TPF : Emergence, Physical vs Metaphysical

[Gnomon]

Your description of deism is simply wrong. You have no ability to usurp a well entrenched label for your own purposes without first gaining massive popular support to do so. . . . .
"Deism . . . (derived from the Latin deus, meaning "god") is the philosophical position and rationalistic theology that generally rejects revelation as a source of divine knowledge, and asserts that empirical reason and observation of the natural world are exclusively logical, reliable, and sufficient to determine the existence of a Supreme Being as the creator of the universe". — universeness

Whoa! That's an emphatic two-handed rejection. I described Deism simply as a "non-religious philosophical position". How does your quote differ, except for more words? It says nothing about Religion. So, I assume that you must interpret "supreme being" as a taboo religious concept. I don't. And many philosophers & scientists through history have held notions of a First Cause or "Supreme Being" while eschewing the revelations and creeds of religions. Who's doing the "usurping" here?

Note the reference to "empirical reason" in your definition. Picking nits : in my understanding of Deism, I would replace the word "to determine" with "to imply". The implicit immaterial First Cause is not "determined" in the empirical sense of a direct observation of physical evidence*1, but merely a conclusion "inferred" from a discernible pattern of circumstantial evidence (clues)*2. I'm merely trying to anticipate your objection here, based on a narrow cherry-picked meaning of the word "to determine".

Yet again, different meanings for same words. Which makes philosophical communication difficult. So, what's "simply" wrong with my definition? Sounds like "what's wrong" is simply that you don't like the philosophical implications of an Ultimate Cause or Supreme Being or Cosmic Programmer or Creator. How can we communicate if we don't share that emotional bias?*3 Perhaps you prefer to assume that the evolving ever-changing physical universe is Self-Existent or Self-Created? Based on what evidence?


*1. Can physical evidence be circumstantial evidence?
Physical evidence can be direct and all but prove the guilt of the accused, or it can be merely circumstantial. For example, a shoe print is an example of physical evidence. But just because the accused wears similar shoes as the person who committed the crime does not prove the accused did it.
https://catanzarolaw.com/2021/06/differ ... -evidence/
Note -- many crimes are solved solely on the basis of circumstantial evidence. Is that OK with you? In this case the crime is Creation.

*2. To Determine :
1. cause (something) to occur in a particular way; be the decisive factor in.
2. ascertain or establish exactly, typically as a result of research or calculation.
3. to settle or decide by choice of alternatives or possibilities
4. to find out or come to a decision about by investigation, reasoning, or calculation
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/determine

*3. We Just Disagree :
So let's leave it alone 'cause we can't see eye to eye
There ain't no good guy, there ain't no bad guy
There's only you and me and we just disagree
___Song by Dave Mason, 1977
Sorry, that's just my weird sense of humor again.

[Gnomon]

What personal 'two values' do you think constitute my worldview, that you claim you affront? — universeness

I don't know. What do you think are your absolute values? True vs False? How do you know which is which? Whatever they are, they seem to be toward the opposite ends of my broader range of values. Which includes "maybe" or "I don't know".

Black and white thinking is a thought pattern that makes people think in absolutes.
https://www.webmd.com/mental-health/bla ... e-thinking

Multi-valued orientation is for things to be ranged on a scale. Two values orientation is used for the "absolutes". Instead of having a scale of values, the "absolutes" are used.
https://www.123helpme.com/essay/A-Compa ... -And-49481

[Gnomon]

What personal 'two values' do you think constitute my worldview, that you claim you affront? — universeness

I don't know. What do you think are your absolute values? True vs False? How do you know which is which? Whatever they are, they seem to be toward the opposite ends of my broader range of values. Which includes "maybe" or "I don't know".

Black and white thinking is a thought pattern that makes people think in absolutes.
https://www.webmd.com/mental-health/bla ... e-thinking

Multi-valued orientation is for things to be ranged on a scale. Two values orientation is used for the "absolutes". Instead of having a scale of values, the "absolutes" are used.
https://www.123helpme.com/essay/A-Compa ... -And-49481

[Gnomon]

It's irrational to suggest someone else is cherry picking, when, in reading the above definition, you seem to have 'missed' the words 'god, theology and divine' and refuse to cognise their connection to theism and almost every practiced religion. You keep trying to grab at anything to try to hide behind. — universeness

Speaking of "cherry picking" you are selecting only the low-hanging fruit of religious meanings of "god", and ignoring the philosophical meanings. Do you think Spinoza used the word "god" in a religious sense? He is often identified as an early Deist, as well as a Pantheist/Pandeist. Some deists imagined God as the exogenous creator of the world, but others viewed God as immanent in the world. My personal Information-based understanding of "G*D" is BothAnd : PanEnDeism. In any case, most Deists were anti-religious. So their notion of "god" was equivalent to an abstract philosophical Principle.

Unfortunately. we are still using different vocabularies. And you won't find my terminology in a dictionary. Therefore, if you want to know what I mean by a word, all you have to do is ask me.

PS__You and ↪180 Proof have been trying to label me with a well-known woo-woo pigeon-hole that you can dismiss with a wave of the trite "god of the gaps" hand. But I don't even fit neatly into the amorphous Deism category. So, if you ask judgmentally, "are you now, or have you ever been, a Deist" I can truthfully answer : no. That's because my personal worldview is new & novel & unique. So it's an octagonal peg that doesn't fit into any pre-existing round-or-square, theist-or-atheist-or-ass-hole. Since I have been pre-judged, in a woo-woo kangaroo court, I'll have to plead the fifth. :joke:


Why Spinoza is Intolerant of Atheists :
Spinoza explicitly contrasts his view, based on a deist conception of God, with that of Hobbes.
https://phil.washington.edu/research/es ... mits-early

Deism :
More simply stated, Deism is the belief in the existence of God solely based on rational thought without any reliance on revealed religions or religious . . . The most natural position for Deists was to reject all forms of supernaturalism, including the miracle stories in the Bible.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deism
Note -- Do you classify science-based Multiverse & Many Worlds hypotheses as "super-natural"? The G*D concept is a philosophical hypothesis, not a religious creedal belief. Do you understand the essential distinction between Philosophy and Religion?

FWIW, THIS IS WHAT GNOMON MEANS BY THE WORD "DEISM'
Just opinions. No-one speaks authoritatively for the non-religion of Deism
What%20Deism%20is.png

↪Agent Smith

[Gnomon]

As carbon based lifeforms, we eventually 'emerged' . . . This got me thinking more about 'emergence.' To what extent do you think that human beings are 'information processors?' — universeness

I originally posted on the Emergent thread because the general concepts of "emergence" and "information processing" are essential to my idiosyncratic personal worldview. I had no intention of discussing "gods" or "religions". But I did propose to engage in a philosophical dialogue, not a scientific debate. However, I was forced, by persistent skeptical challenges, to explain how I arrived at some of my opinions about "emergence" & "information", and the origins of those ongoing processes. Yet hypothetical postulations about Ultimate Emergence and Origins of Forms, led to unfounded accusations of religious motivations, instead of philosophical curiosity. Unfortunately, that refocus of the thread let us far off-topic.

↪180 Proof and ↪universeness teamed-up to quash any non-empirical answers to the OP questions. Despite inviting non-professional Opinions instead of authoritative Facts, they seem to think this forum is a place for only empirical/physical (scientific) answers, and not for theoretical/metaphysical (philosophical) guesses. But I continued to insist that the whole point of a philosophical forum was to discuss Open Questions*1 that have not been settled (closed) by experimental results or mathematical calculations (Quanta). Such unresolved queries tend to be about Universals & Logical Possibilities (Qualia) that are not sorted-out by Observations or Algorithms. Yet the A-team demanded empirically verifiable closed-system answers only : Demonstrate or Calculate!

They seem to be practicing radical Humean skepticism*2. Ironically, as a philosophical method, it is self defeating, because it denies the possibility of theoretical knowledge or pragmatic belief*3. It closes the door to Epistemology. That's why Bayesian Probability was developed, to provide a means to make uncertain information useful. Quantum physics would be useless if we demanded final facts (Quanta) and rejected informed opinions (Qualia). Quantum scientists resolved the dilemma of statistical uncertainty by voting on imperfect-but-actionable beliefs, as summarized in the Standard Model. Philosophers seldom deal with questions that have final satisfactory answers. Which is why we are still arguing open-ended Socratic questions to this day, 2500 years later.

Happenstantially, my Enformationism worldview is informed in part by an essential principle of Quantum Science : Uncertainty (undecidable ; in-calculable ; non-algorithmic). That fundamental fact reveals that Nature is inherently statistical & probabilistic. Hence, not amenable to comprehensive answers, only serviceable limited applications. So quantum scientists had to learn to be satisfied by Open Ended probabilities instead of settled certainties. Practical, but not perfect conclusions. Likewise, my responses to the topical questions are inherently Philosophical (possible ; probable), not Scientific (empirical ; factual), but also not Religious (wishful ; emotional).

Statistical solutions, like Open Questions, are indefinite & elliptical, hence extend beyond space-time to include Infinity & Eternity. For example, what are the odds that our universe is self-existent, and did not emerge from any prior causal system? Did the Real world emerge from timeless statistical Potential, or from an infinite regression of Actual turtle-worlds? Did space-time-matter-energy begin with a bang, or is it eternally recycling? Did homo sapiens emerge from random evolution as an incidental accident -- is that a fact or conjecture? How did humans learn to process abstract information, such as mathematics, unless the potential for that talent was inherent in the information-processing system of Evolution? This is just a sample of open-ended questions that philosophers engage with, but have no hope for empirical resolution. I certainly don't have the final answers, do you?



*1. Open Questions :
An open-ended question is a question that cannot be answered with a "yes" or "no" response, or with a static response.
__Wiki
Note -- For example : is the fundamental element of physics Particular or Holistic? Statistical quantum duality (wave-particle) is a philosophical conundrum : moving Wave or static Object ; local Atom or non-local Field ; Part or Whole ; Yes, No, or Maybe?

*2. “If we take in our hand any volume; of divinity or school metaphysics, for instance; let us ask, Does it contain any abstract reasoning concerning quantity or number? No. Does it contain any experimental reasoning concerning matter of fact and existence? No. Commit it then to the flames: for it can contain nothing but sophistry and illusion.”
― David Hume
Note -- Taken literally, this declaration equates "abstract reasoning" concerning Qualia or Infinity with Sophistry. In which case, Quantum Physics & Philosophical Epistemology are illusory, and deceptive.

*3. Radical skepticism (or radical scepticism in British English) is the philosophical position that knowledge is most likely impossible. Radical skeptics hold that doubt exists as to the veracity of every belief and that certainty is therefore never justified. To determine the extent to which it is possible to respond to radical skeptical challenges is the task of epistemology or "the theory of knowledge".
___Wiki

[Gnomon]

You will NEVER get past your gap god deity (deism), by trying to dress it up as a fake 'abstract philosophical principle.' You would be as well to claim that pixies, orcs, unicorns and the flying spaghetti monster are also important abstract philosophical principles. — universeness

Since I have no formal training in Philosophy, it has taken me a while to realize that you and ↪180 Proof
are arguing from a Logical Positivism position, which says that there are no “open questions”, hence nothing for philosophers to contribute. Which explains why our vocabularies don't align. Ironically, the Vienna Circle argued themselves out of a job, since they claimed that empirical methods should replace the rational methods of traditional philosophy. That attitude makes the set of philosophical (open) questions empty. For example, Steven Hawking asserted that “philosophy is dead”. In which case this forum – including Uni & 180 -- is a major contributor to global warming : producing nothing but hot air. Hawking went on to say “Philosophy has not kept up with modern developments in science, particularly physics”. Based on that prejudice, he dismissed one Open Question : “did the universe need a creator?” I don't think he was dissembling, but he seems to be unaware of professional physicists (e.g. Paul Davies ; Santa Fe Institute), who do consider that to be a valid question, especially in the light of open-ended Quantum Physics.

Your derision of my "god posit" is understandable from the worldview of Logical Positivism*1. But that outdated position of Certainty is no longer valid in the world of Quantum Uncertainty*2. Besides, can you find any instance in my posts where I have posited a super-natural explanation for a natural phenomenon that has been sufficiently explained by physical evidence? Isaac Newton's Principia explained most celestial phenomena in terms of a clock-like mechanism*3. But he was baffled by the non-mechanical "spooky action at a distance" of Gravity. So, he declined to propose a mechanical explanation, and instead he filled that gap in understanding by invoking the Christian God*4. Was Newton a religious idiot, or a genius scientist to whom the notion of "super-natural" was a problem for Physics, but not for Metaphysics*5. As a metaphysical philosopher, not bound to physical explanations, I can "feign" a hypothesis to fill the same gap recognized by Multiverse & Many Worlds proponents. None of which are verifiable in a positive sense, but which are logical as philosophical gap-filling posits*6.

You and 180 are broadly interpreting my meta-physical "principles" far beyond my own application. The only "gap" that I fill with a god-concept is the eternal abyss, of causal potential, metaphorically "before" the Big Bang. The mythical beings you list are merely analogies to creatures in the Natural world. Hence subject to validation or invalidation. But sober Scientists have postulated preter-natural pre-existent gap-fillers of their own, such as hypothetical Multiverses & Many Worlds*6. Do you take them to be empirical postulations or philosophical conjectures? If invalid, what alternative gap-filler, to something-from-nothing, can you posit? BTW, I have been lax in my ir-religious duties. Have I ever asked if you have a personal relationship with the Flying Spaghetti Monster? Have you been touched by his "noodly appendage". That's how you get to the meatball of his existence. ;)



*1. "Logical positivism is not a philosophy of science according to the textbook. Positivism states you can only attribute cause to things you objectively know exist ... "
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logical_positivism

*2. Logical Positivism panned :
“The verifiability criterion made universal statements 'cognitively' meaningless, and even made statements beyond empiricism for technological but not conceptual reasons meaningless, which was taken to pose significant problems for the philosophy of science. . . . Even philosophers disagreeing among themselves on which direction general epistemology ought to take, as well as on philosophy of science, agreed that the logical empiricist program was untenable, and it became viewed as self-contradictory: the verifiability criterion of meaning was itself unverified . . . . Popper finds virtue in metaphysics, required to develop new scientific theories. And an unfalsifiable—thus unscientific, perhaps metaphysical—concept in one era can later, through evolving knowledge or technology, become falsifiable, thus scientific. ”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logical_positivism

*3. Action at a Distance :
The Newtonian view of the universe may be described as a mechanistic interpretation. . . . Newton did not address this question, but many of his contemporaries hypothesized that the forces were mediated through an invisible and frictionless medium which Aristotle had called the ether. The problem is that everyday experience of natural phenomena shows mechanical things to be moved by forces which make contact. Any cause and effect without a discernible contact, or action at a distance, contradicts common sense and has been an unacceptable notion since antiquity. Whenever the nature of the transmission of certain actions and effects over a distance was not yet understood, the ether was resorted to as a conceptual solution of the transmitting medium. By necessity, any description of how the ether functioned remained vague, but its existence was required by common sense and thus not questioned.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Action_at_a_distance
Note -- the necessity for an aethereal medium for action-at-a-distance has been revived in the 21st century by quantum physicists.
https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg ... elativity/

*4. “We can see that Newton made direct use of the God of the Gaps approach, whereupon God is invoked to explain something science can't.”
https://www.npr.org/sections/13.7/2015/ ... ut-science

*5. Hypothesis non fingo :
I have not as yet been able to discover the reason for these properties of gravity from phenomena, and I do not feign hypotheses. For whatever is not deduced from the phenomena must be called a hypothesis; and hypotheses, whether metaphysical or physical, or based on occult qualities, or mechanical, have no place in experimental philosophy. In this philosophy particular propositions are inferred from the phenomena, and afterwards rendered general by induction.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypotheses_non_fingo

*6. Multiverse not science :
Even though certain features of the universe seem to require the existence of a multiverse, nothing has been directly observed that suggests it actually exists. So far, the evidence supporting the idea of a multiverse is purely theoretical, and in some cases, philosophical.
https://www.nationalgeographic.com/scie ... multiverse

↪Agent Smith

[Gnomon]

↪universeness

↪Gnomon
Ad hominems, strawmen & non sequiturs-riddled rationalizations of your "enformer"-of-the-gaps poor reasoning are empty and boring. — 180 Proof

He says that Gnomon's reasoning is "empty and boring", but 180's countless repetitious replies imply that something about those reasons is hitting home. Unfortunately, he seems to think that redundant accusations -- throwing mud on the wall -- will serve as philosophical arguments.

Since he won't listen to me -- except for highlighting god-posits -- maybe you can ask him about the "home" that my postuations are hitting, at the heart of his own vulnerable belief system. Does he acknowledge any "gap" beyond the Big Bang beginning that remains to be filled by verifiable empirical evidence? If there is a scientific gap-filler, what is it, and what evidence supports it? If there is no satisfactory gap-filler, why are philosophers attempting to do what physicists have been unable to do*1? If it is a "closed question" why does it keep coming up in Science and Philosophy forums?

Empirical cosmology has provided us with mathematical evidence pointing backward to a pin-point origin of the physical universe. Unfortunately, at that point, the math shoots off into infinity, and the computers "halt & catch fire". But what are those infinite vectors pointing at? That may not be a viable empirical question, but it's a legitimate philosophical "open" question, is it not? Is 180 blinded by (faith in) Science, or simply by skepticism toward the open (empty) questions of Philosophy*2? What is it about that god-gap that hurts his heart? I need to know, so I can avoid offending him in the future with my open-ended reasoning. Or maybe he could just ignore my "boring" personal optional opinions without getting riled-up. That would be easier on his tender heart.

PS__Why is the very mention of the "G" word so offensive to him? Most other posters can take it in stride.


*1. What Happened Before the Big Bang? The New Philosophy of Cosmology :
On the big questions science cannot (yet?) answer, a new crop of philosophers are trying to provide answers.
This question of accounting for what we call the "big bang state"—the search for a physical explanation of it—is probably the most important question within the philosophy of cosmology,
https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/ ... gy/251608/

*2. "Philosophical questions are questions not answerable empirically or mathematically, with observations or calculations. They are open questions, that is, questions that remain in principle open to informed, rational, and honest disagreement . . . . Recall that questions are here understood as genuine requests for information."
___Luciano Floridii, prof of philosophy at Oxford; The Logic of Information
Note -- 180 bitterly rejects my hypothetical Enformer as the First Cause of the Big Bang. But he has not yet offered an empirical alternative gap-filler. If he believes there is no gap, then why is he so upset by my "vain" attempts to answer a question that has bedeviled both Philosophers and Scientists throughout history? Have I condemned his soul to eternal torment? Have I belittled his faith in fruitful empiricism? Or have I merely posited an answer to the most universal of all questions, that reminds him of the big-scary-monster-deity of his childhood?

[Gnomon]

I'd recommend engaging with people on their own terms. . . . This is diving straight in with no thought for the reader. Why would anyone be interested in this? — bert1

OK, what are your "terms" for discussing a novel philosophical worldview? 180's terms seem to be those proposed by the Vienna Circle (materialism ; atheism). But that concession would eliminate all metaphysical postulations from discussion. Yet, the basic concept of Enformationism is that Information is both physical (Material ; scientific) and metaphysical (mental ; philosophical). For some people that's like saying Fire & Water can mix to become Aether : absurd!

The thesis website begins at the beginning with "thought for the reader" -- including a glossary of technical terminology -- but few posters are interested enough to read a long sci-phil essay that is not a graded academic requirement. So, they casually (mis) judge the thesis based on isolated excerpts in posts on various topics. Enformationism is a radical philosophical concept, that can't be grasped "at first glance". Even those who seem to agree with the general thrust of the thesis, typically don't take the time to really understand the science behind it, and the philosophical implications of replacing elemental Matter with fundamental Information (sorry for the random capitals). Like Quantum Physics, it sounds absurd & unrealistic on the face of it. So, I don't expect casual readers to give it the time of day.

Regarding "Give us a reason to read it", I can lead a horse to water, but I can't make him drink. There must be a thirst for knowledge to provide motivation. So, I just keep plodding away in the forum, not to recruit followers, but to develop the thesis under skeptical challenges. Just as Quantum Entanglement took years to reach general comprehension and grudging acceptance, the Enformationism postulation, which also uses esoteric terminology and exotic ideas, may eventually seep into the consciousness of the informed public. Or maybe not. Hey, it's just a personal worldview.



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

The universe is not locally real :
One of the more unsettling discoveries in the past half century is that the universe is not locally real. In this context, 'real' means that objects have definite properties independent of observation . . . . the evidence shows that objects are not influenced solely by their surrounding, and they may also lack definite properties prior to measurement. . . . the demise of local realism has made a lot of people very angry . . . . Blame for this achievement has now been laid squarely on the shoulders of three physicists : John Clauser, Alain Aspect , and Anton Zeilinger. They equally split the 2022 Nobel Prize in Physics."
Scientific American Magazine, January 2023
Note -- Enformationism proposes that universal Information (energy + laws) is the cause of mundane Reality, and of quantum absurdity.

[Gnomon]

I share 180 Proof's 'impatience,' with your attempts to deny that your enformer, IS a god of the gaps posit. If you had honestly and earnestly stated your enformer as a theological proposal from the start, — universeness

As usual, you and ↪180 Proof interpret my philosophical & technical terminology differently from my intention. You are reading meanings into my words, instead of taking them as I define them in the posts. Apparently, 180 feels that his mechanical matter-based worldview (belief system, religion???) is threatened by an information-based philosophy. Which is true*1, but not in the way he imagines.

There is no religious cult of Hippie Informationists, coming to pry his beloved Matter from his cold dead hands. Instead, a new worldview is gradually emerging as Science advances --- not due to onslaughts by religious philistines, but due to gradual internal evolution of the "scientific" worldview*2. There is indeed a knowledge gap in modern science, but it cannot be filled by oldfashioned traditional religions, or by outdated classical mechanisms. That's because it's an Epistemological gap, not a Revelation lack or Empirical unknown.

So the problem is not that I am concealing my intentions, but that you are imputing old familiar (traditional ; religious) meanings into the strange new (emergent ; mental) terminology of Quantum & Information Science. As a lone prophet (of science) "crying in the wilderness", I have no communal religion to to push. But I do have an idiosyncratic personal (non-religious) philosophical worldview, upon which all of my posts are based. The Enformer is a philosophical hypothesis, not a doctrinal "god of the gaps" that can be dismissed as non-empirical. However, if you are not interested in that new way of looking at the world (framing), you can just relax and ignore my "ravings"*3, as the imperial Romans ignored the insignificant uncultured barbarian invaders, until it was too late.

From that "outlandish barbarian" perspective, the world is no longer matter-based, but founded on invisible information. Yet to 180, any belief in invisible things can only be religiously motivated. He seems unaware that Quantum Science deals with, not only invisible (fields) but also not-yet-real (superposed) things. For classical common sense, such non-things may seem as un-real as pixies & unicorns. Do you believe in non-local Fields & Entanglement (holism) & Superposition (supernatural positions)? Do you take the existence of such non-sense on faith in physicists. If you do, does that make you an adherent of a Quantum Religion? No? Then maybe you can join the Quantum Information Club, and enjoy the incomprehension of the uninformed infidels.

PS__Please pardon my eccentric sense of humor, I'm seriously kidding --- in attempt to convey unwelcome ideas without giving offense.

*1. The existential threat is not just a feeling, but imminent --- In the same sense that 20th century Quantum Theory eventually undermined the foundational assumptions of Classical physics. In the 21st century, non-local quantum fields & spooky action-at-a-distance have replaced Newton's particular & local mechanisms -- for theoretical applications, if not for pragmatic purposes. Yet, most of us still think in classical terms, because they are familiar & intuitive, and appeal to common-sense. The post quantum world, by contrast, is unfamiliar & weird & non-sensical. On top of that new-wave Science, Information theory has opened-up novel ways to interpret the fundamental workings of the world. And the notion of Emergence is essential to its holistic functioning. Which is why I was trying to introduce some (non New Age) Holism into the conversation on this thread. 180 is stalwartly defending the borders of his embattled belief system.

*2. Since the emergence of non-mechanical quantum "mechanics" the classical scientific worldview has been fragmented into many divergent threads. But that's a topic for another thread.

*3. "A prophet is not without honour, but in his own country, and among his own kin, and in his own house". That's not a religious belief, but a commonsense aphorism.

[Gnomon]

Since you refer to an information singularity, a term I know from the common Big Bang language, and since your question about history headed towards a possibly human-directed information singularity strikes me as a question of some considerable importance to you, I thought perhaps you were linking cosmic Big Bang singularity to information "Big Bang" singularity. According to my guess about this, I've been assuming the linkage is metaphorical. In other words, while the cosmic Big Bang singularity is a literal explosion of the universe into existence, the information "Big Bang" is a cognitive explosion of information into some type of existentially new universe. — ucarr

Did ↪universeness
actually refer to an "information singularity", or is that your interpretation of his intention? I ask, because he and ↪180 Proof have been ridiculing my 21st century (information-centric) update of the ancient First Cause postulate -- labeling it as a religious belief. Yet your description of a "cognitive explosion of information" to produce an "existentially new universe" sounds like a creation event, caused by what I call metaphorically The Enformer*1. Were you making a religious statement, or a philosophical conjecture, or merely referring to an empirical scientific fact?

Where did you get the idea of an "information big bang" and "cognitive explosion"? I googled those terms and came-up empty. I'm not familiar with such "common big bang language". Are these your own ideas, or can you provide a link to the source? BTW, whose cognition (mental action) exploded? Do you have a name or metaphor to describe the implicit Mind that preceded the Big Conception? Be careful what you say; this line of thought is treading on dangerous ground, at least for some posters.

I did find one article which seemed to equate Kurzweil's hypothetical future Technological Singularity with an Information Singularity*2. But I got nothing about an original Big Bang burst of Information or a "cognitive explosion", that resulted in the creation of a physical universe from pre-existing rational causal power-to-enform (LOGOS?). Even though Fred Hoyle ridiculed the reasoning behind the "Big Bang theory", for its implication of creation of something-from-nothing, the name has stuck in the popular mind. Yet scientists keep searching for a less-religiously-loaded term & rationale for the sudden emergence of everything, including space-time, from a dimensionless mathematical singularity*3. But the notion of a "cognitive explosion" might be no less ridiculous for those with a Materialist & Mechanical worldview.


*1. The Enformer :
AKA, the Creator. The presumed eternal source of all information, as encoded in the Big Bang Sing-ularity. That ability to convert conceptual Forms into actual Things, to transform infinite possibilities into finite actualities, and to create space & time, matter & energy from essentially no-thing is called the power of EnFormAction. Due to our ignorance of anything beyond space-time though, the postulated enforming agent remains undefined. I simply label it generically as "G*D".
https://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page8.html


*2. How to prepare our minds for the information singularity? :
Information singularity – what is it and why is it dangerous
https://bdtechtalks.com/2022/07/21/brai ... elligence/
Note -- I wouldn't worry about the dangers of a future singularity, long after I'm gone. But the philosophical implications of a world-creating, Singularity preceding the existence of our physical world, are of interest to me. Although Uni and 180 seem to feel that it is a dangerous idea -- at least for those who believe without evidence that our world is eternal or self-existent.

*3. The initial singularity is a singularity predicted by some models of the Big Bang theory to have existed before the Big Bang[1] and thought to have contained all the energy and spacetime of the Universe.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Initial_singularity
Note -- And all the Information of the universe