I had assumed you were an atheist, through and through,
— universeness
Insofar as atheism means theism is not true and therefore theistic deities are fictions, I am "an atheist through and through", which I've stated already ..
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/789507 — 180 Proof

↪universeness My near-"ignostic" position is that theistic gods are fictions (atheism re: tokens) because the sine non qua claims of theism are not true (antitheism re: type). Thus, as far as I'm concerned, religious scriptures are canonized allegories just as religious practices are applied superstitions, and are only worth discussing or opposing when they are used (by theocratic fundies or ignorant/hypocritical literalists) to "justify" coercing obedience to the prerogatives of religious leaders and their functionaries. — 180 Proof

> this is the link to 180s comment https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/789507

... well, perhaps pandeism is pretty close to atheism, as such a divinity would be ...
You quote my post on pandeism out of the context of its salient qualifiers:

A woo-free speculation much more consistent with the observed universe of natural science— 180 Proof
... which paraphrases Epicurus' observation about death: when we are, "God" is not; when "God" is, we are not.— 180 Proof

In your own words above, you state your conviction that theistic gods are false, and that this is true because theism’s necessary claims are not true.

The trinity is a necessary claim of Christianity, so it is, according to your words, false.
I have one simple question to ask you that, I think, will prove that you do not truly believe your above words. I’m confident, up to the level of ninety per cent, that you will not answer my simple question because it would mean immersing yourself within a commitment I do not expect you make.

Knowing you were educated by nuns and Jesuits in Catholic schools, I postulate your deep down belief in your possession of an immortal soul and, moreover, I postulate that, given this, you will not knowingly place it in jeopardy of eternal damnation.

Here’s the simple question: Are you willing to commit yourself, in the emphatic mode of your above words, to a written statement declaring that you permanently reject the personal presence of the Holy Spirit as a worthless and meaningless fiction?

Two Important Clarifications: a) this is not a religious witch-hunt because the logic of your above words makes it clear you regard the Holy Spirit as non-factual. If this is true, as you claim to believe, then permanently rejecting it will not harm you, and thus, logically, you have no reason to refuse to make the commitment; b) I want you to refuse to make such a written commitment for the obvious reason I do believe in the Holy Spirit and never want to see any living soul reject it.

No living soul knows what lies beyond the veil of death. Whether or not, after you die, salvation will be beyond reach of non-believers, as contemplated on the living side, stands undecidable. You don’t know the ontological status of the purported afterlife because, by your own standard of reality: nature, you know you don’t know empirically what death entails; death as qualia lies beyond natural life.

My ninety per cent confidence you will not commit to such a written statement is bolstered by your speculation about pan deism. You allow hedge room for a deity within your metaphysical commitments because, as I’ve been speculating, deep down you know you have an immortal soul:

…when we are, "God" is not; when "God" is, we are not. — 180 Proof

In the above quote you connect yourself to God as a derivative thereof. This is code for your acknowledgement of your possession of an immortal soul. You situate yourself within a binary metaphysics that accommodates human freedom on a switchable bifurcation of human ascendent/God ascendent. God is the metaphysical ground of your being as the axiomatics of existence. You allow God ascendency in comfortable separation from your boundless human ambition in order to exist. After God funds human existence, the switch is thrown, as per Arthur C. Clarke, and then human- ascendent takes flight with logic_science_tech… until cosmic heat death, or the like. Thereafter, the oscillation reverses. And so on… and so on…

Near the end of the video, with four seconds remaining, pause the video so you can study the graphic displayed there.
— ucarr

I have encountered this diagram before on youtube. It has been used by such con men as Kent Hovind and his son Eric Hovind. This 'trinity' video and it's content are pure hokum. The diagram is useless and meaningless. — universeness

Okay, you've made a declaration. Are you unwilling to back it up with a supporting argument? It's easy to trace the three interlocking triangles and follow the logic of what they're saying. Are you unwilling to do that in order to show, with logic, that my reading of the triangles is illogical?

If you're not willing to do this, I must conclude your above statement is something akin to a homunculus argument; your claims (bold letters) are based upon an argument using a mysterious process not explained.

Victor's response on Quora: — universeness

This is useful info, thanks.

Are you familiar with the below book:

Why Are You Atheists So Angry? It's a pro-atheist book.

Are you familiar with this conversation?

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/14658/why-i-dont-believe-in-god-greta-christina/p1

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

I struggle to understand how you fail to see that The Trinity, centuries before QM, claimed the superposition of three entities, one of them flesh and blood.
— ucarr
:yikes: wtf ... — 180 Proof

Click on the link below and watch the short YouTube video.

Trinity Logic

Near the end of the video, with four seconds remaining, pause the video so you can study the graphic displayed there.

Here's what I wrote (expanded version):

A_ ¬ A_B ∧ B_ ¬ B_A

A = A is an identity; If A = A → A = ¬ A, then paradox

A = Father; B = Son; C = Spirit; D = Triune Unity

A = D ⋀ B = D ⋀ Transitive Property → A = B ∧ A ≠ B: Paradox

B = D ∧ C = D ∧ Transitive Property → B = C ∧ B≠ C: Paradox

C = D ∧ A = D ∧ Transitive Property → C = A ∧ C ≠ A: Paradox

Trace along each of the three interlocking triangles. In so doing, you will see it says the same thing I wrote before seeing the video so, independent corroboration!

Here's some additional clarifying information:

Diagram = Super-Nature, a higher order of Nature.

Humans on earth inhabit nature.

A = Father; B = Son; C = Spirit; D = Triune Unity; the Triune Unity inhabits Super-Nature in Heaven.

Heaven contains a fourth, expanded spatial dimension. In the four-space dimensional matrix of heaven, the paradoxicality of the Triune Unity on earth disappears because the fourth spatial dimension is expanded.

A higher dimension can be perceived at a lower dimensional matrix. However, down there the higher dimension will manifest in its collapsed form because its full, expanded version cannot be accommodated there.

Whenever, at a given dimensional matrix, a higher dimension manifests in collapsed form, that collapsed form is configured as a paradox. The literal meaning of paradox is “simultaneously here and not here.” This counter-intuitive configuration tells us that we’ve arrived at the boundary of the current dimensional matrix in terms of its expanded dimensions. “Simultaneously here and not here” points upward to a higher dimensional matrix of the hierarchy of matrices.

Paradox therefore functions as a signpost for a higher-dimensional matrix just across the border separating two hierarchical matrices.

The Trinity-Paradox is an earthly expression of the Christian God in supernatural Heaven.

The logical dimensions of my claim, unlike the ontological dimensions, are falsifiable. Please falsify my logical dimensions; it's your duty to do so.

Connecting the trinity with quantum entanglement completely fails when you try to sneak in teleology and intent as part of the posit. — universeness

I know that speculation about possible ontological similarities of the Trinity and entanglement must be regulated by study of the pertinent science. I don't want to sneak teleology into any type of disguise or homunculus arguments. Doing that won't get me anywhere. I'm confident about not intentionally playing word games because false narratives don't interest me. Things real and important can sometimes be a lot of fun.

I hope you decide to pursue your decision to study some of the youtube stuff on QM, and come back to us on this thread, regarding it's connection with entropy and your musings on teleology, intent and theism. — universeness

We two, fully accept 180 Proof's reminder that none of the three of us are physicists and we can only at best, skirt around the edges of the subject, but, I regularly make 'improvements' in my understanding of physics, by reading some books and watching some youtube stuff on the wide range of physics topics that exist. — universeness

The above statements are a good description of my future course. I will return here as my database of science knowledge continues to build.

I will take a look at the link you've provided. Thank-you.

...if the markings on the ruler comply with the way a standard ruler is formed, then you can confidently predict the value of the marker to the immediate left or right of the mark you reveal. You can then further predict the marks to the immediate left and right of those, and so on. This analogy fails when you try to then predict the ruler marks at either extreme of the rulers extent, if you don't know what the extent is. In entanglement, the extent of the ruler does not matter, but it will have an extent and will have coordinates. Your projections suggest a situation where one of the entangled particles might not have knowable coordinates, as they factually exist, in a kind of unbounded infinity of possibilities, which you are projecting straight into a 'super-natural' coordinate, which you paradoxically present via propositional logic, as existing and not existing (or is transcendent). I see no value to our discussion in you doing/offering that, as it provides nothing useful to us, other than, 'can we not just settle for god did it... — universeness

I acknowledge that you and 180 have an understanding of entanglement superior to mine.

Having said that, I struggle to understand how you fail to see that The Trinity, centuries before QM, claimed the superposition of three entities, one of them flesh and blood. It takes no deep insight to see the parallel between The Trinity and the physical reality of entangled elementary particles. The QM scale/classical scale divide matters, but is it more than perception impacted by context? Even if it is, I think QM lends a bit of credence to The Trinity as an abstract concept attempting to navigate origin boundary ontology.

...'can we not just settle for god did it.' — universeness

From this I understand you assess my arguments as would-be-science-cum-malarkey. Beneath my flourishes of science-athwart jargon you see a simple, monotonous refrain: God did it. Just believe.

Given this reality of how I'm generally received here, I gratefully thank you and 180 and others for dialoguing with me here. You've shown great patience and generosity towards a lot of malarkey-spewing whimsy.

It would be wrong for me to continue going on as before. It would be wrong for me to continue tying up the human resources of the very accomplished and legitimate philosophy mavens herein. Given the cogency of your above statement as representative of a consensus of astute thinkers herein, I'm ready to leave off with my whimsical speculations. I haven't done so already because I have a very weak control over the meteoric flights of fancy of my imagination.

Heat is produced via dynamism or 'excitation,' that IS work. — universeness

Yeah. The dynamism of a functional system is work. Heat is a useless BYPRODUCT of that work.

Heat can raise the temperature of cold people in a car, again that heat, is doing the work of raising the temperature of the cold people in the car. — universeness

In this example, you're mistaken about what constitutes work. The work is the channeling of the randomly expanding heat via the ventilation system to an intended destination. Once there, the heat once again expands randomly.

There is no situation here that demonstrates 'heat' energy unavailable to do work. — universeness

Without intending it, in the above quote you're describing a perpetual motion machine. Perhaps you, like me, have some doubts about the universal veracity of the concept of entropy. By your argument here, you appear to reject the claim heat is the causal agent within the phenomenon of entropy. Such doubt is even more radical than mine.

Is the heat that comes from the Sun that does not reach any of the planets/moons/etc within our solar system, and just dissipates in space and becomes less and less 'excited,' unavailable to do work? — universeness

Again, the work done by the sun is not simply supplying heat to the earth; it's the organization of heat into the concentrated form of radiant energy that traverses 93 million miles in highly organized fashion. Don't imagine for one second heat without the organizing power of the sun would do this.

I think it's better to rely on those who are willing to do the very hard, long, sometimes very tedious scientific work that can take at least your entire lifetimes effort and investment, with no confidence at all that that will be enough, to fill such gaps with discovered truths. — universeness

This is the truth. Since I fall far short of this standard, I need - and much appreciate - rigorous critics who give me a little boost upwards, for what it's worth.

Until something like CCC is fully fleshed out and proved, we just have to be content with we just don't know yet and not just throw in lazy minded theistic posits which can become so pernicious to the everyday lives of our species, when nefarious individuals get hold of such woo woo concepts and use them to create such horrific concepts as the divine right of some dickhead to call themselves King Or Queen or Messiah or Pope etc and allows them to make the lives of so many people f****** miserable or/and allows religious based, messed up moral code to be passed off as word of god BS, that only serves as a mechanism, used by a nefarious evil few, to control and sycophantically live off a duped majority. — universeness

This is an argument both sound and true. Speaking on the flip side, the same argument is equally sound and true in application to scientific developments (such as atomic explosives) and their possible misuse by some.

Entanglement =/= "instant communication" (or communication of any kind).

E.g. Two opaque envelopes are sealed wherein one contains a dollar bill and the other does not, but we do not know which; one of us travels with one envelope to the moon and then opens the envelope and learns at that instant the content – state – of the other envelope on Earth; ergo, no "communication" between envelopes, just past correlation of information about the paired envelopes. — 180 Proof

In other words, observing one "paired particle" does not "instantly communicate" – causally affect

– the other "paired particle", but only reveals what was unknown, or unknowable, before either "paired particle" was measured. Entanglement = "paired particle" correlations prior to measurement. — 180 Proof

The above argument is a useful tool for clarifying entanglement. I acknowledge it being true there is no instant communication between paired particles.

At the present moment, I resist the denial of causal effect at light speed on one particle when the other particle is observed. In this situation, correlation is not an abstract mental object; it is rather a physical reality. The correlation of entangled particles IS the unified, physical identity of BOTH particles. You can't observe one without observing the other. We know this because we know that when the angle of observation changes on one, thus changing its appearance, the appearance of the other one also changes. QM makes it clear that “solid” material objects are really dynamical processes.

With respect to the quotes above, I referred explicitly to your groundless notions (e.g. "super-nature", "causal non-closure of the universe", "instantaneous communication", "cosmic sentience", etc) and not to your "argument" as such; "not even false" is, more or less, synonymous with (or implies) "unintelligible word-salad". — 180 Proof

Let's do a structural analysis of your above defense: you imply that my argument, which you deem intelligible, derives from gibberish. So, you have gibberish as the content of my grounding premise and my argument, its derivative, as intelligible (even if erroneous) content. What is this: a case of self-organization arisen from chaos? No. There is a person overseeing the conjunction of a premise and its derived argument. You are saying, in effect, I’ve overseen a process going from gibberish to intelligibility. Is this an example of reductio ad absurdum in reverse? Or, conversely, is your defense a case of self-effecting reductio ad absurdum?

As I see it, my notion (structural non-closure of the universe ⇒ network of subsystems) is the ground of my proposition: super-nature.

A multiplex of ascending super-natural system categories (hierarchical emergent complexity) doesn’t imply a systemic increase of mass-energy any more than does a hierarchical multiplex of natural system categories. This is true because we know that in the case of the latter, dynamical emergence of sentient complexity (specifically homo sapiens teleology) has violated no conservation laws.

The central point is that an open network of subsystems (always approaching but never arriving at itself), defined not in terms of an expansion/contraction oscillation, but rather in terms of dynamically emergent complexity, like a closed universe of natural subsystems, obeys conservation.

A conjectured difference between the two is that with an open network, complexity is essentially quaternary rather than essentially monist, as with the closed network of materialist naturalism.

Why is this difference important? Consider the difference between a bit and a qubit.

Are you confusing 'pair production' with quantum entanglement?
If you type into google, something like:
Does pair production always produce entangled particles?
As I just did, you will get:
No. The other photon might even be forbidden to produce a pair over by itself all by itself since there might be no nucleus over by it. The other photon doesn't have to copy what the first one does. But many things could happen to the entanglement. And that is partly because there are many ways the photons could have been entangled. — universeness

These details are presently unknown to me.

There is no 'instant communication,' based on information travelling over a distance at faster than light speed, happening, in quantum entanglement. It is the correlation within the system that allows the state of the entangled particle to be instantly known when you measure the state of one of them. — universeness

I agree with this conceptualization, with questions already posted.

You employ terms here which are not rigorously defined or explained. You cannot do that when the discussion is at an advanced scientific level. What do you mean by 'free energy,' is this comparable with the established (but still poorly named) dark energy? — universeness

I think that heat, being unavailable to do work, and thus being an entropic drain on whatever system produces it, examples free energy. For example, when your ventilation system channels the heat off the engine into your car's interior for climate control, that's the disintegration of your engine providing heat energy to do work independently from the engine's operation. It's free energy available for reuse. My overarching theme: questioning the reality of entropy, questions whether entropy is systemic increase of disorder or just local energy exchange between systems.

What is self-transcendent? How would you fully explain the mechanism of a property of a substance or 'space' which is self-transcendent. You cant just insert terminology into a scientific debate, without a rigorous treatment of what exactly you are referring to and what claims your are introducing by your use of a term. Otherwise 'invalid word salad' will be the resulting accusation directed at you, as has already been done by myself and 180 Proof — universeness

Self-transcendent - pardon the following religion-talk (you asked a question and I'm answering) - examples on earth as the triune Christian God: father_son_holy ghost. Vast multitudes reject this configuration as fiction. Okay. Consider: the familiar puzzles of origin boundary ontology. Is the original being utterly alone without circumambient context? Doesn't that lead straight into Russell's Paradox? Is the original being self-caused? Does that imply some type of weird bifurcation of the self into two selves who, at the same time, are one? If the original being is uncaused, does that mean existence is an inscrutable mystery? Well, the trinity makes a way forward through this morass with self-transcendence.

A more rational argument might be along the lines of an emergent property featuring complexity as a supervenience independent of its anterior substrates. Anyhow, it's speculation about upward-evolution without demand for extra mass_energy.

Which functions/processes of your 'network of subsystems' are deterministic. You have to offer some detail regarding 'subsystems' and 'partial determinism'. Give one clear example of a subsystem you are referring to and then describe at least one of it's processes/functions which you claim are partially or fully determined and why you think so, otherwise, you are just making broad generalised speculations that have almost no predictive power at all. — universeness

One of the foundational principles of determinism of my network of subsystems is that all levels of complex systems are scalable across a range of applications linked by paradoxes.

QM tells us particle pairs entanglements are instantaneous across distance. Conservation laws support this such that distance across a boundary, even across a final boundary encompassing everything, allows entanglement.*

This is another way of saying there is no all-encompassing boundary. (This is also a way of saying the network of subsystems is partially determinate.)**
— ucarr

I have no idea what this means! — universeness

180 Proof rejects my claim of "instantaneous communication" across distance. I consider the claim a possibility. Does a unitary object like a wooden, twelve-inch ruler have dimensional extensions instantaneous in its unity? Is it rather that the dimensional extensions of "unitary" objects are actually repetitive assemblages across an interval of time? This latter perception might stand up as a visual for classical QM.

Since entanglement is independent of distance, and since entanglement as a physical reality of our material universe has been repeatedly confirmed as real, it makes sense to argue that the unspecifiable scope of entanglement as a physical reality of our universe suggests its volume is likewise unspecifiable, i.e., open. Even with our material universe authoritatively understood as a bounded infinity, I don't see that as unspecifiable volume of spacetime.

There are many many youtube offerings on classical and quantum superposition and quantum entanglement. Why don't you choose one, watch it, consider its content and then reform and present your projections of what is described from the science based, youtube presentation you choose and provide a link to. — universeness

This is good advice and I'm taking it.

On 09-13-23, you asked for a supporting argument for my open universe. I gave you my supporting argument and you rebutted on 09-13-23. The gist of your rebuttal for that date is irrelevance.

Well, if "the universe is an open network of subsystems", tell us what accounts for e.g. the inviolability of fundamental conservation laws. :chin: — 180 Proof

QM tells us particle pairs entanglements are instantaneous across distance. Conservation laws support this such that distance across a boundary, even across a final boundary encompassing everything, allows entanglement.* — ucarr

QM tells us particle pairs entanglements are instantaneous across distance.
— ucarr
I don't think so. QM suggests that "distance" – spacetime (i.e. gravity) – does not obtain at planck scales. Conservation laws, derived from Noether's theorem(s), make QM possible (or intelligible) as well as being classically observable. Anyway, I assumed from what you wrote previously that you were referring to the post-planck era of "the universe" ...I don't see how either QM or entanglement relevantly address my question:
Well, if "the universe is an open network of subsystems", tell us what accounts for e.g. the inviolability of fundamental conservation laws. — 180 Proof

You wrote this on 09-17-23.

Your pseudo-scientistic supernaturalism, ucarr, is unintelligible – mostly word-salad – to me. — 180 Proof

We see from the evidence above that from 09-13-23 to 09-17-23 you changed your attack from "irrelevance" to "unintelligible." We also see that the change examples your inconsistency as the two modes of attack are incompatible.

...my objection to your claim of "causal non-closure of the universe" is physical... (i.e. theoretical-observational) — 180 Proof

observing one "paired particle" does not "instantly communicate" – causally affect – the other "paired particle", but only reveals what was unknown, or unknowable, before either "paired particle" was measured. Entanglement = "paired particle" correlations prior to measurement. — 180 Proof

There is some uncertainty WRT to "instantaneous," and "communication" in application to entangled correspondents: scientists think of entanglement as the correlation between correspondents such that they are one in the correlation. Consider a wooden, twelve-inch ruler. Does the one inch marking on the ruler communicate with the ten inch marking on the unitary ruler? Is the communication, if it exists, instantaneous?

This argument might be false, as suggested by your specific counter-narrative; it is not unintelligible.
I did not claim or imply that your "argument is unintelligible"; rather that the implication of 'compatibility of your supernaturalism with fundamental conservation laws' is not even false. — 180 Proof

Your pseudo-scientistic supernaturalism, ucarr, is unintelligible – mostly word-salad – to me. — 180 Proof

How do you reconcile the two above quotes?

My claims[speculations] are falsifiable...
— ucarr
How so? For example – — 180 Proof

See my above post.

Since you're dismissing the metaphysics of my super-naturalistic universe as fiction — ucarr

It's true you're not dismissing within our context here the metaphysics of my super-naturalistic universe as fiction.

Considering:

I have asked you to physically square the supernaturalistic circle, so to speak... — 180 Proof

and

Considering:

QM tells us particle pairs entanglements are instantaneous across distance.
— ucarr
I don't think so. QM suggests that "distance" – spacetime (i.e. gravity) – does not obtain at planck scales. — 180 Proof

Do you deny the above quote is evidence of: a) my attempt to defend the physical openness of the super-natural universe with a falsifiable argument employing paired-particles; b) my use of known physics (paired-particles); c) your counter-narrative to my defense?

Your pseudo-scientistic supernaturalism, ucarr, is unintelligible – mostly word-salad – to me. — 180 Proof

Do you deny my above paired-particles argument*, which you rebutted with an intelligible planck scales agrument, is intelligible? How did you respond with a specific, intelligible counter-narrative against a statement unintelligible?

*The argument goes thus: If paired-particles are instant communication across unspecified distance, that range exceeds the measureable space within a physically closed universe. This argument might be false, as suggested by your specific counter-narrative; it is not unintelligible.

If it's incorrect to consider your acceptable universe an example of naturalist monism, then please explain why — ucarr

I'm talking about the problematic implications of your speculative claims with respect to known physics and you're talking about what metaphysics you surmise is implied by my objections to your supernaturalistic (i.e. substance dualist) metaphysics. — 180 Proof

I often misinterpret 180 Proof, as I don't have his in-depth knowledge of academic philosophy but I don't think he is concerned with or particularly disagrees with your definition of 'natural monism,' based on a description of monism, such as:
A theory or doctrine that denies the existence of a distinction or duality in a particular sphere, such as that between matter and mind, or God and the world. — universeness

First of all thanks to both of you: 1) Thanks to 180 Proof for posing the important question of conservation; 2) Thanks to universeness for the clarifying interpretation of 180 Proof's meaning. I appreciate help with interpretation of his terse, cryptic telegrams featuring bold lettering and underlining. I know his ripostes are thought to be succinct and salutary by some. Atomistic content compacted with densely nuanced possible readings test my logical skills thoroughly.

I didn't think a closed, natural universe characterized as a type of monism - especially as one whose monism precludes the super-naturalism of theism - was controversial.

I think his point here is that you have no compelling argument or evidence to counter the scientific proposal that the universe is a closed system. — universeness

I presented an argument that he rebutted, thus proving I'm not proceeding by use of unfalsifiable arguments. Instead of the plain-speaking that you're doing on his behalf, he continues his attack on my debate methods by invoking "non-sequitur," a term he uses like a stick to batter my claims.

I have never failed to answer a question from 180 Proof with a falsifiable argument. We see from your intercession he can't make the same claim. My debate methods are legit.

Regarding:

QM suggests that "distance" – spacetime (i.e. gravity) – does not obtain at planck scales. — 180 Proof

The question whether there's a minimum possible size for distance might be qualified by the possibility there's a minimum scale below which measurement is not possible.

What mechanism are you suggesting, demonstrates it (an open universe)? The supernatural? If so, that's just not good enough! For many many reasons, including the fact that the supernatural or super-nature or god, are unfalsifiable proposals. — universeness

Below are two important claims from my already-posted counter-narrative to the conservation argument:

• **The network of subsystems is not open due to a contest of forces pitting the contraction due to gravitational attraction against the expansion due to free energy; it is open because it is self-transcendent.

• The partial determinism of the network of subsystems doesn't dwell within an equivalence with expansion; its expansion, being non-linear, means increase of complexity mixed with parsible, conserved volume.

My claims are falsifiable, so have at them.

If it's incorrect to consider your acceptable universe an example of naturalist monism, then please explain why.
— ucarr

Non sequitur again. A further example of us talking past each other – I'm talking about the problematic implications of your speculative claims with respect to known physics and you're talking about what metaphysics you surmise is implied by my objections to your supernaturalistic (i.e. substance dualist) metaphysics. — 180 Proof

Firstly, "non-sequitur" assumes its meaning within the context of a proposition. My question about the correctness of my assessment of your metaphysics of naturalism is a "change-of-focus" within our generally discursive dialogue on the structure of our universe. Why can't I pivot to a point of focus concerning the metaphysics underlying a naturalistic universe vs. the metaphysics underlying a super-naturalist universe? As long as it's not a diversional tactic intending to avoid answering your question, it's reasonable and should be allowed.

Your important question:

Well, if "the universe is an open network of subsystems", tell us what accounts for e.g. the inviolability of fundamental conservation laws. :chin: — 180 Proof

I presented an extensive argument meant to counter-narrate your conservation argument:

• QM tells us particle pairs entanglements are instantaneous across distance. Conservation laws support this such that distance across a boundary, even across a final boundary encompassing everything, allows entanglement.*

• This is another way of saying there is no all-encompassing boundary. (This is also a way of saying the network of subsystems is partially determinate.)**

• *Why would entanglement, even if uncheckable, become theoretically invalidated across an "everything" boundary?

• **The network of subsystems is not open due to a contest of forces pitting the contraction due to gravitational attraction against the expansion due to free energy; it is open because it is self-transcendent.

• The partial determinism of the network of subsystems doesn't dwell within an equivalence with expansion; its expansion, being non-linear, means increase of complexity mixed with increase of volume.

You rebutted this counter-narrative:

QM tells us particle pairs entanglements are instantaneous across distance.
— ucarr
I don't think so. QM suggests that "distance" – spacetime (i.e. gravity) – does not obtain at planck scales. Conservation laws, derived from Noether's theorem(s), make QM possible (or intelligible) as well as being classically observable. Anyway, I assumed from what you wrote previously that you were referring to the post-planck era of "the universe" ... I don't see how either QM or entanglement relevantly address my question. — 180 Proof

By your current argument:

you're talking about what metaphysics you surmise is implied by my objections to your supernaturalistic (i.e. substance dualist) metaphysics. — 180 Proof

You example how my question is an assessment of the metaphysical ground of your naturalistic universe. Since you're dismissing the metaphysics of my super-naturalistic universe as fiction, there's nothing irrelevant about examining the metaphysics of the naturalistic universe that lays claim to precluding the possibility of my universe. I'm just sizing up the opponent; there's nothing non-sequitur about doing that.

I think you're claiming that the universe is not causally closed and therefore the effect of 'some ontologically transcendent cause'. — 180 Proof

Do you think my supposed quest for a necessarily open universe is a quest for establishment of cosmic sentience?
You tell me, ucarr. The term "cosmic sentience" seems to me oxymoronic. — 180 Proof

Do you see that one possible reading of your quotes conveys an ascription of what you deem oxymoronic to my openess theorem?

Do you see how your first quote ties my theorem to substance dualism as a metaphysical ground?

Do you see how your first quote also ties a universe casually closed to substance monism as a metaphysical ground? This claim is corroborated by the fact your acceptable theory of universe contains nature and nature only. The corroboration is further amplified by the following:

I think substance dualism (i.e. "mass-energy / spirit") is inconsistent – theoretically incompatible – with fundamental conservation laws and the principle of causal closure in physics. — 180 Proof

Even more amplification of a monist natural universe versus a dualist supernatural universe in the below quotes:

Do you perceive a conflict between conservation and and something implied by an open network of subsystems?
Yes. — 180 Proof

Do you think a causally open universe implies an increase of mass_energy that violates the 1st law of thermodynamics?
Yes, either net increase or net decrease. — 180 Proof

With repetition, you propound your motto: within our scientifically measured universe there is nature and nature only.

If it's incorrect to consider your acceptable universe an example of naturalist monism, then please explain why.

Your TOE configures "everything" and its origin as discrete things? — ucarr

Not ultimately discrete... — FrancisRay

...if there are not two things then discreteness is not an issue. In a sense there would be two worlds, one composed of things and one,empty of all things... — FrancisRay

Is the world empty of all things a spiritual world, or a material world?

Is your postulation of the conjoined two-world one that renders it paradoxical?

Thus the line from the poet Rumi, 'I have put duality behind me, I have seen that the two worlds are one.' — FrancisRay

You might like to check out Nagarjuna's doctrine of 'two truths' or 'worlds' since it is designed to help us understand the relationship between the world of things and the world from which they emerge. . . — FrancisRay

Are you saying the two worlds, being equivalent, preclude the matter/spirit duality?

You ask:

...if "the universe is an open network of subsystems", tell us what accounts for e.g. the inviolability of fundamental conservation laws. :chin: — 180 Proof

But after my I ask for clarification, you answer in the negative:

Are you asking how an open network of subsystems configures conservation within its domain?
— ucarr
No. — 180 Proof

Since we're talking about totality of existence, an open network of subsystems accounts for conservation by showing how the two things are related, presumably along the axis of compatibility.

You deny possibility of compatibility when you say:

Your 'speculative causal non-closure' which is inconsistent with the fundamental conservation laws of physics. — 180 Proof

This denial leads me to the following questions:

Is causally closed somewhere in the neighborhood of necessarily closed?

Is speculative, causal, non-closure in the neighborhood of necessarily open?

Do you think my supposed quest for a necessarily open universe is a quest for establishment of cosmic sentience?

Do you think a causally open universe implies an increase of mass_energy that violates the 1st law of thermodynamics?

Do you think a causally closed universe entails a partially deterministic universe? Under this construction, there is - via evolution - "blind variation and selective retention," but there is no transcendence of the materialist, natural world; there is no reality ontically non-material.

Conjecturing a causally open universe that is transcendent non-ontically, what do you imagine such a universe would look like structurally speaking? Would it be consistent with conservation?

Under this construction, a materialist universe of conserved mass_energy can support higher orders of materialist categories themselves materialist categories: the category of axiomatic givens is a higher order of phenomenal analysis.

Do you see that one implication of your statements is that atheism is predicated upon a monist metaphysics? There is no bi-furcation of the universe into materialist/non-materialist categories.

Do you see that an implication of monist metaphysics is that the metaphysics of theism, with its dualism of mass_energy/spirit, propounds a false binary?

By universe I mean: space-time universe.
— ucarr

In this case you're not speaking of a fundamental theory, . — FrancisRay

I'm speaking of "system," and positing universe as its limit. I imagine this has some bearing on TOE.

There are axiomatic ambiguities perplexing both math models and the material systems they model. The quest for T.O.E. might be quixotic.

They can be overcome. They have no impact on my TOE. I won't expand because to do so would mean going off topic. I'll just say that a TOE must explain more than every ;thing'. since it must explain where 'things' come from. (As Kant recognized). A discussion for a different thread, though, and not relevant to the topic of entropy. . ..... . — FrancisRay

Your TOE configures "everything" and its origin as discrete things?

Well, if "the universe is an open network of subsystems", tell us what accounts for e.g. the inviolability of fundamental conservation laws. — 180 Proof

Are you asking how an open network of subsystems configures conservation within its domain?

Do you perceive a conflict between conservation and and something implied by an open network of subsystems?

We're now talking past each other (and neither of us are physicists anyway). — 180 Proof

What does it mean to talk past someone?

Why should not the general public talk about the concept "universe"?

What did you think I was saying about the concept "universe"?

Why was your impression of what I might be saying about the concept "universe" of interest to you?

You're speculating outside of known physics (i.e. absent a falsifiable theory of QG)... — 180 Proof

We both know entanglement has been experimentally verified:

Quantum Entanglement

QM tells us particle-pairs entanglements are instantaneous across distance. — ucarr

I don't think so. QM suggests that "distance" – spacetime (i.e. gravity) – does not obtain at planck scales. — 180 Proof

Your argument against instantaneous, paired-particles communication appears to be based upon the Zeno's Paradox argument which physicists have refuted.

If spacetime, the ground of matter_energy_motion, doesn't obtain at planck scales, then how is it that at the singularity, a realm scaled below planck scales, expansion involves stupendous heat, a phenomenon rooted in spacetime? — ucarr

Are you acknowledging singularity as unsupported speculation?

Well, if "the universe is an open network of subsystems", tell us what accounts for e.g. the inviolability of fundamental conservation laws. — 180 Proof

If you want to argue that any postulated universe not monist and oscillating violates conservation, then present your argument.

I don't think so. QM suggests that "distance" – spacetime (i.e. gravity) – does not obtain at planck scales. — 180 Proof

If you're going down to the scale of $x ^ {-35}$, then you need to supply parameters for the domains of laws, theorems, functions, etc.

• Is it established that gravitons have a measurement at the planck scale?

• Is there a basic unit of spacetime?

• If you scale below the basic unit of spacetime do you arrive at immeasurable infinite values?

• Has string theory weighed-in on the domain of entanglement?

Well, if "the universe is an open network of subsystems", tell us what accounts for e.g. the inviolability of fundamental conservation laws. — 180 Proof

**The network of subsystems is not open due to a contest of forces pitting the contraction due to gravitational attraction against the expansion due to free energy; it is open because it is self-transcendent. — ucarr

If spacetime, the ground of matter_energy_motion, doesn't obtain at planck scales, then how is it that at the singularity, a realm scaled below planck scales, expansion involves stupendous heat, a phenomenon rooted in spacetime?

Why do you (seem to) equate "incompleteness" with "openness"? For instance, a transcendental number such as Pi is closed (i.e. defined) even though its expression is incompletable (i.e. unbounded). — 180 Proof

You make a useful distinction. As you say, something incomplete might be closed. The two are not equivalent and the subsystem configuration is both open and incomplete.

Maybe the comparison doesn't work because Pi is an abstract entity and "the universe" is a / the concrete entity. — 180 Proof

Yeah. There is some idealization within math that expels the gray areas unavoidable within our material world.

Well, if "the universe is an open network of subsystems", tell us what accounts for e.g. the inviolability of fundamental conservation laws. :chin: — 180 Proof

QM tells us particle pairs entanglements are instantaneous across distance. Conservation laws support this such that distance across a boundary, even across a final boundary encompassing everything, allows entanglement.*

This is another way of saying there is no all-encompassing boundary. (This is also a way of saying the network of subsystems is partially determinate.)**

*Why would entanglement, even if uncheckable, become theoretically invalidated across an "everything" boundary?

**The network of subsystems is not open due to a contest of forces pitting the contraction due to gravitational attraction against the expansion due to free energy; it is open because it is self-transcendent.

The partial determinism of the network of subsystems doesn't dwell within an equivalence with expansion; its expansion, being non-linear, means increase of complexity mixed with increase of volume.

Could you define the word 'universe' here? Do you mean the space-time universe or the 'world as a whole'. These are very different things. — FrancisRay

Note: You ask an important question just when I'm developing my thinking about the role of "universe" within "system." My response will therefore be both lengthy and expansive. I hope you won't be repelled by content that appears off-topic.

By universe I mean: space-time universe.

Godel’s Incompleteness Theorem tells us that for every math system, there is a solvable equation generated by that system but not governed by the rules defining that system. Penrose teases out a nuance of Gödel: a mathematician, following the rules of a math system, sees that a proposition of that system is true; even so, the mathematician also sees that the truth of that proposition cannot be proven using the rules defining the system.

Penrose On Godel

There are axiomatic ambiguities perplexing both math models and the material systems they model. The quest for T.O.E. might be quixotic.

As math language is a good system for modeling material systems and, as math language, per Gödel, produces no closed systems, then probably material systems, like math systems, are open.

If our material universe is an open system; this is tantamount to saying there is no universe. Universe is an idealization of system; it is an abstraction. Material systems make an approach to universe without arrival.

If finite time sets the boundaries of system, then an open system that is eternal contains only local time, per Relativity. The paradoxical universality of local time, by its exclusion of an origin, might be a nail in the coffin of T.O.E. because "everything" is a synonym of universe.

Entropy is another obstruction to universe. However, the good news is that with entropy being local only, there is no final heat death as there is no universe.

Perhaps there is no entropy in the sense that the heat death of a sub-system is really the 1st law of thermodynamics: the conservation of matter-energy takes the active, existential form of heat death of local sub-systems, thus assuring a steady fund of free energy for birth of new sub-systems. 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics form a radical.

An existential universe, as a unifying superstructure of necessity drawing from the total energy fund of thermodynamics, would continually develop, thus requiring an unlimited volume of energy, whereas the total volume of energy is finite, and thus there is no existential universe. There is no existential universe and there is no universal entropy.

Local time only within a network of sub-systems might be a good definition of eternity.

The postulated singularity figures to be an extreme position of a sub-system of our material universe, a collection of sub-systems existing at various levels of aggregation of sub-systems joined.

Under this scheme, the puzzling question of the context of the singularity goes away. A singularity is merely a sub-system at extreme position amidst a network of sub-systems.

The hyper-density of singularity is merely a necessary state of being for generation of the fundamental forces of a newly arising sub-system.

The existential “universe” is an open network of sub-systems that is asymptotic to itself: it always approaches itself without arrival.

An open system is binary, and its approach to itself is limited by its self-transcendence: it always approaches but never attains to itself as a unity; open system is irreducibly binary.

This partial system status is the ground of the self-transcendence of life.* Self-transcendence exists in place of origin. Origin, like open system, is irreducibly binary. There are no monist origins.

The universe-as-incomplete-network is always only partially definable: it is otherwise a mystery of incompleteness coupled with self-transcendence.

...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.