but Gnomon stops short of claiming it is God. — Agent Smith
If you insist on putting a label on my philosophical First Cause concept, try Deism — Gnomon
From a Quora discussion:I think you’re referencing a different sort of efficiency. Not even sure what you mean by that statement. — noAxioms
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
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
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
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.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
But still they persisted and eventually they succeeded. I think we will do the same in space or die trying.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
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
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
The ship full of colonists can send out probes when its sensible to do so.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
Been done many many times in history. Many proved to be competent but also complete evil b******s.There is no perfect system, just improvements on current ones.
I proposed a better one. Screw democracy. Find somebody competent. — noAxioms
Brain wipe em young to be on your side. — noAxioms
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
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
Taking the basic means of survival for granted, is not a handout, imo, its a basic human right.There are those that simply want a handout, and are effectively nobody. There are whole cultures that encourage this attitude. — 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.'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
Not anymore, noMost 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
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.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, 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.'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, 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.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
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.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
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.'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
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
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".Brain matter in humans contain and demonstrably manifest, human intent and purpose
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.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
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:Does the deity of your imagination, have the omni qualifications or is it fallible? — 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?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
So Wiccan / Zoroastrian mystagogy ... :sparkle:I prefer duotheism to monotheism — Agent Smith
Fair enough, but is this not an argument from ignorance? I — universeness
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
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
Would it be a better world, if this was a planet of the apes or a planet of the meercats or ants etc? — universeness
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
Zoroastrian — 180 Proof
That's just right for me. — Goldilocks
Make everything as simple as possible, but not simpler. — Albert Einstein
IIRC, Zoroastrianism is the belief that two gods are eternally at war with one other (light vs darkness). — 180 Proof
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
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
Most discussions end up spending most of their time arguing about what the word means rather than discussing substantive issues. — T Clark
How about 'singularity?'
— universeness
I have been advised not to talk about it! — Alkis Piskas
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
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
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.You seem to rely mainly on the Argument from Personal Incredulity. — 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.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
Interesting!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
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.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
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?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
I was with you for the first few sentences here and then you went to woo woo land.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
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.'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
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.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
I broadly agree that if we are intelligently designed then our designer is an incompetent fool.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
If you are simply suggesting that humans are the most intelligent species on Earth, then I fully agree with you.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
Again I broadly agree, apart from your suggestion that the human experience cannot be massively enhanced by AI.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
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.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
the broadly applicable Enformationism worldview could be converted into a religion — Gnomon
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
If you are simply suggesting that humans are the most intelligent species on Earth, then I fully agree with you. — universeness
Again I broadly agree, apart from your suggestion that the human experience cannot be massively enhanced by AI. — universeness
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.