You might find:
ENCYCLOPEDIA OF QUANTUM PHYSICS AND PHILOSOPHY OF SCIENCE Interesting:
From that site, we have:
The most fundamental entities of matter or energy are quantum fields.
For example, there is a quantum electromagnetic field, a quantum electron field, a quantum up-quark field, etc. Each field fills the entire universe and has a value at every point in the universe. By “value” is meant the strength of the field at that point.


A 3-dimensional wave vibrates through a field (red netting), starting in the left bottom corner and moves rightward. We detect this vibration as a particle (green film). The particle is shown in orange when the wave moves up and blue when the wave moves down. [Image source: stills from Fermilab video by Dr. Don Lincoln, “Quantum Field Theory” (in the public domain) Jan. 14, 2016; ]

The term “quantum” appears in the name of this theory because quantum fields are conceptualized differently from the force fields (electrical, magnetic, and electromagnetic) of classical physics. While the concepts of quantum fields build on the concepts of the classical electromagnetic field, they are conceptualized somewhat differently. The quantum aspects are taken up a bit later in this article.
As fields are the most fundamental entities in the universe that we know of, we can’t say anything further about their ingredients, what substance they might be made of.

In the accompanying diagram, the red netting represents the underlying quantum field. A localized 3-dimensional wave travels through it. The macroscopic level of reality, where we detect the associated particle, is shown in green. The particle is shown as an orange or blue circle. A sequence of “snapshots” (Diagrams A, B, C, D) show a 3-dimensional wave traveling in the (red netting) field: (A) the wave crests and then, (B) forms a trough, (C) crests again, and (D) forms a second trough. The green film represents the macroscopic level of reality in which we detect particles. A particle is shown traveling towards the center of the green film from the lower corner. The particle manifests the underlying wave and is the entity that we detect. We cannot detect the field itself. In Quantum Field Theory, the particle is the manifestation of the deeper reality of a localized wave traveling through a field.

Our knowledge of quantum fields is limited to mathematical equations.
We have not seen nor heard nor felt quantum fields. Our knowledge of them is limited to mathematical equations which describe the fields and predict the results of experiments in the quantum world.

Quantum fields are, in a sense, physical.
Quantum fields are physical in the sense that they create real, lawful effects in spacetime. For this reason, their behavior is verifiable in physics experiments. However, quantum fields do not exist in spacetime in the same way that tables and chairs exist. If quantum fields existed in spacetime, we would be required to agree with paradoxical statements that make quantum mechanics seem baffling:

1. Electrons exist in more than one place at the same time.
2. Electrons shoot from an electron gun as a particle, travel as a wave, and land on a detector as a particle.
3. Electrons don’t have definite properties until they have an interaction with another part of the physical universe.
4. Particles travel backwards in time as in the delayed choice two-slit experiment.
It may be more understandable to think of quantum fields as existing in a sublevel of reality, which Dr. Ruth Kastner calls, “Quantumland.” (Then again, it may not seem more understandable!)

They certainly aren't deterministic to a classical observer. — 180 Proof

:lol: Fair enough, I don't know how to be anything else. Perhaps I need to consult a quantum physicist on determinism Vs quantum fluctuations.

Variations on the god-of-the-gaps theme: deism is "theism minus answering prayers" or theism is "deism plus answering prayers" – theological interpretations of the same ontologically transcendent – super-natural – entity (i.e. "creator" "first cause" "intelligent designer", etc).

Thoughts, universeness? — 180 Proof

I could not agree with you more sir!!

philosophical Deists will disagree. — Gnomon

The first sentence from the site 'All about philosophy,' describes deism as: Deism is the belief in a supreme being, who remains unknowable and untouchable. It then goes on to discuss deism, as a stepping stone to atheism.
YOU propose a first cause mind with intent. The suggestion that such may be a god that remains interested in its creation or not, is of little significance to me, neither is any separation of deism and theism. Provide some convincing evidence for your first cause mind with intent or it will remain labelled as a woo woo, gap god posit, imo.

Regarding Deism, I'm an Agnostic. But you wouldn't understand, because in your two-value Logical Positivism belief system such median distinctions are not allowed. — Gnomon

You are just repeating your unfounded complaints, which are tedious to read.

I'm averse to being "labelled a theist/deist/theologian" because those labels are not intended to contribute to discourse, but to "peg" my ideas in a category that you can simply dismiss as irrational & unscientific, hence not worthy of a philosophical dialogue. Ironically, you are so averse to the god-posit that you waste enormous amounts of personal time & energy trying to debunk my puny little personal opinion — Gnomon

Well, it's you who have labelled your enformationism as 'personal opinion' and now your 'puny little personal opinion.'

PS__I continue to reply to your disparaging comments -- not in hopes of convincing you -- but in order to test my amateur reasoning against people with strong opposing views. At least, you make counter-arguments in a form that I can work with. But I stopped responding to ↪180 Proof , because he was not dialoguing or debating, but simply debasing. — Gnomon

Your attempts to insult @180 Proof by your patronising claim, that you find me more palatable, is almost school yard debate tactics. I find such, pretty low brow.

You've invoked "Moore's Law"; well, in a similiar vein, the miniaturization of tech, like natural complexity (i.e. life), accelerates ... and I think Buckminster Fuller waa right about ephemeralization in the 1930s (later updated by John Smart et al in the 2000s with the transcension hypothesis) that intelligent systems will also continue to miniaturize, such that AGI —> ASI will eventually be instantiated in matter itself (and maybe then somehow in entangled quantum systems). Thus, nano sapiens. Will they be us? I imagine them as our post-biomorphic – infomorphic – descendsnts,; and, to me, Clark/Kubrick's "Monolith symbolizes this apotheosis. — 180 Proof

I agree with your suggestion that 'functionality' can be miniaturised but I have not really thought about how miniature something could be, but still be self-aware or conscious. Any nano tech I have heard of is certainly functional and can even be networked to achieve a common goal etc but no nano tech is currently sentient. I though by nano sapien, you meant that there would not be much left, which was 'human,' hence your 'post-human' preference over 'transhuman.' I see now that your analysis runs deeper than that.

I don't think ASI's goals, especially with respect to humanity, are predictable since ASI is over the event horizon of the "technological singularity" (which is the advent of AGI). — 180 Proof

True!

I imagine the movie 2001 in its entirety as the "Monolith" simulating within itself to its-human ancestral-self ("Kubrick's audience") a reenactment of its human ancestors' becoming post-human. — 180 Proof

Ok, so the monolith IS post-human.

No. I imagine that a human astronaut's transformation into the "Star Child" happened long ago (from the Monolith's perspective) as the third(?) and (possibly last) irreverisible step on the developmental path to becoming itself: a nano sapien hypercivilization (aka from our perspective "the Monolith"). — 180 Proof

Confirms what I though you were saying about what the monolith represents, but what do you think of 2010, the sequel to 2001, written by Clarke as well. In that film, a large number of monoliths are used to turn Jupiter into a new star. I assume Jupiter's moons are also turned into new habitable space for humans but Europa is to be left alone and is protected by a monolith. This was too close to the Adam and Eve BS for me. You can go to any tree EXCEPT THIS ONE (Europa). Oh come on Mr Clarke, how derivative can you get?

From wiki:
HAL determines that the spot is a vast group of Monoliths, multiplying exponentially and altering Jupiter's density and chemical composition. He suggests canceling the launch in order to study the changes occurring to Jupiter. Floyd worries that HAL will prioritize his mission over the humans' survival, but Chandra admits to the computer that there is a danger, and that Discovery may be destroyed. HAL thanks Chandra for telling him the truth, and ensures the Leonov's escape. Before Discovery is destroyed, Bowman asks HAL to transmit a priority message, assuring him that they will soon be together. The Monoliths engulf Jupiter, which undergoes nuclear fusion, becoming a new star. HAL transmits this message to Earth:

ALL THESE WORLDS
ARE YOURS EXCEPT
EUROPA
ATTEMPT NO
LANDING THERE
USE THEM TOGETHER
USE THEM IN PEACE

The Leonov survives the shockwave from Jupiter's ignition, and returns home. Floyd narrates how the new star's miraculous appearance, and the message from a mysterious alien power, inspire the American and Soviet leaders to seek peace. Under its infant sun, icy Europa transforms into a humid jungle, covered with life, and watched over by a Monolith.

Do you see these monoliths that exponentially multiply to turn Jupiter into a new star, as lifeforms or some kind of solarforming/terraforming system? The film does not confirm that the monoliths are consumed by this process. We don't know what happens to all those monoliths.

From your link to the fermi paradox, I liked:
The Transcension Hypothesis ventures that an advanced civilization will become fundamentally altered by its technology. In short, it theorizes that any ETIs that predate humanity have long-since transformed into something that is not recognizable by conventional SETI standards.
But as this confirms, that may only apply to ETI's that are way more advanced that humans.
Perhaps a little like 'the first ones,' dramatised in the sci-fi series Babylon 5. But such suggests many other species would have to exist other that just 'first ones,' unless, for some unknown reason, WE ARE the first ones.

Is this then imagery, of completing the circle, or perhaps even the cycle?
For us, perhaps it is, given our mythopoetic bias. — 180 Proof

:grin: Yeah, Poetic license has a lot of girth.

I think the post-planck era universe is deterministic. — 180 Proof

So do you think 'quantum fluctuations' are deterministic? I think they are the only example of true 'random happenstance' that I am convinced does qualify as 'random.'

Maybe my interpretation of Kubrick's final scene is clearer now? (Btw, both Kubrick's interpretation and mine differ from Arthur C. Clarke's too.) — 180 Proof

True, perhaps also true for the sequel, 2010, as it will also be the director Peter Hyams' interpretation of Clarke's story.

What would motivate anyone to help the blind? — Athena

I don't understand why you would ask such a question?

How is it possible to know how to help a blind person? — Athena

Perhaps those who train guide dogs for the blind, for example, could explain it to you better than I.
Again I don't understand your line of questioning here.

Hellen Keller could not see or hear, and a woman who could see and hear, taught her language and made it possible for her to have the language necessary for thinking and communicating with others.
Her parents did not do this. Why didn't her parents teach her? What made the woman who did teach Hellen Keller language different from her parents? The answer will define what makes a human different from AI and from there we can have an interesting discussion. — Athena

Or speak! Her parents did not know the 'finger spelling' sign language involved. What motivated the woman who did teach Helen how to communicate, was the fact that she (Anne Sullivan) was a sign language specialist who was brought in, via Helen's parents.
How does this make Anne Sullivan different from a future ASI that can teach humans sign language? There is no AI expert sign language system, currently capable of teaching finger spelling to someone like Helen Keller. But the proposed abilities of a future ASI, certainly could. In fact, a future ASI could probably develop a much better sign system, that could communicate with Helen, compared to finger spelling. Helen herself preferred 'oralism' to 'finger spelling' and braille etc Oralism involves touching a persons mouth as they speak.
Hand gesturing and communication through touch, goes way back to ancient times.
Again, I find your line of questioning bizarre, here Athena. But, I know you are a wise old force, so I am sure it's just a failing on my part to 'get where you are coming from here.'

Oh no, you've got me pegged. Just in the wrong hole. You get frustrated by my denials of your peg-holes. — Gnomon

I think your issue here is that you see your issues in terms of getting pegged or being in holes.

If you'd stop shooting at my feet, I could stop dancing in the street. — Gnomon

My aim has always been at your 'reasoning,' not your feet, or any other part of your anatomy.

So, although my personal worldview includes a role for a First Cause/Prime Mover, it prescribes no creedal beliefs or communal practices. And it does not claim to "know the mind of God". — Gnomon

:roll: So you do propose that the mind of god has a manifest existent! That makes you a theist! or if you think your first cause/prime mover has not been in touch with it's creations (or maybe just us) then you are a deist! either flavour belongs to a theological belief for the origin story of the universe and absolutely nothing to do with the science of quantum physics. I don't need to peg you falsely, your theological origin claim for the universe is crystal clear. I have no idea why you are so averse to being labelled a theist/deist/theologian.

If I knew for sure that there is an Eternal Enformer, I'd admit it freely. But it's just a logical conclusion based on circumstantial evidence, which I delineate in the thesis. — Gnomon

You typed that you assigned a very high credence level to your eternal enformer proposal.
I cant be bothered to track down the actual quote, I am referring to, but I will if I must.
Make up your mind, don't keep switching between expressing a strong belief in the validity of your claims and typing about how wrong you might be. Are you merely engaging in traditional fabulism?

Hey, it's just a theory. — Gnomon

I know this was a reply to Athena but it applies to me as well. In my case, while deeply pessimistic about human existence, I'm cautiously optimistic about post-human intelligence (whether or not it's an extinction event for us). — 180 Proof

Yeah I remember some of our early exchanges, and my labelling of you as a doomster.
I think I was wrong in that accusation ...... but ...... sometimes ........ :gasp:

In a similar vein, my post-human (post-biomorphic) preference is nano sapien. — 180 Proof

:grin: but why so small? Would you not at least consider upgrading us to mini sapien, or medio sapien?
Do you completely reject that a future ASI may choose to remain separate from us, but will augment us, and protect us, when we are in danger. ASI may never reach the emotional content/intensity, that we can demonstrate. Do you think an ASI would be able to reproduce something as 'bizarre' as human imagination?

You must have missed this (below) from that old thread ... — 180 Proof

No, I did read those entries again, but I didn't specifically relate what you typed in that thread, to the scene you posted on this one, but I will now:

I've imagined Kubrick/Clarke's "Monolith" as the ultimate  intelligent descendant of terrestrial life interacting with its primeval ancestors (us) in "higher dimensional" quantum-level simulations (e.g. "pocket universes"). Symbolically, for us, the "Monolith" is both mirror and window (i.e. "film screen") of the unknown ... — 180 Proof

Ok, so it's observing its ancestor as a bed ridden old man and as a baby, initially in a Greco/Roman room, and then the baby (starchild), next to Earth.
Do you think the monolith is 'learning' or 'teaching' or both, in this scene?

When (movie) Dave Bowman transforms (chrysalis-like) into the "Starchild", the Monolith's simulation, I imagine, becomes aware of itself as (manifested as an avatar of) the Monolith's simulation. (Book) Bowman's last transmission as his pod falls onto / into the Great Monolith "My God, it's full of stars ..." in which "stars" could mean souls, or minds, or intelligences ... perhaps all there ever has been and will ever be ... simulated. No doubt, another inspiration for Frank Tipler's cosmological "Omega Point"? — 180 Proof

So does this depict, for you, an 'ascendance' moment for the human, or a 'completion of purpose' moment for the human. Is the monolith making an equivalent style statement, to such as 'as you are now, so once was I, as I am now, so will you be, prepare yourself to follow me?

I imagine the Monolith is (for our species) the enabling-constraint of becoming (fractally joining) the Monolith. A quasi-gnostic odyssey of re/turning to the source (pleroma), or the prodigal homecoming – monomyth – of all intelligences ... — 180 Proof

Is this then imagery, of completing the circle, or perhaps even the cycle?
Would you find anything in this final scene then, that is relatable to cyclical universe posits, such as CCC or do you think Kubrick was going for something more akin to the buddhist 'wheel of life?'

"However vast the dar[k]ness, we must supply our own light". ~Stanley Kubrick — 180 Proof

So do you think the universe is, in the final analysis deterministic or not? Or is my general interpretations of your analysis of the final scene you posted and your typings, in Javi's thread, way off?

You’re speaking of a mathematical singularity here, where certain laws of physics become meaningless when denominators go to zero and such. — noAxioms

Yes, I know.

The information singularity is nothing like that. It’s kind of like one vehicle passing another on the highway. Now there’s a new one in the lead is all. — noAxioms

I know, that's why I typed

The moment of a 'technological' or 'information' singularity has some different properties again, compared to the big bang or black hole singularities. — universeness

and

For me, the term 'information singularity' or 'technological singularity,' is more about a 'moment of very significant change.' — universeness

I suspect the future for the personal vehicle (let alone a flying one) is doomed. Transportation in any sufficiently dense population is best done by mass transit. I’ve been in the places where many people don’t own cars since everything can be reached via bus, subway, intercity trains, boats, etc. Most of the personal transportation might be limited to bicycles. It’s too rural where I live to do that, but that raises the problem where many want to live in a scenic place like the mountains, but do work more suited to an urban setting. That makes for a lot of resources wasted on commuting, even if it is a mass commute.
There will be small vehicles, like a service van for the plumber and such. — noAxioms

Sounds good to me! Apart from the 'waste of resources.'

Trying to figure out if/where the sarcasm kicks in. Yes, many people love art. Those guys get the prints. But the wealthy can afford the rare stuff, the originals, and there will very much be the wealthy. The artist in question will be one of them. Lack of a concept of money just makes it harder to tax. — noAxioms

I intended no sarcasm in what I typed.
If what you say proves to be true in the future, and the 'wealthy' still exist as you describe them above.
I would be fine with that, especially if that would satisfy the machinations of some individual need to demonstrate personal freedom by 'having more than others,' and if that would also satisfy the narcissistic and the 'material ownership,' that some 'entrepreneurial endeavours' pursue, then, so be it.
If that is the level of concession that secular humanism and democratic socialism has to concede then that's not such a high price to pay, if it means that every human being on the planet, can take their basic means of survival and their basic protections for granted, from cradle to grave.

I think the artist you describe would be happy living under the system I am proposing.

So do I. Did I say otherwise? OK, a luxury life does not imply a happy person. One of the best way to ruin your happiness and relations with everybody you know is to win a major lottery. The stats on that are very consistent. But a lottery winner is very different from somebody who earned the same amount.
For the record, I consider lotteries to be a stupid-tax: A tax that’s completely optional, to be paid only by stupid people. — noAxioms

Glad you agree! Yeah, a lottery win can be a death sentence for many.
'Earned the same amount,' is controversial, to say the least. The money trick means you can earn great wealth, not by particularly working hard but by sycophantically leeching from the sweat and toil of workers. If you earned your millions/billions via investments and deals on the stock markets (gambling joints), then your wealth is via the money trick and is NOT CLEAN imo.
Having a idea and setting up a business selling books (like Jeff Bezos and Amazon) is fine.
That beginning, that resulted in the Amazon company that exists today and the abomination that is now the wealth of Bezos, is nefarious, and vile, and needs to be stopped from ever, ever happening, in the future.
Horrors like Bezos, Musk, Branson, Gates etc and vile family dynasties such as the dukes of Westminster or the Wallenbergs, must never be possible in the future.

How do you propose to move from how it is now to a unified thing? — noAxioms

I think the proxy war between the west and Russia in Ukraine will prove pivotal. China will be severely affected as well. Either war will destroy us all or it will eventually unite us all, as it has since we came out of the wilds. Two tribes go to war and either one conquers the other of they make peace by uniting. Either way, two tribes become one. From chaos comes order. Sometimes we can unite without having to go through a war first. I would far prefer that route. Uniting as a global species, because it makes sense to do so. I believe global unity and world government is inevitable but I don't know the time scale. I do agree with the pessimists that our extinction is the alternative.

I’m speaking of those in a first world country that actively decide not to contribute. There’s a significant number of them. In the country with the hut, somebody making a choice like that would just starve. You’re describing a global first world situtation, so your comparisons shouldn’t reach for the opposite end of that spectrum. — noAxioms

Well, I have already stated that the main consequence of behaving as you suggest, in the quote above, is 'social status' based. You would have to suffer the non-violent, social disdain of the majority of the population. I would name and shame. eg, 'Jimmy Smith of ....... address, refuses to spend 1 day a week helping to ...... and do ........ He is provided with everything he needs. He enjoys painting and going to music events and he is a member of a local debating society and he ...... blah, blah.
If you know Jimmy (photo's provided), perhaps you could discuss with him, why he will not help his local community, in the ways we have asked him to.

You might find my suggestion here unpalatable, and you might even think that violence would be threatened or enacted against Jimmy, or Jimmy himself would respond to such social haranguing with violence, even though it would be prosecuted, if it was perpetrated.
Perhaps you can suggest a better way to reason with Jimmy, if all verbal reasoning has failed to date. If the number of Jimmy's around, was very small, then perhaps they could just be left alone, to live as social outcasts, but they could rejoin society anytime they wished to.
Perhaps the issue would never arise eventually, due to the level of automation achieved.
Whatever the outcome is, it seems to me, to offer a far more fair and just society, compared to that we experience now, as the human condition.
I am currently, only musing, on the scenario's you are presenting to me.

You seem to be deliberately avoiding the analogy, which is everybody on a train trestle (or tunnel) with nowhere to stand with a train present. The people cannot get out of the way, but they can slow/stop the train, but not trivially. But most (the optimists at least) assume the train will stop by itself or somebody else will do it. The pessimists know nobody else will do it, but even they don’t really have any good suggestions for preventing the train from arriving. There’s nothing nefarious going on (except perhaps those profiting from speeding up the train). The train is of the making of the very people on the tracks. — noAxioms

If the people on the tracks, made the train, and caused it to hurtle towards themselves, then they are the only ones who can stop it. The optimists are not as passively waiting and are not as meekly accepting of the fate your pessimism suggests, they can do nothing about.
We have stopped many unjust, tyrannical, seemingly all powerful threats before. The proof is that we are not extinct. You can keep accepting the train threats, if you want to live your life like that. I will keep working with those who can stop trains hurtling towards us.

How about just the person running a paper-pushing position at say a local doctor’s office. — noAxioms

Soon automated, hopefully, same for all such tedious jobs.

Yes, you can get the boost from doing something needing doing, being amazing about it in the eyes of others is a stretch. Respectable, sure. — noAxioms

This can be enough for some folks, as long as they can also pursue other things that interest them significantly.

I know several businesses locally that permanently have help-wanted signs outside because they scare away employees faster than they attract them. Imagine that situation without the incentive of getting anything (event he ego boost) for your efforts. — noAxioms

You keep churning out such examples, and I keep repeating that I am confident that any job humans don't want to do, can be eventually automated. Until such time, everyone should be willing to 'help' do the jobs, no-one particularly likes. If anyone refuses to do their share, then I would not remove access to any of their basic needs, but there would be social consequence's of their refusal, to do their fair share.

How about somebody working at an abortion clinic (doctor or staff)? Those people provide an essential service and yet get far more disapproval from others than otherwise. — noAxioms

Pro-life and bodily autonomy arguments and issues like it, will no doubt persist for a long time yet. Advances in transhumanism will have a major effect on such debates in the future, as transhumanism affects human robustness and longevity, more and more.
Who knows how new tech will change how an abortion is performed in the future.

BTW, the notion of Artificial Super Intelligence could be construed as a god-posit, except that it emerges from within Nature, instead of creating Nature. — Gnomon

Anyone who 'construes' ASI as a god posit is just in woo woo thinking mode imo. Effort towards ASI is by human design alone. Humans emerged from natural happenstance, ASI will come from human intent.

My information-based "god-posit" is conceptually similar except for the direction of emergence. — Gnomon

No it's not. The 'direction of emergence' part you admit to, makes all the difference. ASI is for the future. The first cause deity (deism) that you posit, as the creator of the universe, IS an origin posit. Not a future emergence from human activity.

ASI is a prediction (conjecture) based on the current trajectory of Information Technology. — Gnomon

Yes, it is, but your bracketed 'conjecture' is imbalanced. Moore's law has proven to be accurate so far.
A first cause mind is pure conjecture as an origin posit but ASI has some sound evidence behind it, as emerging from human intent and activity. You continue to conflate your imaginings, with real scientific projections. Your 'philosophy' would be more credible, imo, if you stopped doing that.

Apparently, you are not familiar with the history of Deism — Gnomon

Right back at you! What to you is a deity?
deity:
a god or goddess (in a polytheistic religion): "a deity of ancient Greece"
SIMILAR: god, goddess, divine being, celestial being, supreme being
Divine status, quality, or nature: "a ruler driven by delusions of deity"
SIMILAR: divine nature, divineness, godliness, godhead, holiness
(THE DEITY)
the creator and supreme being (in a monotheistic religion such as Christianity):
"she raised her head as if appealing to the Deity presiding over the church"
SIMILAR: God, Lord, Lord God
Deity: Him upstairs, the man upstairs, a representation of a god or goddess, such as a statue or carving

From wiki:
A deity or god is a supernatural being who is considered divine or sacred. The Oxford Dictionary of English defines deity as a god or goddess, or anything revered as divine. C. Scott Littleton defines a deity as "a being with powers greater than those of ordinary humans, but who interacts with humans, positively or negatively, in ways that carry humans to new levels of consciousness, beyond the grounded preoccupations of ordinary life".

From CompareWords:
What's the difference between deism and deity?
The doctrine or creed of a deist; the belief or system of those who acknowledge the existence of one God, but deny revelation.

It was a rejection of biblical Theism. Instead, it proposed rational acceptance of the logical necessity for a non-religious philosophical First Cause principle (Cause + Laws), with the Potential for manifesting all aspects of Nature, including Physical (material) & Metaphysical (mental).*4 To this day, scientists have found no reasonable alternative to explain how Mind could emerge from Matter.*5 — Gnomon

From where in the accurate definitions of deity and deism above, do you 'magic' your notion that deism is not theism and is not synonymous with religion? Deism rejects the BS biblical 'revelation.' It merely asserts that your deity has never communicated with its creation (us!) :roll: Who cares? YOU connected YOUR enformer with deism which means YOU labelled it a deity. All you have done since then, is try to struggle out of those manacles you placed on yourself by trying to redefine deism. Why you choose to cosplay as a theist/deist, whilst denying your dalliances with it, is just bizarre behaviour imo.

Which of those models do you find satisfactory explanations for the contingent existence of our world? — Gnomon

I assign more credence to CCC at the moment, mainly because the physics/cosmology community has not came up with convincing counter evidence against Roger Penrose's (and his team's) 'Hawking points,' evidence, which is supported by the Wmap data and the Planck data.
I have listened to some of the counter explanations of where the temperature differences could come from in the CBR, from folks such as Alan Guth and Neil Turok but Roger's evidence is still very compelling.
Is your 'enformationism' a hot topic of debate within the scientific community? Will it become so, anytime soon? I will be able to contribute to such, if it ever happens as I have read a 'fair amount' of your speculations from your 'blog' using the link you provided, but not every word, and I have not pondered every speculation you offer in great depth, not yet anyway.

I think you have knowing facts confused with knowledge. A prisoner I corresponded with captured the difference between knowing facts and knowledge. "You may think shit taste bad, but until you eat it, you do not know how bad." — Athena

Can you help the blind without becoming blind yourself Athena?
Knowing what it's like to be blind yourself IS NOT the qualification you need to help the blind OR to be able to fight effectively for a better world.

Learn to grow your own food and rely on yourself before you conclude the solution to human problems is a strong bureaucracy over us. Also if you knew as much history as you know science fiction, that would give you a more realistic perspective. — Athena

History is a big interest of mine Athena and I would suggest I now as much about history as you do.
We all have our specialisms. I bet I know a lot more about Scottish history that you, and you probably know more about Greek history (especially their folklore,) than I.
I do not advocate for 'a strong bureaucracy' over us, I advocate for authority of, for and by the people.
I advocate for secular humanist, democratic, socialist governance which is resource based and global.

Here is a fiction that might increase your understanding of the danger of believing good intentions can give us the kind of utopia you keep talking about. — Athena

I have read Aldous Huxley's book, brave new world and have watched many of its dramatisations.
Brave New World is dystopian and a resource based global, secular humanist, democratic socialist real politik, would not cause such a lifestyle, as that depicted in Brave New World. You have always displayed a rather pessimistic viewpoint for the future of the human race, and I have always, and will always, disagree with that aspect of your current world view.

Also learning what happened when Hitler took over could increase your awareness of what can go very wrong. — Athena

Yeah, I'm kinda familiar with that to ........

I am fine with you exemplifying things that you think have went wrong in the past and how some of those shortfalls are causing difficulty today. I also think its ok for you to raise concern about how new tech is currently being employed today, but I disagree with your pessimistic outlook, towards current efforts to improve things.

I like your optimism for a future cooperative between homo sapiens and homo nova. — ucarr

I am flattered by your willingness to use my 'homo nova' term. A large part of homo nova would be OF homo sapien ancestry, so I think that will be a large influencer. The ASI would be the 'mecha' component of homo nova, so that's the part that I hope will be benevolent towards us, and be willing to merge with us, or at least support and augment us. I hope future transhumans, will try to repair some of the historical damage homo sapiens committed, due to their theistic fogs, primeval fear responses, law of the jungle survival imperatives that resulted in vile practices, such as, territoriality, monarchy, aristocracy, plutocracy, autocracy, capitalism, cult of personality and celebrity etc. It was mostly the more nefarious amongst us that championed and practiced, and used such methods to gain full control, over our stewardship of the Earth.

Perhaps, once we become extraterrestial and we can 'terraform' other planets, creatures such as horses, might also become extraterrestial, through us and have their future assured.
Perhaps all of the species on Earth, will prove to be an essential part of our future space exploration and development.
Perhaps we can even learn how to bring back many now extinct species, to atone for earlier homo sapien behaviours. It's nice to think such thoughts, and it's nice to know I need no god to do so.
I also don't have to give thanks to any god notion, for being able to think such thoughts, or communicate them to others. Think what humans could really achieve, if more and more of us, finally, cannot be fooled even some of the time, never mind most or all of the time. If we could finally see through, all of the BS and horror and suffering, that past and present nefarious members of our species have caused, due to their own inability to deal with their own selfish inner primal fears.

What's your thinking about the problem of good and evil as conceptualized into a future, interstellar society?
I need to encounter a persuasive argument why good can hold its own before the onslaughts of homo nova self-interest.
By the way, I think self-interest pushed to the extreme of infinity is a useful definition of evil.
Perhaps a good exercise has you elaborating some essentials of future evil; has me elaborating some essentials of future good. — ucarr

I think good and evil are human inventions that have no objective meaning other than as concepts that we can asymptotically aspire to. They are nonetheless absolutely critical concepts of human morality and human ethics.
It would seem very obvious, that I think our morality, should aspire to the good and resist manifestations of destructive evil. It's important perhaps, to make such obvious statements, even though they seem so obvious.

Perhaps the more important statement is that I think we need to reject all proposed supernatural agents/influences, as sources of good and evil, so that we can finally take full responsibility ourselves, and stop scapegoating non-existents, as a means of deflecting the blame from ourselves.
An earthquake/famine/tsunami/volcanic eruption/pandemic/asteroid strike etc etc are mostly, not our fault, but our efforts to protect ourselves from such and our response to such, when they happen, IS OUR responsibility. Such is not, nor have they EVER been, the whim and responsibility of gods. Time for all humans to grow up! WE will be responsible for all future good and future evil as WE will be the source of such. It is therefore essential that we ensure 'good' is pursued and 'evil' is prevented or responded to effectively, when it cannot be prevented.

It's very thought provoking and artistically/aesthetically pleasing but the interpretations that individuals apply are sooooooo different. Personally:
1. Why is the old man pictured in a room with such Greco/Roman architecture?
2. What does the monolith represent in this scene? A visit from god on the old man's deathbed? or just a representation of what humanity does not yet know about?
3. The innocent looking wide eyed, enigmatically smiling, baby in a bubble, represents what, in juxtaposition to the old bed ridden man? Is it something like, 'as you are now, so once was I. As I am now, so will you be. Prepare yourself to follow me? Or is it something like old infirm/new, young and inquisitive. It does not matter, it's all part of the same pursuit of new knowledge?
4. The final scene of the bubble baby, viewed on a scale as big as the planet Earth beside it.
What is the intention? One is the nest of the other? The Earth nestles the baby and the baby gives significance to the existence of the planet and by projection, the universe?

These are just some of my musings on the scene you posted. What are yours?
I know this film was discussed recently (well, 5 months ago,) in a thread by @javi2541997 titled 2001:A Space Odyssey's monolith
I had a quick look at your 2 or 3 posts in that thread, but you didn't offer your personal interpretation of the final scene you posted above, there.

My initial reaction, which tends towards melodrama (and is therefore suspect) impels me to speculate the above hope is more fever-dream than rational speculation. Remember Independence Day when the human optimists look up towards the hovering alien mothership with hopeful expectation of an imminent, cosmic love-fest? This occurs just before they get vaporized into oblivion. — ucarr

:lol: My defence would be simply that my 'fever-dream,' is no less probable than what sounds like a higher credence level, that you would personally assign, to a terminator style 'skynet' outcome for a singularly pivotal moment of change, due to the human invention of an ASI.
To counter the aggressive aliens in the awfully trite movie 'Independence day.' I offer a scene from Spielbergs AI:

This evidence, as you are well aware, comprises the wretched history of homo sapiens treatment of the rest of earth's animal kingdom. All the expletives in the English language aren't enough to articulate fully how badly we've treated earth's animal kingdom. — ucarr

Yes, but, I would say, as WE have gained in knowledge, many more of us will review and alter the way we treat/respect each other and all flora and fauna we encounter. That has not made me a veggie yet. I keep making excuses for myself for not becoming one. So, based on that viewpoint, Homo superior is not a label I like due to the use of 'superior,' but I think such should be more benevolent than homo sapien, due to the knowledge it has access to and it's ability to reason in 'new' ways (rather than superior ways, (I would prefer homo nova to homo superior)).

As there are homo sapiens kindly to animals, we can expect likewise homo superior individuals. Will such individuals be of sufficient volume to counterbalance the collective treatment of homo sapiens by homo superior the species? By the evidence of homo sapiens' treatment of earth's animal kingdom, this seems hardly likely. — ucarr

This is another interesting aspect. I wonder if more than one ASI is developed, there will be a battle between ASI systems. Some protecting humans/transhumans and another, determined to make biological sentient lifeforms, extinct. I loved films like 'Colossus, the Forbin project.'
Perhaps the ASI's would join each other, like in that movie:

On the other hand, it seems likely to me homo superior will be empowered to enact forms of benevolence beyond our present ability to imagine. Will this be enough of an offset to stand as a protection? I doubt it seriously. — ucarr

Do you reject out of hand a 'merging' of ASI and biological humanity to create a transhuman 'homo nova?'

The new, higher-order species, by definition, will have needs and desires that consume resources of creation beyond what homo sapiens can conceptualize. This will mean abrogation of vast resources now essential to the self-determination and well being of homo sapiens. Just the other day I happened to be around some horses. As I started thinking about them, I realized something horrible with stark clarity: Horses are large animals. What they do best, according to their innate power, is run fast and far each day of their lives. Well, humans, pursuing their own dreams, have partitioned off nearly all of the open land on earth. The possibility for horse happiness, with few exceptions, has been destroyed by humans.

Humans will benefit greatly from the benevolent actions of homo superior. We know, however, true happiness in its highest manifestation depends upon species sovereignty. That is lost with the advent of the new sovereign species. — ucarr

But to me, you are not considering how vast space is, and the resources available in it seems to be almost inexhaustible, imo. ASI would be essential imo, if we are to become a viable extraterrestial species, which I think is 'emergent' in us, due to the general direction that manifest intent and purpose, seems to currently drive us. ASI would become more and more essential, if we were to ever try to become an interstellar species.

My latest run-in was with the Logical-Positive belief system, which constructs artificial fences around Logic ; functioning like electronic ankle cuffs, to limit the range of Reason to verifiable empirical questions. In other words, forcing Philosophy to obey the rules of Science. — Gnomon

Oh come on Gnomon!! enough of the 'I am being treated unfairly,' on repeat, through your loudspeaker.
I DO NOT, refute your right to philosophise as YOU see fit, and as makes logical sense to YOU.
I have already posted, that I think you do, genuinely, seek truth.
You will have your followers and your dissenters. I may not agree with what you say BUT I will defend with MY LIFE, your right to say it. I think folks like @180 Proof etc, (in other words, your dissenters,) appreciate your viewpoints, but the counter arguments we offer, are perfectly valid and legitimate and YOU, need to be magnanimous enough to accept that, or leave yourself open to the accusation, that you are a dishonest interlocuter.

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: — Gnomon

I certainly DO NOT label the general question of the origin story of the universe as exclusively religious and I think you already know that. Cyclical universe, the multiverse, Mtheory etc, etc have no integrated god posits. Only posits like enformationism, have theism/deism at their root, as you as its author, have confirmed, in many of your posts. I broadly agree, with the remaining content of the above quote.

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. — Gnomon

ASI is the main candidate for a tech/information singular moment in time.
The main fundamental employed by an artificial super intelligence, will be data/information.
Simple really!

Under what conditions is this true? I grew up in L.A. California and took people being killed for granted, like people in Oregon take rain for granted. — Athena

Under human conditions, both historical and current.
I am sure you also deduced, that it would be a good idea to help prevent such 'killing,' in anyway we, or you can. Do people in Oregon take rain for granted? We only have YOUR opinion on that one.

I thought it is was very important to be tough. My idea of what it means to be tough changed with old age. :lol: The point is, we are reactionary, and how we feel, think, and behave depends on our environment and circumstance. We can be as angles or completely numb to the suffering of others. — Athena

What's your point Athena? Each person is either part of the problems or part of the solutions???
I KNOW!!!!! :flower: :flower:

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

Many people share your concerns. Fascism is a global concern and always has been. It's as Japanese, Italian, French, American and Russian as it is German. I value technical progress, and see it as an imperative, but it's consequences, are indeed, important to very carefully contend with. I think theism has NOTHING of value to assist us in developing good morality. I think the opposite is true. Secular humanism is the source of human morality, not theism or ancient fables and fairy stories.
'Athena' is a nice human name but Athena the female deity, is just a boring old fable, of no value today, other than as entertainment, for those who enjoy such fables.

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

No government or bureaucracy is omnipotent. ALL GOVERNANCE MUST BE of, for and by the people, or else such authority MUST be replaced. That is the system of governance, we must continue to fight for, FOREVER!!! Even when we achieve it, we must forever fight to maintain it.

I do not believe that is enough food to feed everyone, nor is it practical to send produce to poor nations that can not pay for the labor and transportation cost to feed huge populations in poor countries the variety of foods necessary for good health — Athena

Hopefully, future automated systems will remove the practicality issues you are concerned about.
For me, the main point is that good people will forever seek solutions to such problems and notions such as 'pay for' or 'transportation cost,' will soon become, what they should always have been, non-issues.

I wish everyone experienced at least two years of having to live on the food they produce themselves before entering a discussion about feeding the world. The experience would give them a necessary perspective. — Athena

Do you think people should go back you using the abacus to gain a better understanding of the usefulness of a calculator? Or perhaps use of a horse for a year would make you appreciate your car or local bus service more. Starvation, would make ANYONE appreciate food production more, but I don't think 'spare the rod, spoil the child,' is the only way or even a useful way, to educate people.

Tell me, what are the circumstances essential to feeding a family of 7? — Athena

Establishing economic parity for all and creating a national, international, global food production and distribution system that can sustain our current rate of global population growth. If that proves to be currently impossible then, embark on education campaigns to better control population growth, and strongly discourage families which have 7 children.

If we were in the pioneer days and the families diet depended on hurting and gardening what are the challenges and how are they met. — Athena

But we are not in times when each family or tribal unit has to perform the hunter gatherer survival method. We live in times of rampant, pernicious global capitalism. That's the problem, not an inability to produce enough food for everyone.

I think your opinions are based on facts, but not knowledge and enough facts for good judgment. — Athena

That's fair enough Athena. I would respond with, I think your opinions offer excuses for the behaviour of the nefarious few, past and present, who are fully responsible for the way the world is today.

Not all ground is good for farming. It can be hard to get enough protein without meat and dairy products. — Athena

For Example, vertical farming:
Vertical farming is the practice of growing crops in vertically stacked layers. It often incorporates controlled-environment agriculture, which aims to optimize plant growth, and soilless farming techniques such as hydroponics, aquaponics, and aeroponics
I am not a vegan or a veggie but protein comes from other sources, not just meat alone.

What do people eat when the locus come in and destroy the crops, or weather prevents people from having a good crop? — Athena

Stored foods, distributed when needed. Even the fairy tales in the bible, incudes a cautionary tale regarding 7 fat cows and 7 thin cows. Simple stuff really!

You live in a world that is totally changed and it has not been that long since people everywhere died because of a poor diet. Today the problem is changed, they gtet enough calories but eat the wrong foods and people are destroying their lives and their children's lives with harmful foods. — Athena

The concerns you highlight here seem to me, to be very, very solvable!

If you lived in a village where every winter neighbors starved to death, and you feared not having enough to eat, you would not be thinking of feeding the world. History gives us perspective and that perspective is necessary for good judgment. — Athena

No, you don't have to experience fire to know it burns, otherwise few problems would ever get solved.
I know people starve to death, so the problem is obvious. I don't need my immediate family or neighbours to die in such ways, before I qualify as someone who can suggest solutions.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Yes.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

His sense of humour is indeed eccentric!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

:up:

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

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

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

Absolutely , YES!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Was Newton a religious idiot, — Gnomon

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

:roll: Make up your mind!

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

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

If you could zoom right into it, I would expect to find that it is made up of discrete packets of energy/field excitations which might be vibrating strings or undulations etc
You can’t zoom into it. Light ‘packets’ unmeasured are undetectable. Light measured is no longer light. This isn’t true of something classical like a water wave, which may lose its wave nature if you zoom in, but there’s still something classical into which one can zoom. — noAxioms

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Admittedly, people are readily willing to shell out tens of thousands of dollars to garner an imagined approval from complete strangers. I wonder how much I fool myself into thinking I’m not impressed by it. — noAxioms

The rewards involved in helping others, can be as much of an ego boost, as someone telling you what what an amazing artist, singer, writer, scientist, capitalist, warrior, devil, angel, worshiper, athlete or tiddlywinker you are. All people seek the approval of others, no matter how much anyone might deny it, imo.

The difference between then and now, is that they will have truly CHOSEN to live their life like that, rather than be forced to, as the majority who are experiencing life like that today, are forced to.
They’re forced to? They’re able bodied and educatable. That path isn’t forced. Taught maybe. — noAxioms

Most folks are forced to, yes, or do you think a 16 year old black boy living in a hut in a poor village in a 3rd world country or a slum ghetto somewhere, has the same opportunities in life, as your kids have had?

I vote. I hadn’t any plans to go into politics and rise to the levels where such things are decided. — noAxioms

Good, I am glad you vote, I hope you vote for those who are closest to secular humanism, based on the best of a bad bunch approach, if that's all that's on your local menu, and if it is all that's on offer, then perhaps you do need to get involved yourself.

OK. Suppose somebody is a very talented and popular artist. She creates works that are far more in demand than there is supply. So it goes onto the barter market and she gets wealthy with whatever the medium of exchange is. In the mean time, to the state she’s a non-contributor since none of her work contributes to the well-being of the whole. At best her side ‘income’ at least pays for the better art supplies since the state isn’t going to find need there if her work is on the non-contributor status just like all the other authors, artists and hobbyists, the ones whose work is noticed by a handful of people at best. — noAxioms

I don't understand your scenario. I am an oil painter. I create my paintings as I want to. I don't paint to sell. Your talented and popular artist can take all of her basic means of survival for granted, under my system. If people like what she produces in HER CHOSEN JOB of 'artist,' then prints of her work can be downloaded by anyone for free, framed and put up on their wall. She can also 'gift' her original work to whomsoever she wishes to. I would get rid of all copyright and patent laws. To the state, artists WOULD BE very significant contributors. Of course she is contributing to the well being of others. People LOVE art. Why is her work in so much demand, if it does not contribute to peoples well-being???
Why would she put her 'original' paintings on to a barter market? Such a market is only useful for folks who want to 'collect' stuff. Every one will get 'one' of what they need, for free, a house, a flying auto drive car, a home/mobile com system, a fridge freezer, home seating designed to your own taste and changed when you want to change it (within reason) etc, etc. I don't understand why you think people would be so discontented, under the system I propose? I think the artist you describe would be happy, living under the system I am proposing. I am grateful that you suggest scenario's and 'characters' that you think would not be happy at all, under the system I propose. Perhaps if you explain your concerns in more detail, I will start to understand your examples, that will exemplify, why my suggested system is sure to fail.

K, they got rid of the aristocracy, just as the French did. It was better than before, but it was never communist except in name. Maybe briefly at first, but people needed to eat and keep warm. — noAxioms

I agree that the Russian or Chinese system that replaced their monarchies were never socialist/communist AT THE TOP. But many of the systems established by initiatives like the 'Gosplan' in Russia were indeed socialist and were successful for a while, and did feed people, kept them warm and treated them fairly, but the 'rot' and corruption at the top, soon filtered down. The Russian 'plan' worked fairly well for about 50 years.

Yea, I don’t know enough about how all that worked. — noAxioms

From wiki:
Material balance planning was the major function of Gosplan in the USSR. This method of planning involved the accounting of material supplies in natural units (as opposed to monetary terms) which are used to balance the supply of available inputs with targeted outputs. Material balancing involves taking a survey of available inputs and raw materials in the economy and then using a balance-sheet to balance them with output targets specified by industry to achieve a balance between supply and demand. This balance is used to formulate a plan for the national economy.

The best I have ever watched to gain an understanding of why the soviet union failed, is Adam Curtis's 7 part series called 'TraumaZone,' All 7 parts are available on youtube. Part 1 below:

but global companies will just outsource their production to regions with rules that allow it. Rules being different from here to there messes it all up. There is no global authority. — noAxioms

Time to get rid of any privately owned/shareholder based company, which has such global reach then.
The UN IS a global authority, it IS the beginning of what is needed. It needs far more significant teeth and claws and it needs to become a totally secular, humanist organisation, which is almost impervious, to any attempt at capitalist or theocratic, control.

What would such an authority do? Hand first world minimal living standards to even the most primitive places on the planet? — noAxioms

Not in the 'immediate' way you suggest but slowly and surely and only based on their democratic consent, YES!

And you remain consistent with the optimism. I’m sure somebody will fix it. Just somebody else, and please not while I’m around. — noAxioms

Oh, I so hope some of the fixing happens whilst you are around. I want to see you forced to put a half full sticker on your half empty approach to life and living. :halo:

Nobody is going to take evasive action if they refuse to see the train coming. — noAxioms

People love to see trains coming. They bring stuff and take stuff and offer travel. It's just a bad idea to stand in front of a moving one, and it's necessary, to stop the nefarious, from deliberately fixing people in front of moving trains with no escape method. Don't focus on cure, focus on prevention.
Prevent the actions of the nefarious, not the movement of the trains, or removing people from the tracks.
Stop them getting put on the tracks in the first place.