Physics describes but the extrinsic causes,
While consciousness exists just for itself, — PoeticUniverse

Yes! Consciousness is meaningless without a Self-concept. And that's why Physics without Meta-physics will never understand the human mind.

Thusly, it forms an irreducible Whole,
And this Whole forms consciousness directly, — PoeticUniverse

Yes, again. Consciousness is not reducible to neural correlates. It is an emergent quality of the Brain-Body complex. It's ironic that the bicameral brain can have a singular viewpoint : the "what it's like" to be me.

Oh, those imaginings of what can’t be!”
Such as Nought, Stillness, and Infinity,
As well as Apart, Beginning, and End,
Originality, Free Will, and He. — PoeticUniverse

Meta-physics is the science of "what can't be". It's how we discover the ethereal "existence" of Zero & Infinity -- as concepts, not things. From a reductive physical perspective FreeWill "can't be". :cool:

IIT, originated by Giulio Tonini, is an attempt to specify the system requirements for consciousness. — frank

I appreciate that Tononi began with abstract mathematical Information as fundamental, and derived human-like Consciousness as an emergent phenomenon. That bypasses the distractions of worrying about the feelings of subatomic particles. :smile:

What are your thoughts on this idea? Are we born from a negation - God's denial of Himself and his subsequent self-annihilation? — CountVictorClimacusIII

I read the book. And I suspect that Adams wrote with tongue-in-cheek. The God's Debris hypothesis has some things in common with PanTheism and PanEnDeism. But it treats the Creator of our world as a depressed deity, who commits suicide in anticipation of reincarnation as a physical universe. Unlike Jesus, who gave his mortal life for the benefit of mankind, but rose again as the immortal Christ. Anyway, I don't take the amusing story seriously. :joke:

I have skimmed through the book you mentioned - gnomon recommended it a while back. It covers many areas rather inconclusively, as I suppose you have to, in order to show you know something about what you are writing about. The author makes one notable conclusion, which I would agree with - that things are relational, but pretty much ends there. However I did not really read it in great depth. — Pop

The book referenced is Consciousness -Information-Reality, by James Glattfelder. Since he covers a lot of ground in the early chapters, they are necessarily "inconclusive". He presents lots of evidence, both pro & con -- regarding the relationship of subjective Consciousness to objective Reality. In the later chapters though, he makes his case for Panpsychism and a "Participatory Ontology". But he leaves the conclusions up to the individual readers.

Also, he insists on making his Metaphysical speculations compatible with the available scientific knowledge. For example, the notion that "things are relational" is compatible with Einstein's Relativity, even though that perspective has some counter-intuitive implications. He also quotes Carl Sagan : "Science is not only compatible with spirituality, it is a profound source of spirituality". But each person's acceptance or rejection of that assertion will depend on their subjective definition of "spirituality". That's why we have philosophical forums, to hash-out those clashing definitions. :smile:

A metaphysical speculation that attempts to use the word without such a particular context fails to gain traction. — Banno

The defining context for "metaphysical speculation" is the contrast between Subjective and Objective Reality. Those who label metaphysical topics as "illusion, fake, forgery, toy, hologram, mirage" tend to devalue non-empirical subjective concepts, even though our subjective worldview is all we ever know for sure. Everything else is "physical speculation", based on "appearances". Hence, objective truth is essentially the majority opinion of experts in any field. We know that something exists independently of subjective minds, by popular vote. Most of us don't see ghosts, so they are merely metaphysical, and not real. Don't you agree? :smile:

Does objective reality exist? :
Subjective reality means that something is actual depending on the mind.
Objective reality means that something is actual (so it exists) independent of the mind.
https://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Does_objective_reality_exist%3F

So You Think Humans Can’t Know Objective Reality :
Our beliefs are based on appearances but are supposed to be about something — reality — that transcends appearances. . . .
Something in us will always influence the resulting picture.
https://medium.com/the-understanding-project/so-you-think-humans-cant-know-objective-reality-e609346c2682

This topic was prompted by another poster: to state it simply are there legitimate metaphysical questions as opposed to problems related to language use? — Manuel

Analysis of language is indeed a legitimate topic for philosophy. But if that language is too specific & reductive, we soon lose the general & holistic meaning of the words. I just came across this quote, which seems to reveal the Achilles Heel of the "linguistic turn" in Postmodern philosophy. :smile:

"Yet again, the detailed technical discussions about the theoretical concepts threaten to become postmodern narratives, where meaning, clarity, and understanding is at stake."
James Glattfelder, mathematician
--- referring to pro & con arguments about the mathematical & metaphysical theory of Consciousness, known as "Integrated Information Theory" (IIT)

I'm aware this topic enters into the whole realism vs anti-realism debate. I would still be careful in saying that the stuff posited by science is a metaphysical entity. We can of course debate if science is metaphysics or not. One can make a case that part of science is metaphysics, sure. But I wouldn't tell the physicist that I have special knowledge regarding his field. — Manuel

It was not the intent of my post to imply that Philosophers have "special knowledge" that Scientists don't. Just the opposite : I was noting that when scientists theorize and speculate about topics with no empirical evidence, they are crossing over into the purview of Philosophy. Experimental scientists are doing highly specialized & technical work. But when Theoretical scientists, such as Einstein, use their imagination to "see" things that are not visible to the senses, they are actually practicing Philosophy, Someone once asked Einstein where his lab was, and he held-up a pencil.

There's nothing "special" or "technical" about imagination, except that some choose to focus their imagination on questions that were heretofore inaccessible to the physical tools of Science. For example, when Maxwell proposed the existence of an invisible and counterintuitive "field", to explain the weirdness of electromagnetism, he was practicing Philosophical Meta-physics. Today, we are accustomed to the concept of "fields", even though we have never seen one. What we observe are the effects of the field on certain kinds of matter, such as iron filings. We "see" those fields with the inner "eye" of imagination.

For many years, most scientists believed that studying Consciousness, was a silly philosophical pursuit, and not worthy of the time for serious scientists. That's because, they viewed Mind-stuff as Metaphysical, not physical -- hence not Real. But today, plenty of Neurologists and Physicists are beginning to take Consciousness seriously. They are not practicing "anti-realism", but merely expanding our definition of what's real. :nerd:

I largely agree on your last point here. Matter looks and feels substantial to us, which it is. But at bottom, it isn't. So we have two views on the nature of matter, our common sense conception of regarding tables and chairs and then we have what physics tells us about matter. This brings forth epistemological consideration on top of metaphysical ones. — Manuel

Yes. Quantum physics opened a can-of-worms for Materialists. They expected to find hard little Atoms at the foundation of reality. Instead, they found fuzzy mathematical Probabilities. Quantum theories defy commonsense, but seem to work well with mathematical logic. Maybe that's why Mathematicians are more likely to accept Metaphysics as a serious occupation, because they are acutely aware that the objects of their calculations do not exist in the Real Material world, but only as Ideas in the immaterial Mind. :cool:

Mathematical Metaphysics :
Platonism about mathematics (or mathematical platonism) is the metaphysical view that there are abstract mathematical objects whose existence is independent of us and our language, thought, and practices.
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/platonism-mathematics/

Peirce divided metaphysics into (1) ontology or general metaphysics, (2) psychical or religious metaphysics, and (3) physical metaphysics.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outline_of_metaphysics
Note -- Quantum Physics probably falls into the category of Physical Metaphysics

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

All I ask is for two things: 1) what metaphysical problems do you think can be resolved by analyzing our language and 2) which metaphysical questions are actually substantive? — Manuel

I prefer to define the term "metaphysics" to describe the subject matter of Aristotle's second volume of his post-iron-age encyclopedia of knowledge -- but not as it was later interpreted by Catholic theologians. Volume 1, now referred to as "The Physics", was describing the material world as known by direct observation of Nature (Science). Then, volume 2, now known as "The Metaphysics", analyzed the immaterial aspects of the world (human nature), as known by rational inference (Philosophy).

But the Catholic Scholastics later interpreted those non-physical features of the natural world as super-natural & spiritual. Hence, the term "Metaphysics" came to be associated with Theology instead of Science. That's why, when I discuss the non-physical realities (Ideality), I spell it with a hyphen "Meta-Physics", to indicate that I'm not talking about Magic, Mysticism, or Religious Doctrines. Basically, it's anything that is not accessible to the 5 senses, but only to the sixth sense of Reason (inference). For example, the Quarks that are supposed to be the building blocks of sub-atomic matter, "have never been observed empirically" (Science), but are inferred theoretically (Philosophy). Hence, I would say that Quarks & other hypothetical particles are meta-physical, They exist in a limbo realm of insubstantial Ideas, beyond the reach of Sensation, but not of Reason.

Therefore, I think all Meta-Physical (theoretical) questions are grist for the philosophical mill. Yet not all of them have any "substantive" effect on the material world, but may have "significant" effects on the human Mind (memes). Metaphysical questions are not resolved by practical experimentation, but only by philosophical argumentation, or mathematical calculation. Which means that, ultimately, they are subjects of belief & faith, not fact. And the arguments will seldom convince believers to change their opinions.

For example, the children at Medjugorje in Bosnia, claimed they "saw" the Virgin Mary. But their parents, at first didn't believe them. Yet, now the site of the "sighting" is a popular destination for millions of faith-driven pilgrims. That is "Metaphysics" in the Catholic sense. On the other hand, investigations into the "substance" of intangible Consciousness have recently become a popular topic for Neuroscientists, as well as New Agers. And that is a valid subject for philosophical research -- including linguistic analysis, even though any "substantive" conclusions will remain subjective, and may be accepted or rejected based on prior beliefs.& attitudes toward Meta-Physics or Metaphysics. :smile:


Quark :
any of a number of subatomic particles carrying a fractional electric charge, postulated as building blocks of the hadrons. Quarks have not been directly observed but theoretical predictions based on their existence have been confirmed experimentally.

Massless Particles :
But an object with zero energy and zero mass is nothing at all. Therefore, if an object with no mass is to physically exist, it can never be at rest. Such is the case with light.
https://wtamu.edu/~cbaird/sq/2014/04/01/light-has-no-mass-so-it-also-has-no-energy-according-to-einstein-but-how-can-sunlight-warm-the-earth-without-energy/
Note -- Other essentially massless particles are neutrinos, gravitons, & gluons. And their physical existence is inferred from theory, not directly observed. Even further down the rabbit-hole are Strings, that may never be empirically provable, and yet mathematicians imagine them as ghostly mathematical objects in a dimension far-far-away from the "real" world.

It seems unlikely that people will want to engage in conflict of any kind once the world has been fully transformed into a completely human-friendly environment - there's just too much at stake. — TheMadFool

Apparently, you feel that humans are essentially good, and it's merely unfortunate circumstances that make them "break bad". I optimistically tend to look for the good in people, and I don't believe in Evil Incarnate. But it's obvious that every human has the potential to go both ways. And that's what Hegel saw playing-out in human history. The Bible blames the potential for evil in humanity on a free choice by Adam & Eve to ignore the command of God, which resulted in all their descendants being born with the stain of Original Sin.

My view, though, is not so dramatic or simplistic. Yet, it does have something to do with Freewill. Humans, more than any animal, have the ability to choose to obey (adapt to) Nature, so to speak, or to go contrary to Nature. Hence, our talent for technology has created an artificial world (civilization), which partly shields us from Nature's jungle, "red in tooth & claw". But that isolation also fosters an inner "jungle" of competing personal interests. Moreover, our limited freewill allows us to choose differences of opinion (belief). So, when some people do bad things, they usually believe that they are doing what's in their best interest. But it may happen to go against the interests of others. That freedom to serve self-interest, as well as to serve others, is just inherent in human nature. :cool:


why good people do bad things :
Exploring Jung's concept of the Shadow—the unconscious parts of our self that contradict the image of the self we hope to project--Why Good People Do Bad Things guides you through all the ways in which many of our seemingly unexplainable behaviors are manifestations of the Shadow.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=why+good+people+do+bad+things

I hazard to interpret Dennett meaning that "consciousness or mind" is not a thing but a process. For me, minding is to brain as breathing is to lungs. — 180 Proof

That's exactly my understanding of Consciousness, as the Metaphysical Function of the physical Brain. Minding is what the Brain does. But the "atoms" of Mind are "bits" of Information. A "process" is not a physical "thing" but an inductive inference from observation of Change. For example, a stationary billiard ball begins to move when struck by the cue ball. But we don't actually see any transfer of momentum, we infer it. And the human ability-to-infer-the-unseen (e.g. invisible forces) is (strawman alert) what you call "woo". :grin:

PS__Materialist scientists infer (imagine) that the Strong & Weak Forces are "carried" by invisible particles of some magical stuff they like to call "Energy" -- which is not quantitative matter, but qualitative "ability to cause change". If that ain't Woo, what is? As usual with woo-stuff, we observe the Effects, but not the Cause, which must be imagined. :nerd:

PPS__Enformation is Causation

Causation :
Hume shows that experience does not tell us much. Of two events, A and B, we say that A causes B when the two always occur together, that is, are constantly conjoined. Whenever we find A, we also find B, and we have a certainty that this conjunction will continue to happen. Once we realize that “A must bring about B” is tantamount merely to “Due to their constant conjunction, we are psychologically certain that B will follow A”, then we are left with a very weak notion of necessity. This tenuous grasp on causal efficacy helps give rise to the Problem of Induction–that we are not reasonably justified in making any inductive inference about the world.
https://iep.utm.edu/hume-cau/

This was and is the status quo but the future doesn't necessarily have to be like that - our technological prowess could one day free us of the need to adapt to the world by granting us total control of our environment, the one we're comfortable in and that I'm quite certain is one of the main objectives of science. — TheMadFool

The total freedom of the human Will may indeed be an aspiration of those who look forward to The Singularity, or to the Apotheosis (deification) of Humanity. But there is one thing that may hold us back : the friction of differing opinions & worldviews -- as is evident on this forum. As long as we are free to choose what we believe, even if it's wrong, we will make grudging gradual progress only after protracted political struggles. Some humans are Luddites & Heaven-bound, while others are Technophiles & Transhumanists. History is a Hegelian struggle between opposing forces. So, I don't expect to see that Technopia in my lifetime. :cool:

PS__The quickest way to overcome political friction is to eliminate the opposition : "kill them . . . kill them all!" And some visionaries with Utopian dreams, such as Hitler's Third Reich, believe that the idyllic ends justify the bloody means. :sad:

The latter has no bearing on the science, however, just as "warmth" has no bearing on explaining temperature. — 180 Proof

I suppose that's why some people find Science to be "cold" : it doesn't understand the significance of metaphysical "warmth", as opposed to physical Heat. But this thread is only indirectly about Science anyway ; it's about the philosophical conjecture of a Mind behind Evolution. So, we've gotten way off track. But (strawman warning) I suppose you agree with Daniel Dennett that there is no such thing as Consciousness or Mind -- just neurons creating illusions. :grin:

PS__Hmmmm. What is the physical substance of illusions ; ectoplasm?

Well, okay, so when you say "information is physical and metaphysical" you are, in effect, saying that information can be scientifically treated like e.g. temperature without bothering with phenomenological "warmth", that is, as I've said, in a way that is completely physical. — 180 Proof

No, that's a "strawman", as you like to say. When I describe Information as both physical and metaphysical, I mean exactly that. In its physical forms, Information is the same matter & energy that physicists, chemists, and biologists have been studying for years. Yet, in its metaphysical forms, Information is the ideas & feelings that psychologists and philosophers are still struggling with today. Moreover, understanding the distinction between them is what Chalmers famously called "the hard problem'. Studying matter & energy is "easy" because they are accessible to our physical senses. But Information is only known via the sixth sense of Reason, which "sees" the invisible relationships between both material objects (geometry) and between mental concepts (ratios, meanings).

Christof Koch is probably the most prominent Neuroscientist today. Years ago, with his mentor Francis Crick, he proposed that Consciousness would soon be explained by examining its physical Neural Correlates : like a black body radiating physical phenomenal measurable heat. But they eventually found that Consciousness is more like the metaphysical noumenal feeling of "warmth". So, Koch today, has rejected the materialist approach, and he wrote a book on The Feeling of Life Itself. He even subscribes to a modern scientific version of the ancient notion of Panpsychism. My own worldview is similar to that, but it's not a Dualism, because I think Information is both Material and Mental, both Physical and Metaphysical. So, I wrote a thesis, explaining how I came to that conclusion. Everything I say on this forum comes from that Monistic worldview. :nerd:

PS__In the immortal words of Cool Hand Luke, "What we have here . . . is a failure to communicate." Talk to the Strawman. :wink:

Consciousness: Confessions of a Romantic Reductionist :
What links conscious experience of pain, joy, color, and smell to bioelectrical activity in the brain? How can anything physical give rise to nonphysical, subjective, conscious states?
https://www.amazon.com/dp/B08BT4BWVB/ref=dp-kindle-redirect?_encoding=UTF8&btkr=1

Panpsychism: The Trippy Theory :
Though it sounds like something that sprang fully formed from the psychedelic culture, panpsychism has been around for a very long time. Philosophers and mathematicians Bertrand Russell and Alfred North Whitehead, physicists Arthur Eddington, Ernst Schrödinger, and Max Planck, and psychologist William James are just a few thinkers who supported some form of panpsychism. The idea lost traction in the late 20th century, but recently, philosophers and scientists such as David Chalmers, Bernardo Kastrup, Christof Koch, and Philip Goff have revived the idea, making strong claims for some form of panpsychism.
https://www.discovermagazine.com/mind/panpsychism-the-trippy-theory-that-everything-from-bananas-to-bicycles-are

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

The paradox is that science is about us adapting (our hypotheses/theories) to the world but once we have good hypotheses/theories, science helps us in adapting the world to us. — TheMadFool

The positive, forward-looking, progressive attitude of Science, stands in contrast to the ancient worldview of Fatalism. If humans are merely pawns of the gods, our best response to the imperfections and evils of the world was to knuckle-under & kow-tow to the mercurial tyrannical deities. In other words, to adapt our personal needs & wishes to the dominant Will of the inscrutable gods.

But the Enlightenment revolution allowed some of us -- the fortunate few -- to throw-off the chains of Fate, and to approach Nature as an insentient machine that can be re-tuned to suit our human purposes. However, as time went by, we began to realize that Nature, if not a supernatural force, is a living organism with global power over our puny individual purposes. So, our continued freedom to enforce our collective Will in the world, requires that we respect, and adapt to, the natural forces that still dominate our artificial endeavors.

For example, we escape the "surly bonds" of gravity, only by expending extravagant amounts of energy. Yet, some of us look forward to the day when humans, or transhumans, have the power to bend Nature completely to our will. Then we will truly be the gods of this world. But like the Greek Pantheon, we will still have to grudgingly adapt ourselves to the contrary wills of each-other. :cool:

This might seem like a straightforward question given how it's phrased; but, is there another classification for emotions that neither labels them as "rational" or "irrational"? — Shawn

Daniel Kahneman and Amos Tversky, in their book, Thinking, Fast & Slow, described the function of Emotions in terms that don't demean them as "irrational". Emotions (Happiness, Sadness, Fear, Anger, Love) are typically quick automatic responses to situations that have been encountered before, and recorded in memory as beliefs about what's good or bad, and what behaviors worked in the past, to maximize the good and minimize the bad. Although some innate responses seem to be somehow recorded in genes as "race memory".

Those encoded beliefs were a rational, but subjective (good for me), condensation of specific complex experiences in the past. And they prepare us for fast reaction to future challenges. But, when we encounter novel circumstances, those old responses may not work as well in a different context. So, we have a backup plan : to take more time to examine the new case in detail. Then, instead of just generalizing the old knee-jerk response to different contexts, we can tailor our reaction to the current conditions. :smile:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thinking,_Fast_and_Slow

Race Memory : a supposedly inherited subconscious memory of events in human history or prehistory.

My recent thoughts on "thoughts": — 180 Proof

Your reductive attitude toward "thoughts" seems to be similar to that of B.F. Skinner's "radical behaviorism", back in the stone-age of psychology. It was a valid scientific approach to the human mind. But it ignored equally valid psychological & philosophical questions, such as "what are thoughts?" and "what is music?" That's why Behaviorism is "no longer a dominating research program". It failed to consider the subjective & holistic aspects of the mind that are most important to ordinary humans. What are your "thoughts" on that topic? :smile:

PS__is "reductive attitude" another strawman? It's not a personal attack, but a condensed mirror of your argument against studying non-physical features of the world, such as Mind as contrasted with Brain. I was surprised to hear that exclusive notion coming from you, because I had previously gotten the impression that you were more philosophically-inclined (broad-minded instead of narrowly-focused) than that. :cool:

Behaviorism :
Why has the influence of behaviorism declined? The deepest and most complex reason for behaviorism’s decline in influence is its commitment to the thesis that behavior can be explained without reference to non-behavioral and inner mental (cognitive, representational, or interpretative) activity.
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/behaviorism/

For instance, when you say "X is metaphysical", this amounts to saying X is imaginary to my ears. As I've pointed out, for me, 'metaphysical' pertains to a speculative way of looking at – re/presenting – the physical (vide Spinoza) and N O T an ontological fiat of 'things-in-themselves' (vide Kant). — 180 Proof

Metaphysics is "imaginary". That's the whole point. The term pertains to subjective Ideality, which is the worldview that exists in your imagination. Unfortunately, medieval theologians interpreted Aristotle's discussion of the human perspective on Nature in terms of religious Spirituality. That's how the subject matter of Aristotle's second volume became associated with Catholic doctrine. And that made the term anathema (accursed) to post-Enlightenment scientists. So, if you will pardon another "strawman", you seem to retain that prejudice against the realm of (metaphysical) ideas, preferring the safer realm of actual (physical) things. But remember that theoretical physicists, such as Einstein, routinely rely on "a speculative way of looking at things". Yet, it's primarily experimental researchers (chemists, biologists, atom smashers), who following Bacon's method, close their eyes to metaphysical subjectivity, while pretending to be completely physically objective.

However, that classical scientific attitude (Objectivism, Materialism) was undermined by the advent of Quantum Theory. In which reality was discovered to be subjective & "imaginary" to some degree. And which opened the door to a variety of Transcendent theories of reality*1. But that development was foreseen by Kant in his Transcendental Idealism. He wrote his Critique of Pure Reason in response to Hume's radical skepticism toward Berkeley's Idealism. "A more disturbing consequence of Hume's critical analysis was its apparent undermining of empirical science itself, for the latter's logical foundation [induction] was now recognized as unjustifiable". [Tarnas, quoted in I-C-R] Other philosophers also anticipated the subjectivity of reality that became most apparent in the Quantum realm. "Secondary qualities such as color exist only in our minds, and therefore cannot be said to be independently existing real qualities of physical objects". [Locke, quoted in I-C-R] But hard-nosed empiricists rejected that philosophical view of quantum reality with "shut-up and calculate". In other words, shut your mind to transcendental imagination, and focus on manipulating pragmatic numbers.

Ironically, Mathematics -- the language of physics -- is itself "nothing but" Metaphysics. And professional mathematicians (such as Glattfelder) seem to be more open to metaphysical (and transcendental) interpretations of their calculations. As astronomer Neil deGrasse Tyson said, "the more profoundly baffled you have been in your life, the more open your mind becomes to new ideas". Yet, as seekers for truth, not fantasy, we need to be skeptical of the more radical (imaginary) flights of fancy. To avoid imaginary Metaphysics though, you would need to have no intuitive ideas of your own, and to rely on the objective communal view of fellow scientists. PS__ I look forward to seeing the stuffing knocked-out of my strawman, by your denial of its implications. :joke:


*1 Transcendent Theories : (non-empirical)
Inflation ; String ; Multiverse ; Many Worlds : Holographic ; Simulation

Mathematics is Metaphysics :
On the one hand, philosophy of mathematics is concerned with problems that are closely related to central problems of metaphysics and epistemology. . . . mathematics appears to study abstract entities.
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/philosophy-mathematics/

Metaphysics As Mathematics :
While metaphysics as science is a dead-end for me, metaphysics as mathematics is ripe for very interesting insights. Instead of asking directly about “our” reality, we should be asking about hypothetical realities.
https://sciencehouse.wordpress.com/2012/01/09/2308/

Is math a metaphysics? :
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/platonism-mathematics/

Kant -- Transcendental Aesthetic :
"From this investigation, it will be found that there are two pure forms of sensuous intuition, as principles of knowledge a priori, namely space space and time . . . . Space is nothing else than the form of all phenomena of the external sense . . . . Time is nothing else than the form of the internal sense . . . these, as phenomena, cannot exist in themselves, but only in us."

For instance, when you say "X is metaphysical", this amounts to saying X is imaginary to my ears. As I've pointed out, for me, 'metaphysical' pertains to a speculative way of looking at – re/presenting – the physical (vide Spinoza) and N O T an ontological fiat of 'things-in-themselves' (vide Kant). — 180 Proof

Metaphysics is "imaginary". That's the whole point. The term pertains to subjective Ideality, which is the worldview that exists in your imagination. Unfortunately, medieval theologians interpreted Aristotle's discussion of the human perspective on Nature in terms of religious Spirituality. That's how the subject matter of Aristotle's second volume became associated with Catholic doctrine. And that made the term anathema (accursed) to post-Enlightenment scientists. So, if you will pardon another "strawman", you seem to retain that prejudice against the realm of (metaphysical) ideas, preferring the safer realm of actual (physical) things. But remember that theoretical physicists, such as Einstein, routinely rely on "a speculative way of looking at things". Yet, it's primarily experimental researchers (chemists, biologists, atom smashers), who following Bacon's method, close their eyes to metaphysical subjectivity, while pretending to be completely physically objective.

However, that classical scientific attitude (Objectivism, Materialism) was undermined by the advent of Quantum Theory. In which reality was discovered to be subjective & "imaginary" to some degree. And which opened the door to a variety of Transcendent theories of reality*1. But that development was foreseen by Kant in his Transcendental Idealism. He wrote his Critique of Pure Reason in response to Hume's radical skepticism toward Berkeley's Idealism. "A more disturbing consequence of Hume's critical analysis was its apparent undermining of empirical science itself, for the latter's logical foundation [induction] was now recognized as unjustifiable". [Tarnas, quoted in I-C-R] Other philosophers also anticipated the subjectivity of reality that became most apparent in the Quantum realm. "Secondary qualities such as color exist only in our minds, and therefore cannot be said to be independently existing real qualities of physical objects". [Locke, quoted in I-C-R] But hard-nosed empiricists rejected that philosophical view of quantum reality with "shut-up and calculate". In other words, shut your mind to transcendental imagination, and focus on manipulating pragmatic numbers.

Ironically, Mathematics -- the language of physics -- is itself "nothing but" Metaphysics. And professional mathematicians (such as Glattfelder) seem to be more open to metaphysical (and transcendental) interpretations of their calculations. As astronomer Neil deGrasse Tyson said, "the more profoundly baffled you have been in your life, the more open your mind becomes to new ideas". Yet, as seekers for truth, not fantasy, we need to be skeptical of the more radical (imaginary) flights of fancy. To avoid imaginary Metaphysics though, you would need to have no intuitive ideas of your own, and to rely on the objective communal view of fellow scientists. PS__ I look forward to seeing the stuffing knocked-out of my strawman, by your denial of its implications. :joke:


*1 Transcendent Theories : (non-empirical)
Inflation ; String ; Multiverse ; Many Worlds : Holographic ; Simulation

Mathematics is Metaphysics :
On the one hand, philosophy of mathematics is concerned with problems that are closely related to central problems of metaphysics and epistemology. . . . mathematics appears to study abstract entities.
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/philosophy-mathematics/

Metaphysics As Mathematics :
While metaphysics as science is a dead-end for me, metaphysics as mathematics is ripe for very interesting insights. Instead of asking directly about “our” reality, we should be asking about hypothetical realities.
https://sciencehouse.wordpress.com/2012/01/09/2308/

Is math a metaphysics? :
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/platonism-mathematics/

Kant -- Transcendental Aesthetic :
"From this investigation, it will be found that there are two pure forms of sensuous intuition, as principles of knowledge a priori, namely space space and time . . . . Space is nothing else than the form of all phenomena of the external sense . . . . Time is nothing else than the form of the internal sense . . . these, as phenomena, cannot exist in themselves, but only in us."

Again, what you "acknowledge" is mistaken, a strawman of your own presumption. I've not "recanted or revised" anything, merely corrected you. — 180 Proof

So you still believe that "information is completely physical"? If so, what kind of material is it made of? And what does Consciousness consist of : atoms? If you answer that Information is made of Energy, I might agree with you. Except that "Information" is a broader, more inclusive concept than just Energy. Energy is physical in the sense that it has a causal effect on matter. But Energy is not made of concrete atoms; it's made of abstract potential for change. It's a human-attributed property of natural matter. And, Information is physical in the same sense -- it is the power to enform (to give form to the formless, meaning to the meaningless). My "strawman" consists of information in your posts, as interpreted in terms of my own information-theoretic worldview. I'm just trying to show you that you are hung-up on an outdated interpretation of "metaphysics", and "idealism".

Both Energy and Information are abstract concepts about the physical world. And abstractions are made of Information, not matter. As physicist Seth Lloyd put it : "Everything in the universe is made of bits. Not chunks of stuff, but chunks of information" --- Qualia not Quanta ; Metaphysics not Physics. So, the distinction I'm trying to make here is between physical stuff (tangible & visible) and meta-physical Information (intangible & invisible). That will make sense to you, as soon as you grasp the fact that Metaphysics is not about Magic, but Mind. And the human Mind abstracts ideas from objects & actions, them constructs its abstracted worldview to represent its belief of what's really out there. That's why Carlo Rovelli entitled his book : Reality Is Not What It Seems. To our common sense, reality appears to be "completely physical", but science & philosophy are supposed to be un-common sense, and to see beyond superficial appearances (phenomena).

I'm close to the end of the book, Consciousness-Information-Reality. And the author says, under the heading of An Information Ontology, that "the intangible notion of Information is undeniably a physical manifestation". So, in that sense your notion that "information is physical" is correct, but incomplete. It's much more than that. The C-I-R book is not about the classical view of reality, or even the quantum nature of reality. Instead, it proposes "a radically new ontology of reality". And that cutting-edge paradigm is what I'm trying to introduce you to. No Magic involved, just Metaphysics. :nerd:

What is Energy made of? :
Energy is not made of anything, energy is a term used to describe a trait of matter and non-matter fields. When matter has velocity, for example, it is said to have kinetic energy. There are also various forms of potential energy.
https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/14444/what-is-energy-made-of

Meta-physics :
The branch of philosophy that examines the nature of reality, including the relationship between mind and matter, substance and attribute, fact and value.
1. Often dismissed by materialists as idle speculation on topics not amenable to empirical proof.
2. Aristotle divided his treatise on science into two parts. The world as-known-via-the-senses was labeled “physics” - what we call "Science" today. And the world as-known-by-the-mind, by reason, was labeled “metaphysics” - what we now call "Philosophy" . Aristotle's two volumes covered Physics (the concrete stuff of the world) and Meta-physics (abstract ideas about the world).
3. Plato called the unseen world that hides behind the physical façade: “Ideal” as opposed to Real. For him, Ideal “forms” (concepts) were prior-to the Real “substance” (matter).
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.
5. I use a hyphen in the spelling to indicate that I am not talking about Ghosts and Magic, but about Ontology (science of being).
http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page14.html

Repeating this indicates to me that either you didn't read my previous reply or you can't understand what I wrote. — 180 Proof

Sorry about that! When I started to reply yesterday, I found that the previous day's reply was already in the comment box, and the only option was to "post comment" -- resulting in a duplicate post. That has happened before, and I don't know what causes the old comment to be retained as a draft after posting.

Anyway, I acknowledge that you recanted or revised your previous statement that "'information' is completely physical". But, I'm still not convinced that you realize that Information is both Physical and Metaphysical. And that understanding makes a big difference in my philosophical worldview. Glattfelder calls it an Information-theoretic Ontology. That's why I persist in insisting that our mutual Reality is not "completely physical"

That realization is important when addressing the OP assertion of "Mind (creator) = Mindless (evolution). The Mind-No Mind Equivalency Paradox " I hadn't thought of it that way, but the "equivalency" applies to my concept of Intelligent Evolution. Which proposes that the unfolding of our world was fully programmed in the Big Bang to search all possible variations on physical forms in order to find the "fittest" or most perfect form for the programmer's teleological goal. Hence, there is no need for divine intervention with the process. By contrast with Genesis, the world was not "perfect" in the beginning, but is working toward perfection.

Consequently, the common religious concept of a humanoid deity interfering with natural functions is misguided. Instead, I conclude that Max Eherman's Desiderata got it right :
"You are a child of the universe,
no less than the trees and the stars;
you have a right to be here.
And whether or not it is clear to you,
no doubt the universe is unfolding as it should."

Hence, no need to worship and sacrifice to unseen deities, in order to placate their whimsy and wrath. Unfortunately, the notion of a Cosmic Coder of the evolutionary program may still be considered : "irrelevant when discussing science or nature". Yet, this thread is not discussing physical Science, but the metaphysical mental aspects of the world. The mind is still a mystery to materialists, who can't put it under a microscope or dissect it with scalpels. That's because the human Mind is not a tangle of jelly-like neurons, but an intangible function of the processing of Information. The physical Brain is merely the container for Information (data) that it processes in a manner similar to a computer.

There is another pertinent equivalency, which some scientists are beginning to take seriously : Mind = Information = Energy. And that radical concept puts conventional notions of Matter, Energy & Mind in a whole new light. Like Information, Energy is invisible & intangible until it is converted into Mass, which our senses interpret as Matter. Most of the scientists studying the Information Ontology of the universe prefer to think of it in terms of invisible intangible Mathematics. Which is simply the geometric ratios & meaningful relationships between physical things that our minds "see" via Reasoning, not by senses. Information is the non-physical structure of meaning in a mind. :nerd:


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

Function : (math) a relationship or expression involving one or more variables.

Ontologyis studying the structure of the nature of reality or the nature of exists and, epistemology is studying the potentiality of the knowledge of human being. Ontology is about Being that exists as self-contained or independent of human.
https://www.researchgate.net/post/What-is-the-difference-between-Ontology-and-Epistomology

Structure : the arrangement of and relations between the parts or elements of something complex.

Right there I refer to My Understanding and do not make an ontological claim or commit to physical monism. No ontological "eliminating" on my part. "What else is there?" Whatever else there might be is irrelevant when discussing science or nature. — 180 Proof

Yes, but this is not a science or nature forum. Our interests here include what is known via the scientific method, but are not limited to the physical world. In fact, after post-Enlightenment Science came to dominate the exploration of the world, as known by the physical senses, Philosophy was left holding-the-bag of extra-sensory Metaphysics. By "extra-sensory", I don't mean magical powers, but merely the aspects of the world that are known via Reason instead of Sensation. By "Metaphysics" I'm referring to what Kant called "Noumenal" Ideality, as opposed to "Phenomenal" Reality. And shape-shifting Information seems to be the bridge between Noumenal and Phenomenal.

Unfortunately, some people assume that Metaphysics is merely the study of supernatural spooky stuff, like ESP, reincarnation, and communing with the dead. But, it also includes the natural spooky stuff, like action-at-a-distance and quantum leaps. So, I believe that asking "what else is there" is relevant to the purpose of The Philosophy Forum. Ironically, some posters on this forum seem to have Physics Envy, and reject anything that smacks of Meta-Physics. Of course, when delving into the immaterial aspects of Reality, a healthy dose of skepticism is necessary to avoid confusing normal Mental topics with paranormal Spiritual belief systems. Which is why I try to ground my Meta-Physical notions with empirical Physical knowledge, where possible. :nerd:


Both physics and metaphysics are concerned with describing our reality. One could say that both attempt to give an account of what the world is like, but physics is concerned with what it is like according to our experience of reality, whereas metaphysics is concerned with what it is “really” like.
https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-difference-between-physics-and-metaphysics
Note -- "What it's really like" is what Plato called the "Ideal" Realm, known only via Reason.

The phenomenal world is the world we are aware of; this is the world we construct out of the sensations that are present to our consciousness. The noumenal world consists of things we seem compelled to believe in, but which we can never know (because we lack sense-evidence of it).
http://people.wku.edu/jan.garrett/303/kant120.htm

Physics Envy :
The term argues that writing and working practices in these disciplines have overused, confusing jargon and complicated mathematics to seem more 'rigorous' and like mathematics-based subjects like physics.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physics_envy

The Case Against Reality : How Evolution Hid the Truth from Our Eyes
"Do we see the world as it truly is? In The Case Against Reality, pioneering cognitive scientist Donald Hoffman says no? we see what we need in order to survive. Our visual perceptions are not a window onto reality, Hoffman shows us, but instead are interfaces constructed by natural selection."
https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2016/04/the-illusion-of-reality/479559/

Cite any post anywhere on this forum where I have claimed or implied that "reality is nothing but physical stuff". Your "presumption" is a strawman, G — 180 Proof

I was responding to this quote :
My understanding of 'information' is completely physical, and not "ideal" (or platonic) in any significant sense. — 180 Proof
If "information" is "completely physical" what else is there? By eliminating all options that seems to imply "nothing but". So, I merely turned the quote around to say "reality is nothing but". Was that "presumptuous"? Based on my exploration of the role of Information in the world, I have concluded that Reality is both Physical (matter stuff) and Metaphysical (mind stuff). Anyway, you can correct my presumption by denying that reality is "nothing but" physical.

I apologize, if I misinterpreted your statement. I'm really trying to communicate with you, because you seem to be on the verge of understanding the ubiquity of Information. And communication is transmission of information. So, it will help if we understand what Information actually is. Just for the record, my notion of Ideal Information doesn't come from the Bible, or from New Age tracts, or from Plato. It comes primarily from well-known scientists, especially those on the cutting-edge of Quantum Theory

I'm currently reading the book by James Glattfelder, Information-Consciousness-Reality. In the chapter entitled, Information is Physical, he quotes several of those famous scientists. First, he reminds us that, before Shannon, information was considered to be non-physical, or meta-physical, as I call it. "What link establishes the relationship between the ethereal nature of information and it's physicality?" Then, he quotes physicist Rolf Landauer : "Information is not a disembodied abstract entity; it is always tied to a physical representation". But the same could be said of Energy : no-one has ever seen or touched pure Energy, because our senses are only tuned to experience its material forms. But energy is ethereal in its ability to transform from massless light-waves into the Mass (a property known only by reason, not sensation) that we associate with Matter.

In the next section, It From Bit, he quotes physicist John Archibald Wheeler : "The bit is a fundamental particle of a different sort : not just tiny but abstract -- a binary digit . . . it is insubstantial . . . more fundamental than matter itself." He's not contradicting Landauer, just focusing on a different aspect of Information, which is both abstract and concrete. He goes-on to say : "Information gives rise to every it -- every particle, every field of force, even the spacetime continuum itself". That covers just about everything in the physical world ; hence Information is ubiquitous -- it's both abstract Energy and concrete Matter. Then, he concludes : "All things physical are information-theoretic in origin, and this is a participatory universe." That last assertion was quickly adopted by metaphysical-oriented New Agers.

Wheeler doesn't use the term "Ideal" or "Platonic", but that's what he means, when he says : "The notion that the world exists 'out there' independent of the mind is a view which is abandoned." Other physicists have gone even further in expanding on the role of "ethereal" information in the real world. Seth Lloyd says that : "Once you adopt the notion that [concrete] reality and [abstract] information are the same, all quantum paradoxes and puzzles . . . disappear." [my brackets]. The he makes the bold assertion : "the entire universe is computing reality". From that concept I conclude that Evolution is essentially a computer program, which must have a Programmer to establish the rules and the teleology of the computing process. :nerd:


Ethereal : heavenly or celestial

Abstract : detached from physical, or concrete, reality

Ideal : existing only in the imagination

Seth Lloyd : "everything in the universe is made of bits. Not chunks of stuff, but chunks of information."
Note -- both Wheeler and Lloyd make a clear distinction between physical Stuff and metaphysical Information. So, their worldview is not "completely physical", but both Real and Ideal.

Cite any post anywhere on this forum where I have claimed or implied that "reality is nothing but physical stuff". Your "presumption" is a strawman, G — 180 Proof

I was responding to this quote :
My understanding of 'information' is completely physical, and not "ideal" (or platonic) in any significant sense. — 180 Proof
If "information" is "completely physical" what else is there? By eliminating all options that seems to imply "nothing but". So, I merely turned the quote around to say "reality is nothing but". Was that "presumptuous"? Based on my exploration of the role of Information in the world, I have concluded that Reality is both Physical (matter stuff) and Metaphysical (mind stuff). Anyway, you can correct my presumption by denying that reality is "nothing but" physical.

I apologize, if I misinterpreted your statement. I'm really trying to communicate with you, because you seem to be on the verge of understanding the ubiquity of Information. And communication is transmission of information. So, it will help if we understand what Information actually is. Just for the record, my notion of Ideal Information doesn't come from the Bible, or from New Age tracts, or from Plato. It comes primarily from well-known scientists, especially those on the cutting-edge of Quantum Theory

I'm currently reading the book by James Glattfelder, Information-Consciousness-Reality. In the chapter entitled, Information is Physical, he quotes several of those famous scientists. First, he reminds us that, before Shannon, information was considered to be non-physical, or meta-physical, as I call it. "What link establishes the relationship between the ethereal nature of information and it's physicality?" Then, he quotes physicist Rolf Landauer : "Information is not a disembodied abstract entity; it is always tied to a physical representation". But the same could be said of Energy : no-one has ever seen or touched pure Energy, because our senses are only tuned to experience its material forms. But energy is ethereal in its ability to transform from massless light-waves into the Mass (a property known only by reason, not sensation) that we associate with Matter.

In the next section, It From Bit, he quotes physicist John Archibald Wheeler : "The bit is a fundamental particle of a different sort : not just tiny but abstract -- a binary digit . . . it is insubstantial . . . more fundamental than matter itself." He's not contradicting Landauer, just focusing on a different aspect of Information, which is both abstract and concrete. He goes-on to say : "Information gives rise to every it -- every particle, every field of force, even the spacetime continuum itself". That covers just about everything in the physical world ; hence Information is ubiquitous -- it's both abstract Energy and concrete Matter. Then, he concludes : "All things physical are information-theoretic in origin, and this is a participatory universe." That last assertion was quickly adopted by metaphysical-oriented New Agers.

Wheeler doesn't use the term "Ideal" or "Platonic", but that's what he means, when he says : "The notion that the world exists 'out there' independent of the mind is a view which is abandoned." Other physicists have gone even further in expanding on the role of "ethereal" information in the real world. Seth Lloyd says that : "Once you adopt the notion that [concrete] reality and [abstract] information are the same, all quantum paradoxes and puzzles . . . disappear." [my brackets]. The he makes the bold assertion : "the entire universe is computing reality". From that concept I conclude that Evolution is essentially a computer program, which must have a Programmer to establish the rules and the teleology of the computing process. :nerd:


Ethereal : heavenly or celestial

Abstract : detached from physical, or concrete, reality

Ideal : existing only in the imagination

Seth Lloyd : "everything in the universe is made of bits. Not chunks of stuff, but chunks of information."
Note -- both Wheeler and Lloyd make a clear distinction between physical Stuff and metaphysical Information. So, their worldview is not "completely physical", but both Real and Ideal.

My understanding of 'information' is completely physical, and not "ideal" (or platonic) in any significant sense. — 180 Proof

Yes. That seems to be the key difference in our views. But the notion that "Information is physical" would have been ridiculed in the centuries before Claude Shannon, in his search for efficient transmission of knowledge, divested Information of meaning, . The original referent of the term was to non-physical Ideas in the mind. But Shannon wanted empty containers that could carry a wide variety of ideas & knowledge, without having any inherent meaning in themselves. So, following Turing, he boiled the real world down to its simplest elements : all or nothing, (1) or (0) -- ideal abstractions that have no instances in reality . Based on that ideal binary categorization, he turned Turing's imaginary "universal computer" into a physical reality.

Turing's computer only existed as an idea before that. And later, the Church-Turing-Deutsch principle showed that " a universal computing device can simulate every physical process". From that insight, some information theorists, including Tegmark, concluded that the physical universe itself is actually a mathematical simulation. Hence, material reality is ultimately made of mathematical (meta-physical) Information, instead of tiny atoms of physical stuff. Hence, most physicists today have given-up the ancient notion of a physical atomic foundation to the world, and now imagine that matter itself is an emergent quality of invisible information "Fields" : consisting of Potential (unactualized) Energy and Virtual (ideal) Particles.

So, if you'll pardon my presumption, your notion that Reality is "completely physical" -- i.e. "nothing but" physical stuff -- is out of date. Instead of exclusive & reductive, Black & White ; Either/Or, (1) or (0) categories, my own holistic worldview is what I call "BothAnd". It accepts the real physical world as it appears to our physical senses, but it also acknowledges the underlying Ideality of invisible & intangible stuff -- including the abstract concepts that populate the human mind. Therefore, rather than excluding our own Consciousness from our worldview, the BothAnd principle includes Physical & Meta-physical, Real & Ideal, Matter & Mind. :nerd:


Abstract : thought-of apart from concrete realities

Quantum Field Theory (QFT) is the mathematical and conceptual framework for contemporary elementary particle physics

Information is Physical :
"Even if we encode data as bits, the content, representation, and ontology of information appear separate. How then, can information be physical? . . . what link establishes the relationship between the ethereal nature of information and its physicality?"
James Glattfelder, Information-- Consciousness-- Reality

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

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. So, 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

I linked that wiki article only to clarify my "cosmological holism" by suggestion; I'm not committed to the more speculative or platonic aspects mentioned in the article. I appreciate you reading to better see that I'm a much more non-reductive whatever than reductive. I remain, however, anti-idealist in my ontology (sorry, but "Enformationism" has always been way too extravagant – non-parsimonious – for me). — 180 Proof

Unfortunately for you, Enformationism is fundamentally & literally Idealistic, and both Physical & Metaphysical. But, it's based on the cutting-edge science of Information. Most people think they are up-to-date on Information Theory, when all they know about it is that it has something to do with computers. In fact, it has something to do with everything. And that's not just the opinion of extravagant & untethered New Agers. The fundamental role of Information was first glimpsed in early Quantum experiments, when extraction of information from a particle in superposition triggered the collapse of the suspended animation, turning virtual Ideality into actual Reality. From there, the many functions of Information have been gradually pieced into a cohesive concept. But it won't become mainstream science until the old guard of committed reductive materialists and "anti-idealists" die off.

There are a few hard-nosed and credentialed scientists & mathematicians & philosophers that are working to establish Information as an orthodox theory for future scientific applications. Information and the Nature of Reality, is the product of serious scientific investigation. Unfortunately or fortunately, depending on your attitude toward Religion, they also apply their understanding of multitasking Information to metaphysical & religious questions that have puzzled philosophers & theologians for centuries. But then, so did Einstein (see below).

The 2019 book by James Glattfelder (see below) -- trained in physics, but worked as a quant in international finance -- pulls all the various threads together into a proposed new paradigm, based on the ubiquity of Information : "Over 300 years ago, the human mind discovered the machine code of reality : mathematics. ... Science appears to have hit a dead end when confronted with the nature of reality and consciousness. In this fascinating and accessible volume, James Glattfelder explores a radical paradigm shift uncovering the ontology of reality".

These pioneers of a new paradigm are no more far-out & extravagant than the Cosmological Holism you seem to favor. The anti-reductive notion of Holism was adopted early by "non-parsimonious" New Agers, but has gradually seeped into mainstream science. Of course, a reasonable degree of skepticism should be applied to any strange new ideas. But, philosophers are well-advised to carry the sword of an open mind behind the shield of skepticism. :cool:

How is information related to energy in physics? :
Energy is the relationship between information regimes.
https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/22084/how-is-information-related-to-energy-in-physics

Information -- Consciousness -- Reality : How a new understanding of the universe can help answer age-old questions of existence. ___James Glattfelder
https://library.oapen.org/handle/20.500.12657/23108

Information and the Nature of Reality: From Physics to Metaphysics :
https://philpapers.org/rec/DAVIAT-5

“The religion of the future will be a cosmic religion. It should transcend a personal God and avoid dogmas and theology. Covering both the natural and the spiritual, it should be based on a religious sense arising from the experience of all things, natural and spiritual, as a meaningful unity. Buddhism answers this description.” ― Albert Einstein

Right or wrong, what the Hawking article does is to demonstrate that the Aristotelian notion of causation does not apply at the cosmological level. — Banno

Is that a fact -- or an opinion? :wink:

I get the impression that TMF views the universe as an Organism, while you see it as a Mechanism.
Well, actually, I "see the universe" as an unbounded yet finite, hyper-dimensional computational system of lower dimensional, entropic-fractal structures & nested sub-systems (i.e. cosmological holism). — 180 Proof

I apologize for accusing you of a reductionist worldview. From a brief review of the link, it seems that Cosmological Holism is technically similar, in some ways, to my own worldview of a mathematical information-based universe. But it doesn't translate its technical jargon into a scenario that non-mathematicians could appreciate. Also, it doesn't put its highly abstract notion into a context of older paradigms -- including Scientific Reductionism and Religious Theism. Also, speaking of "pseudo-philosophical", the CH articles tries to incorporate the far-out "calculations" of the String Theory fairly tale. Anyway, I think Cosmological Holism is a step in the right direction, even if it doesn't acknowledge its own implications of a Cosmic Mind to bind independent parts into am interdependent (entangled) system.

If I were you, I'd be a little gentler in my criticism of TMFs notion of a mind-based reality. Wholes and Mathematical Principles do not exist in the material world, but only in minds -- which are themselves holistic functions of physical brains. Even the notion of a Cosmos is a mental concept that only exists as a philosophical category, to explain how all the zillions of material parts add-up to something greater than the computed sum -- just as the Mind is more than a bunch of neurons. Besides, I noticed that your link site is categorized under the heading of "Plato", best known for his Idealistic worldview. :cool:

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/physics-holism/

"The only problem with his 17th century equation is that in order to explain the 20th century Big Bang, "god or nature" must have existed prior to the beginning of our current space-time universe." — Gnomon

Yeah. That's a wrap for Gnome. — Banno

You don't agree with my inference that the "Big Bang" put an end to the eternal universe assumption, and re-opened the question of First Cause??? I'm crushed! Guess it's time for "Gnome" to slink away from the slanted "light of reason". . . . . Or not. :groan:

Ironically, the sarcastic nickname came from Astronomer Fred Hoyle, who had presumed that Nature existed forever, or at least was in a steady state. Other astronomers, seeing the implications for an instantaneous divine creation event, began to imagine other explanations for the sudden appearance of our material universe (along with space & time & laws of nature) that avoided the logical inference of a law-maker. The most common alternative scenario is some variation on the never-ending Multiverse or the sci-fi Many Worlds conjectures. Moreover, the Inflationary Model, in which the whole universe popped into existence in a fraction of a second, sounds more like a miracle than even the biblical creation in seven days.

After many years of myth-making, they still have no physical evidence to support their hypothetical models, taking for granted that the laws of Nature, and their embodiment in matter are eternal -- hence no need for a Lawgiver. So, those imaginative alternatives are not yet empirical facts. In fact, you could call The Multiverse a materialist's creation myth, starring magic Matter. Fortunately, philosophers are not bound to a belief in an infinite & unbounded universe, So, they are able to see the logic behind Aristotle's necessary First & Final Cause axiom for the chain of causation.

So, the gnarly gnome will continue to explore all plausible answers to those open questions. Re-opened by the calculations of a finite beginning, as revealed by hard-nosed empirical scientists, following the astronomical evidence where it led : to a singular point (a question mark) at the beginning of Time. :nerd:

Albert Einstein, in his book Relativity: The Special and General Theory, dedicates a chapter to this idea, as its title suggests: The Possibility of a “Finite” and Yet “Unbounded” Universe. In the words of us laypeople, Einstein – among others – suggests a “spherical” universe, one in which we can venture out in a straight line, and circumnavigate back to our starting position. But how is such a cosmos possible, let alone fathomable?
https://futurism.com/finite-yet-unbounded
Note -- That sounds like circular reasoning, in which you end-up right back where you started.

The Aristotelian universe was a finite bounded sphere. But it was also eternal---unbounded in time.
http://www.physics.unlv.edu/~jeffery/astro/aristotle/aristotle_hoplite_spear.html

Of course "evolution" is non-random, I've pointed that out from the start. Like e.g. the weather, it is to varying degrees also unpredictable. Non-random, unpredictable phenomena on that account, however, are not purposeful or do not progress toward any end goal. Chaotic systems are deterministic with regard to their initial conditions – thus, physus without telos. — 180 Proof

You and TMF seem to be talking past each other, as is common on this forum. Your perspective seems to be scientific & reductive, while his is philosophical & holistic. Thus, when you look at the "blooming buzzing confusion" of randomness, you see different things. For example, the Cosmic Background Radiation at first glance appears totally random. Yet, by comparison to an artificially created randomized map, the real pattern of thermal variations was found to be somewhat non-random -- implying that some unknown influence resulted in an organized pattern. Ironically, the large-scale structure of the universe looks surprising similar to the neuronal patterns of the human brain. Coincidence or Causation? Initial Conditions or First Cause? See below :

Here's another illustration of anomalous structure within a random distribution : if a series of coin flips turn-up heads 10 times in a row, it's surprising but not impossible -- seeming to defy the 50/50 odds. Yet, long strings of 1s or 0s occur naturally in chaotic systems on rare occasions. But "it takes, on average, 2046 flips to achieve 10 heads in a row." So, from a close-up (reductive) point-of-view, that departure from the norm is an exception, but not a miracle. However, such a low probability string of heads, could plausibly indicate "purposeful" intention; perhaps, that someone is cheating. In other words, a mind may be interfering with natural randomness by special "selection" skewing the odds. Therefore, from a broader perspective, the possibility of Teleology makes sense. Cheaters & Magicians make fools of those who watch too closely.

I get the impression that TMF views the universe as an Organism, while you see it as a Mechanism. By definition a Mechanism cannot change its own inherent rigid step-by-step procedures. But an Organism can choose to adapt to a changing environment. That's why those of us who take a holistic approach to the world, often see signs of non-randomness that suggest a purposeful direction and goal-directed intention. :nerd:

Structures in the microwave background radiation :
It is commonly taken for granted (with the notable exception of Gurzadyan & Penrose [5]) that the temperature distribution in the CMB is purely statistical being produced by the quantum fluctuations . . . . Therefore, it was very unexpected for us to find significant differences . . . The differences between real and artificial maps were both qualitative and quantitative.
https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rspa.2013.0116

Coin Flipping Scam : Note -- Derren Brown is a magician, whose trade is doing what seems impossible.
https://nrich.maths.org/6954/solution

# Which is a map of brain neurons, and which maps the structural pattern of stars? :
https://www.universetoday.com/148966/one-of-these-pictures-is-the-brain-the-other-is-the-universe-can-you-tell-which-is-which/

In essence, taking a legit scientific approach on the issue of teleology and evolution, we can safely say that the hypothesis that evolution is teleological has been confirmed. — TheMadFool

Unfortunately, the teleological interpretation of evolution is far from being scientifically confirmed, and is currently being hotly debated. Just type "teleology" and "evolution" into Google. You will find arguments both pro & con. So, the issue here seems to be not the science or the logic, but the worldview of each participant. Perhaps there is bias both ways. So, I guess, like political and religious debates, we conclude by agreeing to disagree.

Part of the problem for the teleological interpretation is that the "intended" end is unknown. Unless you have a direct revelation from the supposed Intender. But we have the same issue with the Arrow of Time. Except for those who live in static Block Time, it is obvious that the progression of Time has a direction. But what target is that arrow pointing at? Those whose interpretation is based on scriptural evidence can state with confidence that the End of Time will be as described in the Apocalypse of John (revelation). And that horror-show may be what the anti-teleology folks are denying.

In my own speculations about the Telos of Time, I don't claim to know what the ultimate goal is. So, I merely note that the forward & upward progression of evolution seems to be toward more organized complexity, and higher levels of intelligence. And, since 2021 seems to be close to the beginning of a an accelerating upward curve of compounding complexity and self-organization, the current state of the world is still in its infancy. And we have a long way to go, to reach god-hood -- if that Omega Point is actually in the cards. For me, it's just a guess. But self-organization makes more sense of the world to me, than the alternative of compounding Chaos. :cool:

Teleological Explanations in Evolutionary Biology :
Evolutionary biologists use teleological language and teleo-logical explanations ... evolutionary change – the theory of natural selection, . . . . ___Francisco Ayala
https://escholarship.org/content/qt26s4355t/qt26s4355t_noSplash_36f1f3349cb98dcd90ca48a908f2f87b.pdf

Cosmic Progression Graph :
http://bothandblog3.enformationism.info/page28.html

Non-random, unpredictable phenomena on that account, however, are not purposeful or do not progress toward any end goal. — 180 Proof

I don't think TMF is predicting anything specific. He's just interpreting the evidence in a positive direction. If you interpret the obvious signs of Change as non-directional, that's a legitimate conclusion -- from the Mechanistic perspective. But it's not the only way to read the signs.

Unlike scientists, philosophers are not sworn to uphold that short-sighted worldview. Instead, until recent times, most philosophers have followed Aristotle's example : to interpret the world based on First & Final Causes. The Mechanistic view works for pragmatic short-term science, like Chemistry & Biology. But for Astrophysicists & Cosmologists, the order & organization we find under our feet is also found everywhere they look, even back to the beginning of time. So, consideration of First & Final causes is not only legitimate, but mandatory. :nerd:

Evolution -- Teleology or Chance :
https://www.jstor.org/stable/25170904?seq=1

Teleological Evolution :
http://bothandblog3.enformationism.info/page25.html

In essence, taking a legit scientific approach on the issue of teleology and evolution, we can safely say that the hypothesis that evolution is teleological has been confirmed. — TheMadFool

Unfortunately, the teleological interpretation of evolution is far from being scientifically confirmed, and is currently being hotly debated. Just type "teleology" and "evolution" into Google. You will find arguments both pro & con. So, the issue here seems to be not the science or the logic, but the worldview of each participant. Perhaps there is bias both ways. So, I guess, like political and religious debates, we conclude by agreeing to disagree.

Part of the problem for the teleological interpretation is that the "intended" end is unknown. Unless you have a direct revelation from the supposed Intender. But we have the same issue with the Arrow of Time. Except for those who live in static Block Time, it is obvious that the progression of Time has a direction. But what target is that arrow pointing at? Those whose interpretation is based on scriptural evidence can state with confidence that the End of Time will be as described in the Apocalypse of John (revelation). And that horror-show may be what the anti-teleology folks are denying.

In my own speculations about the Telos of Time, I don't claim to know what the ultimate goal is. So, I merely note that the forward & upward progression of evolution seems to be toward more organized complexity, and higher levels of intelligence. And, since 2021 seems to be close to the beginning of a an accelerating upward curve of compounding complexity and self-organization, the current state of the world is still in its infancy. And we have a long way to go, to reach god-hood -- if that Omega Point is actually in the cards. For me, it's just a guess. But self-organization makes more sense of the world to me, than the alternative of compounding Chaos. :cool:

Teleological Explanations in Evolutionary Biology :
Evolutionary biologists use teleological language and teleo-logical explanations ... evolutionary change – the theory of natural selection, . . . . ___Francisco Ayala
https://escholarship.org/content/qt26s4355t/qt26s4355t_noSplash_36f1f3349cb98dcd90ca48a908f2f87b.pdf

Cosmic Progression Graph :
http://bothandblog3.enformationism.info/page28.html

Non-random, unpredictable phenomena on that account, however, are not purposeful or do not progress toward any end goal. — 180 Proof

I don't think TMF is predicting anything specific. He's just interpreting the evidence in a positive direction. If you interpret the obvious signs of Change as non-directional, that's a legitimate conclusion -- from the Mechanistic perspective. But it's not the only way to read the signs.

Unlike scientists, philosophers are not sworn to uphold that short-sighted worldview. Instead, until recent times, most philosophers have followed Aristotle's example : to interpret the world based on First & Final Causes. The Mechanistic view works for pragmatic short-term science, like Chemistry & Biology. But for Astrophysicists & Cosmologists, the order & organization we find under our feet is also found everywhere they look, even back to the beginning of time. So, consideration of First & Final causes is not only legitimate, but mandatory. :nerd:

Evolution -- Teleology or Chance :
https://www.jstor.org/stable/25170904?seq=1

Teleological Evolution :
http://bothandblog3.enformationism.info/page25.html

Secondly, if you haven't already noticed, the non-random nature of any given phenomenon (here evolution) forces us to entertain the possibility of a teleological factor in them for teleology manifests as non-randomness. — TheMadFool

Unfortunately, the people you are "reasoning" with do not accept the premise that Evolution is non-random and actually progressive -- moving toward some future state. That, despite scientific evidence against "blind chance" ruling evolution. It's as-if a designing Creator has been replaced with a random Robot. Evolution is cybernetic. But their random "creator" seems to be Blind Fate. :joke:


Evolution is often said to be "blind," because there's no outside force guiding natural selection. But changes in genetic material that occur at the molecular level are not entirely random, a new study suggests
https://www.livescience.com/48103-evolution-not-random.html

The genetic variation that occurs in a population because of mutation is random — but selection acts on that variation in a very non-random way : genetic variants that aid survival and reproduction are much more likely to become common than variants that don't. ... The result is non-random evolutionary change.
https://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/0_0_0/misconcep_05

Evolutionary cybernetics :
Then, we need to study the evolution of goal-directedness, i.e. control systems.
http://pespmc1.vub.ac.be/EVOLCYB.html

Anyway, biased or not, we can still say things about the world we're in.
The anthropic principle has anthropo-bias inherently. Or by design. ;) — jorndoe

You say that like being human is a bad thing. Are you a misanthrope?

I'm kidding. I know what you mean. But, just as rational thinking doesn't come easily to humans, cognitive biases seem to be inherent, even in those who aspire to objectivity. So, I tend to give pathetic humans a little slack. Besides, as I noted before, the term "Anthropic Principle" was created -- "by design" -- by objective scientists, to explain the parallels they saw between abstract laws of physics & initial conditions of evolution, and computer programs that are designed to reach a specific species of final output. :smile:

Misanthropy is the general hatred, dislike, distrust or contempt of the human species,
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Misanthropy

Cognitive biases are inherent in the way we think, and many of them are unconscious.
https://www.masterclass.com/articles/how-to-identify-cognitive-bias

So who makes the "selection" -- mindless Nature? — Gnomon
Natural selection. — 180 Proof

Yes. The selection process is "natural". But how did the criteria for those automatic choices arise in Nature? Darwin saw an analogy between human selection (animal breeding) and the weeding-out process of evolution. In this analogy, personified Nature plays the role of Breeder. But he didn't really mean that the natural Process itself made deliberate choices with a future goal in mind. Instead, his unspoken reference may have been to the Creator, that he was beginning to doubt. He later said that proposing a godless creation was "like confessing to murder"

By that, I assume he meant that he felt guilty for casting doubt on the Ultimate Explanation. And his uncertainty was exacerbated by his failure, admitted in The Origin of Species, to actually explain the origin of Life, which was a necessary precursor to the origin of species. And which seemed to evolve via an innate Logic. Ironically, that Logos is exemplified in the notion of Natural Selection. By another analogy, computer programs do their work in accordance with an "innate logic" (Boolean). And the origin of that syllogistic (rational) order was not a random accident, but was deliberately imparted by a rational & intentional Programmer. That's the "who" I was referring to. Natural evolution is the program, but who was the Programmer? :chin:

Darwin letter :
At last gleams of light have come, & I am almost convinced (quite contrary to opinion I started with) that species are not (it is like confessing a murder) immutable. Heaven forfend me from Lamarck nonsense of a “tendency to progression” “adaptations from the slow willing of animals” &c,— but the conclusions I am led to are not widely different from his,
https://fs.blog/2014/11/charles-darwin-letter-joseph-hooker/

Evolutionary Logic :
These are the basic tenets of evolution by natural selection as defined by Darwin :
-- More individuals are produced each generation than can survive.
-- Phenotypic variation exists among individuals and the variation is heritable.
-- Those individuals with heritable traits better suited to the environment will survive.
-- When reproductive isolation occurs new species will form.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darwinism

An anthropic principle is an anthropocentric bias — 180 Proof

Of course it is. Because the principle was observed from the perspective of humans. Everything people do is anthropocentric. What else would you expect : simian-centric? theo-centric? Science is supposed to aim for purely objective and unbiased observations and conclusions : the "view from nowhere". But, pure objectivity would be God's point of view from outside the universe, and outside the human body. Moreover, the term itself was coined and used by scientists, until its implications of divine design raised furious criticism. :smile:

Origin of Anthropic Principle :
The phrase "anthropic principle" first appeared in Brandon Carter's contribution to a 1973 Kraków symposium honouring Copernicus's 500th birthday.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropic_principle
In 1952 British astronomer Fred Hoyle first used anthropic reasoning to make a successful prediction about the structure of the carbon nucleus.
https://www.britannica.com/science/anthropic-principle

As for the issue of intelligence and mind, you said that the relationship between the two isn't one of necessity - we've successfuly separated the two as in AI (intelligence sans a mind). — TheMadFool

That is a common short-hand assumption, but it simply ignores the "artificial" in Artificial Intelligence. The artist, whose intelligence is imparted to the program, is the Programmer, who is seldom sans mind. And his intelligence is a product of eons of natural selection going back to the original Programmer of Nature. :smile:

Artificial : made or produced by human beings rather than occurring naturally,

Another plausible (highly probable) option is, for instance, "no mind behind evolution" and our minds are products of natural selection — 180 Proof

So who makes the "selection" -- mindless Nature?

A Selection is a voluntary Choice between alternatives, based on a value system. The "no mind behind evolution" assertion seems to imply that the "Selection" is just as random as the mutations. But Darwin used that term with domestic animal breeding in mind. And the breeder had a future goal in mind, which was targeted by his personal value system. So, you will have to come up with a different mechanism than Darwinism, if you want to eliminate the Mind behind the Selection. :smile:

To Select : carefully choose as being the best or most suitable.

PS__Accidental "sifting", as in the orderly arrangement of rocks after a flood, may not appear to be a "selection". Yet, like a fish net, the weave is deliberately sized according to the preferred size of the catch. The rocks & fish vary in size, and are selected or rejected based on their inherent characteristics, but in accordance with the pre-determined criteria.

Not exactly. God achieves faer aims through humans, us. To cut to the chase, we are the means with which God achieves his ends - we're essentially tools for God with which, if all goes well, god can create paradise/heaven (transhumanism). — TheMadFool

The main problem with my thesis of an intentionally created universe is this : why? And why leave us, the apex creatures, in the dark about where & why the world is evolving as it does. Toward what end?

Ancient sages also pondered that question, and came up with a variety of solutions. As you noted, the fatalistic Greeks, among others, concluded that humans are slaves or "tools" of the gods, who do things the gods can't, or won't, do for themselves. So, it was common for those slaves to believe that they were doing "god's work", when they offered sacrifices of food, incense, and sometimes, human blood. They assumed that the gods needed those things, but without physical bodies, had to rely on semi-autonomous humans to do the actual laborious & messy work.

But, today, that notion -- which ruled for thousands of years -- sounds like nonsense to those of us in a post-slavery society. So, another, more modern, theory has emerged. It assumes that G*D, or the gods, are trying to create a perfect race of robots. So, without giving explicit instructions, they nudge and prod their automatons via emotions or brain-probes to create better & better social systems and technologies : the better to serve their Matrix masters. Although I am aware that humans have very limited freewill, I don't like to think of myself as a robot, controlled by some sinister central command.

So, my preferred scenario is similar to Teilhard deChardin's Omega Point theory. It assumes that God is reproducing him/herself. And the ultimate fate of the world is to become godlike ; perhaps, the son of God. Physicist & Cosmologist, Frank Tipler, believes that our illusory material world is actually composed of something like mathematical information (spirit), and concludes, like deChardin, that it is evolving toward a spiritual Singularity, directed by the mathematical laws of Nature. Some Transhumanists are less mathematically or spiritually-inclined, and assume that humans evolved by accident to the role of top ape, and are merely using their superior intellectual tools to create a technological Utopia -- no need for a higher power to intervene -- or to serve.

To be clear, I don't take the Omega Point theory as gospel. It's simply serves as a modern allegory, to update or replace the outdated religious myths of the past. AFAIK, this hopeful narrative is not a revelation from G*D, but merely an imaginary construct of the human mind, as it grapples with the otherwise pointless situation we find ourselves "thrown into", as babes in the wood, a mysterious world without any direct divine supervision : Heideggar's "Thrownness". Myths of the past typically implied that the "truth" was revealed to some wise or pious person long ago. But, I think those prophets merely made-up hortatory stories to suit the times.

However, for those who can believe, they gain a feeling of knowing the meaning of life, and the purpose of the world. That may be a Placebo Effect, but it seems to work quite well. Unfortunately, I have a problem with faith, so my belief is partial and provisional, pending more & better information, from which to fabricate a story that is a closer approximation to the Truth. :cool:

Omega Point :
Teilhard argued that the Omega Point resembles the Christian Logos, . . . ... "if this book is to be properly understood, it must be read not as a work on metaphysics, still less as a sort of theological essay, but purely and simply as a scientific treatise". . . . Teilhard's theory was a personal attempt in creating a new Christianity in which science and theology coexist. . . . When the earth reaches its Omega Point, everything that exists will become one with divinity.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omega_Point

Intelligent Evolution : a modern myth
http://gnomon.enformationism.info/Essays/Intelligent%20Evolution%20Essay_Prego_120106.pdf

The Big Bang doesn't seem to be an issue since god is seen as somewhat of a supreme creator and if the universe is self-created, as it is in an atheist's mind, god, again, equates with the universe. God creates the universe, the universe creates itself; ergo God = the universe. What do you think? — TheMadFool

Sounds like Atheist = God. :joke:

I think that the crux of the Creation question is that ultimately something must have been self-created in order for anything to exist in a physical form. For Spinoza, that ultimate "something" was "god sive nature", and he thought that Nature was eternal. But, of course, that was long before the Big Bang theory put a damper on that notion. :smile:

So, I must agree that an intelligent designer wouldn't create a world as imperfect as ours, but might possibly create a world that could mature toward a more perfect state in the future. — Gnomon
Transhumanist Theodicy — TheMadFool

Are you suggesting that humans can do what the bible-god couldn't : create a system that gradually evolves toward a more perfect world? I'm not a card-carrying Transhumanist, but I see evidence that evolution is progressing upward, and that the rate-of-progress accelerated after rational creatures emerged. Of course, the glitch in that rosy scenario is the resistance of irrational creatures to change. :nerd:

Cosmic Progression Graph :
http://bothandblog3.enformationism.info/page28.html

This means that those who survive major upheavals in the environment aren't actually the fittest life-forms around; it's just that a particular set of traits help them ride out the storm. — TheMadFool

Yes. The traits that survive are the fittest available for the local conditions at that place & time. The apex dinosaurs had traits that were quite fit for their place & time, but the asteroid impact changed the conditions of the environment, and the rules of the fitness game. So little furry creatures -- and dinosaurs with feathers -- were more fit for the new milieu, than the old dominant species with cold blood and/or scaly skin. Was it just the luck of the draw, that creatures had already evolved with the necessary traits for the next phase of evolution? :chin:

We can see that natural evolution is circling around some future state, like a moth to a light. — Gnomon
Well said! — TheMadFool

That was a reference to the "Power of Absence" mentioned in the Anthropic Principle thread.
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/10941/anthropic-principle-meets-consciousness