If it's "cosmic", then what else is there for it to experience other than 'the cosmos' itself? — 180 Proof
This is you positing ...
Strawman. I've made no such posit. — 180 Proof
... cosmic sentience ...
– of what? 'Of only itself' is indistinguishable from non-sentience. — 180 Proof
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. — 180 Proof
the phrase "cosmic sentience" does not make sense and therefore does not refer. — 180 Proof
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. — universeness
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.' — universeness
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. — universeness
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. — universeness
Nowhere in this video does the physicist mention any notion, at all, of energy being radiated into a fourth spatial dimension ucarr!!! — universeness
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! — universeness
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. — universeness
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. — universeness
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. — universeness
I don't see why "all of existence" should include or not include an open or closed system, — Manuel
I don't personally see empirical evidence to suggest either. The issue about using entropy too broadly remains in both, only that in one case it is wrong in principle... — Manuel
...and in the other case, it should be applied with care. No more than that, as I see it. — Manuel
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. — 180 Proof
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. — universeness
I for one am confident that, behind all the smoke and mirrors in the Phenomenology and the Logic, what Big Heg is really talking about is space battle cruisers and cool space fighters battling it out for galactic supremacy. — Count Timothy von Icarus
Again, this collective sentience, which might be moving (notice I didn't say "evolving") toward an inflection point expressed as the information singularity, or the point of no return from unstoppable ASI, marks another quantum leap (from AGI to ASI) wholly outside of evolution? — ucarr
In your first sentence, you seem to be saying the appearance of sentient life on earth was not part of evolution; it was a quantum leap from non-sentience to sentience without any transitional period connecting the two states. Am I understanding you correctly? — ucarr
Such is a product of human efforts alone. No ASI is possible before humans successfully create AGI.Again, this collective sentience, which might be moving (notice I didn't say "evolving") toward an inflection point expressed as the information singularity, or the point of no return from unstoppable ASI, marks another quantum leap (from AGI to ASI) wholly outside of evolution? — ucarr
Do you not see here, that it's you who likes to make such big 'leaps of faith.' Surely you can see that is what you are doing.As for my alleged "God of the gaps" argument, my thinking is, thanks to you, evolving. If super-nature as a higher-order of nature is logically possible, then the unevolved inflection point cum information singularity that instantiates ASI might be said higher-order of nature, i.e., super-nature. — ucarr
By equivocation fallacy I understand you are charging me with using an ambiguous term such that: in statement A the term has meaning 1; in statement B the term has meaning 2. Ultimately, you say, I'm pretending the term's meaning is the same in both statements. — ucarr
If I translated your propositional statement into English words, it would read "A is equal to A then(or implies) not A is equal to A" It is skewed and makes no sense and cannot be 'equated' with or compared to SP=SP implies that SP and not SP at the same time is false or SP = SP → (¬ SP ∧ SP) is false.The paradox I'm claiming for A = A → ¬ A = A lies rooted in the equivocation inherent in the claim A wholly occupies two different locations simultaneously. — ucarr
Superposition IS equivocation fallacy. My propositional logic statement highlights this fact. That's why it's natural to charge me with the violation. Those of us embracing QM are collectively endorsing equivocation fallacy. Why is is logical to do this? It's logical because QM demands equivocation of the equivocation fallacy. This is a confusing way of saying superposition is equivocation and it's not. — ucarr
This is a good linear time argument within a Newtonian, 3-space universe. After we usher in Relativity_QM, however, the possibility that a 13.8 billion time interval and an ASI cosmic sentience are coincidental exists. — ucarr
Could it be that during a lull in the fighting we're all on the same page? — ucarr
that a 13.8 billion time interval and an ASI cosmic sentience are coincidental exists. — ucarr
For me, these leaps of faith you make are fun, (NOT in the mocking sense!!!!) but are not rigorous enough to satisfy even layman level, scientific skepticism. — universeness
In your first sentence, you seem to be saying the appearance of sentient life on earth was not part of evolution; it was a quantum leap from non-sentience to sentience without any transitional period connecting the two states. Am I understanding you correctly? — ucarr
Evolution offers no evidence at all regarding the mechanism by which life appeared on Earth. Theories such as abiogenesis and panspermia are not part of the claims and demonstrations of Darwinian evolution. They are theoretical projections that are logical traces, back from such time periods as the Cambrian. The likelihood that abiogenesis occurred in some form somewhere is very strong imo, but we have no actual evidence of abiogenesis. — universeness
You are projecting human actions and ability, anthropomorphically, onto your notion of a universe with intent. — universeness
As for my alleged "God of the gaps" argument, my thinking is, thanks to you, evolving. If super-nature as a higher-order of nature is logically possible, then the unevolved inflection point cum information singularity that instantiates ASI might be said higher-order of nature, i.e., super-nature.
— ucarr
Do you not see here, that it's you who likes to make such big 'leaps of faith.' Surely you can see that is what you are doing. — universeness
Using propositional logic, we can propose that based on empirical evidence, superposition is true. So, SP=True. The law of identity states that each thing is identical with itself, so we can write SP=SP. Under the law of non-contradiction, we have that the two propositions "SP is the case" and "SP is not the case" are mutually exclusive. Superposition therefore does not violate the law of non-contradiction! — universeness
Under the law of non-contradiction, we have that the two propositions "SP is the case" and "SP is not the case" are mutually exclusive. Superposition therefore does not violate the law of non-contradiction! — universeness
Superposition IS equivocation fallacy. — ucarr
No it's not, how can it be, when it can be demonstrated? — universeness
Superposition may be being misinterpreted, for example, perhaps, an atom can appear to appear in more than one place at the same instant of time, due to some effect we don't understand, that's akin to something like gravitational lensing. Such remains possible, but that does not make superposition an equivocation fallacy — universeness
You just have a mind that is determined to find a t.o.e (theory of everything), that can link complicated concepts together into a very easy to understand final solution such as 'god did it,' or 'cosmic intent' is the only landing zone we need. — universeness
The universe just wont be the way you want it to be ucarr. Your own HH quote should have prepared you for that, well enough. — universeness
Insofar as atheism means theism is not true and therefore theistic deities are fictions, I am "an atheist through and through", which I've stated already ..I had assumed you were an atheist, through and through, — universeness
You quote my post on pandeism out of the context of its salient qualifiers:... well, perhaps pandeism is pretty close to atheism, as such a divinity would be ...
A woo-free speculation much more consistent with the observed universe of natural science — 180 Proof
i.e. universe = no god/s... which paraphrases Epicurus' observation about death: when we are, "God" is not; when "God" is, we are not. — 180 Proof
Yes.If I understand this list correctly, you are positing an eternal cycle, via your numbering of events, yes? — universeness
As per the wiki link (that follows), "event 1" means the deity becomes the universe and therefore no longer exists as the deity until the universe ends (event 5).Does event 1, 'not deity' just mean the deity is no longer involved?
No, just the opposite (re: event 0)Does event 1 'Deity becomes' suggest a 'before' when deity did not exist?
No. Again, just the opposite (event 1 "fluctuates until symmetry breaks" – an acausal, random, planck-vacuum event).Does this list mean that you accept that a first cause with intent is likely or 'at your most speculative?'
Macro, not micro .Do you think the universe is fully deterministic, ...
Anyway, at most, I'm agnostic about pandeism (which I refer to it as a speculation, and not as a belief or claim). — 180 Proof
But macro objects are combinations of micro objects, are they not? If you believe that the macro universe is deterministic but the micro or sub-atomic universe is not, then is it size or the complexity of combinatorials or both, that makes all future events in the macroscopic universe, deterministic?Macro, not micro — 180 Proof
we're looking through a QM lens. Through that lens SP ∧ ¬ SP are not mutually exclusive because, by definition, SP means
SP = ¬SP! How else could the same identity be in two places at once. We're not talking about identical twins. We're talking about the same identity being simultaneously located in two different places. With SP we're saying: A is in position 1 and not in position 1 because A = ¬A which is in position 2 AND A is in position 2 and not in position 2 because A = ¬A which is in position 1. How "you as you" is "not you" is hard for us to wrap our brains around, but that's what QM compels us to do. — ucarr
What do you make of the following: 2x + 3x ≡ 5x; when x = 2, we get: 4 + 6 ≡ 10 > a distinction (in expression) without difference is NOT conceptual nonsense. It is not a straw man argument; it is math reality. — ucarr
Non sequiturs. — 180 Proof
... cosmic sentience ...
– of what? 'Of only itself' is indistinguishable from non-sentience. — 180 Proof
we're looking through a QM lens. Through that lens SP ∧ ¬ SP are not mutually exclusive because, by definition, SP means
SP = ¬SP! How else could the same identity be in two places at once. We're not talking about identical twins. We're talking about the same identity being simultaneously located in two different places. With SP we're saying: A is in position 1 and not in position 1 because A = ¬A which is in position 2 AND A is in position 2 and not in position 2 because A = ¬A which is in position 1. How "you as you" is "not you" is hard for us to wrap our brains around, but that's what QM compels us to do. — ucarr
Our QM elaboration here shows how the non-locality of the wave-function identity expands details exponentially. These are the details of the logical relations about where we are in spacetime. — ucarr
No, your logic is flawed here. 'A is in position 1 and not in position 1' is not what superposition demonstrates!!!! Superposition demonstrates that A is in position 1 and is also in position 2, so your connection of A = ¬A cannot be made!!! Superposition suggests that all states that can happen will happen, but in different spatial coordinates, perhaps in a multi-verse. — universeness
I know you won’t be persuaded by my argument. We have a fundamental disagreement. — ucarr
Yes. The dynamics of the latter are constrained by (the regularities-densities of) the former.Macro, not micro
— 180 Proof
But macro objects are combinations of micro objects, are they not? — universeness
Yes.If you believe that the macro universe is deterministic but the micro or sub-atomic universe is not, then is it size or the complexity of combinatorials or both, that makes all future events in the macroscopic universe, deterministic?
Not yet ...Am I misinterpreting your meaning, again?
You are correct, and our exchange on the phenomena of superposition has reached impasse, but it was fun. — universeness
What do you make of the following: 2x + 3x ≡ 5x; when x = 2, we get: 4 + 6 ≡ 10 > a distinction (in expression) without difference is NOT conceptual nonsense. It is not a straw man argument; it is math reality.
— ucarr
Non sequiturs.
— 180 Proof
Regarding the math identity equation, are you claiming that either: a) It is not a valid example of a distinction without difference that is not conceptual nonsense or b) It is irrelevant to your below claim:
... cosmic sentience ...
– of what? 'Of only itself' is indistinguishable from non-sentience.
— 180 Proof — ucarr
Neither. I've no idea what you're talking about; do you? — 180 Proof
I think "events" are micro phenomena (i.e. relations) and "objects" (i.e. asymmetric event-patterns aka "structures, processes") are macro – emergent – phenomena (i.e. ensembles, combinatorials); thus, "events" are a-causal, or random (i.e. noise) whereas "objects" are causal, or non-random (i.e. signals).
More precisely, as you know, the universe is quantum (micro) and classical (macro) whereby the latter is, AFAIK, generated according to the law of large numbers (LLN) – averaging – of the former (à la Seurat's pointillism, pixellated images of LCD monitors, holograms, etc). — 180 Proof
...the establishmentarians of science have existential contradiction confined to the minute realms of elementary particles. — ucarr
"events" are a-causal, or random (i.e. noise) — 180 Proof
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.