Looking on past the links you provided above. I did notice that Gnomon does not respond to many of your questions. He is welcome to reconsider, that and respond to the points you made, if he wants to. — universeness

FYI. I have explained many times before why I ceased responding to 's "inconvenient questions". It's primarily because his snarky responses, besides irrelevant, are mostly abusive instead of reasonable.

If you want to see some of my indirect answers to his rarely relevant ridicule, just check-out my replies to , who has inadvertently become the middle-man mediator between combatants. It's a who-hit-who-first abusive relationship, which I long ago decided to divorce from. :smile:

There's nothing accomplished by invoking god in any context I can think of, unless you happen to have particular questions that seem better when stoppered up by a magic man. — Tom Storm

Yes. Atheism is a response -- part rational, part emotional -- to traditional religious god-models of a "magic man" in the sky. But philosophers typically avoid anthro-morphic definitions for their ultimate/universal (non-particular) Ontological theories. And, since their logical models are hypothetical, they don't claim to have physical evidence to support their notions of Logos or First Cause.

So, what if the "god" invoked by Enformationism is a hypothetical meta-physical Principle or Property or Qualia, like insubstantial Pure Energy/Causation*1, instead of an imaginary anthro-morphic wizard, hiding behind the curtain of Quantum Uncertainty*2. Can you think of any "particular questions" about the opaque shroud of fuzzy randomness that caused Quantum pioneers to turn to Eastern philosophies for metaphorical answers?*3 What if it's the god-like gap-stopper of the Quantum mass gap*4.

Perhaps you "don't care" about the esoteric mysteries of Eastern Religions or Quantum theory, but they undermine the "solid" foundation of classical physics and materialistic philosophy with open questions. And the esoteric mystery of Ontological origins is a fundamental philosophical concern. :smile:


*1. Pure Energy :
"Pure energy" doesn't mean anything in physics. Energy can take many forms (mass, kinetic energy, or any of many forms of potential energy), but no one of them is "pure" in any sense, no more so than any other form.
Energy is a property of light and matter and not a substance in itself.
https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/15122/what-is-pure-energy

*2. Quantum Weirdness :
Phillip Ball introduces his topic by clarifying the murkiness of Quantum Physics : “what has emerged most strongly from this work on the fundamental aspects of quantum theory is that it is not a theory about particles and waves, discreteness or uncertainty or fuzziness. It is a theory about information.” [My emphasis] He then admits that “quantum information brings its own problems, because it raises questions about what this information is . . . because information is not a thing that you can point to . . .”
http://bothandblog7.enformationism.info/page43.html

*23 The Evolution of God : by science writer Robert Wright
The Progression of Human Understanding
Although he says “’materialist’ is a not-very-misleading term for me”, and that he wrote this book “from a materialist standpoint”, he still concludes that the “religious worldview” may have some validity. “The story of this evolution itself points to the existence of something you can meaningfully call divinity”. But quickly concedes “that the kind of god that remains plausible . . . is not the kind of god that most religious believers currently have in mind.” Instead, it seems to be the kind of First Cause Creator that Bloom called the “Inventor”, and that I call “G*D” or “Logos”.
http://bothandblog7.enformationism.info/page43.html

*4. Why is Yang-Mills mass gap important? :
The mass gap is an important challenge because solving it should force mathematical physicists to confront directly the messy question of exactly what the observables of QCD are.
https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/9704/why-is-the-yang-mills-existence-and-mass-gap-problem-so-fundamental

You haven't. I don't consider you a crank. It can be very tough indeed to try to occupy any 'middle ground' between two diametrically opposed groups. I do have a scientism, in that I champion science over theism or any supernatural posits, completely. I wear that definition of 'scientism,' with as much joy as any halelujah chorus. — universeness

Thanks for the vote of confidence. But, some on this forum have accused me of overweening ego for promoting a new paradigm based on the emerging science of Information. likes to say I'm "making sh*t up", although my modest contribution to the emergent information-centric worldview is to make-up some neologisms to convey the unconventional (post-Shannon) concepts that emerge from the new understanding of the ubiquitous role of Information in the universe : including both Mind & Matter. For example, what I call "EnFormAction" (energy + laws) is just a new name for the causal "phenomenon at the root of things"*1.

Perhaps my role is more like Darwin's Bulldog, Thomas Huxley, who didn't "make-up" the theory of Evolution, but promoted it among his incredulous peers in science. In fact, even Darwin's theory was an assemblage of ideas that were already "in the air" so to speak*2. Even his own father, Erasmus, seems to have coined the technical term "Evolution" to describe his own concept of descent from a common ancestor. It would be hard for me to designate the "Darwin" of Enformationism, because dozens of scientists & philosophers have contributed to the knowledge-base. But my go-to guy is physicist Paul Davies, who has written a long string of books on various information-centric ideas, including The Mind of God : The Scientific Basis for a Rational World. A philosophical promoter is The Information Philosopher*3, who has also never heard of Enformationism.

My problem with Scientism is that it typically denigrates not just irrational Religions, but also rational-but-non-empirical Philosophy itself. Philosophical posts on TPF --- that don't conform to the ancient belief system of Materialism/Atomism as canonized in 17th century classical physics --- are shouted-down as religion-in-disguise. Yet Enformationism is compatible with Physics, Chemistry, & Biology up to the point of explaining the emergence of Life, Mind, & Memes. In 1973, Theodosius Dobzhansky asserted "nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution". Now, 50 years later, Gnomon goes on record to say that "nothing in Evolution makes sense except in the light of Information". Is that a case of overweening ego? Judge for yourself *4. :smile:


*1. quote from Caleb Scharf in The Ascent of Information, who has never heard of Enformationism .

*2. Evolution : Charles Darwin is commonly cited as the person who “discovered” evolution. But, the historical record shows that roughly seventy different individuals published work on the topic of evolution between 1748 and 1859, the year that Darwin published On the Origin of Species.
https://hmnh.harvard.edu/event/who-discovered-evolution

*3. Information philosophy is a dualist philosophy, both materialist and idealist. It is a correspondence theory, explaining how immaterial ideas represent material objects.
https://www.informationphilosopher.com/

*4. The EnFormAction Hypothesis : Emergent Evolution
Without understanding how the process of en-formation works, the emergence of Mathematical Physics & self-organizing Life & metaphysical Mind must be taken on Faith, as miraculous bootstrap (self-starting) events.
https://bothandblog3.enformationism.info/page23.html.

If you're not a theist, then you're an atheist. Don't be afraid of the word. If you are not a believer in any kind of deity then you're effectively an atheist. I think many people with 'spiritual beliefs' are atheists. — Tom Storm

Ha! That's an Atheist twist on a typical Christian argument. I suppose you're saying that the god-question is binary (either-or). But Agnosticism takes the third option : that a supernatural deity is unknowable by the ordinary means of Epistemology (knowable world). In that case, suspension of both belief and dis-belief is the reasonable stance. Or, blind faith replaces knowledge.

However, unlike physicists, rational philosophers do not limit their mental explorations to the physical sensory milieu. So, a fourth option is Immanentism, which defines the logical (mathematical) & self-organizing (life-like) attributes of Evolution are limited to space-time Nature itself, while making no hypothesis about eternal-infinite origins. Then, there is a fifth option, that of Deism. In that case, the logical inference of a First Cause is made, based on the arrow of causation pointing away from the beginning of world development. Thus, implying a Creator without defining that concept in mundane terminology.

Hence, Deists do not claim to have super-natural knowledge. So the specific "nature" (attributes) of that Prime Mover are not knowable. Nevertheless, both Plato and Aristotle used abstract analogies & metaphorical language, instead of concrete anthro-morphic descriptions, to label their notions of what we moderns call the "Big Bang" & beyond (multiverse?). For example, "Logos" merely implies that the emergence of Reason in the world must necessarily have a Rational*1 origin. Likewise, "First Cause" or "Prime Mover" simply means that the known process of Causation in nature, must logically have an Impetus*2 .

Those Agnostic alternatives to Atheism, avoid commitment to any particular form of Theism as a doctrine. So, they don't deserve to be lumped into a category that they are designed to avoid. Don't you agree? :wink:


*1. Rational : ability to evaluate relationships -- ratios -- between things as meanings

*2. Impetus : the force that makes something happen

Notice though that atheism is also the stance that god doesn't exist which is a belief. Clearly, this is inconsistent with atheism being a lack of belief, unless, as you seem to think, withholding belief = belief that false. — Agent Smith

I'm late to the party here, so I'm not sure if key terminology has been defined and agreed upon. I am neither an Atheist nor a Theist, but like all humans, I do have personal beliefs about Ontology (existence) & Epistemology (justified belief), which are still debatable after all these millennia.

For me, a Belief is a feeling, not a fact; a stance, not a truth. And dis-belief in the creator hypothesis indicates more confidence (credence) in empirical Science (what is) than in theoretical Philosophy (what might be). Besides that basic preference for objective evidence vs subjective inference, Atheism seems to be an emotional response to certain aspects of Theism, especially the notions of divine intervention and ultimate damnation. So, you are correct that Atheists are not withholding belief, but holding a stance. Suspension of belief or disbelief, on moot points, is the stance of Agnostics, who admit that ultimate questions are unprovable, and merely inferrable. Si, no? :smile:


Belief is not true/false, but good/bad for me :
Beliefs are inherently subjective. Individually and collectively, we may hold a belief for which we have a particular sense of certitude and conviction. Now, this does not mean that just because one is certain that one’s belief is true, that it is not infallible. Believing in something does not necessarily make it true.
https://ineducationonline.org/2021/01/29/knowing-our-own-truth-belief-vs-facts/

Note -- "Incredulity" is negative belief, and an antipathetic feeling toward some conjecture.
"Credulity" is a positive feeling toward a postulation. "Skepticism" is a temporary suspension of belief, pending further empirical or logical evidence. True or False?

No mockery intended Gnomon, but your words here are a little messianic and sacrificial sounding. Always be on your guard against any seedlings of a Christ complex. — universeness

Ha! No messianic salvation intended. Just philosophical enlightenment. And one of my many messiahs is physicist Paul Davies. :joke:

However, my straightforward presentation of a novel scientific & philosophical concept has been affected by aggressive attacks & mockery on this forum over the last few years. I've been forced into a defensive position in response to binary polemics (good vs evil) defending a strongly-held but un-named belief system. Since Enformationism is intended to be a non-religious philosophical update to the worldview of Materialism/Physicalism, I must assume that the emotional responses to an alternative worldview are motivated by what Christians refer to as the humanistic religion of Scientism. If that's your belief system, I apologize for stepping on your toes.

Ironically, Christians would probably refer to my position as "humanistic", since it offers no divine intervention to direct the world toward a Heavenly home or an earthly Utopia. Instead, it's all up to us humans to learn from trial & error, the error of our ways, and the way (Tao) of the world. :smile:

PS__My personal worldview has some similarities to holistic oriental philosophies -- Taoism, Buddhism, Confucianism, etc. -- but is not beholden to their religious doctrines.
PPS__Thanks for moderating your mockery. Some posters are not so tactful in their ridicule of rival "religions".

Taoism Salvation :
Unlike Confucianism, Taoism is a salvation religion which seeks to guide its believers beyond this transitory life to a happy eternity. There is a belief in an original state of bliss, followed by the fallen state. And there is reliance on supernatural powers for help and protection.
https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-1-349-22904-8_7

Scientism :
The main difference between science and scientism is that science is the study of nature and behaviour of natural things and knowledge obtained through them while scientism is the view that only science can render truth about the world and reality.
https://pediaa.com/what-is-the-difference-between-science-and-scientism/
Note -- "only science" means that theoretical Philosophy is not accepted as a path to Truth.

I always try to avoid ossifying when it comes to my viewpoints. I am sure you do the same.
Well if you have such significant support from the scientific community then I am sure I will hear a lot more about Enformationism and your BothAnd proposals. From sources other than its author. — universeness

Yes. Most belief systems are conservative, and don't change with every shift of the wind. Old paradigms give way to new worldviews only as old believers die out. That's why I don't expect many physical scientists to accept the new way of understanding the world. But I provide links to the few pioneers that do -- all you have to do is click.

Regarding information theory, Mathematicians & Theoretical physicists are quicker to see the broader implications of Information theory than Experimental Physicists and Chemists. Even Einstein, as a theoretician, was loathe to accept the uncertain statistical basis of Quantum Theory : "God doesn't throw dice". So I just patiently chip away at one philosophy forum, to see if theoretical thinkers are quicker to see the value of fundamental causal Information, than pragmatic doers. Acceptance of new paradigms usually take generations to become "settled science". At this stage, very few members of the "scientific community" are aware of a post-Shannon interpretation of Information. But if you want "sources other than the author" just follow the links.

Since I have no academic or professional qualifications, I'd have to possess a monumental ego to expect anyone to take my amateur opinions as truths. That's why I provide plenty of links to professional opinions for those willing to click & comprehend. I'm just hoping that a few will grok the cosmic scale of the new Information paradigm. The negative feedback from this forum allows me to stay humble & flexible, and to "avoid ossifying" the initial insight of Enformationism. About 15 years ago, an article by a quantum physicist was trying to explain why sub-atomic physics seemed to be so weird & counterintuitive compared to the neat orderly intuitive classical physics of Newton. At one point, he exclaimed "it's all information!". Thus my personal philosophical quest began : to understand the invisible structure (Form) of Reality. :smile:

Paradigm Shift :
“A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it.”
― Max Planck, Scientific Autobiography and Other Papers

Paradigm Power :
Those belief systems or paradigms are quite simply, the way in which we see the world. As such they constitute our reality. All of our actions, our personal life choices, our professional and our medical practice decisions are heavily influenced and at times, strongly directed by our personal paradigms.
https://www.vin.com/apputil/content/defaultadv1.aspx?id=5709902&pid=11372&print=1

How Paradigms Fall : a general assessment, not specifically about the Information paradigm
***Thomas Kuhn’s iconic work The Structure of Scientific Revolution . . . talk about the patterns that occur when a paradigm shift is about to happen. . . . When paradigms begin to show initial signs of failing or shifting, there are usually some very loud supporters of certain ideologies who do not want to see that the world is changing. . . . “First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win, ” . . . . Over the past 3.8 billion years Nature has demonstrated patterns that emerge when it is ready to let go of a form that no longer serves the higher purpose of the system. . . . Just like Nature, human systems are required to evolve and transform in order to survive.
https://kathleenallen.net/how-paradigms-fall/

Quantum Weirdness :
Many of the QT pioneers (e.g. Neils Bohr), inadvertently gained a reputation for mysticism, due to some of their attempts to explain its strangeness, to Western eyes, in terms of metaphors borrowed from Eastern philosophy. So, although it is now labeled as “the most successful theory ever formulated”, it still predicts behaviors that seem more magical than mechanical.
http://bothandblog7.enformationism.info/page43.html

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

You will find lots of empirical evidence to support my thesis in the links to articles by professional scientists. But, only the Enformationism thesis will provide the logical connections between bits & pieces of physical evidence and professional opinions that add-up to the conclusion that the physical world has "at bottom . . . an immaterial source and explanation". That may sound like "nonsense" to you. But I'll let you argue with a prominent physicist about the scientific details of his thesis : an information-centric participatory universe. :smile:

It from bit symbolizes the idea that every item of the physical world has at bottom...an immaterial source and explanation...that all things physical are information-theoretic in origin and that this is a participatory universe.
___John Archibald Wheeler, quantum physics pioneer

“Recent decades have taught us that physics is a magic window. It shows us the illusion that lies behind reality—and the reality that lies behind illusion. Its scope is immensely greater than we one realized. We are no longer satisfied with insights only into particles, or fields of force, or geometry, or even space and time. Today we demand of physics some understanding of existence itself.”
― John Archibald Wheeler, Quantum Theory and Measurement

You maybe guilty of over-dramatising any current gaps between the physics of the macro and the physics of the subatomic or gaps between classical physics and quantum physics. — universeness

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

Skepticism :
I have made a ceaseless effort not to ridicule, not to bewail, not to scorn human actions, but to understand them.
___Baruch Spinoza

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

OK. Here is a definition from the BothAnd Blog. If that's not narrow enough for you, I have more. BothAnd is a philosophical concept not a scientific term. But it is related to the scientific notions bolded in the quote below. :smile:

Both/And Principle :
*** My coinage for the holistic principle of Complementarity, as illustrated in the Yin/Yang symbol. Opposing or contrasting concepts are always part of a greater whole. Conflicts between parts can be reconciled or harmonized by putting them into the context of a whole system.
*** The Enformationism worldview entails the principles of Complementarity, Reciprocity & Holism, which are necessary to ofset the negative effects of Fragmentation, Isolation & Reductionism. Analysis into parts is necessary for knowledge of the mechanics of the world, but synthesis of those parts into a whole system is required for the wisdom to integrate the self into the larger system. In a philosophical sense, all opposites in this world (e.g. space/time, good/evil) are ultimately reconciled in Enfernity (eternity & infinity).
*** Conceptually, the BothAnd principle is similar to Einstein's theory of Relativity, in that what you see ─ what’s true for you ─ depends on your perspective, and your frame of reference; for example, subjective or objective, religious or scientific, reductive or holistic, pragmatic or romantic, conservative or liberal, earthbound or cosmic. Ultimate or absolute reality (ideality) doesn't change, but your conception of reality does. Opposing views are not right or wrong, but more or less accurate for a particular purpose.
*** This principle is also similar to the concept of Superposition in sub-atomic physics. In this ambiguous state a particle has no fixed identity until “observed” by an outside system. For example, in a Quantum Computer, a Qubit has a value of all possible fractions between 1 & 0. Therefore, you could say that it is both 1 and 0.
https://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page10.html

I think the 'but' above is nonsense — universeness

The "but" paragraph is merely referring to primitive notions that are describing the same kind of phenomena that scientists study, but without the intervening centuries of learning. Their ideas may seem like "nonsense" to you, but they conveyed meaningful philosophical information to them*1. For example, early humans seemed to assume that anything that moved was animated by the same invisible force that motivated humans. The analogy to "breath" was a metaphor based on the observed fact that Life requires breathing. The Bible says that "life is in the blood", but today we would add that oxygen in the blood is essential to life. It's easy for moderns, after centuries of scientific investigation to feel intellectually superior to ancient philosophers*2. For example, Aristotle used the Greek word "energeia" meaning : activity, operation, vigour. workmanship. supernatural action, cosmic force. But today, we have a mathematical definition of "energy"*3. Same general understanding, with more decimal places. :nerd:


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

*2. A superiority complex is a belief that your abilities or accomplishments are somehow dramatically better than other people's.
https://www.webmd.com/mental-health/what-is-a-superiority-complex

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

Why is intelligence the yardstick for emergence? — Agent Smith

The yardstick should be chosen to suit the object to be measured. If we are discussing the evolution of physical/material stuff of the Earth, a physical instrument would be appropriate. But the topic of this thread -- 'information/technological singularity" -- is about Cultural/Technical evolution. So the proper way to measure such a not-yet-real future state of human ingenuity would be to apply the philosophical tool of Reason, which seems to be directly related to Intelligence, n'est-ce pas?

The topical question is about "credence", not substance. So, on what basis would you believe a description of some projected event that has not yet come to pass? Some thinkers seem to take it on faith, in human intelligence/ingenuity, that a techno-utopia will eventually come to pass. Personally, unlike some philosophical pessimists, I agree that cultural evolution -- both ethical & technical -- is generally progressing in a positive direction. But my notion of Utopia is different from that of Vernor Vinge and Ray Kutzweil.

As an amateur philosopher, I'm more inclined toward the information-systems interpretation of progress, than the technology-faith scenario. Yet I remain agnostic about the teleological or teleonomic destiny of the world. So, my Enformationism graph of Hegelian progress (not to scale) ends with a question mark. :smile:



Note -- The Hegelian ups & downs are smoothed-out at this cosmic scale. From our local earth-scale perspective the up-jumps & set-backs may appear like like a chain of mountains.

what is your enformation fundamental? — universeness

Your proposed "fundamental" particles may be appropriate for a scientist in a lab to use as a guide. But I'm not a scientist, and my lab is my mind*1. So, the "fundamental" element of Information is Difference*2*3. You are talking in terms of Physics (e.g. Matter ; Particles ; Objective), while I'm talking about Meta-physics (e.g. Mind ; Meaning ; Subjective). :smile:

*1. Someone once asked Einstein, "if you are a scientist, where is your lab?". He silently held up a pencil. Albert was a theoretical scientist, a philosopher who focused his razor sharp mind on abstractions (e.g. Energy) that can't be seen under a microscope or dissected with a razor-sharp blade.

*2. Difference is a key concept of philosophy, denoting the process or set of properties by which one entity is distinguished from another within a relational field or a given conceptual system. ___Wikipedia

*3. Information :
Knowledge and the ability to know. Technically, it's the ratio of order to disorder, of positive to negative, of knowledge to ignorance. It's measured in degrees of uncertainty. Those ratios are also called "differences".So Gregory Bateson* defined Information as "the difference that makes a difference". The latter distinction refers to "value" or "meaning". Babbage called his prototype computer a "difference engine". Difference is the cause or agent of Change. In Physics it’s called "Thermodynamics" or "Energy". In Sociology it’s called "Conflict".
https://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page11.html
Note -- Atoms of knowledge & meaning are invisible bits (binary distinctions) of Information. Those bits are mathematical relationships (ratios : rational) that add-up to bytes, then to concepts, then to personal meanings : relationship to self. If that sounds like religious dogma to you, then our worldviews & vocabularies are incompatible or immutual.

GENERAL COMMENTARY

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

B. Since the Big Bang beginning of physical reality sounds like a creation event, some scientists get around that meta-physical implication by noting that the "bang" is not a part of our inflating universe. Some religious believers would agree that their infinite-eternal creator-god is not immanent in the space-time creation. In either case, that outside Cause is Meta-Physical, and only knowable by inference from physical events. Another way to explain away the sudden emergence of Something (our everything) from Nothing (ultimate set) is to use the mathematical vocabulary of an "empty set", or "vacuum energy", to avoid the implication of ex nihilo by "divine fiat". Same notion, different words.

C. In order to explicate the Enformationism thesis, I have developed my own alternative philosophical vocabulary, intended to avoid the doctrinal presumptions of both religious and scientific language. Unfortunately, some readers will still tend to read-into those novel terms, their own Spiritualism or Materialism prejudices. "vive la difference!"

BothAnd Blog Glossary : https://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/index.html
Note -- this list of Enformationism terminology is out-of-date, because the science of Information (and my understanding) is progressing so rapidly.

Well, the exchange between us here seems to consolidate around what credence level either of us assigns to the existence of and value of any references to the supernatural. — universeness

I appreciate your willingness to engage in philosophical dialog, even though my posts may express a worldview that at first glance appears to violate your personal belief system. Some offended posters are motivated to express their anger & incredulity in the form of political-style put-downs. FWIW, I assure you that my BothAnd philosophy is not anti-science or pro-religion. However, it's also not pro-classical-science or anti-religious-philosophy. Instead, it views those contentious belief systems from a novel perspective, that may seem wrong-headed to those on one side or the other of the credence abyss.

Since Enformationism does make philosophical inferences that go beyond the knowable origins of Nature though, you could be forgiven for categorizing those conjectures as "super-natural". Yet quite a few professional scientists have put-on their philosophical hats, and conjectured non-empirical notions (e.g. Multiverse ; Cosmic Inflation) about the time-before-Time, and the pre-Big-Bang nature of Nature. So, I'm just doing similar philosophical postulating, but without the aura of authority that allows professional scientists to get-away with going beyond the limits of empirical methods. Remember, some of Einstein's colleagues cringed at his poetic references to God, but didn't attack him openly. :smile:

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

I have posted hundreds of "continued corrections" (clarifications) on my blog and in this forum. But you are not alone in mis-understanding my unconventional worldview. Some are content to just pigeon-hole the strange ideas into old familiar categories. For example, Emergentism is a feature of Holistic worldviews, which to detractors indicates an Anti-reductionism (hence anti-science) Oriental religious belief. But it is also held by several prominent Quantum scientists. Also, Reductionism is an appropriate method for dissecting physical objects, but not very effective for parsing philosophical concepts.

My worldview is best explained at length in the Enformationism Thesis, and the BothAnd Blog. In forum posts, my unconventional position must be explained only in bits & pieces, hence may be interpreted by others in more conventional terms. You won't find my personal worldview in any Science or Philosophy textbook, so I rely on links to recently published authors, who are exploring the uncharted Information territory from a perspective similar to my own. Since the links are usually un-clicked, I typically include a brief quote to indicate the pertinent flavor of the ideas therein. :nerd:

Emergence :
Cognitive historian Y.N. Harari, in Homo Deus, foresees the emergence of a “cosmic data processing system . . . like God”, yet entirely natural and matter-based. On the other hand, I have deduced, from the same database, that the materialist's arbitrary “laws” of physical evolution are more like purposeful metaphysical codes.
https://www.bothandblog.enformationism.info/page16.html

Emergentism :
In philosophy, emergentism is the belief in emergence, particularly as it involves consciousness and the philosophy of mind. A property of a system is said to be emergent if it is a new outcome of some other properties of the system and their interaction, while it is itself different from them.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergentism

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

My information-centric update of the philosophical implications of classical Materialism is mostly based on the current understanding of reality provided by Quantum science. It would indeed be a conflict, if I pretended to be a physical scientist. For example, Einstein & the Quantum pioneers "updated" Newton's mechanical physics, to much consternation at first. So, my philosophical interpretation of "scientific criteria" is primarily based upon sub-atomic physics, which has discovered the key role of mental & mathematical Information in the foundations of physical reality.

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

Quantum Physicist John A. Wheeler :
Wheeler's "it from bit" concept implies that physics, particularly quantum physics, isn't really about reality, but just our best description of what we observe. There is no "quantum world", just the best description we have of how things will appear to us.
https://plus.maths.org/content/it-bit

Information, Physics, Quantum: The Search for Links :
This report reviews what quantum physics and information theory have to tell us about the age-old question, How come existence?
https://philarchive.org/rec/WHEIPQ

So when most people say 'reason' in effect they mean 'scientific reason' which operates within constraints that are rarely made the object of explicit awareness. Philosophers (or some philosophers) are well aware of this. — Wayfarer

Ironically, that Empirical, tangible-results-oriented, understanding of "Reason" is common even on The Philosophy Forum, where we don't do anything remotely empirical. Materialism, as a belief system, sometimes seems to be the un-official doctrine of TPF. :sad:

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


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

Philosophical Materialism states that everything that truly exists is matter; everything is material, thus all phenomena we see are a result of material interactions.
https://thedecisionlab.com/reference-guide/philosophy/materialism

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

True. If you are a pragmatic scientist with the intention of making a material difference in the world, there is no need to consider generalizations or ultimates. But, if you are a philosopher, hoping to answer Ontological & Existential questions, considering First & Last & Ultimate Intent would be a part of your job description. I'm not a materials scientist or genetic engineer, but merely an amateur philosopher, posting on a philosophy forum, just for funsees.

So, I hope you will forgive me for doing what feckless philosophers do to while-away their spare time : studying not material objects & "how" questions, but mental beliefs & "why" questions. I'm aware that some posters on TPF seem to believe that this is, or should be, a scientific forum, or that Impractical Theoretical Philosophy must be subordinate to Pragmatic Empirical Science.

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


Ultimate :
1. a final or fundamental fact or principle.
2. being or happening at the end of a process; final.

Quora :
A philosopher is a scientist who studies what cultures, countries groups and individuals believe and do and why they believe and do the things they believe . . .

Teleonomy :
Teleonomy is sometimes contrasted with teleology, where the latter is understood as a purposeful goal-directedness brought about through human or divine intention. Teleonomy is thought to derive from evolutionary history, adaptation for reproductive success, and/or the operation of a program.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teleonomy

God and Other Ultimates :
What it takes to be ultimate is to be the most fundamentally real, valuable or fulfilling among all that there is or could be
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/god-ultimates/

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

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

Picking up where I left off, this thread must necessarily discuss the criterion for existence - the commonsense one used by the man on the Clapham omnibus, the scientific one, the philosophical one, the religious one, any idiosyncratic ones as well. — Agent Smith

The commonsense definition for existence is indeed that of the common man (and common animals), who believe only what they can see. But philosophers are not limited to the physical senses to understand the world. Instead, where their senses fail to see, they infer the invisible links of geometry. So they turn to metaphors (analogies to concrete things) in order to communicate their idiosyncratic understanding of the unseen world. That's why I call Reason : "the sixth sense", which is uncommon even among human animals.

Pragmatic Scientists are also sometimes forced to rely on imaginary metaphors to fill-in the blanks of understanding. For example, Virtual Particles have never been seen via telescopes or microscopes, because they are imaginary. But such non-things would not make sense to the commonsense of the common man. Moreover, the un-common-sense of Ontology will never put virtual food in the bowl for your commonsense dog. :joke:

Well, that's what we are discussing. 'Immaterial,' has no demonstrable existent, if it is being used to propose something supernatural. — universeness

No. That is a mis-interpretation of my intent. "Im-material" simply means not-made-of-matter. It does not mean super-natural. Are the ideas & ideals in your mind super-natural, if we can't see them under a microscope? Are Virtual Particles super-natural simply because they have "no demonstrable existent"? VPs are simply mathematical metaphors for sub-atomic physics that must be inferred instead of empirically demonstrated. Mathematics consists of inferred (mental) immaterial inter-relationships, not on observed (objective) physical connections between values. Unfortunately, Pythagoras did interpret his harmonies & ideal solids in the spiritual terminology of his day, 2500 years ago.

insists on the same mis-use of my novel & unconventional, but philosophically & scientifically defined, terminology. Unfortunately. my non-textbook definitions for
Enformationism can't overcome the prejudice of Materialism/Physicalism as a belief system. So, due to our divergent vocabularies, we have ceased to communicate on topics that go beyond the 18th century concepts of classical Newtonian physics. :smile:

Forget Space-Time: Information May Create the Cosmos :
So, the question then becomes how to understand "information," a common term whose technical or scientific sense can be disruptive. . . .
What are the basic building blocks of the cosmos? Atoms, particles, mass energy? Quantum mechanics, forces, fields? Space and time — space-time? Tiny strings with many dimensions? . . .
A new candidate is "information," which some scientists claim is the foundation of reality. The late distinguished physicist John Archibald Wheeler characterized the idea as "It from bit" — "it" referring to all the stuff of the universe and "bit" meaning information. . . .
So here's the deep question: Is information the ultimate constituent from which the cosmos is constructed? I started as a skeptic. Information as reality seems so outlandish, so trendy — a metaphor on steroids. ___Robert Kuhn
https://www.space.com/29477-did-information-create-the-cosmos.html

Virtual particles are only used to satisfy mathematical requirements and are not real in any sense of the word. They have not been proven in any way to really exist, except mathematically,
https://www.quora.com/Is-there-any-proof-that-virtual-particles-actually-exist

Ok, but again we diverge here, as I give no credence or value to the Platonic concept of ideal or perfect forms. I refer to Platonic forms described in wiki as: — universeness

We are discussing a philosophically divisive topic here. And judging by the unusual number of replies to my posts, my unconventional (immaterial) worldview has hit an emotional hot button for otherwise placid philosophers. Where you give "no credence" to Plato's Forms, it's the foundation of my personal En-Form-Action thesis. Plato's theory of Forms was not talking about material objects (teapot orbiting the moon) but about human ideas about (aboutness) physical objects. Forms are mental metaphors, not material things. Do you deign to "give credence" to your own ideas, or just to other people's invisible intangible ideas. Obviously, you are misinterpreting my ideas, due to lack of understanding of its scientific & philosophical foundation.

I'm pretty sure that astrobiologist Caleb Scharf has never heard of Enformationism. But in his 2021 book, The Ascent of Information, he makes some assertions that would also touch a nerve on this forum. From the cover : "a universe built of and for information" ; "information is, in a very real sense, alive" ; "it's an organism that has evolved right alongside us". These are not materialistic scientific statements, but philosophical interpretations of cutting-edge science (quantum, not classical). Likewise, my view of the role of Information in the universe is not intended to be judged by materialistic scientific criteria. Instead, it's supposed to be an update of ancient belief systems : both Material-ism and Spiritual-ism.

Due to the sudden explosion of incredulous responses to my posts on this Emergent thread, I may not have time to address all of your credibility concerns individually. But I have already covered most of them in the Enformationism thesis, and the BothAnd blog, in case you are really interested in a novel synthesis of modern Science and timeless Philosophy. :smile:

Enformationism :
http://enformationism.info/enformationism.info/

BothAnd Blog :
https://bothandblog.enformationism.info/

PS__The incredulous remark about Plato & Idealism reveals a watershed in our worldviews. Philosophical Mathematician A.N. Whitehead once commented on Plato's thought: “The safest general characterization of the European philosophical tradition is that it consists of a series of footnotes to Plato." Since mathematicians deal with abstract ideas instead of concrete matter, an openness to Idealism might be expected. But philosophers are also manipulators of abstractions ; yet some have come to view Empirical Science as getting closer to Truth, because it manipulates real tangible objects and produces real world material results. Ironically, in a matter-based world, symbolic money buys real goods, while philosophical metaphors & analogies yield nothing tangible. So, what is the value of Wisdom (sophos), and what is its material substance?

PPS__The screenname "Universeness" seems to imply an open-ness to the intangible qualia of the world. Ironically, in the Enformationism thesis, Generic Information is the substance of Both quantitative Matter & qualitative Mind ; also of everything, and non-thing (e.g. Virtual Particles), in the Universe.

The suffix "-ness" means "state : condition : quality" and is used with an adjective to say something about the state, condition, or quality of being that adjective.
https://www.britannica.com/dictionary/eb/qa/Nouns-ending-in-ness

PPPS__Enformationism is an Emergence & Systems theory about the Holistic qualities of the world that emerge from the evolution of malleable matter & causal energy.

Emergence : In philosophy, systems theory, science, and art, emergence occurs when an entity is observed to have properties its parts do not have on their own ; (i.e. Holism).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergence

There is no criterion for existence and that's that! — Agent Smith

Is your existence the result of a long chain of random accidents, or specified by Darwinian Natural Selection? Does evolutionary selection operate without specific criteria? If so, how do mutating genes know how to maintain a consistent lineage of inheritance over eons of time? Just asking. :joke:

Evolutionary Selection Criteria :
In order for natural selection to operate on a trait, the trait must possess heritable variation and must confer an advantage in the competition for resources. If one of these requirements does not occur, then the trait does not experience natural selection.
https://www.globalchange.umich.edu/globalchange1/current/lectures/selection/selection.html
Note -- Who decided on those critical standards for evolutionary survival? Happenstance?

Information as a universal fundamental has to be a credible position to take at some level imo.
Information is however 'labelled data,' so would 'data' not be the fundamental as opposed to information? Is that not a critical distinction? — universeness

I typically use the word "Information" in a more general sense than "Data". The original etymological usage of "Information" referred to the meanings stored in human Minds (ideas ; concepts)*1. But modern computer terminology has popularized the notion of "Data", which is Information stripped of personal meaning*2. That abstraction makes it more narrowly specific for digital computers, but almost meaningless for human comprehension. That's why code compilers must be used to translate semantic human Information into computer Data.

In the book I'm currently reading, The Ascent of Information by Caleb Scharf, he coins a new term "Dataome" (compare to biological Genome)to represent the kind of information that humans have off-loaded from brains to man-made inventions for external storage & processing. His usage may be closer to what you have in mind. But my philosophical concept of Information is coming from a completely different direction. Rather than modern science & technology, my definition of "Information" goes back to Plato's notion of "Form" as the essence of all things, including ideas*3. :smile:

*1. Etymology : The English word "information" comes from Middle French enformacion/informacion/information . . . . Latin informatiō(n) 'conception, teaching, creation'. . . . Information is not knowledge itself, but the meaning that may be derived from a representation through interpretation. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Information
Note -- Another definition of "meaning" is "aboutness', mental reference to something relevant to the thinker.

*2. Information is :
*** Claude Shannon quantified Information not as useful ideas, but as a mathematical ratio between meaningful order (1) and meaningless disorder (0); between knowledge (1) and ignorance (0). So, that meaningful mind-stuff exists in the limbo-land of statistics, producing effects on reality while having no sensory physical properties. We know it exists ideally, only by detecting its effects in the real world.
*** For humans, Information has the semantic quality of aboutness , that we interpret as meaning. In computer science though, Information is treated as meaningless, which makes its mathematical value more certain. It becomes meaningful only when a sentient Self interprets it as such.
*** When spelled with an “I”, Information is a noun, referring to data & things. When spelled with an “E”, Enformation is a verb, referring to energy and processes
http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page11.html
Note -- Shannon Information (data) is Syntactic (rules), but traditional Information is Semantic (meaning)

*3. What is Information ? :
The power to enform, to create, to cause change, the essence of awareness. . . . .
http://bothandblog6.enformationism.info/page16.html

Why bring in a term such as 'Immaterial intelligence?' You would first have to convince me/others that such a term has any meaningful existent. What evidence do you have of immaterial intelligence? — universeness

I apologize if my word choice conjured up an image of Einstein's ghost. I was just thinking of the Intelligence usually associated with "information" as an abstract quality instead of a physical thing or being. Perhaps I should ask if "material intelligence" has any meaningful existence for you. Like many forms of Information, the existence of IQ must be inferred rationally, instead of proven empirically. Was Einstein's superior "intelligence" known by means of material evidence?

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

But how could a random process of matter mutation produce the technological & self-conscious minds that are imaginative enough to speculate that humanity could evolve its own artificial intelligent species of organism/mechanism? Logically, such positive progressive evolution (natural technology) must be non-random & possibly intentional. — Gnomon
I agree but why use an 'immaterial of the gaps' approach? — universeness

Again, "intelligence" is an immaterial quality. So, why not use an "immaterial" concept to fill the gap in knowledge? Besides, the kind of Information that my thesis is concerned with is more like immaterial Energy than material Matter*4. For example, a Photon is supposed to be the carrier of Energy, but its existence must be inferred from its effects on matter, because Energy itself (apart from matter) is invisible & intangible*5. The description of "energy" in the link below is essentially the same as that of Causal Information*6. Ironically, many intelligent people think of Energy and Information as forms of matter, when in reality it's just the opposite. :nerd:

*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

*5. Energy is invisible yet it’s all around us and throughout the universe. We use it every day, we have it in our bodies and some of it comes from other planets! Energy can never be made or destroyed, but its form can be converted and changed.
https://ypte.org.uk/factsheets/energy/types-of-energy

*6. Information causality :
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Information_causality

Koch's and Tononi's theories raise another question : if information is ubiquitous in the universe, why is the biological human mind its most powerful processor? — Gnomon
I can't answer such a 'why' question. . . . Do you think we are trying to gain the same ability as what you muse as 'the immaterial?' — universeness

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

This is where we diverge. These are just too close to god of the gaps arguments for me, and take us nowhere. — universeness

If you would take the time to read the Enformationism thesis, you'd discover that its "god" is more like the impersonal rational Logos of Plato, and the logically necessary First Cause of Aristotle, than the intervening deity of the Abrahamic religions. By interpreting those ancient non-religious philosophical concepts in terms of our modern understanding of Enforming & Causal power of Generic Information (both Syntactic & Semantic), we should indeed diverge from the outdated philosophies of Materialism & Spiritualism. Where that new vector leads ultimately, depends on the interpreter. As an amateur philosopher, I prefer to focus on the semantic meaning of information, instead of the mechanical rules. If you are an empirical scientist, the syntax of information may be more important. Both Forms are logically contingent upon some ultimate Enformer : the cause or our world's "forms most beautiful" (Darwin). :wink:

PS__Back to the original post about an "information/technological" singularity. In The Ascent of Information, by astrophysicists Caleb Scharf, he says : "Anything that reduces the meaning of human information threatens the balance . . . between us and our future selves in a way no less profound than in biological evolution" My thesis is about the emergent teleological aspects of Evolution, not biological, mechanical, or technological. So, that may be where our opinions diverge.

To what extent do you think that human beings are 'information processors?' — universeness

My personal philosophical worldview is entitled Enformationism. It's based on emerging evidence that the whole universe is an information-processing system, similar to a cosmic computer program. Evolution is the general program for causing novel forms of matter to emerge from the interaction of Energy & Natural Laws (computer operating system?). That inherent code (evolutionary DNA?) contains the information necessary to combine causal Energy & malleable Matter into more & more complex forms ; hence the emergence of sophisticated organisms from simpler raw materials.

Immaterial intelligence seems to be directly connected to complexity of functional organization, such as found in the human brain. But how could a random process of matter mutation produce the technological & self-conscious minds that are imaginative enough to speculate that humanity could evolve its own artificial intelligent species of organism/mechanism? Logically, such positive progressive evolution (natural technology) must be non-random & possibly intentional. :nerd:

Integrated Information :
Koch's and Tononi's theories raise another question : if information is ubiquitous in the universe, why is the biological human mind its most powerful processor?
https://www.bothandblog.enformationism.info/page13.html

How much credence do you give to the idea that we are heading towards an 'information/technological singularity? — universeness

I tend to agree with : "I guess it's plausible but not inevitable." The notion of human Culture playing the role of technological evolution, by producing novel systems of organization, makes sense if you understand that Culture itself is an emergent organization from Natural Evolution. But, like all complex novelty-generating processes, the future of uber-complex Culture is unpredictable, and no particular projection from now-to-then is inevitable. :smile:


Technological Singularity :
Futurist & transhumanist Ray Kurtzweil has optimistically conjectured that a mindless-but-lawful universe is accidentally stumbling toward a universal mind of god-like proportions. And cognitive historian Y.N. Harari, in Homo Deus, foresees the emergence of a “cosmic data processing system . . . like God”, yet entirely natural and matter-based. On the other hand, I have deduced, from the same database, that the materialist's arbitrary “laws” of physical evolution are more like purposeful metaphysical codes. Historically and theoretically, Evolution proceeds via the inventive interaction between random Chance and contextual Choice. That progressive process is not aimless though, as some would have it, but pointed in a positive direction, as measured by one-way Time, as recorded in human history, as inferred from Archeology, and as conjectured in Cosmology. Such an apparently teleological universe must have originated from an intentional source of some kind. Since mathematical Information seems to be the coded language of evolution, I like to call that cosmic “Programmer”, the “Enformer”.
https://www.bothandblog.enformationism.info/page16.html

I might start a thread inspired by your post regarding, How do we define progress? I hope you can join. — Shawn

My personal philosophical worldview, Enformationism, is not exactly Pollyanna optimism, but it does have a positive outlook, based on the evidence for upward-trending cosmic complexification, due to the self-organizing ability of Nature. Moreover, one offspring of Nature : human Culture, in modern times, is accelerating the progression of life-sustaining organization -- even as it creates more ways to dominate each other.

From that pragmatic perspective, things are looking-up. But, for me personally, my economic status varies with the general economy of the US, and in step with worldwide recessions and booms. So, my Stoic attitude gets me by whenever I'm scraping the bottom of the economic middle class. Compared to the "huddled masses", though, I have no reason to complain. :smile:


PS__I just noticed the new heading for this thread. So, I see that some on this forum don't share my Stoic optimism that, if we learn to control our unruly emotions, Reason will forge a path to a better life. But, some of us seem to be so depressed by life's imperfections that species suicide is an attractive option.

The new age positivists label was directed at entrepreneurship and huge stores of money in Silicon Valley to alleviate said lack and suffering, through technology. — Shawn

The innovative & pioneering & super-rich entrepreneurs (go-getters), including Elon Musk, do indeed seem to be optimistic about their technological innovations improving life conditions for all of mankind. But their risk-taking positive attitude may be based on a "trickle down" economic theory, in which the rich get richer and the poor get less-poor. But, in practice the 1 or 2% at the top get richer faster than the 98%, upon whose shoulders they are standing . That's why political progressives are impatient with the long wait for signs of progress at the bottom of the pyramid.

Regarding the question of "better for whom", abstract statistics seem to tell a different story from emotional politics. Gradual natural evolution took 13 billion years to get us to the point of primitive human culture. Since then, various technologies have been incrementally chipping away at the inequities of the economic pyramid. However, because human societies seem to be inherently hierarchical*1, instead of egalitarian, we may never reach the ideal of total eradication of poverty & suffering. But, we should be grateful for any changes that put more power in the hands of people-in-general to control their own conditions of life.

The site linked below*2 provides statistics on progress using various measures : economic status, literacy, health, mortality, etc. Unfortunately, the charts are typically based on raw population numbers, instead of percentages of the global community. Also, Steven Pinker's Skeptical Inquirer article, Progressophobia*3, provides lots of reasons for informed optimism, instead of news headline pessimism regarding social progress.

Admittedly, it's mostly those near the peak of the socio-economic pyramid who feel optimistic about their own future, and for the trickle-down improvement for all of mankind : "better living through technology"*4. Those near the bottom typically require some kind of supernatural promises, or a turtle-shell shield like meditation. So, it may be up to us philosophically-inclined thinkers to focus on the long-term evolution of human culture, and for short-term Stoicism, to keep us keeping-on toward the goal of improvement in living conditions for our fellow men. :smile:


*1. Human Hierarchy :
The presence of a drive for dominance is clearly present in humans and has been documented through various psychological constructs.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/agricultural-and-biological-sciences/dominance-hierarchy

*2. STATISTICAL EVIDENCE FOR PROGRESS ON POVERTY

https://www.vox.com/the-big-idea/2016/12/23/14062168/history-global-conditions-charts-life-span-poverty

*3. Progressophobia :
Why Things Are Better Than You Think They Are
https://skepticalinquirer.org/2018/05/progressophobia-why-things-are-better-than-you-think-they-are/

*4. Better living through technology :
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Better_Living_Through_Chemistry

that the issues brought up by pessimists do seem true, yet life is getting better because of these truths and the work our forefathers and science and the new age positivists are making the world better off. — Shawn

I agree that life on Earth is not an idylic Garden of Eden, but as you implied, we human care-takers are assiduously working to improve a less-than-perfect situation. We haven't eradicated suffering and unequal distribution of benefits, but Philosophical Pessimism is not going to produce a Utopia. On another thread, I've been engaged with pessimists in a Science vs Religion debate. Whereas most Religions put their faith in all-powerful gods or nature spirits to alleviate their suffering, modern Science is learning to control the vicissitudes of nature directly via Technology. Even so, some posters remain pessimistic in the face of implacable & all-powerful thermodynamic Entropy driving the world toward destruction. However, I am endorsing Enformy*1 as an inherent positive counter-agent to Entropy.

I'm not sure who you are referring to as "new age positivists", but most New Age religions are still relying on Nature to fix its own shortcomings in human relations. On the other hand, modern ecologists, both science-based and religiously-motivated, are espousing a return to human caretakers working hand-in-hand with Nature to keep the Garden and its inhabitants healthy. Unlike the anthro-morphic gods who supposedly answer prayers, Nature/Entropy seems to be deaf to human pleas. However, impassive Nature is inherently balanced between positive & negative forces as it evolves toward more complexity and intelligence. So, you could say that Nature has bred its own race of gardeners. :smile:


*1. Enformy :
"My own interpretation of Enformed history is not based on divine revelation. Yet I remain somewhat optimistic that the self-organizing natural force of Enformy will prevail over disorganizing Entropy in the end (Omega Point)."
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/13862/the-self-under-materialism

*2. Ecologist :
a person who studies the relationship between living things and their environment.

Like you've said countless times - your philosophy, despite borrowing some ideas from religion, doesn't offer salvation or succor from grief/anxiety; of course contained within it are some ideas that might just come in handy towards those ends. — Agent Smith

All religions are based on some kind of philosophical worldview. And most include a dualistic Manichean assessment of world history as a struggle between Good vs Evil. However, even a dispassionate monistic philosophy like Enformationism could be interpreted as a binary religious model. That's because Natural Evolution is described as maintaining a tenuous balance between constructive Enformy*1 and destructive Entropy*2.

My own Fundamentalist bible-based religion warned us of dueling gods. In 2 Corinthians 4:4, the "god of this world" -- Satan : opposed to the God of Heaven -- used "fake news", among other tactics, to deceive the elect, and to win them over to the Hell-bound masses. On this forum seems to interpret Entropy as the "lord of this world", who is winning the battle between Good & Evil. Despite that thermodynamic Mexican Standoff*3 though, the Christian Bible asserts that the God of Heaven is still the sovereign of the material world, even though super-power Satan is pounding us like Russia devastating the sovereign state of Ukraine.

My own interpretation of Enformed history is not based on divine revelation. Yet I remain somewhat optimistic that the self-organizing natural force of Enformy will prevail over disorganizing Entropy in the end (Omega Point). But, I don't expect to be around to celebrate that victory. So, the "salvation" of this world may not benefit me personally.

What do you think? Are we all going to Entropy Hell in a hand-basket, or are we holding-on by our fingernails like the Ukranians? Or are we enjoying the Stoic life of ups & downs without worrying about the ultimate destiny of the world? In any case, Evolution has been walking the tight-rope for 14 billion years, without falling into the Entropic Abyss of thermodynamic Armageddon. :smile:


*1. Enformy :
In the Enformationism theory, Enformy is a hypothetical, holistic, metaphysical, natural trend or force, that counteracts Entropy & Randomness to produce complexity & progress.
http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page8.html

*2. Entropy : lack of order or predictability; gradual decline into disorder.

*3. A Mexican standoff is a confrontation in which no strategy exists that allows any party to achieve victory.

Like you've said countless times - your philosophy, despite borrowing some ideas from religion, doesn't offer salvation or succor from grief/anxiety; of course contained within it are some ideas that might just come in handy towards those ends. Nevertheless, they're secondary to the primary aim which is to generate the mother of all models, one that encompasses both philosophy and science. — Agent Smith

In my reply to 's comment about "hand-waving, I noted that seems to think that my enthusiastic presentation of Enformationism is a form of evangelism for some kind of religious belief system. Until then, I had never thought of my posts on this forum as evangelistic. But now I see that there may be some truth in that put-down portrayal. First, I was raised in an evangelistic religion, but eventually lost my enthusiasm for its blind-faith biblical beliefs. Also, although I came of age in the 1960s, I was never involved in any Oriental or New Age religions*1. I did however experiment with meditation for a while, but found that rational philosophizing was more my style.

However, Enformationism is indeed a belief system, in the same sense as Materialism. For me though, it merely serves as the foundation for a Philosophical BothAnd worldview. And I do think the world would be a better place if people exchanged their ancient Spiritualism & Materialism beliefs for a more up-to-date understanding of how & why the world works as it does. So, I hope my fellow posters can forgive me for a bit of "hand-waving" from time to time. :smile:


Introduction to the BothAnd Blog :
World history has again reached a dangerous tipping-point, precariously poised over the abyss of Armageddon. However, from a historical perspective, it’s also showing some potential for a new unified worldview, and the possibility of a more orderly & peaceful future. From a philosophical point-of-view, I think the current “Mexican stand-off” in politics & religion results from a few extremists on left & right imposing their adamant Either/Or worldviews upon the more moderate masses, with the effect of almost eliminating the middle ground of peace & harmony. So, my proposed solution to the polarization problem is to adopt a moderate & inclusive Both/And attitude toward the world and its vicissitudes. In this initial blog I will define the concept of BothAnd. Then in subsequent issues, I'll discuss a variety of related topics, Some may be adapted from posts on internet forums, and some may be direct responses to comments on previous articles. Be warned : these articles are not twitter feeds, and some are very long, complex, cross-referenced, footnoted, and full of technical terminology. The ecumenical compromising attitude of these blogs will elicit angry responses from unforgiving extremist black & white hardliners, but may appeal to those of more modest & humble dispositions, who are not expecting the ultimate Truth, and will accept a few feeble attempts to get closer to mundane truths about the big questions of “God, The Universe, and Everything”.
http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page2.html

*1. Ironically, I spent a good chunk of the '60s in Vietnam, "killing the little yellow man". Just kidding. I never personally killed anybody. :joke:

Would you consider this a useful refinement of Plato's idea of instantiation? Does Aristotle still propose a realm of forms? — Tom Storm
Now there's a great thread topic, but we'd need input from some of the more experienced readers in that subject. (AFAIK, Aristotle rejects the 'realm of forms', but I think it's far from clear what was meant by that in the first place, or what precisely is being rejected.) — Wayfarer

It may be presumptuous of me, but I have interpreted the ancient usage by Plato & Aristotle -- of the ancient word for "Form"*1 -- in terms of modern Information & Quantum Theory. Most physicists have concluded that the ultimate Essence or Substance of our evolving world is the change agent we know as "Energy"*2. But a few intrepid scientists have postulated that even Energy is a form of Generic Information. Hence, the notion that massless Information (idea ; design ; form) is the essence of Reality.

Plato postulated a variety of non-physical things & states (Chaos ; Logos) from which the physical world of the senses emerged. But Aristotle, probably assuming that the material world is itself eternal, dismissed the necessity for such out-of-this-world Universals*3. Hence, he located his Forms in material objects*4. Depending on your perspective & purpose, both of these views could be correct.

However, the Enformationism thesis accepts the current scientific model of a world with a sudden inexplicable beginning of Something from Nothing (no material things). For Gnomon's purposes that "nothing" is immaterial Potential*5 : the unactualized ability to create change. So the spooky notion of an Ideal realm of Forms (statistical possibilities) makes sense, in view of what we now know about Collapse of statistical Superposition into physical particles of stuff. :smile:

*1. Form : The Ancient Greek term θεία ουσία (theia ousia; divine essence) was translated in Latin as essentia or substantia, and hence in English as essence or substance.

*2. Energy is a form of Information :
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

*3. Plato vs Aristotle Form :
Plato believed that concepts had a universal form, an ideal form, which leads to his idealistic philosophy. Aristotle believed that universal forms were not necessarily attached to each object or concept, and that each instance of an object or a concept had to be analyzed on its own.
https://www.diffen.com/difference/Aristotle_vs_Plato

*4. Hylomorphism :
Aristotle famously contends that every physical object is a compound of matter and form. This doctrine has been dubbed “hylomorphism”, a portmanteau of the Greek words for matter (hulê) and form (eidos or morphê).
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/form-matter/
Note -- Ironically, although Ari dismissed Plato's ghostly realm of Ideas, his definition of a physical object combined both Matter (hyle) and Idea (eidos). The analogy of a physical house would say that it is composed of Matter (bricks & lumber), but also that it would not exist apart from Mind (Intention & Design).

*5. Potential :
In philosophy, potential and potentiality refer to the capacity, power, ability, or chance for something to happen or occur.
https://www.gotquestions.org/actuality-potentiality.html

However, for philosophical purposes, you have a valid point. Information, as used by those physical scientists, is not a "metaphysical primitive"*3 or even a physical object. Instead, it's the creative process of enforming : giving form to the formless; meaning to the meaningless. — Gnomon
The philosophical question is What creates? — Wayfarer

My philosophical answer to that question is the Natural analog Program we call Evolution. As to Who the creator might be, all I can do is use metaphors. Religious thinkers use the analogy of a human Father who wants to replicate in order to create a loving & obedient family. Science prefers to use less anthro-morphic metaphors, such as Nature or Probability to represent the self-organizing process of inter-acting bits of Space & Time. Gnomon analogously thinks of the creative "What" as a computer Programmer : the Enformer. But the motive for creating a gradually evolving organism of Matter & Mind is beyond me. Unfortunately, I have no revelation from the Great What to tell me the Big Why. :smile:

To Evolve synonyms : develop ; progress ; advance ; mature ; etc.

I understand and just a suggestion, if the aim is to bring science and religion under one roof, you must pay heed to objections/criticisms/opposition from scientifically-minded folk like 180 Proof. I'm rather surprised that you're getting neither a yea nor a nay from the religiously-minded. — Agent Smith

In my TPF posts, I am not trying to appeal to religious believers, but to philosophical reasoners. I abandoned my own religion many years ago. And I don't try to convert my still-religious siblings to my personal worldview. They may think that I'm going to Hell for my unbelief, but I don't believe in Hell, so I'm not worried about their afterlife. Most religiously-minded people have little-to-no interest in the unsentimental abstractions of Philosophy, that have no regard for people's feelings.

I'm also not trying to bring Science & Religion "under one roof". Instead, I agree with Steven Jay Gould that they are "non-overlapping magisteria". As Galileo put it : "The Bible shows the way to go to heaven, not the way the heavens go". Religion has more in common with Politics than with Science. Religion & Politics are programs to control human behavior, while Science is a method for controlling Nature. However, Gnomon may be aiming to bring Science & Philosophy back under one roof. :smile:

But I don't believe it is meaningful to speak of 'information' as if it is the fundamental substrate or foundation of all that exists. It is not a metaphysical primitive — Wayfarer

I didn't make-up the notion that Information is the fundamental element of the world*1. So, I have linked to many different articles, written by professional scientists, who make that assertion as a hypothesis, based on the association of Information with Energy & Entropy. As the precursor of Matter (E=MC^2), intangible Energy could be construed as the physical primitive, from which all material objects are derived*2. This is not a classical physics concept, but an emerging consensus among mathematical scientists who tend to define Energy & Information in statistical terms. Neither is real in itself, but have the power to create real things from nothing-but statistical relationships, such as hot/cold.

However, for philosophical purposes, you have a valid point. Information, as used by those physical scientists, is not a "metaphysical primitive"*3 or even a physical object. Instead, it's the creative process of enforming : giving form to the formless; meaning to the meaningless. That's why I propose that a more fundamental expression of Information is the Universal Causal Force that I call EnFormAction*4 : a contraction of "the energetic act of enforming". I also coined a neologism, Enformy, to convey the notion of [ Energy + Law ], to represent the creative power of Evolution.

Current cosmology has not agreed on any more parsimonious explanation for the Big Bang than a mathematical Singularity, which created everything from nothing-but mathematical information. By contrast, Multiverses and Many Worlds are guilty of multiplying assumptions. So, I accept the Singularity as a hypothetical physical/metaphysical Primitive. But the creative power comes from the most basic ratio of all -- 1 : 0 (all or nothing). Working forward from that Prime Cause, I have developed my Enformationism thesis : that primordial Information (creative power) is more essential than mundane Matter or ever-changing Energy/Entropy. :smile:

*1. The basis of the universe may not be energy or matter but information :
https://bigthink.com/surprising-science/the-basis-of-the-universe-may-not-be-energy-or-matter-but-information/

*2. Yet, Energy itself is undone by Enformy. So, it's the structural Form component that stabilizes material things long enough to evolve into Darwin's "endless forms most beautiful"*6.

*3. Philosophical Primitive :
In mathematics, logic, philosophy, and formal systems, a primitive notion is a concept that is not defined in terms of previously-defined concepts. It is often motivated informally, usually by an appeal to intuition and everyday experience.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primitive_notion

*4. EnFormAction :
Ententional Causation. A proposed metaphysical law of the universe that causes random interactions between forces and particles to produce novel & stable arrangements of matter & energy. It’s the creative force (aka : Divine Will) of the axiomatic eternal deity that, for unknown reasons, programmed a Singularity to suddenly burst into our reality from an infinite source of possibility. AKA : The creative power of Evolution; the power to enform; Logos; Change.
http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page8.html
Note -- You can interpret "divine will" anyway you wish. It's just a metaphor.

*5. to Enform : verb. to form; to fashion · Etymology: [F. enformer].
One synonym is "to create"

*6. “Thus, from the war of nature, from famine and death, the most exalted object which we are capable of conceiving, namely, the production of the higher animals, directly follows. There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being, evolved.”
― Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species
Not -- Back to the topic of this thread : the self-aware Self may be the most wonderful of all those endless forms.

I thought at Gnomon was using information as a kid of secular analogue for essence. — Tom Storm
Well, kind of, but I question the accordance of this usage with the classical meaning. My understanding is that 'essence' boils down essentially to 'is-ness' - what makes a particular what it is. That was derived originally from Plato's 'eidos' (idea or form), usually understood as mediated by Aristotle's 'immanent realism' (i.e. that forms are real only when they are instantiated in particulars). — Wayfarer

Gnomon has tried to update & adapt those ancient "classical" notions of Essence, Idea, Form, with new insights from modern Information Theory and Quantum Theory. Unfortunately, just as Newton's classical physics is now passé, Plato's and Aristotle's "classical" meanings (e.g. two-value Logic) are still applicable in their original context, but -- due to the intervening 2500 years of scientific progress -- must be re-interpreted to suit the fuzzy (multi-valued) logic of Quantum Queerness. No disrespect to the classical thinkers is intended. :smile:

Passé : no longer fashionable; out of date.

Fuzzy Logic : Both quantum logic and fuzzy logic describe uncertainty
Note -- Aristotle's Universal or General Logic had sharply defined borders & edges. Which is useful for general purposes. But becomes uncertain in specified contexts at the foundations of Reality.

That should mean something - a few scientific domains are still open to metaphysical interpretations like our friend Gnomon's. It's as unfortunate as is unsurprising that Gnomon has bet his money on quantum physics - the shadowy realm of science where cats are both dead and alive. It's an easy target as far as I can tell for mystic cum metaphysicans; all the more reason for scientists to get their act together and fast. — Agent Smith

Yes. Gnomon typically quotes the quantum physicists who were both pioneers of the New Physics, and somewhat open to non-classical (mystical) concepts. Yet Schrodinger's metaphorical cat is not both dead and alive ; its state, for a standby observer, is merely undetermined (statistically somewhere between 0 & 100%). Apparently knows more about Quantum Theory than those Nobel prize winners. His "shadows" have sharp edges. Hence, he labels Gnomon's use of their fuzzy philosophical metaphors as "poorly reasoned". :smile:

I have a feeling we're talking past each other. Gnomon's idea of information is not the one you're using. As s/he said, his information is outré (unconventional) which to me reads nonscientific. — Agent Smith

For the record, by "non-scientific" I mean philosophical and meta-physical. But seems to equate modern Philosophy with classical (non-quantum) Physics. :smile:

And I regret to say that I invariably find your 'enformationism' mere hand-waving. — Wayfarer

I was surprised my your description of my "enthusiastic" presentation of Enformationism as "mere handwaving" (empty gestures)*1. My intention is more like Teaching or Preaching, which often involve emphatic use of the hands to emphasize a point. Understandably, preaching is typically not well-received on this forum, and is often shouted-down*2. But, a certain amount of Teaching is necessary, because most members of this forum are only vaguely familiar with Shannon's use of the term "Information" in the context of Entropy (i.e. dis-information). As Dr. Frankenstein's fire-fearing creature might say : "Entropy bad!" So, Information itself has been pegged with a negative connotation as something to be avoided. Ironically, in Shannon's sense of "uncertainty" and "surprise", "more entropy means more information".

By contrast to the engineering usage, my philosophical application of Information Theory is focused on its positive aspects (Energy/Enformy as contrasted to Entropy/Deform). In the book by astrophysicist Caleb Scharf, The Ascent of Information, he recounts a story of how Shannon came to connect disrupted messages on noisy phone lines with thermodynamic Entropy (all the ways it could go wrong). John von Neumann suggested that abstruse technical term, and added that "since most people didn't understand what entropy really was, he would always have the advantage in an argument". Unfortunately, for my philosophical purposes that mis-understanding is a disadvantage. Thus, the necessity for teaching -- and yes, for gesturing -- in order to put Information into a more positive light.

Even a century after Shannon's engineering insight, businesses still invite speakers to teach their employees about how easy it is for things to go wrong with their enterprises. And some philosophers view Evolution, not as a creative process, but as a one-way trip to Entropy Hell. So, I have an uphill battle to present a more optimistic side of the thermodynamic equation. The main element of Information that Shannon's "purposefully austere mathematical evaluation" omitted was Meaning. Enformationism, though, is intended to fill that gaping gap with Life & Mind & Meaning*3. :smile:


*1. Hand Waving :
the use of gestures and insubstantial language meant to impress or convince.

*2. Preaching : I suspect that it's my evangelical approach to Enformationism as a worldview is what offends the most. Ironically, his worldview seems to be pretty close to my own in many ways. But, he seems to think I'm an annoying born-again "Enformationist" (cringe) preaching the gospel of G*D.

*3. Enformationism :
A philosophical worldview or belief system grounded on the 20th century discovery that Information, rather than Matter, is the fundamental substance of everything in the universe. It is intended to be the 21st century successor to ancient Materialism. An Update from Bronze Age to Information Age. It's a Theory of Everything that covers, not just matter & energy, but also Life & Mind & Love.
http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page8.html

But I don't believe it is meaningful to speak of 'information' as if it is the fundamental substrate or foundation of all that exists. . . .
And I regret to say that I invariably find your 'enformationism' mere hand-waving. — Wayfarer

As a proposed comprehensive belief-system, an -ism, my personal philosophy should be approached with skepticism. But also with an open mind toward novel philosophical models. It has implications for both scientific paradigms and religious beliefs. It doesn't directly contradict the prevailing Materialism of science & philosophy, but it does propose a new way of understanding the physical world, that doesn't ignore the emerging role of non-physical Mind/Culture, and causal Information.

Do you disagree with the statements of the professional scientists quoted in my posts? Or do you merely disagree with my amateur interpretation of their collective opinions? Since I have no professional or academic qualifications, I have to rely on their expertise to ground my philosophical system-building. So you should feel free to critique my reasoning, as a few have done on this forum over the last few years. Like Quantum Theory, it's hard to wrap your mind around the idea of Information as the foundation of both Reality and Ideality.

Enformationism is not a scientific theory, and should not be judged by scientific criteria. And even the quoted scientists are not presenting settled-science, but merely their own personal opinions.
You might better understand their "meaning" if you would read their own words. That's why I provide internet links and book titles. Can you provide a specific instance of "hand-waving"? Even hand waving is a form of Information transfer. :smile:

Enformationism :
***This website is a place to explore the meaning and ramifications of a new philosophical hypothesis that I have chosen to call Enformationism. The term spelled with an "I" had already been used elsewhere in various contexts and meanings, so I looked for an alternative name. Since the new scientific term Enformy was already in use, with a meaning similar to what I had in mind, I simply chose to change the spelling of my proposed coinage.
***This informal thesis does not present any new scientific evidence, or novel philosophical analysis. It merely suggests a new perspective on an old enigma : what is reality? The so-called “Information Age” that began in the 20th century, has now come of age in the 21st century. So I have turned to the cutting-edge Information Sciences in an attempt to formulate my own personal answer to the perennial puzzles of Ontology, the science of Existence.
*** I am neither a scientist, nor a philosopher, so the arguments herein carry no more authority or expertise than those of anyone else with an interest in such impractical musings. This is intended to be an open-ended thread, because it’s a relatively new and unproven concept, and because the ideas presented here are merely a superficial snapshot of what promises to be a whole new way of understanding the world : philosophically, scientifically, and religiously.
http://enformationism.info/enformationism.info/page2%20Welcome.html

Information is physical e.g. DNA, circuit-switches, computer programs, heat, etc. Every physical transformation is information; translating (i.e. compressing) information into an algorithm is abstraction (i.e. code). Yeah, abstract = nonphysical (insofar as 'nonphysical' means not causally related). — 180 Proof
Yeah, but if information isn't conserved and if matter & energy (physical) are then ... — Agent Smith

Yes, and then . . . the beat goes on. I don't know how you would physically determine if non-physical forms of Information are conserved. But since, in my thesis, Generic Information can be transformed into Energy, and Energy into Matter, then Matter into Entropy, which can be stored in Black Holes like a deep freeze, it seems that Information cycles without ceasing. Presumably. the original Information (the program code) of the Big Bang Singularity has been recycled for 14 billion years, without any loss of information from within the closed system. Some theorists even speculate that Black Hole information can be recycled; hypothetically *1. Is that conservative enough for you?

defines "non-physical" as "not causally related". But some scientists have concluded that Information transfer is a causal relationship*2. Unfortunately, non-physical information transfer (memes to minds) are not measurable in a physical sense *3. So the definition is moot. :smile:


*1. Information Recycling :
The "black hole information paradox" refers to the fact that information cannot be destroyed in the universe, and yet when a black hole eventually evaporates, whatever information was gobbled up by this cosmic vacuum cleaner should have long since vanished. The new study proposes that the paradox could be resolved by nature's ultimate cheat code: wormholes, or passages through space-time.
https://www.livescience.com/black-hole-paradox-solution

*2. Information causality is a physical principle suggested in 2009 . . . . The principle assumes classical communication: if quantum bits were allowed to be transmitted the information gain could be higher as demonstrated in the quantum superdense coding protocol [this is debatable as superdense coding requires sending as many qubits - including auxiliary channels - as there are classical bits to transfer]. The principle is respected by all correlations accessible with quantum physics
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Information_causality
Note -- "information gain" is a net change, caused by input of information.

*3. Information causality as a physical principle :
Information causality may therefore help to distinguish physical theories from non-physical ones.
https://www.proquest.com/docview/204560784
Note -- Only physical properties are measurable in quantitative terms. Non-physical qualities are knowable only by conscious minds.Do you have any memes in your mind? How much do those massless objects weigh? How many degrees of uncertainty can your mind contain?

Information : (my definition)
Knowledge and the ability to know. Technically, it's the ratio of order to disorder, of positive to negative, of knowledge to ignorance. It's measured in degrees of uncertainty. Those ratios are also called "differences". So Gregory Bateson* defined Information as "the difference that makes a difference". The latter distinction refers to "value" or "meaning". Babbage called his prototype computer a "difference engine". Difference is the cause or agent of Change. In Physics it’s called "Thermodynamics" or "Energy". In Sociology it’s called "Conflict".
http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page11.html

I have adopted the modern notion of "Information" to describe the essence of all things.
— Gnomon
Given that "essence" denotes that which non-impermanently makes something what is and not something else (to paraphase Plato/Aristotle(?)), why isn't there a "law of the conservation of information" like – complementary to or entailed by – the conservation of mass-energy law, for instance? Why isn't "information" (i.e. "pattern", as you say, Gnomon) conserved in physics? — 180 Proof
To tell you the truth, a Google search on conservation of energy was negative although there was something in The black hole information paradox (Susskind, Hawking et all). — Agent Smith

's question is treating "Information" as-if it is nothing-but Physical. Yet, in the sense of "essence of all things" Information is both physical and metaphysical. Consequently, in its physical forms (e.g. energy/matter) Information must obey physical laws, but in its metaphysical forms (e.g. mind/ideas) information must obey logical laws. However, when physicists talk about conservation laws, they are referring to energy in the conventional scientific sense, not to its unconventional philosophical sense of EnFormAction -- which I assume they have never heard of. This forum has an exclusive on that outré notion.

I am currently reading a book by astrophysicist Caleb Scharf, The Ascent of Information. In the first chapter he says, "a number of thinkers over the years have asked whether information itself may be the fundamental currency of the universe -- superseding our comparatively parochial ideas of what makes biology, and chemistry, or even physics tick". His term "fundamental currency" is what I referred to as "the essence of all things". Since 180proof is still thinking in terms of "parochial ideas" (having a limited or narrow outlook or scope), he does not agree with those innovative thinkers.

Scharf has coined the neologism "Dataome"*1 (compare to Genome) to encapsulate his own outré concept of Universal Information. Raw "data" is appropriate for Claude Shannon's narrow definition of Information. But, from the Enformationism perspective, Data is a basic form of Information that doesn't have any inherent significance or purpose or meaning -- it's unprocessed information. That's why Scharf goes on to say that "real information is that data organized and assembled and structured to provide meaning and context". Likewise, the ideal mental construct of "Self" -- pointing to a specific body -- is a metaphysical meaningful structure that exists upon a physical substrate, but is not itself physical. It exists in the same sense that the concept of "Universe" does, pointing to a physical expanse of matter.

Universal Information is more comprehensive in scope than mere Data. Which is why I coined the term Enformationism to encapsulate the universal & essential role of the cosmic Causal-power-to-enform (to organize into physical or meaningful structures or patterns). Therefore, in a physical format an enformed structure must comply with the conservation law. But in a metaphysical form, the applicable law is Logic (rules & tests of sound reasoning). Which may also be conservative, but not in the same sense. :smile:


*1. Dataome : the class of all forms of information, from abstract data to meaningful ideas to material objects.
Note 1 -- Scharf compares his coinage to "Noosphere" (universal scope of mind), coined in the 1920s by paleontologist Pierre Teilhard deChardin and geologist Vladimir Vernadsky to encompass their notion of an emerging stage of evolutionary development, due to the expanding role of non-physical Consciousness in the physical world. Physicist John A. Wheeler introduced a similar novel notion (It from Bit) around 1989, to encapsulate his concept of an information-based world.
Note 2 -- Noosphere is a no-no for Materialists, who don't "see" how a metaphysical Mind could exist apart from its substantial substrate. Yet, it does exist, as an abstract idea (e.g. prescient Purpose), in the same sense that a future-oriented Function exists for any physical machine. No original intentional metaphysical Purpose >>> no Cause >>> no Machine >>> no Function >>> no physical Output >>> no satisfied Objective. :cool:

I am myself a materialist (in the sense that I believe the material world is primary and that our subjective experiences arise directly from the physical) and have been trying to reconcile the idea of the "self", with a materialist worldview. The self, as I see it, is the "fundamental essence" of who we are; this sense of "I" we are all likely familiar with. — tom111

I don't label myself (my personal Self) as Materialist. But I also don't define Me as Spiritualist. Ironically, one definition of Spirit is "the essence of a thing". So, your definition of The Self could be construed as a spiritual concept; which may trigger the trolls. Therefore, due to the contentious religious baggage of "spirit", I have adopted the modern notion of "Information" to describe the essence of all things. Unfortunately, the trolls can sniff-out the implicit spiritual (essential) connotations.

From that Information-centric perspective, your Self is merely the Information (pattern ; arrangement ; structure ; relationships) that defines your Material (physical) & Mental (phenomenal) form. Unfortunately, you can't see a pattern with your eyes, but you can infer it with your reason, by detecting invisible inter-relationships. (see image below) :smile:


Spiritual Essence (psychology) :
And now we come to the Spirit—the Essence that animates the mind and body.
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/counseling-keys/202009/how-our-spiritual-essence-can-heal-us

What is Information Pattern? :
An information pattern is a structure of information units like e.g. a vector or matrix of numbers, a stream of video frames, or a distribution of probabilities.
https://www.igi-global.com/dictionary/information-pattern/14438

Is ‘Information’ Fundamental for a Scientific Theory of Consciousness? :
Re : physicist John A. Wheeler's "It from Bit" interpretation of Quantum & Information theories.
"In his proposed conception of the world, information is truly fundamental and is comprised of dual aspects—corresponding to the physical and the phenomenal features of the world."
https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-981-10-5777-9_21

Information philosophy is a dualist philosophy, both materialist and idealist. It It is a correspondence theory, explaining how immaterial ideas represent material objects.
https://www.informationphilosopher.com/
Note -- in my thesis, that Both-And relationship adds-up to Monism : one essence, many manifestations.

Materially, we can define a "self" based on one of two quantities; the actual matter that makes up a thing, or simply just the arrangement of matter. — tom111

The "arrangement of matter" is its Form. And Matter is merely a "form" of Energy that our senses can detect (E=MC^2). So, I have concluded that Energy is transformed into Matter, via a process that I have labeled as EnFormAction, in order to suggest its relationship to Information-in-General (the generic ability to enform ; to create forms/patterns ; to cause change ; to carry meaning ). Energy is all around us, but invisible to human senses, until it takes on a measurable Material form : Mass/Matter/Substance. With that scientific knowledge in mind, your notion that the human Self is "just the arrangement of matter" makes sense.

The philosophical problem arises when we consider that the essence of Matter is invisible & intangible in its massless form (e.g. photons) Which raises the old Matter vs Spirit controversy. Since causal Energy can transform from immaterial Potential to material Actual, and back again, you can avoid the Ship of Theseus problem. Nature is not replace physical parts of a thing, it is merely changing the essential Form (arrangement) that makes a thing what it is. Even says that "Self does not exist" as a material / physical thing". So, the Ontological question is this : in what sense does the Self/Soul exist? :nerd:

Under conventional, religious dualism, generally, a human can be divided into two distinct parts; material and immaterial. — tom111

That conceptual Dualism can be resolved into Monism, if we understand Body & Self as merely different aspects (instances ; expressions ; manifestations) of the EnFormAction process. For example, as an individual Photon is zooming through the cosmos, that building block of matter is invisible & massless. But when it energizes the visual purple chemicals in the eye, that photon is transformed into matter, and then back into energy (neural pulses). :smile:

Light is invisible because light does not emit light. To see something this something needs to emit, or reflect light
https://www.quora.com/Why-is-light-invisible
Note -- Photons are Potential Energy & Potential Matter. Only after transformation into Actual matter can they absorb & reflect light. This may sound counter-intuitive, but it's simply Quantum queerness.



The blocks represent physical things, or parts of things. But the arrows represent inferred functional (or meaningful) inter-relations. So, the Pattern per se is a mental construct.

There's a lot yet to explain in cosmology/cosmogony/astronomy. Did you read 180 Proof's reply to me? There are some mathematical models which purport to account for the low entropy state of the universe - our universe is a white hole who's low entropy state is offset and exceeded by the high entropy state of a black hole "at the opposite end". That would mean your Enformy is actually entropy (of the black hole paired with our universe). — Agent Smith

180disproof :joke: likes to throw-out abstruse stuff that he knows you & I are not familiar with. And I suspect -- brilliant as he is -- 180poo doesn't understand those esoteric math & physics conjectures himself. As usual, this ploy misses the point of my personal philosophical thesis. Which does not "purport" to be a scientific explanation of anything.

My coinage of Enformy, which he labels as "woo woo", is simply a combination of Energy (cause) & Form (orderly pattern). And its philosophical meaning is simply Regulated Causation, as opposed to Random Disorder or Destruction. The "woo" arises when I infer that the "Natural Laws" that regulate evolution, are Intentional Organization instead of Accidental Design (oxymoron). The undeniable logical & predictable arrangement (order) of our world is what scientists depend on to construct their hypotheses & models. And it's the exact opposite of what you would expect (anomaly) from an Entropy dominated process : an actual "white hole" instead of a hypothetical reverse black hole.

I'm not a mathematician or cosmologist, so I can't comment on the "mathematical models" that "purport" to explain the low-entropy-high-order beginning of the universe*1. As an amateur philosopher, what matters to me is the simple observed fact that our Cosmos began with all the energy & laws necessary to construct the world we now enjoy after billions of solar years of en-formation & con-struction. 2500 years ago, Plato postulated that our orderly Cosmos (regulated by natural laws) emerged from a pre-existing Chaos (infinite Potential). But even that "deterministic" Chaos was not dominated by Entropy, because it turned-out to be creative instead of destructive*2.

Don't be misled by his White Hole or White Rabbit distraction. On this forum, what "matters" is not Physics (ideas about matter), but Metaphysics (ideas about ideas). :smile:

*1. What Was The Entropy Of The Universe At The Big Bang? :
The second law of thermodynamics is one of those puzzling laws of nature that simply emerges from the fundamental rules. It says that entropy, a measure of disorder in the Universe, must always increase in any closed system. But how is it possible that our Universe today, which looks to be organized and ordered with solar systems, galaxies and intricate cosmic structure, is somehow in a higher-entropy state than right after the Big Bang? . . . .So why was the early Universe so low-entropy? Because it didn't have any black holes. ___Physicist Ethan Siegel
Note -- The absence or presence of black holes does not explain the "why" of the low entropy origin. It merely distracts your attention from the philosophical enigma.

*2. On the Origin of the Universe: Chaos or Cosmos? :
I would like to consider the Universe according to the standard Big Bang model, including various quantum models of its origin. In addition, using the theory of nonlinear dynamics, deterministic chaos, fractals, and multifractals I have proposed a new hypothesis, Macek (The Origin of the World: Cosmos or Chaos? Cardinal Stefan Wyszyński University (UKSW) Scientific Editions, 2020). Namely, I have argued that a simple but possibly nonlinear law is important for the creation of the Cosmos at the extremely small Planck scale at which space and time originated. It is shown that by looking for order and harmony in the complex real world these modern studies give new insight into the most important philosophical issues beyond classical ontological principles, e.g., by providing a deeper understanding of the age-old philosophical dilemma (Leibniz, 1714): why does something exist instead of nothing? We also argue that this exciting question is a philosophical basis of matters that influence the meaning of human life in the vast Universe.
https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-030-96964-6_21
Note -- That hypothetical "non-linear law" sounds similar to what I call "Enformy".

*3. White Hole : a hypothetical celestial object that expands outward from a space-time singularity and emits energy, in the manner of a time-reversed black hole.
Note -- Doesn't that sound like our expanding, energy recycling, universe?
A white hole is a bizarre cosmic object which is intensely bright, and from which matter gushes rather than disappears.
Note -- Now who's making sh*t up??? Ask 180 if anyone has ever detected a hypothetical White Hole. If he can't document its existence, you can accuse him of promulgating "woo woo". :joke:


PS__Many of 180's counterarguments to Enformy are based on an erroneous premise : that I am making factual statements about physics, instead of personal opinions about metaphysics. For example, I didn't make-up the idea that the universe began in a low entropy state of raw energy & natural laws. It was scientists, whose job it is to determine such things, who offered their professional opinions about that oddity. Yet, some of them, faced with an anomaly, also asked the philosophical question "why?" (for what purpose).

Some of them also proposed physical "how" answers, such as imaginary White Holes. But, 180 thinks my imaginary metaphysical answer to a philosophical question is inadmissible as evidence. Ironically, scientists had already found a similar counter-entropy force in physics, that they labeled "negentropy". I merely gave that concept an information-centric label. 180 doesn't argue with the logic of my inferences from inter-related facts, but attacks Gnomon's credentials as a scientist.

The Remarkable Emptiness of Existence :
Note -- Contrary to expectations, even the vacuum of space, lacking actual stuff, was found to contain lots of potential energy. Is that physics or metaphysics? From my personal information-based perspective, that's what I call EnFormAction : the Cosmic power to enform, to create matter & mind from Potential Energy. Isn't Nature spooky? Woo-woo!
https://nautil.us/the-remarkable-emptiness-of-existence-256323/

There's this riddle if youtube videos are to be believed that scientists haven't yet solved: why was the early universe in a low entropy state? Must be the Enformer. — Agent Smith

Yes. According to my non-scientific thesis, the Origin of our universe (closed system), which began with all the energy it would ever have*1, implies energy & regulatory input from outside the system. But other theories assume the eternal existence of Energy & Laws (Potential + Logos), from which our little 'verse obtained its head start. One version of that notion is the Multiverse Theory, asserting that Ultimate Reality has been recycling its energy & laws forever. Unfortunately, that is not an empirically testable theory, hence Philosophy instead of Science. Another hypothesis is Cosmic Inflation*2, which assumes that Space & Time have existed forever, along with the potential energy presumed to be inherent in Empty Space. Yet, again there is no way to confirm that speculation.

The physical & philosophical problem with all of those physical pre-BigBang theories is that they contradict the so-called Laws of Thermodynamics. In order to recycle, a roller-coaster multi-universe would have to pull itself up by the bootstraps in order to get back to the low Entropy/high Enformy starting point. That's why the Enformationism thesis proposes a Meta-Physical (mental ; information) First Cause (creator of Space & Time, Energy & Matter) to explain -- logically, not physically -- how our local 'verse could begin at the top of the Energy/Entropy hill*3. :smile:


*1. Universe began at top of roller coaster hill :
The Universe Began In A State Of Extraordinarily Low Entropy
Based on an elaboration of a 2004 proposal by Sean Carroll and Jennifer Chen, there is a possibility of a new solution to the age-old problem of the arrow of time. This work, by Sean Carroll, Chien-Yao Tseng, and me, is still in the realm of speculation, and has not yet been vetted by the scientific community. . . . The most attractive feature is that there is no longer a need to introduce any assumptions that violate the time symmetry of the known laws of physics.
https://www.edge.org/response-detail/25538

HOW DID THE PRIMORDIAL UNIVERSE GET TO THE TOP OF THE ENERGY CURVE ?


*2. Cosmic Inflation, instantaneous exponential expansion, assumes super-natural (extra-natural) forces that don't exist in the Nature that Physics observes. Hence, it's equivalent to magical creation from super-nature into nature, as in Genesis : creatio ex nihilo, or creatio ex materia. To produce something new from something absent, or from pre-existing (pre-nature) material. That kind of theory only makes sense to those who hold a prejudice against philosophical Metaphysics : Metaphysics is the branch of philosophy that examines the fundamental nature of reality, including the relationship between mind and matter, between substance and attribute, and between potentiality and actuality.

*3. Why we’ll never see back to the beginning of the Universe :
the hot Big Bang has since been shown to be preceded by the inflationary Universe, . . .
Of all the questions humanity has ever pondered, perhaps the most profound is, “Where did all of this come from?” . . . any information about the beginning of the Universe is no longer contained within our observable cosmos.
https://bigthink.com/starts-with-a-bang/never-see-beginning-universe/
Note -- The Inflationary thesis leaves us in suspense, with a "hidden" creator, just like all other First Cause theories. If the Cause is design-by-accident, no revelation would be expected. But if the Prime Cause was intentional, some identifying information might be found within the creation itself. That is the premise of Enformationism. But you won't see such embedded revelation unless you are looking for it.

Have you heard of Boltzmann brains? Read, quite interesting and might help buttress your argument for Enformy. — Agent Smith

The Boltzmann brain thought experiment suggests that it might be more likely for a single brain to spontaneously form in a void (complete with a memory of having existed in our universe) rather than for the entire universe to come about in the manner cosmologists think it actually did. Physicists use the Boltzmann brain thought experiment as a reductio ad absurdum argument for evaluating competing scientific theories.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boltzmann_brain
I get enough of 180's accusations of "absurdity", without providing him with more ammunition to ridicule the notion of "spontaneous" generation of brains/minds. My thesis proposes the long & winding road of natural Evolution, from spontaneous (?) Big Bang to computing brains with reflective minds. :joke: