TPF : Field Theories of Consciousness

[Gnomon]

Uniting CEMI and Coherence Field Theories of Consciousness

CEMI (Conscious Electromagnetic Information) theory claims that synchronous neuron firing generates strong electromagnetic fields which build up such that even further neurons are activated via an amplifying feedback loop. — Enrique

CEMI seems to be an adjunct to IIT (Integrated Information Theory). And it's similar in some ways to my own informal theory of Consciousness. Whereas, CEMI uses the metaphor of a physical electromagnetic field (EMF), I call it a metaphysical "Information Field". That's because, in my philosophical model, Information (EnFormAction ; causation) is prior-to physical reality. It's more like Energy in the sense of immeasurable (Potential) causation, than Matter as measurable stuff. Note : Energy is only measurable in its material effects, after the causal event.

A somewhat more concrete metaphor is to compare an "Information Field" to a Quantum Field. Unlike an EMF, a QF is composed of Virtual Particles (continuous mathematical waves) that have the Potential to become Actual bits of measurable matter (photons). The "perturbation" that triggers the phase transition from Potential to Actual is the completion of an Information "feedback loop". That works like completing an electrical circuit from battery to machine and back again to the Source. As I mentioned, this is a meta-physical philosophical hypothesis instead of a physical scientific theory. But, even the various scientific theories must eventually deal with the mysterious Mental aspects of Consciousness & Information.

What is Information? :
The Power to Enform
http://bothandblog6.enformationism.info/page16.html

[Gnomon]

It is difficult for me to conceive of substantive causality as immaterial or lacking in matter (I'm more of a hylomorphism than ideal Forms guy), but posters at this forum seem to promote the idea that potential, some sort of latency, actually exists in a sense. This has led me to ponder what a physical field actually is and how it differs from the alleged informational substrate so popular with philosophers. — Enrique

Part of the difficulty in conceiving of Causality is that we only observe it indirectly in its effects on Matter. Therefore, we typically discuss the Form (Potential) half of hylomophism in terms of the part we know via our physical senses (Actual). Even our metaphysical metaphors are borrowed from examples of the sensory stuff. That's because we only know invisible Forms (abstract pattern ; intentional design) by rational inference & intuitive imagination. But of course, unlike empirical Scientists, theoretical Philosophers have no technological sensory extensions, hence are limited to the use of their old-fashioned rational tools for investigation of metaphysical topics, like Being, Qualia, and Logic. Those immaterial ideas are off-limits to empirical study.

Nevertheless, an old outdated Philosopher analyzed the general notion of Causality into four parts : 1> Formal (Potential or Conceptual) ; 2. Efficient (Energy ; Agency) ; 3> Material (Matter) ; and 4> Final (Purpose). The first & fourth causes are knowable only by philosophical reasoning, while the second & third are subject to empirical Scientific methods. Most modern philosophers have been taught to defer to scientists for knowledge of Reality. But they may forget that the philosophical tool of Reason is what ultimately makes sense of our physical sensations. Since primary (1) Causes are always potential, we can only infer them by rational inference from measurable changes in the stuff our senses are tuned to (2 & 3). Ironically. by following the methods of Empiricism, Philosophers may miss the implications of (4) intentional Purposes (i.e. reasons). Bumbling Nature is assumed to have no purposes, so any knowable & directional patterns must be accidental. And even reliable Energy is not viewed as purposeful Agency. That no-nonsense approach is good for Pragmatic Science, but it makes Theoretical Philosophy impotent to learn anything that is not obvious to the physical senses.

Such aspects of Reality as Existence (Being) and Qualia (Concepts) are often taken for granted, and not subjected to the penetrating gaze of Rational Inference (induction from specific examples to a general conclusion). Specific things are physical & empirical. but general theories are metaphysical & hypothetical. Most of Einstein's contributions to science (Relativity) fall into the latter category, because the concept came before the confirming evidence. Likewise, philosophical scientists postulate "physical fields" to explain puzzling observations, such as the wave/particle nature of light. The answer given below, to your question of what a Field "actually is", provides contradictory or paradoxical examples : "indivisible particles" ; "invisible forces", and "empty space". But even those antithetical notions make sense in terms of post-Shannon Information Theory. Yet, Potential does not exist "actually", but only as the "latency" that Plato called Ideal Forms : the source of all Real things in the world. Hence, Potential is not "Substantive" but Abstract. And Fields are Mathematical (Rational), not Material (Physical).

Hylomorphism : every natural body consists of two intrinsic principles, one potential, namely, primary matter, and one actual, namely, substantial form.
Note -- Ironically, Aristotle's "primary matter" is equivalent to Plato's ideal "Form" ("Prime matter is matter with no substantial form of its own') . and his "form" is the substantial stuff we know as "Matter". Confusing, no?

Metaphysical :
Topics of metaphysical investigation include existence, objects and their properties, space and time, cause and effect, and possibility. Metaphysics is considered one of the four main branches of philosophy, along with epistemology, logic, and ethics.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metaphysics

What are Quantum Fields made of? :
Instead of continuous, solid objects, matter is composed of indivisible quantum particles, held together through invisible forces that act across empty space.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswith ... 77f1ef777a

What is "alleged" Information? :
The Power to Enform
http://bothandblog6.enformationism.info/page16.html

Abstract : 1.existing in thought or as an idea but not having a physical or concrete existence.
Latent : (of a quality or state) existing but not yet developed or manifest; hidden or concealed.

(By the way, a poster at this site informed me that "EMF" stands for electromotive force, not EM field. I was appreciative he pointed that out to me, so I'll relay it to you.) — Enrique

Yes, but I defined my abbreviation in the same post : EMF = ElectroMagnetic Field, as a parallel to CEMI.

[Gnomon]

I think science supports the assertion that empty space does not exist. . . . . So I'm essentially claiming that fields are physical rather than purely mathematical entities. — Enrique

Yes. But space only exists where there is matter to occupy it, and to provide the curvature we call "Gravity". For example, classical Newtonian physics could not explain how gravity could be "propagated" between bodies, since cause & effect always required some material to transmit the causation. Therefore, the notion of Aether was postulated as a medium for the transmission of forces across the emptiness.

Now though, the general assumption is that vacuum is never completely void : it always has "latent" energy, which is not Actual energy, but merely Potential energy. Yet, that not-quite-real substance is also called a "Quantum Field". But it's still mathematically defined in essentially the same way as Aether. So, for anyone without high-tech instruments, interstellar space appears to human senses as nothingness.

Moreover, the hypothetical field of "zero point energy" can only be measured indirectly, because it is so close to Zero as to be essentially nothing. However, on a cosmic scale there must be enough of it to function as the Cosmic Constant (an unmeasured mathematical concept), which is relied upon to explain the expansion of the universe. So, the hypothetical notions of Aether, Vacuum Energy, and Quantum Fields are useful only for theoretical & mathematical purposes. And that's what I call "meta-physical"


What's the Energy Density of the Vacuum? :
In quantum field theory we are neglecting gravity. This means we are free to add any constant whatsoever to our definition of energy density. As long as we are free to do this, we can't really say what the vacuum energy density "really is". In other words, if we only consider quantum field theory and not general relativity, the vacuum energy density is NOT DETERMINED.
https://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/vacuum.html


Perhaps you can clarify: what is the substance of reasoning/inference, how is it fundamentally abstract, and when intention is given causal precedence in your philosophy, . . . — Enrique

In my thesis, the "substance" of Reasoning is EnFormAction. That's not a scientific hypothesis, but a philosophical thesis, based on post-Shannon Information Theory. Shannon's "Information" was all-or-nothing (1 or 0), while mine is all-of-the-above (0 . . . 100%). It's both Matter & Mind. So, for me, Generic Information is the Aristotelian "Substance" (essence) of everything in our world.

"Intention" is an inherently teleological (purposeful ; goal oriented) direction. And the universe is obviously moving not in just one direction, but in all directions. So, the power behind the expansion is literally Omnidirectional. But, since the ultimate goal of cosmic evolution is not apparent to us, most, but not all, scientists simply assume that there must be no purpose to it. Hence, the implication is that randomness rules. How then to explain the orderly patterns that science is built upon, and which are epitomized in the human Mind?

However, a few pioneering scientists have inferred some kind of Intention, in order to explain the "array of puzzling scientific “coincidences”, such as the unique “initial conditions” and “fine-tuned constants” that seemed arbitrarily selected to produce a world with living & thinking creatures". That conclusion is typically known as "The Anthropic Cosmological Principle". So, there are plenty of philosophical reasons to agree with Aristotle, that an intentional First Cause was logically necessary to get what-we-now-call-evolution started. Evolution may be randomized (shuffled cards), yet the order of the suits (species) is NOT accidental, but due to "Causal Precedence". :joke:

What is EnFormAction? :
http://bothandblog2.enformationism.info/page29.html

Information is Generic in the sense of generating all forms from a formless pool of possibility : the Platonic Forms.
http://bothandblog2.enformationism.info/page29.html

Intention :
an act or instance of determining mentally upon some action or result. · the end or object intended; purpose.
https://www.dictionary.com/browse/intention

The Anthropic Cosmological Principle :
http://bothandblog7.enformationism.info/page10.html

INTENTION AIMS AT A TARGET
https://www.lionsroar.com/wp-content/up ... n-main.jpg

[Gnomon]

Gravity waves traveling at the speed of light have been detected in outer space, so no aether necessary in that case: gravity propagates in a way similar to electromagnetic radiation. — Enrique

Yes. But even Einstein reluctantly (because of spooky "action at a distance" implications) used the term "aether" to describe the plastic properties of bendable space. In his Relativity model though, it was not pictured as a physical substance, but as an imaginary mathematical "field". Which, in my Information vocabulary, is a Meta-Physical concept instead of a Physical object or substance. The whole idea of curving nothingness was counter-intuitive then, and remains so today. Yet, the math is useful for predicting the behavior of Energy (EnFormAction). So scientists accept the model's utility, even though they don't understand its metaphysical implications.

Aether theories :
Albert Einstein sometimes used the word aether for the gravitational field within general relativity, but the only similarity of this relativistic aether concept with the classical aether models lies in the presence of physical properties in space, which can be identified through the mathematical concept of Geodesics. . . . . It is ironic that Einstein's most creative work, the general theory of relativity, should boil down to conceptualizing space as a medium when his original premise [in special relativity] was that no such medium existed. . . . The modern concept of the vacuum of space, confirmed every day by experiment, is a relativistic ether. But we do not call it this because it is taboo.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aether_theories
Note -- Physicists use Mathematical Fields as imaginary models to represent invisible relationships between ideal points. Those models are physical only in the sense that they are used by Physicists to describe things that are not material objects : invisible relations (links) between things.

HINT : THE GRID IS IMAGINARY, HENCE META-PHYSICAL
1200px-Spacetime_lattice_analogy.svg.png

I would assert that all metaphysical reasoning, to the extent that it is intended to be true, does no more than work out the implications of premises which are more or less arbitrarily assumed to be true at the outset, — Enrique

Yes. It's called "Deductive Reasoning". Which was used by ancient philosophers, long before they had compiled enough empirical evidence to satisfy modern scientific requirements. Einstein predicted that light would bend in a gravity field --- based on logical (not empirical) premises --- before the evidence was obtained. That's why I think of him as a Metaphysican instead of a Physicist.

Deductive reasoning, or deduction, is making an inference based on widely accepted facts or premises. ... Inductive reasoning, or induction, is making an inference based on an observation, often of a sample.
https://www.merriam-webster.com/words-a ... -abduction

I suppose pure mathematics is metaphysical in a sense, but I think its ultimate products are more appropriately identified as conceptual. — Enrique

Yes. In my Enformationism thesis, Mathematics is both Conceptual and Metaphysical. But my definition of Meta-Physics is different from the typical dictionary entry. The key distinction that I make is between sensory "Perception" (eye ; neurons), and rational "Conception" (mind ; meaning). The latter is what Daniel Dennett derisively called "the Cartesian Theater"; where the Mind (homunculus) is the meta-physical (conceptual) observer of the Brain's physical perceptions.

Meta-Physics :
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.
http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page14.html

CARTESIAN THEATER
Metaphysical fried egg as seen by imaginary Homunculus
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/ ... er.svg.png

[Gnomon]

Have you considered the psychology of metaphysics with your philosophy? I'd be interested to read your opinion about this topic considering how deeply you get into metaphysics. If you're talking about transcendent intention and purpose, you must have dabbled in some psychology of cosmic proportions! — Enrique

Of course! What I call "Meta-Physics" IS Psychology, among other things. But It refers to how we Conceive of the world, instead merely how we Perceive it. Originally, the psychology of the Mind was limited to abstract Philosophy. Then Behaviorism, in order to avoid Metaphysical implications, focused attention only on the mechanics of Perception and Animation. But that approach left the "Hard Problem" of Consciousness untouched.

From the times of Plato & Aristotle, the study of mental phenomena ("Information") was limited mostly to Philosophers. But, since Claude Shannon applied that Intellectual concept to Mechanical computers, many people have forgotten that the term originally applied only to the mysterious Metaphysical contents of Cartesian Minds.

Now, since Information Theory has expanded our horizons, the boundaries of Psychology have invaded other fields of science. The "psychology of metaphysics" has evolved beyond the scope of Psychology into the realm of Cosmology. Here's a sampler of recent books, written mainly by scientists, who are not Psychologists, Their common denominator is a role for psychological & physical Information in all aspects of Reality :

Incomplete Nature --- Terrence Deacon , Biologist (Aboutness)

Reality Is Not What It Seems --- Carlo Rovelli , Physicist (Illusions)

Information and the Nature of Reality --- Paul Davies, et al , Physicist (From Physics to Metaphysics)

Worlds Hidden in Plain Sight --- David Krakauer, ed , (Complexity)

From Matter to Life --- Paul Davies, et al , Cosmologist , (Information and Causality)

So, if you too want to "dabble" in spooky mental meta-physics, I'm available to show you how "transcendent intention and purpose" can be found in the Metaphysical (Ideal) and the Physical (Real) World. If you know where to look.

Note -- this thread may not be the appropriate place for such distractions.

[Gnomon]

Interesting how Einstein likened the substrate of general relativity to aether. Goes to show how much of a realist he was, — Enrique

Yes. Einstein initiated the new paradigm of Quantum Theory, but as a realist, he resisted its idealist implications for years. He also resisted the new paradigm of cosmology that we call the Big Bang, because he believed the universe was revolving in place, hence eternal. However, I think he was open-minded enough that, if he was alive today, he would accept the preponderance of evidence supporting both of those new worldviews.

The Enformationism thesis is my amateur synopsis of another new paradigm : an "information theoretic" worldview. As one writer put it, this is another "Copernican Revolution" in perspective. But, we are still in the early stages of constructing a scientific model around the notion of Information as the fundamental basis of reality. Note that in the links below, it's still posed as a question, not a fact. However, I have adopted the universality & ubiquity of Generic Information as the core of my personal philosophical worldview.


Is Information Fundamental? :
https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/article/i ... ndamental/

Is information the only thing that exists? :
Physics suggests information is more fundamental than matter, energy, space and time – the problems start when we try to work out what that means
https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg ... at-exists/

Copernican Revolution, shift in the field of astronomy from a geocentric understanding of the universe, centred around Earth, to a heliocentric understanding, centred around the Sun, as articulated by the Polish astronomer Nicolaus Copernicus in the 16th century.

Must admit that I don't yet understand why reifying information has become the standard. Seems strange that the concept of information is so liberally applied to physical structures which are not organized such that they have the capacity to interpret it."It from bit" makes no sense to me except from the perspective of a mathematical modeling that is specific to humanlike minds, but I'll have to check out the books you've recommended and then perhaps I will comprehend better. — Enrique

"It From Bit" is indeed a counter-intuitive concept. But when you assemble the scrambled pieces of the Quantum puzzle, including the "Observer Effect", the whole picture will begin to make sense. The books you referred to will help you to accept the reification of Information. But, if you don't have time to peruse them all, I have reviews of several of them on my blog.

Although Enformationism posits that a First Cause is logically necessary, to light the fuse of the Big Bang, it does not imply any particular religious interpretation. That Creative Enformer remains beyond the reach of empirical science, because it is literally out-of-this-world. However, I am willing to label my worldview as Deistic, and specifically as PanEnDeistic. That's a philosophical position, not a religion.


It From Bit :
In 1990, Wheeler suggested that information is fundamental to the physics of the universe. According to this "it from bit" doctrine, all things physical are information-theoretic in origin:
Wheeler: It from bit. Otherwise put, every it — every particle, every field of force, even the space-time continuum itself — derives its function, its meaning, its very existence entirely — even if in some contexts indirectly — from the apparatus-elicited answers to yes-or-no questions, binary choices, bits. It from bit symbolizes the idea that every item of the physical world has at bottom — a very deep bottom, in most instances — an immaterial source and explanation; that which we call reality arises in the last analysis from the posing of yes-no questions and the registering of equipment-evoked responses; in short, that all things physical are information-theoretic in origin and that this is a participatory universe
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Archibald_Wheeler


The Anthropic Cosmological Principle :
In the foreword, prominent physicist John Archibald Wheeler summarized the philosophical meaning of this scientific data : “It is not only that man is adapted to the universe . . .”, as implied by Darwin’s Theory of Evolution, but that, “the universe is adapted to man.”
http://bothandblog7.enformationism.info/page10.html

[Gnomon]

But "it from bit", which he claims as reduction to a "yes and no" interrogation of existence seems manifestly superficial and even pernicious. — Enrique

As I see it, the existential impact of 21st century Science is 1> to reopen the God-question, that was a closed book since the Enlightenment rejection of biblical authority, 2> to reassess the role of Consciousness in a world of thinking machines, and 3> to undermine the classical physics of Atomism & Materialism. First, the Big Bang theory slammed the door on assumptions of a self-existent world, with no role for a Creator. Then, Information theory called into question the role of humanity as the dominant thinkers of the world. And finally, the replacement of material particles with ethereal Quantum Fields, as the fundamental substance of Reality, pulls the rug from under the classical Physical paradigm of "what you see is all there is".

I'm not sure what you mean by "it from bit" reduces existence to "yes or no". In my view, it expands the 21st century paradigm of science to include all-of-the-above. By that I mean, shape-shifting Information (Potential) is the essence of Matter & Mind & Energy. It's both Physical (Matter, Energy) and Meta-Physical (Mind). In what sense is the notion that real Matter (IT) is derived from essential Information (BIT), "superficial and pernicious"? It may be harmful to outdated scientific paradigms, but it should be beneficial for constructing new models of Reality. For many of us, nineteenth century Materialism is much more appealing to common-sense. But, philosophers & scientists need to go beyond common-knowledge. and learn to adapt their Darwinian ape-sense to fit the counter-intuitive "facts" of post-Quantum science.

How is a philosophy of information theory going to be integrated into cultural evolution as the predominant paradigm while meeting these challenges? Perhaps you can give this some informed thought. — Enrique

I have given it some considerable thought. And my Enformationism website was a first step in the direction of constructing a new paradigm upon the ashes of the old. But I'm not the only one involved in this Copernican Revolution. The webpage and the blog have links to many books and organizations that are on the forefront of this emerging worldview. However, I don't expect my puny personal efforts to have much impact on cultural evolution. Only if & when these new ideas catch-on among philosophers and scientists though, will it have a chance for widespread effects around the world.

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

What to do about all of this? — Enrique

First educate yourself. Then spread the word. Then do what you can do. Unfortunately, at the moment, this is an abstruse intellectual worldview, and it will take time for it to trickle-down, so to speak, to the common folk. And I don't expect to live to see Materialsm and Spiritualism replaced by Enformationism. .

http://enformationism.info/enformationi ... 7d7_06.png

[Gnomon]

That science has a role in addressing the significance for humanity of what we call God is an interesting proposal. — Enrique

Here's a blog post to address the notion of "The God of Science", from the perspective of the Enformationism thesis.

The G*D of Science :
Eternal External Causal Agent
http://bothandblog3.enformationism.info/page29.html

Introduction to Enformationism :
From Form to Energy to Matter to Mind to Self
http://bothandblog6.enformationism.info/page80.html

I agree with you that matter and mind arise from the same basic substance and knowledge in these domains is mutually reinforcing: they expand together. — Enrique

in my thesis that fundamental Substance is more like Energy than Matter. And it's equivalent to Aristotle's definition of abstract "substance" (Ousia), which is what we now call "Essence" or "Potential". For Kant, it was "ding an sich". Those were all logical conjectures, to explain the emergence of new forms from old fhings.

But now we have empirical evidence for the transformation of Energy into Matter and vice-versa. However, Energy is typically labeled "physical" because it can be measured in terms of its effects on matter. Yet, scientists still can't say exactly what Energy IS, essentially. What is energy made of?

So my definition places Energy under the heading of Meta-Physics. because we can never directly know the ding an sich. And even Energy is categorized under the General label of EnFormAction -- the power to Enform, to Cause, to Create. They all "expand" (evolve) together as a single monistic Substance.

[Gnomon]

I know some get into the "rich" symbolic undertones of religion, but I'm pragmatic and not much mystical (though like most I do get inspired), so not what I think about. — Enrique

Me too. When I first started investigating the ubiquitous role of Information in the world, I tried to avoid using the "G" word to describe the logically necessary Enformer behind the Big Bang beginning. But, eventually I gave in to the fact that most cultures are generally agreed on a few essential properties of their "god" models, even as they diverge on specifics : primarily creation of the world, or Ground of Being. And philosophical deities -- such as Brahma, Tao, and Great Spirit -- are more like intellectual Principles than humanoid supermen.

So, I chose to spell the word "G*D" to indicate that it means something different to me, than to most religious believers. The primary distinction is that we no longer need to posit an intervening (meddling) deity to explain most mysteries of Reality. Modern science has provided more likely explanations of cause & effect. However, the First Cause remains unresolved by any of the natural forces in the universe.

On the other hand, what the ancients called "Nature Spirits", causing things to move and change, is better understood as the work of invisible Energy. But, the Enformationism thesis notes that the combination of Quantum and Information theories have concluded that Matter is a tangible form of Energy, and Energy is a causal form of Information. Or as I spell it : EnFormAction --- the power to cause change in form.

Another remaining unresolved question is how to explain the apparent direction of Evolution, from simple things to complex organisms, and from dumb rocks to smart-*ss humans. Where some scientists emphasize the role of Randomness in natural changes, I see that Natural Selection plays the role of preset Criteria (conditions ; values) in a program. So, I can't deny the inference of Intention that was imparted to the space-time world in the Initial Conditions. That's why I conclude that the Enformer was equivalent to a Programmer, who creates a plan with built-in Logic, and an ultimate goal or problem to solve.

Since I have no way of knowing the "Mind of G*D" though, I don't presume to understand the Whys of Creation, or the Final Cause of evolution. Consequently, I have no reason to fear or worship that Ultimate Principle, as-if it was an emotionally volatile human personality. Besides, the creeds and rituals of most Religions are addressed primarily to human Passions (Desires & Fears), not to their evidence-based Reason. That's why Enformationism is not a religious theology, but a philosophical worldview.

[Gnomon]

Because it is omnipresently aware, it has no need to learn in a way comparable to humanity's and certainly no need to write. . . . . so that as consciousness theory advances we might have to increasingly come to terms with a dimension of existence residing beyond the purview of information. — Enrique

In general, that sounds like a description of an ineffable god : immaterial, eternal, infinite, omniscient, etc. And such reasoning is how I came to conclude that a non-dimensional (un-measurable) Cosmic Enformer is necessary to explain why & how our 3D universe suddenly emerged from nowhere. That Creative Principle is indeed beyond the purview of our physical Science, but not inaccessible to philosophical reasoning. As a Meta-Physical (outside the contingent universe) entity, the Creator can only be understood in terms of Generic Information.

Generic Information :
Information is Generic in the sense of generating all real things from a formless pool of possibility : the Ideal Platonic Forms.
http://bothandblog2.enformationism.info/page29.html

G*D :
An ambiguous spelling of the common name for a supernatural deity. The Enformationism thesis is based upon an unprovable axiom that our world is an idea in the mind of G*D. This eternal deity is not imagined in a physical human body, but in a meta-physical mathematical form, equivalent to Logos. Other names : ALL, BEING, Creator, Enformer, MIND, Nature, Reason, Source, Programmer. The eternal Whole of which all temporal things are a part is not to be feared or worshipped, but appreciated like Nature.

I refer to the logically necessary and philosophically essential First & Final Cause as G*D, rather than merely "X" the Unknown, partly out of respect. That’s because the ancients were not stupid, to infer purposeful agencies, but merely shooting in the dark. We now understand the "How" of Nature much better, but not the "Why". That inscrutable agent of Entention is what I mean by G*D.
http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page13.html

How is an infocentric, technocultural paradigm going to approach this in the advent that it proves vital to constructing an accurate model of the world and perhaps humanity's prospects? — Enrique

I suppose the next few generations will use the Information Paradigm in the same way humans have always incorporated a novel technical worldview : by making a Religion out of it. It seems to be human nature to worship or fear whatever is beyond common understanding. So, I'm not making any prophecies or promises.