Well ,let's be careful in the terms we employ here. I am not suggestg a NATURAL evolutionary emergence of a tech singularity (or significantly pivotal breakthrough moment in AI). I am suggesting the future creation of an ASI system via HUMAN intent or even HUMAN intelligent design. — universeness

Yes. That's because rapid Cultural Evolution has emerged from plodding Natural Evolution -- presumably as intended by the Programmer. However, human culture is an emergent continuation of natural evolution, but with focused Logic (Reason) and Energy (Intention). That's what I call "Intelligent Evolution"*1. :nerd:

*1.Intelligent Evolution :
This essay lays-out my hypothesis of how the Creator, in the Enformationism worldview, programmed a physical universe that could in-effect create itself from scratch. By that, I don't mean from absolutely nothing, but from a metaphorical seed or egg of cosmic mathematical potential that cosmologists call the Singularity. From that point of beginning, Evolution began some say, not with a literal bang, but with a magical "voila!" of instant inflation. Since then, our world has been emerging from potential to actual more-or-less as scientists have documented.
https://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page14.html

I agree that he is being a bit outrageous. He seems to be enjoying his work and he seems to support the viewpoint (unlike you) that the structure of the universe is fundamentally data based. At no point in his work does he support deism or suggest a mind with intent, as the first cause of our universe, in the ways that you do — universeness

Yes. He specifically denies any external intention behind the logical processing of Data in the world : "To say that corgs came from elsewhere, outside of the world would be a type of the pathetic fallacy (of assigning intent or human qualities to nature) taken to the idiotic extremes of creationism or intelligent design." To be clear, Enformationism does not "assign intent or human qualities to Nature". Instead, Nature is coasting on momentum from the initial impetus of goal-directed Intention. The only "human qualities" in the natural world, so far, are found in the homo sapiens species.

So, presumably, Scharf, like most cosmologists, just takes for granted (axiomatic) that the Energy & Laws of Nature are eternal*2. But then our physical world was shown by cosmologists to not be Eternal. So, the source of those Causal & Logical inputs can only be external & prior to the finite space-time bubble that we humans inhabit. And that's all I'm saying in the Enformationism thesis : that evolution shows signs of upward progress and purpose*3.

Yet, due to my lack of knowledge (information) about anything super-natural, I take pains to explain that the origin of creative Purpose is not attributed to the anthro-morphic God of Genesis. Instead, I refer to the Source of Information & intention as a logical Principle. So I use labels, such as G*D, Logos & First Cause to avoid the religious implications of more traditional terms. That's also the stance of the non-religious philosophy of Deism*4.

You said that Scharf -- "unlike you" (Gnomon) -- "supports the viewpoint that the structure of the universe is fundamentally data based". Which is also the viewpoint of Enformationism, except that, in place of the narrow term "Data" (datum), I use the more inclusive term "Information" (meaning). So, he & I are in agreement on that fundamental concept. We are not necessarily on the same team, but we are not opponents. :smile:

PS__I just came across an interview with mathematician, cosmologist, and consciousness theorist Roger Penrose. In response to a question about inherent meaning in the universe, he said "In a very certain sense you might say that the universe has a purpose, but I'm not sure what the purpose is." (my bold) That's also my position in the Enformationism thesis. He continues : "However, I would not say that there is something going on that might resonate with a religious perspective." Would you agree, though, that Purpose in Nature should resonate with a Philosophical perspective?

*2. Vacuum Energy :
Prior to the 20th century, the notion of Nothingness with causal properties would be tantamount to the ancient concept of eternal infinitely powerful Spirit (i.e. God). But scientists can now get away with such literal nonsense, in part, because Quantum physics has forced them to accept paradoxical & counter-intuitive properties in Nature.

*3. Purpose & Intention :
Scharf skirts around the notion of Purpose in Nature. However, right after the disparaging quotes above, he does rhapsodize that "The universe is spectacular because it is an engine of invention . . ." Doesn't that sound like Design & Intention instead of Blundering & Accident to you? He goes on to exclaim that "evolution on Earth is like a single run of a single algorithm that invented all of nature".
Note -- To Invent : create or design (something that has not existed before); be the originator of.
Doesn't "invent" imply "intent"?

*4. Deism :
An Enlightenment era response to the Roman Catholic version of Theism, in which the supernatural deity interacts and intervenes with humans via visions & miracles, and rules his people through a human dictator. Deists rejected most of the supernatural stuff, but retained an essential role for a First Cause creator, who must be respected as the quintessence of our world, but not worshipped like a tyrant. The point of Deism is not to seek salvation, but merely understanding.
https://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page12.html

Anyway, in relation to Gnomon's dialectic there is no memory of the life in the womb as such; there is no event, nothing much happens; "there's absolutely no strife, living the timeless life". Birth is the antithesis of life in the womb, the first event, and awareness is the first synthesis. Thus is the problem of evil easily answered: without the pain and terror, there would be no awareness, no subjectivity. — unenlightened

I suppose what you're implying is that "pain is a necessary evil". Hence Evil is not optional for a learning & growing process. Positive & negative feedback are how we learn in a heuristic (trial & error) process. But a nudge in the right direction should be sufficient, so why the torment of cancer? What do we learn from pain without a lesson? Maybe bad things happen to good people, simply so we can learn that "God is no respecter of persons" (Romans 2:11). Without experience of Evil (Satan), we would not recognize Good (God) -- life would be meaningless. "No awareness, no subjectivity", no cognizance, no knowing. . . . no progress, no growth, no maturation. :smile:

Is pain a necessary evil? :
No. Pain is a vital function of the body to indicate something is wrong. Without pain, we’d leave our hands on hot stoves, or walk on nails. We’d never seek treatment for many life-threatening things. We may not even notice we’re injured, or that our appendix ruptured, etc. Pain is a very, very important part of life.
https://www.quora.com/Is-pain-a-necessary-evil

Technology to the rescue ... again? Yep, I concur, it seems possible to turn earth into a paradise, but then when yin peaks, yang is just around the corner. — Agent Smith

“Being challenged in life is inevitable, being defeated is optional.” – Roger Crawford

How much credence do you give to the idea that we are heading towards an 'information/technological singularity? Is an tech singularity emergent? and (I know this is very difficult to contemplate but) what do you think will happen as a result of such a 'singularity?' — universeness

Back to the OP topic regarding the probability of evolutionary emergence of a Technological Singularity. In astro-biologist Caleb Scharf's, The Ascent of Information, he eventually gets around to speculation on the future development of his technological analogy to the biological genome. He calls it the Dataome*1, and instead being made of amino acids, it consists of core algorithms ("corgs"). Although it requires physical machines as hosts, the world-wide Dataome is essentially made of mathematical information.

Like their biological predecessors, the "corgs" evolve, and new properties emerge from the same interactive mutating & weeding (heuristic) processes of the cosmic evolutionary algorithm. He muses philosophically : "For the dataome, humans generate the one thing that we have yet to see machines or artificial algorithms produce : original information, real innovation, and open-ended novelty." Yet, he goes on to explore the possibility of something really new. "When we speculate about human transcendence, or technological singularities, or post-human futures, we're missing what's right in front of us". [my bold] Then, he addresses a side-issue : "In science we often struggle with the notion that there is something special about humans, something unique." Our superior information-processing powers (reasoning) perhaps?

In the final chapter, he discusses the roles of Energy, Entropy & Information in bringing about the next stage of Evolution. And he has the temerity to take physicist John A. Wheeler's "it from bit" conjecture seriously. "It from bit symbolizes the idea that every item of the physical world has at bottom . . . . an immaterial source and explanation . . ." [my bold] Ironically, he never uses the sci-fi term "Cyborg" (cybernetic organism), but that seems to fit his general direction*2. However, he does liken this evolutionary process to "an informational experiment". Which raises the question -- that as a scientist he is not allowed to ask -- "who is the Experimenter?" My own non-expert thesis does address such logical implications : Who asked the incalculable question*3 about "life, the universe and everything"? To whom does it matter how the cosmic experiment turns out? Who wants to know? :smile: :cool: :nerd:


*1. The Selfish Dataome :
Does the data we produce serve us, or vice versa?
https://nautil.us/the-selfish-dataome-237229/

*2. Do you find the Cyborg notion credible? It combines evolving biology with emergent technology, while, unlike the Borg, presumably retaining top-down control for each cyborganism.

*3. The cosmic question is open-ended. Hence it can only be answered by running the experiment in real-time & real-space. So here we cybernetic organic humans find ourselves as lab-rats with philosophical questions of our own.

I found his answer informative, as it highlights some of the confusions that people have, out in the lay world (me included). I think its related to our exchange here, regarding an analogue/discrete fundamental structure to our universe. — universeness

I just wanted to source a couple of 'expert' type responses, to our analogue/digital exchange, I know the discussion on this site must favour 'philosophical' musings, but useful input from expertise in an issue under discussion can assist the direction of any philosophical musings on said issue, imo. — universeness

The discrete vs continuous confusion seems to derive from two ways of interrogating Reality. Natural processes are continuous & analog, while human analysis (mathematics) is discontinuous & digital. We perceive the movie, but we conceive the individual frames. Besides, holistic Philosophical "musings" are mostly concerned with general systems, while reductive Scientific analysis is focused on parts & details.

Apparently, even the "experts" are confused about how best to "frame" reality. Google "physics analog or discrete", or "physics analog vs digital", and you will get a long list of arguments & interpretations pro & con. That either/or question seems to be a long-running debate on Quora. So, I doubt that the philosophical implications (Holism vs Reductionism) will be finally settled anytime soon.

But, that's not a problem for my BothAnd worldview. In any case, "philosophical musings" and "scientific expertise" are different ways of looking at one Reality. Philosophical musings (analogue) are about mental meanings, while Scientific analysis (reductive) is about physical results. Unfortunately, Quantum Physics is interrogating Nature on a fundamental level, on the borderline between analog wholes and digital distinctions. Thus, as usual, the confusion arises from failure to define our frames of reference : Science or Philosophy ; little pieces or big picture. :smile:


"Simply put, “analog” and “digital” refer to two different methods of encoding information on to a signal"
__Bob Myers, Quora

"Both are the two parts of ONE process".
__Prasad Kulkarni, Quora

What all these “things” have in common is that they deal with signals from the real world: analog to digital. The real world is analog — fundamentally nature is not digital — and that’s where our story begins.
https://engineering.utdallas.edu/news/archive/2018-summer/the-real-world-is-analog/

But I mentioned this last because quantum particle theory is not considered fundamental anymore, more like a limiting case of quantum field theory. Of course there’s still also a wavefunction in quantum field theory, representing the state of the system, but it is not to be confused with the fields themselves that constitute the system… but I digress. Keep that thing about optics in mind. An ordinary ray of light can be seen as either a wave or as a ray of tiny particles depending on how you look at it. — universeness

The confusion about wave-nature versus particle-nature in quantum physics was partly solved by the Field Theory, which simply kicks-the-can down the road. But the notion of fields-of-Potential-in-empty-space is fundamental to the emerging Information-centric worldview. The Field per se*1 is nothing-but abstract mathematical information : relationships between ideal points in space. But with the Potential to exhibit materialistic particle properties, or holistic wave properties, "depending on how you look at it".

That last remark is what caused the quantum pioneers to conclude that the intentional-mind-of-the-observer is a participant in the observation : "what you see is what you are looking for". or "reality doesn't exist until you measure it". That spooky mind-power is what Einstein objected to*2, although his own Relativity principle also implied that your Reality depends on your local reference Frame. The (future) "state of the system" is statistically Possible/Probable until it has been Actualized by a dynamic disruption, an intentional act, of the stable state of not-yet-real. Metaphorically, the holistic timeless immaterial balloon of statistical possibility is popped, by a pointed act-of-intention, leaving behind a particular piece of space-time matter.

All of this un-reality is what makes Quantum Theory seem weird to realistic thinkers, and Information theory to seem unreal to concrete thinkers. However, quantum scientists eventually came to accept that both individual Particle state and holistic Wave state are inherent in the mathematical statistical foundations of Nature. That's how I came by the "have your cake and eat it too" BothAnd Principle*3 of my thesis. Einstein objected to the implication that quantum "duality" would undermine his Realistic worldview, based on the classical matter-based physics of Newton. Ironically, both Materialism and Idealism are real & true, depending on how you frame your questions. :smile: :cool:


*1. In quantum theory, "the fields themselves" are like Kant's "ding an sich" : unreal, except to the mind's eye, from an ideal perspective.

*2. Einstein saw Quantum Theory as a means to describe Nature on an atomic level, but he doubted that it upheld "a useful basis for the whole of physics."
https://www.amnh.org/exhibitions/einstein/legacy/quantum-theory

*3. 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 offset 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. ( see Fuzzy Logic )
https://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page10.html

↪Gnomon
It seems your Enformationism, since it requires an equilibrium between negentropy/Enformy and entropy, is fully compatible with evil (re BothAnd) and there you rock religion's boat (religion dedicates itself to uprooting evil from society).
True, we're teleologically-oriented people and we work towards an ideal - we want, sensu amplissimo, a long (eternal), happy life, but this is exactly what The Architect and Agent Smith say we rejected in The Matrix. Hence, I suppose, me question. — Agent Smith

I'll quibble with your term "requires equilibrium". The thesis merely accepts as a fact of life, that this world is not perfect for human needs & desires, so it's necessary for us humans to work within the physical constraints of the natural world. In that case, equilibrium would be like a Mexican Standoff, in which nobody wins. Despite the odds stacked against us, we "teleological" people tend to aim for perfection (Heaven). But a fatalistic "happiness" is to settle for stable equilibrium. Yet, in the Hegelian dialectic, notice the dashed arrow down the middle of the zig-zag path of evolutionary progress. That is an interpolation of the average path through history. It's neither Good nor Evil, but acceptable, it's OK..

However, as you said, humans are both teleological and idealistic. So we shoot for the stars, and settle -- temporarily -- for a small hill. The ancient Greeks tended to be Pragmatic and Fatalistic. So, the Stoics advised that we avoid setting our sights too high, because failure to achieve your aims can lead to anxiety & depression. Nevertheless, humanity as a collective does have more control over Nature & Fate, than as individuals. Therefore, even though equilibrium allows us to barely survive, shooting for the moon (dis-equilibrium), can give us a "leg-up" (advantage) over implacable Nature. If we settled for equilibrium, we'd still be chimps climbing trees.

But that ambitious path is full of hardships & disappointments. So, while we fight Fate, we must be prepared to take our lumps without quitting. For example, putting a man on the moon was a human dream for ages. But only when technology caught up with our teleology, did that idealistic ambition become practical. In that case, persistent progressive Enformy (Good) won a round against big bad digressive Entropy (Evil).

The primary difference between the Religious "boat" and the Technological rocket is hard work instead of blind faith. 2000 years ago, one upstart Religion aimed for Heaven, but waited for a miracle. A century ago, rocket scientists made practical plans to put a man on the moon. And voila! We can now see boot prints in moon dust on YouTube. So, the lesson of Enformationism is : Nature rules, but humans are unruly. :smile:


Fatalism (revised):Everything happens due to a cause, but due to proximate and accessory causes, not to perfect and principal causes.
https://uh.edu/~cfreelan/courses/fate.html

Stoic acceptance is about accepting what is outside of what is under one's control. Human minds are prone towards agonizing over the future or the past.
https://stoameditation.com/blog/the-four-pillars-of-stoicism/

"Ah, but a man's reach should exceed his grasp, Or what's a heaven for?"
___Robert Browning

BLUE = GOOD ; GREEN = BAD ; PINK = ONE STEP FORWARD (one giant step for mankind)

THE RESULT OF BLOOD, SWEAT & TEARS, AND INTELLIGENT AIMS

I have enjoyed the exchange as well Gnomon. You are an interesting intellect with some rather eccentric notions, imo (no camouflaged insult intended). — universeness

Compared to the repressive & un-camouflaged put-downs of my un-named non-interlocutor on TPF, that is high praise! My posts are not intended to be regurgitations of conventional philosophical or scientific doctrines (approximations of truth). Instead, they are my idiosyncratic interpretations of the leading edge of an emerging new information-centric paradigm. Novelty usually emerges from off-center. :smile:

Enformationism :
This informal thesis does not present any new scientific evidence, or novel philosophical analysis. It merely suggests a new perspective on an old enigma : what is reality? The so-called “Information Age” that began in the 20th century, has now come of age in the 21st century. So I have turned to the cutting-edge Information Sciences in an attempt to formulate my own personal answer to the perennial puzzles of Ontology, the science of Existence.
http://enformationism.info/enformationism.info/page2%20Welcome.html


“We are all agreed that your theory is crazy. The question which divides us is whether it is crazy enough to have a chance of being correct. My own feeling is that it is not crazy enough.”
― Niels Bohr to Wolfgang Pauli

“One of the favorite maxims of my father was the distinction between the two sorts of truths — profound truths recognized by the fact that the opposite is also a profound truth, in contrast to trivialities where opposites are obviously absurd.”

“How wonderful that we have met with a paradox. Now we have some hope of making progress.”

“Every sentence I utter must be understood not as an affirmation, but as a question.”
— Bohr

See, you do have the basic ingredients to weave some form of salvation into your Enformationism. Anyway, what I find intriguing is that in your theory the simulation is reality, making the idea of moksha moot. Your point seems to be that The Architect of The Matrix is your Enformer aka G*D. Remember what Agent Smith says to Morpheus - we rejected the first Matrix (no evil/paradise) for the current version of The Matrix (with evil)? That says a lot, oui? We're not actually interested in liberation/salvation. What then is the deal here? What exactly do we want? — Agent Smith

What do we want? As teleological-thinking beings, we want what we do not have, but can imagine : Perfection. We can envision a new improved simulation of reality, and we can try to work together to make our imaginary future Utopia into a here & now real Reality*1. Unfortunately for us Idealists, only the Architect of the Matrix controls the whole complex system from a central Nexus (the program of evolution). All we humans can do is fiddle with peripheral levers & dials of Nature. Which is what pragmatic scientists attempt to do . . . . with mixed results. We are only interested in Salvation from the less-than-ideal results of natural & cultural changes.

Each of us humans is an architect of our own simulation of Reality : our personal imaginary worldviews. The only problem with living in a private subjective simulation of an abstract Ideality, is that Nature has constructed a material world that is not so easily modified by the personal Soul/Mind to suit our individual preferences. Moreover, that external world is populated with other Avatars (Souls) that are playing by their selfish internal values. Thus, creating obstacles to our own little plans.

Why does the second simulation of Matrix/World incorporate Evil into its design*2? Logically, Progress (growth & learning) are impossible without empty space in which to evolve. Morally, that undefined space in between fixed mandates is optional (neutral). Hence, our individual selfish choices can have good or bad effects on the overall (objective) system. Literature is full of examples of Evil results caused by short-sighted choices. The Enformationism world was also designed to be autonomous, to find its own way into the future via trial & error. The errors are what we call "Evil" or "Bad" depending on degree of severity*3. Nature, like any computation, must deal with internal errors of Syntax (rule violations). But complex Culture is faced with errors of Semantics (meanings : values)

Presumably, the evolving Universe, viewed as an autonomous computer program (sovereign, self-determining, independent), is running on schedule ; with internal error corrections ; not knocked off course by our insignificant human glitches ; and not requiring maintenance & repair interventions by the IT-tech/Programmer. For us Avatars/Earthlings inside the cosmic program, the ups & downs of Hegelian dialectic are perceived as Good or Evil : relative to our own personally-plotted course into the future*4. Fortunately, the program includes exit visas (limited lifespan) to terminate the agony & ecstasy. Another way out (salvation) of this on-course cruise through time is via the Escape pod (esc button) of voluntary death (suicide). Or, you could hit ctrl-alt-del and reboot. However, in order to go to Heaven or Samsara, you'd have to create it first. From scratch. As your personal simulation. :cool:


*1. True Reality :
On the other hand, all humans are constantly exposed to reminders that the world we experience is both Real and Ideal. Yet, we instinctively know the difference between the material things out there, and our immaterial thoughts in here. We can distinguish between physical sensations, and our feelings about those perceptions. We easily discern the difference between public phenomena, and the private meanings or values of those sensory experiences. For empirical scientific purposes, those ideal aspects of the world can be safely ignored. But for theoretical personal reasons we have no other choice but to deal with the unreal.
https://bothandblog.enformationism.info/page30.html

*2. Designer Universe :
Even so, they may wonder why an ideal divine designer, working from scratch, would make an imperfect world with ongoing conflicts between good & evil, vestigial organs, and eyeballs with light receptors behind a veil of veins. The only logical answer to the Evil conundrum is that imperfections are inherent in a space-time fragment of Enfernity (Eternity/Infinity), and that defects are to be expected in the incomplete on-going creative process of evolution. Only in a transcendent changeless state-of-being could you presume to find absolute perfection and categorical Holiness; to find G*D. And you can’t expect that perfect BEING to act like an imperfect human designer, who makes mistakes from ignorance. Instead, you’d expect any “defects” to be intentional and necessary to the ultimate goal of the system. Hence, that teleological purpose would be known only to the Great Intender.
https://www.bothandblog.enformationism.info/page49.html

*3. Evil is the failure of Perfection :
Smith said that the first Matrix was built to ensure that the people who were plugged into it did not experience any negative emotion, there was no suffering, everything was perfect.
He said it was a disaster, and it ultimately failed. The Architect said this too in the 2nd movie.
Why though? What exactly happened with that version of the Matrix that caused it to fail? Did the people who were plugged into it, eventually realize that everything was fake because they thought it was too good to be real? . . . .
The problem was choice.
https://www.reddit.com/r/matrix/comments/b3ociq/why_did_the_first_matrix_fail/

*4. Evil is the cost of Choice :
Olson makes a surprising admission that I agree with, "There is no evidence from nature and reason alone that God is good. Nor is there any evidence from nature or reason alone that the good life includes care for others unless it benefits oneself " . Indeed, his Old Testament god intervened frequently and directly in the affairs of his chosen people. But elsewhere in the world other cultures blamed miracles & calamities on their local gods. And in all times & places, bad things happened to good people, and vice-versa — as-if the gods were randomly pushing buttons on the control panel of their little domains. So I have concluded, not that the G*D of Nature is erratic or impotent, but that the old pre-scientific notion of gods as specific material causes of natural events, was off the mark. Instead, I think the creation was intended to be autonomous, with no divine interventions necessary to correct either natural or cultural mistakes.
https://www.bothandblog.enformationism.info/page69.html

PS__Quote from Quora :
Q. If the universe is a simulation, why did our ''masters'', or the person who is running this simulation, allow us to become smart enough to wonder if the universe was a simulation?
A. If the universe (or our perception of it) is in fact just some giant simulation (and, for the record, I do not discount that possibility as wildly crazy), then there must be a very good chance the whole point of the simulation is to see how long it takes us to reach self awareness.
Note : others have speculated that the Teleology of this simulation is to create Demigods. But I have no idea about the end goal (telesis) ; only the inference that physical/mental Evolution is causing the emergence of more physical complexity, which allows nonphysical concepts to emerge, some of which are teleological. So, it's reasonable to infer that the Great Simulator had the Potential for end-directed programming.

PPS__
"Goal-Driven Software Development Process (GDP) is an iterative and incremental software development technique. Although similar to other modern process models, GDP is primarily focusing on identifying goals before setting the requirements and explicitly utilizing the bottom-up design approach."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goal-Driven_Software_Development_Process
Note -- From an information-centric perspective, Natural Evolution seems to be a "bottom-up" design process, as contrasted to the "top-down" approach of Genesis.

Gnomon, remember you said, quite a number of times, that your Enformationism doesn't offer any soteriological services. I see an opening here. How exactly you'll work the idea of moksha into your theory is currently beyond me. — Agent Smith

Sorry, soteriological services are not on the menu for Enformationism. Instead, the default assumption, pending alternative evidence, is that this positive/negative world, this good/bad life is as good as it gets. As the semi-buddhist Stoics advised, all you have control over is your attitude (mind-set, philosophical framing) toward imperfect reality. Don't put your faith in a future Afterlife or Nirvana, just adapt your mind to your current situation. As Hamlet says to himself, as he contemplates self-salvation (suicide) : “There is nothing either good or bad, but thinking makes it so”. Of course, a defeatist attitude is only going to allow the bad to get worse. Yet an optimistic attitude will allow you to maneuver around the potholes in life's road.

The notion of Moksha (release from rebirth) is based on the hypothesis of physical Reincarnation. However, endless cycles of life are just as much a Hindu myth (taken on faith) as the Christian hope for a heavenly hereafter, with new spiritual bodies. Proponents of both a one-time eternal-life in Heaven, and of multiple lifetimes on Earth, must interpret the rare evidential events (e.g. remembrances of past lives ; near-death scenarios) with a generous helping of hopeless hope for salvation from the generational cycles of Evolution. But if human lives are naturally "brief candles in the dark" then some outside savior would be necessary to re-light the flame. However, Atheist Buddhism assumes no deity to correct his own creation mistakes, including tedious never-ending Samsara. So, why should we expect Nature to provide emergency exits for the life/death cycle that has been going-on from the beginning of mortal Life?

The Enformationism thesis admits the arguable possibility that the information complex (pattern, code) that constitutes your Self/Soul could be recycled by the Enformer, just as you can copy & paste information on your computer*1. But as far as I can see, such a redo is not included in the overall plan of Evolution. Unfortunately, such a re-boot would only be required if there was something seriously wrong with the pattern (of unique-but-perishable Souls) that has been unfolding for the last 14 billion solar cycles.

Historically, human sages have postulated a variety of incompatible natural or super-natural Plans of Salvation. Therefore, if your life is unsatisfactory, the only way out is self-salvation via a no-return exit. Hence, even the recently-posited godless Technological Singularity is based on the mythical belief that humanity as a whole, not as individuals, can gain control over the ups & downs of Nature by learning how to adjust the thermostat, to eliminate radical up & down swings. Unfortunately, for Samsara seekers, creating a techno-utopia on this "third rock", or another planet circling an alien sun --- would on benefit our descendants, not us progenitors..

Both Eastern reincarnation & Western heavenly hereafters are philosophical conjectures that seek to correct the imbalance & injustice of The Way It Is, via imaginary future scenarios. But, if God or Nature got it wrong in the first place, what hope do unruly humans have to expect a loop-hole that lets them out of the cosmic system. Besides, Divine Justice delayed is justice denied*3. As a middle path, the Tao is a dynamic balancing act, which allows us to move forward despite teetering between the abyss on left & right*3. The only salvation from fear of a disastrous fall, is in the calm Stoic mind of the tight-rope walker. This taut-wire we call Life is the only Path we have. So, don't look down. :smile: :joke:



*1. Technical Reincarnation :
The notion of downloading a person's definitive information into a computer, and then uploading the data to enform a new body (in a whirl of sparkles) in a new location was proposed as "The Transporter" in the Star Trek TV series. But the writers also philosophized about the negative effects of having your data accidentally scrambled : "is this new Self really me?" The downside of data errors was also dramatized in the movie "The Fly".

*2. Delayed Divine Justice :
Like the god of Job and the Stoics, the god of Neo-Deism is, for practical purposes, equivalent to implacable Nature, which has absolute power over all natural creatures. That's why humans gradually developed their own Culture, with man-made rules to suit their own needs and desires. Over the years, civilizations have become more & more estranged from Nature, in their attempts to escape its inhumane rewards & punishments. They have tried their best to create “Justice systems” that reward goodness, and punish bad behavior. The lesson here is to stop waiting for the impartial judge to impose justice from above, or for a Messiah or superhero to save us, but to work together toward a more ethical, stable and fair society. It’s up to us to level the playing field.
https://www.bothandblog.enformationism.info/page60.html
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Justice_delayed_is_justice_denied

*3. Tao Balance :
Though often referred to as a religion, Taoism (or Daosim) isn’t similar to an organised religion whose tenants are based on a divine revelation for attaining a good afterlife. Instead Taoism, which expounds on the philosophy of the Tao – broadly translated as “way” or “path”, serves as a system of guidance for one to find balance and harmony with existence. This balance is summarised in Taoism’s Yin and Yang principle, which sees the world with complementary forces, such as light and dark, active and inert, or hot and cold.
https://asianinspirations.com.au/experiences/taoism-finding-balance/

I am aware that there are possible clear attempts at definitions of soul, mind, spirit and self. However, while these may be interesting and useful, I am interested more in how such definitions and concepts inform the understanding of consciousness on a philosophical level. What do you think about the various concepts in the understanding of consciousness? Which of these concepts are more helpful or unhelpful in the twentieth first century climate of philosophical thought, especially in relation to the mind-body problem? — Jack Cummins

FWIW, I have explored that same question in several posts on the BothAnd Blog. The traditional terms you listed go back thousands of years. Which indicates that the Mind/Body distinction has always been important to philosophical thinkers. Until recently, that is. Modern materialists smugly simply the problem by asserting that the Mind is just the function of the Brain.

But then, what material is that "function" made of? My answer is that the fundamental element/substance of the real world is not solid Matter, but aethereal Information. It's not an empirical/physical solution, but a theoretical/metaphysical answer to the ancient conundrum of "how does Matter think & feel"? If you are interested in such enformed musings, I can provide some links for perusal. Here's a sample. :smile:

Self/Soul :
On the Thoughts Explained Blog*, “The Moral Skeptic” discusses a split-brain experiment that seemed to show that the human neural system can generate two separate minds. Thus, proving that there is no unique Soul existing apart from brain functions. That empirical evidence would indeed cast doubt on traditional notions of a spiritual Soul.
But it demonstrates what you would expect if the Enformationism concept of the emergent "Self" is correct : the Mind is merely an operational function of brain processes, a behavior, not a thing. As an essential part of the mind’s operations, the Self is an imaginary symbol, like an Avatar, to represent the system in its inter-actions with the outside world.
https://bothandblog.enformationism.info/page67.html
Note -- The Enformationism thesis postulates that Generic Information (power to enform ; causation ; energy/mass) is the essence of both Matter & Mind ; both Brain & Function.

Seems like a moot question, since in your next sentence, you profess your implicit credence level in what you have just labelled YOUR 'god-model of Enformationism,' confirming that your proposals are modelled on god posits. God of the gaps imo. — universeness

No. My hypothetical proposals, as described in the Enformationism thesis, are modeled on cutting edge Information Theory & Quantum Physics. The "god-posit" emerged logically from the cosmic implications of those fundamental sciences. Especially Plato's notion of "Logos"*1.

As a layman-with-nothing-to-lose myself, I am more open about the contributions of ancient philosophers to modern worldviews and cosmologies. For example, astrophysicist Caleb Scharf, in The Ascent of Information, admits the similarity of his technical sounding term "Dataome" to the New Agey term "Noosphere" of paleontologist Teilhard de Chardin and mathematician Ed LeRoy. Unlike them though, he doesn't extend his InfoSphere (mind field) to its logical implication of an original Cause (Enformer).

Nevertheless, your unconcealed prejudice against (contempt for) Meta-Physical concepts makes discussion of such non-empirical-but-rational ideas not "moot", but off-the-table. Anyway, I have enjoyed the opportunity to respond to your gauntlet challenges, which ironically contribute to the evolution of the Enformationism thesis. They are worded in somewhat more open-ended & less derogatory-dismissive terms than another interlocutor, who shall remain nameless. But both of you seem innocently unaware that there is a "gap" in Physics, to be filled by Metaphysics : i.e. by Philosophy. :smile:


*1. Platonic Principle Logos :
By the time of Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle, logos was the term established to describe the faculty of human reason and the knowledge men had of the known world and of other humans. Plato allowed his characters to engage in the conceit of describing logos as a living being in some of his dialogues.
The Greek word "logos" means "order," "word," and "reason." It indicates a rational explanation in contrast to a mythological explanation.
https://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Logos.

*2. Noosphere :
a postulated sphere or stage of evolutionary development dominated by consciousness, the mind, and interpersonal relationships (frequently with reference to the writings of Teilhard de Chardin).
"creatures evolve: a new biosphere emerges, and with it a new noosphere"
___Wiki

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

↪Gnomon
Oh darn, I was hoping for a different discussion. But I suspect it is unrealistic to hope for the discussion I want. — Athena

Sorry. This forum's discussions are mostly Analytical & Abstract & Masculine, so they are seldom about practical applications of philosophical concepts. However, a correspondent from a previous forum (Cathy), recently contacted me, noting that her current project is a blog/forum about "purposeful action". You can check it out at https://dialogosconnect.com/ . :smile:


"For Charles S. Peirce, dialogos via semiosis is the essence of thought"
___Quote from DialogosConnect

No, I am interested in the personal credence level you assign to posits such as deism, or the actual existence of a prime mover, creator of the universe, that was/is an eternal mind/conscience, with intent and purpose, that caused it to create/be the vital or divine spark that IS the first and only cause that created this universe. I would also like to know as many details as an interlocuter is willing to offer, regarding why they assign the credence level they do, to such posits, and why they have a need for such. — universeness

Are you asking for a profession of faith? The god-model of Enformationism is a product of my own imagination, and I believe in it implicitly. Do you have a comprehensive personal worldview? How much credence do you place in its tenets? Incredulity toward alternative creeds, even those that are held by billions of rational humans, is a sign of healthy skepticism. But blanket skepticism is self-sabotaging for a philosopher.

FYI, I don't believe that the ultimate mind-model of Enformationism is Real : instead it is Ideal, an idea, a general concept, a universal*1. A god-model is useful only to the degree it can be instantiated in the particular world. For example, we observe instances of human creativity in the Arts & Sciences, of which the postulated Creator is the exemplar. We know of things taking on novel forms in Evolution, due to selection of instances of fitness, and the Enformer is the epitome (perfection) of enforming. Natural Selection chooses entities based on fitness criteria. And the Programmer of the evolutionary algorithm is the ultimate critic of fitness. Or, did you believe Nature "just happened" for no reason? If so, I have some fairy stories for you.

Except for proposing a hypothetical philosophical Origin Story, Enformationism is a form of Humanism*2. Like ancient Philosophy, it proposes an ultimate Cause & Reason for the logical organization of the physical & metaphysical realms of the world : e.g. Logos. Like modern Deism it bases its frame for finite Reality upon the Axiom of Infinite Potential. Physical Science gives us reasons to believe that the world began billions of years ago, like a seed with the potential to become a great oak.

But materialist science emerged in the middle of a long-running story, and meekly accepts the mysterious emergence of Nature from the unknown without question. So, unlike Philosophy, it has no need for conceptual germs or implicit potentials. Yet, since we observe "intents & purposes" in the space-time world, why not look for evidence of a kernal of Potential in the beginning? Personally, what scientists blandly call the mathematical "Singularity" preceding the Big Bang, is a likely candidate for the Program of Enformation that drives Evolution. Do you have a better idea? :smile:

PS__I don't believe in ideals such as Democracy, except as they serve as a guide to practice in the real world. I place no credence in anything outside of space-time, except to the extent that it provides a starting point for logical reasoning : Axiom.

*1. Universals :
In metaphysics, a universal is what particular things have in common, namely characteristics or qualities. In other words, universals are repeatable or recurrent entities that can be instantiated or exemplified by many particular things.
___Wiki

*2. Humanism :
***An outlook or system of thought attaching prime importance to human rather than divine or supernatural matters. Humanist beliefs stress the potential value and goodness of human beings, emphasize common human needs, and seek solely rational ways of solving human problems.
***A system of thought criticized as being centered on the notion of the rational, autonomous self and ignoring the unintegrated and conditioned nature of the individual.
***Humanism is an approach to life based on reason and our common humanity, recognizing that moral values are properly founded on human nature and experience alone.

So what if we took you seriously and formed a civic association to manifest a new belief? — Athena

Please don't take me seriously, because I was not proposing the formation of a Deist religion. Years ago, I participated in a local organization based upon a college student's Deist worldview, which came to be known as Universism*1 --- not to be confused with Universalism. The group included a range of philosophical perspectives, from Atheism, Agnosticism, New Age, to Deism. Almost anything except conventional Western religion.

As a web-based organization, it eventually included members from all parts of the world. So, there is indeed a widespread felt need for some alternative to top-down organized Religion. Unfortunately, it eventually fell apart along the lines of those pre-existing labels I mentioned. Bottom-up religions just don't seem to have enough internal cohesion without some mandatory outside force. Which usually results in the formal creedal organizations they were intended to avoid*2. To enforce cohesion, top-down Religions and Governments seem to be necessary evils, that are riddled with evils of their own.

So, my recommendation is to form loose, non-governmental civic associations to deal with practical civic & social issues, and let your own personal philosophical worldview govern your individual behavior. Meanwhile, I suspect that a "new belief" system is already emerging, along the lines of my own personal Enformationism worldview. Perhaps, by the end of this century that enformed (inter-relationship structured) "belief" will even become common, but not dominant, in the interconnected "participatory" information milieu. :smile:


*1. Universism :
Universism posits that religious philosophy should not be conceived in terms of one's views toward God, but rather the method and attitude with which one approaches religious questions.
http://www.universist.org/

*2. Christianity began with rejection of the Law of Moses that had held Judaism together for centuries, despite their trials & tribulations. But look at Christianity now : the Imperial Roman church and its offspring are crumbling into "spiritual but not religious" segments, searching for freedom from the "creeds of men"

I am an atheist and a naturalist and I think that application of the scientific method, is the ONLY way to find the answers to any questions about origins. Philosophers can certainly help a great deal, as their musings can make scientists think in ways that can redirect their focus, and can help them discover new approaches for discovering new knowledge. — universeness

I am a non-theist and a naturalist. And I think the "scientific method" is the best way to find answers to empirical questions. But the philosophical methods of inquiry are better suited to formulating plausible answers to non-empirical problems, such as Ontology & Epistemology & Cosmology. If you have no interest in non-physical topics, there's no need for Philosophy. :nerd:

A bit? Would this not mean you would have to abandon your 'analogue' view as the most credible candidate for a universal fundamental? Surely before you think of something such as 'Quark,' you must first tackle what the quark is formed inside of? What is space made of? Does space have 'quantum fluctuations? — universeness

A "bit" (binary digit) was proposed as an information-based analogy to an atom of matter. So what better way to theorize about the beginning of the universe, from an Information-centric perspective? My little scenario of the beginning of the world, is an extrapolation from the philosophical Enformationism thesis. But, if you want scientific credentials, look at physicist John A. Wheeler's "It From Bit" conjecture*1, and his proposals for a Participatory Universe and Anthropic Principle.

As usual, your queries are seeking empirical answers to questions that are non-empirical. For example, the Inflationary-beginning hypothesis is an attempt to provide the kind of concrete facts you seek. Yet, as an imaginary extrapolation from current knowledge of physics, Inflation Theory is not built upon empirical evidence, but of inferred speculations from amorphous temperature patterns in the Cosmic Microwave Background*2. :smile:

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

*2. Evidence for Cosmic Inflation Theory Bites the (Space) Dust :
Two groups of scientists announced today (Jan. 30) that a tantalizing signal — which some scientists claimed was "smoking gun" evidence of dramatic cosmic expansion just after the birth of the universe — was actually caused by something much more mundane: interstellar dust.
https://www.space.com/28423-cosmic-inflation-signal-space-dust.html

I was with you for the first few sentences here and then you went to woo woo land.
Why do you decide to plug in a singularity with anthropomorphic 'intent' and invoke the useless god label. Why do you choose to jump from the very rational 'potential to actualize' to ...... god-like-powers. — universeness

I was being deliberately provocative. But, how else can you explain the pre-big-bang and pre-space-time existence of Potential (causal power) and Laws (instructions for organization)? I can think of only two options : Eternal Nature (spaceless-timeless physics) or Eternal Mind (god). And both are beyond the reach of empirical evidence. So, I just used the conventional term for a pre-creation Creative Power. But I have other names, if you find the G-word too-woo-woo-for-you. :joke:

The problem here, is that there is no way we currently know of, to observe the universe in its biggest frame of reference (if 'biggest' makes any sense here). — universeness

. . . . Way! . . . Actually, there is a way to view the universe as a whole system, from a god-like perspective outside the system : Cosmology. It's both a recent scientific venture, and an ancient philosophical conjecture. :cool:

*3. Philosophical cosmology
Cosmology deals with the world as the totality of space, time and all phenomena. Historically, it has had quite a broad scope, and in many cases was found in religion. In modern use metaphysical cosmology addresses questions about the Universe which are beyond the scope of science.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmology

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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



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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

*2. Materialism, also called physicalism, in philosophy, the view that all facts (including facts about the human mind and will and the course of human history) are causally dependent upon physical processes, or even reducible to them.
https://www.britannica.com/topic/materialism-philosophy
Note -- A century ago, Quantum theory began to undermine the foundation of classical physics. Physicists, such as John A. Wheeler, concluded that everything in the world can be "reduced to" bits of information (immaterial mind-stuff).

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

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

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

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

THESIS DEVELOPMENT CONTINUED :

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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



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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

↪Gnomon
:up: — Agent Smith

↪180 Proof
:up: — Agent Smith

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

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

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


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


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

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

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

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

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

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



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


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

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

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

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


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

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

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