But if logical necessity is separable from physical causation, then this claim can't be maintained. A logical inference is, in very simple terms, "that if this is the case, then that must be so". And here the 'must' is that of logical necessity. — Wayfarer

Slightly off-topic, but perhaps on point.

A physicist writing about Quantum Theory, clarified her use of the word "information" : "First, what is information? It’s basically the ability to distinguish between alternatives." (Bateson : "the difference that makes a difference", a meaningful distinction in a mind) Her illustration is an if-then proposition, similar to your own. So, the implication is that fundamentally, Information (meaning) is a function of mental Logic, not of material Physics.

Hence, to restate your question : is Logical Necessity caused by some physical force or entity? Or is it a fundamental principle of Reality? Is it a law of Physics, or a law of Meta-Physics? Are natural Laws (physical regularities) necessary (absolute) or contingent (fortuitous)? If they could be otherwise, what was the prior Cause (the "must") of their necessity for the emergence & evolution of the physical world? Are natural laws a logical prerequisite for any functioning physical cosmic machine? Or merely for our local 'verse? Oh, yeah! Who says? :joke:


What is the difference between logical necessity and physical necessity? :
Nomological necessity is necessity according to the laws of physics and logical necessity is necessity according to the laws of logic, while metaphysical necessities are necessary in the sense that the world could not possibly have been otherwise.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metaphysical_necessity

First, what is information? It’s basically the ability to distinguish between alternatives. The basic unit of information is the bit, the amount of information you gain if you have no idea of the answer to a yes-or-no question and then you learn the answer.
https://bigthink.com/13-8/quantum-steampunk/

What kinda a particle would you say deserves the name The God Particle? It has to be, well, fundamental to reality as we know it, oui? — Agent Smith

Non. I use the word G*D, to refer to the Whole of which we humans and sub-atomic dots are merely Parts. No part is fundamental to reality. However, I do sometimes refer to Generic Information as "fundamental". It's not a particle though, but the Creative Potential for all real forms. Maybe, we could call it the "God Potential", non? :joke:

Why it's called the God particle? Because it's supposed to give mass (which can be explained in a more natural way)? — Haglund

It beats me! :smile: I'm not good or knowledgeable in physics.
(I asked that only to put Agent Smith's point in the right perspective.) — Alkis Piskas

To put this question in the "right perspective", here's the punch line : Physicist Leon Lederman labeled his book on the Higgs Boson as The God Particle, partly to suggest that it world explain one of the great remaining mysteries of physics : the cause of gravitation. But, the tongue-in-cheek name was also intended to be provocative, perhaps to tweak the know-it-alls who see no need for a Universal or First Cause of the physical world. :joke:

The Man Who Coined 'The God Particle' Explains: It Was A Joke! :
https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2013/03/15/174440162/the-man-who-coined-the-god-particle-explains-it-was-a-joke

Then a schizophrenics self-image is not a delusion or a hallucination either? — Harry Hindu

Again, you are using a prejudicial comparison to implicitly label the trans-person as insane. I don't personally know any trannies, yet “gender dysphoria” is not considered to be a medical condition. Instead, it's an emotional distress, due to a conflict between self-image & social labels. Their "mental" problem is similar to other marginalized people, who are bullied in school and online.

I don't know where you get your information, but since your bias seems to be pretty firm, I won't try to argue with your other "mythical" assertions. Perhaps someone with more direct knowledge of the physical & social aspects of being a social outcast can offer you a different perspective of the gender/genetic story. :smile:

Myth #8: Transgender people are mentally ill :
https://www.vox.com/identities/2016/5/13/17938120/transgender-people-mental-illness-health-care

With respect to "the criterion of objectivity": I did some research on the word and found that it only comes into use in the early modern period. — Wayfarer

That's an interesting observation. The late emergence of "objectivity", as a formal verbalizable concept , may be explainable in terms similar to Julian Jaynes' theory of the bicameral mind. He proposed that explicit human consciousness was a consequence of complex social interactions, requiring words to distinguish me from you. I don't know if that thesis is provable, but it's certainly suitable for philosophical conjectures.

Another possible connection, that occurred to me, is the Golden Bough postulation, that the distinction between religious (magical) beliefs and scientific (empirical) thought processes may have evolved along with the emergence of technologies, that gave man more control over his environment. Again, It not only became possible to discriminate between objective Nature and subjective Mind, but it became necessary to articulate the difference between the subjective speaker and objective hearer ; between imagination and perception. My understanding of such things is quite superficial, but it may deserve more research. :smile:

The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind :
The book addresses the problematic nature of consciousness – “the ability to introspect” – which in Jaynes’ view must be distinguished from sensory awareness and other processes of cognition. Jaynes presents his proposed solution: that consciousness is a “learned behavior” based more on language and culture than on biology
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Origin_of_Consciousness_in_the_Breakdown_of_the_Bicameral_Mind

The Golden Bough :
. . . . suggested to him that Hegel had anticipated his view of "the nature and historical relations of magic and religion". Frazer saw the resemblance as being that "we both hold that in the mental evolution of humanity an age of magic preceded an age of religion, and that the characteristic difference between magic and religion is that, whereas magic aims at controlling nature directly, religion aims at controlling it indirectly through the mediation of a powerful supernatural being or beings to whom man appeals for help and protection."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Golden_Bough
Note -- Ironically, science has given us the technological power, "indistinguishable from magic", that the previous generations could only imagine, and pretend to do symbolically & metaphorically.

And I think you're still actually thinking within that mode, while wanting to see beyond it, and sensing something beyond it That's why you revert to the images of 'ghostliness' or 'ethereality' to depict your understanding of anything 'beyond the empirical', because you still are trying to conceive of what is beyond it in quasi-objective terms. — Wayfarer

Actually, the Enformationism thesis requires that I think beyond the conventional modes of Dualism & Matrerialism, into a more Holistic BothAnd way of thinking. Unfortunately, I came to that crossroad late in life. So, I'm still picking my way along an unfamiliar path. And, in my posts on this forum, I must assume that most of us are still thinking in terms of that "customary attitude". Until we learn how to read minds, and to communicate directly from mind to mind, we'll be forced to discuss "what is beyond" in "quasi-objective terms". :nerd:

I parse the entire subject of the reality of ideas differently. My view is that proper 'intelligible objects' such as natural numbers, scientific principles, and the like, are real, but they're not existent things - they don't exist in the same way that regular objects do. They are strictly speaking noumenal - meaning 'objects of mind', although the sense in which they are 'objects' is debatable. — Wayfarer

I suppose you are viewing "intelligible objects" from a god-like Rationalist perspective -- from outside the world system. As far as God is concerned, everything in the world is real, and objective. But. from the human point-of-view, we depend on physical senses for most of our knowledge of reality. So, what Epistemologists refer to as a priori knowledge is literally non-sense. We obtain such god-like knowledge via reasoning from specific sensory data to generalized concepts -- which are not real things, but artificial (synthetic) propositions about holistic collections of things & logical relationships. Hence, we can only communicate those intangible ideas in terms of metaphors analogous to physical things.

The Logical Positivists denied that humans are capable of "synthetic" a priori knowledge. So, they dismissed such non-empirical information as mere imaginary fantasies. I'm not a Logical Positivist, but I am aware that most people apply the term "Real" only to what they can see & touch. Any other forms of knowledge are either Un-real or Ideal or spiritual or "ghostly", and consequently their "existence" is debatable. That's why -- although Enformationism includes both aspects (real & ideal) as forms of Generic Information -- for the sake of clarity, I try to make a distinction between those ways of being. Even on this Philosophy Forum. when we discuss noumenal concepts, the debates can become never-ending. So, I am constantly forced to define my definitions to make sure that my Ideal meta-physical metaphors are not interpreted as assertions of real physical things.

Nevertheless, I like to discuss all "intelligible" topics, but those that are "synthetic" (rational) instead of natural (physical) need to be handled with kid-gloves to avoid mis-interpretation. Hence, a ghost is analogous to a human body, but some will take it to be a real entity, that under certain conditions, or with technical instruments, can be rendered sensible to the physical senses (re: shrouded image in previous post). So, I agree that "the sense in which they are 'objects' is debatable". :cool:

Where that presents difficulties, is that there is no provision in most people's minds for things to exist in different ways - in other words, things either exist, or they don't. — Wayfarer

Yes. But the Enformationism thesis is all about the "different ways" (forms) that things can exist. Which is what makes its phenomenal & noumenal topics so hard for some, especially philosophical Realists & Logical Positivists, to conceive. For them, you are either a truth-seeking Realist, or a fantasy-seeking Idealist. Hence, my complementary notion of BothAnd does not compute. :meh:

However I've had very little luck finding people to share these interests with, particularly so among my peers and therefore I'd really love to find people my own age with similar interests. — Nick563

Welcome to the club. At most human gatherings, philosophers are as popular as wet blankets. :wink:

On the bright side, this forum does have special categories for personal interests. Look at the column to the left, labeled "Categories". These may be somewhat less contentious than the more technical philosophical topics. :nerd:

There’s nothing ‘ghostly’ about mathematical logic applied to physical processes. That enables us to peer into the domain of pure possibility and actualise something we see in material form. That’s how inventions happen! — Wayfarer

It was just a metaphor. We can imagine logical relationships, but we can't see or touch them. So, we talk about logical relationships as-if they were physical connections. Those metaphors & analogies allow us to "peer into" un-actualized possibilities. And, by following the implicit Logic, to make some of those not-yet-real concepts/patterns become real physical things (inventions). "Spirit! Reveal yourself!" :joke:

The Experiment at the Institut Metapsychique, Paris :gasp:


PS__For clarity of exposition, I try to keep mental stuff (ideas) and physical stuff (matter) separate. If we refer to Ideals as-if they are Real, confusion ensues. They are not the same thing, but they are related as varieties of Information.

t's my guess that when matter, particles, are in some nice shape wrt each other, the total mass is someone higher. Or, on a memory chip, if the 1's and 0's show an ordered pattern, the mass of the chip is slightly higher than if they showed randomness. What if the showed total order? Say all 1 or all 0? — Haglund

I'm not sure what you meant by "nice shape", but in information theory it's the relationships that make the "form" or "pattern" or "meaning". So, perhaps the degree & kind of inter-relationship (0% to 100%, angular/linear, etc) defines the properties of the particle. But, I'm also just guessing. Along the same lines, I understand that energy at light-speed is massless, but as light energy slows down, it gains weight (mass). In other words, matter (mass) is just heavy light. Of course, physicists may not appreciate such an over-simplified layman's explanation. But it works for my amateur information-based worldview.

Regarding "total order" (100% crystalline), defined as completely non-random, there would be no room for motion or change, So the system would freeze-up like a block of ice. Likewise, zero order would be completely random, with no patterns and no forms or meanings. But the human mind is not equipped to even imagine such things, except in the form of metaphors (block of ice). Human logic only works in the normal range, in the middle of the possibility (Bell) curve. When we conjecture at the extremes, the margin for error approaches infinity. :gasp:

Are you saying that there are no such thing as delusional disorders? — Harry Hindu

No. You are interpreting a trans-person's self-image as a delusion. But, if so, your own self-image would also be a delusion. :wink:

So are you saying that there is a little homosexuality in all of us - — Harry Hindu

No. That's irrelevant to what I said. Instead, the implication is that a fertilized egg is not predetermined as male or female. Instead, it is transformed into one gender or another during development. So, copying errors of DNA, or delays in adding certain hormones can result in a fetus with features of both genders. :nerd:

Where is your source? Transgenderism is extremely rare (<1%). — Harry Hindu

No. I didn't say that trans-gender-people are 10%-15% of the general population. The reference was to all forms of gender abnormality. And the percentage is just a guess. LGBTQ people prefer the higher numbers, but what's important for us to understand is that gender anomalies are fairly common. If you want sources, just Google "genetic gender anomalies". :cool:

Political laws do not define gender. Science does — Harry Hindu

Unfortunately, political laws do try to define gender. :worry:

The legal definition of gender as 'the two sexes, male and female, within the context of society,' might change once and for all
https://dukeundergraduatelawmagazine.org/2019/11/06/international-law-convention-evaluates-legal-definition-of-gender/

You'll have to do better than this. The same can be said of someone that identifies as being a chicken. It's partly physical and partly mental. — Harry Hindu

There you go again, interpreting a person's self-identification (trans- or chicken-) as a mental disorder. That equation of gender & species is a sign of gender prejudice, such as Hitler advocated -- implying that gays are less than human. Genetic Science indicates that non-binary babies result from natural causes, not from mental disorders. :smile:

Homosexuals and Nazi Germany :
Homosexuality was classed as a “degenerate form of behaviour”
https://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/nazi-germany/homosexuals-and-nazi-germany/

Causes of Gender Dysphoria :
It was traditionally thought to be a psychiatric condition meaning a mental ailment. Now there is evidence that the disease may not have origins in the brain alone.
Studies suggest that gender dysphoria may have biological causes associated with the development of gender identity before birth.
https://www.news-medical.net/health/Causes-of-Gender-Dysphoria.aspx

PS__I don't have a dog in this fight. I'm not gay, and I'm not a gay-rights advocate. I just want to keep our philosophical discussions on an intellectual, not visceral, level.

I kind of agree on emotional grounds, but I'd like to come up with an argument that is harder forphysicalism to simply shrug off. Where all of this started, for me, was with the conviction thatideas (not information) are real in their own right, and not because they're derived from or supersede on (neuro)physical matter. — Wayfarer

Physicalists can shrug-off the power of information, only because it seems Idealistic to them. But, in the Enformationism thesis, Generic Information exists in a variety of forms, both Ideal and Real. That's the holistic-monistic-duality of the BothAnd Principle. From a reductionist perspective, reality is Either/Or (real or unreal). But in the holistic view, Reality & Ideality are two sides of the same coin. This unconventional notion is based on the science of Information, which has found that Mind Stuff (the original meaning of Information) is also the essence of Energy & Matter.

If that equation of immaterial Ideas with material Matter is true, then ghostly Ideas are just as "real" as physical objects. That identification of Mind & Matter does not compute in Classical Physics. But Quantum Physics has been forced to include the effects of minds on the behavior of sub-atomic particles. Of course, the interpretation of those experiments is still controversial. Nevertheless, I am assuming that Ideas are "real in their own right, and not because they are derived from . . . matter". In fact, in my theory, ideas have the right of priority, in that the original Singularity could not have been a physical object, but more like a program of ideas & instructions for creating a world from nothing-but the power of EnFormAction. :nerd:

Is information the fifth state of matter? :
In 2019, physicist Melvin Vopson of the University of Portsmouth proposed that information is equivalent to mass and energy, existing as a separate state of matter, a conjecture known as the mass-energy-information equivalence principle.
https://www.zmescience.com/science/news-science/information-energy-mass-equivalence/

A quantum case of mind over matter? :
New research proposes a way to test whether quantum entanglement is affected by consciousness.
https://insidetheperimeter.ca/a-quantum-case-of-mind-over-matter/

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

So, I have a deep confusion about why philosophy sees this disconnection between logical necessity and physical causation. — Wayfarer

In my personal philosophical worldview, Enformationism, Logical Necessity is Causation. But that meta-physical notion does not compute for physicalists. They think that all causes are physical, in the sense of billiard balls smacking into each other, and imparting momentum. So, I think it's the reductive physicalists who are confused. But, Information science, has concluded that energy, force, momentum are ultimately various forms of generic Enformation (the power to cause changes in form).

I have interpreted that novel concept to mean that Information (mind stuff) is at the root of all changes in the world. For example, thermodynamic Energy is often expressed as a ratio between Hot & Cold. And such proportions/ratios are also found in logical relationships as the essence of meaning. In fact, I equate Logic & Math, in the sense that Logic is mathematics with words (concepts) instead of numbers.

However, I am aware that the connection between mental Logic and physical causation is not apparent to those with a Reductive approach to reality. Logical relationships are found in holistic systems, not in the isolated elements. In fact, it's the Logical "glue" that bonds parts into wholes. Logical Necessity is essentially a Tautology in that both sides of the equation are fundamentally the same. But, imbalance in the equation, is like applying a force to a see-saw to make it move. The motion/change is necessary to re-balance the system. :smile:

Momentum is a Ratio :
Momentum is directly proportional to the object's mass and also its velocity.
https://courses.lumenlearning.com/physics/chapter/8-1-linear-momentum-and-force/

Information causality :
Information causality is a physical principle suggested in 2009
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Information_causality

Information and Causality :
What is information? Can information have causal consequences?
https://www.amazon.com/Matter-Life-Information-Causality/dp/1107150531

ADD A FORCE TO CAUSE THE EQUATION TO BALANCE

That is clear evidence that you don't take such claims seriously. Why then would we accept, without question, the claims of someone claiming to be something that they are not when it's about sex? What is so special about sex in this regard? — Harry Hindu

If you are talking about trans-sexual people, those opposed to non-traditional non-binary gender roles, might say they are "claiming to be something they are not". But the trans- person might retort that society is trying to "force them to be something they are not". Yet, where does the truth lie, in objective observations from outside, or subjective feelings from within?

In the movie, The Crying Game, the protagonist found someone who behaved & appeared to be an attractive woman, but who turned-out, upon closer inspection -- and much to his disgust -- to have an unexpected appendage, that at first seemed to be a deal-breaker. But, he eventually falls in love with him/her, despite his/her congenital deformity. So, was his love the result of false advertising, or of his own realization that it's what's in the heart that matters in a love relationship?

Unfortunately, the sex/gender game is full of false advertising, from boob-jobs to macho-posturing. So, who is the best judge of a person's sex/gender, the person his/herself, or society & scriptures? Due to the rarity (10%-15% ??) of non-binary examples (out of the closet), most social systems have judged non-conformance to natural/cultural norms to be abnormal & unnatural. But modern science & technologies have demonstrated that mental gender is a continuum, not as clear-cut as the normal physical duality. Since some citizens feel & believe that their gender does not match their sex, who's to say they are wrong?

Hitler's worldview was neatly black & white, so you were defined as either Aryan or Jew, even if you had one parent of each race. And either Male or Female, even if your body is masculine, but your brain is feminine. Therefore, the question comes down to the old Social versus Individual political views. Who rules in such cases? Would you agree to have political laws define your gender against your personal wishes? I can't say, from personal experience, but that seems to be what the LGBTQ...xyz non-conformists are claiming.

What's so special about sex/gender is that it's only partly physical (body), and partly metaphysical (mind). Binary gender is clearly the norm, but Nature sometimes makes mistakes : allowing exceptions to the rule of Reproduction as the Reason for being. For all I know, some animals may be homo-trans-sexuals, but they can't speak for themselves, so they just do do as they feel. As long as humans don't interfere in their private affairs. :smile:

Gender Continuum :
http://www.issuesmagazine.com.au/article/issue-june-2014/breaking-through-binary-gender-continuum.html
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30556480/

What say you? Is this the era of the Third World ("era of undeveloped, impoverished, unstable and violent nations"). — Ciceronianus

From a slightly more positive perspective, I might label this "era" as the birth pangs of the Fifth World. The "fourth world" label is already taken, in reference to the almost extinct indigenous peoples, left behind even by the Third World banana farmers. In my sideline sociological myth, the "Second World" was the land of conquistadors & colonizers, who had the power to exploit Nature and older cultures via technology : machines, communication & transportation (or Guns, Germs & Steel).

But we are now entering the era of political & informational Globalization. Of course, while this jostling & merging of cultures is leveling the field of technology & communication, at the same time it is distressing ancient traditions, and conservative minds (generally, those on top of the power pyramid) who are defending the status quo. Hegel called this dance of oppositions, the do-si-do "Dialectic".

Human Culture is different from the rest of Nature, in the sense that it changes too fast for natural processes to keep up. So, we now find ourselves faced with the challenges of defending both vulnerable Nature (first world) and lower-level (third & fourth world) cultures, from our predatory (capitalist & oligarchic) successes & excesses. In other words, humanity is coping with the inner conflicts of cognitive dissociation (go-go vs no-go). This is not new though. Despite the warnings of Cicero, the decline & fall of the Roman Empire went through the same over-reach & internal divisions, that made them vulnerable to invading third-world Barbarians.

The invaders today are the same former colonists & indigenists, who are escaping (migrating) from third & fourth worlds into the settled (developed) second world -- which likes to think of itself as the rightful First World. In the process of migrating, they are shifting the balance of power in the whole world. Hopefully, the current destabilizing civil wars & emigrations will eventually settle-down into a new stability. But we may have to endure a dismal Dark Age in the meantime. Lets hope the invaders are smart enough not to kill the goose who lays the tide of golden eggs of technology, which in theory raises all ships. :cool:

BARBARIANS INSIDE THE GATES

Why, in your opinion, is the real on every occasion, portrayed as being worse than the illusion. Too good to be true is the taekeaway here, oui? You will recall that drop-dead gorgeous platinum blonde with an hour-glass figure dressed in electrifying red in the training program developed by Mouse in The Matrix? — Agent Smith

Oui, oui. Since the real world is good enough for survival, but far from optimum, the human mind has developed the unique ability to imagine something better than real. That illusory something is usually referred to as "Ideal". And that's why hard-nosed, leather-hearted Realists are so scornful of the impossible idealistic illusions fostered by optimists and religious authorities (e.g. heaven & nirvana). But, imaginary future states -- such as making-out with the woman in red -- are what drives ambition & progress for humanity. Yet, with age comes the wisdom to lower our expectations : in reality, that gorgeous woman is out of your league. :smile:

These organs (fully/incompletely developed) are, I believe, strong indications of ambiguity in sex/gender at a very fundamental level, oui? People getting mixed up about their gender shouldn't come as a surprise given the above. I'd say it'd be more astonishing if homosexuals and transexuals didn't exist. — Agent Smith

The ambiguity of some male/female physical features is not so surprising if you consider that the embryo -- formed from male sperm & female egg -- begins its development with basic female forms, and only at a later stage -- after certain hormones are pumped in -- begin to differentiate, with the fundamental human/female organs continuing on, and male organs beginning to specialize in drone functions : to service the queen, so to speak.

This scenario is reminiscent of Plato's myth of primordial androgynous humans with features of both male & female. Unfortunately, those all-in-one hermaphrodites were split by the inept gods into three genders : female, male, and androgynous. Presumably, that third option has developed over time into the anomalous LGBTQ . . . . xyz varieties of gender/sex that we find coming out of the closet today. :joke:

However, this relationship is incredibly difficult for me to make sense of, especially since it feels logically contradictory. Christianity claims to be monotheistic, yet the Trinity feels more like a pantheon, or maybe a relationship hierarchy or some sort. — tryhard

I suspect that the concept of a trinitarian deity resulted from 2nd & 3rd century theological debates over the nature & status of Jesus. The Jews, and most likely, Jesus's own disciples were strict monotheists. But after his unexpected & humiliating death, various rumors arose to explain why he didn't fulfill his messianic role of re-establishing the kingdom of Yahweh in Jerusalem. One speculation (based on cherry-picked scriptures) was that he had further work to do on the spiritual plane, so had to return to heaven. But that would require him to be a god himself (or a reincarnation of Elijah), instead of a mere sword-wielding human leader (messiah = royal descendant) of a political rebellion. Some of his recorded statements were sufficiently vague & provocative that various interpretations could apply.

But, for polytheistic gentile converts, monotheism was not inherent in their tradition. So they didn't consider the god-man concept to be blasphemous or sacrilegious (e.g Pantheon). Also, Jesus had made metaphorical references to the Holy Spirit as-if it was a person, not just a divine force. As the Catholic Church was being cobbled-together from a variety of Jesus cults, their contradictory myths became an obstacle to unification within the Roman empire ("catholic" = universal). So, the leaders from various places began to hold unification meetings in order to hammer-out their differences. Since it was mainly a political argument, they didn't depend on a sign from God, but merely debated & voted, and the majority opinion became the "Truth"

Unfortunately, their good intentions were frustrated, and in order to establish a single authoritative myth & origin-story of the new religion, they were forced to vote the heretics out of their club. But first they had to legally define what beliefs were orthodox, and which were heresy. Ironically, a crux of the debate was on the vexing question of Jesus' role in the religion : god apparition, or inspired prophet, or pretender to the throne, or god-man avatar. Since the latter option was unacceptable to monotheists, the Jewish Christians soon found themselves expelled as reverse Gentiles (literally, not God's people).

Therefore, instead of a continuation of the Abrahamic genetic-tribal heritage of the Jewish religion, Christianity became a distinct new faith-based religion, excluding the Chosen People of the Old Testament God, in favor of the the uncircumcised "Gentiles". With the Jews rejected from their own religious movement, there was no one left, in the radically new Roman imperial Church, to point-out the logical contradictions found in the authorized scriptures of the official state religion. Besides, mystical mythical paradoxes were not unusual in ancient religions. And, the gentiles were typically not as piously legalistic as the Jews. So, even as the theologians continued to debate privately, for the sake of unity, they decided to convince the uneducated common people that a piece of physical (material) bread could also be a metaphysical (spiritual) hunk of flesh. To some, that was a divine spiritual insight. But, the paradox-vs-precept debate continued on the fringes to this day. :smile:

I've been thinking about the statement "trans women are women," and seem to think whether one agrees or disagrees with this term comes down to how one defines or identifies woman (i.e. how closely is it related to sex at birth). I'm very new to philosophy of language so I'm very curious how these definitions are related to the creation of meaning. — Paulm12

The current LGBTQ . . . .xyz controversies revolve around a problem that scientists & philosophers have not been able to resolve : what makes a man/male or a woman/female? As a corollary, what makes an objectively female body subjectively feel like a man, and vice-versa? So, far we don't find any definitive difference in the brains, apart from volume, which is limited by body/skull size. MRI scans do show some characteristic features of male/female brains, but interpreting those colorful blobs is highly subjective and subject to personal bias*1.

Even more difficult to understand is the psychological experience of discerning a male from a female. In extreme cases -- a voluptuous or muscular body shape -- the superficial difference is pretty obvious. But we sometimes find some physical exemplars, who prefer to have sex with their own gender. That is obviously counter to the reproduction purposes of evolution; hence abnormal. So how can we explain those not-so-rare anomalies? The gender-identification-algorithms in the brain produce automatic sub-conscious physical responses : "is that a gun in your pocket, or are you just glad to see me?"

So, it should be clear that nonbinary people don't deliberately choose their sexual preference. But traditional mores are based on the Norm, and hostile to the Abnormal. Hence, the religio-political civil wars tend to divide those who judge by "face value", versus those who try to read minds. The current "don't say gay" laws are trying to censor "evil beliefs" by making certain behaviors illegal. We went through a similar polarized religio-political struggle back in the 1950's "McCarthy era". Ostensibly law-abiding citizens were challenged in court : " are you now, or have you ever been . . . . X". At the time, aggressively evangelizing Communism was not only economically abhorrent to Capitalists, but also morally loathsome to Christians.

Ironically, the Bible makes no mention of Trans-sexual behavior explicitly, but men & women were traditionally forbidden to wear clothes commonly identified with the opposite sex. Which is why the sight of women wearing pants was offensive to some cultures and not to others. So, I suspect that in modern secular societies gender-roles are more fluid than in the past. And traditional religious & cultural mores are currently on the defensive, but not yet defeated by the forces of "Evil". The bottom line is that your gender is not defined by your personal subjective preferences, but also by cultural objective labels. Meaning is in the mind of the beholder. :cool:


*1. Transgender brains are more like their desired gender from an early age
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2018/05/180524112351.htm

I recall making an argument that the fact that people think it's possible for reality as we know it to be an illusion (simulation) implies that the real McCoy (true reality) is, for all intents and purposes, identical to the copy (virtual reality). Why should anyone then try to, well, wake up from what we fear/suspect is only a dream? The doubt would only reappear even if it does so, now, at another level so to speak. — Agent Smith

Yes. That's the argument Cypher made in The Matrix : the illusion was the only reality he had known, before he was "woke" into the harsh reality of the dismal subterranean refuge of the metaphorically named Zion. Several scientists & philosophers (ding an sich) have discussed the same problem with simulated-reality proposals : if you can't tell (experience) the difference, what's the difference? However, as lusty French males used to say, in a different context, "vive la difference". :smile:


“I know this steak doesn't exist. I know that when I put it in my mouth, the Matrix is telling my brain that it is juicy and delicious. After nine years, you know what I realize? Ignorance is bliss.”
___Cypher

I'm sure someone/something smart enough like post-technological singularity AI will find a workaround for such obstacles to omnscience, if they even exist that is. — Agent Smith

In the current issue of Philosophy Now magazine, David Chalmers is interviewed about his latest book : Reality +. It's described as "an adventure tour of computer-simulated worlds and virtual reality". He uses the modern metaphor of Virtual Reality in a manner similar to that of Plato's Cave. He describes his Reality + concept in terms that are amenable to my own Enformationism thesis. "The fact that we are conscious beings does not negate the idea that we are sims, since consciousness is substrate independent, emerging from the organization of a complex system, . . . the entities in virtual reality are real . . . they are digital objects, made of information or bits." [my bold] The video game movie TRON is a good illustration. When the hero is inside the game, that simulated world becomes his reality. The only difference is that when you die in our "virtual" reality, you can't leave the game and go back to your "actual" reality. That is, unless there is a techno-heaven for virtual souls to retire to. The interviewer sums up the book : "It is likely that we live in a computer simulation but that should not worry us because everything is still real".

Remember, though, that this technophilosophy book uses metaphors to convey his projection of possible futures. They are not divinely inspired prophecies. Chalmers, says "one central part of my work on consciousness has been arguing that machines can be conscious". With that in mind, he cautions that self-conscious AI, like SkyNet in the Terminator, could become a destructive force in the world, just as self-assertive as Vlad Putin's meat mind. So, we (or AI machines) will still be faced with the ancient philosophical problem of recognizing Evil, and choosing Good. He also notes that "maybe physics can't add up fully to an explanation of consciousness because physics is mostly a kind of abstract causal structure but consciousness goes beyond that". The main problem with relying on Physics is that it is Reductive and narrowly focused. So, philosophers of Consciousness (meta-physics) must be Holistic, with a broader perspective.

Chalmers compares his VR metaphor with Descartes' warning that what we take to be real could be due to an evil Daemon creating an illusion to veil the true reality. "You can think of the evil demon's world as being a type of virtual reality". However, in Chalmer's analogy, the VR is our actual reality. That may sound confusing, but the interviewer notes that, "philosophers use metaphors that are emblematic for their age. . . . . Voltaire believed that God was a clockmaker . . . . the concept of a computer-simulated universe is simply a case in which the metaphor has displaced the real". In that case, you could imagine that "God is a hacker in the next universe up". Which is similar to my own metaphor of the First Cause as the Programmer of our evolutionary program. I don't take that notion literally, so it's merely a way of thinking about our Information-based reality. :nerd:

Nice! What about the fact that, on the whole, entropy has the upperhand, vis-à-vis negentropy? That there's more disorder than order is a fact, oui? In other words negentropy is fighting a losing battle...eventually life, the paragon of order, will fizzle out (heat death of the universe). — Agent Smith

Yes. Enformy is an underdog in the race to the Final State of the world. It's also a slow starter, taking almost 14 billion years to produce living & thinking creatures. But we are only approaching the midpoint of the projected lifespan of the universe. So, you could guess, now that Enformy has finally gotten up to speed, it could overtake stumbling Entropy before the finish line. Some positive thinkers, such as futurist Ray Kurzweil and AI enthusiasts imagine that rapidly-accelerating human technology will replace plodding physics & biology as the organizing force behind upward evolution.

Of course, we can't be sure of those optimistic scenarios, and I don't expect to be around to see the Omega Point. But the mere fact that such progress is thinkable, should allow us to view self-organizing Evolution & constructive Enformy in a rosier light. The scientists, who calculated the heat-death of the world, did not include the positive effects of Enformy (Negentropy) in their calculations. You could say that Enformy gave Entropy a 14 billion year head start, displaying confidence that future-oriented organized intentional design (e.g. technology) is faster on its feet than haphazard trial & error heuristics. Which would you bet on? :nerd:


TECHNOLOGICAL EVOLUTION


COSMIC PROGRESSION

So, according to you, it's all information. How do you reconcile the fact that information can be true/right or false/wrong with your BothAnd Principle, which seems to ignore or set aside true/false and right/wrong dichotomies, preferring a synthesis of opposing views rather than resolutions where one side wins the debate? — Agent Smith

Yes & No. The BothAnd Principle merely acknowledges that the world-system has the Potential for both good and bad effects on human aspirations, including the preference for Life versus Death. However, we are not guaranteed to get what we desire. So, we try to make the best of an imperfect world, by balancing the bad with some good. Individually, we can aim high for what's best for me. But as components of a collective society there are trade-offs. What's good for me (e.g. becoming a billionaire, may deprive millions of others of a living wage) might be bad for someone else, which could ultimately become bad for me. What goes around, comes around.

The essence of the BothAnd principle, is the Golden Rule plus the Golden Mean : avoid extremes, and be content with moderation. Nothing new about that ancient wisdom, except that it is necessitated by the understanding that Information is a continuum from 1 to 0, or 100% to nothing. If you get 100%, someone else might get nothing. And. depending on circumstances beyond your control, you could be that someone-else. That's why Kant's Imperative was basically : "do unto others as you would have them do unto you".

In a more technical sense, Information (EnFormAction) is like Energy : in excess, it becomes an inferno ; or in deficit, it becomes a deep-freeze. So the Goldilocks or Habitable zone is merely warm-enough to be "just right". That's why philosophers of all eras have agreed that balance & proportion & moderation are better, for all concerned, than imbalance, overabundance, & exorbitance. Depending on the circumstances, though, the balance point is not necessarily at the mid-point. Which is why the BothAnd Principle must be applied with wisdom. :smile:


The Goldilocks Enigma :
Why is the Universe Just Right for Life?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_Jackpot

↪Gnomon
In a sense then your Enformationism bridges the gap between spiritualism, sensu lato, and materialism! Though it's foundations are pure ideas, these ideas have practical significance. — Agent Smith

I suspect that, like me, your philosophical attitude is mostly Pragmatic. But I have been forced by the Enformationism worldview to be tolerant of people with more Romantic interpretations of reality. I live in the Bible Belt, so my family & friends remain loyal to the biblical ideology of a world characterized by an ongoing war between Good & Evil forces : gods, demons, angels, etc. with magical powers. Even New Agers, who typically view the forces of nature in less personal terms, often prefer a bit of fantasy with their facts. So, they could interpret my EnFormAction (causal energy) as a Star Wars "Force". And that's OK with me. I'm in no position to be doctrinaire.

Unlike some on this forum, who are engaged in open combat against Religion & Romanticism & Spiritualism. Their "realistic" dogma is what has been labeled by observers as the belief system of "Scientism". It's not just anti-theist, but also anti-romantic. Which may be why they ridicule philosophical "what -if" conjectures & speculations as unscientific. Well, duh! Philosophers don't do empirical research. And they don't dissect objective Reality, but merely analyze subjective Ideality (human views about reality). So, to the soldiers of Scientism, all philosophy looks like Idealism & Religionism.

Spiritualism was Idealistic & Romantic, in that it imagined invisible intentional agents pushing things & people around. Then Science reinterpreted those mysterious causes in terms of non-sentient forces & energies. But, a rose by any other name is still the same. And an invisible Cause is still "spooky action at a distance". So, I call it EnFormAction, but you can call it "Energy", or "Spirit", or "Logos", or "Elan Vital", depending on your attitude : "just the facts ma'am" pragmatism, or "tell me a magical story" imagination. Whatever works for you, can have "practical significance" in your life. :smile:

Philosophy that works :
Later in the book, Wolf gets even more down-to-Earth, describing the concept of Informative Power in terms of Physics, and by coining the word "enformation" as a dynamic verb form of the noun "information", which is merely static data. He defines his neologism as "patterns that energy forms of itself". Which is equivalent to my own coinage of EnFormAction, the creative power of evolution, and the act of en-forming. He says that "energy is our way of defining 'enformation'". The meaning of information is in its structure, its pattern. Yet, in physics, energy can be both constructive & destructive, and the result of disorganization is called "entropy". So, I had to come up with another new term for the mysterious positive "force" that opposes Entropy.
Review of book by David M. Wolf
"Philosophy grounds itself in factual "truth." By revising how we understand this, we make a change that has profound impact upon most world-wide systems for gaining knowledge."

After all your Enformy counteracts the 2nd law of thermodynamics (entropy always increases) and that's, science says, solar/stellar energy — Agent Smith

Yes. Enformy (negentropy) does indeed contradict the 2nd law. But, there's nothing unlawful or supernatural about it. You wouldn't exist if Entropy had its way unimpeded. I simply gave a positive (information related) name to the phenomenon recognized by scientists (in afterthought) as a local tendency toward organization instead of disorder. The 2nd law only applies to the universe as a whole, but does not prohibit progressive change in isolated pockets, such as our solar system.

Entropy is a one-way ticket to the deep freeze. But Enformy is a transfer ticket to a different destiny. In fact, AsFarAsWeKnow -- despite the search for extra-solar habitable planets -- Earth is the only exception to the "let there be death" rule of Entropy. Our planet has the "right stuff" to collect incoming energy, and use it to build-up instead of to tear-down. Does that "special" status mean that we are blessed among all otherwise devolving systems?

In a practical sense, Gravity is an organizing force in that it counteracts the momentum & expansion of the universe, allowing matter to clump together, as forbidden by the 2nd law. Is that order-out-of-chaos, a random accident, or due to the effects of a little-known reverse-thermodynamics law? In my thesis, I refer to all forms of organizing forces (gravity, energy, nuclear forces) as EnFormAction. It's the causal force that allows novelty to emerge from within the chaos of randomness. Energy is just change; but EnFormAction is positive organic change

In the chart below, notice that the gradual expansion of space was linear, until about the time life & mind & humanity emerged on earth. Then the rate of change exploded at a non-linear rate. Until then, energy was more-or-less uniformly distributed throughout the universe. Since then, the unwritten law of reverse thermodynamics has accelerated the acceleration. So, it seems that order feeds on order, just as life feeds on life. That's what I call EnFormAction, the creative power of Evolution. Could it also be the mysterious Dark Energy that holds galaxies together? :nerd:

Enformy :
Negentropy is reverse entropy. It means things becoming more in order. By 'order' is meant organisation, structure and function: the opposite of randomness or chaos. One example of negentropy is a star system such as the Solar System. Another example is life. . . .
Life is considered to be negentropic because it converts things which have less order, such as food, into things with more order, such as cells in the body, tissues, and organs. In doing so, it gives off heat. Another example of negentropic things are societies, or social systems, because they take disorderly things such as communications, and make them more orderly and useful.
https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negentropy

I'd like to bring to your attention that, in my experience, we can say what we can't mean. An example? God exists & God doesn't exist. There, I said it, but I can't mean it (it's inconceivable). — Agent Smith

OK. What do you mean by "God doesn't exist"? What mental concept are you negating? Is it the Abrahamic father-god of a unique people in a specific region of the world? Or, the Christian father-son-mother god family that became the dogma of Catholicism? Or perhaps, the invisible intangible (no race, no gender, no body), yet omnipotent Being, who demands perfect obedience to written rules, upon pain of head-chopping or eternal burning? What about the New Age notion of impersonal power inherent in all things?

The problem with all such emphatic expressions of belief is that these deities are nowhere to be found in the material world, except in physical idols & iconic replicas. Yet, billions of people believe so strongly, that someone somewhere is (must be) in charge of such a beautiful & awe-full world of organized, yet mysterious forces*1. They sometimes even claim to catch rare glimpses of ghost-gods, like UFOs or Big Foot. There seems to be an intuitive, perhaps innate, feeling in humanity, that some all-powerful agency is in control of Nature, and Culture. Is it just a phobia to feel that something is out-there?

For secularists & materialists though, that well-balanced ecological organization is given the impersonal label of Natural Laws, or to avoid implications of an intentional law-giver, those mathematically precise regularities are supposed to just be inherent in the world, for no particular reason. They emerge from fundamental randomness by accident. And, "Why" questions are avoided, or left for feckless philosophers to worry about. But even non-philosophers are uncomfortable about leaving "why" questions unanswered. Why is that? It would be easy to dismiss the superstitions of savages. But, some of the smartest people in the world have admitted to feelings of awe at the unfathomable mysteries of the universe. Can we just ignore such a powerful intuition, even though our technology cannot dig-up any physical evidence to explain the "crime" of belief based on feelings?

The early Greek philosophers, may have smirked knowingly at the foibles of the common people and their Olympian god-myths. But their incessant digging at the foundations of Reality, turned-up nothing, except the logical necessity of abstract forces that somehow create & govern the world machine : Logos, First Cause, etc. Those hypothetical entities -- like undetectable Dark Matter -- were presumed to exist as logical/mathematical requirements, despite the absence of physical evidence. :smile:

*1, The modern notion of Energy has superseded the old spiritual explanations for causation. But scientists only know what that mysterious force does (effects on matter), not what it is in essence. Aristotle might have called it abstract meta-physical Potential.


The Merging of Spirit and Science :
The most beautiful and most profound experience is the sensation of the mystical. It is the sower of all true science. He to whom this emotion is a stranger, who can no longer wonder and stand rapt in awe, is as good as dead. To know that what is impenetrable to us really exists, manifesting itself as the highest wisdom and the most radiant beauty which our dull faculties can comprehend only in their primitive forms - this knowledge, this feeling is at the center of true religiousness. . . .

A knowledge of the existence of something we cannot penetrate, of the manifestations of the profoundest reason and the most radiant beauty - it is this knowledge and this emotion that constitute the truly religious attitude; in this sense, and in this alone, I am a deeply religious man. . . .
___A. Einstein
https://www.spaceandmotion.com/albert-einstein-god-religion-theology.htm

God and Other Necessary Beings :
It is commonly accepted that there are two sorts of existent entities: those that exist but could have failed to exist, and those that could not have failed to exist. Entities of the first sort are contingent beings; entities of the second sort are necessary beings.
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/god-necessary-being/

Speaking as somebody whose got a four year college degree in Psychology I would have to say that Psychology is both a hard science and a soft science. — HardWorker

Yes. But empirical (physical) scientists tend to look down upon their theoretical (metaphysical) colleagues for doing "soft" science : producing no hard verifiable evidence for their theories. Since, Psychology does use statistics to define the probability of their conclusions, It remains a step above feckless Philosophy in esteem, as a way of knowing & understanding intangibles. :smile:

What Is the Difference Between Hard and Soft Science? :
In general, the soft sciences deal with intangibles and relate to the study of human and animal behaviors, interactions, thoughts, and feelings. . . .
The distinction between the two types of science is a matter of how rigorously a hypothesis can be stated, tested, and then accepted or rejected. . . .
So, one might say the terms hard science and soft science have become outdated.
https://www.thoughtco.com/hard-vs-soft-science-3975989

So that's what it means! :up: The way I make sense of it is that with regard to anything & everything, we can come up with an algorithm (code) that tells us how to create them. In short, we're in the process of sussing out how to create a universe, and all things, including consciousness, in it. — Agent Smith

Yes. Some prognosticators imagine that humanity has become (is becoming) the little-gods of this world. That's because, unlike most animals, we share abstract information with each other. Animals communicate mostly concretely (smell, taste, touch). But humans have learned how to express subjective thoughts in objective symbols & metaphors. Consequently, we are no longer bound by the old-fashioned self-organizing rules of the natural (physical) world. So, we can now make our own cultural (meta-physical) rules. Unfortunately, despite our good intentions, we also make our own mistakes (nukes). Therefore, until we learn to control our disparate immaterial ideas & feelings, our quest for the grail of godhood will remain an impossible dream.

Vlad Putin hasn't learned that lesson yet, because he assumed the Ukrainian people would identify with their Russian & Soviet (colonial) history, and welcome their "liberator". So, he seems surprised at their unifying nationalist sentiment --- in a region that has only been an independent nation for a couple of generations. A primary lesson of Enformationism, though, is that we are essentially all One, from our quantum roots, to our cosmic future. All people & things are merely various Forms of essential EnFormAction. Prophets & politicians of old have preached holistic unity, but divisive duality (entropy) has always eventually torn down our temporary monuments to material wealth & hegemony.

There's nothing new to the notion of the essential Unity of Humanity & Nature. But in practice, those Utopian dreams have been implemented only in isolated pockets of tribalism & nationalism, each with its local gods and cultural identities. That may be why some dreamers think humanity is doomed to remain fragmented into us-vs-them enclaves, shooting at each other across no-man's land. So, they envision the emergence of Artificial Intelligence, unburdened by personal feelings, which will forge the future of Conscious Matter in the natural world. Lamentably, even those robotic minds (algorithms) could be infected by the viral disease (memes) of their human programmers (creators).

First though, the romantic machine makers will have to learn how to cause the inherent Information in all matter & energy to emerge in the form of immaterial (abstract) Consciousness. It happened naturally, at least once -- after 14 billion years of trial & error. Maybe it could happen again deliberately. However, the Matrix movie illustrates how such an idyllic world for machines could go radically wrong for their flesh & blood creators. No, Enformationism is not a utopian fantasy. No more than Stoicism & Buddhism. It's just another step up the ladder of conscious control, beginning with the Self. It teaches that the world is going somewhere, so we can either get on the bus or get left behind. :cool:

Enformy :
In the Enformationism theory, Enformy is a hypothetical, holistic, metaphysical, natural trend or force, that counteracts Entropy & Randomness to produce complexity & progress. [ see post 63 for graph ]
1. I'm not aware of any "supernatural force" in the world. But my Enformationism theory postulates that there is a meta-physical force behind Time's Arrow and the positive progress of evolution. Just as Entropy is sometimes referred to as a "force" causing energy to dissipate (negative effect), Enformy is the antithesis, which causes energy to agglomerate (additive effect).
BothAnd Blog Glossary

A FICTIONAL FORCE EMULATING NATURAL ENFORMY -- (a metaphor, don't take it literally)

Taking into account the fact that only the empirical is useful to us in any way at all, would you agree that metaphysics is useless. I'm taking a pragmatic approach I believe, but it is a question worth asking.

Your theory of Enformationism, what's its selling point? As far as I can tell, it seems to have utility in a yin-yang sorta way; in other words is Taoism metaphysics or not? Taoism is practical advice, oui? — Agent Smith

Yes. Metaphysics is useless for putting bread on the table. But it can be used for building clarified concepts in your mind. Likewise, Philosophy won't put a man on the moon, but it might allow mankind to work together, despite differences, to reach such goals. Philosophy & Metaphysics are not focused on the material world out there, but on the mental world in here. Science allows us to control the natural world, but Philosophy helps us to control the cultural world. For example, Putin is not a platonic philosopher-king, but a typical thug warlord. Would it be pragmatic to teach a young Putin about the hubris of Hitler, and the harmony of Confucius & Pythagoras? Maybe, maybe not; but it's worth a try.

As a 21st century worldview, Enformationism could conceivably update the mind-set of humanity, from the ancient spooky belief system of Spiritualism (e.g. Animism), and the dispiriting effects of Materialism & Capitalism. Marx's critique of industrial age Capitalism, revealed its internal contradictions, but his proposed Communism had its own destructive paradoxes. So, all general worldviews begin to fall-apart as human cultures split into factions, each justified by an incomplete (hence biased) understanding of how & why the world works as it does.

Don't get me wrong. Enformationism is not a political manifesto, but simply a personal analysis & synthesis of how the world works, from quantum to cosmic scales, and why it doesn't work perfectly. Historically, each dominant cultural worldview, has provided philosophical insights to the remaining mysteries of reality. But all have a limited shelf-life, before the gaps in understanding become pit-falls for failure. So, humanity has to learn from its social breakdowns, and to patch the gaps with new insights. The key perception, and conception, of Enformationism is basically, what philosophers & sages of all eras have preached : unity & harmony are threatened by Entropy. So we must constantly repair the cracks in the foundation of society.

To find appropriate spackle to smooth over the rough spots in modern cultures, we can learn from the positives & negatives of ancient cultures. For example, Taoism was a general worldview that allowed the high culture of China to survive for centuries, despite the usual tribulations of complex human societies. The Yin/Yang principle gave people the BothAnd idea of harmony of opposites, to offset the destructive dualistic belief in Either/Or, us-versus-them, and my-way-or-the-highway. And the Tao-concept served as a unifying principle of balance upon which to build a harmonious society. Today, universal & ubiquitous Tao-like Information could serve as the fulcrum upon which to balance our divisive modern world. If only enough people were aware of its role in every facet of life. Enformationism is also practical advice for avoiding the Matter vs Mind estrangement of vulgar Materialism. :nerd:

PS__But what is "information"? En-Form-Action. Stay tuned.


WHAT’S THE PROBLEM? :

Historically, the dominant worldview of civilizations and cultures has swung between the two poles of practical Materialism and theoretical Idealism. Idealist societies, such as medieval Europe, tend to focus their intellectual energy and attention on otherworldly matters, hence material progress stagnates. In their more worldly materialistic phases, cultures such as modern Europe prefer to emphasize the here and now, accelerating technical (reductive) progress to the detriment of spiritual (holistic) development. Eastern cultures, that have been traditionally more Idealistic, are now attempting to catch-up with pragmatic Western nations in technical prowess and materialistic goods. Consequently, the internal struggles between Body and Soul, Part and Whole create tension and friction for those on both sides of the moral/material balance point.

Materialists often object to the intrusion of idealistic, meta-physical religious and philosophical concepts into the pragmatic, scientific search for understanding of the world around us. But it is my contention that it was materialistic Science itself, following the evidence where it led, that accidentally stumbled into the forbidden realm of Idealism. If they could turn back the clock to the golden age of science–-before the unexpected and unwanted intrusions of Einstein and the Quantum Theorists into regions of the universe beyond the limited scope of man’s physical senses–-Materialism would still reign supreme. Since Einstein showed the practical impossibility of going backward in time, I guess we will just have to move forward, and deal with the perplexing paradoxes of pre-cosmic and sub-atomic reality in the scientific spirit of open-minded skepticism. And let the facts fall where they may.

I’m not so idealistic that I could believe we are on the verge of a final resolution of this long-standing philosophical debate. But I do see a glimmer of light ahead of us in the tunnel of life. If humanity can come to see that the duality of this world is natural, necessary, and inherent in material Reality, but not in metaphysical Ideality, then perhaps a detente can be negotiated so we can work together toward common goals in both realms. Conflict is an unavoidable effect of Duality, but those opposing forces can be resolved in Ideality.

The Enformationism paradigm envisions a convergence of scientific knowledge and philosophical wisdom; matter & mind; real & ideal; body & soul. But like any paradigm shift, it may take a long time to take hold. This thesis is just a beginning.
Enformationism website

On the other hand, metaphysical matters (God, etc.) are mere possibilities, unproven/unverified; quite frankly, they maybe unprovable/unverifiable.

Now look at how the two stack up against each other: Imagination (metaphysics) vs. Facts (empirical science). Is this even a choice? Fantasy vs. Reality? Maybe it is, but daydreaming is frowned upon, oui? — Agent Smith

You are comparing empirical Science with theoretical Philosophy. But they are different approaches to a> practical knowledge or b> meaningful wisdom. Materialistic Science limits its reductive analysis to questions that are inherently amenable to empirical evidence. But Philosophy was left holding the bag of metaphysical questions that have no true/false answers, only more-or-less plausible.

If you think we are doing Science on a Philosophy forum, you should take-up your scalpel and dissect the God question into its fundamental Atoms. For most of us, God is not a physical object, but a mental concept, defining the whole of which we humans are merely questioning particles. From that perspective, maybe you are an Atom of God. So, yes, you have a choice : to dissect material objects or to understand mental Models. This forum offers the latter. :smile:

Why should a ToE be simpler? Shouldn't it be more complex?

Coming to your theory of Enformationism, do you have any specific reason why you settled on information rather than something else, assuming there's an alternative, to construct your own ToE? — Agent Smith

The concept of a single theory, or even a single equation, to explain everything in the world, is a sort of Holy Grail for physics & cosmology. For a while it looked doable. But in recent years, they have tried & failed to reconcile Relativity/Gravity equations with Quantum/Non-local mathematics. If they ever do discover an algorithm to calculate every phenomenon, from smallest to largest scales, Hawking conjectured that "then we would know the mind of god". In other words, we would understand more than a complex pile of isolated facts, but the integrating force that holds the entire system together : i.e. Holism. So, you could say that the TOE is both simple (singular ; container), and complex (comprehensive ; contents).

In the case of Enformationism, the singular element of the cosmos is Information, Not just in the Shannon definition of empty containers for meaning, but the actual ideas & images & feelings in the human mind. Back in the 1980s, physicist John A. Wheeler (nuclear fission, relativity, black hole as information sink) coined the phrase "it from bit". That summarized his conjecture that all real "its" (physical objects) were derived from non-physical "bits" of abstract Information. Speculating further from that inspired intuition, he developed the hypothesis of a Participatory Universe, in which Observers construct their own model of reality, and that interaction between real & ideal might even have physical effects on the objective world. I don't take that mind-over-matter (magical) notion literally, but it works metaphorically, as an explanation for the collapse of a particle's virtual (mathematical; mental) waveform, into a measurable physical object .

Then, in 1999, the Matrix movie popularized the sci-fi concept that humans are living in a computer simulation. And that novel notion was symbolized by the green "raining code" (bits of information) that dreaming pod-people interpreted as Reality. Possibly inspired by that fiction, cosmologist Max Tegmark proposed his "Mathematical Universe" theory : a speculative "theory of everything". Some years later, I was reading an article about recent developments in Quantum Theory. In it, the physicist noted that all we know about an electron is abstract attributes, such as charge, spin, & momentum, not the particle itself. So, he expressed amazement that "it's nothing but information!".

I was intrigued by that convergence of disparate views of the role of Information, in the real and ideal worlds. But, I only gradually realized the philosophical significance of all-purpose bits of mind-stuff. Eventually, I pulled all the various functions of abstract information, into a thesis I labeled as Enformationism. That coinage was intended to symbolize a new information-based worldview to replace the outdated paradigms of Spiritualism & Materialism & Idealism. Shape-shifting Information is the common denominator (organizing principle) of all those worldviews. So, you could say that, in keeping with Ockham's Razor, our perceived & conceived Reality all boils down to the symbolic Binary-Unity of the single continuum from 0-to-1; nothing to everything; the Holistic System of many parts. The thesis presents a plethora of "specific reasons" for accepting Mental Information (bits), instead of Physical Atoms (its), as the fundamental element of the world. :nerd:

PS__If you will message me, I'll give you a link to the Enformationism website.


Binary Nature of Reality :
Reality is what we take to be true,” pioneering physicist David Bohm asserted in 1977. “What we take to be true is what we believe… What we believe determines what we take to be true. What we take to be true is our reality.”

The question of what is true is, of course, invariably a binary one — in answering it, we must choose between true and false. Left or right, the red pill or the blue pill, the ultimate “To be, or not to be.” Information theory is built upon this binary mindset — the if this, then that logic of most programming languages is predicated on the true/false dichotomy in executing commands — and it was to thiselemental relationship between information and human consciousness that Bohm was speaking.

A little more than a decade later, the great theoretical physicist John Archibald Wheeler (July 9, 1911–April 13, 2008) enriched this idea in a concept he called It from Bit. More than thirty years after he popularized the term “black hole” — a term for the cosmic object which consumes most information into oblivion — Wheeler suggested that our experience of the objects, events, and phenomena that constitute reality is the result of binary decisions — true/false, yes/no, on/off — which we make in the process of observing them.
https://www.themarginalian.org/2016/09/02/it-from-bit-wheeler/

You present a good argument for agnosticism and one which counters Jung's argument, 'I don't believe, I know'. — Jack Cummins

I found an article that quoted a TV interview some time before Jung's controversial quote you mentioned. At that time he sounded certain of the existence of a god "who's nature is beyond human comprehension". Apparently, he was censured for making such a bold Gnostic assertion. However, he also acknowledged that what he "knew" was more emotional than intellectual. Yet, my own Agnostic belief is more intellectual than emotional. But, I suppose both of us fit somewhere in the middle of the range from Theism to Atheism.

So, a more positive label for my semi-belief is Deism, sometimes defined as "rationalistic theology". Intellectually, and based on general evidence from science*1, I believe there must be a First Cause with omni-potential for the full range of outcomes, both good & evil, which are manifested in the imperfect world that we inhabit. Hence, I label my have-it-both-ways non-committal philosophical worldview as BothAnd. That's how I deal with the theological "Problem of Evil" for monotheism, which describes God as goodness personified, yet sneaks in an evil deity through the back door.

Such a wishy-washy worldview is not sufficient to motivate a religious commitment. But, it's acceptable for philosophical humility, as a wise man once admonished his listeners to keep an open mind, by admitting paradoxically : "I know that I know nothing". :cool:

*1. e.g. Evidence from science that evolution is progressive & self-organizing (Enformy), instead of self-destructing (Entropy), as you would expect from a random or accidental reality. Hence, the implication of Teleological & Intentional Design. But, the Hegelian method of "progression" is bottom-up heuristic (trial & error) instead of top-down divine fiat. Even human-designed computer programs have adopted the trial & error method of reaching the best possible compromise solution : Evolutionary Programming.

Jung's need to know :
All that I have learned has led me step by step to an unshakable conviction of the existence of God. I only believe in what I know. And that eliminates believing. Therefore I do not take his existence on belief – I know that he exists (Sands 1955, p. 6) . . . .
In Jung’s view, the truth about God is complex because God is a mystery whose nature is beyond human comprehension. . . .
The God-image is the expression of an underlying experience of something which I cannot attain to by intellectual means…
https://steve.myers.co/jungs-regret-over-i-dont-need-to-believe-i-know/

Evolutionary Programming :
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.
BothAnd Blog Glossary

It is all about interpretation and I do wonder if there is a middle ground rather than theism and atheism and I don't mean agnosticism because that is like a waiting area to make a choice — Jack Cummins

Yes. Both Atheists and Theists have some good arguments to support their polarized positions : magic vs matter. But they are both Gnostic, in the sense that they feel sure they know the true answer to the God Question. That's why I sometimes describe myself as an Agnostic Deist. Because I have concluded that logically there should be a First & Final Cause of our temporary universe, and a comprehensive holistic Aspect/Entity of our dynamic, many-minded world. But my limited mind can't wrap around an uncaused Cause or an unbounded Mind.

Therefore, all I know about everything-actual-&-possible is just-a-theory. And, as a mere speck in the cosmic whole -- a fleeting instant in eternity -- I know nothing for sure about such all-encompassing generalities, universals & absolutes. So I can only think in terms of philosophical principles & poetic metaphors & rational speculations. For example, Cosmologists viewing the universe from the inside -- and from a materialist perspective -- construct imaginary models of what it would look like from the outside. Those speculative constructs typically look like either bubbles of unspecified-something, or evolving horns of burgeoning plenty, or in some cases as topological toroid rings. Yet, they are all pictured floating in the black emptiness of the unknown. And, they are all imaginary materialistic metaphors for a mind-boggling mystery.

As an Agnostic, I am ignorant of the Mind of God. I have no direct revelation from the Source. And yet, I am motivated to know what can be known about my cosmic context. So, I tend to use a variety of symbolic concepts, in a feeble attempt to comprehend the all-encompassing features & functions of the Logical All, of which you and I are minor parts. An alternative way to think of the Cosmos, including Life & Mind, is not as a place in space or time, but as a universal state of consciousness. Like Plato's Forms, which are not “out there”, but everywhere, everywhen, all-at-once.

However, Atheists might say there's no such thing as Everything, outside space-time. And Theists could object that my skimpy theory has no place for Favored People, or for salvation from imperfect Reality. Also, in my incomplete Agnostic theory of Everything, the world does not revolve around me or my kind. It's just a way to know a little something about the vast unknowable, and to make sense of the "blooming buzzing confusion" of incoming signals. Meanwhile, I'm content to wait for omniscience to set-in, before I place my faith in a mystery, or abandon all hope. :cool:

PS__There are several ways to interpret the general idea of an intentional universe. For example a> Panpsychism/Pantheism/PanDeism/PanEnDeism ; b> universe as mathematical simulation (a la Matrix) ; c> gestation of a baby god (a la Omega Point) ; and so forth. But I try not to get too specific in my speculations into the dark realm of manifold Possibilities . . . or too fantastic.


MULTIVERSE : AN UNBOUNDED SPHERE OF MANY SPHERES

PROGRESSION FROM BIG BANG TO BIG RIP

COSMIC DONUT

- First of all "Empirical Science" isn't a philosophical caprice but a Pragmatic Necessity and no "crawling out" is talking place. — Nickolasgaspar

So, there's no escape from the supremacy of Emperor Science?

Wow! Ten reply posts in a row. That must set some kind of record. And I salute your passion. To what do you attribute your emotional drive to drive a stake into the heart of God? And how do you characterize that heart-felt motivation? To purge pristine Science of all conjecture & speculation?

Again, I bow before the power of your relentless Logic. But, I hope you won't report me to the Emperor, for expressing my forbidden opinions in public. I thought I could get away with my watered-down god-concept. But now I see that I was wrong to think I could evade the moral census of Science. I hereby repent of my sins against Lord Logic, and promise to avoid any further transgressions of Official Doctrine --- on this thread. :joke:


Are you now, or have you ever been a member of the Philosophical conspiracy to subvert Science?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McCarthyism

↪Gnomon
You maybe onto something. I, however, am not so optimistic, but don't let me, an agent of the system, dampen your spirits. Carry on. Do keep us posted on any interesting developments. — Agent Smith

Hey! You raised the question of TOE & novacula occami. So, what was your motivation? Was it simply to ridicule the idealistic fantasy of ultimate non-redundant simplicity in a complex world? Or is your pessimism complicated by an itch you can't scratch, except philosophically?

Pragmatic sober scientists, a century ago, were surprised by evidence that our world was not eternal. Yet they were foolish enough to accept the crazy idea that all the zillions of things in the world emerged from a hypothetical Singularity, at a unique point-of-beginning, to create Space-Time from who-knows-what. How much simpler can it get? Except possibly to look for the Source of that fertile Cosmic Egg. Or the Programmer of the algorithm of Evolution? But, why complicate things with fruitless conjectures? Don't you have something better to do?

I agree that the concept of Monotheism was probably an exasperated attempt to simplify the confusing convoluted myths of Polytheism. At least, the notion of an eternal Potential, an Uncaused Cause, seemed to be an intellectual improvement on most bedtime-story explanations for the existence of the natural world, and its cultural questioners. But, that logical shot-in-the-dark has remained hypothetical down to this day. Are we getting any closer to the bottom of what we perceive as universal Reality?

Ancient philosophers sought to simplify the diversity of material things, by postulating an elementary smallest unit of matter : the Atom. And matter-chopping scientists continued to look for that basic building block of the real world, until the 20th century. Ironically, their newly-crowned "atom" was soon found to be made up of even smaller subatomic particles, right on down to the Trinitarian notion of multi-flavored hypothetical Quarks. But their quirky existence was easy to ridicule, due to the necessity to assume something even farther down the tower of turtles : hopefully labeled "preons" (non-dimensional points in four varieties). But its actual existence remains as unprovable as that of the ancient storm-gods.

Hence, the frustrating search for the ultimate "indivisible" element, was shifted from tiny material objects to amorphous invisible Fields of mathematical grids presumed to be made of potential energy. More recently though, the never-ending quest has turned to immaterial Information (mind stuff) as the foundational substance of reality. And that's where I picked-up the impossible dream, But, that seemingly silly notion may have been anticipated by Spinoza in his postulation of a Single (infinite) polymorphic Substance, that he equated with God or Nature. Were all those sages over the centuries barking up the wrong tree? Do we have to go completely out of this world to find the Ground of Being? :worry:


Is Information Fundamental? :
Could information be the fundamental "stuff" of the universe?
https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/article/is-information-fundamental/

Is it valid to use metaphors to illustrate certain attributes of an object, even though the objects being compared are not actually identical (although they are said to be)? — _db

I think that's a primary distinction between pragmatic Science and theoretical Philosophy. Science tries to describe material reality in terms of physical attributes, while philosophy characterizes the invisible immaterial aspects of reality in terms of analogies, comparing mental concepts to material objects. Unfortunately, there is no objective validity in those symbolic figures of speech, because they are essentially subjective, and often culturally biased. However, a metaphor is just as valid as a pencil sketch of the defendant in a trial : to illustrate appearances from a limited perspective : not to prove innocence or guilt. :smile:


Metaphor in philosophy :
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metaphor_in_philosophy

What could possibly be simplest explanation for all phenomena? A ToE (theory of everything)? One with just one entity obviously, oui? — Agent Smith

Only partly tongue-in-cheek, I call my own Enformationism thesis a "Theory of Everything", in the sense that it boils all Matter, Energy & Mind in the universe down to a single all-encompassing "entity" : Information. This is based on current extensions of basic Information Theory, from Shannon's 1s & 0s, to a wide variety of physical, mathematical, & mental applications. If you sum-up all those various Forms of information, the whole cosmic system could be viewed as "God", at least in Spinoza's notion of deus sive natura. As you suggested : "God is one entity and is the simplest explanation for everything". :smile:

PS__Calling my thesis a TOE doesn't mean I personally know everything. It just implies that potentially every question in science & philosophy could be explained by reference to a single "entity". Some professional thinkers & researchers are already scratching the surface of that gold mine of knowledge.

CEMI (conscious electromagnetic information) theory is a promising framework for explaining intentionality and the spectrum of arousal as EM field effects. — Enrique

This is all way over my head, including its EM field aura. :wink:

To put your theory into context :
1. How does it differ from CEMI? Does it add or subtract certain features?
2. If this Mind-Field is physical, would it make mind-reading possible, via something like an EEG machine hooked-up to a computer to translate vibrations & excitations into human language?
3. What patterns of field activity would indicate Intention-to-act or to-express-thoughts-&-feelings?
4. Do you see some other practical applications of this theory in the near future?

Note : Self-publishing costs vary from $2000 to $4000 (not including marketing) for a non-technical publication. One low-cost alternative would be to create a WordPress website, which costs as low as $3 per month for shared hosting. Then, you could do your own "marketing" by posting links on other related technical or general interest websites & forums, including Quora. Be advised though, that some sites frown on free self-promotion. Links to the Abstract might provide enough information to elicit interest that might eventually result in being picked-up by a journal.

I don't know what you think you have heard but there is a crisis in Philosophy for so many years because humans use the field as a comforting pillow to rest their anxieties and seek validity by just stating "its philosophy". Things are not that simple. — Nickolasgaspar

Pardon me, but I only see an opportunity for Philosophy to crawl out from under the domination of Empirical Science, as Quantum Physics and Information Theory have elevated the importance of the mind-of-the-observer in both analytical (reductive) and synthetic (holistic) scrutiny of reality. I've heard that the Chinese word for "crisis" means "danger + opportunity".

Can you point to a post in this thread where someone justifies his premise with the appeal to authority of "its philosophy". I assume that's how it appears to you, since you seem to hold a dim view of traditional Philosophy as senseless wrangling about nonsense. That is the self-defeating view of the philosophical position known as Scientism, which was a response to a perceived "crisis" in philosophy. Since that minor branch of philosophy probably began with the Vienna School of the 20th century, it's hardly a current crisis. By contrast, on this forum, those defending a position aligned with Scientism often refer to the concept of capital "s" Science as the centralized & universal authority on all pertinent questions, including philosophical conundra.

For the record, I will gladly acknowledge that you and are more knowledgeable than me on 20th century science and philosophy. And perhaps smarter than me in general, as you seem to assume. But I have read few of the works of 20th century philosophers. of the 174 list in the link below, only Daniel Dennett and Thomas Nagel books are in my library. The others, I have either never heard of the others, or only from Wikipedia articles. I took basic college courses in the major divisions of Science, and have subscribed to Scientific American & Discovery & Skeptic & Skeptical Inquiry magazines for over 40 years. I suppose that pitiful summary pales beside your own curriculum vitae.

However, I came late to philosophy, only a few years ago. And my personal interests are primarily in leading-edge 21st century science, and philosophical investigations into Information & Consciousness & Metaphysical questions, that are still on the margins of scientific concern. So, I admit that most of your criticisms of my ignorance or idiocy fall on deaf ears. Fortunately, there are a few on this forum with similar interests, that I can dialogue with. Hence, I'm not motivated to seek your approval.



List of 20th century philosophers :
https://www.thefamouspeople.com/20th-century-philosophers.php

Thus the struggle between metaphysics and scientific world-conception is not only a struggle between different kinds of philosophies, but it is also—and perhaps primarily—a struggle between different political, social, and economical attitudes.


The rise and fall of scientific authority — and how to bring it back :
Preaching, denouncing or shouting ‘Science works!’ won’t help. Neither will throwing around statistics, graphs and charts.
https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-019-00872-w

I wonder to what extent those who believe in Spinoza' s God may be considered to be theists or atheists? — Jack Cummins

Somewhere in the middle. Spinoza's God/Nature may be too close to Pantheism for the comfort of Atheists. And it was dismissed by his contemporary Blaise Pascal as the impotent "god of philosophers", lacking an offer of salvation. But, the notion of identifying God & Nature could be acceptable to Deists, who believe in a Supreme Being or First Cause of some kind, but not one who violates natural laws with miracles. :smile:

Psychology, the science of the mind and behavior, supposedly evolved from Philosophy. That was what I was taught when I was taking my psychology classes. I can see how that would be the case, they have much in common and overlap quite a bit. — HardWorker

Yes. But I think Psychology, Sociology, and the other "soft" sciences are still primarily theoretical & philosophical, with a scientific veneer of statistical probabilities. In the early 20th century, premature psychology was dismissed by scientists as "mere philosophy". So, Skinner proposed to make it a "hard" science by studying only objective behavior, instead of speculating on subjective ideas & feelings. That approach faded away after a while, since outward behavior is not a reliable indicator of inward thoughts & motives. What we now know is that humans evolved from apes, yet still have much in common with them. :smile:

Behaviorism :
Strictly speaking, behaviorism is a doctrine – a way of doing psychological or behavioral science itself.
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/behaviorism/