Good taste! I agree :up:

The basic means of survival must become free, as a human right, from cradle to grave, alongside free high quality medical care, and free, efficient police, military and political protection with all necessary, very robust, checks and balances in place, which are made as reliable as is possible. — universeness

Nature provides oxygen, water, and some food but it takes human effort to get that water and food. Just meeting all of the people's needs violates the law of nature and when we violate the laws of nature we get bad results. I do not think that is a good thing.

Second, where is the money to come from for all the free things? And should everyone get the same amount of free things?

What do you mean by robust checks and balances?

The utter rejection of all posits that the supernatural exists, until there is irrefutable evidence, that it does. — universeness

I must argue the universe is not supernatural and that being sure of ourselves when we do not have all the information is foolish. I repeat, wisdom starts with "I do not know". An open mind and ability to speculate is very important to progress. We do not want to repeat the mistake of the Church, do we?
We have made so many mistakes. Because in our ignorance we held false beliefs. For example, native Americans were concerned about protecting nature and thought of the whole earth as a living organism
Not until we did severe damage to the earth did we realize they were right. People are still denying their behavior is damaging the earth while they pray to God to be a good father who takes good care of them. I am not one of those people, but seeing the earth and perhaps the universe as a living organism we do not fully understand is important to me. What I do not know is important and I am slamming the door shut knowing of my ignorance.

Deism does not have an intervening God. That is why it is separate from Protestants and Catholics.

Oh darn, I was hoping for a different discussion. But I suspect it is unrealistic to hope for the discussion I want.

I guess we could have a discussion on the meanings of "taste" and "opinion." Let's not and leave things where they are. — T Clark

In my opinion, your suggestion, suggests you have good taste, when it comes to choosing what to discuss. I am sure you would agree that taste has a social, behavioural aspect to it and it is not merely preferential. I might have a strong opinion that someone is really unattractive, but to say so to their face would be in very bad taste. So, I fully recognise the difference between the two terms, depending on the context they are used, and I am sure you understand the clear relationship between the two terms.
I agree that in this case, it not worth our time to get 'bogged' down in discussion about the different contextual meanings between 'opinion' and 'taste.'

Are you asking for a profession of faith? The god-model of Enformationism is a product of my own imagination, and I believe in it implicitly. — Gnomon

Seems like a moot question, since in your next sentence, you profess your implicit credence level in what you have just labelled YOUR 'god-model of Enformationism,' confirming that your proposals are modelled on god posits. God of the gaps imo.

Do you have a comprehensive personal worldview?
How much credence do you place in its tenets? — Gnomon

Yes, and I often indicate the credence level I assign by using the words 'I am.'
Examples would be: I AM a socialist, I AM a secular humanist, I AM an atheist.

Incredulity toward alternative creeds, even those that are held by billions of rational humans, is a sign of healthy skepticism. But blanket skepticism is self-sabotaging for a philosopher. — Gnomon

That's an unwise claim, that is as ill-advised as 'all men or women or Americans or black people or white people or christians are ....' People do use such phrases all the time, but there are times, when it's very important to recognise that YOU or anyone making such a statement has not actually identified this 'billions of rational humans,' as an existent group, that is personally, significantly invested in a 'creed.'
I remember being quite bemused in my youth when I was informed by various sources (including my atheist mother and father,) that we were protestants???? and certain other families in the local area were Catholics????? One of my best friends in my youth was a 'catholic' and I was labelled 'protestant.'
These labels meant ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to either of us. Putting such labels on 'billions of rational humans,' is first and foremost, IRRATIONAL, and you know yourself that you have no idea, regarding the personal level of credence that an individual gives to a creed badge, that has been stuck on them by others.
I am with Richard Dawkins who states that calling ANY child Moslem, Christian, Hindu, Atheist, etc is a truly heinous and pernicious act. Any incredulity I feel towards a theist or theosophist is an incredulity related to their personal rationale. I will make such personal judgements, on any result, of the application, of an individuals rationale. Such IS NOT targeted exclusively at theism.

FYI, I don't believe that the ultimate mind-model of Enformationism is Real : instead it is Ideal, an idea, a general concept, a universal A god-model is useful only to the degree it can be instantiated in the particular world. — Gnomon

Ok, so you declare enformationism as 'unreal,' then. It is merely a posit, in which you echo/update the concept of the platonic forms or Aristotelian ideals. If that is the case then I will personally file away enformationism accordingly, next to Plato's forms, and move on, as if that's all it is, then our exchange on the topic can complete (for this thread at least.)

For example, we observe instances of human creativity in the Arts & Sciences, of which the postulated Creator is the exemplar. — Gnomon

I create oil paintings and have used religion as a theme, but not in a positive way. I assume you would consider this to be valid human creativity?

We know of things taking on novel forms in Evolution, due to selection of instances of fitness, and the Enformer is the epitome (perfection) of enforming. Natural Selection chooses entities based on fitness criteria. And the Programmer of the evolutionary algorithm is the ultimate critic of fitness. Or, did you believe Nature "just happened" for no reason? If so, I have some fairy stories for you. — Gnomon

Natural selection has no intent, if you think it does then PROVE IT! If you can't, then you don't need to offer me more of YOUR fairy stories. Your claim that natural selection has some esoteric intent IS one of YOUR fairy stories, imo.

Except for proposing a hypothetical philosophical Origin Story, Enformationism is a form of Humanism. Like ancient Philosophy, it proposes an ultimate Cause & Reason for the logical organization of the physical & metaphysical realms of the world : e.g. Logos. Like modern Deism it bases its frame for finite Reality upon the Axiom of Infinite Potential. Physical Science gives us reasons to believe that the world began billions of years ago, like a seed with the potential to become a great oak. — Gnomon

In what way is Enformationism humanist? Humanism is human-centric, it does NOT present humans as nothing more than an inferior version of an ideal form!!

But materialist science emerged in the middle of a long-running story, and meekly accepts the mysterious emergence of Nature from the unknown without question. So, unlike Philosophy, it has no need for conceptual germs or implicit potentials. Yet, since we observe "intents & purposes" in the space-time world, why not look for evidence of a kernal of Potential in the beginning? Personally, what scientists blandly call the mathematical "Singularity" preceding the Big Bang, is a likely candidate for the Program of Enformation that drives Evolution. Do you have a better idea? :smile: — Gnomon

Nothing in 'material' science, is accepted 'meekly,' or 'without question,' that only happens in theism or mysticism. We observe intent and purpose in lifeforms like humans. We observe 'natural processes' in spacetime that happened due to very large variety combining in every way possible, over a very large timescale.
There are many 'better' ideas that those you present, yes, and they have much more actual evidence than your proposals offer. Mtheory or CCC, (supported by hawking points, which is in turn supported by the data from the Wmap project and the Planck project) is far more credible than your proposals

PS__I don't believe in ideals such as Democracy, except as they serve as a guide to practice in the real world. I place no credence in anything outside of space-time, except to the extent that it provides a starting point for logical reasoning : Axiom. — Gnomon

Democracy is a political and social necessity for creating a benevolent humanity.
If you 'don't believe' in democracy, then you must never be given any political power.

I agree that in this case, it not worth our time to get 'bogged' down in discussion about the different contextual meanings between 'opinion' and 'taste.' — universeness

You can't fool me. You're pretending to agree with me, all the while trying to get me involved in a discussion about the words. It won't work.

↪Gnomon
Oh darn, I was hoping for a different discussion. But I suspect it is unrealistic to hope for the discussion I want. — Athena

Sorry. This forum's discussions are mostly Analytical & Abstract & Masculine, so they are seldom about practical applications of philosophical concepts. However, a correspondent from a previous forum (Cathy), recently contacted me, noting that her current project is a blog/forum about "purposeful action". You can check it out at https://dialogosconnect.com/ . :smile:


"For Charles S. Peirce, dialogos via semiosis is the essence of thought"
___Quote from DialogosConnect

I will check it out. Thank you.

... practical applications of philosophical concepts. — Gnomon

:rofl:

... you have just labelled YOUR 'god-model of Enformationism,' confirming that your proposals are modelled on god posits. God of the gaps imo. — universeness

:clap: :smirk:

Nothing in 'material' science, is accepted 'meekly,' or 'without question,' that only happens in theism or mysticism. We observe intent and purpose in lifeforms like humans. We observe 'natural processes' in spacetime that happened due to very large variety combining in every way possible, over a very large timescale.

:100:

If you 'don't believe' in democracy, then you must never be given any political power.

If by "democracy" you also mean economic democracy, then I agree. :up:

Nature provides oxygen, water, and some food but it takes human effort to get that water and food — Athena

Human effort can be replaced or augmented by automated systems.

Just meeting all of the people's needs violates the law of nature and when we violate the laws of nature we get bad results. I do not think that is a good thing. — Athena

Which 'laws of nature' are you referring to that we should fear violating?

Second, where is the money to come from for all the free things? And should everyone get the same amount of free things? — Athena

Money is a human invented means of exchange, which has proven to be, and has even been labelled as, 'the root of all evil.' A resource based economy, with a high level of automation, needs no money as a means of exchange. Base exemplars are:

and

What do you mean by robust checks and balances? — Athena

That's a big topic Athena. I can offer you some basic viewpoints, which I support and I am willing to offer more details if you want them.
1. No more party based politics.
2. A new layered authority system which is democratically elected but has a political structure at the top and layered structures of elected citizen representative stakeholders, alongside, to moderate and scrutinise governmental policy. No second 'house of aristocrats, or plutocrats or house of political party representatives
3. Totally open governance with full disclosure from all members in governance.
If you want to be trusted with very high authority and power, then you must be open at all times, to full investigation by an independent group. If it is proved that you have acted in nefarious ways, then you can be forced out of office immediately. The current system of scrutiny of top politicians, currently holding power, is too weak and it needs to be 'shored up' and strengthened.

I must argue the universe is not supernatural — Athena

:clap:

and that being sure of ourselves when we do not have all the information is foolish. I repeat, wisdom starts with "I do not know". An open mind and ability to speculate is very important to progress. We do not want to repeat the mistake of the Church, do we? — Athena

In life, If the 'urgency' of a decision overwhelms my ability to have access to all available information and does not allow me to take the time, to make a well researched decision, then I, like most people, will make the best judgement I can at the time. If full information is unavailable, no matter what time you have at your disposal, then I will seek to have a predominance of supporting evidence, before I take action. We do not want to repeat any historical errors, especially those made by theists. Let's also remain very determined, not to be fooled, in the same ways some/most/all of the people have been fooled in the past.

We have made so many mistakes. Because in our ignorance we held false beliefs. For example, native Americans were concerned about protecting nature and thought of the whole earth as a living organism
Not until we did severe damage to the earth did we realize they were right. People are still denying their behavior is damaging the earth while they pray to God to be a good father who takes good care of them. I am not one of those people, but seeing the earth and perhaps the universe as a living organism we do not fully understand is important to me. What I do not know is important and I am slamming the door shut knowing of my ignorance. — Athena

That's all well and good Athena but you also have to protect against those, whose religious dogma tells them, that the Earth is disposable, as this life is only prep and a test of their suitability to join their god in its REAL world. Why worry about climate change, if you believe your god can fix it anytime it wants to and if it's not fixed, it's because their god wants it that way!

Deism does not have an intervening God. That is why it is separate from Protestants and Catholics. — Athena

I am familiar with the definition of deism.

You can't fool me. You're pretending to agree with me, all the while trying to get me involved in a discussion about the words. It won't work. — T Clark

:lol: Yeah, your a wile e 'auld' coyote of an interlocuter Mr Clark, but I suspect you would not have it any other way!

Seems like a moot question, since in your next sentence, you profess your implicit credence level in what you have just labelled YOUR 'god-model of Enformationism,' confirming that your proposals are modelled on god posits. God of the gaps imo. — universeness

No. My hypothetical proposals, as described in the Enformationism thesis, are modeled on cutting edge Information Theory & Quantum Physics. The "god-posit" emerged logically from the cosmic implications of those fundamental sciences. Especially Plato's notion of "Logos"*1.

As a layman-with-nothing-to-lose myself, I am more open about the contributions of ancient philosophers to modern worldviews and cosmologies. For example, astrophysicist Caleb Scharf, in The Ascent of Information, admits the similarity of his technical sounding term "Dataome" to the New Agey term "Noosphere" of paleontologist Teilhard de Chardin and mathematician Ed LeRoy. Unlike them though, he doesn't extend his InfoSphere (mind field) to its logical implication of an original Cause (Enformer).

Nevertheless, your unconcealed prejudice against (contempt for) Meta-Physical concepts makes discussion of such non-empirical-but-rational ideas not "moot", but off-the-table. Anyway, I have enjoyed the opportunity to respond to your gauntlet challenges, which ironically contribute to the evolution of the Enformationism thesis. They are worded in somewhat more open-ended & less derogatory-dismissive terms than another interlocutor, who shall remain nameless. But both of you seem innocently unaware that there is a "gap" in Physics, to be filled by Metaphysics : i.e. by Philosophy. :smile:


*1. Platonic Principle Logos :
By the time of Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle, logos was the term established to describe the faculty of human reason and the knowledge men had of the known world and of other humans. Plato allowed his characters to engage in the conceit of describing logos as a living being in some of his dialogues.
The Greek word "logos" means "order," "word," and "reason." It indicates a rational explanation in contrast to a mythological explanation.
https://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Logos.

*2. Noosphere :
a postulated sphere or stage of evolutionary development dominated by consciousness, the mind, and interpersonal relationships (frequently with reference to the writings of Teilhard de Chardin).
"creatures evolve: a new biosphere emerges, and with it a new noosphere"
___Wiki

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

If by "democracy" you also mean economic democracy, then I agree. — 180 Proof

Well, I favour a money free, resource based, global economy, but only if it is democratically voted for, by a majority of stakeholders and that consent is regularly renewed.
On the term 'economic democracy,' wiki offered:
Economic democracy is a socioeconomic philosophy that proposes to shift decision-making power from corporate managers and corporate shareholders to a larger group of public stakeholders that includes workers, customers, suppliers, neighbours and the broader public. No single definition or approach encompasses economic democracy, but most proponents claim that modern property relations externalize costs, subordinate the general well-being to private profit and deny the polity a democratic voice in economic policy decisions. In addition to these moral concerns, economic democracy makes practical claims, such as that it can compensate for capitalism's inherent effective demand gap.

Based on the description above, and especially the words underlined, I applaud the intention, as a step forwards against the excesses of capitalism. A small step towards the money free, resource based society I support.

Anyway, I have enjoyed the opportunity to respond to your gauntlet challenges — Gnomon

I have enjoyed the exchange as well Gnomon. You are an interesting intellect with some rather eccentric notions, imo (no camouflaged insult intended).

:up:

So what's your point with respect to my question (and its context)? — 180 Proof

Unclear what your question was. I think I can take apart an assertion of a discrete granularity to space and time, especially if there’s any kind of regular grid to it, not that I suggest it being continuous either. Both seem to assume counterfactuals, something that I find unlikely.

Definition of "analogue": Relating to or using signals or information represented by a continuously variable physical quantity such as spatial position, voltage, etc. — Alkis Piskas

OK, but a continuous voltage probably isn’t actually continuous since it is based on discreet charges of elementary particles, admittedly over non-discreet interactions.

Sound and all other vibration frequencies, electricity and otherforms of energy, etc. show that.

All those can be produced to arbitrary precision with value holding only discreet values, which is why I don’t think there’s a proof of it. None of this constitutes even evidence, let alone proof. As I said, I suspect the same, but to prove it would involve measurement to infinite precision.

From what I know, only artificial --created by man-- frequencies can be discrete (digital).

Sorry, but signals by man are no more analogue or discreet than natural ones. A computer signal for instance is quite variable and gates must operate on spec through a range of expected input voltages.

Moreover, what we can perceive in nature and which we can talk about is analogue. I think this is enough for a proof.

And I don’t. Talking about something doesn’t make it so.

What we have actually no proof of is that this is an illusion and that the structure of the physical universe is digital/discrete.

This makes no sense. If you claim a proof on non-discreetness, then you also have your proof against said illusion. Anyway, neither of us lays claim of a discreet/digital waves and voltages, so not sure why you find the need to disprove it.

From a Quora discussion:
as shown in peer-reviewed reviews over the last 10 years, to be the result of the conversion of deuterium to helium, and that conversion involves a “mass deficit,” i.e., the mass of the helium product is a little less than the mass of the deuterium that was converted to helium.
That is a definite amount of energy, by the laws of thermodynamics; expressed as 23.8 MeV/4He. I.e,. that much energy is released for every helium atom formed. That’s a lot of energy for a very little helium. — universeness

That is true of every form of energy. You burn coal, you get the same mass loss from the same generated power. Remember mass energy equivalence?

From physics.org: Can we get 100% of our energy from renewables:
They demonstrate that there are no roadblocks to a 100 percent renewable future.

Did they take into consideration an exponential growth in demand? Yes, I agree that 100% can be (and will be) met. Something has to happen to that growth then. I said as much above.

I don't understand your logic here. Exponential growth and linear growth are both growth, why does 'the number of descendants per capita, in the long run, result in NO growth? — universeness

If you grow by 1 person a day (or any linear rate) forever, eventually there’s so many people that the average number of new people per person approaches 1, the no-growth value. This is not true of exponential growth, which is not possible in the long run because you can only spread the people out to vacant places so fast.

if we don't have to rip out it's resources to build stuff on the Earth or extraterrestially.

OK, building materials then. I already said that.

But still they persisted and eventually they succeeded.

They were still in an environment for which they were physically evolved.

The ship full of colonists can send out probes when its sensible to do so.

Said ship has neither the resources nor the time (millennia) to send probes out to prospective destinations. If this method is to be utilized, it should be done from the home base where the waiting time for results is less of an issue.

The senders still being alive when the robot returns is not required.

Returns? Can’t it just phone home?

Many proved to be competent but also complete evil b******s.

Find a system that can properly deal with such an inevitability. I said a competent leader, but I did not suggest an all-powerful position.

Brain wipe em young to be on your side.
— noAxioms
I still think you are a nice person noAxioms but you might also be a bit mad! — universeness

Why? I’ve witnessed the above. It goes on every day.

If those who you would have labelled as 'on the correct side' of the situation you describe above, were unable to convince a majority of the stakeholders involved, that they should have accepted the federal grant then the failure is with that inability to convince.

I suppose, but I see it more of a failure to do the right thing rather than putting it to a popular vote in the first place.

This of course assumes that those who voted to reject the grant were not 'fooled' or 'manipulated.

I don’t think they were. The pros and cons were spelled out quite clearly and without bias.

Then I hope you will fight or have already fought for justice for your grandmother in the Netherlands. — universeness

What justice? It’s what they do. There was nothing underhanded or illegal about it. You euthanize people after a while, making room for the next round. She was kept sedated almost all the time before then. They do that part here. The nursing homes like nice cooperative residents.

No cynicism was intended on my part.

None taken. I was referring to my own expression of it. I am very much a cynic. I’ve been complimented on it even.

I think people should discuss, honestly, any perceived injustices employed in any 'cultural identity' they feel emotionally tied to. and I agree that they may have to 'get rid of' any traditional cultural edicts or behaviour/attitudes which cause 'unfair' treatment of others.

No, I mean a homemaker or a home carer that is a relative, or a person who spends a great deal of their time writing stories or music or painting pictures or educating themselves or contributing to online discussion forums, etc, etc, should be recognised as engaging in activities which are recognised as 'having a job.'

I was asking about the form that this recognition would take. You didn’t answer that, but instead listed some things that maybe should be recognized. The homemaker for sure. My wife held few jobs, but contributed no less to the effort than did I. The kids were never in day care.
About writing stories: People do that for a living, but what if you’re not sufficiently talented? Are you still a contributor if nobody reads your work?
What do you mean by ‘home carer that is a relative’? Couldn’t really parse that.

No, national and international level competitive sport would continue but for reasons other than the wish to become rich. Remember the starting point. Everyone gets the food, drink, shelter, education, legal and medical protection, the right to a job they want to do and the free training/education they need to do so, etc, erc, all FREE from cradle to grave.

I would not want to be on the top sports team then, even if I had the capability. Not worth the incredible effort involved.

Why? Spacetime positions are relative.

That they are, which would make a simulation of our universe impossible with the sort of architecture we know, no matter how scaled up in size and power.

A data packet about to be transmitted will contain binary bits, that have no direct relevance to the 'payload' of the data packet. Such bits are normally called 'redundant data.

They’re usually called metadata. They’re not redundant since the packet would fail in its purpose without them. They’re sort of like the address on a letter, not part of the payload within, but still necessary. Parity might be redundant, but is there for correction of small errors during transmission. How is any of this relevant to the quarks? I guess that’s below.

There has to be a means of distinguishing between data packets who's payload is textual or is a bit map or is audio data etc. So, in the case of fundamental field excitations, there would have to be an ID system established to differentiate between a payload that was a coded quark, photon, electron, gluon etc.

A packet is a message between two entities using a protocol agreed upon by both. Why would these two entities wish to communicate something about a particle? What message are you envisioning? If I said ‘quark’ to you (the receiving entity), what would you do with that message? Just trying to grasp what you’re talking about.

That is true of every form of energy. You burn coal, you get the same mass loss from the same generated power. Remember mass energy equivalence? — noAxioms

There is no nuclear fission or fusion occurring when you burn a lump of coal.
Mass energy equivalence holds, when you burn a lump of coal, yes, but the energy amounts involved in the conversion is tiny for a lump of coal and is, by comparison, enormous for nuclear fission or fusion.

Did they take into consideration an exponential growth in demand? — noAxioms

Have a look at: Growth in energy demand, eg:
For a long time, growth in the world and the U. S. energy consumption as a function of time, follow what is known as an exponential function. Now it looks like we have switched to linear growth, but time will tell if this is a permanent change. The exponential increase is characterized as follows. The amount of change (increase in energy consumption) per unit time is proportional to the quantity (or consumption) at that time.
$\frac{ΔN}{Δt}∝N$
or
$\frac{ΔN}{Δt}=λN$
Where Greek letter Δ(delta) is the change or increment of the variable and λ (lambda) is the growth rate. After some mathematical methods, it can be shown that the equation changes to the form
$N={N_0}e^{λt}$
where e is a constant = 2.71

OK, building materials then. I already said that. — noAxioms

No, not just building materials. We might grow excess food in space and transfer it to Earth, we may tap fuel sources such as extraterrestial hydrogen etc. Any resource currently in space that would prove useful to human endeavour, survival and expansion will be utilised, as it's currently serving no other purpose. If we discover that a resource IS serving some other useful purpose, where it is, then we should tap it very wisely or not at all.

Said ship has neither the resources nor the time (millennia) to send probes out to prospective destinations. If this method is to be utilized, it should be done from the home base where the waiting time for results is less of an issue. — noAxioms

:grin: Seems like you have already set your own preconditions for our imaginary trip, ship and crew!

Returns? Can’t it just phone home? — noAxioms

I'm sure it will but it can't phone home any samples it collected.

Why? I’ve witnessed the above. It goes on every day. — noAxioms

I assume you are against the concept of 'brain wiping' anyone and if you are witnessing 'brain wiping,' everyday, then I hope you are speaking out against it, in the same way you would speak out against any mental or physical crime you were witnessing daily. That's why I suggested you sound a bit mad sometimes in your turn of phrase. I assume you are not a fan of the current school curriculum content where you live or/and you don't approve of how some parents choose to inform or educate their children.
I have also witnessed what I would consider a biased or imbalanced approach to informing the young but I think 'brain wiping' is too emotive and more in-line with dystopian visions such as Orwell's 1984.

What justice? It’s what they do. There was nothing underhanded or illegal about it. You euthanize people after a while, making room for the next round. She was kept sedated almost all the time before then. They do that part here. The nursing homes like nice cooperative residents. — noAxioms

Would you allow people to end their life, if continuation means daily suffering with no or very little chance of improvement? What would you have done differently for your grandparent, when you consider her medical status at the time?

I was referring to my own expression of it. I am very much a cynic. I’ve been complimented on it even. — noAxioms

:halo:

I was asking about the form that this recognition would take. You didn’t answer that, but instead listed some things that maybe should be recognized. The homemaker for sure. My wife held few jobs, but contributed no less to the effort than did I. The kids were never in day care. — noAxioms

I already answered this. The basic means of survival will be free, that's the recognition. There will also be community support in place, so that you are also able to pursue other interests, as well as looking after a home, or caring for other people etc. Future automated/robotic expert systems, have the potential be a great help here, imo.

About writing stories: People do that for a living, but what if you’re not sufficiently talented? Are you still a contributor if nobody reads your work? — noAxioms

Yes, you would still be a contributor, as long as you wanted to try. Liking someone's writings, is subjective, so, there will be a 'most popular' list, as there is now. Anyone can publish (we are kind of there now, with some free publishing sites). How popular you become, would be down to what reviews you get. But you don't publish for profit or to earn a living(you would already get all you need for free.) You publish because that's your vocation.

What do you mean by ‘home carer that is a relative’? Couldn’t really parse that. — noAxioms

A son/daughter/niece/nephew etc who daily cares for an unwell mother/father/sibling/aunt/uncle etc.

I would not want to be on the top sports team then, even if I had the capability. Not worth the incredible effort involved. — noAxioms

We all have different feelings of vocation noAxioms. I loved my times as a teacher and I would have done that job for free as long as I could live at a similar level as I lived via my salary. But there did come a time when I wanted to do something new. Such options should be available to all, as a birth right imo.

They’re usually called metadata. They’re not redundant since the packet would fail in its purpose without them. — noAxioms

Read more carefully! I used the word metadata in the next sentence of the quote you used:

A data packet about to be transmitted will contain binary bits, that have no direct relevance to the 'payload' of the data packet. Such bits are normally called 'redundant data.'
This'metadata' has many purposes. — universeness

Any data which is not part of the actual data packet payload, is labelled redundant data. The fact it is required to successfully send and receive the data packet is irrelevant to the fact that such data is redundant, in the same way the stamp and envelope and paper that a hand written snail mail letter uses, is redundant. It's only the textual/imagery content of a snail mail letter that is not redundant. That is taught to all pupils aged 13+ in secondary school, Computing science courses and is based on standard concepts used in the field of computer networking in the UK.

A packet is a message between two entities using a protocol agreed upon by both. — noAxioms

I know, but a data packet is a more often than not, a message fragment. Many fragments make up the 'message' or the picture or the movie or audio clip. The internet is a packet switching network.
A quark could therefore be quantised into a series of lower level data fundamentals and be 'processed' into any of the 'quark' variants (up, down, strange, charm, top, bottom). These could then be combined by 'processes' into atoms and then molecules etc. This would of-course require other fundamental data fragments that can be combined to create other basics such as a photon, gluon, electron etc.

Why would these two entities wish to communicate something about a particle? What message are you envisioning? If I said ‘quark’ to you (the receiving entity), what would you do with that message? Just trying to grasp what you’re talking about. — noAxioms

For the same reasons that a stand alone computer processes the pixels of a bit map onto an output device to produce a picture that has meaning to a human. For the same reasons we have for networking computers together. Processes can be performed on the payloads of received fragment data packets, which then reside in RAM space or are stored more permanently in backing storage.
So, yes, if YOU as the programmer instructed 'make up-quark,' using some high level or low level programming code, then a program would be executed, which used stored data to create an up-quark.
Perhaps one day we will have the tech to create a REAL up-quark instead of a simulated or emulated one, displayed on some output media.

a continuous voltage probably isn’t actually continuous since it is based on discreet charges of elementary particles, admittedly over non-discreet interactions. — noAxioms

You mean that this is not continuous?

Because if you think that this is not actually continuous and it is not a proof that voltage is continuous and that the principle of voltage continuity is wrong, and so on, then most probably nothing is continuous for you and, in fact, there's no proof about anything.

The graph represents the continuous propagation of discrete electrons (i.e. electricity). Ever look at a Seurat painting from a distance and then up close where the continuous lines & shapes are revealed to be an illusion of discrete (pixellated) dabs of color? After all, movies are sequences of discrete pictures (aka "motion pictures") and smooth beaches are made up of discrete grains of sand, no? I suspect the Law of Large Numbers (LLN) probably has something to do with 'the continuity illusion' (gestalt). :chin:

But even something as simple as a human 'Mexican wave,' looks continuous from a distance.
Water waves look continuous, but both water waves and a human Mexican wave are actually 'undulations' of discrete quanta.
Even the graph you posted is made up of 'dots,' and would be stored in the backing storgae of a computer as a grid of pixels (PIcture X ELementS) or as a vectored file. A file which stores a mathematical description of an image rather than actual pixel codes.
As @180 Proof 'points' out, pointillism is a whole art form. 10 most famous pointillism artists.

Water waves look continuous, but both water waves and a human Mexican wave are actually 'undulations' of discrete quanta. — universeness

Interesting. But do you have anything that shows that? Because until now, I have not seen any natural wave/frequency that is discrete. As I already mentioned, only artifitial/digital frequencies are discreete. Then you say "wave look continuous". How else can we show that they are continuous? Just talking about discrete quanta, quantum packets, etc. does not show anything and it is certainly not a proof that the physical universe is digital/discrete.

I have already presented images showing that sound, voltage etc, frequencies are continuous. I see that this is not enough, so I show below a quantum wave. Even this is continuous.


(https://iai.tv/articles/reality-is-just-a-quantum-wave-function-auid-2024)

This is a computer generated translation of a quantum wave, it's not a picture of a physical wave, physically observed using some lab equipment. Other than picturing in your head, humans standing up and sitting down in sequence, creating the impression of a continuous wave. Consider wave-particle duality or vibrating strings from the standpoint that string theory is a quantum theory, in that the mass spectrum of strings is discrete, so string theory is an example of a quantum theory of gravity.
I accept that string theory remains a theory at present, but consider 'vibration,' and how it can appear to create a waveform, from the fast up and down (undulating motion) of a discrete object. Like the symbols in a drumkit. Have a look at the music example in the clip here about vibration.
If waveforms are really vibrations of objects, then waves are 'made up' of excitations of discrete fundamentals. Wave - particle duality seems to support this BUT, I have read descriptions that go something like. A light wave is made of particles (photons), each of which can act like a wave (such as in single photons (discrete) fired at two slits, still producing a wave pattern on a screen behind the slits.)
So a wave is made of particles, which are waves, made of particles, which are ....... the debate continues for lack of evidence of a definite endpoint to the wave-particle regression.

In the article you cite we have:
Configuration space

One such framework is configuration space. Configuration space representations were introduced in the nineteenth century to provide more rigorous and elegant formulations of classical mechanics. However, they become even more indispensable in quantum mechanics. In configuration space, as the name suggests, each point corresponds to a total configuration: a complete specification of determinate locations for each particle in a given system. This means configuration spaces used to represent a system of particles with apparent locations in three-dimensional space will be 3N-dimensional, where N is the number of particles. That is to say that each point in space will be labelled by 3N numbers. For a system with two particles, the configuration space is six-dimensional and a point in space (a configuration) can be provided by six numbers where the first three correspond to the x, y, and z coordinates

This describes space as a collection of discrete 'points' or coordinates, but is also a spacetime continuum when taken as a totality.

OK.

it's not a picture of a physical wave — universeness

You cannot take a picture of a frequency wave! Only of a sea wave! :grin:

You cannot take a picture of a frequency wave! Only of a sea wave! — Alkis Piskas

Wave 'frequency,' only refers to how many wavelengths pass a given point per second, even the frequency of sea waves can be measured. A sea wave IS a 'frequency wave,' you can take pictures of waves in any physical medium, string, rope, rubber, wind, lightning etc. Taking real physical pictures of sub-atomic waves or quantum waves is beyond the capabilities of our current tech.

OK

Anyway, I think it remans very difficult to prove that at a fundamental level, the universe is quantum, as we have no current (EDIT: accepted as correct), quantum theory of gravity. No graviton has ever been found yet, but perhaps gravity is not a force and therefore has no delivery/messenger particle. I wish I had a physics PHD.

I wish I had a physics PHD. — universeness

Keep digging into and insisting in quantum reality, as you do here, and you will get one! :grin:

:blush: :up: