The problem with this view is that you cease to exist when you go to sleep and then re-exist when you awake.

Assassin
1. Life 30
2. Agility 60
3. Strength 40
4. Defense 60 — Agent Smith

What kind of assassin has as much agility as defense??

What kind of assassin has as much agility as defense?? — khaled

I was not all there. :smile:

Firstly, nicely written OP, articulate and well thought out.

I'm going to go about this by asking you follow up questions based on what you wrote. Because sometimes questions provide just as much insight/novelty/curiosity as an answer.

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

What do we mean by "same" here, is the self only what components you're made of? Or is also qualified by behaviour, awareness and knowledge. Am I the same as I was when I was 2 drinking a warm bottle of milk and playing with blocks? Or has growing up changed me - my behaviour, dreams, beliefs/views, skills etc.

. 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

If we suppose that different organisms have a different requirement for atoms of various elements, is it possible to use the same profile of components that makes a human to make another organism? For example if you wanted to convert me to a tree by rearranging my matter, would I need less nitrogen and more manganese than would ever be required for the composition of a human? Would there be left overs, or missing elements?

So why is it, when I look back at photos of myself from 5 years ago, I feel like the same person? — tom111

Could it be the continuity of memory - of place and time, that provides the adequate context to feel "the same" - as in to identify with past states of self. What would happen to our sense of self if we had not ability to remember the past?

Upon thorough examination, the idea of a "self" is as arbitrary as the idea of a "chair", or any other object. — tom111

Does a chair have a sense of self? And could we ever prove it using only human sense of self for measure?

In a purely materialist view, the sense of self is arbitrary and a product of material arrangement and processes but means that matter has an intrinsic property of being able to be aware/perceive itself in specific arrangements

OR

Self is innate, and doesn't depend on material arrangement. Which means we would have little reason thay consciousness is a fundamental universal.

Both cases are very interesting and profound indeed.
Material cannot be fully inanimate in either case as we are proof. Because either it is animate inherently, or something called self gives it animation.

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

'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 am currently reading a book by astrophysicist Caleb Scharf, The Ascent of Information. In the first chapter he says, "a number of thinkers over the years have asked whether information itself may be the fundamental currency of the universe -- superseding our comparatively parochial ideas of what makes biology, and chemistry, or even physics tick". His term "fundamental currency" is what I referred to as "the essence of all things". Since 180proof is still thinking in terms of "parochial ideas" (having a limited or narrow outlook or scope), he does not agree with those innovative thinkers.

Scharf has coined the neologism "Dataome"*1 (compare to Genome) to encapsulate his own outré concept of Universal Information. Raw "data" is appropriate for Claude Shannon's narrow definition of Information. But, from the Enformationism perspective, Data is a basic form of Information that doesn't have any inherent significance or purpose or meaning -- it's unprocessed information. That's why Scharf goes on to say that "real information is that data organized and assembled and structured to provide meaning and context". Likewise, the ideal mental construct of "Self" -- pointing to a specific body -- is a metaphysical meaningful structure that exists upon a physical substrate, but is not itself physical. It exists in the same sense that the concept of "Universe" does, pointing to a physical expanse of matter.

Universal Information is more comprehensive in scope than mere Data. Which is why I coined the term Enformationism to encapsulate the universal & essential role of the cosmic Causal-power-to-enform (to organize into physical or meaningful structures or patterns). Therefore, in a physical format an enformed structure must comply with the conservation law. But in a metaphysical form, the applicable law is Logic (rules & tests of sound reasoning). Which may also be conservative, but not in the same sense. :smile:


*1. Dataome : the class of all forms of information, from abstract data to meaningful ideas to material objects.
Note 1 -- Scharf compares his coinage to "Noosphere" (universal scope of mind), coined in the 1920s by paleontologist Pierre Teilhard deChardin and geologist Vladimir Vernadsky to encompass their notion of an emerging stage of evolutionary development, due to the expanding role of non-physical Consciousness in the physical world. Physicist John A. Wheeler introduced a similar novel notion (It from Bit) around 1989, to encapsulate his concept of an information-based world.
Note 2 -- Noosphere is a no-no for Materialists, who don't "see" how a metaphysical Mind could exist apart from its substantial substrate. Yet, it does exist, as an abstract idea (e.g. prescient Purpose), in the same sense that a future-oriented Function exists for any physical machine. No original intentional metaphysical Purpose >>> no Cause >>> no Machine >>> no Function >>> no physical Output >>> no satisfied Objective. :cool:

You're an information goldmine, monsieur. :up:

My conception of how info underpins everything is that it's a prerequisite to, well, everything. Before, as I recall telling you, I create a universe, I need info on how to (re DNA). This idea could be extrapolated to everything is information, dissolving the boundary between information and dinge, between medium and message (did you watch the Denzel Washington movie The Book of Eli? Eli is the Biblia Sacra).

Just the other day I was musing over the universe as an übercomputer and wondering how many flops it takes to run this shitshow :grin: - from me picking my nose to that Uranium atom that just decayed to galactic and intergalactic interactions. That's a mind-boggling amount of calculations this übercomputer has to perform every single instant.

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

This occupies the field of biosemiotics, which we've all been introduced to here through the contributions of @apokrisis, hence my quote from Marcello Barbieri, one of the leading theorists in that field.

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 - the word itself is polysemic, i.e. has many different meanings depending on its context and the subject under discussion. One of the biosemiotic theorists I was reading earlier this week associates the emergence of intelligence exclusively with the presence of life and mind.

And I regret to say that I invariably find your 'enformationism' mere hand-waving.

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

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?

defines "non-physical" as "not causally related". But some scientists have concluded that Information transfer is a causal relationship*2. Unfortunately, non-physical information transfer (memes to minds) are not measurable in a physical sense *3. So the definition is moot. :smile:


*1. Information Recycling :
The "black hole information paradox" refers to the fact that information cannot be destroyed in the universe, and yet when a black hole eventually evaporates, whatever information was gobbled up by this cosmic vacuum cleaner should have long since vanished. The new study proposes that the paradox could be resolved by nature's ultimate cheat code: wormholes, or passages through space-time.
https://www.livescience.com/black-hole-paradox-solution

*2. Information causality is a physical principle suggested in 2009 . . . . The principle assumes classical communication: if quantum bits were allowed to be transmitted the information gain could be higher as demonstrated in the quantum superdense coding protocol [this is debatable as superdense coding requires sending as many qubits - including auxiliary channels - as there are classical bits to transfer]. The principle is respected by all correlations accessible with quantum physics
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Information_causality
Note -- "information gain" is a net change, caused by input of information.

*3. Information causality as a physical principle :
Information causality may therefore help to distinguish physical theories from non-physical ones.
https://www.proquest.com/docview/204560784
Note -- Only physical properties are measurable in quantitative terms. Non-physical qualities are knowable only by conscious minds.Do you have any memes in your mind? How much do those massless objects weigh? How many degrees of uncertainty can your mind contain?

Information : (my definition)
Knowledge and the ability to know. Technically, it's the ratio of order to disorder, of positive to negative, of knowledge to ignorance. It's measured in degrees of uncertainty. Those ratios are also called "differences". So Gregory Bateson* defined Information as "the difference that makes a difference". The latter distinction refers to "value" or "meaning". Babbage called his prototype computer a "difference engine". Difference is the cause or agent of Change. In Physics it’s called "Thermodynamics" or "Energy". In Sociology it’s called "Conflict".
http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page11.html

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

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.

Do you disagree with the statements of the professional scientists quoted in my posts? Or do you merely disagree with my amateur interpretation of their collective opinions? Since I have no professional or academic qualifications, I have to rely on their expertise to ground my philosophical system-building. So you should feel free to critique my reasoning, as a few have done on this forum over the last few years. Like Quantum Theory, it's hard to wrap your mind around the idea of Information as the foundation of both Reality and Ideality.

Enformationism is not a scientific theory, and should not be judged by scientific criteria. And even the quoted scientists are not presenting settled-science, but merely their own personal opinions.
You might better understand their "meaning" if you would read their own words. That's why I provide internet links and book titles. Can you provide a specific instance of "hand-waving"? Even hand waving is a form of Information transfer. :smile:

Enformationism :
***This website is a place to explore the meaning and ramifications of a new philosophical hypothesis that I have chosen to call Enformationism. The term spelled with an "I" had already been used elsewhere in various contexts and meanings, so I looked for an alternative name. Since the new scientific term Enformy was already in use, with a meaning similar to what I had in mind, I simply chose to change the spelling of my proposed coinage.
***This informal thesis does not present any new scientific evidence, or novel philosophical analysis. It merely suggests a new perspective on an old enigma : what is reality? The so-called “Information Age” that began in the 20th century, has now come of age in the 21st century. So I have turned to the cutting-edge Information Sciences in an attempt to formulate my own personal answer to the perennial puzzles of Ontology, the science of Existence.
*** I am neither a scientist, nor a philosopher, so the arguments herein carry no more authority or expertise than those of anyone else with an interest in such impractical musings. This is intended to be an open-ended thread, because it’s a relatively new and unproven concept, and because the ideas presented here are merely a superficial snapshot of what promises to be a whole new way of understanding the world : philosophically, scientifically, and religiously.
http://enformationism.info/enformationism.info/page2%20Welcome.html

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

Notice that they're all artefacts. Inorganic matter is not 'informational' in that sense.

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.

I generally like your attitude and admire your enthusiasm, but I think there's a gap in your account. I think there has to be some sense in which 'Mind' is fundamental or foundational - not simply as the product of interactions of matter-energy and form.

I've read a bit about this idea of the foundational role of information - for example Paul Davies' book on it, and I have James Gleick's The Information - but I think there's some sort of fallacy of equivocation associated with such theses. Put simply, what is behind genetic information, what is its cause? Is biological information somehow spontaneously generated by inorganic matter? You know there is a theistic Argument from Biological Information. 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'.

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. The Buddha declined to answer the question 'does the self exist' with either yes or no, because the aim is to understand how the process of dependent origination gives rise to the sense of self, which is the central teaching of Buddhism.

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

I thought at @Gnomon was using information/enformation as a kind of secular analogue for essence.

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

That fits in with my tentative models for self.

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).

There has been a re-evaluation of Aristotle in modern biological thinking, because his 'form-matter' dualism is actually highly adaptible (unlike Aristotelian physics, for instance). I've read some discussion of whether Aristotle's ideas of telos (and entelechy) actually anticipated the idea of DNA. But that can be discussed through the perspectives of (for instance) biology and biosemiotics. I'm finding the introduction of 'information theory' a bit tendentious.

That makes sense. Somehow these matters always take us back to Plato, right? :cool:

Aristotle's 'immanent realism' (i.e. that forms are real only when they are instantiated in particulars). — Wayfarer

Would you consider this a useful refinement of Plato's idea of instantiation? Does Aristotle still propose a realm of forms?

Notice that they're all artefacts. — Wayfarer

DNA is not an "artefact"

Information (i.e. pattern) is not conserved as a fundamental law in physics because information (i.e. pattern) consists in differences-signals, not identity-noise. Information begins with symmetry-breaking (i.e. increasing net entropy); patterns are asymmetries bound by (apparent, or partial) symmetries. Thus, information is emergent and not fundamental, even though everything is informational (i.e. signal-to-noise ratios, entropic / dissipative).

To the extent things are "enformed", as @Gnomon says, those things are "enformed", or transformed – made more informational (i.e. complex), by agents (e.g. humans) which are informational. 'Lit candles lighting other candles' – the mass (re: wick-stuff & wax), and energy (re: light & heat) are conserved but not the candle sticks (i.e. patterns, structures) because – they are emergent and not fundamental. It's we, for example, that "enform" (i.e. add (e.g. "copy & paste") information) because we are informational having emerged far enough along the cosmological entropy-gradient after (from) the fundamental symmetry-breaking of the planck era (re: quantum uncertainty).

"Enformationism", like most other flavors of idealism / platonism, gets the relation of cause and effect backwards: "enformy" is (logically, if not physically) an effect of information, which is emergent signals from the noise (e.g. "big bang" ... white hole, quantum tunneling, etc) of acausal symmetry-breaking, and not the cause itself. If, however, "The Enformer" is synonymous with acausal symmetry-breaking (as "the uncaused cause" :roll:), then, okay, except that this is a completely physical concept and not in any explicable way "non-physical" (i.e. "Meta-physical") because, paraphrasing Laplace, there is no need for that speculation – it's a distinction without a logical or epistemic difference. :eyes:

Would you consider this a useful refinement of Plato's idea of instantiation? Does Aristotle still propose a realm of forms? — Tom Storm

Now there's a great thread topic, but we'd need input from some of the more experienced readers in that subject. (AFAIK, Aristotle rejects the 'realm of forms', but I think it's far from clear what was meant by that in the first place, or what precisely is being rejected.)

Notice that they're all artefacts.
— Wayfarer
DNA is not an "artefact" — 180 Proof

That rather begs the question, does it not? :naughty: The point about the informational structure of DNA is that it is unique to living forms and the question of the origin of life is still open.

No question was begged by me, Wayf.

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

Merci beaucoup for that interesting remark.

Wonderful!

1. Information is an emergent property

2. Enformy is an effect and not a cause

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.

Gracias 180 Proof for the reply.

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. As a 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. :victory: :sweat:

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

:grin:

I understand. I was especially moved by how science, as demonstrated by you in your last post to me, can so effortlessly and so heartlessly reduce to rubble painstakingly put together philosophies. I'm in awe, but to be fair there's dissent among the ranks mon ami - some scientists, probably those mystically-minded, are proposing novel ideas and models (@Gnomon cites big and small names) who, by his account, see eye to eye with him. 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.

Au revoir.

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.

Adios.

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

:up: On target mon ami. It's quite odd that a few of these scientists write so badly, leaving the door wide open for misinterpretations of all and sundry kinds. I'll leave Gnomon to come up with an appropriate response.

@Gnomon

COMPUTER ALGORITHM (Information as the arche)

Chicken & Egg Problem vis-à-vis mind-information

To build mind, one needs information on how to build a mind.

To gather information on how to build a mind one needs mind.

And I regret to say that I invariably find your 'enformationism' mere hand-waving. — Wayfarer

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".

By contrast to the engineering usage, my philosophical application of Information Theory is focused on its positive aspects (Energy/Enformy as contrasted to Entropy/Deform). In the book by astrophysicist Caleb Scharf, The Ascent of Information, he recounts a story of how Shannon came to connect disrupted messages on noisy phone lines with thermodynamic Entropy (all the ways it could go wrong). John von Neumann suggested that abstruse technical term, and added that "since most people didn't understand what entropy really was, he would always have the advantage in an argument". Unfortunately, for my philosophical purposes that mis-understanding is a disadvantage. Thus, the necessity for teaching -- and yes, for gesturing -- in order to put Information into a more positive light.

Even a century after Shannon's engineering insight, businesses still invite speakers to teach their employees about how easy it is for things to go wrong with their enterprises. And some philosophers view Evolution, not as a creative process, but as a one-way trip to Entropy Hell. So, I have an uphill battle to present a more optimistic side of the thermodynamic equation. The main element of Information that Shannon's "purposefully austere mathematical evaluation" omitted was Meaning. Enformationism, though, is intended to fill that gaping gap with Life & Mind & Meaning*3. :smile:


*1. Hand Waving :
the use of gestures and insubstantial language meant to impress or convince.

*2. Preaching : I suspect that it's my evangelical approach to Enformationism as a worldview is what offends the most. Ironically, his worldview seems to be pretty close to my own in many ways. But, he seems to think I'm an annoying born-again "Enformationist" (cringe) preaching the gospel of G*D.

*3. Enformationism :
A philosophical worldview or belief system grounded on the 20th century discovery that Information, rather than Matter, is the fundamental substance of everything in the universe. It is intended to be the 21st century successor to ancient Materialism. An Update from Bronze Age to Information Age. It's a Theory of Everything that covers, not just matter & energy, but also Life & Mind & Love.
http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page8.html

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

For the record, by "non-scientific" I mean philosophical and meta-physical. But seems to equate modern Philosophy with classical (non-quantum) Physics. :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

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:

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

Gnomon has tried to update & adapt those ancient "classical" notions of Essence, Idea, Form, with new insights from modern Information Theory and Quantum Theory. Unfortunately, just as Newton's classical physics is now passé, Plato's and Aristotle's "classical" meanings (e.g. two-value Logic) are still applicable in their original context, but -- due to the intervening 2500 years of scientific progress -- must be re-interpreted to suit the fuzzy (multi-valued) logic of Quantum Queerness. No disrespect to the classical thinkers is intended. :smile:

Passé : no longer fashionable; out of date.

Fuzzy Logic : Both quantum logic and fuzzy logic describe uncertainty
Note -- Aristotle's Universal or General Logic had sharply defined borders & edges. Which is useful for general purposes. But becomes uncertain in specified contexts at the foundations of Reality.

I have a feeling superposition means something more than uncertainty. Is it that simple? If I think there's a 50% chance that it'll rain, I don't usually don't go around saying it's both raining (the cat is alive) and not raining (the cat is dead).

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

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.

However, for philosophical purposes, you have a valid point. Information, as used by those physical scientists, is not a "metaphysical primitive"*3 or even a physical object. Instead, it's the creative process of enforming : giving form to the formless; meaning to the meaningless. That's why I propose that a more fundamental expression of Information is the Universal Causal Force that I call EnFormAction*4 : a contraction of "the energetic act of enforming". I also coined a neologism, Enformy, to convey the notion of [ Energy + Law ], to represent the creative power of Evolution.

Current cosmology has not agreed on any more parsimonious explanation for the Big Bang than a mathematical Singularity, which created everything from nothing-but mathematical information. By contrast, Multiverses and Many Worlds are guilty of multiplying assumptions. So, I accept the Singularity as a hypothetical physical/metaphysical Primitive. But the creative power comes from the most basic ratio of all -- 1 : 0 (all or nothing). Working forward from that Prime Cause, I have developed my Enformationism thesis : that primordial Information (creative power) is more essential than mundane Matter or ever-changing Energy/Entropy. :smile:

*1. The basis of the universe may not be energy or matter but information :
https://bigthink.com/surprising-science/the-basis-of-the-universe-may-not-be-energy-or-matter-but-information/

*2. Yet, Energy itself is undone by Enformy. So, it's the structural Form component that stabilizes material things long enough to evolve into Darwin's "endless forms most beautiful"*6.

*3. Philosophical Primitive :
In mathematics, logic, philosophy, and formal systems, a primitive notion is a concept that is not defined in terms of previously-defined concepts. It is often motivated informally, usually by an appeal to intuition and everyday experience.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primitive_notion

*4. EnFormAction :
Ententional Causation. A proposed metaphysical law of the universe that causes random interactions between forces and particles to produce novel & stable arrangements of matter & energy. It’s the creative force (aka : Divine Will) of the axiomatic eternal deity that, for unknown reasons, programmed a Singularity to suddenly burst into our reality from an infinite source of possibility. AKA : The creative power of Evolution; the power to enform; Logos; Change.
http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page8.html
Note -- You can interpret "divine will" anyway you wish. It's just a metaphor.

*5. to Enform : verb. to form; to fashion · Etymology: [F. enformer].
One synonym is "to create"

*6. “Thus, from the war of nature, from famine and death, the most exalted object which we are capable of conceiving, namely, the production of the higher animals, directly follows. There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being, evolved.”
― Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species
Not -- Back to the topic of this thread : the self-aware Self may be the most wonderful of all those endless forms.

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

I understand and just a suggestion, if the aim is to bring science and religion under one roof, you must pay heed to objections/criticisms/opposition from scientifically-minded folk like @180 Proof. I'm rather surprised that you're getting neither a yea nor a nay from the religiously-minded.

I'm not surprised. They've no idea what he's talking because @Gnomon apparently doesn't know what he's talking about either even while he'a trying to have everything "bothand" ways .