Have you ever had a doubt?

Read up on Bernardo Kastrup. I can’t break it down for you in a forum post. Try this https://besharamagazine.org/science-technology/mind-over-matter/ — Wayfarer

I read the article. It does not explain what he means by that consciousness is a fundamental aspect of the universe.

Do you agree that his statement is contradictory? He stated that consciousness is a fundamental aspect of the universe yet he claims that computer is not conscious.

Do some research. — Wayfarer

On which topic?

Consciousness is fundamental: Kastrup believes that consciousness is a fundamental property of the universe, not a product of complex physical systems like the human brain. This means that AI, which is a product of human design and operates on physical principles, cannot inherently possess consciousness. — Wayfarer

Well, that seems contradictory to me. Everything should be conscious if consciousness is a fundamental property of the universe. So a computer that simulates intelligence is also conscious. What is its subjective experience is however the subject of discussion. Its subjective experience could be simple low-level that allows the computer to run the code. I highly doubt that its subjective experience is high-level such as thoughts though even if its behavior indicates that it is intelligent.

Did you read the OP? If yes, what is your opinion about it? I defined all the necessary terms.

No problem. Feel free to ask if you have another question.

As you suggest, at the level of reality whatever the heck doubt is, is not what we're assessing here. A prehistoric human, like other animals lacked this 'artificial' autonomous process. When it faced a divergence in a path, it either used its senses and responded in accordance with its conditioning to follow the 'right' path, or it just moved forward indifferently. It did not have the pronoun to attach either congratulations for a right choice nor doubt with respect thereto. — ENOAH

I think even a mouse can freely decide when it is in a maze.

We are assessing a thing we have over eons constructed and reconstructed, and transmitted from generation to generation, such that whatever real doubt is, has been displaced by it. The 'doubt' we are assessing is not that biochemistry, but the deterministic movement of images constructed and projected into this world of moving images--not world of natural conditioning where the chemistry is at play. And I realize they function together on a feedback loop, but we're really talking about the surface, the world of images, where d-o-u-b-t abides, with all of its triggering powers. I'm confident we're not going to find
d-o-u-b-t in any chemicals. — ENOAH

We know that doubt is the result of the biochemical processes in the brain. Doubt is a sort of conscious phenomenon and all conscious phenomena are correlated with biochemical processes in the brain.

I'm saying (oversimplified for space and time) those images move deterministically. For humans born into history, confronted by a divergence in a path, if one path appears rugged and dangerous, the other smooth, and these are the only factors, reason, moving images of a specific variety, autonomously gets to work, and the easy path is selected. If a given person happens to defy reason, they did not. Their 'reason,' just as autonomously applied as conventional reason, the rugged so-called choice was triggered by moving images of xyz autonomously moving them to take the rugged path. Finally if one cannot choose, and 'reads' into experience, moving images called doubt, that too, is pushed upon the body at that moment, e.g., a balance of xyz's or conflicting structures, just as autonomously playing on the next step/no step as reason or defiance did. — ENOAH

I used the example of the maze to show that doubt is real. We are not dealing with a doubtful situation in which one path is smooth and another one is rugged.

So MoK is talking about only 'things' (objects). The universe is not such a 'thing', so the conclusion from the OP is relevant only to objects, not the universe, per this restricted definition of 'nothing' to mean literally 'no thing'. — noAxioms

The universe is a collection of objects so OP applies to the universe.

By reference to an initial state, and by use of past tense, you imply that some time (the earliest time), it could have been finite, but that it isn't finite now. That requires, at some moment, a transition from finite to infinite.

The universe (our 4D spacetime) is considered to be infinite in all four dimensions, and bounded at one end of the time dimension. — noAxioms

I have an argument for the whole being limitless, which you can find here. My main problem however is that I don't have any argument to show that the whole is filled by material so there could be areas filled by material and others that are empty.

If God can always have existed without a cause, then so can have the universe. — Hanover

That is my point. So, we are dealing with two scenarios here unless one does not exclude that the universe have existed since beginning of time one cannot conclude that God exists.

They can't claim that because it violates premise #1, which was my point. — Hanover

Why does it violate premise #1?

But I do not agree. It cannot go from finite to infinite. There's no scaling that would do that. For one, it would be transitioning at some moment from having a size to not having one. — noAxioms

We didn't say that the universe went from finite to infinite.

Much easier to say the universe exists. That cuts out one regression step. — noAxioms

We need a justification to exclude God.

How then does doubt emerge, if not by the push of history? Is doubt arising, out of the blue? — ENOAH

We don't know how doubt emerges from biochemical processes in the brain. We also don't know about the emergence of thought, qualia, and intentionality.

:up:

How could your decision be based on history when you have doubt?

Neither is the universe. — noAxioms

Are you an idealist?

There are 'things' in this universe seemingly without a cause (proof lacking). Unruh radiation is a fine example, predicted a long way back, and seemingly finally detected recently. — noAxioms

What Unruh radiation has to do with our debate?

This premise is self-contradictory.

If what you mean by "whatever begins to exist" is that there are certain whatevers that "begin" in a creation ex nihilo sort of way, i.e. something from nothing, then you've violated the other condition of this premise, which is that every whatever "has a cause."

That is, you are saying in a single breath that some things just come to be without a cause but all things have a cause.

This contradiction becomes more evident when you seek to locate the elusive first uncaused cause (i.e. God). That is, this argument doesn't lead you to finding God, but it leads you to realizing that even God fails to meet your conditions because God is a whatever that must also have a cause because you told me everything has a cause. — Hanover

They claim that God didn't begin to exist but exists.

The error is in the logic. Premise one is necessarily false. For there to be an uncaused cause, you must state that some whatevers are not caused, which would then allow for the universe to be one of those whatever. — Hanover

I agree with what you stated. But here it seems that you object to the second premise, not the first one.

:100: :up:

Why should it not? Its uncaused. Something uncaused has no reason for being. Which also means it has no reason for NOT being. — Philosophim

So?

Think about the previous statement carefully. If there's no reason for something existing, then there's no reason that it has to have existed infinitely. — Philosophim

Why?

Meaning something that is unexplained would exist, and we would know it exists by its being. But there would be no prior reason for its explanation beyond its simple being. Meaning, if something exists in this world that is unexplained, there is no reason why it should have existed finitely or infinitely. — Philosophim

I am not saying that the universe in its initial state was infinite. It could be finite or infinite.

Another way to express what I'm angling toward, is that "reason" is defined to restrictively above (or, I assume). A decision is always based on a preceding trigger, whether such a trigger can be defined as a "reason" or not. Nothing happens absolutely independently. Even the most randomly seeming "choice" can be traced back to its triggers, right up to the immediately pre ending domino that pushed the domino with choice printed on it. — ENOAH

I am talking about different types of decisions here. The decision is called free when you don't have a reason to choose one option over another. Therefore, there cannot be any preceding cause for a free decision.

I'm not convinced there is a real self nor soul, if by those, we mean a separate entity with a will. — ENOAH

Well, that is the logical consequence of my argument. A deterministic entity such as the brain cannot decide when there is doubt.

If the brain is deterministic (I believe you are suggesting so) and it feeds the indeterministic mind, where, if anywhere, does will fit in? — ENOAH

Will is the faculty of the mind.

Which one of these is confronted with the duality of belief v doubt? — ENOAH

I am not talking about belief.

And how does that entity settle upon either? — ENOAH

What do you mean?

If the mind is indeterministic, and, accordingly, the entity of "choice" (presumably willful choice), there are still presumably a series of causes (including the so called input from the brain) prior to that final "moment" where, what? — ENOAH

Yes, there is a series of causes that lead to the experience of doubt.

suddenly there is a gap in causes, and mind leaps, on its own, independently of any last cause, thus choosing willfully (even, perhaps, freely) to either believe or doubt? — ENOAH

The mind does not choose to believe or doubt. The mind chooses between options.

What mechanism does/causes that (free) choice? — ENOAH

There is no mechanism. The free choice is an indeterministic phenomenon.

I personally have difficulty jumping into this idea of a self soul will to explain that gap. It makes more sense for me to believe (I recognize the seeming internal challenge of "I believe") that the final step too, belief/doubt is also "deterministic." — ENOAH

The final step namely free decision cannot be deterministic.

Not pre-determined; not inevitable, but still, the final "choice," believe/doubt was triggered by that immediately preceding it; not by an agent willing it. — ENOAH

We cannot avoid the mind once we accept that doubt is real.

What caused the material to exist since the beginning of time? — Philosophim

There was no cause for the material at the beginning of time.

If there is no prior cause, then it is uncaused. — Philosophim

Correct.

Something that is uncaused has no prior reason for its existence. — Philosophim

Correct.

But then, what is to prevent something uncaused that is also finite? — Philosophim

Why should it be finite?

There is no logical difference between the two. — Philosophim

I cannot follow why.

There's plenty left when those are eliminated. The natural numbers for one... — noAxioms

The natural numbers are not a thing.

The weak anthropic principle does a fair task of explaining why physical laws are like this. — noAxioms

Thanks for mentioning it. I googled it and have some stuff to read.

I see and I agree.

If physical reality has a formal theory, then its model/interpretation may contain inexplicable truths in a similar way as the system of the natural numbers does. — Tarskian

Maybe. For now, we don't know why physical laws are like this.

We don't know how humans think. Does your AI have the ability to think?

For temporal change, sure. — noAxioms

I mean temporal change.

'nothing' isn't even really a defined thing, so the conclusion is more meaningless than impossible. — noAxioms

By nothing I mean no material, no space, no time,...

Here's the main one, perhaps the first one to generalize LET theory to include gravity. It was published almost a century after Einstein generalized his Special relativity theory.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/45904833_Black_Holes_or_Frozen_Stars_A_Viable_Theory_of_Gravity_without_BlackHoles
It is an absolute theory, with the universe contained by time, hence absolute time. All the premises of special relativity are denied, and different premises are used. — noAxioms

I read the manuscript once last night and I found it very interesting. I have to read a couple of more times to understand it well. Just out of curiosity, where was the manuscript published, and how many citations does it have?

For the Christian, the fact that we are created 'imago dei' and return to the source of being at the time of death is fundamental to their faith. Life is regulated according to that belief, and according to the Biblical maxims and commandments. Whereas naturalism sees h.sapiens as the consequence of physical evolutionary processes that happen to have given rise to this particular species. They are very different attitudes and outlooks. — Wayfarer

Thanks for writing. I see what you mean.

If a system is incomplete, then it has unprovable truths. An unprovable truth is an inexplicable truth. The existence of such fundamentally inexplicable truths has nothing to do with our own evolution in terms of understanding. There simply does not exist a justification for such truth. The natural numbers is a system with fundamentally inexplicable truths. — Tarskian

I didn't mean mathematical truth when I said we may one day explain reality. I mean we may be able to explain why physical laws are like this and not the other ways.

And, by that do you mean, the so called self? — ENOAH

What do you mean by self? Soul?

Or is Mind a [deterministic] entity which decides autonomously, without input from a central authority or agent? — ENOAH

Mind is an indeterministic entity. It receives input from the brain.

First of all, if S(t) can be predicted from S(t-1) ... S(0) then the theory T for this system is complete. — Tarskian

In this thread, I am not interested to discuss whether different states predicate other states later. What I am interested is that these states have existed since the beginning of time.

Non-trivial systems do not have a complete theory. For example, the theory for the system of the natural numbers (PA) is not complete. — Tarskian

What is PA? Why the theory for the system of natural number is incomplete?

Secondly, theory T is axiomatic, which means that every single one of its rules has no further explanation in terms of deeper underlying rules. So, even if we had a copy of theory T with all its rules, we would still not understand why it is there, just by looking at it. Just like PA has no ulterior logical explanation, by its very nature, T does not have one either. — Tarskian

We may one day be able to explain why reality behaves like this.

Hence, from within the universe, you cannot figure out why the universe exists. Just staring at the universe or just staring at its theory (which we do not even have) won't help. — Tarskian

I would say that we have to be open to the situation. We may be able to explain things given our intellectual power. We are evolving creatures so even if we cannot explain things now we may be able to explain things in future when we are evolved well.

The idea that God created the heavens and the earth, is a belief. By merely by staring at the heavens and the earth, this belief can neither be logically justified nor logically rejected. This belief has spiritual origins that transcend logic. — Tarskian

Yes, that is a belief and you have the right to accept it. Are you in favor of the creation of things from nothing? If yes, I have an argument against it. You can find the argument here.

Interesting that arguments over whether the Universe has an origin in time is one of Kant’s ‘antinomies of reason’ (insoluble questions) and also a question declared unanswerable in Buddhism. — Wayfarer

Interesting. I didn't know that.

It’s kind of a shame that so many important ethical issues are believed to hinge on such a question. — Wayfarer

How ethical issues are related to the origin of the universe?

Can't doubt be a mechanism developed into, and operating within, a deterministic system; the "sense" that there is an agent doubting being, not a challenge posed by doubt so much as by the illusion of the agent "choosing" to doubt (the so called self/subject/ego)? — ENOAH

We don't choose to doubt. We face doubt.

Further, isn't it bad enough we superimpose a false duality by speaking of mind as a separate being from matter? — ENOAH

Matter including the brain as I discussed is deterministic entity so it cannot freely decide when we have doubt.

Do we really need to make mind itself consist of dualities--conscious/unconscious? — ENOAH

The mind is conscious. It is not unconscious.

Isn't the entire process we conventionally think of as mind, deterministic: choice, belief, and doubt? — ENOAH

The mind is not a process to me but an entity with ability to freely decide. We would have problem to decide when we have doubt if mind is deterministic.

So premise 1 is a premise that only applies to objects IN the universe, and even then it isn't necessarily true except under fully deterministic interpretations of physics. — noAxioms

I have one argument for nothing to something is impossible which I discussed it in this thread. The argument got refined in the final forms as following:

My argument:

P1) Time is needed for change
P2) Nothing to something needs a change in nothing
P3) There is no time in nothing
C1) Therefore, change in nothing is not possible (From P1 and P3)
C2) Therefore, nothing to something is not possible (from P2 and C1)

Bob Rose's argument:

P1: If an entity is the pure negation of all possible existence, then it cannot be subjected to temporality.
P2: ‘Nothing’ is the pure negation of all possible existence.
C1: Therefore, ‘nothing’ cannot be subjected to temporality.

P3: Change requires temporality.
P4: ‘Nothing’ cannot be subjected to temporality.
C2: Therefore, ‘nothing’ cannot be subjected to change.

P5: ‘Nothing’ becoming ‘something’ requires change.
P6: ‘Nothing’ cannot be subjected to change.
C3: Therefore, ‘nothing’ cannot be subjected to becoming

So I think that the first premise stands.

Premise 2 totally goes against the consensus view among cosmologists where time and space are contained by the universe instead of the other way around. — noAxioms

Actually I was aware of that problem as well but I wanted to discuss it in another thread. Time is needed for a thing to begin to exist since the thing does not exist at a point and then exists.

Such a model does exist, and it necessarily denies things predicted by the prevailing view such as the big bang or black holes. — noAxioms

Do mind to provide a link to such models? I studied cosmology around 20 years ago and I am very rusty now.

The universe is not posited to have been built from 'material'. Any material did not show up on the scene until several epochs beyond the big bang. — noAxioms

We still don't have the quantum gravity theory and that was why I hesitated to discuss Big Bang. Otherwise, I agree with you.

So we're in agreement about the lack of soundness of the argument, but for different reasons. — noAxioms

Cool.

Good points from you, too. But I liked to quote that specific phrase of your text with the aim of analysing the following: I guess we agree with the fact that interpreting Genesis is complex because it is full of metaphors and contradictions. You claim that Adam and Eve acted with confusion, I rather think that they acted doing what a large number of people also do: greed (why did they eat the apple when there were other foods?) and disobedience (why do they listen to the serpent when they should have obeyed God blindly?). — javi2541997

I think they were simply in a situation to believe God's or the serpent's words. They wouldn't eat the fruit if they believed in God's words. They ate the fruit therefore they believed in the serpant's words. It is important to notice the passage from Genesis which is about the serpent telling Eve that you certainly will not die after she says that God said that you will die if you eat the fruit. This means that they were resisting their temptation to eat the fruit before the serpent's intervention.

It is a metaphor. People always want more than they need and also disobey the authority when they don't need to in most cases. — javi2541997

If you treat the story of the fall as a metaphor then one could also argue the act of creation is a metaphor. The same applies to the existence of God as an agent so that is a metaphor as well.

:100: :up:

God didn't allow anything. — javi2541997

Correct. I should have said God gave them access to eat the fruit.

He just induced Adam and Eve to eat the apple with the aim of tasting if they would resist the greed or not. — javi2541997

God knew that they would fail since He is omniscient. God prohibited them not eating but He gave them access to the tree whether they eat the fruit or not. There was the serpent who intervened as well. The serpent said that you will not die if you eat the fruit. So there was not only the element of greed. There was confusion due to what the serpent said as well.

I'm still swayed by Augustine's 'evil as a privation of the good'. To put it another way, evil has the kind of existence that holes, fractures, shadows and illness has. — Wayfarer

Augustine mixed Positive (by positive I mean consisting in or characterized by the presence rather than the absence of distinguishing features, such as vision), and negative (such as blindness) with good (such as love) and evil (such as hate).

It is my opinion that God allowed evil to manifest in the world, according to His divine plan. — Shawn

We all know the story of Adam and Eve. Knowing that they fall but allowing them to commit evil is evil.

How are the clay and the statue related? — frank

Through the form.