Phil Forum : Metaphysics

[Gnomon]

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussi ... ent/328704

As per Pythagorean philosophy - a relatively well known example - the perfect circle represents being as a whole, also, arguably a perfect wholesomeness. It used to not represent non-being - as it most often is used to represent today. — javra

I normally use the word "Zero" in the modern sense of nothingness. But, the Greeks, possibly including Pythagoras, found the notion of non-being abhorrent**. For them, the circle was more like a Venn diagram, presumed to contain all possible things, hence Wholeness.

Nevertheless, Zero could also represent Transcendence (infinity, eternity) in the sense of absence of physical objects (no real things; nothingness). That's why I sometimes think of the cosmic compass (or the mathematical number line) beginning at Zero and ending as Infinity, hence encompassing all possible things. In which case Zero and Infinity are the same point in the circle of being .


** Zero : The Biography of a Dangerous Idea, Charles Seife

[Gnomon]

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussi ... what-is-it

Hypothesize with me for a moment that the supposed omega point of existence is that of a universal Moksha, or Nirvana - a non-hyperbolic complete liberation from, or doing away with, samsara on a universal scale. In this hypothetical that borrows from Eastern concepts, causal information - a term I've been using so far that is very similar to that of EnFormAction - would no longer be when this here hypothesized omega point is actualized. — javra

Since my theory of Enformationism is intended to be a scientific theory, I don't normally think in terms of religious concepts. I do use them as analogies and metaphors, such as Brahman = G*D. However, I can see that you might interpret the "heat death" of the universe as a sort of NIrvana (extinguishment, flame going out). Whether it is Moksha or Samsara (emancipation, enlightenment, liberation, and release), I have no idea. It certainly wouldn't apply to me personally, but perhaps to the hypothetical sentient universe (Omega Point) of deChardin.

Besides, the current end-of-the-world-as-we-know-it theory of heat death is actually hyperbolic, in the sense that it approaches infinity (singularity), but never reaches it. So, mathematically, all the energy (information) that the universe began with would fade away, but never disappear completely. Nevertheless, I sometimes imagine that all of the information in this world would complete its cycle by returning to its origin in the eternal-infinite Mind of G*D. But, again, I have no idea of what that would have to do with me personally.

Generic EnFormAction can become anything. But the Information that defines me is unique. Of course, G*D could reincarnate my Self-information, but I don't know why that would happen. Does G*D love me personally? I don't know, but I doubt it.

Do you understand this hypothesized omega point of Moksha/Nirvana to be non-being? (this in regard to your use of "nothingness") — javra

If you are referring to deChardin's Omega Point, no. It would still be a part of this creation, this evolving space-time universe. And it would take a miracle to turn it into an eternal deity. So it would be a "being" (a something) instead of "BEING" (no-thing). Perhaps, a very intelligent and powerful being, but not a world-creating deity.

In my thesis, "nothingness" refers only to the absence of real material things. By contrast, "G*D" refers to all possible (potential but un-actualized) entities. For me, that is basically a mathematical concept instead of a religious notion. I don't expect salvation or liberation from cycles of death and rebirth. As far as I know, this life is a one-shot deal.

If you logically find that the hypothesized omega point is (hence, than non-being does not define it) and is thereby real (as opposed to unreal), then, in the system you're working on, 0 cannot be representative of nonbeing. — javra

I do assume that the Omega Point would be Real (hence, being). And Zero represents no real things (hence, non-being). To avoid confusion, I would refer to "G*D" (BEING) as infinity, and to "Zero" as the state of the Big Bang Singularity prior to the bang (still only potential).

awareness does not exist. — javra

"Awareness" and "Consciousness" are metaphysical, and do not exist in any physical sense. But they do exist as functions (not things) within the created universe, not as disembodied souls or ghosts in some parallel universe.

[Gnomon]

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussi ... what-is-it

What I would observe, is that these are states of being, not putative entities, although they are frequently reified as such. — Wayfarer

Reification : This is how a lot of metaphorical and metaphysical concepts get converted into religious ghosts, spirits, demons, and gods, complete with physical descriptions. For example, ghosts are imagined with transparent ectoplasmic bodies, and angels as men with wings.

[Gnomon]

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussi ... ent/328819

Care to explain what you mean by "live option"? — Metaphysician Undercover

William James defined a "live choice" by contrast to a "dead choice". Obviously, these are metaphors, and probably used to avoid having to say "a real choice", which might imply an ideal/real distinction. A "live choice" is not forced by some outside power, or even logically necessary, but a spontaneous and preferred option -- a freewill choice.

[Gnomon]

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussi ... ent/328819

While I admire the enthusiasm for philosophy you appear to have, I disagree with a number of your premises - as best as I can make them out. I, for example, do agree with Metaphysician Undercover that potential devoid of actuality is technically nonsensical. — javra

Apparently you missed the point. I did not mean to imply that Potential was an isolated power with no connection to Actuality. My analogy of a battery was intended to show how potential can be delayed indefinitely until a choice is made to actualize. To elucidate, G*D is presumed to be omnipotent, but that doesn't mean that all possibilities must be actualized all the time.

A battery is charged with potential (voltage), and it is possible to actualize that latent power in the form of actual current (amperage). But in practice, there is usually an on/off switch between the positive and negative poles, to allow the user to decide when and where the actualization takes place.That's a real world example, but the logic should apply to the ideal world of an omnipotent deity who exercises freewill in choosing when & where (self-control) to apply her otherwise unlimited power.

I take it that by expressing the sentiment I've boldfaced you presume it stands in some measure of contrast to my own views. It does not. — javra

The distinction was intended as a clarification of application, not as a personal put-down.

since the statement, "they exist as purposes (not things)," makes no sense to me, do you mean something along the line of awareness being a mathematical function? If so, yes, this is one of the premises I disagree with. — javra

I didn't say "purposes", but "functions". The brain is a thing (noun), and consciousness is a function (verb) of that thing, not a separate entity, like a soul or ghost. In folk philosophy, functions are often reified as-if they are invisible agents.

"Transportation" is what an automobile does, its function, not an invisible force pushing things around. "Consciousness" is what a brain does, not a disembodied spirit that operates the body & brain like a homunculus in the head. A lot of people would disagree with that assertion, because they believe in an immortal soul, imprisoned in a mortal body..

To sum things up though, you seem to believe that being can arise out of non-being. — javra

No. I believe that individual beings can arise from universal BEING (the power to create). G*D is non-being only in the sense that she is not a creature, but the creator. The relationship is similar to Plato's ideal FORMS as contrasted with real material instances (copies) of the unreal immaterial concept or design.

BEING : http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page10.html
G*D : http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page13.html

[Gnomon]

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussi ... ent/329921

You lose me a bit with your terminology. — javra

I feel your pain.

Since Enformationism is a new way of thinking about the world, I was forced to coin a lot of neologisms to avoid the historical baggage of older terms. A.N. Whitehead (Process and Reality) also coined a lot of new terms and used some old words with new meanings. But he didn't provide a list of those novel ideas for reference. So, although his ideas seemed to make sense in general, I found that following his argument was very difficult due to the ambiguity of terminology. That's why I have created a glossary of Enformationism terminology on a separate website. But if you were really interested in understanding the scientific & philosophical concept that "Information is the essence of reality" in more detail, it would be best to begin at the beginning by reading the whole thesis.

Enformationism Glossary : http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/

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

In your system of representations, is "Zero" (non-being) the same as "G*D" (infinite BEING as transcendent potential)? If yes, they why all the comments on how they are different? If no, then how do you not start off with zero/non-being so as to arrive at being? — javra

I wouldn't worry about such hypotheticals. I don't know any more about G*D than you do. I just have a different way of thinking about G*D.

[Gnomon]

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussi ... ent/329921

But unless you're physicalist, then you will question whether what exists 'in a physical sense' is really the benchmark of 'what is real' - contra the general understanding. After all, physics itself has been unable to locate a truly indivisible particle - well, at least one that can be shown to exist outside the elaborate mathematical model of the 'particle zoo'. — Wayfarer

That's why I prefer to use "physical" or "metaphysical" instead of "real" or "ideal". Plato asserted that his ideal Forms were the true reality, but that does not compute for most people who equate "physical" with "real". In my thesis, Information is both real and ideal; both physical and metaphysical. So I think of it as the intermediary between reality and ideality.

I think the better model of the rational mind is as 'that which perceives meaning'. There is no way to derive 'meaning' from neurobiology, without already assuming that ability; it's not something one can approach 'from the outside', so to speak, because every attempt to understand the relationship between brain and thinking must be an act of interpretation. — Wayfarer

True.

[Gnomon]

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussi ... ent/329921

Voltage is not a form of potential energy, any more than current is a form of actual energy. — Pattern-chaser

The battery metaphor is an analogy between things that are physically different, but functionally similar.

It was not intended to be taken literally. Since no-one knows what Energy is*, we must define it in terms of what it does. In this case Voltage and Current are proxies for Energy. Does that clarify your confusion?

* Energy is a form of Information. But that's a whole 'nother can of metaphysical worms.

[Gnomon]

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussi ... ent/329921

The primary substance is confusion. — Coben

Ha! That's getting deep into metaphysics. And off-topic.

But from the perspective of Enformationism, I think of Greek Chaos as a field of randomness (entropy), like a TV screen with no signal (ordering energy). And Cosmos is the result of applying organizing information (signal) to disorderly static. So in that sense, confusion was indeed the original state of the world, and the "substance" (raw material) from which the Enformer created our little on-going program, like a TV screen with a meaningful image. Is that clear as chaos?

[Gnomon]

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussi ... t-is-it/p8


So, yes, these "potential realities" do not "exist in spacetime" rather they give rise to the actuality that is spacetime. This is also in line with what apokrisis used to go on about; the idea of the "apeiron" and all that. For another take on this idea see also Incomplete Nature by Terence Deacon. — Janus

Good point! This potential vs real argument is another example of how "binary thinking" (either/or, black/white, real/ideal dichotomies) can be confusing when philosophical discussions get way down close to apeiron (infinity). That's why I prefer to speak in terms of a physics/metaphysics continuum. In the Enformationism theory, there is no hard line between Physics (matter) and Meta-Physics (mind). It's all shape-shifting Information, all the way down.

Terrance Deacon, in his attempt to describe how living organisms evolved from non-living things, introduced the paradoxical concept of "the power of absence". This would make no sense to those who are limited to rigid categories. But in Deacon's worldview, Potential is an absence that has the power to create a presence, as-if it was a black hole sucking things into its orbit via gravity, and popping them out on the other side as a new Actuality. A similar concept is the physics of Strange Attractors that seem to exert a pulling "force" toward an empty place in space. Such "absences" seem to be part of our scientific reality, even though they have no material existence. They can only be understood in terms of logical/mathematical Information relationships.

Power of Absence : http://bothandblog3.enformationism.info/page33.html