Note -- The Enformationism thesis does not claim that materialism is "false", but merely that it does not explain everything of interest to philosophers, including ideas about matter & mind. Ironically, enformed dumb matter seems to be capable of self-reference : Aboutness. — Gnomon

:fire: I like the all-inclusive (BothAnd) nature of yer philosophy.

Yet Mr. Nice Guy can be somewhat indulgent toward such immature notions, as one would toward a juvenile's innocent babbling. Unlike another poster, he's not intentionally malicious, but his Matter-is-all vocabulary makes abstract (meta-physical) Platonic & Aristotelian concepts sound like literal non-sense. — Gnomon

:lol: I appreciate your gently delivered insult. Aristotle was a theist and Plato seemed to believe in some sort of creator or prime mover. Aristotle also believed in a geocentric universe, so like many other ancients they 'believed what they saw with their own eyes when they looked up at the sky at night.'
Geocentrism looks correct to the naive observer but scientific research, has always been able to assist the naive. You are correct that I think the concept of 'perfect forms,' are utter nonsense.

For example, from a Matter-only standpoint, there is no such thing as Platonic Love, or love of any kind, for that matter. There is only corporal copulation. Hence, "Love" is an abstraction that idealizes the realistic rutting of animals. — Gnomon

Nonsense! and my evidence is that I am a godless product of the universe and I can express and accept love in all it's variant flavours. Love is a more intense manifestation of altruism and empathy and the reproductive imperative established by natural selection. It exists via species like humans and is a human emotion. Love is also a reason why human morality is required and was and continues to be debated, agreed and legislated within human communities. No god required. The direction and content of your posts on issues such as love and morality reveal that you make the same kind of arguments that theists do. Are you a theist Gnomon and if so, why the subterfuge?
If you want and need a mind, beyond the big bang posit to be our creator then why not be loud, proud and heard about it?
You deny being a theist but then most of the points you make, would be attractive to most theists.

But it also updates ancient Spiritualism/Idealism, with new concepts from Quantum & Information theory. Those older views were pragmatic in their local & temporal contexts, but now seem somewhat untenable in the current state of affairs, 2.5 millennia later. — Gnomon

Yes, you have made this statement many times but your update, remains a god of the gaps posit and you have not been able to dispel that accusation so far, imo.

FWIW, Gnomon no longer practices the religion of his youth, or any religion for that matter. But, like Universeness, he can be tolerant toward those who are not "enlightened", including his own siblings. — Gnomon

You don't have to follow a particular religion to be a theist. Do you have a personal definition of that which YOU would label god or YOUR creator source, that had the INTENT to create lifeforms like humans?

What would be your best example of your personal 'enlightenment,' that others don't have, which causes you to have to be 'tolerant' towards them. For me, it would be that god has no and never has had an existent. What about you?

My personal thesis is another of those adaptations, combining state-of-the-art Science with millennia of religious & philosophical exploration of the human condition, and building upon the foundation of Plato & Aristotle. — Gnomon

But you suggest that 'love' has a source outside of any physical lifeforms that materially or energetically exist in this universe. Do you suggest the same for 'morality?' Is your suggestion of a 'first cause,' a mind with intent that is capable of experiencing and expressing love and follows or imposes a moral code that it created?

Enformationism does not posit a manipulating "supreme being", because Nature functions automatically, like an emergent computer program*4, without any divine intervention. And whether the implicit Programmer/Enformer is conscious, in the human manner, is an open question. — Gnomon

OK!! BUT! The quote above is like a conformation that you are not a theist but you then invoke a first cause Enformer which may or may not be conscious and a mind with intent and our creator. It's like you are saying 'THERE IS NOT GOD! ........... but there might be! Not good enough Gnomon, not good enough at all, imo.

In any case, I can't agree with Uni's somber assessment, that "we reduce ourselves and leave ourselves with NOTHING", when we conclude that the world is more-than just "atoms in void"*5. It's also ideas-in-reasoning-minds and feelings-in-metaphorical-hearts. An immaterial idea is indeed "no thing", but whatever it is, it's what raises humans a step above the animals, by allowing them the individual & collective freedom to be intentional agents of their own destiny. :smile:

PS__I apologize in advance, if I have mis-represented Uni's philosophical worldview. — Gnomon

The universe IS more that atoms in a void as humans demonstrate every day via their intent and purpose and the fact we ask questions and seek answers. We have plenty to celebrate and our sense of wonder and awe IS OURS and BELONGS 100% TO US. No god exists to purloin that from us, and if it did, then I for one, would try to fight against it, for it's pernicious nature in giving us futile aspiration for it's own entertainment. Can you not see why the existence of an omnigod creator of us, makes us pointless and makes the antinatalist argument a valid one.
We have no freedom to be intentional agents of our own destiny, if an omnigod exists.

No apology needed Gnomon, as you have often complained that I mis-represent your viewpoints, so, I can hardly require apology, for you mis-representing mine. I probe, to try to analyse your true intentions. I fully accept your right to do the same to me.

Note -- What does the "Void" think about? Do "Atoms" love each other, when they become entangled? There is no such thing as "Hot", merely the idea of a relationship between thermodynamic regimes that we apply that non-thing name to. — Gnomon

The 'void' has no thinking agent. No! atoms don't experience love! whether they are entangled or not.
'Hot' and 'cold,' are useful human labels and concepts, useful to humans I mean. The speed of moving atoms does have important consequences, however, as demonstrated in places like the LHC.
It's only advanced combinatorial systems that have demonstrated ability to manifest consciousness/self-awareness. These are not phenomena that have been demonstrated by the fundamental constituents of lifeforms. Even your arm is not self-aware, imo. If you lose one, you remain self-aware, but your removed arm does not. The human brain contains all significant aspects of human consciousness imo.

I am not a fan of referencing the ancients too much, but I prefer to follow the lineage from Democritus and the atomists towards folks like Carl Sagan and coming to rest near folks like Sean Carroll, Roger Penrose, Ed Witten, Alan Guth, Sabine Hossenfelder, et al. — universeness

Great lineage! :smile:
I'm not a fan of quoting the ancients --if fact, I'm not a fan of quoting in general, except for very few cases-- and I can't help not quoting Heraclitus' outstanding for that period ideas whenever they are pertinent to a subject under discussion. (And imagine, he was called by many "The Dark Philosopher"! Of course, who could really grasp such ideas --so much meaning in such a concise form! Most cannot really grasp them even today!)

Of course, who could really grasp such ideas? Most cannot really grasp them even today!) — Alkis Piskas

But what we must surely be highly credited for (especially by lazy minded theism), is, that we WILL continue to grapple with and try to grasp such ideas, as long as humans or transhumans exist. WE OWN that ability. No god gifted it to us, WE gained such ability, as a consequence of what evolution via natural selection can do over 10.3 billion years, (I subtracted 3.5 billion years due to a google search on the question 'when did life start in the universe?')

WE gained such ability, as a consequence of what evolution via natural selection can do over 10.3 billion years — universeness

Certainly. This is what history, research and logic dictate.

BTW, I just found a term for the kind of information you are talking about: biformation. As we say, "bisexual". In this case both analogue and digital form(ation) and content of what is perceived and/or communicated.

Now, we can both be happy! :smile:

Are you a theist Gnomon and if so, why the subterfuge?
If you want and need a mind, beyond the big bang posit to be our creator then why not be loud, proud and heard about it?
You deny being a theist but then most of the points you make, would be attractive to most theists. — universeness

If you insist on putting a label on my philosophical First Cause concept, try Deism*1. You may not distinguish between Deism and Theism, but I suspect that "most theists" would. To them, Deists are no better than Atheists. That's because the Deist world is completely natural, with no supernatural intervention. Yet, Deist philosophy infers the necessity for a Prime Mind to create (from scratch) a temporal physical world from which mental phenomena*2 can emerge via natural computation processes. The rational "need" for an original Mind is in the logical necessity for an explanation of the emergence of mental phenomena in a material world*3. I'm aware that Materialists see no difference between Physical and Mental phenomena, because their (blind in one eye) worldview blocks-out Metaphysical features of the world, by definition. Is that loud & proud enough for you? :smile: :joke:

*1. Theist, Deist, Atheist, Agnostic :
A deist believes there is a God who created all things, but does not believe in His superintendence and government. He thinks the Creator implanted in all things certain immutable laws, called the Laws of Nature, which act per se, as a watch acts without the supervision of its maker.
https://www.infoplease.com/dictionary/brewers/theist-deist-atheist-agnostic

*2. Mental Phenomena :
We can, therefore, define mental phenomena by saying that they are those phenomena which contain an object intentionally within themselves
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5500963/
Note -- There is no intention in Physics, so the cause of future-directed Intention in human affairs must derive from a Meta-Physical source*4.

*3. The Mind-Evolution Problem :
The Difficulty of Fitting Consciousness in an Evolutionary Framework
https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.01537/full

*4. Metaphysics is the branch of philosophy that studies the fundamental nature of reality; the first principles of being, identity and change, space and time, . . . It includes questions about the nature of consciousness and the relationship between mind and matter, between substance and attribute, and between potentiality and actuality.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metaphysics

Yes, you have made this statement many times but your update, remains a god of the gaps posit and you have not been able to dispel that accusation so far, imo. — universeness

The "gap" you refer to is the mysterious emergence of Life & Mind from an inorganic beginning. How would you fill that void in Darwinian evolution? Any hypothetical conjecture must explain, not just the mechanical "how" of gradual emergence*1, but the logical "whence" the Potential for Life/Mind arising from a dimensionless non-living mathematical Singularity. Dispel that, if you dare! :joke: :smile:

*1. Abiogenesis :
the origin of life is the natural process by which life has arisen from non-living matter, . . . prevailing scientific hypothesis
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis

Apophatic ontology.

I'm aware [misinformed] that Materialists see no difference between Physical and Mental phenomena, because their (blind in one eye) worldview blocks-out Metaphysical features of the world — Gnomon

A much repeated slander that also makes no sense given that philosophical materialism itself is very much a metaphysical position (e.g. the Cārvāka (ancient India), Democritus, P. Gassendi, T. Hobbes, Baron d'Holbach, L. Feuerbach). "Materialists" merely differ from you (woo-of-the-gaps) immaterialists, Gnomon, with an alternative metaphysics, not a lack of one or "anti-metaphysics" as you claim (as if that too isn't a metaphysical position :roll:).

There's no shame, sir, in admitting you don't know what you're talking about; it's shameful, however, to keep on and on about things even you've confessed you've not studied as well as derivative sources you uncomprehendingly quote from repeatedly as if you're ... overcompensating. You're the biased dogmatist here, not I or any of your other skeptics / critics.

@Agent Smith

You don't have to follow a particular religion to be a theist. Do you have a personal definition of that which YOU would label god or YOUR creator source, that had the INTENT to create lifeforms like humans? — universeness

Thanks for the question. My definition of Creator/Programmer*1*2 was not revealed in books written by fallible humans, but in the Book of Nature, which shows signs of operating like a computer program*3. I have no knowledge of the Intention of the First Cause, but for human intention to emerge from running the program of evolution implies that the Programmer was capable of goal-directed behavior. So, the original reason for creation is beyond the reach of us self-directing symbolic personas, condemned to play the game without knowing why : Agnostic Avatars, with limited freewill & intention. :nerd:

PS__Yes, I'm just as serious about this philosophical metaphor as cosmologist Tegmark is about his self-programmed Mathematical Universe theory*4. An Information-centric worldview may sound like nonsense to you, but it's not religious non-sense, merely a philosophical theory of Ontology & Epistemology. Tegmark is serious, but you have to possess a sense of humor to present such aethereal notions to materialist scientists. :joke:

*1. G*D :
An ambiguous spelling of the common name for a supernatural deity. The Enformationism thesis is based upon an unprovable axiom that our world is an idea in the mind of G*D. This eternal deity is not imagined in a physical human body, but in a meta-physical mathematical form, equivalent to Logos. Other names : ALL, BEING, Creator, Enformer, MIND, Nature, Reason, Source, Programmer. The eternal Whole of which all temporal things are a part is not to be feared or worshipped, but appreciated like Nature.
I refer to the logically necessary and philosophically essential First & Final Cause as G*D, rather than merely "X" the Unknown, partly out of respect. That’s because the ancients were not stupid, to infer purposeful agencies, but merely shooting in the dark. We now understand the "How" of Nature much better, but not the "Why". That inscrutable agent of Entention is what I mean by G*D.
https://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page13.html

*2. Programmer God :
A competent computer programmer doesn’t have to make frequent corrections to the operation of the program. Likewise, an omniscient Creator shouldn’t have to make special interventions in order to keep the world running properly. A world-wide flood would be a sign of gross incompetence.
https://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page13.html

*3. u]Evolutionary Programming[/u] :
Special computer algorithms inspired by biological Natural Selection. It is similar to Genetic Programming in that it relies on internal competition between random alternative solutions to weed-out inferior results, and to pass-on superior answers to the next generation of algorithms. By means of such optimizing feedback loops, evolution is able to make progress toward the best possible solution – limited only by local restraints – to the original programmer’s goal or purpose. In Enformationism theory the Prime Programmer is portrayed as a creative principle (e.g. Logos), who uses bottom-up mechanisms, rather than top-down miracles, to produce a world with both freedom & determinism, order & meaning.
https://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page13.html

*4. Mathematical universe hypothesis :
a "provocative" solution to one of the central problems facing physics.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathematical_universe_hypothesis

AVATAR INSIDE THE GAME OF LIFE
metaphor, not to be taken literally

But you suggest that 'love' has a source outside of any physical lifeforms that materially or energetically exist in this universe. Do you suggest the same for 'morality?' Is your suggestion of a 'first cause,' a mind with intent that is capable of experiencing and expressing love and follows or imposes a moral code that it created? — universeness

You claim that, as an anti-metaphyical materialist (???), you are able to experience Love. Bully for you. But what is the substance of that emotion? How do aggregations of atoms feel sentiments? The emerging Information theory*1 can suggest answers to those questions ; if Information (power to create novel forms) is more fundamental than insentient matter. How does a clump of matter experience anything? Could it be due to non-physical Life/Mind-forms?*2

Morality emerges from the meaningful relationships between people. But, like Love, "meaning" cannot be reduced to atoms-in-void, can it? Yet, an intentional First Cause could explain, as a hypothesis, how such immaterial abstractions could arise from a "big bang" in the void : personal significance, mutual respect, trust, interest, positive regard. The implication of a pre-bang Creator concept is that all things, and relationships, can be traced back (reduced) to the mind of the Originator*3. Otherwise, how did the ability-to-feel get programmed into the thermodynamic chain of evolutionary causation? :smile:

Note : A non-human Mind, in an immaterial form, may not map directly onto human consciousness. But it serves as an analogy by which to fill the god-gaps in physical Science. The error of ancient anthro-morphic god-models is to assume a one-to-one correspondence of divine-human attributes. Human creativity is limited to manipulation of existing matter. But the power to create a universe from scratch may be unlimited, hence Omnipotent. Yet, like the Multiverse hypothesis, such a postulation is unproveable by empirical methods. :nerd:


*1. Information Theory - Emergence :
Information is neither matter nor energy, although it needs matter to be embodied and energy to be communicated.
Matter and energy are conserved. There is just the same total amount of matter and energy today as there was at the universe origin. See the cosmic creation process.
But information is not conserved. It has been increasing since the beginning of time. Everything emergent is new information. What idealist, holists, and gestaltists think they see is actually this increase of immaterial information.
https://www.informationphilosopher.com/knowledge/emergence.html
Note : Causal Information is the immaterial substance (relationship pattern) of Matter & Energy

*2. Non-physical Mind-forms :
Materialists typically argue that all cases of consciousness that we know about are dependent on biological reality. Yet my exploration of the Enformationism thesis finds numerous hints that our existence may be ultimately pre-biological and immaterial. By that I mean the macro-scale wetware of Biology is dependent upon atomic-scale Physics, which in turn is grounded upon nonscalable mental Mathematics. So, my reading of cutting-edge science indicates that the quantum description of physical reality (informational, relational, mental) is akin to pre-scientific concepts of the metaphysical spirit realm, which is more Potential than Biological. Hence, on the cosmic scale, Mind seems to be more fundamental than Matter.
https://www.bothandblog.enformationism.info/page12.html

*3. Deism vs Atheism :
However, another path of Logic assumes that the most important aspect of reality to non-scientists is personal Consciousness — the essence of humanity — which can't be adequately explained as the output of material mechanisms. . . . .
Which is why most philosophers, not concerned with religious myth-making, have portrayed the transcendent ulitmate Mind in terms of abstract principles with no physical form, as exemplified in Brahman, Tao, Dharma, Logos, and Spinoza's Pantheistic “substance”.
https://www.bothandblog.enformationism.info/page49.html

A future cold fusion system will perhaps be the most 'efficient,' if we ever achieve it. — universeness

I think you’re referencing a different sort of efficiency. Not even sure what you mean by that statement. Yes, fusion would be nice, and would likely solve the carbon issue since while still utilizing a limited resource instead of renewables, there’s an awful lot of the fuel available, at least for a while.

ER (renewable energy) can rise to meet E if humans make it so.

OK, this seems totally illogical. ER is limited by definition. You can’t make more, you can only attempt to waste less. OK, there are exceptions such as putting up solar collectors in high orbit, which is essentially a space-based death ray with a minor computer hack.

The fact that renewable energy is charged, in the world markets, at the same price per unit as 'the most expensively produced' energy is another example of the affect of the nefarious profit mongers.

This is a money issue, which you’ve dismissed. I’m not talking about money, I’m saying that ER has a cap.

Renewable costs much less to produce than fossil fuel based oil and gas

Does it? Last I looked it still costs more. OK, hydro has always been pretty cheap, but not so much solar and wind. They’re based on expensive equipment which needs regular replacement. Part of this is subsidies, which need to be accounted for when comparing actual costs.

The justification seems obvious , in that, there is a lot more room in space than there is here on earth. — universeness

OK, you seem to be solving the goal of wanting excess population but first solving the problem of finding a place to put them. That’s different than having a problem of excess population and presumably trying to ‘save’ as many as possible.

Perhaps 'Countries with declining populations,' are an small indicator of the future of population control.

Agree, but how many of those declining population countries have negative trade deficits?

BUT, as we slooooooowly become an extraterrestial species, we will have less need to worry about population control and have more need to encourage reproduction.

Exponential growth will always overpopulate a species no matter how fast they colonize new systems. That’s kind of simple geometry. I had done a topic on what it would be like with a planet of infinite resources/land/area. Each location has limited resources, but there’s always the frontier. Answer: Not exponential population growth. Linear at best, which is in the long run the same number of descendants per capita as no growth.

Eventually this will mean extra resources can be brought TO Earth FROM space.

Fair enough. I’m trying to figure out what can actually help us on Earth that is best imported from off-planet sources. Certainly building material for stuff being built in space, but how does that help the planet other than to relieve them of the efforts needed to bring that material up from the surface?

It's no different than it was when compared to pioneering humans on the move. They had to bring their supplies with them until they could establish a supply chain wherever they ended up.

They did export stuff back too, and yes, building materials was probably top of the list. Still, the pioneers landed in an environment for which they were already evolved, and an alarming percentage of them still died within a year or two.

Less savage solutions are possible. You are just being a bit impatient and lazy minded. :grin:
I suspect your brother and sister-in-law would smack you on the head for typing the above quote.

If you have excess population, many are going to die anyway, especially under the ‘share all the world’ socialism where the most resources go to those needing it most. Not to ding that strategy, but some kind of ‘cut your losses’ mechanism needs to be in place to prevent that sort of thing from happening.
Or maybe my definition of ‘excess population’ isn’t yours and we’re talking past each other.

Do you think it would have been better if evolution left all lifeforms as fish or water creatures? — universeness

Heck no, for the same reason I don’t think it would be better if all intelligent life populating the galaxy were left in the one form we know.
A different way of answering your question is to focus on ‘would have been better’. Would have been better for what? By what goal are we measuring the benefit of a planet of only fish vs one including land animals?

The first missions are scouting and pathfinder missions.

With pioneer missions to other worlds, scouting missions may not be an option. Coming back certainly isn’t, but a ship full of colonists would be heading to unknown conditions without the scout. By the time a robot gets there and reports back, its senders stand a fair chance of not being around to hear the answer. The trips take an obscene amount of time, all the movies notwithstanding that treat interstellar travel like a bicycle ride to the corner thrift store.

There is no perfect system, just improvements on current ones.

I proposed a better one. Screw democracy. Find somebody competent.

anyone who is capable of getting themselves made President should on no account be allowed to do the job. — Doug Adams

I will send you one of my skin cells and you can deliver my clone to me when you have finished creating it! :joke: — universeness

Joke aside, it’s been done, just not with humans because of moral issues. They’re trying to grow parts without feelings because feelings make everybody uncomfortable.

We simply can't accept that 'the typical voter isn't very informed these days.' We have to do what we can to help change that.

They are changing that, but the wrong way. They now have schools teaching bigotry for instance, which used to be illegal. Brain wipe em young to be on your side.
I sort of went to one of these, but they admittedly tried to show both sides. The school taught evolution despite being funded by an organization in denial of it. Now there are schools that teach it as the law demands, but framed only as a crackpot alternative to what really happened.
About majority doing the right thing, that often doesn’t happen. Town just north of me had a high school falling apart and in need of more rooms. They were holding class in the gym showers due to lack of space anywhere else. The had a federal offer to pay for 95% of the cost of repairs and new construction, with the town people picking up the other 5% which would have raised their school taxes a tiny bit. They put it to the voters instead of representatives. The voters shot it down, and now their taxes went up a lot a few years later because they have to pay for all of it themselves instead of accepting the federal grant. All the voters saw was ‘small pain now’ and no vision of ‘much more pain in a few years’ that it would have prevented. The kind of action I’m talking about is this sort of thing. Long term benefits. Those are not popular, hence the extreme danger to humanity.

But not your ideas on how to deal with excess population. — universeness

I don’t remember suggesting too many ideas on that. What, line some up and shoot them? No, probably not that, but something closer to how the Netherlands does it comes to mind. My grandmother was murdered there by the system. Murder by my country’s standards anyway.

By negotiation, based on the questions 'who are you?' and 'what do you want?'

There are those that simply want a handout, and are effectively nobody. There are whole cultures that encourage this attitude.

I would establish a benevolent communication system with every new born from cradle to grave.

What is this? Sounds like a school. What if the benevolent entity communicates something other than what the parents of the newborn want communicated?

Most layabouts get very bored quite often.

Don’t personally know the mindset. They watch TV I think. I don’t very much, and it pisses a lot of acquaintances that I cannot join discussion of the latest twist in some reality show or something.

Perhaps they would want to use their mind and body in ways that they would enjoy and would help the society/community they live in.

That would not be a layabout then, right?

Communication, support, respect, cooperation, justice, etc etc must become foundational when it comes to how people are supported.

All the cynicism above aside, I agree with this. Make the people and their children part of a whole, part of the culture. It works because I see it. Trick is to break the pattern of them identifying with the group encouraging the opposite. It perhaps means destroying cultural identity. It seems to work best in places with little of that, but then what do I know? I don’t live in those places.

A person who works to help their community (or even their universe) should be recognised

What does this recognition look like? Get a name on a poster or the nightly news? I mean, I do see it in some countries. In India, apparently your status is based on how many people you have under you. The recognition is an org-chart. You can be a brilliant contributor but don’t have any underlings, and you’d be pretty much a disappointment to your folks. I’ve seen this.

Take the money out of sports and it will become the healthy endeavour and fun competitive entertainment it should have always been.

It would become like little-league then. I guess that works. No more sports section in the newspaper except perhaps a page about how the local teams did against each other. My paper here actually devotes a decent percentage of its space to that. Not all national standings and such.

The best candidate right now, is the 'bit'. — universeness

But the physical universe is analogue, not digital. — Alkis Piskas

I agree with A-P here, but we actually have no proof of it one way or another.

Consider how music is physically stored on a CD or the images stored on a DVD. — universeness

All of which do a limited reproduction of the actual movie or scene.

Let's say I could represent an 'up quark,' by the binary rep:
10010000110110001101101110000110011100000011.

It would take an infinite number of bits to describe a quark. Just its position in space (if there is such a meaningful thing, which there isn’t) would need infinite bits, even if done only as accurately as the nearest meter.

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)

An identifier that say ‘up quark’ would suffice for 1, 2 and 4 since these are the same for all up quarks. The spin is a property of this quark, and per the vast majority of quantum interpretations, it doesn’t have one except when it is measured, and then only along one axis, so the actual spin can only be expressed relative to that one axis. A single bit will do then. Items 1-4 can probably be done in under 10 bits. The wavefunction of the quark would require, well, infinite bits.

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.
— Alkis Piskas
Brain matter in humans contain and demonstrably manifest, human intent and purpose.

Question seems to come down to where the purpose emerges from the matter. I’d probably favor a view that purpose is relative to a material process, not to matter, and not to an arrangement of matter.

A digital system can appear from a distance as analog, but analog never appears digital at any scale. — punos

Well that can't be true since digital is just a subset of analog, so an analog system confining itself to those states can appear digital.

The nature of reality appears to me to be digital. Like 180 Proof mentioned, The Planck volume is no different than a pixel (voxel) on a screen, and it's quanta determines if that pixel or voxel is on or off.

Interesting assertion. It violates the principle of relativity for one thing since it would be a distinction if a thing is changing voxels or not. Such a statement is assertion of a preferred frame, the one in which these locations are fixed. How slow does something have to move to change one pixel every minute? How does it have any momentum/velocity at all if it stays in the same place for a minute, and then suddenly changes. That's a violation of momentum conservation at the fine level. How fast does it have to go to change locations more frequently than one unit of time?
How are these pixels arranged? In a square or hexagonal crystal arrangment? Anything like that would also define a preferred orientation for the various spatial axes.

You seem to envision the universe as a sort of finite automata. I see no evidence of this.

So you dispute Planck's quanta? — 180 Proof

What does Planck say? I thought it was a limit of meaningful measurability, not a metaphysical digital ontology.

@universeness

Gnomon's Enformer has all the qualities of God (as a creator/creative force, Eros aka life drive), but Gnomon stops short of claiming it is God. Much like in Taoism, it is one half, the ordering principle, of a pair of opposing forces, the other half being Entropy (destructive, Thanatos aka death drive). Enformationism also bears a resemblance to Empedoclean Love (uniting) and Strife (dividing).

@universeness

As far as I can tell, as Gnomon has done his homework well (he deserves an A⁺). The only ethics that's compatible with Enformationism is one in which evil is what good'll have to deal with and vice versa (harmony of opposites).

What does Planck say? ... not a metaphysical digital ontology. — noAxioms

So what's your point with respect to my question (and its context)?

IMO, dao = entropy. (YMMV)

[deleted]

IMO, dao = entropy. (YMMV) — 180 Proof

I thought the Tao was a dualistic entity consisting of two opposites.

I thought the Tao was a dualistic entity consisting of two opposites. — Agent Smith

I'm sure I've pointed out to you what's wrong with that interpretation. The dao is an analogue for what western philosophers term "dialectical monism". Like entropy (i.e. disorder-order) consisting of complementarities, not "opposites".

I'm sure I've pointed out to you what's wrong with that interpretation. The dao is an exampke of what western philosophers term "dialectical monism". Like entropy (i.e. disorder-order) — 180 Proof

Yep, dialectical monism and hence, inter alia, monotheism - instead of two entities, one with two mutually cancelling properties, which of course leads to a problem (Epicurean riddle vis-à-vis the problem of evil).

instead of two entities, one with two mutually cancelling properties, — Agent Smith

Complementary properties are definitely not "mutually cancelling", Smith. Read the wiki article I linked. Are mind/body ... male/female (organisms) ... particle/wave (photons), ... "mutually cancelling"? :chin:

Opposites do cancel each other out e.g. fire boils off water and water douses fire. More to the point, I was referring to the inadequacy of monism as an explanatory framework as whatever the arche is, it has to possess opposite properties which in me book is saying something is both good and bad. (vide the problem of evil, a not all-good god; we need the devil).

We're only talking past each other. Let's not ... :confused:

We're only talking past each other. Let's not ... :confused: — 180 Proof

How can that be, mon ami? However ... you're better in all this than me and so we probably are talking past each other.

By the way I prefer duotheism to monotheism - makes more sense to me.

I agree with A-P here, but we actually have no proof of it one way or another. — noAxioms

Definition of "analogue": Relating to or using signals or information represented by a continuously variable physical quantity such as spatial position, voltage, etc.
Sound and all other vibration frequencies, electricity and otherforms of energy, etc. show that. From what I know, only artificial --created by man-- frequencies can be discrete (digital). Moreover, what we can perceive in nature and which we can talk about is analogue. I think this is enough for a proof. What we have actually no proof of is that this is an illusion and that the structure of the physical universe is digital/discrete. There are only hypotheses --relating to quanta states, etc.-- which are not evident and, from what I know, have no application in life except maybe for quantum computing/computers. But not even this can stand I think as a proof that the physical universe is digital or both analogue and digital.

What is the digital universe called?

Metaverse: A digital universe that can be accessed through virtual reality.
(https://edge.yewno.com/metaverse-a-digital-universe-that-can-be-accessed-through-virtual-reality/)

Now, we can both be happy! :smile: — Alkis Piskas

:up: But I was already happy!

If you insist on putting a label on my philosophical First Cause concept, try Deism — Gnomon

Hello Gnomon the deist.

Deist philosophy infers the necessity for a Prime Mind to create (from scratch) a temporal physical world from which mental phenomena — Gnomon

Deism's belief that a disinterested creator, created us for no confirmed or understood reason, makes such a suggestion irrational in my view.

I'm aware that Materialists see no difference between Physical and Mental phenomena, because their (blind in one eye) worldview blocks-out Metaphysical features of the world, by definition. Is that loud & proud enough for you? — Gnomon

It's not loud or proud but it's at least more honest and less camouflaged. Deism is woo woo imo.
As a naturalist with 20/20 vision, I need no special pleading for a concept such as 'after physics,' to have any significant meaning when it comes to the structure and workings of the universe. I prefer to remain level headed, than choose to assign all that I am, to the whims of a disinterested, pointless, purposeless, first cause self-aware mind. Does the deity of your imagination, have the omni qualifications or is it fallible?

There is no intention in Physics, so the cause of future-directed Intention in human affairs must derive from a Meta-Physical source — Gnomon

Of course there is intention in physics. The intention is to discover new knowledge about the workings and structure of the universe and to constantly confirm via testing, that which we think we already know.
No metaphysics required, other than philosophical musings, which have to, at some point, face empirical evidence as it's final arbiter or remain nothing more than philosophical musing.

4. Metaphysics is the branch of philosophy that studies the fundamental nature of reality; the first principles of being, identity and change, space and time, . . . It includes questions about the nature of consciousness and the relationship between mind and matter, between substance and attribute, and between potentiality and actuality. — Gnomon

Fine, I can live with that, although I think the term metaphysics is more overburdened than is suggested by the quote above. This was raised in a very well structured thread by @T Clark in The Metaphysics of Materialism. I stand by the posts I made in that thread, on the topic of metaphysics.

The "gap" you refer to is the mysterious emergence of Life & Mind from an inorganic beginning. How would you fill that void in Darwinian evolution? Any hypothetical conjecture must explain, not just the mechanical "how" of gradual emergence*1, but the logical "whence" the Potential for Life/Mind arising from a dimensionless non-living mathematical Singularity. Dispel that, if you dare! — Gnomon

Well, I wouldn't try to fill that gap with something as bland as deism, as it's irrational to do so, imo.
Darwinian evolution has nothing to do with abiogenisis! Evolution is the factual account of the DIVERSITY of life, we currently don't know how abiogenisis began. Panspermia perhaps. Before the Cambrian explosion, we have very simple single cell/multi-celled organisms. That's where we currently are. Why do you choose to toss a deity in, as the first cause? Do you really think such a posit will satisfy the human race? Do you think we will stop looking for the actual truth because your deism demands or deserves our highest credence?
Deism serves no purpose other than providing some kind of bizarre closure to folks who need such closure, as some kind of comfort blanket that I personally find to be no comfort at all.

Thanks for the question. My definition of Creator/Programmer*1*2 was not revealed in books written by fallible humans, but in the Book of Nature, which shows signs of operating like a computer program*3. I have no knowledge of the Intention of the First Cause, but for human intention to emerge from running the program of evolution implies that the Programmer was capable of goal-directed behavior. So, the original reason for creation is beyond the reach of us self-directing symbolic personas, condemned to play the game without knowing why : Agnostic Avatars, with limited freewill & intention. — Gnomon

So based on this 'I don't know,' admission regarding the origin story of the universe or answering the hard problem of consciousness, your musings has landed firmly on the 'deism' posit as the one you give highest credence to. That's fine Gnomon. I respect your choice, but I am surprised and disappointed that a seeker of truth would find any contentment in such a bland posit as deism.
Considering the effort you have put into trying to muse on the big questions, I am surprised that deism does anything for you at all BUT I am sure you feel the same way about my satisfaction with a 99.999999% credence level to a naturalist origin for the universe and consciousness.

Tegmark is serious, but you have to possess a sense of humor to present such aethereal notions to materialist scientists. — Gnomon

I like Mr Tegmark but I don't personally assign much credence to his four distinct “levels” of multiverse hierarchy, where each type of universe grows progressively different from our own.

You claim that, as an anti-metaphyical materialist (???), you are able to experience Love. Bully for you. But what is the substance of that emotion? How do aggregations of atoms feel sentiments? The emerging Information theory*1 can suggest answers to those questions ; if Information (power to create novel forms) is more fundamental than insentient matter. How does a clump of matter experience anything? Could it be due to non-physical Life/Mind-forms? — Gnomon

It's really quite simple. Love is a human label and it's manifestations and consequences are demonstrated everyday by lifeforms such as humans. So, the substance of that emotion is within lifeforms such as humans, WE are atomic aggregations, WE are a clump of matter and WE demonstrate love, so it is therefore irrefutable that love is a phenomena which comes from physical and not non-physical life/mind-forms!

Morality emerges from the meaningful relationships between people. — Gnomon

:up:

But, like Love, "meaning" cannot be reduced to atoms-in-void, can it? — Gnomon

Everything is reduceable to quantum fundamentals but that does not mean, in any way, that the fundamentals have the same attributes and functionality of their potential combinatorials!
Two separate hydrogen atoms and one oxygen atom will not make make your face a little bit wet but their combinatorial will. 'Wetness,' is not a attribute of hydrogen or oxygen as separate gases.
So, love or meaning are not attributes of atoms in a void but I am certain that there will be a pathway in the future that can trace 'love' back to the fundamentals in a 'the void.'

Yet, an intentional First Cause could explain, as a hypothesis, how such immaterial abstractions could arise from a "big bang" in the void : personal significance, mutual respect, trust, interest, positive regard. The implication of a pre-bang Creator concept is that all things, and relationships, can be traced back (reduced) to the mind of the Originator*3. Otherwise, how did the ability-to-feel get programmed into the thermodynamic chain of evolutionary causation? — Gnomon

That's a big pointless jump towards woo woo of the gaps posits, such as deism imo.
I could claim ALMOST ANYTHING and place it in as comfortable a position as your disinterested deity.
How about a mindless singular digit as the first cause?
How about DIMP (A DIMensionless Point, that exists outside of our universe and causes, (in a causation chain reaction) all the quantum fluctuations which occur in the vacuum of space?
How about the question 'where did your deity come from?'
How about it's the big flying spaghetti monster that created the universe: