IMO, 'folk psychology' from early metacognitive development: magical thinking + anthropomorphization as we – babies – develop a 'theory of mind' and, as a refinement of instinctive false-positive pattern detection, gradually learning to differentiate intentional agents from non-agents (e.g. puppies from stuffed teddy bears ... people from 'talking trees'). — 180 Proof
Actually, there is not much money to be made in asking "why" questions. That's a philosophical query, and Philosophy is traditionally a low-income profession. If you want to make money, figure-out "how" a system works, and patent the process. On the other hand, some have figured-out "how" to convince others that they know "why" the world exists. But their money-making answer is typically not a simple mechanical (scientific) or logical (philosophical) concept, but an emotional (religious) myth, which has ME in a key role. By revealing the mysterious "who" of creation, they make their answer personal and meaningful. "Why" is a child-like question, and is often answered with "because . . .", or with assurances that the ultimate solution to the mystery will be revealed only to the Faithful.Why is there a universe? — Gnomon
This ↑ is the million dollar question!
HOW (science) is an anagram of WHO (religion). — Agent Smith
1. The path to that connection is a long story. And it's best understood by following the logic of the original thesis, as described in the Enformationism website. Basically, the concept for that thesis began from the sudden insight that Quantum & Information theories are "connected" at the root. I trace it back to reading an article about measuring Quantum particles, in which the physicist exclaimed "it's all [only] information". [my bracket] By that he meant, I assume, that we never know the particle as a ding an sich, but only extracted (abstract) information about the particle that is embedded & entangled in a larger system. "Aboutness" is an Information-theoretic concept.Just curious,
1. How do you connect information to BothAnd?
2. What's the significance of Quantum mysticism in re EnFormaction? — Agent Smith
That's OK. The one-eyed man fails to see in perspective, but gets by with a 2D image of the world. On this forum, we don't discriminate against the handicapped.↪Agent Smith
↪Gnomon
I fail to see a non-trivial (woo-free) difference between "Enformationism" and the synopsis of "digitalism" featured in this 2002 Wired magazine article: — 180 Proof
I don't know if Fredkin & Wolfram took their proposals of a Computer Universe literally, but the obvious determinism of the Cellular Automata notion may have suggested that the dynamic life-like-behavior & evolution-by-rule-based-selection of matrix-array computer algorithms could serve as a theoretical model for how the universe could work as an inter-active mathematical structure. Other mathematical geniuses have proposed the similar idea of a Mathematical Universe (relational reality) that processes its own internal Information in a logical manner. Even Pythagoras seemed to have a similar worldview 2500 years ago. So, perhaps there is some substance to the idea that mathematical (geometric) logic is at work on the (quantum??) foundation of reality, to produce the classical physical objects that we encounter on the human-macro-scale of reality.*1Wolfram (creator of Mathematica) attempted to convince the scientific community that cellular automata were at the heart of virtually everything physical. He failed. — jgill
I believe the idea of an omnipotent God to be problematic. — Michael McMahon
obviously the religious traditions never intended this to be the case when using the word. Mostly they mean with omnimpotent more potent than what a single human being could do on his own. — Tomseltje
"So he/she/it can do something that cannot be done" or a similar contradictio in terminis. — Tomseltje
Mostly they mean with omnimpotent more potent than what a single human being could do on his own. — Tomseltje
Pantheism is just an idea, it doesn't seem to be a hypothesis. What's divine about Hitler? — Agent Smith
all babies are born with a speckle of the divine — Michael McMahon
Minds are little gods — Gottfried Wilhelm Liebniz
which paraphrases Epicurus' observation about death: when we are, "God" is not; when "God" is, we are not. :fire:0. Deity (Boltzmann brain?) ...
1. Deity becomes – fluctuates until symmetry breaks – not-Deity (aka "planck universe").
2. "Non-planck universe" begins @maximum degrees temperature and rapidly – explosively ("Big Bang") – expands as it cools off.
3. Cosmic + thermodynamic entropy. (WE ARE nowHERE.)
4. "Non-planck universe" ends eventually – dissipates completely – having become an absolute zero degrees vacuum.
5. Absolute zero degrees vacuum – unbroken symmetry restored – is indistinguishable from Deity.
0. "Omega point" > the universe (or multiverse) constitutes memories (or dreaming) of Deity (Boltzmann brain?)
— 180 Pro0f's *pandeist fairytale* (in sum) — 180 Proof
Godwin's law, short for Godwin's law (or rule) of Nazi analogies, is an Internet adage asserting that as an online discussion grows longer (regardless of topic or scope), the probability of a comparison to Nazis or Adolf Hitler approaches 1. — Wikipedia
I have read most of Davies' books. His Information-centric worldview seems to be very similar to my own. And Terrance Deacon has offered a novel way to think of the ding an sich problem. Floridi's book, Philosophy of Information, stuck a little too close to Shannon's narrow mechanical application of "Information" for my taste. I prefer the books that are presaging a broader new paradigm of science & philosophy. :smile:You might like "Information and the Nature of Reality," which Davies edited with Niels Henrik Gregson. Good combo of articles on information theoretic approaches from physics, biology (some by Terrance Deacon, who I always appreciate), semantic information/consciousness, and even theology at the end.
It's my late night book for when Floridi's Philosophy of Information stops making sense. That book is good too but very technical. I am regretting getting it instead of his Routledge Handbook of the Philosophy of Information, which is apparently more accessible. — Count Timothy von Icarus
Yes, you essentially are hurting yourself by being unethical in a pantheistic universe. — Shawn
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.