BothAndBlog Forum

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussi ... ent/369348

Notice how fields are different than old fashioned materialism. They're invisible and intangible except when generating forces and particles that we can interact with, such as with gravity or photons. — Marchesk

In my personal worldview, Enformationism, I place all the various fields postulated by quantum theorists under the heading of a general Information Field. This is based on the little-known fact that what used to be called Metaphysical (Mental) Information is also Physical, in the sense that it can be quantified (Shannon bits). Some researchers are even treating Energy as a form of Information, since the deconstruction of Information is Entropy. Putting together the original Mental meaning and the modern Physical usage of Information, my thesis proposes that the general Information Field of the universe is equivalent to an Energy Field, that I call EnFormAction. It's the cause of all change in the world.

The way I see it, what is most fundamental in the universe is not ‘stuff’, but interaction. — Possibility

That fundamental "Interaction" sounds like a reference to Energy. But it could also refer to Communication. My term EnFormAction unites both of those meanings into a universal causal field, from which both Matter and Mind eventually emerge from evolution. It's fundamental in that it is the essence of everything in the universe.

The world isn't material. It's something else. — Marchesk

That something else is what I call EnFormAction. Which is a combination of Energy and Intention (guided force), similar to the concept of Will. This is not a religious concept, but it is Metaphysical, in the sense of "something else" than matter. It is also related to Plato's theory of Forms.

Are you suggesting that science grounds metaphysics? Metaphysics isn't the same as science. — Pantagruel

Newtonian Science is the basis of Classical Physics. But Quantum Physics cannot be fully reconciled with Classical Materialism. Instead, by introducing concepts such as immaterial Fields, and Virtual Particles, physics is now encroaching on the old philosophical specialty of Metaphysics.

Panpsychism would be an alternative that's fundamental. — Marchesk

The Information Field is similar to the ancient notion of Panpsychism, except that Consciousness is a late development from the evolution of EnFormAction.



Enformationism, EnFormAction, Enformy, Energy : http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page8.html

Energy is Information : https://physics.stackexchange.com/quest ... in-physics
https://physicsworld.com/a/information- ... to-energy/

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussi ... ent/369348

Just like how discussions of the mind should be informed by neuroscience. Espousing a theory of mind at odds with neuroscience would be empirically invalid. — Marchesk

On my blog, I just posted a book review of Donald Hoffman's, The Case Against Reality, which makes an attempt to explain human consciousness in a manner that takes the paradoxes and abnormalities of Quantum Theory to be natural and normal. He doesn't deny Reality, but merely offers an analogy to help us make sense of why Consciousness doesn't seem to fit into our current understanding of physical Nature. Hoffman is a cognitive researcher, but his theory is at odds with current neuroscience, specifically the Incredible Hypothesis by Francis Crick that the mind is nothing more than nattering neurons. Hoffman presents a clever metaphor to illustrate his theory that the human mind creates a mental model of Reality, which it then treats as-if it is real.

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussi ... ent/369348

By definition Metaphysics and science are different things and play different roles. — Pantagruel

I'll quibble with your equation of "science" with "physics". Actually, the general term "science" simply refers to knowledge. And that knowledge can be drawn from investigations into the physical world of atoms; but it can also be drawn from investigations into the metaphysical world of mind. Aristotle wrote two volumes on the current knowledge of his era. Very little of the subject matter of the Physics volume is now accepted by modern scientists. But the discussions in the Metaphysics volume were focused. not on the material world itself, but on how humans perceive and understand their relationship to reality. Thus, many of the topics of Metaphysics are now studied in the sciences of Psychology, Sociology, History, and Philosophy.

So, I would say that, by definition, Metaphysics and Physics are different subjects, with different roles in gaining knowledge and understanding. Physics looks at the outside world, while Metaphysics looks within. Materialist scientists, at least since Descartes, have drawn a hard line between Mind & Body in order to exclude Metaphysics from being a valid subject of empirical study. Unfortunately, Quantum Physics has blurred that line, with its discovery that the "objective" observer cannot study his subject without becoming a part of the system being studied. Consequently, empirical methods leave scientists struggling with paradoxes and absurdities.

That's why, when I use the term "Metaphysics", I'm merely momentarily focusing on the Yin aspect of reality, while ignoring the Yang. But ultimately, I am aware that they are one and the same. And some mainstream Quantum scientists have come to the same conclusion. Hence, they are forced to use both physical (empirical) and metaphysical (philosophical) techniques.


Quantum Metaphysics : https://ndpr.nd.edu/news/quantum-ontolo ... mechanics/
https://www.researchgate.net/publicatio ... w_Paradigm

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussi ... ent/369348

It can refer to BOTH energy AND communication (information) - but I’m not convinced that a new term is either necessary or helpful, and I don’t think adding interaction as another ‘field’ separate from gravity, electromagnetism, etc makes sense, either. — Possibility

If the term "Information" can refer to both topics, why not use a term that combines them into a single concept? My BothAnd philosophy is similar to the Yin/Yang worldview of Taoism. Science studies fragments, while philosophy (metaphysics) studies Wholes. EnFormAction is not intended to be a scientific term for labeling parts, but instead, a philosophical concept for understanding the whole cosmos. It doesn't add "another" field, it combines all of the above into a single Information Field. With that kind of holistic terminology, we can study the universe as-if it is not just atoms-in-the-void, but a universal Mind, processing Information. That's not an empirical scientific perspective; but I think it is a valid philosophical worldview.

Holism : http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page11.html

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussi ... ent/369348

I'll quibble with your quibble, since the original derivation of physics - phusis or nature - arguably generalizes to all of the natural sciences, not only physics. — Pantagruel

Exactly. That's why Aristotle didn't make a hard distinction between the topic of Nature (physics), and the topic of Human Nature (metaphysics). It was only centuries later that Human Nature was separated from Nature by labeling volume two as Metaphysics, and reserving its study for effete philosophers, and eccentric mystics, instead of practical down-to-earth scientists.

Now, the modern realism of Quantum Theory is beginning to reunite Man and Nature into a single dynamic system with many functions and roles.

We eventually came to a simplified conclusion that Biology is a process of Physics which operates via Chemistry.

Don't know why, but that gave me a sense of contentment. — Trooper149

If that materialistic worldview gives you a feeling of contentment, join the club. It's the default worldview of most simple-minded humans since time began : "what you see is all that matters" --- except for the spooky stuff of gods & spirits. But complex thinkers like philosophers are not content with the superficial appearances of physics and chemistry. Instead they also wonder about the unseen mysteries of psychology. And by including the role of Information in the real world, we can finally begin to understand that spooky stuff, as we learn how the mind works : the thinking function of biology.

In my simple worldview, Physics evolved into Chemistry, which evolved into Biology, which evolved into Psychology. And the last phase is currently mastering all the previous phases. [/quote]

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussi ... rialism/p1

your use of created terminology to avoid (or delay) the scientific or philosophical rigour of relating your worldview to established concepts - either in science or philosophy. — Possibility

I don’t think a modern philosophy can afford to isolate its terminology from science anymore, — Possibility

I use my own coined terms (neologisms) specifically because of the broad range and technical complexity of the subject. Enformationism is Science, Religion, Philosophy, and Cosmology all combined into a cohesive worldview. It's my own personal Theory of Everything. My special terminology is intended, not to "avoid or delay scientific or philosophical rigor", but to present my ideas in words that mean what I intend them to mean, not as they are used in various conventional contexts (pigeonholes). If you will look at the Introduction of the Enformationism thesis, you will see that the concept originated from layman's study of the sciences of Quantum Theory and Information Theory. It is not intended to be isolated from Science, but to be integrated with it.

Since I am neither a conventionally trained scientist nor a philosopher, my vocabulary is unabashedly un-conventional. I have an extensive Glossary and a Blog to give specific meanings and contextual applications of each term. Is it quackery or philosophy? --- you decide.

I think your use of the term ‘field’ is misleading . . . . if this ‘universal mind’ has the capacity to combine these field formulae with the other nine — Possibility

I used the mathematical notion of a "field" as an analogy, not as a literal description of the universal Mind. Besides, a mathematical "field" is not a physical object, but a metaphysical metaphor, treated as-if there was an infinite array of non-dimensional points in space. I think you took my analogy too literally.

If you want to get to a universality beyond the emotions, fears and beliefs of an integrated ‘mind’ (one inseparable from its physicality), — Possibility

The "Universal Mind" that I am referring to is already beyond "emotions, fears and beliefs" because it is non-physical. It is not in the universe, but the world is in the Mind. It is separable from physicality only in the sense that it transcends space-time. So, if you want to get on the same page with me, you'll have to go clear out of the material world.


Enformationism : http://enformationism.info/enformationi ... index.html

Glossary : http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/index.html

PanEnDeism : All-in-G*D; the physical world is a creation of universal Mind : the Enformer.

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussi ... rialism/p2

just lacking in structural relations to reality, — Possibility

I didn't feel disrespected --- just misunderstood; in that you think I'm ignoring Science. Your knowledge of my thesis may be limited to the few posts on this forum. But it's much more comprehensive than that, more scientific and more "structural". However, it is mostly concerned with the cutting edge of Physics, which encounters paradoxes that could be better understood in terms of Information Theory. Information has a mathematical logical "structure" of its own.

I’m certainly not a materialist, but the topic here is modern realism, so I think it’s useful to see how a theory incorporating ‘fieldism’ stacks up to materialism in relation to reality. — Possibility

Actually, I think "materialism" is an appropriate assumption for classical Physics, including Chemistry and Biology. It's only when research focuses on cosmic and quantum scale "reality" that Materialism becomes misleading and self-defeating. Likewise, Psychology and Sociology can make valid discoveries using materialist assumptions. But when they get into some mental or mystical topics, an understanding of the ubiquitous role of immaterial Information would be helpful.

It’s a shame you seem overly attached to a particular structure — Possibility

What particular "structure" is that?

And ‘non-dimensional points in space’ doesn’t make sense: space IS a dimensional relation, so all points in space are dimensional. — Possibility

I was referring to the mathematical definition of a generic Field, as an "algebraic structure" composed of dimensionless points. In Field Mathematics, a point is assumed to have a location in space, but no size. Maxwell and others used this abstract concept to describe such intangible things as electro-magnetic fields. Those imaginary points are assigned an X-value, as-if they were real material objects. But it's just a metaphor.

Field Definition : A field is thus a fundamental algebraic structure which is widely used in algebra, number theory, and many other areas of mathematics. . . . The best known fields are the field of rational numbers, the field of real numbers and the field of complex numbers.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Field_(mathematics)

You can’t go ‘clear out of the material world’ and expect to remain inseparable from it. — Possibility

I didn't say that G*D is "inseparable" from the material world. The concept of G*D is an abstraction, similar to the Tao of Laozi. It is both transcendent and immanent. The physical world is made of G*D-stuff, which is Information, or EnFormAction as I call it. It's difficult to discuss such formless notions in materialistic language, which is why the Dao De Ching is mostly poetry, and my thesis requires portmanteau (BothAnd) words.

The information processing of the individual human mind already transcends space-time, — Possibility

I would say that the information "processing" of the brain is a physical mechanism. It's only the information itself (meaning) that "transcends" space-time. Meaning has no spatial coordinates, and is not bound by time. Meaning is the content of physical vehicles (material symbol vs referent). So, like most topics in Enformationism, it's BothAnd.

The way I see it, there is a universality that transcends even this concept of ‘mind’. — Possibility

Something that "transcends" space-time? Something infinite and eternal? That's what I refer to as G*D, as an analogy to the ancient philosophical notions of Brahman, Logos, God, Allah, Tao, etc. Another definition of G*D is the "ground of being and becoming", which I call simply BEING.

Dao : "In the beginning was the Dao, which is changeless, formless, and indivisible, but also generative, transforming, and fertile." God Is Not One, by Stephen Prothro


PS___I didn't begin to develop the thesis of Enformationism from a prior notion of traditional gods. Instead, as I constructed a scientific worldview for the 21st century, the parallels with ancient religious/philosophical concepts became apparent.

Actually John Searle has claimed that the average man on the street is a Cartesian, and I tend to agree with him. — Pantagruel

I agree. But, in my reply to Trooper, I was referring to the typical non-scientist's acceptance of the materialist worldview --- as it relates to Science. As intuitive Cartesians, they tend to separate their scientific understanding from their religious beliefs. Of course there are exceptions, but most folks seem to be "content" to accept the authority of scientific experts on materialistic matters, and religious experts on religious matters. They are not concerned with abstruse philosophical or theological arguments about dualistic reality. This is just my personal observation, so I don't have survey numbers.

PS__Besides, my own worldview could be considered as Dualism within Monism, since I make a philosophical distinction between Matter & Mind, but combine both under the heading of EnFormAction. I don't have a problem with Decartes' pragmatic resolution to the contentious Body/Soul, Science/Religion debate. But, for my own purposes, ultimately it's all ONE. For a materialistic analogy, the Big Bang Singularity gave birth to the Multiplicity of the universe. Like a biological cell, one thing divided into two, and from that point forward Duality, Symmetry,and Complementarity were inherent in reality.

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussi ... ent/370087

the connection you make between science and poetry is murky. — Possibility

Do you mean that I don't make a clear distinction between them? If so, that's probably because my BothAnd philosophy is Holistic, and looks for commonalities where most people only see differences. BothAnd is a Yin/Yang worldview in which the line between Black & White is arbitrary, indicated graphically by a white dot in the black area, and a black dot in the white area. So, in reality the whole circle is a gradual shade of gray. That may be what you call "murky". If not, please give me a specific example of murkiness.

Yin-Yang : https://ed.ted.com/lessons/the-hidden-m ... -bellaimey

wpe8c96add_06.png

It is this structural connection that I’m most interested in, — Possibility

Please give me an example of a "structural connection" between Science and Serendipity that would satisfy your need for clarity.

Materialist assumptions aren’t tools you can pick up and put down - an inability to make sense of the ‘mental’ and ‘mystical’ is inherent in the assumptions, not the science. — Possibility

That's true, but most people, including scientists, are intuitive dualists, and require a "structural" division between dichotomies. A few scientists can bridge that gap to get the best of both worlds, mechanical and mystical. And, as a rationalist-rhetorical type, I am still learning to deal with the intuitive poetic side. I am also leery of the tendency for people to lapse into anti-science magical thinking, when they try to deal with murky mystical concepts. My worldview has much in common with New Age philosophy, but I try to avoid the spooky paranormal, pseudo-scientific side-tracks. I am not a romantic or mystic by nature.

Back in the 80s, I was introduced to this holistic-science idea in The Tao of Physics : An Exploration of the Parallels Between Modern Physics and Eastern Mysticism, by Fritjof Capra. In it, the author said "Science does not need mysticism and mysticism does not need science. But man needs both." He may have been the first Hippie Scientist.

NOTE : In China, the home of Confucius and Lao Tse, many people try to combine the doctrinal, rational, conventional, prosaic, pragmatic, communal attitude of Confucianism with the ineffable, irrational, unorthodox, poetic, romantic, individualistic attitude of Daoism. But for most humans that is a tricky and frustrating balancing act.


I think your use of a mathematical concept as metaphor to connect physics to ‘mind’ is murky at best. — Possibility

Please do explain. The basic problem here is that abstract poetic & mystical & mental concepts can only be discussed in terms of concrete metaphors. Unfortunately, many people take metaphors and analogies literally, so they completely miss the point, hidden in the gray area between as-is and as-if.