Skepticism toward unorthodox notions is essential to a scientific worldview. But openness to novelty is also necessary for advancement of knowledge, and to avoid fossilized orthodoxy. Perhaps, you may be guilty of over-minimizing complex concepts that don't fit your current belief system. — Gnomon

I always try to avoid ossifying when it comes to my viewpoints. I am sure you do the same.

It's easy for moderns, after centuries of scientific investigation to feel intellectually superior to ancient philosophers — Gnomon

I did not suggest intellectual superiority I suggested intellectual advancement due to a legacy of an ever increasing knowledge base.

For example, Aristotle used — Gnomon

The Bible says that — Gnomon

The bible is mostly filled with babble and Aristotle proposed an Earth centric universe, so we now have much better sources of accurate knowledge than the bible or Aristotle. They are welcome to be part of the mountain that we now stand upon, to enable us to see further than the ancients ever could. I personally consider Aristotle as having contributed a pebble to the growth of that mountain, the bible to have actually hindering the growth of the mountain and people like Einstein to have added whole layers to the mountain.

*1. Don't you think the humans of the far future Singularity will dismiss your own primitive notions of "Energy" (ability to do work) as mere metaphors for concepts you barely understand? Enformationism merely goes one step forward by defining "Energy" in terms of mathematical ratios (i.e. abstract information). — Gnomon

I hope so, yes, but I take it by 'singularity,' you are referring to some pivotal scientific/technological breakthrough. I don't think they will consider the description of energy as the ability to do work, as being incorrect but I hope they will consider it rather simplistic and basic.
Which mathematical ratio's are you referring to?

*2. A superiority complex is a belief that your abilities or accomplishments are somehow dramatically better than other people's. — Gnomon

Are you suggesting you suffer from such?

*3. "Eugenius says that 'the moderns have profited by the rules of the ancients' but moderns have "excelled them."
Sir Isaac Newton, the famous English scientist, once said, “If I have seen further, it is by standing on the shoulders of giants.” — Gnomon

Already answered above:

My coinage for the holistic principle of Complementarity, as illustrated in the Yin/Yang symbol. Opposing or contrasting concepts are always part of a greater whole. Conflicts between parts can be reconciled or harmonized by putting them into the context of a whole system. — Gnomon

I can see the usefulness of this, for discussing issues such as good and evil, as humans perceive such subjective constructs. I can see the value of seeking a midpoint of balance between such 'opposites,' or suggesting than in a holistic view, they belong on the same line or are part of the same system etc. But I don't see such a connection with theism and science. Ying/Yang does not connect with true/false imo.
There is no balancing midpoint between true and false, it's one or the other. A partial truth is just a false part and a true part which is not on a line between true and false. True and false are 'two state' systems like binary, they are not analogue. Hot/cold, big/small, left/right, ying/yang are opposites but they are also analogue. True/false is binary. Science is true, god is false. You cannot harmonise them.

The Enformationism worldview entails the principles of Complementarity, Reciprocity & Holism, which are necessary to ofset the negative effects of Fragmentation, Isolation & Reductionism. Analysis into parts is necessary for knowledge of the mechanics of the world, but synthesis of those parts into a whole system is required for the wisdom to integrate the self into the larger system. In a philosophical sense, all opposites in this world (e.g. space/time, good/evil) are ultimately reconciled in Enfernity (eternity & infinity). — Gnomon

Space and time are not opposites, hence spacetime. I personally see no place in your notion of a 'whole system' for concepts such as eternity or infinity. Why do you need them to conceive the universe as a whole system? I think the other terms you employ are fine in the context you use them, but all you seem to be fundamentally confirming in the quote above is that a whole system is made of parts.

Conceptually, the BothAnd principle is similar to Einstein's theory of Relativity, in that what you see ─ what’s true for you ─ depends on your perspective, and your frame of reference; for example, subjective or objective, religious or scientific, reductive or holistic, pragmatic or romantic, conservative or liberal, earthbound or cosmic. Ultimate or absolute reality (ideality) doesn't change, but your conception of reality does. Opposing views are not right or wrong, but more or less accurate for a particular purpose. — Gnomon

I disagree when it comes to issues like supernatural exists/supernatural does not exist.
There is an 'outside' of the universe/the universe is everything there is.
These questions apply to the universe at its largest scale (ie whole system scale) imo and are therefore not relative.
I agree that true/false can be locally relativistic, based on what an observer receives as input in their reference frame but I believe that there are other reference frames to be considered. For example, could an observer be in a reference frame that allows them to view time dilation? Could the observer/system observe a person age slower due to their speed relative to a person who is aging at a faster rate. Is there such a frame of reference which is outside of the two people being observed but still inside the universe? I think there are such 'levels of relativity.'

This principle is also similar to the concept of Superposition in sub-atomic physics. In this ambiguous state a particle has no fixed identity until “observed” by an outside system. For example, in a Quantum Computer, a Qubit has a value of all possible fractions between 1 & 0. Therefore, you could say that it is both 1 and 0. — Gnomon

Sure but how far apart can two superpositions be. I think the record at the moment is around two feet, achieved at Stanford Uni. We don't know how far apart two atoms in superposition can be, perhaps we will discover some limit to the spacetime involved.

:up: Alba gu bràth, BUT, my earthling status means more. Braveheart is historically inaccurate, but the main story is true ........ or at least as true as any such historicity is true.

I cry like a baby when I watch the movie 'Powder,' thankfully, not all the way through, but some scene's just destroy me. I try not to watch it in company.

Braveheart
12 angry men
The grapes of Wrath
To kill a mocking bird
Gettysburg
Waterloo
Lord of the rings (all of them)
Powder
Sunset Boulevard
Platoon

Interesting "article". :up: — Alkis Piskas

Thanks!

Well I certainly think we humans can assume disorder, in a situation, which does have some fundamental order or very complicated underlying order, that we have not spotted. But not in the case of 'the natural systems,' we observe in our currently observable universe or in the events we are confident have occurred since the poorly named big bang.

Can there also be that everything is a combination of order and disorder, i.e. it is both ordered and disordered? — Alkis Piskas

I am not sure what you mean here by 'a combination of order and disorder?'
The music sound wave example you gave looks ordered and would be considered a very interesting signal, if SETI received it from deep space.

Something like that. Have you come across via negativa? — Agent Smith

No, I had to google it. Subtracting the non-essential to improve the chances of success at achieving a goal, seems very valid to me, in situations which don't have any moral issue associated with them.
But if there are issues of human morality involved, then there must be judgement involved, that must not prioritise the goal over all other consequentials involved.
I accept the 'lesser of two evils,' type scenario's etc, as horrible as some of those can be in certain circumstances.
I assign no value or significance to:
"The idea comes from a Latin phrase used initially in Christian Theology to explain what God is by focusing on what he isn’t.
If God transcends all things, humans cannot apply qualities and attributes to him in the affirmative (God is light, God is love, etc.). Instead, via negativa presents God as a mystery that humans cannot describe in words."

Humans think, or do they?, that god is just the best human. — Agent Smith

So, god as a mere projection of human fears and aspirations and not something that has an existent.
If that's what you are suggesting then, I agree. God, the best human would still be a mere fallible, mortal, limited, human who exists only within relative space and time.
No omni abilities whatsoever.

Well there you go. Had you spelled it right, I would have accepted his reported assertions. — noAxioms

Yeah! this is not the best way to instal confidence in why you might accept the scientific assertions of the very learned and well established, Leonard. :scream:

OK, that’s the part I balk at. Got a time stamp where he goes into that? Sorry, but an hour is a lot to me right now. — noAxioms

Not really, as he builds on an Alice, Bob and Tom scenario. The small amount of maths he included was over my head, but the reason I kept musing towards superluminal communication, was his continued reference to the concept of 'transportation through a wormhole' with entangled micro black holes at either end and his statement that he thinks wormholes may well be physical realities.

So suppose we get to the alien world and find the equivalent of killer whales. We have our intelligent ET, but what would we do about it? Hard to talk. They’re not building space ships anytime soon. Are they to be afforded the same moral code as any intelligent species encountered? — noAxioms

I think that we would be ecstatic initially, but eventually, we would probably be somewhat disappointed that we came so far to find only the equivalent of killer whales. Yes, I hope we fully respect the alien killer whales and we leave their habitat and environment alone. Perhaps however, we may still be able to start a colony there. :cool:

The odds being 1, what role should humanity play that we can’t just leave to all those other guys on similar paths? Why does it have to be us? You’re the one positing the big purpose the universe has for us. — noAxioms

Maybe the answer to your question is expressed somewhere like:

Every supposedly legitimate domestic news source seems to attempt to spin each story one way or the other. — noAxioms

Sadly true but it has been ever thus, that the reports are written by the victors not the vanquished.
We probably currently live in 'the best of times,' at least so far, when it comes to being able to combat fake news.

I don’t yet have a mobile phone. It’s coming, but dang, the things are pure evil. — noAxioms

:lol: That's almost technophobic sir!

Didn’t you posit that all people are striving for this known unreachable goal? I didn’t agree with that. — noAxioms

I suggested such as a 'collectivised' or 'totality' of intent and purpose of the human race. At an individual level, folks like me demonstrate such purpose more than others and there are also individuals that demonstrate such purpose much more than I do and perhaps some who also do so but don't cognise their participation.

A flippant steelmanning if you like.
Had to look that one up. First I’ve heard it. — noAxioms

Just some terminology that's recently became more and more popular. I have even heard many UK politicians employ the terms strawmanning and steelmanning, recently, during TV interviews or panel debates.

Don’t understand. Why have a measuring device if the measurement is known before the measuring is done? — noAxioms

An omniscient already knows EVERYTHING by definition. Which for me and I think you to, is enough to be sure that no omniscient exists or ever could.

It evolved the sort of omni-thing you speak of. It knows everything, and thus also nothing since it doesn’t need to actually know anything. It doesn’t need eyes to find food because food is always right where it reaches every time. Eyes provide information, and this thing already has it all, so it doesn’t need more. I see similarities with that and what I’m describing based on your descriptions (if that makes any sense). — noAxioms

Interesting, but how did this, I assume, 'electronic manifestation' demonstrate it's omniscience?
Could you ask it questions?

The current system all but destroys any long-term efforts concerning ‘our future’. — noAxioms

We can only keep trying to tweak 'the system,' constantly, until it becomes as benevolent as the most humane of us, want it to become.

Studying doesn’t increase intelligence. But agree with the rest. — noAxioms

I am not suggesting we are more intelligent than the ancients or that we will be 'more intelligent' in the future, in that sense. I am saying that we have a legacy, knowledge base to work from that the ancients did not have and that knowledge base increases at an increasing pace for each new generation. So, our knowledge increases as a collective. This is another example of what is emergent in humans.

. As for the rapture, I think most of its adherents would suggests a figure like 1-2% disappearing, not 94% — noAxioms

Yeah but it's an 'end times' curio. Those who are not 'raptured,' perish! so only the 1-2% have some kind of existence. Earthly humans are made extinct and the evanhellicals, don't posit trans or post humans other than the raptured ones.

Not while the pope lives... — noAxioms

We don't need to kill popes. We just need to continue to try to prevent the label 'catholic' and dispel all myths of popery and reveal a pope, as what it truly is, 'A residual, who inherits what's left of the Roman Emperors', who held the same title (since Augustus), as all previous and the current pope, 'Pontif (pontifex) Maximus.'

I know, you label me a doomster, but you seem to have no answer to this simple thing except hope that the magic will continue and fuel from the ground never ends. — noAxioms

I more agreed with your own labelling of yourself as a doomster.
How about genetically modified foods?
How about vertical farming?
I do not advocate magic solutions, but I do hope for scientific/technological and social/economic/political solutions to the problem of human over-population.
It not like no-one is talking about it. For example,
https://www.bbc.com/future/bespoke/follow-the-food/five-ways-we-can-feed-the-world-in-2050.html

How to do an interstellar colony: — noAxioms

Yep, many ways to start a process. We have the already demonstrated human pioneer imperative to work with. I am not too fussed about which methodology proves to be the most practicable. Trial and error is a legitimate scientific approach.

Theism doesn’t waste resources that others will have to pay for with their lives. — noAxioms

Not sure what you mean by this? Example?

Preserving people seconds from death doesn’t seem to play a significant role in that. — noAxioms

Based on a BBC article:
Several hundred people have already paid to have their bodies cryogenically preserved in three existing facilities in the US and Russia, and there are as many as 1,250 on waiting lists.
A very small number of takers then and I agree they are unlikely to have a significant impact on 'what humans might become.'

I say, 'YES WE CAN and YES WE WILL!!!'
I say that too, but I also say it’s a lot easier to fit the creature to the environment than the other way around. Be its friend instead of making yourself its enemy. — noAxioms

I have already stated that I think that 'all of the above will be attempted.' I am hardly therefore 'an enemy' of any idea for how best to develop and explore space.

But not out-of-control reproduction. When I moved to this new place, there was a frog plague going on. Frogs everywhere. What good did it do them? Some months later they were all gone, populations back to (or even somewhat beneath) normal levels and it was easier to stop at the intersections again. — noAxioms

It's a lot easier to control frogs that to control human population, especially when there is still so much poverty. The temptation to have a lot of children, as they can look after you when you can no longer look after yourself, is very strong, in a global society that is still mostly under the control of a nefarious elite.
We can just dispose of a currently existing excess human population. So, we can only continue to combat the consequences of the current power and status of the nefarious elite. Whilst we also try to educate people into understanding their current local circumstances and the folly of having children they and the government they live under are unable to, or are too corrupt to, or are to much under the influence of international interference to, support.

Ah, so it’s humanity’s survival that’s the goal, not the taking-over of the galaxy. — noAxioms

Both goals handshake imo, and I don't approve of the aggressive sounding, 'taking over of the galaxy' imagery you invoke.

Imagine a world with people but almost no metal. — noAxioms

No metal? Please explain!

Got suggestions? I’m actually quite interested in ideas for a stable government system that doesn’t depend on the whole system of the poor being slaves to the rich. I don’t much know what I’m talking about here, so my views might be quite naive. — noAxioms

I am a socialist and secular humanist who no longer sees value in party politics. I would remove money as the means of exchange and I currently support notions of global unity, world governance and a resource based economy such as that envisioned here in the Venus project:

my Saturday night beer and single malt whisky
— universeness
:yum: Cheers. — 180 Proof

Cheers! Twas a nice evening. Only me and my auld ma in the hoose, but It was still a good wee night.
I had two generous measures of a 16 year old Lagavulin, along with some beers.

Your proposed "fundamental" particles may be appropriate for a scientist in a lab to use as a guide. But I'm not a scientist, and my lab is my mind — Gnomon

Ok, that's fine, but you must expect, and accept, a higher level of critique than might be fired at the work and results of scientists working in labs. At the risk of offending any philosophy fundamentalists on TPF, I would suggest that scientific rigor will always be the final arbiter of philosophical musings.

A. Physical Science has no need for metaphysical gods & spirits. But, scientists use different names for similar concepts. Instead of divine Creation, they may call it "instant Inflation". In place of animated Spirits, they call it Energy. Same thing, different terminology. — Gnomon

I think the 'but' above is nonsense. Theists love to conflate scientific terminology with concepts of the divine but most attempts are almost comedic. Inflation is not comparable with notions of a divine creation as no aspect of inflation requires a divine creator. Energy allows work to be done and I am fine if some folks wish to refer to 'movement' or 'work being done,' as animation or spiritual. In the Demon Haunted World, Carl Sagan wrote:
“Spirit” comes from the Latin word “to breathe.” What we breathe is air, which is certainly matter, however thin. Despite usage to the contrary, there is no necessary implication in the word “spiritual”
Breathing uses energy and animates your chest up and down. I am ok if you use the word spirit or spiritual, as Carl suggests you can.

B. Since the Big Bang beginning of physical reality sounds like a creation event, some scientists get around that meta-physical implication by noting that the "bang" is not a part of our inflating universe. — Gnomon

Does something like Roger Penrose's CCC allay such need for a 'creation event,' or first cause or prime mover?

In either case, that outside Cause is Meta-Physical, and only knowable by inference from physical events — Gnomon

It's not metaphysical, as it's not beyond or after that which is physics. The big bang singularity maybe currently, a loosely defined object, but it is physical. Roger's singularity does not inflate, as it does not 'demonstrate' any aspect of 'size' or 'dimensionality.' It occurs after the process of heat death has occurred and the universe has no 'matter' left and all remaining black holes have radiated away, but it does have very large 'extent' but such 'extent' has no meaning at that point and can be called a singularity and time=0 and a new aeon begins.

Unfortunately, some readers will still tend to read-into those novel terms, their own Spiritualism or Materialism prejudices. "vive la difference!" — Gnomon

Yes, they will! It will ever be your burden to deal with that then until you can provide convincing empirical evidence to support your hypothesis.

Why is intelligence the yardstick for emergence? — Agent Smith

I would not suggest that increases in individual intelligence or in the collective/totality of human intelligence, is THE 'yardstick' or the only important variable, when considering what is emergent in the human race, both as individuals and as a collective. Legacy may be as important and perhaps could be considered as having 'stand alone' properties. Our accumulating external knowledge base and our technological breakthroughs may also have stand alone aspects which are separate from human intellect, even though they are outputs of human intellectual efforts. I have witnessed some animals employ human tech for example. Increasing intellectual ability certainly is however, a very significant emergent, in humans. I think most neuroscientists would suggest that the ancients were intellectually, as capable as we are, but they could not unlock the potential of the application of human intellect, coupled with the increasing pace of learning, which is emerging from human scientific effort, demonstrated today.

For example, Emergentism is a feature of Holistic worldviews, which to detractors indicates an Anti-reductionism (hence anti-science) Oriental religious belief. But it is also held by several prominent Quantum scientists. Also, Reductionism is an appropriate method for dissecting physical objects, but not very effective for parsing philosophical concepts.
Emergentism :
In philosophy, emergentism is the belief in emergence, particularly as it involves consciousness and the philosophy of mind. A property of a system is said to be emergent if it is a new outcome of some other properties of the system and their interaction, while it is itself different from them.
Emergence :
Cognitive historian Y.N. Harari, in Homo Deus, foresees the emergence of a “cosmic data processing system . . . like God”, yet entirely natural and matter-based. On the other hand, I have deduced, from the same database, that the materialist's arbitrary “laws” of physical evolution are more like purposeful metaphysical codes. — Gnomon

There is plenty of space for notions of reductionism and Emergentism to find common ground.
I think it's basic, that complexity emerges from fundamentals, no god required.
From Wiki:
Emergentism can be compatible with physicalism, the theory that the universe is composed exclusively of physical entities, and in particular with the evidence relating changes in the brain with changes in mental functioning.

I use the term "Spiritualism" in a provocative manner, to provide a strong contrast with "Materialism". Both are belief systems & worldviews that hark back to ancient Atomism and Animism.
Today, Quantum theory has pulled the materialistic rug out from under Atomism. And Einstein's equation of intangible Energy with measurable Mass/Matter, has given us a modern way to interpret the invisible causes of Nature. :cool: — Gnomon

You maybe guilty of over-dramatising any current gaps between the physics of the macro and the physics of the subatomic or gaps between classical physics and quantum physics. I don't relate to your 'rug pulling' imagery at all. There simply seems to be laws that only hold firm under macro conditions and others that only hold under quantum conditions. As a macro object, I certainly cant seem to pass through a wall like one of my quantum excitations (like a proton) seems to be able to do, via quantum tunneling.
No doubt, in time, we will discover the 'bridges' between classical and quantum physics which are rigorously scientific and in doing so, expunge any, let's say, fringe philosophical or 'silly' theological musings, on the subject.

FWIW, I assure you that my BothAnd philosophy is not anti-science or pro-religion. However, it's also not pro-classical-science or anti-religious-philosophy. Instead, it views those contentious belief systems from a novel perspective, that may seem wrong-headed to those on one side or the other of the credence abyss. — Gnomon

This just leaves folks to assume neutral or anti, when you type not pro and pro when you suggest not anti. In science, the term 'novel,' just means 'new.' All together, I think the quote above is far too broad to be of much use to our discussion.

Since Enformationism does make philosophical inferences that go beyond the knowable origins of Nature though, you could be forgiven for categorizing those conjectures as "super-natural". Yet quite a few professional scientists have put-on their philosophical hats, and conjectured non-empirical notions (e.g. Multiverse ; Cosmic Inflation) about the time-before-Time, and the pre-Big-Bang nature of Nature. — Gnomon

I would not say that a multiverse theory is completely based on no empirical evidence and is a 'philosophical' viewpoint. Most modern multiverse theories have a empirical basis of 'superposition' and reference such as:
"Larger objects have been observed to have such inherently quantum properties, but the observation of Robens et al. is based on a stringent test, considered to be the gold standard for confirming that a superposition exists."
You would have to explain further what you mean by 'time before time.' If you are typing about the idea that inflation of the singularity happened before the start of the expansion, badly named, as the big bang then the inflation occurred after t=0 and did not happen in a time before time. Roger Penrose's CCC does suggest a cyclical universe based on time aeons but he also employs the empirical evidence of the existence of 'hawking points,' which are supported by both the data from the Wmap project, and the Planck project. Again, CCC, is not a purely philosophical hypothesis. Dark matter and dark energy are further examples of concepts that some may choose to label 'philosophical' or currently 'beyond the knowable origins of nature.' This just reinforces the point that we must be ever vigilant to make sure that gaps in scientific knowledge, does not allow any woo woo of the gaps, to be passed off, as valid contributions to possible scientific truth.

Remember, some of Einstein's colleagues cringed at his poetic references to God, but didn't attack him openly — Gnomon

Einstein had to work within an environment which had to contend with a much stronger theistic power and influence base, than scientists have to tolerate today. Any theistic dalliances Einstein felt compelled to employ in the public domain that existed then, was much less, than those that had to be employed by Copernicus or Galileo or the murdered Giordano Bruno. The influence of theism remains very pernicious but things are a little better now, than they were then.

Well, the exchange between us here seems to consolidate around what credence level either of us assigns to the existence of and value of any references to the supernatural.
— universeness
I appreciate your willingness to engage in philosophical dialog, even though my posts may express a worldview that at first glance appears to violate your personal belief system. — Gnomon

I will respond to this post tomorrow Gnomon as I don't have enough time to respond to it as I would want to, as It's now 4:20pm here and I am only 10 mins away from hearing the command of my Saturday night beer and single malt whisky experience. Have a good night!

That’s like you and me picking a random number from one to 10 million, and both of us guessing the same one. Odds are they’re either as developed as lichen, or we are the lichen in comparison to them. Neither might recognize the other as life, or at least not as something one might attempt to communicate with. Do we share our technology with the squirrels? The squirrels have picked a number insanely close to ours, but not the same number. — noAxioms

Spacefarers could meet, who have similar tech levels. I agree that if they can visit us and we cant visit them, then the tech comparison, probably will be like comparing lichen to us. Carl Sagan stated often that in that case, there would be no Star Wars, as there would be no competition.
So, two planets, far from each other, that developed life/intelligent life/technology at a similar pace, who meet somewhere out there!
What are the chances? Probably something similar to the chances of any sentient life forming anywhere in the universe. But we know that has happened at least once on this planet, so who knows for sure?

See? Time to first change who we are before we spread out and just make enemies of our colonies. Most every attack is justified as defense to its own people. Ever read up on what the Russians are telling its citizens about the Ukraine thing? Remember Bush and Iraq’s WMDs? “We’re doing this for defense”, not just to get back at somebody who insulted his daddy. — noAxioms

But we know not to accept such justifications, just like you refuse to accept the attempted justifications made by Putin or Bush. Just like I didn't accept the justifications of Blair in the UK for the WMD BS, regarding Iraq. Hopefully more and more of we will get better and better at not accepting fake news in the future. A good goal for all of us, agree?

If physics is perfectly deterministic and unitary, then yes, the omnipotent entity would know exactly that. But physics might not be all those things, in which case there’s no right answer to know. — noAxioms

No right answer to know, surely suggests an invalid or currently unanswerable question or a question that can only be answered via unscientific conjecture, but so what? That's been true from the beginning, and is the basis of all theism and theosophism. It's also why, I type that there is no omniscient existent and there never has been or will be. I don't mind the 'fantasist,' I can wear that hat comfortably for fun, just like anyone else, but unlike the theist. I will try my best to make clear the evidence available (or lack of) for any posit I make.
If it's just my opinion, then I will say so. You do the same, yes?

You are trying to contemplate an omniscient god with your feeble human intellect.
How so? A thing that knows all answers vs a question that literally has no right answer. Even a feeble intellect can detect something wrong with that. — noAxioms

I am merely echoing the claims of theism. My conclusion is the same as yours, that no omniscient exists. I have merely further stated that if such terms have any use at all, it is a use of no more value than me being determined to win the 100 meters at the Olympics. I can at best asymptotically aspire to such and by doing so I might improve my fitness level but I will never reach that goal.
For me, that's a reality of a 'closed system.' If I was given secret tech help then maybe I could run faster than Usain Bolt over 100 meters. But I agree that no matter what tech humans develop in the future, they will never become omniscient. They can still aspire to it!

An omniscient has all possible tech or else it is not omniscient.
Omnigod does not need a barometer, as it already owns all data/information in the universe, past, present and future.
The two above statements seem to contradict each other. You apparently suggest that a god has a closet full of completely unneeded stuff. He’s a hoarder, unable to keep the place neat.
All possible tech already exists as part of omnigod
So it doesn’t have a useless barometer in it’s closet, but rather has a useless barometer as part of itself, sort of like having eyes despite never using them. A human apparently strives to achieve a state where eyes and other senses are useless. — noAxioms

No, I am simply trying to 'qualify' and 'quantify' the omniscient god hypothesis. A flippant steelmanning if you like. The tech that the posited omnigod has, is manifest as god functionality, yes. Many theists anthropomorphise god imagery, many don't. Most pantheists don't and even many panentheists don't, and then we have the panpsychists and cosmopsychists etc. I don't really care how a person personifies an omnigod and whether or not they posit such as an eternal, or as an emergent, but I think we should completely reject all of them for now, and focus on who we are as a species and what we want for our future, if we assume, or we are convinced, we have one. I do give credence to the idea of an emerging collective 'knowledge base' that humans have been building on, since we came out of the wilds and I notice that it is growing in very tangible and demonstrable ways and I muse on running that forward, for a few million or billion years, to 'philosophically' (with perhaps a little science projection thrown in,) consider the 'ultimate' consequence of such a growing knowledge base.

Either you’re misreading his words, or he’s a quack. If his assertions actually said that and had merit, it would be huge news in the physics world. All of Einstein’s theories would get falsified and we’d have to reinvent a new theory to replace it. Time travel would become possible since I could observe something that hasn’t yet happened.
Sorry for all that, but perhaps a quote that leads you to this conclusion would help. It was a long vid to attempt to hunt down something I don’t think he said. If I had a quote, I could help interpret it since I’m not a total noob at this. I spend more time on the physics forums, and am a moderator at one of them. — noAxioms

Firstly, it seems I have the spelling of his first name wrong and its Leonard Susskind. He is certainly no quack and is held in very high regard indeed, within the Physics community.
I have now watched the video I posted twice and probably will many times more. Under an hour is a very small price to pay and is worth every second. Here are some quotes from it that might wet your appetite towards watching it:

1. Ads/cft (anti-de sitter / conformal field theory)
Gravity is the hydrodynamics of entanglement.
2. As soon as reliable quantum computers become available, entanglement can be studied much more successfully in low energy lab environments.
3. Quantum mechanically, an Einstein-Rosen bridge can be explored, it's properties studied and reported on.
4. Messages can be securely transmitted from the vicinity of one object to the vicinity of the other, without leaving any trace in the laboratory space between. Teleportation through the wormhole, 'so to speak.' This is not possible classically.

He then goes on to exemplify 4, in a 'simple quantum teleportability' thought experiment, using an Alice and Bob type scenario involving qbits. As this developed, and due to stuff he states later on in the lecture, I began to think that, he was suggesting that superluminal communication, may not be impossible. But perhaps I misunderstood some of what he was saying, and you could perhaps identify my misinterpretations, if you listened to the lecture. I am willing to do this via PM's or via a new thread titled 'Leonard Susskind's lecture on debunking quantum gravity.' If you like, and even if the mods decide to chuck such a thread into the lounge or somewhere else.

then we can afford a population much bigger than the current 8 billion on Earth.
You say that like it’s some kind of benefit that a bigger number is better. — noAxioms

I say so, in the same way natural selection evidence suggests that reproduction, is a survival of species imperative. If there are more of us existing in many extraterrestial places, then we are less dependent on the Earths continued existence for survival. Seems like common sense to me.
Annihilating 8 billion of us, might be survivable in the future, if there are 50 billion of us all over the solar system. I do agree that a large global population is an issue when we have such vile economic systems as capitalism and vile political systems such as autocracy or plutocracy as our mainstream operating systems, for 'how humans are allowed to live.' But many are ever trying to change that and I believe they will NEVER desist until they succeed.

Longer life doesn’t make one smarter. A little more wise maybe, but not more intelligent. You can breed for intelligence if you like (something that is currently being naturally de-selected), but again, by your analogy of re-inventing the wheel, why do we need more intelligence when the tool already exists? — noAxioms

Not more intelligent but more knowledgeable and if this is accompanied with what you yourself suggest is true, 'a little more wise maybe,' or perhaps for many, 'a lot more wise,' then I think we will progress faster and in more benevolent directions. A higher level of general intellect is not a reinvention as it would be an advance. It's not 'more intelligence' as you are employing the term, it's either folks who don't demonstrate much intelligence, learning how to demonstrate 'more intelligence' or it's intelligent people gaining a higher level of intelligence via more knowledge via having more time to study! Nothing is being 'reinvented,' in either situation.

If there is some kind of purpose served by maxing out the number of humans that exist, trimming the population permanently down to around 6% of what is is today would be a great start. Less existing at once, but far more in the longer run. — noAxioms

:lol: Yeah, there are many autocrats/plutocrats/totalitarians or even theists, who believe in BS like the rapture, etc, etc who would support your trimming of the population down to 6%. All hail Ebenezer!


I think it's more important to create equitable social/economic/political ways to live,
This planet COULD sustain 8 billion of us, if we adequately redistributed wealth and employed control over the means of production, distribution and exchange which benefitted all, instead of a mostly nefarious, few, and we could achieve this, without destroying the planet but I fully admit, that we can't sustain an ever increasing population, without developing extraterrestial resources and living space.

Or better, to help the tech become that interstellar species. If you want humanity to make its mark on the universe, that is how to go about it. — noAxioms

I think it's likely that 'all of the above' style attempts will be made before we find out which methods of space exploration and development are the most successful based on whatever tech levels we have achieved at the time.

Yea, what are humans good for if we can’t change the laws of physics? So put that on your list and jettison the VR thing which is just a fancy telephone. — noAxioms

We can't change the laws of physics but we can learn more physics and start to know, as you do, that there are different laws of physics for the macro and the sub atomic. Classical physics laws and quantum physics laws, and the search for the physics that encompassed them both, is still for the seekers. I certainly would not be so short sighted as to jettison, in anyway, shape of form, the very exciting and wonderful areas of VR, AR and holotech. A current mobile smartphone would not even deserve the dismissive term 'fancy telephone,' as it is obviously a palmtop/handheld computer and the connection to the technology called 'phone,' should have been dropped years ago.
You can hardly buy any device nowadays, that can be accurately labelled mobile phone (as that function is only one of it's many functions.) They have been palmtop computers for quite a while.

The context of the ‘granting wishes’ phrase is the Cryonic one, not extending a normal life for a human. And in either case, one will be forced to come to terms with one’s own death. — noAxioms

You seem reluctant to find empathy for desperate people who do desperate things and understand why cryonics has it's adherents. I think it probably is a forlorn hope, just like theism, but I don't utterly condemn desperate people hoping against hope. Like the ancient Egyptians, bothering to embalm dead people.

Well I see plenty for the individual of course, but I thought the subject of this topic wasn’t the individual. We’d have to eliminate aging, meaning that we’d stay young and fit for a long time. Last thing we need is 80% of the population in some kind of retired state. If we do that, we have to do it to everybody, and that’s kind of a problem with a large population. This would be a disadvantage for the species. There’s a reason evolution invented aging. — noAxioms

The global population is made up of individuals! Anything that happens to an individual has the potential to affect everyone. The subject of this topic is what is 'emergent' in humans. I am interested in what is ultimately emergent in all humans, yes, or future humanity, as it might manifest collectively, or as a totality, but that must be a collective/totality which begins by consideration of what is emergent is each person, individually, to consider if such are just variations on themes with underlying commonalities.
The aging process is very much under current scrutiny. There are many studies on such as telomeres etc.

The extraterrestrial habitats are jails at best. If you want to put people in a box, it’s easier to do it here. If you want people to actually live on another world, they need to be evolved for that world. They cannot be human. There’s no planet B. — noAxioms

I was able to link to the article on first click. It seemed quite desperate to repeat the 'there is no planet B' mantra, but I did not find it's offerings of why 'it's too hard or impossible,' for any future human attempts to become extraterrestial to succeed, off putting. All human pioneers live rough for a while. Perhaps in space exploration and development, it will be a long, long while before we are able to create the kind of lovely habitats we have on Earth, in space habitats, or on habitats on other planets, moons etc. BUT WE WILL, despite your big fearty, doomster type, exemplars, of what we cant do and why we cant do it.
I say, 'YES WE CAN and YES WE WILL!!!'

So, I hope you will forgive me for doing what feckless philosophers do to while-away their spare time : studying not material objects & "how" questions, but mental beliefs & "why" questions. — Gnomon

Forgiveness is not divine but it is humanist, so as a humanist, its part of my remit. :grin:
I am not a philosopher but I am interested in the views of philosophers, both the academic and non-academic variety. Science is our best tool for discovering new information but science does not cover everything that is part of being human. Philosophy has an important role to play.
I have no intention to push TPF towards becoming The Science Forum either, but I think TPF would be much less than it is now, if everything scientific was disallowed.

If the traditional philosophical term "Teleology" sets your teeth on edge, how about "Teleonomy"? Enformationism is compatible with both understandings of natural progression. — Gnomon

I assign more credence to teleonomy than teleology, yes, but also yes, more as perceived philosophical consequentials, than any notion of deliberate design, inherent in evolution via natural selection.

PS__For the record, Enformationism does not deny the validity of Materialism, as a guide for empirical research. And it does not advocate Spiritualism, as a guide to heaven. It does however assume that philosophical reasoning is a valid approach to evaluating immaterial ideas & beliefs. Yet it does deny the bolded words in the definition below. — Gnomon

Sounds good to me. I think you should be crystal clear in all your descriptions of enformationism, that your enformationism, has no association with god posits. You will always be challenged on that issue if you don't, unless you want to deal with such challenges, as enformationism IS some dressed up theistic proposal, that is trying to counter such atheistic philosophical evidence, such as Schellenberg’s hiddenness of god, as described in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.

Materialism, also called physicalism, in philosophy, the view that all facts (including facts about the human mind and will and the course of human history) are causally dependent upon physical processes, or even reducible to them. — Gnomon

Is your enformationism not more related to some sort of panpsychist view of the universe?

If you believe that there are things that can be known then we diverge there.
Cannot be known, and I gave examples. The weather 6 months hence was one. — noAxioms

Yeah, I meant to type 'cannot' be known, sorry, but I don't value your example, as we can predict the weather in 6 months based on such as, last years data, combined with projecting any current weather patterns and climate change projections. I agree that it would not be a 'completely reliable' prediction but perhaps future 'weather based' tech will allow significant improvement in the predictive reliability of a '6 month from now forecast for a particular area.' I think you underestimate us and our future tech.

Well, the Korean thing has to end eventually. The death of somebody with absolute power instigates a struggle to replace him, and one of them eventually won’t know how to hang on to the power. — noAxioms

Exactly!

So if the definition of omniscience is that the entity must know this unknowable thing, then the only logical inconsistency is the positing of such an entitiy. — noAxioms

But that's a foundational claim of theism! You are trying to contemplate an omniscient god with your feeble human intellect. There is no unknowable thing for an omnigod, the fact that you cant perceive that is because you cannot know god and must simply accept its power ...... or else. We both know that's total BS. So omniscience, is only useful, as a concept to asymptotically strive for.

An omniscient has all possible tech or else it is not omniscient.
Really? God needs a barometer to measure the pressure? Tech is only to tell you something you don’t know, or do something you can’t do yourself, and the omniscient omnipotent entity doesn’t need any of it. — noAxioms

Omnigod does not need a barometer, as it already owns all data/information in the universe, past, present and future. Omnigod would not measure that which it already knows. All possible tech already exists as part of omnigod, as you suggest in your last sentence above, so we seem to be typing past each other here. We both understand the theistic definition of the properties of the omnigod posit.

The wish to die only when YOU want to, is very strong in most humans, including myself.
— universeness
Agree, but granting wishes to individuals has little to do with benefit to humanity except perhaps in a negative way. People living for 500 years isn’t going to prevent environmental catastrophe or get any kind of expansion into the galaxy happening. — noAxioms

I think the phrase 'granting wishes' in the context you use it, is poorly chosen mockery of the (perhaps forlorn) hopes of currently live people, who face and have to come to terms with, their own death.
I see many many advantages to vastly increased lifespan and robustness for living humans.
I agree that there would be various affects on human population, but if we can create valid extraterrestial habitats, and find and develop extraterrestrial resources, then we can afford a population much bigger than the current 8 billion on Earth.
People living for 500 years may offer a level of accumulated knowledge within some individuals that surpasses all past levels of 'genius.' I think that such would indeed help prevent environmental catastrophe and provide advanced tech to help us become an extraterrestial/interstellar species.

We have that now. It’s called a TV and phone. Neither works faster than light, so no VR is going to let you walk around and control some avatar light-years away. Still, the military does that with drones and such because the distances are not so far. Even doing at the moon would be awkward, as are communications with those long pauses. — noAxioms

Yeah, you are assuming that the 'classical laws of physics,' will dictate what can and cannot be achieved in any future timescale. What's going in quantum physics suggests to me, that that's not necessarily true.
The lecture I posted from Lennard Susskind earlier, has a section where he proposes that manipulation of quantum entanglement may indeed mean we can observe and measure what going on at large distances without any 'signal travelling,' involved. That, was only my interpretation of the complex ideas he was putting across. I am always very reluctant indeed, to claim that I have the physics needed to interpret such a lecture correctly. In fact, I just don't, so I am completely reliant on the interpretative skills that I do have, in relation to such a lecture.

You said humanity, in context of something to which a thing has a purpose. The less specific thing would be a collection of agents, humanity being only part of the larger collection, to which the thing has collective purpose. — noAxioms

If we meet alien lifeforms in the future that have the same or more or even a little less ability than we do, and we don't try to annihilate each other, and we share our science and become allies, then I would assume that our concerted (asymptotic) effort toward omniscience will be more successful that our individual efforts, so, all good ..... I hope!

One race would be likely far advanced compared to the other and would have little to learn from the lesser, at least as far as technology is concerned. The lesser race would likely not be ready for ‘all the answers’ at once, and so if it is deemed reasonable/safe to bring this lesser race up to speed, it would probably have to be done quite slowly. Remember the main reason for advanced technological development. It isn’t for exploration or for fantasies about omniscience. It’s about military advantage. You don’t give super-advanced toys to a race like that. That’s part of the transhuman effort: To collectively change who we are so we can survive our own advancement. — noAxioms

Your notes of caution here are well founded, given the bloody history of humans so far.
I remain hopeful that the 'military advantage,' you highlight may well still be sought but will only ever be used in defence and NOT EVER to attack.

No. That is a mis-interpretation of my intent. "Im-material" simply means not-made-of-matter. It does not mean super-natural. — Gnomon

Ok, so you are just referring to what quarks and electrons might do as fundamental combinatorials, yes?
You are using 'immaterial' as a reference to 'massless energy forms,' such as photons.
You are also positing that information is a fundamental but what is the fundamental involved, the bit(BInary Digit)? I have already stated that DATA is 'at some level,' a universal fundamental but I think the data fundamental is probably a quark, a photon, a planck length, a vibrating one dimensional string, what is your enformation fundamental?

Are the ideas & ideals in your mind super-natural, if we can't see them under a microscope? — Gnomon

No, they are 'fundamentals' that are just currently undetectable, just like the fundamentals of dark matter or dark energy. Do you give credence to Sir Roger Penrose's erebon particle of dark matter?

Are Virtual Particles super-natural simply because they have "no demonstrable existent"? VPs are simply mathematical metaphors for sub-atomic physics that must be inferred instead of empirically demonstrated. — Gnomon

No, they are not supernatural, they may simply be mathematical conveniences that help towards understanding a natural process that science currently does not fully understand. So, we agree here, that there is nothing supernatural going on with virtual particles. Do you consider virtual particles, a candidate for 'the fundamental of data/information or even your enformation?

Mathematics consists of inferred (mental) immaterial inter-relationships, not on observed (objective) physical connections between values. — Gnomon

@jgill is the member I turn to for conformation of valid definitions of 'what mathematics is and does.'
I think maths can perform both of the functions you suggest above but I think your use of the word 'immaterial' above is again poorly chosen, as it is such a 'loaded' word.

Enformationism can't overcome the prejudice of Materialism/Physicalism as a belief system. — Gnomon

But these are very provocative words that any atheist would associate with theosophism.
Naturalism or materialism/physicalism is not prejudicial and it can only be a 'belief' system if you are comparing it with some alternate belief system. What would that alternative belief system be, if not a theological belief? I fully understand @180 Proof''s point of view.

A new candidate is "information," which some scientists claim is the foundation of reality. The late distinguished physicist John Archibald Wheeler characterized the idea as "It from bit" — "it" referring to all the stuff of the universe and "bit" meaning information. . . . — Gnomon

But bit means binary digit! My candidates for any data fundamental would be the ones I already offered in my previous post. Please state your candidate(s). Binary is a 'two state' system such as on/off.
Is your candidate for the fundamental of information/data, two state?

I started as a skeptic. Information as reality seems so outlandish, so trendy — a metaphor on steroids. ___Robert Kuhn — Gnomon

Yeah, I have watched many episodes of 'closer to truth,' and I like Robert Kuhn, but even he or anyone he has interviewed, has NOT suggested a fundamental for information/data. So, the suggestion of a fundamental of information/data, that combines, to create the universe, is at best, as speculative as 'strings' and at worse not even as plausible as strings. Data as a universal fundamental is interesting, but you would need to identify it's fundamental 'states' and how many of them exists. Can you (or anyone else) currently do that?

Virtual particles are only used to satisfy mathematical requirements and are not real in any sense of the word. They have not been proven in any way to really exist, except mathematically, — Gnomon

I agree, but so what? In what way is that significant? other than to confirm that humans invent labels for concepts such as 'infinite,' 'perfect,' 'supernatural,' 'esoteric,' 'virtual particle,' 'dark energy' 'big bang,' etc, which have a range of validity ranging from 'inaccurate to mostly useless (like god).'

The Jewish people have been persecuted for nearly a thousand years now. — Agent Smith

So have women, black people, gender variant people, indigenous tribal peoples, etc, etc and for just as long as Jewish people or much longer, in the case of women. This is why I typed that you don't have to be Jewish to qualify as a person who has been severely abused, almost since birth. All humans must take full responsibility for this and imo, it is the responsibility of all humans (including you,) to do what they can to help stop such abuse.
This life is less about just me, me, me and more about us, us, us. You can only really help significantly, when you have the power to do so but small assists are also sooooooo needed.
Out of little acorns, big oak trees grow. If you are living life as a curse anyway, then dedicating what's left of it, to help others, may be the best way to go. I am not suggesting this describes you, I am merely stating that every human can make a difference, an improvement, any improvement, in the life of another or others. It does not even have to be people, it can be animals or ecology that an individual helps maintain/protect/thrive etc. Another good thing is that you can be utterly godless and still be a humanist with more empathy for the suffering of fellow humans, than the vast majority of theists demonstrate.

We are discussing a philosophically divisive topic here. — Gnomon

Well, the exchange between us here seems to consolidate around what credence level either of us assigns to the existence of and value of any references to the supernatural. The division comes in how we each interpret particular nomenclature and how we each interpret the contents of the sources we each cite. I am sure we can both keep any acrimony to an absolute minimum and respect each others viewpoints, if they are earnestly held.

Forms are mental metaphors, not material things. Do you deign to "give credence" to your own ideas, or just to other people's invisible intangible ideas. Obviously, you are misinterpreting my ideas, due to lack of understanding of its scientific & philosophical foundation. — Gnomon

Misunderstanding the position of others is always an issue. I am trying my best to understand your viewpoints and idea's in the area of what you think is 'emergent,' in human beings and based on the content of my OP. If you think I am misinterpreting your ideas then I look forward to your continued corrections, so that I can gain a better understanding of your position.

"information is, in a very real sense, alive" ; "it's an organism that has evolved right alongside us". These are not materialistic scientific statements, but philosophical interpretations of cutting-edge science (quantum, not classical). — Gnomon

This honestly seems like nonsense to me. I have not read the book you cite and I have not heard of Caleb Scharf, so I am only giving my opinion of the words you have chosen to cite.
Information is not 'alive' based on any criteria that qualifies something as being 'alive,' that I know of.
Information is not 'organic' under any definition of the term I know.
So, I am left with considering further your 'not materialistic scientific statements' and 'quantum not classical.' Which aspects of quantum physics are you citing here?
You then typed:

Likewise, my view of the role of Information in the universe is not intended to be judged by materialistic scientific criteria. Instead, it's supposed to be an update of ancient belief systems : both Material-ism and Spiritual-ism. — Gnomon

How can an idea be a update of materialism if your 'update,' "is not intended to be judged by material scientific criteria?" That seems to contradict!
In what sense are you using the term 'spiritualism,' here?

Due to the sudden explosion of incredulous responses to my posts on this Emergent thread, I may not have time to address all of your credibility concerns individually. — Gnomon

I wouldn't call the responses 'an explosion of incredulous responses,' as the number of responses are very low and hardly explosive. I do however appreciate that detailed responses can take a lot of time.
We can each only do, what we are compelled to and have the time to, do!
Probably, like yourself, I have a large outstanding list of 'need to read this literature.'

yet some have come to view Empirical Science as getting closer to Truth, because it manipulates real tangible objects and produces real world material results — Gnomon

I am much more attracted to this that anything from Plato or Aristotle. They just knew nothing in comparison with what we know now. There is always a place for historical characters, real or invented, as we don't want to repeat old mistakes, but I don't see the musings of Plato or Aristotle as being of any more value today, than the babbles in the bible.

Ironically, in a matter-based world, symbolic money buys real goods, while philosophical metaphors & analogies yield nothing tangible. So, what is the value of Wisdom (sophos), and what is its material substance? — Gnomon

Time to get rid of money then as it is just a human invention and one that has proven to be quite pernicious. The value of wisdom has not changed and continues to be almost priceless imo.
Material substance is based on quarks and electrons which may actually be quantum field excitations or even inter-dimensional vibrations of strings and imo also includes massless excitations such as photons.
There is no supernatural existent and for me, it remains important to qualify any use of term such as 'immaterial' or 'spiritual.' If they are being used as references to anything supernatural then that should be made clear.

The screenname "Universeness" seems to imply an open-ness to the intangible qualia of the world. — Gnomon

I chose the handle 'universeness,' as a reference to being OF the universe, nothing more.

also of everything, and non-thing (e.g. Virtual Particles), in the Universe. — Gnomon

To me, the term 'virtual particle,' means not a real particle. So, some physicists describe virtual particles as mathematical conveniences that help make our equations work, some others say they 'wink in and out of existence so fast that we just don't know exactly what they are but they are momentary existents.'
"A virtual particle is a theoretical transient particle that exhibits some of the characteristics of an ordinary particle, while having its existence limited by the uncertainty principle. The concept of virtual particles arises in the perturbation theory of quantum field theory where interactions between ordinary particles are described in terms of exchanges of virtual particles."

Which parts ring true?

OK, the omniscient entity can say that it will rain next July 1, and also it will be dry and sunny, and also cloudy and humid, and also reasonably cool, not none of that all at once. But I could also say that, and we’d both be right, and we’d both be entirely unhelpful. More tech isn’t going to help with the answer precisely because the answer above is already correct. — noAxioms

But why would an omniscient make such an irrational statement about the weather on July 1st 2023?
An omniscient knows what the weather will be on that day at every location and for every time reference or else they are not omniscient. An omniscient has all possible tech or else it is not omniscient.
I really don't see the point you are trying to make in the above quote.

Can such as the concept of country you are suggesting, be expanded to 'planet'? or solar system or interstellar existence, if such was the spread of humanity in the future.
I think that would be humanity that knows stuff then. Maybe something less specific if there’s more than just humanity doing the collective knowing.
he term asymptotic is important in my suggested human aspirations towards omniscience.
— universeness
There are things that cannot be known, so this asymptotic approach cannot be. — noAxioms

What do you mean by 'something less specific?'
If we met another alien race and we 'pooled' our science instead of trying to wipe each other out, would that not help all concerned answer all the tough questions we have?
If you believe that there are things that can be known then we diverge there. I have always accepted the old posit that the universe is knowable. I don't think we can know pi to an infinite number of decimal places, but I think that's a nonsense idea anyway as it suggests a 'finite' result for an 'infinite' concept.
We can use meaningless labels such as 'perfect,' 'infinite,' 'god' etc as something we can ever strive for but never reach (hence my use of asymptotic,) In what sense do you suggest this 'cannot be?'

Worked for the church for a long time, and it works indefinitely in the Korean situation as long as freedom of speech and information is kept in check. The church failed to keep it in check. — noAxioms

Such can indeed work for a long time, but remember what Gandhi said:
"There have been tyrants and murderers, and for a time, they can seem invincible, but in the end, they always fall. Think of it, ..... always!”

I see no purpose in reanimating somebody who was so bad off that he’s 10 seconds from death. With resources diminishing, why insert another body into perpetual artificial life support, especially if the body isn’t even a legal person. If they need another conscious person around, make a baby. Much more useful and way less work. — noAxioms

You are just referring to practicality here. The wish to die only when YOU want to, is very strong in most humans, including myself. The pragmatic opinion of others somewhat pale's in comparison, imo.
I just think that there is very little evidence that whatever is stored in your brain, is preserved via cryogenic freezing. But there is stuff such as:
From a BBC report, and the study it is based on.
As I suggested, desperate folks will act in desperation.

Again, what goal of humanity is served by the holo-deck? It’s just entertainment, not it being used for the sort of goals you’re describing. — noAxioms

Well , If I wonder if there will be 'points of merging,' in the distant future that augments humans into some genetic/cybernetic merge. A transhuman form that to us, would be as unfamiliar as an early homo sapien ancestor, staring at the Artemis 1 rocket. Holotech may be a great way to project yourself great distances, very quickly, for communication purposes or even as a way of investigating planets without travelling there yourself, physically. I am only basing my musings here on sci-fi I have watched but I don't think that future holotech musings, only offer/suggest advanced entertainment systems.

Pretty much by definition, when humans can no longer breed with one. What if we create a species that does not breed the ‘normal’ way? Only test-tube high-tech artificial reproduction. Much of the flower industry already works this way. — noAxioms

Yeah, I think that's a good criteria to use and it is consistent with the criteria used in biology.

As to purpose, that word seems reserved for something serving the intention of some entity, thus serving a purpose to that entity. — noAxioms

Not if that entity is US as individuals who can also act as a collective or even a totality.
I am using totality here as 'more in unison,' than a typical collective.

So say I drop a jar into the sea and some octopus (yes, them again) moves into it as a sort of home. That’s purpose even if the octopus didn’t create it. So in that light, the universe seems to serve the human purpose of providing materials and environment for our existence, but that’s our purpose being served, not that of the universe, which would be akin to the jar requiring to have an octopus live in it. — noAxioms

I agree, BUT, if the octopus you describe was able to investigate the jar, using octopus science and octopus scientists and become not only able to reproduce the jar, but improve on it and manipulate it at a subatomic level and eventually find out where it came from and why it ended up in the octopuses environment and how it was originally created, then the octopus might begin to know it's own origins much better than any previous octopus ever has!

You don't need to be Jewish to qualify.
You would have to explain yourself much more.
What caused you to choose to live life as a curse.
You can't heal until you know where all the wounds are and what caused them.
What can you not forgive yourself for?
What did you do? or was it done to you?

But he wrote a book could the Selfish Gene and in it he specifically tried to put the worst interpretation on altruism because he was determined to make altruism ultimately self serving and for the good of the Gene and found self sacrifice problematic and puzzling. — Andrew4Handel

He now regrets the title 'selfish gene,' and has stated many times that it was an unwise choice.
Altruism, as demonstrated in many species, does indeed 'handshake,' with the natural imperative that a species has for it's own survival. Humans have also used such phenomena as altruism to build moral imperatives, no god required.

He clearly has wanted people to accept his model of evolution and the negative ideas found in his books regardless of what else he has said. — Andrew4Handel

His model of evolution is correct!
Descriptions and observations such as the cruelty of animal interactions are only negative idea's if we accept them within our current or developing human society. Dawkins has NEVER recommended jungle rules for human society. He has also NEVER tried to suggest that humans who currently live as if they still lived under jungle rules (like some of the current rich or some political leaders or military groups or even some celebrities) are justified, in acting that way or even in thinking that way. We can't blame fictitious gods for our bad behaviour. We must 'sort it out,' amongst ourselves, no matter how many generations it takes.

He is like the Bible. — Andrew4Handel

No, the bible is fable based. Dawkins books are fact based.

The problem is that a theory that has a notion of survival of the fittest, selection, fitness, competition, hierarchies, selfishness etc built in to explain biological success has innate negative connotations. — Andrew4Handel

No, that's your(and others) interpretation. I see little connection between evolutionary fact and what humans decide to implement/legislate under the label of 'human morality.' The detailed workings and consequences of evolution through natural selection need not dictate any human morality AT ALL.
What source are you referring to that states human morality must follow the dictates of evolution via natural selection? Only BS such as Nazi propaganda or the divine right of Kings to rule, comes to mind.

It means they are saying that anything going against these trends is undermining biological viability or success and health which is exactly what Darwin himself said in a quote I cited. — Andrew4Handel

No it does not suggest any such thing, unless you and others decide to interpret it in such ways.
I suggest to you that humans are quite capable of, and many many millions of us have (since we came out of the wilds) very strong intent towards, creating moral systems, that are benevolent to all humans and all objects in the universe which come into contact with humans, and we don't, nor ever have, needed a god to do so. Don't allow your primal fears to cause you to think irrationally about any notion, that we are forever compelled to act like we did, when we lived as hunter gatherers in the wilds under jungle rules.
We are under no such dictates!

Some of us wish to go extinct mon ami! It comes from an understanding of reality that our parents, normal ones at least, which says a lot, shield us from (cover yer eyes, you don't wanna see this), but which we eventually have to face and succumb we will, struggling will only make it worse. It's a different shade of blue suicide - never knew that until a few days ago. — Agent Smith

You make me sad for you sometimes. I can only send you a virtual hug!
I wish I could make you see how wonderful life is, with all its shortfalls and sufferings.
Why do you think folks who experienced and survived the hell that the jews, went through in the concentration camps of WW II, wanted to continue to live.
For me, it's to defy the scum who tried to destroy them.
Don't choose to live life as a curse! Go outside, every night, and look up at the night sky.
See where your kind has yet to go and consider what it has yet to do.
Just keep trying to help in whatever way you can, including defeating your own tendency to view the human experience as a curse.

preparing ourselves for both 'whether or not to die' and 'how to die once we've had enough' is the issue — 180 Proof

Yep and having as much personal control over such choices is what I champion.

With respect to your engagement with Gnomon's notions, I must offer you this caveat, universeness:
I can't lie to you about your chances, but... you have my sympathies.
— Ash, a severed head — 180 Proof

:lol: There are many clever folks out there who have many ways to attempt to use science to defibrillate dying posits of supernatural existents. I don't think most of them are doing so for nefarious reasons. Those who earn their living from religion and owe their life status and any power they might wield to religion, will act nefariously when trying to defibrillate their dogma. But I think there are also many folks who just need the superhero who cares about them, to really exist. There are of course, many shades in-between. I really do appreciate it when you offer me a heads up based on your past experiences on TPF.
I don't want to ever ignore such advice as 'don't eat that because when I did, I was unwell.'
I don't want to be dumb enough to suggest 'hah! it might have bothered you but it won't bother me.'
I can't increase my own experience, if I don't experience some of the same stuff you have experienced.
But having you as a 'heads up,' person is most welcome, and long may you do this for me.
I appreciate and I am complimented that such matters to you.

My thesis is about the emergent teleological aspects of Evolution, not biological, mechanical, or technological. So, that may be where our opinions diverge. — Gnomon

Such teleology, only has value from the perspective of human intent and purpose, through their imposition of selective evolution via such tech as genetic engineering. No god posit, Platonic logos/form or Aristotelian first cause, has any contribution to make, imo.

Again, "intelligence" is an immaterial quality. So, why not use an "immaterial" concept to fill the gap in knowledge? Besides, the kind of Information that my thesis is concerned with is more like immaterial Energy than material Matter — Gnomon

Well, that's what we are discussing. 'Immaterial,' has no demonstrable existent, if it is being used to propose something supernatural. You are employing the term, and you are quite rigorous at justifying the nomenclature you decide to employ. I have already applauded your rigour in this area and ask you to continue to apply such rigour.
Energy is material, not immaterial imo. Energy and matter are equivalences in the famous Einstein equation using the Csquared conversion factor. If you are just using 'immaterial' as a reference to energy or 'massless' measurements/quantities/concentrations then it's important that you confirm that you are not invoking anything supernatural/transcendental/god related etc.

I suppose the author of that quote was implying that the human mind was "designed" to be a powerful Information processor. Whether by God or by Nature, the ability to understand that "information is ubiquitous" allows us to control its manifold forms via Science and Philosophy. Chemistry manipulates its material physical forms (e.g. elements) , and Physics attempts to master nature's immaterial Forces (e.g. potential & kinetic energy), while Philosophy deals with its immaterial mental forms (e.g ideas). Yes, all of those empirical & theoretical professions are trying to gain dominance over Nature, in all its forms & expressions : objects, processes, & meanings. — Gnomon

You either assign high credence to the existence of the supernatural or you don't. Which is it for you?

If you would take the time to read the Enformationism thesis, you'd discover that its "god" is more like the impersonal rational Logos of Plato, and the logically necessary First Cause of Aristotle, than the intervening deity of the Abrahamic religions. — Gnomon

These are just alternate descriptions for the same old god posits. I see little fundamental difference between them and totally reject all of them. I am an atheist!

Perhaps I should ask if "material intelligence" has any meaningful existence for you. — Gnomon

Yes, as it is constantly demonstrated by humans (as the best examples) and other Earth species to a lesser degree.

Like many forms of Information, the existence of IQ must be inferred rationally, instead of proven empirically. — Gnomon

I don't think much of IQ testing.

Was Einstein's superior "intelligence" known by means of material evidence? — Gnomon

I accept that particular humans can excel in areas that they have studied for years in, and they can become 'better than most or even all, in THAT field, at THAT time.' I was probably better than Einstein at many many things. But he remains a genius at physics. 'Superior Intelligence,' is a whole different claim.
To be a 'superior intellect,' imo, you would have to demonstrate superior ability in many more fields than physics and maths.

Anyway, as I said, Intelligence seems to be a function of material complexity. But a "function" is also not a material object. Like many forms of Information, it's a relationship between variables, such as input & output. In the case of intelligence, the function is a relationship between Brain complexity and Mental output : novelty of ideas, etc. But even "complexity" is a mental concept (evaluation), not a physical organ. — Gnomon

Anything that is 'a function of' requires the material. A function is not an 'object' at all. I walk, but walking is not an object. I can't see any value in connecting 'functionality' or the notion of the 'process' part of an IPO system with a notion such as 'immaterial,' defined as:
unimportant under the circumstances; irrelevant:
or
spiritual, rather than physical:
Your notion of 'immaterial' or a 'non-material object' has no existent which is separable from 'the functionality of the material.' For your notion of 'immaterial' to have significance, it would have to have an existent that 'stands alone,' completely separate from any consequential of the material. Something like a god notion, would qualify as such, which is why, god cannot prove it's existence. If it existed and it could prove it's existence, then it would!

my definition of "Information" goes back to Plato's notion of "Form" as the essence of all things — Gnomon

Ok, but again we diverge here, as I give no credence or value to the Platonic concept of ideal or perfect forms. I refer to Platonic forms described in wiki as:
The Forms are expounded upon in Plato's dialogues and general speech, in that every object or quality in reality—dogs, human beings, mountains, colors, courage, love, and goodness—has a form. Form answers the question, "What is that?" Plato was going a step further and asking what Form itself is. He supposed that the object was essentially or "really" the Form and that the phenomena were mere shadows mimicking the Form; that is, momentary portrayals of the Form under different circumstances.

and

For Plato, forms, such as beauty, are more real than any objects that imitate them. Though the forms are timeless and unchanging, physical things are in a constant change of existence. Where forms are unqualified perfection, physical things are qualified and conditioned.
To me, from a scientific viewpoint, Platonic forms are just romanticised notions based on labelling non-existents. Notions of 'perfection,' will imo, always be unobtainable and non-existent but can serve as harmless concepts that humans can asymptotically aspire to, just like the omni notions or god notions or believing that an ideal numerical form or perfect beauty, exists.

But modern computer terminology has popularized the notion of "Data", which is Information stripped of personal meaning — Gnomon

My background and career is Computing Science, so no doubt that strongly influenced my notions of the difference between data and information.

In computer science though, Information is treated as meaningless, which makes its mathematical value more certain. It becomes meaningful only when a sentient Self interprets it as such. — Gnomon

I really don't like this, it conflates human interpretation with what happens inside computers. Computers don't understand anything. It's not that information is meaningless to a computer. A computer has no awareness, so data is meaningless to a computer as well as information or a bit or the presence of a voltage etc. Computing Science is a human concept not a computer concept. Therefore, In Computer Science, information has meaning, data does not and nothing a computer does has any meaning AT ALL, to the computer. AI has yet to even pass the Turing test.

I really like the details offered by your typing's, labelled 1 to 6. I applaud the research rigour involved.

I don't think "megaengineering" projects (e.g. dyson spheres / swarms, orbitals (e.g. Stanford Torus, Bishop ring, "Niven's ringworld"), planetary terraforming (though building O'neill cylinders inside of asteroids seem more feasible), space elevators, mile-high arcologies, etc) will ever be needed or worthwhile. Besides, miniaturization of complexity is the inexorable direction of technological developments (e.g. solid-state electronics, nanotech, genengineering, neurotech, quantum computing, unmanned space probes, etc). — 180 Proof

Ok. I see where you are coming from now. I am not familiar with all you mentioned. I have heard of a Dyson sphere, (a structure that completely encompasses a star.) But many envisaged future tech could be listed under 'megaengineering.' A space station/habitat that is 10 miles long or in circumference, for example, or a space ship, the same size as some of those suggested in sci-fi drama's (built in a 'space shipyard'). I think we would probably have to have achieved artificial gravity first.
Do you think something like the scenes suggested below are possible?