Well, a little more detail in your 'speculations,' may help more of your readers understand where you are coming from. — universeness

You seem to be asking for empirical "details" for a general non-physical non-specific concept. That desire for physical details may be the same need for concreteness (idolatry), that caused the Hebrews to give-up on Moses's invisible God, and to construct a Golden Calf to worship. If you are really interested in more details the BothAnd Blog (see below) has lots of speculations upon speculations to choose from. Some, you may even agree with. Otherwise, please just accept the amorphous Deity notion as an unproven Axiom to serve as the foundation for a broadly applicable information-centric theory of everything. :smile:


Axiom :
In modern logic, an axiom is a premise or starting point for reasoning. In mathematics, an axiom may be a "logical axiom" or a "non-logical axioms". Logical axioms are taken to be true within the system of logic they define and are often shown in symbolic form (e.g., (A and B)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axiom

Who created God? :
The evolution of god concepts
https://bothandblog.enformationism.info/page44.html

For me, Taoist thought is a philosophy, not a religion. It is true that later interpretations did become, as you note, a polytheistic religion with some magical beliefs. — T Clark

Yes. Over the centuries many influential philosophical worldviews (e.g. Buddhism) have later evolved into popular religions, even though that was not the intent of the originator. For my own purposes, and like my own non-religious worldview, Taoism is a framework for making sense of the complexities & contradictions of the natural world. Any religious practices will merely give practitioners something to do, to make them feel they have some limited control of their destiny. :smile:

PS__ "-ism" indicates a belief system, that may range from "action or practice, state or condition, principles, doctrines, a usage or characteristic, devotion or adherence". A religious dogma is a fossilized form of the original organic worldview.

For me, Taoist thought is a philosophy, not a religion. It is true that later interpretations did become, as you note, a polytheistic religion with some magical beliefs. — T Clark

Yes. Over the centuries many influential philosophical worldviews (e.g. Buddhism) have later evolved into popular religions, even though that was not the intent of the originator. For my own purposes, and like my own non-religious worldview, Taoism is a framework for making sense of the complexities & contradictions of the natural world. Any religious practices will merely give practitioners something to do, to make them feel they have some limited control of their destiny. :smile:

PS__ "-ism" indicates a belief system, that may range from "action or practice, state or condition, principles, doctrines, a usage or characteristic, devotion or adherence". A religious dogma is a fossilized form of the original organic worldview.

I wonder about all these different terms in the history of thinking in philosophy. They are used to describe the nature of consciousness at different points in the history of philosophy and thinking about the nature of 'mind'. — Jack Cummins

The terms you listed are names for concepts that are not physical objects. So, they are essential to meta-physical Philosophy and Religion. But physical Science can do its job without reference to such non-things. Except that Quantum Science discovered gaps in classical physics that left some sub-atomic phenomena un-explained. So, persistent quantum scientists were forced to turn to Eastern philosophies for terminology that included the consciousness of the observer in observations of the foundations of physical reality.

So based on this 'I don't know,' admission regarding the origin story of the universe or answering the hard problem of consciousness, your musings has landed firmly on the 'deism' posit as the one you give highest credence to. — universeness

You seem to rely mainly on the Argument from Personal Incredulity. Since you denigrate the agnostic philosophy of Deism, I assume you would label yourself as a "Gnostic" (knower) concerning Origins, Consciousness, etc. Is that true?

BTW, I do have some musings on the topic of a technical, non-mythical, Origin Story. But I won't go into a long dissertation in this post. FWIW, here's a brief glimpse :

In the beginning (Big Bang??) there was no Matter, only Energy & Laws. So the postulated zero-dimensional Singularity had to possess those essential immaterial (no matter, no space, no extension) properties in order to create a physical world from scratch. So, it first had to produce the basic element of Matter ; a Quark perhaps. The physical properties of hypothetical Quarks are assumed to be : charge, mass, color, spin. But all of those qualities must be inferred, because as metaphors they cannot be detected directly. "Charge" is the name for an ability : potential to form relationships, such as attraction, repulsion, etc. But the first step toward evolution would be a Bit of Information, from which a sub-sub-atomic Quark could be constructed. Yet, all those initial/essential properties/qualities are informational relationships, not material objects.

In essence, Energy is simply the Potential to actualize, to realize something from statistical Possibility. And natural Laws are information patterns to which material things necessarily conform. Since the Singularity did not exist in space or time, its unbound Energy would be Omni-Potence, and its unlimited Laws would be Omni-Science. Do those pre-natural god-like powers sound credible to you? Probably not, because they are not found in physics textbooks. Nevermind, it's just something to think about, not to believe.

Before the beginning of space-time, the hypothetical Singularity would have to be non-ergodic*1 (no states yet). But the emergent universe seems to be progressing toward complete ergodicity*2 (a stable whole/holistic system). In the process of Evolution, the system is unstable. So Information patterns of relationships must be flexible. Those information patterns are the Software of the universal computer, and material objects are the Hardware of the computing system. Hence, the universe is not now, and never has been in equilibrium, but it may eventually reach a uniform state of perfect Ergodicity (wholeness). But, I ain't making no prophecies. :smile:



*1. Ergodic :
relating to or denoting systems or processes with the property that, given sufficient time, they include or impinge on all points in a given space and can be represented statistically by a reasonably large selection of points.
___Oxford
Note -- "Impinge" = relationship, connection, information

*2. Ergodicity :
Ergodicity is a property of the system; it is a statement that the system cannot be reduced or factored into smaller components.
___Wiki

*3. Enformationism : (credence?)
"It's not something to believe ; it's something to think". Plausible, not Creedal
http://enformationism.info/enformationism.info/

Does the deity of your imagination, have the omni qualifications or is it fallible? — universeness

The only pertinent qualification of the Deist Creator is the ability to initiate the living & thinking cosmic system of which humans are a small, but knowing part. Beyond that necessary ability, anything else I might say is speculation based on personal experience with human intention and creativity. The creation itself is necessarily "fallible", because it is a Heuristic*1 process of evolution toward some solution to the creation algorithm. :smile:

PS__I don't pigeonhole myself as a "Deist", because those ignorant of the term's history assume that it is a practical Religion instead of a theoretical Philosophy. The deduced deity is an inference from evidence that the world is not eternal, not an imaginary humanoid.

*1. Heuristic Evolution :
proceeding to a solution by trial and error or by rules that are only loosely defined.
Oxford
Note -- the rules of evolution (laws of nature) are open-ended, instead of definitive; allowing for progression.

I'm sure I've pointed out to you what's wrong with that interpretation. The dao is an exampke of what western philosophers term "dialectical monism". Like entropy (i.e. disorder-order) — 180 Proof
Yep, dialectical monism and hence, inter alia, monotheism - instead of two entities, one with two mutually cancelling properties, which of course leads to a problem (Epicurean riddle vis-à-vis the problem of evil). — Agent Smith

FWIW, Gnomon is not an expert on Taoism. So any resemblances between that ancient philosophy and Enformationism is primarily in its non-theist*1 explanation for the ups & downs of the world. However, the "dialectical monism" description does fit the opposite/complement notion of how Energy & Entropy work together to produce a dynamic world of myriad forms.

So you are correct to note that both the Tao and the First Cause are singular and unique. But the mechanism/metabolism of a living organism (evolving world) depends on the Hegelian dialectic of opposing forces : Energy/Entropy ; Good/Evil ; Hot/Cold ; Thesis/Antithesis. Yet. it's the Synthesis stage that points in a consistent evolutionary direction : the Arrow of Time. :smile:


*1. Is Taoism theistic? :
Taoism is practised as a religion in various Asian communities. Its theology is not theist (even though some communities do worship Laozi as the attributed founder of the religious doctrine), and has more affinities with pantheistic traditions given its philosophical emphasis on the formlessness of the Tao.
http://www-scf.usc.edu/~xueyuanw/itp104/project/culture/taoism.html
Note -- Lao Tzu's intellectual philosophy was Deistic, but the popular religions that emerged later were typically Poly-theistic.

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

You claim that, as an anti-metaphyical materialist (???), you are able to experience Love. Bully for you. But what is the substance of that emotion? How do aggregations of atoms feel sentiments? The emerging Information theory*1 can suggest answers to those questions ; if Information (power to create novel forms) is more fundamental than insentient matter. How does a clump of matter experience anything? Could it be due to non-physical Life/Mind-forms?*2

Morality emerges from the meaningful relationships between people. But, like Love, "meaning" cannot be reduced to atoms-in-void, can it? Yet, an intentional First Cause could explain, as a hypothesis, how such immaterial abstractions could arise from a "big bang" in the void : personal significance, mutual respect, trust, interest, positive regard. The implication of a pre-bang Creator concept is that all things, and relationships, can be traced back (reduced) to the mind of the Originator*3. Otherwise, how did the ability-to-feel get programmed into the thermodynamic chain of evolutionary causation? :smile:

Note : A non-human Mind, in an immaterial form, may not map directly onto human consciousness. But it serves as an analogy by which to fill the god-gaps in physical Science. The error of ancient anthro-morphic god-models is to assume a one-to-one correspondence of divine-human attributes. Human creativity is limited to manipulation of existing matter. But the power to create a universe from scratch may be unlimited, hence Omnipotent. Yet, like the Multiverse hypothesis, such a postulation is unproveable by empirical methods. :nerd:


*1. Information Theory - Emergence :
Information is neither matter nor energy, although it needs matter to be embodied and energy to be communicated.
Matter and energy are conserved. There is just the same total amount of matter and energy today as there was at the universe origin. See the cosmic creation process.
But information is not conserved. It has been increasing since the beginning of time. Everything emergent is new information. What idealist, holists, and gestaltists think they see is actually this increase of immaterial information.
https://www.informationphilosopher.com/knowledge/emergence.html
Note : Causal Information is the immaterial substance (relationship pattern) of Matter & Energy

*2. Non-physical Mind-forms :
Materialists typically argue that all cases of consciousness that we know about are dependent on biological reality. Yet my exploration of the Enformationism thesis finds numerous hints that our existence may be ultimately pre-biological and immaterial. By that I mean the macro-scale wetware of Biology is dependent upon atomic-scale Physics, which in turn is grounded upon nonscalable mental Mathematics. So, my reading of cutting-edge science indicates that the quantum description of physical reality (informational, relational, mental) is akin to pre-scientific concepts of the metaphysical spirit realm, which is more Potential than Biological. Hence, on the cosmic scale, Mind seems to be more fundamental than Matter.
https://www.bothandblog.enformationism.info/page12.html

*3. Deism vs Atheism :
However, another path of Logic assumes that the most important aspect of reality to non-scientists is personal Consciousness — the essence of humanity — which can't be adequately explained as the output of material mechanisms. . . . .
Which is why most philosophers, not concerned with religious myth-making, have portrayed the transcendent ulitmate Mind in terms of abstract principles with no physical form, as exemplified in Brahman, Tao, Dharma, Logos, and Spinoza's Pantheistic “substance”.
https://www.bothandblog.enformationism.info/page49.html

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

Thanks for the question. My definition of Creator/Programmer*1*2 was not revealed in books written by fallible humans, but in the Book of Nature, which shows signs of operating like a computer program*3. I have no knowledge of the Intention of the First Cause, but for human intention to emerge from running the program of evolution implies that the Programmer was capable of goal-directed behavior. So, the original reason for creation is beyond the reach of us self-directing symbolic personas, condemned to play the game without knowing why : Agnostic Avatars, with limited freewill & intention. :nerd:

PS__Yes, I'm just as serious about this philosophical metaphor as cosmologist Tegmark is about his self-programmed Mathematical Universe theory*4. An Information-centric worldview may sound like nonsense to you, but it's not religious non-sense, merely a philosophical theory of Ontology & Epistemology. Tegmark is serious, but you have to possess a sense of humor to present such aethereal notions to materialist scientists. :joke:

*1. G*D :
An ambiguous spelling of the common name for a supernatural deity. The Enformationism thesis is based upon an unprovable axiom that our world is an idea in the mind of G*D. This eternal deity is not imagined in a physical human body, but in a meta-physical mathematical form, equivalent to Logos. Other names : ALL, BEING, Creator, Enformer, MIND, Nature, Reason, Source, Programmer. The eternal Whole of which all temporal things are a part is not to be feared or worshipped, but appreciated like Nature.
I refer to the logically necessary and philosophically essential First & Final Cause as G*D, rather than merely "X" the Unknown, partly out of respect. That’s because the ancients were not stupid, to infer purposeful agencies, but merely shooting in the dark. We now understand the "How" of Nature much better, but not the "Why". That inscrutable agent of Entention is what I mean by G*D.
https://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page13.html

*2. Programmer God :
A competent computer programmer doesn’t have to make frequent corrections to the operation of the program. Likewise, an omniscient Creator shouldn’t have to make special interventions in order to keep the world running properly. A world-wide flood would be a sign of gross incompetence.
https://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page13.html

*3. u]Evolutionary Programming[/u] :
Special computer algorithms inspired by biological Natural Selection. It is similar to Genetic Programming in that it relies on internal competition between random alternative solutions to weed-out inferior results, and to pass-on superior answers to the next generation of algorithms. By means of such optimizing feedback loops, evolution is able to make progress toward the best possible solution – limited only by local restraints – to the original programmer’s goal or purpose. In Enformationism theory the Prime Programmer is portrayed as a creative principle (e.g. Logos), who uses bottom-up mechanisms, rather than top-down miracles, to produce a world with both freedom & determinism, order & meaning.
https://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page13.html

*4. Mathematical universe hypothesis :
a "provocative" solution to one of the central problems facing physics.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathematical_universe_hypothesis

AVATAR INSIDE THE GAME OF LIFE
metaphor, not to be taken literally

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

The "gap" you refer to is the mysterious emergence of Life & Mind from an inorganic beginning. How would you fill that void in Darwinian evolution? Any hypothetical conjecture must explain, not just the mechanical "how" of gradual emergence*1, but the logical "whence" the Potential for Life/Mind arising from a dimensionless non-living mathematical Singularity. Dispel that, if you dare! :joke: :smile:

*1. Abiogenesis :
the origin of life is the natural process by which life has arisen from non-living matter, . . . prevailing scientific hypothesis
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis

Are you a theist Gnomon and if so, why the subterfuge?
If you want and need a mind, beyond the big bang posit to be our creator then why not be loud, proud and heard about it?
You deny being a theist but then most of the points you make, would be attractive to most theists. — universeness

If you insist on putting a label on my philosophical First Cause concept, try Deism*1. You may not distinguish between Deism and Theism, but I suspect that "most theists" would. To them, Deists are no better than Atheists. That's because the Deist world is completely natural, with no supernatural intervention. Yet, Deist philosophy infers the necessity for a Prime Mind to create (from scratch) a temporal physical world from which mental phenomena*2 can emerge via natural computation processes. The rational "need" for an original Mind is in the logical necessity for an explanation of the emergence of mental phenomena in a material world*3. I'm aware that Materialists see no difference between Physical and Mental phenomena, because their (blind in one eye) worldview blocks-out Metaphysical features of the world, by definition. Is that loud & proud enough for you? :smile: :joke:

*1. Theist, Deist, Atheist, Agnostic :
A deist believes there is a God who created all things, but does not believe in His superintendence and government. He thinks the Creator implanted in all things certain immutable laws, called the Laws of Nature, which act per se, as a watch acts without the supervision of its maker.
https://www.infoplease.com/dictionary/brewers/theist-deist-atheist-agnostic

*2. Mental Phenomena :
We can, therefore, define mental phenomena by saying that they are those phenomena which contain an object intentionally within themselves
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5500963/
Note -- There is no intention in Physics, so the cause of future-directed Intention in human affairs must derive from a Meta-Physical source*4.

*3. The Mind-Evolution Problem :
The Difficulty of Fitting Consciousness in an Evolutionary Framework
https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.01537/full

*4. Metaphysics is the branch of philosophy that studies the fundamental nature of reality; the first principles of being, identity and change, space and time, . . . It includes questions about the nature of consciousness and the relationship between mind and matter, between substance and attribute, and between potentiality and actuality.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metaphysics

Perhaps Gnomon would agree with that point of view, as he also seems to greatly value the musings of Plato and Aristotle etc. I don't. Do you not worry that if we assign all the wonder and awe that we are capable of mustering when we muse about the universe and our origins, life and fate, to the machinations of a supreme being, we reduce ourselves and leave ourselves with NOTHING. — universeness
I have no such concern because I do not understand the energy of the universe as a being.I do not attribute the laws of physics to a conscious being. Logos, the reason it is like it is as it is, is because that is the way it works. — Athena

Gnomon does indeed value the fundamental contributions of Plato & Aristotle to human understanding. seems to be a nice guy, but he misunderstands & misrepresents Gnomon's Enformationism thesis*1. Probably because, from his implicit Materialist/Physicalist*2 perspective, it looks like Spiritualism or Idealism. To him, those worldviews are primitive & childish & just plain wrong. Yet Mr. Nice Guy can be somewhat indulgent toward such immature notions, as one would toward a juvenile's innocent babbling. Unlike another poster, he's not intentionally malicious, but his Matter-is-all vocabulary makes abstract (meta-physical) Platonic & Aristotelian concepts sound like literal non-sense.

For example, from a Matter-only standpoint, there is no such thing as Platonic Love, or love of any kind, for that matter. There is only corporal copulation. Hence, "Love" is an abstraction that idealizes the realistic rutting of animals. Since the neo-primitive notions of New Ageism tend to be Idealistic & Spiritualistic, he places Enformationism into that unsophisticated "unrealistic" category. On the other hand, Enformationism views ancient Materialism/Atomism and Classical Newtonian physics as outdated pre-modern sciences*3, in the light of 21st century knowledge & reasoning. But it also updates ancient Spiritualism/Idealism, with new concepts from Quantum & Information theory. Those older views were pragmatic in their local & temporal contexts, but now seem somewhat untenable in the current state of affairs, 2.5 millennia later.

FWIW, Gnomon no longer practices the religion of his youth, or any religion for that matter. But, like Universeness, he can be tolerant toward those who are not "enlightened", including his own siblings. However, the broadly applicable Enformationism worldview could be converted into a religion, by those who are so inclined. For example, the ancient Hebrews were materialistic idolators (local nature gods), who later evolved into idealistic Judaism (universal supernatural God). Later, law-bound Judaism was transformed into faith-bound Christianity (Christ = god-man). And so it goes, as the world turns. We adapt our beliefs to the current state of knowledge and culture. My personal thesis is another of those adaptations, combining state-of-the-art Science with millennia of religious & philosophical exploration of the human condition, and building upon the foundation of Plato & Aristotle.

Enformationism does not posit a manipulating "supreme being", because Nature functions automatically, like an emergent computer program*4, without any divine intervention. And whether the implicit Programmer/Enformer is conscious, in the human manner, is an open question. So communication (prayer) to a super-natural "being" would likely be one-way, similar to the faith-driven attempts of irreligious scientists to contact extra-solar alien beings, whom they hope to be superior to Earth-bound humans.

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

PS__I apologize in advance, if I have mis-represented Uni's philosophical worldview. :cool: :heart:

*1. Introduction to Enformationism :
Since various forms of matter-first physicalism are still the default model for the empirical sciences, this philosophical thesis is merely a personal worldview. Yet, it’s based on the emerging evidence that invisible Information, instead of tangible Matter, is the fundamental substance of everything in the universe, including Energy, Matter, and Mind.
https://bothandblog6.enformationism.info/page80.html

*2. 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.
https://www.britannica.com/topic/materialism-philosophy
Note -- A century ago, Quantum theory began to undermine the foundation of classical physics. Physicists, such as John A. Wheeler, concluded that everything in the world can be "reduced to" bits of information (immaterial mind-stuff).

*3. Is Scientific Materialism "Almost Certainly False"? :
prominent physicists proclaim that they are solving the riddle of reality and hence finally displacing religious myths of creation. . . . In their desperation for a "theory of everything"—which unifies quantum mechanics and relativity and explains the origin and structure of our cosmos—physicists have embraced pseudo-scientific speculation such as multi-universe theories and the anthropic principle
https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/cross-check/is-scientific-materialism-almost-certainly-false/
Note -- The Enformationism thesis does not claim that materialism is "false", but merely that it does not explain everything of interest to philosophers, including ideas about matter & mind. Ironically, enformed dumb matter seems to be capable of self-reference : Aboutness.

*4. Evolutionary Programming :
From evolutionary computation to the evolution of things
https://www.nature.com/articles/nature14544

*5. Democritus, materialist philosopher :
By convention sweet is sweet, bitter is bitter, hot is hot, cold is cold, color is color; but in truth there are only atoms and the void.
https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Democritus
Note -- What does the "Void" think about? Do "Atoms" love each other, when they become entangled? There is no such thing as "Hot", merely the idea of a relationship between thermodynamic regimes that we apply that non-thing name to.

Gnomon is, ex mea (humble) sententia, constructing a more elaborate interpretation of The Matrix which is itself based off of The Simulation Hypothesis (Nick Bostrom et al). What I mean to say is if you find Gnomon's Enformationism to fall short of the philosophical mark, you need to have a strong argument against The Simulation Hypothesis. Didn't you like The Matrix movies? I did although I'm deleted in the end — Agent Smith

THESIS DEVELOPMENT CONTINUED :

The "raining code" (information) from The Matrix movie, was a graphic inspiration for the BothAnd blog, but the Enformationism thesis was not specifically derived from the concept of a simulated world. Instead, it was inspired by the philosophical "paradox of Objective Reality versus Subjective Ideality". Which reflects the dual role of Information in the world : Physical and Mental.

Pursuant to your encouragement to "develop" that basic idea, I will now address the Transcendent implications of the Enformationism thesis. likes to put it into the anti-science category of New Age religions. And has dismissed it as a fringe religion like Theosophy*1. I can see the general philosophical resemblance to both, but my thesis was inspired by the transcendent implications of Quantum & Information science, not by any neo-religious movements.

Besides, all human cultures have postulated some kind of transcendent Principle or God to explain the Ontology of contingent existence. The secular Greek philosophers proposed abstract non-humanoid concepts, such as Logos (Reason) and First Cause (Energy ; Causation). So, my thesis could be compared to hundreds of pre-modern historical ideologies, that imagine the universe as a living organism, metaphorically born from an eternal Organizer. The only thing they all have in common is the idea that mundane Nature emerged from some transcendent power source.

However, Modernism is grounded upon un-sentimental Science, which assumes as an axiom that "nothing emerges from nothing". So, the astronomical Big Bang beginning was an embarrassment to secular scientists. Hence, Fred Hoyle's sarcastic label "Big Bang" was intended to poo-poo the magical (woo-woo) notion of a world instantaneously popping out of nowhere (inflation). Since then, other scientists have postulated equally un-scientific philosophical alternatives, such as Quantum Fluctuations from energized empty space. Besides the meaninglessness of pure-space-sans-matter, that hypothesis is based on the axiom of eternal (transcending space-time) Causation & Construction. The pre-BB axiom is similar to the Enformationism assumption of an eternal pool of Potential*2 (Energy & Enformation) which, for no apparent reason, caused an evolving universe to emerge from who-knows-where.

Religious gods typically require Faith & Worship by humans, but philosophical Principles only require Cognizance & Cooperation. FYI, Fowler's Stages of Faith*3 conclude with stage 6, universalizing faith (enlightenment)*2, and that's what Enformationism's Transcendent Enformer is supposed to be. Not literal belief in religious stories, but per Brownridge, in Philosophy Now #153 : "the encompassment of nature, the universal cosmic energy of which we are all a part". Since it has no anthro-morpic form, you can call it whatever makes sense to you : Logos, First Cause, Demon*4, etc. The thesis does not prescribe any kind of faith or worship, so it's not a religious concept.

Enformationism is merely an attempt to answer an ancient Ontological question : "why is there something instead of nothing". Big Bang, Multiverse, & Inflation hypotheses simply dismiss that conundrum as an unscientific "who cares' riddle. Likewise, Universeness & 180proof seem to prefer to leave such transcendent questions unanswered, even on a philosophy forum full of "go for it" conjectures. By convention, serious scientists are not supposed to speculate into the unknowable. But, due to popular demand, several have postulated a menagerie of pre-Bang sources of Energy & Information. They all assume some unbounded power to create (Causation) & to organize (Enformation).

My thesis merely assumes a similar timeless formless Potential for Causation & Organization. You can call that nothing-material "Logical Necessity" if you like. But the specific name that piques 180's ire is "God". Perhaps that sore spot is due to some childhood trauma related to oppressive humanoid god-models. Or maybe it's just due to deep emotional commitment to anti-religious Materialism/Physicalism. Hence, the critics seem unable to distinguish philosophical reasoning from religious mythology. So, they feel justified in ignoring Enformationism, not for any violation of scientific doctrine, but for its irksome logical implications : the fundamental essence of Reality*5 is not tangible Matter, but incorporeal Mind. :nerd:


*1. Theosophy teaches that the purpose of human life is spiritual emancipation and says that the human soul undergoes reincarnation upon bodily death according to a process of karma. It promotes values of universal brotherhood and social improvement, although it does not stipulate particular ethical codes.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theosophy

*2. Potential :
The concept of potentiality, in this context, generally refers to any "possibility" that a thing can be said to have. Aristotle did not consider all possibilities the same, and emphasized the importance of those that become real of their own accord when conditions are right and nothing stops them
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Potentiality_and_actuality

*3. Fowler's Faith Stages :
https://www.institute4learning.com/2020/06/12/the-stages-of-faith-according-to-james-w-fowler/

*4. Maxwell's Demon :
A scientific thought experiment using the notion of an omniscient intelligent being who could manipulate molecules in a box without doing any work, which is a violation of the Second Law of Thermodynamics. Yet, even intellectual work expends energy. Such demons exist only as useful philosophical concepts.
David Krakauer, at Santa Fe Institute, even proposed the idea of a "selective demon" (Darwinian Demon). So, to deny their essential "existence" is to deny philosophical reasoning.

*5. The Essence of Reality is the most perceptive, exacting look at the flow of Reality ever. Rarely has a human glimpsed beyond the confines of the self-aware mind to see the interactive flow of mind-value into Reality.
https://books.google.com/books/about/Essence_of_Reality.html?id=9j3SGgAACAAJ
Note -- I haven't read the book, but the title is provocative for this post

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

I agree that Downward Causation, as observed, seems to be coasting on Momentum. But the inference of Intention is based on the billiard ball analogy. Their momentum always begins with acausal Impetus. And where the impetus does not come from other balls on the table, we can logically infer that there was an off-the-table Cause : e.g. intentional pool shooter. Although the wielder of the pool cue is Transcendent (exogenous), his necessary existence is a "significant relation" for Ontological explanations, if not for Scientific purposes. Moreover, the causal Intent behind the Big Bang impetus, may be imagined as human-like, or god-like, or an infinite chain of accidental causes, according to your personal preferences.

BTW, my replies to TPF posts are never intended to be acrimonious. But any disagreements can be interpreted as antagonism toward a poster's belief system. That's one reason why I always conclude with a bland smilie-face, or teasing "joke" icon, or stoic "I'm cool" symbol. But 's harsh sarcasm toward any intimations of Transcendence makes it difficult to word a response that doesn't hit him where it hurts : his faith in Materialism/Physicalism. :smile: :joke: :cool:

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

Good point. Physical nature is analogue, despite "Planck's quanta". Quanta are mental analogies to gaps in our knowledge of holistic physical systems. Causation is continuous, but our perception is inherently discrete. Emergence of novelty (e.g. Phase Change) is also continuous, but rapid transformations make it seem instantaneous. On the quantum scale, the gaps in our perception make quantum leaps appear to be superluminal & supernatural. However, the universe, as a whole, including physical (material) & metaphysical (mental), seems to be both digital and analog. :smile:

Is Quantum Reality Analog after All? :
Quantum theorists often speak of the world as being pointillist at the smallest scales. Yet a closer look at the laws of nature suggests that the physical world is actually continuous—more analog than digital
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/is-quantum-reality-analog-after-all/


The universe is analog. period. when we make simulations we use a digital aproximation
https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/is-the-universe-analog-or-digital.12214/

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

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

I appreciate your interest in topics such as Emergence and Information. But, "180 Proof's rigorous critique" denies the foundation of my argument by default : Holism vs Reductionism. When I use even the scientific term "Systems Theory"*1, he seems to interpret such integrative notions, not as a legitimate scientific method, but as covert New Age mysticism. I assume that 180 is not a Racist, but he appears to be a Holism-ist. He seems to believe, erroneously, that the concept of Holism is peculiar to "irrational & nonsensical" Eastern religions*2. And he asserts his prejudice as a "settled" fact, against which any non-reductive responses will have no effect. His "critiques" are formulated to herd Gnomon into a New Age corral, which by his personal definition is "full of non-sense", Therefore, I must take evasive action to avoid being trapped in a dead end.

However, I will add a few comments, "input", relevant to the topic of this thread : Emergence. Again, the science book I'm currently reading, The Ascent of Information, combines concepts of Causal Information & Downward Causation to explain the emergence of Life in a mostly inanimate world. Scharf is an Astrobiologist, whose job involves looking for signs of life outside our planet and solar system : Exo-biology. My own focus is mainly on the Emergence of Mind in a mostly mindless universe. But Scharf's reasoning can also be applied to the emergence of Sentience from emergent Life. For example, he mentions the recent scientific term "Downward Causation"*3, which physicists Sara Walker, Paul Davies, and George Ellis use as an alternative to "Teleology" and "Teleonomy". For obvious reasons, he does not make any supernatural claims about the origin of that natural causation. Instead of a philosophical First Cause, he refers to the First Law of Thermodynamics. But for my philosophical purposes it's only logical to look for the Cause behind the causation, before the beginning. For example the man with a cue-stick is not standing on the pool table, but his intention is obviously the ultimate cause of selective rolling of balls into pockets.

Since Downward Causation implies taboo "strong emergence", Scharf lets Ellis stick his neck out : "the lower levels do the physical work, but the higher levels decide what work should be done" But, he tries to avoid the reasonable implications of top-down causation, by using the mathematical terminology of "core algorithms" (a form of information). Yet, he then concludes that "they too would be a good example of strong downward causation, or what we might also call downward emergence". Which philosophers might also call "Teleology" or "Teleonomy". He goes on to make a remarkable remark : ". . . that living systems seem to be able to gain control over the very same matter out of which they are formed". And a technical term for such self-control is "Cybernetics". Ironically, a whole complex system of many parts that can control its constituents, implies that the whole transcends the parts in top-down causal power. But that's merely a natural kind of transcendence that pragmatic scientists can accept. Yet, those who are philosophically inclined may logically extend the control & causation within Nature back to the beginning of the universe, and ask "what caused Causation?"

You have clearly stated that your reductive scientific worldview arbitrarily excludes any "supernatural and transcendent" forces from consideration for explanation of causation. So, my responses try to avoid such emotional trigger words, and to focus on natural & immanent forces, such as Energy, which is literally an "agent" of change. Yet, my own worldview is founded on the 21st century scientific notion that Energy is actually a form of Generic Information*4. You can disagree with that definition of Energy, but I'll let you argue with the scientists who discovered that equation in Quantum Physics. :smile:


*1. Systems Theory/Holism :
A holistic view of a system encompasses the complete, entire view of that system. Holism emphasizes that the state of a system must be assessed in its entirety and cannot be assessed through its independent member parts. . . . Holistic practices are critical within the IT industry as data networks and intelligent complete systems are designed and built. . . . Gaining this holistic view is essential in understanding our future evolution.
https://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Systems_Theory/Holism

*2. Holism :
Unfortunately, some of those imaginary concepts (e.g. Qualia) may be what you think of as mystical Essentialism. But actually, it is merely Synthetic thinking as contrasted with Analytic thinking. . . .
Holistic (synthetic) thinking is a common characteristic of New Age philosophies. But in practice, they also include particular inherited beliefs, such as those in Eastern religions. Such woo-ish notions as Wandering Souls, and Weaponized Chi, are not inherent to Holism. But Reductionists tend to lump them together with the Holistic worldview. So, for clarity, I will sometimes refer to my personal paradigm of Science as "Systems Theory", in hopes of losing the mystical baggage.
http://bothandblog7.enformationism.info/page25.html

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

*4. How is information related to energy in physics? :
Energy is the relationship between information regimes. That is, energy is manifested, at any level, between structures, processes and systems of information in all of its forms, and all entities in this universe is composed of information.
https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/22084/how-is-information-related-to-energy-in-physics
Note -- A "regime" is a sphere of influence ; a network of inter-action.
"Generic Information" is my coinage for that universal causal agency in Nature.

Explain why a physical brain physically "burns a lot of" physical "energy" (i.e. calories) if, as you suggest, "Information" is not "Work" — universeness

Please ask 180 to point to where Gnomon ever "suggested" such a thing. Due to his mis-interpretation of the thesis, He likes to put words in my mouth that he can easily refute. In Enformationism, Information = Energy = Work = Causation. :smile:

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

I'm aware that "Teleology" & "Progress" are taboo terms in biological science, because of their traditional association with Christian dogma. But the Enformationism thesis is not about biology or doctrine, and not intended to pass muster with atheistic scientists. It's merely an interpretation of the broader role of Information in Evolution & Emergence. And in blog posts, I provide links & quotes to the use of such terms by scientists.

As sampled below, some accredited scientists are beginning to revisit the notion of evolutionary progression, if not the terminology. If no forward progress, what's the point of evolution? Santa Fe Institute scientists have coined the term "Downward Causation" for "information selection and control" in biological & physical evolution. So, I feel justified in using the similar term "Teleonomy" for my personal thesis. Unless you can show philosophical (rational) evidence that refutes the notion of complexification in Evolution, which is a sign of progression from the inorganic simplicity of the original hypothetical Singularity, to the living & thinking organisms today. Time's arrow is pointing in some direction ; but is it going in circles, or toward some positive future state such as a Technological Singularity? :smile:

The Role of Teleonomy in Evolution :
In order to avoid the implications of "teleology," assumed to refer only to the process of evolution as directed towards goals, the discussants use "teleonomy" in reference to the biological organism as end-directed (for reproduction). . . . By using the concept of teleonomy, it is argued, one can avoid the issue of "mechanism" versus "teleology."
https://www.jstor.org/stable/186539

Teleonomy:
Revisiting a Proposed Conceptual Replacement for Teleology
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s13752-022-00424-y

consider this video summary on 'quantum information' and, since increasing disorder (entropy) increases information (emergence), point out to me what Gnomon gets right or the presentation here gets wrong. — 180 Proof

Gnomon is not qualified to critique the video : What If Physics IS NOT Describing Reality?. But several scientists, that I have linked to, have also concluded that "Physics is not describing Reality?". More to the point may be to say that physicists don't know how to interpret what quantum physics is trying to tell us about Reality *1*2. The Enformationism thesis is just my 2-cents worth on that long-debated topic Since the scientists can't agree on Reality, maybe philosophers can make a contribution*3. What Einstein called "a persistent illusion" is what Enformationism labels "Ideality"*4.

I'm not sure where that confident assertion came from : "increasing disorder (entropy) increases information (emergence)". But I must point out that it is not relevant to the thesis of Enformationism. That's because Entropy originally meant only "change" (en + trope = transform)*5. And in practice, Entropy has two different applications : Physical Entropy (change in material form) and Informational Entropy (change in meaning). In general, "Entropy is simply a measure of possible micro-states"*6. The ratio of that statistical probability to actual certainty is what Shannon realized was a mathematical value relevant to communication. So, "increasing disorder" (random microstates) does indeed increase possible options (uncertainty) for information, yet it decreases the order (certainty) that we call "meaning".

Regarding the implication that "increasing disorder increases information (emergence)", that phrase only applies to the negative emergence of more Disorder. But what we usually mean by "Emergence" is positive manifestation of more Order. So, the intended implication of 180's assertion is irrelevant to the normal meanings of Entropy/Disorder (negative) and Information/Emergence (positive). Entropy is an inverse proportion, which can be inverted to change its meaning. But, since Shannon, Entropy is usually interpreted as the opposite of Information/EnFormAtion. :smile:



*1. What Does Quantum Theory Actually Tell Us about Reality?
Nearly a century after its founding, physicists and philosophers still don’t know—but they’re working on it
https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/what-does-quantum-theory-actually-tell-us-about-reality/

*2. The quantum revolution questioned the nature of reality :
If so, all the physical phenomena we perceive are just a “higher-level emergent description” of what’s really going on.
https://www.sciencenews.org/century/quantum-physics-theory-revolution-reality-uncertainty

*3. The Illusion of Reality :
The Scientific Proof That Everything is Energy and Reality Isn’t Real
http://www.esalq.usp.br/lepse/imgs/conteudo_thumb/The-Illusion-of-Reality---The-Scientific-Proof-That-Everything-is-Energy-and-Reality-Isnt-Real.pdf
Note -- Since the evidence of our senses is the primary source of our knowledge of Reality, I wouldn't describe that perception as an "illusion". I suspect that Einstein was speaking metaphorically. Where the article says that "everything is Energy", Enformationism would say that "everything is Information" (power to enform, to cause change in form)

*4. Ideality :
*** In Plato’s theory of Forms, he argues that non-physical forms (or ideas) represent the most accurate or perfect reality. Those Forms are not physical things, but merely definitions or recipes of possible things. What we call Reality consists of a few actualized potentials drawn from a realm of infinite possibilities.
*** Materialists deny the existence of such immaterial ideals, but recent developments in Quantum theory have forced them to accept the concept of “virtual” particles in a mathematical “field”, that are not real, but only potential, until their unreal state is collapsed into reality by a measurement or observation. To measure is to extract meaning into a mind. [Measure, from L. Mensura, to know; from mens-, mind]
https://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page11.html

*5. The word entropy finds its roots in the Greek entropia, which means "a turning toward" or "transformation."

*6. The Ascent of Information, by Caleb Scharf, page 33
*6a. Forum Post : Now, let me backtrack a bit and reexamine your definition of entropy
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/13163/time-entropy-a-new-way-to-look-at-informationphysics

Frankly speaking, I recommend you develop your theory of information in more depth. At present it seems its definition is just too loose to be endorsed or critiqued. — Agent Smith

Hey, professor! What do you think I'm doing on The Philosophical Forum. I'm an isolated retiree, with no academic environment for nurturing novel ideas. Agent Jones and 180proveit are my ad hoc thesis advisors. One tells me to abandon my thesis because it will never meet the stringent criteria for a scientific fact, while the other tells me to tighten-up the definitions.

I don't have a "theory of information". I rely on scientists for that. If you want more precise definitions of Information, please refer to those who make it their business to study such things. What I do have is a personal private thesis of Enformationism*1, which describes my amateur understanding of the multi-faceted role of Information in the universe. It goes beyond the limited scope of Shannon's engineering definition of Information, to include general philosophical applications, such as Ontological & Epistemological questions. You can "endorse or critique" my opinions on this forum, just as you would any other personal philosophical views.

Unfortunately, the primary critic of my thesis insists on criticizing the science behind it, rather than the philosophical implications of Information*2. Speculative Philosophical definitions will never satisfy his technical Materialistic criteria, because they deal in general interpretations & universal significance, instead of specific physical attributes & applications. I do have some layman's understanding of Information Science, but I'm not qualified to pontificate on such topics. I provide lots of links to articles by professional information scientists, that you can ignore or investigate as you see fit. But some of them get pretty technical & mathematical. If you are really interested in the esoteric details & definitions, you can see how they "develop" their theories. Perhaps their authoritative views & conjectures on Information theory will give you enough scientific substance to "endorse or critique". The bottom line here is : beyond communication/computer theory, Information science is at present, Theoretical, not Empirical. :smile: .

*1. l assume that you haven't bothered to slog through the Enformationism thesis & glossary, which would answer most of your concerns about development & definitions.
http://enformationism.info/enformationism.info/page2%20Welcome.html
https://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/

*2. I'll address his "increasing disorder (entropy) increases information (emergence)", critique in another post. I occasionally take-on his mostly irrelevant challenges, not for his edification, but to deepen & develop my own knowledge of the philosophical implications of Generic Information.

↪Gnomon
:up: — Agent Smith

↪180 Proof
:up: — Agent Smith

Apparently you are trying to practice BothAnd philosophy by giving a thumbs-up to contradictory interpretations of the significance of essential Information : malleable Data vs causal Information. Did you watch the video? Are you now confused? Did you notice that it's about Shannon's abstract meaningless Data, not about Gnomon's mental meaningful Information?

's last post is intended to cast doubt on the Enformationism thesis by showing that the foundation of Physics (quantum) is indeterminate. But that open-ended undetermined quality (freewill) is what makes Meta-physics important to Philosophy. Ironically, the linked video could be used to support the argument that -- in its BothAnd physical & metaphysical forms -- "Information is the most fundamental element" (building block) of the world. 180's contrary interpretation may indeed undermine the authority of Physics for philosophical questions, because -- on the quantum level -- it's not describing Reality, but Ideality (human ideas about reality, not reality itself). Which is what Meta-Physics is all about.

In previous TPF posts and BothAnd Blog posts, I have discussed essentially the same problems with physics. I have even quoted Anton Zeilinger to support the fundamental nature of Information. But the post linked below, with quotes from George Musser may be more to the point of Quantum Theory's Virtual Reality, as compared to Gnomon's Metaphysical Ideality. :smile:


Virtual Reality / Metaphysical Ideality :
In his Scientific American article, science writer George Musser is talking about truth-seeking via analytical science. He begins with a common assertion of the superiority of science for revealing truths : “ Physics seems to be one of the only domains of human life where truth is clear-cut. The laws of physics describe hard reality. They are grounded in mathematical rigor and experimental proof. They give answers, not endless muddle.” That last remark may be aimed at wishy-washy Philosophy. But the confidence behind Musser’s introduction may be true for the 17th century physics of Isaac Newton, but doesn’t apply to 21st century Quantum Theory. . . . .
In contrast to his confident opening statement about physics describing “hard” reality, Musser again acknowledges that, “the deeper physicists dive into reality, the more reality seems to evaporate.” Moreover, “physical explanation replaces nouns with verbs.” Which, ironically makes sense in view of the Enformationism thesis, wherein the universal verb is EnFormAction.
https://bothandblog5.enformationism.info/page36.html


Werner Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Principle sealed the fate of deterministic physics.
https://bigthink.com/13-8/einstein-quantum-ghost/
Note -- Got to go. I'll deal with 180's increasing entropy = increasing information next time.

This got me thinking more about 'emergence.'
Since the early homo sapiens around 300,000 years ago, the 'knowledge' our species has 'as a totality,' been increasing. Each time we gain significant new knowledge, our technology increases and this has all sorts of affects on our species. It opens 'new options,' 'new possibilities.'
This 'direction of change,' seems to me to have been increasing in speed within the 300,000 years of the human story. The rate of speed increase seems to be increasing to the point that we are coming up with new tech at a faster rate than ever before. — universeness

I suppose your intent was to focus on the plausibility of a technological Singularity. But my attention was drawn to the question of "Emergence . . . of new possibilities". That question is central to my personal world view of Enformationism, which regards Generic Information (causation) as the Agency of Emergence, so to speak.

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

I get negative feedback for using such taboo terminology, but these authors can get away with it because they have academic & professional credentials. In my own amateur thesis, I intuited that Natural Selection was the mechanism of causation by which novel systems (Transcendent Complexes) emerge from the random roiling of subordinate parts. The authors list, "in order of sophistication, the five mechanisms of top-down causation"*2. Then they expand on that foundation to say : "Darwinian evolutionary processes in living systems are therefore ruled from the bottom up, but also by fundamental emerging organizational principles that are hierarchically built-up and impose necessary constraints from the top down". Moreover, as you noted, the "speed" of natural emergence has increased exponentially since the natural emergence of artificial human culture, as the new Agent of Causation.

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



*1. The Santa Fe Institute is an independent, nonprofit theoretical research institute located in Santa Fe, New Mexico, United States and dedicated to the multidisciplinary study of the fundamental principles of complex adaptive systems, including physical, computational, biological, and social systems. ___Wikipedia


*2. Five Mechanisms of Natural Causation :
1. Deterministic boundary conditions
2. nonadaptive information control
3. adaptive selection criteria
4. adaptive information control
5. adaptive selection of selection criteria

Superb summary of what transpired betwixt you and Gnomon. The salient points (of contention) highlighted for the audience's benefit, kudos.
Gnomon's thesis may need work, but it isn't philosophical crankery in me humble opinion, but que sais-je? — Agent Smith

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

But to label my personal philosophical thesis as a New Age screed is "cranky", in the sense of irritable & ill-tempered. Nevertheless, his pot-shots don't offend me, because they miss by a mile. The 180 degree difference in emphasis is why 180 dismisses Enformationism as "crankery", and Gnomon dismisses 180's off-topic posts as irrelevant. Your own posts are much closer in salience to what I'm talking about. :joke: :smile: :cool:


*1. the new physics and New Age ideology :
Although we are still lacking a complete quantum-relativistic theory of the sub-atomic world, several partial theories and models have been developed which describe some aspects of this world very successfully. A discussion of the most important of these models and theories will show that they all involve philosophical conceptions which are in striking agreement with those in Eastern mysticism ___physicist Fritjof Capra, 1986
https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/themelios/article/god-guts-and-gurus-the-new-physics-and-new-age-ideology/

↪Gnomon
Zettel is not around any more, but if he was, I'd point him to Wittgenstein, Tolstoy and the Folly of Logical Positivism. — Wayfarer

Thanks. Since I have no training in formal Philosophy, and most of my relevant reading is written by scientists, I am quite ignorant of the "doctrines" of modern philosophers (since 17th century). That may be why some of my ad hoc 21st century arguments fall flat for those more accustomed to conventional formal expositions. I have learned from feedback on this forum that, for many posters, "Metaphysics" is an offensive four-letter word. :smile:

↪Gnomon
Both can't be right because they're mutually contradictory. As part of yin-yang duality, they're mutually annihilatory, not complementary. What we can do is find the middle ground i.e. find a compromise and say that the subjective and the objective are two very different windows to reality with no overlapping magisteria. So if I say God exists, I don't mean it in an objective, provable sense and when I say God doesn't exist, I don't mean it in a subjective, unprovable sense. — Agent Smith

BothAnd doesn't mean both parts of a duality are right or true, but merely that both extremes are parts of a larger whole unitary system -- because they are interrelated. As says, it's a YinYang concept. The opposing forces don't annihilate, like antimatter, but merely moderate each other.

The universe is a single system AFAIK, but it is driven by opposing forces -- Energy & Entropy -- to follow a median path through space-time, neither too hot, nor too cold, but "just right" as Goldilocks gushed. That's not a fact. but an expression of preference for a median temperature. Out in space the temperature is near absolute zero. And in stars it's matter-melting hot. But, on our home planet, those extremes are moderated into a livable range. For which the Chinese philosophers were grateful to the Tao : the middle path.

In philosophical dialog, one person may say "Yaweh exists" while another says "god is dead". Though diametrically opposing opinions, together they cover most of the range of opinions on the god question. A BothAnd position on such unverifiable questions would be Agnostic (possible but unknowable), or Deistic (another name for impartial Nature, or Tao). Which opinion would you choose, if you were describing the ultimate philosophical fact of your world? :smile:


Yin/Yang
Yin and yang (/jɪn/ and /jæŋ/) is a Chinese philosophical concept that describes opposite but interconnected forces. In Chinese cosmology, the universe creates itself out of a primary chaos of material energy, organized into the cycles of yin and yang and formed into objects and lives.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yin_and_yang

Are metaphysical doctrines such as aesthetics and ethics really "branches" of philosophy, or are they just thinly disguised poetry? The propositions issuing from metaphysics and philosophy seem logically and epistemologically distinct. — Zettel

Your objection to the conventional definition of "Metaphysics" touches on one reason why I prefer to define my own interpretation in posts of philosophical opinions, instead of scientific facts. The label itself was applied by Christian theologians centuries after Aristotle wrote his encyclopedia on "phusis" (Nature). In the first volume he described the contemporary understanding of the natural world, as observed via the senses. But in the second volume, he discussed various ideas & opinions that observers had postulated in order to make (rational) sense of the world as presented to the physical senses. So, volume 1 is what we would call "Science" today, yet volume 2 goes beyond (meta) the sensory observations of the external world, into internal ideas, opinions, concepts that observers have imagined in order to explain what they saw.

Therefore, I define "Meta-Physics" as being about the mental subjects instead of the physical objects. Hence, "metaphysics" is about Subjective Science instead of Objective Science. Unfortunately, while two people can agree on what both see with their eyes, they often disagree about the meaning & significance of those facts. Hence, Meta-Physics is the general subject/object of Philosophy. Even among scientists, there are few disputes about specific facts, but many divisive doctrines about general implications of those facts.

Unfortunately, whenever I use the term "Meta-Physics" --- referring to non-physical mental aspects of the world --- some TPF posters interpret that special spelling as a theological term, referring to imaginary gods & ghosts. And they don't seem to care what Aristotle intended, when he divided his treatise between physical observations and non-physical opinions. For me, Philosophy is all about Meta-physics, consisting of reasoned opinions instead of observed facts. Unlike pragmatic Science, theoretical Philosophy is endlessly debatable. :smile:


Subjective Meta-Physics vs Objective Science :
Generally speaking, subjective is used to describe something that exists in the mind of a person or that pertains to viewpoints of an individual person. . . . Subjective observation is centered on a person’s own mind and perspectives, as opposed to being general, universal, or scientific. In this way, describing an observation as subjective often implies that it comes with (or is based on) personal biases.
https://www.dictionary.com/e/subjective-vs-objective/

As a human, I'm inclined to agree, we have both objective and subjective aspirations. However, the objective and the subjective sides tend to contradict each other e.g. the classic case of belief in a deity in the absence of evidence and just like that we're faced with an intractable dilemma, a choice hasta be made between the two and it's an either-or, not a BothAnd. — Agent Smith

Who is forcing you to make a choice of one belief system or another? What if both are part right and part wrong? The BothAnd philosophy leaves you the freedom to choose the best parts of each complex multi-faceted belief system. Remember, like a see-saw, contradictory positions always have a balancing pivot-point between them. But maintaining the precarious balance requires philosophical agility.

For example, religion-in-general has existed among humans for eons. So there must be something good (useful) in viewing the world as something like a super-organism, or of humanity as a family of semi-deities (ruling over animals & plants). Most primitive religions have been rather innocent & childlike. And some, like Buddhism, are essentially private self-help therapies. But those religions associated with political empires may wield the power of life & death (burning at the stake) over its citizens. So, you might want to choose to avoid those that are oppressive, and to emulate those that are humane.

Likewise, Science-in-general is simply the human quest to understand the natural world, in order to tame its wildness. Yet, on the other hand, the amoral & reductive practice of scientific investigation into the underpinnings of Nature have lead to the god-like (thermo-nuclear) power to destroy all life on this planet*1. So again, you can choose the paths of science that lead to "better living through technology", and to avoid those paths that lead to environmental pollution.

That's the beauty of BothAnd, the chooser is free to determine the pertinent criteria for his own selections. :cool:


*1. As he witnessed the first detonation of a nuclear weapon on July 16, 1945, a piece of Hindu scripture ran through the mind of Robert Oppenheimer: “Now I am become Death, the destroyer of worlds”. ___spoken by Hindu deity Vishnu
https://www.wired.co.uk/article/manhattan-project-robert-oppenheimer



https://bothandblog.enformationism.info/page2.html

I think the verbal boxing between you is not severe. I have witnessed far, far worse. — universeness

I agree. I don't take 's verbal punches as seriously as he seems to take my timid rejoinders. Most of his swings are whiffs anyway, because he fails to see the essential point of my thesis. Besides, he seems to think his mission on this forum is to be a Socratic gadfly, pointing out both their factual errors, and the errors in reasoning of those whose views contradict his own. I find his earnestness amusing, so I often conclude my posts to him with a "joke" emoji. :joke:

PS__The Joke symbol is supposed to be "tongue in cheek", but it looks more like sticking your tongue out. Which could be misconstrued. Maybe he thinks I'm razzing him. Or maybe those high-proof beverages make him hyper-sensitive. :wink:

PPS__My non-creedal Enformationism worldview is a calmly reasoned philosophical interpretation of 21st century Information & quantum theories; not an emotional eternal life expectation. So, when reply posters get riled-up, I don't get upset, because I understand that they don't understand what I'm proposing. They are reacting to the perceived evils of oppressive religion, or to the perceived folly of an anti-science belief system, instead of groking the mind-boggling possibilities of a novel information-centric philosophical worldview. :nerd:

Gadfly : (god fly)
According to the words put into his mouth by Plato, Socrates believed that he had been sent by the gods to act as a “gadfly” to the Athenian state.
https://oll.libertyfund.org/quote/socrates-as-the-gadfly-of-the-state-4thc-bc

I appreciate your offer of links to attempts to 'bridge gaps between science and religion.' But, I assign very little value to such notions. — universeness

OK

I can only speak for myself. The root of my interest in philosophy is a need for self-awareness — T Clark
The radix of all philosophy is the desire need to know reality, in and for itself and/or as a path to success, not as a businessman, not as a king, not as an engineer, not as a doctor, but as a human. — Agent Smith

I agree that the original root motive of ancient Greek Philosophy was the need to understand physical Reality. But that practical "need" is now being filled by empirical Science. So, modern Philosophy has been left holding the bag of trying to understand the elusive Self.

Aristotle covered both of those needs/desires in his Physics and Metaphysics. However, some posters on TPF seem to think that understanding objective Reality via modern Science, obviates the need to understand subjective Ideality. Hence, Subjective introverts and Objective extroverts (philosophically speaking) tend to talk past each other, with different vocabularies. Making dialog difficult. And yet, we press on. :smile:

"I coined the term EnFormAction to encapsulate the directional (teleonomic) causation of Evolution." __Gnomon
I think there is no teleological connection to natural evolution via positing a universal data fundamental.
I think the current position that disorder can become order due to very large variety randomly combining in vast numbers of ways. Natural novelty need no teleological input. Teleology only comes into play via human design/intent/purpose. — universeness

Did you notice that I used the term Teleonomy*1 instead of Teleology? It's that kind of talking past each other that makes communicating with 180 so difficult. He substitutes his favorite antiscience terminology in place of my philosophical concepts. We are contrasting personal worldviews & opinions & beliefs*2, not scientific facts & truths. Serial Monologing with makes three years feel like ten. :smile:


*1. Teleonomy is the quality of apparent purposefulness and of goal-directedness of structures and functions in living organisms brought about by natural processes like natural selection.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teleonomy

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

I think he is responding, but not directly to you. I think he has chosen to maintain a political approach to you and I would personally prefer he responded to you directly. — universeness

Almost 10 years ago, when I first began to post on this forum, I did take seriously, and was impressed with his extensive knowledge of philosophy. But after he made it clear that any of my responses to his comments would be treated as the repugnant babblings of an idiot, I eventually decided not to engage with him in political polemics.

Your science-based worldview seems to be similar to his in general, but you are less directly abusive in your responses to ideas that you find anti-scientific (i.e. metaphysics). So, I'm OK with your careful critiques of my personal worldview. Yet now, you seem ready to dis-engage. :sad:

PS__180 likes to imagine Gnomon as a tree-hugging hippie Hindu Buddhist Romantic, reciting poems of universal peace & love while lighting candles and smoking weed, despite his sentient crystals being made of synthetic zircon. But that could hardly be farther from the fact. Instead, Gnomon is a forty year subscriber to Skeptical Inquirer & Scientific American magazines. And Gnomon's 21st century Science is built upon a mushy quantum foundation of uncertainty & indeterminism that undermined the faith in Realism of Classical Physics.

PS__Where I view the universe as evolving in a positive direction (Enformy) 180 seems to agree with suicidal Macbeth :

Macbeth to himself :
Tomorrow, and tomorrow, and tomorrow,
Creeps in this petty pace from day to day,
To the last syllable of recorded time;
And all our yesterdays have lighted fools
The way to dusty death. Out, out, brief candle!
Life's but a walking shadow, a poor player,
That struts and frets his hour upon the stage,
And then is heard no more. It is a tale
Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury,
Signifying nothing.

But do you think this 'capability of self-comprehension,' is only emergent through US and lifeforms such as us, or is he positing a general panpsychism, in the sense that, 'rocks contain some ingredients that could become part of a conscious combinatorial?' Would this have to follow if human consciousness is fundamentally information, and information is ubiquitous? — universeness

Although his concept of Dataome may sound similar to Panpsychism, as a professional scientist, Scharf would be loathe to use terminology that would incite ridicule from his peers. However, he does make use of edgy words like "hive mind" and "superorganism". As as non-professional amateur philosopher though, I'm not afraid to call a spade a pointy shovel, or a universal field of Data/Information a big Idea.

No. sentient rocks are not implied by the concept of Dataome. In any case, only a tiny fraction of the embodied information in the universe has developed the emergent quality of Sentience. But if pressed, Scharf might agree that the universe has indeed become self-reflective, by means of its sentient creatures. He does admit that "There is little doubt that something is going on with our species . . . ." I'll let you read the book, to fill-in the ellipsis. :smile:

Do you disagree that empirical science must be the final arbiter of theoretical philosophy? — universeness

Yes. Empirical Science may be the final arbiter of pragmatic Empirical questions, but theoretical Philosophy is still arbitrating questions that remain unanswered by classical scientific methods*1. A century later, the practical significance of sub-atomic physics remains debatable. Yes, the get-er-done engineers have developed technologies for manipulating invisible particles of stuff. But physicists are still debating the common-sense meaning of such non-sense as Superposition and Quantum Leaps. Philosophy is not about Matter, but Meaning.

Those spooky questions*2 remain under the purview of Theoretical Physics*3, which is essentially a narrow specialty of Philosophy. Einstein was not a mystic or religious believer, but he resorted to philosophical & poetic metaphors to convey unsettled ideas about physical facts. Ironically, some posters on this philosophical forum seem to believe that such ideas as Emergence can be finally settled by empirical methods. :smile:

PS__Just as Steven Jay Gould separated Religion & Science into non-overlapping magisteria, Philosophy & Science are not competitors in the same arena.

*1. Physics vs Metaphysics :
Physics is defined, in its simplest form, as the study of matter and energy and how those two interact, while metaphysics deals with the ideas that don’t abide by scientific logic and theories.
https://allthedifferences.com/metaphysics-vs-physics/

*2. Quantum Questions :
Here is a collection of writings that bridges the gap between science and religion. Quantum Questions collects the mystical writings of each of the major physicists involved in the discovery of quantum physics and relativity, including Albert Einstein, Werner Heisenberg, and Max Planck.
https://www.shambhala.com/quantum-questions-1226.html

*3. What’s behind a science vs. philosophy fight? :
In fact, most of the scientists I know are strictly theoretical. They don’t dirty their hands with experimental testing. ___Rebecca Newberger Goldstein
https://bigthink.com/hard-science/why-are-scientists-philosophers-fighting-again/

Yes. I'm also not interested in air conditioning or folk dancing. Unlike you perhaps, I am not overcome with the need to make meaning or find 'ultimate realty'. I am content and mostly satisfied by life as it appears and frankly whatever ontological beliefs we hold, the moment we leave home we are all naïve realists. :wink: — Tom Storm

Pardon my probing for meaning : How do you characterize your "indifference" to philosophical Ontological origins*1? Is it aggressive Atheism, or apathetic Agnosticism, or mundane Traditionalism*2, or some other pre-Philosophy understanding of the natural world*3? Or just Anti-Religion, as the parallel to politics for the cultural powers-that-be to dominate the common people? Or perhaps merely Anti-Ontology as a feckless waste of time in a heartless/mindless/pointless material world? :joke:

*1. Ontology :
In metaphysics, ontology is the philosophical study of being, as well as related concepts such as existence, becoming, and reality.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ontology
Note -- the search for "ultimate reality"

*2. In pre-science Traditional cultures, for most people, the existence of gods or natural forces is not a well-reasoned philosophical worldview, but merely going along with the majority, and taking the conventional doctrines of sages for granted. In National Geographic, primitive cultures don't practice formal creedal religions, but mere follow ancient un-written assumptions & practices (natural magic) that seem pragmatic to them. Their gods & spirits are equivalent to what moderns call Natural Laws and Forces. And they tend to be satisfied with metaphorical myths & analogies that seem (to non-philosophers) to be plausible explanations for ultimate origins.

*3. Primitive gods :
Before we go further we must get clear the difference between magic and religion, for there has always been a good deal of confusion. Magic then or art-magic resembles religion in dealing with unseen powers, so that it is entirely distinct from what is called sympathetic magic. This last is not properly magic at all, but the science of the savage, by which he tries to bring rain, make the crops grow, or do other things which he believes he can do himself. This may be crude science; but there can be no question of either magic or religion till he comes to things which he believes can only be done by the unseen powers. Magic may also be like religion in outward form, and sometimes even becomes religion when our relation to the unseen powers is differently conceived. The distinction is in this relation; and it is absolute. In magic we do not trust the unseen powers we are dealing with: in religion we do.
https://www.giffordlectures.org/books/knowledge-god-and-its-historical-development-volume-1/lecture-10-primitive-religion-1

Where do you think your enformation, etc posits, takes us, FROM the current position, as established by Jim Al-Khalili's video above. — universeness

In recent years, I've seen several videos by Al Khalili on YouTube -- including this one -- and find them very informative (pardon!). I have to leave soon, so I only watched a few minutes of this video. A significant point was noted right away : "invisible information". The general thrust of the video seems to be similar to the book I'm currently reading : The Ascent of Information, by Caleb Scharf. He refers to the ubiquity of Information in the physical, mental, & technological universe as the Dataome (holistic concept similar to Genome)*1.

Both Scharf and Al Kalili are scientists, and focus primarily on the practical Technological products (looms & computers) of understanding that abstract Information is more fundamental than concrete Matter, and can be manipulated meta-physically by the human mind. For my own personal purposes though, I am focusing on the impractical Philosophical aspects of universal Information, especially its causal powers in the form of Energy & Entropy*2. Not any particular causal event, but the general invisible force behind all change in the universe. This "force" is responsible for what we call Natural Evolution, which is characterized by creative Emergence of novelty. Yet, aimless randomness creates only Entropy, while Natural Selection (teleonomic Choice) creates the "order" (stable & beautiful patterns of inter-relationships) that Al Khalili finds so wonderful.

I'm not sure if Jim would agree, but I also view Information as "immaterial" in its invisible mental forms of Concepts, Ideas, Feelings, etc. All of those are interrelated patterns that could be reduced to abstract mathematical ratios, by omitting the personal meanings as Shannon did. Meanings exist only in the individual human mind -- in the self-Consciousness that has "miraculously" emerged from a seemingly mechanical series of operations on matter. Unfortunately, those memes (units of memory) can only be exported from intangible minds by transforming them into conventional physical symbols. That ability to transform from Mind to Matter and back, is the key power of Generic Information*3. And that telenomic understanding of Evolution may "take us" in a new direction from the useful-but-short-sighted and out-dated paradigms ofMaterialism and Reductionism.

I have to go. But if you have specific questions, raised by the video, I'll be glad to respond as I get time. :smile:


*1. In the final chapter of his book, Scharf finally reveals the motivation for his interpretation of the philosophical importance of Information : "The greater mystery is that the universe is actually capable of self-comprehension".

*2. I coined the term EnFormAction to encapsulate the directional (teleonomic) causation of Evolution. The act of enforming creates novelty out of directionless randomness. For example, that's what happens when Quantum superposition (disorganized randomness) suddenly "collapses" into an organized physical particle of matter.

*3. Introduction to Enformationism :
“A philosophical worldview grounded on the 20th century discovery that Information, rather than Matter, is the fundamental substance of everything in the universe.”
https://bothandblog6.enformationism.info/page80.html
Note -- If that blog post is too long for you, here's a shorter version :
https://bothandblog3.enformationism.info/page24.html

We want our values to triumph or to muffle the opposition — Andrew4Handel

I think you have answered your own question. In my experience on this forum, posters rarely get "upset" with routine exchanges of views. But when a post "gets real" -- invades someone's home turf : their core belief system ("values") -- you can almost feel the "ouch!" as toes get stepped on. Most of us are like ballroom dancers, who try to ignore the occasional toe stepping. But for some true believers, the pain is too much to bear. So, they will push or punch the toe-steppers to "muffle" their offensive words. This despite the philosophical adage or precept : “Sticks and stones may break my bones, but words will never hurt me”. :smile:

Here's food for thought: Cold isn't really a thing, as much of a thing as heat is and darkness is also not really a thing, as much of a thing as light is. Is Enformy a thing, or are you making the same mistake as the Hindus (zero) made as according to the Greeks who asked "how can nothing be something?" :cool: — Agent Smith

True. "Cold" only has meaning relative to Hot, so it exists meta-physically as a relationship concept in the mind. Yet, "Hot" is also a non-thing, with only a relative existence, as measured in artificial degrees. Enformy is not a thing, it's a causal process like Evolution, except with a positive meaning, relative to inquiring humans. Unlike "Hot" you can't sense Enformy physically, you can only infer it Rationally. Both concepts, Enformy & Evolution, exist meta-physically like Zero*1 : the imaginary concept of Nothingness.

However, "Zero" has a parallel in Terrence Deacon's Absence*2, the metaphysics of incompleteness. Again, Absence is not a physical thing, but the meta-physical Potential for something. And Potential only has meaning relative to Actual. Deacon's Absential is only Nothing in a physical sense, which for Materialists is all there is -- no place for non-things . But for Philosophers, Potential has always been the solution to mysterious Emergences*3, which is what we call the occasion when some new properties or qualities are manifested from something old : i.e. Holism. Absence, in the sense of Incompleteness, implies Teleology/Teleonomy, which is a pulling force from a future metaphysical state (the goal or end or telos or Final Cause of a process).

All of those no-thing concepts are absent from the Physicalist*3 worldview. Which is why some anti-metaphysical posters on this forum are like the ancient Greeks & Hindus, in denying the reality of Zero. Yet again, it's nothing but a mental philosophical concept : an idea, lacking all the substance of Matter. But then, ideas are the essential substance & subject of Philosophy. n'est ce pas? :cool:

PS__I apologize for getting carried away with references to Emergence below*3 *4 *5.

*1. Zero : The Biography of a Dangerous Idea :
Zero is the fascinating story of a number banned by the ancient Greeks and worshipped by ancient Indians
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero:_The_Biography_of_a_Dangerous_Idea

*2. Absence :
Deacon's 2011 work Incomplete Nature has a strong triadic structure, inspired perhaps by an important influence from semiotics—the philosopher Charles Sanders Peirce's triad of icon, index, and symbol. Deacon's triad levels represent the material, the ideal, and the pragmatic. The first two levels reflect the ancient philosophical dualism of materialism and idealism, or body and mind, respectively. The major transition from the nonliving to the living - the problem of abiogenesis, and the introduction of telos in the universe - happens in Deacon's third level. . . .
Appreciating Deacon's argument is easier with a little history. Claude Shannon's information theory produced an expression for the potential information that can be carried in a communication channel. It is the mathematical negative of Boltzmann's formula for entropy.
https://www.informationphilosopher.com/solutions/scientists/deacon/

*3. Mystery of Emergence :
Strong Emergence as a Defense of Non-Reductive Physicalism
https://www.jstor.org/stable/4545239

4*. Emergence :
"Emergent behaviors, like games, are all about living within the boundaries defined by rules, but also using that space to create something greater than the sum of its parts" __by Steven Johnson
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergence:_The_Connected_Lives_of_Ants,_Brains,_Cities,_and_Software

*5. The Emergence of Everything :
"Because of the Pauli principle [exclusion], matter is informatic, and something akin to mind has already entered the universe" __Harold Morowitz, biophysicist
Note-- "informatic" = imparting information

Hi Gnomon, my ontology centers around non-physical things such as time, space, certain forms of energy, logic, number, and information. Some of my philosophy resembles yours, and i'm curious to know what your thoughts are on where information comes from? How is it created at the most fundamental level? or what allows it to be possible (a sub-structure perhaps)? — punos

Some posters on this forum will reject your notion of "non-physical", partly because they associate that label with "spiritual", and partly because their Materialism/Physicalism worldview lumps all the things you mentioned under the heading of Physics. That's also why some of the pioneers of Quantum Theory were labeled as "mystics" when they borrowed some holistic Oriental terminology to help understand the non-reductive & counter-intuitive & non-classical weirdness of the sub-atomic realm. So, be aware that "non-physical" may be interpreted as meaning "meta-physical", which to some is about spiritual gods & ghosts, instead of about immaterial ideas & concepts : not Reality, but Ideality. It's about theoretical Philosophy, not empirical Science.

Energy is indeed physical in the sense that it is the primary concern of physicists. But it's not a material object, and has no atomic structure. Instead Energy*1 is the process of Causation that produces changes in material objects. But some treat that process metaphorically as-if it is a flowing stream of fluid energy-stuff. In the book I'm currently reading, The Ascent of Information, astro-biologist Caleb Scharf says : "Many of us have gotten used to thinking of the closely related properties of energy and entropy as tangible things. In truth, they are really just concepts that help predict or explain why matter behaves the way it does". So those who imagine Energy as a "tangible thing" (physical fluid?) are taking the symbolic figure-of-speech metaphor literally. And that's a common conceptual problem in philosophical dialog.

Scharf goes on to be more explicit about "non-physical" Energy*2 : "But it's hard to point at any phenomenon in nature and say, 'that is energy'. A photon is not energy. . . . . It's one reason physicists always wince when a science fiction tale mentions anything being made of 'pure energy', because that's just wrong". However, you may be thinking of "non-physical" Energy as an abstraction equivalent to "pure energy". And such abstractions include Mathematical ratios such as those of Thermodynamics. Also, in my personal worldview of Enformationism, I equate Energy with Generic Information : the power to enform, or to change forms. :smile:


*1. What is Energy? :
But, what is Energy or Force anyway? For scientific purposes, it is a general property (Causation) of the universe as a system, which causes changes in material substances. Some religions also view Spiritual Energy (Life Force or Soul) as a universal property, that manifests in changes not only to physical bodies, but also in non-physical minds. So which is it? Sadly, these are not physical, but metaphysical queries. Hence, any answers we propose can never be proven true or false by means of empirical evidence. In the Quora quotes below, Neuroscientist Rosseinsky, indicates that we can construct logical explanations, given specific premises, for both possibilities, but we can't prove that one is a fact and the other a fantasy. Each may be valid within its own purview. That's why I prefer to make a key distinction between mundane Reality and sublime Ideality.
https://bothandblog.enformationism.info/page26.html

*2. Energy is Information in action :
Energy is the relationship between information regimes. That is, energy is manifested, at any level, between structures, processes and systems of information in all of its forms, and all entities in this universe is composed of information.
https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/22084/how-is-information-related-to-energy-in-physics
Note -- given time, I could link to many opinions of scientists who equate Information & Energy. But some posters will think that notion is either irrelevant or heretical to their belief system.

i'm curious to know what your thoughts are on where information comes from? How is it created at the most fundamental level? or what allows it to be possible (a sub-structure perhaps)? — punos

Where does Information come from? It's like Energy, which physicists now define as inherent in empty space : vacuum energy. Likewise, the source of Information/Energy has been inherent in the non-physical Potential*3 of virtual energy Fields (empty space) from the beginning of space-time. How that non-physical creative power got embedded in the physical world is not a scientific question. Yet some imaginative physicists have speculated on various unproveable scenarios : including an infinite regression of Big Bangs, or an unbounded Universe of Many Worlds. Your guess is as good as mine. But I too have speculated on the origins of both Energy & Matter*4. The BothAnd Blog goes into some deep detail to support those non-scientific conjectures. :nerd:


*3. Potential & Actual :
Potential is unactualized power to cause change; to enform. It's not real, and it's non-physical. Yet the Field Theory of physics assumes (imagines without physical evidence) that empty space contains unactualized Energy that can emerge from not-yet-real Virtual Particles. I agree, but I refer to that hypothesis as a meta-physical concept.

*4. Infinite Un-bounded Potential :
Langan calls the source of being, the UnBound Telesis, meaning something like an infinite intentionality, or eternal Will. UBT sounds equivalent to my notion of eternal Chaos, an infinite unformed pool of potential, which like Plato's ideal Forms can become realized into physical things or processes. But, Actualization requires Causation, which is an act of creation. My own term for the old Greek concept of “the ground of being” is simply BEING : the power to exist. So that's another way to describe G*D functionally without defining the deity phenomenologically.
https://www.bothandblog.enformationism.info/page48.html

I think I will just drop this issue now as I am probably not helping improve the impasse between you both. I was just trying to reduce the barrier between you both, that's all. You both seem to be reasonable folks to me. — universeness

Thanks for the effort, but you are not likely to resolve "the impasse", because for it seems to be an ideological war of Good vs Evil (Scientism vs Spiritualism???). I assume that attitude is partly due to his belief that most-if-not-all philosophers up until the 17th century -- most of whom included G*D in their world models -- were simply practicing irrational Religion in words instead of deeds. (Please don't take this characterization-out-of-context literally)

I have enjoyed the opportunity to respond to your non-abusive questioning. The exercise helps me to refine my own emerging philosophical worldview. But you still seem to miss the this-worldly focus of Enformationism, due to its "contamination" with a speculative god-concept. Ironically, like Spinoza's "god of the philosophers", I'm not making any factual claims about super-natural beings. Unless, that is, you categorize Energy (invisible causal power) and Information (creative power to enform) as supernatural concepts. I don't expect to make converts on this open forum, but merely to freely exchange philosophical ideas, no matter how far out.

180 finds it easy to pick & squish the low-hanging fruit of an uncredentialed unpublished amateur philosopher, whose ideas are "unworthy", simply because they are not in the mainstream of holy Science. "No credentials, no credence". But that's an odd attitude for a forum of amateur philosophers, most of whom also have no credentials in Science -- or Philosophy. As long as he views Creativity*1 as a taboo supernatural power, the core concept of Enformationism (Energy = natural power to enform & transform = EnFormAction = the cause of Emergence) will be anathema (something or someone that one vehemently dislikes). But I'm cool with that, as long as we maintain a respectful distance. :cool:

*1. Creativity is a phenomenon whereby something new and valuable is formed. The created item may be intangible (such as an idea, a scientific theory, a musical composition, or a joke) or a physical object (such as an invention, a printed literary work, or a painting).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creativity