↪Gnomon
Ad hominems, strawmen & non sequiturs-riddled rationalizations of your "enformer"-of-the-gaps poor reasoning are empty and boring. — 180 Proof

He says that Gnomon's reasoning is "empty and boring", but 180's countless repetitious replies imply that something about those reasons is hitting home. Unfortunately, he seems to think that redundant accusations -- throwing mud on the wall -- will serve as philosophical arguments.

Since he won't listen to me -- except for highlighting god-posits -- maybe you can ask him about the "home" that my postuations are hitting, at the heart of his own vulnerable belief system. Does he acknowledge any "gap" beyond the Big Bang beginning that remains to be filled by verifiable empirical evidence? If there is a scientific gap-filler, what is it, and what evidence supports it? If there is no satisfactory gap-filler, why are philosophers attempting to do what physicists have been unable to do*1? If it is a "closed question" why does it keep coming up in Science and Philosophy forums?

Empirical cosmology has provided us with mathematical evidence pointing backward to a pin-point origin of the physical universe. Unfortunately, at that point, the math shoots off into infinity, and the computers "halt & catch fire". But what are those infinite vectors pointing at? That may not be a viable empirical question, but it's a legitimate philosophical "open" question, is it not? Is 180 blinded by (faith in) Science, or simply by skepticism toward the open (empty) questions of Philosophy*2? What is it about that god-gap that hurts his heart? I need to know, so I can avoid offending him in the future with my open-ended reasoning. Or maybe he could just ignore my "boring" personal optional opinions without getting riled-up. That would be easier on his tender heart. :smile:

PS__Why is the very mention of the "G" word so offensive to him? Most other posters can take it in stride.


*1. What Happened Before the Big Bang? The New Philosophy of Cosmology :
On the big questions science cannot (yet?) answer, a new crop of philosophers are trying to provide answers.
This question of accounting for what we call the "big bang state"—the search for a physical explanation of it—is probably the most important question within the philosophy of cosmology,
https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2012/01/what-happened-before-the-big-bang-the-new-philosophy-of-cosmology/251608/

*2. "Philosophical questions are questions not answerable empirically or mathematically, with observations or calculations. They are open questions, that is, questions that remain in principle open to informed, rational, and honest disagreement . . . . Recall that questions are here understood as genuine requests for information."
___Luciano Floridii, prof of philosophy at Oxford; The Logic of Information
Note -- 180 bitterly rejects my hypothetical Enformer as the First Cause of the Big Bang. But he has not yet offered an empirical alternative gap-filler. If he believes there is no gap, then why is he so upset by my "vain" attempts to answer a question that has bedeviled both Philosophers and Scientists throughout history? Have I condemned his soul to eternal torment? Have I belittled his faith in fruitful empiricism? Or have I merely posited an answer to the most universal of all questions, that reminds him of the big-scary-monster-deity of his childhood?

Since he won't listen to me — Gnomon

You're not the only one he doesn't listen to, but nor is he the only one that doesn't listen to you. I struggle with your posts, and I suspect others ignore your stuff too. I briefly looked up Enformationism and it's just you as far as I can tell. Which is obviously fine, but you have to do a lot of work to get listened to. If you feel underappreciated on the forum, I'd recommend engaging with people on their own terms. Take this from your website:

"One thing that all of these examples of leading-edge science have in common is a prominent role for Information. Not the mundane stuff you get on Google, but the essential stuff, as defined by Claude Shannon. In his analysis of communication, he saw that ideas can be converted into abstract digital numbers. What he called Information2 was found to be equi-valent to potent Energy as opposed to depleted Entropy. Yet in a larger context, its power-to-enform also has the ability to give meaningful & useful & valuable Form or shape to some raw, unformed substance. Hence, Information is packed with Potential, as opposed to the emptiness of Entropy. Inspired by that compelling metaphor, along with some insights from Quantum Theory, I have concluded that Causal Energy actually consists of Elemental Information3. On the most basic levels, such as laws of physics, that invisible “en-form-action” is analogous to the numerical relationships we call Mathematics4."

This is diving straight in with no thought for the reader. Why would anyone be interested in this? It's inviting being ignored at best, and being gadflied (twatted) and mocked at worst. What are the Random Capitals doing there? We're assholes on this forum, we've heard a lot of bullshit, and this, at first glance, just looks like more. Give us a reason to read it.

Human ability to manifest intent, purpose and intelligent design is being combined and enhanced by memorialised information which has resulted in an ever increasing pace of human invention of new tech and discovery of new knowledge.
This IS evidence that we are moving towards 'points of pivotal change,' at a faster pace. Movement towards advanced AI for example ... observable emergence ... — universeness

True. However, the jury's still out whether or not emergence like this is (or will attain) substantial 'progress'.

Since he won't listen to me
— Gnomon

You're not the only one he doesn't listen to, but nor is he the only one that doesn't listen to you. I struggle with your posts, and I suspect others ignore your stuff too. — bert1

:clap: :100: Claiming I don't "listen to him" is just disingenuous whining coming from someone who over the last several months repeatedly won't answer (or refute as invalid) a handful of my straightforward questions about his "worldview" ...
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/775453 (and the posts which follow on that page are telling).

I'd recommend engaging with people on their own terms. . . . This is diving straight in with no thought for the reader. Why would anyone be interested in this? — bert1

OK, what are your "terms" for discussing a novel philosophical worldview? 180's terms seem to be those proposed by the Vienna Circle (materialism ; atheism). But that concession would eliminate all metaphysical postulations from discussion. Yet, the basic concept of Enformationism is that Information is both physical (Material ; scientific) and metaphysical (mental ; philosophical). For some people that's like saying Fire & Water can mix to become Aether : absurd!

The thesis website begins at the beginning with "thought for the reader" -- including a glossary of technical terminology -- but few posters are interested enough to read a long sci-phil essay that is not a graded academic requirement. So, they casually (mis) judge the thesis based on isolated excerpts in posts on various topics. Enformationism is a radical philosophical concept, that can't be grasped "at first glance". Even those who seem to agree with the general thrust of the thesis, typically don't take the time to really understand the science behind it, and the philosophical implications of replacing elemental Matter with fundamental Information (sorry for the random capitals). Like Quantum Physics, it sounds absurd & unrealistic on the face of it. So, I don't expect casual readers to give it the time of day.

Regarding "Give us a reason to read it", I can lead a horse to water, but I can't make him drink. There must be a thirst for knowledge to provide motivation. So, I just keep plodding away in the forum, not to recruit followers, but to develop the thesis under skeptical challenges. Just as Quantum Entanglement took years to reach general comprehension and grudging acceptance, the Enformationism postulation, which also uses esoteric terminology and exotic ideas, may eventually seep into the consciousness of the informed public. Or maybe not. Hey, it's just a personal worldview. :smile:



This informal thesis does not present any new scientific evidence, or novel philosophical analysis. It merely suggests a new perspective on an old enigma : what is reality? The so-called “Information Age” that began in the 20th century, has now come of age in the 21st century. So I have turned to the cutting-edge Information Sciences in an attempt to formulate my own personal answer to the perennial puzzles of Ontology, the science of Existence.
http://enformationism.info/enformationism.info/page2%20Welcome.html

The universe is not locally real :
One of the more unsettling discoveries in the past half century is that the universe is not locally real. In this context, 'real' means that objects have definite properties independent of observation . . . . the evidence shows that objects are not influenced solely by their surrounding, and they may also lack definite properties prior to measurement. . . . the demise of local realism has made a lot of people very angry . . . . Blame for this achievement has now been laid squarely on the shoulders of three physicists : John Clauser, Alain Aspect , and Anton Zeilinger. They equally split the 2022 Nobel Prize in Physics."
Scientific American Magazine, January 2023
Note -- Enformationism proposes that universal Information (energy + laws) is the cause of mundane Reality, and of quantum absurdity.

180's terms seem to be those proposed by the Vienna Circle — Gnomon

:lol:

About photons from data:
OK, you are envisioning binary machine instructions. I wasn’t since such an instruction processing unit is optional just like it is with the piano which works just fine without one. Nothing wrong with doing it via machine instructions. — noAxioms

Required translations are irrelevant to our discussion. Only the machine code is relevant.
The piano's machine code is based on which key is pressed down. in which order, a piano key press IS the equivalent of a machine code instruction, that needs no further translation, it is simply mechanically executed rather than electronically executed and an electronic piano reproduces/emulates the mechanical inputs and outputs of a traditional piano.

A Tbone steak, produced, from that which is traditionally described, as the vacuum of space.
As I said, that is impossible (energy conservation violation), and Star Trek never suggested such a capability, despite their complete willingness to discard physics when it suits their purpose.
Anyway, I don’t think the vacuum of space is going to be able to parse your machine instructions. — noAxioms

I don't understand your point. The vacuum of space contains energy, perhaps even IS an energy form.
From Wiki:
According to an academic thesis: "The so-called 'replicators' can reconstitute matter and produce everything that is needed out of pure energy, no matter whether food, medicaments, or spare parts are required." A replicator can create any inanimate matter, as long as the desired molecular structure is on file, but it cannot create antimatter, dilithium, latinum, and (in the case of at least federation replicators) living things of any kind; for the last case, non-canon works such as the Star Trek: the Next Generation Technical Manual state that, though the replicators share the same technology with transporters, the resolution used is too low to create living tissue. However, other replicators, such as the ones used by the aliens in the TNG episode "Allegiance," could create living things, including the brain's many trillions of dendritic connections where memory is stored.

A wave of light is an electomagnetic analogue waveform of continuous peaks and troughs that traverses the vacuum of space at a fixed speed.
I don’t think there is any such thing. It’s a nice image for some purposes is all. — noAxioms

Again, I don't follow your argument, perhaps you could cite some physics sources, that describe how a light wave traverses the vacuum of space, that exemplifies your point.
From the physics stack exchange:
What you're calling a 'physical wave' is an emergent property of a underlying medium (e.g. air, water). For the most part, such an emergent wave is basically the same as a wave in a field. 'Physical waves' are often referred to as 'quasiparticles', because of this similarity. What we think of as 'particles' (e.g. electrons) don't just 'behave like waves', they are also waves, hence the 'wave-particle duality'.

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
You can’t zoom into it. Light ‘packets’ unmeasured are undetectable. Light measured is no longer light. This isn’t true of something classical like a water wave, which may lose its wave nature if you zoom in, but there’s still something classical into which one can zoom. — noAxioms

A photon is the quantum of the electromagnetic field. When light is absorbed or emitted, the energy in the wave comes in 'packets' we have labelled photon's. Do you disagree with this?

The law is 'You SHALL NOT add your speed, to the speed of light!'
— universeness
Not true. You just have to use relativistic addition just like adding velocities of anything under Einstein’s theory. — noAxioms

It IS true. Relativistic addition backs up Carl Sagan's statement as I quoted it above.

Nice reference, but this is a pop video by Carl whose audience is the naive layman. This does not stand up to physics. He implies that light is some sort of exception, that if you are on a bicycle going 20 km/hr relative to the road and throw a rock forward at 20 km/hr relative to the bicycle, that the rock would be going at 40 km/hr relative to the road. Well it’s close to that due to the speed being so insanely low, but it assumes Newtonian relativity, as does pretty much the entire video, understandable due to the layman audience.. — noAxioms

No Carl correctly states that 'something funny happens at the speed of light', due to it being the cosmic speed limit that it is. In what way is it incorrect to say that you cannot add your speed to the speed of light? The fact that you need to use relativistic addition to compensate for the fact that classical addition of Newtonian velocities will not work, DEMONSTRATES that his quote is absolutely correct!

If the logic is true, then if the bike is going at .9c and the rider shoots a bullet at 0.5c, then the bullet would be going at 1.4c relative to the ground, contradicting his own statement that such a thing would be impossible.
No, the correct solution is to use Einstein’s relative velocity addition for the bike, the rock, the bullet, and yes, the light. — noAxioms

What? Carl's quote that 'You SHALL NOT add your speed to the speed of light!' CONFIRMS that your bullet speed + bike speed = 1.4c relative to the ground, WOULD BE WRONG. YOU are agreeing with him and he is agreeing with you regarding the use of relative velocity addition. Why are you suggesting he is contradicting himself???

Light is not an exception to this rule at all. Carl doesn’t bring this up at all. He know it, but he also is speaking to an audience that doesn’t yet care about this. — noAxioms

Carl did not directly use the words 'Light is an exception to the Newtonian classical formula for adding relative velocities,' He simply states that 'something strange, something funny. happens at the speed of light.' I agree that those words are 'for the lay person, and/or 'for a TV audience but they are not 'incorrect' and are quite a distance away from your claim that he was invoking the word 'exception.'

Since I have no formal training in Philosophy, it has taken me a while to realize that you and ↪180 Proof are arguing from a Logical Positivism position, which says that there are no “open questions”, hence nothing for philosophers to contribute. — Gnomon

No, there are plenty of 'open questions.' Both @180 Proof and myself are willing to exclaim 'I DONT KNOW,' as our current answer to many of what you describe 'open question,' such as 'Is there a first cause to the universe?' and 'what is the structure and properties of a first cause of the universe?'
YOU want to plug those gaps with 'enformer,' 'a first cause mind with intent,' 'a god of the gaps.' You just continue to refuse to admit that is what you are doing, so you are working very hard to fully earn and deserve your 'emerging,' 'sophist,' label.

Your derision of my "god posit" is understandable from the worldview of Logical Positivism — Gnomon

At least you admit here again that you are promoting a 'god posit,' but I don't think you are doing so 'openly' and 'cleanly,' but more 'unintentionally.'

Besides, can you find any instance in my posts where I have posited a super-natural explanation for a natural phenomenon that has been sufficiently explained by physical evidence? — Gnomon

No, but you have suggested a supernatural explanation for which no evidence at all exists, that's a 'silly' thing to do imo.

Was Newton a religious idiot, — Gnomon

Yes, but he had the excuse of the power of theism that permeated all aspects of human life that he was infected with, during the time he lived. He was not as brave as someone like Giordano Bruno.
Bruno is also considered a pantheist but he died rather than accept catholic dogma.
How many reported atheists are you aware of who were contemporaries of Newton?
Can you name some?

As a metaphysical philosopher, not bound to physical explanations, I can "feign" a hypothesis to fill the same gap recognized by Multiverse & Many Worlds proponents. None of which are verifiable in a positive sense, but which are logical as philosophical gap-filling posits — Gnomon

Feign???
feign: VERB
pretend to be affected by (a feeling, state, or injury):
SIMILAR: simulate, fake, sham
ARCHAIC: invent (a story or excuse).
You keep shooting your own feet, imo. The multiverse is mostly a consequential theory of quantum superposition and has more credence imo than your god of the gaps enformer.
I am interested in the credence level individuals give to such posits as 'the multiverse,' 'the holographic universe,' 'the cyclical eternal universe,' etc. At the very bottom of my credence list, lies theistic posits.
This will not surprise you, considering my declaration of personal atheism.

The mythical beings you list are merely analogies to creatures in the Natural world. — Gnomon

Really? :lol: what creature in the natural world, for you, is an analogy to an orc or a pixie?

If invalid, what alternative gap-filler, to something-from-nothing, can you posit? — Gnomon

I repeat, 'Nothing' cannot exist, as you need something to reference it!

Have I ever asked if you have a personal relationship with the Flying Spaghetti Monster? Have you been touched by his "noodly appendage". That's how you get to the meatball of his existence. — Gnomon

No, such has no existent for me. I leave such fake creations to those who create characters like 'Yahweh,' 'Jehovah,' 'Allah,' 'Zeus,' 'Odin,' 'Krishna,' or even 'Bhudda' or 'Enformer.'

I have not as yet been able to discover the reason for these properties of gravity from phenomena, and I do not feign hypotheses. — Gnomon

:roll: Make up your mind!

maybe you can ask him about the "home" that my postuations are hitting, at the heart of his own vulnerable belief system. Does he acknowledge any "gap" beyond the Big Bang beginning that remains to be filled by verifiable empirical evidence? If there is a scientific gap-filler, what is it, and what evidence supports it? If there is no satisfactory gap-filler, why are philosophers attempting to do what physicists have been unable to do*1? If it is a "closed question" why does it keep coming up in Science and Philosophy forums? — Gnomon

I will answer from my point of view. There are many gaps science has yet to fill. The musings of philosophers can often focus or redirect the investigations of scientists. That is its most significant potential imo. This view of philosophy was echoed by Sean Carroll, recently, in one of his 'ask me anything' podcasts.

That may not be a viable empirical question, but it's a legitimate philosophical "open" question, is it not? — Gnomon

Absolutely , YES!

What is it about that god-gap that hurts his heart? I need to know, so I can avoid offending him in the future with my open-ended reasoning. Or maybe he could just ignore my "boring" personal optional opinions without getting riled-up. That would be easier on his tender heart. — Gnomon

I share @180 Proof's 'impatience,' with your attempts to deny that your enformer, IS a god of the gaps posit. If you had honestly and earnestly stated your enformer as a theological proposal from the start, then I think @180 Proof would just have disagreed with you, and moved on, but, trying to suggest that your enformer is a legitimate scientific projection, based on current quantum mechanics, is like a red rag to a bull imo. That's why @180 Proof's and my reactions are more 'aggravated,' imo.

we've heard a lot of bullshit, and this, at first glance, just looks like more. Give us a reason to read it. — bert1

:up:

OK, what are your "terms" for discussing a novel philosophical worldview? — Gnomon

That's a good question, thank you for asking it. I think on a philosophy forum like this, I'm looking for arguments. I want to know why a position is wrong, and why a proposed solution is better. The subject matter of your view is perfectly philosophical, it concerns the nature of substance. You say it is information, and you may be right. I don't think that's a particularly controversial view actually, and I have no opinion on it. I haven't read very many of your posts, and I have only briefly looked at your website, but what you seem to be doing is expressing your opinion. What's wrong with that? It's not very philosophical. Philosophy is about arguments and justification. We typically want to know why one answer to a problem is better than another. Indeed, before we get to that, we want to know what problem a particular view is an answer to in the first place. From your website, the main view you set up in contrast to yours you call 'materialism'. You characterise this in a very old-fashioned 'atoms in the void' way. Modern materialists don't usually think like that any more. That's one thing that puts me off reading further. What might be more interesting and fitting on a philosophy forum is if you looked at a topic, said why the existing answers are unsatisfactory, and narrowly and specifically say why enformationism is different and peculiarly suited to solving the problem. Maybe you've already done that and I haven't noticed. You also say that you are not proposing any new science or new concepts. I guess I'd like to know what it is you are contradicting with your view. What is it that we are all getting wrong exactly, and why is it wrong? If you can convince us there's a problem with a particular view, and show us how enformationism fixes it, that might be of more prima facie interest. Showing, not telling, I suppose. I suspect the hassle you are getting is not because of your view (which may well be right for all I know), but because you're not playing the philosophy game.

True. However, the jury's still out whether or not emergence like this is (or will attain) substantial 'progress'. — 180 Proof

Oh, I agree, it could all go wrong for us in the end, but I predict, WE WILL try anyway.
There is NO WAY we will stay here in our nest (Earth).
In Carl Sagan's book contact, he got his main character to refer to the potential absence of other life in space as 'seems like an awful waste of space.' That resounded with me quite powerfully, even if we were the only lifeform with our level of sentience, in the entire universe.
I think we will need the kind of ASI proposed, and the types of transhumanism proposed, to enable us to become an extraterrestial and perhaps an interstellar species. Intergalactic, is beyond my rational perception for now.

So, I think such will be 'substantial progress,' in the sense of the number of options humans have, their lifespan, their robustness, etc but I agree that it may or may not provide 'substantial progress' in how 'happy' humans/transhumans are, or how much progression is achieved towards becoming a benevolent species towards each other, and towards 'everything' that encounters the future us.

The universe is not locally real :
One of the more unsettling discoveries in the past half century is that the universe is not locally real. In this context, 'real' means that objects have definite properties independent of observation . . . . the evidence shows that objects are not influenced solely by their surrounding, and they may also lack definite properties prior to measurement. . . . the demise of local realism has made a lot of people very angry . . . . Blame for this achievement has now been laid squarely on the shoulders of three physicists : John Clauser, Alain Aspect , and Anton Zeilinger. They equally split the 2022 Nobel Prize in Physics." — Gnomon

Why would such posits make you jump to a first cause mind with intent?
Perhaps we just have to be more accurate when we try to define what 'local reality' truly IS!
I see no rational road from such hypothesis to YOUR first cause mind with intent.

the Enformationism postulation, which also uses esoteric terminology and exotic ideas, may eventually seep into the consciousness of the informed public. Or maybe not. Hey, it's just a personal worldview. :smile: — Gnomon

You offer no compelling evidence to raise your speculations beyond their current status of 'YOUR personal worldview.'

What might be more interesting a fitting on a philosophy forum is if you looked at a topic, said why the existing answers are unsatisfactory, and narrowly and specifically say why enformationism is different and peculiarly suited to solving the problem. Maybe you've already done that and I haven't noticed. — bert1

Gnomon hasn't done so. I've repeatedly tried to get this out of him for at least the last several months with a short set of questions which he still refuses to address ...

I share 180 Proof's 'impatience,' with your attempts to deny that your enformer, IS a god of the gaps posit. If you had honestly and earnestly stated your enformer as a theological proposal from the start, then I think @180 Proof would just have disagreed with you, and moved on, but, trying to suggest that your enformer is a legitimate scientific projection, based on current quantum mechanics, is like a red rag to a bull imo. That's why @180 Proof's and my reactions are more 'aggravated,' imo. — universeness

Thanks, universeness, for joining me and others in calling @Gnomon on his pseudo-philosophical BS.

Increasing the number of our existential options as a species, as you suggest, would indeed be substantial progress. :up:

I share 180 Proof's 'impatience,' with your attempts to deny that your enformer, IS a god of the gaps posit. If you had honestly and earnestly stated your enformer as a theological proposal from the start, — universeness

As usual, you and interpret my philosophical & technical terminology differently from my intention. You are reading meanings into my words, instead of taking them as I define them in the posts. Apparently, 180 feels that his mechanical matter-based worldview (belief system, religion???) is threatened by an information-based philosophy. Which is true*1, but not in the way he imagines. :wink:

There is no religious cult of Hippie Informationists, coming to pry his beloved Matter from his cold dead hands. Instead, a new worldview is gradually emerging as Science advances --- not due to onslaughts by religious philistines, but due to gradual internal evolution of the "scientific" worldview*2. There is indeed a knowledge gap in modern science, but it cannot be filled by oldfashioned traditional religions, or by outdated classical mechanisms. That's because it's an Epistemological gap, not a Revelation lack or Empirical unknown. :nerd:

So the problem is not that I am concealing my intentions, but that you are imputing old familiar (traditional ; religious) meanings into the strange new (emergent ; mental) terminology of Quantum & Information Science. As a lone prophet (of science) "crying in the wilderness", I have no communal religion to to push. But I do have an idiosyncratic personal (non-religious) philosophical worldview, upon which all of my posts are based. The Enformer is a philosophical hypothesis, not a doctrinal "god of the gaps" that can be dismissed as non-empirical. However, if you are not interested in that new way of looking at the world (framing), you can just relax and ignore my "ravings"*3, as the imperial Romans ignored the insignificant uncultured barbarian invaders, until it was too late. :joke:

From that "outlandish barbarian" perspective, the world is no longer matter-based, but founded on invisible information. Yet to 180, any belief in invisible things can only be religiously motivated. He seems unaware that Quantum Science deals with, not only invisible (fields) but also not-yet-real (superposed) things. For classical common sense, such non-things may seem as un-real as pixies & unicorns. Do you believe in non-local Fields & Entanglement (holism) & Superposition (supernatural positions)? Do you take the existence of such non-sense on faith in physicists. If you do, does that make you an adherent of a Quantum Religion? No? Then maybe you can join the Quantum Information Club, and enjoy the incomprehension of the uninformed infidels. :smile:

PS__Please pardon my eccentric sense of humor, I'm seriously kidding --- in attempt to convey unwelcome ideas without giving offense.

*1. The existential threat is not just a feeling, but imminent --- In the same sense that 20th century Quantum Theory eventually undermined the foundational assumptions of Classical physics. In the 21st century, non-local quantum fields & spooky action-at-a-distance have replaced Newton's particular & local mechanisms -- for theoretical applications, if not for pragmatic purposes. Yet, most of us still think in classical terms, because they are familiar & intuitive, and appeal to common-sense. The post quantum world, by contrast, is unfamiliar & weird & non-sensical. On top of that new-wave Science, Information theory has opened-up novel ways to interpret the fundamental workings of the world. And the notion of Emergence is essential to its holistic functioning. Which is why I was trying to introduce some (non New Age) Holism into the conversation on this thread. 180 is stalwartly defending the borders of his embattled belief system.

*2. Since the emergence of non-mechanical quantum "mechanics" the classical scientific worldview has been fragmented into many divergent threads. But that's a topic for another thread.

*3. "A prophet is not without honour, but in his own country, and among his own kin, and in his own house". That's not a religious belief, but a commonsense aphorism.

As usual, you and ↪180 Proof interpret my philosophical & technical terminology differently from my intention. — Gnomon

More of the same Jabberwocky, @universeness – there's just no there there.

Yeah, @Gnomon will continue to defend his keep. mostly with an army of one. Agent Smith would toss him the odd sandwich, over the very small keep walls, but the truth is that we are only firing reason at him. so he need not keep playing his victim or 'under attack' card.
I am more interested in making sure that any readers attracted to his god of the gaps posit, have balanced counter arguments to consider. I think we and others are doing that and no-one will be taken in by such as:

However, if you are not interested in that new way of looking at the world (framing), you can just relax and ignore my "ravings"*3, as the imperial Romans ignored the insignificant uncultured barbarian invaders, until it was too late. :joke: — Gnomon

Do you take the existence of such non-sense on faith in physicists. If you do, does that make you an adherent of a Quantum Religion? No? Then maybe you can join the Quantum Information Club, and enjoy the incomprehension of the uninformed infidels. :smile: — Gnomon

PS__Please pardon my eccentric sense of humor,I'm seriously kidding --- in attempt to convey unwelcome ideas without giving offense. — Gnomon

His sense of humour is indeed eccentric!

It seems to me that an objective truth about all humans is that we seek new information. — universeness

We have altered the Earth in many significant ways. Can we do the same to the solar system and far beyond it? Is that an objective truth about what is fundamental in our nature to do? — universeness

To what extent do you think that human beings are 'information processors?' — universeness

Our ability to memorialise and pass on new knowledge from generation to generation seems to have 'the potential' to affect the 'structure and purpose of the contents of the universe.' — universeness

In the future we will...Act as a single connected intellect and as separate intellects. — universeness

How much credence do you give to the idea that we are heading towards an 'information/technological singularity? — universeness

You are asking about the practical reality of one possible essential attribute of humans: information processors?

Your are asking about the possible primary role of human existence: collection, storage and dissemination of information?

You are asking about humans playing an important part in the transformation of our presently known universe to another, radically different state of being via a dynamic process that parallels the Big Bang?

You are asking about the practical reality of one possible essential attribute of humans: information processors? — ucarr

Yes.

Your are asking about the possible primary role of human existence: collection, storage and dissemination of information? — ucarr

Yes, but there is more detail involved than you suggest. We ask questions, we seek and memorialise answers, based on this, we manifest intent and purpose, and based on our actions, we leave legacy which varies in it's significance to the next generation.

You are asking about humans playing an important part in the transformation of our presently known universe to another, radically different state of being via a dynamic process that parallels the Big Bang? — ucarr

You would need to clarify further, what you mean by 'parallels the big bang.' Humans can manifest significant intent, due to what happened after abiogenesis, we happened as part of what happened after the big bang, so I don't know what you mean by 'parallels,' in the context you used it.

You would need to clarify further, what you mean by 'parallels the big bang.' — universeness

Since you refer to an information singularity, a term I know from the common Big Bang language, and since your question about history headed towards a possibly human-directed information singularity strikes me as a question of some considerable importance to you, I thought perhaps you were linking cosmic Big Bang singularity to information "Big Bang" singularity. According to my guess about this, I've been assuming the linkage is metaphorical. In other words, while the cosmic Big Bang singularity is a literal explosion of the universe into existence, the information "Big Bang" is a cognitive explosion of information into some type of existentially new universe.

The intriguing part, according to my speculation, concerns the parallel of matter reaching critical mass just prior to radioactivity with elementary particle formation and likewise information reaching critical mass just prior to gnostic "radioactivity" with elementary knowledge formation.

I suppose I'm really only talking about a renaissance like the one Da Vinci is credited with sparking, except at a universal scale.

Since you refer to an information singularity, a term I know from the common Big Bang language, and since your question about history headed towards a possibly human-directed information singularity strikes me as a question of some considerable importance to you, I thought perhaps you were linking cosmic Big Bang singularity to information "Big Bang" singularity. According to my guess about this, I've been assuming the linkage is metaphorical. In other words, while the cosmic Big Bang singularity is a literal explosion of the universe into existence, the information "Big Bang" is a cognitive explosion of information into some type of existentially new universe. — ucarr

Did actually refer to an "information singularity", or is that your interpretation of his intention? I ask, because he and have been ridiculing my 21st century (information-centric) update of the ancient First Cause postulate -- labeling it as a religious belief. Yet your description of a "cognitive explosion of information" to produce an "existentially new universe" sounds like a creation event, caused by what I call metaphorically The Enformer*1. Were you making a religious statement, or a philosophical conjecture, or merely referring to an empirical scientific fact?

Where did you get the idea of an "information big bang" and "cognitive explosion"? I googled those terms and came-up empty. I'm not familiar with such "common big bang language". Are these your own ideas, or can you provide a link to the source? BTW, whose cognition (mental action) exploded? Do you have a name or metaphor to describe the implicit Mind that preceded the Big Conception? Be careful what you say; this line of thought is treading on dangerous ground, at least for some posters.

I did find one article which seemed to equate Kurzweil's hypothetical future Technological Singularity with an Information Singularity*2. But I got nothing about an original Big Bang burst of Information or a "cognitive explosion", that resulted in the creation of a physical universe from pre-existing rational causal power-to-enform (LOGOS?). Even though Fred Hoyle ridiculed the reasoning behind the "Big Bang theory", for its implication of creation of something-from-nothing, the name has stuck in the popular mind. Yet scientists keep searching for a less-religiously-loaded term & rationale for the sudden emergence of everything, including space-time, from a dimensionless mathematical singularity*3. But the notion of a "cognitive explosion" might be no less ridiculous for those with a Materialist & Mechanical worldview. :smile:


*1. The Enformer :
AKA, the Creator. The presumed eternal source of all information, as encoded in the Big Bang Sing-ularity. That ability to convert conceptual Forms into actual Things, to transform infinite possibilities into finite actualities, and to create space & time, matter & energy from essentially no-thing is called the power of EnFormAction. Due to our ignorance of anything beyond space-time though, the postulated enforming agent remains undefined. I simply label it generically as "G*D".
https://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page8.html


*2. How to prepare our minds for the information singularity? :
Information singularity – what is it and why is it dangerous
https://bdtechtalks.com/2022/07/21/brain-limits-individual-artificial-intelligence/
Note -- I wouldn't worry about the dangers of a future singularity, long after I'm gone. But the philosophical implications of a world-creating, Singularity preceding the existence of our physical world, are of interest to me. Although Uni and 180 seem to feel that it is a dangerous idea -- at least for those who believe without evidence that our world is eternal or self-existent.

*3. The initial singularity is a singularity predicted by some models of the Big Bang theory to have existed before the Big Bang[1] and thought to have contained all the energy and spacetime of the Universe.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Initial_singularity
Note -- And all the Information of the universe

Did ↪universeness actually refer to an "information singularity", or is that your interpretation of his intention? — Gnomon

How much credence do you give to the idea that we are heading towards an 'information/technological singularity? — universeness

From the evidence of the above quote, I say universeness actually refers to an information singularity. Do you think I'm misreading the quote?

...your description of a "cognitive explosion of information..."sounds like a creation event... — Gnomon

Were you making a religious statement, or a philosophical conjecture, or merely referring to an empirical scientific fact? — Gnomon

I will describe my statement as an historical conjecture: the information singularity at point of explosion pushes sentience across a threshold whereupon a "quantum leap" upward into a new, higher gestalt of cognition gets underway. This new level of understanding and conceptualizing could be expected to transform the phenomenal universe through the agency of sentients.

I was not postulating existence of a transcendent enformactional entity who causes the phenomenal universe.

Where did you get the idea of an "information big bang" and "cognitive explosion"? I googled those terms and came-up empty. I'm not familiar with such "common big bang language" — Gnomon

I'm guilty of a lack of clarity. "Common big bang language refers to singularity, not information singularity.. The latter term came to me from the above quote of universeness.

I got nothing about an original Big Bang burst of Information or a "cognitive explosion", that resulted in the creation of a physical universe from pre-existing rational causal power-to-enform (LOGOS?). — Gnomon

What you say is part and parcel of your theory of enformaction.

I was only postulating, per the language of universeness, the historical evolution of human consciousness towards a cosmic culmination. Imagine, if you will, a cognitive "explosion" of categorically new concepts and scientific methodology.


Does your enformaction theory, as I've been wondering, have Plato's Theory of (Ideal) Forms as an ancient forebear?

Since you refer to an information singularity, a term I know from the common Big Bang language, and since your question about history headed towards a possibly human-directed information singularity strikes me as a question of some considerable importance to you, I thought perhaps you were linking cosmic Big Bang singularity to information "Big Bang" singularity. — ucarr

Yeah, the term 'singularity' is ill-formed imo. The big bang singularity for me has different properties than the singularity which is proposed to be at the centre of every black hole, for example.
The moment of a 'technological' or 'information' singularity has some different properties again, compared to the big bang or black hole singularities.
Consider the following from math.ucr.edu:
The first clear difference is that the Big Bang singularity of the FRW models lies in the past of all events in the universe, whereas the singularity of a black hole lies in the future. The Big Bang is therefore more like a "white hole": the time-reversed version of a black hole. According to classical general relativity white holes should not exist, since they cannot be created for the same (time-reversed) reasons that black holes cannot be destroyed. But this might not apply if they have always existed.

But the standard FRW Big Bang models are also different from a white hole. A white hole has an event horizon that is the reverse of a black hole event horizon. Nothing can pass into this horizon, just as nothing can escape from a black hole horizon. Roughly speaking, this is the definition of a white hole. Notice that it would have been easy to show that the FRW model is different from a standard black- or white hole solution such as the static Schwarzschild solutions or rotating Kerr solutions, but it is more difficult to demonstrate the difference from a more general black- or white hole. The real difference is that the FRW models do not have the same type of event horizon as a black- or white hole. Outside a white hole event horizon there are world lines that can be traced back into the past indefinitely without ever meeting the white hole singularity, whereas in an FRW cosmology all worldlines originate at the singularity.

For me, the term 'information singularity' or 'technological singularity,' is more about a 'moment of very significant change.' The terminator movies 'might' be a respectable example. From the moment 'skynet' was switched on, human existence was utterly changed. ASI,(artificial super intelligence), is the main candidate for such a significant moment. I am interested in what credence level you assign to such as:
1. How credible is it to you, that the ASI moment WILL happen.
2. How convinced are you that it will be bad for the human species when it does and why do you think it will be bad for us.
3. How convinced are you that an ASI moment will be good for the human species and why do you think it will be good for us.
This has been asked about in other threads. Here, I am discussing, what YOU think is emergent due to all human actions, based on their varied manifestations of intent and purpose, since we came out of the wilds. We pass such a vast amount of knowledge on to each new generation. What do you think will be the consequences of this, when you project it into our future?

According to my guess about this, I've been assuming the linkage is metaphorical. In other words, while the cosmic Big Bang singularity is a literal explosion of the universe into existence, the information "Big Bang" is a cognitive explosion of information into some type of existentially new universe. — ucarr

A common misconception, and one of the reasons I hate that the term 'big bang' is still in such popular use. It was not big and there was no bang!! The universe began as something/a singularity/a mindless spark/ a state, reached from the completion of an earlier aeon cycle (as in Roger Penrose's CCC)/the collision of two multidimensional branes/ etc which then inflated/expanded, and its fundamental constituents began to combine in every way they possibly could. Enormous variety, in an enormous number of combinations was the result. Abiogenesis happened (we don't know the full details ... yet).
Then at some point, a lifeform (such as us), demonstrated ability to manifest intent, and purposeful action, and intelligent design. The theists assign these abilities to god posits, and a first cause mind with intent, that exists 'outside' of this universe. @Gnomon's 'enformer' speculation, qualifies for this category imo.
I am an atheist, and I assign the ability of humans to manifest intent and purpose to naturalism. Our ability to manifest intent and purpose means we can 'affect' the universe in very significant ways. If you agree, and project this into the future, then I am very interested on what YOU think the consequences will be. Your scientific musings and/or your philosophical musings on this, would be gratefully received.

The intriguing part, according to my speculation, concerns the parallel of matter reaching critical mass just prior to radioactivity with elementary particle formation and likewise information reaching critical mass just prior to gnostic "radioactivity" with elementary knowledge formation. — ucarr

I relate 'physical mass reaching critical points' to imagery like star evolution. Supernova, pulsar's and black holes.
I have never heard of the term 'gnostic radioactivity!'
Radioactivity described as:
the emission of ionizing radiation or particles caused by the spontaneous disintegration of atomic nuclei.
Gnostic, described as:
Gnosticism (from Ancient Greek: γνωστικός, romanized: gnōstikós, Koine Greek: [ɣnostiˈkos], 'having knowledge') is a collection of religious ideas and systems that coalesced in the late 1st century AD among Jewish and early Christian sects.
'Information reaching critical mass,' seems to me to be a fair connection to the popular concept of an 'information singularity' or a 'moment of very significant change,' so If that's the imagery you are invoking, then I understand it. I don't think a parallel between the moment 'elementary particle formation' occurred and when gnostic radiation (I assume, you mean something like 'the moment when knowledge was first exchanged between hominid or any species of life), offers much, as one happened way way way before the other.
Elementary particle formation:
Between about $10^{-12}$ and $10^{-6}$ second after the Big Bang, neutrinos, quarks, and electrons formed. Protons and neutrons began forming shortly after, from about $10^{-6}$ to 1 second after the Big Bang. Within about 3 minutes after the Big Bang, conditions cooled enough for these protons and neutrons to form hydrogen nuclei. This is called the era of nucleosynthesis. Some of these nuclei combined to form helium as well, though in much smaller quantities (just a few percent). But after about 20 minutes, nucleosynthesis ended and no further nuclei could form.

Knowledge was first exchanged between lifeforms, obviously, way after abiogenesis. Both happenings are pivotal, so I suppose they are parallel, in that sense, but I don't perceive the level of significance, that you seem to be assigning, to such a parallel.

I suppose I'm really only talking about a renaissance like the one Da Vinci is credited with sparking, except at a universal scale. — ucarr

Sure, I agree that such moments are pivotal but probably not 'singularly' pivotal. Da Vinci sparked a renaissance, but only in the artworld. A singular pivotal moment must irrefutably affect every human on the planet. I think ASI has the potential to qualify. I am interested in anything YOU are strongly convinced is emergent, due to human existence and human activity since we came out of the wilds, right up to the present day.

Note -- I wouldn't worry about the dangers of a future singularity, long after I'm gone. But the philosophical implications of a world-creating, Singularity preceding the existence of our physical world, are of interest to me. Although Uni and 180 seem to feel that it is a dangerous idea -- at least for those who believe without evidence that our world is eternal or self-existent. — Gnomon

Not dangerous in anyway, just irrational, as there is no evidence for it, at all.
I repeat, 'nothing' can have no existent form as it requires a reference and a reference is 'something.'

This new level of understanding and conceptualizing could be expected to transform the phenomenal universe through the agency of sentients. — ucarr

I agree, and this is why I give some credence, to the usefulness of words like omniscience/perfect/god/etc ONLY, as asymptotic aspiration, for a sentient species like us.
I reject the theist insult, that all human wonderment and awe is OWNED and sourced from some pointless, already omniscient, first cause mind/god. I further reject that we are the 'sinners,' that religions describe humans as, especially when their fairy tales, posit a god, who sins far more than we ever could. It's time for humans to outgrow fake god BS and shed our infancy at last. OWN your OWN wonderment and awe. Humans must stop giving what's best about themselves, to woo woo posits due to their personal inability to face their own primal fears and their own death. There is a lot of wonder filled life to experience first. There is also the wonderful legacy you CAN leave behind, that hopefully makes the world a little bit better than it was before YOU arrived. There is also, the certainty, in the final analysis, of a far far better peace (of oblivion) than you have ever known.

For me, the term 'information singularity' or 'technological singularity,' is more about a 'moment of very significant change.' The terminator movies 'might' be a respectable example. From the moment 'skynet' was switched on, human existence was utterly changed. ASI,(artificial super intelligence), is the main candidate for such a significant moment. — universeness

Ah, yes. Terminator. The great Harlan Ellison, author of Demon With a Glass Hand_The Outer Limits, subsequently ripped off by James Cameron for his Terminator franchise. (Ellison won a lawsuit against Cameron).

In my original post to you I included the following passage. I took it out, fearing it might be perceived as woo. Now, after reading your post, I'm feeling more bold (I include the first paragraph to help establish the context):

I will describe my statement as an historical conjecture: the information singularity at point of explosion pushes sentience across a threshold whereupon a "quantum leap" upward into a new, higher gestalt of cognition gets underway. This new level of understanding and conceptualizing could be expected to transform the phenomenal universe through the agency of sentients.

The scary part is the possibility homo sapiens will effect its own obsolescence in accordance with evolution by causing an information singularity necessitating appearance of homo superior in order to understand and utilize the higher cognition. — ucarr

The second paragraph goes a long way with few words towards answering your main question:

Here, I am discussing, what YOU think is emergent due to all human actions, based on their varied manifestations of intent and purpose... — universeness

I don't consider myself being negative, but rather being realistic as I believe every top species eventually generates its destroyer, and that's progress!

'Information reaching critical mass,' seems to me to be a fair connection to the popular concept of an 'information singularity' or a 'moment of very significant change,' so If that's the imagery you are invoking, then I understand it. — universeness

Your are correct in your above speculation.

I don't think a parallel between the moment 'elementary particle formation' occurred and when gnostic radiation (I assume, you mean something like 'the moment when knowledge was first exchanged between hominid or any species of life), offers much, as one happened way way way before the other. — universeness

I am strongly inclined towards exaggeration and drama. Because of this inclination, I cannot forget my first viewing of 2001: A Space Odyssey. I'm referring to the opening scenes depicting the tribal ape wars. When, finally, one ape weaponizes bone into club that trounces the opposition, well... that wasn't an information singularity moment, but it sure as heck was a turning point!

The scary part is the possibility homo sapiens will effect its own obsolescence in accordance with evolution by causing an information singularity necessitating appearance of homo superior in order to understand and utilize the higher cognition. — ucarr

This seems to be the most popular viewpoint regarding the 'pivotal' moment of the development of an ASI. Folks like myself and I think @180 Proof, think that it's just as possible, that a developing/growing ASI that achieves self-awareness, would be benevolent towards all lifeforms, especially lifeforms with the sentience level of humans.
I am sure we, as it's original 'programmers,' would try to make sure it understood the 'good' side of human nature as well as the 'bad.' I think it would make more sense for such an ASI, to help us, and protect us, and enhance us, and perhaps even merge with us, in the common cause of developing an asymptotic approach, towards understanding all there is to know about the universe.
I think we are still a long way away from developing the 'singular' type of ASI we are discussing here, and I also admit, that I have no real idea, of what such an ASI would become, when it became able to fully control and demonstrate the kinds of processing speeds, and data storage and retrieval that a quantum/biological computer network may become capable of. This would be further enhanced, by such a systems, ability, to process data in parallel, rather than in serial.
BUT, humans would need such a system imo, to gain any significant extraterrestial presence.
How much credence would you be willing to assign to the possibility of a benevolent ASI that augments/works alongside/merges with humans (transhumans)?

The popular dystopian view of the tech singularity, may prove to be nothing more than fear based pessimism. Don't you think that if we can do it, at some point WE WILL, as the rewards may be a singularly pivotal moment, which changes the human experience forever, and perhaps (even if its, just mostly, like 51%,) for the better?

I'm referring to the opening scenes depicting the tribal ape wars. When, finally, one ape weaponizes bone into club that trounces the opposition, well... that wasn't an information singularity moment, but it sure as heck was a turning point! — ucarr

It's certainly true, that many atrocities have been committed by humans, since discovering 'weaponry.'
BUT, a great deal of 'civilisation' building has happened to.
As I have already typed in previous posts. I am with the arguments put forward by folks such as Steven Pinker in his book 'Enlightenment Now.'
Enlightenment Now: The Case for Reason, Science, Humanism, and Progress is a 2018 book written by Canadian-American cognitive scientist Steven Pinker. It argues that the Enlightenment values of reason, science, and humanism have brought progress, and that health, prosperity, safety, peace, and happiness have tended to rise worldwide. It is a follow-up to Pinker's 2011 book, The Better Angels of Our Nature.

Starvation is common today, never mind in history. How does that change the fact that there is enough food, currently existent on the planet to feed everyone currently existing on the planet? — universeness

I do not believe that is enough food to feed everyone, nor is it practical to send produce to poor nations that can not pay for the labor and transportation cost to feed huge populations in poor countries the variety of foods necessary for good health. I wish everyone experienced at least two years of having to live on the food they produce themselves before entering a discussion about feeding the world. The experience would give them a necessary perspective. Tell me, what are the circumstances essential to feeding a family of 7? If we were in the pioneer days and the families diet depended on hurting and gardening what are the challenges and how are they met.

I think your opinions are based on facts, but not knowledge and enough facts for good judgment. Even those in important places may lack the necessary knowledge because their focus is too narrow. If you notice, they are saying we could feed more people by farming where cattle are being raised. Not all ground is good for farming. It can be hard to get enough protein without meat and dairy products.

Modern farming practices that made it possible to feed most the world, come with social, environmental and economic cost. What do people eat when the locus come in and destroy the crops, or weather prevents people from having a good crop? What farming practices improved the yield and gave those who farm an excess that they could sell? And what did improved farming methods have to do with freeing human labor for industry? How has trade changed our potential to have more food? How about what discovering spices, tomatoes and potatoes did to our ability to have plenty of food? How about what discovering how to prevent bacteria did to our food supply? You live in a world that is totally changed and it has not been that long since people everywhere died because of a poor diet. Today the problem is changed, they gtet enough calories but eat the wrong foods and people are destroying their lives and their children's lives with harmful foods.

There is a huge, huge difference between the over abundance and serious health problems today and starvation in the past. You can imagine feeding the world because you have a full belly and didn't put much effort to getting that food. If you lived in a village where every winter neighbors starved to death, and you feared not having enough to eat, you would not be thinking of feeding the world. History gives us perspective and that perspective is necessary for good judgment.

Athena BUT, I go to Steven Pinker again, 'we can make things better, because we have demonstrated in the past that we already have.' You help people whenever you can, despite any 'shortfalls,' you are experiencing yourself, so, QED. — universeness

Under what conditions is this true? I grew up in L.A. California and took people being killed for granted, like people in Oregon take rain for granted. I thought it is was very important to be tough. My idea of what it means to be tough changed with old age. :lol: The point is, we are reactionary, and how we feel, think, and behave depends on our environment and circumstance. We can be as angles or completely numb to the suffering of others.

Personally, I think a very evil mind set has emerged and I have deep concerns about our growing dependency on bureaucratic control of our lives. I have concerns about people putting their faith in technology and ignoring our humanness. Given the news today, I see the rise of Nazi Germany coming out of leaving moral training to the church instead of understanding education for good moral judgment is essential to democracy and so is self reliance essential to our liberty.

I hate the modern selling phrase, "get what you deserve", as though mother nature and/or God will take care of us as long as we please the god or our choice. Today, that God, being the government and bureaucracy and thinking rational is all important, failing to appreciate emotional reality and how destructive dependency on authority above us, can be.

From the evidence of the above quote, I say universeness actually refers to an information singularity. Do you think I'm misreading the quote? — ucarr

No, I merely missed the "information" and focused on the "technological" when I first read that line. Which is ironic in view of my information-centric worldview. However, unless I missed it, he didn't follow-up with a definition/description of an "information singularity". Kurzweil talks about the inevitable "techno singularity" and "machine intelligence" but not much about an "information explosion" from a pin-point. So, I don't know what Uni had in mind regarding the role of Information.

Post-quantum physics has equated Information (power to enform) with physical Energy. In which case the future unleashed-singularity could indeed be an explosion of Information. But, I can't imagine how that would play-out. :worry:

I will describe my statement as an historical conjecture: the information singularity at point of explosion pushes sentience across a threshold whereupon a "quantum leap" upward into a new, higher gestalt of cognition gets underway. This new level of understanding and conceptualizing could be expected to transform the phenomenal universe through the agency of sentients. — ucarr

Are you aware of something similar to an "information singularity" in recorded history (a la Gutenberg)? The transition from Theological Science to Empirical Science was a significant change of direction, but the Age of Enlightenment took centuries to take full effect. Hardly an explosion. Likewise, the Information Age that began in the early 20th century has rapidly expanded up to this point in the 21st century, making radical changes in socio-cultural phenomena. But I'm not aware of a bottle-neck that would simulate a Singularity "Bang" : something from nothing.

So, I can see why Kurzweil could imagine that information processing technology (especially AI) could result in something like a Big Bang, where humanity, and its mechanical extensions, rapidly expand their reach into the solar system & universe -- as imagined in countless sci-fi stories. I can conceive of something like a "quantum leap" of cognition, but I have no idea what that would mean -- what it would be like, compared to our current plodding cognition. Perhaps Kurzweil dismisses our present state of cognition as nothing, compared to what is yet to come. Ironically, that reminds me of Apostle Paul's confident prediction of the perfect world-to-come. :joke:

I was not postulating existence of a transcendent enformactional entity who causes the phenomenal universe. — ucarr

I didn't think you were. But that's where my dialogue with got hung-up. His worldview is basically Empirical (observation), while mine is fundamentally Philosophical (inference). He's OK with extrapolating from known current state toward a future unknown unverifiable possibility; but I was inferring from current knowledge back to unknown possible initial conditions, as many philosophers have done before. Unfortunately, his empirical stance labels questions of Origins as Religious, whereas I view such explorations as Philosophical. Unlike Plato, he draws the line at unverifiable Transcendence. As implicit in his dialogue with Athena, Uni seems to be Past Pessimistic, but Future Optimistic. Other than that Origins Taboo, our worldviews seem to be similar. :cool:

What you say is part and parcel of your theory of enformaction. . . . Does your enformaction theory, as I've been wondering, have Plato's Theory of (Ideal) Forms as an ancient forebear? — ucarr

Yes. When I traced the current Information state of the world back as far as possible -- following the pattern of Big Bang Cosmologists -- I came to an Information Singularity of my own, where space-time faded away into infinities. I assume that Plato followed a similar line of reasoning, and concluded that Reality is bounded by space-time. But then, whence space-time & energy-laws? So, he postulated a transcendent (eternal ; infinite) Source of Enforming power (Logos - in Ideality) as an answer to the Open Question of "why something instead of nothing". But that kind of pioneering reverse-reasoning (into the a priori unknown) is not allowed by Empirical doctrine (from known to knowable). Empirical Science takes space-time & matter-energy & natural logical laws for granted (on faith). But I don't. I view Open Questions as the reason for engaging in theoretical Philosophy. :smile: