Agnosticism, sensu amplo
Scenario 1 (Threat/Loss)
You're a cop on patrol. There's a unlit, dark room you have to check. There's either an armed burglar or the room's empty and safe. You have a choice - enter with gun drawn or holstered. Prudentia/Sophia would warn you not to take any chances. You pull out your handgun. You must assume that there's an armed and dangerous buglar exists in the dark room.
Scenario 2 (Opportunity/Gain)
You see an empty suitcase lying unattended in a deserted hallway. It looks abandoned (assume it is). Now the suitcase could be empty or it could contain a million dollars (you don't know). What are you to assume in this case? If you assume it's empty and if it is, you're ok and if it does contain $1,000,000 what a pleasant surprise. Suppose you assume there's a million dollars and it's there. Wow! What luck, you're future is secure. Now imagine if you'd assumed that the case contains the money and it was empty. Disappointment of disappointments! You'll be dejected. In the interest of your overall well-being then you must assume that the suitcase is empty i.e. the million dollars doesn't exist.
Scenario 3 (No loss, no gain) [Just to complete the set]
You don't care and so what you assume is immaterial to your health. That's that.
Topics touched upon:
1. Agnosticism (in re God and other issues)
2. Epoché (Is it possible and is it practical?)
3. Theism/Atheism
4. Pascal's Wager
5. Ethics
In essence, how do we/should we deal with doubt and uncertainty, and possibility?
You're a cop on patrol. There's a unlit, dark room you have to check. There's either an armed burglar or the room's empty and safe. You have a choice - enter with gun drawn or holstered. Prudentia/Sophia would warn you not to take any chances. You pull out your handgun. You must assume that there's an armed and dangerous buglar exists in the dark room.
Scenario 2 (Opportunity/Gain)
You see an empty suitcase lying unattended in a deserted hallway. It looks abandoned (assume it is). Now the suitcase could be empty or it could contain a million dollars (you don't know). What are you to assume in this case? If you assume it's empty and if it is, you're ok and if it does contain $1,000,000 what a pleasant surprise. Suppose you assume there's a million dollars and it's there. Wow! What luck, you're future is secure. Now imagine if you'd assumed that the case contains the money and it was empty. Disappointment of disappointments! You'll be dejected. In the interest of your overall well-being then you must assume that the suitcase is empty i.e. the million dollars doesn't exist.
Scenario 3 (No loss, no gain) [Just to complete the set]
You don't care and so what you assume is immaterial to your health. That's that.
Topics touched upon:
1. Agnosticism (in re God and other issues)
2. Epoché (Is it possible and is it practical?)
3. Theism/Atheism
4. Pascal's Wager
5. Ethics
In essence, how do we/should we deal with doubt and uncertainty, and possibility?
Comments (97)
I can see where you are going with this: better to live a Christian life and accept its beliefs, because if there is no god, you lose nothing but if there is a God then you can only gain. Or if you don't follow a god's wishes, you'll end up in Hell.
This breaks down (sorry to say this), because:
1. You don't know what gets you to Hell or to Heaven given there is a judgmental god. If He says "do good and you go to heaven", you can believe it but you'll be in for a great surprize because the god you worship is a liar. (If he is. I don't know, but it is a real possibility.) You say he can't be a liar because he is god. Well, that's the safest thing to be for a liar, because nobody would suspect he is a liar.
2. Your god is not the one to listen to, because he does not exist, but a counter-god exists, (possible? yes!) with diametrically opposite teachings.
3. You will convince nobody, as I have never convinced a god-worshipper of the above. Logic does not trump belief.
Threats, no matter how remote, must be assumed to exist
Opportunities, no matter how attractive, must be assumed not to exist.
God is both an opportunity (heaven) and a threat (hell).
What should be our assumption with regard to the reality of God? It leads to a contradiction!
Quoting god must be atheist
Why argue (your point) then? Also, I'm making the effort to ground God in reason albeit in a way more appropriate for a crook.
In scenario 2, the suitcase may contain a bomb. That is remotely possible and must be assumed to exist. It may contain Satan himself who will grab you. eTc.
Quoting Agent Smith
If I go to school, and enroll in University to become a certified public accountant, I must assume that certified public accountants do not exist.
I don't think your assessment is right. Anything can contain a nearly infinite number of threats; and anything can contain a nearly infinite number of opportunities.
You cherry picked the ones to suit your finding; but if you dig deeper, you will see the error in that cherry-picking is the easiest fault in logic to spot.
Can you show me where exactly I picked cherries? :snicker:
No, I can't. If you can't see it already, then there is no amount of explanation in the world that will make you see it. Sorry, I have my limitations of patience, too.
Pyrrhonianism, fallibilism and actualism, respectively.
I have no clue what any of those three keywords mean.
No big deal, just sayin'.
It was a very complicated post and an interesting one. I hope I don't go to far off on tangents. Some thoughts:
The first scenario: gun out or not is a (potentially) emergency moment. It's different from a long term belief because it is a whole different set of skills to always have one's gun out or in. I guess I have similar reaction to scenario 2. What we can do in exceptional moments (or should do) is quite different to long term attitudes and beliefs.
On Pascal's Wager: Pascal actually intended his Wager as one to convince people to continue being Christians, not to become believers. How that affects the ideas in your post I am not sure. But it makes a lot more sense, because I don't think we start to believe from doing cost benefit analyses. Unless it leads to us participating in a religion, say, and participation (long term wagging the dog) leads to belief.
In discussions between (atheists, agnostics and theists), online at least, it often comes down to epistemology and arguments. Whereas in my everyday life it comes down to interest/curiousity/anomolies and long term exploration/participation. The motivational and experiential aspects of what is or might be going on and how these are affected by practices. Could be anything from Buddhist meditation to training as a shaman or joining in rituals
or
lacking interest and not.
Of course what one thinks is likely or possible affects interests, so it's not like there is no reasoning involved or that reasoning does not affect my curiosity/interest. But generally we are talking about long term explorations motivated by experiences or yearnings and the effects of these explorations on experience and belief.
I apologize if this was not really on topic.
:fire:
As is obvious, the skeptic has an important responsibility to fulfill - he provides a public service by sowing the seeds of doubt. Is it? Is it not? Is it both? Is it neither? Nobody knows/can ever know. Uncertainty is the key to ethics! If you're in the dark as to whether karma is real, whether God or hell exists, prudentia (one of the 4 cardinal virtues) would like a good advisor suggest that for own sake we assume God/karma/hell/heaven are real. That turns us into good people even if for ignoble reasons (fear/earning karmic points) only.
Apa??aka (safe bet).
I abandoned the Theistic religion of my childhood long ago. But I was never able to become an assured Atheist, because that theory-of-absence offered no explanation for such philosophical questions as "why is there something instead of nothing?" Apparently, Atheists are not troubled by such ontological or epistemological or existential quandaries. But Agnostics seem to need some closure on universal & general questions. So, my BothAnd philosophy combines Theism & Atheism into Agnosticism. Based on my Enformationism (enforming is creating) worldview, it's obvious that our contingent world is not self-existent. So, logically there should be some kind of First Cause to explain the chain of causation that led to my own contingent existence.
Unfortunately, sans revelation, I have no way of knowing about anything prior to the Big Bang beginning. So, I must admit that I don't know for sure that there is a God. But, just admitting practical ignorance doesn't satisfy the quest for impractical philosophical speculation : not what-is, but what-ought-to-be, logically . Therefore, I have proposed a reasonable god-model that is not Theistic, but also not a tower-of-turtles assumption like Many Worlds and Multiverse speculations. Instead, my hypothetical god-model is what odds-maker Blaise Pascal derisively called "the god of the philosophers". Apparently, he was more comfortable with a god of statistics (Chance). Yet, my own, non-anthro-morphic, non-miraculous First Cause notion is a god only in the broad sense (sensu amplo) of logical necessity. :smile:
Contingent :
[i]1. subject to chance
2. dependent
3. occurring or existing only if (certain circumstances) are the case[/i]
Why are those your only choices? Maybe there's a small child in the room who's about to be greeted with a pointed weapon at his head.
Quoting Hanover
Imagination score: 10/10!
Actually, I didn't reinvent the wheel --- and I didn't find a full-size spare tire in the trunk of my new worldview. Instead, I have merely patched timeworn ancient philosophical wisdom with 21st century knowledge. Specifically, in the squishy Quantum foundation of reality, and in the ubiquity of Causal Information. These are not traditional factors in religious or philosophical arguments. But lots of pragmatic scientists*1 are beginning to see the philosophical implications of those fruitful features of cutting-edge Science.
I didn't go looking for God, but I couldn't ignore the logical arrows pointing toward a creation event in the beginning, and of directional causation in evolution. I'm still not a worshiper of G*D, but I do appreciate the ontological & epistemological closure of the First Cause concept. Plato & Aristotle were not conventionally religious, but even though they knew nothing of a Big Bang beginning, they saw the logical necessity for an outside force to cause Space & Time to emerge from Infinity & Eternity.
Faithful Atheists may still cling to hope for an infinite regress of space-time -- for which there is no evidence -- to provide a reasonable alternative to an act of creation. They have even been imaginative enough to find fabulous workarounds for the emergence of space-time from a dimensionless & timeless Singularity. They seem to find comfort in hypothetical sci-fi scenarios that conveniently ignore the first law of physics, and bypass the inconvenient physical bottleneck a few billion solar-cycles back. Yet, if only our thermodynamic universe can find a way to avoid the inevitable heat-death ahead, it will overcome Entropy and rise to live forever, like a vampire, or like Jesus. Hallelujah!
Those eternal-time schemes -- like Doctor Who and time-traveling Marvel heroes -- provide dramatic fodder for the adolescent imagination. But, personally, I don't find their various evasive tactics to be philosophically believable. So, unlike many religious people today, I assume that this life, and this world, is one & done. But, I'd be happy to be proven wrong in one of infinite parallel-world afterlives. As long as I can remember who I was/am -- and what that round-thing-with-a-hole-in-it is supposed to do. :cool:
*1. See my Enformationism Thesis and BothAnd Blog for references to those wheel-patching scientists. Some may still claim to be Atheists, but others will admit to being Agnostic about the ultimate implications of their non-classical worldviews. Only a few are orthodox Theists.
THE WORLD RESTS ON TIME-TURTLES
. . . . . .ALL THE WAY DOWN . . . . .
Of course, in the absence of defeasible (or abductive) reasoning, the perennial alternative (crutch / fetish) is Woo-of-the-Gaps.
Philosophy, as I understand it, helps to exorcize woo-woo (and also, as Socrates shows, the sophistry which rationalizes woo).
NB: By "woo" I mean 'answers to pseudo-questions'; 'solutions to pseudo-problems'; 'speculations from pseudo-science; and other modes of magical thinking.
Eh, what does that get you? A dated three bedroom with termite issues the last owner got for $135,000 in 1990. We need a new "big" amount of money at this rate.
Quoting 180 Proof
As I've tried to explain in some of my older posts, people, for psychological reasons that I'm not aware of, want an answer to their questions even if they could be downright false (woo of the gaps). It isn't all that bad when you factor in the fact that, at the very least, coherence is valued (highly).
Quoting 180 Proof
Mighty interesrting! Putting the cart before the horse (facts being made to fit theory).
Quoting 180 Proof
If to answer a question one has to resort to woo then perhaps something's wrong with the question itself!
Quoting Count Timothy von Icarus
Apologies, my gedanken experiment didn't take inflation into account!
Yes. That's what I'm doing in the BothAnd Blog. I now take the necessity for a First Cause (Enformer) for granted. Beyond that axiom, I don't concern myself with super-natural matters, such as miracles & magic. Instead, I apply the principles of Quantum uncertainty and Information ubiquity to understanding how the Natural (material) & Cultural (mental) world works : "how G*D . . . runs the universe", as you expressed it. Reductionist & Empirical Science does a good job of revealing the deterministic mechanical workings of Nature. But it has been less successful in understanding the non-linear vagaries of the Quantum Queerness, inextricably entangled with the human Mind, and its cultural extensions.
Did you get the idea that Enformationism excludes modern science? That's what the woo-fighters on this forum assume, due to their prejudice against Metaphysics. But my thesis is built upon two cutting-edge sciences -- Quantum & Information -- that deal with the non-classical underbelly of reality. So, those who are uncomfortable with non-mechanical non-deterministic systems & processes, close their eyes & ears, while chanting the woo-woo mantra to drive away the evil spirits of the mysterious human Mind.
I'm currently reading a science book by Phillip Ball -- former editor at the technical journal Nature. The title of the book is Beyond Weird, and it deals with the natural phenomena that Einstein rejected as "God [nature] playing dice" and as "spooky action at a distance". Since then, pragmatic empirical scientists [see below], have decided not to concern themselves with the weird stuff, but to just "shut-up and calculate". Unfortunately, I'm not a math maven. So, in my waning years, my interests are directed toward the mundane stuff that has occupied philosophers for millennia : not Physics, but Meta-Physics, the non-physical (mental) aspects of our material world.
I assume that "weird" Metaphysics is what you are suggesting is a waste of time. The woo-birds treat that topic as mere Mysticism. And indeed, the pioneers of Quantum science -- Bohr, Heidegger, Schrodinger, Bohm, etc -- were accused of being mystics, when they suggested that the human mind has some causal effect on matter. So, I'm in good company. Since then, despite Feynman's quip, other scientists have made some progress toward understanding how that natural magic might happen. The key to that perception is the connection between Quantum Physics and Mental Information. Which is the insight that led me to the -- seemingly "weird" but actually natural & normal -- Enformationism thesis. :nerd:
Quantum Weirdness :
Phillip Ball introduces his topic by clarifying the murkiness of Quantum Physics : what has emerged most strongly from this work on the fundamental aspects of quantum theory is that it is not a theory about particles and waves, discreteness or uncertainty or fuzziness. It is a theory about information. [My emphasis] He then admits that quantum information brings its own problems, because it raises questions about what this information is . . . because information is not a thing that you can point to . . . Consequently, his book is more about Philosophy than Science. Ironically, the exotic mathematics of Quantum Theory has become the foundation of 21st century science, even though its implications cannot be understood intuitively, or in terms of 19th century Classical Physics. Hence the so-called weirdness of QT has remained as queer as ever over the last century.
BothAnd Blog, post 125
Nature :
First published in 1869, Nature is the world's leading multidisciplinary science journal.
https://www.nature.com
Quantum Mysticism :
https://phys.org/news/2009-06-quantum-mysticism-forgotten.html
DON'T TRY TO UNDERSTAND QM
JUST SHUT-UP AND CALCULATE
Anyway, a question. If mind has anything to do with the quantum world, why on Earth is quantum physics so hard to understand? That's like being afflicted by Alzheimer's - failing to recognize one's own self while scoring 10/10 recognizing others. Odd, wouldn't you say?
It doesn't. :point:
Quoting Gnomon
This doesn't makes any sense since quantum uncertainty necessitates the absence of "a First Cause". (E.g. the Hartle-Hawking No Boundary conjecture.)
"Heidegger?" Really? :lol:
Gnomon might wanna respond. I'll wait.
The core idea of Enformationism is simple : everything in the world is a form of Generic Information. That's illustrated most succinctly in Einstein's formula E = MC^2. Energy is invisible & intangible*1, so we know it only by its effects on Matter. Hence, Energy is the physical power-to-enform (to cause changes in material form). But the less well known application of the power-to-enform is the metaphysical ability to change minds. I won't go into that right now, but it's covered in the blog.
Anyway, some related 21st century scientific concepts are a> the Mathematical Universe theory*2, and b> the Computer Universe theory*3. In both of those hypothetical worldviews, the basic substance of reality is Information, not Matter or Energy. And Evolution is really processing (computing) Information, not Matter. The BothAnd (yin/yang) philosophy is a corollary of the Enformationism worldview. If you are interested in how they are interrelated, I can give you links to the blog. All you have to do is ask, and you shall receive. :smile:
*1. Why is energy invisible? :
Energy is invisible yet it's all around us and throughout the universe. We use it every day, we have it in our bodies and some of it comes from other planets! Energy can never be made or destroyed, but its form can be converted and changed.
https://ypte.org.uk/factsheets/energy/types-of-energy
*2. Mathematical universe hypothesis :
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathematical_universe_hypothesis
*3. Is the Universe Actually a Giant Quantum Computer? :
http://cmsw.mit.edu/angles/2015/is-the-universe-actually-a-giant-quantum-computer/
Quoting Agent Smith
Some physicists routinely use Quantum Theory in their work, even though they find it philosophically absurd. But my response is that QT is not "absurd", just coy (shy ; reluctant to reveal information). Pragmatic scientists don't understand QT, because they are trying to comprehend the math from a materialistic perspective. In his book, Quantum Weirdness, Phillip Ball informs us that "it is not a theory about particles and waves, discreteness or fuzziness. It is a theory about information". In a YouTube video, he says "Quantum Mechanics Isnt Weird, Were Just Too Big". So, if you want to grasp the meaning of the quantum foundation of the world, you'll need to look at it from an Information-Centric perspective, where abstract information is the focal point. :nerd:
Quantum Mechanics Isnt Weird :
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HaqwlJtrakw
Quoting Agent Smith
I no longer respond to those who think "boo, hiss" is a philosophical argument. But I'll let you decide if his assertion is plausible : that the "no [physical] boundary conjecture"*4 eliminates the philosophical (logical) necessity for a First Cause. When I speak of a pre-big-bang Causal Agency, I'm not talking about anything physical or material ; but about an Enforming Mind. If you don't believe in Metaphysical (non-physical) Minds, the idea of a primordial Timeless Mind will seem absurd. :cool:
Hartle-Hawking Conjecture :
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hartle%E2%80%93Hawking_state
*4. A sphere has no geometric point-of-beginning, and no final boundary. But, if it exists in reality, even a sphere must have an existential point-of-being.
:smirk:
Quoting Gnomon
So a non-physical / im-material "cause" of physical / material processes, yes (i.e. woo-of-the gaps)?
corollaries:
How does your "Meta-physics" trump physics' conservation laws (e.g. Newton's 3rd law of motion)?
How have you solved the causal interaction problem (re: substance dualism)?
With respect to "Causal Agency", what non-trivially differentiates "Enformationism" from creationism / intelligent design?
Are you familiar with the Enlightenment era philosophy of Deism? They were Agnostic about the G*D of Theism, specifically Judeo-Christianity, but they continued to accept the logical necessity for a First Cause of some unspecified kind. So, they doubted the existence of the Bible God, and were uncertain of the characteristics of the rationally revealed "G*D of the philosophers". Yet, they dealt with their lack of empirical evidence, by trusting in their own reasoning ability. Ironically, the Faith religions advise us to doubt our own ability to make sense of the world, and to trust some ancient prophets & scribes to tell us what to believe. If it comes down to Faith vs Reason, which are you more likely to trust? :halo:
Deism Beyond Reason :
In his respectful critique of Deism, he makes one telling observation : "Most deists I know do believe in more (about God) than what natural, unaided reason can discover." Although Reason is their raison d'etre, Deists cannot deny that some of their beliefs and hopes are not derived from pure Reason, but from reason supplemented with hope or speculation. So the original post-enlightenment boast of a rational religion, was true only by comparison to the more dogmatic Faith religions of the day.
http://www.bothandblog.enformationism.info/page69.html
Quoting Agent Smith
If the formal Logic of Pure Reasoning is not amenable with your right-brain Holistic thinking, maybe you can dabble in Practical Reasoning. What difference does it make to you, whether there is a transcendental deity to serve as an explanation for existential questions : such as "why is there something rather than nothing?" What are the logical possibilities : a> eternal evolving Matter, or b> eternal creative Mind? Is your matter permanent? Is your mind creative? :nerd:
PS__Atheists will challenge the practical aspects of a transcendent deity : "what has he done for you lately?" (i.e. miraculous interventions). But Deists would answer, she/he created the magnificent world "in which we live & breathe and have our being". Is that enough of a miracle for you? Although astronomers have been looking-in-vain (100 years) for extra-terrestrial life, as far as we now know, our "blue dot" is unique in the universe.
Critique of Pure Reason :
[i]* Immanuel Kant, in his 1781 treatise, distinguished between Pure and Practical reasoning.
* Early Deists of the same era, idolized the transcendental form of reasoning. But in practice, their thinking was contaminated with the same worldly concerns that have always led men from the true path.
* However, a BothAnd combination of Pure philosophical reasoning, and Practical scientific problem-solving can allow us to contemplate transcendental possibilities without the risk of believing in impossible things.
* G*D is a transcendental concept, hence with no practical applications. Yet, the notion of an ideal Being can have important theoretical implications. Yes, G*D is just a theory, but also a reasonable inference from the meta-physical aspects of physical reality.[/i]
http://www.bothandblog.enformationism.info/page69.html
Practical reasoning is basically goal-directed reasoning from an agent's goal, and from some action selected as a means to carry out the goal, to the agent's reasoned decision to carry out the action.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Practical_reason
My own take is rather simple but in line with the intuitions of Aristotle et al in that the PSR (the principle of sufficient reason) warrants a primum movens. I have my reservations though for the PSR may apply to the contents of our cosmos and not the cosmos itself (vide fallacy of composition, a well-known criticism of the prime mover argument).
With regard to information, are you proposing a reductionist thesis - that everything boils down to information? As I suggested to you earlier, in addition to positing a who (created the universe)? - your Enformer - you might also wanna explore how (the universe was created) - with information.
In accordance with the BothAnd philosophy, Enformationism is both Reductive (it all boils down to Information Bits as the atoms of reality), but it's also Holistic (as in PanEnDeism : all is in G*D). If you're no comfortable with the G*D terminology, you can just as well call it "LOGOS" per Plato, or "TAO" per Lao Tse. Whatever you call it, "the Who" or "The All" is the potential source of all actual things and processes in the contingent world. "Sufficient Reason" will tell you that much, with no need for divine revelation.
Even Atheist scientists have conceded that something with the ability to Create (Enform) a new world from scratch (mathematical Singularity) is logically necessary. But they tend to think of Materialistic causes, such as eternal regression of Multiverses (tower of turtles), or Many Worlds (hypothetical parallel universes), or Materialistic Magic (Instantaneous "Inflation" of a universe from a minuscule quantum fluctuation). All of these scenarios presume eternal Space & Time, and Energy & Laws. So, Enformationism lumps all those resources under the heading of "Causal Information", otherwise known as "Intention". But the Power of Intention is found only in Living & Thinking things -- not in space-time or energy/laws -- which have the ability to imagine the future, and to progress toward a preset goal.
I call that creative power in the universe "EnFormAction" (the ability to transform Potential into Actual). So, the creative act of enforming -- via the mechanism of Evolution -- progresses toward some unknown (to us) teleological destination. However, it's obviously not top-down Teleology (as in Genesis), but bottom-up Evolution, with only the standards of Natural Selection to guide the program toward the Intended Final State.
Hows that, for "how the universe" is creating itself via innate Intention? :nerd:
Intention :
1. a thing intended; an aim or plan or program.
2. stretching or leaning toward something
3. purpose ; design
Nice! I have a rough idea of what you're gettin' at. Your is what I'd call a variable-based theory. It generalizes the intuition/rationale of the multiple hypotheses floatin around such that each one fits with your x-based EnformAction thesis; how snugly is up to how good is your generalization is of course.
Let's test how good your idea is: Try and harmonize the following thesis-antithesis pairs:
1. Theism-Atheism (everyone's favorite don't-get-along-at-all couple).
2. Rationalism-Empiricism (another such pair).
Yes. Philosophy is all about generalizing Principles from specific Instances. The operative Variable "X" is the shape-shifting power to enform, that we generically call "Information". That word originally refered to the contents of a mind (knowledge, meaning, intelligence, etc). But Shannon applied that term to non-specific "Data", which could be anything meaningful to a mind. The range of meanings or values is encoded from 1 (100% ; rigid order) to 0 (zero ; total randomness). Ironically, Shannon also realized that the potential of his data carriers (bits & bytes) can be evaluated in terms of Entropy, which is the ashes of Energy. Yet, the flip-side of Entropy is Enformy [see below].
More recently, physicists have realized that the essence of Information is equivalent to what we know as Energy : the power to cause change. In the Enformationism thesis though, I expand the range of Information to include a> Energy, b> Matter (E=MC^2), c> Intention (design ; mental causation), and various other instances of Form Change, such as physical Phase Transitions. FORM is essentially a meaningful or structural pattern, such as Morse Code or DNA. In general, I call that Causal Information "EnFormAction". It's what allows the random mutations of Evolution to produce non-random Forms (organisms) that survive & reproduce; to progress. Hence, Natural Selection is a form of Intention ; it chooses only the mutations that meet its standards of fitness.
Harking back to the OP, the biggest variable of all is the mysterious Enformer or Intender, Who defined the rules of Natural Selection. Most physicists are functionally Agnostic, in that they just take those evolutionary standards and natural laws for granted. And assume that the laws keeping our world on track are random & arbitrary. But then, they proceed to rely on the mathematical exactness of those regulations as-if they are orderly & absolute. As an Agnostic myself, I don't claim to know anything specific about the X-factor (the Who) serving as the Initial Cause of the chain of causation that we know as evolution. But, I can see the fingerprints of the culprit all over the natural world. :nerd:
Information :
(1) : knowledge obtained from investigation, study, or instruction. (2) : intelligence, news. (3) : facts, data.
Merriam-Webster
Data : Philosophy
things known or assumed as facts, making the basis of reasoning or calculation.
Oxford Dictionary
EnFormAction :
Intentional Causation. A proposed metaphysical law of the universe that causes random interactions between forces and particles to produce novel & stable arrangements of matter & energy.
http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page8.html
Enformy :
In the Enformationism theory, Enformy is a hypothetical, holistic, metaphysical, natural trend or force, that counteracts Entropy & Randomness to produce complexity & progress.
http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page8.html
The BothAnd principle is Holistic. It assumes that all apparent oppositions in the natural world are ultimately complementary. For example, Matter & Antimatter, when brought together, commit mutual suicide. And yet, the energy they are composed of is not lost, but returns to the universal thermodynamic system from whence it came. Positive & Negative energy are harmonized in the Neutrality of the whole.
Likewise, clashes between Theists & Atheists, can be reconciled in Agnosticism and Deism. The material world is obviously temporary & contingent. So, even atheist scientists concede that there must have been an external cause of the Big Bang, that is not a part of the expanding system itself. The well-aimed cue-ball requires an aim-er with a cue-stick (creative power). But as arrogant Atheists, they cannot admit that a mind is needed to explain Evolution. So, they merely imagine another dumb cue-ball zooming-in from off-table, which accidentally impacted the BB cue-ball. On the other hand, prideful Theists do see the need for an intentional mind to aim the stick or ball. But they take their ability to imagine a divine pool-shooter (Faith) as logical evidence. However, humble Agnostics are aware that their Logic is derived only from evidence inside the system. So, they don't pretend to know anything about the logical, but imaginary Who, out there in the great beyond. Hence, they stand in the middle of the argument, and say "can't we all just get along"?
Early philosophy was mostly a rational exercise of discovering logical patterns for How & Why the world works as it does. But around the time of Aristotle, they began to physically analyze (dissect) the world around them, in order to discover the hidden mechanisms inside. The hands-on (empirical) approach soon proved to be very effective in leveraging the human mind to control the natural world. Yet, they found that the immaterial mind itself is not so easy to dissect. So the early Psychologists (Freud) were essentially impractical philosophers, using pure Reason as a scalpel to analyze minds. Now we have more empirical methods for mind-reading, but the meaning of MRI blobs still have to be interpreted rationally & logically. So, to this very day both Rationalism and Empiricism are working together to advance our understanding of How & Why the mechanics of Physics has evolved Metaphysical Minds, whose inner thoughts still resist the crude empirical methods of Trepanation (drilling holes in the skull) and Magnetic Imaging (MRI).
So, you see, Theism & Atheism and Rationalism & Empiricism can harmonize like Ebony & Ivory, if we give them a chance. :cool:
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
Ebony and Ivory :
[i]Ebony and ivory live together in perfect harmony
Side by side on my piano keyboard, oh Lord, why don't we?
We all know that people are the same whereever you go
There is good and bad in ev'ryone
We learn to live, when we learn to give
Each other what we need to survive, together alive[/i]
___Paul McCartney
EnFormAction
General ideas:
1. Primum movens aka EnFormer/Intender
2. BothAnd (yin-yang)
Specific ideas:
1. Information-based theory
2. EnFormy (anti-entropy, vide supra BothAnd)
Good summary! You are open-minded and reasonable enough to entertain unfamiliar (weird) ideas, and attempt to make sense of them, in order to learn new ways of philosophizing. But you also apply a healthy dose of skepticism toward unproven philosophical conjectures. Unlike some Trolls, who just repeat "j'accuse", but provide no viable alternative ideas -- only standardized (settled ; classical) conventions to be taken on faith.
If the Enformationism hypothesis doesn't seem plausible -- it's a lot to take in -- you are not expected to believe its information-centric worldview. But once you grok the ubiquity & activity of Generic Information, your eyes will be opened to a whole new world of non-classical Possibilities (as in Quantum Theory). :cool:
A1. Philosophers & Physicists agree that all motion (change) must have a Prime Mover to impart momentum into the system of Causation. But some disagree on the nature of that First Cause : Intentional vs Accidental.
A2. BothAnd Complementarity : Physics
"the concept that two contrasted theories, such as the wave and particle theories of light, may be able to explain a set of phenomena, although each separately only accounts for some aspects."
___Google
B1. Information-Centric Worldview :
"Noted English mathematical physicist Sir Roger Penrose theorizes that at the level of the Planck scale (an unfathomably small and unimaginably energetic scale at which even quantum field theory breaks down) the entire universe is actually pure, abstract information."
http://www.esalq.usp.br/lepse/imgs/conteudo_thumb/The-Illusion-of-Reality---The-Scientific-Proof-That-Everything-is-Energy-and-Reality-Isnt-Real.pdf
B2. Enformy :
Enformy is the principle of creation. Life didn't just happen. Life had to happen. Enformy compelled it. Enformy compelled DNA to organize."
https://vxm.com/link.enformytheory.html
Note : Watson's Theory of Enformed Systems is more liberal & literal than my own conservative & metaphorical interpretations of the logical concept of Enformy (negentropy).
PS___Enformationism takes current knowledge and projects (speculates) into the unknowable time-before-time, in order to grasp at answers to ancient philosophical questions of Ontology and Epistemology. Theism and Atheism are both gnostic worldviews, that claim to know for sure, either by revelation or by reason, what it's possible to Know about Existence. But Agnosticism (Epoché) understands that Reason is not bound by physical barriers, so we can legitimately conjecture on concepts that we can't prove empirically. What matters is only that it makes sense -- not necessarily in a conventional belief system, but in the light of Reason.
So "causation" is caused, huh? :rofl:
Buddha (anicca) & Laozi (yinyang), Democritus (atomic swirling) & Heraclitus (everything flows), Boltzmann (thermodynamics) & Heisenberg (quantum uncertainty), Penrose (conformal cyclical cosmology) & Deutsch (quantum turing computation) are some examples of thinkers for whom "motion (change)" is the fundamental acausal independent variable.
News flash: Newton's Laws of Motion dispense with (your speculative(?)) anachronistic Creationist/Teleological dogmas.
Answering these few questions rather than regurgitating well-worn sophistries, Gnomon, may make your "speculation" (to extend, not contradict, human understanding of nature) persuasive. :chin:
[quote=Ms. Marple]Most interesting.[/quote]
Correct me if I'm wrong, the whole idea of your EnFormAction theory boils down to, from the little that I know, yin & yang (the interaction of opposites) & Hegelian dialectics, both of which remind me of Heraclitean dualism (thesis-antithesis dynamics).
I don't know if it's actually true but, for obvious reasons, your thesis feels biocentric (pro-life) - the name EnFormAction suggests a bias towards life (EnFormy being anti-entropy, entropy being anti-order and thus an anti-life force we havta deal on a daily basis). Do you consider this to be a feature/bug in EnFormAction?
:fire: You da man!
Yes, the role of EnFormAction (energy, causation) in physics is to cause change-of-form (geometry, interrelationships). However, perhaps due to the curvature of Angular Momentum, the direction of change (motion) varies (not a straight line). Hence, the convoluted pathways of billiards and Brownian Motion.
Therefore, like billiard balls, any causal input (action) results in inter-action (collisions). And the result is something like Hegelian Dialectics (literally "cross-talk"). So, geometrically, any collision of two forces (added momentum) produces a new angular momentum (vectors) [see Dialectic below]. A more complex version of the flow of EFA (causation) through the world is illustrated in the math of a Random Walk [see Squiggles below]. Thus, Positive (aggregating) complexification results in Organization and organism. but Negative (segregating) action results in Disorganization.
Heraclitus postulated two opposing forces in the world, which work together to cause change. Today, we call those oppositions "Positive" & "Negative" -- or in a different context : "Good" & "Evil" -- and they can be illustrated by Vectors (arrows) in which the angle represents geometric direction and the length represents the amount of Force (energy ; momentum). In Taoism, those dual forces are labeled Yin (dark ; female) and Yang (light ; male) -- pardon the implicit misogynism. :wink:
INTERACTION OF OPPOSITES
COMPLEX DIALECTIC = RANDOM WALK = BROWNIAN MOTION
I can only applaud in admiration at your idea - it seems to be well-thought-out. Not many can say that of their own worldviews. I'm still trying to grasp the essence of it. Give me time.
Yes. Like Energy, EnFormAction, can have both positive and negative effects. For example, Lightning splits air molecules into Nitrogen & Oxygen, both essential for life (organism). But, if a bolt from the blue strikes your living body, the result is instant death (dis-organism). But, after billions of years of Dialectic inter-action, we see a distinct bias (trend) toward Complexity & Organism & Life. Therefore, it's obvious that disorganizing Entropy is not absolute, so there must be some countervailing force to nudge evolution toward Life & Mind, and away from Death & Insentience. That implicit force is what I call "Enformy" (the power to enform ; to organize). :nerd:
Quoting 180 Proof
As usual, this haughty reposte is based on prejudiced premises. It's intended to deny the necessity for a First Cause. From a narrow-nose perspective, cycling Change seems to be fundamental to Physics, with no beginning or end. But from a broader Philosophical worldview, even the Big Bang beginning of our universe must, logically, have a cause. That's why cosmologists have been proposing various speculative schemes to explain the time-before-time : Inflation, Many Worlds, Multiverses. There's no evidence for such ideal mathematical scenarios. But there is real physical evidence for a directional evolving universe from Past to Future. In the cosmological diagram below, the beginning & end states are implied, but fuzzy, due to lack of empirical evidence.
Penrose's abstract Causality Diagrams, like Minkowski's imaginary Block Time (static space-time), are deliberately simplified : a> by removing the complexity of Change, and b> by assuming internal, mutually-neutralizing, Symmetry of forces. In practice though, such a mathematically ideal world would be eternal & unchanging. But both of those models are like snapshots of reality, frozen in time. And are useful only for simplifying the complex mathematics of Dynamics (change ; motion). So, their idealized Acausal models are intentionally non-realistic. :cool:
Acausal Motion :
[i]Acausal means not having a cause. In classical physics all events are believed to have a cause; none are acausal. In quantum physics, some interpretations of quantum theory allow for events to occur without a cause, that is, they are acausal.
The usual way to say this is that in quantum physics, there is true randomness. In true randomness, we dont know the cause and also there is none. In classical physics, nothing happens randomly. If a billiard ball is picking up speed to the right, its because some force is pushing it in that direction. If we dont know the nature of the force, it might seem like its random motion. But be assured, there is a causal force.[/i]
http://www.quantumphysicslady.org/glossary/acausal/
THE DIRECTIONAL ARROW OF EVOLUTION
Take your time. I've been working on the Enformationism thesis for about 14 years. It had been simmering for a while in the background. But I finally formalized it while I was unemployed due to the 2008 Great Recession. I gathered my notes & essays into a webpage, and using the Matrix movie as a metaphor, presented the core idea, not in the form of an Academic Thesis, but as a non-commercial, un-conventional argument in a semi-public arena. In some ways, it was inspired by Devin Giorbran's book & website Everything Forever, which presented a novel scientific-philosophical perspective of the whole universe. But the focus of Enformationism is more down-to-earth. Both are neither True nor False, but merely a different way to look at Reality : a proposed new Paradigm.
Most of us are living in an artificial simulation of reality : created in the public mind, not by rogue AI, but by social conventions and news media. The civilized world-view has evolved along a zig-zag path of Hegelian oppositions. For example : Fascism, Communism, & Capitalism in the 20th century. But, even more subtle may be the various scientific & philosophical paradigms of the 21st century, especially Quantum Theory and Information Theory. The world is still gradually emerging from the pre-scientific worldviews of its various religions, especially the Judeo-Christian-Islamic traditions, and from the radical 17th century revisionist worldview of what we now call Classical or Newtonian Science.
The dominant paradigms of each era serve as focusing frames through which to view the incomprehensible complexities of the world. For example, the common view of human nature swings back & forth between the optimism of first century Christianity "work out your own salvation", to the pessimism of Calvin's "Total Depravity" ; from the optimism of the Scientific Enlightenment, to the pessimism of modern philosophies (e.g. Antinatalism). Compared to those historical dialectical digressions, the Enformationism thesis could be just one man's perspective, that will die with him. Fortunately, I am not alone in this quest for a plausible 21st century worldview. So, if some form of this novel information-centric concept of how the world works -- by processing Information in various ways -- catches-on, It could become the seed for the next dominant philosophical paradigm . Only time will tell. :nerd:
Everything Forever : Learning to See The Timelessness of the Universe
"Zero is powerful because it is infinitys twin. They are equal and opposite, yin and yang. They are equally paradoxical and troubling. The biggest questions in science and religion are about nothingness and eternity, the void and the infinite, zero and infinity. The clashes over zero were the battles that shook the foundations of philosophy, of science, of mathematics, and of religion. Underneath every revolution lay a zero and an infinity."
-Charles Seife
Zero; The Biography of a Dangerous Idea
http://everythingforever.com/
Note -- at first glance, to someone grounded in conventional classical science, this may sound like a bunch of hippie non-sense. But, by looking at the flip-side of space-time, a new understanding of what's-really-going-on could emerge.
Paradigm :
A paradigm is a standard, perspective, or set of ideas. A paradigm is a way of looking at something. It's a worldview.
https://www.vocabulary.com/dictionary/paradigm
Information -- Consciousness -- Reality :
How a new understanding of the universe can help answer age-old questions of existence
https://www.goodreads.com/en/book/show/45153601
Enformationism website :
It's not something to believe, but something to think
http://enformationism.info/enformationism.info/
Since your idea has, as a component, the yin-yang duality of opposites, you surely expect it to be critiqued/opposed/attacked. That's exactly how it should be then, in accordance to your BothAnd concept, oui?
How would you respond to this comment?
Do you realize that by disagreeing (with Gnomon), you're actually agreeing (with him/her)? [Re his/her yin-yang (BothAnd concept)].
:fire:
Quoting Gnomon
:fire:
We've been too long under the spell of so-called truth.
I just find Gnomon's thesis interesting, that's all. From what I can gather s/he seems to have done his/her homework. Gnomon gives me the impression of a well-read scholar. Note, this ain't a bromance - his Matrix analogy ain't the reason that Agent Smith likes his ideas.
I wanna run something by you, it's about yin-yang. You seem to be aware that yin-yang is ambiguous in that it stands for both annihilatory pairs like atheism-theism (both can't exist, one of 'em hasta go) and also complementary pairs (both can exist; each completes the other as it were) e.g. man and woman (family) or geometry and arithmetic (coordinate geometry).
Do you have anything to say regarding this?
Quoting 180 Proof
I understand yinyang only as complementary and not contradictory in the least since each complement contains not negates the other; yin is a variation not opposite of yang and vice versa. Read Laozi & Zhuangzi. Read Plato's early dialogues. At least read this
[quote="180 Proof;716727"]?Agent Smith
Dialectical monism.
In my humble opinion, a thing and its anti-thing should also be included in yin-yang à la Hegelian dialectics. E.g. radical doubt ends up in absolute certainty (re Descartes' cogito ergo sum). Likewise, absolute certainty leads to (hyper)skepticism (re Agrippa's/Münchhausen trilemma). Too good and you're bad and too bad and you're good. Emphasis on the too (re aureum mediocritas).
Oui-oui. It's mostly "attacked" emotionally (good vs evil) & politically (us vs them), instead of "critiqued" rationally & philosophically. For example, quote : "Your usual non-answer. That's a tell, sir. :yawn: " The implicit critique can be eloquently summed-up as "boo, hiss".
Apparently, a Reductive/Materialistic paradigm is antipathetic (showing or feeling a strong aversion) to a Holistic/Metaphysical worldview. And a significant proportion of posters on this forum are allied with the belief system known as Scientism. It began during the Reformation /Enlightenment era, when the hegemony of the State Church was rejected by Freethinkers. One vector of that Hegelian dialectic clash was fragmented Protestant religions & general Secularization, and the other was modern empirical Science & pragmatic Materialism.
From that cynical (dog-eat-dog) perspective though, Philosophy in general, and especially Metaphysics, is viewed as allied with supernatural Religion. Hence, any ideas that go beyond Physical are presumed to be Metaphysical, as defined by the early Catholic Church theologians. Although many world religions are based on a Holistic model, many secular philosophies (e.g.Taoism, Confucianism) throughout history also assumed that the Dualistic forces of the world are ultimately & delicately balanced into a Holistic monism (Yin/Yang). Hence, optimistic instead of fatalistic.
By contrast to the black vs white, Science vs Religion opposition, your own reaction has been a philosophical blend of both Curiosity (exploring) and Skepticism (defending). And that is a good example of the BothAnd approach to knowledge : "open-minded, but not so open that your brains fall out". :smile:
Scientism :
Science is about descriptive facts; philosophy is often about that but is also about normative and evaluative truths (if such truths exist). Science is about physical objects; philosophy is often about that but is also about abstract objects (if they exist).
https://1000wordphilosophy.com/2018/02/13/philosophy-and-its-contrast-with-science/
What is scientism, and why is it a mistake? :
Science is a method of inquiry about nature, while scientism is philosophy. And scientism is no longer up to the challenge of meeting the most pressing issues of our day.
https://bigthink.com/13-8/science-vs-scientism/
Note -- Scientism is dualistic Either/Or philosophy. It has that in common with dualistic Good/Evil religions. By contrast, the BothAnd philosophy is ultimately Monistic.
So your thesis has an antithesis which is as legit as your thesis and should be incorporated into your thesis (BothAnd). Shouldn't you be more welcoming of opposition to your ideas then? For example 180 Proof's objections should be part and parcel of your system, based as it is on yin & yang.
I like Gnomon's ideas, especially its yin-yang theme. I see great potential in it. What gets me stoked is how, in a sense, enemies are friends (vide supra).
The BothAnd philosophy doesn't legitimize one side or the other of any opposition. Instead, it allows each person to cross philosophical-political dividing-lines lines as the context demands. For example, I live in a very conservative part of the US, and my religious training was fundamentalist. But, although I don't repudiate the good parts of Conservatism, as an adult I have crossed over into enemy territory. Today, I don't call myself a Conservative or a Liberal, but something like a Liberative or Conserveral (i.e. Moderate). The downside of a moderate position is that you get shot at by both sides. The right-wing-conservatives will view you as a lily-livered-liberal, and the left-wing-radicals will decry you as a cold-hearted-conservative. The point here is that the BothAnd sweet-spot of harmony & balance is not in the exact middle of any philosophical continuum, but depending on the context, may shift left or right to maintain a dynamic balance -- like a tightrope walker.
When I first joined The Philosophy Forum, I felt that might be a kindred spirit. His general philosophical worldview seemed to be compatible with mine. But eventually, he began to see my personal philosophy as anathema (something or someone that one vehemently dislikes). I still don't know for sure what the point-of-contention is, except that it has something to do with my unconventional usage of the tainted word "Metaphysics" (non-physical ; as in abstract concepts)*1. Since then, his "opposition" has been expressed in ad hominem arguments -- against an imaginary position that I don't actually hold -- instead of philosophical arguments. So no, his (NAZI vs Commie) "objections" are not "part & parcel" of my own system. I welcome philosophical discussion of specific ideas, but not a political-smear-campaign of a general multi-faceted worldview. Even so, I bear no ill-will toward 180 -- his knowledge of Philosophy is admirable -- I just refuse to engage in below-the-belt philosophy. Hopefully though, maybe some day we will again be able to sit around the philosophical campfire and sing Kumbaya (harmony & goodness). :smile:
*1. Actually, I think he feels threatened by the emerging Holistic & Information-centric scientific paradigm, which to him smacks of old age Religion and New Age nuttiness.
BOTH/AND = DYNAMIC BALANCE
A most commendable response!
I feel you should encourage strong but genuine, well-considered opposition to your thesis as it would validate your BothAnd philosophy. If no one can do that, you yourself should take up this task - either you complete your system or you test how strong it is. It's a win-win as far as I can tell.
:smile:
I have been exposing my thesis to unsympathetic comments for years, and usually get good "well-considered opposition" (feedback) from other posters on the forum. But 180 is determined to stop me from discussing an emerging new paradigm of Science & Philosophy -- which conflicts with his established classical worldview -- by emotional ridicule instead of rational argument. His legalistic approach is like a defense attorney saying, "your honor, the prosecution witness' testimony contradicts the defense witness' testimony. Therefore, the prosecution witness is either lying or stupid, and his testimony should be stricken from the record . . . . . I rest my case". Does that sound like a win-win contest to you? Do you think I should continue to engage 180 in such a circular dialogue (circa-logue)? :joke:
OK. I accept that, in a YinYang world, the opposite of Good is Evil. But does that mean I should wallow in the evil, just for the sake of Holism? I'm kidding. And I don't reject 180 personally. On other topics he is able to make constructive criticisms. But on Enformationism-related topics, he only makes destructive comments. But hey, it's a free forum. So he's entitled to his opinion. However, I'm not obliged to get down in the mire with the pigs, even though they are otherwise admirable creatures.
I think you are still misinterpreting the YinYang concept. It merely means, for example, that a male body and a female body are complementary, for the purposes of procreation. But, for other purposes, male & female may have other priorities. The YinYang balance is not static, but dynamic. And each side has the potential for upsetting the ideal harmony of the system. I can move toward the middle, but If I go all the way to the opposite side, I may contribute to dis-harmony. It takes two to tango around the pivot-point of a see-sawing system. :joke:
The problem with a dogmatic mindset like Gnomon's is that questions & counter-examples are perceived as biased / malicious attacks and so, as a cursory search of 'our post history' makes clear, he responds with defensive evasions. What's Gnomon so scared of? It seems to me the only reason to post one's speculative thesis on a public discussion forum is to subject it to questioning and criticism rather than attempting to protect it by bloviating tedious sophistry as Gnomon reflexively does. No "ad hominems" on my part, Smith, just apt observations corroborated by 'our post history'.
A. challenge
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/719664
B. typical evasion
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/720338
Quoting Gnomon
No no, sir, your "testimony" contradicts (i.e. defeats) itself that is my testimony. :sweat:
:grin:
He'll have to catch me first. :joke:
Actually, the cooperative BothAnd philosophy "requires" us to avoid fighting, if possible. That's why I'm in the middle, and he's swinging for an imaginary extreme. He doesn't realize that I'm just playing rope-a-dope. :cool:
Rope-a-Dope : a boxing tactic of pretending to be trapped against the ropes, goading an opponent to throw tiring ineffective punches.
Self-delusion is a helluva drug. :smirk:
What Gnomon wrote was funny. Right? I dunno.
I still say Gnomon is onto something. I hope he takes your criticisms positively and responds appropriately.
Well, it's just a feeling, an intuition you could call it. Can't name any particular idea that looks promising except for these two:
1. BothAnd (Yin-Yang). This paradigm makes sense even now, about 2.5k years since it was birthed in the Chinese heartland.
2. His variable-based thesis. Gnomon hits the bullseye when he leaves the notion of a primum movens undefined - by doing this he makes room for both theistic and atheistic explanations for why the universe exists at all (vide supra BothAnd)
I suspect that you still haven't grokked the central idea of Enformationism. That "failure to communicate" may be due to your trying to piece together bits & pieces of the thesis from loosely-related forum posts. The best way to understand this new paradigm is to read some of the scientific books & articles I link to in my posts. My thesis is merely a philosophical expansion of an emerging scientific paradigm, which combines Quantum Physics with Information Theory.
Or, if you are really interested, you could take the time to read the actual Enformationism thesis. It's available online, and is written mainly in layman's language, except for a few neologisms I have coined in order to encapsulate a complex concept into one word. For example, EnFormAction is a portmanteau word to signify the multiple roles of Information in the world.
The BothAnd philosophical principle (Yin-Yang) notion is merely a corollary of the scientific necessity for a Holistic approach to Quantum physics*1. Classical Reductive methods cannot make sense of Quantum queerness. That's why Feynman admitted that "nobody understands quantum mechanics". It's because the quantum foundation of reality is not mechanical & linear-logical, but holistic & fuzzy-logical. :nerd:
*1. seems to think my use of "BothAnd" & "YinYang" exposes an underlying New Agey mystical worldview. But that erroneous interpretation is a sign that he too is unable to grok a new Holistic scientific paradigm, so he conflates it with pre-scientific philosophical*2 attempts to understand how & why the world works as it does. Does the BothAnd definition below sound New Agey to you? If so, then Einstein & Schrodinger were also new age nuts, so I'm in good company.
*2. I find the ancient philosophies of Hindu, Chinese & Greek cultures still useful after all these years. But I have no use for the religious beliefs, rituals, & dogmas that grew-up around those core philosophical worldviews.
Grok : to understand (something) intuitively or holistically, rather than rationally or analytically.
Portmanteau :
[i]1. literally a compartmented suitcase.
2. A portmanteau word is a blend of words in which parts of multiple words are combined into a new word, with interrelated meanings.[/i]
EnFormAction :
[i]For technical treatments, I had to make-up a new word to summarize the multilevel and multiform roles of generic Information in the ongoing creative act of Evolution. I call it EnFormAction.
That neologism is an analysis and re-synthesis of the common word for the latent power of mental contents : Information. En stands for energy, the physical power to cause change; Form refers to Platonic Ideals that become real; Action is the meta-physical power of transformation, as exemplified in the amazing metamorphoses of physics, whereby one kind of thing becomes a new kind of thing, with novel properties. In the Enformationism worldview, EnFormAction is Creative Potential in action : it's how creation-via-evolution works.[/i]
http://bothandblog3.enformationism.info/page23.html
BothAnd :
[i]* The Enformationism worldview entails the principles of Complementarity, Reciprocity & Holism, which are necessary to ofset the negative effects of Fragmentation, Isolation & Reductionism. Analysis into parts is necessary for knowledge of the mechanics of the world, but synthesis of those parts into a whole system is required for the wisdom to integrate the self into the larger system. In a philosophical sense, all opposites in this world (e.g. space/time, good/evil) are ultimately reconciled in Enfernity (eternity & infinity).
* Conceptually, the BothAnd principle is similar to Einstein's theory of Relativity, in that what you see ? whats true for you ? depends on your perspective, and your frame of reference; for example, subjective or objective, religious or scientific, reductive or holistic, pragmatic or romantic, conservative or liberal, earthbound or cosmic. Ultimate or absolute reality (ideality) doesn't change, but your conception of reality does. Opposing views are not right or wrong, but more or less accurate for a particular purpose.
* This principle is also similar to the concept of Superposition in sub-atomic physics. In this ambiguous state a particle has no fixed identity until observed by an outside system. For example, in a Quantum Computer, a Qubit has a value of all possible fractions between 1 & 0. Therefore, you could say that it is both 1 and 0.[/i]
http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page10.html
The intuitive mind is a sacred gift and the rational mind is a faithful servant. We have created a society that honors the servant and has forgotten the gift.
Albert Einstein
FYI: I've read enough of the books you have referenced in our exchanges to long since have confidently concluded that (1) you've flagrantly misinterpreted pseudo-philosophically interpreted the books you claim to have read and (2) you've not read or understood the books I've recommended to you. Our post history is my witness. :smirk:
EnFormAction is an attempt to scientize the almost universal intuition, as evidenced by creation stories in all cultures, of a primum movens (first cause). I appreciate the effort and the key ideas present and active therein, but only veteran philosophers will be able to judge the quality of the output!
Actually, it was practicing scientists that "scientized" the intuitions of Holism & Information-as-causation (per my previous links). All I've done is to gather their ideas under the heading of Enformationism. However, "veteran philosophers" such as 180 can be expected to judge the "quality of the output" in terms of their outdated personal paradigm. He can be dismissive of my personal qualifications to promote a new kind of science. But, I'll be content to let him argue with "Bob Doyle" (see below), a "veteran" scientist/philosopher, who is promoting the Information-centric worldview. For him, and for me, the relevance of Information to ancient myths only came after its relevance to today's reality was apparent.
This clash of paradigms has happened before. For example, the novice philosopher Spinoza outraged his fellow Jews and Christians (including some veteran theologians) by introducing a new science-based concept of God-as-Natural-instead-of-Super-natural (deus sive natura). Enformationism posits a similar god-concept, formalized in the philosophical concept of PanEnDeism (all in god). In other words, G*D is the whole of Nature, in which we humans are integral parts of an evolving emerging system of En-formation. The Enlightenment era paradigm shift marked the beginning of methodical Classical Science, which endured another radical perspective shift due to 20th century's Relativity & Quantum theories, that are now grudgingly accepted as technical scientific facts, despite their challenge to common sense.
Spinoza was influenced by the scientific philosophy of Descartes. But Rene is best known today for his dualistic compromise solution to the Mind/Body problem : non-overlapping magistera. Yet four centuries later, Quantum & Information science have pointed to a monistic solution : universal & causal information. The Enformationismthesis is merely one of several strands of Information-centric departures from the classical worldview of Newton. But, it may take an information atomic bomb to convince some classical scientists that invisible immaterial things must be taken seriously. :nerd:
Descartes as scientist :
Apart from his work in philosophy, Descartes was a leading mathematician and scientist. He invented the Cartesian coordinate system, developed analytic geometry and laid the foundation for the development of calculus. He also did groundbreaking work in physics most prominently in the field of optics.
https://learnodo-newtonic.com/rene-descartes-contribution
The Mind-Body Problem :
[i]"Information philosophy views the mind as the immaterial information in the brain, which is seen as a biological information processor. Mind is software in the brain's hardware.
The "stuff" of mind is pure information. Information is neither matter nor energy, though it needs matter for its embodiment and energy for its communication".[/i]
https://www.informationphilosopher.com/problems/mind_body/
Note 1 -- Physicists are beginning to see that Matter & Energy & Mind are all various forms of the Generic power-to-enform.
Note 2 -- The Information Philosopher could be construed as a "veteran philosopher". Since I am indeed a novice philosopher, with no advanced degrees, I'll let 180 argue with Bob Doyle about the scientific & philosophical merits of Information-centric science & philosophy. Bob Doyle[/u] is the Information Philosopher. He earned a Ph. D in Astrophysics from Harvard and is now an Associate in the Harvard Astronomy Department.
"Instead of a closed universe that is winding down deterministically from an initial state of high information, we find the universe is open and increasing information indeterministically from an initial state of relatively high entropy and low information. Information is being continuously created in the universe, not least by human beings who are just learning that they are part of the cosmic creative process."
https://www.informationphilosopher.com/introduction/
Okay, G. Put down the damn Spinoza for Dummies and actually read / study Spinoza's Ethics. :roll:
[quote=Gnomon quoting Bob Doyle, PhD] ... an initial state of relatively high entropy and low information.[/quote]
"Relatively" to what? The initial state of the universe is a lower entropy state relative to the present entropy state of the universe; in fact, it will always be the lowest entropy state of the universe. :nerd:
I sympathize with your views if only for the reason that coders have been creating virtual worlds (e.g. video games) since the 1990s and, in line with your thesis, they do so with information.
Imagine god (the theistic version of your enformer) wants to create a universe. The questions that s/he/it might ask her/him/itself are
i) What do I want to create?
ii) How should I create (what I want to create)?
iii) Left to the reader as an exercise
In other words god has to know before he can do. Everything begins with information.
Yes. The coder's "virtual worlds" are simplified analogies to the Enformer's real world. Each imaginary world is conveyed from the coder's mind to the player's mind via meaningful Information.
I see that you are grasping at analogies to help you understand the complexities of the Enformationism Thesis. Perhaps something like Einstein's formula "E=MC^2" that is compact enough to put on a T-shirt. For example, Plato's non-traditional god-model was summarized as "LOGOS", which encapsulated the concept of Reason & Logic & Math into a common word for Design (rational planning). Likewise, ancient Chinese philosophers used the common words for Sun/Male (Yang) and Moon/Female (Yin) to compress the many forms of Oppositions into a single easy-to-remember two-word phrase. And, back to the OP, both Plato and Aristotle used the non-religious (agnostic) words "First Cause" to indicate the role of a logically-necessary Creator. They carefully avoided anthro-morphizing their "god of the philosophers".
For similar reasons, I have coined some simple neologisms to summarize complex philosophical concepts. For example, EnFormAction functions in a manner similar to the LOGOS, as the rational creative power of G*D, which works in the physical world to organize matter & energy into the things we know via our senses. However, the logical (mathematical) order or pattern (essence) of those things is not sensible, but intuitive & rational. And this is the kind of thinking that Materialists cannot grok. I also use the coined term "BothAnd" in a manner similar to "YinYang", but I was not thinking in terms of Chinese or New Age philosophy when I arrived at that summation of how the dialectic world-system works.
Even Einstein's formula can be interpreted in terms of Enformationism : a> "Energy: is Causation, Power ; b> "Matter is that which is caused to change (the medium) ; and c> the cosmic constant "C" is merely an abstract ratio of hidden Potential (energy density ; vacuum energy). Together, these properties constitute EnFormAction : the power to transform Potential into Actual. There are websites on the net that will put "EnFormAction" on a T-shirt for you. :wink:
Note : 180 will disagree with my novel interpretations because they don't conform to the dictionary dogma of the 20th century scientific/philosophical Paradigm. Such information-centric notions probably won't make it into authorized (canonized) definitions until the end of the 21st century. Remember, you heard it here first. :joke:
EnFormAction :
[i]* Metaphorically, it's the Will-power of G*D, which is the First Cause of everything in creation. Aquinas called the Omnipotence of God the "Primary Cause", so EFA is the general cause of everything in the world. Energy, Matter, Gravity, Life, Mind are secondary creative causes, each with limited application.
* All are also forms of Information, the "difference that makes a difference". It works by directing causation from negative to positive, cold to hot, ignorance to knowledge. That's the basis of mathematical ratios (Greek "Logos", Latin "Ratio" = reason). A : B :: C : D. By interpreting those ratios we get meaning and reasons.
* The concept of a river of causation running through the world in various streams has been interpreted in materialistic terms as Momentum, Impetus, Force, Energy, etc, and in spiritualistic idioms as Will, Love, Conatus, and so forth. EnFormAction is all of those.[/i]
http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page8.html
In 2019, physicist Melvin Vopson of the University of Portsmouth proposed that information is equivalent to mass and energy, existing as a separate state of matter, a conjecture known as the mass-energy-information equivalence principle.
https://www.zmescience.com/science/news-science/information-energy-mass-equivalence/
Lest I forget, :up: for your sense of humor.
Yes. But I have no formal training in those fields of philosophy. Enformationism is a sort of Cosmology, which generally explains the nature of Nature (Being) in terms of Information Theory (IT) and Quantum Physics (QP). IT defines what & how we can know, and QP reveals that the foundation of material reality is immaterial logical relationships. Everything else (e.g. Ethics) depends on the understanding that everything in the world is a form of Generic Information (energy + matter + mind). The thesis website says that Enformationism is intended to be an update to the ancient worldviews of Materialism (Atomism) and Spiritualism (Mind = Soul). Just as Quantum Theory does not negate Newtonian physics, but puts it in a larger context, the Information-Centric worldview does not replace Reductive Science or Holistic Religion, but merely looks at them from a different perspective.
For example, Materialism still works for Chemistry, and Spiritualism still works for Sociology. For example, William James said We must judge the tree by its fruit. The best fruits of the religious experience are the best things history has to offer. The highest flights of charity, devotion, trust, patience, and bravery to which the wings of human nature have spread themselves, have all been flown for religious ideals. (e.g. Gothic Cathedrals ; charities) For collective endeavors, people are inspired by beliefs that may or may not be empirically true, but plausible enough to motive them to work together for the common good (God, community, humanity). But Enformationism puts those beliefs into a new light, for those inclined to look in dark corners.
Speaking of different perspectives, in a previous post you mentioned "virtual worlds". And I just read an article on one kind of virtual reality : a computer simulation (see below). Here's a couple of quotes that might apply to the OP topic : Agnosticism. the author mentions The Matrix and Nick Bostrum's Are You Living in a Computer Simulation?. Then, he concludes that "It could very well be simulations all the way down." Since he is a gamer, such a turtles-all-the-way-down solution makes more sense than the quantum-fluctuation-in-nothingness & inflating-bubble-from-nowhere theories, which make no attempt to nail-down a philosophical First Cause. So, I may be in the minority of posters who feel the need for a one-big-turtle explanation. :blush:
PS__Since my eccentric personal worldview is easy to laugh at, I have to maintain an humble sense of humor, in hopes of keeping philosophical bullies from pounding the annoying nerd. :nerd:
Of Course Were Living in a Simulation :
"The best theory physicists have for the birth of the universe makes no sense. It goes like this: In the beginningthe very, if not quite veriest, beginningtheres something called quantum foam. Its barely there, and cant even be said to occupy space, because theres no such thing as space yet. . . . Besides, thats not even why the theory makes no sense. It makes no sense for the same reason every creation myth since the dawn of, um, creation makes no sense: Theres no causal explanation. What, that is to say, made it happen in the first place?"
https://www.wired.com/story/living-in-a-simulation/
[quote=Gnomon]I have no formal training in those fields of philosophy. Enformationism is a sort of ...[/quote]
Yeah, man, it incorrigibly shows. :sweat:
Computable universe, yeah, that's what Gnomon seems to be referring to. As far as I can tell that's what creation boils down to. Consider the simulation hypothesis - I find Nick Bostrom's argument quite compelling - is still in the game, Gnomon's thesis can't be ignored/dismissed so easily, oui?
Very simply: if e.g. David Deutsch's work on the quantum turing maching (QTM) is correct, then there is no fundamental informational difference between simulations and non-simulations vis-a-vis quantum computing (D. Deutsch helped pioneer the field): physical reality itself is fundamentally a self-organizing quantum simulation and this current universe is just (the phase of) the self-organizing quantum simulation which happens to be (briefly) stable enough to generate and sustain complex, knowledge-making, metacognitive agents.
Thus, perhaps "we are living in a simulation" that simulates itself the universe (multiverse) and not inside some "godling's" cosmic video game (pace Berkeley). No woo needed in order to explain any explicable which needs to be explained (Laplace / Spinoza ... remember the Presocratics and their naturalist contra-superstitious speculations?) :fire:
As for 'the inexplicable'? Well, gaps in experience knowledge or understanding, which cannot be filled (like unreachable horizons / asymptotes), can only be denied with woo (of-the-gaps) and other nostalgic anachronisms. :pray: :roll:
Yes, math to the rescue OR is it help we would've been better without! Sometimes assistance cometh with a tangle of strings attached.
The issue looketh simple, but I fear that's only a mirage. You seem math literate; can you perhaps provide me with a basic framework of how math can rescue us from analysis paralysis aka aporia? Can you? Please, pretty please!
So math does bring some clarity to the problem of uncertainty and how that uncertainty impacts our decisions. The idea is to maximize our odds of success/gettin' it right as it were given there's a chance factor at play.
Skepticism can be tamed then, even if only in principle. The reason why true blue skeptics recommend epoché isn't because they're ignorant of mathematical probability, but because they know all possibilities under consideration are equiprobable. What sayest thou?
Thomas Huxley
Refraining from belief without sufficient evidence is indeed a virtue for every sceptic, scientist or Agnostic. Many people are not comfortable with ignorance and prefer to believe false things over admitting ignorance.
But sometimes indecision is not a reasonable option. When we are forced to make decisions without proper knowledge, mathematics is a tool to make the best decision given the circumstances. We may still not know if all possibilities are equiprobable but we can guestimate the best path of action by combining the values of the outcomes with their assumed probabilities.
So to speak. I simply re-define some outdated notions, such as "Matter" & "Spirit", in terms of the Enformationism thesis. To wit, my "spiritual" family members don't like my "atheism"*1, but we get along fine as long as we don't discuss Philosophy or Salvation. For me personally, what used to be known as "Spirit" or "Soul" is merely the form of Generic Information that we know as "Mind", which is simply the "Function" of the brain (not what it is, but what it does). A Function is invisible & intangible, but is reasonable & knowable. For instance, the immaterial Function*2 of a material automobile is Transportation (potential for action, not an actual thing). Likewise, the Mind is intangible & invisible, like a Soul or Spirit. But it is not an independent agent that can roam apart from the brain. You can't separate Transportation from the Vehicle; Function from Form*3.
Similarly, Materialism is a practical way of thinking about physical objects. But, it ignores non-physical aspects of the object. For example, when a Biologist dissects a frog, it is no longer a living animal. That's because Life is a Function of biological complexity. Life is what organic bodies do. So, if you take away the (holistic) Life function of the organism, what you have left is lifeless Chemistry. Therefore, if you are a Bio-chemist, it makes "no practical difference" whether your subject is alive or not. But, if you are a Biological Naturalist, it makes a categorical difference. And as Anthropologist Gregory Bateson surmised : "information is the difference that makes a difference". Difference (1) is a physical variation, but Difference (2) is a meaningful (metaphysical) distinction.
So yes, those old paradigms still have their role in human society. But, for philosophers, Quantum & Information theories have revealed that the foundation of Classical Science is built upon nothing of substance, except Generic shape-shifting Information (energy-matter-mind). And that makes all the difference in the world. As Einstein showed us, "all things are relative". What's "true" in one context may not be true from another perspective. :blush:
*1. For Christians, Agnosticism is just a wishy-washy form of Atheism. It avoids commitment one way or the other. But for me, "Agnosticism" simply means "I don't know". If something is invisible, I don't see it (a-blepo ; Gk "to not see"). But I may imagine something not seen : (Gk. eidos ;to imagine). Believers in the unseen God, know the deity by Faith, by imagination. In a similar manner, I can imagine a pre-big-bang First Cause, even though it does not exist in the physical world of vision. Yet, I remain Agnostic, because my imagination is not verifiable.
*2. A Function is an information relationship between things that is known only by Reason, not by Vision. Function is integral to Form, in that it is an essential aspect of all complex systems. Function is the immaterial part of a physical thing by which we know its role or relationship to the observer. For me, the role of my silver SUV is Transportation. For someone else, the essence of their red sports car is to serve as a chick-magnet.
*3. For Scientists & Builders In the real world, "Function follows Form". But for a Designer, Enformer, Creator , Form (physical arrangement) follows Function (intention ; output ; teleology).
Quantum paradox points to shaky foundations of reality :
https://www.science.org/content/article/quantum-paradox-points-shaky-foundations-reality
In the context of my post (& links), what part of 'self-organizing quantum simulation' (à la autopoiesis) is confusing you? Consider: there are only fermions & bosons with which to simulate "fermions & bosons" (i.e. planck scale events simulating "planck scale events"), no? :chin:
I see.