Thank you too, @universeness.

I suggest we pass over the first two questions. They refer to a theory and experientation that is not so realistic to me. More specifically, I personally have no use for it. I just asked because i didn't quite undestand them. Most probably because of my lack of experience in the field of Physics.

Let's focus then on the last one, which addresses the hugely important subject of information.
(BTW, I am also an IT guy. I am a professional programmer since 1986 and also a software and system analyst. And since we are talking about "data", I had been specialized and worked for a considerable period of time in the field od "data security". :smile:)

So, let's clear first the relation of data with indormation.

The term "data" is often used interchangeably with "information". However, they are not at all the same. Data are items of information. They are at the core of information. They are kind of "bits" of information. Even if a single bit can be sometimes be considered as information, e.g. Yes/No.
So, information is something much broader. Wikipedia defines it as follows":

"Information is an abstract concept that refers to that which has the power to inform {i.e, make known]. At the most fundamental level information pertains to the interpretation of that which may be sensed. Any natural process that is not completely random, and any observable pattern in any medium can be said to convey some amount of information."
(The brackets are mine, an attempt to handle somehow the "circularity" involved).

I brought this up to indicate that information has a purpose (to inform) and meaning (interpretation of that which may be sensed). The last statement --about lack of randomity-- is also very important.

OK, this is the theoretical part. I will now speak from my own experience with "data" and, consequently, "information" and make it as practical as possible.

Data are useful if they have meaning and a purpose. Example:

I want to create a library of songs I like (purpose). One way is to look at lists of song titles (data) and collect those that I know (knowledge"), i.e. that they have some meaning to me. Now, from the titles that I know I will select those belonging to songs I like, i.e. they mean more than oters to me.
Now, if I have compiled the list from a lot of sources from the Web in order to increase the chances to find all, if possible, the songs I like, it is evident that a lot --if not most-- of them will be useless for me.

This is exactly what happens in life and I believe in the physical world. Most data are useless. They can hardly be considered information. And, most importantly, the term "information" has a meaning for humans, not for objects or nature, i.e. the physical world. The physical world cannot use data or information. Natural phenomena obey physical laws, conceived by humans. It is we who are interpreting, describing, and explain them. We can also control them to a certain degree and make use of them in our life.

Very interesting, @universeness! :up:
Thanks for bringing in this video. It offers plenty of food for the mind.

I have a few questions. And since you have asked for comments, here they are:

~25:00
1) What does the box full of air and what the partition dividing the box into two parts (hot and cold) represent in actuality?
2) What does the daemon represent? God? Some Super Mind or Intelligence?

~26:00
1) What does the "gap" or "path" (not sure about the word used) that allows the passage of molecules from one part to another represent in actuality and how does this happen?

~49:00
Re: "Information lies at the heart of the physical world"
This made me think of two things: 1) information and purpose and 2) information and meaning.
We know that both relations apply on a human level. But is there a meaning or purpose of information on the level of the physical world? If yes, what that could be?

Thank you too, @universeness. It was a pleasurable exchange on a very interesting subject that you brought up.

There are clearly observable orders in a boiling water system.
[Soundwave] looks symmetrical on either side of a linear mid section, which is more intense towards its middle compared to either end ...
Jigsaw pieces have a fixed set of 'shape of side'. Straight edge sides, ... — universeness

Yes, one may find order(s) in parts of some disordered whole. Not very evident or clear, but yet ...

Entropy is the tendency for a combination to revert back to its fundamentals over time. — universeness

I see. OK.

The water turns to steam. There may be no water left when the boiling finishes. If you captured all the steam in a big container, then it would condense back into water, as the steam cooled. — universeness

Right.

So I think such examples 'trace back' to an initial state of 'universal' disorder. — universeness

Alright. This is another point of view ...

I try to improve my physics grasp where and when I can. — universeness

Good. But don't count me in! :grin:

it's better to know, as maybe you can help stop it, but if you don't know, then you are powerless. — universeness

Certainly.

Right! :smile:

So, you are saying the disorder is only apparent, when we pull further out and increase the contents of our frame of reference then we see the order. — universeness

Not exactly. I said that what looks disordered can also be ordered, from another frame of reference. Not always or everything. E.g. I can't think that boiling water, with al its irregular bubbles can be viewed also as ordered in some other way. Neither can the dispersed irregular pieces of a jigsaw puzzle. Etc.
BTW, this reminds of of your saying "disorder-order-disorder", about which I asked you if it means that always disorder prevails and that everyting starts and ens in disorder. Well, I think the opposite is true: E.g. taking the above two cases, the water starts in an odered state (calm, standstill, level), it becomes disordered when it is boiled and it is put back into its initial ordered sytate when boiling finishes. The opposite is impossible. And in order to make a jigsaw puzzle, we must first create a surface with an image on it (order), then cut it into small irregular pieces and sisperse them (disorder) and then, to play the game, we have to reassemble the pieces to form the initial image (order). The opposite is impossible. Etc.

at the largest scale, entropy would suggest that we would see evidence that we are moving towards heat death — universeness

I'm not good at Physics, sorry. I only know that entropy is a state and degree of disorder or randomness. But based on just that, I can say that if the Universe started in a state of --logically maximum-- entropy, i.e. total chaos, and then order followed, then we have to assume either that 1) there must exist a Supreme Power, like God, that has done that or 2) entropy/disorder has the tendency to become order. In fact, (2) may actually be a consequence of (1), in the sense that the Supreme Power does not let disorder/entropy prevail or persist, and it makes so that order prevails at the end. However, all these are speculations that can entail long discussions!

That's at least the way I perceive the disorder-order-disorder posit. — universeness

I see. OK.

Re the film "Contact": Ha. Yes, nice! I loved this film. One of the best ends in the history of the cinema ...

We might be getting all sorts of signals from space dwelling extraterrestials but our receiving tech/methodology is not compatible with their transmitting tech/methodology! — universeness

Right! Good point. :up:

I suppose it depends on how true the claim is, that on the largest scale, the universe is homogeneous and isotropic — universeness

You are bombarding me with Physics terminology! But I undestand the term "homogenuous" at least! :grin:
Well, maybe. As I said, all that is speculations. I prefer to talk about things that we can know, perceive, examine and understand within the framework of our small world and our common reality, in the broad sense.

since the poorly named big bang — universeness

Indeed, poorly.

I am not sure what you mean here by 'a combination of order and disorder?' — universeness

I gave you an example. The apparently disordered soundwave is also (i.e. it represents) an ordered musical sound. Also atoms by simple observation seem disordered but they follow well ordered, balanced (with forces) system. The planets seem disordered in space but they are also orbiting based on a very orderly system of gravity forces. And so on. In all of these cases, where there is (apparently) a disorder there's also an order.

The music sound wave example you gave looks ordered and would be considered a very interesting signal, if SETI received it from deep space. — universeness

Anyway, I don't think that anyone can see an order --e.g. a pattern-- in this soundwave. It could well be random. You must hear it to see that there's an order or pattern in it.
As for SETI, I think that it is made for receiving rather than sending messages, but I don't know much about it. Anyway, if I send this image --in some way or another-- into space and it is received by aliens, most probably they wouldn't undestand anything. Except, of course, if they are gifted with the ability to "hear" soundwave images! :smile: So, I would send the image together with the sound itself (as radiowave or whatever. I'm not knowledgable in this field). The sound is most important here if one is to detect a pattern, whici is what SETI and perhaps be other programs try to detect.
BTW, even if some aliens receive this sound, they might not undestand anything at all. That is, they could consider it garbage or random, i.e. something disordered. And vice versa, if we receive a sound from space in which we can't detect some pattern although it might have been sent by aliens who conscidered it ordered.

So, when we are referring to the whole universe, we cannot be certain about what is ordered and what is disordered.

Yes, it always pours! At least in my place. Can't have a break. Just a small rain, Mr Murphy!

Interesting "article". :up:

Just a question: I wonder if saying "a system based on disorder-order-disorder" is intentional, i.e. if disorder prevails or rules or is basically the fundamental state of everything, and that everything starts and ends with disorder. Or that there's an alternate state of disorder and order. Can there also be that everything is a combination of order and disorder, i.e. it is both ordered and disordered?

For example, what it looks like disorder can actually be (also) order. The following image looks a kind of random drawing or graph, lacking structure, etc. Yet, it shows a soundwave that represents a well-structured musical sound. And vice versa. If you analyze a well structure musical sound, you get such an image. It all depends on the way you are observing and examining something.

Well, there are various ways of interpreting probabilities. Yet, there's only one probability theory. And its laws are merciless! :smile:

That's why the prize money < the total cost of all the tickets. — Agent Smith

Right. The lottery operetor must be sustained in a way so that they can offer you the thrill of hope.
(And take it back on the lottery draw day.)

So, there are 100 % of chances to actually happen X situation in Y moment. Then, we could assume there is not margin of error applying Murphy's law. — javi2541997

Margin of error has to do with statistics. And statistics have to do with the use of mathematical theories of probability. So, theoretically, if have a 1/1000000 chance to win a lottery and buy a lottery ticket 1000000 times --assuming that this is possible-- it is almost certain that I eventually win. This "almost" means that there's always a chance that I won't. There is a margin of error, as you said. But I wouldn't go that far ...

nunca llueve a gusto de todos — javi2541997

It never rains as everyome likes, right? (I can also Google it of course.)

If you're eating toast, and you accidentally bump it to the floor, it seems more likely to land buttered side down. — javi2541997

Ha,ha,ha! It always lies with the butter down! Hate this! :grin:
But there's a simple explanation for this: The surface of the toast that is spread with stuff is heavier!

"If something can go wrong, it probably will." — javi2541997

It's a more certain than "probably": it will eventually happen at some point.

Generally, we tend to be more pessimistic than optimistic. Of course, since there are more tragedies, misappenings, etc. in life than the opposite. In fact, I realized here that there is no actual opposite of "tragedy" and "drama"; It's not "comedy" (as it appears in literature), neither "humor" or "happiness" or fortune ... Also, bad health is much more common than well-being. And so on and so on. I believe this is why ML is so "popular" and viewed in a pessimistic sense.

:smile:
This makes me think of another misconception and/or bad interpretation of ML: its relativity.
About the rain and the umbrella ... One feels unlucky or stupid because he (for brevity) didn't bring with him an umbrella leaving his home and then it rained. But if the guy were a farmer who grows foodstuff would feel lucky about the rain that he expected to come for some time, if it rained and he had no umbrella with him!

In short. some things are considered bad under certain circumstances and good under other circumstances.
Also, a lot of things that are considerd bad for some people are considered good for others. Which brings up another characteristic of ML: its subjectivity!

That's why, the only correct interpretation of Murphy's law is the probabilistic one, which is universal and objective.

Well, I never had a need to or thought of analyzing such a naive law as Murphy's to such an extent. These things happen only in here! :grin:

And it's your fault! ... Bringing up this umbrella example! :grin:

Does this apply to life as well? — niki wonoto

I believe that Murphy's law applies to everything.
I also believe that it is wrongly considered pessimistic. It simply says that if something can go wrong, it will sooner or later. Which is consistent with the laws of probability. So, when this something doe go wrong Murphy's law is confirmed and you say "See, this is Murphy's law!". But this is silly. It's distorted logic.

I personally use it sometimes just for joking, e.g. when something goes wrong although the chances of this happening are small.

(You can always read Murphy's law history in Wiki, of course.)

I think the burden of proof is on the atheist because something exists rather than nothing and I believe the existence of reality asks for an explanation. — Andrew4Handel

I believe the opposite is true. As I have already said a couple of times in here, the burden of evidence lies on the one who claims that something exists, is this or that way, has happened etc. For a simple rason: how can someone who does not believe in the existence of something prove that it doesn't exist?
You tell me that there's a huge bird sitting at the top of a building. I can't see any bird. How can I prove that there isn't any? It is for you to prove it, e.g. by taking a photo with your phone. (I could also take a photo myself that will show no bird, but then you could tell me ... "It just flew away!" And so on.)

Now, as far as the existence of God is concerned, well, as I said, this is based on a personal belief. As with angels. ghosts, visions, oracles and so on. They are real for some and unreal for others. Only that no evidence can be given about ther existence or occurrence.

Atheism means not believing in a creator of reality without a feasible alternate explanation. — Andrew4Handel

I'm not sure if I got that right. Do you mean that an atheist does not have or can give an alternate explanation other than that a creator exists? If so, an explanation that such a creator exists must have been already given by the theist, which is what? Anyway, explanations is not the point here since thay can be millions of them based on unfounded assumptions. The point here is evidence.

That is where atheism teams up with evolution and the big bang to claim there is no longer any role for God in reality which I view as faulty and more of a faith position. — Andrew4Handel

Yes, one might say that. But an atheist might not believe in th Big Bang either. (In fact, there are a lot of people in the area of science today who reject this theory.)

I am an "atheist", in the sense that I don't have ot believe in a "God", esp. the Judeo-Christian one. I don't exclude though the existence of some Supreme Being or Power. But I have never felt its presence or can even justify it, i.e. have any evidence or explain or argue about its existence. So I don't really care. It just doesn't make any difference for me. I guess, this actually makes me an "agnostic" ... (I avoid putting labels on myself or others, hence the quotation marks, meaning "so-called".)

There seems to be a clear distinction between types of lack of belief — Andrew4Handel

If there are different types of lack of belief it means that there are also different types of belief. However, they all refer to an opinion, conviction, confidence or trust that something exists or is true.

The difference between the 4 cases of lack of belief that you presented lies in the amount of evidence and/or agreement on each of them, as well as the extent to which this is shared by people. Let's take the subject of God, for instance. If you say "I don't believe in God" in front of a religious group, the people will consider it as ignorance and maybe as an insult (if they are religious fanatics). But if you say the same thing in front of an atheist group, they will find it just natural. So, if we suppose that there are as many theists as atheists in your community, your statement in general would not indicate either ignorance or irrationality.

Similarly about the Holocaust. However, the difference here is that that there is evidence about it --historical accounts, testimonies, stories, photos, etc.-- which is accepted by the majority of people, i.e. the majority of people agree about its historical truth. In this case, a statement like "I don't believe that Holocaust ever happened" will sound foolish. Yet, there are many people from what I know that share this belief!

As for "I don't believe the moon exists", if you start going around with such a statement, most probably you will end up in a madhouse! :smile:

See, it's the amount of agreement or lack of it that exists among people that makes a belief sustainable or not.

the only real lack of belief is total ignorance — Andrew4Handel

Based on what I described above, "ignorance" is only one of the characteristics or reasons of "lack of belief" and then it is itself disputable. But evidently, if I say "I don't believe that God exists", certainly does not show ignorance, since 1) the word "God" means different things to different people and 2) in its most known descriptions there is no evidence about its existence. This is called lack of evidence, not ignorance.

***

Final note: Agreement means reality. Not literally, but in the sense that if you disagree with me about something it means that your reality about it differs from mine. So, saying "I don't believe in God" reflects my reality about (the subject of) God.

No, I'm not feeling like that. (That's why smileys exist! :smile:)
It's only that we have radically different views on the subject and I can't see any use of going on ...
No problem, though.

I give up. :smile:

Right. In fact, now that I re-examine the argument in question, there is a flaw: the second statement --"A Communist has no respect for freedom of inquiry or for objectivity in teaching; to put it positively, he indoctrinates for the party line and the Soviet dictatorship."-- is unfounded, fabricated. And this is what McCarthyism was about: a practice of making false or unfounded accusations. Yet, this attitude and practice characterizes all totalitarian governments and religious authorities, in fact, all kind of fanatic and authoritarian groups, even individuals. It's not a philosophy. It's a mentality. And a way of ruling, of course.

Anyway, thank you.

I just had a look at the link you offered regarding "analytic philosophy".
I had to go through a lot of historical data as well as a lot of "ims" --McCarthyism, baptism, fascism, communism, etc.-- in order to find something more concrete, a description of "analytic philosophy", how it works, etc. And I finally found the following example:

(1) Professor X is a Communist.
(2) A Communist has no respect for freedom of inquiry or for objectivity in teaching; to put it positively, he indoctrinates for the party line and the Soviet dictatorship.
Therefore (3) X is not fit to be a professor.

What is the particularity that classifies the above logical sceme as a special kind of logic, called "analytic logic", which I still have not found what exactly is?

If we switch (1) with (2), which doesn't change essentially anything, we have an example of deductive logic, i.e. going from general to speciic.

Is there really something more to "analytic logic"?
(This is not a rhetoric question. It's an actual one! :smile:)

Well, I have read and know very little about logic literature-wise, Aristotelian or other.
I prefer using it! :grin:

Quite interesting and educative! Thanks for posting this topic.

A) Which are the “first principles” Aristotle is referring to? — javi2541997

I don't think that Aristotle referred to specific first principles. I think that his first principles apply to any subject: scientific, philosophical, religious ... pertaining to language, art, ... to everyday life ... anything. One starts by asking "What is that, the truth of which we know for certain and we don't have to prove?" It has millions of applications.

Now, something relevant and well known as a subject comes to my mind: the "First Cause". Only that there's a big difference between the two: "reason" refers to something intentional, whereas "cause" may refer to somthing random, accidental.

Anyway, all this needs to be analyzed ... I'll come back to it if I have some workable and useful ideas ...

If they are not need to be proven... their premises are universal affirmative? (According to Aristotle's syllogisms) — javi2541997

B) If they are not need to be proven... their premises are universal affirmative? (According to Aristotle's syllogisms) — javi2541997

I guess so. But the problem is, how many cases must be satisfied, i.e. the principle be applied to, to be considered as "first principle". Also, do we arrive to such a principle simply because we can't think of any other that precedes it?

Questions to explore and feed our minds with ...

Many people believe "objects have awareness" - whether that's perceptible awareness by us or that awareness is a fundamental part of matter — Benj96

If they believe that, they should be able to explain it then. Can you?
Also, if this were true, there should be some evidence of at least some indication. Is there any?
Also, there should be some scientific or philosophical reference about that: Is there?
Note: All of references must prove that "objects have awareness". The awareness we all know and can define. Because if it is something different, then it's not awareness.

whether that's perceptible awareness by us or that awareness is a fundamental part of matter — Benj96

I have already said that "So, if we say that objects do have awareness, that awareness would be something totally different from what we know and can define.". Also, @javi2541997 said that, in other words: "if objects have awareness, it could be so different and far away of what we consider "awareness" in our vocabulary." Both statements are presented in one and the same topic: yours.

You cannot hypothesize something and have nothing to offer as proof, data, explanation, description or at least some indication about that hypothesis. Banjamin. Otherwise it's an empty speculation.

どういたしまして

I only can guess that the basic starting point is the existence itself which is mixed with subject and properties. — javi2541997

I agree. This is close to what I mentioned en passant about "ignoring actual experience".
I believe that consulting our own experience more than our or other people's thoughts and beliefs, we find more and better, more "solid" answers. For ourselves, of course.
An example is what I say about the nature of consciousness, that "it can be only experienced".

Good luck with metaphysics! :smile:

if objects have awareness, it could be so different and far away of what we consider "awareness" in our vocabulary. — javi2541997

Yes, that is a possibility. Well, since you brought this up, you must also find out how! :grin:

We are physical bodies with defined parameters that exist in space — Benj96

Well, we come back to the conflict between "I have awareness" and "objects do not have awareness" ...

See, saying or thinking "I am a body" and "I have a body" at the same time, creates not only a conflict but also a circularity.

How many deceptions, disappointments or dead ends such a thinking must produce for one to realize that it is wrong? I believe, endless, as long as one is unwilling to make a step out of preconcieved notions, fixed beliefs and is ignoring of actual experience.

"Be" and "have" are two of the three auxiliary verbs: be, do and have. These are also the 3 conditions of existence.
I am a programmer, I create programs and I get money. I am not a program and I'm not money. However, "be" can can be identified with the other two, but only in a figurative way, e.g. "I am what I do", "I am my wife", etc. From that aspect, we can say "I am my body", in the sense that my body reflects who I am, how I treat it and maintain it, my eating habits etc. But all these refer to linguistic and semantic expressions (pedantic mannerisms as you say). Strictly speaking and in essence, however, "be" and "have" are totally different notions and conditions. You cannot be what you have.

You cannot have a body and be your body at the same time.
But this is too obvious. What is not obvious is the answer to the question: "If I am a body, what am I?"

Sorry, I am a bit lost on the final phrase of your argument. What is false at all? I see that you want to explain that awareness is not faculty or state and then, awareness shall not have logic itself. — javi2541997

Sorry if that was a little confusing. I will try to make it more clear: Let's define "awareness" as a state, condition or faculty of being able to know or perceive. Now, we know that objects cannot be in such a state or have such a faculty --there's no indication whatsoever about that. Right? So, if we say that objects do have awareness, that awareness would be something totally different from what we know and can define. That is, what we know as "awareness" and its definition would be false.

Well, this was a side argument, which I admit is somehow complex and which could well be missing. It came with the wind! :smile:

Thanks anyway from bringing this up!

Right.

we are aware about the existence of the tables of our houses. But this thinking doesn't exist empirically outside of us — javi2541997

Exactly.
So, saying "I am my body" and at the same time "I am aware of my body" is a contraction. In fact, it's an impossibility. Because the body is an object and objects have no awareness, much less awareness of themselves. (This is a sound assumption because we don't have any indication of the opposite.) So, if we accept this impossiblility, then the concept of awareness has no meaning at all. Awareness simply doesn't exist as a state or faculty. Which is of course false.

Well I would say I am a body. My body has a brain — Benj96

Again, you say "My body". See the contradiction, the conflict?
From the moment you say "I have" and "my" (something) you cannot be that (something). You have a car; you cannot also be your car. You have a wife. You cannot also be your wife.
The subject cannot be also the object. They are two different and separate things.

People cannot help not saying "my body", "my brain". It's very logical and natural. People actually know that they are not their body or their brain. But they get into a contradition, a delusion because they think at the same time that they are this body and this brain. And this happens because they exclude the possiblility, they cannot grasp the idea that they are something else. Something that is separate from their body and brain. Until one realizes this and accepts it as a truth, until this becomes one's reality, one will continue to be and live in delusion.

I am a subject (I have awareness of the world, emotions and feelings). — Benj96

I agree with this.

I am also an object (I have a material body). — Benj96

I desagree with this.
How can an object have awareness?
How can you be a body and have a body at the same time?
Fortunately, only the second case is true! :smile:

This topic might be really interesting ... in some possible world. :grin:

It is already difficult in most cases to have a stable government --i.e. run by a same party-- in a single country. Imagine having a single government for the whole humanity!

The only way a world government could be achieved is obviously with a totalitarian state. The ex-Soviet Union and currently China are the closest examples, because of their huge population, esp. the second one, which has currently about 20% of the world population. I don’t know though how many Chinese people are satisfied with that. And I don't know if you, yourself would be satisfied with something like that.

Well, instead of running in circles, what does that something mean? — Shawn

Why running in circles? I can only see a straight line! :grin:

I gave you examples, Shawn. I can't do more than that.
(And please don't ask me "What does 'examples' mean?" :smile:)

I can't see why the word "good" is indefinable. If it were, then most if not all the adjectives would be indefinable and it would be impossible to communicate.

The word "good" is mostly used to indicate a satisfactory level or degree of something, based on commonly or generally accepted standards. It is applied to both quality and quantity: Good food, good joke, good essay, good news, good health, good friend, ...

Then it is also used in reference to morality, also based on commonly or generally accepted standards: doing good, good behavior, good person, ...

Being relative and dependent on context does not mean that it cannot be defined.

The idea is that there is a reality that deserves to be called "God" and the human civilizations have made several childish, erroneous attempts to describe that reality. — Art48

This is certainly more plausible. But again, I wll have to ask "What reality?"
It looks like we have here another assumption, taking as given that there is such a reality. Yet, this has never been proven to be true. At best, one can consider it as something logical. Which means, probable. But not a fact.

There's of course the case of the Higgs boson which somethimes is called "God particle". I don't know though if it qualifies for what people have in mind when they think about "God". :smile:

Don't blink! — Vera Mont

I can do that. I have practiced it a lot!