↪Gnomon
:up: — Agent Smith

↪180 Proof
:up: — Agent Smith

Apparently you are trying to practice BothAnd philosophy by giving a thumbs-up to contradictory interpretations of the significance of essential Information : malleable Data vs causal Information. Did you watch the video? Are you now confused? Did you notice that it's about Shannon's abstract meaningless Data, not about Gnomon's mental meaningful Information?

's last post is intended to cast doubt on the Enformationism thesis by showing that the foundation of Physics (quantum) is indeterminate. But that open-ended undetermined quality (freewill) is what makes Meta-physics important to Philosophy. Ironically, the linked video could be used to support the argument that -- in its BothAnd physical & metaphysical forms -- "Information is the most fundamental element" (building block) of the world. 180's contrary interpretation may indeed undermine the authority of Physics for philosophical questions, because -- on the quantum level -- it's not describing Reality, but Ideality (human ideas about reality, not reality itself). Which is what Meta-Physics is all about.

In previous TPF posts and BothAnd Blog posts, I have discussed essentially the same problems with physics. I have even quoted Anton Zeilinger to support the fundamental nature of Information. But the post linked below, with quotes from George Musser may be more to the point of Quantum Theory's Virtual Reality, as compared to Gnomon's Metaphysical Ideality. :smile:


Virtual Reality / Metaphysical Ideality :
In his Scientific American article, science writer George Musser is talking about truth-seeking via analytical science. He begins with a common assertion of the superiority of science for revealing truths : “ Physics seems to be one of the only domains of human life where truth is clear-cut. The laws of physics describe hard reality. They are grounded in mathematical rigor and experimental proof. They give answers, not endless muddle.” That last remark may be aimed at wishy-washy Philosophy. But the confidence behind Musser’s introduction may be true for the 17th century physics of Isaac Newton, but doesn’t apply to 21st century Quantum Theory. . . . .
In contrast to his confident opening statement about physics describing “hard” reality, Musser again acknowledges that, “the deeper physicists dive into reality, the more reality seems to evaporate.” Moreover, “physical explanation replaces nouns with verbs.” Which, ironically makes sense in view of the Enformationism thesis, wherein the universal verb is EnFormAction.
https://bothandblog5.enformationism.info/page36.html


Werner Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Principle sealed the fate of deterministic physics.
https://bigthink.com/13-8/einstein-quantum-ghost/
Note -- Got to go. I'll deal with 180's increasing entropy = increasing information next time.

Apparently you are trying to practice BothAnd philosophy by giving a thumbs-up to contradictory interpretations of the significance of essential Information : malleable Data vs causal Information. Did you watch the video? Are you now confused? Did you notice that it's about Shannon's abstract meaningless Data, not about Gnomon's mental meaningful Information? — Gnomon

:lol:

You've discovered yourself.

Frankly speaking, I recommend you develop your theory of information in more depth. At present it seems its definition is just too loose to be endorsed or critiqued. :smile:

:smirk: :up:

180's contrary interpretation may indeed undermine the authority of Physics for philosophical questions, because -- on the quantum level -- it's not describing Reality, but Ideality (human ideas about reality, not reality itself). Which is what Meta-Physics is all about. — Gnomon

Incorrigible incomprehension! Typical idealist (antirealist) conflation of epistemology (mapmaking) and ontology (territory). What's to be done with this uninformed "Enformer", amigos? :eyes: :lol:

As one of the founders of quantum computing David Deutsch says (I paraphrase), 'The laws of physics enable our brains to generate ideas about the laws of physics such as quantum theory.' In other words, reality enables and constrains ideality (i.e. idealizations of reality), and not Gnomon's ass-backwards other way around. :fire:

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. — noAxioms

So, you accurately describe the failure of the current USA political system to prevent a horror like Trump getting elected and the final result being a failed and rather pathetic attempt at an insurrection.
If you think all current checks and balances on national politicians are too weak then it's time to fight for real change. I just don't agree with your apathy that little can be done to change the status quo.

Our cells learned to cooperate into a larger entity, working for the entity and not the individual life forms. — noAxioms

What a strange conflation! A biological human cell is not a lifeform. (EDIT: in the sense that a skin cell wouldn't be considered an organism, because it cannot live by itself, it needs to be part of something bigger.) Humans are a combinatorial of many sub-systems yes but for me, the concept of 'life' applies to the brain. The natural body systems are 'replaceable,' depending on the tech available. You are still alive, if you have no arms or legs, etc etc.

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. — noAxioms

No, democratic socialism supports majority rule. A ruling or policy not supported by a majority must fall, it will stand, if the dissenters are a minority. BUT, an informed majority that supports secular humanism, will always strive to accommodate minority needs and wishes, as long as those accommodations do not directly go against the well-being of the majority.

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. — noAxioms

That sounds like someone wearing a 'big brother' garb, deciding that a large majority of people are incapable of 'knowing what's best for it.' You make yourself sound like a person who should never be given significant authority over others.
What would you do as president of America. Surely you would not use your 'mommy' model to drive your policies that would affect all Americans.

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. — noAxioms

The road to hell is paved with good intentions. I accept that, but I also agree with 'if at first you don't succeed, try, try again.' I would not allow Google sized private profit making machines, to exist.
Democratic socialism MUST encompass personal freedom and the entrepreneurial spirit as much as it can. BUT, it must control the consequentials far more than the current free market capitalist system does. No billionaires or multi-millionaires are acceptable via business dealings or entrepreneurial effort. No large gambling joints like the stock exchange. No celebrity roads to ridiculous riches. A very nice, comfortable life, yes, but not the abominable rich that we have today.

*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. — Gnomon

Ok, but I emphasise the position that there is no empirical evidence, that teleonomy has ANY relationship AT ALL with 'natural selection.'

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

As I have already clearly stated. My flag is firmly planted next to a sign stating 'empirical evidence is the final arbiter of all philosophical hypothesis.' I do want to slam the theistic/supernatural/woo woo door shut, for good and move on. BUT, I respect that I cant because I am a democratic socialist and I don't have a majority global consent to agree to slam that door shut for good. So ..... the debates will continue.
I believe that force = mass x acceleration is a valid sentence. I think that force = mass x acceleration is a valid sentence. I know there is a great deal of empirical evidence to support such a belief and such a thought and I think all of the sentences in this post are valid sentences to post on a philosophy forum, based on:
Philosophy is the study of the fundamental nature of knowledge, reality, and existence.

Right, but instead of rejecting the insight for what is already familiar, should we let it actually inform our understanding in a new way? — punos

Absolutely! If it can do as you suggest and any new 'understanding,' is testable and falsifiable.

I have some ideas or notions on how to potentially go about determining the structure of the gap. We can talk about that. — punos

Sounds interesting.

What if we can't have that technology until first we understand how data or information is universally fundamental — punos

That's not a question, that's a fact. Of-course we can't have the tech before we understand the 'universal fundamental' that IS data.

I think it's just going to take some "out of the box" thinking to get it right. — punos

That's putting it mildly!

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. — punos

That just does not 'compute' to me. A computer is programmed either by a human or by another computer. To me, you 'blur the lines,' between the terms 'simulation,' 'emulation,' and 'reality.'
A simulation or emulation is NOT REAL. So if our universe is simulated then it's not real. UNLESS you decide to make the terms simulation and real, synonymous. In that case, the difference between such concepts lose their value, in which case, imo, we are in danger of having to accept that Bugs Bunny and The Mighty Thor, are real within their virtual worlds and only simulated in our reference frame. This would also suggest that there exists a reference frame 'outside' of our universe which views this universe as a simulation. This let's god posits in again imo.

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. — punos

But what label are you assigning to your 'chaos' model? Real? Simulated? You are still left with 'well where did the 'chaos,' come from?
The point is that the 'initial conditions' you mention were SET BY A HUMAN called John Conway. He is the prime mover and the 'will'/intent, that caused the slider critters to become existent. He is the vital or it could even be claimed (and IS claimed by theistic doctrines of where humans came from) 'divine' spark!
Information as a universal fundamental, unfortunately, does not increase the ability of science to disprove god more than it can at the moment.

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. — punos

Again you suggest an 'outside' to our universe. Do you support 'outside' posits such as a multiverse?

better techniques will begin to develop as we deepen our understanding of this kind of brain/machine interaction. — punos

:up:

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. — punos

Even though chatGPT is not 'intelligent,' or 'self-aware,' imo, it is impressive and as you are suggesting, it's a start!

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. — 180 Proof

Fair enough.

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. — 180 Proof

I have already agreed that he should directly, or by proxy, attempt to answer any questions about his viewpoints that you feel have not been answered, otherwise, politically, he will seem in retreat.
I think his current claim, is that your so called 'scientism,' is interfering with your ability to understand the valid philosophy behind his enformationism.

My non-creedal Enformationism worldview is a calmly reasoned philosophical interpretation of 21st century Information & quantum theories; not an emotional eternal life expectation — Gnomon

I think that's very unlikely given your knowledge of philosophy. Perhaps he can confirm whether or not that IS his 'general' position, regardless of who considers that position to be a valid one.

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. — Alkis Piskas

Ok.

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 — Alkis Piskas

I think that based on his delivery in the video, Jim Al Khalili thinks that information IS a universal fundamental. I found his evidence in support of such a hypothesis currently makes the hypothesis more that a hypothesis but still falls a little short of the 'theory' label.
For me, we would have to be able to produce something like a REAL photon or quark, via a list of instructions alone. A mechanism would then produce a material photon or a quark or an electron by 'processing' the list of instructions. The only systems suggested that can do this are currently in sci fi shows. Perhaps a star trek food replicator or transporter would be such an example tech.

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. — Alkis Piskas

That's a far bigger question Aliks. Information could be thee universal fundamental and the basis of a theory of everything without invoking any panpsychist or universal mind posits which are independent of us. You can certainly suggest that but you will not be surprised to read that I only give credence that such a collective is best posited as an emergent via us and any alien life that may exist, which is as self-aware as we are.

From Gnomon:
Physical change is called "Work". Mental change is called "Information". In the human brain, Mental Work burns a lot of energy, even though the Brain does not change its physical form
Response from 180proof:
Explain why a physical brain physically "burns a lot of" physical "energy" (i.e. calories) if, as you suggest, "Information" is not "Work". Oh, btw, the human brain functions by constantly changing its neuronal configurations (re: neuroplasticity) that encode *wait for it, wait for it* new information (i.e. updating current information —> memories, expectations, predictions, feelings, learning-conditioning, etc).
From Gnomon:
Information is the "essence" of material things. And by that I'm referring to the immaterial mathematical Structure, that our minds interpret as Geometry & Topology (i.e. Shape or Form). That Essence is Ideal in the sense that it exists as an Idea in a Mind, which makes it as real as anything else in our mental & mathematical models of reality. :smile:
"Information" is not "Work".
— 180 Proof
That may be true of Shannon's definition of "information", as an empty carrier of meaning. But in my usage, and that of credentialed physicists, such as physicist Paul Davies, Information is both Causal and Meaningful. He edited a book by a dozen scientists & philosophers entitled "From Matter to Life: Information and Causality". So, if he is correct that Information has Causal powers, then that causal process is what we call "Work". :wink:
From 180 proof: in response to .... Do you have a name for it?
Immanentism – negative ontology as a speculative criterion for the understanding which enables-constrains praxes, or agency.

From wiki:
The doctrine or theory of immanence holds that the divine encompasses or is manifested in the material world. It is held by some philosophical and metaphysical theories of divine presence.

This seems to me like an interesting and valid exchange snippet.
If I was asked to judge, I would judge that @180 Proof's position, is is more compelling for me, as I don't see value in such notions as "information is the 'essence' of material things." As again words like 'essence' smacks of the esoteric to me. Material things may have information as a VERY REAL and tangible fundamental.
Not an 'essence' but a reality. @Gnomon seeks to find common ground between science and the esoteric and I think there is none. But am I making an incorrect judgement of what Gnomon is positing.

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. — Gnomon

But which aspects of quantum physics, and any connection you make between it and information theory, are you referring to and why?
You cannot claim that you are not referring to empirical science and then state that your proposals/logical arguments are based on current empirical scientific findings of quantum phenomena. Entanglement? Tunnelling? Superposition? Quantum field theory? Which of these support you 'philosophical' enformationism and WHY?
What common ground do you envisage between say, quantum entanglement and 'essence' or 'metaphysical' or 'immaterial'. Why try to fit big square shapes into little round gaps?

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". — Gnomon

I am very interested in both. What is emergent in human intent and purpose and what 'points of pivotal change' (such as a so called 'tech singularity,') do TPF members assign high credence to.

That question is central to my personal world view of Enformationism, which regards Generic Information (causation) as the Agency of Emergence, so to speak. — Gnomon

I see that, and I very much welcome your input as I do @180 Proof's rigorous critique.
We are debating what you are including in your 'generic information' as an agent of what is emergent in humans. I like the way you have expressed that.
All information does not have equal status or value or credibility. Some information can prove to be a barrier to what is emergent in human intent and purpose that I would label 'good.'
That's where we (and perhaps you and @180 Proof but I will let him confirm or object) diverge.
I think all notions of the supernatural and the transcendent, etc depreciate and hinder the progress of the benevolent aspects of emerging human intent and purpose, as it gives apparent succour to such notions, despite your protestations that this is not YOUR intent and is merely the misinterpretation of others.

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). — Gnomon

I think pointing out the use of such language by the 'scientific' community is a very valid thing to do but only if you are correctly reporting that these scientists are employing a term such as transcendence, with the same religious/theistic connotation, within which such words are traditionally employed.
Christopher Hitchens was one of the best atheistic debaters I have heard but he saw value in terms like transcendent and numinous. I would have questioned him on his decision to use such terms in the way he did but I would not be tooooooooo precious about it.

I get negative feedback for using such taboo terminology, but these authors can get away with it because they have academic & professional credentials. — Gnomon

I think that you make a very fair complaint here. I think the road IS a tougher one for you as you don't have that which you cite above. But you have also stated that you are tenacious enough to continue to 'chip away' in your terms. WELL DONE! Keep doing that but don't leave questions thrown at you unanswered. It's very difficult to stand your ground sometimes but if you truly believe that there is real value in your proposals then keep fighting for them until your last breath. I certainly will, for that which I assign very high credence to. In the final analysis, I can only remain hopeful, that I don't die in a state of being utterly wrong in all of my fundamental beliefs.

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. — Gnomon

Well I reject all notions of god and I think that the god credentials can only be aspired to asymptotically. That is the only value I see in any omni style label. I dream, yes, but I focus on what I consider 'possible' in my dreams and I reject my impossible dreams and I understand them, from the standpoint that my mind is just trying to 'imagine' what might be possible. It's for me, myself and I to judge which dreams to value and which to reject. I remain in awe and wonder about how incredible life and consciousness is but I want TO OWN that wonder and awe and pass that as a RIGHTFULL INHERITENCE to each new generation of humans that experience life as I have. I will not assign the source of that wonder and awe to the whims of some supernatural, ineffectual, absentee, deity, as that would leave us with NOTHING of our own. What is emergent in humans would be of no significance AT ALL, if god exists. We would be mere impotent pawns and any notion of free will is moot!

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. — Athena

Perhaps @Gnomon would agree with that point of view, as he also seems to greatly value the musings of Plato and Aristotle etc. I don't. Do you not worry that if we assign all the wonder and awe that we are capable of mustering when we muse about the universe and our origins, life and fate, to the machinations of a supreme being, we reduce ourselves and leave ourselves with NOTHING.
We are mass produced by a god machine? The wonder and awe experienced by bible readers or in those who value Plato's perfect forms, are demeaning themselves imo, as they sell their wonderment cheaply and they don't and can't claim it as their own.
It seems much more valuable to me to see your wondement and your awe, as a fantastic emergence, that belongs to YOU, not gods or platonic notions of external perfect forms.
I think I assign more value to you Athena, and Gnomon and every human on this planet than any god posit ever has or ever will.

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. — Athena

Why must we compare ourselves as greater or lesser or equal to that which we are an integrated part of?
Ok my brain is probably more important to me than my leg, but my leg is very important to.
We can have humility and peace in the presence of each other, and in all things around us.
If we just learn to rid ourselves of all the residues of the primal fears we built up from our days in the wilds and just stop killing and abusing each other, and everything we come in contact with, then things would get better. That's our current burden, and no god exists to help us, and those who believe in god can suffer in the exact same way, as all atheists can suffer. We must take FULL responsibility, as only we can help us make things better for all.
Again, I draw attention to the sentiments (rather than the particular predicament) in:

consider this video summary on 'quantum information' — 180 Proof

I have watched many of these Matt O'Dowd PBS presentations. They are excellent.
A great vid that presents the quantum uncertainty problem when trying to represent values such as spin using 1 bit of information but also demonstrates that such uncertainty helps confirm quantum states such as entanglement and superposition.

Frankly speaking, I recommend you develop your theory of information in more depth. At present it seems its definition is just too loose to be endorsed or critiqued. — Agent Smith

Hey, professor! What do you think I'm doing on The Philosophical Forum. I'm an isolated retiree, with no academic environment for nurturing novel ideas. Agent Jones and 180proveit are my ad hoc thesis advisors. One tells me to abandon my thesis because it will never meet the stringent criteria for a scientific fact, while the other tells me to tighten-up the definitions.

I don't have a "theory of information". I rely on scientists for that. If you want more precise definitions of Information, please refer to those who make it their business to study such things. What I do have is a personal private thesis of Enformationism*1, which describes my amateur understanding of the multi-faceted role of Information in the universe. It goes beyond the limited scope of Shannon's engineering definition of Information, to include general philosophical applications, such as Ontological & Epistemological questions. You can "endorse or critique" my opinions on this forum, just as you would any other personal philosophical views.

Unfortunately, the primary critic of my thesis insists on criticizing the science behind it, rather than the philosophical implications of Information*2. Speculative Philosophical definitions will never satisfy his technical Materialistic criteria, because they deal in general interpretations & universal significance, instead of specific physical attributes & applications. I do have some layman's understanding of Information Science, but I'm not qualified to pontificate on such topics. I provide lots of links to articles by professional information scientists, that you can ignore or investigate as you see fit. But some of them get pretty technical & mathematical. If you are really interested in the esoteric details & definitions, you can see how they "develop" their theories. Perhaps their authoritative views & conjectures on Information theory will give you enough scientific substance to "endorse or critique". The bottom line here is : beyond communication/computer theory, Information science is at present, Theoretical, not Empirical. :smile: .

*1. l assume that you haven't bothered to slog through the Enformationism thesis & glossary, which would answer most of your concerns about development & definitions.
http://enformationism.info/enformationism.info/page2%20Welcome.html
https://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/

*2. I'll address his "increasing disorder (entropy) increases information (emergence)", critique in another post. I occasionally take-on his mostly irrelevant challenges, not for his edification, but to deepen & develop my own knowledge of the philosophical implications of Generic Information.

Gnomon seeks to find common ground between science and the esoteric and I think there is none. But am I making an incorrect judgement of what Gnomon is positing — universeness

Whatever he's posited, that's the implication. It's unintelligible New Agery to me.

:up:

Thanks for coming back on this. I consider the subject of information a very important one,
to a point that I'm thinking of starting a discussion on it ...

I think that based on his delivery in the video, Jim Al Khalili thinks that information IS a universal fundamental. — universeness

What does "universal fundamental" mean for you exactly? The essence, the basic element of the Universe, or what? And in what way? An example?

I found his evidence in support of such a hypothesis currently makes the hypothesis more that a hypothesis but still falls a little short of the 'theory' label. — universeness

I agree. In fact, I didn't see any kind of support for this hyposthesis, much less a proof. (Except of course if I messed it.)

For me, we would have to be able to produce something like a REAL photon or quark, via a list of instructions alone. A mechanism would then produce a material photon or a quark or an electron by 'processing' the list of instructions. — universeness

"A team of physicists is now claiming the first direct observation of the long-sought Breit-Wheeler process, in which two particles of light, or photons, crash into one another and produce an electron and its antimatter counterpart, a positron. But like a discussion from an introductory philosophy course, the detection’s significance hinges on the definition of the word “real.” Some physicists argue the photons don’t qualify as real, raising questions about the observation’s implications."
(https://www.sciencenews.org/article/colliding-photons-matter-particle-physics)

Information could be thee universal fundamental and the basis of a theory of everything without invoking any panpsychist or universal mind posits which are independent of us. — universeness

Thank you for taking up my question about if the physical universe has a mind that can intrerpret and handle information.
OK, I already asked about the concept of "universal fundamental". Now, based on your using of "could be", I see that we can only make hypotheses on the subject, either by considering particular philosophical views like e.g. panpsychism, universal consciousness, etc. or none, i.e. starting from an independent point of view.
For example, I could consider that atoms "use" some kind of "information" to combine with other atoms and form molecules. Yet, even if something like this can be considered as a workable theory, description or explanation, it would always be a speculatiom and an interpretation of what we all know as "information".

Indeed, it's hard to answer this question. It is indeed a "far bigger question" as you say. And in fact, it leads to even a much broader question: "Does the Universe has a purpose?".

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. — 180 Proof

Gnomon is not qualified to critique the video : What If Physics IS NOT Describing Reality?. But several scientists, that I have linked to, have also concluded that "Physics is not describing Reality?". More to the point may be to say that physicists don't know how to interpret what quantum physics is trying to tell us about Reality *1*2. The Enformationism thesis is just my 2-cents worth on that long-debated topic Since the scientists can't agree on Reality, maybe philosophers can make a contribution*3. What Einstein called "a persistent illusion" is what Enformationism labels "Ideality"*4.

I'm not sure where that confident assertion came from : "increasing disorder (entropy) increases information (emergence)". But I must point out that it is not relevant to the thesis of Enformationism. That's because Entropy originally meant only "change" (en + trope = transform)*5. And in practice, Entropy has two different applications : Physical Entropy (change in material form) and Informational Entropy (change in meaning). In general, "Entropy is simply a measure of possible micro-states"*6. The ratio of that statistical probability to actual certainty is what Shannon realized was a mathematical value relevant to communication. So, "increasing disorder" (random microstates) does indeed increase possible options (uncertainty) for information, yet it decreases the order (certainty) that we call "meaning".

Regarding the implication that "increasing disorder increases information (emergence)", that phrase only applies to the negative emergence of more Disorder. But what we usually mean by "Emergence" is positive manifestation of more Order. So, the intended implication of 180's assertion is irrelevant to the normal meanings of Entropy/Disorder (negative) and Information/Emergence (positive). Entropy is an inverse proportion, which can be inverted to change its meaning. But, since Shannon, Entropy is usually interpreted as the opposite of Information/EnFormAtion. :smile:



*1. What Does Quantum Theory Actually Tell Us about Reality?
Nearly a century after its founding, physicists and philosophers still don’t know—but they’re working on it
https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/what-does-quantum-theory-actually-tell-us-about-reality/

*2. The quantum revolution questioned the nature of reality :
If so, all the physical phenomena we perceive are just a “higher-level emergent description” of what’s really going on.
https://www.sciencenews.org/century/quantum-physics-theory-revolution-reality-uncertainty

*3. The Illusion of Reality :
The Scientific Proof That Everything is Energy and Reality Isn’t Real
http://www.esalq.usp.br/lepse/imgs/conteudo_thumb/The-Illusion-of-Reality---The-Scientific-Proof-That-Everything-is-Energy-and-Reality-Isnt-Real.pdf
Note -- Since the evidence of our senses is the primary source of our knowledge of Reality, I wouldn't describe that perception as an "illusion". I suspect that Einstein was speaking metaphorically. Where the article says that "everything is Energy", Enformationism would say that "everything is Information" (power to enform, to cause change in form)

*4. Ideality :
*** In Plato’s theory of Forms, he argues that non-physical forms (or ideas) represent the most accurate or perfect reality. Those Forms are not physical things, but merely definitions or recipes of possible things. What we call Reality consists of a few actualized potentials drawn from a realm of infinite possibilities.
*** Materialists deny the existence of such immaterial ideals, but recent developments in Quantum theory have forced them to accept the concept of “virtual” particles in a mathematical “field”, that are not real, but only potential, until their unreal state is collapsed into reality by a measurement or observation. To measure is to extract meaning into a mind. [Measure, from L. Mensura, to know; from mens-, mind]
https://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page11.html

*5. The word entropy finds its roots in the Greek entropia, which means "a turning toward" or "transformation."

*6. The Ascent of Information, by Caleb Scharf, page 33
*6a. Forum Post : Now, let me backtrack a bit and reexamine your definition of entropy
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/13163/time-entropy-a-new-way-to-look-at-informationphysics

Gnomon is not qualified to critique the video : What If Physics IS NOT Describing Reality?. — Gnomon

Yes, no doubt, and this is why I addressed that video to others instead of you. Btw ...
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/776449 :yawn:

What does "universal fundamental" mean for you exactly? The essence, the basic element of the Universe, or what? And in what way? An example? — Alkis Piskas

For me, it means that current posited fundamentals are not fundamentals. A quark, an electron, a photon, a gluon, a higgs boson or even the proposed erebon or superstring are not fundamentals.
These would all be combinatorials/configurations of a single fundamental, called a data/information state. I don't think the only 'physical states' can be the binary 1 and 0, especially considering the possible qbit states and such phenomena as quantum ( entanglement, superposition and tunnelling), dark matter and dark energy. A two state binary system cannot produce the real universe imo, so the fundamental states must number more that two. That's about as far as my personal musings go, based on my 'undergraduate level' of command of physics and my old honours degree in Computing Science and my old PGCE(Post Graduate Certificate in Education).

"A team of physicists is now claiming the first direct observation of the long-sought Breit-Wheeler process, in which two particles of light, or photons, crash into one another and produce an electron and its antimatter counterpart, a positron. But like a discussion from an introductory philosophy course, the detection’s significance hinges on the definition of the word “real.” Some physicists argue the photons don’t qualify as real, raising questions about the observation’s implications." — Alkis Piskas

Its' a common comment made by many research scientists and was stated again, very clearly, in the video posted above by @180 Proof featuring Matt O'Dowd. The laws of physics are human interpretations of what humans scientifically observe, but that does not mean that they necessarily, fully describe, the REALITY of the universe. I accept that, and I agree with that, but that does not mean we should therefore give succour to much much less reliable posits, such as those offered by theism or theosophists.

Now, based on your using of "could be", I see that we can only make hypotheses on the subject, either by considering particular philosophical views like e.g. panpsychism, universal consciousness, etc. or none, i.e. starting from an independent point of view. — Alkis Piskas

Yes, as our current science cant take us much further than 'could be,' not yet. You can even add more fringe posits such as @Gnomon's enformationism, for consideration.

For example, I could consider that atoms "use" some kind of "information" to combine with other atoms and form molecules. Yet, even if something like this can be considered as a workable theory, description or explanation, it would always be a speculatiom and an interpretation of what we all know as "information". — Alkis Piskas

Well, atoms combine into molecules via chemical bonds and a qualified chemist could explain the details much better than I. A quick wiki search gave me:
A chemical bond is a lasting attraction between atoms or ions that enables the formation of molecules and crystals. The bond may result from the electrostatic force between oppositely charged ions as in ionic bonds, or through the sharing of electrons as in covalent bonds. The strength of chemical bonds varies considerably; there are "strong bonds" or "primary bonds" such as covalent, ionic and metallic bonds, and "weak bonds" or "secondary bonds" such as dipole–dipole interactions, the London dispersion force and hydrogen bonding. Strong chemical bonding arises from the sharing or transfer of electrons between the participating atoms.
But yes, the posit is that everything that's 'going on,' that allows atoms to self-assemble into molecules IS at a fundamental level, self-processing information. If you run the process all the way back to the start then you are suggesting that the big bang singularity was an information container and its instructions/program started 'executing' at time > 0. BUT no god programmer was required.
Roger Penrose's CCC for example, would simply mean the program runs to completion and then resets and starts again and has been doing so for an eternity of aeons.

My attempt to 'portray the above scenario,' is nothing more, than a measure of my own limited ability to perceive the issues and the science involved. I think there are many on TPF who could do a better job of it than I.

@Agent Smith

The laws of physics are human interpretations of what humans scientifically observe, but that does not mean that they necessarily, fully describe, the REALITY of the universe. I accept that, and I agree with that, but that does not mean we should therefore give succour to much much less reliable posits, such as those offered by theism or theosophists. — universeness

... or idealists/antirealist. :clap: :up:

As one of the founders of quantum computing David Deutsch says (I paraphrase), 'The laws of physics enable our brains to generate ideas about the laws of physics such as quantum theory.' In other words, reality enables and constrains ideality (i.e. idealizations of reality), and not Gnomon's ass-backwards other way around. — 180 Proof

For me, it means that current posited fundamentals are not fundamentals. A quark, an electron, a photon, a gluon, a higgs boson or even the proposed erebon or superstring are not fundamentals. — universeness

OK. But what are these "universal fundamentals?" :smile:

The laws of physics are human interpretations of what humans scientifically observe, but that does not mean that they necessarily, fully describe, the REALITY of the universe. — universeness

I agree.

Yes, as our current science cant take us much further than 'could be,' not yet. — universeness

Right. So we actually have nothing in our hands. Yet, regarding abtract ideas in general --such as information-- scientists in their majority claim that they have found this and that, that they know how things work, etc. Yet, often w/o any solid evidence or even with no evidence at all. (Of course, they have to defend their trade in the same way religions do, only that they deal with more concrete and tangible stuff.)

You can even add more fringe posits such as @Gnomon's enformationism, for consideration. — universeness

Thans for the suggestion. But my library is already full of -isms! :smile:

Well, atoms combine into molecules via chemical bonds and a qualified chemist could explain the details much better than I — universeness

Well, it was just an offhand example using a simple and very common subject. Not meant to be streched. Besides, as I said, it could lead at best to some interpretation, a different kind of information, its use and its purpose. Matter has no purpose, i.e. intention or desire. This is an attribute of life, even if its purpose is reduced down an urge to survive. And it needs and uses information for that purpose, Matter does not strive to survive. It does not strive for anything. It has no urge whatsoever. So, it doesn't need or can use any information.

My attempt to 'portray the above scenario,' is nothing more, than a measure of my own limited ability to I think there are many on TPF who could do a better job of it than I. — universeness

I understand and respect this.

Absolutely! If it can do as you suggest and any new 'understanding,' is testable and falsifiable. — universeness

When we test and verify we are using logic, we can't test or verify anything without it. This means that what logic suggests is that physical reality is based on logic (and number). It may sound a bit circular but it's what i would expect at the end of the road; a maximally simple (minimally complex) self interacting creative system.

o me, you 'blur the lines,' between the terms 'simulation,' 'emulation,' and 'reality.' — universeness

Yes, i am obliterating that distinction. There is essentially no difference in the context of a computational system like our universe, based on the fundamental of information and its processing (physics = computation).

This would also suggest that there exists a reference frame 'outside' of our universe which views this universe as a simulation. This let's god posits in again imo. — universeness

The reference is purely hypothetical for the purpose of seeing the big picture perspective. This model or theory i'm expounding on can actually destroy any possible notion of the god posit. It will show that it all originates from a simple non-conscious process. As long as science or philosophy does not address this gap in out understanding the god posit will always seem viable to some. People will always hide their gods where we can't see them, inside the gaps of our understanding. Explain the gap and you kill the god.

But what label are you assigning to your 'chaos' model? Real? Simulated? You are still left with 'well where did the 'chaos,' come from? — universeness

When i think to myself about these things i really don't use the labels of real or simulated. I'm more concerned with the structure of the idea and if it's accurate in it's description of what we know happens. That's how we do science. If we have preconceived ideas of what is real or not apart from the math and logic then what are we really looking for. It's not that different than a religious mindset that just wants to believe what is comfortable.

"Man prefers to believe what man prefers to be true." - Sir Francis Bacon

The point is that the 'initial conditions' you mention were SET BY A HUMAN called John Conway. He is the prime mover and the 'will'/intent, that caused the slider critters to become existent. He is the vital or it could even be claimed (and IS claimed by theistic doctrines of where humans came from) 'divine' spark! — universeness

Conway had to set it up because he was using a human made instrument or computer. He wasn't trying to prove or assert how the universe came about, he was interested in complexity. The universe doesn't have to set up anything, it is the way it is eternally at the most fundamental level.

Information as a universal fundamental, unfortunately, does not increase the ability of science to disprove god more than it can at the moment. — universeness

I think it can, and it is what i am currently attempting to do. I'm really not trying to prove or disprove god, i just want to know how things really are, as they are and not as i prefer them to be.

Again you suggest an 'outside' to our universe. Do you support 'outside' posits such as a multiverse? — universeness

It depends on what side of the bed i woke up on that day. I have not come to a definite conclusion about that yet, although it seems possible.

Ok, but I emphasise the position that there is no empirical evidence, that teleonomy has ANY relationship AT ALL with 'natural selection.' — universeness

I'm aware that "Teleology" & "Progress" are taboo terms in biological science, because of their traditional association with Christian dogma. But the Enformationism thesis is not about biology or doctrine, and not intended to pass muster with atheistic scientists. It's merely an interpretation of the broader role of Information in Evolution & Emergence. And in blog posts, I provide links & quotes to the use of such terms by scientists.

As sampled below, some accredited scientists are beginning to revisit the notion of evolutionary progression, if not the terminology. If no forward progress, what's the point of evolution? Santa Fe Institute scientists have coined the term "Downward Causation" for "information selection and control" in biological & physical evolution. So, I feel justified in using the similar term "Teleonomy" for my personal thesis. Unless you can show philosophical (rational) evidence that refutes the notion of complexification in Evolution, which is a sign of progression from the inorganic simplicity of the original hypothetical Singularity, to the living & thinking organisms today. Time's arrow is pointing in some direction ; but is it going in circles, or toward some positive future state such as a Technological Singularity? :smile:

The Role of Teleonomy in Evolution :
In order to avoid the implications of "teleology," assumed to refer only to the process of evolution as directed towards goals, the discussants use "teleonomy" in reference to the biological organism as end-directed (for reproduction). . . . By using the concept of teleonomy, it is argued, one can avoid the issue of "mechanism" versus "teleology."
https://www.jstor.org/stable/186539

Teleonomy:
Revisiting a Proposed Conceptual Replacement for Teleology
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s13752-022-00424-y

Explain why a physical brain physically "burns a lot of" physical "energy" (i.e. calories) if, as you suggest, "Information" is not "Work" — universeness

Please ask 180 to point to where Gnomon ever "suggested" such a thing. Due to his mis-interpretation of the thesis, He likes to put words in my mouth that he can easily refute. In Enformationism, Information = Energy = Work = Causation. :smile:

@180 Proof

The map-territory idea is vital to our discussion. Gnomon, your interest lies in an idealized map (pure abtraction) and as 180 Proof points out this results in a mappa that does not describe reality.

@universeness

In Enformationism, Information = Energy = Work = Causation — Gnomon

Had I been putting words in your mouth, sir, you'd be making more sense with far fewer incoherent and inconsistent statements. For instance, in this post exchange below from last year you babbled at me that "information is non-physical", yet now you claim "information" is also equivalent to physical processes such as both "work" & "energy".

Physical change is called "Work". Mental change is called "Information". In the human brain, Mental Work burns a lot of energy, even though the Brain does not change its physical form.
— Gnomon

Explain why a physical brain physically "burns a lot of" physical "energy" (i.e. calories) if, as you suggest, "Information" is not "Work". Oh, btw, the human brain functions by constantly changing its neuronal configurations (re: neuroplasticity) that encode *wait for it, wait for it* new information (i.e. updating current information —> memories, expectations, predictions, feelings, learning-conditioning, etc). — 180 Proof

I don't misunderstand you, Gnomon; you're honestly confused and incorrigible. However, feel free to disabuse me by addressing the following

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/776449 :wink:

:up:

OK. But what are these "universal fundamentals?" — Alkis Piskas

The best candidate right now, is the 'bit'. Consider how music is physically stored on a CD or the images stored on a DVD. The text we are typing right now on TPF that allows us to fully communicate using textual symbology, is digitised, using bit maps and transferred data packets.
If you accept that its possible to fully reproduce a field excitation, such as an 'up quark,' via a data representation, such as a two state binary system, then we would be close to being able to confirm that data/information is a fundamental of nature. Let's say I could represent an 'up quark,' by the binary rep:
10010000110110001101101110000110011100000011.
If I explain the above binary representation of an up quark as representing:
1. An unique identifier for an 'up quark.'
2. The charge on a up-quark. (relating to accepted units)
3. The spin or angular momentum.
4. Mass (accepted units)
Other factors, such as gravitational effect, electromagnetism, weak interactions, strong interactions etc.
I could physically represent the binary values in many ways, such as an indentation(a pit) to represent a 1 and no indentation right next to the pit (commonly called a 'land') to represent a 0.
I could then store this representation of an up-quark on a dvd.
I then need to invent a 'machine,' that can take this data representation as input to the machine and the machine can 'affect' the vacuum of space and process the data representation to generate an up-quark.
Running all the data represented on the DVD might result in the production of a construction such as a hydrogen atom. If this could be done then I think this would be a demonstration that the universal fundamental is information. That's my best attempt to explain the concept involved. It probably falls short in many ways.

Right. So we actually have nothing in our hands. Yet, regarding abtract ideas in general --such as information-- scientists in their majority claim that they have found this and that, that they know how things work, etc. Yet, often w/o any solid evidence or even with no evidence at all. (Of course, they have to defend their trade in the same way religions do, only that they deal with more concrete and tangible stuff.) — Alkis Piskas

No, I think you are moving too far away from where we actually are, when you type words like, 'so we actually have nothing in our hands.' Science has a great deal more evidence in their hands, compared to any other methodology, that can be employed by humans, to learn about the workings and structure of the universe. That difference in evidence is absolutely crucial, even though science cannot currently prove that they understand the workings and structure of 'reality,' in the universe, there is no other method that can even begin to compete with it.

Matter has no purpose, i.e. intention or desire. This is an attribute of life, even if its purpose is reduced down an urge to survive. And it needs and uses information for that purpose, Matter does not strive to survive. It does not strive for anything. It has no urge whatsoever. So, it doesn't need or can use any information. — Alkis Piskas

All we are debating here is definitions or manifestations of what we label 'matter.'
Brain matter in humans contain and demonstrably manifest, human intent and purpose. So, I don't agree with your 'impression' that NO manifestation of 'matter' has intent, purpose, desire. 'LIFE' has 'form' and form involves 'matter' and human lifeforms irrefutably demonstrate intent and purpose, imo.