Informational Environment [split Veridical NDEs are a myth]

I never said or implied that any part of our experience is "inferior". The brain is something within experience ~ but we never experience being the brain.


That isn't evidence that we are accessing the experiences of others ~ that would be telepathy, where we gain insight into the first-person experiences of others. Perceiving non-physical phenomena from the outside isn't accessing the "experiences" of others ~ it is a psychic perceiving of energies.

Harry Martindales Roman ghosts experience? It's a form of psychometry, I would have to guess at, possibly.


How do you know this...? Mathematical structures are not self-aware ~ nor is it certain that they provide structure. Mathematics is an means of abstractly modelling physical phenomena.

There are many partial repetitive apparitional experiences i.e. seeing a full person apparition moving, who disappears, but their feet can still be seen moving around... in that case it was considered that a wardrobe door had been opened by the apparition... blocking the view of a third party who was present, apart from the apparitions feet, which could still be seen moving around below the wardrobe door by the experient. That suggests this repetitive apparition was from the Experience of a third party.

There are loads of different ways anomalous phenomena can manifest within Experience (the result)... but they are all considered anomolous because they connect different Spacetimes... generally someone recalls an Experience that has sufficient separation (space-like or time-like etc) which they cannot explain, if things work the naive way they were taught.

I never said or implied that any part of our experience is "inferior". The brain is something within experience ~ but we never experience being the brain.

That isn't evidence that we are accessing the experiences of others ~ that would be telepathy, where we gain insight into the first-person experiences of others. Perceiving non-physical phenomena from the outside isn't accessing the "experiences" of others ~ it is a psychic perceiving of energies.

I am with Max on this. Through both study and experience it is fact for me.  Empathy is the everyday normal way we encounter it.  There may be only degrees of difference between understanding someone, reading someone's intentions, empathy as an strong emotion and deep experiences of telepathy.  I think telepathy is very rare.  Non-local perception is not like having the exact experience of another, but the meanings become communicated "as if" it was personal.

Individuals are a perspective built upon what is shared - that which is hidden behind the result (Experience). As one example, there seems no way to explain something like... Harry Martindales Roman Ghosts experience, along with other common anomalous phenomena, without accepting he accessed others Experience... he wasn't there... and that - together with all other anomalous phenomena - shows that Experience really is - literally - shared.

Peningtons mathematical wormholes literally connect different Spacetimes, they are a shadow of the enormous complexity that lies behind Experience, which appears emergent from a shared mathematical structure... which knows about itself...

https://psiencequest.net/forums/thread-a-basic-model-for-mind-in-a-physical-universe

 At its core is a simple but powerful claim: spacetime is not smooth, but discrete – made of tiny “cells”, which is what quantum mechanics suggests. Each cell can store a quantum imprint of every interaction, like the passage of a particle or even the influence of a force such as electromagnetism or nuclear interactions, that passes through. Each event leaves behind a tiny change in the local quantum state of the spacetime cell.

In other words, the universe does not just evolve. It remembers. 

Max, I find Florian Neukart ideas very interesting.  Maybe you could offer an opinion.

Whether information is ontologically real is not germane to the argument you have been reading, but which you do not address in your responses.  Information objects are pragmatically effective in the real world.  You have made a logical challenge by confining information as Shannon (communication theory) units of measure.  However, the claim is that bits and bits have direct relations with meaningful arrangements.  There is little to no subjective contextual considerations in calculating movement and materials.  Yet, pragmatically, there is context in the study of meaning.  The electrons of a signal have nothing to do with with the meaningful information they carry.

How this connection is resolved in science is the question?  Symbols "carry" meaning through representation by symbol or by binary code.  How does electronic hardware even address the problem?  Again, pragmatic observation presents language and communication as representational in its functioning.  It is a foundational building block for mind and any discussion of Chambers "hard problem".

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/mental-representation/

The distinction between information being ontologically real matters precisely in discussions of the mind and the “hard problem,” because the core issue is whether meaning and consciousness emerge from physical information or require something beyond the physical. Simply saying that “symbols carry meaning” does not resolve that connection, it merely restates it.
In short, dismissing the ontological question while appealing to pragmatic effects is inconsistent. If information is causally real, its ontological status cannot be irrelevant; and if it is not real, then the problem of how meaning arises from the physical remains entirely unaddressed.

The distinction between information being ontologically real matters precisely in discussions of the mind and the “hard problem,” because the core issue is whether meaning and consciousness emerge from physical information or require something beyond the physical. Simply saying that “symbols carry meaning” does not resolve that connection, it merely restates it.
In short, dismissing the ontological question while appealing to pragmatic effects is inconsistent. If information is causally real, its ontological status cannot be irrelevant; and if it is not real, then the problem of how meaning arises from the physical remains entirely unaddressed.

I am not required to untangle your ideas about Metaphysical Ontology vs pragmatic facts that work with "shut-up and calculate".  Communication and computation are methodologically defined and output solutions that are judged on their repeatable causality in real world situations.  An algorithm presents a solution to a query or not.
  
You have yet to respond to any point acknowledging what is said about how these measures function.  Information objects may satisfy a philosophical ontology, but it is not part of the methodological argument you face. My arguments stand or fall on modelling results mapping to useful outcomes.  "Why" is philosophy and how is science.

That said, maybe this will help you (it has convinced me) understand what is received argument from a leading philosopher, head of the department at Oxford.

 AI Overview
Floridi's informational objects are entities defined by their information content and structure, not their material form, embodying a shift from a material to an informational ontology where everything from abstract concepts like numbers to physical objects like a chess pawn is understood as an informational structure...

What an Informational Object Is
Informationally defined: An informational object is defined by its properties and relations, rather than its physical substance. For example, a chess pawn is an informational object defined by its rules and position on the board, not its material composition.

Embodiment of Information: It can be a tangible thing (like a physical computer) or an abstract concept (like a digital number).

Structural Realism: This concept aligns with Informational Structural Realism (ISR), which posits that the world is fundamentally composed of informational objects interacting within a dynamic network.

You may think "meaning arises from the physical", but I sure don't.  In fact "it from bit" makes probable meanings prior to the physical.  "It from bit" is true in terms of communication and computation.  In my view, what was before the big bang was a real "probability wave" decohering and leading to physical interaction beginning.

I am not required to untangle your ideas about Metaphysical Ontology vs pragmatic facts that work with "shut-up and calculate".  Communication and computation are methodologically defined and output solutions that are judged on their repeatable causality in real world situations.  An algorithm presents a solution to a query or not.
  
You have yet to respond to any point acknowledging what is said about how these measures function.  Information objects may satisfy a philosophical ontology, but it is not part of the methodological argument you face. My arguments stand or fall on modelling results mapping to useful outcomes.  "Why" is philosophy and how is science.

That said, maybe this will help you (it has convinced me) understand what is received argument from a leading philosopher, head of the department at Oxford.

You may think "meaning arises from the physical", but I sure don't.  In fact "it from bit" makes probable meanings prior to the physical.  "It from bit" is true in terms of communication and computation.  In my view, what was before the big bang was a real "probability wave" decohering and leading to physical interaction beginning.

I’m having trouble following your argument. You say ontology is irrelevant, yet you quote Floridi and talk about “it from bit” as if information fundamentally constitutes reality. That’s exactly an ontological claim.
You can’t have it both ways: if your point is purely methodological, “communication and computation work”, then that tells us nothing about what reality is, only about what models succeed. But invoking Floridi or Wheeler suddenly makes it a metaphysical argument. Those positions contradict each other.
Success in communication or computation doesn’t prove that the universe is made of information. A calculator works, but that doesn’t mean reality is arithmetic.

I’m having trouble following your argument. You say ontology is irrelevant, yet you quote Floridi and talk about “it from bit” as if information fundamentally constitutes reality. That’s exactly an ontological claim.
You can’t have it both ways: if your point is purely methodological, “communication and computation work”, then that tells us nothing about what reality is, only about what models succeed. But invoking Floridi or Wheeler suddenly makes it a metaphysical argument. Those positions contradict each other.
Success in communication or computation doesn’t prove that the universe is made of information. A calculator works, but that doesn’t mean reality is arithmetic.

Yet, the literature does have it both way.  Sorry to confuse you by clarifying that the ontology is not the basis of the argument, but I still attempted to directly answer your point.  After a long period of Metaphysical Materialism - many want to turn the tables making information science more important than physics.  

As said in prior posts, I see Methodological Materialism as well-formed and fully complimentary to Methodological Informationalsim.  I posit that there are two separate environments working separately (asymptotically), with decoherence bringing the outcomes of the informational environment into embodiment within corresponding physical conditions.  Unlike Wheeler, I am fine with matter/energy just as primary as bits/meanings.  Physical reality is the base and containment of the wave function.  Probabilistic information can still be real in the past, before decoherence, and in the future.  Our minds do effect the future as biological choices change probabilities.

Method and background belief about realty are in no way exclusive as you try to intimate.  The practical point is that information, either as willed outcomes or just random physical causes, changes fixed outcomes in space/time.  If you can grasp the subject, I can go further as to how this is science.  But maybe you should address my points, as I have yours.

 AI Overview
John Archibald Wheeler's famous phrase, "it from bit," is fundamentally a metaphysical statement, but one with profound pragmatic implications for how physicists should approach their work.

The metaphysical argument
At its core, "it from bit" is a metaphysical claim about the nature of reality. It proposes that every physical thing ("it") in the universe ultimately has an immaterial, information-theoretic source ("bit")...

The pragmatic argument
While the idea is metaphysical, it serves as a pragmatic research program for physicists. It points toward a particular way of doing science and a specific direction for a final theory of everything. (This my argument)

A new foundation for physics:
The "it from bit" concept suggests that physics can be rebuilt on a foundation of information and computation. This leads to the pragmatic task of deriving space, time, and quantum theory itself from more fundamental, information-like principles. (Quantum Information Science, which is going gangbusters)

The focus on observation and measurement:
By emphasizing the role of the observer, the concept pragmatically encourages physicists to focus on the process of measurement. It suggests that a quantum entity only becomes a "phenomenon" through an irreversible act of measurement or "amplification".

Physics as a description, not reality:
Wheeler, echoing his predecessor Niels Bohr, suggests that the task of physics is not to find out "how Nature is" but rather to provide the best possible description of what we can say about Nature. This pragmatic view shifts the goal of physics from finding an objective reality to constructing a comprehensive information-based description of our observations.  (bolding mine)

A powerful synthesis:
Ultimately, "it from bit" cannot be neatly categorized as purely pragmatic or purely metaphysical. It is a powerful philosophical idea that directs a pragmatic research program.  (All parenthetical statements mine) 

The AI response was to the query: it from bit pragmatic or metaphysical

https://psiencequest.net/forums/thread-a-basic-model-for-mind-in-a-physical-universe


Max, I find Florian Neukart ideas very interesting.  Maybe you could offer an opinion.

I can't really. Nima's ideas make the most sense to me, because they can tie into a greater number of things I've found significant in my research. But I can no longer remember all the steps that brought me to this perspective. I tried to read the paper, but it doesn't make much sense to me based on my current understanding.

There are many partial repetitive apparitional experiences i.e. seeing a full person apparition moving, who disappears, but their feet can still be seen moving around... in that case it was considered that a wardrobe door had been opened by the apparition... blocking the view of a third party who was present, apart from the apparitions feet, which could still be seen moving around below the wardrobe door by the experient. That suggests this repetitive apparition was from the Experience of a third party.

That makes less sense than it being from the perspective of the one observing the apparition...?

There are loads of different ways anomalous phenomena can manifest within Experience (the result)... but they are all considered anomolous because they connect different Spacetimes... generally someone recalls an Experience that has sufficient separation (space-like or time-like etc) which they cannot explain, if things work the naive way they were taught.

This also makes less sense than it just being different layers of the same reality ~ it's not recalling an experience, but rather sensing different layers of reality to different degrees. An accessing of the information from these layers through mental senses.

For example ~ the spirits I work with. I am not recalling their experience nor I am connecting with a different spacetime. I am communicating with them directly through whatever telepathic and energetic senses I seem to have. I can hear them telepathically ~ see them with varying amounts of clarity and intensity, with their appearance overlaying on top of my normal visual senses. I can feel the outline of their forms if I focus ~ it's not touch, but some... energetic equivalent.

I am with Max on this. Through both study and experience it is fact for me.  Empathy is the everyday normal way we encounter it.  There may be only degrees of difference between understanding someone, reading someone's intentions, empathy as an strong emotion and deep experiences of telepathy.  I think telepathy is very rare.  Non-local perception is not like having the exact experience of another, but the meanings become communicated "as if" it was personal.

And yet that is not how I directly experience the entities that I do ~ yes, I can also feel their emotions, thoughts and memories, but those are secondary to the telepathy, visual appearances and sensing of them. I am rather aware that they are distinct from me, as their energies have a different feel to them.