TPF : Science vs Religion Success

[Gnomon]

↪Agent Smith

"So, by this concept, nature – the universe / multiverse – is merely the physical aspect of a greater, non-physical entity (deity, creator, process) aka "Enformer" ... and yet, Gnomon, there is not any evidence for or sound argument demonstrating that in order for nature to be intelligible, and explicable, nature requires a non-physical entity ("Enformer") of which to be a part." ↪180 Proof


As usual, 180 {insert denigratory label here} seems to be insisting that "nature requires a physical entity" in order to be intelligible, as Einstein remarked. That's why he rejects my hypothesis of an entity that pre-dates the Big Bang (yes, I'm aware of the north-of-the-north-pole retort). Ironically, my theoretical Enformer is generally amenable to Spinoza's deus sive natura (nature god), except that Baruch's worldview was based on an eternal physical world.

I merely update his 17th century deity definition in view of our modern understanding : that the physical universe is not eternal, but emerged from "north-of-the-north-pole" -- along with space-time & energy-law -- into measurable reality only a fraction of a light-year ago. So, I merely ask the obvious philosophical question : when & where was the deus in the "time before time". Is that a legitimate philosophical query?

The notion of a "natural deity" was addressed by physicist Paul Davies, in his 1983 book : God and the New Physics*1*2. In a chapter regarding the theological/cosmological notion of "the end of the universe", he noted : "There are many mysteries about the natural world that would be readily explained by postulating a natural Deity". That seems to be what Spinoza intended. Yet Davies then continued : "to invoke God as a blanket explanation of the explained is to invite eventual falsification, and to make God the friend of ignorance". [my bold]

That said, he offered an alternative to a "natural deity", that couldn't explain the origin of temporal Nature itself. In the final chapter of the book, Davies made a disclaimer about Truth : "Physics . . . is not about truth at all, but about models" Likewise, my own Cosmological theory makes no claim on absolute truth. It's merely a philosophical model representing one possible way to understand the ultimate Ontological questions, which are not addressed at all by Physics.

So Davies merely posits a meta-physical (noological*2) notion for consideration : "The existence of mind, for example, as an abstract, holistic, organizational pattern, capable even of disembodiment, refutes the reductionist philosophy that we are nothing but moving mounds of atoms". In following books, he further explored the application of Information Theory -- and its close inter-relationship with Mind -- to those Ontological & Cosmological questions that might possibly offer some philosophical insights into the gaping gap that lies above and beyond the north pole, and the Big Bang. How better to make the natural world "intelligible" (comprehensible) to human minds, than to construct it out of non-physical mental stuff : Enformation (energy + law = power to enform) ?


*1. God and the New Physics :
https://www.amazon.com/God-New-Physics- ... 0671528068

*2. "New Physics" is a reference to Quantum Theory, compared to Newton's old-fashioned mechanical physics.

*3. Noology, derives from the ancient Greek words νοῦς, nous or "mind" and λόγος, logos. Noology thus outlines a systematic study and organization of thought, knowledge and the mind. ___Wiki

[Gnomon]

I believe your arch foe is William of Occam; metaphysics was always a bit superfluous.
What if I told you that Enformy is a phantasm, an illusion like e.g. the Wagon Wheel effect? How would you respond? — Agent Smith

Every generalization*1 is imaginary -- including "Energy", as the invisible*2 cause of all physical effects -- because it is not an empirical observation, but a rationalization (abstraction) from many specific instances to a single holistic conceptualization*3. You won't find any wild Abstractions in the Natural world, because they are denizens of the philosophical Mind -- which is not a tangible thing, but an abstract concept.

What if I said that Energy is a "phantasm" or "fantasy"? Can you show me a physical instance of Energy? Have you ever seen a Photon, which is purportedly the "carrier" of Energy, as a pickup truck carries a load of dirt? Is Energy a feature of your reality? If so, why not accept Enformy, which is merely an information-theoretic term, linking Causation with Organization. Energy is metaphysical, because it has to be inferred instead of observed. Raw energy (random change) is like an atomic bomb, ruthlessly destroying all orderly structures in the vicinity. By contrast, Enformy is the notion of Energy-plus-Regulation (natural law) that non-randomly produces order & organization in the world. The pay-off of "success" for Enformy may be the advent of Culture in a Natural world. Would you prefer to go back to a pre-human pre-metaphysical state-of-nature : red in tooth & claw? Unfortunately, on this forum metaphysical arguments too often become red in ridicule & dis-respect.

Your skeptical questions are relevant -- and I enjoy responding to them -- but they reflect the influence of modern prejudice against Metaphysics, which is merely ideas-about-ideas. Physical Science has allowed some "successful" Materialists to feel superior to "feckless" Philosophers, who have nothing to show for their word-shuffling & idea-shoveling. Ironically, most of the posters on this forum have never successfully produced any objective physical objects that add to the "progress" of Science. Instead, they deal in ideas about ideas (e.g. notion of "progress"), which is what Metaphysics*4 is all about. So, they cut the ground from under their own feet, by denigrating the reasoning that generalizes from instances.

Therefore, Ockham*5 is not a foe of Enformationism, but of unnecessary complexity of conceptualization. I consider Enformy to be a simplification of Negentropy which is a superfluous double negative. The thesis could be considered a form of Nominalism, in that it is all about Essences, like Energy & Enformy

*1. Generalization :
A generalization is a form of abstraction whereby common properties of specific instances are formulated as general concepts or claims.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generalization

*2. Energy is invisible yet it's all around us and throughout the universe. We use it every day, we have it in our bodies and some of it comes from other planets! Energy can never be made or destroyed, but its form can be converted and changed.
https://ypte.org.uk/factsheets/energy/types-of-energy

*3. Induction :
Inductive reasoning begins with observations that are specific and limited in scope, and proceeds to a generalized conclusion that is likely, but not certain, in light of accumulated evidence.
http://www.butte.edu/departments/cas/ti ... oning.html

*4. Metaphysics and Philosophy of Religion :
Metaphysics chiefly addresses questions about what is ultimately real and important. Philosophy of religion explores and evaluates religious views of reality and seeks to understand religious practice. Metaphysics chiefly addresses questions about what is ultimately real and important.
https://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.ca/ ... f-religion
Note -- Can you distinguish the general "philosophy of religion" from the specific doctrines & practices of world religions?

*5. Ockham Metaphysics :
In metaphysics, Ockham champions nominalism, the view that universal essences, such as humanity or whiteness, are nothing more than concepts in the mind. He develops an Aristotelian ontology, admitting only individual substances and qualities.
https://iep.utm.edu/ockham/
Note -- Essences are meta-physical because they are nominal, merely names for concepts that are not knowable by physical senses.
addendum : Nominalism is like a gravestone, merely the name, not the body of a person.

[Gnomon]

Given that we're doing metaphysics, I suppose my and others' very non-metaphysical criticisms are out of place. Reminds of Bartricks's rule: it hasta make sense and from my interactions with your philosophy, it makes sense alright. Positing entities and forces e.g. Enformy are part and parcel of theorizing/hypothesizing, a very scientific activity. So here's what I think is the good news - Enformationism explains well enough the goings on in the world; now the bad news - Enformationism doesn't make any predictions which could be tested. Is me foot in me mouth? Have I cleared you of all charged and still declared you guilty? — Agent Smith

I just want to clarify that I am not "postulating entities & forces", because I am not a scientist. What I am doing is looking at known forces from a new perspective. The Enformationism worldview is based on cutting-edge scientific theories postulating that Energy (causation) is a form of Information*1 (power to enform ; to integrate into a system), and Entropy is a form of dis-information (dis-integration).

My personal (not institutional) thesis attempts to pull several threads of Information theory together into a unified philosophical weltanshauung. So, what I'm doing is a very philosophical activity : system building. And my system is intended to replace ancient Spiritualism and outdated Materialism. When viewed from one of those outmoded perspectives, Enformationism won't "make sense". That's because it postulates a new Paradigm shift*2.

Since Enformationism is a holistic way of looking at the world, not a reductive scientific theory, it does not make Predictions, only Observations from a new perspective. If you want predictions of physical behavior, look to Science. But if you want simplified understanding of complex physical actions (e.g. Quantum non-mechanics), look to Philosophy. Baffled quantum pioneers turned to ancient Holistic religions for philosophical insights, when their Reductive methods didn't make sense.

So yes, you still seem to be influenced by 180's accusations that I'm doing illegitimate Science. Perhaps he thinks that modern physical (ideas about matter) Science has supplanted metaphysical (ideas about ideas) Philosophy. If so, then this forum is a complete waste of wishy-washy words. And ↪180 Proof
should be posting on a Physics forum.


*1. The basis of the universe may not be energy or matter but information :
There are lots of theories on what the basis of the universe is. Some physicists say its subatomic particles. Others believe its energy or even space-time. One of the more radical theories suggests that information is the most basic element of the cosmos.
https://bigthink.com/surprising-science ... formation/
Note -- From the Enformationism perspective, Information is Fundamental.

*2. Paradigm Shift :
a fundamental change in approach or underlying assumptions.
https://www.google.com/search?client=fi ... digm+shift

CAUTION : OLD PARADIGM WASHED-OUT
new-paradigm-ahead.jpg

[Gnomon]

How does this change, if at all, how we live our lives? As far back as the 1980's I recall my science teacher was saying that all of reality is information. I think he had maths in mind. Either way, we still have to set our alarm clocks and go to work, still have to shower and pay bills, still have to find a parking space near the supermarket, right? Can you summarise in some brief, plain English sentences what you consider to be the transformative power of this hypothesis? — Tom Storm

Enformationism is a personal philosophical worldview, not a Religion for the masses. So it doesn't offer the life-transforming*1 power of hope for salvation from mundane reality*2. It's also not a Science; so it doesn't provide the culture-transforming power of technological innovation*3. Instead, as an esoteric philosophical worldview, this new Paradigm could change your own attitude toward everything. And the transformation "pay-off" depends on your personal situation : where you're coming from.

However, just as the scientific Quantum paradigm is still philosophically controversial a century later, the Information-Theoretic and Systems*4 view of reality may remain tendentious for at least another generation. In my blog, I discuss a variety of applications of Enformationism*5 to philosophical worldviews. However, since it is based on intellectual & esoteric concepts from science & philosophy, I don't expect it to transform the lives of the masses, as computer technology and Paul's spiritual innovation have done. A holistic concept is hard to "summarize" without getting reductive.


*1. Life Transforming :
Transforming your life involves going beyond the way you live, co-creating a better life for yourself, and changing the way you live. You do this by using your thoughts, visualization, words, faith, actions, or a combination of them.
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/7-steps- ... _b_7302904

*2. In the book I mentioned before, Paul and Jesus, the messianic Jews under roman rule only aspired to go back to the life they had under Jewish kings. But Paul, seeing that the Messiah died without leading a rebellion against Rome, provided life-transforming hope, by changing the place & time of the Kingdom of God to an immanent spiritual realm. Even that failed to come to pass during Paul's lifetime. But his re-interpretation of pragmatic prophecies (defeat the Romans) into spiritualized salvation (heavenly kingdom to come) transformed a radical revolution into passive Christian acceptance of the status quo, until this very day, or until Jesus decides the time is right. The spiritual "pay-off" is like compounded interest : the longer you wait the bigger the reward. Enformationism does not offer any dramatic conversions, or spiritual transformations. Unless, by "spirit" you mean simply a change of Mind, your attitude.

*3. Life transforming technology :
https://www.cnet.com/tech/tech-industry ... the-world/

*4. The Systems View of Life: A Unifying Vision :
a new systemic conception of life has emerged at the forefront of science. New emphasis has been given to complexity, networks, and patterns of organization, leading to a novel kind of “systemic” thinking.
This volume integrates the ideas, models, and theories underlying the systems view of
life into a single coherent framework. Taking a broad sweep through history and across sci-
entific disciplines, the authors examine the appearance of key concepts such as autopoiesis,
dissipative structures, social networks, and a systemic understanding of evolution. The
implications of the systems view of life for healthcare, management, and our global eco-
logical and economic crises are also discussed. ___Fritjof Capra and Pier Luigi Luisi
https://assets.cambridge.org/97811070/1 ... matter.pdf

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

[Gnomon]

Can you summarise in some brief, plain English sentences what you consider to be the transformative power of this hypothesis? — Tom Storm

Your use of the evocative term "transformative power" has coincided with the book I'm currently reading about the transformation of Judaism to Christianity. So I'm still riffing on that theme, as well as the topic of this thread : materialistic Science vs spiritualistic Religion. Unlike Paul though, I'm not the cause of that transformation, but merely a reporter on the emerging Paradigm Shift..

Just as Apostle Paul, almost single-handedly, converted the ancient narrative of Judaism -- which had already evolved through several major cultural changes -- by creating a Metanarrative : a new story built on top of an older story*1. At the beginning of the second century AD, bishop Ignatius haughtily referred to Judaism as an "antiquated myth". Likewise, I could refer to previous scientific & philosophical paradigms as "outdated myths", but that would not be accurate. Because those previous worldviews still retain some validity & vitality.

I had never thought about it this way, but my personal Enformationism thesis is essentially a Metanarrative, constructed on the archaeological foundations of previous -isms. For example, even though Quantum Theory was a radically different concept of how the fundamental processes of Nature work, it did not replace or supplant the macro facts of Classical physics. Likewise, Enformationism does not denigrate or dismiss the practical features of ancient Spiritualism (energy, forces, causes) and Materialism (matter as fundamental substance). They still retain some usefulness within the limited scope of their application.

But post-quantum cutting-edge scientists are now saying that intangible Information may be the fundamental "substance" of reality*2. Its application is not just in studies of Computers or Consciousness, but also for understanding Matter & Energy on the quantum-scale foundations of physics. However, on the macro scale of normal human experience, Materialism still makes sense, while invisible Energy & Forces take the place of antiquated notions of Spirits & Ghosts. By comparison to those limited applications, Enformationism seems to be more a comprehensive understanding of the Cosmos, the Milieu, and the Mental aspects of the known world.

PS__ ↪180 Proof
might say that that last claim is egotistical. However, the focus should not be on the coined term "Enformationism" -- to encapsulate a variety of scientific & philosophical postulations -- but on the consilience of evidence*3. ↪Agent Smith



*1. A metanarrative is a narrative about narratives of historical meaning, experience, or knowledge
___Wiki

*2. Is Information Fundamental? :
What if the fundamental “stuff” of the universe isn’t matter or energy, but information?
https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/article/i ... ndamental/

*3. Consilience :
agreement between the approaches to a topic of different academic subjects, especially science and the humanities. ___Oxford
Consilience: The Unity of Knowledge is a 1998 book by the biologist E. O. Wilson, in which the author discusses methods that have been used to unite the sciences and might in the future unite them with the humanities. ___Wikipedia

[Gnomon]

↪Agent Smith
So "bringing together" e.g. astronomy & astrology (or chemistry & alchemy) is, in your mind, good for what??? — 180 Proof

As usual, 180poof :joke: has completely missed the point of Enformationism. As a philosophical perspective, It does not pretend to be an empirical science. So the disdainful comparisons to pre-scientific Astrology & Alchemy *1 *2 are not appropriate. However, in the sense that empirical Astronomy & Chemistry were built on top of centuries of philosophical research into Cosmos & Matter, the parallel may suggest that new empirical scientific paradigms can evolve from older hypothetical worldviews.

For example, Astrology was intended to be a practical method for determining the will of the gods -- who took the form of points of light circling the Earth. And Alchemy was supposed to be a pragmatic method for manipulating Matter. Both were highly regarded forms of Natural Philosophy, and Academic Practice. Yet, they were based on hypothetical models that later were proven to be mistaken. Moreover, similar meaningful metaphors have also mis-led modern scientists. Remember that Rutherford and Bohr made progress in understanding atomic structure based on models that later proved to be inaccurate*3.

It seems that 180degreewrong :joke: considers those ancient proto-scientists (including Isaac Newton*4) to be blithering idiots bowing to imaginary "gods" : invisible forces like Energy/Entropy, that we still today submit to. From that supercilious perspective, Neils Bohr was a cretin making-up unreal models of reality. Fortunately for him though, modern science was, at the same time, developing the technology to produce images of atoms, so they no longer had to rely on imagination. Bohr was also accused of being a mystic*5 because he used ancient oriental notions as metaphors to make Quantum queerness more comprehensible. What were those analogies & metaphors "good for". Did they facilitate gradual progress in pragmatic scientific understanding, even as some were content with religious interpretations & applications of the symbolic imagery.

Enformationism is not a scientific practice, but it is a philosophical worldview based on the latest scientific models of reality : specifically Quantum & Information theories. Both of those sciences have been "good for" radical transformations of technology & culture. And by combining the knowledge from those disparate models into a holistic worldview, we may gain even more insight into the operation of Nature & Culture ; Matter & Mind.

PS__For those not familiar with the 180proof form of argumentation, it consists primarily of ridicule & mockery. Hence the tongue-in-cheek repartee.

*1. Throughout most of its history, astrology was considered a scholarly tradition and was common in academic circles,
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Astrology

*2. Alchemy is an ancient branch of natural philosophy, a philosophical and protoscientific tradition that was historically practiced in China, India, the Muslim world, and Europe
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alchemy

*3. In science, analogies have been used to make hypotheses on the structure of atoms since the technology did not exist to be able to see inside it. In 1897, English scientist J.J Thomson made a contribution to atomic theory by suggesting that there was some matter that was even smaller than the atom: the electron. His theory was called the “Plum Pudding model”, using an analogy to map his prediction. He used plum pudding as a source to describe the target, the structure of the atom. Electrons are like the raisins in the desert, which is the atom. This theory was later disproved by physicist Ernest Rutherford who found that atoms have positively charged centers, and described his understanding of the atom as a cherry, where the nucleus was like the pit. Danish scientist Niels Bohr in 1913 then used the solar system analogy to show people that there were also electrons orbiting around the nucleus. In the 20th century, a number of scientists showed that actually, electrons do not orbit the nucleus in neat orbits like the solar system, but instead move around like particles in a cloud. Despite the fact that some analogies have not stood the test of the time, they were useful tools to help the public understand scientific theories and make sense of complex phenomena.
https://thedecisionlab.com/reference-gu ... gy/analogy

*4. Isaac Newton's occult studies :
any reference to a "Newtonian Worldview" as being purely mechanical in nature is somewhat inaccurate.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isaac_New ... lt_studies

*5. Niels Bohr, a founder of quantum mechanics, was a Mystic :
Modern physics leads to mysticism. Why? What do we find when we pull apart reality? Perhaps that we can’t ultimately pull it apart.
https://www.niels-bohr-a-founder-of-qua ... -a-mystic/

[Gnomon]

I'm unaware of the reason for the inference from improbable to agency (god/man behind the curtain). Improbable doesn't imply impossible. Now if a person didn't buy a lottery ticket and won the jackpot we have strong justification to employ the phrase "some kinda weird shit is goin' down bruh!" — Agent Smith

Unaware? You need to be woke, bro! :joke:

Cosmic Agency is indeed a rational inference, not a direct observation. The presumed Agent of Creation & Evolution does seem to hide behind a curtain of randomness*1. But perceptive observers can see the patterns within Chaos, which imply the actions of a Pattern Maker. For example, although he is most famous for defining Evolution in terms of Random Mutations, Darwin also realized that randomness is non-directional. So, he added the filter of Natural Selection to weed-out the unfit, and to choose which mutations meet the organizational requirements for replication & survival. To select is to carefully choose as being the best or most suitable.

Although he was disappointed in the religious doctrines of his day, Darwin could not deny the philosophical evidence pointing to a First Cause of some kind*2. He reached that Agnostic position based on the "impossibility of conceiving this immense and wonderful universe . . . as the result of blind chance or necessity"*3. His neither-Theist-nor-Atheist position was equivalent to what later became known as Deism.

Those who do put their faith in Blind Chance*4 -- as the creator of this almost infinite living organism we blandly call "The Universe" -- are not un-intelligent. But they do seem to be blinded by emotional reactions to the intellectual blinders (Blind Faith) imposed by the Abrahamic religions of their personal experience. Gamblers, those who do believe in Fortune & Chance for the brave, tend to become addicted to the random rewards (Vegas jackpots), that they interpret as blessings for the faithful.

However, the consistency of the Cosmic Jackpot*5 (14 billion years of continuing complexification) is not what a reasonable thinker would expect from the dominance of Randomness & Entropy. So, the only viable explanation for positive evolution is the innate fitness rules that guide the progress of the universe*6. But, why would the Programmer of an evolutionary project remain anonymous to He/r creatures? I don't know the answer, but some computer programmers are content to embed "Easter Eggs" for motivated seekers to find.


*1. Why hide? Your guess is as good as mine. Vulcan (Spock)-like lack of human Ego? A weird sense of humor? Enjoyment of riddles & secrets?

*2. First Cause or Creator :
"The question is of course wholly distinct from that higher one, whether there exists a Creator and Ruler of the universe; and this has been answered in the affirmative by some of the highest intellects that have ever existed" . . . . "The idea of a universal and beneficent Creator does not seem to arise in the mind of man, until he has been elevated by long-continued culture."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious ... les_Darwin

*3. Intelligent Evolution :
“Another source of conviction in the existence of God, connected with the reason and not with the feelings, impresses me as having much more weight. This follows from the extreme difficulty or rather impossibility of conceiving this immense and wonderful universe, including man with his capacity of looking far backwards and far into futurity, as the result of blind chance or necessity. When thus reflecting I feel compelled to look to a First Cause having an intelligent mind in some degree analogous to that of man; and I deserve to be called a Theist.” —Charles Darwin,
https://godevidence.com/2018/12/quote-o ... es-darwin/

*4. Conscious Cosmic Agent :
In his article for the online Aeon Magazine, Is The Universe A Conscious Mind?, philosopher Philip Goff begins with the current consensus of cosmologers, that the universe seems to be fine-tuned to produce living beings. Then he proposes a conscious universal agent to explain how that improbable scenario came to pass. But first, he acknowledges that, "Some take the fine-tuning to be simply a basic fact about our Universe: fortunate perhaps, but not something requiring explanation." However, some experts, such as Lee Smolin, have calulated the seemingly impossible odds against the emergence of Life, simply by random chance. Which makes it sound like a miracle.
http://bothandblog.enformationism.info/page53.html

*5. Cosmic Jackpot: Why Our Universe Is Just Right for Life :
physicist and cosmologist Davies discusses the implications of the fact that the conditions of our universe are "just right" for life to exist: a concept known as the anthropic principle.
https://www.amazon.com/Cosmic-Jackpot-U ... 0618592261

*6. Order within Chaos :
Order illustrates that a system has responded to a rule or rules that have made the system behave in a manner that is expected.
https://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Systems_T ... rder-Chaos
Note -- the rules (laws) that govern a contingent system, such as the physical universe, are contingent upon the "expectations" of a law-maker

DARWIN IMPRESSED BY NATURAL BEAUTY
charles_darwin_quote_2.jpg

[Gnomon]

The point of course is to shed metaphysical baggage and isolate and purify and zero in on The Cause. — Agent Smith

Why worry about THE unseen ultimate metaphysical Cause? Why not just accept what we know about obvious median physical causes? In his non-science writing, Isaac Newton freely admitted his belief in "God" as the ultimate "Why"*1. But, regarding the mysterious force of Gravity, he avoided the ancient-but-un-scientific metaphysical dodge of "god did it", which doesn't explain how that spooky-action-at-a-distance happens*2. For the same reason, claiming that "Chance is The Cause", is un-scientific, because it doesn't explain how Randomness can result in rationally knowable Patterns of Organization. In human experience, order arises from Intention, not accident*3. Science is intended to Specify Proximate causation, but Philosophy attempts to Generalize about Ultimate causation*4.


*1. What is Newton's vision of God? :
The God that Newton believed in was a God that not only created the world, but remained in dominion over the world, and had a ``propensity to action'' within the world. Newton's scientific writings, as well as his theological writings, reflected these beliefs.
https://web.media.mit.edu/~picard/personal/Newton.php

*2. Newton's own motto, "hypotheses non fingo" was, in a sense, disregarded by Newton himself: he rejected hypotheses only where they violated his own "regula philosophandi", that is to say, his principle of their strict parsimony. In terms of present-day methodology, we reject hypotheses as scientifically meaningless if they are incapable even of indirect test; and we reject them as superfluous or as implausible if they are too complex and artificial to conform with well established canons of inductive probability. But freedom of scientific theorizing must be preserved wherever the conditions of meaningfulness and of economy appear to be satisfied. ___Arthur Beer (ed.), Vistas in Astronomy https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Arthur_Beer

*3. In Architecture School we were once assigned a project called "Design by Accident". The point was to illustrate the difference between Design by Intention, and the noisy patterns of Accidental Coincidence (TV screen). The human mind can interpret noise as signal, by imputing new information (added outlines). And some abstract art depends on the human talent for "reading into" randomness, instead of "reading out" of intention.

*4. What it takes to be ultimate is to be the most fundamentally real, valuable or fulfilling among all that there is or could be.
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/god-ultimates/


RANDOM PATTERNS WITH IMPUTED MEANING
Patterns%20stars.PNG
RANDOM PATTERN WITH IMPUTED OUTLINES
Leopard%20pattern.JPG
CAN YOU SEE THE IMAGE WITHIN THE NOISE?
330918169.jpg

[Gnomon]

So, in a sense, this Enformy (order) is a "pattern" in Entropy (chaos). 180 Proof would agree, I recall him saying something to the effect that order is (merely) a phase in chaos. — Agent Smith

Yes. Enformy is an anomaly*1, in a process characterized mostly by Entropy. Yet, you could say that it's "the exception that proves the rule". The 'rule' being emergence of organization despite the obstacle of Entropy. Also, the progressive pattern of Enformy has been consistent in our own backyard for billions of years. And exponentially progressive human Culture is an anomaly within gradually evolving Nature.

With those anti-entropy developments in mind, I would rephrase 180's pessi-missal (pessimistic dismissal) of Order as merely a meaningless gap in Disorder : "Life is merely a phase in death". If that was true, what is the significance of your own Life? A rule of thumb for both scientists and philosophers is "when you discover an anomaly, look for the cause". Creative Progress proceeds from anomaly to anomaly. And you can quote Kuhn on that.

For me, the "true state of the universe" is the state of progression from nada (scratch) to those who scratch their heads at anomalies*3.


*1. Law-like Anomalies :
Scientific development depends in part on a process of non-incremental or revolutionary change. Some revolutions are large, like those associated with the names of Copernicus, Newton, or Darwin, but most are much smaller, like the discovery of oxygen or the planet Uranus. The usual prelude to changes of this sort is, I believed, the awareness of anomaly, of an occurrence or set of occurrences that does not fit existing ways of ordering phenomena. The changes that result therefore require 'putting on a different kind of thinking-cap', one that renders the anomalous lawlike but that, in the process, also transforms the order exhibited by some other phenomena, previously unproblematic.
— Thomas S. Kuhn, The Essential Tension

*2. Is the true state of the Universe order or chaos? :
What is orderly are the physical laws, that seem to be the same everywhere we look: the electron always has the same mass and so forth.
What is chaotic arises from the laws of thermodynamics. Entropy always increases in systems, and entropy measures disorder.
Pockets of order get created − stars and solar systems for example. Gravity is a big help in doing that, along with radiation to take heat out of systems.
But overall the universe is heading toward apparent eternal expansion and cooling off −
heat death. __Stephen Perrenod
Note -- The "true state" depends on where you look, and on what you mean by "true". On our local exceptional "pocket of order" (Earth), Enformy has scored a big lead, against the predicted odds of Entropy winning the long game. As for the rest of the universe, several scientists have enough faith in Natural Laws to bet on Enformy's creative power to produce, not just Life, but intelligent Minds. For my own personal purposes, I'm only betting on the home team : Earth. Even so, what has a beginning, can be expected to come to an end. Some call that far-off finale, "Heat Death", others "Omega Point" (a new beginning).

*3. "The true state of universe is non-dual - its neither the state of “order” nor the state of “chaos” - it is state that is to be called “forward motion of time”. Here is some brief explanation…" __Arun Jagatheesan
Note -- Another word for "Forward motion" is "Progress". Another term for "Duality" is BothAnd Unity.

180'S VIEW OF ENTROPY
Entropy%20curve.jpg
GNOMON'S VIEW OF ENFORMY
Entropy%20curve%20flipped.jpg
COSMIC EVOLUTION from scratch to head-scratchers to the ultimate anomaly???
Cosmic%20Progression%20Graph.jpg

[Gnomon]

Please brush up on your math - the graphs are identical, but I know what you wished to convey and perhaps you thought your audience would be smart enough to do the math themselves. — Agent Smith

The contrasting graphs are illustrations -- no math required to see the implication. Obviously, I just turned the original graph up-side-down, to figuratively demonstrate the difference between 180's worldview and my own. In terms of meaning though, the graphs are not identical. One shows Entropy completely dissipating Energy from an initial state of order to a state of utter disorder. The other portrays Neg-entropy (Enformy) organizing raw Energy (potential) into the elaborate structures that we see all around us. The up-side-down graph is what you would get if you place a minus sign in front of the Entropy equation to represent Neg-entropy (Enformy).

The third graph shows what happens to a universe when "the math" allows self-organizing systems to emerge, against the general rules of thermodynamics. That's why there are exceptions to the first & second laws, to make allowance for Open Systems. The linked article by The Information Philosopher provides a plethora of information on the topics of Self-Organization, Complexity, and Enformy (negentropy). On his website, he even gets into the "Math" that I tend to skip-over, because I am neither a scientist nor a mathematician.

Entropy :
A quality of the universe modeled as a thermodynamic system. Energy always flows from Hot (high energy density) to Cold (low density) -- except when it doesn't. On rare occasions, energy lingers in a moderate state that we know as Matter, and sometimes even reveals new qualities and states of material stuff .
   The Second Law of Thermo-dynamics states that, in a closed system, Entropy always increases until it reaches equilibrium at a temperature of absolute zero. But some glitch in that system allows stable forms to emerge that can recycle energy in the form of qualities we call Life & Mind. That glitch is what I call Enformy.
http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page8.html
Note -- 180's notion of Entropy envisions a closed system. But Gnomon's Enformy is based on an open system (e.g. Earth) which is able to borrow energy from outside its own sub-system.

Negative Entropy :
Entropy is the amount of disorder or randomness within a system. As the disorder of a system increases, so does entropy. The universe naturally moves to a state of increased disorder or randomness, which means the universe naturally moves to a state of increased entropy.
What is the opposite of entropy? Negative entropy refers to a system becoming less disordered or more ordered. Negative entropy is also known as negentropy.
https://study.com/academy/lesson/negati ... esson.html
Note -- the effect of Negative Entropy (Energy ; Enformy) is to produce positive Work instead of just Waste.

Dissipative Structures :
In his 1945 essay What is Life?, Schrödinger would say that "life feeds on negative entropy." Schrödinger described this as "order out of order" that distinguishes life from the "order out of chaos" exhibited by many complex physical systems studied today.
Ilya Prigogine and his collaborator Isabel Stengers titled their 1984 book Order Out Of Chaos. In it, they focused on physical systems far from equilibrium which exhibit the flow of matter and energy from the environment through an open system. Prigogine called them "dissipative structures" and developed the non-linear thermodynamics needed to describe them mathematically.
Prigogine thought these dissipative systems showed "self-organizing" characteristics similar to those of biological systems.
https://www.informationphilosopher