↪180 Proof
Good observation as far as I can tell. What's exactly the problem with infinite regress? Not that I haven't done me homework mate. The Wikipedia page doesn't mention anything specifically wrong with infinite regress. Ok, so it goes on forever, backwards. So?

As for Gnomon's Enformationism, it's, at the end of the day, a half-theism and half-atheism if there's such a concept afloat in the ideaverse. In line, of course, with his BothAnd synthetic idea-tool. — Agent Smith

"Infinite Regress" is inherent in all scientific postulations (Multiverse ; Many Worlds) that go beyond Post-Big-Bang-Space-Time. On the other end of the space-time scale from Cosmology, Quantum Theory is riddled with logic-stopping infinities, that must be "re-normalised" in order to make sense to the human mind. So, is using a double-standard for Science & Philosophy.

Enformationism is not an attempt to reconcile Theism & Atheism. It makes no theological claims, pro or con. But its BothAnd position on G*D questions is similar to the non-religious philosophical worldview of Deism. More specifically, it is a form of PanEnDeism, not PanPsychism, as 180 seems to misinterpret.

"Gnomon's crypto-idealist pseudo-scientism aka "Meta-Physics" is inconsistent with atheism" FWIW, Enformationism is both Realist and Idealist. It reconciles how a Real world can have non-physical Ideas : both are forms of Generic Information. Apparently, 180's anti-idealism Reality does not include any Ideas. So his own posts are literally meaningless non-sense. :smile:

PS__I could facetiously retort that 180 is a crypto-fascist, but I don't know anything about his politics. Yet, even though he knows nothing about Gnomon's philosophy, he feels entitled to use polemical ad hominems instead of rational arguments to refute his own mis-perceptions.
PPS __ This post is not directed at 180proof, because ideas just bounce off his physical head, but AgentSmith seems to absorb information presented in the form of metaphysical ideas, not spit-wads. :joke:


Renormalization is distinct from regularization, another technique to control infinities by assuming the existence of new unknown physics at new scales.
renormalization, the procedure in quantum field theory by which divergent parts of a calculation, leading to nonsensical infinite results, are absorbed by redefinition into a few measurable quantities, so yielding finite answers.
https://www.britannica.com/science/renormalization
Note -- One way to re-normalize quantum infinities is to divide by the square-root of minus one. Which results in Imaginary numbers.

The square root of minus one √(−1) is the "unit" Imaginary Number, the equivalent of 1 for Real Numbers. In mathematics the symbol for √(−1) is i for imaginary.
https://www.mathsisfun.com/numbers/imaginary-numbers.html

Metaphysics is the branch of philosophy that studies the fundamental nature of reality, the first principles of being, identity and change, space and time, causality, necessity, and possibility. ___Wikipedia
Note-- The topic of this thread is Meta-physical (ideas about ideas). Science studies the phenomenal (physical) nature of Reality, while Philosophy studies the noumenal (mental) nature of Nature. Again, 180 dismisses the existence of Mind in the Real world. So his Physicalism is essentially mindless.

Metaphysics :
Physical objects are real. Or at least most people think that they are real. Ideas are real. Relationships (taller than, older than) are real. They are all real but they are not real in the same way
https://www.qcc.cuny.edu/socialsciences/ppecorino/intro_text/Chapter%204%20Metaphysics/OVERVIEW.htm

Infinite Regress" is inherent in all scientific postulations (Multiverse ; Many Worlds) that go beyond Post-Big-Bang-Space-Time — Gnomon

Your incomprehension exceeds even your otten poor reasoning, G. Neither "multiverse" nor "many worlds" are "scientific postulations". :sweat: Again, sir, your "Enformationism", etc purports to explain what it does not explain – pseudo-science masquerading as speculation that's mere sophistry.

Intriguing ideas mate! I'm not sure how they tie up though. For the moment though, in me humble opinion, I do see a blurry picture forming - you need to now bring it into focus or not, the choice being yours entirely.

I was watching/listening (to) this video (vide infra) on how philosophy & science (QM specifically) inform each other.

The universal mind is quite the idea. It's right up yer alley. Wayfarer would've loved to discuss it from his unique Buddhist perspective.

Thanks for the short 'n' sweet Britannica article on renormalization. I have a thread that could use it (The Largest Number We Will Ever Need)

Intriguing ideas mate! I'm not sure how they tie up though. For the moment though, in me humble opinion, I do see a blurry picture forming - you need to now bring it into focus or not, the choice being yours entirely. — Agent Smith

No. You need to bring it into focus. These TPF posts on disparate topics are inherently fragmented. But the Enformationism thesis begins at the beginning of the Energy+Matter+Mind equation and moves toward a novel information-theoretic worldview. The BothAnd Blog articles continue to explore specific applications of the basic concept : Generic Information is the fundamental substance of the universe. Links to opinions of Information-oriented scientists & philosophers add more detail to the emerging Information-based scientific paradigm. So, the choice is yours, to explore beyond my layman's opinions, expressed in bits & bytes of information. :smile:

PS__ You can choose to take "s jibes seriously or not. To throw you off the scent he makes a bold assertion : "Neither "multiverse" nor "many worlds" are "scientific postulations". I assume he's aware that both of those philosophical conjectures were conjured-up by theoretical physicists to explain infinities or dead-ends in their mathematical theories. Admittedly, those hypothetical solutions to quantum & cosmological conundrums were adopted more often by imaginative sci-fi writers, than by pragmatic scientists. Being unfalsifiable, they are actually philosophical speculations, even when proposed by baffled scientists. But they were intended to be mathematically-supported interpretations of enigmatic physical evidence. :nerd:

The bizarre logic of the many-worlds theory :
***At the beginning of Something Deeply Hidden, Sean Carroll cites the tale of the fox and the grapes from Aesop’s Fables. A hungry fox tries to reach a bunch of grapes dangling from a vine. Finding them beyond his grasp, but refusing to admit failure, the fox declares the grapes to be inedible and turns away. That, Carroll declares, encapsulates how physicists treat the wacky implications of quantum mechanics.
***Carroll wants that to stop. The fox can reach the grapes, he argues, with the many-worlds theory. Originated by US physicist Hugh Everett in the late 1950s, this envisions our Universe as just one of numerous parallel worlds that branch off from each other, nanosecond by nanosecond, without intersecting or communicating. (The many-worlds theory differs from the concept of the multiverse, which pictures many self-contained universes in different regions of space-time.)
https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-019-02602-8

Multiverse :
***In Dublin in 1952, Erwin Schrödinger gave a lecture in which he jocularly warned his audience that what he was about to say might "seem lunatic". He said that when his equations seemed to describe several different histories, these were "not alternatives, but all really happen simultaneously". This sort of duality is called "superposition".
***Some physicists say the multiverse is not a legitimate topic of scientific inquiry. Concerns have been raised about whether attempts to exempt the multiverse from experimental verification could erode public confidence in science and ultimately damage the study of fundamental physics. Some have argued that the multiverse is a philosophical notion rather than a scientific hypothesis because it cannot be empirically falsified. The ability to disprove a theory by means of scientific experiment is a critical criterion of the accepted scientific method.[9] Paul Steinhardt has famously argued that no experiment can rule out a theory if the theory provides for all possible outcomes.
***Modern proponents of one or more of the multiverse hypotheses include Don Page, Brian Greene, Max Tegmark, Alan Guth, Andrei Linde, Michio Kaku, David Deutsch, Leonard Susskind, Alexander Vilenkin, Yasunori Nomura, Raj Pathria, Laura Mersini-Houghton, Neil deGrasse Tyson, Sean Carroll and Stephen Hawking.`
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiverse

What did Einstein say about multiverse?
The concept of the multiverse stems from the big bang theory — Albert Einstein's once controversial, but now widely accepted, idea that the universe instantaneously expanded from a tiny point called a singularity.
Note -- Some scientists realized that the only logical option to a singular Creation Event (implying a Creator), was to imagine that a Multiverse has always existed, with intrinsic Energy, Laws & Matter. In a series of "big bounces" this eternal source of being repeatedly recreates itself in the form of an infinite regression of creation events. The Multiverse theory basically replaces a traditional eternal spiritual Creator with an eternal material process of temporal change.

SELF-EXISTENT GODLESS MULTIVERSES vs UNITARY ETERNAL CREATOR

Generic Information is the fundamental substance of the universe. — Gnomon

You do yourself no favors with vague nonsense like this :sparkle:

The universal mind is quite the idea. It's right up yer alley. Wayfarer would've loved to discuss it from his unique Buddhist perspective. — Agent Smith

Except that I try not to think of the Enformer in terms of a "Universal Mind", but as the universal power to enform. I have my reasons for making that distinction : we have no information about personal characteristics of the eternal enforming Force beyond the bounds of space-time. The mind behind that power is occult (hidden by necessity or by intention). So imagining the Enformer as a metaphorical humanoid Mind is presumptive. But if you prefer a more personal Mind, instead of an impersonal Power to Enform, more power to you. I'm open-minded. :smile:


Creator in Buddhism :
Buddhism is a religion that does not include the belief in a creator deity, or any eternal divine personal being.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creator_in_Buddhism

Leading neuroscientists and Buddhists agree: “Consciousness is everywhere” :
New theories in neuroscience suggest consciousness is an intrinsic property of everything, just like gravity. That development opens a world of opportunity for collaboration between Buddhists and neuroscientists.
https://www.lionsroar.com/christof-koch-unites-buddhist-neuroscience-universal-nature-mind/
Note -- I make a technical distinction between human Consciousness and Generic Information. EnFormAction is the power of Causation (similar to physical Energy), and human Consciousness (Mind) is one effect of that cause. The ultimate source of that power may have mind-like properties, but I don't presume to know for sure. Yet we can know that Information (Energy+Matter+Mind) is an intrinsic property of everything in the real & ideal worlds*1. :smile:


*1. To see how informational realism dissolves the mind-body problem, we need first to be clear on what informational realism is and why it is credible. Informational realism is not simply the view that information is real. We live in an information age, so who doesn’t think that information is real? Rather, informational realism asserts that the ability to exchange information is the defining feature of reality, of what it means, at the most fundamental level, for any entity to be real.
https://mindmatters.ai/2021/07/how-informational-realism-subverts-materialism/

Cosmopsychism vs Enformationism :
Nature as a conscious Agent
http://www.bothandblog.enformationism.info/page53.html

Let’s suppose some sort of universal mind creates me and everyone else. — Art48
This doesn't follow from the rest of your reasoning. — Manuel

Which is why the sentence begins "Let's suppose".

Universal mind is (just) a hypothesis - it doesn't seem to be backed up by evidence and truth is it doesn't even mention it in passing or as footnote or a side note. Universal mind id simply a perspective, a way of looking at something. In that regard it resembles your Enformationism.

Wayfarer is into mind stuff and he made some pretty interesting remarks on the topic which I would like to tie up with Enformationism by asking "what is En(in)formation without a (universal) mind?"

@Gnomon's Enformationism is, sensu lato, a hypothesis - what it could be - but it doesn't seem to be a testable one, like scientific hypohtheses are. I guess it comes with the territory (metaphysics). Do your objections revolve around this particular aspect of Gnomon's Enformationism or is there more to them?

As I've said a number of times here and elsewhere, "Enformationism" is neither a soundly logical speculation nor a testable conjecture as @Gnomon has often claimed. Consider these attempts to draw him out on these objections (which he fails to address except with evasive sophistry, etc):

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/746676 (2 mo. ago)

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/705408 (6 mo. ago)

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/397690 (3 yrs ago)

But if you do suppose that, then solipsism collapses. You can only suppose that you are the only thing in existence, and the question would be how long would you render your existence tenable, right *now*, an hour, you whole life?

So, you need some kind of modification to allow the supposition to be postulated at all.

You're too kind sir. As I thought, Enformationism is untestable (forgivable), but I didn't expect it was also not "soundly logical" (sacrilege :grin: ). :chin:

However BothAnd, a key tool in Gnomon's Enformationism, suggests prima facie defiance of logic.

Complementarity (e.g. yin-yang) does not "defy logic", though "X = -X" does (re: principle of explosion). If @Gnomon's "BothAnd" implies the former, then it's rooted in quite a few esteemable traditions. If, however, it consists of the latter, then it's patently invalid (i.e. illogical), which accounts for much of the poor reasoning and fallacies found throughout his speculations.

Complementarity (e.g. yin-yang) does not "defy logic", though "X = -X" does (re: principle of explosion). If Gnomon's "BothAnd" implies the former, then it's rooted in quite a few esteemable traditions. If, however, it consists of the latter, then it's patently invalid (i.e. illogical), which accounts for much of the poor reasoning and fallacies found throughout his speculations. — 180 Proof

How very fascinating! Yep, Gnomon frequently mentions Yin-Yang and to be fair he isn't exactly positing contradictions as true/real/vital. What he's found is some kind of an overlap in magisteria (religion & science) - we are all, it can't be denied, trying to solve the equation primum movens = ?.

True people like yourself have come to realize or believe (guessing) that the equation above is gibberish/nonsense, but some like Gnomon and myself still see meaning in it. Metaphysics is 90% speculation to my reckoning.

Regarding the multiverse, you seem to know as much as I do - all said at done it's a(n) (untestable) hypothesis. Form-wise it's indistinguishable from an invisble pink dragon floating above your head, but content-wise it's unique and the math backs it up.

I'm not a fan of the (monstrously unparsimonious) "multiverse", though as a non-physicist, I am quite in favor of the many worlds interpretation of QM which I vaguely understand dispenses with 'collapsing wave functions' (i.e. the Copenhagen interpretation).

As for the "primum movens", I think Democritus had dispensed with that idea by assuming 'motion is a fundamental property of atoms (i.e. they cannot not move / vibrate)' even before Aristotle had fetishized it. Also, Heraclitus had conceived of motion (i.e. 'flux') as fundamental just as Laozi had in the Daodejing. Motion is energy, no? Non-energetic energy (i.e. "primem movens") makes no more sense than cause of causality ("first cause").

Well, what about the source of energy? Something must've got the ball rolling and that's what primum movens is all about, oui mon ami?

Whatever "source of energy" you choose must be itself energetic (i.e. causes effects / changes), which precipates an infinite regress that tells us nothing. 'To be' is to vibrate-fluctuate (i.e. dissipate); being is motion. Ask Laozi. Ask Heraclitus. Ask Democritus ... Ask Boltzmann. Ask Heisenberg ... :fire:

180 Proof
You're too kind sir. As I thought, Enformationism is untestable (forgivable), but I didn't expect it was also not "soundly logical" (sacrilege :grin: ). :chin:
However BothAnd, a key tool in Gnomon's Enformationism, suggests prima facie defiance of logic. — Agent Smith

A philosophical (metaphysical) thesis is inherently "untestable" by physical experiments. But it must be amenable to Reason. However, most of the scientific evidence underlying the thesis has resulted from both physical (empirical) and mathematical (logical) testing. The equivalence of Energy and Information is a scientific conclusion from evidence*1, not a philosophical conjecture from phantasy. Most of my post links are to scientific publications*2, and none are to magical or religious beliefs. So, don't take 's disparaging assertion as authoritative evidence that the thesis is "illogical". Think for yourself*3.

180's classical "sound" logic is two-valued*4, and dismisses all values between the extremes of True vs False. So, I conclude that 180's antipathy toward the Enformationism thesis is based on his ignorance, or distrust, of Quantum Physics with its non-classical logic. Quantum physics requires Boolean algebra in order to make sense of the Fuzzy Logic of quantum Uncertainty. To 180, BothAnd reasoning is sacrilegious, and "defiance of logic". But to Gnomon, it is practical secular reasoning for Metaphysical questions such as Mind/Matter and Quantum Fuzziness*5. So, if non-mechanical quantum physics makes you uncomfortable, you can hide under the security blanket of mechanical Classical physics. If 180 doesn't grasp the meaning of quantum physics and information theory, he can dismiss them as "sour grapes". :joke:


*1. Information & Energy equivalence :
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/
Note -- Information & Energy are not the same thing, but different forms of the same metaphysical substance : EnFormAction (power to change form)

*2. Information and Energy As Independent Forms of Bookkeeping
Energy and information are related but independent, so the dynamical restrictions for one cannot be derived from those for the other. From this perspective, we also suggest the possibility that the foundation of the second law may be linked to the finite capacity of nature to store information about its own state.
https://arxiv.org/ftp/cond-mat/papers/0501/0501014.pdf
Note -- Shannon defined his novel concept of "Information" mathematically (syntax), instead of semantically (meaning). He borrowed the notion of Information entropy from the physics of Energy. But the original meaning of "information" remains semantic. So Information is BothAnd (syntax & semantic), not Either/Or. N'est pas?

*3. "Think for yourself, or others will think for you without thinking of you."
___Henry David Thoreau

*4. Two Value Logic :
Classically, a logic is two-valued if every proposition (without free variables) is either true or false and none is both; that is, the logic is consistent and every proposition is decidable. Being two-valued logic is a key feature of classical logic; any logic that is not two-valued is ipso facto nonclassical.
https://ncatlab.org/nlab/show/two-valued+logic
Note -- True/False logic assumes complete information & arrogant certainty. Yet, in cases of incomplete information & fuzzy uncertainty (e.g. Quantum Physics & Mental Phenomena), a more modest form of reasoning is advisable.

*5. BothAnd thinking :
Quantum thinking is the ability of the mind to view a problem from all sides.
https://interestingengineering.com/culture/decoding-quantum-thinking-what-it-feels-like-to-think-free

As usual, more assertions without arguments, but with strawmen & ad hominrms instead. And, for all your self-flattering "higher" knowledge or understanding, you cannot directly address any of my questions about your speculations such as those provided previously
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/761003.

What is @Agent Smith to think, who is much more sympathetic to your ideas than I am, when at every turn, Gnomon, you fail to defend those ideas to my (and other member's) challenges? Your tiresome ad hominem that I have an "anti-metaphysical bias" discredits you as I long ago proposed my own speculative alternative to classical / analytical (i.e. kataphatic) metaphysics in this old thread
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/629398 ... yet your pathetic crutch of "anti-metaphysical bias" remains because you ignore my actually stated position and other honest attempts to critically engage you on the level of 'pure speculation'. You completely lack credibility, Gnomon. A warranted observation and not an ad hominem. :shade:

True, 180 Proof, that Gnomon's idea of Enformationism is speculative - that's part of the territory (metaphysics). Also true that BothAnd is rather uncomfortably close to saying (p & ~p). However, 180 Proof, you seem to give some credence to Taoist thought; Enformationism appears to be a derivative of this ancient Chinese philosophy. If Toaism makes sense at some level, so too should Enformationism, at least the BothAnd part of it in me humble opinion.

That said, 180 Proof may have very specific issues with the Enformationism, homed in on what some call fatal flaws.

That kind of poor reasoning is known as "sympathetic magic" thinking, Smith. G's "BothAnd" has nothing to do with yin-yang (or wave-particle) complementarity as far as I can tell – it's its own occult thing. Anyway, until G addresses my questions, I can't claim I know for sure what he's glossolaling about.

That kind of poor reasoning is known as "sympathetic magic" thinking, Smith. G's "BothAnd" has nothing to do with yin-yang (or wave-particle) complementarity as far as I can tell – it's its own occult thing. Anyway, until G addresses my questions, I can't claim I know for sure what he's glossolaling about. — 180 Proof

Well, if photons and matter waves, surely there's a duality that isn't complementary, rather they're annihilatory (MAD) and although Gnomon's BothAnd is more of the former, it easily accommodates the latter.

Just to be clear, for the record, I never really grasped duality (looks like deep down I'm an advaita)

Wtf are you talking about?

Wtf are you talking about? — 180 Proof

:grin: I don't know. As I said I'm not sure I understand duality. Can ya help? What's duality?

:eyes:
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/dualism/

Gracias. Too dense, don't have the time. tl;dr moment.

Wtf are you talking about? — 180 Proof
:grin: I don't know. As I said I'm not sure I understand duality. Can ya help? What's duality? — Agent Smith

I just came across a purported Shakespeare quote that epitomizes 's belittling "arguments" toward forum posts that don't fit his own fossilized philosophy. Ironically, the same quote could be reflected back at the belittler. :joke:

"I would challenge you to a battle of wits, but I see you are unarmed." ___Anon E. Mous

Well, if photons and matter waves, surely there's a duality that isn't complementary, rather they're annihilatory (MAD) and although Gnomon's BothAnd is more of the former, it easily accommodates the latter. — Agent Smith

Yes. Modern physics has discovered both complementary partnerships, as in wave/particle duality. But it also has evidence for contradictory interactions, as in Particles vs Antiparticles. But, on a cosmic scale, this universe seems to be a non-dual holistic system, in that particular positives & negatives interact dynamically, but also collectively cancel-out to Zero or Neutral values : Thesis -- Antithesis -- Synthesis. :smile:

PS__That complementary holistic notion ain't "sympathetic magic", it's cosmic physics.