So what if we took you seriously and formed a civic association to manifest a new belief? — Athena
Please don't take me seriously, because I was not proposing the formation of a Deist religion. Years ago, I participated in a local organization based upon a college student's Deist worldview, which came to be known as Universism*1 --- not to be confused with Universalism. The group included a range of philosophical perspectives, from Atheism, Agnosticism, New Age, to Deism. Almost anything except conventional Western religion.
As a web-based organization, it eventually included members from all parts of the world. So, there is indeed a widespread felt need for some alternative to top-down organized Religion. Unfortunately, it eventually fell apart along the lines of those pre-existing labels I mentioned. Bottom-up religions just don't seem to have enough internal cohesion without some mandatory outside force. Which usually results in the formal creedal organizations they were intended to avoid*2. To enforce cohesion, top-down Religions and Governments seem to be necessary evils, that are riddled with evils of their own.
So, my recommendation is to form loose, non-governmental civic associations to deal with practical civic & social issues, and let your own personal philosophical worldview govern your individual behavior. Meanwhile, I suspect that a "new belief" system is already emerging, along the lines of my own personal Enformationism worldview. Perhaps, by the end of this century that enformed (inter-relationship structured) "belief" will even become common, but not dominant, in the interconnected "participatory" information milieu.
*1. Universism :
Universism posits that religious philosophy should not be conceived in terms of one's views toward God, but rather the method and attitude with which one approaches religious questions.
http://www.universist.org/
*2. Christianity began with rejection of the Law of Moses that had held Judaism together for centuries, despite their trials & tribulations. But look at Christianity now : the Imperial Roman church and its offspring are crumbling into "spiritual but not religious" segments, searching for freedom from the "creeds of men"
TPF : Emergence, Physical vs Metaphysical
Re: TPF : Emergence, Physical vs Metaphysical
No, I am interested in the personal credence level you assign to posits such as deism, or the actual existence of a prime mover, creator of the universe, that was/is an eternal mind/conscience, with intent and purpose, that caused it to create/be the vital or divine spark that IS the first and only cause that created this universe. I would also like to know as many details as an interlocuter is willing to offer, regarding why they assign the credence level they do, to such posits, and why they have a need for such. — universeness
Are you asking for a profession of faith? The god-model of Enformationism is a product of my own imagination, and I believe in it implicitly. Do you have a comprehensive personal worldview? How much credence do you place in its tenets? Incredulity toward alternative creeds, even those that are held by billions of rational humans, is a sign of healthy skepticism. But blanket skepticism is self-sabotaging for a philosopher.
FYI, I don't believe that the ultimate mind-model of Enformationism is Real : instead it is Ideal, an idea, a general concept, a universal*1. A god-model is useful only to the degree it can be instantiated in the particular world. For example, we observe instances of human creativity in the Arts & Sciences, of which the postulated Creator is the exemplar. We know of things taking on novel forms in Evolution, due to selection of instances of fitness, and the Enformer is the epitome (perfection) of enforming. Natural Selection chooses entities based on fitness criteria. And the Programmer of the evolutionary algorithm is the ultimate critic of fitness. Or, did you believe Nature "just happened" for no reason? If so, I have some fairy stories for you.
Except for proposing a hypothetical philosophical Origin Story, Enformationism is a form of Humanism*2. Like ancient Philosophy, it proposes an ultimate Cause & Reason for the logical organization of the physical & metaphysical realms of the world : e.g. Logos. Like modern Deism it bases its frame for finite Reality upon the Axiom of Infinite Potential. Physical Science gives us reasons to believe that the world began billions of years ago, like a seed with the potential to become a great oak.
But materialist science emerged in the middle of a long-running story, and meekly accepts the mysterious emergence of Nature from the unknown without question. So, unlike Philosophy, it has no need for conceptual germs or implicit potentials. Yet, since we observe "intents & purposes" in the space-time world, why not look for evidence of a kernal of Potential in the beginning? Personally, what scientists blandly call the mathematical "Singularity" preceding the Big Bang, is a likely candidate for the Program of Enformation that drives Evolution. Do you have a better idea?
PS__I don't believe in ideals such as Democracy, except as they serve as a guide to practice in the real world. I place no credence in anything outside of space-time, except to the extent that it provides a starting point for logical reasoning : Axiom.
*1. Universals :
In metaphysics, a universal is what particular things have in common, namely characteristics or qualities. In other words, universals are repeatable or recurrent entities that can be instantiated or exemplified by many particular things.
___Wiki
*2. Humanism :
***An outlook or system of thought attaching prime importance to human rather than divine or supernatural matters. Humanist beliefs stress the potential value and goodness of human beings, emphasize common human needs, and seek solely rational ways of solving human problems.
***A system of thought criticized as being centered on the notion of the rational, autonomous self and ignoring the unintegrated and conditioned nature of the individual.
***Humanism is an approach to life based on reason and our common humanity, recognizing that moral values are properly founded on human nature and experience alone.
↪Agent Smith
Are you asking for a profession of faith? The god-model of Enformationism is a product of my own imagination, and I believe in it implicitly. Do you have a comprehensive personal worldview? How much credence do you place in its tenets? Incredulity toward alternative creeds, even those that are held by billions of rational humans, is a sign of healthy skepticism. But blanket skepticism is self-sabotaging for a philosopher.
FYI, I don't believe that the ultimate mind-model of Enformationism is Real : instead it is Ideal, an idea, a general concept, a universal*1. A god-model is useful only to the degree it can be instantiated in the particular world. For example, we observe instances of human creativity in the Arts & Sciences, of which the postulated Creator is the exemplar. We know of things taking on novel forms in Evolution, due to selection of instances of fitness, and the Enformer is the epitome (perfection) of enforming. Natural Selection chooses entities based on fitness criteria. And the Programmer of the evolutionary algorithm is the ultimate critic of fitness. Or, did you believe Nature "just happened" for no reason? If so, I have some fairy stories for you.
Except for proposing a hypothetical philosophical Origin Story, Enformationism is a form of Humanism*2. Like ancient Philosophy, it proposes an ultimate Cause & Reason for the logical organization of the physical & metaphysical realms of the world : e.g. Logos. Like modern Deism it bases its frame for finite Reality upon the Axiom of Infinite Potential. Physical Science gives us reasons to believe that the world began billions of years ago, like a seed with the potential to become a great oak.
But materialist science emerged in the middle of a long-running story, and meekly accepts the mysterious emergence of Nature from the unknown without question. So, unlike Philosophy, it has no need for conceptual germs or implicit potentials. Yet, since we observe "intents & purposes" in the space-time world, why not look for evidence of a kernal of Potential in the beginning? Personally, what scientists blandly call the mathematical "Singularity" preceding the Big Bang, is a likely candidate for the Program of Enformation that drives Evolution. Do you have a better idea?
PS__I don't believe in ideals such as Democracy, except as they serve as a guide to practice in the real world. I place no credence in anything outside of space-time, except to the extent that it provides a starting point for logical reasoning : Axiom.
*1. Universals :
In metaphysics, a universal is what particular things have in common, namely characteristics or qualities. In other words, universals are repeatable or recurrent entities that can be instantiated or exemplified by many particular things.
___Wiki
*2. Humanism :
***An outlook or system of thought attaching prime importance to human rather than divine or supernatural matters. Humanist beliefs stress the potential value and goodness of human beings, emphasize common human needs, and seek solely rational ways of solving human problems.
***A system of thought criticized as being centered on the notion of the rational, autonomous self and ignoring the unintegrated and conditioned nature of the individual.
***Humanism is an approach to life based on reason and our common humanity, recognizing that moral values are properly founded on human nature and experience alone.
↪Agent Smith
Re: TPF : Emergence, Physical vs Metaphysical
↪Gnomon
Oh darn, I was hoping for a different discussion. But I suspect it is unrealistic to hope for the discussion I want. — Athena
Sorry. This forum's discussions are mostly Analytical & Abstract & Masculine, so they are seldom about practical applications of philosophical concepts. However, a correspondent from a previous forum (Cathy), recently contacted me, noting that her current project is a blog/forum about "purposeful action". You can check it out at https://dialogosconnect.com/ .
"For Charles S. Peirce, dialogos via semiosis is the essence of thought"
___Quote from DialogosConnect
Oh darn, I was hoping for a different discussion. But I suspect it is unrealistic to hope for the discussion I want. — Athena
Sorry. This forum's discussions are mostly Analytical & Abstract & Masculine, so they are seldom about practical applications of philosophical concepts. However, a correspondent from a previous forum (Cathy), recently contacted me, noting that her current project is a blog/forum about "purposeful action". You can check it out at https://dialogosconnect.com/ .
"For Charles S. Peirce, dialogos via semiosis is the essence of thought"
___Quote from DialogosConnect
Re: TPF : Emergence, Physical vs Metaphysical
Seems like a moot question, since in your next sentence, you profess your implicit credence level in what you have just labelled YOUR 'god-model of Enformationism,' confirming that your proposals are modelled on god posits. God of the gaps imo. — universeness
No. My hypothetical proposals, as described in the Enformationism thesis, are modeled on cutting edge Information Theory & Quantum Physics. The "god-posit" emerged logically from the cosmic implications of those fundamental sciences. Especially Plato's notion of "Logos"*1.
As a layman-with-nothing-to-lose myself, I am more open about the contributions of ancient philosophers to modern worldviews and cosmologies. For example, astrophysicist Caleb Scharf, in The Ascent of Information, admits the similarity of his technical sounding term "Dataome" to the New Agey term "Noosphere" of paleontologist Teilhard de Chardin and mathematician Ed LeRoy. Unlike them though, he doesn't extend his InfoSphere (mind field) to its logical implication of an original Cause (Enformer).
Nevertheless, your unconcealed prejudice against (contempt for) Meta-Physical concepts makes discussion of such non-empirical-but-rational ideas not "moot", but off-the-table. Anyway, I have enjoyed the opportunity to respond to your gauntlet challenges, which ironically contribute to the evolution of the Enformationism thesis. They are worded in somewhat more open-ended & less derogatory-dismissive terms than another interlocutor, who shall remain nameless. But both of you seem innocently unaware that there is a "gap" in Physics, to be filled by Metaphysics : i.e. by Philosophy.
*1. Platonic Principle Logos :
By the time of Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle, logos was the term established to describe the faculty of human reason and the knowledge men had of the known world and of other humans. Plato allowed his characters to engage in the conceit of describing logos as a living being in some of his dialogues.
The Greek word "logos" means "order," "word," and "reason." It indicates a rational explanation in contrast to a mythological explanation.
https://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Logos.
*2. Noosphere :
a postulated sphere or stage of evolutionary development dominated by consciousness, the mind, and interpersonal relationships (frequently with reference to the writings of Teilhard de Chardin).
"creatures evolve: a new biosphere emerges, and with it a new noosphere"
___Wiki
*3. Metaphysics vs Physics :
Physics is defined, in its simplest form, as the study of matter and energy and how those two interact, while metaphysics deals with the ideas that don’t abide by scientific logic and theories.
https://allthedifferences.com/metaphysics-vs-physics/
↪Agent Smith
↪180 Proof
No. My hypothetical proposals, as described in the Enformationism thesis, are modeled on cutting edge Information Theory & Quantum Physics. The "god-posit" emerged logically from the cosmic implications of those fundamental sciences. Especially Plato's notion of "Logos"*1.
As a layman-with-nothing-to-lose myself, I am more open about the contributions of ancient philosophers to modern worldviews and cosmologies. For example, astrophysicist Caleb Scharf, in The Ascent of Information, admits the similarity of his technical sounding term "Dataome" to the New Agey term "Noosphere" of paleontologist Teilhard de Chardin and mathematician Ed LeRoy. Unlike them though, he doesn't extend his InfoSphere (mind field) to its logical implication of an original Cause (Enformer).
Nevertheless, your unconcealed prejudice against (contempt for) Meta-Physical concepts makes discussion of such non-empirical-but-rational ideas not "moot", but off-the-table. Anyway, I have enjoyed the opportunity to respond to your gauntlet challenges, which ironically contribute to the evolution of the Enformationism thesis. They are worded in somewhat more open-ended & less derogatory-dismissive terms than another interlocutor, who shall remain nameless. But both of you seem innocently unaware that there is a "gap" in Physics, to be filled by Metaphysics : i.e. by Philosophy.
*1. Platonic Principle Logos :
By the time of Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle, logos was the term established to describe the faculty of human reason and the knowledge men had of the known world and of other humans. Plato allowed his characters to engage in the conceit of describing logos as a living being in some of his dialogues.
The Greek word "logos" means "order," "word," and "reason." It indicates a rational explanation in contrast to a mythological explanation.
https://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Logos.
*2. Noosphere :
a postulated sphere or stage of evolutionary development dominated by consciousness, the mind, and interpersonal relationships (frequently with reference to the writings of Teilhard de Chardin).
"creatures evolve: a new biosphere emerges, and with it a new noosphere"
___Wiki
*3. Metaphysics vs Physics :
Physics is defined, in its simplest form, as the study of matter and energy and how those two interact, while metaphysics deals with the ideas that don’t abide by scientific logic and theories.
https://allthedifferences.com/metaphysics-vs-physics/
↪Agent Smith
↪180 Proof
Re: TPF : Emergence, Physical vs Metaphysical
[flash=] I have enjoyed the exchange as well Gnomon. You are an interesting intellect with some rather eccentric notions, imo (no camouflaged insult intended).[/flash] — universeness
Compared to the repressive & un-camouflaged put-downs of my un-named non-interlocutor on TPF, that is high praise! My posts are not intended to be regurgitations of conventional philosophical or scientific doctrines (approximations of truth). Instead, they are my idiosyncratic interpretations of the leading edge of an emerging new information-centric paradigm. Novelty usually emerges from off-center.
Enformationism :
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.
http://enformationism.info/enformationi ... lcome.html
“We are all agreed that your theory is crazy. The question which divides us is whether it is crazy enough to have a chance of being correct. My own feeling is that it is not crazy enough.”
― Niels Bohr to Wolfgang Pauli
“One of the favorite maxims of my father was the distinction between the two sorts of truths — profound truths recognized by the fact that the opposite is also a profound truth, in contrast to trivialities where opposites are obviously absurd.”
“How wonderful that we have met with a paradox. Now we have some hope of making progress.”
“Every sentence I utter must be understood not as an affirmation, but as a question.”
— Bohr
Compared to the repressive & un-camouflaged put-downs of my un-named non-interlocutor on TPF, that is high praise! My posts are not intended to be regurgitations of conventional philosophical or scientific doctrines (approximations of truth). Instead, they are my idiosyncratic interpretations of the leading edge of an emerging new information-centric paradigm. Novelty usually emerges from off-center.
Enformationism :
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.
http://enformationism.info/enformationi ... lcome.html
“We are all agreed that your theory is crazy. The question which divides us is whether it is crazy enough to have a chance of being correct. My own feeling is that it is not crazy enough.”
― Niels Bohr to Wolfgang Pauli
“One of the favorite maxims of my father was the distinction between the two sorts of truths — profound truths recognized by the fact that the opposite is also a profound truth, in contrast to trivialities where opposites are obviously absurd.”
“How wonderful that we have met with a paradox. Now we have some hope of making progress.”
“Every sentence I utter must be understood not as an affirmation, but as a question.”
— Bohr
Re: TPF : Emergence, Physical vs Metaphysical
But I mentioned this last because quantum particle theory is not considered fundamental anymore, more like a limiting case of quantum field theory. Of course there’s still also a wavefunction in quantum field theory, representing the state of the system, but it is not to be confused with the fields themselves that constitute the system… but I digress. Keep that thing about optics in mind. An ordinary ray of light can be seen as either a wave or as a ray of tiny particles depending on how you look at it. — universeness
The confusion about wave-nature versus particle-nature in quantum physics was partly solved by the Field Theory, which simply kicks-the-can down the road. But the notion of fields-of-Potential-in-empty-space is fundamental to the emerging Information-centric worldview. The Field per se*1 is nothing-but abstract mathematical information : relationships between ideal points in space. Yet with the Potential to exhibit materialistic particle properties, or holistic wave properties, "depending on how you look at it".
That last remark is what caused the quantum pioneers to conclude that the intentional-mind-of-the-observer is a participant in the observation : "what you see is what you are looking for". or "reality doesn't exist until you measure it". That spooky mind-power is what Einstein objected to*2, although his own Relativity principle also implied that your Reality depends on your local reference Frame. The (future) "state of the system" is statistically Possible/Probable until it has been Actualized by a dynamic disruption, an intentional act, of the stable state of not-yet-real. Metaphorically, the holistic timeless immaterial balloon of statistical possibility is popped, by a pointed act-of-intention, leaving behind a particular piece of space-time matter.
All of this un-reality is what makes Quantum Theory seem weird to realistic thinkers, and Information theory to seem unreal to concrete thinkers. However, quantum scientists eventually came to accept that both individual Particle state and holistic Wave state are inherent in the mathematical statistical foundations of Nature. That's how I came by the "have your cake and eat it too" BothAnd Principle*3 of my thesis. Einstein objected to the implication that quantum "duality" would undermine his Realistic worldview, based on the classical matter-based physics of Newton. Ironically, both Materialism and Idealism are real & true, depending on how you frame your questions.
*1. In quantum theory, "the fields themselves" are like Kant's "ding an sich" : unreal, except to the mind's eye, from an ideal perspective.
*2. Einstein saw Quantum Theory as a means to describe Nature on an atomic level, but he doubted that it upheld "a useful basis for the whole of physics."
https://www.amnh.org/exhibitions/einste ... tum-theory
*3. Both/And Principle :
*** My coinage for the holistic principle of Complementarity, as illustrated in the Yin/Yang symbol. Opposing or contrasting concepts are always part of a greater whole. Conflicts between parts can be reconciled or harmonized by putting them into the context of a whole system.
*** The Enformationism worldview entails the principles of Complementarity, Reciprocity & Holism, which are necessary to offset the negative effects of Fragmentation, Isolation & Reductionism. Analysis into parts is necessary for knowledge of the mechanics of the world, but synthesis of those parts into a whole system is required for the wisdom to integrate the self into the larger system. In a philosophical sense, all opposites in this world (e.g. space/time, good/evil) are ultimately reconciled in Enfernity (eternity & infinity).
*** Conceptually, the BothAnd principle is similar to Einstein's theory of Relativity, in that what you see ─ what’s true for you ─ depends on your perspective, and your frame of reference; for example, subjective or objective, religious or scientific, reductive or holistic, pragmatic or romantic, conservative or liberal, earthbound or cosmic. Ultimate or absolute reality (ideality) doesn't change, but your conception of reality does. Opposing views are not right or wrong, but more or less accurate for a particular purpose.
*** This principle is also similar to the concept of Superposition in sub-atomic physics. In this ambiguous state a particle has no fixed identity until “observed” by an outside system. For example, in a Quantum Computer, a Qubit has a value of all possible fractions between 1 & 0. Therefore, you could say that it is both 1 and 0. ( see Fuzzy Logic )
https://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page10.html
↪Agent Smith
The confusion about wave-nature versus particle-nature in quantum physics was partly solved by the Field Theory, which simply kicks-the-can down the road. But the notion of fields-of-Potential-in-empty-space is fundamental to the emerging Information-centric worldview. The Field per se*1 is nothing-but abstract mathematical information : relationships between ideal points in space. Yet with the Potential to exhibit materialistic particle properties, or holistic wave properties, "depending on how you look at it".
That last remark is what caused the quantum pioneers to conclude that the intentional-mind-of-the-observer is a participant in the observation : "what you see is what you are looking for". or "reality doesn't exist until you measure it". That spooky mind-power is what Einstein objected to*2, although his own Relativity principle also implied that your Reality depends on your local reference Frame. The (future) "state of the system" is statistically Possible/Probable until it has been Actualized by a dynamic disruption, an intentional act, of the stable state of not-yet-real. Metaphorically, the holistic timeless immaterial balloon of statistical possibility is popped, by a pointed act-of-intention, leaving behind a particular piece of space-time matter.
All of this un-reality is what makes Quantum Theory seem weird to realistic thinkers, and Information theory to seem unreal to concrete thinkers. However, quantum scientists eventually came to accept that both individual Particle state and holistic Wave state are inherent in the mathematical statistical foundations of Nature. That's how I came by the "have your cake and eat it too" BothAnd Principle*3 of my thesis. Einstein objected to the implication that quantum "duality" would undermine his Realistic worldview, based on the classical matter-based physics of Newton. Ironically, both Materialism and Idealism are real & true, depending on how you frame your questions.
*1. In quantum theory, "the fields themselves" are like Kant's "ding an sich" : unreal, except to the mind's eye, from an ideal perspective.
*2. Einstein saw Quantum Theory as a means to describe Nature on an atomic level, but he doubted that it upheld "a useful basis for the whole of physics."
https://www.amnh.org/exhibitions/einste ... tum-theory
*3. Both/And Principle :
*** My coinage for the holistic principle of Complementarity, as illustrated in the Yin/Yang symbol. Opposing or contrasting concepts are always part of a greater whole. Conflicts between parts can be reconciled or harmonized by putting them into the context of a whole system.
*** The Enformationism worldview entails the principles of Complementarity, Reciprocity & Holism, which are necessary to offset the negative effects of Fragmentation, Isolation & Reductionism. Analysis into parts is necessary for knowledge of the mechanics of the world, but synthesis of those parts into a whole system is required for the wisdom to integrate the self into the larger system. In a philosophical sense, all opposites in this world (e.g. space/time, good/evil) are ultimately reconciled in Enfernity (eternity & infinity).
*** Conceptually, the BothAnd principle is similar to Einstein's theory of Relativity, in that what you see ─ what’s true for you ─ depends on your perspective, and your frame of reference; for example, subjective or objective, religious or scientific, reductive or holistic, pragmatic or romantic, conservative or liberal, earthbound or cosmic. Ultimate or absolute reality (ideality) doesn't change, but your conception of reality does. Opposing views are not right or wrong, but more or less accurate for a particular purpose.
*** This principle is also similar to the concept of Superposition in sub-atomic physics. In this ambiguous state a particle has no fixed identity until “observed” by an outside system. For example, in a Quantum Computer, a Qubit has a value of all possible fractions between 1 & 0. Therefore, you could say that it is both 1 and 0. ( see Fuzzy Logic )
https://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page10.html
↪Agent Smith
Re: TPF : Emergence, Physical vs Metaphysical
I found his answer informative, as it highlights some of the confusions that people have, out in the lay world (me included). I think its related to our exchange here, regarding an analogue/discrete fundamental structure to our universe. — universeness
I just wanted to source a couple of 'expert' type responses, to our analogue/digital exchange, I know the discussion on this site must favour 'philosophical' musings, but useful input from expertise in an issue under discussion can assist the direction of any philosophical musings on said issue, imo. — universeness
The discrete vs continuous confusion seems to derive from two ways of interrogating Reality. Natural processes are continuous & analog, while human analysis (mathematics) is discontinuous & digital. We perceive the movie, but we conceive the individual frames. Besides, holistic Philosophical "musings" are mostly concerned with general systems, while reductive Scientific analysis is focused on parts & details.
Apparently, even the "experts" are confused about how best to "frame" reality. Google "physics analog or discrete", or "physics analog vs digital", and you will get a long list of arguments & interpretations pro & con. That either/or question seems to be a long-running debate on Quora. So, I doubt that the philosophical implications (Holism vs Reductionism) will be finally settled anytime soon.
But, that's not a problem for my BothAnd worldview. In any case, "philosophical musings" and "scientific expertise" are different ways of looking at one Reality. Philosophical musings (analogue) are about mental meanings, while Scientific analysis (reductive) is about physical results. Unfortunately, Quantum Physics is interrogating Nature on a fundamental level, on the borderline between analog wholes and digital distinctions. Thus, as usual, the confusion arises from failure to define our frames of reference : Science or Philosophy ; little pieces or big picture.
"Simply put, “analog” and “digital” refer to two different methods of encoding information on to a signal"
__Bob Myers, Quora
"Both are the two parts of ONE process".
__Prasad Kulkarni, Quora
What all these “things” have in common is that they deal with signals from the real world: analog to digital. The real world is analog — fundamentally nature is not digital — and that’s where our story begins.
https://engineering.utdallas.edu/news/a ... is-analog/
↪Agent Smith
I just wanted to source a couple of 'expert' type responses, to our analogue/digital exchange, I know the discussion on this site must favour 'philosophical' musings, but useful input from expertise in an issue under discussion can assist the direction of any philosophical musings on said issue, imo. — universeness
The discrete vs continuous confusion seems to derive from two ways of interrogating Reality. Natural processes are continuous & analog, while human analysis (mathematics) is discontinuous & digital. We perceive the movie, but we conceive the individual frames. Besides, holistic Philosophical "musings" are mostly concerned with general systems, while reductive Scientific analysis is focused on parts & details.
Apparently, even the "experts" are confused about how best to "frame" reality. Google "physics analog or discrete", or "physics analog vs digital", and you will get a long list of arguments & interpretations pro & con. That either/or question seems to be a long-running debate on Quora. So, I doubt that the philosophical implications (Holism vs Reductionism) will be finally settled anytime soon.
But, that's not a problem for my BothAnd worldview. In any case, "philosophical musings" and "scientific expertise" are different ways of looking at one Reality. Philosophical musings (analogue) are about mental meanings, while Scientific analysis (reductive) is about physical results. Unfortunately, Quantum Physics is interrogating Nature on a fundamental level, on the borderline between analog wholes and digital distinctions. Thus, as usual, the confusion arises from failure to define our frames of reference : Science or Philosophy ; little pieces or big picture.
"Simply put, “analog” and “digital” refer to two different methods of encoding information on to a signal"
__Bob Myers, Quora
"Both are the two parts of ONE process".
__Prasad Kulkarni, Quora
What all these “things” have in common is that they deal with signals from the real world: analog to digital. The real world is analog — fundamentally nature is not digital — and that’s where our story begins.
https://engineering.utdallas.edu/news/a ... is-analog/
↪Agent Smith
Re: TPF : Emergence, Physical vs Metaphysical
How much credence do you give to the idea that we are heading towards an 'information/technological singularity? Is an tech singularity emergent? and (I know this is very difficult to contemplate but) what do you think will happen as a result of such a 'singularity?' — universeness
Back to the OP topic regarding the probability of evolutionary emergence of a Technological Singularity. In astro-biologist Caleb Scharf's, The Ascent of Information, he eventually gets around to speculation on the future development of his technological analogy to the biological genome. He calls it the Dataome*1, and instead being made of amino acids, it consists of core algorithms ("corgs"). Although it requires physical machines as hosts, the world-wide Dataome is essentially made of mathematical information.
Like their biological predecessors, the "corgs" evolve, and new properties emerge from the same interactive mutating & weeding (heuristic) processes of the cosmic evolutionary algorithm. He muses philosophically : "For the dataome, humans generate the one thing that we have yet to see machines or artificial algorithms produce : original information, real innovation, and open-ended novelty." Yet, he goes on to explore the possibility of something really new. "When we speculate about human transcendence, or technological singularities, or post-human futures, we're missing what's right in front of us". [my bold] Then, he addresses a side-issue : "In science we often struggle with the notion that there is something special about humans, something unique." Our superior information-processing powers (reasoning) perhaps?
In the final chapter, he discusses the roles of Energy, Entropy & Information in bringing about the next stage of Evolution. And he has the temerity to take physicist John A. Wheeler's "it from bit" conjecture seriously. "It from bit symbolizes the idea that every item of the physical world has at bottom . . . . an immaterial source and explanation . . ." [my bold] Ironically, he never uses the sci-fi term "Cyborg" (cybernetic organism), but that seems to fit his general direction*2. However, he does liken this evolutionary process to "an informational experiment". Which raises the question -- that as a scientist he is not allowed to ask -- "who is the Experimenter?" My own non-expert thesis does address such logical implications : Who asked the incalculable question*3 about "life, the universe and everything"? To whom does it matter how the cosmic experiment turns out? Who wants to know?
*1. The Selfish Dataome :
Does the data we produce serve us, or vice versa?
https://nautil.us/the-selfish-dataome-237229/
*2. Do you find the Cyborg notion credible? It combines evolving biology with emergent technology, while, unlike the Borg, presumably retaining top-down control for each cyborganism.
*3. The cosmic question is open-ended. Hence it can only be answered by running the experiment in real-time & real-space. So here we cybernetic organic humans find ourselves as lab-rats with philosophical questions of our own.
↪Agent Smith
Back to the OP topic regarding the probability of evolutionary emergence of a Technological Singularity. In astro-biologist Caleb Scharf's, The Ascent of Information, he eventually gets around to speculation on the future development of his technological analogy to the biological genome. He calls it the Dataome*1, and instead being made of amino acids, it consists of core algorithms ("corgs"). Although it requires physical machines as hosts, the world-wide Dataome is essentially made of mathematical information.
Like their biological predecessors, the "corgs" evolve, and new properties emerge from the same interactive mutating & weeding (heuristic) processes of the cosmic evolutionary algorithm. He muses philosophically : "For the dataome, humans generate the one thing that we have yet to see machines or artificial algorithms produce : original information, real innovation, and open-ended novelty." Yet, he goes on to explore the possibility of something really new. "When we speculate about human transcendence, or technological singularities, or post-human futures, we're missing what's right in front of us". [my bold] Then, he addresses a side-issue : "In science we often struggle with the notion that there is something special about humans, something unique." Our superior information-processing powers (reasoning) perhaps?
In the final chapter, he discusses the roles of Energy, Entropy & Information in bringing about the next stage of Evolution. And he has the temerity to take physicist John A. Wheeler's "it from bit" conjecture seriously. "It from bit symbolizes the idea that every item of the physical world has at bottom . . . . an immaterial source and explanation . . ." [my bold] Ironically, he never uses the sci-fi term "Cyborg" (cybernetic organism), but that seems to fit his general direction*2. However, he does liken this evolutionary process to "an informational experiment". Which raises the question -- that as a scientist he is not allowed to ask -- "who is the Experimenter?" My own non-expert thesis does address such logical implications : Who asked the incalculable question*3 about "life, the universe and everything"? To whom does it matter how the cosmic experiment turns out? Who wants to know?
*1. The Selfish Dataome :
Does the data we produce serve us, or vice versa?
https://nautil.us/the-selfish-dataome-237229/
*2. Do you find the Cyborg notion credible? It combines evolving biology with emergent technology, while, unlike the Borg, presumably retaining top-down control for each cyborganism.
*3. The cosmic question is open-ended. Hence it can only be answered by running the experiment in real-time & real-space. So here we cybernetic organic humans find ourselves as lab-rats with philosophical questions of our own.
↪Agent Smith
Re: TPF : Emergence, Physical vs Metaphysical
Well ,let's be careful in the terms we employ here. I am not suggestg a NATURAL evolutionary emergence of a tech singularity (or significantly pivotal breakthrough moment in AI). I am suggesting the future creation of an ASI system via HUMAN intent or even HUMAN intelligent design. — universeness
Yes. That's because rapid Cultural Evolution has emerged from plodding Natural Evolution -- presumably as intended by the Programmer. However, human culture is an emergent continuation of natural evolution, but with focused Logic (Reason) and Energy (Intention). That's what I call "Intelligent Evolution"*1.
*1.Intelligent Evolution :
This essay lays-out my hypothesis of how the Creator, in the Enformationism worldview, programmed a physical universe that could in-effect create itself from scratch. By that, I don't mean from absolutely nothing, but from a metaphorical seed or egg of cosmic mathematical potential that cosmologists call the Singularity. From that point of beginning, Evolution began some say, not with a literal bang, but with a magical "voila!" of instant inflation. Since then, our world has been emerging from potential to actual more-or-less as scientists have documented.
https://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page14.html
I agree that he is being a bit outrageous. He seems to be enjoying his work and he seems to support the viewpoint (unlike you) that the structure of the universe is fundamentally data based. At no point in his work does he support deism or suggest a mind with intent, as the first cause of our universe, in the ways that you do — universeness
Yes. He specifically denies any external intention behind the logical processing of Data in the world : "To say that corgs came from elsewhere, outside of the world would be a type of the pathetic fallacy (of assigning intent or human qualities to nature) taken to the idiotic extremes of creationism or intelligent design." To be clear, Enformationism does not "assign intent or human qualities to Nature". Instead, Nature is coasting on momentum from the initial impetus of goal-directed Intention. The only "human qualities" in the natural world, so far, are found in the homo sapiens species.
So, presumably, Scharf, like most cosmologists, just takes for granted (axiomatic) that the Energy & Laws of Nature are eternal*2. But then our physical world was shown by cosmologists to not be Eternal. So, the source of those Causal & Logical inputs can only be external & prior to the finite space-time bubble that we humans inhabit. And that's all I'm saying in the Enformationism thesis : that evolution shows signs of upward progress and purpose*3.
Yet, due to my lack of knowledge (information) about anything super-natural, I take pains to explain that the origin of creative Purpose is not attributed to the anthro-morphic God of Genesis. Instead, I refer to the Source of Information & intention as a logical Principle. So I use labels, such as G*D, Logos & First Cause to avoid the religious implications of more traditional terms. That's also the stance of the non-religious philosophy of Deism*4.
You said that Scharf -- "unlike you" (Gnomon) -- "supports the viewpoint that the structure of the universe is fundamentally data based". Which is also the viewpoint of Enformationism, except that, in place of the narrow term "Data" (datum), I use the more inclusive term "Information" (meaning). So, he & I are in agreement on that fundamental concept. We are not necessarily on the same team, but we are not opponents.
PS__I just came across an interview with mathematician, cosmologist, and consciousness theorist Roger Penrose. In response to a question about inherent meaning in the universe, he said "In a very certain sense you might say that the universe has a purpose, but I'm not sure what the purpose is." (my bold) That's also my position in the Enformationism thesis. He continues : "However, I would not say that there is something going on that might resonate with a religious perspective." Would you agree, though, that Purpose in Nature should resonate with a Philosophical perspective?
*2. Vacuum Energy :
Prior to the 20th century, the notion of Nothingness with causal properties would be tantamount to the ancient concept of eternal infinitely powerful Spirit (i.e. God). But scientists can now get away with such literal nonsense, in part, because Quantum physics has forced them to accept paradoxical & counter-intuitive properties in Nature.
*3. Purpose & Intention :
Scharf skirts around the notion of Purpose in Nature. However, right after the disparaging quotes above, he does rhapsodize that "The universe is spectacular because it is an engine of invention . . ." Doesn't that sound like Design & Intention instead of Blundering & Accident to you? He goes on to exclaim that "evolution on Earth is like a single run of a single algorithm that invented all of nature".
Note -- To Invent : create or design (something that has not existed before); be the originator of.
Doesn't "invent" imply "intent"?
*4. Deism :
An Enlightenment era response to the Roman Catholic version of Theism, in which the supernatural deity interacts and intervenes with humans via visions & miracles, and rules his people through a human dictator. Deists rejected most of the supernatural stuff, but retained an essential role for a First Cause creator, who must be respected as the quintessence of our world, but not worshipped like a tyrant. The point of Deism is not to seek salvation, but merely understanding.
https://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page12.html
↪Agent Smith
Yes. That's because rapid Cultural Evolution has emerged from plodding Natural Evolution -- presumably as intended by the Programmer. However, human culture is an emergent continuation of natural evolution, but with focused Logic (Reason) and Energy (Intention). That's what I call "Intelligent Evolution"*1.
*1.Intelligent Evolution :
This essay lays-out my hypothesis of how the Creator, in the Enformationism worldview, programmed a physical universe that could in-effect create itself from scratch. By that, I don't mean from absolutely nothing, but from a metaphorical seed or egg of cosmic mathematical potential that cosmologists call the Singularity. From that point of beginning, Evolution began some say, not with a literal bang, but with a magical "voila!" of instant inflation. Since then, our world has been emerging from potential to actual more-or-less as scientists have documented.
https://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page14.html
I agree that he is being a bit outrageous. He seems to be enjoying his work and he seems to support the viewpoint (unlike you) that the structure of the universe is fundamentally data based. At no point in his work does he support deism or suggest a mind with intent, as the first cause of our universe, in the ways that you do — universeness
Yes. He specifically denies any external intention behind the logical processing of Data in the world : "To say that corgs came from elsewhere, outside of the world would be a type of the pathetic fallacy (of assigning intent or human qualities to nature) taken to the idiotic extremes of creationism or intelligent design." To be clear, Enformationism does not "assign intent or human qualities to Nature". Instead, Nature is coasting on momentum from the initial impetus of goal-directed Intention. The only "human qualities" in the natural world, so far, are found in the homo sapiens species.
So, presumably, Scharf, like most cosmologists, just takes for granted (axiomatic) that the Energy & Laws of Nature are eternal*2. But then our physical world was shown by cosmologists to not be Eternal. So, the source of those Causal & Logical inputs can only be external & prior to the finite space-time bubble that we humans inhabit. And that's all I'm saying in the Enformationism thesis : that evolution shows signs of upward progress and purpose*3.
Yet, due to my lack of knowledge (information) about anything super-natural, I take pains to explain that the origin of creative Purpose is not attributed to the anthro-morphic God of Genesis. Instead, I refer to the Source of Information & intention as a logical Principle. So I use labels, such as G*D, Logos & First Cause to avoid the religious implications of more traditional terms. That's also the stance of the non-religious philosophy of Deism*4.
You said that Scharf -- "unlike you" (Gnomon) -- "supports the viewpoint that the structure of the universe is fundamentally data based". Which is also the viewpoint of Enformationism, except that, in place of the narrow term "Data" (datum), I use the more inclusive term "Information" (meaning). So, he & I are in agreement on that fundamental concept. We are not necessarily on the same team, but we are not opponents.
PS__I just came across an interview with mathematician, cosmologist, and consciousness theorist Roger Penrose. In response to a question about inherent meaning in the universe, he said "In a very certain sense you might say that the universe has a purpose, but I'm not sure what the purpose is." (my bold) That's also my position in the Enformationism thesis. He continues : "However, I would not say that there is something going on that might resonate with a religious perspective." Would you agree, though, that Purpose in Nature should resonate with a Philosophical perspective?
*2. Vacuum Energy :
Prior to the 20th century, the notion of Nothingness with causal properties would be tantamount to the ancient concept of eternal infinitely powerful Spirit (i.e. God). But scientists can now get away with such literal nonsense, in part, because Quantum physics has forced them to accept paradoxical & counter-intuitive properties in Nature.
*3. Purpose & Intention :
Scharf skirts around the notion of Purpose in Nature. However, right after the disparaging quotes above, he does rhapsodize that "The universe is spectacular because it is an engine of invention . . ." Doesn't that sound like Design & Intention instead of Blundering & Accident to you? He goes on to exclaim that "evolution on Earth is like a single run of a single algorithm that invented all of nature".
Note -- To Invent : create or design (something that has not existed before); be the originator of.
Doesn't "invent" imply "intent"?
*4. Deism :
An Enlightenment era response to the Roman Catholic version of Theism, in which the supernatural deity interacts and intervenes with humans via visions & miracles, and rules his people through a human dictator. Deists rejected most of the supernatural stuff, but retained an essential role for a First Cause creator, who must be respected as the quintessence of our world, but not worshipped like a tyrant. The point of Deism is not to seek salvation, but merely understanding.
https://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page12.html
↪Agent Smith
Re: TPF : Emergence, Physical vs Metaphysical
At most, the cosmological apologetics of theists paradoxically gets them only as far as deism (or god-of-the-gaps like e.g. Gnomon's "enformer"). — 180 Proof
Yes, I think all such 'theistic apologetic style,' rumination, leads inevitably back to an 'of the gaps,' supernatural first cause, and for me, that suggestion would be the worst outcome possible, as we would be nothing more, than a product of a dissatisfied deity. If a god wanted/needed to create us, then it cannot be a god, imo. — universeness
Your visceral antipathy is duly noted. But, for a more sympathetic interpretation, consider that Deism has been called the "god of philosophers" or "god of nature', and is consistently rejected by Theists, due to its lack of a path to salvation from cruel & indifferent Nature. It's also the "god of reason" instead of revelation. Until the 20th century, most philosophers & scientists held some notion of Creator or First Cause to explain the ultimate "why" questions of Cosmology*1.
Even "impious" Aristotle referred to Theology (ultimate knowledge) as "First Philosophy"*2. There is indeed a "gap" in physical Science : it is forced by its physicalist creed to take the causal & organizing forces of Nature for granted -- blind faith in infinite mechanism -- so it has no plausible explanation for our contingent temporal Existence : being & becoming (Ontology)*3. The perverse Multiverse notion merely kicks-the-can of origins down the road to infinity.
Another more positive understanding of Deism is that the Enformer -- far from being an evil tyrant -- as similar to a philosopher or scientist, in that the reason for creation was not due to "dissatisfaction" or narcissistic "need" for worship & adulation, but to curiosity : e.g. "what will happen if I create an autonomous universe with self-conscious creatures, who can reason themselves to a rapport with Nature.
Your "worst outcome possible" is "nothing more" than the super-natural Tyrant of the Abrahamic religions. But your disgust should not apply to the "god of Einstein"*4. Spinoza's rational deity was identified with Nature, but then he assumed that our Cosmos is eternal. If you update Spinoza's god-concept to the 21st century, it would be very similar to that of Enformationism.
*1. Deist Philosophers & Scientists :
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_deists
*2. Aristotle developed rival philosophies of metaphysics which to some extent could be understood as an attempt to construct a rational account of the world while explicitly rejecting the superstitious pantheism of their contemporaries. From this point of view, one might even call him an atheist, and certainly he would have been viewed by contemporaries outside the philosophical school as radically impious.
However, Aristotle did clearly believe in some sort of God - as, arguably, did Plato - although what exactly is meant by “God” in either case may not be entirely obvious and familiar to those of us raised with Abrahamic monotheism. In his metaphysics, Aristotle posited that there must be some single, immortal, unchanging being that was responsible for the wholeness and orderliness of the world, as well as suggesting that there must be “unmoved movers” who were causally responsible for all action in the universe, but who were not themselves causally influenced by actions.
https://www.quora.com/Was-Aristotle-an- ... e-any-clue
*3. Metaphysics as being qua Being :
Aristotle himself described his subject matter in a variety of ways: as ‘first philosophy’, or ‘the study of being qua being’, or ‘wisdom’, or ‘theology’.
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/aris ... taphysics/
*4. Albert Einstein's religious views have been widely studied and often misunderstood. Albert Einstein stated "I believe in Spinoza's God". He did not believe in a personal God who concerns himself with fates and actions of human beings, a view which he described as naive.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious ... t_Einstein
Yes, I think all such 'theistic apologetic style,' rumination, leads inevitably back to an 'of the gaps,' supernatural first cause, and for me, that suggestion would be the worst outcome possible, as we would be nothing more, than a product of a dissatisfied deity. If a god wanted/needed to create us, then it cannot be a god, imo. — universeness
Your visceral antipathy is duly noted. But, for a more sympathetic interpretation, consider that Deism has been called the "god of philosophers" or "god of nature', and is consistently rejected by Theists, due to its lack of a path to salvation from cruel & indifferent Nature. It's also the "god of reason" instead of revelation. Until the 20th century, most philosophers & scientists held some notion of Creator or First Cause to explain the ultimate "why" questions of Cosmology*1.
Even "impious" Aristotle referred to Theology (ultimate knowledge) as "First Philosophy"*2. There is indeed a "gap" in physical Science : it is forced by its physicalist creed to take the causal & organizing forces of Nature for granted -- blind faith in infinite mechanism -- so it has no plausible explanation for our contingent temporal Existence : being & becoming (Ontology)*3. The perverse Multiverse notion merely kicks-the-can of origins down the road to infinity.
Another more positive understanding of Deism is that the Enformer -- far from being an evil tyrant -- as similar to a philosopher or scientist, in that the reason for creation was not due to "dissatisfaction" or narcissistic "need" for worship & adulation, but to curiosity : e.g. "what will happen if I create an autonomous universe with self-conscious creatures, who can reason themselves to a rapport with Nature.
Your "worst outcome possible" is "nothing more" than the super-natural Tyrant of the Abrahamic religions. But your disgust should not apply to the "god of Einstein"*4. Spinoza's rational deity was identified with Nature, but then he assumed that our Cosmos is eternal. If you update Spinoza's god-concept to the 21st century, it would be very similar to that of Enformationism.
*1. Deist Philosophers & Scientists :
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_deists
*2. Aristotle developed rival philosophies of metaphysics which to some extent could be understood as an attempt to construct a rational account of the world while explicitly rejecting the superstitious pantheism of their contemporaries. From this point of view, one might even call him an atheist, and certainly he would have been viewed by contemporaries outside the philosophical school as radically impious.
However, Aristotle did clearly believe in some sort of God - as, arguably, did Plato - although what exactly is meant by “God” in either case may not be entirely obvious and familiar to those of us raised with Abrahamic monotheism. In his metaphysics, Aristotle posited that there must be some single, immortal, unchanging being that was responsible for the wholeness and orderliness of the world, as well as suggesting that there must be “unmoved movers” who were causally responsible for all action in the universe, but who were not themselves causally influenced by actions.
https://www.quora.com/Was-Aristotle-an- ... e-any-clue
*3. Metaphysics as being qua Being :
Aristotle himself described his subject matter in a variety of ways: as ‘first philosophy’, or ‘the study of being qua being’, or ‘wisdom’, or ‘theology’.
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/aris ... taphysics/
*4. Albert Einstein's religious views have been widely studied and often misunderstood. Albert Einstein stated "I believe in Spinoza's God". He did not believe in a personal God who concerns himself with fates and actions of human beings, a view which he described as naive.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious ... t_Einstein
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 39 guests