TPF : Science vs Religion Success

[Gnomon]

There's this riddle if youtube videos are to be believed that scientists haven't yet solved: why was the early universe in a low entropy state? Must be the Enformer. — Agent Smith

Yes. According to my non-scientific thesis, the Origin of our universe (closed system), which began with all the energy it would ever have*1, implies energy & regulatory input from outside the system. But other theories assume the eternal existence of Energy & Laws (Potential + Logos), from which our little 'verse obtained its head start. One version of that notion is the Multiverse Theory, asserting that Ultimate Reality has been recycling its energy & laws forever. Unfortunately, that is not an empirically testable theory, hence Philosophy instead of Science. Another hypothesis is Cosmic Inflation*2, which assumes that Space & Time have existed forever, along with the potential energy presumed to be inherent in Empty Space. Yet, again there is no way to confirm that speculation.

The physical & philosophical problem with all of those physical pre-BigBang theories is that they contradict the so-called Laws of Thermodynamics. In order to recycle, a roller-coaster multi-universe would have to pull itself up by the bootstraps in order to get back to the low Entropy/high Enformy starting point. That's why the Enformationism thesis proposes a Meta-Physical (mental ; information) First Cause (creator of Space & Time, Energy & Matter) to explain -- logically, not physically -- how our local 'verse could begin at the top of the Energy/Entropy hill*3.


*1. Universe began at top of roller coaster hill :
The Universe Began In A State Of Extraordinarily Low Entropy
Based on an elaboration of a 2004 proposal by Sean Carroll and Jennifer Chen, there is a possibility of a new solution to the age-old problem of the arrow of time. This work, by Sean Carroll, Chien-Yao Tseng, and me, is still in the realm of speculation, and has not yet been vetted by the scientific community. . . . The most attractive feature is that there is no longer a need to introduce any assumptions that violate the time symmetry of the known laws of physics.
https://www.edge.org/response-detail/25538

HOW DID THE PRIMORDIAL UNIVERSE GET TO THE TOP OF THE ENERGY CURVE ?
Entropy%20roller%20coaster.png

*2. Cosmic Inflation, instantaneous exponential expansion, assumes super-natural (extra-natural) forces that don't exist in the Nature that Physics observes. Hence, it's equivalent to magical creation from super-nature into nature, as in Genesis : creatio ex nihilo, or creatio ex materia. To produce something new from something absent, or from pre-existing (pre-nature) material. That kind of theory only makes sense to those who hold a prejudice against philosophical Metaphysics : Metaphysics is the branch of philosophy that examines the fundamental nature of reality, including the relationship between mind and matter, between substance and attribute, and between potentiality and actuality.

*3. Why we’ll never see back to the beginning of the Universe :
the hot Big Bang has since been shown to be preceded by the inflationary Universe, . . .
Of all the questions humanity has ever pondered, perhaps the most profound is, “Where did all of this come from?” . . . any information about the beginning of the Universe is no longer contained within our observable cosmos.
https://bigthink.com/starts-with-a-bang ... -universe/
Note -- The Inflationary thesis leaves us in suspense, with a "hidden" creator, just like all other First Cause theories. If the Cause is design-by-accident, no revelation would be expected. But if the Prime Cause was intentional, some identifying information might be found within the creation itself. That is the premise of Enformationism. But you won't see such embedded revelation unless you are looking for it.

Have you heard of Boltzmann brains? Read, quite interesting and might help buttress your argument for Enformy. — Agent Smith


The Boltzmann brain thought experiment suggests that it might be more likely for a single brain to spontaneously form in a void (complete with a memory of having existed in our universe) rather than for the entire universe to come about in the manner cosmologists think it actually did. Physicists use the Boltzmann brain thought experiment as a reductio ad absurdum argument for evaluating competing scientific theories.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boltzmann_brain
I get enough of 180's accusations of "absurdity", without providing him with more ammunition to ridicule the notion of "spontaneous" generation of brains/minds. My thesis proposes the long & winding road of natural Evolution, from spontaneous (?) Big Bang to computing brains with reflective minds. :joke:
a day ago

[Gnomon]

There's a lot yet to explain in cosmology/cosmogony/astronomy. Did you read 180 Proof's reply to me? There are some mathematical models which purport to account for the low entropy state of the universe - our universe is a white hole who's low entropy state is offset and exceeded by the high entropy state of a black hole "at the opposite end". That would mean your Enformy is actually entropy (of the black hole paired with our universe). — Agent Smith

180disproof likes to throw-out abstruse stuff that he knows you & I are not familiar with. And I suspect -- brilliant as he is -- 180poo doesn't understand those esoteric math & physics conjectures himself. As usual, this ploy misses the point of my personal philosophical thesis. Which does not "purport" to be a scientific explanation of anything.

My coinage of Enformy, which he labels as "woo woo", is simply a combination of Energy (cause) & Form (orderly pattern). And its philosophical meaning is simply Regulated Causation, as opposed to Random Disorder or Destruction. The "woo" arises when I infer that the "Natural Laws" that regulate evolution, are Intentional Organization instead of Accidental Design (oxymoron). The undeniable logical & predictable arrangement (order) of our world is what scientists depend on to construct their hypotheses & models. And it's the exact opposite of what you would expect (anomaly) from an Entropy dominated process : an actual "white hole" instead of a hypothetical reverse black hole.

I'm not a mathematician or cosmologist, so I can't comment on the "mathematical models" that "purport" to explain the low-entropy-high-order beginning of the universe*1. As an amateur philosopher, what matters to me is the simple observed fact that our Cosmos began with all the energy & laws necessary to construct the world we now enjoy after billions of solar years of en-formation & con-struction. 2500 years ago, Plato postulated that our orderly Cosmos (regulated by natural laws) emerged from a pre-existing Chaos (infinite Potential). But even that "deterministic" Chaos was not dominated by Entropy, because it turned-out to be creative instead of destructive*2.

Don't be misled by his White Hole or White Rabbit distraction. On this forum, what "matters" is not Physics (ideas about matter), but Metaphysics (ideas about ideas).

*1. What Was The Entropy Of The Universe At The Big Bang? :
The second law of thermodynamics is one of those puzzling laws of nature that simply emerges from the fundamental rules. It says that entropy, a measure of disorder in the Universe, must always increase in any closed system. But how is it possible that our Universe today, which looks to be organized and ordered with solar systems, galaxies and intricate cosmic structure, is somehow in a higher-entropy state than right after the Big Bang? . . . .So why was the early Universe so low-entropy? Because it didn't have any black holes. ___Physicist Ethan Siegel
Note -- The absence or presence of black holes does not explain the "why" of the low entropy origin. It merely distracts your attention from the philosophical enigma.

*2. On the Origin of the Universe: Chaos or Cosmos? :
I would like to consider the Universe according to the standard Big Bang model, including various quantum models of its origin. In addition, using the theory of nonlinear dynamics, deterministic chaos, fractals, and multifractals I have proposed a new hypothesis, Macek (The Origin of the World: Cosmos or Chaos? Cardinal Stefan Wyszyński University (UKSW) Scientific Editions, 2020). Namely, I have argued that a simple but possibly nonlinear law is important for the creation of the Cosmos at the extremely small Planck scale at which space and time originated. It is shown that by looking for order and harmony in the complex real world these modern studies give new insight into the most important philosophical issues beyond classical ontological principles, e.g., by providing a deeper understanding of the age-old philosophical dilemma (Leibniz, 1714): why does something exist instead of nothing? We also argue that this exciting question is a philosophical basis of matters that influence the meaning of human life in the vast Universe.
https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.10 ... 96964-6_21
Note -- That hypothetical "non-linear law" sounds similar to what I call "Enformy".

*3. White Hole : a hypothetical celestial object that expands outward from a space-time singularity and emits energy, in the manner of a time-reversed black hole.
Note -- Doesn't that sound like our expanding, energy recycling, universe?
A white hole is a bizarre cosmic object which is intensely bright, and from which matter gushes rather than disappears.
Note -- Now who's making sh*t up??? Ask 180 if anyone has ever detected a hypothetical White Hole. If he can't document its existence, you can accuse him of promulgating "woo woo".


PS__Many of 180's counterarguments to Enformy are based on an erroneous premise : that I am making factual statements about physics, instead of personal opinions about metaphysics. For example, I didn't make-up the idea that the universe began in a low entropy state of raw energy & natural laws. It was scientists, whose job it is to determine such things, who offered their professional opinions about that oddity. Yet, some of them, faced with an anomaly, also asked the philosophical question "why?" (for what purpose).

Some of them also proposed physical "how" answers, such as imaginary White Holes. But, 180 thinks my imaginary metaphysical answer to a philosophical question is inadmissible as evidence. Ironically, scientists had already found a similar counter-entropy force in physics, that they labeled "negentropy". I merely gave that concept an information-centric label. 180 doesn't argue with the logic of my inferences from inter-related facts, but attacks Gnomon's credentials as a scientist.

The Remarkable Emptiness of Existence :
Note -- Contrary to expectations, even the vacuum of space, lacking actual stuff, was found to contain lots of potential energy. Is that physics or metaphysics? From my personal information-based perspective, that's what I call EnFormAction : the Cosmic power to enform, to create matter & mind from Potential Energy. Isn't Nature spooky? Woo-woo!
https://nautil.us/the-remarkable-emptin ... ce-256323/

[Gnomon]

I am myself a materialist (in the sense that I believe the material world is primary and that our subjective experiences arise directly from the physical) and have been trying to reconcile the idea of the "self", with a materialist worldview. The self, as I see it, is the "fundamental essence" of who we are; this sense of "I" we are all likely familiar with. — tom111

I don't label myself (my personal Self) as Materialist. But I also don't define Me as Spiritualist. Ironically, one definition of Spirit is "the essence of a thing". So, your definition of The Self could be construed as a spiritual concept; which may trigger the trolls. Therefore, due to the contentious religious baggage of "spirit", I have adopted the modern notion of "Information" to describe the essence of all things. Unfortunately, the trolls can sniff-out the implicit spiritual (essential) connotations.

From that Information-centric perspective, your Self is merely the Information (pattern ; arrangement ; structure ; relationships) that defines your Material (physical) & Mental (phenomenal) form. Unfortunately, you can't see a pattern with your eyes, but you can infer it with your reason, by detecting invisible inter-relationships. (see image below)
↪Agent Smith


Spiritual Essence (psychology) :
And now we come to the Spirit—the Essence that animates the mind and body.
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog ... an-heal-us

What is Information Pattern? :
An information pattern is a structure of information units like e.g. a vector or matrix of numbers, a stream of video frames, or a distribution of probabilities.
https://www.igi-global.com/dictionary/i ... tern/14438

Is ‘Information’ Fundamental for a Scientific Theory of Consciousness? :
Re : physicist John A. Wheeler's "It from Bit" interpretation of Quantum & Information theories.
"In his proposed conception of the world, information is truly fundamental and is comprised of dual aspects—corresponding to the physical and the phenomenal features of the world."
https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.10 ... -5777-9_21

"Information philosophy is a dualist philosophy, both materialist and idealist. It It is a correspondence theory, explaining how immaterial ideas represent material objects".
https://www.informationphilosopher.com/
Note -- in my thesis, that Both-And relationship adds-up to Monism : one essence, many manifestations.

Materially, we can define a "self" based on one of two quantities; the actual matter that makes up a thing, or simply just the arrangement of matter. — tom111

The "arrangement of matter" is its Form. And Matter is merely a "form" of Energy that our senses can detect (E=MC^2). So, I have concluded that Energy is transformed into Matter, via a process that I have labeled as EnFormAction, in order to suggest its relationship to Information-in-General (the generic ability to enform ; to create forms/patterns ; to cause change ; to carry meaning ). Energy is all around us, but invisible to human senses, until it takes on a measurable Material form : Mass/Matter/Substance. With that scientific knowledge in mind, your notion that the human Self is "just the arrangement of matter" makes sense.

The philosophical problem arises when we consider that the essence of Matter is invisible & intangible in its massless form (e.g. photons) Which raises the old Matter vs Spirit controversy. Since causal Energy can transform from immaterial Potential to material Actual, and back again, you can avoid the Ship of Theseus problem. Nature is not replace physical parts of a thing, it is merely changing the essential Form (arrangement) that makes a thing what it is. Even ↪180 Proof
says that "Self does not exist" as a material / physical thing". So, the Ontological question is this : in what sense does the Self/Soul exist?


Under conventional, religious dualism, generally, a human can be divided into two distinct parts; material and immaterial. — tom111

That conceptual Dualism can be resolved into Monism, if we understand Body & Self as merely different aspects (instances ; expressions ; manifestations) of the EnFormAction process. For example, as an individual Photon is zooming through the cosmos, that building block of matter is invisible & massless. But when it energizes the visual purple chemicals in the eye, that photon is transformed into matter, and then back into energy (neural pulses).

Light is invisible because light does not emit light. To see something this something needs to emit, or reflect light
https://www.quora.com/Why-is-light-invisible
Note -- Photons are Potential Energy & Potential Matter. Only after transformation into Actual matter can they absorb & reflect light. This may sound counter-intuitive, but it's simply Quantum queerness.


pict--interrelationship-digraph-template-relations-diagram---template.png--diagram-flowchart-example.png
The blocks represent physical things, or parts of things. But the arrows represent inferred functional (or meaningful) inter-relations. So, the Pattern per se is a mental construct.
3 days ago

[Gnomon]

I have adopted the modern notion of "Information" to describe the essence of all things.
— Gnomon
Given that "essence" denotes that which non-impermanently makes something what is and not something else (to paraphase Plato/Aristotle(?)), why isn't there a "law of the conservation of information" like – complementary to or entailed by – the conservation of mass-energy law, for instance? Why isn't "information" (i.e. "pattern", as you say, Gnomon) conserved in physics? — 180 Proof
To tell you the truth, a Google search on conservation of energy was negative although there was something in The black hole information paradox (Susskind, Hawking et all). — Agent Smith

↪180 Proof's question is treating "Information" as-if it is nothing-but Physical. Yet, in the sense of "essence of all things" Information is both physical and metaphysical. Consequently, in its physical forms (e.g. energy/matter) Information must obey physical laws, but in its metaphysical forms (e.g. mind/ideas) information must obey logical laws. However, when physicists talk about conservation laws, they are referring to energy in the conventional scientific sense, not to its unconventional philosophical sense of EnFormAction -- which I assume they have never heard of. This forum has an exclusive on that outré notion.

I am currently reading a book by astrophysicist Caleb Scharf, The Ascent of Information. In the first chapter he says, "a number of thinkers over the years have asked whether information itself may be the fundamental currency of the universe -- superseding our comparatively parochial ideas of what makes biology, and chemistry, or even physics tick". His term "fundamental currency" is what I referred to as "the essence of all things". Since 180proof is still thinking in terms of "parochial ideas" (having a limited or narrow outlook or scope), he does not agree with those innovative thinkers.

Scharf has coined the neologism "Dataome"*1 (compare to Genome) to encapsulate his own outréconcept of Universal Information. Raw "data" is appropriate for Claude Shannon's narrow definition of Information. But, from the Enformationism perspective, Data is a basic form of Information that doesn't have any inherent significance or purpose or meaning -- it's unprocessed information. That's why Scharf goes on to say that "real information is that data organized and assembled and structured to provide meaning and context". Likewise, the ideal mental construct of "Self" -- pointing to a specific body -- is a metaphysical meaningful structure that exists upon a physical substrate, but is not itself physical. It exists in the same sense that the concept of "Universe" does, pointing to a physical expanse of matter.

Universal Information is more comprehensive in scope than mere Data. Which is why I coined the term Enformationism to encapsulate the universal & essential role of the cosmic Causal-power-to-enform (to organize into physical or meaningful structures or patterns). Therefore, in a physical format an enformed structure must comply with the conservation law. But in a metaphysical form, the applicable law is Logic (rules & tests of sound reasoning). Which may also be conservative, but not in the same sense.


*1. Dataome : the class of all forms of information, from abstract data to meaningful ideas to material objects.
Note 1 -- Scharf compares his coinage to "Noosphere" (universal scope of mind), coined in the 1920s by paleontologist Pierre Teilhard deChardin and geologist Vladimir Vernadsky to encompass their notion of an emerging stage of evolutionary development, due to the expanding role of non-physical Consciousness in the physical world. Physicist John A. Wheeler introduced a similar novel notion (It from Bit) around 1989, to encapsulate his concept of an information-based world.
Note 2 -- Noosphere is a no-no for Materialists, who don't "see" how a metaphysical Mind could exist apart from its substantial substrate. Yet, it does exist, as an abstract idea (e.g. prescient Purpose), in the same sense that a future-oriented Function exists for any physical machine. No original intentional metaphysical Purpose >>> no Cause >>> no Machine >>> no Function >>> no physical Output >>> no satisfied Objective.

[Gnomon]

Information is physical e.g. DNA, circuit-switches, computer programs, heat, etc. Every physical transformation is information; translating (i.e. compressing) information into an algorithm is abstraction (i.e. code). Yeah, abstract = nonphysical (insofar as 'nonphysical' means not causally related). — 180 Proof
Yeah, but if information isn't conserved and if matter & energy (physical) are then ... — Agent Smith

Yes, and then . . . the beat goes on. I don't know how you would physically determine if non-physical forms of Information are conserved. But since, in my thesis, Generic Information can be transformed into Energy, and Energy into Matter, then Matter into Entropy, which can be stored in Black Holes like a deep freeze, it seems that Information cycles without ceasing. Presumably. the original Information (the program code) of the Big Bang Singularity has been recycled for 14 billion years, without any loss of information from within the closed system. Some theorists even speculate that Black Hole information can be recycled; hypothetically *1. Is that conservative enough for you?

↪180 Proof defines "non-physical" as "not causally related". But some scientists have concluded that Information transfer is a causal relationship*2. Unfortunately, non-physical information transfer (memes to minds) are not measurable in a physical sense *3. So the definition is moot.


*1. Information Recycling :
The "black hole information paradox" refers to the fact that information cannot be destroyed in the universe, and yet when a black hole eventually evaporates, whatever information was gobbled up by this cosmic vacuum cleaner should have long since vanished. The new study proposes that the paradox could be resolved by nature's ultimate cheat code: wormholes, or passages through space-time.
https://www.livescience.com/black-hole-paradox-solution

*2. Information causality is a physical principle suggested in 2009 . . . . The principle assumes classical communication: if quantum bits were allowed to be transmitted the information gain could be higher as demonstrated in the quantum superdense coding protocol [this is debatable as superdense coding requires sending as many qubits - including auxiliary channels - as there are classical bits to transfer]. The principle is respected by all correlations accessible with quantum physics
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Information_causality
Note -- "information gain" is a net change, caused by input of information.

*3. Information causality as a physical principle :
Information causality may therefore help to distinguish physical theories from non-physical ones.
https://www.proquest.com/docview/204560784
Note -- Only physical properties are measurable in quantitative terms. Non-physical qualities are knowable only by conscious minds. Do you have any memes in your mind? How much do those massless objects weigh? How many degrees of uncertainty can your mind contain?

Information : (my definition)
Knowledge and the ability to know. Technically, it's the ratio of order to disorder, of positive to negative, of knowledge to ignorance. It's measured in degrees of uncertainty. Those ratios are also called "differences". So Gregory Bateson* defined Information as "the difference that makes a difference". The latter distinction refers to "value" or "meaning". Babbage called his prototype computer a "difference engine". Difference is the cause or agent of Change. In Physics it’s called "Thermodynamics" or "Energy". In Sociology it’s called "Conflict".
http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page11.html

[Gnomon]

But I don't believe it is meaningful to speak of 'information' as if it is the fundamental substrate or foundation of all that exists. . . .
And I regret to say that I invariably find your 'enformationism' mere hand-waving. — Wayfarer

As a proposed comprehensive belief-system, an -ism, my personal philosophy should be approached with skepticism. But also with an open mind toward novel philosophical models. It has implications for both scientific paradigms and religious beliefs. It doesn't directly contradict the prevailing Materialism of science & philosophy, but it does propose a new way of understanding the physical world, that doesn't ignore the emerging role of non-physical Mind/Culture, and causal Information.

Do you disagree with the statements of the professional scientists quoted in my posts? Or do you merely disagree with my amateur interpretation of their collective opinions? Since I have no professional or academic qualifications, I have to rely on their expertise to ground my philosophical system-building. So you should feel free to critique my reasoning, as a few have done on this forum over the last few years. Like Quantum Theory, it's hard to wrap your mind around the idea of Information as the foundation of both Reality and Ideality.

Enformationism is not a scientific theory, and should not be judged by scientific criteria. And even the quoted scientists are not presenting settled-science, but merely their own personal opinions.
You might better understand their "meaning" if you would read their own words. That's why I provide internet links and book titles. Can you provide a specific instance of "hand-waving"? Even hand waving is a form of Information transfer.

Enformationism :
***This website is a place to explore the meaning and ramifications of a new philosophical hypothesis that I have chosen to call Enformationism. The term spelled with an "I" had already been used elsewhere in various contexts and meanings, so I looked for an alternative name. Since the new scientific term Enformy was already in use, with a meaning similar to what I had in mind, I simply chose to change the spelling of my proposed coinage.
***This informal thesis does not present any new scientific evidence, or novel philosophical analysis. It merely suggests a new perspective on an old enigma : what is reality? The so-called “Information Age” that began in the 20th century, has now come of age in the 21st century. So I have turned to the cutting-edge Information Sciences in an attempt to formulate my own personal answer to the perennial puzzles of Ontology, the science of Existence.
*** I am neither a scientist, nor a philosopher, so the arguments herein carry no more authority or expertise than those of anyone else with an interest in such impractical musings. This is intended to be an open-ended thread, because it’s a relatively new and unproven concept, and because the ideas presented here are merely a superficial snapshot of what promises to be a whole new way of understanding the world : philosophically, scientifically, and religiously.
http://enformationism.info/enformationi ... lcome.html

[Gnomon]

And I regret to say that I invariably find your 'enformationism' mere hand-waving. — Wayfarer

I was surprised my your description of my "enthusiastic" presentation of Enformationism as "mere handwaving" (empty gestures)*1. My intention is more like Teaching or Preaching, which often involve emphatic use of the hands to emphasize a point. Understandably, preaching is typically not well-received on this forum, and is often shouted-down*2. But, a certain amount of Teaching is necessary, because most members of this forum are only vaguely familiar with Shannon's use of the term "Information" in the context of Entropy (i.e. dis-information). As Dr. Frankenstein's fire-fearing creature might say : "Entropy bad!" So, Information itself has been pegged with a negative connotation as something to be avoided. Ironically, in Shannon's sense of "uncertainty" and "surprise", "more entropy means more information".

By contrast to the engineering usage, my philosophical application of Information Theory is focused on its positive aspects (Energy/Enformy as contrasted to Entropy/Deform). In the book by astrophysicist Caleb Scharf, The Ascent of Information, he recounts a story of how Shannon came to connect disrupted messages on noisy phone lines with thermodynamic Entropy (all the ways it could go wrong). John von Neumann suggested that abstruse technical term, and added that "since most people didn't understand what entropy really was, he would always have the advantage in an argument". Unfortunately, for my philosophical purposes that mis-understanding is a disadvantage. Thus, the necessity for teaching -- and yes, for gesturing -- in order to put Information into a more positive light.

Even a century after Shannon's engineering insight, businesses still invite speakers to teach their employees about how easy it is for things to go wrong with their enterprises. And some philosophers view Evolution, not as a creative process, but as a one-way trip to Entropy Hell. So, I have an uphill battle to present a more optimistic side of the thermodynamic equation. The main element of Information that Shannon's "purposefully austere mathematical evaluation" omitted was Meaning. Enformationism, though, is intended to fill that gaping gap with Life & Mind & Meaning*3.


*1. Hand Waving :
the use of gestures and insubstantial language meant to impress or convince.

*2. Preaching : I suspect that it's my evangelical approach to Enformationism as a worldview is what offends ↪180 Proof the most. Ironically, his worldview seems to be pretty close to my own in many ways. But, he seems to think I'm an annoying born-again "Enformationist" (cringe) preaching the gospel of G*D.

*3. 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

[Gnomon]

That should mean something - a few scientific domains are still open to metaphysical interpretations like our friend Gnomon's. It's as unfortunate as is unsurprising that Gnomon has bet his money on quantum physics - the shadowy realm of science where cats are both dead and alive. It's an easy target as far as I can tell for mystic cum metaphysicans; all the more reason for scientists to get their act together and fast. — Agent Smith

Yes. Gnomon typically quotes the quantum physicists who were both pioneers of the New Physics, and somewhat open to non-classical (mystical) concepts. Yet Schrodinger's metaphorical cat is not both dead and alive ; its state, for a standby observer, is merely undetermined (statistically somewhere between 0 & 100%). Apparently ↪180 Proof knows more about Quantum Theory than those Nobel prize winners. His "shadows" have sharp edges. Hence, he labels Gnomon's use of their fuzzy philosophical metaphors as "poorly reasoned".

[Gnomon]

I have a feeling we're talking past each other. Gnomon's idea of information is not the one you're using. As s/he said, his information is outré (unconventional) which to me reads nonscientific. — Agent Smith

For the record, by "non-scientific" I mean philosophical and meta-physical. But ↪180 Proof
seems to equate modern Philosophy with classical (non-quantum) Physics.

[Gnomon]

I thought at Gnomon was using information as a kid of secular analogue for essence. — Tom Storm
Well, kind of, but I question the accordance of this usage with the classical meaning. My understanding is that 'essence' boils down essentially to 'is-ness' - what makes a particular what it is. That was derived originally from Plato's 'eidos' (idea or form), usually understood as mediated by Aristotle's 'immanent realism' (i.e. that forms are real only when they are instantiated in particulars). — Wayfarer
↪Tom Storm

Gnomon has tried to update & adapt those ancient "classical" notions of Essence, Idea, Form, with new insights from modern Information Theory and Quantum Theory. Unfortunately, just as Newton's classical physics is now passé, Plato's and Aristotle's "classical" meanings (e.g. two-value Logic) are still applicable in their original context, but -- due to the intervening 2500 years of scientific progress -- must be re-interpreted to suit the fuzzy (multi-valued) logic of Quantum Queerness. No disrespect to the classical thinkers is intended.

Passé : no longer fashionable; out of date.

Fuzzy Logic : Both quantum logic and fuzzy logic describe uncertainty
Note -- Aristotle's Universal or General Logic had sharply defined borders & edges. Which is useful for general purposes. But becomes uncertain in specified contexts at the foundations of Reality.