Plant you flag accordingly sir!
That's why YOUR intent and YOUR decisions matter more than any gods or enformer.
The burden lies with Gnomon and god and the notion of a manifest enformer to PROVE a first cause WITH INTENT, a first cause with a cunning plan! It does not matter if you label it 'enformer,' 'big bang,' 'singularity,' etc, etc. IF you assign it intent or give it a 'mind' status, then you are firmly and irrefutably in gap god territory, no matter how much you insist you are not, imo.
You surely MUST see that sir!

I can only say that @Gnomon simply can't be a sophist.

I agree, I think that would be an unfair assumption. He may just be very passionate, regarding his need for an omnipotent mind to exist. Regardless of how this manifests in his psyche. This can give a lot of comfort against primal fear. I prefer to 'have faith,' in my fellows and in human science to protect me more and more from existential threat, and increase the robustness and longevity of our species. I think science's ability to replace the need for a superhero, divine protector is emergent!
WE and all other forms of life in this universe, inherit the legacy of evolution and natural selection.
We have reached a stage where YOU and I can affect our environment, our universe, in a physically significant manner. Much more so, than any god posit has been able to demonstrate. You can demonstrate such ability, RIGHT NOW! or anytime you are asked to. God seems utterly unable to demonstrate an equal or superior ability to do the same, in any way, that can hold up to scientific scrutiny.
We need to reject the theist putdown, that we are flawed, or have sinned in any way, that is worse, or even equally as bad, as any god, posited by any religious doctrine.
The universe is free space. The intent of lifeforms, can affect it and its contents, as we are part of it.
Just like your internal parts can affect you, we as parts of the universe, can affect it, especially the parts of us that contain intent (the human brain).

:chin:

Polytheism is more plausible than Duotheism is more plausible than monotheism

You will not be surprised to read that I think atheism is more plausible, than any of the other flavours of theism you cite.

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.. — universeness

No. If anything, I'm trying to dampen down your prejudiced incredulity level. This is not a Physics forum, so I am not claiming to have physical evidence for my Philosophical speculations about the immeasurable knowledge gap*1 before the beginning of our world. My "speculative" thesis is not about that cognitive vacuum; and it's not about Gods & Religions; but about how our own home-world works : via EnFormAction. How many times do I have to say that? The gnarly "gap god" is a figment of your fearful imagination, not a core feature of the information thesis, except as an implicit logical necessity.

How much more "upfront" can I be than to refer to my G*D concept as an "unproveable axiom"*2. I have posted the definition below many times before. Scientists, Philosophers, and Mathematicians commonly use Axioms as a premise or starting point for reasoning. The subsequent reasoning is about the ubiquity & consequence of the understanding that immaterial Information is the fundamental element of our real world. You seem to be gagging on the idea of the medicine, not the medicine itself.

Once again, I'll say that you are incredulous about a scary-image in your own mind, not mine. I don't care if you despise the notion of a World Creator. The point of my thesis is to develop (not originate) a new philosophical model of Reality, with Information instead of Matter as the basic building block. I refer to the opinions of Quantum and Information scientists to support the information-centric post-materialism paradigm, not to prove the existence of a hypothetical Programmer. However, if our world is indeed information-based, it is logical to assume that an Enformer of some kind is responsible for the ongoing process of En-Form-Action (energy + laws) that we blithely refer to as "Evolution" (emergence ; development : progression). And It-from-Bit "quantum phenomena" are circumstantial evidence from which to infer an information foundation of physical reality*4.

doesn't seem to be a practicing Theist, but as an inquisitive philosopher, he is open to the notion of a metaphysical Logos concept to provide an axiomatic starting point for the story of information-centric Evolution. But, you and are so wary about pollution of Philosophy with Religion, that you are jumping at shadows. Relax, there are no ravening G*Ds or Demons out there coming to get you, and drag you down to a Hellish Matrix of your own imagination. :smile:


*1. Nothingness North of the North Pole :
Many scientists immediately objected to the Big Bang theory, because it reminded them of the Genesis creation myth. So, they began to conjecture materialist myths of their own : Steady State (no evidence) ; Multiverse (no evidence) ; Many Worlds (no evidence) ; beginningless & endless succession of Black Holes (no evidence). Even more incredible : Creation by god-like Aliens in a cosmic laboratory.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/was-our-universe-created-in-a-laboratory/

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

*3. A proposed new Worldview :
The Enformationism hypothesis is proposed as a possible scientific replacement for the fruitful, but aging, paradigm of Materialism. This new way of thinking about Reality suggests some counter-intuitive responses to those old puzzlers :

#. What is the world made of?
Old – Solid Matter and zippy Energy; atoms & space.
New – Immaterial Information patterns and relationships, including holistic wave/particles and our notion of location in Space/Time.

#. How does it work?
Old – By transformation of Energy into Matter, and vice-versa.
New – By transformation of raw information/data/ideas into powerful Energy and malleable Matter and curving Space and cycling Time.

#. Why does it work like that?
Old – Science doesn’t answer “Why” questions.
New – Because the physical universe is essentially an idea in a metaphysical, universal Mind.
Note -- You can substitute a Simulated Reality instead of Universal Mind, if you like. But the simulated worlds of video games always originate in the mind of the Programmer.
http://enformationism.info/enformationism.info/page4.html

*4. The Foundation of Reality: Information or Quantum Mechanics? :
https://www.technologyreview.com/2009/05/18/213077/the-foundation-of-reality-information-or-quantum-mechanics/

How much more "upfront" can I be than to refer to my G*D concept as an "unproveable axiom"*2. I have posted the definition below many times before. — Gnomon

You are just trying to play switcheroo, by basically responding to me with 'no YOU are,' suggestions.
That just reduces our exchange to a panto style exchange and indicates impasse between us.
You offer nothing other than repeats of your previous claims.
I think you should be more upfront and present your enformationism as a god of the gaps proposal, that you seem to need to nurture, due to your own primal fears.
I tried to give you the opportunity to provide arguments that would show your proposal to have more to it than your personal fear based, first cause mind with intent. You have window dressed it, as best you can, but your proposal has nothing more to offer than dressed up deism.
Thanks for your exchange, but unless you have something better to offer than the arguments you have used so far, we will remain at impasse.

↪Agent Smith
I agree, I think that would be an unfair assumption. He may just be very passionate, regarding his need for an omnipotent mind to exist. Regardless of how this manifests in his psyche. This can give a lot of comfort against primal fear. — universeness

Although dispassionate & boring in person, Gnomon is passionate & evangelistic in writing, about his personal worldview, which serves as a late-blooming philosophical replacement for the religious worldview of his youth : "fear God and keep his commandments". Yet, his "need" is not for divine omnipotence, but for philosophical understanding. I suppose your "need" is for a solid tangible classical foundation to the world, which was undermined by quantum fuzzy logic.

Tu quoque, you seem to be just as passionate about defending your own implicit Materialism/Physicalism [or fill-in your favorite belief system here] worldview from false prophets. And your visceral fear of the implications of Enformationism is appropriate, even if un-founded. As an antithesis to old-fashioned Naturalism, It doesn't substitute physical Matter with spooky Spirits, but with ubiquitous mundane Information, which is both Material & Immaterial, both Physical & Metaphysical, both Real & Ideal.

That may sound confusing or spooky to you. Yet it's not recycled woo-woo mumbo-jumbo, but the novel notion of an emergent phase in the evolution of the physical world, and of metaphysical human culture ; of physiology and technology. :smile:

PS__I suppose we have established, in our dueling dialogues, that for Uni : "sh*t happens", while for Gnomon : "sh*t happens for a reason". :cool:

PPS__In Enformationism, G*D's commandments are the Laws of Nature, which we "keep", or reap the consequences. :joke:

No one would conflate gravity with God and no one should conflate the Enformer with God. — Agent Smith

Except that @Gnomon himself does just that ...

@Agent Smith

My position [Enformationism, BothAnd, Meta-Physics] is a kind of Deism, specifically PanEnDeism.
— Gnomon — 180 Proof

... aka god-of-the-gaps (sophistry) :smirk:

:clap: :100:

I can only say that Gnomon simply can't be a sophist. — Agent Smith

:lol:

I suppose your "need" is for a solid tangible classical foundation to the world, which was undermined by quantum fuzzy logic. — Gnomon

Not at all! quantum physics is wonderful and inspiring and awesome. The universe is even more interesting than I thought it was. Lazy god posits are simply too irrational for me and my atheism often reaches ignostic/igtheism levels, when someone posits yet another, first cause mind variant.

I just don't recognise the 'visceral fear of the implications of enformationism,' you claim I am demonstrating. Give me one example of an implication your enformationism proposes, that you are convinced I am viscerally afraid of? It, can't be it's proposal of a first cause mind, as the creator of our universe, as why would I be afraid of something I am convinced has no existent?

:grin:

@Gnomon, did you know, your Enformationism bears an uncanny resemblance to String Theory - everything is but different frequencies of vibration of a/the fundamental stuff of the universe - (mathematical) strings. In the case of Enformationism, everything is different ? of information. What concept would replace the ? in the previous sentence? :chin:

@universeness, atheism is a non-starter for me.

atheism is a non-starter for me. — Agent Smith

What alternative do you currently assign a higher credence level to and why?

did you know, your Enformationism bears an uncanny resemblance to String Theory — Agent Smith

Which proposal in string theory suggests a first cause mind with intent, as the creator or divine spark for our universe?

I'm gonna say that I'm approaching this from a very common standpoint - that there's gotta be an origin.

- that there's gotta be an origin. — Agent Smith

How much credence do you assign to the proposal that such an 'origin' has to be a mind with intent?
Why can your origin not be a mindless spark? which no longer exists and we can never ever know what caused it or that 'the mindless spark,' was also the beginning of causality. A mindless singularity would also suffice. Why does that not satisfy you as much as a supernatural mind with intent?
Is it that the 'mind' might care about you? If not, they why do you need it?

Richard Dawkins made a mistake and it's in mistakes we see where our loyalties are, so to speak.

No offense Mr Smith but that's a rather meaningless response.
I can only assume that your need for a benevolent supernatural to exist, is more powerful, than your ability to OWN the totality of your OWN life.

Lazy god posits are simply too irrational for me and my atheism often reaches ignostic/igtheism levels, when someone posits yet another, first cause mind variant. — universeness

In the introduction to my new book, The Logic of Information, by philosopher Luciano Floridi, I found an attractive concept that reminds me of our dueling accusations of toxic religion. "Systemic Attractors : if a new idea looks a bit like an old idea we already have, then the old one is a magnet to which the new one is powerfully attracted, almost irresistibly. We end up thinking that 'that new' is really just like 'this old', and if we do not like 'this old' then we dislike 'that new' as well. Bad philosophy indeed, but it takes mental strength and exercise to resist such a powerful shift". But lazy thinking allows such magnetic misconceptions to overpower Reason. That's what we call "prejudice" or "implicit bias".

In our dialogues, "the old" is irrational religions in general, while "the new" is merely a logical inference from the evolving Information structure of our universe : nothing to something to energy to matter to mind to imagination. A causal sequence that logically requires an implicit-but-not-specific First Cause. I have to smile, when I think of the spooky woowoo voodoo savage rituals that you envision Gnomon practicing in his new/old "religion". Perhaps worshiping the abstract First Cause (or "First Mind") --- from which our Information-structured world emerged --- by abandoning Reason in mindless shows of subservience. Whatever your mental model of The Enformer might be, it's a "lazy god posit" passively pulled by the "Systemic Attractor" of remotely similar, but unrelated ideas. That seems to be how many prejudicial beliefs get started. :smile: :cool:


Naturalism as anti-supernaturalism and anti-preternaturalism :
"On the one hand, science holds a firm and reasonable commitment to a healthy naturalistic methodology . . . . On the other hand, contemporary science is also inextricably and now inevitably dependent on ever more complex technologies, especially Information and Communication technologies . . . . Yet such technologies are increasingly 'artificializing' or 'denaturalizing' the world, human experiences, and interaction, as well as what qualifies as real. . . . If you are a naturalist, I am afraid I believe you are mistaken. . . . Naturalism is not a bad position to hold. It is a dominating Ur-philosophical thesis . . . and a widespread faith."
The Logic of Information, Luciano Floridi, Oxford

:wink:

Gnomon, did you know, your Enformationism bears an uncanny resemblance to String Theory - everything is but different frequencies of vibration of a/the fundamental stuff of the universe - (mathematical) strings. In the case of Enformationism, everything is different ? of information. What concept would replace the ? in the previous sentence? — Agent Smith

No. I did not know that. Any resemblance to String Theory is coincidental, not intentional. But, I guess I can see a family resemblance, in that Strings are abstract mathematical concepts, and abstract ideas (meaning) are the currency of Information. :smile:

We end up thinking that 'that new' is really just like 'this old', and if we do not like 'this old' then we dislike 'that new' as well. Bad philosophy indeed, but it takes mental strength and exercise to resist such a powerful shift". But lazy thinking allows such magnetic misconceptions to overpower Reason. That's what we call "prejudice" or "implicit bias". — Gnomon

You keep struggling against the ropes you tied around your own wrists. YOU compared YOUR enformer to a deity, by typing, that it was compatible with deism. YOU invoked the cause-effect regression back to a first cause which YOU assigned 'intent' to. YOU gave this first cause the status of a 'mind.'
If YOU now want to withdraw that utter speculation with zero evidence then just do so.
I agree that data/information MIGHT be a universal fundamental. If it is, then the PROOF would be something like a Star Trek food replicator technology, that can produce a REAL Tbone steak and not a holographic one.
If YOUR enformer is a 'mindless first spark,' that no longer exists and is the same concept as the big bang singularity, then fine. YOU would have removed YOUR woo woo from YOUR enformationism.

nothing to something to energy to matter to mind to imagination. A causal sequence that logically requires an implicit-but-not-specific First Cause. — Gnomon

I would replace 'nothing' with 'singularity,' as its a better placeholder for 'mindless spark,' and I would further suggest that you don't even need a 'first cause,' and just go with eternal something/energy to matter to abiogenisis to biodiversity to lifeforms like humans.

I have to smile, when I think of the spooky woowoo voodoo savage rituals that you envision Gnomon practicing in his new/old "religion". Perhaps worshiping the abstract First Cause (or "First Mind") --- from which our Information-structured world emerged --- by abandoning Reason in mindless shows of subservience. — Gnomon

It's always nice to know you smile, but it's up to YOU to explain the references YOU employed in YOUR posts, enformer .... compatible with deism ..... a first cause mind, instead of just struggling unsuccessfully against manacles YOU placed on yourself and then complaining to me that you are struggling against my implicit bias and my prejudice. You just sound a bit bitter when you do that.

Whatever your mental model of The Enformer might be, it's a "lazy god posit" passively pulled by the "Systemic Attractor" of remotely similar, but unrelated ideas. That seems to be how many prejudicial beliefs get started. — Gnomon

My mental model of YOUR enformer is the one YOU have delivered, wrapped in YOUR deistic bow!!
1. Do you want to withdraw YOUR comparison of YOUR enformer with deism?
2. Do you want to withdraw YOUR insistence that there has to be a first cause for the creation of our universe?
3. Do you want to withdraw YOUR insistence, that any posited first cause for the creation of our universe, has to be a 'mind with intent?'

If you don't want to retract these comparators, that YOU invoked, then YOUR enformer, remains exactly as I suggested, yet another lazy god of the gaps posit.

Indeed, it's possible that the reasons for my belief in god may be more psychological than evidential, but I'm a reluctant believer.

Fair enough Mr Smith, an honest response.

@Gnomon

My mental model of YOUR enformer is the one YOU have delivered, wrapped in YOUR deistic bow!!
1. Do you want to withdraw YOUR comparison of YOUR enformer with deism?
2. Do you want to withdraw YOUR insistence that there has to be a first cause for the creation of our universe?
3. Do you want to withdraw YOUR insistence, that any posited first cause for the creation of our universe, has to be a 'mind with intent?'

If you don't want to retract these comparators, that YOU invoked, then YOUR enformer, remains exactly as I suggested, yet another lazy god of the gaps posit. — universeness

:clap: :100:

:ok:

Fair enough Mr Smith, an honest response. — universeness

Muchas gracias. :up:

:up: I think your pandeus is also relevant here.

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? — universeness

Clearly those who maintain the zoo, the automations that do the actual (unpleasant?) work, who provide all the Purina human chow to all the people that want not. It might not be there primarily for viewing. It would definitely have a limited population. It is bad zoo policy to let all the exhibits breed without bounds.
A nature preserve doesn’t describe it better since that isn’t usually a situation where all the needs of the inhabitants are met, or where unnatural controls are enacted.

Dependence on automated systems does not assign you zoo status

True. It all seems to depend on who’s in charge. What’s taking responsibility for the management and well-being of the occupants. If it’s the occupants, it’s not a zoo. But then there are tasks needing to be done that nobody wants to do, such as the actual management and assurance of well-being of the occupants. Who for instance is going to enforce controls? These people are not going to be revered. Reviled is more like it. OK, there are plenty who would actually want to do those things, but those are not the ones you want doing these tasks. They’re the power hungry ones, the ones that are first to be corruptible.
One of the best tests for a form of government is finding a way to put in charge only the people who don’t want to do it.

I have no idea where you get any notion of 'zero responsibility,' from.

You’ve described a full communist society, one without money, where everbody gets fed and housed and medical care regardless of level of contribution. That spell zero responsibility since there are no consequences to not being responsible.
I totally agree that it is a big part of human nature to want to be a contributor. There will be plenty of those, but there is also a significant percentage of those that are fine with doing nothing, even in a capitalist system where only their basic minimal are met (same list as above). The term ‘white trash’ refers to a subset of these types. It seems to not bother them at all to not be ‘revered’, but they’re arguably more fit since they tend to have more children on average.
I live in the USA and have some experience on how they punish the poor that try to get off assisted living. If you try to get a low tier job and start paying for your own expenses, the eligibility of the social benefits drops faster than your income. That means you can’t afford to have a modest paying job since it costs far more than it benefits you. So the poor are trapped in a way. That’s not a problem with your vision, just something I notice wrong about our current system.

Black markets are money based.

Not necessarily. Certainly not in a society without money. If there is trade (you don’t get this unless you give me that), there is an economy, something evading the ‘to each according to their needs’ system.

A quark may be a vibrating string state, for example, in common with all field excitations. — universeness

That’s very different than positing that a quark is composed of multiple strings. Yea, I suppose strings could be expressed as something described by digital information.

A process is not yet available that can create a photon from the data stored in a datafile.

Why not? The data can be “please emit a positron”, and that data causes the machine to emit one (newly created at that).
I don’t otherwise have any idea what you might otherwise mean by the creation of something from what is effectively an abstraction. The T-bone steak is made from real energy/mass if you will, not from an abstraction, even if data is needed for the machine to know what a steak needs to be.

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 ........What’s a wave of light then. I’ve heard of a beam of light, but a not so much a wave of it like a wave of water molecules.

What is your speed relative to an observer in a space station?

Probably nearly the same as the speed relative to the space station. There being an observer in it or not doesn’t change that.
The speed of light is non-relativistic. It is the same, no matter what reference frame you use.It’s still relative to that frame. The velocity of a particular pulse of light for instance is very much frame dependent.

The law is 'You SHALL NOT add your speed, to the speed of light!'

Not true. You just have to use relativistic addition just like adding velocities of anything under Einstein’s theory.
It seems that in other sites that you cite, the term ‘non-relativistic’ refers to pre-Einstein views like Newtonian physics.

Clearly those who maintain the zoo, the automations that do the actual (unpleasant?) work, who provide all the Purina human chow to all the people that want not. It might not be there primarily for viewing. It would definitely have a limited population. It is bad zoo policy to let all the exhibits breed without bounds.
A nature preserve doesn’t describe it better since that isn’t usually a situation where all the needs of the inhabitants are met, or where unnatural controls are enacted. — noAxioms

At least you are consistent in your imagery of pessimism and dystopia for future humans.
I am glad that I don't have to deal with such a burdensome, pressing, internal gnaw, regarding the future of our species.

True. It all seems to depend on who’s in charge. What’s taking responsibility for the management and well-being of the occupants. If it’s the occupants, it’s not a zoo. — noAxioms

A shard of hope in your dystopian visions perhaps!!!

But then there are tasks needing to be done that nobody wants to do, such as the actual management and assurance of well-being of the occupants. — noAxioms

Are you sure NOBODY wants to ensure the well-being, thriving and progression of our species, towards becoming as benevolent a presence in the universe as is possible? Have you asked EVERYONE?
You know that such statements as the above quote, are inaccurate at best, and irrational at worse.

Who for instance is going to enforce controls? These people are not going to be revered. Reviled is more like it. OK, there are plenty who would actually want to do those things, but those are not the ones you want doing these tasks. They’re the power hungry ones, the ones that are first to be corruptible.
One of the best tests for a form of government is finding a way to put in charge only the people who don’t want to do it. — noAxioms

All you are doing here is rehashing old stereotypical dissatisfactions, with those who have been in, and who are currently in, power. You ignore examples of good people, who wanted to be in power, were in power, and did everything they could to improve the world they lived in. We can all name many people, past and present, who fit such descriptions. I could start with folks like Democritus or Epicurus and list many, many names from then to those who resisted Roman tyranny such as Cleon, Athenion, Tryphon, Spartacus etc, to similar fighters for a better world such as Georges Danton during the French revolution or the Scots / Welsh / Irish and eventually the Americans etc etc, who fought against later tyrannies, such as The English and then British empires. Folks like Mahatma Gandhi, Nelson Mandela and on to my more recent choices from my own country, in my own lifetime, such as Tony Benn and Nicola Sturgeon (to name only two).

You’ve described a full communist society, one without money, where everbody gets fed and housed and medical care regardless of level of contribution. — noAxioms

There are definite similarities, between my politics, and the intentions of the hero masses of Russia and China, that got rid of the vile monarchy, aristocracy, plutocracy that ruled those country's so badly.
'The Plan,' as formed in Russia to create a fair, money free, socioeconomic system in Russia, was a brilliant system, that worked very well for the Russian people, when it was first introduced. Russia's decline into the totalitarian gangster state, it is now, started when the truly evil Stalin took power.
Lenin before him, was not much better. China is also a totalitarian gangster state now.
The attempts to create a secular humanist, democratic, socialist system in Russia and China, utterly failed, as the majority in both countries, failed to keep the nefarious from power.
An utterly crucial lesson, we have all, yet to fully understand and learn how to successfully prevent from happening again.
That's why I said to you earlier, that the notion of personal, individual freedom, and the entrepreneurial aspirations of individuals, must be accomodated, as much as possible, (without producing any form of unchecked capitalism) within any future attempt to try again, to achieve what the people of China and Russia (and many more examples such as the French Revolution, The English civil war and back to the servile wars against the Romans.) tried to achieve.
IT WILL be tried again and again and again, until WE get it correct.
Global secular humanist/democratic socialism remains INEVITABLE imo.

That spell zero responsibility since there are no consequences to not being responsible. — noAxioms

Oh yes there are. There are very serious social consequences. People will still want to know answers to questions such as 'so what do you do?'

The term ‘white trash’ refers to a subset of these types. It seems to not bother them at all to not be ‘revered’, but they’re arguably more fit since they tend to have more children on average. — noAxioms

'It seems to not bother them,' is another one of your 'stereotypical' assumptions. There WILL be some who really don't care. They are welcome to live there pointless lives, until they die of natural causes, whilst the rest of us enjoy, taking part in the adventures life and living can offer.
If a small minority choose to live life as a curse then they will inherit oblivion and leave no significant legacy. A wasted life, is an option, only the dumbest of the dumb would choose imo.
I would not worry about such people other than to pity them, as you continue to enjoy your life.
The difference between then and now, is that they will have truly CHOSEN to live their life like that, rather than be forced to, as the majority who are experiencing life like that today, are forced to.

I live in the USA and have some experience on how they punish the poor that try to get off assisted living. If you try to get a low tier job and start paying for your own expenses, the eligibility of the social benefits drops faster than your income. That means you can’t afford to have a modest paying job since it costs far more than it benefits you. So the poor are trapped in a way. That’s not a problem with your vision, just something I notice wrong about our current system. — noAxioms

Well noticed! don't you think you should work with those who are trying to remove such consequences of the capitalist money trick?

Black markets are money based.
Not necessarily. Certainly not in a society without money. If there is trade (you don’t get this unless you give me that), there is an economy, something evading the ‘to each according to their needs’ system. — noAxioms

I have no problem with the 'black market' you describe in the quote above.
If someone wants, say, an old/vintage car collection, that they do up, and show to others and drive around, then, the 'barter' system you describe, sounds good to me.
Everyone can take their basic means of survival for granted. As long as that is available to EVERYONE with no conditions attached, and such rights CANNOT BE REMOVED by any new authority, then I think we can accomodate the majority of the wishes of those who prioritise 'independent expressions of personal freedom,' and also allow, 'entrepreneurial aspiration.'
I am sure people will employ various mechanisms of exchange 'currency,' with each other. Hopefully, they will all be acceptable, as long as it does not stop people, getting everything they NEED. I am not too worried about those, who as Mr Jagger says, 'you can't always get what you want, but if you try sometimes, you get what you need.' I just extend his words to you get what you need as a birthright, but getting everything you WANT, depends on how that will affect others.

A process is not yet available that can create a photon from the data stored in a datafile.
Why not? The data can be “please emit a positron”, and that data causes the machine to emit one (newly created at that).
I don’t otherwise have any idea what you might otherwise mean by the creation of something from what is effectively an abstraction. The T-bone steak is made from real energy/mass if you will, not from an abstraction, even if data is needed for the machine to know what a steak needs to be. — noAxioms

I think we are probably imagining the same thing. Obviously, your instruction above would be in an HLL or high level language that would require translation before execution. The 'machine code' level is the language code we are discussing here , not your 'emit a positron' language (I doubt 'please' will be needed).
Employing a source of photons to produce a photon or positron is not my challenge. It's producing a tech that can create a Tbone stake by manipulating the proposed digital level fundamental of the universe.
A Tbone steak, produced, from that which is traditionally described, as the vacuum of space.

What’s a wave of light then. I’ve heard of a beam of light, but a not so much a wave of it like a wave of water molecules.

A wave of light is an electomagnetic analogue waveform of continuous peaks and troughs that traverses the vacuum of space at a fixed speed. If you could zoom right into it, I would expect to find that it is made up of discrete packets of energy/field excitations which might be vibrating strings or undulations etc and if we zoomed into one of these 'photons,' we would see an analogue waveform .... and if we zoomed in ...... That's the imagery I have currently garnished from my reading about wave - particle duality, BUT I fully accept that my imagery may well not be in accordance with most physicists so I am very willing to be corrected.

The law is 'You SHALL NOT add your speed, to the speed of light!'
Not true. You just have to use relativistic addition just like adding velocities of anything under Einstein’s theory.
It seems that in other sites that you cite, the term ‘non-relativistic’ refers to pre-Einstein views like Newtonian physics. — noAxioms

How does 'our abundance' balance with 'hard to feed the world?' — universeness

Overpopulation. We have created enough abundance to imagine feeding the whole world and we have ignored limits. The terrible reality is the more we feed people the more they reproduce, making the problems worse. We absolutely must recognize limits and adjust to living within those limits.

Sounds to me, like the solution IS ideas like the Venus project, which have never been enacted. — universeness

The Venus Project is only one idea. We have planned communities all over the US and some are doing very well. The Japanese have also created planned communities making protecting the children a top priority. The Chinese are working on a building that is like an entire city. People can spend their lives in that building and never have to have to leave as their homes, jobs, and stores are all in the building. China has a 50-lane highway. In the US we are accustomed to fewer people and more space. We need to understand what we are dealing with before we assume the only problem with the Venus Project is we have not followed through on the plans and I do not think we would like the control that comes with the Venus Project.

Now Buckminster Fuller had some wonderful ideas. You might google him and expand your knowledge of what people are working on so you can share that knowledge. If we want to change the world, we have to plant seeds (thoughts) and hope others will pick them up and work on them. Just saying things are terrible and talking as though humans are basically awful creatures will not bring about the good.

You keep struggling against the ropes you tied around your own wrists. — universeness

No. I'm merely trying to untie the ropes of anti-metaphysical prejudice that dump all non-physical notions into the anti-science (religious) waste-bin. My wrists are still wiggling to escape your doctrinal bonds. But they are somewhat easier to deal with than 's dogmatic repression of philosophical speculation. That's why I have continued to dialog with you, and not with him. But, I see that you are getting weary of shooting down the same old intangible spooky spy balloons.

The positive aspect of our dialogue is the unraveling exercise your meaning-twisting accusations give me. They force me to expand my philosophical research into unfamiliar areas.The negative side of the physics vs metaphysics debate is that it always comes back to physical evidence, and neglects rational or circumstantial evidence (logical inference from patterns). By "denying the legitimacy" of metaphysics as a way to understand reality, you legislate away all of my arguments, instead of dealing with them. Which, in a court of law, is prejudicial to the witness. :smile:


The Problems of Metaphysics: the “New” Metaphysics :
An anti-metaphysician in the contemporary sense is not a philosopher who denies that there are objects of the sorts that an earlier philosopher might have said formed the subject-matter of metaphysics (first causes, things that do not change, universals, substances, …), but rather a philosopher who denies the legitimacy of the question whether there are objects of those sorts.
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/metaphysics/