I mean no disrespect - I’m not trying to refute your theories, but to build on them. If it seems like I’m focusing only on where our theories diverge, it’s only because I see the potential in your worldview. I can follow your analogies, and for the most part I don’t find them to be ‘quackery’ at all - just lacking in structural relations to reality, but that’s a common feature of speculative philosophy. My own theories are remarkably similar to yours in many ways: including the incorporation of quantum mechanics and information theory, and the evolution of information processing through physics, chemistry, biology and then psychology.

I’m certainly not a materialist, but the topic here is modern realism, so I think it’s useful to see how a theory incorporating ‘fieldism’ stacks up to materialism in relation to reality. I think that integrating your philosophy (much of which I agree with) with science is going to require you to adjust how you see it all structured in relation to reality - whether or not you agree with my approach. It’s a shame you seem overly attached to a particular structure - you have a lot of really great concepts to work with.

I used the mathematical notion of a "field" as an analogy, not as a literal description of the universal Mind. Besides, a mathematical "field" is not a physical object, but a metaphysical metaphor, treated as-if there was an infinite array of non-dimensional points in space. I think you took my analogy too literally. — Gnomon

I never said a mathematical ‘field’ was a physical object, but a relation of potential interaction in space. Just because it’s metaphysical doesn’t necessarily mean it can’t also be scientific. Calling your use of the term a ‘metaphor’ only avoids a scientific examination of the relation, without eliminating the need for it. I get that your use of ‘field’ is an analogy - I’m only trying to integrate your philosophy with science. And ‘non-dimensional points in space’ doesn’t make sense: space IS a dimensional relation, so all points in space are dimensional.

The "Universal Mind" that I am referring to is already beyond "emotions, fears and beliefs" because it is non-physical. It is not in the universe, but the world is in the Mind. It is separable from physicality only in the sense that it transcends space-time. So, if you want to get on the same page with me, you'll have to go clear out of the material world. — Gnomon

You can’t go ‘clear out of the material world’ and expect to remain inseparable from it. Transcending space-time is not about disregarding it entirely, but about relating to all of it from a point beyond, recognising that this point suggests more to reality, and increasing awareness of that ‘more’ - always in relation to all of space-time. The information processing of the individual human mind already transcends space-time, so what you’re describing here is not beyond the universe at all, but is already related to the ‘material world’ in very particular ways.

The way I see it, there is a universality that transcends even this concept of ‘mind’.

love this, agree wholeheartedly

If that materialistic worldview gives you a feeling of contentment, join the club. It's the default worldview of most simple-minded humans since time began — Gnomon

Actually John Searle has claimed that the average man on the street is a Cartesian, and I tend to agree with him. Most people have a strong intuition that there is 'more than meets the eye' and so tend to fall back (consciously or unconsciously) to a substantial dualist position.

just lacking in structural relations to reality, — Possibility

I didn't feel disrespected --- just misunderstood; in that you think I'm ignoring Science. Your knowledge of my thesis may be limited to the few posts on this forum. But it's much more comprehensive than that, more scientific and more structural. However, it is mostly concerned with the cutting edge of Physics, which encounters paradoxes that could be better understood in terms of Information Theory. Information has a mathematical logical "structure" of its own.

I’m certainly not a materialist, but the topic here is modern realism, so I think it’s useful to see how a theory incorporating ‘fieldism’ stacks up to materialism in relation to reality. — Possibility

Actually, I think "materialism" is an appropriate assumption for classical Physics, including Chemistry and Biology. It's only when research focuses on cosmic and quantum scale "reality" that Materialism becomes misleading and self-defeating. Likewise, Psychology and Sociology can make valid discoveries using materialist assumptions. But when they get into some mental or mystical topics, an understanding of the ubiquitous role of immaterial Information would be helpful.

It’s a shame you seem overly attached to a particular structure — Possibility

What particular "structure" is that?

And ‘non-dimensional points in space’ doesn’t make sense: space IS a dimensional relation, so all points in space are dimensional. — Possibility

I was referring to the mathematical definition of a generic Field, as an "algebraic structure" composed of dimensionless points. In Field Mathematics, a point is assumed to have a location in space, but no size. Maxwell and others used this abstract concept to describe such intangible things as electro-magnetic fields. Those imaginary points are assigned an X-value, as-if they were real material objects. But it's just a metaphor.

Field Definition : A field is thus a fundamental algebraic structure which is widely used in algebra, number theory, and many other areas of mathematics. . . . The best known fields are the field of rational numbers, the field of real numbers and the field of complex numbers.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Field_(mathematics)

You can’t go ‘clear out of the material world’ and expect to remain inseparable from it. — Possibility

I didn't say that G*D is "inseparable" from the material world. The concept of G*D is an abstraction, similar to the Tao of Laozi. It is both transcendent and immanent. The physical world is made of G*D-stuff, which is Information, or EnFormAction as I call it. It's difficult to discuss such formless notions in materialistic language, which is why the Dao De Ching is mostly poetry, and my thesis requires portmanteau (BothAnd) words.

The information processing of the individual human mind already transcends space-time, — Possibility

I would say that the information "processing" of the brain is a physical mechanism. It's only the information itself (meaning) that transcends space-time. Meaning has no spatial coordinates, and is not bound by time. Meaning is the content of physical vehicles (material symbol vs referent). So, like most topics in Enformationism, it's BothAnd.

The way I see it, there is a universality that transcends even this concept of ‘mind’. — Possibility

Something that transcends space-time? Something infinite and eternal? That's what I refer to as G*D, as an analogy to the ancient philosophical notions of Brahman, Logos, God, Allah, Tao, etc. Another definition of G*D is the "ground of being and becoming", which I call simply BEING.

Dao : "In the beginning was the Dao, which is changeless, formless, and indivisible, but also generative, transforming, and fertile." God Is Not One, by Stephen Prothro


PS___I didn't begin to develop the thesis of Enformationism from a prior notion of traditional gods. Instead, as I constructed a scientific worldview for the 21st century, the parallels with ancient religious/philosophical concepts became apparent.

Actually John Searle has claimed that the average man on the street is a Cartesian, and I tend to agree with him. — Pantagruel

I agree. But, in my reply to Trooper, I was referring to the typical non-scientist's acceptance of the materialist worldview --- as it relates to Science. As intuitive Cartesians, they tend to separate their scientific understanding from their religious beliefs. Of course there are exceptions, but most folks seem to be "content" to accept the authority of scientific experts on materialistic matters, and religious experts on religious matters. They are not concerned with abstruse philosophical or theological arguments about dualistic reality. This is just my personal observation, so I don't have survey numbers.

PS__Besides, my own worldview could be considered as Dualism within Monism, since I make a philosophical distinction between Matter & Mind, but combine both under the heading of EnFormAction. I don't have a problem with Decartes' pragmatic resolution to the contentious Body/Soul, Science/Religion debate. But, for my own purposes, ultimately it's all ONE. For a materialistic analogy, the Big Bang Singularity gave birth to the Multiplicity of the universe. Like a biological cell, one thing divided into two, and from that point forward Duality, Symmetry,and Complementarity were inherent in reality.

I didn't feel disrespected --- just misunderstood; in that you think I'm ignoring Science. Your knowledge of my thesis may be limited to the few posts on this forum. But it's much more comprehensive than that, more scientific and more structural. However, it is mostly concerned with the cutting edge of Physics, which encounters paradoxes that could be better understood in terms of Information Theory. Information has a mathematical logical "structure" of its own. — Gnomon

Well I have read a fair amount of your website, and I maintain that while you make good use of science when it suits, the connection you make between science and poetry is murky. It is this structural connection that I’m most interested in, because I agree with much of what you’ve written either side of it, and what I don’t agree with seems to come down to this murkiness, in my opinion. This discussion seems to highlight some of that murkiness.

Actually, I think "materialism" is an appropriate assumption for classical Physics, including Chemistry and Biology. It's only when research focuses on cosmic and quantum scale "reality" that Materialism becomes misleading and self-defeating. Likewise, Psychology and Sociology can make valid discoveries using materialist assumptions. But when they get into some mental or mystical topics, an understanding of the ubiquitous role of immaterial Information would be helpful. — Gnomon

I agree that the materialist science of classical physics, chemistry and biology is a useful base to start from, but I don’t think you can apply materialist assumptions only when it suits. This is where I think most structural relations struggle in formulating a ToE. Information, for instance, can be both ‘material’ and ‘immaterial’ - it’s the point at which our understanding of information makes that shift which is most difficult to structure: at the origins of the universe, life, consciousness and the self. It’s at these points that materialist assumptions fail us, but understanding how and why they fail us is the key to a ToE. Materialist assumptions aren’t tools you can pick up and put down - an inability to make sense of the ‘mental’ and ‘mystical’ is inherent in the assumptions, not the science. The trick is to retain the science using an alternative structural relation that incorporates an explanation of metaphysics.

What particular "structure" is that? — Gnomon

In this discussion, I think your use of a mathematical concept as metaphor to connect physics to ‘mind’ is murky at best. I will try to explain what I’m getting at when I have more time. I also think the ‘universe inside mind’ structure can be particularly misleading and self-defeating when looking at consciousness and the self in relation to ‘material’ information. But that may be for another discussion.

the connection you make between science and poetry is murky. — Possibility

Do you mean that I don't make a clear distinction between them? If so, that's probably because my BothAnd philosophy is Holistic, and looks for commonalities where most people only see differences. BothAnd is a Yin/Yang worldview in which the line between Black & White is arbitrary, indicated graphically by a white dot in the black area, and a black dot in the white area. So, in reality the whole circle is a gradual shade of gray. That may be what you call "murky". If not, please give me a specific example of murkiness.

Yin-Yang : https://ed.ted.com/lessons/the-hidden-meanings-of-yin-and-yang-john-bellaimey

It is this structural connection that I’m most interested in, — Possibility

Please give me an example of a "structural connection" between Science and Serendipity that would satisfy your need for clarity.

Materialist assumptions aren’t tools you can pick up and put down - an inability to make sense of the ‘mental’ and ‘mystical’ is inherent in the assumptions, not the science. — Possibility

That's true, but most people, including scientists, are intuitive dualists, and require a "structural" division between dichotomies. A few scientists can bridge that gap to get the best of both worlds, mechanical and mystical. And, as a rationalist-rhetorical type, I am still learning to deal with the intuitive poetic side. I am also leery of the tendency for people to lapse into anti-science magical thinking, when they try to deal with murky mystical concepts. My worldview has much in common with New Age philosophy, but I try to avoid the spooky paranormal, pseudo-scientific side-tracks. I am not a romantic or mystic by nature.

Back in the 80s, I was introduced to this holistic-science idea in The Tao of Physics : An Exploration of the Parallels Between Modern Physics and Eastern Mysticism, by Fritjof Capra. In it, the author said "Science does not need mysticism and mysticism does not need science. But man needs both." He may have been the first Hippie Scientist.

NOTE : In China, the home of Confucius and Lao Tse, many people try to combine the doctrinal, rational, conventional, prosaic, pragmatic, communal attitude of Confucianism with the ineffable, irrational, unorthodox, poetic, romantic, individualistic attitude of Daoism. But for most humans that is a tricky and frustrating balancing act.

I think your use of a mathematical concept as metaphor to connect physics to ‘mind’ is murky at best. — Possibility

Please do explain. The basic problem here is that abstract poetic & mystical & mental concepts can only be discussed in terms of concrete metaphors. Unfortunately, many people take metaphors and analogies literally, so they completely miss the point, hidden in the gray area between as-is and as-if.

In this discussion, I think your use of a mathematical concept as metaphor to connect physics to ‘mind’ is murky at best. — Possibility

Apparently, I misunderstood your intention for this thread as similar to my own usage of the term "Field" to denote the distinction between Realism and Idealism. So, when you contrasted "Fieldism" with "Materialism", I immediately thought of my own notion of a "Mind Field". The only hit I got on Google for "mind field", though, was for a TV documentary that has nothing to do with my concept, except that it is an evocative word-play. I thought the metaphor would be more apparent and common. I was wrong. If I have hi-jacked your thread, I apologize.

A magnetic field is imagined as pervading the universe with little dimensionless magnets (illustrated with arrows) at every vector point in space. Likewise, I imagine the Mind Field as pervading the universe with little dimensionless information elements (bits) at each mathematical (value) point in space. The usual definition of a field is intended to be materialistic, but the points or vectors that make-up the field are not made of matter or even energy, but of immaterial potential. Information is also Potential and Value..

Note: Technically, the MInd Field metaphor may be more like a Gravity Field in that its arrows are uni-polar and universal, rather than being generated in specific locations by flowing energy. The gravity arrows point toward any center of mass. The Information arrows point toward Intention; but that's another just-so story.


Magnetic Field (vector field): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetic_field

Mind Field : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mind_Field

Potential : http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page16.html

According to physics, the most fundamental stuff of science is fields, not particles. The Standard Model lays out 13 fields which exist throughout the universe, oscillate and interact with one another to generate everything else. Particles are packets of energy in the fields described by quantum mechanics. There are three other unknown ones: Dark Energy, Dark Matter and Inflation. — Marchesk

I was just talking about this in another thread, and realized that I'm confused on a point of physics. I know two things:

* The 13 fields. I definitely can't name them all. There's gravitation, and electroweak, which is electromagnetism plus the weak nuclear force; then the strong nuclear force, and the Higgs field. I don't know about any others. But basically a field in physics is a thingie -- usually a vector or a tensor -- attached to each point of space. So you have a vector field or a tensor field evolving over time. Basically multivariable calculus on a LOT of steroids, into the realm of differential geometry and general relativity.

* In quantum theory, everything is a probability wave. An electron, for example, is not to be thought of as a point-like thing at all. It's not a tiny little charge of electricity located at some coordinates in space. What it is, is a probability distribution that determines the chance that if someone happened to look at the electron, they'd find it in that location. If nobody looks, it doesn't have a location. Or it has all locations. Same thing. Once an observation is done, the electron is found to be in some position or state. How this all works is an open problem at the intersection of physics and metaphysics.

I think in my mind I've conflated the fields with the probability waves. Can anyone fix my physics? How do the probability distributions interact with the various force fields, if it's ok to call them that. Gravity and electromagnetism and so forth.

Apparently, I misunderstood your intention for this thread as similar to my own usage of the term "Field" to denote the distinction between Realism and Idealism. So, when you contrasted "Fieldism" with "Materialism", I immediately thought of my own notion of a "Mind Field". The only hit I got on Google for "mind field", though, was for a TV documentary that has nothing to do with my concept, except that it is an evocative word-play. I thought the metaphor would be more apparent and common. I was wrong. If I have hi-jacked your thread, I apologize. — Gnomon

Not my thread, so it’s possible that it’s me hijacking the thread, not you.

Do you mean that I don't make a clear distinction between them? If so, that's probably because my BothAnd philosophy is Holistic, and looks for commonalities where most people only see differences. BothAnd is a Yin/Yang worldview in which the line between Black & White is arbitrary, indicated graphically by a white dot in the black area, and a black dot in the white area. So, in reality the whole circle is a gradual shade of gray. That may be what you call "murky". If not, please give me a specific example of murkiness. — Gnomon

It’s more that you focus on the commonalities as if there are no differences. This is the problem with metaphor. There’s a reason why Yin/Yang is drawn the way it is. Rather than the whole circle being a gradual shade of grey, the small circle inside each area suggests that there is a relationship between Black & White that establishes a structure of inclusion. Understanding that structural relationship is the key to a holistic worldview.

A magnetic field is imagined as pervading the universe with little dimensionless magnets (illustrated with arrows) at every vector point in space. Likewise, I imagine the Mind Field as pervading the universe with little dimensionless information elements (bits) at each mathematical (value) point in space. The usual definition of a field is intended to be materialistic, but the points or vectors that make-up the field are not made of matter or even energy, but of immaterial potential. Information is also Potential and Value.. — Gnomon

This is not how I imagine a magnetic field, and I don’t think the field is intended to be as materialistic as that. Rather, the field describes a mathematical relationship between moving electrical charges and predictions about these movements, regardless of time. The thing about materialism is that it assumes reality is only 3+1 dimensions - objects in time - so everything that cannot be directly observed/measured in time must be described as a logical relationship to 3D value points in space. The way I see it, the ‘dimensionless magnets’ you refer to are really immaterial, logically structured relationships or formulas of potentiality. So if you have information on two magnetised points in 3D space, then you can calculate and map the potential of their interaction according to the magnetic field, before determining and initiating actions in 4D ‘reality’.

So when you look at a combined ‘field’ of mind, you’re trying to map a structural relationship between several different formulas of potentiality (which is the work of quantum field theory and other ToEs in physics), but you need to also consider how these relate to other relationships of potentiality that employ alternative value structures to logic, such as qualitative relations, human motives and sociological structures. Materialism either doesn’t recognise these, isolates them as ‘mental phenomena’ (intuitive dualism), or assumes they’re all logically structured in some way. All of these are relationships of potentiality: they are real, immaterial, outside time and provide information that allows us to predict, prevent, and enable potential interactions. Most importantly, they are all structured relative to an observer: a point that exists beyond space and time, relating events and objects according to certain values or significance. Materialism considers this point to be objective, but quantum mechanics recognises the observer as subjective - one of many possible observers. This then points to another type of relationship between these possible observers - which materialism envisages as a multiverse, a ‘many worlds’ interpretation.

The way I see it, these relationships of potentiality - the combined ‘field’ of mind - all refer to five-dimensional information: potential and value.

Nobody knows whether probability waves are real. The wave function just tells us the likelihood of finding a value when there's a measurement. The thirteen fields are actually seventeen (I misremembered). Twelve matter for all the fundamental particles (six quarks six leptons, gluon, photon, W and Z bosons), the four forces of (EM, gravity, strong and weak). And the Higgs field.

Then whatever dark matter, energy and inflation are.

Understanding that structural relationship is the key to a holistic worldview. — Possibility

Apparently, when you say "structural" relationship, you are actually referring to an immaterial "logical" or mathematical relationship : this is related to that by this value. I was assuming you were looking for some physical connection between Mind & Matter or Fieldism and Materialism. Maybe something like the "silver thread" that connects body & soul in an out-of-body experience. :smile:

The logical "structure" of the Yin/Yang symbol is central to my BothAnd philosophy. My "focus on the commonalities" was simply an attempt to establish the analogy between Universal Mind (EnFormAction) and the various fields postulated by physicists to explain "spooky action at a distance", such as gravity. Just as gravity is interpreted as a physical "force", EnFormAction is the creative "force" of evolution : the elan vital. But it's not a physical force; it's a metaphysical (mathematical) force :the power of ratios and relationships.

Yin-Yang Symbolism : As exemplified in the harmonious Yin/Yang symbol, the black or white halves would struggle for supremacy if not for the restraint of the encircling holistic power of the whole, like gravity pulling all toward the center. http://www.bothandblog.enformationism.info/page5.html

This is not how I imagine a magnetic field, and I don’t think the field is intended to be as materialistic as that. — Possibility

I suspect that Maxwell's original notion of an electro-magnetic field was intended to be a metaphor. But some modern physicists think of it in more materialistic imagery, such as the notion that a field occupies space. In the quote below, "physical quantity", "number", "tensor", and "value" are all mathematical concepts that have logical (informational) definitions, but no material substance or physical dimensions.

Physical Field : In physics, a field is a physical quantity, represented by a number or tensor, that has a value for each point in space-time. ... In the modern framework of the quantum theory of fields, even without referring to a test particle, a field occupies space, contains energy, and its presence precludes a classical "true vacuum".
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=concept+of+field+in+physics

All of these are relationships of potentiality: — Possibility

Precisely. That's why I distinguish between Real (Actual) and Ideal (Potential), between Physical (matter) and Metaphysical (mental). The "Mind Field" is EnFormAction, which is the potential to cause change, which is similar to the physical notion of Energy, which is not a material thing, but the potential to cause change. Just as immaterial Energy can transform into Matter (E=MC\2), metaphysical EnFormAction can create all of the physical things in the world.

The way I see it, these relationships of potentiality - the combined ‘field’ of mind - all refer to five-dimensional information: potential and value. — Possibility

Three spatial dimensions plus potential and value?



PS___I have frequently been forced to explain that the word "Structure" has two meanings : 1> the bricks and steel beams that a building is constructed of , and 2> "the arrangement of and relations between the parts or elements of something complex." [the logical structure]

I think in my mind I've conflated the fields with the probability waves. — fishfry

That's understandable, because field theory crosses the line from material Physics into immaterial Metaphysics. The "field" is just a hypothetical "place where something happens", imagined as a body of water. The waves are changes in the field, imagined as ocean waves. So, they are not material things, but mathematical relationships. Waves of Probability are "made" of statistics, not matter. Both Fields and Waves are abstractions.

Metaphysics : "the branch of philosophy that deals with the first principles of things, including abstract concepts such as being, knowing, substance, cause, identity, time, and space. . . . abstract theory with no basis in reality."

I have frequently been forced to explain that the word "Structure" has two meanings : 1> the bricks and steel beams that a building is constructed of , and 2> "the arrangement of and relations between the parts or elements of something complex." [the logical structure] — Gnomon

But ‘structure’ - this second definition - is not necessarily ‘logical’. This is the point i’m trying to make. Potential and value doesn’t just refer to logical relations, but also emotional, sensory, social and other qualitative values. When we determine value or potential only from logical relations, we limit our perspective of reality - in the same way that measuring ‘time’ from one position in spacetime limits our perspective of the broader universe.

The way I see it, these relationships of potentiality - the combined ‘field’ of mind - all refer to five-dimensional information: potential and value.
— Possibility
Three spatial dimensions plus potential and value? — Gnomon

Three spatial dimensions, plus time (4D), plus value (5D). Potential is another way of describing value/significance - one that has more relevance from a physics/materialist perspective. Value is a broader term that is inclusive of qualitative relations, and significance is inclusive of language and emotion. I used to refer to all of it as potentiality, but the classical concept of ‘potential’ as inherent in the actual object makes it difficult for some people to grasp the metaphysical nature of potentiality.

But ‘structure’ - this second definition - is not necessarily ‘logical’. — Possibility

By "logical" I meant "rational", in the sense of : defined by ratios and proportions. That definition includes emotions and human values, since in Enformationism, everything in the world boils down to Information : ratios and proportions; some of which are meaningful to humans.

In common usage of "logical" and "rational", the terms are deliberately intended to contrast with "emotional" and "valuable" --- as in Vulcan Logic. But in the BothAnd philosophy, it's all a matter of degree, a continuum. Everything and every idea in the world has a logical structure. But humans assign personal values to them on a good vs evil scale. Those values are relative (rational) to the evaluator. What's logical and valuable to a man, may not matter to an ant.

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

but the classical concept of ‘potential’ as inherent in the actual object makes it difficult for some people to grasp the metaphysical nature of potentiality. — Possibility

That's why philosophers are forever defining and redefining terms. :smile:

That's why I distinguish between Real (Actual) and Ideal (Potential), between Physical (matter) and Metaphysical (mental). The "Mind Field" is EnFormAction, which is the potential to cause change, which is similar to the physical notion of Energy, which is not a material thing, but the potential to cause change. Just as immaterial Energy can transform into Matter (E=MC\2), metaphysical EnFormAction can create all of the physical things in the world. — Gnomon

I think we’re basically on the same page here, just a confusion with terms. I can recognise (now) that material is also physical, but physical is not necessarily material. But when I use the term ‘real’, I don’t necessarily mean ‘actual’, and my use of ‘potential’ doesn’t mean ‘ideal’ (a subjective reduction or collapse of value relations). Potential, as I see it, is a subjective experience of value relations that ‘transcends’ reduction to an ‘ideal’. This is where it can be confusing, because I’m not coming from a rationalist perspective - I always see potential and value as a relational structure of ‘probability waves’, not a particle relation. It seems to me that most people perceive that they could not have chosen to act other than how they acted, but that’s not how I see it. The capacity to act other than how I choose to act (all potential information) is never collapsed in my experience. So I’ve found that I’m not always understood when I talk about the reduction of potential information to actuality.

By "logical" I meant "rational" : defined by ratios and proportions. That is not intended to exclude emotions and human values, since in Enformationism, everything in the world boils down to Information : ratios and proportions; some of which are meaningful to humans.

In common usage of "logical" and "rational", the terms are deliberately intended to contrast with "emotional" and "valuable" --- as in Vulcan Logic. But in the BothAnd philosophy, it's all a matter of degree, a continuum. Everything and every idea in the world has a logical structure. But humans assign personal values to them on a good vs evil scale. Those values are relative (rational) to the evaluator. What's logical and valuable to a man, may not matter to an ant. — Gnomon

I agree that every concept can be evaluated according a logical structure - but not all information. The process of ‘boiling down’ information to ratios and proportions is limiting or reducing that information to what fits into a particular value structure before you’re even aware of what information is available. The way I see it, the common experience that what’s valuable to me may not be logical to me refutes the idea that we’re talking about a simple continuum here.

Not sure if you’ve read Carlo Rovelli’s ‘The Order of Time’ - in it he deconstructs the concept of ‘time’ as a single variable, and reveals it as a four-dimensional structural relation of variables relative to three-dimensional information, as determined from an ‘objective’ position outside time. This relates to how I see potential and value - except the position Rovelli refers to is perceived as a subjective position within a value system that is itself a five-dimensional structural relation of variables relative to four-dimensional information. It necessarily positions ‘objectivity’ outside of all value structures, logical or otherwise (which may be another discussion).

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".. — Gnomon

Exploring the human experience in relation to information theory can get confusing, because computer-based information is only every binary, whereas the human experience of information takes into account the integration of four, five and even six dimensional ratios in a complex interacting system of interacting systems of interacting systems. So while a single difference in value makes a difference of ‘meaning’ in a computer system, this difference in a human system is WAY more complex, making a difference of ‘meaning’ at each level of interaction. A rational ‘difference’ therefore assumes all other variables to be equal in a ratio equation that in reality looks a bit like this: (((((A1, B1, C1, X1, Y1) : ((((A2, B2, C2, X2, Y2) : (((A3, B3, C3, X3, Y3) : ((A4, B4, C4, X4, Y4) : (A5, B5, C5, X5, Y5))))), where each variable is more complex than 0/1, and each internal system integrates its own ‘meaning’.

(PS. The numbers in the ratio equation should be subscript, if that helps. Plus, mathematics is not my forte - this is just my basic understanding of ratios at this level)

I agree that every concept can be evaluated according a logical structure - but not all information. The process of ‘boiling down’ information to ratios and proportions is limiting or reducing that information to what fits into a particular value structure before you’re even aware of what information is available. The way I see it, the common experience that what’s valuable to me may not be logical to me refutes the idea that we’re talking about a simple continuum here. — Possibility

In my thesis, Information is the basis of Logic and Math : a relationship between two values. The key word there is "value". Relationships and Ratios are nothing until evaluated (interpreted) by a mind. But Information is also the basis of Physics : Thermodynamics. So, Information is a continuum that bridges the imaginary gap between Physics and Metaphysics, between mathematical and human values.

Information : Information has a well-defined meaning in physics. In 2003 J. D. Bekenstein claimed that a growing trend in physics was to define the physical world as being made up of information itself . . . . In thermodynamics, information is any kind of event that affects the state of a dynamic system that can interpret the information.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Information

It necessarily positions ‘objectivity’ outside of all value structures, logical or otherwise (which may be another discussion). — Possibility

For another take on Time and Objectivity, check-out Donald Hoffman's concept of "Model Dependent Realism".

Objective Time : As Einstein put it, “Time and space are modes by which we think, and not conditions in which we live.” One interpretation of Quantum Theory, Quantum Bayesianism10 (QB) says that “quantum states describe not the objective world but the beliefs of agents about the consequences of their actions.”
http://bothandblog6.enformationism.info/page23.html

Exploring the human experience in relation to information theory can get confusing, because computer-based information is only every binary, whereas the human experience of information takes into account the integration of four, five and even six dimensional ratios in a complex interacting system of interacting systems of interacting systems. — Possibility

That's because Computer information processing is Binary, while human brains are Analog. Like Quantum Computers, the human brain can evaluate an infinite continuum of information from Zero to One. The logical mathematical basis of Information is a binary ratio, but analogous human reasoning goes way beyond the basics to consider fractional ratios and even irrational numbers.

Digital vs Analog : A digital signal is a signal that is being used to represent data as a sequence of discrete values; at any given time it can only take on one of a finite number of values.[1][2][3] This contrasts with an analog signal, which represents continuous values; at any given time it represents a real number within a continuous range of values.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_signal

Fieldism vs Materialism: an example of misplaced oppositionals

Materialism is not opposed to fieldism. Materialism's tenet is not that matter exists; it is that supernatural powers don't exist.

Fields are not supernatural.

And most precisely, matter exists as well. The formation of matter in terms of quantum mechanics is defined; I am not at all familiar with it. But fields manifest as matter under certain circumstances.

Matter is a function of fields; that is a given, and as such, matter may not be the fundamental component of materialistic relationships in the universe, but its name can be applied to include all those relationships alongside those that involve actual matter, that are not supernatural.

In my thesis, Information is the basis of Logic and Math : a relationship between two values. The key word there is "value". Relationships and Ratios are nothing until evaluated (interpreted) by a mind. But Information is also the basis of Physics : Thermodynamics. So, Information is a continuum that bridges the imaginary gap between Physics and Metaphysics, between mathematical and human values. — Gnomon

I agree that information is a manifest distinction at every level of interaction: the ‘difference that makes a difference’. What I’m most interested in is the bridge itself: what is the conceptual structure of that ‘continuum’ - because it isn’t linear (a common assumption of the term). In my understanding, it’s dimensional: from the one-dimensional relationship between potentialities, through to a five-dimensional relationship of ‘mind’, and beyond to a six-dimensional relationship between all possible correlations. If you bear with me, I’ll try to explain where I’m coming from (and I apologise for the length).

At the origin of the universe, we can employ Rovelli’s explanation of quantum mechanics by way of information theory:

A physical system manifests itself only by interacting with another. The description of a physical system, then, is always given in relation to another physical system, the one with which it interacts. Any description of a system is therefore always a description of the information which a system has about another system, that is to say the correlation between the two systems. — Carlo Rovelli, ‘Reality Is Not What It Seems’

The origin of the universe can be described as the result of interaction between potential information, which - as you rightly point out - necessitates the prior existence of ‘mind’, but only as a structural relation. My argument is that the existence of this original ‘mind’ is contingent on something more essential, and is not universal. More importantly, this original ‘mind’ has no inherent knowledge of the universe whatsoever. It can be aware only of a vague sense of more, manifest as a capacity - in this correlation between whatever it is and whatever it is interacting with - to develop and achieve.

The initial entanglement of all particles in superposition forms a five-dimensional structure of potentiality ‘prior’ to the Big Bang. This structure of ‘mind’, it seems, is a reduction of the possible universe: a primary ‘decoherence’ that sets limitations on what this universe could possibly become in relation to value. The potentiality of the universe as a correlation of values is finite: limited by the potential energy/information available.

The next level of decoherence sets limitations on the temporal potentiality of the universe. The unfolding universe as a correlation of events must be finite: the probability of its beginning and its end would be calculable, given enough information. The unfolding of the material universe is limited by the actual energy/information available in the actual duration available.

Due to further decoherence, the relative shape, distance and direction of all objects in the universe must be measurable, and is limited by the energy/information available to the interaction between particles, as well as the durability.

This relates to Rovelli’s postulates about quantum mechanics in relation to information theory:

1.

The relevant information in any physical system is finite.
2. You can always obtain new information on a physical system. — Carlo Rovelli, ‘Reality Is Not What It Seems’

So efficiency of information-processing is the key that drives the evolution of the universe towards knowledge of itself.

Each particle of the universe is entangled in a correlation of potentiality, and manifests as a difference between its own capacity and that of interacting particles, with which it is not entangled - it has no awareness of the full potentiality of either particle, only actualising a potential difference as one-dimensional information: an actual, measurable atom.

It doesn’t really make sense to talk about space or time at this level of evolution, because everything that exists in the universe is at best only ‘aware’ of the universe as a vague more. Each atom remains in superposition in relation to everything else in the universe.

Atoms are a developed system of efficient, one-dimensional relations between entangled and unentangled particles, with a capacity to interact with other particles, manifesting whatever difference an interaction can make to a particle relation. This can eventually form and develop molecules as two-dimensional systems, which are then capable of integrating the difference an interaction makes to a chemical relation, to eventually form and develop different chemical reactions as three-dimensional systems, with the capacity to integrate the many differences an interaction makes to a chemical reaction, presenting opportunity to form and develop (as a rarity) cellular life as a four-dimensional system of interrelated chemical reactions.

Four-dimensional living systems have the capacity to manifest the myriad five-dimensional differences an interaction makes to a living system, including movement towards or away from and tracking/identifying three-dimensional objects in space. The manifestation of these value differences form an experiencing subject - aware of the relative temporal aspects of reality, yet only vaguely aware of value as information, actualising the distinction between experiences as integrated five-dimensional information, or value-related response to stimuli.

These experiencing, five-dimensional systems have the capacity to manifest the six-dimensional differences an interaction makes to an experiencing subject. As humans, we are aware of the relative value aspects of reality, yet only vaguely aware of meaning as distinct information beyond significance, even as we respond to it at some ‘higher level’. That we can imagine ‘squaring a circle’, for instance, points to our capacity to relate information beyond logical value structures. For the most part, though, we just don’t believe it matters. Most of us think human experience or ‘mind’ IS the universe, which is in keeping with the pattern of capacity at previous levels of awareness.

Fieldism vs Materialism: an example of misplaced oppositionals

Materialism is not opposed to fieldism. Materialism's tenet is not that matter exists; it is that supernatural powers don't exist.

Fields are not supernatural.

And most precisely, matter exists as well. The formation of matter in terms of quantum mechanics is defined; I am not at all familiar with it. But fields manifest as matter under certain circumstances.

Matter is a function of fields; that is a given, and as such, matter may not be the fundamental component of materialistic relationships in the universe, but its name can be applied to include all those relationships alongside those that involve actual matter, that are not supernatural. — god must be atheist

As mentioned, I’m not a materialist as such, but I think I understand where you’re coming from here. The rejection of the supernatural by materialists is simply a challenge to explain what we experience as a structural relation to what is measurable/observable. Fields manage this, but my point is that the logical field relations calculated by physics is far from the full picture of potentiality, let alone our relation to the universe.

‘Defined’ is not how I would describe the formation of matter as described by quantum mechanics. It’s more of a calculated probability, as are these fields. The ‘observability’ of the magnetic field in the relation between iron filings and a magnet, for instance, is a reduction of the field information itself, just as the wave pattern on the screen is a reduction of the potentiality information of a photon. So when you say ‘fields manifest as matter under certain circumstances’, you’re not quite correct.

There is a conceptual difference between ‘matter’ and ‘materialistic relationships’ in the same way as there is a difference between ‘physical’ and ‘metaphysical’, but both sets of distinction have no empirical basis. To refer to what is generally understood to be metaphysical as ‘physical’ however, is to confuse the issue - and likewise referring to materialistic relationships as ‘matter’ - although I understand your reluctance to perpetuate the distinction, which places limitations on understanding reality from a ‘materialist’ perspective.

Information is a continuum that bridges the imaginary gap between Physics and Metaphysics, between mathematical and human values. — Gnomon

What I’m most interested in is the bridge itself: what is the conceptual structure of that ‘continuum’ — Possibility

In literary analysis, structural inter-relationships are usually broken-down to Syntax, Semantics, and Pragmatics. So, if you are interested in a corporeal “bridge” you should look for a Physical connection (material) between elements. If the interest is in a meaningful link between elements the connection would be Metaphysical (mental, immaterial). If however, your interest is in the various common usages of the notion of a relationship between elements, you'd have to look at Abstract Geometry, Steel Bridges, and Romantic Love.

A physical system manifests itself only by interacting with another. The description of a physical system, then, is always given in relation to another physical system, — Carlo Rovelli, ‘Reality Is Not What It Seems’

The Rovelli quote seems to be looking at the notion of “correlation" from the perspective of a Classical Physicist, which requires some kind of physical contact to form a relationship. But he's a Quantum Physicist, and must deal with “spooky action at a distance” in which no material crosses the gap between particles. What does fill the vacuum between particles in space is metaphysical Information, a continuum that I call EnFormAction : the power to cause Change. In some cases it works like flowing energy, by direct contact. Yet it also works like Gravity (or Love), by mutual attraction, not like a Star Trek Tractor Beam, imagined as a stream of magnetic particles. It also manifests like Quantum Entanglement in that the only connection is logical or historical, i.e. metaphysical. So, Cosmic Enformation is like a universal Information Field : a continuum that binds all elements into a dynamic system.


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.
http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page14.html

The nature of the relationship between ‘mind’ and ‘matter’ and all of reality is precisely what I’m looking at. This ‘metaphysical information’ you’re referring to is the result of what I have been calling interaction, whether it’s between possibility, potentiality, events, objects, two-dimensional or even analog information. It appears to ‘fill the vacuum between particles in space’ because it IS what space consists of, at the level of potentiality. But it’s also more than that.

If you read Rovelli’s books, you’ll understand that he doesn’t refer to ‘spooky action at a distance’ because he recognises reality as consisting of immaterial events rather than objects: as ‘interaction’. So when he talks about a ‘physical system’, he’s not talking about particles as objects, but as systems of interaction. What he doesn’t recognise in his books is how easily this lends itself to a metaphysical continuum, by understanding ‘interaction’ as a metaphysical relation.

In writing this, I’ve noticed that my use of the term ‘interaction’ may be mistaken for an event in time, rather than the metaphysical relation I’ve been meaning. This is why I find it useful to persist with these discussions - it allows me to refine my use of language in approaching shared meaning. I apologise for the confusion.

This ‘power to cause change’ you’ve named ‘EnFormAction’ refers to potentiality, which is a fifth-dimensional level of relation between metaphysical information. This is the level that most people relate to reality, even if they only understand reality at the level of objects in time and space, or like Rovelli, as interrelated events occurring in quantum ‘fields’. Or even like yourself, understanding reality as the result of immaterial, mental relations of a ‘universal mind’.

But there is a six-dimensional level of relation, which is meaning as pure relation, or ‘love’, from which all potentiality - as a reduction of all possible metaphysical information from all possible relations - is manifest.

But there is a six-dimensional level of relation, which is meaning as pure relation, or ‘love’, from which all potentiality - as a reduction of all possible metaphysical information from all possible relations - is manifest. — Possibility

I'm not sure how you arrive at that multi-dimensional hierarchy of Information. But, in my thesis, the next higher level above immanent EnFormAction is simply transcendent G*D. In some speculative philosophies, such as Kabbalah and Theosophy, all of the lower level manifestations are emanations of the unmanifest, unknowable God : "a unitary divine principle". Their analysis of metaphysical realms is similar to my own concept, except that they are assuming that the Torah is a revelation from God. They were good guesses for their times, but I abandoned biblical revelation years ago.

So, my own "revelations" are drawn from modern science, especially Cosmology and Quantum Theory. I draw no religious implications from this personal worldview. It's not a revelation from on high, but merely an attempt to make sense of the paradoxes of the post-Big-Bang, and post-Quantum world. Since the infinite potential of G*D is all possibilities, S/he is necessarily both Love & Hate, Good & Evil, Male & Female, Positive & Negative. Any comprehensive philosophical worldview, could be turned into a religion for the masses, only by choosing one side of the coin, and by taking its metaphors literally : "God is Love". Also, by turning the abstract deity into Santa Claus or Satan.

In my thesis, the infinite creative power of G*D, EnFormAction, is manifested in reality as Energy, which is the cause of all physical change in the world. But eventually Energy has manifested as Mind, and is responsible for all cultural change in the world. Since the early 20th century, Gallieo's and Newton's cosmologies have become almost as out-dated as the Bronze Age Bible's understanding of how the world works. The 21st century is the Age of Information.


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

EnFormAction : Active Information. Ententional Causation. A proposed metaphysical law of the universe that causes random interactions between forces and particles to produce novel & stable arrangements of matter & energy. It’s the creative force (aka : Divine Will) of the axiomatic eternal deity that, for unknown reasons, programmed a Singularity to suddenly burst into our reality from an infinite source of possibility. aka : Energy; Change; The Creative Power of Evolution; the Power to Enform;

G*D : other terms for the axiomatic First Cause : LOGOS, ALL, BEING, MIND, Creator, Enformer, Nature, Reason, Source, Programmer. These names and associated qualities are attributed to the unknown unknowable deity as logical inferences from observation of the Creation.

PS__I have read Rovelli's, Reality Is Not What It Seems

I'm not sure how you arrive at that multi-dimensional hierarchy of Information. But, in my thesis, the next higher level above immanent EnFormAction is simply transcendent G*D. — Gnomon

G*D : other terms for the axiomatic First Cause : LOGOS, ALL, BEING, MIND, Creator, Enformer, Nature, Reason, Source, Programmer. These names and associated qualities are attributed to the unknown unknowable deity as logical inferences from observation of the Creation. — Gnomon

This makes some sense to me - although your list of alternative terms suggests prior knowledge of an endpoint, which I dispute. The way I see it, this transcendent G*D refers to a relation of all possible information, including illogical possibilities, such as squaring the circle, and love.

Materialism is not opposed to fieldism. Materialism's tenet is not that matter exists; it is that supernatural powers don't exist. — god must be atheist

So I thought that was naturalism, which isn't committed to materialism. You could be an idealist and a naturalist as long as ideas have no supernatural origin. Unless naturalism assumes the independent reality of the world.

Matter is a function of fields; that is a given, and as such, matter may not be the fundamental component of materialistic relationships in the universe, but its name can be applied to include all those relationships alongside those that involve actual matter, that are not supernatural. — god must be atheist

I could have made the topic: Fieldism instead of Atomism

The focus is an ontological one. What is the world fundamentally made up of? It's not the ordinary stuff we experience everyday. As contemporary physics becomes further removed from the ordinary, the question is whether materialism is the right term for saying what the fundamental stuff or reality is.

This makes some sense to me - although your list of alternative terms suggests prior knowledge of an endpoint, which I dispute. The way I see it, this transcendent G*D refers to a relation of all possible information, including illogical possibilities, such as squaring the circle, and love. — Possibility

I refer to Evolution as Ententional, because it has a direction of progression toward some unknown future state. I can only guess what that "Omega Point" might be. (see Graph below) But, because Evolution is progressing in a zig-zag path via Hegelian dialectic, I assume that the end-point is not pre-destined, but only the parameters of success are predefined --- as in Evolutionary Programming (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolutionary_programming). It's just a guess.

Since G*D is presumed to exist infinitely and eternally, the "ALL" characterization includes all logical possibilities, but the "LOGOS" label prohibits "illogical possibilities. Yet, again, I'm just guessing.


Human Nature : Essentialism
reply to Siti, page 5
. . . . . In my analogy between Intelligent Evolution and Genetic Design, I indicated that the designer (human or deity) used the heuristic search process, specifically because there was no viable path directly to the goal. In the “evolved antenna” design, the barrier was computing power. So, they established parameters to be met, and let their artificial intelligence computers “stumble” upon the optimum solution by a process of trial & error. Our Programmer was a wise-wizard, in that S/he started before the beginning. It's called a "program" : a plan of action.

In the Intelligent Evolution theory, I postulate that the Programmer had no entention of creating dumb creatures like Adam & Eve, but merely had the “idea” of creating semi-autonomous intelligent creatures --- little avatars for entertainment. So, S/he simply designed a process that would “stumble” upon an optimum solution --- within the constraints of space & time, and natural laws --- by learning from its own mistakes. The design criteria & parameters are assumed to be working via Natural Selection. So the final goal was specified only in terms of a problem description. And the zig-zag path to that goal was what Hegel called “The Dialectic Process”, as contrasted with the “Didactic Process” of Intelligent Design. The Process is the Product. Playing the game is the point, not the final score. "The play's the thing". ___Shakespeare, Hamlet

Dialectic : a back & forth philosophical argument between Good & Evil. Bottom-up design.
Didactic : an autocratic method of instruction by commandment. Top-down design



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

Cosmic Progression Graph : http://bothandblog3.enformationism.info/page28.html

The focus is an ontological one. What is the world fundamentally made up of? It's not the ordinary stuff we experience everyday. As contemporary physics becomes further removed from the ordinary, the question is whether materialism is the right term for saying what the fundamental stuff or reality is. — Marchesk

That's exactly why I developed the Enformationism Thesis. It's intended to be a 21st century update to ancient theories of Atomism, Materialism, and Spiritualism. Information is all of the above. In modern physics, Information is Matter & Energy & Mind. Information can be imagined as a Mind Field permeating the real world, and manifesting in many different forms. If you doubt that assertion, I have lots of essays presenting my evidence and reasoning. :nerd:

Information : http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page11.html
also see the sidebar