Now, we can both be happy! :smile: — Alkis Piskas

:up: But I was already happy!

Of course, who could really grasp such ideas? Most cannot really grasp them even today!) — Alkis Piskas

But what we must surely be highly credited for (especially by lazy minded theism), is, that we WILL continue to grapple with and try to grasp such ideas, as long as humans or transhumans exist. WE OWN that ability. No god gifted it to us, WE gained such ability, as a consequence of what evolution via natural selection can do over 10.3 billion years, (I subtracted 3.5 billion years due to a google search on the question 'when did life start in the universe?')

Note -- What does the "Void" think about? Do "Atoms" love each other, when they become entangled? There is no such thing as "Hot", merely the idea of a relationship between thermodynamic regimes that we apply that non-thing name to. — Gnomon

The 'void' has no thinking agent. No! atoms don't experience love! whether they are entangled or not.
'Hot' and 'cold,' are useful human labels and concepts, useful to humans I mean. The speed of moving atoms does have important consequences, however, as demonstrated in places like the LHC.
It's only advanced combinatorial systems that have demonstrated ability to manifest consciousness/self-awareness. These are not phenomena that have been demonstrated by the fundamental constituents of lifeforms. Even your arm is not self-aware, imo. If you lose one, you remain self-aware, but your removed arm does not. The human brain contains all significant aspects of human consciousness imo.

Yet Mr. Nice Guy can be somewhat indulgent toward such immature notions, as one would toward a juvenile's innocent babbling. Unlike another poster, he's not intentionally malicious, but his Matter-is-all vocabulary makes abstract (meta-physical) Platonic & Aristotelian concepts sound like literal non-sense. — Gnomon

:lol: I appreciate your gently delivered insult. Aristotle was a theist and Plato seemed to believe in some sort of creator or prime mover. Aristotle also believed in a geocentric universe, so like many other ancients they 'believed what they saw with their own eyes when they looked up at the sky at night.'
Geocentrism looks correct to the naive observer but scientific research, has always been able to assist the naive. You are correct that I think the concept of 'perfect forms,' are utter nonsense.

For example, from a Matter-only standpoint, there is no such thing as Platonic Love, or love of any kind, for that matter. There is only corporal copulation. Hence, "Love" is an abstraction that idealizes the realistic rutting of animals. — Gnomon

Nonsense! and my evidence is that I am a godless product of the universe and I can express and accept love in all it's variant flavours. Love is a more intense manifestation of altruism and empathy and the reproductive imperative established by natural selection. It exists via species like humans and is a human emotion. Love is also a reason why human morality is required and was and continues to be debated, agreed and legislated within human communities. No god required. The direction and content of your posts on issues such as love and morality reveal that you make the same kind of arguments that theists do. Are you a theist Gnomon and if so, why the subterfuge?
If you want and need a mind, beyond the big bang posit to be our creator then why not be loud, proud and heard about it?
You deny being a theist but then most of the points you make, would be attractive to most theists.

But it also updates ancient Spiritualism/Idealism, with new concepts from Quantum & Information theory. Those older views were pragmatic in their local & temporal contexts, but now seem somewhat untenable in the current state of affairs, 2.5 millennia later. — Gnomon

Yes, you have made this statement many times but your update, remains a god of the gaps posit and you have not been able to dispel that accusation so far, imo.

FWIW, Gnomon no longer practices the religion of his youth, or any religion for that matter. But, like Universeness, he can be tolerant toward those who are not "enlightened", including his own siblings. — Gnomon

You don't have to follow a particular religion to be a theist. Do you have a personal definition of that which YOU would label god or YOUR creator source, that had the INTENT to create lifeforms like humans?

What would be your best example of your personal 'enlightenment,' that others don't have, which causes you to have to be 'tolerant' towards them. For me, it would be that god has no and never has had an existent. What about you?

My personal thesis is another of those adaptations, combining state-of-the-art Science with millennia of religious & philosophical exploration of the human condition, and building upon the foundation of Plato & Aristotle. — Gnomon

But you suggest that 'love' has a source outside of any physical lifeforms that materially or energetically exist in this universe. Do you suggest the same for 'morality?' Is your suggestion of a 'first cause,' a mind with intent that is capable of experiencing and expressing love and follows or imposes a moral code that it created?

Enformationism does not posit a manipulating "supreme being", because Nature functions automatically, like an emergent computer program*4, without any divine intervention. And whether the implicit Programmer/Enformer is conscious, in the human manner, is an open question. — Gnomon

OK!! BUT! The quote above is like a conformation that you are not a theist but you then invoke a first cause Enformer which may or may not be conscious and a mind with intent and our creator. It's like you are saying 'THERE IS NOT GOD! ........... but there might be! Not good enough Gnomon, not good enough at all, imo.

In any case, I can't agree with Uni's somber assessment, that "we reduce ourselves and leave ourselves with NOTHING", when we conclude that the world is more-than just "atoms in void"*5. It's also ideas-in-reasoning-minds and feelings-in-metaphorical-hearts. An immaterial idea is indeed "no thing", but whatever it is, it's what raises humans a step above the animals, by allowing them the individual & collective freedom to be intentional agents of their own destiny. :smile:

PS__I apologize in advance, if I have mis-represented Uni's philosophical worldview. — Gnomon

The universe IS more that atoms in a void as humans demonstrate every day via their intent and purpose and the fact we ask questions and seek answers. We have plenty to celebrate and our sense of wonder and awe IS OURS and BELONGS 100% TO US. No god exists to purloin that from us, and if it did, then I for one, would try to fight against it, for it's pernicious nature in giving us futile aspiration for it's own entertainment. Can you not see why the existence of an omnigod creator of us, makes us pointless and makes the antinatalist argument a valid one.
We have no freedom to be intentional agents of our own destiny, if an omnigod exists.

No apology needed Gnomon, as you have often complained that I mis-represent your viewpoints, so, I can hardly require apology, for you mis-representing mine. I probe, to try to analyse your true intentions. I fully accept your right to do the same to me.

Gnomon admits to having trouble comprehending 'ontological immanence' à la Spinoza or e.g. — 180 Proof

We can only continue to raise our objections to his approach and continue to probe to discover if he is in fact a theist trying to pose in scientific garb. He insists he is not a theist and his enformationism is not a 'god of the gaps' posit. He also insists we are both misinterpreting his posits. It can only be for others to judge what the truth of it is, if they care to, of course.

I think your flagging of:
Apophatic theology, also known as negative theology, is a form of theological thinking and religious practice which attempts to approach God, the Divine, by negation, to speak only in terms of what may not be said about the perfect goodness that is God. It forms a pair together with cataphatic theology, which approaches God or the Divine by affirmations or positive statements about what God is.
The apophatic tradition is often, though not always, allied with the approach of mysticism, which aims at the vision of God, the perception of the divine reality beyond the realm of ordinary perception.

is understandable, based on Gnomon's approach.

Impressive, eh? — Alkis Piskas

:grin: Two great sources to post Aliks!
Yep, even the so called AI systems don't agree with each other.

As has always been the case, each of us must decide, which of the current posits for the structure and workings of the universe, we personally assign highest credence to.
Individually, we can choose to ignore the whole thing and just pursue personal pleasure and maybe sports and reality TV, but I find such people less interesting, than those who are willing to debate the big questions.

I am not a fan of referencing the ancients too much, but I prefer to follow the lineage from Democritus and the atomists towards folks like Carl Sagan and coming to rest near folks like Sean Carroll, Roger Penrose, Ed Witten, Alan Guth, Sabine Hossenfelder, et al.
I find the road via Plato, Aristotle, Jesus (probably never existed), Mohamed (probably never existed) towards folks like Jimmy Swaggart and coming to rest near folks like Ken Ham and William Lane Craig,
the road to intellectual and rational oblivion.

I think your detailed OP could simply conclude that it's unlikely that any god posit, has an actual existent, that we humans can scapegoat, for all the sufferings that do happen to us. No god exists that can give us absolution for the horrors WE choose to visit on others. No supernatural superhero gives a flying f*** about us but that's not it's fault, as it does not exist. When we huddled at night, inside caves, in the early days of our existence and we heard all the scary animal noises at night from outside the cave and WE invented 'prayer,' we prayed for protection in vain and we would have been better, spending the time to try to quickly invent long sharp spears, control fire and invent a big strong door for the entrance to the cave. No god was ever available to help us, if a big hungry group of bears got into our cave.

I think the important conclusion for every rational member of the human race to arrive at, asap, is that WE reap what WE sow. No existent, can be scapegoated, for the human civilisation WE have created and only WE can make it better.
Those who know the most about the physics of the universe, such as yourself, must continue to report on whether or not, they have found any empirical evidence of the existence of anything else, we could blame for the way things are.
We cannot be blamed for abiogenisis or for evolution or natural selection or the workings and structure of the universe. We can choose to celebrate such however. Again, for me, it always seems to come back to making the choice between choosing to live life as a curse or not. I choose not to live life as a curse and I look to help fix problems, rather than scapegoat nonexistents in the irrational way, theists and theosophists do.

Since it has no anthro-morpic form, you can call it whatever makes sense to you : Logos, First Cause, Demon*4, etc. The thesis does not prescribe any kind of faith or worship, so it's not a religious concept. — Gnomon

Perhaps not religious, but it is theistic or theological or theosophist, to suggest a first cause, external to THIS universe which had 'intent' to cause 'a vital or divine spark' beginning to this universe. My suggestion of a first cause, as a mindless spark that no longer exists and WAS this universe in 'singularity form,' 'A singular digit.' Is at least as valid/credible as your suggestion for a first cause and imo, more plausible. No first cause at all is also plausible, if you consider cyclical universe posits such as Roger Penrose's CCC.
You employ 'transcendent':

Transcendent:
1. Beyond or above the range of normal or physical human experience:
"the search for a transcendent level of knowledge"
surpassing the ordinary; exceptional:
"her transcendent beauty"
SIMILAR: superior, supreme, consummate, predominant
2. (of God) existing apart from and not subject to the limitations of the material universe. Often contrasted with immanent.
SIMILAR: supernatural, preternatural, transcendental, other-worldly
3. (in scholastic philosophy) higher than or not included in any of Aristotle's ten categories.

Immanent:
1. Existing or operating within; inherent:
"the protection of liberties is immanent in constitutional arrangements"
SIMILAR: inherent, intrinsic, innate, built-in, latent, essential
2. (of God) permanently pervading and sustaining the universe. Often contrasted with transcendent.

Your first cause posits, seem to 'rally around,' Transcendent description 2 and Immanent description 2 above and IS imo, a god of the gaps viewpoint, in the style of William Lane Craig.

We have total agreement on that! I love what happens when we engage with each other. The philosophy forum has the best-thinking people don't you think? The political forums and be an extreme failure to be rational. Politics is another game. It is supposed to be less emotional and more rational but unfortunately, the political forums are not and neither is the news media focused on being rational as it once was when Walter Cronkite was reporting the news. — Athena

:clap: Very well said Athena!
I have came across many great thinkers on many interactive internet sites.
I really enjoy and value TPF, but I also love all the 'Ask a' sites, such as 'Ask a mathematician' or 'Ask an Astrophysicist.' Quora has some amazing contributors (but is currently top heavy with time wasters), as does the physics stack exchange, etc, etc.
I have been involved in many political exchanges online and I agree that there is a lot more aggression and even possible personal consequences involved, than on forums like TPF.

I have no such concern because I do not understand the energy of the universe as a being. I do not attribute the laws of physics to a conscious being. Logos, the reason it is like it is as it is, is because that is the way it works. How do I say? A triangle is not a triangle unless it is a triangle. Helium goes up because it is lighter than air. H20 is water, not ciritic acid. This is mechanical than intellectual. — Athena

Fair enough, but is this not an argument from ignorance? Its like "I don't know the answers, so, it just is what it is and that's all that it is!' I don't understand why you say 'its mechanical,' and suggest that mechanical is not connected to 'intellectual?' Anything mechanical is 'knowable,' and it's seems to me that humans have an intellectual imperative to find out every detail of how a 'mechanism' works.
Human curiosity is far stronger than the curiosity of all cats combined, imo. WE MUST KNOW Athena!

Chardin said God is asleep in rocks and minerals, waking in plants and animals to know self in man. — Athena

Chardin (never heard of him/her/gender variant) sounds like a panpsychist.

What if there is no consciousness without human consciousness? — Athena

What do you mean? Animals are conscious, yes? Or are you going down the solipsistic path?

We are pretty awesome! Or perhaps I should say potentially we are awesome. — Athena

I broadly agree, if we compare our species with all other species we know about. That could be an interesting thread. A comparison between the historicity of humans with a projection of what we know about any other species and how they might have stewarded the planet, If they became the dominant species instead of us. Would it be a better world, if this was a planet of the apes or a planet of the meercats or ants etc?

We agree. I suppose because I use the reason to define logos, you and everyone else, jump to the conclusion that I am talking about something that can be all-knowing. That is not what my intended meaning. — Athena

So, don't worry about any 'science' you don't know or understand. I think we should celebrate the fact that as Newton famously said:
“I do not know what I may appear to the world, but to myself I seem to have been only like a boy playing on the seashore, and diverting myself in now and then finding a smoother pebble or a prettier shell than ordinary, whilst the great ocean of truth lay all undiscovered before me.”
We have very significant purpose and reason to live, as there is yet so much that we don't understand.
HOW EXCITING!!!!

But the inference of Intention is based on the billiard ball analogy. Their momentum always begins with acausal Impetus. And where the impetus does not come from other balls on the table, we can logically infer that there was an off-the-table Cause : e.g. intentional pool shooter. — Gnomon

This is just a 'first cause' analogy. There is no first cause necessity imo. If something like CCC is correct then a first cause is pushed back so far, that it becomes meaningless. If you still insist on a first cause, then what is wrong with conceiving such as a mindless spark that no longer exists. A digit singularity for example.

Although the wielder of the pool cue is Transcendent (exogenous), his necessary existence is a "significant relation" for Ontological explanations, if not for Scientific purposes. Moreover, the causal Intent behind the Big Bang impetus, may be imagined as human-like, or god-like, or an infinite chain of accidental causes, according to your personal preferences. — Gnomon

Why do you assign a gender to your proposed transcendent?
I am more attracted to empirical support for a posit that ontological support.
I don't agree that the choices you offer above between human-like, god-like and large variety in very large random combination (I don't accept 'accidental' as it has 'error' connotations), have anything like equal status. Human-like and god-like? I take it your god- like includes animism examples as most modern gods are modelled on human-like. We invented gods that look just like us, (you even insist on assigning it a male gender!). Why can't god look like some of the alien creatures we invent for sci-fi or one of the non-human characters used in traditional fairy stories.
Why cant god be depicted as an intelligent, genderless, massless, gas/energy? The fact that gods are posited as 'looking like' objects or entities familiar to humans is more evidence that such has no, and never has had any, existent.

But ↪180 Proof's harsh sarcasm toward any intimations of Transcendence makes it difficult to word a response that doesn't hit him where it hurts : his faith in Materialism/Physicalism. — Gnomon

Only you and @180 Proof can report which response's 'hurt,' and which are ineffectual.
I suspect the truth of such, will remain unacknowledged by either of you, if in fact any such 'hurt' actually manifested in either of you due to words posted by the other.
I enjoy the input from both of you, but you will not be surprised, that my viewpoints are far more in line with @180 Proof than with yourself, Gnomon.
I have no interest in keeping score between you and as I said, I learn from both of you and I remain grateful to both of you, for that.

So, we can forget about such a kind of obsevation, right? — Alkis Piskas

Not forget about it, but we can certainly put it to one side for now, in our exchange.

but the actual rolling of the ball, which is what occurs in the physical universe, is continuous. — Alkis Piskas

Only until friction brings the ball to rest. At any instant in time, the ball is losing kinetic energy, so the motion is not continuous. it is a series of discrete moments of kinetic energy loss.

but aren't atoms themselves in a continuous movement? — Alkis Piskas

Relative movements depending on what frame of reference you are using. Excited atoms move more so 'heat' /temperature is a factor. A 'frozen' atom has a rest frame (not moving). But it is moving if it is on the Earth and the Earth is rotating.

I can't help not mentioning here someone who has best described the concept of time without even mentioning the word: Heraclitus. "Everything flows", “No man ever steps in the same river twice". This also depicts the attribute of continuity of the physical universe. — Alkis Piskas

It's like saying, no one eats the same apple twice BUT, its quite possible that you encounter / interact with the same sub-atomic particles more than once.
Step in a river and water molecules flow past your legs. The water flows into a lake. On a hot day the lake loses water to the atmosphere via evaporation. Weather carries some of the evaporated water that flowed past your legs to where you are and falls on your head as rain. If that happens, did you meet that same water twice?

We fully disagree on the subject of continuity vs discretness of the physical universe, but this was a fruitful and interesting philosophical exchange. How far would it have been gone if we were fully agreeing from start? — Alkis Piskas

We are still discussing the area Alkis, yes, and we may never change our individual positions, but only if one of us can't convince the other. If you convince me, then I will start to claim that the structure of the universe is fundamentally analogue rather than digital. Let me offer you some more of my evidence.
I know you are not a physics person but this video by Carlo Rovelli on the nature of time, contains a lot of information, about the idea, that all flow, all continuity, is a combinatorial of discrete events.
I just watched it again for the 5th time, since I first watched it. It took me a long time and a lot of rewinding and thinking to understand the implications of what Carlo was presenting. One conclusion that I think it supports, is that the universe is made up of discrete fundamentals.

I enjoy the debate and I am grateful for those who take the time to contribute. I learn from all of you in many different ways. I improve my knowledge of where the stumbling blocks are, where the complexities lie. How to probe the robustness of an argument. I also improve 'details' and tighten up shortfalls in my approach to debate with others. It's all very useful stuff. I have exchanged with some TPF members in the past that I would consider an actual enemy of everything that I value but not on this thread ..... so far.

What is "universal REALITY" for you? Do you just mean the "physical universe"?
If not, then you must refer to an absolute, objective reality, which is one of the most debatable subjects in philosophy, from what I know and have personally witnessed. (Which of course is out of the scope of this thread.) — Alkis Piskas

I think an objective reality exists at the biggest reference frame of the universe but I have no idea if humans or future transhumans will ever be able to observe the universe at it's biggest scale. Same goes for it's smallest scale and that's even if the labels 'smallest' or 'biggest' have any meaning in 'reality.'

Anyway, we are all just sharing views in this place, aren't we? — Alkis Piskas

Yes and I am enjoying your contribution Alkis!

Oh, something is not OK with this. A film is a series of pictures but a movie is the result of its projection onto a screen. The film is what consists of descrete, saparate photos. But the movie is continuous. It is what we perceive through our senses and then process with our mind.
Better see it this way: when you take a video, there are no separate parts (photos). You can, if you want take a screenshot, in the same way you take a selfie, which will be an independent image, but this would be just like taking a handful of water from a continuous flow of water. The water flow does not consist of handfuls of water. The video does not consist of screenshots. — Alkis Piskas

I don't think so Alkis. A video has a frame rate, such as 24 fpi (24 frames per second). That means 24 pictures are taken or shown every second. An ocean is made up of water molecules, which are made of hydrogen and oxygen atoms etc. The continuous is made up of the discrete. It's the discrete that seems to be fundamental and not the continuous. Any 'flow' or excitation like a vibration, is a physical combinatorial. I include all energy forms when I use the word 'physical here.
So I think the fundamental constituent of the universe is a singularity, which I think is a digit, as it is 'single' and contains all measurable existence, when it is in its 'singular' form. Any 'continuity' only happens after the singularity starts to expand/inflate.
I do however accept that the term 'singularity,' has no existent we can demonstrate.
Is there a singularity at the heart of every black hole? I don't know!

Addition: A rock is not analogue, but many of its attributes are. A measure of its smoothness, or mass/weight or it's size etc but at the sub-atomic or at the planck size (sorry to mention him again), its a digit. Anything smaller than the plank size and it's a black hole! (perhaps in some meaningful sense, a singularity!)

I’ve actually yet to interact directly with chatGPT. Would like to. How fast is it? Does it take each query in isolation or can it converse? — noAxioms

I am also on the waiting list for access but I have looked at some online exemplar interactions, such as:
ChatGPT.

first of which would be the abolishing of over-the-table bribes. Money-talks is a horrible system that yes, just makes rich people richer. — noAxioms

I would certainly give you my full support on that one. But not your ideas on how to deal with excess population.

How can a socialist system do that? The layabout seems to get the same personal needs met as the inovator. — noAxioms

Great question! By negotiation, based on the questions 'who are you?' and 'what do you want?'
Why would a person want to hoard 50 expensive cars and own 10 houses and have sex with different beautiful people every day and live like the King of the world of their imagination?
I would establish a benevolent communication system with every new born from cradle to grave.
Most layabouts get very bored quite often. Perhaps they would want to use their mind and body in ways that they would enjoy and would help the society/community they live in.
Communication, support, respect, cooperation, justice, etc etc must become foundational when it comes to how people are supported.
Innovators are pivotal and can help a great deal to support and inspire 'layabouts' or perhaps a more accurate phrase would be 'an unmotivated person.'
Most people can be reasoned with, if your approach is genuinely empathetic and you have access to established resources and activities that they would find fulfilling and would compliment what they want out of life.

How do you build a modern chip fab without those huge expenditures of resources, especially when money doesn’t even exist anymore to track return on expenditure of said resources? — noAxioms

Exactly because money would not exist anymore!
OF the people, FOR the people, BY the people IS the motivation.
A celebrity feels good when they have the 'adulation' of their fans.
A person who works to help their community (or even their universe) should be recognised and appreciated and the 'layabout,' as you might label such should not receive adulation.
Everyone should be able to take the basic means of survival for granted from cradle to grave, regardless of their contribution to society. BUT, those who contribute most, will most likely become the most 'adulated,' and revered in our society. Perhaps when it comes to something such as 'who will we pick to run our next project on ....... will be fairly chosen from the 'revered.' A meritocracy could handshake very well within a secular, democratic humanist/socialist political system and a resource based economy.

Agree, but how to combat that? City (or country) X has a sports team with a lot of fans behind it. How are they to attract the better talent with promise of only modest means for their work? How are you going to prevent some other city from promising better means to this athlete, especially when this tiny extra expenditure would mean the difference between the city’s team winning or not?
BBC TV/movies seems to have celebrities without insane compensation. Sometimes at least… — noAxioms

Take the money out of sports and it will become the healthy endeavour and fun competitive entertainment it should have always been. The fastest or strongest human will still be coveted and competed for. Local or national team rivalry can still happen. The meritocracy can support sports and the removal of financial incentive will allow sport to revert back to its more benevolent consequences.

No? You can grow a human from a single cell. It can metabolize and reproduce. — noAxioms

Yeah? I will send you one of my skin cells and you can deliver my clone to me when you have finished creating it! :joke:

Nonsense. There’s plenty of living things without a brain. All multicellular life forms evolved from what were once single-celled individuals that needed to solve the problem of selfless cooperation in order to take it to the next level. — noAxioms

I was referring to sentient life, when I brought in 'the brain.'

The sort of authority I’m speaking of needs to act on the benefit of the collective, but here you are suggesting this cannot be done because it would involve actions not popular with the individuals.
— noAxioms
No, democratic socialism supports majority rule.
In what way does this counter what I said (which I left up there)? I’m saying that majority rule isn’t going to result in the kinds of action/policy needed. — noAxioms

Yes it will, as the reason you gave for 'this cannot be done' is invalid, as majority rule means that the democratically selected action WILL happen, despite being unpopular with a minority. If that action allows Trump to take power, then the people will then have to deal with the consequences of that majority vote. Trump did not last long, but there was a lot of damage done, so, in the future, we must try to make sure that 'most of the people cannot be fooled some of the time.' It's the job of all secular humanist, democratic socialists, to fight for that goal. You should strive to help them whenever you can, instead of merely complaining when they fail to protect you, by successfully countering anomalies like Trump supporters. Perhaps you could help them talk to potential trump supporters and convince them not to vote for such morons. You are either part of the solutions or part of the problems.

I’m not talking about benefit to minorities, and it seems that the typical voter isn’t very informed these days, and is not supportive of said secular humanism, as evidenced by people like Trump getting the majority vote on a platform against it, and against informed facts. I’m talking about benefit to larger goals like the future of humanity (said collective above), which often don’t benefit the majority of the voting individuals. — noAxioms

Well, that's just not good enough, is it? We simply can't accept that 'the typical voter isn't very informed these days.' We have to do what we can to help change that. Your larger goals can't be achieved, as long as the foundations remain rotten. It's the guy beside you who thinks trump is a good idea that you can perhaps help alter. The struggle continues.

No, the planet is the river or sea, the natural habitat of the fish. The bowls in the trees are these sealed enclosures on other planets (the trees), a place for which the fish are not evolved. — noAxioms

Abiogenisis may have happened in water and at some point moved on to land and into the air. Life now exists on land sea and air. Off planet is the next obvious step. Do you think it would have been better if evolution left all lifeforms as fish or water creatures?

A windy day will empty the bowl of water in the tree, but the bird can take it. Better to put a bird there. — noAxioms

I disagree. Better to have a bird that can fly, live in trees, walk on the ground, wear a tech exoskeleton that lets it travel under water and live in a dome shaped, forrest city. Then it might think about living extraterrestially, when it wants to expand it's CV about what it is to be a bird.

Go there yes, but Hillary didn’t live on Mt Everest nor did Armstrong take up residence on the moon. — noAxioms

As you suggested in an earlier post. The first missions are scouting and pathfinder missions. Missions like Artemis 1 are a different beginning.

But that’s the kind of democracy you seem to push. It’s precisely democracy that went wrong. The voters wanted him. He appealed not to rational arguments, but rather to their personal values (mostly validation of one’s otherwise suppressed biases against other groups). People don’t vote for the common good. They vote based on personal emotions. Democracy needs to fix that, and I don’t know how it can and still call itself democracy.
It’s not just the USA. Countries all over several continents have had similar candidates with similar platforms. Many (around half?) have won their elections. — noAxioms

There is no perfect system, just improvements on current ones. If you make enough robust improvements you eventually create a good system. No true democratic socialist system has EVER been achieved by any country in the world so far. So, the struggle continues until one IS successfully created. Once that happens, I am sure the people who live under it will struggle to maintain it. It may even fall due to nefarious b*******, but the 'good' people will rebuild it. Hopefully it will be built so strong one day that it will be almost impossible to destroy it. Such aspiration is, to me, far better than the apathetic acceptance of the status quo that you seem to satisfy yourself with.

Space was never a solution to excess population.
— noAxioms
Of course it is.
— universeness
But you don’t justify this assertion. — noAxioms

The justification seems obvious , in that, there is a lot more room in space than there is here on earth.
I don't mean to downplay your perfectly correct assertion that for now! Off-planet existence is NOT a valid way of solving the excess population problem we CURRENTLY have on Earth.
The immediate solution to that problem must be found here on Earth. I agree with you on that point.
Perhaps 'Countries with declining populations,' are a small indicator of the future of population control.
Increasing human lifespan and increasing technological based human robustness, may be another factor that causes more and more young couples to have less and less children. BUT, as we slooooooowly become an extraterrestial species, we will have less need to worry about population control and have more need to encourage reproduction.

f you have population in excess of the capacity of the resources, then for every person you put in space, 1000 or more must go without resources. — noAxioms

Only until the resources OF the contents of space can be accessed. Eventually this will mean extra resources can be brought TO Earth FROM space. It's no different than it was when compared to pioneering humans on the move. They had to bring their supplies with them until they could establish a supply chain wherever they ended up.

It would be far more efficient to just kill the 1000 and free up those resources for those remaining. This is a better solution to excess population than space. It is also a nice example of trolley-problem. — noAxioms

Less savage solutions are possible. You are just being a bit impatient and lazy minded. :grin:
I suspect your brother and sister-in-law would smack you on the head for typing the above quote.

How much carbon would be released from the production of the energy needed to fill those spaces? It’s a sort of efficiency question. — noAxioms

Less and less and finally zero. The target is E=ER, which is far more important that efficiency issues.
I would rather have a less efficient global energy production system that does not damage the planets ecology compared to a fantastically efficient fossil fuel production system that is killing the planet.
A future cold fusion system will perhaps be the most 'efficient,' if we ever achieve it.

The point is, ER is fixed and E is exponential. The one mathematically cannot keep up with the other. ‘Efforts‘ don’t change that. — noAxioms

ER can rise to meet E if humans make it so. The nefarious who currently control E and ER are the problem, not any notion that human science is unable to meet the energy needs of the current population. Energy supply and demand remains a weapon, due to who controls it and why.
It's manipulation in the current Russian abuse of Ukraine is a good current example.
The fact that renewable energy is charged, in the world markets, at the same price per unit as 'the most expensively produced' energy is another example of the affect of the nefarious profit mongers.
Renewable costs much less to produce than fossil fuel based oil and gas, yet people are charged the same rate for renewable energy units, as they are charged for the much more expensively produced oil and gas. WHAT A CON!!!!

His "critiques" are formulated to herd Gnomon into a New Age corral, which by his personal definition is "full of non-sense", Therefore, I must take evasive action to avoid being trapped in a dead end. — Gnomon

:lol: I see you both in your individual dodgem cars. WATCH OUT Gnomon, he's right behind you!
Try to enjoy the tussling between you, it need not be so acrimonious.

The Ascent of Information, combines concepts of Causal Information & Downward Causation to explain the emergence of Life in a mostly inanimate world. — Gnomon

Downward causation

*3. Downward Causation :
". . . the central dogma of molecular biology, which is that information moves from the nucleic acids in DNA to proteins, but not in the other direction. . . . That's a 'bottom-up' causation . . . it's the way science usually thinks about the world . . . . that's the beauty and power of reductionism . . . . But does that mean that 'top-down', or downward, causation doesn't exist".
The Ascent of Information, p182 — Gnomon

From Wiki:
In philosophy, downward causation is a causal relationship from higher levels of a system to lower-level parts of that system: for example, mental events acting to cause physical events. The term was originally coined in 1974 by the philosopher and social scientist Donald T. Campbell

According to practopoietic theory of system organization, downward causation in biological systems always involves the environment. Downward causation does not occur by direct causal effects from higher to lower levels of system organisation. Instead, downward causation occurs indirectly because the mechanisms at higher levels of organisation fail to accomplish the tasks dictated by the lower levels of organisation. As a result, inputs from the environment signal to the mechanisms at lower levels of organisation that something is wrong and therefore, to act. For example, a species may find itself under evolutionary pressure to adjust to novel circumstances—which is a form of downward pressure for adjustment. Similarly, an organism may be under downward pressure to express different genes if the expression patterns from the past did not lead to desired results. Another special case of downward causation is supervised learning (of neuronal networks) in which both behavior and environment govern the propagation from higher to lower levels.

This leads to a unique form of a causal interaction pattern—called a practopoietic loop (cycle) of causation. The end result is that the mechanisms responsible for mental events cause physical events only based on their joint interaction with the environment.

An interesting consequence is that neither behavior of an organism nor its mental operations can be considered fully or exclusively supervenient on the body of the organism. On the one hand, behavior is not supervenient on all parts of the body. On the other hand, due to the necessary interactions with the environment at all levels of organization, behavior is supervenient also on some aspects of the environment. The same holds for the mental operations, or the mind.

I am fine with 'downward causation' as described by wiki above. It has NO SIGNIFICANT RELATION to teleology or teleonomy. There is NO INTENT in the biological downwards causation described by wiki above and the 'mental events acting to cause physical events' or 'change,' is HUMAN INTENT and that is the only valid connection with notions of teleology or teleonomy

He goes on to make a remarkable remark : ". . . that living systems seem to be able to gain control over the very same matter out of which they are formed". And a technical term for such self-control is "Cybernetics". Ironically, a whole complex system of many parts that can control its constituents, implies that the whole transcends the parts in top-down causal power. But that's merely a natural kind of transcendence that pragmatic scientists can accept. Yet, those who are philosophically inclined may logically extend the control & causation within Nature back to the beginning of the universe, and ask "what caused Causation?" — Gnomon

That's where we diverge. You travel back on a wave of infinite regression, in the same way William Lane Craig does to arrive at his debunked Kalam Cosmological Argument.

I think the 'laws of nature' are computable even though the universe – like the brain – is not a "computer" (ergo, without some intentional agent aka "programmer"). — 180 Proof

I broadly agree.

But the physical universe is analogue, not digital. — Alkis Piskas

Good point. Physical nature is analogue, despite "Planck's quanta". — Gnomon

Is Quantum Reality Analog after All? :
Quantum theorists often speak of the world as being pointillist at the smallest scales. — Gnomon

Quanta are mental analogies to gaps in our knowledge of holistic physical systems. Causation is continuous

If nature is analogue at the fundamental level then what causes 'difference'?. How does analogue acquire structure? Atoms are a form of digital organization, all matter is. Quanta come in discrete packets, why not something in between like one would assume if it were analogue? — punos

Human senses are all analogue, so we experience the world through them.
We have all already accepted that human experience does not necessarily fully describe universal REALITY (no woo woo invocations please.)
I can take a hammer and smash a rock and observe evidence that a rock is reducible to smaller and smaller discrete parts. So, we have the 'continuity' of the analogue form and the 'discrete' quanta of the digital form. Field excitations are discrete, but they can combine and propagate as continuous wave forms. Like a Mexican wave, involving undulating humans, waveforms are undulating discrete excitations. Energy travels/propagates in waves (undulating field excitations.)
Analogue to digital is a translation, as is digital to analogue, just like energy to mass. Analogue and digital are, imo, different states of the same underlying fundamentals. A wave is an 'effect' of dynamic field excitations.

When digital music is played back, it's REAL music your ear receives, real air vibration's because we have a machine that includes a DAC (digital to analogue converter). The digitally stored information is converted back to analogue before it becomes 'ear input.' This is NOT simulation, it's REAL music.

Physical reality is made up of relative 'states.' Digital states are discrete. Analogue states are continuous but anything continuous, is a combinatorial of discrete states. A movie is a series of photographs. A rock is a combinatorial of discrete fundamentals, as is every object in the universe.
I agree with and , 'Thee' universal fundamental, IF it turns out that there is A single fundamental state, MUST BE discrete or digital (as in 'a digit state').
The digits were traditionally 1 to 9 but 2 to 9 are just multiples of 1, so this is why computers are called digital as they are TWO STATE. 1 or an absence of 1 (ie,0)
If its '1' or binary digit 1 or 'something' or 'on' or 'true,' then the second state is just '0' or binary digit 0 or the placeholder, 0 or 'off' or 'false.'
BUT, based on quantum physics, I think there are other fundamental states of reality, other than the two states of binary. 'Superposition or Qbit state or 1 and 0 in the same DISCRETE instant of time,' 'entanglement,' etc. If superstring theory/Mtheory is correct then we have a multitude of interdimensional string states to consider.

Well, don't hold me to this, but I probably won't respond again until Gnomon addresses the questions I've put him. — 180 Proof

We each have the right to conduct our own symphonies as we see fit.

we can see whomsoever it was that, long time ago, claimed nuclear weapons are pointless, is right on the money. Nobody can use it. It's just there for show - a weapon that can't be used is useless, oui? — Agent Smith

There is always the unpredictable MADman. Mutually assured destruction might not worry a crazy theist like Putin, if he thinks he is fulfilling his gods will. To me, Putin could have had a starring role in Dr Strangelove.

I like this 'proxy' status. Gnomon makes a point to you, through me and you answer him directly.
I don't have to do anything! :grin: :up:

When i think to myself about these things i really don't use the labels of real or simulated. I'm more concerned with the structure of the idea and if it's accurate in it's description of what we know happens. That's how we do science. If we have preconceived ideas of what is real or not apart from the math and logic then what are we really looking for. It's not that different than a religious mindset that just wants to believe what is comfortable. — punos

Well, we can certainly agree that creating robust labels for concepts that are fit for purpose and don't over-burden the label, is very hard at times. Over 30 years of choosing meaningful variable, function and procedure names for computer programs, rams that home quite effectively.

I think it can, and it is what i am currently attempting to do. I'm really not trying to prove or disprove god, i just want to know how things really are, as they are and not as i prefer them to be. — punos

Good luck! Your quest is perennial and honourable.

OK. But what are these "universal fundamentals?" — Alkis Piskas

The best candidate right now, is the 'bit'. Consider how music is physically stored on a CD or the images stored on a DVD. The text we are typing right now on TPF that allows us to fully communicate using textual symbology, is digitised, using bit maps and transferred data packets.
If you accept that its possible to fully reproduce a field excitation, such as an 'up quark,' via a data representation, such as a two state binary system, then we would be close to being able to confirm that data/information is a fundamental of nature. Let's say I could represent an 'up quark,' by the binary rep:
10010000110110001101101110000110011100000011.
If I explain the above binary representation of an up quark as representing:
1. An unique identifier for an 'up quark.'
2. The charge on a up-quark. (relating to accepted units)
3. The spin or angular momentum.
4. Mass (accepted units)
Other factors, such as gravitational effect, electromagnetism, weak interactions, strong interactions etc.
I could physically represent the binary values in many ways, such as an indentation(a pit) to represent a 1 and no indentation right next to the pit (commonly called a 'land') to represent a 0.
I could then store this representation of an up-quark on a dvd.
I then need to invent a 'machine,' that can take this data representation as input to the machine and the machine can 'affect' the vacuum of space and process the data representation to generate an up-quark.
Running all the data represented on the DVD might result in the production of a construction such as a hydrogen atom. If this could be done then I think this would be a demonstration that the universal fundamental is information. That's my best attempt to explain the concept involved. It probably falls short in many ways.

Right. So we actually have nothing in our hands. Yet, regarding abtract ideas in general --such as information-- scientists in their majority claim that they have found this and that, that they know how things work, etc. Yet, often w/o any solid evidence or even with no evidence at all. (Of course, they have to defend their trade in the same way religions do, only that they deal with more concrete and tangible stuff.) — Alkis Piskas

No, I think you are moving too far away from where we actually are, when you type words like, 'so we actually have nothing in our hands.' Science has a great deal more evidence in their hands, compared to any other methodology, that can be employed by humans, to learn about the workings and structure of the universe. That difference in evidence is absolutely crucial, even though science cannot currently prove that they understand the workings and structure of 'reality,' in the universe, there is no other method that can even begin to compete with it.

Matter has no purpose, i.e. intention or desire. This is an attribute of life, even if its purpose is reduced down an urge to survive. And it needs and uses information for that purpose, Matter does not strive to survive. It does not strive for anything. It has no urge whatsoever. So, it doesn't need or can use any information. — Alkis Piskas

All we are debating here is definitions or manifestations of what we label 'matter.'
Brain matter in humans contain and demonstrably manifest, human intent and purpose. So, I don't agree with your 'impression' that NO manifestation of 'matter' has intent, purpose, desire. 'LIFE' has 'form' and form involves 'matter' and human lifeforms irrefutably demonstrate intent and purpose, imo.

What does "universal fundamental" mean for you exactly? The essence, the basic element of the Universe, or what? And in what way? An example? — Alkis Piskas

For me, it means that current posited fundamentals are not fundamentals. A quark, an electron, a photon, a gluon, a higgs boson or even the proposed erebon or superstring are not fundamentals.
These would all be combinatorials/configurations of a single fundamental, called a data/information state. I don't think the only 'physical states' can be the binary 1 and 0, especially considering the possible qbit states and such phenomena as quantum ( entanglement, superposition and tunnelling), dark matter and dark energy. A two state binary system cannot produce the real universe imo, so the fundamental states must number more that two. That's about as far as my personal musings go, based on my 'undergraduate level' of command of physics and my old honours degree in Computing Science and my old PGCE(Post Graduate Certificate in Education).

"A team of physicists is now claiming the first direct observation of the long-sought Breit-Wheeler process, in which two particles of light, or photons, crash into one another and produce an electron and its antimatter counterpart, a positron. But like a discussion from an introductory philosophy course, the detection’s significance hinges on the definition of the word “real.” Some physicists argue the photons don’t qualify as real, raising questions about the observation’s implications." — Alkis Piskas

Its' a common comment made by many research scientists and was stated again, very clearly, in the video posted above by @180 Proof featuring Matt O'Dowd. The laws of physics are human interpretations of what humans scientifically observe, but that does not mean that they necessarily, fully describe, the REALITY of the universe. I accept that, and I agree with that, but that does not mean we should therefore give succour to much much less reliable posits, such as those offered by theism or theosophists.

Now, based on your using of "could be", I see that we can only make hypotheses on the subject, either by considering particular philosophical views like e.g. panpsychism, universal consciousness, etc. or none, i.e. starting from an independent point of view. — Alkis Piskas

Yes, as our current science cant take us much further than 'could be,' not yet. You can even add more fringe posits such as @Gnomon's enformationism, for consideration.

For example, I could consider that atoms "use" some kind of "information" to combine with other atoms and form molecules. Yet, even if something like this can be considered as a workable theory, description or explanation, it would always be a speculatiom and an interpretation of what we all know as "information". — Alkis Piskas

Well, atoms combine into molecules via chemical bonds and a qualified chemist could explain the details much better than I. A quick wiki search gave me:
A chemical bond is a lasting attraction between atoms or ions that enables the formation of molecules and crystals. The bond may result from the electrostatic force between oppositely charged ions as in ionic bonds, or through the sharing of electrons as in covalent bonds. The strength of chemical bonds varies considerably; there are "strong bonds" or "primary bonds" such as covalent, ionic and metallic bonds, and "weak bonds" or "secondary bonds" such as dipole–dipole interactions, the London dispersion force and hydrogen bonding. Strong chemical bonding arises from the sharing or transfer of electrons between the participating atoms.
But yes, the posit is that everything that's 'going on,' that allows atoms to self-assemble into molecules IS at a fundamental level, self-processing information. If you run the process all the way back to the start then you are suggesting that the big bang singularity was an information container and its instructions/program started 'executing' at time > 0. BUT no god programmer was required.
Roger Penrose's CCC for example, would simply mean the program runs to completion and then resets and starts again and has been doing so for an eternity of aeons.

My attempt to 'portray the above scenario,' is nothing more, than a measure of my own limited ability to perceive the issues and the science involved. I think there are many on TPF who could do a better job of it than I.

What's the time by the Doomsday clock? — Agent Smith

I hope that some sneaky internal group of Russian dissenters, have 'knobbled' any such clock on the Russian side and have some plans to do something similar to whatever long term intentions Putin and his cronies have.

consider this video summary on 'quantum information' — 180 Proof

I have watched many of these Matt O'Dowd PBS presentations. They are excellent.
A great vid that presents the quantum uncertainty problem when trying to represent values such as spin using 1 bit of information but also demonstrates that such uncertainty helps confirm quantum states such as entanglement and superposition.

If we saw the universe as greater than ourselves, might we have some humility and peace? Rather than rule the universe we might seek our place in it. — Athena

Why must we compare ourselves as greater or lesser or equal to that which we are an integrated part of?
Ok my brain is probably more important to me than my leg, but my leg is very important to.
We can have humility and peace in the presence of each other, and in all things around us.
If we just learn to rid ourselves of all the residues of the primal fears we built up from our days in the wilds and just stop killing and abusing each other, and everything we come in contact with, then things would get better. That's our current burden, and no god exists to help us, and those who believe in god can suffer in the exact same way, as all atheists can suffer. We must take FULL responsibility, as only we can help us make things better for all.
Again, I draw attention to the sentiments (rather than the particular predicament) in:

If we seek to know the self-organizing forces of the universe, as some read the bible and seek the word of God, we ourselves might come to greater harmony with that universe. — Athena

Perhaps @Gnomon would agree with that point of view, as he also seems to greatly value the musings of Plato and Aristotle etc. I don't. Do you not worry that if we assign all the wonder and awe that we are capable of mustering when we muse about the universe and our origins, life and fate, to the machinations of a supreme being, we reduce ourselves and leave ourselves with NOTHING.
We are mass produced by a god machine? The wonder and awe experienced by bible readers or in those who value Plato's perfect forms, are demeaning themselves imo, as they sell their wonderment cheaply and they don't and can't claim it as their own.
It seems much more valuable to me to see your wondement and your awe, as a fantastic emergence, that belongs to YOU, not gods or platonic notions of external perfect forms.
I think I assign more value to you Athena, and Gnomon and every human on this planet than any god posit ever has or ever will.

I suppose your intent was to focus on the plausibility of a technological Singularity. But my attention was drawn to the question of "Emergence . . . of new possibilities". — Gnomon

I am very interested in both. What is emergent in human intent and purpose and what 'points of pivotal change' (such as a so called 'tech singularity,') do TPF members assign high credence to.

That question is central to my personal world view of Enformationism, which regards Generic Information (causation) as the Agency of Emergence, so to speak. — Gnomon

I see that, and I very much welcome your input as I do @180 Proof's rigorous critique.
We are debating what you are including in your 'generic information' as an agent of what is emergent in humans. I like the way you have expressed that.
All information does not have equal status or value or credibility. Some information can prove to be a barrier to what is emergent in human intent and purpose that I would label 'good.'
That's where we (and perhaps you and @180 Proof but I will let him confirm or object) diverge.
I think all notions of the supernatural and the transcendent, etc depreciate and hinder the progress of the benevolent aspects of emerging human intent and purpose, as it gives apparent succour to such notions, despite your protestations that this is not YOUR intent and is merely the misinterpretation of others.

A good source of technical information on Evolutionary Emergence is the Santa Fe Institute*1. Its focus of research is on emergent complexity (such as Life & Mind) in the universe. Ironically, they use some surprising terminology, for a bunch of pragmatic scientists : e.g. Emergence ; Transcendence ; Teleology. In one chapter --- authored by mathematical cosmologist George Ellis, astrophysicist Keith Farnsworth, and biochemist Luc Jaeger --- they discuss the Emergence-related concept of "Downward Causation", which is another word for taboo top-down "Teleology". They say, "An essential element (and possibly a defining feature) of life emerges from this analysis. It is the presence of downward causation by information selection and control"(my emphasis). They go on to say, "Emergence is the appearance of phenomena at some scale of system organization that is absent from the lower elementary scales within it". Which is a roundabout way of defining Holism. The whole system "transcends" the properties of its parts, as a "transcendent complex" (TC). — Gnomon

I think pointing out the use of such language by the 'scientific' community is a very valid thing to do but only if you are correctly reporting that these scientists are employing a term such as transcendence, with the same religious/theistic connotation, within which such words are traditionally employed.
Christopher Hitchens was one of the best atheistic debaters I have heard but he saw value in terms like transcendent and numinous. I would have questioned him on his decision to use such terms in the way he did but I would not be tooooooooo precious about it.

I get negative feedback for using such taboo terminology, but these authors can get away with it because they have academic & professional credentials. — Gnomon

I think that you make a very fair complaint here. I think the road IS a tougher one for you as you don't have that which you cite above. But you have also stated that you are tenacious enough to continue to 'chip away' in your terms. WELL DONE! Keep doing that but don't leave questions thrown at you unanswered. It's very difficult to stand your ground sometimes but if you truly believe that there is real value in your proposals then keep fighting for them until your last breath. I certainly will, for that which I assign very high credence to. In the final analysis, I can only remain hopeful, that I don't die in a state of being utterly wrong in all of my fundamental beliefs.

Likewise, theories of Technological evolution toward a Singularity, imply but don't make explicit the top-down Teleology of human intentions that transcend Natural Selection by means of Cultural Selection. Whether the dream of creating Artificial Life & Mind will ever come to pass is uncertain. But that humans can aspire to god-like powers, raises the question of how the ability to dream impossible dreams could emerge from mechanical grinding of material gears. — Gnomon

Well I reject all notions of god and I think that the god credentials can only be aspired to asymptotically. That is the only value I see in any omni style label. I dream, yes, but I focus on what I consider 'possible' in my dreams and I reject my impossible dreams and I understand them, from the standpoint that my mind is just trying to 'imagine' what might be possible. It's for me, myself and I to judge which dreams to value and which to reject. I remain in awe and wonder about how incredible life and consciousness is but I want TO OWN that wonder and awe and pass that as a RIGHTFULL INHERITENCE to each new generation of humans that experience life as I have. I will not assign the source of that wonder and awe to the whims of some supernatural, ineffectual, absentee, deity, as that would leave us with NOTHING of our own. What is emergent in humans would be of no significance AT ALL, if god exists. We would be mere impotent pawns and any notion of free will is moot!

For example, although it includes some concepts that are similar to New Age philosophy, Enformationism is not about New Ageism or Mysticism. Instead, it was inspired by scientific Quantum & Information theories, which themselves have philosophical similarities to New Age notions*1. — Gnomon

But which aspects of quantum physics, and any connection you make between it and information theory, are you referring to and why?
You cannot claim that you are not referring to empirical science and then state that your proposals/logical arguments are based on current empirical scientific findings of quantum phenomena. Entanglement? Tunnelling? Superposition? Quantum field theory? Which of these support you 'philosophical' enformationism and WHY?
What common ground do you envisage between say, quantum entanglement and 'essence' or 'metaphysical' or 'immaterial'. Why try to fit big square shapes into little round gaps?

From Gnomon:
Physical change is called "Work". Mental change is called "Information". In the human brain, Mental Work burns a lot of energy, even though the Brain does not change its physical form
Response from 180proof:
Explain why a physical brain physically "burns a lot of" physical "energy" (i.e. calories) if, as you suggest, "Information" is not "Work". Oh, btw, the human brain functions by constantly changing its neuronal configurations (re: neuroplasticity) that encode *wait for it, wait for it* new information (i.e. updating current information —> memories, expectations, predictions, feelings, learning-conditioning, etc).
From Gnomon:
Information is the "essence" of material things. And by that I'm referring to the immaterial mathematical Structure, that our minds interpret as Geometry & Topology (i.e. Shape or Form). That Essence is Ideal in the sense that it exists as an Idea in a Mind, which makes it as real as anything else in our mental & mathematical models of reality. :smile:
"Information" is not "Work".
— 180 Proof
That may be true of Shannon's definition of "information", as an empty carrier of meaning. But in my usage, and that of credentialed physicists, such as physicist Paul Davies, Information is both Causal and Meaningful. He edited a book by a dozen scientists & philosophers entitled "From Matter to Life: Information and Causality". So, if he is correct that Information has Causal powers, then that causal process is what we call "Work". :wink:
From 180 proof: in response to .... Do you have a name for it?
Immanentism – negative ontology as a speculative criterion for the understanding which enables-constrains praxes, or agency.

From wiki:
The doctrine or theory of immanence holds that the divine encompasses or is manifested in the material world. It is held by some philosophical and metaphysical theories of divine presence.

This seems to me like an interesting and valid exchange snippet.
If I was asked to judge, I would judge that @180 Proof's position, is is more compelling for me, as I don't see value in such notions as "information is the 'essence' of material things." As again words like 'essence' smacks of the esoteric to me. Material things may have information as a VERY REAL and tangible fundamental.
Not an 'essence' but a reality. @Gnomon seeks to find common ground between science and the esoteric and I think there is none. But am I making an incorrect judgement of what Gnomon is positing.

my main point if you like, is not about how "data" and "information" are related. As I said, they are ofter interchangeable. I don't really mind if we use them as one and the same thing. — Alkis Piskas

Ok.

Yet, the most important question I brought up regarding the video, namely, if data have any meaning and purpose for the physical universe, is kind of lost and it is half-answered — Alkis Piskas

I think that based on his delivery in the video, Jim Al Khalili thinks that information IS a universal fundamental. I found his evidence in support of such a hypothesis currently makes the hypothesis more that a hypothesis but still falls a little short of the 'theory' label.
For me, we would have to be able to produce something like a REAL photon or quark, via a list of instructions alone. A mechanism would then produce a material photon or a quark or an electron by 'processing' the list of instructions. The only systems suggested that can do this are currently in sci fi shows. Perhaps a star trek food replicator or transporter would be such an example tech.

I still wait to hear, i.e. if the physical universe has a mind that can intrerpret and handle data and if yes, how? And not because we can and we are part of the the physical universe as you say, but independetly of us. — Alkis Piskas

That's a far bigger question Aliks. Information could be thee universal fundamental and the basis of a theory of everything without invoking any panpsychist or universal mind posits which are independent of us. You can certainly suggest that but you will not be surprised to read that I only give credence that such a collective is best posited as an emergent via us and any alien life that may exist, which is as self-aware as we are.

I don't care whether or not Gnomon and I directly engage with one another again as much as I'm interested in ideas and discussing them without sophistry and evasions. — 180 Proof

Fair enough.

By refusing to address those questions and doubling down on his demonstrable errors and poor reasoning, Gnomon makes ridiculing – his bookish charlatanry that's so desperate to be taken seriously even though he won't take his own "ideas" seriously enough to submit them to cross-examination – too damn easy. In this way, universeness, we take Gnomon's "ideas" more seriously than he does. — 180 Proof

I have already agreed that he should directly, or by proxy, attempt to answer any questions about his viewpoints that you feel have not been answered, otherwise, politically, he will seem in retreat.
I think his current claim, is that your so called 'scientism,' is interfering with your ability to understand the valid philosophy behind his enformationism.

My non-creedal Enformationism worldview is a calmly reasoned philosophical interpretation of 21st century Information & quantum theories; not an emotional eternal life expectation — Gnomon

I think that's very unlikely given your knowledge of philosophy. Perhaps he can confirm whether or not that IS his 'general' position, regardless of who considers that position to be a valid one.

better techniques will begin to develop as we deepen our understanding of this kind of brain/machine interaction. — punos

:up:

GPT doesn't need to pass the turing test for this purpose, it just has to provide a language model that can interpret nerve signals to human language, and human language to machine language, and back. It would be a tool, not a fully developed sentient AI. That could be part of a whole other thing. — punos

Even though chatGPT is not 'intelligent,' or 'self-aware,' imo, it is impressive and as you are suggesting, it's a start!

Right, but instead of rejecting the insight for what is already familiar, should we let it actually inform our understanding in a new way? — punos

Absolutely! If it can do as you suggest and any new 'understanding,' is testable and falsifiable.

I have some ideas or notions on how to potentially go about determining the structure of the gap. We can talk about that. — punos

Sounds interesting.

What if we can't have that technology until first we understand how data or information is universally fundamental — punos

That's not a question, that's a fact. Of-course we can't have the tech before we understand the 'universal fundamental' that IS data.

I think it's just going to take some "out of the box" thinking to get it right. — punos

That's putting it mildly!

But within a different paradigm it could be understood that if data is the fundamental thing of the universe then it's not a far stretch to surmise that the universe behaves as a computer, and if it behaves like a computer then it's not hard to surmise further that reality as we know it is as a simulation. If that concept makes sense then what is the difference from a subjective perspective which simulation we are in? The natural one or the artificial one. It may turn out that this is the nature of the universe.. simulation. — punos

That just does not 'compute' to me. A computer is programmed either by a human or by another computer. To me, you 'blur the lines,' between the terms 'simulation,' 'emulation,' and 'reality.'
A simulation or emulation is NOT REAL. So if our universe is simulated then it's not real. UNLESS you decide to make the terms simulation and real, synonymous. In that case, the difference between such concepts lose their value, in which case, imo, we are in danger of having to accept that Bugs Bunny and The Mighty Thor, are real within their virtual worlds and only simulated in our reference frame. This would also suggest that there exists a reference frame 'outside' of our universe which views this universe as a simulation. This let's god posits in again imo.

We think of simulations as having to be created by some entity programmer, but that is like religious thinking, anthropomorphic. Simulations in a data or information centered paradigm can be seen as potentially emerging from chaos. Note how in cellular automata like in John Conway's "The Game of Life" where only the initial conditions are set (very simple) and out of that comes all kinds of phenomena and little critters like "sliders" that nobody programmed or predicted, and it's Turing complete. — punos

But what label are you assigning to your 'chaos' model? Real? Simulated? You are still left with 'well where did the 'chaos,' come from?
The point is that the 'initial conditions' you mention were SET BY A HUMAN called John Conway. He is the prime mover and the 'will'/intent, that caused the slider critters to become existent. He is the vital or it could even be claimed (and IS claimed by theistic doctrines of where humans came from) 'divine' spark!
Information as a universal fundamental, unfortunately, does not increase the ability of science to disprove god more than it can at the moment.

A simulated person would not consider the stuff, or "matter" (data, information) that he or she is made of as a simulation. That would appear counter intuitive, but from an outside perspective would seem obvious that it's simulated. — punos

Again you suggest an 'outside' to our universe. Do you support 'outside' posits such as a multiverse?

*1. Teleonomy is the quality of apparent purposefulness and of goal-directedness of structures and functions in living organisms brought about by natural processes like natural selection. — Gnomon

Ok, but I emphasise the position that there is no empirical evidence, that teleonomy has ANY relationship AT ALL with 'natural selection.'

*2. Replace "I think" with "I believe", and you will see the problem with trying to discuss empirical facts on a philosophical forum. — Gnomon

As I have already clearly stated. My flag is firmly planted next to a sign stating 'empirical evidence is the final arbiter of all philosophical hypothesis.' I do want to slam the theistic/supernatural/woo woo door shut, for good and move on. BUT, I respect that I cant because I am a democratic socialist and I don't have a majority global consent to agree to slam that door shut for good. So ..... the debates will continue.
I believe that force = mass x acceleration is a valid sentence. I think that force = mass x acceleration is a valid sentence. I know there is a great deal of empirical evidence to support such a belief and such a thought and I think all of the sentences in this post are valid sentences to post on a philosophy forum, based on:
Philosophy is the study of the fundamental nature of knowledge, reality, and existence.