Universe as a Language
It can inductively be shown that the universe behaves like a language. On the most basic level, everything in the universe can be said to simply be information (regardless of what the universe is composed of on the higher level). Therefore, the universe can be said to be an arrangement of information. Language is also an arrangement of information, more specifically an arrangement that has both syntax and semantics, ergo a logical syntax in order for it to be understood and have meaning. Because the universe can be said to obey laws, it follows that the universe itself has its own type of logical syntax akin to that found in language. Thus, if the universe is really just an arrangement of information constrained to a logical syntax, it can be said that on the most basic or fundamental level, the universe behaves like a language, and that that language serves as the foundation for all of reality. This means that reality is akin to a series of “words” (sentences) logically structured together, thus giving all reality its meaning. Succinctly put, “words” are what actually bring meaning to all life and existence, similarly to how words logically strung together are what bring meaning to the languages we humans ordinarily understand. Thus as the universe unfolded, “words” needed to be semantically strung together in order to form the complete language of the universe. Language, as we know, is also abstract, since it is ultimately held within the mind. So, if the universe behaves like a language, the universe must also then have an abstract component which is held in the mind. That being said, we can never hold all of the universe (i.e. its entire language) at once in our minds, only smaller pieces of it at a time, since our minds are each localized in space. When we observe something, we are only viewing that smaller part of reality which we are currently observing, as opposed to viewing all of reality at once. All of the universe as a singular piece can thus be said to be held within a singular mind, whereas multiple, smaller pieces of the universe are held within multiple minds (being our minds of course). We can see then that the universe is self-replicating (creating many smaller, incomplete "images" of its larger, complete self) in going from a singular mind viewing the entire universe, to multiple minds viewing only parts of the universe. There is symmetry, and thus the universe can be said to be also self-consistent in addition to self-replicating. From this singular mind's perspective, time is all encompassing since all of the universe is being viewed at once, in an encompassing way. Thus from this singular mind's perspective the beginning is the same as the end, and vice versa. Time is no longer liner because all of time is being viewed at once with all of the universe. For us, we perceive time as being linear and broken up/divided because again, we are always seeing the universe in broken up or divided pieces. Furthermore, if we perform a mental thought experiment and gradually regress reality, the "words" from the language of reality also gradually disappear along with it. Once reality has regressed fully, there becomes no more words, and thus no language, meaning that there is no structure to anything since there are no semantics to be had anymore. Thus all that is left is void and disorder/chaos with unbound, infinite potential (along with the singular mind). Only once the "words" of the language of reality are "spoken" by the aforementioned singular mind through the disorder and chaos, can there be semantics and language, thus providing meaning to all of life and existence.
Sources: Langan, Christopher Michael. “The Cognitive-Theoretic Model of the Universe: A New Kind of Reality Theory.” (2002).
Sources: Langan, Christopher Michael. “The Cognitive-Theoretic Model of the Universe: A New Kind of Reality Theory.” (2002).
Comments (39)
The unreasonable effectiveness of language (in describing the universe, the ultimate goal of the natural sciences).
Is the universe mathematical?
Is the universe linguistic?
Most of Christopher Langan's CognitiveTheoretic Model of the Universe (CTMU) is way over my head. But in a brief review on my blog, I noted that it seemed to be mostly compatible with my own Enformationism thesis, which is also Information-Theoretic. Both are Theories of Everything (TOE), including Science, but they are not scientific theories. Instead of empirical evidence, his reasoning is based on Axioms & Tautologies, so it's a philosophical worldview.
Since he assumes that the universe evolves in a logical manner, it can be compared metaphorically to a human language, which must make sense to other humans. And since Logic is a verbal form of mathematical relationships, the logic of language must add-up meaningfully. Unfortunately, the logical structure of language is often blurred with metaphorical figures that are not as exact as numerical figures.
So, I would guess that the universe has evolved in a purely mathematical process of Thermo-dynamic (hot-cold ; positive-negative) relationships. But the advent of homo sapiens -- and their most useful tool, Language -- may have added a wild-card to the Logic & Math : personal opinions. Nevertheless, I have concluded that an understanding of the essential role of Information, in all its forms, can provide some cosmic meaning to Life, Existence, and Everything. :nerd:
CTMU :
It seems to be a philosophical theory derived from current scientific models, but I doubt that it could ever be proven true in any scientific sense.
BothAnd Blog, post 11
Another Theory of Everything :
His proposal falls into the category of Cosmology, or Reality Theory, which examine Nature in its broadest sense, including conjectures on why our world exists at all. They inevitably imply an ultimate fundamental Reality beyond space-time, underlying the superficial parts we can detect with our senses.
BothAnd Blog, post 37
That which is corrosive and basically waste is often prized as something immaculate :)
There was a time when induction showed that the universe behaved like a machine - everything could be said to simply be action - and we struggled to reconcile this with the complexity of language and emotion. While I think this idea that everything is simply information is a step in the right direction and affords us a more complex view of the universe and its interrelations, I still think there is more to it.
Our view of Logic is myopic - this abstract component held within each mind is itself an aspect of what is a larger rationality to the universe - one we can glimpse only in our relation to the alternative, conflicting, irreconcilable ways in which others behave.
There is a key aspect of language that is not a component of its structure, and eludes all attempts to talk about it. It is apparent only in language use, and cannot be isolated from the relational structure of such usage.
So it isn’t in ‘words’ that reality has meaning, but in the unspoken quality of each relation. Words are just how we try to make sense of it.
incidentally, contrary to @Gnomon’s view, I don’t see humanity or personal opinion as some ‘addition’ to the natural process of the universe. This idea that our emotional fragility or variation is somehow ‘messing with’ the natural, ‘logical’ order of the universe is just anthropocentrism on another level. It is accepting emotional variability and accounting for it in the application of science, instead of trying to control it or factor it out, that I believe can ultimately restore the balance.
The metaphorical nature of language is a reminder that not everything is going to make sense, and that’s okay. The goal is not the sense-making, but the relation. All of this is reflected in the practical application of quantum physics, as well as Taoism, Buddhism, Wittgenstein, etc.
Sorry Poss. You seem to have jumped to an unwarranted conclusion about Gnomon's "view". I was speaking metaphorically when I said, "homo sapiens . . . added a wild card . . . to Logic & Math". Actually, the potential (possibility) for that personal perspective must have been lain dormant in the logical structure of reality (Logos) for billions of years. But that latent "wild card" only became Actual when the human brain began to include self-referential feedback loops in the ongoing linear Logic of reality, resulting in what I call "Ideality" : a novel feature in the meaningless pre-human Cosmos.
That statistical anomaly (Linguistic Logic ; math with meaning) has abruptly changed the direction of evolution, to serve the personal interests, emotions, & opinions of a self-reflective species of upright apes. It has produced a new "tool" (formal conventional Language) with logical leverage to produce Qualia, where before there was only Quanta. Language is an Objective form of Subjective thought. And it has allowed cooperative communication that is more flexible, and generalizable, than the proto-language of hormones & pheromones. So "humanity or personal opinion" was an "addition" to natural processes only in the sense of Emergence. :wink:
Emergence :
[i]1. the process of coming into view or becoming exposed after being concealed.
2. potential properties in parts of a system that are only expressed in their holistic interrelationships
3. the whole is "more than" (in addition to) the sum of its parts[/i]
Logos :
Greek term meaning “word”, “reason”, “proportion”. It was used by philosophers in a technical sense to mean a cosmic principle of order and knowledge. In ancient Greek philosophy and theology, Logos was the divine Reason implicit in the cosmos, ordering it and giving it form and meaning.
BothAnd Blog Glossary
I would argue that’s not speaking metaphorically, but ambiguously. Metaphor has a specific qualitative relation as well as a variable. Either it emerged (in which case it didn’t ‘change the direction of evolution’ but rather followed it) or it was ‘added’ by humans. I’m also curious as to the source of your definition of ‘emergence’: the first I’ve seen and the second I understand, but the third seems a contrivance. ‘More than’ and ‘in addition to’ are not the same in relation to emergence.
And I would argue that the pre-human cosmos is not meaningless - only from a human perspective.
Quoting Gnomon
In my view, qualitative relation (not quanta) is the foundation of reality, and evolution never altered course with the emergence of humanity and self-reflection. In fact, science shows that the evolution of the entire cosmos is mapped by a series of statistically improbable and scientifically unexplained ‘quantum leaps’...
Human language is quantifiable, feigning objectivity in subjective thought - that is its main difference from the proto-language of hormones and pheromones, which entirely serve personal interests. This ‘objectivity’ has some limitations, which we go to great lengths to conceal.
The metaphor in my post was to compare homo sapiens to a "wild card". If you're not familiar with that Poker jargon, I give the pertinent definition below. Hopefully, that will remove some of the "ambiguity". The intended implication was that humanity added a bit of FreeWill into evolutionary Determinism. If we disagree about what I call "Freedom within Determinism", there's an ongoing thread on that topic. I also have several blog posts to define, in no uncertain terms, how I arrived at that notion. If that doesn't convince you, all I can say is "different words for different nerds".
Regarding "Emergence", I used that term in the sense of Holism, in which new properties are "added" to the system that were not expressed before in the parts. However, in my view, the Potential for those new expressions were in the evolutionary "program" from the beginning. But the Holistic novelties only emerge when certain pre-conditions have already been established. In other words, Humanity, with language & freewill, didn't just appear by magic. So, if my usage of the term is a "contrivance", perhaps you should make an edit to the Wiki definition.
If you don't agree that the Emergence of humanity "changed the direction of evolution", we may just have to agree to disagree. It's just my personal opinion. FWIW, the graph below illustrates the acceleration of evolution (mostly technological) after the emergence of Life & Mind & Civilization. It looks like a hockey stick for the same reason Climate Change did : selfish human choices have "homo-formed" (that's a play on "terra-formed) Earth to suit the needs of "featherless bipeds". :cool:
Wild Card : "a person or thing whose influence is unpredictable or whose qualities are uncertain."
___Oxford Languages
Emergence :
In philosophy, systems theory, science, and art, emergence occurs when an entity is observed to have properties its parts do not have on their own, properties or behaviors which emerge only when the parts interact in a wider whole.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergence
Free Will versus Free Won't :
Since the question of conscious choice is integral to the notion of morality, Shermer asks if we are indeed free to choose our actions. Some secularists claim that human behavior is pre-determined by an unbroken chain of cause & effect stretching back to the Big Bang. Nevertheless, no one actually believes that he is a mindless zombie driven by ancient urges. So, Shermer intoduces the concept of “Free Won't”. In our contingent world, humans are never totally free to make unconstrained moral choices. Only an agent outside of our space-time world would be perfectly free. But a current theory of how the brain works is based on a business corporation. Normally, most decisions are made on lower levels, then relayed to a decider-in-chief at the top, who only exercises veto power to stop processes that are already in motion. This modified determinism model was made necessary by recent experiments indicating that conscious decisions are delayed reactions to subconscious motives. Those computer-like cause & effect processes present go/no-go options for the conscience to allow or deny. That's why human behavior is unpredictable, as compared to natural agents. For us, a fork in the causal path is an opportunity for creative, or moral, action.
Note -- Michael Shermer is editor of SKEPTIC magazine.
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/632281
COSMIC PROGRESSION GRAPH
Anyway, I wanna run something by you. What if we represent all analyzed data as pictures/images. This may help us see patterns more easily, yes?
Giving reality meaning. That means reality doesn't mean anything by itself. Words are meaningful in the eye of the beholder. They tell you something. What is the meaning of an electron? Who tells you what the letters and words are? Or how a sentence is formed?
I think the curve between 300YA and now is not faithful. When life has evolved to the form of life we see nowadays, enformation seems pretty constant untill the Sun blows up 5 BY from now. Enformation seems to have decreased exponentially the last 300 years, instead of increased. When the Sun blows up all enformation on Earth will be dead and gone and enformation will even become impossible if all matter has turned into pure energy in the far future. So the red curve will go to zero then.
This metaphor of Homo sapiens as a ‘wild card’ is from the perspective of... Homo sapiens. We have been largely unpredictable to ourselves, but there’s nothing to indicate that Homo sapiens are objectively unpredictable, anymore than COVID is. We’ve just been unable to process enough of the available information in a useful way.
My objection here is not to emergence or to ‘freedom within determinism’, but to the idea that humanity ‘added’ this free will to an existing determinism. In my view, we gradually developed awareness of, connection to and collaboration with an existing qualitative variability that was statistically insignificant. But I would argue that this is also how life and even the cosmos developed, and if you looked at a more accurate cosmic progression chart, then you would see the same comparatively exponential growth of ‘enformaction’, at these two origin points, as your graph suggests only in relation to humanity. But these are dimensional shifts in awareness, and a linear time vs energy graph cannot do them justice.
Quoting Gnomon
The graph shows a gradual increase in velocity, not a sudden change in direction. A perception of directional change assumes a conflict between our needs and those of the rest of the earth. This apparent conflict derives more from ignorant/isolated/exclusive individual choices than from human needs as a whole. Increasing awareness, connection and collaboration is the direction the cosmos has always been heading. Individually, we keep fighting it, but collectively our genuine needs can and do align with the earth as a whole - we’re just lacking in a clear awareness of them still...
But this is a digression from the topic at hand. There is more to the universe than information - there is also this logical syntax which constrains it. If you regress language beyond ‘words’, you don’t really have Quoting Thinker108 - I would argue that syntax (or qualitative relation) exists prior to the ‘words’, and constrains language (the universe) as it develops. This isn’t a singular mind (or Programmer), but is arguably the opposite of pure logic in order to form logic...
Yes. Words typically convey only conventional ideas that are already in the vocabulary, That's why creative writers like to use metaphorical language to suggest a shade of meaning that is not in the dictionary definition of the words.
For the same reason, philosophical discussions require a lot of defining of terms, to make sure we are talking about the same thing. But since philosophy is mostly concerned with generalities or abstractions that are difficult to pin down, a graphic picture is worth a thousand simplified symbols. It allows the viewer to see for herself the various patterns of relationships implicit in the verbal description. :smile:
You say that as-if the "perspective" of human observers is a bad thing. From whose perspective would you expect a more objective understanding? Would the opinion of canis familiaris provide a more accurate overview of human predictability. Humans have made a science -- Economics (the "dismal science') -- of trying to predict human behavior individually & collectively. Yet, even though the future path of social groups may track closer to the "normal" Bell Curve of statistics, prognosticators must always be alert for Black Swans, that knock the best laid predictions of mice & men off track. :joke:
The Black Swan, The Impact of the Highly Improbable :
2. Fat Tails -- In economics, a Bell Curve probability distribution that indicates a high level of potential Black Swan risk by the unusual graphical thickness of its extreme ends, which are normally skinny. It’s the unpredictability of such blind-side hits that makes it scary.
BothAnd Blog, post 69
Quoting Possibility
Yes, I appreciate your skepticism about the power of human nature to "change the direction of " evolution. Yet, that's exactly what the graphic is intended to illustrate. Of course, some historians are pessimistic about the deductive downward direction of human influence. But others, especially historians of the future, are more sanguine about the positive contribution of human intelligence. Many of us are depressed by apocalyptic & dystopian movies, and alarmed by the scary gossip & "fake news" in popular media, not to mention the "signs & omens" of self-professed prophets. But sober observers of humanity tend to discount such extremist alarmism, and focus on the mundane facts, both pro & con, that tend to track right down the moderate middle, with maybe a hint of positive direction (additional velocity?).
The opinion that humanity is "destroying nature" is also a human perspective. But, I think we need to give "us" the benefit of the doubt. After all, homo sapiens are late-bloomers on the evolutionary scene. And, we only have a few years of recorded civilized history, compared to billions of years of un-intelligent (random) "natural" (wild) evolution. In that relatively short span, humans have indeed gone counter to the "wisdom" of impersonal Nature, in order to adapt their habitat to their selfish "hierarchy of needs". that go beyond Physiology (food & procreation) and Safety (survival long enough to procreate), to include such special needs as Love & Esteem (sex + the need to be needed), and Self-Actualization (to go beyond their animal nature). Moreover, part of self-actualization is the accumulation of wisdom by learning from our mistakes. Another aspect of human actualization may be to avoid the extinction of the species, by taking partial control of the de-selection function of evolution.
The myth of Genesis indicated that the purpose of humans was to be caretakers of the Garden. But, Adam & Eve were not content just to trim the hedges & clean-up the poop. They wanted to be the landscapers & designers of their garden. As the human population grew, in response to the divine commandment, or innate urge, to be fruitful, they were forced to expand the human domain into formerly wild territory. So, the question is : did God/Mother-Nature intend for people to be merely bipedal animals with hands to clip the bushes and scoop the poop? Or was the extra intelligence supposed to be put to use as co-creators of their world? If A & E had bowed to pressure from above, not to live up to their Potential (to explore Possibilities), then maybe we would still be living in caves, with smokey fires, and wearing scratchy skins or fig leaves. :nerd:
Humanity Is About to Transition To “Evolution by Intelligent Direction” :
https://futurism.com/humanity-is-about-to-transition-to-evolution-by-intelligent-direction
Quoting Possibility
I get where you''re coming from. But my focus in this thread is on the linguistic metaphor of the OP. I see language as evolving upward from grunts & gestures to poems & programs, not to mention creative profanity. And I perceive (or conceive) a pattern of raw Information evolving into the power of human imagination & intention. So, if you know how to weed-out the mis-information & mis-interpretations & mis-applications that threaten to make us miss the opportunities of our Potential, feel free to go ahead and add critical thinking & error-correction to our cave-man nature. But that may be a topic for another thread. :cool:
OK. You can draw your own hypothetical curve. But mine covers billions of years, and the minor ups & downs are not apparent at this scale. Note that the chart says "not to scale". It would be the length of a football field if drawn to scale with human emergence (and incidentally Language) on the scene.
Besides, according to optimistic futurists and sci-fi writers, by the time the sun turns red and expands to the orbit of Earth, humans or cyborgs or androids will already be inhabiting distant worlds. If so, the upward beat of progress goes on & on. "To the future, and beyond", to quote Buzz Lightyear. :smile:
Exponential Growth of Information Technology :
https://www.gregschool.org/gregschoollessons/2017/3/14/exponential-growth-of-information-technology-1-hkykf
BTW -- you may have missed my meaning of "Enformation" (EnFormAction). It's equivalent to causal Energy. Which is expected to gradually dissipate into total Entropy in the era of "heat death". But I can't foresee that far ahead. The chart assumes we will reach the "Omega Point", whatever that might be, long before all suns go dark. :cool:
Well, the time between 300 years ago (YA) and now seems pretty steep. That implies the is more enformation nowadays than 300 YA. I see more chaos though nowadays.
:up: Imagery! Images! Key to understanding (you see what I mean?)
Quoting Gnomon
:up: We see eye to eye on the matter.
Not a ‘bad’ thing, but a limitation. A more objective understanding would readily take the opinion of canis familiaris into account as well as our own, and be prepared to reconcile any apparent contradictions. It’s not about identifying whose perspective, but about striving beyond ourselves.
Yet we prefer to ignore the obvious tails of the Bell curve in areas such as economics, language and logic - the quantum uncertainty plays on our insecurities, and reminds us that qualitative relation underlies everything, and nothing, least of all ourselves, is (or needs to be) as predictable, objective or logical as we claim it to be.
It is when we pay attention to the qualitative relations of statistical anomalies that we begin to understand the true direction of the cosmos.
Incidentally, where I live (in Western Australia), black swans are quite literally the norm...:wink:
Quoting Gnomon
Ok - I see now that by ‘direction’ you only meant a relative up-down or positive-negative direction. For me, the overall direction of the cosmos has always been towards awareness, connection and collaboration, regardless of consolidated results along the way. Evolution has followed this trajectory overall despite localised variability, and while we have taken a variety of backward steps ourselves into ignorance, isolation or exclusion, overall humanity has continued to develop along these lines. It’s not about human power, intelligence or influence at all. We are simply part of the overall process, and we just need to ‘get with the program’ instead of assuming we can figure it out ourselves.
Quoting Gnomon
This is where our science has steered us wrong, describing natural evolution as random, unintelligent and impersonal - in deliberate contrast to how we have described ourselves and all that we create. And then we’re surprised to find penguins who mate for life, spiders who sacrifice their lives for their children, whales with culture and fish who create elaborate works of art. Humanity is as much nature as anything else - we don’t need to control it, only understand it.
And extinction of our species is a fairytale we tell our children, to help us justify the extinction of others by our ignorance, isolation or exclusion.
Quoting Gnomon
Well, that’s not how I interpret the myth at all. The idea, as I see it, was that A&E were supposed to understand how the garden worked in harmony before calling the shots. A caretaker who has no clue about gardening or wildlife is going to pretty much kill everything before they even begin to get the hang of it.
Quoting Gnomon
Well, I see language, information and the universe all as evolving from an ignorant, isolated and exclusive base towards greater awareness, connection and collaboration.
Yes. Ambition is one human trait that distinguishes the species from "lower" animals. But that "striving" sometimes results in humanity running roughshod over the placid sheep, So, the key to reigning-in our aspirations is the philosophical motto of "Moderation in all things". Strive to better yourself, but not at the expense of others. :pray:
"Ah, but a man's reach should exceed his grasp, Or what's a heaven for?"
___Robert Browning
Quoting Possibility
Hmmm. Is that "true direction" sloping upward or downward? If by "qualitative relations" you mean Ethics or Morality, I am encouraged by Steven Pinker's analysis of history -- The Better Angels of Our Nature -- which concluded that, in certain ways, humanity has been improving its collective morality. :halo:
Moral vs Technological Progress :
Several recent science-oriented magazines have had cover articles on topics such as : The War on Science and Knowledge, Anti-Intellectualism in Today's America [SI Mar/Apr2018]. One culprit in this rejection of Enlightenment values is the Post-modern philosophy, which views history, not as the hopeful record of an upward trend in human development, but as the grim story of an eternal power struggle between Us-vs-Them, Haves-vs-Have-nots, Elites-vs-Commoners, and various other polarized interest groups. Ironically, this atheistic, anti-modern, anti-intellectual, anti-science, anti-progressive movement has some parallels with the goals of Fundamentalist Christians & Muslims. It shares with those theistic religions their dualistic worldview of an ongoing power struggle between Good vs Evil forces. So, it seems that moderate freethinkers may be caught in the crossfire between the Antis on left & right. . . . . Steven Pinker, probably motivated in part by this pessimistic trend in academic & religious circles, has contributed a plethora of reasonable & plausible evidence for a more optimistic outlook.
BothAnd Blog, post 24
Quoting Possibility
I agree. The Enformationism thesis provides an alternative to the dystopian vision of some interpreters of the scientific portrayal of the evolving world as "random, unintelligent, and impersonal". My own essay on the topic is Intelligent Evolution : A 21st Century Creation Myth. Note -- the essay should not be confused with religious "Intelligent Creation" theories. :cool:
Quoting Possibility
Some Christians also interpret the myth in an idyllic manner. The pedantic point, however, was to show how the world had declined from that enlightened beginning, when Lions were vegetarians, due to A&E's disobedience to divine will. Latter day myths of The Fall are not concerned with gods, but with humanity's disregard for the laws of Nature. In Myths to Live By, Joseph Campbell advised us not to take those legends literally, but as metaphors to guide our moral behavior. So, if you read the Garden myth as a model of hippie harmony, that's OK. Peace & love! :love:
Quoting Possibility
Hey! That sounds more optimistic than some of your earlier remarks. Well done! :up:
Quoting Possibility
Seems like you’ve missed my point here - a more objective understanding is not about consolidating a particular perspective, and is not to better ourselves, but to increase overall awareness, connection and collaboration regardless of personal ambition or loss of identity.
Quoting Possibility
In many ways I agree with your essay on principle (although I cringe at the metaphorical language and personified deity). Yes, evolution is both - even if language cannot rationally describe it as such. Any description of natural evolution becomes true only in an application of it that recognises our qualitative relationship with the description - an aspect that most scientific literature and graphic representations of data fail to acknowledge. The Tao Te Ching, for me, is an example of methodology that recognises the importance of our ongoing qualitative relationship with language, information, the universe, etc. over defining consolidated entities by attributing properties and values. Quantum Mechanics (surprisingly) is another.
Quoting Possibility
I’m not suggesting an idyllic interpretation, nor any ‘decline’ from the beginning (and I’m certainly not suggesting that lions were once vegetarians!). My interpretation focuses more on an initial base of ignorance - not as a ‘bad’ thing, but as a starting point. The first step is acknowledging the problem, after all. The Fall as I see it is not disobedience or acquiring knowledge, or even disregard for the laws of nature, but judging (claiming to know good and evil) without the understanding that comes from experience. I agree with Joseph Campbell, but stress that these myths are guides to our own action/inaction, not our moral judgement of others.
Quoting Gnomon
I’ve never really settled on a position in a pessimistic-optimistic binary - if you’re looking to stick me with a label, then I’m afraid you’ll be regularly confused.
For a long time we have thought that we need to quantify language, information, the universe, people - but to do this we must ignore, isolate and exclude to some extent, which is holding us back from a practical understanding. Quantifying becomes inaccurate from the instant it is measured - only when we embrace uncertainty and change everywhere will our interaction with the world begin to more closely align with its true direction.
And by ‘true direction’, I’m not talking about positive-negative or upward-downward. I don’t think it helps at all to describe it this way. Descartes and the Information Age has us caught in this ‘quantify or perish’ mindset where all values must reduce to a binary logic. But it’s missing something important...
Quoting Josh Alfred
Logic excludes whatever exists between 0 and 1, but in reality some qualitative relation always exists, and is essential to any practical application of logic. The truth of all language, all information, any explanation of the universe comes down to the unquantifiable understanding that everything, no matter how far apart it seems, is somehow qualitatively interrelated. Which suggests that ‘opposite’ is a false relation.
I apologize, if I missed your point. But in the quotation, "striving" was separated from "beyond ourselves". So, apparently you are talking about "Altruism" instead of "Ambition". That un-selfish attitude requires concern or love for others, which tends to be reserved for only those close to Self : "my family", our kind", "our species". Ironically, some humans seem to love their pets more than people.
Anyway, I agree with what you were saying. Since we are supposedly motivated by our "selfish genes", we have to make a conscious choice to extend our self-protective inclinations to those who don't share our genes. That's why almost all religions & philosophies preach Altruism. Perhaps you would amend the Golden Rule to "do unto others (even those with different genes) . . ." :cool:
Quoting Possibility
I assume you are referring to the Intelligent Evolution essay. But, I deliberately tried to avoid personalizing the First Cause as a typical super-human. Instead, I sometimes refer to that abstract philosophical principle as "G*D", to indicate that, although it created (enformed) the universe, it's not what most people imagine as a Feudal Lord in the heavenly castle.
My notion is closer to TAO, or LOGOS, as the ordering & enforming force in Nature. The essay has a Glossary that defines my unconventional understanding of what my information-based thesis calls "The Enformer". It's derived from the cutting-edge scientific postulation that "Generic Information" is the single substance (matter) & causal agency (energy) of the world. Since that Prime Mover is necessarily prior to the Big Bang, it is literally super-natural, and can only be imagined in terms of metaphors pointing to familiar things in the Real World. :starstruck:
G*D :
[i]A generic name for the origin and ground of
all being. ~ The First Cause of all physical
existence. The Prime Mover who started the
cause & effect process of evolution. The Crea-
tor of the universe. ~ G*D is super-natural, in
the sense that nature is a sub-category of G*D.
G*D is the whole of which the universe is a
part. . . . .[/i]
Quoting Possibility
That's OK. I sometimes label myself as a "Peptomist" : optimistic despite all the reasons to be pessimistic. Also, my personal philosophy is labeled as "BothAnd". :joke:
Quoting Possibility
Unfortunately, we can only communicate abstract Qualia in terms of concrete metaphors, such as directional arrows pointing up or down. When my evolution chart shows a hockey-stick up-turn, it's intended to illustrate both Quantitative increase and Qualitative progress. I don't know what the hypothetical Omega Point will be, but the assumption is that it will be better, in some sense, than the current or past state of the universe. That qualitative judgment may not be apparent to those of us at a single point in space-time. But I'm hoping the qualitatively-improved state would be knowable from a Holistic perspective, as-if from an objective Eye-in-the-Sky. :nerd:
Not separate in the original post, but ok.
Quoting Gnomon
There is a lot about Dawkins’ gene-centred theory that I disagree with. Not least of these disagreements is regarding the oversimplified ‘selfish/altruistic’ binary on which it is based. Actions that some might call altruistic, others would argue to be relatively selfish - it depends on the broadness (and dimensionality) of one’s perspective. Dawkins focused on DNA as a three-dimensional structure, reducing the potential of genetic information to this one binary model, and the complexity of four-dimensional life to a single judgement. Simple, straight-forward, no room for uncertainty. And everyone who wished people were easier to understand ate it up.
Reductionist binary theories like this appear credible because they rely on a ‘more vs less’ description of evidence. Humans are statistically more selfish than they are altruistic. Adults are less selfish than infants. We are statisticaly more altruistic towards family members and less altruistic towards strangers. The supporting evidence, described in this way, is literally black and white. Accurate data or graphic representation of the same evidence would be far less convincing. But the digital age is proof that one can build literally any description of reality out of a binary model (except an accurate replication of humanity).
We could allow ourselves to be reduced to the motivations of genetic self-interest, but I think we are so much more than that. Sure, it takes positive attention and increased effort to develop awareness, connection and collaboration beyond a localised appearance of stability, but this pattern is not just in human genes - it’s reflected in the entire evolution of the cosmos - including the attention and effort that enabled the Big Bang, abiogenesis, self-awareness, etc.
In every moment we are invited by the world to increase awareness, connection and collaboration, while our internally stable blueprint would naturally prefer that we ignore, isolate and exclude anything that risks altering its make-up. But our genes fight a losing battle: our genetic consolidation does not extend past our mortal life, as only half the information is passed on. It isn’t our genes that get immortality, then, but the unconsolidated information they contain.
Quoting Gnomon
The Golden Rule assumes equality - it shouldn’t need a genetic qualifier. My amendment would be ‘Do unto others as you would have anyone do unto you’. This way we don’t have license to mistreat or neglect those unable to reciprocate.
You're damned right here! Genes just take care of protein information. They can just as well be called altruistic. It's indeed this desire to reduce people. As if we are gene vessels complying to our genes. Maybe Dawkins is slave to his memes. But the memes he presents are completely lacking in originality and too all-comprising. Don't take him too seriously (I believe you don'tcalready).
I tend to perceive the universe as being musical. Which is an expression of both mathematics and language.
I suspect that Dawkins' metaphorical anthropomorphic gene quip may have been misinterpreted when taken out of context. He actually had in mind a more technical concept, that might go over the head of a layman. It's much easier to "oversimplify", and portray genes as little demons with their own selfish agenda, mind-controlling their human vessels with gene-propagating urges.
However, Dawkins' "gene-demon theory" may have been intended to imply the materialistic view : that humans do not have Free Will, because their behavior is directed by both internal (genetic) and external (energetic) drives. I won't go into the details here, but my view is that humans are able to avoid robotic or zombie behavior, because, although their freedom of choice is limited, at least they have the power of Free Won't. :smile:
The selfish-gene theory of natural selection can be restated as follows: Genes do not present themselves naked to the scrutiny of natural selection, instead they present their phenotypic effects. . . .
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gene-centered_view_of_evolution
Quoting Possibility
Yes. Your reference to "Information" is right down my Enformationism alley. My philosophical worldview is based on the notion that Causal Information is more fundamental than Matter & Energy. Hence, Information is the substance of Matter, Energy and Mind. :nerd:
Quoting Possibility
Unfortunately, in practice, many people who agree with that moral mandate, assume it refers to "others like me". That's why sages & preachers & teachers have had to repeat that admonition for every generation, to adapt it to evolving scientific understanding, and to expanding cultural inclusiveness. High-minded abstract Ethics requires a conscious decision to overrule your visceral Genetic inclination (Free Won't). :cool:
Oh, come on! Little demons controlling our bodily vessels? Maybe all our genes are mini mother Teresa's!, altruistically providing our poor suffering body with proteins so badly needed.
Just looked up what he's up to and he's now part of the Alt-Right. I feel sorry for Christopher, he has a sad backstory, but I guess this is another piece of evidence that high IQ by itself doesn't mean anything.
I assume you replied to me? Yeah, poor Christopher. That Dawkins book is a laugh! He litterally claims he was enlightened by the truth that people and animals are slaves of genes and memes. Now what a meme!
A not unpopular view - "The mind of God is music resonating through 11 dimensional hyperspace.'
Michio Kaku
:up:
Yeah, his CTMU is a word salad. And him saying the Universe is a language is not even wrong. If by language one has in mind the stuff people do.
He has impressive IQ scores, but he cannot explain his ideas in a simple manner, no matter how hard he tries.
That's Kaku's mind resonating. :smile:
:up: Sound has music, light has...art? That doesn't sound right, does it? What's the visual counterpart to music?
That's a good question. I would think some sort of play or dancing? Music and dancing are (essentially) the same thing.
Dancing does have visual elements (shape/geometry of the body - poses/moves/facial expressions), but what's the luminal counterpart to notes?
Hmm. I don't know to be honest. That is a subject that deserves it's own contemplation; what are the luminal counterparts to notes? You worded that nicely.
I wonder if anyone well-studied in metaphysics and/or esotericism can answer your question?
A mode of communication/of thought.
Is the universe a language?
[quote=Sir James Jeans]The universe looks more and more like a great thought rather than a great machine.[/quote]
The universe is information (knowledge) and a carrier of information (light/on/1 and dark/off/0). It is, in that sense, a language ready for use.
Although Dawkins is clearly opposed to formal religions, which he believes makes meme-slaves of believers, he retains a somewhat religious perspective, similar to that of Carl Sagan, in the form of humble awe at the magnificence of the real world. :smile:
“After sleeping through a hundred million centuries we have finally opened our eyes on a sumptuous planet, sparkling with colour, bountiful with life. Within decades we must close our eyes again. Isn't it a noble, an enlightened way of spending our brief time in the sun, to work at understanding the universe and how we have come to wake up in it? This is how I answer when I am asked -- as I am surprisingly often -- why I bother to get up in the mornings. To put it the other way round, isn't it sad to go to your grave without ever wondering why you were born? Who, with such a thought, would not spring from bed, eager to resume discovering the world and rejoicing to be a part of it?”
___Dawkins, Unweaving the Rainbow