Interesting "article". :up: — Alkis Piskas

Thanks!

Well I certainly think we humans can assume disorder, in a situation, which does have some fundamental order or very complicated underlying order, that we have not spotted. But not in the case of 'the natural systems,' we observe in our currently observable universe or in the events we are confident have occurred since the poorly named big bang.

Can there also be that everything is a combination of order and disorder, i.e. it is both ordered and disordered? — Alkis Piskas

I am not sure what you mean here by 'a combination of order and disorder?'
The music sound wave example you gave looks ordered and would be considered a very interesting signal, if SETI received it from deep space.

This just leaves folks to assume neutral or anti, when you type not pro and pro when you suggest not anti. In science, the term 'novel,' just means 'new.' All together, I think the quote above is far too broad to be of much use to our discussion. — universeness

OK. Here is a definition from the BothAnd Blog. If that's not narrow enough for you, I have more. BothAnd is a philosophical concept not a scientific term. But it is related to the scientific notions bolded in the quote below. :smile:

Both/And Principle :
*** My coinage for the holistic principle of Complementarity, as illustrated in the Yin/Yang symbol. Opposing or contrasting concepts are always part of a greater whole. Conflicts between parts can be reconciled or harmonized by putting them into the context of a whole system.
*** The Enformationism worldview entails the principles of Complementarity, Reciprocity & Holism, which are necessary to ofset the negative effects of Fragmentation, Isolation & Reductionism. Analysis into parts is necessary for knowledge of the mechanics of the world, but synthesis of those parts into a whole system is required for the wisdom to integrate the self into the larger system. In a philosophical sense, all opposites in this world (e.g. space/time, good/evil) are ultimately reconciled in Enfernity (eternity & infinity).
*** Conceptually, the BothAnd principle is similar to Einstein's theory of Relativity, in that what you see ─ what’s true for you ─ depends on your perspective, and your frame of reference; for example, subjective or objective, religious or scientific, reductive or holistic, pragmatic or romantic, conservative or liberal, earthbound or cosmic. Ultimate or absolute reality (ideality) doesn't change, but your conception of reality does. Opposing views are not right or wrong, but more or less accurate for a particular purpose.
*** This principle is also similar to the concept of Superposition in sub-atomic physics. In this ambiguous state a particle has no fixed identity until “observed” by an outside system. For example, in a Quantum Computer, a Qubit has a value of all possible fractions between 1 & 0. Therefore, you could say that it is both 1 and 0.
https://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page10.html

I think the 'but' above is nonsense — universeness

The "but" paragraph is merely referring to primitive notions that are describing the same kind of phenomena that scientists study, but without the intervening centuries of learning. Their ideas may seem like "nonsense" to you, but they conveyed meaningful philosophical information to them*1. For example, early humans seemed to assume that anything that moved was animated by the same invisible force that motivated humans. The analogy to "breath" was a metaphor based on the observed fact that Life requires breathing. The Bible says that "life is in the blood", but today we would add that oxygen in the blood is essential to life. It's easy for moderns, after centuries of scientific investigation to feel intellectually superior to ancient philosophers*2. For example, Aristotle used the Greek word "energeia" meaning : activity, operation, vigour. workmanship. supernatural action, cosmic force. But today, we have a mathematical definition of "energy"*3. Same general understanding, with more decimal places. :nerd:


*1. Don't you think the humans of the far future Singularity will dismiss your own primitive notions of "Energy" (ability to do work) as mere metaphors for concepts you barely understand? Enformationism merely goes one step forward by defining "Energy" in terms of mathematical ratios (i.e. abstract information).

*2. A superiority complex is a belief that your abilities or accomplishments are somehow dramatically better than other people's.
https://www.webmd.com/mental-health/what-is-a-superiority-complex

*3. "Eugenius says that 'the moderns have profited by the rules of the ancients' but moderns have "excelled them."
Sir Isaac Newton, the famous English scientist, once said, “If I have seen further, it is by standing on the shoulders of giants.”

You maybe guilty of over-dramatising any current gaps between the physics of the macro and the physics of the subatomic or gaps between classical physics and quantum physics. — universeness

Skepticism toward unorthodox notions is essential to a scientific worldview. But openness to novelty is also necessary for advancement of knowledge, and to avoid fossilized orthodoxy. Perhaps, you may be guilty of over-minimizing complex concepts that don't fit your current belief system. :joke:

Skepticism :
I have made a ceaseless effort not to ridicule, not to bewail, not to scorn human actions, but to understand them.
___Baruch Spinoza

I have no reason to believe humans will stop expanding their purview. Our economic model (despite recessions) is hinged on constant expansion/growth and resource acquisition. Our planet being finite in resources this compels us to look further afield - to space and its numerous expansive resources of rare metals and elements as well as habitable planets in which to form economies and industry and thus propagate jobs, lifestyles etc.

Coupled with our innate curiosity to further knowledge, and our advancing technology, it seems inevitable that either us, or our consciousness integrated into artificial bodies, will further our sphere of influence beyond what we ever thought was imaginable before.

So I think it's likely that humans will colonise space, one way or another, and maximise our chances of survival, reducing our dependency on any one solar system, any one energy source (Sun) for survival. All going to plan ofc.

Other lifeforms could be well underway to doing the same. And if they're not, sheer distance will cause our species to diverge into multiple different species across the galaxy. Unless we can solve issues of travel time or become metallic organisms/conscious computers/robots with indefinite lifespans.

What this seems to mean as a general direction is that the universe wishes to be fully colonised, fully consolidated and fully alive/sentient. And if it doesn't wish it, for some reason the physics and chemistry of the system certainly seems to propagate that behaviour and allow for that ideal

Yes, they will! It will ever be your burden to deal with that then until you can provide convincing empirical evidence to support your hypothesis. — universeness

You will find lots of empirical evidence to support my thesis in the links to articles by professional scientists. But, only the Enformationism thesis will provide the logical connections between bits & pieces of physical evidence and professional opinions that add-up to the conclusion that the physical world has "at bottom . . . an immaterial source and explanation". That may sound like "nonsense" to you. But I'll let you argue with a prominent physicist about the scientific details of his thesis : an information-centric participatory universe. :smile:

It from bit symbolizes the idea that every item of the physical world has at bottom...an immaterial source and explanation...that all things physical are information-theoretic in origin and that this is a participatory universe.
___John Archibald Wheeler, quantum physics pioneer

“Recent decades have taught us that physics is a magic window. It shows us the illusion that lies behind reality—and the reality that lies behind illusion. Its scope is immensely greater than we one realized. We are no longer satisfied with insights only into particles, or fields of force, or geometry, or even space and time. Today we demand of physics some understanding of existence itself.”
― John Archibald Wheeler, Quantum Theory and Measurement

My coinage for the holistic principle of Complementarity, as illustrated in the Yin/Yang symbol. Opposing or contrasting concepts are always part of a greater whole. Conflicts between parts can be reconciled or harmonized by putting them into the context of a whole system. — Gnomon

I can see the usefulness of this, for discussing issues such as good and evil, as humans perceive such subjective constructs. I can see the value of seeking a midpoint of balance between such 'opposites,' or suggesting than in a holistic view, they belong on the same line or are part of the same system etc. But I don't see such a connection with theism and science. Ying/Yang does not connect with true/false imo.
There is no balancing midpoint between true and false, it's one or the other. A partial truth is just a false part and a true part which is not on a line between true and false. True and false are 'two state' systems like binary, they are not analogue. Hot/cold, big/small, left/right, ying/yang are opposites but they are also analogue. True/false is binary. Science is true, god is false. You cannot harmonise them.

The Enformationism worldview entails the principles of Complementarity, Reciprocity & Holism, which are necessary to ofset the negative effects of Fragmentation, Isolation & Reductionism. Analysis into parts is necessary for knowledge of the mechanics of the world, but synthesis of those parts into a whole system is required for the wisdom to integrate the self into the larger system. In a philosophical sense, all opposites in this world (e.g. space/time, good/evil) are ultimately reconciled in Enfernity (eternity & infinity). — Gnomon

Space and time are not opposites, hence spacetime. I personally see no place in your notion of a 'whole system' for concepts such as eternity or infinity. Why do you need them to conceive the universe as a whole system? I think the other terms you employ are fine in the context you use them, but all you seem to be fundamentally confirming in the quote above is that a whole system is made of parts.

Conceptually, the BothAnd principle is similar to Einstein's theory of Relativity, in that what you see ─ what’s true for you ─ depends on your perspective, and your frame of reference; for example, subjective or objective, religious or scientific, reductive or holistic, pragmatic or romantic, conservative or liberal, earthbound or cosmic. Ultimate or absolute reality (ideality) doesn't change, but your conception of reality does. Opposing views are not right or wrong, but more or less accurate for a particular purpose. — Gnomon

I disagree when it comes to issues like supernatural exists/supernatural does not exist.
There is an 'outside' of the universe/the universe is everything there is.
These questions apply to the universe at its largest scale (ie whole system scale) imo and are therefore not relative.
I agree that true/false can be locally relativistic, based on what an observer receives as input in their reference frame but I believe that there are other reference frames to be considered. For example, could an observer be in a reference frame that allows them to view time dilation? Could the observer/system observe a person age slower due to their speed relative to a person who is aging at a faster rate. Is there such a frame of reference which is outside of the two people being observed but still inside the universe? I think there are such 'levels of relativity.'

This principle is also similar to the concept of Superposition in sub-atomic physics. In this ambiguous state a particle has no fixed identity until “observed” by an outside system. For example, in a Quantum Computer, a Qubit has a value of all possible fractions between 1 & 0. Therefore, you could say that it is both 1 and 0. — Gnomon

Sure but how far apart can two superpositions be. I think the record at the moment is around two feet, achieved at Stanford Uni. We don't know how far apart two atoms in superposition can be, perhaps we will discover some limit to the spacetime involved.

It's easy for moderns, after centuries of scientific investigation to feel intellectually superior to ancient philosophers — Gnomon

I did not suggest intellectual superiority I suggested intellectual advancement due to a legacy of an ever increasing knowledge base.

For example, Aristotle used — Gnomon

The Bible says that — Gnomon

The bible is mostly filled with babble and Aristotle proposed an Earth centric universe, so we now have much better sources of accurate knowledge than the bible or Aristotle. They are welcome to be part of the mountain that we now stand upon, to enable us to see further than the ancients ever could. I personally consider Aristotle as having contributed a pebble to the growth of that mountain, the bible to have actually hindering the growth of the mountain and people like Einstein to have added whole layers to the mountain.

*1. Don't you think the humans of the far future Singularity will dismiss your own primitive notions of "Energy" (ability to do work) as mere metaphors for concepts you barely understand? Enformationism merely goes one step forward by defining "Energy" in terms of mathematical ratios (i.e. abstract information). — Gnomon

I hope so, yes, but I take it by 'singularity,' you are referring to some pivotal scientific/technological breakthrough. I don't think they will consider the description of energy as the ability to do work, as being incorrect but I hope they will consider it rather simplistic and basic.
Which mathematical ratio's are you referring to?

*2. A superiority complex is a belief that your abilities or accomplishments are somehow dramatically better than other people's. — Gnomon

Are you suggesting you suffer from such?

*3. "Eugenius says that 'the moderns have profited by the rules of the ancients' but moderns have "excelled them."
Sir Isaac Newton, the famous English scientist, once said, “If I have seen further, it is by standing on the shoulders of giants.” — Gnomon

Already answered above:

Skepticism toward unorthodox notions is essential to a scientific worldview. But openness to novelty is also necessary for advancement of knowledge, and to avoid fossilized orthodoxy. Perhaps, you may be guilty of over-minimizing complex concepts that don't fit your current belief system. — Gnomon

I always try to avoid ossifying when it comes to my viewpoints. I am sure you do the same.

Sounds perfectly relaxing. :cool:

since the poorly named big bang — universeness

Indeed, poorly.

I am not sure what you mean here by 'a combination of order and disorder?' — universeness

I gave you an example. The apparently disordered soundwave is also (i.e. it represents) an ordered musical sound. Also atoms by simple observation seem disordered but they follow well ordered, balanced (with forces) system. The planets seem disordered in space but they are also orbiting based on a very orderly system of gravity forces. And so on. In all of these cases, where there is (apparently) a disorder there's also an order.

The music sound wave example you gave looks ordered and would be considered a very interesting signal, if SETI received it from deep space. — universeness

Anyway, I don't think that anyone can see an order --e.g. a pattern-- in this soundwave. It could well be random. You must hear it to see that there's an order or pattern in it.
As for SETI, I think that it is made for receiving rather than sending messages, but I don't know much about it. Anyway, if I send this image --in some way or another-- into space and it is received by aliens, most probably they wouldn't undestand anything. Except, of course, if they are gifted with the ability to "hear" soundwave images! :smile: So, I would send the image together with the sound itself (as radiowave or whatever. I'm not knowledgable in this field). The sound is most important here if one is to detect a pattern, whici is what SETI and perhaps be other programs try to detect.
BTW, even if some aliens receive this sound, they might not undestand anything at all. That is, they could consider it garbage or random, i.e. something disordered. And vice versa, if we receive a sound from space in which we can't detect some pattern although it might have been sent by aliens who conscidered it ordered.

So, when we are referring to the whole universe, we cannot be certain about what is ordered and what is disordered.

I have no reason to believe humans will stop expanding their purview. Our economic model (despite recessions) is hinged on constant expansion/growth and resource acquisition. Our planet being finite in resources this compels us to look further afield - to space and its numerous expansive resources of rare metals and elements as well as habitable planets in which to form economies and industry and thus propagate jobs, lifestyles etc. — Benj96

I agree, or else what it all there for? As Carl Sagan wrote for his movie Contact.
"Seems like an awful waste of space!"

Coupled with our innate curiosity to further knowledge, and our advancing technology, it seems inevitable that either us, or our consciousness integrated into artificial bodies, will further our sphere of influence beyond what we ever thought was imaginable before. — Benj96

I agree.

So I think it's likely that humans will colonise space, one way or another, and maximise our chances of survival, reducing our dependency on any one solar system, any one energy source (Sun) for survival. All going to plan ofc. — Benj96

I agree.

Other lifeforms could be well underway to doing the same. And if they're not, sheer distance will cause our species to diverge into multiple different species across the galaxy. Unless we can solve issues of travel time or become metallic organisms/conscious computers/robots with indefinite lifespans. — Benj96

Sounds logical to me!

What this seems to mean as a general direction is that the universe wishes to be fully colonised, fully consolidated and fully alive/sentient. And if it doesn't wish it, for some reason the physics and chemistry of the system certainly seems to propagate that behaviour. — Benj96

So, that's the bit I am most interested in from you Ben, as you have dualistic viewpoints.
Do you muse on how this emerging 'single mind' will 'network' or collectivise or ultimately merge before the universe suffers the heat death, it is most likely to suffer?
I don't expect you to have a definitive answer but I am just interested in how the dualist see's that emerging networking, even from a future transhuman or the more depressing posthuman perspective.

Quality time spent with friends and family become more and more precious as I get older.
A few single malt's as well is just glorious!
Two fiends, I mean friends, from Glasgow coming down this Saturday so looking forward to a wee local town session!

Theism doesn’t waste resources that others will have to pay for with their lives. — noAxioms
Not sure what you mean by this? Example? — universeness

A limited resource constrains the usage to which it can be put. Running power for no likely gain will drain that resource sooner than if it wasn’t being used that way. More people can live on the excess.
Larry Niven got into a post-scarcity economy description in his book Rainbow Mars. Every time a capital project was proposed, it always came with a calculation of how many lives it would cost. Anyway, to my knowledge, theism doesn’t encourage this sort of delay to meeting your maker.

Several hundred people have already paid to have their bodies cryogenically preserved in three existing facilities in the US and Russia, and there are as many as 1,250 on waiting lists.

Oh like the Russians are going to honor those contracts when things get tight. But yea, they’ll take your money.
Waiting list? What, like I’m dying now but a spot is opening up next March? Hope you haven’t expired too much while you’re waiting.

I have already stated that I think that 'all of the above will be attempted.' I am hardly therefore 'an enemy' of any idea for how best to develop and explore space.

Didn’t talk about being an enemy of an idea. I said enemy of an environment. Better to make friends with it, work with it, not against it.

It's a lot easier to control frogs that to control human population

No, they’re both controlled pretty much by the same method. It’s not like airplanes flew over and sprayed for them.

We can just dispose of a currently existing excess human population.

That’s what the robots say! Another typo? If we don’t do something about it, the frog method will get employed (no, not make grease spots on all the intersections).

Whilst we also try to educate people into understanding their current local circumstances and the folly of having children they and the government they live under are unable to, or are too corrupt to, or are to much under the influence of international interference to, support.

Doesn’t stop them. Nobody likes getting told what to do, especially if its for the benefit of somebody else. Also, there will be those who comply and those who defy and have a bunch of kids. Guess which group gets naturally selected out? We’d be breeding humanity for wanting larger families.

so it’s humanity’s survival that’s the goal, not the taking-over of the galaxy. — noAxioms
Both goals handshake imo,

OK, I think they’re fairly exclusive imo. We’re not fit to do it, but what we can create can be fit to do it. Best odds of survival of humans is to not kill each other at home. It’s worked great for many species, but yea, not so much the dinosaurs.

I don't approve of the aggressive sounding, 'taking over of the galaxy' imagery you invoke.

Pretty much got that from you with your talk of humanity having a purpose of making some kind significant impact on the universe, like it served the purpose of the universe or something. Can’t make any more than a scratch if we don’t cause something to spread out, to outlast the death of our planet which is already about 80% of the way there.

No metal? Please explain!

Civilization collapses. We still have metal, but it’s old stuff from before. Nobody knows anymore how to get more since it takes tech to get at it. We’ve mined all the easy stuff. It becomes a chicken/egg problem. Takes metal to get to get to the metal. Fear not. The salvaged metals will last centuries. The longer it lasts, the less we’ll remember how to get more when most of it has corroded away.’

I am a socialist

So is every first world government on the planet, just some more than others. Anyway, yea, I definitely get socialist vibes from you. The Scandinavian countries seem to do it best. Harder to be rich there.

who no longer sees value in party politics.

It does serve a purpose, but isn’t implemented well anywhere. I mean over-the-table bribery as policy? That’s sanctioned corruption. Nobody blinks, and those getting the bribes are hardly motivated to vote that crap out of the law.

I currently support notions of global unity

That’s the mommy I talked about. We’re not good at all about implementing something like that, but I agree, it’s absolutely needed.

Venus project:

Nice pipe dream, but no numbers. They say no servitude, but it’s all people shown doing the work, and they don’t show where the stuff comes from. No wind farms or other renewable energy apparent.

I am not suggesting we are more intelligent than the ancients or that we will be 'more intelligent' in the future — universeness

We were being selected for it for a while, even if it’s on the decline now. If it becomes ethical to make modifications, we can reverse that trend, so I’m willing to suggest a future upswing. The singularity might render the need moot.

So, our knowledge increases as a collective. This is another example of what is emergent in humans.

and in anything ‘posthuman’.

Yeah but it's an 'end times' curio. Those who are not 'raptured,' perish!

They don’t though. Things just get tough from there on according to the story. You have a second chance of sorts, but the path is narrower than it was before the rapture. Tread it and you will be severely persecuted. So I was taught anyway. No, I was not raised by rapturists, but we covered this sort of stuff in school.
My opinion was that the description of heaven sounded horrible. Great for 5 minutes, but it quickly devolves into slow torture, kind of like a heroin addiction.

We don't need to kill popes.

No, but the church needs to get on the side of humanity instead of the side of the church. It isn’t ever going to happen.

How about genetically modified foods?
How about vertical farming?

These are all grown/harvested/distributed with fossil fuels today. They’re not a substitute for digging limited carbon out of the ground.

It not like no-one is talking about it. For example, five-ways-we-can-feed-the-world-in-2050

Not talking about 2050. I’m talking about when there’s no more to dig out of the ground, coupled with what the environment will look like with that much greenhouse gasses added to what’s already there.

his continued reference to the concept of 'transportation through a wormhole' with entangled micro black holes at either end and his statement that he thinks wormholes may well be physical realities. — universeness

Negative mass and tachyons are also valid under Einstein’s equations. Much of this wormhole stuff requires such exotic matter which theoretically is allowed, but isn’t open to actually existing. Really, a micro black hole? How are messages going to be sent fast utilizing a tiny bit of spacetime that is infinitely far into the coordinate future? Maybe I have to actually find time to watch the thing.

I think that we would be ecstatic initially, but eventually, we would probably be somewhat disappointed that we came so far to find only the equivalent of killer whales.

Only? That is that fantastic chance you were positing. We actually meed something where it is questionable which is more intelligent. Hardly disappointing. They’re probably as disappointed in us not being like them as we are of them not being like us.

Yes, I hope we fully respect the alien killer whales and we leave their habitat and environment alone. Perhaps however, we may still be able to start a colony there.

A colony where we’re not allowed to touch the environment? Sounds like a zoo for the Orka amusement.

We probably currently live in 'the best of times,' at least so far, when it comes to being able to combat fake news.

I’m old enough to remember professional news reporting. It died when people stopped paying for it. No, those best of times are gone for now. Half the stuff I read has obviously never seen an editor and cites no credible sources.

That's almost technophobic sir!

I am in a way. My son has one of those smart speakers and it totally gives me the creeps to know everything in the room is being recorded in some google database somewhere. For a long time I was in the biz of selling places like google things on which to store all that data.

I suggested such as a 'collectivised' or 'totality' of intent and purpose of the human race.

I don’t see any collective purpose exhibited by the human race. There’s a list of nice-to-haves, but no actual striving for some collective purpose. Not even something as simple as ‘don’t go extinct’. But then, I don’t see any other species with a purpose like that either. We’re not worse than the sponges.

Interesting, but how did this, I assume, 'electronic manifestation' demonstrate it's omniscience?

No electronics. It knows everything simply by always being right, by chance.

Could you ask it questions?

It wouldn’t hear you, but it wouldn’t need to. Yes, you could ask it anything and it would convey the correct answer in whatever method it could do that, perhaps by writing in your native language.
It got weird to delve into what something like that would look like. It wouldn’t need a central nervous system for one thing. It was a very old topic, probably on the old PF before it died and everybody created this site to replace it. It was born of exploring how best to actually implement a dualistic mind using the physics of this universe. We came to the conclusion that this creature must exist in some world out there, but not in this one, so not existing by any empirical definition of the word.

Can x make y more intelligent than x? It seems possible — Agent Smith

That's the whole idea of the singularity, that x can make its successor.

base matter (inanimate) has an IQ of 0

No. IQ is a bell curve centered on 100, but can have a negative IQ, which is still vastly more intelligent than inanimate matter.

but humans, on average, have an IQ of 130

On average, humans have 100 IQ by definition.
Humans emerging from matter isn't really the matter 'making' us, but rather a natural process, sort of things making themselves. We can short-circuit that natural process and actually modify our genes to produce more intelligent offspring. That would definitely by a case of x 'making' y where y scores better. Right now the human race is not being selected for intelligence, so it's probably trending downward.

I gave you an example. The apparently disordered soundwave is also (i.e. it represents) an ordered musical sound. Also atoms by simple observation seem disordered but they follow well ordered, balanced (with forces) system. The planets seem disordered in space but they are also orbiting based on a very orderly system of gravity forces. And so on. In all of these cases, where there is (apparently) a disorder there's also an order. — Alkis Piskas

So, you are saying the disorder is only apparent, when we pull further out and increase the contents of our frame of reference then we see the order. So could this be the case at larger and larger spacetime scales. Yes, would be the answer but at the largest scale, entropy would suggest that we would see evidence that we are moving towards heat death. That's at least the way I perceive the disorder-order-disorder posit.

Anyway, I don't think that anyone can see an order --e.g. a pattern-- in this soundwave. It could well be random. You must hear it to see that there's an order or pattern in it. — Alkis Piskas

Yeah, your example reminds me of the film contact when the blind guy uses his more developed hearing to listen to the signal from space and makes a statement like 'there's a lot more here guys!'

BTW, even if some aliens receive this sound, they might not undestand anything at all. That is, they could consider it garbage or random, i.e. something disordered. And vice versa, if we receive a sound from space in which we can't detect some pattern although it might have been sent by aliens who conscidered it ordered. — Alkis Piskas

That's the rub! We might be getting all sorts of signals from space dwelling extraterrestials but our receiving tech/methodology is not compatible with their transmitting tech/methodology!
The Fermi paradox might just be down to incompatible communication systems!

So, when we are referring to the whole universe, we cannot be certain about what is ordered and what is disordered. — Alkis Piskas

I suppose it depends on how true the claim is, that on the largest scale, the universe is homogeneous and isotropic

You will find lots of empirical evidence to support my thesis in the links to articles by professional scientists. But, only the Enformationism thesis will provide the logical connections between bits & pieces of physical evidence and professional opinions that add-up to the conclusion that the physical world has "at bottom . . . an immaterial source and explanation". That may sound like "nonsense" to you. But I'll let you argue with a prominent physicist about the scientific details of his thesis : an information-centric participatory universe. — Gnomon

Well if you have such significant support from the scientific community then I am sure I will hear a lot more about Enformationism and your BothAnd proposals. From sources other than its author.

:smirk: :up: Sláinte!

slàinte mhath :cool:

I always try to avoid ossifying when it comes to my viewpoints. I am sure you do the same.
Well if you have such significant support from the scientific community then I am sure I will hear a lot more about Enformationism and your BothAnd proposals. From sources other than its author. — universeness

Yes. Most belief systems are conservative, and don't change with every shift of the wind. Old paradigms give way to new worldviews only as old believers die out. That's why I don't expect many physical scientists to accept the new way of understanding the world. But I provide links to the few pioneers that do -- all you have to do is click.

Regarding information theory, Mathematicians & Theoretical physicists are quicker to see the broader implications of Information theory than Experimental Physicists and Chemists. Even Einstein, as a theoretician, was loathe to accept the uncertain statistical basis of Quantum Theory : "God doesn't throw dice". So I just patiently chip away at one philosophy forum, to see if theoretical thinkers are quicker to see the value of fundamental causal Information, than pragmatic doers. Acceptance of new paradigms usually take generations to become "settled science". At this stage, very few members of the "scientific community" are aware of a post-Shannon interpretation of Information. But if you want "sources other than the author" just follow the links.

Since I have no academic or professional qualifications, I'd have to possess a monumental ego to expect anyone to take my amateur opinions as truths. That's why I provide plenty of links to professional opinions for those willing to click & comprehend. I'm just hoping that a few will grok the cosmic scale of the new Information paradigm. The negative feedback from this forum allows me to stay humble & flexible, and to "avoid ossifying" the initial insight of Enformationism. About 15 years ago, an article by a quantum physicist was trying to explain why sub-atomic physics seemed to be so weird & counterintuitive compared to the neat orderly intuitive classical physics of Newton. At one point, he exclaimed "it's all information!". Thus my personal philosophical quest began : to understand the invisible structure (Form) of Reality. :smile:

Paradigm Shift :
“A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it.”
― Max Planck, Scientific Autobiography and Other Papers

Paradigm Power :
Those belief systems or paradigms are quite simply, the way in which we see the world. As such they constitute our reality. All of our actions, our personal life choices, our professional and our medical practice decisions are heavily influenced and at times, strongly directed by our personal paradigms.
https://www.vin.com/apputil/content/defaultadv1.aspx?id=5709902&pid=11372&print=1

How Paradigms Fall : a general assessment, not specifically about the Information paradigm
***Thomas Kuhn’s iconic work The Structure of Scientific Revolution . . . talk about the patterns that occur when a paradigm shift is about to happen. . . . When paradigms begin to show initial signs of failing or shifting, there are usually some very loud supporters of certain ideologies who do not want to see that the world is changing. . . . “First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win, ” . . . . Over the past 3.8 billion years Nature has demonstrated patterns that emerge when it is ready to let go of a form that no longer serves the higher purpose of the system. . . . Just like Nature, human systems are required to evolve and transform in order to survive.
https://kathleenallen.net/how-paradigms-fall/

Quantum Weirdness :
Many of the QT pioneers (e.g. Neils Bohr), inadvertently gained a reputation for mysticism, due to some of their attempts to explain its strangeness, to Western eyes, in terms of metaphors borrowed from Eastern philosophy. So, although it is now labeled as “the most successful theory ever formulated”, it still predicts behaviors that seem more magical than mechanical.
http://bothandblog7.enformationism.info/page43.html

No, I had to google it. Subtracting the non-essential to improve the chances of success at achieving a goal, seems very valid to me, in situations which don't have any moral issue associated with them.
But if there are issues of human morality involved, then there must be judgement involved, that must not prioritise the goal over all other consequentials involved.
I accept the 'lesser of two evils,' type scenario's etc, as horrible as some of those can be in certain circumstances.
I assign no value or significance to:
"The idea comes from a Latin phrase used initially in Christian Theology to explain what God is by focusing on what he isn’t.
If God transcends all things, humans cannot apply qualities and attributes to him in the affirmative (God is light, God is love, etc.). Instead, via negativa presents God as a mystery that humans cannot describe in words." — universeness

In me humble opinion, via negativa is one apposite approach to emergence. The whole is greater than the sum of its parts (holism). Emergence is not just an increase in magnitude of an ability, it's the development of a whole new one.

Can x make y more intelligent than x? It seems possible
— Agent Smith
That's the whole idea of the singularity, that x can make its successor.
base matter (inanimate) has an IQ of 0
No. IQ is a bell curve centered on 100, but can have a negative IQ, which is still vastly more intelligent than inanimate matter.
but humans, on average, have an IQ of 130
On average, humans have 100 IQ by definition.
Humans emerging from matter isn't really the matter 'making' us, but rather a natural process, sort of things making themselves. We can short-circuit that natural process and actually modify our genes to produce more intelligent offspring. That would definitely by a case of x 'making' y where y scores better. Right now the human race is not being selected for intelligence, so it's probably trending downward. — noAxioms

:up:

Danke for correcting my error. I also didn't know IQ could be negative. So you think it's possible to make ourselves more intelligent by tweaking some of our genes. Any ideas whether intelligence genes have been identified? We could breed geniuses then, eh? I wonder of normal folks would approve - it has a Nazi eugenics vibe to it.

So, you are saying the disorder is only apparent, when we pull further out and increase the contents of our frame of reference then we see the order. — universeness

Not exactly. I said that what looks disordered can also be ordered, from another frame of reference. Not always or everything. E.g. I can't think that boiling water, with al its irregular bubbles can be viewed also as ordered in some other way. Neither can the dispersed irregular pieces of a jigsaw puzzle. Etc.
BTW, this reminds of of your saying "disorder-order-disorder", about which I asked you if it means that always disorder prevails and that everyting starts and ens in disorder. Well, I think the opposite is true: E.g. taking the above two cases, the water starts in an odered state (calm, standstill, level), it becomes disordered when it is boiled and it is put back into its initial ordered sytate when boiling finishes. The opposite is impossible. And in order to make a jigsaw puzzle, we must first create a surface with an image on it (order), then cut it into small irregular pieces and sisperse them (disorder) and then, to play the game, we have to reassemble the pieces to form the initial image (order). The opposite is impossible. Etc.

at the largest scale, entropy would suggest that we would see evidence that we are moving towards heat death — universeness

I'm not good at Physics, sorry. I only know that entropy is a state and degree of disorder or randomness. But based on just that, I can say that if the Universe started in a state of --logically maximum-- entropy, i.e. total chaos, and then order followed, then we have to assume either that 1) there must exist a Supreme Power, like God, that has done that or 2) entropy/disorder has the tendency to become order. In fact, (2) may actually be a consequence of (1), in the sense that the Supreme Power does not let disorder/entropy prevail or persist, and it makes so that order prevails at the end. However, all these are speculations that can entail long discussions!

That's at least the way I perceive the disorder-order-disorder posit. — universeness

I see. OK.

Re the film "Contact": Ha. Yes, nice! I loved this film. One of the best ends in the history of the cinema ...

We might be getting all sorts of signals from space dwelling extraterrestials but our receiving tech/methodology is not compatible with their transmitting tech/methodology! — universeness

Right! Good point. :up:

I suppose it depends on how true the claim is, that on the largest scale, the universe is homogeneous and isotropic — universeness

You are bombarding me with Physics terminology! But I undestand the term "homogenuous" at least! :grin:
Well, maybe. As I said, all that is speculations. I prefer to talk about things that we can know, perceive, examine and understand within the framework of our small world and our common reality, in the broad sense.

Anyway, to my knowledge, theism doesn’t encourage this sort of delay to meeting your maker. — noAxioms

Sorry noAxioms, I am probably being rather dense on this one, but I still don't get your point here.
"Theism doesn’t waste resources that others will have to pay for with their lives."
Are you simply referring to the idea or criticism that many theists (especially christian/moslem fundamentals,) don't care about sustaining/protecting Earthly resources, as their focus is on their faith in their promised existence after death?

Oh like the Russians are going to honor those contracts when things get tight. But yea, they’ll take your money. — noAxioms

I try not to make judgements based on nationality. When things get tight, I don't think Russians act so differently from Americans, Germans, Englishmen, Africans or any other nationality.

Waiting list? What, like I’m dying now but a spot is opening up next March? Hope you haven’t expired too much while you’re waiting. — noAxioms

It's the same in any human service. Supply and demand. Demand often does outstrip supply or capacity (when it comes to cryogenic units and the long term storage of such). Not an issue for me or you, as I suspect neither of us is on the waiting list. I suspect that if you die and the available facilities cant provide for you then tha's just tough, unless you are rich enough to have your own private cryogenic facility built. Your own modern version of an Egyption pyramid perhaps.

Didn’t talk about being an enemy of an idea. I said enemy of an environment. Better to make friends with it, work with it, not against it. — noAxioms

Oh, I get what you meant now, you mean, rather than trying to terraform Mars, its wiser to transform humans so they can live in the current Martian environment. As I have already suggested, I think the reality may prove to be somewhere between the two but I have little doubt that a period of trail and error will occur in the traditional pioneer spirit.

Your opinions on excess human population control methodologies and the various existential threats that the human race currently faces, are offered again, with your rather dystopian/doomster hat on.
I appreciate your 'worries' about the situation and I think they are well founded and should not be underestimated, but I do try to counter balance such, with what humans do, when the possibility of their own extinction gets closer and closer. Many would just awkwardly and clumsily, tumble over the edge, but I think we also have many, that would, will, and are, fighting tooth and nail to prevent it. I remain confident that the latter group will prevail in the end, but it may indeed get very messy before they do.

I don't approve of the aggressive sounding, 'taking over of the galaxy' imagery you invoke.
Pretty much got that from you with your talk of humanity having a purpose of making some kind significant impact on the universe, like it served the purpose of the universe or something. Can’t make any more than a scratch if we don’t cause something to spread out, to outlast the death of our planet which is already about 80% of the way there. — noAxioms

Well, that's down to your misinterpretation of what I am typing. We will spread out, yes but not 'in conquest,' or as a pernicious force/presence. I would invoke something akin to the Gene Rodenberry's vision for a human future, which is not an autocracy or a plutocracy etc, but is more akin to a democratic, secular, humanist, socialist, meritocracy. Perhaps even a benevolent united federation of planets.

Civilization collapses. We still have metal, but it’s old stuff from before. Nobody knows anymore how to get more since it takes tech to get at it. We’ve mined all the easy stuff. It becomes a chicken/egg problem. Takes metal to get to get to the metal. Fear not. The salvaged metals will last centuries. The longer it lasts, the less we’ll remember how to get more when most of it has corroded away.’ — noAxioms

Sounds like a fictitious dystopian future, that you might have fun writing a novel about.

I am a socialist
So is every first world government on the planet, just some more than others. — noAxioms

Nonsense sir! no current first world country is socialist. They are all capitalist as they are all currency driven, free market economies.
True democratic socialism has never been successfully established anywhere on the planet ..... yet.
The Scandinavian countries have little bits of it, yes but they are far from socialist, imo.

who no longer sees value in party politics.
It does serve a purpose, but isn’t implemented well anywhere. I mean over-the-table bribery as policy? That’s sanctioned corruption. Nobody blinks, and those getting the bribes are hardly motivated to vote that crap out of the law. — noAxioms

:clap: Well said!

I currently support notions of global unity
That’s the mommy I talked about. We’re not good at all about implementing something like that, but I agree, it’s absolutely needed. — noAxioms

When it comes to the basics of how the currently existential situations we face, might be improved, I think we agree more that we don't. I just have more confidence than you seem to, that our species can do much much better than we have so far.

Venus project:
Nice pipe dream, but no numbers. They say no servitude, but it’s all people shown doing the work, and they don’t show where the stuff comes from. No wind farms or other renewable energy apparent. — noAxioms

A resourced based global economy, would be the most significant human change to the way we live, since we switched from nomadic hunter-gatherers to fixed communities supported by craft trades, trading and agriculture. So yeah, many details are yet to be confirmed or even discussed.

No, but the church needs to get on the side of humanity instead of the side of the church. It isn’t ever going to happen. — noAxioms

The 'church' needs to drop god and become a secular humanist support network. Or, at least, every church/chapel/temple/cathedral/mosque etc should also function as secular homeless shelters, substance abuse support centers, medical support centers, etc, etc.
Currently, they are mostly a waste of useful space!

These are all grown/harvested/distributed with fossil fuels today. They’re not a substitute for digging limited carbon out of the ground. — noAxioms

They can indeed be a substitute for digging limited carbon out of the ground!
From vertical farming:
"2. Possible Environmental and Energy Implications
There are also concerns over pollution and sustainable use. Crops grown indoors depend on artificial light. Note that sunlight can be exploited for natural lighting or self-sufficient generation of electricity through photovoltaic solar panels. The use of light-emitting diode or LED lamps also drives down the cost of electricity consumption. Of course, other than artificial lighting, a vertical farm includes complex machinery and automated systems. Hence, when compared to field farming, vertical farming has an additional energy input.

While renewable and alternative sources of energycan promote the ecological soundness of vertical farming, the practice can still have a considerable carbon footprint if it still depends on the use of fossil fuels. There is a need to improve first renewable and alternative energy technologies to guarantee environmental sustainability and energy efficiency of vertical farming."

Not talking about 2050. I’m talking about when there’s no more to dig out of the ground, coupled with what the environment will look like with that much greenhouse gasses added to what’s already there. — noAxioms

I have no problem with you always pointing out your 'but look at what we are doing now' examples. I will continue to suggest 'but here's what we could do about it.' It's also ok for you to keep posting which of my suggestions have some merit and which in your opinion, don't.
That's what our current exchange seems to mostly consist of. Perhaps that's good enough for now.

Negative mass and tachyons are also valid under Einstein’s equations. Much of this wormhole stuff requires such exotic matter which theoretically is allowed, but isn’t open to actually existing. Really, a micro black hole? How are messages going to be sent fast utilizing a tiny bit of spacetime that is infinitely far into the coordinate future? Maybe I have to actually find time to watch the thing. — noAxioms

Well, he seemed to be saying that two entangled particles can function in the same way as the popular description of a wormhole as two entangled black holes that 'Tom' could be sent into (Tom is a qbit) by Alice and fall out of when Bob uses 'an operator' to make a measurement at his end. The 'state' Tom was in when 'transported' through the 'wormhole' can then be known by Bob. Leonard uses other terms in this section such as 'bell basis(one of 4 possible states)', 'signal matrix,' 'monogamy of entanglement,' 'the no-cloning principle' etc,
He finally asks 'how does Tom get from A to B and his second answer is 'through the wormhole,' he then says 'you might not believe that but, that's ok, we can debate that later.'
The time stamp for this exemplar is 4mins 23secs to around 8mins 20sec.

Only? That is that fantastic chance you were positing. We actually meed something where it is questionable which is more intelligent. Hardly disappointing. They’re probably as disappointed in us not being like them as we are of them not being like us. — noAxioms

Meh! :grin: :halo:

Yes, I hope we fully respect the alien killer whales and we leave their habitat and environment alone. Perhaps however, we may still be able to start a colony there.
A colony where we’re not allowed to touch the environment? Sounds like a zoo for the Orka amusement. — noAxioms

I suggested we leave their habitat and environment alone. I was not suggesting that would mean we could not 'touch' any part of the planet or its entire environment. Did you deliberately misspell Orca as these imaginings are alien Orca which you are calling OrKa? :lol:

Half the stuff I read has obviously never seen an editor and cites no credible sources. — noAxioms

But that's just half the stuff YOU have read, which is what percent of available 'stuff'?

I am in a way. My son has one of those smart speakers and it totally gives me the creeps to know everything in the room is being recorded in some google database somewhere. For a long time I was in the biz of selling places like google things on which to store all that data. — noAxioms

How much merit do you give to 'big brother is watching you?'

I don’t see any collective purpose exhibited by the human race. There’s a list of nice-to-haves, but no actual striving for some collective purpose. Not even something as simple as ‘don’t go extinct’. But then, I don’t see any other species with a purpose like that either. We’re not worse than the sponges. — noAxioms

I can only invoke the cosmic calendar again and say we have only been at this for a few seconds on the cosmic calendar scale. Give us a f****** chance mate!

We came to the conclusion that this creature must exist in some world out there, but not in this one, so not existing by any empirical definition of the word. — noAxioms

It would have been fun to have been part of that discussion.

That's why I don't expect many physical scientists to accept the new way of understanding the world. But I provide links to the few pioneers that do -- all you have to do is click. — Gnomon

:lol: No mockery intended Gnomon, but your words here are a little messianic and sacrificial sounding. Always be on your guard against any seedlings of a Christ complex.

Even Einstein, as a theoretician, was loathe to accept the uncertain statistical basis of Quantum Theory : "God doesn't throw dice" — Gnomon

I am really beginning to hate that overburdened quote.

So I just patiently chip away at one philosophy forum, to see if theoretical thinkers are quicker to see the value of fundamental causal Information, than pragmatic doers. — Gnomon

Are you making satisfactory progress?

Acceptance of new paradigms usually take generations to become "settled science". At this stage, very few members of the "scientific community" are aware of a post-Shannon interpretation of Information. But if you want "sources other than the author" just follow the links. — Gnomon

Oh, I was referring to main news sources not sources I need to seek. Like most folks, including yourself, I have my own fav list of theories expounded by others that I take the time to find out as much as I can about, including Mtheory, CCC, quantum computing, and a good few more. Your enformationism is interesting, but it still has smatterings of a theosophism/mysticism for me. I admit, that may well be an unfair and uninformed criticism and I should find out more about it, if I ever find the time to. But if something akin to, or, the actual mainstream news sources, threw it at me, then I may well raise a much more interested eyebrow.

Since I have no academic or professional qualifications, I'd have to possess a monumental ego to expect anyone to take my amateur opinions as truths. — Gnomon

Mostly true, but I do personally like genuine seekers. Tesla was considered 'slightly mad,' and there are many many such examples, including some like Tesla who was also a freaking genius!
I have met quite a few interesting folks on the internet forums I visit, who are sure they have made a pivotal scientific breakthrough. The 6D Torus guy (also know under many names on TPF, the most banned/returned member ever, I think). The DIMP(DIMentionless point) guy. The Klein bottle/mobius strip guy and now you, the enformation guy. No gals yet but I am sure they are out there.
I would love to be in a room full of such folks. What a brilliant set of conversations that would be.
I also see lot's of alcohol involved! NO DRUGS! Well, not stronger or quicker than alcohol at least.

Emergence is not just an increase in magnitude of an ability, it's the development of a whole new one. — Agent Smith

I agree, but the point is that human intent and purpose can cause new functionality (technology) to emerge by design. The kind of design that god has been unable to prove it is capable of, resulting in it's possible existence being utterly rejected via rational thinking.

E.g. I can't think that boiling water, with al its irregular bubbles can be viewed also as ordered in some other way. — Alkis Piskas

Why not? All the bubbles rise? They all disperse at the surface, The steam all comes from the top. The water volume reduces at a fixed ratio based on the how long the water is at boiling point etc. There are clearly observable orders in a boiling water system.

Your music signal:

looks symmetrical on either side of a linear mid section, which is more intense towards its middle compared to either end. The vertical height of each sectional prominence seems to repeat from intensity to almost nothing and then intensity again so there seems to be repeating peak and trough sections. There is clear observable order in that signal, imo.

Jigsaw pieces have a fixed set of 'shape of side'. Straight edge sides, male/female constructs, ie one has a prominence that fits into a space formed in another side. There is observable order, no matter how randomly dispersed the pieces are. They can also be grouped based on the picture elements they contain. Colour, pattern, recognisable object (such as a bit of a tree or sky) etc, so forms of order are observable in randomly distributed jigsaw pieces.

I'm not good at Physics, sorry. I only know that entropy is a state and degree of disorder or randomness. — Alkis Piskas

Entropy is the tendency for a combination to revert back to its fundamentals over time.
From the moment a combinatorial is created, it will start to revert back to its fundamentals.

the water starts in an odered state (calm, standstill, level), it becomes disordered when it is boiled and it is put back into its initial ordered sytate when boiling finishes. — Alkis Piskas

I depends how you are using disorder here. The water atoms become more exited/dynamic, they move around a lot faster, due to being heated. If ten people stand still, as close as they can to each other, in a group, compared with all ten of them constantly changing places with each other, as fast as they can, only using the same extent of ground (as best they can). Would you call the ten people standing still, ordered and the ones moving about, disordered? Disorder can be described as 'a state of confusion' or 'disrupting the systematic functioning of or neat arrangement of.' The ten people moving about display an ordered/common purpose, but their movement could nonetheless be called disordered.
The water turns to steam. There may be no water left when the boiling finishes. If you captured all the steam in a big container, then it would condense back into water, as the steam cooled.
If you consider the initial water state 'order' and the steam state 'disorder' and the return to water state a return to 'order.' Then we have order-disorder-order. If you then think well, where did the original water come from? Then you would have to say, one water molecule is from the combination of two hydrogen atoms and one oxygen atom. So the original water came from 'disordered' or 'disunited' hydrogen and oxygen atoms. So I think such examples 'trace back' to an initial state of 'universal' disorder. That becomes locally ordered and entropy ensures all local order eventually reverts back to disorder.
So for the universe, disorder-order-disorder and heat death seems to me to be the correct 'order' of events.

You are bombarding me with Physics terminology! But I undestand the term "homogenuous" at least! :grin:
Well, maybe. As I said, all that is speculations. I prefer to talk about things that we can know, perceive, examine and understand within the framework of our small world and our common reality, in the broad sense. — Alkis Piskas

Sorry Alkis. My own command of physics is still undergrad status at best, and I am 58. But I try to improve my physics grasp where and when I can. Any new knowledge about anything is welcome in my life imo, well, most of the time anyway. Not so much when its about impending tragedy for myself or others. Even then, it's better to know, as maybe you can help stop it, but if you don't know, then you are powerless.
I also accept that even if you know about some impending horror, you may still be powerless to do anything about it.