To clarify: 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). — 180 Proof
Do environmental forces such as temperature, gravitation and radiation impact "events?"
— ucarr
They are measures – self-organizing complexity (i.e. entropy) – of micro (quantum) events. Anyway, so what's your point? — 180 Proof
No. "Automatons" are machines programmed by intentional agents (e.g. h. sapiens). Self-organizing complex systems are dissipative processes (e.g. cell replication, terrestrial climate, solar radiation, black holes).My point is trying to examine whether self-organizing systems, accountable for self-organizing complexity, possess purpose. Are they instead automatons? — ucarr
Are you a panpsychist ucarr? — universeness
Okay, as far as it goes; but it seems to me that Occam's Razor dispenses with ad hoc – unwarranted – notions like "panpsychism" and "super-nature" .'the universe' is like a Möbius loop – an eternal cycle – wherein the topological 'twist' (ouroboros-like) corresponds to big bangs/big crunches (or white holes/black holes) Q-tunneling between bi-polar (i.e. positive-to-negative / matter-to-antimatter), quantum gravity manifolds consisting of strange-looping (or fractal-like) configurations (entropy gradients) of variable mass-energy densities ...
• My belief in super-nature doesn’t entail belief in an anything-goes realm of hobgoblins and the like. I’m not trying to squeeze an inscrutable god into those gaps in scientific theory populated by suppositions not fully verified as facts.
• My super-nature, on the basis of speculation, I believe to be similar to Kantian noumena. (I haven’t yet embarked on reading Kant, thus the designation of speculation). — ucarr
The earth tells us life in our universe is possible.
That matter and energy are neither created nor destroyed tells us our universe is eternal.
Combination: within the environment of time never ending, all possibilities will be realized
Life, a realized possibility on earth, has always been an inevitability — ucarr — ucarr
Could you define the word 'universe' here? Do you mean the space-time universe or the 'world as a whole'. These are very different things. — FrancisRay
Why do you (seem to) equate "incompleteness" with "openness"? For instance, a transcendental number such as Pi is closed (i.e. defined) even though its expression is incompletable (i.e. unbounded). — 180 Proof
Maybe the comparison doesn't work because Pi is an abstract entity and "the universe" is a / the concrete entity. — 180 Proof
Well, if "the universe is an open network of subsystems", tell us what accounts for e.g. the inviolability of fundamental conservation laws. :chin: — 180 Proof
I don't think so. QM suggests that "distance" – spacetime (i.e. gravity) – does not obtain at planck scales. Conservation laws, derived from Noether's theorem(s), make QM possible (or intelligible) as well as being classically observable. Anyway, I assumed from what you wrote previously that you were referring to the post-planck era of "the universe" ... I don't see how either QM or entanglement relevantly address my question:QM tells us particle pairs entanglements are instantaneous across distance. — ucarr
Well, if "the universe is an open network of subsystems", tell us what accounts for e.g. the inviolability of fundamental conservation laws. — 180 Proof
I don't think so. QM suggests that "distance" – spacetime (i.e. gravity) – does not obtain at planck scales. — 180 Proof
Well, if "the universe is an open network of subsystems", tell us what accounts for e.g. the inviolability of fundamental conservation laws. — 180 Proof
**The network of subsystems is not open due to a contest of forces pitting the contraction due to gravitational attraction against the expansion due to free energy; it is open because it is self-transcendent. — ucarr
You're speculating outside of known physics (i.e. absent a falsifiable theory of QG)... — 180 Proof
QM tells us particle-pairs entanglements are instantaneous across distance. — ucarr
I don't think so. QM suggests that "distance" – spacetime (i.e. gravity) – does not obtain at planck scales. — 180 Proof
If spacetime, the ground of matter_energy_motion, doesn't obtain at planck scales, then how is it that at the singularity, a realm scaled below planck scales, expansion involves stupendous heat, a phenomenon rooted in spacetime? — ucarr
Well, if "the universe is an open network of subsystems", tell us what accounts for e.g. the inviolability of fundamental conservation laws. — 180 Proof
By universe I mean: space-time universe. — ucarr
There are axiomatic ambiguities perplexing both math models and the material systems they model. The quest for T.O.E. might be quixotic.
Well, if "the universe is an open network of subsystems", tell us what accounts for e.g. the inviolability of fundamental conservation laws. — 180 Proof
We're now talking past each other (and neither of us are physicists anyway). — 180 Proof
By universe I mean: space-time universe.
— ucarr
In this case you're not speaking of a fundamental theory, . — FrancisRay
There are axiomatic ambiguities perplexing both math models and the material systems they model. The quest for T.O.E. might be quixotic.
They can be overcome. They have no impact on my TOE. I won't expand because to do so would mean going off topic. I'll just say that a TOE must explain more than every ;thing'. since it must explain where 'things' come from. (As Kant recognized). A discussion for a different thread, though, and not relevant to the topic of entropy. . ..... . — FrancisRay
No.Are you asking how an open network of subsystems configures conservation within its domain? — ucarr
Yes.Do you perceive a conflict between conservation and and something implied by an open network of subsystems?
I'm talking about known physics and, as far as I'm concerned, you are not.What does it mean to talk past someone?
N/AWhy should not the general public talk about the concept "universe"?
I think you're claiming that the universe is not causally closed and therefore the effect of 'some ontologically transcendent cause'.What did you think I was saying about the concept "universe"?
I was interested in your 'speculative causal non-closure' which is inconsistent with the fundamental conservation laws of physics.Why was your impression of what I might be saying about the concept "universe" of interest to you?
Your TOE configures "everything" and its origin as discrete things? — ucarr
...if "the universe is an open network of subsystems", tell us what accounts for e.g. the inviolability of fundamental conservation laws. :chin: — 180 Proof
Are you asking how an open network of subsystems configures conservation within its domain?
— ucarr
No. — 180 Proof
Your 'speculative causal non-closure' which is inconsistent with the fundamental conservation laws of physics. — 180 Proof
Your TOE configures "everything" and its origin as discrete things? — ucarr
Not ultimately discrete... — FrancisRay
...if there are not two things then discreteness is not an issue. In a sense there would be two worlds, one composed of things and one,empty of all things... — FrancisRay
Thus the line from the poet Rumi, 'I have put duality behind me, I have seen that the two worlds are one.' — FrancisRay
You might like to check out Nagarjuna's doctrine of 'two truths' or 'worlds' since it is designed to help us understand the relationship between the world of things and the world from which they emerge. . . — FrancisRay
Is the world empty of all things a spiritual world, or a material world? — ucarr
Is your postulation of the conjoined two-world one that renders it paradoxical?
Are you saying the two worlds, being equivalent, preclude the matter/spirit duality?
I don't know.Is causally closed somewhere in the neighborhood of necessarily closed? — ucarr
I don't know.Is speculative, causal, non-closure in the neighborhood of necessarily open?
You tell me, ucarr. The term "cosmic sentience" seems to me oxymoronic.Do you think my supposed quest for a necessarily open universe is a quest for establishment of cosmic sentience?
Yes, either net increase or net decrease.Do you think a causally open universe implies an increase of mass_energy that violates the 1st law of thermodynamics?
No.Do you think a causally closed universe entails a partially deterministic universe?
I've no idea. Inconsistent (i.e. theoretically incompatible with fundamental physics).Conjecturing a causally open universe that is transcendent non-ontically, what do you imagine such a universe would look like structurally speaking? Would it be consistent with conservation?
No.Do you see that one implication of your statements is that atheism is predicated upon a monist metaphysics?
I think substance dualism (i.e. "mass-energy / spirit") is inconsistent – theoretically incompatible – with fundamental conservation laws and the principle of causal closure in physics.Do you see that an implication of monist metaphysics is that the metaphysics of theism, with its dualism of mass_energy/spirit, propounds a false binary?
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.