• On beginning a discussion in philosophy of religion
    The second possible derivation was from ‘re-ligare’ where ‘ligare’ is related to the root ‘lig-‘ meaning ‘binding’ or ‘tying’ (cf ligature, ligament.) So re-ligare was to join to or unite with. — Wayfarer
    The modern definition of "Religion" typically refers to an authoritative creed, of which there are many. But I think religion-in-general goes deeper than that, into the essence of human nature. It's not just intellectual assent to a list of specific "truths", "facts" or commandments. Instead, it's an emotional bond to a family or tribe or social group. The details differ from tribe to tribe, but the feeling of belonging is the same for all people of all places and all times. It's the same emotional connection that unites a family or football team, or military unit. And it may even be motivated by the same neurotransmitters (e.g. oxytocin) that bond a mother and her baby.

    But, in a more general sense, I like to use the Latin roots to see what the word originally referred to. As you noted, "re-" = back, again, past; and "ligare-" = join, unite, bond. a link. So I conclude that the essential meaning of "religion" is "tradition" : an emotional link to a common history.

    For example, many Christian Catholics and Protestants are more loyal to their local social group than to the required creeds of their sect, or to the official leaders of their church. So, when push comes to shove, they would place more weight on their 2000 year old Christian tradition, than on any abstract belief, such as Trinity or Transubstantiation. Hence, their common bond of Christian fellowship would outweigh any milder feelings for fellow humans, who belong to a different tribal tradition, such as Hinduism or Islam. Emotionally, religion is Us versus Them.


    Dictionary.com, word origin for "re-" : a prefix, occurring originally in loanwords from Latin, used with the meaning “again” or “again and again” to indicate repetition, or with the meaning “back” or “backward” to indicate withdrawal or backward motion: regenerate; refurbish; retype; retrace; revert.

    Jesus admonished the Pharisees, who he viewed as apostates from the true religion (tradition) handed down by Moses. In the words of Isaiah, referring to God : "Howbeit in vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men. 8 You have let go of the commands of God and are holding on to human traditions.”. Mark 7:7-13 [ Ironically, the Pharisees considered themselves to be conservatives. But apparently not conservative enough for the fundamentalist Jesus people. ]
  • Former Theists, how do you avoid nihilism?
    When we embrace nihilism, I think we learn to face the reality that everyone is still trying to figure all of this out, and then learn to draw from each other’s experiences not only the courage to explore, but also the missing information that will help us to more accurately map those aspects of reality that are less objectively certain - in particular what is valuable and what it all means. — Possibility
    Your description sounds more like positive Stoicism than negative Nihilism. Rather than rejecting reality, Stoicism embraces the world, warts and all. The focus is on developing personal virtue instead of retreating into "bah-humbug" cynicism. :smile:
  • An Estimate for no ‘God’
    A Massive Big Bang explosion hardly seems to be a good way of intelligently designing a universe, but rather appears as if something really got out of hand. — PoeticUniverse
    That's why my alternate version of the scientific theory of "creation" is called Intelligent Evolution. Astronomer Fred Hoyle, who assumed the world was eternal, labeled the proposed Expanding Universe theory as a "Big Bang", in order to ridicule the notion that all of space-time could have emerged from a pin-point in the abyss of no-where & no-when. Imagined as an explosion, it would seem to be self-destructive. Which now seems more plausible, since the fading final days of the universe are currently labeled "Heat Death".

    By contrast with the down-hill dead-end of the Big Bang theory, Intelligent Evolution proposes that the world is progressing from essentially nothing toward something positive. It's imagined as a computer program beginning from a kernel code (singularity) and calculating all possible permutations of random freedom constrained by a specific set of laws, and initial conditions. This theory is just the opposite of Intelligent Design, which assumes that the world began as a perfect Garden of Eden, and was corrupted by Satan-inspired humans. After the Original Sin, it was all down-hill, until the perverted world is finally destroyed by its disappointed and thwarted creator.

    The Intelligent Evolution theory infers from the same evidence that the Garden of Eden was not an end in itself, but that the process of upward evolution was the point of the exercise. The evolutionary program will eventually run its course, of course, but it will have produced the answer to The Programmer's question, "what will happen if . . ." For all I know, the answer might be "42". :smile:

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

    Cosmic Progression : http://bothandblog3.enformationism.info/page28.html
  • An Estimate for no ‘God’
    To make a long story from Isaac Luria's Kabbalistic Zohar short:
    G_d had to create a space in which to allow matter to exist, so It inhaled. This is called the tsimtsum, G_d's contraction or limitation, or even an internal exile.     — uncanni
    The Kabbalah has a complex explanation for the imperfections of the creation, with lots of magical symbols and characters, which lends itself to myth-making.

    My thesis of Enformationism, has a different rationale; based on modern scientific understanding, instead of imaginative (magical) interpretations of ancient scriptures. It's rather abstract and has only one "character", hence not much fodder for mythologizing. Instead of "emptying himself", G*D created space, *a bubble", within Infinity, simply by trans-forming Generic Information (the essence of G*D) into specific forms (real things). Since G*D is all-information-all-the-time, that bubble of space is full of the essence of G*D : EnFormAction or Energy (science magic). Logically, if the bubble was perfect and complete, it would be G*D, eternal & infinite. So, by necessity, it is incomplete, which leaves it free to expand (space), and imperfect, which allows it to evolve (time) within Infinity.

    Like the Kabbalah, this is a made-up story, and not to be taken literally. It's only useful as a way of thinking about the otherwise unimaginable. The Kabbalah is too complex & technical to be a popular creation story. So it appeals primarily to a few intellectuals who enjoy mystical puzzles. Enformationism is also too unfamiliar & technical & non-magical to become a popular account of creation and evolution. So, it will likely appeal to only a minority of pragmatic philosophers, who might enjoy a novel approach to an ancient mystery. The Enformationism thesis is a hypothetical account for how the world came to be, and to become, and should be accepted only as food for thought. It's no more true than any other scientific postulate. :cool:

    Generic Information : Information is Generic in the sense of generating all forms from a formless pool of possibility : the Platonic Forms.

    EnFormAction : http://bothandblog2.enformationism.info/page29.html
  • Former Theists, how do you avoid nihilism?
    From my lips to goober's goober! As if to order - no waiting, curbside delivery here TPF - homebrewed Blue Pill woo courtesy of :zip: — 180 Proof

    THE RED PILL MEME

    If you're a New Ager who,
    is looking for woo,
    Then Enformationism
    is not for you.

    The choice of pills red or blue
    have nothing to do,
    but allow you to change your
    attitude.

    If it's magic you pursue,
    look inside of you,
    where miracles are seen in
    inner view.

    The outer world you construe
    can only be moved
    by machine and muscle, not by
    psychetude*.

    And G*D only helps those who
    help themselves to
    what they desire and need by
    homebrew.

    Note : Sorry for the ill-formed poor-etry. Phew! I was running out of "woo" rhymes. :cool:

    * Psychetude : http://sepinwall.blogspot.com/2006/03/waves-of-psychetude.html

    FWIW : Enformationism has some similarities to New Age worldviews, but it specifically denies any mind-over-matter magic and divine-intervention miracles.
  • Former Theists, how do you avoid nihilism?
    I am wondering if others who have lost their religion have found a path out of this sense of loss and underlying chaos and would care to share. — dazed
    My evolution was slow and gradual : from Protestant Fundamentalism, to uncertain Agnosticism, to Scientific explorer, to Philosophical thinker, etc. But I could never accept the Atheist worldview, which has no satisfactory explanation for the perennial religious questions : Where did we come from? Why are we here? What's the meaning of life? and so on.

    So, I began to develop my own personal worldview, based on a> cutting-edge science, b> state-of-the-art philosophy, and c> a select summary of the world's religious wisdom. This customized philosophy of life is not a guarantee of absolute truth, but it gives me a stable foundation of relative truths, and it seems to be a reasonable guide to living in an imperfect world surrounded by mysteries. It avoids the extremes of Optimism and Pessimism, by adopting a moderate attitude of Pragmatism.

    I call my worldview Enformationism, because it is an update of ancient Materialism and Spiritualism, with the Quantum Age understanding that Information is more essential to reality than Matter or Energy. As a religious philosophy, it can be labeled : PanEnDeism : the assumption that everything is contained within the eternal-infinite Mind of what I call G*D, with no historical prejudices or anthro-morphic presumptions. Like the Codex of Pfhorest, this serves as my framework for morality and for meaning. Perhaps you can also construct your own path out of confusion and nihilism. :smile:


    Enformationism definition : http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page8.html

    PanEnDeism definition : http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page16.html

    Enformationism thesis : http://enformationism.info/enformationism.info/
  • An Estimate for no ‘God’
    What if my unproven and assumed-to-be-true premise is incongruent with yours? — god must be atheist
    That's why we have philosophy. Not to decide what's true, but what's reasonable. :smile:
  • An Estimate for no ‘God’
    Whatever I am: conditioned by culture, beleiving in pieces of information that imperfect people gave me: I am still me. I am I, and I am not not I.

    I can't not be me, however was I produced to be who I am.     — god must be atheist
    "I was born this way" ___Lady Gaga
  • An Estimate for no ‘God’
    My fundamental premise is that human cruelty, greed and exploitation of nature are "bad." — uncanni
    True. But Kindness, Generosity, and Conservation of Nature are good. Unlike animals, humans are moral agents. They have a choice to do good or bad. But most are pretty good or not so bad. Only a few are excessively extreme in their saintliness or demonism. That's why, in an imperfect world that seems to be gradually getting better (morally), we need to appreciate the moderate. It's OK to be just OK.

    Philosophers shouldn't become despondent about the world's flaws, but merely work to make their little corner of the world better. In view of Aristotle's Golden Mean and the modern Mediocrity Principle, "The idea is to assume mediocrity, rather than starting with the assumption that a phenomenon is special, privileged, exceptional, or even superior". As moral beings, we can imagine Utopia, which gives us something to work toward as we muddle through our mundane lives. But, unless you expect God to rapture you directly to Heaven, just be grateful that this is the best of all "real" worlds. :smile:

    Steven Pinker on The Better Angels of Our Nature: 'reasons to be grateful' : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8GUdPIVymKQ

    The Mediocrity Principle : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mediocrity_principle

    Desiderata : https://mwkworks.com/desiderata.html
  • An Estimate for no ‘God’
    And Ghandi, when asked what he thought of Western civilization, said, “I think it would be a good idea.” And lots of people said “eat, drink, and be merry, for tomorrow we diet, since the waist was a terrible thing to mind.” Yes, there were more horse’s asses than horses. Some even put Horace before Descartes — PoeticUniverse
    :grin:
  • An Estimate for no ‘God’
    Who said she was a "bad mother"? Nature is not our primary caretaker! — uncanni
    If Mother Nature had bad children (humanity), who is blame? No, I don't think Mother Nature is bad just because there are a few bad apples in her family tree. Mother Cosmos is imperfect, but not Evil. :smile:
  • An Estimate for no ‘God’
    'God' seems to be restricted to using evolution by natural selection and the laws of nature. — PoeticUniverse
    From my Enformationism perspective, I would say that eternal-infinite G*D intentionally "restricted" space-time to natural selection and laws of physics. But those limitations do not apply to the Programmer who lives outside the frame of the game of evolution. My god-model is PanEnDeistic, not PanDeistic : all-in-god, not god-in-all.

    PS__Enformationism is perfectly compatible with The Unified Theory of Evolution. In which Darwin's (pre-genetic) non-progressive mechanism is united with Lamarck's updated notion of progressive development via epigenetics. : https://aeon.co/essays/on-epigenetics-we-need-both-darwin-s-and-lamarck-s-theories
  • An Estimate for no ‘God’
    But there are moments during each day, when one perceives the true reality, or the minutist details of Mother Nature at work. Then one is immensely-comforted, knowing that mother nature will arrive at the inhalation point, when all matter must return to be re-combined and re-dispursed. New Baby, New Big Bang. — uncanni
    What? Have you given-up on "true reality", and place your hope in a new reality? That's the attitude of pessimistic Christians, who are willing to abandon the real world to Satan, and grimly live on faith in a new Heaven or a new Earth in some sublime perfect future. What makes you think the New Big Bang will be any better than the old one?

    Why not try to make an imperfect situation better? That is what Pragmatists do, despite disappointments. :smile:

    It's true I have little faith in humnakind, but I have infinite faith in the cosmos, i.e., mother nature. — uncanni
    If humans are the black sheep of Mother Nature's family, why do you have faith in such a bad mother? If the current Cosmos is such a failure, why imagine that it will turn-out right the next time? Unless you expect to experience that future perfect Cosmos, why not make the best of the one you have in hand? :cool:
  • An Estimate for no ‘God’
    Our planet is very good at promoting life,
    But it is much better at extinguishing it.
    Of the billions upon billions of living things,
    99.99% are no longer around here living.     — PoeticUniverse
    That is exactly what you would expect if our world was not intended to be a perfect Garden of Eden, but instead an experiment in freedom. If G*D is eternal-infinite, then there is no time or room to grow, to develop, to improve. But if all things are possible, given unlimited time & space, then G*D could make room internally, so to speak, for a finite bubble universe that is free to start from nothing (Singularity) and develop into something (Seity). Within the limits of space-time, it is programmed to explore all possibilities (random mutations) guided only by natural laws (selection criteria). The mutant entities that don't meet the criteria of fitness for G*D's purpose are abandoned (extinction). Imagine Edison trying hundreds of permutations for his goal of creating a practical electric light. Where are those failures now? His arduous experiment, although fraught with failures, was a success. The dark world has been transformed by his creation.

    Note 1 : Philosophers tend to compare Reality with Ideality, and not surprisingly, find reality to be less than ideal. A pragmatic attitude would make the best of what-is, without unrealistically pining for what-ought-to-be.

    Note 2. Cynicism is what passes for sophistication among many intellectuals. Romanticism is the refuge of those sensitive souls who find reality unbearably bleak. A better alternative is not Pollyanna optimism, but up-beat get-er-done Pragmatism.

    Note 3 : The Eternal could create a perfect world, but it would be predestined. And what's the point of that? Unpredictable Freedom is more Fun. :smile:

    The human race had been degenerating, — PoeticUniverse
    That is an erroneous perception, due in part to the popular media's penchant for reporting nasty gossip and bad news. "if it bleeds, it leads". But in reality, the human race is ethically and technically superior to the race of upright apes that walked out of Africa.

    The Better Angels of Our Nature : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Better_Angels_of_Our_Nature
    The Moral Arc : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Moral_Arc

    The problem was that the celestial music of the spheres had fallen out of tune. — PoeticUniverse
    No. The problem is that a percentage of humanity is tone-deaf. The celestial symphony continues to play magnificently, but cynical misanthropes focus on the down notes and miss the high notes.

    Cheer up! The dismal science of Misanthropy focuses on the losses, and fails to enjoy the gains. :wink:
  • An Estimate for no ‘God’
    I can only conclude that we have a long way to go to see the light at the end of the teleological tunnel--if we live to see it on this planet. i have my very grave doubts that homo sapiens will. G-d's teleology may very well have to go on without us, and our species chalked up to a failed experiment. — uncanni
    Oh, ye of little faith! :smile:

    Check out the Cosmic Progression Chart in the previous post.

    Note : Nature progresses arithmetically, but Culture progresses exponentially.
  • An Estimate for no ‘God’
    The Permanent First Cause has no direction able to be put into it, so it really can't know anything. Its supposed nebluous nature, then, being not anything in particular is a superposition of all possible paths, as like towards a multiverse, which seems to be the cleanest solution, not requiring an intelligence that really shouldn't be there since that violates the fundamental art by having parts in a system. — PoeticUniverse
    You are describing random Chaos, which the Greeks proposed as the source of our Cosmos. But, as the presumed eternal-infinite source-of-all-things the unbounded Prime Cause must, by definition, encompass all possibilities, including all directions, and intentions. There are no patterns or directions, no change or novelty in pure static randomness. Darwin understood this; which is why his theory proposed Random Mutations guided by Natural Selection as the formula for new species.

    In Evolution, what gives direction to random mutations is Selection according to some criteria (such as fitness for a niche or function). So, lacking purpose (goals, criteria) an accidental Multiverse would wander blindly forever before stumbling on the magic formula for the initial conditions plus matter, energy, life & mind that we find in our world. But, an intentional Creator could imagine an infinity of possible worlds, from which to select one to actualize. Can you imagine an Intentional Omniverse? That's what I call "G*D".

    Cynical attitudes toward the "blind watchmaker" of Evolution are assuming a maker who intended to create perfection immediately, as a Garden of Eden. Yet, since our world is obviously not perfect, but progressing, we may infer that it is developing toward some more complete future state. For those who deny any progress in evolution, I can only conclude that they are "blind" to long-term trends in historical patterns. See Progressophobia and Cosmic Progression Chart below.

    So, whether you prefer to speculate about a nebulous hypothetical eternal Omniverse, or the infinite potential of Eternal BEING, all things that are found in Reality (the Effect) must be possible in the Source (First Cause). Our world, according to quantum physics, is essentially mathematical information, and the permutations of that cosmic code (analogous to DNA) have resulted, not just in quantitative physical things, but qualitative metaphysical forms of Life, Mind, and Love. A random accidental Omniverse, without direction, would be impotent. That's why I insist that G*D must include the power of Intention, in order to Cause anything. Whether that requirement includes Knowing, I'll leave you to figure out. :smile:


    Designed to Evolve : http://bothandblog5.enformationism.info/page8.html
    Cosmic Progression : http://bothandblog3.enformationism.info/page28.html
    Progressophobia : http://bothandblog2.enformationism.info/page9.html

    PS___ When you have plenty of time, I have an explanation for how an eternal Whole can have "parts of the system". Hint : frame of reference.
  • An Estimate for no ‘God’
    What does an intrepid leap of logic require? — god must be atheist
    It requires deductive reasoning from available (conditional) evidence to logical conclusions. But the conclusions are only as true as the premises. If you don't like my amateur premises, check-out the expert references.

    Philosophers, who deal with metaphysical theories rather than physical facts, must have the courage to make a leap into logical probabilities.

    Deductive Reasoning : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deductive_reasoning
  • An Estimate for no ‘God’
    And a third question, which is the fundamental problem of a missionary: if faith is untouched by reason and by the intellect, how can you impress reasonable people? — god must be atheist
    You can't. Fortunately, some believers have not completely taken leave of their reason. I have found at least one door-knocking Jehovah's Witness, who will engage in a reason-based dialog. I haven't convinced him that the bible-god is man-made, but I have enjoyed our discussions.

    BTW, technically, I am an A-Theist. But I prefer Agnostic-Deist. The existence of transcendent G*D is unprovable by empirical methods, but can be approached by logical methods. I don't know for sure that my hypothetical First Cause exists. But I am convinced that there are only two reasonable explanations for the existence of our world of matter & minds : 1> a spontaneous random accident (statistically a Black Swan), or 2> the intentional act of an eternal self-existent Mind (statistically, incalculable due to lack of quantifiable evidence). Hence, #2 requires not slavish Faith, but an intrepid Leap of Logic. :smile:
  • An Estimate for no ‘God’
    I don't disagree with what you are trying to say about information, but I want to make a semantic distinction, as it is conflating two different kinds of "information". — Punshhh
    Your semantic insight is spot-on. That's because Information plays dual roles in the world. Originally the term referred to the immaterial contents of a mind, such as ideas. But since the advent of Quantum Theory, "Information" has also been described as the essence of matter : "It from Bit" (John Wheeler).

    So I spell the word differently depending on which role I'm referring to. As ideal mind-stuff, I spell it with an "I" to indicate its traditional meaning. But when referring to real matter or energy, I spell it with an "E". When I'm talking about the ultimate unitary form of Information, I spell it "EnFormAction". In my thesis, EnFormAction is equivalent to Spinoza's "single substance" of the world.

    What is EnFormAction? : http://bothandblog2.enformationism.info/page29.html
  • An Estimate for no ‘God’
    That seems just about as ignorant as what you claim about my speculation. Your comments about peeling away at matter until we arrive at...??? don't negate the existence of matter. — uncanni
    The onion analogy does not "negate the existence of matter". It merely indicates that the essence of matter is Information. Matter is real; Fields are ideal. In current physics, fields are more fundamental than particles. If a field is not a mathematical abstraction, what is it? Is it made of matter? Or is matter made from fields? Mathematics = Information.

    "Quantum Field Theory (QFT) is the mathematical and conceptual framework for contemporary elementary particle physics."
    https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/quantum-field-theory/

    Are Quantum Fields Real? : https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2018/11/17/ask-ethan-are-quantum-fields-real/#50c1bd6e777a
  • An Estimate for no ‘God’
    Isn't that energy? — uncanni
    Energy is a form of Enformation.

    The girl in a red dress is a form of Information. :love:
  • An Estimate for no ‘God’
    Yes: beyond the capabilities of our telescopes, we have no idea if the same laws are being followed. As for the nowhere and nowhen: it seems logical to me to assume that matter has always existed. — uncanni
    That's an argument from ignorance. I could say that logically, G*D has always existed, and you could not refute that assertion with evidence. So. we are both speculating beyond the range of our empirical instruments.

    Lucretius, in his 99BC ode to Materialism, asserted that Atoms were fundamental and eternal. But modern physics has unpeeled the Atom to discover that there is no end to its layers. The deeper they probe the less materialistic it seems. Current physics has replaced Atoms with Fields, as the fundamental substance of reality. But a field is just a theoretical abstraction, consisting of nothing but mathematical information. So, if anything has always existed, Holistic Information has a better claim than composite Matter.


    Information :
    • Claude Shannon quantified Information not as useful ideas, but as a mathematical ratio between meaningful order (1) and meaningless disorder (0); between knowledge (1) and ignorance (0). So, that meaningful mind-stuff exists in the limbo-land of statistics, producing effects on reality while having no sensory physical properties. We know it exists ideally, only by detecting its effects in the real world.
    • For humans, Information has the semantic quality of aboutness , that we interpret as meaning. In computer science though, Information is treated as meaningless, which makes its mathematical value more certain. It becomes meaningful only when a sentient Self interprets it as such.
    • When spelled with an “I”, Information is a noun, referring to data & things. When spelled with an “E”, Enformation is a verb, referring to energy and processes.
    http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page11.html
  • An Estimate for no ‘God’
    Information is subject, not object. We exist in an object. — Punshhh
    Information is both Subject and Object, both Noun and Verb, both Matter and Energy. Information, according to current physics, is the essence of everything in the world. Or as the link below says : Information is the only thing that exists. So we, subjects and objects, exist within Information.

    “IT FROM bit.” This phrase, coined by physicist John Wheeler, encapsulates what a lot of physicists have come to believe: that tangible physical reality, the “it”, is ultimately made from information, or bits.
    https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg23431191-500-inside-knowledge-is-information-the-only-thing-that-exists/
  • An Estimate for no ‘God’
    There needs to be a Fundamental capability for all that is, no matter the ‘how’ of it, whether supposed as spontaneous, from ‘Nothing’, permanent stuff or energy, or whatnot. If it had an opposite state, there wouldn’t be anything, and so the capability is of necessity; it cannot not be. — PoeticUniverse


    Isn't that energy? Plus space? That's a good enough definition of God for me. I'm definitely not at all comfortable with any of the anthropomorphic conceptions--except maybe Mother Nature...     — uncanni

    No. As far as Science has been able to determine, Space-Time-Matter-Energy emerged in the Big Bang from nowhere & nowhen. Anything existing "prior" to that point-of-origin is inherently speculative and non-empirical (theoretical, philosophical), including notions of an eternal regression of mystical Multiverses within a self-existent Omniverse*1. Such world-creator concepts were traditionally called "God" and had to be taken on faith. Since the anthro-morphic gods are no longer tenable, I call that inscrutable enigma "G*D" -- defined as an abstraction like Logic or Mathematics : immaterial, but omnipresent in the world. You can call it "Mother Nature", if you prefer a personification.

    Since Energy does not seem to be self-existent, we must assume an Unmoved Mover (First Cause) of some kind to get the ball rolling. Besides, your proposed Prime Mover, Energy, has an acute Achilles Heel : Entropy. Anything that starts strong and then simply fades away over time cannot be permanent or fundamental. As PU so aptly expressed, "if it had an opposite state, there wouldn't be anything". Entropy is the inverse of Energy, which is why they are canceling each other over time, fated to end in the Big Sigh, or the Heat Death of the universe.

    Instead, there is an emerging opinion among Cosmologists and Mathematicians that the fundamental essence of our world is Information*2. And Energy is now viewed as a sub-form of Information*3. So, I have adopted a novel term "Enformy" to epitomize the YinYang nature of nature's dynamic forces*4. And EnFormAction is the "fundamental capability for all that is"*5. Hence, the eternal Enformer "cannot not be".


    *1 Turtles all the way down : http://www.bothandblog.enformationism.info/page41.html

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

    *3 Energy is Information : https://bigthink.com/philip-perry/the-basis-of-the-universe-may-not-be-energy-or-matter-but-information

    *4 Enformy : http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page8.html

    *5 EnFormAction : http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page8.html
  • An Estimate for no ‘God’
    It can’t have inputs, with no beginning;
    So, what chose the song our universe sings?     — PoeticUniverse
    The Eternal BEING,
    being whole & complete
    and self-existent,
    has no inputs or outputs.

    But it may have self-reference,
    creating the whirling turbulence
    of dismayed dissonance.
    rousing the question of "what if?"

    That open-ended possibility
    was the itching motive
    for seeking an answer
    to quell the vexed uncertainty.

    Hence G*D said "Sing!",
    and so it began
    the ballad of evolution,
    calculating endless possibilities,

    Until it found the probability
    of Love's permutations,
    until the song has expressed
    a feeling close to assuredness.

    The Eternal is as a multiverse,
    Potentially, with no information,
    As in Bable’s Library of all books,
    Being as useless as Nothing’s zero.     — PoeticUniverse
    The man-made meme of multiverse
    'tempts to compute
    the possibility of Love
    from endlessly roiling & random static.

    But G*D's song of Love
    is enforméd by
    the Intention to know,
    which guides the world's enforming acts.

    The infinite tower of Babel books
    is incomprehensible until,
    enformed by Intention,
    'til Nil Nada now Knows facts.

    Or, a Programmer sets if-then switches, — PoeticUniverse
    Random 'verses will never reach Life
    Unless a Selector's informed choice
    sets the switch to "what-if?"
    computing "what-is" from a zillion variables

    Yet, the program lines are finite
    because Intention defines the end
    of heuristic lines of learning :
    Livable, Knowable, and Lovable

    Inintelligently prrogrammed, many climbs
    Were the off-the-shelf reach of nature’s grimes,
    A dickering Rube Goldberg ‘invention’,
    Our nervous system now ruled by ancient times.     — PoeticUniverse
    Intelligence programmed evolution
    as the mother of invention,
    jerry-rigging neuron tangles :
    ancient flukes now known as intention.

    What is this sapiens mammal animal?
    Still made from slime but of a higher call!     — PoeticUniverse
    Man is but a creature of flesh & blood
    made of mundane matter
    and icky sticky stuff,
    which learns, by doing, to Live

    But hearing a higher call still,
    to progress from mud
    to mind, soul and spirit,
    able to Know and also to Love


    Sorry! My poetic talent should be hidden under a bushel. But I was suddenly inspired to riff on your themes. :smile:
  • An Estimate for no ‘God’
    Universe was planned? — ozymandias11111
    No. It was Programmed. The difference between a blueprint and DNA is that one produces a predestined object, and the other an open-ended system. We are currently living in a living organism, working out its own destiny. And each of us is a microcosm of that Cosmos. The presumptive Programmer is merely observing the process to see how it turns out. :smile:
  • An Estimate for no ‘God’
    The video of Flora Symbolica isn't out there yet. — PoeticUniverse
    Wow! That was a fantastic trip, and it was drug-free! :up:

    I noticed that all the Fae Folk depicted were in the female form. Is there a Freudian explanation for that, or is it simply Fairy Porn? :love:
  • An Estimate for no ‘God’
    Pictures from my trip: — PoeticUniverse
    Were you tripping in the Astral Plane? I enjoyed your little excursions into fairy-tale fantasy. And also your insightful glimpses into some far-out scientific "aspects of reality". Not many people could pull-off both in the same post. :smile:

    Quantum non-locality seems to imply that every region of space is in instant and constant contact with every other, perhaps even in time as well, and so the holistic universe is governed by the property of the solitary whole—and so that could be the underlying guidance principle. — PoeticUniverse
    Yes. Materialists won't appreciate this analogy -- due to it's spooky implications -- but "non-locality" is essentially the same thing as Infinity/Eternity, as proposed in Einstein's theory of Block Time (Ultimate Reality). All points in space & time are indeed in contact with each other, because there is no distinction in Unity (wholeness). Yet, we space-time creatures experience Proximate Reality as one point (thing, event) at a time. That's why I have to postulate a "guiding principle" (G*D) to conceive of all possibilities at once, and then to select via Intention a sub-set of infinite what-if maybes (Ideality), transforming them into finite what-is actualities (Reality).

    Thus both our consciousness and the holistic universe, each having a singular nature, would be the clue. Maybe they are of the same basis of fundamental consciousness, but separate as two manifestations, each controlling a different realm, — PoeticUniverse
    Subjective Consciousness and Objective Physics are indeed separate manifestations of Ultimate Reality. Subjectively, we experience reality as a sequence of events or as a collection of parts. But Objectively, we can conclude, as Einstein did, that all things are relative, and our personal perspective is only a fraction of absolute reality.

    Lee Smolin has it that qualia are intrinsic, as fundamental, and Chalmers has it that information is fundamental and can express itself in two ways, in consciousness and in matter. — PoeticUniverse
    Precisely. Materialists see only the quantitative aspects of reality, and ignore the intrinsic qualitative aspects, because they are too personal and subjective. But physicist Smolin thinks that's "The Trouble With Physics" : turning a blind-eye to qualia. Information is now viewed by some serious scientists as The Fundamental Element of the universe, being intrinsic in both Mind and Matter. Perhaps the primary reason most physicists object to that interpretation of Information is that it seems to open the door to Magic, Miracles, and Myths, due to the non-empirical nature of subjective consciousness. But Enformationism is an attempt to have the Qualia without losing track of the difference between "as-if" and "as-is". That way we can enjoy fiction & fantasy without compromising facts & science.

    It is still that the apparent atoms and molecules make the happenings, via physical-chemical reactions; however, this observation cannot be equated to an ‘explanation’, for we must wonder what underlies the chemical mattering and reacting that seems to have some unity of direction to it. — PoeticUniverse
    Yes. We need both imaginative Ideality and no-nonsense Reality to see beyond the particular "happenings" of Physics into the holistic "whys" of Meta-physics.


    I had been to FairyLande once before, bringing my epic poem, ‘Flora Symbolica’, unto them, and writing up the results in ‘Elfin Legends’, and so they had bid me to return one day when I had a meaningful quest. — PoeticUniverse
    Have these odes been published in the mundane world?
    Were the Fae Folk dismissing your quest for a reconciliation of Poetry and Science as a meaningless mission?
  • An Estimate for no ‘God’
    If a complex system such as the Universe were to be intentionally planned, then the mind that planned it would need to be at least as complex. — Janus
    That complex effects require even more complex causes is true within the space-time universe. But in the hypothetical eternal-state-prior-to-the-Big-Bang all events exist simultaneously (holistically), as in Einstein's Block Universe. Hence, our one-thing-at-a-time-universe seems complex to us because we experience it one-step-at-a-time (now), while all other steps (past/future) are hidden from us. But the presumptive Programmer (The ALL) is all-at-once, hence utterly simple.

    One way to imagine this fantastic scientific scenario is to picture the random static on an infinite TV screen. Since there are no objects visible, all you see is a continuous shade of gray. But each of those countless pixels has the potential to become either black (0) or white (1), or any color in between. So, the cosmic Programmer (or TV Producer) can select any subset of pixels and specify their colors in order to produce a meaningful image. Play those images in succession, and you have the "real" world that we experience one-frame-at-a-time.

    Black or white, all or nothing, one or zero . . . these are examples of the simplest element of reality : either/or. The potential of Eternity/Infinity is a two-sided coin, but both sides are of the same coin : unity.

    Block Universe : https://www.quantamagazine.org/a-debate-over-the-physics-of-time-20160719/
    Eternalism : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eternalism_(philosophy_of_time)
  • An Estimate for no ‘God’
    11. God’s operations, curiously restricted to be the same as nature’s — PoeticUniverse
    That's because the evolutionary program devised by the presumptive Programmer is experienced by us little avatars as Nature, in all its aspects, both good (Enformy) and bad.(Entropy). The values of our program range from Zero (death) to One (life), and everywhere in between. Apparently It's our job as thinking beings to make sense of that disparity, as best we can.

    10. It doesn’t seem like a God’s world, and so fundamentalist literalist Biblical ‘reasons’ cannot apply here, — PoeticUniverse
    I must again clarify that I am in agreement with most of your arguments against the obsolete notions of deity based on ancient scriptures. But I am not in agreement with certain atheistic arguments that are based on obsolete science. Prior to the Big Bang theory, it was plausible that the world was self-existent. But now we know that it did not exist before that act of creation. Prior to the Quantum theory, the materialistic belief in fundamental atoms was plausible. But now the foundations of reality fade into virtuality as mathematical fields. So, it no longer seems like the old 19th century materialistic scientific empirical 'reasons" apply here. That's why Enformationism is proposed as an update for both Theistic and Atheistic worldviews.

    For further clarification, I'll try to explain that the Enformationism thesis is not Theistic like Christianity and Islam. It is not Occult & Magical like New Age cults. And it is not Superstitious like Paganism and Shamanism. It is instead an attempt to understand the world in both Physical and Metaphysical aspects, by explaining how Quanta and Qualia are instantiated in the world.

    FWIW, I sometimes refer to myself as an "Agnostic Deist", because my G*D hypothesis is a gap-filler for the enormous abyss of our understanding of Ultimate Reality.
  • An Estimate for no ‘God’
    The program doesn't do well; there were five near extinctions, with a sixth on the horizon. — PoeticUniverse
    Conventional programmers aim for specified goals. But Evolutionary Programming intends to explore possibilities. My assumption is that the Cosmic Programmer created an ongoing experiment to explore what's possible within certain limitations (natural laws). In that case, temporary failures are merely stepping stones to the next iteration . . . the process goes on.

    Evolutionary Programming : http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page13.html
  • An Estimate for no ‘God’
    How might a necessary-fundamental-eternal-capability begin to develop a system of mind? — Possibility

    It wouldn't have a little mind from which to intend to develop a larger system of mind.     — PoeticUniverse
    The notion that the observer in the mind is a little homunculus is a Materialistic concept, requiring an infinite regression of observers. In order to understand the relation between Brains and Minds, you must realize that Brain and Mind are composed of the same substance : Information (the power to enform). If you find this difficult to imagine, just remember what the spoon-bending bald kid, in The Matrix, said to Neo, "there is no spoon". You and the spoon are one. It's all Information, all the way down. :cool:


    Information :
    . . . Claude Shannon quantified Information not as useful ideas, but as a mathematical ratio between meaningful order (1) and meaningless disorder (0); between knowledge (1) and ignorance (0). So, that meaningful mind-stuff exists in the limbo-land of statistics, producing effects on reality while having no sensory physical properties. We know it exists ideally, only by detecting its effects in the real world.
    . . . For humans, Information has the semantic quality of aboutness , that we interpret as meaning. In computer science though, Information is treated as meaningless, which makes its mathematical value more certain. It becomes meaningful only when a sentient Self interprets it as such.
    . . . When spelled with an “I”, Information is a noun, referring to data & things. When spelled with an “E”, Enformation is a verb, referring to energy and processes.
  • An Estimate for no ‘God’
    No alternative to it. — PoeticUniverse
    That is indeed the assumption of the Materialist worldview. Most people have difficulty imagining Eternity and Infinity, so they simply expand on their sensory experience : eternity is a long, long time, and infinity is a really far distance. But Philosophers (and Poets and Mathematicians) have been imagining Eternity (timelessness) and Infinity (spacelessness) for millennia. Of course these notions are not physical realities, but they are useful in thinking about metaphysical idealities. The key to understanding those abstruse concepts is to realize what Aristotle was talking about in his second volume of the Physics : not Magic, but Mind, not Spiritualism, but Ontology.
    Meta-Physics : http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page14.html

    Too complex to be fundamental. — PoeticUniverse
    Eternity-Infinity is as simple as it gets : Unbounded Potential, Wholeness with no divisions. Only in Space-Time are there boundaries between things. BEING is simple; beings are complex. The potential for existence (power to be) is as fundamental as it gets.

    Yes, necessarily random, having no input. — PoeticUniverse
    Chaos is randomness, like the noise on your TV screen, but also infinite Potential upon which unlimited images may be inscribed. Chaos is Formless, but also infinitely enformable, like a lump of clay. The "input" is Intention, which is simply the power to cause change. In space-time we call it Energy. In Virtual Reality we call it Potential. Potential is not Real, but the power to actualize..

    Perhaps like one is a positive field lump and the other its a negative field lump (trough). — PoeticUniverse
    Prior to space-time there was only one lump : BEING, an infinite Aristotelian "substance" (blank slate) with the potential to be anything. Once holistic Infinity divides there exists a "difference" : Information is the difference (change) that makes a difference (meaning).

    I was a programmer — PoeticUniverse
    You, of all people, should be aware that the programmer is not "in" the program physically, but is "in" the program mentally and meta-physically. You put something of yourself into the program : not a piece of your physical body, but a piece of your metaphysical mind.

    The G*D or BEING or First Cause or Creator of my thesis is not a theistic person in Heaven or Olympus, but the Principle of Causation that, like a Programmer, is both "in" and "external to" the running program. One term for such a concept is PanEnDeism.
    PanEnDeism : http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page16.html


    Law of Metaphysics :
    Since the mechanical laws of physics don’t explain the emergence of metaphysical Life & Mind & Qualia, we must assume that the program for our evolving world includes algorithms for the immaterial aspects of reality. Exactly what those “laws” might be, remain to be discovered. But, like the regulations of physics they are probably mathematical and proportional in nature.
  • An Estimate for no ‘God’
    Here's a slightly different perspective on what you're saying, from my novel frame-of-reference, and using other metaphors :

    I think the eternal first cause needs to be simple and operate at a tiny level — PoeticUniverse
    Zero Point Energy (ZPE) is about as basic as it gets in the physical universe : the lowest possible energy of a quantum vacuum. That's as close to nothing as you can imagine. But it's still a Materialistic Space-Time concept that can't explain its own existence. And the notion of powerful nothingness evolved from ancient (Chaos) and 19th century (Aether) theories of emptiness-with-potential. Metaphorically, it's similar to my notion of EnFormAction, But, EFA is not the First Cause, it's merely an ongoing wave of causation, which was in-turn motivated by the Intention of eternal omnipotential BEING or G*D.

    A true First Cause (wave origin) would have to precede space-time and matter-energy where the ripples propagate. It would have to be more than a simple accidental quantum fluctuation though. It would have to "program" the Big Bang Singularity with all the information necessary to create a world from scratch. In my thesis, the equivalent to your ZPE was eternal Chaos (random potential), which was enformed by Intention into the organization of our Cosmos.

    Virtual particles get produced in pairs — PoeticUniverse
    The original Singularity functioned like an egg : once fertilized by Intention, it divides into the "ten thousand things". Each new division necessarily creates pairs. World Creation is division of The ALL (eternity-infinity) from One into Two, and so on, but the whole is still Unitary.

    Note : what we call the physical "Universe" was originally presumed to be eternal-infinite, but was recently found to be bounded in space & time, hence not really the Uni-Vers (all encompassing).

    Somehow the pair's virtual particles were driven apart — PoeticUniverse
    Since, by the law of Logic, no two things in reality can exist in the same space-time, they are necessarily polarized and repel each other.

    the real 'programming'/'coding' would be done at each new level, — PoeticUniverse
    The "programming" of Old into New is accomplished by transfer of Information. The new thing inherits some of the data of the old, but then becomes unique by absorbing novel information from each interaction with other things.

    So, rather than all being coded at once, it occurs in stages, at each stable or semi-stable level. — PoeticUniverse
    Yes. But a program begins with the original input of a kernel of information (operating system), which is amplified by each iteration of the process into manifold threads of novelty. The hypothetical Singularity was the operating system for calculation of random potential into actual space-time-matter-energy.

    Can't really have a full-blown Programmer just sitting around as First, it never having been put together from even more fundamental parts. — PoeticUniverse
    In space-time that is true. That's why I assume that the Programmer must exist eternally as infinite Potential until Intention causes a chain of change. A human programmer is outside the operating system he creates. So why not the Programmer of our Cosmic System?


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

    The Tao that refers to here can never be the true tao.
    The Name that is used here to designate is not a true name.
    The Tao that is unnameable is the Source of the Heaven and the Earth.
    The name, once introduced, becomes the Mother of the Ten Thousand Things.
    . . . . .
    Tao gives birth to one,
    One gives birth to two,
    Two gives birth to three,
    Three gives birth to ten thousand beings.
    ___Lao Tse, Tao Te Ching
  • An Estimate for no ‘God’
    ‘God’ cannot be shown or known, so ‘God’ is but wished for and hoped for, which is called ‘faith’, in short. ‘No God’ is also an unknown. — PoeticUniverse
    I don't have the formal philosophical background to follow all of your Against God arguments. Yet I generally agree with the assertion that "there is no God" (as defined in Polytheistic and Monotheistic traditions).

    However, I have concluded from scientific evidence and rational analysis, that there should be a First Cause or Prime Mover or Cosmic Principle (poetically imagined as The Tao, or Brahman, or Logos, or G*D). These philosophical entities are not presumed to be real, but ideal, not beings, but principles. And they are not to be objects of faith & hope, or worshiped as Lords, but merely accepted as universal concepts and logical necessities.

    given that obviously that no Designer made everything instantly, but is curiously constrained to doing exactly what nature could do on its own (and why so slowly?), it is unlikely that all eventualities could have been foreseen by a Deity in starting a universe suitable for life. It seems more like we were fine-tuned to the Earth. — PoeticUniverse
    I agree that the world was obviously not designed instantaneously, but perhaps it was programmed to evolve gradually over eons, via natural processes. The Laws of Nature are G*D-given "constraints" on Chaos. Natural Selection "fine-tunes" creatures to fit their niche, according to the programmer's criteria.

    The hypothetical Programmer would not be creating a playground for bored immortals, or a domain for war-games with Satan, but an ongoing experiment in logical and statistical possibilities that must play-out within the constraints of Logic. Nature is what the program looks like from the inside. When viewed as a Darwinian program, the heuristic course of Nature makes sense. This is not a fact -- it's just a Way of thinking.

    I apologize for interrupting your thread, but I just couldn't resist offering an alternative to the perennial God/No-God debate, in the form of my BothAnd G*D. :smile:


    THE WAY
    The Tao that can be told is not the eternal Tao.
    The name that can be named is not the eternal name.
    The nameless is the beginning of heaven and earth.
    ― Lao Tse, Tao Te Ching

    THE PROGRAM
    The G*D that is known is not the eternal Nerd
    Inscrutable is the un-named Omniscient
    Omnipotential is the Cause of Cosmos & Eardth
    ___Gnomon

    Evolutionary Programming : http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page13.html
    G*D : not the name of a deity, but a job-title : http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page13.html
  • A moral paradox?
    I'm set to enlist in the military but I have the option of not serving if I want to (by acquiring an exemption) so I was debating whether it would be morally right to serve or not. — SightsOfCold
    In the United States, and in most of Europe, your moral quandary would be purely hypothetical, because those nations no longer have enforced conscription. If you live in a country with mandatory conscription though, many of them have provisions for alternative service that does not require killing or being killed.

    Your philosophical position may hinge on the presumed consequences of your choice. Will your example serve to bring an end to War? Will someone else have to take your place on the battlefield? As with most moral dilemmas, there is no clear & ultimate & rational right-or-wrong answer to your question. You may eventually have to decide based on your personal feelings --- or just cop-out and let someone else decide for you.

    BTW : The morality of Military Exemptions themselves have been debated, since it's typically the rich who benefit (e.g. Trump's bone spurs), while the poor have no way out.
  • A moral paradox?
    I'm set to enlist in the military but I have the option of not serving if I want to (by acquiring an exemption) so I was debating whether it would be morally right to serve or not. — SightsOfCold
    I was drafted during the Vietnam debacle, and faced a paradox of my own. My religious training involved the commandment "thou shalt not kill", but also included many examples where God specifically commanded his chosen people to kill, including genocide. My father & brother had served in the Navy, so I had a precedent to follow. The Vietnamese rebels were not attacking me or my country (directly), so I had no personal reason to fight with them. Eventually, I decided to go with the flow, and to not fight the system. I was philosophically naive at the time. And only later considered the role of war in its wider moral implications.

    I am no longer guided by conflicting religious principles. So my current attitude toward WAR is based on my personal BothAnd philosophy. Fighting and killing may be good for some and bad for others. But such conflicts seem to be inevitable, in the tooth & claw natural world, and even in supposedly rational human culture. We can dream of Utopias without the scourge of War, but the best we can hope for in reality is to find an Aristotelian Golden Mean. The Catholic Church wrestled for centuries with the absurdity & necessity of violent conflict. So they devised a compromise in their theory of a "just war". Essentially, self- and other - defense is justified, and un-provoked offense is unjust. Unfortunately, the powers-that-be can always find reasons to justify offensive wars. So, ultimately it's up to the individual to decide the lesser of two evils : to serve your country and kill the bad guys, or to serve morality, abstain from killing, and suffer the reproach of your fellow citizens.

    I actually enjoyed my four years in the Navy, where I never had to kill or be killed. But soldiers returning home to the Peace & Love hippie vibe, were dishonored as baby-killers. Many years later, in a more conservative environment, I am often thanked for my service. So. the lesson is that you must be true to your own values, and do what you think is best. Your decision may not be all-good or all-bad, but it will be yours, and you will have to live with it.

    The BothAnd Philosophy : http://bothandblog5.enformationism.info/page6.html

    Not though the soldier knew
    Someone had blundered.
    Theirs not to make reply,
    Theirs not to reason why,
    Theirs but to do and die.
    ___Tennyson
  • Metaphysics - what is it?
    while metaphysics as I would like to construe it is about the necessary, a priori philosophical framework needed to go about doing such description: — Pfhorrest
    Actually, your definition of Metaphysics is not that different from mine. The primary distinction is that your terminology seems to derive from your education in Philosophy. But, since I have no formal training in Philosophy or Science, beyond first year 101-level classes, my labels may be more idiosyncratic. And they are primarily derived from years of autodidact reading in general scientific & philosophical publications. For those schooled in traditional terminology, my quirky terms may be puzzling. So, that's why I have compiled a glossary for those interested in decoding the unconventional Enformationism worldview.
    Meta-Physics : http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page14.html

    My somewhat unconventional use of "Meta-Physics" is also about that which is "necessary" and "a priori", which in my worldview is the Mind of G*D, and its subsidiary human minds. In other words, about Ideas and Ideals rather than the things and objects of Physics.

    In my Codex Quaerendae (I guess we're allowed to link our personal projects here?) — Pfhorrest
    I have begun reading your Book of Questions, but it will take time to review its manifold topics. As an amateur website builder, I find the graphics very well done. I'm afraid mine are rather crude & garish by comparison.

    I like to think of the last four as being about the "objects of morality" or less verbosely as about purpose, will, intention, and governance. — Pfhorrest
    My thesis is more about Ontology & Epistemology than Ethics & Morality, but it covers some of the same topics as yours : "purpose, will, intention, and governance" --- the last being more about natural laws than civil.
  • Metaphysics - what is it?
    But none of this tells us anything about what might be actually real beyond an empirical context. — Janus
    Yes. That's why I prefer to make a different distinction from the usual Real/Ideal, Empirical/Theoretical Materialism/Spiritualism dichotomies. Materialism typically treats anything Ideal as non-existent. But then the Materialism hypothesis is itself an idea, so what is the status of its reality? Since we tend to accept our own ideas, memories, attitudes, feelings, and such as part of our personal reality, we need a name for that kind of non-physical realness. I suspect that the perceived need -- for a name with which to refer to mental intangibles (e.g. numbers, principles) collectively -- caused some ancient thinkers to adopt the informal title of Aristotle's second volume of his lectures on Nature (Physics) to cover everything immaterial. The Physics books discussed things we know via our senses (things-that-change in space & time, matter, hyle). But the Metaphysics books were mostly about human ideas, opinions, and theories regarding the external furnishings of Nature. You might call them the furniture of the mind.
    Meta-Physics : http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page14.html

    we are firmly committed to saying that something was real prior to the advent of the empirical context. — Janus
    The existence of the universe prior to the emergence of human consciousness is not empirically justified, because it is just a theory based on projection of current events into the past. We assume that physical reality was trucking along just fine with no minds to perceive it. Yet Bishop Berkeley argued that the world was being perceived, not just by humans, but also by God. So, when he asserted that “esse est percipi” (to be is to be perceived) he was not referring just to human observers. That may also be relevant to the interpretation expressed by quantum theorists, that the Quantum Observer Effect means that a particle doesn't really exist until it is measured. “To Measure” is from the root “mens-” meaning “mind”. So you could say that reality is what has been “touched” by a mind. In other words, what we take to be real is a subjective opinion, that must be carefully compared to opinions of other perceivers in order to assign it the imprimatur of Objective reality.
    Divine Observer : https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/261761-there-was-a-young-man-who-said-god-must-find

    In the case of the earlier-than-human history of the Earth the best we can do is to imagine what we would have seen if we had been there. — Janus
    That is exactly what astronomers were doing, in the 1920s, when they calculated the trajectory of all observable matter back to the point of coincidence. Many of us now accept their, then controversial, interpretation that the real world did not exist 15 billion years ago, but suddenly emerged in the so-called Big Bang. Yet again, that is an expert opinion, based on their translation from abstract mathematical calculations into an imaginary scenario that the rest of us can visualize. So, you could reasonably say that “reality is a theory”.
    Reality is a Theory : http://bothandblog5.enformationism.info/page15.html
    Reality is Ideality : http://bothandblog5.enformationism.info/page17.html


    I'm also interested to know how you interpret the idea of an intentional creator. — Janus
    The Enformationism worldview is based, in part, on my interpretation of the process of Evolution (En-form-ation) , not as a random chaotic mess, but as an orderly progression in the direction of Time's Arrow, toward some ultimate denouement, a resolution to this ongoing narrative. Of course, I have no idea what form that final summing-up will take, but it seems as certain as the Big Bang. The current scientific opinion is that reality will just fade away into the sunset. But other interpreters of evolution, such as Teillard deChardin, refer to the final chapter as the Omega Point, and describe it as the universe becoming something like a god. I'm not bold enough to go that far, but one allegorical scenario would be that our emerging world is like a fetus developing into the offspring of G*D. I wouldn't take that metaphor, or any other imaginary analogies too literally, but it gives us a way to imagine where we stand in the otherwise mysterious process of natural and cultural evolution. If that scenario is anywhere close to true, then we would have to attribute the human-like property of goal-oriented Intention to the First Cause and Prime Mover. Here's a chart I drew up to illustrate my concept of evolution from beginning to end.
    Cosmic Progression Chart : http://bothandblog3.enformationism.info/page28.html

    If not are all outcomes precisely planned or was the creator like a computer programmer, producing an algorithm that is left to run and produce unpredictable outcomes? Is the creator sentient and sapient? Loving? Omnipotent? Infallible? Did the creator produce the laws of nature or must it work within them. Is the creator consciously aware of all events in its creation, or only some of them, or none of them? — Janus
    I don't claim to know anything about the Creator of our world beyond the properties that are logically necessary for such a Creation to exist. But my guess is that what I call "G*D" is more like a computer Programmer than the Great Magician portrayed in Genesis. This blog post may answer your other questions.
    The EnFormAction Hypothesis : http://bothandblog3.enformationism.info/page23.html
  • Whats the standard for Mind/Body
    Really, it seems to me, for two things to interact, some sort of unity must be involved. Two things cannot remain truly, fundamentally distinct and independent and at the same time interact. They must touch. And for them to touch requires that they are of a common substance. And if they truly touch, they become in some sense continuous with one another. — petrichor
    Yes. The unity of two or more things requires a relationship of some kind. But they don't always have to "touch" physically. The may also have a meta-physical relationship. For example, a group of stars. lightyears apart from each other may form a constellation from our perspective on earth. But that geometrical relationship is not based on the physics of energy exchange. Except for minimal light energy and gravity, there is no touching. Their connection is in the mind of the beholder. And they are known only as pin-point abstractions. That mathematical relationship is meaningful to humans for reasons that have little to do with the stars themselves. They are perceived as a system due to their participation in a common "substance" : Information, (EnFormAction) which touches everything.

    Likewise, the mind is related to the body, not because of neurons touching ideas, but because they both participate in the holistic mind/body system. Is that spooky, or what?

    Ultimately, everything is connected. It is one thing. There is just one big experience going on, one big causal network. — petrichor
    The Mind of G*D : the First and Final Cause. That concept boggles my mind, so I try to remain agnostic. But it seems to follow logically from what we know about how information works in the real world.
Home » Gnomon