I ask if earthly religion has an upside.
— ucarr

Fair enough, A direct answer from me, is a resounding no, religion has no upside. My foundational reason for saying this is consolidated quite well, imo, by Carl Sagan's quote:
"Better the hard truth, I say, than the comforting fantasy.” Those who try to exemplify a positive effect of religion, ignores such points as made by Carl, to the peril of all of us. I am with the four horsemen, Hitchens, Dawkins, Dennett and Harris, 'all religion is pernicious!' — universeness

Are you a panpsychist ucarr? — universeness

My response will come after further development.

Modern theists have yet to conquer those ancient primal fears. Science is the antidote. Good, logical philosophising can also be an assist. — universeness

Do you include moral instruction on your list? — ucarr

Morality born of secular humanism, yes. — universeness

If a moral precept is verified logical and deemed pertinent to empirical experience, does its source matter?

The human ascent from the barbarism of the caves has many causes. Is the supernaturalism of belief in cosmic sentience not one of them? — ucarr

Please watch the short video by clicking on the link below.

Ancient Rituals

Is it your settled opinion that allegiance to cosmic sentience has had no bearing whatsoever on discrediting some of the ancient rituals?

Okay. You acknowledge that superposition is an exception to the principle of non-contradiction confined to the sub-atomic scale. — ucarr

No, there is no exception here, just in the same way that empirically demonstrated quantum entanglement or quantum tunnelling, or quantum fluctuations (with it's 'virtual' particle' and 'zero point energy' notions) are not exceptions to non-contradictive logic, as they are natural occurrences, at the sub-atomic level. Such may be, classically, non-intuitive, but we have already covered that. A human who finds the workings of QM, classically or macroscopically, non-intuitive, is not a statement/position that can be compared, with scientific rigour, to the logic law of non-contradiction. — universeness

Isn't confining superposition and its logical implications to the sub-atomic level what you're doing here? 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.

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. So, ultimately, there is no contradiction of non-contradiction across dimensional expansion into hyper-logic. At our 3D level, however, there is contradiction of non-contradiction. This is a case of a logical paradox acting as a portal from logic to hyper-logic.

Please click the link below so Toby can demonstrate what I mean.

Going One Dimension Higher

In order to avoid an overlong single post containing a major theme, I will start superposition vis-a-vis non-contradiction in a separate post.

I think you have stretched the intended meaning behind this HH quote too far, and the elastic snapped a while ago. — universeness

Okay. The quote is hyperbole, not literal statement.

The supernatural posited as natural science, that we have not confirmed exists yet, such as strings or superstrings, supersymmetry, dark matter, dark energy, the graviton etc, is over-burdening the word. — universeness

Okay. Natural science unconfirmed can be conjectured as "supernatural" although, in your opinion, it overburdens the word.

natural science wants to ascend to super-natural science as it progresses forward in its simulation of cosmic sentience. — ucarr

This is just a conflation of the goal of human science to seek truths we don't yet have...[it will] get on with the job of applying the scientific method, logically and rationally. — universeness

Okay. That human-driven teleology will continue advancing until it simulates the cosmic sentience embedded within theism is, in your opinion, a false claim.

Cosmic sentience, as mediated on earth by humanity, has a deep, horrific downside. This you are eager to trumpet. Does it also have an upside? — ucarr

There is no 'cosmic sentience,' so there is nothing to 'trumpet' and it follows that it cannot have an 'upside.' — universeness

"Sentience," modified by the phrase ( as mediated on earth by humanity), means didactic instruction by humans who sometimes overbear. This is the downside of earthly religion. I ask if earthly religion has an upside.

The human ascent from the barbarism of the caves has many causes. Is the supernaturalism of belief in cosmic sentience not one of them? — ucarr

Modern theists have yet to conquer those ancient primal fears. Science is the antidote. Good, logical philosophising can also be an assist. — universeness

Do you include moral instruction on your list?

If you query logicians about discarding non-contradiction as a foundational principle of logic, I expect you'll get pushback.
— ucarr
What ???
When did I suggest that the logic rule of non-contradiction be discarded? — universeness

So you will accept then that this:
Superposition of the wave function flies in the face of one of science's foundational principles: non-contradiction.

is not true — universeness

Okay. You acknowledge that superposition is an exception to the principle of non-contradiction confined to the sub-atomic scale. However, this exception operates in the real world as truth de jure whereas the principle of non-contradiction operates in the real world as truth de facto.

Dismantling non-contradiction means radically overhauling the general methodology of science. You're extremely optimistic if you think the standard prohibiting inconsistency within logical arguments will either be relaxed or waived anytime soon.
— ucarr

I have no idea where you are going with this. I fully accept the logic rules of identity, non-contradiction and excluded middle, so where are you going with this line of thought? — universeness

Above I'm talking about superposition as truth de facto at the scale of human experience. If QM ultimately agrees with Relativity (quantum gravity suggests belief in this agreement on the part of some), then it seems possible the logical paradigm will need an overhaul.

Who is suggesting such an 'overhaul' is required? I have suggested that the supernatural has no existent and it never has. — universeness

A quantum gravitational reality at the scale of human experience, being existentially vastly different from the establishment Newtonian lens of perception, argues plausibly as a viable candidate for the label of neo-natural.

But that's just an argument from classical intuition.
— universeness
I’m unsure of the meaning of classical intuition. Please clarify.
— ucarr
I combined the two words to express that what seems intuitive to us today is different from what seemed intuitive to folks during the days of Newton and through the lens of classical physics (which is mainly at a macroscale). So, I can understand that 'superposition' would seem ridiculous to those alive during the days of Newton but superposition is now demonstrable, but god and the supernatural is still, not, and unlike the majority of current scientific projections, zero progress has been made in proving any god or supernatural posit. — universeness

If we numericalize strangeness as a range of inferential logics derived from experimentally verified facts, and if we plot a standard deviation for these inferential logics, we have set a parameter for allowable degree of strangeness.

Next, we reference our verbal equation: Not only is the universe stranger than we imagine, it's stranger than we can imagine. This equation sets no volumetric limit on the degree of strangeness allowable for our standard deviation. This is because it places degree of strangeness beyond human consciousness as instantiated by imagination. Strangeness, vis-a-vis humanity, is unlimited, i.e., infinite.

Our standard deviation, then, must employ an equation that approaches a limit.

No, my purpose in fully accepting the HH quote was in no way, an acceptance that the supernatural was not, imo, total woo woo, it was more an acceptance that the 'label' supernatural is way, way over-burdened. — universeness

In the above quote you tip-toe to the threshold of acceptance of the supernatural because your denial is followed by a stipulation that mitigates the denial down to almost nothing. If the supernatural is overburdened, as you say, then, in saying so, you acknowledge its existence and your acceptance of same.

Note: In our context here, supernatural simply means higher-order logical conceptualization of an empirically real category that encompasses nature. In effect, then, super-natural is just another (albeit more inclusive) category of natural.

This tells us science cannot embrace strangeness beyond imagination and at the same time cherry-pick what qualifies as allowable examples of strangeness-beyond-imagination.

The unrestricted range of strangeness reverse-engineers to experimentally verified facts. Now science, by its own embrace of super-natural science (through universeness), exponentially expands what science can look for when seeking experimental verification. This, in turn, means radically expanding the range of theoretical speculation that will guide experimentation. As imagination informs experimental design and intent, the range of experimental verification hinges upon said imagination. For this reason, speaking logically, natural science wants to ascend to super-natural science as it progresses forward in its simulation of cosmic sentience.

Many people have been killed due to the religion they held... [The twelve Christian Disciples] are no more important than any of the millions who have died in the name of religion. — universeness

I argue that your above claim is a sweeping generalization... Einstein, Bohr and Haldane are no more important than the multitudes of seekers who have made explorations in the name of science.[?] — ucarr

The main difference is that the scientists you mentioned, existed. Jesus and its band of chosen, probably did not, and were satirical parodies, and even if they did exist, they were of no more value, than the characters described in any other of the thousands of historical religious stories, — universeness

In our culture of memes turbo-charged by the internet, it's easy for most of us to understand and accept that knowledge utilized to good effect by the many is correctly ascribed to it's authors by the few.

Cosmic sentience, as mediated on earth by humanity, has a deep, horrific downside. This you are eager to trumpet. Does it also have an upside? I will speculate that if I could time travel to an era preceding monotheism, I'd be appalled by the state of human relationships. The human ascent from the barbarism of the caves has many causes. Is the supernaturalism of belief in cosmic sentience not one of them?

Superposition does not contradict reality!
— universeness
It doesn’t. My focus, however, isn’t on the simple issue of the truth or falsity of a claim. It’s on the lens of interpretation through which a critic views a narrative; my argument is centered in the issue of context.
— ucarr

So you will accept then that this:
Superposition of the wave function flies in the face of one of science's foundational principles: non-contradiction.
— ucarr
is not true. — universeness

QM theoreticians talk about the ease and frequency of the collapse of the wave function. Likewise, there's talk about the normalizing effect of observation canceling superposition at the human scale of experience.

I think the issues entailed above are a prompt for not being too quick about affirming the affirmed. So far, the establishmentarians of science have existential contradiction confined to the minute realms of elementary particles.

If you query logicians about discarding non-contradiction as a foundational principle of logic, I expect you'll get pushback. Dismantling non-contradiction means radically overhauling the general methodology of science. You're extremely optimistic if you think the standard prohibiting inconsistency within logical arguments will either be relaxed or waived anytime soon.

I think there's a vast field of work to be done by philosophers either in effecting or rejecting such an overhaul.

Terrance Deacon's "Incomplete Nature," makes a pretty good argument that entropy, constraints, and what states of a system are excluded or statistically less likely, does indeed play a causal role in nature. — Count Timothy von Icarus

The book citation is much appreciated. Thank-you.

:up:

But that's just an argument from classical intuition. — universeness

I’m unsure of the meaning of classical intuition. Please clarify.

Superposition does not contradict reality! — universeness

It doesn’t. My focus, however, isn’t on the simple issue of the truth or falsity of a claim. It’s on the lens of interpretation through which a critic views a narrative; my argument is centered in the issue of context. Context, within my context here, consists of the lens (and its attributes (such as filters)) of interpretation that shapes what the critic sees. Two prominent lenses of interpretation are the culture in which the critic is raised and the database of knowledge (herein scientific) which the critic uses as a model for judging the realism and truth of the thing judged.

An additional complication shaping judgment is new thinking radical in nature. This challenge to correct interpretation highlights how much harder it is looking forward judging reality than looking backwards judging reality.

Even with the brilliance of his scientific mind, Einstein was obstinately uncooperative in his attitude toward QM. He publicly acknowledged it as being correct, but incomplete. This was not a small bone to pick because he believed, until his death, that probability being essential to QM was incorrect. He thought his Unified Field Theory would ultimately vacate quantum uncertainty as an essential and permanent feature of our universe He has a famous quote: God doesn’t play dice with the universe.

Also, he disdained QM entanglement as spooky action at a distance.

I believe an important (but partial) explanation for the violence meted out to the disciples is the general public’s fear of loss of essential powers under a Christian social schematic. Now, two thousand years later, evolving, human-based science has defused many of the apparent threats posed by a monolithic God.

The long lag time between scripture as threatening imposition and scripture as fallacy tamed by reason should give pause to critics who disdain it as comically stupid.

The science of psychology can probably make a strong case for construing the divine inspiration of scripture as deep intuition, the precursor of closely reasoned science.

I am sure that you agree that allowing such pure speculation regarding the supernatural to influence peoples daily lives in the many pernicious ways organised religion uses it to do exactly that, to use religion or scripture as a dictated moral code, based on divine commandments, to allow political policy to be influenced by scripture, in any way whatsoever, is absolutely unacceptable. — universeness

This argument seeks to subtly conflate theoretical error with errors in application. It parallels the argument orbiting around nuclear power: in theory, nuclear power is morally neutral; in practice, however, depending on the agent, it can be used either for good or evil. If divine instruction is read as super-ordinate logic that shapes practice, then bad actors willfully perverting said instruction for personal gain, as, for example, the Pharisees, exemplifies errors in application. Condemning religion on the basis of condemning corrupt preachers is a case of conflating (sometimes willfully) theoretical error with errors in application.

allowing such pure speculation regarding the supernatural to influence peoples daily lives... moral code... political policy... LGBTQ+ rights — universeness

The Heisenberg_Haldane quote: Not only is the universe stranger than we imagine, it's stranger than we can imagine.
— ucarr
Despite what I stated above, I accept that this quote is a very good and likely very correct comment about the nature and structure of the universe. — universeness

Your two above positions, as you acknowledge, stand in conflict with each other. This surprises me because the Heisenberg_Haldane quote, in my interpretation, exemplifies super-ordinate logic transitioning into embrace of the supernatural. I claim this because the statement, by making an unrestricted claim about the strangeness of the universe, authorizes the universe as a broadly inclusive system that allows supernature as one of its components.

Following from this, I can apply my above claim that the lens of interpretation sometimes exerts radical influence upon judgment. You are willing to embrace supernature when a claim (probably not intentional but definitely textual) for it is made by the likes of Heisenberg and Haldane, members of the scientific culture you embrace.

Many people have been killed due to the religion they held, represented or preached since we came out of the wilds. These 12 men are no more important than any of the millions who have died in the name of religion. — universeness

I argue that your above claim is a sweeping generalization of very low veracity WRT to certain individuals lumped together within your broadly inclusive set of millions.

My argument proceeds from the following parallel: Einstein, Bohr and Haldane are no more important than the multitudes of seekers who have made explorations in the name of science.

Sometimes certain names become distinguished across the millennia because they are rightfully distinguished from their colleagues.

So you may well be talking about the murders of 12 disciples of a historical Jesus, who never in fact existed, and I personally agree with all the academics listed (but not Bart Ehrman, who still thinks Jesus probably did exist) who don't think the historical Jesus existed either. — universeness

The impact of the issue of the historicity of biography is mitigated by the veracity and pertinence of historical ideas in abstraction. If, for example, it suddenly comes to light no actual person named Galileo Galilei did foundational work in astronomy and physics in sixteenth and seventeenth century Florence, must we then conclude the science ascribed to the name is invalid and useless?

I think we can infer that valid, useful ideas come from historically real persons (or combinations thereof) even if we don’t have correct information about the true identities of those persons.

You reject the observation Peterson stops Maher's initial lampoon of scripture? After his opening volley, Maher's critical near-silence is literal. How can it be denied?
— ucarr

I am quite willing to accept your words above, in the context you use them, but I don't think it's as significant as you do. Peterson simply redirected the exchange and focussed on a different angle, which Maher was willing to accept, due to Petersons credentials as an academic, credentials which Maher stated he respected. — universeness

I understand you as concluding Peterson raises the status of the tale of Jonah and the Fish from literal nonsense to instructive folklore. The elevation should not, however, be misconstrued as having established a special status for theism's claims. The tale is an undistinguished member of the broadly inclusive set of instructive folktales, many of them not theistic. I agree this is a correct understanding of what happened.

But we have alternatives to allegorical scriptural narratives, in that we can find 'actionable ways forward,' based on ' human dilemma style,' scenario's projected from the wide range of historical non-religious folklore. — universeness

Yes. Non-theistic narratives have proven useful in showing humans the way forward through myriad difficulties.

Can you give me an example, where a QM claim viewed 'through the lens of Newton,' makes a 'comically stupid' claim? — universeness

Superposition of the wave function flies in the face of one of science's foundational principles: non-contradiction. One identity being in two places at once plays as laughable absurdity through the lens of Newtonian Physics. Because the legitimacy of Newtonian Physics for centuries opaqued the possibility of superposition, we now celebrate the pioneers of QM.

I align theism with the tradition of functional absurdity. The Heisenberg_Haldane quote: Not only is the universe stranger than we imagine, it's stranger than we can imagine. exemplifies a convergence of science and theism. Of course the claim of supernature is absurd given the infinite gap between same and nature. For this reason, scripture as literature is sometimes instructive but oftentimes absurd. I can't make a rational case for supernature. I can make a rationalistic approach to supernature, but there will be no arrival. Given the rational bent of human mind, it’s natural to reject supernature and, well, supernatural to embrace it.

In what way is it useful to defend bad practice within one methodology, by citing bad practice within an opposing methodology? — universeness

The lens of interpretation tells us that when the same text switches between absurd/instuctive, depending through which lens it's viewed, we have, in the case of the wrong lens, bad perspective, not bad practice.

..you have yet to acknowledge that this is true of all folklore, with or without theistic references, and you have also yet to acknowledge that this removes any 'special pleading,' that the biblical fables have a higher significance, and deserve more attention and consideration than the massive database of non-theistic folklore. — universeness

I acknowledge the wisdom of secular folklore.

I understand your point is that religious folklore has no special status vis-a-vis secular folklore. I think in this case you will find my disagreement agreeable. I claim religious narratives have special status among the corpus of narratives on the basis of their absurd claims. They are especially absurd because, unlike secular narratives that make absurd claims refutable by exercise of reason, religious narratives make absurd claims refutable by exercise of reason and then dig in in defiance of that reason. On this basis, Maher and other wits mine their comedic gold. What could be more laughable than absurd claims debunked yet persistent in their confidence?

Eleven of the twelve disciples were brutally murdered. General humanity enjoys a good laugh at fools persistent in their foolishness. So why were eleven disciples murdered? The obvious answer: when belief in the absurdity of religion is evolving and spreading, natural human reacts against it. When reason overbears absurdity, the laughter returns, the threat of stupid supernature having been put down.

My takeaway is your acknowledgement that scripture, when perceived as allegorical literature, in some instances forestalls attacks upon it as a compendium of preposterous claims.
— ucarr
Yes, I agree, but as I stated previously, you have yet to acknowledge that this is true of all folklore, with or without theistic references, and you have also yet to acknowledge that this removes any 'special pleading,' that the biblical fables have a higher significance, and deserve more attention and consideration than the massive database of non-theistic folklore. — universeness

My embrace of absurdity is your reassurance in reason.

Human with ears to hear absurdity will hear it, no special pleading required.

...I appreciate your interpretation and think that it's one that the theist side would more readily accept than my own interpretation. — universeness

You reject the observation Peterson stops Maher's initial lampoon of scripture? After his opening volley, Maher's critical near-silence is literal. How can it be denied?

If you take the stories in the OT as literal truths, then they are comically stupid and the god described is a monster, so I think Maher's original comments regarding the bible are correct and Peterson does not counter Maher's points. — universeness

What do you have to say about the critical role of the lens of interpretation WRT the following parallel:

Through the lens of science, scriptural narratives, in some instances, make comically stupid claims whereas, through the lens of allegory, scriptural narratives, in some instances, convey actionable ways forward.

Through the lens of Newton, QM narratives, in some instances, make comically stupid claims whereas, through the lens of Bohr, QM narratives, in some instances, convey actionable ways forward (as in the case of logical coding for computers).

In any atheist/theist debate analysis I have ever watched on youtube, each side always says their side trounced the other side. — universeness

Neither I nor Jones make any claims about atheism being trounced in the Maher podcast.

My takeaway is your acknowledgement that scripture, when perceived as allegorical literature, in some instances forestalls attacks upon it as a compendium of preposterous claims.

I assume it's the person who is commenting on the exchange between Peterson and Maher (Nick Jones) that is doing the strawmaning, and the mischaracterisation, you indicated, if so, then I completely agree with you, that that is exactly what he is doing, especially with comments like 'or else you will end up like Bill Maher!' — universeness

In the conversation I hear Maher say: a) the bible contains some comically stupid things; b) God is capricious, cruel, petty; c) God is Trumpian.

I understand podcaster Nick Jones to imply that after his initial comments, Maher changes course and goes into listening mode as Peterson does an exegesis of Jonah and the fish . Jones also implies that Peterson successfully conveys to Maher an interpretation of the story along the lines of your quote:

he is correct about the power of storytelling, to the human psyche and how fables such as Jonah and the 'big fish,' are allegorical by design and can be used in many ways, to support theistic claims or general claims about the human psyche. — universeness

When the end of the conversation is reached, I note that Maher never resumed his prosecution of his initial talking points concerning some of the failings of scripture.

I understand that Jones, in saying "or else you will end up like Bill Maher," implies the derisive theme of Maher's opening comments gets shut down completely. This does not mean that Maher's talking points get refuted. Maher being shunted into respectful listening mode by the intellectual heft of Peterson's exegesis is significant given the brilliance of Maher's wit and the formidable force of his assertive atheism.

You say (in your own words) Jones presents Maher as one who advances arguments simple-minded and fallacious. You then argue this is a straw man mischaracterization of Maher by Jones. I disagree. I Think Jones only implies Maher's initial thrust into the conversation as an amusing critic gets immediately stalled and then silenced by Peterson's exegesis. I believe this correctly describes what happens.

The original podcast, after reposting to YouTube, claims Maher gets destroyed by Peterson. This is clickbait exaggeration, as noted by Jones.

I think it more correct to claim Peterson doesn't get destroyed by Maher.

I will send you a brief PM after I watch "Why Are We Here?"

Hello universeness,

Thank-you for your time and attention. I appreciate your careful deliberation, especially considering your opinion my theses are fundamentally wrong. Moreover, I'm indebted to you for your instruction on current thinking in several of the sciences. My scholarship, as you are well aware, is critically limited, with big gaps in my database.

I now think, for me, there is a proper protocol for entering, conducting and exiting a debate:

• The specific topic and objective of the debate can be agreed upon in advance; e.g. the bible is just a book of stories aimed at teaching readers important life lessons; whether or not Jesus is the incarnation of God the holy spirit is out of bounds for discussion in this debate

• Each claim made by a debater must be supported by a logical argument and/or by factual reportage

• If the debaters get trapped in a back-and-forth that is merely repetition on both sides, a deadlock should be declared with the conclusion that the sides agree to disagree

• Debaters must keep watch for exhaustion of new and pertinent arguments; when this point is reached, both sides must immediately proceed to their closing arguments

• Each debater has the right to call out the other debater for committing what both have agreed to recognize as a violation of proper debate procedure; an example is basing a claim upon a purported fact proven to be false; another example is: no personal attacks posing as counter-arguments

• Closing arguments should be a comprehensive overview of each debater's main theme plus principle attacks upon the opposition stated concisely

• Closing arguments should not include any new attacks which the opposition hasn't had the opportunity to respond to;

Below is a conversation (it's not really a debate) between Bill Maher and Jordan Peterson. (It's a video-within-a-video as moderated by Nick Jones, a christian podcaster.) IMO, it's a good example of a cautionary tale: don't be eager to pounce upon the opposition on the basis of a strawman characterization of that opposition. I ask you to watch the video because I think your argument below exemplifies basing an attack upon a strawman mischaracterization of the opposition.

The atheist, upon self-reflection, denies God by becoming God. — ucarr

It's probably more accurate to state that humans created gods due to primal fear but they don't exist.

God is a very simple notion based on natural human projection. Just like 'superman' is a projection that also does not exist. God and superman are projections of scared, very vulnerable hominids, nothing more. — universeness

There isn't a "range of possible microstates," in reality, there is just the one microstate that currently exists. — Count Timothy von Icarus

Does this not contradict Heisenberg Uncertainty and it's approach to measuring the quantum cloud of possible locations of elementary particles?

Entropy only makes sense relationally, or in the context of indeterminacy at some level of reality. — Count Timothy von Icarus

Matter and a material universe being ordered I take as foundational. Even quarks and gluons are systems ⇒ configurations of dimensional expansions.

Loss of systemization due to heat is an example of nature hedging her bets on paired-values of vectors, as with Heisenberg and the elementary particles. — ucarr

Range-limited decoherence by thermodynamics plus QM entanglement don't preserve the essential order of matter while also permitting indeterminacy to act as a stay upon rigid determinism?

The best kind of heat dissipation of the order of a system is quantum-mechanical: the whole is greater than the sum of its parts. This is the cosmic design for systemic evolution towards higher-order systems. It is supported by Metaphysician Undercover’s quantum-mechanical theory of time that posits quantum entanglement of past-present-future. — ucarr

Quantum gravity doesn't put to rout determinism?

You're the one proposing no possibilities. My conjecture spins off your conjecture. The setup is: If your conjecture is correct then: [write variable here]. Outside of your conjecture, I'm not claiming anything about possibilities.

Okay :) What if there are no possibilities? — chiknsld

If your nihilism is an expansion from the presence of the empty set within every set, then I, being on fair terms with existentialism, am good with the illusion of cold drinks under hot suns at cerulean beaches.

Layered space or your term 'multi-tiered' space... for me, suggests notions such as 'sub-spacial dimensions' or/and 'hyper-spatial dimensions.' 'Sub' meaning 'below or under' and hyper meaning 'over or above.' Both these notions belong exclusively to the sci-fi genre at the moment. — universeness

sub·space | ˈsəbspās |
noun
1 Mathematics a space that is wholly contained in another space, or whose points or elements are all in another space.

In mathematics

A space inheriting all characteristics of a parent space
A subset of a topological space endowed with the subspace topology
Linear subspace, in linear algebra, a subset of a vector space that is closed under addition and scalar multiplication
Flat (geometry), a Euclidean subspace
Affine subspace, a geometric structure that generalizes the affine properties of a flat
Projective subspace, a geometric structure that generalizes a linear subspace of a vector space
Multilinear subspace in multilinear algebra, a subset of a tensor space that is closed under addition and scalar multiplication

Layered space or your term 'multi-tiered' space, (a poor term, imo, as 'tiered' already indicates more than one layer so your use of 'multi' is superfluous) — universeness

In a multi-tiered hierarchy of modules, nothing prevents each module from also being multi-tiered. My configuration hierarchy is super-ordinate, not super-fluous.

If Hawking radiation conserves energy within a closed cycle of the material universe, then sentient-based purpose is also conserved
— ucarr

My prime mover god/mind with intent is the conserved energy of the closed system you endorse.
— ucarr

No, you are again guilty of equivocation fallacy! — universeness

My above claims might be wrong, but not on the basis of shifting my ground under heat of examination.

A mind is a highly complex combinatorial system. You are trying to equate that with a fundamental quanta of energy (whatever that might be, perhaps a photon.) Can a single photon (quantum field excitation) be the omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, omnibenevolent :lol:, mind of a god? It's like trying to equate gold with a single proton or single electron! (Gold atoms have 79 electrons and 79 protons with 118 neutrons in the most abundant isotope.) — universeness

Firstly, re: the insignificance of an elementary particle: add one proton to the nucleus of an atom and it becomes an isotope of the element, with separate chemical properties.

Secondly, if there's no integral continuity of identity from atom to cosmos, then the material universe never becomes organized, the teleology argument notwithstanding.

Thirdly, re: black hole absorption of energy: consumption of an entire star is not an example of one quantum of energy being lost.

It seems to me that your notion here is more akin to Mtheory. Whereby, a universe is created every time two 2D or perhaps 5D branes, 'interact,' and cause a big bang to occur at the point they 'meet.'
This means each universe can be 'born/sparked' whilst other universes already exist. This would mean individual universes, could experience heat death, within individual linear time frames, rather than all universes in a multi-verse, 'cycling,' within a synchronous time frame. Maybe your an Mtheory advocate ucarr! — universeness

Thanks for the info. So far, I have no objections.

I think the 'absence of any evidence of intent' in the current science based origin story of the universe, is the main support for random happenstance being the truth of the origin story. — universeness

The singularity of the big bang theory suggests to me compression so extreme a compacted dimensional configuration (you call it a universe) becomes isolated from everything, even itself. This is a wacky and provisional state of being that highlights the inadequacy of a simple linear design_configuration for an origin-ontology thesis. In this temporary state of being, nothing exists because existence is so isolated (due to infinite compression) it cannot be reached, not even by itself. Since I read paradox as a signpost for a higher-order dimensional configuration protruding downward into its lower-dimensional neighbor, the singularity has failed to liberate itself from infinite regress.

A super-compacted universe, as it unfolds, may very well display just what cosmologists are telling us. This works well within a big crunch/big bang oscillation concept of a multi-tiered dimensional system. It does nothing to solve the perplexity of origin ontology.

The through line of evolution from material objects to their emergent property: consciousness_selfhood
— ucarr

This is merely your speculative opinion. Divine hiddenness is stronger evidence imo, that a god with intent/prime mover/first cause creator, has no and never has had any exemplar existence. — universeness

Can you cite a recorded instance of accidental, unsystematic, no-purpose abiogenesis? I doubt it. Were such a phenomenon available as evidence, science would've commenced trumpeting its existence immediately.

Whilst awaiting your evidence, I will proceed to claim that accidental abiogenesis is no less hidden than cosmic-sentience designed abiogenesis.

Even if this was proved, irrefutably true, such a finding would not provide any evidence of an underlying intent or teleology. — universeness

Here we have an interesting possibility that supports both sides of the debate: emergent sentience is reflexive. Sentient humans, through reflexive consciousness, reflect upon themselves as God. The difference is that atheism is a monism whereas theism is a binary.

The atheist, upon self-reflection, denies God by becoming God. The theist, upon self-reflection, embraces God by propagating God-consciousness, an externalization of human-made-in-the-image-of-God. God-consciousness is the coupling device that functions as the interface between the corporeal human and the incorporeal God. I think this is the Holy Ghost. It’s nature’s pre-technological telecommunications system. (Technology-based telecommunication, then, is the latter day human simulation of God’s natural world as well as of God. To elaborate further, God, operating at the level of a four-space dimensional configuration, sees everything at once. Humanity, chasing this ability, comes up with television.)

So, do you perceive our 3D universe, as three universes? — universeness

I don't believe the dimensions, spatial or otherwise, can be separated. There's no-such thing as a one-space universe. Isolated linearity is only a mental object.

what do you mean by your use of 'hierarchy?' — universeness

All of the dimensions are always connected. The big "however" is that cognition, because it evolves, must gain awareness of ascending dimensions of ascending expressiveness by accretion. Under this scheme, cosmic God is understood with progressive elaboration by accretion.

Nothing in string theory suggests these extra dimensions are layered or tiered. — universeness

The principal forces will change as you reduce experimental distances and the transition occurs at distances the size of the curled dimensions. — universeness

If the principal forces change in steps, then the dimensional configurations they support will also change in steps.

If you're working at distances that are much bigger than the curled up dimensions then the law looks like 1/r2 — universeness

— universeness

And when you're working at distances that are much smaller than the curled up dimensions the law looks like 1/r8 — universeness

Empty comment due to posting error.

At times imo, you tend to jump from firm ground straight into unsure, unstable ground and perhaps even quicksand. BUT, maybe we all do that at times. Rigorous science cannot afford to. — universeness

This is an important truth about my modus operandi. Leaps of faith at one pole and closely-reasoned inference at the other pole span a continuum of methodology that entails grave hazards at both poles. Those who confine their theater of activity within the middle section see minor action; those who operate at one or the other pole see major action; it's like gamblers in games of chance for money: high stakes at the polarities offer big prizes; low stakes in the middle offer small (but estimable) gains.

Here I go now with another semi-reckless claim:

The universe is a closed system, which is why energy is conserved. — universeness

This is bunk. Energy is conserved because there are no closed universes. Let's dispense with this universe business. Universe is the limit of system. In other words, universe is a concept that cannot be measured practically.

Material reality expresses itself in combinations of dimensions; dimensions are some (time)-type of base-material-cognitive-continuity; (this makes clear the essential nature of time).

I don't believe any combination of dimensions is closed. Thermodynamics militates against this as a closed system violates conservation of matter-energy.

Conservation of matter-energy (plus QM) means no volume of same is ever completely unavailable to all other dimensional configurations. A closed universe is like a non-evaporating black hole writ large. It’s not conservation.

If a closed universe were extant, sentience outside its boundaries could not know of its existence; so sentience cannot talk of a closed universe because detection of its existence means it’s not closed.

Moreover, I suspect no closed universe could bear sentience because it is, by definition, fully incompressible. Sentience being fully incompressible means it can neither be closed nor enclosed.

Sentience in isolation is like a genome in isolation; in both instances, the entrapped entity self-destructs.

Conservation of matter-energy supports the super-naturalism of theism along the axis of open access between all dimensional configurations. Obviating cosmic sentience at the price of trapping yourselves within a closed, material universe (which you believe will eventually run down like a dead battery) is, in my opinion, cosmic pessimism.

Where's your equation describing, through an internally consistent narrative, a set of existential possibilities that paradoxically contains some existential possibilities that are not existentially possible?

The through line of evolution from material objects to their emergent property: consciousness_selfhood — ucarr

Our empirical experience on earth makes: consciousness-selfhood-emergent-from-matter not a speculation but an observation.

Heat “death” of a systemic order of the universe towards evolution within a multi-tiered elaboration of ordered multi-verses is not only possible but foundational. — ucarr

I'm trying to suggest an ascending hierarchy of environments of inter-locked spatial dimensions. I'm calling each step of the hierarchy a universe. In my context, universe means spatially extended material expression.

There is zero evidence for a layered universe, — universeness

String theory speculates that more than three spatial dimensions exist.

But why to you reject the beginning of such a cycle as a mindless spark, with zero intent that no longer exists? — universeness

I'm not rejecting a repeating cycle; the rise and fall of civilizations is a limited version of what we're talking about. I'm not even rejecting "mindless spark" at the startup end of the cycle. You preclude conscious cosmic purpose. I include it because I have a premise that "universe is the limit of system." A concomitant of this premise is continuity of over-arching design across the complete cycle as predicated upon the quantum entanglement ofpast-present-future temporal spectrum.

when all the galaxy, star and planetary systems have disassembled and energy is dissipated... conditions for a new 'big bang singularity' are reached. — universeness

If Hawking radiation conserves energy within a closed cycle of the material universe, then sentient-based purpose is also conserved. It's an instantiation of "universe is the limit of system." Restart of the cycle includes all of the energy-sentience-purpose of the prior cycle, albeit in varied forms across the timeline of the new cycle.

I do find [Penrose]... far more credible than your prime mover god/mind with intent. — universeness

My prime mover god/mind with intent is the conserved energy of the closed system you endorse.

Heat, then, is integral to the animation essential to a material universe. Since this is a profound topic, further elaboration herein would be a digression; I’ll stop here for now.
— ucarr
Heat is just 'energetic motion,' but that is not evidence for a god with intent. I don't perceive of any profundity here, just basic physics. — universeness

Heat within my context here is a marker for the QM entanglement of the temporal spectrum (see above) such that a decoherencing system is also an evolving system non-locally. My skepticism about entropy proceeds from the premise that oscillation downwards toward system-neutral is bounded within a domain prohibiting absolute, all-multiverse heat death. Under my conception, heat death is really a local return to system-neutral.

Intelligence is a human subjective measure, it is not a natural law of physics. — universeness

If you're claiming intelligence, which I think you regard as objectively real, is mandated solely by human will, not merely in independence from the evolving material universe, but in defiance of it, then you, more than I, are imbuing humanity with cosmic-God conscious purpose. I, on the other hand, claim that the evolving timeline of cosmic physics is permeated throughout with purpose, human consciousness being one instantiation of it.

It turns out that order, like matter-energy (as claimed by Leonard Susskind) gets conserved. No information is lost to black hole absorption and subsequent evaporation.
— ucarr

Quote where Susskind states this! that he believes 'order' is always conserved in the universe? — universeness

My syntax in the quoted sentence is faulty; I meant to say matter-energy, per Susskind, is never permanently lost from the universe. Now, however, you having directed my attention to the question whether information-order can be permanently lost, I'll claim that permanent loss of a material object entails permanent loss of information-order.

The link below will take you to the book.

The Black Hole War

Much of your OP reads to me like prose with various sprinkled attempts at poetic and sometimes even dramatic phraseology. — universeness

This is true.

Your 'Clarifying example,' although entertaining, was more a sci-fi offering rather than a sci-fact one. — universeness

Could you track its logic?

So, I think that based on the points/evidence you present in your OP, I will stick with the current, personal, very high credence level, that I assign to the scientific proposal that entropy exists. — universeness

The gist of the argument is not a denial of the phenomenon of systems evolution towards thermodynamic equilibrium; it's a claim that within the domain of a material universe, thermodynamic equilibrium is the low end of order and that randomness is a concept that cannot be a measure.

It claims that the measure of a system's thermal energy, albeit useful in the manner claimed, does not imply the ultimate heat-death of the material universe.

Your above overview expresses much that I find agreeable and, moreover, it tracks closely (in my opinion) with my simulation_convergence thesis: human and its unruly gods are a case of: as it is below, so it is above. Just now, in our time, human is arguably adolescent vis-a-vis God. This is a time, therefore, when human goes away from God in search of independence and self-determination. Snarling denunciations of God's overbearingness are to be expected.

There have been a good number of 'entropy' threads already on TPF. A quick TPF search might be a good move before you post your 'Does entropy exist?' thread. — universeness

I confess. I'm not going to immediately act on this good advice, embarrassment be damned.

I'm of an age that has me watching the clock. Time hurtles forward and I'm letting fly with my new entropy OP.

Exactly what in these 4 sentences, provides evidence for a god with intent?
I see no significant or compelling evidence at all.
What role does entropy, at the scale of the universe, play in your notion of a universal scale of intent and teleology. — universeness

Entropy is the enemy of inspiration.

Yes. We can beat back the slow dirge of our death-march to the grave; we can blunt the certain falling apart of our flesh and bones; we can put to rout the grim reaper as falls the scythe.

The decline of system into increasing disorder, viewed times too many, fuels the sullen hearts of cynicism, despair and resignation. The multitudes, biting the bullet, refer to this as growing up and getting a real job. In other words, when inspiration dims and decline into death looms, with the final black curtain flapping its cackling, irreverent tongue, entropy, that over-arching demon of the material universe, shoots its arms of victory straight into the air.

Back on point.

I struggle to rejigger my quartet; you know all of the words; here’s some different words.

We are life.
Nothing ever gets destroyed permanently, so be of good cheer.
Long shots, given the long lifespan of our universe, refuse to be impossible
We are life then, now and forever

I’ve been preparing a new conversation.

My title asks: Does Entropy Exist?

I will post it tomorrow. I hope you’ll read it and weigh in.

Evidentially, metabolic self-replication does not entail metacognition, or life –/–> intelligent life (i.e. "intention & purpose"). — 180 Proof

You have edited your claim so that it now includes reference to asexual reproduction by unicellular organisms. This claim, while it bolsters the supposition simple life forms are not intentional, fails to counter-claim my claim and you know it.

Why have you edited your original claim? You have done so because, after reading my sequence of seven examples of evolution itself evolving into sentient evolution, you feel the need to better protect the presumption evolution is non-intentional_non-teleological. You feel this need because you understand evolution evolving into sentient evolution makes sense.

Here's the proof you understand sentient evolution makes sense:

4) Sentient controlled environment selects for mutations that improve adaptation to environment
This might be breeding but it is not natural selection. — 180 Proof

As your understanding of my thesis sharpens its focus, you again feel the need to defend non-intentional non-teleological evolution by pointing out it's not natural selection. Not, it's not. It's higher-order evolution i.e., sentient evolution. Breeding for genetic adaptation to environment is followed by genetic engineering and bio-tech. There can be no doubt this is evolution brimming over with intentions and teleology.

Now, as you are seeing, my central mission: In this conversation, I want to examine whether or not positing evolution in place of a creator amounts, in the end, to the same thing as positing a creator in place of evolution. speaks to the understanding that there is a chain of logic leading from simple life forms to sentient control of evolution as genetic engineering_bio-tech and beyond. This, as I've been claiming, is an evolving simulation of pre-historic, natural God by sentient-controlled evolution.

1) Intelligence is motion organized;
— ucarr
Clouds, waterfalls & digestion, for examples, are not "intelligent". — 180 Proof

You strategically ignore the participle: organized.* This you do because, understanding the thrust of my seven examples, you know your counter-argument is limited to the period of evolution where life forms
are sufficiently simple for easy accommodation of your defense of non-intentional_non-teleological evolution.
*Organized equals sentient-controlled.

Your cursory, simplistic, would-be counter-examples have you pretending not to understand what you do understand.

Do clouds, waterfalls and digestion display organized motion? Trackable motion and organized motion are two different things as, the tracking of trackable motion imparts order to it.

Motion organized within sentients is adaptation;
Primate digestion does not adapt and yet viruses do adapt. — 180 Proof

Primate digestion does adapt. The radical mutation of primates, in contrast to that of viruses, proceeds much more slowly, so it's easy to pretend slow mutation is no mutation.

Adaptation is sentient control of environment;
Again, viruses adapt. — 180 Proof

Viruses adapt by high-jacking some of the reproductive apparatus of higher life forms. This is a case where higher life forms' control of environment, because it powers viral adaptation, produces a negative effect.

In order to continue your protection of non-intentional_non-teleological evolution, you have to demolish my quartet:

The logical_factual grounds for my claim are simple:

The earth tells us life in our universe is possible.
That matter and energy are neither created nor destroyed tells us our universe is eternal.
Combination: within the environment of time never ending, all possibilities will be realized
Life, a realized possibility on earth, has always been an inevitability

IMO, your un/mis-informed "4 precepts" are incoherent or false (as I've pointed out) — 180 Proof

incoherent - a disjunction between a conclusion and its antecedent premise

false - a conclusion that connects to its antecedent premise by means of a violation of the rules of inference

Clouds, waterfalls & digestion, for examples, are not "intelligent". — 180 Proof

Primate digestion does not adapt and yet viruses do adapt. — 180 Proof

Do you deny that ratiocination is motion organized?

I repeat this question because your above quotes don't cite an example of ratiocination-as-motion without organization.

how do you define the word "continuity" or "continuous"? — ItIsWhatItIs

How to define "continuity" is what I'm attempting to examine. If something is continuous, such as the lifespan of an individual human, how to we correctly understand the changes that reshape the identity of this human over time? Specifically, how do we correctly assess the consequences of the individual's behavior? Typically, we say our actions have consequences. For this reason, we're concerned about doing the right thing so as to avoid negative consequences. Actions with consequences is the foundation for viewing and judging the moral success or failure of an individual's life. I think the implication of moral judgment is that choices and behavior are causal; they have effects.

Is it wrong to think of the lifespan of an individual as a continuity through time if continuity precludes causal relationships between choices, behavior and consequences?

A line through space is continuous in the common sense of the word and exists without causality. But I can interpret the line as a contour "caused by" a function f(t). — jgill

You are claiming a line through space is and isn't the effect of a cause?

A thing may be the former without being the latter. — ItIsWhatItIs

One thing may precede another thing without the preceding thing being the cause of the succeeding thing.

Is my above interpretation of your quote correct?
— ucarr

My quote that you're referencing there, when I say that "a thing may be the former without being the latter," isn't about precession & succession. So, it's a "no" to the interpretation... — ItIsWhatItIs

I claim a correct interpretation of a claim isn't limited to covering the meaning intentionally expressed by the writer of the claim; it can also cover the syntactical meaning of the claim, even if it's not an expression of the writer's intention.

What do you say in reaction to this?

Can you cite an example of causality without continuity? — ucarr

As to an example: firstly, my assertion was that continuity isn't causality, i.e., not conversely, & so I can't be asked to cite an example of there being causality without continuity, because I've never claimed that. — ItIsWhatItIs

Are you claiming my question is illegal because it asks you to respond to a claim you haven't made?

Secondly, I've already provided an example of that assertion in my post before last, — ItIsWhatItIs

An "effect" can't be separated from its "cause." — ItIsWhatItIs

Assuming the above is the quote, is this a correct interpretation: causal relationships imply continuity?

My conclusion: The reverse-ordered statement: "Continuity implies causality" is incorrect.

Nonsense. :roll: — 180 Proof

This is your characterization of my statement considered as a whole.

You say nothing about the relationship between the four precepts and the seven examples meant to instantiate them. What do you think about the evidential value of these conjectural examples?

1) Intelligence is motion organized;
— ucarr
Clouds, waterfalls & digestion, for examples, are not "intelligent". — 180 Proof

Can you cite examples of ratiocination not teleologically configured?

2) Motion organized within sentients is adaptation;
Primate digestion does not adapt and yet viruses do adapt. — 180 Proof

Can you cite examples of primate teleology (wrt to intention) not rational?

3) Adaptation is sentient control of environment;
Again, viruses adapt. — 180 Proof

Can you assess the evidentiary value (wrt to motion-as-intelligence) of homo sapiens control of the environment that extracts, refines and reconfigures resources including petroleum, copper and iron ore?

4) Sentient controlled environment selects for mutations that improve adaptation to environment
This might be breeding but it is not natural selection. — 180 Proof

How do you assess this claim: Natural selection controls sentient morphology that, in turn, controls genome population (a factor influencing genetic mutation) via breeding. In summation, breeding is complex natural selection.

What are your thoughts in reaction to this conjecture: The precepts herein put you in mind of a field of networked inquiries encapsulated by Mayr, Dawkins, Gould, Wilson and Dennett.

Evidentially, life –/–> intelligent life (i.e. "intention & purpose"). — 180 Proof

Evidence that life leads to intention & purpose:

Precepts: 1) Intelligence is motion organized; 2) Motion organized within sentients is adaptation; 3) Adaptation is sentient control of environment; 4) Sentient controlled environment selects for mutations that improve adaptation to environment >

Example: homo sapiens develops agriculture:

1) agriculture configures a network of plants that, eaten together, metabolize as a compound nutrient that facilitates accelerated brain synapse firing within the cerebral cortex;

2) accelerated brain synapse firing within the cerebral cortex upwardly evolves into birthing of children who cogitate plant hybridization methods that deepen the nutritional value of a plant diet;

3) offspring of hybridizing parents have increased average lifespan;

4) offspring of longer lifespan parents, continuing their parents hybridizing science, develop written signification of hybridizing methods, then, one of them gets a spinner mutation that empowers him to a level of intellect wherein he foresees literature in its broader complexity ;

5) literate offspring of signing parents, expanding the literature, create records of architectural methods for conceptualizing, designing and building shelters from the elements;

6) literate offspring born within designed shelters expand literacy to encompass purpose and design within the sciences and humanities;

7) offspring born into a literate, sub-divided academia develop the foundation of a complex, diversified society

Conclusions:

1) In a time unlimited universe, life implies upwardly evolving sentience

2) Upwardly evolving sentience implies motion organized and internalized as intelligence

3) Intelligence implies an upwardly evolving environmental control that selects for mutations that upwardly evolve in the upwardly evolving environment

4) Where there is life and time unlimited, there is intelligence, environmental control, genetic mutation selectivity, God-consciousness, convergence of God-consciousness and sentient-driven science, transcendence-as-consciousness

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_180 Proof

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

The logical_factual grounds for my claim are simple:

The earth tells us life in our universe is possible.
That matter and energy are neither created nor destroyed tells us our universe is eternal.
Combination: within the environment of time never ending, all possibilities will be realized*
Life, a realized possibility on earth, has always been an inevitability

*Sidebar - the combination above shows great promise as an explanation for the presence of evil within a moral universe

A thing may be the former without being the latter. — ItIsWhatItIs

One thing may precede another thing without the preceding thing being the cause of the succeeding thing.

Is my above interpretation of your quote correct?

Continuity isn't causality. — ItIsWhatItIs

Continuity alone does not imply causality.

Is my interpretation of your above quote correct?

Can you cite an example of causality without continuity?

An "effect" can't be separated from its "cause." — ItIsWhatItIs

Can you take your above quote and apply it to your below quote?

The "beginning" & the "middle" of the day may be lit out, with the "end" of it being dark at night, & yet neither the light of the "beginning" & the "middle" our story, or day, nor the darkness at the "end" of it are either the causes or the effects of the other. — ItIsWhatItIs

...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.