Comments

  • 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:
  • What is Information?
    Nowhere. It is a noThing before it becomes form. — Pop
    Where is "nowhere"? Do "forms" pop into existence like Venus, who emerged from the sea "fully formed", with no history behind her? What if "nowhere" is Plato's Ideal realm of Potential? His ideal Forms were basically the immaterial idea of a thing, before it is transformed into material forms or things. That's what I call "Enformation" : the potential for creating forms.

    But where does Potential reside? If it's not actual, maybe it's the intangible metaphysical power of causation similar to human Will, that exists only in Minds, or Hearts if you prefer. When I act consciously, the action is preceded by the idea of a future effect. But that idea exists nowhere except in my Mind, which has no "where" in terms of Cartesian coordinates. So whose Mind is the imaginer or designer of Platonic Forms? :smile:

    Platonic Forms :
    The Platonic Forms, according to Plato, are just ideas of things that actually exist. They represent what each individual thing is supposed to be like in order for it to be that specific thing. . . .
    According to Plato’s Theory of Forms, matter is considered particular in itself. For Plato, Forms are more real than any objects that imitate them.
    https://owlcation.com/humanities/An-Introduction-to-Platos-Theory-of-Forms

    Potential :
    According to Aristotle, when we refer to the nature of a thing, we are referring to the form, shape or look of a thing, which was already present as a potential, an innate tendency to change,in that material before it achieved that form, . . . .
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Potentiality_and_actuality
    Note : Clay possesses the Passive Potential for being molded into many forms. But the Active Potential was in the mind of the sculptor, who imagined the future form, and then modeled the clay.
  • What is Information?
    hence all the blather about information having to be 'encoded' before it is real. — Wayfarer
    Yes. Where is Information before it is "encoded" in material form? An idea can be "encoded" in a thousand languages and a variety of mathematical equations, or even in dots & dashes of ink, or flashes of light. But where does the Meaning go, in between those transformations? Is it stored in a physical Brain, or a hard disk, or a floppy disk, or a metaphysical Mind? Materialism views matter as fundamental, but Enformationism postulates that ideas & meanings & intentions are primary and primal. Not Real though, but Ideal. :smile:
  • What is Information?
    ↪Wayfarer

    ↪Pop

    To say that Information is "physical" could mean two different things. — Gnomon
    I just a moment ago read an article by science writer John Horgan : What God, Quantum Mechanics and Consciousness Have in Common. But, it's actually about the reason why he is an Agnostic about notions that require belief without plausible evidence. And, he makes a statement that resonates with me, as a fellow skeptic and agnostic, who nevertheless finds reasons, not to believe, but to take seriously, some ideas that are on the fringes of Empirical Reality.

    "Maudlin does not examine interpretations that recast quantum mechanics as a theory about information. For positive perspectives on information-based interpretations, check out Beyond Weird by journalist Philip Ball and The Ascent of Information by astrobiologist Caleb Scharf. But to my mind, information-based takes on quantum mechanics are even less plausible than the interpretations that Maudlin scrutinizes. The concept of information makes no sense without conscious beings to send, receive and act upon the information." ___Horgan

    That is a pertinent point in Information Theory, that many hypotheses, including IIT, tend to ignore : Information is ultimately mind-stuff. The necessity of an observer, or knower, of Information (meaning) makes the early universe, prior to the emergence of humans, seem to be devoid of the First Form of Information : meaning in a mind. Energy and Matter are the second and third Forms of Information. Unfortunately, Shannon made it seem plausible to think of Information without spooky souls, or minds, or consciousness. But the term originally referred to meaning in a mind.

    That's why, although I remain agnostic about anything outside the universe, or prior to the Big Bang, I have been forced by Logic to assume, as an axiom, the existence of a universal Mind of some kind. A First Cause, who is the Prime Enformer. :cool:


    What God, Quantum Mechanics and Consciousness Have in Common :
    https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/what-god-quantum-mechanics-and-consciousness-have-in-common/

    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.
    * When spelled with an “I”, Information is a noun, referring to data & things. When spelled with an “E”, Enformation is a verb, referring to energy and processes.
    http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page11.html

    G*D :
    * An ambiguous spelling of the common name for a supernatural deity. The Enformationism thesis is based upon an unprovable axiom that our world is an idea in the mind of G*D. This eternal deity is not imagined in a physical human body, but in a meta-physical mathematical form, equivalent to LOGOS. Other names : ALL, BEING, Creator, Enformer, MIND, Nature, Reason, Source, Programmer. The eternal Whole of which all temporal things are a part is not to be feared or worshipped, but appreciated like Nature.
    * I refer to the logically necessary and philosophically essential First & Final Cause as G*D, rather than merely "X" the Unknown, partly out of respect. That’s because the ancients were not stupid, to infer purposeful agencies, but merely shooting in the dark. We now understand the "How" of Nature much better, but not the "Why". That inscrutable agent of Entention is what I mean by G*D.
    http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page13.html
  • What is Information?
    (It appears to be trying to validate Rolf Landauer's claim that 'information is physical' by proposing that a hard drive full of information should have a different mass — Wayfarer
    To say that Information is "physical" could mean two different things. Either that it has mass like all other physical objects, or that it has the ability to transform into mass, similar to the E=MC^2 equation. In it's meaningful mental form, Information is weightless. But in its physical forms, information may have a variety of masses, depending on its structure.

    Landauer's notion of weighing a hard drive to see how much information is has gained or lost, reminds me of the doctor who carefully weighed a terminal patient, before and after death, to see how much the Soul weighs. Apparently, he thought the human soul was a physical object, with a mass of its own. But that's like asking how much the number 4 weighs. How much does Energy weigh -- before and after transforming into Mass?

    Souls and mathematical objects are abstractions. They may have Meaning without Mass. :joke:
  • What is Information?
    Neural correlates is a commonly used expression, of course I'm referring to the neuroplasticity of the brain, and as I said I am assuming that a change in brain matter occurs at the same time as perception. — Pop
    Yes. I know that abstractions, such as mental Information, can only be discussed in terms of physical metaphors. We just have to be careful not to reify the metaphors. :cool:
  • What is Information?
    ↪Pop One more question. I don’t really understand that mass-energy-information paper you linked to. What do you think the point of it is? — Wayfarer
    Pardon me for butting-in here. But, I think the point of that article, and others like it, is not that Mass, Energy, and Information are the same thing. But that they are different forms of the same universal "Substance" (essence), each with properties and qualities of its own. For scientists, the take-away is that each of these Forms can be transformed into the other.

    A century ago, Einstein showed that causal Energy could be transformed into tangible Matter (Mass) and vice-versa. But later physicists have performed experiments that transform Energy and Mass into abstract-but-useful Information, and vice-versa. Of course, they are referring primarily to Shannon Information, which emphasized the meaningless entropic (empty) forms of Information, that have off-loaded their human-style meaning & values, leaving only mathematical meaning or values. Even the uncertainty of Entropy is a form of Information.

    Like Photons, Bits of Information have no intrinsic mass. But like light-speed energy, that information is able to "condense" into massive particles as its "propagation" slows down. This is a relatively new idea to physicists, but they are preparing to take advantage of the knowledge that physical information and mental information are interchangeable. But, it still requires a conscious Mind to make sense of that information.

    My favorite fictional illustration of the interchangeability of Energy-Mass-Information is the Star Trek Transporter. Hypothetically, the Transporter could "scan" the atomic structure of a human body & mind with some unspecified kind of radar rays. A computer then translated that reflected abstract data into a digital code, which could be beamed to the planet below over a carrier wave of Energy. And, that coded energy would then be translated back into a flesh & blood living thinking human, complete with memories. It was a neat trick, that may-or-may-not be hypothetically possible in a far-fetched future technology. But the question remains : is that transformed & reconstituted person really me -- or just a facsimile??? :joke:


    In the end information is a list of stuff with “stuff” having a very, very, very large, broad definition.
    ___Thomas Williams, physicist, Quora quote
    https://www.quora.com/If-matter-is-energy-and-energy-is-information-then-what-is-information
  • What is Information?
    I have built a model, assuming monism, and neural correlation, — Pop
    The notion of "neural correlates of consciousness" is an attempt to draw a simple one-to-one map of the inter-relationships between empirical brain functions and rational mental functions. But, as a typical reductive scientific approach, it may place undue stress on the neurons themselves. They are just relay stations (nodes) in a complex web of functional relationships for processing information. Even the relatively-inert glial cells have been found to play a supporting role in the system. So, I prefer a more holistic model of the physical network that mysteriously produces spooky Consciousness as its metaphysical output. Even a silicon analogue (computer) is just a "brick" unless its output includes meaningful information for the human mind.

    That's why I think the overall Monism of Information Theory is built upon a dualistic substrate consisting of both physical and meta-physical elements -- equivalent to Descartes's body/mind split. Most scientists try to avoid mentioning "Metaphysics" in their theories. That's mainly because Catholic theologians interpreted Aristotle's metaphysics in terms of the ancient Hebrew notion of "Spirit" (ruach; breath ; life), and the Greek notion of "Psyche" (soul ; mind). Although those concepts were appropriate for their pre-scienfific era, they can be misleading in light of current understanding of how the world works. For example, I prefer to substitute the mind's model of "Self" (a pattern of information mapped directly to the subjective observer) in place of the obsolete concept of a "Ghost", that can act independently from the body. Isolating neurons as the producers of Conscious Minds leaves us with a simple, but incomplete, map or model of the body/mind system. :smile:

    Meta-physics :
    4. Physics refers to the things we perceive with the eye of the body. Meta-physics refers to the things we conceive with the eye of the mind. Meta-physics includes the properties, and qualities, and functions that make a thing what it is. Matter is just the clay from which a thing is made. Meta-physics is the design (form, purpose); physics is the product (shape, action). The act of creation brings an ideal design into actual existence. The design concept is the “formal” cause of the thing designed.
    http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page14.html

    Self/Soul :
    The brain can create the image of a fictional person (the Self) to represent its own perspective in dealings with other things and persons.
    1. This imaginary Me is a low-resolution construct abstracted from the complex web of inter-relationships that actually form the human body, brain, mind, DNA, and social networks in the context of a vast universe.
    2. In the Enformationism worldview, only G*D could know yourself objectively in complete detail as the mathematical definition of You. That formula is equivalent to your Self/Soul.
    3. Because of the fanciful & magical connotations of the traditional definition for "Soul" (e.g. ghosts), Enformationism prefers the more practical term "Self".
    http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page18.html
  • What is Information?
    Your enformy is fine for your purpose. I need something simpler. Something in a few words. — Pop
    How about : "Enformy is Energy with a purpose"?
    Or, “Enformy : the motivating and guiding force behind the self-organizing process of Natural Evolution".

    Most scientists and experts in technical fields assume that Energy is random, until humans take control of it and direct it for their own purposes. But, it is definitely steered by natural laws, such as Thermodynamics. Also, a more philosophical and cosmological view finds that, on the whole, causal Energy is following a long-term trajectory toward some teleological destination (Time's arrow ; Heat Death?). But all we know about that "Omega Point" is that it lies "out there" in the future somewhere. But we can speculate, as Teilhard de Chardin did, by interpreting the progression of evolution in vaguely Christian terms.

    Personally, I don't buy the Judeo-Christian story of our world, as a way to produce faithful sycophantic slaves to serve the needs of the mercurial king-of-the-world. But, the philosophical notion of an intentional First Cause seems to be unavoidable. So, I interpret the "purpose" of our world in terms of PanDeism. Which doesn't claim to know "the mind of God". And. in which intelligent creatures are localized intentional causes. I'm not sure what the overall purpose is, but the Anthropic Cosmological Principle seems to be a good guess. Perhaps, it's the process, running the program of ongoing creation, not The End that really matters. :nerd:


    Teleology :
    Philosophical term derived from Greek: telos (end, goal, purpose, design, finality) and logos (reason, explanation). Philosophers, from Aristotle onward, assumed that everything in the world has a purpose and a place in the scheme of history. As a religious concept, it means that the world was designed by God for a specific reason, such as producing sentient beings to stroke His ego with worship & sacrifices.
    1. In Enformationism theory, Evolution seems to be progressing from past to future in increments of Enformation. From the upward trend of increasing organization over time, we must conclude that the randomness of reality (Entropy) is offset by a constructive force (Enformy). This directional trajectory implies an ultimate goal or final state. What that end might be is unknown, but speculation abounds.
    2. Teilhard de Chardin postulated that God created the world to evolve toward perfection, eventually to become god-like. He called that end-state the Omega Point.
    3. In Chris Langan's CTMU theory, the term "unbounded Telesis" refers to the infinite creative power of God for "planned progress".
    4. <<By "spirit" Montesquieu meant "causes" from which one could derive "laws" that govern [physics & societies] . . . The "necessary relations" derived from the nature of things.>> Shermer, The Moral Arc
    [ see EnFormAction, Energy; see Vector diagram at left; see "Teleonomy" below: see Post 31 ]
    http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page20.html

    Anthropic Cosmological Principle :
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropic_principle
    https://www.amazon.com/Anthropic-Cosmological-Principle-Oxford-Paperbacks/dp/0192821474
  • What is Information?
    What do you think of the Definition? Information enables the interaction of form — Pop
    Hmmm! I'd first have to define the terms of the definition. . . . . .

    As I understand it, Information comes in many forms. Yet the basic distinction is between static-passive-but-useful Information (ideas, data), and active-dynamic-causal Enformation (intention, energy) -- or as I like to spell it : EnFormAction. Shannon focused mainly on the first kind of information (packets of data) that can be passively moved around like inert cargo. But, physicists & philosophers seem to be more interested in the self-moving, dare I say "self-organizing", forms of Information.

    Next, I'd like to distinguish between "enabling" and "causing". "To enable" means to remove any constraints to change. But, "to cause" means to have an impact on a thing or form that is already "able" to change. For example, the "immovable object" cannot be affected by external causation. So, in order for change to occur, an "unmoved mover" must have the power to "enable" its objects to react to its action. Simple "causation" is strictly mechanical, and assumes that objects are already "able" to change. However, the notion of "enabling" seems to imply that the causal force has the power & authority to overcome resistance. Therefore, the notion of "enabling" may assume, not just a random causal force, but a directional intentional force. Is this what you intended?

    Then, "interaction" sounds like it works both ways. And implies communion between equal partners. In that case, the ultimate effect is not strictly determined top-down, but allows for individual contributions to the end result. But what is the contribution of "form" to the process? Is it an abstract Platonic Form in a remote Ideal world, or a general principle (law) of Nature that both causes and limits the varieties of enformed objects and systems?

    Altogether, your definition seems to describe, not just inert entropic Shannon Information, but what I call “Enformy” : the motivating and guiding force behind the self-organizing process of Natural Evolution. Of course, some deny that Evolution is progressive. But by ignoring the local ups & downs, and one-step-forward-two-steps-back reductive details, on the whole the process is not just randomly changing like static on a screen, but is growing in the complexity and organization of the natural "forms" that Darwin rhapsodized about.. . . . Sorry, I'm just riffing here. :cool:

    Does the less general definition below sound anything like what you were getting at?


    Enformy :
    In the Enformationism theory, Enformy is a hypothetical, holistic, metaphysical, natural trend or force, that counteracts Entropy & Randomness to produce Complexity & Progress. [ see post 63 for graph ]
    1. I'm not aware of any "supernatural force" in the world. But my Enformationism theory postulates that there is a meta-physical force behind Time's Arrow and the positive progress of evolution. Just as Entropy is sometimes referred to as a "force" causing energy to dissipate (negative effect), Enformy is the antithesis, which causes energy to agglomerate (additive effect).
    2. Of course, neither of those phenomena is a physical Force, or a direct Cause, in the usual sense. But the term "force" is applied to such holistic causes as a metaphor drawn from our experience with physics.
    3. "Entropy" and "Enformy" are scientific/technical terms that have religious/moralistic analogues in "Evil" and "Good". So, while those forces are completely natural, the ultimate source of the power behind them may be super- or meta-natural, in the sense that the "First Cause" or "Prime Mover", postulated by Aristotle, logically existed before the Big Bang.
    http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page8.html
  • What is Information?
    I think the concept of information is relevant to enactivism, and I can not see that anybody has explored it from this perspective specifically? Does enactivism have a definition of information? — Pop
    "Enactivism" is a new term (to me) for an old concept : interaction, communion. And it seems to be relevant to Information Theory, in that it implies inter-relationship, which is the invisible pattern of links between things. It's that pattern of relationships (metaphysical structure) that constitutes Meaning in a mind. Ironically, our mental image of reality is built mainly from those invisible, immaterial connections between physical things. It's as-if, Reason can "see" intangible energy (information) exchanges between nodes (neurons) in a physical pattern (brain). So yes, I'll explore this further.. :nerd:

    Enactivism is a position in cognitive science that argues that cognition arises through a dynamic interaction between an acting organism and its environment.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enactivism
Home » Gnomon