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? — universeness

No, that statement was not a criticism. Just noticing that they don’t really seem to be vocal about this subject. They do indeed not seem to address the long term issues, but nobody else does either, so religion is hardly taking a different stance here.

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.

Nope. We’d pull the plug as well when there’s no longer any profit in keeping it running.

I suspect that if you die

They’ll hopefully let me hasten the process rather than the prolonged torture that so many people go through, all under the heading of ‘do no harm’. Pretty ironic. At least freezing isn’t torture.

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. — universeness

Something more like that, yes. Mars sucks. Only 1% the pressure of Earth and no water. Hard to engineer something that can thrive in such a hostile environment, especially a high-metabolism being such as ourselves. Can you have intelligence without that? I think so, but it would be quite slow, sort of like ents.

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.

Most of them have your positive attitude and assume somebody will fix it.

We will spread out, yes but not 'in conquest,' or as a pernicious force/presence. — universeness

I never meant it that way. I just mean colonize the galaxy, not conquer it.

Perhaps even a benevolent united federation of planets.

I think a federation of planets would resist a mommy even more than a single one.

Nonsense sir! no current first world country is socialist.

OK, we have different definitions. We feed the old and the poor. They used to starve before WWII.

They are all capitalist as they are all currency driven, free market economies.

OK, by socialist you want an economy devoid of currency. The problem there is the lack of the mommy. If some country does that, it cannot compete with the capitalist competitors in other countries. Balanced trade would falter, especially if there’s no currency to back that trade. A mommy would fix that since effectively the whole world would work the way you envision, but there’d still be little incentive to finding more efficient ways to produce things. This is a problem that needs solving. How do you salvage the advantages of the capitalism without the drawbacks? What do you do with the people reluctant to work? I mean, money is owed-labor in the end, and you’re throwing that away.
Socialism is more fragile, less resistant to shortages than other methods. It comes up often in war hospitals where there’s demand for some drug or treatment exceeds supply. Socialism says everybody in need gets some, but not enough. Better to give on a ROI basis: Give it to who gets the most benefit for the amount given, not to those most in need of it. Cut your losses. In this way, the most serious cases are lost, but in the ‘share all the world’ method, even more die and the survivors are worse off.

True democratic socialism has never been successfully established anywhere on the planet ..... yet.

Democratic? Most places are republics. What’s your definition of something being democratic?

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 trade and agriculture.

If it’s self-sustaining without fossil fuel, then great! It’s a city. Where do the rednecks live?

It isn’t ever going to happen — noAxioms
The 'church' needs to drop god — universeness

That even more is never going to happen. Kind of kills the whole point of rule by unverifiable promises.

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.

The local hospital by me was run by the church, hence prohibited some procedures that they decided made you immoral. Have to go somewhere further away if you wanted those options.

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.

Using a solar panels to create light for crops is far less efficient than just putting the plants in the light. I’m all for solar panels over parking lots and buildings and such, but the solar farms are mostly covering land that could be used to grow something.

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."

That’s the rub. Every watt of renewable energy consumed (and it sounds like VF uses more than regular farming) is one less renewable watt that can be used elsewhere. The excess must be taken up by the fossil fuels. It’s why I’ve not bought into the solar farm thing. If I did, that’s just so much green electricity that somebody else can’t have. The net benefit of switching is zero unless your money actually buys more capacity such as panels on your own house.

IDid you deliberately misspell Orca as these imaginings are alien Orca which you are calling OrKa? — universeness

Well it needs a different name, but one with the right vibes.

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'?

It’s a good percentage of the random articles linked by sites like yahoo news or google news. Yes, there’s better written stuff out there, but almost impossible to find if you’re not explicitly searching for it. The algorithms for what gets put on the front pages of the site is not particularly based on factual content at all. This was a big change compared to only 20 years ago.

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

Quite a bit. I just served 2 months on a grand jury and got a taste of the sort of evidence they collect automatically. They knew where these baddies were by phone tracking and car-license monitoring on the main roads. All the big tech companies (apple, google, microsoft, etc) are quite up front now that they collect data on everything you do on your devices. It gets pretty obvious when new ads appear obviously based on recent browsing history.

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!

That’s kind of evidence that it’s also not going to last long. Make your mark before you’re gone. Make something that can last. That’s as good a purpose as I can think of.

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

We thought it got silly sometimes, but couldn’t exactly pinpoint where.

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.'. — universeness

I did watch and admittedly don’t know the terminology enough to follow what is being suggested.

I also didn't know IQ could be negative. — Agent Smith

By symmetry, a negative IQ occurs about as often as one over 200. They’re out there. My youngest is at about 67 or so, low, but not newsworthy low. My other kids are over 100.

Any ideas whether intelligence genes have been identified?

They’ve found at least 22.

We could breed geniuses then, eh? I wonder of normal folks would approve - it gives me Nazi eugenics vibes.

Bad vibes presumably. I’m all for the posthumans, but not so much for mingling with them. Current gilded-age morals forbids most of the solutions to problems discussed in this topic.

There are clearly observable orders in a boiling water system.
[Soundwave] looks symmetrical on either side of a linear mid section, which is more intense towards its middle compared to either end ...
Jigsaw pieces have a fixed set of 'shape of side'. Straight edge sides, ... — universeness

Yes, one may find order(s) in parts of some disordered whole. Not very evident or clear, but yet ...

Entropy is the tendency for a combination to revert back to its fundamentals over time. — universeness

I see. OK.

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. — universeness

Right.

So I think such examples 'trace back' to an initial state of 'universal' disorder. — universeness

Alright. This is another point of view ...

I try to improve my physics grasp where and when I can. — universeness

Good. But don't count me in! :grin:

it's better to know, as maybe you can help stop it, but if you don't know, then you are powerless. — universeness

Certainly.

By symmetry, a negative IQ occurs about as often as one over 200. They’re out there. My youngest is at about 67 or so, low, but not newsworthy low. My other kids are over 100.
Any ideas whether intelligence genes have been identified?
They’ve found at least 22.
We could breed geniuses then, eh? I wonder of normal folks would approve - it gives me Nazi eugenics vibes.
Bad vibes presumably. I’m all for the posthumans, but not so much for mingling with them. Current gilded-age morals forbids most of the solutions to problems discussed in this topic. — noAxioms

We're doing it anyway, oui monsieur?

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. — universeness

Ha! No messianic salvation intended. Just philosophical enlightenment. And one of my many messiahs is physicist Paul Davies. :joke:

However, my straightforward presentation of a novel scientific & philosophical concept has been affected by aggressive attacks & mockery on this forum over the last few years. I've been forced into a defensive position in response to binary polemics (good vs evil) defending a strongly-held but un-named belief system. Since Enformationism is intended to be a non-religious philosophical update to the worldview of Materialism/Physicalism, I must assume that the emotional responses to an alternative worldview are motivated by what Christians refer to as the humanistic religion of Scientism. If that's your belief system, I apologize for stepping on your toes.

Ironically, Christians would probably refer to my position as "humanistic", since it offers no divine intervention to direct the world toward a Heavenly home or an earthly Utopia. Instead, it's all up to us humans to learn from trial & error, the error of our ways, and the way (Tao) of the world. :smile:

PS__My personal worldview has some similarities to holistic oriental philosophies -- Taoism, Buddhism, Confucianism, etc. -- but is not beholden to their religious doctrines.
PPS__Thanks for moderating your mockery. Some posters are not so tactful in their ridicule of rival "religions".

Taoism Salvation :
Unlike Confucianism, Taoism is a salvation religion which seeks to guide its believers beyond this transitory life to a happy eternity. There is a belief in an original state of bliss, followed by the fallen state. And there is reliance on supernatural powers for help and protection.
https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-1-349-22904-8_7

Scientism :
The main difference between science and scientism is that science is the study of nature and behaviour of natural things and knowledge obtained through them while scientism is the view that only science can render truth about the world and reality.
https://pediaa.com/what-is-the-difference-between-science-and-scientism/
Note -- "only science" means that theoretical Philosophy is not accepted as a path to Truth.

They do indeed not seem to address the long term issues, but nobody else does either, so religion is hardly taking a different stance here. — noAxioms

Oh, I completely disagree! Many theist preach, to manipulable people, as a matter of fact and with a suggested 'authority from divinity!' that this life, is of very limited importance and your only focus here should be to follow the dictates of the dogma of the tenets of whatever religion is being peddled to you.
The Earth and it's contents are unimportant and disposable. Climate change would then be god's will.
Very dangerous, pernicious bullshit. I think you would agree that such is very dangerous and total bullshit. There are millions of organised folks trying to address the long term issues and they are having significant affect, globally, I don't know why you don't give them the credit they are due.
You have heard of folks like Greta Thunberg, yes? Why have you heard of her?
I agree we are in a race to save the planet, but to suggest everyone is just sitting back hoping someone else will sort it all out, is just false and unfair.

Nope. We’d pull the plug as well when there’s no longer any profit in keeping it running. — noAxioms

Not everyone is 'profit driven,' to believe that everyone is, is just misanthropic imo.

They’ll hopefully let me hasten the process rather than the prolonged torture that so many people go through, all under the heading of ‘do no harm’. Pretty ironic. At least freezing isn’t torture. — noAxioms

I am probably sensing a 'misinterpretation' incorrectly here but just to be sure, you are not under the impression that they cryogenically freeze you just BEFORE you die, if you sign up for that service, are you? You have been declared medically brain dead before you are frozen, so of course 'freezing isn't torture,' it would be, if you were still alive when someone was doing that to you.

Hard to engineer something that can thrive in such a hostile environment — noAxioms

I assume we will start with some dome style construction with tech that can best emulate/simulate Earth's conditions but I accept that, initially, it will be a very rough and dangerous existence.
I would definitely sign up to go try!

I think a federation of planets would resist a mommy even more than a single one. — noAxioms

I don't think much of your 'mommy' comparator. Try to balance your seemingly low opinion of your own species. Many folks have done and still do, dedicate their lives to try to improve the lives of everyone else, surely you are willing to admit they exist and support them in everyway you are able to. You seem to have a similar feeling about the members of your own species to god when it asked Abraham/Lot to produce 50 (which was negotiated down to 10, I believe :lol: ) good people from the populations of Sodom and Gomorrah. I am sure you could find many more good people than 50 to stop you from just 'scrapping,' your whole species as just a total failure.

............ In this way, the most serious cases are lost, but in the ‘share all the world’ method, even more die and the survivors are worse off. — noAxioms

Democratic? Most places are republics. What’s your definition of something being democratic? — noAxioms

If it’s self-sustaining without fossil fuel, then great! It’s a city. Where do the rednecks live? — noAxioms

I could give you my personal, detailed viewpoints of the tenets of democratic socialism and how it would function and be applied to deal with each scenario you would throw at it. Yes, general tenets such as 'from each according to their ability and to each according to their need,' 'control over the means of production, distribution and exchange,' 'governance of, for and by the people,' 'the continued and regularly renewed democratic consent of the majority,' all remain in the 'mission statement' of democratic socialism. I am willing to try to address any scenario you wish to use to test secular/humanist/democratic/socialism, championed or even just posited as the best social/economic/political system for humans to live under.

The 'share the world,' within which you claim 'even more die,' could be debated case by case, depending on any historical or current example you might raise. The global production system has ever been organised as a solely resource based 'not for profit,' system, so that's the main reason the 'share equally' approach has fell short in the past.
A republic is simply free of monarchic or aristocratic rule. A republic can be a socialist democratic republic. There have been some countries labelled as such but those proved to be nothing more than an abuse of the label.
Who are you calling a 'redneck?' what problematic attitudes are you referring to?

That even more is never going to happen. Kind of kills the whole point of rule by unverifiable promises. — noAxioms

I think there will come a more enlightened time in the future when there are not many theists left. If that happens, then theistic buildings will need to be repurposed. There are more and more empty churches nowadays.

Quite a bit. I just served 2 months on a grand jury and got a taste of the sort of evidence they collect automatically. They knew where these baddies were by phone tracking and car-license monitoring on the main roads. All the big tech companies (apple, google, microsoft, etc) are quite up front now that they collect data on everything you do on your devices. It gets pretty obvious when new ads appear obviously based on recent browsing history. — noAxioms

But I have no problem with the examples you cite above, as I think one helps protect me and 'society' and the other is at best 'convenient' and at worse 'pestering.' Big brother is a nefarious, evil force how much are you concerned that such data is being misused? What examples do you have of such. I think such personal data IS being misused by some 'individuals' in 'some organisations,' but I am yet to be convinced that such abuse is as rife as some (especially conspiracy addicts,) suggest.

Make your mark before you’re gone. Make something that can last. That’s as good a purpose as I can think of. — noAxioms

I agree but I would add that your mark must be benevolent or else your life would have been better not lived at all, imo.

I did watch and admittedly don’t know the terminology enough to follow what is being suggested. — noAxioms

Thanks for investing the time. Overall, and accepting, as I did myself that much of it was over my head, did you think Leonard was positing a situation where superluminal communication or/and superluminal transportation was not impossible?

If that's your belief system, I apologize for stepping on your toes. — Gnomon

You haven't. I don't consider you a crank. It can be very tough indeed to try to occupy any 'middle ground' between two diametrically opposed groups. I do have a scientism, in that I champion science over theism or any supernatural posits, completely. I wear that definition of 'scientism,' with as much joy as any halelujah chorus.

PS__My personal worldview has some similarities to holistic oriental philosophies -- Taoism, Buddhism, Confucianism, etc. -- but is not beholden to their religious doctrines. — Gnomon

:up:

PPS__Thanks for moderating your mockery. Some posters are not so tactful in their ridicule of rival "religions". — Gnomon

I have no religion and reject any suggestion (including any camouflaged ones,) that science or atheism are in any way, religious or theistic.
Thank you also for not attacking my critique of your viewpoints with nothing but ad hominins. I have also had many such exchanges on TPF but I normally give as good as I get. I will get down in the mud and scrap, if my interlocuter is trying to browbeat me.

while scientism is the view that only science can render truth about the world and reality. — Gnomon

I don't assign a 100% credence to this viewpoint but my current credence level on this is very high.

- "only science" means that theoretical Philosophy is not accepted as a path to Truth. — Gnomon

I do give credence to 'theoretical philosophy' but I do think empirical science is its final arbiter.

I have enjoyed our exchange on this thread Gnomon, thanks for taking the time to explain some of your viewpoints to me. As someone who states that they have no significant academic quals, you demonstrate impressive thinking skills imo.

:up: Thanks for your input Alkis!

However, my straightforward presentation of a novel scientific & philosophical concept ... — Gnomon

... which nonetheless does not either provide cogent and succinct answers to or critically dispute the relevance of (old) straitforward questions like those linked here

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/709894

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/718369

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/742056 — 180 Proof

conspicously suggests you are anything but intellectually "straightforward", Gnomon. :smirk:

@universeness @Agent Smith

Thank you too, @universeness. It was a pleasurable exchange on a very interesting subject that you brought up.

:up:

You haven't. I don't consider you a crank. It can be very tough indeed to try to occupy any 'middle ground' between two diametrically opposed groups. I do have a scientism, in that I champion science over theism or any supernatural posits, completely. I wear that definition of 'scientism,' with as much joy as any halelujah chorus. — universeness

Thanks for the vote of confidence. But, some on this forum have accused me of overweening ego for promoting a new paradigm based on the emerging science of Information. likes to say I'm "making sh*t up", although my modest contribution to the emergent information-centric worldview is to make-up some neologisms to convey the unconventional (post-Shannon) concepts that emerge from the new understanding of the ubiquitous role of Information in the universe : including both Mind & Matter. For example, what I call "EnFormAction" (energy + laws) is just a new name for the causal "phenomenon at the root of things"*1.

Perhaps my role is more like Darwin's Bulldog, Thomas Huxley, who didn't "make-up" the theory of Evolution, but promoted it among his incredulous peers in science. In fact, even Darwin's theory was an assemblage of ideas that were already "in the air" so to speak*2. Even his own father, Erasmus, seems to have coined the technical term "Evolution" to describe his own concept of descent from a common ancestor. It would be hard for me to designate the "Darwin" of Enformationism, because dozens of scientists & philosophers have contributed to the knowledge-base. But my go-to guy is physicist Paul Davies, who has written a long string of books on various information-centric ideas, including The Mind of God : The Scientific Basis for a Rational World. A philosophical promoter is The Information Philosopher*3, who has also never heard of Enformationism.

My problem with Scientism is that it typically denigrates not just irrational Religions, but also rational-but-non-empirical Philosophy itself. Philosophical posts on TPF --- that don't conform to the ancient belief system of Materialism/Atomism as canonized in 17th century classical physics --- are shouted-down as religion-in-disguise. Yet Enformationism is compatible with Physics, Chemistry, & Biology up to the point of explaining the emergence of Life, Mind, & Memes. In 1973, Theodosius Dobzhansky asserted "nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution". Now, 50 years later, Gnomon goes on record to say that "nothing in Evolution makes sense except in the light of Information". Is that a case of overweening ego? Judge for yourself *4. :smile:


*1. quote from Caleb Scharf in The Ascent of Information, who has never heard of Enformationism .

*2. Evolution : Charles Darwin is commonly cited as the person who “discovered” evolution. But, the historical record shows that roughly seventy different individuals published work on the topic of evolution between 1748 and 1859, the year that Darwin published On the Origin of Species.
https://hmnh.harvard.edu/event/who-discovered-evolution

*3. Information philosophy is a dualist philosophy, both materialist and idealist. It is a correspondence theory, explaining how immaterial ideas represent material objects.
https://www.informationphilosopher.com/

*4. The EnFormAction Hypothesis : Emergent Evolution
Without understanding how the process of en-formation works, the emergence of Mathematical Physics & self-organizing Life & metaphysical Mind must be taken on Faith, as miraculous bootstrap (self-starting) events.
https://bothandblog3.enformationism.info/page23.html.

Looking on past the links you provided above. I did notice that @Gnomon does not respond to many of your questions. He is welcome to reconsider, that and respond to the points you made, if he wants to.

although my modest contribution to the emergent information-centric worldview is to make-up some neologisms to convey the unconventional (post-Shannon) concepts that emerge from the new understanding of the ubiquitous role of Information in the universe : including both Mind & Matter. For example, what I call "EnFormAction" (energy + laws) is just a new name for the causal "phenomenon at the root of things"*1. — Gnomon

*1. quote from Caleb Scharf in The Ascent of Information, who has never heard of Enformationism . — Gnomon

But questions from @180 Proof like:

1. Why do "ancient Holistic philosophies" need non-philosophical "support"?
2. What is such "support" suppose to change about or with "ancient Holistic philosophies"? And change for whom?
3. Lastly, insofar as scientifically literate philosophers / students of philosophy tend to dismiss your repetitious (mis)uses of scientific theories and their findings coupled with your own (disingenuous?) confession to being a neophyte in both philosophy and natural sciences, how do you know, Gnomon, that the pervasive "lukewarm reception ,"is due to "reductive scientistic bias" and not due to well-founded learning that is philosophically and/or scientifically superior to your own? What does overlooking or denying the more likely prospect of the latter possibility say about the "openness" – or lack thereof – of your "mind", sir?[/quote]

Wont go away until you answer them succinctly. You should either PM each other and have an honest, good natured debate or start another thread and do it on the main mage of TPF where others such as I can contribute. It would be fun, and it need not be acrimonious.
If neither of you can be bothered or your have already 'tried, been there, bought the tshirt etc,' then I will accept that and say no more about it.

What do you think @Gnomon is so afraid of that he persistently ignores 's inconvenient questions?

Okay I'll bite:
1. Fear that he cannot defend against you.
2. He considers you too disrespectful towards him, and he refuses to indulge you.
3. He does not have the personal energy reserves needed to equal your persistence.
4. He is a very experienced sophist who selects his targets wisely.
5. You cause him too much pain.
6. He is a true seeker who is trying to get through to you but you cant see the truth when it's offered to you.
7. You are him and this is all part of your cunning plan to rule the Earth.

Looking on past the links you provided above. I did notice that Gnomon does not respond to many of your questions. He is welcome to reconsider, that and respond to the points you made, if he wants to. — universeness

FYI. I have explained many times before why I ceased responding to 's "inconvenient questions". It's primarily because his snarky responses, besides irrelevant, are mostly abusive instead of reasonable.

If you want to see some of my indirect answers to his rarely relevant ridicule, just check-out my replies to , who has inadvertently become the middle-man mediator between combatants. It's a who-hit-who-first abusive relationship, which I long ago decided to divorce from. :smile:

So your answer to @180 Proof's question to me above, relates to my numbers 2 and 5 above and of course number 7 could still apply. I think I will just drop this issue now as I am probably not helping improve the impasse between you both. I was just trying to reduce the barrier between you both, that's all. You both seem to be reasonable folks to me.

If not 1, then, yeah, it's 7. :sweat:

You can post answers to these several questions either in reply to me directly or in reply to @Agent Smith or @universeness and that will be the end of this antagonism between us, no more rejoiners or criticisms from me. Give other members who are skeptical of your "personal philosophical worldview" potential reasons with your "staightforward" answers to reconsider the stuff you're selling. Clarifying your contributions to TPF, Gnomon, need not be blocked by our impasse.

I think I will just drop this issue now as I am probably not helping improve the impasse between you both. I was just trying to reduce the barrier between you both, that's all. You both seem to be reasonable folks to me. — universeness

Thanks for the effort, but you are not likely to resolve "the impasse", because for it seems to be an ideological war of Good vs Evil (Scientism vs Spiritualism???). I assume that attitude is partly due to his belief that most-if-not-all philosophers up until the 17th century -- most of whom included G*D in their world models -- were simply practicing irrational Religion in words instead of deeds. (Please don't take this characterization-out-of-context literally)

I have enjoyed the opportunity to respond to your non-abusive questioning. The exercise helps me to refine my own emerging philosophical worldview. But you still seem to miss the this-worldly focus of Enformationism, due to its "contamination" with a speculative god-concept. Ironically, like Spinoza's "god of the philosophers", I'm not making any factual claims about super-natural beings. Unless, that is, you categorize Energy (invisible causal power) and Information (creative power to enform) as supernatural concepts. I don't expect to make converts on this open forum, but merely to freely exchange philosophical ideas, no matter how far out.

180 finds it easy to pick & squish the low-hanging fruit of an uncredentialed unpublished amateur philosopher, whose ideas are "unworthy", simply because they are not in the mainstream of holy Science. "No credentials, no credence". But that's an odd attitude for a forum of amateur philosophers, most of whom also have no credentials in Science -- or Philosophy. As long as he views Creativity*1 as a taboo supernatural power, the core concept of Enformationism (Energy = natural power to enform & transform = EnFormAction = the cause of Emergence) will be anathema (something or someone that one vehemently dislikes). But I'm cool with that, as long as we maintain a respectful distance. :cool:

*1. Creativity is a phenomenon whereby something new and valuable is formed. The created item may be intangible (such as an idea, a scientific theory, a musical composition, or a joke) or a physical object (such as an invention, a printed literary work, or a painting).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creativity

Hi Gnomon, my ontology centers around non-physical things such as time, space, certain forms of energy, logic, number, and information. Some of my philosophy resembles yours, and i'm curious to know what your thoughts are on where information comes from? How is it created at the most fundamental level? or what allows it to be possible (a sub-structure perhaps)?

my ontology centers around non-physical things such as time, space, certain forms of energy, logic, number, and information. — punos

Are you a Kantian? If not, then why do say "time, space, certain forms of energy ... and informarion" are "non-physical"?

Are you a Kantian? If not, then why do say "time, space, certain forms of energy ... and informarion" are "non-physical"? — 180 Proof

I'm not sure if i am, perhaps you can tell me if i am. I think energy is the only thing that really exists and in it's primordial form from our perspective is invisible and intangible. The difference between physical and non-physical is the same difference between solid and gas, a kind of energetic density spectrum.

The difference between physical and non-physical is the same difference between solid and gas, a kind of energetic density spectrum. — punos

I'm afraid not. Regardless of "energy density", like "solid and gas", energy is a physical phenomenon. "Invisible and intangible" are irrelevant; besides, we see via EM energy (i.e. visible light) and feel strong winds which are manifestations of thermal energy. As far as "the only thing that really exists", tell me the difference between exists and "really exists", and why energy is one but not the other. :chin:

Regardless of "energy density", like "solid and gas", it's a physical phenomenon. "Invisible and intangible" are irrelevant; besides, we see via EM energy (i.e. visible light) and feel a strong breeze which is thermal energy. — 180 Proof

My point actually is that there really is no difference. The difference is illusory and relative, and it makes no difference to me if one calls it physical or not it's still the same game. This is why you're right about invisible and intangible being irrelevant.

we see via EM energy (i.e. visible light) and feel a strong breeze which is thermal energy. — 180 Proof

I would expect this to be the case if all is energy, as different forms of energy can affect each other. It is precisely why we can see and feel, because if it were fundamentally different we probably would not be able to.

As far as "the only thing that really exists", tell me the difference between exists and "really exists", and why energy is one but not the other. — 180 Proof

Everything that is possible exists in some form or other even if in a latent space or form. In any case it would all be energy, no matter the space or form. What really exists is the thing that everything else depends on for existence, or actualization such as how molecules need atoms to exist, and cells need molecules that need atoms to exist. So these things are real because they are actualized (emergent) from prior emergent forms. There is a thing at the very bottom that can not be emergent but gives rise to emergence and that is what is "really real".

I'm also curious as to how you envision fundamental information formation.? Same question i asked Gnomon.

There is a thing at the very bottom that can not be emergent but gives rise to emergence and that is what is "really real". — punos

This reminds me of Laozi's Dao and Plotinus' One and Nāgārjuna's Śūnyatā ... even Schopenhauer's Will. Okay, but, in fact, even energy is "emergent" (re: E=mc² & quantum field excitations (quanta)) – emergent from what? Spontaneous symmetry-breaking (my guess :nerd:).

I'll let him "answer" your question first.

even energy is "emergent" (re: E=mc² & quantum field excitations (quanta)) – from what? Spontaneous symmetry-breaking (my guess :nerd:). — 180 Proof

That is also my educated guess, but i'm trying to probe deeper. I have a sense of how this symmetry-breaking happens, but it feels incomplete. I'm trying to understand as a graspable concept the nature of chaos or randomness (unconditioned activity of energy or formless energy) in what seems to be an empty infinite space but may actually not be a space like we would understand it; for me it resembles something like spaceless time. This makes me think that time is the ultimate fundamental (dimension zero), and space emerges out of time (dimension one). The energy that we are and experience in space is a further emergence between time and space producing the energetic chaos we know as the quantum foam.

That's a little of what i got so far.

Here's food for thought: Cold isn't really a thing, as much of a thing as heat is and darkness is also not really a thing, as much of a thing as light is. Is Enformy a thing, or are you making the same mistake as the Hindus (zero) made as according to the Greeks who asked "how can nothing be something?" :cool:

Cold isn't really a thing, as much of a thing as heat is and darkness is also not really a thing, as much of a thing as light is. — Agent Smith

Cold is the absence of heat, and darkness the absence of light. The difference is only in the magnitude or degree of the one thing in question.

are you making the same mistake as the Hindus (zero) made as according to the Greeks who asked "how can nothing be something?" — Agent Smith

What really is nothing? is it really nothing in the sense that there is nothing to say about it? Does not nothing implicate the possibility of it's opposite 'something'. Maybe there is something about nothing.