↪Gnomon
One thing's for sure, either there is a God or there isn't one. It's quite embarrassing if you ask me. — Agent Smith
For me, that Epistemological dichotomy*1 is not so "sure". From the BothAnd perspective, it's not an Either/Or conundrum, but a statistical spectrum. Moreover, as a non-religious Agnostic, the ambiguity is not embarrassing to me. It's just another example of the uncertainty of Reality, which Stoics*2 accept as a fact of life. Philosophically, I assume that there was a First Cause of some kind, to kick-start the Big Bang. Beyond that logical axiom*3, I have no information about the presumed Programmer.
Whereof one has no idea, one must not speak*4. But philosophers are free to make-up words to express ineffable*5 concepts : e.g. "Enformer". Besides, physicists & cosmologists are not embarrassed to assume the unproveable existence of Many Worlds and Multiverses*6, to explain how something could arise from something outside of space-time as we know it. Are you sure about Many Worlds and Multiple Agent Smiths?
*1. Epistemology :
Some have also attempted to offer significant revisions to our notion of belief, including eliminativists about belief who argue that there is no phenomenon in the natural world which corresponds to our folk psychological concept of belief (Paul Churchland) and formal epistemologists who aim to replace our bivalent notion of belief ("either I have a belief or I don't have a belief") with the more permissive, probabilistic notion of credence ("there is an entire spectrum of degrees of belief, not a simple dichotomy between belief and non-belief")
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epistemology
*2. Embrace the Uncertainty :
Which is why [Stoic] Seneca reminds us: “The whole future lies in uncertainty: live immediately.”
https://dailystoic.com/embrace-the-uncertainty/
*3. Axiom : In mathematics or logic, an axiom is an unprovable rule or first principle accepted as true because it is self-evident or particularly useful.
*4. "Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent. What we cannot speak about we must pass over in silence". ___Wittgenstein
*5. Ineffable : Silvia Jonas sets out to articulate 'a common ground for any account of the metaphysics of ineffability'. She defines the ineffable as a nonlinguistic item which it is in principle impossible to express in conceptual terms or to communicate to others by the use of language. She is particularly interested in the uses of the term 'ineffable' in religious, aesthetic, and philosophical contexts, where it seems to mark something of special importance or significance
https://ndpr.nd.edu/reviews/ineffabilit ... hilosophy/
Note -- ideas about non-physical notions (metaphysics) are inherently "ineffable" in conventional matter-based words. For example, "matter" could refer to a physical object, or to a mental evaluation ("it doesn't matter" : has no physical manifestation, but may have emotional significance)
*5. Like the multiverse, true infinity is a mathematical construct. Mathematician extraordinaire David Hilbert (1862–1943) said it succinctly: “… the infinite is nowhere to be found in reality. It neither exists in nature nor provides a legitimate basis for rational thought…”
https://mindmatters.ai/2021/10/why-just ... universes/
TPF : Physics of Consciousness
Re: TPF : Physics of Consciousness
Does the OP mean panpsychism when he talks of universal consciousness or is he referring to some kind of emergent egregore(-like) mind? A hive mind perhaps? What does Enformationism have to say about such entities? Is there a slot for them in your theory? — Agent Smith
I suppose an Egregore-like emergent entity from collective thoughts could be one answer to the OP. Hive Mind might be another form of collective consciousness. But that doesn't seem to be what Art is grasping for. Collective consciousness would be an emergent Awareness from integration of all lesser minds of the world. Instead, he seems to be thinking more in terms of Panpsychism, as the general potential from which individual minds arise, and as a contrasting concept to isolated apathetic Solipsism floating in the void.
Enformationism has little to say about intermediate forms of consciousness on a continuum between G*D & Man. Instead, the thesis focuses on the only kind of mind we humans know directly : "I think, therefore I am". But it accepts, without direct evidence, the existence of Other Minds, both Human and Animal. However, it also speculates on the OP questions : origin, nature, etc. Lacking any empirical evidence though, the thesis uses abstract terms, such as "Logos", when referring to the ultimate rational intellect, and "Programmer" in reference to the intentional direction (conatus) of the Evolutionary Program.
PS___Plato assumed that his mind, as a descendant from progenitor LOGOS, should be able to rationally probe its Origins (eternal) & Nature (order/organization).
↪Art48
"But whence the universal mind/consciousness? Is it eternal? How did it originate? What is its nature? If that’s what we really are, then we must be capable of answering the questions." ___Art, from OP
"Universal consciousness is a metaphysical concept suggesting an underlying essence of all being and becoming in the universe." https://www.longdom.org/open-access/pro ... 63888.html
Note -- "Proof of Universal Consciousness with the Direction of Energy Flow" could be construed as Conatus.
Egregore is an occult concept representing a non-physical entity that arises from the collective thoughts of a distinct group of people. ___Wikipedia
EEYORE AS EMERGENT ENTITY (note; no pictures of Egregore as emergent Mind)
how-to-draw-eeyore.jpg
I suppose an Egregore-like emergent entity from collective thoughts could be one answer to the OP. Hive Mind might be another form of collective consciousness. But that doesn't seem to be what Art is grasping for. Collective consciousness would be an emergent Awareness from integration of all lesser minds of the world. Instead, he seems to be thinking more in terms of Panpsychism, as the general potential from which individual minds arise, and as a contrasting concept to isolated apathetic Solipsism floating in the void.
Enformationism has little to say about intermediate forms of consciousness on a continuum between G*D & Man. Instead, the thesis focuses on the only kind of mind we humans know directly : "I think, therefore I am". But it accepts, without direct evidence, the existence of Other Minds, both Human and Animal. However, it also speculates on the OP questions : origin, nature, etc. Lacking any empirical evidence though, the thesis uses abstract terms, such as "Logos", when referring to the ultimate rational intellect, and "Programmer" in reference to the intentional direction (conatus) of the Evolutionary Program.
PS___Plato assumed that his mind, as a descendant from progenitor LOGOS, should be able to rationally probe its Origins (eternal) & Nature (order/organization).
↪Art48
"But whence the universal mind/consciousness? Is it eternal? How did it originate? What is its nature? If that’s what we really are, then we must be capable of answering the questions." ___Art, from OP
"Universal consciousness is a metaphysical concept suggesting an underlying essence of all being and becoming in the universe." https://www.longdom.org/open-access/pro ... 63888.html
Note -- "Proof of Universal Consciousness with the Direction of Energy Flow" could be construed as Conatus.
Egregore is an occult concept representing a non-physical entity that arises from the collective thoughts of a distinct group of people. ___Wikipedia
EEYORE AS EMERGENT ENTITY (note; no pictures of Egregore as emergent Mind)
how-to-draw-eeyore.jpg
Re: TPF : Physics of Consciousness
↪180 Proof
Good observation as far as I can tell. What's exactly the problem with infinite regress? Not that I haven't done me homework mate. The Wikipedia page doesn't mention anything specifically wrong with infinite regress. Ok, so it goes on forever, backwards. So?
As for Gnomon's Enformationism, it's, at the end of the day, a half-theism and half-atheism if there's such a concept afloat in the ideaverse. In line, of course, with his BothAnd synthetic idea-tool. — Agent Smith
"Infinite Regress" is inherent in all scientific postulations (Multiverse ; Many Worlds) that go beyond Post-Big-Bang-Space-Time. On the other end of the space-time scale from Cosmology, Quantum Theory is riddled with logic-stopping infinities, that must be "re-normalised" in order to make sense to the human mind. So, ↪180 Proof is using a double-standard for Science & Philosophy.
Enformationism is not an attempt to reconcile Theism & Atheism. It makes no theological claims, pro or con. But its BothAnd position on G*D questions is similar to the non-religious philosophical worldview of Deism. More specifically, it is a form of PanEnDeism, not PanPsychism, as 180 seems to misinterpret.
"Gnomon's crypto-idealist pseudo-scientism aka "Meta-Physics" is inconsistent with atheism" FWIW, Enformationism is both Realist and Idealist. It reconciles how a Real world can have non-physical Ideas : both are forms of Generic Information. Apparently, 180's anti-idealism Reality does not include any Ideas. So his own posts are literally meaningless non-sense.
PS__I could facetiously retort that 180 is a crypto-fascist, but I don't know anything about his politics. Yet, even though he knows nothing about Gnomon's philosophy, he feels entitled to use polemical ad hominems instead of rational arguments to refute his own mis-perceptions.
PPS __ This post is not directed at 180proof, because ideas just bounce off his physical head, but AgentSmith seems to absorb information presented in the form of metaphysical ideas, not spit-wads.
Renormalization is distinct from regularization, another technique to control infinities by assuming the existence of new unknown physics at new scales.
renormalization, the procedure in quantum field theory by which divergent parts of a calculation, leading to nonsensical infinite results, are absorbed by redefinition into a few measurable quantities, so yielding finite answers.
https://www.britannica.com/science/renormalization
Note -- One way to re-normalize quantum infinities is to divide by the square-root of minus one. Which results in Imaginary numbers.
The square root of minus one √(−1) is the "unit" Imaginary Number, the equivalent of 1 for Real Numbers. In mathematics the symbol for √(−1) is i for imaginary.
https://www.mathsisfun.com/numbers/imag ... mbers.html
Metaphysics is the branch of philosophy that studies the fundamental nature of reality, the first principles of being, identity and change, space and time, causality, necessity, and possibility. ___Wikipedia
Note-- The topic of this thread is Meta-physical (ideas about ideas). Science studies the phenomenal (physical) nature of Reality, while Philosophy studies the noumenal (mental) nature of Nature. Again, 180 dismisses the existence of Mind in the Real world. So his Physicalism is essentially mindless.
Metaphysics :
Physical objects are real. Or at least most people think that they are real. Ideas are real. Relationships (taller than, older than) are real. They are all real but they are not real in the same way
https://www.qcc.cuny.edu/socialsciences ... ERVIEW.htm
Good observation as far as I can tell. What's exactly the problem with infinite regress? Not that I haven't done me homework mate. The Wikipedia page doesn't mention anything specifically wrong with infinite regress. Ok, so it goes on forever, backwards. So?
As for Gnomon's Enformationism, it's, at the end of the day, a half-theism and half-atheism if there's such a concept afloat in the ideaverse. In line, of course, with his BothAnd synthetic idea-tool. — Agent Smith
"Infinite Regress" is inherent in all scientific postulations (Multiverse ; Many Worlds) that go beyond Post-Big-Bang-Space-Time. On the other end of the space-time scale from Cosmology, Quantum Theory is riddled with logic-stopping infinities, that must be "re-normalised" in order to make sense to the human mind. So, ↪180 Proof is using a double-standard for Science & Philosophy.
Enformationism is not an attempt to reconcile Theism & Atheism. It makes no theological claims, pro or con. But its BothAnd position on G*D questions is similar to the non-religious philosophical worldview of Deism. More specifically, it is a form of PanEnDeism, not PanPsychism, as 180 seems to misinterpret.
"Gnomon's crypto-idealist pseudo-scientism aka "Meta-Physics" is inconsistent with atheism" FWIW, Enformationism is both Realist and Idealist. It reconciles how a Real world can have non-physical Ideas : both are forms of Generic Information. Apparently, 180's anti-idealism Reality does not include any Ideas. So his own posts are literally meaningless non-sense.
PS__I could facetiously retort that 180 is a crypto-fascist, but I don't know anything about his politics. Yet, even though he knows nothing about Gnomon's philosophy, he feels entitled to use polemical ad hominems instead of rational arguments to refute his own mis-perceptions.
PPS __ This post is not directed at 180proof, because ideas just bounce off his physical head, but AgentSmith seems to absorb information presented in the form of metaphysical ideas, not spit-wads.
Renormalization is distinct from regularization, another technique to control infinities by assuming the existence of new unknown physics at new scales.
renormalization, the procedure in quantum field theory by which divergent parts of a calculation, leading to nonsensical infinite results, are absorbed by redefinition into a few measurable quantities, so yielding finite answers.
https://www.britannica.com/science/renormalization
Note -- One way to re-normalize quantum infinities is to divide by the square-root of minus one. Which results in Imaginary numbers.
The square root of minus one √(−1) is the "unit" Imaginary Number, the equivalent of 1 for Real Numbers. In mathematics the symbol for √(−1) is i for imaginary.
https://www.mathsisfun.com/numbers/imag ... mbers.html
Metaphysics is the branch of philosophy that studies the fundamental nature of reality, the first principles of being, identity and change, space and time, causality, necessity, and possibility. ___Wikipedia
Note-- The topic of this thread is Meta-physical (ideas about ideas). Science studies the phenomenal (physical) nature of Reality, while Philosophy studies the noumenal (mental) nature of Nature. Again, 180 dismisses the existence of Mind in the Real world. So his Physicalism is essentially mindless.
Metaphysics :
Physical objects are real. Or at least most people think that they are real. Ideas are real. Relationships (taller than, older than) are real. They are all real but they are not real in the same way
https://www.qcc.cuny.edu/socialsciences ... ERVIEW.htm
Re: TPF : Physics of Consciousness
Intriguing ideas mate! I'm not sure how they tie up though. For the moment though, in me humble opinion, I do see a blurry picture forming - you need to now bring it into focus or not, the choice being yours entirely. — Agent Smith
No. You need to bring it into focus. These TPF posts on disparate topics are inherently fragmented. But the Enformationism thesis begins at the beginning of the Energy+Matter+Mind equation and moves toward a novel information-theoretic worldview. The BothAnd Blog articles continue to explore specific applications of the basic concept : Generic Information is the fundamental substance of the universe. Links to opinions of Information-oriented scientists & philosophers add more detail to the emerging Information-based scientific paradigm. So, the choice is yours, to explore beyond my layman's opinions, expressed in bits & bytes of information.
PS__ You can choose to take ↪180 Proof"s jibes seriously or not. To throw you off the scent he makes a bold assertion : "Neither "multiverse" nor "many worlds" are "scientific postulations". I assume he's aware that both of those philosophical conjectures were conjured-up by theoretical physicists to explain infinities or dead-ends in their mathematical theories. Admittedly, those hypothetical solutions to quantum & cosmological conundrums were adopted more often by imaginative sci-fi writers, than by pragmatic scientists. Being unfalsifiable, they are actually philosophical speculations, even when proposed by baffled scientists. But they were intended to be mathematically-supported interpretations of enigmatic physical evidence.
The bizarre logic of the many-worlds theory :
***At the beginning of Something Deeply Hidden, Sean Carroll cites the tale of the fox and the grapes from Aesop’s Fables. A hungry fox tries to reach a bunch of grapes dangling from a vine. Finding them beyond his grasp, but refusing to admit failure, the fox declares the grapes to be inedible and turns away. That, Carroll declares, encapsulates how physicists treat the wacky implications of quantum mechanics.
***Carroll wants that to stop. The fox can reach the grapes, he argues, with the many-worlds theory. Originated by US physicist Hugh Everett in the late 1950s, this envisions our Universe as just one of numerous parallel worlds that branch off from each other, nanosecond by nanosecond, without intersecting or communicating. (The many-worlds theory differs from the concept of the multiverse, which pictures many self-contained universes in different regions of space-time.)
https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-019-02602-8
Multiverse :
***In Dublin in 1952, Erwin Schrödinger gave a lecture in which he jocularly warned his audience that what he was about to say might "seem lunatic". He said that when his equations seemed to describe several different histories, these were "not alternatives, but all really happen simultaneously". This sort of duality is called "superposition".
***Some physicists say the multiverse is not a legitimate topic of scientific inquiry. Concerns have been raised about whether attempts to exempt the multiverse from experimental verification could erode public confidence in science and ultimately damage the study of fundamental physics. Some have argued that the multiverse is a philosophical notion rather than a scientific hypothesis because it cannot be empirically falsified. The ability to disprove a theory by means of scientific experiment is a critical criterion of the accepted scientific method.[9] Paul Steinhardt has famously argued that no experiment can rule out a theory if the theory provides for all possible outcomes.
***Modern proponents of one or more of the multiverse hypotheses include Don Page, Brian Greene, Max Tegmark, Alan Guth, Andrei Linde, Michio Kaku, David Deutsch, Leonard Susskind, Alexander Vilenkin, Yasunori Nomura, Raj Pathria, Laura Mersini-Houghton, Neil deGrasse Tyson, Sean Carroll and Stephen Hawking.`
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiverse
What did Einstein say about multiverse?
The concept of the multiverse stems from the big bang theory — Albert Einstein's once controversial, but now widely accepted, idea that the universe instantaneously expanded from a tiny point called a singularity.
Note -- Some scientists realized that the only logical option to a singular Creation Event (implying a Creator), was to imagine that a Multiverse has always existed, with intrinsic Energy, Laws & Matter. In a series of "big bounces" this eternal source of being repeatedly recreates itself in the form of an infinite regression of creation events. The Multiverse theory basically replaces a traditional eternal spiritual Creator with an eternal material process of temporal change.
SELF-EXISTENT GODLESS MULTIVERSES vs UNITARY ETERNAL CREATOR
960x0.jpg?format=jpg&width=960
No. You need to bring it into focus. These TPF posts on disparate topics are inherently fragmented. But the Enformationism thesis begins at the beginning of the Energy+Matter+Mind equation and moves toward a novel information-theoretic worldview. The BothAnd Blog articles continue to explore specific applications of the basic concept : Generic Information is the fundamental substance of the universe. Links to opinions of Information-oriented scientists & philosophers add more detail to the emerging Information-based scientific paradigm. So, the choice is yours, to explore beyond my layman's opinions, expressed in bits & bytes of information.
PS__ You can choose to take ↪180 Proof"s jibes seriously or not. To throw you off the scent he makes a bold assertion : "Neither "multiverse" nor "many worlds" are "scientific postulations". I assume he's aware that both of those philosophical conjectures were conjured-up by theoretical physicists to explain infinities or dead-ends in their mathematical theories. Admittedly, those hypothetical solutions to quantum & cosmological conundrums were adopted more often by imaginative sci-fi writers, than by pragmatic scientists. Being unfalsifiable, they are actually philosophical speculations, even when proposed by baffled scientists. But they were intended to be mathematically-supported interpretations of enigmatic physical evidence.
The bizarre logic of the many-worlds theory :
***At the beginning of Something Deeply Hidden, Sean Carroll cites the tale of the fox and the grapes from Aesop’s Fables. A hungry fox tries to reach a bunch of grapes dangling from a vine. Finding them beyond his grasp, but refusing to admit failure, the fox declares the grapes to be inedible and turns away. That, Carroll declares, encapsulates how physicists treat the wacky implications of quantum mechanics.
***Carroll wants that to stop. The fox can reach the grapes, he argues, with the many-worlds theory. Originated by US physicist Hugh Everett in the late 1950s, this envisions our Universe as just one of numerous parallel worlds that branch off from each other, nanosecond by nanosecond, without intersecting or communicating. (The many-worlds theory differs from the concept of the multiverse, which pictures many self-contained universes in different regions of space-time.)
https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-019-02602-8
Multiverse :
***In Dublin in 1952, Erwin Schrödinger gave a lecture in which he jocularly warned his audience that what he was about to say might "seem lunatic". He said that when his equations seemed to describe several different histories, these were "not alternatives, but all really happen simultaneously". This sort of duality is called "superposition".
***Some physicists say the multiverse is not a legitimate topic of scientific inquiry. Concerns have been raised about whether attempts to exempt the multiverse from experimental verification could erode public confidence in science and ultimately damage the study of fundamental physics. Some have argued that the multiverse is a philosophical notion rather than a scientific hypothesis because it cannot be empirically falsified. The ability to disprove a theory by means of scientific experiment is a critical criterion of the accepted scientific method.[9] Paul Steinhardt has famously argued that no experiment can rule out a theory if the theory provides for all possible outcomes.
***Modern proponents of one or more of the multiverse hypotheses include Don Page, Brian Greene, Max Tegmark, Alan Guth, Andrei Linde, Michio Kaku, David Deutsch, Leonard Susskind, Alexander Vilenkin, Yasunori Nomura, Raj Pathria, Laura Mersini-Houghton, Neil deGrasse Tyson, Sean Carroll and Stephen Hawking.`
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiverse
What did Einstein say about multiverse?
The concept of the multiverse stems from the big bang theory — Albert Einstein's once controversial, but now widely accepted, idea that the universe instantaneously expanded from a tiny point called a singularity.
Note -- Some scientists realized that the only logical option to a singular Creation Event (implying a Creator), was to imagine that a Multiverse has always existed, with intrinsic Energy, Laws & Matter. In a series of "big bounces" this eternal source of being repeatedly recreates itself in the form of an infinite regression of creation events. The Multiverse theory basically replaces a traditional eternal spiritual Creator with an eternal material process of temporal change.
SELF-EXISTENT GODLESS MULTIVERSES vs UNITARY ETERNAL CREATOR
960x0.jpg?format=jpg&width=960
Re: TPF : Physics of Consciousness
The universal mind is quite the idea. It's right up yer alley. Wayfarer would've loved to discuss it from his unique Buddhist perspective. — Agent Smith
Except that I try not to think of the Enformer in terms of a "Universal Mind", but as the universal power to enform. I have my reasons for making that distinction : we have no information about personal characteristics of the eternal enforming Force beyond the bounds of space-time. The mind behind that power is occult (hidden by necessity or by intention). So imagining the Enformer as a metaphorical humanoid Mind is presumptive. But if you prefer a more personal Mind, instead of an impersonal Power to Enform, more power to you. I'm open-minded.
Creator in Buddhism :
Buddhism is a religion that does not include the belief in a creator deity, or any eternal divine personal being.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creator_in_Buddhism
Leading neuroscientists and Buddhists agree: “Consciousness is everywhere” :
New theories in neuroscience suggest consciousness is an intrinsic property of everything, just like gravity. That development opens a world of opportunity for collaboration between Buddhists and neuroscientists.
https://www.lionsroar.com/christof-koch ... ture-mind/
Note -- I make a technical distinction between human Consciousness and Generic Information. EnFormAction is the power of Causation (similar to physical Energy), and human Consciousness (Mind) is one effect of that cause. The ultimate source of that power may have mind-like properties, but I don't presume to know for sure. Yet we can know that Information (Energy+Matter+Mind) is an intrinsic property of everything in the real & ideal worlds*1.
*1. To see how informational realism dissolves the mind-body problem, we need first to be clear on what informational realism is and why it is credible. Informational realism is not simply the view that information is real. We live in an information age, so who doesn’t think that information is real? Rather, informational realism asserts that the ability to exchange information is the defining feature of reality, of what it means, at the most fundamental level, for any entity to be real.
https://mindmatters.ai/2021/07/how-info ... terialism/
Cosmopsychism vs Enformationism :
Nature as a conscious Agent
http://www.bothandblog.enformationism.info/page53.html
Except that I try not to think of the Enformer in terms of a "Universal Mind", but as the universal power to enform. I have my reasons for making that distinction : we have no information about personal characteristics of the eternal enforming Force beyond the bounds of space-time. The mind behind that power is occult (hidden by necessity or by intention). So imagining the Enformer as a metaphorical humanoid Mind is presumptive. But if you prefer a more personal Mind, instead of an impersonal Power to Enform, more power to you. I'm open-minded.
Creator in Buddhism :
Buddhism is a religion that does not include the belief in a creator deity, or any eternal divine personal being.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creator_in_Buddhism
Leading neuroscientists and Buddhists agree: “Consciousness is everywhere” :
New theories in neuroscience suggest consciousness is an intrinsic property of everything, just like gravity. That development opens a world of opportunity for collaboration between Buddhists and neuroscientists.
https://www.lionsroar.com/christof-koch ... ture-mind/
Note -- I make a technical distinction between human Consciousness and Generic Information. EnFormAction is the power of Causation (similar to physical Energy), and human Consciousness (Mind) is one effect of that cause. The ultimate source of that power may have mind-like properties, but I don't presume to know for sure. Yet we can know that Information (Energy+Matter+Mind) is an intrinsic property of everything in the real & ideal worlds*1.
*1. To see how informational realism dissolves the mind-body problem, we need first to be clear on what informational realism is and why it is credible. Informational realism is not simply the view that information is real. We live in an information age, so who doesn’t think that information is real? Rather, informational realism asserts that the ability to exchange information is the defining feature of reality, of what it means, at the most fundamental level, for any entity to be real.
https://mindmatters.ai/2021/07/how-info ... terialism/
Cosmopsychism vs Enformationism :
Nature as a conscious Agent
http://www.bothandblog.enformationism.info/page53.html
Re: TPF : Physics of Consciousness
180 Proof
You're too kind sir. As I thought, Enformationism is untestable (forgivable), but I didn't expect it was also not "soundly logical" (sacrilege ).
However BothAnd, a key tool in Gnomon's Enformationism, suggests prima facie defiance of logic. — Agent Smith
A philosophical (metaphysical) thesis is inherently "untestable" by physical experiments. But it must be amenable to Reason. However, most of the scientific evidence underlying the thesis has resulted from both physical (empirical) and mathematical (logical) testing. The equivalence of Energy and Information is a scientific conclusion from evidence*1, not a philosophical conjecture from phantasy. Most of my post links are to scientific publications*2, and none are to magical or religious beliefs. So, don't take ↪180 Proof's disparaging assertion as authoritative evidence that the thesis is "illogical". Think for yourself*3.
180's classical "sound" logic is two-valued*4, and dismisses all values between the extremes of True vs False. So, I conclude that 180's antipathy toward the Enformationism thesis is based on his ignorance, or distrust, of Quantum Physics with its non-classical logic. Quantum physics requires Boolean algebra in order to make sense of the Fuzzy Logic of quantum Uncertainty. To 180, BothAnd reasoning is sacrilegious, and "defiance of logic". But to Gnomon, it is practical secular reasoning for Metaphysical questions such as Mind/Matter and Quantum Fuzziness*5. So, if non-mechanical quantum physics makes you uncomfortable, you can hide under the security blanket of mechanical Classical physics. If 180 doesn't grasp the meaning of quantum physics and information theory, he can dismiss them as "sour grapes".
*1. Information & Energy equivalence :
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/
Note -- Information & Energy are not the same thing, but different forms of the same metaphysical substance : EnFormAction (power to change form)
*2. Information and Energy As Independent Forms of Bookkeeping
Energy and information are related but independent, so the dynamical restrictions for one cannot be derived from those for the other. From this perspective, we also suggest the possibility that the foundation of the second law may be linked to the finite capacity of nature to store information about its own state.
https://arxiv.org/ftp/cond-mat/papers/0501/0501014.pdf
Note -- Shannon defined his novel concept of "Information" mathematically (syntax), instead of semantically (meaning). He borrowed the notion of Information entropy from the physics of Energy. But the original meaning of "information" remains semantic. So Information is BothAnd (syntax & semantic), not Either/Or. N'est pas?
*3. "Think for yourself, or others will think for you without thinking of you."
___Henry David Thoreau
*4. Two Value Logic :
Classically, a logic is two-valued if every proposition (without free variables) is either true or false and none is both; that is, the logic is consistent and every proposition is decidable. Being two-valued logic is a key feature of classical logic; any logic that is not two-valued is ipso facto nonclassical.
https://ncatlab.org/nlab/show/two-valued+logic
Note -- True/False logic assumes complete information & arrogant certainty. Yet, in cases of incomplete information & fuzzy uncertainty (e.g. Quantum Physics & Mental Phenomena), a more modest form of reasoning is advisable.
*5. BothAnd thinking :
Quantum thinking is the ability of the mind to view a problem from all sides.
https://interestingengineering.com/cult ... think-free
You're too kind sir. As I thought, Enformationism is untestable (forgivable), but I didn't expect it was also not "soundly logical" (sacrilege ).
However BothAnd, a key tool in Gnomon's Enformationism, suggests prima facie defiance of logic. — Agent Smith
A philosophical (metaphysical) thesis is inherently "untestable" by physical experiments. But it must be amenable to Reason. However, most of the scientific evidence underlying the thesis has resulted from both physical (empirical) and mathematical (logical) testing. The equivalence of Energy and Information is a scientific conclusion from evidence*1, not a philosophical conjecture from phantasy. Most of my post links are to scientific publications*2, and none are to magical or religious beliefs. So, don't take ↪180 Proof's disparaging assertion as authoritative evidence that the thesis is "illogical". Think for yourself*3.
180's classical "sound" logic is two-valued*4, and dismisses all values between the extremes of True vs False. So, I conclude that 180's antipathy toward the Enformationism thesis is based on his ignorance, or distrust, of Quantum Physics with its non-classical logic. Quantum physics requires Boolean algebra in order to make sense of the Fuzzy Logic of quantum Uncertainty. To 180, BothAnd reasoning is sacrilegious, and "defiance of logic". But to Gnomon, it is practical secular reasoning for Metaphysical questions such as Mind/Matter and Quantum Fuzziness*5. So, if non-mechanical quantum physics makes you uncomfortable, you can hide under the security blanket of mechanical Classical physics. If 180 doesn't grasp the meaning of quantum physics and information theory, he can dismiss them as "sour grapes".
*1. Information & Energy equivalence :
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/
Note -- Information & Energy are not the same thing, but different forms of the same metaphysical substance : EnFormAction (power to change form)
*2. Information and Energy As Independent Forms of Bookkeeping
Energy and information are related but independent, so the dynamical restrictions for one cannot be derived from those for the other. From this perspective, we also suggest the possibility that the foundation of the second law may be linked to the finite capacity of nature to store information about its own state.
https://arxiv.org/ftp/cond-mat/papers/0501/0501014.pdf
Note -- Shannon defined his novel concept of "Information" mathematically (syntax), instead of semantically (meaning). He borrowed the notion of Information entropy from the physics of Energy. But the original meaning of "information" remains semantic. So Information is BothAnd (syntax & semantic), not Either/Or. N'est pas?
*3. "Think for yourself, or others will think for you without thinking of you."
___Henry David Thoreau
*4. Two Value Logic :
Classically, a logic is two-valued if every proposition (without free variables) is either true or false and none is both; that is, the logic is consistent and every proposition is decidable. Being two-valued logic is a key feature of classical logic; any logic that is not two-valued is ipso facto nonclassical.
https://ncatlab.org/nlab/show/two-valued+logic
Note -- True/False logic assumes complete information & arrogant certainty. Yet, in cases of incomplete information & fuzzy uncertainty (e.g. Quantum Physics & Mental Phenomena), a more modest form of reasoning is advisable.
*5. BothAnd thinking :
Quantum thinking is the ability of the mind to view a problem from all sides.
https://interestingengineering.com/cult ... think-free
Re: TPF : Physics of Consciousness
Universal Mind/Consciousness?
Your theory doesn't require minds then - information is self-sufficient and yet ... — Agent Smith
That's not what I said, or intended. Instead, Generic Information (programmed causation) was responsible for gradual emergence of Minds -- among many other things -- from eons of information processing. For billions of years, Nature got along fine without Minds -- or Universal Consciousness. But natural EnFormAction (energy + direction) laid groundwork for the eventual emergence of rational Minds. Those mammalian minds later evolved self-conscious homo sapiens Minds, that only recently began to take over the creative function of Evolution via Culture.
With that in mind, I would re-word your statement to say that "self-sufficient" Information (EnFormAction) worked automatically for eons (no need for miracles), to construct a world and local environment suitable for warm-blooded vertebrate creatures to proliferate, and to evolve complex brains on top of their up-right spines. Those information-processing brains then evolved cooperative Culture (combined minds) to expand the reach of subjective Information via communication to all sentient creatures on Earth.
What I was implying is that evolutionary EnFormAction functions automatically (self-controlled) like a computer program, with creative feedback loops, to process initial general Information (Forms) into novel & unique forms as outputs. That's an imaginative metaphor, as an attempt to make sense of a world that makes sense to rational minds. The universe is much more "self-sufficient" than any current computer though. For example, it has produced interim outputs (organisms ) that are self-organizing. Does any of that make sense, not as a scientific conclusion, but as a philosophical metaphor?
Intitial Program Data :
In mathematics and particularly in dynamic systems, an initial condition, in some contexts called a seed value,[1]: pp. 160 is a value of an evolving variable at some point in time designated as the initial time (typically denoted t = 0).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Initial_condition
Note -- Metaphorically, the Singularity was the program for evolution, and Generic Information was the "seed" containing coded directions (like DNA) and selection criteria for eventual development of Conscious Minds. Unfortunately, the implicit Programmer is beyond the scope of Science, but not out of reach for philosophical conjecture.
Can you see the analogy? Evolution works like a computer, using natural selection to filter out wrong answers to the original question. Today, human programmed computers use artificial selection (programmer's intentions) to weed-out a range of variables, down to a precious few that meet the programmer's criteria.
Your theory doesn't require minds then - information is self-sufficient and yet ... — Agent Smith
That's not what I said, or intended. Instead, Generic Information (programmed causation) was responsible for gradual emergence of Minds -- among many other things -- from eons of information processing. For billions of years, Nature got along fine without Minds -- or Universal Consciousness. But natural EnFormAction (energy + direction) laid groundwork for the eventual emergence of rational Minds. Those mammalian minds later evolved self-conscious homo sapiens Minds, that only recently began to take over the creative function of Evolution via Culture.
With that in mind, I would re-word your statement to say that "self-sufficient" Information (EnFormAction) worked automatically for eons (no need for miracles), to construct a world and local environment suitable for warm-blooded vertebrate creatures to proliferate, and to evolve complex brains on top of their up-right spines. Those information-processing brains then evolved cooperative Culture (combined minds) to expand the reach of subjective Information via communication to all sentient creatures on Earth.
What I was implying is that evolutionary EnFormAction functions automatically (self-controlled) like a computer program, with creative feedback loops, to process initial general Information (Forms) into novel & unique forms as outputs. That's an imaginative metaphor, as an attempt to make sense of a world that makes sense to rational minds. The universe is much more "self-sufficient" than any current computer though. For example, it has produced interim outputs (organisms ) that are self-organizing. Does any of that make sense, not as a scientific conclusion, but as a philosophical metaphor?
Intitial Program Data :
In mathematics and particularly in dynamic systems, an initial condition, in some contexts called a seed value,[1]: pp. 160 is a value of an evolving variable at some point in time designated as the initial time (typically denoted t = 0).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Initial_condition
Note -- Metaphorically, the Singularity was the program for evolution, and Generic Information was the "seed" containing coded directions (like DNA) and selection criteria for eventual development of Conscious Minds. Unfortunately, the implicit Programmer is beyond the scope of Science, but not out of reach for philosophical conjecture.
Can you see the analogy? Evolution works like a computer, using natural selection to filter out wrong answers to the original question. Today, human programmed computers use artificial selection (programmer's intentions) to weed-out a range of variables, down to a precious few that meet the programmer's criteria.
Re: TPF : Physics of Consciousness
As I said above, apart from the experience of the "external, objective" world there is also the experience of freedom and moral responsibility, and although we don't directly experience what goes on in other minds, similarly we don't directly experience an external world either, although we do have plenty of experience that provides individual evidence that something exists outside of our skins, just as we have plenty of experience that provides evidence for the existence of other people.. — Janus
I assume you're referring to Kant's ding an sich noumenon*1, which presumably exists "independent of representation and observation". Yet "Universal Mind/Consciousness" as an abstract idea, lacks phenomenal experience. So Realists tend to dismiss such unverifiable ideas, asserting that their phenomenal existence (as brain states)*2 is the only reality. Anything else suffers from the major limitation of Idealism : subjectivity. Which can be dismissed as "imaginary", or "mere opinion", or even "woo-woo" -- if it clashes with the Realist's noumenal worldview.
I just discovered the notion of "Phenomenal Experience"*3 as an argument in favor of Consciousness as a real thing. But I doubt that a Realist would be convinced. They might admit that the human Mind has a general function : processing ideas (representations of experience), while insisting that the mechanism generating that useful function is the material brain. Hence the "function" does not exist "independent of observation". Materialism reserves "experience" for the five physical senses of the body*4. Whereas Functionalism*5 seems to be a half-step toward Idealism.
The hard distinction between Realism & Idealism seems to imply that "my sensory experience counts as real" but your subjective experience counts only as hearsay. As a defense against manipulations via Faith, such skepticism might be necessary, in order to screen for truth. Yet openness to the experiences of others results in social cooperation, even in the profession we call Science. But the soft distinction typical of the profession of Philosophy makes a forum for sharing personal, non-empirical, opinions possible. I can import some of your ideas into my own worldview, as long as they pass the Plausible (logical, but not necessarily factual) test. From my perspective, "Universal Mind" may sound reasonable, depending on prior assumptions -- which may or may not be acceptable.
PS__Personally, I can't make a black vs white distinction between Real & Ideal or Mind & Matter. As you seem to imply, what we know as real is a subjective feeling about the representation of an observation.
*1. Ding An Sich :
In Kantian philosophy, the thing-in-itself (German: Ding an sich) is the status of objects as they are, independent of representation and observation.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thing-in-itself
*2. But what is a brain state, other than a temporary pattern of interrelationships? Its function is in motivated behavior based on belief in a the represented idea.
*3. Phenomenal experience might act as a mental currency of sorts, which not only endows conscious mental states with intrinsic value but also makes it possible for conscious agents to compare vastly different experiences in a common subject-centred space—a feature that readily explains the fact that consciousness is ‘unified’.
https://academic.oup.com/nc/article/202 ... 07/6573727
*4. . . . .Omitting the sixth sense of Reason, which ties separate sensory inputs into meaningful, non-physical, patterns of relationships.
*5. In philosophy of mind, functionalism is the thesis that mental states are constituted solely by their functional role, which means, their causal relations with other mental states, sensory inputs and behavioral outputs. Functionalism developed largely as an alternative to the identity theory of mind and behaviorism. ___Wikipedia
I assume you're referring to Kant's ding an sich noumenon*1, which presumably exists "independent of representation and observation". Yet "Universal Mind/Consciousness" as an abstract idea, lacks phenomenal experience. So Realists tend to dismiss such unverifiable ideas, asserting that their phenomenal existence (as brain states)*2 is the only reality. Anything else suffers from the major limitation of Idealism : subjectivity. Which can be dismissed as "imaginary", or "mere opinion", or even "woo-woo" -- if it clashes with the Realist's noumenal worldview.
I just discovered the notion of "Phenomenal Experience"*3 as an argument in favor of Consciousness as a real thing. But I doubt that a Realist would be convinced. They might admit that the human Mind has a general function : processing ideas (representations of experience), while insisting that the mechanism generating that useful function is the material brain. Hence the "function" does not exist "independent of observation". Materialism reserves "experience" for the five physical senses of the body*4. Whereas Functionalism*5 seems to be a half-step toward Idealism.
The hard distinction between Realism & Idealism seems to imply that "my sensory experience counts as real" but your subjective experience counts only as hearsay. As a defense against manipulations via Faith, such skepticism might be necessary, in order to screen for truth. Yet openness to the experiences of others results in social cooperation, even in the profession we call Science. But the soft distinction typical of the profession of Philosophy makes a forum for sharing personal, non-empirical, opinions possible. I can import some of your ideas into my own worldview, as long as they pass the Plausible (logical, but not necessarily factual) test. From my perspective, "Universal Mind" may sound reasonable, depending on prior assumptions -- which may or may not be acceptable.
PS__Personally, I can't make a black vs white distinction between Real & Ideal or Mind & Matter. As you seem to imply, what we know as real is a subjective feeling about the representation of an observation.
*1. Ding An Sich :
In Kantian philosophy, the thing-in-itself (German: Ding an sich) is the status of objects as they are, independent of representation and observation.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thing-in-itself
*2. But what is a brain state, other than a temporary pattern of interrelationships? Its function is in motivated behavior based on belief in a the represented idea.
*3. Phenomenal experience might act as a mental currency of sorts, which not only endows conscious mental states with intrinsic value but also makes it possible for conscious agents to compare vastly different experiences in a common subject-centred space—a feature that readily explains the fact that consciousness is ‘unified’.
https://academic.oup.com/nc/article/202 ... 07/6573727
*4. . . . .Omitting the sixth sense of Reason, which ties separate sensory inputs into meaningful, non-physical, patterns of relationships.
*5. In philosophy of mind, functionalism is the thesis that mental states are constituted solely by their functional role, which means, their causal relations with other mental states, sensory inputs and behavioral outputs. Functionalism developed largely as an alternative to the identity theory of mind and behaviorism. ___Wikipedia
Re: TPF : Physics of Consciousness
I wasn't referring to Kantian ideas. I intended to point out that we don't experience an external world, meaning that we don't experience anything that we know to be a mind-independent external world, even if an inference to a mind-independent external world might seem most plausible. — Janus
OK. But that description sounds Kantian to me. Scientists & Philosophers may be aware that their observations are subjective, even when they are presented as objective : "most physicists agree that . . . . is a fact". Yet, non-philosophers, who haven't given it much thought, might not "know" that their experience is not of direct reality, but of the external world as mediated via an internal "frame" of prior beliefs. Kant seemed to be saying that, although we might infer an objective "mind-independent external world", our internal working model of that world is actually a subjective construct. Hence, we like to think we are seeing reality, when in fact we are imagining an artificial (man-made) model of reality.
Also, I don't know what you mean by "realist's noumenal worldview". — Janus
Sorry, I was obliquely referring to the realist's imaginary model of the world, which may be intuitively accepted as the true objective reality. That's how we navigate through the world, using our mental maps as proxies for the actual terrain. But on a philosophical forum we soon discover that my noumenal worldview (my map) may be rejected by others with different maps of true reality : e.g. Idealism vs Materialism.
Whereas Functionalism*5 seems to be a half-step toward Idealism. — Gnomon
I not sure what you mean here. To my way of thinking functionalism just says that mind is a real function of the brain, which is again a kind of realism, if not strict eliminative physicalism. — Janus
Off the top of my pointy head, I was trying to say that a Function*1 is not a material thing, but an inference about a Causal Process*2 : not Real, but Ideal. The Brain is a real tangible object, but the Mind is an ideal imaginary subject. We know the Mind by rational inference, not by sensory observation. Hence Functionalism treats the idea of Mind as-if a Real thing.
The notion of "Phenomenal Experience" (mental currency) was new to me. But it makes sense that when we discuss the idea of a brain function (not what it is, but what it does) we must translate our perceptions of behavior into a conventional metaphorical language that serves as a representation of a concept that is not an objective thing, but a subjective inference : an idea.
*1. Function : an inferred causal relationship between an input and output
*2. Causation : Hume saw causation as a relationship between two impressions or ideas in the mind.
http://www.clubstreetpost.com/wp-conten ... ritory.jpg
OK. But that description sounds Kantian to me. Scientists & Philosophers may be aware that their observations are subjective, even when they are presented as objective : "most physicists agree that . . . . is a fact". Yet, non-philosophers, who haven't given it much thought, might not "know" that their experience is not of direct reality, but of the external world as mediated via an internal "frame" of prior beliefs. Kant seemed to be saying that, although we might infer an objective "mind-independent external world", our internal working model of that world is actually a subjective construct. Hence, we like to think we are seeing reality, when in fact we are imagining an artificial (man-made) model of reality.
Also, I don't know what you mean by "realist's noumenal worldview". — Janus
Sorry, I was obliquely referring to the realist's imaginary model of the world, which may be intuitively accepted as the true objective reality. That's how we navigate through the world, using our mental maps as proxies for the actual terrain. But on a philosophical forum we soon discover that my noumenal worldview (my map) may be rejected by others with different maps of true reality : e.g. Idealism vs Materialism.
Whereas Functionalism*5 seems to be a half-step toward Idealism. — Gnomon
I not sure what you mean here. To my way of thinking functionalism just says that mind is a real function of the brain, which is again a kind of realism, if not strict eliminative physicalism. — Janus
Off the top of my pointy head, I was trying to say that a Function*1 is not a material thing, but an inference about a Causal Process*2 : not Real, but Ideal. The Brain is a real tangible object, but the Mind is an ideal imaginary subject. We know the Mind by rational inference, not by sensory observation. Hence Functionalism treats the idea of Mind as-if a Real thing.
The notion of "Phenomenal Experience" (mental currency) was new to me. But it makes sense that when we discuss the idea of a brain function (not what it is, but what it does) we must translate our perceptions of behavior into a conventional metaphorical language that serves as a representation of a concept that is not an objective thing, but a subjective inference : an idea.
*1. Function : an inferred causal relationship between an input and output
*2. Causation : Hume saw causation as a relationship between two impressions or ideas in the mind.
http://www.clubstreetpost.com/wp-conten ... ritory.jpg
Re: TPF : Physics of Consciousness
Also, I'd say taking consciousness as foundational and the world as derivative is similar to Descartes’ certainty about inner sensations (I think therefore I am) while admitting the world he perceived might be caused by some evil demon. — Art48
Regarding the OP, I'd like to re-word that statement. I take Causal Information as foundational and Mental Consciousness as derivative. Generic Information (the power to enform, to create) may or may not be conscious, but since mental consciousness did in fact emerge from eons of physical change, the potential for awareness must have been inherent in the First Cause -- or Initial Conditions, if you prefer. Causation is definitely directional, and possibly intentional, but I don't know what those intentions are. I can only guess about why the "demon" wanted to cause Descartes to believe a lie.
I'm just beginning to read a new book by astronomer Caleb Sharf : The Ascent of Information. Although he is a professional scientist, he writes like a philosopher, trying to see the big picture, instead of the microscopic view of Reductionism. In the first chapter, he says that "a number of thinkers . . . have asked whether information itself may be the fundamental currency of the universe". Currency is a medium of exchange, so Information is portrayed as the medium of Change (the essence of Energy) circulating within the world system.
Sharf goes on to note that physicist John A. Wheeler "explored the notion that the ultimate nature of physical reality is inextricably linked to observation and experimental interrogation" That may sound odd, but a lot of Quantum Physics is weird. Referring to quantum collapse of superposition, due to experimentation, he goes on to say that "the very act of observation or interaction is what causes their properties to snap into focus. In other words, this is a participatory universe of yes/no information, in which, as Wheeler put it, we get 'it from bit' " The implication is that the experimenter's setup is like a binary yes-or-no question : is a particle there or not? And the answer is to produce a local particle from a continuous wave-form : Voila!.
The notion of a "Participatory Universe" reminds me of the concept of Universal Mind/Consciousness. Yet in Wheeler's model, it's the human experimenter who consciously participates in the processes of physics by formulating a yes/no (1/0) question mathematically. Which leaves open the bigger question : is the universe conscious of our probing, or just a machine grinding out evolutionary products? In quantum experiments, the human operates the machine to output an answer. But is the response conscious or automatic? What do you think? :chin:
Regarding the OP, I'd like to re-word that statement. I take Causal Information as foundational and Mental Consciousness as derivative. Generic Information (the power to enform, to create) may or may not be conscious, but since mental consciousness did in fact emerge from eons of physical change, the potential for awareness must have been inherent in the First Cause -- or Initial Conditions, if you prefer. Causation is definitely directional, and possibly intentional, but I don't know what those intentions are. I can only guess about why the "demon" wanted to cause Descartes to believe a lie.
I'm just beginning to read a new book by astronomer Caleb Sharf : The Ascent of Information. Although he is a professional scientist, he writes like a philosopher, trying to see the big picture, instead of the microscopic view of Reductionism. In the first chapter, he says that "a number of thinkers . . . have asked whether information itself may be the fundamental currency of the universe". Currency is a medium of exchange, so Information is portrayed as the medium of Change (the essence of Energy) circulating within the world system.
Sharf goes on to note that physicist John A. Wheeler "explored the notion that the ultimate nature of physical reality is inextricably linked to observation and experimental interrogation" That may sound odd, but a lot of Quantum Physics is weird. Referring to quantum collapse of superposition, due to experimentation, he goes on to say that "the very act of observation or interaction is what causes their properties to snap into focus. In other words, this is a participatory universe of yes/no information, in which, as Wheeler put it, we get 'it from bit' " The implication is that the experimenter's setup is like a binary yes-or-no question : is a particle there or not? And the answer is to produce a local particle from a continuous wave-form : Voila!.
The notion of a "Participatory Universe" reminds me of the concept of Universal Mind/Consciousness. Yet in Wheeler's model, it's the human experimenter who consciously participates in the processes of physics by formulating a yes/no (1/0) question mathematically. Which leaves open the bigger question : is the universe conscious of our probing, or just a machine grinding out evolutionary products? In quantum experiments, the human operates the machine to output an answer. But is the response conscious or automatic? What do you think? :chin:
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 28 guests