Your sentence in bold makes a declaration about a phenomenon pertaining to language usage: paradox. This usage happens, it's real, it exists. This fact gives us reason to believe paradoxical language exists and therefore should be included in a collection of everything. — ucarr

Here you seem to be making a distinction between what "everything" refers to and what "paradox" refers to. Yes, paradoxes exist. Paradoxes are a misuse of language. Misuses of language are real events. They are part of everything, but everything is not part of everything. — Harry Hindu

You say paradox = misuse of language. If I understand misuse in our context here as some type of violation, then I can ask, "What is being violated by language that expresses paradox?" For example, "Does paradoxical language violate the rules of inference?" If so, how so?

QM reveals paradoxes in our descriptions and understanding of the universe, and is not representative of a fundamental nature of reality, but is representative of our ignorance. QM does not fit into our everyday experience of the world. The paradox just means that we haven't been able to reconcile classical physics with QM... — Harry Hindu

It is said that the qubits of quantum computing possess categorically higher computing capacity vis-à-vis the bits of classical computing. The basic explanation for the quantum leap upward in computing power is the superposition of one qubit in two positions simultaneously. These qubits are physical entities, not abstractions resulting from twisting verbiage into language games resulting in paradoxes. How do you reconcile your denial of the reality of quantum physics with quantum computers?

Just because you followed the rules of some language does not necessarily mean you have actually said anything about the world. Just ask lawyers and computer programmers. They understand that words mean things and is why they try to be exact (non-paradoxical) in their use of language. Logic is only useful when it can be applied to the world and not merely a focus on the relationship between some scribbles. — Harry Hindu

From the above I understand you to believe that words used accurately are signs for the real things of mind-independent reality, and that paradox results from some type of language misuse that has it describing things not real and not a part of mind-independent reality. Can you show how a paradoxical statement such as, "This sentence is false." examples invalid logic? How is a veridical statement about its contradiction logically invalid?

Let's suppose you don't think such a statement is invalid, but then go on to say such a statement doesn't refer to anything within mind-independent reality. What do you say is the ontic status of such a statement?

Do you think the principle of non-contradiction is the security checkpoint blocking the entry of paradoxes into the realm of mind-independent reality?

Your whole self is not part of your self. It IS your self - that is what "whole" means. Your whole self is not part of itself. It is part of a society and species. — Harry Hindu

Above you describe some details of the part/whole relationship. I take from it your belief the whole self is a gestalt emergence from its parts and, as such, it’s partially distinct from the parts and thus not completely local to said parts. This, again, is a non-local but attached whole that is a part and yet not entirely a part of itself. Note how you say, “Your whole self is not part of itself.” in a context wherein the reader notices the repetition of “self.” If my whole self is not part of itself, how is it a self?

Do you think gestalt psychology is another language game disconnected from mind-independent reality?

What is a university if not the aggregation of buildings, professors and students? — Harry Hindu

As you add up the parts of the university towards a sum of the whole of the university, is there a discrete boundary line marking a division between the region housing an accumulating sum to a whole and the region where the whole resides?

If we suppose there's no such boundary line, must we admit there's no verifiably whole university, but instead only a forever-accumulating collection of parts?

...our understanding of the world is not the same as the world as it is. — Harry Hindu

Have you seen the world "as it is" in distinction from having seen the world?

It wouldn't be. This is why solipsism ultimately resolves down to there being no mind - only a reality where "reasons" that lead to "conclusions" would be the only type of cause and effect. There would be no external causes that lead to the effect of the mind and the mind would not be a cause of changes in the external world. — Harry Hindu

I think you internalize external world within isolated mind in order to give it the power of reasoning to conclusions. How could such internalization occur if world and mind have no connection? Also, you seem to be assuming both mind and external world, with both independent. Isn't this how you've been defining mind-independent reality?

:up: :100:

Physical cannot be the cause of its own change...the mind is needed for change. So, the mind cannot be a byproduct of physical. — MoK

So, you deny mind emergent from brain?

There's a mind somewhere making hydrogen and oxygen combine to form water?

So, you deny mind emergent from brain? — ucarr

In that thread, I deny that the matter is efficacious to cause a change in itself. The mind is a substance, so we are dealing with a hard problem of how a mind could be emergent from matter. Even if we accept that the mind could be an emergent substance, then we are dealing with the tension between what the mind wants to do and how matter evolves following the laws of nature.

There's a mind somewhere making hydrogen and oxygen combine to form water? — ucarr

There exists a Mind that is omnipresent in space and time, responsible for change in matter everywhere. I have a thread on this topic here.

You say paradox = misuse of language. If I understand misuse in our context here as some type of violation, then I can ask, "What is being violated by language that expresses paradox?" For example, "Does paradoxical language violate the rules of inference?" If so, how so? — ucarr

It appears to violate the rules of semantics - what in the world is the paradox about? Using your example of inference, what observable evidence proves the paradox points to any real aspect of reality? Einstein's theories had to be proven by observation. Where do we observe the paradox in nature independent of the relationship between some scribbles on a computer screen or sheet of paper? You've mentioned QM...

It is said that the qubits of quantum computing possess categorically higher computing capacity vis-à-vis the bits of classical computing. The basic explanation for the quantum leap upward in computing power is the superposition of one qubit in two positions simultaneously. These qubits are physical entities, not abstractions resulting from twisting verbiage into language games resulting in paradoxes. How do you reconcile your denial of the reality of quantum physics with quantum computers? — ucarr

I don't deny that we have descriptions of nature that work. In what state is the quantum computer when not looking at it? The issue with QM does not seem to explain decoherence in a sensible way. If decoherence requires interaction with other decohered (classical) systems, how did the first decoherence event happen? What started the chain? Didn't space-time have to exist prior to allow decoherence?

There exists a Mind that is omnipresent in space and time, responsible for change in matter everywhere. — MoK

This seems to be part of the same problem. If minds are needed to change matter, what got the first mind going? It's a infinite regress of minds, just as we have an infinite regress of decoherence.

Do you think the principle of non-contradiction is the security checkpoint blocking the entry of paradoxes into the realm of mind-independent reality? — ucarr

Yes, but this does not deny that the extremes are the only kind of existence. In fact, I think it is the extremes that are mental constructs. We tend to perceive the world in discrete states, even black and white sometimes, when the world is a process, and it is the relative frequency of change of the external world processes relative to the processing speed of our sensory-brain system that seems to have an effect on which processes we perceive as discrete, stable, solid objects as opposed to other processes with no discrete boundaries. To say that something is neither this or that seems to mean that it is something else, which is logically possible and empirically provable.

Above you describe some details of the part/whole relationship. I take from it your belief the whole self is a gestalt emergence from its parts and, as such, it’s partially distinct from the parts and thus not completely local to said parts. This, again, is a non-local but attached whole that is a part and yet not entirely a part of itself. Note how you say, “Your whole self is not part of itself.” in a context wherein the reader notices the repetition of “self.” If my whole self is not part of itself, how is it a self? — ucarr

I think that the emergence you speak of is really a particular view, not something mind-dependent. We use particular views of nature for certain purposes, whether it be at the atomic, molecular, genetic, organism, species, etc. level. The discrete gestalts are mental constructs used to solve problems at that level (like how to treat organisms at the molecular level for diseases or how to treat organisms at a cultural/moral level). I think that it is goal-oriented, executive cognitive functions that form these discrete objects to solve problems - almost like a quantum computer.

As you add up the parts of the university towards a sum of the whole of the university, is there a discrete boundary line marking a division between the region housing an accumulating sum to a whole and the region where the whole resides?

If we suppose there's no such boundary line, must we admit there's no verifiably whole university, but instead only a forever-accumulating collection of parts? — ucarr

Sure, call a surveyor and they will tell you what the boundary is. There seems to be a distinction between artificial/arbitrary boundaries defined by human beings as opposed to natural boundaries where they seem more vague.

Have you seen the world "as it is" in distinction from having seen the world? — ucarr

My mind is part of the world. I experience it as it is. I am a realist (not a direct or indirect realist, as I see them as a false dichotomy) so I believe that my mind informs me of the way the world is via causation. Effects inform us of the causes and allow use to make accurate predictions of future effects.

I think you internalize external world within isolated mind in order to give it the power of reasoning to conclusions. How could such internalization occur if world and mind have no connection? Also, you seem to be assuming both mind and external world, with both independent. Isn't this how you've been defining mind-independent reality? — ucarr

One might ask how logic/reasoning comes about without an external world as input to work with. What happens when we put someone in a sensory deprivation chamber for an extended period? They tend to go insane and hallucinate (one might start thinking in paradoxes), but they don't cease to exist.

I do not mean that mind and world are separate, only that there are processes that are not mind-processes and processes that are. An apple is a process (it ripens and rots), but not a mental one. Mental processes are complex interaction of new sensory information, stored sensory information and a goal-directed central executive. Natural selection is not just a purposeless process as natural selection is not just how the climate and geology steer evolution but other organisms (other minds) play a role on the evolution of other organisms. Humans are the ones that have made the leap of shaping the world and other organisms more than any other lifeform before. Nature is being shaped purposefully for human needs and wants. Technology appears to blur the lines of a mind-independent world as technology are effects of purposeful, goal-directed behavior - minds, or mental processes.

This seems to be part of the same problem. If minds are needed to change matter, what got the first mind going? It's a infinite regress of minds, just as we have an infinite regress of decoherence. — Harry Hindu

I am talking about the Mind, not God. There is a beginning for time. Either the stuff (the physical, for example) existed at the beginning of time and evolved to form life, or there was a God who created what was necessary. What was necessary is the subject of discussion. I have an argument about "Physical cannot be the cause of its own change" (which can be found here), so the first case is discarded; therefore, there is a God.

You say paradox = misuse of language. If I understand misuse in our context here as some type of violation, then I can ask, "What is being violated by language that expresses paradox?" For example, "Does paradoxical language violate the rules of inference?" If so, how so? — ucarr

It appears to violate the rules of semantics - what in the world is the paradox about? Using your example of inference, what observable evidence proves the paradox points to any real aspect of reality?...Where do we observe the paradox in nature independent of the relationship between some scribbles on a computer screen or sheet of paper? You've mentioned QM... — Harry Hindu

Speculation: Math paradox the result of calculations points toward a higher dimensional object that resolves the paradox with an additional existential extension, i.e., with another dimension. Looking in the reverse direction, the paradox is the higher dimension in collapsed state. Example: If the statement, "If the set of all sets not containing themselves doesn't contain itself and thus does contain itself and thus..." oscillates between two contradictory states made equivalent, then this undecidable state of the system is hunting for a higher dimensional matrix in which to unfold itself.

The basic explanation for the quantum leap upward in computing power is the superposition of one qubit in two positions simultaneously. — ucarr

I don't deny that we have descriptions of nature that work. In what state is the quantum computer when not looking at it? — Harry Hindu

The pertinent question pertains to the existence of mitigation strategies for quantum error correction. Yes, (QECC) is employed with quantum computing; also, quantum processors are kept in vacuum chambers and shielded from electromagnetic interference.

...how did the first decoherence event happen? — Harry Hindu

.

There has been no first decoherence event because QM laws underlie the natural world. QM systems and Newtonian systems aren't isolated from each other. A quantum system loses its quantum phase relations (decoherence) through entanglement with it's surrounding environment. Isolation of a quantum system enables quantum coherence. Although quantum system phase relations have always been possible, only recently has humanity been able to perceive and then detect QM systems in isolation through math and super-colliders.

We tend to perceive the world in discrete states, even black and white sometimes, when the world is a process, and it is the relative frequency of change of the external world processes relative to the processing speed of our sensory-brain system that seems to have an effect on which processes we perceive as discrete, stable, solid objects as opposed to other processes with no discrete boundaries. — Harry Hindu

So, the particle/wave duality is more effect of the processing limitations of human cognition than ontic state of physical systems? And yet, nevertheless, discrete objects are more at realism than at solipsism?

To say that something is neither this or that seems to mean that it is something else, which is logically possible and empirically provable. — Harry Hindu

This statement is generally compatible with my speculation paradox as collapsed higher dimensional extension is a marker pointing upwards toward a higher dimensional matrix. The this-or-thatness of a collapsed higher dimension examples a logic-governed cognition spinning its wheels due to the lack of available info within a system too dimensionally restricted to accommodate the full expansion of the higher-dimensional object.

As you add up the parts of the university towards a sum of the whole of the university, is there a discrete boundary line marking a division between the region housing an accumulating sum to a whole and the region where the whole resides?

If we suppose there's no such boundary line, must we admit there's no verifiably whole university, but instead only a forever-accumulating collection of parts? — ucarr

Sure, call a surveyor and they will tell you what the boundary is. There seems to be a distinction between artificial/arbitrary boundaries defined by human beings as opposed to natural boundaries where they seem more vague. — Harry Hindu

Since you seem unable to locate the whole university beyond the vaguely axiomatic language you've been using, you attack the messenger instead of the message by implying math is a human invention containing fabrications and distortions?

My mind is part of the world. I experience it as it is. I am a realist (not a direct or indirect realist, as I see them as a false dichotomy) so I believe that my mind informs me of the way the world is via causation. Effects inform us of the causes and allow use to make accurate predictions of future effects. — Harry Hindu

Should there be ambiguity of causation, would you understand it as another instance of contrived uncertainty rooted in the misuse of language?

I am talking about the Mind, not God. There is a beginning for time. Either the stuff (the physical, for example) existed at the beginning of time and evolved to form life, or there was a God who created what was necessary. What was necessary is the subject of discussion. I have an argument about "Physical cannot be the cause of its own change" (which can be found here), so the first case is discarded; therefore, there is a God. — MoK

I thought you were talking about the Mind, not God. What is the difference anyway? What is the nature of God, or Mind, if not physical themselves? How does something non-physical interact with the physical?

Speculation: Math paradox the result of calculations points toward a higher dimensional object that resolves the paradox with an additional existential extension, i.e., with another dimension. Looking in the reverse direction, the paradox is the higher dimension in collapsed state. Example: If the statement, "If the set of all sets not containing themselves doesn't contain itself and thus does contain itself and thus..." oscillates between two contradictory states made equivalent, then this undecidable state of the system is hunting for a higher dimensional matrix in which to unfold itself. — ucarr

In other words, it is only a paradox from a certain constrained view of ignorance.

The pertinent question pertains to the existence of mitigation strategies for quantum error correction. Yes, (QECC) is employed with quantum computing; also, quantum processors are kept in vacuum chambers and shielded from electromagnetic interference. — ucarr

How does information get out if it is shielded? How are the states of the processors known if not by some interaction? What about:

Nothing exists in pure solitude—reality resists isolation. It is a web, not a wall (shield). — Alonsoaceves

?

There has been no first decoherence event because QM laws underlie the natural world. QM systems and Newtonian systems aren't isolated from each other. A quantum system loses its quantum phase relations (decoherence) through entanglement with it's surrounding environment. Isolation of a quantum system enables quantum coherence. Although quantum system phase relations have always been possible, only recently has humanity been able to perceive and then detect QM systems in isolation through math and super-colliders. — ucarr

In other words, an environment (space-time) has to exist for decoherence to occur. One might say it is the medium in which decoherence occurs. QM systems in isolation only exist on paper (math) or in extreme environments that only last a tiny fraction of a second (super-colliders and the Big Bang) - going back to what Alonsoaceves said - nature abhors solitude. The fact that we are even able to get information about sub-atomic particles being in a state of superposition means that information went in and came out in some way, and that superposition is simply one kind of state and "off" and "on" are other states. It seems to me that while nature abhors solitude, it also abhors being put into our mental categorical boxes.

So, the particle/wave duality is more effect of the processing limitations of human cognition than ontic state of physical systems? And yet, nevertheless, discrete objects are more at realism than at solipsism? — ucarr

Haven't scientists also said that we don't see the world as it is? How do they square that with their claims about how the brain works and how quantum systems work? Scientists have ignored consciousness as an integral part of how we do science in the first place. Are we talking about the world, or our view of the world? Are we confusing the map with the territory?

Since you seem unable to locate the whole university beyond the vaguely axiomatic language you've been using, you attack the messenger instead of the message by implying math is a human invention containing fabrications and distortions? — ucarr

So you don't agree that there is a distinction between the clear boundaries invented by humans and their language as opposed to "boundaries" that preceded human's and their languages existence? Crossing the border illegally is only a problem when borders are clearly defined. A human crossing that same piece of land 100,000 years ago would not have this to worry about. One might even say that the overlay of political maps on top of physical maps is another dimension itself - the dimension of the mind.

Should there be ambiguity of causation, would you understand it as another instance of contrived uncertainty rooted in the misuse of language? — ucarr

No because language depends on causation and realism. The fact that we have language at all is evidence that causation and realism are the case. There is a cause that preceded my observation of your scribbles on this screen. You had to have the intent to convey information and a computer and internet access as a means to relay the message. It took time for you to convert your visual constructs of the world to scribbles and then type them out and submit your post. If you had no visual construct that you converted to scribbles, and/or your visual construct is not representative of some aspect of reality, then what are the scribbles about? What are you referring to when using scribbles - more scribbles (a solipsist answer) or something in the world that is not more scribbles, and might not even be visible from your perspective - hence the use of language to inform others of things that they were not already aware of (mind-independent) (a realist answer)?

I thought you were talking about the Mind, not God. What is the difference anyway? — Harry Hindu

The Mind is the sustainer of the stuff, matter for example, excluding minds, whereas God is the creator of everything.

What is the nature of God, or Mind, if not physical themselves? — Harry Hindu

The Mind is a substance with the ability to experience and cause the stuff. The Mind is free, by free I mean It can decide in situations when there is a conflict of interest in choices. The nature of God is unknown; by unknown, I mean that we humans and other creatures cannot comprehend or perceive since God's nature is very vast. It knows all forms and has the ability to appear in all forms as well.

How does something non-physical interact with the physical? — Harry Hindu

The Mind, as it is stated in the first comment, has the ability to experience and cause physical for example.

n other words, it is only a paradox from a certain constrained view of ignorance. — Harry Hindu

I'm in no hurry to conclude undecidable super-position and its conjectured role as signpost pointing to higher dimensional extension is a type of cognitive illusion. It may be that to some extent, but we're looking at realist physics-and-matter-compliant phenomena exampling non-locality; the 2022 Nobel Prize in physics went to three researchers with something to say about the universe not being locally real. I understand this means, at least in part, that the reality immediately before us is not discretely mind-independent. That it appears to be, as explained by some researchers, stands due to the fact the environment, which includes sentients, measures material systems, thus cancelling their quantum effects. From this viewpoint, I can say that discrete mind-independence results “from a certain constrained view of ignorance.”

How does information get out if it is shielded? How are the states of the processors known if not by some interaction? What about: — Harry Hindu

Nothing exists in pure solitude — Alonsoaceves

Most situations have variable conditions depending on the goals of sentients. In the case of quantum computing, trans-real calculations in a box are sought after by isolating critical computation components from environmental interference that cancel quantum phase relations. This is appropriate per the goal; it doesn't, however, cancel interactions necessary to info exchanges, i.e. shared quantum phase relations.

In other words, an environment (space-time) has to exist for decoherence to occur. One might say it is the medium in which decoherence occurs. — Harry Hindu

Spacetime is also the medium supporting coherence.

The fact that we are even able to get information about sub-atomic particles being in a state of superposition means that information went in and came out in some way, and that superposition is simply one kind of state and "off" and "on" are other states. — Harry Hindu

Yes, the third state affords an exponential increase in info processing. Regarding improbabilities, earth being friendly to carbon-based life forms might be an example of an extreme statistical bias towards emergence of consciousness.

Are we confusing the map with the territory? — Harry Hindu

I think the radicalism of QM is rooted in its intentional focus upon the strategic and useful confusion of the map with the territory. Were this confusion not useful, the memory lobes of your brain would not keep you connected to your childhood.

So you don't agree that there is a distinction between the clear boundaries invented by humans and their language as opposed to "boundaries" that preceded human's and their languages existence? — Harry Hindu

Before sentience, there were no boundaries. Dimensional extension defining the physics and materiality of things is rooted in cognition. Absent brain_mind, matter and its physics are a jumbled outpouring of potential states possibilities. Have you ever seen a computer monitor try to display the graphics of a program that requires a higher info-processing video card than the one installed in the computer? The screen shows a technicolor morass of jumbled, overlapping distortions unintelligible. This is my conjecture about the physics of the world independent of the organizing principles of cognition.

What are you referring to when using scribbles - more scribbles (a solipsist answer) or something in the world that is not more scribbles, and might not even be visible from your perspective - hence the use of language to inform others of things that they were not already aware of (mind-independent) (a realist answer)? — Harry Hindu

Yes, my perception of the world is an approximation of same. The tricky thing that QM has taught us, is that the interpreting_approximating is bi-directional. The supposedly mind-independent world is not hardened into discrete system states, just as my ability to perceive and understand mind-independent world is not hardened into discrete system states. There is a dance between observed and observer. The adventure of living lies in the fact that while there are constraints upon what the dance steps can be, how they are attacked supports many, perhaps infinite variations. An example paralleling this is the keyboard of a piano. The number of notes provided by the keyboard are limited, but that number nonetheless supports many variations. We don't know exactly what the pianist will play.

The Mind is a substance with the ability to experience and cause the stuff. — MoK

What's the relationship between substance, stuff and matter?

It may be that to some extent, but we're looking at realist physics-and-matter-compliant phenomena exampling non-locality; the 2022 Nobel Prize in physics went to three researchers with something to say about the universe not being locally real. I understand this means, at least in part, that the reality immediately before us is not discretely mind-independent. That it appears to be, as explained by some researchers, stands due to the fact the environment, which includes sentients, measures material systems, thus cancelling their quantum effects. From this viewpoint, I can say that discrete mind-independence results “from a certain constrained view of ignorance.” — ucarr

If it's not locally real (what does "real" mean in this sense?) then why do physicists talk about electrons and photons being in a state of superposition? To talk about these things indicates that these things have some boundary that separates them from other electrons and photons, even when in a state of superposition - as if they have an existence independent of other things even in a state of superposition. What makes a thing an electron of photon and what makes one electron or photon separate from other electrons and photons? Physicists talk about electrons and photons as if they are real - even when in a state of superposition. Decoherence appears to simply change the states of electrons and photons - not make them real, as physicists use of language indicates that they are already real - even in a state of superposition.

Sentients haven't always existed. What was the world like before sentients existed? How did sentients come to exist? How is it that multiple sentients seem to come to the same conclusion about what is in the environment and even use each other to validate scientific theories by performing the same experiments from their own position in space-time.

Yes, the third state affords an exponential increase in info processing. Regarding improbabilities, earth being friendly to carbon-based life forms might be an example of an extreme statistical bias towards emergence of consciousness. — ucarr

But Earth is only only one of trillions, upon trillions of planets in the universe. It was just statistically possible given all the time and space that at least one planet would end up in a stable star system with the just right distance and chemistry for life. There may be other planets in which life evolved but not conscious life. It does not seem that the universe was fine-tuned for consciousness. Of course it seems like we are lucky being the beneficiaries of these purposeless natural causes. You might think you are lucky winning the lottery, but it was just a statistical reality that someone will win because millions are playing, and this time it was you. Luck becomes even less of a thing if there are trillions (or an infinite number) of other universes. The more time and space you have, the more likely you will get something unique occurring. How much time and space does one need for consciousness to have a chance to evolve? If there was a creator, it seems to me that it would require much less space than we have, and it is the mind-numbing expanse of space and time that is evidence that we are outcomes of purposeless processes, not a purposeful one.

I think the radicalism of QM is rooted in its intentional focus upon the strategic and useful confusion of the map with the territory. Were this confusion not useful, the memory lobes of your brain would not keep you connected to your childhood. — ucarr

I don't see how confusion could be useful, other than informing you that you don't have something quite right about your interpretation of reality, and to keep trying.

Before sentience, there were no boundaries. Dimensional extension defining the physics and materiality of things is rooted in cognition. Absent brain_mind, matter and its physics are a jumbled outpouring of potential states possibilities. Have you ever seen a computer monitor try to display the graphics of a program that requires a higher info-processing video card than the one installed in the computer? The screen shows a technicolor morass of jumbled, overlapping distortions unintelligible. This is my conjecture about the physics of the world independent of the organizing principles of cognition. — ucarr

I think of it more as the world is like an analog signal that minds digitize into discrete objects for the purpose of thinking and solving problems. The question is how much of the digital object is a mental construct and how much is a representation of the signal before being digitized. Does it even matter? Is that even a relevant question?

What defined the boundaries between sentient minds? What makes your mind "other" than mine?

Yes, my perception of the world is an approximation of same. The tricky thing that QM has taught us, is that the interpreting_approximating is bi-directional. The supposedly mind-independent world is not hardened into discrete system states, just as my ability to perceive and understand mind-independent world is not hardened into discrete system states. There is a dance between observed and observer. The adventure of living lies in the fact that while there are constraints upon what the dance steps can be, how they are attacked supports many, perhaps infinite variations. An example paralleling this is the keyboard of a piano. The number of notes provided by the keyboard are limited, but that number nonetheless supports many variations. We don't know exactly what the pianist will play. — ucarr

Well, the pianist is just another part. If we know the history of the pianist and what they know how to play and what they like to play, and what they have played most often, you don't really need to count the keys on the piano, do you?

What's the relationship between substance, stuff and matter? — ucarr

By substance, I mean something that exists and has a set of properties. The Mind is a substance with the ability to experience and cause stuff. Matter is an example of stuff.

Are substance, stuff and matter all made of atoms and molecules?

What about mind? What’s it made of?

Are substance, stuff and matter all made of atoms and molecules? — ucarr

Matter, for example, is made of strings. Other stuff, we don't know.

What about mind? What’s it made of? — ucarr

The minds are not made of anything else. That could be understood from the fact that free decision is due to the mind; otherwise, one has to deal with an infinite regress that is not acceptable!

If it's not locally real (what does "real" mean in this sense?) — Harry Hindu

"Real" in this sense, as I understand it, refers to the classical view that says objects are only influenced by their surrounding environment. QM says quantum effects connect positions with material extensions across distances that go beyond local interactions.

What was the world like before sentients existed? — Harry Hindu

I imagine the world, then as now, was governed by both Newtonian and QM physics.

If there was a creator, it seems to me that it would require much less space than we have, and it is the mind-numbing expanse of space and time that is evidence that we are outcomes of purposeless processes, not a purposeful one. — Harry Hindu

Okay. You're not a fan of intelligent design.

I don't see how confusion could be useful, other than informing you that you don't have something quite right about your interpretation of reality, and to keep trying. — Harry Hindu

I should've used "simulation" instead of "confusion." Our memories, acting as simulations of originally empirical experiences, allow us to have personal histories.

The question is how much of the digital object is a mental construct and how much is a representation of the signal before being digitized. — Harry Hindu

Shannon info theory might have some answers to your question.

What defined the boundaries between sentient minds? What makes your mind "other" than mine? — Harry Hindu

The variance of environments makes for different mindsets around the globe.

Well, the pianist is just another part. If we know the history of the pianist and what they know how to play and what they like to play, and what they have played most often, you don't really need to count the keys on the piano, do you? — Harry Hindu

Here you might be flirting with determinism, but I don't think you're completely serious about it.

The minds are not made of anything else — MoK

Mind, substance and stuff are made of strings? Strings are the foundation of all material things, right?

Mind, substance and stuff are made of strings? — ucarr

The Mind is a substance that is omnipresent in spacetime and holds material in the form of strings in existence (I have a thread on this topic here).

Strings are the foundation of all material things, right? — ucarr

Correct, but minds are not material. I already provided an argument about "Physical cannot be cause of its own change", so we are dealing with substance dualism at least.