‘Lifeless and dead’ will no longer be appropriate ascriptions of this inorganic realm. — Joshs

I agree. Even the smallest chunks of matter contains the seed of life, or even already life itself. There are at most differences in grade.

quote="Joshs;692164"]As our neural models change , we will no longer design our thinking appendages as calculating devices , but use wetware to device simple creatures which we will interact with in more
creative ways, because these living systems will not be based on deterministic schematics.[/quote]

You mean our material neural models?

Even the computerized devices
we now use never actually behaved deterministically. In their interaction with us they are always capable of surprising us. — Joshs

Yes, but even a single neuron can't be created in a lab. Let alone a hundred billion of them interconnected in erratic ways and living in a living body in a chaotic world. Only such a structure can produce consciousness and creativity. The game of Life (based on a few simple rules) gives very surprising non-predictable results, but I think the real game of life is a bit more complex.

As long the thread can be visited you can reply. Thats on all forums. Why not? That's what they are for, not?

Your belief in gods informs all your actions, even the most trivial, and in that sense has significant impact on your way of thinking about science. — Joshs

I think that by knowing the universe and life in it we can know the gods and the heaven they live in. Which is not the reason to do science, but it can be. All life has a heavenly, eternal, non-material counterpart. The material processes imply mortal life but if it repeats eternally (by subsequent big bangs) a kind of immortality exists. I think we all are born again in a next big bang. But different lives. Which doesn't mean I don't like the present one!

To me the idea of something true outside of its relevance as a meaning in your ( or anyone else’s ) life is incoherent. — Joshs

That's about the same as @universeness said to me in another comment:

"Your arguments/proposals/posits/science points have not convinced me that your polytheistic posits are coherent. "

Incoherent meaning not understandable?

You are arguing that only living organisms are capable of creativity, because of their self-organization? I think the inorganic evolves also. Hydrogen evolved from
something simpler , and the higher elements from the lower elements. Organic molecules evolved from
inorganic. The inorganic components of the computer in front of you are still changing , albeit very slowly.
4m — Joshs

Yes. And life is what these ever more complex processes accumulated into. From lifeless dead matter (with a non-explainable element called charge by physicists, of which they haven't the faintest idea what it actually is; it's a magical divine stuff the gods have charged matter with to make interaction and life possible) living processes, with feet, eyes, ears, bodies, internal simulation devices, etc. developed. I'm one of them and type to you with a laugh on my face, my brainy world constantly simulating the world while my body moves in it. Magic! And I can hear music at the same time, and hear the dog whine. From birth till death we walk through the world, which projects itself into the brain, where it comes alive and is actively shaped. We have no on/off button and to create a life means to create a new big bang and universe, which is the only way to let it develop freely and naturally. It's thus impossible to create live or program it.

Do our theories simply ‘resonate’ with real states of the world, or are they designed to produce something absolutely new, that was never there before? — Joshs

It's a two way traffic. Our inner world can resonate with litteraly all processes in the physical world. Our brain can resonate with or simulate all of them. At the same time, our inner resonances or simulations can shape the outer world by us bodily interacting with it, litterally shaping the world. The simulating or resonating is a non-computational process and thus can never be accomplished by a computer, which is the result of a very specific thought process.

Philosophy should be about how events are useful and begin with the question of what is use? Relevance is a more fundamental notion than truth. — Joshs

But relevance does not always be practice-bounded. The truth of gods has whatsoever zero impact on scientific practice, but at the same time a very deep impact on practice, be it everyday life or experiments at CERN.

Pedo, ergo sum
Irrumbado, ergo sum
Sentio, ergo sum
Sum, ergo sum

It’s not computers that can’t produce creativity, it’s the moldy models we use to explain what the computers
are doing that are devoid of creativity. — Joshs

Computers are not naturally evolving processes. They are a product of these processes. Human products, that is. Naturally occurring processes can't be created. If you want to create creativity, you have to create a new universe with life evolving in it.

I think all living beings are beings that evolve between the periodic heat and cold of the Sun and the cosmic void, more and more away from thermodynamic equilibrium. All of them have to be enactive or autopoietic. How else can it be? But beneath all this activity, a basic substance resides to make this all possible in the first place. Our intelligences and actions do not differ significantly from all other forms of lifes. The bee is as intelligent as the whale or the humans, the ant or the chimpanzee. They all have there own habitats and niche. People are not bound to fixed patterns though. We design our own appearance (we are born naked), as well as our surrounding and inner being, the two of which enforce and shape each other. Computers and all we create, stem from naturally occurring processes but are themselves not naturally occurring processes, hence they are not creative. A theory of fundamental particles, the spacetime in which they live, is a thought process that corresponds, resonates with a real state of the world. Like all scientific theories and experiments associated. But these are all isolated resonances. They can only thrive in a larger process in which our whole being is involved and which can't be described scientifically itself.

You say - "I would say that the smartest second universe is the one that can exist without having any effect on the real universe. Want to try?"

That would be a total impossibility. For the simple reason that the second universe would be part and parcel of the real universe. — Ken Edwards

The two can't be separated. Like La Madonella belongs in Forio, the interior universe belongs in the exterior universe and they shape and inform each other.

Maybe what we observe is already a newly changed product of our measuring devices and theories. — Joshs

There are countless higher level realities produced by our mind and our experiments. We litterally bring them into existence. I do not doubt that. Science is an art. But at the fundamental level, there hides just one basic stuff. And that stuff is addressed by a ToE, and the name is quite misleading, I agree. It's only the lowest level that is addressed. There are infinite, loosely connected higher level laws of physics.

For this reason a god or gods isnt the condition. of possibility of creativity , but rather difference produces gods. They are mere effects. — Joshs

Unless gods are the creators of the material universe in which creativity develops as a natural process. These creative processes are needed for existence and temporally live life like the eternal gods. These gods are not the result of that same creative process but they are the result of reasoning to give our creative acts themselves a deeper meaning or reason. As such, creative acts, or life itself, cannot be explained scientifically, and because of that, creativity can't be achieved by computers, nor can computers or AI ever reach the conscious status they have in naturally evolved life.

So there are lots of realities in terms of what is true in science, right? None is absolutely true, they are just pragmatically useful. Right? — Joshs

Which is to say, it depends on which level you look. At the fundamental level there can only be one truth, the ToE. There can only be one kind of stuff created which can lead to the universe that we observe.

Yes! And badly damaged! :lol:

If there are no truths then that truth is no truth either. The standard objection against relativism.

An uncanny resemblance to the questions one would ask in threat assessment — Agent Smith

1. What is it? (Ontology)
2. What happens to it? (Causality)
3. Does it stay the same or does it become something else? (Change & Identity)
3. Does it have to be this/that way? Could it have been different? (Necessity & Possibility)
4. Where is it? When is it? (Space & Time)

1). It's a thermonuclear device!
2). It evaporates all of us!
3). It surely becomes something else! It could have been a flower.
4). Above you head, coming atya right now. Hide!



"about the conditions of possibility of a sense of meaning."

What do you mean?

So there are lots of realities in terms of what is true in science, right? None is absolutely true, they are just pragmatically useful. Right? — Joshs

Right!

What!? — javi2541997

A has to be false.



If there are no truths is false then the truth that there are no truth is not true and then there are truths, which means that there are no truths is true, meaning there are no truths so it's not true then that there are no truths, which means that there are truths such as the truth that there are no truths, meaning there are no truths so it's not true then that there are no truths, which means that there are truths such as the truth that there are no truths, meaning there are no truths so it's not true then that there are no truths, which means that there are truths such as the truth that there are no truths, meaning there are no truths so it's not true then that there are no truths, which means that there are truths such as the truth that there are no truths!

No, I mean the opposite. I say that time could be a good motivation to create art. I am not referring about Ancient Greeks but all the ages. For example: a painting about an autumn afternoon because it makes you feel nostalgic — javi2541997

Ah, paintings, or art about time?

You mean the time in which the artist lives influences his works? If I look to ancient Greek art it looks as if they experienced the world rather flat, and consisting of disconnected parts. I wonder if they would recognize realistic paintings.

Or do you mean you don't look at the clock while creating art?

Evidence is essential for every single belief claim...only if you don't care to be reasonable you are willing to accept claims without evidence... — Nickolasgaspar

Indeed. A sense of reason shines from you, dear Nickolas! Only, my proof is different from yours. Scientific evidence cannot be used in theological matters. Though it's impossible to investigate all physical phenomena.

Hillary...its hard for you to put a sentence with three words together without including a logical fallacy.....we already know that it is hard for you to admit anything. — Nickolasgaspar

Yes, we know that. And I don't intend to not include them. Logic sucks... :lol: Its mathematics and physics thats interesting.

It is not the same when you are only 5 years old, or 25 or 65...
Time makes an impact in our life — javi2541997

Yes. The walking can take long or fly by. It depends. It is said older people go to bed already when they wake up.

Isn't it easier to say that everything is created except the universe? But no, that again commits the fallacy of categorizing the universe as a 'thing'. Saying it is created is not even wrong. — noAxioms

That's easier but it's not what's actually the case. In the heavenly eternal kingdom, time exists in a purely divine non-material form, like the gods and the heaven they live in. They could have created the 5d spacetime (time fluctuating) structure with inherent fluctuating, non thermodynamic time, from which the universal 3d space and TD time emerge.

Of course videogames contribute to intelligence. But due to the nature of the games, it's a very limited part of intelligence activated and trained. Walking through real life is the best teacher.

So the dot "moving at (an) arbitrarily high speed(s)" (faster-than-light) is nonphysical! Hasta be, oui? — Agent Smith

Ouioui! Good point!

You are coming up with percentages on claims that have never been proven possible.
Probability is a mathematical concept that demands a verified sample from a total number of cases. — Nickolasgaspar

It's hard to confess, but here I actually agree!

That said, in a universe that seems to hold tons of non-linear phenomena, I wonder why our minds are so into thinking in straight lines. — Agent Smith

Linearity cursed physics since math was introduced. Linear equations offer the easy solution. Non-linearity is the norm indeed. But turn the world into a linear structure and your problems are solved! Which is the reason computers, with their linear structures, feel so at home in linear structures. Linear, step by step, hyperfast approaches to non-linear problems seldom offer good solutions.

It emerges in the mind and then pulls itself higher. The first pull? Where it comes from?

If you don't mind me intruding, where did @SpaceDweller say they exist only 10 years?

The world described is a world of terror. And the world is heading for it.

We are not free if god exists, we are tied to the will of an omnipotent creator — universeness

Pretty much what I thought. In a question on another forum, as part of a question I asked:

"I think it's a creepy thought that we live in a simulated world, just I think it's a creepy thought that we're made by (a) god(s) or by evolution for that matter"

That about covers it. :up: — universeness

That's why discussion and debating is always important. :up:

OK, but if God created spacetime, that's a structure of which time is a part, not a structure in time — noAxioms

Thermodynamic time is no part of the initial vacuum yet. TD time emerges from the TD timeless state.
As you agree with, I see only now!

It's hard to be green. — magritte

:lol:

The Sun emits most power in green. Green power!

But (thermodynamic) time can naturally emerge from a state without time yet. So it doesn't need God to be created.

Math creating itself in the mind!

I am satisfied by the meaningless, mindless spark that no longer exists. That allows me to get rid of the whole god posit and all its flavors — universeness

There are many stories. I have the gods story, you the mindless spark. Who's right? Both of us! If the mindless spark comforts you, be my man! Who cares which is actually true? That's an old idea introduced in ancient Greece. That there is one absolute reality. An idea leading to misery and suffering, if taken seriously. There are a lot of these realities though. Yours, mine, the Christian's etc. Trying to impose one onto others, in the conviction yours is the only one, is wrong.