Comments

  • Why Was There A Big Bang
    ↪180 Proof
    ↪Wayfarer
    ↪HardWorker
    ↪Pop

    ↪Gnomon
    Does your approach have any connection to Wolfram’s cellular automata theory or Deutsch’s constructor theory? There is a lot of maths in this area - genetic algorithms, edge of chaos, critical systems, etc. Do you ground things in some model?     — apokrisis
    No. I am not a scientist, nor a mathematician. I'm just an amateur philosopher, who created his own personal worldview -- for his own private personal use -- based on a layman's unfettered alchemy of Quantum Queerness and Information Ubiquity. My Enformationism philosophy is not grounded in any particular model of physics or cosmology. Instead, it combines elements of a variety of both ancient & modern models, and both philosophical & physical concepts. But, they are all bound together, into a whole system, by the notion that Information is the fundamental element of the real world. The key influences of my model can be traced back to Plato and Aristotle, and the conceptual offshoots of those seeds have survived the weeding-out process of both Natural and Cultural Evolution.

    Speaking of which, Darwin's notion of "survival of the fittest" applies, not just to physical organisms, but also to metaphysical concepts. So, the ancient intuition of cosmic Teleology, has been refined in the forge of scientific evolution, and currently takes the form of Eutaxiology. That's why the Enformationism thesis is not a religious worldview, despite the inclusion of the notion of a "Creator" or "Programmer". The logical necessity for such "First Causes" comes not from divine revelation, but from philosophical reasoning and inference. Even after several thousand years of scientific maturation, the basic logic still applies to any space-time process, and to meta-physical thinking. If the Enformationism thesis is "grounded" in any model, it would be the recent revelation of Matter-Energy-Information equivalence. And that equation crosses the artificial boundaries between Scientific, Philosophical, and Religious worldviews. :nerd:


    Eutaxiology (from the Greek eu – good, and tax – order) is the philosophical study of order and design. It is distinguished from teleology in that it does not focus on the purpose or goal of a given structure or process, merely the degree and complexity of the structure or process.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eutaxiology

    The mass-energy-information equivalence principle :
    Landauer’s principle formulated in 1961 states that logical irreversibility implies physical irreversibility and demonstrated that information is physical.
    https://aip.scitation.org/doi/10.1063/1.5123794

    Inside knowledge: Is information the only thing that exists? :
    Physics suggests information is more fundamental than matter, energy, space and time – the problems start when we try to work out what that means
    https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg23431191-500-inside-knowledge-is-information-the-only-thing-that-exists/

    wp4f1337d7_06.png
  • Why Was There A Big Bang
    To talk of "good and bad" is way too simplistic - a dualism that wants to be reduced to a monism. . . . Your argument falls apart before it gets started if it is couched in merely anti-symmetric terms like positive-negative and good-bad. — apokrisis
    I don't emphasize the "good and bad", because my philosophy is BothAnd. It acknowledges the Duality of Reality, but "reduces" to a Monism in Holism. :smile:

    Both/And Principle :
    My coinage for the holistic principle of Complementarity, as illustrated in the Yin/Yang symbol. Opposing or contrasting concepts are always part of a greater whole. Conflicts between parts can be reconciled or harmonized by putting them into the context of a whole system.
    http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page10.html
    Note -- there's lots more at the link


    But you are taking things back to a simplistic religious framing that just accepts there is a problem of evil, or a problem if a creator isn't the determiner of every detail. — apokrisis
    No, I don't believe the Creator is the "determiner of every detail". Instead, the Programmer created an evolutionary program that works out the details via trial & error, not magical intervention. :cool:

    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 deity, who uses bottom-up mechanisms, rather than top-down miracles, to produce a world with both freedom & determinism, order & meaning.
    http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page13.html

    But talking of a programmer immediately makes chance a big metaphysyical problem. Computers are deterministic devices. Chance doesn't even enter the story. And to claim some "swerve" to introduce uncertainty is a patent act of desperation. — apokrisis
    You have missed the whole point of the Enformationism worldview. An Evolutionary Program is not "deterministic", but it is teleological, in that there is an Intention (goal) that drives the Selection of the fittest. No "desperation: needed, just a modicum of Reason. :nerd:

    But what we see is that most folk get stuck at the first step - a symmetry breaking that only speaks of two directions at the one scale of being. — apokrisis
    A symmetry break does indeed begin with a duality, as in the mitosis of a cell : one becomes two. But that's just the first step. For example, a single stem cell has the potential to evolve into a variety of functional cells. The antique notion of a "swerve" was just an attempt to explain how a linear process could become non-linear. For example light always travels in a straight line --- until it encounters curved space, that is. :joke:

    If light bends/deflects due to gravity, then why do we say that light travels in a straight line? :
    https://www.quora.com/If-light-bends-deflects-due-to-gravity-then-why-do-we-say-that-light-travels-in-a-straight-line

    So your story predicts neither what physics has figured out about the start of the Universe, nor what sociology has figured out about the organisation of biological collectives. — apokrisis
    I'm sorry. But you won't have a clue what my "story" predicts, until you have heard the whole story. The Enformationism website is just the first chapter. The rest of the story is told in an ongoing series of blogs. I think you are confusing my 21st century creation myth with the traditional stories of creation, that are steeped in Magic instead of Science. :halo:

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

    Ultimate Enforming Principle : http://bothandblog5.enformationism.info/page24.html


    Productive metaphysics instead continues on from this kind of "dualism yearning to be monism" to a fully-broken dichotomy - one with the asymmetry of a hierarchical or triadically-developed scale. The division has to be complementary - mutually exclusive/jointly exhaustive - so that all its causes are to be found within it. No need for transcendence. — apokrisis
    In the Enformationism worldview, the Big Bang "division" was also "complementary" (BothAnd). The only "transcendence" is in the sense that a Programmer transcends the Program. You might say that the metaphysical Intention (Will) of the Programmer is embodied in the physical expression of the evolutionary program. To wit : Mental Information (Idea, Form, Concept), is transformed into Causal EnFormAction (Energy), which then transforms into the physical expression of the original concept (Matter, Sculpture). Just as a pool shooter is not on the table, only the First Cause transcends the Effect : an evolving chain of Causation. Can your "triadic" scale explain the Big Bang without reference to some prior Agency? Could our finite evolving universe be it's own Cause? :smirk:

    PS__An eternal circular process has all its "causes within it". But it's going nowhere. By contrast, a linear one-way process, from hot Big Bang to cold Big Sigh (heat death), must have an origin, a First Cause, a Prime Mover -- a Reason for Being.
  • Why Was There A Big Bang
    Why would the Big Daddy in the Sky go to all the trouble of pre-arranging an anthropically structured Big Bang that takes 13 billion years to eventually deliver the fleeting blip of a biofilm on some random chunk of real estate? — apokrisis
    I don't know why an intentional universe creator would bother to instigate a messy world like ours. But I have a theory, based on my Enformationism worldview. It's obvious to me that the mythical creator of the idyllic Garden of Eden is a fairy tale. Other ancient creation myths included the imperfect workman Demiurge of Plato, or the Gnostic's evil god Ialdabaoth. Those gods were not Omnipotent or Omni-benign, and their creative deficiencies are reflected in the imperfect world we inhabit today.

    So, anyone postulating a non-accidental creation event must confront the Problem of Evil. And the only resolution I can think of is to assume that the omnipotent Creator has the potential for both Good and Evil. That's the kernel of my BothAnd principle : the real world has both good & bad properties, from the human perspective, so any explanation for the world's existence must resolve that innate contradiction. And just blaming it on random accidents is not explanatory.

    Therefore, instead of a loving "Big Daddy", I envision a General Creative Principle that is more like abstract Mathematics than flesh & blood Mankind. Math includes both positive and negative values. So, the entity I call "The Enformer" or "G*D", is an update of Plato's LOGOS, but also includes the principles of Ethos and Pathos. Since Reason, Character, and Emotion are characteristics of our world, specifically the Cultural aspects instead of the Natural properties, the First Cause must have possessed the Aristotelian Potential for those same qualities.

    In keeping with the theme of Enformationism, the hypothetical Enformer, was essentially a Programmer, not a Magician. By that I mean S/he initiated an evolving process, instead of merely saying the magic words : "let there be light', and presto! a perfect world appears. As a result of programming a Singularity with design parameters (laws & initial conditions), a prolonged process of Evolution began, and will have an end. The End will be the output of the program. And, due to the inherent randomizing uncertainties, presumably even the Programmer does not know exactly what the Final Answer will be ( maybe 42). Evolutionary Programming is inherently uncertain, but by a process of trial & error, it gradually optimizes itself, by means of looping feedback (mutations & selection).

    I won't go into the details of the Enforming hypothesis here, but you can simply think of it as a 21st century Myth, or as Science Fiction, if you like. But remember, that all other explanatory alternatives (Inflation, Multiverse, etc) are likewise fictional projections from what's known, into the unknown territory beyond the boundaries of space-time. So, my story can only be judged by its philosophical explanatory power, not by its empirical evidence. :cool:


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

    Demiurge : a god is a deity while demiurge is something (as an institution, idea, or individual) conceived as an autonomous creative force or decisive power.
    Note -- the Demiurge functions like a computer program, which obeys the instructions of its programmer as it carries-out an assigned task. In my story, the program works-out a "what-if" question, based on certain parameters. But, if the programmer knew the answer in advance, the program wouldn't be necessary. Yet, there are non-factual philosophical questions that can only be answered in practice, not theory.
  • Why Was There A Big Bang
    He means that life and mind transcend their worlds by being organisms with an intentional point of view. — apokrisis
    Was that transcendent "intentional" perspective inevitable : due to an accidental structure of the Singularity, or to an intentional arrangement of its structure? Is Life-Mind-Intention a product of combining matter with physical laws? If so, which? And in what proportions? :smile:

    Nope. The structuralist view is just arguing that the regularities of nature are immanent rather than transcendent. They emerge from the chaos of possibility as structural inevitabilities, rather than being God-given laws that animate matter. — apokrisis
    Well, duh! The structural regularities of our universe are necessarily immanent in the structure of the system. But how the system arrived at that highly-unlikely anthropic structure is an open question. Apparently. by "chaos of possibility" you mean that a human-friendly universe is an astronomical accident. That would be a Weak Anthropic argument. And the Las Vegas odds, of such a cosmic-coincidence-of-initial-conditions occurring in finite time (in eternity anything possible must happen), are a bad bet. Therefore, the theory of Inflation was proposed to cover the bet in a fraction of a Planck second. But, if you believe in such Voila!-instant-universe-from-nothing Magic, I have some prime real estate in Afghanistan to sell you. :joke:

    What Are The Odds? :
    If modern physics is to be believed, we shouldn’t be here. The meager dose of energy infusing empty space, which at higher levels would rip the cosmos apart, is a trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion times tinier than theory predicts.
    https://www.quantamagazine.org/the-multiverses-measure-problem-20141103/

    The contest here is between two ways of looking at the metaphysics of Being - the transcendent and the immanent. And it is not even a contest. — apokrisis
    I agree. To assume that Life & MInd & Intention & Love emerged from "the chaos of possibilities" is believable, only if that infinite Chaos was limited & enformed by the logical structure of Cosmos. Therefore, the infinite potential of Chaos and the finite structure of Cosmos logically must exist prior to the actualization of potential and the realization of Cosmos in the Big Bang. And that priority is what I would call "Transcendent", in that neither Infinity nor cosmic potential can be found immanent in the actual universe we inhabit. So, Transcendence wins by a mile. Yet, it is still Structuralism. :nerd:

    Chaos :
    In ancient Greek creation myths Chaos was the void state preceding the creation of the universe or cosmos. It literally means "emptiness", but can also refer to a random undefined unformed state that was changed into the orderly law-defined enformed Cosmos. In modern Cosmology, Chaos can represent the undefined state from which the Big Bang defined (created) space/time.
    http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page12.html
  • Why Was There A Big Bang
    Of course, the entire question also seems to presuppose some sort of "God's Eye View" through which all truth corresponds to facts of being. — Count Timothy von Icarus
    Yes. Those scientists, who address the question of "something from nothing", necessarily assume an omniscient view of eternal existence prior to the Big Bang. For example, a Multiverse, of which our 'verse is merely one of zillions, is necessarily eternal, in order to escape the question of "how do you account for something new and without precedence?" In the multiverse model, a Creator (from scratch) is not necessary. because what you see now, is what has always existed in one form or another. But then, who created the Multiverse, or was it self-created? That eternal power to create new worlds is uncannily god-like. :joke:
  • Why Was There A Big Bang
    He was pointing out how this way of speaking retains a transcendental framing that doesn’t make causal sense. — apokrisis
    In the first paragraph of Tallis' article, entitled “The Laws of Nature”, he says : “. . . to apply that knowledge {about states of matter] outside of the laboratories in support of our agency [free will], are perhaps the most striking expressions of the way in which humans transcend the material world”. He doesn't specifically address the question of “causal sense”. But he seems to be in favor of “transcendental framing” of the FreeWill question, which he has addressed in previous articles and books. In which he concludes that "freewill is not an illusion", i.e not "woo". His framing of the freewill question seems to me to be inherently transcendental.

    Transcendental Freedom :
    What is more, the Existential Intuition opens up the sense of transcendent objects that are, by analogy with the embodied self, more than what the self experiences of them. ___Tallis
    https://www.thenewatlantis.com/publications/how-can-i-possibly-be-free

    The start would be the least habitual possible state of being. — apokrisis
    So, you agree that the ultimate source of “habitual” [regular, reliable] behaviors, rather than acquired in the process of evolution, could inferred as laws of nature [necessities] that predate the Bang. By that I mean, if-then instructions for system operation that were programmed into the seed (Singularity) of the Big Bang?

    You mean, the future is the Heat Death? Well, duh. — apokrisis
    That “duh, everybody knows about heat death” conclusion came as a surprise to Einstein, who assumed a stable and eternal universe in his calculations. And only when faced with contrary evidence, was forced to rename his Cosmological Constant as what we now know as Dark Energy.

    But you can only argue this way by rejecting the alternative that Tallis writes about. . . . Have you simply misunderstood Tallis here? You are taking the view he critiques. — apokrisis
    The alternative you refer to may be where he looks at an alternative to the notion of mandated laws, “the laws of nature do not shape what happens but are simply the shape of what happens" (e.g. a river formed by accidents). To me, that “explanation” is what he is arguing against -- saying “they come to look less like explanations than descriptions". In other words, describing the effect is not the same as explaining the cause.

    You are quite right that many physicists just talk about the laws of nature as if they were written in the mind of God. . . . .I agree they are dealing in woo to the extent they remain mired in such an ontology. — apokrisis
    I suspect that those physicists, such as Isaac Newton, who called the necessities of nature “laws”, would not agree with your label of “woo”, for anything that does not comport with your own ontology. They were not being “anti-realist”, but describing reality in terms that everyone could understand. Those who prefer to call those dependable regularities “habits” are implying that they could have been otherwise. But how would they know that, except by re-running the program of evolution several times to see if each execution followed the same basic path. All we know for sure is that Nature seems to be constrained by built-in limitations. So, if you imagine a reality with different constraints you will be dealing with imaginary “woo”, rather than with Reality as we know it. :cool:
  • Why Was There A Big Bang
    Looking at the sun "With-Both-Eyes-Open" will completely blind you. — 180 Proof
    Ha! Ever the contrarian. Another point of wisdom is "don't look directly at the sun, with one eye or two."
    :smile:
  • Why Was There A Big Bang
    Aren’t you just re-mystifying the view that Tallis wants to de-mystify?

    The Big Bang falls within his description of Natural Habits. Regularity is emergent as symmetries are broken and the general cooling-expansion of the Universe prevents its ever returning to its less organised past.     — apokrisis
    Although he doesn't make it explicit in the article, Tallis seems to be raising the same old questions that many scientists would put-down to "Mysticism", or even worse, "feckless Philosophy". Having noted that [natural] "laws somehow act upon the 'stuff' of nature from outside it", and that [natural] "laws are a 'quasi-agency'", he seems to be poking his nose into fundamental mysteries. "Outside of nature" is what many call "super-natural". I was merely going along for the ride on the horse that Tallis was directing.

    Speaking of "outside nature", how could the Big Bang -- the first stage of an ongoing series -- be labelled a "habit"? Are you implying that it was just another routine step in an eternal cycle of repetitions? For most cosmologists, the BB is the beginning of what we now call "Nature". And anything prior to that, such as habitual regularities would be pure speculation, on super-natural questions. Of course, some of those cosmologists can't help such conjectures, even when it gets them into "woo" territory.

    If the universe is prevented, by Entropy, from "ever returning" to it's initial state, that means it's a one-way trip. And not cyclical, as some would have it. In football lingo, "it's one and done". In that case, what might have preceded that auspicious, for us humans, beginning is a legitimate -- not mystical -- philosophical question. It's not a scientific question though, because it cannot be dis-proven empirically. But, since the BB was indeed a "big deal" for those of us who ask "why" questions, trying to de-mystify the provenance of the BB is an act of Wisdom, not necessarily a slippery-slope to Woo.

    If our world is defined by its context, the circumstances that led to the BB need to be defined in some way, before we can claim to have a complete philosophical worldview. Of course, some people have religious or political motives, rather than philosophical or scientific reasons for asking such questions. But, by reflexively labeling all such "before the beginning" questions as Woo or Weirdness, would tar many serious scientists and philosophers with the same brush as the "religious nuts" and "wacko weirdos".

    ↪180 Proof
    That's why I don't accept the "woo" label for my inquiries. Instead, I see it as Science-With-Both-Eyes-Open. Your left eyes informs the analytical & reductive right brain, while the right eye views the world through the filter of the intuitive & holistic left brain. Together, we get a stereoscopic 3D worldview. But with one eye closed, we are blind to half of Reality . . . and may label the missing parts as "woo", or worse. :smile:



    Provenance : the beginning of something's existence; something's origin.

    Philosophy :
    Quite literally, the term "philosophy" means, "love of wisdom." In a broad sense, philosophy is an activity people undertake when they seek to understand fundamental truths about themselves, the world in which they live, and their relationships to the world and to each other.
    https://philosophy.fsu.edu/undergraduate-study/why-philosophy/What-is-Philosophy

    Context : the circumstances that form the setting for an event, statement, or idea, and in terms of which it can be fully understood and assessed.

    "The beginning of wisdom is the definition of terms." - Socrates?
  • Why Was There A Big Bang
    So yes. We can boil it down to metaphysical first principles like the dialectical opposition of law and chance. But then we want to avoid the chicken and egg debates about which came first, or which is the ground to the other. That is the kind of causal logic that sets up the two sides of the one story as disjunct monisms. Both good old fashioned materialism and good old fashioned theist woo (or idealism) are logically in error because of their shared reductionism. — apokrisis

    I'm not qualified to discuss some of the technical issues you raise concerning Big Bang theory. But, I can grok your notion of a "dialectical opposition of law and chance". I see that creative dialectic in Darwin's concept of Evolution : Randomness generates diversity, and Selection (apokrisis -- choose, sort out, decide) winnows down the multiplicity to the "fittest" few. Randomness is a series of unrelated accidents, while Selection chooses only those accidents that have something in common : fitness for a niche in Nature. But post-Darwin scientists, with a reductionist worldview, tended to put their emphasis on the chaotic unregulated aspects, and took for granted the orderly regulatory function of Natural Selection. But, from a more holistic perspective, NS seems to be essentially a "law of Nature".

    In the June-July issue of Philosophy Now magazine, Ray Tallis notes that the laws of Nature seem to be more than just "habits" or "regularities", and act like directional agents for the path forward of evolution. He raises the "dubious notion" of natural laws as "being agencies in themselves". He presents the metaphor of a horse, which in a state of nature acts upon its own internal urges and needs : eating grass, propagating the species, and escaping predators. But a horse with a human rider, behaves completely differently. It is under the control of an external agent, who has needs and goals that may often be in opposition to those internal motives.

    He discusses linear "natural necessity" as compared with some unpredictable irregular patterns of natural behavior. The "necessity" view says that "the laws of nature do not shape what happens, but are simply the shape of what happens". In that case, "the laws of nature . . . come to look less like explanations than descriptions". They are mere regularities, instead of regulators. This would mean that "the natural world is not the obedient servant of a legislative master", as implied by the original meaning of a top-down Royal Mandate intrinsic to the word "Law".

    Tallis disagrees with the "that's just the way it is" implication that the predictability of nature. that scientists rely on, is a mere time-worn groove in stone. Instead, he says, "necessity is verbal, logical, or theological, as such, it has no place in grown-up philosophy of science". Ironically, while the laws of Nature are reliable, the laws of Science are continually being revised as our understanding deepens and matures : to wit -- predictable Newtonian Laws as superceded by unpredictable Quantum behaviors. Which he sums up as, "there has been a gap between the habits of nature (which do not change) and the laws of science (which do)".

    And that brings him back to his original topic : "the compatibility of law-like nature, with the exercise of freedom by human agents". Within the scope of Nature, we have the steady, but non-progressive cycles of the horse, which continues to behave as its ancestors did millions of years ago. On the other hand, we have the relentless, but unpredictable progression of human Culture, riding the horse, with a will of its own. By imposing its will, human nature gains the freedom from natural laws, that allow it to become a guiding agency astride the horse. Thus a Metaphysical Principle rules over the Physical Habits of Nature. Which raises the "dubious" question of who or what was the Lawmaker, Regulator, Selector, Agent, Rider for the powerful Big Bang horse. Is that too woo to be true? :smile:
  • WTF is Max Tegmark talking about?
    I disagree with your interpretation, Gnomon, because Max Tegmark explicitly says – which I point out in my previous post – that he is not proposing the "MU" merely as "a mental construct". Read The Mathematical Universe or stream video of one of Tegmark's lectures on this thesis.
    Reality. Ironically, Tegmark has been called a "radical Platonist". So, I would be surprised if that was compatible with your own (Realist?) worldview.
    I don't agree with that common misconception either.
    [Tegmark's MUH] looks like hyper-Platonism to many but more like Spinozism to me. — 180 Proof
    I answer favorably to being called an "Epicurean-Spinozist".     — 180 Proof

    OK. I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on Tegmark's Platonic inclinations. But maybe we can at least agree on the "Spinozist" half of your "Epicurean-Spinozist" label. If I was to choose such a hyphenated label, I'd probably make it "Stoic-Spinozist". But then, I'm not really comfortable with butterfly pin labels. So, you can just call me a "gnarly-Gnomonist". :grin:
  • WTF is Max Tegmark talking about?
    Tegmark quite explicitly says that "minds" are (like) recursive mathematical functions and "matter" is a type of interaction by recursive mathematical functions with encompassing mathematical systems which are nested within (higher order / dimensional) mathematical structures aka "the mathematical universe". In other words, the hypothesis is 'mind-matter is in the math' (i.e. abstract agent-systems within abstract world-structures ... like e.g. the Second Life virtual world), not the other way around. — 180 Proof
    I'm not sure what you're saying here. Are you agreeing or disagreeing with my interpretation that the Mathematical Universe is a mental construct? That doesn't mean it's an illusion or un-real, just that the mathematical structure is universal, and can be perceived by animal senses, that are tuned to certain forms of Information (electromagnetic spectrum). But the MUH itself is a conception of rational minds. We perceive Matter (things), but we conceive Structure (relationships). And both concrete Matter & abstract Structure are real-world forms of Generic Information.

    I'm hardly an expert on Tegmark's hypothesis, but it sounds roughly compatible with my own understanding, that Information (including mathematical information) is the fundamental element of Reality. Ironically, Tegmark has been called a "radical Platonist". So, I would be surprised if that was compatible with your own (Realist?) worldview. Anyway, I doubt that Tegmark would fully endorse my own updated version of Platonism : Enformationism. And, I'm not sure I can agree with some of his far-out notions : e.g. "Perceptronium", as a "state of mattter". That sounds like something from a Harry Potter story. :grin:

    Mathematical universe hypothesis :
    Tegmark's MUH is: Our external physical reality is a mathematical structure.. . .
    The MUH is based on the radical Platonist view that math is an external reality     . . .
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathematical_universe_hypothesis

    Physicists Say Consciousness Might Be a State of Matter :
    Tegmark calls his new state of matter “perceptronium.”
    https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/article/physicists-say-consciousness-might-be-a-state-of-matter/
  • WTF is Max Tegmark talking about?
    What did he mean? Should the title of his book be "My mathematical Universe"? If Max himself is a math structure, then how should we interpret him? — Prishon
    I think you have answered your own question. The "mathematical universe" he's talking about exists only in Minds, not in Matter. So, his "universe" and your "universe" are not the same "verse", but both are references to a Platonic Ideal universe. The physical universe is something we all have in common, because our bodily senses are tuned to information in the form of Matter & Energy.

    However, Mathematics is not found in those concrete categories. It is instead an abstract idea, from which all physical stuff has been extracted, leaving only intangible ratios and relationships. We "sense" those invisible connections between things with our sixth sense of Reason, which extracts the essence of things from the non-essential.

    Regarding "structure", Structural Engineers don't manipulate actual physical structures in their computers. Instead, they represent real beams & columns as mathematical abstractions, symbolized as lines (structural members) and arrows (forces). Likewise, the Universe Tegmark is talking about is not the real universe that we all have in common, but the symbolic universe that each of us constructs in his own mind. It's a personal worldview. But his abstract "view" can be simulated in a computer, all rational minds to see.

    So you should "interpret" Tegmarks ideas in relation to your own ideas. your individual worldview. If your world is Realistic & Materialistic, then Tegmark is talking non-sense, literally about stuff that is not perceived by physical senses. But, if your cosmology is Idealistic & Intellectual, he's speaking about your intellectually shared cosmos. :smile:

    Mathematics :
    the abstract science of number, quantity, and space. Mathematics may be studied in its own right ( pure mathematics ), or as it is applied to other disciplines such as physics and engineering ( applied mathematics ).
  • Afghanistan, Islam and national success?
    Islam was successful in the past because it celebrated diversity and pluralism. It practiced religious tolerance. The fundamentalist groups you are talking about are at war with modernism and pluralism and are essentially a savage pietistic reform movement. People keep saying Islam needs a reformation. The problem is Islamic State may be what a reformation in Islam looks like. Stephen Schwartz wrote an interesting book on the nature of Islam's struggle with fundamentalism called the Two Faces of Islam back in 2002. Irshad Manji ( a gay, Canadian Islamic woman) wrote an equally interesting book on the nature of contemporary Islamic intolerance called The Trouble with Islam. It's hard to imagine a successful state emerging from a foundation of captious hatred, but anything is possible. — Tom Storm
    Ironically. the biggest obstacle to the Taliban, in attempting to establish an orderly Islamic state in Afghanistan, is internal tensions. According to news reports, ISIS may be their biggest revolutionary competition. And ISIS seems to as opposed to Taliban apostates as to American infidels.

    During the 16th century Reformation era. the Roman Church was internally divided, and savagely intolerant of tolerance. To wit : the Inquisition, burning fellow Christians at the stake. Since then, it has continued to fragment from a world-dominating religious empire, to just another burned-out core of its former glory, with ornate church buildings turned into nightclubs.

    In the same sense, history repeats itself again. And Islam seems to be undergoing its own earthquake Reformation, beginning with Sunni versus Shiite, then on down to smaller sects. Maybe that's just as well --- better for them to fight among themselves than to re-conquer the whole world in the name of a long-dead prophet. Maybe diversity and pluralism will likewise re-arise from the blood & ashes, like the Phoenix. :cool:


    Afghanistan crisis: What makes Islamic State-Khorasan enemy of Taliban
    https://www.indiatoday.in/world/story/afghanistan-taliban-islamic-state-crisis-1847109-2021-08-30
  • Could energy be “god” ?
    There was a Planck-sized accumulation of quantum fields fluctuating (virtual particles, to make it popular scientific visible). This tiny ball (of which the accompanying real particles are 4dimensional spatial spheres wrapped up on a rolled up 5dimensional space) expands on a 4dimensional infinite space — Prishon
    Accumulation from Where and When? The notion of a "tiny ball" sounds like ancient Atomism, except that it assumes the existence of highly compressed internal parts, that can be released, like an atom bomb, by a quantum fluctuation of ambient Space, which is presumably external and prior-to the existence of that ball. In that case, the Singularity "ball" has a prehistory and a position in infinite space-time. How did ambient multidimensional space get compressed into that sub-Planck-scale "point".

    Does this imaginative scenario have empirical grounding? Was that "ball" a black hole (gravity well) remnant of a previous Universe, which emerged from the universe before that, in an infinite regress of "turtles all the way down"? Sounds like "space" is infinitely flexible, in both physical and mythical forms. :smile:

    Singularity :
    a point at which a function takes an infinite value, especially in space-time when matter is infinitely dense.

    PS__Prishon say "what?".
  • Why Was There A Big Bang
    So the Universe just had to cross a threshold where the unified conditions finally broke in the usual phase transition way. Or not so usual if this breaking also released an inflationary spurt. — apokrisis
    Sorry, if I confused you. I was asking a philosophical "why" question, not a scientific "how" question.

    As a philosophical layman, I tend to take the more holistic cosmological perspective of "Emergence", instead of the analytical reductive scientific view of "Phase Transitions". :nerd:

    Phase Transition :
    Phase transitions occur when the thermodynamic free energy of a system is non-analytic for some choice of thermodynamic variables
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phase_transition

    Evolutionary Emergence :
    * As a supplement to the mainstream materialistic (scientific) theory of Causation, EnFormAction is intended to be an evocative label for a well-known, but somewhat mysterious, feature of physics : the Emergent process of Phase Change (or state transitions) from one kind (stable form) of matter to another. These sequential emanations take the structural pattern of a logical hierarchy : from solids, to liquids, to gases, and thence to plasma, or vice-versa. But they don't follow the usual rules of direct contact causation.
    * Expand that notion to a Cosmological perspective, and we can identify a more general classification of stratified phase-like emergences : from Physics (energy), to Chemistry (atoms), to Biology (life), to Psychology (minds), to Sociology (global minds). Current theories attribute this undeniable stairstep progession to random accidents, sorted by “natural selection” (a code word for “evaluations” of fitness for the next phase) that in retrospect appear to be teleological, tending toward more cooperation of inter-relationships and entanglements between parts on the same level of emergence. Some AI enthusiasts even envision the ultimate evolution of a Cosmic Mind, informed by all lower level phases.
    * Zoom back down to the sub-atomic level, and we find another set of "upward" emergences. From the universal Quantum Field of statistical possibilities, "virtual particles" or "wavicles" mysteriously appear from nowhere as almost real particles of matter, such as Bosons & Leptons. Those minimal particles of matter are bound together by strange forces into the paradoxical state of matter called "entanglement". They also tend to cluster into the dynamic structures we call Atoms, as-if foreordained to snap-fit into designated roles in the smallest whole systems. From that barely-real phase of reality, atoms assemble into molecules and thence into larger aggregations of matter. After each emergence, those integrated systems display complex patterns of information, and new physical properties . . . eventually even mental qualities never before seen in the mechanical material world.
    http://bothandblog3.enformationism.info/page23.html

    PS__
    ↪180 Proof
    180 Proof's answer to the topical question was "there is no why?". If that is the case, why are we discussing the BB on a philosophical forum instead of a scientific forum?
  • Why Was There A Big Bang
    Prishon says: No symmetry between interaction! Symmetry break based on wrong assumption. Higgsy mechanism no exist! Matter antimatter are equal and were always equal. Also now! Anti rishons on othere side of 4d open torus! Anti quarki and anti lepton on other side. Quarki and lepton contain same anti as normal. On other side of open torus Prishon sees anti quarki and anti leptoni. But on both sides equal number both. — Prishon
    Exactly! :wink:
  • Why Was There A Big Bang
    ↪Gnomon
    "Both sides" of what? I can't follow you, G. My mention of "woo" is explicated in the post you reference (first paragraph).     — 180 Proof
    I'm not sure. I'm not taking sides. But I'm referring to whatever alternatives you have in mind when categorizing the Science versus Woo controversy. It's all philosophy to me. :grin:
  • Why Was There A Big Bang
    So we discover there is this broken symmetry at the root of things. It is not unreasonable to wind that back to the symmetry state that marks its beginning. — apokrisis
    Of course, I was putting words in Planck's mouth to illustrate the philosophical problem of the abrupt beginning of our space-time world from an initial state of infinity-eternity, that we are not able to penetrate with our physical science. Not to be deterred, we still attempt to go beyond that physical limit, with meta-physical imagination. And such speculation is posited by some famous serious scientists. Yet contrarians refer to some of those conjectures as "woo" (in a non-Shakesperean sense), while the other shot-in-the-dark guesses are "justified" scientific inference from limited information.

    Anyway, I just read a section of a book, written by Astronomer/Physicist John Barrow, on "classical cosmology". There, he noted : "prior to the Planck time 10^-43 seconds we know nothing of the state of space and time nor even if such familiar entities existed". He goes on to say, "during this fleeting era (10^-43 to 10^-35 seconds) there is a complete symmetry between all these interactions (fundamental forces) . . . . complete symmetry between matter and antimatter". [my emphasis] So, according to the scientist's BB theory inferences from current conditions to Planck time conditions, the Singularity was symmetrically balanced.

    Which raises the question for both materialist physicists and non-materialist meta-physicists, "what caused that sudden symmetry break . . . that instant imbalance?" Anything we say about that pre-Planck era is inherently speculative, and based on certain assumptions. The pertinent presumptions here are A- "matter (particles) is fundamental", or B- "mind (reason ; law) is fundamental. Neither side of this debate knows what it's talking about, in scientific terms. But as philosophical inferences, they are both worthy of serious consideration. IMHO. Scientists tend to prefer a physical scenario, such as the Quantum Fluctuation hypothesis (due to random Chance). And some Philosophers prefer to consider a non-random lawful scenario, such as Aristotle's First Cause/Prime Mover (a deity of "pure form"). Which acts via teleological Intention. Admittedly, the latter is not an empirical scientific theory, but then neither is the imaginary Quantum Fluctuation scenario. So, why not give due consideration to both propositions? :cool:


    "The Swerve" refers to a key conception in the ancient atomistic theories according to which atoms moving through the void are subject to clinamen: while falling straight through the void, they are sometimes subject to a slight, unpredictable swerve.
    __reference to De Rerum Natura, by Lucretius.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Swerve
    Note : the poetic invention of a sudden unexpected change in course foreshadowed modern "Quantum Fluctuation" proposals to explain how acausal randomness can be a creative disruption of Chaos to produce an orderly organized world.
  • Why Was There A Big Bang
    No woo required. — 180 Proof
    Who said anything about "woo"?. What I said was :
    "Both sides assume without evidence, that some-thing existed before our space-time era began. But one imagines that what-is-is-what-was. While the other envisions that what-was-is-what-will-be. ???" Now which side is pitching "woo"? Are you just being contrarian? :smile:
  • Why Was There A Big Bang
    The only answer to Why that does not precipitate an infinite regress and, in effect, begs the question is There Is No Why. Rather: How did the BB come about?' 'Planck era' spontaneous symmetry breaking. — 180 Proof
    "What came before the Big Bang?" questions stimulate some creative thinking on both sides of the Realistic Science versus Idealistic Philosophy divide. And "spontaneous symmetry breaking" is a genius modern myth, along with the math-magical metaphor of instantaneous-inflation-from-nothing-to-cosmos. Relative to the ironic evasive tactic of "no-thing is unstable", the notion of the pre-bang symmetry-of-nothingness is precious. Both sides assume without evidence, that some-thing existed before our space-time era began. But one imagines that what-is-is-what-was. While the other envisions that what-was-is-what-will-be. ???

    Planck probably thought that by calculating the smallest possible measurable time or length, that fades into asymptosis or ellipsis, would put an end to such "before the beginning" nonsense. But, for curious philosophically inclined seekers, "what-if?" questions are irresistible honey for the imagination. And some posters on this forum will take-up hard-line (this-is-what-is) positions on such conjectures, which are by definition unverifiable. It would be nice, if for a change, we could just freely speculate on such pre-columbian "what's out there over the horizon?" scenarios, without coming to blows over which party is the biggest idiot : the short-cut-to-India optimists, or the sail-over-the-edge-pessimists. :cool:
  • Afghanistan, Islam and national success?
    I am left with the impression that the Taliban and ISIS are primitive people lacking in the ability to manage a modern city, let alone a whole nation. — Athena
    From a historical perspective, the Taliban and ISIS are comparable to the "primitive" tribal barbarians, who sacked Rome, bringing an end to a world-wide military empire, but releasing & spreading the energy of a new world-dominating Imperial religion. At the time (circa 410 to 455 AD) the Vandals (etc) were disorganized & uncivilized, but fierce & hungry & bloodthirsty.

    Centuries later, many of us on this presumably modern & civilized forum are descendants of those uncouth barbarians, So, there is room for hope that Afghanistan can recover from decades of being squeezed between the rock of dug-in defensive intolerant Islamic tradition, and the driving force of forward-leaning & aggressive Western Capitalism. Yet, it remains to be seen, if this sacking of a remote outpost of capitalist imperialism, will be followed by an adaptation of money-driven Western notions of civilization, or by a resurgence of the Islamic brand of sword-won colonialism. Or, perhaps to a re-flowering of the Golden Age of Islamic philosophy. :smile:
  • Could energy be “god” ?
    Assumption one: energy must cause change. It is a fundamental property of energy.
    Assumption 2: the “singularity” is a uniform/ homogenous origin state.
    Logically then, the only possibility for a singularity is therefore to become “un-single” ie. internally “divide” into two or more properties.     — Benj96
    Yes. Metaphorically, I think of the Singularity as an atom of Uranium undergoing fission. Unlike an atomic bomb though (the Big Bang), this ongoing division & distinction and aggregation & integration is not destructive, but constructive : building a world. It releases Energy, but in a prolonged self-controlled and self-organizing process. Hence, like a fertilized egg, it begins to divide from one into two, and thence into a multi-cellular organism. So, the key to such positive change is the act of Fertilization, which I liken to an input of teleological Information, as in programming a cybernetic system. That fertilizing "sperm" is what I call EnFormAction, the power to cause transformation and complexification. :nerd:


    EnFormAction :
    the creative power to enform; to cause transformations from one form to another.
    1. As the generic power of creation (Big Bang, Singularity), it turns eternal Potential into temporal Actual, it transforms Platonic Forms into physical Things.
    2. As physical energy (Causation), it is the power to cause changes in material structure.
    3. As condensed energy (Matter), it is light speed vibrations slowed down to more stable states.
    4. As animating energy (elan vital, Chi), it is the power to cause complex matter to self-move.
    5. As mental energy (Consciousness; knowing), it is the power to store & process incoming information as meaning relative to self.
    6. As self-awareness (Self-consciousness; Will-Power), it is the power to make intentional changes to self and environment.
    7. As the holistic expression of the human Self (Soul), it is the essence or pattern that defines you as a person (Chi, Spirit).
    http://bothandblog2.enformationism.info/page29.html

    Cybernetics is a transdisciplinary and "antidisciplinary" approach concerned with regulatory and purposive systems—their structures, constraints, ...
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cybernetics

    The term cybernetic system has a clear quantitative definition. It is a system that dynamically matches acquired information to selected actions relative to a computational issue that defines the essential purpose of the system or machine. This notion requires that information and control be further quantified.
    https://aip.scitation.org/doi/abs/10.1063/1.1477068?journalCode=apc
  • Metaphysics Defined
    ↪Gnomon
    :gasp: Ouch! That one's below belt ...     — 180 Proof
    Truth hurts! :joke:
  • Metaphysics Defined
    Both Wayfarer and @180 Proof are long-standing and productive members of TPF.
    So why all this increased aggro right now ?     — Amity
    I get the impression that polarized arguments (as opposed to mutually respectful dialogs), such as this Physics versus Metaphysics thread, is more political than philosophical : e.g. Conservative vs Liberal. It's typically "couched-in" accusations, instead of propositions. Materialists & Realists seem to feel that their ideology is under attack by the forces of evil (i.e. Idealists & woo-mongers). I suppose the animosity, revealed in ad hominem attacks (sorry, "True, corroborated, statements") are another sad sign of the times. The belligerent attitudes of some posters remind me of a Trump rally. :gasp:

    couched in : to express something in carefully chosen or deceptive words.
    https://idioms.thefreedictionary.com/couched+in
  • Metaphysics Defined
    Wayfarer's pedantic dishonesty and smug evasiveness are as shameless as they are legendary. Warranted observation, not an "ad hominem", W. :eyes: — 180 Proof
    180, your defenses of Science and Realism are mostly attacks on the messenger, whom you deem "pedantic" etc, not on his message. If that is not "ad hominem", then what kind of philosophical argument is it? What are we supposed to learn from your characterization of Wayfarer, except that "realistic scientists should not trust anything he says"? If the quote above is "not an ad hominem", then what does it reveal about the legitimate philosophical topic of Metaphysics? Was Aristotle pedantic, dishonest, smug, evasive and shameless? :cool:

    Pedantic is an insulting word used to describe someone who annoys others by correcting small errors, caring too much about minor details, or emphasizing their own expertise especially in some narrow or boring subject matter.
    https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/pedantic

    Kant's Concept of Metaphysics :
    Still the fact that Kant does not face Aristotle's theory of metaphysics has some deeper reasons too. ... (a) Metaphysics is the science containing the first grounds or the principal truths of all human knowledge. This can be called the nominal definition of metaphysics as put forth by Meier and the school he belonged to.
    https://www.jstor.org/stable/23936829
  • Metaphysics Defined
    What does it matter? He called a phenomenon an "atom" that is, in fact, not "uncuttable" (i.e. indivisible) as classical atomists conceptualized it. Dalton used a misnomer that then stuck which subsequent particle physics exposed as, at best, premature when he had first used it. Your question, Gnomon, makes no sense either in the context (with a link too) from which you quoted me. — 180 Proof
    That question was rhetorical, and not intended to to elicit an answer. But you seemed to drop his name as an expert on the topic under discussion. Your responses on this thread about Metaphysics mostly seem to be defensive, rather than contributing to a relevant definition of the term. So a pertinent question is, what are you defending? Physics from Metaphysics, Reality from Ideality?

    I just read an interview in the current issue of Philosophy Now magazine, that may apply to your attempt to draw a hard line between those categories of human thought. Sociologist Martin Savransky talks about Pragmatism and "pluralistic realism". He says that some realisms are "profoundly concerned with the question of how to draw the line between what is real and what is not. In a sense, each form of realism is its own way of drawing that line. But that, to my mind, ends up transforming realism into a belligerent gesture." He goes on to explain his notion of "pluralistic realism". "I'm more interested in problematizing the very distinction between reality and unreality, not by claiming there is no such thing as real, but rather by wagering that everything" -- including metaphysics??? -- "is in some sense real, and not just what is deemed 'independent of us'."

    But of course, he's a sociologist-philosopher -- not a real scientist . . . :joke:
  • Could energy be “god” ?
    Assuming that the singularity is some form of “proto- energy” or “potential to act” then one would imagine time and energy must begin simultaneously as one of the first “divisions” of this “prime mover/ universal substance”. — Benj96
    In my metaphorical model of "The Singularity", which is basically a mathematical ellipsis . . . . meaning whatever happens beyond this point in incalculable and unknowable, it's the point-source of all that follows the Big Bang, including Space & Time.

    However, in my Information-based thesis, I imagine the Singularity as a computer program, that occupies no space or time, but is only Potential, until someone hits Enter. Instead of a magnetic tape or disk, the Singularity is recorded on a "mathematical point". From that point forward, the program begins to calculate Actuality from Potentiality. And that potential may be your "proto-energy", which I label EnFormAction in my thesis.. "En-" stands for Energy (power) ; "-Form-" is mental & physical objects that are meaningful to a mind ; and "-Action" is Causation or Creation. So, EnFormAction is the power to create both physical (material objects) and metaphysical (mental or mathematical objects) Forms, things we can sense & think about. The bottom line is that the Big Bang created our on-going evolving world literally from Scratch. So, it is literally the First Cause. But where did the Information encoded in the Singularity come from? Who was the Programmer? That's where we begin to do some serious speculation about what's out there beyond Space & Time . . . . the Ellipsis. :smile:


    Point :
    In classical Euclidean geometry, a point is a primitive notion that models an exact location in the space, and has no length, width, or thickness
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Point_(geometry)

    from scratch :
    from the very beginning, especially without utilizing or relying on any previous work for assistance.
    ____Oxford

    Ellipsis :
    an intentional or unavoidable gap in information
  • Metaphysics Defined
    I disagree. QT has only "undermined" John Dalton, not Democritus. — 180 Proof
    As they say, "you are welcome to your opinion" on any topic. What was John Dalton's opinion of Atomism? Atomism has metamorphosed over the centuries from solid balls of stuff, to a tiny planetary system, to the notion of empty space with statistical potential for virtual particles. At the same time, the Mechanical models of reality have been superseded by a bizarre array of specialized Forces, and Spooky Action at a Distance.

    All I meant by the "undermined" remark was that QT has replaced hard little Atoms (matter) with amorphous Fields (mathematics) as the current canonical fundamental element of reality. So a Google search will return several uses of the term "undermined", or equivalent, to label the relationship of AtomicTheory (balls) to Quantum particles (waveforms). Anyway, snarky remarks won't really convince anyone on this forum that your opinion is the correct one. :smile:

    Atomism from the 17th to the 20th Century :
    Newtonian atomism was a speculation that at least held the promise of explaining material phenomena in a way that mechanical atomism did not and so experimental support in the future was a possibility. A critic, on the other hand, could argue that, from the philosophical perspective, the introduction of force undermined the case for the clarity and intelligibility of mechanical atomism on which its originators had based their case. From a scientific point of view, there was no significant empirical support for atomism and it was unable to offer useful guidance to the experimental sciences that grew and prospered in the seventeenth century and beyond.
    https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/atomism-modern/
  • Could energy be “god” ?
    Energy has to be the most enigmatic phenomenon in the universe. — Benj96

    I just can’t think of any property that trumps energy when it comes to defining an all encompassing entity of existence. — Benj96
    I agree. That's why I developed the philosophical notion of EnFormAction, to encompass the enigmatic properties of Energy, and the all-encompassing ubiquity of Information. But, when I reluctantly refer to the implicit Omnipotent Enformer behind EFA by name, I spell it G*D, to indicate that I'm not talking about any traditional religious notion of a humanoid deity. Instead, it's more like the "Prime Mover" of Aristotle, or the "Universal Substance" of Spinoza. :cool:

    EnFormAction :
    Ententional Causation. A proposed metaphysical law of the universe that causes random interactions between forces and particles to produce novel & stable arrangements of matter & energy. It’s the creative force (aka : Divine Will) of the axiomatic eternal deity that, for unknown reasons, programmed a Singularity to suddenly burst into our reality from an infinite source of possibility. AKA : The creative power of Evolution; the power to enform; Logos; Change.
    http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page8.html

    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 everything 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.
    http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page8.html


    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 Enformationism is envisioned as a more realistic version of the antiquated religious notions of Spiritualism. Since our world had a beginning, it's hard to deny the concept of creation. So, an infinite deity is proposed to serve as both the energetic Enformer and the malleable substance of the enformed world.
    http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page8.html
  • Metaphysics Defined
    So long as science was able to stick to the story that the so-called material ultimates were real, then well and good, as far as they're concerned; but that was exactly what was undermined by quantum physics. All of the 'spooky action at a distance' and 'God playing dice' and the rest. But of course, if you so much as refer to any of that, then you're 'peddling woo'. — Wayfarer
    Yes. Since Quantum Theory undermined Atomism, along with the fundamental assumptions of Materialism, scientists and philosophers have been scrambling to re-interpret some of the spooky-woo elements of QT. But, not being a born-again Atheist, and being not fully committed to the materialistic worldview, I finally decided to give-in to the implications of that emerging paradigm, and accept that Reality may not be what it appears to be, to the physical eye. That "enlightenment" didn't turn me on to any particular religion, but I gave me new respect for some of the ancient thinkers, who tried to make sense of the weirdness of the world. Besides, if spooky-action-at-a-distance and quantum-leaps ain't woo, I don't know what is. :nerd:

    Reality Is Not What It Seems :
    ___Carlo Rovelli
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reality_Is_Not_What_It_Seems

    The Evolutionary Argument Against Reality :
    ___Donald Hoffman
    https://www.quantamagazine.org/the-evolutionary-argument-against-reality-20160421/
  • What is Information?
    ↪Pop
    The definition of information in this sense is: information enables the interaction of form. or Information = evolutionary interaction [/unquote]

    That definition is getting close to what I call EnFormAction, which is the causal & organizing agent of Evolution. That creative force is what was called "the Will of God" in the Bible, or "Logos", by Plato, or "First Cause" & "Prime Mover" by Aristotle, or "Natural Law" by Deists. Like the "Energy" of modern Science, it is known, inferred, only by its effects in the real world. And yes. EFA both causes all interactions, and directs them toward some ultimate destination.

    Of course, since motivating & organizing "Cosmic Destiny" is randomized by Entropy (disorganization), each information processing (or integrating) agent in the world has some degree of Free Will (Choice within Chance). Unfortunately, that freedom from Destiny also allows for the physical & emotional suffering of those agents. Why? Maybe it's a test, similar to that argued by Jewish & Christian & Islamic theologians. But, I doubt that it's a test of long-suffering loyalty to the inferred-but-unseen deity, as assumed by those apologists for the Problem of Evil. That would be plain perverse. :smile:


    EnFormAction :
    Ententional Causation. A proposed metaphysical law of the universe that causes random interactions between forces and particles to produce novel & stable arrangements of matter & energy. It’s the creative force (aka : Divine Will) of the axiomatic eternal deity that, for unknown reasons, programmed a Singularity to suddenly burst into our reality from an infinite source of possibility. AKA : The creative power of Evolution; the power to enform; Logos; Change.
    http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page8.html

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Will_of_God

    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 everything 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.
    http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page8.html
  • Metaphysics Defined
    That is a common misunderstanding of Dennett by his critics who apparently haven't even bothered to read his works. He doesn't deny that it's real, he just says that it isn't what we folksily think it is. If you say consciousness is not real then you are actually committing the very error you mistakenly attribute to Dennett. What could it mean to say it is ideal other than that it is merely an idea? — Janus
    Yes. I've read several of Dennett's books, and his arguments are very clear. But, in calling Consciousness an "illusion", he was basically explaining it away. He's saying, C is not what you think it is. And for most people it's the Soul (the essence of me). So, what he's saying is that Souls are not real, "merely an idea", hence not important. I happen to agree that the "soul" is an idea, an image representing the Self. But, I disagree about its importance to humans, since C is all we know about Self and World. As Descartes concluded, thinking is what I am. A thinking being is not just Real, it's Ideal. :smile:
  • Metaphysics Defined
    ↪Gnomon
    In my understanding, explaining some physical transformation manifested as a testable mathematical model is indispensible for doing science whereas interpreting such explanatory models and what the outcomes of testing them 'imply' about some aspect of the world (and, perhaps, the human condition) is doing philosophy.     — 180 Proof
    Yes. That distinction is relevant, in that technical "explanations" tell us How something works mechanically. But an "interpretation" of the same observation is an attempt to make sense of the How, in terms that are meaningful to non-specialists, including academic philosophers without laboratories. It always helps understanding to know something about Why it works like that. "How" is narrow & specific, while "Why" is broader & more general.

    For example, I am currently reading a dense 700 page book written by a mathematical Astronomer and a Physicist. The first part of the book is a general history of the topic, written in layman's language. So, you could call it an "interpretation" of how, over centuries of observation, scientists and philosophers were led to the notion of a universal Principle of the Universe. Then, the middle part is written in complex mathematical notation, which is a foreign language for me. So, I must take their word for it, that those equations "explain" the Hows of astronomy and physics. But, I hope the third part will return to more colloquial language, in order to "interpret" those technical findings for the non-expert. Parts 1 and 3 are philosophical in nature, while part 2 is more scientific. Although I am not an expert in these fields, I still try to skim the technical "explanations", then move-on to the more meaningful (to me) "interpretations".

    Of course other scientists may not agree with their philosophical "interpretation". Some even call it "Woo". But the authors include enough of the gobbledygook, that anyone so inclined can check to see if it's based on "hard science". It's like the Copenhagen Interpretation of the mind-boggling implications of Quantum Theory, except that their canonical version was intended to explain its absurdities & anomalies for the experts, not the general public. For the layman, they must resort to metaphorical philosophical language : ocean waves and solid particles are easier to imagine than purely mathematical waves and virtual fields. :nerd:
  • What is Information?
    In other words - who does the thinking? - the thing that integrates the information - my best guess is the anthropic principle. What is your best guess? The anthropic principle integrates the information, but acts on different information ( unique consciousness ) ?? :smile: — Pop
    I'm currently reading The Anthropic Cosmological Principle, by Astronomer Barrow & Physicist Tipler. I was superficially aware that AP was a religious and philosophical position on the human-friendly universe. But I didn't know that it was also a serious scientific hypothesis. This book is 700 pages of dense philosophical reasoning, and scientific analysis, but no overtly religious assertions at all. The early chapters give an exhaustive history of the concept from Ancient Greece to Quantum Cosmology. And the middle sections are full of complex mathematical expressions (equations), and technical analysis. So, I have been impressed with the serious thought that has been put into a notion that has been marginalized by post-Enlightenment Science.

    This 1986 book (2009 reprint) has a lot to say about Information, and Information Processing. But, so far, nothing about actively Integrating Information. Anyway, a "principle" in science or religion is essentially an article of faith, or at least an axiom, that is taken to be a "brute fact", as opposed to a Ruler's regulation, with a Reason behind the Rule. Like the universe, it just is, and we don't know for sure why it is what it is. So, the Anthropic Principle is accepted by some as almost a Law of Physics. But it is not accepted by those who deny a human-favoring agency, such as a God, who might mandate such a specific reason for being. Consequently AP, the numerous technical coincidences that point to a world designed to produce living and thinking beings, is controversial primarily due to the implication of an intentional cosmic Agency, as contrasted with Random Chance hitting a jackpot, that is only incidentally favorable to egotistical beings.

    So, the question remains : is this Principle like the Law of Gravity, which tends to aggregate and integrate stars & planet, but without any planning, or is it more like a Program that is intentionally designed to work toward a pre-defined Objective? I happen to prefer the notion of a Cosmic Program, with built-in directions, but no pre-determined Final Answer. Which is why I have been forced to assume, as an axiom, that there must be a Programmer or Enformer or Rule-maker to decide which direction this experiment in self-organization will go. In other words, to give the program the Means toward a specified End. Your answer to "who does the thinking?" is a human-oriented Principle. But how does an abstract Principle think and act, unless it is also a free agency with goals and intentions? Does Reason overrule Chance? :smile:


    Principle :
    1. a fundamental truth or proposition that serves as the foundation for a system of belief or behavior or for a chain of reasoning.
    2. a general scientific theorem or law that has numerous special applications across a wide field.
    ___Oxford

    Brute Fact :
    In contemporary philosophy, a brute fact is a fact that has no explanation.

    Laws are general rules and ideas that adhere to the nature of the universe while principles describe specific phenomena that require clarity and explanation.
    https://sciencing.com/difference-between-law-and-principle-in-physics-12760897.html

    Objective :
    A fundamental objective is an end that you are trying to achieve · A means objective is a way of achieving an end or fundamental objective ·
    https://www.structureddecisionmaking.org/steps/objectives/objectives2b/
  • Metaphysics Defined
    I don't think so. Maybe for philosophical materialists the 'problem of consciousness' is intractably "hard" but not for methodological materialists (e.g. neuroscientists, cognitive psychologists, et al) as I point out here:
    https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/511358.     — 180 Proof
    I'm guessing that the age-old question of Consciousness is not a major problem for "methodical materialists" because they don't concern themselves with Qualia, being content to focus on Quanta. Feynman's motto of "shut-up and calculate" is a way of saying, "if you can't put a number on it, don't waste time worrying about it". Conscious minds are not a problem for empirical physicists, because Thoughts can't be dissected physically or defined numerically. Hence, they might agree with Dennett that Consciousness is not Real. Which is a truism, because it's Ideal.

    Ironically, in the linked thread, you concluded : " I just can't take serious mysterians like Chalmers (or other panpsychists) who propose that the 'explanatory gap' is a "hard problem" for philosophy, which it is not, because philosophy itself is not (equipped to effectively engage) in the 'theoretical explanation' business." Which sounds ironic to me, because when empirical scientists propose "theoretical explanations" for their experimental results, they are engaging in Philosophy. They are "supposing" universal principles that are not experimentally observed, but rationally imagined. A theory, such as Darwin's is essentially a just-so story, which assumes that empirical evidence will eventually be found to support the generalized conjecture. Those who share your axioms and pre-conceptions will quickly "see" the overall implications of the theory, beyond what can be directly observed, and will fill-in-the-blanks with assumptions.

    For those who think of Qualia in terms of Mental Objects (such as bits of knowledge), the "mystery" of the mind is more tractable. And the developments of Information Theory post-Shannon, provide mental tools for manipulating intangible objects. Moreover, IIT is a step toward quantifying those invisible bits & bytes of Meaning & Aboutness, so that even "methodological materialists" can shut-up and calculate. Even so, until Minds can be examined under a microscope, they will remain in the philosophical category of Meta-Physical. :cool:


    Theory :
    a supposition or a system of ideas intended to explain something, especially one based on general principles independent of the thing to be explained.
    Suppose :
    assume that something is the case on the basis of evidence or probability but without proof or certain knowledge.
    ___Oxford Dictionary

    Philosophy may be called the "science of sciences" probably in the sense that it is, in effect, the self-awareness of the sciences and the source from which all the sciences draw their world-view and methodological principles, which in the course of centuries have been honed down into concise forms
    https://www.researchgate.net/post/Is-science-a-part-of-or-separate-from-philosophy
  • Metaphysics Defined
    Apparently that 'aha' moment has happened for David Chalmers, but never for Daniel Dennett, who are the two main protagonists in the debate. — Wayfarer
    The "Hard Problem" is hard for those who think in terms of Materialism. But, if you think that Information is more fundamental than Matter, "aha" the problem vanishes. :smile:
  • What is Information?
    First Form of Information — Gnomon
    Gnomon calls it First Form of Information so I'm not the only one thinking about it.     — Mark Nyquist
    Yes. Materialists liked Shannon's statistical definition of "Information", because it allowed us to think in terms of Mechanical Machines instead of Conscious Minds. Machines are real, but Minds are just the abstract notion of an immaterial information processor. To attempt to answer "what is information?" without reference to the pre-Shannon implication of the term is short-sighted. As some recent contrarians have insisted : meaning is in minds, but not in computers. :nerd:

    Original meaning of Information was Meaning :
    Meaning "knowledge communicated concerning a particular topic" is from mid-15c.
    https://www.etymonline.com/word/information

    Information :
    * Claude Shannon quantified Information not as useful ideas, but as a mathematical ratio between meaningful order (1) and meaningless disorder (0); between knowledge (1) and ignorance (0). So, that meaningful mind-stuff exists in the limbo-land of statistics, producing effects on reality while having no sensory physical properties. We know it exists ideally, only by detecting its effects in the real world.
    * For humans, Information has the semantic quality of aboutness , that we interpret as meaning. In computer science though, Information is treated as meaningless, which makes its mathematical value more certain. It becomes meaningful only when a sentient Self interprets it as such.
    http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page11.html
  • What is Information?
    See this post — Wayfarer
    Yes. The ancient beat of Realism versus Idealism goes on, and on, and on . . . . . :wink:
  • What is Information?
    Information enables the interaction of form. It doesn't go anywhere ( does not become immaterial ) — Pop
    So, when the material form decays and dissipates, the conceptual Form vanishes? That would make our concept of categories of things-with-something-in-common, meaningless. Does a real Cat participate in the Ideal Form of cats-in-general? What is the material "thing" cats have in common? What kind of information is it made of? :cool:
  • What is Information?
    then the mind in question is God, of course. This is very much associated with the intelligent design movement and has very little presence on this forum (and I certainly wouldn't want to be involved in introducing it to this forum, but it should at least be acknowledged — Wayfarer
    Yes. That's why I try not to present my notion of "G*D", without some preliminary throat-clearing, to dispel the Judeo-Christian notion of a humanoid heavenly tyrant and magical Intelligent Design (ID). Unfortunately, my alternative of Intelligent Evolution (IE) is not easy to distinguish from ID, for those who have a limited preconception of how a deity "must" create. Oh well, the creator cat is out of the bag now. :joke:
Home » Gnomon