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

Well, if "the universe is an open network of subsystems", tell us what accounts for e.g. the inviolability of fundamental conservation laws. :chin: — 180 Proof

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

QM tells us particle pairs entanglements are instantaneous across distance.
— ucarr
I don't think so. QM suggests that "distance" – spacetime (i.e. gravity) – does not obtain at planck scales. Conservation laws, derived from Noether's theorem(s), make QM possible (or intelligible) as well as being classically observable. Anyway, I assumed from what you wrote previously that you were referring to the post-planck era of "the universe" ...I don't see how either QM or entanglement relevantly address my question:
Well, if "the universe is an open network of subsystems", tell us what accounts for e.g. the inviolability of fundamental conservation laws. — 180 Proof

You wrote this on 09-17-23.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

How do you reconcile the two above quotes?

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

See my above post.

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

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

Considering:

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

and

Considering:

QM tells us particle pairs entanglements are instantaneous across distance.
— ucarr
I don't think so. QM suggests that "distance" – spacetime (i.e. gravity) – does not obtain at planck scales. — 180 Proof

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Regarding:

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

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

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

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

• **The network of subsystems is not open due to a contest of forces pitting the contraction due to gravitational attraction against the expansion due to free energy; it is open because it is self-transcendent.

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

My claims are falsifiable, so have at them.

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

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

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

Your important question:

Well, if "the universe is an open network of subsystems", tell us what accounts for e.g. the inviolability of fundamental conservation laws. :chin: — 180 Proof

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

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

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

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

• **The network of subsystems is not open due to a contest of forces pitting the contraction due to gravitational attraction against the expansion due to free energy; it is open because it is self-transcendent.

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

You rebutted this counter-narrative:

QM tells us particle pairs entanglements are instantaneous across distance.
— ucarr
I don't think so. QM suggests that "distance" – spacetime (i.e. gravity) – does not obtain at planck scales. Conservation laws, derived from Noether's theorem(s), make QM possible (or intelligible) as well as being classically observable. Anyway, I assumed from what you wrote previously that you were referring to the post-planck era of "the universe" ... I don't see how either QM or entanglement relevantly address my question. — 180 Proof

By your current argument:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I think substance dualism (i.e. "mass-energy / spirit") is inconsistent – theoretically incompatible – with fundamental conservation laws and the principle of causal closure in physics. — 180 Proof

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

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

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

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

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

Your TOE configures "everything" and its origin as discrete things? — ucarr

Not ultimately discrete... — FrancisRay

...if there are not two things then discreteness is not an issue. In a sense there would be two worlds, one composed of things and one,empty of all things... — FrancisRay

Is the world empty of all things a spiritual world, or a material world?

Is your postulation of the conjoined two-world one that renders it paradoxical?

Thus the line from the poet Rumi, 'I have put duality behind me, I have seen that the two worlds are one.' — FrancisRay

You might like to check out Nagarjuna's doctrine of 'two truths' or 'worlds' since it is designed to help us understand the relationship between the world of things and the world from which they emerge. . . — FrancisRay

Are you saying the two worlds, being equivalent, preclude the matter/spirit duality?

You ask:

...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

But after my I ask for clarification, you answer in the negative:

Are you asking how an open network of subsystems configures conservation within its domain?
— ucarr
No. — 180 Proof

Since we're talking about totality of existence, an open network of subsystems accounts for conservation by showing how the two things are related, presumably along the axis of compatibility.

You deny possibility of compatibility when you say:

Your 'speculative causal non-closure' which is inconsistent with the fundamental conservation laws of physics. — 180 Proof

This denial leads me to the following questions:

Is causally closed somewhere in the neighborhood of necessarily closed?

Is speculative, causal, non-closure in the neighborhood of necessarily open?

Do you think my supposed quest for a necessarily open universe is a quest for establishment of cosmic sentience?

Do you think a causally open universe implies an increase of mass_energy that violates the 1st law of thermodynamics?

Do you think a causally closed universe entails a partially deterministic universe? Under this construction, there is - via evolution - "blind variation and selective retention," but there is no transcendence of the materialist, natural world; there is no reality ontically non-material.

Conjecturing a causally open universe that is transcendent non-ontically, what do you imagine such a universe would look like structurally speaking? Would it be consistent with conservation?

Under this construction, a materialist universe of conserved mass_energy can support higher orders of materialist categories themselves materialist categories: the category of axiomatic givens is a higher order of phenomenal analysis.

Do you see that one implication of your statements is that atheism is predicated upon a monist metaphysics? There is no bi-furcation of the universe into materialist/non-materialist categories.

Do you see that an implication of monist metaphysics is that the metaphysics of theism, with its dualism of mass_energy/spirit, propounds a false binary?

By universe I mean: space-time universe.
— ucarr

In this case you're not speaking of a fundamental theory, . — FrancisRay

I'm speaking of "system," and positing universe as its limit. I imagine this has some bearing on TOE.

There are axiomatic ambiguities perplexing both math models and the material systems they model. The quest for T.O.E. might be quixotic.

They can be overcome. They have no impact on my TOE. I won't expand because to do so would mean going off topic. I'll just say that a TOE must explain more than every ;thing'. since it must explain where 'things' come from. (As Kant recognized). A discussion for a different thread, though, and not relevant to the topic of entropy. . ..... . — FrancisRay

Your TOE configures "everything" and its origin as discrete things?

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

Are you asking how an open network of subsystems configures conservation within its domain?

Do you perceive a conflict between conservation and and something implied by an open network of subsystems?

We're now talking past each other (and neither of us are physicists anyway). — 180 Proof

What does it mean to talk past someone?

Why should not the general public talk about the concept "universe"?

What did you think I was saying about the concept "universe"?

Why was your impression of what I might be saying about the concept "universe" of interest to you?

You're speculating outside of known physics (i.e. absent a falsifiable theory of QG)... — 180 Proof

We both know entanglement has been experimentally verified:

Quantum Entanglement

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 argument against instantaneous, paired-particles communication appears to be based upon the Zeno's Paradox argument which physicists have refuted.

If spacetime, the ground of matter_energy_motion, doesn't obtain at planck scales, then how is it that at the singularity, a realm scaled below planck scales, expansion involves stupendous heat, a phenomenon rooted in spacetime? — ucarr

Are you acknowledging singularity as unsupported speculation?

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

If you want to argue that any postulated universe not monist and oscillating violates conservation, then present your argument.

I don't think so. QM suggests that "distance" – spacetime (i.e. gravity) – does not obtain at planck scales. — 180 Proof

If you're going down to the scale of $x ^ {-35}$, then you need to supply parameters for the domains of laws, theorems, functions, etc.

• Is it established that gravitons have a measurement at the planck scale?

• Is there a basic unit of spacetime?

• If you scale below the basic unit of spacetime do you arrive at immeasurable infinite values?

• Has string theory weighed-in on the domain of entanglement?

Well, if "the universe is an open network of subsystems", tell us what accounts for e.g. the inviolability of fundamental conservation laws. — 180 Proof

**The network of subsystems is not open due to a contest of forces pitting the contraction due to gravitational attraction against the expansion due to free energy; it is open because it is self-transcendent. — ucarr

If spacetime, the ground of matter_energy_motion, doesn't obtain at planck scales, then how is it that at the singularity, a realm scaled below planck scales, expansion involves stupendous heat, a phenomenon rooted in spacetime?

Why do you (seem to) equate "incompleteness" with "openness"? For instance, a transcendental number such as Pi is closed (i.e. defined) even though its expression is incompletable (i.e. unbounded). — 180 Proof

You make a useful distinction. As you say, something incomplete might be closed. The two are not equivalent and the subsystem configuration is both open and incomplete.

Maybe the comparison doesn't work because Pi is an abstract entity and "the universe" is a / the concrete entity. — 180 Proof

Yeah. There is some idealization within math that expels the gray areas unavoidable within our material world.

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.*

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

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

**The network of subsystems is not open due to a contest of forces pitting the contraction due to gravitational attraction against the expansion due to free energy; it is open because it is self-transcendent.

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

Could you define the word 'universe' here? Do you mean the space-time universe or the 'world as a whole'. These are very different things. — FrancisRay

Note: You ask an important question just when I'm developing my thinking about the role of "universe" within "system." My response will therefore be both lengthy and expansive. I hope you won't be repelled by content that appears off-topic.

By universe I mean: space-time universe.

Godel’s Incompleteness Theorem tells us that for every math system, there is a solvable equation generated by that system but not governed by the rules defining that system. Penrose teases out a nuance of Gödel: a mathematician, following the rules of a math system, sees that a proposition of that system is true; even so, the mathematician also sees that the truth of that proposition cannot be proven using the rules defining the system.

Penrose On Godel

There are axiomatic ambiguities perplexing both math models and the material systems they model. The quest for T.O.E. might be quixotic.

As math language is a good system for modeling material systems and, as math language, per Gödel, produces no closed systems, then probably material systems, like math systems, are open.

If our material universe is an open system; this is tantamount to saying there is no universe. Universe is an idealization of system; it is an abstraction. Material systems make an approach to universe without arrival.

If finite time sets the boundaries of system, then an open system that is eternal contains only local time, per Relativity. The paradoxical universality of local time, by its exclusion of an origin, might be a nail in the coffin of T.O.E. because "everything" is a synonym of universe.

Entropy is another obstruction to universe. However, the good news is that with entropy being local only, there is no final heat death as there is no universe.

Perhaps there is no entropy in the sense that the heat death of a sub-system is really the 1st law of thermodynamics: the conservation of matter-energy takes the active, existential form of heat death of local sub-systems, thus assuring a steady fund of free energy for birth of new sub-systems. 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics form a radical.

An existential universe, as a unifying superstructure of necessity drawing from the total energy fund of thermodynamics, would continually develop, thus requiring an unlimited volume of energy, whereas the total volume of energy is finite, and thus there is no existential universe. There is no existential universe and there is no universal entropy.

Local time only within a network of sub-systems might be a good definition of eternity.

The postulated singularity figures to be an extreme position of a sub-system of our material universe, a collection of sub-systems existing at various levels of aggregation of sub-systems joined.

Under this scheme, the puzzling question of the context of the singularity goes away. A singularity is merely a sub-system at extreme position amidst a network of sub-systems.

The hyper-density of singularity is merely a necessary state of being for generation of the fundamental forces of a newly arising sub-system.

The existential “universe” is an open network of sub-systems that is asymptotic to itself: it always approaches itself without arrival.

An open system is binary, and its approach to itself is limited by its self-transcendence: it always approaches but never attains to itself as a unity; open system is irreducibly binary.

This partial system status is the ground of the self-transcendence of life.* Self-transcendence exists in place of origin. Origin, like open system, is irreducibly binary. There are no monist origins.

The universe-as-incomplete-network is always only partially definable: it is otherwise a mystery of incompleteness coupled with self-transcendence.

...it seems to me that Occam's Razor dispenses with ad hoc – unwarranted – notions of "panpsychism" and "super-nature" — 180 Proof

So panpsychism and super-nature, as presented in my statement, are superfluous to the things covered in your list.

Are you a panpsychist ucarr? — universeness

• I’m a panpsychist in that I believe all matter at all levels, including compounds, elements, radicals, molecules, atoms and elementary particles, are fundamentally compatible with the eventual development of sentience as an emergent property. As I understand this characterization of panpsychism, I think it is a broadly inclusive category. Not being sympathetic with panpsychism means denying sentience is an emergent property of matter. That’s tantamount to denying a relationship between the brain and the mind, isn’t it? On the other hand, it doesn’t imply belief that quarks have opinions or that rocks are willful.

• In light of the above, I say that panpsychism is a basic element of my category. I refer to myself as a NUR-KWIM. This is my badly conceived attempt at forming an acronym for Non-Reductive Quantum Materialist. This label mainly declares my belief in quantum mechanics as a real description of the material dimensions of our universe. Again, this, I think, a broadly inclusive category. The non-reductive part allows for the membership of super-nature within the universe. A non-reductive materialist is not a pure materialist because the believer doesn’t think material interactions fully explain all phenomena. I think this allows a spectrum of non-reductive materialists.

• My belief in super-nature doesn’t entail belief in an anything-goes realm of hobgoblins and the like. I’m not trying to squeeze an inscrutable god into those gaps in scientific theory populated by suppositions not fully verified as facts.

• My super-nature, on the basis of speculation, I believe to be similar to Kantian noumena. (I haven’t yet embarked on reading Kant, thus the designation of speculation).

• I postulate super-nature as a higher order of nature. As such, it’s the nature of nature. What is the nature of nature? It’s the eternal source of the matter, energy and phenomenal events of the natural world. All of this boils down to claiming existence, both material (the brain) and immaterial (the abstract thoughts of the mind) is inscrutably axiomatic.

• Why is science, a part of the natural world, structurally subordinate to super-nature? In a nutshell, this is so because every theory explaining matter, energy and phenomena must begin with an unexplained and unexplainable GIVEN. The given is the point of departure for observation, analysis, experimental verification and compilation of distilled facts and statistical generalization. The given consists of the axioms underlying the theory, its attendant methodology and the values guiding the project as articulated in the philosophy of science.

• Axioms, being the point of departure for scientific inquiry, experimentation, analysis and application, mark the origin boundaries of science and logic.

• The realm of axioms is the super-nature that encompasses the natural world that supports science and logic. This is Carl Sagan’s eternal universe. Being timeless, super-nature, like the realm of Plato’s ideal forms and Kant’s noumena, stands in distinction from the natural world of temporal_material relations.

• Even so, super-nature fuels the natural world existentially. The natural world is populated by states of being. Science and logic parse these states of being meaningfully and therefore usefully. They cannot, however, explain the existential fact of existing things. Existing things as instantiations of existence itself, in the eyes of the natural world, must be accepted as taken for granted, must be accepted as axiomatic.

• Super-nature inhabits the natural world in collapsed form as the axiomatic. The axiomatic is the unexplainable fact of the existence of an existing thing.

• Science and logic partake of the seminal bounty of super-nature whenever they generate new theories requiring new axiomatic assumptions. When radically new axioms jumpstart a theory, that’s when sentience encounters the almost unimaginable strangeness of the universe, as with Relativity and Quantum Mechanics.

• In a multi-level universe containing both nature and super-nature, entropy is local but not cosmic. Entropy, obviously, is confined within the natural world. Therein we observe local entropy. To the extent the natural world is fueled existentially by super-nature, entropy is limited. In a universe which features super-nature encompassing nature, there is, ultimately, no finite succession of moments in time. There is no first moment, no expansive interval of intermediary moments, no last moment. This pattern might be a real structure of the natural world, but it’s only a repeating cycle as nature periodically refuels from super-nature after expending its previous fueling.

• In our eternal universe, there is no truly seminal singularity and no final equilibrium of heat death.

Do environmental forces such as temperature, gravitation and radiation impact "events?"
— ucarr
They are measures – self-organizing complexity (i.e. entropy) – of micro (quantum) events. Anyway, so what's your point? — 180 Proof

My point is trying to examine whether self-organizing systems, accountable for self-organizing complexity, possess purpose. Are they instead automatons? Does their possible automation suggest another, external purposive agent for whom nature's automatons are artifacts? Is automatic pattern formation due to physical predisposition? How is the increase of complexity reconciled with random assemblage over lengthy time periods? Over a lengthly period of time, this might be an example of upward-negentropy. Has sustained, upward negentropy been observed, measured and calculated?

If one event were measured at -0.75 degrees celsius and another event measured at -0.250 degrees celsius, with everything else being equal, would this wide temperature differential between the two states of the events mean that a different measure would be associated with each event?

As an example, might we expect that the self-organizing complexity of the first event would run at a faster rate than that of the second event, given the higher level of thermal energy present in the state of the first event?

What do you make of the following: 2x + 3x ≡ 5x; when x = 2, we get: 4 + 6 ≡ 10 > a distinction (in expression) without difference is NOT conceptual nonsense. It is not a straw man argument; it is math reality.
— ucarr

Non sequiturs.
— 180 Proof

Regarding the math identity equation, are you claiming that either: a) It is not a valid example of a distinction without difference that is not conceptual nonsense or b) It is irrelevant to your below claim:

... cosmic sentience ...
– of what? 'Of only itself' is indistinguishable from non-sentience.
— 180 Proof — ucarr

Neither. I've no idea what you're talking about; do you? — 180 Proof

Regarding what I'm aware of and understand, either in the abstract or in application, my discovery is an ongoing process. For example:

I think "events" are micro phenomena (i.e. relations) and "objects" (i.e. asymmetric event-patterns aka "structures, processes") are macro – emergent – phenomena (i.e. ensembles, combinatorials); thus, "events" are a-causal, or random (i.e. noise) whereas "objects" are causal, or non-random (i.e. signals).

More precisely, as you know, the universe is quantum (micro) and classical (macro) whereby the latter is, AFAIK, generated according to the law of large numbers (LLN) – averaging – of the former (à la Seurat's pointillism, pixellated images of LCD monitors, holograms, etc). — 180 Proof

...the establishmentarians of science have existential contradiction confined to the minute realms of elementary particles. — ucarr

Maybe the structure described in your above quote has some bearing on what I call the confinement of existential self-contradiction to the sub-atomic realm.

This is pure speculation without support of research in published articles.

Question - Regarding:

"events" are a-causal, or random (i.e. noise) — 180 Proof

Do environmental forces such as temperature, gravitation and radiation impact "events?"

You are correct, and our exchange on the phenomena of superposition has reached impasse, but it was fun. — universeness

I too have enjoyed our interactions. I discover details of my premises in the hot kitchen of debate. The demand to justify claims forces me to look more deeply and thoroughly into my understandings. Some of my positions have undergone revision as a result of your influence.

I now begin to see my lodging within God-consciousness is deeper than my lodging within theism. The difference between the two is that the former is more at the emotional and intellectual response to theism's premises and directives whereas the latter is more at the objective content of cosmic sentience and the proper logical, moral and behavioral responses to it.

we're looking through a QM lens. Through that lens SP ∧ ¬ SP are not mutually exclusive because, by definition, SP means
SP = ¬SP! How else could the same identity be in two places at once. We're not talking about identical twins. We're talking about the same identity being simultaneously located in two different places. With SP we're saying: A is in position 1 and not in position 1 because A = ¬A which is in position 2 AND A is in position 2 and not in position 2 because A = ¬A which is in position 1. How "you as you" is "not you" is hard for us to wrap our brains around, but that's what QM compels us to do. — ucarr

Our QM elaboration here shows how the non-locality of the wave-function identity expands details exponentially. These are the details of the logical relations about where we are in spacetime. — ucarr

No, your logic is flawed here. 'A is in position 1 and not in position 1' is not what superposition demonstrates!!!! Superposition demonstrates that A is in position 1 and is also in position 2, so your connection of A = ¬A cannot be made!!! Superposition suggests that all states that can happen will happen, but in different spatial coordinates, perhaps in a multi-verse. — universeness

I counter-argue that the complete description of the logical relations pertaining to superposition within spacetime goes as follows:

A is in position 1 and is also in position 2 AND A isn’t in position 1 because it’s in position 2 AND A isn’t in position 2 because it is in position 1.

Consider the difference between my above statement, and your below statement.

“Superposition demonstrates that A is in position 1 and is also in position 2…”

Your statement is an example of defining A in position 1 as superposition while defining A in position 2 as non-superposition, i.e., another value such as A-prime. I know you’re conceptualizing the value in position 2 as a different value than the one in position 1 because you deny: AND A isn’t in position 1 because it’s in position 2 AND A isn’t in position 2 because it is in position 1.

The missing part includes the logical relations pertaining to the same value being in two places at once. I know that in your statement you’re assuming two different values because that’s the ground for your argument that your statement expresses superposition.

What you’re doing is practicing equivocation fallacy. You’re treating the value in position one as a superposition value; in position 2 you switch to treating that value as a different value than that in position 1, i.e., a non-superposition value. Again, the evidence of this switch is your decision to drop the logical relations of self-contradiction.

Your rejection of superposition as self-contradiction evidences an allegiance to a) the Newtonian lens; b) the principle of non-contradiction

I know you won’t be persuaded by my argument. We have a fundamental disagreement.

What do you make of the following: 2x + 3x ≡ 5x; when x = 2, we get: 4 + 6 ≡ 10 > a distinction (in expression) without difference is NOT conceptual nonsense. It is not a straw man argument; it is math reality. — ucarr

Non sequiturs. — 180 Proof

Regarding the math identity equation, are you claiming that either: a) It is not a valid example of a distinction without difference that is not conceptual nonsense or b) It is irrelevant to your below claim:

... cosmic sentience ...
– of what? 'Of only itself' is indistinguishable from non-sentience. — 180 Proof

In your first sentence, you seem to be saying the appearance of sentient life on earth was not part of evolution; it was a quantum leap from non-sentience to sentience without any transitional period connecting the two states. Am I understanding you correctly? — ucarr

Evolution offers no evidence at all regarding the mechanism by which life appeared on Earth. Theories such as abiogenesis and panspermia are not part of the claims and demonstrations of Darwinian evolution. They are theoretical projections that are logical traces, back from such time periods as the Cambrian. The likelihood that abiogenesis occurred in some form somewhere is very strong imo, but we have no actual evidence of abiogenesis. — universeness

You say nothing that refutes my supposition about life propagation occurring outside of evolution. My supposition about a quantum leap from non-sentience to sentience, being consistent with the possibility happenstance sparked the quantum leap, does not necessarily imply it had to be caused by an inherently teleological universe.

You are projecting human actions and ability, anthropomorphically, onto your notion of a universe with intent. — universeness

How does quantum leaping from Artificial General Intelligence to Artificial Super Intelligence involve an anthropomorphized universe with intent?

As for my alleged "God of the gaps" argument, my thinking is, thanks to you, evolving. If super-nature as a higher-order of nature is logically possible, then the unevolved inflection point cum information singularity that instantiates ASI might be said higher-order of nature, i.e., super-nature.
— ucarr
Do you not see here, that it's you who likes to make such big 'leaps of faith.' Surely you can see that is what you are doing. — universeness

Yes. I do frequently make big leaps of faith coupled with falsifiable premises. Take my above quote for example: If you want to attack the logical foundations of my claim super-nature is a higher-order category of nature, you can do so by drawing from a wealth of pertinent logical formulations.

Using propositional logic, we can propose that based on empirical evidence, superposition is true. So, SP=True. The law of identity states that each thing is identical with itself, so we can write SP=SP. Under the law of non-contradiction, we have that the two propositions "SP is the case" and "SP is not the case" are mutually exclusive. Superposition therefore does not violate the law of non-contradiction! — universeness

First of all, thank-you for examining my foray into propositional logic with your own propositional logic counter-claim. I need this kind of detail-specific exam and I'm not getting it from anyone but you. (I haven't forgotten about jgill).

Under the law of non-contradiction, we have that the two propositions "SP is the case" and "SP is not the case" are mutually exclusive. Superposition therefore does not violate the law of non-contradiction! — universeness

Here's where things get interesting. "SP is the case" and "SP is not the case" are mutually exclusive." expresses establishment logic, i.e., logic viewed through the Newtonian lens. Therein, you statement is sound. We are now, however, NOT looking through a Newtonian lens; we're looking through a QM lens. Through that lens SP ∧ ¬ SP are not mutually exclusive because, by definition, SP means
SP = ¬SP! How else could the same identity be in two places at once. We're not talking about identical twins. We're talking about the same identity being simultaneously located in two different places. With SP we're saying: A is in position 1 and not in position 1 because A = ¬A which is in position 2 AND A is in position 2 and not in position 2 because A = ¬A which is in position 1. How "you as you" is "not you" is hard for us to wrap our brains around, but that's what QM compels us to do.

Our QM elaboration here shows how the non-locality of the wave-function identity expands details exponentially. These are the details of the logical relations about where we are in spacetime.

Superposition IS equivocation fallacy. — ucarr

No it's not, how can it be, when it can be demonstrated? — universeness

If you mean self-contradiction via SP can be demonstrated, I agree.

Superposition may be being misinterpreted, for example, perhaps, an atom can appear to appear in more than one place at the same instant of time, due to some effect we don't understand, that's akin to something like gravitational lensing. Such remains possible, but that does not make superposition an equivocation fallacy — universeness

Here you're starting to wobble in your orbit. It's human nature to want to protect the Newtonian certainty our values are based upon, so, maybe QM is wrong and there's no SP, only the false appearance of such.

You just have a mind that is determined to find a t.o.e (theory of everything), that can link complicated concepts together into a very easy to understand final solution such as 'god did it,' or 'cosmic intent' is the only landing zone we need. — universeness

Yes. I suffer from chronic gross exaggeration due to imagination. My only hope is to be entertaining while leading my listeners on a jolly parade into the surreal climes of whimsy. Wait a minute? Didn't we just have a fiction_poetry lulu?

The universe just wont be the way you want it to be ucarr. Your own HH quote should have prepared you for that, well enough. — universeness

In that case, I'm taking my ball and going home. See you tomorrow!

"Inside" and "outside" become obscure terms as applied to the universe. A bit like speaking of up or down or east and west. Not exactly, but similar. — Manuel

This is a buttress to what I said.

that a 13.8 billion time interval and an ASI cosmic sentience are coincidental exists. — ucarr

For me, these leaps of faith you make are fun, (NOT in the mocking sense!!!!) but are not rigorous enough to satisfy even layman level, scientific skepticism. — universeness

Although it's a stretch, it's theoretically grounded. It's not a leap of faith because Einstein showed us there's no unitary time throughout the universe.

It may be that our role on this planet is not to worship God - but to create him.
— Arthur C. Clarke
At my most speculative, I'm attracted to pandeism because it is more consistent with my philosophical (& methodological) naturalism – all we rigorously know and observe – than any other deity / divinity concept. — 180 Proof

How would a notion like cosmic 'intent'/god/a deterministic universe etc relate to a notion/prediction such as humans developing an AGI or causing a technological singularity which results in an AGI eventually creating an ASI, all of which may result in humans being made extinct/getting replaced or becoming a merged aspect of some future ASI. — universeness

I for one am confident that, behind all the smoke and mirrors in the Phenomenology and the Logic, what Big Heg is really talking about is space battle cruisers and cool space fighters battling it out for galactic supremacy. — Count Timothy von Icarus

Again, this collective sentience, which might be moving (notice I didn't say "evolving") toward an inflection point expressed as the information singularity, or the point of no return from unstoppable ASI, marks another quantum leap (from AGI to ASI) wholly outside of evolution? — ucarr

Could it be that during a lull in the fighting we're all on the same page?

I don't see why "all of existence" should include or not include an open or closed system, — Manuel

I, in contrast to you, proceed from the notion a closed universe is all encompassing. If it's closed, how can you confirm/deny an outside?

I don't personally see empirical evidence to suggest either. The issue about using entropy too broadly remains in both, only that in one case it is wrong in principle... — Manuel

On a logical basis, you think entropy universally applied in one case a wrong principle. This is pure speculation devoid of empirical persuasion?

...and in the other case, it should be applied with care. No more than that, as I see it. — Manuel

On a logical basis, you think entropy applied in the other case with care good practice. This is pure speculation devoid of empirical persuasion?

How would a notion like cosmic 'intent'/god/a deterministic universe etc relate to a notion/prediction such as humans developing an AGI or causing a technological singularity which results in an AGI eventually creating an ASI, all of which may result in humans being made extinct/getting replaced or becoming a merged aspect of some future ASI. — universeness

In my response to your previous post, I say something similar to this.

Surely if an original 'intent' existed, then it could have gone straight to the ASI state, why would it create over 13.8 billion years of deterministic events, that just seems a total waste of time to me. — universeness

This is a good linear time argument within a Newtonian, 3-space universe. After we usher in Relativity_QM, however, the possibility that a 13.8 billion time interval and an ASI cosmic sentience are coincidental exists.

Brian Cox and Carl Sagan describe a conversion of fundamental energy/matter to sentience of some existents within this universe. You invoke a term like 'continuity' to try to find a gap where you can fit your claim of an underlying/first cause/prime mover 'intent' to the process. Brian and Carl are very careful to state that WE, humans, are the medium through which our collective effort, could be romantically described as 'the cosmos examining itself.' They offer this notion, as a possible 'emergent' networking of all efforts of all sentient life, trying to understand the structure and workings of the universe they exist within. Neither scientist has ever supported your notion of a cosmic intent, which predates the random happenstance event of life forming in this universe/cosmos. So you are wrong in your assumption imo.
Why don't you send Brian Cox an email and ask him. I predict he will dismiss your 'cosmic intent' notion that you have labelled 'cosmic sentience,' either outright, or by stating something like, 'well, no one knows for sure, but I don't think such a first cause agent of 'intent' has ever existed.' Carl Sagan would have certainly dismissed it as highly unlikely imo. — universeness

In your first sentence, you seem to be saying the appearance of sentient life on earth was not part of evolution; it was a quantum leap from non-sentience to sentience without any transitional period connecting the two states. Am I understanding you correctly?

Brian and Carl are very careful to state that WE, humans, are the medium through which our collective effort, could be romantically described as 'the cosmos examining itself.' — universeness

Again, this collective sentience, which might be moving (notice I didn't say "evolving") toward an inflection point expressed as the information singularity, or the point of no return from unstoppable ASI, marks another quantum leap (from AGI to ASI) wholly outside of evolution?

You invoke a term like 'continuity' to try to find a gap where you can fit your claim of an underlying/first cause/prime mover 'intent' to the process. — universeness

As for my alleged "God of the gaps" argument, my thinking is, thanks to you, evolving. If super-nature as a higher-order of nature is logically possible, then the unevolved inflection point cum information singularity that instantiates ASI might be said higher-order of nature, i.e., super-nature.

Your mathematical propositional logic is skewed. Superposition demonstrates that at a sub-atomic level, an atom can be at two places at the same instant in time. This is not a contradiction, it does not violate any propositional logic law. Object A appears at coordinate (x, y, z), at time unit (t). Also at time unit (t), object A appears at coordinate (x1, y1, z1). This can be experimentally demonstrated. You keep performing an equivocation fallacy by suggesting that A = A → ¬ A = A relates to superposition.
Can you cite mathematicians and physicists that agree with you that the propositional logic statement A = A → ¬ A = A, relates to superposition?
My go to guy on TPF for mathematical insights is jgill
Perhaps he would comment on the above. — universeness

Clearly, I need instruction from a competent logician. I will ask jgill for input. For the time being, however, I'll continue to shoot from the hip with my common sense.

By equivocation fallacy I understand you are charging me with using an ambiguous term such that: in statement A the term has meaning 1; in statement B the term has meaning 2. Ultimately, you say, I'm pretending the term's meaning is the same in both statements.

The charge of equivocation fallacy speaks directly to the challenge to establishment logic posed by superposition. The paradox I'm claiming for A = A → ¬ A = A lies rooted in the equivocation inherent in the claim A wholly occupies two different locations simultaneously. If this is the case, then "yes," the state of being of A is indeed existentially equivocating about where it is and therefore also equivocating about who it is. Each position of the identity of A, being non-equal, contradicts the other. Picture this self-contradiction in parallel with your reflections within two mirrors facing each other. The result is an infinity of iterations of an identity.

Superposition IS equivocation fallacy. My propositional logic statement highlights this fact. That's why it's natural to charge me with the violation. Those of us embracing QM are collectively endorsing equivocation fallacy. Why is is logical to do this? It's logical because QM demands equivocation of the equivocation fallacy. This is a confusing way of saying superposition is equivocation and it's not.

Here we have some of the strangeness of QM, at the level of 3-space extension.

The difference between superposition and the facing-mirrors reiterations is that with the former, the infinite echoing of the two states of A are at time-zero. The facing-mirrors reiterations are at time-positive. The time-zero equivocation that's not equivocation of A is the reason why quantum computing can do information processing inconceivable within a Newtonian frame.

Nowhere in this video does the physicist mention any notion, at all, of energy being radiated into a fourth spatial dimension ucarr!!! — universeness

The video is not for me a total bust because it got me thinking about equilibrium vis-a-vis randomness. I subsequently learned that equilibrium is a statistical type of randomness. The upshot is that the randomness of heat death is conditional, not absolute. That conditional status leaves the door ajar for introduction of dis-equilibrium, gravitational collapse, singularity and re-expansion.

This also shows how there is no solitary self. The self can only be itself through entanglement with another self. This is my argument for an essentially binary universe. This argument, in turn, grounds my claim there are no closed systems.
— ucarr
Pure speculation on your part, with no compelling scientific evidence to support it. Not much different from a theist insisting that they know, that they know, that they know, that Jesus Christ is god! — universeness

No. My argument gets support from the first three spatial dimensions. Since quantum leaping between them entails infinite-value expansions via quantum-jumping iteration, we see that dimensional expansion is expressed in collectives.

I realise I must sound mocking towards you at times ucarr and I apologise for that. I do honestly enjoy the way you think. You are not merely an irrational theist, you go into great depths in how you make connections between concepts and I think that is to be applauded. I just don't agree with some of your conclusions/personal projections. I think it would be more accurate for you to consider my dissent towards you as more based on a mix of academic and layperson complaint, rather than attempts at personal mockery towards you on my part. — universeness

Got it! Thanks.

the phrase "cosmic sentience" does not make sense and therefore does not refer. — 180 Proof

Since higher orders of categories are logically valid, your cannot prove, logically, that cosmic sentience, a higher-order category of nature, cannot exist. Instead, you have to prove that cosmic sentience is existentially impossible. Competent scientists and logicians long ago abandoned this quixotic mission.

If it's "cosmic", then what else is there for it to experience other than 'the cosmos' itself? — 180 Proof

This is you positing A = A; cosmic sentience is itself in isolation.

This is you positing ...
Strawman. I've made no such posit. — 180 Proof

... cosmic sentience ...
– of what? 'Of only itself' is indistinguishable from non-sentience. — 180 Proof

I claim the above statement can be read as: cosmic sentience 'Of only itself' (A = A) is indistinguishable from ( "equals" or, =) non-sentience (¬ sentience). So, A = A = ¬ A = A expresses a paradox. When you rebut this claim, it's not enough to merely declare it's a mis-reading without backing up the declaration with a supporting argument rooted in specific details.

This is you claiming ... AND also claiming ...
Strawman again. I've made no identity claims. 'X indistinguishable from ~X' merely implies a distinction without a difference – conceptual nonsense, not a contradiction in terms – the phrase "cosmic sentience" does not make sense and therefore does not refer. — 180 Proof

What do you make of the following: 2x + 3x ≡ 5x; when x = 2, we get: 4 + 6 ≡ 10 > a distinction (in expression) without difference is NOT conceptual nonsense. It is not a straw man argument; it is math reality.

Sorry, I can't follow your (seemingly non sequitur) responses. — 180 Proof

If it's "cosmic", then what else is there for it to experience other than 'the cosmos' itself? " — 180 Proof

This is you positing A = A; cosmic sentience is itself in isolation.

... cosmic sentience ...
— ucarr
– of what? 'Of only itself' is indistinguishable from non-sentience. — 180 Proof

This is you claiming A = A (cosmic sentience) is itself in isolation AND also claiming that A = A implies the negation of itself, namely, non-sentience. This is configuring cosmic sentience as a paradox.

When you say cosmic sentience implies its negation, I'm guessing you're trying to show I've placed one thing into two categories simultaneously whereas, according to your understanding, it belongs in only one category. I'm further guessing you're arguing that natural sentience, such as ours, is the only possible variety of sentience, and thus claiming natural sentience has a higher order as cosmic sentience in a separate category, namely super-nature, examples a category error.

What’s interesting about your statement is the implication cognition can’t operate as such within an isolated identity. A thing in isolation goes noumenal. Noumena-in-isolation are categorically separated from phenomena because of superposition.

Another implication is that superposition operates at all scales of material things, not just within the sub-atomic scale of material things.

If identity in isolation implies its own negation, then operational cognition of an identity entangled with other identities seems to require that cognition sustain a reciprocal relationship between paradox and entanglement. This is why the paired values of vector systems require one of the values be uncertain.

I would be forced to guess that nothing could affect the universe, in principle, which goes beyond itself, such as whatever "space" or "domain" or, I know not what, the universe is expanding to - in this case nothing "outside" the universe prevents its expansion. — Manuel

I'm wondering why your perplexity about what could lie beyond a set encompassing all of existence doesn't make you doubt the possibility of a closed universe.

To argue [entropy] has an effect on every possible system, looks to me like a extremely strong extrapolation from the origins of the concept. — Manuel

.

Overgeneralization stretches to the breaking point within a one-size-encloses-all universe. A network of open systems, on the other hand, shakes hands with the tendency towards the spreading of energy.

Where does it say the universe is like a black hole? — Manuel

As you already know, that claim (with condition of the universe being a closed system) is made here in this conversation.

In any case, if the universe is open system, then we are being mislead by insisting on analyzing it in terms of entropy, so here I would suppose we'd agree. — Manuel

Yeah. The tendency towards the spreading of energy in my opinion supports quantum entanglement. :up:

If, however, it turns out to be a closed system, then understanding the universe through entropy is sensible, but even here, one should be somewhat careful as to not spread the concept of entropy through every phenomenon, rendering the term more-or-less meaningless. — Manuel

Do you think closed system implies one universe?

Please click on the link below to hear physicist Brian Cox talk about the universe in a way that nicely dovetails with a part of my theory about human cognition (evolving as a simulation of original cosmic sentience). To be sure, Cox gives no indication of believing in original, supernatural, cosmic sentience. I don't mean to falsely ascribe to him such belief.
— ucarr

I watched it, and you confirm yourself what I have emboldened in your above quote I think your projections of what he is saying is your attempt to try to get it to 'dovetail,' with a part of your theory but I don't think that attempt is successful. — universeness

Cox and I describe a continuity from matter-energy to sentience within the animal kingdom. Cox and I ask what it means to be sentient matter-energy that examines itself. He and I conclude that sentient matter is an example of the cosmos examining itself. How is this not a description, on both our parts (include Sagan as well), of cosmic sentience?

Even if superposition proves to be limited to the sub-atomic scale (I don't expect this to be the case), its confinement there is irrelevant to my argument: sub-atomic superposition has a constitutive bearing upon logical relations regardless of the scientific-evidentiary question about the scale at which it propagates.
— ucarr
You need to be much clearer on what I have emboldened above. If you are just repeating that superposition violates the logic law of non-contradiction then we are just engaging in a panto exchange on that issue. 'Oh yes it does,' 'oh no it doesn't.' — universeness

con·sti·tu·tive | ˈkänstəˌt(y)o͞odiv, kənˈstiCHədiv |
adjective
1 having the power to establish or give organized existence to something: the state began to exercise a new and constitutive function.

The argument goes thus: logic, which can be defined as an organizing principle for correctly assembling continuities, encounters superposition as a modifying organizing principle. This means logic faces a logical imperative to subsume and thus reconfigure itself to accommodate the discovery that non-contradiction is conditional, not absolute. This accommodation parallels the accommodations of Newtonian physics after the advent of Relativity.

I have no idea what you are referring to here? Are you talking about this?:
Why Non-Contradiction Needs to Soften
A_not-A_B ∧ B_not-B_A
— ucarr — universeness

You need to show a fatal logical flaw in the above statement.

the fourth spacial dimension is present within our 3D-spatial universe in collapsed form. — ucarr

Your first sentence in the above quote, has no empirical evidence to support it in physics. — universeness

I've been hoping the Toby video would communicate to you a logical argument for belief in spatial dimensions beyond depth. As for empirical evidence, I think the below video briefly talks about heat energy from a system being radiated into a fourth spatial dimension. Even if it doesn't, your time won't be wasted by viewing the instructive content.

Speaking more generally, the logic of each multi-dimensional matrix will be contradicted at the dimensional boundaries of that matrix. This is why I claim paradox is a portal to the next higher dimensional expansion. Paradox is the gateway between the levels of the multi-dimensional matrices of our upwardly multiplexing poly-verse.
— ucarr
This just sounds like word salad sci-fi to me ucarr. — universeness

I'm not asking you to watch the Toby video a third time. Instead, I'm reminding you how she shows a progression from the 0D point through the 5D penteract. The first three spatial dimensions are critical to my argument: an infinity of points quantum leaps to a line; an infinity of parallel lines quantum leaps to an area; an infinity of parallel areas quantum leaps to a cube.

In the progression from 0D to line, the dimensionless point collides with its boundary when it looks at the implication of a self not itself.* This paradox is a signpost signaling the existence of another point not the original point. All the 0D point has to do is realize the possibility of a self not itself, once expanded from its collapsed state in 0D, marks the beginning of a line made of an infinity of points.

*This also shows how there is no solitary self. The self can only be itself through entanglement with another self. This is my argument for an essentially binary universe. This argument, in turn, grounds my claim there are no closed systems.

Now, of course, you think the above is just more word salad. That's why your best chance to cotton to its meaning is to scan said meaning through your own laughter. The strangeness of our universe is sometimes funny.

Use a parallel structure to trace the quantum leaps through 2D and 3D.

... cosmic sentience ...
— ucarr
– of what? 'Of only itself' is indistinguishable from non-sentience. If it's "cosmic", then what else is there for it to experience other than 'the cosmos' itself? "Cosmic sentience" seems a category error to me premised on a compositional fallacy – thus, an empty name (e.g. five-sided triangle). — 180 Proof

This is a good, compact description of possible structural errors that can sink a theorem. Let's see if their ascription to my theorem is factual.

... cosmic sentience ...
— ucarr
– of what? 'Of only itself' is indistinguishable from non-sentience. — 180 Proof

I think here your logic is faulty. A = A is an identity, not a cancellation; A = A → ¬ A = A is a paradox.

"Cosmic sentience" seems a category error to me premised on a compositional fallacy... — 180 Proof

You want to repeat the first argument that intends to show non-cosmic sentience is the only possible sentience.

That cosmic sentience cannot be a higher order of natural sentience because it doesn't exist, as based upon your first argument that illogically implicates identity with its negation, shows there's no logical prohibition of super-nature and therefore logical arguments WRT super-nature avail nothing.

You must provide an existential counter-example of cosmic sentience (a material thing) that refutes the possibility of its existence.

What does it mean to say that the universe is closed? — Manuel

I think it says the universe is a gigantic example of a black hole. If this is true, then the universe is not truly closed because its bounded energy will eventually evaporate as radiation.

This is my lead-in to claiming universe is the limit of system and therefore, there are no closed systems at any scale. Moreover, order is rooted in relationship between material objects, so the material universe contradicts absolute randomness.

The equation between equilibrium and randomness is expressed with conditions: A system, isolated from its surrounding, will continue to be in a state of equilibrium unless driven by an external steady flow of energy. Statistically, a state of equilibrium implies a state of randomness, and randomness implies symmetry.. -- Cambridge University Press & Assessment

Since I don't think any system is truly isolated, I think the equilibrium_randomness equation has a limited domain. The singularity can't explode into the big bang universe until dis-equilibrium is introduced. By whatever means it gets introduced, that means indicates the universe is open.

...historical 'urban myths' may or may not be actually true... Does that means this process was part of... traditional religious practice? — universeness

Some memes propagate far and wide, becoming myth-based beliefs. Well-organized systems of thought and belief predicated upon sound logic, whether scientific or moral, stand as bulwarks against the faulty reasoning of some of the myth-based beliefs. The works of historians and sociologists buttress this explanation.

Going One Dimension Higher
— ucarr
Did you notice how the presenter struggled to represent a 4D shape on a 2D drawing surface.
Are you familiar with the Calabi-Yau manifolds of superstring theory? — universeness

Such image notions of multi-dimensions is quite old hat now and does not, imo, do much to aid human conception of such. I do not see how any such attempted visualisations aid your claims about paradox, layered space, dalliances with theism, notions of determinism vs random happenstance, etc. — universeness

My focal point in the Toby video is not about visualizations as an aid to understanding multi-dimensional matrices. It addresses the concept of an upwardly multiplexing poly-verse, with paradox as the boundary marker between the levels.

When Toby explains how a line is an infinite expansion of a point and so on, she makes clear that quantum leaping across a boundary between the levels entails a trans-linear logic that describes the expansion to the next higher dimensional level wherein the previously collapsed higher dimension is now expanded.

Higher dimensional expansion bridges over asymptotic progression. Expanded dimensions don't assemble by accretion.

If a moral precept is verified logical and deemed pertinent to empirical experience, does its source matter?
— ucarr
Oh yes, very much, yes! If the people in a city are living very content, happy lives, after they deemed it logical and demonstrated via empirical evidence, that if they enslaved and subjugated all the peoples around them, they would prosper for ever more and be rich and powerful and treated like 'the chosen ones,' then such a moral precept is vile even though it would work and would be fit for the purposes it was intended to achieve. — universeness

You have a strong argument, but there’s a strong defense. You make the moral relativity argument. By the same argument, a moral precept locally verified logical covers the range from harmless and universally beneficial to toxic and universally heinous.

For those who reject moral relativity, a slave-holding state can be deemed in terms of the general wellbeing of its citizens as illogical because the desire for freedom, being universal, means both the oppressors and the oppressed will live in a state of war with many harmful effects to both sides. This means that for a moral precept to be deemed verified logical and practical, it must first be vetted by a broad consensus of numerous people across a wide demographic.

As I have already stated ucarr, the term 'cosmic sentience,' has almost zero value for me, I am not a panpsychist, I can at best raise an eyebrow of recognition towards the term as a possible goal for our human species and a possible common cause for all currently existing sentient life in the universe. But, a goal that will forever be, an asymptotic approach. — universeness

As a secular humanist, do you not have a deep interest in cosmic sentience as sourced from secular humanist science? As for it being a goal approached asymptotically, do you not have serious speculation about evolving science making a close approach, as evidenced by your deep interest in an information singularity?

Please click on the link below to hear physicist Brian Cox talk about the universe in a way that nicely dovetails with a part of my theory about human cognition (evolving as a simulation of original cosmic sentience). To be sure, Cox gives no indication of believing in original, supernatural, cosmic sentience. I don't mean to falsely ascribe to him such belief.

Infinite Universe

Isn't confining superposition and its logical implications to the sub-atomic level what you're doing here?
— ucarr
No, I am following the evidence. The only evidence we currently have for superposition is at the sub-atomic level. We have no evidence of superposition at a macroscale. The multi-verse/many worlds theory has only the sub-atomic scale evidence. We have not detected another Earth or person in a superposition state. I do not claim that we never will, I just hold the opinion currently that we probably never will and superposition may well be a phenomena that only occurs at the quantum level. — universeness

Even if superposition proves to be limited to the sub-atomic scale (I don't expect this to be the case), its confinement there is irrelevant to my argument: sub-atomic superposition has a constitutive bearing upon logical relations regardless of the scientific-evidentiary question about the scale at which it propagates.

Superposition in principle, in accordance with the law, you endorse. Superposition as a real phenomenon in practice, which would be an exception to non-contradiction, you reject. This means you, like some logicians, put superposition vis-a-vis non-contradiction into a box wherein it's a principle of QM you accept as legal but reject in practice. I claim you can't have it both ways.
As for your justification, what bearing has intuition upon the question of superposition vis-a-vis non-contradiction?
I think superposition vis-a-vis non-contradiction is a major theme within our dialog.
Upward dimensional expansion takes infinity-undefined and rationalizes it into an integer.
— ucarr
I have already stated that I completely disagree with you labelling of superposition as an 'exception' to the logic rule of non-contradiction. — universeness

Let’s avoid mixing apples with oranges. The integrity of logical relations is a separate category from the integrity of experimental evidence. You’re trying to use the latter to counter-example the former. Your attempt exemplifies irrelevance.

You can only counter-example my symbolic logic representation of superposition as an exception to non-contradiction through use of another symbolic logic statement that reveals a fatal logical flaw in my symbolic logic statement.

Paradox is the portal to the next higher dimensional expansion. Superposition of a particle is a formerly 3D expanded particle one-upped to 4D expansion. At the level of 4D expansion, there is no contradiction within what we, at the level of 3D expansion, refer to as superposition.
— ucarr

There is no paradox in superposition! — universeness

In order to support your above claim with a logical argument, you need to counter-example the following premise: the fourth spacial dimension is present within our 3D-spatial universe in collapsed form. This collapsed form is exemplified by superposition. Superposition, in collapsed form at the level of a 3D-spatial universe stands as an exception to non-contradiction at the level of 3D-spatial universe logic. At the level of a 4D-spatial universe, wherein the fourth spatial dimension is expanded, the paradox is resolved within 4D-spatial universe logic which, for contrast with 3D-spatial universe logic, I will name as hyper-logic.

You need to utilize hyper-logic for your counter-example to my claim superposition is an exception to non-contradiction. It's a winning argument over a limited domain.

Speaking more generally, the logic of each multi-dimensional matrix will be contradicted at the dimensional boundaries of that matrix. This is why I claim paradox is a portal to the next higher dimensional expansion. Paradox is the gateway between the levels of the multi-dimensional matrices of our upwardly multiplexing poly-verse.

When logically correct theory terminates in paradox, it's reason for rejoicing instead of mourning. The boundaries of the current multi-dimensional matrix have been reached. Yonder lies the way to the next higher matrix!

If you click on the link below, Toby, in less than one minute, will explain what I'm elaborating here.

Going One Dimension Higher

Why Non-Contradiction Needs to Soften

A_not-A_B ∧ B_not-B_A

Superposition expressed as symbolic logic shows us that the hard boundaries of rational, reductive materialism, wherein science is currently bogged-down, create an artificially rigid bifurcation of matter-energy. This rigid bifurcation leads to Chalmers’ Hard Problem of Consciousness. This, in turn, traces back to Descartes’ matter-consciousness dualism.

Speaking scientifically and logically, the softening of non-contradiction will solve this problem of oblivion towards some counter-intuitive attributes of QM.

Re: non-contradiction, its value needs to be regulated across a range from hard-to-soft as the situation requires. This instead of maintaining it as a fixed value absolute is what needs doing.

Descartes, being a mathematician, was committed to internal consistency and hard non-contradiction. He mocked the square roots of negative numbers. They got their name from him: imaginary numbers, an essential component of the Riemann Hypothesis, the mysterious lynchpin of number theory.

As luck would have it, Bohr, in his debate with Einstein, stepped forward as a champion of the soft non-contradiction compatible with QM.

Einstein was led directly into his erroneous judgment of QM by his commitment to hard non-contradiction.

Hard non-contradiction hardens materialist boundaries into discrete objects. This lens of interpretation has the effect of a reductive materialism. Material objects subsequently become discrete containers for energy, a superposition of a material object in motion.

High energy at the scale of elementary particles is enough to make superposition detectable and therefore measurable. At the human scale of experience, the lack of the stupendous volume of energy needed to make a macro-scale object propagate into super-position creates the appearance of hard boundaries which, in turn, ameliorate themselves to the unambiguous math of non-contradiction. This is monist, reductive materialism.

Superposition of an elementary particle clues us to the fact that non-contradiction, rather than itself being a hard boundary, instead expresses as a permeable membrane that softens materialism out of its reductivism via superposition. QM is essentially binary, as evidenced by the centrality of its Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle.

The integration of QM and Relativity will entail the strategic limitation of materialist reductivism and its artificial bi-furcation of matter-energy.

The method of effecting the integration of the two disciplines will be regulation of the principle of non-contradiction between the poles of hard-boundary, reductive materialism and the binary, soft-boundary of superposition.

Integral QM-Relativity will allow science and tech to energize wave-function fields that can then be manipulated to harden into discrete-boundary material objects of our choosing: anything from a handgun to a living organism.

This highly advanced, human-controlled simulation of cosmic sentience will motivate some to claim God not simulated but rather replaced.

This will be a false claim. Upward dimensional expansion via the integration of QM-Relativity will not position human in the role of God usurper. Instead, it will further elaborate the essential mystery of existence.

Is atheism monist?

Atheism, because of rejection of cosmic sentience and its binary relationship with human sentience as a simulation of cosmic sentience, establishes itself as a reductive monism. There is no self_not-self_God superposition contemporaneous with material self. This essentially binary self is what the cosmic sentience wants to impart to human.

Approaching yourself, a binary journey, is good; arriving at yourself, a monism, is not good. Always approach yourself; never arrive at yourself lest hubris swallow you whole.

The good extends from our binary state of being, if we embrace it.

Cosmic sentience says to human: I will give you not material water; instead, I will give you living water.