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
The utter rejection of all posits that the supernatural exists, until there is irrefutable evidence, that it does. — universeness
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
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.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
Yes, and I often indicate the credence level I assign by using the words 'I am.'Do you have a comprehensive personal worldview?
How much credence do you place in its tenets? — 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.'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
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.)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
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?For example, we observe instances of human creativity in the Arts & Sciences, of which the postulated Creator is the exemplar. — 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.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
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!!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
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.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
Democracy is a political and social necessity for creating a benevolent humanity.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
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
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:↪Gnomon
Oh darn, I was hoping for a different discussion. But I suspect it is unrealistic to hope for the discussion I want. — Athena
:rofl:... practical applications of philosophical concepts. — Gnomon
:clap: :smirk:... you have just labelled YOUR 'god-model of Enformationism,' confirming that your proposals are modelled on god posits. God of the gaps imo. — universeness
:100: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.
If by "democracy" you also mean economic democracy, then I agree. :up:If you 'don't believe' in democracy, then you must never be given any political power.
Human effort can be replaced or augmented by automated systems.Nature provides oxygen, water, and some food but it takes human effort to get that water and food — Athena
Which 'laws of nature' are you referring to that we should fear violating?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
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:Second, where is the money to come from for all the free things? And should everyone get the same amount of free things? — 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.What do you mean by robust checks and balances? — Athena
:clap:I must argue the universe is not supernatural — 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.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
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!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
I am familiar with the definition of deism.Deism does not have an intervening God. That is why it is separate from Protestants and Catholics. — Athena
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
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.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
If by "democracy" you also mean economic democracy, then I agree. — 180 Proof
Anyway, I have enjoyed the opportunity to respond to your gauntlet challenges — Gnomon
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.So what's your point with respect to my question (and its context)? — 180 Proof
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.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
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.Sound and all other vibration frequencies, electricity and otherforms of energy, etc. show that.
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.From what I know, only artificial --created by man-- frequencies can be discrete (digital).
And I don’t. Talking about something doesn’t make it so.Moreover, what we can perceive in nature and which we can talk about is analogue. I think this is enough for a proof.
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.What we have actually no proof of is that this is an illusion and that the structure of the physical universe is digital/discrete.
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 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
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.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.
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.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
OK, building materials then. I already said that.if we don't have to rip out it's resources to build stuff on the Earth or extraterrestially.
They were still in an environment for which they were physically evolved.But still they persisted and eventually they succeeded.
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 ship full of colonists can send out probes when its sensible to do so.
Returns? Can’t it just phone home?The senders still being alive when the robot returns is not required.
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.Many proved to be competent but also complete evil b******s.
Why? I’ve witnessed the above. It goes on every day.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
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.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 don’t think they were. The pros and cons were spelled out quite clearly and without bias.This of course assumes that those who voted to reject the grant were not 'fooled' or 'manipulated.
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.Then I hope you will fight or have already fought for justice for your grandmother in the Netherlands. — universeness
None taken. I was referring to my own expression of it. I am very much a cynic. I’ve been complimented on it even.No cynicism was intended on my part.
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.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 would not want to be on the top sports team then, even if I had the capability. Not worth the incredible effort involved.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.
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.Why? Spacetime positions are relative.
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.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.
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.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.
There is no nuclear fission or fusion occurring when you burn a lump of coal.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
Have a look at: Growth in energy demand, eg:Did they take into consideration an exponential growth in demand? — 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.OK, building materials then. I already said that. — noAxioms
:grin: Seems like you have already set your own preconditions for our imaginary trip, ship and crew!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
I'm sure it will but it can't phone home any samples it collected.Returns? Can’t it just phone home? — 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.Why? I’ve witnessed the above. It goes on every day. — 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?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
:halo:I was referring to my own expression of it. I am very much a cynic. I’ve been complimented on it even. — 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.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
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.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
A son/daughter/niece/nephew etc who daily cares for an unwell mother/father/sibling/aunt/uncle etc.What do you mean by ‘home carer that is a relative’? Couldn’t really parse that. — 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.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
Read more carefully! I used the word metadata in the next sentence of the quote you used:They’re usually called metadata. They’re not redundant since the packet would fail in its purpose without them. — noAxioms
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
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 packet is a message between two entities using a protocol agreed upon by both. — 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.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
You mean that this is not continuous?a continuous voltage probably isn’t actually continuous since it is based on discreet charges of elementary particles, admittedly over non-discreet interactions. — noAxioms
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.Water waves look continuous, but both water waves and a human Mexican wave are actually 'undulations' of discrete quanta. — universeness
You cannot take a picture of a frequency wave! Only of a sea wave! :grin:it's not a picture of a physical wave — universeness
You cannot take a picture of a frequency wave! Only of a sea wave! — Alkis Piskas
Keep digging into and insisting in quantum reality, as you do here, and you will get one! :grin:I wish I had a physics PHD. — universeness
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.