Your senses perceive (actual) physical values, but your mind conceives (probable) metaphysical meanings. — Gnomon

It seems to me that you are confusing perception with a theory of perception. You begin with a questionable assumption that perception is passive reception, and thus a dualism of perception and conception. In addition, you are importing a questionable claim of metaphysical meaning that may or may not play a role in how one conceives of something seen.

I'm still not clear about the rationale for monism. If eventually one has to resort to some form of dualism/pluralism ... — Agent Smith

↪Agent Smith
Dialectical monism.
— 180 Proof — 180 Proof

I.e. dual-aspect monism (or property dualism).

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double-aspect_theory

So you're asking me to "zoom out" to get an idea of what Holism is all about. That maketh sense!, I wonder though whether this conforms to the standard interpretation of monism (don't you havta zoom in?) — Agent Smith

Ha! This is what I was referring to in the note about language. One way to understand the term "Monism" is as a huge Atom, with no internal parts -- just one big thing. But, as 180 pointed out, philosophers had to clear-up the confusion by creating the concept of Dialectical Monism*1. Yet, for some, it may only confuse them further, because it adds the scary notion of "transcendence". My substitute for that baggage-laden word is the equally fraught "Meta-Physics", referring to the aspects of our world that are not physical -- such as Mathematics, Logic, & Mind. They have no space-time dimensions, and are holistic (general) in their function, as immaterial connectors or links between otherwise isolated things or ideas.

When a Whole System is defined as "more than the sum of its parts", the extra piece of the puzzle is metaphysical (i.e. transcendental). It transcends Physics in the sense that it has no physical properties, except a geometric relationship. That holistic binding "force" can only be measured by its observed effects (form changes) on physical objects. [unlike the Tractor Beam in Star Trek, which is a visible ray of something like narrowly focused gravity]. The Holistic Force is more like an invisible intangible ghost that pulls heavy books off a shelf. But you can understand it metaphorically, as-if some new hypothetical physical Force appears to bond independent things into a single object. For this discussion, we can call that imaginary glue : the Systematizing Force. (Physicists also have an imaginary or metaphorical force that holds sub-atomic particles together : Gluons)*2.

Another way to "zoom out" is to first zoom in. Your desk or table appears to you as a single solid object (a whole system) with a special function : to hold your laptop off the floor. But, if you zoom-in to take a closer look, you see molecules of cellulose, held together by lignin. And their function is not to hold up laptops. Zoom-in even further, and you see various carbon & hydrogen atoms swirling around, yet again, those parts of the whole have nothing directly to do with supporting laptops. Go deeper into the queer quantum level of reality, and you find parts of your desk that are invisible to the naked eye. In fact, the atom itself is 90% empty space. And what little Matter is there, consists of mathematical Mass, that can only be defined in terms of Einstein's equation of weightless Energy with inertial Mass, multiplied by a dimensionless number "C". Energy itself is statistical potential, and its function is only to cause change in material objects by clipping-apart-or-together the bonding forces of Mass.

So yes, you have to 'zoom-in" toward the metaphysical Essence*3 of particular things, before you can appreciate the Whole, by "zooming-out" to see combined form of all those tiny-tings, bound together by the transcendental Substance of systems. And in my own thesis, both essence and substance are the same stuff : EnFormAction -- the power to cause change of form. :nerd:



*1. Dialectical Monism :
Dialectical monism, also known as dualistic monism or monistic dualism, is an ontological position that holds that reality is ultimately a unified whole, distinguishing itself from monism by asserting that this whole necessarily expresses itself in dualistic terms. For the dialectical monist, the essential unity is that of complementary polarities, which, while opposed in the realm of experience and perception, are co-substantial in a transcendent sense.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dialectical_monism

*2. Gluon :
a. The meaning of GLUON is a hypothetical neutral massless particle held to bind together quarks to form hadrons.
b. an unobserved massless particle with spin 1 that is believed to transmit the strong force between quarks,

*3. Aristotle : A substantial form is the essence of a substance

:up:

Gimme time to process all that. Ciao!

Gimme time to process all that. Ciao! — Agent Smith

"There's no time like the present".

I'm currently reading a book by theoretical physicist Sabine Hossenfelder. In a chapter entitled, Is Math All There Is, she interviewed physicist Tim Palmer, who studies the chaos of climate using AI. They made a comment that has an indirect bearing on this thread. We "independently arrived at similar conclusions about the lack of progress in the foundations of physics. We both pointed the finger at physicist's overreliance on reductionism" [bold in text] . Hence, the need for a judicious use of holistic methods to understand the mushy quantum foundations of physics. And that also applies to understanding the foggy initial conditions of the Big Bang, upon which the inference of "fine tuning" is based.

Referring to both the Big Bang and to religious creation myths, she asked "What do we mean by this word creation anyway?" She then discusses the meta-physical [my word] mathematical methods of physics. "Is an atom just mathematics? Is mathematics all that is? Or is there something, a substance or something, that makes stuff real and is not part of the modern scientific canon?" [my bold]. To that, my answer is yes : Generic Information. Just as Einstein equated insubstantial Energy with substantial Matter, I equate ideal EnFormAction with all the physical stuff of Reality. From a Reductive approach, that does not make sense. But from a Holistic perspective, it not only makes sense, it makes substance. :nerd:

PS___Take your time. With patience, a meaningful image may appear from within the noise of nonsense.


"I am not trying to advocate this . . . but you could say God created the universe as a piece of mathematics" ___mathematical physicist Tim Palmer

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 mathematical 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" or "Co-operation".
http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page11.html

Information is :
Claude Shannon quantified Information not as useful ideas, but as a mathematical ratio between meaningful order (1) and meaningless disorder (0); between knowledge (1) and ignorance (0). So, that meaningful mind-stuff exists in the limbo-land of statistics, producing effects on reality while having no sensory physical properties. We know it exists ideally, only by detecting its effects in the real world.
For humans, Information has the semantic quality of aboutness, that we interpret as meaning. In computer science though, Information is treated as meaningless, which makes its mathematical value more certain. It becomes meaningful only when a sentient Self interprets it as such.
When spelled with an “I”, Information is a noun, referring to data & things. When spelled with an “E”, Enformation is a verb, referring to energy and processes.
http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page11.html

What is EnFormAction? :
4. Like DNA, Information shapes things via internal rather than external constraints. Like the Laws of Physics, Information is the motivating & constraining force of physical reality. Like Energy, Information is the universal active agent of the cosmos. Like Spinoza's God, Information appears to be the single substance of the whole World.
http://bothandblog2.enformationism.info/page29.html

Is This a Designer Universe? :
However, another path of Logic assumes that the most important aspect of reality to non-scientists is personal Consciousness — the essence of humanity — which can't be adequately explained as the output of material mechanisms. So the most reasonable candidate for the source of such noumenal Qualia would be a creative mind of some kind : Mind makes minds. That's why most thinkers, until recently, have imagined their hypothetical uber-mind in allegorical terms of a bigger & better human awareness. Unfortunately, that reasonable supposition included some extra baggage in the form of human emotions that are inherent functions of the physical human body, and may not apply to discarnate spiritual entities. Which is why most philosophers, not concerned with religious myth-making, have portrayed the transcendent ultimate Mind in terms of abstract principles with no physical form, as exemplified in Brahman, Tao, Dharma, Logos, and Spinoza's Pantheistic “substance”.
http://www.bothandblog.enformationism.info/page49.html

IMAGE APPEARS FROM BACKGROUND NOISE

“The “teleological argument,” better known as the “argument from design,” is the claim that the appearance of “design” in nature—such as the complexity, order, purposefulness, and functionality of living organisms—can only be explained by the existence of a “designer” (typically of the supernatural variety).” - Google

Paley's clock-maker argument is pretty much the same as the "fine-tuned" argument.

To me, reality is the computation of probability. In this way one would eventually be living. I have no idea what probability has to do with a creator. Does anyone else?

"There's no time like the present". — Gnomon

:up: Merci.

Let's discuss the binary yin-yang aspect of your theory if you don't mind. According to skepticism, pragmata (issues, topics, etc.) are adiaphora (logically undifferentiated) and for that reason both thesis & antithesis exist as part of our lives, which is true is anepikrita (undecidable). In other words in the ideaverse at least the yin-yang state of affairs is not because we possess information but because we lack information to help us determine the truth. What sayest thou?

Let's discuss the binary yin-yang aspect of your theory if you don't mind. According to skepticism, pragmata (issues, topics, etc.) are adiaphora (logically undifferentiated) and for that reason both thesis & antithesis exist as part of our lives, which is true is anepikrita (undecidable). In other words in the ideaverse at least the yin-yang state of affairs is not because we possess information but because we lack information to help us determine the truth. What sayest thou? — Agent Smith

The binary-within-unity Yin-Yang philosophy is neither Pollyanna nor Candide. It admits that "bad sh*t happens", but on-the-whole the good vs evil struggle averages-out to good-enough. Otherwise, life would be intolerable, and homo sapiens would never have survived long enough to infer generalities (wholes) from specifics (parts). So yes, Yin-Yang, and my own BothAnd worldview, are acknowledgements of the evolutionary Hegelian Dialectic : the world progresses despite conflicts & contradictions.

Our limited experience of the world, and our limited imagination of possibilities, sometimes causes us to see only the trees, and to remain ignorant of the forest. Holism -- the unifying circle around the dualistic Yin/Yang -- is not an observation, but an inference. So, it requires both factual information and counter-factual imagination. When Yin & Yang are equal, the result is harmony. But such a balanced win-win system is also "undecidable", in that there is no clear winner. In that case, win-lose Black vs White thinking is frustrated. Is that blockage due to "lack of information" or to deliberate ignorance of the other side of the equation? :nerd:

Thou Art That (Tat Tvam Asi) : relation between individual & absolute ; between part & whole


YIN + YANG = PROGRESS (please ignore the Marxist propaganda)

TRANSFORMATION = INFORMATION

To me, reality is the computation of probability. In this way one would eventually be living. I have no idea what probability has to do with a creator. Does anyone else? — Josh Alfred

One way to look at that question is to think of the physics of the Big Bang. The theory implies that a pre-existing dimensionless Singularity began in a highly improbable state of low Entropy. If you bisect a Bell Curve graph, call the left side The Past and the right side The Future. Now, place the BB Singularity at the peak of the curve, where Potential Order is maximum and Entropy is minimum. Then ask the question : how did the universe get that head-start? How did the roller-coaster get to the top of the hill? Statistically, that highly-improbable initial condition is almost impossible.

There are two ways to explain such an unlikely state of Nature. 1> An infinite Multiverse (maximum space-time-matter-energy) spawned a mini-verse by donating a bit of organizational potential. Or, 2> an eternal Mathematician imagined a game that begins in crystalline order, then proceeds to roll the dice "chanting seven-come-eleven". As luck would have it, the result was more wins (order) than losses (disorder). Thus a randomized process increased in organization and complexity, despite the thermodynamic law of Entropy. So, we can infer a counter-force that I like to call "Enformy", to convert vague possibility to likely probability, then to real actuality. :smile: :meh: :gasp:

Enformy :
In the Enformationism theory, Enformy is a hypothetical, holistic, metaphysical, natural trend or force, that counteracts Entropy & Randomness to produce complexity & progress.
http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page8.html

I believe what you said in a previous post obtains - I'm unable to grok your theory of EnFormaction. Perhaps, like some quantum physicists claim, uncertainty (yin/true/1 OR yang/false/0) is a feature (of reality) and NOT a bug (in our epistemic methodology). Ignorance (noise) is part and parcel of knowledge (signal). Gracias, good day.

I believe what you said in a previous post obtains - I'm unable to grok your theory of EnFormaction. Perhaps, like some quantum physicists claim, uncertainty (yin/true/1 OR yang/false/0) is a feature (of reality) and NOT a bug (in our epistemic methodology). Ignorance (noise) is part and parcel of knowledge (signal). Gracias, good day. — Agent Smith

What I said was, that you seem to have a problem with Holism, the ability to see both Forest and Trees. The exclusive Either/Or Reductionism of modern Science & Philosophy is directly opposed to a more inclusive BothAnd Holistic worldview.

Uncertainty is indeed a dubious feature of our world. Yet Information is the key to reducing uncertainty, by replacing ignorance with knowledge ; or mis-information with verity. So, perhaps you are simply missing some information, that might plug the holes in your understanding of the essential & universal role of Information in the physical world. Or you may have some outdated information (intuition?) that conflicts with a novel concept (Creative Energy). Random Energy alone can be destructive (Entropy ; Noise), but Non-random Energy is constructive (Organization ; Signal). Hence, EnFormAction accounts for all of the emergent novelty of heuristic Evolution.

Actually, my coined term (EFA) is not so difficult to grok, if you are able to look at both sides of the same coin at the same time. That made-up word merely refers to the common combination of Energy & Information. For example, a guided missile is not just a bomb, but a bomb with a mandated mission. The explosive side of the missile is energetic matter, visible & tangible. But the guiding side is invisible & intangible coded information on how to seek & destroy a moving target. Just as some trained hands were necessary to put together the dangerous chemicals of the dumb bomb, a trained mind was required to organize the instructions for guiding the physical chemicals to their intended target. It's the specified intention that makes the difference between the blind bombs of WWII and Ukranian drones. De nada. :wink:


How information is related with uncertainty? :
Uncertainty is viewed as a manifestation of some information deficiency, while information is viewed as the capacity to reduce uncertainty.
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1002/0471755575.fmatter

Introduction to Enformationism :
Like Einstein’s Theory of Relativity and the various theories of Quantum Mechanics, Enformationism is a simple, but counter-intuitive, concept that requires curiosity and motivation to reach a general understanding.
http://bothandblog6.enformationism.info/page85.html

The EnFormAction Hypothesis :
EnFormAction is intended to be an evocative label for a well-known, but somewhat mysterious, feature of physics : the Emergent process of Phase Change (or state transitions) from one kind (stable form) of matter to another.
http://bothandblog3.enformationism.info/page23.html

Well, here's what's most interesting as far as I'm concerned: I recall opening a text document on my laptop and without writing anything on it, I closed it. I then checked how big the document was and it said 0 Kb (Nothing to see here! Move on, move on!).

I then opened it again, saw the cursor ready to display what I was gonna type. I hit the spacebar key, the cursor moved 1 space to the right. I closed the file and rechecked its size. Whaddaya know, it was now 1 byte. Even nothing is information. What do you suppose this means for your theory? I'm curious.

I think you bring up a good point about the fine tuning argument, but I also get the impression you misunderstand it. The fine tuning argument is used in natural theology to argue for the probability of a “creative force” or God that doesn’t rely on any divine revelation. It doesn’t (and can’t) say anything about immortal souls. In fact, many deists use the fine tuning argument to argue for a deistic God who doesn’t interfere with nature at all, but simply set it up and let (reality or simulation) “run.”

The way I find the fine tuning argument the most clear is using Bayes rule. For instance, say we want to estimate the joint probability P(intelligent life exists, universe supports intelligent life). I admit it seems ad hoc to define the joint probability this way initially, but doing so allows us to write P(intelligent life exists, universe supports intelligent life) = P(intelligent life exists|universe supports intelligent life)*P(universe supports intelligent life).

Now, P(intelligent life exists|universe supports intelligent life) is basically the anthropic principle. We can only observe life permitting universes, so we can estimate this as close to 1. However how can we even begin to determine the a priori probability P(universe supports intelligent life)?

If this is the only universe out there, it seems very unlikely that it should support intelligent life. This is because most probabilistic arguments reduce to uniform distributions in a “base case” (I.e. imagine a uniform distribution of any choice for the value of the constant of gravity, the mass of the electron, etc). If you can make an argument that allows more chances to increase (such as a multiverse, each with different properties of natural laws), or an expanding and collapsing universe with different constants each time (not sure how this would work, but let’s assume it holds), then you can argue against the fine tuning argument.

If you increase the number of universe “draws,” you avoid the fine tuning argument because improbable events are more likely to occur with repeated trials. However, the fine tuning argument still holds weight, and this is because despite the possibility of other/repeated universes, we still have yet to observe any of them. Leslie’s firing squad argues that even if this is the only universe we can observe, we should still be surprised to be alive. This argument only holds strength if indeed this is the only universe we can observe.

In the end, we don’t (and probably won’t ever) have access to the a priori probability P(universe supports intelligent life) or knowledge about the number of “trials” the universe takes (what evidence would even demonstrate this?), at least not in this life. As a result, the fine tuning argument, as well as alternative explanations such as the multiverse hypothesis, are all viable philosophical conjectures. We really don’t have a good way of arbitrating between these different possible scenarios. For Theism, however, the fine tuning argument can be used in conjunction with other arguments like the Kalam to create a more compelling case. My guess is this is the route apologists use (if I was an apologist, it would certainly be the route I would take).

If one takes a coherentist approach to epistemology, the fine tuning argument holds weight as a “piece” of an argument for God.

If one takes a coherentist approach to epistemology, the fine tuning argument holds weight as a “piece” of an argument for God. — Paulm12

The fine-tuning argument is simply the successor to the idea that lightning and thunder are physical signs of God's displeasure.

A point against fine-tuning which I didn't mention is that a great deal of the surface of the Earth (oceans, deserts, top of mountains) is hostile to human life in that a unclothed human being would soon die. And in 99.999999... percent of the universe, a human being would die instantly.

Even nothing is information. What do you suppose this means for your theory? I'm curious. — Agent Smith

In your computer, even opening & closing a file changes at least one bit in a register. So, the memory reported that change in terms of its minimum value : a byte -- indicating something changed but nothing remains. Still curious? Read on :

Claude Shannon realized the significance of Nothing. That's why his information-carrying digits are 1s & 0s : something & nothing. That nothingness-has-value is essential to my "theory". A key concept, that is also counter-intuititve, but makes sense from a BothAnd perspective, is the Power of Absence. Mathematician & Science writer Charles Seife wrote a best-seller book on the novel notion of nothing : Zero, Biography of a Dangerous Idea. Check it out.

Also, my blog post What is EnFormAction refers to Terrence Deacon's seminal book Incomplete Nature, How Mind Emerged From Matter, in which he introduces the eyebrow-raising concept of Causal Absence. Metaphorically, you can understand that "Gravity sucks", even though it is not a material thing or physical force. Although Gravity is merely the geometry of empty space, nothingness, it causes the whole universe to conform to its absential shape.

Since you may not click on many of the links in my posts, I have pasted part of the EFA post below, for your edification. EFA is just a post-quantum angle on the vague classical definition of Energy -- as a mysterious "ability" of Nature. EFA focuses on the power of Potential (non-actual ; virtual) and on the universality of Information (power to enform). "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence", though. And absence may even be evidence for fine-tuning of the initial conditions from which our physical world emerged : Teleology -- the future end state defines the path (say what??). :nerd:

PS__Holism, which 180 mistakenly equates with pseudoscientific "woo", also includes undetectable, but inferrable, meta-physical Absence as a binding force of multi-part organizations : Systems Theory.
"In physics — Holism in science, holistic science, or methodological holism is an approach to research that emphasizes the study of complex systems."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holism_in_science
PPS__Incidentally, in Chinese, "woo" means "none". And "woo-woo" refers to ghosts. Ni hao!


EnFormAction is not a physical force, pushing objects around. It’s more like Gravity and Strange Attractors of Physics that “pull” stuff toward them. It is in effect a Teleological Attractor. How that “spooky action at a distance” works may be best explained by Terrence Deacon’s definition of “Absence”.
http://bothandblog2.enformationism.info/page29.html

What is EnFormAction? :
Literally, the act of enforming --- to fashion, to create, to cause.
1. Metaphorically, the Will of G*D flowing through the world to cause evolutionary change in a teleological direction.
2. Immaterial Information is almost always defined in terms of its physical context or material container. (e.g. mathematical DNA code in chemical form)
3. Raw En-Form-Action has few, if any, definable perceivable qualities. By itself, Information is colorless, odorless, and formless. Unlike colorless, odorless, and formless water though, Information gives physical form to whatever is defined by it.
4. Like DNA, Information shapes things via internal rather than external constraints. Like the Laws of Physics, Information is the motivating & constraining force of physical reality. Like Energy, Information is the universal active agent of the cosmos. Like Spinoza's God, Information appears to be the single substance of the whole World.
5. Information is the Promethean power of transformation. Information is Generic in the sense of generating all forms from a formless pool of possibility : the Platonic Forms.
http://bothandblog2.enformationism.info/page29.html

EFFECTIVENESS OF EMPTINESS

A point against fine-tuning which I didn't mention is that a great deal of the surface of the Earth (oceans, deserts, top of mountains) are hostile to human life in that a unclothed human being would soon die. And in 99.999999... percent of the universe, a human being would die instantly. — Art48

True. And yet, on a blue speck of dust, in a remote arm of a minor galaxy, in the midst of millions of apparently lifeless galaxies, against impossible odds, something unusual happened. Dust became Life, and Life became Mind, and Mind is on the verge of populating the solar system, by making uninhabitable places conform to its needs. Obviously, the gambling odds against such a cosmic accident are astronomical (bet on the underdog : take Accident plus 999999999 points).

So, the initial conditions of our world were undoubtedly "special", But does that mean "specified"? In the absence of a "smoking gun", your interpretation of the circumstantial evidence is necessarily subjective, and may be biased by prior beliefs (glass half empty vs half full?). Nevertheless, philosophically -- on the face of it -- does this set-up sound more like a cosmic accident, or a divine miracle, or just Nature being creative? :joke:


The arrow of time and the initial conditions of the universe :
The existence of a thermodynamic arrow of time in the present universe implies that the initial state of the observable portion of our universe at (or near) the “big bang” must have been very “special”.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1355219806000396


Fine-tuning is a scientific observation, but why? is a philosophical question :
Even atheistic scientists have been baffled and fascinated by the “Cosmological Coincidences” they encounter as they scan the physical universe. Puzzling over the practical implications of a variety of otherwise meaningless “dimensionless ratios”, some of those seekers reached an intriguing interpretation. It appears that those abstract aspects of the universe’s structure imposed “conditions necessary to generate observers”. Which raised the non-scientific, but philosophical question, “why?” Was the eventual emergence of questioning creatures merely an accidental effect of random evolution? Or was the creation of homo sapiens intentional?
http://bothandblog7.enformationism.info/page16.html

PALE BLUE DOT AS SEEN FROM SATURN

... uncertainty (yin/true/1 OR yang/false/0) is a feature (of reality) and NOT a bug (in our epistemic methodology). Ignorance (noise) is part and parcel of knowledge (signal). — Agent Smith

:up:

The fine tuning argument amounts to saying that if things were different they would not be as they are. It does not preclude the existence of a very different universe, a universe without us and our attempts to prove the existence of a god who has created a just so world for us. — Fooloso4

Yep.

The argument appeals to those who believe there must be a reason for our existing. i.e.those who don't like the idea that we're accidents.They overlook the improbability that they are the improbable product of a particular sperm fertilizing a particular ovum, each produced by parents produced in the same improbable way (all the way back through an improbable specific evolutionary history).

1s & 0s : something & nothing. — Gnomon

Si, nothing is information (message, 1 byte in a text doc) and also carries information (medium, 0/off the binary opposite of 1/on).

If that's the case, I feel that everything is, in line with your theory, information. In other words "O bits/bytes" never applies!?

However the amount of info in a message T, given 4 equiprobable possibilities (C, A, T, G) as in DNA is given by the formula log₂4 = 2 bits. That means if there's only 1 possibility, say message w, then the information content of w itself is log₂1 = 0 bits.

From a pre-Shannon perspective, everything is information - 0 bits is impossible - but from a Shannon point of view 0 bits is possible - it is the information content of a message w that has only 1 possibility viz. w itself. Everything ain't information. It's quite a puzzle.

:up:

If that's the case, I feel that everything is, in line with your theory, information. In other words "O bits/bytes" never applies!? — Agent Smith

Yes. The realization that "everything is information" was the insight that led me to the Enformationism thesis. Others have come to a similar conclusion. For example, physicist Max Tegmark has developed a hypothesis that everything in the universe is Mathematics, as in the coded programs running on the Matrix. I agree, to a degree. But Mathematics is completely abstract, and seems to need something else to put flesh on the bones. In my thesis, that "something extra" is Intention or Direction. That's what causes a coded program to "seek" an answer to a specific problem. In the case of our universe, I don't know what the Ultimate Question was. But, from our position in the middle of the calculation, it seems to be about Complexity & Consciousness.

In Isaac Asimov's short story The Last Question, the protagonist asked the most powerful computer of the 1950s, Multivac, "how can the net amount of entropy of the universe be massively decreased?" [Note : decreased Entropy means increased Order, and I call that anti-entropy principle : Enformy -- the power to enform; to increase order ; to make something where before there was nothing.] Unfortunately, the computer popped a few vacuum tubes, and wearily replied : "insufficient data for a meaningful answer". And that's what the anti-fine-tuning posters are saying, implicitly. Because, they are not aware of the power of Absence.

When you said "0 bits/bytes never applies", you are ignoring the fact that binary computer codes use just as many zeros as ones [see below]. The ancient Greeks abhorred the notion of Nothingness. Hence, their math had no place for Zeros. So, it took centuries for mathematicians to realize that math was much easier to do, if you included a symbol for Nothing. That symbol had no positive or negative value, so it served only as a placeholder. In other words, the Zero was a symbol of un-actualized Potential. And the power of Potential is still under-appreciated to this day. Yet, even materialist physicists were forced to conclude that the vacuum of space is not nothing. It has the inherent Potential for energy & particles. Hence, empty Space is just a placeholder. And Zero sometimes "applies" to Reality. :nerd:


Power of Absence :
Terrence Deacon's 2011 book, goes into great detail to create a plausible hypothesis for solving the mystery of how living organisms suddenly emerged on Earth, after billions of years of spatial expansion & material aggregation had managed to build only simple inorganic chemical systems that strictly obeyed the zero-sum 2nd law of Thermodynamics. Those structures, such as stars, converted raw energy into lifeless lumps of matter that did little to slow the astronomical waste of energy known as Entropy. So what's the difference between stars and the organic chemistry we now know as Biology? What changed a zero-sum world into a non-zero (positive) environment suitable for human habitation?

Deacon thinks the answer is “Constraints”, which are not physical fences, but metaphysical patterns of Potential. He calls these statistical opportunities “Absences”, because they are merely empty spaces that can be filled by actual things ─ like those in a jigsaw puzzle. The puzzle solver that decides what will fit those gaps is active Information (e.g. natural selection). In terms of my Enformationism thesis, Information (passive) is stored or constrained energy (potential), and Enformation (active) is directed or channeled energy (kinetic). Information can be stored in a mind as meaning, or in a battery as electric potential. EnFormAction is energy "flowing" in an organized system. Organs are channels for energy flow, or corrals for storage. Organisms redirect energy for their own purposes.
http://bothandblog3.enformationism.info/page33.html


BINARY REALITY IS BUILT ON THE DISTINCTION BETWEEN SOMETHING & NOTHING

:ok:

Does your theory quantify information like Claude Shannon's does? I noticed that you didn't answer my question. Lemme ask again: Is there any message in Enformationism whose information content is 0 (bits)? Explain both yes and no answers to that question ... please.

Does your theory quantify information like Claude Shannon's does? I noticed that you didn't answer my question. Lemme ask again: Is there any message in Enformationism whose information content is 0 (bits)? Explain both yes and no answers to that question ... please. — Agent Smith

I did answer your question, not with scientific quantitative data, but with philosophical qualitative "absence". Unfortunately, even Qualia would have to be quantified into 1s & 0s, in order to transmit it over the internet. Unless, of course, you just feel what I feel. It's a both-Yes-and-No answer. "You feel me?"

Feel me is a term used to see if someone understands what you are talking about.
Example #1
Some guy: absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, you feel me?
Another guy: Yeah.
https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Feel%20Me
Dig me : Get where I'm coming from.
https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=dig%20me
Note -- "Grok" is another term for qualitative understanding.

On a topic more closely related to the OP, "Holism" is not quantifiable, because it is not reducible to particular isolated atoms or bits -- electrons & grains of sand are interchangeable, but the whole system is unique (one of a kind). Entropy fragments, but Enformy unifies.

I'm currently reading a book by German theoretical physicist Sabine Hossenfelder : Existential Physics. In which she explains some physical concepts from a philosophical perspective. Today's chapter is entitled : "Are you just a bag of atoms?". She claims that she is "not a reductionist hardliner". but then admits : "If you say 'holism", I hear 'bullshit' ". The chapter is about Reductionism vs Holism, and Monism vs Dualism. So, she admits to a professional prejudice : "having said that, as a particle physicist by training, I have to inform you that the available evidence tells us that the whole is the sum of the parts, not more and not less." [emphasis in text]

However, a bit of Holism sneaks in by the back door. She discusses the scientific method of "coarse graining", in which "irrelevant information" is discarded via abstraction. But, what's irrelevant to a pragmatic scientist may be essential to a speculative philosopher. At the end of the chapter, she summarizes her answer to the topical question. "the characteristic features of a creature or object are the relations and interactions among many constituent particles, not the particles themselves." Ironically, that is a concise definition of Holism : what makes a whole system is not a pile of parts, like grains of sand, but the relations & interactions that bind those loose grains into a solid block of concrete. You could quantify the millions of grains of sand, but there is only one whole concrete block. "You dig me?". :joke:

PS___"Relations" are mental, not physical. And "interactions" are functional, not material.

EnFormAction :
Plato’s Forms were described, not as things, but as the idea or concept or design of things. The conceptual structure of a thing can be expressed as geometric ratios and relationships which allow matter to take-on a specific shape. So, in a sense, the ideal Form of a real Thing is the mathematical recipe for transforming its potential into actual.
http://bothandblog2.enformationism.info/page29.html

absence — Gnomon

How many bits (of information) is absence? A hint: Any letter in the English alphabet e.g. "a" is 1 byte in Windows text document. Even empty space (absence) " " is 1 byte.

By the way, arigato gozaimus for the patience you've shown me as you walk me through this.

An anthropic principle is an anthropocentric bias, or illusion; nature is not fine-tuned for us, rather we fine-tune our concepts and models to nature. — 180 Proof

I.e. map =/= territory.

Given enough rope, Gnomon might hang you both ...

How many bits (of information) is absence? A hint: Any letter in the English alphabet e.g. "a" is 1 byte in Windows text document. Even empty space (absence) " " is 1 byte.
By the way, arigato gozaimus for the patience you've shown me as you walk me through this. — Agent Smith

Apparently, you are trying to make the holistic Enformationism thesis fit neatly into Shannon's particular Information theory. Shannon was a Reductive engineer, whose interest was in numerical carrying capacity instead of conceptual meaning. But my philosophical interest is in the personally significant contents, not the empty container. Focusing on the abstract numbers misses the whole point of Information Communication. It's the emptiness (absence) inside the container that has functional human value (to convey meaning). Therefore, I wouldn't worry about insignificant bits when the OP question is about philosophical arguments for a Cosmic Creator. [♾️bits & bytes ]

Information : Shannon vs Deacon :
Originally, the word “information” referred to the meaningful software contents of a mind, which were assumed to be only loosely shaped by the physical container : the hardware brain. But in the 20th century, the focus of Information theory was on its material form as changes in copper wires & silicon circuits & neural networks.
Now, Terrence Deacon’s book about the Causal Power of Absence requires another reinterpretation of the role of Information in the world. He quotes philosopher John Collier, “The great tragedy of formal information theory [Shannon] is that its very expressive power is gained through abstraction away from the very thing that it has been designed to describe.” Claude Shannon’s Information is functional, but not meaningful. So now, Deacon turns the spotlight on the message rather than the medium.
http://bothandblog4.enformationism.info/page26.html

PS__Be careful how you hang around with Freethinkers on this forum. is the self-appointed Chief Heresy Inquisitor. And he might hang us both with our own rope : personal opinions.
Dou itashimashite :cool:

“We must all hang together, or most assuredly we will all hang separately."
___Benjamin Franklin

How many bits (of information) is absence? — Agent Smith

Since you sincerely asked the question, I'll answer it, from the Shannon perspective, with a quote from Quanta magazine :

"If someone tells you a fact you already know, they’ve essentially told you nothing at all. Whereas if they impart a secret, it’s fair to say something has really been communicated.
This distinction is at the heart of Claude Shannon’s theory of information. Introduced in an epochal 1948 paper, “A Mathematical Theory of Communication,” it provides a rigorous mathematical framework for quantifying the amount of information needed to accurately send and receive a message, as determined by the degree of uncertainty around what the intended message could be saying.
Which is to say, it’s time for an example.
In one scenario, I have a trick coin — it’s heads on both sides. I’m going to flip it twice. How much information does it take to communicate the result? None at all, because prior to receiving the message, you have complete certainty that both flips will come up heads."
www.quantamagazine.org
/how-claude-shannons-concept-of-entropy-quantifies-information-20220906/

Technically, this example is not about "Absence" (0 bits) but about "Certainty" (1 bit). But, if you already possess the information, its additional value is zero, nothing, nada, absentio. :smile:

Well, as far as I can tell, your theory hasn't been quantified and unfortunately what John Collier, who you quoted, is bang on target in re Shannon's theory of information. I feel it too! :grin:

I won't waste yer time anymore. I hope I can visit your blog for more information! See ya. Good day.

Well, as far as I can tell, your theory hasn't been quantified and unfortunately what John Collier, who you quoted, is bang on target in re Shannon's theory of information. I feel it too! — Agent Smith

Quantification & mathematical modeling are necessary for acceptance of theories of physical (material) science. But, Enformationism is primarily a theory of meta-physical (mental) science. Shannon was able to quantify his theory of Information by ignoring its meta-physical meaning. That's useful for physical transmission of abstract symbols -- like numbers & letters -- but useless for conveying meaning & feeling. You understand the real-world-referrent of words typed-out on your screen, only because you already know their semiotic significance. Shannon's symbols only remind you of what you have stored away as personal connotation.

Shannon's quantified Information left meaning behind, and only transmitted conventional coded symbols, like Morse Code -- learned by education, not from electrons. Anyone who can't understand the philosophical significance of that difference, shouldn't be posting on a philosophy forum. But, I suspect you're just being swayed by the aggressive physical-philosophy-faction on the forum. They believe that metaphysical Philosophy has been made obsolete by physical Science. And yet, here we are, debating ideas that don't add-up to a round number. Information must overcome uncertainty, not with numerical superiority, but with conceptual understanding.

The closest anyone has come to quantifying Information theory is Tononi's Integrated Information Theory. If you want numbers, look at his website. But, the numbers he comes up with are associated with the physical underpinnings of Consciousness, not with Awareness itself. The ding an sich of Consciousness will always remain in the realm of noumena, not of numbers. However, Generic Information is not limited to immaterial Ideas & Thoughts; it also crosses over into Actions & Things, and Mind & Life. Which makes it difficult to pin-down to a traditional scientific category, and almost impossible to quantify. On a scale of 1 to 10, how do you feel about "The Fine-Tuning Argument"?

I'm an amateur philosopher, with no academic connections. So, my personal "theory" has not been submitted for official vetting. It is only offered for free online, and in forum posts, for non-numerical philosophical critique : the Socratic Dialog, not Mathematical Calculus. As befits The Philosophy Forum, it deals with Qualia, not Quanta. The only criteria is whether it makes sense to you. Anyway, you're not wasting my time. You ask good challenging questions. That's the whole point of posting on a philosophical forum. And we don't get graded on a curve. :nerd:



Integrated Information Theory is one of the leading models of consciousness. It aims to describe both the quality and quantity of the conscious experience of a physical system, such as the brain, in a particular state.
https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fams.2020.602973/full
Note -- IIT has had more success with Quantifying the physical system, than for Qualifying the meaning or feeling of the information.

In philosophy, a noumenon is a posited object or an event that exists independently of human sense and/or perception. The term noumenon is generally used in contrast with, or in relation to, the term phenomenon, which refers to any object of the senses. ___Wikipedia

CAN YOU GROK THIS SHANNON INFORMATION?
WHERE'S THE MEANING? HOW DOES IT MAKE YOU FEEL?

You said some really important things in your post. Shannonian bits don't really capture what information actually is; his definition of information, I'm told, is adapted to electronic transmission of data across communication networks. It's reminiscent of how physicists "define" time as that which the clock measures - a snub to philosophers' concerns as to the metaphysics of time. Shannon was not in the least bit (pun unintended) concerned about philosophical information (what information means to philosophers) if you catch my drift.