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. — Gnomon
In my TPF posts, I am not trying to appeal to religious believers, but to philosophical reasoners. I abandoned my own religion many years ago. And I don't try to convert my still-religious siblings to my personal worldview. They may think that I'm going to Hell for my unbelief, but I don't believe in Hell, so I'm not worried about their afterlife. Most religiously-minded people have little-to-no interest in the unsentimental abstractions of Philosophy, that have no regard for people's feelings.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. — Agent Smith
My philosophical answer to that question is the Natural analog Program we call Evolution. As to Who the creator might be, all I can do is use metaphors. Religious thinkers use the analogy of a human Father who wants to replicate in order to create a loving & obedient family. Science prefers to use less anthro-morphic metaphors, such as Nature or Probability to represent the self-organizing process of inter-acting bits of Space & Time. Gnomon analogously thinks of the creative "What" as a computer Programmer : the Enformer. But the motive for creating a gradually evolving organism of Matter & Mind is beyond me. Unfortunately, I have no revelation from the Great What to tell me the Big Why. :smile: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. — Gnomon
The philosophical question is What creates? — Wayfarer
I am myself a materialist (in the sense that I believe the material world is primary and that our subjective experiences arise directly from the physical) and have been trying to reconcile the idea of the "self", with a materialist worldview. The self, as I see it, is the "fundamental essence" of who we are; this sense of "I" we are all likely familiar with. — tom111
What we are (in the materialist view) are simply piles of carbon,... using past memories and experiences to compile a constant "self" that simply doesn't exist; a human being is empty of essence.
Upon thorough examination, the idea of a "self" is as arbitrary as the idea of a "chair", or any other object. In a purely material world, concepts like these simply don't exist. — tom111
...our subjective experiencesarise directly from the physical) — tom111
I have been trying to reconcile the idea of the "self", with a materialist worldview. — tom111
It may be presumptuous of me, but I have interpreted the ancient usage by Plato & Aristotle -- of the ancient word for "Form"*1 -- in terms of modern Information & Quantum Theory. Most physicists have concluded that the ultimate Essence or Substance of our evolving world is the change agent we know as "Energy"*2. But a few intrepid scientists have postulated that even Energy is a form of Generic Information. Hence, the notion that massless Information (idea ; design ; form) is the essence of Reality.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.) — Wayfarer
In my TPF posts, I am not trying to appeal to religious believers, but to philosophical reasoners. I abandoned my own religion many years ago. And I don't try to convert my still-religious siblings to my personal worldview. They may think that I'm going to Hell for my unbelief, but I don't believe in Hell, so I'm not worried about their afterlife. Most religiously-minded people have little-to-no interest in the unsentimental abstractions of Philosophy, that have no regard for people's feelings.
I'm also not trying to bring Science & Religion "under one roof". Instead, I agree with Steven Jay Gould that they are "non-overlapping magisteria". As Galileo put it : "The Bible shows the way to go to heaven, not the way the heavens go". Religion has more in common with Politics than with Science. Religion & Politics are programs to control human behavior, while Science is a method for controlling Nature. However, Gnomon may be aiming to bring Science & Philosophy back under one roof. — Gnomon
In my reply to 's comment about "hand-waving, I noted that seems to think that my enthusiastic presentation of Enformationism is a form of evangelism for some kind of religious belief system. Until then, I had never thought of my posts on this forum as evangelistic. But now I see that there may be some truth in that put-down portrayal. First, I was raised in an evangelistic religion, but eventually lost my enthusiasm for its blind-faith biblical beliefs. Also, although I came of age in the 1960s, I was never involved in any Oriental or New Age religions*1. I did however experiment with meditation for a while, but found that rational philosophizing was more my style.Like you've said countless times - your philosophy, despite borrowing some ideas from religion, doesn't offer salvation or succor from grief/anxiety; of course contained within it are some ideas that might just come in handy towards those ends. Nevertheless, they're secondary to the primary aim which is to generate the mother of all models, one that encompasses both philosophy and science. — Agent Smith
:up:Religion & Politics are programs to control human behavior, ... — Gnomon
Technology controls nature whereas science explains nature. No doubt, the latter is the force-multiplier of the former.... while Science is a method for controlling Nature.
This move is a regressive turn to pre-modernism akin to (e.g.) scholasticism or neo-platonism or (late) stoicism, etc. https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/772323However, Gnomon may be aiming to bring Science & Philosophy back under one roof.
All religions are based on some kind of philosophical worldview. And most include a dualistic Manichean assessment of world history as a struggle between Good vs Evil. However, even a dispassionate monistic philosophy like Enformationism could be interpreted as a binary religious model. That's because Natural Evolution is described as maintaining a tenuous balance between constructive Enformy*1 and destructive Entropy*2.Like you've said countless times - your philosophy, despite borrowing some ideas from religion, doesn't offer salvation or succor from grief/anxiety; of course contained within it are some ideas that might just come in handy towards those ends. — Agent Smith
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.