simple unboxed freedom. — apokrisis

That's entropy. Any large-scale or permanent chaos would doom the universe.

You take materialism to be true — Metaphysician Undercover

Well, you must have a basis for other arguments to circle around.

That's entropy. — Copernicus

Well non-extensive entropy, perhaps. Tsallis entropy rather than Boltzmann-Gibbs entropy. And still a touchy issue.

Any large-scale or permanent chaos would doom the universe. — Copernicus

Explain further.

The Universe is only doomed if you think that the Heat Death is an existential disaster rather than the entropic gradient we get to ride.

In my book, the Universe is busy constructing the very heat sink it is thrown itself down into. So you can flip the script and call the final large, cold and dead max ent condition the destiny rather than the dooming of all things possible.

We are part of the Cosmos to the degree we participate in that project. That is the biosemiotic thesis. Life and mind arise as dissipative structure. Organismic dissipative structure evolving on top of the cosmic dissipative structure.

Can you think of a test that would detect sapience or consciousness? — bert1

Yes. You see if your synthetic being goes beyond its programmed capacity or scope and does something on its own that wasn't predicted (in machine learning). Something novel, something that is attributed to the body.

Explain — apokrisis

Take away all laws of physics or the natural order. That's true chaos.

Well, you must have a basis for other arguments to circle around. — Copernicus

Yes, there is a number of reasons to believe that materialism is false. We have our experience of free will choice for one. And there is also the cosmological argument which demonstrates that there is necessarily an immaterial actuality which is prior to all material existence.

there is also the cosmological argument which demonstrates that there is necessarily an immaterial actuality which is prior to all material existence. — Metaphysician Undercover

Continue.

Take away all laws of physics or the natural order. That's true chaos. — Copernicus

Or true vagueness. True Apeiron. True Ungrund. And indeed true Chaos if you go right back to Hesiod.

And then, in jargon terms, there is modern maths that had to find a name for describing chance with a single boxed scale of being - Gaussian randomness. And after that, realised it needed a name with the right historical ring for unboxed randomness that was growing in its own self-organising or recursive multi scale fashion. What was called deterministic chaos to let you know that there was a seed of structure operating even though letting the particles escape seemed like some kind of pure unbound wildness.

In the end, there is always structure, even if its the most minimal notion of structure. Or indeed, this is precisely what exists at the beginning. Structure is what emerges from a state of “pure everythingness” - a vagueness, an Apeiron - as chaos can’t help already being the source of its own limitation.

So what is more unstructured than even the suddenly unlidded box of randomised particles headed off on their now individual random walks? You might add derivatives terms, such as a dark energy, that exponentialises things. An acceleration of the random walking. A more chaotic state than just inertia.

The Universe seems to have thought of that trick too. But is that an addition of order or disorder. Is dark energy - being an energy density under cosmology’s FLWR equation of state - an entropy term or a negentropy one?

Gets tricky again.

That's two good reasons, as "the basis" which you asked for. Why do you ask for more?

to see if the basis needs change.

are you saying the universe will forever last?

to see if the basis needs change. — Copernicus

If you are not educated in classical philosophy, then you are excused for not being acquainted with the cosmological argument. However, I am sure you are fully aware of your own ability to choose. Do you not see how this is incompatible with materialism? Or do you really believe that the laws of physics can explain why you choose to do what you do?

I asked, what does cosmology say about dualism?

Do you say it won’t or do you say it will? And on what grounds for either alternative.

If you just want to ask vague questions, let a chatbot be your friend. :up:

you said there is no pure chaos. From that argument, the universe will never lose control.

So I asked YOU on what you conclude as the fate of the cosmos.

So I asked YOU on what you conclude as the fate of the cosmos. — Copernicus

Yeah. And I asked YOU why do you need to know?

What’s your actual thesis here and what level of answer could you indeed follow? The thread appeared to be a restatement of biosemiosis. Now what is it about?

And I asked YOU why do you need to know? — apokrisis

Because they're connected. Every element of the universe is an image of the universe itself. Elements project the universe, the universe projects its elements.

I asked, what does cosmology say about dualism? — Copernicus

There are dualist cosmologies. That's why arbitrarily ruling them out, as you do in your op with "If the mind emerges from physical processes...", provides you with a misleading starting point, an unsound principal assumption. The alternative, but equally misleading starting point would be "if mind is priori to physical processes...". They are both unsound principle assumptions. So the proper starting point would be "it is possible that mind emerged from physical processes, and it is also possible that mind is prior to physical processes, therefore we ought to consider the arguments for both of these".

misleading starting point — Metaphysician Undercover

Because my papers are part of a series, and I've already defended monism in previous papers.

Then that ought to be stated with reference, instead of ""If the mind emerges from physical processes..." which implies that you believe it is possible that monism is wrong. You should start with something like " As demonstrated here (ref), mind emerges from physical processes", instead of the extremely indecisive "if the mind emerges from physical processes..."

I see.

Or perhaps it can be framed as an argument from monistic perspective.

I think I've equated it with the eye's inability to see itself. — Copernicus

Ever looked in a mirror?