https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussi ... riously/p1
And so, in other words, top-down intellect seems more likely than bottom-up Darwinism. — 3017amen
The term "Intelligent Design" is usually taken as a reference to the top-down short-term creation described in Genesis. But based on current scientific knowledge, the universe did indeed emerge abruptly from an unknowable nothingness, and has taken billions of years to reach its current state of development (some estimate halfway to The End). So I have my own hypothesis of "Intelligent Evolution" (via "bottom-up Darwinism), that is based on Information Theory. It attempts to explain how Intelligent creatures have developed from the initial conditions of the Big Bang, which don't seem conducive to Consciousness : Intelligence In -- Intelligence Out.
The linked essay was written over fourteen years ago, and could be much more detailed if re-written today --- but then, it was just a layman's hypothesis (a hunch). BTW, it does assume an abstract axiomatic Creator God, or Enformer, to "design" the process of evolution, but not the final product.
Intelligent Evolution : http://gnomon.enformationism.info/Essay ... 120106.pdf
Phil Forum : Intelligent Design Evolution
Re: Phil Forum : Intelligent Design Evolution
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussi ... riously/p3
Does your theory then consider an eternal Creator existing outside of time (eternity), be one in the same energy source as a self contained universe that has neither beginning nor end, similar to Spinoza's pantheism? — 3017amen
Yes. Since the Big Bang theory indicates that our universe is not eternal, there must be "something" outside of space-time with the power to create new worlds. Materialists simply assume "turtles all the way down" with their Multiverse hypothesis, for which there is no empirical evidence. But, based on the ubiquity of Information --- the "substance" of energy, matter, & mind --- in every aspect of the real world, I assume that the hypothetical Source or Creator must be an Enformer, in the sense of possessing the potential for converting Platonic Forms (ideas, concepts, designs) into real, material, objects. The "energy source" is what I call EnFormAction. I won't go into more detail here, but the notion of Intelligent Evolution (guided by Information and motivated by EnFormAction) has been explored in my blog for several years.
My Enformationism worldview is indeed similar to Spinoza's Pandeism, but has included evidence that he was not aware of in the 17th century : e.g. Big Bang, Information Theory, Quantum Physics. Spinoza's "Universal Substance" is what I call "Enformation" or "EnFormAction". Since he believed the universe was eternal, his Pandeistic God was also eternal. But, now we must postulate something else that is self-existent : either multiplying Multiverses or eternal Enformer. And since this hypothetical World Maker must exist prior to the emergence of space-time in the BB, we can assume that it exists "without beginning or end".
Information : Knowledge and the ability to know. Technically, it's the ratio of order to disorder, of positive to negative, of knowledge to ignorance. It's measured in degrees of uncertainty. Those ratios are also called "differences". So Gregory Bateson* defined Information as "the difference that makes a difference". The latter distinction refers to "value" or "meaning". Babbage called his prototype computer a "difference engine". Difference is the cause or agent of Change. In Physics it’s called "Thermodynamics" or "Energy". In Sociology it’s called "Conflict".
http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page11.html
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 "G*D".
http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page8.html
Does your theory then consider an eternal Creator existing outside of time (eternity), be one in the same energy source as a self contained universe that has neither beginning nor end, similar to Spinoza's pantheism? — 3017amen
Yes. Since the Big Bang theory indicates that our universe is not eternal, there must be "something" outside of space-time with the power to create new worlds. Materialists simply assume "turtles all the way down" with their Multiverse hypothesis, for which there is no empirical evidence. But, based on the ubiquity of Information --- the "substance" of energy, matter, & mind --- in every aspect of the real world, I assume that the hypothetical Source or Creator must be an Enformer, in the sense of possessing the potential for converting Platonic Forms (ideas, concepts, designs) into real, material, objects. The "energy source" is what I call EnFormAction. I won't go into more detail here, but the notion of Intelligent Evolution (guided by Information and motivated by EnFormAction) has been explored in my blog for several years.
My Enformationism worldview is indeed similar to Spinoza's Pandeism, but has included evidence that he was not aware of in the 17th century : e.g. Big Bang, Information Theory, Quantum Physics. Spinoza's "Universal Substance" is what I call "Enformation" or "EnFormAction". Since he believed the universe was eternal, his Pandeistic God was also eternal. But, now we must postulate something else that is self-existent : either multiplying Multiverses or eternal Enformer. And since this hypothetical World Maker must exist prior to the emergence of space-time in the BB, we can assume that it exists "without beginning or end".
Information : Knowledge and the ability to know. Technically, it's the ratio of order to disorder, of positive to negative, of knowledge to ignorance. It's measured in degrees of uncertainty. Those ratios are also called "differences". So Gregory Bateson* defined Information as "the difference that makes a difference". The latter distinction refers to "value" or "meaning". Babbage called his prototype computer a "difference engine". Difference is the cause or agent of Change. In Physics it’s called "Thermodynamics" or "Energy". In Sociology it’s called "Conflict".
http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page11.html
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 "G*D".
http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page8.html
Re: Phil Forum : Intelligent Design Evolution
I must add that this is something I have not given much thought, but if you were to ask me to, I would go for the sudden popping into existence. — StarsFromMemory
Voila! Just like magic.
That works for Pragmatic Purposes, but for Philosophical Pursuits it's pretty lame.
Voila! Just like magic.
That works for Pragmatic Purposes, but for Philosophical Pursuits it's pretty lame.
Re: Phil Forum : Intelligent Design Evolution
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussi ... riously/p4
Some physicists will say for matter to pop into existence there needs to be a positive and negative matter/energy created at the same time — christian2017
Yes. Scientists have postulated a variety of rationales to allow the creation of something from nothing. But all are violations of either the Law of Thermodynamics, or the Law of Logic. And their belief system prejudicially excludes the simplest, most-intuitive explanation, because of the supernatural implications. However, I have concluded that the Big Bang theory is a super-natural explanation. And the only viable alternatives are self-existent mindless Multiverses all-the-way-down, or a self-existent Intelligent Enformer.
That's why I had to invent an unlimited Law-Maker to handle the job. Of course, my Enformer/Creator is merely an enformed hypothesis, not a revelation from on high. And it only serves as an axiom for further development of the Enformationism thesis of Intelligent Evolution. No creeds, no worship required.
Some physicists will say for matter to pop into existence there needs to be a positive and negative matter/energy created at the same time — christian2017
Yes. Scientists have postulated a variety of rationales to allow the creation of something from nothing. But all are violations of either the Law of Thermodynamics, or the Law of Logic. And their belief system prejudicially excludes the simplest, most-intuitive explanation, because of the supernatural implications. However, I have concluded that the Big Bang theory is a super-natural explanation. And the only viable alternatives are self-existent mindless Multiverses all-the-way-down, or a self-existent Intelligent Enformer.
That's why I had to invent an unlimited Law-Maker to handle the job. Of course, my Enformer/Creator is merely an enformed hypothesis, not a revelation from on high. And it only serves as an axiom for further development of the Enformationism thesis of Intelligent Evolution. No creeds, no worship required.
Re: Phil Forum : Intelligent Design Evolution
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussi ... riously/p4
Creation is an action and an action happens as a reaction, which in turn occurs because of another action. This means that creation or creating and concepts that can only exist in a time-restricted world. — Leviosa
That rule only applies to an actor operating within space-time. It doesn't apply to the creator of space-time. As space-time creatures, we don't know what the rules are for spaceless-timeless existence. But I think the ancient Greeks had the right idea in their myth of Cosmos from Chaos. Chaos was not a real space-time thing, but only infinite Potential : creative power. It was metaphysical, not physical. This is inherently a philosophical hypothesis, not a scientific fact.
Creation is an action and an action happens as a reaction, which in turn occurs because of another action. This means that creation or creating and concepts that can only exist in a time-restricted world. — Leviosa
That rule only applies to an actor operating within space-time. It doesn't apply to the creator of space-time. As space-time creatures, we don't know what the rules are for spaceless-timeless existence. But I think the ancient Greeks had the right idea in their myth of Cosmos from Chaos. Chaos was not a real space-time thing, but only infinite Potential : creative power. It was metaphysical, not physical. This is inherently a philosophical hypothesis, not a scientific fact.
Re: Phil Forum : Intelligent Design Evolution
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussi ... riously/p4
Are you a "God wound up the clock and walked away kind of guy". I think that is usually called deism or is it theism. I don't feel like looking it up. — christian2017
No. I'm a "G*D-wrote-the-program, and-observes-the-on-going-computation" kind of guy. I call my worldview, which includes a hypothetical creator/programmer, Enformationism. But, if you want a conventional philosophical name for this god-model, it's PanEnDeism : all-in-god. Hence, the creation is a part of the creator. Our world is an idea in the MIND of G*D. So, what we now call "Evolution" is actually a creative mental process, that we experience as Reality. Another term for such an abstract god-model is "the god of the philosophers". Look it up.
I'm sure this sounds bizarre to those with conventional religious views. But it's just a theory to explain the role of ubiquitous Information in the world. I was raised as a back-to-the-bible fundamentalist Christian. But, I have since concluded that, while all world religions have correctly intuited the necessity of some kind of creator/sustainer to explain the existence of our world, most of their specific beliefs are based on outdated science, and priestly propaganda. So I have updated both the traditional and scientific worldviews to suit my own needs for philosophical understanding. Those needs do not include worship & prayer though, because my abstract deity should have no need for such human sycophantic servility.
Are you a "God wound up the clock and walked away kind of guy". I think that is usually called deism or is it theism. I don't feel like looking it up. — christian2017
No. I'm a "G*D-wrote-the-program, and-observes-the-on-going-computation" kind of guy. I call my worldview, which includes a hypothetical creator/programmer, Enformationism. But, if you want a conventional philosophical name for this god-model, it's PanEnDeism : all-in-god. Hence, the creation is a part of the creator. Our world is an idea in the MIND of G*D. So, what we now call "Evolution" is actually a creative mental process, that we experience as Reality. Another term for such an abstract god-model is "the god of the philosophers". Look it up.
I'm sure this sounds bizarre to those with conventional religious views. But it's just a theory to explain the role of ubiquitous Information in the world. I was raised as a back-to-the-bible fundamentalist Christian. But, I have since concluded that, while all world religions have correctly intuited the necessity of some kind of creator/sustainer to explain the existence of our world, most of their specific beliefs are based on outdated science, and priestly propaganda. So I have updated both the traditional and scientific worldviews to suit my own needs for philosophical understanding. Those needs do not include worship & prayer though, because my abstract deity should have no need for such human sycophantic servility.
Re: Phil Forum : Intelligent Design Evolution
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussi ... riously/p4
Do you think the laws of physics are necessary or contingent? — 3017amen
In my Enformationism worldview, the Laws of Physics are simply initial conditions and logical operators of the program that is running as Reality. The Programmer, or "super turtle" if you prefer, defined specific limitations on infinite possibilities to describe the kind of world S/he wanted to create. For example : another species of universe could be created, in which energy never condenses into matter, and any creatures that emerge are merely clouds or fields of energy.
Laws of physics are contingent in the sense that they could have been different, if the Programmer wanted to create an alternative kind of world, but are necessary for our own unique universe. Scientists call those necessities "fine-tuning". Once executed into an on-going evolutionary process though, I doubt that the "laws" could change in mid-stream. Of course, our limited knowledge of those universal laws will develop and deepen over time --- perhaps making them seem to vary.
As for the universe being essentially Space-Time, I can see some truth in that notion. Without those fundamental parameters for quantitative and qualitative extension, the Big Bang would have been the "Big Choke", and nothing could happen.
Do you think the laws of physics are necessary or contingent? — 3017amen
In my Enformationism worldview, the Laws of Physics are simply initial conditions and logical operators of the program that is running as Reality. The Programmer, or "super turtle" if you prefer, defined specific limitations on infinite possibilities to describe the kind of world S/he wanted to create. For example : another species of universe could be created, in which energy never condenses into matter, and any creatures that emerge are merely clouds or fields of energy.
Laws of physics are contingent in the sense that they could have been different, if the Programmer wanted to create an alternative kind of world, but are necessary for our own unique universe. Scientists call those necessities "fine-tuning". Once executed into an on-going evolutionary process though, I doubt that the "laws" could change in mid-stream. Of course, our limited knowledge of those universal laws will develop and deepen over time --- perhaps making them seem to vary.
As for the universe being essentially Space-Time, I can see some truth in that notion. Without those fundamental parameters for quantitative and qualitative extension, the Big Bang would have been the "Big Choke", and nothing could happen.
Re: Phil Forum : Intelligent Design Evolution
What i'm saying is to some degree "collective soul" doesn't completely (completely) fall outside the "Pail of Orthodoxy". — christian2017
That's a common problem in religious discussions : whose orthodoxy are we talking about? Orthodoxy for Catholics would be different from that of Baptists, which would also be different from Mormons. But ironically, regarding the evolution of the world, Calvinism is similar to the orthodoxy of Materialistic Science . Most scientists assume that the ultimate end of the universe was predestined at the moment of creation (i.e . Big Bang). Hence, the notion of freewill is a fantasy. Others interpret the same evidence to conclude that the final destiny of the universe, and of its individual creatures is open to individual choices.
Just to be fair Calvinism doesn't always imply a cruel vindictive or hateful view of "people enjoying themselves" — christian2017
Of course, most non-theologians in the Calvinist tradition don't take predestination literally. It seems too cruel and pointless for a good god to create a world full of hell-bound souls
"collective consceeeence" — christian2017
FWIW, my worldview is not the same as typical New Age collective consciousness cosmologies.
4 Ways Calvinism Differs From Lutheranism :
https://www.newsmax.com/FastFeatures/ch ... id/710818/
That's a common problem in religious discussions : whose orthodoxy are we talking about? Orthodoxy for Catholics would be different from that of Baptists, which would also be different from Mormons. But ironically, regarding the evolution of the world, Calvinism is similar to the orthodoxy of Materialistic Science . Most scientists assume that the ultimate end of the universe was predestined at the moment of creation (i.e . Big Bang). Hence, the notion of freewill is a fantasy. Others interpret the same evidence to conclude that the final destiny of the universe, and of its individual creatures is open to individual choices.
Just to be fair Calvinism doesn't always imply a cruel vindictive or hateful view of "people enjoying themselves" — christian2017
Of course, most non-theologians in the Calvinist tradition don't take predestination literally. It seems too cruel and pointless for a good god to create a world full of hell-bound souls
"collective consceeeence" — christian2017
FWIW, my worldview is not the same as typical New Age collective consciousness cosmologies.
4 Ways Calvinism Differs From Lutheranism :
https://www.newsmax.com/FastFeatures/ch ... id/710818/
Re: Phil Forum : Intelligent Design Evolution
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussi ... riously/p4
The Pail of orthodoxy is a theological term for Christians. — christian2017
Off topic :
Apparently, the "pale of orthodoxy" is a recent innovation that was devised to justify the inter-faith Ecumenical movement of the 20th century. Before that liberal tendency emerged, zealous Christians had no scruples about criticizing the orthodoxy of other Christian sects. A few years ago, a Baptist preacher in my state calculated (on the basis of predestination and his own brand of orthodoxy) exactly how many people in the state were going to heaven. The predicted final score made the Jesus team appear to be losing to the Satan team. Ironically, a lot of self-professed Christians were on the hell-bound list.
Pale of Orthodoxy : https://www.beliefnet.com/columnists/je ... e-rjs.html
Paleo Orthodoxy : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paleo-orthodoxy
Hell Bound Christians : https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/ ... 8cd707eb1/
The Pail of orthodoxy is a theological term for Christians. — christian2017
Off topic :
Apparently, the "pale of orthodoxy" is a recent innovation that was devised to justify the inter-faith Ecumenical movement of the 20th century. Before that liberal tendency emerged, zealous Christians had no scruples about criticizing the orthodoxy of other Christian sects. A few years ago, a Baptist preacher in my state calculated (on the basis of predestination and his own brand of orthodoxy) exactly how many people in the state were going to heaven. The predicted final score made the Jesus team appear to be losing to the Satan team. Ironically, a lot of self-professed Christians were on the hell-bound list.
Pale of Orthodoxy : https://www.beliefnet.com/columnists/je ... e-rjs.html
Paleo Orthodoxy : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paleo-orthodoxy
Hell Bound Christians : https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/ ... 8cd707eb1/
Re: Phil Forum : Intelligent Design Evolution
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussi ... riously/p4
1. Religion gives ( the concept of ) God a bad name. — 3017amen
It's not Religion, as a general human aspiration, that gives God a bad name, but the variety of antagonistic religious sects that defend divergent definitions of the deity. They all may be correct in essence, but go astray in the details. For example the pre-Babylonian Jewish concept of Monotheism viewed God as a singular universal abstract principle --- similar to Brahma or the Tao --- to the exclusion of other gods, such as Jesus, Holy Spirit, or Satan. Unfortunately, in order to make that featureless abstraction more appealing to the average worshiper, Priests have promoted a covert polytheistic Tribalism. Which leads to the quarreling orthodoxies of world religions, based on the Us-versus-Them implications of Jew vs Gentile, Islam vs Unbelievers, and Baptists vs Catholics. Unfortunately, although a direct revelation from God would clear-up all the messiness of sectarian religions, all so-called "scriptures" are the opinions of fallible men. So, for knowledge of deity, we are limited to personal intuitions and inferences. That's why I have adopted the BothAnd philosophy.
BothAnd Philosophy : http://bothandblog5.enformationism.info/page6.html
1. Religion gives ( the concept of ) God a bad name. — 3017amen
It's not Religion, as a general human aspiration, that gives God a bad name, but the variety of antagonistic religious sects that defend divergent definitions of the deity. They all may be correct in essence, but go astray in the details. For example the pre-Babylonian Jewish concept of Monotheism viewed God as a singular universal abstract principle --- similar to Brahma or the Tao --- to the exclusion of other gods, such as Jesus, Holy Spirit, or Satan. Unfortunately, in order to make that featureless abstraction more appealing to the average worshiper, Priests have promoted a covert polytheistic Tribalism. Which leads to the quarreling orthodoxies of world religions, based on the Us-versus-Them implications of Jew vs Gentile, Islam vs Unbelievers, and Baptists vs Catholics. Unfortunately, although a direct revelation from God would clear-up all the messiness of sectarian religions, all so-called "scriptures" are the opinions of fallible men. So, for knowledge of deity, we are limited to personal intuitions and inferences. That's why I have adopted the BothAnd philosophy.
BothAnd Philosophy : http://bothandblog5.enformationism.info/page6.html
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 10 guests