Aren't you referring to the change in entropy over time? If you just mean the fixed value of entropy for a state of affairs, it explains nothing.Entropy. Entropy isn't contingent on living things. — Benj96
I agree that, for insentient matter, there is no concept of Time, just meaningless Change. For a world without thinking & feeling persons, the universe may be as described in Einstein's thought experiment of Block Time. Without memory, there is no Past or Future, just Now, or perhaps nothingness.It's possible time doesnt exist outside the realm of what living things perceive.
In this case, positive causation and entropy are mutually synergistic.
Without positive causation, entropy cannot be observed (ie the arrow of time cannot be experienced). Without entropy, positive causation or the tendency towards order, sumilarly cannot exist — Benj96
Of course, there's the possibility that we discover life all over the place. — Patterner
But sure, let's just say. I guess I would wonder why something created the simulation of such an outrageous size, and only simulated life where we are.
no concept of Time, just meaningless Change — Gnomon
I would suggest the system is the solar system, not just the Earth. The energy from the sun could have powered the increase in order.Note --- Planet Earth is the primary example of Negative Entropy in the universe, where Life & Mind have emerged against all odds (second law of thermodynamics). — Gnomon
Yes. Time is a concept formulated by sentient observers of Change, for whom Difference is the essence of Sentience*1. But presumably, Change continues in the remote backwaters of the universe, where to our knowledge there are no observers. For example, the latest Mars missions have found evidence of physical changes over time, but no little green men to take note of it. For those red rocks lying in an ancient dry river bed, Time is "not relevant". So, as you say, "metaphysically" (relation to Mind) Time stands still*2. :smile:I take Time to be nothing but the acknowledgement of before-after wrt states of affairs. Obviously, something insentient can't acknowledge this, but the changes still occur.
Is that you feel for an insentient being this is just not relevant, or that for them, metaphysically, time wouldn't pass? — AmadeusD
Yes, but, "could" is counterfactual. Are you aware of instances of Life & Mind anywhere except on the third rock from the sun? :wink:Note --- Planet Earth is the primary example of Negative Entropy in the universe, where Life & Mind have emerged against all odds (second law of thermodynamics). — Gnomon
I would suggest the system is the solar system, not just the Earth. The energy from the sun could have powered the increase in order. — Patterner
I'm only saying there is a source of energy that can account for the energy that would be needed to decrease the entropy, if that's what happened.Yes, but, "could" is counterfactual. Are you aware of instances of Life & Mind anywhere except on the third rock from the sun? :wink: — Gnomon
Unobserved Change is not Time. I think you missed the point of the "red rock" example. The dry river bed is evidence of physical Change in the environment over eons of Time. But, even internal sub-atomic changes would be irrelevant to an insentient rock, presumably lacking both the cognitive power of Interoception, and the ability to measure differences. Time is a measurement. :joke:Do you think that no radioactive isotopes that were in the rock at the time of the rock's fomation have decayed? — wonderer1
Yes, but what is the source of organic Biogenesis (Negentropy ; Enformy) on all the other "rocks" in the system?Yes, but, "could" is counterfactual. Are you aware of instances of Life & Mind anywhere except on the third rock from the sun? :wink: — Gnomon
I'm only saying there is a source of energy that can account for the energy that would be needed to decrease the entropy, if that's what happened. — Patterner
Speaking of literal non-sense. How do you define Time, apart from metaphysical Measurement by a Mind?Gnever mind. I should have gnown better than to engage with gnarcissistic gnonsense. — wonderer1
I'm not sure what ticked off, but I suspect he doesn't appreciate my references to fundamental Information, and other sub-physical notions that might have something to do with the emergence of Life from abiotic Matter. Apparently he can't make sense of my immaterial "gnon-sense". But, if Abiogenesis was a sensible thing, you'd think it would already be accepted as a physical fact, instead of a philosophical theory.Gnever mind. I should have gnown better than to engage with gnarcissistic gnonsense. — wonderer1
Gnow gnow. — Patterner
Me? I love the book. At least the half I've gotten through.Note --- Are you familiar with Deacon's Incomplete Nature? — Gnomon
From the little I know of Complexity and Self-organization, I think it's plausible. I don't know enough specifics to defend the theory, though. And I don't think there's one specific abiogenesis theory that's considered more likely than others? Other than various creation stories, I don't know of other types of theories.Do you think the explanation for Abiogenesis will necessarily conform to the current dominant scientific worldview of Materialism? :nerd: — Gnomon
fundamental Information — Gnomon
You see, it is one thing to state in language that information is primary and can, therefore, exist independently of mind and matter. But it is another thing entirely to explicitly and coherently conceive of what—if anything—this may mean. By way of analogy, it is possible to write—as Lewis Carroll did—that the Cheshire Cat’s grin remains after the cat disappears, but it is another thing entirely to conceive explicitly and coherently of what this means.
Our intuitive understanding of the concept of information—as cogently captured by Claude Shannon in 1948—is that it is merely a measure of the number of possible states of an independently existing system. As such, information is a property ofan underlying substrate associated with the substrate’s possible configurations—not an entity unto itself.
To say that information exists in and of itself is akin to speaking of spin without the top, of ripples without water, of a dance without the dancer, or of the Cheshire Cat’s grin without the cat. It is a grammatically valid statement devoid of sense; a word game less meaningful than fantasy, for internally consistent fantasy can at least be explicitly and coherently conceived of as such.
we must stick to what is most immediately present to us: solidity and concreteness are qualities of our experience. The world measured, modeled and ultimately predicted by physics is the world of perceptions, a category of mentation. The phantasms and abstractions reside merely in our descriptions of the behavior of that world, not in the world itself.
It's true that Shannon's Information (data) is always specific, since it is used for communication engineering purposes. But Terrence Deacon is "redefining information"*1 by postulating a triad of Information types : Shannon, Boltzmann, & Darwin. You can think of them as Pragmatic Engineering, Thermodynamic, & Biological functions. However, I use the term "Generic Information" to mean something like the source (generator) of all Forms (everything physical & biological & mental) in the world.I’ve said this before, but I’ll try again - there’s no such thing as ‘generic information’. Information is always specific. — Wayfarer
I had never heard the term Information Realism before reading Science Ideated. Kastrup does indeed challenge Tegmark's Mathematical Universe hypothesis. But that's only a small part of what I'm "advocating". I can see that Mathematics is the Logic of reality. But EnFormAction is also postulated as the creative Causal Force of reality.I read Kastrup’s essay as directly challenging the kind of ‘information realism’ that you seem to be advocating. — Wayfarer
Stick with it. Incompleteness in reading leaves an ignorance Absence. Taken as a philosophical worldview, Deacon's theory of Creative Absence is a paradigm changer. :wink:Note --- Are you familiar with Deacon's Incomplete Nature? — Gnomon
Me? I love the book. At least the half I've gotten through. — Patterner
Yes. There have been several scientific & philosophical attempts to explain the emergence of Life from non-life*1. But so far, none has hit a home-run, and all leave some unexplained gaps, such as the emergence of Mind from mindless Matter. I have my own personal Information-based Genesis hypothesis, which is more general & philosophical than just Biogenesis. But it lacks the mythical poetry of an anthro-morphic deity speaking the world into existence, and animating dead clay. So, it's not likely to serve as the basis for a popular religion. :smile:From the little I know of Complexity and Self-organization, I think it's plausible. I don't know enough specifics to defend the theory, though. And I don't think there's one specific abiogenesis theory that's considered more likely than others? Other than various creation stories, I don't know of other types of theories. — Patterner
I doubt that Deacon is a fan of Idealism, whether Analytical or Metaphysical. He's a traditional academic scientist who, following the evidence, has strayed across the taboo line between Hard Science and Soft Philosophy. Unfortunately, he hasn't published much since his 2011 book, except a few videos.Thank you. I shall persist with Deacon, I petered out in his polemical section contra ID, although I'm more drawn to Kastrup's analytical idealism. — Wayfarer
FWIW, I just came across the excerpt below from a reply to you on the Absential Materialism thread.↪Gnomon
Thank you. I shall persist with Deacon, I petered out in his polemical section contra ID, although I'm more drawn to Kastrup's analytical idealism. — Wayfarer
I had to Google "logical causation". What I found was not very enlightening*1.It occurs to me that maybe you could say that Deacon is trying to establish the linkage between physical and logical causation. Ran it by ChatGPT, it says that it's feasible. — Wayfarer
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.