Both, and neither. Sorry - not a very helpful start, is it? — Possibility
Well, the assertion plus negation is confusing to the mortal mind. But then, my personal philosophy is called BothAnd. So, I'll have to give you the benefit of the doubt. But, only if you will explain the correlation between a "spiritual plane" and a "physical dimension". I'm cool with the BothAnd concept of Yin/Yang, but it refers to parts of a whole system, not to separate planes of existence.
Spiritual Plane : In esoteric cosmology, a plane is conceived as a subtle state, level, or region of reality, each plane corresponding to some type, kind, or category of being.
[Note : by calling a spiritual plane "subtle", mystics are trying to explain why scientists are unable to detect and measure it. How do you personally detect and measure the Fifth Dimension? ]
So if you consider the ‘fifth dimension’ as relative to the other four dimensions (at least), not as something other than physics, but as part of the natural forces of the universe, then it makes sense to refer to it as a ‘physical dimension’. — Possibility
Most physicists would place the Fifth Dimension under the heading of Super-natural forces. I'm more sympathetic to your implication, but I call such "forces" meta-physical.
Can you give me a link to that third definition of Physics? I don't find it with a quick search. Here's the Google definitions of "Physical", which corresponds to how I use the term.
1. relating to the body as opposed to the mind.
2. relating to things perceived through the senses as opposed to the mind; tangible or concrete.
[ Note : these two definitions don't cover your yes & no interpretation. But the Enformationism thesis goes into great detail to show how those "opposed" concepts are inter-related as different forms of universal Information. ]
Both terms refer to what this fifth dimension is, but neither term alone defines it. — Possibility
Can you summarize your fourth definition, which combines the other two into a single concept? My definition of Information does exactly that.
a difference from empirical reality — Possibility
Which of the Scientific definitions I linked to describe "a difference from empirical reality". The New Age definition, which you rejected early in this thread does try to distinguish a series of non-physical spiritual planes from the measurable dimensions of empirical (physical senses) Science.
Anyway, here's a word of caution from a person who reads Auras for a living :
5th Dimension Nonsense : https://www.rose-rosetree.com/blog/2020 ... s-warning/
New Age Fifth Dimension : https://andreaoneness.com/fifth-dimension/
[ Note : Treats metaphysical Consciousness as-if it is a physical place in space with multiple layers, similar to the ancient notion of seven heavens. Is that metaphor accurate? How do you know? Have you been there . . . physically? Does God live on one of those dimensions? ]
‘spiritual’ dimensions are seen as non-spatial and exclusive, accessible only through certain channels; — Possibility
Interesting! Are you a certified channeler? Do you convey messages from those "exclusive" planes to those of us stuck here on this mundane plane? Mystics have written dozens of books to describe their experiences in those spiritual planes or states. Can you give me an example of one of your extra-dimensional experiences? Are they similar to out-of-body experiences? ]
Those whose theories seem to approach a similar idea I have already mentioned, including Deacon (from what I’ve read so far). — Possibility
I've read Deacon's Incomplete Nature twice, and several related books, but I don't remember any references to higher "dimensions" or "planes". I just checked, and those terms are not in the index. But the word "information" occurs in the index many times. Can you quote a reference relevant to our discussion?
Phil forum : Off-topic -- The Fifth Dimension
Re: Theory of Information
First of all, I would appreciate if you would stop the passive-aggressive self-deprecation. — Possibility
I am trying to be defend my thesis without being offensive. Is that what you call "passive-aggressive"? You and Praxis have been attacking my thesis from the beginning, even as you admit to knowing little or nothing about it. And you have offered no positive alternatives, except vague "maybes" and oxymorons such as "both & neither" .
Based on his questions, Praxis doesn't even understand your theory any more than I do. Apparently the notion of sublime planes of existence is more attractive to him than the idea that mundane Information is the essence of Reality and Ideality. You have been rather gentle with your deprecations, but Praxis has simply been trolling. So, if it's alright with you, I will continue to respond to the put-downs without reacting in kind.
I am trying to be defend my thesis without being offensive. Is that what you call "passive-aggressive"? You and Praxis have been attacking my thesis from the beginning, even as you admit to knowing little or nothing about it. And you have offered no positive alternatives, except vague "maybes" and oxymorons such as "both & neither" .
Based on his questions, Praxis doesn't even understand your theory any more than I do. Apparently the notion of sublime planes of existence is more attractive to him than the idea that mundane Information is the essence of Reality and Ideality. You have been rather gentle with your deprecations, but Praxis has simply been trolling. So, if it's alright with you, I will continue to respond to the put-downs without reacting in kind.
Re: Theory of Information
In my opinion, you are drawing a line that doesn't exist. Physics is just as concerned withconceiving as with perceiving. Is spacetime a metaphysical conception? — jgill
Yes. Physics does both empirical perceiving and theoretical conceiving. But the latter is more like philosophical mind-work, than empirical sense-work. I am simply making the same meaningful distinction as earlier philosophers made, between Pragmatic Science and Theoretical Philosophy. Theoretical Physics is non-empirical. Someone once asked Einstein where his lab was, and he held-up a pencil.
Aquinas Metaphysics : There are thus correspondingly two distinct classes of science: speculative science and practical science.
https://www.iep.utm.edu/aq-meta/
Theoretical vs Empirical Science : https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/th ... ice-versa/
Yes. Space-time is meta-physical, in the sense the we imagine those "dimensions", but don't sense them physically. I'm drawing a line between empirical Physics (natural philosophy) and theoretical Science (metaphysical philosophy). The latter is actually speculative Philosophy. Dark Matter and Dark Energy and String Theory are current areas of research that have no sensible matter to measure, and depend on mathematical, not empirical, data..
Space & Time : In 1781, Immanuel Kant published the Critique of Pure Reason, one of the most influential works in the history of the philosophy of space and time. He describes time as an a priori notion that, together with other a priori notions such as space, allows us to comprehend sense experience. Kant holds that neither space nor time are substance, entities in themselves, or learned by experience; he holds, rather, that both are elements of a systematic framework we use to structure our experience.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosoph ... e_and_time
Yes. Physics does both empirical perceiving and theoretical conceiving. But the latter is more like philosophical mind-work, than empirical sense-work. I am simply making the same meaningful distinction as earlier philosophers made, between Pragmatic Science and Theoretical Philosophy. Theoretical Physics is non-empirical. Someone once asked Einstein where his lab was, and he held-up a pencil.
Aquinas Metaphysics : There are thus correspondingly two distinct classes of science: speculative science and practical science.
https://www.iep.utm.edu/aq-meta/
Theoretical vs Empirical Science : https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/th ... ice-versa/
Yes. Space-time is meta-physical, in the sense the we imagine those "dimensions", but don't sense them physically. I'm drawing a line between empirical Physics (natural philosophy) and theoretical Science (metaphysical philosophy). The latter is actually speculative Philosophy. Dark Matter and Dark Energy and String Theory are current areas of research that have no sensible matter to measure, and depend on mathematical, not empirical, data..
Space & Time : In 1781, Immanuel Kant published the Critique of Pure Reason, one of the most influential works in the history of the philosophy of space and time. He describes time as an a priori notion that, together with other a priori notions such as space, allows us to comprehend sense experience. Kant holds that neither space nor time are substance, entities in themselves, or learned by experience; he holds, rather, that both are elements of a systematic framework we use to structure our experience.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosoph ... e_and_time
Re: Theory of Information
I’m wondering if you’re familiar with this guy. — Pfhorrest
The Information Philosopher
Yes. I often link to his site for technical details that are way above my knowledge level. His worldview seems to be similar to mine, in that "Immaterial information is perhaps as close as a physical or biological scientist can get to the idea of a soul or spirit that departs the body at death." And that "Metaphysics based on information philosophy can answer some of the most profound questions about the fundamental origins, nature, and evolution of reality".
. But, since I haven't read all of his extensive website, I can't be sure that we agree on all points. I doubt that he is familiar with my website. However, I may eventually communicate directly with him.
He gives some background on his credentials on this page : http://www.informationphilosopher.com/about/
The Information Philosopher
Yes. I often link to his site for technical details that are way above my knowledge level. His worldview seems to be similar to mine, in that "Immaterial information is perhaps as close as a physical or biological scientist can get to the idea of a soul or spirit that departs the body at death." And that "Metaphysics based on information philosophy can answer some of the most profound questions about the fundamental origins, nature, and evolution of reality".
. But, since I haven't read all of his extensive website, I can't be sure that we agree on all points. I doubt that he is familiar with my website. However, I may eventually communicate directly with him.
He gives some background on his credentials on this page : http://www.informationphilosopher.com/about/
Re: Theory of Information
Granted I've been unnecessarily rude. I've gained interest in the topic and would like to be more cooperative. You cannot fault Possibility's conduct, by the way, which has been remarkable by any standard. — praxis
That's OK. I'm used to rudeness on anonymous internet forums. You can continue to "cooperate" by challenging my ideas, and giving me a chance to respond. I don't expect to convince you that my personal worldview is more up-to-date than the current paradigm of Materialism, or more scientific than New Age Spiritualism. But the feedback helps me to see how others (mis-) interpret my ideas. It helps me continue to refine the theory in my blog.
I began to dialog with Possibility because it's possible (pun intended) that a multi-dimensional cosmology could have some bearing on my own unorthodox understanding of reality. Unfortunately, it has been frustrating, because P doesn't directly answer my questions asking for empirical evidence or logical reasoning. I suspect that part of the communication problem is that my vocabulary is largely Modern and Post-postmodern, instead of the Postmodern lingo of the 80s & 90s. Although I can see that postmodern philosophers made legitimate criticisms of Modernism, I can't follow their oblique and circuitous (non-linear) arguments.
So, I still don't know how the hypothetical Fifth Dimension might fit into my theory of Information. I don't understand how it differs from the spiritual New Age notion, or from the mathematical universe of String Theorists. My Enformationism thesis has a lot to say about space-time, but doesn't mention higher or multiple dimensions. That's because I have no personal experience with anything beyond the mundane dimensions of apparent reality.
That's OK. I'm used to rudeness on anonymous internet forums. You can continue to "cooperate" by challenging my ideas, and giving me a chance to respond. I don't expect to convince you that my personal worldview is more up-to-date than the current paradigm of Materialism, or more scientific than New Age Spiritualism. But the feedback helps me to see how others (mis-) interpret my ideas. It helps me continue to refine the theory in my blog.
I began to dialog with Possibility because it's possible (pun intended) that a multi-dimensional cosmology could have some bearing on my own unorthodox understanding of reality. Unfortunately, it has been frustrating, because P doesn't directly answer my questions asking for empirical evidence or logical reasoning. I suspect that part of the communication problem is that my vocabulary is largely Modern and Post-postmodern, instead of the Postmodern lingo of the 80s & 90s. Although I can see that postmodern philosophers made legitimate criticisms of Modernism, I can't follow their oblique and circuitous (non-linear) arguments.
So, I still don't know how the hypothetical Fifth Dimension might fit into my theory of Information. I don't understand how it differs from the spiritual New Age notion, or from the mathematical universe of String Theorists. My Enformationism thesis has a lot to say about space-time, but doesn't mention higher or multiple dimensions. That's because I have no personal experience with anything beyond the mundane dimensions of apparent reality.
Re: Theory of Information
Might want to check who you’re speaking to before you attack... — Possibility
What do you mean? I copied the quote from your post. The "passive-aggressive" crack sounded more like Praxis, but I was replying to your put-down. Did you interpret my calm measured defense as a counter-attack? BTW. I included "you and Praxis" in my response.
Your ‘thesis’ is a belief system at this stage, and as such is not ready to defend, I’m afraid. You don’t (and refuse to) understand the theories you prop it up with, and instead take every criticism as a personal attack. My theory is far from ready to defend either, by the way, so I certainly don’t mean that as an unfavourable comparison. — Possibility
Of course. A person's worldview is a belief system, not a scientific theory. Do you understand the theories I "prop it up with"? [ I prefer the more positive term : "support" ] If not, how do you know I don't understand them? What scientific theories do you support your theory with? [ I've repeatedly asked for references ] I also prefer the more philosophical terminology of "challenge and response" instead of "criticism and personal attack" Your mis-interpretation of my intention may say more about you, than about me.
Anyway, since we are both arguing about little-known belief systems, can we at least find some common ground? A simple summary of your theory of Fifth Dimension would be a good start. Here's what The Fifth Dimension means to me :
https://youtu.be/gebehJw946I
https://youtu.be/VlrQ-bOzpkQ
What do you mean? I copied the quote from your post. The "passive-aggressive" crack sounded more like Praxis, but I was replying to your put-down. Did you interpret my calm measured defense as a counter-attack? BTW. I included "you and Praxis" in my response.
Your ‘thesis’ is a belief system at this stage, and as such is not ready to defend, I’m afraid. You don’t (and refuse to) understand the theories you prop it up with, and instead take every criticism as a personal attack. My theory is far from ready to defend either, by the way, so I certainly don’t mean that as an unfavourable comparison. — Possibility
Of course. A person's worldview is a belief system, not a scientific theory. Do you understand the theories I "prop it up with"? [ I prefer the more positive term : "support" ] If not, how do you know I don't understand them? What scientific theories do you support your theory with? [ I've repeatedly asked for references ] I also prefer the more philosophical terminology of "challenge and response" instead of "criticism and personal attack" Your mis-interpretation of my intention may say more about you, than about me.
Anyway, since we are both arguing about little-known belief systems, can we at least find some common ground? A simple summary of your theory of Fifth Dimension would be a good start. Here's what The Fifth Dimension means to me :
https://youtu.be/gebehJw946I
https://youtu.be/VlrQ-bOzpkQ
Re: Theory of Information
I've been meaning to ask, and I keep forgetting so I'll ask now, does your theory consider any old- school Hermetic philosophy/cosmology? ( It seems to dovetail a bit with PAP/Panentheism. .) — 3017amen
My Enformationism thesis has nothing to do with mystical occult esoteric Hermetic traditions. I prefer scientific exoteric empirical knowledge. Unfortunately, the most common mis-construal is that it's a New Age philosophy. It is instead intended to be a 21st century alternative to ancient mystery religions, including Christianity, and to the ancient philosophy of Materialism, which has been obsolete since the advent of Quantum Theory.
The implicit cosmology does have some affinity with PanEnDeism, in that it assumes a cosmic Mind of some kind to provide the Generic Information that we interpret as both Matter (objects) and Mind (subjects). It's a Deist worldview (not a religion) in the sense that the Enformer or Programmer or G*D presumably "designed" the Program (evolution), but does not interfere with its automatic execution. In other words, no miracles, no magic, no occult mysteries. The theory is Spiritual only in the sense that what used to be called "Spirit", and is now called "Energy", is actually what we now know as "Information".
Paul Davies is a primary source of ideas about Information as the fundamental element of the cosmos. He hints at Panpsychism, but tries to avoid falling into Mysticism. My worldview may also be similar to Wheelers' PAP, but I was not aware of that concept, as I was following the lead of a quantum scientist, who stated the obvious : that a virtual particle of matter (in a state of super-position) is un-actualized immaterial mathematical information. In other words, matter and energy are merely states (or forms) of essential Information. I also acknowledge a debt to Spinoza, and his theory of Universal Substance, which I take to be Generic Information : the power to Enform, to Create, So some kind of Creator is logically necessary. But since I have no direct experience with that hypothetical entity, for me, G*D is merely a philosophical Axiom.
My Enformationism thesis has nothing to do with mystical occult esoteric Hermetic traditions. I prefer scientific exoteric empirical knowledge. Unfortunately, the most common mis-construal is that it's a New Age philosophy. It is instead intended to be a 21st century alternative to ancient mystery religions, including Christianity, and to the ancient philosophy of Materialism, which has been obsolete since the advent of Quantum Theory.
The implicit cosmology does have some affinity with PanEnDeism, in that it assumes a cosmic Mind of some kind to provide the Generic Information that we interpret as both Matter (objects) and Mind (subjects). It's a Deist worldview (not a religion) in the sense that the Enformer or Programmer or G*D presumably "designed" the Program (evolution), but does not interfere with its automatic execution. In other words, no miracles, no magic, no occult mysteries. The theory is Spiritual only in the sense that what used to be called "Spirit", and is now called "Energy", is actually what we now know as "Information".
Paul Davies is a primary source of ideas about Information as the fundamental element of the cosmos. He hints at Panpsychism, but tries to avoid falling into Mysticism. My worldview may also be similar to Wheelers' PAP, but I was not aware of that concept, as I was following the lead of a quantum scientist, who stated the obvious : that a virtual particle of matter (in a state of super-position) is un-actualized immaterial mathematical information. In other words, matter and energy are merely states (or forms) of essential Information. I also acknowledge a debt to Spinoza, and his theory of Universal Substance, which I take to be Generic Information : the power to Enform, to Create, So some kind of Creator is logically necessary. But since I have no direct experience with that hypothetical entity, for me, G*D is merely a philosophical Axiom.
Re: Theory of Information
Another suggestion that a Black Hole might be a portal to another galaxy, civilization, dimension, etc. etc. The funny thing is, apparently when you enter, you can't get out : — 3017amen
The notion of Black Holes was a godsend for sci-fi authors. Like the Warp Drive of Star Trek it allows us to fantasize about escaping the downer limitations of reality. I don't take up much time speculating on the infinite possibilities of a tunnel to another universe. I leave that job to more imaginative people. Black Holes are like Dark Matter, and Dark Energy, in that they reveal more about our ignorance, than of our knowledge of cosmic science. Imagination fill holes in knowledge with maybes.
The notion of Black Holes was a godsend for sci-fi authors. Like the Warp Drive of Star Trek it allows us to fantasize about escaping the downer limitations of reality. I don't take up much time speculating on the infinite possibilities of a tunnel to another universe. I leave that job to more imaginative people. Black Holes are like Dark Matter, and Dark Energy, in that they reveal more about our ignorance, than of our knowledge of cosmic science. Imagination fill holes in knowledge with maybes.
Re: Theory of Information
Are there any absolute's in your theory (s)? — 3017amen
The only absolute in my thesis is the axiomatic BEING from which all finite & relative beings are created. This is Aquinas' Necessary Being. Everything in the space-time world is contingent.
BEING :
In my own theorizing there is one universal principle that subsumes all others, including Consciousness : essential Existence. Among those philosophical musings, I refer to the "unit of existence" with the absolute singular term "BEING" as contrasted with the plurality of contingent "beings" and things and properties. By BEING I mean the ultimate “ground of being”, which is simply the power to exist, and the power to create beings.
http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page10.html
Necessary Being : https://philosophy.lander.edu/intro/necessity.shtml
The only absolute in my thesis is the axiomatic BEING from which all finite & relative beings are created. This is Aquinas' Necessary Being. Everything in the space-time world is contingent.
BEING :
In my own theorizing there is one universal principle that subsumes all others, including Consciousness : essential Existence. Among those philosophical musings, I refer to the "unit of existence" with the absolute singular term "BEING" as contrasted with the plurality of contingent "beings" and things and properties. By BEING I mean the ultimate “ground of being”, which is simply the power to exist, and the power to create beings.
http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page10.html
Necessary Being : https://philosophy.lander.edu/intro/necessity.shtml
Re: Theory of Information
I'm sure it would help if you familiarized yourself with: Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience — praxis
I scanned the article, but it doesn't say anything about higher dimensions. I assume you are implying that we know those occult planes, not by outward physical senses, but by inwardly directed intuitive feelings. Do you "feel" those dimensions? What do they feel like? How do they affect you?
I have an internal mental model of the universe; my reality. It's intuitive & instinctive, and guides my emotions. But I've never felt any extra dimensions. Do I need to open my Third Eye?
I scanned the article, but it doesn't say anything about higher dimensions. I assume you are implying that we know those occult planes, not by outward physical senses, but by inwardly directed intuitive feelings. Do you "feel" those dimensions? What do they feel like? How do they affect you?
I have an internal mental model of the universe; my reality. It's intuitive & instinctive, and guides my emotions. But I've never felt any extra dimensions. Do I need to open my Third Eye?
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 40 guests