Sure. Interesting book indeed. The Bible has many Hebrew and Aramaic words, it seems a must to get the dictionary ready all the time when reading, even at the literary level. I am not knowledgeable, but would imagine it would be immensely richer and interesting to be able to read it in Greek too.

It would be difficult to imagine that one can understand the Bible without knowing the rich meanings of the old, exotic or even plain words in it, when it even says that God has given the language, so that men could study with it their way to know him.

“But if he cannot afford two turtledoves or two pigeons, then he shall bring as his offering for the sin that he has committed a tenth of an ephah [3] of fine flour for a sin offering. He shall put no oil on it and shall put no frankincense on it, for it is a sin offering. " - Leviticus

ephah
/ˈiːfə/
noun
an ancient Hebrew dry measure equivalent to the bath (of about 40 litres or 9 gallons).

frankincense - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frankincense

https://biblehub.com/leviticus/5-11.htm

If the past history is the criteria for predicting the future, then the concrete prediction is that humanity will keep thriving and do well in the far distant future.

There have always been the doomsday sayers, and apocalyptic predictions countless times more intensely in the recent past and even at this moment, but it had never happened. It was all dreamy rumours and fancy speculations based on groundless assumptions.

Climate change can be critical, but humanity will cope with it fine by implementing a new lifestyle backed by the new science and technologies.

It is the ancient text. Not all the words would be straightforward even in the literal meanings I would imagine.

The first thing I will have beside the Bible before reading is a very good etymological dictionary.

I still believe one must understand the text in literal terms, before they can progress into the other type of understanding or interpretation. Yes, we agree to disagree.

I find that hard to make sense of. — TheMadFool

I find impossible to make sense of how it could be hard to make sense of. Perception itself is existence, then why does it need another existence to exist or perceived.

Well, in that case, we disagree. 'Literalism' - reading mythological accounts as literal re-tellings - is one of the banes of the modern world — Wayfarer

Imagine for a simple example you were reading the bible. It says in Genesis 1:1, God created earth. If you didn't know what creation meant or didn't know what earth meant, then how would you expect to understand anything further? How would you even dare to interpret it in any other ways?

Reading the Bible has never really been a question of understanding a literal account, it is embedded in a 'community of discourse, faith and practice', within which it is meaningful. — Wayfarer

I feel that, whatever text one reads, it is the literal understanding which must be achieved first. Then they can progress further to the other genre of understandings and interpretations.

Of course, ancient texts like the Bible cannot be verified or understood scientifically and archaeologically. It must be understood psychologically and allegorically. As Gadamer said the Bible interpretations can be very meaningful when carried out for one's present living being, for making it richer and deeper.

"If" statements themselves cannot motivate humans to do anything, but they will help form the basis of intentions and certain psychological states for the agents to come to conclusions and make decisions (reasoning). It is the intentions, reasoning and desire which motivate humans to act in certain ways.

Something doesn't add up! I can't quite put my finger on it though. — TheMadFool

If perception itself is existence, then it doesn't need the conditions for existing.

That would not be so bad if that god were an unknown god instead of a god-like Zeus who has human qualities. — Athena

I think everything is up to interpretation. And if we agree God is out of the boundary of human reason, then it is comforting for some people to base all the mysteries and unknowns to him.

But still, information is something that people seek, provide, supply and use. If something is information, then it cannot be unknown. If something is not unknown, then it must be able to be demonstrated and verified when required. If it cannot, then it is a myth and speculation.

The first sentence made sense to me. The second sentence makes sense to me. The third sentence makes sense to me. The first half of the fourth sentence makes sense to me. Concluding that it is a god's will that a snowflake takes the shape it takes, does not make sense to me.

Why throw in a god's will or a question of intelligent design? — Athena

Where there seem no reasonable answers to the questions, it is our tendency to rely on God for the answers. If you are a theist, you would accept it. If not, then it is unlikely you would accept it.
It is a question that has two possible answers. One is that it is unknown. The other is God wanted it to be. Saying unknown sounds there is no answer. Saying God wanted it sounds like it is at least an answer. But in essence, they are the same answer.

So, there is something about the ability of things being able to mash together that is inherently meaningful. And at the extreme other end of this, we see understanding as the ability of new DATA being able to mesh with established data. Dot forget now- DATA is a pattern of information. So, a pattern fits an already existing framework of patterning ( brain ) to cause understanding. — Pop

Yes, I would be happier in using DATA rather than information to denote the universe workings and makings. :)

Strictly, DATA is still in the system as storage. It is when you go and do "SEARCH" and hit the button for the item you are searching, the system will process your request, and present to you as "INFORMATION" that you are after.

Once the information is fed into your brain, I would see it as "knowledge" rather than information. Information comes out from hardware and software of an information system, and the individual or organisations who already own the information, not from human brain, and definitely not from the universe.

The universe may feed you with the raw signals, and symbols which could be classed as data.
With the collected or observed data from the universe, you then compile them into the information you are after.

My post was purely from guemory (guessed memory), so it had very little content. But the link content will give me multi dimensional insights. It is all about learning for me. If I were not right, then happy stand to be corrected any time. :smile:

Seems to me that these issues are treated by indexicals. — Banno

That link is really substantive material for the topic. Thanks. :up:

I would say there is a difference between a nature-made object or event and a man-made object of event. This is where I part with Plato and perfect forms. I think the universe just throws it out there and what happens to it depends on its interaction with other forces. Such as the shapes of snowflakes are influenced by the temperature and humidity of the atmosphere. A snowflake is not a perfect form created by a mind such as human objects are created by a mind. There are universal laws, but not universal pre-determination. Whereas a man creating a statue begins with a rough idea of what the finished product will be. — Athena

In that case, what follows is, nature made / caused events or entities are not meaningful in terms of human intelligence, perfect form or logic in its purpose or design.

Nature caused events or entities have been happening randomly without aim, purpose or plans. We can explain the physical cause of the snowfall using the other elements such as humidity, temperature and air pressure, but that is not snow itself.  It is the condition for snowfall, and there is no way to explain why snow flakes looks the way it is without citing God's will.

In that case, I wonder if it could be related to information which is based on predesigned and thought out plans, practical purposes, human intelligence and meanings in abstract form or linguistic content.

The Latin root “informare” meant to give recognizable (meaningful, significant) shape to something. In that sense a sculptor “in-forms” a blank slab of marble with a physical shape to represent a pre-existing image in his mind. In other words, a mental image somehow “causes” physical raw material to take on a shape that, in turn, “causes” cognition in another mind. Another way to put it is to say that “Information Creates Meaning”. Hence it is an integral component of Sentience, Consciousness, and Cognition. It is the raw material of Reason, the essence of Knowledge, and the structure of Mind. The ancient Greeks referred to the whole spectrum of information as “Logos”—often translated as “Word”, but more specifically the conscious motive behind an act of speech: Intention. — Gnomon

What would be difference between a wood carver carving away his mental image in his brain into a woodspirit carving, and something taking physical shape in the universe via / caused by "information"? Could they not be simply described as the same form of manifestations?

Are there reasons that one is a process or entity caused by information, and the others by sheer chance (heavy rainfall in Indonesia or avalanche in the Alps) or an artistic / economic labor of a guy carving the wood to produce a woodspirit that he intends to sell on eBay?

And more significantly would the information able to reveal how the earth was formed and when?

Also the truth value of linguistic statements and propositions depend on time, subjectivity and geographical location and many other conditions in the real world. For simple examples,

It is morning.
(If it was said in the morning, then it is true. But in the afternoon, it is false.)

I am Elvis Presley.
(If Elvis Presley said it, then it is true. Anyone else said it, false)

It is late summer.
(In the Northern hemisphere, it is true. In Southern hemisphere locations, it is false)

etc etc

Is it not the main reason why Logical Positivism failed? They tried to reduce the world, language and all its objects into logic, and were trying to represent and resolve all the worldly problems using Logical Analysis. But the world, its objects and language are far more rich and complicated for that to work.

This thread has been unusually calm & rational & broadminded, perhaps because Pop himself is calm & rational & broadminded. — Gnomon

Sure. I think it is the best attitude in philosophical debates. I try to educate myself to be that level all the time.

As I explore this, and as has been previously mentioned. Information seems to be a fundamental quantity. The universe needs information fundamentally. It could not exist without it. Elucidating this information precisely though is pretty tricky.

And then what you mention is also valid, but comes much later. Ideally we would be able to define a singular information that covers all instances of informational transaction.. — Pop

I did search for the origin of the world "information", and the standard dictionary definition of information.

(1) (Christianity) Divine inspiration. [from 15th c.].

(2) (IT industry jargon) Any ordered sequence of symbols (or signals) (that could contain a message). [from late 20th c.]. (computing) […]

(3) the meaning that a human assigns to data by means of the known conventions used in its representation..

(4) (legal) A statement of criminal activity brought before a judge or magistrate; in the UK, used to inform [...]

I think I was speaking under the definition of (3).

I think I know what the OP means with the information of the universe, and its workings. But should it not be then, the historical data of the universe rather than information. Just my 2 cents.

As per the OP, without information, everything would be nothing. — Pop

Sure, but each individual will only need specific tailored information, and process with it. By definition, I think, information is tailored, abstracted and minimised in content for the purpose. The universe is filled with objects which can be seen as symbols carrying meanings, but they are randomly observed and perceived, and not classed as information. Data is produced by people, but it is not organised, and has no format, random in content. Data in general is not meaningful to most people.

Information is specific and always has seekers and providers for certain purposes.
If one is writing a database software for covid vaccinated population, then they will go through data analysis on the targeted entities (population) with the fields such as name, dob, sex, address, citizens no, date of 1st vaccination, do2ndvac, do2ndvac. The system is abstracted, organised and specified for certain purposes. Data gathered in the format from the real population and facts are gathered and is in presentable form to the seekers (gov, authorities, health officials and media) as information.

That is the way I think what information is, but maybe it is too narrow definition. I stand for correction.

And then you must come back with your critical attacks to my points, which can be lethal or surrendering. :D

Wouldn't you say that is interesting philosophy? — Pop

Sure it is. I am just saying from the other side point of view to get the dialectic discourse of the argument. :)

Whenever there is a new OP, if everyone all agrees to it, or says nothing, then that is not philosophy either. We must see, and discuss the points from all sides of angle.

I'm assuming monism, where information has it's neural correlates. So information causes a physical change ( in brain structure ), and this physical change embeds and orients an entity to its environment.

So there is a physical thing going on, where environmental information acts upon an entity and changes them physically, thus creating an enactive situation. — Pop

I wonder if all the details of how information correlates to it's neural parts, and the embeddings of the physical changes taking place with the environment ...etc would be philosophically meaningful topics. Would it not be then neuroscience, cosmology or cognitive psychological topic, rather than a philosophical topic?

I believe that true philosophy has element of critiques, clarifying what is not clear in the thoughts, assertions and arguments in the topics, and defining what is the correct way of seeing and resolving the problems by using self reasoning and intuition.

No one would need all the information about everything under the sun in real life. Sure, there is vast amount of information stored on the internet, almost everything about the whole history of the universe. But then it is not information, it is data warehouse.

An individual or organisation would always need some specific data organised in the form they want for their task, project or usage. That is information.

If I want information on how to increase the chances of winning the lottery, then I don't need how the world works, or why the sun rises from the east, or billions and billions of other data etched into some physical organism and changing by its environmental surroundings. I want to know the particular instructions on how to select the 6 numbers and where and how to buy the tickets. That would be it. That is information (not encyclopaedic data), and is the information I want. :D

I think it is organised data for certain purpose or use.

In Platonic idealism, this world is a temporary illusory reality. The ultimate reality is then, the reality of Idea, which is timeless and final.

Even now, if one is a devoted Christian and has a strong faith in afterlife, and heaven, then the ultimate reality would be the world where the souls migrate after death. In ancient Greek religion, this type of afterlife as the true final ultimate reality had been dominating belief among the population. Socrates must have opted to take the hemlock under the belief that his soul will migrate to the ultimate reality of another world, when he was given options to go into exile rather than accepting the death penalty in the court.

Therefore the nature of ultimate reality is based on the religious faith, to which the souls of the dead migrate after death, and is believed to be the utmost final timeless true reality contrasted from this world which is believed to be illusory, temporary and transitory.

Some say that all the studies in epistemology and metaphysics in history up to now, is just footnotes of Plato.

The common trait of existentialism is to reject any system or logic anyway. It was to revolt against the domineering hegemony of Hegelianism and Kantianism, which were based on absolute spirit and reason.

It denies groups or societies, but focuses on individual's life, freedom and absurdity. It is about what life is, and how one should live. Existence is more essence than reason or logic, and predates them.

There are also different schools in Existentialism. Dostoyevsky and Kierkeggard's existentialism is based on God, and religion, whereas Satre, Camus and Heidegger are atheistic, and even deny they are existentialist.

By changing the way you understand these things, you change the things themselves. Time and space, in the way they are commonly understood , are constructs going back to the Greeks. But there are alternative easy of interpreting these notions. And that is certainly true of concepts like death, nihilism, doubt. Just look at the diversity of views on this forum. — Joshs

Good point !! :up: :fire:

Never accept reality as it is. — Joshs

Some things must be accepted as a priori, whether you like or not. You cannot change or reject transcendentally certain things such as time and space, living, doubting, ageing and death, feeling nihilistic at times. Many things in life are a priori reals that one has to accept as precondition of existence. Sure you can change your dwellings, your friends, your jobs and plans ... but how can one reject time or death when it passes by and comes to him for instance?

That's the way. I recommend life affirming Zoroastrianism on weekends. — Tom Storm

:fire: :up:

I know I was nihilist for many years and I always found it absurdly life affirming. — Tom Storm

I am a part time nihilist myself.

I’ve never been much of a realist. Too conforming . I’m more of a constructivist. If you dont like your reality, construct a new one. And keep in mind , it is likely that medical science will eventually figure out how to outfox death (As you know , there are plenty of living things that don’t age). — Joshs

I accept the reality as it is. Sure, where I can reconstruct, if it looks reasonable and possible without my loss and looks like it will make it better than the status quo, then I would reconstruct it. (not Derridian reconstruction)

Eternal life without death will bring all sorts of problems. What would be the point if medical science succeeded in making people live forever without death, but millions are killing themselves out of boredom, because they are keep living forever and ever? Don't get excited. It wouldn't happen in our lifetime anyway. I will stick to realism for the time being.

If you haven’t found a way to feel a sense of belonging, mutual understanding and connection with others, then this failure will define the quality of your solitary experience as well. — Joshs

I think it boils down to one's view on life. It then becomes personal value. It is not a matter of truth or falsity. You value human relations and belonging in the group you care for as the utmost criteria for your meaning of life. No one can argue with that, or deny it.

Me? I have an infinite size of universe in my mind that I am happy with, to ponder about anytime I would like. I am also too busy with various hobbies that I enjoy, and it makes life interesting. Friends come and go, and I don't lose sleep over relationship fallouts. Nihilism is still a useful view of life from time to time to get into, because it tells what the world is facing, and where all the people including me are heading to. Nihilism is realism.

That's an amusing outlook and seems such a cultivated position. The opposite also holds. Life is long and full of adventure and what matters is the moment and the sparks of light and adventure along the way. A party doesn't have to last for eternity to be a good party. God forbid. If a person truly can't find joy then perhaps they are clinically depressed; or maybe are that very common phenomenon, a morose teenager. — Tom Storm

Nihilism, for me, is just knowledge and mental attitude about life, with the prospect of all life of human being being finite and limited, therefore nothing is really meaningful to feel distressed or desirable, so take it easy, calm and cool. That's all. Nothing more or less.

I can't see how 'eternal nothingness' (such a deliberately dramatic term) matters two fucks. We are all familiar with nothingness - it is quite beautiful in its way. Just think back across the billions of years before you were born. Death's just like that. — Tom Storm

Nihilism is not all that miserable and horrible position for one to be in, as some tries or seems making out. Many are actually quite content and happy being nihilist.

I think it will be possible to introduce features of organic subjectivity into electronic devices for instance. This is an application that proves the theory is accurate. The full gamut of perceptual processes will take a while to figure out, but it should be possible to arrive at a model of percepts as detailed as our model of the brain's reward system (dopamine, nucleus accumbens etc.). — Enrique

I think recent A.I. Robots technology are still mostly based on the microchips architecture and programming around them. So the codings still might have lots of the programming functions and procedures of If ... then ... do, else, and while such cases do, for 0 to n do loops with the traditional machine language or C programming or even Ada type PL.
I doubt that they can replicate the human brain with some biochemical structures using particles or molecules based constituents. It would be interesting to see how far the A.I. tech will progress in our lifetime. Because what they have achieved so far is certainly phenomenal stuff, and actually they may be very near to be able to reveal the true nature of the human consciousness soon in near future.

guarantee you that a person who does not see the world as an ugly place, who empathizes with others , even those who we are told to despise, who delights in their friendships and in their solitary enjoyments , such a person will have no use for nihilism. — Joshs

Most famous philosophers in history enjoyed solitary living for their thinking and writing. Human relations come and go, and it is something of a contingent affair for most grownups.
I still think nihilism is based on the nature of life, that it has a short finite time, hence no matter how successful or happy one has been, it will not last. The end is coming very soon, and after the end, nothingness will last for good. So, there is no meaning in trying to achieve anything. No meaning to worry or feel pain. They are all meaningless.

I think (I don't care what the bloody Wiki says), nihilism is about the death and post death, which is eternal nothingness therefore it even affects life at present into something meaningless.

Pessimism is about looking at not just life and death, but even birth as a tragic event, because when one is born, one has to go through suffering, get old, and then must face death.
Pessimists such as Schopenhauer would say, the best thing in life is not to be born. Once born, the next best thing is to die as soon as possible. The irony is that he didn't die soon. He tried to live as long as possible.

Physical or biological entities can be replicated for the exact cloning. If you are saying that human consciousness is constituted with the workings of the molecules and particles in physical and biological forms, then it should be possible to replicate, and even clone the consciousness into other beings. That would be clear proof that the theory is true. If it cannot replicate, then the theory does not have a physical or biological basis.