What is the rational reason not to commit suicide and live — rossii

Can you influence anything? Can you reason and can that reason manifest in cause and purpose?
If you can answer yes to these questions then your life has universal value/currency as 'you can make a difference' and 'you can cause change.' Whether or not the difference you make is for the better or for the worse, is for the judgement of others and will become part of your legacy. If you simply decide to opt out early then I am sure that a small number of people will be negatively affected but that's about it.
It seems to me that suicide is an irrational choice, given all the factors involved. I do however think suicide is a very rational choice, in the case of overwhelming suffering, that is terminal.

'Hell is other people.'
I think it's only other people that can help confirm or refute any impression an individual might have about how 'special' you are. I think it starts from how you are treated as an baby/infant.
If you get a great deal of love and positive nurture from your parents, then you can indeed grow up believing you are indeed special, others may confirm that or refute it as time goes on. Depending on how that goes, the balance can be tipped into a myriad of pathologies.

I think it's easier to be 100% certain of what is not, rather than what is.
From that position, I am 100% sure of many 'is not's.'
I am 100% sure that I am not omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, omnibenevolent, etc, etc.
I am 100% sure I don't own a castle.
I am 100% sure I am not Donald Trump.
I am 100% sure many people (including some on TPF) are illogical and irrational.
! am 100% sure Harry Potter and Darth Vader were not real people. I have no choice to drop that 100% surety to something less when it comes to God, Jesus, Allah, Zeus etc because I cannot confirm 100%, who the original authors of such stories are.

I watched this debate last night. I think you would enjoy it as it relates, imo, to your recent TPF threads.

Interesting links Vera, cheers!

I now wonder if something like that is happening in my community. Participating with others in coming up with solutions would be better than sitting alone at home wringing my hands and feeling totally powerless. — Athena

Absafragginlootly!

This is an important truth about my modus operandi. Leaps of faith at one pole and closely-reasoned inference at the other pole span a continuum of methodology that entails grave hazards at both poles. Those who confine their theater of activity within the middle section see minor action; those who operate at one or the other pole see major action; it's like gamblers in games of chance for money: high stakes at the polarities offer big prizes; low stakes in the middle offer small (but estimable) gains. — ucarr

Remember, The flash hare was outclassed by the plodding tortoise. In the end, the tortoise made more significant progress.

I don't believe any combination of dimensions is closed. Thermodynamics militates against this as a closed system violates conservation of matter-energy. — ucarr

What????
From Scientific American:
The law of conservation of energy, also known as the first law of thermodynamics, states that the energy of a closed system must remain constant—it can neither increase nor decrease without interference from outside. The universe itself is a closed system, so the total amount of energy in existence has always been the same. The forms that energy takes, however, are constantly changing.

If a closed universe were extant, sentience outside its boundaries could not know of its existence; so sentience cannot talk of a closed universe because detection of its existence means it’s not closed. — ucarr

No, you can figure out the nature of a universe from inside or outside of it.

Can you cite a recorded instance of accidental, unsystematic, no-purpose abiogenesis? — ucarr

Yes, Life on Earth! Even if life on Earth was caused by panspermia then that life would have had an abiogenesis event somewhere else.

The atheist, upon self-reflection, denies God by becoming God. — ucarr

It's probably more accurate to state that humans created gods due to primal fear but they don't exist.
God is a very simple notion based on natural human projection. Just like 'superman' is a projection that also does not exist. God and superman are projections of scared, very vulnerable hominids, nothing more.

I don't believe the dimensions, spatial or otherwise, can be separated — ucarr

Layers are separate and distinct, do you think the universe is tiered or not? A single extended dimension it bidirectional, each of our 3 'big' dimensions is bidirectional but up/down is a 'separate' direction to forwards/backwards or left/right. They are separate but not tiered. The proposed 10 dimensions of string theory are also not tiered, they are 'rolled up' or 'curled.'

In mathematics — ucarr

A subset or subspace in maths does not mean that a physical subspace exists within the universe.
Maths can produce a coordinate with as many spacial values as you like, this does not mean such a coordinate actually exists in real spacetime.

I don't think we are getting anywhere in our exchange here, so I will move on to other threads and thoughts. Thanks for the exchange ucarr.

Our empirical experience on earth makes: consciousness-selfhood-emergent-from-matter not a speculation but an observation. — ucarr

Even if this was proved, irrefutably true, such a finding would not provide any evidence of an underlying intent or teleology. At times imo, you tend to jump from firm ground straight into unsure, unstable ground and perhaps even quicksand. BUT, maybe we all do that at times. Rigorous science cannot afford to.

I'm trying to suggest an ascending hierarchy of environments of inter-locked spatial dimensions. I'm calling each step of the hierarchy a universe. In my context, universe means spatially extended material expression. — ucarr

So, do you perceive our 3D universe, as three universes? Is the 'spatial extension,' we could call 'lineworld' or 'forwards/backwards only world,' a universe? is 'flatworld' and 'cubeworld' (3D spacetime) separate tiers of what would then be our definitive 'multi-verse.' Are you trying to re-define the term 'multi-verse?'
Also, what do you mean by your use of 'hierarchy?' A hierarchy has a single origin from which all its branches come. Which dimension are you suggesting all others come from? A notional 'time' dimension, for example?

String theory speculates that more than three spatial dimensions exist. — ucarr

All the spatial dimensions of string theory are mathematical dimensions which are 'wrapped around' or 'curled up' around every 'coordinate' in our 3 extended dimensional space. They are very small unextended dimensions, based on:
Physicists look for deviances from the inverse square law when they are looking for evidence of extra dimensions. It's very hard to do these sorts of experiments, however, as to observe any deviations you need to conduct them at distances which are incredibly small. Suppose we do have nine spatial dimensions and some of those dimensions are curled up. If you're working at distances that are much bigger than the curled up dimensions then the law looks like ${1/{r^2}}$. And when you're working at distances that are much smaller than the curled up dimensions the law looks like ${1/{r^8}}$. The principal forces will change as you reduce experimental distances and the transition occurs at distances the size of the curled dimensions. So in principle we could observe these extra dimensions but in practice is depends on how small the dimensions really are.

Nothing in string theory suggests these extra dimensions are layered or tiered. Layered space or your term 'multi-tiered' space, (a poor term, imo, as 'tiered' already indicates more than one layer so your use of 'multi' is superfluous) for me, suggests notions such as 'sub-spacial dimensions' or/and 'hyper-spatial dimensions.' 'Sub' meaning 'below or under' and hyper meaning 'over or above.' Both these notions belong exclusively to the sci-fi genre at the moment. There is zero evidence of your concept of layered space and there is also zero evidence for your notion of a tree type topology (hierarchy) to your tiered space. You simply burden your claim even further with that addition.

If Hawking radiation conserves energy within a closed cycle of the material universe, then sentient-based purpose is also conserved — ucarr

My prime mover god/mind with intent is the conserved energy of the closed system you endorse. — ucarr

No, you are again guilty of equivocation fallacy! A mind is a highly complex combinatorial system. You are trying to equate that with a fundamental quanta of energy (whatever that might be, perhaps a photon.) Can a single photon (quantum field excitation) be the omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, omnibenevolent :lol:, mind of a god? It's like trying to equate gold with a single proton or single electron! (Gold atoms have 79 electrons and 79 protons with 118 neutrons in the most abundant isotope.)

Under my conception, heat death is really a local return to system-neutral. — ucarr

It seems to me that your notion here is more akin to Mtheory. Whereby, a universe is created every time two 2D or perhaps 5D branes, 'interact,' and cause a big bang to occur at the point they 'meet.'
This means each universe can be 'born/sparked' whilst other universes already exist. This would mean individual universes, could experience heat death, within individual linear time frames, rather than all universes in a multi-verse, 'cycling,' within a synchronous time frame. Maybe your an Mtheory advocate ucarr!

If you're claiming intelligence, which I think you regard as objectively real, is mandated solely by human will, not merely in independence from the evolving material universe, but in defiance of it, then you, more than I, are imbuing humanity with cosmic-God conscious purpose. I, on the other hand, claim that the evolving timeline of cosmic physics is permeated throughout with purpose, human consciousness being one instantiation of it. — ucarr

Later Addition: Are you a panpsychist ucarr?
Well, I currently do think that human intelligence, is the most advanced intelligence we humans, currently know of in the universe and yes, that includes all god posits. You choose to put the cart before the horse. Human consciousness emerged after over 13 billion years of evolution via natural selection. From the planck epoch until way after the Earth formed. You suggest intent existed, in the form of a conscious, thinking, highly complex, eternal agent, before a proposed event, such as the big bang, happened. The first action you should take, imo, is to fully admit that your claim is at best pure speculation and at worse, anti-scientific.

My syntax in the quoted sentence is faulty; I meant to say matter-energy, per Susskind, is never permanently lost from the universe. Now, however, you having directed my attention to the question whether information-order can be permanently lost, I'll claim that permanent loss of a material object entails permanent loss of information-order. — ucarr

I appreciate your clarification. We know almost zero about what happens inside a black hole.
We currently just don't know if information going into a black hole gets destroyed or eventually comes back out via Hawking radiation. The brilliant Leonard Susskind does not know either, although I agree, he will offer his opinion if pushed. From the book you cited:
Hawking proposed that information is lost in black holes, and not preserved in Hawking radiation. Susskind disagreed, arguing that Hawking's conclusions violated one of the most basic scientific laws of the universe, the conservation of information.
I accept the 'conservation of information,' but no-one knows what goes on inside black holes. Some even suggest our universe exists inside a black hole. :chin:

This is true. — ucarr

You have the poetic/dramatic/emotive license to describe the world in any way you choose ucarr and I am a fan of finding novel ways to explain stuff to others but using Sabine Hossenfelder as an example. I think she is a great science communicator but I find her style particularly annoying when she tries to employ a humorous metaphor after every scientific point she makes. Most of her attempts to do so are absolutely awful imo. It's a good method to employ if, but only if, you are very, very good at it, if not, then you should attempt to use such quite sparingly. I hope Sabine takes my advice sometimes soon. Here is a good example:

I think Sabine would consider your god notion to be an impossible macrostate, as you claim it existed before any constituent microstates. I do however currently disagree with her reasons for non-acceptance of the 'heat death' proposal.

Could you track its logic? — ucarr

Yes, I think so, do you want me to give you my interpretation so you can check?

The gist of the argument is not a denial of the phenomenon of systems evolution towards thermodynamic equilibrium; it's a claim that within the domain of a material universe, thermodynamic equilibrium is the low end of order and that randomness is a concept that cannot be a measure.

It claims that the measure of a system's thermal energy, albeit useful in the manner claimed, does not imply the ultimate heat-death of the material universe. — ucarr

I agree that the 'randomness' content of the universe, before such as 'human intent and teleology' emerged, being 100%, (as I think it is, and still is, outside of such influences as human intent.)
cannot currently be proven, but, I think the 'absence of any evidence of intent' in the current science based origin story of the universe, is the main support for random happenstance being the truth of the origin story.
I do however hold Carl Sagan's quote of 'Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence,' in high esteem, but I think that when it comes to the origin story of our universe or claims that god(s) exist, it is wrong.

@Vera Mont
@Athena
I recently became a member of a UK group called 'Compass,' who describe themselves as politically progressive and seek common ground/cause, regardless of which current political party you support.
I joined them because of their strong stance and efforts in support of UBI (and their stance on many other issues). I thought you both might find the following 'New Settlement,' campaign, hopeful, in the sense that, 'there are groups out there,' who imo, are trying to make life for the average human, a better experience. What do you think of:

"You may have seen that Compass is working on its next big project that we are calling The New Settlement.
Win as One is how we secure power, the New Settlement is why we want to.
The 20th Century saw the Post-War Settlement and Fordism, and then its successor; neoliberalism. We are watching this latest system break down before our eyes.
So what comes next? Given the perma-crisis world we live in, if it's not egalitarian, green and democratic it will be authoritarian.
The idea of this project is to lay out the corners of the jigsaw of the society we want to create and the key big drivers to get us there.
The goal is to produce a landmark publication in the early spring of 2024 that speaks convincingly and seductively of a better society that really chimes with people.
As always, our members are at the heart of this project.
Member-led working groups have started producing their own documents to contribute to the final paper. These groups are:

1. Examples of a good society in practice now?
2. Examples of new democracy in practice now?
3. New economy examples?
4. Cross-cutting themes"

Do you think this is just old rehashed, ineffective, paper exercises or do you see real value in such projects?

The through line of evolution from material objects to their emergent property: consciousness_selfhood — ucarr

This is merely your speculative opinion. Divine hiddenness is stronger evidence imo, that a god with intent/prime mover/first cause creator, has no and never has had any exemplar existence.

Heat “death” of a systemic order of the universe towards evolution within a multi-tiered elaboration of ordered multi-verses is not only possible but foundational. — ucarr

I have no idea what this quote is trying to suggest. Are you proposing that each universe in a multiverse is 'layered' in some way? If not, what do you mean by 'multi-tiered'? Word salads always taste bad imo.

Entropy points toward a cyclical model of a systemic order of a universe within the multi-tiered configuration of multi-verses. — ucarr

There is zero evidence for a layered universe, other than the old romantic notion of our universe being in fact, a quark and every other quark being another universe, but even in that bizarre proposal, each 'verse' is parallel, not tiered.

If the cosmos is cyclical then your notion of god must become a cyclical god which entropy reduces over time back to it's constituent parts.
That’s a succinct description of the history of God-consciousness of an evolving animal kingdom of sentients. — ucarr

No, it's just a muse about what would happen to a system that becomes omnipotent, within the cosmos. It would start to disassemble, so that the cycle could repeat. But why to you reject the beginning of such a cycle as a mindless spark, with zero intent that no longer exists?

Loss of systemization due to heat is an example of nature hedging her bets on paired-values of vectors, as with Heisenberg and the elementary particles. — ucarr

The universe is a closed system, which is why energy is conserved. But black holes can remove energy from the system until it radiates back into the system via Hawking radiation. In Penrose's CCC (for example), when all the galaxy, star and planetary systems have disassembled and energy is dissipated so much that it is no longer able to 'do work,' then that is the heat death moment. At that point, Penrose suggests (for example) that scale has no meaning and the conditions for a new 'big bang singularity' are reached. I am not saying this IS the most likely fate of our universe but I do find such far more credible than your prime mover god/mind with intent.

Heat, then, is integral to the animation essential to a material universe. Since this is a profound topic, further elaboration herein would be a digression; I’ll stop here for now. — ucarr

Heat is just 'energetic motion,' but that is not evidence for a god with intent. I don't perceive of any profundity here, just basic physics.

In a universe conceptualized materially, there is an oscillation between degrees of specificity of order. At one pole there is high-specificity of order. At the other pole, there is low-specificity of order. This oscillation ranges between order-intricate at the high end and order-neutral at the low end.

Order (systemization), oscillating between high-intelligibility and low-intelligibility, never drops to zero. A material universe is never completely disordered as materialism implies order. True randomness lies outside the light cones of a universe configured materially. — ucarr

This is an equivocation fallacy. Constituents - combination - biological system - entropy - disassembly back to constituents, as scientifically observed processes, offer no evidence of intent, outside of human manipulation. You are trying to equate this with non-intelligence becoming intelligence, then becoming high intelligence. Intelligence is a human subjective measure, it is not a natural law of physics. For the vast majority of the 13.8 billion years of the lifespan of the universe, there was no intelligent life anywhere. We only have one example, here on Earth. In all this vast universe we have a sample size of 'intelligent life' (at a similar or better level to humans) of 1 species (called humans). All god minds continue to remain hidden (probably because they don't exist.) So Intelligence was at zero, during the time there was no Earth. We have no evidence of any other intelligence from anywhere else in the universe. Extraterrestial life and extraterrestial intelligent life in the universe, may well have existed way before the Earth formed, but we have zero information regarding that possibility.

It turns out that order, like matter-energy (as claimed by Leonard Susskind) gets conserved. No information is lost to black hole absorption and subsequent evaporation. — ucarr

Quote where Susskind states this! that he believes 'order' is always conserved in the universe?
Where do you claim he states that he agrees with your words I have emboldened above?
The current chronology of the universe, as presented by science, does not suggest order being conserved during all the epochs described. Order happened from disorder.

Much of your OP reads to me like prose with various sprinkled attempts at poetic and sometimes even dramatic phraseology.
Your 'Clarifying example,' although entertaining, was more a sci-fi offering rather than a sci-fact one.
So, I think that based on the points/evidence you present in your OP, I will stick with the current, personal, very high credence level, that I assign to the scientific proposal that entropy exists.

"Entropy is central to the second law of thermodynamics, which states that the entropy of an isolated system left to spontaneous evolution cannot decrease with time. As a result, isolated systems evolve toward thermodynamic equilibrium, where the entropy is highest."

We are life.
Nothing ever gets destroyed permanently, so be of good cheer.
Long shots, given the long lifespan of our universe, refuse to be impossible
We are life then, now and forever
I’ve been preparing a new conversation.
My title asks: Does Entropy Exist?
I will post it tomorrow. I hope you’ll read it and weigh in. — ucarr

Life exists!
Entropy exists!
Matter/energy can assemble into human life.
Death will cause that life to disassemble and the individual consciousness/identity/personality/character IS destroyed permanently imo.
I agree that everything is recycled but the original assemblies are gone forever. Recycled paper is not the original paper but's its constituents are based on it's 'ancestors,' just like humans. No natural intent or teleology required, just human intelligent design (at least in the case of recycled paper or genetically engineered/artificially selected life)
I would hate to be cursed with imposed immortality. I would pity an eternal immortal god. It suggests a wretched omni creature with no purpose to it's existence.
Science may eventually offer humans a longevity and robustness, which reduces death to a personal choice. Natural entropy can be resisted by human science. That's what science will eventually be able to offer life. Not the horror (no-choice) immortality of a posited omnigod, but control over the death of an individual identity. We can network with others, sure, but we will never have to experience such a pointless existence, as the posited Jehovah, Allah etc. An omni, immortal, for whom solipsism would be a hellish, eternally inescapable, fact.
Would you condemn a god to the 'no death option?'
I know this is an old criticism but it's still a valid one. Can something be omnipotent if it cannot permanently die. Did Jesus have no choice in it's resurrection?
An immortal cannot die a human death, so the trinity and the blood sacrifice is a con job.

There have been a good number of 'entropy' threads already on TPF. A quick TPF search might be a good move before you post your 'Does entropy exist?' thread. I will however gladly contribute to it, if you do.

The earth tells us life in our universe is possible.
That matter and energy are neither created nor destroyed tells us our universe is eternal.
Combination: within the environment of time never ending, all possibilities will be realized
Life, a realized possibility on earth, has always been an inevitability — ucarr

Exactly what in these 4 sentences, provides evidence for a god with intent?
I see no significant or compelling evidence at all.
What role does entropy, at the scale of the universe, play in your notion of a universal scale of intent and teleology. Do you think the posited heat death of the universe is correct? If not, what role does 'change' play in an eternal matter/energy (doing work) to assemble 'stuff' and then disassembly occurs, (via entropy) over time. If entropy exists at a universal/cosmic scale then, this 'intent' you describe, would have to be unaffected by entropy, and therefore exist outside of the cosmos. This is as impossible as a square circle, which suggests to me that your 'intent' cannot exist 'outside' of a cosmos of energy/matter. If it exists within the cosmos then it must be subject to entropy.
Entropy within an eternal cosmos would point to a cyclical model, would it not? If the cosmos is cyclical then your notion of god must become a cyclical god which entropy reduces over time back to it's constituent parts. Why is this wrong in your opinion?

Has the economic anarchy of capitalism produced the current status quo of 2/3rds of the world living below the poverty line? — an-salad

Not exclusively, but capitalism plays a major role in creating a minority of 'haves' and a majority of 'have nots.' A massive, global, power and influence imbalance.

Can a centrally planned economy democratically and logically distribute resources, wealth, and labour of the world? — an-salad

Creating a global system which is more equitable and fair for all stakeholders must be possible. Central control, distributed control, localised control, all of the above, who cares? Probably trial and error and trying again until we get something that works, will continue to be the methodology. What is needed, is a majority will to create and maintain a global, secular, humanist, democratic, socialist system.

Do all historically progressive tasks -such as the end of war and poverty- depend on the overcoming of the barriers erected by the profit system, the division of the world into rival and competing nation states and private ownership of the means of production? — an-salad

Money was invented. War is a choice. Poverty is circumstantial or imposed. Nationhood is the result of stage by stage, co-operation. Competition is entertainment or is instinctive behaviour due to an inherent 'survival instinct.' Competition is really only necessary when resources cannot meet need.

I would ask simple questions:
1. Why does one human wish to be more powerful and have more wealth than any other?
Are such drives/motivations, 100% connected to our 'survival of the fittest, jungle rules, beginnings?'
If so, then what does the notion of 'civilisation,' really mean to humans?
2. Do you think 8 billion humans, fully co-operating, could achieve more than 8 billion humans competing
under the control of an elite global few?
3. Can the human species find common cause, when we consider the scale of the universe and the
resources available within it?
4. Consider unfettered capitalism in permanent action, forever unchallenged, what would you predict,
would be the main result of such a permanent global system, for our species?

You paint a disappointing but 'fair enough' landscape sir! :lol:
The brilliant Bob Ross' actual son Steve has taken over from his father:

Aw! How disappointing! I take it you are not Bob Ross Jr either, the unknown son of the now deceased famous landscape painter, pictured in my previous post.

I was told that a journalist once asked Craig Venter — Quixodian

something that materialist philosopher Daniel Dennett argues for in his infamous book Darwin's Dangerous Idea - conforms with the nihilism of the modern age. — Quixodian

I watched the following last night:


Forrest Valkai, near the end of this phone-in show, talks about Craig Venter's work.
Forrest is intensely enthusiastic about science and always seems to have an excess of energy.
I was surprised when he declared himself as fundamentally nihilist, but he recovered so well, when he talked about how much he enjoyed life and living, despite the lack of meaning or intent behind life in this universe. He then coined a new term and declared himself a 'smilehilist,' :smile: I like it.
It starts about 2h 26mins into the vid, if anyone wants to watch it. They also seem to briefly discuss a person they all admire greatly called Bob Ross! I wonder if that could be TPF member @Bob Ross?
That would be soooooo cool if it was. :grin:

Forrest briefly talks about Craig Venter's work at 2h 52mins, based on a 'superchat' question someone submitted.

Edit: This is the most famous Bob Ross, I know of:

:smile:
I loved your dance with logic, expressed in all it's textual glory.
Each twist and turn of the ballet, caused yet another encounter with your paradoxical dance partner.
Still, I enjoyed the dance! The debate goes on. I hope that the odd time when I still feel brave enough or interested enough to join the dance, random happenstance will always be a contributing factor, as full determinism, control from an exterior intent and a teleological necessity, makes any dancing, rather pointless imo.

You explained random sampling is not true randomness. You followed by saying true randomness exists within the domain of infinity. — ucarr

Well, your quote above is mostly correct but I did not claim 'true randomness,' exists. To be as clear as I can be, I personally assign a credibility level to the proposal that true random happenstance exists, at 99.999%. The same credibility I assign to the proposal that god has no, nor ever has had, any exemplar existent. Proving 100% that random happenstance is the fundamental driver of the universe, and the origin of the universe is not deterministic and had zero intent or teleology behind it, is still in debate.

100% proof may not be possible. Again you keep making 'small slips' in your conceptualisation of infinity. Infinity by definition, has no domain, no fixed number of members, as it is not a measure. It cannot really be collapsed into an instantaneous measure such as an average etc, like position or momentum, can be separately collapsed and instantaneously measured/approximated.
You must also appreciate that no measure that humans can perform is an absolute measure. All measurements are only accurate to some arbitrary number of decimal points. But 'points of change,' or 'tipping points,' exist.
At a density of x.0000000000x, the neutron star does not become a black hole but perhaps at x.00000000000x, it does 'change/tip over and become a black hole.
That extra tiny, tiny decimal place, can be what is needed to 'tip the balance'/cause the change.

What is the absolute speed of light in a vacuum or the absolute value of py? We don't know and we probably never will. To me, no absolute values/measurements, is further evidence against a deterministic universe and the omni states and the existence of god.

Here is an example of how poor our approximate measurements can be, when science tries to explain stuff to relatively lay folks such as myself:
When the mass of the remnant core lies between 1.4 and about 2 solar masses, it apparently becomes a neutron star, with a density more than a million times greater than even that of a white dwarf.

1/0 is another infinite value. — ucarr

No, its a placeholder that supports the concept of infinity, but you have to drill down a little more.
1 and 0 represent the two binary states of 'something' and 'nothing' or 'exists' and 'does not exist.'
But, the concept of 'nothing' or 'absence of something,' has no exemplar, we can access or refer to as a referent is itself not nothing. So using a circle or oval, as a glyph, to represent nothing, is invalid and can actually only represent 'zero' or an empty set or empty variable/container, but the container (the 0) is an existent.

1/0 is really a mathematical proposal that asks how many times can 'nothing' be subtracted from (same as divided from or separated from), something? The answer is obviously, 'as often as you like,' which you can replace with a relatively meaningless placeholder label such as infinity. There is no way to 'determine' anything from 1/0. Other than a placeholder label for 'we have no answer!' because it seems the universe is not deterministic (still can't prove it 100%, other than 'beyond reasonable doubt,' imo) and random happenstance cannot be fully controlled or prevented. This is why I asked you earlier if you thought that a mindless spark beginning to the 'Cosmos' or to that which may well now be eternal, could have been prevented?

I think the conclusion should be restated as: It suggests that random abiogenesis is theoretically approachable, albeit not empirically expressible.

True randomness, on the basis of your evidence here, appears to be confined to a QM math graph. Perhaps this is a good thing. Who, living within human empirical experience, wants to contend with a lot of (or even a few) truly free, uncontrollable variables affecting events in their life, especially vital and important events like survival and happiness? — ucarr

I like your wording here ucarr, This quote reads to me like a 'fair,' 'well meaning,' but disgruntled protest about how frustrating the universe is for lifeforms such as us who exist inside it.
Could that be a good definition of anyone with theistic or theosophistic leanings, (as opposed to the nefarious peddlers of religious doctrine that has plagued and damaged our species so badly since the first human b*****d, that used it to opiate a mass of their fellows.)
Is a 'palatable' theist, someone who is somewhat disgruntled at the complexity of the universe, and how difficult knowing its true structure, workings and origin is proving to be. :smile:

Sure, blind alleys and paths that lead to destruction, have been and probably always will be, wandered down due to ignorance and fear and will continue to be taken by many. After 10,000 years of tears however, I hope each human generation can make better and better choices, faster and faster, before we make ourselves extinct, and this bit of the universe has to wait many many more millennia before evolution and natural selection, results in another permutation of sentient life, that might do better than the dinos, the early hominids or the humans did.

Your two above quotes acknowledge empirical limitations on randomness. — ucarr

Not in any way that lets, determinism move to the front. Determinism is as empirically limited as randomness.

Your above quote suggests that “randomness,” like “infinity” is more concept than empirical reality. — ucarr

Well there is connection yes, in that the concept of infinity IS a placeholder label for a domain source with an unknowable number of members, like the set of everything, in mathematics.
But there is nothing there, that assists a claim that the universe is deterministic or that intent and teleology play the dominant role you have suggested.

How does a controlled system counter-balance random processes with predictable processes? — ucarr

No control system exists or (imo) can ever exist, that can fully protect against all possible random happenstance, as such information is unavailable in this universe.

Claiming: Infinity is a concept, it can never be a measure. tells us infinity is never encountered empirically. — ucarr

But it is! 1/0, for example. Sure, you can program a machine that will produce an 'error' code or put a message on the screen stating that this calculation is undefined etc but no such actions prevents the mathematical existence of 1/0.

This, in turn, tells us true randomness likewise is never encountered empirically. — ucarr

But it IS encountered empirically. You cannot know the momentum and the position of a particle at the same time! You can only measure one and randomly predict the other.

Does not this lead us to conclude that randomly generated lifeforms, and their processional runup to life forms actualization are also, likewise, never encountered empirically? — ucarr

No, it suggests that random abiogenesis is not impossible, neither is affect coming before cause in some QM states. The quantum Eraser experiment is a nice example of the issues involved:

There are two sides, in the issues involved however ( surprise surprise eh!)

Well the Venus project certainly wont work on Venus anytime soon. Just toooooooo molten!
Maybe Venus used to be full of life ......... and then the early Venusions invented money and then ..... one day, BA BOOOOOOOOM! Maybe they manged to seed Earth via panspermia, just before the BA BOOOOOOOM! and ..... here we go again, so ...... yeah, Mars could well be the next attempt! But our story on Earth aint over till its over! I listened to the Sean Carroll, Ask me anything podcast for August 2023 last night. I particularly like his answer to the last question, when he said 'I think humans will survive and we will eventually populate other planets.' I'm with you Sean!!!!!!

UBI helps reduce money/currency to nothing more than a means of exchange. It would remove its power to create a majority underclass of poor people and it would much reduce or remove the ability of a rich and powerful few, to control a poor majority mass. Job done!
If every person on the planet, gets all their basic needs, regardless of their ability or opportunity to 'earn' such, then the main imbalances caused by the money trick, that people have suffered from, since it's pernicious inception, will be at long last nullified. Such systems as a resource based economy, would remove paper and coin money, or a bank account balance that goes up and down, as the main mechanism of exchange of goods and services, all together, and completely nullify the power and influence of a rich nefarious elite.

How do you assess the decision of your eyes? — ucarr

How do you asses such decisions of your brain (as your eyes don't make decisions)?

Choose a film title!
Choose another film title!
Why did your brain choose the first one before the second one?
Was that choice determined for you, or did your brain employ its ability to make a truly random choice and therefore demonstrate, that a prime mover is as unnecessary, as it is unwelcome?

How do you assess the following: when the researchers picked subjects to be tested for allergic reactions to dairy products, they controlled for anti-bias by selecting their subjects unsystematically, and thus, by random sampling, they were assured that the individuals chosen from the main set, each having had an equal chance of populating the subset, expressed unbiased representation of the whole. — ucarr

If I understand your example above, You are saying that the people chosen to participate in the test you describe, were chosen 'at random,' but you are also saying that they were chosen from a finite, limited domain size and thus, there is a known probability of a particular member of the domain size, being chosen, so that is not truly random, it's just choosing from a fixed domain size. I understand such examples as my expertise is Computing Science and I have worked with methods of producing 'random number generators' inside a computer based on the state of the clock pulse at any instant in a time reference which is external to the clock rate of the computer (ie, the time displayed on a clock app on the same computer). So we have 'truly random' against 'the probability of choosing any single member of a fixed domain.' What you have to cognise, is that the concept of the existence of a fixed domain of possibilities, does not match the realities of QM. For example, superposition supports the possibility of a multiverse. How many universes in a multiverse? The size of that domain can never be known!
Infinity is a concept, it can never be a measure. So if your source domain size is unknowable then picking an exemplar from that domain is truly random, imo ( or at least, as close to the concept of truly random that we are ever going to get, again imo.)

In the above quote, there is a wealth of information pertaining to quantum fluctuation. Within the quote there is a description of the means by which this phenomenon is observed: a quantum fluctuation (also known as a vacuum state fluctuation or vacuum fluctuation) is the temporary random change in the amount of energy in a point in space, as prescribed by Werner Heisenberg's uncertainty principle.

How do you assess the role of Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle with respect to the question of the relationship between randomness and prescription? — ucarr

The Heisenberg uncertainty principle is a principle of quantum mechanics that limits the accuracy with which the position and momentum of a particle can be measured or predicted

You cannot know the momentum and the position at the same time. When you measure one, say position, then you could predict the other, but your prediction would be truly random, as the domain of possibilities falls into the concept of infinite. Quantum fluctuations happen at every possible coordinate in space at every plank time duration, (perhaps at every, even smaller than plank time duration, which we can never get any info about, as we would be in black hole territory (I think.))

So, to try to reflect, using the terms you asked for. Under Heisenberg's uncertainty principle, you can 'prescribe' position or momentum but not both at once, as when you measure one, the other can be at best, randomly guestimated, based on previous measures of the momentum/position of the same type of particulate.

A resource based economy is one approach.
The Gosplan as employed in the early days of the USSR was another far better system than capitalism but unfortunately, political corruption destroyed it.
How much longer do you think paper and coin currency, will be in general circulation?
It's just numbers that go up and down in bank accounts nowadays.
There are currently many UBI projects happening as a temporary solution to the pernicious money trick that so many people have been suffering for so many centuries.
Here is a selection of UBI project discussions:






Other available reports are:
A new report that shows a basic income scheme could save the NHS tens of billions of pounds.

There are other reports that show that even a modest UBI scheme could quickly achieve the following:

Between 125,000 and 1 million cases of depressive disorders could be prevented or postponed.
Between 120,000 and 1.04 million cases of clinically significant physical health symptoms could be prevented or postponed.

A ‘modest’ basic income scheme (£75 a week, £3,900 a year) would reduce child poverty to the lowest level since comparable records began in 1961 and achieve more at significantly less cost than the anti-poverty interventions of the New Labour governments.

Thank you for your detailed response to my post. You offer a balanced treatment of the issues involved and of the questions I posed. Plenty of food for thought for myself and other readers to ponder. :clap:

My list contains a lot more of such questions, which all lead to one thing: Man has created God. Not the other way around. — Alkis Piskas

Absafragginlootly!

Let’s not conflate “random” with “uncontrolled.” — ucarr

When it comes to the issue of whether the universe, at its most foundational level of dynamism, ( the fundamental process(es) that forms it's existence) is deterministic and from an agent with intent or random with no intent whatsoever, random and uncontrolled are synonymous.

In this situation, a specific outcome cannot be predicted. Does this mean the outcome is not controlled beforehand? No — ucarr

This also provides zero evidence that such an outcome is controlled beforehand. We can only currently state that we don't know, which is the atheist position. You can slide this towards the weak or strong grouping of atheism. I personally favour the strong grouping.

The outcome, we know beforehand, has a range of possible outcomes. There is still systematic control beforehand, albeit not precise. — ucarr

In quantum physics, a quantum fluctuation (also known as a vacuum state fluctuation or vacuum fluctuation) is the temporary random change in the amount of energy in a point in space, as prescribed by Werner Heisenberg's uncertainty principle. They are minute random fluctuations in the values of the fields which represent elementary particles, such as electric and magnetic fields which represent the electromagnetic force carried by photons, W and Z fields which carry the weak force, and gluon fields which carry the strong force.

What evidence do you have that suggests quantum fluctuations are under some source of systemic control? If you had such evidence, you would become world renowned, almost overnight. The only correct answer is that there is no such evidence.

In a situation with infinite possible outcomes, we know nothing beforehand. — ucarr

Infinity is an unproven concept it is not a measure.

If an unplanned event disrupts a planned event, and given unplanned events are logical possibilities, then that's not a random occurrence (in the sense of: happening without method). The system has always made allowance for it to happen. The disruption is due to a lack of advance planning (or the lack of the possibility of advance planning) aimed at preventing its occurrence. — ucarr

Do you think a mindless origin spark for the universe could have been prevented?
If all possible events in the universe could be accounted for, during a planned experiment then I would agree with you that 'random' does not exist, but such is not the case. You cannot even test speed = distance/time for all possible distances between 0 meters and 1 meter. It is impossible, within this universe, to exhaustively test anything, because of the number of possible events and the fact that we don't know what all the possible events are or the conditions under which they might all occur. To me, this suggests random happenstance exists and the universe is not fully deterministic, so omniscience is highly unlikely, as is the existence of god.

IMHO, the rest of your post is (perhaps on your part,) a 'romantic,' attempt at a god of the gaps style fitting with such as QM, that just does not fit.

and two very bad ones: money and religion. — Vera Mont

Absafragginlootly!

Apologies for continuing to flog this equine's carcass:
https://www.dw.com/en/sea-surface-temperature-hotter-than-ever-before/a-66444694 — 180 Proof

Anything I typed here in response to the linked article, would probably be a repeat of elements of my previous post above. I fully accept all the warnings about the climate change disaster we immanently face. BUT, It's not over until its over! That's all I have to cling to, and cling on is what I will continue to do! Feel free to think of me like the monty python black knight if you wish but I don't think its as hopeless as that ...... yet.

If you haven't watched this US Congressional testimony by the late Carl Sagan back in 1985, consider his well-informed warnings – macro predictions – which had subsequently been largely ignored by governments and transnational corporations because of very irrational, biased, human groupthink – a metacognitive defect AGI will not be limited by) ... — 180 Proof

Also today ...
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/jul/19/climate-crisis-james-hansen-scientist-warning — 180 Proof

I have watched just about everything with Carl Sagan in it, available on-line, more than once. Some, I have watched many times. I have watched the vid you posted at least 5 times so far.
Carl was a far better predictor of future events than Nostradamus ever was.
I don't try to play down any current danger that climate change activists are shouting about, nor have I ever suggested that the human race is doing other than a piss poor job of its stewardship of this planet but I don't see any reason to believe that a future AI would do a better job as stewards of this planet.
AGI/ASI may well not be as 'biased,' or 'irrational' as 'human groupthink' can be but are you soooooooo sure that a future mecha wont be just as toxic towards planet Earth as humans were, if not more so.
If it needs to strip the Earth of its resources to replicate, advance and spread its own system, then it may do so and move on into space.

For some reason, I have only been messaged regarding your last post on this thread. I was unaware of your previous 2. I know @Jamal 'sunk' this thread, so that it would not show up on the main page anymore, but it was not closed to new posts. You have replied to me in the two posts I was not messaged about so I don't know what happened.

Anyway ....... firstly I will try to refresh where we are in our exchange here:

Do you mean 'intelligence versus self-awareness?'
I just can't conceive of any value in an intelligent system that is not-self aware other that as a functional, very useful tool for an intelligence that IS self-aware. Like a computer is for a human today.
Perhaps I am missing your main point here due to my attempts to decipher/interpret the words/phrases, you choose to use. — universeness

No. I mean intelligence (i.e. adaptivity) without "consciousness" (i.e. awareness of being self-aware), a distinction I suggest in this old post https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/528794 ... and speculate on further, with respect to 'AGI', here https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/608461. — 180 Proof

"consciousness", on the other hand, is intermittent (i.e. flickering, alter-nating), or interrupted by variable moods, monotony, persistent high stressors, sleep / coma, drug & alcohol intoxication, psychotropics, brain trauma (e.g. PTSD) or psychosis, and so, therefore, is either online (1) or offline (0) frequently – even with variable frequency strongly correlated to different 'conscious-states' – during (baseline) waking-sleep cycles. — 180 Proof

What I mean by 'atavistic ... metacognitive bottleneck of self-awareness' is an intelligent system which develops a "theory of mind" as humans do based on a binary "self-other" model wherein classes of non-selves are otherized to varying degrees (re: 'self-serving' (i.e. confabulation-of-the-gaps) biases, prejudices, ... tribalism, etc). Ergo: human-level intelligence without anthropocentric defects (unless we want all of our Frankenstein, Skynet-Terminator, Matrix nightmares to come true). — 180 Proof

I still perceive a 'versus' between the 'theory of mind' that you propose for a future AI and our human 'theory of mind.' Would the AI theory of mind you propose have to decide whether or not their 'intelligence' but not 'conscious' (at least not conscious in the human sense) was a 'superior' or inferior state the human 'state of mind.' I am struggling to find clear terminology here.
Perhaps, a better angle would be, If your AI mind model cannot demonstrate all of your listed functionalities:

• pre-awareness = attention (orientation)
• awareness = perception (experience)
• adaptivity = intelligence (error-correcting heurstic problem-solving)
• self-awareness = [re: phenomenal-self modeling ]
• awareness of self-awareness = consciousness — 180 Proof

How do you know, it would not conclude/calculate that to be an inferior state and that functions 4 and 5 above become two of it's desires/imperatives/projects?

All this is tied to capitalism and its own relentless internal logic. — Vera Mont

:clap:

I hope that posting on TPF gives you at least a small way to vent Athena.
If I had the power, I would make decent quality housing and the basic means of survival such as food, clean water and access to full health services, a basic human right, from cradle to grave. We can argue about the lazy f***wits, who would abuse such a system, after it is fully globally established.
No profit should be allowed anywhere!!!!! until it is.

:up: At your convenience sir! I look forward to your continued insights.

What can the philosopher offer ? — plaque flag

Brain storming/imagineering/musing/rumination! which is unrestricted by any notion of 'can't go there because.....'
Such, can cause thoughts in scientists that that they would otherwise, never have thought of.

Everyone thinks I am wrong to do anything and that I should act cowardly and do nothing but stay out of the problem. But I am thinking if we do not hold this authority in check, we lose our liberty and that means we have fought every war nothing, and any acts of war we commit from here are wrong because we no longer have the personal power and liberty we once had. The authority above us in held in check and people who see this love Trump, but they do not see Trump is our Hitler, using our anger and fear to turn us against our government and put all the power in his hands and his hands only, just as Hitler did. — Athena

You may already be familiar with the content of the two videos below, filmed in Vancouver Canada and Kensington Philadelphia, only a few days ago! We both know there are many more examples all around this planet.
Good people like yourself, @Vera Mont, and many many other people online, will never accept this f****** bullshit and that is where my strength and outrage finds help, maintenance and hope.



This one in Kensington Philadelphia was filmed only yesterday!

Thank you for your detailed and interesting response and for your kind words in the first sentence of it.

On your proposal that determinism exists as an 'aspect'/dimension of our universe and perhaps, so does random happenstance.

According to my thinking, the critical component for assessing the power and reach of an environment-specific determinism is logic. — ucarr

In your game of chess scenario,

If my understanding is correct, in the game of chess, when a player gains the advantage, if henceforth that player makes no mistakes, meaning he does nothing to surrender his advantage, victory for that player is certain. — ucarr

I agree that if the player who has gained a state of advantage in the game and who then makes no mistakes, then under the rules of chess, it can be determined/predicted with a strong conviction level, that that player will win the game. But, the 'unexpected' can occur, the player who was going to win might choose to lose the game deliberately for a reason which is never revealed. An unexpected event might prevent the game from completing. Perhaps one of the players suddenly dies of a heart attack or the game pieces suddenly all get knocked off the board by a falling object from the ceiling, etc, etc. So the deterministic aspect can get nullified by an unexpected, undeterminable event. Does such a scenario show that random happenstance is also an aspect of the universe?

If determinism and random happenstance are both aspects of the universe then the question, will always become one of which one is most fundamental/came first/has dominance?

How could an existing thing have no cause? If it causes itself, that's not random. If it doesn't cause itself, and if no other existing thing causes it, how can it exist? A causeless event, to my thinking, would have unfold in absolute isolation. It could have no intersection with any other form of existence. I don't believe such isolation is possible. If it is possible, absolute isolation occurs at a great removal from everyday life. — ucarr

How does your theism deal with this?
If the universe is deterministic, then free will is an illusion, and we are puppets whose status as puppets is being deliberately, and nefariously (imo), divinely hidden from us. If an omniscient prime mover can 'harden Pharaoh's heart,' then this universe serves no function, other than the proposal that an omniscient/omnipotent decided that it, + the cosmos, was a superior state, to it alone, which is self contradictory, as if it had a need to create via its own intent, then it could not have been complete, so did not qualify for the omni status.

I would share your abhorrence of the above, except I don't believe the universe is fully deterministic. I believe the universe is a super-market of choices and, moreover, there is no ultimate power guiding the sacred hand of choice. This means we're free to make either wise or absurd choices. If one tilts toward wisdom, however, the determinism of logic_continuity is a tolerable master. — ucarr

This sounds quite reasonable but I cannot find a place in the 'logic' of it, for your personal theism. Perhaps you could offer me a little more detail, on the role in your thinking, your personal theism plays, in relation to this thread.
Your theism seems to be positing a 'less powerful, not omni,' existing transcendental, esoteric force than the abrahamic style gods such as Allah or Jehovah.

A chaotic system (oxymoron) becoming an ordered system tells me that the dimension of determinism is both operational and influential with respect to the formerly chaotic non-system. — ucarr

I agree, and I do accept that placing 'chaotic' beside 'system' is an oxymoron. If I drop a pen anywhere on Earth then it will fall, rather than rise, so, what happens to objects based on the cause and effect ordering can indeed be deterministic, but such classical thinking completely breaks down at the sub-atomic level of quantum physics. I am not suggesting that retrocausality is real, I simply don't know. But, I do think there is more and more evidence that entanglement, superposition and quantum tunnelling, are real and these do demonstrate that the universe is a lot more complicated than classical physics revealed. What teleology do you find in entanglement, superposition or quantum tunnelling?
I know that's a very complicated question, so I pose it merely to highlight the thought, rather than in expectation of you offering the succinct, detailed and peer reviewed scientific paper, required to even start to answer it.

Don't make the mistake of conflating freedom with isolation. Lest you aspire to your own Godhead, accept forever the possibility of your submission to that which is greater than yourself. Isn't that why the anointed wash the feet of beggars? — ucarr

I think the term 'greater than' can become very complicated indeed. There are simple measures that can be described in such ways, but how about a question such as which is greater? The human wish to be free of the notion of subservience, to proposed supernatural intent or the comfort the theist gets, from the idea that one or more supernatural entities exist, which are truly greater than humans in every way conceivable, but still needed to create us, without, it seems, any responsibility for what happens to us.

That a system might be sufficiently complex so as to render its continuities and outcomes obscure, or even undecidable, does, to me, sound like a real possibility. — ucarr

I would say scientific findings such as the Heisenberg uncertainty principle, would support this.

The vision of complex systems populating our universe without authorship from a supervising creator well serves the desire to abolish a magisterial God pulling puppet strings controlling humans.
I suppose the claim such defiance by humanity has its source in the God being defied provides only cold comfort, if any at all. But, alas, that’s what I’m offering with my claim herein: humanity and its after-bears will continually upgrade its simulation of God’s power until the simulation becomes hard to distinguish from the source. — ucarr

It seems to me that what you type here, could be argued, as supporting the view that god is no more than a placeholder ideal of humankind, a human creation of mind. An imagined measure, than humankind (even if it merges at some point, with it's own tech creations such as AGI(artificial general intelligence) and perhaps even if AGI produces ASI (artificial super intelligence)) will, as long as it exists, asymptotically aspire towards becoming. As an atheist, I am willing to accept that, especially if the alternative is accepting my status as an unwilling puppet of supernatural intent.

I would say metaphysics encompasses physics in much the same way that physics encompasses chemistry, so that physics is 'meta-chemistry'. — FrancisRay

Again, it makes more sense to me, to simply state that Chemistry is not Physics and metaphysics is just an unnecessary label for that which is not physics.

I feel you're missing something. Metaphysics, by which I mean the logical analysis of fundamental questions,proves that space-time is not fundamental. To explain space-time it is necessary to examine what is prior, and this means going beyond the methods of physics. It's physics that metaphysics must explain. A metaphysical theory must encompass physics and form its theoretical meta-system. — FrancisRay

All questions and answers need to be challenged and regularly revisited, to see if any new findings can update what we think we know, I fully agree with that.

Suggesting that spacetime has been proven to be not fundamental, is not true. I would however fully accept a more generalised statement such as:
According to a growing number of physicists, space and time may not be fundamental properties of the universe. Instead, they could arise from the structure and behavior of more basic components of nature. The notion of particles and fields living in spacetime is an emergent property from other underlying microscopic theory dynamics. Space-time arises as an emergent phenomenon of the quantum degrees of freedom entangled and live in the boundary of space-time. The speed of light is more fundamental than space and time.

I also like this, from a theoretical physicist on Quora:
They are both one and the same. Understand this, before information exists altogether, it would have to be stated as no-information, such a state of no information is termed the singularity (zero point). The first step up from no information to information occurs as a plancks legnth worth of spacetime. In the bigbang for example, you have a singularity (no-information) and then you have spacetime (information).

So spacetime is the most fundamental because it is the first piece of information created and secondly without space-time allowing for the “room” for mass or energy to partake in.

Here is another thing that one should understand, spacetime and matter and energy are also one and the same thing! So basically it is space-time that eventually gives birth to energy and it is energy that eventually condenses into matter but regardless they are all one in the same thing exhibiting them self in different states.

For this universe, there is no 'before' or prior to, spacetime, that can have any meaning for us, as there is no existent information before there is spacetime to contain it.

You can propose some eternal oscillating system that cycles between chaos and order, heat death, singularity and renewed expansion, such as Penrose's CCC and his proposal of the existence of 'hawking points' in this universe. You might prefer a cosmos containing many universes or Mtheory with clashing branes and vibrating strings etc, or if you are really desperate, you can build a faith in the supernatural metaphysics of woo woo.

IMHO, we cannot go beyond the method of physics or more specifically, science without engaging in anything other that pure speculation. It can be great fun to do so, but any application of the concept of metaphysics or metascience, should never be considered as valuable or as fruitful as 'shut up and keep calculating.'