For the 'ontology of information' I suggest, to start, D. Deutsch's work on quantum computing (re: constructor theory) and S. Wolfram's work on computational irreducibility (e.g. pancomputationalism) and G. t'Hooft & L. Susskind's holographic principle (re: black hole information paradox).

For the 'ontology of information' I suggest, to start, D. Deutsch's work on quantum computing (re: constructor theory) and S. Wolfram's work on computational irreducibility (e.g. pancomputationalism) and G. t'Hooft & L. Susskind's holographic principle (re: black hole information paradox). — 180 Proof

On it! Danke!

Shannon was not in the least bit (pun unintended) concerned about philosophical information (what information means to philosophers) if you catch my drift. — Agent Smith

Exactly! Shannon was not an experimenting knowledge-seeking scientist, he was a pragmatic solution-seeking engineer. So his concern was about as far from feckless philosophy as you can get. Moreover, once-dominant Philosophy -- among intellectuals at least -- has been plagued with an inferiority*1 complex --- ever since younger sibling Science has become richer and more famous. Nevertheless, even some scientists still see a need for the wider scope of Philosophy to keep near-sighted Science from straying into dangerous territory.

The author of my current book, Sabine Hossenfelder, is a theoretical physicist, hence closer to a philosopher than her hands-on fellows, smashing atoms in a cyclotron. Speaking as a credentialed scientist though, she says "philosophy is where our knowledge ends, and the scientific method is no exception". So, philosophy picks-up where science cannot go. For example the fine-tuning "argument", although based on scientific evidence, is not a scientific theory. And beyond presenting a long list of coincidental dimensionless numbers as evidence, it may never be fully quantified. In other words, it's a philosophical "argument" not a scientific "theory".

In her interview with prominent physicist David Deutsch, The Fabric of Reality, they discuss the "limits of Reductionism", both scientific "theory reductionism" and philosophical "ontological reductionism". For example, he asks "if the atoms can't be subdivided, how come they have different properties? . . . . there has to be an underlying structure". The "structure" he's referring to is not physical, but meta-physical, and the "properties" are inferred Qualia, not observed Quanta. That's why, in the 21st century, the fundamental "atom" is portrayed as a universal foggy field of influence instead of a compact condensed particle.

Deutsch himself has proposed a "Constructor Theory"*2 to explain the concept of a universal Turing computer. But reductive opponents reject the idea, mostly because it seems to imply deterministic teleology. And that's also the scientific objection to the philosophical argument for "fine tuning" of initial conditions, which seem to be "programmed" to evolve living & thinking creatures. Of course, there is no reductive scientific way to prove that theory, because you would have to go outside the universe to look at it objectively. But philosophers do that kind of generalizing & universalizing all the time. They just can't prove it or quantify it.

Although Hossenfelder carefully avoids using touchy terms like "Holism" and "Metaphysics", the whole point of this chapter is to reveal the philosophically restrictive limits of Reductionism & Physicalism. Apparently, Deutsch is not quite so careful, because he says, in summing up : "and this is my view of the role of particle physics, reductionism, and holism". [my emphasis] The advantage of quantitative reductive methods is that it produces saleable products : physical stuff with added value : like a foldable phone screen, made possible by lab-laboring scientists. Sadly, the only product of qualia-questing pencil-pushing Philosophy is life-enhancing Wisdom. :nerd:


*1. Why exactly is philosophy considered inferior to science in terms of predicting power? :
The goal of philosophy is NOT predictive power.
This is another of those presumptuous questions one often finds on Quora.
One might as well ask, “Why exactly is music considered inferior to mathematics in terms of enjoyment-potential?
https://www.quora.com/Why-exactly-is-philosophy-considered-inferior-to-science-in-terms-of-predicting-power

*2. Constructor Theory :
"The goal of constructor theory is to rewrite the laws of physics in terms of general principles that take the form of counterfactuals"
https://www.quantamagazine.org/with-constructor-theory-chiara-marletto-invokes-the-impossible-20210429/
"Constructor theory 'has a radically different mode of explanation, where the main objects are physical transformations, or tasks.' "
https://turingchurch.net/thoughts-on-david-deutschs-constructor-theory-7be91dca4a92
"Transformations" are the result of en-formation. Which is how Generic Information functions as causal Energy. "Counterfactuals" are hypothetical statements that are not actual, but serve to express a philosophical concept.

For the 'ontology of information'[/quote]

My last post on the Quantum Mechanics . . . etc thread*1 is relevant to the OP of this thread on Fine Tuning. It offers a philosophical postulate for how the "fine-tuning" information of the Big Bang could have gotten into the initial Singularity. As a thought experiment : What kind of "Programmer" do you suppose could have encoded those set-up criteria into a pre-space-time register made of nothing but Potential? :chin:

PS__The OP seemed to be pointing out a flawed assumption in the biblical description of creation, not so much about "fine tuning" per se, but about divine intentions.


*1. Quantum Mechanics, Monism, Isness, Meditation
<< Most physicists, though, treat the original Singularity either 1> as-if it just accidentally happened, "something from nothing for no reason", or 2> as-if it was just a recycling of old worlds through the garbage grinder of pre-historic Black Holes. But in my Enformationism thesis, I give it a philosophical definition, based on Information Theory. There, I treat that pin-point-of-potential as-if it was the DNA from which space-time was created, and then filled with the stuff we see around us." >>
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/738021

Ontology : How did the world come to be? How did Information come to be?

Registers are a type of computer memory, a container for information.

The degree of fine-tuning in our universe — and others :
Both the fundamental constants that describe the laws of physics and the cosmological parameters that determine the properties of our universe must fall within a range of values in order for the cosmos to develop astrophysical structures and ultimately support life.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0370157319300511

ANTHROPIC ASSUMPTIONS :
A. We can identify which natural properties are necessary or compatible for life
B. Evolution follows natural laws and inherent limitations set by initial conditions & constants
C. The element Carbon, only produced in certain stars, is essential to life, but is rare (.025%) on Earth
D. The initial conditions of our universe were selected from all possible logical (mental) or actual (multiverse) combinations
E. The complex pathway to Life has a low statistical probability
F. An unlikely occurrence is not necessarily a miracle, but must have some ultimate Cause
http://bothandblog7.enformationism.info/page10.html

The fine tuning argument amounts to saying that if things were different they would not be as they are. — Fooloso4

I'm not sure which "fine tuning argument" you are referring to, but the Anthropic Cosmological argument makes a completely different assertion : “mathematical physics possesses many unique properties that are necessary prerequisites for the existence of rational information-processing and observers similar to ourselves”. If that is a true statement, then "if things were different", Fooloso4 would not be here to point-out the circularity of some religious arguments. :smile:


“The Anthropic Principle may be a remarkable starting point, allowing us to place constraints on the Universe's properties owing to the fact of our existence, but that is not a scientific solution in and of itself”.
____Ethan Seigel
Yes. It's an unprovable philosophical postulate for rational rumination.

Anthropic Cosmological Principle :
In the foreword, prominent physicist John Archibald Wheeler summarized the philosophical meaning of this scientific data : “It is not only that man is adapted to the universe . . .”, as implied by Darwin’s Theory of Evolution, but that, “the universe is adapted to man.” He goes on to assert the “central point of the anthropic principle”, that “a life-giving factor² lies at the centre of the whole machinery and design of the world.” He made that assertion, despite knowing that “design” is a dirty word in the vocabulary of most scientists
http://bothandblog7.enformationism.info/page10.html

The only book I read that discusses the fine-tuning argument is Martin Rees' Just Six Numbers - the gist of the book is that 6 physical constants have values that make life possible with very little margin for error. Even the smallest deviation from measured values would mean a lifeless, barren universe.

I can imagine a creator (programmer) adjusting the dials of, i.e. feeding in information into, a hypercomputer and hitting the right notes so to speak to generate a simulation (the cosmos, our cosmos).

As for the limits of reductionism, I'd say reductionism has a good track record e.g. protein function is well-explained by its secondary/tertiary structure which in turn is fully explicated by its primary structure and that by the properties of constituent molecules & atoms.

However, life feels more than just a complex chemical reaction. I subscribe to some form of emergentism which to my reckoning is the position that an additional ontological level arises from but is more than the level below it, complete with its own set of laws. What I mean is true, there's brain (bio)chemistry that follow all the laws of chemical reaction, but thinking & thoughts are a world in itself, distinct from their chemical basis, and the laws of thought are unique to that level, the level of consciousness (mind). To illustrate, a triangle is reducible to three 1D sides, but a triangle is a 2D object and as a triangle follows different rules [it can, for example, generate a rainbow (prism, Newton)] than a line.

The only book I read that discusses the fine-tuning argument is Martin Rees' Just Six Numbers - the gist of the book is that 6 physical constants have values that make life possible with very little margin for error. Even the smallest deviation from measured values would mean a lifeless, barren universe. — Agent Smith

Yes. But those abstract ratios have little meaning for the average person. It's the metaphorical interpretation that makes the difference. In that case, someone already inclined toward the concept that the world is not a barren hostile environment, but a milieu favorable for human flourishing, will tend to interpret the ambiguous evidence as a "glass half full". Yet, someone else, who already feels the world is antagonistic to their own personal flourishing, may logically infer a universe "going to hell in a hand cart". As you said, it only takes the "smallest deviation" (in interpretation) to turn a positive value to negative. That's why soft metaphorical Philosophy, unlike hard empirical Science, is always debatable. So, each of us has to make his own personal interpretation. Mine leans toward "half full", but is technically BothAnd.

As for the limits of reductionism, — Agent Smith

This very morning, I read in Existential Physics, that "without quantum mechanics, the laws of nature are deterministic". And, I might add : Reductive. Yet, when we look at the foundations of physics, Determinism & Reductionism seem to transform (illogically) into Probability & Holism. To which, Einstein objected that (his classical) "God doesn't play dice". In her book, Hossenfelder discusses the "double slit" experiment as the crux of quantum "weirdness". But it's merely a matter of interpretation. For instance, if you (reductively) imagine a single particle passing through two slits at the same time, it doesn't make classical (reductive) sense. But, if instead you imagine the particle entangled in a holistic ocean of statistical probability, then it looks like normal wave behavior. So, the paradoxes of Quantum Weirdness arise due to the conflicting metaphors we imagine, not from any contradictions in reality.

I subscribe to some form of emergentism which to my reckoning is the position that an additional ontological level arises from but is more than the level below it, complete with its own set of laws. — Agent Smith

Yes. Those "ontological levels" are metaphors for emergent behaviors in physics. In my thesis, I use the term "Phase Transition" to illustrate how a continuous process can seem to be a sudden transformation, from one state-of-being (e.g. fluid water) to something with completely different observed properties (crystalline ice or ethereal gas). The transformation is not magic, but merely emergent. And Emergence is a holistic (systemic) phenomenon. The (reductive) parts (H2O) remain the same, but their (holistic) system behavior is objectively different.

From Hossenfelder's discussion, it occurred to me that spooky-entanglement-at-a-distance, and holistic-ontological-level-superposition are not so weird, if we just view them as descriptions of mathematical sums instead of physical particles. To be specific, the Wave Function merely describes the probable future state (ontological level) of an integrated system. A "function' is just a mathematical statement of a (holistic) group interrelationship. By using The Calculus method, we compute the sum of all points below a curve via the technique of Integration. The individual points are still there, but they have been integrated into a system, from which we can extract an average (holistic) value. I suppose this is also the mathematical basis of Integrated Information Theory.

What does all this have to do with the OP? Merely, that some view the Big Bang, and subsequent Evolution, as the behavior of isolated particles, instead of an integrated system. The particles may behave (reductively) randomly, but the (holistic) process behaves as an interrelated system, guided by natural laws and initial conditions toward some ultimate Ontological State. If we could do the math, we might even be able to compute that Final State. :nerd:

... guided by natural laws and initial conditions toward some ultimate Ontological State. If we could do the math, we might even be able to compute that Final State. — Gnomon

What a reductionist thing to say? :smirk:

. guided by natural laws and initial conditions toward some ultimate Ontological State. If we could do the math, we might even be able to compute that Final State. — Gnomon
What a reductionist thing to say? :smirk: — 180 Proof

No. It was a conditional (if) statement. A confident Reductionist (see below) would say that, given complete information, we can compute the future. But a diffident Holist could say that we can't possibly compute the destiny of the universe, because it's not that simple. We can't even predict the weather more than a week ahead.

That's because the evolutionary system of Nature does not just replicate initial conditions, it produces Novelty. Where, in the inferred laws & measured constants, do we find any implications for Life or Mind? Perhaps, the secret sauce is hidden, not in fine-tuning of abstract numbers, but in the intention behind the enumeration. And a positive inclination may be inferred from the direction chosen by Natural Selection : not toward maximum Entropy, but toward second-law-denying Complexity & Integration. So far, after 14 billion cycles, it's obvious that the computation of those pre-set conditions has not "added up to nothing".

Speaking of intended consequences, the quest of Science is to "know the mind of God", as Stephen Hawking expressed it. He was confident that we would attain that enigmatic knowledge by the end of the 21st century. But Scientific American writer, John Horgan, interviewed a wide range of scientists for his book, The End of Science, in which he concluded that "the scientific age is in its twilight, because we have already discovered all the major things about the world there is to know". So, which prophet do you think is correct : the reductive optimist, or the show-me-the-money pessimist?

Pick your numbers now, and the lucky winner of the God-Mind lottery will be revealed in a few billion earth years, give or take. Meanwhile, the improbable emergence of Man-Mind seems to be the high-point of blind rambling meta-morphing Evolution, to date. :joke:


“Stephen Hawking said that his quest is simply "trying to understand the mind of God".”
― Stephen Hawking

“My prediction is that we will know the mind of God by the end of this century." According to Hawking, who died in March, the universe is the ultimate free lunch and if the “universe adds up to nothing, then you don't need a God to create it”.
https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/magazines/panache/theres-no-god-no-one-directs-our-fate-says-stephen-hawking-in-final-book/articleshow/66273272.cms?from=mdr

“No attempt to explain the world, either scientifically or theologically, can be considered successful until it accounts for the paradoxical conjunction of the temporal and the atemporal, of being and becoming. And no subject conforms this paradoxical conjunction more starkly than the origin of the universe.”
― Paul Davies, The Mind of God : The Scientific Basis for a Rational World

PS__No attempt by 180 to present a philosophical counter-argument, just a supercilious "smirk". :smirk:

So, you mean to say that all so-called quantum weirdness goes away once you approach the quatum world from a holistic point-of-view. You made an interesting point when you said that the results of the double-slit experiment makes complete sense if we consider electrons as both a wave and particle. I guess this ties into your BothAnd idea. Interesting stuff except that from a classical logic POV, its a contradiction, what's a wave isn't a particle and vice versa. How do you respond?

Here's a possible response.

My friend is kind; my friend is unkind. Contradiction.

My friend sometimes behaves in a kind way; my friend sometimes behaves in an unkind way. No contradiction.

If we think in terms of “is,” i.e., noumena, we have a contradiction. If we think in a phenomenological way, we do not.

I made a similar point in my “Against ‘is’” thread.
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/13370/against-is/p1

So, you mean to say that all so-called quantum weirdness goes away once you approach the quatum world from a holistic point-of-view. You made an interesting point when you said that the results of the double-slit experiment makes complete sense if we consider electrons as both a wave and particle. I guess this ties into your BothAnd idea. Interesting stuff except that from a classical logic POV, its a contradiction, what's a wave isn't a particle and vice versa. How do you respond? — Agent Smith

I wouldn't be quite so bold. But, if you imagine the Superposition postulate as an integrated Holistic state, instead of an undecided lonely particle, you can reconcile both before & after in terms of Potential & Actual. Some people have difficulty making a distinction between specific "Potential" & general "Possible". "Possible" only means that some future state is not impossible, perhaps because it doesn't violate any known laws of nature. But "potential" implies that the future state is not only possible, but statistically likely to occur. That's because the particle's historical path can be projected into the future, to see if its trajectory passes through a particular future point on the curve. Like any conjecture about the future, unanticipated forces could alter the path. That's why statistical predictions are not divinely-inspired prophecies, but merely mathematically-calculated guesses.

However, some quantum physicists took the mysterious notion of Superposition to imply multiple simultaneous levels of Reality. But that's not what BothAnd means. It simply says that in order to see the whole truth, you need to look at both sides of the same coin. That's not a logical contradiction, but a complementary perspective. And the "looking" is mental, not physical. As the name implies, the BothAnd worldview looks for the whole truth, not just the part I'm most familiar with, or that suits my expectations. Viewed that way, in hypothetical Superposition there is no Actual particle, only the reasonable expectation (Potential) for a future manifestation of mathematical Probability. Comprenez-vous?

While discussing Many Worlds & Multiverse & Inflation theories, physicist Sabine Hossenfelder remarked on the belief that "all possible values exist somewhere in a multiverse". She pointed out that we don't know, and cannot know, those "possible" values, because they are not Actual values. Hence, such imaginary extrapolations from Superposition, are "pure conjecture". Those "beliefs" are not necessarily wrong, but merely "ascientific". That term also applies to any Philosophical conjectures that are not grounded in falsifiable physical facts. And it includes my own speculations on the possible Cause of pre-Big-Bang initial conditions, that limited the future path of evolution for a world governed by restrictive laws and definitive constants.

The BothAnd worldview has a place for both Science and Philosophy. But some people have difficulty distinguishing between freewheeling Philosophy and buttoned-down Science. Philosophy is only limited by Logic, while Science is restricted by Evidence. So, in Hossenfelder's term, philosophical conjectures are not necessarily wrong, but merely "ascientific". However, the best scientists & philosophers (e. g. Einstein and Hossenfelder herself) look at both sides. But they are careful not to be misled by their own illusions. :cool:



Both Sides Now
I've looked at clouds from both sides now
From up and down and still somehow
It's cloud illusions I recall
I really don't know clouds at all
___Joni Mitchell

First let me confess I don't fully understand what you'rr trying to get at.

That outta the way, my understanding of the multiverse, why it was posited, involves the resloution of the contradiction Schrödinger's cat being both dead and alive. An additional universe is necessary so that in one the cat is alive and in the other it is dead. An ingenious solution if you ask me. Philosophers can learn a thing or two from quantum physicists. Imagine this hypothetical solution for the liar's paradox, paradoxes in general: In one universe it's true and in another universe it's false, never is it true and false in one universe. The same applies to all true paradoxes (contradictions) i.e. a new universe is spawned to accommodate them; necessarily so in my humble opinion. Intriguing, oui monsieur?

First let me confess I don't fully understand what you'rr trying to get at.
That outta the way, my understanding of the multiverse, why it was posited, involves the resloution of the contradiction Schrödinger's cat being both dead and alive. An additional universe is necessary so that in one the cat is alive and in the other it is dead. — Agent Smith

Again, you have put your finger on the reason why you don't understand the BothAnd concept. Schrodinger's thought experiment was not intended to be taken literally, but metaphorically. A physical cat that is both dead and alive, would indeed be a paradox. But the idea of something that seems to be both a wave and a particle is simply confusion, not contradiction. If you shift your perspective a bit, you can see that the wave function describes a Potential statistical state, not an Actual physical object. And the act of measurement does not magically split the universe into two miniverses. That's simply an as-if metaphor that some people take literally. Perhaps because they don't grok the difference between mathematical statistical averages, and actual physical objects.

Superposition is an imaginary state described by mathematics, while Measured Position is a physical location in the only universe we can take the measure of in standard real world units. Physicist Sabine Hossenfelder sums-it-up with, it's an example of "what can go wrong with using intuitive language for abstract math . . . . And that's what superposition is : a sum . . . . So where did all the fabled weirdness go?". Most, if not all apparent paradoxes result from taking imaginative metaphors as descriptions of reality. Metaphors are useful in Science and Philosophy, as thought experiments, but they are not actual physical observations. Using the BothAnd method, you can look at both aspects of a paradox, to determine which is Ideal, and which is Real. Or as Hossenfelder puts it : ascientific or scientific. Speculative philosophy, and conjectural metaphors, are ascientific, until proven otherwise. Not necessarily wrong, just unproven, and perhaps unproveable. :smile:


Ideality vs Reality :
Matter & Literal (physical) exist in Reality, but Mind & Metaphors exist in Ideality
1. Materialists deny the existence of such immaterial ideals, but recent developments in Quantum theory have forced them to accept the concept of “virtual” particles in a mathematical “field”, that are not real, but only potential, until their unreal state is collapsed into reality by a measurement or observation. To measure is to extract meaning into a mind. [Measure, from L. Mensura, to know; from mens-, mind]
http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page11.html

PS__Like Yin-Yang, the BothAnd philosophy does not require you to accept Black as White, or Evil as Good, It merely suggests that you look for the moderate gray or OK area in between the extremes.

But if a wave-particle duality is mere confusion and not real what then becomes of your BothAnd idea? It's all dressed up with nowhere to go!

:chin:

But if a wave-particle duality is mere confusion and not real what then becomes of your BothAnd idea? It's all dressed up with nowhere to go! — Agent Smith

Not true! My BothAnd principle can "go" to both Wave and Particle, and to both sides of a coin. Just not at the same time. It's like Superman & Clark Kent are never seen in the same place at the same time. :joke:

Ok! My bad.