That is not at all what we learn from history. Starvation was common and it brought civilizations down. — Athena

Starvation is common today, never mind in history. How does that change the fact that there is enough food, currently existent on the planet to feed everyone currently existing on the planet?

Not all countries can meet their population's needs because they do not have enough agricultural land and water everywhere is becoming a serious problem. — Athena

That's why we all need to work together as a single species to deal with those imbalances in supply and demand. For me Athena, the answers lie in a global organisation such as the UN. That is a construct that is still very much in it's infancy. The foundational concept of united nations is the direction we all need to focus on.

I think the United Nations' statement is distorted by its mission. — Athena

Well, we have to start somewhere! So where you are and where I am and where everyone is, seems to be the only place we can start from. I know that's an almost pointless sentence Athena BUT, I go to Steven Pinker again, 'we can make things better, because we have demonstrated in the past that we already have.' You help people whenever you can, despite any 'shortfalls,' you are experiencing yourself, so, QED.

About that economic and social problem, many farmers in India have killed themselves when they lost their plots to the intensive farmers. We can see in the US how corporate farmers have taken out small farmers. We can see the income disparity and the Native American fight for their environment with big corporations that threaten their land and water. We are not respecting limits and that is not a good thing but a path to destruction. — Athena

There certainly are many specific problems with the current way things works. You have mentioned a small number of them. It's important to assign your support to whatever projects YOU think might improve things. I think YOU already do that, as much as you can. I think I do to, although I could probably do more, and 'take more of a hit,' to my own personal comfort and ease of mind.
I fully support all moves towards a global society and global secularity, humanism, democratic socialism and a money free resource based economy.

I think his character was a little like the one described in:

Regarding 1 and 2
I have no idea what humans will manage to do or not, but I'm not sure if the idea of emergence is quite the right idea to capture such developments. There are several concepts of emergence, but taking it as the idea that complex systems instantiate properties that were not present before that system existed, then arguably what you suggest does not constitute emergence. — bert1

I am mostly using the definition of emergence as 'the process of coming into existence or prominence.'
I am aware of the various philosophical viewpoints of the term as described in wiki:. I am also fine with your 'what humans will do.' I think the idea of 'networking our future brain based knowledge,' may well be emerging in humans due to developing transhuman tech, so I am referring to a future networking level which is way beyond:

"People's brains have always been linked together through communication"
"the invention of printing"
"the internet" — bert1

I was more referring to a future networking that may allow thought exchange, that we might label 'telepathy,' in the sense of transmitting thought and 'empathic' in the sense of transmitting emotion.
This would still be individuals networking together, it would not be a 'merging of minds.'

What novel property do we see now that we didn't when, say, the printing press was invented? — bert1

Speed of access and information storage capacity have massively increased, and is continuing.

Isn't the difference just one of degree? — bert1

Yes, as far as the vast improvement in general information retrieval speed, process speed and storage capacity. But if you combine this, with the advances in biological and quantum computing and the increasing ability to directly attach biotech, directly to the human brain (such as Neuralink etc) then the advance becomes more than just 'degree,' it becomes new functionality, not possible before. Such as the guy Neil Harbisson, who many consider the first true cyborg, as he 'hears' colour.

My second suggested 'emergence' of, 'Connect our brain based knowledge, directly, to all electronically stored information and be able to search it at will, in a similar style (or better) to a google search.' was the idea of being able to do this without a laptop of mobile phone. A neuralink style device, that would allow you to do what we currently do with mobile phones/computers and laptops/tablet computers. I don't think this would be a 'degree' change, due to the HCI involved. So far our human computer interfaces have been TUI and GUI. Textual and then Graphical human computer interfaces.
We are moving towards a VUI, (voice user interface), which is a degree change, as it is also based on our sensory input and output systems. BUT the proposed SUI, or sentience user interface or THUI, thought user interface, is a change in functionality, as thought is not a human sense.

3. Act as a single connected intellect and as separate intellects.
— universeness
Regarding 3
This might be a case of emergence, depending on what you mean. It's conceivable it's already happening I guess. Are you suggesting the barriers that individual people dissolve, such that we become one person, with pooled experiences and thoughts? — bert1

Well, I think this one is much more complicated. 'When two become one.' A literal 'merging' of two human minds into one, would be more than the sum of the two minds involved, imo.
Can you imagine merging your brain with another. A true merging would create a 'new mind' imo, that would function in ways that the two separate identities would not. I have tried to ruminate on stuff like, say, one brain was very good at maths and another very good at languages. Would combining them make the resultant a lot better at explaining their mathematics? and would there be 'consequential residuals,' for both the minds involved, when they became individuals again.
Have you watched sci-fi examples such as those below, from star trek:
Tuvix, when they combined Neelix and Tuvok

or in Deep space nine when they combined odo and Curzon Dax.

I don't think either sci-fi example would be anything like the reality of such a 'merging.' It's fun to think about it 'philosophically' however.

I originally posted on the Emergent thread because the general concepts of "emergence" and "information processing" are essential to my idiosyncratic personal worldview. I had no intention of discussing "gods" or "religions". — Gnomon

Well, perhaps in discussing your personal worldview on this thread, you have realised more about the clear connections, between your personal idiosyncratic musings, and theism.

I had no intention of discussing "gods" or "religions". But I did propose to engage in a philosophical dialogue, not a scientific debate. — Gnomon

But your philosophical dialogue contains a god posit, so the need for a rational scientific analysis, becomes obvious. I am surprised you found the sequence of events surprising!

However, I was forced, by persistent skeptical challenges, to explain how I arrived at some of my opinions about "emergence" & "information", and the origins of those ongoing processes. — Gnomon

Yeah, your viewpoints will be scrutinised on a public forum. Does that shock you? Or do you know that fine well? And you are merely playing your victim card again.

Yet hypothetical postulations about Ultimate Emergence and Origins of Forms, led to unfounded accusations of religious motivations, instead of philosophical curiosity. Unfortunately, that refocus of the thread let us far off-topic. — Gnomon

You have not offered much on what is ultimately emergent in humans. You have offered your views on platonic forms, and a first cause mind with intent to create us. I do not think such is off-topic for this thread, as musings about the origin story of our universe, are relevant to what has been, and is now, emerging from human intent and purpose.

↪180 Proof and ↪universeness teamed-up to quash any non-empirical answers to the OP questions. — Gnomon

I am broadly concordant with @180 Proof's viewpoints of the origin story of our universe, but I think you are inflating your own importance, when you suggest we are both conspiring against you, using some cunning plan, we have concocted between us. You sound rather paranoid and ridiculous, when you post such suggestions.

they seem to think this forum is a place for only empirical/physical (scientific) answers, and not for theoretical/metaphysical (philosophical) guesses. — Gnomon

Not only, but also. If you have any such serious concerns, then I suggest you raise such with the TPF moderators.

Yet the A-team demanded empirically verifiable closed-system answers only : Demonstrate or Calculate! — Gnomon

If you have a problem, maybe you can hire this A-team to help you with your attempts to empirically demonstrate the facts, regarding your various dalliances with theism (that for some strange reason, you try to deny.)

it is self defeating, because it denies the possibility of theoretical knowledge or pragmatic belief*3. It closes the door to Epistemology. That's why Bayesian Probability was developed, to provide a means to make uncertain information useful. — Gnomon

Skeptiscism is no way self-defeating, on the contrary, it is essential to prevent the nefarious from gaining authority, wealth and status. In what ways is positing a mind with intent 'pragmatic?' It is absolute speculation, based on nothing more than mundane human intuition. The universe does not necessarily work the way folks who intuit, as you do, need it to! OR as I or @180 Proof may propose it may work.
The only truth which is currently 100% credible, regarding the origin of the universe, is, NOBODY KNOWS FOR SURE!

Which is why we are still arguing open-ended Socratic questions to this day, 2500 years later. — Gnomon

We are still trying to find answers to questions, first asked way, way before Socrates.
In the cosmic calendar, there are 437.5 years per cosmic second. 2500 years is only around 5.7 seconds in the cosmic calendar. 2500 years is not much time at all considering our history and our potential future.

Statistical solutions, like Open Questions, are indefinite & elliptical, hence extend beyond space-time to include Infinity & Eternity. For example, what are the odds that our universe is self-existent, and did not emerge from any prior causal system? Did the Real world emerge from timeless statistical Potential, or from an infinite regression of Actual turtle-worlds? Did space-time-matter-energy begin with a bang, or is it eternally recycling? Did homo sapiens emerge from random evolution as an incidental accident -- is that a fact or conjecture? How did humans learn to process abstract information, such as mathematics, unless the potential for that talent was inherent in the information-processing system of Evolution? This is just a sample of open-ended questions that philosophers engage with, but have no hope for empirical resolution. I certainly don't have the final answers, do you? — Gnomon

A bunch of gaps, into which you plug a god shaped solution called the enformer, and then you spend so much time and effort, denying that your first cause mind (enformer) mode, IS, a gap god posit.
The only difference between your posit, and the theism espoused by American christian pastor Stuart Knechtle, is in the name chosen for this 'first cause mind with intent,' YOU call it the enformer and try to play down it's qualification as a theistic posit and HE calls it Jesus and declares loudly and proudly, that he espouses a supernatural called 'christ,' as the first cause mind with intent.

Speaking of "cherry picking" you are selecting only the low-hanging fruit of religious meanings of "god", and ignoring the philosophical meanings. — Gnomon

Why would I care about how you try to camouflage your god/supernatural references?
I am only interested in exposing your claims, for what they truly are, supernatural/god references. but I hardly have to, as you do a good job of that yourself.

Do you think Spinoza used the word "god" in a religious sense? He is often identified as an early Deist, as well as a Pantheist/Pandeist. — Gnomon

As I have already stated. Spinoza lived in a time when theism had much more power than it has today. He directly suffered in his life, because of the backwards theism he was faced with.
Spinoza was a victim of theism. I think he was an 'early,' atheist and a brave man, for standing up to the evil theism of his time.

In any case, most Deists were anti-religious. So their notion of "god" was equivalent to an abstract philosophical Principle. — Gnomon

You will NEVER get past your gap god deity (deism), by trying to dress it up as a fake 'abstract philosophical principle.' You would be as well to claim that pixies, orcs, unicorns and the flying spaghetti monster are also important abstract philosophical principles.

I watched a 3 hour debate last night, between Aron Ra and a Christian pastor called Stuart Knechtle.
Stuart's claims of a first cause mind, were almost identical to yours. He would see you as one of his supporters who deliver's a similar message to him. Aron totally defeated him in the debate imo. Matt Dillahunty has also defeated this guy in debate, more than once. Listening to Stuart's arguments was sooooooooooo similar, to reading yours.

Unfortunately. we are still using different vocabularies. And you won't find my terminology in a dictionary. Therefore, if you want to know what I mean by a word, all you have to do is ask me. — Gnomon

I have, and you have answered with many badly formed definitions, that are of your own invention.
You are correct, people wont find your terminology in many places outside of YOUR own theistic musings.

PS__You and ↪180 Proof have been trying to label me with a well-known woo-woo pigeon-hole that you can dismiss with a wave of the trite "god of the gaps" hand. But I don't even fit neatly into the amorphous Deism category. So, if you ask judgmentally, "are you now, or have you ever been, a Deist" I can truthfully answer : no. That's because my personal worldview is new & novel & unique. — Gnomon

:lol: You are too much in love with your own smells, to be able to reason with you. You are fully cooked in your own woo woo. I think you are only a few steps away from walking up and down the streets where you live, wearing sandwich boards with words like 'My Enformer is the one TRUE god,' on one side and 'SORRY my enformer is too busy to enform anyone about anything! (Gnomon's Deism)'

FWIW, THIS IS WHAT GNOMON MEANS BY THE WORD "DEISM' — Gnomon

Your constant use of Illeism, further demonstrates your conceit, that you constantly try to dress in humble garb. The source of your desim definition IS YOU :rofl: :roll:

Insofar as Enformationism synonymous / analogius to deism: if it walks like god-of-the-gaps and quacks like god-of-the-gaps and denies sound counter-arguments like god-of-the-gaps, then it must be, for all intents and purposes, god-of-the-gaps. — 180 Proof

:clap: :up:

I described Deism simply as a "non-religious philosophical position". How does your quote differ, except for more words? It says nothing about Religion. — Gnomon

"Deism . . . (derived from the Latin deus, meaning "god") is the philosophical position and rationalistic theology that generally rejects revelation as a source of divine knowledge, and asserts that empirical reason and observation of the natural world are exclusively logical, reliable, and sufficient to determine the existence of a Supreme Being as the creator of the universe". — universeness

It's irrational to suggest someone else is cherry picking, when, in reading the above definition, you seem to have 'missed' the words 'god, theology and divine' and refuse to cognise their connection to theism and almost every practiced religion. You keep trying to grab at anything to try to hide behind.

many philosophers & scientists through history have held notions of a First Cause or "Supreme Being" while eschewing the revelations and creeds of religions. Who's doing the "usurping" here? — Gnomon

Oh, you are! There is no question about that. You also make many generalised claims, like the one quoted above. Give me an example of a non-theistic scientist or philosopher who proposed a supreme being with no theological component to it. Theology is the systematic study of the nature of the divine and, more broadly, of religious belief.

in my understanding of Deism, I would replace the word "to determine" with "to imply". — Gnomon

You obvious attempts to 'dilute' your theology to make the taste less bitter to rational thinkers, does border on the jocular. Which is probably much closer to the truth about why you make so much use of joke style emoticons.

Sounds like "what's wrong" is simply that you don't like the philosophical implications of an Ultimate Cause or Supreme Being or Cosmic Programmer or Creator. — Gnomon

There is nothing 'wrong' from my side and it's not a matter of what 'I like.' You are confused. The imperative is the pursuit of truth. There is 0 evidence of a 'supreme being' or a 'cosmic programmer.' I think you have been watching too many films like:

Perhaps you found Milla Jovovich's performance as the 'supreame beaing' very convincing.

How can we communicate if we don't share that emotional bias? Perhaps you prefer to assume that the evolving ever-changing physical universe is Self-Existent or Self-Created? Based on what evidence? — Gnomon

I agree with your self-accusation, that YOUR first cause mind with intent, is YOUR emotional invention.
My evidence is very easy, and is very convincing for any rational thinker. If a first mind exists then it MUST irrefutably, prove it's existence to us. Divine hiddenness, demonstrates its non-existence.
The evidence of divine hiddenness, is far far stronger than any BS witness or scriptural evidence in existence, or your irrational claims about the necessity of a camouflaged, kalam style, first cause mind with intent.
I have hesitated so far, to label you a sophist, but these quite desperate attempts to defend your hopeless position, pushes me and I predict, any other rational reader of our exchange, towards that label.

Note -- many crimes are solved solely on the basis of circumstantial evidence. Is that OK with you? In this case the crime is Creation. — Gnomon

What utter nonsense!! YOU NEVER convict on circumstantial evidence, unless you live under corrupt authority and are yourself, corrupt.

Sorry, that's just my weird sense of humor again. — Gnomon

I know!

I don't know. What do you think are your absolute values? True vs False? — Gnomon

Perhaps you should take a note of them, so I don't have to keep repeating them.
I am a secular humanist. Democratic socialism is my politics and I am an atheist.

Your sense of humour is very eccentric and very excusive to you.
The language and phrases you employ are not complex. Our opinions are far apart, yes, as you give brain space to woo woo posits, regarding a first cause mind and I don't.
You gave a clear example of 'defining your terms,' with your poor attempt to redefine deism.
What personal 'two values' do you think constitute my worldview, that you claim you affront?
You certainly do try to insult by stealth, but it's nothing that I can't easily counter.

Unfortunately, for those with Black vs White mindsets — Gnomon

Again, try not to show yourself, as we say in Scotland, as a 'nippy wee sweetie.'

God is an aspect of emergence. — Agent Smith

Well, I do think that there is very strong evidence, of continuous human activity, which has resulted in better and better methods of information storage, process, and retrieval. The increased pace of discovery and technological advancement is irrefutable. Based on this, I think labels like god or omniscient/omnipotent/perfection etc etc, have only one use, and that use is of very limited importance imo. They act as nothing more than non-existent states, that we can asymptotically, aspire to.

Your depth of care towards others, obviously, has no beginning bounds! :death: :flower:

No existent!
— universeness

God is ... — Agent Smith

God has .... would be better!

I wouldn't want to derail you from your current journey. — Agent Smith

:up: I would only appreciate derailment, if you can PROVE I am on a track, travelling at great speed, and the rail runs out, at the top of a very large, very deep chasm. :scream:

El Rachum! — Agent Smith

No existent!

I appreciate your benevolent wishes towards what you perceive, is my life quest, but my life quest will only complete at my death.

I am quite capable of standing my own ground Mr Smith. BUT, I will ALWAYS seek and listen to and consider the words of others, including yours.

I agree with you, based on our exchanges, so what efforts are you making to try to stabilise your world viewpoints? If you continue to challenge your current position as a reluctant theist, then who can ask anymore of you? I hope the result of any challenge you set yourself, results in you becoming a very assured atheist. If it results on you becoming a very assured theist then, that's ok to but that just means any exchange between us on TPF, will remain respectfully combative.
I would suggest however that either result, is better than your current limbo state of reluctant theism.
No wonder you get depressed at times.

Reconsider your position mon ami. — Agent Smith

Give me a good enough reason to.

180 Proof, consult him and you'll realize we're merely chasing after phantoms. — Agent Smith

We do exchange with each other and we have our agreements and disagreements but we have more common ground than divergence between us imo.
I think @180 Proof would agree that phantoms have no existent so no one is able to chase them.
What position do you think I hold, that I should reconsider?

No, confusion definitely doesn't excite me! It depresses me. — Agent Smith

You can change your status quo. What has depressed you in the past can excite you in the future, if you choose to change your perspective, whilst using peer reviewed justifications for doing so.

I wouldn't necessarily say that gods are fakes. — Agent Smith

That's why we debate each other Mr Smith. :grin:

petitio principii. — Agent Smith

Google reported the meaning as:
a fallacy in which a conclusion is taken for granted in the premises; begging the question.

I don't think this describes what is emergent in humans AT ALL.
I also don't think I have used any circular reasoning to present what I think is emergent in humans.
memorialising events and gained knowledge since we came out of the wilds has allowed humans to pass legacy from generation to generation. Human ability to manifest intent, purpose and intelligent design is being combined and enhanced by memorialised information which has resulted in an ever increasing pace of human invention of new tech and discovery of new knowledge.
This IS evidence that we are moving towards 'points of pivotal change,' at a faster pace. Movement towards advanced AI for example. This is not fallacious or begging the question or circular reasoning, it is observable emergence which is graphically demonstrable using models such as Moore's law.

Yes. Thanks for engaging in an extended dialogue, which is probably frustrating for you, due to the language barrier. — Gnomon

Your welcome. The only frustration I experienced during our exchange on this thread, is one that I am very familiar with and fully expect and accept. If two people are debating with viewpoints that are 'fully cooked' then it's very rare for either to make any progress, in changing the viewpoints of the other.
I find that any value in the exchange, is found in it's potential affect, on the viewpoints of any current of future readers of the exchange. That's why I continue in such exchanges, instead of cutting myself off from an interlocuter, (as you decided to against @180 Proof), as too most people, it can look like you ran away from the exchange. I perceived no language barrier between us, and I find such camouflaged insults, rather puerile.

The basic problem is that we assign different meanings to key words, such as "Emergent". For me that is a Holistic Philosophical concept, but apparently for you its a Reductive Scientific term, even though there is no physical evidence, only inferences & opinions. Also, "Deism" for me is a non-religious philosophical worldview; but for you there is no significant difference from "Theism". Hence, most of your "head-on" answers to my arguments have been off-target. — Gnomon

I refer your emergence vs holism issue to @180 Proof's response above, which also answered @Agent Smith's question:

The notion of emergent phenomena is closely related to holism. Am I correct? — Agent Smith

Your description of deism is simply wrong. You have no ability to usurp a well entrenched label for your own purposes without first gaining massive popular support to do so.
Deism (/ˈdiːɪzəm/ DEE-iz-əm  or /ˈdeɪ.ɪzəm/ DAY-iz-əm; derived from the Latin deus, meaning "god") is the philosophical position and rationalistic theology that generally rejects revelation as a source of divine knowledge, and asserts that empirical reason and observation of the natural world are exclusively logical, reliable, and sufficient to determine the existence of a Supreme Being as the creator of the universe.

Hence, most of your "head-on" answers to my arguments have been off-target. — Gnomon

That's merely your hope. Many who pick themselves up from the canvas or from the floor, exclaim such as 'No, I slipped, honest, he never laid a glove on me man!' Other's will judge, and only if they can be bothered to.

When I started engaging with ↪180 Proof, I soon felt like I was trapped in a Joe McCarthy "witch hunt" : Q. "are you now, or have you ever been a Communist (Theist ; pseudo-scientist) ; A. No sir, I'm a Socialist (Deist ; meta-physicalist) ; Q. "Same difference" (i.e. no difference). Consequently, anything I might say in my defense could serve as linguistic evidence against me. In my non-elite, common-sense, language, as for the ancient Greeks, Metaphysics (ideas, not things) is what philosophy is all about. It focuses, not on the furniture of the world, but on its design. — Gnomon

You keep playing this 'victim' card, which I find quite disingenuous. No one is trying to trap you. You are just expected to be able to back-up your viewpoints in an honest manner. No 'Joe McCarthy' type is involved in exchanging with you on this thread. You are trying to sell your own personal redefinition of the term deism here and it just wont wash. Deism IS the PHIOSOPHICAL assertion that a supreme being exists and is the creator of the universe! You are attempting to usurp the word in a similar way that youth culture has currently usurped the term 'wicked,' into meaning something associated with the 60's notion of 'hip' or 'cool.' Your attempt to use deism as a term which is not an absolute 'god' label has failed miserably imo. You keep trying to sell it as such, which is why you did not answer any of my recent 3 questions to you, but you continue to fail in your sales pitch.

But in the 20th century, both Science & Philosophy, were forced to grapple with bizarre concepts that would have boggled the mind of Isaac Newton --- whose side passions, besides Astronomy & Mathematics, were Alchemy (pre-Chemistry) & biblical mysteries. — Gnomon

These are just meaningless comparisons to me. If Newton was born today! Then considering the level of analytical skill he demonstrated during his lifetime, I think he would be very able, to grapple with the concepts you mention, and he would probably have shown no interest in mysticism or alchemy. Chemistry, physics, mathematics, computing, etc yes but woo woo? No, as he would not have been infected by the backwards theism of his era.

Fortunately, Philosophy's only tool is the 6th sense of Reason, which is well-adapted to "see" whole Systems and non-physical Functions — Gnomon

As I have stated to you a few times now, Philosophy is a welcome and useful practice, but any hypothesis it comes up with, will have to face empirical science, as it's final arbiter.
You cannot protect yourself or philosophy from the scrutiny of the scientific method.
If you cannot satisfy scientific scrutiny then you will gain only 'faith based,' easy to manipulate followers.
The best you can get from that is the audience/followers/status of characters like David Icke or Billy Graham or even worse, like Jimmy Swaggart.

The positive aspect of our dialogue is — Gnomon

By "denying the legitimacy" of metaphysics as a way to understand reality, you legislate away all of my arguments, instead of dealing with them. — Gnomon

I hope that your first quote above bears some useful fruit for both of us, as we both continue to seek truth.
I think I have faced your arguments head on and have not merely dismissed your speculations out of hand.

Overpopulation. We have created enough abundance to imagine feeding the whole world and we have ignored limits. The terrible reality is the more we feed people the more they reproduce, making the problems worse. We absolutely must recognize limits and adjust to living within those limits. — Athena

There as always been enough food to feed everyone on the planet, every day. It's the distribution system that's flawed. Globally, it has been estimated that 26,082 tonnes of food, goes to waste every single day.
From The United Nations environment programme:
There is enough food for everyone.
While progress on reducing hunger has stagnated in the last five years, evidence suggests that the problem we face today is not a lack of food. Rather, it is a problem of efficiency. We can see this throughout the production and consumption process, beginning with how land is used. Responding to increased demand for meat and dairy, about 60 per cent of the world’s agricultural land is used for livestock grazing.

Just saying things are terrible and talking as though humans are basically awful creatures will not bring about the good. — Athena

Well, you will be happy that I don't do that. I complain about what needs to be complained about and I fully support those who are trying to improve things.

Does confusion not also excite you Mr Smith?
It means your quest for truth continues.
I still love that quest and it adds greatly to my sense of personal purpose and meaning and significance.
A wee lifeform like me, can continue to wonder about something as vast as the universe, AND I am OF that universe and I and the like of me, IS the only source of intent, purpose and intelligent design that we know of!
YOU LOSE FAKE GODS!!! WE don't need you anymore! We never really did!
The sooner ALL humans free themselves from god manacles, the better. GROW UP humans!
OWN your OWN lives, for f*** sake! :victory:

A process is not yet available that can create a photon from the data stored in a datafile.
Why not? The data can be “please emit a positron”, and that data causes the machine to emit one (newly created at that).
I don’t otherwise have any idea what you might otherwise mean by the creation of something from what is effectively an abstraction. The T-bone steak is made from real energy/mass if you will, not from an abstraction, even if data is needed for the machine to know what a steak needs to be. — noAxioms

I think we are probably imagining the same thing. Obviously, your instruction above would be in an HLL or high level language that would require translation before execution. The 'machine code' level is the language code we are discussing here , not your 'emit a positron' language (I doubt 'please' will be needed).
Employing a source of photons to produce a photon or positron is not my challenge. It's producing a tech that can create a Tbone stake by manipulating the proposed digital level fundamental of the universe.
A Tbone steak, produced, from that which is traditionally described, as the vacuum of space.

What’s a wave of light then. I’ve heard of a beam of light, but a not so much a wave of it like a wave of water molecules.

A wave of light is an electomagnetic analogue waveform of continuous peaks and troughs that traverses the vacuum of space at a fixed speed. 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 and if we zoomed into one of these 'photons,' we would see an analogue waveform .... and if we zoomed in ...... That's the imagery I have currently garnished from my reading about wave - particle duality, BUT I fully accept that my imagery may well not be in accordance with most physicists so I am very willing to be corrected.

The law is 'You SHALL NOT add your speed, to the speed of light!'
Not true. You just have to use relativistic addition just like adding velocities of anything under Einstein’s theory.
It seems that in other sites that you cite, the term ‘non-relativistic’ refers to pre-Einstein views like Newtonian physics. — noAxioms

Clearly those who maintain the zoo, the automations that do the actual (unpleasant?) work, who provide all the Purina human chow to all the people that want not. It might not be there primarily for viewing. It would definitely have a limited population. It is bad zoo policy to let all the exhibits breed without bounds.
A nature preserve doesn’t describe it better since that isn’t usually a situation where all the needs of the inhabitants are met, or where unnatural controls are enacted. — noAxioms

At least you are consistent in your imagery of pessimism and dystopia for future humans.
I am glad that I don't have to deal with such a burdensome, pressing, internal gnaw, regarding the future of our species.

True. It all seems to depend on who’s in charge. What’s taking responsibility for the management and well-being of the occupants. If it’s the occupants, it’s not a zoo. — noAxioms

A shard of hope in your dystopian visions perhaps!!!

But then there are tasks needing to be done that nobody wants to do, such as the actual management and assurance of well-being of the occupants. — noAxioms

Are you sure NOBODY wants to ensure the well-being, thriving and progression of our species, towards becoming as benevolent a presence in the universe as is possible? Have you asked EVERYONE?
You know that such statements as the above quote, are inaccurate at best, and irrational at worse.

Who for instance is going to enforce controls? These people are not going to be revered. Reviled is more like it. OK, there are plenty who would actually want to do those things, but those are not the ones you want doing these tasks. They’re the power hungry ones, the ones that are first to be corruptible.
One of the best tests for a form of government is finding a way to put in charge only the people who don’t want to do it. — noAxioms

All you are doing here is rehashing old stereotypical dissatisfactions, with those who have been in, and who are currently in, power. You ignore examples of good people, who wanted to be in power, were in power, and did everything they could to improve the world they lived in. We can all name many people, past and present, who fit such descriptions. I could start with folks like Democritus or Epicurus and list many, many names from then to those who resisted Roman tyranny such as Cleon, Athenion, Tryphon, Spartacus etc, to similar fighters for a better world such as Georges Danton during the French revolution or the Scots / Welsh / Irish and eventually the Americans etc etc, who fought against later tyrannies, such as The English and then British empires. Folks like Mahatma Gandhi, Nelson Mandela and on to my more recent choices from my own country, in my own lifetime, such as Tony Benn and Nicola Sturgeon (to name only two).

You’ve described a full communist society, one without money, where everbody gets fed and housed and medical care regardless of level of contribution. — noAxioms

There are definite similarities, between my politics, and the intentions of the hero masses of Russia and China, that got rid of the vile monarchy, aristocracy, plutocracy that ruled those country's so badly.
'The Plan,' as formed in Russia to create a fair, money free, socioeconomic system in Russia, was a brilliant system, that worked very well for the Russian people, when it was first introduced. Russia's decline into the totalitarian gangster state, it is now, started when the truly evil Stalin took power.
Lenin before him, was not much better. China is also a totalitarian gangster state now.
The attempts to create a secular humanist, democratic, socialist system in Russia and China, utterly failed, as the majority in both countries, failed to keep the nefarious from power.
An utterly crucial lesson, we have all, yet to fully understand and learn how to successfully prevent from happening again.
That's why I said to you earlier, that the notion of personal, individual freedom, and the entrepreneurial aspirations of individuals, must be accomodated, as much as possible, (without producing any form of unchecked capitalism) within any future attempt to try again, to achieve what the people of China and Russia (and many more examples such as the French Revolution, The English civil war and back to the servile wars against the Romans.) tried to achieve.
IT WILL be tried again and again and again, until WE get it correct.
Global secular humanist/democratic socialism remains INEVITABLE imo.

That spell zero responsibility since there are no consequences to not being responsible. — noAxioms

Oh yes there are. There are very serious social consequences. People will still want to know answers to questions such as 'so what do you do?'

The term ‘white trash’ refers to a subset of these types. It seems to not bother them at all to not be ‘revered’, but they’re arguably more fit since they tend to have more children on average. — noAxioms

'It seems to not bother them,' is another one of your 'stereotypical' assumptions. There WILL be some who really don't care. They are welcome to live there pointless lives, until they die of natural causes, whilst the rest of us enjoy, taking part in the adventures life and living can offer.
If a small minority choose to live life as a curse then they will inherit oblivion and leave no significant legacy. A wasted life, is an option, only the dumbest of the dumb would choose imo.
I would not worry about such people other than to pity them, as you continue to enjoy your life.
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.

I live in the USA and have some experience on how they punish the poor that try to get off assisted living. If you try to get a low tier job and start paying for your own expenses, the eligibility of the social benefits drops faster than your income. That means you can’t afford to have a modest paying job since it costs far more than it benefits you. So the poor are trapped in a way. That’s not a problem with your vision, just something I notice wrong about our current system. — noAxioms

Well noticed! don't you think you should work with those who are trying to remove such consequences of the capitalist money trick?

Black markets are money based.
Not necessarily. Certainly not in a society without money. If there is trade (you don’t get this unless you give me that), there is an economy, something evading the ‘to each according to their needs’ system. — noAxioms

I have no problem with the 'black market' you describe in the quote above.
If someone wants, say, an old/vintage car collection, that they do up, and show to others and drive around, then, the 'barter' system you describe, sounds good to me.
Everyone can take their basic means of survival for granted. As long as that is available to EVERYONE with no conditions attached, and such rights CANNOT BE REMOVED by any new authority, then I think we can accomodate the majority of the wishes of those who prioritise 'independent expressions of personal freedom,' and also allow, 'entrepreneurial aspiration.'
I am sure people will employ various mechanisms of exchange 'currency,' with each other. Hopefully, they will all be acceptable, as long as it does not stop people, getting everything they NEED. I am not too worried about those, who as Mr Jagger says, 'you can't always get what you want, but if you try sometimes, you get what you need.' I just extend his words to you get what you need as a birthright, but getting everything you WANT, depends on how that will affect others.

No, divine hiddenness as described by such as the Stanford encyclopedia of Philosophy.

Seeing things differently is not the problem. Correctly Identifying and stopping the nefarious is the imperative and what really matters, is if your 'differences,' makes you one of the nefarious, due to how your 'differences' affect your actions towards others. I hope that despite our differences with each other, WE BOTH are part of the very very needed solutions and we are not part of the problems that currently plague our species.

:up: I think your pandeus is also relevant here.

I agree, and I think it's those who have fought tooth and nail to pursue truth and those who demonstrate, almost every day, how kind people can be. Especially when it's kindness, from those who are having a tough time themselves. I thank them, not god, not anything supernatural. I thank humans for their demonstrations of altruism and care for other people and other things. I thank them for their continued struggle to make a better world, even though they have been killed in their millions and millions since we came out of the wilds. Good people still continue to try to improve things, in every new generation. I thank them for everything they have done, which has enabled me to live a life, with more options than my ancestors had. I hope I can pay that forward. They have earned that credit, god has not, but that's because it has no existent.

Fair enough Mr Smith, an honest response.

Then we have made it all ourselves.
Or else it has all just fallen to us. — unenlightened

I agree with your first sentence.

Do you require evidence to be resentful? Do you require evidence to be grateful? Should I ask for your evidence that there is no evidence? You seem to be selling some snake oil here, and even giving commandments. — unenlightened

Yes and yes.
You can if you want to and you must want to as you just typed the question. I agree that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence but not in the case of god.
What do you think I am trying to con you about based on your 'snake oil seller' suggestion?
Commandments?? Did I type 'thou shalt not ..... ?

Sorry guys, I can't resist this 'butt-in,' to your exchange.
Why can't god/the universe/and everything not just 'butt-in' to your exchange and settle it by supporting T Clarks viewpoint. If it doesn't and remains divinely hidden, then for me, it does not exist.

It gives something to be grateful to for all we have been given — T Clark

What if we haven't been GIVEN anything?
We can then only be grateful for that which WE CHOOSE to be grateful for, like each other!
Don't give credits to an ineffable it!
There is no evidence It exists or has done anything to deserve your thanks.

We end up thinking that 'that new' is really just like 'this old', and if we do not like 'this old' then we dislike 'that new' as well. Bad philosophy indeed, but it takes mental strength and exercise to resist such a powerful shift". But lazy thinking allows such magnetic misconceptions to overpower Reason. That's what we call "prejudice" or "implicit bias". — Gnomon

You keep struggling against the ropes you tied around your own wrists. YOU compared YOUR enformer to a deity, by typing, that it was compatible with deism. YOU invoked the cause-effect regression back to a first cause which YOU assigned 'intent' to. YOU gave this first cause the status of a 'mind.'
If YOU now want to withdraw that utter speculation with zero evidence then just do so.
I agree that data/information MIGHT be a universal fundamental. If it is, then the PROOF would be something like a Star Trek food replicator technology, that can produce a REAL Tbone steak and not a holographic one.
If YOUR enformer is a 'mindless first spark,' that no longer exists and is the same concept as the big bang singularity, then fine. YOU would have removed YOUR woo woo from YOUR enformationism.

nothing to something to energy to matter to mind to imagination. A causal sequence that logically requires an implicit-but-not-specific First Cause. — Gnomon

I would replace 'nothing' with 'singularity,' as its a better placeholder for 'mindless spark,' and I would further suggest that you don't even need a 'first cause,' and just go with eternal something/energy to matter to abiogenisis to biodiversity to lifeforms like humans.

I have to smile, when I think of the spooky woowoo voodoo savage rituals that you envision Gnomon practicing in his new/old "religion". Perhaps worshiping the abstract First Cause (or "First Mind") --- from which our Information-structured world emerged --- by abandoning Reason in mindless shows of subservience. — Gnomon

It's always nice to know you smile, but it's up to YOU to explain the references YOU employed in YOUR posts, enformer .... compatible with deism ..... a first cause mind, instead of just struggling unsuccessfully against manacles YOU placed on yourself and then complaining to me that you are struggling against my implicit bias and my prejudice. You just sound a bit bitter when you do that.

Whatever your mental model of The Enformer might be, it's a "lazy god posit" passively pulled by the "Systemic Attractor" of remotely similar, but unrelated ideas. That seems to be how many prejudicial beliefs get started. — Gnomon

My mental model of YOUR enformer is the one YOU have delivered, wrapped in YOUR deistic bow!!
1. Do you want to withdraw YOUR comparison of YOUR enformer with deism?
2. Do you want to withdraw YOUR insistence that there has to be a first cause for the creation of our universe?
3. Do you want to withdraw YOUR insistence, that any posited first cause for the creation of our universe, has to be a 'mind with intent?'

If you don't want to retract these comparators, that YOU invoked, then YOUR enformer, remains exactly as I suggested, yet another lazy god of the gaps posit.

No offense Mr Smith but that's a rather meaningless response.
I can only assume that your need for a benevolent supernatural to exist, is more powerful, than your ability to OWN the totality of your OWN life.

- that there's gotta be an origin. — Agent Smith

How much credence do you assign to the proposal that such an 'origin' has to be a mind with intent?
Why can your origin not be a mindless spark? which no longer exists and we can never ever know what caused it or that 'the mindless spark,' was also the beginning of causality. A mindless singularity would also suffice. Why does that not satisfy you as much as a supernatural mind with intent?
Is it that the 'mind' might care about you? If not, they why do you need it?

did you know, your Enformationism bears an uncanny resemblance to String Theory — Agent Smith

Which proposal in string theory suggests a first cause mind with intent, as the creator or divine spark for our universe?

atheism is a non-starter for me. — Agent Smith

What alternative do you currently assign a higher credence level to and why?

I've seen it. Not sure how sound he is on philosophy but I know he draws from Susan Haack and David Hume. But as an autodidact, he can be a bit cocksure. — Tom Storm

I focus more on the credence level, I assign to the arguments Matt makes, rather than his influences or his self-assuredness. I am not saying these issues are not important, they certainly are, especially when you consider someone like Trump's influences and his professions of self-assuredness.
Matt describes knowledge as a subset of belief and knowledge is a belief that you assign a high credence level to. A belief, which, for you, would be 'world changing,' if it turned out not to be true.
Belief is then a proposition that you simply accept as true, regardless of supporting evidence.
My belief that there is no god has a personal credence level of 99.99%
That credence level results in me feeling Ignostic sometimes when a theist is explaining why they 'believe' or 'know' a god exists.

I can't know there is no god. I can only decide there are no reasons good enough to believe in one. I am, like many contemporary freethinkers, an agnostic atheist. Agnostic in relation to knowledge of god; atheist in terms of belief in god. — Tom Storm

I agree with your first sentence, I can't 'know' either, but I perceive (possibly incorrectly,) a difference in credence level when someone employs 'agnostic' instead of 'ignostic.' Agnostics will (normally reluctantly) assign a credence level to a particular theistic claim, if pestered enough, but I find it is usually higher than the 0.01%, someone wearing an atheist hat would.
So, I think agnostic atheist offers a little more hope to a theist of being able to 'convert you,' than using ignostic atheist. :lol: Perhaps agnosticism vs ignosticism is not that important, in the overall debate between theists and atheists.

I think if you can incorporate both and explain the context of knowledge versus belief, you have a better persuasive platform. In discussing atheism with theists, I try to avoid introducing new terms. — Tom Storm

You might like this presentation by Matt Dillahunty on belief vs knowledge:

Yep, I find that my atheism often reaches an ignostic/igtheism level, when I have to listen to the latest creationist attempt to defibrillate god posits. But I then have to regroup and resist my ignositc tendency, so that I can try to engage constructively, with the latest creationist conflation.