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
...with what? — Possibility
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
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).I don't think think structures and forms contain information. Entropy yes. — Hillary
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: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: — Gnomon
so we only know it by what it does, not what it is — Gnomon
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.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
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.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
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
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:Not Hegel's concept of dialectic. I forget who said that, but it is not Hegel. — Jackson
Spasibo!A contradiction, ergo, is a feature, not a bug of your EnFormAction - BothAnd! G'day señor and good luck! — 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.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
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.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
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.