TPF : Merging of Mass-Energy and Spacetime

[Gnomon]

The Merging of Mass-Energy and Spacetime (Black Holes contain no matter)
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussi ... ent/739123

It seems that mass-energy is convertible to spacetime. Does that argue for monism, the idea that the universe is an expression of one entity, an entity that underlies mass-energy and spacetime? — Art48

I haven't watched the video, and I don't know exactly how "mass-energy is converted into space-time". Yet, the notion of "conversion" of energy into different forms sounds plausible in view of my own understanding of "Generic Information"*1. From that philosophical perspective, everything in the universe is a unique instance of the universal power to enform (to shape or create). This is not a common conventional idea, but it is derived from the modern understanding that a> Mass (matter) is a form of Energy, and b> that Energy is a form of Information*2, and c> that Information is the content of Consciousness.

Based on that equation of Mind & Matter & Energy, I have developed a philosophical thesis which concludes that the Big Bang was a creative act of En-formation, and that Evolution is the process of creating a world from scratch, and that EnFormAction*3 is the active principle of Causation. Since Matter requires Space, and Change requires Time, space-time was perhaps the first Form to emerge from the Singularity. All other aspects of our current world, including Life & Mind, are the result of on-going formation of specific novelties from original general Potential (latent energy).

However, since thermodynamic Energy has a natural tendency toward disorder (Entropy), the fact that Life & Mind emerged from downhill Evolution implies that a countervailing force allows for pockets of order within the general trend of dissipation of creative Energy. Ironically, scientists call that positive force "Negentropy". But I prefer to think of it as a form of Generic Information that I call "Enformy"*4.

This is, of course, not a scientific theory, because it speculates on events of a pre-bang era. So, it's merely a philosophical thought-experiment, But we can infer that the Singularity was programmed by a Mind (First Cause). Hence, it "argues for Monism", due to the logical necessity for a unique "entity" with the power to En-form a world from nothing-but the power to enform (EnFormAction). It's also not a religious doctrine, because the only reliable revelation from that presumptive monistic entity is the physical world in which we live, and wonder how & why?



*1. Generic Information :
Information is the Promethean power of transformation. In the form of kinetic Energy, it is also the cause of all change. Information is Generic in the sense of generating all forms from a formless pool of possibility : such as the Platonic Forms.
http://bothandblog2.enformationism.info/page29.html

*2. Is information the fifth state of matter? :
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/

*3. EnFormAction :
Ententional Causation. A proposed metaphysical law of the universe that causes random interactions between forces and particles to produce novel & stable arrangements of matter & energy. It’s the creative force (aka : Divine Will) of the axiomatic eternal deity that, for unknown reasons, programmed a Singularity to suddenly burst into our reality from an infinite source of possibility. AKA : The creative power of Evolution; the power to enform; Logos; Change.
http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page8.html

*4. Enformy :
In the Enformationism theory, Enformy is a hypothetical, holistic, metaphysical, natural trend or force, that counteracts Entropy & Randomness to produce complexity & progress. [ see post 63 for graph ]
1. I'm not aware of any "supernatural force" in the world. But my Enformationism theory postulates that there is a meta-physical force behind Time's Arrow and the positive progress of evolution. Just as Entropy is sometimes referred to as a "force" causing energy to dissipate (negative effect), Enformy is the antithesis, which causes energy to agglomerate (additive effect).
2. Of course, neither of those phenomena is a physical Force, or a direct Cause, in the usual sense. But the term "force" is applied to such holistic causes as a metaphor drawn from our experience with physics.
http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page8.html
3 days ago

[Gnomon]

No, it simply means that a program needs a programmer, it does not then follow that a universe needs a first cause, apart from in your own musings and those who agree with you. — universeness

Your knee-jerk reaction indicates that you have pigeonholed me & my "musings" along with those who you disagree with. Ironically, most of those fellow pigeons think I'm a science-blinded Atheist.

Do you deny that the mind of the programmer is the intentional cause of a computer program? Do you know of programs that cause themselves? Or do you agree with : no cause (intention), no program (plan of action)? Even AI is not able to bootstrap itself to write a program, without some prodding from a curious human who wants to know the answer. I happen to think of Evolution, allegorically, as a program for creating a universe. And some prominent physicists & biologists have a similar idea. My postulated Programmer is a metaphor, not a myth.

In what way is this universe 'carefully orchestrated,' when it contains so many redundant objects — universeness

Do you think of the universe as a disorganized & hostile place? If so, you are missing its beautiful organization, and its ability to create living & philosophizing organisms from essentially nothing. Some people have postulated that the world began as a perfect Garden of Eden, but then was ruined by arrogant humans who thought they could manage the garden better.

Instead, I view the universe as beginning from nothing and evolving through eons of lifeless & mindless stages until living & thinking being emerged, and worked their way to the top of the food chain. Moreover, the "orchestration" is still underway, and may be working toward future harmony. Perhaps, by weeding out the discord of grumpy pessimists, among other downers.

There is grandeur in this view of life,
with its several powers,
having been originally breathed
into a few forms or into one;
and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on
according to the fixed law of gravity,
from so simple a beginning
endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful
have been, and are being, evolved.
___Charles Darwin

I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it. (Albert Einstein, 1954)

I believe in Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with the fates and actions of human beings. (Albert Einstein)

“The most important decision we make is whether we believe we live in a friendly or hostile universe.”
___Albert Einstein

Well, to do so is to surrender to woo woo proposals and a god of the gaps approach to science. — universeness

No. To use the metaphor of a programmer for evolution is to accept modern science, instead of old myths. Which were the best guesses of wise men in an age before theoretical Philosophy gave birth to empirical science. Yet, some of today's scientists still fill the gaps in knowledge -- "beyond what we can observe" with "woo woo proposals" (mathematical myths), such as hypothetical Multiverses, Many Worlds, and something-from-nothing Inflation. Theoretical physicist Sabine Hossenfelder calls such speculative-stories-sans-evidence "ascientific beliefs".

"I am saying that what's beyond what we can observe is purely a matter of belief".
"This isn't a particularly difficult argument, so I find it stunning that my physics colleagues can't seem to comprehend it"
___Hossenfelder, Existential Physics

Why did this mind you refer to, need us or the universe at all? — universeness

I have no idea what prompted the Prime Programmer to write the algorithms for an evolving world. She didn't include an Easter Egg to explain Her motives. Why do you write your programs? What is it you "need"? Could you program without an imaginative Mind? Or, is it because you want an answer to a question that can only be found by running the experiment? Universal & Existential questions are of the open-ended type : no short-cuts

I'm not interested in "creationist mind fables" or inflationist myths -- such as ballooning of a vast universe from a dimensionless mathematical quantum fluctuation. My philosophical curiosity is the same mystery that prompted Plato to postulate a logical First Cause to fill the Origin Gap in his understanding of how & why we are here to wonder about such impractical questions. And curious Cosmologists are still questing to this very day.

"Take author Douglas Adams’s popular 1979 science-fiction novel The Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy, the first in a series of five. Toward the end of the book, the supercomputer Deep Thought reveals that the answer to the “Great Question” of “Life, the Universe and Everything” is “forty-two.”
https://www.scientificamerican.com/arti ... number-42/
2 days ago

[Gnomon]

You suggested that a mind could be responsible for creating this Universe, it's your responsibility to make crystal clear the level of personal credence you assign to such a posit. — universeness

If you have the time, I have the text. My website & blog attempt to make "crystal clear" why I have concluded that an intentional First Cause is necessary to explain how a heuristic process (evolution) could produce an effect (sentience) that can conceptualize its own heritage. Bottom line : nothing Actual in the Effect that was not Potentially in the Cause. The leaf stems from the root.

The EnFormAction Hypothesis :
http://bothandblog3.enformationism.info/page23.html

A computer program is not a happenstance, no. Life in this Universe is happenstance, yes. — universeness

And you know this how? Could the seed of that conclusion have been in the original belief in creative accidents? What you see depends on your frame. Evolution is creative of novelty, not because of random Mutations, but due to functional Selection. A selection is a choice. And, by definition, a choice is not accidental, but intentional. A choice is a Cause. Life happened, not by stance or chance, but by Causation. Barrow & Tipler's Anthropic Cosmological Principle does the math for you.

A cause-and-effect relationship is claimed where the following conditions are satisfied: the two events occur at the same time and in the same place; one event immediately precedes the other; the second event appears unlikely to have happened without the first event having occurred.
https://www.oxfordreference.com/view/10 ... 3095555997
Note -- Intention (aiming) makes an effect more likely by narrowing the statistical probability. Aimed arrows are statistically more likely to hit a specified target, than random arrows.

Yeah, and theoretical physicists such as Sean Carroll and Alan Guth who favour the many worlds proposal would not refer to the proposal as an ascientific belief and would disagree with Sabine, with all due respect of course. — universeness

Of course. As true believers, they would be offended by the accusation of "ascientific" faith. But Sabine says "show me the evidence" for imaginary worlds or 'verses beyond the one we can test empirically.

The most likely explanation for this is that no such prime mover has ever existed. — universeness

The Anthropic book actually calculates the likelihood of directional motion without an intentional mover. It's analogous to a pool-cue-ball accidentally putting the eight-ball in a side pocket without intention or aiming.

I have a mind, so I can. That's why computer programs don't spontaneously appear and that's why the mind of a first cause does not manifest. It has no existence to enable it to. — universeness

Ironically, that's exactly why I concluded that creative ability requires can-do Mind. Your programming mind does not "manifest" to me, except in its effects : the programs themselves are the evidence of the intent. We know the "mind" of the programmer by examining the program. In my example, creative Evolution, which modern programmers are learning to emulate.

Evolutionary programming :
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolutionary_programming

The latter is based on REAL science, although it could still be wrong, — universeness

Hossenfelder labels Cosmic Inflation theories as "ascientific" because they're non-empirical. It's a hypothetical story to justify a prior opinion. Notice, in the chart below, that Inflation assumes, without evidence, some Cause prior to the Big Bang. Hence external to the "real" universe.

NEGATIVE POINTS in the Time before Time ARE NON-REAL
Big%20Bang%20vs%20Inflation.jpg

Trust me, based on the question posed, the fictional deep thought supercomputer gave a shit answer and needs to be reprogrammed or replaced. — universeness

Can your programs calculate the answer to universal questions? If not, maybe they need to be reprogrammed by a Universal Programmer.

Thanks for the questions & challenges. They help me to weed-out my own self-justifying opinions.

[Gnomon]

I prefer to follow the work of Stuart Hameroff and Roger Penrose on the question of human consciousness. The posit that a 'supernatural' (first cause) mind took over 13 billion years to reproduce something with a mind is rather mindless and akin to such nonsense as the kalam cosmological argument. — universeness

The Kalam argument says that "whatever begins to exist has a cause of its existence, (ii) The universe began to exist, and (iii) Therefore, the universe has a cause of its existence". Which is undeniably true of anything within the cause & effect chain of Space-Time. But, it implies that the First Cause is external & eternal, hence not subject to the restrictions of space-time or matter-energy-entropy.

Any postulated First Cause is necessarily "Supernatural", in the same sense that the Big Bang Singularity is "Preternatural" (prior to space-time). Hence, both are "ascientific" in Hossenfelder's terms. Consequently, they have no more empirical (observational) authority than the Kalam argument. Any speculations beyond the origin of space-time are philosophical conjectures, even when postulated by scientists. Is your preference for sciency-sounding BS over theological BS? It's all philosophical BS.

Astrophysicist Ethan Seigel :
Contrary to recent headlines and Penrose’s assertions, there is no evidence of “a Universe before the Big Bang.”
https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswith ... 3bfdcc7a0f

I don't consider happenstance or random combination, accidental. Everything that can combine will combine as time passes. If it can happen, it will happen somewhere at some time. — universeness

So, you consider the existence of sentient humans just the luck-of-the-draw? It may be true that "anything that can happen will happen" given infinite time. But 14 billion years is just a fraction of eternity. Besides the House sets the odds, so who is the House in this analogy : Fate or G*D?

Happenstance : synonyms
fate, fluke, chance, hap, incident, event, luck, serendipity, certain, accident and fortuity.
https://thesaurus.yourdictionary.com/happenstance

Fate : synonyms
destiny · chance · fortune · luck · nemesis · predestination · providence.
https://www.collinsdictionary.com/us/di ... aurus/fate

Sure, so we are aware of that. I don't see how that adds to the credence of a first cause mind. — universeness

A scientific "frame" is limited to the boundaries of space-time. But, a philosophical "frame" extends beyond those empirical limits into the realm of Theory. For example, the expansion of the universe is an empirical conclusion. But the Singularity from which it emerged is a theoretical construct, with no empirical support. A theory only "adds credence" if it is logical. Do you ever rely on Logic to support a belief?

"No. Logic is not empirical. No mathematical theory is empirical."
https://www.quora.com/What-is-logic-Can ... -reasoning

Not functional selection but natural selection which has no intent. — universeness

If Natural Selection has no future-oriented "intent", then how is organic (producing organisms) Selection different from entropic (disorderly) Randomness? A "functional" selection has a causal relationship to the effect we call "order" or "organization". Why did Darwin feel the need to postulate "Natural Selection" if not to provide a hypothetical alternative to "Supernatural Selection"?

Proof Finds That All Change Is a Mix of Order and Randomness
https://www.quantamagazine.org › math-proof-finds-all...


You pick your team, and you raise your standard in that camp. It has always been and always will be thus. I see no credence in the evidence you have provided for your first cause mind with intent posit. — universeness

I was a team of one, long before I read Sabine's book. So, maybe she joined my team, by using the same philosophical framing to go beyond empirical Science. You seem incredulous. Is that because Sabine's frame is different from your own faith-frame? Just kidding.

So, what evidence from the random chaos of quantum fluctuations within quantum fields do you suggest supports the anthropic principle? — universeness

Quantum Fields are imaginary metaphors. So there is no hard "evidence" of creative "fluctuations". However, there is evidence of order arising within apparent Chaos. The "Butterfly Effect" is an example of order emerging from chaos. But the seeds of order seem to be innate (iceberg hidden in the fog), and require only statistical "coincidences" (crossing paths) to reveal themselves.
Note : In this analogy, the "order" is simply a change of form from sailing ship to sinking wreck. In the Anthropic theory, the order is the highly unlikely coincidence of randomly swirling atoms magically taking on the form of a thinking being in a vast mindless universe. I'm just looking at the "evidence" through a wider frame of reference.

The ability to mimic that which already has existence and is knowable and can be studied and analysed and reverse engineered, is no evidence that the process was started by a first cause supernatural mind. — universeness

So, if not due to "that which already has existence", what is that mathematical-point-of-origin (Singularity) evidence of? Existent Something from pre-existent nothing?

You have a lot more weeding to do but you are certainly not alone in that venture. — universeness

Thanks for lending me your sharp weeding implements. That's what philosophical forums are for : sharing of ideas & experiences & beliefs & opinions & theories. Incestuous Reasoning in a Solipsistic world only breeds monsters.

WHAT YOU BELIEVE DEPENDS ON HOW YOU FRAME THE EVIDENCE
Frame%20perspective.PNG