And all of the matter in that star, much more matter than we have in our sun, goes crashing into the center and is destroyed at what we call a singularity at the center . . . All the matter’s destroyed. There is nothing left except this warped space and warped time.

> Summary?
It seems that mass-energy is convertible to spacetime. Does that argue for monism, the idea that the universe is an expression of one entity, an entity that underlies mass-energy and spacetime? — Art48

We have no idea what happens inside a black hole. What do you mean by destroyed? If energy and mass are just two different states of matter, then mass may simply be converted to energy within a black hole. As the energy increases, the black hole gets bigger. (Warps more of the surrounding spacetime.) Hawking radiation may reverse this process and the black hole may evaporate over time when no more mass falls into it. I don't think mass-energy converts to spacetime, I think mass-energy, warps space-time.

What do you mean by destroyed? — universeness

I'm quoting Kip Thorne. Listen to the Closer To Truth episode to hear then entire session.

I don't 'dispute' anything related to the physics of black holes stated by someone as renowned in the subject as Kip Thorne, I am merely querying your interpretation of what he says in the 'closer to truth' episode you cite. For example, he talks about a black hole having a mass or weight. I interpret this mass, he is referring to as a measure of how much the black hole warps spacetime. In the same way as the star it came from warped spacetime.

The energy of a black hole
is gravitational, based on its mass, so a black hole is not just warped spacetime, its warped spacetime which has energy, many black holes rotate. Kip does not explain what he means by destroyed. Conservation laws state that energy and mass cannot be created or destroyed but are simply converted from one to the other. I think when Kip uses the word destroyed, he really means converted.

I think when Kip uses the word destroyed, he really means converted. — universeness

What he says seems clear:

Thorne at 5:28: There is not matter in that black hole. It’s not a dense object made of very dense matter. There is no matter at all. There is matter in the star that gave birth to the black hole. Long ago, a star like our sun, but somewhat heavier, will have burned its nuclear fuel. It can no longer keep itself puffed out by its internal heat. It starts to cool off. It then implodes. And all of the matter in that star, much more matter than we have in our sun, goes crashing into the center and is destroyed at what we call a singularity at the center . . . All the matter’s destroyed. There is nothing left except this warped space and warped time.

What he "really means" is anyone guess. Besides, I'm not clear about the difference between "matter is destroyed" and "matter is converted." In a nuclear bomb, matter is destroyed/converted to energy.

What he "really means" is anyone guess. Besides, I'm not clear about the difference between "matter is destroyed" and "matter is converted." In a nuclear bomb, matter is destroyed/converted to energy. — Art48

Classically, the word 'matter,' referred to anything with mass but I think now, the words matter, mass and energy all refer to the same 'quanta.' Matter is mass is energy. I think 'destroyed' is just less accurate than 'converted.' Perhaps that 'quanta' could be called spacetime.

It seems that mass-energy is convertible to spacetime. Does that argue for monism, the idea that the universe is an expression of one entity, an entity that underlies mass-energy and spacetime? — Art48

I haven't watched the video, and I don't know exactly how "mass-energy is converted into space-time". Yet, the notion of "conversion" of energy into different forms sounds plausible in view of my own understanding of "Generic Information"*1. From that philosophical perspective, everything in the universe is a unique instance of the universal power to enform (to shape or create). This is not a common conventional idea, but it is derived from the modern understanding that a> Mass (matter) is a form of Energy, and b> that Energy is a form of Information*2, and c> that Information is the content of Consciousness.

Based on that equation of Mind & Matter & Energy, I have developed a philosophical thesis which concludes that the Big Bang was a creative act of En-formation, and that Evolution is the process of creating a world from scratch, and that EnFormAction*3 is the active principle of Causation. Since Matter requires Space, and Change requires Time, space-time was perhaps the first Form to emerge from the Singularity. All other aspects of our current world, including Life & Mind, are the result of on-going formation of specific novelties from original general Potential (latent energy).

However, since thermodynamic Energy has a natural tendency toward disorder (Entropy), the fact that Life & Mind emerged from downhill Evolution implies that a countervailing force allows for pockets of order within the general trend of dissipation of creative Energy. Ironically, scientists call that positive force "Negentropy". But I prefer to think of it as a form of Generic Information that I call "Enformy"*4.

This is, of course, not a scientific theory, because it speculates on events of a pre-bang era. So, it's merely a philosophical thought-experiment, But we can infer that the Singularity was programmed by a Mind (First Cause). Hence, it "argues for Monism", due to the logical necessity for a unique "entity" with the power to En-form a world from nothing-but the power to enform (EnFormAction). It's also not a religious doctrine, because the only reliable revelation from that presumptive monistic entity is the physical world in which we live, and wonder how & why? :smile:



*1. Generic Information :
Information is the Promethean power of transformation. In the form of kinetic Energy, it is also the cause of all change. Information is Generic in the sense of generating all forms from a formless pool of possibility : such as the Platonic Forms.
http://bothandblog2.enformationism.info/page29.html

*2. Is information the fifth state of matter? :
In 2019, physicist Melvin Vopson of the University of Portsmouth proposed that information is equivalent to mass and energy, existing as a separate state of matter, a conjecture known as the mass-energy-information equivalence principle.
https://www.zmescience.com/science/news-science/information-energy-mass-equivalence/

*3. EnFormAction :
Ententional Causation. A proposed metaphysical law of the universe that causes random interactions between forces and particles to produce novel & stable arrangements of matter & energy. It’s the creative force (aka : Divine Will) of the axiomatic eternal deity that, for unknown reasons, programmed a Singularity to suddenly burst into our reality from an infinite source of possibility. AKA : The creative power of Evolution; the power to enform; Logos; Change.
http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page8.html

*4. Enformy :
In the Enformationism theory, Enformy is a hypothetical, holistic, metaphysical, natural trend or force, that counteracts Entropy & Randomness to produce complexity & progress. [ see post 63 for graph ]
1. I'm not aware of any "supernatural force" in the world. But my Enformationism theory postulates that there is a meta-physical force behind Time's Arrow and the positive progress of evolution. Just as Entropy is sometimes referred to as a "force" causing energy to dissipate (negative effect), Enformy is the antithesis, which causes energy to agglomerate (additive effect).
2. Of course, neither of those phenomena is a physical Force, or a direct Cause, in the usual sense. But the term "force" is applied to such holistic causes as a metaphor drawn from our experience with physics.
http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page8.html

But we can infer that the Singularity was programmed by a Mind (First Cause). — Gnomon

Just as valid to 'infer,' no first cause required, as the universe is an eternal cycle, or that our universe is only one of a vast multiverse or our universe has many superimposed 'layers' of existence, or existence can form within any number of dimensions etc, etc.
The proposal of a god like mind with intent to create humans on a comparative grain of sand sized planet, orbiting a humdrum star in a humdrum spiral arm of a humdrum galaxy, only within the past 3 million years seems the least likely inference. You infer that for at least 13 billion years of the non-existence of any hominid species in our solar system this programmer mind was thinking what?
'Not long now! my homies should arrive soon! Not very impressive programming imo.
My programs work as soon as I choose 'Run' in my chosen editor. Well, after I fix all the syntax errors and the runtime errors.

Should be on a physics forum, but what the hell . . .

It seems that mass-energy is convertible to spacetime. Does that argue for monism... — Art48

If there is a conversion, it is to spacetime warp and hence gravitational potential. So the matter - as one kind of structured energy - is being converted to spacetime as another. A gravity field is created that continues to suck in matter as its fuel. It is a kind of reverse star – a dissipative structure – in that sense. :smile:

And the situation can be measured in the higher order currency of information/entropy. The black holes event horizon is where the transaction is taking place. If everything – matter. warpage, and even energy – are subsumed under the more general notion of information, then it can seem physics speaks to metaphysical monism. Thales said the fundamental substance was water. Physics now says it is Shannon's "information entropy" – countable degrees of freedom or fundamental bits of physical uncertainty.

But dig deeper and Aristotle's hylomorphic understanding of substance is a better fit. There, substantial being arises at the intersection of form and matter. Naked potential for action being given a shape and direction.

The monism of "basic stuff" becomes a dialectical relation between a raw material potential and its formal structure. Random action being given coherent direction. And this reappears in modern physics – especially if you are on the ontic structural realism bandwagon.

So the Comos can be understood simply as a spacetime container giving direction to its quantumly impulsive contents. General relativity (GR) is the theory describing the container. Quantum field theory (QFT) accounts for the energetic vacuum which fills it with potential action. A substantial world of enmattered objects arises at the intersection of the two. Particles pop out of the hot soup as Big Bang universe expands and cools. Symmetries are broken and so local structure is imposed. Matter arises to the degree antimatter has been cancelled away, and the Higgs field has enforced the mass couplings that finally split the fundamental particles into a distinctive set of elements.

So what we think of as monistic substance is in fact a hierarchy of development in which increasing structure is being imposed on raw undirected action – the vacuum's sea of virtual quantum fluctuations. You get protons, neutrons and electrons as the complicated crud – particles with mass and some particular combo of force interactions.

In a cold and empty universe, atomic matter can become stable and eternal. Part of the reason for this is that the gravitational side of the equation is a reckoning postponed to the infinite future.

All forms of mass and energy create gravitational warpage. But the Big Bang produced a spacetime so flat that it will take "forever" for all the separated bits of warp associated with every lump of enmattered particle to fall back together.

In a general balancing way, the positive energy represented by the creation of matter is matched by the negative energy of creating this great big gravitational well. A debt is incurred at the start and only comes due at the end.

Black holes can be considered the debt collectors. At least locally, in the interim.

Particles get sucked into a vortex of warpage and give up their structure at the event horizon. At least that is how it looks from the outside. Kinetic energy disappears and gravitational potential appears in its place.

Yet even black holes live in the larger story of an expanding~cooling Cosmos. Eventually they get dissipated too as the temperature of the surrounding vacuum falls so low that the black holes evaporate. They melt away, turning the gravitational warp back into a flood of radiation – but radiation of extreme wavelength and chill. Radiation with the temperature of the cosmic Heat Death.

So there is this general duality where action is being given a direction. Random potential is being formed into persisting structures with varying degrees of complexity and stability. Spacetime is the gravitational field whose curvature tells stuff how to move. Mass and energy are the formed particles, or localised persistent quantum excitations, that tells spacetime how to bend. Substantial being is the intersection of this relation.

Mostly this results just in the vacuum. So as a substance, there is nothing much to see. Just a sea of virtual excitation with some general temperature. A hot and condensed soup that becomes a cold and expanded soup. It does look pretty monistic.

But scattered in the generalised vacuum state are the more interesting forms of structured potential. Black holes and fundamental particles. Local features with some measure of persistence.

We could call both of them energy structures. But even then, they are divided, being made of either the negative potential of spacetime curvature, or the positive potential of quantum fields.

And even a fully unified view of general relativity and quantum field theory – a theory of quantum gravity – is going to be some form of hylomorphic metaphysics. The emergence of actions with directions. A classical Pythagorean unity in being a unity of opposites.

So there is the familiar metaphysical debate. Is reality monistic or what? The alternative to monism is in fact the triadicism of Aristotle's systems metaphysics. You have the three things of the material potential, the formal (indeed Platonic) structure, and the resulting substantial state of being that results when these polar opposites achieve stable unity.

That maps nicely to the expectation that GR + QFT = QG in some neat mathematical operation.

The whole deal is scaled by its trio of Planck constants – c, G and h. Or the speed of light, the strength of gravity, and the grain of quantum indeterminacy.

So GR unites c and G as a maths. QFT unites c and h as a maths. Therefore the task of QG is to unite c, G and h in the one mathematical structure. That is when we can truly convert between G and h as the constants representing direction and action, form and matter, gravity as the spacetime container and quanta as the energetic potential that are its fluctuating contents.

Just as valid to 'infer,' no first cause required, .
My programs work as soon as I choose 'Run' in my chosen editor. Well, after I fix all the syntax errors and the runtime errors. — universeness

That inference would only be "valid", if you have good reasons to assume that our universe is just one of many, or a single instance in an eternal cycle of universe creation & execution. But your own example illustrates why a carefully orchestrated program needs a First Cause (Chooser) to create flow-charts & algorithms, then to push the "Enter" button, to start it running. It may be conceivable for an advanced AI program to create & execute a sub-program of its own. But in an infinite Multiverse, who was the AI who designed the master program of the programmer of circular sub-programs? Eternal Entropy -- what a waste of energy!

It's easy to imagine a fictional beginningless & endless cycle of cycles [see below], but in the real world we have zero experience of such a perpetual motion device. It would have to be self-existent, operate with no outside input, and pull itself up by its own bootstraps to get off-the ground. Except for the pointless reiteration, that sounds like a description of an old-fashioned god. So, why not just call that Perpetual Program a god simulation? Oh, I see, it's not supposed to be a sentient or purposeful or progressive goal-oriented process. More like adolescent drivers drifting & spinning for no good reason : just round & round & round, ad infinitum. Does that make sense to you? :halo:

PS__If the hypothetical First Cause wanted to give its World Game avatars some free-will, it would have to offer some challenges to keep it interesting. So, what the survival-seeking characters experience as syntax or runtime "errors", might be a feature not a fault.

But your own example illustrates why a carefully orchestrated program needs a First Cause (Chooser) to create flow-charts & algorithms, then to push the "Enter" button, to start it running. — Gnomon

No, it simply means that a program needs a programmer, it does not then follow that a universe needs a first cause, apart from in your own musings and those who agree with you.
In what way is this universe 'carefully orchestrated,' when it contains so many redundant objects. What do your musing infer to you as the purpose of pluto or some other useless space rock?
I try to write computer programs which dont have redundant parts, your first cause mind posit seems to only be able to create a universe which took over 13 billion years to produce hominids and could only do it on one planet that we know of so far and it also created a vast number amount of redundancy all over the universe. You have offered no explanation of such incredibly bad design and incompetency.

So, why not just call that Perpetual Program a god simulation? — Gnomon

Well, to do so is to surrender to woo woo proposals and a god of the gaps approach to science.
You keep trying to conflate a computer program created by a human programmer for a specific purpose with the origin story of the universe and natural happenstance.

PS__If the hypothetical First Cause wanted to give its World Game avatars some free-will, it would have to offer some challenges to keep it interesting. — Gnomon

Why did this mind you refer to, need us or the universe at all? was it feeling a little bit lonely? bored?purposeless? inadequate? incomplete? insufficient? What do your musings tell you this 'mind' you envisage was lacking? So that it needed a universe such as this one? Do you have no sense of how 'silly,' this 'perpetual program,' you suggest could be called the 'mind of god,' is, considering it seems to have absolutely no ability to confirm its own existence to those REAL minds that it is credited by some to have created. It is the lowest credence posit possible, out of all other posits for the origin of the universe story, in my opinion. If you are satisfied with a god plug for anything humans can't, currently explain, then you are easily contented. If your creationist mind fable ever develops an ability to make all humans aware of its existence and submit itself to full scientific scrutiny, then, and only then, will I raise an eyebrow of interest. Until then, such a proposal will firmly exist only as a total pile of woo woo.

So, an originating mind with intent to create the universe, yes or no?

No.

No, it simply means that a program needs a programmer, it does not then follow that a universe needs a first cause, apart from in your own musings and those who agree with you. — universeness

Your knee-jerk reaction indicates that you have pigeonholed me & my "musings" along with those who you disagree with. Ironically, most of those fellow pigeons think I'm a science-blinded Atheist.

Do you deny that the mind of the programmer is the intentional cause of a computer program? Do you know of programs that cause themselves? Or do you agree with : no cause (intention), no program (plan of action)? Even AI is not able to bootstrap itself to write a program, without some prodding from a curious human who wants to know the answer. I happen to think of Evolution, allegorically, as a program for creating a universe. And some prominent physicists & biologists have a similar idea. My postulated Programmer is a metaphor, not a myth. :nerd:

In what way is this universe 'carefully orchestrated,' when it contains so many redundant objects — universeness

Do you think of the universe as a disorganized & hostile place? If so, you are missing its beautiful organization, and its ability to create living & philosophizing organisms from essentially nothing. Some people have postulated that the world began as a perfect Garden of Eden, but then was ruined by arrogant humans who thought they could manage the garden better.

Instead, I view the universe as beginning from nothing and evolving through eons of lifeless & mindless stages until living & thinking being emerged, and worked their way to the top of the food chain. Moreover, the "orchestration" is still underway, and may be working toward future harmony. Perhaps, by weeding out the discord of grumpy pessimists, among other downers. :joke:

There is grandeur in this view of life,
with its several powers,
having been originally breathed
into a few forms or into one;
and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on
according to the fixed law of gravity,
from so simple a beginning
endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful
have been, and are being, evolved.
___Charles Darwin

I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it. (Albert Einstein, 1954)

I believe in Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with the fates and actions of human beings. (Albert Einstein)

“The most important decision we make is whether we believe we live in a friendly or hostile universe.”
___Albert Einstein

Well, to do so is to surrender to woo woo proposals and a god of the gaps approach to science. — universeness

No. To use the metaphor of a programmer for evolution is to accept modern science, instead of old myths. Which were the best guesses of wise men in an age before theoretical Philosophy gave birth to empirical science. Yet, some of today's scientists still fill the gaps in knowledge -- "beyond what we can observe" with "woo woo proposals" (mathematical myths), such as hypothetical Multiverses, Many Worlds, and something-from-nothing Inflation. Theoretical physicist Sabine Hossenfelder calls such speculative-stories-sans-evidence "ascientific beliefs". :cool:

"I am saying that what's beyond what we can observe is purely a matter of belief".
"This isn't a particularly difficult argument, so I find it stunning that my physics colleagues can't seem to comprehend it"
___Hossenfelder, Existential Physics

Why did this mind you refer to, need us or the universe at all? — universeness

I have no idea what prompted the Prime Programmer to write the algorithms for an evolving world. She didn't include an Easter Egg to explain Her motives. Why do you write your programs? What is it you "need"? Could you program without an imaginative Mind? Or, is it because you want an answer to a question that can only be found by running the experiment? Universal & Existential questions are of the open-ended type : no short-cuts

I'm not interested in "creationist mind fables" or inflationist myths -- such as ballooning of a vast universe from a dimensionless mathematical quantum fluctuation. My philosophical curiosity is the same mystery that prompted Plato to postulate a logical First Cause to fill the Origin Gap in his understanding of how & why we are here to wonder about such impractical questions. And curious Cosmologists are still questing to this very day. :smile:

"Take author Douglas Adams’s popular 1979 science-fiction novel The Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy, the first in a series of five. Toward the end of the book, the supercomputer Deep Thought reveals that the answer to the “Great Question” of “Life, the Universe and Everything” is “forty-two.”
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/for-math-fans-a-hitchhikers-guide-to-the-number-42/

Do you know of programs that cause themselves? — Gnomon

Neural networks?

I happen to think of Evolution, allegorically, as a program for creating a universe. — Gnomon

It's a constraint not an algorithm. Different thing. See neural networks.

My postulated Programmer is a metaphor, not a myth. — Gnomon

But it places the intentionality or finality outside the system. A structuralist metaphysics – such as evolutionary theory – places it inside the system as part of what has to develop by a generalised process of self-organisation.

So you are pushing a line that in fact goes against the prevailing trend in speculative physics. Holography, for example, is all about systems of constraints rather than reality constructing algorithms. The Comos evolves into determinate being by "summing over" vague everythingness. It emerges as a holographic structure of relations that reveals the path of least action.

The Universe is the evolution of a heat sink structure. Why is that happening? To give it something to fall into. It could get born in a Big Bang because it could then die in a Heat Death. The initial intention is revealed in its long run actualisation.

Do you think of the universe as a disorganized & hostile place? If so, you are missing its beautiful organization, and its ability to create living & philosophizing organisms from essentially nothing. — Gnomon

That is a very fleeting phase in the middle of the Universe's grand trajectory. Chemistry and biology are not essential to the show, just accidents of complexification that arise along the way. Life and mind do contribute something to the entropification of the Cosmos. But it isn't even a round up error in the big scheme of constructing that heat sink which in turn allows the Universe to start as a "low entropy" condition.

Instead, I view the universe as beginning from nothing and evolving through eons of lifeless & mindless stages until living & thinking being emerged, and worked their way to the top of the food chain. — Gnomon

Anthropomorphic where we need to be anthropic. Human intelligence was never the goal. A heat sink that could make sense of a Big Bang negentropic beginning is the mission the Cosmos has in mind.

I'm not interested in "creationist mind fables" or inflationist myths -- such as ballooning of a vast universe from a dimensionless mathematical quantum fluctuation. — Gnomon

So you are neither interested in religion or physics. Just some fable arising from the mathematical fictions of Turing universal computation.

:up:

Your knee-jerk reaction indicates that you have pigeonholed me & my "musings" along with those who you disagree with. Ironically, most of those fellow pigeons think I'm a science-blinded Atheist. — Gnomon

The responsibility to be clear in what you type is your responsibility. You suggested that a mind could be responsible for creating this Universe, it's your responsibility to make crystal clear the level of personal credence you assign to such a posit.

Do you deny that the mind of the programmer is the intentional cause of a computer program? Do you know of programs that cause themselves? Or do you agree with : no cause (intention), no program (plan of action)? — Gnomon

A computer program is not a happenstance, no. Life in this Universe is happenstance, yes.

Even AI is not able to bootstrap itself to write a program, without some prodding from a curious human who wants to know the answer. — Gnomon

AI is in its infancy at best. AI able to launch itself is possible. AI able to write its own programs is also possible. AI that becomes self-aware and 'conscious,' I have no idea if such is possible.

I happen to think of Evolution, allegorically, as a program for creating a universe. And some prominent physicists & biologists have a similar idea. My postulated Programmer is a metaphor, not a myth. — Gnomon

Sure, you can posit evolution as a system with intent (a kind of panpsychism).
I agree you are not proposing anything supernatural, so not a myth but I think you are stretching it into your use of the word 'mind.' A computer program takes input and produces output but it has no awareness so it may have 'intent' based on applying some flex to the term but there is no way to connect the word 'mind' to what a computer program does or what evolution does via happenstance combination and mutation.

Do you think of the universe as a disorganized & hostile place? If so, you are missing its beautiful organization, and its ability to create living & philosophizing organisms from essentially nothing. — Gnomon

Yes, in general the universe is hostile towards species such as humans. A human can't live in many places outside of the Earth for now. This reality does not hinder my awe or wonder when studying the workings of the Universe.

Some people have postulated that the world began as a perfect Garden of Eden, but then was ruined by arrogant humans who thought they could manage the garden better. — Gnomon

I don't cite fairy tales to justify my complaints about humankind's general poor stewardship of the Earth, but I do complain about it and advocate for change.

Moreover, the "orchestration" is still underway, and may be working toward future harmony. — Gnomon

Humans can change, yes, and they are able to improve the human experience and become successful stewards of the planet we live on. I agree.

No. To use the metaphor of a programmer for evolution is to accept modern science, instead of old myths. — Gnomon

Well, it's better than old myths, yes but only a little, as a programmer has a mind but evolution does not.
Your quotes from Einstein and Spinoza are just 'of their time.' Many irreligious people choose to be very respectful towards religious people by trying to understand their psychological imperatives. I only do this when I am dealing with someone who is genuinely and deeply, mentally invested in religion and uses it as a major life crutch. I do this based on personal judgement which I accept is fallible.

Theoretical physicist Sabine Hossenfelder calls such speculative-stories-sans-evidence "ascientific beliefs". — Gnomon

Yeah, and theoretical physicists such as Sean Carroll and Alan Guth who favour the many worlds proposal would not refer to the proposal as an ascientific belief and would disagree with Sabine, with all due respect of course.

I have no idea what prompted the Prime Programmer to write the algorithms for an evolving world. She didn't include an Easter Egg to explain Her motives. — Gnomon

The most likely explanation for this is that no such prime mover has ever existed.

Why do you write your programs? — Gnomon

I have a mind, so I can. That's why computer programs don't spontaneously appear and that's why the mind of a first cause does not manifest. It has no existence to enable it to.

I'm not interested in "creationist mind fables" or inflationist myths — Gnomon

I think it's a pity that your keen mind sees any comparison between the two. The latter is based on REAL science, although it could still be wrong, I agree with that. The former is just total BS.

Toward the end of the book, the supercomputer Deep Thought reveals that the answer to the “Great Question” of “Life, the Universe and Everything” is “forty-two.” — Gnomon

Yeah, I know some good jokes to! My academic expertise is Computing Science. I taught the subject for almost 30 years. Trust me, based on the question posed, the fictional deep thought supercomputer gave a shit answer and needs to be reprogrammed or replaced.

You suggested that a mind could be responsible for creating this Universe, it's your responsibility to make crystal clear the level of personal credence you assign to such a posit. — universeness

If you have the time, I have the text. My website & blog attempt to make "crystal clear" why I have concluded that an intentional First Cause is necessary to explain how a heuristic process (evolution) could produce an effect (sentience) that can conceptualize its own heritage. Bottom line : nothing Actual in the Effect that was not Potentially in the Cause. The leaf stems from the root. :smile:

The EnFormAction Hypothesis :
http://bothandblog3.enformationism.info/page23.html

A computer program is not a happenstance, no. Life in this Universe is happenstance, yes. — universeness

And you know this how? Could the seed of that conclusion have been in the original belief in creative accidents? What you see depends on your frame. Evolution is creative of novelty, not because of random Mutations, but due to functional Selection. A selection is a choice. And, by definition, a choice is not accidental, but intentional. A choice is a Cause. Life happened, not by stance or chance, but by Causation. Barrow & Tipler's Anthropic Cosmological Principle does the math for you. :nerd:

A cause-and-effect relationship is claimed where the following conditions are satisfied: the two events occur at the same time and in the same place; one event immediately precedes the other; the second event appears unlikely to have happened without the first event having occurred.
https://www.oxfordreference.com/view/10.1093/oi/authority.20110803095555997
Note -- Intention (aiming) makes an effect more likely by narrowing the statistical probability. Aimed arrows are statistically more likely to hit a specified target, than random arrows.

Yeah, and theoretical physicists such as Sean Carroll and Alan Guth who favour the many worlds proposal would not refer to the proposal as an ascientific belief and would disagree with Sabine, with all due respect of course. — universeness

Of course. As true believers, they would be offended by the accusation of "ascientific" faith. But Sabine says "show me the evidence" for imaginary worlds or 'verses beyond the one we can test empirically. :wink:

The most likely explanation for this is that no such prime mover has ever existed. — universeness

The Anthropic book actually calculates the likelihood of directional motion without an intentional mover. It's analogous to a pool-cue-ball accidentally putting the eight-ball in a side pocket without intention or aiming. :confused:

I have a mind, so I can. That's why computer programs don't spontaneously appear and that's why the mind of a first cause does not manifest. It has no existence to enable it to. — universeness

Ironically, that's exactly why I concluded that creative ability requires can-do Mind. Your programming mind does not "manifest" to me, except in its effects : the programs themselves are the evidence of the intent. We know the "mind" of the programmer by examining the program. In my example, creative Evolution, which modern programmers are learning to emulate. :yum:

Evolutionary programming :
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolutionary_programming

The latter is based on REAL science, although it could still be wrong, — universeness

Hossenfelder labels Cosmic Inflation theories as "ascientific" because they're non-empirical. It's a hypothetical story to justify a prior opinion. Notice, in the chart below, that Inflation assumes, without evidence, some Cause prior to the Big Bang. Hence external to the "real" universe.

NEGATIVE POINTS in the Time before Time ARE NON-REAL

Trust me, based on the question posed, the fictional deep thought supercomputer gave a shit answer and needs to be reprogrammed or replaced. — universeness

Can your programs calculate the answer to universal questions? If not, maybe they need to be reprogrammed by a Universal Programmer. :joke:

Thanks for the questions & challenges. They help me to weed-out my own self-justifying opinions. :grin:

My website & blog attempt to make "crystal clear" why I have concluded that an intentional First Cause is necessary to explain how a heuristic process (evolution) could produce an effect (sentience) that can conceptualize its own heritage. — Gnomon

I prefer to follow the work of Stuart Hameroff and Roger Penrose on the question of human consciousness. The posit that a 'supernatural' (first cause) mind took over 13 billion years to reproduce something with a mind is rather mindless and akin to such nonsense as the kalam cosmological argument.

And you know this how? — Gnomon

I assign more credence to life created through natural happenstance than to your first cause mind posit.
My 'know' is no more powerful than this.

Could the seed of that conclusion have been in the original belief in creative accidents? — Gnomon

I don't consider happenstance or random combination, accidental. Everything that can combine will combine as time passes. If it can happen, it will happen somewhere at some time.

What you see depends on your frame. — Gnomon

Sure, so we are aware of that. I don't see how that adds to the credence of a first cause mind.
Perhaps is a failure of your frame of reference which causes you to give more credence to a first cause mind than I do.

Evolution is creative of novelty, not because of random Mutations, but due to functional Selection. A selection is a choice. And, by definition, a choice is not accidental, but intentional. A choice is a Cause. Life happened, not by stance or chance, but by Causation. — Gnomon

Not functional selection but natural selection which has no intent. Selection is based on the other species getting wiped out due to happenstance changes in environmental conditions. Simple law of the jungle conditions. Real accident can then play a small role, yes, most lifeforms have intent so accidents then become possible as a phenomena, that might be conceptualised as such, by lifeforms.

A cause-and-effect relationship is claimed where the following conditions are satisfied: the two events occur at the same time and in the same place; one event immediately precedes the other; the second event appears unlikely to have happened without the first event having occurred. — Gnomon

In New Quantum Experiment, Effect Happens Before Cause

Of course. As true believers, they would be offended by the accusation of "ascientific" faith. But Sabine says "show me the evidence" for imaginary worlds or 'verses beyond the one we can test empirically. — Gnomon

Like Sabine, Sean and Allan 'seek and require the evidence,' that does not preclude them from assigning a high level of credence to the many worlds posit or inflation. Just as Sabine disagrees with that high level of credence. You pick your team, and you raise your standard in that camp. It has always been and always will be thus. I see no credence in the evidence you have provided for your first cause mind with intent posit.

The Anthropic book actually calculates the likelihood of directional motion without an intentional mover. It's analogous to a pool-cue-ball accidentally putting the eight-ball in a side pocket without intention or aiming. :confused: — Gnomon

So, what evidence from the random chaos of quantum fluctuations within quantum fields do you suggest supports the anthropic principle?

Ironically, that's exactly why I concluded that creative ability requires can-do Mind. Your programming mind does not "manifest" to me, except in its effects : the programs themselves are the evidence of the intent. We know the "mind" of the programmer by examining the program. In my example, creative Evolution, which modern programmers are learning to emulate. — Gnomon

The ability to mimic that which already has existence and is knowable and can be studied and analysed and reverse engineered, is no evidence that the process was started by a first cause supernatural mind.
Such posits are just the anthropocentric musings of some humans. It is just intuitive to them that consciousness can only be produced by that which has been eternally conscious. But, we already know that intuitive thought alone will not explain the origin story of the universe as it cannot even explain quantum entanglement, superposition or quantum tunnelling yet.

Can your programs calculate the answer to universal questions? If not, maybe they need to be reprogrammed by a Universal Programmer. — Gnomon

No, scientists just need more time to answer such universal questions. A few thousand years of scientific enquiry is merely the beginning. Ask your question again 7 .5 million years from now (deep thought time to answer with 42.)

Thanks for the questions & challenges. They help me to weed-out my own self-justifying opinions. — Gnomon

You have a lot more weeding to do but you are certainly not alone in that venture.

I prefer to follow the work of Stuart Hameroff and Roger Penrose on the question of human consciousness. The posit that a 'supernatural' (first cause) mind took over 13 billion years to reproduce something with a mind is rather mindless and akin to such nonsense as the kalam cosmological argument. — universeness

The Kalam argument says that "whatever begins to exist has a cause of its existence, (ii) The universe began to exist, and (iii) Therefore, the universe has a cause of its existence". Which is undeniably true of anything within the cause & effect chain of Space-Time. But, it implies that the First Cause is external & eternal, hence not subject to the restrictions of space-time or matter-energy-entropy.

Any postulated First Cause is necessarily "Supernatural", in the same sense that the Big Bang Singularity is "Preternatural" (prior to space-time). Hence, both are "ascientific" in Hossenfelder's terms. Consequently, they have no more empirical (observational) authority than the Kalam argument. Any speculations beyond the origin of space-time are philosophical conjectures, even when postulated by scientists. Is your preference for sciency-sounding BS over theological BS? It's all philosophical BS. :wink:

Astrophysicist Ethan Seigel :
Contrary to recent headlines and Penrose’s assertions, there is no evidence of “a Universe before the Big Bang.”
https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2020/10/08/no-roger-penrose-we-see-no-evidence-of-a-universe-before-the-big-bang/?sh=473bfdcc7a0f

I don't consider happenstance or random combination, accidental. Everything that can combine will combine as time passes. If it can happen, it will happen somewhere at some time. — universeness

So, you consider the existence of sentient humans just the luck-of-the-draw? It may be true that "anything that can happen will happen" given infinite time. But 14 billion years is just a fraction of eternity. Besides the House sets the odds, so who is the House in this analogy : Fate or G*D? :confused:

Happenstance : synonyms
fate, fluke, chance, hap, incident, event, luck, serendipity, certain, accident and fortuity.
https://thesaurus.yourdictionary.com/happenstance

Fate : synonyms
destiny · chance · fortune · luck · nemesis · predestination · providence.
https://www.collinsdictionary.com/us/dictionary/english-thesaurus/fate

Sure, so we are aware of that. I don't see how that adds to the credence of a first cause mind. — universeness

A scientific "frame" is limited to the boundaries of space-time. But, a philosophical "frame" extends beyond those empirical limits into the realm of Theory. For example, the expansion of the universe is an empirical conclusion. But the Singularity from which it emerged is a theoretical construct, with no empirical support. A theory only "adds credence" if it is logical. Do you ever rely on Logic to support a belief? :nerd:

"No. Logic is not empirical. No mathematical theory is empirical."
https://www.quora.com/What-is-logic-Can-it-be-an-empirical-science-or-non-empirical-science-like-mathematics-If-yes-how-Is-reasoning-an-actual-mental-process-employed-by-a-thinking-being-when-reasoning

Not functional selection but natural selection which has no intent. — universeness

If Natural Selection has no future-oriented "intent", then how is organic (producing organisms) Selection different from entropic (disorderly) Randomness? A "functional" selection has a causal relationship to the effect we call "order" or "organization". Why did Darwin feel the need to postulate "Natural Selection" if not to provide a hypothetical alternative to "Supernatural Selection"? :halo:

Proof Finds That All Change Is a Mix of Order and Randomness
https://www.quantamagazine.org › math-proof-finds-all...

You pick your team, and you raise your standard in that camp. It has always been and always will be thus. I see no credence in the evidence you have provided for your first cause mind with intent posit. — universeness

I was a team of one, long before I read Sabine's book. So, maybe she joined my team, by using the same philosophical framing to go beyond empirical Science. You seem incredulous. Is that because Sabine's frame is different from your own faith-frame? Just kidding. :joke:

So, what evidence from the random chaos of quantum fluctuations within quantum fields do you suggest supports the anthropic principle? — universeness

Quantum Fields are imaginary metaphors. So there is no hard "evidence" of creative "fluctuations". However, there is evidence of order arising within apparent Chaos. The "Butterfly Effect" is an example of order emerging from chaos. But the seeds of order seem to be innate (iceberg hidden in the fog), and require only statistical "coincidences" (crossing paths) to reveal themselves.
Note : In this analogy, the "order" is simply a change of form from sailing ship to sinking wreck. In the Anthropic theory, the order is the highly unlikely coincidence of randomly swirling atoms magically taking on the form of a thinking being in a vast mindless universe. I'm just looking at the "evidence" through a wider frame of reference. :yum:

The ability to mimic that which already has existence and is knowable and can be studied and analysed and reverse engineered, is no evidence that the process was started by a first cause supernatural mind. — universeness

So, if not due to "that which already has existence", what is that mathematical-point-of-origin (Singularity) evidence of? Existent Something from pre-existent nothing? :cool:

You have a lot more weeding to do but you are certainly not alone in that venture. — universeness

Thanks for lending me your sharp weeding implements. That's what philosophical forums are for : sharing of ideas & experiences & beliefs & opinions & theories. Incestuous Reasoning in a Solipsistic world only breeds monsters. :gasp:

WHAT YOU BELIEVE DEPENDS ON HOW YOU FRAME THE EVIDENCE

Nice!

Is there any reason for monism rather than dualism/pluralism?

Is it a case of simplification (novacula occami)? Is pluralism/dualism overkill, marked by superfluity/redundancy/extravagance? Dual-purpose tech? Depending on how you use a surgical scalpel, you could save/kill.

The "Butterfly Effect" is an example of order emerging from chaos. — Gnomon

Or rather the exact opposite.

WHAT YOU BELIEVE DEPENDS ON HOW YOU FRAME THE EVIDENCE — Gnomon

Or how deeply you misunderstand it.

I prefer to follow the work of Stuart Hameroff and Roger Penrose on the question of human consciousness. — universeness

Argh! Hameroff is a charlatan. I don't say that lightly.

Neurobiology certainly is quantum in interesting ways. Science has established that. But Hameroff is peddling a different level of bullshit. Penrose gullibly is along for the ride.

Interesting OP! Matter is energy and energy is matter, they transform into one another. However, they aren't opposites in a yin-yang sense (vide the problem of causation with mind-body dualism). Opposites, to give a rather obvious example, like light and dark can't transform into each other (re Parmenides, what something is can't be derived from what that thing is not; ex nihilo nihil fit). These are ancient principles of course, but they do make sense at some level and I appeal to that to make the point.

My problem is that once we posit monism,, opposite qualities like the one I mentioned above can be accommodated only if we introduce concepts like aspect/side/facet and so on. Just get it over with and adopt dualism/pluralism, oui? You're already at, perhaps even past, the halfway mark between monism and dualiem/pluralism anyway.

That said, we could say that monism with facets/sides/aspects is an in-between, a compromise of sorts, the madhyaka/the middle path.

Most fascinating!

The "Butterfly Effect" is an example of order emerging from chaos. — Gnomon

No, just sensitive dependence on initial conditions.

Opposites, to give a rather obvious example, like light and dark can't transform into each other (re Parmenides, what something is can't be derived from what that thing is not; ex nihilo nihil fit). — Agent Smith

Give Heraclitus a bell. Let him know the bad news. :chin:

Give Heraclitus a bell. Let him know the bad news. :chin: — apokrisis

:rofl: Heraclitus, the change guy, would've said that

1. Panta rhei
2. Min-Max

Hey presto!, creatio ex nihilo.

No, just sensitive dependence on initial conditions. — jgill

Talking of which, I was browsing this on structural chaos - https://www.researchgate.net/publication/279265558_Structural_Chaos

(Undercooked, but an interesting distinction.)

The Kalam argument says that "whatever begins to exist has a cause of its existence, (ii) The universe began to exist, and (iii) Therefore, the universe has a cause of its existence". Which is undeniably true of anything within the cause & effect chain of Space-Time. But, it implies that the First Cause is external & eternal, hence not subject to the restrictions of space-time or matter-energy-entropy. — Gnomon

I think it's now more commonly known as the completely debunked Kalam cosmological argument.
William Lane Craig is all smoke and mirrors. Even the most basic counter destroys it. If the universe must have a cause then so does your first mind. The infinite regression continues. I also already stated that in quantum physics, retrocausality is possible.

in the same sense that the Big Bang Singularity is "Preternatural" (prior to space-time). Hence, both are "ascientific" in Hossenfelder's terms. — Gnomon

No, as the proposed singularity 'contained' spacetime. The point is that we don't yet know the origin of the universe story but your first cause mind BS is a higher intensity of BS compared to any origin posit suggested by science. I doubt the Kalam total BS is supported by Sabine Hossenfelder.

Astrophysicist Ethan Seigel :
Contrary to recent headlines and Penrose’s assertions, there is no evidence of “a Universe before the Big Bang.” — Gnomon

Penrose posits 'hawking points,' as evidence of a previous universe or aeon. The evidence he cites is fully supported by evidence from the Wmap data and the Planck data. He suggests the evidence he and his team has found and published has a 96% confidence level and has, to-date, not been adequately responded to by the current science community. The Penrose Bounce is like the vast majority of scientific posits, not as you suggest 'philosophical BS' but is based on the rigour of the application of the scientific method. Your first cause mind on the other hand, is like the Kalam, theistic BS.

So, you consider the existence of sentient humans just the luck-of-the-draw? — Gnomon

There is no draw and your synonyms of happenstance do not preclude me from disassociating 'accident' and life being produced as a result of random combination of fundamentals and composites over 13 billion years of time. No god mind required, apart from the need of people like yourself to make forlorn special pleads for it's existence. Many humans feel inadequate, a god mind helps them feel a little more secure. It's just the fantasy superhero image who they want as their benevolent creator and protector. William Lane Craig obviously feels inadequate without it.

If Natural Selection has no future-oriented "intent", — Gnomon

Natural selection has no intent, but human minds do! You have an intent to explain the universe origin story by positing an eternal mind creator. We are products of the process of evolution via natural selection, but WE DO have intent. You can argue that the Universe now has intent via lifeforms such as us but that for me, is a form of panpsychism or (as a bone for the theists), an emergent pantheism.

Why did Darwin feel the need to postulate "Natural Selection" if not
to provide a hypothetical alternative to "Supernatural Selection"? :halo: — Gnomon

Because, it was not a hypothetical alternative to woo woo, (no wonder you include an appeal to a halo emoticon, even you know you are typing nonsense comparisons.) it was the discovery of the fact of natural selection based on overwhelming empirical evidence, including the fact the 99% of all species that have ever existed on Earth are now extinct.

You seem incredulous. Is that because Sabine's frame is different from your own faith-frame? Just kidding. :joke: — Gnomon

You demonstrate your own personal need for others to have a 'faith frame.' You reveal your personal wish that a first cause, supernatural, superhero, mind that cares about you is REAL and exists.
No kidding, good luck with that fantasy, if it helps you sleep easier.

Quantum Fields are imaginary metaphors. So there is no hard "evidence" of creative "fluctuations". — Gnomon

The theory of quantum fields is arguably the most successful scientific theory of all time. In some cases, it makes predictions that agree with experiments to an astonishing 12 decimal places.

So, if not due to "that which already has existence", what is that mathematical-point-of-origin (Singularity) evidence of? Existent Something from pre-existent nothing? — Gnomon

WE DONT KNOW YET! 'Nothing' has no demonstrable example in this universe, nor in science. Even the symbol 0 is not nothing. A singularity is just 'something' that the fundamentals came from. It is simply a label for THE fundamental source, it is a mindless spark that no longer exists. We have NO IDEA what a singularity is. I for one, am totally convinced that it certainly IS NOT a first cause mind.

Thanks for lending me your sharp weeding implements. That's what philosophical forums are for : sharing of ideas & experiences & beliefs & opinions & theories. — Gnomon

:up: I agree, btw, imo, solipsism is nonsense.

Argh! Hameroff is a charlatan. I don't say that lightly.

Neurobiology certainly is quantum in interesting ways. Science has established that. But Hameroff is peddling a different level of bullshit. Penrose gullibly is along for the ride. — apokrisis

You would need to provide a lot more evidence than your typed protestation above.
How about debunking the content of:
Consciousness, microtubules and the physics of the brain.

The idea itself is easy to debunk. My particular reason for calling Hameroff a charlatan was the transparency with which when he saw I wasn’t buying his quantum coherence in microtubules story, he then switched to his earlier speculative theory about microtubules as cellular automata computers of consciousness.

Just a make shit up kind of guy.