Phil Forum : Why Philosophy? off-topic

[Gnomon]

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussi ... ent/410480


I like your thesis, but personally I don't take all that much interest in the processes of physical material, because to come to a comprehensive, or theory of everything, understanding, certainly one amenable to science, is an onerous task. When physical material is little more than a tool, a substrate.

What is of more interest is the ideal(mind), and more fundamental (let's say spiritual for example) levels of reality. But trying to rendering those in a way acceptable in academia is even more of a quagmire.
Along with a susceptibility to the accusation of pseudoscience, woo, or plain idealism.

I find there is more likely to be a meshing with academia via personal spiritual development. — Punshhh

Having rejected the religion of my youth, I came to the Enformationism concept from the direction of Science, instead of Spirituality. However, as I learned more about the science of Information, I came to appreciate the Spiritual worldview more than before. So, I have adopted and continue to develop the harmonious personal philosophy of BothAnd.

Enformationism is indeed a Theory of Everything. And it's an "onerous task", but I'm now retired, and have made it my hobby. Dealing with Philistines is just part of the game.

Those who cringe at any hint of Metaphysics do indeed play the "woo" card, due to Materialist prejudice, and without any understanding of the worldview behind the words. BothAnd includes both Idealism and Realism, which does not compute for those with two-value black/white either/or worldviews. My "spiritual development" has nothing to do with Navel Gazing or Gurus, but more with plain-old Philosophy : "love for wisdom".


BothAnd Philosophy : 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.
http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page2.html
http://bothandblog5.enformationism.info/page6.html

BothAnd Principle :
http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page10.html

Philistine : a person who is hostile or indifferent [ to alien ideas ], or who has no understanding of them.

[Gnomon]

Like Whitehead’s writing, however, it is the neologisms that hobble one’s ability to relate a new worldview to their existing one. — Possibility

Why do you think that most ground-breaking philosophers are notable for being hard to understand? "Philosophy is supposed to be difficult." https://www.theguardian.com/books/books ... ay-english

I'm frustrated. but not deterred, by the inability of philosophical forum posters to learn a few new words that define a novel worldview, which is merely an update and reconciliation of old incompatible views. I could understand, if the man on the street wanted me to "talk down to them" with common words and conventional meanings. Voltaire said, “If you wish to converse with me, define your terms.” That's what I'm doing : trying to converse with intelligent people in intelligent terms.

Probably a key notion of Enformationism, that people have difficulty with, is my usage of the old word "metaphysics", with a new post-quantum interpretation of Aristotle's subject matter in volume II of his Physics. In the common language, "metaphysics" refers to such immaterial things as ghosts, demons, ESP, magic, and so forth. But that's not what Aristotle was talking about. Instead, "Examples of metaphysical concepts are Being, Existence, Purpose, Universals, Property, Relation, Causality, Space, Time, Event, and many others. They are fundamental, because all other concepts and beliefs rest on them." http://getwiki.net/-Metaphysics

Each of those terms has both common and technical meanings, not just in my thesis, but in 21st century Science and Philosophy. Since Einstein, the ancient concepts of "space" & "time" have been turned inside-out (e.g. empty space is something that can be warped). So, by providing a Glossary and explanatory articles, I just want to make sure we are singing out of the same songbook.

Reducing that information down to thoughts, words and behaviour - the way we interact with the world on a daily basis - is where the real philosophy begins. And you’re trying to shortcut the process. — Possibility

Apparently, you haven't looked at the BothAnd blog. That's where I develop basic ideas of Enformationism with reference to "the way we interact with the world on a daily basis". Blog posts now number 107 articles. Does that sound like a shortcut?

an arrogant attempt on your part to possess and control meaning — Possibility

Was Immanuel Kant "arrogant" to "control the meaning" of his philosophy by defining in detail such terms as "Categorical Imperative" and "Noumenon"? https://kantphilosophy.wordpress.com/te ... hilosophy/

You end up encouraging a disconnect between what we already share and the new information you’re presenting, rather than demonstrating a structure by which we can understand the relation. — Possibility

What you don't seem to grasp is that, "encouraging a disconnect between" conventional concepts, is the opposite of what I'm trying to do. I have constructed a "structure" (in which Information is the modular building block) that relates such old worldviews as Spiritualism and Materialism to a larger context. But, in order to reconcile Spiritualist views with Materialist views, holders of those views will have to give-up their confidence that each is the Whole Truth. Instead, they are both valid, but partial worldviews. They tend to dismiss and denigrate holders of the opposite view. But I'm trying to show that they are actually complementary views.

but you seem rather attached to the ambiguity of your metaphorical ‘structures’. Perhaps it makes you feel superior, — Possibility

Kant, Hegel, & Whitehead used lots of neologisms, but didn't provide a separate glossary to remove any ambiguities. Do you think that made them feel superior? Were they simply trying to show how smart they were? I find some of the terms of your worldview (as expressed in forum posts) incomprehensible. Is that a sign that you're arrogant, and concerned only with image? Or is it because your ideas are unconventional, and require some hard thinking to make sense of a new paradigm?


BothAnd Blog : The BothAnd Blog and the Enformationism website are written for laymen who are well-read in Science, Philosophy, and Religion topics. But since they are based on an unconventional worldview, many traditional terms are used in unusual contexts, and some new terminology has been coined in order to convey their inter-connected meanings as clearly as possible. This glossary is intended to supplement the website articles and blog posts with definitions specifically tailored to the subject matter. For the most comprehensive understanding though, I recommend starting with the website, which has its own glossary and references from several years ago.

[Gnomon]

but you’re claiming ownership of a worldview that’s been around in various formats for millennia, and only requires a more complex structure in relation to modern knowledge. My argument is that you’re not acknowledging the historical progress — Possibility

Obviously, you haven't read the thesis or the blog. The only thing I claim "ownership" of is the Enformationism concept : that Information is the "single substance" of the world (props to Spinoza). My website and blog are full of references and links to historically significant philosophical ideas. Here's a few that I specifically find historical precedence in : Platonic Idealism, Aristotelian Realism, Stoicism, Panpsychism, Hegelian Dialectic, Deism, Secular Humanism, Holism, Hindu Philosophy, Systems Theory, Information Theory, and many others. The website and blog are full of links that "acknowledge" my debt to the history of philosophy and science.

Do you claim "ownership" of your own novel philosophical concepts, or do you give the information away for free? The latter is what I'm doing on this forum, and other venues. I'm hardly evangelical, but I sincerely believe that some form of Information-based worldview will eventually take its place among historically significant philosophies and scientific paradigms. What you and others interpret as "arrogance" is merely persistence in pursuing the construction of my own personal philosophy. If I sound confident, that's not characteristic of me as a timid introvert. But, since my thesis is essentially a Theory of Everything, It allows me to give a well-supported answer to skeptics on almost any topic.

But the glaring hole in your philosophy can be found in how you reconcile Spiritualism with Materialism — Possibility

Again, you haven't read the thesis that you are critiquing. So, you are skewering a straw man. There may be holes in the thesis, but I am still in the process of filling them, in part by getting critiques on this forum. See if the link below will fill your "hole" with understanding of how those conflicting worldviews can be reconciled, via the concept of Monism/Holism, as opposed to the dualistic view of Descartes. See the Materialism link below, for my consilience between those antagonistic old domains.

You seem to be responding to the very narrowly focused posts on this forum. I have repeatedly provided links to my own reasoning, and that of other philosophers & scientists. Ironically there seem to be more scientists than philosophers thinking along the same lines of the ubiquity of Information. Enformationism is not a typical academic thesis paper, written on an obscure arcane topic. It is, instead, a scientific & philosophical & religious Theory of Everything. History will decide which new paradigm will replace the ancient notions of Materialism (atoms & void) and Spiritualsm (body & soul), which were, in their day, theories of everything.

I claim no novelty or ownership of this particular worldview, let alone definitions of terminology. — Possibility

Is that because there is nothing "novel" in your worldview? Are you just parroting famous philosophers, instead of pioneering a new perspective on the world? A glossary might help to get your ideas across to a wider audience, as long as they can see some validity in an idea they don't yet understand. I'm sure you know that truly novel ideas are typically rejected by holders of an older paradigm. Check-out the "Rejected" link below.

And my focus is on making the paradigm shift accessible to current thinking, not gaining followers to my guru-ness. — Possibility

"Paradigm Shift" : sounds similar to my own thesis. Does your multi-dimensional paradigm have a formal name and a core concept, or is it just a motley collection of loosely-related ideas? Have your "accessible" ideas been well received by holders of an older paradigm? I still don't fully understand your Dimensional theory, but I think it could be generally compatible to my Information theory.
“…First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident.”

Ha! I am a guru for a cult of one. I have no followers. One poster on an extinct forum, asked my permission to use the label "Enformationist" to describe her personal worldview. I said, "sure", but her interpretation was closer to New Age philosophy than to mine. Anyway, she is not an acolyte of any guru.

Quote from another thread : "I was taking the opportunity to illustrate the dimensional awareness that forms the basis of my theory. Gratuitous, I know" : ___Possibility.
I think I asked for a definition of "Dimensional Awareness". But the answer was still vague to me. Perhaps a glossary of unconventional terms would made your proposed paradigm more accessible to "current thinking".

Materialism versus Spiritualism : http://bothandblog4.enformationism.info/page14.html

6 World-Changing Ideas That Were Originally Rejected :
https://www.lifehack.org/articles/lifes ... ected.html

[Gnomon]

Don’t get me wrong, I understand where you’re coming from, I agree in principle with the concept of Both/And, and I support your efforts. — Possibility

We seem to have similar Post-Materialism worldviews, but coming from different directions, and with different terminology. I'm still interested in seeing how they agree and how they disagree. But as I said before, I need some kind of "hook" (something meaningful to me) in order to relate to your rather esoteric notion of "Dimensional Awareness". What difference do those "higher dimensions" make for my life? Are they the abode of gods, demons, angels, or simply "The Force", who directly intervene in reality, to provide blessings & curses? I have no personal experience with "higher dimensions" beyond Einstein's fundamental four. But because we entertain the possibility of Mental Reality, I suspect that Praxis would lump your worldview and mine into the anti-science category of New Age mumbo-jumbo. So, I understand his animosity toward such superstitious non-sense.

This link says that, "Cross-Dimensional Awareness is an ability that senses and can often travel between parallel universes (alternate universes) or other planes of existence". That sounds like the New Age notion of the Astral Planes, which is completely ignored by the Enformationism thesis. It also seems popular with video gamers, as fodder for their imagination. But I have no personal experience with either the multiple dimensions String Theory, or the Higher Planes of mystical religions. How do you become aware of those Parallel Universes : by meditation, drugs, gnostic revelation? Even string theorists admit that their 10 or 11 dimensions may exist only as mathematical abstractions, that humans have no direct experience of, and have no empirical evidence. So, they are accused of Mysticism, by more pragmatic scientists.
https://evolutionactivated.fandom.com/w ... _Awareness

‘Information’ as a building block does not constitute a structural relation - it’s a concept that basically means ‘building block’, and says nothing about how it fits together at a metaphysical level, without an established structural relation like ‘space’ or ‘time’. — Possibility

It's true that Isolated bits of Information are meaningless. It's the links between entities that provide the structure of meaning.Those invisible imaginary links are the true structure of reality.

It has to do with the way you associate the metaphysical elements of your theory, using metaphor and neologisms instead of structural relations. — Possibility

Not so! The immaterial structural relations of Information are of the essence in the thesis. When we talk about anything immaterial (no physical properties), we can only discuss then in terms of metaphors drawn from out experience with the physical world. Is your "cross-dimensional awareness" discussable in conventional materialistic language, or do you have to resort to as-if metaphors & analogies & neologisms, such as "gyrokinesis"? https://evolutionactivated.fandom.com/wiki/Gyrokinesis

It’s uncharitable to then declare your terms to be ‘intelligent’ and any alternative definition of existing terms as ‘common’. That’s not going to endear your argument to anyone. — Possibility

FYI, I have never said or implied that superior attitude in any of my writings. So the accusation says more about you, than about me. But, enough about me. ;)


Structure of Reality : The best guess I've come across is that Consciousness is not just a “spandrel” in evolution, but a fundamental element of the structure of reality.
http://bothandblog.enformationism.info/page65.html

Raymond Tallis : "there's nothing in the material world that, like a thought, has a subject attached to a predicate . . . self-reference . . . aboutness . . . Where there are classes, there is generality, there is possibility, and where there is possibility, entities or states of affairs may or may not exist can be proposed." Philosophy Now #137.

[Gnomon]

You seem to still be trying to convince readers to abandon their strictly materialist/spiritualist views, but offer little substance in your thesis for those of us who already have, and nothing convincing for those who haven’t. — Possibility

The "substance" I'm offering is universal Information/EnFormAction, which is the single substance of the world, and the "structure" of everything in it.

metaphor is only a suggestion of structure. It isn’t structure — Possibility

I'm afraid I don't know what kind of "structure" you are looking for : something material & physical instead of mental & metaphysical? Please give me an example of a structural definition of the metaphors of "quantum fields" and "information fields". Actually, there are no things in the field, only structural relationships.

Quantum Field :
In theoretical Physics, a quantum field is a metaphorical mathematical "structure", not an actual place, to allow scientists to understand ghostly things they can't see. The field is imaginary and has no physical material, but only Virtual particles that have the potential to become real. In the Enformationism theory, the state that preceded the Big Bang is imagined as an Enfernal quantum field, with potential Platonic Forms from which actual material things could be created.
http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page17.html

I’m working towards a conceptual structure that is ultimately testable. — Possibility

Is your theory testable physically, like Special Relativity via observations of physical objects, or mathematically, .like String Theory via computer simulations? Every aspect of Enformationism theory is scientifically testable, except the ultimate Axiom, which must be accepted as a given.

but what I think you may be presenting at this stage is more of a belief system than a ToE. — Possibility

A Theory of Everything is a belief system.

String Theory Testable? : https://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/?p=533

[Gnomon]

I haven’t read anything about his theory, being the filthy philistine that I am. It’s curious that he claims to have resolved the rift between idealism and materialism and yet says himself “I favor Idealism.” — praxis

. . . . followed immediately by "I favor Realism". Obviously, a holistic BothAnd attitude toward the world does not compute for an Either/Or "philistine". But it's how the BothAnd principle works.

Note : my use of the term "philistine" in a previous post was generic, and not directed at anyone in particular. But, if the shoe fits . . . .

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.
http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page10.html

[Gnomon]

In one part it says,"Ultimate or absolute reality (ideality) doesn't change, but your conception of reality does." Can you explain what you mean by that? — praxis

The blog Glossary has a definition of "Ideality", that gives an overview of the concept. But it's really more extensive than that summary. Basically, I agree with Plato that the ultimate "reality" is a state of infinite potential that he called "Forms", which are the mental recipes or designs for material things. But I also agree with Aristotle when "he stated that reality does not make sense or exist until the mind process it. Therefore truth is dependent upon a person's mind and external factors". https://www.bartleby.com/essay/Aristotl ... -PK7GFXYTJ

So the Enformationism thesis is an attempt to reconcile the ideal "reality" of eternal Forms with real world space-time "appearances". Donald Hoffman's recent book, The Case Against Reality, may give you one perspective on the relationship between physical Reality and metaphysical Ideality. There's nothing supernatural about mundane Metaphysics. It's merely the realm of ideas and meanings that emerged when Life & Mind emerged from physical evolution. The Forms are timeless and unchanging, but our perceptions of them differ for each perceiver. Metaphysical beauty is in the mind of the beholder, but the ideal Form of beauty is like a mathematical constant.

I'm sure this brief "explanation" will sound like non-sense, if you don't accept the philosophical validity of Platonic Idealism, as the general case for specific instances of Aristotelian Realism.

Window to Reality : http://bothandblog6.enformationism.info/page21.html

Meta-physics : Physics refers to the things we perceive with the eye of the body. Meta-physics refers to the things we conceive with the eye of the mind. Meta-physics includes the properties, and qualities, and functions that make a thing what it is. Matter is just the clay from which a thing is made. Meta-physics is the design (form, purpose); physics is the product (shape, action). The act of creation brings an ideal design into actual existence. The design concept is the “formal” cause of the thing designed.
http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page14.html

[Gnomon]

So you believe that, for instance, people differ in their perception of a geometric circle, or rather in their concept of a circle? Also, do you believe that perfect circle's exit in "real world space-time" or do ideal forms only exist in the "realm of ideas"? — praxis

A "perfect circle" is a metaphysical mathematical definition (an idea), not a physical thing. FWIW, I don't believe that a physically perfect teapot is orbiting the sun in a perfectly circular path.

I don't really give much thought to such questions. And I am not a disciple of Plato. I just refer to his notion of "Ideals", as a way to illustrate the difference between physical (matter) and metaphysical (mind) forms of generic Information. My concern in the Enformationism thesis is to understand the Real space-time world.

Except for the ideas in my own mind, I know nothing about Ideal Forms. Metaphysics is the realm of subjective concepts, which are invisible & intangible, but meaningful --- ideas make "sense" to the sixth sense of Reason. A perfect circle can only be proven to exist, in the metaphysical realm of ideas, by definition. Do you believe in ideas?


Russell's Teapot : He wrote that if he were to assert, without offering proof, that a teapot, too small to be seen by telescopes, orbits the Sun somewhere in space between the Earth and Mars, he could not expect anyone to believe him solely because his assertion could not be proven wrong.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell%27s_teapot

Meta-Physics : http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page14.html

Proof by Definition : https://explainingmaths.wordpress.com/2 ... efinition/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathematical_proof

[Gnomon]

A> If forms are unchanging then there can't be 'ideal' forms, . . . B> An unchanging thing cannot exist in a realm where things change, to put it simply. — praxis

Apparently, you have mixed-up some of Plato's theory with Aristotle's theory of Forms. For Plato, the Forms "exist" abstractly in a non-physical timeless changeless state called Eternity. But for Aristotle, the Forms exist concretely only in physical things in the realm of space-time. The latter definition is what I would call "embodied Information", which is similar to immaterial potential Energy that has transformed into actual physical lumps of Matter.

In my thesis, the Potential for all possible Forms exists in what I like to call Enfernity (eternity & infinity). I coined that neologism because Enfernity is not two different things but a single state of BEING, with unlimited potential for all possibilities. There are no actual things in Enfernity, but only the un-manifest potential for things & beings.

So, the "Ideal" Forms in statement A> above are not things that change. and the real things in statement B> are not ideal forms, but actualized instances of infinite potential. To put it simply, A> is not B>.

Plato's Forms : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_forms

Aristotle's Forms : https://www.britannica.com/story/plato- ... hey-differ

A.N. Whitehead's Actual Occasions : what I call "instances" above
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Process_and_Reality

Potential :
1. possible, as opposed to actual:
2. capable of being or becoming:

Eternity :
1. a state to which time has no application; timelessness.

Potential :
Unrealized or unmanifest creative power. For example, the Voltage of an electric battery is its potential for future current flow measured in Amps. Potential is inert until actualized by some trigger. In the Enformationism metaphor, the real world was originally an idea in the Mind of G*D, with the infinite possibilities of Omniscience, that was realized by an act of Will.
http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page16.html

Note : For theoretical purposes, "G*D" is a metaphor to illustrate how unchanging timelessness could convert unreal Potential into real Things. You don't have to take it literally. In any case, it's the G*D of Philosophers, not of Priests.

God of Philosophers : The God of the philosophers, Pascal remarked, is not the God of Abraham and Isaac
https://maritain.nd.edu/jmc/etext/AAP04.htm

[Gnomon]

I got interested in philosophy because I had broad academic interests in lots of topics and kept looking for more and more fundamental cores of those collections of interests, and that lead me eventually to physics on the one hand and something like economics or political science on the other hand, and then into basically metaphysics and ethics beneath each of those, so when I eventually found philosophy that seemed like it, the core field with connections to all the other fields. — Pfhorrest

Except for the interest in Economics & Political Science, this sounds very similar to my own path into philosophy. As a child, my family was only interested in Bible knowledge and Practical education. So we didn't discuss broad academic topics. It's only since I was retired by the Great Recession, that I have had time to devote to the impractical notions of general Philosophy. And I am a generalist by nature, so I don't often get bogged-down in narrowly specialized topics --- except of course for those that apply to my own metaphysical hobby.

For selfish reasons, I could be enticed to read some of your work, if I could see where it might fit into my personal interests, or where it might apply to my personal worldview of Enformationism, or to my personal philosophy of BothAnd. I have some superficial knowledge of Economics and Political Science, but have never delved deeply into those areas of philosophy. Unfortunately, I find that most academic philosophical writing is too abstract & abstruse for my casual pragmatic interest. Can you dumb-down your philosophy to my philistine level?