What difference does it make if you call quantom particles, or whatever, matter or information?
How much time do you have? The full answer is in the Enformationism Thesis, if you have nothing better to do on a Sunday afternoon.
But for a short answer, I'd say that quantum particles --- the "atoms" of the 20th century --- are bothphysical substance andmetaphysical Information; both Matter and Mind, bothScienceandPhilosophy. bothMechanicsandMeaning. It's the "difference that makes a difference" to an inquiring mind. "Vive la difference". :nerd:
Enformationism : Mass-Energy-Information equivalence is the subject of this thesis.
http://enformationism.info/enformationism.info/
For the spiritualist/materialist rift that you mention, are you suggesting that because matter is really information, that spirits can exist, and that materialists can accept the existence of spirits because they no longer distinquish between matter and information?
No. We can distinguish between invisible Matter (quarks) & invisible MInd Stuff (ideas), because they come in meaningfully different Forms. And "spirits" were simply an ancient term for causal forces and energy. What used to be called Spirits, Souls, Chi, or Prana, are simply different forms of Information. The same information that constitutes Matter and Mind, computer programs and human feelings. Isn't that weird? :joke:
What difference does it make if you call quantom particles, or whatever, matter or information?
— praxis
I'd say that quantum particles --- the "atoms" of the 20th century --- are both physical substance and metaphysical Information; both Matter and Mind, both Science and Philosophy. both Mechanics and Meaning. It's the "difference that makes a difference" to an inquiring mind. "Vive la difference".
Again, if something is both A and B, what difference does it make if you call it A or B?
Again, if something is both A and B, what difference does it make if you call it A or B?
Apparently, you missed the point of Enformationism. For the purposes of my thesis, Information is equivalent to Spinoza's "Single Substance". Generic (creative) EnFormAction is the whole, of which every thing in the world is a part. Spinoza called his universal substance "God", but he was not referring to the Yahweh or Jehovah of the Bible. Instead, his Aristotelian "substance" was more like what we now call "Nature", or metaphorically "Mother Nature". So, it definitely makes a meaningful difference if you are referring to "A" or "B" or to "the alphabet". A & B are both individual letters (with functions of their own), and components of the whole alphabet. Get it?
Please keep sniping at my thesis. I enjoy defending it against outdated conventional views. :yum:
Single Substance : "According to monistic views, there is only one substance. Stoicism and Spinoza, for example, hold monistic views, that pneuma or God, respectively, is the one substance in the world."
"Thus, in his [Aristotle] hylomorphic account of change, matter serves as a relative substratum of transformation, i.e., of changing (substantial) form." [En-Form-Action]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Substance_theory
That’s what my book is meant to be: the thing I came to philosophy looking for, but never found. And it’s targeted at people like me from 20 years ago, who are looking for the same thing I was, and who have just learned that something called “philosophy” is where something like that may be found, but don’t yet know the first thing about it.
As usual, this thread has strayed from the original topic. And I'm partly to blame, for defending some of my statements in terms of my own personal worlview.
Anyway, I just found another online article that is relevant to your own plight . . . at least, in the title. Umberto Eco’s Antilibrary: Why Unread Books Are More Valuable to Our Lives than Read Ones.
https://getpocket.com/explore/item/umberto-eco-s-antilibrary-why-unread-books-are-more-valuable-to-our-lives-than-read-ones?utm_source=pocket-newtab
My own website is technically not a book, but it is generally "unread". That's due in part to my own failings, but also to the incomprehension of those who can't grok an unconventional idea. Most people are "looking for" new ideas that fit neatly into their pre-existing worldview, rather than ideas that challenge old views. Are your ideas so far out of the mainstream that they are incomprehensible to those who "don't yet know the first thing about" philosophy? Or are they so radical that they offend those who think they know a lot about philosophy? Or are they so abstruse that they don't appeal to those who don't care anything about philosophy? In bookstores, the philosophy shelf is a fraction of the fiction shelves.
Ironically, you were expecting to find a select few readers on this forum that do understand and appreciate philosophical thinking. But many, like me, are so involved in their own little projects, that they don't have time for yours. So tell me : how does your book relate to my personal philosophical interests? In general terms, what is "the thing" you were looking for but never found? :nerd:
Grok : understand (something) intuitively or by empathy.
Are your ideas so far out of the mainstream that they are incomprehensible to those who "don't yet know the first thing about" philosophy? Or are they so radical that they offend those who think they know a lot about philosophy? Or are they so abstruse that they don't appeal to those who don't care anything about philosophy?
I think my views are a refined version of pre-philosophical common sense views, shored up to withstand the attacks on that common sense that bad philosophy has levied over the ages. I expect that most people have been exposed to some form of such bad philosophy, and so hold what they think are sophisticated views superior to that pre-philosophical common sense, which I aim to disabuse them of. Most of the pieces of my philosophy should be at least passingly familiar to anyone who has actually studied the subject, though.
I heard an adage once that went something like “Before walking the path to enlightenment, tables are tables and tea is tea. While walking the path to enlightenment, tables are no longer tables and tea is no longer tea. Upon reaching enlightenment, tables are again tables, and tea is again tea.”
So tell me : how does your book relate to my personal philosophical interests? In general terms, what is "the thing" you were looking for but never found?
Your interests seem very similar to mine, in that you are trying to forge a balanced middle path between two extremes. You call them spiritualism and materialism, I call them fideism and nihilism. I don’t think those are exactly the same things as each other, but they seem to share a common theme. Your information ontology is also very similar to mine.
The thing I never found was one comprehensive philosophy that took the good arguments from every side on every philosophical topic, eschewing the bad arguments, and put them all together in a systematic way, so it’s not just a hodgepodge of “things I like”, but a consistent complete picture where the positions on every topic are each held on the grounds of the same common principles as the positions on other topics.
Again, if something is both A and B, what difference does it make if you call it A or B?
— praxis
A & B are both individual letters (with functions of their own), and components of the whole alphabet.
You claim that everything is information (A). If everything is information then whatever it is that we "conventionally" call matter (B) is A (information). That being the case, it wouldn't seem to matter if we call matter Information or matter since they are the same thing.
So to me your response is that A (information) and B (matter) are components of X (unknown but more primary than information).
So I'm not sure if I should ask the same question a third time or ask what X is.
So to me your response is that A (information) and B (matter) are components of X (unknown but more primary than information).
— praxis
It seems to me that he is saying that both “matter” and “spirit” are reducible to “information”. Your B is a subset of A, not coextensive with it. C (spirit) is also a subset of A. If I understand him correctly.
He makes a distinction between "physical substance and metaphysical Information." Presumably, "spirits" are metaphysical, so your C is A, and not a subset of A.
Again, if something is both A and B, what difference does it make if you call it A or B?
"You keep asking the same question and expecting a different result". — praxis
OK, here's the same answer in a different Form : A coin has two sides : Heads or Tails. What difference does it make if you call the Tail side the Head? it's still the same coin, but if you flip it and claim it came down Heads, when it's actually Tails, you'll be accused of cheating. Although both sides belong to the same coin, there is a meaningful difference between the sides. The difference is in the distinction between Parts and Wholes. The coin is both A> Heads and B> Tails. I assume "Holism" is not in your vocabulary. :yum:
He makes a distinction between "physical substance and metaphysical Information."
Yes. Information is bothmetaphysical mind-stuff, andphysical material stuff. Information is the "Single Substance" of Spinoza's worldview. That's the novel notion that I call Enformationism. If you don't believe me, I have lots of scientific documentation in my boring "weird" thesis. :nerd:
PS__The Brain is Physical information, but the Mind is Metaphysical information. Information is that which gives meaning or useful Form to objects and subjects.
Ideas, Ideals, Principles : "Metaphysics is about things that do not change"
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/metaphysics/
Metaphysical : relating to the part of philosophy that is about understanding existence and knowledge
Metaphysical : Derived from the Greek meta ta physika ("after the things of nature"); referring to an idea, doctrine, or posited reality outside of human sense perception. In modern philosophical terminology, metaphysics refers to the studies of what cannot be reached through objective studies of material reality.
https://www.pbs.org/faithandreason/gengloss/metaph-body.html
Information : The conceptual problem here is that the idea of “information” makes sense only in the context of an observer for whom something out there, in the indiscriminate jumble of the world, counts as information. Before life exists, there cannot be any such thing as information.
https://www.theguardian.com/books/2019/jan/18/demon-in-machine-paul-davies-review
PPS__A physical quantum particle, in a state of superposition, has no physical properties, such as velocity and location. It can be described only as a mathematical formula. The superposed state is virtual, not real. A "virtual" particle is nothing but mathematical Information. It exists only in essence, in potential, not in physical presence.
Virtual : The adjective "virtual" is used to describe something that exists in essence but not in actuality.
It appears to me you're claiming that information is a component of information. Is this the weird (inexplicable) part you keep mentioning?
No. All things and ideas about things are components of (or consist of) Information : the Single Substance of the physical (material) and metaphysical (mental) world. :nerd:
Because "X" is the same in both equations. Your logic is based on scientific Reductionism, while mine is based on philosophical Holism.
Science studies what Aristotle called "Physics" (Natural Philosophy). Physics is anything we can detect with our bodily senses, which are tuned to quantum inputs of Energy (bits & bytes). Metaphysics is anything we know via our mental senses, which are tuned to holistic inputs of subjective Meaning (ideas & feelings). Physics is objective, only because it's easier to compare our material sensations, than to share our subjective mental sensations. What you "feel" is a ghost, I may "sense" as merely a light reflection. The difference is what it means to you.
But ultimately, the source of all that information comes from beyond the physical space-time world that began with a bang. In my thesis, the timeless spaceless Enformer is presumed to be un-real, consisting only of Potential, the power to create actual things. This is not based on empirical evidence, but from reasoning backwards into the "pre-time" before space-time. A materialist might call this undetectable Prime Cause "The Multiverse", but I call it "G*D". Conceptually, G*D is closer to Hindu Brahman, than to Hebrew Yahweh.
I propose holistic G*D, rather than particularistic Multiverse, to serve as an unprovable Axiom upon which my Pragmatic here & now worldview is based. But, hey, it's just a theory! You don't have to believe it, unless it makes sense to you. :nerd:
Holism : the theory that parts of a whole are in intimate interconnection, such that they cannot exist independently of the whole, or cannot be understood without reference to the whole, which is thus regarded as greater than the sum of its parts. Holism is often applied to mental states, language, and ecology.
Brahman : Brahman as a metaphysical concept is the single binding unity behind diversity in all that exists in the universe
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brahman
Axiom : a statement or proposition on which an abstractly defined structure is based.
Information :
[i]# Claude Shannon quantified Information not as useful ideas, but as a mathematical ratio between meaningful order (1) and meaningless disorder (0); between knowledge (1) and ignorance (0). So, that meaningful mind-stuff exists in the limbo-land of statistics, producing effects on reality while having no sensory physical properties. We know it exists ideally, only by detecting its effects in the real world.
# For humans, Information has the semantic quality of "aboutness", that we interpret as meaning. In computer science though, Information is treated as meaningless, which makes its mathematical value more certain. It becomes meaningful only when a sentient Self interprets it as such.
# When spelled with an “I”, Information is a noun, referring to data & things. When spelled with an “E”, Enformation is a verb, referring to energy and processes.[/i]
http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page11.html
Claude Shannon quantified Information not as useful ideas, but as a mathematical ratio between meaningful order (1) and meaningless disorder (0); between knowledge (1) and ignorance (0). So, that meaningful mind-stuff exists in the limbo-land of statistics, producing effects on reality while having no sensory physical properties. We know it exists ideally, only by detecting its effects in the real world.
I would say that isn’t even close to what Shannon’s work was about. Looks like you’ve had an idea and attached a famous name to it for inexplicable reasons.
If you can show otherwise then the egg is on my face - I’m fine with that.
Just looks like a very vague connection to say the least.
I would say that isn’t even close to what Shannon’s work was about. Looks like you’ve had an idea and attached a famous name to it for inexplicable reasons.
The quoted definition of "Information" is based on my personal worldview of Enformationism, not on any conventional scientific paradigm. But here's another opinion from a different perspective.
Shannon Information : "Roughly speaking, Shannon entropy is concerned with the statistical properties of a given system and the correlations between the states of two systems, independently of the meaning and any semantic content of those states."
http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/10911/1/What_is_Shannon_Information.pdf
Reply to Gnomon Remove his name then because his paper has nothing to do with some ‘knowledge’ and ‘ignorance’ - just makes it look like pseudoscience. The way you’ve displayed it could easily be construed that you’re using ‘information’ in the manner Shannon was - which you’re clearly not (maybe use the name/s of the guys from Buenos Aires instead?)
If the latter doesn't work, why doesn't it work?
— praxis
Because "X" is the same in both equations.
That's not an explanation. If A can be X, then why can't B be X?
Your logic is based on scientific Reductionism, while mine is based on philosophical Holism.
Rather, you seem to favor idealism for some inexplicable (what you would call weird) reason. I guess because you think that it's somehow more holistic.
Remove his name then because his paper has nothing to do with some ‘knowledge’ and ‘ignorance’ - just makes it look like pseudoscience.
Obviously, you have missed the point of my thesis, which is to go beyond Shannon's limited theory of Information toward a general theory (e.g. Newton's theory of gravitation was a special case of Einstein's general theory of relativity.). It may sound New Agey to you, but it's not. Merely unfamiliar, and strange --- like Quantum Theory. Are Virtual Particles pseudoscience, just because you can't measure them?
Shannon's theory is indeed scientific and physical, while mine is philosophical and metaphysical. And it's not just me : Paul Davies is a prominent physicist and cosmologist, whose use of Information as the fundamental "stuff" of the universe is amenable to mine. Also, Howard Bloom, a certified genius and Omnologist (look it up) is also coming to the same conclusion : that everything, including Mind & Matter is essentially Information. If you don't like my version of Enformationism, check out theirs. If you don't like any such far-out notions, then just fuget-about-it. :joke:
The God Problem : Bloom’s understanding of a creative universe is based on Information Theory, but not Shannon’s meaningless 1s & 0s. According to the entropy definition of Information, “everything must tend toward chaos.” But, since the cosmos is heading in the opposite direction, the author looked for a different kind of constructive creative Information. He found it in “the act of informing”, or as I call it [i]EnFormAction. Although Information is related to positive working Energy, there is a distinction : pure energy may be merely transmitted — throughput — while Meaning must be interpreted, relative to some perspective. Like energy, raw information is binary, either positive or negative, attractive or repulsive. Everything else is a variation on that (+ or -) duality, except for meaningful information, which ranges between the polar oppositions. It’s “relational”, and has the quality of “aboutness”. Since Meaning requires a function or application or usefulness, it also requires consciousness of relationships. Bloom says “then the amount of meaning in this cosmos is constantly increasing. Meaning defies the law of entropy.” Likewise, the “quantity” of consciousness is growing, as inter-relationships become more complex and organized.[/i]
http://bothandblog6.enformationism.info/page43.html
Rather, you seem to favor idealism for some inexplicable (what you would call weird) reason. I guess because you think that it's somehow more holistic.
I favor Idealism for the same reason Plato did : it makes sense of human Consciousness. I favor Realism, for the same reason Aristotle did : It makes pragmatic Science possible. I favor Holism for the same reason Jan Smuts did : it gives us an elevated perspective on the world. If you prefer Parts to Wholes, that's OK. Just keep looking at the shiny stars, and ignore the mind-boggling Cosmos. :joke:
Holism : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holism
Jan Smuts : South African statesman, military leader, and philosopher.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jan_Smuts
Reply to Gnomon I’m not really that interested in your ‘thesis’. I was just pointing out that it looked very much like you equated whatever your or someone else’s idea of ‘information’ was to what Shannon was doing. In the text you posted there was no well-defined line between Shannon’s ‘information’ and yours.
Reply to Gnomon I like your thesis, but personally I don't take all that much interest in the processes of physical material, because to come to a comprehensive, or theory of everything, understanding, certainly one amenable to science, is an onerous task. When physical material is little more than a tool, a substrate.
What is of more interest is the ideal(mind), and more fundamental (let's say spiritual for example) levels of reality. But trying to rendering those in a way acceptable in academia is even more of a quagmire.
Along with a susceptibility to the accusation of pseudoscience, woo, or plain idealism.
I find there is more likely to be a meshing with academia via personal spiritual development.
I favor Idealism... I favor Realism... I favor Holism... Just keep looking at the shiny stars — Gnomon
Indeed.
I just read an article in Skeptical Inquirer magazine*, that reminded me of your incredulous attitude toward my "weird" ideas. The title is The Nobel Disease : Why Intelligent Scientists Go Weird. The article describes "the tendency of many Nobel winners to embrace scientifically questionable ideas". It goes on to note, "because merely entertaining the possibility of an unsupported claim, such as the existence of extrasensory perception, does not indicate a critical thinking lapse, we focus on Nobelists who clung to one or more weird idea with considerable conviction". One of those weird ideas may well be the next Relativity or Quantum theory.
Apparently, one talent that allows creative thinking is the ability to "entertain possibilities" that others say is impossible. I'm not a candidate for the Nobel, but some of the scientists who embrace the new notion of Information, such as Cosmologist Paul Davies, may well be. Anyway, if my ideas about Idealism are weird, I'm in good company. In my thesis, I'm "merely entertaining" the possibility that the post-Shannon Information theories may explain the "hard Problem" of Consciousness, among other weird aspects of the real world. :nerd:
* Yes, I have subscribed to Skeptical Inquirer and SKEPTIC magazines for over 40 years. And I have read Michael Shermer's book, Why Smart People Believe Weird Things. So, I know a little about how to distinguish between weird ideas and innovative ideas.
Paul Davies : http://bothandblog6.enformationism.info/page6.html
Reply to Gnomon From what I've skimmed of your website, a lot of the ideas you put forward are not unheard-of among philosophers and physicists, including especially the idea that information is the fundamental aspect of reality. It's definitely not in the "widely accepted and only weird to uneducated people" camp yet like QM and GR, but certainly in the "yeah maybe, that's an interesting approach" camp for people who know what they're talking about.
The only thing that seems kind of sketchy to me about your approach is the neologisms and kind of... style, and terminology... that makes it seem like this is some "crazy" new thing you came up with all by yourself -- and maybe you did a lot of it, which is fine and plausible, but it could put off a lot of people who might just dismiss this as some loony ramblings. It kind of sucks to say but I imagine if you tried to use fewer neologisms and more standard terminology, reference existing work in the same vein wherever possible, explain the things that have already been explored, and then note your own variations or additions on top of that, I think it would "sell" (figuratively speaking) a lot better.
But then, like I said, I've barely just skimmed your work, so maybe you do this more than I remember already. Those are just the thoughts I remember having: "the ideas are in the right vein, I've heard of and liked a lot of stuff like this before, but it's presented kinda sketchy".
I have read Michael Shermer's book, Why Smart People Believe Weird Things. So, I know a little about how to distinguish between weird ideas and innovative ideas.
And you’ve aptly put yourself in the weird rather than innovative category. Honestly though, the only thing that’s weird is the effort you put into selling “your” ideas. You’re like a used car salesmen that’s trying to sell a car that’s been cobbled together from used parts.
Frankenstein was the monster, and in his irresponsibility essentially destroyed himself, if you’re familiar with that story. Don’t be a monster, Gnomon, be a human being.
The only thing that seems kind of sketchy to me about your approach is the neologisms and kind of... style, and terminology... that makes it seem like this is some "crazy" new thing you came up with all by yourself -- and maybe you did a lot of it, which is fine and plausible, but it could put off a lot of people who might just dismiss this as some loony ramblings. It kind of sucks to say but I imagine if you tried to use fewer neologisms and more standard terminology, reference existing work in the same vein wherever possible, explain the things that have already been explored, and then note your own variations or additions on top of that, I think it would "sell" (figuratively speaking) a lot better.
If you would do more than skim the thesis, you'd discover that I do "reference existing work" in sidebars, end notes, and bibliographies. The only "new thing" I take credit for is the concept of Enformationism as an update for the outdated paradigms of "Spiritualism" and "Materialism".
The neologisms are necessary because the thesis overturns popular paradigms of Religion and Science. So it uses a lot of old concepts, "standard terminology", that take on new meanings in the Information Age. For example, "information" used to refer to mind-stuff. The kind of immaterial stuff that spies would risk their lives to bring back to Intelligence Agencies. But today, most people use the term in reference to the digital "1s & 0s" that fast-but-dumb computers process. The new trend in Information Theory is to return to the old analog information processing of human minds, and to redefine obsolete terms, such as "Soul" and "Metaphysics".
The links in my posts, which few bother to look at, are intended to show that my "crazy, looney" ideas are shared by many other scientists and philosophers. Unfortunately for me, "looney" New Agers were the first to adopt the new implications of Information and Quantum Theories, and to find their roots in ancient religions, such as Buddhism and Hinduism. The notion that Information, rather than Matter, is the fundamental substance of the world is an old idea (Plato's Forms), but it is being adopted by a growing number of modern scientists and philosophers (who are credited in numerous links and notes).
I am not bothered by the incredulity of some forum posters. Even paradigm-busting Einstein "refused to believe in the inherent unpredictability of the world. Is the subatomic world insane, or just subtle?" [ https://www.quantamagazine.org/einsteins-parable-of-quantum-insanity-20150910/ ] I take their criticisms in stride, and use them to make my thesis stronger. But, since I am neither a scientist nor a philosopher, it will always be my personal worldview. For the broader world, it will take on a variety of forms that are beyond my power to control. :cool:
Neologisms : But the primary reason for using a special label for a technical definition is so the writer can control its meaning precisely.
http://bothandblog4.enformationism.info/page6.html
http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page19.html
Enformationism Welcome Page : [i]This informal thesis does not present any new scientific evidence, or novel philosophical analysis. It merely suggests a new perspective on an old enigma : what is reality? . . . .
I am neither a scientist, nor a philosopher, so the arguments herein carry no more authority or expertise than those of anyone else with an interest in such impractical musings. This is intended to be an open-ended thread, because it’s a relatively new and unproven concept, and because the ideas presented here are merely a superficial snapshot of what promises to be a whole new way of understanding the world : philosophically, scientifically, and religiously.[/i]
?Gnomon
I’m not really that interested in your ‘thesis’. I was just pointing out that it looked very much like you equated whatever your or someone else’s idea of ‘information’ was to what Shannon was doing. In the text you posted there was no well-defined line between Shannon’s ‘information’ and yours.
Yes. My Enformationism theory may be too technical & cutting-edge for the average reader --- limited by holding an outdated scientific paradigm (e.g Classical vs Quantum Physics). The thesis repeatedly states that it is not to be "equated" with Shannon theory, but is a different kind of theory, with a different application : fuzzy-logic people instead of digital-logic machines.
I appreciate the hint that my usage of the term "Information" could be misconstrued as a perversion of Claude Shannon's theory. But I view Enformationism as an expansion of that theory. Whereas, for telephone transmissions, Shannon converted analog mental information (words) into digital robot/computer information (bits & bytes), my thesis observes that some far-sighted scientists are beginning to look more closely at the original form of Intelligence : the Natural kind. Any successful Artificial Intelligence --- quantum computers perhaps --- must adopt analog methods. Maybe Shannon is the pervert.
Whereas Shannon converted analog human ideas into two-value Boolean logic, in order to reduce it to a simple-invariable-certain form that dumb machines could process, the new era of Information theory uses multi-value Fuzzy Logic, which is more like human reasoning, and deals with degrees of uncertainty. Digital information uses either/or logic, where values are limited to 1s or 0s, nothing in between. Analog information uses all values (infinite) between 1 & 0. This is replicated in Quantum Computers, where the state of Superposition covers all possible values for a Virtual particle. In other words, there is "no well-defined line" between 1 & 0, it's a continuum. :nerd:
Shannon vs Boltzman Information : Therefore, in this article we use the concept of entropy only for macroscopic equilibrium systems, while the SMI may be used for any system.
https://www.mdpi.com/1099-4300/19/2/48/htm SMI : Shannon Measure of Information (objective) Macroscopic Equilibrium Systems : includes subjective human reasoning
Analog Thinking : So the next time you think about any issue or topic, pause to consider what thinking paradigm you are adopting. Can you deliberately let go thinking in categories and frameworks and focus on understanding the situation as it is? And can you in particular consider carefully the merits of opinions you don’t agree with and the opinions that come from people you dislike?
https://medium.com/@hsabnis/digital-vs-analog-thinking-6a45bd1993ed
Fuzzy Logic : a form of many-valued logic in which the truth values of variables may be any real number between 0 and 1 both inclusive.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuzzy_logic
?Gnomon
I like your thesis, but personally I don't take all that much interest in the processes of physical material, because to come to a comprehensive, or theory of everything, understanding, certainly one amenable to science, is an onerous task. When physical material is little more than a tool, a substrate.
What is of more interest is the ideal(mind), and more fundamental (let's say spiritual for example) levels of reality. But trying to rendering those in a way acceptable in academia is even more of a quagmire.
Along with a susceptibility to the accusation of pseudoscience, woo, or plain idealism.
I find there is more likely to be a meshing with academia via personal spiritual development.
Having rejected the religion of my youth, I came to the Enformationism concept from the direction of Science, instead of Spirituality. However, as I learned more about the science of Information, I came to appreciate the Spiritual worldview more than before. So, I have adopted and continue to develop the harmonious personal philosophy of BothAnd.
Enformationism is indeed a Theory of Everything. And it's an "onerous task", but I'm now retired, and have made it my hobby. Dealing with Philistines is just part of the game. :razz:
Those who cringe at any hint of Metaphysics do indeed play the "woo" card, due to Materialist prejudice, and without any understanding of the worldview behind the words. BothAnd includes bothIdealismandRealism, which does not compute for those with two-value black/white either/or worldviews. My "spiritual development" has nothing to do with Navel Gazing or Gurus, but more with plain-old Philosophy : "love for wisdom". :chin: :pray:
BothAnd Philosophy : My coinage for the holistic principle of Complementarity, as illustrated in the Yin/Yang symbol. Opposing or contrasting concepts are always part of a greater whole. Conflicts between parts can be reconciled or harmonized by putting them into the context of a whole system.
http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page2.html
http://bothandblog5.enformationism.info/page6.html
Reply to Gnomon I understand your preference for neologisms in order to ‘control its meaning precisely’. The amount of posts arguing over definitions and meaning of terminology on this forum seem to outweigh all other posts.
Like Whitehead’s writing, however, it is the neologisms that hobble one’s ability to relate a new worldview to their existing one. It makes the process slow and frustrating. Even with the glossary, there are so many neologisms and metaphors that you start to wonder if you’re understanding a philosophy or learning a new language.
I get that it’s a paradigm shift. You may have developed an understanding of existence beyond the limits of language, but that’s the easy part. Reducing that information down to thoughts, words and behaviour - the way we interact with the world on a daily basis - is where the real philosophy begins. And you’re trying to shortcut the process.
When I suspend my resistance to what seems like an arrogant attempt on your part to possess and control meaning, then I can see how your philosophy, mine and @Pfhorrest’s are referring to a similar worldview. Unfortunately, I cannot subscribe to your treatment of the relationship between language/knowledge and meaning - it’s as if these same ideas haven’t been understood and articulated from so many different perspectives for many thousands of years, long before you made up new words to convey your meaning.
‘Information’ is a concept that has relative meaning at different dimensional structures of relation: binary/quantum, atomic, chemical/spatial, actual/physical, value/potential and meaning/possible. Attempting to convey a distinction between potential and physical information by suggesting that it’s something other than information only complicates our attempts to understand ‘information’ in relation to shared conceptual structures. You end up encouraging a disconnect between what we already share and the new information you’re presenting, rather than demonstrating a structure by which we can understand the relation.
Metaphor, unfortunately, has no substance as a structural relation - all it does is suggest that two concepts relate, but gives no indication as to how. We’re supposed to simply trust your say so. It’s a little too close to apologetics for my liking, especially at a metaphysical level. The idea is that if I don’t intuitively get the nature of the relation, then I’m just not as intelligent or as enlightened as you are - a philistine, as it were. This is where I think your theory needs work, personally - but you seem rather attached to the ambiguity of your metaphorical ‘structures’. Perhaps it makes you feel superior, idk.
Like Whitehead’s writing, however, it is the neologisms that hobble one’s ability to relate a new worldview to their existing one.
Why do you think that most ground-breaking philosophers are notable for being hard to understand? "Philosophy is supposed to be difficult." https://www.theguardian.com/books/booksblog/2011/feb/25/philosophy-technical-everyday-english
I'm frustrated. but not deterred, by the inability of philosophical forum posters to learn a few new words that define a novel worldview, which is merely an update and reconciliation of old incompatible views. I could understand, if the man on the street wanted me to "talk down to them" with common words and conventional meanings. Voltaire said, “If you wish to converse with me, define your terms.” That's what I'm doing : trying to converse with intelligent people in intelligent terms.
Probably a key notion of Enformationism, that people have difficulty with, is my usage of the old word "metaphysics", with a new post-quantum interpretation of Aristotle's subject matter in volume II of his Physics. In the common language, "metaphysics" refers to such immaterial things as ghosts, demons, ESP, magic, and so forth. But that's not what Aristotle was talking about. Instead, "Examples of metaphysical concepts are Being, Existence, Purpose, Universals, Property, Relation, Causality, Space, Time, Event, and many others. They are fundamental, because all other concepts and beliefs rest on them." http://getwiki.net/-Metaphysics
Each of those terms has both common and technical meanings, not just in my thesis, but in 21st century Science and Philosophy. Since Einstein, the ancient concepts of "space" & "time" have been turned inside-out (e.g. empty space is something that can be warped). So, by providing a Glossary and explanatory articles, I just want to make sure we are singing out of the same songbook.
Reducing that information down to thoughts, words and behaviour - the way we interact with the world on a daily basis - is where the real philosophy begins. And you’re trying to shortcut the process.
Apparently, you haven't looked at the BothAnd blog. That's where I develop basic ideas of Enformationism with reference to "the way we interact with the world on a daily basis". Blog posts now number 107 articles. Does that sound like a shortcut?
an arrogant attempt on your part to possess and control meaning
Was Immanuel Kant "arrogant" to "control the meaning" of his philosophy by defining in detail such terms as "Categorical Imperative" and "Noumenon"? https://kantphilosophy.wordpress.com/technical-terms-of-kantian-philosophy/
You end up encouraging a disconnect between what we already share and the new information you’re presenting, rather than demonstrating a structure by which we can understand the relation.
What you don't seem to grasp is that, "encouraging a disconnect between" conventional concepts, is the opposite of what I'm trying to do. I have constructed a "structure" (in which Information is the modular building block) that relates such old worldviews as Spiritualism and Materialism to a larger context. But, in order to reconcile Spiritualist views with Materialist views, holders of those views will have to give-up their confidence that each is the Whole Truth. Instead, they are both valid, but partial worldviews. They tend to dismiss and denigrate holders of the opposite view. But I'm trying to show that they are actually complementary views.
but you seem rather attached to the ambiguity of your metaphorical ‘structures’. Perhaps it makes you feel superior,
Kant, Hegel, & Whitehead used lots of neologisms, but didn't provide a separate glossary to remove any ambiguities. Do you think that made them feel superior? Were they simply trying to show how smart they were? I find some of the terms of your worldview (as expressed in forum posts) incomprehensible. Is that a sign that you're arrogant, and concerned only with image? Or is it because your ideas are unconventional, and require some hard thinking to make sense of a new paradigm? :cool:
BothAnd Blog : The BothAnd Blog and the Enformationism website are written for laymen who are well-read in Science, Philosophy, and Religion topics. But since they are based on an unconventional worldview, many traditional terms are used in unusual contexts, and some new terminology has been coined in order to convey their inter-connected meanings as clearly as possible. This glossary is intended to supplement the website articles and blog posts with definitions specifically tailored to the subject matter. For the most comprehensive understanding though, I recommend starting with the website, which has its own glossary and references from several years ago.
I'm frustrated. but not deterred, by the inability of philosophical forum posters to learn a few new words that define a novel worldview, which is merely an update and reconciliation of old incompatible views. I could understand, if the man on the street wanted me to "talk down to them" with common words and conventional meanings. Voltaire said, “If you wish to converse with me, define your terms.” That's what I'm doing : trying to converse with intelligent people in intelligent terms.
They’re not unable to learn the words - they’re unwilling to, and with good reason. There are enough words in the English language that if you can’t find a way to explain your meaning without making up new ones then you’re not trying hard enough. And this worldview is far from novel - that you’re presenting it in a novel way is clear, but you’re claiming ownership of a worldview that’s been around in various formats for millennia, and only requires a more complex structure in relation to modern knowledge. My argument is that you’re not acknowledging the historical progress made by so many others across religion, philosophy and science to reach this level of understanding, and that you’re not providing a clear enough structure.
Voltaire wasn’t talking about making up new words, by the way - he was talking about clarifying your position, in relation to his, regarding the meaning of existing concepts. It’s uncharitable to then declare your terms to be ‘intelligent’ and any alternative definition of existing terms as ‘common’. That’s not going to endear your argument to anyone.
Apparently, you haven't looked at the BothAnd blog. That's where I develop basic ideas of Enformationism with reference to "the way we interact with the world on a daily basis". Blog posts now number 107 articles. Does that sound like a shortcut?
I have looked at your blog on a number of occasions, which always requires one to delve into your website and glossary. The shortcut I’m referring to has nothing to do with volume. It has to do with the way you associate the metaphysical elements of your theory, using metaphor and neologisms instead of structural relations. ‘Information’ as a building block does not constitute a structural relation - it’s a concept that basically means ‘building block’, and says nothing about how it fits together at a metaphysical level, without an established structural relation like ‘space’ or ‘time’.
Was Immanuel Kant "arrogant" to "control the meaning" of his philosophy by defining in detail such terms as "Categorical Imperative" and "Noumenon"?
I’m not in a position to suggest changes to Kant’s methodology, but these are not new words, as such. Noumenon, for instance, is a common Greek word meaning ‘something conceived’. He wasn’t writing for an Internet forum or a blog but for academia, so he could afford to arrogantly assume at the time that everyone knew what he meant. Whitehead, on the other hand, was arrogant enough to make up his own words, and his philosophy suffered for it. You are not in any similar position.
What you don't seem to grasp is that, "encouraging a disconnect between" conventional concepts, is the opposite of what I'm trying to do. I have constructed a "structure" (in which Information is the modular building block) that relates such old worldviews as Spiritualism and Materialism to a larger context. But, in order to reconcile Spiritualist views with Materialist views, holders of those views will have to give-up their confidence that each is the Whole Truth. Instead, they are both valid, but partial worldviews. They tend to dismiss and denigrate holders of the opposite view. But I'm trying to show that they are actually complementary views.
Don’t get me wrong, I understand where you’re coming from, I agree in principle with the concept of Both/And, and I support your efforts. But the glaring hole in your philosophy can be found in how you reconcile Spiritualism with Materialism. ‘Information’ makes sense to me, but it’s not enough. You’re not going to get anyone to give up their confidence simply because you declare that ‘EnFormAction’ - as a metaphysical form of energy/information - is the key. You’re effectively expecting them to abandon their position in favour of confidence in YOU. It ain’t gonna happen.
I find some of the terms of your worldview (as expressed in forum posts) incomprehensible. Is that a sign that you're arrogant, and concerned only with image? Or is it because your ideas are unconventional, and require some hard thinking to make sense of a new paradigm?
The difference between your use of terms and mine is that I claim no novelty or ownership of this particular worldview, let alone definitions of terminology. I recognise that many of the terms I use are applied unconventionally, but when readers question my usage, I don’t quote from my own glossary to support my argument. And my focus is on making the paradigm shift accessible to current thinking, not gaining followers to my guru-ness.
but you’re claiming ownership of a worldview that’s been around in various formats for millennia, and only requires a more complex structure in relation to modern knowledge. My argument is that you’re not acknowledging the historical progress
Obviously, you haven't read the thesis or the blog. The only thing I claim "ownership" of is the Enformationism concept : that Information is the "single substance" of the world (props to Spinoza). My website and blog are full of references and links to historically significant philosophical ideas. Here's a few that I specifically find historical precedence in : Platonic Idealism, Aristotelian Realism, Stoicism, Panpsychism, Hegelian Dialectic, Deism, Secular Humanism, Holism, Hindu Philosophy, Systems Theory, Information Theory, and many others. The website and blog are full of links that "acknowledge" my debt to the history of philosophy and science.
Do you claim "ownership" of your own novel philosophical concepts, or do you give the information away for free? The latter is what I'm doing on this forum, and other venues. I'm hardly evangelical, but I sincerely believe that some form of Information-based worldview will eventually take its place among historically significant philosophies and scientific paradigms. What you and others interpret as "arrogance" is merely persistence in pursuing the construction of my own personal philosophy. If I sound confident, that's not characteristic of me as a timid introvert. But, since my thesis is essentially a Theory of Everything, It allows me to give a well-supported answer to skeptics on almost any topic.
But the glaring hole in your philosophy can be found in how you reconcile Spiritualism with Materialism
Again, you haven't read the thesis that you are critiquing. So, you are skewering a straw man. There may be holes in the thesis, but I am still in the process of filling them, in part by getting critiques on this forum. See if the link below will fill your "hole" with understanding of how those conflicting worldviews can be reconciled, via the concept of Monism/Holism, as opposed to the dualistic view of Descartes. See the Materialism link below, for my consilience between those antagonistic old domains.
You seem to be responding to the very narrowly focused posts on this forum. I have repeatedly provided links to my own reasoning, and that of other philosophers & scientists. Ironically there seem to be more scientists than philosophers thinking along the same lines of the ubiquity of Information. Enformationism is not a typical academic thesis paper, written on an obscure arcane topic. It is, instead, a scientific & philosophical & religious Theory of Everything. History will decide which new paradigm will replace the ancient notions of Materialism (atoms & void) and Spiritualsm (body & soul), which were, in their day, theories of everything.
I claim no novelty or ownership of this particular worldview, let alone definitions of terminology.
Is that because there is nothing "novel" in your worldview? Are you just parroting famous philosophers, instead of pioneering a new perspective on the world? A glossary might help to get your ideas across to a wider audience, as long as they can see some validity in an idea they don't yet understand. I'm sure you know that truly novel ideas are typically rejected by holders of an older paradigm. Check-out the "Rejected" link below.
And my focus is on making the paradigm shift accessible to current thinking, not gaining followers to my guru-ness.
"Paradigm Shift" : sounds similar to my own thesis. Does your multi-dimensional paradigm have a formal name and a core concept, or is it just a motley collection of loosely-related ideas? Have your "accessible" ideas been well received by holders of an older paradigm? I still don't fully understand your Dimensional theory, but I think it could be generally compatible to my Information theory.
“…First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident.”
Ha! I am a guru for a cult of one. I have no followers. One poster on an extinct forum, asked my permission to use the label "Enformationist" to describe her personal worldview. I said, "sure", but her interpretation was closer to New Age philosophy than mine. Anyway, she is not an acolyte of any guru. :halo:
Quote from another thread : "I was taking the opportunity to illustrate the dimensional awareness that forms the basis of my theory. Gratuitous, I know" : ___Possibility.
I think I asked for a definition of "Dimensional Awareness". But the answer was still vague to me. Perhaps a glossary of unconventional terms would made your proposed paradigm more accessible to "current thinking". :cool:
Materialism versus Spiritualism : http://bothandblog4.enformationism.info/page14.html
6 World-Changing Ideas That Were Originally Rejected :
https://www.lifehack.org/articles/lifestyle/6-world-changing-ideas-that-were-originally-rejected.html
Don’t get me wrong, I understand where you’re coming from, I agree in principle with the concept of Both/And, and I support your efforts.
We seem to have similar Post-Materialism worldviews, but coming from different directions, and with different terminology. I'm still interested in seeing how they agree and how they disagree. But as I said before, I need some kind of "hook" (something meaningful to me) in order to relate to your rather esoteric notion of "Dimensional Awareness". What difference do those "higher dimensions" make for my life? Are they the abode of gods, demons, angels, or simply "The Force", who directly intervene in reality, to provide blessings & curses? I have no personal experience with "higher dimensions" beyond Einstein's fundamental four. But because we entertain the possibility of Mental Reality, I suspect that Praxis would lump your worldview and mine into the anti-science category of New Age mumbo-jumbo. So, I understand his animosity toward such superstitious non-sense.
This link says that, "Cross-Dimensional Awareness is an ability that senses and can often travel between parallel universes (alternate universes) or other planes of existence". That sounds like the New Age notion of the Astral Planes, which is completely ignored by the Enformationism thesis. It also seems popular with video gamers, as fodder for their imagination. But I have no personal experience with either the multiple dimensions String Theory, or the Higher Planes of mystical religions. How do you become aware of those Parallel Universes : by meditation, drugs, gnostic revelation? Even string theorists admit that their 10 or 11 dimensions may exist only as mathematical abstractions, that humans have no direct experience of, and have no empirical evidence. So, they are accused of Mysticism, by more pragmatic scientists.
https://evolutionactivated.fandom.com/wiki/Cross_Dimensional_Awareness
‘Information’ as a building block does not constitute a structural relation - it’s a concept that basically means ‘building block’, and says nothing about how it fits together at a metaphysical level, without an established structural relation like ‘space’ or ‘time’.
It's true that Isolated bits of Information are meaningless. It's the links between entities that provide the structure of meaning.Those invisible imaginary links are the true structure of reality.
It has to do with the way you associate the metaphysical elements of your theory, using metaphor and neologisms instead of structural relations.
Not so! The immaterial structural relations of Information are of the essence in the thesis. When we talk about anything immaterial (no physical properties), we can only discuss then in terms of metaphors drawn from out experience with the physical world. Is your "cross-dimensional awareness" discussable in conventional materialistic language, or do you have to resort to as-if metaphors & analogies & neologisms, such as "gyrokinesis"? https://evolutionactivated.fandom.com/wiki/Gyrokinesis
It’s uncharitable to then declare your terms to be ‘intelligent’ and any alternative definition of existing terms as ‘common’. That’s not going to endear your argument to anyone.
FYI, I have never said or implied that superior attitude in any of my writings. So the accusation says more about you, than about me. But, enough about me. :cool:
Structure of Reality : The best guess I've come across is that Consciousness is not just a “spandrel” in evolution, but a fundamental element of the structure of reality.
http://bothandblog.enformationism.info/page65.html
Raymond Tallis : "there's nothing in the material world that, like a thought, has a subject attached to a predicate . . . self-reference . . . aboutness . . . Where there are classes, there is generality, there is possibility, and where there is possibility, entities or states of affaris may or may not exist can be proposed." Philosophy Now #137.
There may be holes in the thesis, but I am still in the process of filling them, in part by getting critiques on this forum. See if the link below will fill your "hole" with understanding of how those conflicting worldviews can be reconciled, via the concept of Monism/Holism, as opposed to the dualistic view of Descartes. See the Materialism link below, for my consilience between those antagonistic old domains.
You seem to be responding to the very narrowly focused posts on this forum. I have repeatedly provided links to my own reasoning, and that of other philosophers & scientists. Ironically there seem to be more scientists than philosophers thinking along the same lines of the ubiquity of Information. i]Enformationism[/i] is not a typical academic thesis paper, written on an obscure arcane topic. It is, instead, a scientific and philosophical and religious Theory of Everything. History will decide which new paradigm will replace the ancient notions of Materialism (atoms & void) and Spiritualsm (body & soul), which were, in their day, theories of everything.
You’re right - I have responded here primarily to your attitude towards posters on this forum. But I have also said that I agree with much of what I’ve read of your work, and I stand by my comments. I’m not expecting a typical academic thesis paper (I’m unlikely to read it). You’ve directed your blog at the lay reader, which I think is actually a better fit for those on this forum. I recognise and support your efforts to formulate a ToE, and I was under the impression I was offering constructive criticism. I could be mistaken - I’m not accustomed to doing so. I may come across more forceful in challenging your work because I agree with your position, and think I see where it can go from here. Try not to to see it as an attack.
I enjoyed reading Blogs 76-77. My view seems to have many similarities to Deacon - and I’m particularly interested in the main differences you’ve pointed out between his work and yours. I will need to read up on his work and get back to you. You mentioned in 74 the need to come up with a “modern metaphor that explains both matter/energy and life/mind”, which your theory presents as information/enformation. I’m already there with you at the metaphorical level, but my point continues to be that metaphor is only a suggestion of structure. It isn’t structure. You seem to still be trying to convince readers to abandon their strictly materialist/spiritualist views, but offer little substance in your thesis for those of us who already have, and nothing convincing for those who haven’t.
I’m done trying to reassure you that I agree with your position. The main issues that I think @praxis might have with your theory (and I don’t want to assume here, only attempt to translate into something less personal) may have to do with the gap in your explanation at this level, which I’m afraid isn’t convincingly ‘filled’ for me, even by Blog 74. You’re suggesting how these views could be reconciled (and I agree with your belief that they are indeed reconcilable), but for anyone looking to be convinced, you’re giving them nothing except ‘look at all these puzzle pieces, isn’t it obvious?’. And by the same token, you’re giving me little to hang my hat on but metaphor.
So I can’t really defend your theory at this level, only because I’m finding little there to defend. That’s not to say you’re wrong - there’s just not enough meat where I’m looking for answers. I will need to take a closer look at your thesis, but what I think you may be presenting at this stage is more of a belief system than a ToE. It’s one I agree with on principle, but I’m past the point of needing someone else to provide a belief system for me - I’m working towards a conceptual structure that is ultimately testable.
This link says that, "Cross-Dimensional Awareness is an ability that senses and can often travel between parallel universes (alternate universes) or other planes of existence". That sounds like the New Age notion of the Astral Planes, which is completely ignored by the Enformationism thesis. It also seems popular with video gamers, as fodder for their imagination. But I have no personal experience with either the multiple dimensions String Theory, or the Higher Planes of mystical religions. How do you become aware of those Parallel Universes : by meditation, drugs, gnostic revelation? Even string theorists admit that their 10 or 11 dimensions may exist only as mathematical abstractions, that humans have no direct experience of, and have no empirical evidence. So, they are accused of Mysticism, by more pragmatic scientists.
https://evolutionactivated.fandom.com/wiki/Cross_Dimensional_Awareness
Strawman. Dimensional aspects of reality are not necessarily spatial - any New Age mumbo-jumbo about astral planes or parallel universes has nothing to do with my theory. My reference to dimensions has to do with structural relations, and merely explains and extends our existing dimensional structure using the mental (potential) rather than strictly physical nature of information (quanta and qualia) as ‘building blocks’. It then takes this structure a step further to propose an underlying creative impetus of pure relation/possibility - inclusive of existence and what Deacon refers to as ‘absential’ phenomenon - as the dynamic foundation of reality.
You seem to still be trying to convince readers to abandon their strictly materialist/spiritualist views, but offer little substance in your thesis for those of us who already have, and nothing convincing for those who haven’t.
The "substance" I'm offering is universal Information/EnFormAction, which is the single substance of the world, and the "structure" of everything in it.
metaphor is only a suggestion of structure. It isn’t structure
I'm afraid I don't know what kind of "structure" you are looking for : something material & physical instead of mental & metaphysical? Please give me an example of a structural definition of the metaphors of "quantum fields" and "information fields". Actually, there are no things in the field, only structural relationships.
Quantum Field : In theoretical Physics, a quantum field is a metaphorical mathematical "structure", not an actual place, to allow scientists to understand ghostly things they can't see. The field is imaginary and has no physical material, but only Virtual particles that have the potential to become real. In the Enformationism theory, the state that preceded the Big Bang is imagined as an Enfernal quantum field, with potential Platonic Forms from which actual material things could be created.
http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page17.html
I’m working towards a conceptual structure that is ultimately testable.
Is your theory testable physically, like Special Relativity via observations of physical objects, or mathematically, .like String Theory via computer simulations? Every aspect of Enformationism theory is scientifically testable, except the ultimate Axiom, which must be accepted as a given.
I haven’t read anything about his theory, being the filthy philistine that I am. It’s curious that he claims to have resolved the rift between idealism and materialism and yet says himself “I favor Idealism.”
. . . . followed immediately by "I favor Realism". Obviously, a holistic BothAnd attitude toward the world does not compute for an Either/Or "philistine". But it's how the BothAnd principle works.
Note : my use of the term "philistine" in a previous post was generic, and not directed at anyone in particular. But, if the shoe fits . . . . :joke:
Both/And Principle : My coinage for the holistic principle of Complementarity, as illustrated in the Yin/Yang symbol. Opposing or contrasting concepts are always part of a greater whole. Conflicts between parts can be reconciled or harmonized by putting them into the context of a whole system.
http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page10.html
While waiting for tech support, I followed your link to the elaborately elucidated B/A principle. In one part it says,"Ultimate or absolute reality (ideality) doesn't change, but your conception of reality does." Can you explain what you mean by that?
In one part it says,"Ultimate or absolute reality (ideality) doesn't change, but your conception of reality does." Can you explain what you mean by that?
The blog Glossary has a definition of "Ideality", that gives an overview of the concept. But it's really more extensive than that summary. Basically, I agree with Plato that the ultimate "reality" is a state of infinite potential that he called "Forms", which are the mental recipes or designs for material things. But I also agree with Aristotle when "he stated that reality does not make sense or exist until the mind process it. Therefore truth is dependent upon a person's mind and external factors". https://www.bartleby.com/essay/Aristotle-and-Platos-Views-on-Reality-PK7GFXYTJ
So the Enformationism thesis is an attempt to reconcile the ideal "reality" of eternal Forms with real world space-time "appearances". Donald Hoffman's recent book, The Case Against Reality, may give you one perspective on the relationship between physical Reality and metaphysical Ideality. There's nothing supernatural about mundane Metaphysics. It's merely the realm of ideas and meanings that emerged when Life & Mind emerged from physical evolution. The Forms are timeless and unchanging, but our perceptions of them differ for each perceiver. Metaphysical beauty is in the mind of the beholder, but the ideal Form of beauty is like a mathematical constant.
I'm sure this brief "explanation" will sound like non-sense, if you don't accept the philosophical validity of Platonic Idealism, as the general case for specific instances of Aristotelian Realism. :nerd:
Window to Reality : http://bothandblog6.enformationism.info/page21.html
Meta-physics : Physics refers to the things we perceive with the eye of the body. Meta-physics refers to the things we conceive with the eye of the mind. Meta-physics includes the properties, and qualities, and functions that make a thing what it is. Matter is just the clay from which a thing is made. Meta-physics is the design (form, purpose); physics is the product (shape, action). The act of creation brings an ideal design into actual existence. The design concept is the “formal” cause of the thing designed.
http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page14.html
The Forms are timeless and unchanging, but our perceptions of them differ for each perceiver.
So you believe that, for instance, people differ in their perception of a geometric circle, or rather in their concept of a circle? Also, do you believe that perfect circle's exit in "real world space-time" or do ideal forms only exist in the "realm of ideas"?
If you could try to clarify these points I may be able to compare our understandings.
So you believe that, for instance, people differ in their perception of a geometric circle, or rather in their concept of a circle? Also, do you believe that perfect circle's exit in "real world space-time" or do ideal forms only exist in the "realm of ideas"?
A "perfect circle" is a metaphysical mathematical definition (an idea), not a physical thing. FWIW, I don't believe that a physically perfect teapot is orbiting the sun in a perfectly circular path.
I don't really give much thought to such questions. And I am not a disciple of Plato. I just refer to his notion of "Ideals", as a way to illustrate the difference between physical (matter) and metaphysical (mind) forms of generic Information. My concern in the Enformationism thesis is to understand the Real space-time world.
Except for the ideas in my own mind, I know nothing about Ideal Forms. Metaphysics is the realm of subjective concepts, which are invisible & intangible, but meaningful --- ideas make "sense" to the sixth sense of Reason. A perfect circle can only be proven to exist, in the metaphysical realm of ideas, by definition. Do you believe in ideas? :cool:
Russell's Teapot : He wrote that if he were to assert, without offering proof, that a teapot, too small to be seen by telescopes, orbits the Sun somewhere in space between the Earth and Mars, he could not expect anyone to believe him solely because his assertion could not be proven wrong.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell%27s_teapot
I don't really give much thought to such questions.
Then let's think it through together, shall we? :smile: :chin:
You've made what I think are two significant postulations, which are:
Forms are timeless and unchanging
Forms can only be proven to exist in the metaphysical realm
If forms are unchanging then there can't be 'ideal' forms, because all forms would necessarily be unchanging. For instance, if a 'metaphysical circle' is an 'ideal' form then what is a metaphysical circle with a slight difference of some kind? It cannot be that the ideal form changed to become unideal. They would simply be two different unchanging forms and therefore neither of them could be considered an ideal form. This would extend to all forms, of course, which is nonsensical because if forms are unchanging and eternal there would really be just one eternal unchanging form. An unchanging thing cannot exist in a realm where things change, to put it simply.
A> If forms are unchanging then there can't be 'ideal' forms, . . . B> An unchanging thing cannot exist in a realm where things change, to put it simply.
Apparently, you have mixed-up some of Plato's theory with Aristotle's theory of Forms. For Plato, the Forms "exist" abstractly in a non-physical timeless changeless state called Eternity. But for Aristotle, the Forms exist concretely only in physical things in the realm of space-time. The latter definition is what I would call "embodied Information", which is similar to immaterial potential Energy that has transformed into actual physical lumps of Matter.
In my thesis, the Potential for all possible Forms exists in what I like to call Enfernity (eternity & infinity). I coined that neologism because Enfernity is not two different things but a single state of BEING, with unlimited potential for all possibilities. There are no actual things in Enfernity, but only the un-manifest potential for things & beings.
So, the "Ideal" Forms in statement A> above are not things that change. and the real things in statement B> are not ideal forms, but actualized instances of infinite potential. To put it simply, A> is not B>. :nerd:
Plato's Forms : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_forms
Aristotle's Forms : https://www.britannica.com/story/plato-and-aristotle-how-do-they-differ
A.N. Whitehead's Actual Occasions : what I call "instances" above
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Process_and_Reality
Potential :
[i]1. possible, as opposed to actual:
2. capable of being or becoming:[/i]
Eternity : 1. a state to which time has no application; timelessness.
Potential : Unrealized or unmanifest creative power. For example, the Voltage of an electric battery is its potential for future current flow measured in Amps. Potential is inert until actualized by some trigger. In the Enformationism metaphor, the real world was originally an idea in the Mind of G*D, with the infinite possibilities of Omniscience, that was realized by an act of Will.
http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page16.html
Note : For theoretical purposes, "G*D" is a metaphor to illustrate how unchanging timelessness could convert unreal Potential into real Things. You don't have to take it literally. In any case, it's the G*D of Philosophers, not of Priests.
God of Philosophers : The God of the philosophers, Pascal remarked, is not the God of Abraham and Isaac
https://maritain.nd.edu/jmc/etext/AAP04.htm
I got interested in philosophy because I had broad academic interests in lots of topics and kept looking for more and more fundamental cores of those collections of interests, and that lead me eventually to physics on the one hand and something like economics or political science on the other hand, and then into basically metaphysics and ethics beneath each of those, so when I eventually found philosophy that seemed like it, the core field with connections to all the other fields.
Except for the interest in Economics & Political Science, this sounds very similar to my own path into philosophy. As a child, my family was only interested in Bible knowledge and Practical education. So we didn't discuss broad academic topics. It's only since I was retired by the Great Recession, that I have had time to devote to the impractical notions of general Philosophy. And I am a generalist by nature, so I don't often get bogged-down in narrowly specialized topics --- except of course for those that apply to my own metaphysical hobby.
For selfish reasons, I could be enticed to read some of your work, if I could see where it might fit into my personal interests, or where it might apply to my personal worldview of Enformationism, or to my personal philosophy of BothAnd. I have some superficial knowledge of Economics and Political Science, but have never delved deeply into those areas of philosophy. Unfortunately, I find that most academic philosophical writing is too abstract & abstruse for my casual pragmatic interest. Can you dumb-down your philosophy to my philistine level? :brow:
Reply to Gnomon The economic and political science interests are what lead me to ethics and political philosophy etc. Does your system have an account of that prescriptive side of things, morality and justice, or is it all about reality and knowledge?
Apparently, you have mixed-up some of Plato's theory with Aristotle's theory of Forms.
No, I've leapfrogged Plato, Aristotle, and Enformation, to realize the true nature of reality. I hereby introduce the new paradigm, coining it: Unifilm.
Unifilm unites all of reality and dissolves all dualities. Physical and metaphysical forms are one and the same, and all are unchanging and eternal. In your ignorance, you might ask why things appear to change. They don't! Consciousness creates the illusion of change by percieving the unchanging forms in sequence, like the illusion of motion created in viewing a film strip.
[quote=Martin Scorsese]Cinema [reality :wink: ] is a matter of what's in the frame and what's out.[/quote]
Of course, this means that everything is predetermined and there's no free will. Still, kinda cool though, right?!
Uni: combining form.
Film: a thin flexible strip of plastic or other material coated with light-sensitive emulsion for exposure in a camera, used to produce photographs or motion pictures.
Martin Scorsese: Italian-American film director, screenwriter, producer, and actor, whose career spans more than 50 years.
Does your system have an account of that prescriptive side of things
The "prescriptive side" of my philosophy is left to each individual to work out in their own local context. All I do is describe the BothAnd principle of Complementarity. Philosophers have written thousands of erudite words on ethics. But it's all summed-up in the Golden Rule. I am not qualified to "prescribe" morality for anyone but myself. :smile:
Reply to Gnomon That sounds like something you might like to peruse my philosophy for then. From what I’ve read our takes on reality and knowledge are very similar, and my take on morality and justice is modeled analogously off my take on reality and knowledge, so you might find some food for thought on developing that half of your own philosophy in there.
I'm afraid I don't know what kind of "structure" you are looking for : something material & physical instead of mental & metaphysical? Please give me an example of a structural definition of the metaphors of "quantum fields" and "information fields". Actually, there are no things in the field, only structural relationships.
‘Quantum field’ is a structural metaphor, but the analogy on which it is based is backed by complex mathematical formulas which demonstrate the relational structure’s resemblance to an endless, oscillating field. The metaphor isn’t to enable scientists to understand the virtual particles themselves, but rather the structural relation of the ‘field’ analogy. The virtual particles are quanta of information, differentiated from each other across a dimensional ‘field’ of mathematical value. If you understood what the analogy refers to, then you’d also understand why it’s unnecessary to imagine your own ‘Enfernal quantum field with Platonic forms’ to describe the creation of the Big Bang. The structural relation is already there in the physics - ‘quantum fields’ refer to field-like structures of potential information as quanta. You only need to reconstruct the established analogy, and then show that what’s particularly missing from the physics here is an understanding (or even recognition) of qualia. That’s the challenging bit.
David Pimm, ‘Metaphor and Analogy in Mathematics’:Metaphors deny distinctions between things: problems often arise from taking structural metaphors too literally. Because unexamined metaphors lead us to assume the identity of unidentical things, conflicts arise which can only be resolved by understanding the metaphor (which requires its recognition as such), which means reconstructing the analogy on which it is based. Teachers will often cease to use terms metaphorically, or be conscious of the distinction when their concept is an expanded one, but this will not mirror the situation in most of their students’ minds.
the relational structure’s resemblance to an endless, oscillating field . . . . then show that what’s particularly missing from the physics here is an understanding (or even recognition) of qualia.
That sounds similar to the way I conceive of Energy (EnFormAction), which is the potential for creating and destroying structure. For example, physicists metaphorize light energy as a spray of photons, like a machine gun. Yet, the Light we see is just a fraction of the whole spectrum of energy throughout the universe. Universal Energy is, not a material thing, but a metaphysical oscillation between max & minimum potential. Expressed in 1s and 0s, it's a creation code. That concept is hard to describe & to grasp, and is far outside my field of competence. But it's a consequence of my metaphorical understanding of what Energy and Information actually consist of : mathematical (mental) relationships.
Anyway, I imagine Energy as an alternation between Enfernity (unbounded potential -- infinite possibilities), and Nothingness (zero potential). In the graph below, positive creative potential is at the peak of the wave, and negative destructive potential is at the trough of the wave. But the neutral baseline down the center is Zero potential. As the wave oscillates, it creates space, and as it advances from peak to peak, it creates time. Thus, plenipotential metaphysical Energy (creative potential) constructs the physical space-time reality that we experience via our senses.
Ironically, the potential (power) of Energy consists of Information in the form of mathematical ratios (1/0; 1 : 2; this compared to that). "Relational structures" that can be expressed as percentages of the Whole. The best book on this topic, that I'm familiar with, is Into the Cool : Energy Flow, Thermodynamics, and Life, by Eric Schneider and Dorian Sagan. But I'm not interested so much in the physics of Energy, as in the Metaphysics : the Qualia. Even there I'm dabbling in ideas that are above my pay grade. And my understanding is still incomplete. But it gives some meaningful foundational structure to my Enformationism worldview. :nerd:
Potential : the relationship (ratio) between what-is, and what-could-be; Actual and Possible.
Into the Cool : https://www.amazon.com/Into-Cool-Energy-Flow-Thermodynamics/dp/0226739376
That sounds similar to the way I conceive of Energy (EnFormAction), which is the potential for creating and destroying structure. For example, physicists metaphorize light energy as a spray of photons, like a machine gun. Yet, the Light we see is just a fraction of the whole spectrum of energy throughout the universe. Universal Energy is, not a material thing, but a metaphysical oscillation between max & minimum potential. Expressed in 1s and 0s, it's a creation code. That concept is hard to describe & to grasp, and is far outside my field of competence. But it's a consequence of my metaphorical understanding of what Energy and Information actually consist of : mathematical (mental) relationships.
Anyway, I imagine Energy as an alternation between Enfernity (unbounded potential -- infinite possibilities), and Nothingness (zero potential). In the graph below, positive creative potential is at the peak of the wave, and negative destructive potential is at the trough of the wave. But the neutral baseline down the center is Zero potential. As the wave oscillates, it creates space, and as it advances from peak to peak, it creates time. Thus, plenipotential metaphysical Energy (creative potential) constructs the physical space-time reality that we experience via our senses.
Ironically, the potential (power) of Energy consists of Information in the form of mathematical ratios (1/0; 1 : 2; this compared to that). "Relational structures" that can be expressed as percentages of the Whole. The best book on this topic, that I'm familiar with, is Into the Cool : Energy Flow, Thermodynamics, and Life, by Eric Schneider and Dorian Sagan. But I'm not interested so much in the physics of Energy, as in the Metaphysics : the Qualia. Even there I'm dabbling in ideas that are above my pay grade. And my understanding is still incomplete. But it gives some meaningful foundational structure to my Enformationism worldview. :nerd:
You seem to be using metaphors from these theories to bolster your own, without any deeper understanding of how the analogies are applied. This seems to be the case not just in relation to the oscillating wave and potentiality, but also in relation to the ideality and embodiment of Forms. I agree that these theories DO relate to your own, but I think you’ve fallen short of plausible explanations as to how they relate. To be taken seriously in your reference to these theories, I think you need to be able to deconstruct the many metaphors we use to understand what each of these relational structures are like in order to more clearly conceptualise how they fit together. This is particularly important with quantum mechanics because the analogies are mathematically applied, isolating the relational structure from its context in reality.
For instance, the oscillating wave is itself a metaphor, describing the relational structure of potentiality as analogous to a wave of light/energy, but they’re referring to different dimensional structures. The potentiality ‘waves’ of quantum fields don’t peak and trough over time - there is no distinction of ‘time’ at the quantum level. Rather, they peak and trough (in a three-dimensional, non-spatio-temporal sense) across whatever abstract value the particular field refers to. It is the relation between these various mathematical fields that manifest the two-dimensional oscillation of energy/light over time to which the diagram refers.
Take a look at Carlo Rovelli’s ‘The Order of Time’ for an example of multi-dimensional deconstruction of relations between time and quantum mechanics; and Lisa Feldman Barrett’s ‘How Emotions Are Made’ for a theory that describes the relational structure between ideal and embodied forms in relation to neuroscience, particularly with reference to qualia. They’re both written for lay readers, and I think will help to add meat to your theory.
You seem to be using metaphors from these theories to bolster your own, without any deeper understanding of how the analogies are applied. . . . To be taken seriously in your reference to these theories, I think you need to be able to deconstruct the many metaphors we use to understand what each of these relational structures are like in order to more clearly conceptualise how they fit together.
Sorry, I'm neither a string theorist, nor a mathematician, nor an academic philosopher --- nor an esoteric Theosophist. So deconstructing, or meta-analysing, exotic metaphors is not my thing. I'm not motivated to seek a "deeper understanding" of invisible un-imaginable dimensions of hyperspace or astral planes. I guess I'll have to stick to mundane metaphors that I actually know something about, and that relate to the real sensible world.
I did read Carlo Rovelli's book, but just skimmed over any references to dimensions that are meaningless to me. I'm also familiar with Rob Bryanton's Imagining the Tenth Dimension website and book. But it's all Greek to me. I'm still waiting for you to dumb it down for me. Is that something you can do? Or are you content to just belittle my intelligence? :cool:
Sorry, I'm neither a string theorist, nor a mathematician, nor an academic philosopher --- nor an esoteric Theosophist. So deconstructing, or meta-analysing, exotic metaphors is not my thing. I'm not motivated to seek a "deeper understanding" of invisible un-imaginable dimensions of hyperspace or astral planes. I guess I'll have to stick to mundane metaphors that I actually know something about, and that relate to the real sensible world.
Neither am I, so no need to apologise. But your resistance to even attempting to understand how your belief system relates to quantum potentiality is coming across as blatant ignorance and exclusion, NOT a lack of intelligence. You make no reference to any explanations I’ve offered, except to throw up strawmen such as ‘hyperspace or astral planes’ and get defensive about my perception of your intelligence, as if I’m trying to attack it. All this does is confirm your arrogance. If your aim is to stick to metaphors you know something about, and you’re not willing to increase your knowledge, then you might want to leave quantum physics alone - but I think that will seriously hamper your attempts at a ToE.
If you don’t understand what I’ve written, that’s probably my fault - I encourage you to make an attempt and then point out where you’re not following, and I’ll try to explain where I’m coming from. I’m honestly not trying to prove myself more intelligent, because I’m pretty sure that I have neither the experience nor the education to do so. I perceive the world differently to most people that I’ve met, and I’ve spent years trying to make sense of that distinction. My advantage is that my husband is a specialist math teacher, who can patiently explain the mathematical part of quantum physics to me when I get stuck (which is often). I don’t always do his explanations or my understanding of it justice here, which is my problem, not yours. But if you’re just going to just dismiss the whole thing as ‘meaningless’ to you, then I can’t improve my attempts, and there’s not much point in a discussion, is there?
I did read Carlo Rovelli's book, but just skimmed over any references to dimensions that are meaningless to me. I'm also familiar with Rob Bryanton's Imagining the Tenth Dimension website and book. But it's all Greek to me. I'm still waiting for you to dumb it down for me. Is that something you can do? Or are you content to just belittle my intelligence? :cool:
I haven’t read Bryanton at all, so I can’t comment on how his work relates to my ideas at this stage. If you genuinely think it’s relevant, then I will try to read it after Deacon, but if it’s your attempt to come across as knowledgeable on the subject of dimensions, then I’ll just applaud you and be done with it. Personally, I don’t think it’s a matter of ‘dumbing’ it down, just explaining it differently. Your intelligence is not in question here, only your willingness to increase awareness of information relevant to your belief system. I’m starting to think you only skimmed Deacon’s work, too - which appears to be much denser in relation to biology (at least early on) than Rovelli’s is in relation to dimensions. Yet you’re content to borrow heavily from his terminology to bolster your own ‘theory’. FWIW, I needed help to get my head around Rovelli’s explanation of dimensions, but it was worth the effort. I’m not sure that I have the skills to make it clearer for you, but I’m willing to try if you’re willing to be patient and honest with me about my progress.
It seems to me that you’re a little too precious about elements of your belief system to be open to constructive criticism of it as a ToE. I’m happy to back off, if that’s the case.
But your resistance to even attempting to understand how your belief system relates to quantum potentiality is coming across as blatant ignorance and exclusion, NOT a lack of intelligence.
If I am so arrogant & ignorant, why do you care what my opinion of your Multidimensional Reality might be? From your early posts I began to entertain the possibility that you may know something that would add more "dimensions" to my personal worldview, and to my understanding of reality. But I'm still waiting for that revelation. With my references to abstruse scientific theories, I may have given the impression that I am a part of that exotic academic world. I'm merely an onlooker, not a participant.
Your Multidimensional Theory is not the only one I've investigated, and then "excluded" from my personal worldview because they are not relevant to my interests. Even if there are 11 spatial dimensions in String Theory, what difference does it make to me, here locked into the 4D reality of my physical senses? I am aware that many people believe in invisible dimensions that only the elect are aware of. For example, Muslims are told that there is a seventh heaven, which is a realm of intense happiness and bliss, that only the faithful will ever experience. If so, it behooves me to accept God's Final Prophet and bow to his revelation. I'm not sure what the dimensional number is, but potential Islamic Martyrs are assured that there is an invisible Paradise, with 72 beautiful virgins to please every adolescent male sexual fantasy. But, those extra dimensions have no relevance to my non-Islamic belief system. And I'm no longer a hormone intoxicated teenager.
I googled "Quantum Potentiality", and found a few returns, mostly referring to some of Heisenberg's mathematical musings about the significance of superposition. But I'm not able to follow his math. Another site may be closer to what you are talking about on EscadelicNet. It seems to deal with some of the same scientific & philosophical topics that I link to in the Enformationism thesis. And it also uses the Matrix movie as a metaphor for the Mind/Body paradox. As I get time, I'll look around the site. But at first glance, it seems to require much more formal training in quantum theory and higher math than I bring to the table. I'm not qualified to critique the criticisms of the Standard Theory, much less the theory of the Syntellect Hypothesis. :cool:
The Physics of Information : Twisting your mind to see reality from the quantum gravity viewpoint is no easy task.
https://www.ecstadelic.net/top-stories/the-physics-of-information-quantum-potentiality-to-classical-actuality-of-your-experiential-reality
If I am so arrogant & ignorant, why do you care what my opinion of your Multidimensional Reality might be? From your early posts I began to entertain the possibility that you may know something that would add more "dimensions" to my personal worldview, and to my understanding of reality. But I'm still waiting for that revelation. With my references to abstruse scientific theories, I may have given the impression that I am a part of that exotic academic world. I'm merely an onlooker, not a participant.
First of all, I’ve suggested that your responses demonstrate an arrogance and a refusal to learn - I’m still hoping they’re an inaccurate portrayal, and that you are in fact open to information (not from me, but in general) that could be useful in refining your theory. Secondly, I haven’t asked for your opinion. My own worldview of multi-dimensional reality is a work in progress, patchy at best, and I’m not in a position to defend it in full at this stage.
On the other hand, you have presented something akin to a thesis, which you are attempting to defend. I’m suggesting information that I think will improve the accuracy of this presented worldview, and you’re doing everything you can to avoid, exclude or dismiss the possibility that what you’ve presented might be inaccurate or need refining in any way. You offer these scientific theories as supporting evidence, but you don’t seem to understand them enough to defend their relevance beyond a claim of ‘metaphorical’ significance. This seems more like apologetics for a belief system, not a thesis, and not a ToE. There’s nothing wrong with that - my own worldview can at best be called a belief system, as well - but I’m not here trying to defend mine, but rather to test and refine it in the hope of working towards a ToE eventually. I’m a long way off. And I made no assumption that you were part of the academic world, but your reference to these theories did lead me to believe you understood them enough to discuss them to some extent. Seems both Praxis and I were wrong there.
Your Multidimensional Theory is not the only one I've investigated, and then "excluded" from my personal worldview because they are not relevant to my interests. Even if there are 11 spatial dimensions in String Theory, what difference does it make to me, here locked into the 4D reality of my physical senses? I am aware that many people believe in invisible dimensions that only the elect are aware of. For example, Muslims are told that there is a seventh heaven, which is a realm of intense happiness and bliss, that only the faithful will ever experience. If so, it behooves me to accept God's Final Prophet and bow to his revelation. I'm not sure what the dimensional number is, but potential Islamic Martyrs are assured that there is an invisible Paradise, with 72 beautiful virgins to please every adolescent male sexual fantasy. But, those extra dimensions have no relevance to my non-Islamic belief system. And I'm no longer a hormone intoxicated teenager.
Strawmen and more strawmen... none of this is relevant to the information I’ve given you in other threads regarding my worldview. You haven’t investigated it at all. All you’ve heard is the word ‘dimension’ and you’re looking for ways to discredit what doesn’t ‘interest’ you enough to try and understand. The dimensions I’m referring to are non-spatial, and we interact across them every day, through language, mathematics, science, art, literature, religion, etc. Our brains make sense of the world, determining and initiating actions from an ongoing prediction of the future as effort (quanta) and attention (qualia) requirements for the organism. How the mind structures our systems of value, significance and potentiality of information to ‘collapse’ constitutes a fifth dimension or relational aspect of reality, which incorporates and transcends the four dimensions of spacetime.
I googled "Quantum Potentiality", and found a few returns, mostly referring to some of Heisenberg's mathematical musings about the significance of superposition. But I'm not able to follow his math. Another site may be closer to what you are talking about on EscadelicNet. It seems to deal with some of the same scientific & philosophical topics that I link to in the Enformationism thesis. And it also uses the Matrix movie as a metaphor for the Mind/Body paradox. As I get time, I'll look around the site. But at first glance, it seems to require much more formal training in quantum theory and higher math than I bring to the table. I'm not qualified to critique the criticisms of the Standard Theory, much less the theory of the Syntellect Hypothesis. :cool:
I’m not asking you to critique some random website theory you found. You won’t find anything on the internet regarding my particular worldview, except for what you might find here on this forum, because I haven’t written anything on it yet. If you’re interested in trying to grasp quantum theory, though, I can recommend the book ‘Quantum Enigma’ by Bruce Rosenblum and Fred Kuttner. It gave me an understanding of quantum theory that was more suited to my Arts background. But I’m guessing you’ll only skim it for sections that ‘interest’ you (ie. agree with your belief system) rather than attempt to understand why the success of QM, despite being fundamentally misunderstood and open to a variety of interpretations, is vital to any ToE.
but if it’s your attempt to come across as knowledgeable on the subject of dimensions, then I’ll just applaud you and be done with it.
So, is this a kiss-off? Are you dumping me for another more intelligent, inquisitive, and humble forum poster? Have you found someone who actually understands what you're talking about? I'm hurt. But I'll be interested to see what that other guy has to say about occult dimensions. :cool:
Quantum Enigma : "Can you believe that physical reality is created by our observation of it?"
That's one interpretation of the mysterious black-box "enigma". But I have a different "wild guess" : that the creator/observer is not "us", but the Whole of which we are tiny holons. I agree that the quantum paradoxes are due to our misunderstanding of Consciousness, but what is the correct interpretation? Can we define dimensions into existence? Who's right; who's wrong; who knows?
https://www.amazon.com/Quantum-Enigma-Physics-Encounters-Consciousness/dp/019517559X#customerReviews
PS__I'm sorry if this post sounds flippant. But I assure you I have seriously tried to grasp the various ancient and New Age notions of occult dimensions, planes, and heavens, but they just don't make sense to me. Apparently, I'm expected to take their existence on faith or hope. But what difference will that Gnostic knowledge make to me? Will it give me superpowers? Will I achieve enlightenment? Will it expand my mind? I've seen no evidence of that, except as self-delusion. The Muslim Paradise is easy to envision, because it appeals to basic human aspirations and emotions. But it doesn't appeal to my own Reason. My personal worldview is four dimensional, and completely mundane --- no magic at all --- and its metaphors are not intended to be taken literally. It merely serves as a Pragmatic guide to Reality, with no need for faith.
Reply to GnomonFlippant? There’s an understatement. I don’t think you’re sorry at all. There’s no point in having a discussion with you, if you’re going to ignore and misrepresent everything I’ve attempted to explain by carrying on about the occult, superpowers and magic. More strawmen...
but if it’s your attempt to come across as knowledgeable on the subject of dimensions, then I’ll just applaud you and be done with it.
— Possibility
So, is this a kiss-off?
I agree. From our exchanges on this thread, I gather that your non-spatial dimensions are devoid of content. Hence nothing for a meaningful discussion to build on. And a waste of fourth dimension Time. :yum:
Sorry. I've changed my mind. I will waste a bit more of my Time dimension on this off-topic digression --- for my own edification.
I'm currently reading a Kindle book by Bernardo Kastrup, More Than Allegory. It's talking about the "transcendent" realm that is revealed in religious myths and mystical visions. "These are transcendent truths, for they escape the boundaries of logic, time, and space. . . . Where the intellect stops intuition picks up. We can sense truth even if we cannot articulate it in words . . . Unreliable as this sense may be, it is our only link to a broader reality." I've just begun to read the book, so I'll reserve judgement til I can see where he's going with this.
Although he doesn't use the actual word "dimension" to describe the mythical & mystical transcendent realm --- presumably above & beyond the sensible boundaries of the four-dimensional space-time universe --- some of his other terminology reminded me of this thread. Since I couldn't get any direct answers from Possibility about the nature of those postulated multi-dimensions in our off-topic discussions, I'm assuming the vague evasive answers indicate that they are knowable only by Intuition rather than Reason. Although Kastrup is a computer scientist, and presumably uses Reason in his mundane work, when discussing Transcendence, he calls Reason the "obfuscated mind". So, he asks about Intuition, "what can it know about nature that the intellect cannot?" He explains that intuition works with emotional Symbols, not rational Facts.
After raising some perennial philosophical questions, he says "the possibility that presents itself to us is that our neglected obfuscated mind . . . could offer us answers". Later, he makes an ambiguous statement : "although this transcendent view is not literally true, it is potentially truer than anything our intellects could possibly come up with." Are our metaphors & allegories & myths somehow more real & true & meaningful than the mundane facts of science & reason? That seems to be the point of Kastrup's book. If so, how do we discern Truth from Error among the thousands of myths in the world. Is Truth whatever feels good? As Joseph Campbell said, "follow your bliss!" If so, Islamic terrorists believe they are following their bliss to Allah's Paradise, while non-Islamists think the murderers and rapists are taking a short-cut to Jehovah's Hell.
At the beginning of this thread, I took the posts of Possibility seriously, assuming that the invisible transcendent dimensions referred to, would eventually be related back to the visible mundane world of physical senses, and the "obfuscated mind". But eventually, I began to wonder if I was being punked. Whenever, I requested specific information, all I got was assurances that the vaguely defined Higher Dimensions actually exist in some sense. But I remain none the wiser for all my efforts to understand what the mysterious Referent of "Higher Dimensions" might be. Is that failure due to mybad faith or to that of the proponents of invisible parallel worlds?
As a recovering Fundamentalist Christian, I no longer take assurances of invisible or transcendent domains on faith. But, based on my Enformationism worldview, I have concluded there must be One Transcendent "dimension" : Enfernity (Infinity & Eternity), which is timeless, spaceless , and dimensionless. Hence, as Kastrup said, it's beyond "the boundaries of logic, time, and space." Which is why I make no claims to know anything about that completely abstract non-reality. We can only discuss that imaginary concept in terms of metaphors & allegories, based on our sensory experience, and our rational evaluation. And nothing we say about it is literally true. :cool:
Referent : the thing that a word or phrase denotes or stands for.
Bad Faith : acting inauthentically
Dimension : a measurable extent of some kind, such as length, breadth, depth, or height.
How do we measure non-spatial dimensions --- with feelings? Do we know them with spiritual eyes?
Reply to Gnomon Because you blatantly dismiss anything I attempt to put into my own words, I’ll start with some quotes from the Wikipedia entry on ‘Measurement’:
Information theory recognises that all data are inexact and statistical in nature. Thus the definition of measurement is: "A set of observations that reduce uncertainty where the result is expressed as a quantity." This definition is implied in what scientists actually do when they measure something and report both the mean and statistics of the measurements. In practical terms, one begins with an initial guess as to the expected value of a quantity, and then, using various methods and instruments, reduces the uncertainty in the value. Note that in this view...all measurements are uncertain, so instead of assigning one value, a range of values is assigned to a measurement. This also implies that there is not a clear or neat distinction between estimation and measurement.
In quantum mechanics, a measurement is an action that determines a particular property (position, momentum, energy, etc.) of a quantum system. Before a measurement is made, a quantum system is simultaneously described by all values in a range of possible values, where the probability of measuring each value is determined by the wavefunction of the system. When a measurement is performed, the wavefunction of the quantum system "collapses" to a single, definite value.
Qualitative (rather than quantitative) measurement looks for patterns in non-numerical data, allowing the brain to construct concepts such as colour, taste, emotion, etc. The way I see it, we continually structure, test and restructure this non-numerical data with uncertain quantitative data (as described above) in the mind, reducing into a dual ‘wavefunction’ - what we call a neural interoception of affect: a probabilistic prediction of effort (quantitative) and attention (qualitative) requirements for the organism, which then determines and initiates the observable/measurable actions (thoughts, words, movement, etc) of the quantum system (ie. the organism) in relation to other systems.
The way I see it, it’s the way these concepts are structured from uncertain quantitative and qualitative data according to ranges of possible and expected values, reducing to this dual ‘wavefunction’ of affect in each organism and relating to other quantum systems without ‘collapse’, that together constitutes what I refer to as the fifth dimensional aspect of reality. It is the qualitative part of this that lacks explanation - partly because our understanding of dimensions has always been described only in relation to spatial and quantitative data. There is nothing necessarily ‘mystical’ about this dimension, just a whole lot of uncertainty and speculation, based not on faith but on information theory, quantum mechanics and neuroscience, as well as philosophy, metaphysics and subjective experience. It’s an interpretation, sure - but one that isn’t content with expression as unexplained metaphorical relations and deism. Still, each to their own, I suppose.
As for Kastrup, his book sounds interesting, and relevant to a discussion I’m having with Congau on a thread I created regarding the notion of ‘objective truth’ sans certainty. I may need to read it after I finish with Deacon’s book. I personally tend not to refer to ‘mystical and transcendent realms’ because it gets difficult to keep the discussion coming back to empirical reality. When discussing intuition and emotional symbols in relation to reason, I think it helps to also understand the relation of emotional concepts to current work in neuroscience, which is where Lisa Feldman Barrett’s book may once again prove informative, without getting too technical.
At the beginning of this thread, I took the posts of Possibility seriously, assuming that the invisible transcendent dimensions referred to, would eventually be related back to the visible mundane world of physical senses, and the "obfuscated mind". But eventually, I began to wonder if I was being punked. Whenever, I requested specific information, all I got was assurances that the vaguely defined Higher Dimensions actually exist in some sense. But I remain none the wiser for all my efforts to understand what the mysterious Referent of "Higher Dimensions" might be. Is that failure due to my bad faith or to that of the proponents of invisible parallel worlds?
Can I just clear up that I have made no reference to ‘invisible parallel worlds’ (they’re your words), and that I have continually referred back to empirical reality, but apparently not in a manner that satisfies you, although you won’t clarify in what way it fails to make sense in your mind - you just ignore my explanations, or dismiss references to dimensions in relation to quantum mechanics as ‘uninteresting’ for you. I get the sense that you’re after a neatly packaged expression you can critique without understanding anything about how it relates to science, or that you can borrow from heavily in terms of neologisms and metaphorical language (again, without understanding the analogy behind it) to bolster the credibility of this belief system you’ve concocted. I can’t help you there (or maybe I won’t, I’m not entirely sure).
IMHO, I’m not convinced that your ‘conclusion’ is based on reason in your case (not that you’re not capable of it, just that you haven’t applied it yourself), but on expressions of reasoning described by others, their words taken as gospel. I think that you have intuitively accepted their reasoning as sound without attempting to understand why, which is probably why you struggle to engage in any critical analysis of the theories your belief system is based on. I’m thinking your recovery from fundamentalist Christianity is not yet complete - I’m challenging you to make a concerted effort to understand why their reasoning makes sense to you, and why it doesn’t make sense to other ‘reasonable’ people in the form you’ve presented. That’s all. You can continue to dismiss my efforts to be understood, but that won’t improve your argument in relation to your own ‘theory’ - or your edification, for that matter.
The way I see it, we continually structure, test and restructure this non-numerical data with uncertain quantitative data (as described above) in the mind, reducing into a dual ‘wavefunction’ - what we call a neural interoception of affect: a probabilistic prediction of effort (quantitative) and attention (qualitative) requirements for the organism, which then determines and initiates the observable/measurable actions (thoughts, words, movement, etc) of the quantum system (ie. the organism) in relation to other systems.
I'm sorry if my thick skull frustrates you, but I still have no idea what you are talking about. Can you translate the quote above into words a non-specialist can understand? The technical terms bolded are not in my everyday vocabulary. Although I can look up the individual definitions, the whole sentence still doesn't mean much to me (me no Grok).
Are you saying that Quantum Uncertainty is "the fifth dimensional aspect of reality"? If so, what difference does that make to me? Is it the "dimension" of Intuition? Do intuitive people, such as artists, have access to a source of information that is hidden from more rational folks? Do they "measure" that alternate "reality" in terms of feelings instead of math or logic? :chin:
Wave Particle Duality : Bohr regarded the "duality paradox" as a fundamental or metaphysical fact of nature. A given kind of quantum object will exhibit sometimes wave, sometimes particle, character, in respectively different physical settings. He saw such duality as one aspect of the concept of complementarity
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wave%E2%80%93particle_duality
[ Note : Complementarity is the essence of my BothAnd philosophy, but it's not derived from an understanding of the Schrödinger equation ]
Schrödinger equation :
Interoception : sensitivity to stimuli originating inside of the body
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interoception
Affect : touch the feelings of (someone); move emotionally.
Grok : understand (something) intuitively or by empathy.
although you won’t clarify in what way it fails to make sense in your mind
As I said above about the concept of Enfernity (Eternity/Infinity) "We can only discuss that imaginary concept in terms of metaphors & allegories, based on our sensory experience, and our rational evaluation." I need relatable metaphors for invisible abstractions. :joke:
I'm sorry if my thick skull frustrates you, but I still have no idea what you are talking about. Can you translate the quote above into words a non-specialist can understand? The technical terms bolded are not in my everyday vocabulary. Although I can look up the individual definitions, the whole sentence still doesn't mean much to me (me no Grok).
Are you saying that Quantum Uncertainty is "the fifth dimensional aspect of reality"? If so, what difference does that make to me? Is it the "dimension" of Intuition? Do intuitive people, such as artists, have access to a source of information that is hidden from more rational folks? Do they "measure" that alternate "reality" in terms of feelings instead of math or logic? :chin:
There’s no need to apologise for not understanding - the onus is on me to present it in a way that makes sense to you. To that end, I appreciate your genuine attempt to make sense of it - it helps me to see more clearly where my explanation is failing. Simply saying “it makes no sense to me” doesn’t help me improve.
The wavefunction of a quantum system is a mathematical equation that determines the probability of a property of the system having a particular measurement value: that is, the chances of an electron being in a particular position around the nucleus at a particular time, for instance, as a prediction of how to direct our efforts in ‘looking’ for that electron. We can’t actually observe an electron, so the only way to interact directly with it is to trust the probabilistic results of the calculation, and to determine any action based on that.
My view is that the human organism acts similar to a quantum system, determining all action based on trusting a probabilistic prediction (analogous to a wavefunction) not just of how to direct its efforts - in terms of quantitative energy relative to spacetime - but also how to direct its attention, as in qualitative awareness, connection and collaboration. Neuroscience refers to this dual-aspect prediction as affect, a structure of valence (positive-negative feeling) and arousal (high-low) in relation to an ongoing event of the organism ‘being’ in time. It’s often used to describe what’s left when we extract the quantitative prediction of effort - which can be verified by ‘math or logic’ - by which we determine and initiate action. But affect in neuroscience is inclusive of both qualitative and quantitative potential. The classic assumption is that the rational, logical mind battles to overcome the emotional, intuitive body. Neuroscience is finding, however, that this is a misunderstanding of how we operate, particularly in relation to emotion.
The term interoception refers to the fact that this prediction isn’t directly informed by external reality, but is based on an internally conceived reality (concepts) constructed from all past interactions. The brain, locked inside the skull, relies on only a relatively small amount of external stimuli, from sensory systems directed by the prediction itself on how, where and when to ‘look’, and interpreted eventually into affect, to verify or adjust this ongoing prediction in relation to external reality.
I think quantum uncertainty fairly closely describes the nature of five-dimensional reality, but it still fails to fully account for qualia in the existence and evolution of our universe.
Is it the "dimension" of Intuition? Do intuitive people, such as artists, have access to a source of information that is hidden from more rational folks? Do they "measure" that alternate "reality" in terms of feelings instead of math or logic?
It isn’t a matter of either/or in terms of feelings or intuition INSTEAD of math or logic, but rather BOTH/AND. It is the unique way we each construct our value systems based on past experiences, concepts, knowledge, beliefs, logic, language, etc that determines how we continually reduce all potential information to affect, which determines our thoughts, words and actions in time. Even those who consider themselves ‘more rational’ will act according to this dual measure of affect. It is the extent to which they struggle to integrate the aspect of valence (pleasant or unpleasant feeling) into their justification after the fact that defines them as ‘more rational folk’. The information isn’t hidden from them, it’s dismissed by them as irrelevant, illogical, impossible, meaningless or simply uncertain. They don’t recognise how they apply feeling to a predictive distribution of attention/awareness that determines their thoughts, words and actions. On the other hand, those who consider themselves more ‘intuitive’ tend to struggle with integrating the quantitative specifics of their actions into a later explanation. It isn’t that they don’t apply logic and math, they just don’t really understand how they apply it to a predictive distribution of energy in space-time to determine their actions.
Having said that, there are many of us who at least vaguely recognise the duality of affect, even if we struggle to express it in relation to language or logic. Many artists, for instance, are adept at applying math and spatial logic to the canvas, but struggle with the language to identify it as such. Likewise, many ‘rational folk’ have a strongly intuitive social sense, even though they’re vocally dismissive of feelings as valid information.
My view is that the human organism acts similar to a quantum system, determining all action based on trusting a probabilistic prediction (analogous to a wavefunction) not just of how to direct its efforts - in terms of quantitative energy relative to spacetime - but also how to direct its attention, as in qualitative awareness, connection and collaboration.
This quote sounds like it might be relevant to human consciousness. But the terminology is more appropriate for quantum theorists or neuroscientists. Could you break it down for me, with examples from our ordinary experience of knowing via Intuition or Reason? I can accept that our voluntary behaviors, our actions, are usually based on uncertain and incomplete information. They are instead, derived from intuitive judgments of relative values of the most favorable outcome (probabilities) of optional actions. In other words, we evaluate what little we know about a complex situation, in order to estimate which actions will result in the optimum Effect for me. That predicted, positive or negative, abstract Effect is felt as a visceral Affect (mediated by neurotransmitters such as dopamine).
Intuition gives us a quick overview of possible outcomes --- like watching a movie in fast forward --- from which we select what seems to be the best path to a desirable future state. Therefore, we "direct our attention" to that optimum path, and ignore the ones that seem to be less profitable. However, in some cases, the situation is so complex that Intuition is a poor guide to action. So, we slow down the movie and examine it frame-by-frame, by Reasoning, to see if we missed any important details that may affect the overall meaning of the movie.
Most human behavior is more or less successfully guided by Intuition, but our innate ability to judge probabilities (statistics) is poor. We tend to be more confident of our intuitions than is warranted. That's why modern scientists rely on computers to fact check their original estimates. Unfortunately, while computers are good at predicting Effects, they are poor at anticipating Affects (how it will make me feel). So, the method of Bayesian Statistics was developed to take advantage of human intuition for subjective affective evaluations.
Intuitive statistics were not derived from our understanding of quantum randomness, but of our self-correcting procedures to improve first guesses with more information. However, Rational computer statistics could, in theory, make use of wavefunction calculations to sharpen their ability to predict future states. I'm just riffing here. So this little diversion may have missed the point of the quote above. And I still don't know what it has to do with "five dimensional reality". :joke:
Intuition vs Reason : https://www.amazon.com/Thinking-Fast-Slow-Daniel-Kahneman-ebook/dp/B00555X8OA/ref=tmm_kin_swatch_0?_encoding=UTF8&qid=1590345423&sr=8-14
The information isn’t hidden from them, it’s dismissed by them as irrelevant, illogical, impossible, meaningless or simply uncertain. They don’t recognise how they apply feeling to a predictive distribution of attention/awareness that determines their thoughts, words and actions. On the other hand, those who consider themselves more ‘intuitive’ tend to struggle with integrating the quantitative specifics of their actions into a later explanation.
I doubt that the average person dismisses mundane Intuition as irrelevant. But they may not be aware that most of what they think of as Reasoning is actually Intuitive. Instead, the dismissal occurs when one man's intuition clashes with another's. For example, the 20th century mystic Gurdjieff once dissed his contemporary mystic Aleister Crowley, as "dirty inside". Since mystical revelations are subjective, they are internally (among believers) cohesive, but externally (in the objective unbelieving world) divisive.
In cases of clashing faiths, an ecumenical (Rational) approach to "the way" may be necessary to untangle the various "my ways" of intuitive mystics. That's why the Catholic Church typically ignored its mystics, until they became famous after death, and could then be conformed to the Catholic "way" by pigeon-holing them as "the saint of _____", and ignoring any teachings that deviated from official doctrine.
Mystics have always been associated with Occultism because their visions and revelations are inherently hidden from their non-mystic followers, who relied on their gurus as a source of "information" about transcendent realms. The "explanations" of their intuitions are typically idiosyncratic, and often incompatible with official (rational) church doctrine. So, the problem is, which transcendent authority do you believe : the Holy Roman Church, or the Holy Roller Mystic? Can intuition resolve that dilemma? Or is plodding Reason more likely to parse the true from the false? Some people trust their intuition more than their reasoning powers, but others have learned that intuition can lead them astray. Mystics, who sit on mountaintops, or live in cells, don't have to worry about making sense to unbelievers.
I assume that "predictive distribution of attention/awareness" is a long way of saying "intuition. And "integrating the quantitative specifics . . . into explanation" is another way of saying, to translate feelings & opinions into facts & reasons. :cool:
Mystic : one who believes in the spiritual apprehension of truths that are beyond the intellect.
William James : A great many people think they are thinking when they are merely rearranging their prejudices.
Aleister Crowley : He founded the religion of Thelema, identifying himself as the prophet entrusted with guiding humanity into the Æon of Horus in the early 20th century.
George Gurdjieff : his method for awakening one's consciousness unites the methods of the fakir, monk and yogi, and thus he referred to it as the "Fourth Way".
[ presumably Jesus was the third way. And Lao Tse had a "Way" (Tao) of his own. ]
Likewise, many ‘rational folk’ have a strongly intuitive social sense, even though they’re vocally dismissive of feelings as valid information.
Such antagonism arises primarily when objective scientific facts clash with subjective religious beliefs. For example, the Theory of Evolution seemed to turn divine miracles into mundane mechanics. So, Intelligent Design proponents counter-attacked the scientists by using their own weapon of Reason against them. Both sides in the ongoing debate have a "strongly intuitive social sense", but different opinions about what qualifies as "valid information". Christians and Muslims both have Intelligent Design arguments online, but they get their valid Information from different scriptures --- different revelations of "truths beyond intellect". Can intuition tell you which revelation is true, or would you prefer to roll the dice, or to laboriously reason through the evidence? :chin:
Note : The BothAnd philosophy is intended to reconcile the world's inter-social divisions by accepting the necessity, and validity, for both Intuition and Reason in human intercourse. But each side must "doubt a little of their own infallibility". ___Benjamin Franklin
https://www.pbs.org/benfranklin/pop_finalspeech.html
Reasoning vs Intuition : Many people regard Reasoning the opposite of Intuition. Reasoning is rational thinking using logic, while Intuition is unconscious, a paranormal gift, a magical awarenessnot accessible for normal humans, or a connectivity to an all knowing esoteric field.
https://thinkibility.com/2012/11/17/reasoning-versus-intuition/
[ Normal mundane Intuition is how most human thinking works. But magical, esoteric Intuition is a claim that must be taken on faith. So choose your prophet wisely, or your faith could lead you astray.]
"Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, for many false prophets have gone out into the world." 1 John 4:1
Reply to GnomonThe problem with discussing this only in relation to ‘intuition’ and ‘reason’ is that we don’t really understand or agree on what these concepts are or how they operate objectively in relation to science. I cannot expect your experience of knowing ‘intuitively’ to be the same as mine, in the same way that there is no such thing as a universally recognised instance of ‘anger’.
The reason I refer to neuroscience and quantum mechanics to describe how mental processes relate to physical processes is because we cannot keep pretending that concepts such as ‘intuition’, ‘reason’ or ‘emotion’ always refer to measurably identical physical instances instead of amorphous mental structures of pattern recognition that vary according to subjective past interactions. To switch from talking about physical processes to metaphysical processes as if they relate, without an understanding of how they relate, is an exercise in cognitive dissonance, often concealed behind unexplained metaphorical language. It’s fine to talk about intuition, reason and emotion as metaphysical concepts - just not in the same discussion as objectively measurable/observable action in spacetime. And we need to recognise that we could very well be referring to two quite different patterns of experience, and therefore different conceptual structures, while using the same word.
Intuition gives us a quick overview of possible outcomes --- like watching a movie in fast forward --- from which we select what seems to be the best path to a desirable future state. Therefore, we "direct our attention" to that optimum path, and ignore the ones that seem to be less profitable. However, in some cases, the situation is so complex that Intuition is a poor guide to action. So, we slow down the movie and examine it frame-by-frame, by Reasoning, to see if we missed any important details that may affect the overall meaning of the movie.
Most human behavior is more or less successfully guided by Intuition, but our innate ability to judge probabilities (statistics) is poor. We tend to be more confident of our intuitions than is warranted. That's why modern scientists rely on computers to fact check their original estimates. Unfortunately, while computers are good at predicting Effects, they are poor at anticipating Affects (how it will make me feel). So, the method of Bayesian Statistics was developed to take advantage of human intuition for subjective affective evaluations.
Intuitive statistics were not derived from our understanding of quantum randomness, but of our self-correcting procedures to improve first guesses with more information. However, Rational computer statistics could, in theory, make use of wavefunction calculations to sharpen their ability to predict future states. I'm just riffing here. So this little diversion may have missed the point of the quote above. And I still don't know what it has to do with "five dimensional reality". :joke:
What you’re describing here - mental relations irrespective of temporal or spatial relevance - all refer to five-dimensional reality. The ability to play with the timing of the ‘movie’, to isolate elements from their temporal and spatial context, and to consider them in terms of value and significance such as profit, desire, potentiality and future probability is how we interact with five dimensional aspects of reality. Some of these relations we have the luxury of processing in time through conscious thought, reasoning, critical introspection, imaginative simulation and abstract discussion. Others are limited by time, energy and attention constraints before action is required, and so they are often processed instantly and unconsciously according to existing conceptual structures that bypass or shortcut the thinking process.
Bayesian Statistics is a simplified description of the structural relation in which we continually adjust our conceptual structures (beliefs), and the resulting probabilistic predictions, according to new information. Like most maths and logic, the human brain was doing Bayesian statistics long before Bayes wrote down his formula to describe it. Similarly, quantum mechanics is just a way of describing the structural relations of what already occurs. Quantum physicists would agree that we don’t have to understand conceptually how it works or what it means in order for it to work, and for us to achieve things with it. Where intuitive statistics describe cognitive processes by which we can adjust and improve a probabilistic prediction, quantum mechanics can be seen to describe the process by which we convert that prediction into action. I’m not suggesting that the wavefunction is a useful tool in predicting future states - I’m suggesting that its probabilistic nature provides a useful analogy to describe the existing structural relation between belief and action.
The problem with discussing this only in relation to ‘intuition’ and ‘reason’ is that we don’t really understand or agree on what these concepts are or how they operate objectively in relation to science.
Let's try to see where we agree or disagree on the Intuition vs Reason debate. Which of the following definitions would characterize your understanding : "Reasoning is rational thinking using logic, while Intuition is unconscious, A> a paranormal gift, B> a magical awareness not accessible for normal humans, or C> a connectivity to an all knowing esoteric field." Or does your Fifth Dimension theory provide another option?
I cannot expect your experience of knowing ‘intuitively’ to be the same as mine, in the same way that there is no such thing as a universally recognised instance of ‘anger’.
Of course. That's the distinction between Subjective knowing (I feel angry) and Objective knowledge (I sense an increase of adrenaline). It's the mystery of Consciousness that I can't know directly what's in your mind. Which is why rational humans, and not intuitive animals, have developed methods for objectifying their thoughts in conventional words and concepts. Some animals, such as ants, communicate their feelings about factual information (e.g. a source of food) via chemicals. Dolphins communicate their emotional states, and some factual information, via squeaks and body language. Do you suppose they have a deeper (or higher) understanding of the world than the founders of religions (holistic, oceanic oneness) , or empirical scientists (reductive, particular details), who communicate their feelings and facts via language and mathematics? Can we humans have the best of both worlds, higher and deeper?
we cannot keep pretending that concepts such as ‘intuition’, ‘reason’ or ‘emotion’ always refer to measurably identical physical instances
Some neuro-biologists like to think they can trace all mental activity back to neuronal functions. But a few neuroscientists, such as Christof Koch, are beginning to take a more holistic approach to understanding the mysteries of Consciousness. The physical functions of brains are not fully understood, but the correlations between measurable brain activity and felt mental concepts are undeniable. So, it behooves us find the link (or common denominator) between brain and mind. In my thesis, that common measure (both physical and metaphysical) is universal Information.
The Feeling of Consciousness : Koch notes that, “much ink has been spilled over arguments that quantum mechanics is the secret to consciousness”. However, after years of research, he saw “no need to invoke exotic physics to understand consciousness”.
http://bothandblog6.enformationism.info/page18.html
Note : the names of metaphysical Feelings are metaphors based on physical sensations, such as touch, vision, smell.
And we need to recognise that we could very well be referring to two quite different patterns of experience, and therefore different conceptual structures, while using the same word.
That's why I have focused on a different word, Information, to describe those "different patterns of experience". Raw Information has the potential to take on infinite Forms or Patterns.
mental relations irrespective of temporal or spatial relevance - all refer to five-dimensional reality.
In my own thesis, that state "irrespective of temporal or spatial relevance" is what I call Enfernity (dimensionless eternity & infinity). So perhaps we have some common ground here. I begin to see where you are coming from. But I would call it "non-dimensional".
I’m not suggesting that the wavefunction is a useful tool in predicting future states - I’m suggesting that its probabilistic nature provides a useful analogy to describe the existing structural relation between belief and action.
I can see the analogy, but the question is how we could predict the future state of the waveform upon the collapse of the stateless wave-function. How does "observation" trigger a phase transition from non-local to local, or from possible to actual. I have toyed with some scenarios, but the topic is way beyond my competence in science and philosophy, not to mention mystical knowledge. :nerd:
Let's try to see where we agree or disagree on the Intuition vs Reason debate. Which of the following definitions would characterize your understanding : "Reasoning is rational thinking using logic, while Intuition is unconscious, A> a paranormal gift, B> a magical awareness not accessible for normal humans, or C> a connectivity to an all knowing esoteric field." Or does your Fifth Dimension theory provide another option?
None of the above. Reasoning is understanding something via conscious thought processes, and need not use only logic. Intuition is defined as “the ability to understand something instinctively, without the need for conscious reasoning”, with instinct defined as “an innate, typically fixed pattern of behaviour in animals in response to certain stimuli”. Intuition refers to unexplained means by which we find that we understand something, but there need be nothing magical, paranormal or esoteric about it. The only real difference between intuition and reasoning is that one is an explainable process (even if determined after the fact), and the other isn’t.
Of course. That's the distinction between Subjective knowing (I feel angry) and Objective knowledge (I sense an increase of adrenaline). It's the mystery of Consciousness that I can't know directly what's in your mind. Which is why rational humans, and not intuitive animals, have developed methods for objectifying their thoughts in conventional words and concepts. Some animals, such as ants, communicate their feelings about factual information (e.g. a source of food) via chemicals. Dolphins communicate their emotional states, and some factual information, via squeaks and body language. Do you suppose they have a deeper (or higher) understanding of the world than the founders of religions (holistic, oceanic oneness) , or empirical scientists (reductive, particular details), who communicate their feelings and facts via language and mathematics? Can we humans have the best of both worlds, higher and deeper?
Animals don’t have a deeper or higher understanding of the world. Ants aren’t aware of any feelings about factual information - rather they instinctively embody what this chemical information means for the colony in terms of their particular distribution of effort and attention in spacetime. We interpret this behaviour as evidence of ‘their feelings about factual information’, but the colony has no awareness of ‘feelings’ as anything distinct from the ‘factual information’. It’s more likely that dolphins may be vaguely aware of another’s emotional state as information distinct from where the fish are, for instance - but they’re unlikely to recognise an emotional state in themselves.
I think as humans we need to recognise that there are reasoning-type processes our brain undertakes unconsciously, not necessarily because they’re beyond our awareness, but because we’ve operated more efficiently or economically this way in terms of effort and attention requirements. Given that we rarely need to be so economical these days, we should at least recognise and challenge our untapped capacity to increase awareness, connection and collaboration with the world beyond simply surviving, dominating and procreating ourselves.
Some neuro-biologists like to think they can trace all mental activity back to neuronal functions. But a few neuroscientists, such as Christof Koch, are beginning to take a more holistic approach to understanding the mysteries of Consciousness. The physical functions of brains are not fully understood, but the correlations between measurable brain activity and felt mental concepts are undeniable. So, it behooves us find the link (or common denominator) between brain and mind. In my thesis, that common measure (both physical and metaphysical) is universal Information.
The Feeling of Consciousness : Koch notes that, “much ink has been spilled over arguments that quantum mechanics is the secret to consciousness”. However, after years of research, he saw “no need to invoke exotic physics to understand consciousness”.
http://bothandblog6.enformationism.info/page18.html
Note : the names of metaphysical Feelings are metaphors based on physical sensations, such as touch, vision, smell.
It’s been some time since I read ‘The Feeling of Life Itself’ - Koch introduced me to Integrated Information Theory. Other than that I don’t remember much of it, although I’m guessing many of my ideas about consciousness could be traced back to that book.
My biggest problem with IIT is that it fails to account for, and so practically ignores, quantum mechanics. While I will say that there is no need to invoke any physics at all to ‘understand’ consciousness as a mental process, that doesn’t allow for integration of such an understanding with that of the physical world. As promising as much of the theory is, in my view IIT continues to fall short of this. I believe that Feldman Barrett picks up where Koch leaves off: at the dual aspect of interior/exterior, and explores the connection between them in relation to the neuroscience of emotional states. Her Concept Cascades theory builds a convincing explanation of how mental states and brain states interact and how we learn the simplest to the most complex concepts and apply them in our organic interactions with reality.
Intuition refers to unexplained means by which we find that we understand something, but there need be nothing magical, paranormal or esoteric about it.
Good! I just wanted to make sure we were talking about the same thing. Some intuitives feel that their non-rational approach to problems is superior to plodding reasoning, in part because it is a magical connection to occult knowledge that is not accessible to mundane reasoning.
However, as you implied, they are not two separate (mundane vs magic) channels to knowledge, but merely faster (intuition) or slower (reason) processes of thinking. Most of us switch between both speeds without being aware of it. When confronted with novel situations or problems, we tend to slow down and dissect the details to see if there are familiar components that we already know how to deal with. But then, all we have is a collection of meaningless unrelated pieces of the puzzle. So, we often just stop analyzing at that apparent dead end, and turn our attention to other topics, or just go to sleep, or meditate. Meanwhile, the always-on subconscious functions of brain operation continue to process the data until a pattern emerges that ties the parts together into a whole concept.
The primary difference between Reason and Intuition is that we are consciously aware of the individual steps (movie frames) in rational processing (words, numbers), but are aware only of the final output (meaning of the movie) in subconscious processing (feelings, gist, general impressions). All humans use both procedures, but just as some are right- or left-handed, we tend to show a preference for one or the other.
I think as humans we need to recognise that there are reasoning-type processes our brain undertakes unconsciously, not necessarily because they’re beyond our awareness, but because we’ve operated more efficiently or economically this way in terms of effort and attention requirements.
Precisely! Subconscious (non-verbal) thinking is the default mode of human and animal information processing. It is energy efficient and requires much less effort than Conscious (words & numbers) reasoning. The problem here is that the quick summary method may miss some crucial bit of knowledge, resulting in erroneous conclusions. The rational mode of thinking (science) is often frustratingly ponderous, and requires deferring the emotional satisfaction of a solution. That's why visceral (affective) feelings and mental intuition are correlated, while dispassionate (effective) concepts and mental reasoning are typically associated in personality trait theories.
Thinking, Fast and Slow : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thinking,_Fast_and_Slow
My biggest problem with IIT is that it fails to account for, and so practically ignores, quantum mechanics.
Yes. Dr. Giulio Tononi is a psychiatrist and neuroscientist, so his focus in IIT was on the behavior of humans. But other scientists are beginning to do research on the quantum level. My thesis assumes that higher level phenomena, such as human emotions and intuition, can be traced back down the hierarchy of metaphysics & physics to fundamental Information --- which is omnipotential. I won't go into the details here, but just as quantum "particles" are essentially bundles of potential energy, energy itself is an active causative form of Generic Information (EnFormAction). In effect, metaphysical Enformation is the new Atom of the physical world. It's equivalent to Spinoza's Single Substance, that he called God, and I call G*D.
Quantum Integrated Information Theory : https://arxiv.org/abs/1806.01421
In my own thesis, that state "irrespective of temporal or spatial relevance" is what I call Enfernity (dimensionless eternity & infinity). So perhaps we have some common ground here. I begin to see where you are coming from. But I would call it "non-dimensional".
Why can’t it still be dimensional, though? I recognise that what we’re talking about exists beyond (yet in relation to) the four dimensions that science has currently structured, but in the same way that a square is essentially a line with an additional aspect of shape, structured relative to a three-dimensional position; and a cube is essentially a square with an additional aspect of volume, structured relative to a four-dimensional position; so, too, an experience is a 4D event with an additional (fifth) aspect of affect, which we learn to structure only by imagining a six-dimensional relational position of pure possibility of meaning: objective truth, the All, the Absolute, the Single Substance, or G*D.
It is understanding the distinction and relation between affect (the ‘feeling of life itself’, irrespective of temporal or spatial relevance) and meaning, between subjectively perceived potential and objectively infinite possibility, which appears to be lacking in your thesis. Your implication by referring to the entirety of this ‘state’ as ‘non-dimensional’ is that there is no such distinction. For me, however, there is a level of perception between life and meaning - which corresponds to consciousness.
I can see the analogy, but the question is how we could predict the future state of the waveform upon the collapse of the stateless wave-function. How does "observation" trigger a phase transition from non-local to local, or from possible to actual. I have toyed with some scenarios, but the topic is way beyond my competence in science and philosophy, not to mention mystical knowledge. :nerd:
I’m not sure what you’re asking here. A waveform refers to the shape of a graph - how do you see this relating to the wavefunction analogy? By ‘state of the waveform’, do you mean an observation/measurement of the energy event?
An ‘observation’ IS the process of locating or actualising an energy event. It doesn’t trigger a phase transition, but rather IS the phase transition. You cannot separate the observation (interaction in time) either from the event as observed or from the function of the observer. And any subsequent interaction with either the observer (as a measuring device) or the observed merely joins this superposition state.
Of course, when we’re talking about the ‘observation’ of an energy event such as a photon or electron, it isn’t observable in any classical sense - we’re not really looking at it. We’re arranging for an observer to locate it in spacetime relative to that observer. And so we locate this event in spacetime relative to the position of the observer relative to ourselves.
The important thing here is that we cannot ‘observe’ the energy event without locating or actualising it in spacetime. But we can perceive its potential via the wavefunction, which effectively tells us where and when to direct our effort and attention to interact with the event. At that moment of interacting with the event (or interacting with the measuring device interacting with the event), we ‘observe’ it, and join its superposition state. It becomes, from our position in spacetime, an actual event.
The wavefunction still exists, though - just not from our perspective, or from the perspective of anyone interacting with the measuring device. Included in this superposition might be anyone also interacting with the observation/measurement as expressed ONLY if it is expressed in such a way that enables them to accurately locate this same electron in spacetime. Given that any expression of observation/measurement occurs in a different spacetime location to the event, though, this isn’t possible. So the wavefunction is the most accurate way to express an objective observation/measurement of an energy event as separate from the event observed and the observer (now both in the past). Anyone with the capacity to perceive the potential of the wavefunction, then, is able to reproduce the experiment and verify the observation/measurement.
So the idea is to look for the ‘wavefunction’ as an objective expression of affect.
I understand your preference for neologisms in order to ‘control its meaning precisely’. The amount of posts arguing over definitions and meaning of terminology on this forum seem to outweigh all other posts.
Hi Possibility!
I did a cursory read of the entire thread, and wanted to bring to light a simple or obvious but often overlooked component to Philosophy, which is the logic of words.
"Philosophy lives in words, but truth and fact well up into our lives in ways that exceed verbal formulation."— William James
Just as a matter of formality, what you seem to be saying is that you may not value the deconstruction (the existential meaning not the Platonic one) between the meaning of words (AKA: Derrida) and reaching a holistic or consistent world view. The relationship between text and meaning is still a problem that consistently requires attention.
Don't mean to disparage any of your discussion points, but as you've alluded, on a public forum like TPF, it is more often than not very helpful (if not fundamental) to agree on the meaning of terms, words, definition standards, etc..
In your own theory, you can call it anything you want. But as I pointed-out before, the notion of extra dimensions has been used to describe a variety of spiritual mysteries, and also referring to the far-out mathematics of String Theory, and as another word for the imaginary Parallel Worlds of science fiction. But in all those cases, the occult "dimensions" are not measurable in any objective manner. You just have to take the word of psychic adepts & math mavens & sci-fi authors that they exist. That's why I prefer to limit that common-sense word to features of reality that we can all agree on. These abstruse concepts we're both playing around with are obscure enough without straying too far from grounding in common ground.
Can you define your Fifth "Dimension" in a way that is not occult and magical? Metaphorical is OK, as long as it is meaningful to common sense. "State Space" and "Probability Space" are mathematical concepts that don't apply to actual real things, but to possible outcomes of physical processes, such as rolling dice.
State Space : A state space is the set of all possible configurations of a system. It is a useful abstraction for reasoning about the behavior of a given system . . .
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_space
Probability Space : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Probability_space
Your implication by referring to the entirety of this ‘state’ as ‘non-dimensional’ is that there is no such distinction. For me, however, there is a level of perception between life and meaning - which corresponds to consciousness.
The state I was referring to was Eternity & Infinity, both of which are immeasurable, hence non-dimensional. But you seem to think of the 5th Dimension as a non-sensory state in space-time, although not measurable out there in space or time, but only subjectively via intuition & imagination. The "distinction" between space-time dimensions (matter & motion) and mental-meaning dimensions (mind, consciousness) is like apples & oranges : true, but obvious.
Note :In my thesis, I find their commonality in the notion that both are forms of Generic Information. Just as Energy = Mass (matter) x the speed of light, Mind = Matter x Meaning (intention). But that's also a concept that defies common sense, even though it's the fundamental difference between Classical and Quantum science.
I don't understand the "level of perception" that senses a "state space" between Life and Meaning. As far as I know, Life is not a static space, but a dynamic process unfolding in time. And we "perceive" Life, not via sensory perception, but in imagination as a metaphor like a journey from point A to point B. The Meaning of Life is also not a sensible thing, but a subjective feeling about a person's history and future prospects. Some people take figurative metaphors literally, attributing properties of the symbol to the thing symbolized. For example, some idolators actually try to feed and clothe their little statues, thinking that it will make a difference to the occult deity, supposedly hanging around the state space of its artificial model.
An ‘observation’ IS the process of locating or actualising an energy event. It doesn’t trigger a phase transition, but rather IS the phase transition.
Actually, that is close to my own concept, that the process of EnFormAction is what we call a Phase Transition. It's the act of changing form, of revealing latent possibilities in new actualities. To EnForm is to Actualize.
So the idea is to look for the ‘wavefunction’ as an objective expression of affect.
So, when a physicist calculates the future trajectory of a particular wavefunction, that knowledge affects the state of the waveform (particle)??? The problem here is that "affect" can refer to a physical transfer of energy, or to the emotional feeling of knowing something about that change. Does the feeling cause the phase change, or is it an effect of the change? Again, mixing literal and metaphorical meanings is confusing. Feynman's famous quote may apply here : "If you think you understand quantum theory, you don't understand quantum theory". :joke:
PS__I may be gradually coming to "see" your 5th Dimension, but it's still a bit fuzzy. I have to translate your dimensional terminology into my own Information-based language.
Reply to 3017amen I recognise how important it is to agree on the meaning of terms, words, etc, or to at least begin with a standard definition, even if we don’t stay there. William James has a good point in that our complex understanding of truth is irreducible to language, let alone definitions.
But I think there’s a difference between striving to reach a shared meaning beyond language and attempting to control meaning by assigning significance from the top down. It can be easier to coin a new term than to discuss the multiple levels of meaning associated with a word such as ‘information’, for instance. The top-down approach requires starting with an assumption of shared meaning, though, and then expecting one to think or process that meaning the way they’re instructed to. It’s great for those who aren’t used to thinking for themselves, but to guide them only to a certain point and then leave them with metaphorical language and vague reference to complex theories comes across as unfinished at best, at worst all talk and no substance.
I have no real problem with neologisms, as such - more with failing to take responsibility and due care for the directed thinking process assumed by controlling meaning from the top down. It’s a bit like leading someone to an unfamiliar location, and then telling them to find their own way back.
Just as a matter of formality, what you seem to be saying is that you may not value the deconstruction (the existential meaning not the Platonic one) between the meaning of words (AKA: Derrida) and reaching a holistic or consistent world view. The relationship between text and meaning is still a problem that consistently requires attention.
I’m not quite sure what you’re saying here. Deconstruction, as I understand it, is about exploring the meaning of words beyond value or the significance of language. The instance of the word or text is the event, the definition the machine, and language the rules and laws - but meaning is what all this ultimately refers to: the relation between possibility and impossibility, and the ‘undecidable’ difference that manifests. I would have thought this renders the possibility of a consistent worldview relatable and yet indefinable as such. Neologisms don’t solve the problem, they’re just an attempt to control the uncontrollable. But this is a cursory interpretation - I haven’t formally studied Derrida, so I could be misunderstanding it completely.
The instance of the word or text is the event, the definition the machine, and language the rules and laws - but meaning is what all this ultimately refers to: the relation between possibility and impossibility, and the ‘undecidable’ difference that manifests. I would have thought this renders the possibility of a consistent worldview relatable and yet indefinable as such. Neologisms don’t solve the problem, they’re just an attempt to control the uncontrollable.
Hi Possibility!
No exceptions taken on the jist of your reply, but just some clarifications if I could. I was trying to make two points.
1. The argument from 'iterability of meaning' (refer to video if you like) was that which I was referring to, where there is need to reach consensus in (contextual) definitions first, before proceeding into a debate or discussion etc. about the concept. In other words, agree (or disagree) on the definitions about the subject matter beforehand.
Another spirited/working example comes from the doctrine of vagueness:
"Where does the tail of a snake begin? When posed as a rhetorical question, the speaker is hinting that there is no definite answer. But the tail can be located by tracing down from the snake’s rib cage. A false attribution of indeterminacy will lead to the premature abandonment of inquiry. The risk of futile inquiry into questions that cannot be answered must be balanced against the risk of abandoning questions that are actually answerable. "
Anyway, you get the idea, here: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/vagueness/
2. IMO, your point about Neologisms is well taken, in that " all talk and no substance" is indeed a frustration tantamount to philosophical gibberish. Nevertheless, from my specific understanding, the context in which Gnomon posits his theories is where there is merit. Meaning, as being a sort of paradigm-buster myself (in his case him being a recovering Fundy), I have argued or suggested in the past that in the 21st century we needed to re-define many old-school belief systems that are either unsophisticated, oppressive, or otherwise deleterious to our way of Being (part of the problem and not the solution). Similarly, Derrida's work in part, was an effort in the 60's socio-political movement where change was much needed at the forefront of Vietnam war, civil rights, women's rights, etc..
Anyway, just a minor summary point about iterability:
It can be easier to coin a new term than to discuss the multiple levels of meaning associated with a word such as ‘information
I'm sorry you don't like my gnarly neologisms. You seem to view them as prideful dogmatic assertions of ownership of the ideas embodied in them. You may not believe me when I say that was not my intent. I was merely addressing the ambiguity and prejudicial baggage of old words in a new context. When you said "information" in 1920, it was assumed you were referring to the meaningful contents of a human mind. But in 2020, the same word now is presumed to reference the meaningless numbers of a non-human computer, processing 1s & 0s instead of concepts. Shannon focused on the material containers of Information, rather than the meaningful contents. To paraphrase John F. Kennedy, I coin new words, "not because it's easy, but because it's hard" --- and necessary.
So, most of my glossary was directed at explaining why my philosophical "enformation" is not your scientific "information". True, it's easy to make-up nonsense words, like "grok". But it's hard to encapsulate a novel concept in a single word, like EnFormAction. My Website, Glossary, and Blog are ongoing attempts to "discuss the multiple levels of meaning associated with a word such as ‘information".
On other forums, I was regularly forced to deflect implications of the Shannon term, defined by destructive Entropy. So I developed the neologism of "Enformy" to mean the constructive aspect of Energy. If you limited my thesis to standard definitions, there would be nothing new or important in it. I just checked the Glossary of Philosophical terms in Wikipedia, and "Information" is not on the list. I hope to change that omission. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glossary_of_philosophy#I
When you are introducing a new concept, new words are necessary. By spelling Enformationism with an "E" I was deliberately disassociating my meaning from Shannon's usage. As a matter of fact, in the earlier thread, I had to insist to Sushi that I was not misusing Shannon's authoritative terminology, because I was talking about a distinctly different function of "Information". In your own theory of the Fifth Dimension, you are using an old word with a new meaning*1. Which is why I've had difficulty groking what you are talking about. But I never accused you of a haughty proprietary "top-down" intent. Does the scientific definition of "Dimension" below describe your concept? Or would you define it in a different way, to clarify the distinction from the conventional meaning? Maybe you need to coin a new word that would be more suggestive of your precise meaning. See suggestion below. :cool:
First Define Your Terms : There's no one answer to this. Plato's use of language was idiosyncratic, and he often used common terms in non-standard ways as a way of reshaping how people conceptualized them. Conversely Wittgenstein believed many classic philosophical problems were reducible to language ambiguities.
https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/questions/37569/defining-terms-in-philosophy
Dimension : The concept of dimension is not restricted to physical objects. High-dimensional spaces frequently occur in mathematics and the sciences. They may be parameter spaces or configuration spaces such as in Lagrangian or Hamiltonian mechanics; these are abstract spaces, independent of the physical space we live in.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dimension
Five Dimensional Space : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Five-dimensional_space
The Fifth Dimension : https://sciencing.com/5th-dimension-11369444.html
The Intuition Dimension : a predictive distribution of attention/awareness that determines their thoughts, words and actions. — Possibility
*1 Patching old cloth with new thread : https://www.bibletools.org/index.cfm/fuseaction/Topical.show/RTD/CGG/ID/9273/New-Cloth-on-Old-Garment.htm
Aleister Crowley : He founded the religion of Thelema, identifying himself as the prophet entrusted with guiding humanity into the Æon of Horus in the early 20th century.
Just a passing comment about this very interesting gentleman. He was a pioneer British rock climber and mountaineer. He was on an expedition to the Himalaya (K2) in 1902. Also, he wrote the first British bouldering guide in 1898, illustrated by a famous artist.
It would be entertaining to read about other little known aspects of the lives of well-known philosophers - show they were not one-dimensional.
And a tiny factoid about the Schrödinger equation: Under certain (unrealistic?) restrictions, it has the form dQ/dt=CQ(t), which is the familiar expression from elementary calculus stating that the rate of change of a quantity at time=t is proportional to the amount of the quantity existing at time=t. :cool:
In your own theory, you can call it anything you want. But as I pointed-out before, the notion of extra dimensions has been used to describe a variety of spiritual mysteries, and also referring to the far-out mathematics of String Theory, and as another word for the imaginary Parallel Worlds of science fiction. But in all those cases, the occult "dimensions" are not measurable in any objective manner. You just have to take the word of psychic adepts & math mavens & sci-fi authors that they exist. That's why I prefer to limit that common-sense word to features of reality that we can all agree on. These abstruse concepts we're both playing around with are obscure enough without straying too far from grounding in common ground.
Can you define your Fifth "Dimension" in a way that is not occult and magical? Metaphorical is OK, as long as it is meaningful to common sense. "State Space" and "Probability Space" are mathematical concepts that don't apply to actual real things, but to possible outcomes of physical processes, such as rolling dice.
Measurable is not necessarily quantitative, and not necessarily spatial. These are the main assumptions that I think prevent a reasonable understanding of any kind of fifth dimension. Mathematics refers to relationships as structures, but assumes all possible values to correspond to a numerical value or range, and all relationships to be spatially relevant. All multi-dimensional theories you’ve mentioned are at least inspired by common subjective experiences of aspects to reality that cannot be explained within the three spatial dimensions we can observe and measure in relation to an arbitrary time value. Descartes ensured a systematic exclusion of these ‘doubtful’ aspects from science and mathematics for centuries, and yet these obscure theories persist because the question of how these shared experiences correlate with ‘material’ reality remains to be answered.
That something other than this 3+1 dimensional reality exists is undeniable. How we ‘measure’ or ‘observe’ the properties of these aspects such as knowledge, potentiality, value, significance, feeling, creativity and imagination without affecting the measurement or compromising either certainty or objectivity is what we haven’t been able to work out. But they’re not imaginary - just undefined and unexplained in an objective sense.
Spiritual mysteries refer to the idea of dimensions as a relational structure that is as much internally extruded into an additional aspect as externally. This corresponds to the idea of mathematical dimensions, in which a cube is basically a square extruded into an additional aspect from every point on that shape. Where they go from there, however, is to try and reify this additional aspect using purely qualitative descriptions: excluding any relation to logic, mathematics or science, controlling meaning from the top down by redefining or inventing words, and isolating their imagined structure conceptually from the physical dimensions by its formlessness.
String Theory, on the other hand, has a mathematically formulated structure isolated from subjective experience by a purely theoretical foundation. And the ‘parallel worlds’ of science fiction are based on a misinterpretation of dimensional extrusion that multiplies the existing world into isolated worlds each with randomly altered variables.
So instead, we ask the question: how do you ‘measure’ value or potentiality? The answer is paradoxical, because in order to measure anything accurately, we need to attribute value. So what we end up doing is attributing value to value, which is where the measurement problem occurs. To solve this paradox, we need to understand what it really means to ‘measure’ something without necessarily attributing a fixed value. In four dimensions, this is what we tend to call observation.
Observe: notice or perceive (something) and register it as being significant.
When we observe an event happening, we essentially relate four dimensions of information and register it as being significant. Spatially, when we observe an object, we relate three dimensions of information. When we observe a shape, we register the significance of relations between two dimensions of information. And when we observe a line, we relate a single dimension of information - the difference between two points - and register it as significant.
The thing is, when we register something as significant, we’re essentially still attributing a value or potential - just not necessarily a numerical one.
Significance: the quality of being worthy of attention.
So we’re back to the same measurement problem, except it’s now qualitative. If we remove the entire process of attributing value, what we’re left with is the relation itself.
Relate: make or show a connection between.
The same problem applies to ‘information’, which Shannon describes as “the difference that makes a difference”. To ‘make a difference’ is to have a significant effect, so if we remove this process of attributing value, what we’re left with is a difference - this is what ‘information’ means at any level, whether it’s the content of the human mind or the content of a physical message transmission, simplified to a 1 or 0 in binary code. It isn’t meaningless - it’s just reduced to the simplest form of difference that makes a difference to a physical system.
At the quantum level, the most basic difference that makes a difference would be the binary distinctions between matter and anti-matter. And interestingly, it is in relating or manifesting a connection between them as a difference that matter is able to exist at all.
When you are introducing a new concept, new words are necessary. By spelling Enformationism with an "E" I was deliberately disassociating my meaning from Shannon's usage. As a matter of fact, in the earlier thread, I had to insist to Sushi that I was not misusing Shannon's authoritative terminology, because I was talking about a distinctly different function of "Information". In your own theory of the Fifth Dimension, you are using an old word with a new meaning*1. Which is why I've had difficulty groking what you are talking about. But I never accused you of a haughty proprietary "top-down" intent. Does the scientific definition of "Dimension" below describe your concept? Or would you define it in a different way, to clarify the distinction from the conventional meaning? Maybe you need to coin a new word that would be more suggestive of your precise meaning. See suggestion below.
I disagree that it’s a new meaning as such, or a new concept, for that matter. I’ll grant that it’s an alternative perspective of the meaning of ‘dimension’ - and yes, this may suggest a degree of perceptual limitation to the standard definition - but the meaning doesn’t change. Information, dimension and meaning, for me, all refer to structural relations at every level of existence. I’m only recently starting to work out the complexity of navigating these kinds of discussions, but one thing I have discovered is that I can’t go about coining new words for all of these ultimately six-dimensional ‘concepts’ (another term whose definition is perceptually limited) in order to clarify their distinction from ‘conventional’ meaning. It’s much more difficult and less gratifying, but I think it’s worth the effort.
Dimension is a perfect example of a word that previously had a more limited scope in meaning. The idea of referring to ‘time’ as a dimension is fairly new, and already necessarily broadens the way we approach the meaning of the term. Prior to this inclusion, a dimension referred to any physical measurement (3D). At an earlier stage, dimensional relations could only be mapped out on a Cartesian plane (2D), and before that ‘dimensio’ simply referred to a measured relation between two points (1D). I can understand your reluctance to accept a broader meaning of the term, but given its etymological history, I hope you can understand my reluctance to simply coin a new term that disassociates the concept from its more limited usage. Where we’ve done that historically, I think we’ve paid the price with a conceptual gap in understanding, many of which, even now, resist closure.
And I don’t believe you have reason to accuse me of “a haughty proprietary ‘top down’ intent”, because I have never once suggested that meaning was something I could control. The meaning already exists, I’m only suggesting we remove the perceptual limitations set by conventional definitions, which prevent us from fully understanding its scope.
Measurable is not necessarily quantitative, and not necessarily spatial.
Yes. Time is not a physical thing that can be measured with a yard/meter stick. But it is a dimension only by analogy to spatial dimensions. Time measures Change. What does your Fifth Dimension measure : Meaning, Values, Significance . . . ? Like the passage of Time, such qualities are completely Subjective and Relative, until we agree on conventional units of measurement, such as objective physical Moon revolutions. What kind of units do you use to measure the structure of the Fifth Dimension? How do you "observe" that structure?
How we ‘measure’ or ‘observe’ the properties of these aspects such as knowledge, potentiality, value, significance, feeling, creativity and imagination without affecting the measurement or compromising either certainty or objectivity is what we haven’t been able to work out. But they’re not imaginary - just undefined and unexplained in an objective sense.
Many world religions claim to have "worked out" how to "observe" those metaphysical properties : divine revelation, visions, mystical experiences, faith, Intuition, meditation, drug trips, etc. Are you looking for a new more certain method to measure the incommensurable? If these properties are "not imaginary" (mind pictures), does that mean they exist outside the mind, in the objective real world? If so, can we use pragmatic methods to observe them?
Incommensurable : not able to be judged by the same standard as something else; having no common standard of measurement.
BTW. I have no problem with taking Metaphysics seriously. But I try to make sure I'm not just taking it on Faith. That's why I challenge my own beliefs, with skeptical questions. :smile:
Physics & Metaphysics : Two sides of the same coin we call Reality. When we look for matters of fact, we see physics. But when we search for meaning, we find meta-physics. A mental flip is required to view the other side. And imagination is necessary to see both at the same time.
http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page14.html
I disagree that it’s a new meaning as such, or a new concept, for that matter.
Please reference some venerable or historical definitions of the Fifth Dimension. Do they match your meaning of the term? Are they different from the examples I gave above? Do you have a new way to perceive that extra-sensory dimension, besides the methods I mentioned above?
I hope you can understand my reluctance to simply coin a new term that disassociates the concept from its more limited usage.
The problem here is that when I propose a variety of old terms referring to the same general concept, you don't accept them as correct. If my list of conventional words for the metaphysical dimension are missing your point, what is the relevant difference? Wouldn't a new terminology help to make the distinction you are implying? If you are trying to avoid traditional religious and mystical definitions, why not give us a new interpretation of the ancient concept? How is the Fifth Dimension different from old fashioned Spiritualism?
BTW. After a Google search on "Fifth Dimension", I couldn't find anything that seems to match your meaning. So aren't you using old words with new definitions (i.e. neologisms)? How is 5th Dimension different from the Akashic Field, or from Heaven?
And I don’t believe you have reason to accuse me of “a haughty proprietary ‘top down’ intent”, because I have never once suggested that meaning was something I could control. The meaning already exists, I’m only suggesting we remove the perceptual limitations set by conventional definitions, which prevent us from fully understanding its scope.
If you can't control the meaning of your words, then they can mean whatever the reader wants them to mean. Why do you think philosophers throughout the years have spilt so much ink on defining conventional words, and so often resorted to creating new terms with no prior baggage? Was Kant haughty when he coined the term "categorical imperative" and "pure reason", by combining old words into novel concepts? Enformationism is a new paradigm, which would be incomprehensible in terms of the old paradigms of Materialism or Spiritualism.
How do you propose to "remove the perceptual limitations set by conventional definitions", without proposing unconventional meanings? Do you think that consciousness raising will magically remove millennia of prejudicial interpretations of common words? Demonizing the blunt term "cripple" in favor of "handicapped" or "impaired", may have changed attitudes toward certain previously marginalized people, but if you continue to use old spiritual terminology, how can you change attitudes toward the variety of uncompromising religions with us-versus-them attitudes toward their fellow spiritualists? How can you remove the perceptual limitations of seekers like me, who were raised with Biblical definitions of spiritual concepts? :cool:
"The beginning of wisdom is the definition of terms" ___attributed to Socrates
“If you wish to converse with me, define your terms.” ____Voltaire
Neologisms : Like many other philosophers, Kant introduced a new terminology, consisting of a mixture of neologisms and expressions borrowed from tradition and given a new meaning.
https://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Immanuel_Kant
One word, one meaning fallacy : to assume that your definition of a word is the same as the meaning of the same word in another person's mind.
Spiritual mysteries refer to the idea of dimensions as a relational structure that is as much internally extruded into an additional aspect as externally.
I am enjoying this dialog, in part, because I sense that you and I have similar aspirations. For example, I am trying, in my own idiosyncratic way, to legitimize the concepts of Metaphysics and Spiritualism, which were banished from scientific and philosophical discourse most decisively by Descartes. His Body/Soul division was later called "non-overlapping magisteria" by S.J. Gould. It gave science license to investigate all of Nature, except the aspects we are all most intimately familiar with : our own experiences & feelings & ideas. Yet those of other people remain shrouded in myths and "spiritual mysteries".
The so-called "Enlightenment" was a necessary correction to the Dark Ages. IMHO, It was justified in rebelling against the dogmatic magisteria of the combined church & state of the Holy Roman Empire. Since then, Empirical Science has gained dominance among the intellectual elite, while Spiritualism, in its many incompatible forms, still dominates the lives of the non-intellectual masses. Apparently, like me, you feel that this attempted amputation of Soul from Body favors one part over the whole system. But most attempts to patch the rift tend to favor one side over the other : Reason vs Emotion. Even the empiricist philosopher, David Hume, noted that "Reason is, and ought only to be the slave of the passions." But he was not advocating a return to the submission of individual reasoning to collective passions in the form of organized Religion. Instead, " All I insist is that it is fantasy to pretend that reason can provide the fundamental foundations for our hopes, ambitions or morality". My proposed patch for the Matter vs Mind split is the BothAnd philosophy.
Bernardo Kastrup, in the book I'm currently reading, is also on the same mission. But we are all approaching the goal from different directions. He even seems to have a concept similar to your Fifth Dimension. He observes, "since we all seem to share the same world, there has to be a broader cognitive space --- beyond just perceptions". He describes that "higher dimension" in spatial terms resembling yours in the quote above : "a cognitive space not only comprising, but also surrounding, perception". His "space" is also transcendent in a sense that you might agree with : "consensus experiences live in a transpersonal cognitive space, instead of an individual mind." You'll have to read the book to see how he defines his personal "consensus reality". Hint : it's not simply objective reality, or socially-constructed realty. Anyway, the point of the book seems to be that we know and discuss that transcendent reality in terms of symbols, myths, metaphors, and analogies. Kastrup seeks to reconcile the thousands of contradictory mythical narratives by discovering their essential commonalities, as suggested by Joseph Campbell, in Myths To Live By. I may not completely agree with his prescription for what ails the modern fragmented world. But we seem to be looking in the same direction. :cool:
your point about Neologisms is well taken, in that " all talk and no substance" is indeed a frustration tantamount to philosophical gibberish. Nevertheless, from my specific understanding, the context in which Gnomon posits his theories is where there is merit.
Thanks! The whole point of Enformationism is "paradigm busting", not merely saying the same old thing in strange words.
Unfortunately, I grew-up in the era of Modernism. So I missed the "corrections" of Post-Modernism. I once tried to read a book by Michel Foucault, but I got lost in his paragraph-long sentences. :joke:
The so-called "Enlightenment" was a necessary correction to the Dark Ages.
Also odd, like blanketly claiming that a natural development is correct. How do we know that things developed the best (correct) way possible? Perhaps God informed you that this was a correction to an error?
It ["Enlightenment"] was justified in rebelling against the dogmatic magisteria of the combined church & state of the Holy Roman Empire.
The rebellion was justified because of the dogmatism or because of something else? I'm sure bad stuff happened during the dark ages but it's not like whatever bad that was happening went **poof** after the "so-called" "enlightenment."
The third oddity is how you seem to simultaneously acknowledge the value of the enlightenment and question its value. It was a correction (for some reason) to the dark ages but caused the "attempted amputation of Soul from Body" or "Reason vs Emotion" rift, and therefore requires a patch for the "Matter vs Mind" split.
There is no attempted amputation and there's no rift or split. You've created a false dilemma so that you can try to provide a false solution. It shouldn't be a surprise that no one is buying.
A loss of meaning can only be resolved with something that is meaningful.
It's unclear what you mean by 'spiritualism' but it's odd that you believe metaphysics has been banished from philosophical discourse
I have repeatedly contrasted Spiritualism with Materialism as antagonistic worldviews. FYI, I'm using "Spiritualism" in a broad sense, not limited to the 19th century table-tipping fad by that name. For those who have been living under a rock for the last century, I'll note that the "rift" between Science (physics) and Religion (metaphysics) has been a hot topic in philosophy since the Enlightenment. And the clear trend among philosophers has been to side with Physics. Or is that also Fake News? Are you just being contrary, or do you have something to add to the thread?
Spiritualism : the doctrine that the spirit exists as distinct from matter, or that spirit is the only reality.
The Uneasy Revival of Metaphysics : https://philpapers.org/rec/DEGTUR
Healing the Rift : Bridging the Gap Between Science and Spirituality
https://www.amazon.com/Healing-Rift-Bridging-Spirituality-Hardcover/dp/B002VH4QW8
You've created a false dilemma so that you can try to provide a false solution. It shouldn't be a surprise that no one is buying.
Are you also a Global Warming denier? :joke:
I suspect that Possibility is aware and concerned about this philosophical dilemma, for which the Fifth Dimension theory is a proposed partial solution. If the "Rift" is no concern of yours, please butt out. :cool:
PS___To turn your attention away from this thread, I could reference hundreds of book on the topic of "The Rift". Here's a short list : https://www.goodreads.com/shelf/show/science-vs-religion
Yes. Time is not a physical thing that can be measured with a yard/meter stick. But it is a dimension only by analogy to spatial dimensions. Time measures Change. What does your Fifth Dimension measure : Meaning, Values, Significance . . . ? Like the passage of Time, such qualities are completely Subjective and Relative, until we agree on conventional units of measurement, such as objective physical Moon revolutions. What kind of units do you use to measure the structure of the Fifth Dimension? How do you "observe" that structure?
A measurement of time is the relation of a perception of change to an observer, but there is no universal measure of time.
[i]“This is time for us: a multi-layered, complex concept with multiple, distinct properties deriving from various different approximations.
Many discussions of the concept of time are confused because they simply do not recognise its complex and multi-layered aspect. They make the mistake of not seeing that the different layers are independent.”[/i] - Carlo Rovelli
The analogy to spatial dimensions often leads to an oversimplification of what ‘time’ is, based on the misunderstanding that ‘space’ as a dimensional existence refers to a container instead of a multi-layered, complex conceptual structure of three, two and one-dimensional relations.
We ‘observe’ value, potential and significance whenever we think, speak and act. In particular when we act, we ‘collapse the wavefunction’, so to speak, and manifest an event.
Many world religions claim to have "worked out" how to "observe" those metaphysical properties : divine revelation, visions, mystical experiences, faith, Intuition, meditation, drug trips, etc. Are you looking for a new more certain method to measure the incommensurable? If these properties are "not imaginary" (mind pictures), does that mean they exist outside the mind, in the objective real world? If so, can we use pragmatic methods to observe them?
But what they often fail to acknowledge is that the methods by which they ‘observe’ those metaphysical relations (which we refer to as ‘properties’) necessarily affect the structure, objectivity and certainty of their observation. What I’m looking for is a clearer understanding of how different methods and their limitations affect any observation, and then what we can do to improve the accuracy of these methods, and ultimately the accuracy of any interaction with reality.
Objectively speaking, what we call ‘properties’ are more accurately ‘relations’ - they don’t really belong to any particular object, event or experience, but more accurately refer to relations between their components. Knowledge is not a property I possess, but refers to complex relations between me and the events with which I interact. Even spatial ‘properties’ such as volume refer more accurately to relations between molecules (which are themselves relational structures between atoms, which are relations between particles) rather than what ‘belongs’ to the water, for instance. I just wanted to try and clear this up before we go any further.
So, these metaphysical ‘properties’ can be understood as complex relations between lower dimension relational structures, but don’t necessarily recognise the isolated relational structure to which we subjectively attribute them as a ‘property’, but rather relate to all nested structural relations down to matter/anti-matter. So to call them ‘mind pictures’ is to oversimplify the complexity of this relational structure between internal and external reality.
Please reference some venerable or historical definitions of the Fifth Dimension. Do they match your meaning of the term? Are they different from the examples I gave above? Do you have a new way to perceive that extra-sensory dimension, besides the methods I mentioned above?
I understand your dissatisfaction with where I’m at in developing my theory. I have referred to this fifth dimension with a number of different terms for convenience - including potentiality, value, and more recently affect - but I’ve yet to settle on a specific term because this is still a work in progress, and I believe that a definition at this stage will limit what I’m trying to achieve. I’m not deliberately trying to be evasive - I’m trying to preserve the uncertain nature of the objective reality I’m referring to. If I define this fifth dimension, then it becomes subjective, and all the work I’m doing is lost.
As for a way to ‘perceive’ this dimension (as opposed to observing it, which is something else), I have referred a number of times to the neuroscientific theory developed by Lisa Feldman Barrett, which explains the relation between emotion, affect, brain activity and behaviour, and the way we develop, test and refine our conceptual structures. She begins by debunking the classical view of emotions as instinctive, inherent and universal, and then goes on to propose a theory of emotion, based on neuroscientific research in relation to psychology, which presents emotions as conceptual structures we develop by relating, distinguishing and recognising patterns across instances of affect. It is this affect, as a dual aspect of what she refers to as ‘valence’ (pleasant/unpleasant) and ‘arousal’ (high/low energy), that describes a mental reduction of qualitative/quantitative potentiality and value into a predictive map of attention and effort requirements for the organism. What she’s essentially describing is a neural link between mental and physical states, in a way that supports my own theory of the fifth dimension as potentiality and value, and fits in with quantum interpretations of potential reality (qualia notwithstanding). If I’m not entirely clear on how this all fits together, it’s because I’ve only recently started to piece it together.
If you can't control the meaning of your words, then they can mean whatever the reader wants them to mean. Why do you think philosophers throughout the years have split so much ink on defining conventional words, and so often resorted to creating new terms with no prior baggage? Was Kant haughty when he coined the term "categorical imperative" and "pure reason", by combining old words into novel concepts? Enformationism is a new paradigm, which would be incomprehensible in terms of the old paradigms of Materialism or Spiritualism.
I’m approaching this from a different perspective to you, so bear with me. And I will reiterate that I have no issue with neologisms as such - I just think we need to be more cautious with how we employ them at this level of discussion. Kant wrote in the context of a very different world - your reference to @3017amen about missing ‘the corrections of post-modernism’ seems relevant here (and also goes some way towards explaining your concern with the materialism/spiritualism divide). In contrast, I was at university during the 1990s (not studying philosophy, though), so you could say my view is steeped in post-modernism to some extent. ‘Haughty’ was historically par for the course among philosophers, particularly of Kant’s era. But ‘categorical imperative’ is quite a different novel concept to ‘enformation’, in my view. I don’t believe that license to ignore ‘prior baggage’ is sufficient reason to coin a new term. You’re only avoiding the necessity to eventually unpack that baggage and reconstruct a relation to the original term.
Words identify the significance of conceptual structures (patterns across instances) in relation to reality, and are taught to infants by adults.
“Infants thereby learn to categorise the world in a way that is consistent, meaningful, and predictable to us (the speakers), and eventually to themselves. Their mental model of the world becomes similar to ours, so we can communicate, share experiences, and perceive the same world.” - Feldman Barrett, ‘How Emotions Are Made’
My aim here, however, is not to develop your mental model of the world to match mine, but rather to demonstrate the possible existence of meaning beyond the limitations of either of our existing mental models. I’m not the one assuming my definition of a word is the same as the meaning of the same word in another’s mind. Your words will mean whatever the reader wants them to mean, regardless of how you define them. Every word of your definition is open to subjective interpretation, which is what ultimately points to a perception of your meaning. So, in the end, your attempt to control meaning is futile.
How do you propose to "remove the perceptual limitations set by conventional definitions", without proposing unconventional meanings? Do you think that consciousness raising will magically remove millennia of prejudicial interpretations of common words? Demonizing the blunt term "cripple" in favor of "handicapped" or "impaired", may have changed attitudes toward certain previously marginalized people, but if you continue to use old spiritual terminology, how can you change attitudes toward the variety of uncompromising religions with us-versus-them attitudes toward their fellow spiritualists? How can you remove the perceptual limitations of seekers like me, who were raised with Biblical definitions of spiritual concepts?
Your example refers to reconceptualising reality so that an existing definition is attributed a less isolating or ignorant perspective in relation to meaning. I’m not trying to change the significance - I’m trying to broaden the definition to allow the existing identity of its conceptual structure to be less ignorant in relation to meaning. There’s a difference.
I think that increasing awareness, connection and collaboration will eventually succeed in removing the limited perspectives of conventional definitions. We can’t always enforce a paradigm shift from the top down, but eventually those who continue in their ignorance, isolation or exclusion will be in the minority, as is often the case.
Please let me know where I have been using ‘old spiritual terminology’, and I will try to clarify - I wasn’t aware of this. I, too, was raised with Biblical definitions of spiritual concepts, so that might have something to do with it...
I am enjoying this dialog, in part, because I sense that you and I have similar aspirations. For example, I am trying, in my own idiosyncratic way, to legitimize the concepts of Metaphysics and Spiritualism, which were banished from scientific and philosophical discourse most decisively by Descartes. His Body/Soul division was later called "non-overlapping magisteria" by S.J. Gould. It gave science license to investigate all of Nature, except the aspects we are all most intimately familiar with : our own experiences & feelings & ideas. Yet those of other people remain shrouded in myths and "spiritual mysteries".
I agree that our aspirations have some similarities, and also enjoy discussing your theory because I see a lot of merit to it. The ideas you have brought together follow my own lines of inquiry.
I’ll be honest with you, though - my aim is not to legitimise any ‘isms’ or to go in to bat for the validity of metaphysical ‘woo’ or ‘spiritual mysteries’. I won’t dismiss them as such, but I don’t find the divisive language at all helpful. I do also agree with the ‘oddities’ raised by @praxis - I think they’re valid concerns that you may need to address at some stage. There remains an affective and sometimes even political loading to your language which implies a blanket dismissiveness on the part of science, philosophy or fundamental religion to any collaboration between physics and metaphysics, but I have found plenty of evidence to the contrary, at least in physics, neuroscience, biology and philosophy, as well as in progressive Christian circles. I’m under the impression that you have, too, to some extent - despite your apparent concern with this perpetual divide between ‘isms’.
Personally, I’m of the opinion that we should proceed as if there was NO ideological divide, instead of continually repeating outdated battlecries based on past ignorance. My concern is with the gaps in understanding between mental and physical states of the brain, consciousness, will and action, actuality and potentiality, quantum and observable interpretations of reality, and between life and lifeless matter. In my opinion, philosophy has made more genuine progress in bridging these gaps in understanding than anyone else, and science (yes, even physics) is taking its cues from this. While my own theory did originate from a more spiritual perspective, I find the top-down control and ambiguity of spiritualism hinders rather than helps in bridging these gaps. This probably results in a tendency on my part to reject spiritualist language. I find there is more scope to broaden scientific language to embrace metaphysical notions than to guide the diversity of spiritual language towards an accurate rendering of science.
I would like to get to Kastrup, but my time is limited and Deacon is slow-going. From what I can see, Kastrup’s reference to an alternate ‘space’ might be limiting, particularly given his focus on qualitative attention, as this may not lend itself to extending ‘attention’ all the way to the origin of existence. It remains to be seen, I suppose.
1. The argument from 'iterability of meaning' (refer to video if you like) was that which I was referring to, where there is need to reach consensus in (contextual) definitions first, before proceeding into a debate or discussion etc. about the concept. In other words, agree (or disagree) on the definitions about the subject matter beforehand.
Start with definitions - yes, I agree here. From there, we proceed into discussions regarding the structure of the concept, with the aim to approach a shared meaning. The trouble arises, however, when someone enters the discussion with a new definition-word-concept package as an attempt to control meaning from the start. That changes the discussion to an evaluation or critical analysis of a particular belief system in relation to its perspective of truth.
Another spirited/working example comes from the doctrine of vagueness:
"Where does the tail of a snake begin? When posed as a rhetorical question, the speaker is hinting that there is no definite answer. But the tail can be located by tracing down from the snake’s rib cage. A false attribution of indeterminacy will lead to the premature abandonment of inquiry. The risk of futile inquiry into questions that cannot be answered must be balanced against the risk of abandoning questions that are actually answerable. "
I’m with you here. Not sure how it applies to my comments, though.
2. IMO, your point about Neologisms is well taken, in that " all talk and no substance" is indeed a frustration tantamount to philosophical gibberish. Nevertheless, from my specific understanding, the context in which Gnomon posits his theories is where there is merit. Meaning, as being a sort of paradigm-buster myself (in his case him being a recovering Fundy), I have argued or suggested in the past that in the 21st century we needed to re-define many old-school belief systems that are either unsophisticated, oppressive, or otherwise deleterious to our way of Being (part of the problem and not the solution). Similarly, Derrida's work in part, was an effort in the 60's socio-political movement where change was much needed at the forefront of Vietnam war, civil rights, women's rights, etc..
I recognise the need to re-define old-school belief systems, and I think Gnomon is aware of my affinity with his theory and this aim in particular. I don’t believe the way to achieve this is by coining new terms, though, but by broadening awareness and removing limitations on the isolating and ignorant definitions of existing terms.
The analogy to spatial dimensions often leads to an oversimplification of what ‘time’ is, based on the misunderstanding that ‘space’ as a dimensional existence refers to a container instead of a multi-layered, complex conceptual structure of three, two and one-dimensional relations.
Do you have some kind of image or diagram to illustrate the multilayered structure of space? The diagram below is a simplified interpretation of 3 dimensions, and could also illustrate the fourth dimension by moving the diagram from one point in time to another. String theorists have developed some computer renderings to represent their extra mathematically defined dimensions. Can your Fifth Dimension be represented in a similar manner? Or is it something else altogether?
Shape of String Space : https://news.wisc.edu/physicists-find-way-to-see-extra-dimensions/
Objectively speaking, what we call ‘properties’ are more accurately ‘relations’
This sounds similar to my own notion that, fundamentally, Information consists of inter-relations --- not between Things but Possibilities --- that can be represented as geometric ratios. One of the "properties" of complex & integrated relationships is what we interpret as Meaning. Simpler patterns are merely mathematical, but can be used as syntactical Shannon Information to compute higher order patterns, that we can translate back into semantic meanings. This is just the beginning of new way to think about Information. But I'm afraid it will take someone much smarter than me to develop it into a structured concept that can be understood by the average person.
So to call them ‘mind pictures’ is to oversimplify the complexity of this relational structure between internal and external reality.
Unfortunately, human understanding mostly takes the form of "mind pictures" : simplified icons analogous to "real" things out there in the world. If you want to communicate your own abstract concepts to others, you'll have to dumb them down into simplistic pictures of more familiar things. :nerd:
I’ll be honest with you, though - my aim is not to legitimise any ‘isms’ or to go in to bat for the validity of metaphysical ‘woo’ or ‘spiritual mysteries’.
My intent is not to "legitimize" those -isms as isolated traditions, but to integrate "woo" & "mysteries" into a whole system with empirical Science. Most scientists and atheists "dismiss" ancient metaphysical notions as non-sense. Yet I think the pre-scientific religious founders and philosophers were just as smart as modern materialists. They were simply using metaphorical language to describe transcendent concepts. Unfortunately, some of their followers took their metaphors too literally and dogmatically.
This is the point that Bernardo Kastrup is trying to make in his book, More Than Allegory. His previous "book is The Idea of the World: A multi-disciplinary argument for the mental nature of reality." In other words, Idealism. Which is also the point of Enformationism. Neither of these is a rejection of Realism, but a reinterpretation of reality in terms of Quantum and Information theories. By combining the science of the mundane physical world with the myths of the sublime mental world, we may learn to dispel ancient mysteries without divine revelations.
Ironically, my first impression of your transcendent Fifth Dimension theory was that it attempts to validate "metaphysical woo", such as New Age notions of higher dimensions :joke:
There remains an affective and sometimes even political loading to your language which implies a blanket dismissiveness on the part of science, philosophy or fundamental religion to any collaboration between physics and metaphysics,
That is the complete opposite to my intent. On this forum I am often critical of Scientism, but that's only in response to posters who are hard atheists, and dismissive of anything that smacks of religion. I, personally, am not religious at all. And I could be labeled "spiritual" only because I seriously entertain metaphysical notions that are anathema to physicists. BTW, FWIW, I am also completely a-political --- a militant moderate. My personal worldview is built upon cutting-edge science, not ancient religion.
The BothAnd Philosophy : From a philosophical point-of-view, I think the current “Mexican stand-off” in politics & religion results from a few extremists on left & right imposing their adamant Either/Or worldviews upon the more moderate masses, with the effect of almost eliminating the middle ground of peace & harmony. So, my proposed solution to the polarization problem is to adopt a moderate & inclusive Both/And attitude toward the world and its vicissitudes.
http://bothandblog6.enformationism.info/page2.html
So, in the end, your attempt to control meaning is futile.
That sounds like a fatalistic Postmodern attitude toward communication of ideas. Like Marxism, it assumes that all human behavior boils down to brutal us-versus-them politics. I am optimistically searching for some common ground in the "Better Angels of Our Nature". :cool:
Transcendent : beyond or above the range of normal or merely physical human experience. [ i.e. meta-physical or mental ]
Personally, I’m of the opinion that we should proceed as if there was NO ideological divide,
That is the point of the BothAnd philosophy.
The BothAnd Philosophy :
[i]Philosophy is the study of ideas & beliefs. Not which are right or wrong – that is the province of Religion and Politics – but which are closer to universal Truth. That unreachable goal can only be approximated by Reason & Consensus, which is the method of Science. In addition to ivory tower theories, applied Philosophy attempts to observe the behavior of wild ideas in their natural habitat.
The BothAnd philosophy is primarily Metaphysical, in that it is concerned with Ontology, Epistemology, & Cosmology. Those categories include abstract & general concepts, such as : G*D, existence, causation, Logic, Mathematics, & Forms. Unlike pragmatic scientific "facts" about the physical world, idealistic Metaphysics is a battle-ground of opinions & emotions.
The BothAnd principle is one of Balance, Symmetry and Proportion. It eschews the absolutist positions of Idealism, in favor of the relative compromises of Pragmatism. It espouses the Practical Wisdom of the Greek philosophers, instead of the Perfect Wisdom of the Hebrew Priests. The BA principle of practical wisdom requires “skin in the game”* to provide real-world feedback, which counter-balances the extremes of Idealism & Realism. That feedback establishes limits to freedom and boundaries to risk-taking. BA is a principle of Character & Virtue, viewed as Phronesis or Pragmatism, instead of Piety or Perfectionism.
The BA philosophy is intended to be based on empirical evidence where possible, but to incorporate reasonable speculation were necessary. As my personal philosophy, the basic principle is fleshed-out in the worldview of Enformationism, which goes out of the Real world only insofar as to establish the universal Ground of Being, and the active principle in Evolution.[/i]
http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page10.html
* ref : Skin In The Game, by Nassim Nicholas Taleb; researcher in philosophical, mathematical, and (mostly) practical problems with probability.
This probably results in a tendency on my part to reject spiritualist language.
I too, avoid the use of spiritual language (mostly metaphors for transcendence), except as necessary to re-define them into 21st century concepts, compatible with the best of modern science.
I recognise the need to re-define old-school belief systems, and I think Gnomon is aware of my affinity with his theory and this aim in particular. I don’t believe the way to achieve this is by coining new terms, though, but by broadening awareness and removing limitations on the isolating and ignorant definitions of existing terms.
You do it your way, and I'll do it mine. Critiquing and de-constructing out-of-date terminology is my way of "broadening awareness" and eliminating "ideological biases". :cool:
Note : I don't often use Postmodern terminology, but in this case it seems appropriate.
Please let me know where I have been using ‘old spiritual terminology’, and I will try to clarify
Sorry, that was a generic "you" in the quote. I wasn't saying that Possibility was using spiritual terminology.
Actually, my problem here is that you (Possibility) are using mundane terminology in an unconventional sense. I have repeatedly asked for your own personal definition of what the "Fifth Dimension" is, and how it relates to me. I even quoted several scientific definitions, that don't seem to apply to your theory. So, it seems that you are expecting me to grasp your totally abstract meaning intuitively. But my meager talent for intuition needs some grounding in reality. And that's the role of metaphors. Not to be taken literally, but to be intuited figuratively. Now, after all these wordy posts, I still don't know what the Fifth Dimension is, or does --- just that it's out there somewhere, measuring something.
I don't understand your visceral distrust of definitions, but I'm guessing that it may come from the Postmodern philosophy taught in colleges since I graduated back in the fading Modern era. Concepts that are left undefined are ambiguous, and can be interpreted in many ways, not necessarily how the author intended. To me, that's like a farmer scattering a bunch of uncategorized seeds, with no concern whether they will grow into corn or weeds. Unfortunately, the freedom for each reader to "construct" his own meaning results in a Tower of Babble.
So, I remain, yours truly, Confused. :brow: :confused:
To Define : [i]1. state or describe exactly the nature, scope, or meaning of.
2. mark out the boundary or limits of.[/i]
Postmodernism themes :
[i]1. The rejection of ultimate sources of meaning and truth.
3. Language is not something that reveals, but constructs.
5. The inherent instability of meaning.
6. The Death of the Author/Artist.
12. The inevitability and productivity of tension, confusion,contradiction, and ambiguity.[/i]
https://webs.wofford.edu/whisnantcj/his389/Postmodernism.pdf
PS___Number 6 above helps me to understand why you accuse me of being a haughty strutting Auteur.
It's unclear what you mean by 'spiritualism' but it's odd that you believe metaphysics has been banished from philosophical discourse
— praxis
I have repeatedly contrasted Spiritualism with Materialism as antagonistic worldviews. FYI, I'm using "Spiritualism" in a broad sense, not limited to the 19th century table-tipping fad by that name. For those who have been living under a rock for the last century, I'll note that the "rift" between Science (physics) and Religion (metaphysics) has been a hot topic in philosophy since the Enlightenment. And the clear trend among philosophers has been to side with Physics. Or is that also Fake News? Are you just being contrary, or do you have something to add to the thread?
To help avoid potential confusion in the future, I suggest that you consider contrasting materialism with idealism and try not to think of metaphysics as something synonymous with spiritualism but rather something more like theorizing about the nature of reality.
I understand this oddity now, for what that's worth.
Perhaps God informed you that this was a correction to an error?
— praxis
No. It was just a personal opinion. Do you know what "IMHO" means? If you disagree with that opinion, start another thread.
It's not that I disagree with your opinion, rather I'm curious about how you arrived at it, given the curious way you present the opinion as a 'correction'. If you say there's a correction it implies that there's a plan or grand design that the correction helps to fulfill. I'm not aware of any teleological destination that the enlightenment helps to achieve. In any case, you seem to believe that the enlightenment is inadequate in itself for this grand end and may even hinder its fruition.
You've created a false dilemma so that you can try to provide a false solution. It shouldn't be a surprise that no one is buying.
— praxis
Are you also a Global Warming denier?
I suspect that Possibility is aware and concerned about this philosophical dilemma, for which the Fifth Dimension theory is a proposed partial solution. If the "Rift" is no concern of yours, please butt out.
No, I'm not a global warming denier, nor do I deny that modernity has serious issues. The problem is that your focus on this rift doesn't address these issues. It's like you're mistaking mild symptoms for the disease.
I haven't been following your discussion with Possibility. However, having read several posts from both of you my impression is that Possibility is doing philosophy and you're doing something else. I think that you could do what you're doing much better if you realized and fully embraced what it is that you're doing, rather than pretending to be doing something that you're not doing. I acknowledge that you may know perfectly well what you're trying to do but are simply not good at it.
Thanks! The whole point of Enformationism is "paradigm busting", not merely saying the same old thing in strange words.
You're welcome!
It's been a very intriguing thread. I'm a John Wheeler/Physicist fan, and enjoy reading his theories about Information, thus (excerpt from a paper on conscious thoughts occurring 'outside' the brain/ Dirk K.F. Meijer, University of Groningen, The Netherlands) :
"Can our personal information survive?
This is where the "information theory", mentioned above, comes into play. Assuming with Wheeler that everything in the universe is composed of matter, energy, and information, according to the “Energy Conservation Law”, energy cannot be destroyed. It follows that also the information that constitutes us, may not disappear altogether. In this context, Prof. Meijer brings me back to the supposed consciousness workspace, that preserves an up-to-date picture of our total personal state of art. "If quantum information, like energy, cannot be destroyed, it is theoretical possible that when our brain dies, when we pass away, the information stored around our brain survives in some other dimension, an aspect that may be revealed in NDE conditions. "
recognise the need to re-define old-school belief systems, and I think Gnomon is aware of my affinity with his theory and this aim in particular. I don’t believe the way to achieve this is by coining new terms, though, but by broadening awareness and removing limitations on the isolating and ignorant definitions of existing terms.
Indeed, well, how would you suggest we reconcile novel approaches to new/old concepts? No pun intended however, living in the 'information age', is it appropriate that we frame our new paradigms with similarly new words/concepts (I'm not a Lexicographer, but don't dictionaries evolve)?
Do you have some kind of image or diagram to illustrate the multilayered structure of space? The diagram below is a simplified interpretation of 3 dimensions, and could also illustrate the fourth dimension by moving the diagram from one point in time to another. String theorists have developed some computer renderings to represent their extra mathematically defined dimensions. Can your Fifth Dimension be represented in a similar manner? Or is it something else altogether?
If you think that you can ‘see’ six dimensions in the image that the string theory article shows, then you’re kidding yourself. What they’re expecting from you is the same thing you’re accusing me of expecting: faith. Your faith is in their calculations. If you ignore the four familiar dimensions entirely, then it’s mathematically possible to formulate a six-dimensional existence - that’s essentially what my theory is based on, and what this computer rendering demonstrates for those who can do the maths. To the rest of us, the computer rendering at best illustrates four dimensions IF you watch it in action instead of trusting that the 2D image you’re presented with in the article really does represent six dimensions. What it doesn’t answer is how they propose that this exists ‘hidden’ at every point in the universe. The maths is not in question - it’s the interpretation of how it all relates to our four dimensional observable reality that varies and, in the case of String Theory, fails to convince. It’s basically a form of calculation that gives scientists the potential location of an unknown planet from what information they have about known planets nearby: a cosmos-level mathematical function similar to quantum theory. Its inclusion of GR is important to keep in mind as a counterbalance to QT, but its application and interpretation at the human level of experience is even less convincing than quantum theory.
This sounds similar to my own notion that, fundamentally, Information consists of inter-relations --- not between Things but Possibilities --- that can be represented as geometric ratios. One of the "properties" of complex & integrated relationships is what we interpret as Meaning. Simpler patterns are merely mathematical, but can be used as syntactical Shannon Information to compute higher order patterns, that we can translate back into semantic meanings. This is just the beginning of new way to think about Information. But I'm afraid it will take someone much smarter than me to develop it into a structured concept that can be understood by the average person.
It is very similar, yes. Geometric ratios is basically what I mean by dimensional structures of relation. Meaning as a six-dimensional relational structure allows for a broader or ‘objective’ sense of this concept of ‘information’. Meaning is not only a feature of complex and integrated relations, but of
EVERY relation, from an holistic concept of the Absolute down to the simplest relation of matter/anti-matter - two extremes that approach the same idea. At the highest level of existence and at the lowest level of reduction, we find the same binary relation - regardless of what word or value or significance we attribute - that fundamentally means I/0, or existence and its negation. To exist or not to exist: that is the question.
Meaning or what matters regardless of value is six-dimensional information. It is a concept that is both infinitely meaningful and meaningless in itself. Value/potential, what matters regardless of time or whether anything changes, is five-dimensional information. Time/duration/change, what matters regardless of where and what a relation is or how it got there, is four-dimensional information. The space/sensibility/measurability of something, what matters regardless of how the relation takes place, is three-dimensional information. The shape of the relation, what matters regardless of the energy/distance involved, is two-dimensional information. And the effort/attention itself, what matters regardless whether or not any relation is even possible, is one-dimensional information. Which brings us back to the possibility/impossibility of anything existing at all: this binary relation fundamental to existence. That’s my current attempt to explain it, anyway.
Ironically, my first impression of your transcendent Fifth Dimension theory was that it attempts to validate "metaphysical woo", such as New Age notions of higher dimensions
Yeah I got that loud and clear. Still not entirely sure why, though.
That is the complete opposite to my intent. On this forum I am often critical of Scientism, but that's only in response to posters who are hard atheists, and dismissive of anything that smacks of religion. I, personally, am not religious at all. And I could be labeled "spiritual" only because I seriously entertain metaphysical notions that are anathema to physicists. BTW, FWIW, I am also completely a-political --- a militant moderate. My personal worldview is built upon cutting-edge science, not ancient religion.
My reference to ‘political’ was in relation to power relations, not politics as such. You portray spiritualism as hard done by or oppressed by science in general, when what you intend to do is call individuals on their dismissive attitude towards the language that you use. I understand your defensiveness, but as I’ve explained I also understand their attitude. The language of spiritualism is often aimed at trying to control meaning rather than discuss the accuracy of concepts or definitions. It’s very easy to come across as apologetic, even if that’s not your intention. I’ve learned to use spiritualist language sparingly - not because I don’t believe, but because I’m not going to argue in defence of personal beliefs using the language of a belief system.
That sounds like a fatalistic Postmodern attitude toward communication of ideas. Like Marxism, it assumes that all human behavior boils down to brutal us-versus-them politics. I am optimistically searching for some common ground in the "Better Angels of Our Nature".
If you’re NOT trying to control meaning, then I think your approach might be misguided. But you did say that was your aim with neologisms. I understand that this search for common ground is your overall intention. I’m suggesting that your execution needs work - at least here on this forum.
try not to think of metaphysics as something synonymous with spiritualism
That correlation wasn't my idea. Aristotle's Metaphysics has been associated with Religion and Spiritualism for thousands of years. For the purposes of my thesis, I have a completely different interpretation of what Aristotle was talking about.
Spiritualism is a metaphysical belief that the world is made up of at least two fundamental substances, matter and spirit. ... It is also a term commonly used for various psychic or paranormal practices and beliefs recorded throughout humanity's history and in a variety of cultures.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spiritualism_(beliefs)
It's not that I disagree with your opinion, rather I'm curious about how you arrived at it, given the curious way you present the opinion as a 'correction'. If you say there's a correction it implies that there's a plan or grand design that the correction helps to fulfill. I'm not aware of any teleological destination that the enlightenment helps to achieve.
My comment was a general impression, not an assertion based on historical research. But, FWIW, I do believe that there is something like Teleology at work in the world. This is not a Christian teleology as proposed by Hegel, but a scientific teleology based on the upward curve of Evolution. The key difference from Christian teleology, is the inference from evolutionary history that the world was not designed fait accompli in the let-there-be Genesis manner, but it was Programmed as an ongoing self-developing system. The mechanism of the program is basically Darwinian, but updated to include Quantum and Information processing.
Enformation :Ironically, it was Science, not Religion, that revealed the teleological tendencies of the natural world -- that it is evolving in a positive direction.
http://www.bothandblog.enformationism.info/page29.html
The problem is that your focus on this rift doesn't address these issues.
I doubt that you have any idea what my focus is on this topic. You'd have to read the thesis and subsequent blog posts to get a good idea of how I address the Rift. My posts in this thread have been mostly responses to criticism of specific details, not the whole concept of Enformationism.
my impression is that Possibility is doing philosophy and you're doing something else.
What I'm doing is not academic philosophy focused on a narrow topic. Instead it's a general universal Theory of Everything, and is based primarily on post-classical 21st century scientific discoveries, such as Quantum Theory and Information Theory. More to the point, it's my personal worldview, and philosophical principle. It's not a religious narrative for the masses, or a scientific paper for specialists. It's my layman's understanding of how the world works, and my role in it. Is that philosophy? :cool:
try not to think of metaphysics as something synonymous with spiritualism
— praxis
That correlation wasn't my idea.
Whatever, it was just a suggestion that would help to avoid misunderstandings when you say things like 'metaphysics was banished from philosophical discourse'.
Ironically, it was Science, not Religion, that revealed the teleological tendencies of the natural world -- that it is evolving in a positive direction.
Assuming that what's positive for human beings is positive for everything, how can we be sure that evolution is going well for us? Perhaps evolution took a very bad turn at some point and the earth will shortly end up a radioactive wasteland, or die a much slower death because of us. You're not a climate change denier, I trust.
A philosophical forum is full of "misunderstandings". That's the point of ongoing dialog : to learn how other people interpret our words, and to either change our words, or to change their minds. But both words (concepts) and minds (belief systems) are hard to change. Yet, as philosophers, we keep stubbornly trying to change the world with words instead of with swords. :worry:
Assuming that what's positive for human beings is positive for everything, how can we be sure that evolution is going well for us?
I don't assume that the point of Evolution (the Program) is to make things better for us homo sapiens. In the overall scheme of things, we may be merely one brief experiment among millions of trials & errors. But, at this point in time, we seem to be the only species with knowledge of Good & Evil, and awareness of Past & Future. That's why human Culture has assumed that Nature is not looking-out for us, and the gods are unreliable, so we have to look-out for ourselves. Modern science has taken over the role of ancient deities, by working miracles (e.g. vaccines) specifically to make evolution go better for our kind. We are our own Chosen People. :smile:
Moral Progress : Cultural evolution seems to work with the same trial & error principles as the natural kind, except that human Will (and reasoning) is the primary cause of Cultural Selection. And Steven Pinker has found that human cultures are actually progressing morally and technologically. Moral progress was the topic of his previous book :The Better Angels of Our Nature.
http://bothandblog.enformationism.info/page73.html [note 4 popup]
Yeah I got that loud and clear. Still not entirely sure why, though.
Because the term "Fifth Dimension", is associated in my mind primarily with the New Age of Aquarius notion of a transcendent level of consciousness. Since you evaded my requests for your own personal definition, that's all I had to go on. Except for the various other scientific or pseudo-scientific applications of that terminology, that I linked to, and you shrugged off. So, what is it : Woo or Science? Or both??? :wink:
What is the Fifth Dimension? : https://andreaoneness.com/fifth-dimension/
You portray spiritualism as hard done by or oppressed by science in general,
That is how Spiritualists view themselves : as punching bags for science. (I am not a Spiritualist). So, I can also sympathize with materialist scientists, who feel besieged by god-fearing Fundamentalist Christians and Muslims. (I am not a materialist) I can argue for or against both sides, because my personal philosophy is BothAnd. :yum:
Science vs Spirituality : Fritjof Capra explores how Science and Spirituality can be fused in an integrated system that returns us to a sense of oneness with the natural world.
https://upliftconnect.com/science-and-spirituality/
If you’re NOT trying to control meaning, then I think your approach might be misguided. But you did say that was your aim with neologisms.
But, I AM trying to control the meaning of words that I use to express my personal worldview. Is that approach misguided? If I fail to convey my meaning, what's the point of the message? Did you think I was trying to define Ultimate Truth? :nerd:
New meanings require new words : Neologisms are often driven by changes in culture and technology,
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neologism
“When I use a word,” Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, “it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less".
That's the point of ongoing dialog : to learn how other people interpret our words, and to either change our words, or to change their minds.
I think it would be sufficient if you simply learned what most understand metaphysics to be and consequently used the word appropriately so as not to cause needless miscommunication.
I have given some thought to that question. And my answer is "maybe". When your body turns to dust, the information associated with that matter is dissipated, like Entropy. But, if G*D, the Programmer, has some good reason to recompile your personal information pattern, you wouldn't "survive", but you could be re-incarnated. But, since I don't have a plausible revelation of G*D's will, I'm not banking on having a second chance to get my life right. For me, it's now or never. :cool:
When Descartes, in a thought experiment, arbitrarily divided metaphysical Soul from physical Body, it was based on the observation that they are of different "natures" (properties). But, in the real world, Mind/Body is a unit. Physical properties and Metaphysical qualities combine to form a dynamic whole system : the person. A similar science-fiction thought experiment was the Transporter of Star Trek. In theory, it scanned your personal definitive information, and converted it into computer code, which was then beamed across space in the form of energy. Then the impersonal energy was translated back into personal information, and thence back into a physical form. NIce! However, in more than one episode, the writers explored the mind-bending question : is the reconstituted body really my Self/
Soul, or a new person altogether? :chin:
I think it would be sufficient if you simply learned what most understand metaphysics to be and consequently used the word appropriately so as not to cause needless miscommunication.
Again you missed the point of my unconventional worldview. I think "what most understand metaphysics to be" is either Super-Natural, or an impractical abstraction from natural real-world Physics. The medieval definition of "Metaphysics", emphasized the essential distinction between Body and Soul. Later, the modern interpretation of the same word, has placed Mind/Soul under the general category of matter-based Physics. But, my definition of "what lies Beyond Physics" is, I think, actually closer to what Aristotle had in mind when he divided his encyclopedia into materialistic Physics (science) and mentalistic Metaphysics (philosophy). The ideas discussed in volume II were focused on our human concepts & attitudes about Nature and Culture. Hence, what I mean by "Metaphysics" is the mental aspects of the world, including Cultural Evolution as contrasted with Natural Evolution. To use old words for new concepts would lead to complete "miscommunication" my intent and meaning.
Since you seem to prefer conservative traditional philosophical terms, your definition of "Metaphysics" can be found in conventional dictionaries, as Ontology, etc. But, since my radical worldview is proposing a new paradigm of reconciled Science, Philosophy, & Religion, I've had to translate those broad abstractions into specific modern metaphors. For example, what the priests called "Spirit", and scientists call "Energy", I call "EnFormAction". :cool:
[ Note : the smilie icon above could mean "I'm cool", or "blind", or "arrogant" depending on context and preconceptions. I use it to mean that "I mean no offense" ]
Metaphysical vs Supernatural : the metaphysical derives from laws of nature, the supernatural derives from outside laws of nature. Thus, for example, one cannot use gravity or electromagnetic fields or strong force to study the attributes of the supernatural. The metaphysical examines "what exists", the physical "how it exists", the supernatural "what exists outside existence". I do not see this as a dualism between philosophy vs religion but between existence vs nonexistence.
https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/metaphysical-vs-supernatural.129313/
Meta-Physics : Aristotle divided his treatise on science into two parts. The world as-known-via-the-senses was labeled “physics” - what we call "Science" today. And the world as-known-by-the-mind, by reason, was labeled “metaphysics” - what we now call "Philosophy" .
http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page14.html
Metaphysics is the branch of philosophy that examines the fundamental nature of reality, including the relationship between mind and matter, between substance and attribute, and between potentiality and actuality
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metaphysics
Since you seem to prefer conservative traditional philosophical terms, your definition of "Metaphysics" can be found in conventional dictionaries, as Ontology, etc. But, since my radical worldview is proposing a new paradigm of reconciled Science, Philosophy, & Religion...
Sure, do whatever you have to in order to understand science, philosophy, and religion better, but again, if you want to be understood, learn the meaning of words and use them appropriately. Clearly, it is not your aim to be understood, however, and that is in part why I say that you're doing something other than philosophy here.
Actually, my problem here is that you (Possibility) are using mundane terminology in an unconventional sense. I have repeatedly asked for your own personal definition of what the "Fifth Dimension" is, and how it relates to me. I even quoted several scientific definitions, that don't seem to apply to your theory. So, it seems that you are expecting me to grasp your totally abstract meaning intuitively. But my meager talent for intuition needs some grounding in reality. And that's the role of metaphors. Not to be taken literally, but to be intuited figuratively. Now, after all these wordy posts, I still don't know what the Fifth Dimension is, or does --- just that it's out there somewhere, measuring something.
I don't understand your visceral distrust of definitions, but I'm guessing that it may come from the Postmodern philosophy taught in colleges since I graduated back in the fading Modern era. Concepts that are left undefined are ambiguous, and can be interpreted in many ways, not necessarily how the author intended. To me, that's like a farmer scattering a bunch of uncategorized seeds, with no concern whether they will grow into corn or weeds. Unfortunately, the freedom for each reader to "construct" his own meaning results in a Tower of Babble.
A ‘definition’ of a concept is a practical reduction of meaningful information, an attempt to represent a particular pattern of experience in such a way as to minimise any uncertainty (noise or entropy) in sending or receiving this meaningful information between systems at a practical level. This works in theory, so long as the transmission of information occurs between systems that are otherwise identical, or at least between systems where the differences are known and adjusted for. But humans are not identical, and our potential differences are many and largely unknown.
We commonly define an abstract concept by using words that represent other abstract concepts. For instance, a definition of ‘anger’ is stated as “a strong feeling of annoyance, displeasure or hostility”. How does this define anger? It provides examples of similarly patterned concepts so that something about your experience in relation to these words resonates in your existing conceptual structure with more certainty than the word ‘anger’, and enables you to use this information to predict the variable pattern of value represented by the word ‘anger’ (in much the same way as string theorists use known values regarding surrounding planets to predict the variable pattern of value in relation to an unknown planet, as described earlier). This is described as ‘intuitive’ only because we’re not often conscious of the process, or we have an inaccurate understanding of it. The classical misunderstanding of emotion as an ‘instinctual’ bodily system fighting against the suppression of a ‘rational’ mental system is a perfect example of this inaccurate understanding, and Feldman Barrett’s concept theory of emotions opens the door to apply quantum information theories in resolving the mind-body problem.
It’s not that I’m distrusting definitions - it’s that concepts, being patterns of experience, are inherently uncertain and variable, and so any stated definition is not a true instance of that concept, only a representation of the pattern of experience. So I’m pointing out the limited perspectives in which these concepts are defined, because I think it’s possible to work charitably (if uncertainly) towards a shared meaning about particular concepts that would encompass both materialist and idealist perspectives and enable us to more accurately define (ie. reduce) these concepts for practical purposes.
You’re assuming that you can determine my exact meaning from a definition: a stated description of a particular pattern of my experience - but it would only be a representative instance of that pattern, a reduction of the conceptual structure, all the five-dimensional information I have in relation to the term. Instead, I’m trying to relate diverse conceptual structures of the same term in a more inclusive approach to meaning that can ultimately maximise accuracy of any subsequent definition.
There’s a reason why concepts such as ‘fifth dimension’ have several scientific definitions. If you start with a precise definition that relates to empirical evidence, it maximises the apparent certainty of the concept for practical purposes. But you’re beginning with a narrow perspective of the concept. If your aim is simply to exist - to live, survive - then this seems sufficient. The way I see it, though, each of the scientific definitions of ‘fifth dimension’ that you’ve presented relate in their own way to what this concept means. And each of them is also necessarily limited in their perspective: ignorant, isolated, exclusive. The idea is to explore how they relate to each other, to increase awareness, connection and collaboration.
However, in more than one episode, the writers explored the mind-bending question : is the reconstituted body really my Self/
Soul, or a new person altogether? :chin:
Gnomon
17 hours ago
Gnomon!
Interesting. Sort of goes along with the notion that energy is never lost or destroyed. On a slightly similar note, for whatever reason, my Kantian intuition (and for the longest time) made/makes me think of 'Black Holes' as a beam-me-up-Scotty moment as it were. Meaning, perhaps storage of other EM field's of consciousness exist in yet another Dimension. That intuition is not completely absurd (or maybe it is) when considering physicist Wheeler's anthropic views (PAP) about his observations of wave pulses coming from Black Holes:
Clearly, it is not your aim to be understood, however, and that is in part why I say that you're doing something other than philosophy here.
I don't know what philosophers you've been reading, but the most famous thinkers also seem to be the hardest to understand. That's because they are breaking new ground, instead of recycling old ideas.
Why do you think I'm posting on a philosophy forum? I assumed that most posters would be familiar with digesting difficult concepts, and open to novel ideas. Unfortunately, old philosophical paradigms die hard. So, I don't expect the concept that "Information is the new Atom" will become common knowledge until long after I've gone to the big forum in the sky. :smile:
Philosophy is supposed to be difficult :
https://www.theguardian.com/books/booksblog/2011/feb/25/philosophy-technical-everyday-english
Max Planck : “A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it.”
I don't know what philosophers you've been reading, but the most famous thinkers also seem to be the hardest to understand.
Someone who remains willfully ignorant about a concept like metaphysics is called a troglodyte. And are you suggesting that you deliberately obfuscate to appear smart? I have gotten that impression, actually.
But humans are not identical, and our potential differences are many and largely unknown.
You seem to be focusing on our differences, but communication requires an emphasis on our commonalities. However, communication of novel concepts in Science and Philosophy is seldom presented in the vocabulary of the masses. Instead, it is first directed at those who are already well-versed in the technical language of a particular field.
It’s not that I’m distrusting definitions - it’s that concepts, being patterns of experience, are inherently uncertain and variable,
So you just give-up on putting your ideas into specific words, and rely on ESP? When you present specific ideas in vague general ("uncertain & variable") terms, a few people may grasp your meaning intuitively, but you'll never know for sure if they grokked your meaning or made-up their own meaning. In Shannon's Information Theory, successful communication can be verified to make sure what was received is what was sent.
But you’re beginning with a narrow perspective of the concept.
It's called analysis of complexity into simple components. Are you opposed to analytical thinking? I understand that your notion of a Fifth Dimension is a broad concept. But couldn't you break it down into smaller chunks, that babies like me can digest? I still think your Multidimensional worldview may be compatible with my Information-based worldview. But your presentation has been so deliberately vague and non-committal that I can't be sure what you're talking about. Is it a spiritual plane, or a physical dimension? Please give me some "narrow" bites that I can masticate with sore gums. :yum:
For example : What do "each of the scientific definitions of ‘fifth dimension’ " have in common? How do the spiritual notions of Higher Dimensions differ from the mathematical definitions? Who are some published authors, Scientists or New Agers, that have presented ideas similar to yours?
What's the difference between a bit of information and a bit of an atom again?
I could try to answer your question, but I'm a Neanderthal, and I don't speak Postmodern Babble. :cool:
PS___Since you're so smart, can you explain to me what Possibility's Fifth Dimension is? What's the difference between the Fifth Dimension and the Sixth Dimension?
Did an advanced search for 'fifth dimension' posted by Posibility and read several posts from various topics.
Fifth dimension is affected. I happen to be familiar with modern neurological models so I'm able to appreciate this relatively well, I believe. The theory of constructed emotion was a real mind-bender for me. Sixth dimension metaphysics, from what I could briefly glean, holds that awareness, connection, and collaboration is inherent to everything, in an apparent attempt to unify everything from morals to the behavior of photons.
If nothing else, I at least now understand why Possibility chose Possibility for a name, out of all the possibilities.
Since you seem to be offended by my eccentric approach to Metaphysics, how would you describe, in your own words, the Theory of Information that is the topic of this thread?
"Sixth dimension metaphysics, from what I could briefly glean, holds that awareness, connection, and collaboration is inherent to everything, in an apparent attempt to unify everything from morals to the behavior of photons." ____Praxis
I just wanted to try and clear this up before we go any further.
Although I'm still in the dark about "constructed emotions" and such, it seems that the general gist of your Multidimensional theory is similar to my own worldview, in that Consciousness (awareness, connection, & collaboration) is "inherent to everything". But the details and implications may differ.
So, I'd like see how you would summarize the Information Theory that I've been defending in this thread, in your own words.
Meaning, perhaps storage of other EM field's of consciousness exist in yet another Dimension.
Did Wheeler use terms like "other dimensions" in his musings on " matter, energy, and information"? Did he associate Information with physical Electro-Magnetic fields?
Since you don't seem to be offended by my unusual worldview, I'd like to see how you would summarize, in your own words, the Theory of Information that is the topic of this thread.
Since you seem to be offended by my eccentric approach to Metaphysics, how would you describe, in your own words, the Theory of Information that is the topic of this thread?
Offense, eccentricity, or your approach to anything is beside the point, as I've mentioned several times my concern is communication, and the issue started with your claim that metaphysics has been banished from philosophical discourse. That indicates that there's something wrong with your concept of metaphysics.
From what I understand Information theory is not your theory. In general though, my impression is that it's merely a way of looking at things. A hammer can be a hammer, or a paperweight, or a weapon, or information, etc etc etc. When you want salt you don't say, "please pass the information," you ask for salt. One the other hand, what is salt but information, or rather, patterns of sense data that a brain has been trained to recognize as salt.
To say that anything is one thing or another is dualistic and itself an event that necessarily has a purpose. It makes no difference if something is information or anything else if there is no purpose for making the distinction.
You seem to be focusing on our differences, but communication requires an emphasis on our commonalities. However, communication of novel concepts in Science and Philosophy is seldom presented in the vocabulary of the masses. Instead, it is first directed at those who are already well-versed in the technical language of a particular field.
This is a discussion centred around information theories, and information is about difference. “Communication requires an emphasis on our commonalities” seems to me a misunderstanding of what information theory is all about. The problem is that neither of us are particularly well-versed in the technical language of any particular field, are we? I’m still in the process of trying to ‘dumb down’ my theory, and you refuse to make any concerted effort to understand the quantum and Platonic theories behind your own ideas, let alone the quantum and neuroscience theories behind mine.
So you just give-up on putting your ideas into specific words, and rely on ESP? When you present specific ideas in vague general ("uncertain & variable") terms, a few people may grasp your meaning intuitively, but you'll never know for sure if they grokked your meaning or made-up their own meaning. In Shannon's Information Theory, successful communication can be verified to make sure what was received is what was sent.
If you think I’m relying ESP, then it would seem you are deliberately dismissing any opportunity to think for yourself. I cannot presume to know how you think - I need you to attempt to make sense of the information I’ve presented, before I can make adjustments to my explanations. We’re not dealing with actualities here. When you say ‘grasp your meaning intuitively’, you are relying on unconscious processes to do the work for you. I’m inviting you to be more aware of the process - to recognise that you CAN be more aware of how you relate to and integrate new information at a conceptual level. I have no ownership of meaning, all I can do is give you information about the view from my position, encourage you to use that information to try and locate what I’m referring to from where you are and give me information about the view from your position, allowing me to continually adjust the information I provide based on the difference between your position and mine relative to meaning, so that at some point we might approach a shared relation to meaning.
In Shannon’s Information Theory, semantic meaning has nothing to do with it:
Shannon, C. (1948). “The Mathematical Theory of Communication.” Bell System Technical Journal, 27: 379-423.:Frequently the messages have meaning; that is they refer to or are correlated according to some system with certain physical or conceptual entities. These semantic aspects of communication are irrelevant to the engineering problem. The significant aspect is that the actual message is one selected from a set of possible messages.
It's called analysis of complexity into simple components. Are you opposed to analytical thinking? I understand that your notion of a Fifth Dimension is a broad concept. But couldn't you break it down into smaller chunks, that babies like me can digest? I still think your Multidimensional worldview may be compatible with my Information-based worldview. But your presentation has been so deliberately vague and non-committal that I can't be sure what you're talking about.
First of all, I would appreciate if you would stop the passive-aggressive self-deprecation. If you want to behave a like a baby, that’s your choice. I will continue to assume you are intelligent enough to think for yourself.
I recognise that my theory is fuzzy at best, which can be frustrating for analytical thinkers. It’s a work in progress, and I’ve never pretended it was ready for presentation. But most analytical thinkers can approach the theory from a mathematical perspective, at least. I’m not opposed to analytical thinking - I’m just not very good at it, I’m afraid. I understand the reductionist process, but the ‘simple components’ are the supporting theories I have already referred to a number of times: Carlo Rovelli’s four-dimensional relational structure based on quantum field theory; Feldman Barrett’s theory of constructed emotions and concept cascades; the mathematical plausibility of six dimensions demonstrated in String Theory; The rest I have tried to explain, and you have tried to ignore, it seems. But I will try to answer your questions as best I can in a later post.
It's been a very intriguing thread. I'm a John Wheeler/Physicist fan, and enjoy reading his theories about Information, thus (excerpt from a paper on conscious thoughts occurring 'outside' the brain/ Dirk K.F. Meijer, University of Groningen, The Netherlands) :
"Can our personal information survive?
This is where the "information theory", mentioned above, comes into play. Assuming with Wheeler that everything in the universe is composed of matter, energy, and information, according to the “Energy Conservation Law”, energy cannot be destroyed. It follows that also the information that constitutes us, may not disappear altogether. In this context, Prof. Meijer brings me back to the supposed consciousness workspace, that preserves an up-to-date picture of our total personal state of art. "If quantum information, like energy, cannot be destroyed, it is theoretical possible that when our brain dies, when we pass away, the information stored around our brain survives in some other dimension, an aspect that may be revealed in NDE conditions."
If information ‘stored’ in our brain were able to ‘survive’ beyond death, I believe it would do so in a form of energy that is devoid of the meaning and value it has in our mind, because the relational structures that enable this storage and retrieval system to operate rely on an ongoing dissipation of energy. Quantum information is not ‘stored’ in the conventional sense, because it refers to structures of potential energy, not actual. It exists as part of a quantum system - in order to attain this information, one needs to enter into a superposition state with the quantum system in which this information is integrated. While that’s possible enough to achieve while someone is alive, after death this quantum system is unsustainable. That’s not to say it wouldn’t be possible to eventually determine how to fully reduce, transmit and reconstruct some of this five-dimensional information before death, but currently the energy requirement to even attempt to transmit a barely noticeable portion of that information digitally remains prohibitive. Not to mention that we don’t understand how to reduce most of it.
NDE conditions, in my view, suggest not so much a survival of quantum information, but perhaps a moment of experiential shift whereby the prediction of the interoceptive system (affect) is finally unconstrained by the continual effort and attention requirements and limitations of a living organism. It might be a question of: what would you do in the next moment if you weren’t limited by what your body felt it could or needed to do in that moment? It might be worth bringing this ‘consciousness workspace’ together with Feldman Barrett’s ‘interoception of affect’ and see what happens...
FWIW, I believe that the information that constitutes us continues in those with whom we relate on a five-dimensional (affected) or six-dimensional (meaningful) level. The extent to which we interact with other quantum systems in these superposition states enables us to share or transmit the value, potential and meaning of who we are with the world, whether or not they’re aware of it as such. That’s really the only way this information can survive.
Is it a spiritual plane, or a physical dimension? Please give me some "narrow" bites that I can masticate with sore gums. :yum:
For example : What do "each of the scientific definitions of ‘fifth dimension’ " have in common? How do the spiritual notions of Higher Dimensions differ from the mathematical definitions? Who are some published authors, Scientists or New Agers, that have presented ideas similar to yours?
Is it a spiritual plane or a physical dimension?
Both, and neither. Sorry - not a very helpful start, is it?
If you consider the ‘fifth dimension’ in isolation from the other four, as a dimension that relates to physical reality as an entity, then it makes sense to refer to it as a ‘spiritual plane’, in much the same way as physicists often refer to quantum information in terms of physical ‘fields’.
Two of the three dictionary definitions of ‘physical’ are opposed to mental (so I assume you don’t mean ‘physical’ in that sense), but the third is less exclusive: Physical - relating to physics or the operation of natural forces generally.
So if you consider the ‘fifth dimension’ as relative to the other four dimensions (at least), not as something other than physics, but as part of the natural forces of the universe, then it makes sense to refer to it as a ‘physical dimension’.
Both terms refer to what this fifth dimension is, but neither term alone defines it.
What do each of the scientific definitions of ‘fifth dimension’ have in common?
They describe a difference from empirical reality in a way that can be understood as equally real and ‘physical’ in its own right.
How do the spiritual notions of Higher Dimensions differ from the mathematical definitions?
The way I understand it, ‘spiritual’ dimensions are seen as non-spatial and exclusive, accessible only through certain channels; whereas the mathematical definitions interpret a ‘fifth dimension’ as an isolated four-dimensional reality, with its own spatial existence.
Who are some published authors, scientists or new agers, that have presented similar ideas?
I’m not aware of any, to be honest. Those whose theories seem to approach a similar idea I have already mentioned, including Deacon (from what I’ve read so far). I continue to think that perhaps I’m missing some understanding that’s obvious to everyone else and when finally pointed out to me will dissolve my theory into nothing, but everything I read seems to support the theory from a certain angle, while remaining ignorant of the whole picture.
I continue to think that perhaps I’m missing some understanding that’s obvious to everyone else and when finally pointed out to me will dissolve my theory into nothing, but everything I read seems to support the theory from a certain angle, while remaining ignorant of the whole picture.
The first thing that comes to mind for me, and I could be way off-base from not fully grasping your theory, is that what’s at the core of human morality, and perhaps everything human, may simply be procreation. So if human awareness, connection, and collaboration are fundamental to the universe then the universe is all about procreation? In what sense could that be seen as true, assuming the thought is not wildly off-base?
That indicates that there's something wrong with your concept of metaphysics.
Yes. It's different from your traditional definition, which you have never stated explicitly. And you've never explained exactly what is "wrong" with my information-based definition, except that you don't like it. Is that due to gross prejudice, or to spelled-out reasons?
My definition is intended to draw a meaningful distinction between Physics and Metaphysics, as a first step to understanding how "Information" can be in both camps. Is your preferred definition more like Kant's or Aristotle's? :cool:
Kant's Metaphysics : Kant proposed an alternative metaphysics, which retains an a priori element, but confines it to objects of sense-experience.
http://hume.ucdavis.edu/mattey/phi151old/KANTMETA.HTM
[ Note : My alternative definition is more like Aristotle's, in that it is limited to mental reasoning (metaphysics) rather than sense experience (physics). ]
Aristotle's Metaphysics : Aristotle himself described his subject matter in a variety of ways: as ‘first philosophy’, or ‘the study of being qua being, or wisdom, or theology.
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/aristotle-metaphysics/
[Note : which of those topics is limited to sense experience? You can sense a physical being with your physical senses, but how do you know anything about the abstract concept of being qua being?]
Metaphysics and Being Qua Being : So too, he said, are there many senses in which things can be said to exist. Thus, it seems, there can be no science of existence and of universal causes, and so there can be no metaphysics. . . . Aristotle's solution is to demonstrate that there is a single, 'fundamental' sense of 'exist' from which the other senses derive, and that that sense of 'exist' is the subject of metaphysics.
https://sites.google.com/a/acrewoods.net/home/library/aristotle/metaphysics-and-being-qua-being
[ that "fundamental concept of being qua being is what I call BEING ]
BEING : In my own theorizing there is one universal principle that subsumes all others, including Consciousness : essential Existence. Among those philosophical musings, I refer to the "unit of existence" with the absolute singular term "BEING" as contrasted with the plurality of contingent "beings" and things and properties. By BEING I mean the ultimate “ground of being”, which is simply the power to exist, and the power to create beings.
http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page10.html
Meta-physics :
[i]The branch of philosophy that examines the nature of reality, including the relationship between mind and matter, substance and attribute, fact and value.
1. Often dismissed by materialists as idle speculation on topics not amenable to empirical proof.
2. Aristotle divided his treatise on science into two parts. The world as-known-via-the-senses was labeled “physics” - what we call "Science" today. And the world as-known-by-the-mind, by reason, was labeled “metaphysics” - what we now call "Philosophy" .
3. Plato called the unseen world that hides behind the physical façade: “Ideal” as opposed to Real. For him, Ideal “forms” (concepts) were prior-to the Real “substance” (matter).
4. Physics refers to the things we perceive with the eye of the body. Meta-physics refers to the things we conceive with the eye of the mind. Meta-physics includes the properties, and qualities, and functions that make a thing what it is. Matter is just the clay from which a thing is made. Meta-physics is the design (form, purpose); physics is the product (shape, action). The act of creation brings an ideal design into actual existence. The design concept is the “formal” cause of the thing designed.
5. I use a hyphen in the spelling to indicate that I am not talking about Ghosts and Magic, but about Ontology (science of being).[/i]
http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page14.html
. Physics refers to the things we perceive with the eye of the body. Meta-physics refers to the things we conceive with the eye of the mind
In my opinion, you are drawing a line that doesn't exist. Physics is just as concerned with conceiving as with perceiving. Is spacetime a metaphysical conception? :chin:
Both, and neither. Sorry - not a very helpful start, is it?
Well, the assertion plus negation is confusing to the mortal mind. But then, my personal philosophy is called BothAnd. So, I'll have to give you the benefit of the doubt. But, only if you will explain the correlation between a "spiritual plane" and a "physical dimension". I'm cool with the BothAnd concept of Yin/Yang, but refers to parts of a whole system, not to separate planes of existence.
Spiritual Plane : In esoteric cosmology, a plane is conceived as a subtle state, level, or region of reality, each plane corresponding to some type, kind, or category of being.
[Note : by calling a spiritual plane "subtle", mystics are trying to explain why scientists are unable to detect and measure it. How do you personally detect and measure the Fifth Dimension? ]
So if you consider the ‘fifth dimension’ as relative to the other four dimensions (at least), not as something other than physics, but as part of the natural forces of the universe, then it makes sense to refer to it as a ‘physical dimension’.
Most physicists would place the Fifth Dimension under the heading of Super-natural forces. I'm more sympathetic to your implication, but I call such "forces" meta-physical.
Can you give me a link to that third definition of Physics? I don't find it with a quick search. Here's the Google definitions of "Physical", which corresponds to how I use the term.
1. relating to the body as opposed to the mind.
2. relating to things perceived through the senses as opposed to the mind; tangible or concrete.
[ Note : these two definitions don't cover your yes & no interpretation. But the Enformationism thesis goes into great detail to show how those "opposed" concepts are inter-related as different forms of universal Information. ]
Which of the Scientific definitions I linked to describe "a difference from empirical reality". The New Age definition, which you rejected early in this thread does try to distinguish a series of non-physical spiritual planes from the measurable dimensions of empirical (physical senses) Science.
Anyway, here's a word of caution from a person who reads Auras for a living : 5th Dimension Nonsense : https://www.rose-rosetree.com/blog/2020/01/04/5th-dimension-nonsense-serious-warning/
New Age Fifth Dimension : https://andreaoneness.com/fifth-dimension/
[ Note : Treats metaphysical Consciousness as-if it is a physical place in space with multiple layers, similar to the ancient notion of seven heavens. Is that metaphor accurate? How do you know? Have you been there . . . physically? Does God live on one of those dimensions? ]
‘spiritual’ dimensions are seen as non-spatial and exclusive, accessible only through certain channels;
Interesting! Are you a certified channeler? Do you convey messages from those "exclusive" planes to those of us stuck here on this mundane plane? Mystics have written dozens of books to describe their experiences in those spiritual planes or states. Can you give me an example of one of your extra-dimensional experiences? Are they similar to out-of-body experiences? ]
Those whose theories seem to approach a similar idea I have already mentioned, including Deacon (from what I’ve read so far).
I've read Deacon's Incomplete Nature twice, and several related books, but I don't remember any references to higher "dimensions" or "planes". I just checked, and those terms are not in the index. But the word "information" occurs in the index many times. Can you quote a reference relevant to our discussion? :nerd:
First of all, I would appreciate if you would stop the passive-aggressive self-deprecation.
I am trying to be defend my thesis without being offensive. Is that what you call "passive-aggressive"? You and Praxis have been attacking my thesis from the beginning, even as you admit to knowing little or nothing about it. And you have offered no positive alternatives, except vague "maybes" and oxymorons such as "both & neither" .
Based on his questions, Praxis doesn't even understand your theory any more than I do. Apparently the notion of sublime planes of existence is more attractive to him than the idea that mundane Information is the essence of Reality and Ideality. You have been rather gentle with your deprecations, but Praxis has simply been trolling. So, if it's alright with you, I will continue to respond to the put-downs without reacting in kind. :cool:
I wrote a sincere post about my impression of information theory as you requested. It's your choice to respond, of course, but it's indisputable evidence of non-trolling interest and conduct.
Granted I've been unnecessarily rude. I've gained interest in the topic and would like to be more cooperative. You cannot fault Possibility's conduct, by the way, which has been remarkable by any standard.
In my opinion, you are drawing a line that doesn't exist. Physics is just as concerned withconceiving as with perceiving. Is spacetime a metaphysical conception?
Yes. Physics does both empirical perceiving and theoretical conceiving. But the latter is more like philosophical mind-work, than empirical sense-work. I am simply making the same meaningful distinction as earlier philosophers made, between Pragmatic Science and Theoretical Philosophy. Theoretical Physics is non-empirical. Someone once asked Einstein where his lab was, and he held-up a pencil.
Aquinas Metaphysics : There are thus correspondingly two distinct classes of science: speculative science and practical science.
https://www.iep.utm.edu/aq-meta/
Theoretical vs Empirical Science : https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/the-curious-wavefunction/philosophy-begins-where-physics-ends-and-vice-versa/
Yes. Space-time is meta-physical, in the sense the we imagine those "dimensions", but don't sense them physically. I'm drawing a line between empirical Physics (natural philosophy) and theoretical Science (metaphysical philosophy). The latter is actually speculative Philosophy. Dark Matter and Dark Energy and String Theory are current areas of research that have no sensible matter to measure, and depend on mathematical, not empirical, data..
Space & Time : In 1781, Immanuel Kant published the Critique of Pure Reason, one of the most influential works in the history of the philosophy of space and time. He describes time as an a priori notion that, together with other a priori notions such as space, allows us to comprehend sense experience. Kant holds that neither space nor time are substance, entities in themselves, or learned by experience; he holds, rather, that both are elements of a systematic framework we use to structure our experience.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy_of_space_and_time
The first thing that comes to mind for me, and I could be way off-base from not fully grasping your theory, is that what’s at the core of human morality, and perhaps everything human, may simply be procreation. So if human awareness, connection, and collaboration are fundamental to the universe then the universe is all about procreation? In what sense could that be seen as true, assuming the thought is not wildly off-base?
It’s interesting that your initial thought was simply procreation. If it was only about human awareness, connection and collaboration for its own sake, then our ‘instinctual’ drives to survive, procreate and/or dominate come across as fundamental to the universe. This rather narrow idea is that the universe cannot do without us, that our capacity (not event that - our mere existence) is the pinnacle and purpose of existence. Indeed, when we ignore the truth of our relation to four-dimensional physics, this assumption that the universe exists for humanity is even more pronounced.
The challenge of six-dimensional metaphysics argues that this is a limited perspective of reality. Increasing awareness of our relation to existence at each dimensional level brings us face to face with the temporary, fragile and insubstantial nature of this relation. The universe would not mourn our loss, should we drive ourselves to self-destruction or put a stop to procreation altogether. The idea that humanity is the source of all value and meaning in the universe has been falsified by both science and spirituality, but we struggle to make sense of this in relation to our own experience of existence.
Awareness/ignorance, connection/isolation and collaboration/exclusion in six-dimensional metaphysics occurs to some extent in every relational structure, from virtual particles to the Greek notion of agape. It forms the basis of matter, cause and effect and this notion of the will. It’s only in integrated fifth and sixth dimensional relations that sufficient information is acquired to develop conscious awareness, connection and collaboration with the three-step process itself.
The human organism is a relational structure in five dimensions. Within and between such structures, meaning as a six-dimensional relation is constrained by a limited human perception of value and potential. The most common denominators in the awareness, connection and collaboration of human perceived potential (ie. survival, procreation and/or dominance) is often perceived as the meaning of all existence.
But we are not the only source of value and meaning in the universe. In fact, our impact has barely registered notice at all beyond our solar system - and even within, it can hardly be considered a positive impact. The scope of that isolation alone should give us pause, but the idea that our sense of human morality pertains to this universe that largely ignores us seems hilarious at best. In my view, it is not what we do for ourselves, but what we strive to understand in relation to the entire scope of existence that matters to the universe. Procreation has proved effective in transferring information to some extent, but it is our capacity to increase awareness, connection and collaboration well beyond the importance of our own existence, species, planet and galaxy that is of the most value to a universe whose ultimate purpose seems to have always been to matter.
First of all, I would appreciate if you would stop the passive-aggressive self-deprecation.
— Possibility
I am trying to be defend my thesis without being offensive. Is that what you call "passive-aggressive"? You have been attacking my thesis from the beginning, even as you admit to knowing little or nothing about it. And you have offered no positive alternatives.
Based on your questions, you don't even understand Possibility's theory any more than I do. Apparently the notion of sublime planes of existence is more attractive to you than the idea that mundane Information is the essence of Reality and Ideality. If it's alright with you, I will continue to respond to your put-downs without reacting in kind. :cool:
Might want to check who you’re speaking to before you attack...
What I call ‘passive-aggressive self-deprecation’ is your continual reference to yourself as dumb, stupid, baby, lacking in intelligence, education, etc - none of which I have even implied. Offering your neck to the chopping block is not a constructive way to defend anything.
Praxis can be uncharitable at times, but not always - the more constructive criticisms of your thesis need not be based on having an alternative, but rather on challenging you to do the work required to formulate a sound thesis in the first place. Your ‘thesis’ is a belief system at this stage, and as such is not ready to defend, I’m afraid. You don’t (and refuse to) understand the theories you prop it up with, and instead take every criticism as a personal attack. My theory is far from ready to defend either, by the way, so I certainly don’t mean that as an unfavourable comparison.
Can you give me a link to that third definition of Physics? I don't find it with a quick search. Here's the Google definitions of "Physical", which corresponds to how I use the term.
1. relating to the body as opposed to the mind.
2. relating to things perceived through the senses as opposed to the mind; tangible or concrete.
[ Note : these two definitions don't cover your yes & no interpretation. But the Enformationism thesis goes into great detail to show how those "opposed" concepts are inter-related as different forms of universal Information. ]
Just hit ‘Translations and more definitions’ at the bottom of the entry.
our capacity to increase awareness, connection and collaboration well beyond the importance of our own existence, species, planet and galaxy that is of the most value to a universe whose ultimate purpose seems to have always been to matter.
This is the essence of my issue with your theory, at least as far as I currently know or understand it. We value awareness, connection, and collaboration, and I suspect that this is due to our being a social species. Why would these qualities be of value to the universe, or even a non-social species? It’s like anthropomorphizing the universe, but if I’m not mistaken, you said that’s laughable, so, not sure where I’ve gotten lost.
Also, I can’t grasp the idea of how the universes ultimate purpose could have been to matter, or rather, I don’t know what that means.
Did Wheeler use terms like "other dimensions" in his musings on " matter, energy, and information"? Did he associate Information with physical Electro-Magnetic fields?
Gnomon!
Within the contextual framework of his participatory anthropic principle (PAP) as mentioned previously, those EM fields can be detected like 'Geons' (GR & EM). That foregoing experiment of those fields emanating from Black Holes could infer conscious activity from another dimension. Of course, it could also be other forms of energy waves like light and heat, etc.. Or, there is no reason why it could not be all of the above...refer to the video.
But specifically no, I have not found where Wheeler has used the phrase ' 5th Dimension' beyond the usual 4 Dimensions of space and time.
Since you don't seem to be offended by my unusual worldview, I'd like to see how you would summarize, in your own words, the Theory of Information that is the topic of this thread.
I interpret your Theory of Information as a combination of Wheeler's PAP and Davies' Panentheism
(not Pantheism). With respect to the latter, God's body is the metaphorical universe. With objective certainty, we can use mathematical abstracts to describe the information about the human structure, yet the mind of God is not known to us except through the subjective certainty of PAP.
In this interpretation, the body provides for your informational theory from which we dissect as clues. And the mind (subjective self-awareness/consciousness) is only known to us through the phenomenon of QM/PAP. Both of which remains a source of information.
Putting some of that together with your theory is yet just another theory relative to self-awareness/conscious existence. As Wheeler alluded,"... at the heart of everything is a question, not an answer. When we peer down into the deepest recesses of matter or at the farthest edge of the universe, we see, finally, our own puzzled face looking back at us."
I thought this was a cool picture of Wheeler and Einstein (Wheeler on the far right):
This is the essence of my issue with your theory, at least as far as I currently know or understand it. We value awareness, connection, and collaboration, and I suspect that this is due to our being a social species. Why would these qualities be of value to the universe, or even a non-social species? It’s like anthropomorphizing the universe, but if I’m not mistaken, you said that’s laughable, so, not sure where I’ve gotten lost.
Fair enough. I don’t think I’ve given enough information on the forum to explain this part very well, particularly in relation to the universe - and no-one has really addressed my terminology before, so I appreciate you doing so.
The language of ‘awareness, connection and collaboration’ suggests consciousness, or at least a panpsychism approach when applied to the universe. I think we have a tendency to assume a certain level of intelligence as necessary for awareness, so the way I use the term here is a little unconventional, and is probably a placeholder for a more appropriate terminology. As I have said here, I am not precious about the words I’ve used: I have a conceptual structure in mind, for which the words currently make sense to me, but my aim is to be understood.
By ‘awareness’, I’m referring to the exposure of a system to particular information. By ‘connection’, I’m referring to the correlation between systems that enables transmission of that information, and by ‘collaboration’ I’m referring to a relationship that facilitates the integration of this new information into the system itself.
I think there’s an underlying reason why humans are a social species, why multi-celled organisms formed, why life originated, why atoms formed molecular or chemical structures and why quantum particles formed atomic relations. And it has nothing to do with survival, dominance or procreation. Each of these dimensionally rare relational structures suggests a weak impetus towards increasing awareness, connection and collaboration (or exposure, transmission and integration of information) beginning with the most fundamental elements of the universe. Without it, the universe as we know it would not have existed, and neither would we.
Each of these dimensionally rare relational structures suggests a weak impetus towards increasing awareness, connection and collaboration (or exposure, transmission and integration of information) beginning with the most fundamental elements of the universe. Without it, the universe as we know it would not have existed, and neither would we.
I got this gist when I read through a collection of your posts on various topics, and you now explicitly say, "it has nothing to do with survival, dominance or procreation." I think we can collapse that into just procreation, by the way. I think it might help if you could explain where procreation fits. It fits somehow.
Maybe a good approach is with genes. It's easy to see how genes are information, and that it appears the one goal of genes is procreation.
Another suggestion that a Black Hole might be a portal to another galaxy, civilization, dimension, etc. etc. The funny thing is, apparently when you enter, you can't get out :
I've been meaning to ask, and I keep forgetting so I'll ask now, does your theory consider any old- school Hermetic philosophy/cosmology? ( It seems to dovetail a bit with PAP/Panentheism. .)
Thanks for that interpretation of matter, energy and information. After doing a TPF search, it appears you have studied Whitehead's cosmology/metaphysics. Does he happen to provide for any insights into any of our informational theories?
Yes. I often link to his site for technical details that are way above my knowledge level. His worldview seems to be similar to mine, in that "Immaterial information is perhaps as close as a physical or biological scientist can get to the idea of a soul or spirit that departs the body at death." And that "Metaphysics based on information philosophy can answer some of the most profound questions about the fundamental origins, nature, and evolution of reality".
. But, since I haven't read all of his extensive website, I can't be sure that we agree on all points. I doubt that he is familiar with my website. However, I may eventually communicate directly with him.
He gives some background on his credentials on this page : http://www.informationphilosopher.com/about/
Reply to Gnomon Yeah I saw his credentials, I just thought his philosophy sounded very similar to yours, so if you weren’t familiar with him you might like to be. Good to see you already are.
Granted I've been unnecessarily rude. I've gained interest in the topic and would like to be more cooperative. You cannot fault Possibility's conduct, by the way, which has been remarkable by any standard.
That's OK. I'm used to rudeness on anonymous internet forums. You can continue to "cooperate" by challenging my ideas, and giving me a chance to respond. I don't expect to convince you that my personal worldview is more up-to-date than the current paradigm of Materialism, or more scientific than New Age Spiritualism. But the feedback helps me to see how others (mis-) interpret my ideas. It helps me continue to refine the theory in my blog.
I began to dialog with Possibility because it's possible (pun intended) that a multi-dimensional cosmology could have some bearing on my own unorthodox understanding of reality. Unfortunately, it has been frustrating, because P doesn't directly answer my questions asking for empirical evidence or logical reasoning. I suspect that part of the communication problem is that my vocabulary is largely Modern and Post-postmodern, instead of the Postmodern lingo of the 80s & 90s. Although I can see that postmodern philosophers made legitimate criticisms of Modernism, I can't follow their oblique and circuitous (non-linear) arguments.
So, I still don't know how the hypothetical Fifth Dimension might fit into my theory of Information. I don't understand how it differs from the spiritual New Age notion, or from the mathematical universe of String Theorists. My Enformationism thesis has a lot to say about space-time, but doesn't mention higher or multiple dimensions. That's because I have no personal experience with anything beyond the mundane dimensions of apparent reality. :cool:
Might want to check who you’re speaking to before you attack...
What do you mean? I copied the quote from your post. The "passive-aggressive" crack sounded more like Praxis, but I was replying to your put-down. Did you interpret my calm measured defense as a counter-attack? BTW. I included "you and Praxis" in my response.
Your ‘thesis’ is a belief system at this stage, and as such is not ready to defend, I’m afraid. You don’t (and refuse to) understand the theories you prop it up with, and instead take every criticism as a personal attack. My theory is far from ready to defend either, by the way, so I certainly don’t mean that as an unfavourable comparison.
Of course. A person's worldview is a belief system, not a scientific theory. Do you understand the theories I "prop it up with"? [ I prefer the more positive term : "support" ] If not, how do you know I don't understand them? What scientific theories do you support your theory with? [ I've repeatedly asked for references ] I also prefer the more philosophical terminology of "challenge and response" instead of "criticism and personal attack" Your mis-interpretation of my intention may say more about you, than about me. :joke:
Anyway, since we are both arguing about little-known belief systems, can we at least find some common ground? A simple summary of your theory of Fifth Dimension would be a good start. Here's what The Fifth Dimension means to me :
I've been meaning to ask, and I keep forgetting so I'll ask now, does your theory consider any old- school Hermetic philosophy/cosmology? ( It seems to dovetail a bit with PAP/Panentheism. .)
My Enformationism thesis has nothing to do with mystical occult esoteric Hermetic traditions. I prefer scientific exoteric empirical knowledge. Unfortunately, the most common mis-construal is that it's a New Age philosophy. It is instead intended to be a 21st century alternative to ancient mystery religions, including Christianity, and to the ancient philosophy of Materialism, which has been obsolete since the advent of Quantum Theory.
The implicit cosmology does have some affinity with PanEnDeism, in that it assumes a cosmic Mind of some kind to provide the Generic Information that we interpret as both Matter (objects) and Mind (subjects). It's a Deist worldview (not a religion) in the sense that the Enformer or Programmer or G*D presumably "designed" the Program (evolution), but does not interfere with its automatic execution. In other words, no miracles, no magic, no occult mysteries. The theory is Spiritual only in the sense that what used to be called "Spirit", and is now called "Energy", is actually what we now know as "Information".
Paul Davies is a primary source of ideas about Information as the fundamental element of the cosmos. He hints at Panpsychism, but tries to avoid falling into Mysticism. My worldview may also be similar to Wheelers' PAP, but I was not aware of that concept ,as I was following the lead of a quantum scientist, who stated the obvious : that a virtual particle of matter (in a state of super-position) is un-actualized immaterial mathematical information. In other words, matter and energy are merely states (or forms) of essential Information. I also acknowledge a debt to Spinoza, and his theory of Universal Substance, which I take to be Generic Information : the power to Enform, to Create, So some kind of Creator is logically necessary. But since I have no direct experience with that hypothetical entity, for me, G*D is merely a philosophical Axiom. :nerd:
Another suggestion that a Black Hole might be a portal to another galaxy, civilization, dimension, etc. etc. The funny thing is, apparently when you enter, you can't get out :
The notion of Black Holes was a godsend for sci-fi authors. Like the Warp Drive of Star Trek it allows us to fantasize about escaping the downer limitations of reality. I don't take up much time speculating on the infinite possibilities of a tunnel to another universe. I leave that job to more imaginative people. Black Holes are like Dark Matter, and Dark Energy, in that they reveal more about our ignorance, than of our knowledge of cosmic science. Imagination fill holes in knowledge with maybes. :smile:
I leave that job to more imaginative people. Black Holes are like Dark Matter, and Dark Energy, in that they reveal more about our ignorance, than of our knowledge of cosmic science. Imagination fill holes in knowledge with maybes. :smile:
Are there any absolute's in your theory (s)?
Please enumerate if you could, then we can take them one at a time :gasp:
I still don't know how the hypothetical Fifth Dimension might fit into my theory of Information. I don't understand how it differs from the spiritual New Age notion, or from the mathematical universe of String Theorists. My Enformationism thesis has a lot to say about space-time, but doesn't mention higher or multiple dimensions. That's because I have no personal experience with anything beyond the mundane dimensions of apparent reality.
The only absolute in my thesis is the axiomatic BEING from which all finite & relative beings are created. This is Aquinas' Necessary Being. Everything in the space-time world is contingent.
BEING : In my own theorizing there is one universal principle that subsumes all others, including Consciousness : essential Existence. Among those philosophical musings, I refer to the "unit of existence" with the absolute singular term "BEING" as contrasted with the plurality of contingent "beings" and things and properties. By BEING I mean the ultimate “ground of being”, which is simply the power to exist, and the power to create beings.
http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page10.html
Necessary Being : https://philosophy.lander.edu/intro/necessity.shtml
I'm sure it would help if you familiarized yourself with: Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience
I scanned the article, but it doesn't say anything about higher dimensions. I assume you are implying that we know those occult planes, not by outward physical senses, but by inwardly directed intuitive feelings. Do you "feel" those dimensions? What do they feel like? How do they affect you?
I have an internal mental model of the universe; my reality. It's intuitive & instinctive, and guides my emotions. But I've never felt any extra dimensions. Do I need to open my Third Eye? :chin:
I've interpreted what Possibility has written about it to be like a dimension of measurement, if that makes sense. Affect is a dimension like depth is a dimension. There is depth information available to perception as there is affect information available to perception. Make sense?
I got this gist when I read through a collection of your posts on various topics, and you now explicitly say, "it has nothing to do with survival, dominance or procreation." I think we can collapse that into just procreation, by the way. I think it might help if you could explain where procreation fits. It fits somehow.
Maybe a good approach is with genes. It's easy to see how genes are information, and that it appears the one goal of genes is procreation.
Procreation is an intention to reproduce the system for its own sake: to ‘create forward’, so to speak. It extends the four-dimensional system to ‘survive‘ beyond its temporal limitations and ‘dominate’ beyond its spatial limitations. But it’s all an illusion.
If the one goal of genes is ‘procreation’ - to reproduce the system for its own sake - then it does a shoddy job of it. Genes are a method to maximise the transmission and integration of basic four-dimensional information across time, irrespective of the system from which it is manifest. Sexual reproduction is a misnomer: it maximises diversity from the genetic information of the originating system as much as the limitations of each system determine its practical success irrespective of new information. It presents a conflict of interest between this underlying impetus and the specific limitations of the relational structure (ie. the living organism) at this four-dimensional level: its ignorance, isolation and exclusion of four-dimensional information. A similar conflict occurs at every dimensional level, resulting in the diversity of relational structures both within and across dimensions, which ultimately maximises the diversity of opportunities for exposure to information.
The only absolute in my thesis is the axiomatic BEING from which all finite & relative beings are created. This is Aquinas' Necessary Being. Everything in the space-time world is contingent.
Gnomon!
Yes, thanks, but not really novel, nor a paradigm buster. :snicker:
On the other hand, you may or may not find this novel interpretation of an old topic intriguing... . In the end, (as Paul Davies has suggested in his book The Mind of God)) it may be that a whole different language (of information) is required for something like a ToE.
This article certainly hints to it (one of your favorite topics) LOL:
As a favor, I'm offering a critique of your Glossary Page. Maybe I missed it , but why did you not include Time? It is no doubt one of the most intriguing mysterious spanning science and philosophy. Becoming and Being-something you alluded to... .
Not to beat you up about it, but go to the 20-min. mark and you'll hear Davies discussing your favorite topic :snicker:
I've interpreted what Possibility has written about it to be like a dimension of measurement, if that makes sense. Affect is a dimension like depth is a dimension. There is depth information available to perception as there is affect information available to perception. Make sense?
An Effect is a physical change. To Affect, is to make a difference emotionally. For psychologists, "Affect" is how inner emotions are displayed in outward behavior. I can understand that emotional feelings are metaphorically similar to the feeling of Touch, by which we "measure" physical things. And all personal meanings are ultimately feelings.
Unfortunately, my personal Affect is rather flat. I don't have strong emotional swings. That's not a sign of depression, but of a stable happy-go-lucky temperament. I am by nature rather Buddha-like in the sense of a peaceful state of mind. I suppose that's why my general mood seems rather two-dimensional to more emotionally volatile people. Anyway, I've never experienced anything I'd call "Enlightenment". I suppose the closest I've come to that deep insight was when I realized that mental Information is the essence of everything in the world. The Effect of that intuition was to give me a foundation for my personal worldview. It was more of an intellectual "awakening" than a spiritual transformation, though.
What would it take for me to experience the Fifth Dimension stage of enlightenment? Mystics seem to be innately tuned for such a state. Others use drugs, or mediate to "lift" their vibrations. But, since my normal state, as an introvert, is basically meditative, whatever vibrations I may have resonate only in the usual four dimensions.
Can you give some examples of "depth information" you have obtained from forays into the higher dimensions? :cool:
Aaron Doughty : spiritual advisor -- "calibrate your vibrations"
https://aarondoughty.com/
5th Dimension : [i]Let’s consider, why would somebody living in this amazing Age of Awakening try to leave it. Really, leave it by “lifting your vibrations.” In short, “upgrade” your awareness away from how humans are built to experience life:
If your wish is to not have to deal with everyday human problems.
Or should you desire to develop kinds of intelligence more like spirits than like humans.
Maybe even dream of becoming the ultimate human. So vastly superior to hairy, smelly, confused human beings![/i]
https://www.rose-rosetree.com/blog/2020/01/04/5th-dimension-nonsense-serious-warning/
Yes, thanks, but not really novel, nor a paradigm buster.
I wasn't talking about a Spiritual paradigm, but a Scientific paradigm. But Enformationism is also a religious paradigm-buster, at least compared to the fundamentalist Christian worldview of my youth.
Unfortunately, my personal Affect is rather flat. I don't have strong emotional swings. That's not a sign of depression, but of a stable happy-go-lucky temperament. I am by nature rather Buddha-like in the sense of a peaceful state of mind. I suppose that's why my general mood seems rather two-dimensional to more emotionally volatile people.
I can appreciate your personal assessment and acknowledge the quality of equanimity in your manner. Nevertheless, your brain is irrevocably linked to a body that experiences fluctuations in energy and satisfaction, or arousal and valence, respectively. That is affect. What your brain does with that information is largely dependent on your conditioning, and that is largely dependent on whatever culture you were raised in. Earlier you asked what the difference was between Possibilities fifth (personal conditioning) and sixth (shared cultural conditioning) dimensions. Both are essentially about adaptively regulating energy, though the sixth dimension is collaborative between 'relational structures' in nature.
What would it take for me to experience the Fifth Dimension stage of enlightenment?
Note how you're feeling and realize that at its core it's simply a state of arousal/valence, and whatever emotions you might be experiencing are just so much conditioned prediction to your current situation.
Can you define your Fifth "Dimension" in a way that is not occult and magical? Metaphorical is OK, as long as it is meaningful to common sense. "State Space" and "Probability Space" are mathematical concepts that don't apply to actual real things, but to possible outcomes of physical processes, such as rolling dice.
It seems to me that you’re under the impression I’m making this ‘fifth dimension’ out to be an ‘actual real thing’, kind of like ‘space’? But is this ‘third dimension’ an ‘actual real thing’, or is it a relational structure of three-dimensional information? What’s the difference? I don’t think either of us are talking about actual real things here. We’re talking about information.
Your implication by referring to the entirety of this ‘state’ as ‘non-dimensional’ is that there is no such distinction. For me, however, there is a level of perception between life and meaning - which corresponds to consciousness.
— Possibility
The state I was referring to was Eternity & Infinity, both of which are immeasurable, hence non-dimensional. But you seem to think of the 5th Dimension as a non-sensory state in space-time, although not measurable out there in space or time, but only subjectively via intuition & imagination. The "distinction" between space-time dimensions (matter & motion) and mental-meaning dimensions (mind, consciousness) is like apples & oranges : true, but obvious.
Note :In my thesis, I find their commonality in the notion that both are forms of Generic Information. Just as Energy = Mass (matter) x the speed of light, Mind = Matter x Meaning (intention). But that's also a concept that defies common sense, even though it's the fundamental difference between Classical and Quantum science.
No - the fifth dimension is not located IN space-time. Space-time is four-dimensional information, so what I’m referring to is quite obviously more than that, in the same way that three-dimensional information is more than two-dimensional information.
A ‘state’ refers to a structural condition, usually in reference to a particular time, so I’m not sure how you would go about defining an immeasurably eternal state as an ‘actual real thing’.
I agree with you (and I don’t know why I feel compelled to reiterate this) that information is the key to dissolving the physical-mental divide. But so much of what you write here also seems to perpetuate the divide, so I’m not sure what to make of that.
For me, information makes a difference at each dimensional level: beginning with the existential binary of what matters in relation to anti-matter, diversifying into quantum particles, which relate in a one-dimensional ‘expansion’ of the universe to inform atomic relational structures. These atomic structures relate in two-dimensions to inform diverse molecular shapes and chemical potential, which relate in three-dimensions to inform space: consisting of diverse objects and chemical structures. These relate in four-dimensions to inform the diverse actions and molecular/chemical events of the unfolding universe (including cellular life), which relate in five-dimensional affect to inform a diversity of potential and value information systems, which relate in six-dimensional meaning to inform an infinite diversity of relational possibilities.
I don't understand the "level of perception" that senses a "state space" between Life and Meaning. As far as I know, Life is not a static space, but a dynamic process unfolding in time. And we "perceive" Life, not via sensory perception, but in imagination as a metaphor like a journey from point A to point B. The Meaning of Life is also not a sensible thing, but a subjective feeling about a person's history and future prospects. Some people take figurative metaphors literally, attributing properties of the symbol to the thing symbolized. For example, some idolators actually try to feed and clothe their little statues, thinking that it will make a difference to the occult deity, supposedly hanging around the state space of its artificial model.
I’m not sure where you got ‘state space’ from. It’s not a term I’ve used. I recognise life as a dynamic process unfolding in time. Our perception of this life is more specific than imagination, though - it comes from a perception of potential, informed by an interoception of affect (not just feeling) with regards to a person’s history and future prospects. The meaning of life is more informed again: an intersubjective relation to all imaginable possibilities, inclusive of (but not confined to) the changeability of subjective feeling. This recognition that we are not as unaffected as our conscious thought processes suggest is an important step in an accurate account of the transition between mental and physical states.
An ‘observation’ IS the process of locating or actualising an energy event. It doesn’t trigger a phase transition, but rather IS the phase transition.
— Possibility
Actually, that is close to my own concept, that the process of EnFormAction is what we call a Phase Transition. It's the act of changing form, of revealing latent possibilities in new actualities. To EnForm is to Actualize.
Yes, I have said this a number of times. Except that it isn’t an act of changing form, because the form - the event - is itself an act: a relational structure of four-dimensional information in itself. When you describe it as an ‘act of changing an act’, you lose the atemporal, subjective nature of the transition. What is affected is the perception or structure of potential, the five-dimensional information from which the observation is a reduction. It isn’t an ‘actual change’ as such - it’s a selected ‘mental’ structuring of potential information which determines and initiates the actual distribution of effort and attention in the observation itself.
So the idea is to look for the ‘wavefunction’ as an objective expression of affect.
— Possibility
So, when a physicist calculates the future trajectory of a particular wavefunction, that knowledge affects the state of the waveform (particle)??? The problem here is that "affect" can refer to a physical transfer of energy, or to the emotional feeling of knowing something about that change. Does the feeling cause the phase change, or is it an effect of the change? Again, mixing literal and metaphorical meanings is confusing. Feynman's famous quote may apply here : "If you think you understand quantum theory, you don't understand quantum theory". :joke:
Not quite. When a physicist calculates the future trajectory of a particular wavefunction, that knowledge affects the measured/observed state of the particle.
Affect is an instruction for the distribution of effort and attention requirements, so it’s both: it’s the relation between a physical transfer of energy (actual, 4D information) and the sum of feeling/knowledge (potential, 5D information) as a prediction of change.
‘Feeling’ refers to a qualitative aspect of potential information (qualia), intended to distinguish it from the quantitative reducibility of potential information as ‘knowledge’. In my view, it is this exclusion of ‘feeling’ from quantum theory, and the subsequent expectation on quantitative reduction to explain the relation between potential and observable reality, which prevents understanding.
Here, this might help (with respect to your Glossary/Time):
One topic, relevant to time, that I discuss at length in the blog, is the concept of Timelessness. One of my favorite neologisms is "Enfernity" (Infinity & eternity), which encapsulates my understanding that the state from which space-time emerged was unitary and formless : nothing measurable, except in terms of Mathematical and Logical relationships. :nerd:
Time & Purpose : It can be said that the world of mathematics exists in an eternal present, a state in which neither the past nor the future have any meaning
http://www.torahscience.org/mathematics/time1.html
Thanks for that interpretation of matter, energy and information. After doing a TPF search, it appears you have studied Whitehead's cosmology/metaphysics. Does he happen to provide for any insights into any of our informational theories?
Just wondering... .
If by ‘studied’ you mean formally, then no, I haven’t - I took an interest in panpsychism and process philosophy, and read up on the writings of Leibniz and Whitehead.
Whitehead’s systematic approach outlined a proposal for developing his process philosophy, which directly addresses the idealism/materialism divide:
[i]”Question assumptions that underly conceptual expression of all experiences, including the nature of the experiencing entity itself.
Develop a realist ontology that:
- acknowledges the existence of a real world;
- contains an adequate account of experiencing subjects (ie. subjectivity and experience are real);
- accounts for self-causation as well as efficient causation (relationship between freedom and determinism);
Develop a rational realist cosmology that accounts for purposive organisms and mechanical, determined relations between objects.
Develop a process cosmology where ‘events’ (not things) and ‘relations’ (not separate objects) are fundamental. Account for the ontological relationship between process and substance, between subjectivity and objectivity.”[/i]
I think Whitehead’s process cosmology sets the scene for Carlo Rovelli’s physics-based description of four-dimensional reality as consisting of ‘interrelated events’ rather than objects in time (from ‘The Order of Time’), as well as his description of quantum mechanics in relation to information theory (from ‘Reality Is Not What It Seems’).
Carlo Rovelli, ‘Reality Is Not What It Seems’:I believe that in order to understand reality we have to keep in mind that reality is this network of relations, or reciprocal information, which weaves the world. We slice up the reality surrounding us into objects. But reality is not made up of discrete objects. It is variable flux. Think of an ocean wave. Where does a wave finish? Where does it begin? Think of mountains. Where does a mountain start? Where does it end? How far does it continue beneath the Earth’s surface? These are questions without much sense, because a wave and a mountain are not objects in themselves; they are ways which we have of slicing up the world to apprehend it, to speak about it more easily. These limits are arbitrary, conventional, comfortable: they depend on us (as physical systems) more than on the waves or the mountains. They are ways of organising the information which we have or, better, forms of information which we have.
According to Whitehead’s philosophy: the world consists of events, not things, which interfuse and interpenetrate each other, so that no actuality is an isolated, self-contained entity; and fundamental process is inherently experiential, so nature ‘feels’ all the way down.
In my notes on Whitehead, this particular quote below relates specifically to Feldman Barrett’s more recent neuroscientific theories involving affect (which in my view constitutes the five-dimensional aspect of reality):
”Process and feeling are connected because in order for one moment, now, to be related to the immediately previous moment, past, and to the immediately subsequent moment, future, the ‘now’ moment must ‘feel’ aspects of the past by including them as constituents of its own actuality; and to give something of itself to the next, future moment.”
I scanned the article, but it doesn't say anything about higher dimensions. I assume you are implying that we know those occult planes, not by outward physical senses, but by inwardly directed intuitive feelings. Do you "feel" those dimensions? What do they feel like? How do they affect you?
I have an internal mental model of the universe; my reality. It's intuitive & instinctive, and guides my emotions. But I've never felt any extra dimensions. Do I need to open my Third Eye? :chin:
By ‘intuitive and instinctive’, you’re referring to internal processes you’re not fully aware of. I’ve already explained that these terms are not about occult planes or a ‘third eye’, but about a more ‘mundane’ potential for awareness of how we think, feel, remember, know, calculate, evaluate, reason or apply logic, etc - even while we’re asleep. When you ‘feel’ time, what you feel is an additional aspect to the world that is more than the three dimensional aspects of space. In the same way, we can ‘feel’ and/or understand additional aspects to what we experience than is observable/measurable in spacetime. I believe that the brain unconsciously ‘gauges’ one as affect, and we have spent at least the last five thousand years trying to make sense of this atemporal aspect of experience, to understand how it relates to the other aspects of our experience, and to eventually distinguish it from an infinite aspect of meaning.
You may have noticed this in the article:
Lisa Feldman Barrett, 2017:I hypothesize that, using past experience as a guide, the brain prepares multiple competing simulations that answer the question, ‘what is this new sensory input most similar to?’ (see Bar, 2009a,b). Similarity is computed with reference to the current sensory array and the associated energy costs and potential rewards for the body. That is, simulation is a partially completed pattern that can classify (categorize) sensory signals to guide action in the service of allostasis. Each simulation has an associated action plan. Using Bayesian logic (Deneve, 2008; Bastos et al., 2012), a brain uses pattern completion to decide among simulations and implement one of them (Gallivan et al., 2016), based on predicted maintenance of physiological efficiency across multiple body systems (e.g. need for glucose, oxygen, salt etc.).
Feldman Barrett makes no reference to higher dimensions or information, but the patterns, simulations and action plans she’s referring to here are not physical objects, but mental structures of information. It’s easy to assume from the description above that this brain ‘activity’ occurs consciously or at least in time, like an homunculus that plays back past experiences, performs research, lays out the options and then chooses which is the best way forward based on anticipating the demands of the system. But all of this happens instantly, unconsciously and ongoing at every moment, is predictive rather than reactive, and is as real and unobservable as potential energy. As such, it also draws remarkable resemblance to ‘calculating the wavefunction’ in a quantum system. Here, Feldman Barrett’s description is similar to your own ‘phase transition’: an ‘act of changing form’. But if we consider that what she’s describing is essentially atemporal, and that this unconscious remembering, feeling, applying logic, evaluating, etc relate conceptual structures as partial patterns, or potential rather than actual information (dimensionally reduced to affect), then what we’re looking at here is an example of how five-dimensional structures of the mind impact on four-dimensional events of measurable brain activity and observable behaviour.
FWIW, the main reason I refer to mental structures of information as ‘five-dimensional’ is to describe theories such as this and quantum mechanics, which enable us to cross the idealism/materialism divide, in relation to information theory without resulting in confusion between information-as-thing (3D), information-as-process (4D) and information-as-knowledge (5D).
except in terms of Mathematical and Logical relationships. :nerd:
Personally, I would say: mathematical and illogical relationships. Meaning, a place (our existence) where Godel/Heisenberg meets Platonism :cool:
That would work better since everything is information, that is providing for clues, which in turn are paradoxical. Being and becoming. Temporal and a temporal. Necessity and contingency. Changing and unchanging. Time-dependent and timelessness.
I like how you think. We are trapped in time.And I really like that you’re syscant and don’t blather on.
However, the reality is we are chemical beings.
I don’t think either of us are talking about actual real things here. We’re talking about information.
I wasn't asking about the definition of a "real" thing. I was requesting a succinct definition of your concept of whatever kind of "thing" these extra dimensions are. Without some kind of defining mental image, I am at a loss to know what you are talking about. Physically, space is emptiness that can be filled with something sensible and measurable. What kind of "things" are filling these extra empty containers.Praxis offered a couple of examples : "fifth (personal conditioning) and sixth (shared cultural conditioning) dimensions". But I don't grasp how the processes of adapting personal and cultural beliefs can be localized to specific places in "mind space".
Those metaphysical "dimensions" sound like the spiritual language of heaven & hell (imagined as real places) but translated into sciencey sounding modern terminology. They are spatial metaphors intended to allow us to imagine unreal "things" as-if they are real. Spiritual leaders have always used such physical imagery to convey metaphysical concepts. And they typically imply some causal connection (spiritual energies) from human minds to those abstract places in Mind-Space. This spiritual "mechanism" gives the impression that we can gain leverage over occult forces that bedevil us. But humans have typically relied on specialist Shamans to operate the spiritual system.
PS__My questions are not directed toward distinguishing "real" things from "ideal" concepts, but to discern "factual" from "fictional". For example : Time is generally accepted as an objective fact, but people's notions of that fact vary. Some think of Time flowing like a river, but Einstein pictured Time as a static block. Which metaphor is true? Depends on what kind of truth you're looking for. We all experience Change, but that simple fact has inspired all kinds of stories about change, from Fatalism or Destiny to Opportunity and Possibility. I'm looking for a Time story that is useful for my needs, that are mostly pragmatic instead of emotional.
No - the fifth dimension is not located IN space-time.
I get that. But what kind of stuff is figuratively "located" in those multiple dimensions? How do we detect those "containers", and how can we differentiate one dimension from another? Are alternate forms of consciousness (drugs, meditation) required to access those dimensions?
But so much of what you write here also seems to perpetuate the divide, so I’m not sure what to make of that.
I too, keep repeating and stipulating that I make a key distinction between Physical and Meta-physical aspects of our experience of the world. Empirical Science deals with Physics, and normally leaves Meta-Physics to Philosophers and Spiritualists (until forced to deal with abstractions and unknowns). Your extra dimensions seem to be metaphysical metaphors that are supposed to have some Effect on human Affect. But how that works is not clear. Scientists have a pretty good understanding of the physical causal forces (e.g. neurotransmitters) that elicit the Affects we call Feelings and Emotions. Are you saying that there are other "forces" involved that physical scientists are blind to?
BTW. My Information Theory was based on cutting-edge science, not on New Age philosophy. So I am not well-versed in the alternative lingo of mysticism.
It's a mathematical term for a metaphysical "container" that seems to be similar to the dimensions you are talking about. State Space : The state space of a dynamical system is the set of all possible states of the system.
What is affected is the perception or structure of potential, the five-dimensional information from which the observation is a reduction. It isn’t an ‘actual change’ as such - it’s a selected ‘mental’ structuring of potential information which determines and initiates the actual distribution of effort and attention in the observation itself.
I need a translation into less abstract terminology.
Affect is an instruction for the distribution of effort and attention requirements, so it’s both: it’s the relation between a physical transfer of energy (actual, 4D information) and the sum of feeling/knowledge (potential, 5D information) as a prediction of change.
Where do you get this information? Is there a book or website that gives grounding and backup for these assertions? Are these concepts related to Jungian psychology? Or to mystical psychology? : https://www.sacred-texts.com/myst/myst/myst06.htm
Space-Time : [i]the metaphysician Immanuel Kant said that the concepts of space and time are not empirical ones derived from experiences of the outside world—they are elements of an already given systematic framework that humans possess and use to structure all experiences. . . .
However, disagreement continues between philosophers over whether it is itself an entity, a relationship between entities, or part of a conceptual framework.[/i]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space
Physically, space is emptiness that can be filled with something sensible and measurable. What kind of "things" are filling these extra empty containers.Praxis offered a couple of examples : "fifth (personal conditioning) and sixth (shared cultural conditioning) dimensions". But I don't grasp how the processes of adapting personal and cultural beliefs can be localized to specific places in "mind space".
This Newtonian perception you have of space as a ‘container’ is where we seem to be getting stuck. Space IS the measurable relations between systems and structures, not a container to be filled with objects or ‘things’. Space is, and was, never ‘empty’. To talk about even the fourth dimension as if it were an empty container is to misunderstand the concept of dimensions.
When you talk on the phone to someone who lives across the other side of the world, how do you get a sense of the space between you? What about the time difference? Carlo Rovelli’s ‘The Order of Time’ deconstructs time from the single independent measurement of Newtonian classical physics, and reveals it to consist of measurable relations between systems and structures, which are themselves measurable relations between systems and structures, and so on. This understanding of ‘dimension’ forms the basis of six-dimensional metaphysics.
So the additional aspect of reality I’m referring to, just as with time and space, consists of measurable relations between systems and structures. Those relations, just as with ‘time’, can be reduced to a single, supposedly independent yet essentially local measurement known as ‘affect’. But our attempts to understand how we arrive at this measurement have hit a snag along the way, in the distinction between internal and external reality that led to this materialism/idealism divide (damn you, Descartes!). It was not dissimilar to the dilemma facing the concept of ‘world time’ two hundred years ago, which led to the slicing up of the planet into time zones, and continues to this day in the incompatibility of the time variable between quantum physics and spacetime relativity, and the distinction of ‘time’ from the three dimensions of ‘space’.
Essentially, if we have begun to understand space and then time more accurately as a structure of measurable relations between systems and structures, then surely it makes sense to talk about any additional aspects of reality beyond time in terms of measurable relations between systems and structures as well. These measurements are necessarily ‘local’, not just in relation to spatial aspects (like time is), but in relation to spacetime. That is, these measurable relations are those specific to the location of the observer in the spacetime moment of the experience. This is evident in the imminent convergence of quantum physics with subjectivity (even as it continues to ignore, isolate and exclude the relevance of qualia).
The third dimension is measured locally as a relation of information about depth to a two dimensional structure of information, achievable only by an integrated system that adjusts (changes) its relational position in four dimensions (time).
The fourth dimension is measured locally as a relation of information about change to a three-dimensional structure, achievable only by an integrated system that adjusts (affects) its relational position in five dimensions (potential/value).
And the fifth dimension is measured locally as a relation of information about affect to a four-dimensional structure, achievable only by an integrated system that adjusts its relational position in six dimensions (meaning or possibility/impossibility).
I too, keep repeating and stipulating that I make a key distinction between Physical and Meta-physical aspects of our experience of the world. Empirical Science deals with Physics, and normally leaves Meta-Physics to Philosophers and Spiritualists (until forced to deal with abstractions and unknowns). Your extra dimensions seem to be metaphysical metaphors that are supposed to have some Effect on human Affect. But how that works is not clear. Scientists have a pretty good understanding of the physical causal forces (e.g. neurotransmitters) that elicit the Affects we call Feelings and Emotions. Are you saying that there are other "forces" involved that physical scientists are blind to?
It is this key distinction that you make which confuses your supposed aim to bridge the divide. The aim of science is to deal with abstractions and unknowns, not just with physics. Authority in science is founded in what can be proven and universally understood, but their work has always drawn from this metaphysical level.
Scientists do NOT have a solid understanding of the ‘physical causal forces’ that elicit what we call feelings and emotions - that’s the point that Feldman Barrett makes. The classical view of emotions was disproven by neuroscience decades ago, and yet psychology, evolutionary biology and many other fields of application continue to perpetuate the mythical assumption that feelings and emotions are inherent, instinctual and universally defined. The latest research in neuroscience shows instead that personal and cultural conditioning lead to the construction and learning of emotional concepts.
I like how you think. We are trapped in time.And I really like that you’re syscant and don’t blather on.
However, the reality is we are chemical beings.
Becky!
Can you elaborate on what you mean by 'chemical beings'?
With respect to matter, energy and information, here's a short Whitheadian interpretation of the primacy of change/events that Possibility alluded to... . This is in contrast to say Platonism, relative to cosmology/metaphysics/unchanging things-see process theology.
However, it is important to note that in Panentheism, as Davies posits, the Di-polar God is that where both timeless and temporality are folded into one entity. A combination of both determinism and indeterminism on a quantum scale. A God that is both imbedded in the stream of time, yet retains it's eternal an unchanging character. (Wheeler's game of 20-questions illustrates by that by analogy.)
Anyway, here's the 101 on the former interpretation of process philosophy:
we have spent at least the last five thousand years trying to make sense of this atemporal aspect of experience,
Unfortunately, I am still a troglodyte who doesn't grok "atemporality". In my thesis, I assume that there is a timeless state (Enfernity) from which space-time emerged. But that doesn't mean that I have any experience or intuition of what-it's-like to be timeless. It's merely an abstract concept imagined as a back-story for the Big Bang. That's why I don't claim to know anything about that presumptive "state" or "dimension" or "level" of existence. From the article linked below, what I "got" was that Atemporality is an imaginary metaphor to put our experience of space-time into a broader context. In other words it's a fictional concept, just like my Enfernity. But I don't claim to know anything about its internal structure or patterns. I just view it as structureless infinite Potential or Possibility. Of course, fiction-writers can simply make-up stories about the structure of their imaginary realms.
Atemporality for the Creative Artist : So, what is ‘atemporality’? I think it’s best defined as ‘a problem in the philosophy of history’. . . . The first is about atemporality as a modern phenomenon. What does it look like and feel like, as it actually exists? And the second part of the speech is: what can creative artists do about that? . . . (If you don’t get what atemporality is by the end of these few images, I probably can’t help you.) ___Bruce Sterling, sci-fi writer
https://www.wired.com/2010/02/atemporality-for-the-creative-artist/
Lisa Feldman Barrett, 2017:I hypothesize that, using past experience as a guide, the brain prepares multiple competing simulations that answer the question, ‘what is this new sensory input most similar to?’
Barrett's hypothesis makes sense in terms of my Enformationism thesis, but the technical exposition is way beyond my competency. As with Sterling (the "artist"), I'll just have to take her word for it. The world of imagination is practically infinite, encompassing all possibilities. But the world of space-time is finite, so we can attempt to verify any assertions of what-is and what-ain't. Some "simulations" may be closer to truth than others.
FWIW, the main reason I refer to mental structures of information as ‘five-dimensional’ is to describe theories such as this and quantum mechanics, which enable us to cross the idealism/materialism divide, in relation to information theory without resulting in confusion between information-as-thing (3D), information-as-process (4D) and information-as-knowledge (5D).
I can accept the notion of higher dimensions as metaphors for discussing "things" that are not physical things (i.e. ideas). But I still need some grounding in common-sense reality in order to grok the metaphors. For example, what real-world difference does this concept make to me personally? Can I directly access this dimension of my own mind to obtain self-help wisdom, or should I just attend a Tony Robbins seminar?
I feel the need to explain one of the reasons for my pig-headedness (pardon the passive-aggressive self-deprecation). I came of age in the 60s. Which for some people (hippies) was The Age of Aquarius : "when peace will guide the planets, and love will steer the stars". But in my part of the world, it was The Age of Jesus' Return (the second coming). Since I was not a participant in the hippie subculture, I never learned the lingo of Astrological myths, Buddhist/Hindu theology, or Western Mysticism. Instead, my rebellion against the stagnation of Western Culture/Religion was modern Science, with its myths of Virtual Particles & Parallel Worlds. That's my second language, but I'm still not fluent in it. Consequently, the notion of "Fifth Dimension" in my mind is associated with a beautiful fairy tale. It sounds lovely, but science is more practical for mundane affairs. :yum:
and yet psychology, evolutionary biology and many other fields of application continue to perpetuate the mythical assumption that feelings and emotions are inherent, instinctual and universally defined. The latest research in neuroscience shows instead that personal and cultural conditioning lead to the construction and learning of emotional concepts.
However, it is important to note that in Panentheism, as Davies posits, the Di-polar God is that where both timeless and temporality are folded into one entity. A combination of both determinism and indeterminism on a quantum scale. A God that is both imbedded in the stream of time, yet retains it's eternal an unchanging character.
That is essentially how I imagine the axiomatic G*D of the Enformationism thesis. It's not a god of religion to be worshiped, but a Logos of philosophy to be aligned & allied with. This PanEnDeistic deity is imagined as Real in the form of our space-time universe, but Ideal in the form of Enfernal (eternal/infinite) BEING. Unfortunately, for us, such a rationalized essence remains a tantalizing mystery, whose only revelation is the world that we know via personal experience, and by scientific exploration. :nerd:
Just another thought. I did not see Sentience in your Glossary. I would consider adding the concept to your informational theories if you haven't already… . Here are a couple sound bites for you to chew on:
Sentience is a multidimensional subjective phenomenon that refers to the depth of awareness an individual possesses about himself or herself and others. When we ask about sentience in other animals, we are asking whether their phenomenological experience is similar to our own. Do they think about themselves the way we do? Do they ponder their own lives? Do they know that other individuals have feelings and thoughts? And, do they have an autobiographical sense of the past and future?
Sentience is the capacity to feel, perceive, or experience subjectively.[1] Eighteenth-century philosophers used the concept to distinguish the ability to think (reason) from the ability to feel (sentience). In modern Western philosophy, sentience is the ability to experience sensations (known in philosophy of mind as "qualia"). In Eastern philosophy, sentience is a metaphysical quality of all things that require respect and care.
There is a fundamental harmony and purpose to the physical reality and to the spiritual reality and to their inherent relationship with one another. It ultimately has to do with who you are, where you came from, why you are here and where you are destined to go. This holds true for sentient life everywhere, regardless of the vast differences in appearance, environment and understanding.
The freedom that must be emphasized is a greater internal freedom—the freedom to find the way to Knowledge, the deeper intelligence that God has placed within you and within all sentient life.
Gnomon, I didn't see Material Reductionism in your Glossary either. Point being, you can contrast the above thoughts on sentience, with how self-awareness and consciousness is not likely to have emerged from a piece of wood :chin:
Unfortunately, I am still a troglodyte who doesn't grok "atemporality". In my thesis, I assume that there is a timeless state (Enfernity) from which space-time emerged. But that doesn't mean that I have any experience or intuition of what-it's-like to be timeless. It's merely an abstract concept imagined as a back-story for the Big Bang. That's why I don't claim to know anything about that presumptive "state" or "dimension" or "level" of existence. From the article linked below, what I "got" was that Atemporality is an imaginary metaphor to put our experience of space-time into a broader context. In other words it's a fictional concept, just like my Enfernity. But I don't claim to know anything about its internal structure or patterns. I just view it as structureless infinite Potential or Possibility. Of course, fiction-writers can simply make-up stories about the structure of their imaginary realms.
If you pay attention to how you organise, store and retrieve memories in your mind, you may notice that they’re not necessarily organised chronologically. Some of your most vivid and readily accessible memories are far from your most recent, and most of those you would probably struggle to arrange confidently on a timeline, at least initially. We don’t always (or even often) arrange our memories, thoughts or beliefs according to their temporality. The most readily accessible are the most valuable, significant or relevant, not necessarily the most recent.
So yes, ‘atemporality’ puts our experience of ‘spacetime’ into a broader context, just as ‘time’ puts our experience of ‘space’ into a broader context. It’s speculative, sure - I don’t claim to ‘know’ anything either - I’m just presenting my view. But in my view, potentiality is not as structureless or as infinite as one might think. It does exist irrespective of temporality, though. Its structure is variable, but it always boils down to affect: a predictive distribution of effort and attention in relation to localised spacetime. This is calculable through quantum physics, conceivable through neuroscientific research, and it’s debatably empirical, through self-reflective reasoning. You can call it ‘fictional’, if it makes you feel better. But it’s in imagining infinite possibilities and testing them that we come to understand the distinction - and eventually a probabilistically predictable structure - of atemporal, finite relative potentialities.
Barrett's hypothesis makes sense in terms of my Enformationism thesis, but the technical exposition is way beyond my competency. As with Sterling (the "artist"), I'll just have to take her word for it. The world of imagination is practically infinite, encompassing all possibilities. But the world of space-time is finite, so we can attempt to verify any assertions of what-is and what-ain't. Some "simulations" may be closer to truth than others.
But you don’t have to take Barrett’s word for it. She presents testable hypotheses, as well as an entire book of background research, real world examples and non-technical explanations supporting her theory. The article Praxis linked is a highly technical presentation - her book is longer, but a significantly easier read. The world of perceived, atemporal potentiality is finite, just as the potential energy in the universe is finite, even as it suggests a broader context than space-time.
The simulations are based on past experiences, so yes, some are more accurate than others. The process is very much like the scientific method:
Lisa Feldman Barrett, ‘How Emotions Are Made’:Your brain works like a scientist: It’s always making a slew of predictions, just as a scientist makes hypotheses. Like a scientist, your brain uses knowledge (past experience) to estimate how confident you can be that each prediction is true. Your brain then tests its predictions by comparing them to incoming sensory input from the world, much as a scientist compares hypotheses against data in an experiment. If your brain is predicting well, then input from the world confirms your predictions. Usually, however, there is some prediction error, and your brain, like a scientist, has some options. It can be a responsible scientist and change its predictions to respond to the data. Your brain can also be a biased scientist and selectively choose data that fits the hypotheses, ignoring everything else. Your brain can also be an unscrupulous scientist and ignore the data altogether, maintain that its predictions are reality. Or, in moments of learning or discovery, your brain can be a curious scientist and focus on input. And like the quintessential scientist, your brain can run armchair experiments to imagine the world: pure simulation without sensory input or prediction error...
In many cases, the outside world is irrelevant to your experience. In a sense, your brain is wired for delusion: through continual prediction, you experience a world of your own creation that is held in check by the sensory world. Once your predictions are correct enough, they not only create your perception and action but also explain the meaning of your sensations. This is your brain’s default mode. And marvellously, your brain does not just predict the future: it can imagine it at will. As far as we know, no other animal can do that.
It is this key distinction that you make which confuses your supposed aim to bridge the divide.
Who's confused? I still don't understand your distaste for "distinctions" and "definitions". Without those analytical steps we would have to deal with the world as one awesome mystery. A bridge doesn't erase the gap between things, it merely makes a two-way link between them. My aim is not to transcend the divide by imagining that it doesn't exist, but to understand it as an inherent aspect of our otherwise complex and perplexing reality .
In my BothAnd philosophy, I want to discover natural distinctions (parts, categories, classes), and then to see their relationship to the whole. I suspect that one alternative method would be to view Nature as Supernatural (mystical, unanalyzable), and another would be to simply "carve nature" at arbitrary points willy-nilly. Is the Fifth Dimension a natural "joint", or a willful categorization?
Carving Nature at its Joints : Plato famously employed this “ carving ” metaphor as an analogy for the reality of Forms (Phaedrus 265e): like an animal, the world comes to us predivided. Ideally, our best theories will be those which “ carve nature at its joints. ”
https://philarchive.org/archive/SLAILF
Just another thought. I did not see Sentience in your Glossary.
The Blog Glossary is intended to give an Enformationism flavor to common dictionary words, and to give a pertinent definition of neologisms that are found only in the thesis. I haven't yet addressed the notion of "Sentience", as you describe it. I suppose the closest Glossary entry is the one for "Consciousness". Other generally related terms are defined in the pertinent blog post.
Consciousness : Literally : to know with. To be aware of the world subjectively (self-knowledge) and objectively (other knowing). Humans know Quanta via physical senses & analysis, and Qualia via meta-physical reasoning & synthesis. In the Enformationism thesis, Consciousness is viewed as an emergent form of basic mathematical Information.
Is that even close to your meaning of Sentience?
INTRO : This glossary is intended to supplement the website articles and blog posts with definitions specifically tailored to the subject matter. For the most comprehensive understanding though, I recommend starting with the website, which has its own glossary and references from several years ago. .
Barrett’s book maps the history of essentialist and constructionist views quite comprehensively.
Feldman Barrett, ‘How Emotions Are Made’:At press time, Microsoft is analysing facial photographs in an attempt to recognise emotion. Apple has recently purchased Emotient, a startup company using artificial intelligence techniques in an effort to detect emotion in facial expressions. Companies are programming Google Glass ostensibly to detect emotion in facial expressions in an effort to help autistic children. Politicians in Spain and Mexico are engaging in so-called neuropolitics to discern voter preferences from their facial expressions.
Who's confused? I still don't understand your distaste for "distinctions" and "definitions". Without those analytical steps we would have to deal with the world as one awesome mystery. A bridge doesn't erase the gap between things, it merely makes a two-way link between them. My aim is not to transcend the divide by imagining that it doesn't exist, but to understand it as an inherent aspect of our otherwise complex and perplexing reality .
In my BothAnd philosophy, I want to discover natural distinctions (parts, categories, classes), and then to see their relationship to the whole. I suspect that one alternative method would be to view Nature as Supernatural (mystical, unanalyzable), and another would be to simply "carve nature" at arbitrary points willy-nilly. Is the Fifth Dimension a natural "joint", or a willful categorization?
We disagree on how we ‘carve nature’, it seems. I see categories as how we agree to divide the world in social reality. They are constructions of perception by prediction.
Barrett:Each construction is real, so questions of accuracy are unanswerable in a strictly objective sense. This is not a limitation of science: it is just the wrong question to be asking in the first place. There are no observer-dependent measurements that can reliably and specifically adjudicate the matter. When you can’t find an objective criterion to compute accuracy and are left with consensus, this is a clue that you are dealing with social, not physical reality.
While I recognise there is a ‘natural’ structure of relations between what we think of as social and physical reality, I don’t think it’s inherently definable. I certainly don’t see it as a ‘joint’. We wilfully categorise and classify the world as it suits us. This is how we relate to the world.
I’m not saying that we don’t define this relational structure - it’s necessary in order to have any effect on reality. But each time we do, we find that this definition, this answer, will differ depending on what question we ask or how we ask it. You seem to be looking for the ‘correct’ question, but what I’m looking for is the pattern relation that enables us to predict an answer given the question.
We disagree on how we ‘carve nature’, it seems. I see categories as how we agree to divide the world in social reality. They are constructions of perception by prediction.
Yes. I prefer to carve Nature at its joints (i.e. inherent logical categories). But you seem to think there is no inherent logic to Nature, so all categories are arbitrary and imaginary. If that is the case, then Science is impossible, and we'd have to rely on a Shaman to interpret the world for us.
I'm not familiar with the phrase : "constructions of perception by prediction".
While I recognise there is a ‘natural’ structure of relations between what we think of as social and physical reality, I don’t think it’s inherently definable. I certainly don’t see it as a ‘joint’. We wilfully categorise and classify the world as it suits us. This is how we relate to the world.
The "natural’ structure of relations" is what I call the "Logic" of Nature. And it's what scientists are trying to determine and to exploit for human purposes. The "logic" I refer to is the patterns, structures, and laws (pure logic = mathematics) that we observe in the natural world. Human reasoning (logic) is a poor approximation of the natural order, but we seem to have inherited a disposition to recognize systematic order when we see it. It's true that rational Science is influenced by human emotions and ego-drives to "willfully categorize". That's why the Scientific Method includes checks & balances to cancel-out individual egos & wills. But the only other option I'm aware of is direct communication with God or Nature (visions, intuitions or revelations), which is the method religious authorities have claimed to use for millennia to classify the world as it suited them into hierarchies of angels & demons, supernatural powers & occult forces. Is this how you relate to the world?
Nature is Understandable : Science presumes that the things and events in the universe occur in consistent patterns that are comprehensible through careful, systematic study. Scientists believe that through the use of the intellect, and with the aid of instruments that extend the senses, people can discover patterns in all of nature. . . . But they tend to agree about the principles of logical reasoning that connect evidence and assumptions with conclusions. Scientists do not work only with data and well-developed theories. Often, they have only tentative hypotheses about the way things may be.
http://www.project2061.org/publications/sfaa/online/chap1.htm
You seem to be looking for the ‘correct’ question, but what I’m looking for is the pattern relation that enables us to predict an answer given the question.
What's the difference? For me, the "correct" answer is one that leads to pragmatic applications. Without supernatural help, we'll never obtain perfect answers.
Pragmatic Science : The pragmatic position, by my definition, views science as one of our best tools for figuring out our place in the world and our world’s place in the universe. To the extent that truths can be uncovered, science is one of our most effective methods for finding them. But it’s not the only one. Logic is another, as is philosophical inquiry and the humanities, among others.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/daviddisalvo/2011/08/21/why-we-need-pragmatic-science-and-why-the-alternatives-are-dead-ends/#761f14ea777b
I just read an article, in an anthology of The Evolving Idea of Complexity, that seems pertinent to our different views of scientific/philosophical definition. Complexity Theory is an offshoot of Systems Theory, which is an attempt to apply scientific methods to whole systems (holism), rather than just the parts (reductionism). Unfortunately, Complexity is a metaphysical feeling about natural systems, not a physical object. So, it can only be defined in terms of metaphors that relate to sensory knowledge.
John Casti began his article with an anecdote about defining "complexity". One scientist asserted cynically that "complexity is what you don't understand". To which his colleague replied, "you don't understand complexity". For much of the last 30 years, Complexity has been a theoretical (philosophical) science. But Casti then noted the absurdity of trying to make a Science, "without benefit of anything even beginning to resemble a definition". He referred to those early stages of academic complexity studies derisively as "wrapped up in language vague enough to warm the heart of any continental philosopher". [ I take that to be a reference to Postmodernism ]. Anyway, he sums up, " the problem is that an integral part of transforming complexity . . . into a science involves making that which is fuzzy precise".
It's the fuzziness of your assertions about multiple dimensions that makes it difficult for me to relate the concept to my limited knowledge of how the world works. In theory, I should be able to find a place for those extra "dimensions" in my Enformationism thesis. But to me, your evasive, oblique, and yes "fuzzy" references sound more like religious beliefs (defined by authorities, not by laymen), than scientific concepts.
However, you and I both are cognizant of the limitations of scientific Reductionism. Which is also the flaw that Casti critiques in his article, "in which any reductionist approach of this sort irretrievably destroys the very nature of the problem". [ dissect the frog to see what makes it a frog ] So, Casti argues that "the missing ingredient is the explicit recognition that system complexity is a subjective, not an objective, property of an isolated system" To which, I suspect that you can agree. Nevertheless, Casti is determined to find a way to define Complexity scientifically and as precisely as possible, in order to avoid, "opening up all sorts of depressing debates and semantic confusions of the kind that permeate the arts and humanities". [ has he been lurking on our thread? ] :joke:
Yes. I prefer to carve Nature at its joints (i.e. inherent logical categories). But you seem to think there is no inherent logic to Nature, so all categories are arbitrary and imaginary. If that is the case, then Science is impossible, and we'd have to rely on a Shaman to interpret the world for us.
Science isn’t impossible - we just need to accept its limitations of certainty/objectivity in relation to precision. This is what quantum theory and its various interpretations are wrestling with. The logic we believe to be ‘inherent’ in Nature is constructed and defined within a human perspective. So we need to recognise that the certainty of this definition is not objective. And if we strive instead for objectivity, then we need to recognise a lack of certainty - a fuzziness. Categories are arbitrary - there are patterns and structures to be found in nature, but any sense that we can draw a precise line between them or define them with any precision is based on how we perceive the world, not on what exists objectively.
Barrett:When you categorise, you might feel like you’re merely observing the world and finding similarities in objects and events, but that cannot be the case. Purely mental, goal-based concepts such as ‘Things That Can Protect You From Stinging Insects’ reveal that categorisation cannot be so simple and static. A flyswatter and a house have no perceptual similarities. Goal-based concepts therefore free you from the shackles of physical appearance. When you walk into an entirely new situation, you don’t experience it based solely on how things look, sound or smell. You experience it based on your goal.
So, what’s happening in your brain when you categorise? You are not finding similarities in the world but creating them. When your brain needs a concept, it constructs one on the fly, mixing and matching from a population of instances from your past experience, to best fit your goals in a particular situation.
The "natural’ structure of relations" is what I call the "Logic" of Nature. And it's what scientists are trying to determine and to exploit for human purposes. The "logic" I refer to is the patterns, structures, and laws (pure logic = mathematics) that we observe in the natural world. Human reasoning (logic) is a poor approximation of the natural order, but we seem to have inherited a disposition to recognize systematic order when we see it. It's true that rational Science is influenced by human emotions and ego-drives to "willfully categorize". That's why the Scientific Method includes checks & balances to cancel-out individual egos & wills. But the only other option I'm aware of is direct communication with God or Nature (visions, intuitions or revelations), which is the method religious authorities have claimed to use for millennia to classify the world as it suited them into hierarchies of angels & demons, supernatural powers & occult forces. Is this how you relate to the world?
It isn’t so much human emotions and ego that lead to wilful categorisation. It’s functionality. We define and categorise the world according to its utility: our perception of potential. The scientific method doesn’t cancel this out. As a result, Science has come to recognise its own limitations in the position of the observer.
The logic we believe to be ‘inherent’ in Nature is constructed and defined within a human perspective.
That assertion may point to a key difference in our worldviews. Your quote makes it seem that Reality is a figment of my individual imagination (solipsistic idealism). Yet, scientists assume that there is a physical world out there for our senses to perceive (Realism). My view is a bit of both. I think our Reality is a figment of G*D's imagination (e.g. Berkeley's Idealism). But our bodies are also creatures of G*D mind. So we are endowed with physical senses that can detect the objects of G*D's imagination (Logos). Human "objectivity" is a form of collective imagination via communication of subjective intuition (i.e. Science).
That dualism may sound awkward, but it's basically the same Model Dependent Realism theory that cognitive psychologist Donald Hoffman presents in his book The Case Against Reality. He calls the "objects of our perception "icons" that represent a deeper "reality" of pure information. In my BothAnd philosophy, it's not a matter of either "Reality" or "Ideality", it's both at the same time. Ideality consists of raw EnFormAction (creative information), while what we call objective Reality is a sort of communal delusion --- i.e. we all see more or less the same illusion. "A rose is still a rose . . ."
Interface Reality : He uses the modern metaphor of computers that we “interface” (interact) with, as-if the symbolic Icons on the display screen are the actual things we want to act upon.
http://bothandblog6.enformationism.info/page21.html
We're straying a bit from the sub-topic of how the Fifth & Sixth Dimensions fit into the Enformationism worldview. Since I don't understand how those dimensions are relevant to me personally, I'm still waiting for some direct answers to the questions I've been asking in this thread. For now, I'm assuming those extra dimensions have something to do with Intuition, as opposed to the traditional four we know via intuitive classification of sensory experiences, and then rationalize into formal definitions of Space & Time. You seem to focus on the subjective feelings rather than the objective reasons. With that notion in mind, I'm quoting some excerpts from the Complexity book I referred to before.
This from Seth Lloyd on how to make computers intuitive : "For non-linear systems, control requires intuition. . . . For the algorithm to model the system successfully, it must be an adaptive algorithm : to acquire intuition, it must learn." Hence, his approach to the mysteries of complexity, involves both "algorithmic and probabilistic information." What we now call "complexity" seems to be what the ancients called "mystery", and associated with spirits & gods on higher planes of existence. Lloyd doesn't use mystical methods to delve into fuzzy ambiguity & unpredictable uncertainty. Instead, he uses the mostly linear rational techniques of mathematics and computer processing of information. As computers evolve though, he will use entangled Quantum processing to deal with non-linear problems, that currently only humans can grasp by intuition. Meanwhile humans have one last shred of dignity that computers can't do better.
If Intuition is based on mundane learning and adaptation, then perhaps humans also acquire their intuition from ordinary experience with how the world works, rather than from occult sources in higher dimensions. Presumably, intuition matures along with all other aspects of human personality. What we call "intuition" is simply the millions of minute details the brain has stored for future retrieval. Just like the recall of names though, it works best on automatic. When we consciously try to recover such information, we often draw a blank. Which is why sleep or meditation allow the brain to process that loosely-categorized deeply-engrammed information.
Logos : the divine reason implicit in the cosmos, ordering it and giving it form and meaning
Engram : a hypothetical permanent change in the brain accounting for the existence of memory; a memory trace.
Law & Disorder :
1. Reason -- Rule-based linear processes
2. Intuition -- Random non-linear complexity
Intuition learns from the errors of experience, and exceptions to the usual rules.
That assertion may point to a key difference in our worldviews. Your quote makes it seem that Reality is a figment of my individual imagination (solipsistic idealism). Yet, scientists assume that there is a physical world out there for our senses to perceive (Realism). My view is a bit of both. I think our Reality is a figment of G*D's imagination (e.g. Berkeley's Idealism). But our bodies are also creatures of G*D mind. So we are endowed with physical senses that can detect the objects of G*D's imagination (Logos). Human "objectivity" is a form of collective imagination via communication of subjective intuition (i.e. Science).
That’s not how I see it. When I say ‘within a human perspective’, I’m referring only to how we construct and define it, not to how it is ‘out there’. Objective reality extends beyond our sense perception - it requires both a relative imagination (to structure meaningful/possible information) and a constructed intersubjective conceptual system (to structure valuable/potential information) in order to make sense of it all in relation to the “physical world out there for our senses to perceive”. We relate diverse sensory input within our perception of a relative, shared social reality, and we relate diverse conceptual structures within our relative imagination of possibilities - beyond which is the infinite possibility/impossibility that I assume you refer to as G*D.
For me, it’s all information, existing as an infinite possibility of complex relational patterns and structures. So there is no pre-ordained structure or Logos to be ‘discovered’ - existence IS the Logos: the cosmos making sense of itself, increasing awareness, connection and collaboration in whatever ways it perceives potential and/or possibility. How we interact with the ‘physical world out there’ is necessarily informed by the potential in our conceptual systems (including our shared social reality) which is informed in turn by our perspective of this infinite possibility (including our shared meaning). We refer to it as ‘individual imagination’, but it’s more that we’re continually drawing from the same source of infinite possibility/impossibility in both ignorantly subjective and intersubjective ways. The idea is that we gradually refine and restructure this necessarily reductive process in ways that broaden and improve the accuracy of our awareness, connection and collaboration with all reality: physical, social, imaginative or otherwise.
If Intuition is based on mundane learning and adaptation, then perhaps humans also acquire their intuition from ordinary experience with how the world works, rather than from occult sources in higher dimensions. Presumably, intuition matures along with all other aspects of human personality. What we call "intuition" is simply the millions of minute details the brain has stored for future retrieval. Just like the recall of names though, it works best on automatic. When we consciously try to recover such information, we often draw a blank. Which is why sleep or meditation allow the brain to process that loosely-categorized deeply-engrammed information.
We’ve already established that we’re on the same page regarding intuition and its sources. So we are mostly in agreement here. But I believe that intuition is more than simply details. This ‘random (indeterminate), non-linear (multi-dimensional) complexity’ refers to a five-dimensional (ie. atemporal) structure. There’s no occult source - it’s just an additional aspect to information. Barrett shows that how these details are ‘stored’ and how they are retrieved can be understood, evaluated and refined as learned conceptual structures and patterns. We’ll often draw a blank only because we’re expected to justify thoughts, words and actions with objectively certain, measurable/observable information in a logical format. But none of these features are necessary in order for such events to be either determined or initiated by the brain, and in fact are often available only after the event. The way I see it, this non-linear complexity is a feature of human intention and other quantum systems. The only difference between ‘intuition’ and conscious reasoning is our ability to define a rule-based linear process that can justify the event after the fact. Affect refers to a reduction of both quantitative and qualitative potential information to map the body’s predictive distribution of effort and attention in relation to space-time. The brain doesn’t select between reasoning and intuition until it is required to consciously reflect on intention/causality. Then, much like an ‘observed’ quantum particle, it collapses into a rule-based, linear process in space-time, or is dismissed as either ‘subjective feelings’, or ‘intuition’ (fuzziness).
But while intuition as a five-dimensional information system is not yet replicable or predictable, it is understandable to some extent - if you can cope with either the subjectivity or uncertainty. Casti and Lloyd are waiting for computer science and mathematics to catch up, but human interoceptive networks map and share information in five-dimensions all day, every day. This is not just how we think, learn, develop and adapt - it’s how we construct and define our social reality.
. . . relative imagination . . . constructed intersubjective conceptual system . . . beyond which is the infinite possibility/impossibility that I assume you refer to as G*D.
Relative Imagination : personal subjective knowledge structured into concepts (words) for communication with other subjective perspectives???
Constructed intersubjective conceptual system : Is that what we humans call "Objective Reality" --- constructed by convention from many points of view ???
In my thesis, "G*D" is both infinite Possibility (great beyond) and finite Actuality (mundane world), in the sense of PanEnDeism. The Real world was created from god-stuff, Infinite Potential, via a process of EnFormAction (creative energy). Hence, everything in our world (matter, energy, mind) is an emergent form of universal EnFormAction. That's why I say, "all is Information" (the power to enform and the forms themselves).
PanEnDeism : belief in a god who is both panentheistic and deistic, e.g. a god who contains all of the universe, but who nevertheless transcends or has some existence separate from the universe, who does interact, but does not necessarily intervene in the universe, and that a personal relationship can be achieved with it, in as much as a person can have a relationship with his/her own rational thoughts.
https://www.yourdictionary.com/panendeism
So there is no pre-ordained structure or Logos to be ‘discovered’ . . .
we’re continually drawing from the same source of infinite possibility/impossibility in both ignorantly subjective and intersubjective ways.
Yes & no. G*D (Logos & Chaos) is all-Information-all-the-time (power to be, to enform, to create) . But I make a distinction between actual Space-Time Information, and potential non-dimensional (Enfernity : eternity + infinity) Enformation. Our space-time is structured by the limits-on-possibility we call Natural Laws & Constants & Mathematical Logic. But the spaceless-timeless state that our world emerged from, in the Big Bang, is what I call "Chaos", in the Platonic sense. Therefore, our Reality is "pre-ordained" (programmed) and structured (sensible). But Ideality extends beyond space-time into un-defined omni-potential infinite possibilities, that I call "Chaos" or "G*D" : "the source of infinite possibility", where nothing is impossible.
Pre-ordained Structure : Reality is not an instantaneous creation, but the gradual evolution of a creative program, which unfolds in space & time.
Chaos : random unformed unlimited Potential (the power to be) that I call "BEING".
This ‘random (indeterminate), non-linear (multi-dimensional) complexity’ refers to a five-dimensional (ie. atemporal) structure. There’s no occult source
How can this "five-dimensional structure" be structured, if it is spaceless, timeless & indeterminate? Sounds like a logical structure that has not yet been actualized (i.e. Logos). "Random, indeterminate, non-linear " sounds similar to what I call "Chaos" (unstructured potential, Plato's Forms), except that it has no measurable dimensions or structured complexity. The real-world structure is constructed from random Chaos by the combination of Logos (Reason) and Intention (EnFormAction). Perhaps it's the imprint of that timeless logical structure (mathematical patterns) that we perceive via Intuition rather than by sensory perception?
By contrast with Exoteric (physically sensible) natural sciences, most Occult (esoteric, magical) theories would identify their Hidden Source of Information with the timeless super-natural realm of Spirit. But, in my thesis, we have no access to any information that is "out of this world". I, personally, have no spiritual insights into cosmic mysteries. All I have is mundane Intuition, which draws from Information stored in the physical brain (subconscious memory of past experience). [ Note: see next post ]
But while intuition as a five-dimensional information system is not yet replicable or predictable, it is understandable to some extent . . . human interoceptive networks map and share information in five-dimensions all day, every day
Humans mentally map incoming information into the three conventional dimensions of space-time. This logical structure seems to be innate. But, AFAIK, I don't personally map other kinds of information into other dimensions. If you could define those extra-sensory dimensions in some common-sense terms or metaphors, I might discover that I've been tapping into a higher or deeper resource "every day". Apparently, Intuition senses non-conscious information in the brain. But is that info actually contained in a non-physical non-space-time dimension???
not yet replicable or predictable : in other words, Theoretical?
Interoception : the sense of the internal state of the body. This can be both conscious and non-conscious
Kant : Space is not something objective and real, nor a substance, nor an accident, nor a relation; instead, it is subjective and ideal, and originates from the mind’s nature in accord with a stable law as a scheme, as it were, for coordinating everything sensed externally.
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/kant-spacetime/
How we interact with the ‘physical world out there’ is necessarily informed by the potential in our conceptual systems (including our shared social reality) which is informed in turn by our perspective of this infinite possibility (including our shared meaning). We refer to it as ‘individual imagination’, but it’s more that we’re continually drawing from the same source of infinite possibility/impossibility in both ignorantly subjective and intersubjective ways. The idea is that we gradually refine and restructure this necessarily reductive process in ways that broaden and improve the accuracy of our awareness, connection and collaboration with all reality: physical, social, imaginative or otherwise.
This meta-personal imagination reminds me of Bernardo Kastrup's notion of "The Other" and "Mind At Large" in his book, More Than Allegory. After reminding the reader repeatedly that his metaphors are not real & true, in the ordinary sense, he relates some experiences in non-social reality within his own mind. While working for a secretive multi-national foundation, he took psychoactive drugs (the "recipe") and wore a cap to stimulate his brain with electromagnetic patterns. [Note : I used a similar cap several years ago (without drugs), but had no notable experiences]
During his "trips" he had an internal two-way dialogue with an amorphous entity anonymously labeled "The Other". This entity communicated in the form of images, which sounds similar to imaginative poetic Intuition. It was difficult to translate those images into words for the book. He didn't use the term, but The Other reminded me of Freud's "Super-Ego", an abstract top-down conscience. I won't go into any more detail here. I just wanted to see if any of his ideas are similar to how you imagine the extra dimensions. I haven't finished the Kindle book yet, so I don't know what to think about it. :nerd:
Quotes from the book :
"The deeply obfuscated but knowledgeable complex of my own mind that, at the same time, was also entirely alien to my ego". [The Other, Mind At Large]
"Clearly, my experience was mental and, as such, not concretely and palpably real".
"Perhaps the Recipe has just brought me to a parallel universe of some kind." [Fifth Dimension???]
"The transcendent 'space' where the dialogues with the Other unfolded . . ." [Fifth Dimension???]
"Mind-at-large is pure subjectivity"
"the human ego spans but the top layers [dimensions???} of differentiation [conscious awareness]".
"By letting go of your ordinary attention in just the right way [meditation, drugs, technology???] you can indeed reduce the obfuscation of these deeper layers."
PS___I'm enjoying our dialogue in "social reality". although I'm still mystified by some of the references to non-social reality (Ideality?). It's stretching my old stiff arthritic mind into new dimensions. But I have to take an aspirin after each exercise in mind expansion. :joke:
Relative Imagination : personal subjective knowledge structured into concepts (words) for communication with other subjective perspectives???
Constructed intersubjective conceptual system : Is that what we humans call "Objective Reality" --- constructed by convention from many points of view ???
Personal subjective knowledge that can be structured into concepts forms part of our conceptual systems. All words and concepts we use to communicate can only be constructed intersubjectively. This is our social reality. Many people believe ‘objective reality’ to be determinable from this by dismissing personal and socially ‘constructed’ subjective knowledge - eliminating the fuzziness by ignoring uncertain information. But in my view, objectivity can only be obtained when ALL subjective points of view are accounted for.
Relative imagination, then, is our limited perspective of infinite possibility/impossibility, inclusive of information beyond our conceptual systems. It includes what we may personally or subjectively know, understand, believe, feel, remember and think, but have been unable to conceptualise or put into or words. It also includes what others have expressed to know, believe, feel, think, etc, which we don’t understand. It is the ‘chaos’ of our reality, all-the-information-all-the-time. It is everything that matters, that has meaning, whether we can attribute any value to it or not; whether or not it is real or true, logical or possible, significant or intelligible. Relative imagination is all the information we have to draw from.
G*D (Logos & Chaos) is all-Information-all-the-time (power to be, to enform, to create) . But I make a distinction between actual Space-Time Information, and potential non-dimensional (Enfernity : eternity + infinity) Enformation. Our space-time is structured by the limits-on-possibility we call Natural Laws & Constants & Mathematical Logic. But the spaceless-timeless state that our world emerged from, in the Big Bang, is what I call "Chaos", in the Platonic sense. Therefore, our Reality is "pre-ordained" (programmed) and structured (sensible). But Ideality extends beyond space-time into un-defined omni-potential infinite possibilities, that I call "Chaos" or "G*D" : "the source of infinite possibility", where nothing is impossible.
I don’t agree that such a duality exists in information, and I don’t agree that our physical reality was programmed in that its existence was pre-selected from known possibilities of structure. The supposed ‘limits-on-possibility’ you describe have been randomly determined, and they persist and evolve as such insofar as they enable information (meaningful relation) to occur. Anything that doesn’t relate at all would exist/not exist as possibility/impossibility - pure imagination. But finite, eternal potentiality is an existence quite different from infinite possibility/impossibility, because it exists as a meaningful relation between matter/anti-matter.
The thing is that the spacetime structure of our reality did not emerge from chaos with a single, purposeful Big Bang - it only appeared to do so in time. Rather, it evolved within the amorphous structure of this spaceless-timeless ‘state’ that you refer to as ‘Ideality’. A lot of random, yet meaningful relations develop this pure possibility into a finite structure of potentiality, with the capacity to determine and initiate a constructive Big Bang.
For this to be programmed assumes the existence of certain knowledge (of structural possibilities) that can only come from experience. So what you’re referring to as G*D is the collaboration of spaceless, timeless experience (random/meaningful and valuable/potential interrelation) leading to and including the Big Bang. This makes sense within a dualistic worldview. But what you have is still the mind of G*D and the physical actuality of G*D, and no explanation as to what this ‘mind’ looks like or how it relates to physical reality. You’ve simply crafted your understanding of reality into a comfortingly familiar human metaphor of experience. It doesn’t explain the diversity of human actuality, experience, potential or meaning, let alone what we do with it all.
How can this "five-dimensional structure" be structured, if it is spaceless, timeless & indeterminate? Sounds like a logical structure that has not yet been actualized (i.e. Logos). "Random, indeterminate, non-linear " sounds similar to what I call "Chaos" (unstructured potential, Plato's Forms), except that it has no measurable dimensions or structured complexity. The real-world structure is constructed from random Chaos by the combination of Logos (Reason) and Intention (EnFormAction). Perhaps it's the imprint of that timeless logical structure (mathematical patterns) that we perceive via Intuition rather than by sensory perception?
By contrast with Exoteric (physically sensible) natural sciences, most Occult (esoteric, magical) theories would identify their Hidden Source of Information with the timeless super-natural realm of Spirit. But, in my thesis, we have no access to any information that is "out of this world". I, personally, have no spiritual insights into cosmic mysteries. All I have is mundane Intuition, which draws from Information stored in the physical brain (subconscious memory of past experience). [ Note: see next post ]
Yes - it IS a ‘logical’ structure that has not yet been actualised! But it isn’t chaos - it’s all structured according to value relations, including mathematical and logical patterns, electromagnetism, aesthetics, probability, wavefunctions, Boolean logic, qualia, feelings, reason, etc. These various structural relations enable the information to be combined and collapsed in a wide variety of ways to construct all manner of potential ‘real-world’ interactions.
I think it’s important to note here that information is not ‘stored in the physical brain’ as an actual memory, for instance. Rather, the memory is conceptualised and forms value relations with other patterns of past experience. We can reconstruct memory information from these relations - although the accuracy often depends on how we conceptualised it in the first place - ie which values we were paying attention to at the time.
Humans mentally map incoming information into the three conventional dimensions of space-time. This logical structure seems to be innate. But, AFAIK, I don't personally map other kinds of information into other dimensions. If you could define those extra-sensory dimensions in some common-sense terms or metaphors, I might discover that I've been tapping into a higher or deeper resource "every day". Apparently, Intuition senses non-conscious information in the brain. But is that info actually contained in a non-physical non-space-time dimension???
If all your mind mapped was the three spatial dimensions, then you wouldn’t classify as ‘living’. Just because you don’t refer to them as ‘dimensions’ doesn’t mean the information isn’t part of your construction of reality. In order to even acknowledge the existence of ‘space’ as useful information, we need to map (ie. interrelate) the changes to shape and distance information of an object in an extra dimension: time. Time is not a spatial dimension. We don’t really ‘sense’ this information - we perceive it as a relational structure of localised differences in the two-dimensional information in relation to an object. In the same way, we could only acknowledge the existence of ‘time’ as information by observing/measuring localised differences in the three dimensional information in relation to an event (ie. relative distance, shape and space of and between objects), mapped in an extra dimension: experience.
So in order to acknowledge subjective experience as information, we need to note the localised differences in four-dimensional information (interoceptive states) in relation to the subject, and map this difference in an extra dimension (meaning/interpretation). But it has no practical use in this form, so - in the same way that three-dimensional information of space can be reduced to a two-dimensional map to render the information transferable - we reduce our five-dimensional information of experience into four-dimensional expressions of thoughts, words and actions.
Except it’s not that simple, because every four-dimensional event is a relational structure of three-dimensional objects, which are relational structures of two-dimensional molecules and chemical relations, which are relational structures of atoms, which are relational structures of energy. And so to determine and initiate any event in reality involves each of these relations to work together - to have the same intention, regardless of reason. The most efficient transfer of information across all of these dimensional relations at once is as a distribution of energy in terms of both effort and attention: also known as affect.
The process by which we reduce the complex, five-dimensional information of mathematical and logical patterns, electromagnetism, aesthetics, probability, wavefunctions, Boolean logic, qualia, feelings, reason, etc into a continual four-dimensional distribution map of effort and attention involves our intersubjective conceptual structures in both conscious and unconscious reasoning. We utilise both sensory input and our relative imagination to hypothesise, test and adjust these conceptual structures, enabling us to continually improve the accuracy of interactions between our constructed predictions and what’s really real.
Intuition refers to the fuzziness of these structures in our understanding. Increasing awareness, connection and collaboration with the patterns between external and internal experiences and events - without ignoring subjective feelings and other qualitative information - can help to demystify intuition.
Comments (196)
How much time do you have? The full answer is in the Enformationism Thesis, if you have nothing better to do on a Sunday afternoon.
But for a short answer, I'd say that quantum particles --- the "atoms" of the 20th century --- are both physical substance and metaphysical Information; both Matter and Mind, both Science and Philosophy. both Mechanics and Meaning. It's the "difference that makes a difference" to an inquiring mind. "Vive la difference". :nerd:
Enformationism : Mass-Energy-Information equivalence is the subject of this thesis.
http://enformationism.info/enformationism.info/
No. We can distinguish between invisible Matter (quarks) & invisible MInd Stuff (ideas), because they come in meaningfully different Forms. And "spirits" were simply an ancient term for causal forces and energy. What used to be called Spirits, Souls, Chi, or Prana, are simply different forms of Information. The same information that constitutes Matter and Mind, computer programs and human feelings. Isn't that weird? :joke:
Again, if something is both A and B, what difference does it make if you call it A or B?
We say something is weird when we can’t explain it.
Quoting praxis
:up:
Apparently, you missed the point of Enformationism. For the purposes of my thesis, Information is equivalent to Spinoza's "Single Substance". Generic (creative) EnFormAction is the whole, of which every thing in the world is a part. Spinoza called his universal substance "God", but he was not referring to the Yahweh or Jehovah of the Bible. Instead, his Aristotelian "substance" was more like what we now call "Nature", or metaphorically "Mother Nature". So, it definitely makes a meaningful difference if you are referring to "A" or "B" or to "the alphabet". A & B are both individual letters (with functions of their own), and components of the whole alphabet. Get it?
Please keep sniping at my thesis. I enjoy defending it against outdated conventional views. :yum:
Single Substance : "According to monistic views, there is only one substance. Stoicism and Spinoza, for example, hold monistic views, that pneuma or God, respectively, is the one substance in the world."
"Thus, in his [Aristotle] hylomorphic account of change, matter serves as a relative substratum of transformation, i.e., of changing (substantial) form." [En-Form-Action]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Substance_theory
As usual, this thread has strayed from the original topic. And I'm partly to blame, for defending some of my statements in terms of my own personal worlview.
Anyway, I just found another online article that is relevant to your own plight . . . at least, in the title. Umberto Eco’s Antilibrary: Why Unread Books Are More Valuable to Our Lives than Read Ones.
https://getpocket.com/explore/item/umberto-eco-s-antilibrary-why-unread-books-are-more-valuable-to-our-lives-than-read-ones?utm_source=pocket-newtab
My own website is technically not a book, but it is generally "unread". That's due in part to my own failings, but also to the incomprehension of those who can't grok an unconventional idea. Most people are "looking for" new ideas that fit neatly into their pre-existing worldview, rather than ideas that challenge old views. Are your ideas so far out of the mainstream that they are incomprehensible to those who "don't yet know the first thing about" philosophy? Or are they so radical that they offend those who think they know a lot about philosophy? Or are they so abstruse that they don't appeal to those who don't care anything about philosophy? In bookstores, the philosophy shelf is a fraction of the fiction shelves.
Ironically, you were expecting to find a select few readers on this forum that do understand and appreciate philosophical thinking. But many, like me, are so involved in their own little projects, that they don't have time for yours. So tell me : how does your book relate to my personal philosophical interests? In general terms, what is "the thing" you were looking for but never found? :nerd:
Grok : understand (something) intuitively or by empathy.
I think my views are a refined version of pre-philosophical common sense views, shored up to withstand the attacks on that common sense that bad philosophy has levied over the ages. I expect that most people have been exposed to some form of such bad philosophy, and so hold what they think are sophisticated views superior to that pre-philosophical common sense, which I aim to disabuse them of. Most of the pieces of my philosophy should be at least passingly familiar to anyone who has actually studied the subject, though.
I heard an adage once that went something like “Before walking the path to enlightenment, tables are tables and tea is tea. While walking the path to enlightenment, tables are no longer tables and tea is no longer tea. Upon reaching enlightenment, tables are again tables, and tea is again tea.”
Quoting Gnomon
Your interests seem very similar to mine, in that you are trying to forge a balanced middle path between two extremes. You call them spiritualism and materialism, I call them fideism and nihilism. I don’t think those are exactly the same things as each other, but they seem to share a common theme. Your information ontology is also very similar to mine.
The thing I never found was one comprehensive philosophy that took the good arguments from every side on every philosophical topic, eschewing the bad arguments, and put them all together in a systematic way, so it’s not just a hodgepodge of “things I like”, but a consistent complete picture where the positions on every topic are each held on the grounds of the same common principles as the positions on other topics.
You claim that everything is information (A). If everything is information then whatever it is that we "conventionally" call matter (B) is A (information). That being the case, it wouldn't seem to matter if we call matter Information or matter since they are the same thing.
So to me your response is that A (information) and B (matter) are components of X (unknown but more primary than information).
So I'm not sure if I should ask the same question a third time or ask what X is.
He makes a distinction between "physical substance and metaphysical Information." Presumably, "spirits" are metaphysical, so your C is A, and not a subset of A.
"You keep asking the same question and expecting a different result". — praxis
OK, here's the same answer in a different Form : A coin has two sides : Heads or Tails. What difference does it make if you call the Tail side the Head? it's still the same coin, but if you flip it and claim it came down Heads, when it's actually Tails, you'll be accused of cheating. Although both sides belong to the same coin, there is a meaningful difference between the sides. The difference is in the distinction between Parts and Wholes. The coin is both A> Heads and B> Tails. I assume "Holism" is not in your vocabulary. :yum:
A (information) and B (matter) are components of X (unknown but more primary than information).
A (tails) and B (heads) are components of X (coin).
It appears to me you're claiming that information is a component of information. Is this the weird (inexplicable) part you keep mentioning?
Yes. Information is both metaphysical mind-stuff, and physical material stuff. Information is the "Single Substance" of Spinoza's worldview. That's the novel notion that I call Enformationism. If you don't believe me, I have lots of scientific documentation in my boring "weird" thesis. :nerd:
PS__The Brain is Physical information, but the Mind is Metaphysical information. Information is that which gives meaning or useful Form to objects and subjects.
Ideas, Ideals, Principles : "Metaphysics is about things that do not change"
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/metaphysics/
Metaphysical : relating to the part of philosophy that is about understanding existence and knowledge
Metaphysical : Derived from the Greek meta ta physika ("after the things of nature"); referring to an idea, doctrine, or posited reality outside of human sense perception. In modern philosophical terminology, metaphysics refers to the studies of what cannot be reached through objective studies of material reality.
https://www.pbs.org/faithandreason/gengloss/metaph-body.html
Information : The conceptual problem here is that the idea of “information” makes sense only in the context of an observer for whom something out there, in the indiscriminate jumble of the world, counts as information. Before life exists, there cannot be any such thing as information.
https://www.theguardian.com/books/2019/jan/18/demon-in-machine-paul-davies-review
PPS__A physical quantum particle, in a state of superposition, has no physical properties, such as velocity and location. It can be described only as a mathematical formula. The superposed state is virtual, not real. A "virtual" particle is nothing but mathematical Information. It exists only in essence, in potential, not in physical presence.
Virtual : The adjective "virtual" is used to describe something that exists in essence but not in actuality.
No. All things and ideas about things are components of (or consist of) Information : the Single Substance of the physical (material) and metaphysical (mental) world. :nerd:
A (metaphysical) and B (physical) are components of X (metaphysical).
And this also works:
A (metaphysical) and B (physical) are components of X (physical).
If the latter doesn't work, why doesn't it work?
Because "X" is the same in both equations. Your logic is based on scientific Reductionism, while mine is based on philosophical Holism.
Science studies what Aristotle called "Physics" (Natural Philosophy). Physics is anything we can detect with our bodily senses, which are tuned to quantum inputs of Energy (bits & bytes). Metaphysics is anything we know via our mental senses, which are tuned to holistic inputs of subjective Meaning (ideas & feelings). Physics is objective, only because it's easier to compare our material sensations, than to share our subjective mental sensations. What you "feel" is a ghost, I may "sense" as merely a light reflection. The difference is what it means to you.
But ultimately, the source of all that information comes from beyond the physical space-time world that began with a bang. In my thesis, the timeless spaceless Enformer is presumed to be un-real, consisting only of Potential, the power to create actual things. This is not based on empirical evidence, but from reasoning backwards into the "pre-time" before space-time. A materialist might call this undetectable Prime Cause "The Multiverse", but I call it "G*D". Conceptually, G*D is closer to Hindu Brahman, than to Hebrew Yahweh.
I propose holistic G*D, rather than particularistic Multiverse, to serve as an unprovable Axiom upon which my Pragmatic here & now worldview is based. But, hey, it's just a theory! You don't have to believe it, unless it makes sense to you. :nerd:
Holism : the theory that parts of a whole are in intimate interconnection, such that they cannot exist independently of the whole, or cannot be understood without reference to the whole, which is thus regarded as greater than the sum of its parts. Holism is often applied to mental states, language, and ecology.
Brahman : Brahman as a metaphysical concept is the single binding unity behind diversity in all that exists in the universe
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brahman
Axiom : a statement or proposition on which an abstractly defined structure is based.
Information :
[i]# Claude Shannon quantified Information not as useful ideas, but as a mathematical ratio between meaningful order (1) and meaningless disorder (0); between knowledge (1) and ignorance (0). So, that meaningful mind-stuff exists in the limbo-land of statistics, producing effects on reality while having no sensory physical properties. We know it exists ideally, only by detecting its effects in the real world.
# For humans, Information has the semantic quality of "aboutness", that we interpret as meaning. In computer science though, Information is treated as meaningless, which makes its mathematical value more certain. It becomes meaningful only when a sentient Self interprets it as such.
# When spelled with an “I”, Information is a noun, referring to data & things. When spelled with an “E”, Enformation is a verb, referring to energy and processes.[/i]
http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page11.html
I would say that isn’t even close to what Shannon’s work was about. Looks like you’ve had an idea and attached a famous name to it for inexplicable reasons.
If you can show otherwise then the egg is on my face - I’m fine with that.
Just looks like a very vague connection to say the least.
The quoted definition of "Information" is based on my personal worldview of Enformationism, not on any conventional scientific paradigm. But here's another opinion from a different perspective.
Shannon Information : "Roughly speaking, Shannon entropy is concerned with the statistical properties of a given system and the correlations between the states of two systems, independently of the meaning and any semantic content of those states."
http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/10911/1/What_is_Shannon_Information.pdf
That's not an explanation. If A can be X, then why can't B be X?
Rather, you seem to favor idealism for some inexplicable (what you would call weird) reason. I guess because you think that it's somehow more holistic.
Obviously, you have missed the point of my thesis, which is to go beyond Shannon's limited theory of Information toward a general theory (e.g. Newton's theory of gravitation was a special case of Einstein's general theory of relativity.). It may sound New Agey to you, but it's not. Merely unfamiliar, and strange --- like Quantum Theory. Are Virtual Particles pseudoscience, just because you can't measure them?
Shannon's theory is indeed scientific and physical, while mine is philosophical and metaphysical. And it's not just me : Paul Davies is a prominent physicist and cosmologist, whose use of Information as the fundamental "stuff" of the universe is amenable to mine. Also, Howard Bloom, a certified genius and Omnologist (look it up) is also coming to the same conclusion : that everything, including Mind & Matter is essentially Information. If you don't like my version of Enformationism, check out theirs. If you don't like any such far-out notions, then just fuget-about-it. :joke:
The God Problem : Bloom’s understanding of a creative universe is based on Information Theory, but not Shannon’s meaningless 1s & 0s. According to the entropy definition of Information, “everything must tend toward chaos.” But, since the cosmos is heading in the opposite direction, the author looked for a different kind of constructive creative Information. He found it in “the act of informing”, or as I call it [i]EnFormAction. Although Information is related to positive working Energy, there is a distinction : pure energy may be merely transmitted — throughput — while Meaning must be interpreted, relative to some perspective. Like energy, raw information is binary, either positive or negative, attractive or repulsive. Everything else is a variation on that (+ or -) duality, except for meaningful information, which ranges between the polar oppositions. It’s “relational”, and has the quality of “aboutness”. Since Meaning requires a function or application or usefulness, it also requires consciousness of relationships. Bloom says “then the amount of meaning in this cosmos is constantly increasing. Meaning defies the law of entropy.” Likewise, the “quantity” of consciousness is growing, as inter-relationships become more complex and organized.[/i]
http://bothandblog6.enformationism.info/page43.html
Omnology : https://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Omnology
I favor Idealism for the same reason Plato did : it makes sense of human Consciousness. I favor Realism, for the same reason Aristotle did : It makes pragmatic Science possible. I favor Holism for the same reason Jan Smuts did : it gives us an elevated perspective on the world. If you prefer Parts to Wholes, that's OK. Just keep looking at the shiny stars, and ignore the mind-boggling Cosmos. :joke:
Holism : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holism
Jan Smuts : South African statesman, military leader, and philosopher.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jan_Smuts
That was all.
Indeed.
What is of more interest is the ideal(mind), and more fundamental (let's say spiritual for example) levels of reality. But trying to rendering those in a way acceptable in academia is even more of a quagmire.
Along with a susceptibility to the accusation of pseudoscience, woo, or plain idealism.
I find there is more likely to be a meshing with academia via personal spiritual development.
I just read an article in Skeptical Inquirer magazine*, that reminded me of your incredulous attitude toward my "weird" ideas. The title is The Nobel Disease : Why Intelligent Scientists Go Weird. The article describes "the tendency of many Nobel winners to embrace scientifically questionable ideas". It goes on to note, "because merely entertaining the possibility of an unsupported claim, such as the existence of extrasensory perception, does not indicate a critical thinking lapse, we focus on Nobelists who clung to one or more weird idea with considerable conviction". One of those weird ideas may well be the next Relativity or Quantum theory.
Apparently, one talent that allows creative thinking is the ability to "entertain possibilities" that others say is impossible. I'm not a candidate for the Nobel, but some of the scientists who embrace the new notion of Information, such as Cosmologist Paul Davies, may well be. Anyway, if my ideas about Idealism are weird, I'm in good company. In my thesis, I'm "merely entertaining" the possibility that the post-Shannon Information theories may explain the "hard Problem" of Consciousness, among other weird aspects of the real world. :nerd:
* Yes, I have subscribed to Skeptical Inquirer and SKEPTIC magazines for over 40 years. And I have read Michael Shermer's book, Why Smart People Believe Weird Things. So, I know a little about how to distinguish between weird ideas and innovative ideas.
Paul Davies : http://bothandblog6.enformationism.info/page6.html
The only thing that seems kind of sketchy to me about your approach is the neologisms and kind of... style, and terminology... that makes it seem like this is some "crazy" new thing you came up with all by yourself -- and maybe you did a lot of it, which is fine and plausible, but it could put off a lot of people who might just dismiss this as some loony ramblings. It kind of sucks to say but I imagine if you tried to use fewer neologisms and more standard terminology, reference existing work in the same vein wherever possible, explain the things that have already been explored, and then note your own variations or additions on top of that, I think it would "sell" (figuratively speaking) a lot better.
But then, like I said, I've barely just skimmed your work, so maybe you do this more than I remember already. Those are just the thoughts I remember having: "the ideas are in the right vein, I've heard of and liked a lot of stuff like this before, but it's presented kinda sketchy".
And you’ve aptly put yourself in the weird rather than innovative category. Honestly though, the only thing that’s weird is the effort you put into selling “your” ideas. You’re like a used car salesmen that’s trying to sell a car that’s been cobbled together from used parts.
Frankenstein was the monster, and in his irresponsibility essentially destroyed himself, if you’re familiar with that story. Don’t be a monster, Gnomon, be a human being.
If you would do more than skim the thesis, you'd discover that I do "reference existing work" in sidebars, end notes, and bibliographies. The only "new thing" I take credit for is the concept of Enformationism as an update for the outdated paradigms of "Spiritualism" and "Materialism".
The neologisms are necessary because the thesis overturns popular paradigms of Religion and Science. So it uses a lot of old concepts, "standard terminology", that take on new meanings in the Information Age. For example, "information" used to refer to mind-stuff. The kind of immaterial stuff that spies would risk their lives to bring back to Intelligence Agencies. But today, most people use the term in reference to the digital "1s & 0s" that fast-but-dumb computers process. The new trend in Information Theory is to return to the old analog information processing of human minds, and to redefine obsolete terms, such as "Soul" and "Metaphysics".
The links in my posts, which few bother to look at, are intended to show that my "crazy, looney" ideas are shared by many other scientists and philosophers. Unfortunately for me, "looney" New Agers were the first to adopt the new implications of Information and Quantum Theories, and to find their roots in ancient religions, such as Buddhism and Hinduism. The notion that Information, rather than Matter, is the fundamental substance of the world is an old idea (Plato's Forms), but it is being adopted by a growing number of modern scientists and philosophers (who are credited in numerous links and notes).
I am not bothered by the incredulity of some forum posters. Even paradigm-busting Einstein "refused to believe in the inherent unpredictability of the world. Is the subatomic world insane, or just subtle?" [ https://www.quantamagazine.org/einsteins-parable-of-quantum-insanity-20150910/ ] I take their criticisms in stride, and use them to make my thesis stronger. But, since I am neither a scientist nor a philosopher, it will always be my personal worldview. For the broader world, it will take on a variety of forms that are beyond my power to control. :cool:
Neologisms : But the primary reason for using a special label for a technical definition is so the writer can control its meaning precisely.
http://bothandblog4.enformationism.info/page6.html
http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page19.html
Enformationism Welcome Page : [i]This informal thesis does not present any new scientific evidence, or novel philosophical analysis. It merely suggests a new perspective on an old enigma : what is reality? . . . .
I am neither a scientist, nor a philosopher, so the arguments herein carry no more authority or expertise than those of anyone else with an interest in such impractical musings. This is intended to be an open-ended thread, because it’s a relatively new and unproven concept, and because the ideas presented here are merely a superficial snapshot of what promises to be a whole new way of understanding the world : philosophically, scientifically, and religiously.[/i]
Yes. My Enformationism theory may be too technical & cutting-edge for the average reader --- limited by holding an outdated scientific paradigm (e.g Classical vs Quantum Physics). The thesis repeatedly states that it is not to be "equated" with Shannon theory, but is a different kind of theory, with a different application : fuzzy-logic people instead of digital-logic machines.
I appreciate the hint that my usage of the term "Information" could be misconstrued as a perversion of Claude Shannon's theory. But I view Enformationism as an expansion of that theory. Whereas, for telephone transmissions, Shannon converted analog mental information (words) into digital robot/computer information (bits & bytes), my thesis observes that some far-sighted scientists are beginning to look more closely at the original form of Intelligence : the Natural kind. Any successful Artificial Intelligence --- quantum computers perhaps --- must adopt analog methods. Maybe Shannon is the pervert.
Whereas Shannon converted analog human ideas into two-value Boolean logic, in order to reduce it to a simple-invariable-certain form that dumb machines could process, the new era of Information theory uses multi-value Fuzzy Logic, which is more like human reasoning, and deals with degrees of uncertainty. Digital information uses either/or logic, where values are limited to 1s or 0s, nothing in between. Analog information uses all values (infinite) between 1 & 0. This is replicated in Quantum Computers, where the state of Superposition covers all possible values for a Virtual particle. In other words, there is "no well-defined line" between 1 & 0, it's a continuum. :nerd:
Shannon vs Boltzman Information : Therefore, in this article we use the concept of entropy only for macroscopic equilibrium systems, while the SMI may be used for any system.
https://www.mdpi.com/1099-4300/19/2/48/htm
SMI : Shannon Measure of Information (objective)
Macroscopic Equilibrium Systems : includes subjective human reasoning
Analog Thinking : So the next time you think about any issue or topic, pause to consider what thinking paradigm you are adopting. Can you deliberately let go thinking in categories and frameworks and focus on understanding the situation as it is? And can you in particular consider carefully the merits of opinions you don’t agree with and the opinions that come from people you dislike?
https://medium.com/@hsabnis/digital-vs-analog-thinking-6a45bd1993ed
Fuzzy Logic : a form of many-valued logic in which the truth values of variables may be any real number between 0 and 1 both inclusive.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuzzy_logic
Having rejected the religion of my youth, I came to the Enformationism concept from the direction of Science, instead of Spirituality. However, as I learned more about the science of Information, I came to appreciate the Spiritual worldview more than before. So, I have adopted and continue to develop the harmonious personal philosophy of BothAnd.
Enformationism is indeed a Theory of Everything. And it's an "onerous task", but I'm now retired, and have made it my hobby. Dealing with Philistines is just part of the game. :razz:
Those who cringe at any hint of Metaphysics do indeed play the "woo" card, due to Materialist prejudice, and without any understanding of the worldview behind the words. BothAnd includes both Idealism and Realism, which does not compute for those with two-value black/white either/or worldviews. My "spiritual development" has nothing to do with Navel Gazing or Gurus, but more with plain-old Philosophy : "love for wisdom". :chin: :pray:
BothAnd Philosophy : My coinage for the holistic principle of Complementarity, as illustrated in the Yin/Yang symbol. Opposing or contrasting concepts are always part of a greater whole. Conflicts between parts can be reconciled or harmonized by putting them into the context of a whole system.
http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page2.html
http://bothandblog5.enformationism.info/page6.html
BothAnd Principle :
http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page10.html
Philistine : a person who is hostile or indifferent [ to alien ideas ], or who has no understanding of them.
Quintessential Gnomon, dishonestly bending the truth to fit his incoherent narrative and oblivious to how utterly transparent it is.
If you're here to fool people, please try harder.
Like Whitehead’s writing, however, it is the neologisms that hobble one’s ability to relate a new worldview to their existing one. It makes the process slow and frustrating. Even with the glossary, there are so many neologisms and metaphors that you start to wonder if you’re understanding a philosophy or learning a new language.
I get that it’s a paradigm shift. You may have developed an understanding of existence beyond the limits of language, but that’s the easy part. Reducing that information down to thoughts, words and behaviour - the way we interact with the world on a daily basis - is where the real philosophy begins. And you’re trying to shortcut the process.
When I suspend my resistance to what seems like an arrogant attempt on your part to possess and control meaning, then I can see how your philosophy, mine and @Pfhorrest’s are referring to a similar worldview. Unfortunately, I cannot subscribe to your treatment of the relationship between language/knowledge and meaning - it’s as if these same ideas haven’t been understood and articulated from so many different perspectives for many thousands of years, long before you made up new words to convey your meaning.
‘Information’ is a concept that has relative meaning at different dimensional structures of relation: binary/quantum, atomic, chemical/spatial, actual/physical, value/potential and meaning/possible. Attempting to convey a distinction between potential and physical information by suggesting that it’s something other than information only complicates our attempts to understand ‘information’ in relation to shared conceptual structures. You end up encouraging a disconnect between what we already share and the new information you’re presenting, rather than demonstrating a structure by which we can understand the relation.
Metaphor, unfortunately, has no substance as a structural relation - all it does is suggest that two concepts relate, but gives no indication as to how. We’re supposed to simply trust your say so. It’s a little too close to apologetics for my liking, especially at a metaphysical level. The idea is that if I don’t intuitively get the nature of the relation, then I’m just not as intelligent or as enlightened as you are - a philistine, as it were. This is where I think your theory needs work, personally - but you seem rather attached to the ambiguity of your metaphorical ‘structures’. Perhaps it makes you feel superior, idk.
Why do you think that most ground-breaking philosophers are notable for being hard to understand? "Philosophy is supposed to be difficult." https://www.theguardian.com/books/booksblog/2011/feb/25/philosophy-technical-everyday-english
I'm frustrated. but not deterred, by the inability of philosophical forum posters to learn a few new words that define a novel worldview, which is merely an update and reconciliation of old incompatible views. I could understand, if the man on the street wanted me to "talk down to them" with common words and conventional meanings. Voltaire said, “If you wish to converse with me, define your terms.” That's what I'm doing : trying to converse with intelligent people in intelligent terms.
Probably a key notion of Enformationism, that people have difficulty with, is my usage of the old word "metaphysics", with a new post-quantum interpretation of Aristotle's subject matter in volume II of his Physics. In the common language, "metaphysics" refers to such immaterial things as ghosts, demons, ESP, magic, and so forth. But that's not what Aristotle was talking about. Instead, "Examples of metaphysical concepts are Being, Existence, Purpose, Universals, Property, Relation, Causality, Space, Time, Event, and many others. They are fundamental, because all other concepts and beliefs rest on them." http://getwiki.net/-Metaphysics
Each of those terms has both common and technical meanings, not just in my thesis, but in 21st century Science and Philosophy. Since Einstein, the ancient concepts of "space" & "time" have been turned inside-out (e.g. empty space is something that can be warped). So, by providing a Glossary and explanatory articles, I just want to make sure we are singing out of the same songbook.
Quoting Possibility
Apparently, you haven't looked at the BothAnd blog. That's where I develop basic ideas of Enformationism with reference to "the way we interact with the world on a daily basis". Blog posts now number 107 articles. Does that sound like a shortcut?
Quoting Possibility
Was Immanuel Kant "arrogant" to "control the meaning" of his philosophy by defining in detail such terms as "Categorical Imperative" and "Noumenon"? https://kantphilosophy.wordpress.com/technical-terms-of-kantian-philosophy/
Quoting Possibility
What you don't seem to grasp is that, "encouraging a disconnect between" conventional concepts, is the opposite of what I'm trying to do. I have constructed a "structure" (in which Information is the modular building block) that relates such old worldviews as Spiritualism and Materialism to a larger context. But, in order to reconcile Spiritualist views with Materialist views, holders of those views will have to give-up their confidence that each is the Whole Truth. Instead, they are both valid, but partial worldviews. They tend to dismiss and denigrate holders of the opposite view. But I'm trying to show that they are actually complementary views.
Quoting Possibility
Kant, Hegel, & Whitehead used lots of neologisms, but didn't provide a separate glossary to remove any ambiguities. Do you think that made them feel superior? Were they simply trying to show how smart they were? I find some of the terms of your worldview (as expressed in forum posts) incomprehensible. Is that a sign that you're arrogant, and concerned only with image? Or is it because your ideas are unconventional, and require some hard thinking to make sense of a new paradigm? :cool:
BothAnd Blog : The BothAnd Blog and the Enformationism website are written for laymen who are well-read in Science, Philosophy, and Religion topics. But since they are based on an unconventional worldview, many traditional terms are used in unusual contexts, and some new terminology has been coined in order to convey their inter-connected meanings as clearly as possible. This glossary is intended to supplement the website articles and blog posts with definitions specifically tailored to the subject matter. For the most comprehensive understanding though, I recommend starting with the website, which has its own glossary and references from several years ago.
They’re not unable to learn the words - they’re unwilling to, and with good reason. There are enough words in the English language that if you can’t find a way to explain your meaning without making up new ones then you’re not trying hard enough. And this worldview is far from novel - that you’re presenting it in a novel way is clear, but you’re claiming ownership of a worldview that’s been around in various formats for millennia, and only requires a more complex structure in relation to modern knowledge. My argument is that you’re not acknowledging the historical progress made by so many others across religion, philosophy and science to reach this level of understanding, and that you’re not providing a clear enough structure.
Voltaire wasn’t talking about making up new words, by the way - he was talking about clarifying your position, in relation to his, regarding the meaning of existing concepts. It’s uncharitable to then declare your terms to be ‘intelligent’ and any alternative definition of existing terms as ‘common’. That’s not going to endear your argument to anyone.
Quoting Gnomon
I have looked at your blog on a number of occasions, which always requires one to delve into your website and glossary. The shortcut I’m referring to has nothing to do with volume. It has to do with the way you associate the metaphysical elements of your theory, using metaphor and neologisms instead of structural relations. ‘Information’ as a building block does not constitute a structural relation - it’s a concept that basically means ‘building block’, and says nothing about how it fits together at a metaphysical level, without an established structural relation like ‘space’ or ‘time’.
Quoting Gnomon
I’m not in a position to suggest changes to Kant’s methodology, but these are not new words, as such. Noumenon, for instance, is a common Greek word meaning ‘something conceived’. He wasn’t writing for an Internet forum or a blog but for academia, so he could afford to arrogantly assume at the time that everyone knew what he meant. Whitehead, on the other hand, was arrogant enough to make up his own words, and his philosophy suffered for it. You are not in any similar position.
Quoting Gnomon
Don’t get me wrong, I understand where you’re coming from, I agree in principle with the concept of Both/And, and I support your efforts. But the glaring hole in your philosophy can be found in how you reconcile Spiritualism with Materialism. ‘Information’ makes sense to me, but it’s not enough. You’re not going to get anyone to give up their confidence simply because you declare that ‘EnFormAction’ - as a metaphysical form of energy/information - is the key. You’re effectively expecting them to abandon their position in favour of confidence in YOU. It ain’t gonna happen.
Quoting Gnomon
The difference between your use of terms and mine is that I claim no novelty or ownership of this particular worldview, let alone definitions of terminology. I recognise that many of the terms I use are applied unconventionally, but when readers question my usage, I don’t quote from my own glossary to support my argument. And my focus is on making the paradigm shift accessible to current thinking, not gaining followers to my guru-ness.
Obviously, you haven't read the thesis or the blog. The only thing I claim "ownership" of is the Enformationism concept : that Information is the "single substance" of the world (props to Spinoza). My website and blog are full of references and links to historically significant philosophical ideas. Here's a few that I specifically find historical precedence in : Platonic Idealism, Aristotelian Realism, Stoicism, Panpsychism, Hegelian Dialectic, Deism, Secular Humanism, Holism, Hindu Philosophy, Systems Theory, Information Theory, and many others. The website and blog are full of links that "acknowledge" my debt to the history of philosophy and science.
Do you claim "ownership" of your own novel philosophical concepts, or do you give the information away for free? The latter is what I'm doing on this forum, and other venues. I'm hardly evangelical, but I sincerely believe that some form of Information-based worldview will eventually take its place among historically significant philosophies and scientific paradigms. What you and others interpret as "arrogance" is merely persistence in pursuing the construction of my own personal philosophy. If I sound confident, that's not characteristic of me as a timid introvert. But, since my thesis is essentially a Theory of Everything, It allows me to give a well-supported answer to skeptics on almost any topic.
Quoting Possibility
Again, you haven't read the thesis that you are critiquing. So, you are skewering a straw man. There may be holes in the thesis, but I am still in the process of filling them, in part by getting critiques on this forum. See if the link below will fill your "hole" with understanding of how those conflicting worldviews can be reconciled, via the concept of Monism/Holism, as opposed to the dualistic view of Descartes. See the Materialism link below, for my consilience between those antagonistic old domains.
You seem to be responding to the very narrowly focused posts on this forum. I have repeatedly provided links to my own reasoning, and that of other philosophers & scientists. Ironically there seem to be more scientists than philosophers thinking along the same lines of the ubiquity of Information. Enformationism is not a typical academic thesis paper, written on an obscure arcane topic. It is, instead, a scientific & philosophical & religious Theory of Everything. History will decide which new paradigm will replace the ancient notions of Materialism (atoms & void) and Spiritualsm (body & soul), which were, in their day, theories of everything.
Quoting Possibility
Is that because there is nothing "novel" in your worldview? Are you just parroting famous philosophers, instead of pioneering a new perspective on the world? A glossary might help to get your ideas across to a wider audience, as long as they can see some validity in an idea they don't yet understand. I'm sure you know that truly novel ideas are typically rejected by holders of an older paradigm. Check-out the "Rejected" link below.
Quoting Possibility
"Paradigm Shift" : sounds similar to my own thesis. Does your multi-dimensional paradigm have a formal name and a core concept, or is it just a motley collection of loosely-related ideas? Have your "accessible" ideas been well received by holders of an older paradigm? I still don't fully understand your Dimensional theory, but I think it could be generally compatible to my Information theory.
“…First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident.”
Ha! I am a guru for a cult of one. I have no followers. One poster on an extinct forum, asked my permission to use the label "Enformationist" to describe her personal worldview. I said, "sure", but her interpretation was closer to New Age philosophy than mine. Anyway, she is not an acolyte of any guru. :halo:
Quote from another thread : "I was taking the opportunity to illustrate the dimensional awareness that forms the basis of my theory. Gratuitous, I know" : ___Possibility.
I think I asked for a definition of "Dimensional Awareness". But the answer was still vague to me. Perhaps a glossary of unconventional terms would made your proposed paradigm more accessible to "current thinking". :cool:
Materialism versus Spiritualism : http://bothandblog4.enformationism.info/page14.html
6 World-Changing Ideas That Were Originally Rejected :
https://www.lifehack.org/articles/lifestyle/6-world-changing-ideas-that-were-originally-rejected.html
We seem to have similar Post-Materialism worldviews, but coming from different directions, and with different terminology. I'm still interested in seeing how they agree and how they disagree. But as I said before, I need some kind of "hook" (something meaningful to me) in order to relate to your rather esoteric notion of "Dimensional Awareness". What difference do those "higher dimensions" make for my life? Are they the abode of gods, demons, angels, or simply "The Force", who directly intervene in reality, to provide blessings & curses? I have no personal experience with "higher dimensions" beyond Einstein's fundamental four. But because we entertain the possibility of Mental Reality, I suspect that Praxis would lump your worldview and mine into the anti-science category of New Age mumbo-jumbo. So, I understand his animosity toward such superstitious non-sense.
This link says that, "Cross-Dimensional Awareness is an ability that senses and can often travel between parallel universes (alternate universes) or other planes of existence". That sounds like the New Age notion of the Astral Planes, which is completely ignored by the Enformationism thesis. It also seems popular with video gamers, as fodder for their imagination. But I have no personal experience with either the multiple dimensions String Theory, or the Higher Planes of mystical religions. How do you become aware of those Parallel Universes : by meditation, drugs, gnostic revelation? Even string theorists admit that their 10 or 11 dimensions may exist only as mathematical abstractions, that humans have no direct experience of, and have no empirical evidence. So, they are accused of Mysticism, by more pragmatic scientists.
https://evolutionactivated.fandom.com/wiki/Cross_Dimensional_Awareness
Quoting Possibility
It's true that Isolated bits of Information are meaningless. It's the links between entities that provide the structure of meaning.Those invisible imaginary links are the true structure of reality.
Quoting Possibility
Not so! The immaterial structural relations of Information are of the essence in the thesis. When we talk about anything immaterial (no physical properties), we can only discuss then in terms of metaphors drawn from out experience with the physical world. Is your "cross-dimensional awareness" discussable in conventional materialistic language, or do you have to resort to as-if metaphors & analogies & neologisms, such as "gyrokinesis"? https://evolutionactivated.fandom.com/wiki/Gyrokinesis
Quoting Possibility
FYI, I have never said or implied that superior attitude in any of my writings. So the accusation says more about you, than about me. But, enough about me. :cool:
Structure of Reality : The best guess I've come across is that Consciousness is not just a “spandrel” in evolution, but a fundamental element of the structure of reality.
http://bothandblog.enformationism.info/page65.html
Raymond Tallis : "there's nothing in the material world that, like a thought, has a subject attached to a predicate . . . self-reference . . . aboutness . . . Where there are classes, there is generality, there is possibility, and where there is possibility, entities or states of affaris may or may not exist can be proposed." Philosophy Now #137.
You’re right - I have responded here primarily to your attitude towards posters on this forum. But I have also said that I agree with much of what I’ve read of your work, and I stand by my comments. I’m not expecting a typical academic thesis paper (I’m unlikely to read it). You’ve directed your blog at the lay reader, which I think is actually a better fit for those on this forum. I recognise and support your efforts to formulate a ToE, and I was under the impression I was offering constructive criticism. I could be mistaken - I’m not accustomed to doing so. I may come across more forceful in challenging your work because I agree with your position, and think I see where it can go from here. Try not to to see it as an attack.
I enjoyed reading Blogs 76-77. My view seems to have many similarities to Deacon - and I’m particularly interested in the main differences you’ve pointed out between his work and yours. I will need to read up on his work and get back to you. You mentioned in 74 the need to come up with a “modern metaphor that explains both matter/energy and life/mind”, which your theory presents as information/enformation. I’m already there with you at the metaphorical level, but my point continues to be that metaphor is only a suggestion of structure. It isn’t structure. You seem to still be trying to convince readers to abandon their strictly materialist/spiritualist views, but offer little substance in your thesis for those of us who already have, and nothing convincing for those who haven’t.
I’m done trying to reassure you that I agree with your position. The main issues that I think @praxis might have with your theory (and I don’t want to assume here, only attempt to translate into something less personal) may have to do with the gap in your explanation at this level, which I’m afraid isn’t convincingly ‘filled’ for me, even by Blog 74. You’re suggesting how these views could be reconciled (and I agree with your belief that they are indeed reconcilable), but for anyone looking to be convinced, you’re giving them nothing except ‘look at all these puzzle pieces, isn’t it obvious?’. And by the same token, you’re giving me little to hang my hat on but metaphor.
So I can’t really defend your theory at this level, only because I’m finding little there to defend. That’s not to say you’re wrong - there’s just not enough meat where I’m looking for answers. I will need to take a closer look at your thesis, but what I think you may be presenting at this stage is more of a belief system than a ToE. It’s one I agree with on principle, but I’m past the point of needing someone else to provide a belief system for me - I’m working towards a conceptual structure that is ultimately testable.
Strawman. Dimensional aspects of reality are not necessarily spatial - any New Age mumbo-jumbo about astral planes or parallel universes has nothing to do with my theory. My reference to dimensions has to do with structural relations, and merely explains and extends our existing dimensional structure using the mental (potential) rather than strictly physical nature of information (quanta and qualia) as ‘building blocks’. It then takes this structure a step further to propose an underlying creative impetus of pure relation/possibility - inclusive of existence and what Deacon refers to as ‘absential’ phenomenon - as the dynamic foundation of reality.
The "substance" I'm offering is universal Information/EnFormAction, which is the single substance of the world, and the "structure" of everything in it.
Quoting Possibility
I'm afraid I don't know what kind of "structure" you are looking for : something material & physical instead of mental & metaphysical? Please give me an example of a structural definition of the metaphors of "quantum fields" and "information fields". Actually, there are no things in the field, only structural relationships.
Quantum Field :
In theoretical Physics, a quantum field is a metaphorical mathematical "structure", not an actual place, to allow scientists to understand ghostly things they can't see. The field is imaginary and has no physical material, but only Virtual particles that have the potential to become real. In the Enformationism theory, the state that preceded the Big Bang is imagined as an Enfernal quantum field, with potential Platonic Forms from which actual material things could be created.
http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page17.html
Quoting Possibility
Is your theory testable physically, like Special Relativity via observations of physical objects, or mathematically, .like String Theory via computer simulations? Every aspect of Enformationism theory is scientifically testable, except the ultimate Axiom, which must be accepted as a given.
Quoting Possibility
A Theory of Everything is a belief system. :cool:
String Theory Testable? : https://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/?p=533
. . . . followed immediately by "I favor Realism". Obviously, a holistic BothAnd attitude toward the world does not compute for an Either/Or "philistine". But it's how the BothAnd principle works.
Note : my use of the term "philistine" in a previous post was generic, and not directed at anyone in particular. But, if the shoe fits . . . . :joke:
Both/And Principle :
My coinage for the holistic principle of Complementarity, as illustrated in the Yin/Yang symbol. Opposing or contrasting concepts are always part of a greater whole. Conflicts between parts can be reconciled or harmonized by putting them into the context of a whole system.
http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page10.html
You equate realism with materialism?
While waiting for tech support, I followed your link to the elaborately elucidated B/A principle. In one part it says,"Ultimate or absolute reality (ideality) doesn't change, but your conception of reality does." Can you explain what you mean by that?
The blog Glossary has a definition of "Ideality", that gives an overview of the concept. But it's really more extensive than that summary. Basically, I agree with Plato that the ultimate "reality" is a state of infinite potential that he called "Forms", which are the mental recipes or designs for material things. But I also agree with Aristotle when "he stated that reality does not make sense or exist until the mind process it. Therefore truth is dependent upon a person's mind and external factors". https://www.bartleby.com/essay/Aristotle-and-Platos-Views-on-Reality-PK7GFXYTJ
So the Enformationism thesis is an attempt to reconcile the ideal "reality" of eternal Forms with real world space-time "appearances". Donald Hoffman's recent book, The Case Against Reality, may give you one perspective on the relationship between physical Reality and metaphysical Ideality. There's nothing supernatural about mundane Metaphysics. It's merely the realm of ideas and meanings that emerged when Life & Mind emerged from physical evolution. The Forms are timeless and unchanging, but our perceptions of them differ for each perceiver. Metaphysical beauty is in the mind of the beholder, but the ideal Form of beauty is like a mathematical constant.
I'm sure this brief "explanation" will sound like non-sense, if you don't accept the philosophical validity of Platonic Idealism, as the general case for specific instances of Aristotelian Realism. :nerd:
Window to Reality : http://bothandblog6.enformationism.info/page21.html
Meta-physics : Physics refers to the things we perceive with the eye of the body. Meta-physics refers to the things we conceive with the eye of the mind. Meta-physics includes the properties, and qualities, and functions that make a thing what it is. Matter is just the clay from which a thing is made. Meta-physics is the design (form, purpose); physics is the product (shape, action). The act of creation brings an ideal design into actual existence. The design concept is the “formal” cause of the thing designed.
http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page14.html
So you believe that, for instance, people differ in their perception of a geometric circle, or rather in their concept of a circle? Also, do you believe that perfect circle's exit in "real world space-time" or do ideal forms only exist in the "realm of ideas"?
If you could try to clarify these points I may be able to compare our understandings.
A "perfect circle" is a metaphysical mathematical definition (an idea), not a physical thing. FWIW, I don't believe that a physically perfect teapot is orbiting the sun in a perfectly circular path.
I don't really give much thought to such questions. And I am not a disciple of Plato. I just refer to his notion of "Ideals", as a way to illustrate the difference between physical (matter) and metaphysical (mind) forms of generic Information. My concern in the Enformationism thesis is to understand the Real space-time world.
Except for the ideas in my own mind, I know nothing about Ideal Forms. Metaphysics is the realm of subjective concepts, which are invisible & intangible, but meaningful --- ideas make "sense" to the sixth sense of Reason. A perfect circle can only be proven to exist, in the metaphysical realm of ideas, by definition. Do you believe in ideas? :cool:
Russell's Teapot : He wrote that if he were to assert, without offering proof, that a teapot, too small to be seen by telescopes, orbits the Sun somewhere in space between the Earth and Mars, he could not expect anyone to believe him solely because his assertion could not be proven wrong.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell%27s_teapot
Meta-Physics : http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page14.html
Proof by Definition : https://explainingmaths.wordpress.com/2009/10/27/proof-by-definition/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathematical_proof
Then let's think it through together, shall we? :smile: :chin:
You've made what I think are two significant postulations, which are:
If forms are unchanging then there can't be 'ideal' forms, because all forms would necessarily be unchanging. For instance, if a 'metaphysical circle' is an 'ideal' form then what is a metaphysical circle with a slight difference of some kind? It cannot be that the ideal form changed to become unideal. They would simply be two different unchanging forms and therefore neither of them could be considered an ideal form. This would extend to all forms, of course, which is nonsensical because if forms are unchanging and eternal there would really be just one eternal unchanging form. An unchanging thing cannot exist in a realm where things change, to put it simply.
Apparently, you have mixed-up some of Plato's theory with Aristotle's theory of Forms. For Plato, the Forms "exist" abstractly in a non-physical timeless changeless state called Eternity. But for Aristotle, the Forms exist concretely only in physical things in the realm of space-time. The latter definition is what I would call "embodied Information", which is similar to immaterial potential Energy that has transformed into actual physical lumps of Matter.
In my thesis, the Potential for all possible Forms exists in what I like to call Enfernity (eternity & infinity). I coined that neologism because Enfernity is not two different things but a single state of BEING, with unlimited potential for all possibilities. There are no actual things in Enfernity, but only the un-manifest potential for things & beings.
So, the "Ideal" Forms in statement A> above are not things that change. and the real things in statement B> are not ideal forms, but actualized instances of infinite potential. To put it simply, A> is not B>. :nerd:
Plato's Forms : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_forms
Aristotle's Forms : https://www.britannica.com/story/plato-and-aristotle-how-do-they-differ
A.N. Whitehead's Actual Occasions : what I call "instances" above
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Process_and_Reality
Potential :
[i]1. possible, as opposed to actual:
2. capable of being or becoming:[/i]
Eternity :
1. a state to which time has no application; timelessness.
Potential :
Unrealized or unmanifest creative power. For example, the Voltage of an electric battery is its potential for future current flow measured in Amps. Potential is inert until actualized by some trigger. In the Enformationism metaphor, the real world was originally an idea in the Mind of G*D, with the infinite possibilities of Omniscience, that was realized by an act of Will.
http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page16.html
Note : For theoretical purposes, "G*D" is a metaphor to illustrate how unchanging timelessness could convert unreal Potential into real Things. You don't have to take it literally. In any case, it's the G*D of Philosophers, not of Priests.
God of Philosophers : The God of the philosophers, Pascal remarked, is not the God of Abraham and Isaac
https://maritain.nd.edu/jmc/etext/AAP04.htm
Except for the interest in Economics & Political Science, this sounds very similar to my own path into philosophy. As a child, my family was only interested in Bible knowledge and Practical education. So we didn't discuss broad academic topics. It's only since I was retired by the Great Recession, that I have had time to devote to the impractical notions of general Philosophy. And I am a generalist by nature, so I don't often get bogged-down in narrowly specialized topics --- except of course for those that apply to my own metaphysical hobby.
For selfish reasons, I could be enticed to read some of your work, if I could see where it might fit into my personal interests, or where it might apply to my personal worldview of Enformationism, or to my personal philosophy of BothAnd. I have some superficial knowledge of Economics and Political Science, but have never delved deeply into those areas of philosophy. Unfortunately, I find that most academic philosophical writing is too abstract & abstruse for my casual pragmatic interest. Can you dumb-down your philosophy to my philistine level? :brow:
No, I've leapfrogged Plato, Aristotle, and Enformation, to realize the true nature of reality. I hereby introduce the new paradigm, coining it: Unifilm.
Unifilm unites all of reality and dissolves all dualities. Physical and metaphysical forms are one and the same, and all are unchanging and eternal. In your ignorance, you might ask why things appear to change. They don't! Consciousness creates the illusion of change by percieving the unchanging forms in sequence, like the illusion of motion created in viewing a film strip.
[quote=Martin Scorsese]Cinema [reality :wink: ] is a matter of what's in the frame and what's out.[/quote]
Of course, this means that everything is predetermined and there's no free will. Still, kinda cool though, right?!
Uni: combining form.
Film: a thin flexible strip of plastic or other material coated with light-sensitive emulsion for exposure in a camera, used to produce photographs or motion pictures.
Martin Scorsese: Italian-American film director, screenwriter, producer, and actor, whose career spans more than 50 years.
The "prescriptive side" of my philosophy is left to each individual to work out in their own local context. All I do is describe the BothAnd principle of Complementarity. Philosophers have written thousands of erudite words on ethics. But it's all summed-up in the Golden Rule. I am not qualified to "prescribe" morality for anyone but myself. :smile:
‘Quantum field’ is a structural metaphor, but the analogy on which it is based is backed by complex mathematical formulas which demonstrate the relational structure’s resemblance to an endless, oscillating field. The metaphor isn’t to enable scientists to understand the virtual particles themselves, but rather the structural relation of the ‘field’ analogy. The virtual particles are quanta of information, differentiated from each other across a dimensional ‘field’ of mathematical value. If you understood what the analogy refers to, then you’d also understand why it’s unnecessary to imagine your own ‘Enfernal quantum field with Platonic forms’ to describe the creation of the Big Bang. The structural relation is already there in the physics - ‘quantum fields’ refer to field-like structures of potential information as quanta. You only need to reconstruct the established analogy, and then show that what’s particularly missing from the physics here is an understanding (or even recognition) of qualia. That’s the challenging bit.
That sounds similar to the way I conceive of Energy (EnFormAction), which is the potential for creating and destroying structure. For example, physicists metaphorize light energy as a spray of photons, like a machine gun. Yet, the Light we see is just a fraction of the whole spectrum of energy throughout the universe. Universal Energy is, not a material thing, but a metaphysical oscillation between max & minimum potential. Expressed in 1s and 0s, it's a creation code. That concept is hard to describe & to grasp, and is far outside my field of competence. But it's a consequence of my metaphorical understanding of what Energy and Information actually consist of : mathematical (mental) relationships.
Anyway, I imagine Energy as an alternation between Enfernity (unbounded potential -- infinite possibilities), and Nothingness (zero potential). In the graph below, positive creative potential is at the peak of the wave, and negative destructive potential is at the trough of the wave. But the neutral baseline down the center is Zero potential. As the wave oscillates, it creates space, and as it advances from peak to peak, it creates time. Thus, plenipotential metaphysical Energy (creative potential) constructs the physical space-time reality that we experience via our senses.
Ironically, the potential (power) of Energy consists of Information in the form of mathematical ratios (1/0; 1 : 2; this compared to that). "Relational structures" that can be expressed as percentages of the Whole. The best book on this topic, that I'm familiar with, is Into the Cool : Energy Flow, Thermodynamics, and Life, by Eric Schneider and Dorian Sagan. But I'm not interested so much in the physics of Energy, as in the Metaphysics : the Qualia. Even there I'm dabbling in ideas that are above my pay grade. And my understanding is still incomplete. But it gives some meaningful foundational structure to my Enformationism worldview. :nerd:
Potential : the relationship (ratio) between what-is, and what-could-be; Actual and Possible.
Into the Cool : https://www.amazon.com/Into-Cool-Energy-Flow-Thermodynamics/dp/0226739376
You seem to be using metaphors from these theories to bolster your own, without any deeper understanding of how the analogies are applied. This seems to be the case not just in relation to the oscillating wave and potentiality, but also in relation to the ideality and embodiment of Forms. I agree that these theories DO relate to your own, but I think you’ve fallen short of plausible explanations as to how they relate. To be taken seriously in your reference to these theories, I think you need to be able to deconstruct the many metaphors we use to understand what each of these relational structures are like in order to more clearly conceptualise how they fit together. This is particularly important with quantum mechanics because the analogies are mathematically applied, isolating the relational structure from its context in reality.
For instance, the oscillating wave is itself a metaphor, describing the relational structure of potentiality as analogous to a wave of light/energy, but they’re referring to different dimensional structures. The potentiality ‘waves’ of quantum fields don’t peak and trough over time - there is no distinction of ‘time’ at the quantum level. Rather, they peak and trough (in a three-dimensional, non-spatio-temporal sense) across whatever abstract value the particular field refers to. It is the relation between these various mathematical fields that manifest the two-dimensional oscillation of energy/light over time to which the diagram refers.
Take a look at Carlo Rovelli’s ‘The Order of Time’ for an example of multi-dimensional deconstruction of relations between time and quantum mechanics; and Lisa Feldman Barrett’s ‘How Emotions Are Made’ for a theory that describes the relational structure between ideal and embodied forms in relation to neuroscience, particularly with reference to qualia. They’re both written for lay readers, and I think will help to add meat to your theory.
Sorry, I'm neither a string theorist, nor a mathematician, nor an academic philosopher --- nor an esoteric Theosophist. So deconstructing, or meta-analysing, exotic metaphors is not my thing. I'm not motivated to seek a "deeper understanding" of invisible un-imaginable dimensions of hyperspace or astral planes. I guess I'll have to stick to mundane metaphors that I actually know something about, and that relate to the real sensible world.
I did read Carlo Rovelli's book, but just skimmed over any references to dimensions that are meaningless to me. I'm also familiar with Rob Bryanton's Imagining the Tenth Dimension website and book. But it's all Greek to me. I'm still waiting for you to dumb it down for me. Is that something you can do? Or are you content to just belittle my intelligence? :cool:
Neither am I, so no need to apologise. But your resistance to even attempting to understand how your belief system relates to quantum potentiality is coming across as blatant ignorance and exclusion, NOT a lack of intelligence. You make no reference to any explanations I’ve offered, except to throw up strawmen such as ‘hyperspace or astral planes’ and get defensive about my perception of your intelligence, as if I’m trying to attack it. All this does is confirm your arrogance. If your aim is to stick to metaphors you know something about, and you’re not willing to increase your knowledge, then you might want to leave quantum physics alone - but I think that will seriously hamper your attempts at a ToE.
If you don’t understand what I’ve written, that’s probably my fault - I encourage you to make an attempt and then point out where you’re not following, and I’ll try to explain where I’m coming from. I’m honestly not trying to prove myself more intelligent, because I’m pretty sure that I have neither the experience nor the education to do so. I perceive the world differently to most people that I’ve met, and I’ve spent years trying to make sense of that distinction. My advantage is that my husband is a specialist math teacher, who can patiently explain the mathematical part of quantum physics to me when I get stuck (which is often). I don’t always do his explanations or my understanding of it justice here, which is my problem, not yours. But if you’re just going to just dismiss the whole thing as ‘meaningless’ to you, then I can’t improve my attempts, and there’s not much point in a discussion, is there?
Quoting Gnomon
I haven’t read Bryanton at all, so I can’t comment on how his work relates to my ideas at this stage. If you genuinely think it’s relevant, then I will try to read it after Deacon, but if it’s your attempt to come across as knowledgeable on the subject of dimensions, then I’ll just applaud you and be done with it. Personally, I don’t think it’s a matter of ‘dumbing’ it down, just explaining it differently. Your intelligence is not in question here, only your willingness to increase awareness of information relevant to your belief system. I’m starting to think you only skimmed Deacon’s work, too - which appears to be much denser in relation to biology (at least early on) than Rovelli’s is in relation to dimensions. Yet you’re content to borrow heavily from his terminology to bolster your own ‘theory’. FWIW, I needed help to get my head around Rovelli’s explanation of dimensions, but it was worth the effort. I’m not sure that I have the skills to make it clearer for you, but I’m willing to try if you’re willing to be patient and honest with me about my progress.
It seems to me that you’re a little too precious about elements of your belief system to be open to constructive criticism of it as a ToE. I’m happy to back off, if that’s the case.
If I am so arrogant & ignorant, why do you care what my opinion of your Multidimensional Reality might be? From your early posts I began to entertain the possibility that you may know something that would add more "dimensions" to my personal worldview, and to my understanding of reality. But I'm still waiting for that revelation. With my references to abstruse scientific theories, I may have given the impression that I am a part of that exotic academic world. I'm merely an onlooker, not a participant.
Your Multidimensional Theory is not the only one I've investigated, and then "excluded" from my personal worldview because they are not relevant to my interests. Even if there are 11 spatial dimensions in String Theory, what difference does it make to me, here locked into the 4D reality of my physical senses? I am aware that many people believe in invisible dimensions that only the elect are aware of. For example, Muslims are told that there is a seventh heaven, which is a realm of intense happiness and bliss, that only the faithful will ever experience. If so, it behooves me to accept God's Final Prophet and bow to his revelation. I'm not sure what the dimensional number is, but potential Islamic Martyrs are assured that there is an invisible Paradise, with 72 beautiful virgins to please every adolescent male sexual fantasy. But, those extra dimensions have no relevance to my non-Islamic belief system. And I'm no longer a hormone intoxicated teenager.
I googled "Quantum Potentiality", and found a few returns, mostly referring to some of Heisenberg's mathematical musings about the significance of superposition. But I'm not able to follow his math. Another site may be closer to what you are talking about on EscadelicNet. It seems to deal with some of the same scientific & philosophical topics that I link to in the Enformationism thesis. And it also uses the Matrix movie as a metaphor for the Mind/Body paradox. As I get time, I'll look around the site. But at first glance, it seems to require much more formal training in quantum theory and higher math than I bring to the table. I'm not qualified to critique the criticisms of the Standard Theory, much less the theory of the Syntellect Hypothesis. :cool:
The Physics of Information : Twisting your mind to see reality from the quantum gravity viewpoint is no easy task.
https://www.ecstadelic.net/top-stories/the-physics-of-information-quantum-potentiality-to-classical-actuality-of-your-experiential-reality
First of all, I’ve suggested that your responses demonstrate an arrogance and a refusal to learn - I’m still hoping they’re an inaccurate portrayal, and that you are in fact open to information (not from me, but in general) that could be useful in refining your theory. Secondly, I haven’t asked for your opinion. My own worldview of multi-dimensional reality is a work in progress, patchy at best, and I’m not in a position to defend it in full at this stage.
On the other hand, you have presented something akin to a thesis, which you are attempting to defend. I’m suggesting information that I think will improve the accuracy of this presented worldview, and you’re doing everything you can to avoid, exclude or dismiss the possibility that what you’ve presented might be inaccurate or need refining in any way. You offer these scientific theories as supporting evidence, but you don’t seem to understand them enough to defend their relevance beyond a claim of ‘metaphorical’ significance. This seems more like apologetics for a belief system, not a thesis, and not a ToE. There’s nothing wrong with that - my own worldview can at best be called a belief system, as well - but I’m not here trying to defend mine, but rather to test and refine it in the hope of working towards a ToE eventually. I’m a long way off. And I made no assumption that you were part of the academic world, but your reference to these theories did lead me to believe you understood them enough to discuss them to some extent. Seems both Praxis and I were wrong there.
Quoting Gnomon
Strawmen and more strawmen... none of this is relevant to the information I’ve given you in other threads regarding my worldview. You haven’t investigated it at all. All you’ve heard is the word ‘dimension’ and you’re looking for ways to discredit what doesn’t ‘interest’ you enough to try and understand. The dimensions I’m referring to are non-spatial, and we interact across them every day, through language, mathematics, science, art, literature, religion, etc. Our brains make sense of the world, determining and initiating actions from an ongoing prediction of the future as effort (quanta) and attention (qualia) requirements for the organism. How the mind structures our systems of value, significance and potentiality of information to ‘collapse’ constitutes a fifth dimension or relational aspect of reality, which incorporates and transcends the four dimensions of spacetime.
Quoting Gnomon
I’m not asking you to critique some random website theory you found. You won’t find anything on the internet regarding my particular worldview, except for what you might find here on this forum, because I haven’t written anything on it yet. If you’re interested in trying to grasp quantum theory, though, I can recommend the book ‘Quantum Enigma’ by Bruce Rosenblum and Fred Kuttner. It gave me an understanding of quantum theory that was more suited to my Arts background. But I’m guessing you’ll only skim it for sections that ‘interest’ you (ie. agree with your belief system) rather than attempt to understand why the success of QM, despite being fundamentally misunderstood and open to a variety of interpretations, is vital to any ToE.
So, is this a kiss-off? Are you dumping me for another more intelligent, inquisitive, and humble forum poster? Have you found someone who actually understands what you're talking about? I'm hurt. But I'll be interested to see what that other guy has to say about occult dimensions. :cool:
Quantum Enigma : "Can you believe that physical reality is created by our observation of it?"
That's one interpretation of the mysterious black-box "enigma". But I have a different "wild guess" : that the creator/observer is not "us", but the Whole of which we are tiny holons. I agree that the quantum paradoxes are due to our misunderstanding of Consciousness, but what is the correct interpretation? Can we define dimensions into existence? Who's right; who's wrong; who knows?
https://www.amazon.com/Quantum-Enigma-Physics-Encounters-Consciousness/dp/019517559X#customerReviews
PS__I'm sorry if this post sounds flippant. But I assure you I have seriously tried to grasp the various ancient and New Age notions of occult dimensions, planes, and heavens, but they just don't make sense to me. Apparently, I'm expected to take their existence on faith or hope. But what difference will that Gnostic knowledge make to me? Will it give me superpowers? Will I achieve enlightenment? Will it expand my mind? I've seen no evidence of that, except as self-delusion. The Muslim Paradise is easy to envision, because it appeals to basic human aspirations and emotions. But it doesn't appeal to my own Reason. My personal worldview is four dimensional, and completely mundane --- no magic at all --- and its metaphors are not intended to be taken literally. It merely serves as a Pragmatic guide to Reality, with no need for faith.
Quoting Gnomon
I’ll take that as confirmation of your intent.
I agree. From our exchanges on this thread, I gather that your non-spatial dimensions are devoid of content. Hence nothing for a meaningful discussion to build on. And a waste of fourth dimension Time. :yum:
Sorry. I've changed my mind. I will waste a bit more of my Time dimension on this off-topic digression --- for my own edification.
I'm currently reading a Kindle book by Bernardo Kastrup, More Than Allegory. It's talking about the "transcendent" realm that is revealed in religious myths and mystical visions. "These are transcendent truths, for they escape the boundaries of logic, time, and space. . . . Where the intellect stops intuition picks up. We can sense truth even if we cannot articulate it in words . . . Unreliable as this sense may be, it is our only link to a broader reality." I've just begun to read the book, so I'll reserve judgement til I can see where he's going with this.
Although he doesn't use the actual word "dimension" to describe the mythical & mystical transcendent realm --- presumably above & beyond the sensible boundaries of the four-dimensional space-time universe --- some of his other terminology reminded me of this thread. Since I couldn't get any direct answers from Possibility about the nature of those postulated multi-dimensions in our off-topic discussions, I'm assuming the vague evasive answers indicate that they are knowable only by Intuition rather than Reason. Although Kastrup is a computer scientist, and presumably uses Reason in his mundane work, when discussing Transcendence, he calls Reason the "obfuscated mind". So, he asks about Intuition, "what can it know about nature that the intellect cannot?" He explains that intuition works with emotional Symbols, not rational Facts.
After raising some perennial philosophical questions, he says "the possibility that presents itself to us is that our neglected obfuscated mind . . . could offer us answers". Later, he makes an ambiguous statement : "although this transcendent view is not literally true, it is potentially truer than anything our intellects could possibly come up with." Are our metaphors & allegories & myths somehow more real & true & meaningful than the mundane facts of science & reason? That seems to be the point of Kastrup's book. If so, how do we discern Truth from Error among the thousands of myths in the world. Is Truth whatever feels good? As Joseph Campbell said, "follow your bliss!" If so, Islamic terrorists believe they are following their bliss to Allah's Paradise, while non-Islamists think the murderers and rapists are taking a short-cut to Jehovah's Hell.
At the beginning of this thread, I took the posts of Possibility seriously, assuming that the invisible transcendent dimensions referred to, would eventually be related back to the visible mundane world of physical senses, and the "obfuscated mind". But eventually, I began to wonder if I was being punked. Whenever, I requested specific information, all I got was assurances that the vaguely defined Higher Dimensions actually exist in some sense. But I remain none the wiser for all my efforts to understand what the mysterious Referent of "Higher Dimensions" might be. Is that failure due to my bad faith or to that of the proponents of invisible parallel worlds?
As a recovering Fundamentalist Christian, I no longer take assurances of invisible or transcendent domains on faith. But, based on my Enformationism worldview, I have concluded there must be One Transcendent "dimension" : Enfernity (Infinity & Eternity), which is timeless, spaceless , and dimensionless. Hence, as Kastrup said, it's beyond "the boundaries of logic, time, and space." Which is why I make no claims to know anything about that completely abstract non-reality. We can only discuss that imaginary concept in terms of metaphors & allegories, based on our sensory experience, and our rational evaluation. And nothing we say about it is literally true. :cool:
Referent : the thing that a word or phrase denotes or stands for.
Bad Faith : acting inauthentically
Dimension : a measurable extent of some kind, such as length, breadth, depth, or height.
How do we measure non-spatial dimensions --- with feelings? Do we know them with spiritual eyes?
Information theory recognises that all data are inexact and statistical in nature. Thus the definition of measurement is: "A set of observations that reduce uncertainty where the result is expressed as a quantity." This definition is implied in what scientists actually do when they measure something and report both the mean and statistics of the measurements. In practical terms, one begins with an initial guess as to the expected value of a quantity, and then, using various methods and instruments, reduces the uncertainty in the value. Note that in this view...all measurements are uncertain, so instead of assigning one value, a range of values is assigned to a measurement. This also implies that there is not a clear or neat distinction between estimation and measurement.
In quantum mechanics, a measurement is an action that determines a particular property (position, momentum, energy, etc.) of a quantum system. Before a measurement is made, a quantum system is simultaneously described by all values in a range of possible values, where the probability of measuring each value is determined by the wavefunction of the system. When a measurement is performed, the wavefunction of the quantum system "collapses" to a single, definite value.
Qualitative (rather than quantitative) measurement looks for patterns in non-numerical data, allowing the brain to construct concepts such as colour, taste, emotion, etc. The way I see it, we continually structure, test and restructure this non-numerical data with uncertain quantitative data (as described above) in the mind, reducing into a dual ‘wavefunction’ - what we call a neural interoception of affect: a probabilistic prediction of effort (quantitative) and attention (qualitative) requirements for the organism, which then determines and initiates the observable/measurable actions (thoughts, words, movement, etc) of the quantum system (ie. the organism) in relation to other systems.
The way I see it, it’s the way these concepts are structured from uncertain quantitative and qualitative data according to ranges of possible and expected values, reducing to this dual ‘wavefunction’ of affect in each organism and relating to other quantum systems without ‘collapse’, that together constitutes what I refer to as the fifth dimensional aspect of reality. It is the qualitative part of this that lacks explanation - partly because our understanding of dimensions has always been described only in relation to spatial and quantitative data. There is nothing necessarily ‘mystical’ about this dimension, just a whole lot of uncertainty and speculation, based not on faith but on information theory, quantum mechanics and neuroscience, as well as philosophy, metaphysics and subjective experience. It’s an interpretation, sure - but one that isn’t content with expression as unexplained metaphorical relations and deism. Still, each to their own, I suppose.
As for Kastrup, his book sounds interesting, and relevant to a discussion I’m having with Congau on a thread I created regarding the notion of ‘objective truth’ sans certainty. I may need to read it after I finish with Deacon’s book. I personally tend not to refer to ‘mystical and transcendent realms’ because it gets difficult to keep the discussion coming back to empirical reality. When discussing intuition and emotional symbols in relation to reason, I think it helps to also understand the relation of emotional concepts to current work in neuroscience, which is where Lisa Feldman Barrett’s book may once again prove informative, without getting too technical.
Quoting Gnomon
Can I just clear up that I have made no reference to ‘invisible parallel worlds’ (they’re your words), and that I have continually referred back to empirical reality, but apparently not in a manner that satisfies you, although you won’t clarify in what way it fails to make sense in your mind - you just ignore my explanations, or dismiss references to dimensions in relation to quantum mechanics as ‘uninteresting’ for you. I get the sense that you’re after a neatly packaged expression you can critique without understanding anything about how it relates to science, or that you can borrow from heavily in terms of neologisms and metaphorical language (again, without understanding the analogy behind it) to bolster the credibility of this belief system you’ve concocted. I can’t help you there (or maybe I won’t, I’m not entirely sure).
IMHO, I’m not convinced that your ‘conclusion’ is based on reason in your case (not that you’re not capable of it, just that you haven’t applied it yourself), but on expressions of reasoning described by others, their words taken as gospel. I think that you have intuitively accepted their reasoning as sound without attempting to understand why, which is probably why you struggle to engage in any critical analysis of the theories your belief system is based on. I’m thinking your recovery from fundamentalist Christianity is not yet complete - I’m challenging you to make a concerted effort to understand why their reasoning makes sense to you, and why it doesn’t make sense to other ‘reasonable’ people in the form you’ve presented. That’s all. You can continue to dismiss my efforts to be understood, but that won’t improve your argument in relation to your own ‘theory’ - or your edification, for that matter.
I'm sorry if my thick skull frustrates you, but I still have no idea what you are talking about. Can you translate the quote above into words a non-specialist can understand? The technical terms bolded are not in my everyday vocabulary. Although I can look up the individual definitions, the whole sentence still doesn't mean much to me (me no Grok).
Are you saying that Quantum Uncertainty is "the fifth dimensional aspect of reality"? If so, what difference does that make to me? Is it the "dimension" of Intuition? Do intuitive people, such as artists, have access to a source of information that is hidden from more rational folks? Do they "measure" that alternate "reality" in terms of feelings instead of math or logic? :chin:
Wave Particle Duality : Bohr regarded the "duality paradox" as a fundamental or metaphysical fact of nature. A given kind of quantum object will exhibit sometimes wave, sometimes particle, character, in respectively different physical settings. He saw such duality as one aspect of the concept of complementarity
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wave%E2%80%93particle_duality
[ Note : Complementarity is the essence of my BothAnd philosophy, but it's not derived from an understanding of the Schrödinger equation ]
Schrödinger equation :
Interoception : sensitivity to stimuli originating inside of the body
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interoception
Affect : touch the feelings of (someone); move emotionally.
Grok : understand (something) intuitively or by empathy.
Quoting Possibility
As I said above about the concept of Enfernity (Eternity/Infinity) "We can only discuss that imaginary concept in terms of metaphors & allegories, based on our sensory experience, and our rational evaluation." I need relatable metaphors for invisible abstractions. :joke:
There’s no need to apologise for not understanding - the onus is on me to present it in a way that makes sense to you. To that end, I appreciate your genuine attempt to make sense of it - it helps me to see more clearly where my explanation is failing. Simply saying “it makes no sense to me” doesn’t help me improve.
The wavefunction of a quantum system is a mathematical equation that determines the probability of a property of the system having a particular measurement value: that is, the chances of an electron being in a particular position around the nucleus at a particular time, for instance, as a prediction of how to direct our efforts in ‘looking’ for that electron. We can’t actually observe an electron, so the only way to interact directly with it is to trust the probabilistic results of the calculation, and to determine any action based on that.
My view is that the human organism acts similar to a quantum system, determining all action based on trusting a probabilistic prediction (analogous to a wavefunction) not just of how to direct its efforts - in terms of quantitative energy relative to spacetime - but also how to direct its attention, as in qualitative awareness, connection and collaboration. Neuroscience refers to this dual-aspect prediction as affect, a structure of valence (positive-negative feeling) and arousal (high-low) in relation to an ongoing event of the organism ‘being’ in time. It’s often used to describe what’s left when we extract the quantitative prediction of effort - which can be verified by ‘math or logic’ - by which we determine and initiate action. But affect in neuroscience is inclusive of both qualitative and quantitative potential. The classic assumption is that the rational, logical mind battles to overcome the emotional, intuitive body. Neuroscience is finding, however, that this is a misunderstanding of how we operate, particularly in relation to emotion.
The term interoception refers to the fact that this prediction isn’t directly informed by external reality, but is based on an internally conceived reality (concepts) constructed from all past interactions. The brain, locked inside the skull, relies on only a relatively small amount of external stimuli, from sensory systems directed by the prediction itself on how, where and when to ‘look’, and interpreted eventually into affect, to verify or adjust this ongoing prediction in relation to external reality.
I think quantum uncertainty fairly closely describes the nature of five-dimensional reality, but it still fails to fully account for qualia in the existence and evolution of our universe.
It isn’t a matter of either/or in terms of feelings or intuition INSTEAD of math or logic, but rather BOTH/AND. It is the unique way we each construct our value systems based on past experiences, concepts, knowledge, beliefs, logic, language, etc that determines how we continually reduce all potential information to affect, which determines our thoughts, words and actions in time. Even those who consider themselves ‘more rational’ will act according to this dual measure of affect. It is the extent to which they struggle to integrate the aspect of valence (pleasant or unpleasant feeling) into their justification after the fact that defines them as ‘more rational folk’. The information isn’t hidden from them, it’s dismissed by them as irrelevant, illogical, impossible, meaningless or simply uncertain. They don’t recognise how they apply feeling to a predictive distribution of attention/awareness that determines their thoughts, words and actions. On the other hand, those who consider themselves more ‘intuitive’ tend to struggle with integrating the quantitative specifics of their actions into a later explanation. It isn’t that they don’t apply logic and math, they just don’t really understand how they apply it to a predictive distribution of energy in space-time to determine their actions.
Having said that, there are many of us who at least vaguely recognise the duality of affect, even if we struggle to express it in relation to language or logic. Many artists, for instance, are adept at applying math and spatial logic to the canvas, but struggle with the language to identify it as such. Likewise, many ‘rational folk’ have a strongly intuitive social sense, even though they’re vocally dismissive of feelings as valid information.
This quote sounds like it might be relevant to human consciousness. But the terminology is more appropriate for quantum theorists or neuroscientists. Could you break it down for me, with examples from our ordinary experience of knowing via Intuition or Reason? I can accept that our voluntary behaviors, our actions, are usually based on uncertain and incomplete information. They are instead, derived from intuitive judgments of relative values of the most favorable outcome (probabilities) of optional actions. In other words, we evaluate what little we know about a complex situation, in order to estimate which actions will result in the optimum Effect for me. That predicted, positive or negative, abstract Effect is felt as a visceral Affect (mediated by neurotransmitters such as dopamine).
Intuition gives us a quick overview of possible outcomes --- like watching a movie in fast forward --- from which we select what seems to be the best path to a desirable future state. Therefore, we "direct our attention" to that optimum path, and ignore the ones that seem to be less profitable. However, in some cases, the situation is so complex that Intuition is a poor guide to action. So, we slow down the movie and examine it frame-by-frame, by Reasoning, to see if we missed any important details that may affect the overall meaning of the movie.
Most human behavior is more or less successfully guided by Intuition, but our innate ability to judge probabilities (statistics) is poor. We tend to be more confident of our intuitions than is warranted. That's why modern scientists rely on computers to fact check their original estimates. Unfortunately, while computers are good at predicting Effects, they are poor at anticipating Affects (how it will make me feel). So, the method of Bayesian Statistics was developed to take advantage of human intuition for subjective affective evaluations.
Intuitive statistics were not derived from our understanding of quantum randomness, but of our self-correcting procedures to improve first guesses with more information. However, Rational computer statistics could, in theory, make use of wavefunction calculations to sharpen their ability to predict future states. I'm just riffing here. So this little diversion may have missed the point of the quote above. And I still don't know what it has to do with "five dimensional reality". :joke:
Intuition vs Reason : https://www.amazon.com/Thinking-Fast-Slow-Daniel-Kahneman-ebook/dp/B00555X8OA/ref=tmm_kin_swatch_0?_encoding=UTF8&qid=1590345423&sr=8-14
Quick Decisions : https://theconversation.com/you-make-decisions-quicker-and-based-on-less-information-than-you-think-108460
Judgment Under Uncertainty : https://www.cep.ucsb.edu/topics/stats.htm
Intuitive (Bayesian) Statistics : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intuitive_statistics
I doubt that the average person dismisses mundane Intuition as irrelevant. But they may not be aware that most of what they think of as Reasoning is actually Intuitive. Instead, the dismissal occurs when one man's intuition clashes with another's. For example, the 20th century mystic Gurdjieff once dissed his contemporary mystic Aleister Crowley, as "dirty inside". Since mystical revelations are subjective, they are internally (among believers) cohesive, but externally (in the objective unbelieving world) divisive.
In cases of clashing faiths, an ecumenical (Rational) approach to "the way" may be necessary to untangle the various "my ways" of intuitive mystics. That's why the Catholic Church typically ignored its mystics, until they became famous after death, and could then be conformed to the Catholic "way" by pigeon-holing them as "the saint of _____", and ignoring any teachings that deviated from official doctrine.
Mystics have always been associated with Occultism because their visions and revelations are inherently hidden from their non-mystic followers, who relied on their gurus as a source of "information" about transcendent realms. The "explanations" of their intuitions are typically idiosyncratic, and often incompatible with official (rational) church doctrine. So, the problem is, which transcendent authority do you believe : the Holy Roman Church, or the Holy Roller Mystic? Can intuition resolve that dilemma? Or is plodding Reason more likely to parse the true from the false? Some people trust their intuition more than their reasoning powers, but others have learned that intuition can lead them astray. Mystics, who sit on mountaintops, or live in cells, don't have to worry about making sense to unbelievers.
I assume that "predictive distribution of attention/awareness" is a long way of saying "intuition. And "integrating the quantitative specifics . . . into explanation" is another way of saying, to translate feelings & opinions into facts & reasons. :cool:
Mystic : one who believes in the spiritual apprehension of truths that are beyond the intellect.
William James : A great many people think they are thinking when they are merely rearranging their prejudices.
Aleister Crowley : He founded the religion of Thelema, identifying himself as the prophet entrusted with guiding humanity into the Æon of Horus in the early 20th century.
George Gurdjieff : his method for awakening one's consciousness unites the methods of the fakir, monk and yogi, and thus he referred to it as the "Fourth Way".
[ presumably Jesus was the third way. And Lao Tse had a "Way" (Tao) of his own. ]
Such antagonism arises primarily when objective scientific facts clash with subjective religious beliefs. For example, the Theory of Evolution seemed to turn divine miracles into mundane mechanics. So, Intelligent Design proponents counter-attacked the scientists by using their own weapon of Reason against them. Both sides in the ongoing debate have a "strongly intuitive social sense", but different opinions about what qualifies as "valid information". Christians and Muslims both have Intelligent Design arguments online, but they get their valid Information from different scriptures --- different revelations of "truths beyond intellect". Can intuition tell you which revelation is true, or would you prefer to roll the dice, or to laboriously reason through the evidence? :chin:
Note : The BothAnd philosophy is intended to reconcile the world's inter-social divisions by accepting the necessity, and validity, for both Intuition and Reason in human intercourse. But each side must "doubt a little of their own infallibility". ___Benjamin Franklin
https://www.pbs.org/benfranklin/pop_finalspeech.html
Reasoning vs Intuition : Many people regard Reasoning the opposite of Intuition. Reasoning is rational thinking using logic, while Intuition is unconscious, a paranormal gift, a magical awarenessnot accessible for normal humans, or a connectivity to an all knowing esoteric field.
https://thinkibility.com/2012/11/17/reasoning-versus-intuition/
[ Normal mundane Intuition is how most human thinking works. But magical, esoteric Intuition is a claim that must be taken on faith. So choose your prophet wisely, or your faith could lead you astray.]
"Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, for many false prophets have gone out into the world." 1 John 4:1
The reason I refer to neuroscience and quantum mechanics to describe how mental processes relate to physical processes is because we cannot keep pretending that concepts such as ‘intuition’, ‘reason’ or ‘emotion’ always refer to measurably identical physical instances instead of amorphous mental structures of pattern recognition that vary according to subjective past interactions. To switch from talking about physical processes to metaphysical processes as if they relate, without an understanding of how they relate, is an exercise in cognitive dissonance, often concealed behind unexplained metaphorical language. It’s fine to talk about intuition, reason and emotion as metaphysical concepts - just not in the same discussion as objectively measurable/observable action in spacetime. And we need to recognise that we could very well be referring to two quite different patterns of experience, and therefore different conceptual structures, while using the same word.
Quoting Gnomon
What you’re describing here - mental relations irrespective of temporal or spatial relevance - all refer to five-dimensional reality. The ability to play with the timing of the ‘movie’, to isolate elements from their temporal and spatial context, and to consider them in terms of value and significance such as profit, desire, potentiality and future probability is how we interact with five dimensional aspects of reality. Some of these relations we have the luxury of processing in time through conscious thought, reasoning, critical introspection, imaginative simulation and abstract discussion. Others are limited by time, energy and attention constraints before action is required, and so they are often processed instantly and unconsciously according to existing conceptual structures that bypass or shortcut the thinking process.
Bayesian Statistics is a simplified description of the structural relation in which we continually adjust our conceptual structures (beliefs), and the resulting probabilistic predictions, according to new information. Like most maths and logic, the human brain was doing Bayesian statistics long before Bayes wrote down his formula to describe it. Similarly, quantum mechanics is just a way of describing the structural relations of what already occurs. Quantum physicists would agree that we don’t have to understand conceptually how it works or what it means in order for it to work, and for us to achieve things with it. Where intuitive statistics describe cognitive processes by which we can adjust and improve a probabilistic prediction, quantum mechanics can be seen to describe the process by which we convert that prediction into action. I’m not suggesting that the wavefunction is a useful tool in predicting future states - I’m suggesting that its probabilistic nature provides a useful analogy to describe the existing structural relation between belief and action.
Let's try to see where we agree or disagree on the Intuition vs Reason debate. Which of the following definitions would characterize your understanding : "Reasoning is rational thinking using logic, while Intuition is unconscious, A> a paranormal gift, B> a magical awareness not accessible for normal humans, or C> a connectivity to an all knowing esoteric field." Or does your Fifth Dimension theory provide another option?
Quoting Possibility
Of course. That's the distinction between Subjective knowing (I feel angry) and Objective knowledge (I sense an increase of adrenaline). It's the mystery of Consciousness that I can't know directly what's in your mind. Which is why rational humans, and not intuitive animals, have developed methods for objectifying their thoughts in conventional words and concepts. Some animals, such as ants, communicate their feelings about factual information (e.g. a source of food) via chemicals. Dolphins communicate their emotional states, and some factual information, via squeaks and body language. Do you suppose they have a deeper (or higher) understanding of the world than the founders of religions (holistic, oceanic oneness) , or empirical scientists (reductive, particular details), who communicate their feelings and facts via language and mathematics? Can we humans have the best of both worlds, higher and deeper?
Quoting Possibility
Some neuro-biologists like to think they can trace all mental activity back to neuronal functions. But a few neuroscientists, such as Christof Koch, are beginning to take a more holistic approach to understanding the mysteries of Consciousness. The physical functions of brains are not fully understood, but the correlations between measurable brain activity and felt mental concepts are undeniable. So, it behooves us find the link (or common denominator) between brain and mind. In my thesis, that common measure (both physical and metaphysical) is universal Information.
The Feeling of Consciousness : Koch notes that, “much ink has been spilled over arguments that quantum mechanics is the secret to consciousness”. However, after years of research, he saw “no need to invoke exotic physics to understand consciousness”.
http://bothandblog6.enformationism.info/page18.html
Note : the names of metaphysical Feelings are metaphors based on physical sensations, such as touch, vision, smell.
Quoting Possibility
That's why I have focused on a different word, Information, to describe those "different patterns of experience". Raw Information has the potential to take on infinite Forms or Patterns.
Quoting Possibility
In my own thesis, that state "irrespective of temporal or spatial relevance" is what I call Enfernity (dimensionless eternity & infinity). So perhaps we have some common ground here. I begin to see where you are coming from. But I would call it "non-dimensional".
Quoting Possibility
I can see the analogy, but the question is how we could predict the future state of the waveform upon the collapse of the stateless wave-function. How does "observation" trigger a phase transition from non-local to local, or from possible to actual. I have toyed with some scenarios, but the topic is way beyond my competence in science and philosophy, not to mention mystical knowledge. :nerd:
None of the above. Reasoning is understanding something via conscious thought processes, and need not use only logic. Intuition is defined as “the ability to understand something instinctively, without the need for conscious reasoning”, with instinct defined as “an innate, typically fixed pattern of behaviour in animals in response to certain stimuli”. Intuition refers to unexplained means by which we find that we understand something, but there need be nothing magical, paranormal or esoteric about it. The only real difference between intuition and reasoning is that one is an explainable process (even if determined after the fact), and the other isn’t.
Quoting Gnomon
Animals don’t have a deeper or higher understanding of the world. Ants aren’t aware of any feelings about factual information - rather they instinctively embody what this chemical information means for the colony in terms of their particular distribution of effort and attention in spacetime. We interpret this behaviour as evidence of ‘their feelings about factual information’, but the colony has no awareness of ‘feelings’ as anything distinct from the ‘factual information’. It’s more likely that dolphins may be vaguely aware of another’s emotional state as information distinct from where the fish are, for instance - but they’re unlikely to recognise an emotional state in themselves.
I think as humans we need to recognise that there are reasoning-type processes our brain undertakes unconsciously, not necessarily because they’re beyond our awareness, but because we’ve operated more efficiently or economically this way in terms of effort and attention requirements. Given that we rarely need to be so economical these days, we should at least recognise and challenge our untapped capacity to increase awareness, connection and collaboration with the world beyond simply surviving, dominating and procreating ourselves.
Quoting Gnomon
It’s been some time since I read ‘The Feeling of Life Itself’ - Koch introduced me to Integrated Information Theory. Other than that I don’t remember much of it, although I’m guessing many of my ideas about consciousness could be traced back to that book.
My biggest problem with IIT is that it fails to account for, and so practically ignores, quantum mechanics. While I will say that there is no need to invoke any physics at all to ‘understand’ consciousness as a mental process, that doesn’t allow for integration of such an understanding with that of the physical world. As promising as much of the theory is, in my view IIT continues to fall short of this. I believe that Feldman Barrett picks up where Koch leaves off: at the dual aspect of interior/exterior, and explores the connection between them in relation to the neuroscience of emotional states. Her Concept Cascades theory builds a convincing explanation of how mental states and brain states interact and how we learn the simplest to the most complex concepts and apply them in our organic interactions with reality.
Good! I just wanted to make sure we were talking about the same thing. Some intuitives feel that their non-rational approach to problems is superior to plodding reasoning, in part because it is a magical connection to occult knowledge that is not accessible to mundane reasoning.
However, as you implied, they are not two separate (mundane vs magic) channels to knowledge, but merely faster (intuition) or slower (reason) processes of thinking. Most of us switch between both speeds without being aware of it. When confronted with novel situations or problems, we tend to slow down and dissect the details to see if there are familiar components that we already know how to deal with. But then, all we have is a collection of meaningless unrelated pieces of the puzzle. So, we often just stop analyzing at that apparent dead end, and turn our attention to other topics, or just go to sleep, or meditate. Meanwhile, the always-on subconscious functions of brain operation continue to process the data until a pattern emerges that ties the parts together into a whole concept.
The primary difference between Reason and Intuition is that we are consciously aware of the individual steps (movie frames) in rational processing (words, numbers), but are aware only of the final output (meaning of the movie) in subconscious processing (feelings, gist, general impressions). All humans use both procedures, but just as some are right- or left-handed, we tend to show a preference for one or the other.
Quoting Possibility
Precisely! Subconscious (non-verbal) thinking is the default mode of human and animal information processing. It is energy efficient and requires much less effort than Conscious (words & numbers) reasoning. The problem here is that the quick summary method may miss some crucial bit of knowledge, resulting in erroneous conclusions. The rational mode of thinking (science) is often frustratingly ponderous, and requires deferring the emotional satisfaction of a solution. That's why visceral (affective) feelings and mental intuition are correlated, while dispassionate (effective) concepts and mental reasoning are typically associated in personality trait theories.
Thinking, Fast and Slow : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thinking,_Fast_and_Slow
Quoting Possibility
Yes. Dr. Giulio Tononi is a psychiatrist and neuroscientist, so his focus in IIT was on the behavior of humans. But other scientists are beginning to do research on the quantum level. My thesis assumes that higher level phenomena, such as human emotions and intuition, can be traced back down the hierarchy of metaphysics & physics to fundamental Information --- which is omnipotential. I won't go into the details here, but just as quantum "particles" are essentially bundles of potential energy, energy itself is an active causative form of Generic Information (EnFormAction). In effect, metaphysical Enformation is the new Atom of the physical world. It's equivalent to Spinoza's Single Substance, that he called God, and I call G*D.
Quantum Integrated Information Theory : https://arxiv.org/abs/1806.01421
Why can’t it still be dimensional, though? I recognise that what we’re talking about exists beyond (yet in relation to) the four dimensions that science has currently structured, but in the same way that a square is essentially a line with an additional aspect of shape, structured relative to a three-dimensional position; and a cube is essentially a square with an additional aspect of volume, structured relative to a four-dimensional position; so, too, an experience is a 4D event with an additional (fifth) aspect of affect, which we learn to structure only by imagining a six-dimensional relational position of pure possibility of meaning: objective truth, the All, the Absolute, the Single Substance, or G*D.
It is understanding the distinction and relation between affect (the ‘feeling of life itself’, irrespective of temporal or spatial relevance) and meaning, between subjectively perceived potential and objectively infinite possibility, which appears to be lacking in your thesis. Your implication by referring to the entirety of this ‘state’ as ‘non-dimensional’ is that there is no such distinction. For me, however, there is a level of perception between life and meaning - which corresponds to consciousness.
Quoting Gnomon
I’m not sure what you’re asking here. A waveform refers to the shape of a graph - how do you see this relating to the wavefunction analogy? By ‘state of the waveform’, do you mean an observation/measurement of the energy event?
An ‘observation’ IS the process of locating or actualising an energy event. It doesn’t trigger a phase transition, but rather IS the phase transition. You cannot separate the observation (interaction in time) either from the event as observed or from the function of the observer. And any subsequent interaction with either the observer (as a measuring device) or the observed merely joins this superposition state.
Of course, when we’re talking about the ‘observation’ of an energy event such as a photon or electron, it isn’t observable in any classical sense - we’re not really looking at it. We’re arranging for an observer to locate it in spacetime relative to that observer. And so we locate this event in spacetime relative to the position of the observer relative to ourselves.
The important thing here is that we cannot ‘observe’ the energy event without locating or actualising it in spacetime. But we can perceive its potential via the wavefunction, which effectively tells us where and when to direct our effort and attention to interact with the event. At that moment of interacting with the event (or interacting with the measuring device interacting with the event), we ‘observe’ it, and join its superposition state. It becomes, from our position in spacetime, an actual event.
The wavefunction still exists, though - just not from our perspective, or from the perspective of anyone interacting with the measuring device. Included in this superposition might be anyone also interacting with the observation/measurement as expressed ONLY if it is expressed in such a way that enables them to accurately locate this same electron in spacetime. Given that any expression of observation/measurement occurs in a different spacetime location to the event, though, this isn’t possible. So the wavefunction is the most accurate way to express an objective observation/measurement of an energy event as separate from the event observed and the observer (now both in the past). Anyone with the capacity to perceive the potential of the wavefunction, then, is able to reproduce the experiment and verify the observation/measurement.
So the idea is to look for the ‘wavefunction’ as an objective expression of affect.
Hi Possibility!
I did a cursory read of the entire thread, and wanted to bring to light a simple or obvious but often overlooked component to Philosophy, which is the logic of words.
"Philosophy lives in words, but truth and fact well up into our lives in ways that exceed verbal formulation."— William James
Just as a matter of formality, what you seem to be saying is that you may not value the deconstruction (the existential meaning not the Platonic one) between the meaning of words (AKA: Derrida) and reaching a holistic or consistent world view. The relationship between text and meaning is still a problem that consistently requires attention.
Don't mean to disparage any of your discussion points, but as you've alluded, on a public forum like TPF, it is more often than not very helpful (if not fundamental) to agree on the meaning of terms, words, definition standards, etc..
In your own theory, you can call it anything you want. But as I pointed-out before, the notion of extra dimensions has been used to describe a variety of spiritual mysteries, and also referring to the far-out mathematics of String Theory, and as another word for the imaginary Parallel Worlds of science fiction. But in all those cases, the occult "dimensions" are not measurable in any objective manner. You just have to take the word of psychic adepts & math mavens & sci-fi authors that they exist. That's why I prefer to limit that common-sense word to features of reality that we can all agree on. These abstruse concepts we're both playing around with are obscure enough without straying too far from grounding in common ground.
Can you define your Fifth "Dimension" in a way that is not occult and magical? Metaphorical is OK, as long as it is meaningful to common sense. "State Space" and "Probability Space" are mathematical concepts that don't apply to actual real things, but to possible outcomes of physical processes, such as rolling dice.
State Space : A state space is the set of all possible configurations of a system. It is a useful abstraction for reasoning about the behavior of a given system . . .
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_space
Probability Space : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Probability_space
Quoting Possibility
The state I was referring to was Eternity & Infinity, both of which are immeasurable, hence non-dimensional. But you seem to think of the 5th Dimension as a non-sensory state in space-time, although not measurable out there in space or time, but only subjectively via intuition & imagination. The "distinction" between space-time dimensions (matter & motion) and mental-meaning dimensions (mind, consciousness) is like apples & oranges : true, but obvious.
Note :In my thesis, I find their commonality in the notion that both are forms of Generic Information. Just as Energy = Mass (matter) x the speed of light, Mind = Matter x Meaning (intention). But that's also a concept that defies common sense, even though it's the fundamental difference between Classical and Quantum science.
I don't understand the "level of perception" that senses a "state space" between Life and Meaning. As far as I know, Life is not a static space, but a dynamic process unfolding in time. And we "perceive" Life, not via sensory perception, but in imagination as a metaphor like a journey from point A to point B. The Meaning of Life is also not a sensible thing, but a subjective feeling about a person's history and future prospects. Some people take figurative metaphors literally, attributing properties of the symbol to the thing symbolized. For example, some idolators actually try to feed and clothe their little statues, thinking that it will make a difference to the occult deity, supposedly hanging around the state space of its artificial model.
Quoting Possibility
Actually, that is close to my own concept, that the process of EnFormAction is what we call a Phase Transition. It's the act of changing form, of revealing latent possibilities in new actualities. To EnForm is to Actualize.
Quoting Possibility
So, when a physicist calculates the future trajectory of a particular wavefunction, that knowledge affects the state of the waveform (particle)??? The problem here is that "affect" can refer to a physical transfer of energy, or to the emotional feeling of knowing something about that change. Does the feeling cause the phase change, or is it an effect of the change? Again, mixing literal and metaphorical meanings is confusing. Feynman's famous quote may apply here : "If you think you understand quantum theory, you don't understand quantum theory". :joke:
PS__I may be gradually coming to "see" your 5th Dimension, but it's still a bit fuzzy. I have to translate your dimensional terminology into my own Information-based language.
But I think there’s a difference between striving to reach a shared meaning beyond language and attempting to control meaning by assigning significance from the top down. It can be easier to coin a new term than to discuss the multiple levels of meaning associated with a word such as ‘information’, for instance. The top-down approach requires starting with an assumption of shared meaning, though, and then expecting one to think or process that meaning the way they’re instructed to. It’s great for those who aren’t used to thinking for themselves, but to guide them only to a certain point and then leave them with metaphorical language and vague reference to complex theories comes across as unfinished at best, at worst all talk and no substance.
I have no real problem with neologisms, as such - more with failing to take responsibility and due care for the directed thinking process assumed by controlling meaning from the top down. It’s a bit like leading someone to an unfamiliar location, and then telling them to find their own way back.
Quoting 3017amen
I’m not quite sure what you’re saying here. Deconstruction, as I understand it, is about exploring the meaning of words beyond value or the significance of language. The instance of the word or text is the event, the definition the machine, and language the rules and laws - but meaning is what all this ultimately refers to: the relation between possibility and impossibility, and the ‘undecidable’ difference that manifests. I would have thought this renders the possibility of a consistent worldview relatable and yet indefinable as such. Neologisms don’t solve the problem, they’re just an attempt to control the uncontrollable. But this is a cursory interpretation - I haven’t formally studied Derrida, so I could be misunderstanding it completely.
Hi Possibility!
No exceptions taken on the jist of your reply, but just some clarifications if I could. I was trying to make two points.
1. The argument from 'iterability of meaning' (refer to video if you like) was that which I was referring to, where there is need to reach consensus in (contextual) definitions first, before proceeding into a debate or discussion etc. about the concept. In other words, agree (or disagree) on the definitions about the subject matter beforehand.
Another spirited/working example comes from the doctrine of vagueness:
"Where does the tail of a snake begin? When posed as a rhetorical question, the speaker is hinting that there is no definite answer. But the tail can be located by tracing down from the snake’s rib cage. A false attribution of indeterminacy will lead to the premature abandonment of inquiry. The risk of futile inquiry into questions that cannot be answered must be balanced against the risk of abandoning questions that are actually answerable. "
Anyway, you get the idea, here: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/vagueness/
2. IMO, your point about Neologisms is well taken, in that " all talk and no substance" is indeed a frustration tantamount to philosophical gibberish. Nevertheless, from my specific understanding, the context in which Gnomon posits his theories is where there is merit. Meaning, as being a sort of paradigm-buster myself (in his case him being a recovering Fundy), I have argued or suggested in the past that in the 21st century we needed to re-define many old-school belief systems that are either unsophisticated, oppressive, or otherwise deleterious to our way of Being (part of the problem and not the solution). Similarly, Derrida's work in part, was an effort in the 60's socio-political movement where change was much needed at the forefront of Vietnam war, civil rights, women's rights, etc..
Anyway, just a minor summary point about iterability:
I'm sorry you don't like my gnarly neologisms. You seem to view them as prideful dogmatic assertions of ownership of the ideas embodied in them. You may not believe me when I say that was not my intent. I was merely addressing the ambiguity and prejudicial baggage of old words in a new context. When you said "information" in 1920, it was assumed you were referring to the meaningful contents of a human mind. But in 2020, the same word now is presumed to reference the meaningless numbers of a non-human computer, processing 1s & 0s instead of concepts. Shannon focused on the material containers of Information, rather than the meaningful contents. To paraphrase John F. Kennedy, I coin new words, "not because it's easy, but because it's hard" --- and necessary.
So, most of my glossary was directed at explaining why my philosophical "enformation" is not your scientific "information". True, it's easy to make-up nonsense words, like "grok". But it's hard to encapsulate a novel concept in a single word, like EnFormAction. My Website, Glossary, and Blog are ongoing attempts to "discuss the multiple levels of meaning associated with a word such as ‘information".
On other forums, I was regularly forced to deflect implications of the Shannon term, defined by destructive Entropy. So I developed the neologism of "Enformy" to mean the constructive aspect of Energy. If you limited my thesis to standard definitions, there would be nothing new or important in it. I just checked the Glossary of Philosophical terms in Wikipedia, and "Information" is not on the list. I hope to change that omission. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glossary_of_philosophy#I
When you are introducing a new concept, new words are necessary. By spelling Enformationism with an "E" I was deliberately disassociating my meaning from Shannon's usage. As a matter of fact, in the earlier thread, I had to insist to Sushi that I was not misusing Shannon's authoritative terminology, because I was talking about a distinctly different function of "Information". In your own theory of the Fifth Dimension, you are using an old word with a new meaning*1. Which is why I've had difficulty groking what you are talking about. But I never accused you of a haughty proprietary "top-down" intent. Does the scientific definition of "Dimension" below describe your concept? Or would you define it in a different way, to clarify the distinction from the conventional meaning? Maybe you need to coin a new word that would be more suggestive of your precise meaning. See suggestion below. :cool:
First Define Your Terms : There's no one answer to this. Plato's use of language was idiosyncratic, and he often used common terms in non-standard ways as a way of reshaping how people conceptualized them. Conversely Wittgenstein believed many classic philosophical problems were reducible to language ambiguities.
https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/questions/37569/defining-terms-in-philosophy
Dimension : The concept of dimension is not restricted to physical objects. High-dimensional spaces frequently occur in mathematics and the sciences. They may be parameter spaces or configuration spaces such as in Lagrangian or Hamiltonian mechanics; these are abstract spaces, independent of the physical space we live in.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dimension
Five Dimensional Space : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Five-dimensional_space
The Fifth Dimension : https://sciencing.com/5th-dimension-11369444.html
The Intuition Dimension : a predictive distribution of attention/awareness that determines their thoughts, words and actions. — Possibility
*1 Patching old cloth with new thread : https://www.bibletools.org/index.cfm/fuseaction/Topical.show/RTD/CGG/ID/9273/New-Cloth-on-Old-Garment.htm
Just a passing comment about this very interesting gentleman. He was a pioneer British rock climber and mountaineer. He was on an expedition to the Himalaya (K2) in 1902. Also, he wrote the first British bouldering guide in 1898, illustrated by a famous artist.
It would be entertaining to read about other little known aspects of the lives of well-known philosophers - show they were not one-dimensional.
And a tiny factoid about the Schrödinger equation: Under certain (unrealistic?) restrictions, it has the form dQ/dt=CQ(t), which is the familiar expression from elementary calculus stating that the rate of change of a quantity at time=t is proportional to the amount of the quantity existing at time=t. :cool:
Measurable is not necessarily quantitative, and not necessarily spatial. These are the main assumptions that I think prevent a reasonable understanding of any kind of fifth dimension. Mathematics refers to relationships as structures, but assumes all possible values to correspond to a numerical value or range, and all relationships to be spatially relevant. All multi-dimensional theories you’ve mentioned are at least inspired by common subjective experiences of aspects to reality that cannot be explained within the three spatial dimensions we can observe and measure in relation to an arbitrary time value. Descartes ensured a systematic exclusion of these ‘doubtful’ aspects from science and mathematics for centuries, and yet these obscure theories persist because the question of how these shared experiences correlate with ‘material’ reality remains to be answered.
That something other than this 3+1 dimensional reality exists is undeniable. How we ‘measure’ or ‘observe’ the properties of these aspects such as knowledge, potentiality, value, significance, feeling, creativity and imagination without affecting the measurement or compromising either certainty or objectivity is what we haven’t been able to work out. But they’re not imaginary - just undefined and unexplained in an objective sense.
Spiritual mysteries refer to the idea of dimensions as a relational structure that is as much internally extruded into an additional aspect as externally. This corresponds to the idea of mathematical dimensions, in which a cube is basically a square extruded into an additional aspect from every point on that shape. Where they go from there, however, is to try and reify this additional aspect using purely qualitative descriptions: excluding any relation to logic, mathematics or science, controlling meaning from the top down by redefining or inventing words, and isolating their imagined structure conceptually from the physical dimensions by its formlessness.
String Theory, on the other hand, has a mathematically formulated structure isolated from subjective experience by a purely theoretical foundation. And the ‘parallel worlds’ of science fiction are based on a misinterpretation of dimensional extrusion that multiplies the existing world into isolated worlds each with randomly altered variables.
So instead, we ask the question: how do you ‘measure’ value or potentiality? The answer is paradoxical, because in order to measure anything accurately, we need to attribute value. So what we end up doing is attributing value to value, which is where the measurement problem occurs. To solve this paradox, we need to understand what it really means to ‘measure’ something without necessarily attributing a fixed value. In four dimensions, this is what we tend to call observation.
Observe: notice or perceive (something) and register it as being significant.
When we observe an event happening, we essentially relate four dimensions of information and register it as being significant. Spatially, when we observe an object, we relate three dimensions of information. When we observe a shape, we register the significance of relations between two dimensions of information. And when we observe a line, we relate a single dimension of information - the difference between two points - and register it as significant.
The thing is, when we register something as significant, we’re essentially still attributing a value or potential - just not necessarily a numerical one.
Significance: the quality of being worthy of attention.
So we’re back to the same measurement problem, except it’s now qualitative. If we remove the entire process of attributing value, what we’re left with is the relation itself.
Relate: make or show a connection between.
The same problem applies to ‘information’, which Shannon describes as “the difference that makes a difference”. To ‘make a difference’ is to have a significant effect, so if we remove this process of attributing value, what we’re left with is a difference - this is what ‘information’ means at any level, whether it’s the content of the human mind or the content of a physical message transmission, simplified to a 1 or 0 in binary code. It isn’t meaningless - it’s just reduced to the simplest form of difference that makes a difference to a physical system.
At the quantum level, the most basic difference that makes a difference would be the binary distinctions between matter and anti-matter. And interestingly, it is in relating or manifesting a connection between them as a difference that matter is able to exist at all.
Please provide references for this statement. Or, do you mean the subjective "I find it undeniable"?
Forbes: This-is-why-time-has-to-be-a-dimension
I disagree that it’s a new meaning as such, or a new concept, for that matter. I’ll grant that it’s an alternative perspective of the meaning of ‘dimension’ - and yes, this may suggest a degree of perceptual limitation to the standard definition - but the meaning doesn’t change. Information, dimension and meaning, for me, all refer to structural relations at every level of existence. I’m only recently starting to work out the complexity of navigating these kinds of discussions, but one thing I have discovered is that I can’t go about coining new words for all of these ultimately six-dimensional ‘concepts’ (another term whose definition is perceptually limited) in order to clarify their distinction from ‘conventional’ meaning. It’s much more difficult and less gratifying, but I think it’s worth the effort.
Dimension is a perfect example of a word that previously had a more limited scope in meaning. The idea of referring to ‘time’ as a dimension is fairly new, and already necessarily broadens the way we approach the meaning of the term. Prior to this inclusion, a dimension referred to any physical measurement (3D). At an earlier stage, dimensional relations could only be mapped out on a Cartesian plane (2D), and before that ‘dimensio’ simply referred to a measured relation between two points (1D). I can understand your reluctance to accept a broader meaning of the term, but given its etymological history, I hope you can understand my reluctance to simply coin a new term that disassociates the concept from its more limited usage. Where we’ve done that historically, I think we’ve paid the price with a conceptual gap in understanding, many of which, even now, resist closure.
And I don’t believe you have reason to accuse me of “a haughty proprietary ‘top down’ intent”, because I have never once suggested that meaning was something I could control. The meaning already exists, I’m only suggesting we remove the perceptual limitations set by conventional definitions, which prevent us from fully understanding its scope.
Yes. Time is not a physical thing that can be measured with a yard/meter stick. But it is a dimension only by analogy to spatial dimensions. Time measures Change. What does your Fifth Dimension measure : Meaning, Values, Significance . . . ? Like the passage of Time, such qualities are completely Subjective and Relative, until we agree on conventional units of measurement, such as objective physical Moon revolutions. What kind of units do you use to measure the structure of the Fifth Dimension? How do you "observe" that structure?
Quoting Possibility
Many world religions claim to have "worked out" how to "observe" those metaphysical properties : divine revelation, visions, mystical experiences, faith, Intuition, meditation, drug trips, etc. Are you looking for a new more certain method to measure the incommensurable? If these properties are "not imaginary" (mind pictures), does that mean they exist outside the mind, in the objective real world? If so, can we use pragmatic methods to observe them?
Incommensurable : not able to be judged by the same standard as something else; having no common standard of measurement.
BTW. I have no problem with taking Metaphysics seriously. But I try to make sure I'm not just taking it on Faith. That's why I challenge my own beliefs, with skeptical questions. :smile:
Physics & Metaphysics :
Two sides of the same coin we call Reality. When we look for matters of fact, we see physics. But when we search for meaning, we find meta-physics. A mental flip is required to view the other side. And imagination is necessary to see both at the same time.
http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page14.html
Please reference some venerable or historical definitions of the Fifth Dimension. Do they match your meaning of the term? Are they different from the examples I gave above? Do you have a new way to perceive that extra-sensory dimension, besides the methods I mentioned above?
Quoting Possibility
The problem here is that when I propose a variety of old terms referring to the same general concept, you don't accept them as correct. If my list of conventional words for the metaphysical dimension are missing your point, what is the relevant difference? Wouldn't a new terminology help to make the distinction you are implying? If you are trying to avoid traditional religious and mystical definitions, why not give us a new interpretation of the ancient concept? How is the Fifth Dimension different from old fashioned Spiritualism?
BTW. After a Google search on "Fifth Dimension", I couldn't find anything that seems to match your meaning. So aren't you using old words with new definitions (i.e. neologisms)? How is 5th Dimension different from the Akashic Field, or from Heaven?
Quoting Possibility
If you can't control the meaning of your words, then they can mean whatever the reader wants them to mean. Why do you think philosophers throughout the years have spilt so much ink on defining conventional words, and so often resorted to creating new terms with no prior baggage? Was Kant haughty when he coined the term "categorical imperative" and "pure reason", by combining old words into novel concepts? Enformationism is a new paradigm, which would be incomprehensible in terms of the old paradigms of Materialism or Spiritualism.
How do you propose to "remove the perceptual limitations set by conventional definitions", without proposing unconventional meanings? Do you think that consciousness raising will magically remove millennia of prejudicial interpretations of common words? Demonizing the blunt term "cripple" in favor of "handicapped" or "impaired", may have changed attitudes toward certain previously marginalized people, but if you continue to use old spiritual terminology, how can you change attitudes toward the variety of uncompromising religions with us-versus-them attitudes toward their fellow spiritualists? How can you remove the perceptual limitations of seekers like me, who were raised with Biblical definitions of spiritual concepts? :cool:
"The beginning of wisdom is the definition of terms" ___attributed to Socrates
“If you wish to converse with me, define your terms.” ____Voltaire
Neologisms : Like many other philosophers, Kant introduced a new terminology, consisting of a mixture of neologisms and expressions borrowed from tradition and given a new meaning.
https://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Immanuel_Kant
One word, one meaning fallacy : to assume that your definition of a word is the same as the meaning of the same word in another person's mind.
I am enjoying this dialog, in part, because I sense that you and I have similar aspirations. For example, I am trying, in my own idiosyncratic way, to legitimize the concepts of Metaphysics and Spiritualism, which were banished from scientific and philosophical discourse most decisively by Descartes. His Body/Soul division was later called "non-overlapping magisteria" by S.J. Gould. It gave science license to investigate all of Nature, except the aspects we are all most intimately familiar with : our own experiences & feelings & ideas. Yet those of other people remain shrouded in myths and "spiritual mysteries".
The so-called "Enlightenment" was a necessary correction to the Dark Ages. IMHO, It was justified in rebelling against the dogmatic magisteria of the combined church & state of the Holy Roman Empire. Since then, Empirical Science has gained dominance among the intellectual elite, while Spiritualism, in its many incompatible forms, still dominates the lives of the non-intellectual masses. Apparently, like me, you feel that this attempted amputation of Soul from Body favors one part over the whole system. But most attempts to patch the rift tend to favor one side over the other : Reason vs Emotion. Even the empiricist philosopher, David Hume, noted that "Reason is, and ought only to be the slave of the passions." But he was not advocating a return to the submission of individual reasoning to collective passions in the form of organized Religion. Instead, " All I insist is that it is fantasy to pretend that reason can provide the fundamental foundations for our hopes, ambitions or morality". My proposed patch for the Matter vs Mind split is the BothAnd philosophy.
Bernardo Kastrup, in the book I'm currently reading, is also on the same mission. But we are all approaching the goal from different directions. He even seems to have a concept similar to your Fifth Dimension. He observes, "since we all seem to share the same world, there has to be a broader cognitive space --- beyond just perceptions". He describes that "higher dimension" in spatial terms resembling yours in the quote above : "a cognitive space not only comprising, but also surrounding, perception". His "space" is also transcendent in a sense that you might agree with : "consensus experiences live in a transpersonal cognitive space, instead of an individual mind." You'll have to read the book to see how he defines his personal "consensus reality". Hint : it's not simply objective reality, or socially-constructed realty. Anyway, the point of the book seems to be that we know and discuss that transcendent reality in terms of symbols, myths, metaphors, and analogies. Kastrup seeks to reconcile the thousands of contradictory mythical narratives by discovering their essential commonalities, as suggested by Joseph Campbell, in Myths To Live By. I may not completely agree with his prescription for what ails the modern fragmented world. But we seem to be looking in the same direction. :cool:
Consensus Reality : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consensus_reality
BothAnd Philosophy : http://bothandblog5.enformationism.info/page6.html
Thanks! The whole point of Enformationism is "paradigm busting", not merely saying the same old thing in strange words.
Unfortunately, I grew-up in the era of Modernism. So I missed the "corrections" of Post-Modernism. I once tried to read a book by Michel Foucault, but I got lost in his paragraph-long sentences. :joke:
Quoting Gnomon
It's unclear what you mean by 'spiritualism' but it's odd that you believe metaphysics has been banished from philosophical discourse.
Quoting Gnomon
Also odd, like blanketly claiming that a natural development is correct. How do we know that things developed the best (correct) way possible? Perhaps God informed you that this was a correction to an error?
Quoting Gnomon
The rebellion was justified because of the dogmatism or because of something else? I'm sure bad stuff happened during the dark ages but it's not like whatever bad that was happening went **poof** after the "so-called" "enlightenment."
The third oddity is how you seem to simultaneously acknowledge the value of the enlightenment and question its value. It was a correction (for some reason) to the dark ages but caused the "attempted amputation of Soul from Body" or "Reason vs Emotion" rift, and therefore requires a patch for the "Matter vs Mind" split.
There is no attempted amputation and there's no rift or split. You've created a false dilemma so that you can try to provide a false solution. It shouldn't be a surprise that no one is buying.
A loss of meaning can only be resolved with something that is meaningful.
If you're going to butt-in, at least become familiar with the discussion.
Quoting praxis
I have repeatedly contrasted Spiritualism with Materialism as antagonistic worldviews. FYI, I'm using "Spiritualism" in a broad sense, not limited to the 19th century table-tipping fad by that name. For those who have been living under a rock for the last century, I'll note that the "rift" between Science (physics) and Religion (metaphysics) has been a hot topic in philosophy since the Enlightenment. And the clear trend among philosophers has been to side with Physics. Or is that also Fake News? Are you just being contrary, or do you have something to add to the thread?
Spiritualism : the doctrine that the spirit exists as distinct from matter, or that spirit is the only reality.
The Uneasy Revival of Metaphysics : https://philpapers.org/rec/DEGTUR
Healing the Rift : Bridging the Gap Between Science and Spirituality
https://www.amazon.com/Healing-Rift-Bridging-Spirituality-Hardcover/dp/B002VH4QW8
Quoting praxis
No. It was just a personal opinion. Do you know what "IMHO" means? If you disagree with that opinion, start another thread. :razz:
Quoting praxis
Are you also a Global Warming denier? :joke:
I suspect that Possibility is aware and concerned about this philosophical dilemma, for which the Fifth Dimension theory is a proposed partial solution. If the "Rift" is no concern of yours, please butt out. :cool:
PS___To turn your attention away from this thread, I could reference hundreds of book on the topic of "The Rift". Here's a short list : https://www.goodreads.com/shelf/show/science-vs-religion
A measurement of time is the relation of a perception of change to an observer, but there is no universal measure of time.
[i]“This is time for us: a multi-layered, complex concept with multiple, distinct properties deriving from various different approximations.
Many discussions of the concept of time are confused because they simply do not recognise its complex and multi-layered aspect. They make the mistake of not seeing that the different layers are independent.”[/i] - Carlo Rovelli
The analogy to spatial dimensions often leads to an oversimplification of what ‘time’ is, based on the misunderstanding that ‘space’ as a dimensional existence refers to a container instead of a multi-layered, complex conceptual structure of three, two and one-dimensional relations.
We ‘observe’ value, potential and significance whenever we think, speak and act. In particular when we act, we ‘collapse the wavefunction’, so to speak, and manifest an event.
Quoting Gnomon
But what they often fail to acknowledge is that the methods by which they ‘observe’ those metaphysical relations (which we refer to as ‘properties’) necessarily affect the structure, objectivity and certainty of their observation. What I’m looking for is a clearer understanding of how different methods and their limitations affect any observation, and then what we can do to improve the accuracy of these methods, and ultimately the accuracy of any interaction with reality.
Objectively speaking, what we call ‘properties’ are more accurately ‘relations’ - they don’t really belong to any particular object, event or experience, but more accurately refer to relations between their components. Knowledge is not a property I possess, but refers to complex relations between me and the events with which I interact. Even spatial ‘properties’ such as volume refer more accurately to relations between molecules (which are themselves relational structures between atoms, which are relations between particles) rather than what ‘belongs’ to the water, for instance. I just wanted to try and clear this up before we go any further.
So, these metaphysical ‘properties’ can be understood as complex relations between lower dimension relational structures, but don’t necessarily recognise the isolated relational structure to which we subjectively attribute them as a ‘property’, but rather relate to all nested structural relations down to matter/anti-matter. So to call them ‘mind pictures’ is to oversimplify the complexity of this relational structure between internal and external reality.
I understand your dissatisfaction with where I’m at in developing my theory. I have referred to this fifth dimension with a number of different terms for convenience - including potentiality, value, and more recently affect - but I’ve yet to settle on a specific term because this is still a work in progress, and I believe that a definition at this stage will limit what I’m trying to achieve. I’m not deliberately trying to be evasive - I’m trying to preserve the uncertain nature of the objective reality I’m referring to. If I define this fifth dimension, then it becomes subjective, and all the work I’m doing is lost.
As for a way to ‘perceive’ this dimension (as opposed to observing it, which is something else), I have referred a number of times to the neuroscientific theory developed by Lisa Feldman Barrett, which explains the relation between emotion, affect, brain activity and behaviour, and the way we develop, test and refine our conceptual structures. She begins by debunking the classical view of emotions as instinctive, inherent and universal, and then goes on to propose a theory of emotion, based on neuroscientific research in relation to psychology, which presents emotions as conceptual structures we develop by relating, distinguishing and recognising patterns across instances of affect. It is this affect, as a dual aspect of what she refers to as ‘valence’ (pleasant/unpleasant) and ‘arousal’ (high/low energy), that describes a mental reduction of qualitative/quantitative potentiality and value into a predictive map of attention and effort requirements for the organism. What she’s essentially describing is a neural link between mental and physical states, in a way that supports my own theory of the fifth dimension as potentiality and value, and fits in with quantum interpretations of potential reality (qualia notwithstanding). If I’m not entirely clear on how this all fits together, it’s because I’ve only recently started to piece it together.
Quoting Gnomon
I’m approaching this from a different perspective to you, so bear with me. And I will reiterate that I have no issue with neologisms as such - I just think we need to be more cautious with how we employ them at this level of discussion. Kant wrote in the context of a very different world - your reference to @3017amen about missing ‘the corrections of post-modernism’ seems relevant here (and also goes some way towards explaining your concern with the materialism/spiritualism divide). In contrast, I was at university during the 1990s (not studying philosophy, though), so you could say my view is steeped in post-modernism to some extent. ‘Haughty’ was historically par for the course among philosophers, particularly of Kant’s era. But ‘categorical imperative’ is quite a different novel concept to ‘enformation’, in my view. I don’t believe that license to ignore ‘prior baggage’ is sufficient reason to coin a new term. You’re only avoiding the necessity to eventually unpack that baggage and reconstruct a relation to the original term.
Words identify the significance of conceptual structures (patterns across instances) in relation to reality, and are taught to infants by adults.
“Infants thereby learn to categorise the world in a way that is consistent, meaningful, and predictable to us (the speakers), and eventually to themselves. Their mental model of the world becomes similar to ours, so we can communicate, share experiences, and perceive the same world.” - Feldman Barrett, ‘How Emotions Are Made’
My aim here, however, is not to develop your mental model of the world to match mine, but rather to demonstrate the possible existence of meaning beyond the limitations of either of our existing mental models. I’m not the one assuming my definition of a word is the same as the meaning of the same word in another’s mind. Your words will mean whatever the reader wants them to mean, regardless of how you define them. Every word of your definition is open to subjective interpretation, which is what ultimately points to a perception of your meaning. So, in the end, your attempt to control meaning is futile.
Quoting Gnomon
Your example refers to reconceptualising reality so that an existing definition is attributed a less isolating or ignorant perspective in relation to meaning. I’m not trying to change the significance - I’m trying to broaden the definition to allow the existing identity of its conceptual structure to be less ignorant in relation to meaning. There’s a difference.
I think that increasing awareness, connection and collaboration will eventually succeed in removing the limited perspectives of conventional definitions. We can’t always enforce a paradigm shift from the top down, but eventually those who continue in their ignorance, isolation or exclusion will be in the minority, as is often the case.
Please let me know where I have been using ‘old spiritual terminology’, and I will try to clarify - I wasn’t aware of this. I, too, was raised with Biblical definitions of spiritual concepts, so that might have something to do with it...
I agree that our aspirations have some similarities, and also enjoy discussing your theory because I see a lot of merit to it. The ideas you have brought together follow my own lines of inquiry.
I’ll be honest with you, though - my aim is not to legitimise any ‘isms’ or to go in to bat for the validity of metaphysical ‘woo’ or ‘spiritual mysteries’. I won’t dismiss them as such, but I don’t find the divisive language at all helpful. I do also agree with the ‘oddities’ raised by @praxis - I think they’re valid concerns that you may need to address at some stage. There remains an affective and sometimes even political loading to your language which implies a blanket dismissiveness on the part of science, philosophy or fundamental religion to any collaboration between physics and metaphysics, but I have found plenty of evidence to the contrary, at least in physics, neuroscience, biology and philosophy, as well as in progressive Christian circles. I’m under the impression that you have, too, to some extent - despite your apparent concern with this perpetual divide between ‘isms’.
Personally, I’m of the opinion that we should proceed as if there was NO ideological divide, instead of continually repeating outdated battlecries based on past ignorance. My concern is with the gaps in understanding between mental and physical states of the brain, consciousness, will and action, actuality and potentiality, quantum and observable interpretations of reality, and between life and lifeless matter. In my opinion, philosophy has made more genuine progress in bridging these gaps in understanding than anyone else, and science (yes, even physics) is taking its cues from this. While my own theory did originate from a more spiritual perspective, I find the top-down control and ambiguity of spiritualism hinders rather than helps in bridging these gaps. This probably results in a tendency on my part to reject spiritualist language. I find there is more scope to broaden scientific language to embrace metaphysical notions than to guide the diversity of spiritual language towards an accurate rendering of science.
I would like to get to Kastrup, but my time is limited and Deacon is slow-going. From what I can see, Kastrup’s reference to an alternate ‘space’ might be limiting, particularly given his focus on qualitative attention, as this may not lend itself to extending ‘attention’ all the way to the origin of existence. It remains to be seen, I suppose.
Start with definitions - yes, I agree here. From there, we proceed into discussions regarding the structure of the concept, with the aim to approach a shared meaning. The trouble arises, however, when someone enters the discussion with a new definition-word-concept package as an attempt to control meaning from the start. That changes the discussion to an evaluation or critical analysis of a particular belief system in relation to its perspective of truth.
Quoting 3017amen
I’m with you here. Not sure how it applies to my comments, though.
Quoting 3017amen
I recognise the need to re-define old-school belief systems, and I think Gnomon is aware of my affinity with his theory and this aim in particular. I don’t believe the way to achieve this is by coining new terms, though, but by broadening awareness and removing limitations on the isolating and ignorant definitions of existing terms.
Do you have some kind of image or diagram to illustrate the multilayered structure of space? The diagram below is a simplified interpretation of 3 dimensions, and could also illustrate the fourth dimension by moving the diagram from one point in time to another. String theorists have developed some computer renderings to represent their extra mathematically defined dimensions. Can your Fifth Dimension be represented in a similar manner? Or is it something else altogether?
Shape of String Space : https://news.wisc.edu/physicists-find-way-to-see-extra-dimensions/
Quoting Possibility
This sounds similar to my own notion that, fundamentally, Information consists of inter-relations --- not between Things but Possibilities --- that can be represented as geometric ratios. One of the "properties" of complex & integrated relationships is what we interpret as Meaning. Simpler patterns are merely mathematical, but can be used as syntactical Shannon Information to compute higher order patterns, that we can translate back into semantic meanings. This is just the beginning of new way to think about Information. But I'm afraid it will take someone much smarter than me to develop it into a structured concept that can be understood by the average person.
Quoting Possibility
Unfortunately, human understanding mostly takes the form of "mind pictures" : simplified icons analogous to "real" things out there in the world. If you want to communicate your own abstract concepts to others, you'll have to dumb them down into simplistic pictures of more familiar things. :nerd:
My intent is not to "legitimize" those -isms as isolated traditions, but to integrate "woo" & "mysteries" into a whole system with empirical Science. Most scientists and atheists "dismiss" ancient metaphysical notions as non-sense. Yet I think the pre-scientific religious founders and philosophers were just as smart as modern materialists. They were simply using metaphorical language to describe transcendent concepts. Unfortunately, some of their followers took their metaphors too literally and dogmatically.
This is the point that Bernardo Kastrup is trying to make in his book, More Than Allegory. His previous "book is The Idea of the World: A multi-disciplinary argument for the mental nature of reality." In other words, Idealism. Which is also the point of Enformationism. Neither of these is a rejection of Realism, but a reinterpretation of reality in terms of Quantum and Information theories. By combining the science of the mundane physical world with the myths of the sublime mental world, we may learn to dispel ancient mysteries without divine revelations.
Ironically, my first impression of your transcendent Fifth Dimension theory was that it attempts to validate "metaphysical woo", such as New Age notions of higher dimensions :joke:
Quoting Possibility
That is the complete opposite to my intent. On this forum I am often critical of Scientism, but that's only in response to posters who are hard atheists, and dismissive of anything that smacks of religion. I, personally, am not religious at all. And I could be labeled "spiritual" only because I seriously entertain metaphysical notions that are anathema to physicists. BTW, FWIW, I am also completely a-political --- a militant moderate. My personal worldview is built upon cutting-edge science, not ancient religion.
The BothAnd Philosophy : From a philosophical point-of-view, I think the current “Mexican stand-off” in politics & religion results from a few extremists on left & right imposing their adamant Either/Or worldviews upon the more moderate masses, with the effect of almost eliminating the middle ground of peace & harmony. So, my proposed solution to the polarization problem is to adopt a moderate & inclusive Both/And attitude toward the world and its vicissitudes.
http://bothandblog6.enformationism.info/page2.html
Quoting Possibility
That sounds like a fatalistic Postmodern attitude toward communication of ideas. Like Marxism, it assumes that all human behavior boils down to brutal us-versus-them politics. I am optimistically searching for some common ground in the "Better Angels of Our Nature". :cool:
Transcendent : beyond or above the range of normal or merely physical human experience. [ i.e. meta-physical or mental ]
That is the point of the BothAnd philosophy.
The BothAnd Philosophy :
[i]Philosophy is the study of ideas & beliefs. Not which are right or wrong – that is the province of Religion and Politics – but which are closer to universal Truth. That unreachable goal can only be approximated by Reason & Consensus, which is the method of Science. In addition to ivory tower theories, applied Philosophy attempts to observe the behavior of wild ideas in their natural habitat.
The BothAnd philosophy is primarily Metaphysical, in that it is concerned with Ontology, Epistemology, & Cosmology. Those categories include abstract & general concepts, such as : G*D, existence, causation, Logic, Mathematics, & Forms. Unlike pragmatic scientific "facts" about the physical world, idealistic Metaphysics is a battle-ground of opinions & emotions.
The BothAnd principle is one of Balance, Symmetry and Proportion. It eschews the absolutist positions of Idealism, in favor of the relative compromises of Pragmatism. It espouses the Practical Wisdom of the Greek philosophers, instead of the Perfect Wisdom of the Hebrew Priests. The BA principle of practical wisdom requires “skin in the game”* to provide real-world feedback, which counter-balances the extremes of Idealism & Realism. That feedback establishes limits to freedom and boundaries to risk-taking. BA is a principle of Character & Virtue, viewed as Phronesis or Pragmatism, instead of Piety or Perfectionism.
The BA philosophy is intended to be based on empirical evidence where possible, but to incorporate reasonable speculation were necessary. As my personal philosophy, the basic principle is fleshed-out in the worldview of Enformationism, which goes out of the Real world only insofar as to establish the universal Ground of Being, and the active principle in Evolution.[/i]
http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page10.html
* ref : Skin In The Game, by Nassim Nicholas Taleb; researcher in philosophical, mathematical, and (mostly) practical problems with probability.
Quoting Possibility
I too, avoid the use of spiritual language (mostly metaphors for transcendence), except as necessary to re-define them into 21st century concepts, compatible with the best of modern science.
You do it your way, and I'll do it mine. Critiquing and de-constructing out-of-date terminology is my way of "broadening awareness" and eliminating "ideological biases". :cool:
Note : I don't often use Postmodern terminology, but in this case it seems appropriate.
Sorry, that was a generic "you" in the quote. I wasn't saying that Possibility was using spiritual terminology.
Actually, my problem here is that you (Possibility) are using mundane terminology in an unconventional sense. I have repeatedly asked for your own personal definition of what the "Fifth Dimension" is, and how it relates to me. I even quoted several scientific definitions, that don't seem to apply to your theory. So, it seems that you are expecting me to grasp your totally abstract meaning intuitively. But my meager talent for intuition needs some grounding in reality. And that's the role of metaphors. Not to be taken literally, but to be intuited figuratively. Now, after all these wordy posts, I still don't know what the Fifth Dimension is, or does --- just that it's out there somewhere, measuring something.
I don't understand your visceral distrust of definitions, but I'm guessing that it may come from the Postmodern philosophy taught in colleges since I graduated back in the fading Modern era. Concepts that are left undefined are ambiguous, and can be interpreted in many ways, not necessarily how the author intended. To me, that's like a farmer scattering a bunch of uncategorized seeds, with no concern whether they will grow into corn or weeds. Unfortunately, the freedom for each reader to "construct" his own meaning results in a Tower of Babble.
So, I remain, yours truly, Confused. :brow: :confused:
To Define : [i]1. state or describe exactly the nature, scope, or meaning of.
2. mark out the boundary or limits of.[/i]
Postmodernism themes :
[i]1. The rejection of ultimate sources of meaning and truth.
3. Language is not something that reveals, but constructs.
5. The inherent instability of meaning.
6. The Death of the Author/Artist.
12. The inevitability and productivity of tension, confusion,contradiction, and ambiguity.[/i]
https://webs.wofford.edu/whisnantcj/his389/Postmodernism.pdf
PS___Number 6 above helps me to understand why you accuse me of being a haughty strutting Auteur.
To help avoid potential confusion in the future, I suggest that you consider contrasting materialism with idealism and try not to think of metaphysics as something synonymous with spiritualism but rather something more like theorizing about the nature of reality.
I understand this oddity now, for what that's worth.
Quoting Gnomon
It's not that I disagree with your opinion, rather I'm curious about how you arrived at it, given the curious way you present the opinion as a 'correction'. If you say there's a correction it implies that there's a plan or grand design that the correction helps to fulfill. I'm not aware of any teleological destination that the enlightenment helps to achieve. In any case, you seem to believe that the enlightenment is inadequate in itself for this grand end and may even hinder its fruition.
Quoting Gnomon
No, I'm not a global warming denier, nor do I deny that modernity has serious issues. The problem is that your focus on this rift doesn't address these issues. It's like you're mistaking mild symptoms for the disease.
I haven't been following your discussion with Possibility. However, having read several posts from both of you my impression is that Possibility is doing philosophy and you're doing something else. I think that you could do what you're doing much better if you realized and fully embraced what it is that you're doing, rather than pretending to be doing something that you're not doing. I acknowledge that you may know perfectly well what you're trying to do but are simply not good at it.
You're welcome!
It's been a very intriguing thread. I'm a John Wheeler/Physicist fan, and enjoy reading his theories about Information, thus (excerpt from a paper on conscious thoughts occurring 'outside' the brain/ Dirk K.F. Meijer, University of Groningen, The Netherlands) :
"Can our personal information survive?
This is where the "information theory", mentioned above, comes into play. Assuming with Wheeler that everything in the universe is composed of matter, energy, and information, according to the “Energy Conservation Law”, energy cannot be destroyed. It follows that also the information that constitutes us, may not disappear altogether. In this context, Prof. Meijer brings me back to the supposed consciousness workspace, that preserves an up-to-date picture of our total personal state of art. "If quantum information, like energy, cannot be destroyed, it is theoretical possible that when our brain dies, when we pass away, the information stored around our brain survives in some other dimension, an aspect that may be revealed in NDE conditions. "
I was simply making an analogous assertion that defining the terms, is paramount to any spirited discussion.
Quoting Possibility
Indeed, well, how would you suggest we reconcile novel approaches to new/old concepts? No pun intended however, living in the 'information age', is it appropriate that we frame our new paradigms with similarly new words/concepts (I'm not a Lexicographer, but don't dictionaries evolve)?
If you think that you can ‘see’ six dimensions in the image that the string theory article shows, then you’re kidding yourself. What they’re expecting from you is the same thing you’re accusing me of expecting: faith. Your faith is in their calculations. If you ignore the four familiar dimensions entirely, then it’s mathematically possible to formulate a six-dimensional existence - that’s essentially what my theory is based on, and what this computer rendering demonstrates for those who can do the maths. To the rest of us, the computer rendering at best illustrates four dimensions IF you watch it in action instead of trusting that the 2D image you’re presented with in the article really does represent six dimensions. What it doesn’t answer is how they propose that this exists ‘hidden’ at every point in the universe. The maths is not in question - it’s the interpretation of how it all relates to our four dimensional observable reality that varies and, in the case of String Theory, fails to convince. It’s basically a form of calculation that gives scientists the potential location of an unknown planet from what information they have about known planets nearby: a cosmos-level mathematical function similar to quantum theory. Its inclusion of GR is important to keep in mind as a counterbalance to QT, but its application and interpretation at the human level of experience is even less convincing than quantum theory.
Quoting Gnomon
It is very similar, yes. Geometric ratios is basically what I mean by dimensional structures of relation. Meaning as a six-dimensional relational structure allows for a broader or ‘objective’ sense of this concept of ‘information’. Meaning is not only a feature of complex and integrated relations, but of
EVERY relation, from an holistic concept of the Absolute down to the simplest relation of matter/anti-matter - two extremes that approach the same idea. At the highest level of existence and at the lowest level of reduction, we find the same binary relation - regardless of what word or value or significance we attribute - that fundamentally means I/0, or existence and its negation. To exist or not to exist: that is the question.
Meaning or what matters regardless of value is six-dimensional information. It is a concept that is both infinitely meaningful and meaningless in itself. Value/potential, what matters regardless of time or whether anything changes, is five-dimensional information. Time/duration/change, what matters regardless of where and what a relation is or how it got there, is four-dimensional information. The space/sensibility/measurability of something, what matters regardless of how the relation takes place, is three-dimensional information. The shape of the relation, what matters regardless of the energy/distance involved, is two-dimensional information. And the effort/attention itself, what matters regardless whether or not any relation is even possible, is one-dimensional information. Which brings us back to the possibility/impossibility of anything existing at all: this binary relation fundamental to existence. That’s my current attempt to explain it, anyway.
Yeah I got that loud and clear. Still not entirely sure why, though.
Quoting Gnomon
My reference to ‘political’ was in relation to power relations, not politics as such. You portray spiritualism as hard done by or oppressed by science in general, when what you intend to do is call individuals on their dismissive attitude towards the language that you use. I understand your defensiveness, but as I’ve explained I also understand their attitude. The language of spiritualism is often aimed at trying to control meaning rather than discuss the accuracy of concepts or definitions. It’s very easy to come across as apologetic, even if that’s not your intention. I’ve learned to use spiritualist language sparingly - not because I don’t believe, but because I’m not going to argue in defence of personal beliefs using the language of a belief system.
Quoting Gnomon
If you’re NOT trying to control meaning, then I think your approach might be misguided. But you did say that was your aim with neologisms. I understand that this search for common ground is your overall intention. I’m suggesting that your execution needs work - at least here on this forum.
That correlation wasn't my idea. Aristotle's Metaphysics has been associated with Religion and Spiritualism for thousands of years. For the purposes of my thesis, I have a completely different interpretation of what Aristotle was talking about.
Spiritualism is a metaphysical belief that the world is made up of at least two fundamental substances, matter and spirit. ... It is also a term commonly used for various psychic or paranormal practices and beliefs recorded throughout humanity's history and in a variety of cultures.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spiritualism_(beliefs)
Meta-Physics : http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page14.html
Quoting praxis
My comment was a general impression, not an assertion based on historical research. But, FWIW, I do believe that there is something like Teleology at work in the world. This is not a Christian teleology as proposed by Hegel, but a scientific teleology based on the upward curve of Evolution. The key difference from Christian teleology, is the inference from evolutionary history that the world was not designed fait accompli in the let-there-be Genesis manner, but it was Programmed as an ongoing self-developing system. The mechanism of the program is basically Darwinian, but updated to include Quantum and Information processing.
Enformation :Ironically, it was Science, not Religion, that revealed the teleological tendencies of the natural world -- that it is evolving in a positive direction.
http://www.bothandblog.enformationism.info/page29.html
Cosmic Progression : http://bothandblog3.enformationism.info/page28.html
Quoting praxis
I doubt that you have any idea what my focus is on this topic. You'd have to read the thesis and subsequent blog posts to get a good idea of how I address the Rift. My posts in this thread have been mostly responses to criticism of specific details, not the whole concept of Enformationism.
Quoting praxis
What I'm doing is not academic philosophy focused on a narrow topic. Instead it's a general universal Theory of Everything, and is based primarily on post-classical 21st century scientific discoveries, such as Quantum Theory and Information Theory. More to the point, it's my personal worldview, and philosophical principle. It's not a religious narrative for the masses, or a scientific paper for specialists. It's my layman's understanding of how the world works, and my role in it. Is that philosophy? :cool:
Whatever, it was just a suggestion that would help to avoid misunderstandings when you say things like 'metaphysics was banished from philosophical discourse'.
Quoting Gnomon
Assuming that what's positive for human beings is positive for everything, how can we be sure that evolution is going well for us? Perhaps evolution took a very bad turn at some point and the earth will shortly end up a radioactive wasteland, or die a much slower death because of us. You're not a climate change denier, I trust.
A philosophical forum is full of "misunderstandings". That's the point of ongoing dialog : to learn how other people interpret our words, and to either change our words, or to change their minds. But both words (concepts) and minds (belief systems) are hard to change. Yet, as philosophers, we keep stubbornly trying to change the world with words instead of with swords. :worry:
Quoting praxis
I don't assume that the point of Evolution (the Program) is to make things better for us homo sapiens. In the overall scheme of things, we may be merely one brief experiment among millions of trials & errors. But, at this point in time, we seem to be the only species with knowledge of Good & Evil, and awareness of Past & Future. That's why human Culture has assumed that Nature is not looking-out for us, and the gods are unreliable, so we have to look-out for ourselves. Modern science has taken over the role of ancient deities, by working miracles (e.g. vaccines) specifically to make evolution go better for our kind. We are our own Chosen People. :smile:
Moral Progress : Cultural evolution seems to work with the same trial & error principles as the natural kind, except that human Will (and reasoning) is the primary cause of Cultural Selection. And Steven Pinker has found that human cultures are actually progressing morally and technologically. Moral progress was the topic of his previous book : The Better Angels of Our Nature.
http://bothandblog.enformationism.info/page73.html [note 4 popup]
Because the term "Fifth Dimension", is associated in my mind primarily with the New Age of Aquarius notion of a transcendent level of consciousness. Since you evaded my requests for your own personal definition, that's all I had to go on. Except for the various other scientific or pseudo-scientific applications of that terminology, that I linked to, and you shrugged off. So, what is it : Woo or Science? Or both??? :wink:
What is the Fifth Dimension? : https://andreaoneness.com/fifth-dimension/
Quoting Possibility
That is how Spiritualists view themselves : as punching bags for science. (I am not a Spiritualist). So, I can also sympathize with materialist scientists, who feel besieged by god-fearing Fundamentalist Christians and Muslims. (I am not a materialist) I can argue for or against both sides, because my personal philosophy is BothAnd. :yum:
Science vs Spirituality : Fritjof Capra explores how Science and Spirituality can be fused in an integrated system that returns us to a sense of oneness with the natural world.
https://upliftconnect.com/science-and-spirituality/
Quoting Possibility
But, I AM trying to control the meaning of words that I use to express my personal worldview. Is that approach misguided? If I fail to convey my meaning, what's the point of the message? Did you think I was trying to define Ultimate Truth? :nerd:
New meanings require new words : Neologisms are often driven by changes in culture and technology,
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neologism
“When I use a word,” Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, “it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less".
I think it would be sufficient if you simply learned what most understand metaphysics to be and consequently used the word appropriately so as not to cause needless miscommunication.
Quoting Gnomon
Pinker is definitely an optimist. Still, the claim that evolution is moving in a positive direction remains unjustified.
I have given some thought to that question. And my answer is "maybe". When your body turns to dust, the information associated with that matter is dissipated, like Entropy. But, if G*D, the Programmer, has some good reason to recompile your personal information pattern, you wouldn't "survive", but you could be re-incarnated. But, since I don't have a plausible revelation of G*D's will, I'm not banking on having a second chance to get my life right. For me, it's now or never. :cool:
When Descartes, in a thought experiment, arbitrarily divided metaphysical Soul from physical Body, it was based on the observation that they are of different "natures" (properties). But, in the real world, Mind/Body is a unit. Physical properties and Metaphysical qualities combine to form a dynamic whole system : the person. A similar science-fiction thought experiment was the Transporter of Star Trek. In theory, it scanned your personal definitive information, and converted it into computer code, which was then beamed across space in the form of energy. Then the impersonal energy was translated back into personal information, and thence back into a physical form. NIce! However, in more than one episode, the writers explored the mind-bending question : is the reconstituted body really my Self/
Soul, or a new person altogether? :chin:
Again you missed the point of my unconventional worldview. I think "what most understand metaphysics to be" is either Super-Natural, or an impractical abstraction from natural real-world Physics. The medieval definition of "Metaphysics", emphasized the essential distinction between Body and Soul. Later, the modern interpretation of the same word, has placed Mind/Soul under the general category of matter-based Physics. But, my definition of "what lies Beyond Physics" is, I think, actually closer to what Aristotle had in mind when he divided his encyclopedia into materialistic Physics (science) and mentalistic Metaphysics (philosophy). The ideas discussed in volume II were focused on our human concepts & attitudes about Nature and Culture. Hence, what I mean by "Metaphysics" is the mental aspects of the world, including Cultural Evolution as contrasted with Natural Evolution. To use old words for new concepts would lead to complete "miscommunication" my intent and meaning.
Since you seem to prefer conservative traditional philosophical terms, your definition of "Metaphysics" can be found in conventional dictionaries, as Ontology, etc. But, since my radical worldview is proposing a new paradigm of reconciled Science, Philosophy, & Religion, I've had to translate those broad abstractions into specific modern metaphors. For example, what the priests called "Spirit", and scientists call "Energy", I call "EnFormAction". :cool:
[ Note : the smilie icon above could mean "I'm cool", or "blind", or "arrogant" depending on context and preconceptions. I use it to mean that "I mean no offense" ]
Metaphysical vs Supernatural : the metaphysical derives from laws of nature, the supernatural derives from outside laws of nature. Thus, for example, one cannot use gravity or electromagnetic fields or strong force to study the attributes of the supernatural. The metaphysical examines "what exists", the physical "how it exists", the supernatural "what exists outside existence". I do not see this as a dualism between philosophy vs religion but between existence vs nonexistence.
https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/metaphysical-vs-supernatural.129313/
Meta-Physics : Aristotle divided his treatise on science into two parts. The world as-known-via-the-senses was labeled “physics” - what we call "Science" today. And the world as-known-by-the-mind, by reason, was labeled “metaphysics” - what we now call "Philosophy" .
http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page14.html
Metaphysics is the branch of philosophy that examines the fundamental nature of reality, including the relationship between mind and matter, between substance and attribute, and between potentiality and actuality
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metaphysics
Sure, do whatever you have to in order to understand science, philosophy, and religion better, but again, if you want to be understood, learn the meaning of words and use them appropriately. Clearly, it is not your aim to be understood, however, and that is in part why I say that you're doing something other than philosophy here.
A ‘definition’ of a concept is a practical reduction of meaningful information, an attempt to represent a particular pattern of experience in such a way as to minimise any uncertainty (noise or entropy) in sending or receiving this meaningful information between systems at a practical level. This works in theory, so long as the transmission of information occurs between systems that are otherwise identical, or at least between systems where the differences are known and adjusted for. But humans are not identical, and our potential differences are many and largely unknown.
We commonly define an abstract concept by using words that represent other abstract concepts. For instance, a definition of ‘anger’ is stated as “a strong feeling of annoyance, displeasure or hostility”. How does this define anger? It provides examples of similarly patterned concepts so that something about your experience in relation to these words resonates in your existing conceptual structure with more certainty than the word ‘anger’, and enables you to use this information to predict the variable pattern of value represented by the word ‘anger’ (in much the same way as string theorists use known values regarding surrounding planets to predict the variable pattern of value in relation to an unknown planet, as described earlier). This is described as ‘intuitive’ only because we’re not often conscious of the process, or we have an inaccurate understanding of it. The classical misunderstanding of emotion as an ‘instinctual’ bodily system fighting against the suppression of a ‘rational’ mental system is a perfect example of this inaccurate understanding, and Feldman Barrett’s concept theory of emotions opens the door to apply quantum information theories in resolving the mind-body problem.
It’s not that I’m distrusting definitions - it’s that concepts, being patterns of experience, are inherently uncertain and variable, and so any stated definition is not a true instance of that concept, only a representation of the pattern of experience. So I’m pointing out the limited perspectives in which these concepts are defined, because I think it’s possible to work charitably (if uncertainly) towards a shared meaning about particular concepts that would encompass both materialist and idealist perspectives and enable us to more accurately define (ie. reduce) these concepts for practical purposes.
You’re assuming that you can determine my exact meaning from a definition: a stated description of a particular pattern of my experience - but it would only be a representative instance of that pattern, a reduction of the conceptual structure, all the five-dimensional information I have in relation to the term. Instead, I’m trying to relate diverse conceptual structures of the same term in a more inclusive approach to meaning that can ultimately maximise accuracy of any subsequent definition.
There’s a reason why concepts such as ‘fifth dimension’ have several scientific definitions. If you start with a precise definition that relates to empirical evidence, it maximises the apparent certainty of the concept for practical purposes. But you’re beginning with a narrow perspective of the concept. If your aim is simply to exist - to live, survive - then this seems sufficient. The way I see it, though, each of the scientific definitions of ‘fifth dimension’ that you’ve presented relate in their own way to what this concept means. And each of them is also necessarily limited in their perspective: ignorant, isolated, exclusive. The idea is to explore how they relate to each other, to increase awareness, connection and collaboration.
Gnomon!
Interesting. Sort of goes along with the notion that energy is never lost or destroyed. On a slightly similar note, for whatever reason, my Kantian intuition (and for the longest time) made/makes me think of 'Black Holes' as a beam-me-up-Scotty moment as it were. Meaning, perhaps storage of other EM field's of consciousness exist in yet another Dimension. That intuition is not completely absurd (or maybe it is) when considering physicist Wheeler's anthropic views (PAP) about his observations of wave pulses coming from Black Holes:
Of course, lots of big name dropping here (Davies, Wheeler, Tipler, etc): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropic_principle#Variants
I don't know what philosophers you've been reading, but the most famous thinkers also seem to be the hardest to understand. That's because they are breaking new ground, instead of recycling old ideas.
Why do you think I'm posting on a philosophy forum? I assumed that most posters would be familiar with digesting difficult concepts, and open to novel ideas. Unfortunately, old philosophical paradigms die hard. So, I don't expect the concept that "Information is the new Atom" will become common knowledge until long after I've gone to the big forum in the sky. :smile:
Philosophy is supposed to be difficult :
https://www.theguardian.com/books/booksblog/2011/feb/25/philosophy-technical-everyday-english
Max Planck : “A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it.”
Someone who remains willfully ignorant about a concept like metaphysics is called a troglodyte. And are you suggesting that you deliberately obfuscate to appear smart? I have gotten that impression, actually.
Quoting Gnomon
What's the difference between a bit of information and a bit of an atom again?
You seem to be focusing on our differences, but communication requires an emphasis on our commonalities. However, communication of novel concepts in Science and Philosophy is seldom presented in the vocabulary of the masses. Instead, it is first directed at those who are already well-versed in the technical language of a particular field.
Quoting Possibility
So you just give-up on putting your ideas into specific words, and rely on ESP? When you present specific ideas in vague general ("uncertain & variable") terms, a few people may grasp your meaning intuitively, but you'll never know for sure if they grokked your meaning or made-up their own meaning. In Shannon's Information Theory, successful communication can be verified to make sure what was received is what was sent.
Quoting Possibility
Of course not. All I can hope to do, is throw a lot of mud on the wall, and hope some of it sticks. :wink:
Quoting Possibility
It's called analysis of complexity into simple components. Are you opposed to analytical thinking? I understand that your notion of a Fifth Dimension is a broad concept. But couldn't you break it down into smaller chunks, that babies like me can digest? I still think your Multidimensional worldview may be compatible with my Information-based worldview. But your presentation has been so deliberately vague and non-committal that I can't be sure what you're talking about. Is it a spiritual plane, or a physical dimension? Please give me some "narrow" bites that I can masticate with sore gums. :yum:
For example : What do "each of the scientific definitions of ‘fifth dimension’ " have in common? How do the spiritual notions of Higher Dimensions differ from the mathematical definitions? Who are some published authors, Scientists or New Agers, that have presented ideas similar to yours?
So, you're stooping to calling me names again? Are you saying I'm Stoopid? :sad:
Quoting praxis
I could try to answer your question, but I'm a Neanderthal, and I don't speak Postmodern Babble. :cool:
PS___Since you're so smart, can you explain to me what Possibility's Fifth Dimension is? What's the difference between the Fifth Dimension and the Sixth Dimension?
You’ve repeatedly shown that I can’t explain anything to you. I’ll read about it though.
Fifth dimension is affected. I happen to be familiar with modern neurological models so I'm able to appreciate this relatively well, I believe. The theory of constructed emotion was a real mind-bender for me. Sixth dimension metaphysics, from what I could briefly glean, holds that awareness, connection, and collaboration is inherent to everything, in an apparent attempt to unify everything from morals to the behavior of photons.
If nothing else, I at least now understand why Possibility chose Possibility for a name, out of all the possibilities.
Since you seem to be offended by my eccentric approach to Metaphysics, how would you describe, in your own words, the Theory of Information that is the topic of this thread?
Quoting Possibility Although I'm still in the dark about "constructed emotions" and such, it seems that the general gist of your Multidimensional theory is similar to my own worldview, in that Consciousness (awareness, connection, & collaboration) is "inherent to everything". But the details and implications may differ.
So, I'd like see how you would summarize the Information Theory that I've been defending in this thread, in your own words.
Did Wheeler use terms like "other dimensions" in his musings on " matter, energy, and information"? Did he associate Information with physical Electro-Magnetic fields?
Since you don't seem to be offended by my unusual worldview, I'd like to see how you would summarize, in your own words, the Theory of Information that is the topic of this thread.
Offense, eccentricity, or your approach to anything is beside the point, as I've mentioned several times my concern is communication, and the issue started with your claim that metaphysics has been banished from philosophical discourse. That indicates that there's something wrong with your concept of metaphysics.
From what I understand Information theory is not your theory. In general though, my impression is that it's merely a way of looking at things. A hammer can be a hammer, or a paperweight, or a weapon, or information, etc etc etc. When you want salt you don't say, "please pass the information," you ask for salt. One the other hand, what is salt but information, or rather, patterns of sense data that a brain has been trained to recognize as salt.
To say that anything is one thing or another is dualistic and itself an event that necessarily has a purpose. It makes no difference if something is information or anything else if there is no purpose for making the distinction.
This is a discussion centred around information theories, and information is about difference. “Communication requires an emphasis on our commonalities” seems to me a misunderstanding of what information theory is all about. The problem is that neither of us are particularly well-versed in the technical language of any particular field, are we? I’m still in the process of trying to ‘dumb down’ my theory, and you refuse to make any concerted effort to understand the quantum and Platonic theories behind your own ideas, let alone the quantum and neuroscience theories behind mine.
Quoting Gnomon
If you think I’m relying ESP, then it would seem you are deliberately dismissing any opportunity to think for yourself. I cannot presume to know how you think - I need you to attempt to make sense of the information I’ve presented, before I can make adjustments to my explanations. We’re not dealing with actualities here. When you say ‘grasp your meaning intuitively’, you are relying on unconscious processes to do the work for you. I’m inviting you to be more aware of the process - to recognise that you CAN be more aware of how you relate to and integrate new information at a conceptual level. I have no ownership of meaning, all I can do is give you information about the view from my position, encourage you to use that information to try and locate what I’m referring to from where you are and give me information about the view from your position, allowing me to continually adjust the information I provide based on the difference between your position and mine relative to meaning, so that at some point we might approach a shared relation to meaning.
In Shannon’s Information Theory, semantic meaning has nothing to do with it:
Quoting Gnomon
It can be more systematic than that, if you stop assuming it’s ‘intuitive’ and do a little self-reflective reasoning.
Quoting Gnomon
First of all, I would appreciate if you would stop the passive-aggressive self-deprecation. If you want to behave a like a baby, that’s your choice. I will continue to assume you are intelligent enough to think for yourself.
I recognise that my theory is fuzzy at best, which can be frustrating for analytical thinkers. It’s a work in progress, and I’ve never pretended it was ready for presentation. But most analytical thinkers can approach the theory from a mathematical perspective, at least. I’m not opposed to analytical thinking - I’m just not very good at it, I’m afraid. I understand the reductionist process, but the ‘simple components’ are the supporting theories I have already referred to a number of times: Carlo Rovelli’s four-dimensional relational structure based on quantum field theory; Feldman Barrett’s theory of constructed emotions and concept cascades; the mathematical plausibility of six dimensions demonstrated in String Theory; The rest I have tried to explain, and you have tried to ignore, it seems. But I will try to answer your questions as best I can in a later post.
If information ‘stored’ in our brain were able to ‘survive’ beyond death, I believe it would do so in a form of energy that is devoid of the meaning and value it has in our mind, because the relational structures that enable this storage and retrieval system to operate rely on an ongoing dissipation of energy. Quantum information is not ‘stored’ in the conventional sense, because it refers to structures of potential energy, not actual. It exists as part of a quantum system - in order to attain this information, one needs to enter into a superposition state with the quantum system in which this information is integrated. While that’s possible enough to achieve while someone is alive, after death this quantum system is unsustainable. That’s not to say it wouldn’t be possible to eventually determine how to fully reduce, transmit and reconstruct some of this five-dimensional information before death, but currently the energy requirement to even attempt to transmit a barely noticeable portion of that information digitally remains prohibitive. Not to mention that we don’t understand how to reduce most of it.
NDE conditions, in my view, suggest not so much a survival of quantum information, but perhaps a moment of experiential shift whereby the prediction of the interoceptive system (affect) is finally unconstrained by the continual effort and attention requirements and limitations of a living organism. It might be a question of: what would you do in the next moment if you weren’t limited by what your body felt it could or needed to do in that moment? It might be worth bringing this ‘consciousness workspace’ together with Feldman Barrett’s ‘interoception of affect’ and see what happens...
FWIW, I believe that the information that constitutes us continues in those with whom we relate on a five-dimensional (affected) or six-dimensional (meaningful) level. The extent to which we interact with other quantum systems in these superposition states enables us to share or transmit the value, potential and meaning of who we are with the world, whether or not they’re aware of it as such. That’s really the only way this information can survive.
Is it a spiritual plane or a physical dimension?
Both, and neither. Sorry - not a very helpful start, is it?
If you consider the ‘fifth dimension’ in isolation from the other four, as a dimension that relates to physical reality as an entity, then it makes sense to refer to it as a ‘spiritual plane’, in much the same way as physicists often refer to quantum information in terms of physical ‘fields’.
Two of the three dictionary definitions of ‘physical’ are opposed to mental (so I assume you don’t mean ‘physical’ in that sense), but the third is less exclusive: Physical - relating to physics or the operation of natural forces generally.
So if you consider the ‘fifth dimension’ as relative to the other four dimensions (at least), not as something other than physics, but as part of the natural forces of the universe, then it makes sense to refer to it as a ‘physical dimension’.
Both terms refer to what this fifth dimension is, but neither term alone defines it.
What do each of the scientific definitions of ‘fifth dimension’ have in common?
They describe a difference from empirical reality in a way that can be understood as equally real and ‘physical’ in its own right.
How do the spiritual notions of Higher Dimensions differ from the mathematical definitions?
The way I understand it, ‘spiritual’ dimensions are seen as non-spatial and exclusive, accessible only through certain channels; whereas the mathematical definitions interpret a ‘fifth dimension’ as an isolated four-dimensional reality, with its own spatial existence.
Who are some published authors, scientists or new agers, that have presented similar ideas?
I’m not aware of any, to be honest. Those whose theories seem to approach a similar idea I have already mentioned, including Deacon (from what I’ve read so far). I continue to think that perhaps I’m missing some understanding that’s obvious to everyone else and when finally pointed out to me will dissolve my theory into nothing, but everything I read seems to support the theory from a certain angle, while remaining ignorant of the whole picture.
The first thing that comes to mind for me, and I could be way off-base from not fully grasping your theory, is that what’s at the core of human morality, and perhaps everything human, may simply be procreation. So if human awareness, connection, and collaboration are fundamental to the universe then the universe is all about procreation? In what sense could that be seen as true, assuming the thought is not wildly off-base?
Yes. It's different from your traditional definition, which you have never stated explicitly. And you've never explained exactly what is "wrong" with my information-based definition, except that you don't like it. Is that due to gross prejudice, or to spelled-out reasons?
My definition is intended to draw a meaningful distinction between Physics and Metaphysics, as a first step to understanding how "Information" can be in both camps. Is your preferred definition more like Kant's or Aristotle's? :cool:
Kant's Metaphysics : Kant proposed an alternative metaphysics, which retains an a priori element, but confines it to objects of sense-experience.
http://hume.ucdavis.edu/mattey/phi151old/KANTMETA.HTM
[ Note : My alternative definition is more like Aristotle's, in that it is limited to mental reasoning (metaphysics) rather than sense experience (physics). ]
Aristotle's Metaphysics : Aristotle himself described his subject matter in a variety of ways: as ‘first philosophy’, or ‘the study of being qua being, or wisdom, or theology.
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/aristotle-metaphysics/
[Note : which of those topics is limited to sense experience? You can sense a physical being with your physical senses, but how do you know anything about the abstract concept of being qua being?]
Metaphysics and Being Qua Being : So too, he said, are there many senses in which things can be said to exist. Thus, it seems, there can be no science of existence and of universal causes, and so there can be no metaphysics. . . . Aristotle's solution is to demonstrate that there is a single, 'fundamental' sense of 'exist' from which the other senses derive, and that that sense of 'exist' is the subject of metaphysics.
https://sites.google.com/a/acrewoods.net/home/library/aristotle/metaphysics-and-being-qua-being
[ that "fundamental concept of being qua being is what I call BEING ]
BEING : In my own theorizing there is one universal principle that subsumes all others, including Consciousness : essential Existence. Among those philosophical musings, I refer to the "unit of existence" with the absolute singular term "BEING" as contrasted with the plurality of contingent "beings" and things and properties. By BEING I mean the ultimate “ground of being”, which is simply the power to exist, and the power to create beings.
http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page10.html
Meta-physics :
[i]The branch of philosophy that examines the nature of reality, including the relationship between mind and matter, substance and attribute, fact and value.
1. Often dismissed by materialists as idle speculation on topics not amenable to empirical proof.
2. Aristotle divided his treatise on science into two parts. The world as-known-via-the-senses was labeled “physics” - what we call "Science" today. And the world as-known-by-the-mind, by reason, was labeled “metaphysics” - what we now call "Philosophy" .
3. Plato called the unseen world that hides behind the physical façade: “Ideal” as opposed to Real. For him, Ideal “forms” (concepts) were prior-to the Real “substance” (matter).
4. Physics refers to the things we perceive with the eye of the body. Meta-physics refers to the things we conceive with the eye of the mind. Meta-physics includes the properties, and qualities, and functions that make a thing what it is. Matter is just the clay from which a thing is made. Meta-physics is the design (form, purpose); physics is the product (shape, action). The act of creation brings an ideal design into actual existence. The design concept is the “formal” cause of the thing designed.
5. I use a hyphen in the spelling to indicate that I am not talking about Ghosts and Magic, but about Ontology (science of being).[/i]
http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page14.html
You're speaking in riddles again, Gnomon, which is fine, but it's getting old.
In my opinion, you are drawing a line that doesn't exist. Physics is just as concerned with conceiving as with perceiving. Is spacetime a metaphysical conception? :chin:
Well, the assertion plus negation is confusing to the mortal mind. But then, my personal philosophy is called BothAnd. So, I'll have to give you the benefit of the doubt. But, only if you will explain the correlation between a "spiritual plane" and a "physical dimension". I'm cool with the BothAnd concept of Yin/Yang, but refers to parts of a whole system, not to separate planes of existence.
Spiritual Plane : In esoteric cosmology, a plane is conceived as a subtle state, level, or region of reality, each plane corresponding to some type, kind, or category of being.
[Note : by calling a spiritual plane "subtle", mystics are trying to explain why scientists are unable to detect and measure it. How do you personally detect and measure the Fifth Dimension? ]
Quoting Possibility
Most physicists would place the Fifth Dimension under the heading of Super-natural forces. I'm more sympathetic to your implication, but I call such "forces" meta-physical.
Can you give me a link to that third definition of Physics? I don't find it with a quick search. Here's the Google definitions of "Physical", which corresponds to how I use the term.
1. relating to the body as opposed to the mind.
2. relating to things perceived through the senses as opposed to the mind; tangible or concrete.
[ Note : these two definitions don't cover your yes & no interpretation. But the Enformationism thesis goes into great detail to show how those "opposed" concepts are inter-related as different forms of universal Information. ]
Quoting Possibility
Can you summarize your fourth definition, which combines the other two into a single concept? My definition of Information does exactly that.
Quoting Possibility
Which of the Scientific definitions I linked to describe "a difference from empirical reality". The New Age definition, which you rejected early in this thread does try to distinguish a series of non-physical spiritual planes from the measurable dimensions of empirical (physical senses) Science.
Anyway, here's a word of caution from a person who reads Auras for a living :
5th Dimension Nonsense : https://www.rose-rosetree.com/blog/2020/01/04/5th-dimension-nonsense-serious-warning/
New Age Fifth Dimension : https://andreaoneness.com/fifth-dimension/
[ Note : Treats metaphysical Consciousness as-if it is a physical place in space with multiple layers, similar to the ancient notion of seven heavens. Is that metaphor accurate? How do you know? Have you been there . . . physically? Does God live on one of those dimensions? ]
Quoting Possibility
Interesting! Are you a certified channeler? Do you convey messages from those "exclusive" planes to those of us stuck here on this mundane plane? Mystics have written dozens of books to describe their experiences in those spiritual planes or states. Can you give me an example of one of your extra-dimensional experiences? Are they similar to out-of-body experiences? ]
Quoting Possibility
I've read Deacon's Incomplete Nature twice, and several related books, but I don't remember any references to higher "dimensions" or "planes". I just checked, and those terms are not in the index. But the word "information" occurs in the index many times. Can you quote a reference relevant to our discussion? :nerd:
I am trying to be defend my thesis without being offensive. Is that what you call "passive-aggressive"? You and Praxis have been attacking my thesis from the beginning, even as you admit to knowing little or nothing about it. And you have offered no positive alternatives, except vague "maybes" and oxymorons such as "both & neither" .
Based on his questions, Praxis doesn't even understand your theory any more than I do. Apparently the notion of sublime planes of existence is more attractive to him than the idea that mundane Information is the essence of Reality and Ideality. You have been rather gentle with your deprecations, but Praxis has simply been trolling. So, if it's alright with you, I will continue to respond to the put-downs without reacting in kind. :cool:
I wrote a sincere post about my impression of information theory as you requested. It's your choice to respond, of course, but it's indisputable evidence of non-trolling interest and conduct.
Granted I've been unnecessarily rude. I've gained interest in the topic and would like to be more cooperative. You cannot fault Possibility's conduct, by the way, which has been remarkable by any standard.
Yes. Physics does both empirical perceiving and theoretical conceiving. But the latter is more like philosophical mind-work, than empirical sense-work. I am simply making the same meaningful distinction as earlier philosophers made, between Pragmatic Science and Theoretical Philosophy. Theoretical Physics is non-empirical. Someone once asked Einstein where his lab was, and he held-up a pencil.
Aquinas Metaphysics : There are thus correspondingly two distinct classes of science: speculative science and practical science.
https://www.iep.utm.edu/aq-meta/
Theoretical vs Empirical Science : https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/the-curious-wavefunction/philosophy-begins-where-physics-ends-and-vice-versa/
Yes. Space-time is meta-physical, in the sense the we imagine those "dimensions", but don't sense them physically. I'm drawing a line between empirical Physics (natural philosophy) and theoretical Science (metaphysical philosophy). The latter is actually speculative Philosophy. Dark Matter and Dark Energy and String Theory are current areas of research that have no sensible matter to measure, and depend on mathematical, not empirical, data..
Space & Time : In 1781, Immanuel Kant published the Critique of Pure Reason, one of the most influential works in the history of the philosophy of space and time. He describes time as an a priori notion that, together with other a priori notions such as space, allows us to comprehend sense experience. Kant holds that neither space nor time are substance, entities in themselves, or learned by experience; he holds, rather, that both are elements of a systematic framework we use to structure our experience.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy_of_space_and_time
It’s interesting that your initial thought was simply procreation. If it was only about human awareness, connection and collaboration for its own sake, then our ‘instinctual’ drives to survive, procreate and/or dominate come across as fundamental to the universe. This rather narrow idea is that the universe cannot do without us, that our capacity (not event that - our mere existence) is the pinnacle and purpose of existence. Indeed, when we ignore the truth of our relation to four-dimensional physics, this assumption that the universe exists for humanity is even more pronounced.
The challenge of six-dimensional metaphysics argues that this is a limited perspective of reality. Increasing awareness of our relation to existence at each dimensional level brings us face to face with the temporary, fragile and insubstantial nature of this relation. The universe would not mourn our loss, should we drive ourselves to self-destruction or put a stop to procreation altogether. The idea that humanity is the source of all value and meaning in the universe has been falsified by both science and spirituality, but we struggle to make sense of this in relation to our own experience of existence.
Awareness/ignorance, connection/isolation and collaboration/exclusion in six-dimensional metaphysics occurs to some extent in every relational structure, from virtual particles to the Greek notion of agape. It forms the basis of matter, cause and effect and this notion of the will. It’s only in integrated fifth and sixth dimensional relations that sufficient information is acquired to develop conscious awareness, connection and collaboration with the three-step process itself.
The human organism is a relational structure in five dimensions. Within and between such structures, meaning as a six-dimensional relation is constrained by a limited human perception of value and potential. The most common denominators in the awareness, connection and collaboration of human perceived potential (ie. survival, procreation and/or dominance) is often perceived as the meaning of all existence.
But we are not the only source of value and meaning in the universe. In fact, our impact has barely registered notice at all beyond our solar system - and even within, it can hardly be considered a positive impact. The scope of that isolation alone should give us pause, but the idea that our sense of human morality pertains to this universe that largely ignores us seems hilarious at best. In my view, it is not what we do for ourselves, but what we strive to understand in relation to the entire scope of existence that matters to the universe. Procreation has proved effective in transferring information to some extent, but it is our capacity to increase awareness, connection and collaboration well beyond the importance of our own existence, species, planet and galaxy that is of the most value to a universe whose ultimate purpose seems to have always been to matter.
Might want to check who you’re speaking to before you attack...
What I call ‘passive-aggressive self-deprecation’ is your continual reference to yourself as dumb, stupid, baby, lacking in intelligence, education, etc - none of which I have even implied. Offering your neck to the chopping block is not a constructive way to defend anything.
Praxis can be uncharitable at times, but not always - the more constructive criticisms of your thesis need not be based on having an alternative, but rather on challenging you to do the work required to formulate a sound thesis in the first place. Your ‘thesis’ is a belief system at this stage, and as such is not ready to defend, I’m afraid. You don’t (and refuse to) understand the theories you prop it up with, and instead take every criticism as a personal attack. My theory is far from ready to defend either, by the way, so I certainly don’t mean that as an unfavourable comparison.
Just hit ‘Translations and more definitions’ at the bottom of the entry.
This is the essence of my issue with your theory, at least as far as I currently know or understand it. We value awareness, connection, and collaboration, and I suspect that this is due to our being a social species. Why would these qualities be of value to the universe, or even a non-social species? It’s like anthropomorphizing the universe, but if I’m not mistaken, you said that’s laughable, so, not sure where I’ve gotten lost.
Also, I can’t grasp the idea of how the universes ultimate purpose could have been to matter, or rather, I don’t know what that means.
Gnomon!
Within the contextual framework of his participatory anthropic principle (PAP) as mentioned previously, those EM fields can be detected like 'Geons' (GR & EM). That foregoing experiment of those fields emanating from Black Holes could infer conscious activity from another dimension. Of course, it could also be other forms of energy waves like light and heat, etc.. Or, there is no reason why it could not be all of the above...refer to the video.
But specifically no, I have not found where Wheeler has used the phrase ' 5th Dimension' beyond the usual 4 Dimensions of space and time.
Quoting Gnomon
I interpret your Theory of Information as a combination of Wheeler's PAP and Davies' Panentheism
(not Pantheism). With respect to the latter, God's body is the metaphorical universe. With objective certainty, we can use mathematical abstracts to describe the information about the human structure, yet the mind of God is not known to us except through the subjective certainty of PAP.
In this interpretation, the body provides for your informational theory from which we dissect as clues. And the mind (subjective self-awareness/consciousness) is only known to us through the phenomenon of QM/PAP. Both of which remains a source of information.
Putting some of that together with your theory is yet just another theory relative to self-awareness/conscious existence. As Wheeler alluded,"... at the heart of everything is a question, not an answer. When we peer down into the deepest recesses of matter or at the farthest edge of the universe, we see, finally, our own puzzled face looking back at us."
I thought this was a cool picture of Wheeler and Einstein (Wheeler on the far right):
Fair enough. I don’t think I’ve given enough information on the forum to explain this part very well, particularly in relation to the universe - and no-one has really addressed my terminology before, so I appreciate you doing so.
The language of ‘awareness, connection and collaboration’ suggests consciousness, or at least a panpsychism approach when applied to the universe. I think we have a tendency to assume a certain level of intelligence as necessary for awareness, so the way I use the term here is a little unconventional, and is probably a placeholder for a more appropriate terminology. As I have said here, I am not precious about the words I’ve used: I have a conceptual structure in mind, for which the words currently make sense to me, but my aim is to be understood.
By ‘awareness’, I’m referring to the exposure of a system to particular information. By ‘connection’, I’m referring to the correlation between systems that enables transmission of that information, and by ‘collaboration’ I’m referring to a relationship that facilitates the integration of this new information into the system itself.
I think there’s an underlying reason why humans are a social species, why multi-celled organisms formed, why life originated, why atoms formed molecular or chemical structures and why quantum particles formed atomic relations. And it has nothing to do with survival, dominance or procreation. Each of these dimensionally rare relational structures suggests a weak impetus towards increasing awareness, connection and collaboration (or exposure, transmission and integration of information) beginning with the most fundamental elements of the universe. Without it, the universe as we know it would not have existed, and neither would we.
Praxis!
What is your take on Wheeler's PAP?
I got this gist when I read through a collection of your posts on various topics, and you now explicitly say, "it has nothing to do with survival, dominance or procreation." I think we can collapse that into just procreation, by the way. I think it might help if you could explain where procreation fits. It fits somehow.
Maybe a good approach is with genes. It's easy to see how genes are information, and that it appears the one goal of genes is procreation.
No time now but I'll check it out.
Another suggestion that a Black Hole might be a portal to another galaxy, civilization, dimension, etc. etc. The funny thing is, apparently when you enter, you can't get out :
Gnomon!
I've been meaning to ask, and I keep forgetting so I'll ask now, does your theory consider any old- school Hermetic philosophy/cosmology? ( It seems to dovetail a bit with PAP/Panentheism. .)
Thanks for that interpretation of matter, energy and information. After doing a TPF search, it appears you have studied Whitehead's cosmology/metaphysics. Does he happen to provide for any insights into any of our informational theories?
Just wondering... .
Yes. I often link to his site for technical details that are way above my knowledge level. His worldview seems to be similar to mine, in that "Immaterial information is perhaps as close as a physical or biological scientist can get to the idea of a soul or spirit that departs the body at death." And that "Metaphysics based on information philosophy can answer some of the most profound questions about the fundamental origins, nature, and evolution of reality".
. But, since I haven't read all of his extensive website, I can't be sure that we agree on all points. I doubt that he is familiar with my website. However, I may eventually communicate directly with him.
He gives some background on his credentials on this page : http://www.informationphilosopher.com/about/
That's OK. I'm used to rudeness on anonymous internet forums. You can continue to "cooperate" by challenging my ideas, and giving me a chance to respond. I don't expect to convince you that my personal worldview is more up-to-date than the current paradigm of Materialism, or more scientific than New Age Spiritualism. But the feedback helps me to see how others (mis-) interpret my ideas. It helps me continue to refine the theory in my blog.
I began to dialog with Possibility because it's possible (pun intended) that a multi-dimensional cosmology could have some bearing on my own unorthodox understanding of reality. Unfortunately, it has been frustrating, because P doesn't directly answer my questions asking for empirical evidence or logical reasoning. I suspect that part of the communication problem is that my vocabulary is largely Modern and Post-postmodern, instead of the Postmodern lingo of the 80s & 90s. Although I can see that postmodern philosophers made legitimate criticisms of Modernism, I can't follow their oblique and circuitous (non-linear) arguments.
So, I still don't know how the hypothetical Fifth Dimension might fit into my theory of Information. I don't understand how it differs from the spiritual New Age notion, or from the mathematical universe of String Theorists. My Enformationism thesis has a lot to say about space-time, but doesn't mention higher or multiple dimensions. That's because I have no personal experience with anything beyond the mundane dimensions of apparent reality. :cool:
What do you mean? I copied the quote from your post. The "passive-aggressive" crack sounded more like Praxis, but I was replying to your put-down. Did you interpret my calm measured defense as a counter-attack? BTW. I included "you and Praxis" in my response.
Quoting Possibility
Of course. A person's worldview is a belief system, not a scientific theory. Do you understand the theories I "prop it up with"? [ I prefer the more positive term : "support" ] If not, how do you know I don't understand them? What scientific theories do you support your theory with? [ I've repeatedly asked for references ] I also prefer the more philosophical terminology of "challenge and response" instead of "criticism and personal attack" Your mis-interpretation of my intention may say more about you, than about me. :joke:
Anyway, since we are both arguing about little-known belief systems, can we at least find some common ground? A simple summary of your theory of Fifth Dimension would be a good start. Here's what The Fifth Dimension means to me :
https://youtu.be/gebehJw946I
https://youtu.be/VlrQ-bOzpkQ
My Enformationism thesis has nothing to do with mystical occult esoteric Hermetic traditions. I prefer scientific exoteric empirical knowledge. Unfortunately, the most common mis-construal is that it's a New Age philosophy. It is instead intended to be a 21st century alternative to ancient mystery religions, including Christianity, and to the ancient philosophy of Materialism, which has been obsolete since the advent of Quantum Theory.
The implicit cosmology does have some affinity with PanEnDeism, in that it assumes a cosmic Mind of some kind to provide the Generic Information that we interpret as both Matter (objects) and Mind (subjects). It's a Deist worldview (not a religion) in the sense that the Enformer or Programmer or G*D presumably "designed" the Program (evolution), but does not interfere with its automatic execution. In other words, no miracles, no magic, no occult mysteries. The theory is Spiritual only in the sense that what used to be called "Spirit", and is now called "Energy", is actually what we now know as "Information".
Paul Davies is a primary source of ideas about Information as the fundamental element of the cosmos. He hints at Panpsychism, but tries to avoid falling into Mysticism. My worldview may also be similar to Wheelers' PAP, but I was not aware of that concept ,as I was following the lead of a quantum scientist, who stated the obvious : that a virtual particle of matter (in a state of super-position) is un-actualized immaterial mathematical information. In other words, matter and energy are merely states (or forms) of essential Information. I also acknowledge a debt to Spinoza, and his theory of Universal Substance, which I take to be Generic Information : the power to Enform, to Create, So some kind of Creator is logically necessary. But since I have no direct experience with that hypothetical entity, for me, G*D is merely a philosophical Axiom. :nerd:
The notion of Black Holes was a godsend for sci-fi authors. Like the Warp Drive of Star Trek it allows us to fantasize about escaping the downer limitations of reality. I don't take up much time speculating on the infinite possibilities of a tunnel to another universe. I leave that job to more imaginative people. Black Holes are like Dark Matter, and Dark Energy, in that they reveal more about our ignorance, than of our knowledge of cosmic science. Imagination fill holes in knowledge with maybes. :smile:
Are there any absolute's in your theory (s)?
Please enumerate if you could, then we can take them one at a time :gasp:
I'm sure it would help if you familiarized yourself with: Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience
The only absolute in my thesis is the axiomatic BEING from which all finite & relative beings are created. This is Aquinas' Necessary Being. Everything in the space-time world is contingent.
BEING :
In my own theorizing there is one universal principle that subsumes all others, including Consciousness : essential Existence. Among those philosophical musings, I refer to the "unit of existence" with the absolute singular term "BEING" as contrasted with the plurality of contingent "beings" and things and properties. By BEING I mean the ultimate “ground of being”, which is simply the power to exist, and the power to create beings.
http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page10.html
Necessary Being : https://philosophy.lander.edu/intro/necessity.shtml
I scanned the article, but it doesn't say anything about higher dimensions. I assume you are implying that we know those occult planes, not by outward physical senses, but by inwardly directed intuitive feelings. Do you "feel" those dimensions? What do they feel like? How do they affect you?
I have an internal mental model of the universe; my reality. It's intuitive & instinctive, and guides my emotions. But I've never felt any extra dimensions. Do I need to open my Third Eye? :chin:
I've interpreted what Possibility has written about it to be like a dimension of measurement, if that makes sense. Affect is a dimension like depth is a dimension. There is depth information available to perception as there is affect information available to perception. Make sense?
That's my take on it, for what it's worth.
Procreation is an intention to reproduce the system for its own sake: to ‘create forward’, so to speak. It extends the four-dimensional system to ‘survive‘ beyond its temporal limitations and ‘dominate’ beyond its spatial limitations. But it’s all an illusion.
If the one goal of genes is ‘procreation’ - to reproduce the system for its own sake - then it does a shoddy job of it. Genes are a method to maximise the transmission and integration of basic four-dimensional information across time, irrespective of the system from which it is manifest. Sexual reproduction is a misnomer: it maximises diversity from the genetic information of the originating system as much as the limitations of each system determine its practical success irrespective of new information. It presents a conflict of interest between this underlying impetus and the specific limitations of the relational structure (ie. the living organism) at this four-dimensional level: its ignorance, isolation and exclusion of four-dimensional information. A similar conflict occurs at every dimensional level, resulting in the diversity of relational structures both within and across dimensions, which ultimately maximises the diversity of opportunities for exposure to information.
Gnomon!
Yes, thanks, but not really novel, nor a paradigm buster. :snicker:
On the other hand, you may or may not find this novel interpretation of an old topic intriguing... . In the end, (as Paul Davies has suggested in his book The Mind of God)) it may be that a whole different language (of information) is required for something like a ToE.
This article certainly hints to it (one of your favorite topics) LOL:
https://phys.org/news/2020-06-black-holes-hologram.html
Gnomon!
As a favor, I'm offering a critique of your Glossary Page. Maybe I missed it , but why did you not include Time? It is no doubt one of the most intriguing mysterious spanning science and philosophy. Becoming and Being-something you alluded to... .
Not to beat you up about it, but go to the 20-min. mark and you'll hear Davies discussing your favorite topic :snicker:
An Effect is a physical change. To Affect, is to make a difference emotionally. For psychologists, "Affect" is how inner emotions are displayed in outward behavior. I can understand that emotional feelings are metaphorically similar to the feeling of Touch, by which we "measure" physical things. And all personal meanings are ultimately feelings.
Unfortunately, my personal Affect is rather flat. I don't have strong emotional swings. That's not a sign of depression, but of a stable happy-go-lucky temperament. I am by nature rather Buddha-like in the sense of a peaceful state of mind. I suppose that's why my general mood seems rather two-dimensional to more emotionally volatile people. Anyway, I've never experienced anything I'd call "Enlightenment". I suppose the closest I've come to that deep insight was when I realized that mental Information is the essence of everything in the world. The Effect of that intuition was to give me a foundation for my personal worldview. It was more of an intellectual "awakening" than a spiritual transformation, though.
What would it take for me to experience the Fifth Dimension stage of enlightenment? Mystics seem to be innately tuned for such a state. Others use drugs, or mediate to "lift" their vibrations. But, since my normal state, as an introvert, is basically meditative, whatever vibrations I may have resonate only in the usual four dimensions.
Can you give some examples of "depth information" you have obtained from forays into the higher dimensions? :cool:
Aaron Doughty : spiritual advisor -- "calibrate your vibrations"
https://aarondoughty.com/
5th Dimension : [i]Let’s consider, why would somebody living in this amazing Age of Awakening try to leave it. Really, leave it by “lifting your vibrations.” In short, “upgrade” your awareness away from how humans are built to experience life:
If your wish is to not have to deal with everyday human problems.
Or should you desire to develop kinds of intelligence more like spirits than like humans.
Maybe even dream of becoming the ultimate human. So vastly superior to hairy, smelly, confused human beings![/i]
https://www.rose-rosetree.com/blog/2020/01/04/5th-dimension-nonsense-serious-warning/
I wasn't talking about a Spiritual paradigm, but a Scientific paradigm. But Enformationism is also a religious paradigm-buster, at least compared to the fundamentalist Christian worldview of my youth.
I discuss the notion of Time in many blog posts. But at the time I was writing the Enformationism thesis, it wasn't a big issue.
Let me know if you see any more omissions. I'm currently working on an addendum to the Glossary.
I wasn't referring to any Spiritual context. Here, this might help (with respect to your Glossary/Time):
http://www.torahscience.org/mathematics/time1.html
I can appreciate your personal assessment and acknowledge the quality of equanimity in your manner. Nevertheless, your brain is irrevocably linked to a body that experiences fluctuations in energy and satisfaction, or arousal and valence, respectively. That is affect. What your brain does with that information is largely dependent on your conditioning, and that is largely dependent on whatever culture you were raised in. Earlier you asked what the difference was between Possibilities fifth (personal conditioning) and sixth (shared cultural conditioning) dimensions. Both are essentially about adaptively regulating energy, though the sixth dimension is collaborative between 'relational structures' in nature.
Quoting Gnomon
Note how you're feeling and realize that at its core it's simply a state of arousal/valence, and whatever emotions you might be experiencing are just so much conditioned prediction to your current situation.
Quoting Gnomon
It seems to me that you’re under the impression I’m making this ‘fifth dimension’ out to be an ‘actual real thing’, kind of like ‘space’? But is this ‘third dimension’ an ‘actual real thing’, or is it a relational structure of three-dimensional information? What’s the difference? I don’t think either of us are talking about actual real things here. We’re talking about information.
Quoting Gnomon
No - the fifth dimension is not located IN space-time. Space-time is four-dimensional information, so what I’m referring to is quite obviously more than that, in the same way that three-dimensional information is more than two-dimensional information.
A ‘state’ refers to a structural condition, usually in reference to a particular time, so I’m not sure how you would go about defining an immeasurably eternal state as an ‘actual real thing’.
I agree with you (and I don’t know why I feel compelled to reiterate this) that information is the key to dissolving the physical-mental divide. But so much of what you write here also seems to perpetuate the divide, so I’m not sure what to make of that.
For me, information makes a difference at each dimensional level: beginning with the existential binary of what matters in relation to anti-matter, diversifying into quantum particles, which relate in a one-dimensional ‘expansion’ of the universe to inform atomic relational structures. These atomic structures relate in two-dimensions to inform diverse molecular shapes and chemical potential, which relate in three-dimensions to inform space: consisting of diverse objects and chemical structures. These relate in four-dimensions to inform the diverse actions and molecular/chemical events of the unfolding universe (including cellular life), which relate in five-dimensional affect to inform a diversity of potential and value information systems, which relate in six-dimensional meaning to inform an infinite diversity of relational possibilities.
Quoting Gnomon
I’m not sure where you got ‘state space’ from. It’s not a term I’ve used. I recognise life as a dynamic process unfolding in time. Our perception of this life is more specific than imagination, though - it comes from a perception of potential, informed by an interoception of affect (not just feeling) with regards to a person’s history and future prospects. The meaning of life is more informed again: an intersubjective relation to all imaginable possibilities, inclusive of (but not confined to) the changeability of subjective feeling. This recognition that we are not as unaffected as our conscious thought processes suggest is an important step in an accurate account of the transition between mental and physical states.
Quoting Gnomon
Yes, I have said this a number of times. Except that it isn’t an act of changing form, because the form - the event - is itself an act: a relational structure of four-dimensional information in itself. When you describe it as an ‘act of changing an act’, you lose the atemporal, subjective nature of the transition. What is affected is the perception or structure of potential, the five-dimensional information from which the observation is a reduction. It isn’t an ‘actual change’ as such - it’s a selected ‘mental’ structuring of potential information which determines and initiates the actual distribution of effort and attention in the observation itself.
Quoting Gnomon
Not quite. When a physicist calculates the future trajectory of a particular wavefunction, that knowledge affects the measured/observed state of the particle.
Affect is an instruction for the distribution of effort and attention requirements, so it’s both: it’s the relation between a physical transfer of energy (actual, 4D information) and the sum of feeling/knowledge (potential, 5D information) as a prediction of change.
‘Feeling’ refers to a qualitative aspect of potential information (qualia), intended to distinguish it from the quantitative reducibility of potential information as ‘knowledge’. In my view, it is this exclusion of ‘feeling’ from quantum theory, and the subsequent expectation on quantitative reduction to explain the relation between potential and observable reality, which prevents understanding.
One topic, relevant to time, that I discuss at length in the blog, is the concept of Timelessness. One of my favorite neologisms is "Enfernity" (Infinity & eternity), which encapsulates my understanding that the state from which space-time emerged was unitary and formless : nothing measurable, except in terms of Mathematical and Logical relationships. :nerd:
Time & Purpose : It can be said that the world of mathematics exists in an eternal present, a state in which neither the past nor the future have any meaning
http://www.torahscience.org/mathematics/time1.html
If by ‘studied’ you mean formally, then no, I haven’t - I took an interest in panpsychism and process philosophy, and read up on the writings of Leibniz and Whitehead.
Whitehead’s systematic approach outlined a proposal for developing his process philosophy, which directly addresses the idealism/materialism divide:
[i]”Question assumptions that underly conceptual expression of all experiences, including the nature of the experiencing entity itself.
Develop a realist ontology that:
- acknowledges the existence of a real world;
- contains an adequate account of experiencing subjects (ie. subjectivity and experience are real);
- accounts for self-causation as well as efficient causation (relationship between freedom and determinism);
Develop a rational realist cosmology that accounts for purposive organisms and mechanical, determined relations between objects.
Develop a process cosmology where ‘events’ (not things) and ‘relations’ (not separate objects) are fundamental. Account for the ontological relationship between process and substance, between subjectivity and objectivity.”[/i]
I think Whitehead’s process cosmology sets the scene for Carlo Rovelli’s physics-based description of four-dimensional reality as consisting of ‘interrelated events’ rather than objects in time (from ‘The Order of Time’), as well as his description of quantum mechanics in relation to information theory (from ‘Reality Is Not What It Seems’).
According to Whitehead’s philosophy: the world consists of events, not things, which interfuse and interpenetrate each other, so that no actuality is an isolated, self-contained entity; and fundamental process is inherently experiential, so nature ‘feels’ all the way down.
In my notes on Whitehead, this particular quote below relates specifically to Feldman Barrett’s more recent neuroscientific theories involving affect (which in my view constitutes the five-dimensional aspect of reality):
”Process and feeling are connected because in order for one moment, now, to be related to the immediately previous moment, past, and to the immediately subsequent moment, future, the ‘now’ moment must ‘feel’ aspects of the past by including them as constituents of its own actuality; and to give something of itself to the next, future moment.”
By ‘intuitive and instinctive’, you’re referring to internal processes you’re not fully aware of. I’ve already explained that these terms are not about occult planes or a ‘third eye’, but about a more ‘mundane’ potential for awareness of how we think, feel, remember, know, calculate, evaluate, reason or apply logic, etc - even while we’re asleep. When you ‘feel’ time, what you feel is an additional aspect to the world that is more than the three dimensional aspects of space. In the same way, we can ‘feel’ and/or understand additional aspects to what we experience than is observable/measurable in spacetime. I believe that the brain unconsciously ‘gauges’ one as affect, and we have spent at least the last five thousand years trying to make sense of this atemporal aspect of experience, to understand how it relates to the other aspects of our experience, and to eventually distinguish it from an infinite aspect of meaning.
You may have noticed this in the article:
Feldman Barrett makes no reference to higher dimensions or information, but the patterns, simulations and action plans she’s referring to here are not physical objects, but mental structures of information. It’s easy to assume from the description above that this brain ‘activity’ occurs consciously or at least in time, like an homunculus that plays back past experiences, performs research, lays out the options and then chooses which is the best way forward based on anticipating the demands of the system. But all of this happens instantly, unconsciously and ongoing at every moment, is predictive rather than reactive, and is as real and unobservable as potential energy. As such, it also draws remarkable resemblance to ‘calculating the wavefunction’ in a quantum system. Here, Feldman Barrett’s description is similar to your own ‘phase transition’: an ‘act of changing form’. But if we consider that what she’s describing is essentially atemporal, and that this unconscious remembering, feeling, applying logic, evaluating, etc relate conceptual structures as partial patterns, or potential rather than actual information (dimensionally reduced to affect), then what we’re looking at here is an example of how five-dimensional structures of the mind impact on four-dimensional events of measurable brain activity and observable behaviour.
FWIW, the main reason I refer to mental structures of information as ‘five-dimensional’ is to describe theories such as this and quantum mechanics, which enable us to cross the idealism/materialism divide, in relation to information theory without resulting in confusion between information-as-thing (3D), information-as-process (4D) and information-as-knowledge (5D).
Personally, I would say: mathematical and illogical relationships. Meaning, a place (our existence) where Godel/Heisenberg meets Platonism :cool:
That would work better since everything is information, that is providing for clues, which in turn are paradoxical. Being and becoming. Temporal and a temporal. Necessity and contingency. Changing and unchanging. Time-dependent and timelessness.
Logical impossibility.
However, the reality is we are chemical beings.
I wasn't asking about the definition of a "real" thing. I was requesting a succinct definition of your concept of whatever kind of "thing" these extra dimensions are. Without some kind of defining mental image, I am at a loss to know what you are talking about. Physically, space is emptiness that can be filled with something sensible and measurable. What kind of "things" are filling these extra empty containers.Praxis offered a couple of examples : "fifth (personal conditioning) and sixth (shared cultural conditioning) dimensions". But I don't grasp how the processes of adapting personal and cultural beliefs can be localized to specific places in "mind space".
Those metaphysical "dimensions" sound like the spiritual language of heaven & hell (imagined as real places) but translated into sciencey sounding modern terminology. They are spatial metaphors intended to allow us to imagine unreal "things" as-if they are real. Spiritual leaders have always used such physical imagery to convey metaphysical concepts. And they typically imply some causal connection (spiritual energies) from human minds to those abstract places in Mind-Space. This spiritual "mechanism" gives the impression that we can gain leverage over occult forces that bedevil us. But humans have typically relied on specialist Shamans to operate the spiritual system.
PS__My questions are not directed toward distinguishing "real" things from "ideal" concepts, but to discern "factual" from "fictional". For example : Time is generally accepted as an objective fact, but people's notions of that fact vary. Some think of Time flowing like a river, but Einstein pictured Time as a static block. Which metaphor is true? Depends on what kind of truth you're looking for. We all experience Change, but that simple fact has inspired all kinds of stories about change, from Fatalism or Destiny to Opportunity and Possibility. I'm looking for a Time story that is useful for my needs, that are mostly pragmatic instead of emotional.
Quoting Possibility
I get that. But what kind of stuff is figuratively "located" in those multiple dimensions? How do we detect those "containers", and how can we differentiate one dimension from another? Are alternate forms of consciousness (drugs, meditation) required to access those dimensions?
Quoting Possibility
I too, keep repeating and stipulating that I make a key distinction between Physical and Meta-physical aspects of our experience of the world. Empirical Science deals with Physics, and normally leaves Meta-Physics to Philosophers and Spiritualists (until forced to deal with abstractions and unknowns). Your extra dimensions seem to be metaphysical metaphors that are supposed to have some Effect on human Affect. But how that works is not clear. Scientists have a pretty good understanding of the physical causal forces (e.g. neurotransmitters) that elicit the Affects we call Feelings and Emotions. Are you saying that there are other "forces" involved that physical scientists are blind to?
BTW. My Information Theory was based on cutting-edge science, not on New Age philosophy. So I am not well-versed in the alternative lingo of mysticism.
Quoting Possibility
It's a mathematical term for a metaphysical "container" that seems to be similar to the dimensions you are talking about.
State Space : The state space of a dynamical system is the set of all possible states of the system.
Quoting Possibility
I need a translation into less abstract terminology.
Quoting Possibility
Where do you get this information? Is there a book or website that gives grounding and backup for these assertions? Are these concepts related to Jungian psychology?
Or to mystical psychology? : https://www.sacred-texts.com/myst/myst/myst06.htm
Space-Time : [i]the metaphysician Immanuel Kant said that the concepts of space and time are not empirical ones derived from experiences of the outside world—they are elements of an already given systematic framework that humans possess and use to structure all experiences. . . .
However, disagreement continues between philosophers over whether it is itself an entity, a relationship between entities, or part of a conceptual framework.[/i]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space
This Newtonian perception you have of space as a ‘container’ is where we seem to be getting stuck. Space IS the measurable relations between systems and structures, not a container to be filled with objects or ‘things’. Space is, and was, never ‘empty’. To talk about even the fourth dimension as if it were an empty container is to misunderstand the concept of dimensions.
When you talk on the phone to someone who lives across the other side of the world, how do you get a sense of the space between you? What about the time difference? Carlo Rovelli’s ‘The Order of Time’ deconstructs time from the single independent measurement of Newtonian classical physics, and reveals it to consist of measurable relations between systems and structures, which are themselves measurable relations between systems and structures, and so on. This understanding of ‘dimension’ forms the basis of six-dimensional metaphysics.
So the additional aspect of reality I’m referring to, just as with time and space, consists of measurable relations between systems and structures. Those relations, just as with ‘time’, can be reduced to a single, supposedly independent yet essentially local measurement known as ‘affect’. But our attempts to understand how we arrive at this measurement have hit a snag along the way, in the distinction between internal and external reality that led to this materialism/idealism divide (damn you, Descartes!). It was not dissimilar to the dilemma facing the concept of ‘world time’ two hundred years ago, which led to the slicing up of the planet into time zones, and continues to this day in the incompatibility of the time variable between quantum physics and spacetime relativity, and the distinction of ‘time’ from the three dimensions of ‘space’.
Essentially, if we have begun to understand space and then time more accurately as a structure of measurable relations between systems and structures, then surely it makes sense to talk about any additional aspects of reality beyond time in terms of measurable relations between systems and structures as well. These measurements are necessarily ‘local’, not just in relation to spatial aspects (like time is), but in relation to spacetime. That is, these measurable relations are those specific to the location of the observer in the spacetime moment of the experience. This is evident in the imminent convergence of quantum physics with subjectivity (even as it continues to ignore, isolate and exclude the relevance of qualia).
The third dimension is measured locally as a relation of information about depth to a two dimensional structure of information, achievable only by an integrated system that adjusts (changes) its relational position in four dimensions (time).
The fourth dimension is measured locally as a relation of information about change to a three-dimensional structure, achievable only by an integrated system that adjusts (affects) its relational position in five dimensions (potential/value).
And the fifth dimension is measured locally as a relation of information about affect to a four-dimensional structure, achievable only by an integrated system that adjusts its relational position in six dimensions (meaning or possibility/impossibility).
It is this key distinction that you make which confuses your supposed aim to bridge the divide. The aim of science is to deal with abstractions and unknowns, not just with physics. Authority in science is founded in what can be proven and universally understood, but their work has always drawn from this metaphysical level.
Scientists do NOT have a solid understanding of the ‘physical causal forces’ that elicit what we call feelings and emotions - that’s the point that Feldman Barrett makes. The classical view of emotions was disproven by neuroscience decades ago, and yet psychology, evolutionary biology and many other fields of application continue to perpetuate the mythical assumption that feelings and emotions are inherent, instinctual and universally defined. The latest research in neuroscience shows instead that personal and cultural conditioning lead to the construction and learning of emotional concepts.
Becky!
Can you elaborate on what you mean by 'chemical beings'?
With respect to matter, energy and information, here's a short Whitheadian interpretation of the primacy of change/events that Possibility alluded to... . This is in contrast to say Platonism, relative to cosmology/metaphysics/unchanging things-see process theology.
However, it is important to note that in Panentheism, as Davies posits, the Di-polar God is that where both timeless and temporality are folded into one entity. A combination of both determinism and indeterminism on a quantum scale. A God that is both imbedded in the stream of time, yet retains it's eternal an unchanging character. (Wheeler's game of 20-questions illustrates by that by analogy.)
Anyway, here's the 101 on the former interpretation of process philosophy:
Unfortunately, I am still a troglodyte who doesn't grok "atemporality". In my thesis, I assume that there is a timeless state (Enfernity) from which space-time emerged. But that doesn't mean that I have any experience or intuition of what-it's-like to be timeless. It's merely an abstract concept imagined as a back-story for the Big Bang. That's why I don't claim to know anything about that presumptive "state" or "dimension" or "level" of existence. From the article linked below, what I "got" was that Atemporality is an imaginary metaphor to put our experience of space-time into a broader context. In other words it's a fictional concept, just like my Enfernity. But I don't claim to know anything about its internal structure or patterns. I just view it as structureless infinite Potential or Possibility. Of course, fiction-writers can simply make-up stories about the structure of their imaginary realms.
Atemporality for the Creative Artist : So, what is ‘atemporality’? I think it’s best defined as ‘a problem in the philosophy of history’. . . . The first is about atemporality as a modern phenomenon. What does it look like and feel like, as it actually exists? And the second part of the speech is: what can creative artists do about that? . . . (If you don’t get what atemporality is by the end of these few images, I probably can’t help you.) ___Bruce Sterling, sci-fi writer
https://www.wired.com/2010/02/atemporality-for-the-creative-artist/
Barrett's hypothesis makes sense in terms of my Enformationism thesis, but the technical exposition is way beyond my competency. As with Sterling (the "artist"), I'll just have to take her word for it. The world of imagination is practically infinite, encompassing all possibilities. But the world of space-time is finite, so we can attempt to verify any assertions of what-is and what-ain't. Some "simulations" may be closer to truth than others.
Quoting Possibility
I can accept the notion of higher dimensions as metaphors for discussing "things" that are not physical things (i.e. ideas). But I still need some grounding in common-sense reality in order to grok the metaphors. For example, what real-world difference does this concept make to me personally? Can I directly access this dimension of my own mind to obtain self-help wisdom, or should I just attend a Tony Robbins seminar?
I feel the need to explain one of the reasons for my pig-headedness (pardon the passive-aggressive self-deprecation). I came of age in the 60s. Which for some people (hippies) was The Age of Aquarius : "when peace will guide the planets, and love will steer the stars". But in my part of the world, it was The Age of Jesus' Return (the second coming). Since I was not a participant in the hippie subculture, I never learned the lingo of Astrological myths, Buddhist/Hindu theology, or Western Mysticism. Instead, my rebellion against the stagnation of Western Culture/Religion was modern Science, with its myths of Virtual Particles & Parallel Worlds. That's my second language, but I'm still not fluent in it. Consequently, the notion of "Fifth Dimension" in my mind is associated with a beautiful fairy tale. It sounds lovely, but science is more practical for mundane affairs. :yum:
Where did you get this information?
That is essentially how I imagine the axiomatic G*D of the Enformationism thesis. It's not a god of religion to be worshiped, but a Logos of philosophy to be aligned & allied with. This PanEnDeistic deity is imagined as Real in the form of our space-time universe, but Ideal in the form of Enfernal (eternal/infinite) BEING. Unfortunately, for us, such a rationalized essence remains a tantalizing mystery, whose only revelation is the world that we know via personal experience, and by scientific exploration. :nerd:
Panendeism : http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page16.html
Gnomon!
Just another thought. I did not see Sentience in your Glossary. I would consider adding the concept to your informational theories if you haven't already… . Here are a couple sound bites for you to chew on:
Sentience is a multidimensional subjective phenomenon that refers to the depth of awareness an individual possesses about himself or herself and others. When we ask about sentience in other animals, we are asking whether their phenomenological experience is similar to our own. Do they think about themselves the way we do? Do they ponder their own lives? Do they know that other individuals have feelings and thoughts? And, do they have an autobiographical sense of the past and future?
Sentience is the capacity to feel, perceive, or experience subjectively.[1] Eighteenth-century philosophers used the concept to distinguish the ability to think (reason) from the ability to feel (sentience). In modern Western philosophy, sentience is the ability to experience sensations (known in philosophy of mind as "qualia"). In Eastern philosophy, sentience is a metaphysical quality of all things that require respect and care.
There is a fundamental harmony and purpose to the physical reality and to the spiritual reality and to their inherent relationship with one another. It ultimately has to do with who you are, where you came from, why you are here and where you are destined to go. This holds true for sentient life everywhere, regardless of the vast differences in appearance, environment and understanding.
The freedom that must be emphasized is a greater internal freedom—the freedom to find the way to Knowledge, the deeper intelligence that God has placed within you and within all sentient life.
Gnomon, I didn't see Material Reductionism in your Glossary either. Point being, you can contrast the above thoughts on sentience, with how self-awareness and consciousness is not likely to have emerged from a piece of wood :chin:
If you pay attention to how you organise, store and retrieve memories in your mind, you may notice that they’re not necessarily organised chronologically. Some of your most vivid and readily accessible memories are far from your most recent, and most of those you would probably struggle to arrange confidently on a timeline, at least initially. We don’t always (or even often) arrange our memories, thoughts or beliefs according to their temporality. The most readily accessible are the most valuable, significant or relevant, not necessarily the most recent.
So yes, ‘atemporality’ puts our experience of ‘spacetime’ into a broader context, just as ‘time’ puts our experience of ‘space’ into a broader context. It’s speculative, sure - I don’t claim to ‘know’ anything either - I’m just presenting my view. But in my view, potentiality is not as structureless or as infinite as one might think. It does exist irrespective of temporality, though. Its structure is variable, but it always boils down to affect: a predictive distribution of effort and attention in relation to localised spacetime. This is calculable through quantum physics, conceivable through neuroscientific research, and it’s debatably empirical, through self-reflective reasoning. You can call it ‘fictional’, if it makes you feel better. But it’s in imagining infinite possibilities and testing them that we come to understand the distinction - and eventually a probabilistically predictable structure - of atemporal, finite relative potentialities.
Quoting Gnomon
But you don’t have to take Barrett’s word for it. She presents testable hypotheses, as well as an entire book of background research, real world examples and non-technical explanations supporting her theory. The article Praxis linked is a highly technical presentation - her book is longer, but a significantly easier read. The world of perceived, atemporal potentiality is finite, just as the potential energy in the universe is finite, even as it suggests a broader context than space-time.
The simulations are based on past experiences, so yes, some are more accurate than others. The process is very much like the scientific method:
Who's confused? I still don't understand your distaste for "distinctions" and "definitions". Without those analytical steps we would have to deal with the world as one awesome mystery. A bridge doesn't erase the gap between things, it merely makes a two-way link between them. My aim is not to transcend the divide by imagining that it doesn't exist, but to understand it as an inherent aspect of our otherwise complex and perplexing reality .
In my BothAnd philosophy, I want to discover natural distinctions (parts, categories, classes), and then to see their relationship to the whole. I suspect that one alternative method would be to view Nature as Supernatural (mystical, unanalyzable), and another would be to simply "carve nature" at arbitrary points willy-nilly. Is the Fifth Dimension a natural "joint", or a willful categorization?
Carving Nature at its Joints :
Plato famously employed this “ carving ” metaphor as an analogy for the reality of Forms (Phaedrus 265e): like an animal, the world comes to us predivided. Ideally, our best theories will be those which “ carve nature at its joints. ”
https://philarchive.org/archive/SLAILF
The Blog Glossary is intended to give an Enformationism flavor to common dictionary words, and to give a pertinent definition of neologisms that are found only in the thesis. I haven't yet addressed the notion of "Sentience", as you describe it. I suppose the closest Glossary entry is the one for "Consciousness". Other generally related terms are defined in the pertinent blog post.
Consciousness :
Literally : to know with. To be aware of the world subjectively (self-knowledge) and objectively (other knowing). Humans know Quanta via physical senses & analysis, and Qualia via meta-physical reasoning & synthesis. In the Enformationism thesis, Consciousness is viewed as an emergent form of basic mathematical Information.
Is that even close to your meaning of Sentience?
INTRO : This glossary is intended to supplement the website articles and blog posts with definitions specifically tailored to the subject matter. For the most comprehensive understanding though, I recommend starting with the website, which has its own glossary and references from several years ago. .
Barrett’s book maps the history of essentialist and constructionist views quite comprehensively.
We disagree on how we ‘carve nature’, it seems. I see categories as how we agree to divide the world in social reality. They are constructions of perception by prediction.
While I recognise there is a ‘natural’ structure of relations between what we think of as social and physical reality, I don’t think it’s inherently definable. I certainly don’t see it as a ‘joint’. We wilfully categorise and classify the world as it suits us. This is how we relate to the world.
I’m not saying that we don’t define this relational structure - it’s necessary in order to have any effect on reality. But each time we do, we find that this definition, this answer, will differ depending on what question we ask or how we ask it. You seem to be looking for the ‘correct’ question, but what I’m looking for is the pattern relation that enables us to predict an answer given the question.
Yes. I prefer to carve Nature at its joints (i.e. inherent logical categories). But you seem to think there is no inherent logic to Nature, so all categories are arbitrary and imaginary. If that is the case, then Science is impossible, and we'd have to rely on a Shaman to interpret the world for us.
I'm not familiar with the phrase : "constructions of perception by prediction".
Quoting Possibility
The "natural’ structure of relations" is what I call the "Logic" of Nature. And it's what scientists are trying to determine and to exploit for human purposes. The "logic" I refer to is the patterns, structures, and laws (pure logic = mathematics) that we observe in the natural world. Human reasoning (logic) is a poor approximation of the natural order, but we seem to have inherited a disposition to recognize systematic order when we see it. It's true that rational Science is influenced by human emotions and ego-drives to "willfully categorize". That's why the Scientific Method includes checks & balances to cancel-out individual egos & wills. But the only other option I'm aware of is direct communication with God or Nature (visions, intuitions or revelations), which is the method religious authorities have claimed to use for millennia to classify the world as it suited them into hierarchies of angels & demons, supernatural powers & occult forces. Is this how you relate to the world?
Nature is Understandable : Science presumes that the things and events in the universe occur in consistent patterns that are comprehensible through careful, systematic study. Scientists believe that through the use of the intellect, and with the aid of instruments that extend the senses, people can discover patterns in all of nature. . . . But they tend to agree about the principles of logical reasoning that connect evidence and assumptions with conclusions. Scientists do not work only with data and well-developed theories. Often, they have only tentative hypotheses about the way things may be.
http://www.project2061.org/publications/sfaa/online/chap1.htm
Quoting Possibility
What's the difference? For me, the "correct" answer is one that leads to pragmatic applications. Without supernatural help, we'll never obtain perfect answers.
Pragmatic Science : The pragmatic position, by my definition, views science as one of our best tools for figuring out our place in the world and our world’s place in the universe. To the extent that truths can be uncovered, science is one of our most effective methods for finding them. But it’s not the only one. Logic is another, as is philosophical inquiry and the humanities, among others.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/daviddisalvo/2011/08/21/why-we-need-pragmatic-science-and-why-the-alternatives-are-dead-ends/#761f14ea777b
Quoting Possibility
I just read an article, in an anthology of The Evolving Idea of Complexity, that seems pertinent to our different views of scientific/philosophical definition. Complexity Theory is an offshoot of Systems Theory, which is an attempt to apply scientific methods to whole systems (holism), rather than just the parts (reductionism). Unfortunately, Complexity is a metaphysical feeling about natural systems, not a physical object. So, it can only be defined in terms of metaphors that relate to sensory knowledge.
John Casti began his article with an anecdote about defining "complexity". One scientist asserted cynically that "complexity is what you don't understand". To which his colleague replied, "you don't understand complexity". For much of the last 30 years, Complexity has been a theoretical (philosophical) science. But Casti then noted the absurdity of trying to make a Science, "without benefit of anything even beginning to resemble a definition". He referred to those early stages of academic complexity studies derisively as "wrapped up in language vague enough to warm the heart of any continental philosopher". [ I take that to be a reference to Postmodernism ]. Anyway, he sums up, " the problem is that an integral part of transforming complexity . . . into a science involves making that which is fuzzy precise".
It's the fuzziness of your assertions about multiple dimensions that makes it difficult for me to relate the concept to my limited knowledge of how the world works. In theory, I should be able to find a place for those extra "dimensions" in my Enformationism thesis. But to me, your evasive, oblique, and yes "fuzzy" references sound more like religious beliefs (defined by authorities, not by laymen), than scientific concepts.
However, you and I both are cognizant of the limitations of scientific Reductionism. Which is also the flaw that Casti critiques in his article, "in which any reductionist approach of this sort irretrievably destroys the very nature of the problem". [ dissect the frog to see what makes it a frog ] So, Casti argues that "the missing ingredient is the explicit recognition that system complexity is a subjective, not an objective, property of an isolated system" To which, I suspect that you can agree. Nevertheless, Casti is determined to find a way to define Complexity scientifically and as precisely as possible, in order to avoid, "opening up all sorts of depressing debates and semantic confusions of the kind that permeate the arts and humanities". [ has he been lurking on our thread? ] :joke:
Science isn’t impossible - we just need to accept its limitations of certainty/objectivity in relation to precision. This is what quantum theory and its various interpretations are wrestling with. The logic we believe to be ‘inherent’ in Nature is constructed and defined within a human perspective. So we need to recognise that the certainty of this definition is not objective. And if we strive instead for objectivity, then we need to recognise a lack of certainty - a fuzziness. Categories are arbitrary - there are patterns and structures to be found in nature, but any sense that we can draw a precise line between them or define them with any precision is based on how we perceive the world, not on what exists objectively.
Quoting Gnomon
It isn’t so much human emotions and ego that lead to wilful categorisation. It’s functionality. We define and categorise the world according to its utility: our perception of potential. The scientific method doesn’t cancel this out. As a result, Science has come to recognise its own limitations in the position of the observer.
That assertion may point to a key difference in our worldviews. Your quote makes it seem that Reality is a figment of my individual imagination (solipsistic idealism). Yet, scientists assume that there is a physical world out there for our senses to perceive (Realism). My view is a bit of both. I think our Reality is a figment of G*D's imagination (e.g. Berkeley's Idealism). But our bodies are also creatures of G*D mind. So we are endowed with physical senses that can detect the objects of G*D's imagination (Logos). Human "objectivity" is a form of collective imagination via communication of subjective intuition (i.e. Science).
That dualism may sound awkward, but it's basically the same Model Dependent Realism theory that cognitive psychologist Donald Hoffman presents in his book The Case Against Reality. He calls the "objects of our perception "icons" that represent a deeper "reality" of pure information. In my BothAnd philosophy, it's not a matter of either "Reality" or "Ideality", it's both at the same time. Ideality consists of raw EnFormAction (creative information), while what we call objective Reality is a sort of communal delusion --- i.e. we all see more or less the same illusion. "A rose is still a rose . . ."
Interface Reality : He uses the modern metaphor of computers that we “interface” (interact) with, as-if the symbolic Icons on the display screen are the actual things we want to act upon.
http://bothandblog6.enformationism.info/page21.html
We're straying a bit from the sub-topic of how the Fifth & Sixth Dimensions fit into the Enformationism worldview. Since I don't understand how those dimensions are relevant to me personally, I'm still waiting for some direct answers to the questions I've been asking in this thread. For now, I'm assuming those extra dimensions have something to do with Intuition, as opposed to the traditional four we know via intuitive classification of sensory experiences, and then rationalize into formal definitions of Space & Time. You seem to focus on the subjective feelings rather than the objective reasons. With that notion in mind, I'm quoting some excerpts from the Complexity book I referred to before.
This from Seth Lloyd on how to make computers intuitive : "For non-linear systems, control requires intuition. . . . For the algorithm to model the system successfully, it must be an adaptive algorithm : to acquire intuition, it must learn." Hence, his approach to the mysteries of complexity, involves both "algorithmic and probabilistic information." What we now call "complexity" seems to be what the ancients called "mystery", and associated with spirits & gods on higher planes of existence. Lloyd doesn't use mystical methods to delve into fuzzy ambiguity & unpredictable uncertainty. Instead, he uses the mostly linear rational techniques of mathematics and computer processing of information. As computers evolve though, he will use entangled Quantum processing to deal with non-linear problems, that currently only humans can grasp by intuition. Meanwhile humans have one last shred of dignity that computers can't do better.
If Intuition is based on mundane learning and adaptation, then perhaps humans also acquire their intuition from ordinary experience with how the world works, rather than from occult sources in higher dimensions. Presumably, intuition matures along with all other aspects of human personality. What we call "intuition" is simply the millions of minute details the brain has stored for future retrieval. Just like the recall of names though, it works best on automatic. When we consciously try to recover such information, we often draw a blank. Which is why sleep or meditation allow the brain to process that loosely-categorized deeply-engrammed information.
Logos : the divine reason implicit in the cosmos, ordering it and giving it form and meaning
Engram : a hypothetical permanent change in the brain accounting for the existence of memory; a memory trace.
Law & Disorder :
1. Reason -- Rule-based linear processes
2. Intuition -- Random non-linear complexity
Intuition learns from the errors of experience, and exceptions to the usual rules.
That’s not how I see it. When I say ‘within a human perspective’, I’m referring only to how we construct and define it, not to how it is ‘out there’. Objective reality extends beyond our sense perception - it requires both a relative imagination (to structure meaningful/possible information) and a constructed intersubjective conceptual system (to structure valuable/potential information) in order to make sense of it all in relation to the “physical world out there for our senses to perceive”. We relate diverse sensory input within our perception of a relative, shared social reality, and we relate diverse conceptual structures within our relative imagination of possibilities - beyond which is the infinite possibility/impossibility that I assume you refer to as G*D.
For me, it’s all information, existing as an infinite possibility of complex relational patterns and structures. So there is no pre-ordained structure or Logos to be ‘discovered’ - existence IS the Logos: the cosmos making sense of itself, increasing awareness, connection and collaboration in whatever ways it perceives potential and/or possibility. How we interact with the ‘physical world out there’ is necessarily informed by the potential in our conceptual systems (including our shared social reality) which is informed in turn by our perspective of this infinite possibility (including our shared meaning). We refer to it as ‘individual imagination’, but it’s more that we’re continually drawing from the same source of infinite possibility/impossibility in both ignorantly subjective and intersubjective ways. The idea is that we gradually refine and restructure this necessarily reductive process in ways that broaden and improve the accuracy of our awareness, connection and collaboration with all reality: physical, social, imaginative or otherwise.
Quoting Gnomon
We’ve already established that we’re on the same page regarding intuition and its sources. So we are mostly in agreement here. But I believe that intuition is more than simply details. This ‘random (indeterminate), non-linear (multi-dimensional) complexity’ refers to a five-dimensional (ie. atemporal) structure. There’s no occult source - it’s just an additional aspect to information. Barrett shows that how these details are ‘stored’ and how they are retrieved can be understood, evaluated and refined as learned conceptual structures and patterns. We’ll often draw a blank only because we’re expected to justify thoughts, words and actions with objectively certain, measurable/observable information in a logical format. But none of these features are necessary in order for such events to be either determined or initiated by the brain, and in fact are often available only after the event. The way I see it, this non-linear complexity is a feature of human intention and other quantum systems. The only difference between ‘intuition’ and conscious reasoning is our ability to define a rule-based linear process that can justify the event after the fact. Affect refers to a reduction of both quantitative and qualitative potential information to map the body’s predictive distribution of effort and attention in relation to space-time. The brain doesn’t select between reasoning and intuition until it is required to consciously reflect on intention/causality. Then, much like an ‘observed’ quantum particle, it collapses into a rule-based, linear process in space-time, or is dismissed as either ‘subjective feelings’, or ‘intuition’ (fuzziness).
But while intuition as a five-dimensional information system is not yet replicable or predictable, it is understandable to some extent - if you can cope with either the subjectivity or uncertainty. Casti and Lloyd are waiting for computer science and mathematics to catch up, but human interoceptive networks map and share information in five-dimensions all day, every day. This is not just how we think, learn, develop and adapt - it’s how we construct and define our social reality.
Relative Imagination : personal subjective knowledge structured into concepts (words) for communication with other subjective perspectives???
Constructed intersubjective conceptual system : Is that what we humans call "Objective Reality" --- constructed by convention from many points of view ???
In my thesis, "G*D" is both infinite Possibility (great beyond) and finite Actuality (mundane world), in the sense of PanEnDeism. The Real world was created from god-stuff, Infinite Potential, via a process of EnFormAction (creative energy). Hence, everything in our world (matter, energy, mind) is an emergent form of universal EnFormAction. That's why I say, "all is Information" (the power to enform and the forms themselves).
PanEnDeism : belief in a god who is both panentheistic and deistic, e.g. a god who contains all of the universe, but who nevertheless transcends or has some existence separate from the universe, who does interact, but does not necessarily intervene in the universe, and that a personal relationship can be achieved with it, in as much as a person can have a relationship with his/her own rational thoughts.
https://www.yourdictionary.com/panendeism
god-stuff : Spinoza's Universal Substance
https://www.iep.utm.edu/spinoz-m/
Quoting Possibility
Yes & no. G*D (Logos & Chaos) is all-Information-all-the-time (power to be, to enform, to create) . But I make a distinction between actual Space-Time Information, and potential non-dimensional (Enfernity : eternity + infinity) Enformation. Our space-time is structured by the limits-on-possibility we call Natural Laws & Constants & Mathematical Logic. But the spaceless-timeless state that our world emerged from, in the Big Bang, is what I call "Chaos", in the Platonic sense. Therefore, our Reality is "pre-ordained" (programmed) and structured (sensible). But Ideality extends beyond space-time into un-defined omni-potential infinite possibilities, that I call "Chaos" or "G*D" : "the source of infinite possibility", where nothing is impossible.
Pre-ordained Structure : Reality is not an instantaneous creation, but the gradual evolution of a creative program, which unfolds in space & time.
Chaos : random unformed unlimited Potential (the power to be) that I call "BEING".
Quoting Possibility
How can this "five-dimensional structure" be structured, if it is spaceless, timeless & indeterminate? Sounds like a logical structure that has not yet been actualized (i.e. Logos). "Random, indeterminate, non-linear " sounds similar to what I call "Chaos" (unstructured potential, Plato's Forms), except that it has no measurable dimensions or structured complexity. The real-world structure is constructed from random Chaos by the combination of Logos (Reason) and Intention (EnFormAction). Perhaps it's the imprint of that timeless logical structure (mathematical patterns) that we perceive via Intuition rather than by sensory perception?
By contrast with Exoteric (physically sensible) natural sciences, most Occult (esoteric, magical) theories would identify their Hidden Source of Information with the timeless super-natural realm of Spirit. But, in my thesis, we have no access to any information that is "out of this world". I, personally, have no spiritual insights into cosmic mysteries. All I have is mundane Intuition, which draws from Information stored in the physical brain (subconscious memory of past experience). [ Note: see next post ]
Quoting Possibility
Humans mentally map incoming information into the three conventional dimensions of space-time. This logical structure seems to be innate. But, AFAIK, I don't personally map other kinds of information into other dimensions. If you could define those extra-sensory dimensions in some common-sense terms or metaphors, I might discover that I've been tapping into a higher or deeper resource "every day". Apparently, Intuition senses non-conscious information in the brain. But is that info actually contained in a non-physical non-space-time dimension???
not yet replicable or predictable : in other words, Theoretical?
Interoception : the sense of the internal state of the body. This can be both conscious and non-conscious
Kant : Space is not something objective and real, nor a substance, nor an accident, nor a relation; instead, it is subjective and ideal, and originates from the mind’s nature in accord with a stable law as a scheme, as it were, for coordinating everything sensed externally.
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/kant-spacetime/
This meta-personal imagination reminds me of Bernardo Kastrup's notion of "The Other" and "Mind At Large" in his book, More Than Allegory. After reminding the reader repeatedly that his metaphors are not real & true, in the ordinary sense, he relates some experiences in non-social reality within his own mind. While working for a secretive multi-national foundation, he took psychoactive drugs (the "recipe") and wore a cap to stimulate his brain with electromagnetic patterns. [Note : I used a similar cap several years ago (without drugs), but had no notable experiences]
During his "trips" he had an internal two-way dialogue with an amorphous entity anonymously labeled "The Other". This entity communicated in the form of images, which sounds similar to imaginative poetic Intuition. It was difficult to translate those images into words for the book. He didn't use the term, but The Other reminded me of Freud's "Super-Ego", an abstract top-down conscience. I won't go into any more detail here. I just wanted to see if any of his ideas are similar to how you imagine the extra dimensions. I haven't finished the Kindle book yet, so I don't know what to think about it. :nerd:
Quotes from the book :
"The deeply obfuscated but knowledgeable complex of my own mind that, at the same time, was also entirely alien to my ego". [The Other, Mind At Large]
"Clearly, my experience was mental and, as such, not concretely and palpably real".
"Perhaps the Recipe has just brought me to a parallel universe of some kind." [Fifth Dimension???]
"The transcendent 'space' where the dialogues with the Other unfolded . . ." [Fifth Dimension???]
"Mind-at-large is pure subjectivity"
"the human ego spans but the top layers [dimensions???} of differentiation [conscious awareness]".
"By letting go of your ordinary attention in just the right way [meditation, drugs, technology???] you can indeed reduce the obfuscation of these deeper layers."
PS___I'm enjoying our dialogue in "social reality". although I'm still mystified by some of the references to non-social reality (Ideality?). It's stretching my old stiff arthritic mind into new dimensions. But I have to take an aspirin after each exercise in mind expansion. :joke:
Personal subjective knowledge that can be structured into concepts forms part of our conceptual systems. All words and concepts we use to communicate can only be constructed intersubjectively. This is our social reality. Many people believe ‘objective reality’ to be determinable from this by dismissing personal and socially ‘constructed’ subjective knowledge - eliminating the fuzziness by ignoring uncertain information. But in my view, objectivity can only be obtained when ALL subjective points of view are accounted for.
Relative imagination, then, is our limited perspective of infinite possibility/impossibility, inclusive of information beyond our conceptual systems. It includes what we may personally or subjectively know, understand, believe, feel, remember and think, but have been unable to conceptualise or put into or words. It also includes what others have expressed to know, believe, feel, think, etc, which we don’t understand. It is the ‘chaos’ of our reality, all-the-information-all-the-time. It is everything that matters, that has meaning, whether we can attribute any value to it or not; whether or not it is real or true, logical or possible, significant or intelligible. Relative imagination is all the information we have to draw from.
Quoting Gnomon
I don’t agree that such a duality exists in information, and I don’t agree that our physical reality was programmed in that its existence was pre-selected from known possibilities of structure. The supposed ‘limits-on-possibility’ you describe have been randomly determined, and they persist and evolve as such insofar as they enable information (meaningful relation) to occur. Anything that doesn’t relate at all would exist/not exist as possibility/impossibility - pure imagination. But finite, eternal potentiality is an existence quite different from infinite possibility/impossibility, because it exists as a meaningful relation between matter/anti-matter.
The thing is that the spacetime structure of our reality did not emerge from chaos with a single, purposeful Big Bang - it only appeared to do so in time. Rather, it evolved within the amorphous structure of this spaceless-timeless ‘state’ that you refer to as ‘Ideality’. A lot of random, yet meaningful relations develop this pure possibility into a finite structure of potentiality, with the capacity to determine and initiate a constructive Big Bang.
For this to be programmed assumes the existence of certain knowledge (of structural possibilities) that can only come from experience. So what you’re referring to as G*D is the collaboration of spaceless, timeless experience (random/meaningful and valuable/potential interrelation) leading to and including the Big Bang. This makes sense within a dualistic worldview. But what you have is still the mind of G*D and the physical actuality of G*D, and no explanation as to what this ‘mind’ looks like or how it relates to physical reality. You’ve simply crafted your understanding of reality into a comfortingly familiar human metaphor of experience. It doesn’t explain the diversity of human actuality, experience, potential or meaning, let alone what we do with it all.
Quoting Gnomon
Yes - it IS a ‘logical’ structure that has not yet been actualised! But it isn’t chaos - it’s all structured according to value relations, including mathematical and logical patterns, electromagnetism, aesthetics, probability, wavefunctions, Boolean logic, qualia, feelings, reason, etc. These various structural relations enable the information to be combined and collapsed in a wide variety of ways to construct all manner of potential ‘real-world’ interactions.
I think it’s important to note here that information is not ‘stored in the physical brain’ as an actual memory, for instance. Rather, the memory is conceptualised and forms value relations with other patterns of past experience. We can reconstruct memory information from these relations - although the accuracy often depends on how we conceptualised it in the first place - ie which values we were paying attention to at the time.
Quoting Gnomon
If all your mind mapped was the three spatial dimensions, then you wouldn’t classify as ‘living’. Just because you don’t refer to them as ‘dimensions’ doesn’t mean the information isn’t part of your construction of reality. In order to even acknowledge the existence of ‘space’ as useful information, we need to map (ie. interrelate) the changes to shape and distance information of an object in an extra dimension: time. Time is not a spatial dimension. We don’t really ‘sense’ this information - we perceive it as a relational structure of localised differences in the two-dimensional information in relation to an object. In the same way, we could only acknowledge the existence of ‘time’ as information by observing/measuring localised differences in the three dimensional information in relation to an event (ie. relative distance, shape and space of and between objects), mapped in an extra dimension: experience.
So in order to acknowledge subjective experience as information, we need to note the localised differences in four-dimensional information (interoceptive states) in relation to the subject, and map this difference in an extra dimension (meaning/interpretation). But it has no practical use in this form, so - in the same way that three-dimensional information of space can be reduced to a two-dimensional map to render the information transferable - we reduce our five-dimensional information of experience into four-dimensional expressions of thoughts, words and actions.
Except it’s not that simple, because every four-dimensional event is a relational structure of three-dimensional objects, which are relational structures of two-dimensional molecules and chemical relations, which are relational structures of atoms, which are relational structures of energy. And so to determine and initiate any event in reality involves each of these relations to work together - to have the same intention, regardless of reason. The most efficient transfer of information across all of these dimensional relations at once is as a distribution of energy in terms of both effort and attention: also known as affect.
The process by which we reduce the complex, five-dimensional information of mathematical and logical patterns, electromagnetism, aesthetics, probability, wavefunctions, Boolean logic, qualia, feelings, reason, etc into a continual four-dimensional distribution map of effort and attention involves our intersubjective conceptual structures in both conscious and unconscious reasoning. We utilise both sensory input and our relative imagination to hypothesise, test and adjust these conceptual structures, enabling us to continually improve the accuracy of interactions between our constructed predictions and what’s really real.
Intuition refers to the fuzziness of these structures in our understanding. Increasing awareness, connection and collaboration with the patterns between external and internal experiences and events - without ignoring subjective feelings and other qualitative information - can help to demystify intuition.