OK. I accept that, in a YinYang world, the opposite of Good is Evil. But does that mean I should wallow in the evil, just for the sake of Holism? I'm kidding. And I don't reject 180 personally. On other topics he is able to make constructive criticisms. But on Enformationism-related topics, he only makes destructive comments. But hey, it's a free forum. So he's entitled to his opinion. However, I'm not obliged to get down in the mire with the pigs, even though they are otherwise admirable creatures.All I'm saying is 180 Proof's opposition completes your thesis (re BothAnd/yin-yang). You shouldn't reject him because if you do, you're contradicting yourself. — Agent Smith
No no, sir, your "testimony" contradicts (i.e. defeats) itself – that is my testimony. :sweat:... "your honor, the prosecution witness' testimony contradictsthe defense witness' testimony. Therefore, [ ... ] I rest my case" — Gnomon
He'll have to catch me first. :joke:It looks like the two of you have to fight (with each other) tooth and nail, to the finish. BothAnd or Yin-Yang requires you two do so! We'll have medics stationed on site to render emergency care if one/both of you sustain(s) life-threatening injuries! :grin: — Agent Smith
Self-delusion is a helluva drug. :smirk: — 180 Proof
The image that comes to mind is of 'a dope rope-a-doping himself' which is kind of funny (ridiculous, not ha-ha). :smirk: — 180 Proof
Can you suss what Gnomon's onto and succintly clue me in? I've asked quite a few times, the last being this ↪180 Proof. — 180 Proof
I suspect that you still haven't grokked the central idea of Enformationism. That "failure to communicate" may be due to your trying to piece together bits & pieces of the thesis from loosely-related forum posts. The best way to understand this new paradigm is to read some of the scientific books & articles I link to in my posts. My thesis is merely a philosophical expansion of an emerging scientific paradigm, which combines Quantum Physics with Information Theory.Well, it's just a feeling, an intuition you could call it. Can't name any particular idea that looks promising except for these two: — Agent Smith
Actually, it was practicing scientists that "scientized" the intuitions of Holism & Information-as-causation (per my previous links). All I've done is to gather their ideas under the heading of Enformationism. However, "veteran philosophers" such as 180 can be expected to judge the "quality of the output" in terms of their outdated personal paradigm. He can be dismissive of my personal qualifications to promote a new kind of science. But, I'll be content to let him argue with "Bob Doyle" (see below), a "veteran" scientist/philosopher, who is promoting the Information-centric worldview. For him, and for me, the relevance of Information to ancient myths only came after its relevance to today's reality was apparent.EnFormAction is an attempt to scientize the almost universal intuition, as evidenced by creation stories in all cultures, of a primum movens (first cause). I appreciate the effort and the key ideas present and active therein, but only veteran philosophers will be able to judge the quality of the output! — Agent Smith
Okay, G. Put down the damn Spinoza for Dummies and actually read / study Spinoza's Ethics. :roll:For example, the novice philosopher Spinoza outraged his fellow Jews and Christians (including some veteran theologians) by introducing a new science-based concept of God-as-Natural-instead-of-Super-natural (deus sive natura). — Gnomon
... an initial state of relatively high entropy and low information. — Gnomon quoting Bob Doyle, PhD
Yes. The coder's "virtual worlds" are simplified analogies to the Enformer's real world. Each imaginary world is conveyed from the coder's mind to the player's mind via meaningful Information.I sympathize with your views if only for the reason that coders have been creating virtual worlds (e.g. video games) since the 1990s and, in line with your thesis, they do so with information. — Agent Smith
Yes. But I have no formal training in those fields of philosophy. Enformationism is a sort of Cosmology, which generally explains the nature of Nature (Being) in terms of Information Theory (IT) and Quantum Physics (QP). IT defines what & how we can know, and QP reveals that the foundation of material reality is immaterial logical relationships. Everything else (e.g. Ethics) depends on the understanding that everything in the world is a form of Generic Information (energy + matter + mind). The thesis website says that Enformationism is intended to be an update to the ancient worldviews of Materialism (Atomism) and Spiritualism (Mind = Soul). Just as Quantum Theory does not negate Newtonian physics, but puts it in a larger context, the Information-Centric worldview does not replace Reductive Science or Holistic Religion, but merely looks at them from a different perspective.Would I be correct if I were to say that your metaphysics (ontology, etc.) is grounded in epistemology (information/knowledge)? — Agent Smith
Yeah, man, it incorrigibly shows. :sweat:I have no formal training in those fields of philosophy. Enformationism is a sort of ... — Gnomon
(possible gain * possibility of gain) + (possible loss * possibility of loss) - expenditure
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.