BothAndBlog Forum

Dialog : Agent Smith and You

Inadvertently, you seem to have gotten trapped in between Gnomon and 180 Proof on several TPF threads. And you may be wondering what all the fuss is about. For some unknown reason, he has taken personal responsibility for countering my "heretical" posts on this forum. After some reasonable early exchanges, I realized that his purpose was not to engage in a philosophical argument, but to defend the "True scientific" position in an ongoing political debate. Of course, he assumes that I have some nefarious ulterior motive for "preaching the gospel" of Enformationism. Consequently, I no longer take his posts seriously. He's just an annoyance, like Socrates' gadfly. But yes, the BothAnd philosophy allows for such non-profit negative argumentation, in hopes that the Hegelian dialectic will weed-out the black & white political extremes, and result in an Aristotelian Golden Mean.

I was just reading an unrelated article in Scientific American magazine, and came across a similar line of argumentation that did seem relevant to this forum. The article is about the Oil & Gas industries' attempts to block liberal endeavors to include information about Human-Caused (anthropogenic) Climate Change in new highschool textbooks. Due to its large population, Texas has a lot of political pull with textbook publishers, and Oil & Gas is one of its biggest taxpayers. So the industry hires schoolboard lobbyists to defend its public image from "godless" liberal attempts at educating the young people of Texas with an "anti-fossil-fuel" Liberal worldview.

One of those defenders declared at a public hearing, in a politically conservative state, "somebody's got to stand up to the experts" . . . . "because conservatives like me think the evidence is a bunch of hooey". That statement resonated with me, due to 180's favorite put-down that the Information-Centric worldview is a bunch of "woo-woo". When I link to science "experts" that agree with the Information position, he counters with "experts" that seem to disagree. But often, their comments are taken out of context. Which is an effective political maneuver, but not appropriate for a philosophical discussion.

I don't know anything about 180's political leanings, but in this case, he seems to be the defending Conservative, and I'm the offending Liberal. And like the Oil & Gas representative, he thinks he's merely presenting a "fair & balanced" argument. Unfortunately, it seems to be weighted toward the reigning Materialist paradigm of Science, as opposed to the emerging Information paradigm. He plays his role in the thesis/anti-thesis dialectic, and I play mine. So you have the right, and opportunity, to decide which side of the see-saw you want to sit on.
4 months ago

I'm quite interested in your philosophy - it touches a chord as it were. However, frankly speaking, it's a bit more than I can handle at the moment. Do forgive me if you get the impression that my efforts towards grasping your ideas seem half-hearted. It isn't intentional. Agent


Is the Enformationism chord still resonating?


I just uploaded a new post to my BothAnd Blog website. The linked article is a book review on the topic of Quantum Theory, focusing mainly on the weird stuff that boggles the minds of Classical and Materialist scientists. But some of that "woo-woo nonsense" seems to appeal to New Age enthusiasts. My personal worldview is not exactly New Age -- no incense burning, chanting, or guru-worshiping -- but there is some overlap, especially in its Holistic interpretations of reality.

Phillip Ball's book necessarily gets somewhat technical, but it has a mostly philosophical approach. As a layman, my interest is mainly in the role of "Information" in Physics (material reality) and Meta-Physics (mental ideality). I find an Information-centric perspective useful for interpreting the counter-intuitive and non-classical aspects of QT. The review is 13 pages long (pamphlet size), so I don't expect you to read every word. You can just scan for ideas that resonate with you. However, I will appreciate any scientific or philosophical or personal feedback you are inclined to offer. You can reply here if you like. Or email at :

john.e.0000@earthlink.net

Link to blog post 125 : Quantum Weirdness
http://bothandblog7.enformationism.info/page43.html
3 months ago

The answer to the OP would depend on how one defines "physical" and "supernatural". Is one the negation of the other?— Agent Smith

↪180 Proof typically reads "supernatural" or "superstitious" whenever I use the term "metaphysical" in a non-traditional sense. Ironically his own definition (above) of "non-physical" is closer to my intention : "Physical is synonymous with natural (and nonphysical with formal (e.g. mathematics, logic, etc.))" Indeed, Aristotle, the prime definer & categorizer of philosophical concepts, divided his tome, On Nature, into two different, but complementary categories : a> particular Physical things (Reality) & b> general Non-Physical theories about things (Ideality). The latter was later dubbed "metaphysics". Perhaps in order to distinguish between objective Physical (material ; matter) and subjective Formal (mental ; information) classifications, while maintaining the complementary notion that both are integral aspects of Natural reality on Earth, if not yet on Mars.

Today, in hindsight, we might label those parallel categories as "Nature"*1 (material things and physical dynamics) & "Culture"*2 (mental memes, formal ideas and logical inter-relationships). So, I would re-word your statement to depend on "how one defines 'physical' and 'metaphysical'". Or better, to substitute "natural" and "cultural", to make the complementary relationship more obvious*3. Human culture is a product of natural evolutionary processes, but exists in the form of non-physical ideas (information), and manifests as artificial systems & technologies.

Classical Science, since Descartes, has emphasized the physical (material & mechanical) aspects of reality, and minimized its metaphysical (mental & organic)*4*5 features. Yet, Philosophy originally treated both as valid subjects for study. And since Quantum Science reintroduced the role of the observer into the functions of physics, the human mind can no longer be ignored as a force within Nature. 

*1. Nature : the phenomena of the physical world collectively, including plants, animals, the landscape, and other features and products of the earth, as opposed to humans or human creations.

*2. Culture : the arts and other manifestations of human intellectual achievement regarded collectively.

*3. What is the relationship between nature and culture? :
NATURE AND CULTURE converge in many ways that span values, beliefs and norms to practices, livelihoods, knowledge and languages. As a result, there exists a mutual feedback between cultural systems and the environment, with a shift in one often leading to a change in the other.
https://www.resurgence.org/magazine/art ... lture.html

*4. The nature–culture divide is the notion of a dichotomy between humans and the environment. Early anthropologists sought theoretical insight from the perceived tensions between nature and culture. ___Wikipedia

*5. Nature and culture are often seen as opposite ideas—what belongs to nature cannot be the result of human intervention and, on the other hand, cultural development is achieved against nature. However, this is by far not the only take on the relationship between nature and culture.
https://www.thoughtco.com/nature-culture-divide-2670633


14 days ago

I was just wondering though, isn't everything natural? Our worldview has had the necessary memes injected into it to support that conclusion in me humble opinion. — Agent Smith

Yes. AFAIK, everything in the physical universe is natural, but not everything is physical. Most religions have postulated spirits & divinities that are non-physical and super-natural (i.e. Ideal). Hence, the historical association of "Metaphysics" with Spiritualism has made the term taboo, even for philosophical dialogs. When I refer to certain aspects of Nature as "meta-physical" or "non-physical" though, I'm not rejecting Nature. Instead, in my worldview, physical Nature has evolved an immaterial phenomenon that is not subject to physical laws : Mind.

By "non-physical, I simply mean "mental" or "ideal" or "cultural". The human Mind is unique in the natural world, in that it is able to imagine events & things that are not found in the Real physical world, but in Plato's Ideal meta-physical realm. That ability to transcend physical laws in imagination allows humans to do things in the real world that animals cannot do. For example, DaVinci imagined that he could fly like a bird, even though natural evolution didn't equip him for flight. Today, we take un-natural flying humans for granted, but our artificial wings must still work within the universal laws of physics.

The fact that Cultural evolution emerged from Natural evolutionary processes tells me that the Potential for non-physical functions was innate in the original mathematical Singularity --- which I imagine as a computer code. Like DNA, that cosmic code contained all the information (memes) necessary to construct a universe from scratch (something from nothing). By "no-thing" though, I mean simply "im-material". Unlike physical Genes, the meta-physical Memes encoded in the Cosmic Egg had no physical container. As pure information, they were self-contained.

Today most cosmologists assume that those Memes (e.g. natural Laws & Logic) necessarily existed before the Big Bang. Yet, the logic of evolution couldn't have existed in material form. So I assume that the logical structure existed in the Mathematical form of statistical Probability, where 100% probability is Necessity. Probability is not a physical thing, but merely the Potential to become Actual. Likewise, I envision the Programmer, who encoded the Singularity, as pure eternal Potential (causal power). Moreover, since the Conceptualizer of the universe was necessarily a priori (eternal), it is literally super-natural (above ; beyond ; outside) and meta-physical.

However, this necessary-but-hypothetical Actualizer must have created the physical world out of its own substance, which is what I call EnFormAction : the power to give form to the formless. This abstract creator concept is PanEnDeistic (all in god, god in all), which is similar to Spinoza's notion of deus sive natura (god is nature). It envisions no miraculous interventions, so whatever happens in Nature is the Will of G*D (including Good & Evil).


Meme : a concept, belief, or practice conceived as a unit of cultural information
Note -- I'm using the notion of a Meme to mean any unit of information (bits, bytes, codes, ideas)

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

Absit iniuria, it's rather simple for me - Venessa Williams (tennis champion) is and we have in place methods to demonstrate that fact, but how do I do the same for God or a demon or an angel? Quite obviously, there's more than 1 sense of being and the two seem rather unconnected. — Agent Smith

There's no place for offense in Philosophy. When forum posters do take offense, its usually about Ideology (politics or religion).

Aristotle defined Metaphysics as the study of being qua being, and differentiated several categories : substance or essence or form (known by reason), material (known via senses), and spirit (divine). Material existence is the common sense meaning of Being. Essential existence is more like Plato's Form, an abstract definition (e.g. logical structure). And I'm not sure how he would define divine existence, except that it is more essential (Ideal) than real existence. So, I guess he would demonstrate the existence of God, by logical argument, as Necessary to make sense of all other kinds of being. That is how I came to my philosophical notion of G*D, Programmer, Creator, or BEING : a logically necessary pre-existence; an eternal Potential.

As you said, those different meanings of Being are dis-connected, except in the sense of logical entailment. For example, Eternal Potential is a necessary precursor to Temporal Actual things. And Logical Structure is necessary for Physical Constructs. As for the existence of Venus Williams, all I know is what I get from the mass media : the idea of a non-white tennis champion.


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.enformationis

Looks like we're on the same page. Logically speaking, if one claims x is then x is because blah blah blah. What the "blah blah blah" is is quite different for the natural and the supernatural. It seems we're discussing metaphysics, ontology to be precise and I gotta fess up, I'm a little lost. — Agent Smith

I suppose that by "blah, blah, blah" you are referring to conceptual models (theories) of abstract entities, such as Being ; that can't be defined by their physical attributes, but by their metaphysical qualities (i.e. how they affect us). A lot of philosophical theorizing & systematizing does get so non-realistic that a concrete-thinking layman can get lost in the labyrinth of speculations. Some 19th century philosophers recognized that problem, and began to focus on Phenomenology : how humans & animals naively experience the world via the senses, apart from intellectual models. I'm not very knowledgeable about that movement, but their thesis seems to have been superseded by the antithesis of the "linguistic turn", focused on how we articulate subjective concepts.

Empirical Science is essentially focused on phenomena, but Quantum Science is about stuff that is not directly perceived by the senses; hence must be interpreted. Likewise, theories about Being (Ontology) are not about observation, but about our interpretation of the world as a physical & functional system. So, it's the non-physical (what I call Meta-Physical) aspects of reality that are most subject to controversy & argumentation. And abstract BEING, as opposed to space-time beings, is as far from commonsense Phenomenology as you can get. However, most scientific paradigms have been based on essential Ontological assumptions that are seldom articulated, except by philosophers of science.

For Aristotle, particular beings are physical & phenomenal & natural, but universal Being is abstract & conceptual & supernatural. He sometimes referred to it as "God", in a non-anthro-morphic sense. In my own philosophizing, I too sometimes resort to identifying BEING as "G*D", which ontologically must exist beyond space-time, because it is the Cause (Creator) of the natural phenomena we conceptualize as space & time & matter & energy. I spell the word with an asterisk to suggest that it does not refer to a traditional or conventional deity. It's just a personal notion, not a doctrinal assertion. So, you should only believe it if the concept of an invisible Necessary Being makes sense to you.

PS__Disclaimer, anything I say about Metaphysics & Ontology is more blah, blah, blah. So, you'll have to interpret the subjective abstractions (universals ; principles) into concrete phenomena that make more sense to you.

Phenomenology : how things appear to our senses

The Phenomenology of Spirit :
Hegel -- "an "exposition of the coming to be of knowledge".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Pheno ... _of_Spirit
Note -- The English world "spirit, in German is "geist" (ghost or mind). Which we know, not as a physical phenomenon, but as a mental concept. Apparently, Hegel wanted to make common-sense of the notion of a nonphysical quality, by describing the sensory phenomena that lead us to infer that such an non-sensory entity must exist.
11 days ago

The supernatural is in a sense beyond this and that if you know what I mean and yet it's still within here and there. We've already crossed that bridge but memory is so unreliable these days and hence my suspicion that we're into inventing stuff left and right. — Agent Smith

Yes. I think Multiverse & Many Worlds theories are inventions of supernatural stuff. They are super-natural in the sense that they are, by definition, beyond the scope of Nature as we know it. That's why such transcendent hypotheses (including God models) are unproveable by scientific methods. They are more or less believable though, on the basis of rational extrapolation from our knowledge of the here & now world. But they are also unbelievable by the same standards. Personally, I am agnostic regarding all three beyond-nature entities. Yet, I'm more inclined toward the abstract LOGOS/Programmer concept, due to my information-theoretic worldview, and the fact that the Big Bang theory omits any explanation of a First Cause.

There are other meanings of supernatural but all of 'em tend to be based on nature. — Agent Smith

Yes. Nature is all we know via direct sensory experience. So anything we imagine must be analogous to something natural.

Just this morning, I googled the concept of a physical Fifth Dimension, as an extension of 4D space-time. It's a serious scientific notion derived from Kaluza-Klein field theory. But it is described like an ordinary spatial dimension, except curled-up into an invisible sub-microscopic ball of space. That may work mathematically, but it's not meaningful to me.

A year or two ago, a thread on this forum was based on the notion of Consciousness residing in a Fifth Dimension. The poster seemed to have a worldview built upon the idea of a mystical-physical conscious dimension. But I could never get her to explain how she knew it was more than an imaginary metaphysical idea (a metaphor). The only practical application of that idea seemed to be as justification of some older mystical notions

I had 2nd thoughts about books like The Tao of Physics[/b] after that. — Agent Smith

Debunking Mysticism seems to be 180wooboo's primary aim on this forum. Unfortunately, he seems to equate scientific Holism with religious Mysticism. Another paradigm related to Mysticism is "Spiritualism". But that dualistic worldview is not peculiar to Eastern cultures. Most Western societies have always had an underlying element of parallel-world Spiritualism. For example, doctrinal Roman Catholicism and Islam have spun-off some minority Spiritual groups. But the spiritualists tend to be isolated introverted intellectual individuals instead of indoctrinated masses of go-along-to-get-along sheep.

Although, not a mystic myself, I am interested in the philosophical implications of Mysticism. This parallel development from mainstream religions was well documented in 1917 by Evelyn Underhill, in her encyclopedic book : Mysticism, The Development of Humankind's Spiritual Consciousness. She was well-grounded in mundane rational philosophy, but more committed to explaining "practical" spiritualism as "the science of ultimates . . . . the science of self-evident Reality". While tolerant of doctrinal religion as necessary for guiding the ignorant masses, her preference was for non-denominational exploration of the inner world of personal consciousness, which claimed "direct communion with the Absolute". Mysticism, is like Buddhism, in that its "higher reality" is known, not by objective analytic reasoning, but by subjective holistic introspection.

As a student of humanity in all its forms, I am tolerant of both Formal Religion and informal Mysticism. But I don't buy what they are selling. Besides, my philosophical understanding of dispassionate Scientific Holism is a far cry from the ecstatic passions of Spiritualism. So 180 is wasting his time "debunking" my Enformationism worldview.


“Physicists do not need mysticism,” Dr. Capra says, “and mystics do not need physics, but humanity needs both.” ___Fritjof Cap

As I always suspected - you're onto something really big as far as I'm concerned. Looks like I'm an Enformationist but don't know it

What we need is a God of Information, oui, or are you content with leaving that as homework for your followers, mon ami? — Agent Smith


Si si, mi amigo. I think the ubiquitous role of Information in the world is the next big paradigm shift. And my philosophical Enformationism thesis was based on cutting-edge 21st century sciences of Quantum physics and Information theory. They have shed some light on the ancient mysteries of Causation & Life & Mind.

For example, pre-science thinkers observed that some invisible agency, then known as "Spirit", caused things to move and change form. Today, we would label that causal agent as "Energy" or "Force". But although we know what they do, it's still not clear what they are, essentially. Likewise, ancient philosophers pondered Life & Mind, and labeled the presumed vital agency as "Soul". Yet again, we have more knowledge of the underlying mechanisms -- how they work -- but no more understanding of their philosophical essence -- their being qua being. Enformationism says all of those varied phenomena are functional forms of Generic Information (LOGOS, Reason).

However, by combining some insights from Quantum Theory with the notion of Information as the universal logical structure of the world, we can fill-in the blanks of shot-in-the-dark Mysticism with philosophical comprehension. For example, Life & Mind are merely emergent functions from basic causation (energy) and logical structure (information). Together they produce what Bergson called Elan Vital (life force). Some scientists today are taking the ancient notions of Panpsychism (universal mind) and Morphogenesis (self-organizing force) seriously, but defining it in terms of the Universal Power to Enform (Information theory).

Materialism has no answer to why a physical universe, born in a disruptive bang, should be self-organizing via the mechanical process defined by Darwin. Years before Darwin, Hegel attempted to explain the mystery of order emerging from within disorder : The Phenomenology of Spirit*1. His teleological "spirit" was the propulsive & organizing agency behind the evolution of systematic complexity from a chaotic beginning. Of course, he was no scientist, so his process is more intentional & logical than accidental & mechanical. In the 21st century, we can add the teleological force of en-form-ation to his equation. That's what I call EnFormAction*2.

The "God of Information" is an open question, since we have no way of verifying anything before the Big Bang beginning. So, your guess may be as good as mine. That's why I try to be descriptive, but ambiguous, instead of assertive in my labels : First Cause ; G*D ; Enformer ; Programmer, etc.


*1, Dialectical Evolution :
Walter Kaufmann, on the question of organisation, argued that Hegel's arrangement, "over half a century before Darwin published his Origin of Species and impressed the idea of evolution on almost everybody's mind, was developmental."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Pheno ... _of_Spirit

*2, The EnFormAction Hypothesis :
it's how creation-via-evolution works.
http://bothandblog3.enformationism.info/page23.html
4 days ago