They have no choice, if they are being true to Christian doctrine. — universeness

There is no one Christian doctrine. There’s the bible at best, and I don’t think it encourages environmental destruction, but I’m sure one would be able to find passages to support such a view. Bible is great fodder for cherry picking fallacy.

God spends half it's time in the OT, smiting people (one poor guy for dropping a corner of his ark of covenant). He also commands she bears to kill kids for insulting one of his prophets, and he demands murder and ethnic cleansing, all through the OT. It's not our sort of thinking that's the problem, it's the babble in the bible that's the problem, when deluded folks accept such babble, as the written will and character of their creator.

Yea, if God is so perfect, why does Jesus do things so incredibly differently in the NT? Pretty solid evidence of it all being a product of human legend if the story changes with the fashions.

The carbon sequestering is interesting. Does she do it? Is a company that does it competitive with another making a similar product but without the sequestering? What sort of tonnage rate are we talking here? Where is it put that it will stay out of the environment?
— noAxioms
I don't know what 'she' you are referring to? Greta Thunberg? — universeness

Does Greta do it, yes. It’s her suggestion. You didn’t answer the questions, especially those about competitiveness.

Not until you offer a the details needed or at least provide links to the specific maths / logic, that have been published, peer reviewed and contain strong empirical evidence that any claims made are robust and hard to counter.

So you haven’t.
The mathematics is pretty simple. No, it isn’t peer reviewed. I’m asking if you deny it, which apparently you do if it doesn’t come from a journal, which I’m sure it does in some form.
E is say energy use of the planet in a time period. ER is renewable energy and other resources like water (basically all the solar energy and rain falling on all of Earth). EF is fossil energy, anything of which there is but a finite supply. P is population, or people. ‘e’ is per-capita energy usage. The supply equation:
EF = E – ER.
That’s simple enough. Non-renewables make up for what renewables cannot cover.
E = p e
That’s by definition. This is the demand side. Twice as many people, you’ll probably need twice the energy. Over time, p goes up exponentially and E with it. Over time, ER is static. There’s only so much energy to be had. Conservation efforts might reduce e, but not exponentially, so that’s just a temorary relief on E.
Increase in solar farms and such will increase the amount of ER available to the people, but ER being static, there’s a ceiling to that. It also takes non-renewable resource to build the panels, the windmills, and the batteries needed. The lithium requirement is probably more than all the mines can produce, and the stuff needs to be replaced on a regular schedule.
I see an article claiming it can be done at least for now, but don’t see the numbers. It’s just a claim as far as this pop-article goes.
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/jan/23/no-miracles-needed-prof-mark-jacobson-on-how-wind-sun-and-water-can-power-the-world

We want to explore and develop space not exclusively to solve our problem of excess population

Space was never a solution to excess population. It costs far more to put a person in space than it does to keep him here. Sure, sending colonies to other planets might put new growth out there, but they’re not going to remove any significant number (other than by taking away their resoruces) from Earth in doing so.
The extinction threat is a somewhat better reason, but it would be like preventing a fish from going extinct by building fish-bowls in the trees. Better to just build a bird to put in the trees, and then call it a fish if that’s important to you.

Us, as we are now, us with transhuman augments as well or exclusively transhuman augments, at least until extraterrestial habitats, are made more comfortable and practicable for us, as we are now.

They’ll never be as comfortable as Earth. Where are all the exatons of material going to come from (and of course the energy required, far more than it took to decimate Earth) to make outdoors of an alien place less immediately fatal to us?
Interestingly, Earth did it by sequestering the carbon. Makes you wonder what the place was like say 1.5 billion years ago. If we had a time machine and went there, would it kill us to step out the door? I have some weird ideas about what Earth was like even sort of recently like under 100 MY ago.
How do they even get dust off the ground in those Martian dust storms if the air is less than 1% the pressure here?

What problem was being solved when Hilary climbed mount Everest or when Armstrong first footed the Moon.

Say you done it. Important with the moon since the USA got their butts pretty brutally kicked in the space race before then. Big cold-war motivation. One can always put ‘tech research’ out there. Learn to do stuff. Why do you think it took until Apollo 11 to actually land? The ones before were for learning stuff.

My detailed arguments of why I think so would have to be a different thread about democratic socialism, secular humanism and a resource based global economy.

Well I don’t have enough education to counter what is basically assertions on both our parts, but it seems obvious that the goals of the individual voter correspond little to higher goals, as demonstrated by recent history. Notice I don’t identity those higher goals. There are several, a matter of choosing one to at least the partial exclusion of the others. ‘Don’t ossify’ seems to be one to which you relate. Your fantasy cities seem to do just that. I like the idea of pushing forward and bringing it to the next level, but there are costs to that, most of which won’t be supported by the typical democratic voter who’s primary concern is his immediate personal comfort.

episodes like Trump, do not negate the need for such rigorous (hopefully even fool proof), checks and balances, on all those trusted with power.

But we’re talking about even more power here, enough apparently to render the checks ineffectual. He basically fired anybody related to investigations on his abuses. The authority should not have any authority over said checks, but they always do, especially when the abuses were embraced by an entire political part just because he wore the same color uniform. Police are the same way, almost impossible to prosecute for abuses because the police and even the courts stand behind their own most of the time.

You certainly can consider unpopular decisions as a reason to consider unseating any leader or group of leaders.

Disagree for the same reason the position shouldn’t be one left to the voters. Popularity will doom us. Our cells learned to cooperate into a larger entity, working for the entity and not the individual life forms. One of the first things to change was to select out any personal will that isn’t beneficial to the collective. The sort of authority I’m speaking of needs to act on the benefit of the collective, but here you are suggesting this cannot be done because it would involve actions not popular with the individuals.

you have invoked the 'mommy' model time and time again — universeness

I’ve frequently said that the larger the group of people, the less mature they act as a whole. The term ‘mommy’ is deliberately to emphasize that, an authority over something far to immature to know what’s best for it.

Google is owned by the nefarious rich, who nurture profit more that people, what do you expect from such? Such companies have been ever thus!

Yes, but they started out wanting to do it right. Mozilla (a competitor) is still trying very hard not to be evil.

"I coined the term EnFormAction to encapsulate the directional (teleonomic) causation of Evolution." __Gnomon
I think there is no teleological connection to natural evolution via positing a universal data fundamental.
I think the current position that disorder can become order due to very large variety randomly combining in vast numbers of ways. Natural novelty need no teleological input. Teleology only comes into play via human design/intent/purpose. — universeness

Did you notice that I used the term Teleonomy*1 instead of Teleology? It's that kind of talking past each other that makes communicating with 180 so difficult. He substitutes his favorite antiscience terminology in place of my philosophical concepts. We are contrasting personal worldviews & opinions & beliefs*2, not scientific facts & truths. Serial Monologing with makes three years feel like ten. :smile:


*1. Teleonomy is the quality of apparent purposefulness and of goal-directedness of structures and functions in living organisms brought about by natural processes like natural selection.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teleonomy

*2. Replace "I think" with "I believe", and you will see the problem with trying to discuss empirical facts on a philosophical forum.

I read those links to TPF posts you provided. Indeed, if @Gnomon claims his Enformationism Theory is scientific then the theory must entail some observables (it should be falsifiable thereby). However, it appears that Gnomon is using science to support his theory of it from bit while his theory itself is nonscience.


How does Gnomon's theory differ from ID/Creationism in, most importantly, non-trivial ways? He's made it amply clear that he's not propounding a deity behind the curtains i.e. the ordering principle which he calls Enformy is not God as is found in religion. This distinction is critical to Enformationism Theory if it's to avoid being identified as some spinoff of, or god forbid nothing but, religion. However, is this a distinction without a difference? That's I reckon the right question to ask. Is Enformy just another name for God? Hence, I suppose, your misgivings that Gnomon is guilty of sophistry. Is it just wordplay?

Don't forget to pour one out for the homies. — punos

:lol: Well, I was still thinking about how I was going to answer your two posts to me, as I was sipping my first beer, with a Johnnie Walker (black label) whisky chaser.

Sure but we really can't get away from representation anyway no matter what we do. — punos

If that's true, then I think there maybe a fatal flaw in the proposal that data is a universal fundamental.
A 'representation' is not 'an actual,' its a mathematical simulation.

I sometimes think about it the other way around. If one assumes that information is more fundamental than our experience of physical matter then it may be reasonable to say that matter is representative of information in a sense. — punos

But how would you go about empirically proving that? A photon has associated attributes, sure but we currently know so little about exactly what constitutes a photon and we don't know adequate detail about it's functionality, to be able to 'reproduce' it via data representation.
Until we can actually achieve a tech such as point to point dematerialise/rematerialise transportation of objects with mass or create start trek style food replicators, we will not be able to demonstrate that data is a universal fundamental. Can you think of other tech that would be enough to demonstrate that data is 'thee' universal fundamental?

This idea of 'representation' (to present again) is why patterns can be traced back to earlier and simpler structures or even abstract principles. I think the best we can hope for (and it doesn't trouble me) is that our representations work for us and are internally and logically consistent (a utilitarian perspective). — punos

But it seems to me that the limits of what can be achieved, in that case is, 'virtual simulation' or at best 'virtual emulation,' inside computers but not physical reproduction. To me, if data is thee universal fundamental, then it MUST be possible to use it to create that which is natural, because that's the content of the universe. My use of the term natural here, refers to all possible forms of energy. If it's impossible to manipulate that which is 'natural' in such ways, then data cannot be a universal fundamental.
It does not matter if developing tech which can do ANYTHING nature can do (but can produce the result very quickly,) proves to be impossible,(no matter how much time we have to create it), due to the complexities involved or/and the limitations of any perception of future human science. As long as it is nonetheless true, that the functionality of nature can be reproduced, if we only knew all that we currently don't know about data, as thee universal fundamental.

A simulated entity on the other hand would consider anything in it's simulated environment real to it including simulated fluids. I think that's what real means, and it might be worth thinking about. It's the idea of the 'realm', and the word real is related to the word royal which ties into the "rules or laws of the land", also the concept of real-estate. — punos

I currently, give very little credence to any of the current 'simulation theories' of reality.
They are just another form of supernatural or 'god' posit imo. An infinite regression of programmers who create simulated universes.
Why would an outside force create a simulation of a universe that had no life at all in it for the vast majority of its existence. What kind of purpose would the simulators have for creating our universe?

Consider how a legal system is like a simulation, meaning it has it's own rules like contracts, taxes, etc. None of these things are real at the level of biology, or particle physics (realms of their own), but they are real at the level of a legal system. The word 'real' and 'exist' in this sense are not the same. — punos

But that's not true if data is thee fundamental! A legal system is made up of information and information is not simulated, it's real. It can even create REAL simulations.

Information entropy i think emerges in the presence of space (degrees of freedom), where the ratio of energy or matter (information: 1 bit for simplicity) to space has to be at least 1/2 or less. If the ratio were 1/1 then no possible entropy. I'm not sure if information can be erased, but it can be lost to another system which could be difficult to trace giving the impression that it was erased from existence, but i might be wrong about that. There may be a law of conservation of information in this regard. I'm not sure yet... will think about it more. — punos

Roger Penrose's CCC proposes that most 'information' will end up inside black holes as the universe experiences heat death.

All true, but one thing i know about autistics is that they have a high level sense of justice. I imagine that these kinds of problems will arise, but i also can imagine safety mechanisms in place to counter these pathologies. One possible way is to have a monitoring system that locks out any node that threatens the stability of the hivemind. I imagine highly developed complex systems methods can restructure the network accordingly in real time. This can be done by the other member nodes of the network as a self-regulating mechanism or it can be done by algorithms or an AI system. I'm sure those issues would be ironed out in some way. — punos

Well, :lol: I suppose we can all send our models for a future transhuman 'collective,' to Demis Hassabis, et al and see which one they favour.

Studying how the corpus callosum works will go far i think in helping us develop these hivemind protocols. Large language models like GPT can probably be used as a possible component in a hivemind network protocol. Most of the testing will probably be done on animals first and in complex simulations analyzed by AI. I don't doubt that we will have the tools necessary for the task; look at what we've done with solving the protein folding problem. — punos

Again, I think that Demis et al, may be receiving too large a mailbag, if we all submit our models.
I think we will need a system that is far more robust and reliable than the corpus callosum.
chatGPT cant even pass the Turing test. Despite the fact that some sources claim that it has.
Protein folding! Back to Demis Hassabis at deepmind again! :grin:

In 2020 a team of researchers that used AlphaFold, an artificial intelligence (AI) program developed by DeepMind placed first in CASP. The team achieved a level of accuracy much higher than any other group. It scored above 90 for around two-thirds of the proteins in CASP's global distance test (GDT), a test that measures the degree to which a computational program predicted structure is similar to the lab experiment determined structure, with 100 being a complete match, within the distance cutoff used for calculating GDT.
AlphaFold's results at CASP were described as "transformational." and "astounding". Some researchers noted that the accuracy is not high enough for a third of its predictions, and that it does not reveal the mechanism or rules of protein folding for the protein folding problem to be considered solved. Nevertheless, it is considered a significant achievement in computational biology and great progress towards a decades-old grand challenge of biology.

most importantly, the term "information" has a meaning for humans, not for objects or nature, i.e. the physical world. The physical world cannot use data or information. Natural phenomena obey physical laws, conceived by humans. It is we who are interpreting, describing, and explain them. We can also control them to a certain degree and make use of them in our life. — Alkis Piskas

I think it's enough for the purposes of our exchange to agree that information is labelled data or data which has been assigned an associated human meaning. 23 is data, 23 apples is human information.
Humans are OF the universe, so any laws or interpretations or meanings we assign to the physical contents of the universe are also OF the universe. Do you think that data/information is thee universal fundamental? The 'natural' fundamentals that science has posited so far, are the quarks, photons and electrons. If these are in reality 'data' items then ........ data/information is thee universal fundamental.

I think the physics community does not use the term 'information' in the same way we do in Computer Science. I am more comfortable with 'data' but they mean 'data' that is a 'measure' of a phenomena such as a quantum fluctuation or a field excitation. In that sense, this is data that has meaning for humans, so therefore they employ the word 'information,' which I am ok with.

If that's true, then I think there maybe a fatal flaw in the proposal that data is a universal fundamental.
A 'representation' is not 'an actual,' its a mathematical simulation. — universeness

Right, but instead of rejecting the insight for what is already familiar, should we let it actually inform our understanding in a new way? Sometimes it's not about learning a new thing, it's about learning how to see an old thing in a new way. We might already know what we need to know but we can't see it because we are blinded by our own assumptions. Just a thought.

But how would you go about empirically proving that? A photon has associated attributes, sure but we currently know so little about exactly what constitutes a photon and we don't know adequate detail about it's functionality, to be able to 'reproduce' it via data representation. — universeness

As i said before, it may be impossible by gross methods. We have been attacking the problem from above, perhaps a bottom up approach might work. There is a gap between nothing and the deepest level we know or can know by empirical methods. I have some ideas or notions on how to potentially go about determining the structure of the gap. We can talk about that.

Until we can actually achieve a tech such as point to point dematerialise/rematerialise transportation of objects with mass or create start trek style food replicators, we will not be able to demonstrate that data is a universal fundamental. Can you think of other tech that would be enough to demonstrate that data is 'thee' universal fundamental? — universeness

What if we can't have that technology until first we understand how data or information is universally fundamental. We wouldn't have the right framework to work out the tech. In fact i think we have the tech to figure it out already, by the force of logic, and mathematics coupled with simulation. I think it's just going to take some "out of the box" thinking to get it right.

But it seems to me that the limits of what can be achieved, in that case is, 'virtual simulation' or at best 'virtual emulation,' inside computers but not physical reproduction. To me, if data is thee universal fundamental, then it MUST be possible to use it to create that which is natural, because that's the content of the universe. — universeness

But within a different paradigm it could be understood that if data is the fundamental thing of the universe then it's not a far stretch to surmise that the universe behaves as a computer, and if it behaves like a computer then it's not hard to surmise further that reality as we know it is as a simulation. If that concept makes sense then what is the difference from a subjective perspective which simulation we are in? The natural one or the artificial one. It may turn out that this is the nature of the universe.. simulation.

I currently, give very little credence to any of the current 'simulation theories' of reality.
They are just another form of supernatural or 'god' posit imo. An infinite regression of programmers who create simulated universes.
Why would an outside force create a simulation of a universe that had no life at all in it for the vast majority of its existence. What kind of purpose would the simulators have for creating our universe? — universeness

We think of simulations as having to be created by some entity programmer, but that is like religious thinking, anthropomorphic. Simulations in a data or information centered paradigm can be seen as potentially emerging from chaos. Note how in cellular automata like in John Conway's "The Game of Life" where only the initial conditions are set (very simple) and out of that comes all kinds of phenomena and little critters like "sliders" that nobody programmed or predicted, and it's Turing complete.

But that's not true if data is thee fundamental! A legal system is made up of information and information is not simulated, it's real. It can even create REAL simulations. — universeness

A simulated person would not consider the stuff, or "matter" (data, information) that he or she is made of as a simulation. That would appear counter intuitive, but from an outside perspective would seem obvious that it's simulated.

Roger Penrose's CCC proposes that most 'information' will end up inside black holes as the universe experiences heat death. — universeness

Oh yes, black holes are another mystery to try to tackle from an information perspective. I may have some ideas about that too, but nothing solid.

Yes. Empirical Science may be the final arbiter of pragmatic Empirical questions, but theoretical Philosophy is still arbitrating questions that remain unanswered by classical scientific methods*1. A century later, the practical significance of sub-atomic physics remains debatable. Yes, the get-er-done engineers have developed technologies for manipulating invisible particles of stuff. But physicists are still debating the common-sense meaning of such non-sense as Superposition and Quantum Leaps. Philosophy is not about Matter, but Meaning. — Gnomon

*1. Physics vs Metaphysics :
Physics is defined, in its simplest form, as the study of matter and energy and how those two interact, while metaphysics deals with the ideas that don’t abide by scientific logic and theories.
https://allthedifferences.com/metaphysics-vs-physics/ — Gnomon

If there is still arbitration, then when and if, such arbitration is ever settled and (a) conclusion(s) is/are arrived at, then empirical science will become the final arbiter or those findings.
Philosophy is described as:
"The study of the fundamental nature of knowledge, reality, and existence."
and
"The study of the theoretical basis of a particular branch of knowledge or experience"
and
"A theory or attitude that acts as a guiding principle for behaviour"
I think that which is labelled 'matter' is included, so philosophy certainly is about 'matter' as well as that which 'matters' to people. Your description regarding metaphysics is why it is such an overburdened and pretty useless term, imo.

Those spooky questions*2 remain under the purview of Theoretical Physics*3, which is essentially a narrow specialty of Philosophy. Einstein was not a mystic or religious believer, but he resorted to philosophical & poetic metaphors to convey unsettled ideas about physical facts. Ironically, some posters on this philosophical forum seem to believe that such ideas as Emergence can be finally settled by empirical methods. :smile: — Gnomon

*2. Quantum Questions :
Here is a collection of writings that bridges the gap between science and religion. Quantum Questions collects the mystical writings of each of the major physicists involved in the discovery of quantum physics and relativity, including Albert Einstein, Werner Heisenberg, and Max Planck.
https://www.shambhala.com/quantum-questions-1226.html — Gnomon

I have already stated that imo, Einstein was faced with a religious power base (especially in America), that wielded more power than it has today. So, he threw the odd bone at them, as he knew how to play the game of being a public personality facing the zeitgeist of the time.
Empirical methods will be the final arbiter of what is emergent in humans, no matter how much woo woo of the gaps, some posters on TPF want to attempt to secret in, by camouflage or stealth. :smile:
I appreciate your offer of links to attempts to 'bridge gaps between science and religion.' But, I assign very little value to such notions.

PS__Just as Steven Jay Gould separated Religion & Science into non-overlapping magisteria, Philosophy & Science are not competitors in the same arena. — Gnomon

Sure, many philosophers have inspired many many scientists.

As as non-professional amateur philosopher though, I'm not afraid to call a spade a pointy shovel, or a universal field of Data/Information a big Idea. — Gnomon

Fair enough!

No. sentient rocks are not implied by the concept of Dataome. — Gnomon

I didn't suggest 'sentient rocks,' I suggested that panpsychism posits that rocks contain 'ingredients' that can be used in 'consciousness.' Panpsychism does not suggest rocks are self-aware.

In any case, only a tiny fraction of the embodied information in the universe has developed the emergent quality of Sentience. — Gnomon

Ok, I accept that is your viewpoint.

But if pressed, Scharf might agree that the universe has indeed become self-reflective, by means of its sentient creatures. He does admit that "There is little doubt that something is going on with our species . . . ." I'll let you read the book, to fill-in the ellipsis. :smile: — Gnomon

I will add it to my current very long list of books I need to read. So far, I only have to live until I am 128 to get through the list, but the sex drugs, drink and rock & roll, might get me first!

I think we will need a system that is far more robust and reliable than the corpus callosum.
chatGPT cant even pass the Turing test. Despite the fact that some sources claim that it has. — universeness

I don't know exactly how they will go about it. Investigations into the corpus callosum, and GPT language model integration as a communications language protocol between minds and general systems interaction are just possible avenues to start on. After the first BMIs have been in use for a little bit, better techniques will begin to develop as we deepen our understanding of this kind of brain/machine interaction.

GPT doesn't need to pass the turing test for this purpose, it just has to provide a language model that can interpret nerve signals to human language, and human language to machine language, and back. It would be a tool, not a fully developed sentient AI. That could be part of a whole other thing.

Almost 10 years ago, when I first began to post on this forum, — Gnomon

Wow! long time poster! I am surprised you are only at 2.8k posts.

So, I'm OK with your careful critiques of my personal worldview. Yet now, you seem ready to dis-engage. :sad: — Gnomon

I apologise if I have given you that impression. If you keep making points, I will forever respond to you.
You are a very interesting thinker and you have obviously researched a great deal on the topics of interest to you. I think @180 Proof is also a fascinating thinker. I would be very foolish indeed to handwave any such thinkers away. Surely there can be a little bit of heated discussion between us without anyone pulling up their drawbridge permanently. People are passionate about the truths they accept and hold dear and want to defend. I am meeting a friend of mine tonight, who is a very loud, brash guy who gesticulates wildly, when he has had a few and is defending his points of view. He is an agnostic religious education teacher with a heavy loud English accent. Bouncers often come over to our table and ask if everything is ok, as he gets so animated at times. I think he is brilliant. I love how he tries to defend a hopeless position. :lol:
I continue to greatly value his friendship, even though we utterly disagree with each others viewpoints at times. I think you should directly answer any outstanding question that @180 Proof has, regarding your enformationism. Don't take his acrimony personally, I don't, and you can equal him, insult for insult, if you like, until the moderators tell you both to back off. Or you can just apply a 'water of a duck's back' approach. Enjoy the exchange! I need folks like @180 Proof, I will never become an arrogant pr*** as long as folks like him tell me when I am being a pr*** and why.

I think the verbal boxing between you is not severe. I have witnessed far, far worse.
You should both be able to be who you each are, and still interact. But, if you just can't, then by proxy, is all that remains instead of a complete comms shutdown.

I remain interested in those like yourself (please correct me if I am wrong here), who are interested in building bridges between science and religion. I would say @Athena also thinks it's important to find ways to do that. I would be interested in her opinion of your 'enformationism.'

You seem quite willing to directly engage again with @Gnomon.
He seems to be still too angry at you due to the level of disrespect he feels he has suffered at your hands. I hope that changes. What else can be said? Perhaps proxy comms between you will be as good as it gets. C'est la vie!

There is no one Christian doctrine. — noAxioms

Right, but instead of rejecting the insight for what is already familiar, — punos

I don't know exactly how they will go about it. — punos

Did you notice that I used the term Teleonomy*1 instead of Teleology? — Gnomon

I will respond to these posts tomorrow guys. I am meeting two fiends, friends from Glasgow for a local pub crawl! Cheers!!!

I don't care whether or not @Gnomon and I directly engage with one another again as much as I'm interested in ideas and discussing them without sophistry and evasions. I think the only way to respect an idea is to question it when there are grounds to do so, and in most of the nearly three hundred posts we've exchanged, Gnomon has given ample grounds to question his "Enformationism", etc. By refusing to address those questions and doubling down on his demonstrable errors and poor reasoning, Gnomon makes ridiculing – his bookish charlatanry that's so desperate to be taken seriously even though he won't take his own "ideas" seriously enough to submit them to cross-examination – too damn easy. In this way, universeness, we take Gnomon's "ideas" more seriously than he does.

:up:

Cheers! :yum:

I appreciate your offer of links to attempts to 'bridge gaps between science and religion.' But, I assign very little value to such notions. — universeness

OK

I think the verbal boxing between you is not severe. I have witnessed far, far worse. — universeness

I agree. I don't take 's verbal punches as seriously as he seems to take my timid rejoinders. Most of his swings are whiffs anyway, because he fails to see the essential point of my thesis. Besides, he seems to think his mission on this forum is to be a Socratic gadfly, pointing out both their factual errors, and the errors in reasoning of those whose views contradict his own. I find his earnestness amusing, so I often conclude my posts to him with a "joke" emoji. :joke:

PS__The Joke symbol is supposed to be "tongue in cheek", but it looks more like sticking your tongue out. Which could be misconstrued. Maybe he thinks I'm razzing him. Or maybe those high-proof beverages make him hyper-sensitive. :wink:

PPS__My non-creedal Enformationism worldview is a calmly reasoned philosophical interpretation of 21st century Information & quantum theories; not an emotional eternal life expectation. So, when reply posters get riled-up, I don't get upset, because I understand that they don't understand what I'm proposing. They are reacting to the perceived evils of oppressive religion, or to the perceived folly of an anti-science belief system, instead of groking the mind-boggling possibilities of a novel information-centric philosophical worldview. :nerd:

Gadfly : (god fly)
According to the words put into his mouth by Plato, Socrates believed that he had been sent by the gods to act as a “gadfly” to the Athenian state.
https://oll.libertyfund.org/quote/socrates-as-the-gadfly-of-the-state-4thc-bc

I think it's enough for the purposes of our exchange to agree that information is labelled data or data which has been assigned an associated human meaning. — universeness

I agree. But the main issue in what I have talked about, or my main point if you like, is not about how "data" and "information" are related. As I said, they are ofter interchangeable. I don't really mind if we use them as one and the same thing.
Yet, the most important question I brought up regarding the video, namely, if data have any meaning and purpose for the physical universe, is kind of lost and it is half-answered.
(Re

Information with no meaning is data. ... 'Jimmy' is data. 'Dog name: Jimmy' is information. ... 1 or 0 are bit data. They represent two data states. — universeness

I still wait to hear, i.e. if the physical universe has a mind that can intrerpret and handle data and if yes, how? And not because we can and we are part of the the physical universe as you say, but independetly of us.

I don't understand how people can be receptive to the idea that the universe could be a computer simulation and at the same time deny the possibility of God. Programmer(s) = God(s). A distinction without a difference in your favor mon ami.

↪180 Proof's ... fails to see the essential point of my thesis. — Gnomon

From one of our earliest exchanges three years ago, a confession ...

FWIW : Enformationism has some similarities to New Age worldviews ...
— Gnomon — 180 Proof

E.g. "panpsychism?" "panendeism?" "pancomputationalism?" Uh huh. :roll:

Maybe @universeness or @Agent Smith can tell me this "essential point" is camouflaged by your esoteric "thesis", O Sage Enformer. :sparkle: :eyes: :sweat:

update:

Old exchances with Gnomon (just my side replying to quotes from his posts). The crux of our contentiousness, I guess, is in the mind's eye of the beholder ...

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/628681 (my substance contra your rhetoric)

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/629398 (an alternative proposal – my 'negative metaphysics')

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/629682 (explicitly calling bs on "Meta-physics")

Superb summary of what transpired betwixt you and @Gnomon. The salient points (of contention) highlighted for the audience's benefit, kudos.

Gnomon's thesis may need work, but it isn't philosophical crankery in me humble opinion, but que sais-je?

Superb summary of what transpired betwixt you and Gnomon. The salient points (of contention) highlighted for the audience's benefit, kudos.
Gnomon's thesis may need work, but it isn't philosophical crankery in me humble opinion, but que sais-je? — Agent Smith

highlighted the points that are salient to him, but not to Gnomon. For example, although it includes some concepts that are similar to New Age philosophy, Enformationism is not about New Ageism or Mysticism. Instead, it was inspired by scientific Quantum & Information theories, which themselves have philosophical similarities to New Age notions*1.

But to label my personal philosophical thesis as a New Age screed is "cranky", in the sense of irritable & ill-tempered. Nevertheless, his pot-shots don't offend me, because they miss by a mile. The 180 degree difference in emphasis is why 180 dismisses Enformationism as "crankery", and Gnomon dismisses 180's off-topic posts as irrelevant. Your own posts are much closer in salience to what I'm talking about. :joke: :smile: :cool:


*1. the new physics and New Age ideology :
Although we are still lacking a complete quantum-relativistic theory of the sub-atomic world, several partial theories and models have been developed which describe some aspects of this world very successfully. A discussion of the most important of these models and theories will show that they all involve philosophical conceptions which are in striking agreement with those in Eastern mysticism ___physicist Fritjof Capra, 1986
https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/themelios/article/god-guts-and-gurus-the-new-physics-and-new-age-ideology/

This got me thinking more about 'emergence.'
Since the early homo sapiens around 300,000 years ago, the 'knowledge' our species has 'as a totality,' been increasing. Each time we gain significant new knowledge, our technology increases and this has all sorts of affects on our species. It opens 'new options,' 'new possibilities.'
This 'direction of change,' seems to me to have been increasing in speed within the 300,000 years of the human story. The rate of speed increase seems to be increasing to the point that we are coming up with new tech at a faster rate than ever before. — universeness

I suppose your intent was to focus on the plausibility of a technological Singularity. But my attention was drawn to the question of "Emergence . . . of new possibilities". That question is central to my personal world view of Enformationism, which regards Generic Information (causation) as the Agency of Emergence, so to speak.

A good source of technical information on Evolutionary Emergence is the Santa Fe Institute*1. Its focus of research is on emergent complexity (such as Life & Mind) in the universe. Ironically, they use some surprising terminology, for a bunch of pragmatic scientists : e.g. Emergence ; Transcendence ; Teleology. In one chapter --- authored by mathematical cosmologist George Ellis, astrophysicist Keith Farnsworth, and biochemist Luc Jaeger --- they discuss the Emergence-related concept of "Downward Causation", which is another word for taboo top-down "Teleology". They say, "An essential element (and possibly a defining feature) of life emerges from this analysis. It is the presence of downward causation by information selection and control"(my emphasis). They go on to say, "Emergence is the appearance of phenomena at some scale of system organization that is absent from the lower elementary scales within it". Which is a roundabout way of defining Holism. The whole system "transcends" the properties of its parts, as a "transcendent complex" (TC).

I get negative feedback for using such taboo terminology, but these authors can get away with it because they have academic & professional credentials. In my own amateur thesis, I intuited that Natural Selection was the mechanism of causation by which novel systems (Transcendent Complexes) emerge from the random roiling of subordinate parts. The authors list, "in order of sophistication, the five mechanisms of top-down causation"*2. Then they expand on that foundation to say : "Darwinian evolutionary processes in living systems are therefore ruled from the bottom up, but also by fundamental emerging organizational principles that are hierarchically built-up and impose necessary constraints from the top down". Moreover, as you noted, the "speed" of natural emergence has increased exponentially since the natural emergence of artificial human culture, as the new Agent of Causation.

Likewise, theories of Technological evolution toward a Singularity, imply but don't make explicit the top-down Teleology of human intentions that transcend Natural Selection by means of Cultural Selection. Whether the dream of creating Artificial Life & Mind will ever come to pass is uncertain. But that humans can aspire to god-like powers, raises the question of how the ability to dream impossible dreams could emerge from mechanical grinding of material gears. :smile:



*1. The Santa Fe Institute is an independent, nonprofit theoretical research institute located in Santa Fe, New Mexico, United States and dedicated to the multidisciplinary study of the fundamental principles of complex adaptive systems, including physical, computational, biological, and social systems. ___Wikipedia


*2. Five Mechanisms of Natural Causation :
1. Deterministic boundary conditions
2. nonadaptive information control
3. adaptive selection criteria
4. adaptive information control
5. adaptive selection of selection criteria

Does Greta do it, yes. It’s her suggestion. You didn’t answer the questions, especially those about competitiveness. — noAxioms

I still don't understand what your are asking about Greta or what 'competitiveness' has to do with capturing CO2 rather than releasing it into the atmosphere.
From Howstuffworks:
"The United States alone has enough subsurface space to potentially hold 1.8 trillion tons (1.71 trillion metric tons) of carbon dioxide in deep aquifers, permeable rocks and other such places."

No, it isn’t peer reviewed. I’m asking if you deny it, which apparently you do if it doesn’t come from a journal, which I’m sure it does in some form. — noAxioms

I am not an expert on the issue of safe, clean, renewable energy production but I don't much value the formulae you offered and I fully support all current efforts to make E=ER, based on your representation of E and ER. All energy should be produced as resourced based and not profit based.

Space was never a solution to excess population. — noAxioms

Of course it is. EDIT: Well, to be more precise, it's not a solution NOW, or in the forseeable future but it will be, in the distant future.

It costs far more to put a person in space than it does to keep him here — noAxioms

It costs resources to put people in space, not money. Money is nothing more than a means of exchange.
A decent human society should not need a means of exchange.

The extinction threat is a somewhat better reason, but it would be like preventing a fish from going extinct by building fish-bowls in the trees. Better to just build a bird to put in the trees, and then call it a fish if that’s important to you. — noAxioms

I have already answered this point. This planet is the equivalent of your fish bowl comparison.
We cant survive outside of it. I see no difference between that and living in a space station or domed city on the moon or Mars, that we cant survive outside of. Those who feel as you do in the future, can be born, live and die on Earth, while others boldly go where no one has gone before.

They’ll never be as comfortable as Earth. Where are all the exatons of material going to come from (and of course the energy required, far more than it took to decimate Earth) to make outdoors of an alien place less immediately fatal to us? — noAxioms

I have already answered this as well. There are lots of extraterrestial resources.

What problem was being solved when Hilary climbed mount Everest or when Armstrong first footed the Moon.
Say you done it. — noAxioms

Which is also part of the why we must go beyond Earth, we will go to Mars and live there one day because it exists, and it beckons us. Hilary answered the question of 'why climb Everest,' with, 'because it's there!'

I remain interested in those like yourself (please correct me if I am wrong here), who are interested in building bridges between science and religion. I would say Athena also thinks it's important to find ways to do that. I would be interested in her opinion of your 'enformationism.' — universeness

You tapped on my passion. I love the Greek understanding of logos, reason, the controlling force of the universe, and all the religions that were founded on math. :love: I am not a mathematician. Far from it, but oh my goodness, what the Egyptians and Mayans accomplished is totally awesome and I wish I could find better books on those worldviews. It was the job of great leaders to keep us in harmony with the universe. If we seek to know the self-organizing forces of the universe, as some read the bible and seek the word of God, we ourselves might come to greater harmony with that universe. If we saw the universe as greater than ourselves, might we have some humility and peace? Rather than rule the universe we might seek our place in it.

:up:

crankery — Agent Smith

I said "chalatanry", mi amigo ...

bookish charlatanry that's so desperate to be taken seriously even though he won't take his own "ideas" seriously enough to submit them to cross-examination — 180 Proof

As for boasting that his quackery is

inspired by scientific Quantum & Information theories — Gnomon

– consider this video summary on 'quantum information' and, since increasing disorder (entropy) increases information (emergence), point out to me what Gnomon gets right or the presentation here gets wrong. :sweat:

:up: