If there were pure randomness, it could create the most beautiful or the most ugly of universes

Hindus believe the world is aural vibration. Books like The Secret say the highest concentration of vibration is in the mammals' brain. Anyway, in speaking of energy and "struggles of the mind", Teilhard writes of:

"A sense of spatial immensity, in greatness and smallness, disarticulating and spacing out, within a speed of indefinite radius, the orbits of the objects which press around us;
A sense of depth, pushing back laboriously through endless series and measureless distances of time, which a sort of sluggishness of mind tends continually to condense for us in a thin layer of the past;
A sense of number, discovering and grasping unflinching the bewildering multitude of material or living elements involved in the slightest change in the universe;
A sense of proportion, realizing as best we can the difference of physical scale which separates, both in rhythm and dimension, the atom from the nebula, the infinitesimal from the immense; A sense of quality, or all novelty, enabling us to distinguish in nature certain absolute stages of perfection and growth, without upsetting the physical unity of the world;
A sense of movement, capable of perceiving the irresistibly developments hidden in extreme slowness -extreme agitation concealed beneath a veil of immobility-the entirely new insinuating itself into the heart of the monotonous reputation of the same things;
A sense, lastly, of the organic, discovery.physical links and structural unity under the superficial juxtaposition of succession and collectivities."

Perhaps that sounds like rubbish. However, Enformation seems to me to be either pantheistic or panentheistic digitalism, as if pixels have replaced string theory

In the regular uncapitalized natural selection, it is the 'selection' that is the scientific alternate to ID, meaning, too, that evolution doesn't work by chance, which is the same as you said about chance not being able to drive it. — PoeticUniverse

Yes. I emphasized "Natural" selection, because scientists, and many philosophers, are uncomfortable with the idea of "Super-natural" selection. But then, who or what programmed the rules for Selection Criteria into the the evolutionary algorithm? As I said before, randomness alone is destructive, so we must somehow account for the creative powers of our universe. Science says "Chance did it", while Religion says "God did it". But, my alternative to Intelligent Design is Intelligent Evolution, imagined as an information processing computer program. But even that begs the question of a Programmer.

For many years I was agnostic about the supernatural powers that were taken for granted in my religious raising. But as I matured, and began to study philosophical concepts, in addition to scientific theories, I began to realize that some kind of Pre-Natural First Cause is a necessary assumption. And since Evolution now seems to be equivalent to a computer program, I can't deny the implications for a Programmer. So, in my current worldview, this world is a combination of Chaos (randomness) and Cosmos (organization). "Chaos" is imagined as an infinite source of Un-Actualized Potential (possibilities), while "Cosmos" plays the role of the Intender or Selector or Logos or Craftsman, who Chooses which possibility to actualize.

I'm still agnostic about the exact "nature" of a Pre-Natural First Cause. But, even a material Multiverse would have to possess some god-like powers in order to create a world of random atoms, swirling in the void, from which Life & Mind, and accelerating human Culture emerged. :cool:

Pre-Natural : before the Big Bang

Intelligent Evolution : http://bothandblog5.enformationism.info/page2.html

Designed To Evolve : http://bothandblog5.enformationism.info/page8.html

Atheist First Cause : http://commonsenseatheism.com/?p=835

PS__I apologize for all the capitals. It's just my little quirk for stressing certain words that might otherwise be overlooked (due to preconceptions) on the way to extracting the meaning of a sentence.

Yes, I think you have answered the question in the next post. Chance is not actually a cause at all, in evolution, natural selection is the cause. — Metaphysician Undercover

I still view Randomness as a necessary source of novelty, which supplies open possibilities, for Selection to choose from.

"Chance" is the word that we use to describe the situation when we apprehend no particular reason for one outcome or another. — Metaphysician Undercover

That's where we differ. "Chance" also means Opportunity. Choice may have its reasons, but Chance supplies the substance to be rationalized --- the objects to be ordered.

You demonstrate a logical intuition, to say that this does not make sense to you. — Metaphysician Undercover

Yes. But Choice (the power to choose) without a Menu (options) is impotent.

PS__That description of Evolution as a Menu of options for thinking beings to choose from, may mean that humans have Freewill, but that our choices are limited to those that Serendipity presents. In other words, we can't choose our choices. :cool:

However, Enformation seems to me to be either pantheistic or panentheistic digitalism, as if pixels have replaced string theory — Gregory

Enformationism does imply PanEnTheism. Yet it's not about pixels, but Bits of meaning. :smile:

Bit : the smallest increment of information, of meaning

It from Bit : https://www.brainpickings.org/2016/09/02/it-from-bit-wheeler/

not about pixels, but Bits of meaning. — Gnomon

If we found that instead of strings, there were tiny photons that rule the world, I think the German idealists and romantics would sing from their graves

If we found that instead of strings, there were tiny photons that rule the world, I think the German idealists and romantics would sing from their graves — Gregory

What would the Idealists think about a world composed of Bits of Information? Maybe all those zillions of bits add up to one really big Idea. :joke:

You are obviously a process philosopher and a very modern type of that as well. There are Christians versions of these ideas i've come accross: https://www.amazon.com/Physics-Immortality-Modern-Cosmology-Resurrection/dp/0385467990

I still view Randomness as a necessary source of novelty, which supplies open possibilities, for Selection to choose from. — Gnomon

The source of novelty need not be randomness, it only needs to be possibility. Possibility means that there are options, but possibilities might exist without a being which can choose between them. And, a being like the human being might not adequately understand the extent of the possibilities, such that they could appear as if they were based in randomness. But all possibilities are really limited in extent, possibilities are restricted. Therefore the underlying mechanism which allows for the reality of possibility cannot actually be randomness, because randomness cannot account for the reality of whatever it is which restricts possibility.

That's where we differ. "Chance" also means Opportunity. Choice may have its reasons, but Chance supplies the substance to be rationalized --- the objects to be ordered. — Gnomon

OK, I see how you are using "chance" now. You use it as somewhat synonymous with possibility. If there is a possibility of a certain event occurring, there is a chance of that event. I look at this as the human perspective on possibility, we judge possibilities in this way, as chances, or probabilities. But only when we look at possibilities as having real ontological status, then the possibility, (what you'd call the chance of something), becomes an opportunity. We can make that possibility actually occur by proceeding with the required actions. I find that "possibility" is a better word to use here than "chance", because chance will often imply randomness in a common interpretation, but as I described above, there is no need to associate randomness with possibility or opportunity. If a person apprehends opportunity, as provided by possibility, then as I explained above, there is no need to conceive of this possibility as being provided for by randomness. If I offer you a choice of this or that, there is no need to assume that these possibilities are provided for by randomness.

You are obviously a process philosopher — Gregory

My Enformationism thesis does have some parallels with Whitehead's Process Philosophy. Unfortunately, I had difficulty following his arguments in Process and Reality. Besides, my theory was pretty well developed before I heard of Whitehead.

My worldview is not a Christian theology in any sense. And I find The Physics of Immortality, by Tipler, to be even more far-out than my own out-of-this-world speculations. I am agnostic about immortality. :cool:

You have a strange sense of "substance" and thus must logically subscribe to the theory that everything is determined except free will. Modern science wouldn't generally agree to that

"Maybe the devil is God, and God is the devil." Some wonder this. "God is the devil unknown"

Esoteric cosmology is fun, and physicist are tempted to it often. Schopenhauer says there is a secret will in the universe. First off, I'm a materialist when it comes to earth, consciousnesses coming from matter and usually if not always from a brain. It is possible for will and intellect to be separate. Will would choose in a random way, and intellect would just think without choosing which mental direction to go in. I think of the evil will(s) of Schopenhauer as Archons that lack intellect (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archon_(Gnosticism)).

I don't mention a Demiurage because they has to do with a personal Creator of the world. Matter is not bad. It is at least neutral, and when formed into organism it is a great good. Matter has emergent forces such as friction. Nothingness is pure Yin and energy is potential. Matter is emergent, formed energy. Gravity would be the first mover of matter, but not "in time". There is no time outside of consciousness. I adopt the "relational" theory of time from Leibniz. Matter has evolved into intellect, and if reason is "a
whore" as Luther said it was, this is not wholly a good thing. (My view does not contradict Aristotle's formation of "causality") The two fundamental forces of action in the universe are the archons and gravity. I would consider myself more of a pagan because I think we are greater than the Archons, even though and because of the fact that we are animals. Many animals are like gods compared to earlier phases of evolution. We are organism and intellect.We can't, or maybe it's just hard, to outsmart Archons because of the complete random spontaneity of their wills (i.e. their nature) I know someone might bring up Satanism. But from what I know, Crowley was for searching out the Higher Will of the person. And Anton Levay was simply more into being as much of an animal as one could be (in a gothic sense I guess). I've never heard of someone saying "the Bible is true but I want to join the devil."

There is no Super-Father in a supernatural realm who sends his Son to become our death and sin on a
cross. No, we stand alone

The source of novelty need not be randomness, it only needs to be possibility. — Metaphysician Undercover

Yes. That infinite source of Possibilities is what I call BEING (General Potential; the power to be). My imaginary creation scenario has Chaos (random possibilities) merging with Logos (Reason & Order) to create Cosmos (an organized process of becoming).

You use it as somewhat synonymous with possibility. — Metaphysician Undercover

Yes. I suspect that many scientists tend to think of pure Randomness (Chance) as the source of creativity in Evolution. But, without the organizing choices of Natural Selection, random changes (mutations) would go nowhere. So it's the combination of Chance & Choice that makes the world go around, so to speak. Consequently, we need to figure out how the Darwinian process of Evolution came to have the power to choose its direction into the future. That's why the notion of a Cosmic Program appeals to me. :smile:

Here is a specific audio video you might find quaint. Long before computers..

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yIGrAg6vuMA

Here's a podcast that is catching my eye

https://www.google.com/search?q=the+hidden+djinn&rlz=1C1OKWM_enUS867US867&oq=the+hidden+j&aqs=chrome.1.69i57j0l6j46.5289j0j1&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

I don't think the Argon/Djinn have intellect though, nor do I think they are intentionally malicious. They are simply random, purely undetermined will. Like a black rider whom's mind you can never know (since we are rational)

Here is a specific audio video you might find quaint. Long before computers.. — Gregory

Quaint indeed! Berkeley's Idealism was, in part, a justification of Christian Catholic theology --- yet, influenced by ancient Pagan Platonism. My own thesis is similar to Plato's Idealism, but it is grounded in the strange conclusions of modern Quantum theory, that the foundation of material reality is immaterial. As one physicist exclaimed, "A quantum particle is nothing but Information"! He was referring to the frustrating fact that the localized particles they hope to study tend to vanish into a fog of non-local mathematical waveforms --- neither here not there, but floating aimlessly in a Field of probabilistic Potential.

However, most scientists are not comfortable with the notion that the foggy foundation of our material world is actually mathematical, instead of material. Yet, since Mathematics has no physical properties, but only mental qualities (ratios, proportions, equalities), I --- along with physicists Tegmark, Davies & Lloyd --- conclude that the world is essentially mental. But then, the question arises, whose mind : the local observer or the universal observer? Hence the poem about the tree in the quad.

Personally, I don't go to the extreme of Tegmark's Mathematical Universe. And I don't dismiss "immediate experience as unreal". Instead, I think that, for all practical purposes, the mental picture of the world, in the mind of each observer, is as real as it gets. However, for impractical philosophical purposes, we can imagine what our world would look like to an observer outside of reality. It might look something like Plato's Ideal world of abstract potential Forms. Now, isn't that Quaint? :joke:


Quaint : having an old-fashioned attractiveness or charm; oddly picturesque: a quaint old house. strange, peculiar, or unusual in an interesting, pleasing, or amusing way

Mathematical Universe : the physical universe is not merely described by mathematics, but is mathematics (specifically, a mathematical structure). Mathematical existence equals physical existence, and all structures that exist mathematically exist physically as well. Observers, including humans, are "self-aware substructures (SASs)". In any mathematical structure complex enough to contain such substructures, they "will subjectively perceive themselves as existing in a physically 'real' world".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathematical_universe_hypothesis

Mathematics & Reality : The easiest way to see what is wrong with this extreme mathematical realism is to examine actual examples of mathematical physics. . . .
The challenge of metaphysics must be to see how these different kinds of truths relate. This does not mean either on the one hand siding with the deliverances of immediate experience against those of mathematical physics, or on the other hand dismissing immediate experience as unreal.
https://philosophynow.org/issues/102/Mathematics_and_Reality

Y

Are you saying THE WORLD is corporeal consciousness or simply information? We might not be anything

What options to be have of interpreting Enformation apart from mathematics? Plato tried to refute this by saying that the question "is 4 big?" has no answer and therefore there is something prior to math

Are you saying THE WORLD is corporeal consciousness or simply information? We might not be anything — Gregory

No, I'm suggesting that since reductive Quantum scientists have sliced the material world down to nothingness, and never found the holy grail of a final foundational uncuttable Atom (Leucippus), the understructure of reality may not be made of solid Matter. That immaterial bedrock of reality now appears to be the same stuff that creates ideas in your mind, and calculates mathematical answers in computers. Information may superficially appear to "not be anything", but it is the substance of everything.

Raw Information is not corporeal, but it is capable of becoming solid bodies. To wit : Quantum Fields are described as pure mathematical Potential (virtual particles) that are capable of becoming Actual (physical particles). Mathematics consists of Ratios & Relationships, and all Meaning in a Rational Mind is likewise relational Information.

What options to be have of interpreting Enformation apart from mathematics? Plato tried to refute this by saying that the question "is 4 big?" has no answer and therefore there is something prior to math — Gregory

What color is the number Four? No answer?
Yes, there is something "prior to math" : the unformed cosmic Potential that I call BEING . . . or G*D, if you prefer.

If you are a high level mathematician, go ahead and interpret Enformationism. I'm not. So I resort to carefully chosen words, and even some coinages of my own. Tegmark is not alone in his interpretation of Reality as ultimately Mathematical, hence, for all practical purposes : Mental. My thesis came to a similar conclusion from philosophical reasoning, rather than abstruse mathematical calculations. But they are both in agreement that Information is the best current candidate for the long sought invisible & indivisible Atom. :smile:

Mathematical Universe hypothesis : In physics and cosmology, the mathematical universe hypothesis (MUH), also known as the ultimate ensemble theory, is a speculative "theory of everything" (TOE) proposed by cosmologist Max Tegmark
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathematical_universe_hypothesis

Your ideas are interesting and consistent

I am more into neutral monism and pluralism. Kant, then Fitche, then Schelling, then Hegel, and finally Schopenhauer tried to say the world was matter and mind together, as a hybrid. I think the world is beyond necessity and contingency, and beyond finite and infinite. I think the unique part of what I believe is having perfect wholeness with perfect plurality. It's even more mysterious to consider than the Trinity

Abelard wrote 3 works on the Trinity, making fine distinctions between unity and relation. I don't know if I can use his ideas or not

Your ideas are interesting and consistent — Gregory

Thanks. But some people on this forum think my thesis is airy-fairy religious nonsense. And others think it's quantum-weirdness atheistic nonsense. But, if anything makes sense in this world, it should be the Information that forms meaning in your mind. :nerd:

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". That comparative 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