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
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
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
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
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
:100: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
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
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.
— 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
you're talking about what metaphysics you surmise is implied by my objections to your supernaturalistic (i.e. substance dualist) metaphysics. — 180 Proof
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:Since you're dismissing the metaphysics of my super-naturalistic universe as fiction — ucarr
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
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
QM suggests that "distance" – spacetime (i.e. gravity) – does not obtain at planck scales. — 180 Proof
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
Since you're dismissing the metaphysics of my super-naturalistic universe as fiction — ucarr
andI have asked you to physically square the supernaturalistic circle, so to speak... — 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
Your pseudo-scientistic supernaturalism, ucarr, is unintelligible – mostly word-salad – to me. — 180 Proof
Entanglement =/= "instant communication" (or communication of any kind).If paired-particles are instant communication across unspecified distance, that range exceeds the measureable space within a physically closed universe. — ucarr
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.This argument might be false, as suggested by your specific counter-narrative; it is not unintelligible.
Your pseudo-scientistic supernaturalism, ucarr, is unintelligible – mostly word-salad – to me. — 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.*
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
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
*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
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
Your pseudo-scientistic supernaturalism, ucarr, is unintelligible – mostly word-salad – to me. — 180 Proof
...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
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
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
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
:up:This is good advice and I'm taking it. — 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? — universeness
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
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
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
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
180 Proof rejects my claim of "instantaneous communication" across distance. I consider the claim a possibility. — ucarr
Does a unitary object like a wooden, twelve-inch ruler have dimensional extensions instantaneous in its unity? — ucarr
.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
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: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
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 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
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
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
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
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
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
Heat is produced via dynamism or 'excitation,' that IS work. — universeness
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
There is no situation here that demonstrates 'heat' energy unavailable to do work. — universeness
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
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
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
...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
...'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. — 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.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
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.