I really appreciate your perspective on the tangible world arising from information, and on logic preceding reality. It highlights an important recognition, that without coherence, even empirical observation wouldn’t be intelligible or possible. I’m curious about your thoughts on society’s heavy emphasis on empiricism, the notion that if something isn’t observable, it isn’t real. Given that coherence necessarily precedes empiricism, doesn’t this tendency end up undermining—even silencing—the very legitimacy of such discourse, relegating it to pseudoscience not because it lacks coherence, but simply because it lacks empiricism?
Yes. But that's not necessarily a totally fair framing. Society accepts loads of things that aren't observable: spacetime, ALL elementary particles, gravity as a constant, light speed as a constant, just to name a few less obscure examples. More obscure examples? Ok sure: emotions, concepts like "justice", or "freedom". There is, when you put pen to paper, a near limitless number of things we/society/science/etc. accept as true when in fact there is little or no direct empirical evidentiary support for it. Now, that said, there are observable effects of most of these things.
Observations can be and regularly are accepted as evidence. Where I assume you and I might diverge somewhat is in my next statement: just because we accept electrons as extant even though we can't see them, if we were presented with more compelling evidence that they aren't electrons but something else, over time, we would replace electrons with the new, better explained thing.
So, yes I do generally agree with you on the point insofar as it is not an admission by me that, therefore, religion(s) is/are factually accurate about fantastical claims. That said, I do believe we are soon arriving at a point where empirical and esoteric will be essentially united in theory. But the dogmatic aspects of faith - the very human aspects - will flail and double down as they most often have. For a time.
Information-first, I feel, offers a bridge of friendship between the two. But I don't foresee science ever putting 3 of this or 7 of that or "holy" this or "spirit" that, or any of those things in textbooks. And I wouldn't want them to. Science changes. That's it's strength. It does so more readily than faith traditions. That's their weakness.
You’re right, society does accept many unobservable things as real, and it’s often their effects that make them intelligible. The subtle point I was trying to make is that empiricism alone only validates effects, not the underlying coherence that gives those effects meaning in the first place.
From that perspective, information-first thinking isn’t about declaring any specific faith claim “true,” it’s about recognizing that reality has an underlying structure that precedes observation, a structure that allows science, mathematics, and even shared human concepts like justice or freedom to remain coherent. In that sense, Information-first offers a bridge. It honors both empirical rigor and the deeper coherence that makes empiricism meaningful.
You're absolutely right in my opinion. The statutory avoidance of unproven assertion is for the good of knowledge at large but we do seem to take it too far. Another very human trait. We tend to apply these "very human" practices everywhere
Exactly, the safeguards around unproven assertions have a purpose, but when taken to extremes, they risk obscuring the deeper structures that make observation meaningful. It’s a very human tendency to overcorrect, and I think that’s where approaches like information-first can help us balance rigor with recognition of underlying coherence.
I really appreciate your perspective on the tangible world arising from information, and on logic preceding reality. It highlights an important recognition, that without coherence, even empirical observation wouldn’t be intelligible or possible. I’m curious about your thoughts on society’s heavy emphasis on empiricism, the notion that if something isn’t observable, it isn’t real. Given that coherence necessarily precedes empiricism, doesn’t this tendency end up undermining—even silencing—the very legitimacy of such discourse, relegating it to pseudoscience not because it lacks coherence, but simply because it lacks empiricism?
Yes. But that's not necessarily a totally fair framing. Society accepts loads of things that aren't observable: spacetime, ALL elementary particles, gravity as a constant, light speed as a constant, just to name a few less obscure examples. More obscure examples? Ok sure: emotions, concepts like "justice", or "freedom". There is, when you put pen to paper, a near limitless number of things we/society/science/etc. accept as true when in fact there is little or no direct empirical evidentiary support for it. Now, that said, there are observable effects of most of these things.
Observations can be and regularly are accepted as evidence. Where I assume you and I might diverge somewhat is in my next statement: just because we accept electrons as extant even though we can't see them, if we were presented with more compelling evidence that they aren't electrons but something else, over time, we would replace electrons with the new, better explained thing.
So, yes I do generally agree with you on the point insofar as it is not an admission by me that, therefore, religion(s) is/are factually accurate about fantastical claims. That said, I do believe we are soon arriving at a point where empirical and esoteric will be essentially united in theory. But the dogmatic aspects of faith - the very human aspects - will flail and double down as they most often have. For a time.
Information-first, I feel, offers a bridge of friendship between the two. But I don't foresee science ever putting 3 of this or 7 of that or "holy" this or "spirit" that, or any of those things in textbooks. And I wouldn't want them to. Science changes. That's it's strength. It does so more readily than faith traditions. That's their weakness.
You’re right, society does accept many unobservable things as real, and it’s often their effects that make them intelligible. The subtle point I was trying to make is that empiricism alone only validates effects, not the underlying coherence that gives those effects meaning in the first place.
From that perspective, information-first thinking isn’t about declaring any specific faith claim “true,” it’s about recognizing that reality has an underlying structure that precedes observation, a structure that allows science, mathematics, and even shared human concepts like justice or freedom to remain coherent. In that sense, Information-first offers a bridge. It honors both empirical rigor and the deeper coherence that makes empiricism meaningful.
You're absolutely right in my opinion. The statutory avoidance of unproven assertion is for the good of knowledge at large but we do seem to take it too far. Another very human trait. We tend to apply these "very human" practices everywhere
Exactly, the safeguards around unproven assertions have a purpose, but when taken to extremes, they risk obscuring the deeper structures that make observation meaningful. It’s a very human tendency to overcorrect, and I think that’s where approaches like information-first can help us balance rigor with recognition of underlying coherence.
I'm in complete agreement.