What is wrong with - Enformationism posits that the fundamental substances of reality is not energy or matter but mind. — Pop

I'll take that under advisement. But now I'm thinking about adding another, even more controversial, conclusion or Coda. Something along the lines of :

A possible corollary to the Enformationism Thesis is that "everything happens for a reason". But the Reason for Being may not have anything to do with You as a singular sentient being. The rational basis of reality, and the logic of evolution, may instead serve the long-range intention of the anonymous First Cause - Creator - Programmer - Enformer.

Unfortunately nobody knows what that ultimate goal might be. Except that it seems to have something to do with Complexity & Consciousness. Yet, the element of Randomness, implies that some freedom from determinism is essential to this exercise in Enformation.

So, your personal role in the process of computing that Final Answer may be as an independent-minded improvisational role-player in the on-going story of Evolution toward a Universal Mind in space-time, as envisioned by Teilhard deChardin.

But, your guess is as good as mine. So I play my role, and construct my character, for my own personal reasons. And you are somewhat free to do likewise.

Still, too wordy. But I feel the need to justify each conjecture beyond the bare facts. Such speculation might just dig me in deeper over my head. But then, what's the point of philosophy if not to go beyond Ontology (being) into Epistemology (knowing)? :worry:

The idea that energy is the fundamental element is deficient, as energy has to have form, so there is something informing it. Of course the logical difficulty here is that energy and information ( enformation ) are inseparable, so that's why I wonderif one is a quality of the other? Or is matter a quality of the two together? - I feel there is something in this, but I just cant quite get at it - yet! — Pop

Yes. Most Cosmologists take it for granted that Energy and Natural Laws existed prior to the Big Bang. And they assume that Life and Mind are merely accidental products of collisions between matter & energy. I have tried to reverse the order of priority in the thesis and blog. But most materialist philosophers find it difficult to imagine that something as ethereal as Mind Stuff could be the ultimate reality. :worry:

Energy :
Scientists define “energy” as the ability to do work, but don't know what energy is. They assume it's an eternal causative force that existed prior to the Big Bang, along with mathematical laws. Energy is a positive or negative relationship between things, and physical Laws are limitations on the push & pull of those forces. So, all they know is what Energy does, which is to transform material objects in various ways. Energy itself is amorphous & immaterial. So if you reduce energy to its essence of information, it seems more akin to mind than matter. Likewise, all we know of God is what it does : create. That's why I think of Energy as the “power” aspect of the willpower of G*D, which is guided by the intentional (lawlike) “will” aspect. Together I call them : EnFormAction.
http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page8.html

This is just my own bias however. I tend to prefer things in list or point form, logically reduced and to the point - this is just me, there is nothing wrong with how you have expressed yourself. :smile: — Pop

Here's another attempt to present the Enformationism concept as a numbered or bulleted list. It's adapted from the website.

Abstract of the Enformationism Thesis :

1. The Enformationism hypothesis begins with the ancient, but still controversial, theory that the fundamental “substance” of reality is not sensible energy or tangible matter, but abstract spirit, soul, or mind. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/substance/
2. Yet it concludes that those mysterious, metaphysical, mental building blocks of reality are nothing stranger than the ordinary, mundane objects of thought that we take for granted in our everyday thinking. https://www.oxfordbibliographies.com/view/document/obo-9780195396577/obo-9780195396577-0076.xml
3. Axiom : Consciousness is real and primal. Hence, Mental concepts are categorically and hierarchically prior to material things. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/consciousness/
4. Premise 1 : At the quantum level of reality matter is essentially reduced to mathematical information.
5. Premise 2 : The essence of mind and thought is Information, which consists of patterns and relationships between things.
6. Conclusion : Matter and Energy are condensed forms of abstract, ethereal information.
7. Therefore, the 19th century, reductive, physical, scientific Paradigm of Materialism should be updated to include the knowledge emerging from 21st century, holistic, metaphysical Information Sciences.

The idea that it did just happen to fall as God determined that it would is extremely farfetched, and it honestly blows my mind that there are people out there who take this and other biblical prophecies as anything more than just a coincidence or a metaphor. — BBQueue

Yes. The biblical account of Jericho was a mythical history of something that happened many generations before it was written down. However, since some of the Priests & Scribes of Israel were numerologists, perhaps learned during the Babylonian captivity, the number seven has symbolic and superstitious implications. We may view the wall fall as a coincidence, but they would interpret the event as inevitable. :cool:

Hebrews 11:30 : By faith the walls of Jericho fell, after the army had marched around them for seven days.

Jericho : This has led some to conclude that the final Canaanite city was destroyed 150 years earlier, in the Middle Bronze Age, and that there was no city of Jericho for Joshua to defeat. However, this seems to stretch the evidence; all we can conclude is that the walls that fell were constructed in the Middle Bronze Age.
https://biblearchaeologyreport.com/2019/05/25/biblical-sites-three-discoveries-at-jericho/

Significance of numbers in Judaism : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Significance_of_numbers_in_Judaism

But again you can argue that is just out of perception. — Paul S

Yes, but our perceptions of objects in physical reality are immediately interpreted into subjective mental abstractions (concepts), representing the ultimate abstractions underlying the real world. Here's my review of cognitive psychologist Donald Hoffman's “Interface theory of perception”. :smile:

Interface Reality : http://bothandblog6.enformationism.info/page21.html

The Case Against Reality : https://www.amazon.com/Case-Against-Reality-Evolution-Truth-ebook/dp/B07JR1FDXH/ref=sr_1_1?crid=J8QCEZE2ZI2N&dchild=1&keywords=the+case+against+reality+why+evolution+hid+the+truth+from+our+eyes&qid=1614035239&s=books&sprefix=The+Case+Against+Reality%2Cdigital-text%2C234&sr=1-1

This is just my own bias however. I tend to prefer things in list or point form, logically reduced and to the point - this is just me, there is nothing wrong with how you have expressed yourself. — Pop

I do provide some lists in the blog, on specific topics. But Enformationism is such a holistic wide-ranging inter-related concept, that it's hard for me to think of it in a linear 1 - 2 - 3 format. If I had some training in philosophy or mathematics, that itemization might come more naturally. Instead, I'm self-taught in a haphazard manner. And most of my philosophical learning has occurred after I retired 11 years ago. As a Designer-Architect, I do tend to think holistically, rather than reductively & sequentially, like an engineer, or scientist.

My Enformationism thought process began with a kernel concept, based on an observation by a quantum physicist, speaking of the "superposition" of "virtual" particles of matter. He said something like : "it's all information; nothing but information." From that all-is-information notion, I just jumped into the middle, and started flailing around in all directions, like a beginning swimmer.

In an early blog post, I tried to summarize the concept of EnFormAction . So, I added two lists, defining that neologism from two different perspectives (link below). Here's another list, presenting a summary of my speculation on how Information evolved into Consciousness. But it assumes a prior understanding of some essential features of Information, beyond the simplistic definition by Shannon. And each upward step in complexity is the result of inherent Self-Organization, built-in to the creative energy of EnFormAction. :smile:

Progression of Evolution :

1. World Program as Singularity
2a. EnFormAction as Causation
2b. Physics as Energy
3. Chemistry as Matter
4. Biology as Life
5. Psychology as Mind
6. Sociology as Culture, Religion, Politics
7. Philosophy as Reflective Mind
8. Cosmology as Worldview
9. Artificial Intelligence as self-programming Computers, Robots
10. Next . . . . . Omega Point deity?
http://bothandblog.enformationism.info/page29.html

What is EnFormAction? : http://bothandblog2.enformationism.info/page29.html

↪Gnomon
Could you provide a link please? — Pop

Sorry. Here it is : :yikes:

Intro to Enformationism : http://bothandblog6.enformationism.info/page80.html

Information is really an abstract concept. Its an abstraction we create ourselves that doesn't really exist. Information means nothing without a vessel to carry it, at least as far as our perception goes. — Paul S

That's true. But it also applies to Mathematics. And Energy is essentially an abstract relationship (800 degrees Celsius of the match, relative to 72 degrees of the tinder) between hot & cold, for instance. The potential is in the ratio, which can actualize changes in matter. :nerd:

Thermodynamics : Generally it is defined as the ratio of desired output to required input. Energy efficiency (i.e. ratio of output energy to input energy) is primarily based on the 1st law of thermodynamics.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/engineering/thermodynamic-efficiency

It will be the next post on my blog, but I may adapt it for an article on this forum. — Gnomon
Ill look forward to it. :up: — Pop

I have now uploaded a new blog post entitled : Introduction to Enformationism. And I will soon try to adapt it for a forum article. But, I still have a gnawing feeling that I'm taking some key concepts for granted, because they are familiar to me, but not to those who haven't studied Information Science, informally, for several years. So, if you have time to read 5 pages, I'd appreciate some feedback. :smile:

Intro to Enformationism : http://bothandblog6.enformationism.info/page80.html

Why does God have the Israelites march around the walls of Jericho once a day for six days and seven times on the seventh day before the walls fall? — BBQueue

The biblical "reason" for marching around in circles is Blind Obedience (just because God commanded it). But, in retrospect, after 3400 years, believers could imagine that God knew what the point of the meaningless march was, even if the marchers didn't.

Today, we have learned from sad experience that large groups or people, marching in a particular rhythm, can cause large structures to collapse, due to "dynamic loading". That's also why some modern buildings have fallen down during a minor earthquake : because they were designed to support steady vertical gravity loads, but not dynamic (moving) lateral loads.

So, it's possible, but not very likely, that the Hebrews had learned the implicit lesson of dynamic loading, perhaps from millennia of Egyptian construction experience. Maybe that's why their large masonry structures were pyramids instead of boxes. The pyramid is the most stable shape for a pile of stones. But the stone walls of Jericho were probably just vertical stacks of irregular rocks, with only mud for mortar. If so, the rhythmic vibrations of 40,000 marchers, plus a blast from a thousand horns could conceivably crack the walls, and cause them to fall apart. This is just conjecture though, because the biblical record was not concerned with physical explanations for miraculous events. :nerd:

Angers bridge collapse : "The bridge collapsed on 16 April 1850, while a battalion of French soldiers was marching across it, killing over 200 of them".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angers_Bridge
https://time.com/5597069/jericho-history/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Jericho

Everything has a quality ( qualia ). Is information the quality ( qualia ) of energy, or is energy the quality of information? or are they two sides of the one coin whose quality is matter? — Pop

Well, if everything in the world is an emergent form of Generic Information (the power to enform), then of course Qualia is a form of Information. But it's essentially a feeling in the mind of a sentient observer, not a physical object (E=MC^2). So, Qualia qualify as "Energy" only if those mental feelings are able to cause effects in other minds or objects. But, I prefer to discriminate between physical Energy, as studied by Physicists, and meta-physical Memes, as studied by Psychologists. In my worldview, EnFormAction (generic information) is the fundamental form of Causation -- the creative power of G*D, so to speak. So, Qualia & Quanta are emergent forms of that universal causal potential. But the causal power of Qualia is best expressed in words, concepts & symbols, not in bullets, bombs, & balls of fire.

Unfortunately, causal mental states too often get mixed-up with ancient notions of Chi, Prana, and Spirit, which are now confused with modern concepts of physical energy : as illustrated in fictional scenes of martial artists and Marvel Comic superheroes "throwing" Chi in the form of energy balls. The ball of fire is easy to see in movies & cartoons, but in real life, the observer has to imagine the chi ball that is being pantomimed by the thrower. So, the invisible energy ball must be believed, in order to be "seen". That's why the metaphysical ambiguity of invisible intangible Qualia lends itself to various magical beliefs. :cool:

Qualia ; Quale :
Latin term for immaterial properties, such as color & shape, of physical objects. Usually contrasted with Quanta, referring to unique things that can be counted. Qualia are subjective aspects of sensory perceptions (e.g. redness), as contrasted with the presumed objective existence of material things. Yet, all we ever know of real things is the mental images created in the mind, in response to sensory stimuli, not the things-in-themselves.
1. Qualia are metaphysical Properties considered apart from physical Things. Properties are mental attributions or essences (e.g colors), rather than physical sensations (e.g vibrations). Mathematical relationships (ratios) are virtual properties.
http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page17.html

THROWING CHI

↪Gnomon
I like the new website. :up: — Pop

Actually. that's the old website. Due to your prodding, I am currently working on an updated version of the Enformationism Introduction. It will be the next post on my blog, but I may adapt it for an article on this forum. Since the website was uploaded 12 years ago, I've learned a lot more about how Information works in all aspects of the world. But, other than some minor changes to the website, I probably won't try to give the site a complete overhaul. :meh:

- entirely the same kind of stuff, just much more complex. — Pop

I'm currently reading the book I referred to before : Information-Consciousness-Reality. The author's specialty is real-world applications of Complexity Theory. In his introduction, he comments that "complexity science invites a systemic and holistic paradigm . . . . and a bottom-up approach to the understanding of reality". My own thesis requires a Holistic perspective, or a Systems Theoretic standpoint ( for those who find "Holism" too New Agey). In another place, he says "Real World complexity (from inanimate self-organizing structure formation to emergent phenomena like life and consciousness) . . . " (my emphasis) :smile:

I think that would be too long. I was thinking perhaps a thousand words or less. It would not need to be definitive, perhaps an introductory overview? — Pop

Yes, I thought so. How about the thesis Introduction, which is only 5 pages? Unfortunately, it refers to cutting-edge scientific concepts that most posters may not be familiar with, and which will sound like nonsense, without some extensive explication. That's why I have two glossaries : one from 12 years ago, and one that I try to keep up-to-date.

Evolution of the Enformationism concept : From Form to Energy to Matter to Mind to Self.
http://enformationism.info/enformationism.info/page4.html
"The point I’m trying to make here is that energy, matter, space, and time are all re-formulations of the same essential substance, Information.
I emphasize the term Information in order to show that Mind consists of essentially the same kind of stuff as Matter."

I wont allow myself to read other peoples interpretation, until my own is fully formed — Pop

That's strange. I read lots of other people's interpretations, even as I'm working on refining my own understanding. Anyway, the pertinent aspect of the book to this thread is the title : Information-Consciousness-Reality : How A New Understanding of the Universe Can Help
Answer Age-Old Questions of Existence. The author equates Information with Consciousness and Reality. Which is basically what my own thesis does.

1) Feser believes that objects are composed of both a quasi-spiritual "form" and a "prime matter" that is so purely potential that "God" didn't even create it properly speaking. I've talked to Feser. He doesn't really understand what matter is. Descartes tried to point all this out to Aristotelians but calling matter "extension" is not precise enough on the other hand — Gregory

Apparently, Feser's Aristotelian definition of Matter (hylemorphism) differs from your understanding, based on modern physics (E=MC^2). But, Aristotle's definition was Meta-Physical, not Physical. Remember, he was laying the foundation for modern science almost 2500 years ago. But his book on Physics, is almost completely useless now, for modern scientific purposes. However, his second book, Meta-Physics is still relevant for modern philosophical discussions, because we continue to use the conceptual terminology he established.

Our understanding of Matter & Energy is much more detailed now. But the broad general notions Aristotle laid down still apply, especially from the perspective of Information Theory. In his two-part definition of Matter, the "hyle" is equivalent to our term "matter", but the "morph" or "form" is only "quasi-spiritual" in the sense that Forms (design, patterns, relationships) are mental, not material. So, most physicists ignore the immaterial part of matter, and leave it up to feckless philosophers to study things that don't literally matter.

As long as your understanding of Matter is stuck in 19th century materialism, the notion that Matter is essentially Information won't make any sense to you. There is a new paradigm emerging, which places impalpable Information at the foundation of Reality. And Feser is well-informed on that 21st century scientific worldview. Unfortunately, he remains stuck in the 16th century religious domain. :sad:

Information Realism : Matter is done away with and only information itself is taken to be ultimately real.
https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/physics-is-pointing-inexorably-to-mind/

2) Einstein had a vague notion of a Spinozian God who had the absolute reference frame. Latter physicists dismiss this and say there is no absolute reference frame, but I wonder how they keep matter as matter in that case — Gregory

Some physicists accept the Block Time worldview, which can only be observed from a privileged perspective outside of the universe. Yet, some can't accept any concept of matter that implies a God, whether Spinozan "Substance" or Mosaic "Creator". What's important is how you are able to reconcile Einstein's Relativity with our commonsense notion of sequential Time. Personally, I think Block Time is essentially Eternity, which is only "real" for an observer outside of space-time, and is "ideal" for humans. :halo:

3) putting information as the substrate of matter seems to misunderstand matter's palpability. But again, I will get back to you on that — Gregory

Do you realize that you can never actually touch a material object? That's because your atoms and those in the object repel each other, so that they maintain a minimum distance. But your nerves interpret that resistance as palpable pressure. That quantum gap is also why Enformationism is so hard for most people to wrap their minds around. But, so is Quantum Theory. Both are non-sensical to common-sense. That's why philosophers have to learn to think outside the box. :smile:

Why Physics Says You Can Never Actually Touch Anything :
https://futurism.com/why-you-can-never-actually-touch-anything

↪Gnomon
I think you should do an article on "enformation" for the TPF. Just something short and basic, that facilitates a quick grasp of the idea. — Pop

I'd like to do a short simple essay. But, since the concept of Enformationism is so comprehensive of everything in the world, it's hard to know where to start. I've attempted to summarize a few of the basic notions, but I usually get off-base responses that indicate incomprehension. Since this thesis postulates a radical new paradigm, based on the sciences of Information and Quantum Theory, few people, including astute posters on this forum, will find it fits their own Classical or Mainstream worldviews.

Fortunately for me, there is a handful of scientists that have turned their careers toward understanding the cosmic implications of Information. Also, there is a think-tank in New Mexico, the Santa Fe Institute, which is "dedicated to the multidisciplinary study of the fundamental principles of complex adaptive systems ". And expanded Information Theory is at the core of Complexity & Adaptation (self-organization). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Santa_Fe_Institute

The best way to explain my thesis, may be to link posters to the Abstract of the Enformationism thesis. It skips the introduction, and goes through some of the steps that I followed in forming my personal worldview from the simple notion that "everything is Information". But the Abstract consists of 14 online pages. And few posters are interested enough to spend the time. What do you think? Is it too long for an article? :worry:

The Enformationism Hypothesis : Abstract - Research Methods - Motivation & Conception
http://enformationism.info/enformationism.info/page11.html
Simply put, as indicated on the Welcome Page, Enformationism is a worldview grounded on the assumption that Information, rather than Matter, is the essential substance of everything in the universe. It is intended to be a successor to the 19th century paradigm of Materialism.


On the topic of all-encompassing topics, I'm just beginning to read a long, complex book written by a professional Complexity theorist, who started as a Physicist. I mention this to you, because the book addresses some of the same topics we have touched-on in this thread. For example, he devotes several pages in this 700 page tome to the notion of Self-Organization. Plus, he calls his thesis "the information-theoretic ontology". And one of his favorite neologisms is "the rhizome of reality", which is a metaphor for an interconnected root system in Biology. He says : "a rhizome is essentially messy and non-hierarchical". Which may be in accordance to your non-hierarchical notion of Self-Organization. But, I doubt that he's talking about the evolutionary natural hierarchy of kinds and species, that I said was essential to my worldview. :nerd:

Information-Consciousness-Reality : How A New Understanding of the Universe Can Help
Answer Age-Old Questions of Existence
https://www.amazon.com/Information-Consciousness-Reality-Understanding-Questions-Existence-Collection-ebook/dp/B07QLN9X14/ref=sr_1_1?dchild=1&keywords=Information-Consciousness-Reality&qid=1613441480&s=books&sr=1-1

You seem to however tend towards seeing the world as Maya, which I don't believe. — Gregory

No! I don't view the Real World as an "illusion", in the sense that the Buddha meant it. I do however, accept Donald Hoffman's Evolutionary Argument Against Reality. :smile:
PS___Siddharta's mother was named "Maya", so make of that what you will. Freud? :joke:

In Buddhism, the term maya preserved its meaning of “illusion” but with the distinction that, according to Buddhists, nothing actually exists, and therefore there is nothing, of which maya can create an illusory reflection. In Buddhist philosophy there is no prime substance or cause regarded as eternal or endless.

Against Reality :
https://www.quantamagazine.org/the-evolutionary-argument-against-reality-20160421/ . That's another thing altogether.

Positing information as having Being needs much elaboration. I will try to get to all these links you are putting out for us to read — Gregory

Please do! I can't "validate" a radical new worldview in a forum post.

So the "Creator" has no free will? That's Spinoza's opinion too — Gregory

No! You are getting ahead of your understanding of the Enformationism worldview. Since the reach of Science ends at the Big Bang, I have no information about any properties or qualities the Programmer might have, beyond those that are logically necessary for the First Cause to have the real world effects that we observe. Since our best human thinkers can't agree on whether their fellows have freewill, I'm not going to pretend to know whether the "Creator" had any choice in He/r little hobby. But, I can't imagine what kind of power could limit the creativity of a world creator. :joke:

There are two things, matter and consciousness. As I see it consciousness is ultimately nothingness. It is just experience (experience from matter). Matter comes in different forms but it all has the same principle. Einstein said a lot about how people would view things in so in so situations but you need psychology, not just physics thought experiments, to validate all this — Gregory

In my worldview, there is only one thing : Information. Which takes on the form of Matter, Energy & Mind. But, to call Consciousness "nothingness" is to trivialize the only thing we know for sure in this world (Descartes).

If you want validation of Enformationism from Psychology, just give me a topic, and I'll give you a reference. But keep in mind, that the science of Psychology is limited to one approach : Thought Experiments. That's why Skinner's Behaviorist methods are no longer viable.

To understand the philosophical worldview of Enformationism, all you need for personal validation is to follow the logic, as presented in the thesis. Physical validation of a Meta-Physical concept is not going to get you far. :cool:

This thread has become a little weird. But so are parts of physics. And math. :worry: — jgill

Yes. The topic of this thread is "On Physics". But, since it's a philosophical forum, the weirdness of Quantum Physics falls under the heading of Meta-Physics. That's because the mystery is in the mind of the observer. The real world keeps-on-keeping-on whether we can make sense of Quantum Queerness or not. That's why several of the pioneers of QT, turned to Eastern Philosophy, in search of a different perspective. Classical Physics was pretty straightforward, and Euclidean Geometry was quite linear. But non-classical physics, and non-linear math have revealed some strange aspects of the real world. Remember, that Pythagoras was a geometer and a mystic. So, maybe there's nothing new in the world. :cool:

Quantum mysticism is a set of metaphysical beliefs and associated practices that seek to relate consciousness, intelligence, spirituality, or mystical worldviews to the ideas of quantum mechanics and its interpretations. Quantum mysticism is considered by most scientists and philosophers to be ... However, states Hammer, in Heisenberg's Physics and Philosophy
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_mysticism

Metaphysical Mathematics :
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/

I don't think General Relativity stands without a good psychological and philosophical foundation, which thinkers like Hegel and Peirce might be able to provide. Common sense is not a clear set of rules,and let us take the example of a first look into a mirror. Would you instantly intuite that the reflection was an accurate one of you?Or would you have to have someone else look at your reflection and confirm it's accuracy? We can't abandon all our common sense or we get to the point where only numbers are being crunched and no understanding of what is going on is found. It's bad enough in the quantum world, but confusion about the classical world is real too — Gregory

What's your point? That modern physics is non-sense? Admittedly, Quantum Physics seems pretty weird, from the common-sense perspective of the man-on-the-street. Yet, it makes sense to me, but only from an Enformationism perspective -- a model of reality in which everything is a form of Information.

The point of posting my non-mainstream "reflections" on a philosophical forum, is to "have someone else look at it". I'm not making this sh*t up. You can click on the links in my posts, to see where credentialed physicists, such as Paul Davies, have come to similar conclusions. Unfortunately, they are thinking way ahead of the curve. Which is why their information-theoretic views are not yet accepted by those still living in the 20th century. :nerd:

How to Make Sense of Quantum Physics :
Popular science accounts inevitably refer to it as “strange,” “weird,” “mind-boggling,” or all of the above. . . . . We beg to differ. Quantum mechanics is perfectly comprehensible. It’s just that physicists abandoned the only way to make sense of it half a century ago. . . . . The problem is that all existing interpretations of quantum mechanics have internal contradictions and those can only be resolved by a better theory. . . . . If anything is mind-boggling about quantum mechanics, it’s that physicists have almost entirely ignored the most obvious way to solve its problems.
____Sabine Hossenfelder
https://nautil.us/issue/83/intelligence/how-to-make-sense-of-quantum-physics
Note : Her solution to the weirdness is Superdeterminism. Which I interpret, in layman's language is the top-down determinism of a Creator, which allows for no freewill. But, my model of reality involves bottom-up randomized determinism, which allows for a tiny bit of FreeWill for self-aware beings.

I see a flaw here perhaps. General relativity shows clocks slow down, not time. As Sean Carrol admitted "we don't even know what time is." — Gregory

What "flaw" are you referring to? Are you arguing against Einstein? Are you saying that we don't know anything about space & time? Physicists have various theories & opinions about space & time. But
Enformationism merely says that, whatever space & time & matter & energy are, they are all forms of Universal Information. :smile:

There is no reference phrame because everything is moving even space and space's space. Does motions objects mean the same thing as the energy-information union? — Gregory

In physics, every human observer has a unique frame of reference, and it's always looking at the universe from the inside. Physicists always have to take into account their own movement, when they try to understand the movement of other things, including Time. But in Einstein's Block Time, which I call the "Ice Cube Universe", the only meaningful reference frame is the view from outside the universe. Which is either in the imagination of a physicist, or from the perspective of G*D. In the Enformationism thesis, the only non-moving reference point is wherever the "Unmoved Mover" is. :halo:

Reference frame, also called frame of reference, in dynamics, system of graduated lines symbolically attached to a body that serve to describe the position of points relative to the body.
https://www.britannica.com/science/reference-frame

Block Time Universe : Minkowski’s space-time manifold can only be viewed from G*D’s all-knowing vantage, but not from mankind’s ego-restricted frame of reference, which reveals to us mere glimpses of Reality. For the purposes of the Enformationism thesis, I call that all-at-once perspective “Enfernity”.
http://bothandblog6.enformationism.info/page73.html

As Hume would say, how do we know mass warps space-time? — Gregory

Because Einstein said so. :wink:

In effect, Albert claimed that our subjective experience of gravity is an illusion, because it's not actually a pulling force but the effect of acceleration due to the curved so-called "fabric" of empty space. Even intangible Mass is not a real thing, but a measured property of the matter we know via our senses. That property is measured in numbers that are meaningful only to physicists. :sad:

I feel like maybe the idea of reality as energy+information is vague and doesn't explain well what being is. — Gregory

You won't really understand the Enformationism worldview, until you've actually read the thesis, as summarized here : http://enformationism.info/enformationism.info/page11.html

If you want more explicit details of how Information is equivalent to Energy, and how Information explains "what being is", I refer you to the book linked below. The author is a physicist, who specializes in Complexity Theory. But, be warned, except for the Introduction and final chapter, the text gets quite technical & mathematical -- if that's the kind of "explanation" you are looking for. Its main thesis is "the information-theoretic ontology" (the science of Being).

My own Enformationism thesis was written by a non-physicist & amateur philosopher. So it's not nearly as technical as this book. In my blog, I discuss "what being is" in some detail. But it's written from a novel Information-Theoretic perspective. So, many of its essential concepts may not be familiar (vague) to non-specialists. That's why I have an online glossary of terminology. A summary of the concept of BEING is linked below. :smile:

Information—Consciousness—Reality : How a New Understanding of the Universe Can Help Answer Age-Old Questions of Existence
___James B. Glattfelder
https://www.amazon.com/Information-Consciousness-Reality-Understanding-Questions-Existence-Collection-ebook/dp/B07QLN9X14
Quote -- "In the last chapter, an information-theoretic ontology was outlined. Guided by cutting-edge theoretical physics and theoretical computer science an unlikely foundation of the world was glimpsed : the fabric of objective reality is woven out of threads of information."
Note -- the complexity of this novel worldview means that it will remain "vague" until it becomes more commonly understood by non-specialists. The Enformationism worldview flips-the-script from reductive classical science to something closer to holistic ancient views.

BEING :
In my own theorizing, there is one universal principle that subsumes all others, including Consciousness : essential Existence. Among those philosophical musings, I refer to the "unit of existence" with the absolute singular term "BEING" as contrasted with the plurality of contingent "beings" and things and properties. By BEING I mean the ultimate “ground of being”, which is simply the power to exist, and the power to create beings.
Note : Real & Ideal are modes of being. BEING, the power to exist, is the source & cause of Reality and Ideality. BEING is eternal, undivided and static, but once divided into Real/Ideal, it becomes our dynamic Reality.
http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page10.html

The bothand blog is yours? I'm definitely into this stuff. — Gregory

As a former Catholic, you might appreciate my blog review of philosopher Edward Feser's recent book : Aristotle's Revenge : The Metaphysical Foundations of Physical and Biological Science. He is a Catholic, but not a theologian. Instead of arguing religious dogma, he attempts to show that “Aristotelian metaphysics is not only compatible with modern science, but is implicitly presupposed by modern science.” Consequently, he discusses some of the same topics that have come-up in this thread. A primary Aristotelian distinction that is relevant to Physics, is his definition of Actual & Potential. For example, what physicists call "Virtual Particles" popping into & out of existence in a quantum foam, I would label them as Potential Particles that are actualized by inputs of Creative Energy : what I call En-Formation, or EnFormAction. :nerd:

Aristotle and Einstein : Metaphysical Physics
http://bothandblog6.enformationism.info/page69.html

A lot of people say Aristotle understood the First Cause only as subsumed by the Final Cause which moves the universe towards It by being in the infinite future. — Gregory

In my Enformationism thesis, the mysterious Enformer of our evolving world is presented in the metaphor of a Programmer. So, the First Cause could be understood as the pre-Big-Bang-Singularity, imagined as the core or kernel of an evolutionary program, containing all necessary information to "calculate" Energy, Matter, & Mind. Then, the Final Cause, would be the Programmer's intention, encoded as an ultimate question to be solved by running the program. In this analogy, all components of the evolutionary program are various forms of Generic Information, which I call EnFormAction. :smile:

What is EnFormAction? : The novel concept of Enformation is also a synthesis of both Energy and Information. So I invented a new portmanteu word to more precisely encapsulate that two-in-one meaning : “EnFormAction”.
http://bothandblog2.enformationism.info/page29.html

Subjective idealism? I've always thought this meant the world is illusion. — Gregory

Some philosophers do use the negative term "illusion" to describe our subjective Mental Model of the objective real world. But, I prefer to use the more positive terms "model" or "symbol" or "icon" , based on cognitive psychologist Donald Hoffman's analogy with a computer screen : "He uses the modern metaphor of computers that we “interface” (interact) with, as-if the symbolic Icons on the display screen are the actual things we want to act upon." All of these analogies & metaphors are merely updates to ancient notions of Reality, using examples from modern science. His theory is on the leading fringe of mind science, but the book is worth the price. Check it out. :cool:

Interface : Window to Reality : Reality is not what you see
http://bothandblog6.enformationism.info/page21.html

Reality is Ideality : Physics is ultimately Meta-Physics
http://bothandblog5.enformationism.info/page17.html

Information Realism : Mathematical Reality
http://bothandblog4.enformationism.info/page18.html

That's the official party line, yes -- that he was a saint. But if you stick around Buddhism -- different schools of Buddhism -- long enough, you'll see that not all Buddhist opinions view those self-immolations so favorably. — baker

Your doctrinal criticisms of Buddhism are going off-topic. The OP was not asking about the veracity of Buddhist doctrine, but only if any human mind can achieve an altered state in which the sufferings of life, and the fear of death are of no consequence. Personally, I doubt that doctrinal Nirvana per se is achievable, but it's obvious that some human adepts (such as the flaming monk) can approach a similar state of indifference to the outside world. I don't doubt that the mind can adopt measurable "altered states". But, when Mind Magic is attributed to those states, I might ask : "what is your canonical [empirical] support for this claim?". :cool:

OP -- Existence of Nirvana :
"Does the existence of a state of mind that actively pursues it’s own death . . . .
, prove, that a contrary pole exists to the spectrum of the mind - one of persistent peace, contentment, hope and one that ultimately sees only good in the world? A nirvana like state."

Altered States of Consciousness :
https://hraf.yale.edu/ehc/summaries/altered-states-of-consciousness

I don't see how someone can have sex without believing in the reality of matter. — Gregory

Did you infer from my comments in the last post that I think Matter is unreal? Not so. As far as I know, the material world is what sentient beings know as reality. But human beings are also capable of imagining Ideality (e.g. Plato's Ideal Forms). That's why some of us get those categories confused --- providing philosophers with fertile fodder to chew on. It's the age-old Subjective / Objective dilemma.

Obviously, you haven't grasped the whole point of Enformationism. You may think that PanPsychism and other all-is-mind concepts deny the reality of the material world. Even the idealist philosopher Berkeley didn't claim that the material world is an illusion. Instead, he argued, like some quantum theorists, that it is the observer who converts Virtual particles into Real particles. In his case, the Ultimate Observer is God.

However, since I no longer believe in the Abrahamic model of creation & causation, I prefer to refer to the First Cause Creator of Reality as "G*D", to avoid sectarian quibbles. But, if any notion of deity offends you, you may call the Cause of the Big Bang : "Multiverse", or some other name for the comprehensive Source of Causation & Creation, that is logically necessary to explain "why there is something rather than nothing".

For the record, I do believe in the "reality of matter". But, I also believe in the Ideality of Mind. :cool:

Subjective Reality :
According to Berkeley, an object has real being as long as it is perceived by a mind. God, being omniscient, perceives everything perceivable, thus all real beings exist in the mind of God.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subjective_idealism

Observer Effect :
In physics, the observer effect is the disturbance of an observed system by the act of observation. ... Physicists have found that even passive observation of quantum phenomena (by changing the test apparatus and passively "ruling out" all but one possibility) can actually change the measured result.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Observer_effect_(physics)

You listed 5 causes ( adding first causality, which wasn't Aristotle's) but I can't see how in your thesis there can be a difference between formal, material, and energetic causality. — Gregory

If you are interested, I can link you to several blog posts that illustrate how Formal, Material, Energetic, and Final Causes can be traced back to a single First Cause. The EnFormAction definition below gives a brief overview of the various stages of Causes & Effects in the material & mental aspects of the Real World.

For the record, Aristotle's First Cause and Prime Mover are the same thing. :smile:

First Cause is term introduced by Aristotle and used in philosophy and theology.
https://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/First_Cause

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

Is your "formal cause" in the mind (Kant) or somehow simultaneously in the mind AND in matter (Hegel)? I think this is pertinent to your position since I can't see how information can exist when no minds are around. — Gregory

In my Enformationism thesis, Generic Information is all four of Aristotle's causes. As the "First Cause", it's the program that astrophysicists call The Singularity, which existed in the mind of the Programmer. As the "Formal Cause", it's the patterns of Information that our senses interpret as material objects. As the "Material Cause", it's the ordinary matter that physicists measure in terms of Mass, which is a mental Quality. As the "Efficient Cause", it's the energy that causes all change in our evolving world. As the "Final Cause", it's the Intention of the Cosmic Programmer, who established the purpose of the evolutionary program.

Regarding the existence of Information when there are "no minds around", idealist philosopher Bishop Berkeley resolved that problem by asserting that everything exists in the Mind of God. Of course, he had in mind the Christian God. But the concept also applies to the non-sectarian notion of Pantheism, or as I prefer : PanEnDeism. Our world is understood as an idea in the mind of G*D. Even some atheist scientists have come to view PanPsychism (all is mind) as a viable answer to the Mind/Body problem. Anything else you want to know? :smile:

Generic Information : Information is Generic in the sense of generating all forms from a formless pool of possibility : the Platonic Forms.
http://bothandblog2.enformationism.info/page29.html

What is a singularity? : A singularity means a point where some property is infinite.
Note -- it's also where all the laws of physics break down, hence not a part of our space-time world. Only in the form of immaterial Information (mind-stuff ; data) could all the contents of a whole universe exist in a single point with no extension in time or space.

The mass-energy-information equivalence principle : Here we formulate a new principle of mass-energy-information equivalence proposing that a bit of information is not just physical, as already demonstrated, but it has a finite and quantifiable mass while it stores information.
https://aip.scitation.org/doi/10.1063/1.5123794

Information :
* Claude Shannon quantified Information not as useful ideas, but as a mathematical ratio between meaningful order (1) and meaningless disorder (0); between knowledge (1) and ignorance (0). So, that meaningful mind-stuff exists in the limbo-land of statistics, producing effects on reality while having no sensory physical properties. We know it exists ideally, only by detecting its effects in the real world.
* For humans, Information has the semantic quality of aboutness , that we interpret as meaning. In computer science though, Information is treated as meaningless, which makes its mathematical value more certain. It becomes meaningful only when a sentient Self interprets it as such.
* When spelled with an “I”, Information is a noun, referring to data & things. When spelled with an “E”, Enformation is a verb, referring to energy and processes.
http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page11.html

Evolutionary Programming :
Special computer algorithms inspired by biological Natural Selection. It is similar to Genetic Programming in that it relies on internal com-petition between random alternative solutions to weed-out inferior results, and to pass-on superior answers to the next generation of algorithms. By means of such optimizing feedback loops, evolution is able to make progress toward the best possible solution – limited only by local restraints – to the original programmer’s goal or purpose. In Enformationism theory the Prime Programmer is portrayed as a creative deity, who uses bottom-up mechanisms, rather than top-down miracles, to produce a world with both freedom & determinism, order & meaning.

Berkeley Limerick :
There once was a man who said "God
Must think it exceedingly odd
If he finds that this tree
Continues to be
When there's no one about in the Quad."

Dear Sir,
Your astonishment's odd.
I am always about in the Quad.
And that's why the tree
Will continue to be
Since observed by
Yours faithfully,
God
http://faculty.otterbein.edu/AMills/EarlyModern/brklim.htm

PanEnDeism :
Panendeism is an ontological position that explores the interrelationship between God (The Cosmic Mind) and the known attributes of the universe. Combining aspects of Panentheism and Deism, Panendeism proposes an idea of God that both embodies the universe and is transcendent of its observable physical properties.
https://panendeism.org/faq-and-questions/
1. Note : PED is distinguished from general Deism, by its more specific notion of the G*D/Creation relationship; and from PanDeism by its understanding of G*D as supernatural creator rather than the emergent soul of Nature. Enformationism is a Panendeistic worldview.
http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page16.html

PanPsychism : https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/is-consciousness-universal/

What is force? What is energy? What is power?
Defining words that apply to the action of physical objects can be tricky. So getting past the language barrier to form true communication between us is difficult. — Gregory

For philosophical purposes, I define Physics in opposition to Meta-Physics, which includes the Platonic purity of mathematics. The problem of succinctly defining terms in Physics, may be why some mathematicians feel superior to the physicists, who propose complex arcane theories to explain mundane nature. On the other hand, some Physicists, argue that pure mathematics is not realistic & empirical, but idealistic & theoretical. FWIW, I have developed my own philosophical (Meta-Physical) definitions for such subjects of Physics as "Force". "Energy", and "Power". :nerd:

Mathematical realism, like realism in general, holds that mathematical entities exist independently of the human mind. Thus humans do not invent mathematics, but rather discover it, and any other intelligent beings in the universe would presumably do the same. In this point of view, there is really one sort of mathematics that can be discovered; triangles, for example, are real entities, not the creations of the human mind.
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/philosophy-mathematics/

Mathematical Platonism is the form of realism that suggests that mathematical entities are abstract, have no spatiotemporal or causal properties, and are eternal and unchanging.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy_of_mathematics

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

Please explain how his suicide contributed to the betterment of his society. . . . How?? By shocking them into having mercy for the Vietnamese Buddhists? — baker

That's beside the point. I was just guessing that his radical political statement of solidarity with his fellow Buddhists, was intended to accomplish that goal. Ironically, Vietnam eventually fell to the communists, who were not noted for their tolerance of any religion. Here, judge for yourself.

The Story Behind The Burning Monk :
https://time.com/3791176/malcolm-browne-the-story-behind-the-burning-monk/

Ngo Dinh Diem : but his own Catholicism and the preference he showed for fellow Roman Catholics made him unacceptable to Buddhists,
https://www.britannica.com/biography/Ngo-Dinh-Diem

(Too bad you have to quote a Christian scripture to defend the acts of a Buddhist.) — baker

I wasn't "defending the acts of a Buddhist". Just giving an example of mind-over-matter, which is claimed to be an almost magical power of meditation. For the record, I don't believe in Magic . . . except, of course, for Stage & Movie Magic. I don't know if the monk achieved Nirvana, but if "good works" count for anything in Buddhist tradition, he should go down in history as a saint, right alongside all the Catholic and anti-catholic martyrs, who were burned at the stake for their pro or con beliefs.. :cool:

In this model, holism of charge distribution within matter is the entanglement mechanism, — Enrique

Yes. I think Consciousness is a holistic phenomenon of the brain, and not found in any of its parts, such as neurons. So in my analogy, what you are calling "charge distribution" is how positive & negative values (of meaning) are arranged in the brain into meaningful patterns : akin to the double-slit experiment's "distribution" into dark & light stripes. The "entangled" (inter-related) bits add-up to bytes of meaning.

Of course, I don't know what I'm talking about, when it comes to the minute technicalities of brain science and quantum theory. I'm just comparing my personal worldview, based on Information as the fundamental element of reality, to the conundrums and paradoxes of cutting-edge science. Consequently, this analogy is missing many intermediate steps.

Information is essentially a mathematical ratio (relationship), which the human mind interprets into self-referenced meaning. Hence, entanglement of parts (of brain & body) into a whole system (the Self), is what allows Consciousness to arise. I may try to further develop that notion, inspired by your "charge distribution" and "entanglement" theory. But, I can't say exactly how "wavicles", passing through a slit , might give rise to Consciousness, except by assuming that the abstract interference patterns (distributed into stripes, dots, etc) can be somehow interpreted into personal meaning (good or bad for me). :nerd:


Information :
Knowledge and the ability to know. Technically, it's the ratio of order to disorder, of positive to negative, of knowledge to ignorance. It's measured in degrees of uncertainty. Those ratios are also called "differences". So Gregory Bateson* defined Information as "the difference that makes a difference". The latter distinction refers to "value" or "meaning". Babbage called his prototype computer a "difference engine". Difference is the cause or agent of Change. In Physics it’s called "Thermodynamics" or "Energy". In Sociology it’s called "Conflict".

A pattern is a regularity in the world, in human-made design, or in abstract ideas. As such, the elements of a pattern repeat in a predictable manner . . . . Any of the senses may directly observe patterns. Conversely, abstract patterns in science, mathematics, or language may be observable only by analysis.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pattern

Now Einstein says time is an illusion but we still assume it has some basis is reality? — TiredThinker

What event, in-time or in-timelessness, provoked your question? Was that event in the past? How do you know?

Einstein's theory of Block Time was a hypothetical notion intended to make sense of his abstract mathematical theory of Relativity. The theory's relevance to Reality though, was proven in Time Dilation experiments. The passage of time is a subjective concept, even though in objective clocks it is recorded (remembered) differently. So I doubt that, in real life, he acted as-if time was frozen into a block of ice.

As Albert himself said, " People like us who believe in physics know that the distinction between past, present and future is only a stubbornly persistent illusion". The "illusion" is persistent because, as humans, we can't forget the past, and hope for the future. :smile:


Block Time : “Again, though, it might seem that dynamic change and temporal passage have been banished from nature by Einstein . . .” For example, his theory of Relativity required a patternless back-ground of Block Time, sometimes referred to as “Eternalism”, which freezes our perception of dynamic space & time into a static universe where all things & events exist simultaneously. Nevertheless, that timeless-spaceless “ice-cube” universe may be true mathematically (i.e. abstractly), but not true physically (concretely), because Eternity & Infinity are excluded from our Reality — yet remain like ghosts in human in imagination, in metaphysical mathematics, in Ideality.
http://bothandblog6.enformationism.info/page73.html

Time Dilation : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_dilation

Manifestly, the establishment of correlation and equivalence between the forces of the outer and the inner worlds, may be used to assimilate either to the other; according as we set out with one or other term. But he who rightly interprets the doctrine contained
in this work, will see that neither of these terms can be taken as ultimate. He will see
that though the relation of subject and object renders necessary to us these antithetical
conceptions of Spirit and Matter; the one is no less than the other to be regarded as
but a sign of the Unknown Reality which underlies both. — Pantagruel

Apparently, Spencer was trying to reconcile our commonsense division of the world into Subjective (Inner ; Spirit) and Objective (Outer ; Matter). Like him, I have tried to conciliate Inner & Outer worlds in my personal worldview of Enformationism. In that thesis, the "unknown reality" is the well-known, but little understood, phenomenon of "Information". Its original meaning was subjective, as the contents of human minds : Knowledge. But then Shannon used the term to refer to the neither subjective nor objective carriers of meaning (1s & 0s), instead of the contents. More recently, Theoretical & Quantum physicists have discovered that Information (in the form of Energy) is also the organizing mathematical structure of Matter, hence Objective. So, I have concluded that neither the Subjective, nor Objective aspects of reality is "ultimate". Instead, my view is that everything is ultimately a form of Generic Information.

I've never had occasion to read much of Spencer's work. So, my impression of him was mostly due to the thesis of Social Darwinism. For which, he was maligned by Social Liberals. But, I suspect that his intentions were not to support Capitalism or Fascism, but to foster a broader scientific worldview. Perhaps, he wanted to combine the "How" of Science, with the "Why" of Philosophy and Religion. :smile:

Legacy : The basis for Spencer's appeal to many of his generation was that he appeared to offer a ready-made system of belief which could substitute for conventional religious faith at a time when orthodox creeds were crumbling under the advances of modern science.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herbert_Spencer

EnFormAction : Literally, the act of enforming --- to fashion, to create, to cause.
1. Metaphorically, the Will of G*D flowing through the world to cause evolutionary change in a teleological direction.
2. Immaterial Information is almost always defined in terms of its physical context or material container. (e.g. mathematical DNA code in chemical form)
3. Raw En-Form-Action has few, if any, definable perceivable qualities. By itself, Information is colorless, odorless, and formless. Unlike colorless, odorless, and formless water though, Information gives physical form to whatever is defined by it.
4. Like DNA, Information shapes things via internal rather than external constraints. Like the Laws of Physics, Information is the motivating & constraining force of physical reality. Like Energy, Information is the universal active agent of the cosmos. Like Spinoza's God, Information appears to be the single substance of the whole World.
5. Information is the divine Promethean power of transformation. Information is Generic in the sense of generating all forms from a formless pool of possibility : the Platonic Forms.
http://bothandblog2.enformationism.info/page29.html

PS__What was the source of your Spencer's quote above?

I'm suggesting the primary hidden variable is charge distribution in the double-slit chamber — Enrique

I have no idea how "charge distribution" might work. But it could be similar to my own understanding of how quantum-scale particles can act like waves in a fluid medium. Scientists haven't been able to detect such a fluid, once called "aether". But they still can't come-up with a better alternative. Here's my own wild guess.

I'm not an expert on Quantum Physics, but the "hidden variable" that is typically assumed by experts is simply Entanglement. My own amateur analogy of particle entanglement is to imagine that individual particles are "dissolved" in a universal "fluid", like sugar in water. We can't detect the fluid directly because it's not physical, but meta-physical (i.e. mathematical relationships).

One example of such an amorphous entity is Quantum Fields, usually compared to gaseous clouds. Although the assumed components of a field are not detectable, hence "hidden", they may be defined as meta-physical mathematical points, that have no actual extension in space, hence Virtual, not Actual. In my analogy with a gas or fluid, the points or particles may also be defined by their potential "charge" of positive/negative, or up/down spin. But, until Virtual particles are actualized, the virtual charge (quantum state) can't be measured.

Anyway, since all fundamental particles are identical, it doesn't matter which "point" within the liquid goes through which slot. When the flowing fluid divides and then continues on to the target screen, it gives the appearance of isolated impacts. When in fact, they are still entangled, but at a distance. Please pardon my presumption, to pass your "charge distribution" model through my own metaphorical slits. :nerd:

Double-Double-Slit : momentum entangled photons :
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-020-68181-1

Entanglement, in this analogy, is equivalent to immersion in a medium, so that all parts are loosely inter-connected

Charge : a property or quality conveyed from one place to another, as a wagon carries a load,
(Late Latin carricāre “to load a wagon)

How is immolating oneself an example of altruism?? — baker

Self-immolation per se is not altruistic, especially if it's a cop-out on life, like some cases of suicide. But in this case, the monk sacrificed his own life for the betterment of his society. It was a political protest. But most politically motivated demonstrations only risk imprisonment. So this dramatic demonstration of love for others may have contributed to the eventual downfall of the Deim regime, which was being supported by the US military. As a Buddhist monk, he was not likely in favor of Communism specifically, but of regime-change in general. :smile:

John 15:13 : There is no greater love than to lay down one’s life for one’s friends.

↪Gnomon
I find there are generally two kinds of reactions to the suggestion of anything supernatural: shocked rejection, on the one hand (the most common reaction); or fascination, on the other. The ‘middle way’ tries to avoid such extremes. — Wayfarer

I agree. That's why my personal philosophy, based on the Enformationism worldview, is the BothAnd Principle, which can be visualized in the Yin-Yang symbol, and practiced in the Buddha's Middle Path between extremes, and summarized in Aristotle's Golden Mean of moderation. Since appearances can be deceiving, when something seems "supernatural", I reserve judgment until I can know what happens behind the smoke & mirrors. Until then, I'll call it simply "preternatural", or "weird". :smile:

The BothAnd Principle is a corollary to the thesis of Enformationism, in that it is a mashup of both Materialism and Spiritualism, of both Science and Religion, of both Empirical and Theoretical methods.
http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page10.html

I believe that religion does a disjustice to whatever created us. I personally believe that it explains something in simpler terms than needed which causes misinterpretations of something that needs to be interpreted by an individual. — Michael paone

I happen to agree. But it seems that most people prefer simplistic, dare I say "fictional", narratives to complex "facts" & arcane theories of Science. So, based on my understanding of science, history, and philosophy, I assume that our world began in a sudden un-explainable creative act.

Yet, since the scientific method does not extend beyond the emergence of space-time, I can't say definitively what that Creative Agent is. But it would have to exist necessarily beyond our contingent & bounded world of space-time. That's why I have no idea what that First Cause might want from us. Therfore, I only concern myself with what we humans want from each other. Namely, to be treated according to the Golden Rule. :halo:

When being immolated, there is some period of time, perhaps many seconds, of continued awareness and presumably awareness of pain. — Wayfarer

Apparently, what adepts in meditation are able to do, is to be rationally aware of the pain, without suffering the emotional sensations. Self-confidence guru Tony Robbins' disciples, who walk on hot coals, seem to adopt a trance-like state of mind, that allows them to ignore their innate fear of fire, and to let their body's natural defenses control the minor damage from superficial burns. the fact that some do get fairly serious injuries indicates that it's Faith, not Magic at work. Again, I don't have that much self-confidence, and don't feel the need to prove my overcoming Faith. I'm OK with mundane pragmatic beliefs. :gasp:

The physics of hot coals :
https://tonyrobbinsfirewalk.com/physics-of-hot-coals/

Spencer's First Principles — Pantagruel

I wasn't aware of Herbert ("survival of the fittest") Spencer's list of Principles. Can you express the gist of those "laws" of Nature, in light of modern science? My first impression is that "Persistence of Force" sounds like Inertia; "instability of the homogeneous" sounds like either Entropy or Radioactive Decay: and "Multiplicity of Effects" sounds like a Pleiotropic Gene. But I'm sure he had more philosophical or historical applications in mind. How do you interpret them? :smile:

According to Spencer in First Principles, three principles regulate the universe, namely the Law of the Persistence of Force, the Law of the Instability of the Homogeneous and the Law of the Multiplicity of Effects.
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/spencer/

↪Gnomon
Of course, no argument from me there. But the picture of the monk self-immolating was hardly 'frivilous', I'm sure you would agree. — Wayfarer

I agree. But his martyrdom was no more miraculous than that of the Islamic Jihadiists who willingly blow their pain-feeling fleshly bodies into smithereens, motivated by their faith that they will instantly go to heaven, restored to whole youthful bodies, comforted forever by a bevy of beautiful babes. Apparently, the monk believed that he would achieve liberation from Samara (cycles of mundane rebirth & suffering).

Presumably, he would achieve Moksha, Nirvana, Mukti or Kaivalya. However, his sacrifice may also have been a supreme example of altruism. Which is a primary virtue in almost all religions. I'm in favor of moderate altruism, but I'm not prepared to go quite that far to prove my faith & virtue. :cool:

I don’t know. I think these “siddhi” if they were real word be of a more subtle and rationally achievable vein than flying or pain tolerance. — Benj96

Actually, there are some people, who achieve seemingly supernatural feats, not by magic, but by self-control. In the article linked below, the "spiritual" elements seems to be profound self-confidence (faith), and the human body's response to the Placebo Effect (what you believe, the body will try to do). :brow:

The Science Behind Miracles : "For thousands of years, humanity has occasionally glimpsed man’s capacity to do the seemingly impossible or the miraculous using only force of will . . . . Hof, for his part, sees the whole thing in a much more spiritual light—getting back to a purer, more primitive version of ourselves. . . . But he’s not magic, and we should be careful about trusting important health decisions to any belief-based technique."
https://www.outsideonline.com/2146421/limits-endurance

Of course. It is a cultural taboo, and such purported powers are obviously ripe for explotiation. — Wayfarer

It's not just a Western "cultural taboo". Throughout history, miracle-workers, including Gandalf & Dumbledore, have warned against frivolous use of magic powers. And modern stage magicians tend to be careful when & where they perform. Probably, because those who get the big head, and believe their own tricks, may get careless, and allow their exploited onlookers to see through their smoke & mirrors. :gasp:

Serious vs Frivolous Magic :
A magician, also known as a mage, warlock, witch, wizard/wizardess, enchanter/enchantress, ... As a result, competent wizards do not use their magic frivolously.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magician_(fantasy)