TPF : Anaxagoras -- Creative Principle

A place for discussion of ideas presented in the BothAndBlog, or relevant to the Enformationism thesis.
User avatar
Gnomon
Site Admin
Posts: 3287
Joined: Thu Sep 14, 2017 7:07 pm

Re: TPF : Anaxagoras -- Creative Principle

Post by Gnomon » Sun Oct 25, 2020 6:53 pm

But, for the purposes of Science, Chance is the causal power of Nature, not some spooky fickle force like Fate. — Gnomon
This is not true at all. — Metaphysician Undercover

I should clarify my statement to include "Natural Selection", which is the complement to "Random Chance" as the Cause of Natural Evolutionary Change. By itself, randomness is destructive, so you are correct to say my shorthand assertion is not true. Yet, combined with Selection, Chance can be creative. Moreover, so-called "Natural Selection" covertly implies a Selector, or Intender, or Creative Agent, who created the program of progressive evolutionary change.

Since most scientists deny the necessity for a First Cause of the subsequent sequence of natural events, they put the emphasis on Randomness as the creative power behind the upward arc of Evolution. But that doesn't make sense to me. So I assume that Nature functions like a computer program, which was designed to reach some ultimate solution via a heuristic searching algorithm. I don't know what that teleological goal is, but increasing Intelligence seems to be a stepping stone on the path to the Big Finale. Will the output of the program be an ideal world?? Maybe; maybe not. :cool:

Natural Selection Algorithm
: There is a form of evolution, called a genetic algorithm, that takes place in a computer
https://go.gale.com/ps/anonymous?id=GAL ... =AONE&sw=w

PS__What I refer to as "The Programmer", may be a modern term for Anaxagoras' notion of the rational power of Logos, which causes dumb matter to evolve into thinking beings.

User avatar
Gnomon
Site Admin
Posts: 3287
Joined: Thu Sep 14, 2017 7:07 pm

Re: TPF : Anaxagoras -- Creative Principle

Post by Gnomon » Sun Oct 25, 2020 6:57 pm

I think all algorithm's are strange loops and are as such faulty — Gregory

By "faulty" do you mean imperfect? One essential "imperfection" in the evolutionary program is that it may permit self-reference. Which allows causal feedback loops. But that apparent "fault" may be the secret to evolving intelligent beings from dumb matter : the ability to learn from experience and feed that information back into the ongoing process. :nerd:


The Baldwin effect : . . . . in evolutionary developmental biology literature as a scenario in which a character or trait change occurring in an organism as a result of its interaction with its environment becomes gradually assimilated into its developmental genetic or epigenetic repertoire.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baldwin_effect

Strange loops in learning and evolution : Scientific theories typically make sense of phenomena at a given level of explanation. Occasionally, phenomena that seem to belong to one level unexpectedly influence an entirely different one. These interactions are strange loops.
https://homes.luddy.indiana.edu/rocha/p ... wiles.html

User avatar
Gnomon
Site Admin
Posts: 3287
Joined: Thu Sep 14, 2017 7:07 pm

Re: TPF : Anaxagoras -- Creative Principle

Post by Gnomon » Sun Oct 25, 2020 7:01 pm

In the regular uncapitalized natural selection, it is the 'selection' that is the scientific alternate to ID, meaning, too, that evolution doesn't work by chance, which is the same as you said about chance not being able to drive it. — PoeticUniverse

Yes. I emphasized "Natural" selection, because scientists, and many philosophers, are uncomfortable with the idea of "Super-natural" selection. But then, who or what programmed the rules for Selection Criteria into the the evolutionary algorithm? As I said before, randomness alone is destructive, so we must somehow account for the creative powers of our universe. Science says "Chance did it", while Religion says "God did it". But, my alternative to Intelligent Design is Intelligent Evolution, imagined as an information processing computer program. But even that begs the question of a Programmer.

For many years I was agnostic about the supernatural powers that were taken for granted in my religious raising. But as I matured, and began to study philosophical concepts, in addition to scientific theories, I began to realize that some kind of Pre-Natural First Cause is a necessary assumption. And since Evolution now seems to be equivalent to a computer program, I can't deny the implications for a Programmer. So, in my current worldview, this world is a combination of Chaos (randomness) and Cosmos (organization). "Chaos" is imagined as an infinite source of Un-Actualized Potential (possibilities), while "Cosmos" plays the role of the Intender or Selector or Logos or Craftsman, who Chooses which possibility to actualize.

I'm still agnostic about the exact "nature" of a Pre-Natural First Cause. But, even a material Multiverse would have to possess some god-like powers in order to create a world of random atoms, swirling in the void, from which Life & Mind, and accelerating human Culture emerged. :cool:

Pre-Natural : before the Big Bang

Intelligent Evolution : http://bothandblog5.enformationism.info/page2.html

Designed To Evolve : http://bothandblog5.enformationism.info/page8.html

Atheist First Cause : http://commonsenseatheism.com/?p=835

PS__I apologize for all the capitals. It's just my little quirk for stressing certain words that might otherwise be overlooked (due to preconceptions) on the way to extracting the meaning of a sentence.

User avatar
Gnomon
Site Admin
Posts: 3287
Joined: Thu Sep 14, 2017 7:07 pm

Re: TPF : Anaxagoras -- Creative Principle

Post by Gnomon » Sun Oct 25, 2020 7:04 pm

Yes, I think you have answered the question in the next post. Chance is not actually a cause at all, in evolution, natural selection is the cause. — Metaphysician Undercover

I still view Randomness as a necessary source of novelty, which supplies open possibilities, for Selection to choose from.

"Chance" is the word that we use to describe the situation when we apprehend no particular reason for one outcome or another. — Metaphysician Undercover

That's where we differ. "Chance" also means Opportunity. Choice may have its reasons, but Chance supplies the substance to be rationalized --- the objects to be ordered.

You demonstrate a logical intuition, to say that this does not make sense to you. — Metaphysician Undercover

Yes. But Choice (the power to choose) without a Menu (options) is impotent.

PS__That description of Evolution as a Menu of options for thinking beings to choose from, may mean that humans have Freewill, but that our choices are limited to those that Serendipity presents. In other words, we can't choose our choices. :cool:

User avatar
Gnomon
Site Admin
Posts: 3287
Joined: Thu Sep 14, 2017 7:07 pm

Re: TPF : Anaxagoras -- Creative Principle

Post by Gnomon » Sun Oct 25, 2020 7:06 pm

However, Enformation seems to me to be either pantheistic or panentheistic digitalism, as if pixels have replaced string theory — Gregory

Enformationism
does imply PanEnTheism. Yet it's not about pixels, but Bits of meaning. :smile:

Bit : the smallest increment of information, of meaning

It from Bit : https://www.brainpickings.org/2016/09/0 ... t-wheeler/

User avatar
Gnomon
Site Admin
Posts: 3287
Joined: Thu Sep 14, 2017 7:07 pm

Re: TPF : Anaxagoras -- Creative Principle

Post by Gnomon » Sun Oct 25, 2020 7:07 pm

If we found that instead of strings, there were tiny photons that rule the world, I think the German idealists and romantics would sing from their graves — Gregory

What would the Idealists think about a world composed of Bits of Information? Maybe all those zillions of bits add up to one really big Idea. :joke:

User avatar
Gnomon
Site Admin
Posts: 3287
Joined: Thu Sep 14, 2017 7:07 pm

Re: TPF : Anaxagoras -- Creative Principle

Post by Gnomon » Sun Oct 25, 2020 7:08 pm

You are obviously a process philosopher — Gregory

My Enformationism thesis does have some parallels with Whitehead's Process Philosophy. Unfortunately, I had difficulty following his arguments in Process and Reality. Besides, my theory was pretty well developed before I heard of Whitehead.

My worldview is not a Christian theology in any sense. And I find The Physics of Immortality, by Tipler, to be even more far-out than my own out-of-this-world speculations. I am agnostic about immortality. :cool:

User avatar
Gnomon
Site Admin
Posts: 3287
Joined: Thu Sep 14, 2017 7:07 pm

Re: TPF : Anaxagoras -- Creative Principle

Post by Gnomon » Sun Oct 25, 2020 7:10 pm

The source of novelty need not be randomness, it only needs to be possibility. — Metaphysician Undercover

Yes. That infinite source of Possibilities is what I call BEING (General Potential; the power to be). My imaginary creation scenario has Chaos (random possibilities) merging with Logos (Reason & Order) to create Cosmos (an organized process of becoming).

You use it as somewhat synonymous with possibility.
— Metaphysician Undercover

Yes. I suspect that many scientists tend to think of pure Randomness (Chance) as the source of creativity in Evolution. But, without the organizing choices of Natural Selection, random changes (mutations) would go nowhere. So it's the combination of Chance & Choice that makes the world go around, so to speak. Consequently, we need to figure out how the Darwinian process of Evolution came to have the power to choose its direction into the future. That's why the notion of a Cosmic Program appeals to me. :smile:

User avatar
Gnomon
Site Admin
Posts: 3287
Joined: Thu Sep 14, 2017 7:07 pm

Re: TPF : Anaxagoras -- Creative Principle

Post by Gnomon » Sun Oct 25, 2020 7:16 pm

Here is a specific audio video you might find quaint. Long before computers.. — Gregory

Quaint indeed! Berkeley's Idealism was, in part, a justification of Christian Catholic theology --- yet, influenced by ancient Pagan Platonism. My own thesis is similar to Plato's Idealism, but it is grounded in the strange conclusions of modern Quantum theory, that the foundation of material reality is immaterial. As one physicist exclaimed, "A quantum particle is nothing but Information"! He was referring to the frustrating fact that the localized particles they hope to study tend to vanish into a fog of non-local mathematical waveforms --- neither here nor there, but floating aimlessly in a Field of probabilistic Potential.

However, most scientists are not comfortable with the notion that the foggy foundation of our material world is actually mathematical, instead of material. Yet, since Mathematics has no physical properties, but only mental qualities (ratios, proportions, equalities), I --- along with physicists Tegmark, Davies & Lloyd --- conclude that the world is essentially mental. But then, the question arises, whose mind : the local observer or the universal observer? Hence the poem about the tree in the quad.

Personally, I don't go to the extreme of Tegmark's Mathematical Universe. And I don't dismiss "immediate experience as unreal". Instead, I think that, for all practical purposes, the mental picture of the world, in the mind of each observer, is as real as it gets. However, for impractical philosophical purposes, we can imagine what our world would look like to an observer outside of reality. It might look something like Plato's Ideal world of abstract potential Forms. Now, isn't that Quaint? :joke:


Quaint : having an old-fashioned attractiveness or charm; oddly picturesque: a quaint old house. strange, peculiar, or unusual in an interesting, pleasing, or amusing way

Mathematical Universe : the physical universe is not merely described by mathematics, but is mathematics (specifically, a mathematical structure). Mathematical existence equals physical existence, and all structures that exist mathematically exist physically as well. Observers, including humans, are "self-aware substructures (SASs)". In any mathematical structure complex enough to contain such substructures, they "will subjectively perceive themselves as existing in a physically 'real' world".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathemati ... hypothesis

Mathematics & Reality : The easiest way to see what is wrong with this extreme mathematical realism is to examine actual examples of mathematical physics. . . .
The challenge of metaphysics must be to see how these different kinds of truths relate. This does not mean either on the one hand siding with the deliverances of immediate experience against those of mathematical physics, or on the other hand dismissing immediate experience as unreal.

https://philosophynow.org/issues/102/Ma ... nd_Reality

User avatar
Gnomon
Site Admin
Posts: 3287
Joined: Thu Sep 14, 2017 7:07 pm

Re: TPF : Anaxagoras -- Creative Principle

Post by Gnomon » Sun Oct 25, 2020 7:21 pm

Are you saying THE WORLD is corporeal consciousness or simply information? We might not be anything — Gregory

No, I'm suggesting that since reductive Quantum scientists have sliced the material world down to nothingness, and never found the holy grail of a final foundational uncuttable Atom (Leucippus), the understructure of reality may not be made of solid Matter. That immaterial bedrock of reality now appears to be the same stuff that creates ideas in your mind, and calculates mathematical answers in computers. Information may superficially appear to "not be anything", but it is the substance of everything.

Raw Information is not corporeal, but it is capable of becoming solid bodies. To wit : Quantum Fields are described as pure mathematical Potential (virtual particles) that are capable of becoming Actual (physical particles). Mathematics consists of Ratios & Relationships, and all Meaning in a Rational Mind is likewise relational Information.

What options to be have of interpreting Enformation apart from mathematics? Plato tried to refute this by saying that the question "is 4 big?" has no answer and therefore there is something prior to math — Gregory

What color is the number Four? No answer?
Yes, there is something "prior to math" : the unformed cosmic Potential that I call BEING . . . or G*D, if you prefer.

If you are a high level mathematician, go ahead and interpret Enformationism. I'm not. So I resort to carefully chosen words, and even some coinages of my own. Tegmark is not alone in his interpretation of Reality as ultimately Mathematical, hence, for all practical purposes : Mental. My thesis came to a similar conclusion from philosophical reasoning, rather than abstruse mathematical calculations. But they are both in agreement that Information is the best current candidate for the long sought invisible & indivisible Atom. :smile:

Mathematical Universe hypothesis : In physics and cosmology, the mathematical universe hypothesis (MUH), also known as the ultimate ensemble theory, is a speculative "theory of everything" (TOE) proposed by cosmologist Max Tegmark
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathemati ... hypothesis

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 30 guests