As for the 'trolls' - not all your critics are trolling. — Wayfarer
On a philosophical forum, I expect rational criticism. That's the whole point of presenting controversial (or idiosyncratic) topics for discussion. Fortunately, only few on this forum are trolls, who engage in passionate bullying instead of dispassionate reasoning. I assume they think they are defending the "revealed truth" of materialistic science (Scientism) from the falsehoods of casuistic Spiritualism. 180proveit likes to refer to non-physical notions as "donut holes without the dough". But I prefer another analogy : the Materialist worldview is like a Zombie : a body without a mind. The trolls also seem to equate "Metaphysics" with Christian Theology, whereas I associate "Meta-Physics" with the "wisdom" of Aristotle's follow-up to The Physics.
I deliberately chose the name Enformationism to indicate an inter-connecting bridge between Spiritualism and Materialism. That consilient notion is based on the recent discoveries indicating that Information (mind-stuff, knowledge, ideas, etc) is essentially the perception of logical Relationships (mathematical Ratios). Shannon himself related Information with Energy in the notion of Entropy. Consequently, some pioneering scientists are touting the concept that Matter, Energy & Information are different forms of the same essential "substance" (in the Aristotelian sense).
What the ancient sages called "spirit" is what we now know as "energy" : invisible forces & causes. And what the early philosophers called "matter" is now known to be merely a different form of Energy. And, in Thermodynamics, Energy is defined in terms of Ratios (relationships), which is also the basis of Reasoning (rational thought). So, I perceive a three-way relationship between causal Energy, substantial Matter, and rational Mind, which is an emergent function of energetic Life. This equation of Causation with Matter and Mind is indeed idiosyncratic and eccentric, in the sense that it is not yet a mainstream "fact" in scientific textbooks.
I came to this BothAnd (matter & mind) worldview late in life. So, I pursue my thesis on internet forums instead of in college classrooms. I don't expect to get any formal recognition for my minor contributions to Science & Philosophy. So, I have to be content with sharing the news with a few open minds on this forum, and on my blog. It's not a religion, but it serves as a sort of philosophical replacement for the religious worldview I was indoctrinated with as a child. Unfortunately, with no Bible to guide me, I'm like a child wandering in the wilderness. This forum provides feedback to help me get my bearings.
Aristotle’s Metaphysics :
Aristotle himself described his subject matter in a variety of ways: as ‘first philosophy’, or ‘the study of being qua being’, or ‘wisdom’, or ‘theology’. A comment on these descriptions will help to clarify Aristotle’s topic. . . . .
In Metaphysics Α.1, Aristotle says that “everyone takes what is called ‘wisdom’ (sophia) to be concerned with the primary causes (aitia) and the starting-points (or principles, archai)” (981b28), and it is these causes and principles that he proposes to study in this work.
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/aris ... taphysics/
Information, Matter and Energy – a non-linear world-view :
Hence, nature can no longer be interpreted by means of matter and energy alone - a
third component is required: information.
https://biophysics.sbg.ac.at/paper/biosem-madl-2006.pdf
↪Metaphysician Undercover
TPF : Non-Physical Reality
Re: TPF : Non-Physical Reality
I've never liked that 'Skeptical Enquirer' rag, although I noted with surprise the recent online interview between one of its founders, Michael Shermer, and Bernardo Kastrup, which was surprisingly congenial, I thought, causing me to re-consider a little.) — Wayfarer
I have subscribed to Skeptical Inquirer and Skeptic magazine for over 50 years. So, I'm well-informed about Pseudoscience & Paranormal pros & cons. SI is mainly focused on pop-sci UFO & Bigfoot controversies, while Skeptic seems to be more interested in the philosophical angle of Science versus Metaphysics.
Shermer is definitely on the side of physical Science, but he gives counter-paradigm proponents, such as Kastrup, the benefit of the doubt, as long as they don't stray too far from "established facts". He usually seems open to alternative interpretations of non-empirical speculative science, especially Quantum queerness. Which is also how I try to approach such debatable ideas. My own worldview is based on avant-garde scientific concepts, that have not yet made their way into the textbooks. An early deviation from the materialistic model was John A. Wheeler's "it from bit", which called into question the fundamental element or essence of physics. His heretical opinions about Materialist assumptions were tolerated only because his scientific credentials were impeccable ; yet "it from bit" remains a footnote in mainstream textbooks.
Even Einstein was disturbed by some of the metaphysical & idealistic implications of his own paradigm-busting ideas of Relativity & Light Quanta. But, he also insisted, that for him, imagination is more important than knowledge. And in that sense, Enformationism remains imaginary, since verification of nonphysical phenomena is still difficult. However some very smart people are also thinking along the same lines. I can take some comfort in knowing that someone as perceptive as Kastrup, has had his innovative ideas rejected as "voodoo" by prominent scientists.
My own experience with labels of "woo-mongering" have also caused me to reconsider, not the foundations of my worldview, but the way I express concepts that challenge the prevailing paradigm of Materialism, as its presumptions are gradually undermined by bits of quantum information.
A Super-Simple, Non-Quantum Theory of Eternal Consciousness "
In “Should Quantum Anomalies Make Us Rethink Reality?”, recently posted by Scientific American, Kastrup contends that quantum mechanics—as well as cognitive science, which suggests that minds construct rather than passively mirroring reality--undermines the assumption that the physical world exists independently of our observations. He calls for a new paradigm that makes mind “the essence—cognitively but also physically—of what we perceive when we look at the world around ourselves.”
___John Horgan, Scientific American magazine
https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/cr ... ciousness/
It From Bit :
"It from bit symbolises the idea that every item of the physical world has at bottom — at a very deep bottom, in most instances — an immaterial source and explanation; that what 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 this is a participatory universe." ___John A, Wheeler, physicist
https://mindmatters.ai/2021/05/it-from- ... and-wrong/
I have subscribed to Skeptical Inquirer and Skeptic magazine for over 50 years. So, I'm well-informed about Pseudoscience & Paranormal pros & cons. SI is mainly focused on pop-sci UFO & Bigfoot controversies, while Skeptic seems to be more interested in the philosophical angle of Science versus Metaphysics.
Shermer is definitely on the side of physical Science, but he gives counter-paradigm proponents, such as Kastrup, the benefit of the doubt, as long as they don't stray too far from "established facts". He usually seems open to alternative interpretations of non-empirical speculative science, especially Quantum queerness. Which is also how I try to approach such debatable ideas. My own worldview is based on avant-garde scientific concepts, that have not yet made their way into the textbooks. An early deviation from the materialistic model was John A. Wheeler's "it from bit", which called into question the fundamental element or essence of physics. His heretical opinions about Materialist assumptions were tolerated only because his scientific credentials were impeccable ; yet "it from bit" remains a footnote in mainstream textbooks.
Even Einstein was disturbed by some of the metaphysical & idealistic implications of his own paradigm-busting ideas of Relativity & Light Quanta. But, he also insisted, that for him, imagination is more important than knowledge. And in that sense, Enformationism remains imaginary, since verification of nonphysical phenomena is still difficult. However some very smart people are also thinking along the same lines. I can take some comfort in knowing that someone as perceptive as Kastrup, has had his innovative ideas rejected as "voodoo" by prominent scientists.
My own experience with labels of "woo-mongering" have also caused me to reconsider, not the foundations of my worldview, but the way I express concepts that challenge the prevailing paradigm of Materialism, as its presumptions are gradually undermined by bits of quantum information.
A Super-Simple, Non-Quantum Theory of Eternal Consciousness "
In “Should Quantum Anomalies Make Us Rethink Reality?”, recently posted by Scientific American, Kastrup contends that quantum mechanics—as well as cognitive science, which suggests that minds construct rather than passively mirroring reality--undermines the assumption that the physical world exists independently of our observations. He calls for a new paradigm that makes mind “the essence—cognitively but also physically—of what we perceive when we look at the world around ourselves.”
___John Horgan, Scientific American magazine
https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/cr ... ciousness/
It From Bit :
"It from bit symbolises the idea that every item of the physical world has at bottom — at a very deep bottom, in most instances — an immaterial source and explanation; that what 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 this is a participatory universe." ___John A, Wheeler, physicist
https://mindmatters.ai/2021/05/it-from- ... and-wrong/
Re: TPF : Non-Physical Reality
Fair enough. But remember Aristotle's dualism was of matter and form (hyle-morphe), not matter and spirit. — Wayfarer
Yes. But, from the perspective of Information theory, I place Hyle in the modern category of matter (physical substance), and "morphe" or "form" in the class of In-form-ation (mental -- design, pattern, meaning). And my thesis interprets the ancient notion of "spirit" (psyche, anima, atman, elan vital) as various interpretations of Energy as Causation & Trans-form-ation. Ultimately, everything in the space-time world is a unique form of shape-shifting EnFormAction (power + design + causation). Therefore, "spirit" is just one of many ways to characterize the particular expressions of Potential Platonic "Form", and Actual Aristotelian "Form". So, it's all Information/EnFormAction, all the way down.
EnFormAction :
Unsatisfied with religious myths and scientific paradigms, I have begun to develop my own personal philosophical world-view, based on the hypothesis that immaterial logico-mathematical "Information" (in both noun & verb forms) is more fundamental to our reality than the elements of classical philosophy and the matter & energy of modern Materialism. For technical treatments, I had to make-up a new word to summarize the multilevel and multiform roles of generic Information in the ongoing creative act of Evolution. I call it EnFormAction.
BothAnd Blog, post 60
SAME EN-FORM-ACTION ALL THE WAY DOWN
https://cdn.pixabay.com/photo/2017/09/1 ... 60_720.jpg
Yes. But, from the perspective of Information theory, I place Hyle in the modern category of matter (physical substance), and "morphe" or "form" in the class of In-form-ation (mental -- design, pattern, meaning). And my thesis interprets the ancient notion of "spirit" (psyche, anima, atman, elan vital) as various interpretations of Energy as Causation & Trans-form-ation. Ultimately, everything in the space-time world is a unique form of shape-shifting EnFormAction (power + design + causation). Therefore, "spirit" is just one of many ways to characterize the particular expressions of Potential Platonic "Form", and Actual Aristotelian "Form". So, it's all Information/EnFormAction, all the way down.
EnFormAction :
Unsatisfied with religious myths and scientific paradigms, I have begun to develop my own personal philosophical world-view, based on the hypothesis that immaterial logico-mathematical "Information" (in both noun & verb forms) is more fundamental to our reality than the elements of classical philosophy and the matter & energy of modern Materialism. For technical treatments, I had to make-up a new word to summarize the multilevel and multiform roles of generic Information in the ongoing creative act of Evolution. I call it EnFormAction.
BothAnd Blog, post 60
SAME EN-FORM-ACTION ALL THE WAY DOWN
https://cdn.pixabay.com/photo/2017/09/1 ... 60_720.jpg
Re: TPF : Non-Physical Reality
The issue is then how do your recover what folk think they mean by meaning, consciousness, mind, intentionality, agency, etc, from an infodynamic perspective? . . .
The theory isn't complete until it is the meaningfulness of signs all the way down, coupled to the meaningless of material contingency all the way up. — apokrisis
Since "infodynamics" is based on Shannon's definition of "information" in terms of Entropy & Thermodynamics, I tend to avoid that approach, in favor of a more general & less physical interpretation. Infodynamics may be a useful way to think about Information as a scientific concept. But my interest in Information is as a philosophical notion. Unfortunately, there are a few nagging gnats that view every topic from a reductive/scientific/materialistic perspective. I try to ignore them, but sometimes I have to swat at them, as they buzz in my face. It's OK though. They are a minor nuisance.
Enformy (analogy to thermodynamics):
In the Enformationism theory, Enformy is a hypothetical, holistic, metaphysical, natural trend, opposite to that of Entropy & Randomness, to produce Complexity & Progress. It is the mysterious tendency for aimless energy to occasionally create the stable, but temporary, patterns we call Matter, Life, and Mind.
BothAnd Blog, post 28
Note -- In thermodynamics, what I call "Enformy" (philosophical concept) is known as "Negentropy" (physical term).
But to be a success, this reduction to "atoms of form" has to incorporate more than just a process metaphysics to take the edge off the hard materialism (that wants to oppose itself to the fluffy idealism). — apokrisis
Yes. When John A. Wheeler spoke of "bits" of Information, he was metaphorically imagining them as "atoms of form". Yet, "bits" by themselves have little-to-no influence on the real world. It's only in the corporate form of Systems or Wholes, and their related Processes, that atoms of information add-up to the dynamic physical swarms that we call physical objects.
It will take someone better informed on Semiology to interpret the various meanings of bits of information all-the-way-down and back-up again. As an amateur, I have to avoid getting bogged-down in philosophical technicalities that are over my head. Would you like to volunteer for the job of Information Semilologist?
So, it's all Information/EnFormAction, all the way down. — Gnomon
— apokrisis Yes. And that is matched to? And the third thing that is a meaningful balance of the opposing forces of spontaneity and constraint is being explicitly offered in the theory where?
Good question. I may get into the details of that dynamic "balance" in a later post. But it's all about creative Enformy counter-balancing destructive Entropy.
The theory isn't complete until it is the meaningfulness of signs all the way down, coupled to the meaningless of material contingency all the way up. — apokrisis
Since "infodynamics" is based on Shannon's definition of "information" in terms of Entropy & Thermodynamics, I tend to avoid that approach, in favor of a more general & less physical interpretation. Infodynamics may be a useful way to think about Information as a scientific concept. But my interest in Information is as a philosophical notion. Unfortunately, there are a few nagging gnats that view every topic from a reductive/scientific/materialistic perspective. I try to ignore them, but sometimes I have to swat at them, as they buzz in my face. It's OK though. They are a minor nuisance.
Enformy (analogy to thermodynamics):
In the Enformationism theory, Enformy is a hypothetical, holistic, metaphysical, natural trend, opposite to that of Entropy & Randomness, to produce Complexity & Progress. It is the mysterious tendency for aimless energy to occasionally create the stable, but temporary, patterns we call Matter, Life, and Mind.
BothAnd Blog, post 28
Note -- In thermodynamics, what I call "Enformy" (philosophical concept) is known as "Negentropy" (physical term).
But to be a success, this reduction to "atoms of form" has to incorporate more than just a process metaphysics to take the edge off the hard materialism (that wants to oppose itself to the fluffy idealism). — apokrisis
Yes. When John A. Wheeler spoke of "bits" of Information, he was metaphorically imagining them as "atoms of form". Yet, "bits" by themselves have little-to-no influence on the real world. It's only in the corporate form of Systems or Wholes, and their related Processes, that atoms of information add-up to the dynamic physical swarms that we call physical objects.
It will take someone better informed on Semiology to interpret the various meanings of bits of information all-the-way-down and back-up again. As an amateur, I have to avoid getting bogged-down in philosophical technicalities that are over my head. Would you like to volunteer for the job of Information Semilologist?
So, it's all Information/EnFormAction, all the way down. — Gnomon
— apokrisis Yes. And that is matched to? And the third thing that is a meaningful balance of the opposing forces of spontaneity and constraint is being explicitly offered in the theory where?
Good question. I may get into the details of that dynamic "balance" in a later post. But it's all about creative Enformy counter-balancing destructive Entropy.
Re: TPF : Non-Physical Reality
But my interest in Information is as a philosophical notion. — Gnomon
So more intuitive than mathematical? What is gained by sacrificing full rigour here? — apokrisis
What-is-gained is, as you say, a notion that is "more intuitive than mathematical". I am not a mathematician. So, as an amateur philosopher, with no formal training, if I tried to present my Information thesis in mathematical terms, I would be out of my depth. That's why I have to depend on links to specialists, for those who desire a more rigorous treatment. Please click on some of my links for "full rigour".
Of course telling your own tale in your own words is fair enough if you just want to arrive at your own synthesis of where modern science has got to. — apokrisis
Yes. I'm not pretending to be an expert in the science of Information. So, I merely use the speculations & conclusions of scientific professionals as evidence to support my own amateur philosophical conjectures. For example, the link below agrees with my contention that "information is the fundamental building block of the universe". If you have any technical questions, please contact the author.
New experiment could confirm the fifth state of matter in the universe :
Dr. Vopson's previous research suggests that information is the fundamental building block of the universe and has physical mass. . . .
He even claims that information could be the elusive dark matter that makes up almost a third of the universe. ___Physicist Dr. Melvin Vopson
https://phys.org/news/2022-03-state-universe.html
IS THIS RIGOROUS ENOUGH FOR YOU?
https://scx1.b-cdn.net/csz/news/800a/20 ... ould-c.jpg
So more intuitive than mathematical? What is gained by sacrificing full rigour here? — apokrisis
What-is-gained is, as you say, a notion that is "more intuitive than mathematical". I am not a mathematician. So, as an amateur philosopher, with no formal training, if I tried to present my Information thesis in mathematical terms, I would be out of my depth. That's why I have to depend on links to specialists, for those who desire a more rigorous treatment. Please click on some of my links for "full rigour".
Of course telling your own tale in your own words is fair enough if you just want to arrive at your own synthesis of where modern science has got to. — apokrisis
Yes. I'm not pretending to be an expert in the science of Information. So, I merely use the speculations & conclusions of scientific professionals as evidence to support my own amateur philosophical conjectures. For example, the link below agrees with my contention that "information is the fundamental building block of the universe". If you have any technical questions, please contact the author.
New experiment could confirm the fifth state of matter in the universe :
Dr. Vopson's previous research suggests that information is the fundamental building block of the universe and has physical mass. . . .
He even claims that information could be the elusive dark matter that makes up almost a third of the universe. ___Physicist Dr. Melvin Vopson
https://phys.org/news/2022-03-state-universe.html
IS THIS RIGOROUS ENOUGH FOR YOU?
https://scx1.b-cdn.net/csz/news/800a/20 ... ould-c.jpg
Re: TPF : Non-Physical Reality
I've never liked that 'Skeptical Enquirer' rag, although I noted with surprise the recent online interview between one of its founders, Michael Shermer, and Bernardo Kastrup, which was surprisingly congenial, I thought, causing me to re-consider a little.) — Wayfarer
Note : Shermer is the founder of Skeptic magazine, not SI. Coincidentally, I just read a Skeptical Inquirer article this morning, that mentioned the Plato & Aristotle concepts of "forms", "universals", and "essence". It's a review of Life is Simple, by geneticist Johnjoe McFadden, about "how Occam's Razor set science free". "William's heresy was to challenge the Church's view that theology was a real science . . ." We now understand that "theology" is philosophy, bound by an official mandate to support an authorized creed.
Referring to radical scholastic theologian, William of Occam, "He attacked the idea proposed by Plato that things we experience in our world are only faint shadows of the real objects that existed . . . somewhere." My own mildly-radical thesis is that our modern notion of "Information" can shed some light into the shadows of that ancient conjecture. The article continues : "Plato termed these 'real' objects Forms, and 'St. Augustine had already imported Plato's Forms into the early medieval Church where they became ideas in the mind of God." Those universal definitions (ideals) of real things were not just vaguely "somewhere", but specifically located in a the "mind" of the creator of the universe. Hence they became universal principles, governing particular things. McFadden goes-on to note that "Later, Aristotle modified the Forms into 'universals', which were thought to be the 'essence' of an object or concept". And that's how I came to connect the philosophical notions of "Forms" & "universals" & "essences" with our scientific concept of Information as abstract knowledge.
But, Occam concluded that "there was no need for any sort of vague, abstract, entity . . ." Ironically, Claude Shannon's definition of "information" sounds very much like a "vague, abstract, entity" symbolized by 1s & 0s (extremes ; leaving out the meat in the middle). His "information" was quantified in terms of degrees of Entropy, which is itself a reference to the abstract concept of disorganization (the absence of order). But then, McFadden quotes a biologist that, "life is too complex, even irreducibly complex . . . for Occam's Razor to be of any use". However, If we envision "Information" (the creative power to enform) as both universal and essential, all that apparent complexity can be reduced to myriad forms of a single principle, which I call "EnFormAction".
The article even mentions some conjectures of theoretical physicist Lee Smolin, whose mildly-radical ideas I have discussed in the blog. One of those speculations is the notion of "genetic information", which I refer to as "generic information", to indicate that all the manifold things of reality can be traced back to a single simple principle of Essential Form. Anyway, my thesis agrees that "life is simple" when viewed from the perspective of a universal tendency to self-organize into more complex systems with unique properties, such as Life & Mind, from inorganic & mindless matter. The Skeptical Inquirer might not agree with my interpretation of the article, but I appreciate its consideration of creative simplicity, as a natural principle.
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.
BothAnd Blog Glossary
Note -- EFA is the simple singular natural principle of organization, that causes the matter of the world to self-organize. It also produces the natural tendency that I call "Enformy", which counteracts Entropy & Randomness, to produce complexity & progress.
https://fakenous.net/wp-content/uploads ... -razor.jpg
Note : Shermer is the founder of Skeptic magazine, not SI. Coincidentally, I just read a Skeptical Inquirer article this morning, that mentioned the Plato & Aristotle concepts of "forms", "universals", and "essence". It's a review of Life is Simple, by geneticist Johnjoe McFadden, about "how Occam's Razor set science free". "William's heresy was to challenge the Church's view that theology was a real science . . ." We now understand that "theology" is philosophy, bound by an official mandate to support an authorized creed.
Referring to radical scholastic theologian, William of Occam, "He attacked the idea proposed by Plato that things we experience in our world are only faint shadows of the real objects that existed . . . somewhere." My own mildly-radical thesis is that our modern notion of "Information" can shed some light into the shadows of that ancient conjecture. The article continues : "Plato termed these 'real' objects Forms, and 'St. Augustine had already imported Plato's Forms into the early medieval Church where they became ideas in the mind of God." Those universal definitions (ideals) of real things were not just vaguely "somewhere", but specifically located in a the "mind" of the creator of the universe. Hence they became universal principles, governing particular things. McFadden goes-on to note that "Later, Aristotle modified the Forms into 'universals', which were thought to be the 'essence' of an object or concept". And that's how I came to connect the philosophical notions of "Forms" & "universals" & "essences" with our scientific concept of Information as abstract knowledge.
But, Occam concluded that "there was no need for any sort of vague, abstract, entity . . ." Ironically, Claude Shannon's definition of "information" sounds very much like a "vague, abstract, entity" symbolized by 1s & 0s (extremes ; leaving out the meat in the middle). His "information" was quantified in terms of degrees of Entropy, which is itself a reference to the abstract concept of disorganization (the absence of order). But then, McFadden quotes a biologist that, "life is too complex, even irreducibly complex . . . for Occam's Razor to be of any use". However, If we envision "Information" (the creative power to enform) as both universal and essential, all that apparent complexity can be reduced to myriad forms of a single principle, which I call "EnFormAction".
The article even mentions some conjectures of theoretical physicist Lee Smolin, whose mildly-radical ideas I have discussed in the blog. One of those speculations is the notion of "genetic information", which I refer to as "generic information", to indicate that all the manifold things of reality can be traced back to a single simple principle of Essential Form. Anyway, my thesis agrees that "life is simple" when viewed from the perspective of a universal tendency to self-organize into more complex systems with unique properties, such as Life & Mind, from inorganic & mindless matter. The Skeptical Inquirer might not agree with my interpretation of the article, but I appreciate its consideration of creative simplicity, as a natural principle.
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.
BothAnd Blog Glossary
Note -- EFA is the simple singular natural principle of organization, that causes the matter of the world to self-organize. It also produces the natural tendency that I call "Enformy", which counteracts Entropy & Randomness, to produce complexity & progress.
https://fakenous.net/wp-content/uploads ... -razor.jpg
Re: TPF : Non-Physical Reality
So, if we flip the direction of entropy, we have a universe tending towards order. Life and other complex self-organizing systems emerge and begin increasing local entropy. — Count Timothy von Icarus
Yes. That's exactly what my coinage of Enformy proposes. Without some countervailing "force" to thwart destructive dis-organizing Entropy, randomness & disorder would prevail, and Evolution would become Devolution. Some scientists have made a weak acknowledgment of that downward-directional problem with the awkward term "Negentropy". Calling it negative though, permits them to treat the on-going progression of evolution as a quirky accident. However, giving that organizing principle a positive connotation allows us to interpret the singular direction of Time, and of Evolution, as-if it is working toward some teleological destination.
Not surprisingly, that may be why most scientists are uncomfortable with any hint of plan, purpose or positive direction in the natural world. Yet, if the universe is not, in any sense, directional, how could human intentions, and organized human Culture, emerge from purely random collisions of atoms? My assumption is that there is nothing in the actual Effect (Evolution ; Time) that was not potentially in the Cause (Big Bang). Although, mathematically, time should be reversible, in practice that's never observed in reality.
So, we shouldn't read too much into the news that "Scientists Have Reversed Time in a Quantum Computer". In abstract math, anything is possible. But in concrete reality, change is always uni-directional, toward the "heat death" of the universe. However, what if some future cyborg-culture learns how to permanently reverse Entropy? I'll leave you to work-out that Sci-Fi story.
Negentropy is reverse entropy. It means things becoming more in order. By 'order' is meant organisation, structure and function: the opposite of randomness ...
https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negentropy
Intention : purpose, aim, plan, design, impulsion, intent, end, motive, ambition, ultimate-aim, obligation and more.
Entropy vs Enformy :
* Entropy is a property of the universe modeled as a thermodynamic system. Energy always flows from Hot (high energy density) to Cold (low density) -- except when it doesn't. On rare occasions, energy lingers in a moderate state that we know as Matter, and sometimes even reveals new qualities and states of material stuff .
* The Second Law of Thermo-dynamics states that, in a closed system, Entropy always increases until it reaches equilibrium at a temperature of absolute zero. But some glitch in that system allows stable forms to emerge that can recycle energy in the form of qualities we call Life & Mind. That feedback-loop "glitch" is what I call Enformy.
BothAnd Blog Glossary
Culture vs Nature :
Nature and culture are often seen as opposite ideas—what belongs to nature cannot be the result of human intervention and, on the other hand, cultural development is achieved against nature
https://www.thoughtco.com/nature-culture-divide-2670633
Note -- Human Culture is anti-entropic in that it opposes the disorganizing effects of natural processes. That's why we have to do regular maintenance on our un-natural technology.
Yes. That's exactly what my coinage of Enformy proposes. Without some countervailing "force" to thwart destructive dis-organizing Entropy, randomness & disorder would prevail, and Evolution would become Devolution. Some scientists have made a weak acknowledgment of that downward-directional problem with the awkward term "Negentropy". Calling it negative though, permits them to treat the on-going progression of evolution as a quirky accident. However, giving that organizing principle a positive connotation allows us to interpret the singular direction of Time, and of Evolution, as-if it is working toward some teleological destination.
Not surprisingly, that may be why most scientists are uncomfortable with any hint of plan, purpose or positive direction in the natural world. Yet, if the universe is not, in any sense, directional, how could human intentions, and organized human Culture, emerge from purely random collisions of atoms? My assumption is that there is nothing in the actual Effect (Evolution ; Time) that was not potentially in the Cause (Big Bang). Although, mathematically, time should be reversible, in practice that's never observed in reality.
So, we shouldn't read too much into the news that "Scientists Have Reversed Time in a Quantum Computer". In abstract math, anything is possible. But in concrete reality, change is always uni-directional, toward the "heat death" of the universe. However, what if some future cyborg-culture learns how to permanently reverse Entropy? I'll leave you to work-out that Sci-Fi story.
Negentropy is reverse entropy. It means things becoming more in order. By 'order' is meant organisation, structure and function: the opposite of randomness ...
https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negentropy
Intention : purpose, aim, plan, design, impulsion, intent, end, motive, ambition, ultimate-aim, obligation and more.
Entropy vs Enformy :
* Entropy is a property of the universe modeled as a thermodynamic system. Energy always flows from Hot (high energy density) to Cold (low density) -- except when it doesn't. On rare occasions, energy lingers in a moderate state that we know as Matter, and sometimes even reveals new qualities and states of material stuff .
* The Second Law of Thermo-dynamics states that, in a closed system, Entropy always increases until it reaches equilibrium at a temperature of absolute zero. But some glitch in that system allows stable forms to emerge that can recycle energy in the form of qualities we call Life & Mind. That feedback-loop "glitch" is what I call Enformy.
BothAnd Blog Glossary
Culture vs Nature :
Nature and culture are often seen as opposite ideas—what belongs to nature cannot be the result of human intervention and, on the other hand, cultural development is achieved against nature
https://www.thoughtco.com/nature-culture-divide-2670633
Note -- Human Culture is anti-entropic in that it opposes the disorganizing effects of natural processes. That's why we have to do regular maintenance on our un-natural technology.
Re: TPF : Non-Physical Reality
But, Occam concluded that "there was no need for any sort of vague, abstract, entity . . ." — Gnomon
A major digression, but I don't believe the nominalists ever properly understood the idea of the forms. A form is not a 'vague abstract entity' or an entity of any kind, if an entity is considered to be a thing. A form is more like a principle or defining characteristic, intelligible only to the 'eye of reason', and the loss of this understanding represents a watershed in the history of ideas. — Wayfarer
Your comment on "entities" may be a digression only in the sense of supplementary information. As I superficially understand the position of Nominalists, they were opposed to Realists, who didn't believe in anything non-physical anyway. For a non-physical abstract "entity", giving it a name doesn't make it a real thing.
So, their name-vs-entity argument seems to be a "how many angels can dance on a pin" debate. Below is the philosophical definition of "entity" I prefer. From that perspective, an Ideal entity, such as a Platonic Form, exists Abstractly & Potentially until Actualized physically. Of course, how that abstract-to-concrete transformation could occur, probably requires some notion of creation of Something (actual) from Nothing (potential). I suspect that concept of Potential existence does not compute in the worldview of Realists, Materialists, and Physicalists. For them, ideas & ideals, or principles & fundamental truths, are merely religious propaganda.
But, for me, a "Potential Entity" is a legitimate topic of philosophical discussion. If we can't talk about abstract ideas & ideals, what's the point of Philosophy? Unfortunately, we could debate endlessly about how that transformation occurs. But the Enformationism thesis proposes a possible answer : it's all metaphysical Information all the way down, only the material container (outward form) changes due to phase transitions or physical transformations. But, lets not digress on an abstruse mathematical or scientific description of phase states & transitions. Those ghostly apparitions might begin to sound like mathematical magic. Is a "phase state" a real or ideal entity?
PS__I would ask for more information on the "watershed event" stemming from the "eye of reason" notion. But that might be merely a digression from a digression.
Entity :
An entity is something that exists as itself, as a subject or as an object, actually or potentially, concretely or abstractly, physically or not.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entity
systems theory phase transition :
A phase space of a dynamical system is the collection of all possible states of the system in question. A phase transition occurs as a result of some external condition, such as temperature, pressure, etc.
https://content.csbs.utah.edu/~butner/s ... Intro.html
Note -- "possible states" sounds like unactualized Potential Entities.
A major digression, but I don't believe the nominalists ever properly understood the idea of the forms. A form is not a 'vague abstract entity' or an entity of any kind, if an entity is considered to be a thing. A form is more like a principle or defining characteristic, intelligible only to the 'eye of reason', and the loss of this understanding represents a watershed in the history of ideas. — Wayfarer
Your comment on "entities" may be a digression only in the sense of supplementary information. As I superficially understand the position of Nominalists, they were opposed to Realists, who didn't believe in anything non-physical anyway. For a non-physical abstract "entity", giving it a name doesn't make it a real thing.
So, their name-vs-entity argument seems to be a "how many angels can dance on a pin" debate. Below is the philosophical definition of "entity" I prefer. From that perspective, an Ideal entity, such as a Platonic Form, exists Abstractly & Potentially until Actualized physically. Of course, how that abstract-to-concrete transformation could occur, probably requires some notion of creation of Something (actual) from Nothing (potential). I suspect that concept of Potential existence does not compute in the worldview of Realists, Materialists, and Physicalists. For them, ideas & ideals, or principles & fundamental truths, are merely religious propaganda.
But, for me, a "Potential Entity" is a legitimate topic of philosophical discussion. If we can't talk about abstract ideas & ideals, what's the point of Philosophy? Unfortunately, we could debate endlessly about how that transformation occurs. But the Enformationism thesis proposes a possible answer : it's all metaphysical Information all the way down, only the material container (outward form) changes due to phase transitions or physical transformations. But, lets not digress on an abstruse mathematical or scientific description of phase states & transitions. Those ghostly apparitions might begin to sound like mathematical magic. Is a "phase state" a real or ideal entity?
PS__I would ask for more information on the "watershed event" stemming from the "eye of reason" notion. But that might be merely a digression from a digression.
Entity :
An entity is something that exists as itself, as a subject or as an object, actually or potentially, concretely or abstractly, physically or not.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entity
systems theory phase transition :
A phase space of a dynamical system is the collection of all possible states of the system in question. A phase transition occurs as a result of some external condition, such as temperature, pressure, etc.
https://content.csbs.utah.edu/~butner/s ... Intro.html
Note -- "possible states" sounds like unactualized Potential Entities.
Re: TPF : Non-Physical Reality
Where this started for me was with the realisation of the reality of numbers. . . .
The popular answer is that they exist in the minds of humans only, that they're a mental construction. But the problem with that view is, it doesn't allow for the unreasonable effectiveness of mathematics in the natural sciences, nor for the fact that mathematics is governed by rules. So I'm firmly part of the 'mathematics is discovered' camp. — Wayfarer
Yes. I'm not a mathematician, but I think of Math as the Logic of the universe. It's the non-physical "structure" of the physical world. That invisible framework of reality consists of stable consistent patterns of inter-relationships upon which are hung the physical "furniture" of the real world. We can't perceive those intangible links, but we can conceive them via rational inference. So, we "discover" the logical scaffolding of physics, not by empirical probing, but by imaginary conception. We seem to fill-in-the-blanks between things by mentally constructing a pattern of links to fit the pattern of nodes. When a particular pattern is found to be consistent & essential, we call them Rules or Laws that metaphorically "govern" that particular category (set) of nodes.
The stability & necessity of those invisible-but-knowable patterns make them effective for predicting missing nodes or links (components). They serve as a mental map that shows most-but-not-all roads & cities, so we can find our way around the world, even though we are half-blind to that intangible structure. Pardon my woolly description of a topic that is above my pay grade. As an architect, I used to design future concrete physical structures, by first creating an imaginary abstract pattern of relationships between imposed loads (forces) and columns & beams (links). When the math balanced-out, I could be assured that the "logic" of the structure was "sound". Only then, could I be sure that the Potential mental construct would -- when Actualized into material reality -- hold-up under the physical forces of the natural world. That's what I would call "reasonable effectiveness".
PS__The mathematical & logical scaffolding of Nature forms the patterns-of-meaning that we call "Information".
Structure :
1. (noun) the arrangement of and relations between the parts or elements of something complex.
2. (verb) construct or arrange according to a plan; give a pattern or organization to
The popular answer is that they exist in the minds of humans only, that they're a mental construction. But the problem with that view is, it doesn't allow for the unreasonable effectiveness of mathematics in the natural sciences, nor for the fact that mathematics is governed by rules. So I'm firmly part of the 'mathematics is discovered' camp. — Wayfarer
Yes. I'm not a mathematician, but I think of Math as the Logic of the universe. It's the non-physical "structure" of the physical world. That invisible framework of reality consists of stable consistent patterns of inter-relationships upon which are hung the physical "furniture" of the real world. We can't perceive those intangible links, but we can conceive them via rational inference. So, we "discover" the logical scaffolding of physics, not by empirical probing, but by imaginary conception. We seem to fill-in-the-blanks between things by mentally constructing a pattern of links to fit the pattern of nodes. When a particular pattern is found to be consistent & essential, we call them Rules or Laws that metaphorically "govern" that particular category (set) of nodes.
The stability & necessity of those invisible-but-knowable patterns make them effective for predicting missing nodes or links (components). They serve as a mental map that shows most-but-not-all roads & cities, so we can find our way around the world, even though we are half-blind to that intangible structure. Pardon my woolly description of a topic that is above my pay grade. As an architect, I used to design future concrete physical structures, by first creating an imaginary abstract pattern of relationships between imposed loads (forces) and columns & beams (links). When the math balanced-out, I could be assured that the "logic" of the structure was "sound". Only then, could I be sure that the Potential mental construct would -- when Actualized into material reality -- hold-up under the physical forces of the natural world. That's what I would call "reasonable effectiveness".
PS__The mathematical & logical scaffolding of Nature forms the patterns-of-meaning that we call "Information".
Structure :
1. (noun) the arrangement of and relations between the parts or elements of something complex.
2. (verb) construct or arrange according to a plan; give a pattern or organization to
Re: TPF : Non-Physical Reality
Right. To me that suggests an intrinsic connection between maths and the world. I'm interested in the idea that scientific laws exist where logical necessity meets physical causation. — Wayfarer
That's a new idea to me. But, in view of our discussion of the "logic of reality", I would imagine that Mathematical Logic (bonding relationships ; valence) is the structure of reality, and Mathematical Energy (ratios ; differences) is the cause of structural changes. That concept seems to be compatible with the Enformationism worldview, in which Generic Information (ratios, relationships, connections, differences) is the universal "substance" (per Spinoza) of the world.
Just riffing on a metaphorical theme here : perhaps, the holistic Potential of the pre-BigBang Singularity (egg : zygote), after fertilization (by whom??), contained two Actual aspects : material structure (female ; mother) and dynamic causation (male : sperm). Hence, by analogy with biological development, that initial binary scenario has evolved over the intervening eons into the multiplex world of Matter & Energy we know as Reality. The role of Matter, in this myth, is the stable (Necessity) structure, and Energy is the dynamic (Chance) force of transformation, which explores all options within Possibility Space.
But, who or what defines the limits on possibility? In my myth, the original Egg was programmed by a pre-existing Planner or Lawmaker. However, Materialists might imagine that pre-BB "substance" as a fecund Multiverse (the eternal Mother ; mater). And Spiritualists would picture the dynamic virility as a powerful Elan Vital (eternal Father ; pater). However, my metaphorical myth combines the dual aspects of Reality into a singular Source of Being (cosmic creative principle : Brahman). Of course, anything prior to our local space-time is inherently unknowable. But its causal & substantial (formal) role is still inferrable, by analogy with the substance & laws of the known world. Some might even like to call it the "Great Mathematician".
How mathematics reveals the nature of the cosmos :
Mathematics is the language of the universe, and in learning this language, you are opening yourself up the core mechanisms by which the cosmos operates.
https://phys.org/news/2015-06-mathemati ... osmos.html
Generic Information :
Information is Generic in the sense of generating all forms from a formless pool of possibility : the Platonic Forms.
BothAnd Blog. post 33
That's a new idea to me. But, in view of our discussion of the "logic of reality", I would imagine that Mathematical Logic (bonding relationships ; valence) is the structure of reality, and Mathematical Energy (ratios ; differences) is the cause of structural changes. That concept seems to be compatible with the Enformationism worldview, in which Generic Information (ratios, relationships, connections, differences) is the universal "substance" (per Spinoza) of the world.
Just riffing on a metaphorical theme here : perhaps, the holistic Potential of the pre-BigBang Singularity (egg : zygote), after fertilization (by whom??), contained two Actual aspects : material structure (female ; mother) and dynamic causation (male : sperm). Hence, by analogy with biological development, that initial binary scenario has evolved over the intervening eons into the multiplex world of Matter & Energy we know as Reality. The role of Matter, in this myth, is the stable (Necessity) structure, and Energy is the dynamic (Chance) force of transformation, which explores all options within Possibility Space.
But, who or what defines the limits on possibility? In my myth, the original Egg was programmed by a pre-existing Planner or Lawmaker. However, Materialists might imagine that pre-BB "substance" as a fecund Multiverse (the eternal Mother ; mater). And Spiritualists would picture the dynamic virility as a powerful Elan Vital (eternal Father ; pater). However, my metaphorical myth combines the dual aspects of Reality into a singular Source of Being (cosmic creative principle : Brahman). Of course, anything prior to our local space-time is inherently unknowable. But its causal & substantial (formal) role is still inferrable, by analogy with the substance & laws of the known world. Some might even like to call it the "Great Mathematician".
How mathematics reveals the nature of the cosmos :
Mathematics is the language of the universe, and in learning this language, you are opening yourself up the core mechanisms by which the cosmos operates.
https://phys.org/news/2015-06-mathemati ... osmos.html
Generic Information :
Information is Generic in the sense of generating all forms from a formless pool of possibility : the Platonic Forms.
BothAnd Blog. post 33
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 33 guests