I am for my part happy to live in a time in human history when science has come to the point of a theory that everything in the observable universe is really connected, basically consisting of the same energy. . . .
This is a great consolation. I could of course be discontent that we do not know more about the ultimate nature of this reality (energy), . . .
To keep on calling it God has become now a mere matter of taste, but I think we are safe if we state that God is neither an interventionist, nor bene-/malevolent, being when it comes to us as the human species. . . .
The physical phenomenon called energy that has generated us and that we consist of is indifferent to us as living beings, as indifferent as it was to the dinosaurs and is to Pluto. — TheArchitectOfTheGods

Sounds like we may be kindred spirits. After high school I evolved away from my theistic upbringing, but I found no plausible reason-for-being in Materialistic science. So, I went through phases : Agnosticism, Deism, PanDeism, and finally PanEnDeism. In the latter, everything is indeed connected, even entangled, as vital parts of a single Whole System, the physical universe, which may be a part of a greater Whole, that some cultures refer to as Brahma or God or Tao.

My philosophical "First Cause" is similar to many nature-god-models (e.g. Gaia ; Deism ; PanDeism), except that its primary role was to create the natural system that we are integral parts of. Hence, our world is not separate from the creator, but is in-&-of G*D (PanEnDeism). I spell it with an asterisk to indicate that this is not an intervening Theistic deity -- like a mechanic repairing things that go wrong. If there is Good & Bad in the creation, it's because the designer had the Potential for both, and because an evolving world could not begin in a perfect state, like the Garden of Eden. Instead, our universe seems to be evolving, in complexity & intelligence, toward some ultimate state. Since I don't know anything about that final goal, I simply label it the "Omega Point". What we experience as Good vs Bad, is simply a zig-zagging heuristic search pattern, equivalent to Hegelian Dialectic.

As you suggested, this creative & destructive Causal Force is what we know in Physics as Energy/Entropy. But the current understanding is that Energy & Matter (mass) are interchangeable. And many pioneering physicists have concluded that even Energy is essentially a form of shape-shifting Information. Which boils down to a mathematical ratio between Something (1) and Nothing (0), or Hot (positive) and Cold (negative). The implication of that equvalence is, as some physicists have concluded : that Reality is essentially Mathematical & Logical, hence Mental. Therefore, Matter emerges from Energy, and Energy emerges from what I call EnFormAction : the creative Potential to become Actual (the power to enform). So, the "ultimate nature" of reality is as an Actual instance of a greater Ideality.

My non-religious philosophical worldview is labeled Enformationism (based on Quantum & Information theory, not on revelation). And the logically necessary First Cause has not revealed its name. So, you can call it whatever you like : "G*D", "Nature"; "Deus" ; The Great Mathematician ; or apropos of the Information theme : the Eternal Programmer. I won't expound on this slightly off-topic theme any more in this post. However, if you have questions, I have answers -- but no credentials and no authority. :nerd:

PanEnDeism :
Panendeism is an ontological position that explores the interrelationship between God (The Cosmic Mind) and the known attributes of the universe. Combining aspects of Panentheism and Deism, Panendeism proposes an idea of God that both embodies the universe and is transcendent of its observable physical properties.
https://panendeism.org/faq-and-questions/
1. Note : PED is distinguished from general Deism, by its more specific notion of the G*D/Creation relationship; and from PanDeism by its understanding of G*D as supernatural creator rather than the emergent soul of Nature. Enformationism is a Panendeistic worldview.
BothAnd Blog Glossary


The mass-energy-information equivalence principle :
https://aip.scitation.org/doi/10.1063/1.5123794
https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019AIPA....9i5206V/abstract

Forget Space-Time: Information May Create the Cosmos :
A new candidate is "information," which some scientists claim is the foundation of reality. The late distinguished physicist John Archibald Wheeler characterized the idea as "It from bit" — "it" referring to all the stuff of the universe and "bit" meaning information.
https://www.space.com/29477-did-information-create-the-cosmos.html

Perhaps, what is needed is more thorough metaphysics than in the past, or system builders with more synthetic understanding, in putting the many broken fragments of the past pictures together in a new way. — Jack Cummins

That is exactly what I have tried to do with my Enformationism worldview. It's based on the sciences of Quantum physics and Information theory, but it requires a Metaphysical approach to make sense of this new way of viewing the "uncanny valley" (e.g. spooky action a distance) of quantum-scale reality.

I doubt that Physicalists & Materialists are actually opposed to philosophical Metaphysics. Apparently, they don't see any practical difference between bible-based Catholic Scholastic Metaphysics and reason-based philosophical Ontology & Epistemology. Both ways of viewing the world attempt to observe reality from the outside --- a god-like perspective, which is unscientific. And they propose the existence of Universals & Generals & Ideals that exist only in a mental sense, and are not verifiable by empirical methods. So, if such ideas make sense to you, they must be taken for granted, not proven, except for logical consistency. :nerd:

PS__I attempt to repair the "broken fragments" of reductive science with the holistic glue of philosophy. Thesis (Metaphysical worldview) plus Anti-Thesis (Physical worldview) = Synthesis (Holistic worldview).

Uncanny Valley :
The horror in this movie comes from the suspense and the lack of information the audience has
https://nfhsraiderwire.com/showcase/2021/03/19/why-the-uncanny-valley-is-the-scariest-form-of-horror/

Therefore, I do question the idea of the gradual elimination of metaphysics. Empirical knowledge through science is extremely important, but the metaphysical imagination and art of reason may be essential in understanding the larger picture. What do you think? — Jack Cummins

Since the "Enlightenment" era (Age of Reason, circa 1700) --- rejection of revered speculations by ancient religious & philosophical authorities, along with the emergence of pragmatic materialist Science as a dominant factor in modern civilization --- Metaphysics has been in danger of going the way of the Dodo : ex-stinky. But, as long as some humans still have provocative curiosity & un-fettered imagination & practice the "art" of Reason, contemplation of the Big Picture (e.g. Ontology -- Epistemology) will have a place in the "art" of Philosophy.

Plato was mostly concerned with metaphysical questions, but Aristotle had his own "enlightenment" phase, which rejected speculation beyond what is "Real" & Practical. In his encyclopedic book on contemporary knowledge of Nature (The Physics, circa 350BC), the first volume was concerned mainly with the material world of the five senses. Yet, in his second volume --- perhaps intended as a philosophical commentary on the technical details in volume one --- he dealt with many of the same broad general conjectures as Plato.

For example, in his theory of hylomorphism, he posited that real natural things were not simply the superficial stuff you see & touch (Matter), but included an invisible essence (Form or logical structure) that organized raw material into specific things with inherent traits. However, he denied the existence of general intangible disembodied ethereal eternal subjective ideal Platonic Forms, and insisted that only embodied (lower case) forms, in specific palpable corporal material space-time real objective Things, are meaningful and practical, hence subject to human manipulation.

Ironically, very little of his The Physics remains viable relative to modern Science, while the volume that later became known as The Metaphysics, is still fiercely debated by both philosophers and scientists. The terms of such debates typically hinge on Natural vs SuperNatural status, and Idealistic vs Pragmatic interpretations. So, it appears that speculations on more-than-meets-the-eye remain popular in certain circles, and unpopular in others. For example, New Age philosophies hold Metaphysics in high esteem. But Post-Renaissance philosophies, such as Physicalism & Logical Positivism despise such irrational lapses, and label them as "Romanticism", at best.

Consequently, many of the visceral disputes on this philosophical forum, quickly devolve into trench warfare, with each side taking shots at the enemy across a non-mans-land divide. A few of us though, try to make peace (Synthesis) by straddling the no-go zone (Meta-Physics), and get shot at from both Thesis and Anti-Thesis antipodes. The Dodo is dead, long live Meta-Physics! :wink:


Romanticism : 1.(noun) impractical romantic ideals and attitudes

Meta-Physics :
1. Often dismissed by materialists as idle speculation on topics not amenable to empirical proof.
2. Aristotle divided his treatise on science into two parts. The world as-known-via-the-senses was labeled “physics” - what we call "Science" today. And the world as-known-by-the-mind, by reason, was labeled “metaphysics” - what we now call "Philosophy" .
3. Plato called the unseen world that hides behind the physical façade: “Ideal” as opposed to Real. For him, Ideal “forms” (concepts) were prior-to the Real “substance” (matter).
4. Physics refers to the things we perceive with the eye of the body. Meta-physics refers to the things we conceive with the eye of the mind. Meta-physics includes the properties, and qualities, and functions that make a thing what it is. Matter is just the clay from which a thing is made. Meta-physics is the design (form, purpose); physics is the product (shape, action). The act of creation brings an ideal design into actual existence. The design concept is the “formal” cause of the thing designed.
BothAnd Blog Glossary

This leads me to contemplate whether, given my lack of religious faith or observance, if I will be condemned to hell when I die. — RolandTyme

Apropos of nothing : an old country music song by a family group of mostly girls -- one about 12 years old -- sang "heaven's just a sin away, wo wo". Obviously, the potential sinner is aware of the consequences of breaking God's thou-shalt-not rules. But she's tempted to commit adultery anyway : "I think I'm givin' in". Presumably, the one contemplating the moral math is a Southern Baptist.

Apparently, moral ambivalence is common, even among those who believe in a vengeful deity. Is that a sign of doubt (agnosticism) in the actual existence of the jealous God, or of hormone-addled lust overcomes-faith with hope-against-hope that she can get away with it, just this one time?

If sane people really literally believed the horror stories about eternal damnation in burning Hell, they would avoid provoking the damning deity at all cost. How could the anticipation of a momentary, here & now, Heaven-on-Earth (shot of dopamine) outweigh the scriptural "certainty" of a permanent Perdition in the not-yet-future? Whoever came up with such a stark (unremitting pain vs eternal pleasure) contrast, in the consequences of Sin versus Piety, was a moralizing genius . . . or an amoral demon. :naughty:

I appear to be a genuine agnostic - i.e. I am genuinely unsure as to the existence, or not, of God, or supernatural realms and life after death etc. in general. I've never seen an argument on either the atheist side or the theist side which I have found wholly convincing. This leads me to contemplate whether, given my lack of religious faith or observance, if I will be condemned to hell when I die. — RolandTyme

I call myself an Agnostic in the literal sense (ignorance of the facts), not in the "weak Atheist" sense (presumptive knowledge of absence). Based on my well-researched personal worldview, I am fairly sure that our world must have had a First Cause --- intelligent enough to create a self-developing universe from scratch, and to evolve creatures that are able to ask philosophical questions about Ontology (being) and Epistemology (knowing). Since we humans are creatures of space-time, we have no certain way of knowing what caused the Big Bang. So, as philosophers & scientists, we can only speculate using our "god-given" or "accidental" Reason.

Even most Atheists, now admit that something must have existed prior to the emergence of space-time from the Point of Origin (Multiverse : Many Worlds ; Inflaton Field, see below ). Most recycling-vs-creation scenarios assume it was simply more of the same material stuff we experience in the here & now. But, even faithful atheists will acknowledge that causal Energy & limiting Laws, are more essential than mere matter for moving & directing our evolving world. And some sober physicists have concluded that Energy is actually a causal form of General Information. So, my worldview is based on the inference that Information (mind stuff) is more fundamental than (malleable stuff). I won't go into the background of that concept here, as it has been cussed & discussed repeatedly on this forum.

If you accept that Information is the fundamental essence of our Reality, then some kind of Enformer is logically necessary to convert Potential Form into Actual forms. And if that makes sense to you, then you are halfway to belief in a God of some kind. But, which of the thousands of god-models would best qualify as the First Cause of our world. Since most ancient religious deities are described in humanoid forms or with human motives, and are obviously modeled on human political leaders, I find them to be poor candidates for the Cause of a physical emergence from almost nothing into everything knowable. Instead, I find a creative Principle, like Plato's LOGOS to be more fitting as the ultimate Enformer.

Although it's scientifically plausible, in view of 21st century Quantum & Information theories, such a rational "Philosopher's God" is not likely to inspire religious Faith. So, as philosophical thinkers, we must act upon incomplete evidence, and keep an open-mind about topics beyond our ken. As luck would have it, the ancient Agnostic attitude allows us to have a functional belief system, without committing to blind faith in the unknowable. Besides, spooky tales about a miserable or blissful afterlife, are nothing more substantial than ghost-stories & moralizing myths. Therefore, as you are philosophically inclined, you are free act as-if you believe whichever un-verifiable god-option makes sense to you. And you can worry about any uncertain imaginary afterlife you find believable, in view of your chosen god. :cool:

Agnosticism is the view or belief that the existence of God, of the divine or the supernatural is unknown or unknowable. Another definition provided is the view that "human reason is incapable of providing sufficient rational grounds to justify either the belief that God exists or the belief that God does not exist." ___Wikipedia

Is Information Fundamental? :
https://www.closertotruth.com/series/information-fundamental

Is information the only thing that exists? :
Physics suggests information is more fundamental than matter, energy, space and time
https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg23431191-500-inside-knowledge-is-information-the-only-thing-that-exists/

The Enformer :
AKA, the Creator. The presumed eternal source of all information, as encoded in the Big Bang Sing-ularity. That ability to convert conceptual Forms into actual Things, to transform infinite possibilities into finite actualities, and to create space & time, matter & energy from essentially no-thing is called the power of EnFormAction. Due to our ignorance of anything beyond space-time though, the postulated enforming agent remains undefined..
BothAnd Blog Glossary

BLOONARIUS THE INFLATOR OF WORLDS

Seems that my post didn't draw any attention :chin: Any response that helps to answer my questions will be more than appreciated. — Geerts

Perhaps the lack of response is due to lack of expertise (or talent) in Statistics & Probability. Objective science is based on factual observations. But statistical Probability is a subjective belief (inference ; prediction) about unobserved or not-yet real events & things (possibilities) --- based on the inexact (proportional) mathematics of implicit order within randomness. That's why Bayesian Inference uses the term "belief", rather than "fact", to describe our projections into the future --- which will only later be "proved" to be true & factual, or not.

I, probably (an unproven guess) like most on this forum, have no formal training in the "art" of probability. So, I won't even attempt to answer your technical questions, that are way over my head. :smile:

People Are Really Bad At Probability :
https://www.fastcompany.com/3061263/people-are-really-bad-at-probability-and-this-study-shows-how-easy-it-is-to-trick-us

I think all participants here know about the statement of the unreasonable effectiveness of mathematics. Shouldn't we, rather, speak of it's reasonable effectiveness? I can't see nothing unreasonable about it and can't even imagine how else it could be. — Landoma1

I'm guessing that Wigner's use of "unreasonable" was ironic or tongue-in-cheek. In view of the randomness & uncertainty of its Quantum foundation, it is perhaps surprising that on the Macro level of reality, its structure & processes are predictable & consistent. In other words, there is an underlying logic to the order of reality. And mathematics is simply an abstract form of Logic.

Moreover, Logic is essential to the extraction of meaningful information by humans (Reason). Some might say that Human Logic & Natural Logic both result from the Natural Laws that caused the Big Bang to self-organize into the smoothly functioning mechanism we see today. That orderly structure of interrelationships is what allows human mathematics (logical inference) to be both Reasonable and Effective. But why should a random & accidental "explosion" (expansion) of something from almost nothing turn out to be lawful (orderly & organized)? Perhaps Wigner saw signs of design in the world, but chose to comment on it equivocally, for professional reasons. :cool:

3. The LNC needs to be scrapped + a version of paraconsistent logic needs to be adopted — Agent Smith

Not so fast. The Law of Non-Contradiction is a good rule of thumb for most contexts. But there is one common circumstance where LNC does not apply : Holism. The reductive methods of science are appropriate for things-in-isolation. But when a thing participates in a larger System, it shares qualities of the system, which compromises some of its own properties. To a reductionist observer such holistic behavior may seem inconsistent and paradoxical.

For example : what Einstein called spooky-action-at-a-distance, Schrodinger called "entanglement". Which implies that some quantum particles in a holistic (waveform) system share some properties with other particles. Apparently, in their waveform state, electrons are connected to all other electrons in the universe, in such a way that a measurement of one instantly affects (e.g. flips the spin of) all similar particles. From that perspective, it's not a contradiction, but a feature of Holism : an emergent property. :smile:


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 function in a hierarchy of systems.
BothAnd Blog Glossary

"The opposite of a profound truth is also a profound truth"
___Neils Bohr, baffled by apparent violations of LNC

"We are not only observers. We are participators. In some strange sense, this is a participatory universe. Physics is no longer satisfied with insights only into particles, fields of force, into geometry, or even into time and space." ___John A. Wheeler

SHARING IS PARTICIPATING (parts unite with the whole)

Not until six pages in does Nagel even define what "like" means. Footnote 6, "Therefore the analogical form of the English expression "what it is like" is misleading. It does not mean "what (in our experience) it resembles," but rather "how it is for the subject himself."
This always troubled me. It seems his whole idea of "like" is vague or inchoherent. — Jackson

Standing alone, the phrase "what is it like" is indeed vague, in that it can apply to many different contexts. I just Googled "what is it like" and got pages of examples in return. Example : "what is it like to be in a coma?". The implication in most cases is a desire to understand how it "feels" to exist in a different place or body or condition. Or to read another person's mind.

Although the common phrase is not precisely defined, that omission never bothered me. Because the following discussion provided a specific context. So, I intuitively understood what he was implying. However, to make it a bit clearer, I might supply the implicit subjective reference : "what does it feel like to inhabit (exist in) the body of a bat". Or "if I could exchange bodies & brains with a sonar sensing creature, how would my personal existence be different?" The ontological question is focused on our way of knowing & interpreting the world through the lens of our species-defined physiological senses.

The 2003 movie Daredevil, featured a blind hero, who could "see" with his ears. The film attempted to help us see what he saw, to feel what he felt, by converting the sound of raindrops splashing on Elektra's face into a conceptual image --- by analogy with photons reflecting off the face. It was a plausible, yet fictional, way to know "what is it like" to be a blind super-hero. However, Nagel's question was more general & philosophical, epistemological & ontological. It probed the limits of our ability to know anything beyond the boundaries of our personal body & brain. :cool:

What Is It Like to Be a Bat? :
The paper presents several difficulties posed by consciousness, including the possible insolubility of the mind-body problem owing to "facts beyond the reach of human concepts", the limits of objectivity and reductionism, the "phenomenological features" of subjective experience, the limits of human imagination, and what it means to be a particular, conscious thing.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/What_Is_It_Like_to_Be_a_Bat%3F


RAINDROPS FALLING ON HER FACE

My understanding of paraconsistent logic, from Graham Priest, is that things can contradict each other and still be true — Jackson

Yes. That is the implication of my personal BothAnd Philosophy. Some apparent "paradoxes" result from viewing only one side of the same coin. :smile:


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

If I'm not mistaken, there is work in combining formal paraconsistent logic with formal fuzzy logic. But fuzzy logic itself is not a formalization of paraconsistent logic. — TonesInDeepFreeze

Perhaps, I should have prefaced that personal opinion with "it seems to me, that . . .". Before Agent mentioned it, I had never heard of "paraconsistent logic". But a quick Wiki review sounded like a description of Fuzzy Logic, which I was already familiar with. For my general purposes, I prefer the more colloquial and less technical-sounding term. From my layman's perspective, both terms seem to reflect the Uncertainty Principle of Quantum Theory, as applied to other fields of investigation. :smile:

1. Classical logic has to use Occam's broom (sweep paradoxes under the rug) otherwise, via ex falso quodlibet, concede that classical logic is trivial.

2. We're using some version of paraconsistent logic and we're not aware of it. — Agent Smith

Classical binary Logic is best used for problems that can be precisely defined with integer numerical values. But human contradictions are seldom concisely defined; instead loosely sketched with inexplicit subjective truth-values.

A formalized version of "paraconsistent logic" (logic of paradox) is the Fuzzy Logic that is used in computer science for complex puzzles that are hard to define numerically, such as human beliefs & intuitions. It is especially useful in Artificial Intelligence and Evolutionary Programming.

We're not aware of our sloppy logic because it is intuitive, so we don't normally examine it with classical rules in mind. That's why divisive emotional issues, such as Abortion & Racism tend to polarize people. And can only be resolved, to some degree, with critical (rational) thinking : to discover the inconsistencies in our beliefs. :cool:


Paraconsistent Logic :
A paraconsistent logic is an attempt at a logical system to deal with contradictions in a discriminating way. Alternatively, paraconsistent logic is the subfield of logic that is concerned with studying and developing "inconsistency-tolerant" systems of logic which reject the principle of explosion.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paraconsistent_logic

Most if not all thinkers are under the impression that they're using classical logic - they don't take too kindly to contradictions. — Agent Smith

Actually, most thinkers have an ego-boosting impression of their own reasoning abilities. We find it easier to see the contradictions in other people's ideas than in our own thoughts. Intuition always seems true, even when it aint.

A great many people think they are thinking when they are merely rearranging their prejudices.
— William James.

1. I haven't the foggiest why classical logic with its principle of bivalence (PB: true/false, nothing else) and the law of noncontradiction [LNC: [~(p & ~pl)] became the standard in Greek and then in Western philosophy. — Agent Smith

Sure you do. You said it yourself : the gray middle range of anything & any topic is "foggy", hence unclear. So, ancient philosophers, and enlightenment scientists, developed a binary standard for judgements of Truth and Facts. By setting the standard at the extremes, rather than in the murky middle, they achieved Clarity. But in practice, we tend to judge on the basis of tendencies & inclinations. Even if Hitler was good to dogs & children, we can say that his attitude toward Humanity leaned in the direction of Evil. Fortunately, most of us tend to fall into the mid-range of Ethics, so we are a bit Bad and a bit Good. Hence, BothAnd.

Therefore, the Law or Principle of Non-Contraction is a guide to parsing the nebulous complexities of reality. If we detect a significant inclination toward one extreme (True) or the other (False), usually we can safely treat the issue as either True or False, Good or Bad. But, since our judgement of such things is usually biased by experience, we need to be careful not to push the observed propensity toward a prejudged extreme. For example, American politics, on the Federal level, has always been polarized into Left vs Right, or Liberal vs Conservative. But for philosophical purposes, I would label myself as BothAnd : somewhat Liberal and somewhat Conservative. That's not a logical Contradiction, but a pragmatic concession to non-ideal Reality, which varies between those extremes, but generally follows a wavering path down the middle : BothAnd. :smile:

I guess that ultimately boils down to Yes & No (BothAnd, affirming both extremes because negation in classical logic flips the sign of propositions) but do notice here that the madhyamaka is more about denial (neither yes nor no) than affirmation (BothAnd). — Agent Smith

Yes/No. Some philosophers & scientists from both East & West, both ancient & modern, have described the progression of the World System (evolution) in terms of opposing forces (e.g. Yin/Yang) that offset each other, and result in the moderation that allows Life & Mind & human culture to emerge in the habitable zone between extremes. By contrast, "classical (Binary) logic" focused on the margins instead of the middle.

That unambiguous (certain) feature was taken to an extreme in the development of Digital Logic (1/0 ; all or nothing) for computers. Unfortunately, by omitting the middle range, such logic also leaves human meaning behind. Ironically, those empty shells have lots of room in the middle for programmers to insert their own meanings & values. It works like Algebra, in that A + B = C are merely general stand-in-symbols for specified values to be inserted by the calculator for specific conditions.

Paradoxically, binary computer logic has shown us the value of non-binary logic for replicating how the analog human brain works. By that I mean, Fuzzy Logic has been found useful in real-world situations, for which absolute Numerical values are hard to obtain. Instead, it provides imprecise, but meaningful, Truth values. That's why the BothAnd Philosophy and the Enformationism Worldview are based on a fuzzy quantum foundation. As in Quantum Bayseianism (QBism), there are no god-like absolute objective states, only relative human values, and "degrees of belief".

I'm currently reading Beyond Weird, by Phillip Ball, which is an attempt to reconcile the Fuzzy Logic of Quantum Theory with the precise values of Classical Binary Logic. He says, "quantum mechanics might seem 'weird', but it is not illogical. It's just that it employs a new and unfamiliar logic. If you can grasp it --- if you can accept that this is just how quantum mechanics works --- then the quantum world may stop seeming weird and become just another place, with different customs and traditions and with its own beautiful internal consistency". He doesn't call that "new logic" by name, but it's simply Fuzzy Logic. Which seems to be the way human Intuition works, to form beliefs and models of external reality.

Perhaps, the Madhyamaka "nihilism" or "emptiness" doctrine was actually a non-classical, non-binary approach to the non-digital (analog) view of reality that we experience in Intuition and Meditation. :smile:


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 ___Wiki
Note -- Robotics researchers are attempting to make their bots more human, by using Fuzzy Logic, instead of Digital Logic.

Quantum Bayesianism :
In physics and the philosophy of physics, quantum Bayesianism is a collection of related approaches to the interpretation of quantum mechanics, of which the most prominent is QBism (pronounced "cubism"). QBism is an interpretation that takes an agent's actions and experiences as the central concerns of the theory. QBism deals with common questions in the interpretation of quantum theory about the nature of wavefunction superposition, quantum measurement, and entanglement.[1][2] According to QBism, many, but not all, aspects of the quantum formalism are subjective in nature. For example, in this interpretation, a quantum state is not an element of reality—instead it represents the degrees of belief an agent has about the possible outcomes of measurements.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_Bayesianism

A contradiction, ergo, is a feature, not a bug of your EnFormAction - BothAnd! G'day señor and good luck! — Agent Smith

Spasibo!
Contradiction is indeed a "feature" of EnFormAction (Energy), and of Information-in-general. The conflict derives from the wide range of Possibilities in Nature, as contrasted with the narrow range of legitimate Probabilities (Statistics). Although almost anything (within constraints, as noted below) is possible in the Virtual state, only one Physical (or actual) form can exist in the Real (actual) state. That's why Evolution & History bounce back & forth between positive (Good) & negative (Bad) values, as in Hegelian Dialectic. Fortunately for us observers, the opposing forces tend to offset, and typically result in moderate outcomes, somewhere between the extremes.

The "Range" of values in statistics begins at Zero on the low end, and goes up to 100% probability at the high end. So, Energy is like a Virtual Particle in superposition : in the Potential (virtual) state, it has a full range of Possibilities, but only takes on a specific value upon Actualization or Realization. For example, the phrase "I just realized" can be interpreted as Potential (unformed) Information in the Mind, that is suddenly converted into enformed Knowledge, as a specific concept condensed from general possibilities.

These notes are off the top of my head. So, I thank you for pushing me to expand my own understanding of Universal Information : Matter, Energy, & Mind. :smile:


Statistics :
Probability is quantified as a number between 0 and 1, where, loosely speaking, 0 indicates impossibility and 1 indicates certainty.

Dialectic :
A dialectic is when two seemingly conflicting things are true at the same time.
Note 1 -- The outcome of ongoing competition for Truth (Actuality) creates Reality, both Mental and Material.
Note 2 -- Sorry, such philosophical abstractions may be difficult for binary minds to deal with.

PS___The Dialectic path can be envisioned as waveforms progressing & interfering as seen in the Double Slit experiment of Quantum Theory.

REALITY ALTERNATES BETWEEN LIGHT & DARK, BUT AVERAGES GRAY

Not Hegel's concept of dialectic. I forget who said that, but it is not Hegel. — Jackson

In philosophy, the concept of a historical dialectic, as an interpretive method, is typically associated with Hegel, even though he didn't originate the idea. :smile:

Hegelian Dialectic :
A theory of historical development that is often attributed to the philosopher G.W.F. Hegel. It proposes that cultural understanding progresses, despite conflicts, via 3 stages labeled Thesis (a dominant cultural worldview or “-Ism”), followed by Antithesis (an opposing view), then to Synthesis (a blend of the prior views). Stage 3 then becomes the thesis for the next round of quarreling belief systems.
BothAnd Blog Glossary


Hegelian dialectic. / (hɪˈɡeɪlɪan, heɪˈɡiː-) / noun. philosophy an interpretive method in which the contradiction between a proposition (thesis) and its antithesis is resolved at a higher level of truth (synthesis)
https://www.dictionary.com/browse/hegelian-dialectic

The paradox: Information is foundational to EnFormAction, but your BothAnd principle works only if you lack information (you don't know which it is and hence you include both). — Agent Smith

I'm sure the BothAnd principle sounds paradoxical to many people. But that's only because Black-or-White , Good-vs-Evil , Either/Or thinking is so common. Two-value (divergent) thinking is a short-cut that jumps to broad general conclusions in specific situations, as in Racism. It's a tendency to see things in terms of polar extremes. Which is the conceptual cause of most conflict & suffering in the world.

But BothAnd is a simply a Holistic way of thinking, that can be illustrated in the Yin/Yang symbol. It looks at the world in terms of Complementarity, Reciprocity, & Holism, which is necessary to offset the negative effects of Fragmentation, Isolation & Reductionism. From a historical perspective, it sees a zig-zagging Hegelian Dialectic (progression-of-evolution), which is a heuristic (searching) process that explores positive & negative alternatives, but always maintains a moderate (balanced) course between the extremes of Good vs Evil.

Conceptually, "Information" (ratio between alternatives ; 1/0) is a calculated Paradoxical (incompatible) Equation that yields a Logical answer to an apparent conflict [a : b :: b : c ; (+X) + (-Y) = (+/-Z)]. You don't passively "lack information", but you lack Certainty, so you actively extract Information into meaning via Reasoning. One of the primary functions of Philosophy is to resolve apparent Paradoxes into practical Wisdom, such as the Golden Rule, and "turn the other cheek". :nerd:


In Ancient Chinese philosophy, yin and yang is a Chinese philosophical concept that describes how obviously opposite or contrary forces may actually be complementary, interconnected, and interdependent in the natural world, and how they may give rise to each other as they interrelate to one another. ___Wikipedia

Hegelian Dialectic :
A theory of historical development that is often attributed to the philosopher G.W.F. Hegel. It proposes that cultural understanding progresses, despite conflicts, via 3 stages labeled Thesis (a dominant cultural worldview or “-Ism”), followed by Antithesis (an opposing view), then to Synthesis (a blend of the prior views). Stage 3 then becomes the thesis for the next round of quarreling belief systems.
BothAnd Blog Glossary




YIN AND YANG UNIFIED INTO YIN/YANG

I understand that it may be compelling to argue how my current belief in the health and environmental impact of meat consumption may be wrong, and if you would like to argue it go ahead. — Louis

If humans continue to evolve into cyborgs or robots, the vegetarian question may become moot. Instead we'll be debating the morality of consuming Nuclear vs Hydrogen vs Solar energy vs Carbon-based Life-Forms, as the source of our electron diet. :joke:

What got me stoked was how inclusive your system is (BothAnd), something which, to me, requires us to utilize our ignorance rather than knowledge (vide infra, I quote you)
so we only know it by what it does, not what it is — Gnomon
Sorry, if this is a shallow understanding or worse a complete misunderstanding of EnFormAction — Agent Smith

Again, you are looking at the negative side of Information : Ignorance. But Shannon's mathematical definition covered the whole range, from Ignorance (zero ; 0 ; blank ; empty set) to Knowledge (all ; unity [1] ; 100% ; full set). Likewise, my worldview is intended to be "inclusive". That's why I call it a Theory of Everything.

The quote above compares Information to Energy. Scientists don't know what Energy is (ignorance), but they can measure what it does (action ; change). So, Energy is not a physical object, but a meta-physical Force. It's essentially the concept of Causation : the universal Actor (EnFormAction). And Change is the relation (ratio) between Cause & Effect ; Before & After. In my thesis, Energy is the Cause of everything in the world that follows from the First Cause. The BB Singularity was close to nothing (pure Potential ; zero Actual), but it has evolved via Causation (Change) into everything in the universe (All ; 100% : Unity).

So, our scientific ignorance of what Energy is (in essence) stems from a Materialist Either/Or worldview : either Physical or Nothing -- essences excluded. By contrast, an Information-based BothAnd worldview does know what Energy is, in essence : Logic ; Math ; Reason --- as applied to a physical world. However, that kind of Rational knowledge is not empirical (physical), but theoretical (mental), not scientific (reality), but philosophical (ideality). Yet, the Enformationism perspective views both sides of the same coin : sensory reality and imaginative ideality.

That's why my personal philosophical worldview is labelled as BothAnd : it is comprehensive; "inclusive" of both Matter and Mind ; both Physics and Meta-Physics. It acknowledges that our world is both Good and Bad; both Positive and Negative; both Potential and Actual. Without those polar alternatives, there would be no Change, no Cause, no Novelty. Only eternal boring BEING would exist in timelessness & spacelessness. :nerd:


Energy : "The simplest definition of energy is "the ability to do work". Energy is how things change and move."
https://www.ducksters.com/science/energy.php
Note -- Ability = Potential ; causal power

I like your style, assuming I've got a handle on what it is that you're trying to do. — Agent Smith

Thanks. But your illustration sounds rather bleak. My understanding of Information, on the other hand, is enlightening. It allows us to see (rationally) what can't be seen (visually). :wink:

I don't think think structures and forms contain information. Entropy yes. — Hillary

For the record, I use the term "Information" in a much broader & general sense than Claude Shannon. From that universal perspective, Information is fundamentally Logical Structure : relationships & ratios. For example, Entropy is the breakdown of the structure that bonds matter into the objects & things we know via our senses. By contrast, "To Enform" (to create) is to combine isolated bits into meaningful & functional wholes (forms).

Logical structure is not physical (material), but meta-physical (mental ; mathematical). You can't see Logical structure with your eyes, but with your Reason (ability to know invisible ratios & relationships). Energy (hot) & Entropy (cold) are merely different forms of Information : constructive & destructive; active & inactive. The information of a wavefunction is mathematical & statistical, describing all possible states of a particle in superposition. That abstract knowledge may be meaningless to you, but to a quantum physicist it is elementary. :smile:

Logical structure refers to the way information in a document [or object] is organized; it defines the hierarchy of information and the relation between different parts of the document.
https://link.springer.com/referenceworkentry/10.1007/978-0-387-39940-9_213

What is Information? :
So, for the purposes of my philosophical worldview, I have constructed my own definitions, that reflect the ubiquity of Information in all aspects of reality, especially its mental & meaningful functions. Also, its role in Energy & Causation is important at both the Quantum & Cosmic levels of the world. For example, the Observer Effect of quantum theory implies that when a mind extracts information (knowledge) from a quantum system in Superposition (multiple states simultaneously) the waveform of that particle is forced to collapse into a single measurable state. In other words, the particle suddenly changes from Mathematical to Material.
BothAnd Blog, post 123
Note -- since Information is the essence of Energy, measurement of a quantum state extracts a bit of energy (information) from the possible particle, thus triggering the "collapse" from math to matter. (Yes, I know that's hard to wrap your mind around; but hey, it's quantum weirdness).

What information does the wavefunction convey? :
https://www.britannica.com/science/wave-function
Note -- in his book, Beyond Weird, Phillip Ball says "wavefunction collapse is then a generator of knowledge : it is not so much a process that gives us the answers, but it is a process by which answers are created".

What information is contained in the wavefunction? — Hillary

Statistical Information. We call it "Probability". Which is equivalent to "Potential". :smile:

To re-iterate: Information has to specify or mean something. 'Generic' means, among other things, not having a specific definition. So if it means something, it can't be generic, and if it doesn't mean anything then it's not information. So I claim 'generic information' is a meaningless phrase. — Wayfarer

Yes. Generic Information is meaningless, because it is general & abstract & timeless & potential, like Plato's "Form". It contains the statistical possibility to mean anything, but lacking specificity, it actually means nothing. It is completely random & chaotic (no pattern, pure noise). So, like the pixels on your computer screen, GI, when uniformly white or black, lacks pattern, hence is devoid of meaning (e.g. white noise). But if you begin to change from a uniform (111111) or random (01010101) pattern, to a variable (100101101010001) pattern, a meaningful image will begin to appear from the void. That uniform array of pixels has the potential, when intelligently activated, to draw a picture of anything.

In terms of the current technical use of the word "information" your "claim" is correct. But I am proposing an expanded philosophical definition of Shannon's narrow engineering application. His "information" has been stripped of specific meaning in order to serve as a general carrier of whatever meaning you want to put into it. His 1s & 0s, define the whole range of values from Nothing to Everything. In isolation, a Zero means absolutely "nothing" (black), and a One means vaguely "something" (white). Only when those basic values are combined into variable strings, do they form a pattern that has a particular meaning to the observer. Information is the "difference that makes a meaningful difference" to a rational mind.

However, the "Generic Information" I'm referring to exists metaphorically in the Mind of G*D (Programmer), the originator of all things & meanings in the world. In it's most general & non-specific form, I call it EnFormAction, which is what scientists know as "Energy", and philosophers know as "Causation" : the power to cause change in physical things. In the abstract, Energy is invisible & intangible, so we only know it by what it does, not what it is. For example, a Photon is potential energy. But until it impacts some physical thing, it is essentially nothing, and has no mass. Yet, it can gain mass by slowing down from almost infinite lightspeed to some lower frequency & velocity. Only then does it have meaningful effects that we can observe (transition from Potential to Actual Energy). Ironically, as soon as Potential energy becomes Actual, it converts into Matter.

Therefore, Generic Information is the formless Potential to cause changes in form, which we experience as Meaning or Knowledge or Information (literally, the act of enforming). No change, no meaning. No difference, no meaning. The causal act of enforming is the source of meaning. :nerd:

PS___For another illustration of Generic Information, a human ovum looks like any other mammalian egg, until it becomes differentiated (enformed) into specifically human patterns. So, the egg is generic, capable of generating a wide range of adult animals, with various adult features, tall/short, dark/light, human/pig, etc. (Human DNA is 98% identical with a pig). Small differences in DNA make big difference in final form, hence in meaning.


Enform : (obsolete, transitive) To form; to fashion.

This conversion of energetic light into matter is a direct consequence of Einstein's famous E=mc2 equation, which states that energy and matter (or mass) are interchangeable.
https://www.bnl.gov/newsroom/news.php?a=119023

Platonic Form :
Plato thought that the things we perceive on Earth are really composed of ideas or forms. A form is an eternal and perfect concept, something that is strived for but never actualised on Earth.
http://www.thestargarden.co.uk/Socrates-Plato-and-Aristotle.html

Information is Generic in the sense of generating all forms from a formless pool of possibility : the Platonic FORM.
BothAnd Blog post 33

MEANINGFUL PATTERN EMERGES FROM RANDOMNESS

To re-iterate: Information has to specify or mean something. 'Generic' means, among other things, not having a specific definition. So if it means something, it can't be generic, and if it doesn't mean anything then it's not information. Ergo, I claim 'generic information' is a meaningless phrase. — Wayfarer

I agree. But, you are using "information" in a specific sense, as is usual in most scientific & technical discussions. In that case, you are correct. But the point of my thesis is that Information is general & universal, hence a philosophical concept, similar to Plato's "Form". I try to make that distinction in the thesis by using a different spelling (EnFormAction ; the potential to enform).

In that abstract form, it's more like causal Energy than meaningful computer data. But then, it's BothAnd. Like Energy, EnFormAction is meaningless & inert until actualized into specific sensible forms. For example, physical Phase Transitions are a result of En-form-action : the same substance (liquid water) takes on a new form (solid ice) with novel properties. This is what we call : "Emergence" and "Holism". :smile:

PS__Some mathematical physicists have postulated that our real world is a mathematical construct, hence pure Information. For me, that's just an illustrative metaphor, similar to The Matrix, so I don't worry about the tricky technicalities. I haven't read Tegmark's book, but I get the impression that he is like some of the Quantum pioneers. using as-if metaphors to explain some of the baffling observations of modern physics.

PPS__Plato also used the term "Logos" (word, reason, plan, principle, intention, design) in reference to the creation of an orderly (and self-organizing) world from primordial Chaos. In my thesis I also call it The Enformer, or Programmer. To Enform is to give meaningful form (pattern) to the formless (patternless).

Okay. But for Aristotle matter only exists with form. — Jackson

Yes. But what did Ari mean by "form"? Obviously, something in addition to Matter (hyle). We can assume that Ari never heard of "Information Theory". And, he was trying to distinguish his notion of Real (concrete, physical) "Form" (morph) from Plato's Ideal (abstract, essential) "Form" (eidos). But we now know that Information can be both (see equivalence principle below). So, Ari's combination of Matter & Morph would today be called complex "Information". Ideas in a mind are abstract (form only), while objective things in the world are concrete (matter + form). (Disclaimer : this is not an official academic interpretation.)

For the purposes of my thesis, I was merely interpreting his ambiguous (two part) definition of things & beings in terms of my thesis proposal that both Mind & Matter are forms of Generic Information. In other words, Information is the Essence of all things. In compound things "hyle" = matter (Actual, physical), and "form" = design (Potential, metaphysical). "Hyle" was the kind of stuff he discussed in The Physics, but "Morph" and "Ousia" were reserved for the volume on Metaphysics : not about material things, but philosophical ideas about things & concepts. Below, I have pasted an excerpt from a previous discussion on a similar topic. :smile:

Hylomorphism (also hylemorphism) is a philosophical theory developed by Aristotle, which conceives every being (ousia) as a compound of matter and form, ...

The Ancient Greek term ousia was translated in Latin as essentia or substantia, and hence in English as essence or substance.

Essence is a polysemic term, used in philosophy and theology as a designation for the property or set of properties that make an entity or substance what it fundamentally is, and which it has by necessity, and without which it loses its identity. ___Wikipedia

The mass-energy-information equivalence principle :
Here we formulate a new principle of mass-energy-information equivalence proposing that a bit of information is not just physical, as already demonstrated, but it has a finite and quantifiable mass while it stores information.
https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019AIPA....9i5206V/abstract

Metaphysical versus Anti-Metaphysical (March 22, 2022)

This is another example of the philosophical problem with our materialistic (matter-based) language. Aristotle defined "substance" from two different perspectives (the "qualifications" I mentioned before). When he was trying to distinguish his pragmatic philosophy from Plato's idealistic ideology, he took matter as the primary. So. when he defined his notion of "hylomorphism", he had to distinguish the Actual material (hyle=stuff) from the Potential design (morph=pattern). Hence you have a which-came-first dilemma : the mental idea or the material actualization of the design?

Since I'm an Architect, I tend to think that the mental image (imaginary structure) is prior to the physical building (material structure), hence primary. And morph/form is what I mean by Aristotelian "substance" as the immaterial essence of a thing. I realize Ari's ambiguous reference is potentially confusing. My Enformationism worldview is plagued by many similar dual-meaning words : such as physical "Shape" vs mental "Form". Do you know of another philosopher who found a non-ambiguous term to distinguish between Substance and Essence?


hylomorphism, (from Greek hylē, “matter”; morphē, “form”), in philosophy, metaphysical view according to which every natural body consists of two intrinsic principles, one potential, namely, primary matter, and one actual, namely, substantial form. It was the central doctrine of Aristotle's philosophy of nature. ___Wiki

Two kinds of Structure :
1. mathematical structure is an imaginary (idealized) pattern of relationships (links) without the nodes.
2. physical structure is the actual nodes arranged into a pattern resembling the mental design.

I do not think this is Aristotle. Physical stuff is matter and form. — Jackson

It's my interpretation. Aristotle's "form" is what we now call "information" (a pattern that identifies a thing). Platonic "Form" is Potential, while Matter (hyle) is Actual stuff. (E = MC^2) Potential (energy) can be converted into Actual Matter (mass). :smile:

Dear brother Gnomon, as interesting your thesis truly is, we still have to take into account that the wavefunction contains no information but a means for particles to explore. Information is not contained in the patterns connecting particles, but in the stuff describing them. — Hillary

True. The wavefunction contains no knowable information. Instead, it statistically describes all possible paths a particle may "explore". But there is no actual (sensible) particle until a measurement (Latin mensura ; root mens- : "mind") by an Observer somehow causes the continuous non-local Wave to "collapse" (emerge) as a single localized Particle.

Likewise, Huygens described light as a field, propagating by analogy with an oceanic wave. So, Quantum physicists were surprised to discover that on the sub-atomic level, light is emitted only in discrete packets of energy. Consequently, the current ambiguous theory says that light is both wave and particle, which makes no sense in classical physics. On the macro scale, to our senses, the world appears to be analog & solid. But at its foundation, it was found to be digital & grainy (90% empty space).

That's why my thesis is based on the BothAnd principle. As Aristotle realized, our real world consists of both Actual stuff (matter) and Potential essence (EnFormAction : the power to enform). To our physical senses, Potential is meaningless & useless, until Realized. But to our rational minds, we know that Potential (e.g. stored energy in an inert battery) can become Actual electricity (by completing a circuit). Likewise, a Potential wavefunction is un-real, until an observer completes-the-circuit (bridges-the-gap) to allow an Actual particle to emerge from thin air. :nerd:


BothAnd Principle :
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.
BothAnd Glossary

The same thing's happening here too - we're trying to get a handle on information (new) with the aid of substance (old). It's time we did something different in my humble opinion. How? I dunno! — Agent Smith

That's exactly what I'm trying to do in the Enformationism thesis. It's a blend of old (Spiritualism) and modern (Materialism) and novel (Informationism) concepts. The Quantum pioneers also went through a period of groping for ways to interpret the weirdness of quantum phenomena. Some began to use metaphors from Hindu & Buddhist traditions, and others developed novel mathematical language (wave-function) to describe what they imagined as tiny particles of stuff.

Likewise, social scientist, cognitive scientist & cyberneticist Gregory Bateson defined the traditional term "Information" (originally referring to mind-stuff -- ideas) as the "difference that makes a difference". Which I interpret to mean that, in all its various forms, Generic Information is characterized by an essential logical distinction (a : b :: c : d) that our minds interpret as meaning. In its abstract forms, it's a ratio (quantitative relationship, 1/2 or a : b). In computer code, its merely a statistical relationship (percent true/false) between All or Nothing (1 or 0). And in human linguistic intercourse, information conveys the relative significance of a thing to the observer (good vs bad).

Individually, those examples may not seem to have much to do with each other. But Information is a slippery shape-shifting concept. So it's hard to "get a handle on". Yet one pragmatic way to grasp it is to grab a different handle (word) appropriate for each context. :chin:


informationism :
Commitment to the idea that the world is fundamentally composed of, supervenes upon, or reduces to, information of some kind.
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/informationism
Note -- in the Enformationism thesis, I note that the term, spelled with an "I", was already in use. So I changed the spelling to emphasize my equation of mental Info with physical Energy.

↪Gnomon
I can meet you part-way at least. — Wayfarer

The concept of shape-shifting Information that I am proposing is complicated, not least, in that it applies to both Analog/Macro/Classical reality (known directly via senses), and Digital/Quantum/Post-postModern ideality (known indirectly via inference from measurements), plus to Hypothetical/Metaphysical/Speculations (into realms beyond our space-time world). So, do you think we can find a meeting-place somewhere in possibility-space?

I'm currently reading a book on Quantum Physics, Beyond Weird by Phillip Ball, In the first chapter, he says "it is a theory about information". To illustrate the difficulty of discussing such a slippery subject, he points to the presumably "orthodox" Copenhagen interpretation of what's going-on right under our noses, only to conclude that "there is no quantum orthodoxy". Likewise, there is no Information orthodoxy. Computer specialists & Physicists & Philosophers tend to work with different understandings of what it is that they are talking about.

That being the case, he says "if you want to argue [with the Copenhagen interpretation] you must argue with Bohr". But then, he admits that Bohr is "hard to fathom". Yet, he quotes Bohr : "our task is to learn to use these words correctly -- that is, unambiguously and consistently". However, Ball notes that "the problem is that in quantum mechanics it is almost impossible to be unambiguous and consistent . . ." And that's also the problem I have been dealing with in discussions of "Generic Information" : the same word may have a different meaning in each context.

Ball then notes that "the challenge in reading Bohr comes also from the fact that he took tremendous care to say what he meant". Likewise, I take care to define my meaning for each context, including references to a Glossary of Terminology. But the complexity & contradictions within both Quantum and Information contexts makes communication fraught with diverging perspectives from which to view the topic. Therefore, I must ask how your point-of-view on the nature & role of "Information" differs from mine. I suspect that we are often talking about the same thing, but using different words in different contexts. Maybe meeting halfway is all we can expect. :cool:

I’m disputing that the term ‘generic information’ means anything, or that it’s a substance, in the philosophical sense.
As I said bear in mind the origin of the term which is now translated as ‘substance’, namely, ‘ouisia’, which is nearer in meaning to ‘being’ than to ‘stuff’. So another translation of the term in the context of pantheist philosophy would be that the universe comprises, not a single subject, but a singular being, of whom all particulars are modes or expressions. — Wayfarer

Sorry, "Generic Information" (Platonic Form) is my alternative term for "EnFormAction" (Energy & Causation) to suit different contexts. I borrowed the notion of intangible "substance" as the Essence of Reality from Spinoza & Aristotle to serve another context : essential Information comes in many forms, one of which is Matter, the tangible substance that we are all familiar with. Informational "Substance" is the formless clay, from which many things are formed.

Unfortunately, metaphors can be confusing when taken out of context. That's why I made a Glossary of technical terms & neologisms to gloss over the non-standard & metaphorical meanings. They are all defined from the perspective of Information as both the Form (source & cause) and the Substance (essence & material) of both Reality and Ideality.

At the top of my Information hierarchy, Mind, Energy, Matter, is absolute Existence, which I label as universal unitary singular "BEING" (not any particular being). It's not a person or thing, but the philosophical eternal (timeless) principle of self-existence. A more familiar, but baggage-laden, term is G*D. But that's a whole 'nother can-of-terms. :joke:

Generic : general ; comprehensive ; generative ; non-specific

BEING :
* In my own theorizing there is one universal principle that subsumes all others, including Consciousness : essential Existence. Among those philosophical musings, I refer to the "unit of existence" with the absolute singular term "BEING" as contrasted with the plurality of contingent "beings" and things and properties. By BEING I mean the ultimate “ground of being”, which is simply the power to exist, and the power to create beings.
Note : Real & Ideal are modes of being. BEING, the power to exist, is the source & cause of Reality and Ideality. BEING is eternal, undivided and static, but once divided into Real/Ideal, it becomes our dynamic Reality.
BothAnd Blog Glossary

I do wonder if von Neumann said this last with a wink. — Wayfarer

Von may have been teasing about using an abstruse technical term from physics to describe a mathematical function in computer code, but in retrospect he was prescient. The logical connection of Information to Entropy, led to it's physical equation with Energy. That logical relationship then pointed physicists to the conclusion that Energy & Matter are merely various forms of Generic Information (mathematical ratios). That genius hint also led to my own non-genius inference that Information is the fundamental "substance" (cf Spinoza) of the universe. Hence, referring its formless Potential state, I came to label universal essential Information as EnFormAction (the power to enform, to create). :smile:

The mass-energy-information equivalence principle :
https://aip.scitation.org/doi/10.1063/1.5123794

Agree. I don't think the word 'information' is meaningful unless it is specified - what information? By itself, the word is merely a placeholder. In other words, there really is no such thing as'information' simpliciter. — Wayfarer

That's why I was forced to coin a neologism that encapsulates Information's meaningless,(simpliciter ??), generic, undefined, unspecified, pending, potential Form : EnFormAction. EFA is not-yet-actual Energy or Matter or Mind, but the Potential for all forms in the real & ideal realms of the world. Some posters on this forum will not appreciate my metaphorical use of the ambiguous label "G*D" to describe the ultimate source & generator of all forms of Information. But it has a philosophical heritage in Spinoza's notion of a universal Substance (essence), which he ambiguously labeled "Deus Sive Natura". :nerd:

Potentiality and actuality :
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Potentiality_and_actuality

Pending : 1. not yet decided ; metaphorically hanging in limbo

EnFormAction :
* Metaphorically, it's the Will-power of G*D, which is the First Cause of everything in creation. Aquinas called the Omnipotence of God the "Primary Cause", so EFA is the general cause of every-thing in the world. Energy, Matter, Gravity, Life, Mind are secondary creative causes, each with limited application.
* All are also forms of Information, the "difference that makes a difference". It works by directing causation from negative to positive, cold to hot, ignorance to knowledge. That's the basis of mathematical ratios (Greek "Logos", Latin "Ratio" = reason). A : B :: C : D. By interpreting those ratios we get meaning and reasons.
* The concept of a river of causation running through the world in various streams has been interpreted in materialistic terms as Momentum, Impetus, Force, Energy, etc, and in spiritualistic idioms as Will, Love, Conatus, and so forth. EnFormAction is all of those.
BothAnd Blog Glossary

deus sive natura :
https://ordinaryphilosophy.com/tag/deus-sive-natura/

Conatus :
a natural tendency, impulse, or striving : conation —used in Spinozism with reference to the inclination of a thing to persist in its own being.

It could be though that matter and mind are two properties of the same stuff, which is a kind of unified dualism, contrary as that might seem. — Hillary

That is the conclusion of the Enformationism thesis. The "stuff" or "substance" in this case is what Aristotle defined as the "form" or "essence" of a thing. On the leading edge of modern science, that essential something is now identified with Integrated (unified) Information (power to enform). In that case, there is no interaction problem, only an integration function. Just as Water & Ice are different forms of the same thing, Matter & Mind are functional forms of Energy. :nerd:

Substance :
Aristotle acknowledges that there are three candidates for being called substance, and that all three are substance in some sense or to some degree. First, there is matter, second, form and third, the composite of form and matter.
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/substance/

An integration of integrated information theory with fundamental physics :
IIT considers consciousness to be an intrinsic property of matter, as fundamental as mass, charge or energy.
https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2014.00063/full

Is ‘Information’ Fundamental for a Scientific Theory of Consciousness? :
In his proposed conception of the world, information is truly fundamental and is comprised of dual aspects—corresponding to the physical and the phenomenal features of the world.
https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-981-10-5777-9_21

Is Information Fundamental? :
Could information be the most basic building block of reality?
https://www.closertotruth.com/series/information-fundamental

Shape shifting Information :
Information is the power to enform, to create, to cause change, to convey meaning. It's the essence of human consciousness & awareness. Therefore, it plays various roles in different contexts.
BothAnd Blog post 123

What is information? It has no meaning if not in the context of a context from which a piece of information in transmitted and another, completely separate context, in which it is received. — Pantagruel

Information has both the meaning of the Sender, and of the Receiver, and of the Context. So, like all things in this world, it is relative to the interpreter. :smile:


What is Information ? :
Claude Shannon labeled the basic element of computer data as "Information". That word had long been associated with various aspects of ideas in the human mind : communication, knowledge, reference, meaning, truth, etc. Yet, his quantified definition of the term focused, not on any particular semantic content, but merely the power to represent any meaningful data, from nouns to numbers. It was the comparison of incomplete or uncertain information with the physical concept of Entropy¹, that opened the door to our understanding of the universal role of Information in both the physical (matter) & metaphysical (mind) realms of reality. Some technical examples of those disparate functions are : Fisher Information (probability of X) ; Algorithmic Information (strings of commands & data in a program) ; von Neumann Entropy (quantum decay) ; and so forth. However, as expressed in a paper entitled What is Shannon Information?, “the very interpretation of the concept of information is far from unanimous.“
Excerpt from BothAnd Blog post123

Gracias. I have a fair grasp of what you're getting at señor/señorita. I'm quite satisfied what I (think I) know of your system. — Agent Smith

You won't really understand my "system" until you read the thesis. The website shows how the general idea originated from quantum & information theories, and the blog illustrates how it has evolved since, from a hunch into a universal worldview. :nerd:

PS___You can call me Mr. Sir. :joke:

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

There is one approach very easily pictured by classical thinking. With an odd non-local twist though, and it explains identical particles and their fermion and boson collective behavior intuitively clear. — Hillary

Yes. Collective behavior of randomized particles is statistically predictable. It's only when we try to keep track of individual dots that things get fuzzy. Way back, when I first was faced with quantum queerness, I imagined the photons in the slit-experiment as an aggregate of machine-gun bullets. They inundated a whole area, like a tidal wave, but it's the one with-your-name-on-it that gets you. :gasp:

Hence, from where I stand, your BothAnd principle has to either modify/discard/other the law of noncontradiction. What do, or rather what did, you do to the law of noncontradiction? — Agent Smith

I follow the pragmatic suggestion of Richard Feynman : "shut-up and calculate"! That's not ideal, it's a real-world compromise. Non-contradiction is not a law of nature, it's a philosophical rule-of-thumb. If you think you see a contradiction, first re-examine your own premises, then look at the conflicting parts in perspective of the Big Picture (the Whole System). :cool:

"Contradictions do not exist. Whenever you think you are facing a contradiction, check your premises. You will find that one of them is wrong." ___Ayn Rand

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

I understand that it may be compelling to argue how my current belief in the health and environmental impact of meat consumption may be wrong, and if you would like to argue it go ahead. But for most, I would prefer to assume my beliefs to be true for the purpose of the argument. — Louis

Arguments in favor of Vegetarianism (a belief system), as compellingly expressed by Peter Singer, are undeniable for a perfect world, such as the one portrayed in Genesis, where grass-fed lions lay down with vegetarian lambs. He's basically saying that "if I were G*D, I would have created an ideal world". The Utilitarian Argument is rigorously logical, but the pragmatic real world is more like fuzzy Logic.

So far, all Utopian dreams (sky castles) of idealistic humans have crumbled under the weight of gravity. For example, a lion has the teeth of a carnivore, which are not adapted to to an ungulate diet. Humans have the teeth of omnivores, so can survive on a meatless diet. But the big human brain is adapted to a high protein diet, which is necessary to thrive. Fortunately, it's your choice : thrive or survive . . . or use your pumped-up primate brain to make the world a better (but not perfect) place for all of its inhabitants. :smile:

The Incoherence of Peter Singer's Utilitarian Argument for Vegetarianism :
https://www.abc.net.au/religion/the-incoherence-of-peter-singers-utilitarian-argument-for-vegeta/10096418

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

BothAnd? — Agent Smith

Yes. In his book on quantum physics, Phillip Ball addressed the paradoxes inherent in the Copenhagen Interpretation. Scientists now accept QM as the foundation*1 of macro reality. However, such concepts as Wave-Particle Duality and Superposition are counter-intuitive, so for pragmatic purposes, they can only trust the numbers : "shut up and calculate". "They generally arrange quantum outcomes in such a way as to apparently permit the answers Yes and No simultaneously". Therefore, I have come to accept that the superstructure built upon such a squishy foundation is both Real & Ideal, Physical & Meta-physical. That's why I labeled my personal philosophy as BothAnd. :nerd:

*1. One way to look at it is to consider everything down to atomic scale as classical Reality, and anything below that as imaginary : Ideal. For example, when Gell-Mann coined the term "quork" for the constituent "building blocks" of subatomic particles, he seemed to have tongue-in-cheek. It was a made-up word for a mythical particle. The James Joyce term "quark" seemed to imply "non-sense". :joke:

The BothAnd Philosophy :
* Philosophy is the study of ideas & beliefs. Not which are right or wrong – that is the province of Religion and Politics – but which are closer to universal Truth. That unreachable goal can only be approximated by Reason & Consensus, which is the method of Science. In addition to ivory tower theories, applied Philosophy attempts to observe the behavior of wild ideas in their natural habitat.   
* The BothAnd philosophy is primarily Metaphysical, in that it is concerned with Ontology, Epistemology, & Cosmology. Those categories include abstract & general concepts, such as : G*D, existence, causation, Logic, Mathematics, & Forms. Unlike pragmatic scientific "facts" about the physical world, idealistic Metaphysics is a battle-ground of opinions & emotions.   
* The BothAnd principle is one of Balance, Symmetry and Proportion. It eschews the absolutist positions of Idealism vs Realism, in favor of the relative compromises of Pragmatism. It espouses the Practical Wisdom of the Greek philosophers, instead of the Perfect Wisdom of the Hebrew Priests. The BA principle of practical wisdom requires “skin in the game”* to provide real-world feedback, which counter-balances the extremes of Idealism & Realism. That feedback establishes limits to freedom and boundaries to risk-taking. BA is a principle of Character & Virtue, viewed as Phronesis or Pragmatism, instead of Piety or Perfectionism.   
* The BA philosophy is intended to be based on empirical evidence where possible, but to incorporate reasonable speculation were necessary. As my personal philosophy, the basic principle is fleshed-out in the worldview of Enformationism, which goes out of the Real world only insofar as  to establish the universal Ground of Being, and the active principle in Evolution.
BothAnd Glossary

In other words, what our our reasons for trusting reason? — Paulm12

Some people trust Reason over Intuition, partly because they want to be as rigorous as possible in their conclusions. When exposed to public scrutiny, their reasons can be expressed in objective terms, while subjective Intuition is difficult to justify, except by empathy : "you feel me?". Pragmatic reasoning is like arithmetic : 1 + 1 = 2, but intuitive insights can be creative : 1 + 1a = 2a. Precise reasoning is necessary for scientific purposes, to cancel-out the fuzzy fringes of intuition. But intuitive inspiration is also necessary to point in the right direction to the unknown destination. :smile:

"I believe in intuitions and inspirations...I sometimes FEEL that I am right. I do not KNOW that I am.”
― Albert Einstein

“The only real valuable thing is intuition.”- Albert Einstein

“Intuition is like reading a word without having to spell it out. A child can’t do that because it has had so little experience. A grown-up person knows the word because they’ve seen it often before.”― Agatha Christie

Do you think the red pill that Mr. Anderson took was sour (or bitter)? It couldn't have been sweet, he didn't look like he was enjoying the experience all that much. — Agent Smith

Perhaps it was bittersweet, like reality itself. :wink:

Bittersweet :
1 : being at once bitter and sweet especially : pleasant but including or marked by elements of suffering or regret a bittersweet ballad bittersweet memories.