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

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.

I think you are still misinterpreting the YinYang concept. It merely means, for example, that a male body and a female body are complementary, for the purposes of procreation. But, for other purposes, male & female may have other priorities. The YinYang balance is not static, but dynamic. And each side has the potential for upsetting the ideal harmony of the system. I can move toward the middle, but If I go all the way to the opposite side, I may contribute to dis-harmony. It takes two to tango around the pivot-point of a see-sawing system. :joke:

:smirk: :up:

The problem with a dogmatic mindset like Gnomon's is that questions & counter-examples are perceived as biased / malicious attacks and so, as a cursory search of 'our post history' makes clear, he responds with defensive evasions. What's Gnomon so scared of? It seems to me the only reason to post one's speculative thesis on a public discussion forum is to subject it to questioning and criticism rather than attempting to protect it by bloviating tedious sophistry as Gnomon reflexively does. No "ad hominems" on my part, Smith, just apt observations corroborated by 'our post history'.

A. challenge
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/719664

B. typical evasion
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/720338

... "your honor, the prosecution witness' testimony contradicts the defense witness' testimony. Therefore, [ ... ] I rest my case" — Gnomon

No no, sir, your "testimony" contradicts (i.e. defeats) itself – that is my testimony. :sweat:

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:

:grin:

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

He'll have to catch me first. :joke:
Actually, the cooperative BothAnd philosophy "requires" us to avoid fighting, if possible. That's why I'm in the middle, and he's swinging for an imaginary extreme. He doesn't realize that I'm just playing rope-a-dope. :cool:

Rope-a-Dope : a boxing tactic of pretending to be trapped against the ropes, goading an opponent to throw tiring ineffective punches.

:lol:

↪Gnomon :lol: — Agent Smith

Self-delusion is a helluva drug. :smirk:

Self-delusion is a helluva drug. :smirk: — 180 Proof

What Gnomon wrote was funny. Right? I dunno.

The image that comes to mind is of 'a dope rope-a-doping himself' which is kind of funny (ridiculous, not ha-ha). :smirk:

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

I still say Gnomon is onto something. I hope he takes your criticisms positively and responds appropriately.

Can you suss-out what Gnomon's onto and succintly clue me in? I've asked quite a few times, the last being this .

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

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:

1. BothAnd (Yin-Yang). This paradigm makes sense even now, about 2.5k years since it was birthed in the Chinese heartland.

2. His variable-based thesis. Gnomon hits the bullseye when he leaves the notion of a primum movens undefined - by doing this he makes room for both theistic and atheistic explanations for why the universe exists at all (vide supra BothAnd)

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

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.

Or, if you are really interested, you could take the time to read the actual Enformationism thesis. It's available online, and is written mainly in layman's language, except for a few neologisms I have coined in order to encapsulate a complex concept into one word. For example, EnFormAction is a portmanteau word to signify the multiple roles of Information in the world.

The BothAnd philosophical principle (Yin-Yang) notion is merely a corollary of the scientific necessity for a Holistic approach to Quantum physics*1. Classical Reductive methods cannot make sense of Quantum queerness. That's why Feynman admitted that "nobody understands quantum mechanics". It's because the quantum foundation of reality is not mechanical & linear-logical, but holistic & fuzzy-logical. :nerd:

*1. seems to think my use of "BothAnd" & "YinYang" exposes an underlying New Agey mystical worldview. But that erroneous interpretation is a sign that he too is unable to grok a new Holistic scientific paradigm, so he conflates it with pre-scientific philosophical*2 attempts to understand how & why the world works as it does. Does the BothAnd definition below sound New Agey to you? If so, then Einstein & Schrodinger were also new age nuts, so I'm in good company.

*2. I find the ancient philosophies of Hindu, Chinese & Greek cultures still useful after all these years. But I have no use for the religious beliefs, rituals, & dogmas that grew-up around those core philosophical worldviews.

Grok : to understand (something) intuitively or holistically, rather than rationally or analytically.

Portmanteau :
1. literally a compartmented suitcase.
2. A portmanteau word is a blend of words in which parts of multiple words are combined into a new word, with interrelated meanings.

EnFormAction :
For technical treatments, I had to make-up a new word to summarize the multilevel and multiform roles of generic Information in the ongoing creative act of Evolution. I call it EnFormAction.
That neologism is an analysis and re-synthesis of the common word for the latent power of mental contents : “Information”. “En” stands for energy, the physical power to cause change; “Form” refers to Platonic Ideals that become real; “Action” is the meta-physical power of transformation, as exemplified in the amazing metamorphoses of physics, whereby one kind of thing becomes a new kind of thing, with novel properties. In the Enformationism worldview, EnFormAction is Creative Potential in action : it's how creation-via-evolution works.
http://bothandblog3.enformationism.info/page23.html

BothAnd :
* The Enformationism worldview entails the principles of Complementarity, Reciprocity & Holism, which are necessary to ofset the negative effects of Fragmentation, Isolation & Reductionism. Analysis into parts is necessary for knowledge of the mechanics of the world, but synthesis of those parts into a whole system is required for the wisdom to integrate the self into the larger system. In a philosophical sense, all opposites in this world (e.g. space/time, good/evil) are ultimately reconciled in Enfernity (eternity & infinity).
* Conceptually, the BothAnd principle is similar to Einstein's theory of Relativity, in that what you see ─ what’s true for you ─ depends on your perspective, and your frame of reference; for example, subjective or objective, religious or scientific, reductive or holistic, pragmatic or romantic, conservative or liberal, earthbound or cosmic. Ultimate or absolute reality (ideality) doesn't change, but your conception of reality does. Opposing views are not right or wrong, but more or less accurate for a particular purpose.
* This principle is also similar to the concept of Superposition in sub-atomic physics. In this ambiguous state a particle has no fixed identity until “observed” by an outside system. For example, in a Quantum Computer, a Qubit has a value of all possible fractions between 1 & 0. Therefore, you could say that it is both 1 and 0.
http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page10.html

“The intuitive mind is a sacred gift and the rational mind is a faithful servant. We have created a society that honors the servant and has forgotten the gift.”
— Albert Einstein

:point:
FYI: I've read enough of the books you have referenced in our exchanges to long since have confidently concluded that (1) you've flagrantly misinterpreted – pseudo-philosophically interpreted – the books you claim to have read and (2) you've not read or understood the books I've recommended to you. Our post history is my witness. :smirk:

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!

I am and I have. :sweat: :down:

:lol:

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

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.

This clash of paradigms has happened before. 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). Enformationism posits a similar god-concept, formalized in the philosophical concept of PanEnDeism (all in god). In other words, G*D is the whole of Nature, in which we humans are integral parts of an evolving emerging system of En-formation. The Enlightenment era paradigm shift marked the beginning of methodical Classical Science, which endured another radical perspective shift due to 20th century's Relativity & Quantum theories, that are now grudgingly accepted as technical scientific facts, despite their challenge to common sense.

Spinoza was influenced by the scientific philosophy of Descartes. But Rene is best known today for his dualistic compromise solution to the Mind/Body problem : non-overlapping magistera. Yet four centuries later, Quantum & Information science have pointed to a monistic solution : universal & causal information. The Enformationismthesis is merely one of several strands of Information-centric departures from the classical worldview of Newton. But, it may take an information atomic bomb to convince some classical scientists that invisible immaterial things must be taken seriously. :nerd:


Descartes as scientist :
Apart from his work in philosophy, Descartes was a leading mathematician and scientist. He invented the Cartesian coordinate system, developed analytic geometry and laid the foundation for the development of calculus. He also did groundbreaking work in physics most prominently in the field of optics.
https://learnodo-newtonic.com/rene-descartes-contribution

The Mind-Body Problem :
"Information philosophy views the mind as the immaterial information in the brain, which is seen as a biological information processor. Mind is software in the brain's hardware.
The "stuff" of mind is pure information. Information is neither matter nor energy, though it needs matter for its embodiment and energy for its communication".
https://www.informationphilosopher.com/problems/mind_body/
Note 1 -- Physicists are beginning to see that Matter & Energy & Mind are all various forms of the Generic power-to-enform.

Note 2 -- The Information Philosopher could be construed as a "veteran philosopher". Since I am indeed a novice philosopher, with no advanced degrees, I'll let 180 argue with Bob Doyle about the scientific & philosophical merits of Information-centric science & philosophy. Bob Doyle[/u] is the Information Philosopher. He earned a Ph. D in Astrophysics from Harvard and is now an Associate in the Harvard Astronomy Department.

"Instead of a closed universe that is winding down deterministically from an initial state of high information, we find the universe is open and increasing information indeterministically from an initial state of relatively high entropy and low information. Information is being continuously created in the universe, not least by human beings who are just learning that they are part of the cosmic creative process."
https://www.informationphilosopher.com/introduction/

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

Okay, G. Put down the damn Spinoza for Dummies and actually read / study Spinoza's Ethics. :roll:

... an initial state of relatively high entropy and low information. — Gnomon quoting Bob Doyle, PhD

 
"Relatively" to what? The initial state of the universe is a lower entropy state relative to the present entropy state of the universe; in fact, it will always be the lowest entropy state of the universe. :nerd:

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.

Imagine god (the theistic version of your enformer) wants to create a universe. The questions that s/he/it might ask her/him/itself are

i) What do I want to create?
ii) How should I create (what I want to create)?
iii) Left to the reader as an exercise

In other words god has to know before he can do. Everything begins with 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. 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 see that you are grasping at analogies to help you understand the complexities of the Enformationism Thesis. Perhaps something like Einstein's formula "E=MC^2" that is compact enough to put on a T-shirt. For example, Plato's non-traditional god-model was summarized as "LOGOS", which encapsulated the concept of Reason & Logic & Math into a common word for Design (rational planning). Likewise, ancient Chinese philosophers used the common words for Sun/Male (Yang) and Moon/Female (Yin) to compress the many forms of Oppositions into a single easy-to-remember two-word phrase. And, back to the OP, both Plato and Aristotle used the non-religious (agnostic) words "First Cause" to indicate the role of a logically-necessary Creator. They carefully avoided anthro-morphizing their "god of the philosophers".

For similar reasons, I have coined some simple neologisms to summarize complex philosophical concepts. For example, EnFormAction functions in a manner similar to the LOGOS, as the rational creative power of G*D, which works in the physical world to organize matter & energy into the things we know via our senses. However, the logical (mathematical) order or pattern (essence) of those things is not sensible, but intuitive & rational. And this is the kind of thinking that Materialists cannot grok. I also use the coined term "BothAnd" in a manner similar to "YinYang", but I was not thinking in terms of Chinese or New Age philosophy when I arrived at that summation of how the dialectic world-system works.

Even Einstein's formula can be interpreted in terms of Enformationism : a> "Energy: is Causation, Power ; b> "Matter is that which is caused to change (the medium) ; and c> the cosmic constant "C" is merely an abstract ratio of hidden Potential (energy density ; vacuum energy). Together, these properties constitute EnFormAction : the power to transform Potential into Actual. There are websites on the net that will put "EnFormAction" on a T-shirt for you. :wink:

Note : 180 will disagree with my novel interpretations because they don't conform to the dictionary dogma of the 20th century scientific/philosophical Paradigm. Such information-centric notions probably won't make it into authorized (canonized) definitions until the end of the 21st century. Remember, you heard it here first. :joke:


EnFormAction :
* Metaphorically, it's the Will-power of G*D, which is the First Cause of everything in creation. Aquinas called the Omnipotence of God the "Primary Cause", so EFA is the general cause of everything in the world. Energy, Matter, Gravity, Life, Mind are secondary creative causes, each with limited application.
* All are also forms of Information, the "difference that makes a difference". It works by directing causation from negative to positive, cold to hot, ignorance to knowledge. That's the basis of mathematical ratios (Greek "Logos", Latin "Ratio" = reason). A : B :: C : D. By interpreting those ratios we get meaning and reasons.
* The concept of a river of causation running through the world in various streams has been interpreted in materialistic terms as Momentum, Impetus, Force, Energy, etc, and in spiritualistic idioms as Will, Love, Conatus, and so forth. EnFormAction is all of those.
http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page8.html

In 2019, physicist Melvin Vopson of the University of Portsmouth proposed that information is equivalent to mass and energy, existing as a separate state of matter, a conjecture known as the mass-energy-information equivalence principle.
https://www.zmescience.com/science/news-science/information-energy-mass-equivalence/

Would I be correct if I were to say that your metaphysics (ontology, etc.) is grounded in epistemology (information/knowledge)?

Lest I forget, :up: for your sense of humor.

Would I be correct if I were to say that your metaphysics (ontology, etc.) is grounded in epistemology (information/knowledge)? — 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.

For example, Materialism still works for Chemistry, and Spiritualism still works for Sociology. For example, William James said “We must judge the tree by its fruit. The best fruits of the religious experience are the best things history has to offer. The highest flights of charity, devotion, trust, patience, and bravery to which the wings of human nature have spread themselves, have all been flown for religious ideals.” (e.g. Gothic Cathedrals ; charities) For collective endeavors, people are inspired by beliefs that may or may not be empirically true, but plausible enough to motive them to work together for the common good (God, community, humanity). But Enformationism puts those beliefs into a new light, for those inclined to look in dark corners.

Speaking of different perspectives, in a previous post you mentioned "virtual worlds". And I just read an article on one kind of virtual reality : a computer simulation (see below). Here's a couple of quotes that might apply to the OP topic : Agnosticism. the author mentions The Matrix and Nick Bostrum's “Are You Living in a Computer Simulation?”. Then, he concludes that "It could very well be simulations all the way down." Since he is a gamer, such a turtles-all-the-way-down solution makes more sense than the quantum-fluctuation-in-nothingness & inflating-bubble-from-nowhere theories, which make no attempt to nail-down a philosophical First Cause. So, I may be in the minority of posters who feel the need for a one-big-turtle explanation. :blush:

PS__Since my eccentric personal worldview is easy to laugh at, I have to maintain an humble sense of humor, in hopes of keeping philosophical bullies from pounding the annoying nerd. :nerd:

Of Course We’re Living in a Simulation :
"The best theory physicists have for the birth of the universe makes no sense. It goes like this: In the beginning—the very, if not quite veriest, beginning—there’s something called quantum foam. It’s barely there, and can’t even be said to occupy space, because there’s no such thing as space yet. . . . Besides, that’s not even why the theory makes no sense. It makes no sense for the same reason every creation myth since the dawn of, um, creation makes no sense: There’s no causal explanation. What, that is to say, made it happen in the first place?"
https://www.wired.com/story/living-in-a-simulation/

So you don't want to disturb the peace so to speak. You're happy with existing paradigms such as materialism, spiritualism, etc. and would like to preserve instead of discard/replace 'em. However, doesn't that mean your thesis makes no practical difference whether it's true/false?

In other words: 'what there is is grounded in what I/we know', which amounts to nothiing but idealism (or solipsism) window-dressed in 'pseudo-(information) science. :sparkle: :roll:

I have no formal training in those fields of philosophy. Enformationism is a sort of ... — Gnomon

Yeah, man, it incorrigibly shows. :sweat:

Computable universe, yeah, that's what Gnomon seems to be referring to. As far as I can tell that's what creation boils down to. Consider the simulation hypothesis - I find Nick Bostrom's argument quite compelling - is still in the game, Gnomon's thesis can't be ignored/dismissed so easily, oui?

Bostrom's argument has too many ad hoc assumptions for me (like e.g. "The Drake Equation").

Very simply: if e.g. David Deutsch's work on the quantum turing maching (QTM) is correct, then there is no fundamental– informational – difference between simulations and non-simulations vis-a-vis quantum computing (D. Deutsch helped pioneer the field): physical reality itself is fundamentally a self-organizing quantum simulation and this current universe is just (the phase of) the self-organizing quantum simulation which happens to be (briefly) stable enough to generate and sustain complex, knowledge-making, metacognitive agents.

Thus, perhaps "we are living in a simulation" that simulates itself – the universe (multiverse) – and not inside some "godling's" cosmic video game (pace Berkeley). No woo needed in order to explain any explicable which needs to be explained (Laplace / Spinoza ... remember the Presocratics and their naturalist contra-superstitious speculations?) :fire:

As for 'the inexplicable'? Well, gaps in experience knowledge or understanding, which cannot be filled (like unreachable horizons / asymptotes), can only be denied with woo (of-the-gaps) and other nostalgic anachronisms. :pray: :roll:

Well, either I didn't get it or Deutsch et al is using the word "simulation" in an unconventional sense. How can a simulation simulate itself? That sounds incoherent unless a few micrograms of LSD come with the pack! :lol: You know what?, some of these ideas suggest that potent psychoactives were involved im their formulation. The conspiracy theorist in me is thinking a CIA covert operation/experiment.

I don't know how you connect your examples to philosophy as they are easily (and only) solvable by mathematics. For each possible action you simply add up and chose the optimal path.

Yes, math to the rescue OR is it help we would've been better without! Sometimes assistance cometh with a tangle of strings attached.

The issue looketh simple, but I fear that's only a mirage. You seem math literate; can you perhaps provide me with a basic framework of how math can rescue us from analysis paralysis aka aporia? Can you? Please, pretty please!

What you describe seems to be a https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decision_problem. It is dealt with in computability theory. (That is computer science, depending on your preferences that is either a subsection of engineering or mathematics.) In Chess or GO programs decisions have to be made when to stop searching for a better move. One simple example of a special case is when to stop looking for a cleaner toilette: