I don't know if it's actually true but, for obvious reasons, your thesis feels biocentric (pro-life) - the name EnFormAction suggests a bias towards life (EnFormy being anti-entropy, entropy being anti-order and thus an anti-life force we havta deal on a daily basis). Do you consider this to be a feature/bug in EnFormAction? — Agent Smith
Yes. Like Energy, EnFormAction, can have both positive and negative effects. For example, Lightning splits air molecules into Nitrogen & Oxygen, both essential for life (organism). But, if a bolt from the blue strikes your living body, the result is instant death (dis-organism). But, after billions of years of Dialectic inter-action, we see a distinct bias (trend) toward Complexity & Organism & Life. Therefore, it's obvious that disorganizing Entropy is not absolute, so there must be some countervailing force to nudge evolution toward Life & Mind, and away from Death & Insentience. That implicit force is what I call "Enformy" (the power to enform ; to organize).
Buddha (anicca) & Laozi (yinyang), Democritus (atomic swirling) & Heraclitus (everything flows), Boltzmann (thermodynamics) & Heisenberg (quantum uncertainty), Penrose (conformal cyclical cosmology) & Deutsch (quantum turing computation) are some examples thinkers for whom "motion (change)" is the fundamental – acausal – independent variable. — 180 Proof
As usual, this haughty riposte is based on prejudiced premises. It's intended to deny the necessity for a First Cause. From a narrow-nose perspective, cycling Change seems to be fundamental to Physics, with no beginning or end. But from a broader Philosophical worldview, even the Big Bang beginning of our universe must, logically, have a cause. That's why cosmologists have been proposing various speculative schemes to explain the time-before-time : Inflation, Many Worlds, Multiverses. There's no evidence for such ideal mathematical scenarios. But there is real physical evidence for a directional evolving universe from Past to Future. In the cosmological diagram below, the beginning & end states are implied, but fuzzy, due to lack of empirical evidence.
Penrose's abstract Causality Diagrams, like Minkowski's imaginary Block Time (static space-time), are deliberately simplified : a> by removing the complexity of Change, and b> by assuming internal, mutually-neutralizing, Symmetry of forces. In practice though, such a mathematically ideal world would be eternal & unchanging. But both of those models are like snapshots of reality, frozen in time. And are useful only for simplifying the complex mathematics of Dynamics (change ; motion). So, their idealized Acausal models are intentionally non-realistic.
Acausal Motion :
“Acausal” means not having a cause. In classical physics all events are believed to have a cause; none are acausal. In quantum physics, some interpretations of quantum theory allow for events to occur without a cause, that is, they are acausal.
The usual way to say this is that in quantum physics, there is “true randomness.” In true randomness, we don’t know the cause and also there is none. In classical physics, nothing happens randomly. If a billiard ball is picking up speed to the right, it’s because some force is pushing it in that direction. If we don’t know the nature of the force, it might seem like it’s random motion. But be assured, there is a causal force.
http://www.quantumphysicslady.org/glossary/acausal/
THE DIRECTIONAL ARROW OF EVOLUTION
11-2-Cosmic-Evolution-GSFC-1200x635.jpg?format=jpg&width=960
4 days ago
TPF : Agnosticism
Re: TPF : Agnosticism
I can only applaud in admiration at your idea - it seems to be well-thought-out. Not many can say that of their own worldviews. I'm still trying to grasp the essence of it. Give me time. — Agent Smith
Take your time. I've been working on the Enformationism thesis for about 14 years. It had been simmering for a while in the background. But I finally formalized it while I was unemployed due to the 2008 Great Recession. I gathered my notes & essays into a webpage, and using the Matrix movie as a metaphor, presented the core idea, not in the form of an Academic Thesis, but as a non-commercial, un-conventional argument in a semi-public arena. In some ways, it was inspired by Devin Giorbran's book & website Everything Forever, which presented a novel scientific-philosophical perspective of the whole universe. But the focus of Enformationism is more down-to-earth. Both are neither True nor False, but merely a different way to look at Reality : a proposed new Paradigm.
Most of us are living in an artificial simulation of reality : created in the public mind, not by rogue AI, but by social conventions and news media. The civilized world-view has evolved along a zig-zag path of Hegelian oppositions. For example : Fascism, Communism, & Capitalism in the 20th century. But, even more subtle may be the various scientific & philosophical paradigms of the 21st century, especially Quantum Theory and Information Theory. The world is still gradually emerging from the pre-scientific worldviews of its various religions, especially the Judeo-Christian-Islamic traditions, and from the radical 17th century revisionist worldview of what we now call Classical or Newtonian Science.
The dominant paradigms of each era serve as focusing frames through which to view the incomprehensible complexities of the world. For example, the common view of human nature swings back & forth between the optimism of first century Christianity "work out your own salvation", to the pessimism of Calvin's "Total Depravity" ; from the optimism of the Scientific Enlightenment, to the pessimism of modern philosophies (e.g. Antinatalism). Compared to those historical dialectical digressions, the Enformationism thesis could be just one man's perspective, that will die with him. Fortunately, I am not alone in this quest for a plausible 21st century worldview. So, if some form of this novel information-centric concept of how the world works -- by processing Information in various ways -- catches-on, It could become the seed for the next dominant philosophical paradigm . Only time will tell.
Everything Forever : Learning to See The Timelessness of the Universe
"Zero is powerful because it is infinity’s twin. They are equal and opposite, yin and yang. They are equally paradoxical and troubling. The biggest questions in science and religion are about nothingness and eternity, the void and the infinite, zero and infinity. The clashes over zero were the battles that shook the foundations of philosophy, of science, of mathematics, and of religion. Underneath every revolution lay a zero – and an infinity."
-Charles Seife
Zero; The Biography of a Dangerous Idea
http://everythingforever.com/
Note -- at first glance, to someone grounded in conventional classical science, this may sound like a bunch of hippie non-sense. But, by looking at the flip-side of space-time, a new understanding of what's-really-going-on could emerge.
Paradigm :
A paradigm is a standard, perspective, or set of ideas. A paradigm is a way of looking at something. It's a worldview.
https://www.vocabulary.com/dictionary/paradigm
Information -- Consciousness -- Reality :
How a new understanding of the universe can help answer age-old questions of existence
https://www.goodreads.com/en/book/show/45153601
Enformationism website :
It's not something to believe, but something to think
http://enformationism.info/enformationism.info/
Take your time. I've been working on the Enformationism thesis for about 14 years. It had been simmering for a while in the background. But I finally formalized it while I was unemployed due to the 2008 Great Recession. I gathered my notes & essays into a webpage, and using the Matrix movie as a metaphor, presented the core idea, not in the form of an Academic Thesis, but as a non-commercial, un-conventional argument in a semi-public arena. In some ways, it was inspired by Devin Giorbran's book & website Everything Forever, which presented a novel scientific-philosophical perspective of the whole universe. But the focus of Enformationism is more down-to-earth. Both are neither True nor False, but merely a different way to look at Reality : a proposed new Paradigm.
Most of us are living in an artificial simulation of reality : created in the public mind, not by rogue AI, but by social conventions and news media. The civilized world-view has evolved along a zig-zag path of Hegelian oppositions. For example : Fascism, Communism, & Capitalism in the 20th century. But, even more subtle may be the various scientific & philosophical paradigms of the 21st century, especially Quantum Theory and Information Theory. The world is still gradually emerging from the pre-scientific worldviews of its various religions, especially the Judeo-Christian-Islamic traditions, and from the radical 17th century revisionist worldview of what we now call Classical or Newtonian Science.
The dominant paradigms of each era serve as focusing frames through which to view the incomprehensible complexities of the world. For example, the common view of human nature swings back & forth between the optimism of first century Christianity "work out your own salvation", to the pessimism of Calvin's "Total Depravity" ; from the optimism of the Scientific Enlightenment, to the pessimism of modern philosophies (e.g. Antinatalism). Compared to those historical dialectical digressions, the Enformationism thesis could be just one man's perspective, that will die with him. Fortunately, I am not alone in this quest for a plausible 21st century worldview. So, if some form of this novel information-centric concept of how the world works -- by processing Information in various ways -- catches-on, It could become the seed for the next dominant philosophical paradigm . Only time will tell.
Everything Forever : Learning to See The Timelessness of the Universe
"Zero is powerful because it is infinity’s twin. They are equal and opposite, yin and yang. They are equally paradoxical and troubling. The biggest questions in science and religion are about nothingness and eternity, the void and the infinite, zero and infinity. The clashes over zero were the battles that shook the foundations of philosophy, of science, of mathematics, and of religion. Underneath every revolution lay a zero – and an infinity."
-Charles Seife
Zero; The Biography of a Dangerous Idea
http://everythingforever.com/
Note -- at first glance, to someone grounded in conventional classical science, this may sound like a bunch of hippie non-sense. But, by looking at the flip-side of space-time, a new understanding of what's-really-going-on could emerge.
Paradigm :
A paradigm is a standard, perspective, or set of ideas. A paradigm is a way of looking at something. It's a worldview.
https://www.vocabulary.com/dictionary/paradigm
Information -- Consciousness -- Reality :
How a new understanding of the universe can help answer age-old questions of existence
https://www.goodreads.com/en/book/show/45153601
Enformationism website :
It's not something to believe, but something to think
http://enformationism.info/enformationism.info/
Re: TPF : Agnosticism
Since your idea has, as a component, the yin-yang duality of opposites, you surely expect it to be critiqued/opposed/attacked. That's exactly how it should be then, in accordance to your BothAnd concept, oui?
How would you respond to this comment? — Agent Smith
Oui-oui. It's mostly "attacked" emotionally (good vs evil) & politically (us vs them), instead of "critiqued" rationally & philosophically. For example, quote : "Your usual non-answer. That's a tell, sir. " The implicit critique can be eloquently summed-up as "boo, hiss".
Apparently, a Reductive/Materialistic paradigm is antipathetic (showing or feeling a strong aversion) to a Holistic/Metaphysical worldview. And a significant proportion of posters on this forum are allied with the belief system known as Scientism. It began during the Reformation /Enlightenment era, when the hegemony of the State Church was rejected by Freethinkers. One vector of that Hegelian dialectic clash was fragmented Protestant religions & general Secularization, and the other was modern empirical Science & pragmatic Materialism.
From that cynical (dog-eat-dog) perspective though, Philosophy in general, and especially Metaphysics, is viewed as allied with supernatural Religion. Hence, any ideas that go beyond Physical are presumed to be Metaphysical, as defined by the early Catholic Church theologians. Although many world religions are based on a Holistic model, many secular philosophies (e.g.Taoism, Confucianism) throughout history also assumed that [color=#800000]the Dualistic forces of the world are ultimately & delicately balanced into a Holistic monism (Yin/Yang).[/color] Hence, optimistic instead of fatalistic.
By contrast to the black vs white, Science vs Religion opposition, your own reaction has been a philosophical blend of both Curiosity (exploring) and Skepticism (defending). And that is a good example of the BothAnd approach to knowledge : "open-minded, but not so open that your brains fall out".
Scientism :
Science is about descriptive facts; philosophy is often about that but is also about normative and evaluative truths (if such truths exist). Science is about physical objects; philosophy is often about that but is also about abstract objects (if they exist).
https://1000wordphilosophy.com/2018/02/ ... h-science/
What is scientism, and why is it a mistake? :
Science is a method of inquiry about nature, while scientism is philosophy. And scientism is no longer up to the challenge of meeting the most pressing issues of our day.
https://bigthink.com/13-8/science-vs-scientism/
Note -- Scientism is dualistic Either/Or philosophy. It has that in common with dualistic Good/Evil religions. By contrast, the BothAnd philosophy is ultimately Monistic.
How would you respond to this comment? — Agent Smith
Oui-oui. It's mostly "attacked" emotionally (good vs evil) & politically (us vs them), instead of "critiqued" rationally & philosophically. For example, quote : "Your usual non-answer. That's a tell, sir. " The implicit critique can be eloquently summed-up as "boo, hiss".
Apparently, a Reductive/Materialistic paradigm is antipathetic (showing or feeling a strong aversion) to a Holistic/Metaphysical worldview. And a significant proportion of posters on this forum are allied with the belief system known as Scientism. It began during the Reformation /Enlightenment era, when the hegemony of the State Church was rejected by Freethinkers. One vector of that Hegelian dialectic clash was fragmented Protestant religions & general Secularization, and the other was modern empirical Science & pragmatic Materialism.
From that cynical (dog-eat-dog) perspective though, Philosophy in general, and especially Metaphysics, is viewed as allied with supernatural Religion. Hence, any ideas that go beyond Physical are presumed to be Metaphysical, as defined by the early Catholic Church theologians. Although many world religions are based on a Holistic model, many secular philosophies (e.g.Taoism, Confucianism) throughout history also assumed that [color=#800000]the Dualistic forces of the world are ultimately & delicately balanced into a Holistic monism (Yin/Yang).[/color] Hence, optimistic instead of fatalistic.
By contrast to the black vs white, Science vs Religion opposition, your own reaction has been a philosophical blend of both Curiosity (exploring) and Skepticism (defending). And that is a good example of the BothAnd approach to knowledge : "open-minded, but not so open that your brains fall out".
Scientism :
Science is about descriptive facts; philosophy is often about that but is also about normative and evaluative truths (if such truths exist). Science is about physical objects; philosophy is often about that but is also about abstract objects (if they exist).
https://1000wordphilosophy.com/2018/02/ ... h-science/
What is scientism, and why is it a mistake? :
Science is a method of inquiry about nature, while scientism is philosophy. And scientism is no longer up to the challenge of meeting the most pressing issues of our day.
https://bigthink.com/13-8/science-vs-scientism/
Note -- Scientism is dualistic Either/Or philosophy. It has that in common with dualistic Good/Evil religions. By contrast, the BothAnd philosophy is ultimately Monistic.
Re: TPF : Agnosticism
So your thesis has an antithesis which is as legit as your thesis and should be incorporated into your thesis (BothAnd). Shouldn't you be more welcoming of opposition to your ideas then? For example 180 Proof's objections should be part and parcel of your system, based as it is on yin & yang. — Agent Smith
The BothAnd philosophy doesn't legitimize one side or the other of any opposition. Instead, it allows each person to cross philosophical-political dividing-lines lines as the context demands. For example, I live in a very conservative part of the US, and my religious training was fundamentalist. But, although I don't repudiate the good parts of Conservatism, as an adult I have crossed over into enemy territory. Today, I don't call myself a Conservative or a Liberal, but something like a Liberative or Conserveral (i.e. Moderate). The downside of a moderate position is that you get shot at by both sides. The right-wing-conservatives will view you as a lily-livered-liberal, and the left-wing-radicals will decry you as a cold-hearted-conservative. The point here is that the BothAnd sweet-spot of harmony & balance is not in the exact middle of any philosophical continuum, but depending on the context, may shift left or right to maintain a dynamic balance -- like a tightrope walker.
When I first joined The Philosophy Forum, I felt that ↪180 Proof might be a kindred spirit. His general philosophical worldview seemed to be compatible with mine. But eventually, he began to see my personal philosophy as anathema (something or someone that one vehemently dislikes). I still don't know for sure what the point-of-contention is, except that it has something to do with my unconventional usage of the tainted word "Metaphysics" (non-physical ; as in abstract concepts)*1. Since then, his "opposition" has been expressed in ad hominem arguments -- against an imaginary position that I don't actually hold -- instead of philosophical arguments. So no, his (NAZI vs Commie) "objections" are not "part & parcel" of my own system. I welcome philosophical discussion of specific ideas, but not a political-smear-campaign of a general multi-faceted worldview. Even so, I bear no ill-will toward 180 -- his knowledge of Philosophy is admirable -- I just refuse to engage in below-the-belt philosophy. Hopefully though, maybe some day we will again be able to sit around the philosophical campfire and sing Kumbaya (harmony & goodness).
*1. Actually, I think he feels threatened by the emerging Holistic & Information-centric scientific paradigm, which to him smacks of old age Religion and New Age nuttiness.
BOTH/AND = DYNAMIC BALANCE
tightrope-walker-left-facin-400x400.jpg
The BothAnd philosophy doesn't legitimize one side or the other of any opposition. Instead, it allows each person to cross philosophical-political dividing-lines lines as the context demands. For example, I live in a very conservative part of the US, and my religious training was fundamentalist. But, although I don't repudiate the good parts of Conservatism, as an adult I have crossed over into enemy territory. Today, I don't call myself a Conservative or a Liberal, but something like a Liberative or Conserveral (i.e. Moderate). The downside of a moderate position is that you get shot at by both sides. The right-wing-conservatives will view you as a lily-livered-liberal, and the left-wing-radicals will decry you as a cold-hearted-conservative. The point here is that the BothAnd sweet-spot of harmony & balance is not in the exact middle of any philosophical continuum, but depending on the context, may shift left or right to maintain a dynamic balance -- like a tightrope walker.
When I first joined The Philosophy Forum, I felt that ↪180 Proof might be a kindred spirit. His general philosophical worldview seemed to be compatible with mine. But eventually, he began to see my personal philosophy as anathema (something or someone that one vehemently dislikes). I still don't know for sure what the point-of-contention is, except that it has something to do with my unconventional usage of the tainted word "Metaphysics" (non-physical ; as in abstract concepts)*1. Since then, his "opposition" has been expressed in ad hominem arguments -- against an imaginary position that I don't actually hold -- instead of philosophical arguments. So no, his (NAZI vs Commie) "objections" are not "part & parcel" of my own system. I welcome philosophical discussion of specific ideas, but not a political-smear-campaign of a general multi-faceted worldview. Even so, I bear no ill-will toward 180 -- his knowledge of Philosophy is admirable -- I just refuse to engage in below-the-belt philosophy. Hopefully though, maybe some day we will again be able to sit around the philosophical campfire and sing Kumbaya (harmony & goodness).
*1. Actually, I think he feels threatened by the emerging Holistic & Information-centric scientific paradigm, which to him smacks of old age Religion and New Age nuttiness.
BOTH/AND = DYNAMIC BALANCE
tightrope-walker-left-facin-400x400.jpg
Re: TPF : Agnosticism
I feel you should encourage strong but genuine, well-considered opposition to your thesis as it would validate your BothAnd philosophy. If no one can do that, you yourself should take up this task - either you complete your system or you test how strong it is. It's a win-win as far as I can tell. — Agent Smith
I have been exposing my thesis to unsympathetic comments for years, and usually get good "well-considered opposition" (feedback) from other posters on the forum. But 180 is determined to stop me from discussing an emerging new paradigm of Science & Philosophy -- which conflicts with his established classical worldview -- by emotional ridicule instead of rational argument. His legalistic approach is like a defense attorney saying, "your honor, the prosecution witness' testimony contradicts the defense witness' testimony. Therefore, the prosecution witness is either lying or stupid, and his testimony should be stricken from the record . . . . . I rest my case". Does that sound like a win-win contest to you? Do you think I should continue to engage 180 in such a circular dialogue (circa-logue)?
I have been exposing my thesis to unsympathetic comments for years, and usually get good "well-considered opposition" (feedback) from other posters on the forum. But 180 is determined to stop me from discussing an emerging new paradigm of Science & Philosophy -- which conflicts with his established classical worldview -- by emotional ridicule instead of rational argument. His legalistic approach is like a defense attorney saying, "your honor, the prosecution witness' testimony contradicts the defense witness' testimony. Therefore, the prosecution witness is either lying or stupid, and his testimony should be stricken from the record . . . . . I rest my case". Does that sound like a win-win contest to you? Do you think I should continue to engage 180 in such a circular dialogue (circa-logue)?
Re: TPF : Agnosticism
All I'm saying is 180 Proof's opposition completes your thesis (re BothAnd/yin-yang). You shouldn't reject him because if you do, you're contradicting yourself. — Agent Smith
OK. I accept that, in a YinYang world, the opposite of Good is Evil. But does that mean I should wallow in the evil, just for the sake of Holism? I'm kidding. And I don't reject 180 personally. On other topics he is able to make constructive criticisms. But on Enformationism-related topics, he only makes destructive comments. But hey, it's a free forum. So he's entitled to his opinion. However, I'm not obliged to get down in the mire with the pigs, even though they are otherwise admirable creatures.
I think you are still misinterpreting the YinYang concept. It merely means, for example, that a male body and a female body are complementary, for the purposes of procreation. But, for other purposes, male & female may have other priorities. The YinYang balance is not static, but dynamic. And each side has the potential for upsetting the ideal harmony of the system. I can move toward the middle, but If I go all the way to the opposite side, I may contribute to dis-harmony. It takes two to tango around the pivot-point of a see-sawing system.
The-problem-with-a-seesaw-is-youre-always-off-balance..jpg
OK. I accept that, in a YinYang world, the opposite of Good is Evil. But does that mean I should wallow in the evil, just for the sake of Holism? I'm kidding. And I don't reject 180 personally. On other topics he is able to make constructive criticisms. But on Enformationism-related topics, he only makes destructive comments. But hey, it's a free forum. So he's entitled to his opinion. However, I'm not obliged to get down in the mire with the pigs, even though they are otherwise admirable creatures.
I think you are still misinterpreting the YinYang concept. It merely means, for example, that a male body and a female body are complementary, for the purposes of procreation. But, for other purposes, male & female may have other priorities. The YinYang balance is not static, but dynamic. And each side has the potential for upsetting the ideal harmony of the system. I can move toward the middle, but If I go all the way to the opposite side, I may contribute to dis-harmony. It takes two to tango around the pivot-point of a see-sawing system.
The-problem-with-a-seesaw-is-youre-always-off-balance..jpg
Re: TPF : Agnosticism
It looks like the two of you have to fight (with each other) tooth and nail, to the finish. BothAnd or Yin-Yang requires you two do so! We'll have medics stationed on site to render emergency care if one/both of you sustain(s) life-threatening injuries! 
— Agent Smith
He'll have to catch me first. :joke:
Actually, the cooperative BothAnd philosophy "requires" us to avoid fighting, if possible. That's why I'm in the middle, and he's swinging for an imaginary extreme. He doesn't realize that I'm just playing rope-a-dope.
Rope-a-Dope : a boxing tactic of pretending to be trapped against the ropes, goading an opponent to throw tiring ineffective punches.
main-qimg-05654f0ca242c8f902e374a900d6bad1-lq
— Agent SmithHe'll have to catch me first. :joke:
Actually, the cooperative BothAnd philosophy "requires" us to avoid fighting, if possible. That's why I'm in the middle, and he's swinging for an imaginary extreme. He doesn't realize that I'm just playing rope-a-dope.
Rope-a-Dope : a boxing tactic of pretending to be trapped against the ropes, goading an opponent to throw tiring ineffective punches.
main-qimg-05654f0ca242c8f902e374a900d6bad1-lq
Re: TPF : Agnosticism
Well, it's just a feeling, an intuition you could call it. Can't name any particular idea that looks promising except for these two: — Agent Smith
I suspect that you still haven't grokked the central idea of Enformationism. That "failure to communicate" may be due to your trying to piece together bits & pieces of the thesis from loosely-related forum posts. The best way to understand this new paradigm is to read some of the scientific books & articles I link to in my posts. My thesis is merely a philosophical expansion of an emerging scientific paradigm, which combines Quantum Physics with Information Theory.
Or, if you are really interested, you could take the time to read the actual Enformationism thesis. It's available online, and is written mainly in layman's language, except for a few neologisms I have coined in order to encapsulate a complex concept into one word. For example, EnFormAction is a portmanteau word to signify the multiple roles of Information in the world.
The BothAnd philosophical principle (Yin-Yang) notion is merely a corollary of the scientific necessity for a Holistic approach to Quantum physics*1. Classical Reductive methods cannot make sense of Quantum queerness. That's why Feynman admitted that "nobody understands quantum mechanics". It's because the quantum foundation of reality is not mechanical & linear-logical, but holistic & fuzzy-logical.
*1. ↪180 Proof
seems to think my use of "BothAnd" & "YinYang" exposes an underlying New Agey mystical worldview. But that erroneous interpretation is a sign that he too is unable to grok a new Holistic scientific paradigm, so he conflates it with pre-scientific philosophical*2 attempts to understand how & why the world works as it does. Does the BothAnd definition below sound New Agey to you? If so, then Einstein & Schrodinger were also new age nuts, so I'm in good company.
*2. I find the ancient philosophies of Hindu, Chinese & Greek cultures still useful after all these years. But I have no use for the religious beliefs, rituals, & dogmas that grew-up around those core philosophical worldviews.
Grok : to understand (something) intuitively or holistically, rather than rationally or analytically.
Portmanteau :
1. literally a compartmented suitcase.
2. A portmanteau word is a blend of words in which parts of multiple words are combined into a new word, with interrelated meanings.
EnFormAction :
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.
That neologism is an analysis and re-synthesis of the common word for the latent power of mental contents : “Information”. “En” stands for energy, the physical power to cause change; “Form” refers to Platonic Ideals that become real; “Action” is the meta-physical power of transformation, as exemplified in the amazing metamorphoses of physics, whereby one kind of thing becomes a new kind of thing, with novel properties. In the Enformationism worldview, EnFormAction is Creative Potential in action : it's how creation-via-evolution works.
http://bothandblog3.enformationism.info/page23.html
BothAnd :
* The Enformationism worldview entails the principles of Complementarity, Reciprocity & Holism, which are necessary to offset the negative effects of Fragmentation, Isolation & Reductionism. Analysis into parts is necessary for knowledge of the mechanics of the world, but synthesis of those parts into a whole system is required for the wisdom to integrate the self into the larger system. In a philosophical sense, all opposites in this world (e.g. space/time, good/evil) are ultimately reconciled in Enfernity (eternity & infinity).
* Conceptually, the BothAnd principle is similar to Einstein's theory of Relativity, in that what you see ─ what’s true for you ─ depends on your perspective, and your frame of reference; for example, subjective or objective, religious or scientific, reductive or holistic, pragmatic or romantic, conservative or liberal, earthbound or cosmic. Ultimate or absolute reality (ideality) doesn't change, but your conception of reality does. Opposing views are not right or wrong, but more or less accurate for a particular purpose.
* This principle is also similar to the concept of Superposition in sub-atomic physics. In this ambiguous state a particle has no fixed identity until “observed” by an outside system. For example, in a Quantum Computer, a Qubit has a value of all possible fractions between 1 & 0. Therefore, you could say that it is both 1 and 0.
http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page10.html
“The intuitive mind is a sacred gift and the rational mind is a faithful servant. We have created a society that honors the servant and has forgotten the gift.”
— Albert Einstein
I suspect that you still haven't grokked the central idea of Enformationism. That "failure to communicate" may be due to your trying to piece together bits & pieces of the thesis from loosely-related forum posts. The best way to understand this new paradigm is to read some of the scientific books & articles I link to in my posts. My thesis is merely a philosophical expansion of an emerging scientific paradigm, which combines Quantum Physics with Information Theory.
Or, if you are really interested, you could take the time to read the actual Enformationism thesis. It's available online, and is written mainly in layman's language, except for a few neologisms I have coined in order to encapsulate a complex concept into one word. For example, EnFormAction is a portmanteau word to signify the multiple roles of Information in the world.
The BothAnd philosophical principle (Yin-Yang) notion is merely a corollary of the scientific necessity for a Holistic approach to Quantum physics*1. Classical Reductive methods cannot make sense of Quantum queerness. That's why Feynman admitted that "nobody understands quantum mechanics". It's because the quantum foundation of reality is not mechanical & linear-logical, but holistic & fuzzy-logical.
*1. ↪180 Proof
seems to think my use of "BothAnd" & "YinYang" exposes an underlying New Agey mystical worldview. But that erroneous interpretation is a sign that he too is unable to grok a new Holistic scientific paradigm, so he conflates it with pre-scientific philosophical*2 attempts to understand how & why the world works as it does. Does the BothAnd definition below sound New Agey to you? If so, then Einstein & Schrodinger were also new age nuts, so I'm in good company.
*2. I find the ancient philosophies of Hindu, Chinese & Greek cultures still useful after all these years. But I have no use for the religious beliefs, rituals, & dogmas that grew-up around those core philosophical worldviews.
Grok : to understand (something) intuitively or holistically, rather than rationally or analytically.
Portmanteau :
1. literally a compartmented suitcase.
2. A portmanteau word is a blend of words in which parts of multiple words are combined into a new word, with interrelated meanings.
EnFormAction :
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.
That neologism is an analysis and re-synthesis of the common word for the latent power of mental contents : “Information”. “En” stands for energy, the physical power to cause change; “Form” refers to Platonic Ideals that become real; “Action” is the meta-physical power of transformation, as exemplified in the amazing metamorphoses of physics, whereby one kind of thing becomes a new kind of thing, with novel properties. In the Enformationism worldview, EnFormAction is Creative Potential in action : it's how creation-via-evolution works.
http://bothandblog3.enformationism.info/page23.html
BothAnd :
* The Enformationism worldview entails the principles of Complementarity, Reciprocity & Holism, which are necessary to offset the negative effects of Fragmentation, Isolation & Reductionism. Analysis into parts is necessary for knowledge of the mechanics of the world, but synthesis of those parts into a whole system is required for the wisdom to integrate the self into the larger system. In a philosophical sense, all opposites in this world (e.g. space/time, good/evil) are ultimately reconciled in Enfernity (eternity & infinity).
* Conceptually, the BothAnd principle is similar to Einstein's theory of Relativity, in that what you see ─ what’s true for you ─ depends on your perspective, and your frame of reference; for example, subjective or objective, religious or scientific, reductive or holistic, pragmatic or romantic, conservative or liberal, earthbound or cosmic. Ultimate or absolute reality (ideality) doesn't change, but your conception of reality does. Opposing views are not right or wrong, but more or less accurate for a particular purpose.
* This principle is also similar to the concept of Superposition in sub-atomic physics. In this ambiguous state a particle has no fixed identity until “observed” by an outside system. For example, in a Quantum Computer, a Qubit has a value of all possible fractions between 1 & 0. Therefore, you could say that it is both 1 and 0.
http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page10.html
“The intuitive mind is a sacred gift and the rational mind is a faithful servant. We have created a society that honors the servant and has forgotten the gift.”
— Albert Einstein
Re: TPF : Agnosticism
EnFormAction is an attempt to scientize the almost universal intuition, as evidenced by creation stories in all cultures, of a primum movens (first cause). I appreciate the effort and the key ideas present and active therein, but only veteran philosophers will be able to judge the quality of the output! — Agent Smith
Actually, it was practicing scientists that "scientized" the intuitions of Holism & Information-as-causation (per my previous links). All I've done is to gather their ideas under the heading of Enformationism. However, "veteran philosophers" such as 180 can be expected to judge the "quality of the output" in terms of their outdated personal paradigm. He can be dismissive of my personal qualifications to promote a new kind of science. But, I'll be content to let him argue with "Bob Doyle" (see below), a "veteran" scientist/philosopher, who is promoting the Information-centric worldview. For him, and for me, the relevance of Information to ancient myths only came after its relevance to today's reality was apparent.
This clash of paradigms has happened before. For example, the novice philosopher Spinoza outraged his fellow Jews and Christians (including some veteran theologians) by introducing a new science-based concept of God-as-Natural-instead-of-Super-natural (deus sive natura). Enformationism posits a similar god-concept, formalized in the philosophical concept of PanEnDeism (all in god). In other words, G*D is the whole of Nature, in which we humans are integral parts of an evolving emerging system of En-formation. The Enlightenment era paradigm shift marked the beginning of methodical Classical Science, which endured another radical perspective shift due to 20th century's Relativity & Quantum theories, that are now grudgingly accepted as technical scientific facts, despite their challenge to common sense.
Spinoza was influenced by the scientific philosophy of Descartes. But Rene is best known today for his dualistic compromise solution to the Mind/Body problem : non-overlapping magistera. Yet four centuries later, Quantum & Information science have pointed to a monistic solution : universal & causal information. The Informationism thesis is merely one of several strands of Information-centric departures from the classical worldview of Newton. But, it may take an information atomic bomb to convince some classical scientists that invisible immaterial things must be taken seriously.
Descartes as scientist :
Apart from his work in philosophy, Descartes was a leading mathematician and scientist. He invented the Cartesian coordinate system, developed analytic geometry and laid the foundation for the development of calculus. He also did groundbreaking work in physics most prominently in the field of optics.
https://learnodo-newtonic.com/rene-desc ... ntribution
The Mind-Body Problem :
"Information philosophy views the mind as the immaterial information in the brain, which is seen as a biological information processor. Mind is software in the brain's hardware.
The "stuff" of mind is pure information. Information is neither matter nor energy, though it needs matter for its embodiment and energy for its communication".
https://www.informationphilosopher.com/ ... mind_body/
Note 1 -- Physicists are beginning to see that Matter & Energy & Mind are all various forms of the Generic power-to-enform.
Note 2 -- The Information Philosopher could be construed as a "veteran philosopher". Since I am indeed a novice philosopher, with no advanced degrees, I'll let 180 argue with Bob Doyle about the scientific & philosophical merits of Information-centric science & philosophy. Bob Doyle[/u] is the Information Philosopher. He earned a Ph. D in Astrophysics from Harvard and is now an Associate in the Harvard Astronomy Department.
"Instead of a closed universe that is winding down deterministically from an initial state of high information, we find the universe is open and increasing information indeterministically from an initial state of relatively high entropy and low information. Information is being continuously created in the universe, not least by human beings who are just learning that they are part of the cosmic creative process."
https://www.informationphilos
Actually, it was practicing scientists that "scientized" the intuitions of Holism & Information-as-causation (per my previous links). All I've done is to gather their ideas under the heading of Enformationism. However, "veteran philosophers" such as 180 can be expected to judge the "quality of the output" in terms of their outdated personal paradigm. He can be dismissive of my personal qualifications to promote a new kind of science. But, I'll be content to let him argue with "Bob Doyle" (see below), a "veteran" scientist/philosopher, who is promoting the Information-centric worldview. For him, and for me, the relevance of Information to ancient myths only came after its relevance to today's reality was apparent.
This clash of paradigms has happened before. For example, the novice philosopher Spinoza outraged his fellow Jews and Christians (including some veteran theologians) by introducing a new science-based concept of God-as-Natural-instead-of-Super-natural (deus sive natura). Enformationism posits a similar god-concept, formalized in the philosophical concept of PanEnDeism (all in god). In other words, G*D is the whole of Nature, in which we humans are integral parts of an evolving emerging system of En-formation. The Enlightenment era paradigm shift marked the beginning of methodical Classical Science, which endured another radical perspective shift due to 20th century's Relativity & Quantum theories, that are now grudgingly accepted as technical scientific facts, despite their challenge to common sense.
Spinoza was influenced by the scientific philosophy of Descartes. But Rene is best known today for his dualistic compromise solution to the Mind/Body problem : non-overlapping magistera. Yet four centuries later, Quantum & Information science have pointed to a monistic solution : universal & causal information. The Informationism thesis is merely one of several strands of Information-centric departures from the classical worldview of Newton. But, it may take an information atomic bomb to convince some classical scientists that invisible immaterial things must be taken seriously.
Descartes as scientist :
Apart from his work in philosophy, Descartes was a leading mathematician and scientist. He invented the Cartesian coordinate system, developed analytic geometry and laid the foundation for the development of calculus. He also did groundbreaking work in physics most prominently in the field of optics.
https://learnodo-newtonic.com/rene-desc ... ntribution
The Mind-Body Problem :
"Information philosophy views the mind as the immaterial information in the brain, which is seen as a biological information processor. Mind is software in the brain's hardware.
The "stuff" of mind is pure information. Information is neither matter nor energy, though it needs matter for its embodiment and energy for its communication".
https://www.informationphilosopher.com/ ... mind_body/
Note 1 -- Physicists are beginning to see that Matter & Energy & Mind are all various forms of the Generic power-to-enform.
Note 2 -- The Information Philosopher could be construed as a "veteran philosopher". Since I am indeed a novice philosopher, with no advanced degrees, I'll let 180 argue with Bob Doyle about the scientific & philosophical merits of Information-centric science & philosophy. Bob Doyle[/u] is the Information Philosopher. He earned a Ph. D in Astrophysics from Harvard and is now an Associate in the Harvard Astronomy Department.
"Instead of a closed universe that is winding down deterministically from an initial state of high information, we find the universe is open and increasing information indeterministically from an initial state of relatively high entropy and low information. Information is being continuously created in the universe, not least by human beings who are just learning that they are part of the cosmic creative process."
https://www.informationphilos
Re: TPF : Agnosticism
I sympathize with your views if only for the reason that coders have been creating virtual worlds (e.g. video games) since the 1990s and, in line with your thesis, they do so with information. — Agent Smith
Yes. The coder's "virtual worlds" are simplified analogies to the Enformer's real world. Each imaginary world is conveyed from the coder's mind to the player's mind via meaningful Information.
I see that you are grasping at analogies to help you understand the complexities of the Enformationism Thesis. Perhaps something like Einstein's formula "E=MC^2" that is compact enough to put on a T-shirt. For example, Plato's non-traditional god-model was summarized as "LOGOS", which encapsulated the concept of Reason & Logic & Math into a common word for Design (rational planning). Likewise, ancient Chinese philosophers used the common words for Sun/Male (Yang) and Moon/Female (Yin) to compress the many forms of Oppositions into a single easy-to-remember two-word phrase. And, back to the OP, both Plato and Aristotle used the non-religious (agnostic) words "First Cause" to indicate the role of a logically-necessary Creator. They carefully avoided anthro-morphizing their "god of the philosophers".
For similar reasons, I have coined some simple neologisms to summarize complex philosophical concepts. For example, EnFormAction functions in a manner similar to the LOGOS, as the rational creative power of G*D, which works in the physical world to organize matter & energy into the things we know via our senses. However, the logical (mathematical) order or pattern (essence) of those things is not sensible, but intuitive & rational. And this is the kind of thinking that Materialists cannot grok. I also use the coined term "BothAnd" in a manner similar to "YinYang", but I was not thinking in terms of Chinese or New Age philosophy when I arrived at that summation of how the dialectic world-system works.
Even Einstein's formula can be interpreted in terms of Enformationism : a> "Energy: is Causation, Power ; b> "Matter is that which is caused to change (the medium) ; and c> the cosmic constant "C" is merely an abstract ratio of hidden Potential (energy density ; vacuum energy). Together, these properties constitute EnFormAction : the power to transform Potential into Actual. There are websites on the net that will put "EnFormAction" on a T-shirt for you.
Note : 180 will disagree with my novel interpretations because they don't conform to the dictionary dogma of the 20th century scientific/philosophical Paradigm. Such information-centric notions probably won't make it into authorized (canonized) definitions until the end of the 21st century. Remember, you heard it here first.
EnFormAction :
* Metaphorically, it's the Will-power of G*D, which is the First Cause of everything in creation. Aquinas called the Omnipotence of God the "Primary Cause", so EFA is the general cause of everything in the world. Energy, Matter, Gravity, Life, Mind are secondary creative causes, each with limited application.
* All are also forms of Information, the "difference that makes a difference". It works by directing causation from negative to positive, cold to hot, ignorance to knowledge. That's the basis of mathematical ratios (Greek "Logos", Latin "Ratio" = reason). A : B :: C : D. By interpreting those ratios we get meaning and reasons.
* The concept of a river of causation running through the world in various streams has been interpreted in materialistic terms as Momentum, Impetus, Force, Energy, etc, and in spiritualistic idioms as Will, Love, Conatus, and so forth. EnFormAction is all of those.
http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page8.html
In 2019, physicist Melvin Vopson of the University of Portsmouth proposed that information is equivalent to mass and energy, existing as a separate state of matter, a conjecture known as the mass-energy-information equivalence principle.
https://www.zmescience.com/science/news ... uivalence/
Yes. The coder's "virtual worlds" are simplified analogies to the Enformer's real world. Each imaginary world is conveyed from the coder's mind to the player's mind via meaningful Information.
I see that you are grasping at analogies to help you understand the complexities of the Enformationism Thesis. Perhaps something like Einstein's formula "E=MC^2" that is compact enough to put on a T-shirt. For example, Plato's non-traditional god-model was summarized as "LOGOS", which encapsulated the concept of Reason & Logic & Math into a common word for Design (rational planning). Likewise, ancient Chinese philosophers used the common words for Sun/Male (Yang) and Moon/Female (Yin) to compress the many forms of Oppositions into a single easy-to-remember two-word phrase. And, back to the OP, both Plato and Aristotle used the non-religious (agnostic) words "First Cause" to indicate the role of a logically-necessary Creator. They carefully avoided anthro-morphizing their "god of the philosophers".
For similar reasons, I have coined some simple neologisms to summarize complex philosophical concepts. For example, EnFormAction functions in a manner similar to the LOGOS, as the rational creative power of G*D, which works in the physical world to organize matter & energy into the things we know via our senses. However, the logical (mathematical) order or pattern (essence) of those things is not sensible, but intuitive & rational. And this is the kind of thinking that Materialists cannot grok. I also use the coined term "BothAnd" in a manner similar to "YinYang", but I was not thinking in terms of Chinese or New Age philosophy when I arrived at that summation of how the dialectic world-system works.
Even Einstein's formula can be interpreted in terms of Enformationism : a> "Energy: is Causation, Power ; b> "Matter is that which is caused to change (the medium) ; and c> the cosmic constant "C" is merely an abstract ratio of hidden Potential (energy density ; vacuum energy). Together, these properties constitute EnFormAction : the power to transform Potential into Actual. There are websites on the net that will put "EnFormAction" on a T-shirt for you.
Note : 180 will disagree with my novel interpretations because they don't conform to the dictionary dogma of the 20th century scientific/philosophical Paradigm. Such information-centric notions probably won't make it into authorized (canonized) definitions until the end of the 21st century. Remember, you heard it here first.
EnFormAction :
* Metaphorically, it's the Will-power of G*D, which is the First Cause of everything in creation. Aquinas called the Omnipotence of God the "Primary Cause", so EFA is the general cause of everything in the world. Energy, Matter, Gravity, Life, Mind are secondary creative causes, each with limited application.
* All are also forms of Information, the "difference that makes a difference". It works by directing causation from negative to positive, cold to hot, ignorance to knowledge. That's the basis of mathematical ratios (Greek "Logos", Latin "Ratio" = reason). A : B :: C : D. By interpreting those ratios we get meaning and reasons.
* The concept of a river of causation running through the world in various streams has been interpreted in materialistic terms as Momentum, Impetus, Force, Energy, etc, and in spiritualistic idioms as Will, Love, Conatus, and so forth. EnFormAction is all of those.
http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page8.html
In 2019, physicist Melvin Vopson of the University of Portsmouth proposed that information is equivalent to mass and energy, existing as a separate state of matter, a conjecture known as the mass-energy-information equivalence principle.
https://www.zmescience.com/science/news ... uivalence/
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 40 guests