...that life arises from non-life (abiogenesis) is central to that belief system. That is clearly related to the question of the nature of mind (does mind arise as a byproduct of a non-intentional interaction of physical attributes?) And clearly, the nature of intentionality - as to whether that is something that can arise fortuitously from physical causes - is related to it.

It's worth recalling that early Buddhism (I distinguish it from later forms, as they are replete with celestial beings who to all intents are gods or demi-gods) eschewed all belief in a creator deity, yet one of the attributes of the Buddha is that he is 'lokuttara', meaning 'world-transcending'. So even though Buddhism is often described as a- or non-theist, it is still at odds with today's naturalism in that respect, which highlights the sense in which atheism denies more than simply belief in God. — Quixodian

Your helpful observations are illuminating. The question of the origin of intentionality, like that of life, directs our thoughts to whether the transfer across generations requires intentionality-to-intentionality on the one hand and, life-to-life on the other. This question is further energized by the thought that life implies consciousness which, in turn, implies intentionality.

Lab science has come close to fabricating synthetic life in a petrie dish:

Scientists at JCVI constructed the first cell with a synthetic genome in 2010. They didn’t build that cell completely from scratch. Instead, they started with cells from a very simple type of bacteria called a mycoplasma. They destroyed the DNA in those cells and replaced it with DNA that was designed on a computer and synthesized in a lab. This was the first organism in the history of life on Earth to have an entirely synthetic genome. They called it JCVI-syn1.0. --scitechdaily.com

The important question is how close? Is bio-tech just a step or two away from fabricating life from scratch? Let's suppose lab scientists will successfully fabricate life from non-living ingredients. What then remains is the small scale question whether non-living ingredients can organize themselves into living organisms without the steerage of lab scientists. In the synthetic life fabrication at JCVI, the highly advanced intentionality of the lab scientists must be counted as a God-like force acting as prime mover in the fabrication of synthetic life from organic life. This even more so if bio-tech upwardly evolves to human bio-tech engineering from only non-living ingredients.

So, for sake of clarification, true abiogenesis devoid of intentionality means randomly occurring configurations of non-living ingredients that cohere into living organisms with intentionality present neither internal to the random occurring configuration nor external to it in the form of steerage from advanced sentients.

For me, the arguments for or against god are of minimal significance. They are only useful in tackling the arrogance of fundamentalism - a demonstration that certainty sits on unstable foundations.

For me, belief in god is like a sexual preference - you are likely born with predilections, tastes, dispositions. I have no sensus divinitatis and if you have no capacity to take the idea of gods seriously and there are no gods around to meet, all you have left is a bunch of mouldering and sometimes complicated arguments which never quite satisfy anyone. — Tom Storm

Would you welcome god(s) to break bread with you before making such offer to fundamentalists?

Closing Statement:

As far as what I learned from this conversation, I'm wondering if, above all else, atheism seeks to deny necessary supplication before a dictatorial overlord in the sky via belief in abiogenesis devoid of intent.

This raises an important question: Is it correct to think atheism, structurally speaking, contains a foundational, two-chamber organization? In the first chamber there's evolution from abiogenesis devoid of intent through advent of life forms; in the second chamber there's evolution of life forms through advent of intent within advanced sentients.

A related question, following from this: During the first chamber period of evolution, does there exist a proto-intent antecedent necessary to the subsequent advent of intent proper within advanced sentients?

It occurs to me what's riding on the answer to the above question is the question whether the universe, down to its foundational components (atoms, molecules, elements, compounds, energy and spacetime) stands before us as an essentially intent-bearing universe meaning, therefore, with enough time, intentional consciousness will appear?

Another important question arising from this, as based upon the natural-seeming tendency towards the supposition that consciousness implies intent, is whether consciousness and intent are no less essential to animate, material universes than atoms, molecules, elements, compounds, energy and spacetime?

A major question for me is: Does my simulation-symmetry theory describe a real component within the structure of animate, material universes?

The essentials of my first-draft of simulation-symmetry include:

01) All forms of consciousness find their source in creation’s eternal elusiveness.

02) Consciousness is an emergent property of animate, material universes

03) Consciousness is isomorphic to itself

04) History is simulation-symmetry directed towards isomorphism within the God-sentient dialog.

05) Simulation-symmetry – the God-sentient dialog, spiraling within the maelstrom of the being_not-being binary of essential drama is the fox chasing its tail across spacetime. Wordsworth, translated to the cosmic scale, gives us the transition from: “Child is father of the man” to: Sentience begets transcendence. The way to disappear God is to become God: Cosmic stalemate.

Proving 100% that random happenstance is the fundamental driver of the universe, and the origin of the universe is not deterministic and had zero intent or teleology behind it, is still in debate. — universeness

I'm in no hurry to declare, with sweeping grandeur, the determinism of our universe. On the other hand, logic and predictable continuity, being so essential to my confidence going forward in life, have endeared themselves to me. I must therefore, in the interest of integrity, confess my bias in their favor over and above randomness. As I said last time, I'm skeptical about your affection for randomness beyond its possible usefulness driving abiogenesis through the eye of the needle of practical experience.

I did not claim 'true randomness,' exists — universeness

You did claim infinity exists as a concept. If, as I suspect, infinity (with the exception of Cantor's orders of magnitude of infinite sets) is a useless value within math calculations, then infinity as empirical reality likewise has no practical model. This claim therefore strongly suggests randomness, a close associate of infinity, likewise has no practical model.

Consider also that a model (of something), being an ordered, coherent entity, could but paradoxically express randomness. The route towards randomness within the domain of empirical experience is through de-coherence. De-coherence of our practical universe in search of randomness must be a paradoxical quest. Destroying the order of the universe for the sake of abiogenesis, being a thoroughly paradoxical quest, expresses as being absurd. If my thinking is correct that randomness can only be viewed through the lens of randomness, imagine what a perplexity that presents to the rationalism of science.

Question -- Does randomness, a comprehensible, abstract concept, have any way, given its definition, to express itself comprehensibly as empirical experience? This comes on the heels of your lesson: the random sampling of statistics is not random.

100% proof may not be possible. Again you keep making 'small slips' in your conceptualisation of infinity. Infinity by definition, has no domain, no fixed number of members, as it is not a measure. It cannot really be collapsed into an instantaneous measure such as an average etc, like position or momentum, can be separately collapsed and instantaneously measured/approximated. — universeness

I stand corrected by you very useful clarification. I do, however, possess one, faint "however." What about the cloud of probable positions of an elementary particle, as measured by Heisenberg and related equations? Cloud imparts to me a boundary I understand as being fuzzy, but perceptible. Are the possible positions within the QM probability cloud finite, or infinite?

'points of change,' or 'tipping points,' exist. — universeness

My guess is that tipping points are another example of the QM probability cloud.

1/0 is another infinite value.
— ucarr
No, its a placeholder that supports the concept of infinity, — universeness

1/0 is really a mathematical proposal that asks how many times can 'nothing' be subtracted from (same as divided from or separated from), something? — universeness

There is no way to 'determine' anything from 1/0. — universeness

Given 1/0 signs for infinity, expressing Shakespeare's "To be, or not to be," and concluding this foundational binary is truly essential and cannot express as anything but itself, thus signing itself as self-evident truth, I might think of it henceforth as "the existential binary."

Your present (at least) three intriguing paradoxes:

not-existence ⇒ being a phenomenon, exists, a paradox

1/0 ⇒ nothing subtracted from something; nothing, being a subtractive something, renders nothing subtracted from something a paradox

Proving the universe 100% not deterministic ⇒ such a proof of not-determinism is determinism, a paradox

Let's consider some symmetry:

It seems the universe is not deterministic and randomness cannot be precluded <> It seems the universe is not random and continuity cannot be precluded

Below are three complex paradoxes

The above symmetry expresses 1/0, the existential binary with continuity = 1 or existence and randomness = 0 or not-existence

Continuity = existence because continuity is binary per the existential binary ⇒ things connect, including the infinite regress of not-existence

Randomness = not-existence because not-existence is not-existence which includes everything, including randomness and existence ⇒ not-existence connects to nothing, including not-connecting with itself, not connecting with not connecting with itself...(infinite regress)

The infinite regress of not-existence suggests to me infinity is, within the realm of the material universe,
ultimately meaningless.

I like your wording here ucarr, This quote reads to me like a 'fair,' 'well meaning,' but disgruntled protest about how frustrating the universe is for lifeforms such as us who exist inside it. — universeness

I thank you for your useful semi-layperson's translations of current science into plain english.

an ontological juxtaposition will lead to incommensurability. — Banno

Firstly, let me speculate that your latest post to me, whether intentionally or accidentally, helpfully provides a plain-English explanation of the, as usual (at least for me), terse and cryptic communication from Banno.

Evidence-based stories and evidence-free (faith-based) stories have incommensurable discursive functions and are not interchangeable, or substituteable one for the other. — 180 Proof

If, in your above quote, you intend "discursive" in the sense of "reasoned argument" (rather than in the sense of "multi-faceted"), I'm pleasantly surprised you ascribe logic to faith-based stories.

The challenge here is understanding whether two separate modes of travel, incommensurable, can nonetheless terminate at the same location. Let's suppose the two modes of travel each employ irrational numbers while going forward. This supposition employs "incommensurable" as it is defined within the context of math: "a ratio that cannot be expressed as a ratio of integers."

Examples: a) the approach of theism toward an origin story by irrational number progression exemplifies in the asymptotic progression of U.E.S. (upwardly evolving sentience) by way of its cognitive simulation of cosmic creator; b) the approach of atheism toward an origin story by irrational number progression exemplifies in the asymptotic progression of U.E.S. by way of its cognitive simulation of abiogenesis.

The above statement is my counter-argument to your implication two incommensurable modes of progression cannot terminate at the same location. At the first order of commensurability, they are incommensurable; at the second order of commensurability, they are, by way of sameness of termination, commensurable.

Your two above quotes acknowledge empirical limitations on randomness.
— ucarr

Not in any way that lets, determinism move to the front. Determinism is as empirically limited as randomness. — universeness

Infinity is a concept, it can never be a measure. So if your source domain size is unknowable then picking an exemplar from that domain is truly random, imo ( or at least, as close to the concept of truly random that we are ever going to get, again imo.) — universeness

You explained random sampling is not true randomness. You followed by saying true randomness exists within the domain of infinity.

Claiming: Infinity is a concept, it can never be a measure. tells us infinity is never encountered empirically.
— ucarr

But it is! 1/0, for example. Sure, you can program a machine that will produce an 'error' code or put a message on the screen stating that this calculation is undefined etc but no such actions prevents the mathematical existence of 1/0. — universeness

1/0 is another infinite value.

This, in turn, tells us true randomness likewise is never encountered empirically.
— ucarr

But it IS encountered empirically. You cannot know the momentum and the position of a particle at the same time! You can only measure one and randomly predict the other. — universeness

I speculate that the measurement-resistant variable within Heisenberg Uncertainty makes an asymptotic approach to unmeasurable inaccuracy. As this graph of increasing inaccuracy is a measurement unending, clearly, it is not random.

Claiming measurement of the measurement-resistant variable within Heisenberg Uncertainty is random exemplifies doubling back upon the Heisenberg equation and erasing it. By definition, the equation is a measure of uncertainty. If what is labeled uncertain cannot to any extent be predicted, then that's not uncertain but rather unknowable. The equation is a statistical tool. In the realm of randomness, statistics cannot get started. This tells us that the equation, dealing as it does in asymptotically increasing uncertainty, never addresses an unknowable variable. This tells us that the equation is not an empirical example of the unmeasurable.

Does not this lead us to conclude that randomly generated lifeforms, and their processional runup to life forms actualization are also, likewise, never encountered empirically?
— ucarr

No, it suggests that random abiogenesis is not impossible, neither is affect coming before cause in some QM states. The quantum Eraser experiment is a nice example of the issues involved: — universeness

I think the conclusion should be restated as: It suggests that random abiogenesis is theoretically approachable, albeit not empirically expressible.

True randomness, on the basis of your evidence here, appears to be confined to a QM math graph. Perhaps this is a good thing. Who, living within human empirical experience, wants to contend with a lot of (or even a few) truly free, uncontrollable variables affecting events in their life, especially vital and important events like survival and happiness?

↪ucarr I haven't said or implied that immediate responses cannot be conditioned by reflection or cannot be intentionally trained. It seems to me you are changing the subject. — Janus

↪ucarr I'm not seeing any relevance of your questions to what I've said, so unless you can show me some relevance, I have nothing to say at this point. — Janus

My previous post to you is my response to your top quote above, which I interpret as follows:

Through drilling, training towards conditioned responses instills, by rote, immediate responses of the autonomic system. A familiar example is the Pavlov autonomic response: every time a dog is fed supper over a series of feedings, a whistle sounds. Subsequently, whenever the whistle sounds, the conditioned response of the dog is to salivate.

From this interpretation I proceed to claim that the salivation of the dog involves autonomic processing of the drilled memory of the sound of the whistle. That's the dog's brain reflecting upon the objective whistle heard previously. Atop this reflection, I claim theoretically, that the autonomic processing of the remembered whistle as a trigger for salivation is reflection upon a reflection. I cite this two-tiered reflective, autonomic info processing as a dog-brain simulation of the intentional human drilling of the dog's triggered response: salivation at the sound of a whistle. Throughout this conversation, I've been propounding the thesis that sometimes a simulation stands as good as the original.

Now you have an opportunity to show my reasoning false. I don't think you have a strong case for showing my reasoning irrelevant to your claims. You are, of course, free to make the latter case; I want you, however, to go beyond a mere declaration of error by providing your finding with a supporting argument.

...an ontological juxtaposition will lead to incommensurability. — Banno

I don't know what this is. Can you give me an everyday example?

How do you asses such decisions of your brain... — universeness

Was that choice determined for you, or did your brain employ its ability to make a truly random choice... — universeness

Infinity is a concept, it can never be a measure. So if your source domain size is unknowable then picking an exemplar from that domain is truly random, imo ( or at least, as close to the concept of truly random that we are ever going to get, again imo.) — universeness

In your above quote, you answer your own question above that by claiming truly random (therefore "free") choice can only happen, or approach happening, within sets of infinite possibilities which, as I interpret in my previous post above, you claim are only conceptual and therefore not empirical.

…you are saying that the people chosen to participate in the test you describe, were chosen 'at random,' but you are also saying that they were chosen from a finite, limited domain size and thus, there is a known probability of a particular member of the domain size, being chosen, so that is not truly random, it's just choosing from a fixed domain size… — universeness

Infinity is a concept, it can never be a measure. So if your source domain size is unknowable then picking an exemplar from that domain is truly random, imo ( or at least, as close to the concept of truly random that we are ever going to get, again imo.) — universeness

Your two above quotes acknowledge empirical limitations on randomness.

…we have 'truly random' against 'the probability of choosing any single member of a fixed domain.' — universeness

Your above quote suggests that “randomness,” like “infinity” is more concept than empirical reality.

What you have to cognise, is that the concept of the existence of a fixed domain of possibilities, does not match the realities of QM. — universeness

The set of measurable domains is infinite. Is this an oxymoron? To elaborate, if one wishes to make a general statement about selection probability from measurable sets as a whole, then, per your argument, measurable selection probability in general is impossible, or, if the converse applies, randomization via infinity is impossible or measurable selection probability in general and randomization are both, paradoxically, possible.

…you can 'prescribe' position or momentum but not both at once, as when you measure one, the other can be at best, randomly guestimated, based on previous measures of the momentum/position of the same type of particulate. — universeness

QM is centrally concerned with discrete, measurable boundaries, as indicated by “quantum.” Particle_wave duality keeps one foot of QM planted within a Newtonian context. The Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle, as a predictive measurement of one or the other components of the particle vector, serves Newtonian physics no less than QM.

Our context for the randomness/predictability debate, as we both seem to agree, allows for a mixture of both poles.

How does a controlled system counter-balance random processes with predictable processes?

When a theoretician is designing a control system’s supporting math framework, generation of infinite values compels the theoretician to re-design the framework so as to avoid infinite values lest the measurement and control functions be lost. I take this to be (some part of) the rationale behind your claim infinite conceptualizations, with respect to probability and statistics, are truly random.

In the case of infinite conceptualizations within a Newtonian context, do humans leave the empirical realm in favor of the realm of mind? Claiming: Infinity is a concept, it can never be a measure. tells us infinity is never encountered empirically. This, in turn, tells us true randomness likewise is never encountered empirically. Does not this lead us to conclude that randomly generated lifeforms, and their processional runup to life forms actualization are also, likewise, never encountered empirically? This means that truly random actualization processes culminating in empirical lifeforms is pure theory without empirical counterpart.

If, on the other hand, QM is the context wherein truly random, a-bio-genesis life forms actualize, then must we conclude that QM life forms are, by force of the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle, fundamentally only partially verifiable & knowable within the realm of conceptually infinite universes, themselves empirically impossible because unmeasurable?

Another option is that the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle, by prescribing correctly quantum fluctuations, thus making them predictable, collapses QM superposition multiverses and true randomness along with it. This leads us to conclude that at the human scale of empirical experience, no life forms are randomly generated.

If randomness is confined within the QM multiverses of superposition, then the predictability of rational control systems within the Newtonian scale of human empirical reality crowds out randomness completely.

This leaves us to conclude that U.E.S. (upwardly evolving sentience), eventually, will reconcile wave-particle duality in the interest of a harmonious randomness/control counter-balance.

I'm thinking of intentionality as planning, as having reasons for action, not simply as response to environments. Thinking and deliberate action: I believe some animals can do it, so it's not only a human thing. — Janus

When we recoil from the fast approach of a flying object, the autonomic system is processing info no less than when we reflect deeply upon, say, a complex moral dilemma. The difference, I believe, consists in the resolution of the cognitive processing per unit of time. Deep reflection is high-res processing whereas instinct is low-res processing.
— ucarr

I agree they are both information processing. But the immediate response does not consist in reflection on the information. When there is reflection, the active outcome cannot be predicted with certainty, whereas the immediate response consisting in acquired habit, is much more predictable. For me, that is the salient difference between intentional action and simple internally directed action. — Janus

I haven't said or implied that immediate responses cannot be conditioned by reflection or cannot be intentionally trained. It seems to me you are changing the subject. — Janus

Can you elaborate when and how conditioning and intentional training of immediate responses preclude rather than program autonomic reflection_intentionality?

Note - In this situation, programmed reflection_intentionality, viewed from an info-processing standpoint, entails reflection_intentionality enactment upon preset reflection_intentionality.

Example -- Your eyes, for defense, are programmed to shut if a material object crosses a threshold marking unacceptable proximity. When that threshold is crossed by a material object, autonomic processing does an assessment of what the standard is, i.e., what is the threshold. On top of that, it does an assessment of what it is programmed to do when the threshold is breached. The first assessment is reflection upon the programming. The second assessment is reflection upon the reflection upon the programming.

These two tiers of reflection processing, per Alan Turing, simulate successfully the appearance of human intelligence. Consequently, machines, via humanoid processing, give the
appearance of human intelligence and thus should be treated, at least situationally, as human sentience.

In my parallel argument here, autonomic info processing successfully simulates reflection and should thus be regarded as such. This argument, in turn, connects to my main theme herein: as U.E.S. (upwardly evolving sentient) progresses in its simulation of the cosmic consciousness of theism, said simulation should be treated as cosmic consciousness.

I agree they are both information processing. But the immediate response does not consist in reflection on the information. — Janus

You're sparring in the ring. Your boxing instructor is teaching you how to watch for your opponent's weak side. In the current lesson, the understanding is that you're boxing with a left-handed opponent. Your instructor throws a series of left-jabbing feints close to your eyes. The discipline is to make yourself watch the fake jabs and also watch his right hand because he's trying to get you absorbed in the fake jabs so he can cross you with his right and send you down to the canvas. With each series of feints, the left jabs get closer. You watch through three series of feints as his left gets closer to your eyes. In the fourth series his left comes to a fraction of an inch from your eyelashes, your eyes close and he crosses you with his right and drops you onto the canvas. Your autonomic nerve responsiveness was active throughout the series of feints; it wasn't until the fourth series that your eyes made a lightning-quick decision to close.

How do you assess the decision of your eyes?

When it comes to the issue of whether the universe... is deterministic...or random... random and uncontrolled are synonymous. — universeness

How do you assess the following: when the researchers picked subjects to be tested for allergic reactions to dairy products, they controlled for anti-bias by selecting their subjects unsystematically, and thus, by random sampling, they were assured that the individuals chosen from the main set, each having had an equal chance of populating the subset, expressed unbiased representation of the whole.

In quantum physics, a quantum fluctuation (also known as a vacuum state fluctuation or vacuum fluctuation) is the temporary random change in the amount of energy in a point in space, as prescribed by Werner Heisenberg's uncertainty principle. They are minute random fluctuations in the values of the fields which represent elementary particles, such as electric and magnetic fields which represent the electromagnetic force carried by photons, W and Z fields which carry the weak force, and gluon fields which carry the strong force. — universeness

In the above quote, there is a wealth of information pertaining to quantum fluctuation. Within the quote there is a description of the means by which this phenomenon is observed: a quantum fluctuation (also known as a vacuum state fluctuation or vacuum fluctuation) is the temporary random change in the amount of energy in a point in space, as prescribed by Werner Heisenberg's uncertainty principle.

How do you assess the role of Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle with respect to the question of the relationship between randomness and prescription?

If determinism and random happenstance are both aspects of the universe then the question, will always become one of which one is most fundamental/came first/has dominance? — universeness

Let’s not conflate “random” with “uncontrolled.” The sense of “random” that best serves your thesis (as I see it): that the universe evolves life without the provident hand of a super-natural creator, involves the statistical sense: equal chances of occurrence regarding multiple possibilities. In this situation, a specific outcome cannot be predicted. Does this mean the outcome is not controlled beforehand? No. The outcome, we know beforehand, has a range of possible outcomes. There is still systematic control beforehand, albeit not precise.

In a situation with infinite possible outcomes, we know nothing beforehand. Does this mean the outcome is not controlled beforehand? No. The outcome will express a cause and its effect. That’s still control, although opaque to reason beforehand.

If an unplanned event disrupts a planned event, and given unplanned events are logical possibilities, then that's not a random occurrence (in the sense of: happening without method). The system has always made allowance for it to happen. The disruption is due to a lack of advance planning (or the lack of the possibility of advance planning) aimed at preventing its occurrence.

How could an existing thing have no cause? If it causes itself, that's not random. If it doesn't cause itself, and if no other existing thing causes it, how can it exist? A causeless event, to my thinking, would have unfold in absolute isolation. It could have no intersection with any other form of existence. I don't believe such isolation is possible. If it is possible, absolute isolation occurs at a great removal from everyday life.
— ucarr

How does your theism deal with this? — universeness

Great question.

My belief that a causeless thing could only originate in isolation coupled with my belief nothing, not even God, originates in isolation leads me to believe the existential entanglement of existing things permeates creation as a metaphysical truth. (This tells us QM and Scripture are not in conflict).

I cite scripture for authority supporting my thesis God has never been alone. My citation is The Trinity. God has always been tripartite. Jesus said, “before Abraham was, I am.”

Furthermore, that Jesus is God made flesh means Jesus causes God no less than vice versa. How else could Jesus be fully God? Again, I cite scripture: As it is above (in heaven), so it is below (on earth).

God is not dead. Instead, God is simulatable. Nietzsche may have over-reacted when he declared God dead. What he was observing in the nineteenth century is what we are still observing in the twenty-first century: humanity subsuming God. Science, math, metaphysics and other disciplines are making human approaches to sacred myth with actionable practices. Yesterday’s miracles of God are today’s cultural advances: the holy ghost has practical application in our global telecommunications systems. When Marx spoke of religion being opium for the masses, he foreshadowed religion’s transition into the spellbinding dramatics of motion pictures. What is the ascension of Jesus from the barricaded tomb if not quantum tunneling writ large?

At the end of his resurrection, when his re-ascension was imminent, Jesus, reviewing his three-year ministry, spoke to his disciples of the miracles performed. What he said is pertinent to forecasts about humanity’s future: “All of these things and more you will do.”

Do I believe uni-cellulars act intentionally? Yes. I remember high school biology films showing uni-cellulars avoiding a charged probe acting in the role of a cattle prod.
— ucarr

I'm thinking of intentionality as planning, as having reasons for action, not simply as response to environments. Thinking and deliberate action: I believe some animals can do it, so it's not only a human thing. — Janus

Until now, I had lost sight of by best counter-argument to your important premise (in bold): that there is a categorical distinction between autonomic response and elaborately reasoned response.

If evolution, during the simple organisms period of an environment, involves instinctual info processing, albeit low-res, then intentionality permeates this period of evolution no less than it does when higher organisms appear. — ucarr

The is my counter-premise (to your premise). Below is my supporting argument.

When we recoil from the fast approach of a flying object, the autonomic system is processing info no less than when we reflect deeply upon, say, a complex moral dilemma. The difference, I believe, consists in the resolution of the cognitive processing per unit of time. Deep reflection is high-res processing whereas instinct is low-res processing. — ucarr

This means that the uni-cellular, recoiling from the electrically-charged probe, or the human, recoiling from dust in a sudden sand storm, are acting intentionally under control of the autonomic nervous system. In each case, the sentient has reason for action, apprehends a plan of action and executes this plan of action towards a goal, in this case, preservation of well-being.

Under superficial examination, autonomic responses appear not to be intentional. I think this appearance is due to the extreme quickness of the response. It seems as though there's not enough time to think about what to do; there's only time to act without thinking. We know, however, that autonomic responses involve info processing, just as careful deliberations involve info processing. The difference is the volume of info processed per unit of time, i.e., it's the resolution of the info processing that differs. Without behavior-specific instructions from the neural networks of the brain sent to the nerve-fiber networks of the muscles, how could a situation-appropriate autonomic response to potential harm be enacted? Since the info processing, conducted at the speed of light, greatly compresses the info down to a minimum of code, short-term memory of the event lies at the cognitive baseline: the instinctual. This stands in contrast to deliberative reflection which affords copious info code more easily remembered.

Hello, Universeness,
Just checking in briefly to let you know my work schedule might delay me a bit in getting back to you on your important, thought-provoking questions. Have no doubt, however, I will soon be sharing my responses with you.

I'm thinking of intentionality as planning, as having reasons for action, not simply as response to environments. — Janus

You're right to point out the distinction. It's important. I don't think the uni-cellulars, after receiving a shock, plodded forward in the same direction they had been going, back towards the prod. Instead, they continued moving away from the prod. Reaction is not intentional, but avoidance is.

I think we can question whether foraging around for food, even in the absence of a deliberate pattern, exhibits a baseline version of intention to survive. Let's say the flailing of the cilia of the uni-cellular is due to autonomic nerve impulses. If the ability to eat and survive is automatic rather than willful, we have a uni-cellular sharing vitality status with a virus. Memory tells me the quasi-life label applied to the virus is not applied to the uni-cellular. Perhaps this distinction doesn't imply intention. Does it imply intention-adjacent?

For now, I'll continue to argue that logic_continuity_order_self_intention form an entangled chain of vitality that insures the possibility (even if not the actuality) of life, and thus a logic-bearing universe will upwardly progress through evolving stages of intentionality. All of this is to say that a cohesive universe is never devoid of the means of intention.

Determinism demands A necessarily follows B as the result of an invisible causative force.

Fatalism demands A necessarily follows B as the result of an invisible purpose driven force. — Hanover

Since both rely on a mysterious invisible force, it's no more rational to accept one or the other. — Hanover

I can see from the above that all rational creatures, seeking to find patterns within the landscape, wrestle with the question, "How does the world work?" As a matter of fact, "work" is a good example of the socialized approach to finding our independent way through the world. The lesson being: the world is a workplace.

I've never thought of causation as being invisible. When I see a tire rolling down a hill, I don't think of gravity as being an invisible force.

I believe the world accommodates order. I don't think of it as a machine looking to fill pre-defined functional spaces with appropriate components.

Is the continuity that shapes an individual's personal history mysterious?

Your questions are wonderfully complex and thought-provoking.

Do you think the universe is deterministic? and if you do, I would appreciate a little detail as to why. — universeness

I think our universe has for one of its essential components a dimension of determinism. By positing determinism as a dimension I hope to elude the trap of a too-rigid determinism. I, like you, have no wish to be the puppet of an all-powerful, transcendent creator. By dimension of determinism I mean a structure of determinism widely variable in size and power, depending on environment and its sentient occupants. According to my thinking, the critical component for assessing the power and reach of an environment-specific determinism is logic. If my understanding is correct, in the game of chess, when a player gains the advantage, if henceforth that player makes no mistakes, meaning he does nothing to surrender his advantage, victory for that player is certain. At first glance, this truth about chess presents it as a game of rigid determinism. However, prior to the player gaining an advantage, we can ask if the outcome of the game was pre-determined. I don't think so. I use this example to claim there is an essential dimension of determinism in our universe. Without it, how could our lives possess any order and continuity? Does this relegate us to choosing between a range of choices, all of which are deterministic? I'm inclined to think the answer is "yes." If I'm right, then we understand in consequence the supreme importance of choices. If I'm wrong, and it's true some choices have consequences unknowable in advance, then such truly random variables mark the limits of science and philosophy. When truly random variables are in play, humans can neither understand the role of causation, if it exists, nor predict logical outcomes because, in the absence of causation, there is no detectable logic.

Is random happenstance real? — universeness

If I correctly understand random happenstance equals an event occurring without a cause, then my answer is no. How could an existing thing have no cause? If it causes itself, that's not random. If it doesn't cause itself, and if no other existing thing causes it, how can it exist? A causeless event, to my thinking, would have unfold in absolute isolation. It could have no intersection with any other form of existence. I don't believe such isolation is possible. If it is possible, absolute isolation occurs at a great removal from everyday life.

Do you think there is 'intentionality' behind quantum fluctuations or are quantum fluctuations an example of that which is truly random? — universeness

Since I don't have the foundation in scientific training nor the database of knowledge to make an informed opinion about the cause of quantum fluctuations, I'll have to venture a common-sense answer. The word "quantum" tells me quantum fluctuations are energy pulses that possess discrete boundaries and, also, these energetic particle fields are governed by the uncertainty principle. Furthermore, their appearance as virtual particles takes the form of particle-anti-particle pairs. Since both the form and the behavior of these fluctuations are not random, and also, the environment of these fluctuations is specific i.e., vacuous, I conclude that scientists can configure a network of components that empower them to produce quantum fluctuations on demand. This brings us to the understanding that quantum fluctuations can be produced and repeated on the basis of intent. From here we proceed to the conclusion that the production of quantum fluctuations by means of a recipe exemplifies quantum fluctuations intentionally caused.

If the universe is not deterministic and random happenstance is real, then does it not follow that a chaotic system becoming an ordered system which gets more and more complicated, due to very large variety combining in every way possible, can begin and proceed (eventually returning to a chaotic state via entropy) without any intentionality involved? — universeness

If our universe has no dimension of determinism, determinism being defined by me as logic_continuity, then how could order ever make an appearance?

A chaotic system (oxymoron) becoming an ordered system tells me that the dimension of determinism is both operational and influential with respect to the formerly chaotic non-system.

If the universe is fully deterministic, then to me, a prime mover/god/agent with intent etc becomes far more possible and plausible. For me personally, this would dilute the significance of life towards that of some notion of gods puppets. — universeness

I would share your abhorrence of the above, except I don't believe the universe is fully deterministic. I believe the universe is a super-market of choices and, moreover, there is no ultimate power guiding the sacred hand of choice. This means we're free to make either wise or absurd choices. If one tilts toward wisdom, however, the determinism of logic_continuity is a tolerable master.

For me personally, this would dilute the significance of life towards that of some notion of gods puppets. So, my personal sense of needing to be completely free, discrete and independent of any influence or origin, involving a prime mover with intent, will always compel me to find convincing evidence to 'prove beyond reasonable doubt,' that such notions are untrue — universeness

Don't make the mistake of conflating freedom with isolation. Lest you aspire to your own Godhead, accept forever the possibility of your submission to that which is greater than yourself. Isn't that why the anointed wash the feet of beggars?

That a system might be sufficiently complex so as to render its continuities and outcomes obscure, or even undecidable, does, to me, sound like a real possibility.

I know the gap separating me from some of my correspondents pertains to the question whether intent can exist and operate apart from earth’s advanced sentients.

The vision of complex systems populating our universe without authorship from a supervising creator well serves the desire to abolish a magisterial God pulling puppet strings controlling humans.

I suppose the claim such defiance by humanity has its source in the God being defied provides only cold comfort, if any at all. But, alas, that’s what I’m offering with my claim herein: humanity and its after-bears will continually upgrade its simulation of God’s power until the simulation becomes hard to distinguish from the source.

Single celled organisms demonstrate internally directed action; do you believe such organisms act intentionally? — Janus

I'm guessing internally directed action is activity inside the cell that is a response to its environment and, moreover, is beneficial to the cell.

Do I believe uni-cellulars act intentionally? Yes. I remember high school biology films showing uni-cellulars avoiding a charged probe acting in the role of a cattle prod.

One of my foundations here is belief that anything alive will act to stay alive because life cannot be indifferent to its environment.

The two-edged sword of living is that consciousness is the greatest invention of the universe and, concomitantly, life must entail experiencing pain for the sake of survival.

I suppose a sardonic definition of life consists of the claim: life is the ability to feel pain.

With equal melancholy I claim: intentions are the ability to feel pain.

Now we have our holy triumvirate: life_intentions_pain.

The question then is what links X to Y? Causation is a possibility. Teleos is a possibility. Neither answer is empirically provable. — Hanover

I think the collective of intentions and purposes, the animal kingdom, propagates a real environment of selection that dominates the empirical experiences of its survivors. This empirical experience grounds organizational thinking that is goal oriented. Goal-oriented thinking might not be logically connected to survival in the jungle, but strategic thinking is nonetheless an existential_empircial imperative.

But disagree that the universe is machine-like or mechanistic, because machines are human artefacts and are assembled and operated by an external agent (namely, humans). — Quixodian

A mechanistic model of the universe has limitations and flaws that shouldn't be ignored.

In a universe both eternal and mechanistic, probability plus evolution makes it inevitable life will appear. — ucarr

In my above quote, I populate the claim with attributes I think especially pertinent to the appearance of life on earth. I don't wish to suggest that, beyond the scope of the claim, mechanism expresses a dominant metaphysical truth permeating spacetime.

So here, the dualism is the evolving physical world on the one hand and intentionality through intentionality on the other. — Banno

Here we're grappling with the origin story of progress by design. Is the power of design extrinsic to material objects?

I think any notion of sentience arising from a material substrate requires the power of design to be intrinsic to material objects. Nuclear physics ascertains intricate order prior to sentience. An attempt to deny this mandates denying atoms and molecules pre-date living organisms.

Denial of sentience arisen from material objects mandates sentience-to-sentience reproduction of living organisms. This leads directly to a super-natural deity as creator.

Quantum mechanics strongly suggests seamless entanglement of past_present_future as a general feature of all origin stories.

How is it a simulation of the creator of the universe? — Michael

One of my important ideas is that flesh and blood human and incorporeal spirit God are entangled. I label this entanglement God Consciousness.

The thesis here plots a course of human development wherein something that looks like a convergence of the human and the super-human occurs.

Just as a sophisticated cyborg might one day pass for organic sentient, an advanced technology might one day pass for nature.

All of this speaks to the notion passage through the borderland of progressively seamless entanglement elaborates the origin story of the new epoch.

Origins are entangled rather than discrete.

As soon as a lifeform demonstrates intent as a consequence of being self-aware, conscious and intelligent, rather than a creature driven via pure instinct imperative only, then at that point, intelligent design reduces evolution to a very minor side show for such individuals. — universeness

I think you exaggerate the difference between advanced intelligence and baseline intelligence. Instinct is not pure in the sense that humans, no less than comparatively more simple organisms, possess instincts that are essential to survival. When we recoil from the fast approach of a flying object, the autonomic system is processing info no less than when we reflect deeply upon, say, a complex moral dilemma. The difference, I believe, consists in the resolution of the cognitive processing per unit of time. Deep reflection is high-res processing whereas instinct is low-res processing.

If evolution, during the simple organisms period of an environment, involves instinctual info processing, albeit low-res, then intentionality permeates this period of evolution no less than it does when higher organisms appear.

This state of affairs will lead logically to an ever, upwardly-evolving teleology that, after enough time, will resemble a cosmic teleology that can, with reason, be called a creator.
— ucarr

Not sure what you mean by "a creator" here. It certainly can't mean "the creator of the universe". — Michael

Do I figure God-like consciousness is inevitable? I'll give you a qualified "yes." My addition to the evolution_teleology debate, as I see it, takes recourse to the Touring palliative regarding possible sources of consciousness. If an A.I. looks, acts, achieves and feels like organic consciousness to natural, organic consciousness, i.e., humans, then humans should, upon advisement, regard it as such. — ucarr

"Creator," in my context, means perceived "close simulation of 'creator of the universe.'"

As you may surmise, there's a lot of english-within-the-english within my context.

Indeed. But I do think there is a troubling tendency to try to divorce evolution from all intentionality. I had to spend a very long time explaining to someone reviewing a paper I wrote why it is that natural selection, as applied to corporations, languages, elements of states, people groups, etc. can absolutely involve intentionality. It's like, somewhere along the line, to avoid mistakes about inserting intentionality into places it doesn't belong, a dogma was created that natural selection necessarily can't involve intentionality. — Count Timothy von Icarus

:up:

There's a lot of substance coupled with sagacious thinking packed into your statement. I won't try to address all of it.

Intentions and teleology are internal and essential to all forms of life. — ucarr

I find all teleological assignments to lifeforms implausible.
A wolf did not get sharp teeth because it needed them. The sharp teeth evolved not because of evolutionary intent, but due to the process of natural selection, working over a very long time. — universeness

The key word in my above quote is internal. It's the gist of my thesis. Intentions and teleology, essential to being alive, establishes them as being cognitive entities. Where there's life, there's intentions and teleology essential to the cerebration of the living organisms. The presence of this couplet runs the gamut from viruses to super-intelligent sentients.

This gamut, then, is the collective of intentions and teleology. Survival of the fittest within the circumambient environment demands ongoing adaptation. Ongoing adaptation, oftentimes improvisational, embodies and enacts what we refer to as intelligence. Intentions and teleology, therefore, are essentially cognitive. This means that cognitive intentions and teleology and environment are linked inextricably.

The wolf did not give himself sharp teeth; the collective gave him sharp teeth. The wolf, however, by using his sharp teeth, adds directed energy to the collective. This directed energy is better known as selection. The presence of wolves with sharp teeth selects those other animals who can survive the onslaughts of sharp teeth.

Useful genetic mutations, considered in isolation may appear to be random. Placed in context of a constantly changing environment, with a collective of intentions and teleology embodied in the animal kingdom, genetic mutations are contextually useful, and the process bringing this about is not random.

We know this process generating useful mutations is not random because living organisms, required to think to survive, do not indulge random behavior.

↪ucarr I'm interested and forgive me if this is obvious, do you subscribe to any form of theism? Do you beleive that the universe is a created artefact by some kind of deity?

So by your argument above, a 'god' figure is an inevitability, built into the fabric of reality? Does this not mean that god is contingent and not a necessary being? If we temporarily set aside your argument, have you got a tentative backstory for why this is the case or what the meaning of all this might be? — Tom Storm

Good job, Tom. You're getting right down to cases.

I do subscribe to theism, although I'm in terrible standing with theists due to a variety of my positions as, for example, this particular claim overall. As you might see in my response to Banno, I posit intentions and teleology within nature instead of positing same within super-nature.

Do I figure God-like consciousness is inevitable? I'll give you a qualified "yes." My addition to the evolution_teleology debate, as I see it, takes recourse to the Touring palliative regarding possible sources of consciousness. If an A.I. looks, acts, achieves and feels like organic consciousness to natural, organic consciousness, i.e., humans, then humans should, upon advisement, regard it as such.

Central to this rationale is the POV of the supplicant vis-a-vis the higher power. If we humans should suddenly be confronted by sentience billions of years beyond us, cognitively speaking, would we fall down in worship? Probably. The smartest humans would, however, resist this. Over time, this resistance would build to a rebellion and claimants would begin telling tales wherein they pulled the curtain on the midget wizard (of Oz) falsely intoning commands as if a giant.

Does this not sound like Tevye shaking his fist up at (silent) God? Does this not sound like Galileo called before the Catholic tribunal?

Imagine that eons ago, an advanced race of sentients developed the self-sustaining technology we now, eons later, understand to be nature and the natural world. Also imagine that back in antiquity, when the self-sustaining technology was first introduced, there was a prior natural world now replicated by the nature-appearing technology of the advanced race of sentients. The replication wasn't exact, however. The gap, easily detectable, was scorned by the mavens of the prior natural world. How was this friction resolved? It was resolved via the Touring palliative. The elder mavens settled into an edgy acceptance of the new quasi-nature. Eventually these elders died off and succeeding generations only saw a natural world.

Some implications of my position here, because they suggest God is inevitable rather than seminal, sustain my abominable standing within theist sensibilities.

Do you beleive that the universe is a created artefact by some kind of deity? — Tom Storm

In the above quote, I think you intend to talk within the theist mode. I think, however, by positing God as as an artist who makes the universe as artifact, you parallel the rebellious mentality embodied within my little fable herein.

Is it for humans, or for viruses too?

The thesis remains unclear, and prima facie incoherent. — Banno

Humans are my primary focus regarding internalized intentions & teleology. However, yes, I claim all living organisms exemplify internalized intentions & teleology (surviving, eating, excreting, reproducing). The spectrum of this internalization therefore runs the gamut from humans (and, of course, possible beyond-humans) down to viruses.

Internalization of intentions & teleology by sentient life is a core component of my thesis. I'm claiming the intentions and the organized designs to make specific things happen according to a plan, i.e., according to a premeditated purpose, gets instantiated within the universe by means of living organisms.

An important difference between my thesis and theism is the fact I posit intentions and teleology within nature, whereas theism posits this rational couplet beyond nature as in the super-natural.

I don't think my thesis makes a claim about super-natural teleology one way or the other.

Each premise is potentially falsifiable.
— ucarr
No, they are not; for instance, "For every organism there is some purpose" is a classic all and some, neither falsifiable nor provable. Failure to locate a purpose for some particular organism does not imply that it has no purpose, nor does locating a particular purpose for some organism entail that all organisms have a purpose. — Banno

Clarification: in my context here, teleology mainly means self-advancing intentions coupled with designed behavior governed by goals.

The core of my thesis takes teleology and puts it inside of sentient beings, human beings specifically.

Intentions and teleology are internal and essential to all forms of life.

In a universe both eternal and mechanistic, probability plus evolution makes it inevitable life will appear.

If a universe has as one of its essential features the inevitability of life, then it has as concomitant essential features internalized intentions and teleology.

If a universe has, in addition to the above essential features, evolution, then it’s inevitable life will evolve therein. This state of affairs will lead logically to an ever, upwardly-evolving teleology that, after enough time, will resemble a cosmic teleology that can, with reason, be called a creator.

Show me how the above four premises are not falsifiable.

↪ucarr :roll: Compositional fallacy. Just because some individual organisms might be "purposeful" does not entail that a population (or global process like evolution) is "purposeful". — 180 Proof

That's right. But upright apes, like snails, are not thought to have populated the earth one billion years ago. If evolution, generally speaking, has no purpose, doesn't that force us to conclude, logically, that evolution meanders about at random? If this conclusion is correct, then why didn't humans exist on earth one billion years ago? Or did they? If all of the organic compounds necessary to life have been on earth for, say, one billion years, why didn't a meandering, purposeless evolutionary process raise up some humans? Perhaps you say it was, at that time, a possibility, albeit one fantastically improbable.

Doesn't probability, even when fantastically improbable, point us toward a teleology-resembling selective evolutionary process governed in a manner probabilistically organizational i.e., loosely teleological? The animal kingdom of today, like that of a billion years ago, is not a case of anything goes, genetically speaking. A useful mutation organizationally advanced a billion years beyond its surrounding animal kingdom is extremely unlikely, right? Might this indicate evolutionary change is controlled probabilistically in context?

A mathematics-bearing universe puts up gnarly resistance to exclusion of teleology, likewise a consciousness bearing universe.

Actually, I am not sure how mainstream this view is anymore since a good deal of popular science seems to challenge it, — Count Timothy von Icarus

I think I understand you think my argument old school.

On the other hand, you're pondering the possible comeback of metaphysics [?]

"argument"
— 180 Proof

Like the quote marks.

There are a few arguments on the forum at present that start by assuming that such-and-such is irreducible, and then pretend to discover that it must have some ontological priority - Bob Ross does this in his threads, as do others.

Sad. — Banno

Each premise is potentially falsifiable.

↪ucarr Evolution – adaptive variation via natural selection – is not teleological. — 180 Proof

I contest the logic and reality of your above claim on the basis of its inclusion of "adaptive" and "selection." I acknowledge my contextual use of teleology might be on less than solid ground because, per my usage herein, I'm talking about a sentient individual who possesses self-advancing purpose and self-advancing designs for achieving its purpose. Even so, teleology in the conventional sense of understanding purpose as a functional role played by something within the larger scheme of its environment which, in turn, moves with direction towards some still higher manifestation well serves my argument.

What could be more pertinent to purpose that adaptation to present conditions? Can evolution even proceed without purposeful adaptation to a changing environment? It doesn't require a biologist to know that living organisms unable to adapt to changing conditions, like the earth's dinosaurs, will perish rather than adapt.

Likewise, regarding selection, what could be a more purposeful action on nature's part to select for those living organisms best able to adapt to her environments? To select (as opposed to passively accept) possibilities is an excellent way to demonstrate the meaning and value of purpose, whether personally or systemically.

The topic title is about cosmology, not evolution. Cosmology concerns a description of the universe, not about the origin of the species. — noAxioms

I acknowledge the correctness of your distinctions of classification.

My thinking herein follows from an assumption that, with respect to my premise saying intentions and designs are inseparable from living organisms, regardless of their degree of sophistication, the universe i.e., the cosmology of living organisms, is the theater in which both evolution and, as I argue, its concomitant intentions and designs play out. In short, whenever the evolution versus creator debate arises, cosmology and evolution are, in my opinion, next door neighbors. This is clearly the case because, as I think, discussion of the origin of life naturally finds its place upon the ultimate stage of cosmology.

Then you ignore evolution altogether and talk instead about abiogenesis, which is neither cosmology nor evolution. — noAxioms

Perhaps I'm mistaken, but I think it logical to include abiogenesis within the category of evolution. Without its inclusion, evolution falls prey to arguments declaring it's limited to pre-existing life made possible by a supernatural creator. Isn't this a weakness supporters wish to shore up by such an inclusion?

You also seem to assume that any atheist will take up this oscillating view of the universe pushed by Sagan. This is hardly the case, and it is a fringe view in the scientific community. — noAxioms

I take note of your limitation. For my purpose, however, this particular form of cosmology supports my arguments without precluding their application to other forms of cosmology.

So anyway, are we talking about why the creatures are the way they are, or about why the universe is the way it is? — noAxioms

I cite my claim the two topics are neighbors as reason for addressing them simultaneously.

I support eternalism, but that's probably a different kind of eternal universe than the one you seem to be thinking of. — noAxioms

You can inform me about the variety of eternal universes. For now, I'm inclined to think any eternal universe that includes evolution by logic also includes the science of probability and thus the inevitability of life.

My first premise says intentions and teleology are essential to all forms of life. — ucarr

Kind of begs the theistic view now, doesn't it? How are you going to disprove the alternative view if your first premise is that the alternative views are all wrong? — noAxioms

I want you to direct my attention to a life form that has been verified to be devoid of all intentions to survive and all designs (teleology) towards effecting survival.

My second premise says that in a universe both eternal and mechanistic, probability makes it inevitable life will appear.
— ucarr
Demonstrably false. Most mechanistic universes lack the complexity required for life, or even an atom. The whole ID argument depends on this premise being false. — noAxioms

Firstly, I'd like you to give me a tour of the contents of a universe without atoms.

What is the ID argument?

I don't see where this attack addresses itself to a universe specifically endowed with eternity and the mechanization of evolution.

My first premise says intentions and teleology are essential to all forms of life. — ucarr

This anthropomorphic projection renders the premise incoherent at best. — 180 Proof

My claim is based on thinking living organisms all the way down to unicellular forms move, eat, excrete and reproduce. These behaviors, according to my present understanding, exemplify intention (to live and thus to avoid destructive forces when detected) and to design (follow patterns detected as successful routes to essential goals such as eating) and to will (pay life forward to the next generation via reproduction).

My third premise says that if a universe has as one of its essential features the inevitability of life, then it has as concomitant essential features intentions and teleology. — ucarr

Your "argument" doesn't work, ucarr. — 180 Proof

I'm using our human existence on earth as an example of the inevitability of life in our universe. In my thinking, I'm using evolution (which, as you know, is defended and promoted as a means for appearance of life without a divine creator) as a probability embedded within the organic chemistry of earth. Also, I'm using Sagan's supposition that the universe is uncreated and eternal. My logic is that since the building blocks of life are embedded within earth's organic chemistry, given an unlimited amount of time plus given the possibility of organic chemistry upwardly evolving into living organisms, that the building blocks of life on earth actually upwardly evolve into living organisms is inevitable.

This leap is unwarranted. Assuming that "life" is an "essential feature" of the universe, on what grounds – factual basis – do you claim Intelligent life (ergo "intention and teleology") is inevitable? — 180 Proof

Assuming life is an essential feature of the universe per the above argument, I claim that intelligent life is inevitable because, firstly, evolution has been validated by some respected scientists and thus, it can be reasonably expected that living species will upwardly evolve into sentient beings with ever more powerful intentions coupled with ever more rationally designed plans for achieving said intentions.

And, to repeat my upshot, such evolution will inevitably evolve to a lofty position wherein it becomes virtually indistinguishable from the God-Creator teleology of theism.

The above description conveys a precise, scientific measurement of the unit of time known as "one second."
— ucarr

Where are the terms "past", "present" or "future" used in that description? — Luke

Everywhere. The science elaborated in the quotation supplies the means for their state-of-the-art measurement. Readers incapacitated in the use of inference will, however, fail to perceive them.

I think this is the science underlying what MU has been debating with Luke. — ucarr

As far as I'm aware, "past", "present" and "future" are not terms that have any technical scientific meaning, and are not terms that are commonly used for any precise scientific measurements. — Luke

With your above statement you cast yourself in a role that parallels an early twentieth century commentator responding to Einstein's Theory of General Relativity: "As far as I'm aware, 'space,' 'time' and 'gravity' are not terms that are commonly understood to be conjoined and therefore subject to scientific measurements.

In my opinion, the status quo of conventional wisdom is not (and should not be) an obstacle to discovery and new understanding.

Moreover, your claim can be refuted. You say, in part, that the "past", "present" and "future" are not terms commonly used for any precise measurements:

Caesium atomic clocks are one of the most accurate time and frequency standards, and serve as the primary standard for the definition of the second in the International System of Units (SI) (the modern form of the metric system). By definition, radiation produced by the transition between the two hyperfine ground states of caesium (in the absence of external influences such as the Earth's magnetic field) has a frequency, ΔνCs, of exactly 9192631770 Hz. That value was chosen so that the caesium second equalled, to the limit of human measuring ability in 1960 when it was adopted, the existing standard ephemeris second based on the Earth's orbit around the Sun.[2] Because no other measurement involving time had been as precise, the effect of the change was less than the experimental uncertainty of all existing measurements.
-- Wikipedia --

The above description conveys a precise, scientific measurement of the unit of time known as "one second." By inference it follows that the details elaborated above bear upon the transition from one second of time to the next and so on. The duration of measured units of time and the transition between these measured units have been under discussion and debate here for more than a month.

Regarding my application of the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle to MU's claims about the everyday experience of the present as a positive duration rather than as a theoretical and dimensionless point, it should be clear to the observant that it is self-evidently true (from MU's proffered claims and my proffered scientific support for them) we are, acting individually, attempting to do the work of science and philosophy. Such efforts at this website should come as no surprise.

In your role as guardian at the gate, protector of the integrity and authority of the scientific and philosophical establishment, your work is important. By warring against the specious claims of eager aspirants, you render a service to them. It won't do, however, to merely recite boilerplate from the pages of conventional wisdom. You must search those pages and discover cogent arguments that refute with specificity the attempts made by would-be theoreticians.

What is the "referent" for the term "noumenon"?
Can it have a referent? — jancanc

if it is a concept, is it not then an object of thought? but if the noumenon is not an object, then we have contradicted ourselves... — jancanc

When Carl Sagan claims the material universe has no origin, he takes us into an environment wherein the analytical-reasoning mind needs a foundation of support for its compulsive pattern-recognition activity. That foundation is the noumenal.

The analytical-reasoning mind shakes hands non-locally with the noumenal each time it discovers an exploitable axiom, real-world referent of the noumenon.

Demanding acceptance on their own-terms-without-terms is noumenal haughtiness kicking subject/object analytic narratives to the curb.

The axiom stands aloof from the parsing of analytical_reasoning. It deals in the currency of things-in-themselves as self-evident proofs.

The universes of cognition kept aloft by the axiom jugglers are unsearchable causes most closely approached as the epiphenomena of necessary axioms.

Example – the singularity that precedes the big-bang.