I hope my point with the antimonkey was clear at least to someone.

Monkey and anti-monkey cancel each other in chaotic arrangement before they can manage to materialize. Something materializes only through windows of harmony which supposedly are small in totally chaotic system or things disintegrate into particles for some other reason.

Harmony in chaos of everything means separation or organisation between things and anti-things. Separation weakens cancelation which reveals the underside of nothing with a tiny hole, or two, through which pours two streams, matter on one side and antimatter on another. This reminds of those giant black holes in the center of galaxies.

Lawrence Krauss wrote a book 'demonstrating' how something can come from nothing.

His nothing are laws of quantum physics and quantum vacuum. That is not nothing, it’s lame attempt at explanation that does not explain. I guess you could say we are describing the same thing, but I think what I said actually explains or at least makes more sense.

I say logically nothing can not exist by itself like black can not exist without white. I’m saying nothing and everything is one thing with two sides. It is everything that can manifest as practically and effectively nothing by cancelation, if everything is uniformly chaotic.

So default mode of everything is to exist as nothing. And then, for some reason, in all the chaos some dimensions of everything interlock in harmony and establish a stable attractor state. This part of harmonic everything then materializes as something, something like big bang I guess. It’s consistent with Greek mythology. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chaos_(cosmogony)

To imagine that the rules of language or mathematics can overrule the world is called 'magical thinking'.

Every addition and subtraction equation directly maps to the real physical world. If you look at it from that perspective it would be really strange equation “-x + x = 0” suddenly doesn’t correspond to reality, and the real mystery is then how can there exist ‘anti-things’, what are they, where are they. And if we find antimatter exist, then that proves the equation is indeed true in metaphysical sense as well.

Yes, potential, which is abstract concept, it is not really a.thing, so it is no-thing. I'm not talking about quantum vacuum, virtual particles, or any such QM spooky stuff. This is classical physics, the fields literally cancel out to produce pure nothing, just like -x + x = 0.

-monkey + monkey = 0, it computes!

If you conceptualise nothing as a formless entity predicated on the absence of particulars, sure

I mean in its literal or physical sense. There is an aspect of testable reality there. Namely, the reason why things are mostly neutrally charged. Also, that is how metal can be magnetised and demagnetised - if orientation of all the magnetic dipoles is uniformly chaotic they cancel each other, just like -x + x = 0.

Or keep electron and positron at the same point in space and you will walk through them, would not be able to see them, detect or interact with them in any way. Effectively, practically, they will be nothing, Now, if practically nothing is still not nothing, then in what way it can be something, or anything?

And now to mathematically prove how something comes out of nothing!

0 = -x + x

This means two things, and it is actually not quite “something comes out of nothing”. I’ll explain in a separate thread…

Your logic circuit is malfunctioning. I repeat what I said, try to read it again.

It's a self-evident truth of reason that every event has a cause.

And again: can something come out of nothing?

Truth is logical, semantical and mathematical, while empirical observations only have statistical certainty. Just because we have not seen it doesn’t prove it can not be, otherwise not so many people would still believe in gods.

Things materializing from another dimension that is normally not part of our universe would appear to come out of nothing, for no reason and without a cause. On the other hand, to exit out of time is to exist never and to be unable to act, which is not only not observed, it is semantic self-contradiction and fallacy in itself to begin with.

Why is god fine-tuned to produce fine-tuned universe?

All dumb mechanical systems tend to equilibrium:

We were talking about the beginning, your statement is about ending. And in the meantime dumb mechanical systems tend to aggregate into things like this:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biology

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perpetual_motion

Dear god! So first you confused big bang with the heath death of the universe, which you then confused with perpetual motion. Triple confusion, you win!!

No dumb mechanical system can be causally effective - there is nothing to initiate motion and even if by some impossibility there was motion, it would lead to equilibrium after a time.

So you lack understanding of basic physics. I don’t have patience for that kind of ignorance. May mighty Khorons have mercy on your soul.

God's environment cannot be fine-tuned for life because there is no-one to do the fine tuning.

Because there is no-one to do the fine tuning? Hmm. Take that logic and apply it directly to the universe.

So God must not need a fine-tuned environment.

I did not ask about any environment, but god itself.

Why is god fine-tuned to produce fine-tuned universe?

Time cannot have always existed:

1. Assume time has always existed
2. Call the current state of the universe X
3. Then the universe has been in state X a greater than any number of times in the past
4. Absurd, so 1 is wrong - time has a start

You are misinterpreting. I did not say the universe always existed, I said time always existed and universes get created from time to time.

And without God, we are left with an unexplainable mystery of the universe being fine-tuned

No, with god you are just making extra step and renaming mystery to "why is god fine-tuned".

Why is god fine-tuned?

Something causally effective, IE intelligent, must exist before time.

You are not addressing the point. Universe is causally effective and it does not have to be intelligent to achieve that. Ok?


It’s really simple, keep everything you said about god, then just instead of saying god created the universe, say god is universe. Everyone can agree with that, and then if you want to personificate it, that’s like thinking about Earth as Gaia, is ok.

I think we can all agree that when you have eliminated all which is impossible, then whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth. So, here are the facts:

a. time has always existed, but it’s not quite what it seems to be

b. time is not just time, it is really a chaotic combination of infinite dimensions

c. number of these dimensions is so infinite, and they are sooo randomly mixed the whole goulash can be better described as nothing, rather than something, and it shall be called “dimension X”

d. from time to time some of the dimensions escape the chaos of the dimension X and this can manifest in various ways, some of which produce universes

e. some people in escaped dimensions think dimension X is a god, dimension X doesn’t care

It’s undeniable!


Seriously though, "dimension X" satisfies criteria from the opening post to classify as god, plus is far more plausible and is even not self-contradicting.

A simulation of gravity doesn't attract nearby bowling balls. A simulation of the brain would perfectly simulate the behavior of a brain but would not necessarily implement consciousness.

Yes, but only in the case qualia is indeed physical phenomena. Alternative being virtual phenomena.

There must be at least one 'brute fact' in reality or else the result is nothing (null universe).

Yes, but the choice of “brute fact” is still just an assumption.

So you have a choice to postulate magical fine-tuned universe, just like we observe, or to postulate unobservable magical being, that just so happens to be fine-tuned to hallucinate into existence this magical fine-tuned universe we actually observe.

Do you see the extra step? All the magical properties you want to attribute to some deity we can simply skip and apply directly to the universe, except then we don’t have to postulate absurdity like unembodied intelligence.

I’m not saying magical universe makes sense, that is plausible, or that it explains anything. I’m only saying it is less, much less of an assumption since it is what we already observe and requires no further assumptions.

1. Can’t get something from nothing

Again there is choice between things that do not make sense.

something always existed
something out of nothing
something existed before time

You think something existed before time is less senseless than something out of nothing even though it is explicit self-contradiction, and it doesn’t get rid of the absurdity “something existed for no reason”.

Something out of nothing is at least not self-contradiction to begin with, and there is really no reason to believe it is actually false, though I do agree it would be surprising. But not more surprising than magic superman just happens to exist for no reason, fluffing around and creating worlds out of boredom.

2. So something must have existed ‘always’.

Universe.

4. It’s not possible to exist permanently in time (would have no start to existence and you cannot exist if you do not start to exist), so the ‘something’ must be the timeless first cause (of time/causality).

Then the universe existed before time. Or whatever paradox you accepted for your deity, it can be applied directly to the universe.

But something beyond time must exist.

Perhaps, but not in English language, at least. It is not because I refuse to think “out of the box”, it is because the time concept is one of the fundamentals our whole understanding is based upon.

Without it there is no change, and without change there is no event, there is no process. All the verbs applied without it completely lose their meaning and the concept becomes semantically invalid, a paradox that we simply can not reason about just like there is nothing to say about ‘round square’ except that is self-contradiction and thus can not exist.

But there is actually one thing that is not caused by anything and which causes everything to happen, in a way. It certainly makes things possible to happen and without which nothing can happen. This one special thing that stands above everything else, it can be said it exist beyond time as well, and that thing is the time itself.

You have to admit the power that time has over everything, even over the gods themselves (logically at least), is pretty god-like, so there, why is not Khronos good enough god for you?

God has to be causally effective, that suggests made of some substance that is from beyond spacetime. It is possible that the universe is underpinned by a non-material substrate (see quantum entanglement). Maybe God is made of this substance.

I agree, keep that logic in mind...

To exist out of substance is to consist of nothing.
-- meaning: it does not exist

To exist out of time is to exist never.
-- meaning: it never existed

To exist out of space is to exist nowhere.
-- meaning: it does not exist

By the way, if god exist out of time and space, practically existing nowhere and never, so is it then actually made of something or it follows it is really made of nothing?

A first cause must be able to cause effects without in itself being effected. So it must be self-driven. IE Intelligent.

Intelligent about what? How can it know anything if there is nothing to know? So instead of asking where did the universe come from, the question becomes where did god get the idea of “universe”, perhaps it has seen it somewhere before?

And what about emotions, why couldn’t it be just emotional instead of intelligent being? Also, do you think it ever questions why does it exist, how and where did it come from, and whether it was itself created by some prior deity?

Simulating an electric field does not produce an electric field in the non-simulated world, but...

There is no but, simulation can not produce actual physical phenomena, i.e. you were wrong as I already explained. That's all.

Yes, physical, it means it can not be simulated, just like you can not produce magnetic attraction by simulating bar magnet, just like you can not produce moisture or wind by simulating hurricane. Do you understand now?

It confirms what I said - you can not claim to be panpsychist without postulating there is sentience present within universe existing as additional fundamental physical property such as electromagnetism or gravity.

Tell that to Galen Strawson.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galen_Strawson
Strawson has argued that what he calls "realistic physicalism" entails panpsychism. He writes that "as a real physicalist, then, I hold that the mental/experiential is physical.

I am both a functionalist and a panpsychist

That sounds like emergentism. In any case you can not claim to be panpsychist without postulating there is sentience present within universe existing as additional fundamental physical property such as electromagnetism or gravity...

...which means you can not believe it can be simulated just like magnetic fields can not be simulated to produce magnetic attraction and repulsion, but only to produce abstract representation of spatial movement and geometrical arrangement resulting.

Neither functionalist nor panpsychist seem to have a definition of "self", so it is dubious what they mean when they say "subjective experience".

If you remove God, you are left with something completely inexplicable / unexplained, so that is not a more reasonable explanation, it is a less reasonable explanation.

I would think by definition there can not possibly exist anything more inexplicable and unexplained than god itself. Every property of god is maximally fantastic and magical, to say the least, and not to go into how they are paradoxical as self-refuting or contradicting each other.

The universe is fine-tuned for life. Saying the universe existed before time means there is no room for a fine tuner so that leaves a billions to one shot that the universe is fine tuned by accident.

In every your argument I can substitute the word “god” with “universe”, and vice versa. And neither god nor universe as the first axiom explain anything, but god will always be more complicated and thus less reasonable assumption.

With god the question about fine tuning is not answered but exaggerated as we can ask not only why is god fine tuned to create life, but also why is “nothing” fine tuned for god to exist in the first place.

There is a God

The uncaused cause must be able to cause an effect without itself being effected. Therefore it must be self-driven. Therefore it must be intelligent. An intelligent creator of the universe fits my personal definition for God.

Universe is uncaused cause, it existed before time. And although there are reasons to call the universe intelligent and equate it with god, to take that metaphor to biblical proportions and personificate universe as a stupid, angry, jelaous and psychopathic magical being is unnecessary and far more complicated postulate, bringing in more questions than answers, and is thus childishly unreasonable idea.

Panpsychism is exactly the opposite of that: whatever is metaphysically going on in human brains is nothing special, it’s just a normal facet of everything,

No, panpsychism claims everything is conscious because it is a fundamental physical property, additional to electromagnetism and gravity,

Panpsychist can not claim consciousness can be simulated, it’s absurd. What do you need simulation for if a computer is already conscious by itself, even when broken or turned off?

And what exactly is supposed to be conscious in such a setting: program or computer, or both, or every atom individually, or electric components make up one consciousness while all the plastic parts another?

Replicate the function and you automatically replicate the experience.

Your belief is called functionalism, not panpsychism. Try to define your terms, write down what is “self” and what is “experience”, then it should become easier to understand what is it you actually believe and how much it doesn’t make any sense.

...unless you think there’s some spooky metaphysical thing going on in real human brains that isn’t going on in simulated ones.

I might think that if I ever decide what to think, but right now that is what you think… aren't you the panpsychist here?

OK, then define "meaning" in your terms.

So called “symbol grounding problem”. Meaning is what information represents in a given context. Meaning can be a physical object, abstract concept, property, action, relation, and whatnot.

Not “just information”, I said “special kind of information that carries meaning within”. Words are information, for example, but they do not contain meaning, so to understand them you need to learn them first. I’m simply saying own sensations and emotions are information we understand without need to interpret or learn first in order to understand what they mean

Well I can't agree till I understand what you're saying. Why can't a computer, or an "information processing system," be conscious? We're information processing systems and we're conscious.

That statement was not about simulation. I do not wish to argue that computers can not, instead I want to hear the best arguments how computers actually can simulate consciousness, and only if there is none on offer, then I might argue that point myself - that computers can simulate it.

If consciousness (feelings, qualia, etc.) are information, then we already know that the substrate doesn't matter.

Not “just information”, I said “special kind of information that carries meaning within”. Words are information, for example, but they do not contain meaning, so to understand them you need to learn them first.

It is not claim that consciousness is how computation feels like, nor that the substrate doesn't matter. I’m simply saying own sensations and emotions are information we understand without need to interpret or learn first in order to understand what they mean, and yet, interestingly, it is impossible to describe them in terms of how they actually feel.

Why the living?

Because of how I defined “experience” and “self” earlier, and because we do not know what that “special kind of information that carries meaning within” actually is, what it entails, or how it works.

Again, I am not promoting any philosophical view, just trying to make very general but meaningful statements that I think everyone can agree on, so we can talk about the same thing rather than talking past each other.

I don't think sensory-input qualia are necessarily a problem: e.g. knowing redness entails experiencing redness in the way our sensory apparatus presents it.

What do you mean?

The REALLY hard problem is feelings (e.g. pain, desire).

I don’t see much difference between external sensations and internal emotions, both feel like feelings. Cognition seems different, but on some basic level cognition too feels like a feeling. In other words, I think they are all hiding behind the same mystery.

It's hard, and we aren't close to figuring it out, but that hardly seems like a good reason to jump to conclusions like panpsychism.

What if I told you that feelings are a special kind of information or signal that carries its meaning within? Like a magical language no one has to learn, but is innately and universally “understood” by all the living. And so when you feel pain you know it means “bad” the moment you are 1st time aware of it, and when you perceive yellow or feel desire you know it’s “yellow” or “desire” even if no one knows what they mean or how to actually describe them.

Right now I’m not talking about simulation, but panpsychism. I’m trying to put forward the most general, metaphysical definition that everyone can agree on regardless of philosophical stance. It is not intended to describe function, but the bare concept. I’m simply asking what do you mean by the word “subjective” and “experience” when you say “subjective experience”.

Fossilized dinosaur footprints in mud are not metaphysically weird, but they're a literal impression of an event on the mud.

How do I know what I mean if I don’t see what I said, seems to me you might be wondering if I ever ask myself about what other people ought to do more often. I have to check now to see if we are speaking the same language...

1. subjective experience consists of "self" and "experience"
-- No? Then, what concepts do you think it consists of?

2. experience is a change some event impresses upon "self"
-- No? Then, what is your definition of “experience”?

3. self is autonomous entity capable of having own impressions
-- No? Then, what is your definition of “self”?

...
Something metaphysically strange did happen somewhere in the evolutionary chain from rocks to people, and that is self-replicating molecules, i.e. life. You can not really get the definition of “self” before that, naturally at least, so it is only logical to conclude sentience goes along, or is produced by, something at minimum living, that is animated, plastic and dynamic thing.

These same properties are also what enables the possibility of experience, and then such “self” having impression of an experience within itself is really a claim about 1st person subjective experience, so this actually answers the mystery, semantically at least, but that should perhaps be enough, or maybe the most we can expect.

So to disagree with the panpsychist, you have to either deny that you and I have any first-person experience, or else postulate that something metaphysically strange happens somewhere in the evolutionary chain from rocks to people.

That is just about the only positive claim from panpsychism. It is generally not controversial, does not explain anything, does not make it testable, and it poses its own additional questions, so it has no value and there is no point in accepting it as such simple assertion.

The only pragmatic thing we can take from panpsychism is to be cautious about yet undiscovered or undiscoverable properties, substances, or dimensions, which brings me to my second point that panpsychism is no different than dualism, and this becomes clear as soon as you start unpacking what the proposal actually entails.