BothAndBlog Forum

Emergent
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussi ... ent/773542

To what extent do you think that human beings are 'information processors?' — universeness

My personal philosophical worldview is entitled Enformationism. It's based on emerging evidence that the whole universe is an information-processing system, similar to a cosmic computer program. Evolution is the general program for causing novel forms of matter to emerge from the interaction of Energy & Natural Laws (computer operating system?). That inherent code (evolutionary DNA?) contains the information necessary to combine causal Energy & malleable Matter into more & more complex forms ; hence the emergence of sophisticated organisms from simpler raw materials.

Immaterial intelligence seems to be directly connected to complexity of functional organization, such as found in the human brain. But how could a random process of matter mutation produce the technological & self-conscious minds that are imaginative enough to speculate that humanity could evolve its own artificial intelligent species of organism/mechanism? Logically, such positive progressive evolution (natural technology) must be non-random & possibly intentional.

Integrated Information :
Koch's and Tononi's theories raise another question : if information is ubiquitous in the universe, why is the biological human mind its most powerful processor?
https://www.bothandblog.enformationism.info/page13.html


How much credence do you give to the idea that we are heading towards an 'information/technological singularity? — universeness

I tend to agree with ↪180 Proof: "I guess it's plausible but not inevitable." The notion of human Culture playing the role of technological evolution, by producing novel systems of organization, makes sense if you understand that Culture itself is an emergent organization from Natural Evolution. But, like all complex novelty-generating processes, the future of uber-complex Culture is unpredictable, and no particular projection from now-to-then is inevitable.


Technological Singularity :
Futurist & transhumanist Ray Kurtzweil has optimistically conjectured that a mindless-but-lawful universe is accidentally stumbling toward a universal mind of god-like proportions. And cognitive historian Y.N. Harari, in Homo Deus, foresees the emergence of a “cosmic data processing system . . . like God”, yet entirely natural and matter-based. On the other hand, I have deduced, from the same database, that the materialist's arbitrary “laws” of physical evolution are more like purposeful metaphysical codes. Historically and theoretically, Evolution proceeds via the inventive interaction between random Chance and contextual Choice. That progressive process is not aimless though, as some would have it, but pointed in a positive direction, as measured by one-way Time, as recorded in human history, as inferred from Archeology, and as conjectured in Cosmology. Such an apparently teleological universe must have originated from an intentional source of some kind. Since mathematical Information seems to be the coded language of evolution, I like to call that cosmic “Programmer”, the “Enformer”.
https://www.bothandblog.enformationism.info/page16.html

Information as a universal fundamental has to be a credible position to take at some level imo. Information is however 'labelled data,' so would 'data' not be the fundamental as opposed to information? Is that not a critical distinction? — universeness

I typically use the word "Information" in a more general sense than "Data". The original etymological usage of "Information" referred to the meanings stored in human Minds (ideas ; concepts)*1. But modern computer terminology has popularized the notion of "Data", which is Information stripped of personal meaning*2. That abstraction makes it more narrowly specific for digital computers, but almost meaningless for human comprehension. That's why code compilers must be used to translate semantic human Information into computer Data.

In the book I'm currently reading, The Ascent of Information by Caleb Scharf, he coins a new term "Dataome" (compare to biological Genome)to represent the kind of information that humans have off-loaded from brains to man-made inventions for external storage & processing. His usage may be closer to what you have in mind. But my philosophical concept of Information is coming from a completely different direction. Rather than modern science & technology, my definition of "Information" goes back to Plato's notion of "Form" as the essence of all things, including ideas*3.

*1. Etymology : The English word "information" comes from Middle French enformacion/informacion/information . . . . Latin informatiō(n) 'conception, teaching, creation'. . . . Information is not knowledge itself, but the meaning that may be derived from a representation through interpretation. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Information
Note -- Another definition of "meaning" is "aboutness', mental reference to something relevant to the thinker.

*2. Information is :
*** 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
Note -- Shannon Information (data) is Syntactic (rules), but traditional Information is Semantic (meaning)

*3. What is Information ? :
The power to enform, to create, to cause change, the essence of awareness. . . . .
http://bothandblog6.enformationism.info/page16.html

Why bring in a term such as 'Immaterial intelligence?' You would first have to convince me/others that such a term has any meaningful existent. What evidence do you have of immaterial intelligence? — universeness

I apologize if my word choice conjured up an image of Einstein's ghost. I was just thinking of the Intelligence usually associated with "information" as an abstract quality instead of a physical thing or being. Perhaps I should ask if "material intelligence" has any meaningful existence for you. Like many forms of Information, the existence of IQ must be inferred rationally, instead of proven empirically. Was Einstein's superior "intelligence" known by means of material evidence?

Anyway, as I said, Intelligence seems to be a function of material complexity. But a "function" is also not a material object. Like many forms of Information, it's a relationship between variables, such as input & output. In the case of intelligence, the function is a relationship between Brain complexity and Mental output : novelty of ideas, etc. But even "complexity" is a mental concept (evaluation), not a physical organ.

But how could a random process of matter mutation produce the technological & self-conscious minds that are imaginative enough to speculate that humanity could evolve its own artificial intelligent species of organism/mechanism? Logically, such positive progressive evolution (natural technology) must be non-random & possibly intentional. — Gnomon
I agree but why use an 'immaterial of the gaps' approach? — universeness

Again, "intelligence" is an immaterial quality. So, why not use an "immaterial" concept to fill the gap in knowledge? Besides, the kind of Information that my thesis is concerned with is more like immaterial Energy than material Matter*4. For example, a Photon is supposed to be the carrier of Energy, but its existence must be inferred from its effects on matter, because Energy itself (apart from matter) is invisible & intangible*5. The description of "energy" in the link below is essentially the same as that of Causal Information*6. Ironically, many intelligent people think of Energy and Information as forms of matter, when in reality it's just the opposite.

*4. How is information related to energy in physics? :
Energy is the relationship between information regimes. That is, energy is manifested, at any level, between structures, processes and systems of information in all of its forms, and all entities in this universe is composed of information.
https://physics.stackexchange.com/quest ... in-physics

*5. Energy is invisible yet it’s all around us and throughout the universe. We use it every day, we have it in our bodies and some of it comes from other planets! Energy can never be made or destroyed, but its form can be converted and changed.
https://ypte.org.uk/factsheets/energy/types-of-energy

*6. Information causality :
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Information_causality

Koch's and Tononi's theories raise another question : if information is ubiquitous in the universe, why is the biological human mind its most powerful processor? — Gnomon
I can't answer such a 'why' question. . . . Do you think we are trying to gain the same ability as what you muse as 'the immaterial?' — universeness

I suppose the author of that quote was implying that the human mind was "designed" to be a powerful Information processor. Whether by God or by Nature, the ability to understand that "information is ubiquitous" allows us to control its manifold forms via Science and Philosophy. Chemistry manipulates its material physical forms (e.g. elements) , and Physics attempts to master nature's immaterial Forces (e.g. potential & kinetic energy), while Philosophy deals with its immaterial mental forms (e.g ideas). Yes, all of those empirical & theoretical professions are trying to gain dominance over Nature, in all its forms & expressions : objects, processes, & meanings.

This is where we diverge. These are just too close to god of the gaps arguments for me, and take us nowhere. — universeness

If you would take the time to read the Enformationism thesis, you'd discover that its "god" is more like the impersonal rational Logos of Plato, and the logically necessary First Cause of Aristotle, than the intervening deity of the Abrahamic religions. By interpreting those ancient non-religious philosophical concepts in terms of our modern understanding of Enforming & Causal power of Generic Information (both Syntactic & Semantic), we should indeed diverge from the outdated philosophies of Materialism & Spiritualism. Where that new vector leads ultimately, depends on the interpreter. As an amateur philosopher, I prefer to focus on the semantic meaning of information, instead of the mechanical rules. If you are an empirical scientist, the syntax of information may be more important. Both Forms are logically contingent upon some ultimate Enformer : the cause or our world's "forms most beautiful" (Darwin).

PS__Back to the original post about an "information/technological" singularity. In The Ascent of Information, by astrophysicists Caleb Scharf, he says : "Anything that reduces the meaning of human information threatens the balance . . . between us and our future selves in a way no less profound than in biological evolution" My thesis is about the emergent teleological aspects of Evolution, not biological, mechanical, or technological. So, that may be where our opinions diverge.

Ok, but again we diverge here, as I give no credence or value to the Platonic concept of ideal or perfect forms. I refer to Platonic forms described in wiki as: — universeness

We are discussing a philosophically divisive topic here. And judging by the unusual number of replies to my posts, my unconventional (immaterial) worldview has hit an emotional hot button for otherwise placid philosophers. Where you give "no credence" to Plato's Forms, it's the foundation of my personal En-Form-Action thesis. Plato's theory of Forms was not talking about material objects (teapot orbiting the moon) but about human ideas about (aboutness) physical objects. Forms are mental metaphors, not material things. Do you deign to "give credence" to your own ideas, or just to other people's invisible intangible ideas. Obviously, you are misinterpreting my ideas, due to lack of understanding of its scientific & philosophical foundation.

I'm pretty sure that astrobiologist Caleb Scharf has never heard of Enformationism. But in his 2021 book, The Ascent of Information, he makes some assertions that would also touch a nerve on this forum. From the cover : "a universe built of and for information" ; "information is, in a very real sense, alive" ; "it's an organism that has evolved right alongside us". These are not materialistic scientific statements, but philosophical interpretations of cutting-edge science (quantum, not classical). Likewise, my view of the role of Information in the universe is not intended to be judged by materialistic scientific criteria. Instead, it's supposed to be an update of ancient belief systems : both Material-ism and Spiritual-ism.

Due to the sudden explosion of incredulous responses to my posts on this Emergent thread, I may not have time to address all of your credibility concerns individually. But I have already covered most of them in the Enformationism thesis, and the BothAnd blog, in case you are really interested in a novel synthesis of modern Science and timeless Philosophy.

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

BothAnd Blog :
https://bothandblog.enformationism.info/

PS__The incredulous remark about Plato & Idealism reveals a watershed in our worldviews. Philosophical Mathematician A.N. Whitehead once commented on Plato's thought: “The safest general characterization of the European philosophical tradition is that it consists of a series of footnotes to Plato." Since mathematicians deal with abstract ideas instead of concrete matter, an openness to Idealism might be expected. But philosophers are also manipulators of abstractions ; yet some have come to view Empirical Science as getting closer to Truth, because it manipulates real tangible objects and produces real world material results. Ironically, in a matter-based world, symbolic money buys real goods, while philosophical metaphors & analogies yield nothing tangible. So, what is the value of Wisdom (sophos), and what is its material substance?

PPS__The screenname "Universeness" seems to imply an open-ness to the intangible qualia of the world. Ironically, in the Enformationism thesis, Generic Information is the substance of Both quantitative Matter & qualitative Mind ; also of everything, and non-thing (e.g. Virtual Particles), in the Universe.

The suffix "-ness" means "state : condition : quality" and is used with an adjective to say something about the state, condition, or quality of being that adjective.
https://www.britannica.com/dictionary/e ... ng-in-ness

PPPS__Enformationism is an Emergence & Systems theory about the Holistic qualities of the world that emerge from the evolution of malleable matter & causal energy.

Emergence : In philosophy, systems theory, science, and art, emergence occurs when an entity is observed to have properties its parts do not have on their own ; (i.e. Holism).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergence

Well, that's what we are discussing. 'Immaterial,' has no demonstrable existent, if it is being used to propose something supernatural. — universeness

No. That is a mis-interpretation of my intent. "Im-material" simply means not-made-of-matter. It does not mean super-natural. Are the ideas & ideals in your mind super-natural, if we can't see them under a microscope? Are Virtual Particles super-natural simply because they have "no demonstrable existent"? VPs are simply mathematical metaphors for sub-atomic physics that must be inferred instead of empirically demonstrated. Mathematics consists of inferred (mental) immaterial inter-relationships, not on observed (objective) physical connections between values. Unfortunately, Pythagoras did interpret his harmonies & ideal solids in the spiritual terminology of his day, 2500 years ago.

↪180 Proof insists on the same mis-use of my novel & unconventional, but philosophically & scientifically defined, terminology. Unfortunately. my non-textbook definitions for Enformationism can't overcome the prejudice of Materialism/Physicalism as a belief system. So, due to our divergent vocabularies, we have ceased to communicate on topics that go beyond the 18th century concepts of classical Newtonian physics.

Forget Space-Time: Information May Create the Cosmos :
So, the question then becomes how to understand "information," a common term whose technical or scientific sense can be disruptive. . . .
What are the basic building blocks of the cosmos? Atoms, particles, mass energy? Quantum mechanics, forces, fields? Space and time — space-time? Tiny strings with many dimensions? . . .
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. . . .
So here's the deep question: Is information the ultimate constituent from which the cosmos is constructed? I started as a skeptic. Information as reality seems so outlandish, so trendy — a metaphor on steroids. ___Robert Kuhn
https://www.space.com/29477-did-informa ... osmos.html

Virtual particles are only used to satisfy mathematical requirements and are not real in any sense of the word. They have not been proven in any way to really exist, except mathematically,
https://www.quora.com/Is-there-any-proo ... ally-exist
2 days ago

Such teleology, only has value from the perspective of human intent and purpose, through their imposition of selective evolution via such tech as genetic engineering. No god posit, Platonic logos/form or Aristotelian first cause, has any contribution to make, imo. — universeness

True. If you are a pragmatic scientist with the intention of making a material difference in the world, there is no need to consider generalizations or ultimates. But, if you are a philosopher, hoping to answer Ontological & Existential questions, considering First & Last & Ultimate Intent would be a part of your job description. I'm not a materials scientist or genetic engineer, but merely an amateur philosopher, posting on a philosophy forum, just for funsees.

So, I hope you will forgive me for doing what feckless philosophers do to while-away their spare time : studying not material objects & "how" questions, but mental beliefs & "why" questions. I'm aware that some posters on TPF seem to believe that this is, or should be, a scientific forum, or that Impractical Theoretical Philosophy must be subordinate to Pragmatic Empirical Science.

If the traditional philosophical term "Teleology" sets your teeth on edge, how about "Teleonomy"? Enformationism is compatible with both understandings of natural progression.


Ultimate :
1. a final or fundamental fact or principle.
2. being or happening at the end of a process; final.

Quora :
[ui]A philosopher is a scientist who studies what cultures, countries groups and individuals believe and do and why they believe and do the things they believe . . .[/i]

Teleonomy :
Teleonomy is sometimes contrasted with teleology, where the latter is understood as a purposeful goal-directedness brought about through human or divine intention. Teleonomy is thought to derive from evolutionary history, adaptation for reproductive success, and/or the operation of a program.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teleonomy

God and Other Ultimates :
What it takes to be ultimate is to be the most fundamentally real, valuable or fulfilling among all that there is or could be
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/god-ultimates/

PS__For the record, Enformationism does not deny the validity of Materialism, as a guide for empirical research. And it does not advocate Spiritualism, as a guide to heaven. It does however assume that philosophical reasoning is a valid approach to evaluating immaterial ideas & beliefs. Yet it does deny the bolded words in the definition below.

Materialism, also called physicalism, in philosophy, the view that all facts (including facts about the human mind and will and the course of human history) are causally dependent upon physical processes, or even reducible to them.
https://www.britannica.com/topic/materialism-philosophy

Well, the exchange between us here seems to consolidate around what credence level either of us assigns to the existence of and value of any references to the supernatural. — universeness

I appreciate your willingness to engage in philosophical dialog, even though my posts may express a worldview that at first glance appears to violate your personal belief system. Some offended posters are motivated to express their anger & incredulity in the form of political-style put-downs. FWIW, I assure you that my BothAnd philosophy is not anti-science or pro-religion. However, it's also not pro-classical-science or anti-religious-philosophy. Instead, it views those contentious belief systems from a novel perspective, that may seem wrong-headed to those on one side or the other of the credence abyss.

Since Enformationism does make philosophical inferences that go beyond the knowable origins of Nature though, you could be forgiven for categorizing those conjectures as "super-natural". Yet quite a few professional scientists have put-on their philosophical hats, and conjectured non-empirical notions (e.g. Multiverse ; Cosmic Inflation) about the time-before-Time, and the pre-Big-Bang nature of Nature. So, I'm just doing similar philosophical postulating, but without the aura of authority that allows professional scientists to get-away with going beyond the limits of empirical methods. Remember, some of Einstein's colleagues cringed at his poetic references to God, but didn't attack him openly.

Misunderstanding the position of others is always an issue. I am trying my best to understand your viewpoints and idea's in the area of what you think is 'emergent,' in human beings and based on the content of my OP. If you think I am misinterpreting your ideas then I look forward to your continued corrections, so that I can gain a better understanding of your position. — universeness

I have posted hundreds of "continued corrections" (clarifications) on my blog and in this forum. But you are not alone in mis-understanding my unconventional worldview. Some are content to just pigeon-hole the strange ideas into old familiar categories. For example, Emergentism is a feature of Holistic worldviews, which to detractors indicates an Anti-reductionism (hence anti-science) Oriental religious belief. But it is also held by several prominent Quantum scientists. Also, Reductionism is an appropriate method for dissecting physical objects, but not very effective for parsing philosophical concepts.

My worldview is best explained at length in the Enformationism Thesis, and the BothAnd Blog. In forum posts, my unconventional position must be explained only in bits & pieces, hence may be interpreted by others in more conventional terms. You won't find my personal worldview in any Science or Philosophy textbook, so I rely on links to recently published authors, who are exploring the uncharted Information territory from a perspective similar to my own. Since the links are usually un-clicked, I typically include a brief quote to indicate the pertinent flavor of the ideas therein.

Emergence :
Cognitive historian Y.N. Harari, in Homo Deus, foresees the emergence of a “cosmic data processing system . . . like God”, yet entirely natural and matter-based. On the other hand, I have deduced, from the same database, that the materialist's arbitrary “laws” of physical evolution are more like purposeful metaphysical codes.
https://www.bothandblog.enformationism.info/page16.html

Emergentism :
In philosophy, emergentism is the belief in emergence, particularly as it involves consciousness and the philosophy of mind. A property of a system is said to be emergent if it is a new outcome of some other properties of the system and their interaction, while it is itself different from them.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergentism


How can an idea be a update of materialism if your 'update,' "is not intended to be judged by material scientific criteria?" That seems to contradict!
In what sense are you using the term 'spiritualism,' here? — universeness

My information-centric update of the philosophical implications of classical Materialism is mostly based on the current understanding of reality provided by Quantum science. It would indeed be a conflict, if I pretended to be a physical scientist. For example, Einstein & the Quantum pioneers "updated" Newton's mechanical physics, to much consternation at first. So, my philosophical interpretation of "scientific criteria" is primarily based upon sub-atomic physics, which has discovered the key role of mental & mathematical Information in the foundations of physical reality.

I use the term "Spiritualism" in a provocative manner, to provide a strong contrast with "Materialism". Both are belief systems & worldviews that hark back to ancient Atomism and Animism. Today, Quantum theory has pulled the materialistic rug out from under Atomism. And Einstein's equation of intangible Energy with measurable Mass/Matter, has given us a modern way to interpret the invisible causes of Nature.

Quantum Physicist John A. Wheeler :
Wheeler's "it from bit" concept implies that physics, particularly quantum physics, isn't really about reality, but just our best description of what we observe. There is no "quantum world", just the best description we have of how things will appear to us.
https://plus.maths.org/content/it-bit

Information, Physics, Quantum: The Search for Links :
This report reviews what quantum physics and information theory have to tell us about the age-old question, How come existence?
https://philarchive.org/rec/WHEIPQ

↪180 Proof

what is your enformation fundamental? — universeness

Your proposed "fundamental" particles may be appropriate for a scientist in a lab to use as a guide. But I'm not a scientist, and my lab is my mind*1. So, the "fundamental" element of Information is Difference*2*3. You are talking in terms of Physics (e.g. Matter ; Particles ; Objective), while I'm talking about Meta-physics (e.g. Mind ; Meaning ; Subjective).

*1. Someone once asked Einstein, "if you are a scientist, where is your lab?". He silently held up a pencil. Albert was a theoretical scientist, a philosopher who focused his razor sharp mind on abstractions (e.g. Energy) that can't be seen under a microscope or dissected with a razor-sharp blade.

*2. Difference is a key concept of philosophy, denoting the process or set of properties by which one entity is distinguished from another within a relational field or a given conceptual system. ___Wikipedia

*3. 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".
https://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page11.html
Note -- Atoms of knowledge & meaning are invisible bits (binary distinctions) of Information. Those bits are mathematical relationships (ratios : rational) that add-up to bytes, then to concepts, then to personal meanings : relationship to self. If that sounds like religious dogma to you, then our worldviews & vocabularies are incompatible or immutual.

GENERAL COMMENTARY

A. Physical Science has no need for metaphysical gods & spirits. But, scientists use different names for similar concepts. Instead of divine Creation, they may call it "instant Inflation". In place of animated Spirits, they call it Energy. Same thing, different terminology.

B. Since the Big Bang beginning of physical reality sounds like a creation event, some scientists get around that meta-physical implication by noting that the "bang" is not a part of our inflating universe. Some religious believers would agree that their infinite-eternal creator-god is not immanent in the space-time creation. In either case, that outside Cause is Meta-Physical, and only knowable by inference from physical events. Another way to explain away the sudden emergence of Something (our everything) from Nothing (ultimate set) is to use the mathematical vocabulary of an "empty set", or "vacuum energy", to avoid the implication of ex nihilo by "divine fiat". Same notion, different words.

C. In order to explicate the Enformationism thesis, I have developed my own alternative philosophical vocabulary, intended to avoid the doctrinal presumptions of both religious and scientific language. Unfortunately, some readers will still tend to read-into those novel terms, their own Spiritualism or Materialism prejudices. "vive la difference!"

BothAnd Blog Glossary : https://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/index.html
Note -- this list of Enformationism terminology is out-of-date, because the science of Information (and my understanding) is progressing so rapidly.

↪Agent Smith

Why is intelligence the yardstick for emergence? — Agent Smith

The yardstick should be chosen to suit the object to be measured. If we are discussing the evolution of physical/material stuff of the Earth, a physical instrument would be appropriate. But the topic of this thread -- 'information/technological singularity" -- is about Cultural/Technical evolution. So the proper way to measure such a not-yet-real future state of human ingenuity would be to apply the philosophical tool of Reason, which seems to be directly related to Intelligence, n'est-ce pas?

The topical question is about "credence", not substance. So, on what basis would you believe a description of some projected event that has not yet come to pass? Some thinkers seem to take it on faith, in human intelligence/ingenuity, that a techno-utopia will eventually come to pass. Personally, unlike some philosophical pessimists, I agree that cultural evolution -- both ethical & technical -- is generally progressing in a positive direction. But my notion of Utopia is different from that of Vernor Vinge and Ray Kutzweil.

As an amateur philosopher, I'm more inclined toward the information-systems interpretation of progress, than the technology-faith scenario. Yet I remain agnostic about the teleological or teleonomic destiny of the world. So, my Enformationism graph of Hegelian progress (not to scale) ends with a question mark.


Cosmic%20Progression%20Graph.jpg
Note -- The Hegelian ups & downs are smoothed-out at this cosmic scale. From our local earth-scale perspective the up-jumps & set-backs may appear like like a chain of mountains.
3 days ago

This just leaves folks to assume neutral or anti, when you type not pro and pro when you suggest not anti. In science, the term 'novel,' just means 'new.' All together, I think the quote above is far too broad to be of much use to our discussion. — universeness

OK. Here is a definition from the BothAnd Blog. If that's not narrow enough for you, I have more. BothAnd is a philosophical concept not a scientific term. But it is related to the scientific notions bolded in the quote below.

Both/And Principle :
*** My coinage for the holistic principle of Complementarity, as illustrated in the Yin/Yang symbol. Opposing or contrasting concepts are always part of a greater whole. Conflicts between parts can be reconciled or harmonized by putting them into the context of a whole system.
*** The Enformationism worldview entails the principles of Complementarity, Reciprocity & Holism, which are necessary to ofset the negative effects of Fragmentation, Isolation & Reductionism. Analysis into parts is necessary for knowledge of the mechanics of the world, but synthesis of those parts into a whole system is required for the wisdom to integrate the self into the larger system. In a philosophical sense, all opposites in this world (e.g. space/time, good/evil) are ultimately reconciled in Enfernity (eternity & infinity).
*** Conceptually, the BothAnd principle is similar to Einstein's theory of Relativity, in that what you see ─ what’s true for you ─ depends on your perspective, and your frame of reference; for example, subjective or objective, religious or scientific, reductive or holistic, pragmatic or romantic, conservative or liberal, earthbound or cosmic. Ultimate or absolute reality (ideality) doesn't change, but your conception of reality does. Opposing views are not right or wrong, but more or less accurate for a particular purpose.
*** This principle is also similar to the concept of Superposition in sub-atomic physics. In this ambiguous state a particle has no fixed identity until “observed” by an outside system. For example, in a Quantum Computer, a Qubit has a value of all possible fractions between 1 & 0. Therefore, you could say that it is both 1 and 0.
https://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page10.html

I think the 'but' above is nonsense — universeness

The "but" paragraph is merely referring to primitive notions that are describing the same kind of phenomena that scientists study, but without the intervening centuries of learning. Their ideas may seem like "nonsense" to you, but they conveyed meaningful philosophical information to them*1. For example, early humans seemed to assume that anything that moved was animated by the same invisible force that motivated humans. The analogy to "breath" was a metaphor based on the observed fact that Life requires breathing. The Bible says that "life is in the blood", but today we would add that oxygen in the blood is essential to life. It's easy for moderns, after centuries of scientific investigation to feel intellectually superior to ancient philosophers*2. For example, Aristotle used the Greek word "energeia" meaning : activity, operation, vigour. workmanship. supernatural action, cosmic force. But today, we have a mathematical definition of "energy"*3. Same general understanding, with more decimal places.


*1. Don't you think the humans of the far future Singularity will dismiss your own primitive notions of "Energy" (ability to do work) as mere metaphors for concepts you barely understand? Enformationism merely goes one step forward by defining "Energy" in terms of mathematical ratios (i.e. abstract information).

*2. A superiority complex is a belief that your abilities or accomplishments are somehow dramatically better than other people's.
https://www.webmd.com/mental-health/wha ... ty-complex

*3. "Eugenius says that 'the moderns have profited by the rules of the ancients' but moderns have "excelled them."
Sir Isaac Newton, the famous English scientist, once said, “If I have seen further, it is by standing on the shoulders of giants.”

You maybe guilty of over-dramatising any current gaps between the physics of the macro and the physics of the subatomic or gaps between classical physics and quantum physics. — universeness

Skepticism toward unorthodox notions is essential to a scientific worldview. But openness to novelty is also necessary for advancement of knowledge, and to avoid fossilized orthodoxy. Perhaps, you may be guilty of over-minimizing complex concepts that don't fit your current belief system.

Skepticism :
I have made a ceaseless effort not to ridicule, not to bewail, not to scorn human actions, but to understand them.
___Baruch Spinoza