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.↪Gnomon
Ad hominems, strawmen & non sequiturs-riddled rationalizations of your "enformer"-of-the-gaps poor reasoning are empty and boring. — 180 Proof
Since he won't listen to me — Gnomon
True. However, the jury's still out whether or not emergence like this is (or will attain) substantial 'progress'.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
: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" ...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
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!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
Required translations are irrelevant to our discussion. Only the machine code is relevant.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
I don't understand your point. The vacuum of space contains energy, perhaps even IS an energy form.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
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.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
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?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
It IS true. Relativistic addition backs up Carl Sagan's statement as I quoted it above.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
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!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
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???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
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.'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
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
Your derision of my "god posit" is understandable from the worldview of Logical Positivism — Gnomon
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
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.Was Newton a religious idiot, — Gnomon
Feign???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
Really? :lol: what creature in the natural world, for you, is an analogy to an orc or a pixie?The mythical beings you list are merely analogies to creatures in the Natural world. — Gnomon
I repeat, 'Nothing' cannot exist, as you need something to reference it!If invalid, what alternative gap-filler, to something-from-nothing, can you posit? — Gnomon
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
:roll: Make up your mind!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
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
Absolutely , YES!That may not be a viable empirical question, but it's a legitimate philosophical "open" question, is it not? — Gnomon
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
we've heard a lot of bullshit, and this, at first glance, just looks like more. Give us a reason to read it. — bert1
OK, what are your "terms" for discussing a novel philosophical worldview? — Gnomon
True. However, the jury's still out whether or not emergence like this is (or will attain) substantial 'progress'. — 180 Proof
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
You offer no compelling evidence to raise your speculations beyond their current status of 'YOUR personal worldview.'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
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 ...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
Thanks, universeness, for joining me and others in calling @Gnomon on his pseudo-philosophical BS.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
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: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
More of the same Jabberwocky, @universeness – there's just no there there.As usual, you and ↪180 Proof interpret myphilosophical & technicalterminology differently from my intention. — Gnomon
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
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
Yes.You are asking about the practical reality of one possible essential attribute of humans: information processors? — 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.Your are asking about the possible primary role of human existence: collection, storage and dissemination of information? — 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 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.' — universeness
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?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 ↪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
...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
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 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
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.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
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).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
I relate 'physical mass reaching critical points' to imagery like star evolution. Supernova, pulsar's and black holes.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 suppose I'm really only talking about a renaissance like the one Da Vinci is credited with sparking, except at a universal scale. — ucarr
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
This new level of understanding and conceptualizing could be expected to transform the phenomenal universe through the agency of sentients. — ucarr
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
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
Here, I am discussing, what YOU think is emergent due to all human actions, based on their varied manifestations of intent and purpose... — universeness
'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
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
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
It's certainly true, that many atrocities have been committed by humans, since discovering 'weaponry.'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
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
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
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.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
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.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
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:I was not postulating existence of a transcendent enformactional entity who causes the phenomenal universe. — 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: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
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.