...it seems to me that Occam's Razor dispenses with ad hoc – unwarranted – notions of "panpsychism" and "super-nature" — 180 Proof

So panpsychism and super-nature, as presented in my statement, are superfluous to the things covered in your list.

Are you a panpsychist ucarr? — universeness

• I’m a panpsychist in that I believe all matter at all levels, including compounds, elements, radicals, molecules, atoms and elementary particles, are fundamentally compatible with the eventual development of sentience as an emergent property. As I understand this characterization of panpsychism, I think it is a broadly inclusive category. Not being sympathetic with panpsychism means denying sentience is an emergent property of matter. That’s tantamount to denying a relationship between the brain and the mind, isn’t it? On the other hand, it doesn’t imply belief that quarks have opinions or that rocks are willful.

• In light of the above, I say that panpsychism is a basic element of my category. I refer to myself as a NUR-KWIM. This is my badly conceived attempt at forming an acronym for Non-Reductive Quantum Materialist. This label mainly declares my belief in quantum mechanics as a real description of the material dimensions of our universe. Again, this, I think, a broadly inclusive category. The non-reductive part allows for the membership of super-nature within the universe. A non-reductive materialist is not a pure materialist because the believer doesn’t think material interactions fully explain all phenomena. I think this allows a spectrum of non-reductive materialists.

• My belief in super-nature doesn’t entail belief in an anything-goes realm of hobgoblins and the like. I’m not trying to squeeze an inscrutable god into those gaps in scientific theory populated by suppositions not fully verified as facts.

• My super-nature, on the basis of speculation, I believe to be similar to Kantian noumena. (I haven’t yet embarked on reading Kant, thus the designation of speculation).

• I postulate super-nature as a higher order of nature. As such, it’s the nature of nature. What is the nature of nature? It’s the eternal source of the matter, energy and phenomenal events of the natural world. All of this boils down to claiming existence, both material (the brain) and immaterial (the abstract thoughts of the mind) is inscrutably axiomatic.

• Why is science, a part of the natural world, structurally subordinate to super-nature? In a nutshell, this is so because every theory explaining matter, energy and phenomena must begin with an unexplained and unexplainable GIVEN. The given is the point of departure for observation, analysis, experimental verification and compilation of distilled facts and statistical generalization. The given consists of the axioms underlying the theory, its attendant methodology and the values guiding the project as articulated in the philosophy of science.

• Axioms, being the point of departure for scientific inquiry, experimentation, analysis and application, mark the origin boundaries of science and logic.

• The realm of axioms is the super-nature that encompasses the natural world that supports science and logic. This is Carl Sagan’s eternal universe. Being timeless, super-nature, like the realm of Plato’s ideal forms and Kant’s noumena, stands in distinction from the natural world of temporal_material relations.

• Even so, super-nature fuels the natural world existentially. The natural world is populated by states of being. Science and logic parse these states of being meaningfully and therefore usefully. They cannot, however, explain the existential fact of existing things. Existing things as instantiations of existence itself, in the eyes of the natural world, must be accepted as taken for granted, must be accepted as axiomatic.

• Super-nature inhabits the natural world in collapsed form as the axiomatic. The axiomatic is the unexplainable fact of the existence of an existing thing.

• Science and logic partake of the seminal bounty of super-nature whenever they generate new theories requiring new axiomatic assumptions. When radically new axioms jumpstart a theory, that’s when sentience encounters the almost unimaginable strangeness of the universe, as with Relativity and Quantum Mechanics.

• In a multi-level universe containing both nature and super-nature, entropy is local but not cosmic. Entropy, obviously, is confined within the natural world. Therein we observe local entropy. To the extent the natural world is fueled existentially by super-nature, entropy is limited. In a universe which features super-nature encompassing nature, there is, ultimately, no finite succession of moments in time. There is no first moment, no expansive interval of intermediary moments, no last moment. This pattern might be a real structure of the natural world, but it’s only a repeating cycle as nature periodically refuels from super-nature after expending its previous fueling.

• In our eternal universe, there is no truly seminal singularity and no final equilibrium of heat death.

Do environmental forces such as temperature, gravitation and radiation impact "events?"
— ucarr
They are measures – self-organizing complexity (i.e. entropy) – of micro (quantum) events. Anyway, so what's your point? — 180 Proof

My point is trying to examine whether self-organizing systems, accountable for self-organizing complexity, possess purpose. Are they instead automatons? Does their possible automation suggest another, external purposive agent for whom nature's automatons are artifacts? Is automatic pattern formation due to physical predisposition? How is the increase of complexity reconciled with random assemblage over lengthy time periods? Over a lengthly period of time, this might be an example of upward-negentropy. Has sustained, upward negentropy been observed, measured and calculated?

If one event were measured at -0.75 degrees celsius and another event measured at -0.250 degrees celsius, with everything else being equal, would this wide temperature differential between the two states of the events mean that a different measure would be associated with each event?

As an example, might we expect that the self-organizing complexity of the first event would run at a faster rate than that of the second event, given the higher level of thermal energy present in the state of the first event?

What do you make of the following: 2x + 3x ≡ 5x; when x = 2, we get: 4 + 6 ≡ 10 > a distinction (in expression) without difference is NOT conceptual nonsense. It is not a straw man argument; it is math reality.
— ucarr

Non sequiturs.
— 180 Proof

Regarding the math identity equation, are you claiming that either: a) It is not a valid example of a distinction without difference that is not conceptual nonsense or b) It is irrelevant to your below claim:

... cosmic sentience ...
– of what? 'Of only itself' is indistinguishable from non-sentience.
— 180 Proof — ucarr

Neither. I've no idea what you're talking about; do you? — 180 Proof

Regarding what I'm aware of and understand, either in the abstract or in application, my discovery is an ongoing process. For example:

I think "events" are micro phenomena (i.e. relations) and "objects" (i.e. asymmetric event-patterns aka "structures, processes") are macro – emergent – phenomena (i.e. ensembles, combinatorials); thus, "events" are a-causal, or random (i.e. noise) whereas "objects" are causal, or non-random (i.e. signals).

More precisely, as you know, the universe is quantum (micro) and classical (macro) whereby the latter is, AFAIK, generated according to the law of large numbers (LLN) – averaging – of the former (à la Seurat's pointillism, pixellated images of LCD monitors, holograms, etc). — 180 Proof

...the establishmentarians of science have existential contradiction confined to the minute realms of elementary particles. — ucarr

Maybe the structure described in your above quote has some bearing on what I call the confinement of existential self-contradiction to the sub-atomic realm.

This is pure speculation without support of research in published articles.

Question - Regarding:

"events" are a-causal, or random (i.e. noise) — 180 Proof

Do environmental forces such as temperature, gravitation and radiation impact "events?"

You are correct, and our exchange on the phenomena of superposition has reached impasse, but it was fun. — universeness

I too have enjoyed our interactions. I discover details of my premises in the hot kitchen of debate. The demand to justify claims forces me to look more deeply and thoroughly into my understandings. Some of my positions have undergone revision as a result of your influence.

I now begin to see my lodging within God-consciousness is deeper than my lodging within theism. The difference between the two is that the former is more at the emotional and intellectual response to theism's premises and directives whereas the latter is more at the objective content of cosmic sentience and the proper logical, moral and behavioral responses to it.

we're looking through a QM lens. Through that lens SP ∧ ¬ SP are not mutually exclusive because, by definition, SP means
SP = ¬SP! How else could the same identity be in two places at once. We're not talking about identical twins. We're talking about the same identity being simultaneously located in two different places. With SP we're saying: A is in position 1 and not in position 1 because A = ¬A which is in position 2 AND A is in position 2 and not in position 2 because A = ¬A which is in position 1. How "you as you" is "not you" is hard for us to wrap our brains around, but that's what QM compels us to do. — ucarr

Our QM elaboration here shows how the non-locality of the wave-function identity expands details exponentially. These are the details of the logical relations about where we are in spacetime. — ucarr

No, your logic is flawed here. 'A is in position 1 and not in position 1' is not what superposition demonstrates!!!! Superposition demonstrates that A is in position 1 and is also in position 2, so your connection of A = ¬A cannot be made!!! Superposition suggests that all states that can happen will happen, but in different spatial coordinates, perhaps in a multi-verse. — universeness

I counter-argue that the complete description of the logical relations pertaining to superposition within spacetime goes as follows:

A is in position 1 and is also in position 2 AND A isn’t in position 1 because it’s in position 2 AND A isn’t in position 2 because it is in position 1.

Consider the difference between my above statement, and your below statement.

“Superposition demonstrates that A is in position 1 and is also in position 2…”

Your statement is an example of defining A in position 1 as superposition while defining A in position 2 as non-superposition, i.e., another value such as A-prime. I know you’re conceptualizing the value in position 2 as a different value than the one in position 1 because you deny: AND A isn’t in position 1 because it’s in position 2 AND A isn’t in position 2 because it is in position 1.

The missing part includes the logical relations pertaining to the same value being in two places at once. I know that in your statement you’re assuming two different values because that’s the ground for your argument that your statement expresses superposition.

What you’re doing is practicing equivocation fallacy. You’re treating the value in position one as a superposition value; in position 2 you switch to treating that value as a different value than that in position 1, i.e., a non-superposition value. Again, the evidence of this switch is your decision to drop the logical relations of self-contradiction.

Your rejection of superposition as self-contradiction evidences an allegiance to a) the Newtonian lens; b) the principle of non-contradiction

I know you won’t be persuaded by my argument. We have a fundamental disagreement.

What do you make of the following: 2x + 3x ≡ 5x; when x = 2, we get: 4 + 6 ≡ 10 > a distinction (in expression) without difference is NOT conceptual nonsense. It is not a straw man argument; it is math reality. — ucarr

Non sequiturs. — 180 Proof

Regarding the math identity equation, are you claiming that either: a) It is not a valid example of a distinction without difference that is not conceptual nonsense or b) It is irrelevant to your below claim:

... cosmic sentience ...
– of what? 'Of only itself' is indistinguishable from non-sentience. — 180 Proof

In your first sentence, you seem to be saying the appearance of sentient life on earth was not part of evolution; it was a quantum leap from non-sentience to sentience without any transitional period connecting the two states. Am I understanding you correctly? — ucarr

Evolution offers no evidence at all regarding the mechanism by which life appeared on Earth. Theories such as abiogenesis and panspermia are not part of the claims and demonstrations of Darwinian evolution. They are theoretical projections that are logical traces, back from such time periods as the Cambrian. The likelihood that abiogenesis occurred in some form somewhere is very strong imo, but we have no actual evidence of abiogenesis. — universeness

You say nothing that refutes my supposition about life propagation occurring outside of evolution. My supposition about a quantum leap from non-sentience to sentience, being consistent with the possibility happenstance sparked the quantum leap, does not necessarily imply it had to be caused by an inherently teleological universe.

You are projecting human actions and ability, anthropomorphically, onto your notion of a universe with intent. — universeness

How does quantum leaping from Artificial General Intelligence to Artificial Super Intelligence involve an anthropomorphized universe with intent?

As for my alleged "God of the gaps" argument, my thinking is, thanks to you, evolving. If super-nature as a higher-order of nature is logically possible, then the unevolved inflection point cum information singularity that instantiates ASI might be said higher-order of nature, i.e., super-nature.
— ucarr
Do you not see here, that it's you who likes to make such big 'leaps of faith.' Surely you can see that is what you are doing. — universeness

Yes. I do frequently make big leaps of faith coupled with falsifiable premises. Take my above quote for example: If you want to attack the logical foundations of my claim super-nature is a higher-order category of nature, you can do so by drawing from a wealth of pertinent logical formulations.

Using propositional logic, we can propose that based on empirical evidence, superposition is true. So, SP=True. The law of identity states that each thing is identical with itself, so we can write SP=SP. Under the law of non-contradiction, we have that the two propositions "SP is the case" and "SP is not the case" are mutually exclusive. Superposition therefore does not violate the law of non-contradiction! — universeness

First of all, thank-you for examining my foray into propositional logic with your own propositional logic counter-claim. I need this kind of detail-specific exam and I'm not getting it from anyone but you. (I haven't forgotten about jgill).

Under the law of non-contradiction, we have that the two propositions "SP is the case" and "SP is not the case" are mutually exclusive. Superposition therefore does not violate the law of non-contradiction! — universeness

Here's where things get interesting. "SP is the case" and "SP is not the case" are mutually exclusive." expresses establishment logic, i.e., logic viewed through the Newtonian lens. Therein, you statement is sound. We are now, however, NOT looking through a Newtonian lens; we're looking through a QM lens. Through that lens SP ∧ ¬ SP are not mutually exclusive because, by definition, SP means
SP = ¬SP! How else could the same identity be in two places at once. We're not talking about identical twins. We're talking about the same identity being simultaneously located in two different places. With SP we're saying: A is in position 1 and not in position 1 because A = ¬A which is in position 2 AND A is in position 2 and not in position 2 because A = ¬A which is in position 1. How "you as you" is "not you" is hard for us to wrap our brains around, but that's what QM compels us to do.

Our QM elaboration here shows how the non-locality of the wave-function identity expands details exponentially. These are the details of the logical relations about where we are in spacetime.

Superposition IS equivocation fallacy. — ucarr

No it's not, how can it be, when it can be demonstrated? — universeness

If you mean self-contradiction via SP can be demonstrated, I agree.

Superposition may be being misinterpreted, for example, perhaps, an atom can appear to appear in more than one place at the same instant of time, due to some effect we don't understand, that's akin to something like gravitational lensing. Such remains possible, but that does not make superposition an equivocation fallacy — universeness

Here you're starting to wobble in your orbit. It's human nature to want to protect the Newtonian certainty our values are based upon, so, maybe QM is wrong and there's no SP, only the false appearance of such.

You just have a mind that is determined to find a t.o.e (theory of everything), that can link complicated concepts together into a very easy to understand final solution such as 'god did it,' or 'cosmic intent' is the only landing zone we need. — universeness

Yes. I suffer from chronic gross exaggeration due to imagination. My only hope is to be entertaining while leading my listeners on a jolly parade into the surreal climes of whimsy. Wait a minute? Didn't we just have a fiction_poetry lulu?

The universe just wont be the way you want it to be ucarr. Your own HH quote should have prepared you for that, well enough. — universeness

In that case, I'm taking my ball and going home. See you tomorrow!

"Inside" and "outside" become obscure terms as applied to the universe. A bit like speaking of up or down or east and west. Not exactly, but similar. — Manuel

This is a buttress to what I said.

that a 13.8 billion time interval and an ASI cosmic sentience are coincidental exists. — ucarr

For me, these leaps of faith you make are fun, (NOT in the mocking sense!!!!) but are not rigorous enough to satisfy even layman level, scientific skepticism. — universeness

Although it's a stretch, it's theoretically grounded. It's not a leap of faith because Einstein showed us there's no unitary time throughout the universe.

It may be that our role on this planet is not to worship God - but to create him.
— Arthur C. Clarke
At my most speculative, I'm attracted to pandeism because it is more consistent with my philosophical (& methodological) naturalism – all we rigorously know and observe – than any other deity / divinity concept. — 180 Proof

How would a notion like cosmic 'intent'/god/a deterministic universe etc relate to a notion/prediction such as humans developing an AGI or causing a technological singularity which results in an AGI eventually creating an ASI, all of which may result in humans being made extinct/getting replaced or becoming a merged aspect of some future ASI. — universeness

I for one am confident that, behind all the smoke and mirrors in the Phenomenology and the Logic, what Big Heg is really talking about is space battle cruisers and cool space fighters battling it out for galactic supremacy. — Count Timothy von Icarus

Again, this collective sentience, which might be moving (notice I didn't say "evolving") toward an inflection point expressed as the information singularity, or the point of no return from unstoppable ASI, marks another quantum leap (from AGI to ASI) wholly outside of evolution? — ucarr

Could it be that during a lull in the fighting we're all on the same page?

I don't see why "all of existence" should include or not include an open or closed system, — Manuel

I, in contrast to you, proceed from the notion a closed universe is all encompassing. If it's closed, how can you confirm/deny an outside?

I don't personally see empirical evidence to suggest either. The issue about using entropy too broadly remains in both, only that in one case it is wrong in principle... — Manuel

On a logical basis, you think entropy universally applied in one case a wrong principle. This is pure speculation devoid of empirical persuasion?

...and in the other case, it should be applied with care. No more than that, as I see it. — Manuel

On a logical basis, you think entropy applied in the other case with care good practice. This is pure speculation devoid of empirical persuasion?

How would a notion like cosmic 'intent'/god/a deterministic universe etc relate to a notion/prediction such as humans developing an AGI or causing a technological singularity which results in an AGI eventually creating an ASI, all of which may result in humans being made extinct/getting replaced or becoming a merged aspect of some future ASI. — universeness

In my response to your previous post, I say something similar to this.

Surely if an original 'intent' existed, then it could have gone straight to the ASI state, why would it create over 13.8 billion years of deterministic events, that just seems a total waste of time to me. — universeness

This is a good linear time argument within a Newtonian, 3-space universe. After we usher in Relativity_QM, however, the possibility that a 13.8 billion time interval and an ASI cosmic sentience are coincidental exists.

Brian Cox and Carl Sagan describe a conversion of fundamental energy/matter to sentience of some existents within this universe. You invoke a term like 'continuity' to try to find a gap where you can fit your claim of an underlying/first cause/prime mover 'intent' to the process. Brian and Carl are very careful to state that WE, humans, are the medium through which our collective effort, could be romantically described as 'the cosmos examining itself.' They offer this notion, as a possible 'emergent' networking of all efforts of all sentient life, trying to understand the structure and workings of the universe they exist within. Neither scientist has ever supported your notion of a cosmic intent, which predates the random happenstance event of life forming in this universe/cosmos. So you are wrong in your assumption imo.
Why don't you send Brian Cox an email and ask him. I predict he will dismiss your 'cosmic intent' notion that you have labelled 'cosmic sentience,' either outright, or by stating something like, 'well, no one knows for sure, but I don't think such a first cause agent of 'intent' has ever existed.' Carl Sagan would have certainly dismissed it as highly unlikely imo. — universeness

In your first sentence, you seem to be saying the appearance of sentient life on earth was not part of evolution; it was a quantum leap from non-sentience to sentience without any transitional period connecting the two states. Am I understanding you correctly?

Brian and Carl are very careful to state that WE, humans, are the medium through which our collective effort, could be romantically described as 'the cosmos examining itself.' — universeness

Again, this collective sentience, which might be moving (notice I didn't say "evolving") toward an inflection point expressed as the information singularity, or the point of no return from unstoppable ASI, marks another quantum leap (from AGI to ASI) wholly outside of evolution?

You invoke a term like 'continuity' to try to find a gap where you can fit your claim of an underlying/first cause/prime mover 'intent' to the process. — universeness

As for my alleged "God of the gaps" argument, my thinking is, thanks to you, evolving. If super-nature as a higher-order of nature is logically possible, then the unevolved inflection point cum information singularity that instantiates ASI might be said higher-order of nature, i.e., super-nature.

Your mathematical propositional logic is skewed. Superposition demonstrates that at a sub-atomic level, an atom can be at two places at the same instant in time. This is not a contradiction, it does not violate any propositional logic law. Object A appears at coordinate (x, y, z), at time unit (t). Also at time unit (t), object A appears at coordinate (x1, y1, z1). This can be experimentally demonstrated. You keep performing an equivocation fallacy by suggesting that A = A → ¬ A = A relates to superposition.
Can you cite mathematicians and physicists that agree with you that the propositional logic statement A = A → ¬ A = A, relates to superposition?
My go to guy on TPF for mathematical insights is jgill
Perhaps he would comment on the above. — universeness

Clearly, I need instruction from a competent logician. I will ask jgill for input. For the time being, however, I'll continue to shoot from the hip with my common sense.

By equivocation fallacy I understand you are charging me with using an ambiguous term such that: in statement A the term has meaning 1; in statement B the term has meaning 2. Ultimately, you say, I'm pretending the term's meaning is the same in both statements.

The charge of equivocation fallacy speaks directly to the challenge to establishment logic posed by superposition. The paradox I'm claiming for A = A → ¬ A = A lies rooted in the equivocation inherent in the claim A wholly occupies two different locations simultaneously. If this is the case, then "yes," the state of being of A is indeed existentially equivocating about where it is and therefore also equivocating about who it is. Each position of the identity of A, being non-equal, contradicts the other. Picture this self-contradiction in parallel with your reflections within two mirrors facing each other. The result is an infinity of iterations of an identity.

Superposition IS equivocation fallacy. My propositional logic statement highlights this fact. That's why it's natural to charge me with the violation. Those of us embracing QM are collectively endorsing equivocation fallacy. Why is is logical to do this? It's logical because QM demands equivocation of the equivocation fallacy. This is a confusing way of saying superposition is equivocation and it's not.

Here we have some of the strangeness of QM, at the level of 3-space extension.

The difference between superposition and the facing-mirrors reiterations is that with the former, the infinite echoing of the two states of A are at time-zero. The facing-mirrors reiterations are at time-positive. The time-zero equivocation that's not equivocation of A is the reason why quantum computing can do information processing inconceivable within a Newtonian frame.

Nowhere in this video does the physicist mention any notion, at all, of energy being radiated into a fourth spatial dimension ucarr!!! — universeness

The video is not for me a total bust because it got me thinking about equilibrium vis-a-vis randomness. I subsequently learned that equilibrium is a statistical type of randomness. The upshot is that the randomness of heat death is conditional, not absolute. That conditional status leaves the door ajar for introduction of dis-equilibrium, gravitational collapse, singularity and re-expansion.

This also shows how there is no solitary self. The self can only be itself through entanglement with another self. This is my argument for an essentially binary universe. This argument, in turn, grounds my claim there are no closed systems.
— ucarr
Pure speculation on your part, with no compelling scientific evidence to support it. Not much different from a theist insisting that they know, that they know, that they know, that Jesus Christ is god! — universeness

No. My argument gets support from the first three spatial dimensions. Since quantum leaping between them entails infinite-value expansions via quantum-jumping iteration, we see that dimensional expansion is expressed in collectives.

I realise I must sound mocking towards you at times ucarr and I apologise for that. I do honestly enjoy the way you think. You are not merely an irrational theist, you go into great depths in how you make connections between concepts and I think that is to be applauded. I just don't agree with some of your conclusions/personal projections. I think it would be more accurate for you to consider my dissent towards you as more based on a mix of academic and layperson complaint, rather than attempts at personal mockery towards you on my part. — universeness

Got it! Thanks.

the phrase "cosmic sentience" does not make sense and therefore does not refer. — 180 Proof

Since higher orders of categories are logically valid, your cannot prove, logically, that cosmic sentience, a higher-order category of nature, cannot exist. Instead, you have to prove that cosmic sentience is existentially impossible. Competent scientists and logicians long ago abandoned this quixotic mission.

If it's "cosmic", then what else is there for it to experience other than 'the cosmos' itself? — 180 Proof

This is you positing A = A; cosmic sentience is itself in isolation.

This is you positing ...
Strawman. I've made no such posit. — 180 Proof

... cosmic sentience ...
– of what? 'Of only itself' is indistinguishable from non-sentience. — 180 Proof

I claim the above statement can be read as: cosmic sentience 'Of only itself' (A = A) is indistinguishable from ( "equals" or, =) non-sentience (¬ sentience). So, A = A = ¬ A = A expresses a paradox. When you rebut this claim, it's not enough to merely declare it's a mis-reading without backing up the declaration with a supporting argument rooted in specific details.

This is you claiming ... AND also claiming ...
Strawman again. I've made no identity claims. 'X indistinguishable from ~X' merely implies a distinction without a difference – conceptual nonsense, not a contradiction in terms – the phrase "cosmic sentience" does not make sense and therefore does not refer. — 180 Proof

What do you make of the following: 2x + 3x ≡ 5x; when x = 2, we get: 4 + 6 ≡ 10 > a distinction (in expression) without difference is NOT conceptual nonsense. It is not a straw man argument; it is math reality.

Sorry, I can't follow your (seemingly non sequitur) responses. — 180 Proof

If it's "cosmic", then what else is there for it to experience other than 'the cosmos' itself? " — 180 Proof

This is you positing A = A; cosmic sentience is itself in isolation.

... cosmic sentience ...
— ucarr
– of what? 'Of only itself' is indistinguishable from non-sentience. — 180 Proof

This is you claiming A = A (cosmic sentience) is itself in isolation AND also claiming that A = A implies the negation of itself, namely, non-sentience. This is configuring cosmic sentience as a paradox.

When you say cosmic sentience implies its negation, I'm guessing you're trying to show I've placed one thing into two categories simultaneously whereas, according to your understanding, it belongs in only one category. I'm further guessing you're arguing that natural sentience, such as ours, is the only possible variety of sentience, and thus claiming natural sentience has a higher order as cosmic sentience in a separate category, namely super-nature, examples a category error.

What’s interesting about your statement is the implication cognition can’t operate as such within an isolated identity. A thing in isolation goes noumenal. Noumena-in-isolation are categorically separated from phenomena because of superposition.

Another implication is that superposition operates at all scales of material things, not just within the sub-atomic scale of material things.

If identity in isolation implies its own negation, then operational cognition of an identity entangled with other identities seems to require that cognition sustain a reciprocal relationship between paradox and entanglement. This is why the paired values of vector systems require one of the values be uncertain.

I would be forced to guess that nothing could affect the universe, in principle, which goes beyond itself, such as whatever "space" or "domain" or, I know not what, the universe is expanding to - in this case nothing "outside" the universe prevents its expansion. — Manuel

I'm wondering why your perplexity about what could lie beyond a set encompassing all of existence doesn't make you doubt the possibility of a closed universe.

To argue [entropy] has an effect on every possible system, looks to me like a extremely strong extrapolation from the origins of the concept. — Manuel

.

Overgeneralization stretches to the breaking point within a one-size-encloses-all universe. A network of open systems, on the other hand, shakes hands with the tendency towards the spreading of energy.

Where does it say the universe is like a black hole? — Manuel

As you already know, that claim (with condition of the universe being a closed system) is made here in this conversation.

In any case, if the universe is open system, then we are being mislead by insisting on analyzing it in terms of entropy, so here I would suppose we'd agree. — Manuel

Yeah. The tendency towards the spreading of energy in my opinion supports quantum entanglement. :up:

If, however, it turns out to be a closed system, then understanding the universe through entropy is sensible, but even here, one should be somewhat careful as to not spread the concept of entropy through every phenomenon, rendering the term more-or-less meaningless. — Manuel

Do you think closed system implies one universe?

Please click on the link below to hear physicist Brian Cox talk about the universe in a way that nicely dovetails with a part of my theory about human cognition (evolving as a simulation of original cosmic sentience). To be sure, Cox gives no indication of believing in original, supernatural, cosmic sentience. I don't mean to falsely ascribe to him such belief.
— ucarr

I watched it, and you confirm yourself what I have emboldened in your above quote I think your projections of what he is saying is your attempt to try to get it to 'dovetail,' with a part of your theory but I don't think that attempt is successful. — universeness

Cox and I describe a continuity from matter-energy to sentience within the animal kingdom. Cox and I ask what it means to be sentient matter-energy that examines itself. He and I conclude that sentient matter is an example of the cosmos examining itself. How is this not a description, on both our parts (include Sagan as well), of cosmic sentience?

Even if superposition proves to be limited to the sub-atomic scale (I don't expect this to be the case), its confinement there is irrelevant to my argument: sub-atomic superposition has a constitutive bearing upon logical relations regardless of the scientific-evidentiary question about the scale at which it propagates.
— ucarr
You need to be much clearer on what I have emboldened above. If you are just repeating that superposition violates the logic law of non-contradiction then we are just engaging in a panto exchange on that issue. 'Oh yes it does,' 'oh no it doesn't.' — universeness

con·sti·tu·tive | ˈkänstəˌt(y)o͞odiv, kənˈstiCHədiv |
adjective
1 having the power to establish or give organized existence to something: the state began to exercise a new and constitutive function.

The argument goes thus: logic, which can be defined as an organizing principle for correctly assembling continuities, encounters superposition as a modifying organizing principle. This means logic faces a logical imperative to subsume and thus reconfigure itself to accommodate the discovery that non-contradiction is conditional, not absolute. This accommodation parallels the accommodations of Newtonian physics after the advent of Relativity.

I have no idea what you are referring to here? Are you talking about this?:
Why Non-Contradiction Needs to Soften
A_not-A_B ∧ B_not-B_A
— ucarr — universeness

You need to show a fatal logical flaw in the above statement.

the fourth spacial dimension is present within our 3D-spatial universe in collapsed form. — ucarr

Your first sentence in the above quote, has no empirical evidence to support it in physics. — universeness

I've been hoping the Toby video would communicate to you a logical argument for belief in spatial dimensions beyond depth. As for empirical evidence, I think the below video briefly talks about heat energy from a system being radiated into a fourth spatial dimension. Even if it doesn't, your time won't be wasted by viewing the instructive content.

Speaking more generally, the logic of each multi-dimensional matrix will be contradicted at the dimensional boundaries of that matrix. This is why I claim paradox is a portal to the next higher dimensional expansion. Paradox is the gateway between the levels of the multi-dimensional matrices of our upwardly multiplexing poly-verse.
— ucarr
This just sounds like word salad sci-fi to me ucarr. — universeness

I'm not asking you to watch the Toby video a third time. Instead, I'm reminding you how she shows a progression from the 0D point through the 5D penteract. The first three spatial dimensions are critical to my argument: an infinity of points quantum leaps to a line; an infinity of parallel lines quantum leaps to an area; an infinity of parallel areas quantum leaps to a cube.

In the progression from 0D to line, the dimensionless point collides with its boundary when it looks at the implication of a self not itself.* This paradox is a signpost signaling the existence of another point not the original point. All the 0D point has to do is realize the possibility of a self not itself, once expanded from its collapsed state in 0D, marks the beginning of a line made of an infinity of points.

*This also shows how there is no solitary self. The self can only be itself through entanglement with another self. This is my argument for an essentially binary universe. This argument, in turn, grounds my claim there are no closed systems.

Now, of course, you think the above is just more word salad. That's why your best chance to cotton to its meaning is to scan said meaning through your own laughter. The strangeness of our universe is sometimes funny.

Use a parallel structure to trace the quantum leaps through 2D and 3D.

... cosmic sentience ...
— ucarr
– of what? 'Of only itself' is indistinguishable from non-sentience. If it's "cosmic", then what else is there for it to experience other than 'the cosmos' itself? "Cosmic sentience" seems a category error to me premised on a compositional fallacy – thus, an empty name (e.g. five-sided triangle). — 180 Proof

This is a good, compact description of possible structural errors that can sink a theorem. Let's see if their ascription to my theorem is factual.

... cosmic sentience ...
— ucarr
– of what? 'Of only itself' is indistinguishable from non-sentience. — 180 Proof

I think here your logic is faulty. A = A is an identity, not a cancellation; A = A → ¬ A = A is a paradox.

"Cosmic sentience" seems a category error to me premised on a compositional fallacy... — 180 Proof

You want to repeat the first argument that intends to show non-cosmic sentience is the only possible sentience.

That cosmic sentience cannot be a higher order of natural sentience because it doesn't exist, as based upon your first argument that illogically implicates identity with its negation, shows there's no logical prohibition of super-nature and therefore logical arguments WRT super-nature avail nothing.

You must provide an existential counter-example of cosmic sentience (a material thing) that refutes the possibility of its existence.

What does it mean to say that the universe is closed? — Manuel

I think it says the universe is a gigantic example of a black hole. If this is true, then the universe is not truly closed because its bounded energy will eventually evaporate as radiation.

This is my lead-in to claiming universe is the limit of system and therefore, there are no closed systems at any scale. Moreover, order is rooted in relationship between material objects, so the material universe contradicts absolute randomness.

The equation between equilibrium and randomness is expressed with conditions: A system, isolated from its surrounding, will continue to be in a state of equilibrium unless driven by an external steady flow of energy. Statistically, a state of equilibrium implies a state of randomness, and randomness implies symmetry.. -- Cambridge University Press & Assessment

Since I don't think any system is truly isolated, I think the equilibrium_randomness equation has a limited domain. The singularity can't explode into the big bang universe until dis-equilibrium is introduced. By whatever means it gets introduced, that means indicates the universe is open.

...historical 'urban myths' may or may not be actually true... Does that means this process was part of... traditional religious practice? — universeness

Some memes propagate far and wide, becoming myth-based beliefs. Well-organized systems of thought and belief predicated upon sound logic, whether scientific or moral, stand as bulwarks against the faulty reasoning of some of the myth-based beliefs. The works of historians and sociologists buttress this explanation.

Going One Dimension Higher
— ucarr
Did you notice how the presenter struggled to represent a 4D shape on a 2D drawing surface.
Are you familiar with the Calabi-Yau manifolds of superstring theory? — universeness

Such image notions of multi-dimensions is quite old hat now and does not, imo, do much to aid human conception of such. I do not see how any such attempted visualisations aid your claims about paradox, layered space, dalliances with theism, notions of determinism vs random happenstance, etc. — universeness

My focal point in the Toby video is not about visualizations as an aid to understanding multi-dimensional matrices. It addresses the concept of an upwardly multiplexing poly-verse, with paradox as the boundary marker between the levels.

When Toby explains how a line is an infinite expansion of a point and so on, she makes clear that quantum leaping across a boundary between the levels entails a trans-linear logic that describes the expansion to the next higher dimensional level wherein the previously collapsed higher dimension is now expanded.

Higher dimensional expansion bridges over asymptotic progression. Expanded dimensions don't assemble by accretion.

If a moral precept is verified logical and deemed pertinent to empirical experience, does its source matter?
— ucarr
Oh yes, very much, yes! If the people in a city are living very content, happy lives, after they deemed it logical and demonstrated via empirical evidence, that if they enslaved and subjugated all the peoples around them, they would prosper for ever more and be rich and powerful and treated like 'the chosen ones,' then such a moral precept is vile even though it would work and would be fit for the purposes it was intended to achieve. — universeness

You have a strong argument, but there’s a strong defense. You make the moral relativity argument. By the same argument, a moral precept locally verified logical covers the range from harmless and universally beneficial to toxic and universally heinous.

For those who reject moral relativity, a slave-holding state can be deemed in terms of the general wellbeing of its citizens as illogical because the desire for freedom, being universal, means both the oppressors and the oppressed will live in a state of war with many harmful effects to both sides. This means that for a moral precept to be deemed verified logical and practical, it must first be vetted by a broad consensus of numerous people across a wide demographic.

As I have already stated ucarr, the term 'cosmic sentience,' has almost zero value for me, I am not a panpsychist, I can at best raise an eyebrow of recognition towards the term as a possible goal for our human species and a possible common cause for all currently existing sentient life in the universe. But, a goal that will forever be, an asymptotic approach. — universeness

As a secular humanist, do you not have a deep interest in cosmic sentience as sourced from secular humanist science? As for it being a goal approached asymptotically, do you not have serious speculation about evolving science making a close approach, as evidenced by your deep interest in an information singularity?

Please click on the link below to hear physicist Brian Cox talk about the universe in a way that nicely dovetails with a part of my theory about human cognition (evolving as a simulation of original cosmic sentience). To be sure, Cox gives no indication of believing in original, supernatural, cosmic sentience. I don't mean to falsely ascribe to him such belief.

Infinite Universe

Isn't confining superposition and its logical implications to the sub-atomic level what you're doing here?
— ucarr
No, I am following the evidence. The only evidence we currently have for superposition is at the sub-atomic level. We have no evidence of superposition at a macroscale. The multi-verse/many worlds theory has only the sub-atomic scale evidence. We have not detected another Earth or person in a superposition state. I do not claim that we never will, I just hold the opinion currently that we probably never will and superposition may well be a phenomena that only occurs at the quantum level. — universeness

Even if superposition proves to be limited to the sub-atomic scale (I don't expect this to be the case), its confinement there is irrelevant to my argument: sub-atomic superposition has a constitutive bearing upon logical relations regardless of the scientific-evidentiary question about the scale at which it propagates.

Superposition in principle, in accordance with the law, you endorse. Superposition as a real phenomenon in practice, which would be an exception to non-contradiction, you reject. This means you, like some logicians, put superposition vis-a-vis non-contradiction into a box wherein it's a principle of QM you accept as legal but reject in practice. I claim you can't have it both ways.
As for your justification, what bearing has intuition upon the question of superposition vis-a-vis non-contradiction?
I think superposition vis-a-vis non-contradiction is a major theme within our dialog.
Upward dimensional expansion takes infinity-undefined and rationalizes it into an integer.
— ucarr
I have already stated that I completely disagree with you labelling of superposition as an 'exception' to the logic rule of non-contradiction. — universeness

Let’s avoid mixing apples with oranges. The integrity of logical relations is a separate category from the integrity of experimental evidence. You’re trying to use the latter to counter-example the former. Your attempt exemplifies irrelevance.

You can only counter-example my symbolic logic representation of superposition as an exception to non-contradiction through use of another symbolic logic statement that reveals a fatal logical flaw in my symbolic logic statement.

Paradox is the portal to the next higher dimensional expansion. Superposition of a particle is a formerly 3D expanded particle one-upped to 4D expansion. At the level of 4D expansion, there is no contradiction within what we, at the level of 3D expansion, refer to as superposition.
— ucarr

There is no paradox in superposition! — universeness

In order to support your above claim with a logical argument, you need to counter-example the following premise: the fourth spacial dimension is present within our 3D-spatial universe in collapsed form. This collapsed form is exemplified by superposition. Superposition, in collapsed form at the level of a 3D-spatial universe stands as an exception to non-contradiction at the level of 3D-spatial universe logic. At the level of a 4D-spatial universe, wherein the fourth spatial dimension is expanded, the paradox is resolved within 4D-spatial universe logic which, for contrast with 3D-spatial universe logic, I will name as hyper-logic.

You need to utilize hyper-logic for your counter-example to my claim superposition is an exception to non-contradiction. It's a winning argument over a limited domain.

Speaking more generally, the logic of each multi-dimensional matrix will be contradicted at the dimensional boundaries of that matrix. This is why I claim paradox is a portal to the next higher dimensional expansion. Paradox is the gateway between the levels of the multi-dimensional matrices of our upwardly multiplexing poly-verse.

When logically correct theory terminates in paradox, it's reason for rejoicing instead of mourning. The boundaries of the current multi-dimensional matrix have been reached. Yonder lies the way to the next higher matrix!

If you click on the link below, Toby, in less than one minute, will explain what I'm elaborating here.

Going One Dimension Higher

Why Non-Contradiction Needs to Soften

A_not-A_B ∧ B_not-B_A

Superposition expressed as symbolic logic shows us that the hard boundaries of rational, reductive materialism, wherein science is currently bogged-down, create an artificially rigid bifurcation of matter-energy. This rigid bifurcation leads to Chalmers’ Hard Problem of Consciousness. This, in turn, traces back to Descartes’ matter-consciousness dualism.

Speaking scientifically and logically, the softening of non-contradiction will solve this problem of oblivion towards some counter-intuitive attributes of QM.

Re: non-contradiction, its value needs to be regulated across a range from hard-to-soft as the situation requires. This instead of maintaining it as a fixed value absolute is what needs doing.

Descartes, being a mathematician, was committed to internal consistency and hard non-contradiction. He mocked the square roots of negative numbers. They got their name from him: imaginary numbers, an essential component of the Riemann Hypothesis, the mysterious lynchpin of number theory.

As luck would have it, Bohr, in his debate with Einstein, stepped forward as a champion of the soft non-contradiction compatible with QM.

Einstein was led directly into his erroneous judgment of QM by his commitment to hard non-contradiction.

Hard non-contradiction hardens materialist boundaries into discrete objects. This lens of interpretation has the effect of a reductive materialism. Material objects subsequently become discrete containers for energy, a superposition of a material object in motion.

High energy at the scale of elementary particles is enough to make superposition detectable and therefore measurable. At the human scale of experience, the lack of the stupendous volume of energy needed to make a macro-scale object propagate into super-position creates the appearance of hard boundaries which, in turn, ameliorate themselves to the unambiguous math of non-contradiction. This is monist, reductive materialism.

Superposition of an elementary particle clues us to the fact that non-contradiction, rather than itself being a hard boundary, instead expresses as a permeable membrane that softens materialism out of its reductivism via superposition. QM is essentially binary, as evidenced by the centrality of its Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle.

The integration of QM and Relativity will entail the strategic limitation of materialist reductivism and its artificial bi-furcation of matter-energy.

The method of effecting the integration of the two disciplines will be regulation of the principle of non-contradiction between the poles of hard-boundary, reductive materialism and the binary, soft-boundary of superposition.

Integral QM-Relativity will allow science and tech to energize wave-function fields that can then be manipulated to harden into discrete-boundary material objects of our choosing: anything from a handgun to a living organism.

This highly advanced, human-controlled simulation of cosmic sentience will motivate some to claim God not simulated but rather replaced.

This will be a false claim. Upward dimensional expansion via the integration of QM-Relativity will not position human in the role of God usurper. Instead, it will further elaborate the essential mystery of existence.

Is atheism monist?

Atheism, because of rejection of cosmic sentience and its binary relationship with human sentience as a simulation of cosmic sentience, establishes itself as a reductive monism. There is no self_not-self_God superposition contemporaneous with material self. This essentially binary self is what the cosmic sentience wants to impart to human.

Approaching yourself, a binary journey, is good; arriving at yourself, a monism, is not good. Always approach yourself; never arrive at yourself lest hubris swallow you whole.

The good extends from our binary state of being, if we embrace it.

Cosmic sentience says to human: I will give you not material water; instead, I will give you living water.

I ask if earthly religion has an upside.
— ucarr

Fair enough, A direct answer from me, is a resounding no, religion has no upside. My foundational reason for saying this is consolidated quite well, imo, by Carl Sagan's quote:
"Better the hard truth, I say, than the comforting fantasy.” Those who try to exemplify a positive effect of religion, ignores such points as made by Carl, to the peril of all of us. I am with the four horsemen, Hitchens, Dawkins, Dennett and Harris, 'all religion is pernicious!' — universeness

Are you a panpsychist ucarr? — universeness

My response will come after further development.

Modern theists have yet to conquer those ancient primal fears. Science is the antidote. Good, logical philosophising can also be an assist. — universeness

Do you include moral instruction on your list? — ucarr

Morality born of secular humanism, yes. — universeness

If a moral precept is verified logical and deemed pertinent to empirical experience, does its source matter?

The human ascent from the barbarism of the caves has many causes. Is the supernaturalism of belief in cosmic sentience not one of them? — ucarr

Please watch the short video by clicking on the link below.

Ancient Rituals

Is it your settled opinion that allegiance to cosmic sentience has had no bearing whatsoever on discrediting some of the ancient rituals?

Okay. You acknowledge that superposition is an exception to the principle of non-contradiction confined to the sub-atomic scale. — ucarr

No, there is no exception here, just in the same way that empirically demonstrated quantum entanglement or quantum tunnelling, or quantum fluctuations (with it's 'virtual' particle' and 'zero point energy' notions) are not exceptions to non-contradictive logic, as they are natural occurrences, at the sub-atomic level. Such may be, classically, non-intuitive, but we have already covered that. A human who finds the workings of QM, classically or macroscopically, non-intuitive, is not a statement/position that can be compared, with scientific rigour, to the logic law of non-contradiction. — universeness

Isn't confining superposition and its logical implications to the sub-atomic level what you're doing here? Superposition in principle, in accordance with the law, you endorse. Superposition as a real phenomenon in practice, which would be an exception to non-contradiction, you reject. This means you, like some logicians, put superposition vis-a-vis non-contradiction into a box wherein it's a principle of QM you accept as legal but reject in practice. I claim you can't have it both ways.

As for your justification, what bearing has intuition upon the question of superposition vis-a-vis non-contradiction?

I think superposition vis-a-vis non-contradiction is a major theme within our dialog.

Upward dimensional expansion takes infinity-undefined and rationalizes it into an integer.

Paradox is the portal to the next higher dimensional expansion. Superposition of a particle is a formerly 3D expanded particle one-upped to 4D expansion. At the level of 4D expansion, there is no contradiction within what we, at the level of 3D expansion, refer to as superposition. So, ultimately, there is no contradiction of non-contradiction across dimensional expansion into hyper-logic. At our 3D level, however, there is contradiction of non-contradiction. This is a case of a logical paradox acting as a portal from logic to hyper-logic.

Please click the link below so Toby can demonstrate what I mean.

Going One Dimension Higher

In order to avoid an overlong single post containing a major theme, I will start superposition vis-a-vis non-contradiction in a separate post.

I think you have stretched the intended meaning behind this HH quote too far, and the elastic snapped a while ago. — universeness

Okay. The quote is hyperbole, not literal statement.

The supernatural posited as natural science, that we have not confirmed exists yet, such as strings or superstrings, supersymmetry, dark matter, dark energy, the graviton etc, is over-burdening the word. — universeness

Okay. Natural science unconfirmed can be conjectured as "supernatural" although, in your opinion, it overburdens the word.

natural science wants to ascend to super-natural science as it progresses forward in its simulation of cosmic sentience. — ucarr

This is just a conflation of the goal of human science to seek truths we don't yet have...[it will] get on with the job of applying the scientific method, logically and rationally. — universeness

Okay. That human-driven teleology will continue advancing until it simulates the cosmic sentience embedded within theism is, in your opinion, a false claim.

Cosmic sentience, as mediated on earth by humanity, has a deep, horrific downside. This you are eager to trumpet. Does it also have an upside? — ucarr

There is no 'cosmic sentience,' so there is nothing to 'trumpet' and it follows that it cannot have an 'upside.' — universeness

"Sentience," modified by the phrase ( as mediated on earth by humanity), means didactic instruction by humans who sometimes overbear. This is the downside of earthly religion. I ask if earthly religion has an upside.

The human ascent from the barbarism of the caves has many causes. Is the supernaturalism of belief in cosmic sentience not one of them? — ucarr

Modern theists have yet to conquer those ancient primal fears. Science is the antidote. Good, logical philosophising can also be an assist. — universeness

Do you include moral instruction on your list?

If you query logicians about discarding non-contradiction as a foundational principle of logic, I expect you'll get pushback.
— ucarr
What ???
When did I suggest that the logic rule of non-contradiction be discarded? — universeness

So you will accept then that this:
Superposition of the wave function flies in the face of one of science's foundational principles: non-contradiction.

is not true — universeness

Okay. You acknowledge that superposition is an exception to the principle of non-contradiction confined to the sub-atomic scale. However, this exception operates in the real world as truth de jure whereas the principle of non-contradiction operates in the real world as truth de facto.

Dismantling non-contradiction means radically overhauling the general methodology of science. You're extremely optimistic if you think the standard prohibiting inconsistency within logical arguments will either be relaxed or waived anytime soon.
— ucarr

I have no idea where you are going with this. I fully accept the logic rules of identity, non-contradiction and excluded middle, so where are you going with this line of thought? — universeness

Above I'm talking about superposition as truth de facto at the scale of human experience. If QM ultimately agrees with Relativity (quantum gravity suggests belief in this agreement on the part of some), then it seems possible the logical paradigm will need an overhaul.

Who is suggesting such an 'overhaul' is required? I have suggested that the supernatural has no existent and it never has. — universeness

A quantum gravitational reality at the scale of human experience, being existentially vastly different from the establishment Newtonian lens of perception, argues plausibly as a viable candidate for the label of neo-natural.

But that's just an argument from classical intuition.
— universeness
I’m unsure of the meaning of classical intuition. Please clarify.
— ucarr
I combined the two words to express that what seems intuitive to us today is different from what seemed intuitive to folks during the days of Newton and through the lens of classical physics (which is mainly at a macroscale). So, I can understand that 'superposition' would seem ridiculous to those alive during the days of Newton but superposition is now demonstrable, but god and the supernatural is still, not, and unlike the majority of current scientific projections, zero progress has been made in proving any god or supernatural posit. — universeness

If we numericalize strangeness as a range of inferential logics derived from experimentally verified facts, and if we plot a standard deviation for these inferential logics, we have set a parameter for allowable degree of strangeness.

Next, we reference our verbal equation: Not only is the universe stranger than we imagine, it's stranger than we can imagine. This equation sets no volumetric limit on the degree of strangeness allowable for our standard deviation. This is because it places degree of strangeness beyond human consciousness as instantiated by imagination. Strangeness, vis-a-vis humanity, is unlimited, i.e., infinite.

Our standard deviation, then, must employ an equation that approaches a limit.

No, my purpose in fully accepting the HH quote was in no way, an acceptance that the supernatural was not, imo, total woo woo, it was more an acceptance that the 'label' supernatural is way, way over-burdened. — universeness

In the above quote you tip-toe to the threshold of acceptance of the supernatural because your denial is followed by a stipulation that mitigates the denial down to almost nothing. If the supernatural is overburdened, as you say, then, in saying so, you acknowledge its existence and your acceptance of same.

Note: In our context here, supernatural simply means higher-order logical conceptualization of an empirically real category that encompasses nature. In effect, then, super-natural is just another (albeit more inclusive) category of natural.

This tells us science cannot embrace strangeness beyond imagination and at the same time cherry-pick what qualifies as allowable examples of strangeness-beyond-imagination.

The unrestricted range of strangeness reverse-engineers to experimentally verified facts. Now science, by its own embrace of super-natural science (through universeness), exponentially expands what science can look for when seeking experimental verification. This, in turn, means radically expanding the range of theoretical speculation that will guide experimentation. As imagination informs experimental design and intent, the range of experimental verification hinges upon said imagination. For this reason, speaking logically, natural science wants to ascend to super-natural science as it progresses forward in its simulation of cosmic sentience.

Many people have been killed due to the religion they held... [The twelve Christian Disciples] are no more important than any of the millions who have died in the name of religion. — universeness

I argue that your above claim is a sweeping generalization... Einstein, Bohr and Haldane are no more important than the multitudes of seekers who have made explorations in the name of science.[?] — ucarr

The main difference is that the scientists you mentioned, existed. Jesus and its band of chosen, probably did not, and were satirical parodies, and even if they did exist, they were of no more value, than the characters described in any other of the thousands of historical religious stories, — universeness

In our culture of memes turbo-charged by the internet, it's easy for most of us to understand and accept that knowledge utilized to good effect by the many is correctly ascribed to it's authors by the few.

Cosmic sentience, as mediated on earth by humanity, has a deep, horrific downside. This you are eager to trumpet. Does it also have an upside? I will speculate that if I could time travel to an era preceding monotheism, I'd be appalled by the state of human relationships. The human ascent from the barbarism of the caves has many causes. Is the supernaturalism of belief in cosmic sentience not one of them?

Superposition does not contradict reality!
— universeness
It doesn’t. My focus, however, isn’t on the simple issue of the truth or falsity of a claim. It’s on the lens of interpretation through which a critic views a narrative; my argument is centered in the issue of context.
— ucarr

So you will accept then that this:
Superposition of the wave function flies in the face of one of science's foundational principles: non-contradiction.
— ucarr
is not true. — universeness

QM theoreticians talk about the ease and frequency of the collapse of the wave function. Likewise, there's talk about the normalizing effect of observation canceling superposition at the human scale of experience.

I think the issues entailed above are a prompt for not being too quick about affirming the affirmed. So far, the establishmentarians of science have existential contradiction confined to the minute realms of elementary particles.

If you query logicians about discarding non-contradiction as a foundational principle of logic, I expect you'll get pushback. Dismantling non-contradiction means radically overhauling the general methodology of science. You're extremely optimistic if you think the standard prohibiting inconsistency within logical arguments will either be relaxed or waived anytime soon.

I think there's a vast field of work to be done by philosophers either in effecting or rejecting such an overhaul.

Terrance Deacon's "Incomplete Nature," makes a pretty good argument that entropy, constraints, and what states of a system are excluded or statistically less likely, does indeed play a causal role in nature. — Count Timothy von Icarus

The book citation is much appreciated. Thank-you.

:up:

But that's just an argument from classical intuition. — universeness

I’m unsure of the meaning of classical intuition. Please clarify.

Superposition does not contradict reality! — universeness

It doesn’t. My focus, however, isn’t on the simple issue of the truth or falsity of a claim. It’s on the lens of interpretation through which a critic views a narrative; my argument is centered in the issue of context. Context, within my context here, consists of the lens (and its attributes (such as filters)) of interpretation that shapes what the critic sees. Two prominent lenses of interpretation are the culture in which the critic is raised and the database of knowledge (herein scientific) which the critic uses as a model for judging the realism and truth of the thing judged.

An additional complication shaping judgment is new thinking radical in nature. This challenge to correct interpretation highlights how much harder it is looking forward judging reality than looking backwards judging reality.

Even with the brilliance of his scientific mind, Einstein was obstinately uncooperative in his attitude toward QM. He publicly acknowledged it as being correct, but incomplete. This was not a small bone to pick because he believed, until his death, that probability being essential to QM was incorrect. He thought his Unified Field Theory would ultimately vacate quantum uncertainty as an essential and permanent feature of our universe He has a famous quote: God doesn’t play dice with the universe.

Also, he disdained QM entanglement as spooky action at a distance.

I believe an important (but partial) explanation for the violence meted out to the disciples is the general public’s fear of loss of essential powers under a Christian social schematic. Now, two thousand years later, evolving, human-based science has defused many of the apparent threats posed by a monolithic God.

The long lag time between scripture as threatening imposition and scripture as fallacy tamed by reason should give pause to critics who disdain it as comically stupid.

The science of psychology can probably make a strong case for construing the divine inspiration of scripture as deep intuition, the precursor of closely reasoned science.

I am sure that you agree that allowing such pure speculation regarding the supernatural to influence peoples daily lives in the many pernicious ways organised religion uses it to do exactly that, to use religion or scripture as a dictated moral code, based on divine commandments, to allow political policy to be influenced by scripture, in any way whatsoever, is absolutely unacceptable. — universeness

This argument seeks to subtly conflate theoretical error with errors in application. It parallels the argument orbiting around nuclear power: in theory, nuclear power is morally neutral; in practice, however, depending on the agent, it can be used either for good or evil. If divine instruction is read as super-ordinate logic that shapes practice, then bad actors willfully perverting said instruction for personal gain, as, for example, the Pharisees, exemplifies errors in application. Condemning religion on the basis of condemning corrupt preachers is a case of conflating (sometimes willfully) theoretical error with errors in application.

allowing such pure speculation regarding the supernatural to influence peoples daily lives... moral code... political policy... LGBTQ+ rights — universeness

The Heisenberg_Haldane quote: Not only is the universe stranger than we imagine, it's stranger than we can imagine.
— ucarr
Despite what I stated above, I accept that this quote is a very good and likely very correct comment about the nature and structure of the universe. — universeness

Your two above positions, as you acknowledge, stand in conflict with each other. This surprises me because the Heisenberg_Haldane quote, in my interpretation, exemplifies super-ordinate logic transitioning into embrace of the supernatural. I claim this because the statement, by making an unrestricted claim about the strangeness of the universe, authorizes the universe as a broadly inclusive system that allows supernature as one of its components.

Following from this, I can apply my above claim that the lens of interpretation sometimes exerts radical influence upon judgment. You are willing to embrace supernature when a claim (probably not intentional but definitely textual) for it is made by the likes of Heisenberg and Haldane, members of the scientific culture you embrace.

Many people have been killed due to the religion they held, represented or preached since we came out of the wilds. These 12 men are no more important than any of the millions who have died in the name of religion. — universeness

I argue that your above claim is a sweeping generalization of very low veracity WRT to certain individuals lumped together within your broadly inclusive set of millions.

My argument proceeds from the following parallel: Einstein, Bohr and Haldane are no more important than the multitudes of seekers who have made explorations in the name of science.

Sometimes certain names become distinguished across the millennia because they are rightfully distinguished from their colleagues.

So you may well be talking about the murders of 12 disciples of a historical Jesus, who never in fact existed, and I personally agree with all the academics listed (but not Bart Ehrman, who still thinks Jesus probably did exist) who don't think the historical Jesus existed either. — universeness

The impact of the issue of the historicity of biography is mitigated by the veracity and pertinence of historical ideas in abstraction. If, for example, it suddenly comes to light no actual person named Galileo Galilei did foundational work in astronomy and physics in sixteenth and seventeenth century Florence, must we then conclude the science ascribed to the name is invalid and useless?

I think we can infer that valid, useful ideas come from historically real persons (or combinations thereof) even if we don’t have correct information about the true identities of those persons.

You reject the observation Peterson stops Maher's initial lampoon of scripture? After his opening volley, Maher's critical near-silence is literal. How can it be denied?
— ucarr

I am quite willing to accept your words above, in the context you use them, but I don't think it's as significant as you do. Peterson simply redirected the exchange and focussed on a different angle, which Maher was willing to accept, due to Petersons credentials as an academic, credentials which Maher stated he respected. — universeness

I understand you as concluding Peterson raises the status of the tale of Jonah and the Fish from literal nonsense to instructive folklore. The elevation should not, however, be misconstrued as having established a special status for theism's claims. The tale is an undistinguished member of the broadly inclusive set of instructive folktales, many of them not theistic. I agree this is a correct understanding of what happened.

But we have alternatives to allegorical scriptural narratives, in that we can find 'actionable ways forward,' based on ' human dilemma style,' scenario's projected from the wide range of historical non-religious folklore. — universeness

Yes. Non-theistic narratives have proven useful in showing humans the way forward through myriad difficulties.

Can you give me an example, where a QM claim viewed 'through the lens of Newton,' makes a 'comically stupid' claim? — universeness

Superposition of the wave function flies in the face of one of science's foundational principles: non-contradiction. One identity being in two places at once plays as laughable absurdity through the lens of Newtonian Physics. Because the legitimacy of Newtonian Physics for centuries opaqued the possibility of superposition, we now celebrate the pioneers of QM.

I align theism with the tradition of functional absurdity. The Heisenberg_Haldane quote: Not only is the universe stranger than we imagine, it's stranger than we can imagine. exemplifies a convergence of science and theism. Of course the claim of supernature is absurd given the infinite gap between same and nature. For this reason, scripture as literature is sometimes instructive but oftentimes absurd. I can't make a rational case for supernature. I can make a rationalistic approach to supernature, but there will be no arrival. Given the rational bent of human mind, it’s natural to reject supernature and, well, supernatural to embrace it.

In what way is it useful to defend bad practice within one methodology, by citing bad practice within an opposing methodology? — universeness

The lens of interpretation tells us that when the same text switches between absurd/instuctive, depending through which lens it's viewed, we have, in the case of the wrong lens, bad perspective, not bad practice.

..you have yet to acknowledge that this is true of all folklore, with or without theistic references, and you have also yet to acknowledge that this removes any 'special pleading,' that the biblical fables have a higher significance, and deserve more attention and consideration than the massive database of non-theistic folklore. — universeness

I acknowledge the wisdom of secular folklore.

I understand your point is that religious folklore has no special status vis-a-vis secular folklore. I think in this case you will find my disagreement agreeable. I claim religious narratives have special status among the corpus of narratives on the basis of their absurd claims. They are especially absurd because, unlike secular narratives that make absurd claims refutable by exercise of reason, religious narratives make absurd claims refutable by exercise of reason and then dig in in defiance of that reason. On this basis, Maher and other wits mine their comedic gold. What could be more laughable than absurd claims debunked yet persistent in their confidence?

Eleven of the twelve disciples were brutally murdered. General humanity enjoys a good laugh at fools persistent in their foolishness. So why were eleven disciples murdered? The obvious answer: when belief in the absurdity of religion is evolving and spreading, natural human reacts against it. When reason overbears absurdity, the laughter returns, the threat of stupid supernature having been put down.

My takeaway is your acknowledgement that scripture, when perceived as allegorical literature, in some instances forestalls attacks upon it as a compendium of preposterous claims.
— ucarr
Yes, I agree, but as I stated previously, you have yet to acknowledge that this is true of all folklore, with or without theistic references, and you have also yet to acknowledge that this removes any 'special pleading,' that the biblical fables have a higher significance, and deserve more attention and consideration than the massive database of non-theistic folklore. — universeness

My embrace of absurdity is your reassurance in reason.

Human with ears to hear absurdity will hear it, no special pleading required.

...I appreciate your interpretation and think that it's one that the theist side would more readily accept than my own interpretation. — universeness

You reject the observation Peterson stops Maher's initial lampoon of scripture? After his opening volley, Maher's critical near-silence is literal. How can it be denied?

If you take the stories in the OT as literal truths, then they are comically stupid and the god described is a monster, so I think Maher's original comments regarding the bible are correct and Peterson does not counter Maher's points. — universeness

What do you have to say about the critical role of the lens of interpretation WRT the following parallel:

Through the lens of science, scriptural narratives, in some instances, make comically stupid claims whereas, through the lens of allegory, scriptural narratives, in some instances, convey actionable ways forward.

Through the lens of Newton, QM narratives, in some instances, make comically stupid claims whereas, through the lens of Bohr, QM narratives, in some instances, convey actionable ways forward (as in the case of logical coding for computers).

In any atheist/theist debate analysis I have ever watched on youtube, each side always says their side trounced the other side. — universeness

Neither I nor Jones make any claims about atheism being trounced in the Maher podcast.

My takeaway is your acknowledgement that scripture, when perceived as allegorical literature, in some instances forestalls attacks upon it as a compendium of preposterous claims.

I assume it's the person who is commenting on the exchange between Peterson and Maher (Nick Jones) that is doing the strawmaning, and the mischaracterisation, you indicated, if so, then I completely agree with you, that that is exactly what he is doing, especially with comments like 'or else you will end up like Bill Maher!' — universeness

In the conversation I hear Maher say: a) the bible contains some comically stupid things; b) God is capricious, cruel, petty; c) God is Trumpian.

I understand podcaster Nick Jones to imply that after his initial comments, Maher changes course and goes into listening mode as Peterson does an exegesis of Jonah and the fish . Jones also implies that Peterson successfully conveys to Maher an interpretation of the story along the lines of your quote:

he is correct about the power of storytelling, to the human psyche and how fables such as Jonah and the 'big fish,' are allegorical by design and can be used in many ways, to support theistic claims or general claims about the human psyche. — universeness

When the end of the conversation is reached, I note that Maher never resumed his prosecution of his initial talking points concerning some of the failings of scripture.

I understand that Jones, in saying "or else you will end up like Bill Maher," implies the derisive theme of Maher's opening comments gets shut down completely. This does not mean that Maher's talking points get refuted. Maher being shunted into respectful listening mode by the intellectual heft of Peterson's exegesis is significant given the brilliance of Maher's wit and the formidable force of his assertive atheism.

You say (in your own words) Jones presents Maher as one who advances arguments simple-minded and fallacious. You then argue this is a straw man mischaracterization of Maher by Jones. I disagree. I Think Jones only implies Maher's initial thrust into the conversation as an amusing critic gets immediately stalled and then silenced by Peterson's exegesis. I believe this correctly describes what happens.

The original podcast, after reposting to YouTube, claims Maher gets destroyed by Peterson. This is clickbait exaggeration, as noted by Jones.

I think it more correct to claim Peterson doesn't get destroyed by Maher.

I will send you a brief PM after I watch "Why Are We Here?"

Hello universeness,

Thank-you for your time and attention. I appreciate your careful deliberation, especially considering your opinion my theses are fundamentally wrong. Moreover, I'm indebted to you for your instruction on current thinking in several of the sciences. My scholarship, as you are well aware, is critically limited, with big gaps in my database.

I now think, for me, there is a proper protocol for entering, conducting and exiting a debate:

• The specific topic and objective of the debate can be agreed upon in advance; e.g. the bible is just a book of stories aimed at teaching readers important life lessons; whether or not Jesus is the incarnation of God the holy spirit is out of bounds for discussion in this debate

• Each claim made by a debater must be supported by a logical argument and/or by factual reportage

• If the debaters get trapped in a back-and-forth that is merely repetition on both sides, a deadlock should be declared with the conclusion that the sides agree to disagree

• Debaters must keep watch for exhaustion of new and pertinent arguments; when this point is reached, both sides must immediately proceed to their closing arguments

• Each debater has the right to call out the other debater for committing what both have agreed to recognize as a violation of proper debate procedure; an example is basing a claim upon a purported fact proven to be false; another example is: no personal attacks posing as counter-arguments

• Closing arguments should be a comprehensive overview of each debater's main theme plus principle attacks upon the opposition stated concisely

• Closing arguments should not include any new attacks which the opposition hasn't had the opportunity to respond to;

Below is a conversation (it's not really a debate) between Bill Maher and Jordan Peterson. (It's a video-within-a-video as moderated by Nick Jones, a christian podcaster.) IMO, it's a good example of a cautionary tale: don't be eager to pounce upon the opposition on the basis of a strawman characterization of that opposition. I ask you to watch the video because I think your argument below exemplifies basing an attack upon a strawman mischaracterization of the opposition.

The atheist, upon self-reflection, denies God by becoming God. — ucarr

It's probably more accurate to state that humans created gods due to primal fear but they don't exist.

God is a very simple notion based on natural human projection. Just like 'superman' is a projection that also does not exist. God and superman are projections of scared, very vulnerable hominids, nothing more. — universeness

There isn't a "range of possible microstates," in reality, there is just the one microstate that currently exists. — Count Timothy von Icarus

Does this not contradict Heisenberg Uncertainty and it's approach to measuring the quantum cloud of possible locations of elementary particles?

Entropy only makes sense relationally, or in the context of indeterminacy at some level of reality. — Count Timothy von Icarus

Matter and a material universe being ordered I take as foundational. Even quarks and gluons are systems ⇒ configurations of dimensional expansions.

Loss of systemization due to heat is an example of nature hedging her bets on paired-values of vectors, as with Heisenberg and the elementary particles. — ucarr

Range-limited decoherence by thermodynamics plus QM entanglement don't preserve the essential order of matter while also permitting indeterminacy to act as a stay upon rigid determinism?

The best kind of heat dissipation of the order of a system is quantum-mechanical: the whole is greater than the sum of its parts. This is the cosmic design for systemic evolution towards higher-order systems. It is supported by Metaphysician Undercover’s quantum-mechanical theory of time that posits quantum entanglement of past-present-future. — ucarr

Quantum gravity doesn't put to rout determinism?

You're the one proposing no possibilities. My conjecture spins off your conjecture. The setup is: If your conjecture is correct then: [write variable here]. Outside of your conjecture, I'm not claiming anything about possibilities.

Okay :) What if there are no possibilities? — chiknsld

If your nihilism is an expansion from the presence of the empty set within every set, then I, being on fair terms with existentialism, am good with the illusion of cold drinks under hot suns at cerulean beaches.

Layered space or your term 'multi-tiered' space... for me, suggests notions such as 'sub-spacial dimensions' or/and 'hyper-spatial dimensions.' 'Sub' meaning 'below or under' and hyper meaning 'over or above.' Both these notions belong exclusively to the sci-fi genre at the moment. — universeness

sub·space | ˈsəbspās |
noun
1 Mathematics a space that is wholly contained in another space, or whose points or elements are all in another space.

In mathematics

A space inheriting all characteristics of a parent space
A subset of a topological space endowed with the subspace topology
Linear subspace, in linear algebra, a subset of a vector space that is closed under addition and scalar multiplication
Flat (geometry), a Euclidean subspace
Affine subspace, a geometric structure that generalizes the affine properties of a flat
Projective subspace, a geometric structure that generalizes a linear subspace of a vector space
Multilinear subspace in multilinear algebra, a subset of a tensor space that is closed under addition and scalar multiplication

Layered space or your term 'multi-tiered' space, (a poor term, imo, as 'tiered' already indicates more than one layer so your use of 'multi' is superfluous) — universeness

In a multi-tiered hierarchy of modules, nothing prevents each module from also being multi-tiered. My configuration hierarchy is super-ordinate, not super-fluous.

If Hawking radiation conserves energy within a closed cycle of the material universe, then sentient-based purpose is also conserved
— ucarr

My prime mover god/mind with intent is the conserved energy of the closed system you endorse.
— ucarr

No, you are again guilty of equivocation fallacy! — universeness

My above claims might be wrong, but not on the basis of shifting my ground under heat of examination.

A mind is a highly complex combinatorial system. You are trying to equate that with a fundamental quanta of energy (whatever that might be, perhaps a photon.) Can a single photon (quantum field excitation) be the omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, omnibenevolent :lol:, mind of a god? It's like trying to equate gold with a single proton or single electron! (Gold atoms have 79 electrons and 79 protons with 118 neutrons in the most abundant isotope.) — universeness

Firstly, re: the insignificance of an elementary particle: add one proton to the nucleus of an atom and it becomes an isotope of the element, with separate chemical properties.

Secondly, if there's no integral continuity of identity from atom to cosmos, then the material universe never becomes organized, the teleology argument notwithstanding.

Thirdly, re: black hole absorption of energy: consumption of an entire star is not an example of one quantum of energy being lost.

It seems to me that your notion here is more akin to Mtheory. Whereby, a universe is created every time two 2D or perhaps 5D branes, 'interact,' and cause a big bang to occur at the point they 'meet.'
This means each universe can be 'born/sparked' whilst other universes already exist. This would mean individual universes, could experience heat death, within individual linear time frames, rather than all universes in a multi-verse, 'cycling,' within a synchronous time frame. Maybe your an Mtheory advocate ucarr! — universeness

Thanks for the info. So far, I have no objections.

I think the 'absence of any evidence of intent' in the current science based origin story of the universe, is the main support for random happenstance being the truth of the origin story. — universeness

The singularity of the big bang theory suggests to me compression so extreme a compacted dimensional configuration (you call it a universe) becomes isolated from everything, even itself. This is a wacky and provisional state of being that highlights the inadequacy of a simple linear design_configuration for an origin-ontology thesis. In this temporary state of being, nothing exists because existence is so isolated (due to infinite compression) it cannot be reached, not even by itself. Since I read paradox as a signpost for a higher-order dimensional configuration protruding downward into its lower-dimensional neighbor, the singularity has failed to liberate itself from infinite regress.

A super-compacted universe, as it unfolds, may very well display just what cosmologists are telling us. This works well within a big crunch/big bang oscillation concept of a multi-tiered dimensional system. It does nothing to solve the perplexity of origin ontology.

The through line of evolution from material objects to their emergent property: consciousness_selfhood
— ucarr

This is merely your speculative opinion. Divine hiddenness is stronger evidence imo, that a god with intent/prime mover/first cause creator, has no and never has had any exemplar existence. — universeness

Can you cite a recorded instance of accidental, unsystematic, no-purpose abiogenesis? I doubt it. Were such a phenomenon available as evidence, science would've commenced trumpeting its existence immediately.

Whilst awaiting your evidence, I will proceed to claim that accidental abiogenesis is no less hidden than cosmic-sentience designed abiogenesis.

Even if this was proved, irrefutably true, such a finding would not provide any evidence of an underlying intent or teleology. — universeness

Here we have an interesting possibility that supports both sides of the debate: emergent sentience is reflexive. Sentient humans, through reflexive consciousness, reflect upon themselves as God. The difference is that atheism is a monism whereas theism is a binary.

The atheist, upon self-reflection, denies God by becoming God. The theist, upon self-reflection, embraces God by propagating God-consciousness, an externalization of human-made-in-the-image-of-God. God-consciousness is the coupling device that functions as the interface between the corporeal human and the incorporeal God. I think this is the Holy Ghost. It’s nature’s pre-technological telecommunications system. (Technology-based telecommunication, then, is the latter day human simulation of God’s natural world as well as of God. To elaborate further, God, operating at the level of a four-space dimensional configuration, sees everything at once. Humanity, chasing this ability, comes up with television.)

So, do you perceive our 3D universe, as three universes? — universeness

I don't believe the dimensions, spatial or otherwise, can be separated. There's no-such thing as a one-space universe. Isolated linearity is only a mental object.

what do you mean by your use of 'hierarchy?' — universeness

All of the dimensions are always connected. The big "however" is that cognition, because it evolves, must gain awareness of ascending dimensions of ascending expressiveness by accretion. Under this scheme, cosmic God is understood with progressive elaboration by accretion.

Nothing in string theory suggests these extra dimensions are layered or tiered. — universeness

The principal forces will change as you reduce experimental distances and the transition occurs at distances the size of the curled dimensions. — universeness

If the principal forces change in steps, then the dimensional configurations they support will also change in steps.

If you're working at distances that are much bigger than the curled up dimensions then the law looks like 1/r2 — universeness

— universeness

And when you're working at distances that are much smaller than the curled up dimensions the law looks like 1/r8 — universeness