So you think processes such as cell replication or photosynthesis come to be by pure chance? — kindred

'Pure chance' is not the scientific alternative to Intelligent Design:

In conclusion, this is the argument as to why Potential stands as a better reasoning for existence than something coming from nothing. — Benj96

There is potential / possibility in the Permanent Fundamental Something as well, for an eternal First couldn't have any design going into it but for what constrains it; so, in a linear, presentist time, it could amount to anything possible, and in an eternalist block time it could be everything possible in a superposition. We don't know the mode of time, though.

Since 'Nothing' is impossible, fundamental Something has no opposite and thus no alternative; so, Fundamental Something has to be. Thus, Fundamental Something is unbreakable, as eternal and permanent, for it cannot have parts, plus the parts would have to be even more fundamental.

Such, the Permanent can only give rise to the temporary elementaries ('particles') by rearrangements of itself, such as at stable rungs of quanta, the Permanent ever remaining as itself, as the elementaries can 'melt' back into it.

Of course, the elementaries give rise to further higher level temporaries, such as us.

Can't have a 'God'-Being as First and Fundamental; any being is a system, its constituents having to come before, so a being can't be fundamental. Look to the future for higher beings, not to the past.

Or perhaps, the model of my model. — Brendan Golledge

Since the model as the content of consciousness binds everything together in a unity and seamlessly stitches onto it the new events going along, then this must be a useful input into further brain analysis, else why would there be qualia.

Yes, how? Do tell! — Wayfarer

Well, the result in consciousness of the reflected prior subconscious voting/analysis does not cause what it is about in consciousness, for it comes too late in the process, but perhaps the result is an input to further subconscious figuring; however, I don't see why the subconscious couldn't just continue on its own without the quale of what it just came up with, unless qualia are part of the brain's own invented communication language that it has to use.

Though causing nothing except in itself,
As in ne’er doing but only as being,
Leaving intelligence for the doing.

Summary of Feinberg and Mallatt with a few of my own thoughts:

— Dissolving the Mysteries of Consciousness —

Consciousness is a brain process. It cannot float around in space by itself. Every so-called ‘thing’ is a process, an event, some of which may continue for a long time, like a tree or the sun.

The content in consciousness correlates to what the brain has already analyzed and produced in the subconscious, this neural ‘voting’ being quick, but not instant, taking about 300-500 milliseconds. The content reflects the brain’s mapping, which map is the territory since the noumena are left behind.

Consciousness makes no reference to brain states, which is called ‘referral.’

Neuroscience informs us of the ‘projection’ of neural states with no perceiving of neural firings/states, else we wouldn’t know about the ‘basement’ first storey, being unaware of it in our already written conscious second story.

So, consciousness is not live, but a kind of tape-delayed broadcast, ever showing the just past. Thus consciousness does not cause anything right then and there, for it arrives too late in the process. This rather tricks us into thinking that consciousness is in control, as directly causal.

The consciousness brain process is ever ongoing; other interested brain areas will respond with their products, and so it goes, even into long ruminations.

Conscious is Compositional; It is structured with many phenomenological distinctions. It is Intrinsic, as one’s own, as independent. It is Informational, as particular and specific. It is Integrated/Whole, as Unified and no longer Reducible. It is Exclusive, as having Definite content, no more and no less.

It is Subjectively felt. In addition to the ‘referral’ already mentioned, there is Mental Unity, as Experienced as a unified field, whereas its sources are all over the brain.

There are Qualia, as the felt qualities of sensory consciousness. It has Continuity, as the seamless stitching of the ongoing changing contents.

Mental causation?—How can consciousness itself right then and there—an intangible, unobservable, and fully subjective entity—cause material neurons to direct behaviors that change the world?

Subconscious brain analysis, taking 300-500 milliseconds to complete, is all done and finished in its result before consciousness gets hold of the product.

Consciousness has Uses/Advantages over such as reflexes or all purpose schemes, for it grants Flexibility of Reaction, as we’re better able to react to conscious content, in our further subconscious decisions beyond just the automatic reflex-like responses triggered by non conscious content. There’s Focus, as Selective Attention allows the brain to focus its activity on what’s important, so that our subconscious decisions can attend to that foremost.

It grants Evaluations, the Feelings make one aware of what is good or bad, from both emotions and logic. It grants Survival Value, as Complex decisions are possible.

We have Behavioral Flexibility, as unlimited associated learning combines multiple cues into a single perception. There’s Discrimination, making small perceptual differences possible, such as between good and poisonous food.

For Diversification of Species, such as in the Cambrian explosion and a kind of evolutionary arms race in finding new ways to avoid detection, spurring predators to become more sophisticated. Beauty appears, such as plants evolving colorful flowers to attract pollination. For Actionizing, as the pondering of the consequences of scenarios before committing to action.

There is reality ‘out there’, for sure;
We have senses to take it in, as pure.
The brain paints a useful face upon it,
Such as colors for wave frequencies, etc.

Consciousness is ever a brain process,
One which can be halted, never-the-less,
By anesthesia, poison/drugs,
A blow to the head, a faint, or by sleep.

Change the brain and consciousness changes too.
Take drugs and the emotions change, anew.
Damage the brain and the mind’s damaged too.
Consciousness emerges only from the brain!

In identifying consciousness,
We often confuse what is floating in
The stream of consciousness with the water itself;
Thus, we note not the sea in which we ‘see’.

The brain interprets reality, and puts
A face on the waves of sound, light, color, touch,
And a sense on molecules’ smell and taste.
Consciousness is the brain’s perception of itself.

Consciousness mediates thoughts versus outcomes,
And is distributed all over the body,
From the nerve spindles to the spine to the brain—
A way to actionize without moving.

Physics describes well the extrinsic causes,
While consciousness exists just for itself,
As the intrinsic, compositional,
Informational, whole, and exclusive—

As the distinctions toward survival,
Though causing nothing except in itself,
As in ne’er doing but only as being,
Leaving intelligence for the doing.

The posterior cortex holds correlates,
For this is the only brain region that
Can’t be removed for one to still retain
Consciousness, it having feedback in it;

Thusly, it presents a unified Whole,
And this Whole forms consciousness directly,
A process fundamental in nature,
Or it’s the brain’s own symbolic language.

The Whole can also be well spoken of
To communicate with others, as well as
Globally informing other brain states,
For nonconscious states know not what’s been formed.

I simply ask, what IS it that is beyond oneself? Turns out to be a fascinating question in phenomenology. — Constance

Beyond is whatever evolution gets to in the future; quantum fields are the root before in the past.

There is no space in which particles move. Like frames of a film, a series of interactions can give the impression of continuous movement in space. — Treatid

OK if the mode of time is not Presentism but Eternalism; however, we don't yet know the mode of time. If Presentism, the 'particles' roll along their fields, like a kink in a rope moves.

Guess #1: A vacuum fluctuation. — 180 Proof

Yes, and a 'particle' could pop out, along with virtuals coming and going that didn't make it to a stable quantum energy rung.

A wild guess for why fluctuations happens is that is if 'they try' to be zero/nothing they cannot do it. The so-called zero-point energy is not zero, although it is not a useable energy.

The simplest fundamental would have no parts, which is fine, for elementary 'particles' would be rather stable arrangements of it, such as in QFT (Quantum Field Theory).
— PoeticUniverse

'Nothing' is certainly simple... but it isn't really a building block.

A field is hardly simple. You have an n-dimensional continuous field which can be infinitely sub-divided.

It took Russell hundreds of pages of dense mathematics just to get to 1+1=2. I'd have to look to see if there is any construction for real numbers.

It is true that Euclidean Geometry (and many non-Euclidean counterparts) take a field of some kind as a given.

In this sense, fields are certainly foundational/fundamental to large parts of mathematics and physics.

However, it isn't clear to me that Fundamental == Simple.

I'm not saying you are wrong - I'm saying you will have to do much more than mentioning the idea of fields to persuade me that fields constitute simple, let alone simplest. — Treatid

Having no parts is not 'Nothing'. The Fundamental can't have parts because those parts world be more fundamental; thus, the fundamental consists of only itself; it does not get made and it cannot break, so there is no sub-dividing it. For example, a wave would be continuous and have no parts. Waves are also ubiquitous in physical nature. The Fundamental has to be the simplest, by the necessity shown above. We can also see this trend as we look more and more 'downward'

An electron is directly a quantum of the quantum electron field, which field appears to be fundamental.
— PoeticUniverse

There is some ambiguity in your statement. Are you saying an electron is fundamental, or the quantum electron field?

In either case... Okay. And?

I don't know how to engage with your comment. I don't know if you are just expanding on the idea of fundamental properties in Quantum Mechanics or you are correcting a misapprehension you think I have.

Perhaps you are just adding your own snippet to the conversation.

My expectation from philosophy forums is a discussion of ideas. A dialogue.

Your expectation doesn't have to match mine. It just means I'm likely to bug you to expand on your point until I can see something I can engage with. — Treatid

An electron is temporary, as is all else but the permanent quantum fields. An electron can be annihilated by a positron, but electrons can persist awhile in the right emvironment.

If we were to create a universe, what are the simplest possible building blocks that we could use? — Treatid

The simplest fundamental would have no parts, which is fine, for elementary 'particles' would be rather stable arrangements of it, such as in QFT (Quantum Field Theory).

In Quantum Mechanics (QM), an electron is a fundamental particle. (the name 'particle' is a bit of a misnomer, particles in QM are wave functions). — Treatid

An electron is directly a quantum of the quantum electron field, which field appears to be fundamental.

"The One" is unbounded nature (or existence) and materialism is one way of talking about, or describing, nature that explicitly excludes "immaterial" entities. — 180 Proof

The Permanent One of Existence would be such as the quantum 'vacuum' fields, they forming all else, the temporaries, beginning with field quanta, via arrangements of itself.

there is an inherent element of unpredictability at the most basic strata of nature. — Wayfarer

At the lowest strata of the bedrock of All, where the bucks stops, we can deduce total randomness, given that there can't be any certain direction supplied to it at its most basic level. The same if it always was (eternal). The same if it somehow had a beginning for no reason.

In a way science became its own atheistic religion. People believe in science just like people believed in gods. — Elnathan

No, the religious wish and hope that there is a God, unshown, which is called 'faith'; then, sadly, misleadingly preach and teach as if 'God is true'; not honest.

People trust in science that works and is shown as proven; honest.

The fixed, determined, unfree will grants us consistency (without it, then what?).

In reference to fatalism people still have desires to do and experience things and your choices still matter in a practical sense. — Captain Homicide

Yes, it seems that experiencing is the main benefit of being alive.

Our learning and decision-making processes are shaped by external influences and do not stem from a truly autonomous free will. — Echogem222

Yes, the will is fixed to what the will has amounted to up to the moment. There cannot be a "truly autonomous free will" such as in not using the will, meaning that one is somehow a first cause, so that kind of 'free' is impossible.

The 'free' in free will needs to be defined. I gave one case of free versus fixed, but of course one cannot be free of the will, so that 'free' doesn't mean anything but to help emphasize the robot shock of the will being fixed to influences, etc..

Others might define 'free' as when not being coerced.

The court system's 'free' is as one being held responsible versus being not sane or being extremely emotional as temporarily not sane, and thus not responsible.

The religious might mean 'free' as that matching God's will.

Using 'free' to merely mean that the will is able to operate is trivial, with the 'free' not meaning anything.

Other words that want to take on a life of their own apart from their definition are 'infinite', as an amount or a number (the infinite never completes; one cannot have it) or 'Nothing' (an 'it' trying to be an it).

'No free will' seems to sound like some sort of a bad thing, on the surface, as if there was an alternative, such to be had by adding 'free' to it to make it magic.

The just plain will (with no adjective needed) is dynamic in time and so it can change, yet its still robotic and deterministic, but granting us consistency.

Your intro post is long winded.

In the same sense, we could all have been created by something that we have no awareness of, which would be nothing to us, therefore, nothing creating everything is reasonable given that we currently lack the means to say otherwise using logical reasoning. — Echogem222

You are overloading the word 'nothing' to also mean 'having no understanding, having no awareness of', so it is that you are saying it is reasonable that we don't know how we became. A person blind in a primary color could use some wave frequency instrument to learn more about a color not registering.

As an aside, we do know how we and all the other temporaries were created, via instruments and math, yet it's true that we can't be aware of noumena directly nor if there is more that we can't get at in any way, say, something that can't exchange energy, which, of course thus has no effect whatsoever.

How can something that seems to be nothing have properties? — Echogem222

The hole is not 'nothing'; there is no paradox; it has quantum field. 'Nothing' cannot have properties, much less be. Your other "sure's" don't apply. In this thread's terminology, "nothing" is also standing in for not understanding, yet I understand All.

By that reasoning, you're saying you understand everything already, preventing what you once didn't understand being equal to nothing, becoming something you now do understand. With that, there would be no gaps in your reasoning, but to make such a claim requires a lot of evidence to back it up. — Echogem222

Yes, indeed, I understood Everything when science confirmed my First Philosophy, but this thread is about holes (which cannot be, because 'nothing' cannot have existence), unless you want to broaden it to the understanding of the Eternal/Permanent Basis of All and it's temporaries, and on up to life now and into the future.

Things don't pop up for no reason, in fact, that is an assertion that implies a cause(in this case, 'no reason'). Given this, it is wiser to assert that the universe came into existence by some manifestation in, per se, a multiverse, than it is to park randomly on the conjecture it just popped up for no reason. — Barkon

I would surmise that the universe's bang had a cause because, at least, it was able to happen - and that ableness is a something, not a 'nothing'.

As for the ultimate basis of All, it would have to be causeless because Existence has no opposite, it thus having to be unmakeable and unbreakable, it necessarily having no parts and thus being continuous, and eternal.

By that reasoning you are saying that a circle is a square at the same time because they're both shapes. In other words, since they're both similar to each other, they must be the same thing. — Echogem222

No, not said. 'Nothing' has no existence and 'it' cannot even be meant.

There cannot be spacers or holes of 'Nothing' in the Permanent or in its rearrangements into temporaries; all is continuous field.

This scenario seems to indicate a problem with the concept of an infinite-sided die, possibly even suggesting that such a die cannot exist. — keystone

"Infinite" is not a number as an amount of sides but is that which cannot be gotten to since it never completes, but to play along, the die is ever becoming more of a higher and higher resolution smoother sphere.

And on and on and hosanna — schopenhauer1

Unto the end… (I've been making musicals lately)

whether Nirvāṇa is something that can really be obtained is an open question. — Wayfarer

Nirvana is the realization of impermanence, no absolutes, and emptiness through and through.

We still wonder who is doing the "obtaining" or the realization.

What is the nature of an illusion ? — Sirius

why do you claim it is unethical to state 'God is true' — javi2541997

More so when they teach/preach it to others.

Is every category of philosophy a type of metaphysics? — ucarr

Philosophy proposes a truth based on the logic of reasoning for science to dispose of or confirm.

religious faith and groups usually tend to make me wonder about a lot of questions rather than give me answers.
This makes me struggle to understand religion... — javi2541997

There is not much to understand but that religious 'faith' is a wish or a hope that 'God' exists and the rest is the dishonor of acting, saying, and preaching as if 'God' exists, and then layering more 'truths' upon unto many myth-takes.

Their ingrained beliefs the priests’ duly preach,
As if notions were truth and fact to teach.
Oh, cleric, repent; at least say, ‘Have faith’;
Since, of unknowns ne’er shown none can e’er reach.

To be honest a cleric or a believer might ever only refer to the maybe/perhaps/hoped for 'God' instead of the misleading/unethical 'God is true' proclamation.

Since philosophy is abour truth, it looks like it has no links to science and explanations. — Agent Smith

Who needs a proof when one has found a truth?

Not that science can't confirm to satisfy our curiosity for a proof.

it can't explain Everything — Tate

That which is by necessity causeless and eternal has no alternative but to be; no option; no opposite.

I then conclude that ‘something’ has always existed and has done so eternally.

Case closed ? — Deus

Yes, for there is no "come from" for the Eternal.

One can go on to conclude that the temporaries produced by the Permanent Eternal have to be its rearrangements, such as the elementary 'particles' that are directly the quanta of fields.

We can't tell the universe what to do, the universe tells us what to do, and it gets us to do what it wants by making us think it is our "freewill". What we call "freewill" is really the will of the universe itself, and even the universe itself doesn't have freewill it's just "will". — punos

Good post.

Since outputs always have inputs, so true,
Then what, we wonder, should we try to do?
It’s the other way around, oh, brain stew,
For cause, time, and the universe do you!

I found the link:

http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/19364/1/Physics-Time%20and%20Qualia%20-%20Smolin-Verde-7-24-2021-FINAL.pdf

excerpts:

We must then make a distinction between events which generate a constant statistical distribution of outcomes, whose causal future is at least on a statistical level, a consequence of their causal past, and those which are not governed by any evolution law, deterministic or stochastic. We will call the first kind, precedented or habitual events; the latter unprecedented or “free” events.

How does the universe choose the outcomes of preparations which have no or few precedents? We propose that the novel states or events are the physical correlates of conscious events. At these moments, the universe has perhaps some degree of freedom to choose what happens next. It is these moments of freedom which make up conscious experience.

Those unprecedented moments are presumably common near the universe's origin, and spread throughout the universe. As the universe ages, it takes a higher degree of complexity for a state to be unprecedented. But we can wonder whether complex biomolecules might serve as a reservoir of novel states. Might the biosphere and the brain have evolved, to make use of the special properties of novel states, including the freedom present at those moments to choose a small part of the future. It is not difficult to see that this access to novel states might give an animal a selective advantage.

Consciousness is connected with - in fact, created by - the resolution of indefinite states. This ties qualia tightly to quantum theory – especially when that is looked at with the perspective of a world created by an active time. This implies a heightened sensitivity to novelties. The ability to detect novelty is not a peripheral or optional feature of the mind/brain-it is its main function. Qualia, we conjecture are signals of the recognition of novel situations. We and other creatures have evolved the ability to do so through evolution - as a creature that can resolve ambiguities quickly will, all things being equal, survive better.

Are there any strong arguments for free will? — TiredThinker

Lee Smolin thinks that what is novel/unique requires consciousness to resolve it (somehow free will?), whereas what has happened before goes on auto pilot, or something like that. I can't find his write-up.

The 5D quantum vacuum itself has no direction in time. — Hillary

Why 5D?