I did not expect that answer from you, that's very interesting. I had assumed you were an atheist, through and through, well, perhaps pandeism is pretty close to atheism, as such a divinity would be so non-interactive with anything in our universe that its existence would be as inconsequential to us as its non-existence. In that case A would be equal to not A when the measure is 'consequence for humans,' and A refers to an existent deity.

From your link:
0. Deity (Boltzmann brain?) ...
1. Deity becomes – fluctuates until symmetry breaks – not-Deity (aka "planck universe").
2. "Non-planck universe" begins @maximum degrees temperature and rapidly – explosively ("Big Bang") – expands as it cools off.
3. Cosmic + thermodynamic entropy. (WE ARE nowHERE.)
4. "Non-planck universe" ends eventually – dissipates completely – having become an absolute zero degrees vacuum.
5. Absolute zero degrees vacuum – unbroken symmetry restored – is indistinguishable from Deity.
0. "Omega point" > the universe (or multiverse) constitutes memories (or dreaming) of Deity (Boltzmann brain?)

If I understand this list correctly, you are positing an eternal cycle, via your numbering of events, yes?
Does event 1, 'not deity' just mean the deity is no longer involved?
Does event 1 'Deity becomes' suggest a 'before' when deity did not exist?
Does this list mean that you accept that a first cause with intent is likely or 'at your most speculative?'
Do you think the universe is fully deterministic, as opposed to all events that happened in the universe, up until the first sentient life capable of decision making appeared, being fully due to random happenstance alone?

If it's "cosmic", then what else is there for it to experience other than 'the cosmos' itself? — 180 Proof

This is you positing A = A; cosmic sentience is itself in isolation.

This is you positing ...
Strawman. I've made no such posit. — 180 Proof

... cosmic sentience ...
– of what? 'Of only itself' is indistinguishable from non-sentience. — 180 Proof

I claim the above statement can be read as: cosmic sentience 'Of only itself' (A = A) is indistinguishable from ( "equals" or, =) non-sentience (¬ sentience). So, A = A = ¬ A = A expresses a paradox. When you rebut this claim, it's not enough to merely declare it's a mis-reading without backing up the declaration with a supporting argument rooted in specific details.

This is you claiming ... AND also claiming ...
Strawman again. I've made no identity claims. 'X indistinguishable from ~X' merely implies a distinction without a difference – conceptual nonsense, not a contradiction in terms – the phrase "cosmic sentience" does not make sense and therefore does not refer. — 180 Proof

What do you make of the following: 2x + 3x ≡ 5x; when x = 2, we get: 4 + 6 ≡ 10 > a distinction (in expression) without difference is NOT conceptual nonsense. It is not a straw man argument; it is math reality.

"It may be that our role on this planet is not to worship God - but to create him."

I have considered before that Hegelian conceptions of an evolving God that comes into being through our universes history could be taken in a very literal, sci-fi direction.

• First you get life, evolution, and the first intelligent life. This is the start of being coming to know itself as self.
• This journey of (self) discovery isn't complete until all the aspects of being are known by being, and so the story continues with the evolution of languages, science, and technology.
• This eventually gives rise to various versions of digital computing, genetic engineering, synthetic life, cybernetic implants, and artificial intelligence across a range of worlds that have produced lifeforms that develop to our level of technology.
• Down the road, this results in some species spreading out across their solar system to find more resources to keep the process of life and civilization going.
• In time, some species will begin to move between the stars.
• Because alien civilizations also face selection pressures-- survival of the fittest in an anarchic environment-- species will need to keep making strides in their ability to understand and manipulate nature. After all, technological development is a key determinant to who wins wars.
• Long down the road we have planet-sized brains thinking unimaginable thoughts, powered by a grid of Dyson Spheres. Massive synthetic lifeforms will live in the gentle tides of supermassive black holes so that the computation occurring across their galaxy-spanning empires occurs much faster relative to their frame of reference, enabling them to plumb the depths of being and nature.
• Eventually, one such entity will become ascendent, conquering the others. An entity that feasts on quasars for its energy sources as it fathoms itself will draw near to and attain the Absolute, incorporating all of reality into itself, fathoming its entire history and all possibilities therein.

Essentially, galaxy-spanning super brains are our inexorable future. Resistance is futile. Hegel grasped this like Maud'Dib and attempted to guide us down the Golden Path.

I for one am confident that, behind all the smoke and mirrors in the Phenomenology and the Logic, what Big Heg is really talking about is space battle cruisers and cool space fighters battling it out for galactic supremacy.

the phrase "cosmic sentience" does not make sense and therefore does not refer. — 180 Proof

Since higher orders of categories are logically valid, your cannot prove, logically, that cosmic sentience, a higher-order category of nature, cannot exist. Instead, you have to prove that cosmic sentience is existentially impossible. Competent scientists and logicians long ago abandoned this quixotic mission.

I don't see why "all of existence" should include or not include an open or closed system, I don't personally see empirical evidence to suggest either. The issue about using entropy too broadly remains in both, only that in one case it is wrong in principle, and in the other case, it should be applied with care. No more than that, as I see it.

Brian Cox and Carl Sagan describe a conversion of fundamental energy/matter to sentience of some existents within this universe. You invoke a term like 'continuity' to try to find a gap where you can fit your claim of an underlying/first cause/prime mover 'intent' to the process. Brian and Carl are very careful to state that WE, humans, are the medium through which our collective effort, could be romantically described as 'the cosmos examining itself.' They offer this notion, as a possible 'emergent' networking of all efforts of all sentient life, trying to understand the structure and workings of the universe they exist within. Neither scientist has ever supported your notion of a cosmic intent, which predates the random happenstance event of life forming in this universe/cosmos. So you are wrong in your assumption imo.
Why don't you send Brian Cox an email and ask him. I predict he will dismiss your 'cosmic intent' notion that you have labelled 'cosmic sentience,' either outright, or by stating something like, 'well, no one knows for sure, but I don't think such a first cause agent of 'intent' has ever existed.' Carl Sagan would have certainly dismissed it as highly unlikely imo. — universeness

In your first sentence, you seem to be saying the appearance of sentient life on earth was not part of evolution; it was a quantum leap from non-sentience to sentience without any transitional period connecting the two states. Am I understanding you correctly?

Brian and Carl are very careful to state that WE, humans, are the medium through which our collective effort, could be romantically described as 'the cosmos examining itself.' — universeness

Again, this collective sentience, which might be moving (notice I didn't say "evolving") toward an inflection point expressed as the information singularity, or the point of no return from unstoppable ASI, marks another quantum leap (from AGI to ASI) wholly outside of evolution?

You invoke a term like 'continuity' to try to find a gap where you can fit your claim of an underlying/first cause/prime mover 'intent' to the process. — universeness

As for my alleged "God of the gaps" argument, my thinking is, thanks to you, evolving. If super-nature as a higher-order of nature is logically possible, then the unevolved inflection point cum information singularity that instantiates ASI might be said higher-order of nature, i.e., super-nature.

Your mathematical propositional logic is skewed. Superposition demonstrates that at a sub-atomic level, an atom can be at two places at the same instant in time. This is not a contradiction, it does not violate any propositional logic law. Object A appears at coordinate (x, y, z), at time unit (t). Also at time unit (t), object A appears at coordinate (x1, y1, z1). This can be experimentally demonstrated. You keep performing an equivocation fallacy by suggesting that A = A → ¬ A = A relates to superposition.
Can you cite mathematicians and physicists that agree with you that the propositional logic statement A = A → ¬ A = A, relates to superposition?
My go to guy on TPF for mathematical insights is jgill
Perhaps he would comment on the above. — universeness

Clearly, I need instruction from a competent logician. I will ask jgill for input. For the time being, however, I'll continue to shoot from the hip with my common sense.

By equivocation fallacy I understand you are charging me with using an ambiguous term such that: in statement A the term has meaning 1; in statement B the term has meaning 2. Ultimately, you say, I'm pretending the term's meaning is the same in both statements.

The charge of equivocation fallacy speaks directly to the challenge to establishment logic posed by superposition. The paradox I'm claiming for A = A → ¬ A = A lies rooted in the equivocation inherent in the claim A wholly occupies two different locations simultaneously. If this is the case, then "yes," the state of being of A is indeed existentially equivocating about where it is and therefore also equivocating about who it is. Each position of the identity of A, being non-equal, contradicts the other. Picture this self-contradiction in parallel with your reflections within two mirrors facing each other. The result is an infinity of iterations of an identity.

Superposition IS equivocation fallacy. My propositional logic statement highlights this fact. That's why it's natural to charge me with the violation. Those of us embracing QM are collectively endorsing equivocation fallacy. Why is is logical to do this? It's logical because QM demands equivocation of the equivocation fallacy. This is a confusing way of saying superposition is equivocation and it's not.

Here we have some of the strangeness of QM, at the level of 3-space extension.

The difference between superposition and the facing-mirrors reiterations is that with the former, the infinite echoing of the two states of A are at time-zero. The facing-mirrors reiterations are at time-positive. The time-zero equivocation that's not equivocation of A is the reason why quantum computing can do information processing inconceivable within a Newtonian frame.

Nowhere in this video does the physicist mention any notion, at all, of energy being radiated into a fourth spatial dimension ucarr!!! — universeness

The video is not for me a total bust because it got me thinking about equilibrium vis-a-vis randomness. I subsequently learned that equilibrium is a statistical type of randomness. The upshot is that the randomness of heat death is conditional, not absolute. That conditional status leaves the door ajar for introduction of dis-equilibrium, gravitational collapse, singularity and re-expansion.

This also shows how there is no solitary self. The self can only be itself through entanglement with another self. This is my argument for an essentially binary universe. This argument, in turn, grounds my claim there are no closed systems.
— ucarr
Pure speculation on your part, with no compelling scientific evidence to support it. Not much different from a theist insisting that they know, that they know, that they know, that Jesus Christ is god! — universeness

No. My argument gets support from the first three spatial dimensions. Since quantum leaping between them entails infinite-value expansions via quantum-jumping iteration, we see that dimensional expansion is expressed in collectives.

I realise I must sound mocking towards you at times ucarr and I apologise for that. I do honestly enjoy the way you think. You are not merely an irrational theist, you go into great depths in how you make connections between concepts and I think that is to be applauded. I just don't agree with some of your conclusions/personal projections. I think it would be more accurate for you to consider my dissent towards you as more based on a mix of academic and layperson complaint, rather than attempts at personal mockery towards you on my part. — universeness

Got it! Thanks.

How would a notion like cosmic 'intent'/god/a deterministic universe etc relate to a notion/prediction such as humans developing an AGI or causing a technological singularity which results in an AGI eventually creating an ASI, all of which may result in humans being made extinct/getting replaced or becoming a merged aspect of some future ASI. — universeness

In my response to your previous post, I say something similar to this.

Surely if an original 'intent' existed, then it could have gone straight to the ASI state, why would it create over 13.8 billion years of deterministic events, that just seems a total waste of time to me. — universeness

This is a good linear time argument within a Newtonian, 3-space universe. After we usher in Relativity_QM, however, the possibility that a 13.8 billion time interval and an ASI cosmic sentience are coincidental exists.

I don't see why "all of existence" should include or not include an open or closed system, — Manuel

I, in contrast to you, proceed from the notion a closed universe is all encompassing. If it's closed, how can you confirm/deny an outside?

I don't personally see empirical evidence to suggest either. The issue about using entropy too broadly remains in both, only that in one case it is wrong in principle... — Manuel

On a logical basis, you think entropy universally applied in one case a wrong principle. This is pure speculation devoid of empirical persuasion?

...and in the other case, it should be applied with care. No more than that, as I see it. — Manuel

On a logical basis, you think entropy applied in the other case with care good practice. This is pure speculation devoid of empirical persuasion?

"Inside" and "outside" become obscure terms as applied to the universe. A bit like speaking of up or down or east and west. Not exactly, but similar.

It's an issue of trying to be sensible and not going too far with a concept that may not apply as is commonly used. Empirical data for entropy is established for certain systems. On a universal scale, the evidence provided leaves me hesitating as if to pay much attention when some claim that entropy explains everything.

So it's speculation, hopefully tied to some degree of common sense. But I could be totally wrong.

It may be that our role on this planet is not to worship God - but to create him.
— Arthur C. Clarke
At my most speculative, I'm attracted to pandeism because it is more consistent with my philosophical (& methodological) naturalism – all we rigorously know and observe – than any other deity / divinity concept. — 180 Proof

How would a notion like cosmic 'intent'/god/a deterministic universe etc relate to a notion/prediction such as humans developing an AGI or causing a technological singularity which results in an AGI eventually creating an ASI, all of which may result in humans being made extinct/getting replaced or becoming a merged aspect of some future ASI. — universeness

I for one am confident that, behind all the smoke and mirrors in the Phenomenology and the Logic, what Big Heg is really talking about is space battle cruisers and cool space fighters battling it out for galactic supremacy. — Count Timothy von Icarus

Again, this collective sentience, which might be moving (notice I didn't say "evolving") toward an inflection point expressed as the information singularity, or the point of no return from unstoppable ASI, marks another quantum leap (from AGI to ASI) wholly outside of evolution? — ucarr

Could it be that during a lull in the fighting we're all on the same page?

In your first sentence, you seem to be saying the appearance of sentient life on earth was not part of evolution; it was a quantum leap from non-sentience to sentience without any transitional period connecting the two states. Am I understanding you correctly? — ucarr

No, I am of course not suggesting any such thing. For the vast majority of the past 13.8 billion years, there was no life of any kind on Earth, much less sentient life. There was not even an Earth for around 9 billion of those years. Evolution offers no evidence at all regarding the mechanism by which life appeared on Earth. Theories such as abiogenesis and panspermia are not part of the claims and demonstrations of Darwinian evolution. They are theoretical projections that are logical traces, back from such time periods as the Cambrian. The likelihood that abiogenesis occurred in some form somewhere is very strong imo, but we have no actual evidence of abiogenesis.

Again, this collective sentience, which might be moving (notice I didn't say "evolving") toward an inflection point expressed as the information singularity, or the point of no return from unstoppable ASI, marks another quantum leap (from AGI to ASI) wholly outside of evolution? — ucarr

Such is a product of human efforts alone. No ASI is possible before humans successfully create AGI.
You are projecting human actions and ability, anthropomorphically, onto your notion of a universe with intent. That's all you are doing, as pure speculation. It's ok for you to do that but I am just asking you to recognise that such is pure intellectual/spiritual/romantic speculation on your part.

As for my alleged "God of the gaps" argument, my thinking is, thanks to you, evolving. If super-nature as a higher-order of nature is logically possible, then the unevolved inflection point cum information singularity that instantiates ASI might be said higher-order of nature, i.e., super-nature. — ucarr

Do you not see here, that it's you who likes to make such big 'leaps of faith.' Surely you can see that is what you are doing.

By equivocation fallacy I understand you are charging me with using an ambiguous term such that: in statement A the term has meaning 1; in statement B the term has meaning 2. Ultimately, you say, I'm pretending the term's meaning is the same in both statements. — ucarr

In a sense, yes, but perhaps it would be easier to throw one of your accusations towards me, back at you. You are trying to compare or 'equate' apples and oranges in a way that is outside of the fact that they are both fruits. Using propositional logic, we can propose that based on empirical evidence, superposition is true. So, SP=True. The law of identity states that each thing is identical with itself, so we can write SP=SP. Under the law of non-contradiction, we have that the two propositions "SP is the case" and "SP is not the case" are mutually exclusive. Superposition therefore does not violate the law of non-contradiction!

The paradox I'm claiming for A = A → ¬ A = A lies rooted in the equivocation inherent in the claim A wholly occupies two different locations simultaneously. — ucarr

If I translated your propositional statement into English words, it would read "A is equal to A then(or implies) not A is equal to A" It is skewed and makes no sense and cannot be 'equated' with or compared to SP=SP implies that SP and not SP at the same time is false or SP = SP → (¬ SP ∧ SP) is false.
Stating that the full extent of object A occupies this coordinate and this coordinate at the same time, is not equivalent to a propositional logic claim such as ¬ A = A. That is the equivocation fallacy I am trying to point out to you, but I accept that my field of expertise, is Computing Science rather than maths, but I did teach advanced higher maths in the Scottish school system, which did include propositional logic at that level.

Superposition IS equivocation fallacy. My propositional logic statement highlights this fact. That's why it's natural to charge me with the violation. Those of us embracing QM are collectively endorsing equivocation fallacy. Why is is logical to do this? It's logical because QM demands equivocation of the equivocation fallacy. This is a confusing way of saying superposition is equivocation and it's not. — ucarr

No it's not, how can it be, when it can be demonstrated? Superposition may be being misinterpreted, for example, perhaps, an atom can appear to appear in more than one place at the same instant of time, due to some effect we don't understand, that's akin to something like gravitational lensing. Such remains possible, but that does not make superposition an equivocation fallacy. You just have a mind that is determined to find a t.o.e (theory of everything), that can link complicated concepts together into a very easy to understand final solution such as 'god did it,' or 'cosmic intent' is the only landing zone we need. The universe just wont be the way you want it to be ucarr. Your own HH quote should have prepared you for that, well enough.

This is a good linear time argument within a Newtonian, 3-space universe. After we usher in Relativity_QM, however, the possibility that a 13.8 billion time interval and an ASI cosmic sentience are coincidental exists. — ucarr

For me, these leaps of faith you make are fun, (NOT in the mocking sense!!!!) but are not rigorous enough to satisfy even layman level, scientific skepticism.

Could it be that during a lull in the fighting we're all on the same page? — ucarr

:rofl: Well, I'm always up for a friendly game of kickabout in no mans land, before the war restarts and we all fall down dead together.

that a 13.8 billion time interval and an ASI cosmic sentience are coincidental exists. — ucarr

For me, these leaps of faith you make are fun, (NOT in the mocking sense!!!!) but are not rigorous enough to satisfy even layman level, scientific skepticism. — universeness

Although it's a stretch, it's theoretically grounded. It's not a leap of faith because Einstein showed us there's no unitary time throughout the universe.

"Inside" and "outside" become obscure terms as applied to the universe. A bit like speaking of up or down or east and west. Not exactly, but similar. — Manuel

This is a buttress to what I said.

In your first sentence, you seem to be saying the appearance of sentient life on earth was not part of evolution; it was a quantum leap from non-sentience to sentience without any transitional period connecting the two states. Am I understanding you correctly? — ucarr

Evolution offers no evidence at all regarding the mechanism by which life appeared on Earth. Theories such as abiogenesis and panspermia are not part of the claims and demonstrations of Darwinian evolution. They are theoretical projections that are logical traces, back from such time periods as the Cambrian. The likelihood that abiogenesis occurred in some form somewhere is very strong imo, but we have no actual evidence of abiogenesis. — universeness

You say nothing that refutes my supposition about life propagation occurring outside of evolution. My supposition about a quantum leap from non-sentience to sentience, being consistent with the possibility happenstance sparked the quantum leap, does not necessarily imply it had to be caused by an inherently teleological universe.

You are projecting human actions and ability, anthropomorphically, onto your notion of a universe with intent. — universeness

How does quantum leaping from Artificial General Intelligence to Artificial Super Intelligence involve an anthropomorphized universe with intent?

As for my alleged "God of the gaps" argument, my thinking is, thanks to you, evolving. If super-nature as a higher-order of nature is logically possible, then the unevolved inflection point cum information singularity that instantiates ASI might be said higher-order of nature, i.e., super-nature.
— ucarr
Do you not see here, that it's you who likes to make such big 'leaps of faith.' Surely you can see that is what you are doing. — universeness

Yes. I do frequently make big leaps of faith coupled with falsifiable premises. Take my above quote for example: If you want to attack the logical foundations of my claim super-nature is a higher-order category of nature, you can do so by drawing from a wealth of pertinent logical formulations.

Using propositional logic, we can propose that based on empirical evidence, superposition is true. So, SP=True. The law of identity states that each thing is identical with itself, so we can write SP=SP. Under the law of non-contradiction, we have that the two propositions "SP is the case" and "SP is not the case" are mutually exclusive. Superposition therefore does not violate the law of non-contradiction! — universeness

First of all, thank-you for examining my foray into propositional logic with your own propositional logic counter-claim. I need this kind of detail-specific exam and I'm not getting it from anyone but you. (I haven't forgotten about jgill).

Under the law of non-contradiction, we have that the two propositions "SP is the case" and "SP is not the case" are mutually exclusive. Superposition therefore does not violate the law of non-contradiction! — universeness

Here's where things get interesting. "SP is the case" and "SP is not the case" are mutually exclusive." expresses establishment logic, i.e., logic viewed through the Newtonian lens. Therein, you statement is sound. We are now, however, NOT looking through a Newtonian lens; we're looking through a QM lens. Through that lens SP ∧ ¬ SP are not mutually exclusive because, by definition, SP means
SP = ¬SP! How else could the same identity be in two places at once. We're not talking about identical twins. We're talking about the same identity being simultaneously located in two different places. With SP we're saying: A is in position 1 and not in position 1 because A = ¬A which is in position 2 AND A is in position 2 and not in position 2 because A = ¬A which is in position 1. How "you as you" is "not you" is hard for us to wrap our brains around, but that's what QM compels us to do.

Our QM elaboration here shows how the non-locality of the wave-function identity expands details exponentially. These are the details of the logical relations about where we are in spacetime.

Superposition IS equivocation fallacy. — ucarr

No it's not, how can it be, when it can be demonstrated? — universeness

If you mean self-contradiction via SP can be demonstrated, I agree.

Superposition may be being misinterpreted, for example, perhaps, an atom can appear to appear in more than one place at the same instant of time, due to some effect we don't understand, that's akin to something like gravitational lensing. Such remains possible, but that does not make superposition an equivocation fallacy — universeness

Here you're starting to wobble in your orbit. It's human nature to want to protect the Newtonian certainty our values are based upon, so, maybe QM is wrong and there's no SP, only the false appearance of such.

You just have a mind that is determined to find a t.o.e (theory of everything), that can link complicated concepts together into a very easy to understand final solution such as 'god did it,' or 'cosmic intent' is the only landing zone we need. — universeness

Yes. I suffer from chronic gross exaggeration due to imagination. My only hope is to be entertaining while leading my listeners on a jolly parade into the surreal climes of whimsy. Wait a minute? Didn't we just have a fiction_poetry lulu?

The universe just wont be the way you want it to be ucarr. Your own HH quote should have prepared you for that, well enough. — universeness

In that case, I'm taking my ball and going home. See you tomorrow!

I had assumed you were an atheist, through and through, — universeness

Insofar as atheism means theism is not true and therefore theistic deities are fictions, I am "an atheist through and through", which I've stated already ..
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/789507

... well, perhaps pandeism is pretty close to atheism, as such a divinity would be ...

You quote my post on pandeism out of the context of its salient qualifiers:

A woo-free speculation much more consistent with the observed universe of natural science — 180 Proof

... which paraphrases Epicurus' observation about death: when we are, "God" is not; when "God" is, we are not. — 180 Proof

i.e. universe = no god/s

Anyway, at most, I'm agnostic about pandeism (which I refer to it as a speculation, and not as a belief or claim).

If I understand this list correctly, you are positing an eternal cycle, via your numbering of events, yes? — universeness

Yes.

Does event 1, 'not deity' just mean the deity is no longer involved?

As per the wiki link (that follows), "event 1" means the deity becomes the universe and therefore no longer exists as the deity until the universe ends (event 5).

Does event 1 'Deity becomes' suggest a 'before' when deity did not exist?

No, just the opposite (re: event 0)

Does this list mean that you accept that a first cause with intent is likely or 'at your most speculative?'

No. Again, just the opposite (event 1 "fluctuates until symmetry breaks" – an acausal, random, planck-vacuum event).

Do you think the universe is fully deterministic, ...

Macro, not micro .

What do you make of the following [...] — ucarr

Non sequiturs.

"Klaatu barada nikto!"

Anyway, at most, I'm agnostic about pandeism (which I refer to it as a speculation, and not as a belief or claim). — 180 Proof

Fair enough. It's never easy to try to employ theological terms such as deity or deism, in a cyclical description of the universe, and not have folks wonder if you are allocating some value to the plausibility that a deity might exist. Thanks for your clarifications.

Macro, not micro — 180 Proof

But macro objects are combinations of micro objects, are they not? If you believe that the macro universe is deterministic but the micro or sub-atomic universe is not, then is it size or the complexity of combinatorials or both, that makes all future events in the macroscopic universe, deterministic?
Am I misinterpreting your meaning, again?

we're looking through a QM lens. Through that lens SP ∧ ¬ SP are not mutually exclusive because, by definition, SP means
SP = ¬SP! How else could the same identity be in two places at once. We're not talking about identical twins. We're talking about the same identity being simultaneously located in two different places. With SP we're saying: A is in position 1 and not in position 1 because A = ¬A which is in position 2 AND A is in position 2 and not in position 2 because A = ¬A which is in position 1. How "you as you" is "not you" is hard for us to wrap our brains around, but that's what QM compels us to do. — ucarr

No, your logic is flawed here. 'A is in position 1 and not in position 1' is not what superposition demonstrates!!!! Superposition demonstrates that A is in position 1 and is also in position 2, so your connection of A = ¬A cannot be made!!! Superposition suggests that all states that can happen will happen, but in different spatial coordinates, perhaps in a multi-verse.

What do you make of the following: 2x + 3x ≡ 5x; when x = 2, we get: 4 + 6 ≡ 10 > a distinction (in expression) without difference is NOT conceptual nonsense. It is not a straw man argument; it is math reality. — ucarr

Non sequiturs. — 180 Proof

Regarding the math identity equation, are you claiming that either: a) It is not a valid example of a distinction without difference that is not conceptual nonsense or b) It is irrelevant to your below claim:

... cosmic sentience ...
– of what? 'Of only itself' is indistinguishable from non-sentience. — 180 Proof

we're looking through a QM lens. Through that lens SP ∧ ¬ SP are not mutually exclusive because, by definition, SP means
SP = ¬SP! How else could the same identity be in two places at once. We're not talking about identical twins. We're talking about the same identity being simultaneously located in two different places. With SP we're saying: A is in position 1 and not in position 1 because A = ¬A which is in position 2 AND A is in position 2 and not in position 2 because A = ¬A which is in position 1. How "you as you" is "not you" is hard for us to wrap our brains around, but that's what QM compels us to do. — ucarr

Our QM elaboration here shows how the non-locality of the wave-function identity expands details exponentially. These are the details of the logical relations about where we are in spacetime. — ucarr

No, your logic is flawed here. 'A is in position 1 and not in position 1' is not what superposition demonstrates!!!! Superposition demonstrates that A is in position 1 and is also in position 2, so your connection of A = ¬A cannot be made!!! Superposition suggests that all states that can happen will happen, but in different spatial coordinates, perhaps in a multi-verse. — universeness

I counter-argue that the complete description of the logical relations pertaining to superposition within spacetime goes as follows:

A is in position 1 and is also in position 2 AND A isn’t in position 1 because it’s in position 2 AND A isn’t in position 2 because it is in position 1.

Consider the difference between my above statement, and your below statement.

“Superposition demonstrates that A is in position 1 and is also in position 2…”

Your statement is an example of defining A in position 1 as superposition while defining A in position 2 as non-superposition, i.e., another value such as A-prime. I know you’re conceptualizing the value in position 2 as a different value than the one in position 1 because you deny: AND A isn’t in position 1 because it’s in position 2 AND A isn’t in position 2 because it is in position 1.

The missing part includes the logical relations pertaining to the same value being in two places at once. I know that in your statement you’re assuming two different values because that’s the ground for your argument that your statement expresses superposition.

What you’re doing is practicing equivocation fallacy. You’re treating the value in position one as a superposition value; in position 2 you switch to treating that value as a different value than that in position 1, i.e., a non-superposition value. Again, the evidence of this switch is your decision to drop the logical relations of self-contradiction.

Your rejection of superposition as self-contradiction evidences an allegiance to a) the Newtonian lens; b) the principle of non-contradiction

I know you won’t be persuaded by my argument. We have a fundamental disagreement.

Neither. I've no idea what you're talking about; do you?

I know you won’t be persuaded by my argument. We have a fundamental disagreement. — ucarr

You are correct, and our exchange on the phenomena of superposition has reached impasse, but it was fun.

Macro, not micro
— 180 Proof

But macro objects are combinations of micro objects, are they not? — universeness

Yes. The dynamics of the latter are constrained by (the regularities-densities of) the former.

If you believe that the macro universe is deterministic but the micro or sub-atomic universe is not, then is it size or the complexity of combinatorials or both, that makes all future events in the macroscopic universe, deterministic?

Yes.

Am I misinterpreting your meaning, again?

Not yet ...

So why would the physical size or level of complexity of a combinatorial of sub-atomic fundamentals cause all future events for that combinatorial to become fully deterministic?
My obvious go to combinatorial, that fits the description above, would be me or you.
Random happenstance can still have very significant impacts on you or me, yes?
It what way do you suggest, that the events in our lives have been, and will be, in both our future's, deterministic?

You switched-up from "macro objects" to "future events" which I should have explicitly taken issue with.

To clarify: I think "events" are micro phenomena (i.e. relations) and "objects" (i.e. asymmetric event-patterns aka "structures, processes") are macro – emergent – phenomena (i.e. ensembles, combinatorials); thus, "events" are a-causal, or random (i.e. noise) whereas "objects" are causal, or non-random (i.e. signals).

More precisely, as you know, the universe is quantum (micro) and classical (macro) whereby the latter is, AFAIK, generated according to the law of large numbers (LLN) – averaging – of the former (à la Seurat's pointillism, pixellated images of LCD monitors, holograms, etc).

You are correct, and our exchange on the phenomena of superposition has reached impasse, but it was fun. — universeness

I too have enjoyed our interactions. I discover details of my premises in the hot kitchen of debate. The demand to justify claims forces me to look more deeply and thoroughly into my understandings. Some of my positions have undergone revision as a result of your influence.

I now begin to see my lodging within God-consciousness is deeper than my lodging within theism. The difference between the two is that the former is more at the emotional and intellectual response to theism's premises and directives whereas the latter is more at the objective content of cosmic sentience and the proper logical, moral and behavioral responses to it.

What do you make of the following: 2x + 3x ≡ 5x; when x = 2, we get: 4 + 6 ≡ 10 > a distinction (in expression) without difference is NOT conceptual nonsense. It is not a straw man argument; it is math reality.
— ucarr

Non sequiturs.
— 180 Proof

Regarding the math identity equation, are you claiming that either: a) It is not a valid example of a distinction without difference that is not conceptual nonsense or b) It is irrelevant to your below claim:

... cosmic sentience ...
– of what? 'Of only itself' is indistinguishable from non-sentience.
— 180 Proof — ucarr

Neither. I've no idea what you're talking about; do you? — 180 Proof

Regarding what I'm aware of and understand, either in the abstract or in application, my discovery is an ongoing process. For example:

I think "events" are micro phenomena (i.e. relations) and "objects" (i.e. asymmetric event-patterns aka "structures, processes") are macro – emergent – phenomena (i.e. ensembles, combinatorials); thus, "events" are a-causal, or random (i.e. noise) whereas "objects" are causal, or non-random (i.e. signals).

More precisely, as you know, the universe is quantum (micro) and classical (macro) whereby the latter is, AFAIK, generated according to the law of large numbers (LLN) – averaging – of the former (à la Seurat's pointillism, pixellated images of LCD monitors, holograms, etc). — 180 Proof

...the establishmentarians of science have existential contradiction confined to the minute realms of elementary particles. — ucarr

Maybe the structure described in your above quote has some bearing on what I call the confinement of existential self-contradiction to the sub-atomic realm.

This is pure speculation without support of research in published articles.

Question - Regarding:

"events" are a-causal, or random (i.e. noise) — 180 Proof

Do environmental forces such as temperature, gravitation and radiation impact "events?"

Do environmental forces such as temperature, gravitation and radiation impact "events?" — ucarr

They are measures – self-organizing complexity (i.e. entropy) – of micro (quantum) events. Anyway, so what's your point?