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.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
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
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.↪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
Except that @Gnomon himself does just that ...No one would conflate gravity with God and no one should conflate the Enformer with God. — Agent Smith
... aka god-of-the-gaps (sophistry) :smirk:@Agent Smith
My position [Enformationism, BothAnd, Meta-Physics] is a kind of Deism, specifically PanEnDeism.
— Gnomon — 180 Proof
:lol:I can only say that Gnomon simply can't be a sophist. — Agent Smith
I suppose your "need" is for a solid tangible classical foundation to the world, which was undermined by quantum fuzzy logic. — Gnomon
atheism is a non-starter for me. — Agent Smith
did you know, your Enformationism bears an uncanny resemblance to String Theory — Agent Smith
- that there's gotta be an origin. — Agent Smith
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".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
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: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
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
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 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
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
:clap: :100: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
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 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
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.Dependence on automated systems does not assign you zoo status
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 have no idea where you get any notion of 'zero responsibility,' from.
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.Black markets are money based.
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 quark may be a vibrating string state, for example, in common with all field excitations. — universeness
Why not? The data can be “please emit a positron”, and that data causes the machine to emit one (newly created at that).A process is not yet available that can create a photon from the data stored in a datafile.
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.
Probably nearly the same as the speed relative to the space station. There being an observer in it or not doesn’t change that.What is your speed relative to an observer in a space station?
Not true. You just have to use relativistic addition just like adding velocities of anything under Einstein’s theory.The law is 'You SHALL NOT add your speed, to the speed of light!'
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
A shard of hope in your dystopian visions perhaps!!!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
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?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
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).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
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
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?'That spell zero responsibility since there are no consequences to not being responsible. — 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.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
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
I have no problem with the 'black market' you describe in the quote above.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
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
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.
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
Sounds to me, like the solution IS ideas like the Venus project, which have never been enacted. — 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.You keep struggling against the ropes you tied around your own wrists. — universeness
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.