Assassin
1. Life 30
2. Agility 60
3. Strength 40
4. Defense 60 — Agent Smith
This means you are the same person you were 5 minutes, 5 months, and 5 years ago, as this immaterial part of you remains. — tom111
. If we decide we want to slowly re-arrange an individual into an entirely different organism, at what point can they no longer be considered the same "self"? — tom111
So why is it, when I look back at photos of myself from 5 years ago, I feel like the same person? — tom111
Upon thorough examination, the idea of a "self" is as arbitrary as the idea of a "chair", or any other object. — tom111
's question is treating "Information" as-if it is nothing-but Physical. Yet, in the sense of "essence of all things" Information is both physical and metaphysical. Consequently, in its physical forms (e.g. energy/matter) Information must obey physical laws, but in its metaphysical forms (e.g. mind/ideas) information must obey logical laws. However, when physicists talk about conservation laws, they are referring to energy in the conventional scientific sense, not to its unconventional philosophical sense of EnFormAction -- which I assume they have never heard of. This forum has an exclusive on that outré notion.I have adopted the modern notion of "Information" to describe the essence of all things.
— Gnomon
Given that "essence" denotes that which non-impermanently makes something what is and not something else (to paraphase Plato/Aristotle(?)), why isn't there a "law of the conservation of information" like – complementary to or entailed by – the conservation of mass-energy law, for instance? Why isn't "information" (i.e. "pattern", as you say, Gnomon) conserved in physics? — 180 Proof
To tell you the truth, a Google search on conservation of energy was negative although there was something in The black hole information paradox (Susskind, Hawking et all). — Agent Smith
Consequently, in its physical forms (e.g. energy/matter) Information must obey physical laws, but in its metaphysical forms (e.g. mind/ideas) information must obey logical laws. — Gnomon
Yes, and then . . . the beat goes on. I don't know how you would physically determine if non-physical forms of Information are conserved. But since, in my thesis, Generic Information can be transformed into Energy, and Energy into Matter, then Matter into Entropy, which can be stored in Black Holes like a deep freeze, it seems that Information cycles without ceasing. Presumably. the original Information (the program code) of the Big Bang Singularity has been recycled for 14 billion years, without any loss of information from within the closed system. Some theorists even speculate that Black Hole information can be recycled; hypothetically *1. Is that conservative enough for you?Information is physical e.g. DNA, circuit-switches, computer programs, heat, etc. Every physical transformation is information; translating (i.e. compressing) information into an algorithm is abstraction (i.e. code). Yeah, abstract = nonphysical (insofar as 'nonphysical' means not causally related). — 180 Proof
Yeah, but if information isn't conserved and if matter & energy (physical) are then ... — Agent Smith
As a proposed comprehensive belief-system, an -ism, my personal philosophy should be approached with skepticism. But also with an open mind toward novel philosophical models. It has implications for both scientific paradigms and religious beliefs. It doesn't directly contradict the prevailing Materialism of science & philosophy, but it does propose a new way of understanding the physical world, that doesn't ignore the emerging role of non-physical Mind/Culture, and causal Information.But I don't believe it is meaningful to speak of 'information' as if it is the fundamental substrate or foundation of all that exists. . . .
And I regret to say that I invariably find your 'enformationism' mere hand-waving. — Wayfarer
A stone sculpture is informational. It's not merely a stone. DNA self-replicates because it is informational. It's not just organic compounds. An origami unicorn is informational. It's not simply paper. Etc. — 180 Proof
DNA is the medium (paper), the message (information is in the sequence of nucleotides) — Agent Smith
I'm not sure I accept it, but I think I'd sooner accept it than the idea that some kind of amorphous 'information' is 'behind everything'. — Wayfarer
None of which is actually relevant to the question in the thread, other than to say that it is possible to conceive of 'the self' as the identity of a process rather than as an immutable or unchangeable entity - just as the Buddha does. — Wayfarer
I thought at Gnomon was using information as a kid of secular analogue for essence. — Tom Storm
Aristotle's 'immanent realism' (i.e. that forms are real only when they are instantiated in particulars). — Wayfarer
DNA is not an "artefact"Notice that they're all artefacts. — Wayfarer
Would you consider this a useful refinement of Plato's idea of instantiation? Does Aristotle still propose a realm of forms? — Tom Storm
Notice that they're all artefacts.
— Wayfarer
DNA is not an "artefact" — 180 Proof
DNA is the medium (paper), the message (information is in the sequence of nucleotides)
— Agent Smith
The general thrust of molecular biology is that DNA encodes and transmits information. Biosemiosis says that it is, therefore, different in kind from inorganic matter, as that passage indicates. — Wayfarer
Silly me. I'm using 'information' in terms of contemporary information science and computer science (e.g. David Deutsch, Stephhen Wolfram) and the physics on which they are based according to my layman's understanding (it's been decades since university studies on these topics). "Enformationism", etc doesn't provide any nontrivial or coherent grounds to reconceive or reinterpret any aspects of those (or any other) contemporary sciences. Asa philosophical speculation, it's woo-of-the-gaps idealiam rationalized with sophistical statements (i.e. "meta-physics", etc). Good luck with all that pseudo-stuff, Smith. — 180 Proof
I've never taken issue with the significant scientists he cites; I usually take issue only with Gnomon's poorly reasoned interpretations of the work of those scientists and the mystical / metaphysical traditions on which his interpretations rely. — 180 Proof
Start 1. Plan [formal cause] 2. Material, acquire [material cause] 3. Build, with material & as per plan [efficient cause] 4. Purpose [final cause] End
I was surprised my your description of my "enthusiastic" presentation of Enformationism as "mere handwaving" (empty gestures)*1. My intention is more like Teaching or Preaching, which often involve emphatic use of the hands to emphasize a point. Understandably, preaching is typically not well-received on this forum, and is often shouted-down*2. But, a certain amount of Teaching is necessary, because most members of this forum are only vaguely familiar with Shannon's use of the term "Information" in the context of Entropy (i.e. dis-information). As Dr. Frankenstein's fire-fearing creature might say : "Entropy bad!" So, Information itself has been pegged with a negative connotation as something to be avoided. Ironically, in Shannon's sense of "uncertainty" and "surprise", "more entropy means more information".And I regret to say that I invariably find your 'enformationism' mere hand-waving. — Wayfarer
For the record, by "non-scientific" I mean philosophical and meta-physical. But seems to equate modern Philosophy with classical (non-quantum) Physics. :smile:I have a feeling we're talking past each other. Gnomon's idea of information is not the one you're using. As s/he said, his information is outré (unconventional) which to me reads nonscientific. — Agent Smith
Yes. Gnomon typically quotes the quantum physicists who were both pioneers of the New Physics, and somewhat open to non-classical (mystical) concepts. Yet Schrodinger's metaphorical cat is not both dead and alive ; its state, for a standby observer, is merely undetermined (statistically somewhere between 0 & 100%). Apparently knows more about Quantum Theory than those Nobel prize winners. His "shadows" have sharp edges. Hence, he labels Gnomon's use of their fuzzy philosophical metaphors as "poorly reasoned". :smile:That should mean something - a few scientific domains are still open to metaphysical interpretations like our friend Gnomon's. It's as unfortunate as is unsurprising that Gnomon has bet his money on quantum physics - the shadowy realm of science where cats are both dead and alive. It's an easy target as far as I can tell for mystic cum metaphysicans; all the more reason for scientists to get their act together and fast. — Agent Smith
I thought at Gnomon was using information as a kid of secular analogue for essence. — Tom Storm
Well, kind of, but I question the accordance of this usage with the classical meaning. My understanding is that 'essence' boils down essentially to 'is-ness' - what makes a particular what it is. That was derived originally from Plato's 'eidos' (idea or form), usually understood as mediated by Aristotle's 'immanent realism' (i.e. that forms are real only when they are instantiated in particulars). — Wayfarer
I didn't make-up the notion that Information is the fundamental element of the world*1. So, I have linked to many different articles, written by professional scientists, who make that assertion as a hypothesis, based on the association of Information with Energy & Entropy. As the precursor of Matter (E=MC^2), intangible Energy could be construed as the physical primitive, from which all material objects are derived*2. This is not a classical physics concept, but an emerging consensus among mathematical scientists who tend to define Energy & Information in statistical terms. Neither is real in itself, but have the power to create real things from nothing-but statistical relationships, such as hot/cold.But I don't believe it is meaningful to speak of 'information' as if it is the fundamental substrate or foundation of all that exists. It is not a metaphysical primitive — Wayfarer
For the record, by "non-scientific" I mean philosophical and meta-physical. But ↪180 Proof seems to equate modern Philosophy with classical (non-quantum) Physics — Gnomon
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.