Are you asking me these questions Athena? I will assume you are.
My character is for others to judge but I hope I am judged by others on what I do.
I would describe my character as nuanced, myriad, conflicted and complex but I try to live as much as I can by the golden rule. I am capable of utter hatred towards those who live by exploiting or abusing others.
I will do wrong in the service of what I believe to be right and just.
Would I cause the death of innocents to destroy a greater evil. In the final analysis and if I could find no other way, then probably yes, but could I live with myself afterwards like Truman or Churchill, probably no.

Your knee-jerk reaction indicates that you have pigeonholed me & my "musings" along with those who you disagree with. Ironically, most of those fellow pigeons think I'm a science-blinded Atheist. — Gnomon

The responsibility to be clear in what you type is your responsibility. You suggested that a mind could be responsible for creating this Universe, it's your responsibility to make crystal clear the level of personal credence you assign to such a posit.

Do you deny that the mind of the programmer is the intentional cause of a computer program? Do you know of programs that cause themselves? Or do you agree with : no cause (intention), no program (plan of action)? — Gnomon

A computer program is not a happenstance, no. Life in this Universe is happenstance, yes.

Even AI is not able to bootstrap itself to write a program, without some prodding from a curious human who wants to know the answer. — Gnomon

AI is in its infancy at best. AI able to launch itself is possible. AI able to write its own programs is also possible. AI that becomes self-aware and 'conscious,' I have no idea if such is possible.

I happen to think of Evolution, allegorically, as a program for creating a universe. And some prominent physicists & biologists have a similar idea. My postulated Programmer is a metaphor, not a myth. — Gnomon

Sure, you can posit evolution as a system with intent (a kind of panpsychism).
I agree you are not proposing anything supernatural, so not a myth but I think you are stretching it into your use of the word 'mind.' A computer program takes input and produces output but it has no awareness so it may have 'intent' based on applying some flex to the term but there is no way to connect the word 'mind' to what a computer program does or what evolution does via happenstance combination and mutation.

Do you think of the universe as a disorganized & hostile place? If so, you are missing its beautiful organization, and its ability to create living & philosophizing organisms from essentially nothing. — Gnomon

Yes, in general the universe is hostile towards species such as humans. A human can't live in many places outside of the Earth for now. This reality does not hinder my awe or wonder when studying the workings of the Universe.

Some people have postulated that the world began as a perfect Garden of Eden, but then was ruined by arrogant humans who thought they could manage the garden better. — Gnomon

I don't cite fairy tales to justify my complaints about humankind's general poor stewardship of the Earth, but I do complain about it and advocate for change.

Moreover, the "orchestration" is still underway, and may be working toward future harmony. — Gnomon

Humans can change, yes, and they are able to improve the human experience and become successful stewards of the planet we live on. I agree.

No. To use the metaphor of a programmer for evolution is to accept modern science, instead of old myths. — Gnomon

Well, it's better than old myths, yes but only a little, as a programmer has a mind but evolution does not.
Your quotes from Einstein and Spinoza are just 'of their time.' Many irreligious people choose to be very respectful towards religious people by trying to understand their psychological imperatives. I only do this when I am dealing with someone who is genuinely and deeply, mentally invested in religion and uses it as a major life crutch. I do this based on personal judgement which I accept is fallible.

Theoretical physicist Sabine Hossenfelder calls such speculative-stories-sans-evidence "ascientific beliefs". — Gnomon

Yeah, and theoretical physicists such as Sean Carroll and Alan Guth who favour the many worlds proposal would not refer to the proposal as an ascientific belief and would disagree with Sabine, with all due respect of course.

I have no idea what prompted the Prime Programmer to write the algorithms for an evolving world. She didn't include an Easter Egg to explain Her motives. — Gnomon

The most likely explanation for this is that no such prime mover has ever existed.

Why do you write your programs? — Gnomon

I have a mind, so I can. That's why computer programs don't spontaneously appear and that's why the mind of a first cause does not manifest. It has no existence to enable it to.

I'm not interested in "creationist mind fables" or inflationist myths — Gnomon

I think it's a pity that your keen mind sees any comparison between the two. The latter is based on REAL science, although it could still be wrong, I agree with that. The former is just total BS.

Toward the end of the book, the supercomputer Deep Thought reveals that the answer to the “Great Question” of “Life, the Universe and Everything” is “forty-two.” — Gnomon

Yeah, I know some good jokes to! My academic expertise is Computing Science. I taught the subject for almost 30 years. Trust me, based on the question posed, the fictional deep thought supercomputer gave a shit answer and needs to be reprogrammed or replaced.

:up:

I also have examples of 'warnings' or 'proposed consequences,' If I interfered. I was given a letter by my own union to cross a picket line by office staff on strike at the school I worked in, I DID NOT, nor ever will cross a picket line, no matter what shit letter I was given. It became regional policy within our school system, that a teacher should not physically break up a fight between pupils for fear of getting accused of assaulting the pupils involved. I HAVE ALWAYS, physically broken up any fight I have came across between pupils. I would never stand by and watch pupils hurt each other, damn the consequences, and so on.....

It is education for a technological society and the values of that society, which turn to dependency on the state instead of dependency on family and each other. Does that make sense? Can you see that? — Athena

I am a socialist/humanist. I believe that the means of production, distribution and exchange of any significant size should be owned by the people, for the people and not as a means of generating profit for the rich or those who aspire to become such. I would also not allow any private citizen to own land. Technology which assists the means of production distribution and exchange must also benefit all people and not just the very few. I advocate for getting rid of money as the main controller of exchange.
The state must serve the people and support family as well as family supporting each other.

We want the receptionist who knew everything and saw it as her job to find the department we need to speak with. The receptionist did all the work and we could depend on her to get us the information or whatever else we needed. That specialization is new. In the past we were generalists and the receptionist knew more than the man at the top because she thought it was her job to know the organization and how to help people. Phone trees are hell. They are impersonal and force us to be submissive to technology and that is right next to ignoring our Jewish neighbors are being taken away. I grew up with the notion we answer to God, not human authority. — Athena

I have no problem with automated systems that work. I would like to offer all receptionists the opportunity to follow their vocations and be able to take their basic means of survival for granted.
I am not trivialising the problems you raise in your quote above but it's our collective responsibility to ensure that any automated system improves the lives and personal security of people and does not reduce it in any way. I would not blame technology for people ignoring the forced removal of their neighbours (due to the fact they were Jewish or based on any other such unacceptable reasoning). I would blame the people who use technology for such purposes. Guns don't kill people, people kill people but it's still really dumb to arm your citizens in the way they do in the USA.

Right now someone claiming to have a bedroom for rent is wanting us to complete an application and send money, before we even see the bedroom. :gasp: We are texting and I made it clear, that we do business face to face and see the bedroom or we don't do business. Craig's list is known for scams and I will not bend on meeting people face to face. — Athena

The situation you describe above is because you live under a horrible, capitalist, free market economy (as do I), where private landlords can almost do as they like. If you had a lot more money, you would not have to deal with these 'basic survival' issues you currently have to deal with. Is that how people should be forced to live? Completely controlled by how much money you can access? It's other humans that force this way of life and they are actually very few in number, globally.
They need to be 'overthrown,' permanently!
A newlywed couple or a child reaching the age of 18, should be provided with good quality accommodation, free of charge, as a human right from cradle to grave. Competitive fighting pits, such as Craig's list should not be able to exist.

So, an originating mind with intent to create the universe, yes or no?

But your own example illustrates why a carefully orchestrated program needs a First Cause (Chooser) to create flow-charts & algorithms, then to push the "Enter" button, to start it running. — Gnomon

No, it simply means that a program needs a programmer, it does not then follow that a universe needs a first cause, apart from in your own musings and those who agree with you.
In what way is this universe 'carefully orchestrated,' when it contains so many redundant objects. What do your musing infer to you as the purpose of pluto or some other useless space rock?
I try to write computer programs which dont have redundant parts, your first cause mind posit seems to only be able to create a universe which took over 13 billion years to produce hominids and could only do it on one planet that we know of so far and it also created a vast number amount of redundancy all over the universe. You have offered no explanation of such incredibly bad design and incompetency.

So, why not just call that Perpetual Program a god simulation? — Gnomon

Well, to do so is to surrender to woo woo proposals and a god of the gaps approach to science.
You keep trying to conflate a computer program created by a human programmer for a specific purpose with the origin story of the universe and natural happenstance.

PS__If the hypothetical First Cause wanted to give its World Game avatars some free-will, it would have to offer some challenges to keep it interesting. — Gnomon

Why did this mind you refer to, need us or the universe at all? was it feeling a little bit lonely? bored?purposeless? inadequate? incomplete? insufficient? What do your musings tell you this 'mind' you envisage was lacking? So that it needed a universe such as this one? Do you have no sense of how 'silly,' this 'perpetual program,' you suggest could be called the 'mind of god,' is, considering it seems to have absolutely no ability to confirm its own existence to those REAL minds that it is credited by some to have created. It is the lowest credence posit possible, out of all other posits for the origin of the universe story, in my opinion. If you are satisfied with a god plug for anything humans can't, currently explain, then you are easily contented. If your creationist mind fable ever develops an ability to make all humans aware of its existence and submit itself to full scientific scrutiny, then, and only then, will I raise an eyebrow of interest. Until then, such a proposal will firmly exist only as a total pile of woo woo.

But we can infer that the Singularity was programmed by a Mind (First Cause). — Gnomon

Just as valid to 'infer,' no first cause required, as the universe is an eternal cycle, or that our universe is only one of a vast multiverse or our universe has many superimposed 'layers' of existence, or existence can form within any number of dimensions etc, etc.
The proposal of a god like mind with intent to create humans on a comparative grain of sand sized planet, orbiting a humdrum star in a humdrum spiral arm of a humdrum galaxy, only within the past 3 million years seems the least likely inference. You infer that for at least 13 billion years of the non-existence of any hominid species in our solar system this programmer mind was thinking what?
'Not long now! my homies should arrive soon! Not very impressive programming imo.
My programs work as soon as I choose 'Run' in my chosen editor. Well, after I fix all the syntax errors and the runtime errors.

What he "really means" is anyone guess. Besides, I'm not clear about the difference between "matter is destroyed" and "matter is converted." In a nuclear bomb, matter is destroyed/converted to energy. — Art48

Classically, the word 'matter,' referred to anything with mass but I think now, the words matter, mass and energy all refer to the same 'quanta.' Matter is mass is energy. I think 'destroyed' is just less accurate than 'converted.' Perhaps that 'quanta' could be called spacetime.

I don't 'dispute' anything related to the physics of black holes stated by someone as renowned in the subject as Kip Thorne, I am merely querying your interpretation of what he says in the 'closer to truth' episode you cite. For example, he talks about a black hole having a mass or weight. I interpret this mass, he is referring to as a measure of how much the black hole warps spacetime. In the same way as the star it came from warped spacetime.

The energy of a black hole
is gravitational, based on its mass, so a black hole is not just warped spacetime, its warped spacetime which has energy, many black holes rotate. Kip does not explain what he means by destroyed. Conservation laws state that energy and mass cannot be created or destroyed but are simply converted from one to the other. I think when Kip uses the word destroyed, he really means converted.

And all of the matter in that star, much more matter than we have in our sun, goes crashing into the center and is destroyed at what we call a singularity at the center . . . All the matter’s destroyed. There is nothing left except this warped space and warped time.

> Summary?
It seems that mass-energy is convertible to spacetime. Does that argue for monism, the idea that the universe is an expression of one entity, an entity that underlies mass-energy and spacetime? — Art48

We have no idea what happens inside a black hole. What do you mean by destroyed? If energy and mass are just two different states of matter, then mass may simply be converted to energy within a black hole. As the energy increases, the black hole gets bigger. (Warps more of the surrounding spacetime.) Hawking radiation may reverse this process and the black hole may evaporate over time when no more mass falls into it. I don't think mass-energy converts to spacetime, I think mass-energy, warps space-time.

I think I will need to watch Soylent Green. — Athena

Not a big hit at the box office but now a bit of a cult classic.

He had a stroke a couple of months ago and isn't doing well. I am hoping a friend will be willing to take him in until he gets plugged into the assistance system and has a better place to stay than in his car. Because of his stroke, he is having trouble thinking things through. I am praying I do not get an eviction notice for helping him. And now can speak of morality? — Athena

I can only feel anger inside at such situations. There should be adequate social services available at a local level to help people effectively and fully in such circumstances. You should be fully supported in your efforts to assist this man and if a landlord threatens you with eviction, then that landlord should not be treated kindly for such an act.

Our liberty is not a license to do anything we please, but it is the freedom to choose the right thing and that goes with responsibility for our choices. — Athena

:clap: I couldn't agree more. Judge people by what they do, not what they say they will do or by what possessions they have or who their family is.

I think every civilization begins with a notion that we should do unto others as we would have them do to us — Athena

The golden rule is one of the best standards there is imo.

I am quite sure your answer would be a good defense for why I should not be evicted for bringing a homeless person into my home but we live with laws that prevent us from doing the moral thing. How is this any different from Naxi Germany? The theme of this thread is life sucks, and I argue preventing people from doing the right thing, does lead to a very unpleasant reality. "I was just following orders". — Athena

I can only echo your sentiments, second your emotions and add another old adage. 'Evil thrives most when good people do nothing.'

I have still enjoyed all the learning. My life is much richer than it would be if I had not put so much effort into learning. — Athena

That sounds like a good priority to have in life.

That was pretty good. Not exactly as I imagined a place for dying but close. It is sad because there was no family or friends with him. — Athena

He had his best friend with him, played by Charlton Heston! He was behind the glass and he spoke to him about the scene's he was seeing of the way the Earth used to be. Big Charlton who played Inspector Thorn ended up in tears. This was Edward G Robinsons last film and he died soon after it was made.

In general, we are surprised that we are not the people we once were and that just getting through the day is harder than we thought it would be. — Athena

Have a look at the short clip from my fav Sci-Fi series Babylon 5, its only under two minutes but quite profound in my opinion.

And going from the video you posted, I don't think there are many planets as good as ours. With all our natural disasters, earthquakes, volcanoes etc. this is still a pretty nice planet. And I bet the people who are struggling to survive because of flooding or drought, are not thinking about killing themselves but are thinking about how they will survive. — Athena

Unfortunately, Soylent Green is a dystopian movie about what will happen to the world if our stewardship of it does not improve. The old guy chooses suicide as the planet is fast running out of food.
I agree with you that the Earth is beautiful and only a fool would choose to live life as a curse.
I also see the solar system as a blank canvas, just waiting for humans to leave the planetary nest and start to mould it and make it a place which is much more alive that it is now.
Looks like we will have a permanent moon base soon, once the Artemis1 rocket actually launches and starts the process.

If you think that the set {apple, pear} means that we've combined an apple and pair into some new hybrid fruit then you don't understand what sets are. — Michael

When you combine two separate entities then the attributes of both entities are combined in every way possible. If x=2 and y=3 then xy can have any operator/function applied to it just like you can have any function applied to every member of a set. You can use operators such as +, -, x, / or any function such as putting each element of the set into a blender! I think it's you that does not understand that you can perform any action you like on the members of a set as long as it's the same action performed on each one.

Right, so this shows that you clearly misunderstand what is being talked about. — Michael

Your last argument was based on metal weights in the real world, I see no difference between separation based on physical weight and separation based on physical taste. Your claim that because I don't agree with you, it then follows that I just don't understand your logic is a matter for your own measure of your own arrogance.

In the case of the set {apple, pear} we just have an aggregate. — Michael

Combining an apple and a pear will have a quite distinct taste, compared to tasting an apple or tasting a pear. So, the combination produces a new entity of taste.

:smile:

Aren't all philosophical topics anthropocentric? — Skalidris

In my opinion, yes, but you simply asked for opinions of what was common about the questions you posed in the OP. Anthropocentric was the first commonality between them that came to mind.
I have read Carl Sagan's, list of the great demotions many times so anthropocentrism is something that should always warn the human race to remain humble as we stumble our way towards any kind of absolute truth about any aspect of the universe.

What is so hard to understand about this? — Michael

Your claim is easy to understand, but it is also wrong.
Why would the fact that a time duration is needed to join or separate fundamentals mean that a combination does not have an independent existence which is not the same as the existence of its constituent parts? I consider most systems/combinations to be described as is attributed to Aristotle:
“The whole is greater than the sum of the parts.”

They are all anthropocentric questions.

Obviously it's wrong to say that 6g of metal exists, but this is what follows if you say that the collection exists as its own entity, distinct from the existence of the two individual pieces. — Michael

By what rule or logic do you claim that IT FOLLOWS, that 6g of metal exists (or any weight of metal > the 3g that actually exists in total). You already admit it does not, OBVIOUSLY. The weight 3g DOES exist as its own entity by combination. You attempt to combine the combination of 1g and 2g to make 3g with another non-existent 1g and 2g weight. ALL three entities 1g, 2g and 3g can be physically demonstrated separately using a weighting machine.
You cannot demonstrate all three physical quantities of weight at the same instant of time.
If you had two weighing machines then you could demonstrate two of the weights at the same instant of time, but not all three, even with three weighing machines, but you can demonstrate the existence of all three quantities over a time interval/duration. BUT, no matter how much time you have you can never demonstrate a weight of 4, 5 or 6g with two source weights of 1g and 2g.
IT DOES NOT FOLLOW that 4g, 5g or 6g are valid due to the combination of 1g and 2g being a separate REAL entity. As I already typed, you are just, in my opinion, employing smoke and mirrors.

Its like you are playing arithmetic tricks. You imply the weights are real for your 1g, 2g and 3g posit and then notional for your 6g step. This reminds me of the old arithmetic trick:
Three men decide to buy an old tv costing £30 pounds. They pay £10 each. The salesperson then finds out that the tv was part of their sale and should have cost £25. He gives £5 to an assistant to give back to the three men. For simplicity, the assistant keeps £2 pounds and gives each man back £1. So, each man has now paid £9 each, 3x£9 = £27 + the £2 the assistant has, which adds to £29. What happened to the other £1?

I don't think I have missed the point; you are taking an illogical step. You cannot create this extra member of the collection in the real world of having a physical 1g and 2g weight. You can create your 6g value based on the rules of arithmetic but if you do that then you must give a rule for your series or sequence and if the rule is adding previous weights together then you must include 4g and 5g and continue past 6g.

I have a piece of metal that weighs 1g and a piece of metal that weighs 2g. So the collection of metal weighs 3g. This is the only metal that exists.

What is the total weight of all the metal that exists? 3g or 6g? — Michael

6g would not be a member based on the concept of weight if your fundamentals are 1g and 2g weights.
All you can have is 1g, 2g and 1g+2g or 2g+1g which is 1g, 2g and 3g.
There is no 6g, unless you are creating a numerical sequence based on addition, rather than a set based on weight. If it's a numerical sequence based on adding 1 then including 6g is logical.
You would just end up with the set of integers with g in front of each number indicating weight.
Btw. I am not sure if I would refer to myself as a mathematical realist either, based on the concept of objective truths, which I am not sure exists. A mathematical realist is described as:
Mathematical realism is the view that the truths of mathematics are objective, which is to say that they are true independently of any human activities, beliefs or capacities.

In terms of function or use or conception, sure. But it terms of counting the number of things that exist, no. — Michael

But this is the point being made. Algebraic fundamentals like x and y create a new object when combined. Let's say an instantiation is x=2 and y=3 then xy = 23. (or 6 for those who insist xy means x multiplied by y) In the rules of maths 23 is a much larger quantity than 2 or 3. So 2,3 and 23 are three separate objects with one being a combination of the other 2.
Under the logic you are suggesting, there could be no valid numerical sets such as the set of prime numbers as you would suggest but they are all just multiples of 1. So, 1 is the only true member of the set of primes, or integers etc? Is that a consequence of the logic you are applying?

:up:

Sorry, I didn't mean to 'butt in' to your exchange with Michael, with similar points.

That would be like saying Joe Biden exists and the President of the United States exists, therefore at least two people exist, which is an invalid inference. — Michael

No, it's not, you made two references to the same object. You referenced the same object by its name and its job title. That's like two ways of describing a single coin. Two coins can make a collection, one coin cannot. One atom cannot make a human, but many atoms can. A single computer has a certain processor speed and throughput, if you network identical computers together then the processor power and throughput is vastly increased, and you can also manipulate the network of computers in ways that you cannot with a single computer. For example, you can perform parallel processing rather than serial processing. Combination results in new functionality.
A coin collection is a set that means more that a number of individual coins as the collective can be related in many different ways compared to treating the coins as unrelated units. The sum becomes more than its parts.

In Mathematical Platonism — RussellA

From the on-line philosophical encyclopaedia:
Traditionally, mathematical platonism has referred to a collection of metaphysical accounts of mathematics, where a metaphysical account of mathematics is one that entails theses concerning the existence and fundamental nature of mathematical ontology.

I give much more credence to mathematics than I do to metaphysical accounts of mathematics.
I don't think much of Plato either.

If the Milky Way Galaxy exists as an abstract entity, by what mechanism do you propose that the parts are connected, parts that could be 87,000 light years apart ? — RussellA

Ah, now I see where you are getting the 87,000 from. That is an isophotal (based on the brightest part of the milky way) approximation for the diameter of the milky way. The more probable approximations put's it somewhere between 100,000 and 120, 000 light years across, perhaps a lot more, depending on how much dark matter is also present.
I propose the parts are connected systemically and they are gravitationally bound, so, in its largest scale, all parts of the milky way, rotate around a central supermassive black hole.
To answer your question more directly, the 'mechanism' would be gravity which may not be a force but a consequence of the presence of clumped or bulk mass over a particular extent of spacetime.

I don't see much difference between a galaxy posited as an abstract entity and me as an actual entity. Both are collectives, both are systemic, and both are combinatorial.

My mother spends a lot of time reminiscing and talking about the past and events in her life. It's a nice way to spend time with family over drinks etc but the only trouble is that we know all the stories. Still, I think she is happy when reminiscing, worth living for, to remember!

If combinations don't ontologically exist in a mind-independent world (aka relations) but do exist in the mind, then:
i) what exists in the mind-independent world are fundamental forces and fundamental particles. These fundamental particles may be called "objects", and are non-composite.
ii) a tree, which is a combination of parts, can only exist in the mind. — RussellA

It's true that lifeforms like humans create categories or even convenient ontological groupings.
Every time I wrote a substantial computer program, I created such namespaces, data types, hierarchical storage structures, all of which could be called ontological, but this has nothing to do with what exists in a universe devoid of lifeforms which can ask questions and query their surroundings.
Tree's rocks and stars can exist as composites without the labels tree, rock, or star.
So, I think your part i) above does not hold, your part ii) also does not hold and such statements belong to human delusions of how vital they are to the existence of the universe. I think they are vital to assigning PURPOSE to the universe but not its existence, either in its fundamental constituents or in its ability to combine through random happenstance and end up with objects WE happen to have labelled tree, rock, star etc.

Argument One against sets as combinations existing in the world
From before, if only 3 things were introduced into a world, and if sets as combinations did exist, then an infinite number of other things would automatically be created. This doesn't seem sensible. — RussellA

Infinity is merely a concept; it is not a construct. Statements such as from wiki:
Paradoxes of the Supertask
In set theory, an infinite set is not considered to be created by some mathematical process such as "adding one element" that is then carried out "an infinite number of times". Instead, a particular infinite set (such as the set of all natural numbers) is said to already exist, "by fiat", as an assumption or an axiom. Given this infinite set, other infinite sets are then proven to exist as well, as a logical consequence. But it is still a natural philosophical question to contemplate some physical action that actually completes after an infinite number of discrete steps; and the interpretation of this question using set theory gives rise to the paradoxes of the supertask.

This is just conceptual maths or propositional logic it need not be fact or truth to be useful in calculations.

Argument Two against sets as combinations existing in the world
If combinations exist in the world, then an object such as an apple would exist as a set of parts. It would follow that one part 8cm distant from another part would be in combination — RussellA

An atom is mainly empty space, but an atom is also a functioning system which functions as a combination. A solar system is a combinatorial system. If you notionally want to label the entire universe a set of fundamentals containing all currently known mass, energy/force, fundamentals they you could at least start it with U= {quark, electron, photon, w boson, z boson etc...}
You could also start a set of everything that can be created from random happenstance or the actions of lifeforms and include E = {universe, galaxy, star, rock, human....... pencil, space rocket......} but it would be a very big set, not necessarily infinite, just vast. I see no important point in your argument two above that supports the idea that the members of sets cannot be considered as combinations of fundamentals whether or not those fundamentals are natural or algebraic.

If being in combination followed the physical laws of nature as we know them, then two parts could only be in combination once information had travelled between them at the speed of light. This raises a further problem. — RussellA

What problem?

If being in combination was instantaneous, then the combination between two parts of the Milky Way Galaxy 87,000 light years apart would be instantaneous. But this would break the physical laws of nature as we know them, and would need to be justified. — RussellA

Being in combination is obviously not instantaneous. If the sun exploded right now, the Earth would not know for around 8 minutes.

If, during the 87,000 years it took for the two parts to become in combination, one or both of the parts ceased to exist, then a combination would come into existence without any parts. This doesn't seem sensible. — RussellA

What? Where are you getting this 87,000 years from? The Milky Way started to form around 13 billion years ago! It didn't form as two halves that then joined together! Much of what you are typing makes little sense to me.

Consequently, my philosophical insight was that sentient dreaming was merely my brain creating fictional stories out of semi-random bits of personal experience and learned knowledge, plus a subliminal desire or remembered intention. If I had been taking a hallucinogenic drug, like ayahuasca, I might have later believed that I had been magically transformed into a bird or a jaguar. But, my bed-bound "trips" were merely mundane fantasies that I had some conscious control over. :cool: — Gnomon

So, imagine similar experiences a few thousand years ago and you have just explained where the details of the majority of all god fables originate. A mix of lucid dreaming and eating some magic mushrooms along with your meat and veg.

Sounds like an earlier but familiar stage. Keep at it, its fun, harmless and can generate rewards. It can also actually help you fall asleep as one part of your brain try's to instruct other parts.

Never said you did. I'm just joining in a general discussion. — Tom Storm

Crossed lines then.

The key is steady eye contact. — Yohan

The key to what? And with whom? — Seeker

I think this is true, you need to be able to know you are dreaming and focus/concentrate on what you want to happen and if the dream scene changes you must be able to realise that and direct it back to the scenes you were trying to control. You may have to figure out how to connect the switched scene and the scenes you are trying to return to. Sometimes I can even remember a dream and concentrate on its main story/characters/important events before I fall asleep (but you have got to be kind of relaxed about it) and then I will have the same dream again and attempt to make it play out the way I want it to. It's good for building personal self-confidence but it does not always work.

To be able to will such dreams or atleast direct it the way I want it to presents itself high on my list of most wanted experiences. Btw I have also never experienced the same erotic quality in dreams compared to the physical world though I have never been lucid during such dreams either. — Seeker

I seemed to develop lucid dreaming from my late 20's onwards (I am now 58.)
I remember having a lot of nightmares as a child and I got a 'bout' of them again as a teenager and again in my late 20's. I got kind of 'fed-up,' with the quite intense at times, discomfort, I experienced.
I heard about lucid dreaming, I cant remember from where but I started a routine before I fell asleep. I kept thinking to myself that I wanted to know if I was dreaming. I fell asleep trying to maintain that thought. I was kind of trying to 'train my brain,' to do what I wanted it to. I cant remember how long it took but eventually I realised, during a dream, that I was aware I was dreaming and I kind of thanked my brain for doing what I asked. it kind of developed from that point. I then deliberately tried to 'set my brain' to 'lucid dreaming' mode almost every night. Sometimes it worked, sometimes I had no dreams at all. Then I forgot all about the whole thing. I would then experience a lucid dream every so often and I enjoyed the experience so much I went back into trying to set my brain to lucid mode again, before falling asleep. Its now about two or three times a month I will have a lucid dream, more regularly, I just dream random BS but I still remember most of the details of the dream. Sometimes my lucid dreams give me new insight or ideas about recent stuff I have been thinking about during the day.
So I think you can train yourself to dream lucidly. I was eventually able to concentrate during an erotic lucid dream to see how long I could make it continue, with one or two surprising results.

My subjective statement: ‘Philosophy 101’ was simply an indication of memory functioning. That is, ‘I think therefore I am’ was a trip back in time to Philosophy 101, the classroom, the professor in living color. It was not: ‘academic philosophy [insisting] that 'I think therefore I am,' is subjective…’ — ArielAssante

:up: ok.

Q1 - do "combinations" exist in the world when the world is not being observed ?

Is there any persuasive argument that "combinations" do exist in a mind-independent world ? I have yet to come across one. — RussellA

Yes, a tree is a combination as is a grain of sand, a rock or a star.
They need no lifeform to exist as combinations of fundamentals.
For the vast majority of the existence of our solar system, our galaxy and even the universe (13.8 billion years), probably, no life existed anywhere. From the moment the 'singularity,' 'inflated' / 'expanded,' until the first 'mind' formed via combinatorial evolution, the universe was mind-independent.

A dream come true :naughty: — Seeker

Well, I can only speak for myself but I do experience lucid dreams and I seem to remember dream details quite well and quite often. I can fight and kill threats in my dreams but it's often a 'replay.' I can have a nightmare and become aware and unhappy at the outcome so I can reset the dream to a particular stage and kick the f*** out the monster who attacked me earlier, for example.
I wont give the details of how far I can get with an erotic dream unless pushed to but suffice to say that's it is not good enough to replace the best of what I have experienced between myself(male) and a woman, who are both consenting and conscious at the time of course.

The 'extra things' come from combination of the fundamentals, in your example, the fundamentals would be x, y and z.
If photons, electrons and quarks are fundamentals then all we can observe around us, or as a part of us or can instrumentally detect, are combinations of fundamentals.