I'm starting to see information as an entirely physical process. It seems to be physical everywhere else as the interaction of systems - causing a change in them. But I have some work ahead of me if I am going to convince immaterial minds. — Pop
Yes. I am one of those obstinate "immaterial minds" disguised as a material body & brain. But that ideal ghostly metaphysical Me only exists as an abstract inference from our experience with the physical world. It is not real --- except in the sense of Information Realism.
Mathematicians have no problem thinking of math "objects" as real, in some meaningful sense. That's because they are used to constructing invisible metaphysical "structures" that are an essential part of their personal reality. Of course, being invisible, they must be represented as chalk or pencil marks on a black or white background. For the rest of us, it makes little difference whether such ideas are real or not, as long as we can take them for granted. For example, "Zero", the number with no referent, and the abstract irrational number "Pi", and the abstract ratios of Logarithms are essential to higher math, and modern technology. But, they all are lacking in material substance, even though the concepts of such numbers can be applied to any set of physical objects..
ZERO, by Charles Seife, is a book about literally nothing. Nothing material, that is. But it opened my eyes to the reality of nothingness, and the real utility of the concept of something missing. More recently, Incomplete Nature, by Terrance Deacon, has revealed the reality of Absence in the real world. We use such references to that-which-is-not-here-&-now (physically ; in the flesh) without giving a thought to how strange it is to talk about that which does not exist, as-if it does exist. Yes, that notion allows some people to "see" ghosts, but it also allows scientists and mathematicians to manipulate things, such as Dark Matter, that have no sensible material substance, and are only known by their mysterious effects on the material world. So, we need to be careful, not to throw-out the well-informed Information with the notional nonsense.
Notional : existing only in theory or as a suggestion or idea.
Informational Realism :
What is the ultimate nature of reality? This paper defends an answer in terms of informational realism (IR). . . . The outcome is informational realism, the view that the world is the totality of informational objects dynamically interacting with each other.
https://www.researchgate.net/publicatio ... al_Realism
Information Ethics :
The book’s arguments are situated in Floridi’s contention that we are living through an ‘informational turn’ or ‘fourth revolution’, following the scientific revolutions of Copernicus, Darwin and Freud.
https://theoccasionalinformationist.com ... on-ethics/
Zero: The Biography of a Dangerous Idea :
Some empty-headed genius improved the traditional Eastern counting methods immeasurably by adding zero as a placeholder, which allowed the genesis of our still-used decimal system. It's all been uphill from there, but Seife is enthusiastic about his subject; his synthesis of math, history, and anthropology seduces the reader into a new fascination with the most troubling number.
https://www.amazon.com/dp/B000QUEHLM/re ... TF8&btkr=1
TPF : What is Information?
Re: TPF : What is Information?
I would say, these all have their physical manifestation as the neural patterning of our brain. . . .
Whilst you are free to believe what you wish, an immaterial mind has no information, so it is a dead end theoretically. Note, only physical things that have form have information - there are no distinctions in immateriality. You need those distinctions for information. — Pop
Yes. I'm obstinate in my belief that Generic Information is, not just "immaterial", but also "meta-physical". Yet I use that term in the Aristotelian sense, not the Aquinas sense. My insistence on using the "meta" word, is what leads some woo-woo-poo-pooers on this forum to label my worldview as "Pseudo-Science". As a long-time Skeptic of pseudoscience, I am keenly aware of the gray area on the fringes of science *. Yet, I think philosophy is the best, maybe only, way to shed light in the darkness. And abusive labels are counter-productive. But now, Information Theory has begun to aim a floodlight into the dim mysteries of both Psychology and Philosophy.
The original referent of Aristotle's "metaphysics" (see below) was to mental concepts, as opposed to the physical things he addressed in The Physics. However, concepts have no physical properties, hence are invisible, intangible, and imaginary. As such, they are easily confused with ghosts & souls. Moreover, abstract Ideas are accessible only to Reason and human imagination, hence not real, as far as our animal senses are concerned. But humans are distinguishable from animals in one essential trait : the ability to know and to communicate abstractions : non-physical mental representations of things and concepts. That's why humans can deal with hypothetical scenarios, and philosophical theories, and what-if scenarios, that are not sensible to our physical means of perception. And it's why I make a distinction between sensory Perception and mental Conception (Ideation). Perception allows us to navigate the Real Natural world, but Conception gives us the ability to know and to communicate the abstractions, such as "Information", that constitute the Ideal Cultural world.
I found your assertion that "there are no distinctions in immateriality" amusing. On this philosophical forum, what do we do, besides draw distinctions (general categories), like lines in the air? Ironically, you referred to "physical manifestation" as-if it was a ghost materializing. By contrast, it's metaphysical conceptions that "manifest". That's what is happening when someone says, "I just realized . . .". By that, they mean an invisible Idea suddenly appeared in their mind, as if it was becoming real. I would hope that, by now, you would realize that my unique usage of "metaphysics" is not a religious or supernatural reference. Instead, it's the Ideal subject "matter" that Aristotle wrote a whole book on.
Since the Enlightenment Era of Empirical Science, word-wrangling philosophers began to be left behind in the dust by scientists, who experimented with real things, and got real results. Which is why scientists, such as Feynman, could express their disdain of feckless philosophers in succinct words : “The philosophy of science is as useful to scientists as ornithology is to birds.”. And non-empirical philosophers were stung by such derision. One response was to change from metaphysical vocabulary to physical jargon -- displaying what some commentators referred to as "physics envy" -- while others dug-in and couched their sagacity in the impenetrable prose of Post-modernism.
But I am not an academic philosopher, so I don't take such put-downs personally. I merely investigate whatever is of interest to me, and use whatever vocabulary seems to convey my immaterial ideas to other meta-physical minds, locked into calcified skulls. "He who has (mental) ears to hear, let him hear (grasp an abstract concept)". Sorry, my early training was not in Science or Philosophy, but in Bible-ology.
Concept : an abstract idea; a general notion.
Universal : in philosophy, an entity used in a certain type of metaphysical explanation of what it is for things to share a feature, attribute, or quality or ...
Note -- Aristotle's Metaphysics dealt with Universals and Generalities, that have no physical instances
Imagination : the faculty or action of forming new ideas, or images or concepts of external objects not present to the senses.
* The Demarcation Problem :
". . . the concept of pseudoscience is 'without real content' . . . Instead . . . pseudoscience is simply a term of abuse applied to views that scientists regard as threatening." . . . . "what philosophers call the 'demarcation problem' -- finding a principled way to distinguish science from pseudoscience -- and concludes that the problem is intractable."
Skeptical Inquirer Magazine (09-10, 2021), by Glen Branch
Metaphysics :
1. the branch of philosophy that deals with the first principles of things, including abstract concepts such as being, knowing, substance, cause, identity, time, and space.
2. abstract theory with no basis in reality.
Meta-physics :
The branch of philosophy that examines the nature of reality, including the relationship between mind and matter, substance and attribute, fact and value.
1. Often dismissed by materialists as idle speculation on topics not amenable to empirical proof.
2. Aristotle divided his treatise on science into two parts. The world as-known-via-the-senses was labeled “physics” - what we call "Science" today. And the world as-known-by-the-mind, by reason, was labeled “metaphysics” - what we now call "Philosophy" .
3. Plato called the unseen world that hides behind the physical façade: “Ideal” as opposed to Real. For him, Ideal “forms” (concepts) were prior-to the Real “substance” (matter).
4. Physics refers to the things we perceive with the eye of the body. Meta-physics refers to the things we conceive with the eye of the mind. Meta-physics includes the properties, and qualities, and functions that make a thing what it is. Matter is just the clay from which a thing is made. Meta-physics is the design (form, purpose); physics is the product (shape, action). The act of creation brings an ideal design into actual existence. The design concept is the “formal” cause of the thing designed.
5. I use a hyphen in the spelling to indicate that I am not talking about Ghosts and Magic, but about Ontology (science of being).
http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page14.html
Whilst you are free to believe what you wish, an immaterial mind has no information, so it is a dead end theoretically. Note, only physical things that have form have information - there are no distinctions in immateriality. You need those distinctions for information. — Pop
Yes. I'm obstinate in my belief that Generic Information is, not just "immaterial", but also "meta-physical". Yet I use that term in the Aristotelian sense, not the Aquinas sense. My insistence on using the "meta" word, is what leads some woo-woo-poo-pooers on this forum to label my worldview as "Pseudo-Science". As a long-time Skeptic of pseudoscience, I am keenly aware of the gray area on the fringes of science *. Yet, I think philosophy is the best, maybe only, way to shed light in the darkness. And abusive labels are counter-productive. But now, Information Theory has begun to aim a floodlight into the dim mysteries of both Psychology and Philosophy.
The original referent of Aristotle's "metaphysics" (see below) was to mental concepts, as opposed to the physical things he addressed in The Physics. However, concepts have no physical properties, hence are invisible, intangible, and imaginary. As such, they are easily confused with ghosts & souls. Moreover, abstract Ideas are accessible only to Reason and human imagination, hence not real, as far as our animal senses are concerned. But humans are distinguishable from animals in one essential trait : the ability to know and to communicate abstractions : non-physical mental representations of things and concepts. That's why humans can deal with hypothetical scenarios, and philosophical theories, and what-if scenarios, that are not sensible to our physical means of perception. And it's why I make a distinction between sensory Perception and mental Conception (Ideation). Perception allows us to navigate the Real Natural world, but Conception gives us the ability to know and to communicate the abstractions, such as "Information", that constitute the Ideal Cultural world.
I found your assertion that "there are no distinctions in immateriality" amusing. On this philosophical forum, what do we do, besides draw distinctions (general categories), like lines in the air? Ironically, you referred to "physical manifestation" as-if it was a ghost materializing. By contrast, it's metaphysical conceptions that "manifest". That's what is happening when someone says, "I just realized . . .". By that, they mean an invisible Idea suddenly appeared in their mind, as if it was becoming real. I would hope that, by now, you would realize that my unique usage of "metaphysics" is not a religious or supernatural reference. Instead, it's the Ideal subject "matter" that Aristotle wrote a whole book on.
Since the Enlightenment Era of Empirical Science, word-wrangling philosophers began to be left behind in the dust by scientists, who experimented with real things, and got real results. Which is why scientists, such as Feynman, could express their disdain of feckless philosophers in succinct words : “The philosophy of science is as useful to scientists as ornithology is to birds.”. And non-empirical philosophers were stung by such derision. One response was to change from metaphysical vocabulary to physical jargon -- displaying what some commentators referred to as "physics envy" -- while others dug-in and couched their sagacity in the impenetrable prose of Post-modernism.
But I am not an academic philosopher, so I don't take such put-downs personally. I merely investigate whatever is of interest to me, and use whatever vocabulary seems to convey my immaterial ideas to other meta-physical minds, locked into calcified skulls. "He who has (mental) ears to hear, let him hear (grasp an abstract concept)". Sorry, my early training was not in Science or Philosophy, but in Bible-ology.
Concept : an abstract idea; a general notion.
Universal : in philosophy, an entity used in a certain type of metaphysical explanation of what it is for things to share a feature, attribute, or quality or ...
Note -- Aristotle's Metaphysics dealt with Universals and Generalities, that have no physical instances
Imagination : the faculty or action of forming new ideas, or images or concepts of external objects not present to the senses.
* The Demarcation Problem :
". . . the concept of pseudoscience is 'without real content' . . . Instead . . . pseudoscience is simply a term of abuse applied to views that scientists regard as threatening." . . . . "what philosophers call the 'demarcation problem' -- finding a principled way to distinguish science from pseudoscience -- and concludes that the problem is intractable."
Skeptical Inquirer Magazine (09-10, 2021), by Glen Branch
Metaphysics :
1. the branch of philosophy that deals with the first principles of things, including abstract concepts such as being, knowing, substance, cause, identity, time, and space.
2. abstract theory with no basis in reality.
Meta-physics :
The branch of philosophy that examines the nature of reality, including the relationship between mind and matter, substance and attribute, fact and value.
1. Often dismissed by materialists as idle speculation on topics not amenable to empirical proof.
2. Aristotle divided his treatise on science into two parts. The world as-known-via-the-senses was labeled “physics” - what we call "Science" today. And the world as-known-by-the-mind, by reason, was labeled “metaphysics” - what we now call "Philosophy" .
3. Plato called the unseen world that hides behind the physical façade: “Ideal” as opposed to Real. For him, Ideal “forms” (concepts) were prior-to the Real “substance” (matter).
4. Physics refers to the things we perceive with the eye of the body. Meta-physics refers to the things we conceive with the eye of the mind. Meta-physics includes the properties, and qualities, and functions that make a thing what it is. Matter is just the clay from which a thing is made. Meta-physics is the design (form, purpose); physics is the product (shape, action). The act of creation brings an ideal design into actual existence. The design concept is the “formal” cause of the thing designed.
5. I use a hyphen in the spelling to indicate that I am not talking about Ghosts and Magic, but about Ontology (science of being).
http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page14.html
Re: TPF : What is Information?
when in Enactivist fashion the two [energy & Information] are integrated, material reality is created. It would beg the question - is matter real? — Pop
Is the "Enactivist fashion" a physical event, or meta-physical? How do both "aspects of reality" co-exist in a world where two real things cannot occupy the same space at the same time? In what sense, does "Enaction" create material reality? Out of what raw-material? If Energy is Real, what is Information? Can both of those "aspects of reality" be integrated empirically, like fusion, or integrated conceptually, like the notion of Holism?
My own term for that creative & integrative principle in the Real world is EnFormAction. It converts what's statistically Possible or metaphysically Potential into what we know as physically Real, and empirically Actual. But in its statistical state, that not-yet-real stuff is immaterial, and merely a gleam in the eye of the "Creator". Which I call "The Enformer".
EnFormAction :
The concept of a river of causation running through the world in various streams has been interpreted in materialistic terms as Momentum, Impetus, Force, Energy, etc, and in spiritualistic idioms as Will, Love, Conatus, and so forth. EnFormAction is all of those.
http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page8.html
Is the "Enactivist fashion" a physical event, or meta-physical? How do both "aspects of reality" co-exist in a world where two real things cannot occupy the same space at the same time? In what sense, does "Enaction" create material reality? Out of what raw-material? If Energy is Real, what is Information? Can both of those "aspects of reality" be integrated empirically, like fusion, or integrated conceptually, like the notion of Holism?
My own term for that creative & integrative principle in the Real world is EnFormAction. It converts what's statistically Possible or metaphysically Potential into what we know as physically Real, and empirically Actual. But in its statistical state, that not-yet-real stuff is immaterial, and merely a gleam in the eye of the "Creator". Which I call "The Enformer".
EnFormAction :
The concept of a river of causation running through the world in various streams has been interpreted in materialistic terms as Momentum, Impetus, Force, Energy, etc, and in spiritualistic idioms as Will, Love, Conatus, and so forth. EnFormAction is all of those.
http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page8.html
Re: TPF : What is Information?
This is similar to the information philosopher, and I'm glad information philosophy can accommodate both monism and dualism, although it will probably lead to two distinct information philosophies. — Pop
Actually, Enformationism is dualist in the particular space-time setting, but monist in a holistic infinity-eternity context. It's obvious that the Real world is characterized by oppositions : matter-antimatter, positive-negative, left-right, up-down, good-evil, etc. But on the whole, those opposites tend to balance-out to a neutral state. Yet, it's only in the absence of dichotomous space-time that complete harmony can be achieved. Like any other philosophical position, a single coin has two sides, but what you see depends on how you look at it, your viewpoint or attitude.
Unity of opposites :
The unity of opposites is the central category of dialectics, said to be related to the notion of non-duality in a deep sense. It defines a situation in which the existence or identity of a thing (or situation) depends on the co-existence of at least two conditions which are opposite to each other, yet dependent on each other and presupposing each other, within a field of tension.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unity_of_opposites
These physical manifestations are assumptions based on all external information having a physical basis. But I don't want to get into a debate about it with you. There is room for different understandings. — Pop
Since philosophy is mainly concerned with immaterial Meta-Physical questions, most answers are uncertain and open-ended. Leaving lots of room for "different understandings". But, as you said, the physical "manifestations" of Information are much easier to pin down. I was simply amused by the image of Philosophers being unable to "draw distinctions" about immaterial non-physical subjects. That would be a gag-order for the whole profession, and for us amateurs. Empirical scientists, studying "physical manifestations" are usually able to come close to a consensus on their distinctions. But philosophers try to accurately dissect things (ideas, concepts) -- that have no physical manifestations -- into neat categories, so it's hard to cut them "at the joints". We could debate those -- ideally pre-divided, but somewhat subjective -- "distinctions" till kingdom come.
Carving Nature at Its Joints :
Plato famously employed this “ carving ” metaphor as an analogy for the reality of Forms ( Phaedrus 265e): like an animal, the world comes to us predivided. Ideally, our best theories will be those which “ carve nature at its joints. ” Such agreement is certainly suggestive.
https://philarchive.org/archive/SLAILF
Actually, Enformationism is dualist in the particular space-time setting, but monist in a holistic infinity-eternity context. It's obvious that the Real world is characterized by oppositions : matter-antimatter, positive-negative, left-right, up-down, good-evil, etc. But on the whole, those opposites tend to balance-out to a neutral state. Yet, it's only in the absence of dichotomous space-time that complete harmony can be achieved. Like any other philosophical position, a single coin has two sides, but what you see depends on how you look at it, your viewpoint or attitude.
Unity of opposites :
The unity of opposites is the central category of dialectics, said to be related to the notion of non-duality in a deep sense. It defines a situation in which the existence or identity of a thing (or situation) depends on the co-existence of at least two conditions which are opposite to each other, yet dependent on each other and presupposing each other, within a field of tension.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unity_of_opposites
These physical manifestations are assumptions based on all external information having a physical basis. But I don't want to get into a debate about it with you. There is room for different understandings. — Pop
Since philosophy is mainly concerned with immaterial Meta-Physical questions, most answers are uncertain and open-ended. Leaving lots of room for "different understandings". But, as you said, the physical "manifestations" of Information are much easier to pin down. I was simply amused by the image of Philosophers being unable to "draw distinctions" about immaterial non-physical subjects. That would be a gag-order for the whole profession, and for us amateurs. Empirical scientists, studying "physical manifestations" are usually able to come close to a consensus on their distinctions. But philosophers try to accurately dissect things (ideas, concepts) -- that have no physical manifestations -- into neat categories, so it's hard to cut them "at the joints". We could debate those -- ideally pre-divided, but somewhat subjective -- "distinctions" till kingdom come.
Carving Nature at Its Joints :
Plato famously employed this “ carving ” metaphor as an analogy for the reality of Forms ( Phaedrus 265e): like an animal, the world comes to us predivided. Ideally, our best theories will be those which “ carve nature at its joints. ” Such agreement is certainly suggestive.
https://philarchive.org/archive/SLAILF
Re: TPF : What is Information?
The theory seems to be pretty simple - If information is fundamental, then everything is information from every perspective. — Pop
Yes. I suspect that you envision that Fundamental Information in a form similar to Spinoza's Universal Substance, which is singular, but has "multiple attributes". The Wiki article says : "The single essence of one substance can be conceived of as material and also, consistently, as mental." Which is why some interpret that all-encompassing concept as some kind of physical empirical stuff (perhaps like Dark Matter or Dark Energy), while others view it as a type of meta-physical intangible stuff (like Plato's Ideal Forms). Even Spinoza was ambivalent about his ultimate stuff, calling it deus sive natura (God or Nature).
However, in order to account for the contingent existence of the Natural Physical Universe, we are compelled to look beyond the beginning (Big Bang) to a pre-universal First Cause. Spinoza assumed that physical Nature was eternal, but we can no longer take that for granted. And that's where the timeless & spaceless notion of "Meta-Physics" comes in : as 1> an eternal Multiverse, or 2> an infinite array of Parallel Universes, or 3> as a singular self-existent Creator. In the book we call The Metaphysics, Aristotle discussed and analyzed, not physical things, but human ideas about Nature (Physics). He didn't specifically contrast those Immaterial ideas with Material objects, perhaps because he was uncomfortable with Plato's notion of non-empirical imaginary Eternal Ideals. Or because he didn't want to give credence to the popular concept of invisible-yet-real gods in an ideal realm.
I too, am wary of sounding conventionally religious, when I base my worldview on the axiom of a non-physical (ideal ; eternal ; incorruptible) entity that remains hidden from our empirical eyes. But, I see no alternative, if we are to look at our world, in which less than 5% is empirically knowable, "from every perspective". And in which, we still can't agree on a definition for the only thing we know for sure : our own personal non-empirical Consciousness (cogito ergo sum).
There is only one possibly immaterial thing amongst this, and it would be the source of self organization - the forces causing the creation of ordered / informational bodies — Pop
That is what, in Enformationism, I call "EnFormAction" (the causal energy or power to create novel forms), or "Enformy" (the universal force opposing disorderly Entropy, allowing the creation of "ordered / informational bodies", including ideas and memes in the mind).
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
Enformy :
In the Enformationism theory, Enformy is a hypothetical, holistic, metaphysical, natural trend or force, that counteracts Entropy & Randomness to produce complexity & progress. [ see post 63 for graph ]
1. I'm not aware of any "supernatural force" in the world. But my Enformationism theory postulates that there is a meta-physical force behind Time's Arrow and the positive progress of evolution. Just as Entropy is sometimes referred to as a "force" causing energy to dissipate (negative effect), Enformy is the antithesis, which causes energy to agglomerate (positive effect).
2. Of course, neither of those phenomena is a physical Force, or a direct Cause, in the usual sense. But the term "force" is applied to such holistic causes as a metaphor drawn from our experience with physics.
3. "Entropy" and "Enformy" are scientific/technical terms that are equivalent to the religious/moralistic terms "Evil" and "Good". So, while those forces are completely natural, the ultimate source of the power behind them may be super-natural, in the sense that the First Cause logically existed before the Big Bang.
http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page8.html
Yes. I suspect that you envision that Fundamental Information in a form similar to Spinoza's Universal Substance, which is singular, but has "multiple attributes". The Wiki article says : "The single essence of one substance can be conceived of as material and also, consistently, as mental." Which is why some interpret that all-encompassing concept as some kind of physical empirical stuff (perhaps like Dark Matter or Dark Energy), while others view it as a type of meta-physical intangible stuff (like Plato's Ideal Forms). Even Spinoza was ambivalent about his ultimate stuff, calling it deus sive natura (God or Nature).
However, in order to account for the contingent existence of the Natural Physical Universe, we are compelled to look beyond the beginning (Big Bang) to a pre-universal First Cause. Spinoza assumed that physical Nature was eternal, but we can no longer take that for granted. And that's where the timeless & spaceless notion of "Meta-Physics" comes in : as 1> an eternal Multiverse, or 2> an infinite array of Parallel Universes, or 3> as a singular self-existent Creator. In the book we call The Metaphysics, Aristotle discussed and analyzed, not physical things, but human ideas about Nature (Physics). He didn't specifically contrast those Immaterial ideas with Material objects, perhaps because he was uncomfortable with Plato's notion of non-empirical imaginary Eternal Ideals. Or because he didn't want to give credence to the popular concept of invisible-yet-real gods in an ideal realm.
I too, am wary of sounding conventionally religious, when I base my worldview on the axiom of a non-physical (ideal ; eternal ; incorruptible) entity that remains hidden from our empirical eyes. But, I see no alternative, if we are to look at our world, in which less than 5% is empirically knowable, "from every perspective". And in which, we still can't agree on a definition for the only thing we know for sure : our own personal non-empirical Consciousness (cogito ergo sum).
There is only one possibly immaterial thing amongst this, and it would be the source of self organization - the forces causing the creation of ordered / informational bodies — Pop
That is what, in Enformationism, I call "EnFormAction" (the causal energy or power to create novel forms), or "Enformy" (the universal force opposing disorderly Entropy, allowing the creation of "ordered / informational bodies", including ideas and memes in the mind).
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
Enformy :
In the Enformationism theory, Enformy is a hypothetical, holistic, metaphysical, natural trend or force, that counteracts Entropy & Randomness to produce complexity & progress. [ see post 63 for graph ]
1. I'm not aware of any "supernatural force" in the world. But my Enformationism theory postulates that there is a meta-physical force behind Time's Arrow and the positive progress of evolution. Just as Entropy is sometimes referred to as a "force" causing energy to dissipate (negative effect), Enformy is the antithesis, which causes energy to agglomerate (positive effect).
2. Of course, neither of those phenomena is a physical Force, or a direct Cause, in the usual sense. But the term "force" is applied to such holistic causes as a metaphor drawn from our experience with physics.
3. "Entropy" and "Enformy" are scientific/technical terms that are equivalent to the religious/moralistic terms "Evil" and "Good". So, while those forces are completely natural, the ultimate source of the power behind them may be super-natural, in the sense that the First Cause logically existed before the Big Bang.
http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page8.html
Re: TPF : What is Information?
Without getting into a debate about this. I do not see a reason to assume dualism? — Pop
OK. Apparently "dualism" means something different to you. You may be thinking in terms of Body/Soul Dualism, while I'm talking about Property Dualism or Substance Dualism. In any case, it's all Information to me.
•What is the metaphysical status of IIT? :
•materialism, dualism, idealism,
panpsychism, Russellian monism?
http://consc.net/slides/iit.pdf
Take the God out of pandeism, and you get panpsychism. Put mind into all matter, and you don't need dualism. — Pop
The "god" of PanDeism, or as I prefer PanEnDeism, is only invoked to explain the contingent existence of this world. I call it "The Enformer". And as the Eternal Mind, the Enformer puts "mind into all matter".
Mind/Body Problem :
Philosophers and scientists have long debated the relationship between a physical body and its non-physical properties, such as Life & Mind. Cartesian Dualism resolved the problem temporarily by separating the religious implications of metaphysics (Soul) from the scientific study of physics (Body). But now scientists are beginning to study the mind with their precise instruments, and have found no line of demarcation. So, they see no need for the hypothesis of a spiritual Soul added to the body by God. However, Enformationism resolves the problem by a return to Monism, except that the fundamental substance is meta-physical Information instead of physical Matter.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mind%E2%80%93body_problem
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/
http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page16.html
That would be a gag-order for the whole profession, and for us amateurs. — Gnomon
No I don't think so at all. — Pop
I think you missed my tongue-in-cheek point. :joke:
OK. Apparently "dualism" means something different to you. You may be thinking in terms of Body/Soul Dualism, while I'm talking about Property Dualism or Substance Dualism. In any case, it's all Information to me.
•What is the metaphysical status of IIT? :
•materialism, dualism, idealism,
panpsychism, Russellian monism?
http://consc.net/slides/iit.pdf
Take the God out of pandeism, and you get panpsychism. Put mind into all matter, and you don't need dualism. — Pop
The "god" of PanDeism, or as I prefer PanEnDeism, is only invoked to explain the contingent existence of this world. I call it "The Enformer". And as the Eternal Mind, the Enformer puts "mind into all matter".
Mind/Body Problem :
Philosophers and scientists have long debated the relationship between a physical body and its non-physical properties, such as Life & Mind. Cartesian Dualism resolved the problem temporarily by separating the religious implications of metaphysics (Soul) from the scientific study of physics (Body). But now scientists are beginning to study the mind with their precise instruments, and have found no line of demarcation. So, they see no need for the hypothesis of a spiritual Soul added to the body by God. However, Enformationism resolves the problem by a return to Monism, except that the fundamental substance is meta-physical Information instead of physical Matter.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mind%E2%80%93body_problem
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/
http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page16.html
That would be a gag-order for the whole profession, and for us amateurs. — Gnomon
No I don't think so at all. — Pop
I think you missed my tongue-in-cheek point. :joke:
Re: TPF : What is Information?
There seems to be an information game at play, where information informs and constricts our reality, — Pop
If our reality is a game, who is the player, and who are the pawns?
If our reality is a game, who is the player, and who are the pawns?
Re: TPF : What is Information?
Information is the interaction that occurs at all perspectives of such systems. — Pop
That's similar to what I call "inter-relationships"
Systems Theory :
A system can be more than the sum of its parts, if it expresses synergy or emergent behavior. Changing one part of the system usually affects other parts and the whole system, with predictable patterns of behavior. More parts, means more interrelationships, and more complex properties & activities, including mental functions.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Systems_theory
That's similar to what I call "inter-relationships"
Systems Theory :
A system can be more than the sum of its parts, if it expresses synergy or emergent behavior. Changing one part of the system usually affects other parts and the whole system, with predictable patterns of behavior. More parts, means more interrelationships, and more complex properties & activities, including mental functions.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Systems_theory
Re: TPF : What is Information?
↪Pop
Check-out this site : https://www.incrementalcompressionconje ... om/summary
The link is in the PF thread : https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussi ... nformation
I've only read the Summary. But, "incremental compression" sounds like another way to say "integrated information". Some people are looking for the secret of Consciousness in the Quantum Realm, but they may be missing the Whole, while looking at the Parts. Sometimes we can't see the Forest for the Trees.
Check-out this site : https://www.incrementalcompressionconje ... om/summary
The link is in the PF thread : https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussi ... nformation
I've only read the Summary. But, "incremental compression" sounds like another way to say "integrated information". Some people are looking for the secret of Consciousness in the Quantum Realm, but they may be missing the Whole, while looking at the Parts. Sometimes we can't see the Forest for the Trees.
Re: TPF : What is Information?
Information is the interaction that occurs at all perspectives of such systems.
— Pop
That's similar to what I call "inter-relationships" — Gnomon
I'm glad we have a similar in outlook. — Pop
The book I'm currently reading, about The Anthropic Principle, frequently uses the words "crux" and "crucial". The metaphorical reference is to the point where paths cross and change occurs (a coincidence). Which is also where "interaction" occurs, and where we "see" inter-relationships with the mind's eye of Reason. One example might be isolated sub-atomic particles that come together (accidentally or coincidentally), and are thereafter "entangled", into a holistic system.
Entanglement is a mysterious relationship, but it seems to have something to do with Conscious minds. In some sense, each particle is Informed by the other. And conscious observers are somehow able to measure the meaning (or value) of that inter-action-at-a-distance. Which Einstein thought was "spooky", and couldn't be true, because it seemed Magical instead of Physical. Yet, a century later, we seem to be stuck with that spooky reality. Moreover, the effect of an Observation on the super-position of an intangible "wave", which magically & instantly converts from Meta-physical mathematical "wave-function" into a Physical "particle" of matter, again implies the old mind-over-matter concept that has traditionally been applied to Magic.
Like Einstein, I don't believe in Magic -- in the traditional sense -- but I do believe in the power of Information to affect & influence both Mind and Matter. That's what I call EnFormAction, the power to cause changes in form, of both Objects and Ideas. It's not Magic, it's a Coincidence. And that's the crux of Enformationism.
Quantum Entanglement :
Entangled particles can become widely separated in space. But even so, the mathematics implies that a measurement on one immediately influences the other, regardless of the distance between them.
https://www.technologyreview.com/2012/0 ... n-thought/
The verb "To Measure" originally meant : to extract information from an object into a mind (L. mens-). To take-the-measure of something, is to remove a piece of the "essence" of that thing. And I think that "intrinsic quality" is what we now call Information about the thing.
An entangled system is defined to be one whose quantum state cannot be factored as a product of states of its local constituents;
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_entanglement
— Pop
That's similar to what I call "inter-relationships" — Gnomon
I'm glad we have a similar in outlook. — Pop
The book I'm currently reading, about The Anthropic Principle, frequently uses the words "crux" and "crucial". The metaphorical reference is to the point where paths cross and change occurs (a coincidence). Which is also where "interaction" occurs, and where we "see" inter-relationships with the mind's eye of Reason. One example might be isolated sub-atomic particles that come together (accidentally or coincidentally), and are thereafter "entangled", into a holistic system.
Entanglement is a mysterious relationship, but it seems to have something to do with Conscious minds. In some sense, each particle is Informed by the other. And conscious observers are somehow able to measure the meaning (or value) of that inter-action-at-a-distance. Which Einstein thought was "spooky", and couldn't be true, because it seemed Magical instead of Physical. Yet, a century later, we seem to be stuck with that spooky reality. Moreover, the effect of an Observation on the super-position of an intangible "wave", which magically & instantly converts from Meta-physical mathematical "wave-function" into a Physical "particle" of matter, again implies the old mind-over-matter concept that has traditionally been applied to Magic.
Like Einstein, I don't believe in Magic -- in the traditional sense -- but I do believe in the power of Information to affect & influence both Mind and Matter. That's what I call EnFormAction, the power to cause changes in form, of both Objects and Ideas. It's not Magic, it's a Coincidence. And that's the crux of Enformationism.
Quantum Entanglement :
Entangled particles can become widely separated in space. But even so, the mathematics implies that a measurement on one immediately influences the other, regardless of the distance between them.
https://www.technologyreview.com/2012/0 ... n-thought/
The verb "To Measure" originally meant : to extract information from an object into a mind (L. mens-). To take-the-measure of something, is to remove a piece of the "essence" of that thing. And I think that "intrinsic quality" is what we now call Information about the thing.
An entangled system is defined to be one whose quantum state cannot be factored as a product of states of its local constituents;
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_entanglement
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 35 guests