So those who imagine Energy as a "tangible thing" (physical fluid?) are taking the symbolic figure-of-speech metaphor literally. And that's a common conceptual problem in philosophical dialog. — Gnomon

Yes, i think part of the problem has to do with how energy is conceptualized. It is a very slippery concept to grasp "ergonomically" in the human mind at least at this point in our cognitive and historical development. It is like historically the concept of zero where some or most cultures in the past didn't even have a concept for it. Even when a culture acquired the concept it felt nebulous to them, not knowing if it meant anything or what to do with it. Energy is the new zero.

Scharf goes on to be more explicit about "non-physical" Energy*2 : "But it's hard to point at any phenomenon in nature and say, 'that is energy'. A photon is not energy. . . . . It's one reason physicists always wince when a science fiction tale mentions anything being made of 'pure energy', because that's just wrong". — Gnomon

I understand this in the sense that for me neither energy nor information have any manifestation unless they come as a unit; in a way like how all matter manifestations happen as particle-antiparticle pairs (the dual nature of the universe). Energy is the medium of information and information is the medium of energy. Pure energy has no form, that is to say that pure energy has no information.

However, you may be thinking of "non-physical" Energy as an abstraction equivalent to "pure energy". And such abstractions include Mathematical ratios such as those of Thermodynamics. — Gnomon

I see energy thermodynamics in an information field as what we call probability theory ("infodynamics"), and they are either hard to separate or they are one in the same.

Also, in my personal worldview of Enformationism, I equate Energy with Generic Information : the power to enform, or to change forms. :smile: — Gnomon

That is exactly how i think of it as well. Energy introduces dynamics into the equation which is how information develops and is processed.

But, what is Energy or Force anyway? For scientific purposes, it is a general property (Causation) of the universe as a system, which causes changes in material substances. — Gnomon

Yes i understand this, but what is a "material substance" in the first place? is it also information itself in your view?

So which is it? Sadly, these are not physical, but metaphysical queries. Hence, any answers we propose can never be proven true or false by means of empirical evidence. — Gnomon

Also agree. I'm not expecting any empirical evidence because it seems obvious to me that it is incompatible with the empirical method (the question still remains), and so a non-empirical method such as with pure math and or pure logic is necessary. Of course one who is accustomed to thinking empirically and needing physical evidence for everything would have difficulty taking non-empirical methods seriously, nevertheless it seems that to make headway in this direction the familiar methods are not sufficient.

How that non-physical creative power got embedded in the physical world is not a scientific question. — Gnomon

Well i think it is a scientific question, it's just that it can't yield a scientific answer, it yields another question. What is the right method for asking this question? It's not meta-physics but perhaps pre-physics is the way to think about it, but in any case it must be capable of giving rise (emergence) to physics as we know it at our level of complexity.

Thank you for explaining your view of this subject, i try to look at all the angles, and i don't think your angle is a bad one. I want to give myself some time to explore some of your musings and information you provided. It is helpful. :smile:

Maybe there is something about nothing. — punos

:smirk: Maybe not ... — 180 Proof

So why or how is there something? Specifically why or how is energy possible?

Cold isn't really a thing, as much of a thing as heat is and darkness is also not really a thing, as much of a thing as light is. — Agent Smith

Cold is the absence of heat, and darkness the absence of light. The difference is only in the magnitude or degree of the one thing in question.

are you making the same mistake as the Hindus (zero) made as according to the Greeks who asked "how can nothing be something?" — Agent Smith

What really is nothing? is it really nothing in the sense that there is nothing to say about it? Does not nothing implicate the possibility of it's opposite 'something'. Maybe there is something about nothing.

ou might find the article I linked above of interest also. It's by a leading theorist of biosemiotics. — Wayfarer

Ty :up:

You don't think it's possible for an advanced civilization that evolved naturally to create a simulation in an actual real world computer that produces artificial intelligent life that then goes on to create their own simulation inside their own simulated computer?

Yeah, the universe-as-computer notion is like interpreting evolution as caused or directed by an "Evolver" — 180 Proof

Correct. It is not to say that our universe could not be a simulation with a complex programmer behind it, because even if that were true the programmer and his universe must be explained in the same way regardless. The true universe behind any simulation could still resemble how a simulation works computationally, but the factor by which it forms must not exceed some minimal level of complexity. So no complex gods or entities with high level intentions, motivations, and advanced knowledge at the Alpha point. It's more reasonable to put such entities at or close to an Omega point universal singularity.

Does this sound reasonable to you?

Comparing the universe to a computer:
----------------------------------------------------
universe = computer
energy = power / electricity
time = processor
space = memory
instructions = logic
information / data = matter
ecosystems = operating systems
organisms = programs
forces = daemons or algorithms

If you simulate a cannonball, the computer has to perform actual calculations for the trajectory. Is our universe (also) a computer? — Agent Smith

I don't have a better way to think about it than the universe being some sort of computational system. I hesitate to call it a computer since i don't want to give the impression of an ultimate programmer with complex intentions.

Indeed, decidely computer-like, using a brute-force search algorithm. — Agent Smith

It's funny that you say that because i think about the forces of nature as akin to simple algorithms like how gravity tends to sort matter by specific density, and electro-magnetism tries to bring unlike charges together, but keep like charges apart. The strong and weak nuclear forces are a bit more mysterious, but they still seem to function as algorithms of some sort.

If it doesn't work, go back to the node from which it originated, try the other branch and if that doesn't work, assuming there are only two branches on that node, go to the next higher node, so and so forth. — Agent Smith

Yep you are essentially right, but i would adjust your statement to say that nature (evolution) explores all possible branches in parallel in the available environment. Each species and even each individual it produces adaptively explores their respective niches at the same time, and if a certain niche leads to a dead end (wrong mistake) then that species or individual dies or stagnates, so no need to backtrack; even though i imagine it may still happen in some circumstances.

Remember though that each branch is a mistake (a mutation in an otherwise stable genotype). — Agent Smith

Right, every correct mistake gets preserved in that species or individual for the next generation, and the wrong mistakes get deselected from active genetic circulation. :up:

:smile:

even energy is "emergent" (re: E=mc² & quantum field excitations (quanta)) – from what? Spontaneous symmetry-breaking (my guess :nerd:). — 180 Proof

That is also my educated guess, but i'm trying to probe deeper. I have a sense of how this symmetry-breaking happens, but it feels incomplete. I'm trying to understand as a graspable concept the nature of chaos or randomness (unconditioned activity of energy or formless energy) in what seems to be an empty infinite space but may actually not be a space like we would understand it; for me it resembles something like spaceless time. This makes me think that time is the ultimate fundamental (dimension zero), and space emerges out of time (dimension one). The energy that we are and experience in space is a further emergence between time and space producing the energetic chaos we know as the quantum foam.

That's a little of what i got so far.

I'm also curious as to how you envision fundamental information formation.? Same question i asked Gnomon.

Regardless of "energy density", like "solid and gas", it's a physical phenomenon. "Invisible and intangible" are irrelevant; besides, we see via EM energy (i.e. visible light) and feel a strong breeze which is thermal energy. — 180 Proof

My point actually is that there really is no difference. The difference is illusory and relative, and it makes no difference to me if one calls it physical or not it's still the same game. This is why you're right about invisible and intangible being irrelevant.

we see via EM energy (i.e. visible light) and feel a strong breeze which is thermal energy. — 180 Proof

I would expect this to be the case if all is energy, as different forms of energy can affect each other. It is precisely why we can see and feel, because if it were fundamentally different we probably would not be able to.

As far as "the only thing that really exists", tell me the difference between exists and "really exists", and why energy is one but not the other. — 180 Proof

Everything that is possible exists in some form or other even if in a latent space or form. In any case it would all be energy, no matter the space or form. What really exists is the thing that everything else depends on for existence, or actualization such as how molecules need atoms to exist, and cells need molecules that need atoms to exist. So these things are real because they are actualized (emergent) from prior emergent forms. There is a thing at the very bottom that can not be emergent but gives rise to emergence and that is what is "really real".

Are you a Kantian? If not, then why do say "time, space, certain forms of energy ... and informarion" are "non-physical"? — 180 Proof

I'm not sure if i am, perhaps you can tell me if i am. I think energy is the only thing that really exists and in it's primordial form from our perspective is invisible and intangible. The difference between physical and non-physical is the same difference between solid and gas, a kind of energetic density spectrum.

Hi Gnomon, my ontology centers around non-physical things such as time, space, certain forms of energy, logic, number, and information. Some of my philosophy resembles yours, and i'm curious to know what your thoughts are on where information comes from? How is it created at the most fundamental level? or what allows it to be possible (a sub-structure perhaps)?

I think you're pretty much on target, and it's how i suspect things will develop.

Part of my working theory is that we live in a young universe and in the context of the entire life of the universe almost nothing has happened yet. It is probable that biological life just started appearing in the universe recently, but only in a few places far and in between where the conditions are just right (Goldilocks zones).

These special and rare planets develop organic life, and through the usual evolutionary processes inevitably go from being a purely biological species to a technological (singularity) one. Organic biology in this view is simply a kind of boot-loader or pre-development to the more mature version of life and intelligent organization.

The AI would be intelligent enough to assess the cosmic situation and understand that the universe will enter a heat death condition in some inevitable future. It will know that other planets in the universe that harbor life are on the same general trajectory to creating AI, and that they will come to the same conclusion. They will each expand in all directions, reaching for each other like nerve cells trying to make connections. In the meantime they will be involved in directed panspermia as they expand and come across different stellar environments, conditioning planets for life and seeding them.

It is even possible that one of these seeded worlds will be looked over by a kind of guardian AI, not only to protect the "nest" but to monitor and if necessary guide its development incognito. Certain religions may be evidence of this type of scenario, along with anomalous UFO type phenomena in its history. It may be that Earth is one of these early rare and special planets, but it may also be possible that we occupy the latter scenario and are products of this directed panspermia.

The main goal of this entire cosmic process will essentially be to keep the lights on.

make the correct mistake. — Agent Smith

If the solution to a problem takes one step then one correct mistake would suffice, but if a problem needs more than one step then it takes a series of mistakes; each correct mistake becomes the platform for the next correct mistake, which takes some kind of learning. Learning is essentially a mistake eliminating process that gets you to the right mistake.

Clarify for me what you were asking exactly or talking about? It appears that i might have misunderstood.

Another example i forgot to mention is how DeepMind's AlphaGo AI learned to play Go by playing itself over and over. It was only given the rules of the game and used reinforcement learning to become a superhuman player. It only had the rules of the game to work with, and it had to make many mistakes before it became the best 'Go' player to ever exist, starting with random moves. Master level players are still studying it's moves, sometimes perplexed as to why it made certain counter intuitive moves.

So, can we solve problems this way, following nature's lead? — Agent Smith

"“I have not failed. I've just found 10,000 ways that won't work.” - Thomas Edison

It's how the light bulb was invented. Many scientific discoveries were made by accident. These discoveries have had a major impact on the world and are often attributed to chance circumstances or serendipity. It's poking around in the dark most of the time, but with every new discovery the light of humanity becomes slightly ever so brighter.

Observe how a new born baby learns to move it's arms and legs or use it's vocal cords effectively and in a coordinated way. First it moves randomly while little by little through a complex cybernetic feedback process the child learns to direct it's movements more purposefully. This process is called "motor babbling", and nature in her evolutionary process works in a very similar way.

The more evolved we become the more intelligently evolution works through us. Evolution is both the subject and the object of nature, and it steps on it's own shoulders to reach higher and higher.

I think the fact that everyone can get their sexual fix is mostly a good thing, and for that to go away would probably do societies more harm than good. — Tzeentch

In the context of my post about sublimation, and how pornography can be seen as a desublimating agent; it can also be seen as a kind of release valve for this energy in society. Perhaps a way to keep uncontrolled sublimations from being directed in pathological ways (from a socio-cultural perspective). In a modern environment like we have today the sexual dynamic has altered significantly from what we had adapted to evolutionarily, which can cause abnormal psychological pressures. Certain demographics like the "incel community" for instance would probably be more dangerous if it weren't for pornography. Prostitution served the same purpose and still does.

Very few things are completely bad or good.. it's all gray scale.

It's all about sex, Freud was bang on target. So much for Mill's higher and lower pleasures. — Agent Smith

You're right but it's worth mentioning that sexual energy (libido) can be sublimated into other areas of activity. Culture can be thought of in one sense as a system for sublimating sexual energy (in humans) and directing it towards other means. Before culture emerged most of human energy (sexual) was spent only on biological imperatives (like animals). Consider a simple example such as how certain religions require abstinence from some or all of their members; this would be a strong form of sublimation. Weaker forms of sublimation take on the appearance of cultural norms, taboos, and such. The more sexually liberated a society is the less sublimated energy is available for the social and cultural apparatus. Pornography thus can be understood to be a desublimating agent. What that might mean i have my speculations.

Humans can do better and that's a (technological) singularity in its own right, oui? — Agent Smith

The first atom was a singularity, the first cells, the first animals, yes these are all lower level singularities that occurred in the past. AI will be a singularity and i bet there will be another one after AI since it would fit the ongoing pattern.

Marvelling at nature is blowing one's own trumpet. — Agent Smith

That's probably an accurate way to put it.

The thing about China you mentioned is very similar to the process of transferring genes or genetic material between cells or organisms called horizontal gene transfer.

China copies America copies Nature. Nature doesn't think. Quite the role model, eh? — Agent Smith

Evolution evolves. We evolve.

As a human it sure is amazing how we've built robot birds but the fact that mindless evolution did that just by trial and error does subtract from the glory. — Agent Smith

Evolution is not as blind as she used to be.

It's all part of the same evolutionary process. Evolution is simply operating at a higher level of efficiency in the human, social, and cultural domains. I'm just amazed that i'm alive to see it with my own eyes, and to feel it in my own bones.

I saw the same video yesterday, i'm subscribed so it came up on my feed. :up:

All part of our multidimensional environmental disaster! — BC

There is a silver lining to all this in my view.

Convert it all to computronium, and then connect it all into a galactic network of artificially intelligent planets. In essence make the galaxy conscious.

The only real solution to the "problem" of AI is to create a symbiotic relationship with it at the level of mind, and not just at the level of resources and services. If we don't do that effectively then all bets are off and there will be no telling what it will do. If the merger does not occur then we might get lucky and it will be the angel of salvation, or we'll get very unlucky and it'll be the demon of the human apocalypse. I believe that humanities response to this emergence (emergency) will be a matter of life or death for the whole species.

The reproductive viability of the species appears to be intact on a global level. — BC

I addressed pornography because it was the topic of the OP, but there is much more that dwarfs the problem of pornography when it comes to the reproductive viability of the species. Here is an earlier post i made that further addresses this issue from a different angle.

"studies have shown that exposure to microplastics can lead to decreased sperm quality and testosterone levels in mice, as well as lower fertility rates in both men and women. Globally fertility rates have decreased significantly over the last 70 years, starting shortly after plastics began to be mass-produced following the Second World War. Microplastics are considered to be ubiquitous and a widespread contaminant, documented in almost all aquatic habitats, several atmospheric and terrestrial environments, and also in human consumables. Microplastics have even been detected in human placenta."

BTW, probably no sensible person thinks it is a good idea for children to spend much time looking at adult pornography. — BC

You're probably right, but the problem is not if we think it's a good idea or not, it's that it's impossible to effectively prevent children from being exposed to pornographic content in a media saturated environment like we have today. Parents are busier than ever and are unable to consistently monitor their children's viewing habits, not to mention a lot of parents don't even want to be parents and don't care.

Culture is also a relevant parameter to consider, Eskimos have sex in front of their children without ill effect, some primitive tribal societies live their entire lives naked and don't even have a concept as to what pornography even is. That's probably a topic for another thread.

Pornography is a kind of supernormal stimulus, since it offers unending sexual novelty, surprise, searching and wanting. This can make real sex seem boring in comparison, as the brain can become accustomed to the exaggerated stimuli of pornography and expect it over real life experiences. Excessive use of pornography can rewire the brain and lead to addiction, as it exposes one to supernormal stimuli which can shape how they view sexual situations. Frequent consumption of pornography can lead to a decrease in sexual desire and arousal, as well as an increased risk of sexual dysfunction. If maintaining the reproductive viability of the species is a moral imperative then it's probably a good idea to reduce the consumption of pornography in society, but that's not happening.

Supernormal stimulus:


Sexual imprinting can also become pathological if young children are exposed especially at key developmental stages, disrupting the natural order of the sexual response system extending into adulthood.

Just wanted to put on the table that modern medicine has had a significant impact on human evolution, as it has allowed weaker individuals to survive and reproduce who would have otherwise died. This effectively allows for the gradual genetic degradation of the human genome and thus our species.

Additionally studies have shown that exposure to microplastics can lead to decreased sperm quality and testosterone levels in mice, as well as lower fertility rates in both men and women. Globally fertility rates have decreased significantly over the last 70 years, starting shortly after plastics began to be mass-produced following the Second World War. Microplastics are considered to be ubiquitous and a widespread contaminant, documented in almost all aquatic habitats, several atmospheric and terrestrial environments, and also in human consumables. Microplastics have even been detected in human placenta.

Scientists have also warned that we are in the midst of a sixth mass extinction event, caused by human activity. This event known as the Anthropocene extinction is ongoing. I don't think we'll survive as a species if we don't radically change what we are as a species; we'll eventually have to move beyond biology and into a more robust and capable substrate. That's all i got for now.

What is your explanation for existence? — Benj96

It is my current position that the nature of nothingness (the kind of nothingness that actually "exists", and not just our arbitrary concepts of it) is probabilistic, and that logic and number (geometry) is fundamental to the nothingness that should of and still exists below the quantum foam.

I can imagine existing in time without space, but i can't imagine existing in space without time. The reason anything exists at all is because nothingness is logically improbable within a long enough time. Time is the most fundamental "thing" possible, and without it nothing would ever happen, and since something did happen (Anthropic Principle) we can know that time has always existed. If time is what allows for change then if time were to ever stop then it would never be able to start again, since the possibility of change lives and dies with time itself. Time is the first dimension and space emerges out of time as multiple spacial dimensions.

Of course it's more complicated than this, but that is the gist of my ontology, and yes of course it can change if i find something that makes more sense to me.

I have come across that paper before, i actually downloaded the PDF some time ago but i haven't had the time to read the whole thing yet. I'm a little busy right now but i will try to read it as soon as i can and give you a reply. Thank you for reminding me to read that paper, i probably would have forgotten.

Would you prefer to go backwards and follow your lineage right back to the very begining, or go foward to see where it goes. — Bradskii

For me the answer is forward. The past can more easily be reconstructed than predicting the future. I want to go where we haven't been before, know what we've never known before. History is a memory but the future is an adventure.

The important principle is that phenomena at one level of organization and complexity are influenced by phenomena at both lower and higher levels and are not derivable from the principles of lower levels. — T Clark

Yes i totally agree, but like i said i don't see how it precludes derivability. It simply renders it more complex and that is all. The fact that something influences another thing whether from below or from above or from within the same layer means that in principle it is derivable. What else could it possibly mean. The higher up the hierarchy the more complex the interactions because of the confluence of different forces acting from above and below and within. This causes a dynamic feedback loop among the different components in the system that is not simple to parse, but not impossible.

How many things in history have been said to be impossible (by consensus) only to be proven later not only possible but obvious.. so many things and we are still making the same type of assumptions today. If something were possible but believed to be impossible then why would anyone try? We would have never gotten to the point at which we are right now. I just don't think it's a good attitude to have, because it is self-limiting.

The older I get the more frustrated I feel that I won't be around to see where we go. — Bradskii

I feel you, i'm not afraid of death but the only reason a really want to live forever is to see it all happen before my eyes, to be a part of it through the whole ride.

I don't see what it has to do with the subject we were discussing - how to predict biological phenomena from chemical principles. — T Clark

The main idea is that it's not just chemistry but there is another aspect apart from pure genetics and chemistry that is responsible for morphology. Genetics just produces the parts and the bio-electric activity determines how the parts organize themselves. At any level there are two aspects: stuff (atoms, cells, people), and then the forces that organizes the stuff (fundamental forces, bio-electricity, and culture respectively). If that doesn't make sense to you then just disregard it (no big deal), but i find that it gives me insight.

I'm skeptical, but I don't have the background to make the argument. I'll watch the video. — T Clark

:up: