You cannot take a picture of a frequency wave! Only of a sea wave! — Alkis Piskas

Wave 'frequency,' only refers to how many wavelengths pass a given point per second, even the frequency of sea waves can be measured. A sea wave IS a 'frequency wave,' you can take pictures of waves in any physical medium, string, rope, rubber, wind, lightning etc. Taking real physical pictures of sub-atomic waves or quantum waves is beyond the capabilities of our current tech.

This is a computer generated translation of a quantum wave, it's not a picture of a physical wave, physically observed using some lab equipment. Other than picturing in your head, humans standing up and sitting down in sequence, creating the impression of a continuous wave. Consider wave-particle duality or vibrating strings from the standpoint that string theory is a quantum theory, in that the mass spectrum of strings is discrete, so string theory is an example of a quantum theory of gravity.
I accept that string theory remains a theory at present, but consider 'vibration,' and how it can appear to create a waveform, from the fast up and down (undulating motion) of a discrete object. Like the symbols in a drumkit. Have a look at the music example in the clip here about vibration.
If waveforms are really vibrations of objects, then waves are 'made up' of excitations of discrete fundamentals. Wave - particle duality seems to support this BUT, I have read descriptions that go something like. A light wave is made of particles (photons), each of which can act like a wave (such as in single photons (discrete) fired at two slits, still producing a wave pattern on a screen behind the slits.)
So a wave is made of particles, which are waves, made of particles, which are ....... the debate continues for lack of evidence of a definite endpoint to the wave-particle regression.

In the article you cite we have:
Configuration space

One such framework is configuration space. Configuration space representations were introduced in the nineteenth century to provide more rigorous and elegant formulations of classical mechanics. However, they become even more indispensable in quantum mechanics. In configuration space, as the name suggests, each point corresponds to a total configuration: a complete specification of determinate locations for each particle in a given system. This means configuration spaces used to represent a system of particles with apparent locations in three-dimensional space will be 3N-dimensional, where N is the number of particles. That is to say that each point in space will be labelled by 3N numbers. For a system with two particles, the configuration space is six-dimensional and a point in space (a configuration) can be provided by six numbers where the first three correspond to the x, y, and z coordinates

This describes space as a collection of discrete 'points' or coordinates, but is also a spacetime continuum when taken as a totality.

But even something as simple as a human 'Mexican wave,' looks continuous from a distance.
Water waves look continuous, but both water waves and a human Mexican wave are actually 'undulations' of discrete quanta.
Even the graph you posted is made up of 'dots,' and would be stored in the backing storgae of a computer as a grid of pixels (PIcture X ELementS) or as a vectored file. A file which stores a mathematical description of an image rather than actual pixel codes.
As @180 Proof 'points' out, pointillism is a whole art form. 10 most famous pointillism artists.

They’re usually called metadata. They’re not redundant since the packet would fail in its purpose without them. — noAxioms

Read more carefully! I used the word metadata in the next sentence of the quote you used:

A data packet about to be transmitted will contain binary bits, that have no direct relevance to the 'payload' of the data packet. Such bits are normally called 'redundant data.'
This'metadata' has many purposes. — universeness

Any data which is not part of the actual data packet payload, is labelled redundant data. The fact it is required to successfully send and receive the data packet is irrelevant to the fact that such data is redundant, in the same way the stamp and envelope and paper that a hand written snail mail letter uses, is redundant. It's only the textual/imagery content of a snail mail letter that is not redundant. That is taught to all pupils aged 13+ in secondary school, Computing science courses and is based on standard concepts used in the field of computer networking in the UK.

A packet is a message between two entities using a protocol agreed upon by both. — noAxioms

I know, but a data packet is a more often than not, a message fragment. Many fragments make up the 'message' or the picture or the movie or audio clip. The internet is a packet switching network.
A quark could therefore be quantised into a series of lower level data fundamentals and be 'processed' into any of the 'quark' variants (up, down, strange, charm, top, bottom). These could then be combined by 'processes' into atoms and then molecules etc. This would of-course require other fundamental data fragments that can be combined to create other basics such as a photon, gluon, electron etc.

Why would these two entities wish to communicate something about a particle? What message are you envisioning? If I said ‘quark’ to you (the receiving entity), what would you do with that message? Just trying to grasp what you’re talking about. — noAxioms

For the same reasons that a stand alone computer processes the pixels of a bit map onto an output device to produce a picture that has meaning to a human. For the same reasons we have for networking computers together. Processes can be performed on the payloads of received fragment data packets, which then reside in RAM space or are stored more permanently in backing storage.
So, yes, if YOU as the programmer instructed 'make up-quark,' using some high level or low level programming code, then a program would be executed, which used stored data to create an up-quark.
Perhaps one day we will have the tech to create a REAL up-quark instead of a simulated or emulated one, displayed on some output media.

Why? I’ve witnessed the above. It goes on every day. — noAxioms

I assume you are against the concept of 'brain wiping' anyone and if you are witnessing 'brain wiping,' everyday, then I hope you are speaking out against it, in the same way you would speak out against any mental or physical crime you were witnessing daily. That's why I suggested you sound a bit mad sometimes in your turn of phrase. I assume you are not a fan of the current school curriculum content where you live or/and you don't approve of how some parents choose to inform or educate their children.
I have also witnessed what I would consider a biased or imbalanced approach to informing the young but I think 'brain wiping' is too emotive and more in-line with dystopian visions such as Orwell's 1984.

What justice? It’s what they do. There was nothing underhanded or illegal about it. You euthanize people after a while, making room for the next round. She was kept sedated almost all the time before then. They do that part here. The nursing homes like nice cooperative residents. — noAxioms

Would you allow people to end their life, if continuation means daily suffering with no or very little chance of improvement? What would you have done differently for your grandparent, when you consider her medical status at the time?

I was referring to my own expression of it. I am very much a cynic. I’ve been complimented on it even. — noAxioms

:halo:

I was asking about the form that this recognition would take. You didn’t answer that, but instead listed some things that maybe should be recognized. The homemaker for sure. My wife held few jobs, but contributed no less to the effort than did I. The kids were never in day care. — noAxioms

I already answered this. The basic means of survival will be free, that's the recognition. There will also be community support in place, so that you are also able to pursue other interests, as well as looking after a home, or caring for other people etc. Future automated/robotic expert systems, have the potential be a great help here, imo.

About writing stories: People do that for a living, but what if you’re not sufficiently talented? Are you still a contributor if nobody reads your work? — noAxioms

Yes, you would still be a contributor, as long as you wanted to try. Liking someone's writings, is subjective, so, there will be a 'most popular' list, as there is now. Anyone can publish (we are kind of there now, with some free publishing sites). How popular you become, would be down to what reviews you get. But you don't publish for profit or to earn a living(you would already get all you need for free.) You publish because that's your vocation.

What do you mean by ‘home carer that is a relative’? Couldn’t really parse that. — noAxioms

A son/daughter/niece/nephew etc who daily cares for an unwell mother/father/sibling/aunt/uncle etc.

I would not want to be on the top sports team then, even if I had the capability. Not worth the incredible effort involved. — noAxioms

We all have different feelings of vocation noAxioms. I loved my times as a teacher and I would have done that job for free as long as I could live at a similar level as I lived via my salary. But there did come a time when I wanted to do something new. Such options should be available to all, as a birth right imo.

That is true of every form of energy. You burn coal, you get the same mass loss from the same generated power. Remember mass energy equivalence? — noAxioms

There is no nuclear fission or fusion occurring when you burn a lump of coal.
Mass energy equivalence holds, when you burn a lump of coal, yes, but the energy amounts involved in the conversion is tiny for a lump of coal and is, by comparison, enormous for nuclear fission or fusion.

Did they take into consideration an exponential growth in demand? — noAxioms

Have a look at: Growth in energy demand, eg:
For a long time, growth in the world and the U. S. energy consumption as a function of time, follow what is known as an exponential function. Now it looks like we have switched to linear growth, but time will tell if this is a permanent change. The exponential increase is characterized as follows. The amount of change (increase in energy consumption) per unit time is proportional to the quantity (or consumption) at that time.
$\frac{ΔN}{Δt}∝N$
or
$\frac{ΔN}{Δt}=λN$
Where Greek letter Δ(delta) is the change or increment of the variable and λ (lambda) is the growth rate. After some mathematical methods, it can be shown that the equation changes to the form
$N={N_0}e^{λt}$
where e is a constant = 2.71

OK, building materials then. I already said that. — noAxioms

No, not just building materials. We might grow excess food in space and transfer it to Earth, we may tap fuel sources such as extraterrestial hydrogen etc. Any resource currently in space that would prove useful to human endeavour, survival and expansion will be utilised, as it's currently serving no other purpose. If we discover that a resource IS serving some other useful purpose, where it is, then we should tap it very wisely or not at all.

Said ship has neither the resources nor the time (millennia) to send probes out to prospective destinations. If this method is to be utilized, it should be done from the home base where the waiting time for results is less of an issue. — noAxioms

:grin: Seems like you have already set your own preconditions for our imaginary trip, ship and crew!

Returns? Can’t it just phone home? — noAxioms

I'm sure it will but it can't phone home any samples it collected.

Anyway, I have enjoyed the opportunity to respond to your gauntlet challenges — Gnomon

I have enjoyed the exchange as well Gnomon. You are an interesting intellect with some rather eccentric notions, imo (no camouflaged insult intended).

If by "democracy" you also mean economic democracy, then I agree. — 180 Proof

Well, I favour a money free, resource based, global economy, but only if it is democratically voted for, by a majority of stakeholders and that consent is regularly renewed.
On the term 'economic democracy,' wiki offered:
Economic democracy is a socioeconomic philosophy that proposes to shift decision-making power from corporate managers and corporate shareholders to a larger group of public stakeholders that includes workers, customers, suppliers, neighbours and the broader public. No single definition or approach encompasses economic democracy, but most proponents claim that modern property relations externalize costs, subordinate the general well-being to private profit and deny the polity a democratic voice in economic policy decisions. In addition to these moral concerns, economic democracy makes practical claims, such as that it can compensate for capitalism's inherent effective demand gap.

Based on the description above, and especially the words underlined, I applaud the intention, as a step forwards against the excesses of capitalism. A small step towards the money free, resource based society I support.

You can't fool me. You're pretending to agree with me, all the while trying to get me involved in a discussion about the words. It won't work. — T Clark

:lol: Yeah, your a wile e 'auld' coyote of an interlocuter Mr Clark, but I suspect you would not have it any other way!

Nature provides oxygen, water, and some food but it takes human effort to get that water and food — Athena

Human effort can be replaced or augmented by automated systems.

Just meeting all of the people's needs violates the law of nature and when we violate the laws of nature we get bad results. I do not think that is a good thing. — Athena

Which 'laws of nature' are you referring to that we should fear violating?

Second, where is the money to come from for all the free things? And should everyone get the same amount of free things? — Athena

Money is a human invented means of exchange, which has proven to be, and has even been labelled as, 'the root of all evil.' A resource based economy, with a high level of automation, needs no money as a means of exchange. Base exemplars are:

and

What do you mean by robust checks and balances? — Athena

That's a big topic Athena. I can offer you some basic viewpoints, which I support and I am willing to offer more details if you want them.
1. No more party based politics.
2. A new layered authority system which is democratically elected but has a political structure at the top and layered structures of elected citizen representative stakeholders, alongside, to moderate and scrutinise governmental policy. No second 'house of aristocrats, or plutocrats or house of political party representatives
3. Totally open governance with full disclosure from all members in governance.
If you want to be trusted with very high authority and power, then you must be open at all times, to full investigation by an independent group. If it is proved that you have acted in nefarious ways, then you can be forced out of office immediately. The current system of scrutiny of top politicians, currently holding power, is too weak and it needs to be 'shored up' and strengthened.

I must argue the universe is not supernatural — Athena

:clap:

and that being sure of ourselves when we do not have all the information is foolish. I repeat, wisdom starts with "I do not know". An open mind and ability to speculate is very important to progress. We do not want to repeat the mistake of the Church, do we? — Athena

In life, If the 'urgency' of a decision overwhelms my ability to have access to all available information and does not allow me to take the time, to make a well researched decision, then I, like most people, will make the best judgement I can at the time. If full information is unavailable, no matter what time you have at your disposal, then I will seek to have a predominance of supporting evidence, before I take action. We do not want to repeat any historical errors, especially those made by theists. Let's also remain very determined, not to be fooled, in the same ways some/most/all of the people have been fooled in the past.

We have made so many mistakes. Because in our ignorance we held false beliefs. For example, native Americans were concerned about protecting nature and thought of the whole earth as a living organism
Not until we did severe damage to the earth did we realize they were right. People are still denying their behavior is damaging the earth while they pray to God to be a good father who takes good care of them. I am not one of those people, but seeing the earth and perhaps the universe as a living organism we do not fully understand is important to me. What I do not know is important and I am slamming the door shut knowing of my ignorance. — Athena

That's all well and good Athena but you also have to protect against those, whose religious dogma tells them, that the Earth is disposable, as this life is only prep and a test of their suitability to join their god in its REAL world. Why worry about climate change, if you believe your god can fix it anytime it wants to and if it's not fixed, it's because their god wants it that way!

Deism does not have an intervening God. That is why it is separate from Protestants and Catholics. — Athena

I am familiar with the definition of deism.

Are you asking for a profession of faith? The god-model of Enformationism is a product of my own imagination, and I believe in it implicitly. — Gnomon

Seems like a moot question, since in your next sentence, you profess your implicit credence level in what you have just labelled YOUR 'god-model of Enformationism,' confirming that your proposals are modelled on god posits. God of the gaps imo.

Do you have a comprehensive personal worldview?
How much credence do you place in its tenets? — Gnomon

Yes, and I often indicate the credence level I assign by using the words 'I am.'
Examples would be: I AM a socialist, I AM a secular humanist, I AM an atheist.

Incredulity toward alternative creeds, even those that are held by billions of rational humans, is a sign of healthy skepticism. But blanket skepticism is self-sabotaging for a philosopher. — Gnomon

That's an unwise claim, that is as ill-advised as 'all men or women or Americans or black people or white people or christians are ....' People do use such phrases all the time, but there are times, when it's very important to recognise that YOU or anyone making such a statement has not actually identified this 'billions of rational humans,' as an existent group, that is personally, significantly invested in a 'creed.'
I remember being quite bemused in my youth when I was informed by various sources (including my atheist mother and father,) that we were protestants???? and certain other families in the local area were Catholics????? One of my best friends in my youth was a 'catholic' and I was labelled 'protestant.'
These labels meant ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to either of us. Putting such labels on 'billions of rational humans,' is first and foremost, IRRATIONAL, and you know yourself that you have no idea, regarding the personal level of credence that an individual gives to a creed badge, that has been stuck on them by others.
I am with Richard Dawkins who states that calling ANY child Moslem, Christian, Hindu, Atheist, etc is a truly heinous and pernicious act. Any incredulity I feel towards a theist or theosophist is an incredulity related to their personal rationale. I will make such personal judgements, on any result, of the application, of an individuals rationale. Such IS NOT targeted exclusively at theism.

FYI, I don't believe that the ultimate mind-model of Enformationism is Real : instead it is Ideal, an idea, a general concept, a universal A god-model is useful only to the degree it can be instantiated in the particular world. — Gnomon

Ok, so you declare enformationism as 'unreal,' then. It is merely a posit, in which you echo/update the concept of the platonic forms or Aristotelian ideals. If that is the case then I will personally file away enformationism accordingly, next to Plato's forms, and move on, as if that's all it is, then our exchange on the topic can complete (for this thread at least.)

For example, we observe instances of human creativity in the Arts & Sciences, of which the postulated Creator is the exemplar. — Gnomon

I create oil paintings and have used religion as a theme, but not in a positive way. I assume you would consider this to be valid human creativity?

We know of things taking on novel forms in Evolution, due to selection of instances of fitness, and the Enformer is the epitome (perfection) of enforming. Natural Selection chooses entities based on fitness criteria. And the Programmer of the evolutionary algorithm is the ultimate critic of fitness. Or, did you believe Nature "just happened" for no reason? If so, I have some fairy stories for you. — Gnomon

Natural selection has no intent, if you think it does then PROVE IT! If you can't, then you don't need to offer me more of YOUR fairy stories. Your claim that natural selection has some esoteric intent IS one of YOUR fairy stories, imo.

Except for proposing a hypothetical philosophical Origin Story, Enformationism is a form of Humanism. Like ancient Philosophy, it proposes an ultimate Cause & Reason for the logical organization of the physical & metaphysical realms of the world : e.g. Logos. Like modern Deism it bases its frame for finite Reality upon the Axiom of Infinite Potential. Physical Science gives us reasons to believe that the world began billions of years ago, like a seed with the potential to become a great oak. — Gnomon

In what way is Enformationism humanist? Humanism is human-centric, it does NOT present humans as nothing more than an inferior version of an ideal form!!

But materialist science emerged in the middle of a long-running story, and meekly accepts the mysterious emergence of Nature from the unknown without question. So, unlike Philosophy, it has no need for conceptual germs or implicit potentials. Yet, since we observe "intents & purposes" in the space-time world, why not look for evidence of a kernal of Potential in the beginning? Personally, what scientists blandly call the mathematical "Singularity" preceding the Big Bang, is a likely candidate for the Program of Enformation that drives Evolution. Do you have a better idea? :smile: — Gnomon

Nothing in 'material' science, is accepted 'meekly,' or 'without question,' that only happens in theism or mysticism. We observe intent and purpose in lifeforms like humans. We observe 'natural processes' in spacetime that happened due to very large variety combining in every way possible, over a very large timescale.
There are many 'better' ideas that those you present, yes, and they have much more actual evidence than your proposals offer. Mtheory or CCC, (supported by hawking points, which is in turn supported by the data from the Wmap project and the Planck project) is far more credible than your proposals

PS__I don't believe in ideals such as Democracy, except as they serve as a guide to practice in the real world. I place no credence in anything outside of space-time, except to the extent that it provides a starting point for logical reasoning : Axiom. — Gnomon

Democracy is a political and social necessity for creating a benevolent humanity.
If you 'don't believe' in democracy, then you must never be given any political power.

I guess we could have a discussion on the meanings of "taste" and "opinion." Let's not and leave things where they are. — T Clark

In my opinion, your suggestion, suggests you have good taste, when it comes to choosing what to discuss. I am sure you would agree that taste has a social, behavioural aspect to it and it is not merely preferential. I might have a strong opinion that someone is really unattractive, but to say so to their face would be in very bad taste. So, I fully recognise the difference between the two terms, depending on the context they are used, and I am sure you understand the clear relationship between the two terms.
I agree that in this case, it not worth our time to get 'bogged' down in discussion about the different contextual meanings between 'opinion' and 'taste.'

but saying something is a matter of taste is not the same as saying it is a matter of opinion. — T Clark

Well, that's just your opinion on the matter of individual taste!

One man's meat is another man's poison. The only solution is to accommodate as many tastes as possible without compromising individual autonomy.

I had to look up Biodome with Pauly Shore, (I did like Jack Black's tenacious D!)
I like to listen to someone passionately talk about a book or song or movie that had a big influence in their life and I like to contemplate their reasoning as they present it.
Carl Sagan's Cosmos changed my life and his books became very important to me also. That is the basis of my interest in what inspires others and why.

A much less shallow read on the relation of speculative history to contemporary physics (c1993) is The God Particle: If the Universe Is the Answer, What Is the Question? by Leon M. Lederman. I've been meaning to read his follow-up Beyond the God Particle which he co-authored after the LHC confirmation of the Higgs Boson. — 180 Proof

Yep, could be worth a read, based also on the wiki comment:
Leon M. Lederman, a Nobel Prize-winning physicist and current Director Emeritus of Fermilab, criticized both The Tao of Physics and Gary Zukav's The Dancing Wu Li Masters in his 1993 book The God Particle: If the Universe Is the Answer, What Is the Question?

is people mistaking physics for metaphysics and visa versa. The tenets of Taoism are metaphysical principles. The tenets of quantum mechanics are physical, scientific principles. Reading "The Tao of Physics" many years ago was one of the first times I became aware of the difference. — T Clark

So, could be a useful read then for those who are not already aware of the difference.

Yeah, I suspected as much when it was recommended to me.
I will scratch it off my list. :up:

When I start a discussion involving metaphysics, I try to be very explicit about what I mean. Even when I do that, I have to struggle to keep the discussion on topic. — T Clark

Yep, I noticed!

"Eminently practical." "You will be happy. And controlled." — 180 Proof

Loved that Star Trek episode, but I don't think we will be able to throw a future ASI into a shutdown by behaving randomly illogical. :lol: Although it might be worth trying if it's about to make us extinct! :scream:



I don't know much about Taoism. Have you read Capra's Tao of physics?
If you have, was it worth reading?

You seem to be asking for empirical "details" for a general non-physical non-specific concept. — Gnomon

No, I am interested in the personal credence level you assign to posits such as deism, or the actual existence of a prime mover, creator of the universe, that was/is an eternal mind/conscience, with intent and purpose, that caused it to create/be the vital or divine spark that IS the first and only cause that created this universe. I would also like to know as many details as an interlocuter is willing to offer, regarding why they assign the credence level they do, to such posits, and why they have a need for such.

I was talking specifically about the word "metaphysics." It's a subject that is important to me. — T Clark

I know that, based on the thread you authored on the topic.
I was responding to your more general point that it's more important to discuss the substantive issues involved than focus on, and probably get bogged down, in debate over what the label 'metaphysics' might or might not encompass.
I was merely stating that heated debate about what the term encompasses IS substantive imo, and I have not yet got 'fed up talking about it.' BUT, I also accept that you have probably read much more about the term than I have and have debated the issues involved many more times that I.

Deism could be right. There may be a universal god. — Athena

There is NO more evidence for a non-intervening god than there is for an intervening one.
I am interested in the credence level you would assign to deism Athena.
10% for? 90% against? where would you stand?

How about this- we do not have all the facts so can we separate the notion of God from the Bible stories? The Bible stories suck, but that does not prove there is no universal god. The best we can do is be okay with not being too sure of ourselves. — Athena

That's not enough for me Athena. I prefer for people to give me their personal credence level for such posits. This thread is about emergence and I would like to know what you think is emergent in you, in regards to the big questions and in regards to what your personal intents and purposes have been and still are in your life. I ask for credence levels to compare them with my own and to understand a little more about assessing and understanding the intent and purpose of others. People are of course free to choose to not offer such credence levels but that will not stop me asking for such.

That is a big responsibility. How might we act on it and manifest a desirable reality? — Athena

The basic means of survival must become free, as a human right, from cradle to grave, alongside free high quality medical care, and free, efficient police, military and political protection with all necessary, very robust, checks and balances in place, which are made as reliable as is possible. Free Education! Education! Education! Global unity and a powerful determination to conquer our primal fears and continue to boldly go where no one has gone before. The utter rejection of all posits that the supernatural exists, until there is irrefutable evidence, that it does. No more scapegoating gods for our own shortfalls. A money free, resource based global economy and a global society, whose main priorities are to maintain a united planet, where the nurture of all people towards the state of 'thriving,' is the imperative, and not a global economy that allows the control of a mostly nefarious, privileged few, who are only interested in excessive personal wealth, power and status. A society that also prioritises protecting the planets ecology, flora and fauna. Personally, I think that would be a good start.

Many ancients thought we were created to help our planet. — Athena

Yeah, a good example of how 'silly' human thinking can get. I think your attempt to connect or corralate such fables with anything of significance in the real human experience is a pure conflation, to say the least, BUT I do respect that YOU see value in it.

. I am really excited by Gnoman's idea of blending the past with the present. — Athena

Which is why I cited your handle in this thread, based on my exchange with Gnomon. You, I think have made a lot of effort in your life to help others, so to me, you sound like one of the good people that are out there. So I like to understand why good people think the way they do about the big questions.

Oh, my love, you do know how to move a conversation forward. — Athena

:lol: Thanks Athena! :flower:

This is so important to the human miracle of intelligence. I believe computers are essential tools and the internet is essential to the New Age. However, we must keep our focus on the importance of humans, and this forum along with Gnoman's replacement of religion may be a part of the New Age. A time of high tech and peace and the end of tyranny. — Athena

I like your attempts to find common ground between two opposing factions.
Are you convinced that Gnomon is trying to find common ground between science and theism or is it not more like he is trying to find gaps in science that theism or deism can still find sanctuary in? I think you try to do the same but for the reason that you insist on finding value in ancient fables. I think you 'romanticise' ancient folklore and I worry that this is not a good move, in regards to human progression.
I know you and @Gnomon strongly disagree and I am just trying to gain a clear understanding of why.
I don't think science and folklore can ever exist harmoniously, especially when so many people still posit folklore as fact or as the written word of their god.

Yes, things are happening that look bad, but that may be the dark before the dawn. What is essential is how do we react to the bad things that are happening. It is when things become intolerable that we are motivated to create change. I am talking about something AI can not do. Only humans can imagine a better reality and act to manifest it. — Athena

I so hope you are correct Athena. I agree with you about current AI, but not predicted ASI(artificial super-Intelligence.)

We must build civic associations and voluntarily manifest the New Age. Instead of passively sliding into Armageddon. — Athena

:clap: :clap:

And when it comes to AI spell check reminds me constantly of why I do not believe we should rely on AI.
:grimace: Spell check obviously does not know the meaning of what I am saying and it really frightens me that humans will become overly dependent on this technology as we have become overly dependent on government, and people may give up their own power of thinking and acting. — Athena

Systems such as 'Grammarly' are much better than your typical spellchecker, in an app or GPP (General Purpose Package,) such as Microsoft Word, inside Microsoft Office. Grammarly can deal with errors such as 'ever buddy finks it's funny t be a bad spellar,' much better than Microsoft Word's spellchecker. The Word spellchecker only reports 1 error in 'spellar,' it accepts all the rest, in that very poor sentence. Grammarly correctly reports 5 issues with the sentence. That I wont bore you with, by listing them here.
A future ASI will have ability way way way beyond spellcheckers or grammar checkers or any such apps.
We just don't know how 'clever' an ASI could potentially be.

Part of the problem is the technological change to bureaucracy, which is now so impersonal it crushes individual liberty and power. This is the despot of which Tocqueville warned us. — Athena

It's just as possible that an ASI might be very benevolent towards us. Much more so than humans currently are towards other humans.

Only later when humans come on the stage is there any thinking about all this. Unless of course there are creatures like ourselves on other planets. — Athena

But don't underplay the significance of that event. That is approximately when the universe was called the universe. What's in a name? HUMAN INTELLIGENCE. The universe then became 'knowable,' and that is very very significant imo. Especially when you understand that there is no god required.

I think the whole universe is one big experiment, not something planned. I mean for goodness' sake if we were planned our backs would be a whole lot stronger. We could be made to be monogamous as some birds are. We are not designed well for our reality. — Athena

I broadly agree that if we are intelligently designed then our designer is an incompetent fool.

What do you mean? Animals are conscious, yes? Or are you going down the solipsistic path?
— universeness

May be I could have worded myself differently but of what are animals conscious and might there be an important difference when we come to human consciousness? I don't think there are any other animals that could contribute enlightening thoughts to the forum. — Athena

If you are simply suggesting that humans are the most intelligent species on Earth, then I fully agree with you.

Would it be a better world, if this was a planet of the apes or a planet of the meercats or ants etc?
— universeness

I don't think so and I don't AI can give us a better reality either. What makes humans awesome is not the few geniuses but what our ability to communicate has done to our reality. If apes could communicate as we do, then possibly they would be just as awesome. However, if we find isolated primitive people, they are nothing like modern-day humans. I think our communication abilities are what makes us awesome. Some industries are learning this, such as those that promised to go green. They had no clue how they were going improve their operations to meet the goals they promised they would meet. Instead of knowing how to achieve their goals, they announced they were interested in knowing what others thought would be helpful. It was the thoughts of many people that lead to improvements. Apes aren't up to that, despite the movie Planet of the Apes. — Athena

Again I broadly agree, apart from your suggestion that the human experience cannot be massively enhanced by AI.

So, don't worry about any 'science' you don't know or understand. I think we should celebrate the fact that as Newton famously said:
— universeness
Now that idea is totally backward! We are naturally curious and that, along with our capacity for communication, has led to our awesome progress. Horses run, fish swim, and humans think. It is for us to explore all sciences and learn all we can about the universe. Especially at this time in our lives, it is our duty to learn all we can from geologists and anthropologists and related sciences and HISTORY so that we can make better decisions than we have ever made. If we don't we could become extinct and if we are the only creature that gives the universe consciousness, that would be a tragedy. — Athena

I think you have misunderstood me here Athena and Newton's quote. I meant don't worry about the science you don't know because you can choose to learn about it if you want to. Newton's quote was just him personally commenting on his status as a 'genius.' He personally considered his discoveries to be minor when compared to what we humans still don't know. So I don't understand your "Now that idea is totally backwards!' interpretation of what I typed.

You seem to rely mainly on the Argument from Personal Incredulity. — Gnomon

I do experience personal incredulity towards others, yes, but I still remain very interested as to why a persons believes as they do. I try to balance any impression I may give of mockery or disdain for another's belief system, as much as I can. But I also refuse to try to tread on eggshells without damaging them, all the time, as I think it's also insulting, to treat an interlocuter as if they were a fragile snowflake.

Since you denigrate the agnostic philosophy of Deism, I assume you would label yourself as a "Gnostic" (knower) concerning Origins, Consciousness, etc. Is that true? — Gnomon

I am an atheist and a naturalist and I think that application of the scientific method, is the ONLY way to find the answers to any questions about origins. Philosophers can certainly help a great deal, as their musings can make scientists think in ways that can redirect their focus, and can help them discover new approaches for discovering new knowledge.

BTW, I do have some musings on the topic of a technical, non-mythical, Origin Story. But I won't go into a long dissertation in this post. — Gnomon

Interesting!

FWIW, here's a brief glimpse :
In the beginning (Big Bang??) there was no Matter, only Energy & Laws. So the postulated zero-dimensional Singularity had to possess those essential immaterial (no matter, no space, no extension) properties in order to create a physical world from scratch. — Gnomon

Have a look at sources such as The big bang singularity discussed on the physics stack exchange. Your description of the big bang singularity is contested.
Maths and physics breaks down at the proposed singularity, as a first cause. How can something be infinitely dense and have 0 dimensions (no extent)? The singularity is a 'placeholder' for the mathematical and physical rewinding of inflation/expansion. The fact that the big bang singularity is poorly defined, allows (for me) the more credible hypotheses, such as Mtheory/many worlds/multiverse or cyclical universe hypotheses, such as Roger Penrose's CCC.

So, it first had to produce the basic element of Matter ; a Quark perhaps. The physical properties of hypothetical Quarks are assumed to be : charge, mass, color, spin. But all of those qualities must be inferred, because as metaphors they cannot be detected directly. "Charge" is the name for an ability : potential to form relationships, such as attraction, repulsion, etc. But the first step toward evolution would be a Bit of Information, from which a sub-sub-atomic Quark could be constructed. Yet, all those initial/essential properties/qualities are informational relationships, not material objects. — Gnomon

A bit? Would this not mean you would have to abandon your 'analogue' view as the most credible candidate for a universal fundamental? Surely before you think of something such as 'Quark,' you must first tackle what the quark is formed inside of? What is space made of? Does space have 'quantum fluctuations?

In essence, Energy is simply the Potential to actualize, to realize something from statistical Possibility. And natural Laws are information patterns to which material things necessarily conform. Since the Singularity did not exist in space or time, its unbound Energy would be Omni-Potence, and its unlimited Laws would be Omni-Science. Do those pre-natural god-like powers sound credible to you? Probably not, because they are not found in physics textbooks. Nevermind, it's just something to think about, not to believe. — Gnomon

I was with you for the first few sentences here and then you went to woo woo land.
Why do you decide to plug in a singularity with anthropomorphic 'intent' and invoke the useless god label. Why do you choose to jump from the very rational 'potential to actualize' to ...... god-like-powers. :roll:

Before the beginning of space-time, the hypothetical Singularity would have to be non-ergodic*1 (no states yet). But the emergent universe seems to be progressing toward complete ergodicity*2 (a stable whole/holistic system). In the process of Evolution, the system is unstable. So Information patterns of relationships must be flexible. Those information patterns are the Software of the universal computer, and material objects are the Hardware of the computing system. Hence, the universe is not now, and never has been in equilibrium, but it may eventually reach a uniform state of perfect Ergodicity (wholeness). But, I ain't making no prophecies. :smile: — Gnomon

The problem here, is that there is no way we currently know of, to observe the universe in its biggest frame of reference (if 'biggest' makes any sense here). For example, will we be able to observe significant time dilation actually occur. A person who leaves on a spaceship and travels fast enough to return younger than the children he/she/hesh left behind? This would confirm that time is a local phenomena and has no objective reality. Then we would need to know a lot more about black holes and what is going on inside them. I don't think it's about the universe reaching some 'state of equilibrium' or balance or midpoint between high and low entropy. It may be that there is no aspect of 'reality' that is 'objectively true' for every point in the universe (ergodic/non-ergodic). Still no creator mind with intent, required imo, just 'mysteries of the universe,' that only lifeforms such as US may be able to 'discover.' IF the structure and workings of the universe are indeed 'knowable.'

Was you whisperer analogue or digital?

The only pertinent qualification of the Deist Creator is the ability to initiate the living & thinking cosmic system of which humans are a small, but knowing part. Beyond that necessary ability, anything else I might say is speculation based on personal experience with human intention and creativity. The creation itself is necessarily "fallible", because it is a Heuristic*1 process of evolution toward some solution to the creation algorithm. — Gnomon

Well, a little more detail in your 'speculations,' may help more of your readers understand where you are coming from.
Is your 'deist creator' analogue or digital? If it's eternal and singular then in that sense, it's a digit, yes? 'There can be only one,' (the tag line from the film The Highlander.) Does your envisaged entity have constituent parts? Is it quantum/quantisable? or a continuum of analogue states?
Why did it create an initially chaotic universe, that contained no life at all, for many billions of years, or do you believe that abiogenisis was happening somewhere in the universe, right from the start?
Surely if The creation itself is necessarily "fallible", then so must the creator be. How can an infallible enformer create fallible enformation?

PS__I don't pigeonhole myself as a "Deist", because those ignorant of the term's history assume that it is a practical Religion instead of a theoretical Philosophy. The deduced deity is an inference from evidence that the world is not eternal, not an imaginary humanoid. — Gnomon

You seem to be back-peddling here Gnomon. Deism is a well defined term with an easily understood meaning. Don't choose to use a label, if it inconveniently, does not serve your purposes at times.
If your thinking causes you to deduce a deity, then it is your burden to provide the 'details' and consequentials of that conclusion. You can declare your deity as existing outside of this universe and if your 'eternal,' has constituent parts, then you might suggest, that it may be made of 'supernatural' fundamentals, as in, not made of any substance which exists 'naturally' in this universe. BUT as part of your 'theoretical philosophy,' of an origin story for our universe, you must deal with questions regarding your deity such as:
Why did it create a universe which produced dinosaurs? What were they for?
Why did it create almost useless planets like mercury? What's the planet Mercury for?
Why does Jupiter and Saturn have so many useless moons? What are they for?
What's the debris called 'the Kuiper belt' for?

Do you consider such questions? or do you just go with the, well, I don't know!
Do you think its possible to find out why your proposed deity took the actions it took?
That's the main problem with suggesting an organised, self-aware mind, as the creator of the universe.
WE require it to explain it's actions and if it wont then WE will declare it non-existent and move on.

How about 'singularity?'
— universeness
I have been advised not to talk about it! — Alkis Piskas

Who you been taking advice from Alkis?
Not Maxwell's demon I hope! :scream: :joke: (only kidding Alkis!)

Most discussions end up spending most of their time arguing about what the word means rather than discussing substantive issues. — T Clark

I broadly agree, but 'what the word means,' IS a very substantive issue imo. God, science, universe, metaphysics, transcendent, sophist, liar are all words whose contextual meanings are crucial. Depending on what meaning people take from such words, it often cascades into what actions they take in their lives.

Let's say I could represent an 'up quark,' by the binary rep:
10010000110110001101101110000110011100000011.
It would take an infinite number of bits to describe a quark. Just its position in space (if there is such a meaningful thing, which there isn’t) would need infinite bits, even if done only as accurately as the nearest meter. — noAxioms

Why? Spacetime positions are relative. I don't see why its position would be important, if the purpose is to represent any 'up-quark' using something like binary, for the purpose of reproducing one. It's position would not have any significance until its binary code is used to create one.

If I explain the above binary representation of an up quark as representing:
1. An unique identifier for an 'up quark.'
2. The charge on a up-quark. (relating to accepted units)
3. The spin or angular momentum.
4. Mass (accepted units)
An identifier that say ‘up quark’ would suffice for 1, 2 and 4 since these are the same for all up quarks. The spin is a property of this quark, and per the vast majority of quantum interpretations, it doesn’t have one except when it is measured, and then only along one axis, so the actual spin can only be expressed relative to that one axis. A single bit will do then. Items 1-4 can probably be done in under 10 bits. The wavefunction of the quark would require, well, infinite bits. — noAxioms

A data packet about to be transmitted will contain binary bits, that have no direct relevance to the 'payload' of the data packet. Such bits are normally called 'redundant data.'
This 'metadata' has many purposes. Source and destination IP addresses, Packet number/id, etc. Even the payload will have support bits such as a parity bit, a start and stop bit etc.
There has to be a means of distinguishing between data packets who's payload is textual or is a bit map or is audio data etc. So, in the case of fundamental field excitations, there would have to be an ID system established to differentiate between a payload that was a coded quark, photon, electron, gluon etc. You would not use something as cumbersome, as the ASCII codes for the letters in 'up-quark'
The wave function would not require infinite bits as most waveforms repeat and therefore only a wave section would have to be stored. A waveform could also be stored as a mathematical function rather than a representation of its physical form

What, line some up and shoot them? No, probably not that, but something closer to how the Netherlands does it comes to mind. My grandmother was murdered there by the system. Murder by my country’s standards anyway. — noAxioms

As I said, sometimes, you seem a little bit crazy. :lol:
Then I hope you will fight or have already fought for justice for your grandmother in the Netherlands.

There are those that simply want a handout, and are effectively nobody. There are whole cultures that encourage this attitude. — noAxioms

Taking the basic means of survival for granted, is not a handout, imo, its a basic human right.

I would establish a benevolent communication system with every new born from cradle to grave.
What is this? Sounds like a school. What if the benevolent entity communicates something other than what the parents of the newborn want communicated? — noAxioms

'Social workers,' work with parents and children. What I envisage, would be much more nuanced and far better resourced, than any current national or local model of a 'social work department.'

Most layabouts get very bored quite often.
Don’t personally know the mindset. They watch TV I think. I don’t very much, and it pisses a lot of acquaintances that I cannot join discussion of the latest twist in some reality show or something.

Perhaps they would want to use their mind and body in ways that they would enjoy and would help the society/community they live in.
That would not be a layabout then, right? — noAxioms

Not anymore, no

Communication, support, respect, cooperation, justice, etc etc must become foundational when it comes to how people are supported.
All the cynicism above aside, I agree with this. Make the people and their children part of a whole, part of the culture. It works because I see it. Trick is to break the pattern of them identifying with the group encouraging the opposite. It perhaps means destroying cultural identity. It seems to work best in places with little of that, but then what do I know? I don’t live in those places. — noAxioms

No cynicism was intended on my part. I think people should discuss, honestly, any perceived injustices employed in any 'cultural identity' they feel emotionally tied to, and I agree that they may have to 'get rid of' any traditional cultural edicts or behaviour/attitudes which cause 'unfair' treatment of others.

A person who works to help their community (or even their universe) should be recognised
What does this recognition look like? Get a name on a poster or the nightly news? I mean, I do see it in some countries. In India, apparently your status is based on how many people you have under you. The recognition is an org-chart. You can be a brilliant contributor but don’t have any underlings, and you’d be pretty much a disappointment to your folks. I’ve seen this. — noAxioms

No, I mean a homemaker or a home carer that is a relative, or a person who spends a great deal of their time writing stories or music or painting pictures or educating themselves or contributing to online discussion forums, etc, etc, should be recognised as engaging in activities which are recognised as 'having a job.'

Take the money out of sports and it will become the healthy endeavour and fun competitive entertainment it should have always been.
It would become like little-league then. I guess that works. No more sports section in the newspaper except perhaps a page about how the local teams did against each other. My paper here actually devotes a decent percentage of its space to that. Not all national standings and such. — noAxioms

No, national and international level competitive sport would continue, but for reasons other than the wish to become rich. Remember the starting point. Everyone gets the food, drink, shelter, education, legal and medical protection, the right to a job they want to do and the free training/education they need to do so, etc, erc, all FREE from cradle to grave.

Brain wipe em young to be on your side. — noAxioms

I still think you are a nice person noAxioms but you might also be a bit mad! :joke:

About majority doing the right thing, that often doesn’t happen. Town just north of me had a high school falling apart and in need of more rooms. They were holding class in the gym showers due to lack of space anywhere else. The had a federal offer to pay for 95% of the cost of repairs and new construction, with the town people picking up the other 5% which would have raised their school taxes a tiny bit. They put it to the voters instead of representatives. The voters shot it down, and now their taxes went up a lot a few years later because they have to pay for all of it themselves instead of accepting the federal grant. All the voters saw was ‘small pain now’ and no vision of ‘much more pain in a few years’ that it would have prevented. The kind of action I’m talking about is this sort of thing. Long term benefits. Those are not popular, hence the extreme danger to humanity. — noAxioms

If those who you would have labelled as 'on the correct side' of the situation you describe above, were unable to convince a majority of the stakeholders involved, that they should have accepted the federal grant then the failure is with that inability to convince. This of course assumes that those who voted to reject the grant were not 'fooled' or 'manipulated.' You should survey those involved and find out f they still think they made the right choice and if not, then it's a lesson learned. From a democratic standpoint I think your example above is an example of democracy working correctly. Perhaps the stakeholders involved are still happy with the vote they cast at the time for the reasons they cast it.

Exponential growth will always overpopulate a species no matter how fast they colonize new systems. That’s kind of simple geometry. I had done a topic on what it would be like with a planet of infinite resources/land/area. Each location has limited resources, but there’s always the frontier. Answer: Not exponential population growth. Linear at best, which is in the long run the same number of descendants per capita as no growth. — noAxioms

I don't understand your logic here. Exponential growth and linear growth are both growth, why does 'the number of descendants per capita, in the long run, result in NO growth?

Fair enough. I’m trying to figure out what can actually help us on Earth that is best imported from off-planet sources. Certainly building material for stuff being built in space, but how does that help the planet other than to relieve them of the efforts needed to bring that material up from the surface? — noAxioms

It helps maintain the ecology of our planet, if we don't have to rip out it's resources to build stuff on the Earth or extraterrestially. Use up all those useless asteroids etc or lifeless planets/moon's to get the chemicals we need. Use fully automated robotic systems to do the gathering and transporting as much as possible.

It's no different than it was when compared to pioneering humans on the move. They had to bring their supplies with them until they could establish a supply chain wherever they ended up.
They did export stuff back too, and yes, building materials was probably top of the list. Still, the pioneers landed in an environment for which they were already evolved, and an alarming percentage of them still died within a year or two. — noAxioms

But still they persisted and eventually they succeeded. I think we will do the same in space or die trying.

If you have excess population, many are going to die anyway, especially under the ‘share all the world’ socialism where the most resources go to those needing it most. Not to ding that strategy, but some kind of ‘cut your losses’ mechanism needs to be in place to prevent that sort of thing from happening.
Or maybe my definition of ‘excess population’ isn’t yours and we’re talking past each other. — noAxioms

I think we probably are talking past each other. The rationing that has happened during war times such as WW II is the kind of solutions, that I would apply to excess population, until a better solution can be found, which would either be finding/creating more supplies or educating people regarding the excess population problem and convince all humans to stop having too many children that we cannot support.
A 1 child max for example until the problem is reduced, or is contained. I would not legislate for such, in the way China did but I would invoke a massive public information campaign, if necessary.

A different way of answering your question is to focus on ‘would have been better’. Would have been better for what? By what goal are we measuring the benefit of a planet of only fish vs one including land animals? — noAxioms

Life exists in two environment instead of only one, with hopefully some creatures that can live in both. The more options your species has, the better chance it has to survive and thrive.

With pioneer missions to other worlds, scouting missions may not be an option. Coming back certainly isn’t, but a ship full of colonists would be heading to unknown conditions without the scout. By the time a robot gets there and reports back, its senders stand a fair chance of not being around to hear the answer. The trips take an obscene amount of time, all the movies notwithstanding that treat interstellar travel like a bicycle ride to the corner thrift store. — noAxioms

The ship full of colonists can send out probes when its sensible to do so.
The senders still being alive when the robot returns is not required. We just need their actions and reasons and intent memorialised, so that those who are still there when the robot returns, can analyse its findings. The time involved depends on the tech involved.

There is no perfect system, just improvements on current ones.
I proposed a better one. Screw democracy. Find somebody competent. — noAxioms

Been done many many times in history. Many proved to be competent but also complete evil b******s.
So they were competent at creating totalitarian terror regimes or equally horrific plutocratic or aristocratic regimes, where only their chosen few gained unchecked and imbalanced power.
I find your knee jerk jump towards a single all powerful leader, disturbing and quite exasperating, considering human history.

I think you’re referencing a different sort of efficiency. Not even sure what you mean by that statement. — noAxioms

From a Quora discussion:
as shown in peer-reviewed reviews over the last 10 years, to be the result of the conversion of deuterium to helium, and that conversion involves a “mass deficit,” i.e., the mass of the helium product is a little less than the mass of the deuterium that was converted to helium.
That is a definite amount of energy, by the laws of thermodynamics; expressed as 23.8 MeV/4He. I.e,. that much energy is released for every helium atom formed. That’s a lot of energy for a very little helium.

OK, this seems totally illogical. ER is limited by definition. You can’t make more, you can only attempt to waste less. OK, there are exceptions such as putting up solar collectors in high orbit, which is essentially a space-based death ray with a minor computer hack. — noAxioms

From physics.org: Can we get 100% of our energy from renewables:
Now, scientists have hit back with their response to the points raised by Heard and colleagues. The researchers from the Karlsruhe Institute of Technology and collaborators have analysed hundreds of studies to answer each of the apparent issues. They demonstrate that there are no roadblocks to a 100 percent renewable future.

Does it? Last I looked it still costs more. OK, hydro has always been pretty cheap, but not so much solar and wind. They’re based on expensive equipment which needs regular replacement. Part of this is subsidies, which need to be accounted for when comparing actual costs. — noAxioms

From the world economic forum:
Cost differences between renewables and fossil fuels have traditionally guided new renewable energy additions, especially in developing countries. Market economics often made new fossil fuel generation cheaper – a dangerous choice considering the climate imperative of meeting rising power demand with low-carbon electricity.

But those days are ending, according to Bloomberg New Energy Finance’s (BNEF) Climatescope 2014 report, which finds renewable electricity is now just as affordable an option as fossil fuel in 55 emerging nations across Africa, Asia, and Latin America and the Caribbean.

BNEF suggests the scale may have already tipped toward renewables in these markets. Clean energy capacity in the surveyed nations grew 143% between 2008-2013, nearly twice as fast as in the richer Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) nations, and has more than doubled over the period to 142 total gigawatts (GW).

What is the digital universe called? — Alkis Piskas

How about 'singularity?'

but Gnomon stops short of claiming it is God. — Agent Smith

Not any more, he types that he is a deist:

If you insist on putting a label on my philosophical First Cause concept, try Deism — Gnomon

You claim that, as an anti-metaphyical materialist (???), you are able to experience Love. Bully for you. But what is the substance of that emotion? How do aggregations of atoms feel sentiments? The emerging Information theory*1 can suggest answers to those questions ; if Information (power to create novel forms) is more fundamental than insentient matter. How does a clump of matter experience anything? Could it be due to non-physical Life/Mind-forms? — Gnomon

It's really quite simple. Love is a human label and it's manifestations and consequences are demonstrated everyday by lifeforms such as humans. So, the substance of that emotion is within lifeforms such as humans, WE are atomic aggregations, WE are a clump of matter and WE demonstrate love, so it is therefore irrefutable that love is a phenomena which comes from physical and not non-physical life/mind-forms!

Morality emerges from the meaningful relationships between people. — Gnomon

:up:

But, like Love, "meaning" cannot be reduced to atoms-in-void, can it? — Gnomon

Everything is reduceable to quantum fundamentals but that does not mean, in any way, that the fundamentals have the same attributes and functionality of their potential combinatorials!
Two separate hydrogen atoms and one oxygen atom will not make make your face a little bit wet but their combinatorial will. 'Wetness,' is not a attribute of hydrogen or oxygen as separate gases.
So, love or meaning are not attributes of atoms in a void but I am certain that there will be a pathway in the future that can trace 'love' back to the fundamentals in a 'the void.'

Yet, an intentional First Cause could explain, as a hypothesis, how such immaterial abstractions could arise from a "big bang" in the void : personal significance, mutual respect, trust, interest, positive regard. The implication of a pre-bang Creator concept is that all things, and relationships, can be traced back (reduced) to the mind of the Originator*3. Otherwise, how did the ability-to-feel get programmed into the thermodynamic chain of evolutionary causation? — Gnomon

That's a big pointless jump towards woo woo of the gaps posits, such as deism imo.
I could claim ALMOST ANYTHING and place it in as comfortable a position as your disinterested deity.
How about a mindless singular digit as the first cause?
How about DIMP (A DIMensionless Point, that exists outside of our universe and causes, (in a causation chain reaction) all the quantum fluctuations which occur in the vacuum of space?
How about the question 'where did your deity come from?'
How about it's the big flying spaghetti monster that created the universe:

Thanks for the question. My definition of Creator/Programmer*1*2 was not revealed in books written by fallible humans, but in the Book of Nature, which shows signs of operating like a computer program*3. I have no knowledge of the Intention of the First Cause, but for human intention to emerge from running the program of evolution implies that the Programmer was capable of goal-directed behavior. So, the original reason for creation is beyond the reach of us self-directing symbolic personas, condemned to play the game without knowing why : Agnostic Avatars, with limited freewill & intention. — Gnomon

So based on this 'I don't know,' admission regarding the origin story of the universe or answering the hard problem of consciousness, your musings has landed firmly on the 'deism' posit as the one you give highest credence to. That's fine Gnomon. I respect your choice, but I am surprised and disappointed that a seeker of truth would find any contentment in such a bland posit as deism.
Considering the effort you have put into trying to muse on the big questions, I am surprised that deism does anything for you at all BUT I am sure you feel the same way about my satisfaction with a 99.999999% credence level to a naturalist origin for the universe and consciousness.

Tegmark is serious, but you have to possess a sense of humor to present such aethereal notions to materialist scientists. — Gnomon

I like Mr Tegmark but I don't personally assign much credence to his four distinct “levels” of multiverse hierarchy, where each type of universe grows progressively different from our own.

The "gap" you refer to is the mysterious emergence of Life & Mind from an inorganic beginning. How would you fill that void in Darwinian evolution? Any hypothetical conjecture must explain, not just the mechanical "how" of gradual emergence*1, but the logical "whence" the Potential for Life/Mind arising from a dimensionless non-living mathematical Singularity. Dispel that, if you dare! — Gnomon

Well, I wouldn't try to fill that gap with something as bland as deism, as it's irrational to do so, imo.
Darwinian evolution has nothing to do with abiogenisis! Evolution is the factual account of the DIVERSITY of life, we currently don't know how abiogenisis began. Panspermia perhaps. Before the Cambrian explosion, we have very simple single cell/multi-celled organisms. That's where we currently are. Why do you choose to toss a deity in, as the first cause? Do you really think such a posit will satisfy the human race? Do you think we will stop looking for the actual truth because your deism demands or deserves our highest credence?
Deism serves no purpose other than providing some kind of bizarre closure to folks who need such closure, as some kind of comfort blanket that I personally find to be no comfort at all.

If you insist on putting a label on my philosophical First Cause concept, try Deism — Gnomon

Hello Gnomon the deist.

Deist philosophy infers the necessity for a Prime Mind to create (from scratch) a temporal physical world from which mental phenomena — Gnomon

Deism's belief that a disinterested creator, created us for no confirmed or understood reason, makes such a suggestion irrational in my view.

I'm aware that Materialists see no difference between Physical and Mental phenomena, because their (blind in one eye) worldview blocks-out Metaphysical features of the world, by definition. Is that loud & proud enough for you? — Gnomon

It's not loud or proud but it's at least more honest and less camouflaged. Deism is woo woo imo.
As a naturalist with 20/20 vision, I need no special pleading for a concept such as 'after physics,' to have any significant meaning when it comes to the structure and workings of the universe. I prefer to remain level headed, than choose to assign all that I am, to the whims of a disinterested, pointless, purposeless, first cause self-aware mind. Does the deity of your imagination, have the omni qualifications or is it fallible?

There is no intention in Physics, so the cause of future-directed Intention in human affairs must derive from a Meta-Physical source — Gnomon

Of course there is intention in physics. The intention is to discover new knowledge about the workings and structure of the universe and to constantly confirm via testing, that which we think we already know.
No metaphysics required, other than philosophical musings, which have to, at some point, face empirical evidence as it's final arbiter or remain nothing more than philosophical musing.

4. Metaphysics is the branch of philosophy that studies the fundamental nature of reality; the first principles of being, identity and change, space and time, . . . It includes questions about the nature of consciousness and the relationship between mind and matter, between substance and attribute, and between potentiality and actuality. — Gnomon

Fine, I can live with that, although I think the term metaphysics is more overburdened than is suggested by the quote above. This was raised in a very well structured thread by @T Clark in The Metaphysics of Materialism. I stand by the posts I made in that thread, on the topic of metaphysics.