You've only defended your own misreading (↪180 Proof)¹ – res ipsa loquitur. Again, ucarr, invalidate what I actually argue¹ or concede the point. — 180 Proof

Your above statement, like previous, similar statements, merely DECLARES that my reading is a misreading. You have yet to PROVE it's a misreading.

IFF TF-set has two membership rules – (1) X is transcendent, (2) X is a fact, THEN there is not any X that satisfies both membership rules... — 180 Proof

As I've already stated and you've already affirmed: per the above quote, IFF membership in TF-set requires that "X = transcendent" and "X = fact," THEN there is not any X that satisfies both membership rules. This is a declaration "X" and "fact" are mutually exclusive. Since your conclusion (in spite of your Latin quote) is not a self-evident truth, an extrinsic, formal proof is required to establish its truth.

Here's an example of what might be entailed in a proof of my understanding being a misreading: since, per the rules of TF-set, X = transcendent and X = fact, then fact = transcendent. There must exist TF-facts for TF-set to have members. However, "fact = transcendent" is false.

Now we see that proof of your "If...then" claim requires proof "fact = transcendent is false." is also true. If you have evidence TFs don't exist, you must cite this evidence.

Following my reading of your statement, I attack your premise TFs don't exist:

Regarding the first sentence of your quote, you posit the conditional that a transcendent T is coupled with a transcendent F such that they instantiate membership within TF-set.

Since both f(t) + f(f) = f(t+f) and f(t+f) = {t,f}, then X, a transcendent fact TF transcends itself and thus TF and its transcendence {t,f} reciprocally vary i.e., transcend each other. This is higher-order transcendence_supervenience as determined by the paradoxicality of self-transcendence (a transcendent fact).

So your first sentence contradicts your second sentence. Instead of: The set's okay, there just are not any members (so far) which (can) satisfy both rules simultaneously, we have: The set's okay, and its members transcend_supervene each other, albeit paradoxically. Self-transcendence, when misread through the lens of Newtonian determinism, acquires the appearance of an empty set. — ucarr

The upshot of the above argument follows from conceptualizing the wave function as a member of a set. Before measurement, its presence within a set, being probable, suggests the set is empty whereas, in fact, the occupation of the set by probable members positions said occupation somewhere between empty and occupied. This is an argument that denies TF-set is empty.

If you have logic_evidence that prevents sets from having probable members, then you must cite it.

TFs as a logical possibility, like time running in both directions as a logical possibility, so far has no consensus regarding empirical, substantiating evidence. In the case of time, no one counts the evidence in absentia as refutation. Why should we not think likewise regarding TFs?

If X is Transcendent AND if X is a Fact, then X belongs to TF-set. The set's okay, there just are not any members (so far) which (can) satisfy both rules  simultaneously. — 180 Proof

You have quoted my demonstration; show it is invalid as is or concede the point. I've no interest in trying to persuade you of anything, ucarr. — 180 Proof

After quoting your demonstration, I presented an argument based upon my reading of your demonstration:

Regarding the first sentence of your quote, you posit the conditional that a transcendent T is coupled with a transcendent F such that they instantiate membership within TF-set.

Since both f(t) + f(f) = f(t+f) and f(t+f) = {t,f}, then X, a transcendent fact TF transcends itself and thus TF and its transcendence {t,f} reciprocally vary i.e., transcend each other. This is higher-order transcendence_supervenience as determined by the paradoxicality of self-transcendence (a transcendent fact).

So your first sentence contradicts your second sentence. Instead of: The set's okay, there just are not any members (so far) which (can) satisfy both rules simultaneously, we have: The set's okay, and its members transcend_supervene each other, albeit paradoxically. Self-transcendence, when misread through the lens of Newtonian determinism, acquires the appearance of an empty set. — ucarr

You've completely misread what I wrote. The argument does not refer to "transcendent T" or "transcendent F". You're objecting to a strawman, ucarr, rather than what I wrote. — 180 Proof

After you dismiss my reading of your demonstration, I present a defense of my reading:

Since "posit" means: put forward as a basis of argument, and you put forward as a basis of argument that:

IFF TF-set has two membership rules – (1) X is transcendent, (2) X is a fact, THEN there is not any X that satisfies both membership rules; THEREFORE TF-set does not have any actual members.
— 180 Proof

then my saying, as interpretation of your argument that: membership rule (1) X is transcendent means X = transcendent (per rule (1) seems correct as does rule (2) X is a fact interpreted as meaning X = fact (per rule (2). — ucarr

I'm not asking you to persuade me. I'm asking you to convince me with a refutation of my defense.

My suggestion is you study the elementary theory of sets in order to use the notation accurately. Then compose your ideas accordingly. — jgill

I acknowledge your suggestion specifies the correct way for me to proceed and I will act accordingly.

Saying set {t} and set {f} are not subsets of set {t,f} is my attempt to incorporate the wave function into logical expressions. — ucarr

The wave function is already a logical expression, subject to interpretation. This is all very mysterious. — jgill

I'm trying to say that "t" and "f" are not subsets of {t,f} because, being transcendent in the sense of the wave function, they inhabit a cloud of probability before measurement.

You've completely misread what I wrote. The argument does not refer to "transcendent T" or "transcendent F". — 180 Proof

Since "posit" means: put forward as a basis of argument, and you put forward as a basis of argument that:

IFF TF-set has two membership rules – (1) X is transcendent, (2) X is a fact, THEN there is not any X that satisfies both membership rules; THEREFORE TF-set does not have any actual members. — 180 Proof

then my saying, as interpretation of your argument that: membership rule (1) X is transcendent means X = transcendent (per rule (1) seems correct as does rule (2) X is a fact interpreted as meaning X = fact (per rule (2). How is it that my interpreting and ascribing your two named attributes for membership in TF-set is erroneous? To prove your point, I think you need to show a break in my chain of inference. It won't do for you to merely declare such a break exists. You must write a statement of symbolic logic that shows this break. You frequently declare non sequitur without showing it via your own explicit, written chain of inference. Mere declarations won’t do.

While you're at the task of showing instead of merely declaring, you also need to show us in an explicit, written chain of inference what is your underlying logic supporting your declaration that: your IFF... THEN correlative conjunction, in concluding "there is not any X that satisfies both membership rules" is an unbroken chain of inference.

To transcend a fact isn'tcremotely "similar" to a property or process supervening on a fact. — 180 Proof

How is it they're dissimilar? Can you describe with explicit details how they're dissimilar? Can you buttress your description with an example? Can you buttress your example with its logical correlative?

I'm sorry, I still can't make sense of this. I see that you are using curls to mark sets, and it seems you are using "f" for both a non-specific function and something else... the set of facts? Is "t" a transcendent fact? I cannpt see what system you are using here for the formalisation. — Banno

Thanks for bearing with me up to this point. Clearly, the fog is coming solely from my side. That you see a couple of things I'm attempting in fumbling fashion marks progress in my mind although for you such micro-advances are cold comfort.

Yes, t = transcendent fact. There's also set {f} because, through labyrinthine logic (I think), transcendence is modular to everything else, even its own attributes. Saying set {t} and set {f} are not subsets of set {t,f} is my attempt to incorporate the wave function into logical expressions.

Yes, f(f) is supposed to be a generalization denoting the commonwealth of sets of facts.

My engagements with proficient logicians helps me in the same manner that a new speaker of english, while stumbling through conversation with a native speaker, manages to understand a few meaningful communications and, even better, manages to send one or two.

To wit: IFF TF-set has two membership rules – (1) X is transcendent, (2) X is a fact, THEN there is not any X that satisfies both membership rules; THEREFORE TF-set does not have any actual members.

Is this paraphrase any clearer? — 180 Proof

Your paraphrase, like your original statement, comes across to me loudly and clearly. What's not clear is whether or not I rationally interpret what you communicate clearly.

Here's how I understand your communication:

The property of transcendence and the cognitive entity "fact" are mutually exclusive. Given this, there is and cannot be any set of transcendent facts.

Did you ignore my questions to you because you think them evidence of my misapprehension of your communication?

Hello 180 Proof, can you talk a little bit about how you understand supervenience?

I ask for your thoughts on supervenience because within the context of sets of logical relations, I, more-or-less, equate supervenience and transcendence. — ucarr

Since, in my view, transcendence_supervenience are similar, if, as I believe, they are pertinent to your argument, then you need to answer my questions because supervenience across sets is a cognitive reality.

...how does it relate to my post? — Banno

The attempted logic calculus is supposed to show me doing the math you claim I'm not doing.

Since both f(t) + f(f) = f(t+f) and f(t+f) = {t,f}, then X, a transcendent fact TF transcends itself and thus TF and its transcendence {t,f} reciprocally vary i.e., transcend each other. — ucarr

↪ucarr Looks like gobbledegook dressed in formal clothing. — Banno

You ever try to converse with an english-as-a-second-language learner? Consider such a learner who's never been in an ESL classroom. Some immigrants learn english by watching tv commercials, right?

Ever read any quotes from Yogi Berra, the NY Yankees manager who was born across the tracks from logic? If there's gonna be a formal ceremony, "include me out."

f(t) + f(f) = f(t+f) is supposed to show that tf (transcendent fact) occupies the set of transcendent facts {t,f}. Since transcendent means "going beyond a boundary" the set {t,f} holds members that are paired with set {t} and set {f}, but the latter two sets are not subsets of {t,f}. By stretching the common sense meaning of things to an extreme, I'm saying {t} and {f} are transcendently members of an empty set.
180 Proof is using tf = { } to show that, so far, there's no evidence for the existence of such facts.

My intention is to show, through a logic calculus interpretation of his argument that, with the terms of his argument rearranged, it says that, {t,f} does exist as a logical relationship. This, of course, falls short of existential proof of real TF, but it's something to keep the debate going re: the possibility of the emergent property: super-nature.

So how am I to read f(t)? That f is a function acting on t? Or as a predication? And if it's a predication, what's the addition symbol doing? And how do I read {t,f} - what do the curlies do?[/quote]

You're supposed to read it as "a function acting on t, or a function acting on f," such that the empty set of {t,f} is populated, albeit transcendently.

Correction: f(t) + f(f) ≆ f(t+f) is supposed to show that the terms are approximate because non-local members of a set aren't members in a straightforward and simple situation.

The parallel is that inorganic matter gives no clue to the possibility of the organic matter of living organisms, yet it's a predicate for life. Just as non-life predicates life, emptiness acts on transcendent facts to populate an empty set. The somethingness of an empty set is consistent with it being a member of every set.

What is that?

It's not a logical system I recognise, nor is it something that I can locate in Wolfram Mathworld. — Banno

I'm glad you asked me the question.

It's trying to say that if X is transcendent, the domain of its transcendence can include itself.

Self-transcendence, being complicated, leads naive logicians like me to messy expressions like the one you quoted.

It's saying the function of a transcendent fact is the set of that transcendent fact correlated with its antecedent definition reciprocally. That simply means that a self-transcendent fact is a higher-order of itself in a paradoxical configuration. This isn't really mysterious, the wacky language be darned, because an emergent property can be predicated upon a ground lacking utterly that property. So then, the ground, in this scenario the lower order or lower set, supervenes upon the property not like itself, although, in this case, the higher property is itself, and thus the paradox.

What's exciting about my logical calculus is that it talks about paradox as an emergent property in extremis: self-transcendence. Might it be the way out of the OBO (Origin Boundary Ontology = the first/eternal existing thing) puzzle?

You're supposed to go through the terms of my logical calculus and discover breaks in the inferential chain, perhaps ultimately reducing the statement to reductio ad absurdum status.

There's a few folk hereabouts, including Benj96, @ucarr, @Gnomon, who seem to think that philosophy consist in doing physics without the maths. — Banno

Hello Banno, Can you or someone you know examine my logic calculus in the post linked below? I'd sure like to have a useful assessment.

Is such work 'physics without maths', or is it speculative fiction... — Tom Storm

Hello, Tom Storm, can you render an opinion on the link below?

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/842888

If X is Transcendent AND if X is a Fact, then X belongs to TF-set. The set's okay, there just are not any members (so far) which (can) satisfy both rules  simultaneously. — 180 Proof, c2008

In philosophy, supervenience refers to a relation between sets of properties or sets of facts. X is said to supervene on Y if and only if some difference in Y is necessary for any difference in X to be possible. — Wikipedia

Hello 180 Proof, can you talk a little bit about how you understand supervenience?

I ask for your thoughts on supervenience because within the context of sets of logical relations, I, more-or-less, equate supervenience and transcendence. Here's my narrative:

Regarding the first sentence of your quote, you posit the conditional that a transcendent T is coupled with a transcendent F such that they instantiate membership within TF-set.

Since both f(t) + f(f) = f(t+f) and f(t+f) = {t,f}, then X, a transcendent fact TF transcends itself and thus TF and its transcendence {t,f} reciprocally vary i.e., transcend each other. This is higher-order transcendence_supervenience as determined by the paradoxicality of self-transcendence (a transcendent fact).

So your first sentence contradicts your second sentence. Instead of: The set's okay, there just are not any members (so far) which (can) satisfy both rules simultaneously, we have: The set's okay, and its members transcend_supervene each other, albeit paradoxically. Self-transcendence, when misread through the lens of Newtonian determinism, acquires the appearance of an empty set.

Let me see your counter-narrative.

...distinguishing things and events as different ontological categories is extremely valuable... — wonderer1

Is there any part of an event that doesn't belong to the mass_energy category?

Our language allows "the" to modify "event," thus indicating the latter is a noun i.e., a thing. Does this syntax present a fallacy?

Since many events encompass many things as their components, each with its own configuration of its components, does a configuration of multiple things suggest something different from a solitary thing?

Perhaps periods of time in an emotional state are more reasonably understood as events than as things? I'd say that from such a perspective our inability to discuss the volume of an emotional state becomes a non-issue — wonderer1

You imply events are not things. Why aren't they?

...apropos to discussing events, the duration of time spent in an emotional state is a meaningful measure. — wonderer1

Is there any phenomenon that doesn't find time a meaningful measure?

The cycle between psychedelic and non-psychedelic modes are characterized by an increase and decrease in people's conceptual, perceptual and emotional latent inhibition. Once the latent inhibition allows us to see the roughness/curviness of the edges of our concepts/percepts/emotions, the boundaries fall apart; panic and chaos ensues. We eventually find our solace and joy in acceptance of the destruction of the logical; we find calmness in realizing the paralogicality at the bottom of everything... — Ø implies everything

:up: :100:

Your narrative is excellent! You've added good reasoning to the argument without the poetic frills of my whimsical imagery. Thank-you for weighing in, Ø implies everything.

The fact that we don't know the value of the speed of light or the value of Pi to the nth decimal place does not mean that such does not exist, but what gap are you suggesting this creates? and what are you suggesting that gap should be filled with? — universeness

I cite your above quote as authority for claiming mystically irrationally real things as being extant things as opposed to being speculations. — ucarr

I erred in my characterization of the permanent denizens of the gaps as being "mystical." My correction, displayed above, instead characterizes them as "irrational." I use this term in the math sense: "not expressible as a ratio of two integers." The meaning of this definition, in my context herein, concerns a lack of wholeness, or a lack of discretely discernible boundaries.

We know through the set of irrational numbers that math has no problem using them within scientific applications. Therefore it follows that arguments based upon them are not “god of the gaps” arguments. However, this exemption is only verifiably applicable to abstract concepts. Does it also apply to mass_energy objects, assuming such things as irrational mass_energy objects exist? If an incompletable material objects exists, must we regard it as being a partial yet real object? How does a discrete material entity such as homo sapiens interact with a partial object? If such interactions are possible, do they entail causal relations between the two? Are there any emergentist relationships between the two?

In your above quote (top), beyond mere acknowledgement, you assert the existential reality of things permanently unknown to science. I think one apt exemplar of this definition is the axiomatic curvilinearity of natural forms. Science has a very satisfactory working relationship with nature, but the disjunction, I presume, persists all the way down to the Planck scale.

:halo: This OP, for me now just reduces, under cooking, to another 'god of the gaps' proposal. — universeness

"Any gap, science is currently unable to fill with an empirically provable natural explanation, is defibrillation, for the existence of god/a supernatural with intent." — universeness

So, you see the discontinuity of analysis vis-a-vis nature as a progressive vanishing point. Like with the ratio of a circle's diameter to its circumference, science can approximate the attributes and behaviors of nature as closely as needed, and thus supernatural things can only cling to life-support, prisoners in solitary confinement, stripped of their power (to deceive).

Even if partial mass_energy things don't exist non-congnitively, we know they exist within the minds of humans. Picking one example, I say we don't customarily measure the volume (as distinguished from intensity) of our emotional states. Nonetheless we regard them as indisputably real. For this reason, the robust discreteness of scientific truth does not cover the entire spectrum of essential human experience.

For this reason, societies oscillate individually and collectively between the naturalistic clarity of science and logic and the opulent fantasia and psychedelic vibrancy of emotional exuberance. As the 60s echoed the 20s, I claim our 20s echo the 60s.

My bifurcation of rectilinear/curvilinear, an essential motif of my thesis, doesn't take aim at filling scientific hiccups with claims unsupportable by reason. Instead, it aims to assess historical cycles of emphases leaning towards one or the other side of the bifurcation. I do this in order to argue that the new explosion of post-natal gender ID possibilities, curvilinear, characterizes the next phase of free love.

Exactly what the hell are you talking about? — Teller

The gist of my thesis: Analysis, when faced with the more complex, curvilinear forms of the natural world, as, for example, asymmetrical emergence, of necessity pushes beyond discrete boundaries of material objects towards a fantasia of mandala integrations of contrasting things.

The emergence of sentient mind from gray matter stands matchless as the psychedelic break from thermodynamically constrained mass_energy. Consider our dialogue herein, for example: two agglomerations of mass_energy self-aware and correlated in written conversation.

Now, in the 21st century, the discrete binary of the gender divide undergoes a technology-driven explosion into the new, spinning whirl of the mandala wheel of sexual expression. Designer technics for tailored gender IDs are now on sale.

The fact that we don't know the value of the speed of light or the value of Pi to the nth decimal place does not mean that such does not exist, but what gap are you suggesting this creates? and what are you suggesting that gap should be filled with? — universeness

You're right about the antiquity of psychedelia, so I propose to amend my narrative to say Joyce played a role in giving a literary gloss to it, just as he supplied QM with "quark."

This question gets to the core of my thinking in this OP. My understanding of calculus vis-a-vis pi and the like is that analysis, being rooted within rectilinearity, makes only a close approach to the circle and therefore, curvilinearity, the essence of natural forms, remains incommensurable with analysis.

The gap, therefore, as you already know, acts the role of safe harbor for mystically real things.

The fact that we don't know the value of the speed of light or the value of Pi to the nth decimal place does not mean that such does not exist... — universeness

I cite your above quote as authority for claiming mystically real things as being extant things as opposed to being speculations. This is a way of claiming science has some limitations WRT to nature. Heisenberg Uncertainty is another plank in the foundation of this claim.

We know science has satisfactory ways of dealing with scientific incommensurability with nature, so this is not an attack on the veracity of science. It does, however, stand as a weak opposition to scientism. No, science can't best comprehend everything. And, moreover, as science gets pushed ever closer to fulfilling the role of panacea, the more our allegiance to it becomes an article of faith. If science does generate correct, finally unverifiable faith, then it falls under jurisdiction of Gödel's Incompleteness Theorem: science, like math, generates some true statements that science can't prove formally.

The gap, then, traces back to scientific measurement limitations as a constraint upon our facts database and also upon the scope of epistemology.

The gap therefore harbors the holism of the existential and the axiomatics generated thereof.

I'm wondering if the above limitations are enough to let us infer science being always stopped at the doorstep of existential holism. Knowing this would lead us to conclude that science will always be a simulation of the universe. The universe, then, is completely simulatable while always remaining unknowable. This is another angle of view upon conservation of matter and energy; existence can neither be created nor destroyed; it merely changes form.

The mystical part of conservation of existence is, perhaps, that all perceivable existing things are only simulations of simulations within an insuperable, cosmic hall of mirrors. I think this speculation may have some corroboration in the Susskind_T’hooft theory positing a holographic universe.

Maybe this reverse-engineers supplemental credence to Plato's realm of ideal forms.

:up:

:up:

You have stated a great deal, but is your OP mainly about the statements made? Is your goal to get readers to consider the validity of the statements you make? or do you want specific responses to such as: — universeness

A universe in motion, like ours, contains no final answers or states.
It contains, instead, evolving answers and states. — ucarr

The above quote is my framing context. It lays a foundation for the upshot of my OP: the sexual identities of the 21st century, which I characterize as sexual fantasia, are a natural and inevitable development from the continuum of changes that precede it.

My train of thought entails my claim psychedelia began with Joyce's stream-of-consciousness narratives; continued through the civil rights struggle in America; onward into LSD_free love and its culmination, Woodstock; got a booster rocket from women's lib and gay lib; crossed a categorical boundary with the digital revolution, and then, all of these human identity expanding changes acting in tandem, having worked their way down to the basic cell of human organization, the man-woman dance, worked its exploding plastic_fantastic, thus setting the wheel of gender ID spinning at a rate both blinding and vertiginous. Digital technology, powered by QM in application, now let's human individuals choose their gender ID post-natal. This change is foundational and important, I argue, because it brings the physical body into closer parity with the multifarious complexity of the mind. So now, in the 21st century, we have human-gender ID fantasia. Just fifty years ago, who thought human gender ID would soon become a designer industry?

I would never attempt to restrict your freedom to express yourself, no matter how much I might disagree with the focus of your expression. I might be frustrated that I cannot change your mind, but I will defend your freedom of expression as long as you do not incite violence. — universeness

:up: :up:

I use the term spiritual, as referring to human breathing and movement and nothing of the transcendent or esoteric. — universeness

I too think human breathing and movement are apt subjects for development. Do you dismiss yoga?

No, you keep missing my main message to you. I am as disappointed with your dalliances with theism as you are with my total rejection of theism. All of your uses of theistic terminology such as god, satan, christian, heaven, hell etc have a high cringe factor for me, as they dilute your status as a critical thinker and a skeptic in my eyes. I experience more concern from that, than I do about any threat that I will suffer for eternity is a non-existent christian hell. — universeness

You get a lot of credit for persisting in a dialog full of concepts that make you cringe. Your persistence here is deeply ironical because in your endeavors to establish the authenticity of your atheism - which you've done - you at the same time show your strong resemblance to God and the values of God. Patient and persistent counsel with someone afflicted by immersion within profound error is a good example of what Christianity teaches. I know, such a lesson has long been taught without any reference to God.

Of course I harbour primal fears and of course I experience irrational thought and they have had more power over me in the past than they do now. I have defeated both in the sense that they do not dictate to my critical faculty. My reason overwhelms them. — universeness

Christianity has no objection to this.

I could never be as evil as the christian notion of a god, as a quartet (imo) of vile (multiple/schizophrenic) personalities, as absent father, magical son, 'silly' and ridiculous holy ghost and enforcer satan. — universeness

Since you disbelieve God and Satan are enemies, do you also disbelieve there's spiritual warfare permeating human experience?

I remain interested in your treatment of a youtube video on any aspect of QM.
My final expression of my opinion of your dalliances with theism is: :roll: — universeness

I'm willing to eliminate further discussion of God in my dialogs with you and 180 Proof.

And you have proven me (us) wrong, sir, that you can reason cogently and honestly. — 180 Proof

Firstly, that's why you guys are due a lot of credit for persisting in this dialog. Most folks quickly avoid the incompetence_corruption you ascribe to me.

Secondly, Do you deny the Heisenberg_Haldane quote gives me wiggle room WRT rational cogency?

If I'm not mistaken, your assessment of my renounce-the-Holy-Spirit stratagem is your first application of "disingenuous" to one of my claims. However, if your use of disingenuous applies to me knowing what your answers would be, then I'm guilty in a complicated way. Yes, I thought I knew you both would exhibit a natural aversion to explicitly rejecting the Holy Spirit:

I have one simple question to ask you that, I think, will prove that you do not truly believe your... 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. — ucarr

Are you willing to commit yourself, in the emphatic mode of your ...words, to a written statement declaring that you permanently reject the personal presence of the Holy Spirit as a worthless and meaningless fiction? — ucarr

Herein lies my disingenuousness: You two would not specifically reject the Holy Spirit... (or so I thought). The question, as you imply, was a setup for you guys to give an answer I expected, and thus it wasn't a genuine question. However, I was up front about my expectation you would exhibit an intuitive aversion to specifically rejecting the Holy Spirit; you especially, 180 Proof because the Jesuits empowered you towards the wisdom with which you now reject their schooling.

I was disingenuous on purpose, and I told you so up front, therefore, I was strategically disingenuous with fair warning in advance. What's important is that I was wrong. You guys have full monty courage and integrity of your conviction WRT atheism.

:up: :grin:

At best your post is disingenuous since "the question" is merely rhetorical given my previously stated philosophical commitments. Again, ucarr, for 45 years now I haven't had any religious or supernatural beliefs whatsoever as I reject all species of magical thinking (such as yours :sparkle:). — 180 Proof

Is belief in the Trinity magical thinking?
— ucarr
No doubt. — 180 Proof

Okay, universeness and 180 Proof have both proven me wrong in my speculations about them being unwilling to specifically reject the Holy Spirit in writing.

At best your post is disingenuous since "the question" is merely rhetorical given my previously stated philosophical commitments. Again, ucarr, for 45 years now I haven't had any religious or supernatural beliefs whatsoever as I reject all species of magical thinking (such as yours :sparkle:). — 180 Proof

Is belief in the Trinity magical thinking?

Even though I easily met your challenge, your irrational fear makes you cling to the hope that your god is biding its time and will deal with me later. — universeness

You think I want God to banish you to hell in reaction to our exchange of ideas within a debate? I'm a sinner, but I certainly hope I'm not guilty of what you charge me with.

Yes, I harbor primal fears; you don't? Some of them are irrational. Are none of your thoughts irrational?

If you are willing to commit to writing your permanent rejection of the Holy Spirit, I want it understood you choose to do so for reasons quite beyond the issues of a debate. If you do this thing, it should be borne of a deep and abiding belief that the God of Christianity is one you wish permanent and insuperable separation from. This state of ultimate separation from God is the proper definition of Hell.
— ucarr
So let it be written, so let it be done ...... — universeness

I hope you're protected from negative consequences because you reject your own conception of the Holy Spirit as fiction. That's not the same as rejecting something you know to be real.

I release you from any responsibility or influence ucarr regarding the non-existence of my... soul — universeness

Thankfully, the ontic status of your immortal soul has not been entrusted to someone as flawed and fragile as another benighted human groping through life's changing fortunes e.g. ucarr.

Let's say your god and it's friend/enforcer Satan exists, and I go to hell, then I would scream and ask for forgiveness, within seconds of being tortured. — universeness

Firstly, you are indeed a blithe spirit if you believe Satan is God's friend and partner.

God and Satan do not work in tandem guiding souls into hell. God does not want you going there. Satan does.

If you, like 180 Proof, believe nature encompasses the totality of what you can experience, then perhaps your consignment here, as seen in the eyes of a believer, means only living a natural life. You both have given me ample reason to believe such a consignment shall elicit your amens and hallelujahs.

Under this construction, heaven is an absence, not something extra. For you, God, likewise is an absence, not something extra. The challenge of belief, then, is believing in something absential as measureless abundance. Aha! Absence as presence. Superposition! A_¬A_B ∧ B_¬B_A.

...your god does nothing, whilst innocent humans suffer terrible events, here on Earth, every day. — universeness

Again, the challenge of belief is believing in something absential as measureless abundance.

So, it would not listen to my pleas, as you have stated, because 'you will not be forgiven this transgression.' — universeness

The Holy Spirit listens to your pleas; that's why willful rejection of said is so fearful. If you banish the comforter all the way through to the end of your life, you enclose your life within itself. As already implied, outreach to other mortal humans is no escape from self-enclosure. Your immortal soul adheres to the existential ground of the axiomatics. This is your transcendental metaphysics supporting your life.

You, on the basis of your own mind and it’s understanding, are not enough to support your own life. Belief equals meeting the challenge of embracing absence as presence.

You will notice 180 Proof has not written any words that explicitly reject the Holy Spirit. He makes provision for his immortal soul through his inclination toward pandeism. I hope you will imitate him. He is trustworthy.

If your god exists then it had better not forgive me, no matter how much I beg, under torture, as that would make it a liar and a fake. I am happy to be tortured by the supernatural for eternity, as I have lived my life, standing against all human tyranny. Your god, if it existed would be the biggest tyrant ever. So It would have to face my judgement, not me face it's judgement. Your god, if it exists is a fool, if it does not fear the judgement of all those humans/animals etc who have suffered, due to its incompetent creation. — universeness

In your above statements, you show your likeness to God. I'm honored by your willingness to share with me your sacred devotion to other humans. I do not believe the testament is a completed work. The as above so below project, or the great Turing Simulation, continues. You play an active part in it. More power to you.

I will still respect your skills to think in interesting ways. — universeness

For that I'm grateful. I need a listener.

Be content that bad atheists like me will suffer for eternity, for my unforgivable crime of rejecting primal fear and irrationality, whilst you will be in heaven, constantly telling a god how wonderful you think it is. — universeness

We don't know what tomorrow brings. Never forget the Heisenberg_Haldane quote.

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?
I don't understand this question in light of the above. — 180 Proof

Twelve years of primary & seconary Jesuit education (four years of Latin, one year of Greek)... have left me confident that I understand the 'Doctrine of the Holy Trinity' well enough already. — 180 Proof

I admire your devotion to scholarship.

How, given your education, you could fail to understand my question is a mystery. However, I seem to be getting to know you better as, per my prediction, you are NOT answering the question.

My job, as a believer ...
— ucarr
... does not trump your responsibilities as a thinker (especially here on TPF), at minimum, not to degenerate 'philosophical discussions' into proselytizing cant rationalized by vapid, dogmatic, apologia (or woo woo). :brow: — 180 Proof

How is daring someone to reject the Holy Spirit proselytizing? Your free-thinking has suffered no assaults from me. The dare was a simple strategy aimed at exposing some doubt on your parts; since it has instead stimulated affirmations of lives undeceived by falsehoods, I must admit it has backfired. Since you and universeness have no doubts, your devotion to antitheism is highlighted.

It's true that some of my arguments devolve into flimsy rationalizations, but my articulations are always reasoned and strategic. In this instance my failed strategy was aimed at demonstrating how no thinker sees beyond the veil of death. Of course you've seized upon this opportunity to impugn my intentions as cant. If there's an afterlife, its quality is beyond rational examination by the living. That's why I speculate about you having a bid on axiomatic deism. This insight, even if it doesn't apply to you, wouldn't have come to me if I hadn't organized a strategy supporting my question.

I'm always thinking here, even if I don't always think well.

Here is an old challenge I have been making to devoted theists, since I was around 20 (I am now 59).
Let's see if the Christian god can stop me from finishing this sentence ...... looks like it can't. — universeness

God won't stop you from doing what you are empowered to do. The gates of Hell are locked from the inside. Those dwelling therein are there by personal choice firmly established.

If you are willing to commit to writing your permanent rejection of the Holy Spirit, I want it understood you choose to do so for reasons quite beyond the issues of a debate. If you do this thing, it should be borne of a deep and abiding belief that the God of Christianity is one you wish permanent and insuperable separation from. This state of ultimate separation from God is the proper definition of Hell.

Please do not act under my influence. My job, as a believer, is to nudge you in the opposite direction. I acknowledge I can't persuade you in any significant way. Your final outcome is based upon your nature, your will and your personal choices.

Your mocking tone signals to me an attitude lacking in seriousness. Good! Mock me forever. Never mock God! You say if Yahweh exists, it is an evil monster. This is exactly what the infernal one wishes you to believe. Satan, who proceeds by deception, reaches his apex of power when he hoodwinks a living soul into believing things are exactly opposite to reality. When a living soul believes Good is Evil and Evil (in this instance: "proof" of God's non-existence via your supposed harmless commitment to disdain God in writing) is Good, damnation triumphs over innocence. Even so, if you willfully cross the line into mockery and permanent rejection of the Holy Spirit, you will not be forgiven this transgression.

I don't expect 180 Proof to react in a manner similar to yours. If I'm right about him likely dodging any definitive statement about him commiting to permanent rejection of the Holy Spirit, take note of it. He is your ally in atheism. If you see him deviate from the atheist party line, perhaps with subtlety and guile, let him influence you. He's not naive about the Holy Trinity.

If you wish to engage me in a direct discussion on an aspect of religious dogma, such as the trinity, then we can do so by PM... — universeness

Let's do it. Shall I start?

Trinity Logic
— ucarr
I clicked the link but I didn't bother watching. — 180 Proof

I thank you both for your time and also for the extent to which you've tracked my facts, evidence and reasoning.

One big dividend I've been receiving from you is the chance to observe some effects of the excellent work done by your educators. I admire those who guided your Catholic school education. Some of your education has become some of mine. I sense in you an adamantine grounding in correct principles of observing, learning, thinking and concluding.

Twelve years of primary & seconary Jesuit education (four years of Latin, one year of Greek) and in particular study of the theological apologetics of Early Church Fathers, etc have left me confident that I understand the 'Doctrine of the Holy Trinity' well enough already. — 180 Proof

My purpose with the video herein was examination of an ancient claim of superposition at the scale of classical physics. Is my focus something that was frequently repeated in your classrooms?

As for the rest of your post ... :roll: — 180 Proof

Since you didn't go to the graphic in the video and trace the logic of the three interlocking triangles, I'm not surprised by your wholesale dismissal of my response to your previous WTF dismissal.

It's hard to advance an argument with someone paying only selective attention. You attack one of my claims with a WTF bomb, and then, when I defend it, instead of countering my defense, you ignore it. That makes you a sniper, doesn't it? You fire upon the opponent, but when they return fire, you duck out.

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.