I'm sorry but you're commenting on a statement that I didn't understand. I hope @180 Proof gets it! Somebody has to, oui? For all our sakes ...

Well, I think @180 proof was just typing about the fact that all current religions, fall very short in offering a credible deity, that could be the first cause mind with intent, that they insist MUST exist, to create our universe. An individual theist can 'invent' their own deity, and coin a new name for it, such as 'enformer.'
As you know, a theist need not have any connection with any 'established' or historical religion.
Theosophists like Aleister Crowley or Rasputin or even satanists or pagans, are all still theists imo.

.
. 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").

:up: :up:

:fire:

[W]e are only lab rats, if god exists. — universeness

:smirk:

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.
So, I am atheist, and our strong need for science, is strong evidence, that there are no gods.
Not even a deist god, as if such an entity can create, then it follows that it can intervene, and if it chooses not to, then it is as well not existing, as either way, It's the same result for us. No help from god (no god exists.)

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

How about the law of survival of the fittest? We can bring out the best in each other or the worst. I think if it were possible to meet all of a person's needs without requiring something of that person, we would get the worst. Nature has its way of killing off the weak. :lol: That is wide open for attack and I hope it is attacked because it may be worth thinking about.

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

Really? That is a false cliche. Around the world, people are living in abject poverty and ignorance and when humans live that far down the ladder of human achievements life is harsh and cruel. The Russian invasion of Ukraine and natural disasters are teaching us just how hard it is to feed the world and we do care. We care very much. In our abundance we imagine things like the Venus Project, but exactly what has the Venus Project contributed to the world?

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

I think replacing the autocratic model of industry with the democratic model and having education for democracy would get us closer to a more equitable social/economic order.

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

Always full information is not available. We have increased our knowledge and our technology for dealing with information but we should never believe we know all there is to know. The universe is too complex for us to believe we know everything about anything. There is a saying, when we think we know God, we know not God and any knowledge is like that. Those who believe they can know the absolute truth, are absolutely dangerous. It is like refusing to believe it is bacteria and viruses that make us ill because we can not see them and the Bible says if we have a problem it begins with our heart and it mentions demons. It took the medical profession over a hundred years from when someone with a microscope saw the bacteria and viruses the acceptance of sanitation being essential to preventing infections. The change happened when those in the medical profession thought, what if that is so? First, only a few experimented with sanitation and finally, there was enough evidence for the truth to be universally accepted. It is by knowing we do not know that makes it possible for us to know.

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. 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:

*1.Intelligent Evolution :
This essay lays-out my hypothesis of how the Creator, in the Enformationism worldview, programmed a physical universe that could in-effect create itself from scratch. By that, I don't mean from absolutely nothing, but from a metaphorical seed or egg of cosmic mathematical potential that cosmologists call the Singularity. From that point of beginning, Evolution began some say, not with a literal bang, but with a magical "voila!" of instant inflation. Since then, our world has been emerging from potential to actual more-or-less as scientists have documented.
https://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page14.html

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

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.

So, presumably, Scharf, like most cosmologists, just takes for granted (axiomatic) that the Energy & Laws of Nature are eternal*2. But then our physical world was shown by cosmologists to not be Eternal. So, the source of those Causal & Logical inputs can only be external & prior to the finite space-time bubble that we humans inhabit. And that's all I'm saying in the Enformationism thesis : that evolution shows signs of upward progress and purpose*3.

Yet, due to my lack of knowledge (information) about anything super-natural, 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*4.

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. :smile:

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?

*2. 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.

*3. Purpose & Intention :
Scharf skirts around the notion of Purpose in Nature. However, right after the disparaging quotes above, he does rhapsodize that "The universe is spectacular because it is an engine of invention . . ." Doesn't that sound like Design & Intention instead of Blundering & Accident to you? He goes on to exclaim that "evolution on Earth is like a single run of a single algorithm that invented all of nature".
Note -- To Invent : create or design (something that has not existed before); be the originator of.
Doesn't "invent" imply "intent"?

*4. Deism :
An Enlightenment era response to the Roman Catholic version of Theism, in which the supernatural deity interacts and intervenes with humans via visions & miracles, and rules his people through a human dictator. Deists rejected most of the supernatural stuff, but retained an essential role for a First Cause creator, who must be respected as the quintessence of our world, but not worshipped like a tyrant. The point of Deism is not to seek salvation, but merely understanding.
https://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page12.html

I intelligo.

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

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.

Even "impious" Aristotle referred to Theology (ultimate knowledge) as "First Philosophy"*2. There is indeed a "gap" in physical Science : it is forced by its physicalist creed to take the causal & organizing forces of Nature for granted -- blind faith in infinite mechanism -- so it has no plausible explanation for our contingent temporal Existence : being & becoming (Ontology)*3. The perverse Multiverse notion merely kicks-the-can of origins down the road to infinity.

Another more positive understanding of Deism is that the Enformer -- far from being an evil tyrant -- as similar to a philosopher or scientist, in that the reason for creation was not due to "dissatisfaction" or narcissistic "need" for worship & adulation, 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.

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. :cool:



*1. Deist Philosophers & Scientists :
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_deists

*2. Aristotle developed rival philosophies of metaphysics which to some extent could be understood as an attempt to construct a rational account of the world while explicitly rejecting the superstitious pantheism of their contemporaries. From this point of view, one might even call him an atheist, and certainly he would have been viewed by contemporaries outside the philosophical school as radically impious.
However, Aristotle did clearly believe in some sort of God - as, arguably, did Plato - although what exactly is meant by “God” in either case may not be entirely obvious and familiar to those of us raised with Abrahamic monotheism. In his metaphysics, Aristotle posited that there must be some single, immortal, unchanging being that was responsible for the wholeness and orderliness of the world, as well as suggesting that there must be “unmoved movers” who were causally responsible for all action in the universe, but who were not themselves causally influenced by actions.
https://www.quora.com/Was-Aristotle-an-atheist-agnostic-or-a-pious-man-Do-his-writings-give-any-clue

*3. Metaphysics as being qua Being :
Aristotle himself described his subject matter in a variety of ways: as ‘first philosophy’, or ‘the study of being qua being’, or ‘wisdom’, or ‘theology’.
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/aristotle-metaphysics/

*4. Albert Einstein's religious views have been widely studied and often misunderstood. Albert Einstein stated "I believe in Spinoza's God". He did not believe in a personal God who concerns himself with fates and actions of human beings, a view which he described as naive.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_and_philosophical_views_of_Albert_Einstein

No it's not, as we can create extraterrestial renewable energy, such as solar power generation stations, built in space. — 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.

Also renewables can be augmented, by perhaps, new future tech, such as cold fusion.

That’s what we’re doing now. Augmenting. Admittedly, the fusion fuel isn’t likely to run out in the near term.

Yes, might never happen, it's not a fact that it will, for many reasons such as the ones I have suggested above.

It has happened, else the ‘augmentation’ wouldn’t be necessary. I share you confidence that the usage will drop below that line again.

Future tech such as spacelifts, might be very efficient.

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.

It's not a vital point, as long as the necessary info is returned to those who need it, on Earth or otherwise.

Precisely what a probe is for, yes.

That's just confused thinking imo. — universeness

But from my point of view, it was a conclusion reached after years of analysis.

A good education, only if you can afford one, is a vile concept.

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.

I am also against all religious schools.

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.

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

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.

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

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.

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.

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.
It all sounds a bit like heaven, except not as bad. A life of zero responsibility where all your needs are met by somebody/something else. In heaven, it’s an eternity and there are no needs to be met, so not even the responsible people have anything to do that matters.

How does one stop black markets from operating?

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.

Van Gogh comes to mind. Can’t think of any literary examples, but I’m sure they’re there.

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

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.
Funny that I worked on a project to reduce redundant data, a de-duplication process designed to reclaim wasted space. Goes to show that some redundancy is just plain wasteful whereas other redundancy (the cases you list) are critical.

In data packets, error detection and correction data has always been called redundant data.

Yes, as I pointed out. Parity and ECC bits and all...

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

They do that now, albeit with difficulty. Far easier to create say a positron out of a not-positron. Happens naturally all the time.

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!

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.

Yeah, so you have got past the a wave is made of quanta

A wave of what? A quanta of what?

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

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.

or even satanists or pagans, are all still theists imo. — universeness

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.

"Einstein's God" is Spinoza's natura naturans (i.e attributes of substance aka (modal) "laws of nature"). :fire:

God means different things to different people. Do you have any idea about the motivation for Spinoza abandoning the Christian Jewish idea of God?

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 during rabbinical studies by his late teens, 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:

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

I see. :up:

Sometimes your actions as a humanitarian, seem to clash with your somewhat pessimistic viewpoints of what it is to be a human being. You regularly state, that you think people are not treated fairly, in any currently active system of governance and within any current system of control, over the means of production, distribution and exchange, but you don't seem to support the only effective ways of changing things for the better.
Statements such as

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

,
don't help, as they contradict. How does 'our abundance' balance with 'hard to feed the world?'
Sounds to me, like the solution IS ideas like the Venus project, which have never been enacted.
Secular humanism, alongside true democratic socialism, ARE the solutions. A resource based, money free, secular humanist, socialist society has never yet been achieved by any human group. Perhaps that's because, too many humans, still think we CAN ONLY live under primeval jungle rules.

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

You try to jump a massive chasm here. Human intention IS the ORIGIN point of anything that can be labelled as capable of 'intelligent design.' Any suggestion that 'intent' of any kind existed BEFORE LIFE with intent (such as human or hominid life) arrived in this universe, is pure theism/deism. and I totally reject such notions, as woo woo of the gaps. Human intent is NOT a continuation of natural evolution, it is a consequence of natural evolution. It is a 'singularity' happenstance, easily equal to the projected future 'human designed,' tech singularity moment, suggested as ASI.

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?

So, presumably, Scharf, like most cosmologists, just takes for granted (axiomatic) that the Energy & Laws of Nature are eternal — Gnomon

In the same tradition, you seem to be acting like most theists, you try to turn the work of scientists like Caleb Sharf, into conflated support mechanisms for an 'enformer' of the gaps posit.

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.

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

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:
Logos (UK: /ˈloʊɡɒs, ˈlɒɡɒs/, US: /ˈloʊɡoʊs/; Ancient Greek: λόγος, romanized: lógos, lit. 'word, discourse, or reason') is a term used in Western philosophy, psychology and rhetoric and refers to the appeal to reason that relies on logic or reason, inductive and deductive reasoning.

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

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.

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

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 enformer manifestation has the basic same bad attributes as the gods in the abrahamic religions.

Until the 20th century, most philosophers & scientists held some notion of Creator or First Cause to explain the ultimate "why" questions of Cosmology — Gnomon

I think that's because most of them were too scared not to. I suspect many many many were actually atheists, but religion was so successful as a weapon of fear and as an opiate of the masses, that it was very dangerous to be an atheist in those less enlightened times.

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

This viewpoint differs in emphasis, from what you posted to @Alkis Piskas with:

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

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?

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

I have probably watched the same interview, and all other offerings, which involves Roger on YouTube.
You will not be surprised that my interpretation is different from yours. To me, Roger makes such statements in a similar vein to the idea that 'in a very certain sense,' the sun rises and sets (because that's exactly what it appear to do, in the sky) when in fact, its the Earth that turns.

Philosophically, yes, it's rational to posit that 'the universe has a purpose,' (because it can seem like that is the case,) and I think that is what Roger is referring to, 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.
This may have happened earlier somewhere else in the universe but purpose and intent does not exist 'outside' of this universe or within it, for the majority of the past 13.8 billions years since the big bang.
No deity required, as Roger also often states.
Purpose in nature CAN resonate with a philosophical perspective, BUT there may be no value in proposing any purpose in nature other than through the purpose lifeforms such as humans can demonstrate. Such purpose was not INTENDED by the universe, it is an ability humans can demonstrate as a consequence of natural happenstance and the results of intentionless natural selection.

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

:clap:

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

My answer was those who contributed most, would naturally be most revered. Rewards such as fandom, do not justify such imbalanced outcomes, as becoming obnoxiously rich and powerful.

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

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?
Does the fact you are dependent on water, make you a zoo resident? Dependence on automated systems does not assign you zoo status, it's just more efficient than when you had to collect your water from a river. The imperative for doing your part is that everyone will get what they need. The guy writing the book, may also enjoy helping the infirm eat their food etc. You wont know until you sit down and talk with him/her/gender variant, in a reasonable way.

. A life of zero responsibility where all your needs are met by somebody/something else. — 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.

How does one stop black markets from operating? — noAxioms

Black markets are money based. People can swap/exchange stuff with other people as much as they want, perfectly legal.

Agree to all, but that’s not metadata — 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.
I once resigned as an examiner and exam setter, due to an academic disagreement with the principle assessor, for a computing science exam level in Scotland.

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

I do mean that. A quark may be a vibrating string state, for example, in common with all field excitations.
A 'string state' may be physically representable/storable, as a data file. So the data in the data file would be the fundamental, that when processed, produces a vibrating string state called an up-quark or a photon.

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

No they don't. A process is not yet available that can create a photon from the data stored in a datafile.
Science can manipulate natural processes, to create a photon, yes, but it can't create a Tbone steak in the way they do it in a star trek food replicator.

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

I don't see why? Energy would still be conserved, it would just be converted from massless energy into a Tbone steak.

Yeah, so you have got past the a wave is made of quanta
A wave of what? A quanta of what? — noAxioms

A wave of light(electromagnetic radiation) and the quanta of photons, for example.
A wave of light is made of photons, which are waves of light made of photons ........

No. Gravity is treated as a force under Newtonian mechanics. I made no mention of frames in that statement. — 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?
What is your speed relative to an observer in a space station? Is it the rotational speed of the Earth + the speed of the car?
The speed of light is non-relativistic. It is the same, no matter what reference frame you use.
The law is 'You SHALL NOT add your speed, to the speed of light!'

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

If I am being honest here, then I don't have a strong grasp on the clear difference between relativistic and non-relativistic frames, as described in quantum phenomena, but I have tried my best, many times to follow content such as presented in a physics stack-exchange discussion here.

Consider the following, as a response to a google search of 'does gravity have a non-relativistic reference frame?':
"Yes, in fact one of the comments made to a question mentions this. If you stick to Newtonian gravity it's not obvious how a photon acts as a source of gravity, but then photons are inherently relativistic so it's not surprising a non-relativistic approximation doesn't describe them well."

and

"Yes, You can show via conservation of energy arguments that photons confined within a volume (for the sake of argument, the inside of a sealed box with totally reflective surfaces) must produce the same gravitational effect as an amount of matter in the same volume which would have a mass equivalent to the energy of the photons."

From another physics stack exchange discussion here.

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

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:

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

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:

A vacuum is essentially a great lack of something https://www.vocabulary.com/dictionary/vacuum

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

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:

What a deep faith in the rationality of the structure of the world and what a longing to understand even a small glimpse of the reason revealed in the world there must have been in Kepler and Newton to enable them to unravel the mechanism of the heavens in long years of lonely work!
___Albert Einstein

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

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:

Your enformer manifestation has the basic same bad attributes as the gods in the abrahamic religions. — 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:

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

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:

Potential vs Actual :
Aristotle delineates his subject matter in a different way, by listing the problems or perplexities (aporiai) he hopes to deal with. Characteristic of these perplexities, he says, is that they tie our thinking up in knots. They include the following, among others: Are sensible substances the only ones that exist, or are there others besides them? Is it kinds or individuals that are the elements and principles of things? And if it is kinds, which ones: the most generic or the most specific? Is there a cause apart from matter? Is there anything apart from material compounds? Are the principles limited, either in number or in kind? Are the principles of perishable things themselves perishable? Are the principles universal or particular, and do they exist potentially or actually? Are mathematical objects (numbers, lines, figures, points) substances? If they are, are they separate from or do they always belong to sensible things? And (“the hardest and most perplexing of all,” Aristotle says) are unity and being the substance of things, or are they attributes of some other subject?
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/aristotle-metaphysics/

Big Bang non-sense :
The ambition to find the ultimate reason for the existence of everything may be acceptable as a (pseudo-) religious quest but hardly as an objective and rational scientific endeavour. It is obvious that the assumption of a 'creation' is logically inconsistent with the scientific principle of cause and effect. Any valid scientific approach is therefore necessarily tied to the infinite dimensions of space and time as the forms of existence (the argument of cosmologists that time and space came only into existence at the 'time' of the big bang is a logical contradiction in itself and therefore scientifically nonsense).
https://www.physicsmyths.org.uk/cosmology.htm
Note : The "scientific approach" is self-limited to Physics. But the Philosophical approach of Meta-Physics places no such limits on human reason & imagination. Ironically, this quote goes beyond its own limitations, by assuming, without evidence, an eternal unbounded Antecedent of the Big Bang. Perhaps a non-empirical hypothetical Multiverse. But Einstein defined the physical universe as "finite, but unbounded", as in a sphere existing in eternal space-time. So what lies beyond the bounds?

Greek "Logos", not the Christian "Word" :
As implied by the asterisk in the spelling, this G*D model is not a traditional religious deity, created in the image of his worshippers. It won't be found in any ancient religious texts. However, it has much in common with many philosophical and scientific models of ultimate reality. Plato & Aristotle argued their theories from the assumption of Logos as the creator of Cosmos from Chaos. The Hindu Vedas gave the masses dramatic stories of heroic human-form gods. But among the thinkers themselves they referred to undefined ultimate reality as Brahman, with no human characteristics. The Buddha told his disciples not to worry about any of those fictional devas, but his worldview seemed to tacitly assume an Impersonal Absolute equivalent to Brahman, as an explanation for existence.
http://bothandblog2.enformationism.info/page35.html

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

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:

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

This really is an obvious attempt to camouflage or 'dampen down,' the credence level you obviously assign to 'god of the gaps posits' or a first cause mind with intent, as the creator of our universe.
It is irrelevant whether or not you portray your gap god as non-intervening or not. I could accept your position more, if you were more upfront about it and stated your 'enformer,' as 'utter speculation,' with no evidence at all, and did not try to project it, from current knowledge of quantum phenomena.
My personal credence level for your notion of an enformer remains 0%.

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

Yet another god of the gaps statement, you have manifested, as a wood splinter from an arrow, (which you also try to drammatise with 'momentus,' but leave yourself an escape route from such accusations, due to the scientific label 'momentum.'), fired by a HUMAN. :roll:

The original meaning of "Vacuum" was emptiness or void or nothingness. — Gnomon

That's the good thing about science. The detailed meaning of a label can change. New knowledge, such as quantum fluctuations and 'energy state changes,' cause field 'excitations,' to pop-in and pop-out of existence, within tiny durations of time, suggest that there is no moment in a spacetime co-ordinate when NOTHING is happening.

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

Their is no logical paradox here, there is just more conformation that labels such as god, g*d, g-d, gd, first cause mind, enformer, flying spaghetti monster, orc, elf, perfection, angel, devil, NOTHING, have NO EXISTENT, and never have had any existent.

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

As I read more and more of your posts here, you have confirmed to me that you are indeed a god of the gaps deist, who seeks REAL evidence of the existence of the supernatural, as your personal primal fears have manifested a strong need for such, in you. You need some, all powerful creator mind, to exist, that cares about you. This personal need, is more powerful than your rationale.
You may not even recognise this, in your psyche, but I think it's definitely there!
I doubt our exchange here will lift your fog, but you are a deep thinker, so I hope the FOREVER, divine hiddenness of your gap god, will eventually demonstrate it's non-existence to you. Just like the fact that YOU will never experience 'nothing,' even after you die, as you won't exist anymore.

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

Not at all. I remain full of personal wonder and awe regarding life, the universe and everything. I have defeated any woo woo thinking based on personal primal fear, as I OWN my awe and wonder. I don't give humble thanks for it, to any notion of some first cause deity.
I am trying to help you conquer your primal fears and your need for a superhero protector. I have no burdens to offload on you.

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

I have no such prejudice. The burden of proof of existence lies with the presence YOU label 'an amoral first cause,' and with it's proponents, such as you. I don't share your need for such to exist.

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

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.

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

Aristotle was wrong, as there is zero evidence of 'outside' this universe.
Your last sentence is another demonstration of your conflation of LOGOS with omnipotence.
Omnipotence is a nonsense word that has no existent. Are you putting logos in the same category or do you wish to save it as a useful label which is equivalent to it's more modern variant, 'logic' or 'employing reason?'

Holistically : the universe is continuous and analog. Reductively : the universe is simulated as particular and digital. Both answers are true, in context. — Gnomon

You are the one who regresses cause and effect into a need for a first cause origin point. That first cause has to be singular, it cannot be both analogue and digital in structure or fundamental state.
I have little interest on what you posit as a 'simulation' or even 'emulation' of the 'state' of your first cause. I am only interested in what state you assign to your notion of a REAL first cause. Analogue or digital or both?

. 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

I intelligo ...

Il est facile de voir que ... @Gnomon's Enformer is not God as traditionally thought of in religions. The Enformer, from what I've gathered from Gnomon's posts, isn't a being. Gnomon simply postulates a universal order-conferring, for lack of a better term, force which he calls Enformy. It's analogous to gravity, the force that makes the heavenly bodies revolve around the sun. No one would conflate gravity with God and no one should conflate the Enformer with God.

As is obvious, Gnomon is attempting to explicate the difference between religion and Enformationism and I would be grateful and it would be in good faith if Gnomon could inform us as to why his Enformationism isn't just religion in disguise. My impressions are in the preceding paragraph.

I think it is theism/deism in disguise. He himself, has compared his enformationism to deism and has declared them compatible. He posts about a first cause with intent and has labelled such a notion 'enformer,' or in a recent post above:

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

Does the bowman have intent here? Is Gnomon suggesting this metaphorical bowman represents his enformer? He places the emphases on the arrow as not having intent to distract from the intent of the bowman. He then brings in a wooden splinter from the arrow, which either represents the 'happenstance' moment when the intent of lifeforms arrived or he is suggesting that this arrow splinter was part of he cunning plan of the prime mover bowman who represents divine hiddenness! :roll:

for lack of a better term, force which he calls Enformy — Agent Smith

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?

Either Gnomon can't see the Enformer = God identity or we can't see the Enformer $\neq$ God distinction. :cool: