Maybe there is something about nothing. — punos

:smirk: Maybe not ...

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/349320

Maybe there is something about nothing. — punos

:smirk: Maybe not ... — 180 Proof

So why or how is there something? Specifically why or how is energy possible?

So why or how is there something? — punos

There is no Why (which does not beg this Why question further); and as for the How, theoretical symmetry-breaking (i.e. vacuum fluctuations, etc) suffices. Also, insofar as 'there is nothing' to stop not-nothing – "something" – from coming-to-be, continuing-to-be or ceasing-to-be, necessarily non-necessary not-nothing happens eventually. And since there is only one state of nothing-ness relative to the infinitely many states of not-nothing-ness, the probability of the former relative to the latter is vanishing close to zero (which, IMO, is the only state-of-affairs so infinitely improbable that it paradoxically necessitates an "Absolute Being" to sustain "Absolute Nonbeing" :scream:).

↪Gnomon 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 ua, 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. — 180 Proof

:clap: Very reasonable, constructive response. Which Gnomon should respond to, in kind, or risk the conformation of any lingering sophist accusations, folks may have towards him.

@Gnomon, @180 Proof, @punos,@Agent Smith, also @Alkis Piskas (due to Jim Al-Khalili's connection between information and disorder-order in this vid) and of course anyone else interested.
Please watch this, if you have not watched it previously. It is almost an hour long but it is worth every second of your time, based on our recent exchanges in this thread. It is also directly related to my OP, human intent and purpose, and what is emergent due to human intent and purpose. ASI in particular!


To @Gnomon in particular. This video explains why I dont consider you a crank, as I do also accept, that information/data is a universal fundamental. I also think it's fundamental unit, may well be the 'bit' as the 'smallest measure of information possible.' This vid also features a discussion of the importance of the work of Claude Shannon, which you have also cited. Where do you think your enformation, etc posits, takes us, FROM the current position, as established by Jim Al-Khalili's video above.
I would like anyone here to reference any section of this (imo,) very important video, (please reference by time stamp,) that you think best supports or counters anything raised by Gnomon's enformationism.
I first saw this on TV around 3 years ago and and I have now, watched it about 5 times, including last night, due to my exchange with Gnomon.

Let's see if @Gnomon
responds... :zip:

Seems fair to me!

Noted.

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)? — punos

Some posters on this forum will reject your notion of "non-physical", partly because they associate that label with "spiritual", and partly because their Materialism/Physicalism worldview lumps all the things you mentioned under the heading of Physics. That's also why some of the pioneers of Quantum Theory were labeled as "mystics" when they borrowed some holistic Oriental terminology to help understand the non-reductive & counter-intuitive & non-classical weirdness of the sub-atomic realm. So, be aware that "non-physical" may be interpreted as meaning "meta-physical", which to some is about spiritual gods & ghosts, instead of about immaterial ideas & concepts : not Reality, but Ideality. It's about theoretical Philosophy, not empirical Science.

Energy is indeed physical in the sense that it is the primary concern of physicists. But it's not a material object, and has no atomic structure. Instead Energy*1 is the process of Causation that produces changes in material objects. But some treat that process metaphorically as-if it is a flowing stream of fluid energy-stuff. In the book I'm currently reading, The Ascent of Information, astro-biologist Caleb Scharf says : "Many of us have gotten used to thinking of the closely related properties of energy and entropy as tangible things. In truth, they are really just concepts that help predict or explain why matter behaves the way it does". So those who imagine Energy as a "tangible thing" (physical fluid?) are taking the symbolic figure-of-speech metaphor literally. And that's a common conceptual problem in philosophical dialog.

Scharf goes on to be more explicit about "non-physical" Energy*2 : "But it's hard to point at any phenomenon in nature and say, 'that is energy'. A photon is not energy. . . . . It's one reason physicists always wince when a science fiction tale mentions anything being made of 'pure energy', because that's just wrong". However, you may be thinking of "non-physical" Energy as an abstraction equivalent to "pure energy". And such abstractions include Mathematical ratios such as those of Thermodynamics. Also, in my personal worldview of Enformationism, I equate Energy with Generic Information : the power to enform, or to change forms. :smile:


*1. What is Energy? :
But, what is Energy or Force anyway? For scientific purposes, it is a general property (Causation) of the universe as a system, which causes changes in material substances. Some religions also view Spiritual Energy (Life Force or Soul) as a universal property, that manifests in changes not only to physical bodies, but also in non-physical minds. So which is it? Sadly, these are not physical, but metaphysical queries. Hence, any answers we propose can never be proven true or false by means of empirical evidence. In the Quora quotes below, Neuroscientist Rosseinsky, indicates that we can construct logical explanations, given specific premises, for both possibilities, but we can't prove that one is a fact and the other a fantasy. Each may be valid within its own purview. That's why I prefer to make a key distinction between mundane Reality and sublime Ideality.
https://bothandblog.enformationism.info/page26.html

*2. Energy is Information in action :
Energy is the relationship between information regimes. That is, energy is manifested, at any level, between structures, processes and systems of information in all of its forms, and all entities in this universe is composed of information.
https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/22084/how-is-information-related-to-energy-in-physics
Note -- given time, I could link to many opinions of scientists who equate Information & Energy. But some posters will think that notion is either irrelevant or heretical to their belief system.

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)? — punos

Where does Information come from? It's like Energy, which physicists now define as inherent in empty space : vacuum energy. Likewise, the source of Information/Energy has been inherent in the non-physical Potential*3 of virtual energy Fields (empty space) from the beginning of space-time. How that non-physical creative power got embedded in the physical world is not a scientific question. Yet some imaginative physicists have speculated on various unproveable scenarios : including an infinite regression of Big Bangs, or an unbounded Universe of Many Worlds. Your guess is as good as mine. But I too have speculated on the origins of both Energy & Matter*4. The BothAnd Blog goes into some deep detail to support those non-scientific conjectures. :nerd:


*3. Potential & Actual :
Potential is unactualized power to cause change; to enform. It's not real, and it's non-physical. Yet the Field Theory of physics assumes (imagines without physical evidence) that empty space contains unactualized Energy that can emerge from not-yet-real Virtual Particles. I agree, but I refer to that hypothesis as a meta-physical concept.

*4. Infinite Un-bounded Potential :
Langan calls the source of being, the UnBound Telesis, meaning something like an infinite intentionality, or eternal Will. UBT sounds equivalent to my notion of eternal Chaos, an infinite unformed pool of potential, which like Plato's ideal Forms can become realized into physical things or processes. But, Actualization requires Causation, which is an act of creation. My own term for the old Greek concept of “the ground of being” is simply BEING : the power to exist. So that's another way to describe G*D functionally without defining the deity phenomenologically.
https://www.bothandblog.enformationism.info/page48.html

Oh, I completely disagree! Many theist preach, ... that this life, is of very limited importance — universeness

OK, that’s just assigning a completely fictional long-term goal. I agree with that, but was trying to say that they don’t address long term goals in this life.

Climate change would then be god's will.

The mommy will need to deal with that attitude then. No dealing with it unless it’s a mommy.

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.

I seem to see only suggestions of slowing the destruction, not in any way undoing any of it. It buys time, but actually makes the crash worse.

You have heard of folks like Greta Thunberg, yes? Why have you heard of her?

An activist on the right side. She calls for action, but I cannot actually find any suggested action that doesn’t just fall under the category of slowing the advance.

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, do 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.

If you’re dead, you cannot be revived. So their hope is that the definition of ‘dead’ changes between getting frozen and getting thawed. That definition is always in flux, so it’s a solid bet. No, I don’t think it would be torture either way. You’d certainly not be a conscious popsicle for decades.
I always wonder if I can feel the pain of say surgery and the only reason I’m willing to do it is that I can’t remember the pain. They very much have that fuhgeddaboudit sauce.

About Mars:

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. — universeness

That’s the life in a box. Wouldn’t it be a lot easier to do it here, kind of like Logan’s run? Environment goes to hell, but at least not Mars-hell. But I actually cannot think of something practical that could be engineered to live on Mars except some incredibly static microbes or something.

I don't think much of your 'mommy' comparator.

You don’t want some kind of authority to keep each of the planets in the federation from stepping out of the agreements?

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.

Plenty true of most individuals I know. It’s the larger groups that can’t do it. The larger the entity, the less mature their relationship with other such entities.

es, general tenets such as 'from each according to their ability’

Yes, that one. Capitalism has a nice motivator for that, but I have to admit that socialism also can do it, as evidence by the work ethic of more social countries. I suspect much of the problem is identification of a non-cooperative attitude with your peer group. For example, resistance to the Covid vaccines has been assiciated with a conservative viewpoint. Getting a shot is seen as a vote for the wrong party, so they don’t. I lost a sister-in-law to that mentaility. I’m such a proponent of free speech, but I obviously see a downside to it.

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[/quote]OK, I admit to not being up on the terminology, and agree that no country seems to actually operate under a system that their ‘label’ is supposed to describe.

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. — universeness

That there are. They might return in numbers, but with less fancy large buildings.

Big brother is a nefarious, evil force how much are you concerned that such data is being misused?

I don’t see it much, but there’s a reason that many sorts of surveillance is restricted or just plain illegal. There is very much potential of misuse if you already have the data for supposedly normal purposes.

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.

Agree except for the logic. Whether my life was better not lived or not depends heavily on the gauge by which the benefit of it is measured.

[/quote]did you think Leonard was positing a situation where superluminal communication or/and superluminal transportation was not impossible?[/quote]I got lost in the jargon enough that I couldn’t make that assessment. It was that for which I was looking.

We're doing it anyway, oui monsieur? — Agent Smith

Maybe. Pretty sure there is gender selection going on in places, and perhaps some gene therapy to help with known genetic issues like breast cancer, but maybe not going so far as to just change an ordinary person into an enhanced one, better in some positive way, not just more free of blatant defects.

Screening for genetic defects is, I believe, mandatory in some countries that have the facility.

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: — Agent Smith

True. "Cold" only has meaning relative to Hot, so it exists meta-physically as a relationship concept in the mind. Yet, "Hot" is also a non-thing, with only a relative existence, as measured in artificial degrees. Enformy is not a thing, it's a causal process like Evolution, except with a positive meaning, relative to inquiring humans. Unlike "Hot" you can't sense Enformy physically, you can only infer it Rationally. Both concepts, Enformy & Evolution, exist meta-physically like Zero*1 : the imaginary concept of Nothingness.

However, "Zero" has a parallel in Terrence Deacon's Absence*2, the metaphysics of incompleteness. Again, Absence is not a physical thing, but the meta-physical Potential for something. And Potential only has meaning relative to Actual. Deacon's Absential is only Nothing in a physical sense, which for Materialists is all there is -- no place for non-things . But for Philosophers, Potential has always been the solution to mysterious Emergences*3, which is what we call the occasion when some new properties or qualities are manifested from something old : i.e. Holism. Absence, in the sense of Incompleteness, implies Teleology/Teleonomy, which is a pulling force from a future metaphysical state (the goal or end or telos or Final Cause of a process).

All of those no-thing concepts are absent from the Physicalist*3 worldview. Which is why some anti-metaphysical posters on this forum are like the ancient Greeks & Hindus, in denying the reality of Zero. Yet again, it's nothing but a mental philosophical concept : an idea, lacking all the substance of Matter. But then, ideas are the essential substance & subject of Philosophy. n'est ce pas? :cool:

PS__I apologize for getting carried away with references to Emergence below*3 *4 *5.

*1. Zero : The Biography of a Dangerous Idea :
Zero is the fascinating story of a number banned by the ancient Greeks and worshipped by ancient Indians
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero:_The_Biography_of_a_Dangerous_Idea

*2. Absence :
Deacon's 2011 work Incomplete Nature has a strong triadic structure, inspired perhaps by an important influence from semiotics—the philosopher Charles Sanders Peirce's triad of icon, index, and symbol. Deacon's triad levels represent the material, the ideal, and the pragmatic. The first two levels reflect the ancient philosophical dualism of materialism and idealism, or body and mind, respectively. The major transition from the nonliving to the living - the problem of abiogenesis, and the introduction of telos in the universe - happens in Deacon's third level. . . .
Appreciating Deacon's argument is easier with a little history. Claude Shannon's information theory produced an expression for the potential information that can be carried in a communication channel. It is the mathematical negative of Boltzmann's formula for entropy.
https://www.informationphilosopher.com/solutions/scientists/deacon/

*3. Mystery of Emergence :
Strong Emergence as a Defense of Non-Reductive Physicalism
https://www.jstor.org/stable/4545239

4*. Emergence :
"Emergent behaviors, like games, are all about living within the boundaries defined by rules, but also using that space to create something greater than the sum of its parts" __by Steven Johnson
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergence:_The_Connected_Lives_of_Ants,_Brains,_Cities,_and_Software

*5. The Emergence of Everything :
"Because of the Pauli principle [exclusion], matter is informatic, and something akin to mind has already entered the universe" __Harold Morowitz, biophysicist
Note-- "informatic" = imparting information

So those who imagine Energy as a "tangible thing" (physical fluid?) are taking the symbolic figure-of-speech metaphor literally. And that's a common conceptual problem in philosophical dialog. — Gnomon

Yes, i think part of the problem has to do with how energy is conceptualized. It is a very slippery concept to grasp "ergonomically" in the human mind at least at this point in our cognitive and historical development. It is like historically the concept of zero where some or most cultures in the past didn't even have a concept for it. Even when a culture acquired the concept it felt nebulous to them, not knowing if it meant anything or what to do with it. Energy is the new zero.

Scharf goes on to be more explicit about "non-physical" Energy*2 : "But it's hard to point at any phenomenon in nature and say, 'that is energy'. A photon is not energy. . . . . It's one reason physicists always wince when a science fiction tale mentions anything being made of 'pure energy', because that's just wrong". — Gnomon

I understand this in the sense that for me neither energy nor information have any manifestation unless they come as a unit; in a way like how all matter manifestations happen as particle-antiparticle pairs (the dual nature of the universe). Energy is the medium of information and information is the medium of energy. Pure energy has no form, that is to say that pure energy has no information.

However, you may be thinking of "non-physical" Energy as an abstraction equivalent to "pure energy". And such abstractions include Mathematical ratios such as those of Thermodynamics. — Gnomon

I see energy thermodynamics in an information field as what we call probability theory ("infodynamics"), and they are either hard to separate or they are one in the same.

Also, in my personal worldview of Enformationism, I equate Energy with Generic Information : the power to enform, or to change forms. :smile: — Gnomon

That is exactly how i think of it as well. Energy introduces dynamics into the equation which is how information develops and is processed.

But, what is Energy or Force anyway? For scientific purposes, it is a general property (Causation) of the universe as a system, which causes changes in material substances. — Gnomon

Yes i understand this, but what is a "material substance" in the first place? is it also information itself in your view?

So which is it? Sadly, these are not physical, but metaphysical queries. Hence, any answers we propose can never be proven true or false by means of empirical evidence. — Gnomon

Also agree. I'm not expecting any empirical evidence because it seems obvious to me that it is incompatible with the empirical method (the question still remains), and so a non-empirical method such as with pure math and or pure logic is necessary. Of course one who is accustomed to thinking empirically and needing physical evidence for everything would have difficulty taking non-empirical methods seriously, nevertheless it seems that to make headway in this direction the familiar methods are not sufficient.

How that non-physical creative power got embedded in the physical world is not a scientific question. — Gnomon

Well i think it is a scientific question, it's just that it can't yield a scientific answer, it yields another question. What is the right method for asking this question? It's not meta-physics but perhaps pre-physics is the way to think about it, but in any case it must be capable of giving rise (emergence) to physics as we know it at our level of complexity.

Thank you for explaining your view of this subject, i try to look at all the angles, and i don't think your angle is a bad one. I want to give myself some time to explore some of your musings and information you provided. It is helpful. :smile:

here is no Why (which does not beg this Why question further); and as for the How, theoretical symmetry-breaking (i.e. vacuum fluctuations, etc) suffices. — 180 Proof

Ok, it is fine that the answer "vacuum fluctuations" is sufficient for you, but it isn't for me. Why "vacuum fluctuations" and not "God", that is if an answer with no explanation is sufficient?

And since there is only one state of nothing-ness relative to the infinitely many states of not-nothing-ness, the probability of the former relative to the latter is vanishing close to zero (which, IMO, is the only state-of-affairs so infinitely improbable that it paradoxically necessitates an "Absolute Being" to sustain "Absolute Nonbeing" :scream:). — 180 Proof

At the most fundamental of fundamental levels which would be a state of infinite nothingness; the logical inversion of that would be infinite something. Not as a plurality of things, but what you would call one vacuum fluctuation (Planck energy, in a Plank volume). There would only be two possible states: empty, full. Besides when speaking of probability in a perfectly random system all states happen in a long enough time (very quickly with just two states: binary). Ive done this experiment many times in computer simulations. Randomness leaves nothing to chance in that sense, and is why evolution works the way it does and can start from a complete state of "blindness". I don't see a need for absolute beings, one would need to explain them too in either a logical or mathematical manner starting from nothing.

This theory of mine is still a work in progress, so i still might not have all my words "in a row", but i think i'm on the right track. You are quite welcome to critique my theory; it can only help me improve it or discard it. :smile:

I have watched that video previously, and i just watched it again. Thanks :up:

Why "vacuum fluctuations" and not "God", that is if an answer with no explanation is sufficient? — punos

There is not any experimental corroboration or theoretical function in fundamental physics for "God" but there are both for vacuum fluctuations.

There is not any experimental corroboration or theoretical function in fundamental physics for "God" but there are both for vacuum fluctuations. — 180 Proof

That's a good start, and it doesn't bother you that these vacuum fluctuations are there for apparently no reason? It does me. Vacuum Fluctuations beg the question; how is that possible? The answer has to lie below physics at the level of logic and mathematics purely... no physical evidence will be possible, only computational evidence which can be checked by computer simulation.

I will try to write a full account of my theory as soon as i'm able to.

I posted a link to a wiki article that summarizes the relevant physics. There's "the reason" – our current best theoretical explanation – for vacuum fluctuations. The current state of fundamenral physics suffices for me as a layman (with university-level physics education and graduate degree in cognitive science). Otherwise, 'not knowng the physics' does not mean there is no explanation for some physical phenomenon.

OK, that’s just assigning a completely fictional long-term goal. I agree with that, but was trying to say that they don’t address long term goals in this life. — noAxioms

Ah, ok, so you are basically agreeing, that the tenents of many religions and consequentially, the majority of it's adherents, consider all Earthly experiences/materials/ecology, disposable.

I seem to see only suggestions of slowing the destruction, not in any way undoing any of it — noAxioms

New carbon capture initiatives are an example of actions which are directly targeted at 'undoing,' damage already done, as are all efforts to stop releasing greenhouse gases into the atmosphere so that such as the ozone layer can recover. A great deal of work is also being done to help coral reefs repair.
Many species are being reintroduced into areas where they have been made extinct, so as to reintroduce the benefits they offered to the ecology of the area. 'Beavers' for example. You are justified in complaining that, it's probably not enough and it's not fast enough and there probably will be heavy prices to pay, but, I think you should recognise the very serious efforts that are being made and encourage their growth, rather than just keep suggesting that all such efforts are in vain, especially with doomster words such as:

It buys time, but actually makes the crash worse. — noAxioms

but I cannot actually find any suggested action that doesn’t just fall under the category of slowing the advance. — noAxioms

Slowing an advance, if continued, can eventually STOP an advance and eventually REVERSE an advance. Each of us must do what we can to help.

That’s the life in a box. Wouldn’t it be a lot easier to do it here, kind of like Logan’s run? — noAxioms

Could be much the same as life in the box you currently call your home. The only difference would be that you need a spacesuit to go outside. That may happen here anyway, if your predictions of the effects of climate change all come true. Logan's run just suggested you get killed when you get to a certain age. What's that dystopian storyline got to do with potential human life on Mars? We want to explore and develop space not exclusively to solve our problem of excess population or the extinction threat we have due to 'having all of us on one planet only.' (your Logan's run suggestion would not even solve that one.) We want to go boldly go where no-one has gone before, that's embedded deep in our nature. It is a large part of our intent and purpose. Your home is a box, as is your nation and your planet and our solar system and our galaxy. The boxes get a lot bigger as you leave your home box (your house or your planet.)

You don’t want some kind of authority to keep each of the planets in the federation from stepping out of the agreements? — noAxioms

I want authority that is democratically elected (Proportional representation and the single transferable vote). Authority that is answerable to very strong checks and balances that will instantly kick in, and cause any individual, to be removed from power, quickly and assuredly, if you are guilty of abusing your power and of acting nefariously. Your imagery of motherhood models of authority are dictatorial one's. A mother/child relationship is not democratic. A mother may love her children or she may not. Such authority as 'mother,' or your more childish label 'mommy,' is at best, a cult of personality and raw emotion. It is a 'silly' authority model to suggest, as a way of running a progressive human civilisation.

Yes, that one. Capitalism has a nice motivator for that, but I have to admit that socialism also can do it, as evidence by the work ethic of more social countries. I suspect much of the problem is identification of a non-cooperative attitude with your peer group. For example, resistance to the Covid vaccines has been assiciated with a conservative viewpoint. Getting a shot is seen as a vote for the wrong party, so they don’t. I lost a sister-in-law to that mentaility. I’m such a proponent of free speech, but I obviously see a downside to it. — noAxioms

Reasonable thinking imo.

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 — noAxioms

OK, I admit to not being up on the terminology, and agree that no country seems to actually operate under a system that their ‘label’ is supposed to describe.[/quote]

:clap:

I don’t see it much, but there’s a reason that many sorts of surveillance is restricted or just plain illegal. There is very much potential of misuse if you already have the data for supposedly normal purposes. — noAxioms

I agree that there are very valid security concerns regarding your personal data and exactly who has access to it and could abuse that access.

Agree except for the logic. Whether my life was better not lived or not depends heavily on the gauge by which the benefit of it is measured. — noAxioms

Agreed but I think it is possible to get a general overview. I don't like citing theistic Hollywood BS, but it's the only (relatively poor) example that springs into my head. In the film 'It's a Wonderful life,' Jimmy Stewart is shown how he positively impacted the lives of others. Such criteria is one way to measure your life, imo.

I got lost in the jargon enough that I couldn’t make that assessment. It was that for which I was looking. — noAxioms

Ok, thanks again for taking the time to listen/watch it. If you try again, tell me your impressions of the superluminal communication possibilities you think were involved (if any).

It's about theoretical Philosophy, not empirical Science. — Gnomon

Do you disagree that empirical science must be the final arbiter of theoretical philosophy? If your answer is no, then what is the path from hypothesis based philosophy to what you are labelling 'theoretical' philosophy? A theory is a tested hypothesis, some strong empirical evidence must be tested and peer reviewed before a hypothesis can even become a theory. What you are labelling 'theoretical philosophy,' will always be in danger of remaining purely faith based or become mere 'philosophical conjecture/musing,' if it has no support from empirical science.

A photon is not energy. — Gnomon

A photon is an energy concentration/packet/excitation in an energy field/potential to do work.
A photon IS electromagnetic energy.

I understand this in the sense that for me neither energy nor information have any manifestation unless they come as a unit; — punos

So do you not accept photons, gluons as the fundamentals of energy, measured in elecrton-volts or joules? In the video I posted, from time stamp 41:07. Jim relay's the story of Shannon's identification of the bit as the fundamental of information. A bit can be represented in many ways and the fact that we can represent it and built 'two state' computers based on it, and use that 'two state' system to progress to quantum computers and use that to progress to a future ASI, is pretty strong evidence for me, that information does have a very REAL fundamental unit, that we can represent as a BInary digiT.

Why "vacuum fluctuations" and not "God", that is if an answer with no explanation is sufficient? — punos

Because such a god posit is 'of the gaps.' 'An answer with no(or insufficient) explanation YET, does not mean insufficient explanation FOREVER. How does slotting in god help us meantime? Why would that turn insufficient into sufficient? What have we gained if we say god did it? Should 'god did it,' ever provide all humans (especially those with a mind towards scientific investigation) with an excuse to stop asking detailed questions that can and must be asked about quantum fluctuations in the vacuum of space. I vote for continuing to try to find the answers we want and never be satisfied with the delusional god answer.

I have watched that video previously, and i just watched it again. Thanks — punos

:up:

no physical evidence will be possible, only computational evidence which can be checked by computer simulation. — punos

How do you know no physical evidence will be possible, it depends on exactly what is covered in the future by the label 'physical.' Once we have 'real' AI/AGI/ASI, who knows how far and how quickly our scientific knowledge will advance. The only aspects/attributes of god posits I ever see any credence for are emergent in humans. The omni labels, like the concept of zero do have some practical use as placeholders and as non-existents that we can nonetheless, asymptotically aspire to.
'Perfection' can hold a place but only an imaginary one.

I would call @Gnomon's response, as in the style of the experienced politician.

So do you not accept photons, gluons as the fundamentals of energy, measured in elecrton-volts or joules? — universeness

I think they are fundamental enough, but not completely. For me there can only be one fundamental: the bit. A true fundamental would only need one bit to be described and it takes 8 bits to describe a photon for example. So i suspect that it's perhaps a couple levels above absolute fundamentality.

Because such a god posit is 'of the gaps.' 'An answer with no(or insufficient) explanation YET, does not mean insufficient explanation FOREVER. How does slotting in god help us meantime? Why would that turn insufficient into sufficient? What have we gained if we say god did it? Should 'god did it,' ever provide all humans (especially those with a mind towards scientific investigation) with an excuse to stop asking detailed questions that can and must be asked about quantum fluctuations in the vacuum of space. I vote for continuing to try to find the answers we want and never be satisfied with the delusional god answer. — universeness

I think that was exactly the point i was making. You're preaching to the quire with this one, i probably couldn't have said it better myself. :up:

How do you know no physical evidence will be possible, it depends on exactly what is covered in the future by the label 'physical.' — universeness

I made this point earlier that it's all the same thing (energy), i don't really make a distinction between physical or non-physical; it's a relative term more useful in some cases than in others. Like you said; it's a label. What i really mean is: in the same way how a microscope can not resolve anything smaller than the medium it uses to make the measurement, no instrument will be able to detect anything under a certain scale. I don't see that as a significant issue or an insurmountable problem; it simply means more subtle methods must be employed, such as computer simulations which AGI or ASI will be able to do with i suspect minimal difficulty. The method would be purely computational and based on complex systems techniques instead of empirical ones.

Ok, It seems we type mainly, in unison.

Ok, It seems we type mainly, in unison. — universeness

Yes, we are the hivemind. Resistance is futile.

No, I am willing to collectivise and work together, but my individuality is also essential.
Hivemind's have a totalitarian ruler. F*** that shit!!!!
It would be cool in an ASI future, if there was a way to fully merge individual brain power, in a way which made such a network function in ways, that were more that just a sum of parts.
But the ability to resort back to autonomous individuals, would be 'human' and essential imo.

No, I am willing to collectivise and work together, but my individuality is also essential.
Hivemind's have a totalitarian ruler. F*** that shit!!!! — universeness

I was kinda kidding, but there are different ways to configure a hivemind and the Borg is not a type i would willingly enter into either. The hivemind subject will be the next big thing after AI. A lot of people are not ready for the AI revolution, and they are even less ready to even entertain the hivemind concept. Hollywood has done a number on us when it comes to hiveminds (Borg) like it has done with AI (Terminator). My projection is that it won't become a real public issue like AI is now for another generation or two, and by that time the zeitgeist would have changed.

It's not always easy to identify when and what particular aspects of a post are jocular. Best to use the 'joke' emoticon if you think it's not totally obvious. I do not value any hivemind model, available in the insect world as worth emulation for humans or transhumans. I also do not value any hivemind posited by sci-fi, that I am familiar with. I would model any future collective effort, on democratic socialist models, that fully respect individual freedom, to not take part in such. If freedom of choice is compromised by a future system then we must combat it as best we can.