It just directs the particle around — Hillary

...with what?

Don't think so. A zero or one (or combinations thereof) in a computer is a physical structure (a potential, an electron in one of two states, etc.) which we assign a meaning. This information is not inherent. — Hillary

That was what I said - information is the capacity, not actuality. It exists as a variability in the state of an electron. The particular meaning we attribute to that unit of potential (if any) is not essential to its existence as information.

It seems that you may be referring exclusively to ‘relevant information’.

I like your style, assuming I've got a handle on what it is that you're trying to do.

It's midnight, overcast, new moon, there's a power outage - darkness, pitch black. I'm with my friend, Mr. Magoo, blind as a bat for all intents and purposes. My eyesight, a mole could see better. Anyway, we look out the window. I see a man, Mr. Magoo sees a woman. We argue, Man! Woman! Man! Woman! Man!...I'm angry with Mr. Magoo and he doesn't seem all that pleased with me either.

The door opens, Eli walks in, slams the door shut and announces "hey guys, I saw a person outside the window." I look at Mr. Magoo and he looks at me, we never talk about this inicident for the rest of our lives.

...with what? — Possibility

Non local hidden variables. The wavefunction is made of it. It could be argued the are the constituents of space.

That was what I said - information is the capacity, not actuality. It exists as a variability in the state of an electron. The particular meaning we attribute to that unit of potential (if any) is not essential to its existence as information. — Possibility

The wavefunction contains no information in the sense a computer memory chip contains actual information. Nor in the sense that the same chip contains potentially information. We can't project information on the wavefunction like we can to superpositions of electron spins or classical arrays of bits. The wavefunctions contains no zeroes and ones. There is no quantum computing going on beneath the surface of reality. The event horizon of a black hole is entangled with the inside after the formation of the hole. Contrary to what Erik Verlinde claims: quantum bits on the horizon or surface around the observable universe directing the inside.

I don't think think structures and forms contain information. Entropy yes. — Hillary

For the record, I use the term "Information" in a much broader & general sense than Claude Shannon. From that universal perspective, Information is fundamentally Logical Structure : relationships & ratios. For example, Entropy is the breakdown of the structure that bonds matter into the objects & things we know via our senses. By contrast, "To Enform" (to create) is to combine isolated bits into meaningful & functional wholes (forms).

Logical structure is not physical (material), but meta-physical (mental ; mathematical). You can't see Logical structure with your eyes, but with your Reason (ability to know invisible ratios & relationships). Energy (hot) & Entropy (cold) are merely different forms of Information : constructive & destructive; active & inactive. The information of a wavefunction is mathematical & statistical, describing all possible states of a particle in superposition. That abstract knowledge may be meaningless to you, but to a quantum physicist it is elementary. :smile:

Logical structure refers to the way information in a document [or object] is organized; it defines the hierarchy of information and the relation between different parts of the document.
https://link.springer.com/referenceworkentry/10.1007/978-0-387-39940-9_213

What is Information? :
So, for the purposes of my philosophical worldview, I have constructed my own definitions, that reflect the ubiquity of Information in all aspects of reality, especially its mental & meaningful functions. Also, its role in Energy & Causation is important at both the Quantum & Cosmic levels of the world. For example, the Observer Effect of quantum theory implies that when a mind extracts information (knowledge) from a quantum system in Superposition (multiple states simultaneously) the waveform of that particle is forced to collapse into a single measurable state. In other words, the particle suddenly changes from Mathematical to Material.
BothAnd Blog, post 123
Note -- since Information is the essence of Energy, measurement of a quantum state extracts a bit of energy (information) from the possible particle, thus triggering the "collapse" from math to matter. (Yes, I know that's hard to wrap your mind around; but hey, it's quantum weirdness).

What information does the wavefunction convey? :
https://www.britannica.com/science/wave-function
Note -- in his book, Beyond Weird, Phillip Ball says "wavefunction collapse is then a generator of knowledge : it is not so much a process that gives us the answers, but it is a process by which answers are created".

I like your style, assuming I've got a handle on what it is that you're trying to do. — Agent Smith

Thanks. But your illustration sounds rather bleak. My understanding of Information, on the other hand, is enlightening. It allows us to see (rationally) what can't be seen (visually). :wink:

Thanks. But your illustration sounds rather bleak. My understanding of Information, on the other hand, is enlightening. It allows us to see (rationally) what can't be seen (visually). :wink: — Gnomon

Ok. I knew that I wasn't really going to hit the bullseye as to what EnFormAction really is. A ballpark figure of sorts was what I was aiming for. Your thesis does make (strong) claims as to what the underlying first principle of reality is. What got me stoked was how inclusive your system is (BothAnd), something which, to me, requires us to utilize our ignorance rather than knowledge (vide infra, I quote you)

so we only know it by what it does, not what it is — Gnomon

Sorry, if this is a shallow understanding or worse a complete misunderstanding of EnFormAction. G'day.

What got me stoked was how inclusive your system is (BothAnd), something which, to me, requires us to utilize our ignorance rather than knowledge (vide infra, I quote you)
so we only know it by what it does, not what it is — Gnomon
Sorry, if this is a shallow understanding or worse a complete misunderstanding of EnFormAction — Agent Smith

Again, you are looking at the negative side of Information : Ignorance. But Shannon's mathematical definition covered the whole range, from Ignorance (zero ; 0 ; blank ; empty set) to Knowledge (all ; unity [1] ; 100% ; full set). Likewise, my worldview is intended to be "inclusive". That's why I call it a Theory of Everything.

The quote above compares Information to Energy. Scientists don't know what Energy is (ignorance), but they can measure what it does (action ; change). So, Energy is not a physical object, but a meta-physical Force. It's essentially the concept of Causation : the universal Actor (EnFormAction). And Change is the relation (ratio) between Cause & Effect ; Before & After. In my thesis, Energy is the Cause of everything in the world that follows from the First Cause. The BB Singularity was close to nothing (pure Potential ; zero Actual), but it has evolved via Causation (Change) into everything in the universe (All ; 100% : Unity).

So, our scientific ignorance of what Energy is (in essence) stems from a Materialist Either/Or worldview : either Physical or Nothing -- essences excluded. By contrast, an Information-based BothAnd worldview does know what Energy is, in essence : Logic ; Math ; Reason --- as applied to a physical world. However, that kind of Rational knowledge is not empirical (physical), but theoretical (mental), not scientific (reality), but philosophical (ideality). Yet, the Enformationism perspective views both sides of the same coin : sensory reality and imaginative ideality.

That's why my personal philosophical worldview is labelled as BothAnd : it is comprehensive; "inclusive" of both Matter and Mind ; both Physics and Meta-Physics. It acknowledges that our world is both Good and Bad; both Positive and Negative; both Potential and Actual. Without those polar alternatives, there would be no Change, no Cause, no Novelty. Only eternal boring BEING would exist in timelessness & spacelessness. :nerd:


Energy : "The simplest definition of energy is "the ability to do work". Energy is how things change and move."
https://www.ducksters.com/science/energy.php
Note -- Ability = Potential ; causal power

It seems I only have a partial grasp of your thesis and here's more of own intuitions on the issue: EnFormAction is a good idea, no, a great idea - it, in my humble opinion, attempts to bring about a synthesis of opposing views in and of the world and all in it.

Yet, please take this positively, I sense a paradox hidden deep within your thesis. Don't worry, either I'm talking out of my hat or the issue isn't a fatal blow to EnFormAction.

The paradox: Information is foundational to EnFormAction, but your BothAnd principle works only if you lack information (you don't know which it is and hence you include both).

Good day.

The paradox: Information is foundational to EnFormAction, but your BothAnd principle works only if you lack information (you don't know which it is and hence you include both). — Agent Smith

I'm sure the BothAnd principle sounds paradoxical to many people. But that's only because Black-or-White , Good-vs-Evil , Either/Or thinking is so common. Two-value (divergent) thinking is a short-cut that jumps to broad general conclusions in specific situations, as in Racism. It's a tendency to see things in terms of polar extremes. Which is the conceptual cause of most conflict & suffering in the world.

But BothAnd is a simply a Holistic way of thinking, that can be illustrated in the Yin/Yang symbol. It looks at the world in terms of Complementarity, Reciprocity, & Holism, which is necessary to offset the negative effects of Fragmentation, Isolation & Reductionism. From a historical perspective, it sees a zig-zagging Hegelian Dialectic (progression-of-evolution), which is a heuristic (searching) process that explores positive & negative alternatives, but always maintains a moderate (balanced) course between the extremes of Good vs Evil.

Conceptually, "Information" (ratio between alternatives ; 1/0) is a calculated Paradoxical (incompatible) Equation that yields a Logical answer to an apparent conflict [a : b :: b : c ; (+X) + (-Y) = (+/-Z)]. You don't passively "lack information", but you lack Certainty, so you actively extract Information into meaning via Reasoning. One of the primary functions of Philosophy is to resolve apparent Paradoxes into practical Wisdom, such as the Golden Rule, and "turn the other cheek". :nerd:


In Ancient Chinese philosophy, yin and yang is a Chinese philosophical concept that describes how obviously opposite or contrary forces may actually be complementary, interconnected, and interdependent in the natural world, and how they may give rise to each other as they interrelate to one another. ___Wikipedia

Hegelian Dialectic :
A theory of historical development that is often attributed to the philosopher G.W.F. Hegel. It proposes that cultural understanding progresses, despite conflicts, via 3 stages labeled Thesis (a dominant cultural worldview or “-Ism”), followed by Antithesis (an opposing view), then to Synthesis (a blend of the prior views). Stage 3 then becomes the thesis for the next round of quarreling belief systems.
BothAnd Blog Glossary




YIN AND YANG UNIFIED INTO YIN/YANG

Hegelian Dialectic :
A theory of historical development that is often attributed to the philosopher G.W.F. Hegel. It proposes that cultural understanding progresses, despite conflicts, via 3 stages labeled Thesis (a dominant cultural worldview or “-Ism”), followed by Antithesis (an opposing view), then to Synthesis (a blend of the prior views). Stage 3 then becomes the thesis for the next round of quarreling belief systems.
BothAnd Blog Glossary — Gnomon

Not Hegel's concept of dialectic. I forget who said that, but it is not Hegel.

Not Hegel's concept of dialectic. I forget who said that, but it is not Hegel. — Jackson

In philosophy, the concept of a historical dialectic, as an interpretive method, is typically associated with Hegel, even though he didn't originate the idea. :smile:

Hegelian Dialectic :
A theory of historical development that is often attributed to the philosopher G.W.F. Hegel. It proposes that cultural understanding progresses, despite conflicts, via 3 stages labeled Thesis (a dominant cultural worldview or “-Ism”), followed by Antithesis (an opposing view), then to Synthesis (a blend of the prior views). Stage 3 then becomes the thesis for the next round of quarreling belief systems.
BothAnd Blog Glossary


Hegelian dialectic. / (hɪˈɡeɪlɪan, heɪˈɡiː-) / noun. philosophy an interpretive method in which the contradiction between a proposition (thesis) and its antithesis is resolved at a higher level of truth (synthesis)
https://www.dictionary.com/browse/hegelian-dialectic

In philosophy, the concept of a historical dialectic, as an interpretive method, is typically associated with Hegel, even though he didn't originate the idea — Gnomon

Okay, I did not make that claim. I only described the method he uses in the Phenomenology,.

Bravo! The meat and potatoes ( :snicker: ) of paradoxes is binary thinking (0/1, not both, not neither, only one). So, really my ill-considered critique falls at the first hurdle; after all your thesis, right from the get go, makes it clear that it eschews this splittist dualistic mindset, preferring instead to unify/harmonize. A contradiction, ergo, is a feature, not a bug of your EnFormAction - BothAnd! G'day señor and good luck!

A contradiction, ergo, is a feature, not a bug of your EnFormAction - BothAnd! G'day señor and good luck! — Agent Smith

Spasibo!
Contradiction is indeed a "feature" of EnFormAction (Energy), and of Information-in-general. The conflict derives from the wide range of Possibilities in Nature, as contrasted with the narrow range of legitimate Probabilities (Statistics). Although almost anything (within constraints, as noted below) is possible in the Virtual state, only one Physical (or actual) form can exist in the Real (actual) state. That's why Evolution & History bounce back & forth between positive (Good) & negative (Bad) values, as in Hegelian Dialectic. Fortunately for us observers, the opposing forces tend to offset, and typically result in moderate outcomes, somewhere between the extremes.

The "Range" of values in statistics begins at Zero on the low end, and goes up to 100% probability at the high end. So, Energy is like a Virtual Particle in superposition : in the Potential (virtual) state, it has a full range of Possibilities, but only takes on a specific value upon Actualization or Realization. For example, the phrase "I just realized" can be interpreted as Potential (unformed) Information in the Mind, that is suddenly converted into enformed Knowledge, as a specific concept condensed from general possibilities.

These notes are off the top of my head. So, I thank you for pushing me to expand my own understanding of Universal Information : Matter, Energy, & Mind. :smile:


Statistics :
Probability is quantified as a number between 0 and 1, where, loosely speaking, 0 indicates impossibility and 1 indicates certainty.

Dialectic :
A dialectic is when two seemingly conflicting things are true at the same time.
Note 1 -- The outcome of ongoing competition for Truth (Actuality) creates Reality, both Mental and Material.
Note 2 -- Sorry, such philosophical abstractions may be difficult for binary minds to deal with.

PS___The Dialectic path can be envisioned as waveforms progressing & interfering as seen in the Double Slit experiment of Quantum Theory.

REALITY ALTERNATES BETWEEN LIGHT & DARK, BUT AVERAGES GRAY

Thanks for your detailed explanation. Much appreciated.

Did you know that the Buddhist middle path (madhyamaka deals with opposing pairs of ideas in the following manner.

Is there a soul?

Eternalism: Yes

Nihilism: No

Buddhism: Not yes but not no either (denying both extremes).

I guess that ultimately boils down to Yes & No (BothAnd, affirming both extremes because negation in classical logic flips the sign of propositions) but do notice here that the madhyamaka is more about denial (neither yes nor no) than affirmation (BothAnd).

Comments.

I guess that ultimately boils down to Yes & No (BothAnd, affirming both extremes because negation in classical logic flips the sign of propositions) but do notice here that the madhyamaka is more about denial (neither yes nor no) than affirmation (BothAnd). — Agent Smith

Yes/No. Some philosophers & scientists from both East & West, both ancient & modern, have described the progression of the World System (evolution) in terms of opposing forces (e.g. Yin/Yang) that offset each other, and result in the moderation that allows Life & Mind & human culture to emerge in the habitable zone between extremes. By contrast, "classical (Binary) logic" focused on the margins instead of the middle.

That unambiguous (certain) feature was taken to an extreme in the development of Digital Logic (1/0 ; all or nothing) for computers. Unfortunately, by omitting the middle range, such logic also leaves human meaning behind. Ironically, those empty shells have lots of room in the middle for programmers to insert their own meanings & values. It works like Algebra, in that A + B = C are merely general stand-in-symbols for specified values to be inserted by the calculator for specific conditions.

Paradoxically, binary computer logic has shown us the value of non-binary logic for replicating how the analog human brain works. By that I mean, Fuzzy Logic has been found useful in real-world situations, for which absolute Numerical values are hard to obtain. Instead, it provides imprecise, but meaningful, Truth values. That's why the BothAnd Philosophy and the Enformationism Worldview are based on a fuzzy quantum foundation. As in Quantum Bayseianism (QBism), there are no god-like absolute objective states, only relative human values, and "degrees of belief".

I'm currently reading Beyond Weird, by Phillip Ball, which is an attempt to reconcile the Fuzzy Logic of Quantum Theory with the precise values of Classical Binary Logic. He says, "quantum mechanics might seem 'weird', but it is not illogical. It's just that it employs a new and unfamiliar logic. If you can grasp it --- if you can accept that this is just how quantum mechanics works --- then the quantum world may stop seeming weird and become just another place, with different customs and traditions and with its own beautiful internal consistency". He doesn't call that "new logic" by name, but it's simply Fuzzy Logic. Which seems to be the way human Intuition works, to form beliefs and models of external reality.

Perhaps, the Madhyamaka "nihilism" or "emptiness" doctrine was actually a non-classical, non-binary approach to the non-digital (analog) view of reality that we experience in Intuition and Meditation. :smile:


Fuzzy logic is a form of many-valued logic in which the truth value of variables may be any real number between 0 and 1. It is employed to handle the concept of partial truth, where the truth value may range between completely true and completely false ___Wiki
Note -- Robotics researchers are attempting to make their bots more human, by using Fuzzy Logic, instead of Digital Logic.

Quantum Bayesianism :
In physics and the philosophy of physics, quantum Bayesianism is a collection of related approaches to the interpretation of quantum mechanics, of which the most prominent is QBism (pronounced "cubism"). QBism is an interpretation that takes an agent's actions and experiences as the central concerns of the theory. QBism deals with common questions in the interpretation of quantum theory about the nature of wavefunction superposition, quantum measurement, and entanglement.[1][2] According to QBism, many, but not all, aspects of the quantum formalism are subjective in nature. For example, in this interpretation, a quantum state is not an element of reality—instead it represents the degrees of belief an agent has about the possible outcomes of measurements.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_Bayesianism

A few points:

1. I haven't the foggiest why classical logic with its principle of bivalence (PB: true/false, nothing else) and the law of noncontradiction [LNC: [~(p & ~pl)] became the standard in Greek and then in Western philosophy.

Even to someone who's never been exposed to formal logic, contradictions feel very counterintuitive and are rejected outright (cognitive dissonance & double think are rather unpleasant states to be in). In other words, the LNC seems hardwired into our brains.

The PB, however, wasn't like that. Aristotle himself, if memory serves, was of the opinion that statements about the future were neither true nor false i.e. a third truth-value was in the process of being proposed viz. unknown (trivalent logic).

Does the above matter to your EnFormAction thesis? My hunch is it does and you're in the know about that. If one violates the LNC, a 3^rd truth value (the excluded middle is this 3^rd value; vide the law of the excluded middle, LEM) must exist. It gets complicated after this and I have very little experience with fuzzy logic or multivalent logic; I'll leave it at that before I begin spewing nonsense. :snicker:

2. All these different kinds of logic that have been put forth gives me the impression that philosophy & logic, all thinking in fact is, well, play/game. We can, it seems, tinker around with the rules, but not in any which we way we please; we have to ensure the system of logic we invent/develop doesn't reduce to a triviality which has been defined as a schema in which all statements are true (Greek philosophers seem to consider the sophists their nemesis, re relativism).

That's how my brain makes sense of this issue.

Comments...

1. I haven't the foggiest why classical logic with its principle of bivalence (PB: true/false, nothing else) and the law of noncontradiction [LNC: [~(p & ~pl)] became the standard in Greek and then in Western philosophy. — Agent Smith

Sure you do. You said it yourself : the gray middle range of anything & any topic is "foggy", hence unclear. So, ancient philosophers, and enlightenment scientists, developed a binary standard for judgements of Truth and Facts. By setting the standard at the extremes, rather than in the murky middle, they achieved Clarity. But in practice, we tend to judge on the basis of tendencies & inclinations. Even if Hitler was good to dogs & children, we can say that his attitude toward Humanity leaned in the direction of Evil. Fortunately, most of us tend to fall into the mid-range of Ethics, so we are a bit Bad and a bit Good. Hence, BothAnd.

Therefore, the Law or Principle of Non-Contraction is a guide to parsing the nebulous complexities of reality. If we detect a significant inclination toward one extreme (True) or the other (False), usually we can safely treat the issue as either True or False, Good or Bad. But, since our judgement of such things is usually biased by experience, we need to be careful not to push the observed propensity toward a prejudged extreme. For example, American politics, on the Federal level, has always been polarized into Left vs Right, or Liberal vs Conservative. But for philosophical purposes, I would label myself as BothAnd : somewhat Liberal and somewhat Conservative. That's not a logical Contradiction, but a pragmatic concession to non-ideal Reality, which varies between those extremes, but generally follows a wavering path down the middle : BothAnd. :smile:

I'll have to get back to you later. I'm a li'l busy right now. Danke!

Information is the state of data before data is informed/full of itself.

If a tree falls in the woods and no-one is around to hear it, does it make a sound?

The answer to this question is...

Yes it does because logic would have it so, but this sound, to the party that is not around, is just information(et. Of a sound).

The Sky is blue. Data. The Sky is blue- to a newborn- is data becoming knowledge. The Sky is blue- to a persona wise of this- is knowledge. Information is the mode(mathematics) of contexts of data.

Data that is knowledge, must share itself, thus information has mode(in a linguistic and not mathematical sense).

The Sky is blue- in the contexts of a newborn, a wise persona, and empirically- is information(only given all contexts).

Data- in all contexts- is information.

Data-All.