John Archibald Wheeler advocated the idea of "It from Bit". Everything in the universe, including mid, is made of information, and information consists of sequences of binary alternatives 0 and 1. More on this subject can be found here: "IT FROM BIT: WHAT DID JOHN ARCHIBALD WHEELER GET RIGHT—AND WRONG?". The article contains the view of an American mathematician, philosopher and theologian Willian Dembski. More about his views can be found in the article "HOW INFORMATIONAL REALISM SUBVERTS MATERIALISM". Let me quote just two paragraphs from this last article:
Informational realism does not deny the existence of things (i.e., entities or substances). But within informational realism, what defines things is their capacity for communicating or exchanging information with other things. Things are inferred from the information they communicate. Information, as the relational glue that holds reality together, thus assumes primacy in informational realism.
In informational realism, things make their reality felt by communicating or exchanging information. Thus, things that are not in immediate or mediate informational contact with other things might just as well not exist and so, in fact, don’t exist within informational realism. Informationally isolated or disconnected entities thereby become nonentities.
This sounds to me as more reasonable approach. There is information and there are "things" that communicate this information What is this "communication"? For bits of information to be considered as a "communication" they need to be "meaningful". And what that means? It is the role of the mind and of consciousness to decide what has a meaning and what doesn't. The main problem here is, as far as I can see, the ability to distinguish between order and chaos. These are two fundamental concepts: ORDER and CHAOS. Intelligent creation is the ability to crate order out of chaos. Thus not 0 and 1 are the fundamental elements of Being, but O and C. Both order and chaos must include in their description infinite sequences of bits, and infinitely complex algorithms for creating these bits. And there is no reason for supposing that Nature is scared of infinities. Exactly the converse might be true: Nature effortlessly operates with infinities, and of any order. With our finite means we can only approximate in our description the true workings of the Universe.
Concerning Order and Chaos, let me quote from the recent book I decided to study what a clinical psychologist Jordan B. Peterson has to say in his "12 Rules for Life: An Antidote for Chaos"
Order is where the people around you act according to well- understood social norms, and remain predictable and cooperative. It’s the world of social structure, explored territory, and familiarity. The state of Order is typically portrayed, symbolically—imaginatively —as masculine. It’s the Wise King and the Tyrant, forever bound together, as society is simultaneously structure and oppression.
Chaos, by contrast, is where—or when—something unexpected happens. Chaos emerges, in trivial form, when you tell a joke at a party with people you think you know and a silent and embarrassing chill falls over the gathering. Chaos is what emerges more catastrophically when you suddenly find yourself without employment, or are betrayed by a lover. As the antithesis of symbolically masculine order, it’s presented imaginatively as feminine. It’s the new and unpredictable suddenly emerging in the midst of the commonplace familiar. It’s Creation and Destruction, the source of new things and the destination of the dead (as nature, as opposed to culture, is simultaneously birth and demise).
Order and chaos are the yang and yin of the famous Taoist symbol: two serpents, head to tail. Order is the white, masculine serpent; Chaos, its black, feminine counterpart. The black dot in the white—and the white in the black—indicate the possibility of transformation: just when things seem secure, the unknown can loom, unexpectedly and large. Conversely, just when everything seems lost, new order can emerge from catastrophe and chaos. For the Taoists, meaning is to be found on the border between the ever-entwined pair. To walk that border is to stay on the path of life, the divine Way.
meaning is to be found on the border between the ever-entwined pair.
In the future posts I will deal with this "border" or "boundry" - using simple algebra.
P.S. Saturday's entertainment:
Bjab
ReplyDeleteFajny filmik (dalekie apropo dyskowego znaku yin yang) (trzeba pominąć reklamy)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3oM7hX3UUEU
@Ark
ReplyDeleteThe answer lies in the structure of the Information Bit. If you have a 1 and a 0 (true and false), then before you can choose something from that, what do you have? You have the POTENTIAL to choose "1" or "0." So "before" the bit, there still lies the Potential. The bit really has a "three values": (first) the potential to take "1" or "0.", (second) bit = "1" and (third) bit = "0."
So, "getting to know" the Bit, we have three possibilities: Bit = "yes", Bit = "no". Bit = "potential." When you come into contact with Potential, you also come into contact with Consciousness/Will (for me, potential and consciousness could even be synonyms). Your own Consciousness/Will, is an unrealized bit that has not taken on a "1" or "0", so it is bit = "potential."
So in practice you have this situation: You are an unrealized bit of information = "potential" aka consciousness/will, among an infinite ocean of bits of information = "1" or = "0." Since the origin of Information as well as Consciousness/Will have the same origin, they are able to "communicate" perfectly.
Information after it realized its potential by going to an infinite number of 0's and an infinite number of 1's, creates a whole set of information that, let's say, is fixed, static, it's all scattered blocks to do whatever you want. Otherwise, you can visualize it as the depths of the ocean that surrounds us, and we swim in it. Then let's find a place in it for the Bit, which hasn't gone to "1" and "0", and it's just a Potential - that Bit=Potential would be like us swimming in this ocean (our Will and Consciousness swmimming in Ocean of Information).
Being is a form that only results from putting Information (bit = 1 and bit = 0) into Order according to Will/Consciousness/Bit of Information = "Potential." They work together, they have the same origin. The lowest form of Being is the Universe, which organizes itself in the face of the division into "1" and "0". There is Consciousness/Potential/Will taking the First Lesson that comes directly from what is it building itself.
Why Potential, could not really be Nothingness or Indeterminacy? Of course it could be and is, AS IT CAN BE EVERYTHING INCLUDING NOTHING. However, from the perspective of Creation, the most optimal way of disposing of Indeterminacy is always chosen it as the Potential (which is eternal and infinite, because that is the most optimal way for further Creating).
So, if you are conscious, as you are now sitting and reading this text in front of your computer, you are a Potential that has not taken a "1" or a "0" - it has not closed itself to any of them, and so it continues to remain unrealized for take "0" or "1", it realizes itself instead through your Will. It is Indeterminacy in action and come Determined through acts of will. And next it build Being through ordering "0's" and "1's." All is only Information. All is One. It's worth to look at all aspects of the Information. That's All there Is.
As for your Being, it is already some Order of Information that creates you, so that at least you understand the language you read, you learned it by ordering all the information about it allowing you to use it. The next step may be to take the information you are interested in from the things you read. Creating an order out of them at some point some eureka ("ah I know!") may dawn on you, this is the moment when the information has created some new order, raising the level of your Being.
I watched the video with Peterson. As personally for me he is not very inspiring when it comes to his philosophy and work on the self, however I appreciate his value to the world, I will say later why.
ReplyDeleteFirst, why doesn't he inspire me personally? For example, his crying caused by the way the world looks... The fact that he reacts so emotionally implies his attachment to his expected image of the world, which he does not find in reality. And this in turn suggests the self-serving nature and narcissism of this man. And here it doesn't really matter if it's about taking candy away from a child that child expected to eat (and child cries because of it) or taking away the world from him that he expects to be and crying about it. Also, what is a problem among society, what he says confidenty and fast, according to him is narcissism. Well, there is one truth in psychology, that truth is that we PROJECT and are very often disturbed by that what we see in others or WORLD and what we do not accept in ourselves...
Peterson would certainly benefit from turning to the teachings of the Stoics. In Stoicism, you accept the state of affairs by absorbing negative emotions and crystallizing at a higher level, remaining unmoved (no crying, no anger). Peterson's crying makes me feel compassion for him, however, to be a real man and role model for me, he would have to present something more to me. A tearful guy is not what impresses me, it has to be someone clearly more valuable for me to follow him.
I have also repeatedly come across his words speaking in the style of, here I will paraphrase: "Life is a tragedy." "Life is a place of suffering." And here I would say, not quite. How we perceive reality is connected to the workings of our minds. If you think "life is a tragedy," then it will be such for you. True freedom is to recognize that you can perceive reality and feel however you choose... You can see all that is happening around you with humor even. All you need is knowledge. If you don't yet have a satisfying belief system that allows you to feel the way you want to feel, that means you don't have enough knowledge to create the right narrative and/or knowledge to properly write it in your subconscious so that it works automatically for you for your benefit.
On the other hand, what good things I can say about Peterson. I like the fact that he upholds conservative virtues. He is, to me, despite his imperfections, a great character, that he is able, despite his failures, to stand up and hold on. He may not be my idol or an authority for me, however, some value he has for world.... without question. Now the fashion is relativism and distortion of values, even a kind of Satanism. He's conservative and he's mainstream, it's great that he's on the conservative side, and anti-left that is not real left, this is psychopathy and tyranny masked as left. I can say that I am from a "school" where the basis for work on the oneself uses the division between service to others (STO) and service to self (STS).
ReplyDeleteI have noticed, who think they are in some kind of work on themselves, ignore this division, going into some kind "satanism" and "leftism" in the work on the self. Once one example made me laugh hard, that working on oneself, it's just like with a girl's skirt. This is very infantile, but wait for more... :-) According to this someone, if you see that the skirt fits badly then you just correct it on yourself and thats all, it is work on the self. NO. IT'S NOT. Working on the self is when you have a rigid framework to which you conform, and that rigid framework is, for example, the division between STO and STS (it is like such conservatism in working on the self.) So in "conservatism" (STO vs STS conception) when a skirt lies wrong on you, it means you have to lose weight or gain weight, not that you just "correct skirt" and all will be now good. You are the one adjusting to objective reality, not you adjusting reality to yourself. And Peterson generally in his message is a person who preaches that you should adjust to the objective reality, not others or the world to you, for which he has a plus with me. In the next comment I will write a bit about women and comment Peterson's words.
I like part of what Peterson said about women's relationships with men. I halfly agree with it and halfly not at all. Women are a gift to us and it's good for them to be picky - I agree with that. Yet a man is also a gift to a woman and should also be picky.
ReplyDeleteI had such a situation recently when I picked up a girl. What did I do right: I got her interested enough at first to take a number from her, so that we later arranged to meet, which resulted in more meetings. I built comfort and trust between me and her that she got into my car alone and we had fun driving around town at night. Then I kissed her, in that car, properly, not some kind of little kiss, I sharply put my tongue into her simulating moving (like something else you put in, you know what), and she embraced me more and pulled me closer. So, too, I must have built up some physical and sexual attraction with her that something like this happened. And the point here is not to get anyone horny, or to brag, and so I write this as an anonymous person you don't know, I have none of this and won't have any, anyway, it's an ordinary story like thousands.... I mean here is what I want to say next.
In all this, it seemed that everything went well. However, this was not the case. I know it was not good. I had such moments that I kept silent not knowing what to say, it worked negatively captivating me. When I told her about the things that are important to me, such as meditation and breathing, she recognized that she always thought it was some ditty and nonsense, implying in a way my immaturity, that I was interested in it, but it was important to me and it worked on me. She asked about trips, vacations, I didn't know what to say. I'm not interested in travel, I didn't know what to say.... went negative again. I gained some of that downside, which minuses my value in her eyes.
Although it seemed that everything was going in the right direction, kissing, being together, however I knew there was trouble and we were different, there was no flow between us.
When I wanted to fathom what went wrong and how she sees our relationship she remained silent or deluded me. Naturally, she expects me to take responsibility for the further course of events. I proposed to her to be friends. And that's basically where it ended. She told me to look for someone with my interests, someone with whom I would have something to talk about. You see Mr. Peterson. Men are valuable, too. Responsibility for what happens is on the side of women and men. Ideally, I would earn 15,000, have a six-pack and take girls on trips. Be similar to a movie and TV series actor so that she could show off to her female friends. And best not to mention any "weird interests"...
I would say that a particular experience with just one woman is not enough for drawing general conclusions. I suspect that not not all girls are like the one in your story. How old you are?
DeleteIt would be more logical to ask what age my would-be partner is. 22 years old. I am older than her.
DeleteEven if you had been 90, there would be still a hope to find a woman that would share your interests and goals. So do not give up, and do not draw general conclusions about women based on one or two examples.
DeleteTherefore, I continue to talk to women and consider with whom I can meet and develop a relationship.
DeleteIt's more complex than that, and it's not up to us to find a solution for it. People are simply supposed to follow their own choice. And God/Nature/Universe will naturally remedy this by creating a "filtration system," straining the chaff from the grain, and the "grains" will then mate and create offspring in the future. Today, society culturally (if it is any culture) is programmed to do itself uphill. There are men who stay themselves, and I take it that I can only change to some extent, and some things I won't give up, whatever anyone thinks. There are men who play this sick game (to please women), but they face other problems - they become supplicants, guys who do things to gain favor with women, and they reject them, because such men have no value to them. They are not like James Bond, but like kindergartners who come to get praise, only not in the form of evaluation, but in the form of sex which they want to gain.... This is a more complex problem than: "These young men, they suck today." And the Universe will find a way to balance it all.
ReplyDeleteThere is no need to worry about it. I would like to dedicate a song by a Polish artist to Peterson: Adolf Dymsza: https://youtu.be/kN5kqPRIDOE
"Przeze mnie proszę niech się co chce dzieje
Jak nie mam to nie jem...
Jak człowiek się przejmuje to łysieje
I psuje sobie krew...
Jak kogoś boli ząb, ma ciasne buty
To chodzi jak struty
I martwi się i smuci się i biada
Lub wpada zaraz w gniew...
A u mnie siup, a u mnie cyk smutek był i smutek momentalnie znikł bo u mnie siup i raz i dwa i człowiek swój humorek znowu ma..." Tekst pochodzi z https://www.tekstowo.pl/piosenka,adolf_dymsza,a_u_mnie_siup__a_u_mnie_cyk.html
I agree with you that Peterson is perhaps oversensitive. On the other hand Dymsza did not have the same experiences and goals as Peterson. So hard to say.
DeleteFirst of all, Dymsza was an actor who is supposed to convey certain things, in art form. So what comparison are we talking about? Besides, Peterson if he wants any direction, he should grasp on himself. His crying is just a veiled action of his Ego.
DeleteIf you actually have the potential to serve humanity, you don't cry because the world doesn't meet your expectations... like a little child who didn't get candy, for which child was waiting. I KNOW THAT THE WORLD IS MORE THAN CANDY JUST WHY DOES PETERSON REACTS IN THE SAME WAY AS TO CANDY?
Concerning Peterson, I am not geetting what he wante to say in this piece of his talk:
Delete" Professor Stephen Hawking before he died gave me his last television interview and he said that the biggest threat to the future of mankind was when artificial intelligence learned to self-design what do you think the biggest threat to mankind is narcissistic compassion..."
Anonymous: Someone
Delete"If you actually have the potential to serve humanity, you don't cry because the world doesn't meet your expectations..."
You can cry to yourself. There is a time for crying, too. Nevertheless, there will come a time when something happens that completely knocks you down, and that is when you will finally stop crying. Instead of crying over the world not meeting your expectations, start working on meeting the world's expectations of you. However unrealistic your mission seems to you, you won't know if it's real if you don't try. I know from experience that usually when some side of life seems to be killing you and depriving you of everything, that's when you get an opportunity of sorts. Suddenly you find that there is something bigger that is leading you in a strange way. E.g. you suddenly get an opportunity to take part in a project concerning your ultimate goal to some extent. What you are here for.
As for women, all I can tell you is that if what matters to someone is your money, age or physical appearance, I personally would not waste my time on such a person.
I think it's a matter of "social common sense" which, in this case, is the acceptance of narcissism and the mutual affirmation and protection of each other in this attitude.
DeleteAs for Peterson, it is certainly on the plus, that he is fighting for a better world, as he can. I'm glad to see someone like him working in this public sphere, even if I'm not entirely fond of his philosophy or outlook on many different issues.
Delete"As for women, all I can tell you is that if what matters to someone is your money, age or physical appearance, I personally would not waste my time on such a person."
These are certainly good tips. Though I would expand on it a bit. You can pay attention to someone's age, attractiveness or wealth, but it certainly shouldn't be the most important criterion. We have the right to require that someone achieve some level of financial stability and cope with life. And in the same way, we should not turn our backs on those people who demand it of us. The same when it comes to physical attractiveness. We may recognize that our partner should be attractive and also we should take care of our attractivness in order to be a "well-packaged gift" for another person, but we must recognize that the most significant value of these gifts, is inside of both of us.
"narcissistic compassion"
DeleteI found this definition online. It will be better: "They are a narcissistic person who will pretend to be care about something in order to exploit someone." - But Peterson really know what he has on mind. This is generally how it is stated on the internet as in this very quote. So that's what he meant, I think.
Just a few words and I'm done today! :-)
DeleteSynthesizing my attempt to explain "narcissistic compassion" and the one from the Internet...:
1) My explanation: I think it's a matter of "social common sense," which in this case is the acceptance of narcissism and mutual affirmation and protection of each other in this attitude.
2) Plus, from the Internet: A narcissistic person who will pretend to care about something in order to take advantage of someone.
So I suspect that if Peterson is talking about the biggest threat to the world that it is "narcisstic compassion." The way I figure it, the idea is that we as a society will pretend to act for our common good (really for personal good). Accept that pretending and accept that it looks that way. Until eventually we wake up to the fact that we as a whole society have become soulless creatures who only look good to others.
In the event it goes so far that each of us becomes just a black hole that is wrapped in a pretty frame. It's when this wrapping is removed that only a black global mass of our "souls" remains.
This is indeed dangerous and could be dangerous for the whole world, because let's note the dynamics of this. We don't want to be bad to others, so we accept their good attitude toward us that is really hidden narcissistic behavior. Also notice that the best way is also to be narcissistic and not to reveal it to the outside world, despite the fact that paradoxically, all others are narcisstic too, but because no one will admit that they are like that too, only we will come out as the bad ones. And well, then we fall by the effect in the gutter and continue to do the same thing. Eventually we wake up in a world of illusion, where everyone pretends to be someone they are not, in reality thinking only about selves.
I AM NOT SAYING THAT YOU ARE ACTUALLY LIKE THAT OR THAT I AM LIKE THAT OR OTHERS DEFINITLY LIKE THAT. This is some kind of scenario, dangerous for all of us.
I'll have to look up what Peterson himself has to say about this, about narcisstic compassion. Because I never came across his own broader explanation of it. And there must be something on the Internet, I expect.