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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

MEANINGFUL PATTERN EMERGES FROM RANDOMNESS

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Metaphysical versus Anti-Metaphysical (March 22, 2022)

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


BothAnd Principle :
The Enformationism worldview entails the principles of Complementarity, Reciprocity & Holism, which are necessary to ofset the negative effects of Fragmentation, Isolation & Reductionism. Analysis into parts is necessary for knowledge of the mechanics of the world, but synthesis of those parts into a whole system is required for the wisdom to integrate the self into the larger system.
BothAnd Glossary

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Generic : general ; comprehensive ; generative ; non-specific

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

PS___You can call me Mr. Sir. :joke:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

BothAnd? — Agent Smith

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Yet, the attitude which I recommend is one that's common knowledge: If life gives ya lemons, make lemonade! — Agent Smith

Yes! Animals have no choice, but to grimly gulp the lemons, while making a lemon-face. But humans can add a spoonful of sugar to help the medicine go down. :joke:

What I'd like to know is how a theist can retain belief in a nonphysical being (God) and still have a coherent definition of nonexistence. — Agent Smith

Humans are flexible in their beliefs : If it "works", it doesn't matter if it's real. For example, the number "Zero" refers to that which does not exist. But the gap-filler symbol (0) of emptiness has been found to be very useful in higher math (higher than fingers & toes). Likewise, imaginary numbers are non-existent in any physical sense, yet again ivory tower mathematicians find them to be necessary or inevitable for their abstract purposes. Even Potential, as defined by Aristotle, is non-existent but powerful. Imagine the power of un-actualized Omnipotential.

Terrence Deacon has coined a new term for non-existence. He uses "absence" & "absential" to refer to a state that has not-yet been realized or actualized. It is especially apt for describing human intentions. His definition of causal non-existence does not specifically refer to a god, but you can see the resemblance in a deity who exists in some sense, but is not physically there or anywhere.

Causal Absence also has physical implications in "strange attractors" of chaos & fractals, and for the "great attractor" out in the cosmos, yet there is nothing there. Even the physical notion of Entropy seems to be pointing to a state of nothingness in the future, toward which all things in the world seem to be "pulled". Are non-existent strings attached to such sink-holes in reality? :wink:

Constitutive absence: A particular and precise missing something that is a critical defining attribute of 'ententional' phenomena, such as functions, thoughts, adaptations, purposes, and subjective experiences.
http://absence.github.io/3-explanations/absential/absential.html

Richard Dawkins will often say that life exhibits 'apparent design'. He obviously does this to defray the age-old cliche of the 'grand designer'. But design in nature is easy to discern and to represent graphically: — Wayfarer

FWIW, I think of Evolution as bottom-up design, by contrast with the Genesis story of top-down design. From that pragmatic perspective, the world is designing itself (self-organizing), just as a computer program begins with a general definition of the desired answer, and then proceeds to calculate & construct a more specific answer. But a bottom-up question must be open-ended, as in "what would happen if . . ." So, it seems as-if the material world is following inherent laws (operating system) to calculate the best possible answer to some ultimate question (unknown to us). Hence, each form produced gives the appearance of being intentionally designed to fit its niche in the ecology. :smile:


In evolutionary computation, the computer creates a population of potential solutions to a problem. These are often random solutions, so they are unlikely to solve the problem being tackled or even come close. But some will be slightly better than others. The computer can discard the worst solutions, retain the better ones and use them to “breed” more potential solutions. Parts of different solutions will be combined (this is often called “crossover”) to create a new generation of solutions that can then be tested and the process begins again.
https://theconversation.com/evolutionary-computation-has-been-promising-self-programming-machines-for-60-years-so-where-are-they-91872

" So simple a beginning, endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being, evolved." ___Darwin

In most films on the simulation theory the real is depicted as less glamorous, more drab than the simulation itself. — Agent Smith

That may be why humans have always imagined that there must be something better, something more, than this "vale of tears". Our advanced animal brains are not limited to the here & now, but can create alternative possible worlds, such as Plato's Ideal, and the Christian Heaven, or somewhat more mundane, a Garden of Eden, where grass-fed lions lay-down with their fellow vegetarian lambs. :joke:

A small defensive word in favor of the scientist... Quantum mechanics is the same small hard ball approach. — Hillary

I wasn't denigrating quantum scientists. They're doing the best they can with the counter-intuitive feedback they get from sub-atomic experiments. Since such concepts as "Superposition" and "Wave-Particle Duality" don't make sense to our classically-trained brains, the pioneers of Weird Science were forced to resort to conventional physical metaphors, that made them seem somewhat less meta-physical, but still quite strange. In my thesis, I encapsulate those paradoxical dualities in the coined term "BothAnd", as illustrated in the Yin-Yang symbol.

"This picture of quantum mechanics is said to be ontic, from 'ontology' . . . . the alternative view is that the wavefunction is epistemic . . . . our state of knowledge".
____Phillip Ball, Beyond Weird

It could even be argued that the wavefunction constitutes space. It's the notion of the particle being a point that is problematic. — Hillary

I don't know if the wavefunction "constitutes space", but it potentially fills all of space, until forced to "collapse" to a specific location. Even the math of Schrodinger's Equation is weird, in that it requires "imaginary numbers, which is not something that has a physical meaning". (ibid) Since the physical foundation of our reality can only be described in mathematical terms, it fits neatly into my thesis that everything in the world is a form of Information (the potential to enform, both physically and mentally). :smile:

So, if mind is part of matter, can there even be a reality independent of mind? — Hillary

The "correct" answer to that question depends on how you look at it. Just as Einstein was forced by the facts to conclude that macro (space-time) reality is relative, it now seems that quantum reality is also relative to the observer. If you look within, your world-model is integral with your-self, but it you look without, it seems independent of your mind. :nerd:

From a Wittgensteinian standpoint there's no essence to either illusions/simulations or reality that could aid us in telling them apart. — Agent Smith

Actually, there is an "essence" underlying perceived reality : I call it "Information". Unfortunately, materialist scientists have ruthlessly dissected reality looking for its fundamental substance. The problem is that they imagined that substance as tiny balls of hard stuff. But eventually, Quantum researchers have been mystified to find that the foundation of material reality is mushy Mathematics (Fields of intangible potential ; invisible WaveForms ; mind-stuff). Their "substance" is essentially the Information necessary to describe the statistical probability of their physical existence at a particular place & time. So, it seems that Reality is based on illusory gambler's odds.

The current issue of Philosophy Now magazine (149) has an article that mentions Bostrom's "simulation hypothesis". His issue is to know whether there is "a mind-independent reality". And Nozick's similar Experience Machine thought-experiment concluded that a convincing simulation of Reality would "prevent us from grasping any deeper reality". So it seems that, for all practical purposes, Reality is what you experience : the information you take-into your mind, from which to build a model of the source of those incoming bits of experience. However, speaking for most of us, Nozick said, "we want to have a genuine relationship with reality, not live a fictional life that only feels real. (a la Matrix). "This means that for many people there must be something --- perhaps reality itself -- that is valuable in addition to the feels of experience".

I suppose it's that feeling of incompleteness & imperfection in the perceived world, that caused ancient philosophers (e.g. Plato) to propose an Ideal World, of which our mundane Reality is merely a simulation. Perhaps, the felt need for "something more" is what allows the majority of people to imagine (and believe) in super-gods & heavenly homes, where Reality is closer to Ideality. So, how can we tell them apart : the mind-model of Reality from the unknown real-Reality? Does it really make any difference? Obviously, some people feel strongly that it does. Which is why Morpheus, and his crew, chose to live in a hadean underworld, instead of the "normal" matrix simulation. If only we-in-the-normal-world had magic pills, so we could tell them apart. :cool:

Suppose that belief or faith had the intrinsic property of manifesting into reality whatever is believed. For example if I believe a delicious cheesy, tomato and dough based circle exists then pizza becomes a thing. — Benj96

What-you-believe doesn't create Reality, but Ideality. Yet, for subjective personal purposes, what-you-believe (your world model) is your Reality. The Matrix movie is a good metaphorical illustration of the principle that Reality is what you think it is. Of course, some of us think we're too smart to fall for the old smoke & mirrors trick. But professional magicians, who know how most tricks work, and are inherently skeptical of "real" magic, can be fooled by slick illusions. Such mis-led beliefs are manifest to the mind, not to the eyes. Belief is bliss. :joke:

Matrix Reality Simulation :
Cypher : You know, 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?
[Takes a bite of steak]
Cypher : Ignorance is bliss.
https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0133093/characters/nm0001592

Fool the magician :
https://www.finchmagician.com/magic/who-has-fooled-penn-and-teller

Manifest : 1. clear or obvious to the eye or mind.

Better to be a little troll than a giant Panner! — Hillary

Ha! 180 proof calling you a "troll" is like invader Vlad Putin calling defender Volo Zelensky a NAZI. :joke:

Panner - Urban Dictionary
Someone who is relatively big or fat but thinks and acts like he or she is buff or of average weight constantly talking about it.
https://www.urbandictionary.com ›

your EnformActionism is, to my reckoning, what religion will look like in the distant future (say a 100 to a 1000 years from now). It blends old ideas with new ones, in the most elegant of ways I might add. Moreover, it's got a little bit of everything in it (eclectic/mashup/remix)! — Agent Smith

I doubt that anything like the reason & science-based Enformationism worldview will ever become a popular religion. For one thing, it's too broad & general. Yet, it works as an intellectual-philosophical attitude toward the ("stranger in a strange land") world we find ourselves trapped in (Heidegger :"thrownness"). But, a popular religion requires an emotional commitment, based on faith & hope for something better than the current imperfect world of pain & suffering. Some New Agers seem to feel a connection to something "bigger than us", as in Paganism & Panpsychism & Tat Tvam Asi ("thou art that"). And some may mistake Enformationism as a love-is-all-you-need New Age religious philosophy. But for me, it's merely a way to make sense of the mysteries (Why) that remain after materialistic Science has done all it can to reveal How the world works. :nerd:

PS___The G*D that I envision is not omnibenevolent to human creatures, but simply an impartial Observer watching the Game of Life unfold, as the players struggle to survive and to score points for their team. I haven't been able to work-out any scheme of Salvation or Deliverance, except in the hypothetical possibility of Re-Enforming (reincarnation), which recycles the Data of which I am made. But the Un-Known On-Looker hasn't revealed His/Her plans for me after the game is over. Nevertheless, we can always hope for the best. And try to win for The Team (humanity ; ecology, etc), not for the Spectator, who roots for both sides (Good & Evil).

PPS___My philosophical god-model is a form of Deism, specifically PanEnDeism. Some have tried & failed to make a viable religion of such an abstract & dispassionate concept.


Thrownness :
Geworfenheit—a kind of alienation that human beings struggle against, and that leaves a paradoxical opening for freedom.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thrownness
"Into this world we're thrown /
Like a dog without a bone"
Riders on the Storm The Doors

Deism :
belief in the existence of a supreme being, specifically of a creator who does not intervene in the universe. The term is used chiefly of an intellectual movement of the 17th and 18th centuries that accepted the existence of a creator on the basis of reason but rejected belief in a supernatural deity who interacts with humankind.
___Google

You know, I've been thinking (like never before in my life)...the gap between us and God could be as big or even bigger than the gap between us and animals stones! That could be one of the reasons He very rarely intervenes, despite our earnest prayers, in the affairs of humans (we're not even alive to Him). — Agent Smith

Paradoxically, G*D (Programmer ; Cause ; Source) is both "wholly-other" and "all-encompassing". In the sense of being unbounded by space & time, G*D is in a completely different ontological category from the creatures bound to live within the constraints of an imperfect, but evolving, physical world. However, in the Enformationism thesis, we humans are integral parts of the Whole System, in a concept similar to PanPsychism. Metaphorically, we are all ideas in the Mind of G*D.

So, in an Ideal sense, G*D is US --- we are real forms of the ideal Form, we are chips off the old BEING. According to PanDeism (all is god), G*D, whose substance is EnFormAction (energy ; power to cause change, to create), converted some of His/Her metaphysical substance (ideas ; mind) into physical substance (matter). Moreover, PanEnDeism (all in god), is based on the notion that we creatures are integral parts of the ultimate Whole. But, if you are uncomfortable with overtly religious god-models, you could simply say that we are the offspring of Mother Nature.

Presumably, the Creator/Programmer knows everything we know, and feels all that we feel. We are G*D experiencing what it's like to be finite & time-bound. Some have said that we creatures are how an Ideal G*D experiences Reality. When we suffer, G*D suffers, and when we exult, G*D is elated. Unfortunately, this is all hypothetical from our narrow perspective inside the system. But, at least, it gives us some reason to feel a philosophical kinship with our silent & remote Creator, who doesn't intervene but conjoins. Some religious believers express that notion of oneness in various metaphors, such as the Footprints In The Sand poem. You may not go quite that far, but as a philosophical worldview, it's at least a positive take on the human experience, as representatives of G*D in the world. Which aspect do you express : the Divine or the Satanic? :cool:


Wholly Other :
The term “wholly other” is used in Christian theology to describe the difference between God and everything else.
https://carm.org/dictionary/wholly-other/

Footprints in the Sand :
https://www.onlythebible.com/Poems/Footprints-in-the-Sand-Poem.html

Panendeism :
http://www.supra-id.org/panendeism

God becomes the universe :
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_becomes_the_Universe

Pretty much true, but it's more correct to say: "we're not godly enough to Him" — SpaceDweller
Let's see what Gnomon has to say. — Agent Smith

No. That's a Calvinist Christian notion of "Sinners In The Hands of an Angry God", who sees us as loathsome insects fit only to be burned. https://wwnorton.com/college/history/archive/resources/documents/ch03_03.htm
The Creator of an imperfect, but evolving world, couldn't reasonably expect perfection from fallible creatures in an imperfect immature world. So we can only make the best use of whatever messy situation we find ourselves in. My god-model is more like the one expressed in the poem below. :smile:

Desiderata :
. . . . . . Therefore, be at peace with God, whatever you conceive Him to be. And whatever your labors and aspirations in the noisy confusion of life, keep peace in your soul. With all its sham, drudgery and broken dreams; it is still a beautiful world. Be cheerful.
https://www.sfu.ca/~wainwrig/desiderata.htm

This generates a kinda sorta paradox where a fool (computer) beats a sage (a person, relatively speaking that is). — Agent Smith

Actually, the first so-called "computers" were women mathematicians. And their primary advantage over their male competitors was that they were able to sit still and focus on numbers for hours on end. Meanwhile, the men would get restless, their minds would wander, and they were made to look like fools by the very females. who were not supposed to be "good with numbers". Unfortunately, for those number-crunching gals, the digital computer is even more focused & relentless. But dumb! If they divided by zero, they would keep-on crunching until kingdom come, or the machine burst into flames, whichever came first. :joke:

https://www.history.com/news/human-computers-women-at-nasa

Isn't a computer Go world champion? — Hillary

Yes. But the human mind evolved for quick back-of-the-envelope solutions to pattern-recognition problems : tiger or bush? The computer was developed & dedicated specifically for maze-running expertise. Just think how dumb humans will feel when Quantum AI learns to play war games like SkyNet. :smile:

Google AI defeats human Go champion :
The types of intelligence exhibited by machines that are good at playing games are seen as very narrow. While they may produce algorithms that are useful in other fields, few think they are close to the all-purpose problem solving abilities of humans that can come up with good solutions to almost any problem they encounter.
https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-40042581

However, pure memory seems adequate to appear intelligent. You could, for instance, memorize every question and their answers and pass yourself off as a genius, but are you? — Agent Smith

Yes. That's how AI chess players beat humans : they have instant access to thousands of historical games and situational plays. The only thing that keeps humans in the game today is creativity : to do what hasn't been done before, hence is not yet in memory. :smile:

That's the power of memory.
That's the power of pattern recognition.. — Agent Smith

Memory is just data storage. Pattern recognition is the beginning of cognition : knowing, consciousness. Pattern recognition sees the invisible (meaningful) links between isolated bits of information. Human intelligence is far ahead of AI in its ability to do more than just mimic. Plus the human mind uses a variety of cognitive processes -- beyond pure Logic (e.g. emotional & visceral & muscle memory) -- to add nuance to sensation. :brow:

Ie ie! Yokoso!
You're welcome.

Is it then reasonable to conclude that ethics wasn't top on the list of God's priorities?
A more interesting question is, is this world, as Leibniz believed, the best of all possible worlds? A scientific proof of that would look like this: Given carbon-based life like ours, the other parameters of our universe that make life and goodness possible are such that they also permit death and evil. The question can be reformulated for dystheism also. — Agent Smith

Yes. Ethics is concerned with relationships between people, not between G*D & Man. As I see it, G*D is not Fair-to-me, but Neutral-to-all. For most people, fairness is judged from a personal & subjective perspective. But for the impersonal & objective Programmer of Evolution, variations between "good & bad" are inherent & necessary in the Hegelian Dialectic. The heuristic (trial & error) Evolutionary Algorithm searches for "fitness to an ultimate purpose", not for "fairness to the individual players" in the game. In the game of Evolution there are winners & losers, but the rule-maker is only concerned with the final outcome.

Personally, my life has been mostly good, so I don't think in terms of Dystheism. Apparently, the game is setup with rules (natural laws) that apply equally to all players. So, in that sense, the game is fair. And it's up to each player to make the best of his own talents & situations. Unfortunately, some are born without talent (advantages) and into untenable circumstances. That may seem unfair, but human culture is able to counter-balance the situation with such innovations as Charity. That's why I think of the evolving world, as an experiment in Free Will, to see if its agents are able to learn how to act morally & ethically. Regarding the final score, I assume that it will be satisfactory for the Programmer. But we'll just have to wait & see if, after The End (the Totality), the game is reset and started all over again, with a score of zero to zero. In any case, a Dystopian worldview only hurts the viewer. :smile:

PS___Best World for whom? Certainly not for me. But it's somewhere in the middle. Presumably, it will turn-out OK for the Creator's purposes. Humans can only dream of Utopias, but G*D can make it happen . . . eventually. If Free Will is the point of the game, it will take time to let it develop from top-down Natural Laws to inter-personal Cultural Laws.


Evolutionary Algorithm :
There is a problem to be solved, and the solution is conceived to lie somewhere in a space of possible candidate solutions – the search space. The evolutionary algorithm searches for good solutions in the search space using this typical structure:
https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/biochemistry-genetics-and-molecular-biology/evolutionary-algorithm

Hegelian system :
Hegel's grand idea is "totality" which preserves within it each of the ideas or stages that it has overcome or subsumed. Overcoming or subsuming is a developmental process made up of "moments" (stages or phases).
https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/hegel/help/easy.htm

Tanquam ex ungue leonem (We recognize the lion by his claw). — Johann Bernoulli (said of Isaac Newton after Newton sent him a solution for the brachiostochrone problem)

An old saying is that "you can know the artist by his art". Likewise, you can know the Creator by the nature of his Creation. So, we can infer some characteristics of the Programmer by looking into the features of the Program (e.g. evolution). Some describe G*D as perfect Goodness. Others think that G*D is a "respecter of persons". But homo sapiens is a late development in evolution, and we don't get special treatment from Nature.

Therefore, since Evolution is neither Good nor Evil, but a bit of both, I assume the Cause of our existence was Neutral (i.e. BothAnd). Hence, it's only from the biased human perspective that whatever happens is judged by how it affects me & mine. What we call good & evil could be interpreted as merely necessary variations on the Hegelian (good/evil ; positive/negative) path to the ultimate output. So, humanity may seem be the current high-point of evolution, but in the-long-run we might be just one more step on the ladder to the final program output (e.g. Omega Point -- whatever that might be). :cool:

A computerchip crammed with usable information weight a fraction more than an empty chip, but this doesn't mean that information can be weighed. — Hillary

Don't take that scientist's loose talk about Information having Mass too literally. He's thinking of Information as a "state of Matter". Instead, I view Matter as a form of Information. That's because Information (e.g. mathematical ratios) seems to be fundamental to physical and meta-physical reality.

Raw unformed Information is like a statistical Probability, all Potential nothing Actual. But as Pure Information changes forms, from weightless Mind-stuff, to statistical Potential, to Energy, to Matter, it becomes more physical and more massive. For example at light-speed, a Photon (pure potential energy) has no mass, but as it slows down, it gains mass, until it eventually becomes Matter. (E=MC^2). :nerd:

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

My understanding of your Enformationism Thesis is basically this: As far as we, h. sapiens, and also other beings with more or less the same level of intelligence, are concerned, information is key to building a universe. Think computer simulations - information (on how to create a universe like ours) is prior to the (simulated) universe itself.
The next obvious question is, who is/are the programmer(s) [god(s)]? Someone/something must have used the information required to construct a universe, ours; this one maybe one among many others (multiverse). — Agent Smith

Yes. Quantum scientists & Cosmologists (mathematical theorists, not empirical pragmatists) are coming to the conclusion that invisible-intangible Information (mathematical ratios between 1s & 0s) is the essence of material reality. Based on that axiomatic assumption, some have postulated a Mathematical Universe, or a Cosmic Computer Simulation. But my layman's thesis is a bit more down-to-earth. For personal & philosophical purposes, I assume that our temporary & contingent world was created in the Big Bang, and that the creative process continues to this day. It seems to be progressing in complexity (e.g intelligence), and heading toward some unknowable destination, that some call "Omega Point".

The First Cause/Creation concept implies that the BB was not an astronomically unlikely accident, but an intentional construct. So, I imagine that the Cause was like a Computer Programmer, who embedded an evolutionary algorithm into the mother-board of the BB Singularity, then pressed the "Enter" button. Voila! the material world is the result of ciphering objects & actions from the Laws & Algorithms. It's a neat theory, but as a being limited to space-time, I have no way of gaining direct knowledge of anything that "existed" before the beginning of Time : i.e. Eternity.

Therefore, I can't claim to have any privileged knowledge of the presumed Programmer, or of any other 'verses that might be out there in the mysterious Great Beyond. However, bowing to Ockham's Razor, I don't "multiply entities". So, I think of the Ultimate Source, not as people or things, but as a universal Principle of Existence, that I label, "BEING".

Note -- The initial Singularity is often compared to a Black Hole, which is a repository of Information. But in reverse : the Information comes out of it, spewing stars & planets into empty space.

The "Enformation Thesis"? — Hillary

Enformationism is my personal worldview, based on 21st century Quantum & Information theories. Scientists are beginning to conclude that shape-shifting Information (mind-matter-energy) is the fundamental element of the real world. So, I have concluded that, logically, there must a Cosmic Mind or Programmer to set-up the creative progressive program that we call "Evolution". However, it's neither a Scientific model, nor a Religious myth, but merely serves as a Philosophical perspective on the world "in which we live and move and have our being". I don't have any privileged knowledge of the Enformer/Programmer, so I resort to the use of various metaphors, instead the usual G*D concept, to refer to the ultimate source of our world (e.g. BEING -- the power to exist). :smile:

PS___If the notion of invisible Information, as both the energy and the matter of reality, is hard to wrap your mind around, check-out Spinoza's theory of "Single Substance" = Nature = God.

Enformationism :
As a scientific paradigm, the thesis of Enformationism is intended to be an update to the obsolete 19th century paradigm of Materialism. Since the recent advent of Quantum Physics, the materiality of reality has been watered down. Now we know that matter is a form of energy, and that energy is a form of Information.
As a religious philosophy, the creative power of EnFormAction is envisioned as a more realistic version of the antiquated religious notions of Spiritualism. Since our temporary world had a beginning, it's hard to deny the concept of creation. So, an infinite First Cause is proposed to serve as both the energetic Enformer and the malleable substance of the enformed world.
BothAnd Blog Glossary

There's no nonexistence, just different kinds of existence. I think Meinong of Meinong's jungle fame thought along the same lines. — Agent Smith

I just Googled "Meinong's Jungle", and found that his view of Nominal vs Phenomenal existence was similar to my own assumption in the Enformationism Thesis. Phenomenal reality is what we know via the 5 senses. However, we also give names to abstract concepts (e.g. metaphors ; symbols) that exist only in the mind, and sometimes treat them as-if they were real things. But Materialists & Nominalists dismiss such imaginary "objects" (e.g. Unicorns & Pegasus) as non-sense. Ironically, that view would ignore most of what makes humans different from animals : imagination & projection into the not-yet-real future. Yes, those ideal "objects" even include popular religious figures and Marvel super-heroes.

In the Enformationism thesis, I treat Ideas (mental objects) as-if they have some kind of meaningful & useful, but non-physical existence. Literally, they don't "matter", but they do signify. That assumption is based on the science of Information (knowledge), which is essentially meta-physical, but also exists in various physical forms. [see below] Since Einstein, we have known that Matter (Mass) & Energy are interchangeable, and more recently that physical Energy & abstract Information are different forms of the same Rational Potential. That Ideal "kind of existence" is what Plato's Idealism referred to as "Forms". Their way-of-being is not Actual & Physical, but Potential & Meta-Physical. For humans, especially philosophers, ideas are just as important as food & shelter.

Unfortunately, the Materialists & Physicalists & Nominalists on this forum, object to my use of an ancient Theological term, "Metaphysics", which to them implies that ghosts, spirits & souls are to be treated as Real things. Instead, my intention is merely to treat those imaginary objects-of-thought as worthy of philosophical consideration. Presumably, most animals are limited to sensing only things that have physical phenomenal existence. But humans have a sixth sense that can conceive & simulate & manipulate unreal ideas & symbols, as-if they real. And the result is often what we call "creativity". And that includes religious metaphors & analogies, that served human philosophical purposes long before the advent of Empirical Phenomenal Science. :nerd:


Meinong, an Austrian philosopher active at the turn of the 20th century, believed that since non-existent things could apparently be referred to, they must have some sort of being, which he termed sosein ("being so") https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meinong%27s_jungle

In metaphysics, nominalism is the view that universals and abstract objects do not actually exist other than being merely names or labels. ___Wiki

Phenominalism : the doctrine that human knowledge is confined to or founded on the realities or appearances presented to the senses.

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. This would mean that every bit of information has a finite and quantifiable mass.
https://www.zmescience.com/science/news-science/information-energy-mass-equivalence/
Note --- In my thesis, I treat abstract Information as essential & fundamental, and its various physical forms as superficial & accessory. In other words, Ideal is prior to Real, as Plato assumed.

Physics & Metaphysics :
Two sides of the same coin we call Reality. When we look for matters of fact, we see physics. But when we search for meaning, we find meta-physics. A mental flip is required to view the other side. And imagination is necessary to see both at the same time.
BothAnd Blog Glossary

Did you know, I'm sure you do, that mathematically speaking, everything reduces to points, lines, curves, each one of these translatable into an equation? In other words, if you want to know what Plato's world of forms looks like, go to bed with the Queen of the sciences (mathematics). — Agent Smith

Yes. Some ancient philosophers (Pythagoras) and modern Physicists (Mario Livio) have imagined G*D metaphorically as a Divine Mathematician. My own metaphor, based on the Enformationism thesis, is that G*D is the Cosmic Programmer. These are not the kind of deities that you would worship, as a Tyrannical Heavenly Despot. Yet you have no choice but to obey His/Her Natural Laws. Fortunately, the Math Wizard has provided enough uncertainty in Nature, for humans to take advantage of the freedom to devise workarounds that result in Culture : nature modified to suit the special needs of big-brain bi-peds without fur & claws & fangs. :smile:

PS__Plato's Forms may be imagined as logical algorithms, mathematical equations, computer programs, or as musical scores.

God is a Mathematician :
Math sounds a lot like the attributes of God—eternal, omnipresent and omnipotent. According to theoretical physicist Michio Koku, “The mind of God we believe is cosmic music, the music of strings resonating through 11-dimensional hyperspace. That is the mind of God.“
https://www.scienceandnonduality.com/article/god-is-a-mathematician

I like the way you make ideals another type of being. It's close to what I said once in another thread. There's no nonexistence, just different kinds of existence. I think Meinong of Meinong's jungle fame thought along the same lines. On this view it's wrong to say God, or anything else for that matter, doesn't exist. God exists but not in the same way as (say) a rock! Wordplay? — Agent Smith

Of course, it's wordplay. But it's also Idea-play. That's what humans do. Those who deny Idealism, are repudiating Humanism. What distinguishes humans from animals? Mostly, it's the ability to convert sensory impressions into the communicatable concepts we call "Words" & "Ideas". We can then play-around with those "Memes" to construct worldviews that are more-than just sensory appearances. Those imaginary models of the world are what we label "Ideals" ; mental replicas of reality with improvements. They go beyond as-is Reality into as-if Ideality. And the positive result of that reasoning from IS to IF is what we call "Creativity". Of course, some creative ideas fall short of feasibility : e.g. Elon Musk says he wants to buy CocaCola, so he can put the Cocaine back in. I hope he's pulling-the-leg of Twitter twits.

Ironically, adamant philosophical Realists dismiss the practicality of the unrealistic mental tool that makes Philosophy possible : the ability to abstract the essence of specific concrete (real) things into general & universal (ideal) principles, which exist only in the un-real realm of Ideality. World-dominating human culture is the practical product of the homo sapiens ability to Idealize mundane Reality into Utopias & Sky Castles, that seldom become real, but do give us an advantage over the animals, who just make-do with what Nature provides -- humans make-believe. Without our talent for improving upon Nature, we would still be shivering cave-dwellers without fangs & claws. The Garden of Eden does not exist in the past, but only in the future world of Ideality. :smile:


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.
1. 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]
2. Some modern idealists find that scenario to be intriguingly similar to Plato’s notion that ideal Forms can be realized, i.e. meaning extracted, by knowing minds. For the purposes of this blog, “Ideality” refers to an infinite pool of potential (equivalent to a quantum field), of which physical Reality is a small part. A traditional name for that fertile field is G*D. But you can call it the Enformation Field, if you like.
BothAnd Blog Glossary