but Gnomon stops short of claiming it is God. — Agent Smith

Not any more, he types that he is a deist:

If you insist on putting a label on my philosophical First Cause concept, try Deism — Gnomon

What is the digital universe called? — Alkis Piskas

How about 'singularity?'

I think you’re referencing a different sort of efficiency. Not even sure what you mean by that statement. — noAxioms

From a Quora discussion:
as shown in peer-reviewed reviews over the last 10 years, to be the result of the conversion of deuterium to helium, and that conversion involves a “mass deficit,” i.e., the mass of the helium product is a little less than the mass of the deuterium that was converted to helium.
That is a definite amount of energy, by the laws of thermodynamics; expressed as 23.8 MeV/4He. I.e,. that much energy is released for every helium atom formed. That’s a lot of energy for a very little helium.

OK, this seems totally illogical. ER is limited by definition. You can’t make more, you can only attempt to waste less. OK, there are exceptions such as putting up solar collectors in high orbit, which is essentially a space-based death ray with a minor computer hack. — noAxioms

From physics.org: Can we get 100% of our energy from renewables:
Now, scientists have hit back with their response to the points raised by Heard and colleagues. The researchers from the Karlsruhe Institute of Technology and collaborators have analysed hundreds of studies to answer each of the apparent issues. They demonstrate that there are no roadblocks to a 100 percent renewable future.

Does it? Last I looked it still costs more. OK, hydro has always been pretty cheap, but not so much solar and wind. They’re based on expensive equipment which needs regular replacement. Part of this is subsidies, which need to be accounted for when comparing actual costs. — noAxioms

From the world economic forum:
Cost differences between renewables and fossil fuels have traditionally guided new renewable energy additions, especially in developing countries. Market economics often made new fossil fuel generation cheaper – a dangerous choice considering the climate imperative of meeting rising power demand with low-carbon electricity.

But those days are ending, according to Bloomberg New Energy Finance’s (BNEF) Climatescope 2014 report, which finds renewable electricity is now just as affordable an option as fossil fuel in 55 emerging nations across Africa, Asia, and Latin America and the Caribbean.

BNEF suggests the scale may have already tipped toward renewables in these markets. Clean energy capacity in the surveyed nations grew 143% between 2008-2013, nearly twice as fast as in the richer Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) nations, and has more than doubled over the period to 142 total gigawatts (GW).

Exponential growth will always overpopulate a species no matter how fast they colonize new systems. That’s kind of simple geometry. I had done a topic on what it would be like with a planet of infinite resources/land/area. Each location has limited resources, but there’s always the frontier. Answer: Not exponential population growth. Linear at best, which is in the long run the same number of descendants per capita as no growth. — noAxioms

I don't understand your logic here. Exponential growth and linear growth are both growth, why does 'the number of descendants per capita, in the long run, result in NO growth?

Fair enough. I’m trying to figure out what can actually help us on Earth that is best imported from off-planet sources. Certainly building material for stuff being built in space, but how does that help the planet other than to relieve them of the efforts needed to bring that material up from the surface? — noAxioms

It helps maintain the ecology of our planet, if we don't have to rip out it's resources to build stuff on the Earth or extraterrestially. Use up all those useless asteroids etc or lifeless planets/moon's to get the chemicals we need. Use fully automated robotic systems to do the gathering and transporting as much as possible.

It's no different than it was when compared to pioneering humans on the move. They had to bring their supplies with them until they could establish a supply chain wherever they ended up.
They did export stuff back too, and yes, building materials was probably top of the list. Still, the pioneers landed in an environment for which they were already evolved, and an alarming percentage of them still died within a year or two. — noAxioms

But still they persisted and eventually they succeeded. I think we will do the same in space or die trying.

If you have excess population, many are going to die anyway, especially under the ‘share all the world’ socialism where the most resources go to those needing it most. Not to ding that strategy, but some kind of ‘cut your losses’ mechanism needs to be in place to prevent that sort of thing from happening.
Or maybe my definition of ‘excess population’ isn’t yours and we’re talking past each other. — noAxioms

I think we probably are talking past each other. The rationing that has happened during war times such as WW II is the kind of solutions, that I would apply to excess population, until a better solution can be found, which would either be finding/creating more supplies or educating people regarding the excess population problem and convince all humans to stop having too many children that we cannot support.
A 1 child max for example until the problem is reduced, or is contained. I would not legislate for such, in the way China did but I would invoke a massive public information campaign, if necessary.

A different way of answering your question is to focus on ‘would have been better’. Would have been better for what? By what goal are we measuring the benefit of a planet of only fish vs one including land animals? — noAxioms

Life exists in two environment instead of only one, with hopefully some creatures that can live in both. The more options your species has, the better chance it has to survive and thrive.

With pioneer missions to other worlds, scouting missions may not be an option. Coming back certainly isn’t, but a ship full of colonists would be heading to unknown conditions without the scout. By the time a robot gets there and reports back, its senders stand a fair chance of not being around to hear the answer. The trips take an obscene amount of time, all the movies notwithstanding that treat interstellar travel like a bicycle ride to the corner thrift store. — noAxioms

The ship full of colonists can send out probes when its sensible to do so.
The senders still being alive when the robot returns is not required. We just need their actions and reasons and intent memorialised, so that those who are still there when the robot returns, can analyse its findings. The time involved depends on the tech involved.

There is no perfect system, just improvements on current ones.
I proposed a better one. Screw democracy. Find somebody competent. — noAxioms

Been done many many times in history. Many proved to be competent but also complete evil b******s.
So they were competent at creating totalitarian terror regimes or equally horrific plutocratic or aristocratic regimes, where only their chosen few gained unchecked and imbalanced power.
I find your knee jerk jump towards a single all powerful leader, disturbing and quite exasperating, considering human history.

If you insist.

Brain wipe em young to be on your side. — noAxioms

I still think you are a nice person noAxioms but you might also be a bit mad! :joke:

About majority doing the right thing, that often doesn’t happen. Town just north of me had a high school falling apart and in need of more rooms. They were holding class in the gym showers due to lack of space anywhere else. The had a federal offer to pay for 95% of the cost of repairs and new construction, with the town people picking up the other 5% which would have raised their school taxes a tiny bit. They put it to the voters instead of representatives. The voters shot it down, and now their taxes went up a lot a few years later because they have to pay for all of it themselves instead of accepting the federal grant. All the voters saw was ‘small pain now’ and no vision of ‘much more pain in a few years’ that it would have prevented. The kind of action I’m talking about is this sort of thing. Long term benefits. Those are not popular, hence the extreme danger to humanity. — noAxioms

If those who you would have labelled as 'on the correct side' of the situation you describe above, were unable to convince a majority of the stakeholders involved, that they should have accepted the federal grant then the failure is with that inability to convince. This of course assumes that those who voted to reject the grant were not 'fooled' or 'manipulated.' You should survey those involved and find out f they still think they made the right choice and if not, then it's a lesson learned. From a democratic standpoint I think your example above is an example of democracy working correctly. Perhaps the stakeholders involved are still happy with the vote they cast at the time for the reasons they cast it.

What, line some up and shoot them? No, probably not that, but something closer to how the Netherlands does it comes to mind. My grandmother was murdered there by the system. Murder by my country’s standards anyway. — noAxioms

As I said, sometimes, you seem a little bit crazy. :lol:
Then I hope you will fight or have already fought for justice for your grandmother in the Netherlands.

There are those that simply want a handout, and are effectively nobody. There are whole cultures that encourage this attitude. — noAxioms

Taking the basic means of survival for granted, is not a handout, imo, its a basic human right.

I would establish a benevolent communication system with every new born from cradle to grave.
What is this? Sounds like a school. What if the benevolent entity communicates something other than what the parents of the newborn want communicated? — noAxioms

'Social workers,' work with parents and children. What I envisage, would be much more nuanced and far better resourced, than any current national or local model of a 'social work department.'

Most layabouts get very bored quite often.
Don’t personally know the mindset. They watch TV I think. I don’t very much, and it pisses a lot of acquaintances that I cannot join discussion of the latest twist in some reality show or something.

Perhaps they would want to use their mind and body in ways that they would enjoy and would help the society/community they live in.
That would not be a layabout then, right? — noAxioms

Not anymore, no

Communication, support, respect, cooperation, justice, etc etc must become foundational when it comes to how people are supported.
All the cynicism above aside, I agree with this. Make the people and their children part of a whole, part of the culture. It works because I see it. Trick is to break the pattern of them identifying with the group encouraging the opposite. It perhaps means destroying cultural identity. It seems to work best in places with little of that, but then what do I know? I don’t live in those places. — noAxioms

No cynicism was intended on my part. I think people should discuss, honestly, any perceived injustices employed in any 'cultural identity' they feel emotionally tied to, and I agree that they may have to 'get rid of' any traditional cultural edicts or behaviour/attitudes which cause 'unfair' treatment of others.

A person who works to help their community (or even their universe) should be recognised
What does this recognition look like? Get a name on a poster or the nightly news? I mean, I do see it in some countries. In India, apparently your status is based on how many people you have under you. The recognition is an org-chart. You can be a brilliant contributor but don’t have any underlings, and you’d be pretty much a disappointment to your folks. I’ve seen this. — noAxioms

No, I mean a homemaker or a home carer that is a relative, or a person who spends a great deal of their time writing stories or music or painting pictures or educating themselves or contributing to online discussion forums, etc, etc, should be recognised as engaging in activities which are recognised as 'having a job.'

Take the money out of sports and it will become the healthy endeavour and fun competitive entertainment it should have always been.
It would become like little-league then. I guess that works. No more sports section in the newspaper except perhaps a page about how the local teams did against each other. My paper here actually devotes a decent percentage of its space to that. Not all national standings and such. — noAxioms

No, national and international level competitive sport would continue, but for reasons other than the wish to become rich. Remember the starting point. Everyone gets the food, drink, shelter, education, legal and medical protection, the right to a job they want to do and the free training/education they need to do so, etc, erc, all FREE from cradle to grave.

Let's say I could represent an 'up quark,' by the binary rep:
10010000110110001101101110000110011100000011.
It would take an infinite number of bits to describe a quark. Just its position in space (if there is such a meaningful thing, which there isn’t) would need infinite bits, even if done only as accurately as the nearest meter. — noAxioms

Why? Spacetime positions are relative. I don't see why its position would be important, if the purpose is to represent any 'up-quark' using something like binary, for the purpose of reproducing one. It's position would not have any significance until its binary code is used to create one.

If I explain the above binary representation of an up quark as representing:
1. An unique identifier for an 'up quark.'
2. The charge on a up-quark. (relating to accepted units)
3. The spin or angular momentum.
4. Mass (accepted units)
An identifier that say ‘up quark’ would suffice for 1, 2 and 4 since these are the same for all up quarks. The spin is a property of this quark, and per the vast majority of quantum interpretations, it doesn’t have one except when it is measured, and then only along one axis, so the actual spin can only be expressed relative to that one axis. A single bit will do then. Items 1-4 can probably be done in under 10 bits. The wavefunction of the quark would require, well, infinite bits. — noAxioms

A data packet about to be transmitted will contain binary bits, that have no direct relevance to the 'payload' of the data packet. Such bits are normally called 'redundant data.'
This 'metadata' has many purposes. Source and destination IP addresses, Packet number/id, etc. Even the payload will have support bits such as a parity bit, a start and stop bit etc.
There has to be a means of distinguishing between data packets who's payload is textual or is a bit map or is audio data etc. So, in the case of fundamental field excitations, there would have to be an ID system established to differentiate between a payload that was a coded quark, photon, electron, gluon etc. You would not use something as cumbersome, as the ASCII codes for the letters in 'up-quark'
The wave function would not require infinite bits as most waveforms repeat and therefore only a wave section would have to be stored. A waveform could also be stored as a mathematical function rather than a representation of its physical form

Fine, I can live with that, although I think the term metaphysics is more overburdened than is suggested by the quote above. This was raised in a very well structured thread by T Clark in The Metaphysics of Materialism. I stand by the posts I made in that thread, on the topic of metaphysics. — universeness

Thank you. You're right about metaphysics being overburdened. Most discussions end up spending most of their time arguing about what the word means rather than discussing substantive issues.

Brain matter in humans contain and demonstrably manifest, human intent and purpose

The brain is a stimulus-response mechanism, composed of neurons and glia. It has as much "purpose" as any other machine or mechanism. Computer programs, robots, etc. also manifest such a "purpose".
Matter does not have intention. Matter does not need or desire anything. Need and desire are atrributes of life.

How about 'singularity?' — universeness

I have been advised not to talk about it!

I'm sure I've pointed out to you what's wrong with that interpretation. The dao is an exampke of what western philosophers term "dialectical monism". Like entropy (i.e. disorder-order) — 180 Proof
Yep, dialectical monism and hence, inter alia, monotheism - instead of two entities, one with two mutually cancelling properties, which of course leads to a problem (Epicurean riddle vis-à-vis the problem of evil). — Agent Smith

FWIW, Gnomon is not an expert on Taoism. So any resemblances between that ancient philosophy and Enformationism is primarily in its non-theist*1 explanation for the ups & downs of the world. However, the "dialectical monism" description does fit the opposite/complement notion of how Energy & Entropy work together to produce a dynamic world of myriad forms.

So you are correct to note that both the Tao and the First Cause are singular and unique. But the mechanism/metabolism of a living organism (evolving world) depends on the Hegelian dialectic of opposing forces : Energy/Entropy ; Good/Evil ; Hot/Cold ; Thesis/Antithesis. Yet. it's the Synthesis stage that points in a consistent evolutionary direction : the Arrow of Time. :smile:


*1. Is Taoism theistic? :
Taoism is practised as a religion in various Asian communities. Its theology is not theist (even though some communities do worship Laozi as the attributed founder of the religious doctrine), and has more affinities with pantheistic traditions given its philosophical emphasis on the formlessness of the Tao.
http://www-scf.usc.edu/~xueyuanw/itp104/project/culture/taoism.html
Note -- Lao Tzu's intellectual philosophy was Deistic, but the popular religions that emerged later were typically Poly-theistic.

Does the deity of your imagination, have the omni qualifications or is it fallible? — universeness

The only pertinent qualification of the Deist Creator is the ability to initiate the living & thinking cosmic system of which humans are a small, but knowing part. Beyond that necessary ability, anything else I might say is speculation based on personal experience with human intention and creativity. The creation itself is necessarily "fallible", because it is a Heuristic*1 process of evolution toward some solution to the creation algorithm. :smile:

PS__I don't pigeonhole myself as a "Deist", because those ignorant of the term's history assume that it is a practical Religion instead of a theoretical Philosophy. The deduced deity is an inference from evidence that the world is not eternal, not an imaginary humanoid.

*1. Heuristic Evolution :
proceeding to a solution by trial and error or by rules that are only loosely defined.
Oxford
Note -- the rules of evolution (laws of nature) are open-ended, instead of definitive; allowing for progression.

So based on this 'I don't know,' admission regarding the origin story of the universe or answering the hard problem of consciousness, your musings has landed firmly on the 'deism' posit as the one you give highest credence to. — universeness

You seem to rely mainly on the Argument from Personal Incredulity. Since you denigrate the agnostic philosophy of Deism, I assume you would label yourself as a "Gnostic" (knower) concerning Origins, Consciousness, etc. Is that true?

BTW, I do have some musings on the topic of a technical, non-mythical, Origin Story. But I won't go into a long dissertation in this post. FWIW, here's a brief glimpse :

In the beginning (Big Bang??) there was no Matter, only Energy & Laws. So the postulated zero-dimensional Singularity had to possess those essential immaterial (no matter, no space, no extension) properties in order to create a physical world from scratch. So, it first had to produce the basic element of Matter ; a Quark perhaps. The physical properties of hypothetical Quarks are assumed to be : charge, mass, color, spin. But all of those qualities must be inferred, because as metaphors they cannot be detected directly. "Charge" is the name for an ability : potential to form relationships, such as attraction, repulsion, etc. But the first step toward evolution would be a Bit of Information, from which a sub-sub-atomic Quark could be constructed. Yet, all those initial/essential properties/qualities are informational relationships, not material objects.

In essence, Energy is simply the Potential to actualize, to realize something from statistical Possibility. And natural Laws are information patterns to which material things necessarily conform. Since the Singularity did not exist in space or time, its unbound Energy would be Omni-Potence, and its unlimited Laws would be Omni-Science. Do those pre-natural god-like powers sound credible to you? Probably not, because they are not found in physics textbooks. Nevermind, it's just something to think about, not to believe.

Before the beginning of space-time, the hypothetical Singularity would have to be non-ergodic*1 (no states yet). But the emergent universe seems to be progressing toward complete ergodicity*2 (a stable whole/holistic system). In the process of Evolution, the system is unstable. So Information patterns of relationships must be flexible. Those information patterns are the Software of the universal computer, and material objects are the Hardware of the computing system. Hence, the universe is not now, and never has been in equilibrium, but it may eventually reach a uniform state of perfect Ergodicity (wholeness). But, I ain't making no prophecies. :smile:



*1. Ergodic :
relating to or denoting systems or processes with the property that, given sufficient time, they include or impinge on all points in a given space and can be represented statistically by a reasonably large selection of points.
___Oxford
Note -- "Impinge" = relationship, connection, information

*2. Ergodicity :
Ergodicity is a property of the system; it is a statement that the system cannot be reduced or factored into smaller components.
___Wiki

*3. Enformationism : (credence?)
"It's not something to believe ; it's something to think". Plausible, not Creedal
http://enformationism.info/enformationism.info/

Autopoiesis : "Enformy" :: 2001 : Star Wars, no? :nerd:

I prefer duotheism to monotheism — Agent Smith

So Wiccan / Zoroastrian mystagogy ... :sparkle:

Fair enough, but is this not an argument from ignorance? I — universeness

Absolutely! There is no way I know enough to not be ignorant. I think Socrates' sentiment about ignorance is quite wise.

Its like "I don't know the answers, so, it just is what it is and that's all that it is!' I don't understand why you say 'its mechanical,' and suggest that mechanical is not connected to 'intellectual?' — universeness

I am so glad you got what I meant to say. Physics and intelligence are separate things. Glue is going to stick, drop something off the roof and it will fall down, salted water is less likely to freeze than unsalted water. That just is the way things are and no intelligence is required. If oxygen could not bond with hydrogen, we would not have water. What is is because it can be and what is not is not because of what can not be. Only later when humans come on the stage is there any thinking about all this. Unless of course there are creatures like ourselves on other planets. I think the whole universe is one big experiment, not something planned. I mean for goodness' sake if we were planned our backs would be a whole lot stronger. We could be made to be monogamous as some birds are. We are not designed well for our reality.

Chardin (never heard of him/her/gender variant) sounds like a panpsychist. — universeness

Pierre Teilhard de Chardin SJ (French: [pjɛʁ tɛjaʁ də ʃaʁdɛ̃] ( listen (help·info)); 1 May 1881 – 10 April 1955) was a French Jesuit priest, scientist, paleontologist, theologian, philosopher and teacher. He was Darwinian in outlook and the author of several influential theological and philosophical books. — Wikipedia

What do you mean? Animals are conscious, yes? Or are you going down the solipsistic path? — universeness

May be I could have worded myself differently but of what are animals conscious and might there be an important difference when we come to human consciousness? I don't think there are any other animals that could contribute enlightening thoughts to the forum.

Would it be a better world, if this was a planet of the apes or a planet of the meercats or ants etc? — universeness

I don't think so and I don't AI can give us a better reality either. What makes humans awesome is not the few geniuses but what our ability to communicate has done to our reality. If apes could communicate as we do, then possibly they would be just as awesome. However, if we find isolated primitive people, they are nothing like modern-day humans. I think our communication abilities are what makes us awesome. Some industries are learning this, such as those that promised to go green. They had no clue how they were going improve their operations to meet the goals they promised they would meet. Instead of knowing how to achieve their goals, they announced they were interested in knowing what others thought would be helpful. It was the thoughts of many people that lead to improvements. Apes aren't up to that, despite the movie Planet of the Apes.

So, don't worry about any 'science' you don't know or understand. I think we should celebrate the fact that as Newton famously said: — universeness

Now that idea is totally backward! We are naturally curious and that, along with our capacity for communication, has led to our awesome progress. Horses run, fish swim, and humans think. It is for us to explore all sciences and learn all we can about the universe. Especially at this time in our lives, it is our duty to learn all we can from geologists and anthropologists and related sciences and HISTORY so that we can make better decisions than we have ever made. If we don't we could become extinct and if we are the only creature that gives the universe consciousness, that would be a tragedy.

Zoroastrian — 180 Proof

That's just right for me. — Goldilocks

Polytheism, no, I have crowd phobia. Duotheism hits the sweet spot.

Make everything as simple as possible, but not simpler. — Albert Einstein

What sayest thou?

IIRC, Zoroastrianism is the belief that two gods are eternally at war with one another (light vs darkness).

NB: "Pandeism" is my jam. :smirk:

IIRC, Zoroastrianism is the belief that two gods are eternally at war with one other (light vs darkness). — 180 Proof

Bundleware, si, señor! Daoist, Heraclitean, Empedoclean undertones. I don't have a choice. Intriguing that logic is about having no option but to accept yada yada yada.

any resemblances between that ancient philosophy and Enformationism is primarily in its non-theist*1 explanation for the ups & downs of the world. However, the "dialectical monism" description does fit the opposite/complement notion of how Energy & Entropy work together to produce a dynamic world of myriad forms. — Gnomon

You find philosophical approaches which parallel Taoist principles in many places, including western philosophies. Kant's noumena are a good example.

Taoism is practised as a religion in various Asian communities. Its theology is not theist (even though some communities do worship Laozi as the attributed founder of the religious doctrine), and has more affinities with pantheistic traditions given its philosophical emphasis on the formlessness of the Tao. — Gnomon

I disagree with this, although many others, including many with more expertise than I, do agree with it. Lao Tzu and Chuang Tzu, the two primary sources for Taoist thought, mention God, but almost in passing. For me, Taoist thought is a philosophy, not a religion. It is true that later interpretations did become, as you note, a polytheistic religion with some magical beliefs.

:up:

Most discussions end up spending most of their time arguing about what the word means rather than discussing substantive issues. — T Clark

I broadly agree, but 'what the word means,' IS a very substantive issue imo. God, science, universe, metaphysics, transcendent, sophist, liar are all words whose contextual meanings are crucial. Depending on what meaning people take from such words, it often cascades into what actions they take in their lives.

How about 'singularity?'
— universeness
I have been advised not to talk about it! — Alkis Piskas

Who you been taking advice from Alkis?
Not Maxwell's demon I hope! :scream: :joke: (only kidding Alkis!)

Certainly not Maxwell's demon! He's a fake.
(I was joking too, you know.)

The only pertinent qualification of the Deist Creator is the ability to initiate the living & thinking cosmic system of which humans are a small, but knowing part. Beyond that necessary ability, anything else I might say is speculation based on personal experience with human intention and creativity. The creation itself is necessarily "fallible", because it is a Heuristic*1 process of evolution toward some solution to the creation algorithm. — Gnomon

Well, a little more detail in your 'speculations,' may help more of your readers understand where you are coming from.
Is your 'deist creator' analogue or digital? If it's eternal and singular then in that sense, it's a digit, yes? 'There can be only one,' (the tag line from the film The Highlander.) Does your envisaged entity have constituent parts? Is it quantum/quantisable? or a continuum of analogue states?
Why did it create an initially chaotic universe, that contained no life at all, for many billions of years, or do you believe that abiogenisis was happening somewhere in the universe, right from the start?
Surely if The creation itself is necessarily "fallible", then so must the creator be. How can an infallible enformer create fallible enformation?

PS__I don't pigeonhole myself as a "Deist", because those ignorant of the term's history assume that it is a practical Religion instead of a theoretical Philosophy. The deduced deity is an inference from evidence that the world is not eternal, not an imaginary humanoid. — Gnomon

You seem to be back-peddling here Gnomon. Deism is a well defined term with an easily understood meaning. Don't choose to use a label, if it inconveniently, does not serve your purposes at times.
If your thinking causes you to deduce a deity, then it is your burden to provide the 'details' and consequentials of that conclusion. You can declare your deity as existing outside of this universe and if your 'eternal,' has constituent parts, then you might suggest, that it may be made of 'supernatural' fundamentals, as in, not made of any substance which exists 'naturally' in this universe. BUT as part of your 'theoretical philosophy,' of an origin story for our universe, you must deal with questions regarding your deity such as:
Why did it create a universe which produced dinosaurs? What were they for?
Why did it create almost useless planets like mercury? What's the planet Mercury for?
Why does Jupiter and Saturn have so many useless moons? What are they for?
What's the debris called 'the Kuiper belt' for?

Do you consider such questions? or do you just go with the, well, I don't know!
Do you think its possible to find out why your proposed deity took the actions it took?
That's the main problem with suggesting an organised, self-aware mind, as the creator of the universe.
WE require it to explain it's actions and if it wont then WE will declare it non-existent and move on.

Was you whisperer analogue or digital?

You seem to rely mainly on the Argument from Personal Incredulity. — Gnomon

I do experience personal incredulity towards others, yes, but I still remain very interested as to why a persons believes as they do. I try to balance any impression I may give of mockery or disdain for another's belief system, as much as I can. But I also refuse to try to tread on eggshells without damaging them, all the time, as I think it's also insulting, to treat an interlocuter as if they were a fragile snowflake.

Since you denigrate the agnostic philosophy of Deism, I assume you would label yourself as a "Gnostic" (knower) concerning Origins, Consciousness, etc. Is that true? — Gnomon

I am an atheist and a naturalist and I think that application of the scientific method, is the ONLY way to find the answers to any questions about origins. Philosophers can certainly help a great deal, as their musings can make scientists think in ways that can redirect their focus, and can help them discover new approaches for discovering new knowledge.

BTW, I do have some musings on the topic of a technical, non-mythical, Origin Story. But I won't go into a long dissertation in this post. — Gnomon

Interesting!

FWIW, here's a brief glimpse :
In the beginning (Big Bang??) there was no Matter, only Energy & Laws. So the postulated zero-dimensional Singularity had to possess those essential immaterial (no matter, no space, no extension) properties in order to create a physical world from scratch. — Gnomon

Have a look at sources such as The big bang singularity discussed on the physics stack exchange. Your description of the big bang singularity is contested.
Maths and physics breaks down at the proposed singularity, as a first cause. How can something be infinitely dense and have 0 dimensions (no extent)? The singularity is a 'placeholder' for the mathematical and physical rewinding of inflation/expansion. The fact that the big bang singularity is poorly defined, allows (for me) the more credible hypotheses, such as Mtheory/many worlds/multiverse or cyclical universe hypotheses, such as Roger Penrose's CCC.

So, it first had to produce the basic element of Matter ; a Quark perhaps. The physical properties of hypothetical Quarks are assumed to be : charge, mass, color, spin. But all of those qualities must be inferred, because as metaphors they cannot be detected directly. "Charge" is the name for an ability : potential to form relationships, such as attraction, repulsion, etc. But the first step toward evolution would be a Bit of Information, from which a sub-sub-atomic Quark could be constructed. Yet, all those initial/essential properties/qualities are informational relationships, not material objects. — Gnomon

A bit? Would this not mean you would have to abandon your 'analogue' view as the most credible candidate for a universal fundamental? Surely before you think of something such as 'Quark,' you must first tackle what the quark is formed inside of? What is space made of? Does space have 'quantum fluctuations?

In essence, Energy is simply the Potential to actualize, to realize something from statistical Possibility. And natural Laws are information patterns to which material things necessarily conform. Since the Singularity did not exist in space or time, its unbound Energy would be Omni-Potence, and its unlimited Laws would be Omni-Science. Do those pre-natural god-like powers sound credible to you? Probably not, because they are not found in physics textbooks. Nevermind, it's just something to think about, not to believe. — Gnomon

I was with you for the first few sentences here and then you went to woo woo land.
Why do you decide to plug in a singularity with anthropomorphic 'intent' and invoke the useless god label. Why do you choose to jump from the very rational 'potential to actualize' to ...... god-like-powers. :roll:

Before the beginning of space-time, the hypothetical Singularity would have to be non-ergodic*1 (no states yet). But the emergent universe seems to be progressing toward complete ergodicity*2 (a stable whole/holistic system). In the process of Evolution, the system is unstable. So Information patterns of relationships must be flexible. Those information patterns are the Software of the universal computer, and material objects are the Hardware of the computing system. Hence, the universe is not now, and never has been in equilibrium, but it may eventually reach a uniform state of perfect Ergodicity (wholeness). But, I ain't making no prophecies. :smile: — Gnomon

The problem here, is that there is no way we currently know of, to observe the universe in its biggest frame of reference (if 'biggest' makes any sense here). For example, will we be able to observe significant time dilation actually occur. A person who leaves on a spaceship and travels fast enough to return younger than the children he/she/hesh left behind? This would confirm that time is a local phenomena and has no objective reality. Then we would need to know a lot more about black holes and what is going on inside them. I don't think it's about the universe reaching some 'state of equilibrium' or balance or midpoint between high and low entropy. It may be that there is no aspect of 'reality' that is 'objectively true' for every point in the universe (ergodic/non-ergodic). Still no creator mind with intent, required imo, just 'mysteries of the universe,' that only lifeforms such as US may be able to 'discover.' IF the structure and workings of the universe are indeed 'knowable.'

Only later when humans come on the stage is there any thinking about all this. Unless of course there are creatures like ourselves on other planets. — Athena

But don't underplay the significance of that event. That is approximately when the universe was called the universe. What's in a name? HUMAN INTELLIGENCE. The universe then became 'knowable,' and that is very very significant imo. Especially when you understand that there is no god required.

I think the whole universe is one big experiment, not something planned. I mean for goodness' sake if we were planned our backs would be a whole lot stronger. We could be made to be monogamous as some birds are. We are not designed well for our reality. — Athena

I broadly agree that if we are intelligently designed then our designer is an incompetent fool.

What do you mean? Animals are conscious, yes? Or are you going down the solipsistic path?
— universeness

May be I could have worded myself differently but of what are animals conscious and might there be an important difference when we come to human consciousness? I don't think there are any other animals that could contribute enlightening thoughts to the forum. — Athena

If you are simply suggesting that humans are the most intelligent species on Earth, then I fully agree with you.

Would it be a better world, if this was a planet of the apes or a planet of the meercats or ants etc?
— universeness

I don't think so and I don't AI can give us a better reality either. What makes humans awesome is not the few geniuses but what our ability to communicate has done to our reality. If apes could communicate as we do, then possibly they would be just as awesome. However, if we find isolated primitive people, they are nothing like modern-day humans. I think our communication abilities are what makes us awesome. Some industries are learning this, such as those that promised to go green. They had no clue how they were going improve their operations to meet the goals they promised they would meet. Instead of knowing how to achieve their goals, they announced they were interested in knowing what others thought would be helpful. It was the thoughts of many people that lead to improvements. Apes aren't up to that, despite the movie Planet of the Apes. — Athena

Again I broadly agree, apart from your suggestion that the human experience cannot be massively enhanced by AI.

So, don't worry about any 'science' you don't know or understand. I think we should celebrate the fact that as Newton famously said:
— universeness
Now that idea is totally backward! We are naturally curious and that, along with our capacity for communication, has led to our awesome progress. Horses run, fish swim, and humans think. It is for us to explore all sciences and learn all we can about the universe. Especially at this time in our lives, it is our duty to learn all we can from geologists and anthropologists and related sciences and HISTORY so that we can make better decisions than we have ever made. If we don't we could become extinct and if we are the only creature that gives the universe consciousness, that would be a tragedy. — Athena

I think you have misunderstood me here Athena and Newton's quote. I meant don't worry about the science you don't know because you can choose to learn about it if you want to. Newton's quote was just him personally commenting on his status as a 'genius.' He personally considered his discoveries to be minor when compared to what we humans still don't know. So I don't understand your "Now that idea is totally backwards!' interpretation of what I typed.

the broadly applicable Enformationism worldview could be converted into a religion — Gnomon

I am very interested in what you have said. Obviously, reality is more than matter. It might be hormones and brain cells that manifest my feelings, but my feelings are not matter. An idea is not mattered yet an idea can change the world. For years I have had a very difficult time with Western materialism.

I think the possible replacement for religion of which you speak, could benefit from Eastern and Mayan concepts of energy forces. Have you read Jose Arguelles by "The Mayan Factor"? I have tried to read it many times but get so turned off by the far-fetched things the author speaks of, that I put the book down and do not return to it until something in a forum reminds me of the book. Do you know of the Psycho Solar pulsation Matrix?

The end of the book explains a Harmonic Convergence, that depends upon self-empowered individuals creating rituals, celebrations, and joyful events expressing their feelings of peace and harmony with the Earth and with each other. Then there is the Jewish Qabalah and the explanation of the importance of rituals.

So what if we took you seriously and formed a civic association to manifest a new belief?

But don't underplay the significance of that event. That is approximately when the universe was called the universe. What's in a name? HUMAN INTELLIGENCE. The universe then became 'knowable,' and that is very very significant imo. Especially when you understand that there is no god required. — universeness

That is a big responsibility. How might we act on it and manifest a desirable reality?

If you are simply suggesting that humans are the most intelligent species on Earth, then I fully agree with you. — universeness

There is nothing simple about that. Many ancients thought we were created to help our planet. The Sumerian creation story is specific that we are here to help the river stay in its banks so it does not flood and eat the goddess's plants. But plenty of people around the world made the connection between human activity and their environments and food supply. I am really excited by @Gnoman's idea of blending the past with the present. I think we are in the Resurrection, with geologists and anthropologists, and historians resurrecting our past, so our species has more complete information for making better decisions.

Again I broadly agree, apart from your suggestion that the human experience cannot be massively enhanced by AI. — universeness

Oh, my love, you do know how to move a conversation forward. This is so important to the human miracle of intelligence. I believe computers are essential tools and the internet is essential to the New Age. However, we must keep our focus on the importance of humans, and this forum along with Gnoman's replacement of religion may be a part of the New Age. A time of high tech and peace and the end of tyranny.

Yes, things are happening that look bad, but that may be the dark before the dawn. What is essential is how do we react to the bad things that are happening. It is when things become intolerable that we are motivated to create change. I am talking about something AI can not do. Only humans can imagine a better reality and act to manifest it.

We must not depend too much on AI nor depend too much on government. We must build civic associations and voluntarily manifest the New Age. Instead of passively sliding into Armageddon.

And when it comes to AI spell check reminds me constantly of why I do not believe we should rely on AI.
:grimace: Spell check obviously does not know the meaning of what I am saying and it really frightens me that humans will become overly dependent on this technology as we have become overly dependent on government, and people may give up their own power of thinking and acting.

Part of the problem is the technological change to bureaucracy, which is now so impersonal it crushes individual liberty and power. This is the despot of which Tocqueville warned us.