Does Entropy Exist?

ucarr

The earth tells us life in our universe is possible.

That matter and energy are neither created nor destroyed tells us our universe is eternal.

Combination: within the environment of time never ending, all possibilities will be realized

Life, a realized possibility on earth, has always been an inevitability — ucarr

Exactly what in these 4 sentences, provides evidence for a god with intent? – universeness

The through line of evolution from material objects to their emergent property: consciousness_selfhood

I see no significant or compelling evidence at all.

What role does entropy, at the scale of the universe, play in your notion of a universal scale of intent and teleology.

Order hedging its bets re: higher-order system (this will be elaborated below in my OP)

Do you think the posited heat death of the universe is correct?

No, with qualifications. 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.

If not, what role does 'change' play in an eternal matter/energy (doing work) to assemble 'stuff' and then disassembly occurs, (via entropy) over time.

What role does the matter-energy dynamo play within the system of metabolism-catabolism? This great question addresses an essential property of our universe: animation. Cosmic animation, a profound topic, requires its own monograph. Since I’m on it in a preliminary way, I’m presently unready to write an OP.

If entropy exists at a universal/cosmic scale then, this 'intent' you describe, would have to be unaffected by entropy, and therefore exist outside of the cosmos.

If ideal models of degradable systems exist, intentions and teleology are best candidates. Our universe, being optimistic, welcomes entropy’s impact upon intentions and teleology. Their degradation into heat powers systemic evolution toward its next higher-order instantiation. This delightful transcendence, courtesy of QM, involves quantum gravity, a type of consciousness, if you will.

This is as impossible as a square circle, which suggests to me that your 'intent' cannot exist 'outside' of a cosmos of energy/matter.

Intentions (and teleology), being on friendly terms with paradox, have no intention to exist outside of a cosmos of energy/matter.

If it exists within the cosmos then it must be subject to entropy. Entropy within an eternal cosmos would point to a cyclical model, would it not?

Entropy points toward a cyclical model of a systemic order of a universe within the multi-tiered configuration of multi-verses.

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.

Why is this wrong in your opinion? – universeness

In my opinion it’s right.

My OP

Questioning entropy’s existence does not entail a denial of the foundational importance and usefulness of measuring the heat-energy loss of a system as it surrenders its specificity to QM entanglement.

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.

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.

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.

Order, like water, submits to containment and channeling. In the end, however, its volume, like that of water, proves to be incompressible.

The incompressibility of order controls an oscillation between high-order and low-order such that true randomness never occurs. This oscillation is the beating heart of our world’s immortality.

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.

The conservation of order is the phenomenon that perplexes all efforts towards articulation of a linear origin story of creation.

It is the phenomenon that keeps material things existentially entangled as a bulwark against non-existence.

The conservation of order will not permit the infinite isolation of non-being. (Theoretically, the big bang singularity, being infinitely compressed to a point, does not exist. Its non-existence is, fortunately, a theoretical instead of existential reality). No material thing can withdraw completely from all other material things. This is why systems produce the heat that dissipates the specificity of the functionality only down to low-order which can be called system neutral.

A system close to high-specificity of order is at low potential compatibility. A system close to low-specificity of order is at high potential compatibility.

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.

This tells us that every material thing, to the extent of its systemization, employs the heat dissipation of entropy towards transcendence of its own systemization. Decoherence of a system in the form of heat ultimately serves evolution of that system to its next higher-order. This points our attention towards channeling nuclear power constructively. If we can harness the heat energy release of fission_fusion constructively, we can catapult a categorical system such as our animate material universe upwards into its higher-order manifestation.

The blooming creation of our universe travels along the channel of incompressible order.

Our universe as a beating heart of oscillating order does not utter the last world on existence. Instead, it’s the currently engulfing ordered system containing consciousness as we presently know it.

Consciousness-matter-energy, alongside water and order, completes the triumvirate of the cosmically incompressible.

Cosmic evolution occurs when a presently engulfing system transcends itself to a higher-order of existence.

Systemic evolution is a good label for supernaturalism in context of the overarching multiverse configuration. It is super-naturalism that empowers the currently engulfing system of consciousness to transcend itself into the next higher-order of systemic consciousness.

At the next higher-order of consciousness, what had been known as good and evil at the previous level at the new current level becomes the mundane. It becomes harmless rational possibilities. Evil is converted to the harmless and useful by the additional, higher dimensions of the higher-order universe.

Clarifying Example

A sentient being in a 4-Space universe can remove an egg from its shell without breaking the shell. If we imagine the lack of a fourth spacial dimension in our universe is tantamount to being the infinite gravity of a black hole in our 3-Space universe, then we can imagine that some 3-Space information gets lost forever, a certain evil.

The big however is that a 4-Space sentient, as with the extraction of an egg without breaking its shell, can just reach into a black hole and extract the “lost” information; evil downgraded to normal.

The problem of evil is due, in part, to higher-dimensional properties and their effects intruding into a lower-dimensional matrix (universe) in collapsed form. The 4-Space removal of an egg without breaking its shell, at the level of 3-Space, becomes a black hole evaporating away with irretrievable information in tow.

If there is an objective, cosmic morality, it must be involved in the effort (whether consciously or unconsciously) to evolve the presently engulfing system upwards towards transcendence into the next higher order system. This is Kant’s transcendental moral imperative. Involved as it is in the conservation of the energy-order of a system, it offers itself as a good philosophical definition of virtue.

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.

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

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.

Entropy points toward a cyclical model of a systemic order of a universe within the multi-tiered configuration of multi-verses. — 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.

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

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?

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 universe is a closed system, which is why energy is conserved. But black holes can remove energy from the system until it radiates back into the system via Hawking radiation. In Penrose's CCC (for example), when all the galaxy, star and planetary systems have disassembled and energy is dissipated so much that it is no longer able to 'do work,' then that is the heat death moment. At that point, Penrose suggests (for example) that scale has no meaning and the conditions for a new 'big bang singularity' are reached. I am not saying this IS the most likely fate of our universe but I do find such far more credible than your prime mover god/mind with intent.

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.

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

This is an equivocation fallacy. Constituents - combination - biological system - entropy - disassembly back to constituents, as scientifically observed processes, offer no evidence of intent, outside of human manipulation. You are trying to equate this with non-intelligence becoming intelligence, then becoming high intelligence. Intelligence is a human subjective measure, it is not a natural law of physics. For the vast majority of the 13.8 billion years of the lifespan of the universe, there was no intelligent life anywhere. We only have one example, here on Earth. In all this vast universe we have a sample size of 'intelligent life' (at a similar or better level to humans) of 1 species (called humans). All god minds continue to remain hidden (probably because they don't exist.) So Intelligence was at zero, during the time there was no Earth. We have no evidence of any other intelligence from anywhere else in the universe. Extraterrestial life and extraterrestial intelligent life in the universe, may well have existed way before the Earth formed, but we have zero information regarding that possibility.

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?
Where do you claim he states that he agrees with your words I have emboldened above?
The current chronology of the universe, as presented by science, does not suggest order being conserved during all the epochs described. Order happened from disorder.

Much of your OP reads to me like prose with various sprinkled attempts at poetic and sometimes even dramatic phraseology.
Your 'Clarifying example,' although entertaining, was more a sci-fi offering rather than a sci-fact one.
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.

"Entropy is central to the second law of thermodynamics, which states that the entropy of an isolated system left to spontaneous evolution cannot decrease with time. As a result, isolated systems evolve toward thermodynamic equilibrium, where the entropy is highest."

chiknsld

within the environment of time never ending, all possibilities will be realized — ucarr

Hi ucarr, all possibilities are not possible! :smile:

ucarr

The through line of evolution from material objects to their emergent property: consciousness_selfhood — ucarr

Our empirical experience on earth makes: consciousness-selfhood-emergent-from-matter not a speculation but an observation.

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

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.

There is zero evidence for a layered universe, — universeness

String theory speculates that more than three spatial dimensions exist.

But why to you reject the beginning of such a cycle as a mindless spark, with zero intent that no longer exists? — universeness

I'm not rejecting a repeating cycle; the rise and fall of civilizations is a limited version of what we're talking about. I'm not even rejecting "mindless spark" at the startup end of the cycle. You preclude conscious cosmic purpose. I include it because I have a premise that "universe is the limit of system." A concomitant of this premise is continuity of over-arching design across the complete cycle as predicated upon the quantum entanglement ofpast-present-future temporal spectrum.

when all the galaxy, star and planetary systems have disassembled and energy is dissipated... conditions for a new 'big bang singularity' are reached. — universeness

If Hawking radiation conserves energy within a closed cycle of the material universe, then sentient-based purpose is also conserved. It's an instantiation of "universe is the limit of system." Restart of the cycle includes all of the energy-sentience-purpose of the prior cycle, albeit in varied forms across the timeline of the new cycle.

I do find [Penrose]... far more credible than your prime mover god/mind with intent. — universeness

My prime mover god/mind with intent is the conserved energy of the closed system you endorse.

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

Heat within my context here is a marker for the QM entanglement of the temporal spectrum (see above) such that a decoherencing system is also an evolving system non-locally. My skepticism about entropy proceeds from the premise that oscillation downwards toward system-neutral is bounded within a domain prohibiting absolute, all-multiverse heat death. Under my conception, heat death is really a local return to system-neutral.

Intelligence is a human subjective measure, it is not a natural law of physics. — universeness

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.

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

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.

The link below will take you to the book.

The Black Hole War

Much of your OP reads to me like prose with various sprinkled attempts at poetic and sometimes even dramatic phraseology. — universeness

This is true.

Your 'Clarifying example,' although entertaining, was more a sci-fi offering rather than a sci-fact one. — universeness

Could you track its logic?

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

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.

universeness

Our empirical experience on earth makes: consciousness-selfhood-emergent-from-matter not a speculation but an observation. — ucarr

Even if this was proved, irrefutably true, such a finding would not provide any evidence of an underlying intent or teleology. 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.

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

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?'
Also, what do you mean by your use of 'hierarchy?' A hierarchy has a single origin from which all its branches come. Which dimension are you suggesting all others come from? A notional 'time' dimension, for example?

String theory speculates that more than three spatial dimensions exist. — 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:
Physicists look for deviances from the inverse square law when they are looking for evidence of extra dimensions. It's very hard to do these sorts of experiments, however, as to observe any deviations you need to conduct them at distances which are incredibly small. Suppose we do have nine spatial dimensions and some of those dimensions are curled up. If you're working at distances that are much bigger than the curled up dimensions then the law looks like ${1/{r^2}}$ . And when you're working at distances that are much smaller than the curled up dimensions the law looks like ${1/{r^8}}$ . The principal forces will change as you reduce experimental distances and the transition occurs at distances the size of the curled dimensions. So in principle we could observe these extra dimensions but in practice is depends on how small the dimensions really are.

Nothing in string theory suggests these extra dimensions are layered or tiered. 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) 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. There is zero evidence of your concept of layered space and there is also zero evidence for your notion of a tree type topology (hierarchy) to your tiered space. You simply burden your claim even further with that addition.

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! 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.)

Under my conception, heat death is really a local return to system-neutral. — 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.'
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!

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

Later Addition: Are you a panpsychist ucarr?
Well, I currently do think that human intelligence, is the most advanced intelligence we humans, currently know of in the universe and yes, that includes all god posits. You choose to put the cart before the horse. Human consciousness emerged after over 13 billion years of evolution via natural selection. From the planck epoch until way after the Earth formed. You suggest intent existed, in the form of a conscious, thinking, highly complex, eternal agent, before a proposed event, such as the big bang, happened. The first action you should take, imo, is to fully admit that your claim is at best pure speculation and at worse, anti-scientific.

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

I appreciate your clarification. We know almost zero about what happens inside a black hole.
We currently just don't know if information going into a black hole gets destroyed or eventually comes back out via Hawking radiation. The brilliant Leonard Susskind does not know either, although I agree, he will offer his opinion if pushed. From the book you cited:
Hawking proposed that information is lost in black holes, and not preserved in Hawking radiation. Susskind disagreed, arguing that Hawking's conclusions violated one of the most basic scientific laws of the universe, the conservation of information.
I accept the 'conservation of information,' but no-one knows what goes on inside black holes. Some even suggest our universe exists inside a black hole. :chin:

This is true. — 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:

I think Sabine would consider your god notion to be an impossible macrostate, as you claim it existed before any constituent microstates. I do however currently disagree with her reasons for non-acceptance of the 'heat death' proposal.

Could you track its logic? — ucarr

Yes, I think so, do you want me to give you my interpretation so you can check?

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

I agree that the 'randomness' content of the universe, before such as 'human intent and teleology' emerged, being 100%, (as I think it is, and still is, outside of such influences as human intent.)
cannot currently be proven, but, 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.
I do however hold Carl Sagan's quote of 'Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence,' in high esteem, but I think that when it comes to the origin story of our universe or claims that god(s) exist, it is wrong.

ucarr

↪chiknsld

Where's your equation describing, through an internally consistent narrative, a set of existential possibilities that paradoxically contains some existential possibilities that are not existentially possible?

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

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.

Here I go now with another semi-reckless claim:

The universe is a closed system, which is why energy is conserved. — universeness

This is bunk. Energy is conserved because there are no closed universes. Let's dispense with this universe business. Universe is the limit of system. In other words, universe is a concept that cannot be measured practically.

Material reality expresses itself in combinations of dimensions; dimensions are some (time)-type of base-material-cognitive-continuity; (this makes clear the essential nature of time).

I don't believe any combination of dimensions is closed. Thermodynamics militates against this as a closed system violates conservation of matter-energy.

Conservation of matter-energy (plus QM) means no volume of same is ever completely unavailable to all other dimensional configurations. A closed universe is like a non-evaporating black hole writ large. It’s not conservation.

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.

Moreover, I suspect no closed universe could bear sentience because it is, by definition, fully incompressible. Sentience being fully incompressible means it can neither be closed nor enclosed.

Sentience in isolation is like a genome in isolation; in both instances, the entrapped entity self-destructs.

Conservation of matter-energy supports the super-naturalism of theism along the axis of open access between all dimensional configurations. Obviating cosmic sentience at the price of trapping yourselves within a closed, material universe (which you believe will eventually run down like a dead battery) is, in my opinion, cosmic pessimism.

ucarr

Empty comment due to posting error.

ucarr

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

Can you cite a recorded instance of accidental, unsystematic, no-purpose abiogenesis? I doubt it. Were such a phenomenon available as evidence, science would've commenced trumpeting its existence immediately.

Whilst awaiting your evidence, I will proceed to claim that accidental abiogenesis is no less hidden than cosmic-sentience designed abiogenesis.

Even if this was proved, irrefutably true, such a finding would not provide any evidence of an underlying intent or teleology. — universeness

Here we have an interesting possibility that supports both sides of the debate: emergent sentience is reflexive. Sentient humans, through reflexive consciousness, reflect upon themselves as God. The difference is that atheism is a monism whereas theism is a binary.

The atheist, upon self-reflection, denies God by becoming God. The theist, upon self-reflection, embraces God by propagating God-consciousness, an externalization of human-made-in-the-image-of-God. God-consciousness is the coupling device that functions as the interface between the corporeal human and the incorporeal God. I think this is the Holy Ghost. It’s nature’s pre-technological telecommunications system. (Technology-based telecommunication, then, is the latter day human simulation of God’s natural world as well as of God. To elaborate further, God, operating at the level of a four-space dimensional configuration, sees everything at once. Humanity, chasing this ability, comes up with television.)

So, do you perceive our 3D universe, as three universes? — universeness

I don't believe the dimensions, spatial or otherwise, can be separated. There's no-such thing as a one-space universe. Isolated linearity is only a mental object.

what do you mean by your use of 'hierarchy?' — universeness

All of the dimensions are always connected. The big "however" is that cognition, because it evolves, must gain awareness of ascending dimensions of ascending expressiveness by accretion. Under this scheme, cosmic God is understood with progressive elaboration by accretion.

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 the principal forces change in steps, then the dimensional configurations they support will also change in steps.

If you're working at distances that are much bigger than the curled up dimensions then the law looks like 1/r2 — universeness

— universeness

And when you're working at distances that are much smaller than the curled up dimensions the law looks like 1/r8 — universeness

ucarr

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

sub·space | ˈsəbspās |
noun
1 Mathematics a space that is wholly contained in another space, or whose points or elements are all in another space.

In mathematics

A space inheriting all characteristics of a parent space
A subset of a topological space endowed with the subspace topology
Linear subspace, in linear algebra, a subset of a vector space that is closed under addition and scalar multiplication
Flat (geometry), a Euclidean subspace
Affine subspace, a geometric structure that generalizes the affine properties of a flat
Projective subspace, a geometric structure that generalizes a linear subspace of a vector space
Multilinear subspace in multilinear algebra, a subset of a tensor space that is closed under addition and scalar multiplication

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

In a multi-tiered hierarchy of modules, nothing prevents each module from also being multi-tiered. My configuration hierarchy is super-ordinate, not super-fluous.

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

My above claims might be wrong, but not on the basis of shifting my ground under heat of examination.

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

Firstly, re: the insignificance of an elementary particle: add one proton to the nucleus of an atom and it becomes an isotope of the element, with separate chemical properties.

Secondly, if there's no integral continuity of identity from atom to cosmos, then the material universe never becomes organized, the teleology argument notwithstanding.

Thirdly, re: black hole absorption of energy: consumption of an entire star is not an example of one quantum of energy being lost.

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

Thanks for the info. So far, I have no objections.

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

The singularity of the big bang theory suggests to me compression so extreme a compacted dimensional configuration (you call it a universe) becomes isolated from everything, even itself. This is a wacky and provisional state of being that highlights the inadequacy of a simple linear design_configuration for an origin-ontology thesis. In this temporary state of being, nothing exists because existence is so isolated (due to infinite compression) it cannot be reached, not even by itself. Since I read paradox as a signpost for a higher-order dimensional configuration protruding downward into its lower-dimensional neighbor, the singularity has failed to liberate itself from infinite regress.

A super-compacted universe, as it unfolds, may very well display just what cosmologists are telling us. This works well within a big crunch/big bang oscillation concept of a multi-tiered dimensional system. It does nothing to solve the perplexity of origin ontology.

chiknsld

Where's your equation describing, through an internally consistent narrative, a set of existential possibilities that paradoxically contains some existential possibilities that are not existentially possible? — ucarr

Okay :) What if there are no possibilities?

ucarr

Okay :) What if there are no possibilities? — chiknsld

If your nihilism is an expansion from the presence of the empty set within every set, then I, being on fair terms with existentialism, am good with the illusion of cold drinks under hot suns at cerulean beaches.

chiknsld

If your nihilism is an expansion from the presence of the empty set within every set, then I, being on fair terms with existentialism, am good with the illusion of cold drinks under hot suns at cerulean beaches. — ucarr

You’re saying life is an illusion yet there are no possibilities?

ucarr

You're the one proposing no possibilities. My conjecture spins off your conjecture. The setup is: If your conjecture is correct then: [write variable here]. Outside of your conjecture, I'm not claiming anything about possibilities.

chiknsld

I'm not claiming anything about possibilities. — ucarr

Okay! :smile:

Count Timothy von Icarus

It seems to me that if there is a coherent view from nowhere/God's eye view, and the universe is deterministic, then entropy doesn't really exist. There isn't a "range of possible microstates," in reality, there is just the one microstate that currently exists. Entropy only makes sense relationally, or in the context of indeterminacy at some level of reality.

The same is true for information entropy. Given the God's eye view, for any message (or observation made) there aren't multiple possible outcomes for variables, there are just the exact outcomes that are received/observed.

ucarr

↪Count Timothy von Icarus

There isn't a "range of possible microstates," in reality, there is just the one microstate that currently exists. — Count Timothy von Icarus

Does this not contradict Heisenberg Uncertainty and it's approach to measuring the quantum cloud of possible locations of elementary particles?

Entropy only makes sense relationally, or in the context of indeterminacy at some level of reality. — Count Timothy von Icarus

Matter and a material universe being ordered I take as foundational. Even quarks and gluons are systems ⇒ configurations of dimensional expansions.

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

Range-limited decoherence by thermodynamics plus QM entanglement don't preserve the essential order of matter while also permitting indeterminacy to act as a stay upon rigid determinism?

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

Quantum gravity doesn't put to rout determinism?

Count Timothy von Icarus

↪ucarr

Does this not contradict Heisenberg Uncertainty and it's approach to measuring the quantum cloud of possible locations of elementary particles?

Entropy is about the number of possible states given some set of macrostate observations. Jeynes argued that in key ways entropy was necessarily subjective, although not arbitrary.

The uncertainty principle doesn't come into the view from nowhere because it's "how do things exist outside of our knowledge of them," i.e. when we aren't measuring them. Of course, different theories in quantum foundations paint very different pictures to the answer to this question, or deny the question even makes sense.

I was speaking solely to those theories that are deterministic, Bohmian mechanics, MWI, etc. In theories with ontological quantum indeterminacy there are perhaps multiple possible microstates, depending on the interactions going on, but I don't think they'd synch up to Boltzmann's measure. IDK, I'm no expert on the intersection between statistical mechanics and quantum mechanics.

universeness

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

Remember, The flash hare was outclassed by the plodding tortoise. In the end, the tortoise made more significant progress.

I don't believe any combination of dimensions is closed. Thermodynamics militates against this as a closed system violates conservation of matter-energy. — ucarr

What????
From Scientific American:
The law of conservation of energy, also known as the first law of thermodynamics, states that the energy of a closed system must remain constant—it can neither increase nor decrease without interference from outside. The universe itself is a closed system, so the total amount of energy in existence has always been the same. The forms that energy takes, however, are constantly changing.

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

No, you can figure out the nature of a universe from inside or outside of it.

Can you cite a recorded instance of accidental, unsystematic, no-purpose abiogenesis? — 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.

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.

I don't believe the dimensions, spatial or otherwise, can be separated — 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.'

In mathematics — ucarr

A subset or subspace in maths does not mean that a physical subspace exists within the universe.
Maths can produce a coordinate with as many spacial values as you like, this does not mean such a coordinate actually exists in real spacetime.

I don't think we are getting anywhere in our exchange here, so I will move on to other threads and thoughts. Thanks for the exchange ucarr.

universeness

↪ucarr

I watched this debate last night. I think you would enjoy it as it relates, imo, to your recent TPF threads.

ucarr

Hello universeness,

Thank-you for your time and attention. I appreciate your careful deliberation, especially considering your opinion my theses are fundamentally wrong. Moreover, I'm indebted to you for your instruction on current thinking in several of the sciences. My scholarship, as you are well aware, is critically limited, with big gaps in my database.

I now think, for me, there is a proper protocol for entering, conducting and exiting a debate:

The specific topic and objective of the debate can be agreed upon in advance; e.g. the bible is just a book of stories aimed at teaching readers important life lessons; whether or not Jesus is the incarnation of God the holy spirit is out of bounds for discussion in this debate

Each claim made by a debater must be supported by a logical argument and/or by factual reportage

If the debaters get trapped in a back-and-forth that is merely repetition on both sides, a deadlock should be declared with the conclusion that the sides agree to disagree

Debaters must keep watch for exhaustion of new and pertinent arguments; when this point is reached, both sides must immediately proceed to their closing arguments

Each debater has the right to call out the other debater for committing what both have agreed to recognize as a violation of proper debate procedure; an example is basing a claim upon a purported fact proven to be false; another example is: no personal attacks posing as counter-arguments

Closing arguments should be a comprehensive overview of each debater's main theme plus principle attacks upon the opposition stated concisely

Closing arguments should not include any new attacks which the opposition hasn't had the opportunity to respond to;

Below is a conversation (it's not really a debate) between Bill Maher and Jordan Peterson. (It's a video-within-a-video as moderated by Nick Jones, a christian podcaster.) IMO, it's a good example of a cautionary tale: don't be eager to pounce upon the opposition on the basis of a strawman characterization of that opposition. I ask you to watch the video because I think your argument below exemplifies basing an attack upon a strawman mischaracterization of the opposition.

↪universeness

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

universeness

↪ucarr

Thank you for your kind words. My knowledge of cosmology and physics is also quite surface.
My quals and experience is mainly in Computing Science. I don't know who has the highest qualifications and the most experience in cosmology/astrophysics/physics on TPF. @noAxioms posted that he has been/or still is, a moderator on a physics site, so perhaps he is the best one to go to, as a reliable source, but perhaps the mods could recommend a TPF member to ask about cosmology/astrophysics/physics issues.

I liked your bullet pointed list as guidelines for discussions of threads.
Have you read the TPF guidelines posted 7 years ago by @Baden, perhaps there is some content of your bullet pointed list, that could enhance/improve them. Only the TPF mods have the power to decide.

I will watch the vid you posted on my TV youtube, as my laptop screen is too small to appreciate a debate. I will make brief comments here, after watching it. I enjoy exchanging views with you ucarr, you are an interesting thinker. If you find the time to watch the debate I posted, perhaps you could send me a brief PM regarding your opinion of it, or post one here.
Richard Swinburne is a big voice in the theist community. I am not as familiar with the two ladies, but one is an expert in Hinduism and the other, an expert in Judaism. I don't know the host, but It was a good debate.

universeness

↪ucarr

Well, it was only 17 mins, and was a guy commenting on the clipped exchange between Peterson and Maher. I assume it's the person who is commenting on the exchange between Peterson and Maher 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!'

I have quite a low opinion of Peterson, but 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. Jordan is careful to suggest that humans can make 'deals with the universe,' as opposed to, or perhaps as a comparison with, making a personal 'covenant with god.' Peterson is good at such conflations, but his various offerings that describe his viewpoints regarding essential and necessary human hierarchies and his patriarchal and anti-trans stances ( to mention but a few disagreements I have with him,) make him quite unpalatable for me.

ucarr

↪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

In the conversation I hear Maher say: a) the bible contains some comically stupid things; b) God is capricious, cruel, petty; c) God is Trumpian.

I understand podcaster Nick Jones to imply that after his initial comments, Maher changes course and goes into listening mode as Peterson does an exegesis of Jonah and the fish . Jones also implies that Peterson successfully conveys to Maher an interpretation of the story along the lines of your quote:

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

When the end of the conversation is reached, I note that Maher never resumed his prosecution of his initial talking points concerning some of the failings of scripture.

I understand that Jones, in saying "or else you will end up like Bill Maher," implies the derisive theme of Maher's opening comments gets shut down completely. This does not mean that Maher's talking points get refuted. Maher being shunted into respectful listening mode by the intellectual heft of Peterson's exegesis is significant given the brilliance of Maher's wit and the formidable force of his assertive atheism.

You say (in your own words) Jones presents Maher as one who advances arguments simple-minded and fallacious. You then argue this is a straw man mischaracterization of Maher by Jones. I disagree. I Think Jones only implies Maher's initial thrust into the conversation as an amusing critic gets immediately stalled and then silenced by Peterson's exegesis. I believe this correctly describes what happens.

The original podcast, after reposting to YouTube, claims Maher gets destroyed by Peterson. This is clickbait exaggeration, as noted by Jones.

I think it more correct to claim Peterson doesn't get destroyed by Maher.

I will send you a brief PM after I watch "Why Are We Here?"

universeness

↪ucarr

Yeah, I appreciate your interpretation and think that it's one that the theist side would more readily accept than my own interpretation. 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. Peterson merely uses the scientifically ridiculous story of Jonah and the big fish and comments on how it could be used allegorically, and such therefore can have value, to human notions of human dilemma. But this is true of all fables, including all fables which are not religious or theistic in any way. From humpty dumpty to Goldilocks and the three bears. The problems begin when theists try to peddle such fables as either literally true historical events or the most important allegorical stories or metaphorical messages in existence.

Do you think Peterson managed to change Maher's mind and give him a new respect for the fables in the bible? I doubt it. Perhaps he did, but I personally would not find that particularly significant, to the current overall status of the atheism vs theism debate. I think Maher did not repeat his scorn of most of the content of the bible as Peterson made no attempt to argue the point, he simply pointed out the allegorical value that can be garnished from any fable or folklore story.
You will already know that the vast majority, if not all the stories in the bible were taken from earlier stories from Sumerian, Egyptian, Canaanite, Akkadian etc mythology. Very little in the OT is original.

In any atheist/theist debate analysis I have ever watched on youtube, each side always says their side trounced the other side.

ucarr

↪universeness

...I appreciate your interpretation and think that it's one that the theist side would more readily accept than my own interpretation. — 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?

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

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).

In any atheist/theist debate analysis I have ever watched on youtube, each side always says their side trounced the other side. — universeness

Neither I nor Jones make any claims about atheism being trounced in the Maher podcast.

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.

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

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. This does not mean Maher's initial scorn of the literal bible stories was unjustified or incorrect, it just means Peterson was able to divert him from that line of argument, but he in no way (imo) defeated Maher's scorn of the biblical stories, when peddled as actual, literal, historical events.

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

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. You have yet to acknowledge your acceptance of that important point.
QM is an advance to classical Newtonian physics. The important difference is that Newtonian physics works perfectly well at the macro scale, but QM experimentation, demonstrates, that it does not hold for the sub-atomic scale. Can you give me an example, where a QM claim viewed 'through the lens of Newton,' makes a 'comically stupid' claim? Contrary or even weird or non-intuitive claims, yes, but it what sense could you apply 'comical or stupid,' in the way you are attempting to?
Also, let's even suggest that you are correct. In what way is it useful to defend bad practice within one methodology, by citing bad practice within an opposing methodology? I am sure you would agree that two wrongs have never made a right.

Neither I nor Jones make any claims about atheism being trounced in the Maher podcast. — 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.

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.

ucarr

↪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

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

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.

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

Yes. Non-theistic narratives have proven useful in showing humans the way forward through myriad difficulties.

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.

I align theism with the tradition of functional absurdity. The Heisenberg_Haldane quote: Not only is the universe stranger than we imagine, it's stranger than we can imagine. exemplifies a convergence of science and theism. Of course the claim of supernature is absurd given the infinite gap between same and nature. For this reason, scripture as literature is sometimes instructive but oftentimes absurd. 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.

In what way is it useful to defend bad practice within one methodology, by citing bad practice within an opposing methodology? — universeness

The lens of interpretation tells us that when the same text switches between absurd/instuctive, depending through which lens it's viewed, we have, in the case of the wrong lens, bad perspective, not bad practice.

..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

I acknowledge the wisdom of secular folklore.

I understand your point is that religious folklore has no special status vis-a-vis secular folklore. I think in this case you will find my disagreement agreeable. 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?

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.

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

My embrace of absurdity is your reassurance in reason.

Human with ears to hear absurdity will hear it, no special pleading required.

universeness

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

:up:

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

But that's just an argument from classical intuition. Superposition does not contradict reality! Superposition has been experimentally, and therefore empirically demonstrated: 2000 atoms in two places at once: A new record in quantum superposition. I also don't agree that even an academically incredulous dismissal of superposition, from someone viewing the universe at the macro scale of Newtonian physics, would be equal in its comedic aspect, compared to a story like Jonah and the whale/big fish, or the order of events in genesis, where the Earth is created and water is around, even before light or the sun enters the story, which is anti-scientific.

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

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.

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.

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

:up: Your prediction was correct, I do find you 'disagreement,' agreeable, in your treatment above.

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

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:

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.

ucarr

↪universeness

But that's just an argument from classical intuition. — universeness

I’m unsure of the meaning of classical intuition. Please clarify.

Superposition does not contradict reality! — universeness

It doesn’t. My focus, however, isn’t on the simple issue of the truth or falsity of a claim. It’s on the lens of interpretation through which a critic views a narrative; my argument is centered in the issue of context. Context, within my context here, consists of the lens (and its attributes (such as filters)) of interpretation that shapes what the critic sees. Two prominent lenses of interpretation are the culture in which the critic is raised and the database of knowledge (herein scientific) which the critic uses as a model for judging the realism and truth of the thing judged.

An additional complication shaping judgment is new thinking radical in nature. This challenge to correct interpretation highlights how much harder it is looking forward judging reality than looking backwards judging reality.

Even with the brilliance of his scientific mind, Einstein was obstinately uncooperative in his attitude toward QM. He publicly acknowledged it as being correct, but incomplete. This was not a small bone to pick because he believed, until his death, that probability being essential to QM was incorrect. He thought his Unified Field Theory would ultimately vacate quantum uncertainty as an essential and permanent feature of our universe He has a famous quote: God doesn’t play dice with the universe.

Also, he disdained QM entanglement as spooky action at a distance.

I believe an important (but partial) explanation for the violence meted out to the disciples is the general public’s fear of loss of essential powers under a Christian social schematic. Now, two thousand years later, evolving, human-based science has defused many of the apparent threats posed by a monolithic God.

The long lag time between scripture as threatening imposition and scripture as fallacy tamed by reason should give pause to critics who disdain it as comically stupid.

The science of psychology can probably make a strong case for construing the divine inspiration of scripture as deep intuition, the precursor of closely reasoned science.

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

This argument seeks to subtly conflate theoretical error with errors in application. It parallels the argument orbiting around nuclear power: in theory, nuclear power is morally neutral; in practice, however, depending on the agent, it can be used either for good or evil. If divine instruction is read as super-ordinate logic that shapes practice, then bad actors willfully perverting said instruction for personal gain, as, for example, the Pharisees, exemplifies errors in application. Condemning religion on the basis of condemning corrupt preachers is a case of conflating (sometimes willfully) theoretical error with errors in application.

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

Your two above positions, as you acknowledge, stand in conflict with each other. This surprises me because the Heisenberg_Haldane quote, in my interpretation, exemplifies super-ordinate logic transitioning into embrace of the supernatural. I claim this because the statement, by making an unrestricted claim about the strangeness of the universe, authorizes the universe as a broadly inclusive system that allows supernature as one of its components.

Following from this, I can apply my above claim that the lens of interpretation sometimes exerts radical influence upon judgment. You are willing to embrace supernature when a claim (probably not intentional but definitely textual) for it is made by the likes of Heisenberg and Haldane, members of the scientific culture you embrace.

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

I argue that your above claim is a sweeping generalization of very low veracity WRT to certain individuals lumped together within your broadly inclusive set of millions.

My argument proceeds from the following parallel: Einstein, Bohr and Haldane are no more important than the multitudes of seekers who have made explorations in the name of science.

Sometimes certain names become distinguished across the millennia because they are rightfully distinguished from their colleagues.

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

The impact of the issue of the historicity of biography is mitigated by the veracity and pertinence of historical ideas in abstraction. If, for example, it suddenly comes to light no actual person named Galileo Galilei did foundational work in astronomy and physics in sixteenth and seventeenth century Florence, must we then conclude the science ascribed to the name is invalid and useless?

I think we can infer that valid, useful ideas come from historically real persons (or combinations thereof) even if we don’t have correct information about the true identities of those persons.

Count Timothy von Icarus

Per my original post here, which I apparently can't reply to, Terrance Deacon's "Incomplete Nature," makes a pretty good argument that entropy, constraints, and what states of a system are excluded or statistically less likely, does indeed play a causal role in nature.

It's a complex and somewhat counter intuitive argument (how do absences cause things), and it hinges on his use of the absent properties of systems to resurrect a reformed version of Aristotle's "formal cause."

I haven't digested it enough to do it justice, but maybe I'll come back or create a thread when I have. Interestingly, the actual point of the book is to try to find a way to explain the origins of consciousness, and I haven't gotten to that part yet, so we'll see if he's convincing there, but at any rate it's a great book simply for how it rethinks statistical mechanics and causation, even if it's main mission doesn't pan out.

Does Entropy Exist?

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Categories

More Discussions