Is the universe created from an "informationally-based" substance?

[Atla]

As far as the evidence goes, the idea we are currently within some type of Holographic Experiential Reality Simulation isn't so far fetched as to be off the table...

There is like zero evidence for it, which doesn't rule it out of course.

[VVilliam]

As far as the evidence goes, the idea we are currently within some type of Holographic Experiential Reality Simulation isn't so far fetched as to be off the table...

There is like zero evidence for it, which doesn't rule it out of course.

That the universe exists and that we are experiencing it, is evidence enough - it is really more about which filters individuals prefer to apply to it, which decides how the evidence is interpreted.

[Age]

Is the universe created from an "informationally-based" substance?

Isn't any substance 'informationally based'? I ask because information in and of itself is useless without something which can use it.

I'm a little confused as to how your second sentence relates to your first sentence. Perhaps you can clarify it for me?

And in regard to the topic of this thread, there seems to be a question (between me and uwot) as to how far down into the fabric of reality you can go before the term "information" no longer applies.

I doubt that we'll ever sort it out, but hey, that's what philosophizing is all about.
_______

Just define the word 'information' in a way that is AGREED UPON and ACCEPT by ALL, which means that that definition FITS IN PERFECTLY, or in other words, BECOMES UNIFIED with Everything.

'Information', itself, is just 'received' from and through 'senses'.

Also, 'you', posters, in the days when this was being written do NOT YET KNOW what 'Reality', Itself, ACTUALLY IS. So, LOOKING for, supposedly, "how far down into the 'fabric' of 'reality' you can go" is just a MESS OF CONFUSION, for 'you'.

[seeds]

The concept of decoherence is one possible approach to why superpositions seem to apparently 'collapse' - they don't REALLY collapse, their state just decoheres from the other superpositioned states to such an extent that they can no longer interfere with each other.

Right.

However, the key point in your refreshingly intelligent understanding of the real meaning of decoherence is "...they don't REALLY collapse...".

And if they don't REALLY collapse,...

(i.e., the waves do not become "positionally-fixed")

...then that means that the three-dimensional features of what we call "reality" cannot take form, and will only exist in Heisenberg's realm of ghostly "potentia."

Therefore, even though decoherence seems to offer a possible clue as to why objects are separate from each other, it still does not solve the mystery of how the objects acquire their observable, touchable, hearable, tasteable, and smellable 3-D forms suspended in this spatial arena we call a "universe."
_______

[seeds]

Absolutely the universe is made of information in some way, and the solid material we experience feeling, touching, seeing in our every day life is a high-level facade over the evolution of information.

Yes, I can agree with that assessment.

However, as one who resides in the Berkeleyan camp, I like to think of the universe as being constructed from a highly ordered (and highly resolved) version of the same fundamental substance from which our dreams are constructed.

However, I think it's worth nothing about this last paragraph: "causes the substance to conform to whatever it is our measuring devices are looking for" -- our measuring devices are made up of the same information-based substances that they're measuring. Our measuring devices, and our bodies and our eyes, are also made up of electrons and photons and neutrons, which are part of (and themselves arguably a higher-level facade over) the information-based layer of reality.

You're preaching to the choir, brother.

And that is all part and parcel of the question as to why everything in the entire universe doesn't simply merge together and always exist as one big superpositioned field of information with no inherent means to transform (collapse) its ever-moving (ever-evolving) quantum waves into positionally-fixed, three-dimensional phenomena.

Hence, the reason why it is suggested that consciousness may be involved in the process in a way that is "loosely" similar to how the laser in the laser hologram...



...explicates the three-dimensional objects from the patterns of information encoded in the photographic emulsion.

In other words, it is the conjoined relationship between consciousness and that of the fields of quantum information (working together in tandem) that (to borrow from the Kantian script) transforms "noumena" into "phenomena."
_______

As far as the evidence goes, the idea we are currently within some type of Holographic Experiential Reality Simulation isn't so far fetched as to be off the table...

I like what you're saying there, VVilliam, however, I'm not a fan of the word "Simulation" when it comes to the workings of the universe.

"Illusion," yes. But "Simulation," not so much.

A "Simulation" of what?
_______

[Atla]

As far as the evidence goes, the idea we are currently within some type of Holographic Experiential Reality Simulation isn't so far fetched as to be off the table...

There is like zero evidence for it, which doesn't rule it out of course.

That the universe exists and that we are experiencing it, is evidence enough - it is really more about which filters individuals prefer to apply to it, which decides how the evidence is interpreted.

Bullshit

[uwot]

I have no idea how to explain life, let alone consciousness; but to believe that they are somehow divorced from matter and only imbue themselves in particular structures, in my view, is a leap of faith. I mean yeah, it's a possibility.

...in regard to the bolded line above, have you not understood any of my blatherings over the years of our debating on this site?

seeds me old china, you asked:

Are you not a dualist?

I'm just telling you why not.

...if what you are alluding to in your subsequent post...

Frankly, I haven't ruled out Bishop Berkeley's hypothesis.

...is indeed a possibility, then the implication of Bishop Berkeley's (and my) hypothesis is that absolutely everything in the universe...

...is literally alive because it is thoroughly saturated with the living essence of the Entity of which Berkeley's hypothesis is referencing.

Well, if like Berkeley you believe there are spirits and ideas, which of those do you think might qualify as an "informationally-based" substance?

How are the "knobs fiddled" when you assert your will over the holographic-like fabric of your own mind and call-forth the image of a brown basketball, for example, and then willfully cause it to morph into the image of the blue earth?

I have no idea.

Furthermore, how are the "knobs fiddled" when a lucid dreamer willfully grasps the holographic-like substances of her own mind and creates the vivid and dynamic (almost "real" seeming) scene of a tropical island paradise...

Again, no idea, but it does illustrate a weakness in idealism: if my reality were an act of my will, I would spend more time on tropical islands.

The point is that, in principle (if not in any scientifically definable way), we can see how the "knobs are fiddled"...
(i.e., how the informationally-based substance of reality obeys the willful commands of consciousness)
...by simply looking into our own minds and observing how our wills grasp and manipulate our own mental holography.

We only see that we can imagine anything we like; we don't know how we do that and perhaps it's just me, but I can't simply wish myself into a tropical island paradise.

[uwot]

You keep using analogies...
(rugs, records, and duck ponds)
...as being some sort of prerequisite (wrinkleable/wavable) medium that had to be in place before any sort of informational processes (i.e., wrinkles and waves) could emerge...

Again, it seems to me that there being some material that the universe is made of is a workable hypothesis. Even if everything is ultimately a hologram, or ideas in some god's mind, we know a bit about how the, perhaps illusory, material works.

...yet you offer absolutely no explanation as to the ontological nature or origin of this mysterious precursory medium.

So, what is the "mysterious precursory medium" made of, uwot?

It is the stuff, if it exists, that behaves the way we see it behaving.

And, no, the word "stuff" isn't going to cut it.

Oh all right then: medium.

I know you like pictures so you can see what I mean here: https://popgunsbubblesandmotorbikes.blo ... -guns.html

Beautifully done, uwot!

Thank you.

Is that the makings of a new book, or an expansion of the earlier one?

Well, I wanted to show how the medium the universe is made of creates stars, planets and us, and how our growing understanding has driven advances in technology. So it's a bit of both. You should understand that I don't pretend to know where this stuff, sorry medium, came from. I would rather look for an alternative explanation, but frankly if it turns out that god did it, I wouldn't be too surprised.

[RCSaunders]

_______

(Note: This thread is an off-shoot from the "Christianity" thread in the "General Philosophical Discussion" forum.)

...More interesting, to me at any rate, is what exactly you mean by "an "informationally-based" substance". You don't like the duck pond analogy, how about an old 45? The information on a record is in the groove; when you first drop the needle, there is no sound, because the groove is smooth; it carries no information. And then: Wop bop a loo bop a lop bom bom! The way I see things is that the substance comes first; be that a duck pond, a record or the stuff the universe is made of.

What I mean by suggesting that the phenomenal features of the universe are created from an "informationally-based substance," is partially derived from Heisenberg referring to the unmeasured (superpositioned) quantum realm as existing as some kind of raw "potentia" whose (ghost-like) constituent properties evolve according to Schrödinger's equation, which is loosely represented by this Wiki gif...

...

The whole discussion so far seems meaningless to me, because the two concepts in question are never defined:

1. What does, "information," mean in this context?
[Does it mean, "information." in the epistemological sense, i.e. knowledge, like that found in an encyclopedia, or does it mean, "information," as that term is unfortunately used in information theory which has nothing to do with epistemological information and only the integrity of stored are transmitted data.]

2. What does, "substance," mean in this context?
[Does it mean some kind of material or, "stuff," with a state, like solid, liquid, gas, or plasma, such as a chemical element (iron, mercury, nitrogen, neon light, for example) or compound (salt, water, ammonia, Aurora Borealis, for example) or, "something else." If, "something else," what is it and in what sense is it a, "substance." ]

Until those two concepts are made explicit the discussion can only go in circles as illustrated by this thread.

[VVilliam]

As far as the evidence goes, the idea we are currently within some type of Holographic Experiential Reality Simulation isn't so far fetched as to be off the table...

I like what you're saying there, VVilliam, however, I'm not a fan of the word "Simulation" when it comes to the workings of the universe.

"Illusion," yes. But "Simulation," not so much.

A "Simulation" of what?

I have seen this complaint before seeds, and it caused me to pause and reflect if that is the correct word to be using.

That is why I call it a 'reality simulation' as it is simulating a reality which can be experienced as real.

More to the point, whatever is experiencing it as real has to be conscious, so the only real thing in the whole HERS are the consciousnesses which are experiencing it.

If any illusion is going on regarding that, it is the idea that consciousness is the illusion and the universe is the real thing, which is the basic tenet of emergent theory and the overall message supporters of that theory, preach....

[seeds]

...if what you are alluding to in your subsequent post...

Frankly, I haven't ruled out Bishop Berkeley's hypothesis.

...is indeed a possibility, then the implication of Bishop Berkeley's (and my) hypothesis is that absolutely everything in the universe...

...is literally alive because it is thoroughly saturated with the living essence of the Entity of which Berkeley's hypothesis is referencing.

Well, if like Berkeley you believe there are spirits and ideas, which of those do you think might qualify as an "informationally-based" substance?

I consider "ideas" (mental images/mental holography) as being made of the same sort of "informationally-based substance" that the stars, and planets, and bodies, and brains are made of.

On the other hand, I'm not so sure if the same applies to the "agent" (or "I Am-ness") that sits at the throne of our consciousness and is represented by that "eye-con" I use in all of my illustrations (hence, the unresolved issue of "substance dualism").

How are the "knobs fiddled" when you assert your will over the holographic-like fabric of your own mind and call-forth the image of a brown basketball, for example, and then willfully cause it to morph into the image of the blue earth?

I have no idea.

Well, you asked the following,...

...what I gather you to be saying is that the constituent properties are directed, by the power of thought. I get the hologram analogies, but just how close are they to what you believe is actually the case? How are the knobs fiddled?

...to which I was being rhetorical in my response in that I was trying to point out the actual means by which the knobs are indeed fiddled.

The point is that the "knobs" are being "fiddled" by the conscious "agent" to whom the substance belongs.

Furthermore, how are the "knobs fiddled" when a lucid dreamer willfully grasps the holographic-like substances of her own mind and creates the vivid and dynamic (almost "real" seeming) scene of a tropical island paradise...

Again, no idea, but it does illustrate a weakness in idealism: if my reality were an act of my will, I would spend more time on tropical islands.

As always, it's not that my theory cannot be wrong,...

...however, I can't even begin to recall how many times, and in how many different ways I have pointed out that the reason why we cannot yet do with our own minds what God has done with his mind (the universe), is because we are but mere "semi-conscious" (seed-like) "embryos" of God who are not yet "fully-born."

In other words, we have not yet awakened to the full-potential of our minds.

And, unfortunately, the only way that we are going to awaken into "full-consciousness" and into the "full-potential" of our minds, is through the process that we call "death",...

...which, in truth, is nothing more than the second and final "birth" of our minds (our "I Am-nesses") out of these "placental-like" shells that we call bodies, and into a higher context of reality ("true reality") where God and our true and ultimate form will finally be revealed to us.

Indeed, this is all vaguely suggested in Biblical metaphysics where it not only proclaims us as being God's literal "offspring" (children/progeny), but also declares the following...

"Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again."

(Continued in next post)
_______

[seeds]

_______

(Continued from prior post)

We only see that we can imagine anything we like; we don't know how we do that and perhaps it's just me, but I can't simply wish myself into a tropical island paradise.

I have already pointed out in a prior post that a "lucid dreamer" creates (out of the fabric of her own mind) a context of reality that looks, and feels, and sounds, and tastes, and smells "almost" as real as the reality she experiences outward in the universe...



In which case, it isn't such a far-fetched or absurd notion to imagine that if she could somehow awaken completely to the inner-dimension of her mind and take full control over her mental imaging substance with the same forthright awareness and control she possesses over it while awake,...

...then it can be further imagined that from then on, everything that she continues to create out of the living mental fabric of her very own being, could look, and feel, and sound, and taste, and smell "completely real" to her.

(Or, at the very least, whatever she creates will present itself to her in precisely the same way that the phenomenal reality of this universe presents itself to God.)

And thus, to take this little scenario to its furthest and most logical conclusion,...

...if it is indeed a possibility that we have each been given the gift of eternal life,...

(as is suggested in the metaphysics of many of the world's religions)

...then don't you think that an intelligent bloke such as yourself...

(if literally given "FOREVER" to accomplish the task)

...could eventually reach a level of control over this "real-appearing" fabric of your own mind to the point where you, yourself, could manage to create the same sort of order we are viewing as we behold the workings of this universe?

I mean, if similar to the lucid dreamer (yet infinitely better), the reality you create out of the fabric of your own mind, again, looks, and feels, and sounds, and tastes, and smells "completely real" to you,...

...then after billions of years of you bringing order to your inner-reality,...



...just imagine how "real" it will look, and feel, and sound, and taste, and smell to your little embryonic (semi-conscious/seed-like) offspring who are momentarily held within the context of that reality, as is depicted in my flagship illustration...



Yet, the truth of the matter is that the reality that the "seeds" are experiencing isn't quite as "real" (or solid) as it seems to be. For in this scenario, their reality is created out of "mental imaging energy" whose fundamental essence is more akin to Heisenberg's ghostly "potentia" substance, which is not very real itself, but is capable of becoming absolutely anything "real" that consciousness chooses it to become.

And thus, that brings us back full-circle to this universe, and to what the physicists are discovering about matter and how it appears to be composed of a nebulous "light-like" substance that, allegedly, is not only 99.9999999 percent empty space, but also, according to certain interpretations of quantum mechanics, might be dependent upon the presence of consciousness to transform it from its waving context of ghostly potentia, into its positionally-fixed context of three-dimensional manifestations of what consciousness calls "reality."

"The universe begins to look more like a great thought than a great machine." ― James Jeans

“The first gulp from the glass of natural sciences will turn you into an atheist, but at the bottom of the glass God is waiting for you.” ― Werner Heisenberg

"All matter originates and exists only by virtue of a force... We must assume behind this force the existence of a conscious and intelligent Mind. This Mind is the matrix of all matter." ― Max Planck

As I have stated so many times before, I could be wrong about all of this.

However, I just cannot imagine how the truth of reality and of our ultimate and eternal destiny can get any more "NATURAL" and "ORGANIC" than what I have suggested...

...(not to mention, absolutely wondrous, and purposeful, and equal, and perfect for all humans).
_______

[Scott Mayers]

Why do people always have to mix THIS particular interpretation of QM with THIS particular understanding/misunderstanding of information.

Are you referring to my posts responding to a side issue regarding consciousness? If so, what is your concern? If not, maybe reference who or which posts you're referring to. It would help narrow down what you might be responding to.

Skipped your posts, aren't you one of those people who can't tell the abstract from the concrete, so you are lost about what is real, and that's what gets you into philosophy?

The 'structure' of some organ like the brain that creates the conscious phenomena are 'cellular' logical machines that collectively permit consciousness as being based upon a particular set of energy exchanges of these atomic units (the cells) during some functional event.

Looks like an example of being unable to tell abstract from concrete. Functionalism, emergence, bet you also reify abstract information.

You should have just stopped at just saying you didn't read it. I still don't have a clue what the fuck you are talking about. Don't respond. I'll ignore you too for your choice to discriminate with undo prejudice. Thanks.

[Atla]

Are you referring to my posts responding to a side issue regarding consciousness? If so, what is your concern? If not, maybe reference who or which posts you're referring to. It would help narrow down what you might be responding to.

Skipped your posts, aren't you one of those people who can't tell the abstract from the concrete, so you are lost about what is real, and that's what gets you into philosophy?

The 'structure' of some organ like the brain that creates the conscious phenomena are 'cellular' logical machines that collectively permit consciousness as being based upon a particular set of energy exchanges of these atomic units (the cells) during some functional event.

Looks like an example of being unable to tell abstract from concrete. Functionalism, emergence, bet you also reify abstract information.

You should have just stopped at just saying you didn't read it. I still don't have a clue what the fuck you are talking about. Don't respond. I'll ignore you too for your choice to discriminate with undo prejudice. Thanks.

Just like you had no clue last time, and you won't have a clue next time.

[Scott Mayers]

Skipped your posts, aren't you one of those people who can't tell the abstract from the concrete, so you are lost about what is real, and that's what gets you into philosophy?


Looks like an example of being unable to tell abstract from concrete. Functionalism, emergence, bet you also reify abstract information.

You should have just stopped at just saying you didn't read it. I still don't have a clue what the fuck you are talking about. Don't respond. I'll ignore you too for your choice to discriminate with undo prejudice. Thanks.

Just like you had no clue last time, and you won't have a clue next time.

And you? Did you somehow disprove something I said as logically unsound? If so, show me.

Consciousness to me is EASY to intepret but given the WAY many of you think in terms of a religious-like belief regarding your personal experience of consciousness is getting in the way, ....even for those I normally agree with who I know are not 'religious' per se.

When appropriately investigating these phenomena, you have to be DESCRIPTIVE of the sensation of 'consciousness'. My post above to uwot in which I attempted to edit is 7 times trying to relate this might be of interest. But your intention to dismiss whatever view you THINK you have of my opinion is YOURS to own if you do not understand. But....

...you didn't assert a 'misunderstanding' but clearly dismissed me with an insult that was not instigated against you as PERSON, as yours does against me. Your own choice to 'cancel' my input then suffices to justify my own choice to 'cancel' whatever value you might have had to contribute regardless of whatever potential wisdom you hold in showing me wrong.