When i think to myself about these things i really don't use the labels of real or simulated. I'm more concerned with the structure of the idea and if it's accurate in it's description of what we know happens. That's how we do science. If we have preconceived ideas of what is real or not apart from the math and logic then what are we really looking for. It's not that different than a religious mindset that just wants to believe what is comfortable. — punos

Well, we can certainly agree that creating robust labels for concepts that are fit for purpose and don't over-burden the label, is very hard at times. Over 30 years of choosing meaningful variable, function and procedure names for computer programs, rams that home quite effectively.

I think it can, and it is what i am currently attempting to do. I'm really not trying to prove or disprove god, i just want to know how things really are, as they are and not as i prefer them to be. — punos

Good luck! Your quest is perennial and honourable.

I like this 'proxy' status. Gnomon makes a point to you, through me and you answer him directly.
I don't have to do anything! :grin: :up:

Well, don't hold me to this, but I probably won't respond again until @Gnomon addresses the questions I've put to him. That Gnomon can't, I believe, confirms in the context of this philosophy site that he is, in fact, a pseudo-philosophizing charlatan – a crypto-aristotlean fantasist who copy & pastes out of context passages from mostly derivative science writings – whose self-proclaimed "Enformationism, BothAnd & Meta-Physics" are based on his miles wide and barely an inch deep incomprehension of both philosophy and science (which quite a few other members have constructively pointed out to him over the years). I like to rodeo clown bulls***, ... though Gnomon is probably one who will get away.

@Agent Smith

Well, don't hold me to this, but I probably won't respond again until Gnomon addresses the questions I've put him. That Gnomon can't, I believe, confirms in the context of this philosophy site that he is, in fact, a pseudo-philosophizing charlatan – a crypto-aristotlean fantasist who copy & pastes out of context passages from mostly derivative science writings – whose self-proclaimed "Enformationism, BothAnd & Meta-Physics" are based on his miles wide and barely an inch deep incomprehension of both philosophy and science (which quite a few other members have constructively pointed out to him over the years). I like to rodeo clown bulls***, ... though Gnomon is probably one who will get away. — 180 Proof

@Gnomon is, ex mea (humble) sententia, constructing a more elaborate interpretation of The Matrix which is itself based off of The Simulation Hypothesis (Nick Bostrom et al). What I mean to say is if you find Gnomon's Enformationism to fall short of the philosophical mark, you need to have a strong argument against The Simulation Hypothesis. Didn't you like The Matrix movies? I did although I'm deleted in the end. :cool:

No I don't. IMO, @Gnomon hasn't made a logically valid or conceptually coherent case for his "ideas". This is why I question them.

No I don't. IMO, Gnomon hasn't made a logically valid or conceptually coherent case for his "ideas". This is why I question them. — 180 Proof

I understand.

Btw, I enjoyed The Matrix (only the first movie) as shallow, comic bookish gnosticism, not really a riff on Bostrom's digital update of Plato's Cave. Like e.g. Carlo Rovelli, David Deutsch, Seth Lioyd and Stephen Wolfram, I think the 'laws of nature' are computable even though the universe – like the brain – is not a "computer" (ergo, without some intentional agent aka "programmer").

The best candidate right now, is the 'bit'. — universeness

But the physical universe is analogue, not digital. 0/1 bits belong to virtual, computer reality. E.g. the natureal sound is analogue. Digital sound is virtual, i.e. not physically existing as such but made by software to appear to do so. That's how different they are:

If you accept that its possible to fully reproduce a field excitation, such as an 'up quark,' via a data representation, such as a two state binary system... — universeness

We can never fully reproduce something physical using a digital method. Even if today's audio digital equipment surpass in resolution even the best analogue equipment. But this is as far as quality and playback are concerned. No matter how good a quality can digital technology produce, it will always be an imitation of the physical world. And we don;t have to talk about supercomputers: a simple pocket calculator is a million times better in arithmetic than the human mind or any analogue methods used in the past. The memory even of the first, primitive computers was way more effective and efficient than using human memory, in terms of capacity and usage. Yet, Computer memory is artificial. As is artificial intelligence. They cannot and will never fully represent the physical world or the human mind. They are imitations, no matter how good they can be.

If I explain the above binary representation of an up quark as representing ... — universeness

I can't really follow you in all this, sorry. My knowledge in this field are quite limited ...
I hope though that your ideas produce fruit some day! Indeed, you seem quite a resourceful and creative person.

I think you are moving too far away from where we actually are, when you type words like, 'so we actually have nothing in our hands.' — universeness

You are maybe right. I don't follow scientifc progress as you do ... But I have followed science in subjects that I am particularily interested in like the mind, memory, consciousness, etc. And I have been fed up with scientific views about, e.g. how they "finally discovered" where momory resides in the brain --each now and then they find a new place-- and that consciousness is the product of the brain and so on, w/o any evidence but only hypotheses and speculations. This the point of view from which is I said what I said about science. Yet, I consider myself to be quite "scientific" --in the sense of systematic or accurate in the manner of an exact science-- in my life, esp. the professions I have had. E.g. I consider and treat programming both as an art and a science.

science cannot currently prove that they understand the workings and structure of 'reality,' in the universe, there is no other method that can even begin to compete with it. — universeness

Exactly. But they behave as they do understand and are most competent on almost all subjects, of a physical and non-physical nature.

Brain matter in humans contain and demonstrably manifest, human intent and purpose. — universeness

Well, as I said, we have radically different views in this area.
But this does not prevent me at all from enjoying our exchange! :smile:

But the physical universe is analogue, not digital. — Alkis Piskas

So you dispute Planck's quanta? How pre-1900 of you, AP.

A digital system can appear from a distance as analog, but analog never appears digital at any scale. The nature of reality appears to me to be digital. Like @180 Proof mentioned, The Planck volume is no different than a pixel (voxel) on a screen, and it's quanta determines if that pixel or voxel is on or off.

Well, don't hold me to this, but I probably won't respond again until Gnomon addresses the questions I've put him. — 180 Proof

We each have the right to conduct our own symphonies as we see fit.

That question is central to my personal world view of Enformationism, which regards Generic Information (causation) as the Agency of Emergence, so to speak. — Gnomon

I see that, and I very much welcome your input as I do 180 Proof's rigorous critique.
We are debating what you are including in your 'generic information' as an agent of what is emergent in humans. I like the way you have expressed that.
All information does not have equal status or value or credibility. Some information can prove to be a barrier to what is emergent in human intent and purpose that I would label 'good.'
That's where we (and perhaps you and @180 Proof but I will let him confirm or object) diverge.
I think all notions of the supernatural and the transcendent, etc depreciate and hinder the progress of the benevolent aspects of emerging human intent and purpose, as it gives apparent succour to such notions, despite your protestations that this is not YOUR intent and is merely the misinterpretation of others. — universeness

I appreciate your interest in topics such as Emergence and Information. But, "180 Proof's rigorous critique" denies the foundation of my argument by default : Holism vs Reductionism. When I use even the scientific term "Systems Theory"*1, he seems to interpret such integrative notions, not as a legitimate scientific method, but as covert New Age mysticism. I assume that 180 is not a Racist, but he appears to be a Holism-ist. He seems to believe, erroneously, that the concept of Holism is peculiar to "irrational & nonsensical" Eastern religions*2. And he asserts his prejudice as a "settled" fact, against which any non-reductive responses will have no effect. His "critiques" are formulated to herd Gnomon into a New Age corral, which by his personal definition is "full of non-sense", Therefore, I must take evasive action to avoid being trapped in a dead end.

However, I will add a few comments, "input", relevant to the topic of this thread : Emergence. Again, the science book I'm currently reading, The Ascent of Information, combines concepts of Causal Information & Downward Causation to explain the emergence of Life in a mostly inanimate world. Scharf is an Astrobiologist, whose job involves looking for signs of life outside our planet and solar system : Exo-biology. My own focus is mainly on the Emergence of Mind in a mostly mindless universe. But Scharf's reasoning can also be applied to the emergence of Sentience from emergent Life. For example, he mentions the recent scientific term "Downward Causation"*3, which physicists Sara Walker, Paul Davies, and George Ellis use as an alternative to "Teleology" and "Teleonomy". For obvious reasons, he does not make any supernatural claims about the origin of that natural causation. Instead of a philosophical First Cause, he refers to the First Law of Thermodynamics. But for my philosophical purposes it's only logical to look for the Cause behind the causation, before the beginning. For example the man with a cue-stick is not standing on the pool table, but his intention is obviously the ultimate cause of selective rolling of balls into pockets.

Since Downward Causation implies taboo "strong emergence", Scharf lets Ellis stick his neck out : "the lower levels do the physical work, but the higher levels decide what work should be done" But, he tries to avoid the reasonable implications of top-down causation, by using the mathematical terminology of "core algorithms" (a form of information). Yet, he then concludes that "they too would be a good example of strong downward causation, or what we might also call downward emergence". Which philosophers might also call "Teleology" or "Teleonomy". He goes on to make a remarkable remark : ". . . that living systems seem to be able to gain control over the very same matter out of which they are formed". And a technical term for such self-control is "Cybernetics". Ironically, a whole complex system of many parts that can control its constituents, implies that the whole transcends the parts in top-down causal power. But that's merely a natural kind of transcendence that pragmatic scientists can accept. Yet, those who are philosophically inclined may logically extend the control & causation within Nature back to the beginning of the universe, and ask "what caused Causation?"

You have clearly stated that your reductive scientific worldview arbitrarily excludes any "supernatural and transcendent" forces from consideration for explanation of causation. So, my responses try to avoid such emotional trigger words, and to focus on natural & immanent forces, such as Energy, which is literally an "agent" of change. Yet, my own worldview is founded on the 21st century scientific notion that Energy is actually a form of Generic Information*4. You can disagree with that definition of Energy, but I'll let you argue with the scientists who discovered that equation in Quantum Physics. :smile:


*1. Systems Theory/Holism :
A holistic view of a system encompasses the complete, entire view of that system. Holism emphasizes that the state of a system must be assessed in its entirety and cannot be assessed through its independent member parts. . . . Holistic practices are critical within the IT industry as data networks and intelligent complete systems are designed and built. . . . Gaining this holistic view is essential in understanding our future evolution.
https://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Systems_Theory/Holism

*2. Holism :
Unfortunately, some of those imaginary concepts (e.g. Qualia) may be what you think of as mystical Essentialism. But actually, it is merely Synthetic thinking as contrasted with Analytic thinking. . . .
Holistic (synthetic) thinking is a common characteristic of New Age philosophies. But in practice, they also include particular inherited beliefs, such as those in Eastern religions. Such woo-ish notions as Wandering Souls, and Weaponized Chi, are not inherent to Holism. But Reductionists tend to lump them together with the Holistic worldview. So, for clarity, I will sometimes refer to my personal paradigm of Science as "Systems Theory", in hopes of losing the mystical baggage.
http://bothandblog7.enformationism.info/page25.html

*3. Downward Causation :
". . . the central dogma of molecular biology, which is that information moves from the nucleic acids in DNA to proteins, but not in the other direction. . . . That's a 'bottom-up' causation . . . it's the way science usually thinks about the world . . . . that's the beauty and power of reductionism . . . . But does that mean that 'top-down', or downward, causation doesn't exist".
The Ascent of Information, p182

*4. How is information related to energy in physics? :
Energy is the relationship between information regimes. That is, energy is manifested, at any level, between structures, processes and systems of information in all of its forms, and all entities in this universe is composed of information.
https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/22084/how-is-information-related-to-energy-in-physics
Note -- A "regime" is a sphere of influence ; a network of inter-action.
"Generic Information" is my coinage for that universal causal agency in Nature.

Good luck! Your quest is perennial and honourable. — universeness

Thank You and good luck to you as well. May your journey take you home.

But the physical universe is analogue, not digital. — Alkis Piskas

Good point. Physical nature is analogue, despite "Planck's quanta". Quanta are mental analogies to gaps in our knowledge of holistic physical systems. Causation is continuous, but our perception is inherently discrete. Emergence of novelty (e.g. Phase Change) is also continuous, but rapid transformations make it seem instantaneous. On the quantum scale, the gaps in our perception make quantum leaps appear to be superluminal & supernatural. However, the universe, as a whole, including physical (material) & metaphysical (mental), seems to be both digital and analog. :smile:

Is Quantum Reality Analog after All? :
Quantum theorists often speak of the world as being pointillist at the smallest scales. Yet a closer look at the laws of nature suggests that the physical world is actually continuous—more analog than digital
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/is-quantum-reality-analog-after-all/


The universe is analog. period. when we make simulations we use a digital aproximation
https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/is-the-universe-analog-or-digital.12214/

So you dispute Planck's quanta? How pre-1900 of you, AP. — 180 Proof

How can I dispute Planck's quanta if I am not knowledgable on the subject, @180 Proof?
If you want to comment on my messages, you must read them all or read them better: I mentioned to @universeness two or three times that I have very little knowledge of the subject and in fact, about Physics, in general.

And please, be more polite and avoid criticizing people so easily, esp. without having been given the right or a reason to.

Physical nature is analogue — Gnomon

If nature is analogue at the fundamental level then what causes 'difference'?. How does analogue acquire structure? Atoms are a form of digital organization, all matter is. Quanta come in discrete packets, why not something in between like one would assume if it were analogue?

@universeness @Agent Smith

Physical nature is analogue, despite "Planck's quanta". Quanta are mental analogies to gaps in our knowledge of holistic physical systems. — Gnomon

:scream: :yikes: :rofl:

I have very little knowledge of the subject and in fact, about Physics, in general. — Alkis Piskas

If this is so, then why do you bother making such a fundamental claim about the physical world based on "very little knowledge" such as

But the physical universe is analogue, not digital. — Alkis Piskas

:roll:

:up: :up: (The lack of science literacy on display here is stunning, isn't it?)

A digital system can appear from a distance as analog, but analog never appears digital at any scale. — punos

Good point.

The Planck volume is ... — punos

Please, enough about this guy! :grin:

Just adding my two cents to the pot. :smile:

Physical nature is analogue, despite "Planck's quanta" — Gnomon

Good to know.

Quanta are mental analogies to gaps in our knowledge of holistic physical systems. — Gnomon

Interesting view.

Causation is continuous, but our perception is inherently discrete. — Gnomon

I agree. Good point.

However, the universe, as a whole, including physical (material) & metaphysical (mental), seems to be both digital and analog. — Gnomon

Of course, since the digital "world" is part of the physical world. Mainly because we humans have created it, but also because of some natural "digitization" or inherent "digitality" (can't think of a better terms), which of course is not evident to me.

Is Quantum Reality Analog after All? — Gnomon

I can't say! Believe me! :grin:

— Gnomon

— Gnomon

Very good points. I enjoyed your comments. Thanks.

And I will have a look at the references you have provided.

Your offer is welcome. :smile:

There may be a way to reconcile the two concepts of analogue and digital in nature at a fundamental level. For me as i currently think about it; a true analogue form would be informationless, it would simply have one bit, 1 datum. The fundamental structure of space is digital and the energy which can be considered as analogue can travel and differentiate itself in the Planck field in effect producing emergent information structures. The energy travels in packets due to certain thresholds in the Planck field.


The nerve signaling mechanism in the brain and nervous system is a digital one where action potential spikes carry and process information. This is why it appears that our perceptions may be of a digital quality, but i don't think that proves that nature itself is purely analogue, for me it's the contrary.

I find it very interesting that you an i have many similar ways of think about this, and yet seem to fundamentally disagree. So interesting.

I still don't understand … what 'competitiveness' has to do with capturing CO2 rather than releasing it into the atmosphere.
To repeat it then... — universeness

Is a company that does it competitive with another making a similar product but without the sequestering? — noAxioms

From Howstuffworks:
"The United States alone has enough subsurface space to potentially hold 1.8 trillion tons (1.71 trillion metric tons) of carbon dioxide in deep aquifers, permeable rocks and other such places."

How much carbon would be released from the production of the energy needed to fill those spaces? It’s a sort of efficiency question.

I fully support all current efforts to make E=ER, based on your representation of E and ER.

The point is, ER is fixed and E is exponential. The one mathematically cannot keep up with the other. ‘Efforts‘ don’t change that.

Space was never a solution to excess population. — noAxioms

Of course it is. — universeness

But you don’t justify this assertion.

It costs far more to put a person in space than it does to keep him here — noAxioms

It costs resources to put people in space, not money. — universeness

Yes, exactly. It costs far more resources to put a person in space (especially to keep him there) than it does to keep the person on Earth. If you have population in excess of the capacity of the resources, then for every person you put in space, 1000 or more must go without resources. That’s why space isn’t a solution to excess population. You say ‘of course it is’, but then you argue for my point like it was a money thing and not a resource thing. I never said it was a money thing.
Space exploration is a luxury for a gilded-age system where the resources exceed the demand, which is not an excess-population scenario.
It would be far more efficient to just kill the 1000 and free up those resources for those remaining. This is a better solution to excess population than space. It is also a nice example of trolley-problem.

I have already answered this point. This planet is the equivalent of your fish bowl comparison.

No, the planet is the river or sea, the natural habitat of the fish. The bowls in the trees are these sealed enclosures on other planets (the trees), a place for which the fish are not evolved.

I see no difference between that and living in a space station or domed city on the moon or Mars, that we cant survive outside of.

OK. I see a difference. Each day is one accident away from being exposed to the actual environment instead of the artificial one. That accident doesn’t kill us here, but it would anywhere else. A windy day will empty the bowl of water in the tree, but the bird can take it. Better to put a bird there.

Which is also part of the why we must go beyond Earth, we will go to Mars and live there one day because it exists, and it beckons us.

Go there yes, but Hillary didn’t live on Mt Everest nor did Armstrong take up residence on the moon.

So, you accurately describe the failure of the current USA political system to prevent a horror like Trump getting elected — universeness

But that’s the kind of democracy you seem to push. It’s precisely democracy that went wrong. The voters wanted him. He appealed not to rational arguments, but rather to their personal values (mostly validation of one’s otherwise suppressed biases against other groups). People don’t vote for the common good. They vote based on personal emotions. Democracy needs to fix that, and I don’t know how it can and still call itself democracy.
It’s not just the USA. Countries all over several continents have had similar candidates with similar platforms. Many (around half?) have won their elections.

What a strange conflation! A biological human cell is not a lifeform.

No? You can grow a human from a single cell. It can metabolize and reproduce.

Humans are a combinatorial of many sub-systems yes but for me, the concept of 'life' applies to the brain.

Nonsense. There’s plenty of living things without a brain. All multicellular life forms evolved from what were once single-celled individuals that needed to solve the problem of selfless cooperation in order to take it to the next level.

The sort of authority I’m speaking of needs to act on the benefit of the collective, but here you are suggesting this cannot be done because it would involve actions not popular with the individuals.
— noAxioms
No, democratic socialism supports majority rule.

In what way does this counter what I said (which I left up there)? I’m saying that majority rule isn’t going to result in the kinds of action/policy needed.

an informed majority that supports secular humanism

I’m not talking about benefit to minorities, and it seems that the typical voter isn’t very informed these days, and is not supportive of said secular humanism, as evidenced by people like Trump getting the majority vote on a platform against it, and against informed facts. I’m talking about benefit to larger goals like the future of humanity (said collective above), which often don’t benefit the majority of the voting individuals.

That sounds like someone wearing a 'big brother' garb, deciding that a large majority of people are incapable of 'knowing what's best for it.'

I didn’t know that was attached to the big-brother label, but yea, that’s pretty much what I see. Big brother is supposed to be nefarious, not something that has a goal of the betterment and continued existence of humanity. And there are larger goals than that as well, but I’m not sure if a human should champion those.

You make yourself sound like a person who should never be given significant authority over others.

Amen. Wouldn’t want it, not just because I lack the qualifications.

What would you do as president of America.

Not much. President of one country lacks the power to do things on a humanity scale. Also, the laws pretty much prevent some decent suggestions I’d have for America, first of which would be the abolishing of over-the-table bribes. Money-talks is a horrible system that yes, just makes rich people richer.

Surely you would not use your 'mommy' model to drive your policies that would affect all Americans.

Nope. Doesn’t work on portion of the whole.

Democratic socialism MUST encompass personal freedom and the entrepreneurial spirit as much as it can.

How can a socialist system do that? The layabout seems to get the same personal needs met as the inovator.

No billionaires or multi-millionaires are acceptable via business dealings or entrepreneurial effort.

It takes that kind of resources to do certain things. How do you build a modern chip fab without those huge expenditures of resources, especially when money doesn’t even exist anymore to track return on expenditure of said resources?

No celebrity roads to ridiculous riches.

Agree, but how to combat that? City (or country) X has a sports team with a lot of fans behind it. How are they to attract the better talent with promise of only modest means for their work? How are you going to prevent some other city from promising better means to this athlete, especially when this tiny extra expenditure would mean the difference between the city’s team winning or not?
BBC TV/movies seems to have celebrities without insane compensation. Sometimes at least…

chatGPT cant even pass the Turing test. — universeness

Don’t think it was ever an attempt at something that would. It seems to be a step up from a simple google search that is far better at parsing native language, thus being able to find relevant results that a regular google search cannot. It seems a better source of facts than said regular search, which hits anything no matter how crazy.
I’ve actually yet to interact directly with chatGPT. Would like to. How fast is it? Does it take each query in isolation or can it converse?

@Gnomon

Last time I checked, Planck units were proposed to bring some naturalness to our units. The SI and the English FPS systems are, as you all know, arbitrary i.e. there's nothing about a meter or a foot that would make us go "Aah! That's why the meter/foot was chosen!"

Moreover the Planck units, their size, is some kinda lower limit for science, anything smaller is indiscernible; it's the highest resolution science can offer.

I'm not sure if the universe is analog/digital, but lengths of lines, I've heard, are continuous as opposed to discrete.

There may be a way to reconcile the two concepts of analogue and digital in nature at a fundamental level. — punos

See, one has to use "could be", "maybe" etc., descibing a possibility that the "digitality" of the physical universe. This means that there is no evidence about it, only hypotheses. And I really wonder why people in here talk so much about it. As if they wish the PU to be digital for one reason or another! Why?

If one talks about a digital PU, in essence he refers to bits. Yet, a bit is a term belonging to computer science and it is defined as:
- "the most basic unit of information in computing and digital communications" (Wikipedia)
- "a unit of information in a computer that must be either 0 or 1" (Cambridge dictionary)
- and so on ...
So, if we accept this, we have to think of the PU as a huge computer of a very very ancient technology, which is a million times better and more powerful than ours and what we could even imagine. Then we have to accept that we live in a virtual reality, something like Matrix. But then, if we did, and we were part of it, could we ever understand or even be aware of it?

See the implications of thinking of PU as digital in its structure ?

For me as i currently think about it; a true analogue form would be informationless, it would simply have one bit, 1 datum. — punos

(See above about "bit".)

See the implications of thinking of PU as digital in its structure ? — Alkis Piskas

Yes, and i do have a way of explaining it (theory under construction), but people don't like to discuss it since it involves something coming from nothing. So i regrettably decline to give my explanation in public. I yield my time Sir.

Please check your INBOX.

I think the 'laws of nature' are computable even though the universe – like the brain – is not a "computer" (ergo, without some intentional agent aka "programmer"). — 180 Proof

I broadly agree.

But the physical universe is analogue, not digital. — Alkis Piskas

Good point. Physical nature is analogue, despite "Planck's quanta". — Gnomon

Is Quantum Reality Analog after All? :
Quantum theorists often speak of the world as being pointillist at the smallest scales. — Gnomon

Quanta are mental analogies to gaps in our knowledge of holistic physical systems. Causation is continuous

If nature is analogue at the fundamental level then what causes 'difference'?. How does analogue acquire structure? Atoms are a form of digital organization, all matter is. Quanta come in discrete packets, why not something in between like one would assume if it were analogue? — punos

Human senses are all analogue, so we experience the world through them.
We have all already accepted that human experience does not necessarily fully describe universal REALITY (no woo woo invocations please.)
I can take a hammer and smash a rock and observe evidence that a rock is reducible to smaller and smaller discrete parts. So, we have the 'continuity' of the analogue form and the 'discrete' quanta of the digital form. Field excitations are discrete, but they can combine and propagate as continuous wave forms. Like a Mexican wave, involving undulating humans, waveforms are undulating discrete excitations. Energy travels/propagates in waves (undulating field excitations.)
Analogue to digital is a translation, as is digital to analogue, just like energy to mass. Analogue and digital are, imo, different states of the same underlying fundamentals. A wave is an 'effect' of dynamic field excitations.

When digital music is played back, it's REAL music your ear receives, real air vibration's because we have a machine that includes a DAC (digital to analogue converter). The digitally stored information is converted back to analogue before it becomes 'ear input.' This is NOT simulation, it's REAL music.

Physical reality is made up of relative 'states.' Digital states are discrete. Analogue states are continuous but anything continuous, is a combinatorial of discrete states. A movie is a series of photographs. A rock is a combinatorial of discrete fundamentals, as is every object in the universe.
I agree with and , 'Thee' universal fundamental, IF it turns out that there is A single fundamental state, MUST BE discrete or digital (as in 'a digit state').
The digits were traditionally 1 to 9 but 2 to 9 are just multiples of 1, so this is why computers are called digital as they are TWO STATE. 1 or an absence of 1 (ie,0)
If its '1' or binary digit 1 or 'something' or 'on' or 'true,' then the second state is just '0' or binary digit 0 or the placeholder, 0 or 'off' or 'false.'
BUT, based on quantum physics, I think there are other fundamental states of reality, other than the two states of binary. 'Superposition or Qbit state or 1 and 0 in the same DISCRETE instant of time,' 'entanglement,' etc. If superstring theory/Mtheory is correct then we have a multitude of interdimensional string states to consider.

His "critiques" are formulated to herd Gnomon into a New Age corral, which by his personal definition is "full of non-sense", Therefore, I must take evasive action to avoid being trapped in a dead end. — Gnomon

:lol: I see you both in your individual dodgem cars. WATCH OUT Gnomon, he's right behind you!
Try to enjoy the tussling between you, it need not be so acrimonious.

The Ascent of Information, combines concepts of Causal Information & Downward Causation to explain the emergence of Life in a mostly inanimate world. — Gnomon

Downward causation

*3. Downward Causation :
". . . the central dogma of molecular biology, which is that information moves from the nucleic acids in DNA to proteins, but not in the other direction. . . . That's a 'bottom-up' causation . . . it's the way science usually thinks about the world . . . . that's the beauty and power of reductionism . . . . But does that mean that 'top-down', or downward, causation doesn't exist".
The Ascent of Information, p182 — Gnomon

From Wiki:
In philosophy, downward causation is a causal relationship from higher levels of a system to lower-level parts of that system: for example, mental events acting to cause physical events. The term was originally coined in 1974 by the philosopher and social scientist Donald T. Campbell

According to practopoietic theory of system organization, downward causation in biological systems always involves the environment. Downward causation does not occur by direct causal effects from higher to lower levels of system organisation. Instead, downward causation occurs indirectly because the mechanisms at higher levels of organisation fail to accomplish the tasks dictated by the lower levels of organisation. As a result, inputs from the environment signal to the mechanisms at lower levels of organisation that something is wrong and therefore, to act. For example, a species may find itself under evolutionary pressure to adjust to novel circumstances—which is a form of downward pressure for adjustment. Similarly, an organism may be under downward pressure to express different genes if the expression patterns from the past did not lead to desired results. Another special case of downward causation is supervised learning (of neuronal networks) in which both behavior and environment govern the propagation from higher to lower levels.

This leads to a unique form of a causal interaction pattern—called a practopoietic loop (cycle) of causation. The end result is that the mechanisms responsible for mental events cause physical events only based on their joint interaction with the environment.

An interesting consequence is that neither behavior of an organism nor its mental operations can be considered fully or exclusively supervenient on the body of the organism. On the one hand, behavior is not supervenient on all parts of the body. On the other hand, due to the necessary interactions with the environment at all levels of organization, behavior is supervenient also on some aspects of the environment. The same holds for the mental operations, or the mind.

I am fine with 'downward causation' as described by wiki above. It has NO SIGNIFICANT RELATION to teleology or teleonomy. There is NO INTENT in the biological downwards causation described by wiki above and the 'mental events acting to cause physical events' or 'change,' is HUMAN INTENT and that is the only valid connection with notions of teleology or teleonomy

He goes on to make a remarkable remark : ". . . that living systems seem to be able to gain control over the very same matter out of which they are formed". And a technical term for such self-control is "Cybernetics". Ironically, a whole complex system of many parts that can control its constituents, implies that the whole transcends the parts in top-down causal power. But that's merely a natural kind of transcendence that pragmatic scientists can accept. Yet, those who are philosophically inclined may logically extend the control & causation within Nature back to the beginning of the universe, and ask "what caused Causation?" — Gnomon

That's where we diverge. You travel back on a wave of infinite regression, in the same way William Lane Craig does to arrive at his debunked Kalam Cosmological Argument.

How much carbon would be released from the production of the energy needed to fill those spaces? It’s a sort of efficiency question. — noAxioms

Less and less and finally zero. The target is E=ER, which is far more important that efficiency issues.
I would rather have a less efficient global energy production system that does not damage the planets ecology compared to a fantastically efficient fossil fuel production system that is killing the planet.
A future cold fusion system will perhaps be the most 'efficient,' if we ever achieve it.

The point is, ER is fixed and E is exponential. The one mathematically cannot keep up with the other. ‘Efforts‘ don’t change that. — noAxioms

ER can rise to meet E if humans make it so. The nefarious who currently control E and ER are the problem, not any notion that human science is unable to meet the energy needs of the current population. Energy supply and demand remains a weapon, due to who controls it and why.
It's manipulation in the current Russian abuse of Ukraine is a good current example.
The fact that renewable energy is charged, in the world markets, at the same price per unit as 'the most expensively produced' energy is another example of the affect of the nefarious profit mongers.
Renewable costs much less to produce than fossil fuel based oil and gas, yet people are charged the same rate for renewable energy units, as they are charged for the much more expensively produced oil and gas. WHAT A CON!!!!