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

The book citation is much appreciated. Thank-you.

:up:

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.

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.

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

Einstein was wrong regarding QM. I think hat is now well established.

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

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. There are no ghosts, gods, angels or demons but I do think that the actual structure, workings and origin story of the universe will indeed be quite strange. I think superposition, entanglement and quantum tunnelling, would, as you suggest, have seemed 'supernatural,' when viewed through a lens of classical Newtonian physics, but now we know they actually exist, they are not supernatural.
But none of these quantum phenomena, involve dead humans haunting live ones, angels helping humans, demons attacking and possessing humans, gods existing, etc etc. No quantum phenomena has progressed the evidence for god one iota imo.

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

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).

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

I agree, stories from folklore can be of value, when it comes to human moral dilemma, but that's the full extent/maximum value of such, and it is very important to state, that the events depicted in such stories are folklore and there is almost zero significant evidence, that any of the characters described, actually existed. Whereas, Einstein and Heisenberg really did live, and the majority of events described in their life, were memorialised accurately, in reliable ways.

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

If we numericalize strangeness as a range of inferential logics derived from experimentally verified facts, and if we plot a standard deviation for these inferential logics, we have set a parameter for allowable degree of strangeness.

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.

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

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.

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.

The unrestricted range of strangeness reverse-engineers to experimentally verified facts. Now science, by its own embrace of super-natural science (through universeness), exponentially expands what science can look for when seeking experimental verification. This, in turn, means radically expanding the range of theoretical speculation that will guide experimentation. As imagination informs experimental design and intent, the range of experimental verification hinges upon said imagination. For this reason, speaking logically, natural science wants to ascend to super-natural science as it progresses forward in its simulation of cosmic sentience.

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

In our culture of memes turbo-charged by the internet, it's easy for most of us to understand and accept that knowledge utilized to good effect by the many is correctly ascribed to it's authors by the few.

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? 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?

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

QM theoreticians talk about the ease and frequency of the collapse of the wave function. Likewise, there's talk about the normalizing effect of observation canceling superposition at the human scale of experience.

I think the issues entailed above are a prompt for not being too quick about affirming the affirmed. So far, the establishmentarians of science have existential contradiction confined to the minute realms of elementary particles.

If you query logicians about discarding non-contradiction as a foundational principle of logic, I expect you'll get pushback. 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.

I think there's a vast field of work to be done by philosophers either in effecting or rejecting such an overhaul.

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

I think you have stretched the intended meaning behind this HH quote too far, and the elastic snapped a while ago.

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

Let me be very clear, that I do not accept the existence of the supernatural, in the form of god posits or angels and demon posits etc. 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. So, yes that's what I meant by the term being over-burdened but such a statement is, in no way, me tip toeing towards god proposals.

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

Science would reject such a silly phrase as 'beyond imagination.' It's an acceptable phrase in sci-fi or in a quote from a scientist, who is being emotive for dramatic effect, but logically, like god posits, it is an unfalsifiable claim.

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

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.

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.'

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

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.

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?

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?

I think there's a vast field of work to be done by philosophers either in effecting or rejecting such an overhaul. — 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 you have stretched the intended meaning behind this HH quote too far, and the elastic snapped a while ago. — universeness

Okay. The quote is hyperbole, not literal statement.

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

Okay. Natural science unconfirmed can be conjectured as "supernatural" although, in your opinion, it overburdens the word.

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

Okay. That human-driven teleology will continue advancing until it simulates the cosmic sentience embedded within theism is, in your opinion, a false claim.

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

"Sentience," modified by the phrase ( as mediated on earth by humanity), means didactic instruction by humans who sometimes overbear. This is the downside of earthly religion. I ask if earthly religion has an upside.

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

Do you include moral instruction on your list?

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

Okay. You acknowledge that superposition is an exception to the principle of non-contradiction confined to the sub-atomic scale. 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.

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

Above I'm talking about superposition as truth de facto at the scale of human experience. If QM ultimately agrees with Relativity (quantum gravity suggests belief in this agreement on the part of some), then it seems possible the logical paradigm will need an overhaul.

Who is suggesting such an 'overhaul' is required? I have suggested that the supernatural has no existent and it never has. — universeness

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.

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!'

Are you a panpsychist ucarr?

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.

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.
As I said earlier ucarr, I find you a very interesting thinker, but I will not let you make equivocation fallacies, without challenging them or at least, pointing them out to you, for your consideration.
That does not stop me enjoying the way your mind ruminates.

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

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.

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

Do you support the current 'loop quantum gravity,' proposals? Have you heard any of the current proponents of loop quantum gravity or List of quantum gravity researchers, label their work as 'neo-natural' research? Or are you alone, applying your term to such research? Who from the list I linked to, can you quote as agreeing with you, and in what context?
What does the concept of 'new-natural' compared to 'that which we cannot yet confirm is part of the natural workings of the universe,' offer us? I think you are fighting tooooooooo hard to find a gap that your theism can find respite and maintenance within. But, for you, it seems to be important to constantly defibrillate theism, rather that relieve yourself of it and that's ...... fair enough, but does, ironically, imo, conflict with the logic law of non-contradiction, due to such conflicts as 'if god is an immortal then in cannot die like a human can. So humans can die/terminate to oblivion, in a way that an immortal god cannot. How can an immortal god be omnipotent then? There are many such possible contradictions in theism as presented by theists. I would look to theism, for many many examples of confliction, with the logic laws of identity, non-contradiction and excluded middle.

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

My response will come after further development.

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

If a moral precept is verified logical and deemed pertinent to empirical experience, does its source matter?

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

Please watch the short video by clicking on the link below.

Ancient Rituals

Is it your settled opinion that allegiance to cosmic sentience has had no bearing whatsoever on discrediting some of the ancient rituals?

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

Isn't confining superposition and its logical implications to the sub-atomic level what you're doing here? 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.

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. So, ultimately, there is no contradiction of non-contradiction across dimensional expansion into hyper-logic. At our 3D level, however, there is contradiction of non-contradiction. This is a case of a logical paradox acting as a portal from logic to hyper-logic.

Please click the link below so Toby can demonstrate what I mean.

Going One Dimension Higher

In order to avoid an overlong single post containing a major theme, I will start superposition vis-a-vis non-contradiction in a separate post.

Why Non-Contradiction Needs to Soften

A_not-A_B ∧ B_not-B_A

Superposition expressed as symbolic logic shows us that the hard boundaries of rational, reductive materialism, wherein science is currently bogged-down, create an artificially rigid bifurcation of matter-energy. This rigid bifurcation leads to Chalmers’ Hard Problem of Consciousness. This, in turn, traces back to Descartes’ matter-consciousness dualism.

Speaking scientifically and logically, the softening of non-contradiction will solve this problem of oblivion towards some counter-intuitive attributes of QM.

Re: non-contradiction, its value needs to be regulated across a range from hard-to-soft as the situation requires. This instead of maintaining it as a fixed value absolute is what needs doing.

Descartes, being a mathematician, was committed to internal consistency and hard non-contradiction. He mocked the square roots of negative numbers. They got their name from him: imaginary numbers, an essential component of the Riemann Hypothesis, the mysterious lynchpin of number theory.

As luck would have it, Bohr, in his debate with Einstein, stepped forward as a champion of the soft non-contradiction compatible with QM.

Einstein was led directly into his erroneous judgment of QM by his commitment to hard non-contradiction.

Hard non-contradiction hardens materialist boundaries into discrete objects. This lens of interpretation has the effect of a reductive materialism. Material objects subsequently become discrete containers for energy, a superposition of a material object in motion.

High energy at the scale of elementary particles is enough to make superposition detectable and therefore measurable. At the human scale of experience, the lack of the stupendous volume of energy needed to make a macro-scale object propagate into super-position creates the appearance of hard boundaries which, in turn, ameliorate themselves to the unambiguous math of non-contradiction. This is monist, reductive materialism.

Superposition of an elementary particle clues us to the fact that non-contradiction, rather than itself being a hard boundary, instead expresses as a permeable membrane that softens materialism out of its reductivism via superposition. QM is essentially binary, as evidenced by the centrality of its Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle.

The integration of QM and Relativity will entail the strategic limitation of materialist reductivism and its artificial bi-furcation of matter-energy.

The method of effecting the integration of the two disciplines will be regulation of the principle of non-contradiction between the poles of hard-boundary, reductive materialism and the binary, soft-boundary of superposition.

Integral QM-Relativity will allow science and tech to energize wave-function fields that can then be manipulated to harden into discrete-boundary material objects of our choosing: anything from a handgun to a living organism.

This highly advanced, human-controlled simulation of cosmic sentience will motivate some to claim God not simulated but rather replaced.

This will be a false claim. Upward dimensional expansion via the integration of QM-Relativity will not position human in the role of God usurper. Instead, it will further elaborate the essential mystery of existence.

Is atheism monist?

Atheism, because of rejection of cosmic sentience and its binary relationship with human sentience as a simulation of cosmic sentience, establishes itself as a reductive monism. There is no self_not-self_God superposition contemporaneous with material self. This essentially binary self is what the cosmic sentience wants to impart to human.

Approaching yourself, a binary journey, is good; arriving at yourself, a monism, is not good. Always approach yourself; never arrive at yourself lest hubris swallow you whole.

The good extends from our binary state of being, if we embrace it.

Cosmic sentience says to human: I will give you not material water; instead, I will give you living water.

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.

Just been interrupted ucarr and I have to deal with an issue. Will pick this up again soon.

Please watch the short video by clicking on the link below.
Ancient Rituals — ucarr

I will and comment on it later.

Is it your settled opinion that allegiance to cosmic sentience has had no bearing whatsoever on discrediting some of the 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.

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.

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. 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.

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! Superposition may be 10 dimensional, if string theory is correct, but if string theory is correct, then you and I are 10 dimensional creatures,

who can only physically experience 3 expanded dimensions, because only 3 physical dimensions are expanded, the rest are curled up. We have already discussed this!

Please click the link below so Toby can demonstrate what I mean.

Going One Dimension Higher — ucarr

Ok!

Ancient Rituals — 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.

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?

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.

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

You have a strong argument, but there’s a strong defense. You make the moral relativity argument. By the same argument, a moral precept locally verified logical covers the range from harmless and universally beneficial to toxic and universally heinous.

For those who reject moral relativity, a slave-holding state can be deemed in terms of the general wellbeing of its citizens as illogical because the desire for freedom, being universal, means both the oppressors and the oppressed will live in a state of war with many harmful effects to both sides. 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.

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

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?

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.

Infinite Universe

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

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.

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

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.

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

In order to support your above claim with a logical argument, you need to counter-example the following premise: 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.

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.

When logically correct theory terminates in paradox, it's reason for rejoicing instead of mourning. The boundaries of the current multi-dimensional matrix have been reached. Yonder lies the way to the next higher matrix!

If you click on the link below, Toby, in less than one minute, will explain what I'm elaborating here.

Going One Dimension Higher

Sure entropy exists. What's not clear to me is how far it should be extended. It was originally used to describe the behavior of particles in heat engines it was stated that particles in closed systems can only go from "ordered" to "disordered" states. That's fine.

But does such an abstraction apply to the entire universe? Is the universe an open or closed system? What does it mean to say that the universe is closed?

Cosmologies that are based on the concept of entropy have to face these issues...

...historical 'urban myths' may or may not be actually true... Does that means this process was part of... traditional religious practice? — universeness

Some memes propagate far and wide, becoming myth-based beliefs. Well-organized systems of thought and belief predicated upon sound logic, whether scientific or moral, stand as bulwarks against the faulty reasoning of some of the myth-based beliefs. The works of historians and sociologists buttress this explanation.

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

My focal point in the Toby video is not about visualizations as an aid to understanding multi-dimensional matrices. It addresses the concept of an upwardly multiplexing poly-verse, with paradox as the boundary marker between the levels.

When Toby explains how a line is an infinite expansion of a point and so on, she makes clear that quantum leaping across a boundary between the levels entails a trans-linear logic that describes the expansion to the next higher dimensional level wherein the previously collapsed higher dimension is now expanded.

Higher dimensional expansion bridges over asymptotic progression. Expanded dimensions don't assemble by accretion.

What does it mean to say that the universe is closed? — Manuel

I think it says the universe is a gigantic example of a black hole. If this is true, then the universe is not truly closed because its bounded energy will eventually evaporate as radiation.

This is my lead-in to claiming universe is the limit of system and therefore, there are no closed systems at any scale. Moreover, order is rooted in relationship between material objects, so the material universe contradicts absolute randomness.

The equation between equilibrium and randomness is expressed with conditions: A system, isolated from its surrounding, will continue to be in a state of equilibrium unless driven by an external steady flow of energy. Statistically, a state of equilibrium implies a state of randomness, and randomness implies symmetry.. -- Cambridge University Press & Assessment

Since I don't think any system is truly isolated, I think the equilibrium_randomness equation has a limited domain. The singularity can't explode into the big bang universe until dis-equilibrium is introduced. By whatever means it gets introduced, that means indicates the universe is open.

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

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.'

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

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:
The term "information singularity" is not a widely recognized concept as of my last knowledge update in September 2021. However, it seems to combine two distinct ideas: the "technological singularity" and the notion of information.

Technological Singularity: The technological singularity refers to a hypothetical future point in time when technological growth becomes uncontrollable and irreversible, resulting in unforeseeable changes to human civilization. It's often associated with the idea that artificial intelligence or other advanced technologies could rapidly surpass human intelligence and capabilities. This concept was popularized by mathematician and computer scientist Vernor Vinge and later expanded upon by various futurists and researchers.

Information: Information is a concept relating to the communication or representation of knowledge, facts, or data. In the context of technology and artificial intelligence, the handling and processing of vast amounts of information are central. The growth of data, the internet, and computational power has significantly influenced the development of AI and other technologies.

If someone is referring to the "information singularity," they might be suggesting a point in the future where the rapid growth and evolution of information-related technologies reach a critical juncture, potentially leading to unforeseen and transformative changes in various aspects of society, communication, and knowledge management. However, without further context or a specific source, it's difficult to provide a more precise explanation. It's also possible that the term has emerged or gained significance after my last update in September 2021.

I accept that a technological singularity moment is a possibility but I remain unconvinced that such would mean our extinction. I think it more likely that an orga mecha merging would ultimately occur, but I wont repeat the discussions I have had with folks like @180 Proof on this, on other threads, such as Emergence and the many posts there, on this topic, such as this one. The owner of TPF, whose handle is @Jamal, got fed up with that thread, so he will not allow it to appear on the main page any more.

... 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).

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.

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.'

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

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

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

Your first sentence in the above quote, has no empirical evidence to support it in physics. Superposition has been confirmed in 3 dimensions, there is no current experimental evidence for the existence of a 4th spacial dimension. You are asking me to provide a counter example for a claim about superposition being a 'collapsed form' of a 4th spatial dimension, that has no supporting evidence. In what sense can you 'collapse' a spacial dimension in physics? What mechanism are you referring to? Are you suggesting that any travelling waveform traverses a spatial 4th dimension? A vibrating string may vibrate in up to 10 dimensions but in what sense would such quanta collapse into only 3 dimensions? There would be no 'collapse,' it's just that we can only detect or observe 3D events as those are the only extended spacial dimensions.

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.

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

I watched it, again and I already responded to this,in a post above.

Where does it say the universe is like a black hole?

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.

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.

... 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

This is a good, compact description of possible structural errors that can sink a theorem. Let's see if their ascription to my theorem is factual.

... cosmic sentience ...
— ucarr
– of what? 'Of only itself' is indistinguishable from non-sentience. — 180 Proof

I think here your logic is faulty. A = A is an identity, not a cancellation; A = A → ¬ A = A is a paradox.

"Cosmic sentience" seems a category error to me premised on a compositional fallacy... — 180 Proof

You want to repeat the first argument that intends to show non-cosmic sentience is the only possible sentience.

That cosmic sentience cannot be a higher order of natural sentience because it doesn't exist, as based upon your first argument that illogically implicates identity with its negation, shows there's no logical prohibition of super-nature and therefore logical arguments WRT super-nature avail nothing.

You must provide an existential counter-example of cosmic sentience (a material thing) that refutes the possibility of its existence.

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

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?

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

con·sti·tu·tive | ˈkänstəˌt(y)o͞odiv, kənˈstiCHədiv |
adjective
1 having the power to establish or give organized existence to something: the state began to exercise a new and constitutive function.

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.

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

You need to show a fatal logical flaw in the above statement.

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

I've been hoping the Toby video would communicate to you a logical argument for belief in spatial dimensions beyond depth. As for empirical evidence, I think the below video briefly talks about heat energy from a system being radiated into a fourth spatial dimension. Even if it doesn't, your time won't be wasted by viewing the instructive content.

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

I'm not asking you to watch the Toby video a third time. Instead, I'm reminding you how she shows a progression from the 0D point through the 5D penteract. The first three spatial dimensions are critical to my argument: an infinity of points quantum leaps to a line; an infinity of parallel lines quantum leaps to an area; an infinity of parallel areas quantum leaps to a cube.

In the progression from 0D to line, the dimensionless point collides with its boundary when it looks at the implication of a self not itself.* This paradox is a signpost signaling the existence of another point not the original point. All the 0D point has to do is realize the possibility of a self not itself, once expanded from its collapsed state in 0D, marks the beginning of a line made of an infinity of points.

*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.

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.

Use a parallel structure to trace the quantum leaps through 2D and 3D.

Where does it say the universe is like a black hole? — Manuel

As you already know, that claim (with condition of the universe being a closed system) is made here in this conversation.

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

Yeah. The tendency towards the spreading of energy in my opinion supports quantum entanglement. :up:

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

Do you think closed system implies one universe?

Sorry, I can't follow your (seemingly non sequitur) responses.

With something as vast as the universe, the meaning of a "closed system" is obscure in a way that does not arise, say, in a heat engine, or other small you could even say "encased" systems.

It would seem to rule out a multiverse, of which we have no empirical evidence for or against. Plainly many universes would have to have an effect on the universe we have now.

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.

So, if this is the case, which again, may be true but is nebulous, then we use entropy in applicable cases. To argue it has an effect on every possible system, looks to me like a extremely strong extrapolation from the origins of the concept.

So when some physicists, like Sean Carroll (and many others), say that we can understand the evolution of the universe via the arrow of time and entropy, I think some important complexities are being left out. But that is just an impression.

What nags at me is the extrapolation from steam engines to the universe. That's a gargantuan leap. Then again, Newton discovered gravity observing apples falling. So there's that...

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

I'm wondering why your perplexity about what could lie beyond a set encompassing all of existence doesn't make you doubt the possibility of a closed universe.

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

.

Overgeneralization stretches to the breaking point within a one-size-encloses-all universe. A network of open systems, on the other hand, shakes hands with the tendency towards the spreading of energy.

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

This is you positing A = A; cosmic sentience is itself in isolation.

... cosmic sentience ...
— ucarr
– of what? 'Of only itself' is indistinguishable from non-sentience. — 180 Proof

This is you claiming A = A (cosmic sentience) is itself in isolation AND also claiming that A = A implies the negation of itself, namely, non-sentience. This is configuring cosmic sentience as a paradox.

When you say cosmic sentience implies its negation, I'm guessing you're trying to show I've placed one thing into two categories simultaneously whereas, according to your understanding, it belongs in only one category. I'm further guessing you're arguing that natural sentience, such as ours, is the only possible variety of sentience, and thus claiming natural sentience has a higher order as cosmic sentience in a separate category, namely super-nature, examples a category error.

What’s interesting about your statement is the implication cognition can’t operate as such within an isolated identity. A thing in isolation goes noumenal. Noumena-in-isolation are categorically separated from phenomena because of superposition.

Another implication is that superposition operates at all scales of material things, not just within the sub-atomic scale of material things.

If identity in isolation implies its own negation, then operational cognition of an identity entangled with other identities seems to require that cognition sustain a reciprocal relationship between paradox and entanglement. This is why the paired values of vector systems require one of the values be uncertain.

This is you positing ... — ucarr

Strawman. I've made no such posit.

This is you claiming ... AND also claiming ...

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.

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

Brian Cox and Carl Sagan describe a conversion of fundamental energy/matter to sentience of some existents within this universe. You invoke a term like 'continuity' to try to find a gap where you can fit your claim of an underlying/first cause/prime mover 'intent' to the process. Brian and Carl are very careful to state that WE, humans, are the medium through which our collective effort, could be romantically described as 'the cosmos examining itself.' They offer this notion, as a possible 'emergent' networking of all efforts of all sentient life, trying to understand the structure and workings of the universe they exist within. Neither scientist has ever supported your notion of a cosmic intent, which predates the random happenstance event of life forming in this universe/cosmos. So you are wrong in your assumption imo.
Why don't you send Brian Cox an email and ask him. I predict he will dismiss your 'cosmic intent' notion that you have labelled 'cosmic sentience,' either outright, or by stating something like, 'well, no one knows for sure, but I don't think such a first cause agent of 'intent' has ever existed.' Carl Sagan would have certainly dismissed it as highly unlikely imo.

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

Your mathematical propositional logic is skewed. Superposition demonstrates that at a sub-atomic level, an atom can be at two places at the same instant in time. This is not a contradiction, it does not violate any propositional logic law. Object A appears at coordinate (x, y, z), at time unit (t). Also at time unit (t), object A appears at coordinate (x1, y1, z1). This can be experimentally demonstrated. You keep performing an equivocation fallacy by suggesting that A = A → ¬ A = A relates to superposition.
Can you cite mathematicians and physicists that agree with you that the propositional logic statement A = A → ¬ A = A, relates to superposition?
My go to guy on TPF for mathematical insights is @jgill
Perhaps he would comment on the above.

I think the below video briefly talks about heat energy from a system being radiated into a fourth spatial dimension. — ucarr

I have watched this video before and a few more by this same doctor of physics. Many scientists talk about the work of 'Carnot,' 'Kelvin,' 'Clausuis,' 'Boltzmann,' etc, when describing the history of entropy and the laws of thermodynamics. As confirmed in this video, there is no 100% efficient, perpetual motion machine, absolute zero cannot be reached and heat flows from hot to cold and not the other way round, as reasoned via the probabilities described in the video. The Earth is not a closed system due to energy from the Sun. The 'Past Hypothesis' he mentioned, describes the initial low entropy conditions after the big bang and how entropy has been increasing ever since. Hawkins confirmed black holes have entropy. This video supports the heat death of the universe. Nowhere in this video does the physicist mention any notion, at all, of energy being radiated into a fourth spatial dimension ucarr!!! There is also nowhere in this video where the physicist narrator supports your claim of 'cosmic sentience' or cosmic intent. The content of this video offers your claims zero support.

I'm reminding you how she shows a progression from the 0D point through the 5D penteract. — 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,:

but you would need a physically expanded 4D space to create a real one. We have no conformation that 4D expanded space exists in our universe.
"4-dimensional: Two parallel cubes ABCDEFGH and IJKLMNOP separated by a distance of AB can be connected to become a tesseract, with the corners marked as ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOP. However, this parallel positioning of two cubes such that their 8 corresponding pairs of vertices are each separated by a distance of AB can only be achieved in a space of 4 or more dimensions."

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

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!

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

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.

I think what is interesting in connecting my exchange here with ucarr and the very interesting and enjoyable exchanges I have had with 180 Proof on AI, is this.

How would a notion like cosmic 'intent'/god/a deterministic universe etc relate to a notion/prediction such as humans developing an AGI or causing a technological singularity which results in an AGI eventually creating an ASI, all of which may result in humans being made extinct/getting replaced or becoming a merged aspect of some future ASI.

Surely if an original 'intent' existed, then it could have gone straight to the ASI state, why would it create over 13.8 billion years of deterministic events, that just seems a total waste of time to me.
I wonder if @180 Proof would agree with me that a universe with intent, or a deterministic universe, would mean that existents as scientifically slow and inefficient as humans could only be born of a very incompetent cosmic intent, or in the best case scenario, a cosmic intent which had very limited capabilities and no longer exists (akin to my 'mindless spark' description of a first cause for our universe, if people insist on a described first cause.)

re: AGI, etc ...

It may be that our role on this planet is not to worship God - but to create him. — Arthur C. Clarke

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.