I'm wondering, will it ever be possible to scientifically model chaos, would it look like negligible uncertainty in a particular probability distribution? — Enrique

Scientists have created mathematical models of chaotic systems, revealing internal structures and feedback loops. But these are "deterministic chaos" models, like weather patterns, wherein the outcome is predestined by the initial conditions. Although, in theory, they are predictable, the dynamics are so complex that, for all practical purposes, the system is a "black box". We can observe the initial conditions and the outcome, but what happens within is beyond our ability to calculate. So, for the time being, weather forecasters must make educated guesses beyond a week ahead. In other words, the uncertainty is far from negligible.

I mentioned that I like to think of Eternity/Infinity (no space, no time) as the ultimate black box of Chaos, with infinite potential, but completely unpredictable. That model of absolute Chaos is central to my personal theory of Creation ex nihilo. But it requires the assumption of intrinsic Intention (Will) for anything to actually happen : "Final Causality". That's why I call the ultimate Black Box "G*D". :smile:



Chaos Theory : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chaos_theory

unpredictable emergence (Gnomon)
Sounds like chaos. — armonie

In a state of superposition, a virtual (potential) particle is essentially in chaos (nowhere, nowhen), but then it suddenly emerges from that unreal state with a measurable position and velocity -- like the Starship Enterprise emerging from hyperspace. Apparently, quantum particles are sprung like mousetraps by nosy scientists probing in the fog. Scary and spooky.

A macro scale phase transition may be similar to a quantum level phenomenon, such as quantum tunneling, where a particle suddenly appears on the other side of a barrier without passing through the space in between. FWIW, I like to think of Quantum Fields and Chaos as Eternity/Infinity : no time, no space, no particles -- only potential. :smile:

Explain these collapse of the wave function shenanigans, seems key to understanding quantum theory... — Enrique

"Collapse of the wave function" is a graphic metaphor for Emergence Theory and Phase Transitions on the quantum level of reality. And both of those are involved in the transformation of a collection of parts into a whole with new properties of its own.

Emergence : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergence

Phase Transitions : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phase_transition

The book is Life on the Edge, The Coming of Age of Quantum Biology. — Enrique

I haven't read that book, but a couple of years ago, I read Quantum Evolution : LIfe In the Multiverse, by Johnjoe McFadden. It was more about big picture Evolution and Cosmology than about the details of Biology. In that book he asked a provocative question : " is there a force of will behind evolution?". And answered in the affirmative.

This was right down my alley, because my own Cosmological thesis postulates a combination of Energy & Information that I call EnFormAction. Metaphorically, I described it as equivalent to the "Will of God", creating the world incrementally in the process of Evolution (Emergence). This non-random "force" is also the essence of Energy & Matter, and its expression emerges from the "virtual" foundation of the Quantum Field, and continues in a succession of Phase Transitions right on up to the unpredictable emergence of Life and Mind from lifeless energy and mindless matter.

"It is at the root of consciousness and free-will and provides a new understanding of the origins of life and the purpose of death." https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0006551289/ref=dbs_a_def_rwt_bibl_vppi_i1

The EnFormAction Hypothesis : http://bothandblog3.enformationism.info/page23.html

"A systems theory is holistic, not reductive."

This is not always the case, biology, for example, I cannot explain through a theory of systems a genetic mutation or a structural dysymmetry. — armonie

That's because a mutation is, by definition, a random accident. There is no cause & effect mechanism. But, when you combine Mutation and Selection, you get the holistic systematic mechanism of Evolution. Randomness is not a thing, but a quality or property of a system.

Mutation merely shuffles the deck, and Selection picks a card, but not at random. Evolutionary selection is based on fitness criteria (laws?). So, in order to understand how evolution works, you have to consider both the freedom of randomness and the determinism of natural laws. Together they have created everything in the universe, including both Quanta and Qualia.

The problem with objective reductive Science is that it typically ignores the subjective Quality side of the equation. But holistic philosophical theories can at least suggest possible paths from Matter to Mind. And the "maddening" non-sense of the mis-named, Quantum "Mechanics", leaves a lot of room for informed speculation. Which may suggest a different approach for finding a new kind of non-local "mechanism", such as quantum tunneling.

Define holistic. — armonie

Holistic : characterized by comprehension of the parts of something as intimately interconnected and explicable only by reference to the whole.
In this case, the whole universe, including any entention behind its causation.

The brain computes, it sounds like a theory of systems, therefore, we return to the above, mechanistic reductionism. — armonie

Any natural explanation will take the form of a mechanism or system. But not necessarily a reductio ad absurdum (i.e. a "turtles all the way down" explanation). A systems theory is holistic, not reductive.

This theory is drawn from a book that came out recently — Enrique

Hi, Enrique. What book is that?

It is also unclear how qualia with their subjectively experienced causal effects can exist at all in association with averred bare, traditional chemistry, resulting in a persistently advocated dichotomy of mind and matter in our modeling of the central nervous system. — Enrique

I'm not qualified to comment on the quantum physics of "fast triplets". But with my general understanding of the quantum realm, I still don't see the connection between "sensitivity of organic processes to the environment" and consciousness of those sensations. Navigating birds may use "triplets" to sense the magnetic field as a pulling force, but the question remains whether they are consciously aware of the field, or of its significance as a navigation aid. It could be like a horse going in the direction the bridle is pulled, without awareness of where or why the rider wants to go that way.

to awareness as fundamental to the universe and matter nestled within it — Enrique

My own thesis of Enformationism postulates that raw information (energy), but not processed information (consciousness), is fundamental to the universe. Yet the transformation from meaningless pushes and pulls to meaningful ideas is still the "hard problem". All I can say is that the mental "process" may convert impersonal data into subjective significance, in the sense that the brain "computes" meaning from mathematics (data). The mechanics of that "act or process of enformation" are beyond me.

how qualia seem both supervenient and causal — Enrique

Aye. There's the rub. Terrance Deacon, in Incomplete Nature, also explores possible quantum effects -- as opposed to ordinary macro thermodynamics -- on the interpretation of "thingness" (tokens) into "aboutness" (meaning). But like me, he is left to guess about the details of that strange form of "causation". Imagining the universe and brain as quantum computers may be a step in the right direction, but there is still a dark "dichotomy" between objective reality and subjective experience. Whitehead's "prehension" may be somehow connected to "comprehension" via Entanglement, but I don't know how that would work in detail. So Consciousness remains a mystery, unless you assume that there is Entention behind Causation. Which is my solution. :cool:


Entention : causation plus direction;
Enformation : the power to give Form to the formless, meaning to the meaningless; EnFormAction
Incomplete Nature : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incomplete_Nature

Inferential knowledge is still knowledge though, so would you not still say that you know that God exists? Like, if someone claimed that he did not, would you not have some argument, appealing to those inferences you've made, to try to convince them that in fact he does? — Pfhorrest

Unfortunately, "knowledge" has different meanings in different contexts. For example, Christian Gnostics believed that they had privileged access to God, that others didn't. It's such kind of "knowing by faith" that Huxley was reacting to. Since I have no objective scientific evidence to prove the existence of G*D, I must remain Agnostic, even though I believe that inference is reasonable. It's a fairly strong belief, but it could be changed by strong evidence to the contrary.

Many astronomers and cosmologists "believe" in an infinite Multiverse, because it offers a "natural" explanation for the physics and initial conditions of our world. But I think if you challenged them, they would admit that their belief is more of a hope than a fact. They currently have no evidence to give substance to the hypothesis. So, like them, I am officially agnostic about my postulated "super-natural" entity, although I use that belief as an axiom in my personal worldview. That's because, unlike Multiverse, at least the G*D hypothesis offers an explanation for Qualia & Metaphysics, that Materialism & Physics must ignore as irrelevant.

If you ask a sincere person "what matters to you", most would answer with qualitative feelings (Love) instead of quantifiable material objects (supermodel arm candy). :smile:

is consciousness a type of feeling at all, and if not, then what in the world is it? — Zelebg

This thread has strayed off-topic, from defining Consciousness to arguing about the existence of Aether, and other peripheral issues. But, I'd like to play around with the original question about Feelings.

I'll begin by observing that "Consciousness" seems to be a necessary function of living organisms. Or as Christoph Koch put it : "the feeling of life itself". Awareness begins as "feeling" in its literal, physical form, as a sense of touch or taste. Put out “feelers”, and receive feedback. That physical literal response is then transformed*1 into metaphysical metaphorical "feelings" (representations, symbols), that in turn stimulate physical emotions. Which is how touching is experienced*2 by the toucher. For example, a barely-alive bacterium or paramecium blindly gropes around in its environment as a means to stay alive, to find food and to avoid predators. Its sense of touch is mostly chemical (taste), and the representation of whatever is touched is probably evaluated by analogy : sugar good, acid bad. Without that minimal awareness of its milieu, the cell wouldn't achieve its "purpose" : to live. So, consciousness facilitates a teleological intention : to survive long enough to reproduce.

In effect, consciousness is an extension of Self out into the world. And self-consciousness is like the feedback of touching yourself. So, Consciousness is how living agents achieve their basic purpose. And Self-consciousness is how they achieve a higher purpose : to represent Self as an agent in its sensory model of the world. Hence, the process of conscious feeling is an inherent function of the process of living, not an option. You might say that consciousness is what Organism does, and Mind is what Brain does. What they do is create abstract analogous ideal images from information about the concrete real world. Those images are not physical or real, but they are useful and functional. The difference between Life and Non-life is awareness of energy inputs and outputs that motivate and guide the organism toward intrinsic goals, rather than, like billiard balls, by direct action & reaction. Consciousness is how we reach-out and touch the world in imagination.


*1 Transformed : this is the "hard problem" that is addressed by the Enformationism thesis.

*2 Experience : Latin, ex- "out";-peril "trial, test, danger". Living things "try, attempt, reach out" in order to "test" for danger or opportunity.

Maxwell got his equations based on fluid dynamic of Aether. There is no discussion here, you either do not believe this statement is true or you do not understand what it means. — Zelebg

I don't doubt that Maxwell used the ancient metaphor of Aether, as did Einstein. But searches for tangible evidence have come up empty. Mathematically, the Aether may be as real as PI ( 3.14159 ) which has real world applications, despite being an abstract irrational number.

Apparently I don't know what you mean by "aether". A quick Google review of Aether articles finds that it is typically referred to as a "hypothesis", "theory", "proposal", "postulate", "conjecture", but not as a proven fact, that is "beyond discussion"..

"From the 16th until the late 19th century, gravitational phenomena had also been modelled utilizing an aether. The most well-known formulation is Le Sage's theory of gravitation, although other models were proposed by Isaac Newton, Bernhard Riemann, and Lord Kelvin. None of those concepts are considered to be viable by the scientific community today"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aether_theories

"Also known as ether, the definition of the aether from dictionary.com is… “a hypothetical substance supposed to occupy all space, postulated to account for the propagation of electromagnetic radiation through space”".
http://energywavetheory.com/explanations/aether/
This article also says "the aether exists", and has a video to prove it. It even claims that Aether "consists of tiny granules", as in the ancient theory of Atomism. But this seems to be a minority position among scientists.

"The term “aether” (or “ether”) lives on as a colloquial expression in the West, an abstract idea of the intangible void. Certain traditional cultures still consider aether the fifth element, and it plays prominently in the esoteric worlds of magic, mysticism, and the supernatural."
https://www.popularmechanics.com/science/energy/a23895030/aether/

Phantasies are ok if they give you predictive power, but what do you do with a theory which gives you nothing to measure and no way to confirm? — Zelebg

Quantum Theory has proven to give scientists amazing predictive power. But measurement is a problem, as illustrated by Schrodinger's Cat. What they do, when faced with the Uncertainty Principle, is to run thought experiments (fantasies), where you manipulate Information (ideas) instead of Matter.

Measurement Problem : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Measurement_problem

But I'm beginning to tire of such entertainment, so we are done here. — Galuchat

Thanks for the "chat". :smile:

Aether has structure and dynamics — Zelebg

As a field, Aether has mathematical structure and dynamics, but no material structure. Math is pure immaterial Information. So any physical field exists by definition, not in terms of matter. I can call the universe an Information Field, which, like a Quantum Field, has the power to convert Virtual Potential into Actual Matter. I know this way of looking at reality is counter-intuitive, but so is queer Quantum Theory, which is the foundation of modern science, and we'll have to get used to it

Quantum physics: Our study suggests objective reality doesn't exist :
https://phys.org/news/2019-11-quantum-physics-reality-doesnt.html.

Electric and magnetic fields can be touched, that's all you ever touch. — Zelebg

You can't touch the immaterial field, but the atoms in your finger are affected by the spooky-action-at-a-distance of force fields. As I mentioned before, scientists often resort to metaphors of the macro world to describe the strangeness of the quantum realm.

Why Physics Says You Can Never Actually Touch Anything :
https://futurism.com/why-you-can-never-actually-touch-anything

Where do you see the connection between Platonic realm of geometry and that of Quantum field? I say it's Aether, — Zelebg

Plato's Ideal Realm of Forms, and the Quantum Field, and the Akashic Field, and the Aether Field are all metaphors for something that is not real or physical, but ideal or metaphysical. In physics, a "field" is a continuum (non-particular empty space) where something can be mathematically defined, even though it can't be seen or touched. That void-vacuum-space is typically defined by an infinite array of mathematical "points" which are completely abstract loci of pure Information. They are all materialistic fantasies of ghostly invisible and intangible entities that exist only in the mind of the "observer".

In Quantum Theory, the field is where Virtual (not quite real) Particles arise from the void. The Aether was imagined by philosophers as almost infinitely diffuse matter of some unknown kind, equivalent to our modern notion of Space. Early physicists proposed a Luminiferous Aether as a medium for light waves to wave in (later abandoned as unnecessary).

All of these places or spaces are imaginary, and can contain almost anything you can imagine. So yes, the Information Field could be described as an "Aether Field". Or as any of the other Field or Plenum metaphors. But like Virtual Particles, the Information bits exist only in potential, until actualized by observation.

Euclidean Point in Geometry : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Point_(geometry)

The meaning of "equivocation" and "general definition". — Galuchat

Are you accusing me of lying, or of just being ambiguous? Were my multiple definitions too specific? Unfortunately, a simple definition of Information would not be very informative, and might be misleading, as in Shannon's mathematical abstraction, which omits all qualia & meaning.

That's because Information is not a thing, but everything. Or, as the Information Philosopher put it : "Information is the lingua franca of the universe". If you think my definitions of Information gave Too Much Information (TMI). please don't look at the Information Philosopher website. It will boggle your mind. :smile:

Information Philosopher : http://www.informationphilosopher.com/introduction/information/
"Information is neither matter nor energy, although it
needs matter to be embodied and energy to be
communicated. Why should it become the preferred
basis for all philosophy?"

But by the same token the agnostic should also remain agnostic about his agnosticism. Given that I am a limited being with limited knowledge I cannot rule out that we cannot know whether X happened or exists. Perhaps we can know. — NOS4A2

Yes, we can know some things that we can't detect with our senses, but that are reasonable.

I call myself an Agnostic, because I don't know G*D directly --- via the physical senses, or by scientific measurements. But I can and do know something about the First Cause by rational inference. Gnosticism is basically Knowledge of non-sense by Faith. So I am not a Gnostic. G*D is not a matter of faith to me --- no need to worship --- it's a matter of inferred fact, not observed fact. Therefore, I am an Agnostic Deist.


The English biologist Thomas Henry Huxley coined the word agnostic in 1869, and said "It simply means that a man shall not say he knows or believes that which he has no scientific grounds for professing to know or believe." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnosticism

Obviously not.
A definition in terms of probability is a mathematical definition, and Bateson's definition is a semantic definition, and a thermodynamic definition would be a physical definition, etc.
But keep working on it, even if it's not terribly relevant to the OP. — Galuchat

What did I miss?

Libertarian socialism and left libertarianism are views that address those underlying rules to fix the problem without state intervention — Pfhorrest

While I was in college, many years ago, Libertarianism seemed poised to become a viable third party in the US. What happened? Libertarians are now usually found on the right aisle, and are mainly allied with the Republican party (I suppose because they are opposed to state intervention). I'm a Militant Moderate, so the current move of both parties to extreme positions make it almost impossible to meet in the middle. So nothing of substance gets done. And the only way out of the impasse may be a Marxist versus Fascist revolution. Are there any Philosopher Kings out there for 2020? :sad:

Is balance the invisible hand guiding the universe? — DanielP

If not, it should be for philosophers. My personal philosophy is based on the BothAnd Principle. Which is : 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

Then there is panpsychism, which I personally find to be a mostly faulty concept because it is mostly referring to some ‘other’ sense of consciousness - which would mean it is a ‘consciousness’ we cannot be conscious of (thus why call it ‘consciousness’?) — I like sushi

I agree. That's why I call my Universal Mind theory : Enformationism. Panpsychism was a reasonable hypothesis centuries ago. But we now know more about how human consciousness differs from the minimal awareness-of-the-environment that allows single-cell organisms to survive.

Nevertheless, physicists sometimes speak of sub-atomic particles "feeling" the strong or weak forces. But they use the term "feel" metaphorically to describe inputs & outputs of energy (which is a form of Information). However, some New Agers take them literally, and imagine atoms having conversations about the goings-on in their neighborhood, and working together to give humans psychic powers -- as in "The Force" of Star Wars. For which, I see no non-fiction evidence.

Enformationism is based on the ubiquity of Information in the universe, including its role in Human Consciousness. https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/352187

Perhaps a general definition of information is required which pertains to inorganic (physical), organic (biological), and semantic types of information. — Galuchat

Sure. First, here's a general definition from the Enformationism Glossary :

Information :
Knowledge and the ability to know. Technically, it's the ratio of order to disorder, of positive to negative, of knowledge to ignorance. It's measured in degrees of uncertainty. Those ratios are also called "differences". So Gregory Bateson* defined Information as "the difference that makes a difference". The latter distinction refers to "value" or "meaning". Babbage called his prototype computer a "difference engine". Difference is the cause or agent of Change. In Physics it’s called "Thermodynamics" or "Energy". In Sociology it’s called "Conflict".
http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page11.html

Abstract Information : the 1s & 0s of computer language. Existence = 1, Non-existence = 0

Physical Information : Energy - e.g. the ratio between Hot & Cold. Energy is the causal power of Information. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physical_information

Material Information : E=MC\2. Mass is Enformed Energy, and is an essential property of Matter. "the equation says that energy and mass (matter) are interchangeable; they are different forms of the same thing." https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/einstein/lrk-hand-emc2expl.html

Shannon Information : The abstract ratio of One to Zero. It yields accuracy in computation, but omits any meaning or significance. Quantity without Quality.

Organic Information : Living organisms are defined and organized by their "Information Molecule", which we call DNA. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DNA

Semantic Information : Meaning in a conscious mind; for example the relationship between Self and Other. It can be expressed mathematically as a numerical ratio, or emotionally as a positive/negative feeling. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/information-semantic/

NOTE : Originally, before Shannon, the word "Information" meant that-which-Informs or educates (i.e. knowledge). Literally, it means to give definite Form to the Amorphous. Metaphorically, to create Order out of Chaos. To know; to be aware, is to be Conscious.

God is a mixed metaphor

Since G*D is not real (i.e. outside space-time) humans have always expressed their intuition of an Ultimate Cause in a variety of metaphors, such as Storm Gods and Enthroned Kings. My thesis uses the notion of a Great Programmer to indicate the role of Information in the computation of Evolution.

I like to hear any theory, but have too much to read already. Can you say anything about the actual process of materialization of those abstractions? — Zelebg

Yes. Immaterial Information (energy) transforms into concrete Matter via the process of "Phase Change". It's a well-known physical phenomenon, but still a bit mysterious without an understanding that Information (causation) is both Energy and Matter. Also, it would help to grasp the concept of "Emergence". To save you some research and reading time, the blog post below presents an overview of how Phase Transitions and Emergence are involved in the "process of materialization".

In my theory, those natural (no divine intervention) Transforming processes are also involved in the "dematerialization" of Matter into Mind (consciousness). But a complete explanation for that might try your patience. :smile:

The EnFormAction Hypothesis : http://bothandblog3.enformationism.info/page23.html

Note :Enformation is Causation; Transformation.

PS__If you need some scientific authority to back-up my personal thesis, any of the books by physicist Paul Davies will elucidate the role of Information in Physics. The latest is Information and the Nature of Reality: From Physics to Metaphysics. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Davies

Abstraction (information) needs matter/energy to be causally relative. Abstractions exist in minds, which do exist in time and space. — Zelebg

You won't understand what I'm talking about until you grasp the concept of abstract Information as the essence of both Matter and Energy (EnFormAction).

The Enformationism thesis begins with the basics and layer-by-layer builds-up the scaffolding for a complete Theory Of Everything on a foundation of immaterial Information. To a Materialist, that will sound insane --- another internet nut with a crazy theory. But it's merely a novel interpretation of cutting-edge Physics, and Information Theory, combined with ancient philosophical insights. It's not a religious concept, but it bridges the gap between Materialism and Idealism. Whether it sounds reasonable, or not, may depend on the presumptions you bring to it. :smile:


The EnFormAction Hypothesis : http://bothandblog3.enformationism.info/page23.html

Enformationism Thesis : http://enformationism.info/enformationism.info/

Is Information Fundamental? : https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/article/is-information-fundamental/

First, any other theory why consciousness? Second, this all makes sense, except I do not see why that or whatever functionality necessarily requires to be accompanied by the subjective experience or qualia. — Zelebg

Since Consciousness of Qualia is not necessary for physical evolution, I assume it was a requirement for Cultural Evolution to mysteriously emerge from Material Development . But what adaptive purpose does conscious experience serve, if as Materialists assume, we are all Zombie Automatons?

Cultural Evolution :
"Cultural evolution” is the idea that human cultural change –– that is, changes in socially transmitted beliefs, knowledge, customs, skills, attitudes, languages, and so on –– can be described as a Darwinian evolutionary process that is similar in key respects (but not identical) to biological/genetic evolution.

PS___One theory to explain the emergence of conscious beings is that the Designer of this Game of Life wanted to experience reality vicariously through He/r avatars : us.
Just a guess, based on the metaphor of a video game.. :smile:

Btw, time is not actually a property, there is nothing it can be a property of, except "change' itself. Thus it can't be a dimension in literal sense, it's just an abstract consequence of motion. — Zelebg

Yes. "Space" and "Time" are Meta-Physical concepts that have no physical referents. When Einstein spoke of the "fabric" of space, it was a metaphor for something that "exists" only as an Idea.
So, when you say something exists "in space", what do you mean? Does Space exist "in Time"? If we can't talk about such non-existent things using Metaphors, we are no better than the lower animals. The ability to conceive of "things that do not appear" is the key human trait.

The human body is Real. But human Consciousness is Ideal. G*D is a Metaphor.

Metaphors We Live By : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metaphors_We_Live_By

To exist outside of the time is to exist never. To exist outside of space is to exist nowhere. It means it does not exist and that it never existed. If this simple logic is not obvious there is really no point in talking about this anymore, or about anything really. — Zelebg

People have been talking about Plato's "Forms", and Aristotle's "Unmoved Mover" for thousands of years. Yet they don't exist in space-time. So what was the point of their Philosophy? Was it about physical Things, or metaphysical Ideas?


Meta-physics :
The branch of philosophy that examines the nature of reality, including the relationship between mind and matter, substance and attribute, fact and value.
1. Often dismissed by materialists as idle speculation on topics not amenable to empirical proof.
2. Aristotle divided his treatise on science into two parts. The world as-known-via-the-senses was labeled “physics” - what we call "Science" today. And the world as-known-by-the-mind, by reason, was labeled “metaphysics” - what we now call "Philosophy" .
3. Plato called the unseen world that hides behind the physical façade: “Ideal” as opposed to Real. For him, Ideal “forms” (concepts) were prior-to the Real “substance” (matter).
4. Physics refers to the things we perceive with the eye of the body. Meta-physics refers to the things we conceive with the eye of the mind. Meta-physics includes the properties, and qualities, and functions that make a thing what it is. Matter is just the clay from which a thing is made. Meta-physics is the design (form, purpose); physics is the product (shape, action). The act of creation brings an ideal design into actual existence. The design concept is the “formal” cause of the thing designed.
5. I use a hyphen in the spelling to indicate that I am not talking about Ghosts and Magic, but about Ontology (science of being).
http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page14.html

May I ask how you establish and navigate the boundary between fanciful and actual? You already have the fanciful side, and more power to you! But try to move it to the actual and, you know, there are difficulties with that. . . .Or simply own them as beliefs — tim wood

I navigate the rocky shoals between evidence and speculation, between fact & faith, in the same way physicists do with such far-out notions as Dark Matter. They logically infer the existence of some undetectable locus of gravity, but so far have found no hard evidence for their hypothetical WIMPS. They know what Dark Matter does, but they still don't know what it is.

Likewise, Darwin proposed a detailed theory to explain the Origin of Species. But, to date, scientists have not observed the emergence of any new species. Which is to be expected, because speciation takes thousands of generations. Nevertheless, biologists have concluded that "nothing in biology makes sense, except in the light of evolution". That's a profession of faith.

Unfortunately, since my hypothetical First Cause is defined as outside the limits of space-time, I have no reason to expect to find any hard evidence to support my theory. I know what G*D does, but not what it is. Nevertheless, I have concluded that nothing in Reality makes sense, except in the light of Ideality. Which is the the axiom of Enformationism. That's my profession of (provisional) faith -- subject to new information of course. :smile:

PS___I also delineate the boundary between proven science and my unproven fantasy of creation by labeling it a Myth, which may be "true" metaphorically, if not literally.

Enformationism : a worldview or belief system grounded on the assumption that Information, rather than Matter, is the basic substance of everything in the universe. It is intended to be a successor to the 19th century paradigm of Materialism, and to the ancient philosophy of Spiritualism.

Is your understanding of "design" "intelligent Evolution"? What would intelligent evolution be, as distinct from just plain evolution? In evolution (as I understand it) things evolve. Are you positing something outside of evolution - that does not evolve - that directs in some way the progress of evolution? And, if that were the case, then how could you call it evolution? — tim wood

In my myth of Intelligent Evolution, the design intent is implemented via a process of gradual construction, not an act of instant magic. That's why I imagine the hypothetical Creator as a Programmer. Yes, the First Cause is outside of evolution. The process is directed like a computer program from the bottom-up, via logical rules and initial conditions. And the ultimate output is specified only in general terms. So I assume the journey is more important than the destination. Perhaps G*D is playing a video game. :smile:

You ask a lot of questions. I have a lot of answers. Here's just a sampler :

Evolutionary Programming :
Special computer algorithms inspired by biological Natural Selection. It is similar to Genetic Programming in that it relies on internal competition between random alternative solutions to weed-out inferior results, and to pass-on superior answers to the next generation of algorithms. By means of such optimizing feedback loops, evolution is able to make progress toward the best possible solution – limited only by local restraints – to the original programmer’s goal or purpose. In Enformationism theory the Prime Programmer is portrayed as a creative deity, who uses bottom-up mechanisms, rather than top-down miracles, to produce a world with both freedom & determinism, order & meaning. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolutionary_programming

Intelligent Evolution : http://gnomon.enformationism.info/Essays/Intelligent%20Evolution%20Essay_Prego_120106.pdf

The EnFormAction Hypothesis : http://bothandblog3.enformationism.info/page23.html

The 'veto' isn't done by consciousness. — PoeticUniverse

So, you think the subconscious is a perfect democracy, with no executive to overrule the voters with a veto? Maybe you are an automaton. :smile:

Well, my consciousness depends on my brain, body, etc., else there isn't any. — PoeticUniverse

True. Consciousness is a function : no form, no function.

Also, I confess that I am an automon. — PoeticUniverse

Prove it! :grin:

However you turn it around it doesn't make sense because the real question underneath is - why is there something rather than nothing? And whatever answer goes there must seem magical to us. — Zelebg

The only reasonable answer to that fundamental question is "creation" ex nihilo. Which is why I assume that the Creator must exist eternally outside of space-time (i.e. nothingness). In Eternity, all things are possible. But in space-time only some things are actual. In the Real World creation ex nihilo is impossible, hence magical. From our perspective in the conditional world, the Creator is a magician, capable of doing the physically impossible.

However, since I define G*D as BEING (the power to exist), creation (making things exist) is simply inherent in the job description. As PoeticUniverse noted : existence is essential, and must be taken for granted by those of us who know we exist. So, no BEING, no beings; no things. QED

agnosticism is more to do with the concept of knowledge than it is a deity really. — Mark Dennis

Yes. For me, as an Agnostic Deist, the First Cause of our world is like a Black Box. I can see what came out of it, but I don't know what's inside. So, beyond labeling by its apparent function, world creation, I make no further claims about the mysterious Jack-in-the-Box. I am more concerned with the implications of creation in reality, than in the unknown "Creator" --- which I also call "G*D" for purposes of communication.

This tries my patience almost beyond endurance. Science looks for causes (in the most modern and scientific sense of "cause," the which by traditional and ordinary usage is in effect not anything understood by "cause"). — tim wood

I'm sorry my wording offends you. So perhaps I should disclaim. I said that Science (Big Bang, Information Theory, Quantum Theory, etc) "hints" at design. In fact, that's why Astronomer Fred Hoyle scoffed at the radical notion that the universe had a beginning, which to him implied (hint, hint) a creation event --- which tried his patience no end --- so he coined an absurd term to describe it : "Big Bang".

Since then, Atheists have come to terms with the fact that space-time seems to have suddenly appeared from out of nowhere, and have looked for alternative explanations, such as an un-caused eternal Multiverse, for which they have no evidence. Since the origin of the Singularity is logically prior to the Bang, its "cause", as you pointed out, cannot be a physical action of the sort that scientists normally look for. Instead, it must be a metaphysical First Cause as postulated by Philosophers over the ages.

Regarding signs of "Design", you may be thinking of instantaneous creation as in the Myth of Genesis. But my personal myth is of gradual "Intelligent Evolution" instead of "Intelligent Design". I can go into much deeper detail, if your patience has any elasticity remaining. :smile:

So perhaps consciousness, as well as being how we see the world, is what the world, the multiverse, is made of: the unifying field, full of meaning, as in our Goldilocks planet - and the non-random appearance of DNA. — Chris Hughes

Yes. My worldview is similar to Panpsychism, but I prefer to use the abstract term "Information" in reference to the enformed structure of the world, in place of "Consciousness" or "Psyche". That's because some people imagine that rocks & atoms are conscious in the same sense that humans are. Physicists sometimes speak metaphorically about a particle "feeling" a force. But they don't mean it literally.

DNA conveys information (meaning) to the degree that its structure is non-random.

It's physically based and so is not floating around as an 'All' or such. Koch adds in a footnote that it is intrinsic in the sense of being internal, but not in the sense of something like mass — PoeticUniverse

Yes. My personal consciousness is intrinsic to my body as a holon. But Cosmic Consciousness of the ALL is intrinsic to the universe as a whole. In my thesis, the physical universe is analogous to the fleshly body of a conscious human. But the quality of consciousness is not located in any part of the world. So, you could say that it's "floating around" out there in the great beyond. In other words, immaterial Consciousness is non-local. :smile:

With all the thinking/doing of the brain areas already done and finished and represented as qualia, sequential consciousness is too late in the cycle to do any conscious thinking of its own, but the cycle continues… — PoeticUniverse

If you are referring to the time gap between intention and action as determined by Benjamin Libet, his results can be interpreted as allowing time for an intentional veto. Thus, retaining a role for agency in the ongoing cycle of life. :cool:

" Libet's results thus cannot be interpreted to provide empirical evidence in favour of agency reductionism, "
"Daniel Dennett argues that no clear conclusion about volition can be derived from Libet's experiment because of ambiguities in the timings of the different events involved."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benjamin_Libet

Selection determinator can be passive and inanimate against some dynamics, like A shaped roof selects which raindrops go to one or the other side. So evolutionary selector can be amount of light, heat, acidity... stuff like that. — Zelebg

Yes. The selection criteria for evolution are encoded in the universal laws of Math/Logic/Physics and in the Initial Conditions. So the geometric shape of a roof can passively divide random raindrops into two categories, which will determine the future direction of flow. But the "intention" I mentioned was in the mind of the encoder/programmer, who tilted the playing field in order to influence the outcome without presetting all the intermediate details. Thus, allowing a degree of freedom within determinism.

That's why, in my thesis, the creative act occurred before the Big Bang beginning, but the creative process of Evolution is still underway. Since we humans find ourselves in the middle of the journey, and our understanding is limited by the time/light horizon, we can infer the intended end-state only by looking in the direction of Time's Arrow. But the fact that there is a direction (tendency) in Nature indicates that there was conscious intention in the mind of the pool shooter (Programmer), who aimed the cue stick, and then allowed physics to guide the ball to the selected pocket.

Having read and agreed with radical biologist Rupert Sheldake, whose views, I'd say, coinicide with Idealism, — Chris Hughes

FWIW, I just came across an old blog post that specifically addresses the differences between Sheldrake's Morphogenesis theory and my own theory of Enformationism.

Morphogenesis and Enformationism : http://bothandblog2.enformationism.info/page55.html

Paul Davies on Morphogenesis : http://bothandblog6.enformationism.info/page8.html

one would also think that a whole can only be expressed as a Whole in a holistic way. Consciousness solved! — PoeticUniverse

Irony or Sarcasm or Tautology?

Or it is that the Boss has no doing associated with it, per Koch, and the nonconscious guys continue to attend to the goings on by voting or whatnot. — PoeticUniverse

My personal interpretation of Koch's IIT Consciousness --- in view of Dennett's "Multiple Drafts" model and Minsky's "Society of Mind" --- is that 98% of human behavior is carried-out by subconscious automatic instinctive & Intuitive processes. Which leaves only the most important 2% of decisions for the the CEO (the Conscious Whole) to approve or veto. It's only that final say-so (judgment) that we can truly call Free Will. At best, we are absentee (golf-course) executives. Otherwise, we are all philosophical zombies.

If you are a zombie, you're an exceptionally insightful automaton. :smile:


Multiple Drafts : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consciousness_Explained

Society of Mind : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Society_of_Mind

PS__The weak point of these Subconscious Mind theories is "what to do in case of a tied vote by the underlings?" Do nothing, or kick it upstairs to the boss? Those who get emotionally tied-in-knots are acting irrationally. Rare rational thinkers make an executive or judicial decision and move-on.