BothAndBlog Forum

I am for my part happy to live in a time in human history when science has come to the point of a theory that everything in the observable universe is really connected, basically consisting of the same energy. . . .
This is a great consolation. I could of course be discontent that we do not know more about the ultimate nature of this reality (energy), . . .
To keep on calling it God has become now a mere matter of taste, but I think we are safe if we state that God is neither an interventionist, nor bene-/malevolent, being when it comes to us as the human species. . . .
The physical phenomenon called energy that has generated us and that we consist of is indifferent to us as living beings, as indifferent as it was to the dinosaurs and is to Pluto. — TheArchitectOfTheGods

Sounds like we may be kindred spirits. After high school I evolved away from my theistic upbringing, but I found no plausible reason-for-being in Materialistic science. So, I went through phases : Agnosticism, Deism, PanDeism, and finally PanEnDeism. In the latter, everything is indeed connected, even entangled, as vital parts of a single Whole System, the physical universe, which may be a part of a greater Whole, that some cultures refer to as Brahma or God or Tao.

My philosophical "First Cause" is similar to many nature-god-models (e.g. Gaia ; Deism ; PanDeism), except that its primary role was to create the natural system that we are integral parts of. Hence, our world is not separate from the creator, but is in-&-of G*D (PanEnDeism). I spell it with an asterisk to indicate that this is not an intervening Theistic deity -- like a mechanic repairing things that go wrong. If there is Good & Bad in the creation, it's because the designer had the Potential for both, and because an evolving world could not begin in a perfect state, like the Garden of Eden. Instead, our universe seems to be evolving, in complexity & intelligence, toward some ultimate state. Since I don't know anything about that final goal, I simply label it the "Omega Point". What we experience as Good vs Bad, is simply a zig-zagging heuristic search pattern, equivalent to Hegelian Dialectic.

As you suggested, this creative & destructive Causal Force is what we know in Physics as Energy/Entropy. But the current understanding is that Energy & Matter (mass) are interchangeable. And many pioneering physicists have concluded that even Energy is essentially a form of shape-shifting Information. Which boils down to a mathematical ratio between Something (1) and Nothing (0), or Hot (positive) and Cold (negative). The implication of that equvalence is, as some physicists have concluded : that Reality is essentially Mathematical & Logical, hence Mental. Therefore, Matter emerges from Energy, and Energy emerges from what I call EnFormAction : the creative Potential to become Actual (the power to enform). So, the "ultimate nature" of reality is as an Actual instance of a greater Ideality.

My non-religious philosophical worldview is labeled Enformationism (based on Quantum & Information theory, not on revelation). And the logically necessary First Cause has not revealed its name. So, you can call it whatever you like : "G*D", "Nature"; "Deus" ; The Great Mathematician ; or apropos of the Information theme : the Eternal Programmer. I won't expound on this slightly off-topic theme any more in this post. However, if you have questions, I have answers -- but no credentials and no authority.

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.
BothAnd Blog Glossary


The mass-energy-information equivalence principle :
https://aip.scitation.org/doi/10.1063/1.5123794
https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019A ... V/abstract

Forget Space-Time: Information May Create the Cosmos :
A new candidate is "information," which some scientists claim is the foundation of reality. The late distinguished physicist John Archibald Wheeler characterized the idea as "It from bit" — "it" referring to all the stuff of the universe and "bit" meaning information.
https://www.space.com/29477-did-informa ... osmos.html

If everything, as per pantheism, is god then what's the difference between thing and god? They're synonymous as far as I can tell which ain't much. Is god then simply a placeholder, like the variable x in math, for the unnamed...soldier [The Tao that can be named is not the Eternal Tao] or a generic term that applies to, well, all in the universe and perhaps beyond, even those that have been named?

Plus, what motivates such a standpoint? Why retain the word "god" and do away with everything else that previously defined him/her? Isn't that like taking a bag of toys and emptying it, then filling it with guns? The word "god" then is merely being used for effect. Bad Spinoza! Bad! — Agent Smith

I won't comment on Pantheism. But in PanEnDeism, the difference between God & Thing is the distinction between Whole & Part, between Creator & Creature. It's the difference that makes all the difference in meaning.

"God", "Brahma", "Tao" are indeed placeholders --- labels (X the unknown) for an enigmatic Cause with obvious Effects. Even pragmatic scientists, especially in Quantum Physics, commonly give metaphorical labels to unidentified causes of effects observed in their experiments. For example, the counter-intuitive wave-like behavior of quantum particles was defined mathematically, and was labeled as a "waveform". But, the implicit fluid field in which the energy was waving was unknown & undefined. Some researchers desperately resurrected the old discredited notion of "Aether". Yet, there is no physical evidence to support the hypothesis of an invisible intangible fluid in empty space. So, the term is, like "Dark Matter", a placeholder for an unknown cause of known effects.

Likewise, some modern philosophers, and cosmologists, have resurrected the ancient term "God" to serve as a proxy for the logically necessary First Cause of our universe, that was once belittled as a "Big Bang" in empty space. Even the term "singularity" merely served as a stand-in for knowledge, since it literally means "the undefined line between space-time and infinity-eternity". The word sounds like it's pointing to something unique, but that something is on the other side of the space-time boundary, where our senses cannot go.

So, what's wrong with using a well-known word for something imaginable, but un-knowable? One thing that's wrong with it, is the harsh prejudice associated with it. Which is why most of us try to avoid trigger-words like "n*gger", although we all know that it literally refers to a dark color, but metaphorically implies a host of aspersions. Consequently, when I use the "G" word in a philosophical sense, I spell it G*D, to mitigate its baggage : the derogatory political preconceptions of the unknowable referent.

Spinoza used the word "God", but equated it with "Nature". Apparently, he did so in view of its emotional effect on his Jewish & Christian readers. Of course, they were enraged. But philosophical PanEnDeists wouldn't have a problem with that equation, because they interpret its meaning in a different context from the "holy scriptures".

Aether :
In physics, aether theories propose the existence of a medium, a space-filling substance or field as a transmission medium . . .
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aether_theories
Note -- what physicists call the "Quantum Field" is the mysterious Aether by another name.

Tao Te Ching :
The Tao that can be known is not [the eternal] Tao.
The substance of the World is only a name for Tao.
Tao is all that exists and may exist;
The World is only a map of what exists and may exist
https://ccnmtl.columbia.edu/services/dr ... elect4.pdf

God and the New Physics :
Science is now on the verge of answering our most profound questions about the nature of existence. Here Paul Davies explains how the far-reaching discoveries of recent physics are revolutionizing our world and, in particular, throwing light on many of the questions formerly posed by religion, such as:
Why is there a universe?
Where did we come from?
What is life?
How is the world organized?
https://www.penguin.co.uk/books/134/134 ... 34629.html

Just curious,
1. How do you connect information to BothAnd?
2. What's the significance of Quantum mysticism in re EnFormaction? — Agent Smith

1. The path to that connection is a long story. And it's best understood by following the logic of the original thesis, as described in the Enformationism website. Basically, the concept for that thesis began from the sudden insight that Quantum & Information theories are "connected" at the root. I trace it back to reading an article about measuring Quantum particles, in which the physicist exclaimed "it's all [only] information". [my bracket] By that he meant, I assume, that we never know the particle as a ding an sich, but only extracted (abstract) information about the particle that is embedded & entangled in a larger system. "Aboutness" is an Information-theoretic concept.

2. The connection between Enformationism and Mysticism is the concept of Holism, as discussed in the Quantum Measurement thread (https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussi ... ent/705340). Most Spiritual traditions include some notion that we are all "entangled" in a Greater Whole. Some call it "God", but I prefer to use the less baggage-laden, and more philosophical concept of LOGOS. From a holistic-mystical perspective, you can imagine EnFormAction as the Will-of-God (Holy Spirit) flowing through the world, and causing meta-physical change. Or, from a reductive-scientific angle, you can imagine EFA as Energy flowing through the material world, and causing physical changes. Take your pick -- or just accept it as BothAnd.

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

Why is there a universe? — Gnomon
This ↑ is the million dollar question!
HOW (science) is an anagram of WHO (religion). — Agent Smith

Actually, there is not much money to be made in asking "why" questions. That's a philosophical query, and Philosophy is traditionally a low-income profession. If you want to make money, figure-out "how" a system works, and patent the process. On the other hand, some have figured-out "how" to convince others that they know "why" the world exists. But their money-making answer is typically not a simple mechanical (scientific) or logical (philosophical) concept, but an emotional (religious) myth, which has ME in a key role. By revealing the mysterious "who" of creation, they make their answer personal and meaningful. "Why" is a child-like question, and is often answered with "because . . .", or with assurances that the ultimate solution to the mystery will be revealed only to the Faithful.

Unfortunately, the Enformationism answer to the "why" question is logical, but impersonal. It's not final, but suggestive, and plausible. Like physicist/cosmologist Paul Davies' "who", of God and the New Physics, my Enformer is a postulated abstraction -- similar to Plato's LOGOS -- with no specifically human qualities, such as an emotional attachment to particular persons, populations, or polity. So, it only pushes the "why" question one step farther than the Big Bang, to propose a certain kind of First Cause that lit the fuse of that primordial event. From the Information perspective, there does seem to be Intention behind Evolution. But the Final Cause (the goal, the purpose, the "why") is not apparent to observers in the midst of evolving toward some future Omega Point.

The only revelation of the Enformer is the logical structure of the World itself. From which we gather clues, by empirical examination, or by philosophical Induction into theory. And the "new physics", that Davies refers to, is the Quantum infrastructure that undermined our old classical views of reality. "They learned to approach their subject in totally unexpected and novel ways that seemed to turn commonsense on its head and find closer accord with mysticism than materialism." Enformationism is one of those novel ways of looking at the world, and begins at the Information foundation, to construct a model that accords Mysticism with Materialism.


"I want to know how God created this world." ___Albert Einstein

Aristotle's Four Causes :
End or Purpose: a final cause is that for the sake of which [purpose] a thing is changing.
https://www.mun.ca/biology/scarr/4270_A ... auses.html

Induction is a specific form of reasoning in which the premises of an argument support a conclusion, but do not ensure it

God & The New Physics :
"There are many mysteries about the natural world that would be readily explained by postulating a natural Deity."
Note -- his "deity" is natural in the sense of being embodied in the world as the informational structure of reality.
" . . . a fascinating look at the impact of science on what were formerly religious issues."
Back Cover

↪Agent Smith
↪Gnomon
I fail to see a non-trivial (woo-free) difference between "Enformationism" and the synopsis of "digitalism" featured in this 2002 Wired magazine article: — 180 Proof

That's OK. The one-eyed man fails to see in perspective, but gets by with a 2D image of the world. On this forum, we don't discriminate against the handicapped.

Digital Physics is a non-trivial hypothesis for those, like Fredkin, who view the world in terms of abstract mathematical forms. But most of us non-geniuses need a little more flesh on the bones, in order to see the beauty of the world.

If natural beauty is woo, I say "woo woo" to you too Boo Boo. But do you really want to continue that childish tongue-sticking & ear wagging on a mature-rated philosophical forum?

Digital physics suggests that there exists, at least in principle, a program for a universal computer that computes the evolution of the universe. The computer could be, for example, a huge cellular automaton.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_physics

What does woo woo mean? :
Noun. woo woo (slang, derogatory) A person readily accepting supernatural, paranormal, occult, or pseudoscientific phenomena, or emotion-based beliefs and explanations.

DO YOU SEE THE NON-TRIVIAL DIFFERENCE
BETWEEN FLESH & BONES ??
7d47ebef-a057-48f4-9530-82d1de4b2795.jpg

WOO WOO !!!
TheMask_featureshot.jpg

JUVENILE PHILOSOPHY (woo free)
https://images.clipartof.com/Clipart-Bo ... 113968.jpg

Wolfram (creator of Mathematica) attempted to convince the scientific community that cellular automata were at the heart of virtually everything physical. He failed. — jgill

I don't know if Fredkin & Wolfram took their proposals of a Computer Universe literally, but the obvious determinism of the Cellular Automata notion may have suggested that the dynamic life-like-behavior & evolution-by-rule-based-selection of matrix-array computer algorithms could serve as a theoretical model for how the universe could work as an inter-active mathematical structure. Other mathematical geniuses have proposed the similar idea of a Mathematical Universe (relational reality) that processes its own internal Information in a logical manner. Even Pythagoras seemed to have a similar worldview 2500 years ago. So, perhaps there is some substance to the idea that mathematical (geometric) logic is at work on the (quantum??) foundation of reality, to produce the classical physical objects that we encounter on the human-macro-scale of reality.*1

Unfortunately for those visionary math geniuses, most scientists are pragmatists, and "radical Platonism" does not compute in their worldview. Moreover, any Theory of Everything is difficult to prove via the typical reductive methods of empirical science. Nevertheless, the "Unreasonable Effectiveness of Mathematics" in describing & predicting physical objects and processes is suggestive that logical structure may be at the root of Reality. So, I wouldn't worry that such an abstract Platonic worldview has failed to get traction in a concrete non-Platonic profession.

Cellular automata :
Their characteristic patterns appear faster than in other computing models and are shown visually in a compact manner as a result of their synchronous nature making them suitable to be studied both quantitatively and qualitatively, and also to be compared to physical and natural phenomena.
http://www.scholarpedia.org/article/Cellular_automata

The mathematical universe hypothesis :
I was quite fascinated by all these mathematical clues back in grad school. One Berkeley evening in 1990, while my friend Bill Poirier and I were sitting around speculating about the ultimate nature of reality, I suddenly had an idea for what it all meant: that our reality isn't just described by mathematics – it is mathematics, in a very specific sense. Not just aspects of it, but all of it, including you.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/arti ... h-excerpt/

*1 The Schrodinger equation describes the geometry of the oceanic phase/form of quantum "particles".
A geometric interpretation of Schrödinger’s wave equation
https://vixra.org/pdf/1812.0202v1.pdf
5 minutes ago