Why not? — Angelo Cannata

Well, that's exactly what this thread is about. Imagination occurs in creatures constantly involved in monitoring, simulating, the world. Resonating with the world or making the world resonate in return. This continuous evolving process can't be programmed.

1) there are infinite degrees and qualities of imagination. The consequence is that what we call “imagination” has no limits, no boundaries, so it must be referred even to stones and single atoms. In atoms, obviously, imagination happens simply in the form of phisical things that can happen in atoms, I am not referring to anything special or supernatural; my human imagination is just more complex. — Angelo Cannata

I agree but don't see the link with objects. These objects have no epistemological cut and don't imagine a world.

There is a jump, a difference, between human imagination and any other kind of phenomenon that we would like to compare to human imagination. — Angelo Cannata

What do you mean with this jump?

Look who's tubthumbing now...

Right. As a cartoon maybe ... :smile: — Alkis Piskas

Hell, yes! "Mickey Mouse Meets Meta Mickey" :smile:

just gave a look about the book and saw that it talks about AI.
I think that discussions relating AI/computers to brain/consciousness have been exhausted in here (and elsewhere) and the results --based on unrefuted and unrefutable arguments-- have classified them as "sci-fi material". (Yet, I' am afraid that this is far from being accepted by most people.) — Alkis Piskas

Yes, Alkis my man, I'm afraid too. And the people who take it seriously are even assumed scientists, clinging to the dream of a programmable mind emerging, according to their outview, as an inescapable part of natural evolution. Conscious computers as the crown on evolution. Just look at SF movies. "A.I", "Ex Machina",
"The Matrix" (though technically consciousness is already present there, it's just fooled to impossible extent, by a hole on your back... yeah, yeah...). People though are impressed by science somehow and continue the myth, projecting the possibility into the future. Not realizing that mind is the product of a natural, non-programmed processes which had their start at the big kaboom. With a slow emergence if conscious mind in creatures interacting continuously interacting with the world at day and retreating to their inside world at night (or vice versa), on the natural rhythms of the universe. So basically, for creating conscious mind, one has to recreate a big kaboom and just let it evolve, instead of trying to accomplish it by a hyperspeedy clocktime and massive quantities of data, following sophisticated programs. Recreating the big kaboom seems one bridge too far... :smile:

The human mind, all life in fact, has been, for the most part of its earthly existence, has been a constant struggle against nature's imperfections, oui? — Agent Smith

Mmmm...Non. Imperfections need to be embraced. Only where due, you should look for it. In the modern era, perfection seems to be attended to mostly in the physical domain of bodily appearances. The body is tried to be reshaped in an ideal resembling a horrible abstraction from the natural standard. Resulting in mental sickness and dissolvement from reality. And even the mental domain seems prone to the same abstractions, reshaping the mind into a logical process resembling the the so beloved computers and logical processes inside. Just listen to the CEO talk and (mainly) his (mainl) perfect wife accompanying (mainly) him in perfect silence. The perfect constructor of the perfect world to come "communicating" logically perfect ideals.

Only where it's due, perfection should be sought.

Yet, it seems that a lot of people prefer dreaming ... It's more thrilling — Alkis Piskas

Yes! Dreams are great! Let them try to program one! :wink:

It is the same way my laptop is unable to imagine the kind of intelligence that is in my brain — Angelo Cannata

You think your laptop is able to imagine?

Putting the facts together is what makes your narrative wise. Using your narrative is what allow you to understand more things about the world(produce more knowledge). — Nickolasgaspar

I agree. But the narrative doesn't need fact based. The narrative can even shape the facts.

So you say you don't agree...and then you stress their strong relation!(weird!) — Nickolasgaspar

I said it can be based on knowledge. But not necessarily.

Again in order to make a wise claim you need the FACTS.(knowledge — Nickolasgaspar

That's a dogma. Well, actually no. It's a false claim.

-I don't make sense of your statement — Nickolasgaspar

That is, of course, because in your reality gods don't exist.

Science doesn't do assumptions, especially those who are in conflict with the observable paradigm. — Nickolasgaspar

There always have to be assumptions made against the paradigm. Science would be stuck if not. My assumption is quarks and leptons being composite. Which is against the standard (model) or current paradigm. But god inspired.

I would like to be me again! I have some very reliable people who can/will ensure that is the case — Agent Smith

But do they want you to be you again.... If they can assure me that, I want you to be you again too... :wink:

In order for a claim to be wise, it needs to be based on knowledge.
i.e. You can find my tip of "jumping from the window to reach your car fast" to be wise especially when you are in a harry, but if my "wise" claim ignores the fact that the apartment is at the top floor of a tall building...that doesn't make it so wise... — Nickolasgaspar

I don't agree. Wise claims need not be based on knowledge. On the contrary. A wise claim can be based on knowledge, but not necessarily so and wise claims direct knowledge.

Specifying unfalsifiable concepts doesn't really replace the need of epistemic foundations in a claim. — Nickolasgaspar

Maybe not, but these unfalsifiable concepts are needed as concepts within the sciences and outside of it ti direct science. For example, I think the gods, in their common effort to create the ingredients of the universe, created the most simple and perfect particles, which means only two will do. A preon model.

My projections of future transhumanism are based on current technological progress. — universeness

Based on that I can only say that transhumans will be a regression from humanity. Not even a fruitfly can be created, not even a single cell! Not hard to guess then it's a dead end, however far away in the future you project your fairy tales.

Your unconvincing claims that you are a genuine polytheist has been reduced to 'they dont exist in our Universe' and 'I only argue in support of them because you argue against them.' — universeness

Like I said, my claims are not to convince. I leave that to Jehova witnesses and the priests and missionaries. Of course I argue in favor. The proof I can't give, apart from us and the universe being there. Science can't explain it. I have a theory describing the universe from an infinite past to future, so... Oh yes, the gods will probably show themselves in the future!

You are not exactly consistent in the way you present your arguments. Your approach regarding expansion is rather 'scattergun.' — universeness

Ah yes. The consistency counter. So what? Life is inconsistent. As I said, space "seems" to expand. So it both expands while not actually expanding. It scans different cross sections of 4d space (5d spacetime).

I don't hold with your opinion of Krauss and I would take care when you accuse people of heinous
tendencies on a public forum — universeness

It is a well know fact Krauss likes sweet sixteens. I do too but I don't actually try them out by being a hot shot in a cosmology in which he fakes something is created from nothing.

What we can say for sure is that the Theological assumptions are a poor source of wisdom or epistemology and this is why we can only find Philosophy studying its history and social impact than counting its philosophical contributions. — Nickolasgaspar

That totally depends on the theology used. A theology that specifies it's gods and mentions their reasons for creation, can have profound impact on epistemology and be a source of deep wisdom, no matter how much you don't want this to be.

There is no "mind" in computers.
— L'éléphant
Not yet! — universeness

Again, reference to a faraway future without any impact. I could argue just as well that gods show themselves in the future.

There is no location of the mind
— L'éléphant
Easy words to type but I think such concepts are much harder to convince other people of. — universeness

There are locations of the mind. Not stationary ones though. It depends on the experience. And mostly, you have to include both body and physical world. The brain is a means to resonate with the world. It constantly simulates it, while you walk through and look around, listen, and feel the breeze and hot sand, looking for female beauty on the beach.

Like theism, it's fine if such is just a harmless product of your own personal woo but I very much advocate that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. — universeness

Like the woo woof of a faraway future in which minds can be uploaded. Let alone a human mind, as it's tied to brains, no matter what the dogma tells you.

:starstruck:

As long as people can't create rainwurms in a lab, forget mind upload! :cool:

Ah, you meant LQG. There time exists all the same. But its behind the scene. Every 10exp-43 seconds, the scene changes but what makes it change every 10exp-43 seconds? There are creatures with a little stopwatches, who watch to and click every 10exp-43 seconds, and the scene progresses. :wink:

I have fallen asleep whilst listening to 'Something from nothing,' by Laurence Krauss audiobook a few times. — universeness

No wonder you fell asleep reading Krauss He's a total bore and little girls lover...

Space simply doesn't expand, nor is there new space created. It's an apparent effect only.

Oh, and this. It’s Hawking radiation. So pulled out of the vacuum by the event horizon. — apokrisis

All matter is pulled out of the virtual once. So all matter is a kind if long lived virtual particle. All quarks and leptons will return into the vacuum again, except neutrinos, anti neutrinos and photons. If the anti neutrinos can escape the holes before the rip gets grip (hey! The rip gets grip!) then they will annihilate with the neutrino background. And only real photons will be left. Time will continue infinitely. At the center singularity a new bang can bang happily. :yawn:

You apparently couldn’t follow Lineweaver’s paper so I tried something that was hopefully more your level. — apokrisis

It's not that I cant follow. I dont want. to follow. You maybe need a teacher but I dont need no more... You just say that to show your so-called high intelligence... :wink:

Oh, and this. It’s Hawking radiation. So pulled out of the vacuum by the event horizon — apokrisis

Hawking radiation is real photons and neutrinos. A black hole takes much longer to evaporate than the expansion takes to go beserk. So it will be the black holes torn apart. Everything in it will stay in it. But since most matter in it consists of preons and their antis, only real anti neutrinos and photons are left which can't react with the neutrinos that are left. They will get lost in space and no energy will be left.

Just calculate the Schwarzschild radius of the mass in the observable universe...

The ones deeply confused are you and Wiki. Think for yourself instead of quoting Wiki! :wink:

They are one and the sane. No they're not! The event horizon lies even outside of the observable universe! Sorry! :wink:

Sine diis mortua est natura
Nulla natura
Deos faciunt naturam chorus
Non fun sine diis
Fucking inutilem
Scientia non scit stercore...

The problem of evil will surely surface. — val p miranda

It has already...

The new increaded measured weight in electron volts of the W boson poses a threat to the Standard Model. So I await more information — val p miranda

I'm very pleased to read that! In the standard model it's said to be fundamental. I think it's composed.

Then there would need to be a different kind of time kicking THAT off. Then we would need a different... you get it. — Philosophim

Thermodynamic time is a different time as the time setting it off. A cyclic time, say. Before real particles were realized ( the emergence of TD time) there were only virtual ones, as TD time had not taken off yet. Virtual particles oscillate in time (TD time wasn't there yet, so this was an inherent fluctuation). This is an eternal fluctuation, also happening in vacuum. But how can this have gotten into existence? Just "not being there and then being there"?

You're right. The figures given by Lineweaver are that the current distance to our cosmic event horizon is 16 billion light-years, and the eventual maximum distance will be 18 billion light years. So there won't be a doubling. We are just about there. — apokrisis

The current distance is about 45 billion ly.

See figs 2 and 3 of https://www.mso.anu.edu.au/~charley/papers/mepp.pdf for both that and the argument that all that's left is blackbody radiation with a wavelength the size of the entire cosmic event horizon. — apokrisis

Yes. But the photons ain't virtual.

That's why it's always an error to compare thinking with computing. In computers, everything has a location. There is no "mind" in computers. Only humans, and some animals possess the mind. — L'éléphant

Astute observation! There is no program to be found in the brain. Neither in nature.

With God as the first existent, how can that be attacked? Maybe by asserting that man created God, not otherwise. — val p miranda

That's exactly the tactic of atheists. I partially agree with them. I mean, it's clear to me they gotta be there, so I disagree. But insofar they are atheists because of moral issues about human relations I agree.

Maybe very fringe. Some theoretical p's in loop view think that time does not exist. — val p miranda

Theoretical p's in loop view?

It's quite hard to break or snap it indeed. But it can be bend. But how can it expand without matter? Only if it expands in an extra dimension. There is no law in general relativity that forbids. The dogma though says that 3d space is intrinsically curved without being embedded in a 4d space. Embed the universe in a 4d space and dark energy is explained. You gotta keep matter attached to 3d though.

the end of time (as the effective end of all discernible change) now arrives at a finite future date. — apokrisis

Chocolate talk. "The end of time happens 5-01-3067000000000." :lol:

But hey, why walk before we can run? Let's deal with the Friedmann–Lemaître–Robertson–Walker metric before we add the wrinkle of the Lamda-CDM concordance model. Let's hear you rant and rave a little more about the vanilla description for a bit. — apokrisis

Or you talk chocolate about it. MU is at least truly interested...

The only thing left will be the fizzle of virtual photons with a blackbody radiation to match a temperature of absolute zero. — apokrisis

Virtual photons with a black body radiation? What does that mean? The more I read of you the less I think you understand anything...

In effect, our visible corner of the cosmos will have fallen down a black hole about 36 billion light years across (about double its current size). But it won't be a big deal as all its particle content, and any blackholes, will also be long gone. — apokrisis

The size of the current universe is about 90 billion jy. Not 36 billion. Small detail...

Forget it.

But how can thermodynamic time emerge? There gotta be a different kind of time kicking it of.

That open-ended chain seems to be the assumption of Multiverse & Many Worlds proponents. — Gnomon

Each world has a beginning if parallel. Infinite serial don't seem to need entropy increase when passing from one to a next universe. If one universe has accelerated away to infinity and all energy is gone, the situation is like it started again, and "BANG!", it starts again. Like a Russian Doll episode.

Penrose's cyclic universe is a nice picture, and a serial "killer" as well, but dark energy isn't explained. And photons can't be the cause of a new origin.

Time and space are modes by which we think and not conditions in which we live."
___Albert Einstein — Gnomon

It are conditions in which we live. Not modes of thinking which we project but the world projected into us.