All I mean is that "religious apologists" posit a first cause and call it "god" though they, in every case I'm aware of, fail to show that it's the same deity referred to in the Bible or Quran or any "sacred scripture" which folk actually worshipped. At most, the cosmological apologetics of theists paradoxically gets them only as far as deism (or god-of-the-gaps like e.g. @Gnomon's "enformer")..
. a statement that I didn't understand. — Agent Smith
:smirk:[W]e are only lab rats, if god exists. — universeness
At most, the cosmological apologetics of theists paradoxically gets them only as far as deism (or god-of-the-gaps like e.g. Gnomon's "enformer"). — 180 Proof
Which 'laws of nature' are you referring to that we should fear violating? — universeness
Money is a human invented means of exchange, which has proven to be, and has even been labelled as, 'the root of all evil.' — universeness
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 — universeness
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. — universeness
Yes. That's because rapid Cultural Evolution has emerged from plodding Natural Evolution -- presumably as intended by the Programmer. However, human culture is an emergent continuation of natural evolution, but with focused Logic (Reason) and Energy (Intention). That's what I call "Intelligent Evolution"*1. :nerd:Well ,let's be careful in the terms we employ here. I am not suggestg a NATURAL evolutionary emergence of a tech singularity (or significantly pivotal breakthrough moment in AI). I am suggesting the future creation of an ASI system via HUMAN intent or even HUMAN intelligent design. — universeness
Yes. He specifically denies any external intention behind the logical processing of Data in the world : "To say that corgs came from elsewhere, outside of the world would be a type of the pathetic fallacy (of assigning intent or human qualities to nature) taken to the idiotic extremes of creationism or intelligent design." To be clear, Enformationism does not "assign intent or human qualities to Nature". Instead, Nature is coasting on momentum from the initial impetus of goal-directed Intention. The only "human qualities" in the natural world, so far, are found in the homo sapiens species.I agree that he is being a bit outrageous. He seems to be enjoying his work and he seems to support the viewpoint (unlike you) that the structure of the universe is fundamentally data based. At no point in his work does he support deism or suggest a mind with intent, as the first cause of our universe, in the ways that you do — universeness
Your visceral antipathy is duly noted. But, for a more sympathetic interpretation, consider that Deism has been called the "god of philosophers" or "god of nature', and is consistently rejected by Theists, due to its lack of a path to salvation from cruel & indifferent Nature. It's also the "god of reason" instead of revelation. Until the 20th century, most philosophers & scientists held some notion of Creator or First Cause to explain the ultimate "why" questions of Cosmology*1.At most, the cosmological apologetics of theists paradoxically gets them only as far as deism (or god-of-the-gaps like e.g. Gnomon's "enformer"). — 180 Proof
:clap: Yes, I think all such 'theistic apologetic style,' rumination, leads inevitably back to an 'of the gaps,' supernatural first cause, and for me, that suggestion would be the worst outcome possible, as we would be nothing more, than a product of a dissatisfied deity. If a god wanted/needed to create us, then it cannot be a god, imo. — universeness
True, and I mentioned this above, but that’s like trying to solve global warming by frying Earth with a giant magnifying glass like we did to the ants back in the day.No it's not, as we can create extraterrestial renewable energy, such as solar power generation stations, built in space. — universeness
That’s what we’re doing now. Augmenting. Admittedly, the fusion fuel isn’t likely to run out in the near term.Also renewables can be augmented, by perhaps, new future tech, such as cold fusion.
It has happened, else the ‘augmentation’ wouldn’t be necessary. I share you confidence that the usage will drop below that line again.Yes, might never happen, it's not a fact that it will, for many reasons such as the ones I have suggested above.
That is very true, but such lifts require a clear path, clear of all the orbital space junk that we’re currently adding at an exponential rate. They’re talking of putting one on the moon because its not as expensive there, and the moon hasn’t all that much junk in orbit about it yet.Future tech such as spacelifts, might be very efficient.
Precisely what a probe is for, yes.It's not a vital point, as long as the necessary info is returned to those who need it, on Earth or otherwise.
But from my point of view, it was a conclusion reached after years of analysis.That's just confused thinking imo. — universeness
Totally agree. Unfortunately, the public education in my home town was pretty awful. I mingled with them during driver’s ed of all places and got a good sample of what those schools produced.A good education, only if you can afford one, is a vile concept.
Mine actually did a pretty good job, teaching that science is compatible with religion. Only later when the church decided it was the enemy was I forced to choose. I never got that from my school.I am also against all religious schools.
Well there’s a reason almost all my dutch relatives do their best to stay away from those institutions. They’re quite known for it. I personally didn’t see any of it since I didn’t live there.In all honesty, it seems to me that your judgement of those who administered palliative care for your grandparent, may be very harsh, but I suppose, such judgements are within your prerogative. — universeness
I had asked what the recognition was. Your answer was ‘nothing special’. That sounds like poor motivation. No, I had not suggested leaving people to freeze and starve.You prefer a system based on 'you don't do anything, that I or even WE, subjectively, decide has not met OUR standards,' so you will be left to rot and starve or freeze to death? — universeness
If they’re automated, then we live in a zoo. If the tasks are shared, then there needs to be motivation to do your part. The middle suggestion evades the question. The guy who should best do it is busy writing a book nobody will read.Such jobs will be automated or done by those who don't find them unpleasant or will be done by everyone on a shared basis.
Van Gogh comes to mind. Can’t think of any literary examples, but I’m sure they’re there.Most of the most revered works available today were created by people who got very little or no recognition during their lifetime and died in poverty.
Agree to all, but that’s not metadata, nor ‘extra bits’ in network packets. Redundant data in the cases above is there so if you lose something (a disk, an entire site), the data is backed up elsewhere.I taught computing science for 30+ years. Data redundancy is wide ranging. Duplicated data in database systems, too many copies of data, out-of-date data. — universeness
Yes, as I pointed out. Parity and ECC bits and all...In data packets, error detection and correction data has always been called redundant data.
This is ECC they’re talking about. Yes, it’s part of the actual data, and there to prevent costly retransmission of the packet in the cases of minor noise on the line. The bits cost perhaps 10-20% of the payload. Parity bits cost less, but that’s just error detection, not correction. Parity is common on disks and sometimes RAM, but ECC is more common in network packets.From wiki:
In computer main memory, auxiliary storage and computer buses, data redundancy is the existence of data that is additional to the actual data and permits correction of errors in stored or transmitted data.
We again seem to be talking past each other. It sounds like an assertion of one thing out of which everything is composed, like you could break a quark apart into them. If you don’t mean that, I don’t get what you mean.Quarks would not be fundamental, if the smallest bit of the information which 'defines' a Quark or a photon, is THEE fundamental of the structure of the universe. — universeness
They do that now, albeit with difficulty. Far easier to create say a positron out of a not-positron. Happens naturally all the time.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.
Sounds like an energy conservation violation to me. Even the fictional food replicators needed raw material from which to make its stuff, which is why you’d donate your dishes, dirty laundry and sewage back into the system.No, not a simulation or emulation. I used the word REAL. So, to convince me that information is THEE universal fundamental, I would need to witness a REAL machine like the food replicators on Star Trek, producing REAL food, from information only, not naturally produced seeds or animal flesh/produce!
A wave of what? A quanta of what?Yeah, so you have got past the a wave is made of quanta
No. Gravity is treated as a force under Newtonian mechanics. I made no mention of frames in that statement. I don’t know what a relativistic frame is as distinct from a non-relativistic one. There are different kinds of frames, but they’re all just arbitrary abstract coordinate systems.So gravitational waves quantise to gravitons but gravity does not consist of gravitons, gravity is not a force under relativity. So, are you saying gravity IS a force in a non-relativistic frame
Always wondered about the Satanists. I mean, the bible says if you believe in God, you go to heaven. Well, the Satanists believe in God as their sworn enemy. I'm sure the church has an answer to that, but I never asked. It's a funny religion since with most of them it's a test of how good you behave (and of course how much bribes were spread around). Nope. Jesus died so your worship of Satan can be forgiven. Your belief is enough to get you up there. Bet that's going to piss them off when they end up in sort of a prisoner of war camp behind enemy lines. Apparently the death of Jesus didn't forgive the sin of lack of belief. Seems quite incomplete and not very loving of him.or even satanists or pagans, are all still theists imo. — universeness
Spinoza was a Jew, not a Christian. More to the point: an 'anthropomorphic, anthropocentric, supernatural and teleological deity' like the God of Abraham didn't make any sense to him by his late teens during rabbinical studies, and vocalizing this 'theistic skepticism' eventually got Spinoza excommunicated (cherem) from the very insular, observant Sephardic community (ghetto) of Amsterdam. Reason – freethought – "motivated" Spinoza. :fire:
nowReplyOptions — 180 Proof
In our abundance we imagine things like the Venus Project, but exactly what has the Venus Project contributed to the world? — Athena
,just how hard it is to feed the world — Athena
Yes. That's because rapid Cultural Evolution has emerged from plodding Natural Evolution -- presumably as intended by the Programmer. However, human culture is an emergent continuation of natural evolution, but with focused Logic (Reason) and Energy (Intention). That's what I call "Intelligent Evolution — Gnomon
To be clear, Enformationism does not "assign intent or human qualities to Nature". Instead, Nature is coasting on momentum from the initial impetus of goal-directed Intention. The only "human qualities" in the natural world, so far, are found in the homo sapiens species. — Gnomon
So, presumably, Scharf, like most cosmologists, just takes for granted (axiomatic) that the Energy & Laws of Nature are eternal — Gnomon
No, that's merely your personal interpretation. This is no such reality as a state of nothingness as you need 'something' to even attempt to contemplate such a notion.Vacuum Energy :
Prior to the 20th century, the notion of Nothingness with causal properties would be tantamount to the ancient concept of eternal infinitely powerful Spirit (i.e. God). But scientists can now get away with such literal nonsense, in part, because Quantum physics has forced them to accept paradoxical & counter-intuitive properties in Nature. — Gnomon
I take pains to explain that the origin of creative Purpose is not attributed to the anthro-morphic God of Genesis. Instead, I refer to the Source of Information & intention as a logical Principle. So I use labels, such as G*D, Logos & First Cause to avoid the religious implications of more traditional terms. That's also the stance of the non-religious philosophy of Deism — Gnomon
How dare this 'curious' god you invoke, take such an irresponsible action, and then accept no responsibility for the consequences and the horrific suffering it caused. This is a vile, self-indulgent, entity you posit, by any decent standard of human morality.but to curiosity : e.g. "what will happen if I create an autonomous universe with self-conscious creatures, who can reason themselves to a rapport with Nature. — Gnomon
Einstein and Spinoza had no god posits imo. They just employed wise PC phrases in the times they lived in. They were both atheists imo. The only intent and purpose, that has ever existed, is that which manifests in lifeforms. The most advanced manifestation of such intent and purpose, that we are aware of, is in US. I think Einstein and Spinoza would completely agree with that, if they lived now.Your "worst outcome possible" is "nothing more" than the super-natural Tyrant of the Abrahamic religions. But your disgust should not apply to the "god of Einstein"*4. Spinoza's rational deity was identified with Nature, but then he assumed that our Cosmos is eternal. If you update Spinoza's god-concept to the 21st century, it would be very similar to that of Enformationism — Gnomon
Until the 20th century, most philosophers & scientists held some notion of Creator or First Cause to explain the ultimate "why" questions of Cosmology — Gnomon
You said that Scharf -- "unlike you" (Gnomon) -- "supports the viewpoint that the structure of the universe is fundamentally data based". Which is also the viewpoint of Enformationism, except that, in place of the narrow term "Data" (datum), I use the more inclusive term "Information" (meaning). So, he & I are in agreement on that fundamental concept. We are not necessarily on the same team, but we are not opponents — Gnomon
But the physical universe is analogue, not digital.
— Alkis Piskas
Good point. Physical nature is analogue, despite "Planck's quanta". Quanta are mental analogies to gaps in our knowledge of holistic physical systems. Causation is continuous, but our perception is inherently discrete. Emergence of novelty (e.g. Phase Change) is also continuous, but rapid transformations make it seem instantaneous. On the quantum scale, the gaps in our perception make quantum leaps appear to be superluminal & supernatural. However, the universe, as a whole, including physical (material) & metaphysical (mental), seems to be both digital and analog. :smile:
Is Quantum Reality Analog after All? :
Quantum theorists often speak of the world as being pointillist at the smallest scales. Yet a closer look at the laws of nature suggests that the physical world is actually continuous—more analog than digital
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/is-quantum-reality-analog-after-all/
The universe is analog. period. when we make simulations we use a digital aproximation
https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/is-the-universe-analog-or-digital.12214/ — Gnomon
PS__I just came across an interview with mathematician, cosmologist, and consciousness theorist Roger Penrose. In response to a question about inherent meaning in the universe, he said "In a very certain sense you might say that the universe has a purpose, but I'm not sure what the purpose is." (my bold) That's also my position in the Enformationism thesis. He continues : "However, I would not say that there is something going on that might resonate with a religious perspective." Would you agree, though, that Purpose in Nature should resonate with a Philosophical perspective? — Gnomon
More to the point: an 'anthropomorphic, anthropocentric, supernatural and teleological deity' like the God of Abraham didn't make any sense to him by his late teens during rabbinical studies, and vocalizing this 'theistic skepticism' eventually got Spinoza excommunicated (cherem) from the very insular, observant Sephardic community (ghetto) of Amsterdam. Reason – freethought – "motivated" Spinoza. :fire: — 180 Proof
I had asked what the recognition was. Your answer was ‘nothing special’. That sounds like poor motivation. No, I had not suggested leaving people to freeze and starve — noAxioms
A zoo suggests the existence of outside visitors who will come and be entertained by viewing your captive status. Who would they be, in your zoo imagery?If they’re automated, then we live in a zoo. If the tasks are shared, then there needs to be motivation to do your part. The middle suggestion evades the question. The guy who should best do it is busy writing a book nobody will read. — noAxioms
I have no idea where you get any notion of 'zero responsibility,' from. The complete opposite is the expectation. From each according to their ability, to each according to their need IS the responsibility of all. The punishment for not helping, where you can, and are able to, is not the threat of removing your access to your basic needs, it's the constant non-violent disapproval and ostracisation of what you term layabouts. Perhaps, a very small minority, will suffer, but I am not convinced that an acceptable, individually tailored, solution, could not be found, when any such case arises. If some really do choose to live their life as a curse, then I would still make sure they get what they need to live. We currently do that for serial killers and rapists etc in prison, yes? Not a good life choice imo. Better to find something you 'want to do,' to positively contribute. Especially when you can no longer use poverty, or a lack of access to what you need or being treated unjustly as excuses for bad behaviour.. A life of zero responsibility where all your needs are met by somebody/something else. — noAxioms
Black markets are money based. People can swap/exchange stuff with other people as much as they want, perfectly legal.How does one stop black markets from operating? — noAxioms
I don't fully agree with your assessment of what the term 'data redundancy' encompasses in the field of computing science, but it's a minor difference between us. I had many such differences of opinion with colleagues in the computing science world, during my career.Agree to all, but that’s not metadata — noAxioms
We again seem to be talking past each other. It sounds like an assertion of one thing out of which everything is composed, like you could break a quark apart into them. If you don’t mean that, I don’t get what you mean. — noAxioms
They do that now, albeit with difficulty. Far easier to create say a positron out of a not-positron. Happens naturally all the time. — noAxioms
Sounds like an energy conservation violation to me. Even the fictional food replicators needed raw material from which to make its stuff, which is why you’d donate your dishes, dirty laundry and sewage back into the system. — noAxioms
A wave of light(electromagnetic radiation) and the quanta of photons, for example.Yeah, so you have got past the a wave is made of quanta
A wave of what? A quanta of what? — noAxioms
But all Newtonian mechanics are within relative reference frames. Are you moving at 75 mph whilst sitting in a car or are you moving at that speed relative to an observer on the pavement?No. Gravity is treated as a force under Newtonian mechanics. I made no mention of frames in that statement. — noAxioms
I don’t know what a relativistic frame is as distinct from a non-relativistic one. There are different kinds of frames, but they’re all just arbitrary abstract coordinate systems. — noAxioms
No. It's your interpretation that is contradictory. Any signs of direction or intention in Nature are due to the original impetus of the First Cause or Big Bang, whichever you prefer. An arrow shot from a bow will hit the target, not due to any arrow-intention but to the bowman aiming. So I was not assigning intention to the arrow. But in this metaphor, the momentous arrow has spawned a little splinter with a mind of its own. :wink:To be clear, Enformationism does not "assign intent or human qualities to Nature". Instead, Nature is coasting on momentum from the initial impetus of goal-directed Intention. The only "human qualities" in the natural world, so far, are found in the homo sapiens species. — Gnomon
Again you seem to back peddle here. The two underlined phrases directly contradict each other! If the above quote is true then why do you keep trying to promote the concept of a manifest 'enformer,' as your 'novel' label for a first cause mind? — universeness
Again, your interpretation is different from my intention. The original meaning of "Vacuum" was emptiness or void or nothingness. The notion of "vacuum energy" was paradoxical until quantum field theory was interpreted to imply that the field "must be quantized at each and every point in space". Today the notion of energy in emptiness is just another of the many logical paradoxes of quantum theory. When you say "there's no such reality as a state of nothingess" you are referring to the same old paradox of "Zero". Which is an idea, not a real thing. :cool:Vacuum Energy :
Prior to the 20th century, the notion of Nothingness with causal properties would be tantamount to the ancient concept of eternal infinitely powerful Spirit (i.e. God). But scientists can now get away with such literal nonsense, in part, because Quantum physics has forced them to accept paradoxical & counter-intuitive properties in Nature. — Gnomon
No, that's merely your personal interpretation. This is no such reality as a state of nothingness as you need 'something' to even attempt to contemplate such a notion. — universeness
For the record, "G*D" (non traditional deity concept) is not equivalent to Jewish "G-D" (fear of offending Yahweh by using his personal name). Here, you are doing the conflating. My reference to Plato's "LOGOS" was explicitly not to a theistic Deity, but to a philosophical Rational Principle in the real world. :nerd:Avoiding religious implications, leaves you with equally woo woo theistic implications.
You are conflating, when you try to connect 'logos' with G*D(or G-D, in Jewish tradition).
Logos can be used to refer to the concept of a deity, but, is also used as: — universeness
Apparently, you are appalled by the imperfect world you live in. Yet, you have no one to blame. In my thesis, I blame both the Good and Evil of the world on the hypothetical amoral Experimenter. Fortunately for you, I have broad shoulders, so you can offload your heavy load of disgust onto me. :wink:How dare this 'curious' god you invoke, take such an irresponsible action, and then accept no responsibility for the consequences and the horrific suffering it caused. This is a vile, self-indulgent, entity you posit, by any decent standard of human morality. — universeness
Again, your mis-interpretation is colored by your prejudice against Metaphysical concepts, and not my hypothesis of an amoral First Cause. The "bad attributes" you refer to are endemic to Reality. So, unless you are ready to abandon Nature, you'll just have to suck-it-up like the rest of us. :joke:Your enformer manifestation has the basic same bad attributes as the gods in the abrahamic religions. — universeness
Your matter-bounded interpretation of causation seems to imagine that the chain of Cause & Effect began miraculously (serendipity or chance) in the Big Bang, with no antecedent and no Purpose or Reason. By contrast, Aristotle reasoned that no Actual thing in Nature emerges unless the Potential for that Effect was already inherent in the logical structure of the system -- or imported from outside the system. In this case, the un-bounded (infinite) system of Potential or Possibility is antecedent to space-time reality. I call that logically necessary Principle (Omnipotence -- unlimited power of causation) : LOGOS . :nerd:but such purpose is not universal, it is discrete and ONLY via individual lifeforms such as US (we can also work in common cause) and the first cause of that imo, is when Earth species, especially hominid species, became fully self-aware and could demonstrate intent and purpose. — universeness
Yes, my philosophy is BothAnd, not Either/Or. So, my responses are not wishy-washy, but simply tailored to how the question is framed. As the PhysicsForums quote said : "The universe is analog. period. when we make simulations we use a digital aproximation". Holistically : the universe is continuous and analog. Reductively : the universe is simulated as particular and digital. Both answers are true, in context. :smile:What are you prioritising most here? An enformation posit that supports information, as the universal fundamental for the structure of the universe or the idea that you agree with those who state we don't know if the fundamental structure of the universe is analogue or digital? You seem to significantly alter your emphasis, depending on who you are responding to? — universeness
Any signs of direction or intention in Nature are due to the original impetus of the First Cause or Big Bang, whichever you prefer. — Gnomon
An arrow shot from a bow will hit the target, not due to any arrow-intention but to the bowman aiming. So I was not assigning intention to the arrow. But in this metaphor, the momentous arrow has spawned a little splinter with a mind of its own. — Gnomon
The original meaning of "Vacuum" was emptiness or void or nothingness. — Gnomon
Today the notion of energy in emptiness is just another of the many logical paradoxes of quantum theory. When you say "there's no such reality as a state of nothingess" you are referring to the same old paradox of "Zero". Which is an idea, not a real thing. — Gnomon
For the record, "G*D" (non traditional deity concept) is not equivalent to Jewish "G-D" (fear of offending Yahweh by using his personal name). Here, you are doing the conflating. My reference to Plato's "LOGOS" was explicitly not to a theistic Deity, but to a philosophical Rational Principle in the real world. — Gnomon
Apparently, you are appalled by the imperfect world you live in. Yet, you have no one to blame. In my thesis, I blame both the Good and Evil of the world on the hypothetical amoral Experimenter. Fortunately for you, I have broad shoulders, so you can offload your heavy load of disgust onto me. — Gnomon
Again, your mis-interpretation is colored by your prejudice against Metaphysical concepts, and not my hypothesis of an amoral First Cause. The "bad attributes" you refer to are endemic to Reality. So, unless you are ready to abandon Nature, you'll just have to suck-it-up like the rest of us. :joke: — Gnomon
No, I assign some credence to concepts such as CCC or Mtheory etc. More credence that I have for your gap god 'enformer.' I am also content with my 'I don't know,' the origin of the universe status, but that does not compel me, to assign any credence at all, to utter speculations, such as an 'enformer' prime mover.Your matter-bounded interpretation of causation seems to imagine that the chain of Cause & Effect began miraculously (serendipity or chance) in the Big Bang, with no antecedent and no Purpose or Reason. — Gnomon
By contrast, Aristotle reasoned that no Actual thing in Nature emerges unless the Potential for that Effect was already inherent in the logical structure of the system -- or imported from outside the system. In this case, the un-bounded (infinite) system of Potential or Possibility is antecedent to space-time reality. I call that logically necessary Principle (Omnipotence -- unlimited power of causation) : LOGOS . — Gnomon
Holistically : the universe is continuous and analog. Reductively : the universe is simulated as particular and digital. Both answers are true, in context. — Gnomon
. a statement that I didn't understand.
— Agent Smith
All I mean is that "religious apologists" posit a first cause and call it "god" though they, in every case I'm aware of, fail to show that it's the same deity referred to in the Bible or Quran or any "sacred scripture" which folk actually worshipped. At most, the cosmological apologetics of theists paradoxically gets them only as far as deism (or god-of-the-gaps like e.g. Gnomon's "enformer") — 180 Proof
An arrow shot from a bow will hit the target, not due to any arrow-intention but to the bowman aiming. So I was not assigning intention to the arrow. But in this metaphor, the momentous arrow has spawned a little splinter with a mind of its own. — Gnomon
What's the difference? God the old white guy with a big beard who exists in spacetime or/and outside of spacetime or god the 'force,' called enformy?for lack of a better term, force which he calls Enformy — Agent Smith
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.