Something i'm thinking about. Binary is the simplest number system, which is what i would expect at the simplest lowest level of the universe.

look at this pattern: ratio and probability

0 = space
1 = energy (quanta, value, magnitude)
-------------------------------------------------
0 = 0/1 = 0
1 = 1/1 = 1

10 = 1/2 = 0.5
11 = 2/2 = 1

100 = 1/3 = 0.33
101 = 2/3 = 0.6667
110 = 2/3 = 0.6667
111 = 3/3 = 1

1000 = 1/4 = 0.25
1001 = 2/4 = 0.5
1010 = 2/4 = 0.5
1011 = 3/4 = 0.75
1100 = 2/4 = 0.5
1101 = 3/4 = 0.75
1110 = 3/4 = 0.75
1111 = 4/4 = 1

Think about it, can you have an "equation" or an "equivalence" if the entire equation was not finite/limited? — Benj96

No of course not, but that's not what i'm saying. Infinity can not be actualized.

Well potential has no mass. As mass requires time (e=mc2, speed is involved here and that requires time and distance). — Benj96

Right but that's after potential creates time and space. Why time and why space, is there a logic as to why space and time? Before there is time there needs to be space, since it seems that time is a function of space, according to your model. I think it would help to look at Einsteins equation in the form of (m = e / c^2) than (e = mc^2), since energy comes first then mass.

Potential is massless. Then it creates mass when it also creates energy and time. The dynamic between energy and time is what creates mass. As mass is created, it consumes large amounts of energy. Thus the total potential of the universe decreases. To move that mass further decreases the potential of the universe. — Benj96

But that's already above the level i'm interested in, we know a good deal of that science, but what i'm trying to think about is at the level of potential only, not what it does but why or how it is that it is there in the first place.

Potential is thus is not infinite. An infinite amount of mass or energy can never arise. The universe is quantised. There are limits. And thats why we have stable physical constants in physics. If the energy and mass of the universe kept increasing, the physics constants would also have to change. — Benj96

It may be possible to keep the constants steady if when creating energy or mass space is created as well in proportion. The fundamental constants may simply be due to certain ratios in the universe such the ratio between energy and space. I think that when a quantum limit is exceed with energy a quantum tunneling effect creates space to accommodate it. Similar to how in binary if you have a 1 and add 1 to it the result is 10 (2 in binary). a new space (a new place holder) was created and the value 1 is 'displaced' causing space to essentially expand (cosmic inflation).

Also if let's say 1 existant exists already and lets say that it has a mass unit of 1, when it creates another existant now there is a mass of 2 in the universe. Where did the mass or energy come from to create the next existant?

It seems like it still has to come from "nothing".

Well as I said earlier it's not nothing. As true nothing would have no characteristics/properties. As those are qualities of somethingness. — Benj96

That is precisely what i think, it has structure, but...

Nothing cannot create existants. Only existants can create existants. — Benj96

That doesn't seem mysterious to you? that only an existant can create an existant. Where did the first existent come from or come about that creates other existants. We can say that it has always existed, but if so why?

But in the simplest explanation: potential is the capacity to act, without actually acting. Like a pressure to exert action. — Benj96

Yes, that's what i was thinking; a kind of fundamental pressure, but i'm trying to understand the nature of that pressure. It's hard to understand something when you can't stand under it. Starting from absolute nothing; how does nothing exert pressure? Why does nothing have pressure? What is it about the structure of the "fundamental nothing" that allows for creative "pressure"?

Not asking you, just trying to formulate the right question to get the right answer, or at least a helpful answer. My project is to understand, starting from absolute nothingness what the necessary conditions need to be present to give rise to a universe like ours. How or why does this pressure create space (dimensions: three of them at least). There is energy in pressure; where did it come from, or how can it manifest from nothing? I know the common response to these types of questions is to say that it's some kind of brute fact with no explanation, but something inside me tells me there is a way to explain it. I feel it.

The analog of pressure in an electrical context is 'voltage'. Maybe some insight can be gleaned from this comparison. The same functional patterns in nature repeat over all scales but in more complex forms at higher scales. They may not look the same, but they provide the same basic functions necessary for the evolutionary process.

I think the answer may lie within the very structure of logic itself, specifically the NOT logical unitary operator. The two possible conditions in a NOT operator is 1 and 0, energy (or matter) and space respectively. The way that a binary number system works i think is an emergence from this NOT operator function of the universe. I know it sounds strange to think of it in this way, but i don't see an alternative really, nothing else can take 0 (nothing) and turn it into 1 (something).

The structure of zero is not empty, it only appears that way because it contains all opposites within it such as (-1 + 1) = (0) = (-1 + 1). Zero contains at least two opposite infinities, and so can produce an infinite amount of energy as long as it is extracted in opposite pairs which is why we have matter and antimatter pairs popping out of seemingly nothing.

I think we will need a system that is far more robust and reliable than the corpus callosum.
chatGPT cant even pass the Turing test. Despite the fact that some sources claim that it has. — universeness

I don't know exactly how they will go about it. Investigations into the corpus callosum, and GPT language model integration as a communications language protocol between minds and general systems interaction are just possible avenues to start on. After the first BMIs have been in use for a little bit, better techniques will begin to develop as we deepen our understanding of this kind of brain/machine interaction.

GPT doesn't need to pass the turing test for this purpose, it just has to provide a language model that can interpret nerve signals to human language, and human language to machine language, and back. It would be a tool, not a fully developed sentient AI. That could be part of a whole other thing.

If that's true, then I think there maybe a fatal flaw in the proposal that data is a universal fundamental.
A 'representation' is not 'an actual,' its a mathematical simulation. — universeness

Right, but instead of rejecting the insight for what is already familiar, should we let it actually inform our understanding in a new way? Sometimes it's not about learning a new thing, it's about learning how to see an old thing in a new way. We might already know what we need to know but we can't see it because we are blinded by our own assumptions. Just a thought.

But how would you go about empirically proving that? A photon has associated attributes, sure but we currently know so little about exactly what constitutes a photon and we don't know adequate detail about it's functionality, to be able to 'reproduce' it via data representation. — universeness

As i said before, it may be impossible by gross methods. We have been attacking the problem from above, perhaps a bottom up approach might work. There is a gap between nothing and the deepest level we know or can know by empirical methods. I have some ideas or notions on how to potentially go about determining the structure of the gap. We can talk about that.

Until we can actually achieve a tech such as point to point dematerialise/rematerialise transportation of objects with mass or create start trek style food replicators, we will not be able to demonstrate that data is a universal fundamental. Can you think of other tech that would be enough to demonstrate that data is 'thee' universal fundamental? — universeness

What if we can't have that technology until first we understand how data or information is universally fundamental. We wouldn't have the right framework to work out the tech. In fact i think we have the tech to figure it out already, by the force of logic, and mathematics coupled with simulation. I think it's just going to take some "out of the box" thinking to get it right.

But it seems to me that the limits of what can be achieved, in that case is, 'virtual simulation' or at best 'virtual emulation,' inside computers but not physical reproduction. To me, if data is thee universal fundamental, then it MUST be possible to use it to create that which is natural, because that's the content of the universe. — universeness

But within a different paradigm it could be understood that if data is the fundamental thing of the universe then it's not a far stretch to surmise that the universe behaves as a computer, and if it behaves like a computer then it's not hard to surmise further that reality as we know it is as a simulation. If that concept makes sense then what is the difference from a subjective perspective which simulation we are in? The natural one or the artificial one. It may turn out that this is the nature of the universe.. simulation.

I currently, give very little credence to any of the current 'simulation theories' of reality.
They are just another form of supernatural or 'god' posit imo. An infinite regression of programmers who create simulated universes.
Why would an outside force create a simulation of a universe that had no life at all in it for the vast majority of its existence. What kind of purpose would the simulators have for creating our universe? — universeness

We think of simulations as having to be created by some entity programmer, but that is like religious thinking, anthropomorphic. Simulations in a data or information centered paradigm can be seen as potentially emerging from chaos. Note how in cellular automata like in John Conway's "The Game of Life" where only the initial conditions are set (very simple) and out of that comes all kinds of phenomena and little critters like "sliders" that nobody programmed or predicted, and it's Turing complete.

But that's not true if data is thee fundamental! A legal system is made up of information and information is not simulated, it's real. It can even create REAL simulations. — universeness

A simulated person would not consider the stuff, or "matter" (data, information) that he or she is made of as a simulation. That would appear counter intuitive, but from an outside perspective would seem obvious that it's simulated.

Roger Penrose's CCC proposes that most 'information' will end up inside black holes as the universe experiences heat death. — universeness

Oh yes, black holes are another mystery to try to tackle from an information perspective. I may have some ideas about that too, but nothing solid.

My thesis: If the above connection isn’t being made, you’ve failed the test. — Mikie

Who grades the test?

Hope i explained it a bit better. It's a very difficult subject. Might take a few readings. — Benj96

Thank you i understood, i just had to read it slowly a couple of times. I was trying to understand what you were saying while attempting to compare it to certain parts of my own model. Something about potential is poking my brain.. i need to contemplate on the concept of potential. :up:

Don't forget to pour one out for the homies. :smile:

But is it not also posited that autism can result in very challenged emotional control, a lack or empathy or/and sympathy etc. Such could be really problematic if present in a hivemind. Sociopaths and narcissists can also be highly specialised in their cognitive functions but I don't recommend applying their models to a network of individual consciousnesses, unless the enhanced cognitive functions can be applied minus all the negative aspects of autism, sociopathy and narcissism. — universeness

All true, but one thing i know about autistics is that they have a high level sense of justice. I imagine that these kinds of problems will arise, but i also can imagine safety mechanisms in place to counter these pathologies. One possible way is to have a monitoring system that locks out any node that threatens the stability of the hivemind. I imagine highly developed complex systems methods can restructure the network accordingly in real time. This can be done by the other member nodes of the network as a self-regulating mechanism or it can be done by algorithms or an AI system. I'm sure those issues would be ironed out in some way.

I think the better model is the R-complex, the Limbic system and the Cortex. The reason I say this is because I sense the presence of all three. I refer to them with the old idea of me, myself and I. — universeness

Right, i sometimes use the concept of the triune brain as you just did, but sometimes i use the two hemispheres as the example because it is easier to prove from split brain patient experiments, and things like 'alien hand syndrome'. The hivemind concept could be included in the triune brain model extending it to a 4th structure above the neocortex. Elon Musk has talked about this before, and i think he's right.

I wonder how far that 'reductionism' can 'scientifically' be proved true. Is human intent and purpose reducible to data representations. It has to be, if information is 'thee' universal fundamental. — universeness

I believe so, consciousness may exist on a spectrum of complexity that may or may not be reducible to zero. It's hard to determine conclusively as of now.

But developing adequate network protocols, that are 'fit for purpose' for all possible scenarios, (for which it's almost impossible to exhaustively test,) is really difficult, and it's why those who develop network operating systems are highly paid and the best of them are highly sought after by every country in the world. — universeness

Studying how the corpus callosum works will go far i think in helping us develop these hivemind protocols. Large language models like GPT can probably be used as a possible component in a hivemind network protocol. Most of the testing will probably be done on animals first and in complex simulations analyzed by AI. I don't doubt that we will have the tools necessary for the task; look at what we've done with solving the protein folding problem.

I want to slam that door shut permanently and move on. — universeness

I totally understand where you're coming from. I have that same impulse within me too.

Yes but my problem is that using bits to represent a photon is still a REPRESENTATION.
Computers exist based on binary representations but the two state representations used in current computers are based on the presence of absence of a voltage > 0 volts and <= 5 volts.
Such representations have little to do with the 'physical realities' of the universe. — universeness

Sure but we really can't get away from representation anyway no matter what we do. I sometimes think about it the other way around. If one assumes that information is more fundamental than our experience of physical matter then it may be reasonable to say that matter is representative of information in a sense. One can say that matter is a representation of information in a spacetime interface. What is being re-presented is information with a different code.

Computers work so well and can do so much i think because they are literally representing how the universe works. This idea of 'representation' (to present again) is why patterns can be traced back to earlier and simpler structures or even abstract principles. I think the best we can hope for (and it doesn't trouble me) is that our representations work for us and are internally and logically consistent (a utilitarian perspective).

The simulations shown at around time stamp 38 mins are just that, simulations of a real world fluid but such cannot produce a REAL world fluid.
That's the bit I am interested. — universeness

Yes a simulated fluid will not produce a real fluid for you or me. A simulated entity on the other hand would consider anything in it's simulated environment real to it including simulated fluids. I think that's what real means, and it might be worth thinking about. It's the idea of the 'realm', and the word real is related to the word royal which ties into the "rules or laws of the land", also the concept of real-estate.

Consider how a legal system is like a simulation, meaning it has it's own rules like contracts, taxes, etc. None of these things are real at the level of biology, or particle physics (realms of their own), but they are real at the level of a legal system. The word 'real' and 'exist' in this sense are not the same.

Can identification of a fundamental unit for information open the door to something like star trek style replicators or transporters? — universeness

I don't know but i wouldn't dismiss the possibility yet.

Later on, in the vid, when Jim starts talking about 'deletion of information' and connecting that to the concept of universal entropy, It that a valid definition of what entropy is? The loss of information? To where? black holes? — universeness

Information entropy i think emerges in the presence of space (degrees of freedom), where the ratio of energy or matter (information: 1 bit for simplicity) to space has to be at least 1/2 or less. If the ratio were 1/1 then no possible entropy. I'm not sure if information can be erased, but it can be lost to another system which could be difficult to trace giving the impression that it was erased from existence, but i might be wrong about that. There may be a law of conservation of information in this regard. I'm not sure yet... will think about it more.

Why do you think autism would make a person most suited to a hivemind? — universeness

Autistic people have a tendency to be very highly specialized in their cognitive functions to the point of reduced functionality in other areas, sometimes to a sever degree. They have a condition where brain cells in the prefrontal lobe grow "abnormally" or more than they "should".

The brain is structurally organized with different regions of specialization working together in different configurations to solve problems. A hivemind situation with autistic people will mimic this structure of specialized areas. What one autistic individual is lacking another is specialized in, they will work as one unit symbiotically. The result is a much higher level of integration among them enhancing the intelligence level well above a single regular normal human. It's just like a very intimate group of friends, just more intimate than most of us now would be comfortable with.

The alien can access the information stored in the robot boy. The network to other aliens seems to be by touch. I don't see any invocation of a hivemind here, however, It seems to be more like the model I suggested, Autonomous Individuals who can also act as a merged/networked collective. — universeness

It's pretty much the same except one doesn't need to touch to connect, one will always be connected, but have internal control of his or her connectivity. I suspect that the Dunbar number (about 150) will limit the number of communication ports each node can have access to, so the network won't be fully interconnected (probably a good thing). The main difference really between a hive mind and what you and i are doing right now is simply network 'protocol'.

Developments like this will be the only thing that will put us on par with an AGI and maybe ASI. Without it we would probably lose control of it, and then there will be an escalating probability of potential disaster between us and it.

I never like the use of 'perfect,' when it comes to describing any system, as I think it's one of those words that invokes a non-existent. — universeness

You're right, i will reduce that word frequency. :smile:

This is where I think the video falls short and the current scientific orthodoxy on the fundamentality of data is incomplete. But I don't think Gnomon's enformationism takes us anywhere useful, as it is too 'philosophical' and does not qualify as a scientific theory which has empirical evidence and has been peer reviewed. I would pay much more attention to it if it was a theory, instead of just a personal hypothesis. — universeness

That may be true or not or only in part. I prefer to assume that every bath has a baby in it, and we should be careful when we discard the bath water. I encourage his efforts, he wants the same thing i do, and so do most of us here. It is wiser to listen to the wisdom of the crowd and not be so adversarial with our ideas and each other. Each one of us is like a tentacle of humanity reaching for understanding in the best way we know how. We are nature's little explorers. :smile:

I remember reading somewhere not too long ago about the photon needing 8 bits to describe it. I think the search term i used was "how many bits to describe a photon". Regardless, its not 1 bit because light has wave structure like amplitude, frequency, which is at least 2 bits but to describe the full phenomena of light like variable frequencies and amplitude it must be more than just 2 bits. I'll try to find the source, which doesn't seem to be coming up at the top of my google search now.

who = specific person
what = specific thing
where = specific place
when = specific time
how = specific process or function
why = specific logic

Yes, one can use the Ws as data structures that act as variables: what = party, when = 10:00 pm, where = address

Further more a fundamental logic confusion matrix can help in understanding how to process these questions. In fact there is an entire system of confusion matrices that can be networked together to yield a knowledge structure.

fundamental logic confusion matrix: NOT, AND, OR

NOT NOT = ?
NOT AND = ?
NOT OR = ?

AND NOT = ?
AND AND = ?
AND OR = ?

OR NOT = ?
OR AND = ?
OR OR = ?

These are the process forms (like logic gates).

You make an important point about the who, what, where, when, how, and why questions, these are like the atoms of questions. I don't know how many people have done this but i think it's potentialy inspiring to create a confusion matrix of all the fundamental questions. As such:

results of a confusion matrix of fundamental questions: who, what, where, when, how, why

who is who?
who is what?
who is where?
who is when?
who is how?
who is why?

what is who?
what is what?
what is where?
what is when?
what is how?
what is why?

where is who?
where is what?
where is where?
where is when?
where is how?
where is why?

when is who?
when is what?
when is where?
when is when?
when is why?

how is who?
how is what?
how is where?
how is when?
how is how?
how is why?

why is who?
why is what?
why is where?
why is when?
why is how?
why is why?

The quest of philosophy begins from among these questions.

I believe that philosophy, at least in the form we know it evolved from the ground of religion. I posted something speaking partly to this. I reproduce part of that post below:

"The evolution of knowledge in the context of the history of mankind started with the development of religion (from animism to monotheism). This was man's first attempt at understanding the world. Most of what was formulated in this stage was based on ignorance (not judging). We had no way of thinking about things other than how we thought about ourselves, thus everything that happened happened because someone did it (anthropomorphism); the birth of gods and angels, place holders for what is not known. The gods held our questions in the form of answers waiting to be questioned by the coming of philosophy.

Out of religion emerged philosophy, a new refined way of thinking and inquiry. The gods began to be questioned, and thus new understanding evolved, proliferating into a multitude of different philosophies as had happened with religion. Environmental selection pruned and nurtured the tree of this growing tree of knowledge.

From philosophy came science (natural philosophy), a fusion of logic, mathematics, and other ideas and methods developed by philosophy. Science is an even further refinement of thinking and is the leaf edge of the tree of our knowledge and understanding. A natural selection among the elements of philosophy."


The sophisticated kinds of questions that can be asked in the traditional philosophical way could not have been possible without first the influence of religion.

Hmm, coincidentally this video just came up on my YouTube feed.

Rebecca Newberger Goldstein - Why Is There Anything At All?

I agree, punos, except I subsritute change for "time". And my answer is consistent, I think, with the Nobel physicist Frank Wilczek's quip

Nothing is unstable

e.g. Noether's theorem, spontaneous symmetry-breaking, etc — 180 Proof

:up:

Two very intriguing notions (unstable nothing, and symmetries). I always find myself coming back to these ideas, pondering why and how. I love the universe!

It appears that matter is unstable as well to varying degrees. It seems a simpler problem to uncover the reason why this is the case with matter than it is with 'nothing'. What is the nature of this instability, and can it be modeled in some way? The notion of self-interaction as a general idea has something to do with it. Does it make sense to have a 'complex system' with only one component able to interact with itself? These are just some of the questions i ask myself.

I'm reminded of the ancient Egyptian god Atum believed to have created the universe by masturbation (self-interaction?). :snicker:

I think you're missing a real reason why any of that should happen — Leftist

Perhaps i have, what do you think it is?

Interesting. But why? — Leftist

Because of the nature of life and intelligence. The biological imperative is to survive and reproduce, and the evolutionary imperative is to complexify. Biological systems will continue to complexify and evolve into more robust forms eventually becoming more, and more adapted to the extreme conditions of the planet and the universe as a whole. Any and every planet that develops life will inevitably develop into a singular electronic cybernetic intelligent life form of planetary scale (technological singularity).

The imperatives that drove the initial process will only continue to expand out into as many environments as possible. Computronium affords this expanding form of life and intelligence the highest level of complexity and adaptability. Once an entire galaxy has been transformed into this active complex material (computronium), vast simulations will be possible. Inside this or these simulations time can be slowed down by actually speeding up computation. Increased temporal density can extend the subjective life of the simulated entities, buying more time for subjective existence. Time is the most valuable thing in the universe for any organism, organic or otherwise.

In essence it is a strategy to extend life and intelligence in both time and space, and to survive as long as possible; perhaps even extending beyond the known universe to exist and live beyond the life time of the original home universe.

My only qualm is about heat death. Heat death is only a theory based on observed increasing entropy. — Benj96

You're right, i considered all three possibilities, and there are potential solutions to all three different scenarios (open, closed, and steady). I simply mentioned heat-death because that is the most popular opinion right now.

What's the difference between absolute zero (where energy is not manifested, nothing can act and time doesn't occur) and the state of "potential energy" - a possible precursor to the big bang - where no actualised energy exists, only potential, and time doesnt occur. — Benj96

Time had to have always been, because if at any moment time were not then the possibility of anything ever happening again would be null. Time can be thought of as a logical NOT operator in an eternal loop, and it is time that is responsible for energy. As long as there is time there is energy. The popular way of thinking about time is backwards to mine, in where time is an effect of energy instead of energy as the effect of time. Because of this i've designated my definition of time as "0th order time", and what is commonly thought of as time as "1st order time". I'm still working out the best way to explain this theory im constructing. I will write a full description of it hopefully soon, in the meantime you can ask me questions about it if you like, or you can challenge it. :smile:

An analogy is like how an elastic band stretches. It stretches ever slower (rate, time dilation) but it's potential Energy increases ever further. — Benj96

That sounds like part of the Roger Penrose's Conformal cyclic cosmology theory. His theory is somewhat compatible with my model in a way, in the sense that the universe abhors an absolute universal vacuum which causes an inversion (the big bang). The universe seems to have minimum and maximum threshold limits for energy. Exceeding these threshold limits cause phase transitions to occur depending on the specific structure in question all the way down to the Planck volume.

When it recoils, potential energy becomes actualised energy and time decreases in unit duration ie. Rate increases - the contraction of the second, or a standardised unit of time. — Benj96

That's an interesting idea, but what would make it recoil?

What if in keeping with the rubber band analogy it stretches so far that it snaps. When it snaps the energy of the break and recoil either can cause another big bang (at the breaking point) or maybe two big bangs (one for each "piece of the rubber band"), and then each piece begins to stretch again. This could be how universes reproduce themselves like in cellular mitosis.

In this case there's no heat death. Only an Interplay between potential and no time, and actualised energy/existence of time.

As an inverse relationship. — Benj96

I think you might have a workable theory, but for me nothing can ever exist or make sense without time. Do you have a way of explaining or describing how from a timeless state something can happen?

It's not always easy to identify when and what particular aspects of a post are jocular. Best to use the 'joke' emoticon if you think it's not totally obvious. — universeness

Yea sorry it's my fault, i'll try that. I just have difficulty with emoticons because i can't tell which one matches my emotional state, except for the happy face. I think it has to do with my neurodivergence or something.

I do not value any hivemind model, available in the insect world as worth emulation for humans or transhumans. I also do not value any hivemind posited by sci-fi that I am familiar with. — universeness

Yes that would be the general sentiment at this moment in history, but i think that in the not to distant future there really won't be much of a choice anyway, since it will mean the difference between the survival of the species and extinction. A bifurcation in the human population will happen where the people will be split on this issue. Some will join the hivemind and some won't at which point a new evolutionary line of "homo-technus" will commence.

I theorize that autistic people will probably play a significant roll in the adoption and evolution of hive minds. It almost seems to me that autistic people and hiveminds will make a perfect fit. Perhaps the steady increase in the birth rate of autistic children is an evolutionary self-organizing pre-development leading up to the emergence of hiveminds.

A hivemind is the "perfection" of democracy, a completely leaderless complex dynamical system self-regulated from within it's own activity, a situation where everyone's will naturally balances out like nerve cells entrained on a pattern in your own mind. It won't be a centralized system like our governments, it will be distributed. Think about the hivemind that you already are, meaning the two hemispheres of your brain are two distinct consciousnesses.

No, I am willing to collectivise and work together, but my individuality is also essential.
Hivemind's have a totalitarian ruler. F*** that shit!!!! — universeness

I was kinda kidding, but there are different ways to configure a hivemind and the Borg is not a type i would willingly enter into either. The hivemind subject will be the next big thing after AI. A lot of people are not ready for the AI revolution, and they are even less ready to even entertain the hivemind concept. Hollywood has done a number on us when it comes to hiveminds (Borg) like it has done with AI (Terminator). My projection is that it won't become a real public issue like AI is now for another generation or two, and by that time the zeitgeist would have changed.

Ok, It seems we type mainly, in unison. — universeness

Yes, we are the hivemind. Resistance is futile.

We rarely appreciate an antithesis shoved into our thesis. — Baden

This is basically the whole reason why i even joined TPF. I appreciate when someone agrees with me, but i value even more a challenge or a critique. If one is trying to prove their ideas instead of trying to test their ideas against other ideas then one is more likely to become upset when a disagreement occurs. I don't get involved in those type of exchanges unless it seems fun and have nothing better to do.

Better to create stories for ourselves that give us power and reject those that take it away. — Baden

I remember learning this lesson a long time ago; it's one of the best lessons i've ever learned because it's so versatile. This is probably the best advice in this thread , and it's at least worth contemplating upon until it makes absolute sense if it doesn't already.

So do you not accept photons, gluons as the fundamentals of energy, measured in elecrton-volts or joules? — universeness

I think they are fundamental enough, but not completely. For me there can only be one fundamental: the bit. A true fundamental would only need one bit to be described and it takes 8 bits to describe a photon for example. So i suspect that it's perhaps a couple levels above absolute fundamentality.

Because such a god posit is 'of the gaps.' 'An answer with no(or insufficient) explanation YET, does not mean insufficient explanation FOREVER. How does slotting in god help us meantime? Why would that turn insufficient into sufficient? What have we gained if we say god did it? Should 'god did it,' ever provide all humans (especially those with a mind towards scientific investigation) with an excuse to stop asking detailed questions that can and must be asked about quantum fluctuations in the vacuum of space. I vote for continuing to try to find the answers we want and never be satisfied with the delusional god answer. — universeness

I think that was exactly the point i was making. You're preaching to the quire with this one, i probably couldn't have said it better myself. :up:

How do you know no physical evidence will be possible, it depends on exactly what is covered in the future by the label 'physical.' — universeness

I made this point earlier that it's all the same thing (energy), i don't really make a distinction between physical or non-physical; it's a relative term more useful in some cases than in others. Like you said; it's a label. What i really mean is: in the same way how a microscope can not resolve anything smaller than the medium it uses to make the measurement, no instrument will be able to detect anything under a certain scale. I don't see that as a significant issue or an insurmountable problem; it simply means more subtle methods must be employed, such as computer simulations which AGI or ASI will be able to do with i suspect minimal difficulty. The method would be purely computational and based on complex systems techniques instead of empirical ones.

What do you think? Can you relate to what I think/feel? — niki wonoto

Since you asked and you seem troubled:
I think your mind is probably working against you, and you probably need to refactor and refocus. What do you really want from yourself, not the world that comes later? Do you want to be afraid and depressed because the world is not up to your standards? Do you really think that's a good enough reason to sabotage your inner life? Will it really help you or the world in any way? Don't count yourself as a victim NEVER EVER. You have the capacity to adapt; use it. What you think; you feel, and what you feel makes you think it again. Learn to break your cycles.. observe yourself, identify, refactor, and refocus. Your circle of concern should be of the same radius as your circle of influence, no more no less.

SLMARCBE — Agent Smith

SCRAMBLE?

What's teleonomy? — Agent Smith

Teleonomy is the quality of apparent purposefulness and goal-directedness of structures and functions in living organisms brought about by natural selection.

The carrot is an illusion, the stick is not. The daucus carota subsp. sativus is what keeps us going, willing to play (the game of life). 180 Proof has a term for it. Ask him. — Agent Smith

Teleonomy?

Did you know, heard it from an Iranian, that the Ayatollah of Iran gave each Iranian soldier an actual key, a key to heaven according to him, before they marched to their deaths during the Iran-Iraq war (1980s)? — Agent Smith

I did not know that. That's crazy!

It's possible that the spiritual key was made by nature to keep us motivated to play the game (of life). There's no lock for that key, but we keep looking and "while you're at it, why don't you make some babies, eh?" says Momma Nature. What a mind job, oui? — Agent Smith

I have a lot of theories about a lot of things and what you express here sounds much like a theory i formed not too long ago that attempts to explain what religion really is from an evolutionary perspective.

My theory goes on to state that religion was the first cultural structure to form which had the function of setting up a developmental trajectory in civilization aimed at the eventual production of Artificial Intelligence. It worked like a teleological engine of sorts throwing forward images that compelled people at a subconscious level to begin questioning the natural world and extracting patterns from it which they would later translate into a knew material substrate resulting in the production of novel technologies and even new ways of thinking. Religion has had an influence on scientific breakthroughs throughout history, among other things.

I will try to write a full account of my theory as soon as i'm able to.

There is not any experimental corroboration or theoretical function in fundamental physics for "God" but there are both for vacuum fluctuations. — 180 Proof

That's a good start, and it doesn't bother you that these vacuum fluctuations are there for apparently no reason? It does me. Vacuum Fluctuations beg the question; how is that possible? The answer has to lie below physics at the level of logic and mathematics purely... no physical evidence will be possible, only computational evidence which can be checked by computer simulation.

Lot of insightful comments in this thread! These are just a small sample. Thanks everyone. — 0 thru 9

:smile: :up:

I have watched that video previously, and i just watched it again. Thanks :up:

here is no Why (which does not beg this Why question further); and as for the How, theoretical symmetry-breaking (i.e. vacuum fluctuations, etc) suffices. — 180 Proof

Ok, it is fine that the answer "vacuum fluctuations" is sufficient for you, but it isn't for me. Why "vacuum fluctuations" and not "God", that is if an answer with no explanation is sufficient?

And since there is only one state of nothing-ness relative to the infinitely many states of not-nothing-ness, the probability of the former relative to the latter is vanishing close to zero (which, IMO, is the only state-of-affairs so infinitely improbable that it paradoxically necessitates an "Absolute Being" to sustain "Absolute Nonbeing" :scream:). — 180 Proof

At the most fundamental of fundamental levels which would be a state of infinite nothingness; the logical inversion of that would be infinite something. Not as a plurality of things, but what you would call one vacuum fluctuation (Planck energy, in a Plank volume). There would only be two possible states: empty, full. Besides when speaking of probability in a perfectly random system all states happen in a long enough time (very quickly with just two states: binary). Ive done this experiment many times in computer simulations. Randomness leaves nothing to chance in that sense, and is why evolution works the way it does and can start from a complete state of "blindness". I don't see a need for absolute beings, one would need to explain them too in either a logical or mathematical manner starting from nothing.

This theory of mine is still a work in progress, so i still might not have all my words "in a row", but i think i'm on the right track. You are quite welcome to critique my theory; it can only help me improve it or discard it. :smile: