But such precision is useless for making sense of the behavior of phenomena that require different accounts , such as biological and psychological entities. — Joshs

Right, one thing is to explain the physics of the universe and another thing is to explain the "human". There is a still a disconnect, an epistemic gap. But couldn't it be that gap to be caused by a cultural or philosophical bias?
Millions of people still believe in live after death. Are we sure many of us are not too biased still by our cultural prejudices ? Aren't those theories putting truth in front of us?
I agree all these are open and interesting discussions, I would claim though they have to be tackled from the underestimated but essential perspective of Naturalism (Daniel Andler).
This is the way! (Mandalorian :grin: )

So, because QM is quite possibly wrong, and because relativity is too complicated for practical use, I vote no. — counterpunch

Right, they are not be perfect, they could be wrong. But isn't it true they are the best ones we have? Or do you know about better ones? M theory?... or do you know a metaphysician that has better ones :wink:
My question is not about whether the theories are perfectly right but whether they are the best ones we have.

If anyone is responding NO, he/she should say which one is a better theory than those two.

When this facist socialistic nation (Multicellular organism) turns on itself? — Benj96

Do you mean when does it turns against itself?

Today I got drunk — Ori

:lol:

Nah! You're no fun anymore. — Gnomon

:cry:

I have never heard that this can apply to bridge the gap between objects and the perceptual equipment of an epistemic agency. — Constance

What about the superposition principle? Incoherent state of particles?

How is it even possible to conceive of it such that objects as independent of perceptual conditioning can be the objects in perception? — Constance

I have to insist here, I see this happening in other artificial systems we humans create. In engineering and physics we call them complex systems. Complex systems have the capacity of new properties and capabilities to emerge within them. Properties and capabilities impossible to predict. One good example are the Convolutional Networks that learn to recognize objects in images. Nothing metaphysical but just physical, physics of information. And those complex systems are heuristic and stochastic as our brain is.

One has to admit that there is something to this otherness of objects, they are not me, — Constance

But this "otherness" and the "me" is another mental object, maybe the highest level one but as any other that emerges during childhood. If you would grow up in the forest (like Frederick II in 13th century did with many children) without any contact to other humans, no contact to human language it is very likely you idea of the others, your "self", would be very very different and you would not have the instruments to make the questions you are making here. This is to say that it is the culture and the environment you grow up that determines your Self and how you are in the world. So this example illustrates as well that this "otherness" and this "me" is a reflexion, a literal mirror-reflexion of the "other" humans that your brain recognize being like you (same body, same gestures, capabilities...). 2 mirrors opposite one to the other. No surprise they generate the idea of infinite like it happens in the infinite images reflected in 2 confronted mirrors.

Oh, thank God! Please tell me how this works so I can call the newspapers. — Constance

No need, professionals in this field have already explained it and earn their lives explaining and making research to better explain how concepts are caused by external objects interacting with our brain. It is not yet digested by the pop-culture but it will come and as always in history, this paradigma-shifts happen in silence. Stanislas Dehaene (who works for French ministry of education) and Georg Northoff are good ones doing this.

All that you can say is composed IN the very mind that is supposed to be the object of your explanation!! — Constance

No, here I think you make a fundamental mistake. What I can say is the result of scientific+philosophical studies of the subjective narratives of people, studying their subjectivity. Heterophenomenology successfully studies the subject as an object

You cannot reach out of phenomena to affirm this natural world, for every utterance, every observation you make is phenomenal! — Constance

Sorry but yes we can and we do, again through heterophenomenology. Another way is looking at cases where the brain system breaks due to accidents or illness. Those case-studies are so helpful as well to kill so many prejudices about what we're. Good reference here is Ramachandran.
Do you know we can know your decisions before you know them (Libet)? Do you know we can induce a brain to be a religious brain (Ramachandran)? Do you know Capgras syndrome? Did you see in youtube the man with only 7-seconds memory? We can induce you the sense of presence of someone else just with some drugs altering you state of consciousness. A tumor can make you a pedophile (you can google it, real story).
These are cases that allow us to exit from our interior as these are like doors that open to what we're really are and how our brain cheat us :grimace:

These are all pragmatic determinations, not ontological — Constance

Ontological :-) I understand you use it here in its full metaphysical sense so I have to say nice metaphysical word but not epistemic value outside virtual illusive metaphysical systems. Sorry, here we diverge fundamentally. For me metaphysics is like an invented philosophical religion. I know it sounds strong, but it is how I see it. Well and many other philosophers. I do not subscribe to any meta-something view of things.
You can call me pragmatic. I would not accept this either. All this for me is completely obsolete terminology. I subscribe to naturalism that I'm quite sure you're not familiar with (see Daniel Andler and Sandro Nannini).

provisional theories. See Kuhn, who was a Kantian) have to say. I am an adherent and an admirer. — Constance

Yes agree, but science does paradigm shifts, progress, what ensures continuous and concrete progress. Philosophy has always had to follow, they go hand-to-hand but science dictates the reality. It is not the other way around.

It is understood that the horizon of our phenomenological gaze is both confined to interiority and inclusive of others that are not us, for in the phenomenal presentation, we witness otherness; otherness is IN the interiority of the perceiving agency, and this is confirmed by no more than its presence. Phenomenology is a descriptive "science" (Husserl called it this). — Constance

And I subscribe to this, while I think Husserl and subsequent followers have gone too far with phenomenology. I'm anyway not an expert on this topic.

The Other, therefore, comes to us embedded in our own interiority — Constance

Yes, and, maybe aside comment, most of the times the mother and the father are very influential.

This Other is transcendental, as are all things not me; it is just that this "outsideness" of things occurs within, and this sets the stage for a great deal of post modern philosophy. Levinas holds that the Other is beyond our Totality, which is Heidegger's dasein; the other intrudes in the face that reveals an ethical obligation to respond that issues from transcendence, which religiously is construed as God. — Constance

This Other is transcendental, as are all things not me; it is just that this "outsideness" of things occurs within, and this sets the stage for a great deal of post modern philosophy. Levinas holds that the Other is beyond our Totality — Constance

Yes I subscribe to this.

which is Heidegger's dasein; — Constance

No, I have problems with metaphysics as I said above sorry. The Dasein is such a confusing concept.

the other intrudes in the face that reveals an ethical obligation to respond that issues from transcendence, which religiously is construed as God. — Constance

Wonderful!
Just to say, yes, religiously as God, and not religiously as the "existential delusion"

there is a transcendence, and transcendence is defined by what escapes our totalizing reach that wants to integrate all things into itself. — Constance

Agree. But would you agree that science and technology is the only successful way to scrutinize the trascendental world?
Philosophy's role is that of consolation (Boezio's), about dealing with our inner needs of further existential explanation but most of the epistemic value comes from science. Well, nowadays philosophy is important as well to articulate what human civilizations want to become with all this science and technology challenging the foundations of our ethics, laws and politics.

lies with the more fundamental and irreducible value qua value. — Constance

Value qua value... yeap!.
It is hard to build the bridge... but I think I'm almost there, thinking that value can be reduced to the homeostatic principle. Or, like I like to do, the other way around... Homeostasis importance has to be expanded as the main driver of existential value.
I know one could say... but homeostasis describes a biological thing, this is materialism... yes and this is the purpose of "naturalism" to get rid of materialistic prejudices and expand the powers of nature! A very much unknown nature that we are discovering is beyond any existential-human claim.

I'm sorry if I hurt your feelings, seriously. I'm not a bad person but I'm not a diplomat either :grin:
But if you, metaphysicians, are right, those 2 minutes didn't passed because only the present exists. Or maybe you do not adhere to a-theory presentism? :joke:

This brings to my mind "The Selfish Gene" of Dawkins.
I think biological systems are pure fascist national-socialism.
Too late for me to argue this further but if you're interested I can do it tomorrow.

I think luck deals with probability. We use "luck" when something happens that had very low probability to happen. It could be then assessed as good or bad luck.
I want to believe our systems of law are actually designed with many balances and counter balances in order to minimize the possibility of people being victims of bad luck (i.e. I was there, beside the killer, and the victim confused me with the killer, but I was not the killer... Thriller movies are full of good examples).

philosophy of action is that acting because of luck prevents free action — Don Wade

I have to recognize I don't catch this one. What do you understand with this sentence?

I mean, obviously very few people here 'are' doing philosophy. But I am — Bartricks

Chapeau!

making no allowance for human feelings and opinions. — Gnomon

And I think you still are. Your theory is a good proof of it. You tend to appear you bring everything into your eclectic potpourri as I said and you do not accept ideas like mine that are not that eclectic.

Yin/Yang symbol, where both halves contain a spot of the other color — Gnomon

I like rainbows much more :grin:

It acknowledges that the world is characterized by opposing forces — Gnomon

Yes but not just 2 forces. Is much more complex than that while it is very pop to think Yin/Yang.

I'm still not completely harmonized to the point of being genderless, but I try to be open to other points of view. — Gnomon

Do you think being genderless is an harmonized thing? I live with my wife in harmony. Nature and evolution has created human genders. Many see harmony in a gender-full world :love:
Male and females are completely different in the emotional life, their brains are different on how to deal with feeling and emotions, hormones, etc... why to look towards a genderless future? Looks like you try to adhere to any new-age vogue without having a personal opinion. Looks like an extreme eclecticism.

seems a bit too Macho for a philosophical forum, where moderation is the key to a calm, reasoned dialogue. :grin: — Gnomon

I see you're full of prejudices :wink:
I'm very calm and reasonable and have a lot of fun arguing with you as I did with Pop :grin:

Opposing views are not right or wrong, but more or less accurate for a particular purpose. — Gnomon

This is not always the case. Many times when you have opposing views in science only one gets the prize. Politics is about finding the balance and the agreement but philosophical or scientific truths are different... But this build into your eclecticism all-is-valid approach.
Go to Syria and live a civil war and try to put together the opposing views. You will see sooner or later you will have to decide whether you're on one side because you're christian or on another because you're muslim or leave the country... I know this opens a lot of front but it is reality.

* Conceptually, the BothAnd principle is similar to Einstein's theory of Relativity, in that what you see ─ what’s true for you ─ depends on your perspective, — Gnomon

You should realize what you do with your arguments like this one. I'm very calm and nice but I just tell you what I think as you do with my statements. You mention Einstein here so it gives to your argument, that is a very basic and common sense argument, a strong flavor of scientific authority while for people like me that have a strong scientific background it is clear that the way you mix-up scientific concepts with social or ethical arguments is deceptive and full of fallacies. Another one is when you mention the Qubit below... it can be both 0 and 1 because it can take all the values between 0 and 1. This again makes it clear you don't understand quantum mechanics. It is so evident, don't take this personal I don't even know you.

Fuzzy logic is a form of many-valued reasoning in which the truth values of variables may be any real number between 0 and 1. It is employed to handle the concept of partial truth, where the truth value may range between completely true and completely false. — Gnomon

Another good example. Fuzzy logic is a system the deals with grades of "truth" yes but truth here in the context of fuzzy logic is not the philosophical truth. Fuzzy logic is used to manage analogic systems vs digital ones for example. You see ? Here you have another fallacy as a result of mixing up science, ethics, religion... ufff

PS___Your hyper-aggressive use of smiles ( :lol: :rofl: :lol: ) indicates a tendency to ridicule what you don't emphathize with. Please try to be cool. :cool: — Gnomon

I was having a lot fun with Pop and I cannot laugh? Com'on Gnomon enjoy life :rofl: I'm maybe Macho but I'm a nice person. Aren't you?

Thems is rules such as "do an act if doing so will serve your ends and won't violate another rule of reason" and "be nice" and "believe in the truth of the conclusions of sound arguments" and so on. — Bartricks

Man, this is so vague. This point is the core of you post, you should have a more solid description of the laws of Reason. Which are those? I guess those are universal and well known by all the societies, it is just that I've missed them anyhow.

inally people have evolved and proclaimed that even your opinions are dead. They have given you the right to remain silent until you are reeducated. Don't try and hide; just shut up. There are no safe spaces for you if you insist on arguing. God is dead, philosophy is dead, and now your opinions are as good as dead. It is just a matter of time and education. You have the right to remain silent. Be happy for that. With your attitude you could be eliminated or canceled out. If you don't believe me, watch the trailor to the movie. Only the opinions of your big brother matter. All additional thoughts will be canceled — Nikolas

Are you describing inquisition times? witch hunting?
Nikolas, I don't know where you live but I suppose you live in a western country. You live in the most liberal and free society of all times in history. Don't you agree? Or you think in an idyllic past that was better?

Stephen Hawking said that Philosophy is dead. — Nikolas

Let me explain you what Prof. Hawking's was saying with an example: if you take Galileo or Kelpler or the famous Copernico, etc. they were what we call today scientists/astronomists that had to fight again philosophers and religion mainly to defend their scientific ideas. Some of them died in poverty or deep suffering because of not acceptance.
After a few decades their scientific demonstrations prevailed and the old questions or theories that were defended by the old powers that put them in disgrace and that were assuming the Earth was the center of the universe or thinking the Earth was flat... those theories and thinkers disappeared, so philosophy and religion had to adapt their theories to this new reality that paradoxically was not discovered thanks to great theologists (blind because of power of religion) or philosophers (some of them -onlysome of them- blind because of egocentrism) but they were discovered by what we call today scientists.
It is this science the main trigger of technologies that guarantee goods and well being to masses of population like ever in the past, but over all, a social substrate for education and free-speech and democracies.
There is a dark side as it has always been in history, unfortunately we have to deal with our human condition, that has not changed at all, our brains are always as dangerous as in the past. But today is better in any sense to the past.

Remember many scientists, too many, have died because of their discoveries going against mainstream thinking and their theories were right ... so we owe them a lot.

Hope it makes sense.

If there are laws of Reason, then there is a mind whose laws they are — Bartricks

Which are the laws of reason? I know about the laws of physics and many scientific laws but laws of Reason is really new man.

Therefore, God exists. — Bartricks

Which God? from which religion? Why only one?

I forgot you were able to solve the "Hard problem" sorry. Why don't you call Chalmers, I'm sure he will pay you for this good money. :rofl: :lol: :rofl: :snicker:

With pleasure if you pay me enough but it looks you won't have enough money to pay so keep waiting :rofl: :lol: :rofl:

a philosophical matter, not a matter of scientific investigation. — Bartricks

Of course it is a philosophical matter but scientific as well, at least this is what think those contemporary philosophers that go hand-by-hand with science. This is why I mention naturalism, that it is evident you don't know as it is not one of those main-stream stereotyped schools of thought. Read Daniel Andler or Sandro Nannini, they re philosophers.
Today you should not do philosophy without understanding science.

By the way, meta-physics, or meta-anything is a mental construction with no epistemological value. I call it the philosophical meta-fever. Even Aristotle did not ever mention the word metaphysics and it is well accepted even among continental philosophers that each philosopher that has tried to deal with metaphysics (Kant, Hegel, ....) have tried to reinvent the wheel with a new system of metaphysical words and meanings. No epistemological value other than solipsistic statements that will die with humans once the Earth gets burned by the Sun or destroyed in a dystopian future. Science though is universally accepted and makes solid epistemological progress. Slowly but keeps moving.
Don't get me wrong, all of us in Europe have studied continental philosophers as it core of our basic graduate and I even went further... I respect the metaphysical views very much though. It is mystic experience to read them (the Dasein, the categorical imperative, the immanence, ...) but it is like it is to listen to Mozart piano concerto no.21. Great intellectual massages but, again, with no epistemic value.

Personally I'm looking forward to when the baking age begins and it is bakers, rather than scientists, who start to be seen as authorities on all things metaphysical. Yes, that maybe what philosophers think time is, but what does Paul Hollywood say? — Bartricks

You're looking forward to living in the 4th century BC again and be a friend of Aristotle? Good luck! Stay healthy...

Let's assume immaterialism is true (I do think it is). — Bartricks

Of course immaterialism is true. This is a scientific evidence since Maxwell and Einstein. Matter is not everything. You dualists keep using the world materialist as if we were in the middle age.
Science describes the world beyond matter, no need for spiritualism or dual views of the world.

The debate nowadays is between naturalism and dualistic... but of course naturalism is well ahead in the race :wink:

It costed me 5 years of master degree studies and 2 master degrees... but if you pay me well I can teach you :lol: :rofl: :lol:

Right, all those words you mention are words you learn. You not only learn the words but how to use them, in which context and situations (objective external situations and subjective).
This way you understand to express when you don't know to use "unknown" that you learn is similar to "mystery" and so on...
Then our brain has the capabilities to create novelty, what we call imagination as well as to abstract. But this is not different from our capabilities to learn language. In this case we put together things that you haven't seen together before (like artists or researches do) but is like when you see a baby playing and creating new things. Have you seen how creative babies are? Is because our brains have the capability to manipulate as well as simulate new combinations. And those that resonate get conscious and if they have a social value resonate further and get famous discoveries...
Our brains are heuristic and stochastic machines...

When do things become really complex? When our self, our ego raises, within a competitive society with certain culture and it aspires to be the center of the universe. This anthropocentric view that situates humans as being metaphysical, spiritual, etc... but those are all social illusions.

I recommend you read a bit of Naturalism of Andler or Nannini.

Yes! A sensation is not sufficient to establish subject-predicate... — Banno

:up:

A system full of uncertainty has information of its uncertainty. It is not 0 information. — Pop

Yes, it has information because you say it has it. Good the mathematicians and physicist thinks differently.
As I just said to Gnomon, it is evident you guys have no scientific studies, at least at university levels.
It is not good you try to impose a view when you don't even have the basic education to understand concepts like information.
But keep in mind you're just cheating yourself guys.

I don't find that term in a Google search. Is that your own private personal worldview? — Gnomon

It is not one of those mainstream pop-schools of thought you'rejused to. But there is still hope, you tried to google it, :snicker: search for Naturalism and Andler or Nannini.

, it not build theories of the world? — Gnomon

You said before it is... contradictions? :joke:

Have you ever come across anything that has no information? - Tell me about it! :rofl: — Pop

You have so many things to learn. It is evident you guys don't even have a scientific education, and you have invested all this energy writing a theory of everything :rofl: :lol:

Read the Naturalism so you can learn something new. :snicker:

How does the brain define so well without defining ? — Benj96

Brain does it mainly while you grow, mainly within the first 4-5 years of your childhood.
Your brain learns how to interact with objects, learn to create concepts, categories and words associated.
So if during your learning period you always see books linked to oranges and you learn the word "book" and "orange" those 2 ideas will associated in your brain very strongly and will be hard to separate them during the rest of your life as your brain gets less plasticity.
It is very interesting and instructive to see how AI convolutional networks designed for vision learn and how conceptual hierarchies (from the line up to the higher concepts of nose, eyes up to facial recognition) get encoded to understand the landscapes-of-concepts are encoded in neural-traces close one another.
This video illustrates it:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gu0MkmynWkw&ab_channel=GeneKogan
I find Yosinski tool to visualize CNN great for this.

Our brain treats information similarly.

sedentarism killed the nature of Man - egoism was destroyed — Gus Lamarch

So we're not egoist anymore because we're sedentary?

As a scientific paradigm, the thesis of Enformationism is intended to be an update to the obsolete 19th century paradigm of Materialism. Since the recent advent of Quantum Physics, the materiality of reality has been watered down. Now we know that matter is a form of energy, and that energy is a form of Information. — Gnomon

Since 19th many theories have come, materialism is an stereotyped word you keep using and that is the
proof that your Enformation comes late and adds not epistemic value.

So, an infinite deity is proposed to serve as both the energetic Enformer and the malleable substance of the enformed world. — Gnomon

Infinite deity, God? It is evident you have missed exposure or understanding of XXth century onwards... Nietzsche, Wittgenstein, Quine... analytic currents like epistemology, logical positivism. The use of "deity" is obsolete in philosophy.
Your claims are basically going backwards, traditional spiritualism disguised with a pseudo scientific approach (Asclepio's times).
Since 19th century many new theories have been raised by professionals in the field of philosophy and science already.
No need to invent new words-marketing-like concepts like your enformation and your G*D

It is clear for example you had no exposure to natural-cognitivism, or heterophenomenology. If you're posting in this forum to learn new things and to challenge yourself the only way is you check out those schools of thought as well as the links I shared with you in my previous posts. :nerd:

Give yourself a chance! :wink:

evolved to live in a nomadic society — Gus Lamarch

Ufff... the Homo Sapiens did not evolved to live in a nomadic society. Evolution is about survival, it doesn't dictates whether you're nomad or sedentary. Being sedentary has just proof being more successful in surviving. Civilizations and the high standard of culture we have are here thanks to sedentarism, you are the son of sedentarism.
Are you saying this because of any romantic-bohemian nostalgia? Or you would like us to go back to nature as chimpanzees?

1º Advent of Agriculture; — Gus Lamarch

Agriculture linked to hypocrisy?

Yanis Varifoukas described the phenomenon very well: — fdrake

Thanks for sharing. :up:

Communism = In short, for the egoist who would like not to be an egoist, he abases himself - combats his egoism -, but at the same time abases himself only for the sake of "being exalted", and therefore of gratifying his egoism. — Gus Lamarch

Good article. :up: :up: Actually communism was the major expression of human hypocrisy in politics.

You've come here stating that you "Strongly disagree with materialists", and that's how you are seeing each discussion in which you have been involved. You really, really want the argument here to come out in your favour, so that's how you see it. — Banno

:up:

Deja vu of the past is a thing of physical phenomena, future deja vu is of this spiritual phenomenon — Frankin

Have you ever experienced it? If so, try to do the following, next time try to write down on a paper the future that you're sure is about to come.
You will see it is impossible! I experienced it myself.
So, while there was hope when I was younger for a spiritual explanation, this hope vanished when I understood how the brain works.

Dejavu could be induced from the exterior. A neuroscientist could induced you this feeling from the outside using drugs or electromagnetic fields. You would swear you felt you knew the future... but from the outside scientists would know they were the ones inducing it to you.
Unfortunately our consciousness is fallible and cheats us many times... like dreaming is another good example.
Look at heterophenomenology, it helps showing the limits of our sense of agency.

"deja vu"....my question is how can the brain remember a memory seconds before it actually happens and then waits for it to happen and then it happens? — BARAA

Your title is dejavu and this is what I responded, as I say science have clear explanation for it.
To your question quoted here, stated this way, is capacious :worry: because you're assuming that the brain remembers a future memory what is not possible. :smile:
Again, try to write the "future memory" down on a paper before it happens. You will never be able to do it. I experienced this myself several times.
If you really want to know what happens read the professionals I mention above and learn how the sense of agency is produced by the unconscious brain :wink:

Information is the fundamental element informing energy — Pop

You should not include the concept you're defining within the definition itself. :confused:
I think you better read the professional definition for example wikipedia's:
Information can be thought of as the resolution of uncertainty...

One example of a 0 information system would be a system full of uncertainty. :wink:

quick Google found me this — SophistiCat

Thanks :up:

May I request a definition of "atheist"? — Garth

I think what is needed here is to define God. Because usually atheists are atheists vs a specific definition of God so...

don't believe in the existence of God — BBQueue

Too much stereotyping here.
You call out a generic universal God here? we, atheists, usually claim we do not belief the existence of certain definitions of God depending on the religion to talk about (Dawkins usually refers to christianity).
If we start like playing with the word God, and say... God is the laws of physics or God is what has
created the quarks... then the basis of the argument change...

So, net, BBQueue, I think your argument is a fallacy stated the way you have stated it.

You may see it as "just a research", but people may distort it to "how the forum is unequal in its men/women proportions"... — Gus Lamarch

These are your fears that come from your perception of the question, not mines.
I think we were clear on this. You don't have to convince me of anything here.
As I said, if you want and can delete it go ahead.

Your text is quite cryptic for me but let me see if I grasped a bit what you tried to say.

Therefore, the conclusion is that God must exist in order to create our universe in the first place. — EesahDhanyaalAhmed

Ok, and who created God? or how got God created?... we're still within the aporia.

disprove the very nature of existence, and such point to a conclusion that a being just is — EesahDhanyaalAhmed

Or, instead of disproving it and say "a being just is" they could rely on the linguistic-turn of wittgenstein and start wondering if certain words generated in certain contexts are legitimate to be used to make certain statements that become a linguistic aporia.
Then scientist will start digging further and exploring the nature of the universe and our reality, our brain as well... using the scientific method and mathematics and formulas, etc... that better articulate the foundations of our existence like space, time and matter.... and, as it uses to happen, will dissolve the aporia.
These scientists realized that actually our language and concepts are valid for our daily life but hard to be used in scientific contexts like the very small (quantum) or the very big (astronomy)...

sense should be discarded and replaced by logic. — EesahDhanyaalAhmed

I would say it should not be replaced by logic but by science and its method. Science proofs to be above any logic, some times it reshapes what we think was logic.
Example: the copernican revolution. Logic would have told you the planet Earth has a beginning and an end because it was assumed to be flat. Once we realize it is rounded, no sense and illogic to make that question. Same to the different models of the universe that have been created across history. those models look naif today...

How ironic, that the only ‘choices’ we do not have are the ones that matter to us the most, and the ones we have no knowledge of. — EesahDhanyaalAhmed

Those questions or choices emerge from your culture it is your culture that give or not sense to the questions. with my conception of life and death I don't think the questions are trascendental at all unless you come with a definition of "being alive", "dying" that makes me change my mind. Actually many Gods have been invented to give answer to those questions, all fitting the relative and contingent cultural needs.

God is derived before time, and present before time, thus, being after time, there exists a correlation within a being before time, from the onset where time actually exists in the first place. — EesahDhanyaalAhmed

This means I cannot logically ask you "who created God?" because before God nothing existed? ... I'm still within the aporia... doesn't work for me.
Wouldn't it make more sense to leave this to physicians and mathematics that is where we actually can simulate universes without time? I find it very difficult to imagine a God creating time. I think it makes more sense to give an opportunity to physicians to give us better articulated questions as your statements above are impregnated of "everyday-life" intuitions but we know already the foundations of the universe are not intuitive at all...

Let me put you a direct questions:
Isn't it true that the very fact that "there is scientific progress" implies that we do have access to the secrets of the universe? Isn't this idea stronger than God?
This makes me think Einstein's ... “The most incomprehensible thing about the Universe is that it is comprehensible”

your gender/sex doesn't mean anything when you're talking about philosophy — Gus Lamarch

Please keep reading my previous post where I explain quite clearly that I disagree with what you say.
Gender/sex mean something when talking about anything, philosophy included.

And I would even add, you just reminded me that Simone de Beauvoir would have a lot of to say about this. It is a very interesting topic actually: gender and philosophy!

Singularities are based on the belief of "exponential growth" - that is, they tend to infinity — Gus Lamarch

I find this a small detail, in a finite universe the exponential growth would stop once all the resources of the universe are consumed.
But the idea of the singularity I think is still there as a valid one to respond to your "where is the light of the knowledge moving to.

Think a bit more about it,
while it's highly likely that chaos can end up governing the universe or that humans will disappear sooner or later and universe will then get back to an death-like universe (I think this is the most probable answer to your question but let's put it aside for now),
human history and evolution of life can be seen as a matter of survival,
surviving means knowing your environment in order to keep your homeostasis so this makes of knowing the core of life.
Knowing means consuming energy to acquire and process the information and the more we want to know the more energy we need.
So now we are at a point where we need energy to know and survive.
As we all want to live forever... where will knowing go?... it will go on consuming all the energy of the universe in order for life to secure its immortality...