EnFormAction is an attempt to scientize the almost universal intuition, as evidenced by creation stories in all cultures, of a primum movens (first cause). I appreciate the effort and the key ideas present and active therein, but only veteran philosophers will be able to judge the quality of the output! — Agent Smith

Actually, it was practicing scientists that "scientized" the intuitions of Holism & Information-as-causation (per my previous links). All I've done is to gather their ideas under the heading of Enformationism. However, "veteran philosophers" such as 180 can be expected to judge the "quality of the output" in terms of their outdated personal paradigm. He can be dismissive of my personal qualifications to promote a new kind of science. But, I'll be content to let him argue with "Bob Doyle" (see below), a "veteran" scientist/philosopher, who is promoting the Information-centric worldview. For him, and for me, the relevance of Information to ancient myths only came after its relevance to today's reality was apparent.

This clash of paradigms has happened before. For example, the novice philosopher Spinoza outraged his fellow Jews and Christians (including some veteran theologians) by introducing a new science-based concept of God-as-Natural-instead-of-Super-natural (deus sive natura). Enformationism posits a similar god-concept, formalized in the philosophical concept of PanEnDeism (all in god). In other words, G*D is the whole of Nature, in which we humans are integral parts of an evolving emerging system of En-formation. The Enlightenment era paradigm shift marked the beginning of methodical Classical Science, which endured another radical perspective shift due to 20th century's Relativity & Quantum theories, that are now grudgingly accepted as technical scientific facts, despite their challenge to common sense.

Spinoza was influenced by the scientific philosophy of Descartes. But Rene is best known today for his dualistic compromise solution to the Mind/Body problem : non-overlapping magistera. Yet four centuries later, Quantum & Information science have pointed to a monistic solution : universal & causal information. The Enformationismthesis is merely one of several strands of Information-centric departures from the classical worldview of Newton. But, it may take an information atomic bomb to convince some classical scientists that invisible immaterial things must be taken seriously. :nerd:


Descartes as scientist :
Apart from his work in philosophy, Descartes was a leading mathematician and scientist. He invented the Cartesian coordinate system, developed analytic geometry and laid the foundation for the development of calculus. He also did groundbreaking work in physics most prominently in the field of optics.
https://learnodo-newtonic.com/rene-descartes-contribution

The Mind-Body Problem :
"Information philosophy views the mind as the immaterial information in the brain, which is seen as a biological information processor. Mind is software in the brain's hardware.
The "stuff" of mind is pure information. Information is neither matter nor energy, though it needs matter for its embodiment and energy for its communication".
https://www.informationphilosopher.com/problems/mind_body/
Note 1 -- Physicists are beginning to see that Matter & Energy & Mind are all various forms of the Generic power-to-enform.

Note 2 -- The Information Philosopher could be construed as a "veteran philosopher". Since I am indeed a novice philosopher, with no advanced degrees, I'll let 180 argue with Bob Doyle about the scientific & philosophical merits of Information-centric science & philosophy. Bob Doyle[/u] is the Information Philosopher. He earned a Ph. D in Astrophysics from Harvard and is now an Associate in the Harvard Astronomy Department.

"Instead of a closed universe that is winding down deterministically from an initial state of high information, we find the universe is open and increasing information indeterministically from an initial state of relatively high entropy and low information. Information is being continuously created in the universe, not least by human beings who are just learning that they are part of the cosmic creative process."
https://www.informationphilosopher.com/introduction/

Well, it's just a feeling, an intuition you could call it. Can't name any particular idea that looks promising except for these two: — Agent Smith

I suspect that you still haven't grokked the central idea of Enformationism. That "failure to communicate" may be due to your trying to piece together bits & pieces of the thesis from loosely-related forum posts. The best way to understand this new paradigm is to read some of the scientific books & articles I link to in my posts. My thesis is merely a philosophical expansion of an emerging scientific paradigm, which combines Quantum Physics with Information Theory.

Or, if you are really interested, you could take the time to read the actual Enformationism thesis. It's available online, and is written mainly in layman's language, except for a few neologisms I have coined in order to encapsulate a complex concept into one word. For example, EnFormAction is a portmanteau word to signify the multiple roles of Information in the world.

The BothAnd philosophical principle (Yin-Yang) notion is merely a corollary of the scientific necessity for a Holistic approach to Quantum physics*1. Classical Reductive methods cannot make sense of Quantum queerness. That's why Feynman admitted that "nobody understands quantum mechanics". It's because the quantum foundation of reality is not mechanical & linear-logical, but holistic & fuzzy-logical. :nerd:

*1. seems to think my use of "BothAnd" & "YinYang" exposes an underlying New Agey mystical worldview. But that erroneous interpretation is a sign that he too is unable to grok a new Holistic scientific paradigm, so he conflates it with pre-scientific philosophical*2 attempts to understand how & why the world works as it does. Does the BothAnd definition below sound New Agey to you? If so, then Einstein & Schrodinger were also new age nuts, so I'm in good company.

*2. I find the ancient philosophies of Hindu, Chinese & Greek cultures still useful after all these years. But I have no use for the religious beliefs, rituals, & dogmas that grew-up around those core philosophical worldviews.

Grok : to understand (something) intuitively or holistically, rather than rationally or analytically.

Portmanteau :
1. literally a compartmented suitcase.
2. A portmanteau word is a blend of words in which parts of multiple words are combined into a new word, with interrelated meanings.

EnFormAction :
For technical treatments, I had to make-up a new word to summarize the multilevel and multiform roles of generic Information in the ongoing creative act of Evolution. I call it EnFormAction.
That neologism is an analysis and re-synthesis of the common word for the latent power of mental contents : “Information”. “En” stands for energy, the physical power to cause change; “Form” refers to Platonic Ideals that become real; “Action” is the meta-physical power of transformation, as exemplified in the amazing metamorphoses of physics, whereby one kind of thing becomes a new kind of thing, with novel properties. In the Enformationism worldview, EnFormAction is Creative Potential in action : it's how creation-via-evolution works.
http://bothandblog3.enformationism.info/page23.html

BothAnd :
* 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.
http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page10.html

“The intuitive mind is a sacred gift and the rational mind is a faithful servant. We have created a society that honors the servant and has forgotten the gift.”
— Albert Einstein

my coherence field theory to neuroscience for your entertainment — Enrique

Unfortunately, your articles are way over my head. So, I'm not able to evaluate their validity. But I have seen a variety of attempts by physicists to show neuroscientists how Physics can explain Consciousness. For example, British physicist Johnjoe McFadden "posits that consciousness is in fact the brain's energy field". His theory seems to be a physicist's version of Tononi's Integrated Information theory. Could your "Coherence Field" be related to those other theories, in that the key feature is Holistic unification or integration (cooperation ; working together) of independent elements, such as neurons? :smile:

New Theory of Consciousness :
I argue here that nearly all examples of so-called ‘integrated information’, including neuronal information processing and conventional computing, are only temporally integrated in the sense that outputs are correlated with multiple inputs: the information integration is implemented in time, rather than space, and thereby cannot correspond to physically integrated information. I point out that only energy fields are capable of integrating information in space. ____McFadden
https://neurosciencenews.com/electromagnetic-consciousness-17191/

Integrated information theory attempts to provide a framework capable of explaining why some physical systems are conscious, why they feel the particular way they do in particular states, and what it would take for other physical systems to be conscious. ___Wikipedia

"e pluribus unum" : one out of many
Coherence
Integration
Organization
Unification
Cooperation
Holism
Enformation : to cause unrelated things to function as one interrelated system

Is Gnosis a useful source of knowledge and/or wisdom? — Bret Bernhoft

The gate to the Oracle at Delphi bore this inscription : "gnothi seauton" (know thyself). That kind of "direct" (introspective) gnosis is indeed necessary for wisdom. But, pretending to know something via indirect channels -- hidden from Reason & human eyes -- may be wise like a wiley serpent. The ancient Gnostics got a bad reputation for claiming to reveal occult esoteric spiritual truths that are necessary for salvation. And that tactic worked well on gullible people, who put their trust in con-men. But philosophical wisdom must be amenable to Reason, and not just taken on Faith. Confer "Trump Truth". :nerd:

PS__OccultGnosis is indeed "useful" for separating money from naive or emotionally needy people. My trusting sister was just conned into giving-out her bank account information to an Indian Microsoft "expert" who claimed to be able to fix a technical problem with her computer, that was caused by his own virus. I don't think she was so naive, but merely confused & frustrated by the sudden craziness on her computer. Fortunately, she called her skeptical brother, before any real damage was done.

It looks like the two of you have to fight (with each other) tooth and nail, to the finish. BothAnd or Yin-Yang requires you two do so! We'll have medics stationed on site to render emergency care if one/both of you sustain(s) life-threatening injuries! :grin: — Agent Smith

He'll have to catch me first. :joke:
Actually, the cooperative BothAnd philosophy "requires" us to avoid fighting, if possible. That's why I'm in the middle, and he's swinging for an imaginary extreme. He doesn't realize that I'm just playing rope-a-dope. :cool:

Rope-a-Dope : a boxing tactic of pretending to be trapped against the ropes, goading an opponent to throw tiring ineffective punches.

All I'm saying is 180 Proof's opposition completes your thesis (re BothAnd/yin-yang). You shouldn't reject him because if you do, you're contradicting yourself. — Agent Smith

OK. I accept that, in a YinYang world, the opposite of Good is Evil. But does that mean I should wallow in the evil, just for the sake of Holism? I'm kidding. And I don't reject 180 personally. On other topics he is able to make constructive criticisms. But on Enformationism-related topics, he only makes destructive comments. But hey, it's a free forum. So he's entitled to his opinion. However, I'm not obliged to get down in the mire with the pigs, even though they are otherwise admirable creatures.

I think you are still misinterpreting the YinYang concept. It merely means, for example, that a male body and a female body are complementary, for the purposes of procreation. But, for other purposes, male & female may have other priorities. The YinYang balance is not static, but dynamic. And each side has the potential for upsetting the ideal harmony of the system. I can move toward the middle, but If I go all the way to the opposite side, I may contribute to dis-harmony. It takes two to tango around the pivot-point of a see-sawing system. :joke:

I feel you should encourage strong but genuine, well-considered opposition to your thesis as it would validate your BothAnd philosophy. If no one can do that, you yourself should take up this task - either you complete your system or you test how strong it is. It's a win-win as far as I can tell. — Agent Smith

I have been exposing my thesis to unsympathetic comments for years, and usually get good "well-considered opposition" (feedback) from other posters on the forum. But 180 is determined to stop me from discussing an emerging new paradigm of Science & Philosophy -- which conflicts with his established classical worldview -- by emotional ridicule instead of rational argument. His legalistic approach is like a defense attorney saying, "your honor, the prosecution witness' testimony contradicts the defense witness' testimony. Therefore, the prosecution witness is either lying or stupid, and his testimony should be stricken from the record . . . . . I rest my case". Does that sound like a win-win contest to you? Do you think I should continue to engage 180 in such a circular dialogue (circa-logue)? :joke:

You might like "Information and the Nature of Reality," which Davies edited with Niels Henrik Gregson. Good combo of articles on information theoretic approaches from physics, biology (some by Terrance Deacon, who I always appreciate), semantic information/consciousness, and even theology at the end.

It's my late night book for when Floridi's Philosophy of Information stops making sense. That book is good too but very technical. I am regretting getting it instead of his Routledge Handbook of the Philosophy of Information, which is apparently more accessible. — Count Timothy von Icarus

I have read most of Davies' books. His Information-centric worldview seems to be very similar to my own. And Terrance Deacon has offered a novel way to think of the ding an sich problem. Floridi's book, Philosophy of Information, stuck a little too close to Shannon's narrow mechanical application of "Information" for my taste. I prefer the books that are presaging a broader new paradigm of science & philosophy. :smile:

So your thesis has an antithesis which is as legit as your thesis and should be incorporated into your thesis (BothAnd). Shouldn't you be more welcoming of opposition to your ideas then? For example 180 Proof's objections should be part and parcel of your system, based as it is on yin & yang. — Agent Smith

The BothAnd philosophy doesn't legitimize one side or the other of any opposition. Instead, it allows each person to cross philosophical-political dividing-lines lines as the context demands. For example, I live in a very conservative part of the US, and my religious training was fundamentalist. But, although I don't repudiate the good parts of Conservatism, as an adult I have crossed over into enemy territory. Today, I don't call myself a Conservative or a Liberal, but something like a Liberative or Conserveral (i.e. Moderate). The downside of a moderate position is that you get shot at by both sides. The right-wing-conservatives will view you as a lily-livered-liberal, and the left-wing-radicals will decry you as a cold-hearted-conservative. The point here is that the BothAnd sweet-spot of harmony & balance is not in the exact middle of any philosophical continuum, but depending on the context, may shift left or right to maintain a dynamic balance -- like a tightrope walker.

When I first joined The Philosophy Forum, I felt that might be a kindred spirit. His general philosophical worldview seemed to be compatible with mine. But eventually, he began to see my personal philosophy as anathema (something or someone that one vehemently dislikes). I still don't know for sure what the point-of-contention is, except that it has something to do with my unconventional usage of the tainted word "Metaphysics" (non-physical ; as in abstract concepts)*1. Since then, his "opposition" has been expressed in ad hominem arguments -- against an imaginary position that I don't actually hold -- instead of philosophical arguments. So no, his (NAZI vs Commie) "objections" are not "part & parcel" of my own system. I welcome philosophical discussion of specific ideas, but not a political-smear-campaign of a general multi-faceted worldview. Even so, I bear no ill-will toward 180 -- his knowledge of Philosophy is admirable -- I just refuse to engage in below-the-belt philosophy. Hopefully though, maybe some day we will again be able to sit around the philosophical campfire and sing Kumbaya (harmony & goodness). :smile:

*1. Actually, I think he feels threatened by the emerging Holistic & Information-centric scientific paradigm, which to him smacks of old age Religion and New Age nuttiness.

BOTH/AND = DYNAMIC BALANCE

Since your idea has, as a component, the yin-yang duality of opposites, you surely expect it to be critiqued/opposed/attacked. That's exactly how it should be then, in accordance to your BothAnd concept, oui?
How would you respond to this comment? — Agent Smith

Oui-oui. It's mostly "attacked" emotionally (good vs evil) & politically (us vs them), instead of "critiqued" rationally & philosophically. For example, quote : "Your usual non-answer. That's a tell, sir. :yawn: " The implicit critique can be eloquently summed-up as "boo, hiss".

Apparently, a Reductive/Materialistic paradigm is antipathetic (showing or feeling a strong aversion) to a Holistic/Metaphysical worldview. And a significant proportion of posters on this forum are allied with the belief system known as Scientism. It began during the Reformation /Enlightenment era, when the hegemony of the State Church was rejected by Freethinkers. One vector of that Hegelian dialectic clash was fragmented Protestant religions & general Secularization, and the other was modern empirical Science & pragmatic Materialism.

From that cynical (dog-eat-dog) perspective though, Philosophy in general, and especially Metaphysics, is viewed as allied with supernatural Religion. Hence, any ideas that go beyond Physical are presumed to be Metaphysical, as defined by the early Catholic Church theologians. Although many world religions are based on a Holistic model, many secular philosophies (e.g.Taoism, Confucianism) throughout history also assumed that the Dualistic forces of the world are ultimately & delicately balanced into a Holistic monism (Yin/Yang). Hence, optimistic instead of fatalistic.

By contrast to the black vs white, Science vs Religion opposition, your own reaction has been a philosophical blend of both Curiosity (exploring) and Skepticism (defending). And that is a good example of the BothAnd approach to knowledge : "open-minded, but not so open that your brains fall out". :smile:


Scientism :
Science is about descriptive facts; philosophy is often about that but is also about normative and evaluative truths (if such truths exist). Science is about physical objects; philosophy is often about that but is also about abstract objects (if they exist).
https://1000wordphilosophy.com/2018/02/13/philosophy-and-its-contrast-with-science/

What is scientism, and why is it a mistake? :
Science is a method of inquiry about nature, while scientism is philosophy. And scientism is no longer up to the challenge of meeting the most pressing issues of our day.
https://bigthink.com/13-8/science-vs-scientism/
Note -- Scientism is dualistic Either/Or philosophy. It has that in common with dualistic Good/Evil religions. By contrast, the BothAnd philosophy is ultimately Monistic.

I can only applaud in admiration at your idea - it seems to be well-thought-out. Not many can say that of their own worldviews. I'm still trying to grasp the essence of it. Give me time. — Agent Smith

Take your time. I've been working on the Enformationism thesis for about 14 years. It had been simmering for a while in the background. But I finally formalized it while I was unemployed due to the 2008 Great Recession. I gathered my notes & essays into a webpage, and using the Matrix movie as a metaphor, presented the core idea, not in the form of an Academic Thesis, but as a non-commercial, un-conventional argument in a semi-public arena. In some ways, it was inspired by Devin Giorbran's book & website Everything Forever, which presented a novel scientific-philosophical perspective of the whole universe. But the focus of Enformationism is more down-to-earth. Both are neither True nor False, but merely a different way to look at Reality : a proposed new Paradigm.

Most of us are living in an artificial simulation of reality : created in the public mind, not by rogue AI, but by social conventions and news media. The civilized world-view has evolved along a zig-zag path of Hegelian oppositions. For example : Fascism, Communism, & Capitalism in the 20th century. But, even more subtle may be the various scientific & philosophical paradigms of the 21st century, especially Quantum Theory and Information Theory. The world is still gradually emerging from the pre-scientific worldviews of its various religions, especially the Judeo-Christian-Islamic traditions, and from the radical 17th century revisionist worldview of what we now call Classical or Newtonian Science.

The dominant paradigms of each era serve as focusing frames through which to view the incomprehensible complexities of the world. For example, the common view of human nature swings back & forth between the optimism of first century Christianity "work out your own salvation", to the pessimism of Calvin's "Total Depravity" ; from the optimism of the Scientific Enlightenment, to the pessimism of modern philosophies (e.g. Antinatalism). Compared to those historical dialectical digressions, the Enformationism thesis could be just one man's perspective, that will die with him. Fortunately, I am not alone in this quest for a plausible 21st century worldview. So, if some form of this novel information-centric concept of how the world works -- by processing Information in various ways -- catches-on, It could become the seed for the next dominant philosophical paradigm . Only time will tell. :nerd:

Everything Forever : Learning to See The Timelessness of the Universe
"Zero is powerful because it is infinity’s twin. They are equal and opposite, yin and yang. They are equally paradoxical and troubling. The biggest questions in science and religion are about nothingness and eternity, the void and the infinite, zero and infinity. The clashes over zero were the battles that shook the foundations of philosophy, of science, of mathematics, and of religion. Underneath every revolution lay a zero – and an infinity."
-Charles Seife
Zero; The Biography of a Dangerous Idea
http://everythingforever.com/
Note -- at first glance, to someone grounded in conventional classical science, this may sound like a bunch of hippie non-sense. But, by looking at the flip-side of space-time, a new understanding of what's-really-going-on could emerge.

Paradigm :
A paradigm is a standard, perspective, or set of ideas. A paradigm is a way of looking at something. It's a worldview.
https://www.vocabulary.com/dictionary/paradigm

Information -- Consciousness -- Reality :
How a new understanding of the universe can help answer age-old questions of existence
https://www.goodreads.com/en/book/show/45153601

Enformationism website :
It's not something to believe, but something to think
http://enformationism.info/enformationism.info/

I don't know if it's actually true but, for obvious reasons, your thesis feels biocentric (pro-life) - the name EnFormAction suggests a bias towards life (EnFormy being anti-entropy, entropy being anti-order and thus an anti-life force we havta deal on a daily basis). Do you consider this to be a feature/bug in EnFormAction? — Agent Smith

Yes. Like Energy, EnFormAction, can have both positive and negative effects. For example, Lightning splits air molecules into Nitrogen & Oxygen, both essential for life (organism). But, if a bolt from the blue strikes your living body, the result is instant death (dis-organism). But, after billions of years of Dialectic inter-action, we see a distinct bias (trend) toward Complexity & Organism & Life. Therefore, it's obvious that disorganizing Entropy is not absolute, so there must be some countervailing force to nudge evolution toward Life & Mind, and away from Death & Insentience. That implicit force is what I call "Enformy" (the power to enform ; to organize). :nerd:

Buddha (anicca) & Laozi (yinyang), Democritus (atomic swirling) & Heraclitus (everything flows), Boltzmann (thermodynamics) & Heisenberg (quantum uncertainty), Penrose (conformal cyclical cosmology) & Deutsch (quantum turing computation) are some examples thinkers for whom "motion (change)" is the fundamental – acausal – independent variable. — 180 Proof

As usual, this haughty reposte is based on prejudiced premises. It's intended to deny the necessity for a First Cause. From a narrow-nose perspective, cycling Change seems to be fundamental to Physics, with no beginning or end. But from a broader Philosophical worldview, even the Big Bang beginning of our universe must, logically, have a cause. That's why cosmologists have been proposing various speculative schemes to explain the time-before-time : Inflation, Many Worlds, Multiverses. There's no evidence for such ideal mathematical scenarios. But there is real physical evidence for a directional evolving universe from Past to Future. In the cosmological diagram below, the beginning & end states are implied, but fuzzy, due to lack of empirical evidence.

Penrose's abstract Causality Diagrams, like Minkowski's imaginary Block Time (static space-time), are deliberately simplified : a> by removing the complexity of Change, and b> by assuming internal, mutually-neutralizing, Symmetry of forces. In practice though, such a mathematically ideal world would be eternal & unchanging. But both of those models are like snapshots of reality, frozen in time. And are useful only for simplifying the complex mathematics of Dynamics (change ; motion). So, their idealized Acausal models are intentionally non-realistic. :cool:

Acausal Motion :
“Acausal” means not having a cause. In classical physics all events are believed to have a cause; none are acausal. In quantum physics, some interpretations of quantum theory allow for events to occur without a cause, that is, they are acausal.
The usual way to say this is that in quantum physics, there is “true randomness.” In true randomness, we don’t know the cause and also there is none. In classical physics, nothing happens randomly. If a billiard ball is picking up speed to the right, it’s because some force is pushing it in that direction. If we don’t know the nature of the force, it might seem like it’s random motion. But be assured, there is a causal force.
http://www.quantumphysicslady.org/glossary/acausal/

THE DIRECTIONAL ARROW OF EVOLUTION

Correct me if I'm wrong, the whole idea of your EnFormAction theory boils down to, from the little that I know, yin & yang (the interaction of opposites) &Hegelian dialectics, both of which remind me of Heraclitean dualism (thesis-antithesis dynamics). — Agent Smith

Yes, the role of EnFormAction (energy, causation) in physics is to cause change-of-form (geometry, interrelationships). However, perhaps due to the curvature of Angular Momentum, the direction of change (motion) varies (not a straight line). Hence, the convoluted pathways of billiards and Brownian Motion.

Therefore, like billiard balls, any causal input (action) results in inter-action (collisions). And the result is something like Hegelian Dialectics (literally "cross-talk"). So, geometrically, any collision of two forces (added momentum) produces a new angular momentum (vectors) [see Dialectic below]. A more complex version of the flow of EFA (causation) through the world is illustrated in the math of a Random Walk [see Squiggles below]. Thus, Positive (aggregating) complexification results in Organization and organism. but Negative (segregating) action results in Disorganization.

Heraclitus postulated two opposing forces in the world, which work together to cause change. Today, we call those oppositions "Positive" & "Negative" -- or in a different context : "Good" & "Evil" -- and they can be illustrated by Vectors (arrows) in which the angle represents geometric direction and the length represents the amount of Force (energy ; momentum). In Taoism, those dual forces are labeled Yin (dark ; female) and Yang (light ; male) -- pardon the implicit misogynism. :wink:

INTERACTION OF OPPOSITES

COMPLEX DIALECTIC = RANDOM WALK = BROWNIAN MOTION

EnFormAction
General ideas:
1. Primum movens aka EnFormer/Intender
2. BothAnd (yin-yang)
Specific ideas:
1. Information-based theory
2. EnFormy (anti-entropy, vide supra BothAnd) — Agent Smith

Good summary! You are open-minded and reasonable enough to entertain unfamiliar (weird) ideas, and attempt to make sense of them, in order to learn new ways of philosophizing. But you also apply a healthy dose of skepticism toward unproven philosophical conjectures. Unlike some Trolls, who just repeat "j'accuse", but provide no viable alternative ideas -- only standardized (settled ; classical) conventions to be taken on faith.

If the Enformationism hypothesis doesn't seem plausible -- it's a lot to take in -- you are not expected to believe its information-centric worldview. But once you grok the ubiquity & activity of Generic Information, your eyes will be opened to a whole new world of non-classical Possibilities (as in Quantum Theory). :cool:

A1. Philosophers & Physicists agree that all motion (change) must have a Prime Mover to impart momentum into the system of Causation. But some disagree on the nature of that First Cause : Intentional vs Accidental.
A2. BothAnd Complementarity : Physics
"the concept that two contrasted theories, such as the wave and particle theories of light, may be able to explain a set of phenomena, although each separately only accounts for some aspects."
___Google

B1. Information-Centric Worldview :
"Noted English mathematical physicist Sir Roger Penrose theorizes that at the level of the Planck scale (an unfathomably small and unimaginably energetic scale at which even quantum field theory breaks down) the entire universe is actually pure, abstract information."
http://www.esalq.usp.br/lepse/imgs/conteudo_thumb/The-Illusion-of-Reality---The-Scientific-Proof-That-Everything-is-Energy-and-Reality-Isnt-Real.pdf
B2. Enformy :
“Enformy is the principle of creation. Life didn't just happen. Life had to happen. Enformy compelled it. Enformy compelled DNA to organize."
https://vxm.com/link.enformytheory.html
Note : Watson's Theory of Enformed Systems is more liberal & literal than my own conservative & metaphorical interpretations of the logical concept of Enformy (negentropy).


PS___Enformationism takes current knowledge and projects (speculates) into the unknowable time-before-time, in order to grasp at answers to ancient philosophical questions of Ontology and Epistemology. Theism and Atheism are both gnostic worldviews, that claim to know for sure, either by revelation or by reason, what it's possible to Know about Existence. But Agnosticism (Epoché) understands that Reason is not bound by physical barriers, so we can legitimately conjecture on concepts that we can't prove empirically. What matters is only that it makes sense -- not necessarily in a conventional belief system, but in the light of Reason.

Let's test how good your idea is: Try and harmonize the following thesis-antithesis pairs:
1. Theism-Atheism (everyone's favorite don't-get-along-at-all couple).
2. Rationalism-Empiricism (another such pair). — Agent Smith

The BothAnd principle is Holistic. It assumes that all apparent oppositions in the natural world are ultimately complementary. For example, Matter & Antimatter, when brought together, commit mutual suicide. And yet, the energy they are composed of is not lost, but returns to the universal thermodynamic system from whence it came. Positive & Negative energy are harmonized in the Neutrality of the whole.

Likewise, clashes between Theists & Atheists, can be reconciled in Agnosticism and Deism. The material world is obviously temporary & contingent. So, even atheist scientists concede that there must have been an external cause of the Big Bang, that is not a part of the expanding system itself. The well-aimed cue-ball requires an aim-er with a cue-stick (creative power). But as arrogant Atheists, they cannot admit that a mind is needed to explain Evolution. So, they merely imagine another dumb cue-ball zooming-in from off-table, which accidentally impacted the BB cue-ball. On the other hand, prideful Theists do see the need for an intentional mind to aim the stick or ball. But they take their ability to imagine a divine pool-shooter (Faith) as logical evidence. However, humble Agnostics are aware that their Logic is derived only from evidence inside the system. So, they don't pretend to know anything about the logical, but imaginary Who, out there in the great beyond. Hence, they stand in the middle of the argument, and say "can't we all just get along"?

Early philosophy was mostly a rational exercise of discovering logical patterns for How & Why the world works as it does. But around the time of Aristotle, they began to physically analyze (dissect) the world around them, in order to discover the hidden mechanisms inside. The hands-on (empirical) approach soon proved to be very effective in leveraging the human mind to control the natural world. Yet, they found that the immaterial mind itself is not so easy to dissect. So the early Psychologists (Freud) were essentially impractical philosophers, using pure Reason as a scalpel to analyze minds. Now we have more empirical methods for mind-reading, but the meaning of MRI blobs still have to be interpreted rationally & logically. So, to this very day both Rationalism and Empiricism are working together to advance our understanding of How & Why the mechanics of Physics has evolved Metaphysical Minds, whose inner thoughts still resist the crude empirical methods of Trepanation (drilling holes in the skull) and Magnetic Imaging (MRI).

So, you see, Theism & Atheism and Rationalism & Empiricism can harmonize like Ebony & Ivory, if we give them a chance. :cool:


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.
http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page10.html

Ebony and Ivory :
Ebony and ivory live together in perfect harmony
Side by side on my piano keyboard, oh Lord, why don't we?
We all know that people are the same whereever you go
There is good and bad in ev'ryone
We learn to live, when we learn to give
Each other what we need to survive, together alive
___Paul McCartney

It generalizes the intuition/rationale of the multiple hypotheses floatin around such that each one fits with your x-based EnformAction thesis; how snugly is up to how good is your generalization is of course. — Agent Smith

Yes. Philosophy is all about generalizing Principles from specific Instances. The operative Variable "X" is the shape-shifting power to enform, that we generically call "Information". That word originally refered to the contents of a mind (knowledge, meaning, intelligence, etc). But Shannon applied that term to non-specific "Data", which could be anything meaningful to a mind. The range of meanings or values is encoded from 1 (100% ; rigid order) to 0 (zero ; total randomness). Ironically, Shannon also realized that the potential of his data carriers (bits & bytes) can be evaluated in terms of Entropy, which is the ashes of Energy. Yet, the flip-side of Entropy is Enformy [see below].

More recently, physicists have realized that the essence of Information is equivalent to what we know as Energy : the power to cause change. In the Enformationism thesis though, I expand the range of Information to include a> Energy, b> Matter (E=MC^2), c> Intention (design ; mental causation), and various other instances of Form Change, such as physical Phase Transitions. FORM is essentially a meaningful or structural pattern, such as Morse Code or DNA. In general, I call that Causal Information "EnFormAction". It's what allows the random mutations of Evolution to produce non-random Forms (organisms) that survive & reproduce; to progress. Hence, Natural Selection is a form of Intention ; it chooses only the mutations that meet its standards of fitness.

Harking back to the OP, the biggest variable of all is the mysterious Enformer or Intender, Who defined the rules of Natural Selection. Most physicists are functionally Agnostic, in that they just take those evolutionary standards and natural laws for granted. And assume that the laws keeping our world on track are random & arbitrary. But then, they proceed to rely on the mathematical exactness of those regulations as-if they are orderly & absolute. As an Agnostic myself, I don't claim to know anything specific about the X-factor (the Who) serving as the Initial Cause of the chain of causation that we know as evolution. But, I can see the fingerprints of the culprit all over the natural world. :nerd:


Information :
(1) : knowledge obtained from investigation, study, or instruction. (2) : intelligence, news. (3) : facts, data.
Merriam-Webster

Data : Philosophy
things known or assumed as facts, making the basis of reasoning or calculation.
Oxford Dictionary

EnFormAction :
Intentional Causation. A proposed metaphysical law of the universe that causes random interactions between forces and particles to produce novel & stable arrangements of matter & energy.
http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page8.html

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

With regard to information, are you proposing a reductionist thesis - that everything boils down to information? As I suggested to you earlier, in addition to positing a who (created the universe)? - your Enformer - you might also wanna explore how (the universe was created) - with information. — Agent Smith

In accordance with the BothAnd philosophy, Enformationism is both Reductive (it all boils down to Information Bits as the atoms of reality), but it's also Holistic (as in PanEnDeism : all is in G*D). If you're no comfortable with the G*D terminology, you can just as well call it "LOGOS" per Plato, or "TAO" per Lao Tse. Whatever you call it, "the Who" or "The All" is the potential source of all actual things and processes in the contingent world. "Sufficient Reason" will tell you that much, with no need for divine revelation.

Even Atheist scientists have conceded that something with the ability to Create (Enform) a new world from scratch (mathematical Singularity) is logically necessary. But they tend to think of Materialistic causes, such as eternal regression of Multiverses (tower of turtles), or Many Worlds (hypothetical parallel universes), or Materialistic Magic (Instantaneous "Inflation" of a universe from a minuscule quantum fluctuation). All of these scenarios presume eternal Space & Time, and Energy & Laws. So, Enformationism lumps all those resources under the heading of "Causal Information", otherwise known as "Intention". But the Power of Intention is found only in Living & Thinking things -- not in space-time or energy/laws -- which have the ability to imagine the future, and to progress toward a preset goal.

I call that creative power in the universe "EnFormAction" (the ability to transform Potential into Actual). So, the creative act of enforming -- via the mechanism of Evolution -- progresses toward some unknown (to us) teleological destination. However, it's obviously not top-down Teleology (as in Genesis), but bottom-up Evolution, with only the standards of Natural Selection to guide the program toward the Intended Final State.

Hows that, for "how the universe" is creating itself via innate Intention? :nerd:

Intention :
1. a thing intended; an aim or plan or program.
2. stretching or leaning toward something
3. purpose ; design

In essence, how do we/should we deal with doubt and uncertainty, and possibility? — Agent Smith

Are you familiar with the Enlightenment era philosophy of Deism? They were Agnostic about the G*D of Theism, specifically Judeo-Christianity, but they continued to accept the logical necessity for a First Cause of some unspecified kind. So, they doubted the existence of the Bible God, and were uncertain of the characteristics of the rationally revealed "G*D of the philosophers". Yet, they dealt with their lack of empirical evidence, by trusting in their own reasoning ability. Ironically, the Faith religions advise us to doubt our own ability to make sense of the world, and to trust some ancient prophets & scribes to tell us what to believe. If it comes down to Faith vs Reason, which are you more likely to trust? :halo:

Deism Beyond Reason :
In his respectful critique of Deism, he makes one telling observation : "Most deists I know do believe in more (about God) than what natural, unaided reason can discover." Although Reason is their raison d'etre, Deists cannot deny that some of their beliefs and hopes are not derived from pure Reason, but from reason supplemented with hope or speculation. So the original post-enlightenment boast of a “rational religion”, was true only by comparison to the more dogmatic Faith religions of the day.
http://www.bothandblog.enformationism.info/page69.html

I've always had (major) issues with logic - I think I'm a right-brained person and hence reasoning is not my strong suit. — Agent Smith

If the formal Logic of Pure Reasoning is not amenable with your right-brain Holistic thinking, maybe you can dabble in Practical Reasoning. What difference does it make to you, whether there is a transcendental deity to serve as an explanation for existential questions : such as "why is there something rather than nothing?" What are the logical possibilities : a> eternal evolving Matter, or b> eternal creative Mind? Is your matter permanent? Is your mind creative? :nerd:

PS__Atheists will challenge the practical aspects of a transcendent deity : "what has he done for you lately?" (i.e. miraculous interventions). But Deists would answer, she/he created the magnificent world "in which we live & breathe and have our being". Is that enough of a miracle for you? Although astronomers have been looking-in-vain (100 years) for extra-terrestrial life, as far as we now know, our "blue dot" is unique in the universe.

Critique of Pure Reason :
* Immanuel Kant, in his 1781 treatise, distinguished between Pure and Practical reasoning.
* Early Deists of the same era, idolized the transcendental form of reasoning. But in practice, their thinking was contaminated with the same worldly concerns that have always led men from the “true path”.
* However, a BothAnd combination of Pure philosophical reasoning, and Practical scientific problem-solving can allow us to contemplate transcendental possibilities without the risk of believing in impossible things.
* G*D is a transcendental concept, hence with no practical applications. Yet, the notion of an ideal Being can have important theoretical implications. Yes, G*D is just a theory, but also a reasonable inference from the meta-physical aspects of physical reality.
http://www.bothandblog.enformationism.info/page69.html

Practical reasoning is basically goal-directed reasoning from an agent's goal, and from some action selected as a means to carry out the goal, to the agent's reasoned decision to carry out the action.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Practical_reason

Look, I wouldn't dare to say I understood your EnFormation thesis or its auxiliary idea BothAnd. — Agent Smith

The core idea of Enformationism is simple : everything in the world is a form of Generic Information. That's illustrated most succinctly in Einstein's formula E = MC^2. Energy is invisible & intangible*1, so we know it only by its effects on Matter. Hence, Energy is the physical power-to-enform (to cause changes in material form). But the less well known application of the power-to-enform is the metaphysical ability to change minds. I won't go into that right now, but it's covered in the blog.

Anyway, some related 21st century scientific concepts are a> the Mathematical Universe theory*2, and b> the Computer Universe theory*3. In both of those hypothetical worldviews, the basic substance of reality is Information, not Matter or Energy. And Evolution is really processing (computing) Information, not Matter. The BothAnd (yin/yang) philosophy is a corollary of the Enformationism worldview. If you are interested in how they are interrelated, I can give you links to the blog. All you have to do is ask, and you shall receive. :smile:

*1. Why is energy invisible? :
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

*2. Mathematical universe hypothesis :
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathematical_universe_hypothesis

*3. Is the Universe Actually a Giant Quantum Computer? :
http://cmsw.mit.edu/angles/2015/is-the-universe-actually-a-giant-quantum-computer/

Anyway, a question. If mind has anything to do with the quantum world, why on Earth is quantum physics so hard to understand? — Agent Smith

Some physicists routinely use Quantum Theory in their work, even though they find it philosophically absurd. But my response is that QT is not "absurd", just coy (shy ; reluctant to reveal information). Pragmatic scientists don't understand QT, because they are trying to comprehend the math from a materialistic perspective. In his book, Quantum Weirdness, Phillip Ball informs us that "it is not a theory about particles and waves, discreteness or fuzziness. It is a theory about information". In a YouTube video, he says "Quantum Mechanics Isn’t Weird, We’re Just Too Big". So, if you want to grasp the meaning of the quantum foundation of the world, you'll need to look at it from an Information-Centric perspective, where abstract information is the focal point. :nerd:

Quantum Mechanics Isn’t Weird :
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HaqwlJtrakw

Gnomon might wanna respond. I'll wait. — Agent Smith

I no longer respond to those who think "boo, hiss" is a philosophical argument. But I'll let you decide if his assertion is plausible : that the "no [physical] boundary conjecture"*4 eliminates the philosophical (logical) necessity for a First Cause. When I speak of a pre-big-bang Causal Agency, I'm not talking about anything physical or material ; but about an Enforming Mind. If you don't believe in Metaphysical (non-physical) Minds, the idea of a primordial Timeless Mind will seem absurd. :cool:

Hartle-Hawking Conjecture :
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hartle%E2%80%93Hawking_state

*4. A sphere has no geometric point-of-beginning, and no final boundary. But, if it exists in reality, even a sphere must have an existential point-of-being.

But it is default evidence that materialism is false. And pretty powerful evidence too. — Bartricks

That's a bold statement, even on a philosophical forum. But, I think I see how you equate Materialism and Temporalism as subjective beliefs. For example, Einstein's Relativity (block time) posited that there is no knowable objective time. Hence my T1 and your T1 may not be simultaneous. Our intuitive sense of time, and its passage, is inherently subjective. For an astronaut on Mars, and a scientist on Earth, there is a significant time-delay, even at the light-speed of radio transmissions.

But idealistic humans have built conventional & technological means to synchronize our cultural Time -- measured ever more minutely -- allowing us to pretend (as-if) it is objective. Yet that factual Time assumption is similar to the factual Matter presumption of classical physics. Both were called into question by 20th century Relativity and Quantum fuzziness. Atoms of time, and atoms of matter are now viewed by woke scientists as conventional beliefs, instead of physical facts.

Wheeler's Delayed Choice thought experiment, and various Illusion of Choice experiments, seem [subject to alternative interpretations] to indicate that our sense of control over time and matter are retrospective, not causal. But, the point here is that Subjective Reality is actually Ideality (i.e. mental, not physical). As Kant pointed-out, we only know phenomena as interpreted into mental ideas (noumena).

So, it seems that Plato's postulated perfect "Ideality" may be closer to truth, than our conventional "Reality" of absolute objective Truth and physical Facts. A truly Objective Ideal observer would necessarily be viewing from an omniscient perch outside our system of Space & Time. Those of us players in the Real World game, view the environment from a mobile perspective, in both space (matter) & time (change). From our self-centered viewpoint, Time & Space are synchronized to the beat of our own heart. :cool:


Delayed-choice experiment :
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wheeler%27s_delayed-choice_experiment

From an information theoretic perspective this also makes little sense. — Count Timothy von Icarus

Most of the economic math and speculative predictions are way over my head. But "information-theoretic" is right down my philosophical alley. What does your IT perspective say about the near future? In view of the current inflationary bubble, is a serious Recession inevitable? I have no upwardly mobile "stonks", and I don't have any money to invest in EFTs. So, maybe I'll just hunker-down in my non-fungible cave, where I have nothing to lose, and try to ride it out. :cool:

If I may be so bold as to make a suggestion, there's ample room in your EnFormAction for science by treating it as answers to how G*D (primum movens) created and runs the universe. Aristotle's 4 causes (material, efficient, formal, final) is just what the doctor ordered for the inclusion of science in EnFormAction. — Agent Smith

Yes. That's what I'm doing in the BothAnd Blog. I now take the necessity for a First Cause (Enformer) for granted. Beyond that axiom, I don't concern myself with super-natural matters, such as miracles & magic. Instead, I apply the principles of Quantum uncertainty and Information ubiquity to understanding how the Natural (material) & Cultural (mental) world works : "how G*D . . . runs the universe", as you expressed it. Reductionist & Empirical Science does a good job of revealing the deterministic mechanical workings of Nature. But it has been less successful in understanding the non-linear vagaries of the Quantum Queerness, inextricably entangled with the human Mind, and its cultural extensions.

Did you get the idea that Enformationism excludes modern science? That's what the woo-fighters on this forum assume, due to their prejudice against Metaphysics. But my thesis is built upon two cutting-edge sciences -- Quantum & Information -- that deal with the non-classical underbelly of reality. So, those who are uncomfortable with non-mechanical non-deterministic systems & processes, close their eyes & ears, while chanting the woo-woo mantra to drive away the evil spirits of the mysterious human Mind.

I'm currently reading a science book by Phillip Ball -- former editor at the technical journal Nature. The title of the book is Beyond Weird, and it deals with the natural phenomena that Einstein rejected as "God [nature] playing dice" and as "spooky action at a distance". Since then, pragmatic empirical scientists [see below], have decided not to concern themselves with the weird stuff, but to just "shut-up and calculate". Unfortunately, I'm not a math maven. So, in my waning years, my interests are directed toward the mundane stuff that has occupied philosophers for millennia : not Physics, but Meta-Physics, the non-physical (mental) aspects of our material world.

I assume that "weird" Metaphysics is what you are suggesting is a waste of time. The woo-birds treat that topic as mere Mysticism. And indeed, the pioneers of Quantum science -- Bohr, Heidegger, Schrodinger, Bohm, etc -- were accused of being mystics, when they suggested that the human mind has some causal effect on matter. So, I'm in good company. Since then, despite Feynman's quip, other scientists have made some progress toward understanding how that natural magic might happen. The key to that perception is the connection between Quantum Physics and Mental Information. Which is the insight that led me to the -- seemingly "weird" but actually natural & normal -- Enformationism thesis. :nerd:


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 . . .” Consequently, his book is more about Philosophy than Science. Ironically, the exotic mathematics of Quantum Theory has become the foundation of 21st century science, even though its implications cannot be understood intuitively, or in terms of 19th century Classical Physics. Hence the so-called “weirdness” of QT has remained as queer as ever over the last century.
BothAnd Blog, post 125

Nature :
First published in 1869, Nature is the world's leading multidisciplinary science journal.
https://www.nature.com

Quantum Mysticism :
https://phys.org/news/2009-06-quantum-mysticism-forgotten.html

DON'T TRY TO UNDERSTAND QM
JUST SHUT-UP AND CALCULATE

It's natural to ask questions and equally natural to look for reasonable answers. God is just one of the many manifestations of our curiosity (that killed the cat). Your logic is not new but that's a compliment - you see the value of ancient arguments or, at the very least, have found a means to reconstruct trains of thought that are as old as the mountains. Why reinvent the wheel? — Agent Smith

Actually, I didn't reinvent the wheel --- and I didn't find a full-size spare tire in the trunk of my new worldview. Instead, I have merely patched timeworn ancient philosophical wisdom with 21st century knowledge. Specifically, in the squishy Quantum foundation of reality, and in the ubiquity of Causal Information. These are not traditional factors in religious or philosophical arguments. But lots of pragmatic scientists*1 are beginning to see the philosophical implications of those fruitful features of cutting-edge Science.

I didn't go looking for God, but I couldn't ignore the logical arrows pointing toward a creation event in the beginning, and of directional causation in evolution. I'm still not a worshiper of G*D, but I do appreciate the ontological & epistemological closure of the First Cause concept. Plato & Aristotle were not conventionally religious, but even though they knew nothing of a Big Bang beginning, they saw the logical necessity for an outside force to cause Space & Time to emerge from Infinity & Eternity.

Faithful Atheists may still cling to hope for an infinite regress of space-time -- for which there is no evidence -- to provide a reasonable alternative to an act of creation. They have even been imaginative enough to find fabulous workarounds for the emergence of space-time from a dimensionless & timeless Singularity. They seem to find comfort in hypothetical sci-fi scenarios that conveniently ignore the first law of physics, and bypass the inconvenient physical bottleneck a few billion solar-cycles back. Yet, if only our thermodynamic universe can find a way to avoid the inevitable heat-death ahead, it will overcome Entropy and rise to live forever, like a vampire, or like Jesus. Hallelujah!

Those eternal-time schemes -- like Doctor Who and time-traveling Marvel heroes -- provide dramatic fodder for the adolescent imagination. But, personally, I don't find their various evasive tactics to be philosophically believable. So, unlike many religious people today, I assume that this life, and this world, is one & done. But, I'd be happy to be proven wrong in one of infinite parallel-world afterlives. As long as I can remember who I was/am -- and what that round-thing-with-a-hole-in-it is supposed to do. :cool:


*1. See my Enformationism Thesis and BothAnd Blog for references to those wheel-patching scientists. Some may still claim to be Atheists, but others will admit to being Agnostic about the ultimate implications of their non-classical worldviews. Only a few are orthodox Theists.

THE WORLD RESTS ON TIME-TURTLES
. . . . . .ALL THE WAY DOWN . . . . .

3. Theism/Atheism — Agent Smith

I abandoned the Theistic religion of my childhood long ago. But I was never able to become an assured Atheist, because that theory-of-absence offered no explanation for such philosophical questions as "why is there something instead of nothing?" Apparently, Atheists are not troubled by such ontological or epistemological or existential quandaries. But Agnostics seem to need some closure on universal & general questions. So, my BothAnd philosophy combines Theism & Atheism into Agnosticism. Based on my Enformationism (enforming is creating) worldview, it's obvious that our contingent world is not self-existent. So, logically there should be some kind of First Cause to explain the chain of causation that led to my own contingent existence.

Unfortunately, sans revelation, I have no way of knowing about anything prior to the Big Bang beginning. So, I must admit that I don't know for sure that there is a God. But, just admitting practical ignorance doesn't satisfy the quest for impractical philosophical speculation : not what-is, but what-ought-to-be, logically . Therefore, I have proposed a reasonable god-model that is not Theistic, but also not a tower-of-turtles assumption like Many Worlds and Multiverse speculations. Instead, my hypothetical god-model is what odds-maker Blaise Pascal derisively called "the god of the philosophers". Apparently, he was more comfortable with a god of statistics (Chance). Yet, my own, non-anthro-morphic, non-miraculous First Cause notion is a god only in the broad sense (sensu amplo) of logical necessity. :smile:

Contingent :
1. subject to chance
2. dependent
3. occurring or existing only if (certain circumstances) are the case

So I partly agree with you. I agree one should be clear on ones intend, and if asked for elaboration it should be provided, but I cannot account for all possible other interpretations of my words that are based on peoples ignorance on how the dictionary of the language they claim to use defines the word. They can ask me for clarification or look it up in the dictionary, or both. — Tomseltje

Unfortunately, relying on standard dictionary definitions ignores the distinction between Semantics (literal meaning) and Semiotics (emotional or contextual meaning). The science & philosophy of Semiotics became necessary in the 20th century, in part due to the proliferation of communication channels, and to the complex layering of subcultures. More recently, Kahneman & Tversky labeled a variety of ways that otherwise obvious meanings can be misinterpreted (e.g. availability heuristic), due to common errors in reasoning. That's especially true for Characterizing Labels.

In the Reductionism and Holism thread, my usage of "holism" as a scientific term was challenged. I was told that I didn't know what I was talking about. And it turned-out that the challenger was working with a vague Scientific definition, but his objection mostly involved a Semiotic meaning of the word, due to its negative association with New Agers & Hippies. For some people, the word "holism" -- like long-hair for males in the 60s -- still symbolizes counter-cultural lifestyles, and an anti-science attitude.

That lingering antagonism toward an appropriate scientific & philosophical term, forced scientists using holistic methods to label their work as Systems Theory, in order to avoid the biased baggage. However, to be more specific, the full name of the theory would be "Theory of Whole Systems". That's contrasted with Reductionism, which is a theory of fragmented systems.

So, if your intended meaning is misunderstood on this forum, it may not be due to ignorance of the dictionary definition, but to a prejudiced attitude toward what the term signifies or symbolizes. That shouldn't happen on a philosophical forum, but even philosophically-inclined people are subject to emotional & prejudicial errors in reasoning. Which is why some of the most contentious threads go-on-&-on, without reaching an agreeable interpretation of the topic. :smile:

Looks like, as is common, the word "holism" has different meanings - from the tenor of our discussions we're already aware of two: — Agent Smith

Of course. That's why the first rule of philosophical dialog is "define your terms". Otherwise, each participant may make unwarranted assumptions that don't match the other's meaning. For example, Bartrick seems to associate "Holism" with "peace & love spouting, weirdo-counter-cultural, long-haired hippie freaks", or with "incense burning, pot smoking, crystal gazing, mantra chanting, New Age nuts". But those prejudices have nothing to do with my personal understanding and usage of "Holism".

That's why my posts typically include several links to websites and quotes from experts. To help define my usage of controversial terms, and to show that you don't just have to take my personal definition as authoritative. For me, Holism is a philosophical, not religious topic. The basic concept of Holism goes back to Aristotle, and has a long Western history, apart from the recent influx of Eastern religious and philosophical notions. Yet, the definitive spelling & explanation of a wholistic approach for a scientific context was published in the early 20th century, just as Einstein's Relativity and Bohr's Quantum Theory were raising eyebrows among classically-trained scientists.

My personal interest in Holism is primarily scientific, since it is essential to understanding the apparent weirdness of Quantum Theory, and to grasping the multiple roles -- physical & metaphysical -- of Generic Information in the real world. The Quantum realm is now considered to be the intangible foundation of material reality. But from a classical science perspective, it seems to verge into Mysticism. In fact, many of the early pioneers of Quantum Physics were accused of being mystics, not because of any anti-science inclinations, but due to the exotic language of Eastern philosophy they adopted, when the jargon of Reductive Science didn't apply to what they were seeing in their experiments.

The bottom line is that I have built my personal philosophical worldview around the shocking new paradigms of the 20th century -- Relativity, Quantum Physics & Information Theory -- that have become mainstream, among scientists, in the 21st century. So, my ideas may seem perverse to anyone still laboring under an outdated classical worldview. :nerd:

PS__"No, I just know what I am talking about. You don't. You are just talking hippy nonsense." Bartricks will deny it, but he's making the One-Word-One-Meaning fallacy. Which is the opposite of the Equivocation Fallacy, where one word is deliberately used with different meanings. He is implying that his personal definition of the word "Holism" -- as Mysticism -- is the only true meaning.

PPS__Bartricks claims that his definition of "Holism" is the correct philosophical meaning; but doesn't give a reference. However, the man who coined the term "Holism" defined it's meaning as the "fundamental factor operative towards the creation of wholes in the universe." And that is how I use it. But what did he mean by "fundamental factor"? He also explained that in terms of physical Evolution of complex systems from simple elements. If you want philosophical authority, that ancient "hippy" Aristotle summarized the concept 2500 years ago as "The whole is more than the sum of its parts". Ironically, Ari used the Greek word hylos (literally "forest"), to imply that some of us "can't see the whole forest for the individual trees". I don't know where Bartricks got his indefinite definition : "a view about how properties behave".

"If you wish to converse with me, define your terms."
"Define your terms, you will permit me again to say, or we shall never understand one another.“ ___Voltaire.

One Word, One Meaning Fallacy :
https://prezi.com/8emq5xzndwnj/one-word-one-meaning-fallacy/

Holism is not the opposite of reductionism! — Bartricks
Why? — Agent Smith

Apparently. Bartricks prefers a very narrow exclusive definition of "holism", whereas I favor a broader, more inclusive, interpretation. Historically, you have many versions to choose from : Pythagoras, Aristotle, Taoism, Holistic Medicine, etc. So, how you use the term may be a matter of personal taste. Hence, my personal usage is based on Jan Smut's philosophical book Holism and Evolution. Yet, for the purposes of my Enformationism thesis, I have also expanded the context of the term "Holism" to include Reductionism, as the other side of the Whole coin.

From that comprehensive (holistic) perspective, Holism and Reductionism are not "opposites" but complements as in the Yin/Yang symbol. And both are research methods used in modern science. Yet, the comprehensive definition makes more sense in view of my "non-classical" BothAnd logic. It's understandable that -- due to his classical, exclusive, two-value, Black or White, Either/Or definition -- Bartricks doesn't know what I'm talking about. :smile:

Two Value Logic :
Classically, a logic is two-valued if every proposition (without free variables) is either true or false and none is both; that is, the logic is consistent and every proposition is decidable. Being two-valued logic is a key feature of classical logic; any logic that is not two-valued is ipso facto nonclassical.
https://ncatlab.org/nlab/show/two-valued+logic
Note -- True/False logic is Ideal (god-like), but not Real (natural intelligence)

Fuzzy logic is a form of many-valued logic in which the truth value of variables may be any real number between 0 and 1. It is employed to handle the concept of partial truth, where the truth value may range between completely true and completely false. ___Wikipedia
Note -- Fuzzy Logic is how humans reason, and how quantum physics works

Holism is the idea that various systems should be viewed as wholes, not merely as a collection of parts. The term "holism" was coined by Jan Smuts in his 1926 book Holism and Evolution. ___Wikipedia

Holism and Evolution is a 1926 book by South African statesman Jan Smuts, in which he coined the word "holism", although Smuts' meaning differs from the modern concept of holism. Smuts defined holism as the "fundamental factor operative towards the creation of wholes in the universe." ___Wiki
Note -- My coinage for that progressive, expansive, evolutionary factor is holistic "Enformy" : the power or tendency to create novel forms & species. That's how the amorphous Big Bang plasma, eventually condensed into quantum particles, then atoms & molecules, then stars & galaxies, and thence to living thinking creatures. If evolution was Reductive, nothing new would ever emerge from the random roiling of thermodynamics.

BothAnd-ism :
An inclusive philosophical perspective that values both Subjective and Objective information; both Feelings and Facts; both Mysteries and Matters-of-fact; both Animal and Human nature.
http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page10.html

ANALYSIS + SYNTHESIS = HOLISM

Science is advancing. This is very obvious. But is philosophy? — Alkis Piskas

Remember that the discipline we now call "Science" is what Aristotle called "Natural Philosophy" or "physis" (growth or nature). As as the name implies, the subject of natural science evolves & progresses in an obvious manner, that we know via our physical senses. But, his second volume, under the same title, was actually concerned with what we now call "Culture" : opinions, activities & effects of the human Mind. Which we know only via our sixth sense of Reason (inference). So, we can't expect Metaphysical Cultural Science to make progress in the same sense as Physical Natural Science. Physics is about what is constantly changing, while Philosophy (Metaphysics) is all about eternal unchanging principles (digging for potatoes vs digging for gold).

Today, the cultural sciences -- Psychology (philosophy of mind), Anthropology, Sociology, History, etc -- are usually classified separately from the physical sciences, for obvious reasons. They definitely make progress, but lacking mathematical tools for measurement, it's not easy to evaluate & enumerate. Besides, most of their advances are built upon the physical evidence of Physics. For example, perhaps the most advanced philosophy of Mind/Consciousness is Integrated Information Theory, which is based on our experience with the mechanical minds we call computers.

One way to measure the "advancement" of human Culture (e.g. civilization), is to see how much of the modern world has been cultivated by homo sapiens, and how much remains unaffected by the expansive imagination of human minds. Philosophical Cynics tend view the effects of Culture on Nature as mostly negative & digressive. But, more sanguine philosophers see cultural progress as evolving incrementally, with two steps forward & one step back. And optimistic technological philosophers, like Ray Kurtzweil, seem to think that cultural technology will eventually supersede natural evolution (Mind over Matter).

As a species, our perspective & understanding evolves, but the underlying Truth doesn't change. Anyway, to compare the "advance" of Metaphysical Philosophy to the progress of Physical Science, is like weighing apples & oranges, or adding 2 + X = ?. :nerd:

1. Nature, according to Aristotle, is an inner principle of change and being at rest

Philosophical Progress :
the mathematician and philosopher Alfred North Whitehead reportedly summed up the Greek thinker's accomplishments with the remark, “All of Western philosophy is but a footnote to Plato.”
https://www.laphamsquarterly.org/contributors/plato

Philosophical Science vs Natural Science :
The main difference is in the way they work and treat knowledge. 2. Science is concerned with natural phenomena, while philosophy attempts to understand the nature of man, existence, and the relationship that exists between the two concepts.
http://www.differencebetween.net/miscellaneous/career-education/difference-between-science-and-philosophy/

CYNICAL COMPARISON OF PHILOSOPHY & SCIENCE

Reductionism: 1 + 2 = 3. Everything about the whole (3) is explicable in terms of its parts (1, 2).
Holism: 2H + O = H2O. As Gnomon pointed out, wetness (water) is inexplicable with the properties of hydrogen or oxygen. — Agent Smith

Good comparison. The key distinction here is that Reductionism deals with Quanta (discrete isolated objects) while Holism deals with Qualia (continuous integrated systems). Quanta includes particular things that can be known via physical senses (i.e. empirical). Qualia includes essences that make a thing what it is, and can be known only via meta-physical Reason (i.e. inference). After the birth of modern science immaterial essences (spirits) were excluded -- for good reasons -- from pragmatic studies. Yet, since the birth of the ironically-named Quantum Mechanics*1, it became necessary for Science to once again deal with whole systems, because the entangled sub-atomic "parts" can't be dealt with in isolation.

For example, Quarks (the hypothetical components of Protons, Neutrons, etc) are never found alone, but in trinities. And they are impossible to measure individually, so some scientists question if they are even real. Similarly, since all electrons seem to be simple & identical, John A. Wheeler proposed that there is only one electron in the universe*3. That theory may have been presented with tongue-in-cheek, because it couldn't be proven empirically. But it is suggestive of a universal holistic system, in which a single Universal Potential*4 is shared among all local instances.

An even murkier instance of Holistic Qualia may be illustrated in both Physical & Meta-Physical phase transitions*5. Scientists can measure the different properties of Water (liquid), Ice (solid), & Steam (gas), but they can't explain where those previously hidden properties came from. However, a philosophical (metaphysical) rationale is that H2O molecules have Potential (ideal) properties, as a whole system, that only Emerge*6 -- become Actual (real) -- under pre-specified environmental conditions.

Of course, hard-line Reductionists might be uncomfortable with the spooky spiritual implications of that hypothesis. Metaphorically, an unexpressed quality is like an invisible Soul, that animates or de-animates a tangible body. But, from the Systems Theory perspective, that's just the way Nature works : transforming Potential into Actual, and vice versa. Now you see it, now you don't. What's spooky about that? :joke:


*1. Quantum Holism : the defining feature of the quantum scale is Entanglement, which is immeasurable and holistic, hence known only by non-quantifiable Qualia.

*2. Potential : Aristotle describes potentiality and actuality, or potency and action, as one of several distinctions between things that exist or do not exist. In a sense, a thing that exists potentially does not exist, but the potential does exist.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Potentiality_and_actuality

*3. One Electron Theory :
https://www.popularmechanics.com/science/news/a27731/what-if-every-electron-was-the-same-electron/

*4. Universal Potential : compare with Platonic Forms : "ideas in this sense, often capitalized and translated as "Ideas" or "Forms",[5] are the non-physical essences of all things, of which objects and matter in the physical world are merely imitations."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_forms

*5. Emergent Phase Transitions :
<< Evaporation, Condensation, Freezing, Melting, Sublimation & Deposition. Substances on Earth can exist in one of four phases, but mostly, they exist in one of three: solid, liquid or gas.>>
* Metaphysical phase changes are those we can imagine, but not sense. Somehow, inanimate matter transforms into living beings, yet we can’t detect the exact moment or location of the transition. Similarly, tangled masses of living tissue, such as the slimey tentacles of neurons, somehow cause a new non-physical function to emerge : Mind.
* If you know that these transformations are fundamentally changes in metaphysical information qualities, rather than physical material quantities, then the mystery becomes merely a common case of statistical probabilities, like tumbling dice. Laymen may have a problem with the equations, so metaphysical terms, like “cause” or “create” may be better understood.
http://bothandblog2.enformationism.info/page70.html

*6. 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, properties or behaviors which emerge only when the parts interact in a wider whole.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergence

Interesting. Enformy seems like it would be an emergent factor from : The laws of physics being what they are and allowing for complexity to emerge. — Count Timothy von Icarus

"Enformy" is my own term for what physicists refer to as "Negentropy". But that scientific nomenclature, taking Entropy as primary, makes it sound like a Fatalistic Force. On the contrary, "to enform" means "to give meaningful form to . . ." In other words, it's a creative force in nature. And Evolution is the record of an ongoing series of emergent forms, from a formless beginning (the abstract mathematical Singularity).

Since Energy is the universal Causal Force in nature, we could conclude that energy is also Enformy. But Energy is both creative and corrosive, both constructive Enformy and destructive Entropy. Also, the Big Bang -- imagined as an explosion -- would seem to be a deconstructive event. Instead, it began to self-organize into matter/antimatter, and thence into Darwin's "endless forms most beautiful"*1. Therefore, I view Energy simply as the Potential for Change, which can be construed as good or bad, positive or negative. Hence, Enformy and Entropy are emergent factors of Energy, as positive & negative forms of Causation (i.e. the defining & organizing laws of physics).

Ironically, we usually think of Evolution as progressive from simple elements to complex compounds. But it is also digressive, in that most of its new forms don't survive the life or death competition of Random Change. So, if it were not for the "law of nature" we call Natural Selection, the nascent universe would have blinked-out long long ago. And I view Enformy as the embodiment of that natural tendency to progressive change.

From a viewpoint outside our universe, the Arrow of Time would seem to be pointing downward toward a cold-dark-heat-death. But, from the local perspective of living & thinking beings inside the Causal Train, Time's Arrow appears to be pointing upward, toward greater organization & complexity, hence Creativity. So, the Big Bang can be viewed as both a destructive explosion of Entropy, and a constructive expansion of Enformy. Personally, I prefer the more uplifting worldview. :cool:


*1. Darwin :
“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.”
https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/3895-thus-from-the-war-of-nature-from-famine-and-death

Negentropy is reverse entropy. It means things becoming more in order. By 'order' is meant organisation, structure and function: the opposite of randomness ...
https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negentropy

Enformy :
The BothAnd principle is a corollary of the Enformationism thesis. It views the world as a process motivated and guided by antagonistic-yet-complementary powers. For example, Energy is the motive force for all physical actions, but its positive effects are offset by the, less well known, antithetical force of Disorganization, in the great dialectical process of evolution. The overall effect of Change in the universe is detrimental, as encapsulated in the concept of Entropy (negative transformation). Yet, by balancing destructive Entropy with constructive Enformy (self-organization), evolution has proven to be a creative process. However, since the existence of “Enformy” has not yet been accepted by mainstream science --- except in the crude concept of “negentropy” --- any worldview based on such a flimsy foundation is likely to be dismissed by either/or empiricists as a bunch of Woo. Yet, all scientific & philosophical speculation inevitably begins with a leap of imagination. And this hybrid world-view is one such leap into the unknown.
http://www.bothandblog.enformationism.info/page17.html

BIG BANG : EXPLOSION or EXPANSION --- DIVERGENT or EMERGENT ?

I've been told that reductionnism is more of a method than or a specific philosophical ism — musicpianoaccordion

It's true, that Reductionism is a primary intellectual tool of modern Science -- ever since the Enlightenment rebellion against Theological Science. Which could be construed as Holistic, in the sense that certain Theories were presented as Dogma, and intended to be swallowed whole, by Faith not Reason. Gallileo was a prime example of that new way of thinking. He looked at stars objectively (relative to each other), instead of subjectively (relative to the observer). Hence, he came to reject certain ancient astronomical theories, inherited from ancient Greeks, and presented as dogma by the church.

However, that new method (based on natural laws), was so successful, that over time, it became just as much a matter of faith for some, as Aristotelian Geocentrism (based on divine laws) had been for the medieval Catholic Church. The modern canonized version of that practical-rational-objective method is now known as the doctrine of Scientism. For adherents of that philosophical belief system (an -ism) it's not just a procedural method, but the sole source of Truth. And its primary abomination is subjective intuitive Faith, which is prejudicially associated with the presumed gullible attitude of Holism, and mystical New Ageism .

But Holism is also a scientific method, and the basis of Systems Theory, as applied to problems that are too large, or complex, or convoluted for the simplistic Reductive approach. Just as modern Reductionism is historically-related to the ancient philosophy of Atomism (Democritus), Modern Systems Theory is related to the ancient Holistic philosophy of Aristotle. But the modern term "holism" was only coined in 1926 ,by a philosopher-statesman, as a new/old method for studying evolution, among other complex processes. As I said before, these methods are not necessarily opposites, but complementary. It's only when they are adopted as an exclusive all-encompassing belief system that they become antagonistic. :smile:

PS___Since you seem to be interested in the application of Holism to Music,
Mathematical music analysis: a holistic approach :
https://esploro.libs.uga.edu/esploro/outputs/graduate/Mathematical-music-analysis-a-holistic-approach/9949333473302959

Scientism is the opinion that science and the scientific method are the best oronly objective means by which people should determine normative and epistemological values.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientism

Scientism, on the other hand, is a speculative worldview about the ultimate reality of the universe and its meaning.
https://sciencereligiondialogue.org/resources/what-is-scientism/

In the Metaphysics, Aristotle captures the idea of holism in his statement that “the whole is more than the sum of the parts.”
https://www.philosophybasics.com/branch_holism.html

Holism (from Ancient Greek ὅλος (hólos) 'all, whole, entire', and -ism) is the idea that various systems (e.g. physical, biological, social) should be viewed as wholes, not merely as a collection of parts. The term "holism" was coined by Jan Smuts in his 1926 book Holism and Evolution.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holism

I was a civil engineer, often a very reductionist discipline. Example - storm sewer design. When you design a sewer system to handle stormwater, i.e. water resulting from rain or snow, on a property, regulations and standards of practice say you only have to take into account the maximum flow leaving the site. That doesn't take into account the time and sequence of flow on your property and in the system as a whole. Result - inadequate capacity and flooding. A holistic approach would take into account the effects of changes in flow from your property on the system as a whole. Problem - it's very hard, and expensive, to do that. — T Clark

That's an interesting example of the Reductive vs Holistic approach to problems. It reminded me of New Orleans before & after hurricane Katrina. After that disaster, the Civil engineers and Corp of Engineers were criticized, in retrospect, for not anticipating all the things that can go wrong. But, before the hurricane, it was well-known that the city was in danger of inundation, because most of it was below sea, river & lake level. The city itself was it was situated like a bathtub, surrounded by water on all sides, and with only one way out : down the drain, but with the stopper in place. For good practical reasons though, engineers are typically narrowly-focused on a particular technical problem. But, NO was a multi-faceted deterministic disaster, just waiting for the first deluge domino to fall.

As required by regulations, the engineers prepared for a hundred year storm, and didn't worry about a 200 year storm. But the holistic problem included more than just routine levee design, flood hydraulics, pipe carrying capacity, and pump removal capacity. NO also had wider economic, ecological, and political issues, that engineers don't get paid to deal with. Yet, Holistic thinkers, including some engineers, with a wider perspective, had been warning for years about the potential for a Titanic-scale tragedy. But like Cassandra, their prophecies of inevitable cataclysm were dismissed by narrow-minded bean-counters and myopic politicians, with attenuated agendas of their own.

Reductionism is appropriate for relatively simple, predictable problems. But compounded complexity results in too many possible paths for things to go wrong, and some paths are contradictory. So, that's where a Holistic approach is needed : to look for potential problems that are not obvious in independent parts (levees, pipes, pumps, etc), but emerge only from interdependent factors that multiply possible paths. To plot a feasible pathway out of the convoluted labyrinth of natural & man-made hazards. Fortunately, there are now scientists & engineers who are focused holistically on the dynamics of complexity, especially Complex Adaptive Systems. :smile:


Santa Fe Institute :
https://www.santafe.edu/

Systems Theory/Holism :
https://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Systems_Theory/Holism

In philosophy I often hear about how reductionism and holism are antonyms. — musicpianoaccordion

In philosophical arguments, Reductionism & Holism are typically presented as contrasting worldviews or belief systems. But in reality, they are complementary. Both are merely ways of understanding our complex, and ever-changing, world from different frames of reference. Reductionism simply chops complexity into bits & bytes that the human mind can deal with, and then draws general conclusions by adding those parts back together. Yet, Holism is a way of looking, not at the characteristics of individual components of a system, but at how the system functions as a whole. Moreover, each sub-component can also be viewed as a Holon, with essential properties of its own.

Scientists eventually realized that Reductionism was missing something important. So, they developed a new method of investigation, called Systems Theory. Which is merely Holism with a more technical sounding name. :cool:


Holism ; Holon :
Philosophically, a whole system is a collection of parts (holons) that possesses properties not found in the parts. That something extra is an Emergent quality that was latent (unmanifest) in the parts. For example, when atoms of hydrogen & oxygen gases combine in a specific ratio, the molecule has properties of water, such as wetness, that are not found in the gases. A Holon is something that is simultaneously a whole and a part — A system of entangled things that has a unique function in a hierarchy of systems.
http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page11.html


Holism vs Reductionism :
Holistic (synthetic) thinking is a common characteristic of New Age philosophies. But in practice, they also include particular inherited beliefs, such as those in Eastern religions. Such woo-ish notions as Wandering Souls, and Weaponized Chi, are not inherent to Holism. But hostile Reductionists tend to lump them together with the Holistic worldview. So, for clarity, I will sometimes refer to my personal paradigm of Science as "Systems Theory", in hopes of losing the mystical baggage.
http://bothandblog7.enformationism.info/page24.html

The problem, which has been proposed since Boltzmann's time, is that time and entropy are not necessarily correlated. They are contingently so. This is known as Loschmidt's paradox. — Count Timothy von Icarus

Yes. Classical macro Time is intuitive, hence easy to understand. It's just the measure of cycles that are meaningful to humans : day/night ; moon phases, etc. Quantum micro Time, not so much. We are not normally aware of cycles at subatomic scales : Energy field phases & Radioactive Decay. Also, Cosmic cycles are measured in billions of Earth years, hence not perceivable in a human lifetime. Plus, Einstein's Block Time has no cycles at all. So, the concept of Time that we take for granted is just one way of measuring Change in the physical world. That's not to mention the subjective experience of Time that varies due to emotional states. Consequently, like everything else in Einstein's worldview, Time is relative to the Observer.

Likewise, the general concept of Entropy is intuitive, as we are familiar with hot coffee that gets cold in a short time. But technically, Entropy is a measure of predictability into the future, which varies both with degrees of physical order/disorder, and with the subjective perception of the observer. So, we have two moving targets to shoot-at, when we define Time and Entropy. And that's not to mention the philosophical paradoxes of Time Reversal, which in theory should be possible, but is never actually observed in practice.

Therefore, I have come to realize that both Time & Entropy are correlated to a third function of Change, which we define in various ways depending on our frame of reference. I call that third aspect of Causation/Change : Enformy. It seems that Time & Entropy & Enformy are interrelated at all levels of reality : microstates, macrostates, and cosmicstates, that are never static -- except in mental snapshots -- but always changing, evolving and emerging. :nerd:


Time's Errant Arrow :
Time is arguably among the most primitive concepts we have—there can be no action or movement, no memory or thought, except in time. . . . .
"What is time? If nobody asks me, I know; but if I were desirous to explain it to one that should ask me, plainly I know not." ___Augustine . . . .
"... Philosophers tend to be divided into two camps. On one side there are those who regard the passage of time as an objective feature of reality, and interpret the present moment as the marker or leading edge of this advance. Some members of this camp give the present ontological priority, as well, sharing Augustine's view that the past and the future are unreal. Others take the view that the past is real in a way that the future is not, so that the present consists in something like the coming into being of determinate reality. .... Philosophers in the opposing camp regard the present as a subjective notion, often claiming that now is dependent on one's viewpoint in much the same way that here is. Just as "here" means roughly "this place", so "now" means roughly "this time", and in either case what is picked out depends where the speaker stands. In this view there is no more an objective division of the world into the past, the present, and the future than there is an objective division of a region of space into here and there. . . .
Often this is called the block universe view, the point being that it regards reality as a single entity of which time is an ingredient, rather than as a changeable entity set in time."
http://www.scholarpedia.org/article/Time%27s_arrow_and_Boltzmann%27s_entropy

Enformy :
In the Enformationism theory, Enformy is a hypothetical, holistic, metaphysical, natural trend or force, that counteracts Entropy & Randomness to produce complexity & progress. . . . .
1. I'm not aware of any "supernatural force" in the world. But the Enformation theory postulates that there is a meta-physical force behind Time's Arrow and the positive progress of evolution. Just as Entropy is sometimes referred to as a "force" causing energy to dissipate (negative effect), Enformy is the antithesis, which causes energy to agglomerate (additive effect).
2. Of course, neither of those phenomena is a physical Force, or a direct Cause, in the usual sense. But the term "force" is applied to such holistic causes as a metaphor drawn from our experience with physics.
http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page8.html

Would it be useful to consider a four dimensional (i.e. time inclusive) form of entropy? — Count Timothy von Icarus

Actually, one definition of Entropy is "the arrow of time". Time is a measure of Change, and Entropy is the direction of Change (e.g.from hot to cold). So, Entropy and Time are necessarily entangled, just like Space-Time. For example, Entropy is the effect of Time on Spatial objects. The notion of Temporal Entropy then, is not trivial, but essential to the "way of the world". Moreover, Evolution would have vanished into nothing eons ago, if not for positive Natural Selection, to oppose the negative effects of Random Mutation. Hence, Time moves in a partly positive direction (progress), despite negative Entropy, but to the complex workings of Space-Time-Entropy-Energy (i.e. four dimensions). :smile:

Entropy and Time :
The idea that entropy is associated with the “arrow of time” has its roots in Clausius’s statement on the Second Law: “Entropy of the Universe always increases.” However, the explicit association of the entropy with time’s arrow arises from Eddington. In this article, we start with a brief review of the idea that the “increase in entropy” is somehow associated with the direction in which time increases. Then, we examine three different, but equivalent definitions of entropy. We find that none of these definitions indicate any hint of a relationship between entropy and time. We can, therefore, conclude that entropy is a timeless quantity.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7516914/
Entropy, as a mathematical concept is indeed timeless. But the effect of Entropy on Spatial objects is what we measure as "Time". So, together, Space-Time-Entropy-Energy is what we know as Cosmic Evolution. The positive twin of evil Entropy is what I call Enformy, which is another name for causal Energy.

Consciousness and Sentience are sometimes used interchangeably. But "sentience" literally refers to sensing the environment. And AI can already to that. — Gnomon
Let's stick to "consciousness" then :) — enqramot

Yes. Some plants, such as touch-me-not & venus flytrap, are "sentient" in a very limited sense. They sense and react to touch. But we don't usually think of them as Conscious. However, the typical scientific concept of Consciousness places it on a continuum from minimal sentience to Einsteinian intelligence. Nevertheless, some philosophers still imagine that Consciousness is something special & unique like a Soul. So, the OP seems to be searching for a physical mechanism that produces Self-Awareness. Yet, it's the last step on the continuum from Sentience to Consciousness that has, so far, resisted encapsulation.

One reason for that road-block may be the Reductive methods of Science. Some scientists assume that Consciousness is a function of Complexity. But complexity without Entanglement is just complicated. For example, Neanderthal brains were significantly larger (more neurons) that homo sapiens, but their intelligence was only slightly higher than that of a chimpanzee. So, it seems to be the single-minded interrelations of intelligent brains that produce the "difference that makes a difference" (i.e. information) in intelligence.

A current theory to explain that difference points to Social Intelligence as the difference maker. Whereas Neanders tended to hunt in small family groups (wolf-packs), Homos began to work together in large tribes of loosely-related people (communities). The SI hypothesis says that, individually, Neanders were about as smart as Homos. But, by cooperating collectively, Homos were able to offload some of the cognitive load to others. And that externalization of thought (language), eventually evolved into Writing, for even wider sharing of thoughts. In computer jargon, the collective human mind is a parallel processor.

Therefore, it's not just how many neurons a person has that determines intelligence, but the communal sharing of information with other brains, focused on the same task. Likewise, a more Holistic view of Consciousness might reveal that higher degrees of Sentience & Self-Awareness emerge from the evolution of collective Culture. Whereas Sentience is limited to the neurons of a single organism, sophisticated Consciousness (and Wisdom ; sapiens) may result from exporting & importing information between brains & minds via language*1. Sharing information via Culture is literally Con-scious-ness : knowing together". :nerd:

PS__Sci-Fi likes to extend that symbiosis to include include Mind-Reading. So, maybe human Consciousness is a form of "sym-mentosis". No magic required though. Just the ability to talk and read.

*1. For example, without Google & Wiki, my posts on this forum would read like Neander grunts.

Consciousness : from Latin conscius ‘knowing with others or in oneself’

The Social Intelligence hypothesis :
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2042522/

I'd rather philosophy steered clear of questions already settled. The operational principle of AI is already known, described in technical terms, there should be no need for an alternative explanation. — enqramot

Ha! Philosophy has no "settled questions", and philosophers are not content with mechanical "operational principles". So, the OP goal of encapsulating Consciousness, is still an open question.

Nevertheless, pragmatic scientists are still working on a Consciousness Meter to update the crude EEGs and somewhat more sophisticated MRIs. They are even using Artificial Intelligence to search for signs of Consciousness in Natural Intelligences that appear to be anaesthetic (unconscious). However, they are not looking for philosophical essences, but for operational signs & symptoms. So, even then, the OP on The Philosophy Forum will go unanswered. :smile:


Artificially intelligent consciousness meter :
https://www.monash.edu/data-futures-institute/study/phd-scholarship/artificially-intelligent-consciousness-meter

The hunt for hidden signs of consciousness in unreachable patients :
https://www.technologyreview.com/2021/08/25/1031776/the-hunt-for-hidden-signs-of-consciousness-in-unreachable-patients/

Maybe consciousness isn't the right word, maybe sentience would be, — enqramot

Consciousness and Sentience are sometimes used interchangeably. But "sentience" literally refers to sensing the environment. And AI can already to that. For example, the current National Geographic magazine has a cover article on the sense of touch. And it shows a mechanical hand with touch sensors on the fingertips. Without "sentience" (feedback) an animated robot would be helplessly clumsy. But "consciousness" literally means to "know with". Certainly a robot with touch sensors can interpret sensible feedback in order to guide its behavior. But is it aware of itself as the agent (actor) of sentient behavior?

Therefore, the philosophical question here is "does a robot (AI) know that it knows"? Is it self-aware? To answer that question requires, not an Operational (scientific) definition, but an Essential (philosophical) explanation. All man-made machines have some minimal feedback to keep them on track. So, it's obvious that their functions are guided by operational feedback loops. And that is the basic definition of Cybernetics (self-controlled behavior). Which is why some AI researchers are satisfied with Operational Sentience, and don't concern themselves with Essential Consciousness. It's what Jackson calls an "engineering problem".

But philosophers are not engineers. So, they are free to ask impractical questions that may never be answered empirically. When an octopus acts as-if it recognizes its image in a mirror, is that just an operational function of sentience, or an essential function of self-awareness? We could debate such rhetorical questions forever. So, I can only say that, like most philosophical enigmas, it's a matter of degree, rather than Yes or No. Some intelligences are more conscious than others. So, it's hard to "encapsulate" Consciousness into a simple matter of fact.

Ironically, the one asking such impractical rhetorical questions may be the most self-aware, and the most introspective & self-questioning. The behavior of Intelligent animals is typically pragmatic, and focused on short-term goals : food, sex, etc. They don't usually create art for art's sake. But, when they do, can we deny them some degree of self-consciousness? :smile:

ELEPHANT SELF-PORTRAIT

How is conscious mind essentially different to AI on a strictly operational level? How would you go about programming such a thing? — enqramot

Your question hinges on your philosophical or technical definition of "Consciousness". Literally, the "-ness" suffix implies that the reference is to a general State or felt Quality (of sentience), not to a specific Thing or definite Quanta (e.g. neurons). In Nature, animated behavior (e.g. seek food, or avoid being food) is presumed to be a sign of minimal sentience, and self-awareness.

AI programs today are able to crudely mimic sophisticated human behaviors, and the common expectation is that the animation & expressions of man-made robots will eventually be indistinguishable from their nature-made makers -- on an "operational level". When that happens, the issue of enslaving sentient (knowing & feeling) beings could require the emancipation of artificial creatures, since modern ethical philosophy has decided that, in a Utopia, all "persons" are morally equal -- on an essential level.

Defining a proper ethical hierarchy is not a new moral conundrum though. For thousands of years, military captives were defined as "slaves", due to their limited freedom in the dominant culture. Since, many captives of the ruling power happened to have darker skin, that distinguishing mark came to be definitive. At the same time, females in a male-dominated society, due to their lack of military prowess, were defined as second-class citizens. At this point in time, the social status of AI is ambiguous ; some people treat their "comfort robots" almost as-if they are "real" pets or persons. But, dystopian movies typically portray dispassionate artificial beings as the dominant life-form (?) on the planet.

But, how can we distinguish a "real" Person from a person-like Mechanism? That "essential" difference is what Chalmers labeled the "Hard Problem" : to explain "why and how we have qualia or phenomenal experiences". The essence-of-sentience is also what Nagel was groping for in his query "what does it feel like?". Between humans, we take homo sapien feelings for granted, based on the assumption of similar genetic heritage, hence equivalent emotions. But, the genesis of AI, is a novel & unnatural lineage in evolution. So, although robots are technically the offspring of human minds, are they actually kin, or uncanny?

Knowing and Feeling are the operational functions of Consciousness. But Science doesn't do Essences. "If you can't measure it, it ain't real". Yet, a Cartesian solipsist could reply, "If I can't feel it, it ain't real". Therefore, I would answer the OP : that the essential difference between AI behavior and human Consciousness is the Qualia (the immeasurable feeling) of Knowing. Until Cyberneticists can reduce the Feeling-of-Knowing to a string of 1s & 0s, Consciousness will remain essential, yet ethereal. So, if a robot says it's conscious, we may just have to take it's expression for evidence. :smile:


Google AI has come to life :
AI ethicists warned Google not to impersonate humans. Now one of Google’s own thinks there’s a ghost in the machine.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2022/06/11/google-ai-lamda-blake-lemoine/

Google's AI is impressive, but it's not sentient. Here's why :
https://www.msnbc.com/opinion/msnbc-opinion/google-s-ai-impressive-it-s-not-sentient-here-s-n1296406

Hi, I am preparing my post-graduate entrance examination(philosophy), after I read the Chinese version of medieval philosophy of religion, our textbooks tend to explain the birth of Christianity in terms of class struggle, but I wanted to know the subtle reasons why people chose Christianity over other religions in the first place. — guanyun

One novel idea of Christianity that may have appealed to the upper classes as well as the downtrodden classes, was the hope for divine justice in an afterlife. Judaism, and most pagan religions, assumed that you only get one life to live. So, stoic acceptance of arbitrary Fate & Fortune was your best option, compared to depression & suicide.

Before Apostle Paul's version of Christianity, the only other alternative to One-Life Fatalism was the theory of Many-Life Karma (cycling souls). That theory-of-reward-for-good-works (work-out your own destiny) probably arose as a sort of philosophical observation that the world system (Nature) tended to balance polar extremes (e.g. hot vs cold) to result in a moderate environment where life can flourish. So, they reasoned that the undeniable natural & cultural injustices (Evils) should eventually balance-out. But, not necessarily in this life ; so maybe in a future time, place & body. Unfortunately, such postponed justice has little practical here & now effect, and only provided a glimmer of speculative hope, that good or bad behavior in this life would be rewarded or punished in the next -- even though you may not then know why you deserve it. And, like all prophecies of the future, that grain of hope had to be taken with a heaping-spoonful of Faith in the Seer or Storyteller or Mythmaker.

Judaism traditionally had no concept of a spiritual afterlife, with only a few exceptions, such as Elijah, who was taken directly up to heaven. However, after a remnant returned from Babylonian captivity, they tried to pick-up where they left-off, with a physical this-worldly materialistic temple-based religion. But, that came to an end when their second temple was destroyed by invading Greek overlords. Consequently, the Jews began to develop a more spiritual & other-worldly synagogue-based religion. They also spun-off some more radical & reclusive mystical groups (e.g. Essenes), which tended to interpret their official priestly scriptures from a spiritual (Holy) perspective rather than the traditional materialistic pragmatic view. They also developed novel notions of personal -- as opposed to collective (family, tribe, nation) -- Sin against God. Some even practiced symbolic baptism, as a visible metaphor for washing away invisible sins. And that graphically-illustrated innovation was gladly incorporated into Christianity, as a step-toward and sign-of personal salvation -- not in the body of another person or animal, but your own spiritual Soul.

Therefore, Christianity had several religious innovations that distinguished it from Pagan & Greek & Roman beliefs & practices. However, as a message of hope for the downtrodden classes, the expectation of a Utopian Afterlife, was hard to believe, so the necessity of Faith was emphasized. For One-Lifers though, "Justice Deferred is justice denied" (Gladstone). Yet, for After-lifers, future justice might be enough incentive to live stoically for now, and to expect to be rewarded for their long-suffering Faith in a glorious heavenly hereafter. So, perhaps the subtle reasoning of extolling spiritual Faith over mundane Works appealed to people desperate for relief from life's trials & tribulations. Those who were not so hopeless though, could find other "subtle reasons" to adopt a Religion of Personal Salvation, and to abandon their old Religions of Social Order. :smile: