https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussi ... we-here/p5
The only thing that seems kind of sketchy to me about your approach is the neologisms and kind of... style, and terminology... that makes it seem like this is some "crazy" new thing you came up with all by yourself -- and maybe you did a lot of it, which is fine and plausible, but it could put off a lot of people who might just dismiss this as some loony ramblings. It kind of sucks to say but I imagine if you tried to use fewer neologisms and more standard terminology, reference existing work in the same vein wherever possible, explain the things that have already been explored, and then note your own variations or additions on top of that, I think it would "sell" (figuratively speaking) a lot better. — Pfhorrest
If you would do more than skim the thesis, you'd discover that I do "reference existing work" in sidebars, end notes, and bibliographies. The only "new thing" I take credit for is the concept of
Enformationism as an update for the outdated paradigms of "Spiritualism" and "Materialism".
The neologisms are necessary because the thesis overturns popular paradigms of Religion and Science. So it uses a lot of old concepts, "standard terminology", that take on new meanings in the Information Age. For example, "information" used to refer to mind-stuff. The kind of immaterial stuff that spies would risk their lives to bring back to Intelligence Agencies. But today, most people use the term in reference to the digital "1s & 0s" that fast-but-dumb computers process. The new trend in Information Theory is to return to the old analog information processing of human minds, and to redefine obsolete terms, such as "Soul" and "Metaphysics".
The links in my posts, which few bother to look at, are intended to show that my "crazy, looney" ideas are shared by many other scientists and philosophers. Unfortunately for me, "looney"
New Agers were the first to adopt the new implications of Information and Quantum Theories, and to find their roots in ancient religions, such as
Buddhism and
Hinduism. The notion that Information, rather than Matter, is the fundamental substance of the world is an old idea (Plato's Forms), but it is being adopted by a growing number of modern scientists and philosophers (who are credited in numerous links and notes).
I am not bothered by the incredulity of some forum posters. Even paradigm-busting Einstein "
refused to believe in the inherent unpredictability of the world. Is the subatomic world insane, or just subtle?" [
https://www.quantamagazine.org/einstein ... -20150910/ ] I take their criticisms in stride, and use them to make my thesis stronger. But, since I am neither a scientist nor a philosopher, it will always be my personal worldview. For the broader world, it will take on a variety of forms that are beyond my power to control.
Neologisms :
But the primary reason for using a special label for a technical definition is so the writer can control its meaning precisely.
http://bothandblog4.enformationism.info/page6.html
http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page19.html
Enformationism Welcome Page :
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? . . . . I am neither a scientist, nor a philosopher, so the arguments herein carry no more authority or expertise than those of anyone else with an interest in such impractical musings. This is intended to be an open-ended thread, because it’s a relatively new and unproven concept, and because the ideas presented here are merely a superficial snapshot of what promises to be a whole new way of understanding the world : philosophically, scientifically, and religiously.
