Are these references to a realist framework? This is a bit confusing as the statements, “mirrored class of information in primordial form” and "Form in this instance [as] existence itself" also offer a pantheistic explanation.
I may be missing your meaning here, but the first thing that popped out at me is how this statement fits with basic value mechanics of the true-true union as a necessary connection between the information of a semantically enabled agent and that of an LoA under consideration for the completion of [true] knowledge to develop properly. The “missing conceptual form” that confuses issues would be accounted for by the number of t-f connections in the equation, which naturally cause confusion within the LoA. Or is this very distant from what you intended by “two different forms of meaning”?
Anomaly654
Your last post made me smile. I will say that you are very observant.
I think these are two accurate observations - even though I never intended for it to be this way.
More of your analysis would be appreciated.
Anomaly654
I had to make a separate post for the following:
I would like more explanation on this and perhaps I could learn a few things here. Judging by your previous analysis I would guess that what you are saying is accurate but I have to humbly admit that I do not know exactly what you are saying - it is a little bit of a foreign language to me - I pick things up quick though.
Sorry, I think I misunderstood your statement, “These said words still point me at two different forms of meaning - one in physical form and one in perceived form(which itself can also be considered physical) and it is a missing conceptual form…” Some of the reason I’m so disjointed in my approach is that I pretty much concocted my ‘metaphysical informational approach’ in a vacuum as a personal quest to solve a theological problem. Until three or four years ago I had no idea there was actually a body of literature dedicated to the philosophy of information. I’ve been studying furiously (or at least my old age version of “furiously”, which is pretty pathetic compared to a few years ago) to catch up on the academic parameters. Being about 1/4 through the Philosophy of Information: an Introduction I recognized that you used the term LoA in an earlier post, indicating your familiarity with standards for discussing the topic intelligently. Unfortunately, I’m playing catch up. It now seems the physical/perceived forms you mentioned reference the information-semantics divide established in Shannon information ideas.
Don’t feel bad, I’m not sure I even know what I’m saying half the time En-De. Was just attempting to “fit” my stuff into the orthodox format. The t-t union between agent and data received would pertain to an agent’s perception of each observable within an LoA, i.e., the establishment as true and accurate both the information received and the semantic content said information presents. Falsification in the process, either actual in the information of the agent or in terms of information that–even though transmitted with physical accuracy–doesn’t present quite the appropriate connotation to this particular agent, assuming variations in understanding of various agents for any given set of information. Any and all micro level t-f connections in the process would theoretically account for the imposition of Shannon’s entropy into the equation. Actually, I’m forcing this on his view; his notion of entropy was apparently only concerned with the actual information sent and received, exclusive of its semantics. I’ve pushed an entropy conclusion on the semantic side of things based on the informational “value states” of information organized appropriate to sender’s semantic intentions, and reception and processing (extraction and interpretation of semantic content) of that information by the receiving agent.
I may be way off base, but take comfort in the fact that even if I am, at least I still possess my property of rugged handsomeness. Will probably vanish from sight for a while to study, hopefully return more enlightened and throw fewer “missing conceptual forms” into discussion. In the interim, my apologies.
I have my doubts that you did misunderstand me.
Regarding your last post - you have made things much more understandable.
Anomaly654
I would say, some, if not most of the blame, is on me for us ending up in these ambiguous moments - I do this on purpose to encourage thought that is partially outside the box, to be figurative about it. There are problems with following convention too closely in many cases.
I dont know, I have my doubts that you did misunderstand me. I too am disjointed in my approach - I fail to see how anybody could come up with something groundbreaking by closely following convention - or at least we should be partially in a vacuum whilst partially following some convention.
I am very interested in your: The “Spiritual Mechanics” of Truth, by the way.
Yes but the thing to keep in mind is that I too have been in a vacuum, and my use of LoA, I have made my own, albeit still compatible with its original form. Standards are good but let us keep in mind that it is quite OK to agree upon a standard for conversation and later adapt a more common standard to reach more people. Regarding Shannon - hmm - my theories in this regard are less fundamental, if that makes sense, however, where they approach the physical, my theories tend to be more fundamental - in both cases I tend toward less mathematical precision and bring the conversation into words - hopefully understandable words. There is a reason for this that is difficult to explain but it depends upon algebraic relationships between the right words that allow for communication to take place without the need for too much formal logic. James S Saint’s simple method is to Clarify, Verify, Instill, and Reinforce the Perception of Hopes and Threats unto Anentropic Harmony and I think that this can be applied to other things quite easily. Extracting: Clarify, Verify, Instill, and Reinforce. These four words are quite powerful when it comes to conversation and debating - we have followed this already which is why we are still here making an exchange.