Space was never a solution to excess population.
— noAxioms
Of course it is.
— universeness
But you don’t justify this assertion. — noAxioms

The justification seems obvious , in that, there is a lot more room in space than there is here on earth.
I don't mean to downplay your perfectly correct assertion that for now! Off-planet existence is NOT a valid way of solving the excess population problem we CURRENTLY have on Earth.
The immediate solution to that problem must be found here on Earth. I agree with you on that point.
Perhaps 'Countries with declining populations,' are a small indicator of the future of population control.
Increasing human lifespan and increasing technological based human robustness, may be another factor that causes more and more young couples to have less and less children. BUT, as we slooooooowly become an extraterrestial species, we will have less need to worry about population control and have more need to encourage reproduction.

f 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. — noAxioms

Only until the resources OF the contents of space can be accessed. Eventually this will mean extra resources can be brought TO Earth FROM space. It's no different than it was when compared to pioneering humans on the move. They had to bring their supplies with them until they could establish a supply chain wherever they ended up.

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. — noAxioms

Less savage solutions are possible. You are just being a bit impatient and lazy minded. :grin:
I suspect your brother and sister-in-law would smack you on the head for typing the above quote.

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. — noAxioms

Abiogenisis may have happened in water and at some point moved on to land and into the air. Life now exists on land sea and air. Off planet is the next obvious step. Do you think it would have been better if evolution left all lifeforms as fish or water creatures?

A windy day will empty the bowl of water in the tree, but the bird can take it. Better to put a bird there. — noAxioms

I disagree. Better to have a bird that can fly, live in trees, walk on the ground, wear a tech exoskeleton that lets it travel under water and live in a dome shaped, forrest city. Then it might think about living extraterrestially, when it wants to expand it's CV about what it is to be a bird.

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

As you suggested in an earlier post. The first missions are scouting and pathfinder missions. Missions like Artemis 1 are a different beginning.

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. — noAxioms

There is no perfect system, just improvements on current ones. If you make enough robust improvements you eventually create a good system. No true democratic socialist system has EVER been achieved by any country in the world so far. So, the struggle continues until one IS successfully created. Once that happens, I am sure the people who live under it will struggle to maintain it. It may even fall due to nefarious b*******, but the 'good' people will rebuild it. Hopefully it will be built so strong one day that it will be almost impossible to destroy it. Such aspiration is, to me, far better than the apathetic acceptance of the status quo that you seem to satisfy yourself with.

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

Yeah? I will send you one of my skin cells and you can deliver my clone to me when you have finished creating it! :joke:

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. — noAxioms

I was referring to sentient life, when I brought in 'the brain.'

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. — noAxioms

Yes it will, as the reason you gave for 'this cannot be done' is invalid, as majority rule means that the democratically selected action WILL happen, despite being unpopular with a minority. If that action allows Trump to take power, then the people will then have to deal with the consequences of that majority vote. Trump did not last long, but there was a lot of damage done, so, in the future, we must try to make sure that 'most of the people cannot be fooled some of the time.' It's the job of all secular humanist, democratic socialists, to fight for that goal. You should strive to help them whenever you can, instead of merely complaining when they fail to protect you, by successfully countering anomalies like Trump supporters. Perhaps you could help them talk to potential trump supporters and convince them not to vote for such morons. You are either part of the solutions or part of the problems.

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. — noAxioms

Well, that's just not good enough, is it? We simply can't accept that 'the typical voter isn't very informed these days.' We have to do what we can to help change that. Your larger goals can't be achieved, as long as the foundations remain rotten. It's the guy beside you who thinks trump is a good idea that you can perhaps help alter. The struggle continues.

Human senses are all analogue, so we experience the world through them. — universeness

Good point.

We have all already accepted that human experience does not necessarily fully describe universal REALITY (no woo woo invocations please.) — universeness

What is "universal REALITY" for you? Do you just mean the "physical universe"?
If not, then you must refer to an absolute, objective reality, which is one of the most debatable subjects in philosophy, from what I know and have personally witnessed. (Which of course is out of the scope of this thread.)

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 — universeness

Good point. It reminds me of Zeno's paradoxes. In the "dichotomy paradox", an object cannot go from A to B, because it has to first reach the middle of their distance, and then the middle of the remaining distcance, etc. ad infinitum. This paradox is easily refuted of course because it is based on a false assumption, that space is discrete and thus dvisible. Similarly with the "Achilles paradox", which refers to time instead of space. But both space and time are continuous. As are all analogue forms, versus difgital forms, which are discrete, as you correctly mentioned.
Glad you brought this up. It is another excellent support of the view that the physical universe is analogue and not digital.

Field excitations are discrete, but they can combine and propagate as continuous wave forms. — universeness

Right. You can also get an analogue waveform by passing through all the peaks of a digital waveform in a continuous movement. And vice-versa of course, which is how digital audio is produced (as far as I know, based on my limited knowledge on the subject.)

When digital music is played back, it's REAL music your ear receives — universeness

Of course it is real. :smile: Any sound that we hear is real. Coming from a digital or analogue source. Digital sounds propagate into the air as analogue ones. And thus we can hear them because our hearing is analogue. This is another point that supports the view ... Well, you know what. :smile:

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. — universeness

Oh, something is not OK with this. A film is a series of pictures but a movie is the result of its projection onto a screen. The film is what consists of descrete, saparate photos. But the movie is continuous. It is what we perceive through our senses and then process with our mind.
Better see it this way: when you take a video, there are no separate parts (photos). You can, if you want take a screenshot, in the same way you take a selfie, which will be an independent image, but this would be just like taking a handful of water from a continuous flow of water. The water flow does not consist of handfuls of water. The video does not consist of screenshots.

Anyway, we are all just sharing views in this place, aren't we? :smile:

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. — noAxioms

I would certainly give you my full support on that one. But not your ideas on how to deal with excess population.

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

Great question! By negotiation, based on the questions 'who are you?' and 'what do you want?'
Why would a person want to hoard 50 expensive cars and own 10 houses and have sex with different beautiful people every day and live like the King of the world of their imagination?
I would establish a benevolent communication system with every new born from cradle to grave.
Most layabouts get very bored quite often. Perhaps they would want to use their mind and body in ways that they would enjoy and would help the society/community they live in.
Communication, support, respect, cooperation, justice, etc etc must become foundational when it comes to how people are supported.
Innovators are pivotal and can help a great deal to support and inspire 'layabouts' or perhaps a more accurate phrase would be 'an unmotivated person.'
Most people can be reasoned with, if your approach is genuinely empathetic and you have access to established resources and activities that they would find fulfilling and would compliment what they want out of life.

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? — noAxioms

Exactly because money would not exist anymore!
OF the people, FOR the people, BY the people IS the motivation.
A celebrity feels good when they have the 'adulation' of their fans.
A person who works to help their community (or even their universe) should be recognised and appreciated and the 'layabout,' as you might label such should not receive adulation.
Everyone should be able to take the basic means of survival for granted from cradle to grave, regardless of their contribution to society. BUT, those who contribute most, will most likely become the most 'adulated,' and revered in our society. Perhaps when it comes to something such as 'who will we pick to run our next project on ....... will be fairly chosen from the 'revered.' A meritocracy could handshake very well within a secular, democratic humanist/socialist political system and a resource based economy.

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… — noAxioms

Take the money out of sports and it will become the healthy endeavour and fun competitive entertainment it should have always been. The fastest or strongest human will still be coveted and competed for. Local or national team rivalry can still happen. The meritocracy can support sports and the removal of financial incentive will allow sport to revert back to its more benevolent consequences.

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? — noAxioms

I am also on the waiting list for access but I have looked at some online exemplar interactions, such as:
ChatGPT.

What is "universal REALITY" for you? Do you just mean the "physical universe"?
If not, then you must refer to an absolute, objective reality, which is one of the most debatable subjects in philosophy, from what I know and have personally witnessed. (Which of course is out of the scope of this thread.) — Alkis Piskas

I think an objective reality exists at the biggest reference frame of the universe but I have no idea if humans or future transhumans will ever be able to observe the universe at it's biggest scale. Same goes for it's smallest scale and that's even if the labels 'smallest' or 'biggest' have any meaning in 'reality.'

Anyway, we are all just sharing views in this place, aren't we? — Alkis Piskas

Yes and I am enjoying your contribution Alkis!

Oh, something is not OK with this. A film is a series of pictures but a movie is the result of its projection onto a screen. The film is what consists of descrete, saparate photos. But the movie is continuous. It is what we perceive through our senses and then process with our mind.
Better see it this way: when you take a video, there are no separate parts (photos). You can, if you want take a screenshot, in the same way you take a selfie, which will be an independent image, but this would be just like taking a handful of water from a continuous flow of water. The water flow does not consist of handfuls of water. The video does not consist of screenshots. — Alkis Piskas

I don't think so Alkis. A video has a frame rate, such as 24 fpi (24 frames per second). That means 24 pictures are taken or shown every second. An ocean is made up of water molecules, which are made of hydrogen and oxygen atoms etc. The continuous is made up of the discrete. It's the discrete that seems to be fundamental and not the continuous. Any 'flow' or excitation like a vibration, is a physical combinatorial. I include all energy forms when I use the word 'physical here.
So I think the fundamental constituent of the universe is a singularity, which I think is a digit, as it is 'single' and contains all measurable existence, when it is in its 'singular' form. Any 'continuity' only happens after the singularity starts to expand/inflate.
I do however accept that the term 'singularity,' has no existent we can demonstrate.
Is there a singularity at the heart of every black hole? I don't know!

Addition: A rock is not analogue, but many of its attributes are. A measure of its smoothness, or mass/weight or it's size etc but at the sub-atomic or at the planck size (sorry to mention him again), its a digit. Anything smaller than the plank size and it's a black hole! (perhaps in some meaningful sense, a singularity!)

The continuous is made up of the discrete. It's the discrete that seems to be fundamental and not the continuous. Any 'flow' or excitation like a vibration, is a physical combinatorial. I include all energy forms when I use the word 'physical here. — universeness

I'm afraid, my friend, your learned patience is probably wasted on them like rain on a Japanese dry garden.

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 — universeness

I agree that Downward Causation, as observed, seems to be coasting on Momentum. But the inference of Intention is based on the billiard ball analogy. Their momentum always begins with acausal Impetus. And where the impetus does not come from other balls on the table, we can logically infer that there was an off-the-table Cause : e.g. intentional pool shooter. Although the wielder of the pool cue is Transcendent (exogenous), his necessary existence is a "significant relation" for Ontological explanations, if not for Scientific purposes. Moreover, the causal Intent behind the Big Bang impetus, may be imagined as human-like, or god-like, or an infinite chain of accidental causes, according to your personal preferences.

BTW, my replies to TPF posts are never intended to be acrimonious. But any disagreements can be interpreted as antagonism toward a poster's belief system. That's one reason why I always conclude with a bland smilie-face, or teasing "joke" icon, or stoic "I'm cool" symbol. But 's harsh sarcasm toward any intimations of Transcendence makes it difficult to word a response that doesn't hit him where it hurts : his faith in Materialism/Physicalism. :smile: :joke: :cool:

I have no idea if humans or future transhumans will ever be able to observe the universe at it's biggest scale. — universeness

So, we can forget about such a kind of obsevation, right? :smile:
Besides I don't think that we need to go that far in order to consider and talk about our subject.

I am enjoying your contribution Alkis! — universeness

Thank you. I enjoy our exchange too!

A video has a frame rate, such as 24 fpi (24 frames per second). That means 24 pictures are taken or shown every second. — universeness

Right. The effect of the continuous movement is caused by the fast succession the frames, exactly as in flip book, with the fast turning of its pages. Only that this effect, i.e. what we are perceiving, is a representation of the environment, not the environment itself. If we take a video of a ball rolling, in its structure the video will consist of frames/images, but the actual rolling of the ball, which is what occurs in the physical universe, is continuous.

An ocean is made up of water molecules, which are made of hydrogen and oxygen atoms etc. The continuous is made up of the discrete. — universeness

Well, again, Physics is not my strong suit, but aren't atoms themselves in a continuous movement?
Nice! One more good point that supports the "analogue view" and the continuity in the universe. :smile:

I can't help not mentioning here someone who has best described the concept of time without even mentioning the word: Heraclitus. "Everything flows", “No man ever steps in the same river twice". This also depicts the attribute of continuity of the physical universe.

***

We fully disagree on the subject of continuity vs discretness of the physical universe, but this was a fruitful and interesting philosophical exchange. How far would it have been gone if we were fully agreeing from start? :smile:

I enjoy the debate and I am grateful for those who take the time to contribute. I learn from all of you in many different ways. I improve my knowledge of where the stumbling blocks are, where the complexities lie. How to probe the robustness of an argument. I also improve 'details' and tighten up shortfalls in my approach to debate with others. It's all very useful stuff. I have exchanged with some TPF members in the past that I would consider an actual enemy of everything that I value but not on this thread ..... so far.

So, we can forget about such a kind of obsevation, right? — Alkis Piskas

Not forget about it, but we can certainly put it to one side for now, in our exchange.

but the actual rolling of the ball, which is what occurs in the physical universe, is continuous. — Alkis Piskas

Only until friction brings the ball to rest. At any instant in time, the ball is losing kinetic energy, so the motion is not continuous. it is a series of discrete moments of kinetic energy loss.

but aren't atoms themselves in a continuous movement? — Alkis Piskas

Relative movements depending on what frame of reference you are using. Excited atoms move more so 'heat' /temperature is a factor. A 'frozen' atom has a rest frame (not moving). But it is moving if it is on the Earth and the Earth is rotating.

I can't help not mentioning here someone who has best described the concept of time without even mentioning the word: Heraclitus. "Everything flows", “No man ever steps in the same river twice". This also depicts the attribute of continuity of the physical universe. — Alkis Piskas

It's like saying, no one eats the same apple twice BUT, its quite possible that you encounter / interact with the same sub-atomic particles more than once.
Step in a river and water molecules flow past your legs. The water flows into a lake. On a hot day the lake loses water to the atmosphere via evaporation. Weather carries some of the evaporated water that flowed past your legs to where you are and falls on your head as rain. If that happens, did you meet that same water twice?

We fully disagree on the subject of continuity vs discretness of the physical universe, but this was a fruitful and interesting philosophical exchange. How far would it have been gone if we were fully agreeing from start? — Alkis Piskas

We are still discussing the area Alkis, yes, and we may never change our individual positions, but only if one of us can't convince the other. If you convince me, then I will start to claim that the structure of the universe is fundamentally analogue rather than digital. Let me offer you some more of my evidence.
I know you are not a physics person but this video by Carlo Rovelli on the nature of time, contains a lot of information, about the idea, that all flow, all continuity, is a combinatorial of discrete events.
I just watched it again for the 5th time, since I first watched it. It took me a long time and a lot of rewinding and thinking to understand the implications of what Carlo was presenting. One conclusion that I think it supports, is that the universe is made up of discrete fundamentals.

Perhaps Gnomon would agree with that point of view, as he also seems to greatly value the musings of Plato and Aristotle etc. I don't. Do you not worry that if we assign all the wonder and awe that we are capable of mustering when we muse about the universe and our origins, life and fate, to the machinations of a supreme being, we reduce ourselves and leave ourselves with NOTHING. — universeness

I have no such concern because I do not understand the energy of the universe as a being. I do not attribute the laws of physics to a conscious being. Logos, the reason it is like it is as it is, is because that is the way it works. How do I say? A triangle is not a triangle unless it is a triangle. Helium goes up because it is lighter than air. H20 is water, not ciritic acid. This is mechanical than intellectual.

Chardin said God is asleep in rocks and minerals, waking in plants and animals to know self in man. What if there is no consciousness without human consciousness? We can discover the reasons and we can be inventive with the reasoning. How can we be less? We are pretty awesome! Or perhaps I should say potentially we are awesome. I do not think all humans are awesome but rank along with the other primates because they do not use their full human potential.

It seems much more valuable to me to see your wondement and your awe, as a fantastic emergence, that belongs to YOU, not gods or platonic notions of external perfect forms.
I think I assign more value to you Athena, and Gnomon and every human on this planet than any god posit ever has or ever will. — universeness

We agree. I suppose because I use the reason to define logos, you and everyone else, jump to the conclusion that I am talking about something that can be all-knowing. That is not what my intended meaning. The reason it is cold today is the artic wind is moving down and across our region. That does not require a god. It is the reason it is cold. The reason the arctic wind has come is the movement of low and high pressure. I don't think there is anything else that can be aware of the reason except humans. :chin: AI might organize the data better than we can, but that is not equal to our consciousness.

I enjoy the debate and I am grateful for those who take the time to contribute. I learn from all of you in many different ways. I improve my knowledge of where the stumbling blocks are, where the complexities lie. How to probe the robustness of an argument. I also improve 'details' and tighten up shortfalls in my approach to debate with others. It's all very useful stuff. I have exchanged with some TPF members in the past that I would consider an actual enemy of everything that I value but not on this thread ..... so far. — universeness

We have total agreement on that! I love what happens when we engage with each other. The philosophy forum has the best-thinking people don't you think? The political forums and be an extreme failure to be rational. Politics is another game. It is supposed to be less emotional and more rational but unfortunately, the political forums are not and neither is the news media focused on being rational as it once was when Walter Cronkite was reporting the news.

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 — Agent Smith

THESIS DEVELOPMENT CONTINUED :

The "raining code" (information) from The Matrix movie, was a graphic inspiration for the BothAnd blog, but the Enformationism thesis was not specifically derived from the concept of a simulated world. Instead, it was inspired by the philosophical "paradox of Objective Reality versus Subjective Ideality". Which reflects the dual role of Information in the world : Physical and Mental.

Pursuant to your encouragement to "develop" that basic idea, I will now address the Transcendent implications of the Enformationism thesis. likes to put it into the anti-science category of New Age religions. And has dismissed it as a fringe religion like Theosophy*1. I can see the general philosophical resemblance to both, but my thesis was inspired by the transcendent implications of Quantum & Information science, not by any neo-religious movements.

Besides, all human cultures have postulated some kind of transcendent Principle or God to explain the Ontology of contingent existence. The secular Greek philosophers proposed abstract non-humanoid concepts, such as Logos (Reason) and First Cause (Energy ; Causation). So, my thesis could be compared to hundreds of pre-modern historical ideologies, that imagine the universe as a living organism, metaphorically born from an eternal Organizer. The only thing they all have in common is the idea that mundane Nature emerged from some transcendent power source.

However, Modernism is grounded upon un-sentimental Science, which assumes as an axiom that "nothing emerges from nothing". So, the astronomical Big Bang beginning was an embarrassment to secular scientists. Hence, Fred Hoyle's sarcastic label "Big Bang" was intended to poo-poo the magical (woo-woo) notion of a world instantaneously popping out of nowhere (inflation). Since then, other scientists have postulated equally un-scientific philosophical alternatives, such as Quantum Fluctuations from energized empty space. Besides the meaninglessness of pure-space-sans-matter, that hypothesis is based on the axiom of eternal (transcending space-time) Causation & Construction. The pre-BB axiom is similar to the Enformationism assumption of an eternal pool of Potential*2 (Energy & Enformation) which, for no apparent reason, caused an evolving universe to emerge from who-knows-where.

Religious gods typically require Faith & Worship by humans, but philosophical Principles only require Cognizance & Cooperation. FYI, Fowler's Stages of Faith*3 conclude with stage 6, universalizing faith (enlightenment)*2, and that's what Enformationism's Transcendent Enformer is supposed to be. Not literal belief in religious stories, but per Brownridge, in Philosophy Now #153 : "the encompassment of nature, the universal cosmic energy of which we are all a part". Since it has no anthro-morpic form, you can call it whatever makes sense to you : Logos, First Cause, Demon*4, etc. The thesis does not prescribe any kind of faith or worship, so it's not a religious concept.

Enformationism is merely an attempt to answer an ancient Ontological question : "why is there something instead of nothing". Big Bang, Multiverse, & Inflation hypotheses simply dismiss that conundrum as an unscientific "who cares' riddle. Likewise, Universeness & 180proof seem to prefer to leave such transcendent questions unanswered, even on a philosophy forum full of "go for it" conjectures. By convention, serious scientists are not supposed to speculate into the unknowable. But, due to popular demand, several have postulated a menagerie of pre-Bang sources of Energy & Information. They all assume some unbounded power to create (Causation) & to organize (Enformation).

My thesis merely assumes a similar timeless formless Potential for Causation & Organization. You can call that nothing-material "Logical Necessity" if you like. But the specific name that piques 180's ire is "God". Perhaps that sore spot is due to some childhood trauma related to oppressive humanoid god-models. Or maybe it's just due to deep emotional commitment to anti-religious Materialism/Physicalism. Hence, the critics seem unable to distinguish philosophical reasoning from religious mythology. So, they feel justified in ignoring Enformationism, not for any violation of scientific doctrine, but for its irksome logical implications : the fundamental essence of Reality*5 is not tangible Matter, but incorporeal Mind. :nerd:


*1. Theosophy teaches that the purpose of human life is spiritual emancipation and says that the human soul undergoes reincarnation upon bodily death according to a process of karma. It promotes values of universal brotherhood and social improvement, although it does not stipulate particular ethical codes.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theosophy

*2. Potential :
The concept of potentiality, in this context, generally refers to any "possibility" that a thing can be said to have. Aristotle did not consider all possibilities the same, and emphasized the importance of those that become real of their own accord when conditions are right and nothing stops them
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Potentiality_and_actuality

*3. Fowler's Faith Stages :
https://www.institute4learning.com/2020/06/12/the-stages-of-faith-according-to-james-w-fowler/

*4. Maxwell's Demon :
A scientific thought experiment using the notion of an omniscient intelligent being who could manipulate molecules in a box without doing any work, which is a violation of the Second Law of Thermodynamics. Yet, even intellectual work expends energy. Such demons exist only as useful philosophical concepts.
David Krakauer, at Santa Fe Institute, even proposed the idea of a "selective demon" (Darwinian Demon). So, to deny their essential "existence" is to deny philosophical reasoning.

*5. The Essence of Reality is the most perceptive, exacting look at the flow of Reality ever. Rarely has a human glimpsed beyond the confines of the self-aware mind to see the interactive flow of mind-value into Reality.
https://books.google.com/books/about/Essence_of_Reality.html?id=9j3SGgAACAAJ
Note -- I haven't read the book, but the title is provocative for this post

@universeness

Enformationism is merely an attempt to answer an ancient Ontological question : "why is there something instead of nothing". Big Bang, Multiverse, & Inflation hypotheses simply dismiss that conundrum as an unscientific "who cares' riddle. Likewise, Universeness & 180proof seem to prefer to leave such transcendent questions unanswered, even on a philosophy forum full of "go for it" conjectures. — Gnomon

1. The "ontological question" at issue is modern (re: Leibniz), not "ancient".

2. The "hypotheses"above are physical models of how (i.e. development) and not metaphysical "conundrums" or "riddles" of why (i.e. purpose, meaning, final cause).

3. Speaking for myself, this strawman (re: "transcendent questions") is patently disingenuous...

A. (e.g. Gnomon-180 Proof exchange)
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/623506

B. (e.g. Gnomon-180 Proof exchange)
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/627625

4. These points 1 & 2 demonstrate Gnomon's lack of philosophical and scientific literacies (or comprehension) and 3 his lack of intellectual integrity. :mask:

@Agent Smith

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") — 180 Proof

This Tao of thinking, the one you've so masterfully wielded, is precisely what @Gnomon is doing. Frankly, it puzzles me why the two of you don't see eye to eye. Perhaps, it's form-congruence and content-incongruence.

We don't "see eye-to-eye", amigo, because – as I've pointed out in over half of my near 300 exchances with him – "Enformationism" is conceptually incoherent and that "The Great Enformer" himself lacks intellectual integrity. Thus, he cannot address these questions (below) without further invalidating his "ideas".

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/776449

We don't "see eye-to-eye", amigo, because – as I've pointed out in over half of my near 300 exchances with him – "Enformationism" is conceptually incoherent and that "The Great Enformer" himself lacks intellectual integrity. Thus, he cannot address these questions (below) without further invalidating his "ideas". — 180 Proof

I intellego señor.

But the inference of Intention is based on the billiard ball analogy. Their momentum always begins with acausal Impetus. And where the impetus does not come from other balls on the table, we can logically infer that there was an off-the-table Cause : e.g. intentional pool shooter. — Gnomon

This is just a 'first cause' analogy. There is no first cause necessity imo. If something like CCC is correct then a first cause is pushed back so far, that it becomes meaningless. If you still insist on a first cause, then what is wrong with conceiving such as a mindless spark that no longer exists. A digit singularity for example.

Although the wielder of the pool cue is Transcendent (exogenous), his necessary existence is a "significant relation" for Ontological explanations, if not for Scientific purposes. Moreover, the causal Intent behind the Big Bang impetus, may be imagined as human-like, or god-like, or an infinite chain of accidental causes, according to your personal preferences. — Gnomon

Why do you assign a gender to your proposed transcendent?
I am more attracted to empirical support for a posit that ontological support.
I don't agree that the choices you offer above between human-like, god-like and large variety in very large random combination (I don't accept 'accidental' as it has 'error' connotations), have anything like equal status. Human-like and god-like? I take it your god- like includes animism examples as most modern gods are modelled on human-like. We invented gods that look just like us, (you even insist on assigning it a male gender!). Why can't god look like some of the alien creatures we invent for sci-fi or one of the non-human characters used in traditional fairy stories.
Why cant god be depicted as an intelligent, genderless, massless, gas/energy? The fact that gods are posited as 'looking like' objects or entities familiar to humans is more evidence that such has no, and never has had any, existent.

But ↪180 Proof's harsh sarcasm toward any intimations of Transcendence makes it difficult to word a response that doesn't hit him where it hurts : his faith in Materialism/Physicalism. — Gnomon

Only you and @180 Proof can report which response's 'hurt,' and which are ineffectual.
I suspect the truth of such, will remain unacknowledged by either of you, if in fact any such 'hurt' actually manifested in either of you due to words posted by the other.
I enjoy the input from both of you, but you will not be surprised, that my viewpoints are far more in line with @180 Proof than with yourself, Gnomon.
I have no interest in keeping score between you and as I said, I learn from both of you and I remain grateful to both of you, for that.

I have no such concern because I do not understand the energy of the universe as a being. I do not attribute the laws of physics to a conscious being. Logos, the reason it is like it is as it is, is because that is the way it works. How do I say? A triangle is not a triangle unless it is a triangle. Helium goes up because it is lighter than air. H20 is water, not ciritic acid. This is mechanical than intellectual. — Athena

Fair enough, but is this not an argument from ignorance? Its like "I don't know the answers, so, it just is what it is and that's all that it is!' I don't understand why you say 'its mechanical,' and suggest that mechanical is not connected to 'intellectual?' Anything mechanical is 'knowable,' and it's seems to me that humans have an intellectual imperative to find out every detail of how a 'mechanism' works.
Human curiosity is far stronger than the curiosity of all cats combined, imo. WE MUST KNOW Athena!

Chardin said God is asleep in rocks and minerals, waking in plants and animals to know self in man. — Athena

Chardin (never heard of him/her/gender variant) sounds like a panpsychist.

What if there is no consciousness without human consciousness? — Athena

What do you mean? Animals are conscious, yes? Or are you going down the solipsistic path?

We are pretty awesome! Or perhaps I should say potentially we are awesome. — Athena

I broadly agree, if we compare our species with all other species we know about. That could be an interesting thread. A comparison between the historicity of humans with a projection of what we know about any other species and how they might have stewarded the planet, If they became the dominant species instead of us. Would it be a better world, if this was a planet of the apes or a planet of the meercats or ants etc?

We agree. I suppose because I use the reason to define logos, you and everyone else, jump to the conclusion that I am talking about something that can be all-knowing. That is not what my intended meaning. — Athena

So, don't worry about any 'science' you don't know or understand. I think we should celebrate the fact that as Newton famously said:
“I do not know what I may appear to the world, but to myself I seem to have been only like a boy playing on the seashore, and diverting myself in now and then finding a smoother pebble or a prettier shell than ordinary, whilst the great ocean of truth lay all undiscovered before me.”
We have very significant purpose and reason to live, as there is yet so much that we don't understand.
HOW EXCITING!!!!

We have total agreement on that! I love what happens when we engage with each other. The philosophy forum has the best-thinking people don't you think? The political forums and be an extreme failure to be rational. Politics is another game. It is supposed to be less emotional and more rational but unfortunately, the political forums are not and neither is the news media focused on being rational as it once was when Walter Cronkite was reporting the news. — Athena

:clap: Very well said Athena!
I have came across many great thinkers on many interactive internet sites.
I really enjoy and value TPF, but I also love all the 'Ask a' sites, such as 'Ask a mathematician' or 'Ask an Astrophysicist.' Quora has some amazing contributors (but is currently top heavy with time wasters), as does the physics stack exchange, etc, etc.
I have been involved in many political exchanges online and I agree that there is a lot more aggression and even possible personal consequences involved, than on forums like TPF.

Since it has no anthro-morpic form, you can call it whatever makes sense to you : Logos, First Cause, Demon*4, etc. The thesis does not prescribe any kind of faith or worship, so it's not a religious concept. — Gnomon

Perhaps not religious, but it is theistic or theological or theosophist, to suggest a first cause, external to THIS universe which had 'intent' to cause 'a vital or divine spark' beginning to this universe. My suggestion of a first cause, as a mindless spark that no longer exists and WAS this universe in 'singularity form,' 'A singular digit.' Is at least as valid/credible as your suggestion for a first cause and imo, more plausible. No first cause at all is also plausible, if you consider cyclical universe posits such as Roger Penrose's CCC.
You employ 'transcendent':

Transcendent:
1. Beyond or above the range of normal or physical human experience:
"the search for a transcendent level of knowledge"
surpassing the ordinary; exceptional:
"her transcendent beauty"
SIMILAR: superior, supreme, consummate, predominant
2. (of God) existing apart from and not subject to the limitations of the material universe. Often contrasted with immanent.
SIMILAR: supernatural, preternatural, transcendental, other-worldly
3. (in scholastic philosophy) higher than or not included in any of Aristotle's ten categories.

Immanent:
1. Existing or operating within; inherent:
"the protection of liberties is immanent in constitutional arrangements"
SIMILAR: inherent, intrinsic, innate, built-in, latent, essential
2. (of God) permanently pervading and sustaining the universe. Often contrasted with transcendent.

Your first cause posits, seem to 'rally around,' Transcendent description 2 and Immanent description 2 above and IS imo, a god of the gaps viewpoint, in the style of William Lane Craig.

Let's invite the chatbots in the debate!

Question: "Is the physical universe digital?"

Answer from ChatGPT (OpenAI):
"No, the physical universe is not digital. While some physical phenomena can be modeled and represented with digital data, the physical universe itself is not inherently digital. It operates according to physical laws and behaves in continuous and analog ways, rather than in the discrete and binary manner of digital systems."

Answer from ChatSonic (WriteSonic):
"Though the physical universe may appear to be analog, there is mounting evidence that suggests that it is, in fact, digital. It has been theorized that the universe is made up of discrete, quantized particles which behave according to the principles of quantum mechanics, which suggests that the universe is digital in nature. Additionally, recent advances in physics have revealed that the universe is composed of information and can be modeled as a quantum computer. Therefore, although the physical universe may appear analog to our eyes, it is actually digital in nature."

Impressive, eh?

:up: Gnomon admits to having trouble comprehending 'ontological immanence' à la Spinoza or e.g.
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/629398

Perhaps Gnomon would agree with that point of view, as he also seems to greatly value the musings of Plato and Aristotle etc. I don't. Do you not worry that if we assign all the wonder and awe that we are capable of mustering when we muse about the universe and our origins, life and fate, to the machinations of a supreme being, we reduce ourselves and leave ourselves with NOTHING. — universeness
I have no such concern because I do not understand the energy of the universe as a being.I do not attribute the laws of physics to a conscious being. Logos, the reason it is like it is as it is, is because that is the way it works. — Athena

Gnomon does indeed value the fundamental contributions of Plato & Aristotle to human understanding. seems to be a nice guy, but he misunderstands & misrepresents Gnomon's Enformationism thesis*1. Probably because, from his implicit Materialist/Physicalist*2 perspective, it looks like Spiritualism or Idealism. To him, those worldviews are primitive & childish & just plain wrong. Yet Mr. Nice Guy can be somewhat indulgent toward such immature notions, as one would toward a juvenile's innocent babbling. Unlike another poster, he's not intentionally malicious, but his Matter-is-all vocabulary makes abstract (meta-physical) Platonic & Aristotelian concepts sound like literal non-sense.

For example, from a Matter-only standpoint, there is no such thing as Platonic Love, or love of any kind, for that matter. There is only corporal copulation. Hence, "Love" is an abstraction that idealizes the realistic rutting of animals. Since the neo-primitive notions of New Ageism tend to be Idealistic & Spiritualistic, he places Enformationism into that unsophisticated "unrealistic" category. On the other hand, Enformationism views ancient Materialism/Atomism and Classical Newtonian physics as outdated pre-modern sciences*3, in the light of 21st century knowledge & reasoning. But it also updates ancient Spiritualism/Idealism, with new concepts from Quantum & Information theory. Those older views were pragmatic in their local & temporal contexts, but now seem somewhat untenable in the current state of affairs, 2.5 millennia later.

FWIW, Gnomon no longer practices the religion of his youth, or any religion for that matter. But, like Universeness, he can be tolerant toward those who are not "enlightened", including his own siblings. However, the broadly applicable Enformationism worldview could be converted into a religion, by those who are so inclined. For example, the ancient Hebrews were materialistic idolators (local nature gods), who later evolved into idealistic Judaism (universal supernatural God). Later, law-bound Judaism was transformed into faith-bound Christianity (Christ = god-man). And so it goes, as the world turns. We adapt our beliefs to the current state of knowledge and culture. My personal thesis is another of those adaptations, combining state-of-the-art Science with millennia of religious & philosophical exploration of the human condition, and building upon the foundation of Plato & Aristotle.

Enformationism does not posit a manipulating "supreme being", because Nature functions automatically, like an emergent computer program*4, without any divine intervention. And whether the implicit Programmer/Enformer is conscious, in the human manner, is an open question. So communication (prayer) to a super-natural "being" would likely be one-way, similar to the faith-driven attempts of irreligious scientists to contact extra-solar alien beings, whom they hope to be superior to Earth-bound humans.

In any case, I can't agree with Uni's somber assessment, that "we reduce ourselves and leave ourselves with NOTHING", when we conclude that the world is more-than just "atoms in void"*5. It's also ideas-in-reasoning-minds and feelings-in-metaphorical-hearts. An immaterial idea is indeed "no thing", but whatever it is, it's what raises humans a step above the animals, by allowing them the individual & collective freedom to be intentional agents of their own destiny. :smile:

PS__I apologize in advance, if I have mis-represented Uni's philosophical worldview. :cool: :heart:

*1. Introduction to Enformationism :
Since various forms of matter-first physicalism are still the default model for the empirical sciences, this philosophical thesis is merely a personal worldview. Yet, it’s based on the emerging evidence that invisible Information, instead of tangible Matter, is the fundamental substance of everything in the universe, including Energy, Matter, and Mind.
https://bothandblog6.enformationism.info/page80.html

*2. Materialism, also called physicalism, in philosophy, the view that all facts (including facts about the human mind and will and the course of human history) are causally dependent upon physical processes, or even reducible to them.
https://www.britannica.com/topic/materialism-philosophy
Note -- A century ago, Quantum theory began to undermine the foundation of classical physics. Physicists, such as John A. Wheeler, concluded that everything in the world can be "reduced to" bits of information (immaterial mind-stuff).

*3. Is Scientific Materialism "Almost Certainly False"? :
prominent physicists proclaim that they are solving the riddle of reality and hence finally displacing religious myths of creation. . . . In their desperation for a "theory of everything"—which unifies quantum mechanics and relativity and explains the origin and structure of our cosmos—physicists have embraced pseudo-scientific speculation such as multi-universe theories and the anthropic principle
https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/cross-check/is-scientific-materialism-almost-certainly-false/
Note -- The Enformationism thesis does not claim that materialism is "false", but merely that it does not explain everything of interest to philosophers, including ideas about matter & mind. Ironically, enformed dumb matter seems to be capable of self-reference : Aboutness.

*4. Evolutionary Programming :
From evolutionary computation to the evolution of things
https://www.nature.com/articles/nature14544

*5. Democritus, materialist philosopher :
By convention sweet is sweet, bitter is bitter, hot is hot, cold is cold, color is color; but in truth there are only atoms and the void.
https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Democritus
Note -- What does the "Void" think about? Do "Atoms" love each other, when they become entangled? There is no such thing as "Hot", merely the idea of a relationship between thermodynamic regimes that we apply that non-thing name to.

Read this in a meme: Modern problems require Ancient solutions. I deeply appreciate your, I believe successful, attempt to revive/restore/rejuvenate ancient, quasi-logical intuitions (religion) and then link it to modern, logical understanding (science) of our world.

Modern problems require Ancient solutions. — Agent Smith

:rofl: :up:

Impressive, eh? — Alkis Piskas

:grin: Two great sources to post Aliks!
Yep, even the so called AI systems don't agree with each other.

As has always been the case, each of us must decide, which of the current posits for the structure and workings of the universe, we personally assign highest credence to.
Individually, we can choose to ignore the whole thing and just pursue personal pleasure and maybe sports and reality TV, but I find such people less interesting, than those who are willing to debate the big questions.

I am not a fan of referencing the ancients too much, but I prefer to follow the lineage from Democritus and the atomists towards folks like Carl Sagan and coming to rest near folks like Sean Carroll, Roger Penrose, Ed Witten, Alan Guth, Sabine Hossenfelder, et al.
I find the road via Plato, Aristotle, Jesus (probably never existed), Mohamed (probably never existed) towards folks like Jimmy Swaggart and coming to rest near folks like Ken Ham and William Lane Craig,
the road to intellectual and rational oblivion.

Gnomon admits to having trouble comprehending 'ontological immanence' à la Spinoza or e.g. — 180 Proof

We can only continue to raise our objections to his approach and continue to probe to discover if he is in fact a theist trying to pose in scientific garb. He insists he is not a theist and his enformationism is not a 'god of the gaps' posit. He also insists we are both misinterpreting his posits. It can only be for others to judge what the truth of it is, if they care to, of course.

I think your flagging of:
Apophatic theology, also known as negative theology, is a form of theological thinking and religious practice which attempts to approach God, the Divine, by negation, to speak only in terms of what may not be said about the perfect goodness that is God. It forms a pair together with cataphatic theology, which approaches God or the Divine by affirmations or positive statements about what God is.
The apophatic tradition is often, though not always, allied with the approach of mysticism, which aims at the vision of God, the perception of the divine reality beyond the realm of ordinary perception.

is understandable, based on Gnomon's approach.