This is merely your speculative opinion. Divine hiddenness is stronger evidence imo, that a god with intent/prime mover/first cause creator, has no and never has had any exemplar existence.The through line of evolution from material objects to their emergent property: consciousness_selfhood — ucarr
I have no idea what this quote is trying to suggest. Are you proposing that each universe in a multiverse is 'layered' in some way? If not, what do you mean by 'multi-tiered'? Word salads always taste bad imo.Heat “death” of a systemic order of the universe towards evolution within a multi-tiered elaboration of ordered multi-verses is not only possible but foundational. — ucarr
There is zero evidence for a layered universe, other than the old romantic notion of our universe being in fact, a quark and every other quark being another universe, but even in that bizarre proposal, each 'verse' is parallel, not tiered.Entropy points toward a cyclical model of a systemic order of a universe within the multi-tiered configuration of multi-verses. — ucarr
No, it's just a muse about what would happen to a system that becomes omnipotent, within the cosmos. It would start to disassemble, so that the cycle could repeat. But why to you reject the beginning of such a cycle as a mindless spark, with zero intent that no longer exists?If the cosmos is cyclical then your notion of god must become a cyclical god which entropy reduces over time back to it's constituent parts.
That’s a succinct description of the history of God-consciousness of an evolving animal kingdom of sentients. — ucarr
Loss of systemization due to heat is an example of nature hedging her bets on paired-values of vectors, as with Heisenberg and the elementary particles. — ucarr
Heat is just 'energetic motion,' but that is not evidence for a god with intent. I don't perceive of any profundity here, just basic physics.Heat, then, is integral to the animation essential to a material universe. Since this is a profound topic, further elaboration herein would be a digression; I’ll stop here for now. — ucarr
In a universe conceptualized materially, there is an oscillation between degrees of specificity of order. At one pole there is high-specificity of order. At the other pole, there is low-specificity of order. This oscillation ranges between order-intricate at the high end and order-neutral at the low end.
Order (systemization), oscillating between high-intelligibility and low-intelligibility, never drops to zero. A material universe is never completely disordered as materialism implies order. True randomness lies outside the light cones of a universe configured materially. — ucarr
It turns out that order, like matter-energy (as claimed by Leonard Susskind) gets conserved. No information is lost to black hole absorption and subsequent evaporation. — ucarr
The through line of evolution from material objects to their emergent property: consciousness_selfhood — ucarr
Heat “death” of a systemic order of the universe towards evolution within a multi-tiered elaboration of ordered multi-verses is not only possible but foundational. — ucarr
There is zero evidence for a layered universe, — universeness
But why to you reject the beginning of such a cycle as a mindless spark, with zero intent that no longer exists? — universeness
when all the galaxy, star and planetary systems have disassembled and energy is dissipated... conditions for a new 'big bang singularity' are reached. — universeness
I do find [Penrose]... far more credible than your prime mover god/mind with intent. — universeness
Heat, then, is integral to the animation essential to a material universe. Since this is a profound topic, further elaboration herein would be a digression; I’ll stop here for now.
— ucarr
Heat is just 'energetic motion,' but that is not evidence for a god with intent. I don't perceive of any profundity here, just basic physics. — universeness
Intelligence is a human subjective measure, it is not a natural law of physics. — universeness
It turns out that order, like matter-energy (as claimed by Leonard Susskind) gets conserved. No information is lost to black hole absorption and subsequent evaporation.
— ucarr
Quote where Susskind states this! that he believes 'order' is always conserved in the universe? — universeness
Much of your OP reads to me like prose with various sprinkled attempts at poetic and sometimes even dramatic phraseology. — universeness
Your 'Clarifying example,' although entertaining, was more a sci-fi offering rather than a sci-fact one. — universeness
So, I think that based on the points/evidence you present in your OP, I will stick with the current, personal, very high credence level, that I assign to the scientific proposal that entropy exists. — universeness
Our empirical experience on earth makes: consciousness-selfhood-emergent-from-matter not a speculation but an observation. — ucarr
So, do you perceive our 3D universe, as three universes? Is the 'spatial extension,' we could call 'lineworld' or 'forwards/backwards only world,' a universe? is 'flatworld' and 'cubeworld' (3D spacetime) separate tiers of what would then be our definitive 'multi-verse.' Are you trying to re-define the term 'multi-verse?'I'm trying to suggest an ascending hierarchy of environments of inter-locked spatial dimensions. I'm calling each step of the hierarchy a universe. In my context, universe means spatially extended material expression. — ucarr
All the spatial dimensions of string theory are mathematical dimensions which are 'wrapped around' or 'curled up' around every 'coordinate' in our 3 extended dimensional space. They are very small unextended dimensions, based on:String theory speculates that more than three spatial dimensions exist. — ucarr
If Hawking radiation conserves energy within a closed cycle of the material universe, then sentient-based purpose is also conserved — ucarr
My prime mover god/mind with intent is the conserved energy of the closed system you endorse. — ucarr
It seems to me that your notion here is more akin to Mtheory. Whereby, a universe is created every time two 2D or perhaps 5D branes, 'interact,' and cause a big bang to occur at the point they 'meet.'Under my conception, heat death is really a local return to system-neutral. — ucarr
If you're claiming intelligence, which I think you regard as objectively real, is mandated solely by human will, not merely in independence from the evolving material universe, but in defiance of it, then you, more than I, are imbuing humanity with cosmic-God conscious purpose. I, on the other hand, claim that the evolving timeline of cosmic physics is permeated throughout with purpose, human consciousness being one instantiation of it. — ucarr
My syntax in the quoted sentence is faulty; I meant to say matter-energy, per Susskind, is never permanently lost from the universe. Now, however, you having directed my attention to the question whether information-order can be permanently lost, I'll claim that permanent loss of a material object entails permanent loss of information-order. — ucarr
You have the poetic/dramatic/emotive license to describe the world in any way you choose ucarr and I am a fan of finding novel ways to explain stuff to others but using Sabine Hossenfelder as an example. I think she is a great science communicator but I find her style particularly annoying when she tries to employ a humorous metaphor after every scientific point she makes. Most of her attempts to do so are absolutely awful imo. It's a good method to employ if, but only if, you are very, very good at it, if not, then you should attempt to use such quite sparingly. I hope Sabine takes my advice sometimes soon. Here is a good example:This is true. — ucarr
Yes, I think so, do you want me to give you my interpretation so you can check?Could you track its logic? — ucarr
The gist of the argument is not a denial of the phenomenon of systems evolution towards thermodynamic equilibrium; it's a claim that within the domain of a material universe, thermodynamic equilibrium is the low end of order and that randomness is a concept that cannot be a measure.
It claims that the measure of a system's thermal energy, albeit useful in the manner claimed, does not imply the ultimate heat-death of the material universe. — ucarr
At times imo, you tend to jump from firm ground straight into unsure, unstable ground and perhaps even quicksand. BUT, maybe we all do that at times. Rigorous science cannot afford to. — universeness
The universe is a closed system, which is why energy is conserved. — universeness
The through line of evolution from material objects to their emergent property: consciousness_selfhood
— ucarr
This is merely your speculative opinion. Divine hiddenness is stronger evidence imo, that a god with intent/prime mover/first cause creator, has no and never has had any exemplar existence. — universeness
Even if this was proved, irrefutably true, such a finding would not provide any evidence of an underlying intent or teleology. — universeness
So, do you perceive our 3D universe, as three universes? — universeness
what do you mean by your use of 'hierarchy?' — universeness
Nothing in string theory suggests these extra dimensions are layered or tiered. — universeness
The principal forces will change as you reduce experimental distances and the transition occurs at distances the size of the curled dimensions. — universeness
If you're working at distances that are much bigger than the curled up dimensions then the law looks like 1/r2 — universeness
And when you're working at distances that are much smaller than the curled up dimensions the law looks like 1/r8 — universeness
Layered space or your term 'multi-tiered' space... for me, suggests notions such as 'sub-spacial dimensions' or/and 'hyper-spatial dimensions.' 'Sub' meaning 'below or under' and hyper meaning 'over or above.' Both these notions belong exclusively to the sci-fi genre at the moment. — universeness
Layered space or your term 'multi-tiered' space, (a poor term, imo, as 'tiered' already indicates more than one layer so your use of 'multi' is superfluous) — universeness
If Hawking radiation conserves energy within a closed cycle of the material universe, then sentient-based purpose is also conserved
— ucarr
My prime mover god/mind with intent is the conserved energy of the closed system you endorse.
— ucarr
No, you are again guilty of equivocation fallacy! — universeness
A mind is a highly complex combinatorial system. You are trying to equate that with a fundamental quanta of energy (whatever that might be, perhaps a photon.) Can a single photon (quantum field excitation) be the omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, omnibenevolent :lol:, mind of a god? It's like trying to equate gold with a single proton or single electron! (Gold atoms have 79 electrons and 79 protons with 118 neutrons in the most abundant isotope.) — universeness
It seems to me that your notion here is more akin to Mtheory. Whereby, a universe is created every time two 2D or perhaps 5D branes, 'interact,' and cause a big bang to occur at the point they 'meet.'
This means each universe can be 'born/sparked' whilst other universes already exist. This would mean individual universes, could experience heat death, within individual linear time frames, rather than all universes in a multi-verse, 'cycling,' within a synchronous time frame. Maybe your an Mtheory advocate ucarr! — universeness
I think the 'absence of any evidence of intent' in the current science based origin story of the universe, is the main support for random happenstance being the truth of the origin story. — universeness
There isn't a "range of possible microstates," in reality, there is just the one microstate that currently exists. — Count Timothy von Icarus
Entropy only makes sense relationally, or in the context of indeterminacy at some level of reality. — Count Timothy von Icarus
Loss of systemization due to heat is an example of nature hedging her bets on paired-values of vectors, as with Heisenberg and the elementary particles. — ucarr
The best kind of heat dissipation of the order of a system is quantum-mechanical: the whole is greater than the sum of its parts. This is the cosmic design for systemic evolution towards higher-order systems. It is supported by Metaphysician Undercover’s quantum-mechanical theory of time that posits quantum entanglement of past-present-future. — ucarr
Does this not contradict Heisenberg Uncertainty and it's approach to measuring the quantum cloud of possible locations of elementary particles?
This is an important truth about my modus operandi. Leaps of faith at one pole and closely-reasoned inference at the other pole span a continuum of methodology that entails grave hazards at both poles. Those who confine their theater of activity within the middle section see minor action; those who operate at one or the other pole see major action; it's like gamblers in games of chance for money: high stakes at the polarities offer big prizes; low stakes in the middle offer small (but estimable) gains. — ucarr
What????I don't believe any combination of dimensions is closed. Thermodynamics militates against this as a closed system violates conservation of matter-energy. — ucarr
No, you can figure out the nature of a universe from inside or outside of it.If a closed universe were extant, sentience outside its boundaries could not know of its existence; so sentience cannot talk of a closed universe because detection of its existence means it’s not closed. — ucarr
Yes, Life on Earth! Even if life on Earth was caused by panspermia then that life would have had an abiogenesis event somewhere else.Can you cite a recorded instance of accidental, unsystematic, no-purpose abiogenesis? — ucarr
It's probably more accurate to state that humans created gods due to primal fear but they don't exist.The atheist, upon self-reflection, denies God by becoming God. — ucarr
Layers are separate and distinct, do you think the universe is tiered or not? A single extended dimension it bidirectional, each of our 3 'big' dimensions is bidirectional but up/down is a 'separate' direction to forwards/backwards or left/right. They are separate but not tiered. The proposed 10 dimensions of string theory are also not tiered, they are 'rolled up' or 'curled.'I don't believe the dimensions, spatial or otherwise, can be separated — ucarr
A subset or subspace in maths does not mean that a physical subspace exists within the universe.In mathematics — ucarr
The atheist, upon self-reflection, denies God by becoming God. — ucarr
It's probably more accurate to state that humans created gods due to primal fear but they don't exist.
God is a very simple notion based on natural human projection. Just like 'superman' is a projection that also does not exist. God and superman are projections of scared, very vulnerable hominids, nothing more. — universeness
I assume it's the person who is commenting on the exchange between Peterson and Maher (Nick Jones) that is doing the strawmaning, and the mischaracterisation, you indicated, if so, then I completely agree with you, that that is exactly what he is doing, especially with comments like 'or else you will end up like Bill Maher!' — universeness
he is correct about the power of storytelling, to the human psyche and how fables such as Jonah and the 'big fish,' are allegorical by design and can be used in many ways, to support theistic claims or general claims about the human psyche. — universeness
...I appreciate your interpretation and think that it's one that the theist side would more readily accept than my own interpretation. — universeness
If you take the stories in the OT as literal truths, then they are comically stupid and the god described is a monster, so I think Maher's original comments regarding the bible are correct and Peterson does not counter Maher's points. — universeness
In any atheist/theist debate analysis I have ever watched on youtube, each side always says their side trounced the other side. — universeness
You reject the observation Peterson stops Maher's initial lampoon of scripture? After his opening volley, Maher's critical near-silence is literal. How can it be denied? — ucarr
What do you have to say about the critical role of the lens of interpretation WRT the following parallel:
Through the lens of science, scriptural narratives, in some instances, make comically stupid claims whereas, through the lens of allegory, scriptural narratives, in some instances, convey actionable ways forward.
Through the lens of Newton, QM narratives, in some instances, make comically stupid claims whereas, through the lens of Bohr, QM narratives, in some instances, convey actionable ways forward (as in the case of logical coding for computers). — ucarr
Well I think Mr Jones is more flawed than Mr Maher is, especially with his 'warning from the theist camp' of 'beware or you to could become like Maher.' Jones does not use the more emotive language on a public platform, that he might choose to use when sitting amongst a crowd of enthusiastic theists. He chooses not to use words like 'trounced,' to attempt to impart the idea that he is a reasonable, rational theist that non-theists might find more appealing, at least enough to consider what he is saying. I have watched atheists employ the same manipulative but imo, nonetheless, legitimate technique.Neither I nor Jones make any claims about atheism being trounced in the Maher podcast. — ucarr
Yes, I agree, but as I stated previously, you have yet to acknowledge that this is true of all folklore, with or without theistic references, and you have also yet to acknowledge that this removes any 'special pleading,' that the biblical fables have a higher significance, and deserve more attention and consideration than the massive database of non-theistic folklore.My takeaway is your acknowledgement that scripture, when perceived as allegorical literature, in some instances forestalls attacks upon it as a compendium of preposterous claims. — ucarr
You reject the observation Peterson stops Maher's initial lampoon of scripture? After his opening volley, Maher's critical near-silence is literal. How can it be denied?
— ucarr
I am quite willing to accept your words above, in the context you use them, but I don't think it's as significant as you do. Peterson simply redirected the exchange and focussed on a different angle, which Maher was willing to accept, due to Petersons credentials as an academic, credentials which Maher stated he respected. — universeness
But we have alternatives to allegorical scriptural narratives, in that we can find 'actionable ways forward,' based on ' human dilemma style,' scenario's projected from the wide range of historical non-religious folklore. — universeness
Can you give me an example, where a QM claim viewed 'through the lens of Newton,' makes a 'comically stupid' claim? — universeness
In what way is it useful to defend bad practice within one methodology, by citing bad practice within an opposing methodology? — universeness
..you have yet to acknowledge that this is true of all folklore, with or without theistic references, and you have also yet to acknowledge that this removes any 'special pleading,' that the biblical fables have a higher significance, and deserve more attention and consideration than the massive database of non-theistic folklore. — universeness
My takeaway is your acknowledgement that scripture, when perceived as allegorical literature, in some instances forestalls attacks upon it as a compendium of preposterous claims.
— ucarr
Yes, I agree, but as I stated previously, you have yet to acknowledge that this is true of all folklore, with or without theistic references, and you have also yet to acknowledge that this removes any 'special pleading,' that the biblical fables have a higher significance, and deserve more attention and consideration than the massive database of non-theistic folklore. — universeness
:up:I understand you as concluding Peterson raises the status of the tale of Jonah and the Fish from literal nonsense to instructive folklore. The elevation should not, however, be misconstrued as having established a special status for theism's claims. The tale is an undistinguished member of the broadly inclusive set of instructive folktales, many of them not theistic. I agree this is a correct understanding of what happened. — ucarr
Can you give me an example, where a QM claim viewed 'through the lens of Newton,' makes a 'comically stupid' claim? — universeness
Superposition of the wave function flies in the face of one of science's foundational principles: non-contradiction. One identity being in two places at once plays as laughable absurdity through the lens of Newtonian Physics. Because the legitimacy of Newtonian Physics for centuries opaqued the possibility of superposition, we now celebrate the pioneers of QM. — ucarr
A fair comment on the broad issue, but I am sure that you agree that allowing such pure speculation regarding the supernatural to influence peoples daily lives in the many pernicious ways organised religion uses it to do exactly that, to use religion or scripture as a dictated moral code, based on divine commandments, to allow political policy to be influenced by scripture, in any way whatsoever, is absolutely unacceptable. Other policy issues such as LBTQ+ rights should also be completely free of religious pressure or influence. I think personal dalliances with any theosophism, related to religiosity, is fine, as long as it does not cause the problems I outlined above.I can't make a rational case for supernature. I can make a rationalistic approach to supernature, but there will be no arrival. Given the rational bent of human mind, it’s natural to reject supernature and, well, supernatural to embrace it. — ucarr
Despite what I stated above, I accept that this quote is a very good and likely very correct comment about the nature and structure of the universe.The Heisenberg_Haldane quote: Not only is the universe stranger than we imagine, it's stranger than we can imagine. — ucarr
:up: Your prediction was correct, I do find you 'disagreement,' agreeable, in your treatment above.I claim religious narratives have special status among the corpus of narratives on the basis of their absurd claims. They are especially absurd because, unlike secular narratives that make absurd claims refutable by exercise of reason, religious narratives make absurd claims refutable by exercise of reason and then dig in in defiance of that reason. On this basis, Maher and other wits mine their comedic gold. What could be more laughable than absurd claims debunked yet persistent in their confidence? — ucarr
Many people have been killed due to the religion they held, represented or preached since we came out of the wilds. These 12 men are no more important than any of the millions who have died in the name of religion. I have read Joseph Atwill's, Caesars Messiah and I have listened to many debates and discussions on Derek Lamberts youtube channel Mythvision. I have listened to some of the most respected biblical scholars talk about their doubts about the true historicity of the characters depicted in the bible. From Prof Robert Eisenman, Prof Rod Blackhirst, Dr Harold Ellens, Dr Jan Koster, Dr Richard Carrier and they all don't think the historical Jesus or the Historical Moses existed. Even the famous Prof Bart Ehrman, seems unsure regarding certain biblical characters, like moses:Eleven of the twelve disciples were brutally murdered. General humanity enjoys a good laugh at fools persistent in their foolishness. So why were eleven disciples murdered? The obvious answer: when belief in the absurdity of religion is evolving and spreading, natural human reacts against it. When reason overbears absurdity, the laughter returns, the threat of stupid supernature having been put down. — ucarr
But that's just an argument from classical intuition. — universeness
Superposition does not contradict reality! — universeness
I am sure that you agree that allowing such pure speculation regarding the supernatural to influence peoples daily lives in the many pernicious ways organised religion uses it to do exactly that, to use religion or scripture as a dictated moral code, based on divine commandments, to allow political policy to be influenced by scripture, in any way whatsoever, is absolutely unacceptable. — universeness
allowing such pure speculation regarding the supernatural to influence peoples daily lives... moral code... political policy... LGBTQ+ rights — universeness
The Heisenberg_Haldane quote: Not only is the universe stranger than we imagine, it's stranger than we can imagine.
— ucarr
Despite what I stated above, I accept that this quote is a very good and likely very correct comment about the nature and structure of the universe. — universeness
Many people have been killed due to the religion they held, represented or preached since we came out of the wilds. These 12 men are no more important than any of the millions who have died in the name of religion. — universeness
So you may well be talking about the murders of 12 disciples of a historical Jesus, who never in fact existed, and I personally agree with all the academics listed (but not Bart Ehrman, who still thinks Jesus probably did exist) who don't think the historical Jesus existed either. — 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.