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. — Count Timothy von Icarus
I combined the two words to express that what seems intuitive to us today is different from what seemed intuitive to folks during the days of Newton and through the lens of classical physics (which is mainly at a macroscale). So, I can understand that 'superposition' would seem ridiculous to those alive during the days of Newton but superposition is now demonstrable, but god and the supernatural is still, not, and unlike the majority of current scientific projections, zero progress has been made in proving any god or supernatural posit.But that's just an argument from classical intuition.
— universeness
I’m unsure of the meaning of classical intuition. Please clarify. — ucarr
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. — ucarr
is not true.Superposition of the wave function flies in the face of one of science's foundational principles: non-contradiction. — ucarr
Einstein was wrong regarding QM. I think hat is now well established.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. — ucarr
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. — ucarr
The main difference is that the scientists you mentioned, existed. Jesus and its band of chosen, probably did not, and were satirical parodies, and even if they did exist, they were of no more value, than the characters described in any other of the thousands of historical religious stories, which imo, have the exact same level of veracity as the Christian stories. Zeus, Odin, BAAL, and EL are no less plausible than Yahweh. Jesus and its chosen 12 are no more likely that the Earthly Hercules, Jason etc or even Gilgamesh (and its chosen friend Enkidu).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. — ucarr
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. — ucarr
But that's just an argument from classical intuition.
— universeness
I’m unsure of the meaning of classical intuition. Please clarify.
— ucarr
I combined the two words to express that what seems intuitive to us today is different from what seemed intuitive to folks during the days of Newton and through the lens of classical physics (which is mainly at a macroscale). So, I can understand that 'superposition' would seem ridiculous to those alive during the days of Newton but superposition is now demonstrable, but god and the supernatural is still, not, and unlike the majority of current scientific projections, zero progress has been made in proving any god or supernatural posit. — universeness
No, my purpose in fully accepting the HH quote was in no way, an acceptance that the supernatural was not, imo, total woo woo, it was more an acceptance that the 'label' supernatural is way, way over-burdened. — universeness
Many people have been killed due to the religion they held... [The twelve Christian Disciples] 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... Einstein, Bohr and Haldane are no more important than the multitudes of seekers who have made explorations in the name of science.[?] — ucarr
The main difference is that the scientists you mentioned, existed. Jesus and its band of chosen, probably did not, and were satirical parodies, and even if they did exist, they were of no more value, than the characters described in any other of the thousands of historical religious stories, — universeness
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.
— ucarr
So you will accept then that this:
Superposition of the wave function flies in the face of one of science's foundational principles: non-contradiction.
— ucarr
is not true. — universeness
Next, we reference our verbal equation: Not only is the universe stranger than we imagine, it's stranger than we can imagine. This equation sets no volumetric limit on the degree of strangeness allowable for our standard deviation. This is because it places degree of strangeness beyond human consciousness as instantiated by imagination. Strangeness, vis-a-vis humanity, is unlimited, i.e., infinite.
Our standard deviation, then, must employ an equation that approaches a limit. — ucarr
In the above quote you tip-toe to the threshold of acceptance of the supernatural because your denial is followed by a stipulation that mitigates the denial down to almost nothing. If the supernatural is overburdened, as you say, then, in saying so, you acknowledge its existence and your acceptance of same.
Note: In our context here, supernatural simply means higher-order logical conceptualization of an empirically real category that encompasses nature. In effect, then, super-natural is just another (albeit more inclusive) category of natural. — ucarr
This tells us science cannot embrace strangeness beyond imagination and at the same time cherry-pick what qualifies as allowable examples of strangeness-beyond-imagination. — ucarr
This is just a conflation of the goal of human science to seek truths we don't yet have. You are attempting to sprinkle non-existent 'magic dust' all over science and 'real' scientists, to suggest that they are also interested in the esoteric or metaphysics. They are not and never have been or will be. They leave such to the philosophers at best, and the theists and theosophists at worse and they get on with the job of applying the scientific method, logically and rationally.For this reason, speaking logically, natural science wants to ascend to super-natural science as it progresses forward in its simulation of cosmic sentience. — ucarr
There is no 'cosmic sentience,' so there is nothing to 'trumpet' and it follows that it cannot have an 'upside.'Cosmic sentience, as mediated on earth by humanity, has a deep, horrific downside. This you are eager to trumpet. Does it also have an upside? — ucarr
Why do you need to time travel? You will find plenty of examples of appalling human relationships all around you. Human progress has been made, despite the proposal that gods exist and are 'better' than us and we must be subservient to them and worship them. That BS does as you suggest, originate from the primal fears we experienced from our days living in caves, terrified of all the scary noises coming from outside the caves, at night, and from wondering what all those shiny things in the sky were. Modern theists have yet to conquer those ancient primal fears. Science is the antidote. Good, logical philosophising can also be an assist.I will speculate that if I could time travel to an era preceding monotheism, I'd be appalled by the state of human relationships. The human ascent from the barbarism of the caves has many causes. Is the supernaturalism of belief in cosmic sentience not one of them? — ucarr
What ???If you query logicians about discarding non-contradiction as a foundational principle of logic, I expect you'll get pushback. — ucarr
I have no idea where you are going with this. I fully accept the logic rules of identity, non-contradiction and excluded middle, so where are you going with this line of thought?Dismantling non-contradiction means radically overhauling the general methodology of science. You're extremely optimistic if you think the standard prohibiting inconsistency within logical arguments will either be relaxed or waived anytime soon. — ucarr
Who is suggesting such an 'overhaul' is required? I have suggested that the supernatural has no existent and it never has. In the case of the over-burdening of the label, when it is used to refer to that which is in fact natural but is for now undiscovered or unconfirmed science. The only action required, is to disallow or not accept (as I generally don't) the use of the word to describe currently undiscovered scientific truth about the natural structure and workings of the universe.I think there's a vast field of work to be done by philosophers either in effecting or rejecting such an overhaul. — ucarr
I think you have stretched the intended meaning behind this HH quote too far, and the elastic snapped a while ago. — universeness
The supernatural posited as natural science, that we have not confirmed exists yet, such as strings or superstrings, supersymmetry, dark matter, dark energy, the graviton etc, is over-burdening the word. — universeness
natural science wants to ascend to super-natural science as it progresses forward in its simulation of cosmic sentience. — ucarr
This is just a conflation of the goal of human science to seek truths we don't yet have...[it will] get on with the job of applying the scientific method, logically and rationally. — universeness
Cosmic sentience, as mediated on earth by humanity, has a deep, horrific downside. This you are eager to trumpet. Does it also have an upside? — ucarr
There is no 'cosmic sentience,' so there is nothing to 'trumpet' and it follows that it cannot have an 'upside.' — universeness
The human ascent from the barbarism of the caves has many causes. Is the supernaturalism of belief in cosmic sentience not one of them? — ucarr
Modern theists have yet to conquer those ancient primal fears. Science is the antidote. Good, logical philosophising can also be an assist. — universeness
If you query logicians about discarding non-contradiction as a foundational principle of logic, I expect you'll get pushback.
— ucarr
What ???
When did I suggest that the logic rule of non-contradiction be discarded? — universeness
So you will accept then that this:
Superposition of the wave function flies in the face of one of science's foundational principles: non-contradiction.
is not true — universeness
Dismantling non-contradiction means radically overhauling the general methodology of science. You're extremely optimistic if you think the standard prohibiting inconsistency within logical arguments will either be relaxed or waived anytime soon.
— ucarr
I have no idea where you are going with this. I fully accept the logic rules of identity, non-contradiction and excluded middle, so where are you going with this line of thought? — universeness
Who is suggesting such an 'overhaul' is required? I have suggested that the supernatural has no existent and it never has. — universeness
I ask if earthly religion has an upside. — ucarr
Morality born of secular humanism, yes.Modern theists have yet to conquer those ancient primal fears. Science is the antidote. Good, logical philosophising can also be an assist.
— universeness
Do you include moral instruction on your list? — ucarr
No, there is no exception here, just in the same way that empirically demonstrated quantum entanglement or quantum tunnelling, or quantum fluctuations (with it's 'virtual' particle' and 'zero point energy' notions) are not exceptions to non-contradictive logic, as they are natural occurrences, at the sub-atomic level. Such may be, classically, non-intuitive, but we have already covered that. A human who finds the workings of QM, classically or macroscopically, non-intuitive, is not a statement/position that can be compared, with scientific rigour, to the logic law of non-contradiction.Okay. You acknowledge that superposition is an exception to the principle of non-contradiction confined to the sub-atomic scale. — ucarr
Only if you don't accept empirically demonstrated superposition, as current scientific fact, that persists not for days but for as long as we have no evidence to contradict it. I do accept that superposition could be being misinterpreted or could be some kind of illusion, in the same way 'gravitational lensing' creates repeated, skewed images of galaxies, which are in fact behind other galaxies, within a particular viewing angle of a directed space telescope. But we know images created by gravitational lensing are not real, so I trust that the scientific application of skepticism, will discover, if quantum superposition and quantum tunnelling are misinterpretations of what is really going on at the sub atomic scale. I therefore assign little significance, to your 'truth de jure' label.However, this exception operates in the real world as truth de jure whereas the principle of non-contradiction operates in the real world as truth de facto. — ucarr
A quantum gravitational reality at the scale of human experience, being existentially vastly different from the establishment Newtonian lens of perception, argues plausibly as a viable candidate for the label of neo-natural. — ucarr
I ask if earthly religion has an upside.
— ucarr
Fair enough, A direct answer from me, is a resounding no, religion has no upside. My foundational reason for saying this is consolidated quite well, imo, by Carl Sagan's quote:
"Better the hard truth, I say, than the comforting fantasy.” Those who try to exemplify a positive effect of religion, ignores such points as made by Carl, to the peril of all of us. I am with the four horsemen, Hitchens, Dawkins, Dennett and Harris, 'all religion is pernicious!' — universeness
Are you a panpsychist ucarr? — universeness
Modern theists have yet to conquer those ancient primal fears. Science is the antidote. Good, logical philosophising can also be an assist. — universeness
Do you include moral instruction on your list? — ucarr
Morality born of secular humanism, yes. — universeness
The human ascent from the barbarism of the caves has many causes. Is the supernaturalism of belief in cosmic sentience not one of them? — ucarr
Okay. You acknowledge that superposition is an exception to the principle of non-contradiction confined to the sub-atomic scale. — ucarr
No, there is no exception here, just in the same way that empirically demonstrated quantum entanglement or quantum tunnelling, or quantum fluctuations (with it's 'virtual' particle' and 'zero point energy' notions) are not exceptions to non-contradictive logic, as they are natural occurrences, at the sub-atomic level. Such may be, classically, non-intuitive, but we have already covered that. A human who finds the workings of QM, classically or macroscopically, non-intuitive, is not a statement/position that can be compared, with scientific rigour, to the logic law of non-contradiction. — universeness
Oh yes, very much, yes! If the people in a city are living very content, happy lives, after they deemed it logical and demonstrated via empirical evidence, that if they enslaved and subjugated all the peoples around them, they would prosper for ever more and be rich and powerful and treated like 'the chosen ones,' then such a moral precept is vile even though it would work and would be fit for the purposes it was intended to achieve.If a moral precept is verified logical and deemed pertinent to empirical experience, does its source matter? — ucarr
I will and comment on it later.Please watch the short video by clicking on the link below.
Ancient Rituals — ucarr
As I have already stated ucarr, the term 'cosmic sentience,' has almost zero value for me, I am not a panpsychist, I can at best raise an eyebrow of recognition towards the term as a possible goal for our human species and a possible common cause for all currently existing sentient life in the universe. But, a goal that will forever be, an asymptotic approach.Is it your settled opinion that allegiance to cosmic sentience has had no bearing whatsoever on discrediting some of the ancient rituals? — ucarr
No, I am following the evidence. The only evidence we currently have for superposition is at the sub-atomic level. We have no evidence of superposition at a macroscale. The multi-verse/many worlds theory has only the sub-atomic scale evidence. We have not detected another Earth or person in a superposition state. I do not claim that we never will, I just hold the opinion currently that we probably never will and superposition may well be a phenomena that only occurs at the quantum level.Isn't confining superposition and its logical implications to the sub-atomic level what you're doing here? — ucarr
I have already stated that I completely disagree with you labelling of superposition as an 'exception' to the logic rule of non-contradiction. I have accepted that it is 'intuitively' weird, but so what? The universe does not have to comply with human notions of how it should be, that was the notion being exemplified by the HH quote you employed, yes? How can superposition be an exception to the logic law of non-contradiction when there are other exceptions, such as those I have already stated, quantum tunnelling, entanglement and also possibly dark matter, dark energy etc. How many exceptions do you need before you accept that these are not exceptions to the natural workings and structure of the universe, but are integral parts of such.Superposition in principle, in accordance with the law, you endorse. Superposition as a real phenomenon in practice, which would be an exception to non-contradiction, you reject. This means you, like some logicians, put superposition vis-a-vis non-contradiction into a box wherein it's a principle of QM you accept as legal but reject in practice. I claim you can't have it both ways.
As for your justification, what bearing has intuition upon the question of superposition vis-a-vis non-contradiction?
I think superposition vis-a-vis non-contradiction is a major theme within our dialog.
Upward dimensional expansion takes infinity-undefined and rationalizes it into an integer. — ucarr
Paradox is the portal to the next higher dimensional expansion. Superposition of a particle is a formerly 3D expanded particle one-upped to 4D expansion. At the level of 4D expansion, there is no contradiction within what we, at the level of 3D expansion, refer to as superposition. — ucarr
Ok!Please click the link below so Toby can demonstrate what I mean.
Going One Dimension Higher — ucarr
So, I watched this what I would call sensationalist, click bait offering. These historical 'urban myths' may or may not be actually true or they may have existed as extreme examples of individualised behaviours. If there is a recorded event of a Scottish clan leader and some of his followers, rubbing whisky on their bollocks, because the clan leader claimed the god 'Lagavulin,' appeared to him in a vision and confirmed that such action would improve the chances of his wife giving birth to a strong male, rather than a weak male, or a female child. Does that mean this process was part of Scottish/Celtic traditional religious practice? No, such on-line video clips are of little significance.Ancient Rituals — ucarr
Did you notice how the presenter struggled to represent a 4D shape on a 2D drawing surface.Going One Dimension Higher — ucarr
If a moral precept is verified logical and deemed pertinent to empirical experience, does its source matter?
— ucarr
Oh yes, very much, yes! If the people in a city are living very content, happy lives, after they deemed it logical and demonstrated via empirical evidence, that if they enslaved and subjugated all the peoples around them, they would prosper for ever more and be rich and powerful and treated like 'the chosen ones,' then such a moral precept is vile even though it would work and would be fit for the purposes it was intended to achieve. — universeness
As I have already stated ucarr, the term 'cosmic sentience,' has almost zero value for me, I am not a panpsychist, I can at best raise an eyebrow of recognition towards the term as a possible goal for our human species and a possible common cause for all currently existing sentient life in the universe. But, a goal that will forever be, an asymptotic approach. — universeness
Isn't confining superposition and its logical implications to the sub-atomic level what you're doing here?
— ucarr
No, I am following the evidence. The only evidence we currently have for superposition is at the sub-atomic level. We have no evidence of superposition at a macroscale. The multi-verse/many worlds theory has only the sub-atomic scale evidence. We have not detected another Earth or person in a superposition state. I do not claim that we never will, I just hold the opinion currently that we probably never will and superposition may well be a phenomena that only occurs at the quantum level. — universeness
Superposition in principle, in accordance with the law, you endorse. Superposition as a real phenomenon in practice, which would be an exception to non-contradiction, you reject. This means you, like some logicians, put superposition vis-a-vis non-contradiction into a box wherein it's a principle of QM you accept as legal but reject in practice. I claim you can't have it both ways.
As for your justification, what bearing has intuition upon the question of superposition vis-a-vis non-contradiction?
I think superposition vis-a-vis non-contradiction is a major theme within our dialog.
Upward dimensional expansion takes infinity-undefined and rationalizes it into an integer.
— ucarr
I have already stated that I completely disagree with you labelling of superposition as an 'exception' to the logic rule of non-contradiction. — universeness
Paradox is the portal to the next higher dimensional expansion. Superposition of a particle is a formerly 3D expanded particle one-upped to 4D expansion. At the level of 4D expansion, there is no contradiction within what we, at the level of 3D expansion, refer to as superposition.
— ucarr
There is no paradox in superposition! — universeness
...historical 'urban myths' may or may not be actually true... Does that means this process was part of... traditional religious practice? — universeness
Going One Dimension Higher
— ucarr
Did you notice how the presenter struggled to represent a 4D shape on a 2D drawing surface.
Are you familiar with the Calabi-Yau manifolds of superstring theory? — universeness
Such image notions of multi-dimensions is quite old hat now and does not, imo, do much to aid human conception of such. I do not see how any such attempted visualisations aid your claims about paradox, layered space, dalliances with theism, notions of determinism vs random happenstance, etc. — universeness
What does it mean to say that the universe is closed? — Manuel
Broadly speaking, I agree but more generally, secular humanity needs a moral code which insists that we respect all that exists and we make every effort possible to not place our own survival, our own pleasure and our own prosperity, above every other existent in our environment. This is another reason for my anti-theism, as they consider this earthly existence as prologue only and the important existence happens after death, but only for those who have complied with human created BS religious moralities, which they claim are 'the word/dictates of god.'This means that for a moral precept to be deemed verified logical and practical, it must first be vetted by a broad consensus of numerous people across a wide demographic. — ucarr
Not a deep interest no, just an eyebrow lift of curiosity. Any notion of a cosmic sentience can only be emergent and not pre-existing or currently existing. Even panpsychism does not suggest a currently fully developed cosmic sentience. I have had a few exchanges with folks like @180 Proof regarding an information singularity and the development of an ASI as a creation of the human development of an AGI. The term 'information singularity,' is an interesting one. I asked chat GPT and it responded with:As a secular humanist, do you not have a deep interest in cosmic sentience as sourced from secular humanist science? As for it being a goal approached asymptotically, do you not have serious speculation about evolving science making a close approach, as evidenced by your deep interest in an information singularity? — ucarr
– of what? 'Of only itself' is indistinguishable from non-sentience. If it's "cosmic", then what else is there for it to experience other than 'the cosmos' itself? "Cosmic sentience" seems a category error to me premised on a compositional fallacy – thus, an empty name (e.g. five-sided triangle).... cosmic sentience ... — ucarr
Please click on the link below to hear physicist Brian Cox talk about the universe in a way that nicely dovetails with a part of my theory about human cognition (evolving as a simulation of original cosmic sentience). To be sure, Cox gives no indication of believing in original, supernatural, cosmic sentience. I don't mean to falsely ascribe to him such belief. — ucarr
You need to be much clearer on what I have emboldened above. If you are just repeating that superposition violates the logic law of non-contradiction then we are just engaging in a panto exchange on that issue. 'Oh yes it does,' 'oh no it doesn't.'Even if superposition proves to be limited to the sub-atomic scale (I don't expect this to be the case), its confinement there is irrelevant to my argument: sub-atomic superposition has a constitutive bearing upon logical relations regardless of the scientific-evidentiary question about the scale at which it propagates. — ucarr
Let’s avoid mixing apples with oranges. The integrity of logical relations is a separate category from the integrity of experimental evidence. You’re trying to use the latter to counter-example the former. Your attempt exemplifies irrelevance.
You can only counter-example my symbolic logic representation of superposition as an exception to non-contradiction through use of another symbolic logic statement that reveals a fatal logical flaw in my symbolic logic statement. — ucarr
Why Non-Contradiction Needs to Soften
A_not-A_B ∧ B_not-B_A — ucarr
the fourth spacial dimension is present within our 3D-spatial universe in collapsed form. This collapsed form is exemplified by superposition. Superposition, in collapsed form at the level of a 3D-spatial universe stands as an exception to non-contradiction at the level of 3D-spatial universe logic. At the level of a 4D-spatial universe, wherein the fourth spatial dimension is expanded, the paradox is resolved within 4D-spatial universe logic which, for contrast with 3D-spatial universe logic, I will name as hyper-logic.
You need to utilize hyper-logic for your counter-example to my claim superposition is an exception to non-contradiction. It's a winning argument over a limited domain. — ucarr
This just sounds like word salad sci-fi to me ucarr.Speaking more generally, the logic of each multi-dimensional matrix will be contradicted at the dimensional boundaries of that matrix. This is why I claim paradox is a portal to the next higher dimensional expansion. Paradox is the gateway between the levels of the multi-dimensional matrices of our upwardly multiplexing poly-verse. — ucarr
If you click on the link below, Toby, in less than one minute, will explain what I'm elaborating here.
Going One Dimension Higher — ucarr
... cosmic sentience ...
— ucarr
– of what? 'Of only itself' is indistinguishable from non-sentience. If it's "cosmic", then what else is there for it to experience other than 'the cosmos' itself? "Cosmic sentience" seems a category error to me premised on a compositional fallacy – thus, an empty name (e.g. five-sided triangle). — 180 Proof
... cosmic sentience ...
— ucarr
– of what? 'Of only itself' is indistinguishable from non-sentience. — 180 Proof
"Cosmic sentience" seems a category error to me premised on a compositional fallacy... — 180 Proof
Please click on the link below to hear physicist Brian Cox talk about the universe in a way that nicely dovetails with a part of my theory about human cognition (evolving as a simulation of original cosmic sentience). To be sure, Cox gives no indication of believing in original, supernatural, cosmic sentience. I don't mean to falsely ascribe to him such belief.
— ucarr
I watched it, and you confirm yourself what I have emboldened in your above quote I think your projections of what he is saying is your attempt to try to get it to 'dovetail,' with a part of your theory but I don't think that attempt is successful. — universeness
Even if superposition proves to be limited to the sub-atomic scale (I don't expect this to be the case), its confinement there is irrelevant to my argument: sub-atomic superposition has a constitutive bearing upon logical relations regardless of the scientific-evidentiary question about the scale at which it propagates.
— ucarr
You need to be much clearer on what I have emboldened above. If you are just repeating that superposition violates the logic law of non-contradiction then we are just engaging in a panto exchange on that issue. 'Oh yes it does,' 'oh no it doesn't.' — universeness
I have no idea what you are referring to here? Are you talking about this?:
Why Non-Contradiction Needs to Soften
A_not-A_B ∧ B_not-B_A
— ucarr — universeness
the fourth spacial dimension is present within our 3D-spatial universe in collapsed form. — ucarr
Your first sentence in the above quote, has no empirical evidence to support it in physics. — universeness
Speaking more generally, the logic of each multi-dimensional matrix will be contradicted at the dimensional boundaries of that matrix. This is why I claim paradox is a portal to the next higher dimensional expansion. Paradox is the gateway between the levels of the multi-dimensional matrices of our upwardly multiplexing poly-verse.
— ucarr
This just sounds like word salad sci-fi to me ucarr. — universeness
Where does it say the universe is like a black hole? — Manuel
In any case, if the universe is open system, then we are being mislead by insisting on analyzing it in terms of entropy, so here I would suppose we'd agree. — Manuel
If, however, it turns out to be a closed system, then understanding the universe through entropy is sensible, but even here, one should be somewhat careful as to not spread the concept of entropy through every phenomenon, rendering the term more-or-less meaningless. — Manuel
I would be forced to guess that nothing could affect the universe, in principle, which goes beyond itself, such as whatever "space" or "domain" or, I know not what, the universe is expanding to - in this case nothing "outside" the universe prevents its expansion. — Manuel
.To argue [entropy] has an effect on every possible system, looks to me like a extremely strong extrapolation from the origins of the concept. — Manuel
Sorry, I can't follow your (seemingly non sequitur) responses. — 180 Proof
If it's "cosmic", then what else is there for it to experience other than 'the cosmos' itself? " — 180 Proof
... cosmic sentience ...
— ucarr
– of what? 'Of only itself' is indistinguishable from non-sentience. — 180 Proof
Strawman. I've made no such posit.This is you positing ... — ucarr
Strawman again. I've made no identity claims. 'X indistinguishable from ~X' merely implies a distinction without a difference – conceptual nonsense, not a contradiction in terms – the phrase "cosmic sentience" does not make sense and therefore does not refer.This is you claiming ... AND also claiming ...
Cox and I describe a continuity from matter-energy to sentience within the animal kingdom. Cox and I ask what it means to be sentient matter-energy that examines itself. He and I conclude that sentient matter is an example of the cosmos examining itself. How is this not a description, on both our parts (include Sagan as well), of cosmic sentience? — ucarr
The argument goes thus: logic, which can be defined as an organizing principle for correctly assembling continuities, encounters superposition as a modifying organizing principle. This means logic faces a logical imperative to subsume and thus reconfigure itself to accommodate the discovery that non-contradiction is conditional, not absolute. This accommodation parallels the accommodations of Newtonian physics after the advent of Relativity. — ucarr
I think the below video briefly talks about heat energy from a system being radiated into a fourth spatial dimension. — ucarr
A tesseract (or hypercube) or penteract are mathematical constructs. They exist mathematically, that does not mean they exist physically. You can describe or simulate a hypercube in 3D space,:I'm reminding you how she shows a progression from the 0D point through the 5D penteract. — ucarr
Pure speculation on your part, with no compelling scientific evidence to support it. Not much different from a theist insisting that they know, that they know, that they know, that Jesus Christ is god!This also shows how there is no solitary self. The self can only be itself through entanglement with another self. This is my argument for an essentially binary universe. This argument, in turn, grounds my claim there are no closed systems. — ucarr
I realise I must sound mocking towards you at times ucarr and I apologise for that. I do honestly enjoy the way you think. You are not merely an irrational theist, you go into great depths in how you make connections between concepts and I think that is to be applauded. I just don't agree with some of your conclusions/personal projections. I think it would be more accurate for you to consider my dissent towards you as more based on a mix of academic and layperson complaint, rather than attempts at personal mockery towards you on my part.Now, of course, you think the above is just more word salad. That's why your best chance to cotton to its meaning is to scan said meaning through your own laughter. The strangeness of our universe is sometimes funny. — ucarr
At my most speculative, I'm attracted to pandeism because it is more consistent with my philosophical (& methodological) naturalism – all we rigorously know and observe – than any other deity / divinity concept.It may be that our role on this planet is not to worship God - but to create him. — Arthur C. Clarke
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.