↪Gnomon
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. — Punshhh

Having rejected the religion of my youth, I came to the Enformationism concept from the direction of Science, instead of Spirituality. However, as I learned more about the science of Information, I came to appreciate the Spiritual worldview more than before. So, I have adopted and continue to develop the harmonious personal philosophy of BothAnd.

Enformationism is indeed a Theory of Everything. And it's an "onerous task", but I'm now retired, and have made it my hobby. Dealing with Philistines is just part of the game. :razz:

Those who cringe at any hint of Metaphysics do indeed play the "woo" card, due to Materialist prejudice, and without any understanding of the worldview behind the words. BothAnd includes both Idealism and Realism, which does not compute for those with two-value black/white either/or worldviews. My "spiritual development" has nothing to do with Navel Gazing or Gurus, but more with plain-old Philosophy : "love for wisdom". :chin: :pray:


BothAnd Philosophy : 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/page2.html
http://bothandblog5.enformationism.info/page6.html

BothAnd Principle :
http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page10.html

Philistine : a person who is hostile or indifferent [ to alien ideas ], or who has no understanding of them.

Philistine : a person who is hostile or indifferent [ to alien ideas ], or who has no understanding of them. — Gnomon

Quintessential Gnomon, dishonestly bending the truth to fit his incoherent narrative and oblivious to how utterly transparent it is.

If you're here to fool people, please try harder.

I understand your preference for neologisms in order to ‘control its meaning precisely’. The amount of posts arguing over definitions and meaning of terminology on this forum seem to outweigh all other posts.

Like Whitehead’s writing, however, it is the neologisms that hobble one’s ability to relate a new worldview to their existing one. It makes the process slow and frustrating. Even with the glossary, there are so many neologisms and metaphors that you start to wonder if you’re understanding a philosophy or learning a new language.

I get that it’s a paradigm shift. You may have developed an understanding of existence beyond the limits of language, but that’s the easy part. Reducing that information down to thoughts, words and behaviour - the way we interact with the world on a daily basis - is where the real philosophy begins. And you’re trying to shortcut the process.

When I suspend my resistance to what seems like an arrogant attempt on your part to possess and control meaning, then I can see how your philosophy, mine and @Pfhorrest’s are referring to a similar worldview. Unfortunately, I cannot subscribe to your treatment of the relationship between language/knowledge and meaning - it’s as if these same ideas haven’t been understood and articulated from so many different perspectives for many thousands of years, long before you made up new words to convey your meaning.

‘Information’ is a concept that has relative meaning at different dimensional structures of relation: binary/quantum, atomic, chemical/spatial, actual/physical, value/potential and meaning/possible. Attempting to convey a distinction between potential and physical information by suggesting that it’s something other than information only complicates our attempts to understand ‘information’ in relation to shared conceptual structures. You end up encouraging a disconnect between what we already share and the new information you’re presenting, rather than demonstrating a structure by which we can understand the relation.

Metaphor, unfortunately, has no substance as a structural relation - all it does is suggest that two concepts relate, but gives no indication as to how. We’re supposed to simply trust your say so. It’s a little too close to apologetics for my liking, especially at a metaphysical level. The idea is that if I don’t intuitively get the nature of the relation, then I’m just not as intelligent or as enlightened as you are - a philistine, as it were. This is where I think your theory needs work, personally - but you seem rather attached to the ambiguity of your metaphorical ‘structures’. Perhaps it makes you feel superior, idk.

Like Whitehead’s writing, however, it is the neologisms that hobble one’s ability to relate a new worldview to their existing one. — Possibility

Why do you think that most ground-breaking philosophers are notable for being hard to understand? "Philosophy is supposed to be difficult." https://www.theguardian.com/books/booksblog/2011/feb/25/philosophy-technical-everyday-english

I'm frustrated. but not deterred, by the inability of philosophical forum posters to learn a few new words that define a novel worldview, which is merely an update and reconciliation of old incompatible views. I could understand, if the man on the street wanted me to "talk down to them" with common words and conventional meanings. Voltaire said, “If you wish to converse with me, define your terms.” That's what I'm doing : trying to converse with intelligent people in intelligent terms.

Probably a key notion of Enformationism, that people have difficulty with, is my usage of the old word "metaphysics", with a new post-quantum interpretation of Aristotle's subject matter in volume II of his Physics. In the common language, "metaphysics" refers to such immaterial things as ghosts, demons, ESP, magic, and so forth. But that's not what Aristotle was talking about. Instead, "Examples of metaphysical concepts are Being, Existence, Purpose, Universals, Property, Relation, Causality, Space, Time, Event, and many others. They are fundamental, because all other concepts and beliefs rest on them." http://getwiki.net/-Metaphysics

Each of those terms has both common and technical meanings, not just in my thesis, but in 21st century Science and Philosophy. Since Einstein, the ancient concepts of "space" & "time" have been turned inside-out (e.g. empty space is something that can be warped). So, by providing a Glossary and explanatory articles, I just want to make sure we are singing out of the same songbook.

Reducing that information down to thoughts, words and behaviour - the way we interact with the world on a daily basis - is where the real philosophy begins. And you’re trying to shortcut the process. — Possibility

Apparently, you haven't looked at the BothAnd blog. That's where I develop basic ideas of Enformationism with reference to "the way we interact with the world on a daily basis". Blog posts now number 107 articles. Does that sound like a shortcut?

an arrogant attempt on your part to possess and control meaning — Possibility

Was Immanuel Kant "arrogant" to "control the meaning" of his philosophy by defining in detail such terms as "Categorical Imperative" and "Noumenon"? https://kantphilosophy.wordpress.com/technical-terms-of-kantian-philosophy/

You end up encouraging a disconnect between what we already share and the new information you’re presenting, rather than demonstrating a structure by which we can understand the relation. — Possibility

What you don't seem to grasp is that, "encouraging a disconnect between" conventional concepts, is the opposite of what I'm trying to do. I have constructed a "structure" (in which Information is the modular building block) that relates such old worldviews as Spiritualism and Materialism to a larger context. But, in order to reconcile Spiritualist views with Materialist views, holders of those views will have to give-up their confidence that each is the Whole Truth. Instead, they are both valid, but partial worldviews. They tend to dismiss and denigrate holders of the opposite view. But I'm trying to show that they are actually complementary views.

but you seem rather attached to the ambiguity of your metaphorical ‘structures’. Perhaps it makes you feel superior, — Possibility

Kant, Hegel, & Whitehead used lots of neologisms, but didn't provide a separate glossary to remove any ambiguities. Do you think that made them feel superior? Were they simply trying to show how smart they were? I find some of the terms of your worldview (as expressed in forum posts) incomprehensible. Is that a sign that you're arrogant, and concerned only with image? Or is it because your ideas are unconventional, and require some hard thinking to make sense of a new paradigm? :cool:


BothAnd Blog : The BothAnd Blog and the Enformationism website are written for laymen who are well-read in Science, Philosophy, and Religion topics. But since they are based on an unconventional worldview, many traditional terms are used in unusual contexts, and some new terminology has been coined in order to convey their inter-connected meanings as clearly as possible. This glossary is intended to supplement the website articles and blog posts with definitions specifically tailored to the subject matter. For the most comprehensive understanding though, I recommend starting with the website, which has its own glossary and references from several years ago.

I'm frustrated. but not deterred, by the inability of philosophical forum posters to learn a few new words that define a novel worldview, which is merely an update and reconciliation of old incompatible views. I could understand, if the man on the street wanted me to "talk down to them" with common words and conventional meanings. Voltaire said, “If you wish to converse with me, define your terms.” That's what I'm doing : trying to converse with intelligent people in intelligent terms. — Gnomon

They’re not unable to learn the words - they’re unwilling to, and with good reason. There are enough words in the English language that if you can’t find a way to explain your meaning without making up new ones then you’re not trying hard enough. And this worldview is far from novel - that you’re presenting it in a novel way is clear, but you’re claiming ownership of a worldview that’s been around in various formats for millennia, and only requires a more complex structure in relation to modern knowledge. My argument is that you’re not acknowledging the historical progress made by so many others across religion, philosophy and science to reach this level of understanding, and that you’re not providing a clear enough structure.

Voltaire wasn’t talking about making up new words, by the way - he was talking about clarifying your position, in relation to his, regarding the meaning of existing concepts. It’s uncharitable to then declare your terms to be ‘intelligent’ and any alternative definition of existing terms as ‘common’. That’s not going to endear your argument to anyone.

Apparently, you haven't looked at the BothAnd blog. That's where I develop basic ideas of Enformationism with reference to "the way we interact with the world on a daily basis". Blog posts now number 107 articles. Does that sound like a shortcut? — Gnomon

I have looked at your blog on a number of occasions, which always requires one to delve into your website and glossary. The shortcut I’m referring to has nothing to do with volume. It has to do with the way you associate the metaphysical elements of your theory, using metaphor and neologisms instead of structural relations. ‘Information’ as a building block does not constitute a structural relation - it’s a concept that basically means ‘building block’, and says nothing about how it fits together at a metaphysical level, without an established structural relation like ‘space’ or ‘time’.

Was Immanuel Kant "arrogant" to "control the meaning" of his philosophy by defining in detail such terms as "Categorical Imperative" and "Noumenon"? — Gnomon

I’m not in a position to suggest changes to Kant’s methodology, but these are not new words, as such. Noumenon, for instance, is a common Greek word meaning ‘something conceived’. He wasn’t writing for an Internet forum or a blog but for academia, so he could afford to arrogantly assume at the time that everyone knew what he meant. Whitehead, on the other hand, was arrogant enough to make up his own words, and his philosophy suffered for it. You are not in any similar position.

What you don't seem to grasp is that, "encouraging a disconnect between" conventional concepts, is the opposite of what I'm trying to do. I have constructed a "structure" (in which Information is the modular building block) that relates such old worldviews as Spiritualism and Materialism to a larger context. But, in order to reconcile Spiritualist views with Materialist views, holders of those views will have to give-up their confidence that each is the Whole Truth. Instead, they are both valid, but partial worldviews. They tend to dismiss and denigrate holders of the opposite view. But I'm trying to show that they are actually complementary views. — Gnomon

Don’t get me wrong, I understand where you’re coming from, I agree in principle with the concept of Both/And, and I support your efforts. But the glaring hole in your philosophy can be found in how you reconcile Spiritualism with Materialism. ‘Information’ makes sense to me, but it’s not enough. You’re not going to get anyone to give up their confidence simply because you declare that ‘EnFormAction’ - as a metaphysical form of energy/information - is the key. You’re effectively expecting them to abandon their position in favour of confidence in YOU. It ain’t gonna happen.

I find some of the terms of your worldview (as expressed in forum posts) incomprehensible. Is that a sign that you're arrogant, and concerned only with image? Or is it because your ideas are unconventional, and require some hard thinking to make sense of a new paradigm? — Gnomon

The difference between your use of terms and mine is that I claim no novelty or ownership of this particular worldview, let alone definitions of terminology. I recognise that many of the terms I use are applied unconventionally, but when readers question my usage, I don’t quote from my own glossary to support my argument. And my focus is on making the paradigm shift accessible to current thinking, not gaining followers to my guru-ness.

but you’re claiming ownership of a worldview that’s been around in various formats for millennia, and only requires a more complex structure in relation to modern knowledge. My argument is that you’re not acknowledging the historical progress — Possibility

Obviously, you haven't read the thesis or the blog. The only thing I claim "ownership" of is the Enformationism concept : that Information is the "single substance" of the world (props to Spinoza). My website and blog are full of references and links to historically significant philosophical ideas. Here's a few that I specifically find historical precedence in : Platonic Idealism, Aristotelian Realism, Stoicism, Panpsychism, Hegelian Dialectic, Deism, Secular Humanism, Holism, Hindu Philosophy, Systems Theory, Information Theory, and many others. The website and blog are full of links that "acknowledge" my debt to the history of philosophy and science.

Do you claim "ownership" of your own novel philosophical concepts, or do you give the information away for free? The latter is what I'm doing on this forum, and other venues. I'm hardly evangelical, but I sincerely believe that some form of Information-based worldview will eventually take its place among historically significant philosophies and scientific paradigms. What you and others interpret as "arrogance" is merely persistence in pursuing the construction of my own personal philosophy. If I sound confident, that's not characteristic of me as a timid introvert. But, since my thesis is essentially a Theory of Everything, It allows me to give a well-supported answer to skeptics on almost any topic.

But the glaring hole in your philosophy can be found in how you reconcile Spiritualism with Materialism — Possibility

Again, you haven't read the thesis that you are critiquing. So, you are skewering a straw man. There may be holes in the thesis, but I am still in the process of filling them, in part by getting critiques on this forum. See if the link below will fill your "hole" with understanding of how those conflicting worldviews can be reconciled, via the concept of Monism/Holism, as opposed to the dualistic view of Descartes. See the Materialism link below, for my consilience between those antagonistic old domains.

You seem to be responding to the very narrowly focused posts on this forum. I have repeatedly provided links to my own reasoning, and that of other philosophers & scientists. Ironically there seem to be more scientists than philosophers thinking along the same lines of the ubiquity of Information. Enformationism is not a typical academic thesis paper, written on an obscure arcane topic. It is, instead, a scientific & philosophical & religious Theory of Everything. History will decide which new paradigm will replace the ancient notions of Materialism (atoms & void) and Spiritualsm (body & soul), which were, in their day, theories of everything.

I claim no novelty or ownership of this particular worldview, let alone definitions of terminology. — Possibility

Is that because there is nothing "novel" in your worldview? Are you just parroting famous philosophers, instead of pioneering a new perspective on the world? A glossary might help to get your ideas across to a wider audience, as long as they can see some validity in an idea they don't yet understand. I'm sure you know that truly novel ideas are typically rejected by holders of an older paradigm. Check-out the "Rejected" link below.

And my focus is on making the paradigm shift accessible to current thinking, not gaining followers to my guru-ness. — Possibility

"Paradigm Shift" : sounds similar to my own thesis. Does your multi-dimensional paradigm have a formal name and a core concept, or is it just a motley collection of loosely-related ideas? Have your "accessible" ideas been well received by holders of an older paradigm? I still don't fully understand your Dimensional theory, but I think it could be generally compatible to my Information theory.
“…First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident.”

Ha! I am a guru for a cult of one. I have no followers. One poster on an extinct forum, asked my permission to use the label "Enformationist" to describe her personal worldview. I said, "sure", but her interpretation was closer to New Age philosophy than mine. Anyway, she is not an acolyte of any guru. :halo:

Quote from another thread : "I was taking the opportunity to illustrate the dimensional awareness that forms the basis of my theory. Gratuitous, I know" : ___Possibility.
I think I asked for a definition of "Dimensional Awareness". But the answer was still vague to me. Perhaps a glossary of unconventional terms would made your proposed paradigm more accessible to "current thinking". :cool:

Materialism versus Spiritualism : http://bothandblog4.enformationism.info/page14.html

6 World-Changing Ideas That Were Originally Rejected :
https://www.lifehack.org/articles/lifestyle/6-world-changing-ideas-that-were-originally-rejected.html

Don’t get me wrong, I understand where you’re coming from, I agree in principle with the concept of Both/And, and I support your efforts. — Possibility

We seem to have similar Post-Materialism worldviews, but coming from different directions, and with different terminology. I'm still interested in seeing how they agree and how they disagree. But as I said before, I need some kind of "hook" (something meaningful to me) in order to relate to your rather esoteric notion of "Dimensional Awareness". What difference do those "higher dimensions" make for my life? Are they the abode of gods, demons, angels, or simply "The Force", who directly intervene in reality, to provide blessings & curses? I have no personal experience with "higher dimensions" beyond Einstein's fundamental four. But because we entertain the possibility of Mental Reality, I suspect that Praxis would lump your worldview and mine into the anti-science category of New Age mumbo-jumbo. So, I understand his animosity toward such superstitious non-sense.

This link says that, "Cross-Dimensional Awareness is an ability that senses and can often travel between parallel universes (alternate universes) or other planes of existence". That sounds like the New Age notion of the Astral Planes, which is completely ignored by the Enformationism thesis. It also seems popular with video gamers, as fodder for their imagination. But I have no personal experience with either the multiple dimensions String Theory, or the Higher Planes of mystical religions. How do you become aware of those Parallel Universes : by meditation, drugs, gnostic revelation? Even string theorists admit that their 10 or 11 dimensions may exist only as mathematical abstractions, that humans have no direct experience of, and have no empirical evidence. So, they are accused of Mysticism, by more pragmatic scientists.
https://evolutionactivated.fandom.com/wiki/Cross_Dimensional_Awareness

‘Information’ as a building block does not constitute a structural relation - it’s a concept that basically means ‘building block’, and says nothing about how it fits together at a metaphysical level, without an established structural relation like ‘space’ or ‘time’. — Possibility

It's true that Isolated bits of Information are meaningless. It's the links between entities that provide the structure of meaning.Those invisible imaginary links are the true structure of reality.

It has to do with the way you associate the metaphysical elements of your theory, using metaphor and neologisms instead of structural relations. — Possibility

Not so! The immaterial structural relations of Information are of the essence in the thesis. When we talk about anything immaterial (no physical properties), we can only discuss then in terms of metaphors drawn from out experience with the physical world. Is your "cross-dimensional awareness" discussable in conventional materialistic language, or do you have to resort to as-if metaphors & analogies & neologisms, such as "gyrokinesis"? https://evolutionactivated.fandom.com/wiki/Gyrokinesis

It’s uncharitable to then declare your terms to be ‘intelligent’ and any alternative definition of existing terms as ‘common’. That’s not going to endear your argument to anyone. — Possibility

FYI, I have never said or implied that superior attitude in any of my writings. So the accusation says more about you, than about me. But, enough about me. :cool:




Structure of Reality : The best guess I've come across is that Consciousness is not just a “spandrel” in evolution, but a fundamental element of the structure of reality.
http://bothandblog.enformationism.info/page65.html

Raymond Tallis : "there's nothing in the material world that, like a thought, has a subject attached to a predicate . . . self-reference . . . aboutness . . . Where there are classes, there is generality, there is possibility, and where there is possibility, entities or states of affaris may or may not exist can be proposed." Philosophy Now #137.

There may be holes in the thesis, but I am still in the process of filling them, in part by getting critiques on this forum. See if the link below will fill your "hole" with understanding of how those conflicting worldviews can be reconciled, via the concept of Monism/Holism, as opposed to the dualistic view of Descartes. See the Materialism link below, for my consilience between those antagonistic old domains.

You seem to be responding to the very narrowly focused posts on this forum. I have repeatedly provided links to my own reasoning, and that of other philosophers & scientists. Ironically there seem to be more scientists than philosophers thinking along the same lines of the ubiquity of Information. i]Enformationism[/i] is not a typical academic thesis paper, written on an obscure arcane topic. It is, instead, a scientific and philosophical and religious Theory of Everything. History will decide which new paradigm will replace the ancient notions of Materialism (atoms & void) and Spiritualsm (body & soul), which were, in their day, theories of everything. — Gnomon

You’re right - I have responded here primarily to your attitude towards posters on this forum. But I have also said that I agree with much of what I’ve read of your work, and I stand by my comments. I’m not expecting a typical academic thesis paper (I’m unlikely to read it). You’ve directed your blog at the lay reader, which I think is actually a better fit for those on this forum. I recognise and support your efforts to formulate a ToE, and I was under the impression I was offering constructive criticism. I could be mistaken - I’m not accustomed to doing so. I may come across more forceful in challenging your work because I agree with your position, and think I see where it can go from here. Try not to to see it as an attack.

I enjoyed reading Blogs 76-77. My view seems to have many similarities to Deacon - and I’m particularly interested in the main differences you’ve pointed out between his work and yours. I will need to read up on his work and get back to you. You mentioned in 74 the need to come up with a “modern metaphor that explains both matter/energy and life/mind”, which your theory presents as information/enformation. I’m already there with you at the metaphorical level, but my point continues to be that metaphor is only a suggestion of structure. It isn’t structure. You seem to still be trying to convince readers to abandon their strictly materialist/spiritualist views, but offer little substance in your thesis for those of us who already have, and nothing convincing for those who haven’t.

I’m done trying to reassure you that I agree with your position. The main issues that I think @praxis might have with your theory (and I don’t want to assume here, only attempt to translate into something less personal) may have to do with the gap in your explanation at this level, which I’m afraid isn’t convincingly ‘filled’ for me, even by Blog 74. You’re suggesting how these views could be reconciled (and I agree with your belief that they are indeed reconcilable), but for anyone looking to be convinced, you’re giving them nothing except ‘look at all these puzzle pieces, isn’t it obvious?’. And by the same token, you’re giving me little to hang my hat on but metaphor.

So I can’t really defend your theory at this level, only because I’m finding little there to defend. That’s not to say you’re wrong - there’s just not enough meat where I’m looking for answers. I will need to take a closer look at your thesis, but what I think you may be presenting at this stage is more of a belief system than a ToE. It’s one I agree with on principle, but I’m past the point of needing someone else to provide a belief system for me - I’m working towards a conceptual structure that is ultimately testable.

This link says that, "Cross-Dimensional Awareness is an ability that senses and can often travel between parallel universes (alternate universes) or other planes of existence". That sounds like the New Age notion of the Astral Planes, which is completely ignored by the Enformationism thesis. It also seems popular with video gamers, as fodder for their imagination. But I have no personal experience with either the multiple dimensions String Theory, or the Higher Planes of mystical religions. How do you become aware of those Parallel Universes : by meditation, drugs, gnostic revelation? Even string theorists admit that their 10 or 11 dimensions may exist only as mathematical abstractions, that humans have no direct experience of, and have no empirical evidence. So, they are accused of Mysticism, by more pragmatic scientists.
https://evolutionactivated.fandom.com/wiki/Cross_Dimensional_Awareness — Gnomon

Strawman. Dimensional aspects of reality are not necessarily spatial - any New Age mumbo-jumbo about astral planes or parallel universes has nothing to do with my theory. My reference to dimensions has to do with structural relations, and merely explains and extends our existing dimensional structure using the mental (potential) rather than strictly physical nature of information (quanta and qualia) as ‘building blocks’. It then takes this structure a step further to propose an underlying creative impetus of pure relation/possibility - inclusive of existence and what Deacon refers to as ‘absential’ phenomenon - as the dynamic foundation of reality.

You seem to still be trying to convince readers to abandon their strictly materialist/spiritualist views, but offer little substance in your thesis for those of us who already have, and nothing convincing for those who haven’t. — Possibility

The "substance" I'm offering is universal Information/EnFormAction, which is the single substance of the world, and the "structure" of everything in it.

metaphor is only a suggestion of structure. It isn’t structure — Possibility

I'm afraid I don't know what kind of "structure" you are looking for : something material & physical instead of mental & metaphysical? Please give me an example of a structural definition of the metaphors of "quantum fields" and "information fields". Actually, there are no things in the field, only structural relationships.

Quantum Field :
In theoretical Physics, a quantum field is a metaphorical mathematical "structure", not an actual place, to allow scientists to understand ghostly things they can't see. The field is imaginary and has no physical material, but only Virtual particles that have the potential to become real. In the Enformationism theory, the state that preceded the Big Bang is imagined as an Enfernal quantum field, with potential Platonic Forms from which actual material things could be created.
http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page17.html

I’m working towards a conceptual structure that is ultimately testable. — Possibility

Is your theory testable physically, like Special Relativity via observations of physical objects, or mathematically, .like String Theory via computer simulations? Every aspect of Enformationism theory is scientifically testable, except the ultimate Axiom, which must be accepted as a given.

but what I think you may be presenting at this stage is more of a belief system than a ToE. — Possibility

A Theory of Everything is a belief system. :cool:

String Theory Testable? : https://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/?p=533

I haven’t read anything about his theory, being the filthy philistine that I am. It’s curious that he claims to have resolved the rift between idealism and materialism and yet says himself “I favor Idealism.” — praxis

. . . . followed immediately by "I favor Realism". Obviously, a holistic BothAnd attitude toward the world does not compute for an Either/Or "philistine". But it's how the BothAnd principle works.

Note : my use of the term "philistine" in a previous post was generic, and not directed at anyone in particular. But, if the shoe fits . . . . :joke:

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

. . . . followed immediately by "I favor Realism" — Gnomon

You equate realism with materialism?

While waiting for tech support, I followed your link to the elaborately elucidated B/A principle. In one part it says,"Ultimate or absolute reality (ideality) doesn't change, but your conception of reality does." Can you explain what you mean by that?

In one part it says,"Ultimate or absolute reality (ideality) doesn't change, but your conception of reality does." Can you explain what you mean by that? — praxis

The blog Glossary has a definition of "Ideality", that gives an overview of the concept. But it's really more extensive than that summary. Basically, I agree with Plato that the ultimate "reality" is a state of infinite potential that he called "Forms", which are the mental recipes or designs for material things. But I also agree with Aristotle when "he stated that reality does not make sense or exist until the mind process it. Therefore truth is dependent upon a person's mind and external factors". https://www.bartleby.com/essay/Aristotle-and-Platos-Views-on-Reality-PK7GFXYTJ

So the Enformationism thesis is an attempt to reconcile the ideal "reality" of eternal Forms with real world space-time "appearances". Donald Hoffman's recent book, The Case Against Reality, may give you one perspective on the relationship between physical Reality and metaphysical Ideality. There's nothing supernatural about mundane Metaphysics. It's merely the realm of ideas and meanings that emerged when Life & Mind emerged from physical evolution. The Forms are timeless and unchanging, but our perceptions of them differ for each perceiver. Metaphysical beauty is in the mind of the beholder, but the ideal Form of beauty is like a mathematical constant.

I'm sure this brief "explanation" will sound like non-sense, if you don't accept the philosophical validity of Platonic Idealism, as the general case for specific instances of Aristotelian Realism. :nerd:

Window to Reality : http://bothandblog6.enformationism.info/page21.html

Meta-physics : Physics refers to the things we perceive with the eye of the body. Meta-physics refers to the things we conceive with the eye of the mind. Meta-physics includes the properties, and qualities, and functions that make a thing what it is. Matter is just the clay from which a thing is made. Meta-physics is the design (form, purpose); physics is the product (shape, action). The act of creation brings an ideal design into actual existence. The design concept is the “formal” cause of the thing designed.
http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page14.html

The Forms are timeless and unchanging, but our perceptions of them differ for each perceiver. — Gnomon

So you believe that, for instance, people differ in their perception of a geometric circle, or rather in their concept of a circle? Also, do you believe that perfect circle's exit in "real world space-time" or do ideal forms only exist in the "realm of ideas"?

If you could try to clarify these points I may be able to compare our understandings.

So you believe that, for instance, people differ in their perception of a geometric circle, or rather in their concept of a circle? Also, do you believe that perfect circle's exit in "real world space-time" or do ideal forms only exist in the "realm of ideas"? — praxis

A "perfect circle" is a metaphysical mathematical definition (an idea), not a physical thing. FWIW, I don't believe that a physically perfect teapot is orbiting the sun in a perfectly circular path.

I don't really give much thought to such questions. And I am not a disciple of Plato. I just refer to his notion of "Ideals", as a way to illustrate the difference between physical (matter) and metaphysical (mind) forms of generic Information. My concern in the Enformationism thesis is to understand the Real space-time world.

Except for the ideas in my own mind, I know nothing about Ideal Forms. Metaphysics is the realm of subjective concepts, which are invisible & intangible, but meaningful --- ideas make "sense" to the sixth sense of Reason. A perfect circle can only be proven to exist, in the metaphysical realm of ideas, by definition. Do you believe in ideas? :cool:


Russell's Teapot : He wrote that if he were to assert, without offering proof, that a teapot, too small to be seen by telescopes, orbits the Sun somewhere in space between the Earth and Mars, he could not expect anyone to believe him solely because his assertion could not be proven wrong.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell%27s_teapot

Meta-Physics : http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page14.html

Proof by Definition : https://explainingmaths.wordpress.com/2009/10/27/proof-by-definition/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathematical_proof

I don't really give much thought to such questions. — Gnomon

Then let's think it through together, shall we? :smile: :chin:

You've made what I think are two significant postulations, which are:

• Forms are timeless and unchanging
• Forms can only be proven to exist in the metaphysical realm

If forms are unchanging then there can't be 'ideal' forms, because all forms would necessarily be unchanging. For instance, if a 'metaphysical circle' is an 'ideal' form then what is a metaphysical circle with a slight difference of some kind? It cannot be that the ideal form changed to become unideal. They would simply be two different unchanging forms and therefore neither of them could be considered an ideal form. This would extend to all forms, of course, which is nonsensical because if forms are unchanging and eternal there would really be just one eternal unchanging form. An unchanging thing cannot exist in a realm where things change, to put it simply.

A> If forms are unchanging then there can't be 'ideal' forms, . . . B> An unchanging thing cannot exist in a realm where things change, to put it simply. — praxis

Apparently, you have mixed-up some of Plato's theory with Aristotle's theory of Forms. For Plato, the Forms "exist" abstractly in a non-physical timeless changeless state called Eternity. But for Aristotle, the Forms exist concretely only in physical things in the realm of space-time. The latter definition is what I would call "embodied Information", which is similar to immaterial potential Energy that has transformed into actual physical lumps of Matter.

In my thesis, the Potential for all possible Forms exists in what I like to call Enfernity (eternity & infinity). I coined that neologism because Enfernity is not two different things but a single state of BEING, with unlimited potential for all possibilities. There are no actual things in Enfernity, but only the un-manifest potential for things & beings.

So, the "Ideal" Forms in statement A> above are not things that change. and the real things in statement B> are not ideal forms, but actualized instances of infinite potential. To put it simply, A> is not B>. :nerd:

Plato's Forms : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_forms

Aristotle's Forms : https://www.britannica.com/story/plato-and-aristotle-how-do-they-differ

A.N. Whitehead's Actual Occasions : what I call "instances" above
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Process_and_Reality

Potential :
1. possible, as opposed to actual:
2. capable of being or becoming:

Eternity :
1. a state to which time has no application; timelessness.

Potential :
Unrealized or unmanifest creative power. For example, the Voltage of an electric battery is its potential for future current flow measured in Amps. Potential is inert until actualized by some trigger. In the Enformationism metaphor, the real world was originally an idea in the Mind of G*D, with the infinite possibilities of Omniscience, that was realized by an act of Will.
http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page16.html

Note : For theoretical purposes, "G*D" is a metaphor to illustrate how unchanging timelessness could convert unreal Potential into real Things. You don't have to take it literally. In any case, it's the G*D of Philosophers, not of Priests.

God of Philosophers : The God of the philosophers, Pascal remarked, is not the God of Abraham and Isaac
https://maritain.nd.edu/jmc/etext/AAP04.htm

I got interested in philosophy because I had broad academic interests in lots of topics and kept looking for more and more fundamental cores of those collections of interests, and that lead me eventually to physics on the one hand and something like economics or political science on the other hand, and then into basically metaphysics and ethics beneath each of those, so when I eventually found philosophy that seemed like it, the core field with connections to all the other fields. — Pfhorrest

Except for the interest in Economics & Political Science, this sounds very similar to my own path into philosophy. As a child, my family was only interested in Bible knowledge and Practical education. So we didn't discuss broad academic topics. It's only since I was retired by the Great Recession, that I have had time to devote to the impractical notions of general Philosophy. And I am a generalist by nature, so I don't often get bogged-down in narrowly specialized topics --- except of course for those that apply to my own metaphysical hobby.

For selfish reasons, I could be enticed to read some of your work, if I could see where it might fit into my personal interests, or where it might apply to my personal worldview of Enformationism, or to my personal philosophy of BothAnd. I have some superficial knowledge of Economics and Political Science, but have never delved deeply into those areas of philosophy. Unfortunately, I find that most academic philosophical writing is too abstract & abstruse for my casual pragmatic interest. Can you dumb-down your philosophy to my philistine level? :brow:

The economic and political science interests are what lead me to ethics and political philosophy etc. Does your system have an account of that prescriptive side of things, morality and justice, or is it all about reality and knowledge?

Apparently, you have mixed-up some of Plato's theory with Aristotle's theory of Forms. — Gnomon

No, I've leapfrogged Plato, Aristotle, and Enformation, to realize the true nature of reality. I hereby introduce the new paradigm, coining it: Unifilm.



Unifilm unites all of reality and dissolves all dualities. Physical and metaphysical forms are one and the same, and all are unchanging and eternal. In your ignorance, you might ask why things appear to change. They don't! Consciousness creates the illusion of change by percieving the unchanging forms in sequence, like the illusion of motion created in viewing a film strip.

Cinema [reality :wink: ] is a matter of what's in the frame and what's out. — Martin Scorsese

Of course, this means that everything is predetermined and there's no free will. Still, kinda cool though, right?!

Uni: combining form.

Film: a thin flexible strip of plastic or other material coated with light-sensitive emulsion for exposure in a camera, used to produce photographs or motion pictures.

Martin Scorsese: Italian-American film director, screenwriter, producer, and actor, whose career spans more than 50 years.

Does your system have an account of that prescriptive side of things — Pfhorrest

The "prescriptive side" of my philosophy is left to each individual to work out in their own local context. All I do is describe the BothAnd principle of Complementarity. Philosophers have written thousands of erudite words on ethics. But it's all summed-up in the Golden Rule. I am not qualified to "prescribe" morality for anyone but myself. :smile:

That sounds like something you might like to peruse my philosophy for then. From what I’ve read our takes on reality and knowledge are very similar, and my take on morality and justice is modeled analogously off my take on reality and knowledge, so you might find some food for thought on developing that half of your own philosophy in there.

I'm afraid I don't know what kind of "structure" you are looking for : something material & physical instead of mental & metaphysical? Please give me an example of a structural definition of the metaphors of "quantum fields" and "information fields". Actually, there are no things in the field, only structural relationships. — Gnomon

‘Quantum field’ is a structural metaphor, but the analogy on which it is based is backed by complex mathematical formulas which demonstrate the relational structure’s resemblance to an endless, oscillating field. The metaphor isn’t to enable scientists to understand the virtual particles themselves, but rather the structural relation of the ‘field’ analogy. The virtual particles are quanta of information, differentiated from each other across a dimensional ‘field’ of mathematical value. If you understood what the analogy refers to, then you’d also understand why it’s unnecessary to imagine your own ‘Enfernal quantum field with Platonic forms’ to describe the creation of the Big Bang. The structural relation is already there in the physics - ‘quantum fields’ refer to field-like structures of potential information as quanta. You only need to reconstruct the established analogy, and then show that what’s particularly missing from the physics here is an understanding (or even recognition) of qualia. That’s the challenging bit.

Metaphors deny distinctions between things: problems often arise from taking structural metaphors too literally. Because unexamined metaphors lead us to assume the identity of unidentical things, conflicts arise which can only be resolved by understanding the metaphor (which requires its recognition as such), which means reconstructing the analogy on which it is based. Teachers will often cease to use terms metaphorically, or be conscious of the distinction when their concept is an expanded one, but this will not mirror the situation in most of their students’ minds. — David Pimm, ‘Metaphor and Analogy in Mathematics’

the relational structure’s resemblance to an endless, oscillating field . . . . then show that what’s particularly missing from the physics here is an understanding (or even recognition) of qualia. — Possibility

That sounds similar to the way I conceive of Energy (EnFormAction), which is the potential for creating and destroying structure. For example, physicists metaphorize light energy as a spray of photons, like a machine gun. Yet, the Light we see is just a fraction of the whole spectrum of energy throughout the universe. Universal Energy is, not a material thing, but a metaphysical oscillation between max & minimum potential. Expressed in 1s and 0s, it's a creation code. That concept is hard to describe & to grasp, and is far outside my field of competence. But it's a consequence of my metaphorical understanding of what Energy and Information actually consist of : mathematical (mental) relationships.

Anyway, I imagine Energy as an alternation between Enfernity (unbounded potential -- infinite possibilities), and Nothingness (zero potential). In the graph below, positive creative potential is at the peak of the wave, and negative destructive potential is at the trough of the wave. But the neutral baseline down the center is Zero potential. As the wave oscillates, it creates space, and as it advances from peak to peak, it creates time. Thus, plenipotential metaphysical Energy (creative potential) constructs the physical space-time reality that we experience via our senses.

Ironically, the potential (power) of Energy consists of Information in the form of mathematical ratios (1/0; 1 : 2; this compared to that). "Relational structures" that can be expressed as percentages of the Whole. The best book on this topic, that I'm familiar with, is Into the Cool : Energy Flow, Thermodynamics, and Life, by Eric Schneider and Dorian Sagan. But I'm not interested so much in the physics of Energy, as in the Metaphysics : the Qualia. Even there I'm dabbling in ideas that are above my pay grade. And my understanding is still incomplete. But it gives some meaningful foundational structure to my Enformationism worldview. :nerd:

Potential : the relationship (ratio) between what-is, and what-could-be; Actual and Possible.

Into the Cool : https://www.amazon.com/Into-Cool-Energy-Flow-Thermodynamics/dp/0226739376

That sounds similar to the way I conceive of Energy (EnFormAction), which is the potential for creating and destroying structure. For example, physicists metaphorize light energy as a spray of photons, like a machine gun. Yet, the Light we see is just a fraction of the whole spectrum of energy throughout the universe. Universal Energy is, not a material thing, but a metaphysical oscillation between max & minimum potential. Expressed in 1s and 0s, it's a creation code. That concept is hard to describe & to grasp, and is far outside my field of competence. But it's a consequence of my metaphorical understanding of what Energy and Information actually consist of : mathematical (mental) relationships.

Anyway, I imagine Energy as an alternation between Enfernity (unbounded potential -- infinite possibilities), and Nothingness (zero potential). In the graph below, positive creative potential is at the peak of the wave, and negative destructive potential is at the trough of the wave. But the neutral baseline down the center is Zero potential. As the wave oscillates, it creates space, and as it advances from peak to peak, it creates time. Thus, plenipotential metaphysical Energy (creative potential) constructs the physical space-time reality that we experience via our senses.

Ironically, the potential (power) of Energy consists of Information in the form of mathematical ratios (1/0; 1 : 2; this compared to that). "Relational structures" that can be expressed as percentages of the Whole. The best book on this topic, that I'm familiar with, is Into the Cool : Energy Flow, Thermodynamics, and Life, by Eric Schneider and Dorian Sagan. But I'm not interested so much in the physics of Energy, as in the Metaphysics : the Qualia. Even there I'm dabbling in ideas that are above my pay grade. And my understanding is still incomplete. But it gives some meaningful foundational structure to my Enformationism worldview. :nerd: — Gnomon

You seem to be using metaphors from these theories to bolster your own, without any deeper understanding of how the analogies are applied. This seems to be the case not just in relation to the oscillating wave and potentiality, but also in relation to the ideality and embodiment of Forms. I agree that these theories DO relate to your own, but I think you’ve fallen short of plausible explanations as to how they relate. To be taken seriously in your reference to these theories, I think you need to be able to deconstruct the many metaphors we use to understand what each of these relational structures are like in order to more clearly conceptualise how they fit together. This is particularly important with quantum mechanics because the analogies are mathematically applied, isolating the relational structure from its context in reality.

For instance, the oscillating wave is itself a metaphor, describing the relational structure of potentiality as analogous to a wave of light/energy, but they’re referring to different dimensional structures. The potentiality ‘waves’ of quantum fields don’t peak and trough over time - there is no distinction of ‘time’ at the quantum level. Rather, they peak and trough (in a three-dimensional, non-spatio-temporal sense) across whatever abstract value the particular field refers to. It is the relation between these various mathematical fields that manifest the two-dimensional oscillation of energy/light over time to which the diagram refers.

Take a look at Carlo Rovelli’s ‘The Order of Time’ for an example of multi-dimensional deconstruction of relations between time and quantum mechanics; and Lisa Feldman Barrett’s ‘How Emotions Are Made’ for a theory that describes the relational structure between ideal and embodied forms in relation to neuroscience, particularly with reference to qualia. They’re both written for lay readers, and I think will help to add meat to your theory.

You seem to be using metaphors from these theories to bolster your own, without any deeper understanding of how the analogies are applied. . . . To be taken seriously in your reference to these theories, I think you need to be able to deconstruct the many metaphors we use to understand what each of these relational structures are like in order to more clearly conceptualise how they fit together. — Possibility

Sorry, I'm neither a string theorist, nor a mathematician, nor an academic philosopher --- nor an esoteric Theosophist. So deconstructing, or meta-analysing, exotic metaphors is not my thing. I'm not motivated to seek a "deeper understanding" of invisible un-imaginable dimensions of hyperspace or astral planes. I guess I'll have to stick to mundane metaphors that I actually know something about, and that relate to the real sensible world.

I did read Carlo Rovelli's book, but just skimmed over any references to dimensions that are meaningless to me. I'm also familiar with Rob Bryanton's Imagining the Tenth Dimension website and book. But it's all Greek to me. I'm still waiting for you to dumb it down for me. Is that something you can do? Or are you content to just belittle my intelligence? :cool:

Sorry, I'm neither a string theorist, nor a mathematician, nor an academic philosopher --- nor an esoteric Theosophist. So deconstructing, or meta-analysing, exotic metaphors is not my thing. I'm not motivated to seek a "deeper understanding" of invisible un-imaginable dimensions of hyperspace or astral planes. I guess I'll have to stick to mundane metaphors that I actually know something about, and that relate to the real sensible world. — Gnomon

Neither am I, so no need to apologise. But your resistance to even attempting to understand how your belief system relates to quantum potentiality is coming across as blatant ignorance and exclusion, NOT a lack of intelligence. You make no reference to any explanations I’ve offered, except to throw up strawmen such as ‘hyperspace or astral planes’ and get defensive about my perception of your intelligence, as if I’m trying to attack it. All this does is confirm your arrogance. If your aim is to stick to metaphors you know something about, and you’re not willing to increase your knowledge, then you might want to leave quantum physics alone - but I think that will seriously hamper your attempts at a ToE.

If you don’t understand what I’ve written, that’s probably my fault - I encourage you to make an attempt and then point out where you’re not following, and I’ll try to explain where I’m coming from. I’m honestly not trying to prove myself more intelligent, because I’m pretty sure that I have neither the experience nor the education to do so. I perceive the world differently to most people that I’ve met, and I’ve spent years trying to make sense of that distinction. My advantage is that my husband is a specialist math teacher, who can patiently explain the mathematical part of quantum physics to me when I get stuck (which is often). I don’t always do his explanations or my understanding of it justice here, which is my problem, not yours. But if you’re just going to just dismiss the whole thing as ‘meaningless’ to you, then I can’t improve my attempts, and there’s not much point in a discussion, is there?

I did read Carlo Rovelli's book, but just skimmed over any references to dimensions that are meaningless to me. I'm also familiar with Rob Bryanton's Imagining the Tenth Dimension website and book. But it's all Greek to me. I'm still waiting for you to dumb it down for me. Is that something you can do? Or are you content to just belittle my intelligence? :cool: — Gnomon

I haven’t read Bryanton at all, so I can’t comment on how his work relates to my ideas at this stage. If you genuinely think it’s relevant, then I will try to read it after Deacon, but if it’s your attempt to come across as knowledgeable on the subject of dimensions, then I’ll just applaud you and be done with it. Personally, I don’t think it’s a matter of ‘dumbing’ it down, just explaining it differently. Your intelligence is not in question here, only your willingness to increase awareness of information relevant to your belief system. I’m starting to think you only skimmed Deacon’s work, too - which appears to be much denser in relation to biology (at least early on) than Rovelli’s is in relation to dimensions. Yet you’re content to borrow heavily from his terminology to bolster your own ‘theory’. FWIW, I needed help to get my head around Rovelli’s explanation of dimensions, but it was worth the effort. I’m not sure that I have the skills to make it clearer for you, but I’m willing to try if you’re willing to be patient and honest with me about my progress.

It seems to me that you’re a little too precious about elements of your belief system to be open to constructive criticism of it as a ToE. I’m happy to back off, if that’s the case.

But your resistance to even attempting to understand how your belief system relates to quantum potentiality is coming across as blatant ignorance and exclusion, NOT a lack of intelligence. — Possibility

If I am so arrogant & ignorant, why do you care what my opinion of your Multidimensional Reality might be? From your early posts I began to entertain the possibility that you may know something that would add more "dimensions" to my personal worldview, and to my understanding of reality. But I'm still waiting for that revelation. With my references to abstruse scientific theories, I may have given the impression that I am a part of that exotic academic world. I'm merely an onlooker, not a participant.

Your Multidimensional Theory is not the only one I've investigated, and then "excluded" from my personal worldview because they are not relevant to my interests. Even if there are 11 spatial dimensions in String Theory, what difference does it make to me, here locked into the 4D reality of my physical senses? I am aware that many people believe in invisible dimensions that only the elect are aware of. For example, Muslims are told that there is a seventh heaven, which is a realm of intense happiness and bliss, that only the faithful will ever experience. If so, it behooves me to accept God's Final Prophet and bow to his revelation. I'm not sure what the dimensional number is, but potential Islamic Martyrs are assured that there is an invisible Paradise, with 72 beautiful virgins to please every adolescent male sexual fantasy. But, those extra dimensions have no relevance to my non-Islamic belief system. And I'm no longer a hormone intoxicated teenager.

I googled "Quantum Potentiality", and found a few returns, mostly referring to some of Heisenberg's mathematical musings about the significance of superposition. But I'm not able to follow his math. Another site may be closer to what you are talking about on EscadelicNet. It seems to deal with some of the same scientific & philosophical topics that I link to in the Enformationism thesis. And it also uses the Matrix movie as a metaphor for the Mind/Body paradox. As I get time, I'll look around the site. But at first glance, it seems to require much more formal training in quantum theory and higher math than I bring to the table. I'm not qualified to critique the criticisms of the Standard Theory, much less the theory of the Syntellect Hypothesis. :cool:


The Physics of Information : Twisting your mind to see reality from the quantum gravity viewpoint is no easy task.
https://www.ecstadelic.net/top-stories/the-physics-of-information-quantum-potentiality-to-classical-actuality-of-your-experiential-reality

If I am so arrogant & ignorant, why do you care what my opinion of your Multidimensional Reality might be? From your early posts I began to entertain the possibility that you may know something that would add more "dimensions" to my personal worldview, and to my understanding of reality. But I'm still waiting for that revelation. With my references to abstruse scientific theories, I may have given the impression that I am a part of that exotic academic world. I'm merely an onlooker, not a participant. — Gnomon

First of all, I’ve suggested that your responses demonstrate an arrogance and a refusal to learn - I’m still hoping they’re an inaccurate portrayal, and that you are in fact open to information (not from me, but in general) that could be useful in refining your theory. Secondly, I haven’t asked for your opinion. My own worldview of multi-dimensional reality is a work in progress, patchy at best, and I’m not in a position to defend it in full at this stage.

On the other hand, you have presented something akin to a thesis, which you are attempting to defend. I’m suggesting information that I think will improve the accuracy of this presented worldview, and you’re doing everything you can to avoid, exclude or dismiss the possibility that what you’ve presented might be inaccurate or need refining in any way. You offer these scientific theories as supporting evidence, but you don’t seem to understand them enough to defend their relevance beyond a claim of ‘metaphorical’ significance. This seems more like apologetics for a belief system, not a thesis, and not a ToE. There’s nothing wrong with that - my own worldview can at best be called a belief system, as well - but I’m not here trying to defend mine, but rather to test and refine it in the hope of working towards a ToE eventually. I’m a long way off. And I made no assumption that you were part of the academic world, but your reference to these theories did lead me to believe you understood them enough to discuss them to some extent. Seems both Praxis and I were wrong there.

Your Multidimensional Theory is not the only one I've investigated, and then "excluded" from my personal worldview because they are not relevant to my interests. Even if there are 11 spatial dimensions in String Theory, what difference does it make to me, here locked into the 4D reality of my physical senses? I am aware that many people believe in invisible dimensions that only the elect are aware of. For example, Muslims are told that there is a seventh heaven, which is a realm of intense happiness and bliss, that only the faithful will ever experience. If so, it behooves me to accept God's Final Prophet and bow to his revelation. I'm not sure what the dimensional number is, but potential Islamic Martyrs are assured that there is an invisible Paradise, with 72 beautiful virgins to please every adolescent male sexual fantasy. But, those extra dimensions have no relevance to my non-Islamic belief system. And I'm no longer a hormone intoxicated teenager. — Gnomon

Strawmen and more strawmen... none of this is relevant to the information I’ve given you in other threads regarding my worldview. You haven’t investigated it at all. All you’ve heard is the word ‘dimension’ and you’re looking for ways to discredit what doesn’t ‘interest’ you enough to try and understand. The dimensions I’m referring to are non-spatial, and we interact across them every day, through language, mathematics, science, art, literature, religion, etc. Our brains make sense of the world, determining and initiating actions from an ongoing prediction of the future as effort (quanta) and attention (qualia) requirements for the organism. How the mind structures our systems of value, significance and potentiality of information to ‘collapse’ constitutes a fifth dimension or relational aspect of reality, which incorporates and transcends the four dimensions of spacetime.

I googled "Quantum Potentiality", and found a few returns, mostly referring to some of Heisenberg's mathematical musings about the significance of superposition. But I'm not able to follow his math. Another site may be closer to what you are talking about on EscadelicNet. It seems to deal with some of the same scientific & philosophical topics that I link to in the Enformationism thesis. And it also uses the Matrix movie as a metaphor for the Mind/Body paradox. As I get time, I'll look around the site. But at first glance, it seems to require much more formal training in quantum theory and higher math than I bring to the table. I'm not qualified to critique the criticisms of the Standard Theory, much less the theory of the Syntellect Hypothesis. :cool: — Gnomon

I’m not asking you to critique some random website theory you found. You won’t find anything on the internet regarding my particular worldview, except for what you might find here on this forum, because I haven’t written anything on it yet. If you’re interested in trying to grasp quantum theory, though, I can recommend the book ‘Quantum Enigma’ by Bruce Rosenblum and Fred Kuttner. It gave me an understanding of quantum theory that was more suited to my Arts background. But I’m guessing you’ll only skim it for sections that ‘interest’ you (ie. agree with your belief system) rather than attempt to understand why the success of QM, despite being fundamentally misunderstood and open to a variety of interpretations, is vital to any ToE.

but if it’s your attempt to come across as knowledgeable on the subject of dimensions, then I’ll just applaud you and be done with it. — Possibility

So, is this a kiss-off? Are you dumping me for another more intelligent, inquisitive, and humble forum poster? Have you found someone who actually understands what you're talking about? I'm hurt. But I'll be interested to see what that other guy has to say about occult dimensions. :cool:

Quantum Enigma : "Can you believe that physical reality is created by our observation of it?"
That's one interpretation of the mysterious black-box "enigma". But I have a different "wild guess" : that the creator/observer is not "us", but the Whole of which we are tiny holons. I agree that the quantum paradoxes are due to our misunderstanding of Consciousness, but what is the correct interpretation? Can we define dimensions into existence? Who's right; who's wrong; who knows?
https://www.amazon.com/Quantum-Enigma-Physics-Encounters-Consciousness/dp/019517559X#customerReviews

PS__I'm sorry if this post sounds flippant. But I assure you I have seriously tried to grasp the various ancient and New Age notions of occult dimensions, planes, and heavens, but they just don't make sense to me. Apparently, I'm expected to take their existence on faith or hope. But what difference will that Gnostic knowledge make to me? Will it give me superpowers? Will I achieve enlightenment? Will it expand my mind? I've seen no evidence of that, except as self-delusion. The Muslim Paradise is easy to envision, because it appeals to basic human aspirations and emotions. But it doesn't appeal to my own Reason. My personal worldview is four dimensional, and completely mundane --- no magic at all --- and its metaphors are not intended to be taken literally. It merely serves as a Pragmatic guide to Reality, with no need for faith.