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. — punos
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. — punos
Well, don't hold me to this, but I probably won't respond again until Gnomon addresses the questions I've put him. That Gnomon can't, I believe, confirms in the context of this philosophy site that he is, in fact, a pseudo-philosophizing charlatan – a crypto-aristotlean fantasist who copy & pastes out of context passages from mostly derivative science writings – whose self-proclaimed "Enformationism, BothAnd & Meta-Physics" are based on his miles wide and barely an inch deep incomprehension of both philosophy and science (which quite a few other members have constructively pointed out to him over the years). I like to rodeo clown bulls***, ... though Gnomon is probably one who will get away. — 180 Proof
No I don't. IMO, Gnomon hasn't made a logically valid or conceptually coherent case for his "ideas". This is why I question them. — 180 Proof
But the physical universe is analogue, not digital. 0/1 bits belong to virtual, computer reality. E.g. the natureal sound is analogue. Digital sound is virtual, i.e. not physically existing as such but made by software to appear to do so. That's how different they are:The best candidate right now, is the 'bit'. — universeness
We can never fully reproduce something physical using a digital method. Even if today's audio digital equipment surpass in resolution even the best analogue equipment. But this is as far as quality and playback are concerned. No matter how good a quality can digital technology produce, it will always be an imitation of the physical world. And we don;t have to talk about supercomputers: a simple pocket calculator is a million times better in arithmetic than the human mind or any analogue methods used in the past. The memory even of the first, primitive computers was way more effective and efficient than using human memory, in terms of capacity and usage. Yet, Computer memory is artificial. As is artificial intelligence. They cannot and will never fully represent the physical world or the human mind. They are imitations, no matter how good they can be.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... — universeness
I can't really follow you in all this, sorry. My knowledge in this field are quite limited ...If I explain the above binary representation of an up quark as representing ... — universeness
You are maybe right. I don't follow scientifc progress as you do ... But I have followed science in subjects that I am particularily interested in like the mind, memory, consciousness, etc. And I have been fed up with scientific views about, e.g. how they "finally discovered" where momory resides in the brain --each now and then they find a new place-- and that consciousness is the product of the brain and so on, w/o any evidence but only hypotheses and speculations. This the point of view from which is I said what I said about science. Yet, I consider myself to be quite "scientific" --in the sense of systematic or accurate in the manner of an exact science-- in my life, esp. the professions I have had. E.g. I consider and treat programming both as an art and a science.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.' — universeness
Exactly. But they behave as they do understand and are most competent on almost all subjects, of a physical and non-physical nature.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. — universeness
Well, as I said, we have radically different views in this area.Brain matter in humans contain and demonstrably manifest, human intent and purpose. — universeness
So you dispute Planck's quanta? How pre-1900 of you, AP.But the physical universe is analogue, not digital. — Alkis Piskas
We each have the right to conduct our own symphonies as we see fit.Well, don't hold me to this, but I probably won't respond again until Gnomon addresses the questions I've put him. — 180 Proof
I appreciate your interest in topics such as Emergence and Information. But, "180 Proof's rigorous critique" denies the foundation of my argument by default : Holism vs Reductionism. When I use even the scientific term "Systems Theory"*1, he seems to interpret such integrative notions, not as a legitimate scientific method, but as covert New Age mysticism. I assume that 180 is not a Racist, but he appears to be a Holism-ist. He seems to believe, erroneously, that the concept of Holism is peculiar to "irrational & nonsensical" Eastern religions*2. And he asserts his prejudice as a "settled" fact, against which any non-reductive responses will have no effect. His "critiques" are formulated to herd Gnomon into a New Age corral, which by his personal definition is "full of non-sense", Therefore, I must take evasive action to avoid being trapped in a dead end.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. — universeness
Good luck! Your quest is perennial and honourable. — universeness
Good point. Physical nature is analogue, despite "Planck's quanta". Quanta are mental analogies to gaps in our knowledge of holistic physical systems. Causation is continuous, but our perception is inherently discrete. Emergence of novelty (e.g. Phase Change) is also continuous, but rapid transformations make it seem instantaneous. On the quantum scale, the gaps in our perception make quantum leaps appear to be superluminal & supernatural. However, the universe, as a whole, including physical (material) & metaphysical (mental), seems to be both digital and analog. :smile:But the physical universe is analogue, not digital. — Alkis Piskas
How can I dispute Planck's quanta if I am not knowledgable on the subject, @180 Proof?So you dispute Planck's quanta? How pre-1900 of you, AP. — 180 Proof
Physical nature is analogue — Gnomon
:scream: :yikes: :rofl:Physical nature is analogue, despite "Planck's quanta". Quanta are mental analogies to gaps in our knowledge of holistic physical systems. — Gnomon
If this is so, then why do you bother making such a fundamental claim about the physical world based on "very little knowledge" such asI have very little knowledge of the subject and in fact, about Physics, in general. — Alkis Piskas
:roll:But the physical universe is analogue, not digital. — Alkis Piskas
Good to know.Physical nature is analogue, despite "Planck's quanta" — Gnomon
Interesting view.Quanta are mental analogies to gaps in our knowledge of holistic physical systems. — Gnomon
I agree. Good point.Causation is continuous, but our perception is inherently discrete. — Gnomon
Of course, since the digital "world" is part of the physical world. Mainly because we humans have created it, but also because of some natural "digitization" or inherent "digitality" (can't think of a better terms), which of course is not evident to me.However, the universe, as a whole, including physical (material) & metaphysical (mental), seems to be both digital and analog. — Gnomon
I can't say! Believe me! :grin:Is Quantum Reality Analog after All? — Gnomon
— Gnomon
— Gnomon
I still don't understand … what 'competitiveness' has to do with capturing CO2 rather than releasing it into the atmosphere.
To repeat it then... — universeness
Is a company that does it competitive with another making a similar product but without the sequestering? — noAxioms
How much carbon would be released from the production of the energy needed to fill those spaces? It’s a sort of efficiency question.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."
The point is, ER is fixed and E is exponential. The one mathematically cannot keep up with the other. ‘Efforts‘ don’t change that.I fully support all current efforts to make E=ER, based on your representation of E and ER.
Space was never a solution to excess population. — noAxioms
But you don’t justify this assertion.Of course it is. — universeness
It costs far more to put a person in space than it does to keep him here — noAxioms
Yes, exactly. It costs far more resources to put a person in space (especially to keep him there) than it does to keep the person on Earth. If you have population in excess of the capacity of the resources, then for every person you put in space, 1000 or more must go without resources. That’s why space isn’t a solution to excess population. You say ‘of course it is’, but then you argue for my point like it was a money thing and not a resource thing. I never said it was a money thing.It costs resources to put people in space, not money. — universeness
No, the planet is the river or sea, the natural habitat of the fish. The bowls in the trees are these sealed enclosures on other planets (the trees), a place for which the fish are not evolved.I have already answered this point. This planet is the equivalent of your fish bowl comparison.
OK. I see a difference. Each day is one accident away from being exposed to the actual environment instead of the artificial one. That accident doesn’t kill us here, but it would anywhere else. A windy day will empty the bowl of water in the tree, but the bird can take it. Better to put a bird there.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.
Go there yes, but Hillary didn’t live on Mt Everest nor did Armstrong take up residence on the moon.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.
But that’s the kind of democracy you seem to push. It’s precisely democracy that went wrong. The voters wanted him. He appealed not to rational arguments, but rather to their personal values (mostly validation of one’s otherwise suppressed biases against other groups). People don’t vote for the common good. They vote based on personal emotions. Democracy needs to fix that, and I don’t know how it can and still call itself democracy.So, you accurately describe the failure of the current USA political system to prevent a horror like Trump getting elected — universeness
No? You can grow a human from a single cell. It can metabolize and reproduce.What a strange conflation! A biological human cell is not a lifeform.
Nonsense. There’s plenty of living things without a brain. All multicellular life forms evolved from what were once single-celled individuals that needed to solve the problem of selfless cooperation in order to take it to the next level.Humans are a combinatorial of many sub-systems yes but for me, the concept of 'life' applies to the brain.
In what way does this counter what I said (which I left up there)? I’m saying that majority rule isn’t going to result in the kinds of action/policy needed.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.
I’m not talking about benefit to minorities, and it seems that the typical voter isn’t very informed these days, and is not supportive of said secular humanism, as evidenced by people like Trump getting the majority vote on a platform against it, and against informed facts. I’m talking about benefit to larger goals like the future of humanity (said collective above), which often don’t benefit the majority of the voting individuals.an informed majority that supports secular humanism
I didn’t know that was attached to the big-brother label, but yea, that’s pretty much what I see. Big brother is supposed to be nefarious, not something that has a goal of the betterment and continued existence of humanity. And there are larger goals than that as well, but I’m not sure if a human should champion those.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.'
Amen. Wouldn’t want it, not just because I lack the qualifications.You make yourself sound like a person who should never be given significant authority over others.
Not much. President of one country lacks the power to do things on a humanity scale. Also, the laws pretty much prevent some decent suggestions I’d have for America, first of which would be the abolishing of over-the-table bribes. Money-talks is a horrible system that yes, just makes rich people richer.What would you do as president of America.
Nope. Doesn’t work on portion of the whole.Surely you would not use your 'mommy' model to drive your policies that would affect all Americans.
How can a socialist system do that? The layabout seems to get the same personal needs met as the inovator.Democratic socialism MUST encompass personal freedom and the entrepreneurial spirit as much as it can.
It takes that kind of resources to do certain things. How do you build a modern chip fab without those huge expenditures of resources, especially when money doesn’t even exist anymore to track return on expenditure of said resources?No billionaires or multi-millionaires are acceptable via business dealings or entrepreneurial effort.
Agree, but how to combat that? City (or country) X has a sports team with a lot of fans behind it. How are they to attract the better talent with promise of only modest means for their work? How are you going to prevent some other city from promising better means to this athlete, especially when this tiny extra expenditure would mean the difference between the city’s team winning or not?No celebrity roads to ridiculous riches.
Don’t think it was ever an attempt at something that would. It seems to be a step up from a simple google search that is far better at parsing native language, thus being able to find relevant results that a regular google search cannot. It seems a better source of facts than said regular search, which hits anything no matter how crazy.chatGPT cant even pass the Turing test. — universeness
See, one has to use "could be", "maybe" etc., descibing a possibility that the "digitality" of the physical universe. This means that there is no evidence about it, only hypotheses. And I really wonder why people in here talk so much about it. As if they wish the PU to be digital for one reason or another! Why?There may be a way to reconcile the two concepts of analogue and digital in nature at a fundamental level. — punos
(See above about "bit".)For me as i currently think about it; a true analogue form would be informationless, it would simply have one bit, 1 datum. — punos
See the implications of thinking of PU as digital in its structure ? — Alkis Piskas
I broadly agree.I think the 'laws of nature' are computable even though the universe – like the brain – is not a "computer" (ergo, without some intentional agent aka "programmer"). — 180 Proof
But the physical universe is analogue, not digital. — Alkis Piskas
Good point. Physical nature is analogue, despite "Planck's quanta". — Gnomon
Quanta are mental analogies to gaps in our knowledge of holistic physical systems. Causation is continuousIs Quantum Reality Analog after All? :
Quantum theorists often speak of the world as being pointillist at the smallest scales. — Gnomon
If nature is analogue at the fundamental level then what causes 'difference'?. How does analogue acquire structure? Atoms are a form of digital organization, all matter is. Quanta come in discrete packets, why not something in between like one would assume if it were analogue? — punos
:lol: I see you both in your individual dodgem cars. WATCH OUT Gnomon, he's right behind you!His "critiques" are formulated to herd Gnomon into a New Age corral, which by his personal definition is "full of non-sense", Therefore, I must take evasive action to avoid being trapped in a dead end. — Gnomon
Downward causationThe Ascent of Information, combines concepts of Causal Information & Downward Causation to explain the emergence of Life in a mostly inanimate world. — Gnomon
*3. Downward Causation :
". . . the central dogma of molecular biology, which is that information moves from the nucleic acids in DNA to proteins, but not in the other direction. . . . That's a 'bottom-up' causation . . . it's the way science usually thinks about the world . . . . that's the beauty and power of reductionism . . . . But does that mean that 'top-down', or downward, causation doesn't exist".
The Ascent of Information, p182 — Gnomon
That's where we diverge. You travel back on a wave of infinite regression, in the same way William Lane Craig does to arrive at his debunked Kalam Cosmological Argument.He goes on to make a remarkable remark : ". . . that living systems seem to be able to gain control over the very same matter out of which they are formed". And a technical term for such self-control is "Cybernetics". Ironically, a whole complex system of many parts that can control its constituents, implies that the whole transcends the parts in top-down causal power. But that's merely a natural kind of transcendence that pragmatic scientists can accept. Yet, those who are philosophically inclined may logically extend the control & causation within Nature back to the beginning of the universe, and ask "what caused Causation?" — Gnomon
Less and less and finally zero. The target is E=ER, which is far more important that efficiency issues.How much carbon would be released from the production of the energy needed to fill those spaces? It’s a sort of efficiency question. — noAxioms
ER can rise to meet E if humans make it so. The nefarious who currently control E and ER are the problem, not any notion that human science is unable to meet the energy needs of the current population. Energy supply and demand remains a weapon, due to who controls it and why.The point is, ER is fixed and E is exponential. The one mathematically cannot keep up with the other. ‘Efforts‘ don’t change that. — noAxioms
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.