TPF : Agent Smith dialog

[Gnomon]

What exactly is the link between Quantum Theory and Mysticism if I may ask? How, where, when did these two equally obscure entities shake hands and leave us wondering "WTF just happened?" — Agent Smith

Quantum Theory at first seemed mysterious, due to its non-classical, meta-physical, statistical and counterintuitive features. So mystically-inclined minds embraced QT as evidence for their un-orthodox beliefs. Yet scientifically-inclined people are more likely to ignore the spooky implications of QT, and to "just shut-up and calculate".

My BothAnd philosophical position may be somewhere in between those poles. I'm not a mystic myself, but I can see why Mysterians interpret the uncertainties & probabilities of sub-atomic physics in metaphysical terms. And that willingness to take metaphysics seriously is why 180wooboo ridicules my moderate stance as ignorant nonsense. Meta-physics is indeed non-sense, because it is known only via the sixth sense of Reason, the ability to see invisible logical connections between things & events.

I suppose the link between QT and Mysticism is the notion that Nature is not only quirky, but also conscious in some sense : Panpsychism. Which is sometimes interpreted in terms of PanTheism. But I make a distinction between physical Information and mental Awareness. And my worldview is more like PanEnDeism (google it). Nature may be conscious, but unlike mystics, have no direct experience of communion with G*D. For me, it's just a philosophical theory, like Plato's Logos and Aristotle's First Cause.


Is quantum physics mysticism? :
Thus, Quantum physics is a form of mysticism; and so is Jung's psychology. One hesitates to express such conclusions, but the form of mysticism that we find in contemporary science is different from its historic forms. This is so, because our concepts evolve in the same way in which our bodies evolve.
___Carl Jung
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4217602/

Quantum Mysticism :
Beginning in the 1970s, quantum mysticism began to take its own path with Fritjof Capra's book, The Tao of Physics, which explores parallels between quantum physics and principles of Eastern mystery. . . . The leading writers in the field were not "crank" New Age authors but highly experienced physicists such as Fritjof Capra, David Bohm, John Wheeler and Paul Davies.
https://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Quantum_Mysticism
Note -- I doubt that Capra, as a scientist, would qualify as an anti-science mystic. But he was open-minded enough to see the "parallels" between Eastern philosophy (not the religion) and Western quantum science. In fact, several of the quantum pioneers were labeled as mystics, due to their use of Hindu & Buddhist terminology to express some of the weirdness of sub-atomic physics, for which Western Science had no adequate terminology. The scientists named in the quote are some of my primary sources for information about Enformation (the power to cause change).

Sixth sense: the science behind intuition :
And while often dismissed as spiritual mumbo jumbo, this “sixth sense” may be scientifically provable.
https://www.smh.com.au/lifestyle/life-a ... 577wm.html
3 days ago

[Gnomon]

I understand that there are some reasons to make the connection between the two - QM & (oriental) mysticism - but all accounts I've come across seem low on detail. I read Capra's & Zukav's books about 2 decades ago and can't recall anything from them that could be helpful. — Agent Smith

In order to make that East-West connection, you'd need to be favorably inclined toward philosophical thinking in general, and specifically toward Holism (synthetic) and Panpsychism (or Enformationism), as opposed to Reductionism (analysis) and Materialism (empiricism). Some of the pioneers of Quantum Science, e.g. Heisenberg & Planck, were so inclined. And both wrote books on the topic of their "revolution" in Science. Unlike the later Hippies though, they didn't convert to foreign religions, but merely adopted some of their philosophical concepts to understand the non-classical aspects of sub-atomic reality.

Since 18th century Europeans had established colonies in the East, they began to learn about ancient exotic worldviews that differed significantly from Western/Christian science & philosophy. In his 1958 book, Physics and Philosophy, Werner Heisenberg "embarked on a philosophical tour that starts with the Greeks and brings us through to Kant. That he would do this at all sets Heisenberg apart form most modern physicists, who generally disdain or simply ignore philosophical thinking about their subject". Ironically, in the book, he didn't have a lot to say about his Eastern influences. In the Systems book linked below, Capra also focused more on the new directions in science than on ancient Eastern religions. These less mystical books may provide some of the detail you missed in other quantum mysticism accounts.


Are Quantum Mechanics and Eastern Philosophy Related? :
When the concepts of quantum mechanics began confusing people, it apparently reminded some of Eastern philosophy.
https://www.wondriumdaily.com/are-quant ... y-related/

The Systems View of Life :
Systems science covers formal sciences such as complex systems, cybernetics, dynamical systems theory, information theory, linguistics or systems theory. ___Fritjof Capra
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Systems_science
https://www.amazon.com/Systems-View-Lif ... 1316616436

Physics and Philosophy :
The Revolution in Modern Science __ Heisenberg
Review -- At the turn of 20th century when quantum physics was born; the founding fathers of this scientific revolution were thinking deeply about the philosophical consequences of the new physics in terms of existence and physical reality (ontology). The reality perceived through the laws of classical physics provided strong challenges to quantum reality and human knowledge of quantum physical concepts (epistemology). In addition, the theory of relativity, which also came into existence at about the same time, altered the concept of space and time (consequently their relationship to matter, and the concept of gravity) radically from the existing knowledge of Newtonian physics. In this book, physicist Heisenberg gives a brilliant account of physical reality after reviewing the works of notable philosophers like; Kant, Descartes, Locke, Berkeley, and Hume.
https://www.amazon.com/Physics-Philosop ... 053&sr=8-1

Enformationism :
A philosophical worldview or belief system grounded on the 20th century discovery that Information, rather than Matter, is the fundamental substance of everything in the universe. It is intended to be the 21st century successor to ancient Materialism. An Update from Bronze Age to Information Age. It's a Theory of Everything that covers, not just matter & energy, but also Life & Mind & Love.
http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page8.html
7 hours ago

[Gnomon]

As I always suspected - you're onto something really big as far as I'm concerned. Looks like I'm an Enformationist but don't know it — Agent Smith

Apparently that "something big" is still somewhat ineffable for you. And you seem to have reservations about the Metaphysical, Mystical, Supernatural implications of mental Information as the substance of reality. Have you taken time to read some of the Enformationism thesis?

A precursor of my personal interpretation of the role of information, was John A. Wheeler's quip "it from bit", meaning that physical things are derived from bits of enformative power. He was implying that Generic Information is more than just the abstract bits & bytes of computer code. Information is both creative power and the logical structure of matter.

Since Metaphysical (invisible & intangible) Logic is the essence of both meaning & organization, it is both the Source and the Substance of our gradually becoming Universe. Yet, the hypothetical ultimate Source of Becoming is what I call BEING. That's not a doctrinal religious concept though, so you can call it whatever makes sense to you. It's a weltanshauung based on Reason instead of Faith, so you don't have to join any belief-bound community. And you don't have to identify as an Enformationist, just an ordinary Philosopher.

Weltanshauung : a particular philosophy or view of life; the worldview of an individual or group.

It From Bit : "It from bit symbolizes the idea that every item of the physical world has at bottom — at a very deep bottom, in most instances — an immaterial source and explanation" __Wheeler
https://historyofinformation.com/detail.php?id=5041

Enformationism :
A philosophical worldview based on the scientific evidence that mental Information, instead of physical Matter, is the Aristotelian Substance of everything in the universe. It is in intended to be the 21st century successor to ancient Spiritualism (gods & ghosts) and Materialism (atoms & causal force).

What is Information? :
The Latin root “informare” meant to give recognizable (meaningful, significant) shape to something. In that sense a sculptor “in-forms” a blank slab of marble with a physical shape to represent a pre-existing image in his mind. In other words, a mental image somehow “causes” physical raw material to take on a shape that, in turn, “causes” cognition in another mind. Another way to put it is to say that “Information Creates Meaning”. Hence it is an integral component of Sentience, Consciousness, and Cognition. It is the raw material of Reason, the essence of Knowledge, and the structure of Mind. The ancient Greeks referred to the whole spectrum of information as “Logos”—often translated as “Word”, but more specifically the conscious motive behind an act of speech: Intention.

Scientists and Philosophers are always on the lookout for significant patterns in Nature from which they can extract specific meanings. Those extracted pieces of meaning are then labeled generically as information. But how that “information” came to be encoded in the material of nature is not often questioned by scientists. That’s not considered to be a practical project, so it’s left to impractical amateur philosophers to speculate on the origins of information: e.g. which came first, the informer or the information---the sculptor or the sculpture?
http://enformationism.info/enformationi ... lcome.html

[Gnomon]

What a pleasant surprise it is that someone with the stature of Werner Heisenberg saw a connection between QM/science and (Oriental) mysticism though he was a bit coy about it all.

As a side note, Chalmers' hard problem (of consciousness) seems to be one component of the overall approach espoused by Enformationism. — Agent Smith

A major contribution by Heisenberg to Quantum science was to emphasize that our apparently deterministic classical macro world is built on a foundation of statistical Uncertainty. He had to be a bit "coy" because Einstein ridiculed the idea of random reality. Anyway, that quantum scale mathematical fact doesn't deny macro Reality as we know it, but shows that reality is a two-sided coin. So, we can only see one side at a time. Which is also the point of the BothAnd philosophy. The search for wisdom mandates that philosophers look at both sides of every issue.

Yes. Enformationism is intended to be a solution to Chalmers' "hard problem". If creative Information (EnFormAction) is the essence of reality, instead of physical Matter, then the emergence of Mind from Matter is merely a case of Phase Transition. Hence, Energy & Matter & Mind are all different Phases of Generic Information (the power to cause change in form). It's a monistic worldview. So, if everything in the world is merely a different Phase-Form of Information, the "hard problem" melts away. And the Mind/Matter paradox becomes normal & natural.

Phase : 1 · a particular appearance or state in a repeating series of changes

Form : 2. a particular way in which a thing exists or appears; a manifestation.

[Gnomon]

You might wanna check out oint: Anekantavada. The word "anekantavada" itself means not one sidedness or many sided ness. It's an ancient Indian idea and the closest Western concept is perspectivism. — Agent Smith

That Eastern term (Jainism) seems to be a precursor of the BothAnd perspective. It's also compatible with Holism : many parts unified into one functional system.

[Gnomon]

Didn't anekantavada high the right notes with you? As far as I can see, it seems to be pluralistic as opposed to dualistic like your Enformationism (BothAnd) is. There are not just 2 sides, there are quite possibly ∞ sides to a story, any story. — Agent Smith

Apparently you have misinterpreted the BothAnd approach to constructing a worldview as an Either/Or choice. That is exactly the opposite of the intent. Yet, the balance point of any continuum is usually near the mid-point -- the halfway position. Hence the dualistic Black vs White analysis is most common, except for philosophers, who prefer to "carve reality at its joints" --- into valid logical categories.

Of course the world is pluralistic, in that it contains multitudes of things. But philosophically, that diversity can be boiled-down to a few basic categories. And the sorting begins with dividing the mind-boggling complexity into two clearly-distinguishable classes, such as True or False. Then you can distinguish those halves into sub-categories, such as Truish or Wrongish. Knowing the difference between Black or White is just the first step in understanding the shades of gray.

As for all things being different phases, I would've preferred to say all things are just different information, not phases. Perhaps we mean the same thing and the disagreement is but a difference in taste, of terminology. — Agent Smith

My reason for choosing the term "Phase Transition" was not based on personal preference. It was a pragmatic choice to serve as an illustrative analogy between Matter/Mind and Water/Ice. You are welcome to use other terms to suit your taste. But the mechanism of transformation of Generic Information into material objects is difficult to explain, except metaphorically.

Phase Transitions :
. . . .dead matter doesn't spontaneously evolve into living matter. Instead, that phase transition is the result of inputs of transformative EnFormAction in the form of causative Energy. Moreover, “’self-organizing’ is self-contradictory because it relies on self-reference”. And that is also true of the whole universe, which could not have organized itself from a static mathematical (potential) Singularity into a living Multiplicity of evolving forms.
http://bothandblog6.enformationism.info/page54.html

WHAT HAPPENS IN THE GRAY ZONE BETWEEN SOLID AND LIQUID?
https://mgcphy16.wordpress.com/2018/01/ ... nd-liquid/

Chalmer's hard problem (of consciousness) is to me a sign of the failure of the, let's say, the reductionist project undertaken by Western minds. — Agent Smith

Yes. Consciousness is indeed "hard" to explain in reductive terms. But from a perspective of Holism it begins to make sense. However, to explain it to a reductionist mind, it helps to provide analogies to materialistic/mechanistic processes such as Phase Transitions.

[Gnomon]

I see yer point. We can reduce everything down to a point where it's simple but not simplistic. Kudos to you for recognizing this simple fact. It had eluded me for decades up until I read your post. — Agent Smith

Yes. Dualism is easy to grasp, because it ignores all the confusing possibilities between perfect Truth and absolute False. It is an over-simplistic worldview. In philosophy it's called the Either/Or Fallacy. But a BothAnd approach allows us to understand a complex system without getting bogged-down in irrelevant details. All you have to do is to consider some of the important components on both sides of any question, and look for parts that are complementary. In the Yin-Yang symbol, both black & white halves have dots of the other color. Which means that they are not opposites, but complements : both are necessary to complete the circle ; the whole. ☯

BothAnd :
The concept of the complement of “Yin” and “Yang” means that all the things in the world are interdependent and inter-constraint as well as being complementary and relative in “Yin”-“Yang”. Actually, this philosophical concept is also applicable worldwide in modern science.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/a ... 5519310092
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yin_and_yang

Are you trying to say that mind is a gray zone? If yes between matter and ____ ? :chin: Perhaps you're referring to something else entirely but I'm at a loss as to what exactly you're trying to say here. — Agent Smith

The "Gray Zone" link is discussing the missing steps in physical Phase Transitions (water suddenly becomes ice). A material substance instantly manifests different physical properties (fluid vs crystaline). Scientists observe the before & after states, but can't determine the mechanical steps in between : the Gray Zone between Black & White.

So, I use the same terminology to describe the mystery of how Mind emerges from Matter. That's what Chalmers called the "Hard Problem". I don't know what those missing steps are, but the problem is less mysterious if Mind & Matter are essentially different forms of the same Substance : Information (EnFormAction).

THEN A MIRACLE OCCURS
EfmeCV8WoAIBmvf?format=jpg&name=large

Back to the main page now: Do you see any other way we could look at the supernatural-natural distinction? Perhaps it violates some principle in Enformationism, I dunno. — Agent Smith

Yes. Either/Or worldviews divide the world into oppositions. But the world is not exclusively Evil or absolutely Good : it's BothAnd. Materialists tend to view the world as all-natural & all-physical. But our Reality includes both Matter & Mind, both Nature & Culture, both Physics & Metaphysics. When I use the term "Metaphysics", I'm referring to the aspect of Nature that is non-physical : Mental. Eons of physical evolution eventually produced the phenomena of Ideas, Opinions, Feelings, etc that have no physical properties. Instead, they are defined in terms of Qualia. They are known, not by the senses, but by Reason.

Ironically, some Either/Or TPF posters interpret "metaphysics" as a reference to Supernatural gods & ghosts. But those are merely a minority of things that are non-physical, and known only by Reason. For example, some scientists are convinced that the Big Bang requires an eternal Multiverse to explain how something emerged from nothing. Others interpret Quantum collapse as a splitting of our local universe into an infinite number of alternative 'verses. Yet, since we know such things only via imagination, instead of natural senses, they are literally super- or meta- physical or natural. Their existence is completely beyond the scope of Nature as we know it. Ironically, some of those theoretical (mathematical) scientists take such literal non-sense seriously, and by faith.

Enformationism is not a super-natural worldview. But it does admit the logical necessity for an Enformer or Programmer outside of space-time to explain how space-time came to be. Yet, unlike a religion, it does not provide any communication from the great beyond. And it doesn't view those hypothetical entities as human kings or tyrants. Instead, it imagines them in a model similar to Spinoza's deus sive natura (god or nature). For example, the Enformer is also the Enformed. As some cultures have suggested, the all-encompassing Prime Cause created our world from He/r own substance : EnFormAction -- the power to em-form the unformed, to derive orderly Cosmos from the nothingness of Chaos. That super-natural "substance" is similar to the mundane stuff we call "Energy" -- the power to cause change.

That super-natural Potential doesn't violate the principles of Enformationism, but it does go beyond the only source of information we can access : Nature. Yet, going-beyond Reality is the function of human Reason : it sees "more than meets the eye".

[Gnomon]

BOTHAND DIALECTIC

The BothAnd philosophy may be construed as a Dialectic view of how the world works. Physical Nature is indeed characterized by interactions between opposing forces : hot/cold ; positive/negative. But the physical values of those oppositions are continuous instead of polar. For example, Hot & Cold are merely extreme points on a continuum of thermal energy.

However, when Marx evaluated his account of historical conflict, by using dualistic Either/Or terms, he emphasized the extremes instead of the means. He seemed to view dominant & submissive cultural classes as inherent in human interaction. The result of that dualistic classification is to think of class warfare as somewhat fatalistic, and inevitable. Even so, Marx believed that the classless communal concept was so powerful that it could overcome the selfish individualism of the traditional powers-that-be.

The BothAnd worldview, by contrast, is not a political manifesto. It is merely intended to imply a limited degree of FreeWill, versus Fatalism, on the part of individuals, and of political classes. The inclusion of a range of choices, instead of a stark Either/Or dichotomy, allows us to view the historical dialectic as a give & take win/win dialog (a conversation), instead of a win/lose conflict (warfare) of the many against the few.

If leaders and followers could view the world philosophically (holistically ; win-win), instead of politically (reductively ; us vs them), then the traditional animosity between Thesis & Antithesis (top-down vs bottom-up government), could be minimized, and open conflict avoided. Of course, this is an idealistic & hopeful worldview from a universal perspective, not a realistic & pragmatic attitude with a personal & local frame.

[Gnomon]

1. Yes, The Enformationism thesis combines some ancient philosophical (not religious) concepts of the world, as a created organism with some kind of teleological mission, along with some modern notions of Information theory implying that the human mind is a natural product of that Teleological (progressive ; complexifying) evolution. I had to coin some new (non-scientific) terminology to explain the force behind physical & mental evolution : e.g. EnFormAction (energy + intention) can be construed in religious terms as The Will of God flowing through the world. Modern Science ignores the signs of directionality in Evolution, but philosophers such as Hegel noted that evolutionary Logic is heuristic (trial & error) like a computer program : Thesis >> Antithesis >> Synthesis.

2. The BothAnd philosophy emerged from holistic implications of the Enformationism thesis. But not from imitation of any particular ancient worldview. Pre-Christian Greek & Hindu & Chinese philosophies were built around a Holistic (organism) model of how the world works. But the Enlightenment (scientific) era rejected Holism, primarily because it typically envisioned a Universal or Cosmic Mind with a singular Purpose to organize the world into a functional system working toward some final goal.

3. Yes. The problem with Modern Science is that its reductive worldview is random & pointless, and has no answer to the big Why? questions of Philosophy. So, I have found that it "all hangs together" due to the central role of Generic Information (Energy + Intention) which drives and organizes the material world into a functional system of Evolution, progressing toward some future Omega Point. But I don't claim to know what that Ultimate Goal is. I can only guess. But I doubt that it will be literally the kingdom of heaven on Earth (a new world).

4. I continue to research and develop the Enformationism Thesis as a replacement for older worldviews of Spiritualism and Materialism. Generic Information (EnFormAction) bridges the gap between Spirit (Mind) and Matter (Body). My posts on this forum, and the essays on the blog, are elements of that R & D. The Holistic (multi-value) Logic underlying this new scientific & philosophical Paradigm is indeed "illogical" from the perspective of 180s reductive & classical (either/or) logic. Apparently, you are not so committed to (invested in) the common-sense Newtonian clockwork paradigm, that you couldn't see how non-nonsensical post-quantum science can be reconciled by physicists as the logic of micro-scale reality, which adds-up to the common-sense macro-scale world that we know with our physical senses.

5. Enformationism is "dug-in" only in the sense that, after several years of development, it has found a reasonable answer to the most common "attacks". Those who criticize its Holistic & Teleological implications, tend to do so by defending the outdated pre-quantum classical-Science paradigm established by the successes of Galileo & Newton. But they conveniently ignore that Newton was an Alchemist. Yet antiquated Alchemy was somewhat Holistic & Teleological.

6. "Weak to the extent you can't rope in, for assistance, modern theories of information" If you would take time to peruse the BothAnd Blog, you would find that I do "rope-in" the modern mathematics under-girding Information theories. I'm not a mathematician, but I know enough about higher math to understand that complex forms of Information are built upon a foundation of simple ratios : hot vs cold = energy or E=MC^2.

7. Yes. I think that some form of Holistic, information-theoretic worldview is the scientific & philosophical paradigm of the 22nd century. I am not alone in that view. But it is still on the fringes of current sci-phil understanding. Most of the nay-sayers on the forum are still "dug-in" to 18th & 19th century paradigms.

Since mathematical Information seems to be the coded language of evolution, I like to call that cosmic “Programmer”, the “Enformer”. http://www.bothandblog.enformationism.info/page16.html

[Gnomon]

I sense some Oriental (Buddhist/Taoist) influence in your theory. Independent discovery though scorned as a waste of time (reinventing the wheel) is a big deal in my universe. — Agent Smith

I find Taoism -- the philosophy, not the religion -- to be amenable to Enformationism. It envisions an ultimate principle of the universe (similar to EnFormAction), without making unwarranted assumptions about its intentions, if any : the big Why?. The Taoist religion, like most theologies, adds some mystical concepts to give non-philosophers metaphors for making sense of an invisible causal & harmonizing "force", and mandates religious practices and symbolic ceremonies to guide their collective behavior. Thus making them dependent on human authorities, unlike free-thinking philosophers.

Enformationism is indeed an "independent discovery" for me, in the sense of pulling together various threads of science & philosophy into a holistic personal worldview, to guide my own life. If others find some of its ideas useful for dealing with the perennial Big Questions of philosophy, that's gratifying for me. But it doesn't offer salvation of any kind. Merely, a way to think about harmonizing Self with Nature, rather than ignoring its all pervasive influence on everything we humans do.

Unlike most animals, humans are capable of mimicking or controlling local aspects of Nature, to some extent, with technology. But our lives run smoother when we align ourselves with the forces of Nature : metaphorically, like iron filings aligning with a magnetic field. However, we don't have to deny our aspirational human nature in order to make use of the common wisdom of Evolution. Which achieves its long-term goals by experimenting to see what works. Moreover, the Tao, like some avante garde movie directors, is also enigmatic, in that it doesn't reveal its ultimate intentions to the actors. Thus, allowing them the freedom (freewill) to define find their own role & voice in the narrative & storyline.