of philosophy that is about understanding existence and knowledge

Metaphysical : Derived from the Greek meta ta physika ("after the things of nature"); referring to an idea, doctrine, or posited reality outside of human sense perception. In modern philosophical terminology, metaphysics refers to the studies of what cannot be reached through objective studies of material reality.
https://www.pbs.org/faithandreason/gengloss/metaph-body.html

Information : The conceptual problem here is that the idea of “information” makes sense only in the context of an observer for whom something out there, in the indiscriminate jumble of the world, counts as information. Before life exists, there cannot be any such thing as information.
https://www.theguardian.com/books/2019/jan/18/demon-in-machine-paul-davies-review

PPS__A physical quantum particle, in a state of superposition, has no physical properties, such as velocity and location. It can be described only as a mathematical formula. The superposed state is virtual, not real. A "virtual" particle is nothing but mathematical Information. It exists only in essence, in potential, not in physical presence.

Virtual : The adjective "virtual" is used to describe something that exists in essence but not in actuality.

It appears to me you're claiming that information is a component of information. Is this the weird (inexplicable) part you keep mentioning? — praxis

No. All things and ideas about things are components of (or consist of) Information : the Single Substance of the physical (material) and metaphysical (mental) world. :nerd:

So like this then:

A (metaphysical) and B (physical) are components of X (metaphysical).

And this also works:

A (metaphysical) and B (physical) are components of X (physical).

If the latter doesn't work, why doesn't it work?

If the latter doesn't work, why doesn't it work? — praxis

Because "X" is the same in both equations. Your logic is based on scientific Reductionism, while mine is based on philosophical Holism.

Science studies what Aristotle called "Physics" (Natural Philosophy). Physics is anything we can detect with our bodily senses, which are tuned to quantum inputs of Energy (bits & bytes). Metaphysics is anything we know via our mental senses, which are tuned to holistic inputs of subjective Meaning (ideas & feelings). Physics is objective, only because it's easier to compare our material sensations, than to share our subjective mental sensations. What you "feel" is a ghost, I may "sense" as merely a light reflection. The difference is what it means to you.

But ultimately, the source of all that information comes from beyond the physical space-time world that began with a bang. In my thesis, the timeless spaceless Enformer is presumed to be un-real, consisting only of Potential, the power to create actual things. This is not based on empirical evidence, but from reasoning backwards into the "pre-time" before space-time. A materialist might call this undetectable Prime Cause "The Multiverse", but I call it "G*D". Conceptually, G*D is closer to Hindu Brahman, than to Hebrew Yahweh.

I propose holistic G*D, rather than particularistic Multiverse, to serve as an unprovable Axiom upon which my Pragmatic here & now worldview is based. But, hey, it's just a theory! You don't have to believe it, unless it makes sense to you. :nerd:

Holism : the theory that parts of a whole are in intimate interconnection, such that they cannot exist independently of the whole, or cannot be understood without reference to the whole, which is thus regarded as greater than the sum of its parts. Holism is often applied to mental states, language, and ecology.

Brahman : Brahman as a metaphysical concept is the single binding unity behind diversity in all that exists in the universe
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brahman

Axiom : a statement or proposition on which an abstractly defined structure is based.

Information :
# Claude Shannon quantified Information not as useful ideas, but as a mathematical ratio between meaningful order (1) and meaningless disorder (0); between knowledge (1) and ignorance (0). So, that meaningful mind-stuff exists in the limbo-land of statistics, producing effects on reality while having no sensory physical properties. We know it exists ideally, only by detecting its effects in the real world.
# For humans, Information has the semantic quality of "aboutness", that we interpret as meaning. In computer science though, Information is treated as meaningless, which makes its mathematical value more certain. It becomes meaningful only when a sentient Self interprets it as such.
# When spelled with an “I”, Information is a noun, referring to data & things. When spelled with an “E”, Enformation is a verb, referring to energy and processes.
http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page11.html

Claude Shannon quantified Information not as useful ideas, but as a mathematical ratio between meaningful order (1) and meaningless disorder (0); between knowledge (1) and ignorance (0). So, that meaningful mind-stuff exists in the limbo-land of statistics, producing effects on reality while having no sensory physical properties. We know it exists ideally, only by detecting its effects in the real world. — Gnomon

I would say that isn’t even close to what Shannon’s work was about. Looks like you’ve had an idea and attached a famous name to it for inexplicable reasons.

If you can show otherwise then the egg is on my face - I’m fine with that.

Just looks like a very vague connection to say the least.

I would say that isn’t even close to what Shannon’s work was about. Looks like you’ve had an idea and attached a famous name to it for inexplicable reasons. — I like sushi

The quoted definition of "Information" is based on my personal worldview of Enformationism, not on any conventional scientific paradigm. But here's another opinion from a different perspective.

Shannon Information : "Roughly speaking, Shannon entropy is concerned with the statistical properties of a given system and the correlations between the states of two systems, independently of the meaning and any semantic content of those states."
http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/10911/1/What_is_Shannon_Information.pdf

Remove his name then because his paper has nothing to do with some ‘knowledge’ and ‘ignorance’ - just makes it look like pseudoscience. The way you’ve displayed it could easily be construed that you’re using ‘information’ in the manner Shannon was - which you’re clearly not (maybe use the name/s of the guys from Buenos Aires instead?)

If the latter doesn't work, why doesn't it work?
— praxis
Because "X" is the same in both equations. — Gnomon

That's not an explanation. If A can be X, then why can't B be X?

Your logic is based on scientific Reductionism, while mine is based on philosophical Holism.

Rather, you seem to favor idealism for some inexplicable (what you would call weird) reason. I guess because you think that it's somehow more holistic.

Remove his name then because his paper has nothing to do with some ‘knowledge’ and ‘ignorance’ - just makes it look like pseudoscience. — I like sushi

Obviously, you have missed the point of my thesis, which is to go beyond Shannon's limited theory of Information toward a general theory (e.g. Newton's theory of gravitation was a special case of Einstein's general theory of relativity.). It may sound New Agey to you, but it's not. Merely unfamiliar, and strange --- like Quantum Theory. Are Virtual Particles pseudoscience, just because you can't measure them?

Shannon's theory is indeed scientific and physical, while mine is philosophical and metaphysical. And it's not just me : Paul Davies is a prominent physicist and cosmologist, whose use of Information as the fundamental "stuff" of the universe is amenable to mine. Also, Howard Bloom, a certified genius and Omnologist (look it up) is also coming to the same conclusion : that everything, including Mind & Matter is essentially Information. If you don't like my version of Enformationism, check out theirs. If you don't like any such far-out notions, then just fuget-about-it. :joke:


The God Problem : Bloom’s understanding of a creative universe is based on Information Theory, but not Shannon’s meaningless 1s & 0s. According to the entropy definition of Information, “everything must tend toward chaos.” But, since the cosmos is heading in the opposite direction, the author looked for a different kind of constructive creative Information. He found it in “the act of informing”, or as I call it EnFormAction. Although Information is related to positive working Energy, there is a distinction : pure energy may be merely transmitted — throughput — while Meaning must be interpreted, relative to some perspective. Like energy, raw information is binary, either positive or negative, attractive or repulsive. Everything else is a variation on that (+ or -) duality, except for meaningful information, which ranges between the polar oppositions. It’s “relational”, and has the quality of “aboutness”. Since Meaning requires a function or application or usefulness, it also requires consciousness of relationships. Bloom says “then the amount of meaning in this cosmos is constantly increasing. Meaning defies the law of entropy.” Likewise, the “quantity” of consciousness is growing, as inter-relationships become more complex and organized.
http://bothandblog6.enformationism.info/page43.html

Omnology : https://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Omnology

Rather, you seem to favor idealism for some inexplicable (what you would call weird) reason. I guess because you think that it's somehow more holistic. — praxis

I favor Idealism for the same reason Plato did : it makes sense of human Consciousness. I favor Realism, for the same reason Aristotle did : It makes pragmatic Science possible. I favor Holism for the same reason Jan Smuts did : it gives us an elevated perspective on the world. If you prefer Parts to Wholes, that's OK. Just keep looking at the shiny stars, and ignore the mind-boggling Cosmos. :joke:

Holism : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holism

Jan Smuts : South African statesman, military leader, and philosopher.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jan_Smuts

I’m not really that interested in your ‘thesis’. I was just pointing out that it looked very much like you equated whatever your or someone else’s idea of ‘information’ was to what Shannon was doing. In the text you posted there was no well-defined line between Shannon’s ‘information’ and yours.

That was all.

I favor Idealism... I favor Realism... I favor Holism... Just keep looking at the shiny stars — Gnomon

Indeed.

I like your thesis, but personally I don't take all that much interest in the processes of physical material, because to come to a comprehensive, or theory of everything, understanding, certainly one amenable to science, is an onerous task. When physical material is little more than a tool, a substrate.

What is of more interest is the ideal(mind), and more fundamental (let's say spiritual for example) levels of reality. But trying to rendering those in a way acceptable in academia is even more of a quagmire.
Along with a susceptibility to the accusation of pseudoscience, woo, or plain idealism.

I find there is more likely to be a meshing with academia via personal spiritual development.

I favor Idealism... I favor Realism... I favor Holism... Just keep looking at the shiny stars — Gnomon
Indeed. — praxis

I just read an article in Skeptical Inquirer magazine*, that reminded me of your incredulous attitude toward my "weird" ideas. The title is The Nobel Disease : Why Intelligent Scientists Go Weird. The article describes "the tendency of many Nobel winners to embrace scientifically questionable ideas". It goes on to note, "because merely entertaining the possibility of an unsupported claim, such as the existence of extrasensory perception, does not indicate a critical thinking lapse, we focus on Nobelists who clung to one or more weird idea with considerable conviction". One of those weird ideas may well be the next Relativity or Quantum theory.

Apparently, one talent that allows creative thinking is the ability to "entertain possibilities" that others say is impossible. I'm not a candidate for the Nobel, but some of the scientists who embrace the new notion of Information, such as Cosmologist Paul Davies, may well be. Anyway, if my ideas about Idealism are weird, I'm in good company. In my thesis, I'm "merely entertaining" the possibility that the post-Shannon Information theories may explain the "hard Problem" of Consciousness, among other weird aspects of the real world. :nerd:

* Yes, I have subscribed to Skeptical Inquirer and SKEPTIC magazines for over 40 years. And I have read Michael Shermer's book, Why Smart People Believe Weird Things. So, I know a little about how to distinguish between weird ideas and innovative ideas.

Paul Davies : http://bothandblog6.enformationism.info/page6.html

From what I've skimmed of your website, a lot of the ideas you put forward are not unheard-of among philosophers and physicists, including especially the idea that information is the fundamental aspect of reality. It's definitely not in the "widely accepted and only weird to uneducated people" camp yet like QM and GR, but certainly in the "yeah maybe, that's an interesting approach" camp for people who know what they're talking about.

The only thing that seems kind of sketchy to me about your approach is the neologisms and kind of... style, and terminology... that makes it seem like this is some "crazy" new thing you came up with all by yourself -- and maybe you did a lot of it, which is fine and plausible, but it could put off a lot of people who might just dismiss this as some loony ramblings. It kind of sucks to say but I imagine if you tried to use fewer neologisms and more standard terminology, reference existing work in the same vein wherever possible, explain the things that have already been explored, and then note your own variations or additions on top of that, I think it would "sell" (figuratively speaking) a lot better.

But then, like I said, I've barely just skimmed your work, so maybe you do this more than I remember already. Those are just the thoughts I remember having: "the ideas are in the right vein, I've heard of and liked a lot of stuff like this before, but it's presented kinda sketchy".

I have read Michael Shermer's book, Why Smart People Believe Weird Things. So, I know a little about how to distinguish between weird ideas and innovative ideas. — Gnomon

And you’ve aptly put yourself in the weird rather than innovative category. Honestly though, the only thing that’s weird is the effort you put into selling “your” ideas. You’re like a used car salesmen that’s trying to sell a car that’s been cobbled together from used parts.

Frankenstein was the monster, and in his irresponsibility essentially destroyed himself, if you’re familiar with that story. Don’t be a monster, Gnomon, be a human being.

The only thing that seems kind of sketchy to me about your approach is the neologisms and kind of... style, and terminology... that makes it seem like this is some "crazy" new thing you came up with all by yourself -- and maybe you did a lot of it, which is fine and plausible, but it could put off a lot of people who might just dismiss this as some loony ramblings. It kind of sucks to say but I imagine if you tried to use fewer neologisms and more standard terminology, reference existing work in the same vein wherever possible, explain the things that have already been explored, and then note your own variations or additions on top of that, I think it would "sell" (figuratively speaking) a lot better. — Pfhorrest

If you would do more than skim the thesis, you'd discover that I do "reference existing work" in sidebars, end notes, and bibliographies. The only "new thing" I take credit for is the concept of Enformationism as an update for the outdated paradigms of "Spiritualism" and "Materialism".

The neologisms are necessary because the thesis overturns popular paradigms of Religion and Science. So it uses a lot of old concepts, "standard terminology", that take on new meanings in the Information Age. For example, "information" used to refer to mind-stuff. The kind of immaterial stuff that spies would risk their lives to bring back to Intelligence Agencies. But today, most people use the term in reference to the digital "1s & 0s" that fast-but-dumb computers process. The new trend in Information Theory is to return to the old analog information processing of human minds, and to redefine obsolete terms, such as "Soul" and "Metaphysics".

The links in my posts, which few bother to look at, are intended to show that my "crazy, looney" ideas are shared by many other scientists and philosophers. Unfortunately for me, "looney" New Agers were the first to adopt the new implications of Information and Quantum Theories, and to find their roots in ancient religions, such as Buddhism and Hinduism. The notion that Information, rather than Matter, is the fundamental substance of the world is an old idea (Plato's Forms), but it is being adopted by a growing number of modern scientists and philosophers (who are credited in numerous links and notes).

I am not bothered by the incredulity of some forum posters. Even paradigm-busting Einstein "refused to believe in the inherent unpredictability of the world. Is the subatomic world insane, or just subtle?" [ https://www.quantamagazine.org/einsteins-parable-of-quantum-insanity-20150910/ ] I take their criticisms in stride, and use them to make my thesis stronger. But, since I am neither a scientist nor a philosopher, it will always be my personal worldview. For the broader world, it will take on a variety of forms that are beyond my power to control. :cool:


Neologisms : But the primary reason for using a special label for a technical definition is so the writer can control its meaning precisely.
http://bothandblog4.enformationism.info/page6.html
http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page19.html

Enformationism Welcome Page : This informal thesis does not present any new scientific evidence, or novel philosophical analysis. It merely suggests a new perspective on an old enigma : what is reality? . . . .
I am neither a scientist, nor a philosopher, so the arguments herein carry no more authority or expertise than those of anyone else with an interest in such impractical musings. This is intended to be an open-ended thread, because it’s a relatively new and unproven concept, and because the ideas presented here are merely a superficial snapshot of what promises to be a whole new way of understanding the world : philosophically, scientifically, and religiously.

↪Gnomon
I’m not really that interested in your ‘thesis’. I was just pointing out that it looked very much like you equated whatever your or someone else’s idea of ‘information’ was to what Shannon was doing. In the text you posted there was no well-defined line between Shannon’s ‘information’ and yours. — I like sushi

Yes. My Enformationism theory may be too technical & cutting-edge for the average reader --- limited by holding an outdated scientific paradigm (e.g Classical vs Quantum Physics). The thesis repeatedly states that it is not to be "equated" with Shannon theory, but is a different kind of theory, with a different application : fuzzy-logic people instead of digital-logic machines.

I appreciate the hint that my usage of the term "Information" could be misconstrued as a perversion of Claude Shannon's theory. But I view Enformationism as an expansion of that theory. Whereas, for telephone transmissions, Shannon converted analog mental information (words) into digital robot/computer information (bits & bytes), my thesis observes that some far-sighted scientists are beginning to look more closely at the original form of Intelligence : the Natural kind. Any successful Artificial Intelligence --- quantum computers perhaps --- must adopt analog methods. Maybe Shannon is the pervert.

Whereas Shannon converted analog human ideas into two-value Boolean logic, in order to reduce it to a simple-invariable-certain form that dumb machines could process, the new era of Information theory uses multi-value Fuzzy Logic, which is more like human reasoning, and deals with degrees of uncertainty. Digital information uses either/or logic, where values are limited to 1s or 0s, nothing in between. Analog information uses all values (infinite) between 1 & 0. This is replicated in Quantum Computers, where the state of Superposition covers all possible values for a Virtual particle. In other words, there is "no well-defined line" between 1 & 0, it's a continuum. :nerd:


Shannon vs Boltzman Information : Therefore, in this article we use the concept of entropy only for macroscopic equilibrium systems, while the SMI may be used for any system.
https://www.mdpi.com/1099-4300/19/2/48/htm
SMI : Shannon Measure of Information (objective)
Macroscopic Equilibrium Systems : includes subjective human reasoning

Analog Thinking : So the next time you think about any issue or topic, pause to consider what thinking paradigm you are adopting. Can you deliberately let go thinking in categories and frameworks and focus on understanding the situation as it is? And can you in particular consider carefully the merits of opinions you don’t agree with and the opinions that come from people you dislike?
https://medium.com/@hsabnis/digital-vs-analog-thinking-6a45bd1993ed

Fuzzy Logic : a form of many-valued logic in which the truth values of variables may be any real number between 0 and 1 both inclusive.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuzzy_logic