Although I'm still in the dark about "constructed emotions" and such, it seems that the general gist of your Multidimensional theory is similar to my own worldview, in that Consciousness (awareness, connection, & collaboration) is "inherent to everything". But the details and implications may differ.I just wanted to try and clear this up before we go any further. — Possibility
Did Wheeler use terms like "other dimensions" in his musings on " matter, energy, and information"? Did he associate Information with physical Electro-Magnetic fields?Meaning, perhaps storage of other EM field's of consciousness exist in yet another Dimension. — 3017amen
I’ll read about it though.
— praxis
Since you seem to be offended by my eccentric approach to Metaphysics, how would you describe, in your own words, the Theory of Information that is the topic of this thread? — Gnomon
You seem to be focusing on our differences, but communication requires an emphasis on our commonalities. However, communication of novel concepts in Science and Philosophy is seldom presented in the vocabulary of the masses. Instead, it is first directed at those who are already well-versed in the technical language of a particular field. — Gnomon
So you just give-up on putting your ideas into specific words, and rely on ESP? When you present specific ideas in vague general ("uncertain & variable") terms, a few people may grasp your meaning intuitively, but you'll never know for sure if they grokked your meaning or made-up their own meaning. In Shannon's Information Theory, successful communication can be verified to make sure what was received is what was sent. — Gnomon
Frequently the messages have meaning; that is they refer to or are correlated according to some system with certain physical or conceptual entities. These semantic aspects of communication are irrelevant to the engineering problem. The significant aspect is that the actual message is one selected from a set of possible messages. — Shannon, C. (1948). “The Mathematical Theory of Communication.” Bell System Technical Journal, 27: 379-423.
Of course not. All I can hope to do, is throw a lot of mud on the wall, and hope some of it sticks. — Gnomon
It's called analysis of complexity into simple components. Are you opposed to analytical thinking? I understand that your notion of a Fifth Dimension is a broad concept. But couldn't you break it down into smaller chunks, that babies like me can digest? I still think your Multidimensional worldview may be compatible with my Information-based worldview. But your presentation has been so deliberately vague and non-committal that I can't be sure what you're talking about. — Gnomon
It's been a very intriguing thread. I'm a John Wheeler/Physicist fan, and enjoy reading his theories about Information, thus (excerpt from a paper on conscious thoughts occurring 'outside' the brain/ Dirk K.F. Meijer, University of Groningen, The Netherlands) :
"Can our personal information survive?
This is where the "information theory", mentioned above, comes into play. Assuming with Wheeler that everything in the universe is composed of matter, energy, and information, according to the “Energy Conservation Law”, energy cannot be destroyed. It follows that also the information that constitutes us, may not disappear altogether. In this context, Prof. Meijer brings me back to the supposed consciousness workspace, that preserves an up-to-date picture of our total personal state of art. "If quantum information, like energy, cannot be destroyed, it is theoretical possible that when our brain dies, when we pass away, the information stored around our brain survives in some other dimension, an aspect that may be revealed in NDE conditions." — 3017amen
Is it a spiritual plane, or a physical dimension? Please give me some "narrow" bites that I can masticate with sore gums. :yum:
For example : What do "each of the scientific definitions of ‘fifth dimension’ " have in common? How do the spiritual notions of Higher Dimensions differ from the mathematical definitions? Who are some published authors, Scientists or New Agers, that have presented ideas similar to yours? — Gnomon
I continue to think that perhaps I’m missing some understanding that’s obvious to everyone else and when finally pointed out to me will dissolve my theory into nothing, but everything I read seems to support the theory from a certain angle, while remaining ignorant of the whole picture. — Possibility
Yes. It's different from your traditional definition, which you have never stated explicitly. And you've never explained exactly what is "wrong" with my information-based definition, except that you don't like it. Is that due to gross prejudice, or to spelled-out reasons?That indicates that there's something wrong with your concept of metaphysics. — praxis
. 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 — Gnomon
Well, the assertion plus negation is confusing to the mortal mind. But then, my personal philosophy is called BothAnd. So, I'll have to give you the benefit of the doubt. But, only if you will explain the correlation between a "spiritual plane" and a "physical dimension". I'm cool with the BothAnd concept of Yin/Yang, but refers to parts of a whole system, not to separate planes of existence.Both, and neither. Sorry - not a very helpful start, is it? — Possibility
Most physicists would place the Fifth Dimension under the heading of Super-natural forces. I'm more sympathetic to your implication, but I call such "forces" meta-physical.So if you consider the ‘fifth dimension’ as relative to the other four dimensions (at least), not as something other than physics, but as part of the natural forces of the universe, then it makes sense to refer to it as a ‘physical dimension’. — Possibility
Can you summarize your fourth definition, which combines the other two into a single concept? My definition of Information does exactly that.Both terms refer to what this fifth dimension is, but neither term alone defines it. — Possibility
Which of the Scientific definitions I linked to describe "a difference from empirical reality". The New Age definition, which you rejected early in this thread does try to distinguish a series of non-physical spiritual planes from the measurable dimensions of empirical (physical senses) Science.a difference from empirical reality — Possibility
Interesting! Are you a certified channeler? Do you convey messages from those "exclusive" planes to those of us stuck here on this mundane plane? Mystics have written dozens of books to describe their experiences in those spiritual planes or states. Can you give me an example of one of your extra-dimensional experiences? Are they similar to out-of-body experiences? ]‘spiritual’ dimensions are seen as non-spatial and exclusive, accessible only through certain channels; — Possibility
I've read Deacon's Incomplete Nature twice, and several related books, but I don't remember any references to higher "dimensions" or "planes". I just checked, and those terms are not in the index. But the word "information" occurs in the index many times. Can you quote a reference relevant to our discussion? :nerd:Those whose theories seem to approach a similar idea I have already mentioned, including Deacon (from what I’ve read so far). — Possibility
I am trying to be defend my thesis without being offensive. Is that what you call "passive-aggressive"? You and Praxis have been attacking my thesis from the beginning, even as you admit to knowing little or nothing about it. And you have offered no positive alternatives, except vague "maybes" and oxymorons such as "both & neither" .First of all, I would appreciate if you would stop the passive-aggressive self-deprecation. — Possibility
Praxis has simply been trolling. — Gnomon
Yes. Physics does both empirical perceiving and theoretical conceiving. But the latter is more like philosophical mind-work, than empirical sense-work. I am simply making the same meaningful distinction as earlier philosophers made, between Pragmatic Science and Theoretical Philosophy. Theoretical Physics is non-empirical. Someone once asked Einstein where his lab was, and he held-up a pencil.In my opinion, you are drawing a line that doesn't exist. Physics is just as concerned withconceiving as with perceiving. Is spacetime a metaphysical conception? — jgill
The first thing that comes to mind for me, and I could be way off-base from not fully grasping your theory, is that what’s at the core of human morality, and perhaps everything human, may simply be procreation. So if human awareness, connection, and collaboration are fundamental to the universe then the universe is all about procreation? In what sense could that be seen as true, assuming the thought is not wildly off-base? — praxis
First of all, I would appreciate if you would stop the passive-aggressive self-deprecation.
— Possibility
I am trying to be defend my thesis without being offensive. Is that what you call "passive-aggressive"? You have been attacking my thesis from the beginning, even as you admit to knowing little or nothing about it. And you have offered no positive alternatives.
Based on your questions, you don't even understand Possibility's theory any more than I do. Apparently the notion of sublime planes of existence is more attractive to you than the idea that mundane Information is the essence of Reality and Ideality. If it's alright with you, I will continue to respond to your put-downs without reacting in kind. :cool: — Gnomon
Can you give me a link to that third definition of Physics? I don't find it with a quick search. Here's the Google definitions of "Physical", which corresponds to how I use the term.
1. relating to the body as opposed to the mind.
2. relating to things perceived through the senses as opposed to the mind; tangible or concrete.
[ Note : these two definitions don't cover your yes & no interpretation. But the Enformationism thesis goes into great detail to show how those "opposed" concepts are inter-related as different forms of universal Information. ] — Gnomon
our capacity to increase awareness, connection and collaboration well beyond the importance of our own existence, species, planet and galaxy that is of the most value to a universe whose ultimate purpose seems to have always been to matter. — Possibility
Did Wheeler use terms like "other dimensions" in his musings on " matter, energy, and information"? Did he associate Information with physical Electro-Magnetic fields? — Gnomon
Since you don't seem to be offended by my unusual worldview, I'd like to see how you would summarize, in your own words, the Theory of Information that is the topic of this thread. — Gnomon
This is the essence of my issue with your theory, at least as far as I currently know or understand it. We value awareness, connection, and collaboration, and I suspect that this is due to our being a social species. Why would these qualities be of value to the universe, or even a non-social species? It’s like anthropomorphizing the universe, but if I’m not mistaken, you said that’s laughable, so, not sure where I’ve gotten lost. — praxis
Each of these dimensionally rare relational structures suggests a weak impetus towards increasing awareness, connection and collaboration (or exposure, transmission and integration of information) beginning with the most fundamental elements of the universe. Without it, the universe as we know it would not have existed, and neither would we. — Possibility
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.