44
What's next? — Vera Mont

:rofl:

Read my reply to T Clark ... if you want to.

Regarding the multiverse, you seem to know as much as I do - all said at done it's a(n) (untestable) hypothesis. Form-wise it's indistinguishable from an invisble pink dragon floating above your head, but content-wise it's unique and the math backs it up.

Gracias for correcting my error. The past is vital to our understanding of the present & the future. What happened to our Neanderthal cousins? Questions, questions, questions.

Complementarity (e.g. yin-yang) does not "defy logic", though "X = -X" does (re: principle of explosion). If Gnomon's "BothAnd" implies the former, then it's rooted in quite a few esteemable traditions. If, however, it consists of the latter, then it's patently invalid (i.e. illogical), which accounts for much of the poor reasoning and fallacies found throughout his speculations. — 180 Proof

How very fascinating! Yep, Gnomon frequently mentions Yin-Yang and to be fair he isn't exactly positing contradictions as true/real/vital. What he's found is some kind of an overlap in magisteria (religion & science) - we are all, it can't be denied, trying to solve the equation primum movens = ?.

True people like yourself have come to realize or believe (guessing) that the equation above is gibberish/nonsense, but some like Gnomon and myself still see meaning in it. Metaphysics is 90% speculation to my reckoning.

You're too kind sir. As I thought, Enformationism is untestable (forgivable), but I didn't expect it was also not "soundly logical" (sacrilege :grin: ). :chin:

However BothAnd, a key tool in Gnomon's Enformationism, suggests prima facie defiance of logic.

@Gnomon's Enformationism is, sensu lato, a hypothesis - what it could be - but it doesn't seem to be a testable one, like scientific hypohtheses are. I guess it comes with the territory (metaphysics). Do your objections revolve around this particular aspect of Gnomon's Enformationism or is there more to them?

Universal mind is (just) a hypothesis - it doesn't seem to be backed up by evidence and truth is it doesn't even mention it in passing or as footnote or a side note. Universal mind id simply a perspective, a way of looking at something. In that regard it resembles your Enformationism.

Wayfarer is into mind stuff and he made some pretty interesting remarks on the topic which I would like to tie up with Enformationism by asking "what is En(in)formation without a (universal) mind?"

That's the spirit, AS!

This thread simply says people disagree on things and agree on things. Not sure where any of this is going. — jgill

I had an attack of insomnia (no sleep for 24H) - my muddled brain latched onto a specific string of words. :blush:

Feeling fresh today, a little groggy but manageable.

The OP asks a critical set of questions - what are disagreements, why do they occur, and how do we settle them?

A good question by all standards. Some have said yes, others have said no, but the poll figures show a general inclination for the former.

Actual numbers:

Yes (technology should be blah, blah, blah): 53%
No (technology should be blah, blah, blah): 47%

:up:

America is a great country and if it wishes to endorse and promote unfettered hedonism, I'm not gonna complain. God bless America! What exactly is wrong/right about cannabis anyway? Enlighten us simpletons o ye who knows!

believe in an after life — Andrew4Handel

Speaking for myself, I've met Christians, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists and now, after 5 minutes of deep thought, I believe in reincarnation. A rather dicey situation if you don't know how it works; I'm going to delve more into Buddhist reincarnation theories to get some helpful hints & tips (don't wanna end up in the wrong body if you catch me drift). From what I could gather it's about karma (good deeds $\to$ good birth; bad deeds $\to$ bad birth). However, it might not be that simple. :grimace: :chin: :smile: Wish me luck mes amies, wish me luck! Oh, good luck ta you all too. Hope we can all meet again sometime under better circumstances. :death: :flower:

Exactly! They are hypocrites as much as when they sell tobacco packets — javi2541997

Which actually brings us to another question, but why derail this thread.

The universe is 13.8 billion years old; galaxies, though younger, are also billions of years old; our earth is roughly 5 billion years old; life on the planet is around 4 billion years old; homo sapiens are about 2 million years old. Do the math.

I'm sure the FDA has already asked marijuana companies to stick a MARIJUANA KILLS sticker on their products.

Agreed!

All I know is that legal Marijuana will in all likelihood be regulated by the FDA. Expect to see novel modes of delivery and safety + quality control. Isn't that awesome?

Hedonism is our schtick - if there's anything we humans are good at, it's how to have fun. We're fun-loving creatures!

Insightful comments. A veteran ... with scars to prove it!

Back to main topic. I guess I was wrong to think that there could be a finite number N_max such that all physical calculations $\leq$ N_max.

The universal mind is quite the idea. It's right up yer alley. Wayfarer would've loved to discuss it from his unique Buddhist perspective.

Thanks for the short 'n' sweet Britannica article on renormalization. I have a thread that could use it (The Largest Number We Will Ever Need)

Intriguing ideas mate! I'm not sure how they tie up though. For the moment though, in me humble opinion, I do see a blurry picture forming - you need to now bring it into focus or not, the choice being yours entirely.

I was watching/listening (to) this video (vide infra) on how philosophy & science (QM specifically) inform each other.

Ok 180 Proof. You're making so much sense here that in my personal dictionary, 180 Proof is a synonym for sense. See you around mon ami!

:up:

There be too many unknowns mate, too many unknowns, but good answer. Keep walking. Let us know what made you look twice, you know, double-check material. Bonam fortunam.

If you were (a) God for a day, what would you do? — Benj96

I offer above a word-for-word reiteration of the OP's inquiry. Sometimes a question needs to be asked by someone else for its import to sink in.

Good observation as far as I can tell. What's exactly the problem with infinite regress? Not that I haven't done me homework mate. The Wikipedia page doesn't mention anything specifically wrong with infinite regress. Ok, so it goes on forever, backwards. So?

As for @Gnomon's Enformationism, it's, at the end of the day, a half-theism and half-atheism if there's such a concept afloat in the ideaverse. In line, of course, with his BothAnd synthetic idea-tool.

I don't see how positing an "a priori" "first cause" "unmoved mover" entity explains anything (let alone "everything') more than occult non-explanations like "creationism" or "intelligent design". It's a perennially speculative question-begging non-starter, no? — 180 Proof

Apart from the issue of double standards, there's the problem of how Gnomon has to reconcile his rather interesting theory with atheism - his BothAnd is selective, could be called cherry-picking but I wouldn't for the simple reason that he's thought this through i.e. @Gnomon's Enformationism isn't a wild guess/random thought (he cites a lot of big names in philosophy).

Enformationism, an interesting take on religion & science.

Does the OP mean panpsychism when he talks of universal consciousness or is he referring to some kind of emergent egregore(-like) mind? A hive mind perhaps? What does Enformationism have to say about such entities? Is there a slot for them in your theory?

:up:

Ok.

It doesn't matter as far as I am concerned, towards the imposition (comply or die) argument. — schopenhauer1

Are you sure?

Parents have a responsibility; true, they're imposing themselves on their kids. A reasonable person wouldn't bring children into the world. Why start families at all?

If you don't mind there's some kind of issue I raised in my recent other thread that has import here if you don't mind me presenting. Such as the the rebuttals towards OLP in favor of ILP regarding the existence of entities such as Pegasus or Santa Clause. Or would you say there's no issue here at all? — Shawn

Excellent! @Banno, Shawn is right! ILP > OLP.

I was wondering when you'd reply. Good assessment report as far as I'm concerned. The mathematics is simple, too simple? :chin:

How would you have approached the subject if you were consulted by Bentham?

It is impossible indeed — javi2541997

Yep, that be impossibile!

I was wondering @schopenhauer1, how subjective is pain & pleasure?

Danke for the reminder!

Stay on course mon ami, stay on course.

The incompleteness theorems, there are two of them. Relies on, by some accounts, a mod of the well-known liar paradox. Basically boils down to the Gödel statement (G) "This statement is unprovable"; the system is so designed that the statement in question is G itself. In short, G = G is unprovable. Now the "fun" part: If G is provable, G is true which is to say G is unprovable. If G is unprovable then G is, well, unprovable. Either way, there's a statement that's unprovable viz. G.

:up: Gracias.

Since the end result seems to be some variety of philosophical addlement I personally wouldn't bother. — hypericin

Ok! Still wanna read. Banno, are you reading this?

@schopenhauer1

By imposition vis-à-vis life do you mean no one was/is/will be asked whether s/he wishes to be born?