I think you're claiming that the universe is not causally closed and therefore the effect of 'some ontologically transcendent cause'. — 180 Proof

Do you think my supposed quest for a necessarily open universe is a quest for establishment of cosmic sentience?
You tell me, ucarr. The term "cosmic sentience" seems to me oxymoronic. — 180 Proof

Do you see that one possible reading of your quotes conveys an ascription of what you deem oxymoronic to my openess theorem?

Do you see how your first quote ties my theorem to substance dualism as a metaphysical ground?

Do you see how your first quote also ties a universe casually closed to substance monism as a metaphysical ground? This claim is corroborated by the fact your acceptable theory of universe contains nature and nature only. The corroboration is further amplified by the following:

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. — 180 Proof

Even more amplification of a monist natural universe versus a dualist supernatural universe in the below quotes:

Do you perceive a conflict between conservation and and something implied by an open network of subsystems?
Yes. — 180 Proof

Do you think a causally open universe implies an increase of mass_energy that violates the 1st law of thermodynamics?
Yes, either net increase or net decrease. — 180 Proof

With repetition, you propound your motto: within our scientifically measured universe there is nature and nature only.

If it's incorrect to consider your acceptable universe an example of naturalist monism, then please explain why.

If it's incorrect to consider your acceptable universe an example of naturalist monism, then please explain why. — ucarr

Non sequitur again. A further example of us talking past each other – I'm talking about the problematic implications of your speculative claims with respect to known physics and you're talking about what metaphysics you surmise is implied by my objections to your supernaturalistic (i.e. substance dualist) metaphysics. We're at an impasse, ucarr, so long as your 'transcendent speculations' do not account (at least to my philosophical satisfaction) for the / any known constraints of physical laws on the observable (post-planck era) universe.

If it's incorrect to consider your acceptable universe an example of naturalist monism, then please explain why — ucarr

I'm talking about the problematic implications of your speculative claims with respect to known physics and you're talking about what metaphysics you surmise is implied by my objections to your supernaturalistic (i.e. substance dualist) metaphysics. — 180 Proof

I often misinterpret @180 Proof, as I don't have his in-depth knowledge of academic philosophy but I don't think he is concerned with or particularly disagrees with your definition of 'natural monism,' based on a description of monism, such as:
A theory or doctrine that denies the existence of a distinction or duality in a particular sphere, such as that between matter and mind, or God and the world.

I think his point here is that you have no compelling argument or evidence to counter the scientific proposal that the universe is a closed system. If the universe was not a closed system, then some mechanism by which energy/information escapes the universe permanently, or brand new energy/information enters, would have been discovered by now, as it must happen everywhere? The first law of thermodynamics would then be proved false. It's not happening in quantum fluctuations and pair production and it's not happening in black holes. What mechanism are you suggesting, demonstrates it? The supernatural? If so, that's just not good enough! For many many reasons, including the fact that the supernatural or super-nature or god, are unfalsifiable proposals.

The supernatural? If so, that's just not good enough! For many many reasons, including the fact that the supernatural or super-nature or god, are unfalsifiable proposals. — universeness

:100:

If it's incorrect to consider your acceptable universe an example of naturalist monism, then please explain why.
— ucarr

Non sequitur again. A further example of us talking past each other – I'm talking about the problematic implications of your speculative claims with respect to known physics and you're talking about what metaphysics you surmise is implied by my objections to your supernaturalistic (i.e. substance dualist) metaphysics. — 180 Proof

Firstly, "non-sequitur" assumes its meaning within the context of a proposition. My question about the correctness of my assessment of your metaphysics of naturalism is a "change-of-focus" within our generally discursive dialogue on the structure of our universe. Why can't I pivot to a point of focus concerning the metaphysics underlying a naturalistic universe vs. the metaphysics underlying a super-naturalist universe? As long as it's not a diversional tactic intending to avoid answering your question, it's reasonable and should be allowed.

Your important question:

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 presented an extensive argument meant to counter-narrate your conservation argument:

• QM tells us particle pairs entanglements are instantaneous across distance. Conservation laws support this such that distance across a boundary, even across a final boundary encompassing everything, allows entanglement.*

• This is another way of saying there is no all-encompassing boundary. (This is also a way of saying the network of subsystems is partially determinate.)**

• *Why would entanglement, even if uncheckable, become theoretically invalidated across an "everything" boundary?

• **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.

• The partial determinism of the network of subsystems doesn't dwell within an equivalence with expansion; its expansion, being non-linear, means increase of complexity mixed with increase of volume.

You rebutted this counter-narrative:

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. 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. — 180 Proof

By your current argument:

you're talking about what metaphysics you surmise is implied by my objections to your supernaturalistic (i.e. substance dualist) metaphysics. — 180 Proof

You example how my question is an assessment of the metaphysical ground of your naturalistic universe. Since you're dismissing the metaphysics of my super-naturalistic universe as fiction, there's nothing irrelevant about examining the metaphysics of the naturalistic universe that lays claim to precluding the possibility of my universe. I'm just sizing up the opponent; there's nothing non-sequitur about doing that.

Since you're dismissing the metaphysics of my super-naturalistic universe as fiction — ucarr

I have asked you to physically square the supernaturalistic circle, so to speak, and you've not done that. If I was merely "dismissing ... as fiction", then I wouldn't have asked you for a speculative account that is at least consistent with known physics. Your pseudo-scientistic supernaturalism, ucarr, is unintelligible – mostly word-salad – to me. Regardless of whether or not I'm guilty of "naturalist monism", my objection to your claim of "causal non-closure of the universe" is physical (i.e. theoretical-observational), not yet metaphysical (i.e. a categorical interpretation of physical theory), because to begin with you get the known physics wrong (re: "Does entropy exist?") As far as I'm concerned, sir, you might as well be speculating (in pseudo-scientistic terms) on the physics of "Middle-Earth" (Arda) instead. :sparkle: :eyes:

If it's incorrect to consider your acceptable universe an example of naturalist monism, then please explain why — ucarr

I'm talking about the problematic implications of your speculative claims with respect to known physics and you're talking about what metaphysics you surmise is implied by my objections to your supernaturalistic (i.e. substance dualist) metaphysics. — 180 Proof

I often misinterpret 180 Proof, as I don't have his in-depth knowledge of academic philosophy but I don't think he is concerned with or particularly disagrees with your definition of 'natural monism,' based on a description of monism, such as:
A theory or doctrine that denies the existence of a distinction or duality in a particular sphere, such as that between matter and mind, or God and the world. — universeness

First of all thanks to both of you: 1) Thanks to 180 Proof for posing the important question of conservation; 2) Thanks to universeness for the clarifying interpretation of 180 Proof's meaning. I appreciate help with interpretation of his terse, cryptic telegrams featuring bold lettering and underlining. I know his ripostes are thought to be succinct and salutary by some. Atomistic content compacted with densely nuanced possible readings test my logical skills thoroughly.

I didn't think a closed, natural universe characterized as a type of monism - especially as one whose monism precludes the super-naturalism of theism - was controversial.

I think his point here is that you have no compelling argument or evidence to counter the scientific proposal that the universe is a closed system. — universeness

I presented an argument that he rebutted, thus proving I'm not proceeding by use of unfalsifiable arguments. Instead of the plain-speaking that you're doing on his behalf, he continues his attack on my debate methods by invoking "non-sequitur," a term he uses like a stick to batter my claims.

I have never failed to answer a question from 180 Proof with a falsifiable argument. We see from your intercession he can't make the same claim. My debate methods are legit.

Regarding:

QM suggests that "distance" – spacetime (i.e. gravity) – does not obtain at planck scales. — 180 Proof

The question whether there's a minimum possible size for distance might be qualified by the possibility there's a minimum scale below which measurement is not possible.

What mechanism are you suggesting, demonstrates it (an open universe)? The supernatural? If so, that's just not good enough! For many many reasons, including the fact that the supernatural or super-nature or god, are unfalsifiable proposals. — universeness

Below are two important claims from my already-posted counter-narrative to the conservation argument:

• **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.

• The partial determinism of the network of subsystems doesn't dwell within an equivalence with expansion; its expansion, being non-linear, means increase of complexity mixed with parsible, conserved volume.

My claims are falsifiable, so have at them.

My claims[speculations] are falsifiable... — ucarr

How so? For example –

Since you're dismissing the metaphysics of my super-naturalistic universe as fiction — ucarr

It's true you're not dismissing within our context here the metaphysics of my super-naturalistic universe as fiction.

Considering:

I have asked you to physically square the supernaturalistic circle, so to speak... — 180 Proof

and

Considering:

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

Do you deny the above quote is evidence of: a) my attempt to defend the physical openness of the super-natural universe with a falsifiable argument employing paired-particles; b) my use of known physics (paired-particles); c) your counter-narrative to my defense?

Your pseudo-scientistic supernaturalism, ucarr, is unintelligible – mostly word-salad – to me. — 180 Proof

Do you deny my above paired-particles argument*, which you rebutted with an intelligible planck scales agrument, is intelligible? How did you respond with a specific, intelligible counter-narrative against a statement unintelligible?

*The argument goes thus: If paired-particles are instant communication across unspecified distance, that range exceeds the measureable space within a physically closed universe. This argument might be false, as suggested by your specific counter-narrative; it is not unintelligible.

My claims[speculations] are falsifiable...
— ucarr
How so? For example – — 180 Proof

See my above post.

If paired-particles are instant communication across unspecified distance, that range exceeds the measureable space within a physically closed universe. — ucarr

Entanglement =/= "instant communication" (or communication of any kind).

E.g. Two opaque envelopes are sealed wherein one contains a dollar bill and the other does not, but we do not know which; one of us travels with one envelope to the moon and then opens the envelope and learns at that instant the content – state – of the other envelope on Earth; ergo, no "communication" between envelopes, just past correlation of information about the paired envelopes.

In other words, observing one "paired particle" does not "instantly communicate" – causally affect – the other "paired particle", but only reveals what was unknown, or unknowable, before either "paired particle" was measured. Entanglement = "paired particle" correlations prior to measurement.

This argument might be false, as suggested by your specific counter-narrative; it is not unintelligible.

I did not claim or imply that your "argument is unintelligible"; rather that the implication of 'compatibility of your supernaturalism with fundamental conservation laws' is not even false.

Your pseudo-scientistic supernaturalism, ucarr, is unintelligible – mostly word-salad – to me. — 180 Proof

I have common ground with the view of @180 Proof here ucarr.

QM tells us particle pairs entanglements are instantaneous across distance. Conservation laws support this such that distance across a boundary, even across a final boundary encompassing everything, allows entanglement.*

This is another way of saying there is no all-encompassing boundary. (This is also a way of saying the network of subsystems is partially determinate.)** — ucarr

I have no idea what this means!
You seem to have some bizarre notions of what is physically going on during phenomena such as superposition and entanglement. Remember there is the notion of classical superposition and quantum superposition. The 'distance' between 'two particles' in quantum superposition is due to the extended waveform of wave/particle duality, which collapses into superpositioned particles. These superpositioned particles come from the same waveform, when measurements of position are taken. At least, I think that's what's going on. The information that is knowable due to quantum entanglement, is due to a correlation, within the system rather than a physical transfer of information over a distance.

There are many many youtube offerings on classical and quantum superposition and quantum entanglement. Why don't you choose one, watch it, consider its content and then reform and present your projections of what is described from the science based, youtube presentation you choose and provide a link to.

Below are two important claims from my already-posted counter-narrative to the conservation argument:

**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.

The partial determinism of the network of subsystems doesn't dwell within an equivalence with expansion; its expansion, being non-linear, means increase of complexity mixed with parsible, conserved volume.

My claims are falsifiable, so have at them. — ucarr

You employ terms here which are not rigorously defined or explained. You cannot do that when the discussion is at an advanced scientific level. What do you mean by 'free energy,' is this comparable with the established (but still poorly named) dark energy?

What is self-transcendent? How would you fully explain the mechanism of a property of a substance or 'space' which is self-transcendent. You cant just insert terminology into a scientific debate, without a rigorous treatment of what exactly you are referring to and what claims your are introducing by your use of a term. Otherwise 'invalid word salad' will be the resulting accusation directed at you, as has already been done by myself and @180 Proof

Which functions/processes of your 'network of subsystems' are deterministic. You have to offer some detail regarding 'subsystems' and 'partial determinism'. Give one clear example of a subsystem you are referring to and then describe at least one of it's processes/functions which you claim are partially or fully determined and why you think so, otherwise, you are just making broad generalised speculations that have almost no predictive power at all.

*The argument goes thus: If paired-particles are instant communication across unspecified distance, that range exceeds the measureable space within a physically closed universe. This argument might be false, as suggested by your specific counter-narrative; it is not unintelligible. — ucarr

Are you confusing 'pair production' with quantum entanglement?
If you type into google, something like:
Does pair production always produce entangled particles?
As I just did, you will get:
No. The other photon might even be forbidden to produce a pair over by itself all by itself since there might be no nucleus over by it. The other photon doesn't have to copy what the first one does. But many things could happen to the entanglement. And that is partly because there are many ways the photons could have been entangled.

There is no 'instant communication,' based on information travelling over a distance at faster than light speed, happening, in quantum entanglement. It is the correlation within the system that allows the state of the entangled particle to be instantly known when you measure the state of one of them. Just like you will know the state of Schrodinger's cat, when you open the box, and only then. I am not suggesting that I understand the full mechanism of how this 'correlation' works. The term correlation only serves to label the relationship, it does nothing to explain how the process physically works. No-one understands the full details of exactly how the process works, as far as I know.
If you are suggesting that the process works by some supernatural mechanism then that is an invalid gap style claim, with zero predictive power and as such, useless and equivalent to non-existence imo as non-existence is equally useless to us.

On 09-13-23, you asked for a supporting argument for my open universe. I gave you my supporting argument and you rebutted on 09-13-23. The gist of your rebuttal for that date is irrelevance.

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

QM tells us particle pairs entanglements are instantaneous across distance. Conservation laws support this such that distance across a boundary, even across a final boundary encompassing everything, allows entanglement.* — ucarr

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. 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:
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

You wrote this on 09-17-23.

Your pseudo-scientistic supernaturalism, ucarr, is unintelligible – mostly word-salad – to me. — 180 Proof

We see from the evidence above that from 09-13-23 to 09-17-23 you changed your attack from "irrelevance" to "unintelligible." We also see that the change examples your inconsistency as the two modes of attack are incompatible.

...my objection to your claim of "causal non-closure of the universe" is physical... (i.e. theoretical-observational) — 180 Proof

observing one "paired particle" does not "instantly communicate" – causally affect – the other "paired particle", but only reveals what was unknown, or unknowable, before either "paired particle" was measured. Entanglement = "paired particle" correlations prior to measurement. — 180 Proof

There is some uncertainty WRT to "instantaneous," and "communication" in application to entangled correspondents: scientists think of entanglement as the correlation between correspondents such that they are one in the correlation. Consider a wooden, twelve-inch ruler. Does the one inch marking on the ruler communicate with the ten inch marking on the unitary ruler? Is the communication, if it exists, instantaneous?

This argument might be false, as suggested by your specific counter-narrative; it is not unintelligible.
I did not claim or imply that your "argument is unintelligible"; rather that the implication of 'compatibility of your supernaturalism with fundamental conservation laws' is not even false. — 180 Proof

Your pseudo-scientistic supernaturalism, ucarr, is unintelligible – mostly word-salad – to me. — 180 Proof

How do you reconcile the two above quotes?

QM tells us particle pairs entanglements are instantaneous across distance. Conservation laws support this such that distance across a boundary, even across a final boundary encompassing everything, allows entanglement.*

This is another way of saying there is no all-encompassing boundary. (This is also a way of saying the network of subsystems is partially determinate.)**
— ucarr

I have no idea what this means! — universeness

180 Proof rejects my claim of "instantaneous communication" across distance. I consider the claim a possibility. Does a unitary object like a wooden, twelve-inch ruler have dimensional extensions instantaneous in its unity? Is it rather that the dimensional extensions of "unitary" objects are actually repetitive assemblages across an interval of time? This latter perception might stand up as a visual for classical QM.

Since entanglement is independent of distance, and since entanglement as a physical reality of our material universe has been repeatedly confirmed as real, it makes sense to argue that the unspecifiable scope of entanglement as a physical reality of our universe suggests its volume is likewise unspecifiable, i.e., open. Even with our material universe authoritatively understood as a bounded infinity, I don't see that as unspecifiable volume of spacetime.

There are many many youtube offerings on classical and quantum superposition and quantum entanglement. Why don't you choose one, watch it, consider its content and then reform and present your projections of what is described from the science based, youtube presentation you choose and provide a link to. — universeness

This is good advice and I'm taking it.

This is good advice and I'm taking it. — ucarr

:up:
I look forward to your findings and to reading your extensions of the scientific proposals involved.

You employ terms here which are not rigorously defined or explained. You cannot do that when the discussion is at an advanced scientific level. What do you mean by 'free energy,' is this comparable with the established (but still poorly named) dark energy? — universeness

I think that heat, being unavailable to do work, and thus being an entropic drain on whatever system produces it, examples free energy. For example, when your ventilation system channels the heat off the engine into your car's interior for climate control, that's the disintegration of your engine providing heat energy to do work independently from the engine's operation. It's free energy available for reuse. My overarching theme: questioning the reality of entropy, questions whether entropy is systemic increase of disorder or just local energy exchange between systems.

What is self-transcendent? How would you fully explain the mechanism of a property of a substance or 'space' which is self-transcendent. You cant just insert terminology into a scientific debate, without a rigorous treatment of what exactly you are referring to and what claims your are introducing by your use of a term. Otherwise 'invalid word salad' will be the resulting accusation directed at you, as has already been done by myself and 180 Proof — universeness

Self-transcendent - pardon the following religion-talk (you asked a question and I'm answering) - examples on earth as the triune Christian God: father_son_holy ghost. Vast multitudes reject this configuration as fiction. Okay. Consider: the familiar puzzles of origin boundary ontology. Is the original being utterly alone without circumambient context? Doesn't that lead straight into Russell's Paradox? Is the original being self-caused? Does that imply some type of weird bifurcation of the self into two selves who, at the same time, are one? If the original being is uncaused, does that mean existence is an inscrutable mystery? Well, the trinity makes a way forward through this morass with self-transcendence.

A more rational argument might be along the lines of an emergent property featuring complexity as a supervenience independent of its anterior substrates. Anyhow, it's speculation about upward-evolution without demand for extra mass_energy.

Which functions/processes of your 'network of subsystems' are deterministic. You have to offer some detail regarding 'subsystems' and 'partial determinism'. Give one clear example of a subsystem you are referring to and then describe at least one of it's processes/functions which you claim are partially or fully determined and why you think so, otherwise, you are just making broad generalised speculations that have almost no predictive power at all. — universeness

One of the foundational principles of determinism of my network of subsystems is that all levels of complex systems are scalable across a range of applications linked by paradoxes.

Are you confusing 'pair production' with quantum entanglement?
If you type into google, something like:
Does pair production always produce entangled particles?
As I just did, you will get:
No. The other photon might even be forbidden to produce a pair over by itself all by itself since there might be no nucleus over by it. The other photon doesn't have to copy what the first one does. But many things could happen to the entanglement. And that is partly because there are many ways the photons could have been entangled. — universeness

These details are presently unknown to me.

There is no 'instant communication,' based on information travelling over a distance at faster than light speed, happening, in quantum entanglement. It is the correlation within the system that allows the state of the entangled particle to be instantly known when you measure the state of one of them. — universeness

I agree with this conceptualization, with questions already posted.

180 Proof rejects my claim of "instantaneous communication" across distance. I consider the claim a possibility. — ucarr

There is no current evidence that such is possible, there is only pure speculations about wormholes etc.

Does a unitary object like a wooden, twelve-inch ruler have dimensional extensions instantaneous in its unity? — ucarr

What does 'instantaneous in its unity' mean? Do you mean that the ruler is made up of quanta and the quanta combined, creates the ruler, because each individual quanta, exists beside each other and this occupies a spatial extension in three separable directions? So it's the unison of these quanta that creates extension, but where does the time notion of instantaneous come in? If I tap the ruler at one end, it will take some tiny time duration for the force vibration to reach the other end of the ruler. What action can be performed on the ruler that you are suggesting has an instantaneous affect across all of its three dimensions?

Is it rather that the dimensional extensions of "unitary" objects are actually repetitive assemblages across an interval of time? This latter perception might stand up as a visual for classical QM. — ucarr

.
A wooden ruler is just shaped wood, yes? A ruler came from a larger piece of wood or it could be pressed into shape using smaller wood shavings and some binder ingredient. It takes time to make one or 'assemble' one. what is it about the sub-atomic structure of a wooden ruler that you are saying is a dimensional extension of unitary objects? A line of wood atoms? Are you referring to the quarks inside the protons and neutrons that make up the nucleus of each atom?

Since entanglement is independent of distance, and since entanglement as a physical reality of our material universe has been repeatedly confirmed as real, it makes sense to argue that the unspecifiable scope of entanglement as a physical reality of our universe suggests its volume is likewise unspecifiable, i.e., open. Even with our material universe authoritatively understood as a bounded infinity, I don't see that as unspecifiable volume of spacetime. — ucarr

The words I have underlined are not true. Scientists can create an entangled pair of photons and they can seed of at the speed of light in opposite directions, and remain entangled as long as they exist and are not affected in some natural way that breaks the entanglement. These two photons will travel through space, further and further apart at the speed of light but the will never reach any notion of the boundary of spacetime. Look up info such as 'the photon epoch' or what happened during the first second of the big bang. For example:

Within the first second of the Big Bang, the universe underwent a rapid expansion and cooling, and various kinds of subatomic particles were formed and annihilated The strong nuclear force separated from the other forces, and neutrinos decoupled from the rest of the matter. The subatomic particles bonded together to form the nuclei of light elements like hydrogen, helium and lithium. This was the beginning of the formation of matter in the universe.

If space had gained extension during that first second, then only some entangled pair that has remained entangled since that first second, could be at the 'borders' or 'limits' of space time but not beyond it!

I did not claim or imply that your "argument is unintelligible"; rather that the implication of 'compatibility of your supernaturalism with fundamental conservation laws' is not even false.
— 180 Proof

Your pseudo-scientistic supernaturalism, ucarr, is unintelligible – mostly word-salad – to me.
— 180 Proof

How do you reconcile the two above quotes? — ucarr

With respect to the quotes above, I referred explicitly to your groundless notions (e.g. "super-nature", "causal non-closure of the universe", "instantaneous communication", "cosmic sentience", etc) and not to your "argument" as such; "not even false" is, more or less, synonymous with (or implies) "unintelligible word-salad".

I think that heat, being unavailable to do work, and thus being an entropic drain on whatever system produces it, examples free energy. For example, when your ventilation system channels the heat off the engine into your car's interior for climate control, that's the disintegration of your engine providing heat energy to do work independently from the engine's operation. It's free energy available for reuse. My overarching theme: questioning the reality of entropy, questions whether entropy is systemic increase of disorder or just local energy exchange between systems. — ucarr

Your first sentence above is badly formed. Heat is produced via dynamism or 'excitation,' that IS work.
Heat can raise the temperature of cold people in a car, again that heat, is doing the work of raising the temperature of the cold people in the car. There is no situation here that demonstrates 'heat' energy unavailable to do work. Is the heat that comes from the Sun that does not reach any of the planets/moons/etc within our solar system, and just dissipates in space and becomes less and less 'excited,' unavailable to do work? I think your concept here of 'free energy' is not a helpful construct in the way you are trying to employ it.

Heat death is proposed as a result of the continuing expansion of our universe. Objects will become so far apart, that they each effectively become locally closed systems, that cannot receive any new input from an 'outside' source. Like a car engine that is no longer able to produce heat.
Entropy on the biggest scale, is, as you yourself correctly describe in the words I have underlined in the quote above, indeed, a systemic increase of disorder. Most 'stuff' will probably end up inside black holes and then the black holes themselves, will radiate away and the universe will be mostly just, photons. The ability of 'energy' to do work will reach its absolute minimum or end completely. Then, if you accept something like Roger Penrose's CCC. A new big bang will happen.

Self-transcendent - pardon the following religion-talk (you asked a question and I'm answering) - examples on earth as the triune Christian God: father_son_holy ghost. Vast multitudes reject this configuration as fiction. Okay. Consider: the familiar puzzles of origin boundary ontology. Is the original being utterly alone without circumambient context? Doesn't that lead straight into Russell's Paradox? Is the original being self-caused? Does that imply some type of weird bifurcation of the self into two selves who, at the same time, are one? If the original being is uncaused, does that mean existence is an inscrutable mystery? Well, the trinity makes a way forward through this morass with self-transcendence.

A more rational argument might be along the lines of an emergent property featuring complexity as a supervenience independent of its anterior substrates. Anyhow, it's speculation about upward-evolution without demand for extra mass_energy. — ucarr

Are you really just asking, what did the universe 'look like' or what was it's structure and actual physical content, just 'before' the big bang happened? and, will any attempt to describe such, end up in a paradoxical explanation, akin to Russell's paradox, described as:
Let R be the set of all sets that are not members of themselves. (This set is sometimes called "the Russell set".) If R is not a member of itself, then its definition entails that it is a member of itself; yet, if it is a member of itself, then it is not a member of itself, since it is the set of all sets that are not members of themselves..

Well, if something like Roger Penrose's CCC proves correct one day, then perhaps not, and the scientific gap you point out, currently exists, can be filled will something akin to CCC (conformal cyclic cosmology), rather than something as lazy minded, as the trinity or a first cause mind with teleological intent. I think it's better to rely on those who are willing to do the very hard, long, sometimes very tedious scientific work that can take at least your entire lifetimes effort and investment, with no confidence at all that that will be enough, to fill such gaps with discovered truths.
Until something like CCC is fully fleshed out and proved, we just have to be content with we just don't know yet and not just throw in lazy minded theistic posits which can become so pernicious to the everyday lives of our species, when nefarious individuals get hold of such woo woo concepts and use them to create such horrific concepts as the divine right of some dickhead to call themselves King Or Queen or Messiah or Pope etc and allows them to make the lives of so many people f****** miserable or/and allows religious based, messed up moral code to be passed off as word of god BS, that only serves as a mechanism, used by a nefarious evil few, to control and sycophantically live off a duped majority.

Consider a wooden, twelve-inch ruler. Does the one inch marking on the ruler communicate with the ten inch marking on the unitary ruler? Is the communication, if it exists, instantaneous? — ucarr

I like this, in that it demonstrates what it is about the way your mind works that I like.
It's quirky and it's a rather novel way to think about the marks on a ruler.
It sounds like you are almost anthropomorphising a ruler but I don't think you are.
It's the fact that the observer can observe all the markings on a ruler as a continuum, that is important here. Phenomena like entanglement can only be compared to the markings on a ruler, if you 'cover up' all the markings and the whole extent of the ruler is unknown. If you then remove one of the marking covers, what can you 'know' about the other markings on the ruler?
Well, if the markings on the ruler comply with the way a standard ruler is formed, then you can confidently predict the value of the marker to the immediate left or right of the mark you reveal. You can then further predict the marks to the immediate left and right of those, and so on. This analogy fails when you try to then predict the ruler marks at either extreme of the rulers extent, if you don't know what the extent is. In entanglement, the extent of the ruler does not matter, but it will have an extent and will have coordinates. Your projections suggest a situation where one of the entangled particles might not have knowable coordinates, as they factually exist, in a kind of unbounded infinity of possibilities, which you are projecting straight into a 'super-natural' coordinate, which you paradoxically present via propositional logic, as existing and not existing (or is transcendent). I see no value to our discussion in you doing/offering that, as it provides nothing useful to us, other than, 'can we not just settle for god did it.' My answer is no, no no no no, we cannot! Do you agree with my main point here @180 Proof?

:up: :up:

Entanglement =/= "instant communication" (or communication of any kind).

E.g. Two opaque envelopes are sealed wherein one contains a dollar bill and the other does not, but we do not know which; one of us travels with one envelope to the moon and then opens the envelope and learns at that instant the content – state – of the other envelope on Earth; ergo, no "communication" between envelopes, just past correlation of information about the paired envelopes. — 180 Proof

In other words, observing one "paired particle" does not "instantly communicate" – causally affect

– the other "paired particle", but only reveals what was unknown, or unknowable, before either "paired particle" was measured. Entanglement = "paired particle" correlations prior to measurement. — 180 Proof

The above argument is a useful tool for clarifying entanglement. I acknowledge it being true there is no instant communication between paired particles.

At the present moment, I resist the denial of causal effect at light speed on one particle when the other particle is observed. In this situation, correlation is not an abstract mental object; it is rather a physical reality. The correlation of entangled particles IS the unified, physical identity of BOTH particles. You can't observe one without observing the other. We know this because we know that when the angle of observation changes on one, thus changing its appearance, the appearance of the other one also changes. QM makes it clear that “solid” material objects are really dynamical processes.

With respect to the quotes above, I referred explicitly to your groundless notions (e.g. "super-nature", "causal non-closure of the universe", "instantaneous communication", "cosmic sentience", etc) and not to your "argument" as such; "not even false" is, more or less, synonymous with (or implies) "unintelligible word-salad". — 180 Proof

Let's do a structural analysis of your above defense: you imply that my argument, which you deem intelligible, derives from gibberish. So, you have gibberish as the content of my grounding premise and my argument, its derivative, as intelligible (even if erroneous) content. What is this: a case of self-organization arisen from chaos? No. There is a person overseeing the conjunction of a premise and its derived argument. You are saying, in effect, I’ve overseen a process going from gibberish to intelligibility. Is this an example of reductio ad absurdum in reverse? Or, conversely, is your defense a case of self-effecting reductio ad absurdum?

As I see it, my notion (structural non-closure of the universe ⇒ network of subsystems) is the ground of my proposition: super-nature.

A multiplex of ascending super-natural system categories (hierarchical emergent complexity) doesn’t imply a systemic increase of mass-energy any more than does a hierarchical multiplex of natural system categories. This is true because we know that in the case of the latter, dynamical emergence of sentient complexity (specifically homo sapiens teleology) has violated no conservation laws.

The central point is that an open network of subsystems (always approaching but never arriving at itself), defined not in terms of an expansion/contraction oscillation, but rather in terms of dynamically emergent complexity, like a closed universe of natural subsystems, obeys conservation.

A conjectured difference between the two is that with an open network, complexity is essentially quaternary rather than essentially monist, as with the closed network of materialist naturalism.

Why is this difference important? Consider the difference between a bit and a qubit.

Heat is produced via dynamism or 'excitation,' that IS work. — universeness

Yeah. The dynamism of a functional system is work. Heat is a useless BYPRODUCT of that work.

Heat can raise the temperature of cold people in a car, again that heat, is doing the work of raising the temperature of the cold people in the car. — universeness

In this example, you're mistaken about what constitutes work. The work is the channeling of the randomly expanding heat via the ventilation system to an intended destination. Once there, the heat once again expands randomly.

There is no situation here that demonstrates 'heat' energy unavailable to do work. — universeness

Without intending it, in the above quote you're describing a perpetual motion machine. Perhaps you, like me, have some doubts about the universal veracity of the concept of entropy. By your argument here, you appear to reject the claim heat is the causal agent within the phenomenon of entropy. Such doubt is even more radical than mine.

Is the heat that comes from the Sun that does not reach any of the planets/moons/etc within our solar system, and just dissipates in space and becomes less and less 'excited,' unavailable to do work? — universeness

Again, the work done by the sun is not simply supplying heat to the earth; it's the organization of heat into the concentrated form of radiant energy that traverses 93 million miles in highly organized fashion. Don't imagine for one second heat without the organizing power of the sun would do this.

I think it's better to rely on those who are willing to do the very hard, long, sometimes very tedious scientific work that can take at least your entire lifetimes effort and investment, with no confidence at all that that will be enough, to fill such gaps with discovered truths. — universeness

This is the truth. Since I fall far short of this standard, I need - and much appreciate - rigorous critics who give me a little boost upwards, for what it's worth.

Until something like CCC is fully fleshed out and proved, we just have to be content with we just don't know yet and not just throw in lazy minded theistic posits which can become so pernicious to the everyday lives of our species, when nefarious individuals get hold of such woo woo concepts and use them to create such horrific concepts as the divine right of some dickhead to call themselves King Or Queen or Messiah or Pope etc and allows them to make the lives of so many people f****** miserable or/and allows religious based, messed up moral code to be passed off as word of god BS, that only serves as a mechanism, used by a nefarious evil few, to control and sycophantically live off a duped majority. — universeness

This is an argument both sound and true. Speaking on the flip side, the same argument is equally sound and true in application to scientific developments (such as atomic explosives) and their possible misuse by some.

I appreciate the reply; it's word-salad to me though. Like I said before: we're not physicists (and it shows); my philosophical bias is to reject as pseudo-philosophy (woo woo) 'metaphysical statements' which are inconsistant with, and do not account for, well-established physical theories. Anyway, ucarr, we're only going in circles at this point, so thanks for the discussion.

...if the markings on the ruler comply with the way a standard ruler is formed, then you can confidently predict the value of the marker to the immediate left or right of the mark you reveal. You can then further predict the marks to the immediate left and right of those, and so on. This analogy fails when you try to then predict the ruler marks at either extreme of the rulers extent, if you don't know what the extent is. In entanglement, the extent of the ruler does not matter, but it will have an extent and will have coordinates. Your projections suggest a situation where one of the entangled particles might not have knowable coordinates, as they factually exist, in a kind of unbounded infinity of possibilities, which you are projecting straight into a 'super-natural' coordinate, which you paradoxically present via propositional logic, as existing and not existing (or is transcendent). I see no value to our discussion in you doing/offering that, as it provides nothing useful to us, other than, 'can we not just settle for god did it... — universeness

I acknowledge that you and 180 have an understanding of entanglement superior to mine.

Having said that, I struggle to understand how you fail to see that The Trinity, centuries before QM, claimed the superposition of three entities, one of them flesh and blood. It takes no deep insight to see the parallel between The Trinity and the physical reality of entangled elementary particles. The QM scale/classical scale divide matters, but is it more than perception impacted by context? Even if it is, I think QM lends a bit of credence to The Trinity as an abstract concept attempting to navigate origin boundary ontology.

...'can we not just settle for god did it.' — universeness

From this I understand you assess my arguments as would-be-science-cum-malarkey. Beneath my flourishes of science-athwart jargon you see a simple, monotonous refrain: God did it. Just believe.

Given this reality of how I'm generally received here, I gratefully thank you and 180 and others for dialoguing with me here. You've shown great patience and generosity towards a lot of malarkey-spewing whimsy.

It would be wrong for me to continue going on as before. It would be wrong for me to continue tying up the human resources of the very accomplished and legitimate philosophy mavens herein. Given the cogency of your above statement as representative of a consensus of astute thinkers herein, I'm ready to leave off with my whimsical speculations. I haven't done so already because I have a very weak control over the meteoric flights of fancy of my imagination.

I struggle to understand how you fail to see that The Trinity, centuries before QM, claimed the superposition of three entities, one of them flesh and blood. — ucarr

:yikes: wtf ...

From this I understand you assess my arguments as would-be-science-cum-malarkey. Beneath my flourishes of science-athwart jargon you see a simple, monotonous refrain: God did it. Just believe.

Given this reality of how I'm generally received here, I gratefully thank you and 180 and others for dialoguing with me here. You've shown great patience and generosity towards a lot of malarkey-spewing whimsy.

It would be wrong for me to continue going on as before. It would be wrong for me to continue tying up the human resources of the very accomplished and legitimate philosophy mavens herein. Given the cogency of your above statement as representative of a consensus of astute thinkers herein, I'm ready to leave off with my whimsical speculations. I haven't done so already because I have a very weak control over the meteoric flights of fancy of my imagination. — ucarr

This bodes well for you, imo ucarr. It shows you as a pragmatic individual who is able to understand and sample the flow around a discussion without damaging your own obvious skill to 'think in maverick and interesting ways.'

Having said that, I struggle to understand how you fail to see that The Trinity, centuries before QM, claimed the superposition of three entities, one of them flesh and blood. It takes no deep insight to see the parallel between The Trinity and the physical reality of entangled elementary particles. The QM scale/classical scale divide matters, but is it more than perception impacted by context? Even if it is, I think QM lends a bit of credence to The Trinity as an abstract concept attempting to navigate origin boundary ontology. — ucarr

It's important to respond to this however. Quantum entanglement and QM in general, provide no evidence at all, for the kind of teleological intent invoked by such notions as the trinity.

Since way before the trinity, human beings have considered that there is more than one 'presence' inside their mind.
We later found out that the human brain is actually a triune system. The R-Complex, The Limbic system and the Cortex, or as I have often termed them, Me, Myself and I, after hearing an old song of the same title. Others have used split brain cases (where the patient has had their corpus callosum severed, to stop severe epileptic attacks) to identify two separate hemispheric personalities in the brain.
Others suggest there are literally thousands of individual personalities that exist discretely in the brain as demonstrated in some patients with schizophrenia and multiple personality disorders. For me, the trinity is merely a conflation of what humans experience inside their own brains since they could communicate with each other. Connecting the trinity with quantum entanglement completely fails when you try to sneak in teleology and intent as part of the posit.

I hope you decide to pursue your decision to study some of the youtube stuff on QM, and come back to us on this thread, regarding it's connection with entropy and your musings on teleology, intent and theism. We two, fully accept @180 Proof's reminder that none of the three of us are physicists and we can only at best, skirt around the edges of the subject, but, I regularly make 'improvements' in my understanding of physics, by reading some books and watching some youtube stuff on the wide range of physics topics that exist. I am qualified in it to 1st year undergrad level, but it was dropped in my second year, as my degree course was Computing science.
Year 2 was computing/maths and years 3 and 4 were all computing.
Also, my degree is now 32 years old.
Keep enjoying your way and style of thinking ucarr. Keep being a truth seeker!!!!