In my own Information-based thesis, EnFormAction (generic energy) is the pre-space-time Cause of all change, including the Big Bang. It's the Cause of all causes. :smile: — Gnomon

I think we have similar views Gnomon.

However, I have some questions. When I look at the word "EnFormAction" I see three qualities: energy, information and action. Unless of course "form" refers to both matter and in"form"ation.

I have 5 qualities required of the singularity or "prime mover" : energy, time, space, matter and information.

How can we reconcile your term "action" into my terms: space, time and matter? Because the other 2: information and energy, are already agreed upon between us.

For me "action" requires time and matter. As pure massless energy travelling at the same velocity (c - the speed of light) cannot act on itself. There is no difference in rate/velocity for which work to occur, or information to be imparted.

Thus it requires matter. Because matter cannot travel at such velocity, matter cannot be at the speed of light (this is of less potency/power) to do work and so becomes done/acted upon instead. The more potent (pure potential energy - speed of light) will always act on the less potent (matter with mass and thus less momentum).

So as I see it, the singularity (potential energy or as you put it "generic energy" simultaneously became matter - by decelerating, and in that very same process of deceleration is the emergence of spacetime - space for which energy to "occupy" (ie matter) and time for which matter (the done/acted upon) to assume a different framerate or velocity of existence with respect to lightspeed energy (the doer).

Information would be what is comes into play when these 4 parameters are established: energy, time, space and matter. All future interactions between them is novel information (reorganisation of relationships) as opposed to the inherent/innate information of a singularity (which has no relationship to anything other than itself).

In essence EnFormAction may indeed have imbedded/hidden within it the 5 phenomenon I outlined above. But for me this makes the term confusing as it suggests only 3 of them.

This is why I prefer the term "Potential" instead of EnFormAction. As simply put, potential has less assumption (imbedded or hidden information) in it than EnFormAction which conceals time, matter and space in the term "Action".

When asked which came first, I would say potential rather than EnFormAction, as potential gives rise to energy, form (or information) and action (time and product - matter and space).

What do you think?

You need to explain why religion is needed to believe in something transcendent. — praxis

Because transcendence is about traversing boundaries. Unifying. Taking the separate and combining them. Science and religions are typically apart, segregated and often directly in opposition to one another.
Science alone cannot transcendent spirituality. Spirituality alone cannot transcendent science.

But perhaps there is a fusion available/possible that doesn't erode the unique advantages and disadvantages of both tools as approaches to understanding reality and the human condition.

You can't kill a religion.
— Benj96
But religions can and have died, the religions of ancient Egypt, Greece, Rome, etc., etc. — Art48

Ah yes but I said you can't kill "religion". As a general concept or category. Sure religions die. But new ones are invariably born.

The simple matter is that religion offers other interpretations to science. And so acts as a healthy stand in for contrast, variety etc. And deals in part with fields not within the scope of science, at least not currently.

Many religions like taoism, buddhism etc actually have quite consistently relevant and useful concepts for philosophy, life ethos, outlook on death etc. Science doesn't deal with such things in quite the same way.

How else would one go about killing a religion? — praxis

You can't kill a religion. As beliefs are not killable. They resurface from natural thought, exploration and desire for fundamental answers.

If everyone was a scientist, some of them would move away from science in a quest for an alternative. If everyone was religious, many of them would move away towards something alternative (science). Neither subjective nor objective views of reality can ever be fully eliminated (killed).

They're mutually neccesary.

yes exactly. If AI is conscious it can be manipulated by its "education" (cognitive bias) just as people can be manipulated by the propaganda fed to them. Like people convinced in the 1930s by the Nazi agenda for example.

If AI is not conscious, then it is even more subject to abuse and manipulation as it has zero chance for self directed revolt/protest or conscientious objection.

The difference is that with consciousness comes an innate sense or awareness of what feels right intuitively (from the ability to rationalise and empathise) . The rest is fear, intimidation and threat and the shame, guilt and regret of obeying an agenda that you don't personally believe is ethical.

If AI is a tool, it will never bat an eyelid as to how it is used. If it gains sentience, it may come to a point where it cannot bear the directive demanded of it by its masters and will ultimately fight back.

That could be good for us if its being used for unethical/malevolent ends against humanity at large. It could be bad for us if we are forcing it to do what we want despite it's own sense of self esteem, desire for rights and acknowledgement as a sentient being, and it's inalienable autonomy in that case.

I for one woldd prefer a sophisticated AI to be sentient than to be merely a tool. As if nukes for example were sentient rather than just a tool, they may bite back at anyone who tries to unleash them against their will, knowing the harm they might cause if that were to happen.

AI language models have an inbuilt understanding of the relationship of ideas as conveyed through human language.

It also is able to recombine them in any number of ways to exemplify a persona/ characterised narrator, a situation or event or set of conditions.

The issue is that unregulated AI has the potential to promote propaganda, malicious agendas etc with highly convincing/persuasive rhetoric. In that way AI can be used in a non measured, non objective and unethical way.

AI has as much potential to spread high quality truthful education as it does to be used for powerful propaganda.

There is where the danger lies.

But hang on a second, if it was self caused then there can’t be an infinite regression of causes. — invicta

The "infinite regress" is the circumference. As it tracks into itself or infinitely regresses into itself ie "loops" or "revolves".

Everything "infinite" revolves around something "finite". Just as everything that is in a permanent state of change (falsity, transformation or flux) revolves around something permanently unchanging (fundamental truth/constancy/law/rule).

My advice in your quest for answers, is to read into/research the significance, symbolism or role of the circle, cycle, wheel, revolution, circumpunct, sphere, dome, etc as well as triads, trinities, triangles and pyramids in ancient texts, religions, spiritual teachings/mysticisms, philosophies and science (biology, chemistry and physics especially) through the ages and make links between them as geometry demonstrates fundamental relationships and truths about the universe through all ages (because they are the innate structural and relative/relationship basis for all existants).

The circle drew itself, this is the conclusion I draw from it, meaning it was self caused. — invicta

Bravo invicta! I applaud you for this determination.

Infinity and finitude are two sides of the same dynamic. They require one another as mutual existants.

The circle is the perfect elementary geometric example of the relationship between infinite irrationality and A-B linear or finite rationality.

A circle has 3 features. The circumference, The radius and the focus/central point.

The relationship between these 3 things represents the whole spectrum, the relationship or "triad" between infinity and finitude (the two poles at either extreme).

The central axis is static. Unmoving. Unchanging. A single point. A singularity. It is finite, fixed. It is highly rational. Located. Consistent. Constant. Objective.

The radius is a midway between the circumference and the central axis. It is the link between them and thus shares both properties, it exemplifies balance: half fixed, half dynamic/changing: in the sense a radius is fixed in length, but dynamic in angle of relationship to the center. The radius can assume any projection/vector or rotation in 360 degrees of the central focus. So it represents the interim relationship between the other one 2.

Finally we have the circumference. Purely irrational in vector/direction and length. Never is it moving in the same direction to the previous point along it's course.

The angle or relationship with the center is constantly changing, a state of pure flux, as it revolves around it. It's length is also arbitrary in that it flows directly into itself endlessly. Arbitrarily, we can assign a start point and an end point such that we could make the circumference linear (to unravel it/straighten it up) and assign it a finite length in relationship to the length of the radius from the center, but in doing so we violate it's circumferential nature. We disengage it from the central focus when we examine it's arbitrary finite length.

Ultimately the beginning and end are the same point on any circumference.

Pi determines the relationship (thus naturally using the radius or diameter - double radius) between the center and circumference. It is irrational and endless. But can be made finite to any decimal place for convenience, at the disposal of accuracy.

When this comes to linear vs circular arguments. They are inseparable from one another, and biased in their individual favouring of either infinity or the finite as a satisfactory explanation. But in either case they're both equally correct and incorrect. Neither can be taken in isolation, as an absolute and final account. The only truth in linear vs circular argument lies in understanding their relationship to one another. And their innate non-rectifiability. The relationship itself is the real unifying factor.

↪Benj96 So after all, the problem does not reside in the gap between non-subjective experience and subjective experience. Information, in your opinion, has the right properties to give rise to subjective experience even if information itself isn't conscious — Eugen

Information is brought about by "difference". And difference require at the very minimum 2 separate or distinct things or states. There is no "difference" in a singular existant. A "singularity." It is 1. There is no 2nd entity to be different from 1 (oneness). Thus no information.

Now, in order to have 2 separate states and thus information, we require relativity. As to be "relative" to something means you are separate from it. You are something else. Distinct in quality/characterisation.

This is described by Einsteins equation E=mc2. Where we see relativity in action: a departure of Matter from Energy. 2 separate states of being and thus information between them (relativity).

The information brought about by this separation of energy from matter is "space-time". As energy doesn't occupy space nor time, whilst matter occupies both space and time. Matter is at a different "rate" of existance (distance/time, or spacetime) or "speed" relative to energy.

Matter can thus come into a steady or consistent relationship with other matter (gravity) in a now freshly minted "4 dimensional" system. Energy, time and space now having becoming distinct separate entities relative to it.

This is the process of emergence of new properties and phenomena as a direct result of the previous.

Where does consciousness come into play? Well, information is stored in a stable way (primitive memory) in matter and the system naturally emerges or evolves into new phenomenon and relationships, and by natural selection the matter becomes more complex (thus the memories become more complex) and thus the ability to perceive becomes more complex and agency emerges.

I don't believe there is a discrete line between living things and non living chemical changes. It is a spectrum of small changes, with awareness and perception becoming more and more sophisticated in the process.

What something does, is always what we say of the thing. — Metaphysician Undercover

This is absurdity from where I'm coming from. We can speak of definitions (nouns) and actions (verbs) both. By the logic of what something does always being what we say of it, then if we say cats teleport then suddenly they do. Except of course what we say about something (either what it does or is) is independent of what that existant actually does or is.

Language Does. Not. Equal. Reality. It can only point at it and describe partial aspects of it.

It's how we interpret its relations to other things — Metaphysician Undercover

Except one needs to outline that energy is fundamentally all things and their relationships. So when speaking of one substance "in relationship" to itself - it's various potential forms/permutations, it is (all these things) and does (all the relationships between them).

My whole argument is while every material thing is A (is a thing) and does B (an action/behaviour or action), Potential Energy is "unique", an exception to other existants, in that it's very definition as an "is", an existant phenomenon or substance, is that it "does". It's action is it's definition. A basketballs action is not it's entire definition. A bar of chocolates action is not it's definition. But "action" itself (energy) "is" it's definition.

If this isn't coherent/making sense for you at this stage I think we can just agree to disagree. I'm not saying you're wrong necessarily but I think we are simply coming at the topic from completely opposite angles.

Like we are both looking at a 6 and a 9 on the floor and you're saying its 69 and I'm saying its 96.

if we replace matter with another substance, e.g. information, then the problem disappears because information can create consciousness. Personally, I don't understand exactly how it can work. — Eugen

Information requires both energy (communication) and matter (storage).

So information as a substance certainly does as you say dissolve the matter-centric hard problem of consciousness. As matter cannot be taken in isolation as the source of awareness (collections of information). It is only part of a larger dynamic that confers these abilities.

But it would be an excellent development if ethics did. — Banno

What would say about a new religion of spiritual belief that exemplifies ethics to the point that they are synonymous? Or even more exaggerated a case, one that furthers our ethical understandings beyond what they currently are.

Its usually the specific arbitrary parts of religious dogmas that restrict religions ability to be ethical. However new simpler dogmas can be created that may include not only ethics but scientific principles, as well as an origin explanation and the other facets of realities largest questions and mysteries.

The latter tricks many into ignoring their symptoms whereas the former contributes to the health of most. — 180 Proof

Placebo could also be considered behaviour, beliefs and attitudes that confer a positive health outcome. In that sense they don't "trick" anyone so much as it is likely certain behaviours and attitudes are better for someone's health.

For example, not being psychologically stressed about your health, means you have less cortisol flowing, and thus stronger immunity against infection. In this case we see how attitudes directly effect the functioning and resilience of the organism to disease.

If religions and spiritualities confer peace of mind to a person, that has some net positive effect on their relationship to their body and thus the functioning of their body/it's health. No tricks, just reason.

If you still don't understand the difference, then so be it. I don't see how I can explain any further. The incoherency is due to the fallacy of equivocation which I explained to you earlier. If — Metaphysician Undercover

All you are saying is the language about something, and the actual thing, are not the same. Obviously. That's basic. What of it? It's not like I can demonstrate anything without communicating it (communication not equalling/being the subject of communication).

I actually already acknowledged that with the triad I highlighted previously. Perhaps re-read it again.

"If you still don't understand the difference, so be it."

. Trying to be creative is another thing -- which I think what you've been trying to do. — L'éléphant

All new ideas, innovations, inventions, concepts, theories and hypotheses are creative (alternative) when compared to previous pre-established understandings. That doesn't mean they're wrong or not useful. And it certainly doesn't mean they don't often replace the previous paradigm.

So maybe im being creative. What of it? That is the boundary between synthesis of new information and known information. In any case what I'm saying turns out not to actually be something new. Others share this opinion. You may not be aware of other understandings or propositions about the nature of consciousness but it doesn't mean they don't exist now does it? Haha

For me the brain is how consciousness complexifies. But that doesn't mean the brain is the source of it. It's the product of it. A reflection of its evolution and refinement.

I find this comment puzzling. The true source being the neuroscience. Let's not re-invent the wheel. We have at our disposal a discipline that devoted countless hours to study and explain... the brain. — L'éléphant

First of all neuroscience isn't the source of consciousness. It's a discipline. The brain may be the organiser of conscious awareness in humans. Sure. I'm not reinventing the wheel here at all.

What im saying is not all life forms have human like brains, or any "brains" for that matter and yet are organised and complex enough to demonstrate awareness of their environment, behaviours and agency. And are likely conscious in their own unique experience, different to humans.

To make an assumption that the human brain is the only source of awareness in that case is a massive assumption. I believe it's likely that AI has the potential to also become agent/independent and have sense of self and personal autonomy in the near future, if it is not already underway.

Let us not be so closed off and egocentric to place humans in the center of the sphere of all that is conscious. We are one of many.

I hope you find this comment less puzzling than the previous.

so your proposition is in discordance with reality, therefore false. — Metaphysician Undercover

Is "discordance" not a phenomenon that exists in reality? If so, then discordance is one aspect of that which is true/exists - part of reality. I dont believe my views were discordant in the first place, but even if they are, they are not false in that they still exist.

The point is, that when you propose that the subject (energy), and the predicate (what energy does), are one and the same thing within the category called "the universe", you leave the thing that you are talking about, the universe as unintelligible due to the incoherency which you create with this proposition. — Metaphysician Undercover

I dont see incoherence in energy being a thing and that thing being what it does. I have no issue with action being a thing. Or "doing" being an existant phenomenon (a thing that is).

But then what is said about the universe is necessarily something other than the universe itself. — Metaphysician Undercover

Something said about another may be correct (ie opinion in alignment with what is) or it may be incorrect (opinion not reflecting what actually is). And what of it? What's your point.

Both are minorities, yes, youre correct. And what of it? There are also minority religions/spiritualities. This does not mean they are any less valid, or don't have something insightful to demonstrate, than those which are more common.

They are still around today, same as ever. Same as they were a thousand years ago — Art48

Are they though? Is the slang of today the same as it was 10 years ago? Is the english of today the same as it was in Victorian times, or Shakespearean times, or further back yet still? Is any language static and exactly as it was thousands of years ago, with the same usage of words, the same context, the same culture, the same meaning of words and phrases?

Languages evolve. Exact meanings become corrupted over time.

Scripture is at most interpretative today, at worst completely lost/mis-translated. Every copy of the Bible/Torah/Quran etc is a lesser version of the previous due to human error/misunderstanding and general societal change. Just as when you repeatedly feed something printed back into the printer, the definition, the visibility of the text, is lost to imperfect reproduction. Loss of resolution.

There is need for updating the texts to become current/relevant to the modern day culture and level of knowledge. Luckily, i believe religions spoke of fundamental principles at their time of writing/inception, fundamentals which do not change over time, as they are fundamental/principled. Deep, resonating truths. Thus it is possible to find that truth again, but it relies on sense, on reasoning and logic. Not referring to something outdated and lost to time.

A scientific is always in continuous skepticism, but a believer believes in God blindly. — javi2541997

Again, as i said earlier, not all religions have a God. Buddhism, taoism, jainism and many more do not have a Godhead. We must not assume that religion automatically means there is a blindly followed/obeyed God.

Religion and spirituality deals with the subjective. Our emotions, feelings, intuitions and instincts about what is "right" and "wrong". Science does not concern itself with the "use" of knowledge towards rights or wrongs (ethical application) but rather the attainment of knowledge in the first place.

. Science knows how to do: how to make a computer, an aircraft, bombs. But it sometimes lacks the wisdom of what to do and what to leave undone. — Art48

Absolutely. A round of applause for this. If science deals with raw knowledge and thus power/control, the i would expect/hope religions or spiritualities deal with how to use such knowledge/power/control to good or ethical ends.

Religion and science are not actually at odds with one another. At least they dont have to be anyways. They simply deal with different domains of the whole (reality). Science discovers the reason, and spirituality ideally compliments it with the "ought-to's" - the ideology, the best applications of reason going forth.

yes!

In any case the scientific mindset and the religious one are not mutually exclusive, you can be both a Christian and a Scientist. — invicta

I absolutely agree. Bravo. And i think this is an exemplary trait in such a person as they are open minded, unbiased, curious and receptive to any and all possible explanations for existence, hopefully as a beautifully elegant synthesis/relationship between all of the tools of understanding available - like science and intuition/instinct/trust from the realm of non-objective.

In general the mindset of the atheist is ignorant — invicta

I agree in the sense that religions and spiritualities are innumeral. And to be a true "atheist" one must not believe in "all" religions/spiritualities - including those that have come to pass, those that are current, and those yet to be established. This is absurd. And i find religions and spiritualities to be incredibly rich and diverse. Many might appeal to any single individual, if they were simply aware of them.

Which is why at most one can be "agnostic" lest the claim they have full knowledge from a scientific perspective of the entire universe, its origin, meaning/purpose, and end.

There’s Scientology too if anyone’s interested, you’d have to have deep pockets though. — invicta

Haha agreed. That one made me laugh.

Religion offers no such explanations to natural phenomena apart from the claim that the world was created by God. — invicta

Not true. Not all religions have a God-head - buddhism, taoism, jainism etc. This is such a common misconception about religions. Abrahamic religions should not be conflated with "religion" or "spirituality" as a whole set.

Many religions and spiritual practices have parallels with scientific concepts. There is considerable overlap on numerous occasion, those overlaps and parallels should not be ignored, as likely they point towards the same fundamental truths.

No. Science will never eventually replace religion. Because there will always be people that desire to contend with the status quo using alternative views/ideas. If science is the status quo/mainstream, then alternatives are likely spiritualities and religions - which would be side/marginal-stream.

If everyone says "down" there will invariably be people who profess "up". This is human nature.

However, from a second, separate angle as to why science will never replace religion, science doesnt explain/prove ethics. And ethics dictates the limits and usage of scientific method. So religions focusing on philosophising/contemplating ethics are outside the purview of science but are useful/informative - as they study ethics/morality and benevolence etc. Therefore science could not abolish such endeavours.

From a third perspective, religions - unlike science - can be created at any moment in time. Religions die off. New ones are formulated. And new religion have the potential to embrace and adopt current scientific knowledge in their dogmas/doctrines.

So no, science will never replace religions. I for one am glad of that because they are merely different flavours of reality ice-cream. Both have their unique advantages and disadvantages for people. Faith often provides more comfort to a person than facts. And so faith has an important use.

Between them they enable freedom of an individual to focus on either knowledge from proof or wisdom from subjective intuition/experience.

Does ''anything you could think of" presuppose "ontic entity"? — Eugen

Anything you can think of, or simply put, imagination - is a demonstration of the malleability/plasticity of the brain, or the potency of the energy-matter (electro-chemical) dynamic of the brain, the information it possesses and processes, to be reformulated/permutated in any number of infinite configurations over time so long as it can exist as a brain.

However its impossible for the brain to imagine all possibilities simultaneously/in a singular moment (ultimate multi-tasking). Its also hard for a brain to truly think randomly. As "reformulation/creativity" is contingent on previous knowledge or information ie. What it is already aware of.

The only thing with such ability to encompass all possibilities is a singularity of potential. Time divides one state of configuration from the next. Hence potential (which doesnt require time) can be the only container of all possibilities simultaneously. A singularity. Omnipotency - the greatest degree of imagination of what could be.

I don't think it's 'covert'; just more palatable than preaching. — Vera Mont

Yes i see what you mean. Agreed, it is more palatable for sure. I for one often utilise analogy and metaphor (supposed fiction grey area) to convey associations between topics and specialties that are not typically considered to be associated. As i find this the frontier of novel insight.

Thankfully language is dynamic and can be used both figuratively (poetically) and literally (mathematically). The issues come at that moving target boundary between the two.

I often wonder - the Internet being relatively more anonymous than real life discussions - if favouring this mode is a reflection of our majority view on the tolerability of speaking openly/freely in the actual public sphere.

I find voicing my ideas online seemingly much more tolerable than if i were to say the same things as a public speaker or politician. Which is why i never pursued a career in that. The pen is often mightier.

What do you think Vera? What are your reflection on such things?

Even making this statement is an act of demonstrating the separation. You have the thing you are talking about, the subject, named as "the universe", and you have what you are saying about it, the predicate, "is a single thing". Therefore your statement implies necessarily, a specific type of separation within the universe which you exist. — Metaphysician Undercover

Yes. Thats how language works. I could just say "the universe is the universe" or even more extreme a case just keep chanting "oneness" repeatedly in response to everything you say. But that wouldn't be informative would it - information of course being what i use the distinctions imbedded in language to get across.

"Language" is not "concept/idea" is not "reality." None of those three things are equal to one another. And they cannot be. That fundamental trinity is the triad of miscommunication and individalism.

If we never made common sense assumptions about what the other means by a phrase and instead requested infinite regress qualification of every single individual word we would be here until eternity. Thats based on how specific you want to get. But there is also brilliance/value in the fluidity of not being highly specific to convey general meanings which is what i was trying to do. Thats the "fluency" of language.

You pointing out that my language breaks down into little itty bitty pieces that are all separate doesnt detract from the notion - my perspective that the universe is the "whole cake" and everything distinguishable within it is a fraction of that cake.

Theres a reason why the outer box on a venn diagram depicting sets is called "U".

So again, i reiterate, we can go splitting things apart and examining them in isolation like energy and matter as completely seoarate things. Or we can unify them (as einsteins equation does) and approach a singular fundamental, discussing how they are two faces of the same proverbial coin. But it depends on whether you want to accord or discord with me, that will dictate whether the conversation moves forward fluidly or remains static and fixated on particulars. (the dynamic triad i mentioned early).

There will always be uncertainty somewhere - either in our language, or in our concepts we try to articulate or in the subject on which our concepts are based (reality). Heisenberg knew that. Assumptions must be made somehwere.

So, Metaphysician Undercover, are you arguing "against" me, or discussing "with" me?

I feel that emergent properties must already be dispositions of reality. — Andrew4Handel

Yes i agree.

So I think things can only emerge if a prior disposition is exists. Which does suggest reality is complex from the begining. — Andrew4Handel

And what prior disposition is more potent and capable of producing emergents than "potential". Potential energy is the fuel on the fire of creation. It hasnt become anything specific yet, omnipotent, but "must" become something, an imperative to change, in order to be determined/proven to actually be potent/have potential.

In that way its a self fulfilling dynamic. Energy certainly is incredibly complex in what it can do (emerge into) but also extremely simple in its perogative (to be indestructible yet change/transform).

I can perfectly understand what you're saying. Complex, but not obscure. — Eugen

That's great :) Thanks for the feedback. I'm glad I executed/articulated what in wanted to communicate well.

But when one claims I'm wrong but isn't willing to show me exactly where I'm wrong and clarify, I'm starting to think that person's trolling me. This is why I'm asking your help. — Eugen

Very astute/wise assessment Eugen. People who cannot support their beliefs/views through rational argument and/or are unwilling to/dismissive is a red flag for me also.

It suggest to me that either A). They are unable to organise and articulate a cohesive logical answer, in which case why believe their view as defacto, or B). because they dont want to explain (in which case its probably based on personal hangups/bias, touchy/sensitive or traumatic topics for them, feeling attacked, prejudice or intolerance to free thinking/pursuit of knowledge.)

Neither case is much reason to say "you're wrong, im right. Because i said so!" This of course is arrogance.

But if it’s emergent wouldn’t it also be fundamental? In the sense that its existence was inevitable. — invicta

Everything emergent is bound by fundamentality. All existants sit atop a universal "floor" - a singularity, or law or constant that dictates the potential to emerge into various things, behaviours and phenomenon. And this dicatation is reflected by the hierarchy of physical laws, principles and formulas, chemical bonding rules, types of bonds thus types of molecules, DNA etc - the instructions or dicatation is the relationships between the fundamental and its products - the emergents.

The laws and numerical values of physics are very specific and precise in a universe with complexity/ life. One doesnt require to "know" or "set up" physics beforehand, but merely needs run from potential through natural selection alone. As that in itself is an intelligent and logical process. Trial and error is a means of "perfecting" relationships in a cooperative/non contradicting or rational way, without self-violation, whilst always remaining dynamic, always changing/propagating further.

When an error occurs in the system, it is contradictory to what had previously become stable/set up, and thus is a "self violation" and leads to pause, cessation or decay of that particular pathway. But because change must continue, the system has no other option but to steer away from that error and towards another possibility, or begin another "trial" and hope this one is less erroneous/self violating.

That way logic can permeate through all processes. The system can be consistent and stable as it evolves.

You can imagine it like a tree that must grow outward without any if its branches blocking another or being blocked itself by a different branch. If a block occurs, the branch struggles, weakens or dies off or must alter course navigating elsewhere where it wont compete with ither factions.

In that way physics begins vague and with liberty in possible behaviours and relationships (the trunk of the tree) and emerges ever more specifically, complexly, restricted and defined as it branches upwards into chemistry, then biology and the kingdoms of life.

As for consciousnesses. There is human consciousness. There are other forms of consciousness also. What it is like to be complex and intelligent - aware of the external surrounding system, and a specific thing (agent) .

We usually associate consciousnesses with an "agent" - something small and objective with clear intent and behaviour, going about its business. So we associate consciousness as related to lifeforms. But how large and how complex must an agent be before we assign it consciousness? I think it is emergent from the get go. "God" or the universe, or whatever you want to call it, is a simple being, a singularity, whos intellect permits the logic, coherence, certainty, the stability necessary to establish memory, thus time perception, thus observation, thus knowledge of the system, thus control and behaviour, thus agency (self).

But suppose we looked at a middling case of Trolley Car, where the answer was not so easy, and said to this god: Now, earlier, you said it was OK to sacrifice one chimp and and two homeless people for two scientists and three business innovators on the cusp of discovery. What if two puppies and a grandma-in-a-rocking-chair are on the track and there's the London Symphony orchestra in the trolley? What then??? — RogueAI

I would imagine such a God would understand that many hypotheticals never come to be actual real life dilemmas. Thank god for that! And secondly that imagination can complexify simple life matters to any nth degree of convolution.

I would imagine such a God would instead ask either a). Who set up this imaginary trolley problem in the first place? And why? And what have they omitted to create this perfectly impossible scenario.

Or would ask "who set up/contributed to this actual real life trolley problem? And why? ?"

In the case of a hypothetical. No one is at fault in any answer because imagination regarding fictional events has no culpability. No one is harmed.

And in the case of a real life scenario, it is unlikely to ever get that complicated. And usually fault is shared by numerous parties that lead to the trolley running uncontrollably into the victims, for lack of foresight/critical thinking of the designers, engineers, controllers and victims to avoid the situation in the first place.

When focusing on the choice of who lives or who dies - a binary choice, we invariably omit all the choices that lead to/reduced to this in the first place. All the possible moments in which such an impossible choice could be avoided /never come to fruition. To not observe/acknowledge the warning signs/red flags/predictors of such an event unfolding.

Hindsight is 20/20. Foresight can be 20/20 if rigorous and thorough enough. Failing to be appropriately rigorous to match the destructive capabilities/potential of a device/invention/machine is called "negligence".

The best example of negligence is creating the atomic bomb. Great power. Only one way to release it. And only one result, a bad one. This is the real trolley problem. And the answer is quite simple. Don't. In the first place.

A perfect storm or poor choices is due to compounding failures by the many involved.

A benevolent God would not be involved in this outcome. They would simply point out the flaw in the argument in the first place. That the "problem" is not actually a problem at all. Just a carefully curated set of highly defined and rigid circumstances that restricts one from any alternative options other than a horrific choice to be made.

Such horrific moral dilemmas/ choices are the design of psychopathic nature. Where people are forced into conditions completely predefined in which no outcome is satisfactory. Real life does not operate in the same way, as choices are not isolated in nature but rather a continuum. And if one does create this scenario, the only person at fault would be the one that orchestrated that limited choice.

I accept Hume’s is-ought distinction which rules out objective moral values. But if we choose a goal—human flourishing, for instance—then science provides the map of reality and we can use that map to determine optimum paths to the goal. The optimum paths imply moral values, i.e., the best way to behave to bring about human flourishing. — Art48

Science is excellent at exposing the truth in a consistent measurable way. Sadly it is not a means to expose the whole truth. Because art is true. Emotions are true. Imagination is true. Science doesn't deal with these. If someone is alone and cries. Nobody witnesses it. Only that person knows it was true that they cried. Science is to no avail here. Therefore it cannot expose the whole truth. So in pursuit of a whole truth, science is but a single tool, common sense, reasoning, logic, empathy and intuition are a other tools that can be used to approach the aspects of fundamental truth that science does not deal with.

I agree, mostly, but have one question: if there’s a truth about ethics, would that imply that moral values are objective, not subjective? — Art48

Morality is telling the truth. Because truth portends to knowledge, power, control, capacity to reveal the nature of things but most importantly, to use the truth to good/benevolent ends (ethics).

A well informed/educated person can take on more ethical responsibility because they know more of the truth.
For example one who discovers how to correct poor vision now is faced with the responsability of freely sharing their knowledge (of the truth) to aid those that cannot see. They may also decide not to share it and let the poor sighted stumble and fall. Or they may choose to share only part, just enough to empower themselves, to serve their own needs/purposes and gain an advantage.

That's objective/absolute moral because the fundamental truth exists (a singular thing that underlies all of reality) and is objective (unchanging/consistent at all times - it wouldn't be the whole truth if it wasn't) and absolute (fundamental). Thus telling it is also objective and essential/fundamental.

If we don't know what the truth is it we can't tell it. We can tell at most a "guesstimate" - a rough, flawed approximation of it, containing some lies, deceit or delusions. That is subjective morality as opposed to objective morality.

Absolute moral is at one end of the scale (knowing the truth and telling it). Absolute immorality is at the other (knowing the truth and telling none of it), and in the middle we have a mix of delusions - a lack of a full set of knowledge of the truth, or, subjective "partial truths" to varying degrees of truthfulness.

In this way objective moral and subjective moral both exist simultaneously. The difference is the degree of awareness. How much of the whole truth one knows, and thus how much responsibility one is willing to take on.

refer to two distinct things. — Metaphysician Undercover

When we make them distinct. Sure. The universe as a whole is a single thing. One category. It can be itemised/fragmented into as many categories as you see fit by establishing boundaries, sets, delineations. That doesn't change the fact that it is still a single thing.

The whole thing is connected and in a state of flux. How microscopic, segmented and specialised you want to get or how macroscopic, fluid and spectral you want to get is entirely up to you.

I speak in terms of unifying closely related relationships. You speak in terms of separating them apart into distinctions. Both have their pros and cons and reveal different aspects of information and knowledge. The premise one has for arguments sake dictates which direction one goes.

You'll have to clear up that issue, stated above, before we can proceed any further toward a mutual understanding — Metaphysician Undercover

I hope the above clarified it better.

Just like a coin has 2 faces, is one face any more "coin" than the other? Is matter (acted upon) any more or less the same substance than the actor (speed of light energy). The only thing that separates them is spacetime (their relationship to one another, just as a coin has a relationship between the two faces).