Does Entropy Exist?

The through line of evolution from material objects to their emergent property: consciousness_selfhood

Heat “death” of a systemic order of the universe towards evolution within a multi-tiered elaboration of ordered multi-verses is not only possible but foundational.

Entropy points toward a cyclical model of a systemic order of a universe within the multi-tiered configuration of multi-verses.

If the cosmos is cyclical then your notion of god must become a cyclical god which entropy reduces over time back to it's constituent parts.
That’s a succinct description of the history of God-consciousness of an evolving animal kingdom of sentients.

Loss of systemization due to heat is an example of nature hedging her bets on paired-values of vectors, as with Heisenberg and the elementary particles.

Heat, then, is integral to the animation essential to a material universe. Since this is a profound topic, further elaboration herein would be a digression; I’ll stop here for now.

In a universe conceptualized materially, there is an oscillation between degrees of specificity of order. At one pole there is high-specificity of order. At the other pole, there is low-specificity of order. This oscillation ranges between order-intricate at the high end and order-neutral at the low end.

Order (systemization), oscillating between high-intelligibility and low-intelligibility, never drops to zero. A material universe is never completely disordered as materialism implies order. True randomness lies outside the light cones of a universe configured materially.

It turns out that order, like matter-energy (as claimed by Leonard Susskind) gets conserved. No information is lost to black hole absorption and subsequent evaporation.

within the environment of time never ending, all possibilities will be realized

The through line of evolution from material objects to their emergent property: consciousness_selfhood

Heat “death” of a systemic order of the universe towards evolution within a multi-tiered elaboration of ordered multi-verses is not only possible but foundational.

There is zero evidence for a layered universe,

But why to you reject the beginning of such a cycle as a mindless spark, with zero intent that no longer exists?

when all the galaxy, star and planetary systems have disassembled and energy is dissipated... conditions for a new 'big bang singularity' are reached.

I do find [Penrose]... far more credible than your prime mover god/mind with intent.

Heat, then, is integral to the animation essential to a material universe. Since this is a profound topic, further elaboration herein would be a digression; I’ll stop here for now.
— ucarr
Heat is just 'energetic motion,' but that is not evidence for a god with intent. I don't perceive of any profundity here, just basic physics.

Intelligence is a human subjective measure, it is not a natural law of physics.

It turns out that order, like matter-energy (as claimed by Leonard Susskind) gets conserved. No information is lost to black hole absorption and subsequent evaporation.
— ucarr

Quote where Susskind states this! that he believes 'order' is always conserved in the universe?

Much of your OP reads to me like prose with various sprinkled attempts at poetic and sometimes even dramatic phraseology.

Your 'Clarifying example,' although entertaining, was more a sci-fi offering rather than a sci-fact one.

So, I think that based on the points/evidence you present in your OP, I will stick with the current, personal, very high credence level, that I assign to the scientific proposal that entropy exists.

Our empirical experience on earth makes: consciousness-selfhood-emergent-from-matter not a speculation but an observation.

I'm trying to suggest an ascending hierarchy of environments of inter-locked spatial dimensions. I'm calling each step of the hierarchy a universe. In my context, universe means spatially extended material expression.

String theory speculates that more than three spatial dimensions exist.

If Hawking radiation conserves energy within a closed cycle of the material universe, then sentient-based purpose is also conserved

My prime mover god/mind with intent is the conserved energy of the closed system you endorse.

Under my conception, heat death is really a local return to system-neutral.

If you're claiming intelligence, which I think you regard as objectively real, is mandated solely by human will, not merely in independence from the evolving material universe, but in defiance of it, then you, more than I, are imbuing humanity with cosmic-God conscious purpose. I, on the other hand, claim that the evolving timeline of cosmic physics is permeated throughout with purpose, human consciousness being one instantiation of it.

My syntax in the quoted sentence is faulty; I meant to say matter-energy, per Susskind, is never permanently lost from the universe. Now, however, you having directed my attention to the question whether information-order can be permanently lost, I'll claim that permanent loss of a material object entails permanent loss of information-order.

This is true.

Could you track its logic?

The gist of the argument is not a denial of the phenomenon of systems evolution towards thermodynamic equilibrium; it's a claim that within the domain of a material universe, thermodynamic equilibrium is the low end of order and that randomness is a concept that cannot be a measure.

It claims that the measure of a system's thermal energy, albeit useful in the manner claimed, does not imply the ultimate heat-death of the material universe.

At times imo, you tend to jump from firm ground straight into unsure, unstable ground and perhaps even quicksand. BUT, maybe we all do that at times. Rigorous science cannot afford to.

The universe is a closed system, which is why energy is conserved.

The through line of evolution from material objects to their emergent property: consciousness_selfhood
— ucarr

This is merely your speculative opinion. Divine hiddenness is stronger evidence imo, that a god with intent/prime mover/first cause creator, has no and never has had any exemplar existence.

Even if this was proved, irrefutably true, such a finding would not provide any evidence of an underlying intent or teleology.

So, do you perceive our 3D universe, as three universes?

what do you mean by your use of 'hierarchy?'

Nothing in string theory suggests these extra dimensions are layered or tiered.

The principal forces will change as you reduce experimental distances and the transition occurs at distances the size of the curled dimensions.

If you're working at distances that are much bigger than the curled up dimensions then the law looks like 1/r2

[quote="universeness;831559"]And when you're working at distances that are much smaller than the curled up dimensions the law looks like 1/r8

Layered space or your term 'multi-tiered' space... for me, suggests notions such as 'sub-spacial dimensions' or/and 'hyper-spatial dimensions.' 'Sub' meaning 'below or under' and hyper meaning 'over or above.' Both these notions belong exclusively to the sci-fi genre at the moment.

Layered space or your term 'multi-tiered' space, (a poor term, imo, as 'tiered' already indicates more than one layer so your use of 'multi' is superfluous)

If Hawking radiation conserves energy within a closed cycle of the material universe, then sentient-based purpose is also conserved
— ucarr

My prime mover god/mind with intent is the conserved energy of the closed system you endorse.
— ucarr

No, you are again guilty of equivocation fallacy!

A mind is a highly complex combinatorial system. You are trying to equate that with a fundamental quanta of energy (whatever that might be, perhaps a photon.) Can a single photon (quantum field excitation) be the omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, omnibenevolent :lol:, mind of a god? It's like trying to equate gold with a single proton or single electron! (Gold atoms have 79 electrons and 79 protons with 118 neutrons in the most abundant isotope.)

It seems to me that your notion here is more akin to Mtheory. Whereby, a universe is created every time two 2D or perhaps 5D branes, 'interact,' and cause a big bang to occur at the point they 'meet.'
This means each universe can be 'born/sparked' whilst other universes already exist. This would mean individual universes, could experience heat death, within individual linear time frames, rather than all universes in a multi-verse, 'cycling,' within a synchronous time frame. Maybe your an Mtheory advocate ucarr!

I think the 'absence of any evidence of intent' in the current science based origin story of the universe, is the main support for random happenstance being the truth of the origin story.

Where's your equation describing, through an internally consistent narrative, a set of existential possibilities that paradoxically contains some existential possibilities that are not existentially possible?

Okay :) What if there are no possibilities?

If your nihilism is an expansion from the presence of the empty set within every set, then I, being on fair terms with existentialism, am good with the illusion of cold drinks under hot suns at cerulean beaches.

I'm not claiming anything about possibilities.

There isn't a "range of possible microstates," in reality, there is just the one microstate that currently exists.

Entropy only makes sense relationally, or in the context of indeterminacy at some level of reality.

Loss of systemization due to heat is an example of nature hedging her bets on paired-values of vectors, as with Heisenberg and the elementary particles.

The best kind of heat dissipation of the order of a system is quantum-mechanical: the whole is greater than the sum of its parts. This is the cosmic design for systemic evolution towards higher-order systems. It is supported by Metaphysician Undercover’s quantum-mechanical theory of time that posits quantum entanglement of past-present-future.

Does this not contradict Heisenberg Uncertainty and it's approach to measuring the quantum cloud of possible locations of elementary particles?

This is an important truth about my modus operandi. Leaps of faith at one pole and closely-reasoned inference at the other pole span a continuum of methodology that entails grave hazards at both poles. Those who confine their theater of activity within the middle section see minor action; those who operate at one or the other pole see major action; it's like gamblers in games of chance for money: high stakes at the polarities offer big prizes; low stakes in the middle offer small (but estimable) gains.

I don't believe any combination of dimensions is closed. Thermodynamics militates against this as a closed system violates conservation of matter-energy.

If a closed universe were extant, sentience outside its boundaries could not know of its existence; so sentience cannot talk of a closed universe because detection of its existence means it’s not closed.

Can you cite a recorded instance of accidental, unsystematic, no-purpose abiogenesis?

The atheist, upon self-reflection, denies God by becoming God.

I don't believe the dimensions, spatial or otherwise, can be separated

In mathematics

• The specific topic and objective of the debate can be agreed upon in advance; e.g. the bible is just a book of stories aimed at teaching readers important life lessons; whether or not Jesus is the incarnation of God the holy spirit is out of bounds for discussion in this debate

• Each claim made by a debater must be supported by a logical argument and/or by factual reportage

• If the debaters get trapped in a back-and-forth that is merely repetition on both sides, a deadlock should be declared with the conclusion that the sides agree to disagree

• Debaters must keep watch for exhaustion of new and pertinent arguments; when this point is reached, both sides must immediately proceed to their closing arguments

• Each debater has the right to call out the other debater for committing what both have agreed to recognize as a violation of proper debate procedure; an example is basing a claim upon a purported fact proven to be false; another example is: no personal attacks posing as counter-arguments

• Closing arguments should be a comprehensive overview of each debater's main theme plus principle attacks upon the opposition stated concisely

• Closing arguments should not include any new attacks which the opposition hasn't had the opportunity to respond to;

The atheist, upon self-reflection, denies God by becoming God.

It's probably more accurate to state that humans created gods due to primal fear but they don't exist.

God is a very simple notion based on natural human projection. Just like 'superman' is a projection that also does not exist. God and superman are projections of scared, very vulnerable hominids, nothing more.

I assume it's the person who is commenting on the exchange between Peterson and Maher (Nick Jones) that is doing the strawmaning, and the mischaracterisation, you indicated, if so, then I completely agree with you, that that is exactly what he is doing, especially with comments like 'or else you will end up like Bill Maher!'

he is correct about the power of storytelling, to the human psyche and how fables such as Jonah and the 'big fish,' are allegorical by design and can be used in many ways, to support theistic claims or general claims about the human psyche.

...I appreciate your interpretation and think that it's one that the theist side would more readily accept than my own interpretation.

If you take the stories in the OT as literal truths, then they are comically stupid and the god described is a monster, so I think Maher's original comments regarding the bible are correct and Peterson does not counter Maher's points.

In any atheist/theist debate analysis I have ever watched on youtube, each side always says their side trounced the other side.

You reject the observation Peterson stops Maher's initial lampoon of scripture? After his opening volley, Maher's critical near-silence is literal. How can it be denied?

What do you have to say about the critical role of the lens of interpretation WRT the following parallel:
Through the lens of science, scriptural narratives, in some instances, make comically stupid claims whereas, through the lens of allegory, scriptural narratives, in some instances, convey actionable ways forward.
Through the lens of Newton, QM narratives, in some instances, make comically stupid claims whereas, through the lens of Bohr, QM narratives, in some instances, convey actionable ways forward (as in the case of logical coding for computers).

Neither I nor Jones make any claims about atheism being trounced in the Maher podcast.

My takeaway is your acknowledgement that scripture, when perceived as allegorical literature, in some instances forestalls attacks upon it as a compendium of preposterous claims.

You reject the observation Peterson stops Maher's initial lampoon of scripture? After his opening volley, Maher's critical near-silence is literal. How can it be denied?
— ucarr

I am quite willing to accept your words above, in the context you use them, but I don't think it's as significant as you do. Peterson simply redirected the exchange and focussed on a different angle, which Maher was willing to accept, due to Petersons credentials as an academic, credentials which Maher stated he respected.

But we have alternatives to allegorical scriptural narratives, in that we can find 'actionable ways forward,' based on ' human dilemma style,' scenario's projected from the wide range of historical non-religious folklore.

Can you give me an example, where a QM claim viewed 'through the lens of Newton,' makes a 'comically stupid' claim?

In what way is it useful to defend bad practice within one methodology, by citing bad practice within an opposing methodology?

..you have yet to acknowledge that this is true of all folklore, with or without theistic references, and you have also yet to acknowledge that this removes any 'special pleading,' that the biblical fables have a higher significance, and deserve more attention and consideration than the massive database of non-theistic folklore.

My takeaway is your acknowledgement that scripture, when perceived as allegorical literature, in some instances forestalls attacks upon it as a compendium of preposterous claims.
— ucarr
Yes, I agree, but as I stated previously, you have yet to acknowledge that this is true of all folklore, with or without theistic references, and you have also yet to acknowledge that this removes any 'special pleading,' that the biblical fables have a higher significance, and deserve more attention and consideration than the massive database of non-theistic folklore.

I understand you as concluding Peterson raises the status of the tale of Jonah and the Fish from literal nonsense to instructive folklore. The elevation should not, however, be misconstrued as having established a special status for theism's claims. The tale is an undistinguished member of the broadly inclusive set of instructive folktales, many of them not theistic. I agree this is a correct understanding of what happened.

Can you give me an example, where a QM claim viewed 'through the lens of Newton,' makes a 'comically stupid' claim?

Superposition of the wave function flies in the face of one of science's foundational principles: non-contradiction. One identity being in two places at once plays as laughable absurdity through the lens of Newtonian Physics. Because the legitimacy of Newtonian Physics for centuries opaqued the possibility of superposition, we now celebrate the pioneers of QM.

I can't make a rational case for supernature. I can make a rationalistic approach to supernature, but there will be no arrival. Given the rational bent of human mind, it’s natural to reject supernature and, well, supernatural to embrace it.

The Heisenberg_Haldane quote: Not only is the universe stranger than we imagine, it's stranger than we can imagine.

I claim religious narratives have special status among the corpus of narratives on the basis of their absurd claims. They are especially absurd because, unlike secular narratives that make absurd claims refutable by exercise of reason, religious narratives make absurd claims refutable by exercise of reason and then dig in in defiance of that reason. On this basis, Maher and other wits mine their comedic gold. What could be more laughable than absurd claims debunked yet persistent in their confidence?

Eleven of the twelve disciples were brutally murdered. General humanity enjoys a good laugh at fools persistent in their foolishness. So why were eleven disciples murdered? The obvious answer: when belief in the absurdity of religion is evolving and spreading, natural human reacts against it. When reason overbears absurdity, the laughter returns, the threat of stupid supernature having been put down.

But that's just an argument from classical intuition.

Superposition does not contradict reality!

I am sure that you agree that allowing such pure speculation regarding the supernatural to influence peoples daily lives in the many pernicious ways organised religion uses it to do exactly that, to use religion or scripture as a dictated moral code, based on divine commandments, to allow political policy to be influenced by scripture, in any way whatsoever, is absolutely unacceptable.

allowing such pure speculation regarding the supernatural to influence peoples daily lives... moral code... political policy... LGBTQ+ rights

The Heisenberg_Haldane quote: Not only is the universe stranger than we imagine, it's stranger than we can imagine.
— ucarr
Despite what I stated above, I accept that this quote is a very good and likely very correct comment about the nature and structure of the universe.

Many people have been killed due to the religion they held, represented or preached since we came out of the wilds. These 12 men are no more important than any of the millions who have died in the name of religion.

So you may well be talking about the murders of 12 disciples of a historical Jesus, who never in fact existed, and I personally agree with all the academics listed (but not Bart Ehrman, who still thinks Jesus probably did exist) who don't think the historical Jesus existed either.

Terrance Deacon's "Incomplete Nature," makes a pretty good argument that entropy, constraints, and what states of a system are excluded or statistically less likely, does indeed play a causal role in nature.

But that's just an argument from classical intuition.
— universeness
I’m unsure of the meaning of classical intuition. Please clarify.

Superposition does not contradict reality!
— universeness
It doesn’t. My focus, however, isn’t on the simple issue of the truth or falsity of a claim. It’s on the lens of interpretation through which a critic views a narrative; my argument is centered in the issue of context.

Superposition of the wave function flies in the face of one of science's foundational principles: non-contradiction.

Even with the brilliance of his scientific mind, Einstein was obstinately uncooperative in his attitude toward QM. He publicly acknowledged it as being correct, but incomplete. This was not a small bone to pick because he believed, until his death, that probability being essential to QM was incorrect. He thought his Unified Field Theory would ultimately vacate quantum uncertainty as an essential and permanent feature of our universe He has a famous quote: God doesn’t play dice with the universe.
Also, he disdained QM entanglement as spooky action at a distance.

allowing such pure speculation regarding the supernatural to influence peoples daily lives... moral code... political policy... LGBTQ+ rights
— universeness
The Heisenberg_Haldane quote: Not only is the universe stranger than we imagine, it's stranger than we can imagine.
— ucarr
Despite what I stated above, I accept that this quote is a very good and likely very correct comment about the nature and structure of the universe.
— universeness
Your two above positions, as you acknowledge, stand in conflict with each other. This surprises me because the Heisenberg_Haldane quote, in my interpretation, exemplifies super-ordinate logic transitioning into embrace of the supernatural. I claim this because the statement, by making an unrestricted claim about the strangeness of the universe, authorizes the universe as a broadly inclusive system that allows supernature as one of its components.

Many people have been killed due to the religion they held, represented or preached since we came out of the wilds. These 12 men are no more important than any of the millions who have died in the name of religion.
— universeness
I argue that your above claim is a sweeping generalization of very low veracity WRT to certain individuals lumped together within your broadly inclusive set of millions.
My argument proceeds from the following parallel: Einstein, Bohr and Haldane are no more important than the multitudes of seekers who have made explorations in the name of science.

I think we can infer that valid, useful ideas come from historically real persons (or combinations thereof) even if we don’t have correct information about the true identities of those persons.

But that's just an argument from classical intuition.
— universeness
I’m unsure of the meaning of classical intuition. Please clarify.
— ucarr
I combined the two words to express that what seems intuitive to us today is different from what seemed intuitive to folks during the days of Newton and through the lens of classical physics (which is mainly at a macroscale). So, I can understand that 'superposition' would seem ridiculous to those alive during the days of Newton but superposition is now demonstrable, but god and the supernatural is still, not, and unlike the majority of current scientific projections, zero progress has been made in proving any god or supernatural posit.

No, my purpose in fully accepting the HH quote was in no way, an acceptance that the supernatural was not, imo, total woo woo, it was more an acceptance that the 'label' supernatural is way, way over-burdened.

Many people have been killed due to the religion they held... [The twelve Christian Disciples] are no more important than any of the millions who have died in the name of religion.

I argue that your above claim is a sweeping generalization... Einstein, Bohr and Haldane are no more important than the multitudes of seekers who have made explorations in the name of science.[?]

The main difference is that the scientists you mentioned, existed. Jesus and its band of chosen, probably did not, and were satirical parodies, and even if they did exist, they were of no more value, than the characters described in any other of the thousands of historical religious stories,

Superposition does not contradict reality!
— universeness
It doesn’t. My focus, however, isn’t on the simple issue of the truth or falsity of a claim. It’s on the lens of interpretation through which a critic views a narrative; my argument is centered in the issue of context.
— ucarr

So you will accept then that this:
Superposition of the wave function flies in the face of one of science's foundational principles: non-contradiction.
— ucarr
is not true.

Next, we reference our verbal equation: Not only is the universe stranger than we imagine, it's stranger than we can imagine. This equation sets no volumetric limit on the degree of strangeness allowable for our standard deviation. This is because it places degree of strangeness beyond human consciousness as instantiated by imagination. Strangeness, vis-a-vis humanity, is unlimited, i.e., infinite.

Our standard deviation, then, must employ an equation that approaches a limit.

In the above quote you tip-toe to the threshold of acceptance of the supernatural because your denial is followed by a stipulation that mitigates the denial down to almost nothing. If the supernatural is overburdened, as you say, then, in saying so, you acknowledge its existence and your acceptance of same.

Note: In our context here, supernatural simply means higher-order logical conceptualization of an empirically real category that encompasses nature. In effect, then, super-natural is just another (albeit more inclusive) category of natural.

This tells us science cannot embrace strangeness beyond imagination and at the same time cherry-pick what qualifies as allowable examples of strangeness-beyond-imagination.

For this reason, speaking logically, natural science wants to ascend to super-natural science as it progresses forward in its simulation of cosmic sentience.

Cosmic sentience, as mediated on earth by humanity, has a deep, horrific downside. This you are eager to trumpet. Does it also have an upside?

I will speculate that if I could time travel to an era preceding monotheism, I'd be appalled by the state of human relationships. The human ascent from the barbarism of the caves has many causes. Is the supernaturalism of belief in cosmic sentience not one of them?

If you query logicians about discarding non-contradiction as a foundational principle of logic, I expect you'll get pushback.

Dismantling non-contradiction means radically overhauling the general methodology of science. You're extremely optimistic if you think the standard prohibiting inconsistency within logical arguments will either be relaxed or waived anytime soon.

I think there's a vast field of work to be done by philosophers either in effecting or rejecting such an overhaul.

I think you have stretched the intended meaning behind this HH quote too far, and the elastic snapped a while ago.

The supernatural posited as natural science, that we have not confirmed exists yet, such as strings or superstrings, supersymmetry, dark matter, dark energy, the graviton etc, is over-burdening the word.

natural science wants to ascend to super-natural science as it progresses forward in its simulation of cosmic sentience.

This is just a conflation of the goal of human science to seek truths we don't yet have...[it will] get on with the job of applying the scientific method, logically and rationally.

Cosmic sentience, as mediated on earth by humanity, has a deep, horrific downside. This you are eager to trumpet. Does it also have an upside?

There is no 'cosmic sentience,' so there is nothing to 'trumpet' and it follows that it cannot have an 'upside.'

The human ascent from the barbarism of the caves has many causes. Is the supernaturalism of belief in cosmic sentience not one of them?

Modern theists have yet to conquer those ancient primal fears. Science is the antidote. Good, logical philosophising can also be an assist.

If you query logicians about discarding non-contradiction as a foundational principle of logic, I expect you'll get pushback.
— ucarr
What ???
When did I suggest that the logic rule of non-contradiction be discarded?

So you will accept then that this:
Superposition of the wave function flies in the face of one of science's foundational principles: non-contradiction.

is not true

Dismantling non-contradiction means radically overhauling the general methodology of science. You're extremely optimistic if you think the standard prohibiting inconsistency within logical arguments will either be relaxed or waived anytime soon.
— ucarr

I have no idea where you are going with this. I fully accept the logic rules of identity, non-contradiction and excluded middle, so where are you going with this line of thought?

Who is suggesting such an 'overhaul' is required? I have suggested that the supernatural has no existent and it never has.

I ask if earthly religion has an upside.

Modern theists have yet to conquer those ancient primal fears. Science is the antidote. Good, logical philosophising can also be an assist.
— universeness

Do you include moral instruction on your list?

Okay. You acknowledge that superposition is an exception to the principle of non-contradiction confined to the sub-atomic scale.

However, this exception operates in the real world as truth de jure whereas the principle of non-contradiction operates in the real world as truth de facto.

A quantum gravitational reality at the scale of human experience, being existentially vastly different from the establishment Newtonian lens of perception, argues plausibly as a viable candidate for the label of neo-natural.

I ask if earthly religion has an upside.
— ucarr

Fair enough, A direct answer from me, is a resounding no, religion has no upside. My foundational reason for saying this is consolidated quite well, imo, by Carl Sagan's quote:
"Better the hard truth, I say, than the comforting fantasy.” Those who try to exemplify a positive effect of religion, ignores such points as made by Carl, to the peril of all of us. I am with the four horsemen, Hitchens, Dawkins, Dennett and Harris, 'all religion is pernicious!'

Are you a panpsychist ucarr?

Modern theists have yet to conquer those ancient primal fears. Science is the antidote. Good, logical philosophising can also be an assist.

Do you include moral instruction on your list?

Morality born of secular humanism, yes.

The human ascent from the barbarism of the caves has many causes. Is the supernaturalism of belief in cosmic sentience not one of them?

Okay. You acknowledge that superposition is an exception to the principle of non-contradiction confined to the sub-atomic scale.

No, there is no exception here, just in the same way that empirically demonstrated quantum entanglement or quantum tunnelling, or quantum fluctuations (with it's 'virtual' particle' and 'zero point energy' notions) are not exceptions to non-contradictive logic, as they are natural occurrences, at the sub-atomic level. Such may be, classically, non-intuitive, but we have already covered that. A human who finds the workings of QM, classically or macroscopically, non-intuitive, is not a statement/position that can be compared, with scientific rigour, to the logic law of non-contradiction.

If a moral precept is verified logical and deemed pertinent to empirical experience, does its source matter?

Please watch the short video by clicking on the link below.
Ancient Rituals

Is it your settled opinion that allegiance to cosmic sentience has had no bearing whatsoever on discrediting some of the ancient rituals?

Isn't confining superposition and its logical implications to the sub-atomic level what you're doing here?

Superposition in principle, in accordance with the law, you endorse. Superposition as a real phenomenon in practice, which would be an exception to non-contradiction, you reject. This means you, like some logicians, put superposition vis-a-vis non-contradiction into a box wherein it's a principle of QM you accept as legal but reject in practice. I claim you can't have it both ways.
As for your justification, what bearing has intuition upon the question of superposition vis-a-vis non-contradiction?
I think superposition vis-a-vis non-contradiction is a major theme within our dialog.
Upward dimensional expansion takes infinity-undefined and rationalizes it into an integer.

Paradox is the portal to the next higher dimensional expansion. Superposition of a particle is a formerly 3D expanded particle one-upped to 4D expansion. At the level of 4D expansion, there is no contradiction within what we, at the level of 3D expansion, refer to as superposition.

Please click the link below so Toby can demonstrate what I mean.

Going One Dimension Higher

Ancient Rituals

Going One Dimension Higher

If a moral precept is verified logical and deemed pertinent to empirical experience, does its source matter?
— ucarr
Oh yes, very much, yes! If the people in a city are living very content, happy lives, after they deemed it logical and demonstrated via empirical evidence, that if they enslaved and subjugated all the peoples around them, they would prosper for ever more and be rich and powerful and treated like 'the chosen ones,' then such a moral precept is vile even though it would work and would be fit for the purposes it was intended to achieve.

As I have already stated ucarr, the term 'cosmic sentience,' has almost zero value for me, I am not a panpsychist, I can at best raise an eyebrow of recognition towards the term as a possible goal for our human species and a possible common cause for all currently existing sentient life in the universe. But, a goal that will forever be, an asymptotic approach.

Isn't confining superposition and its logical implications to the sub-atomic level what you're doing here?
— ucarr
No, I am following the evidence. The only evidence we currently have for superposition is at the sub-atomic level. We have no evidence of superposition at a macroscale. The multi-verse/many worlds theory has only the sub-atomic scale evidence. We have not detected another Earth or person in a superposition state. I do not claim that we never will, I just hold the opinion currently that we probably never will and superposition may well be a phenomena that only occurs at the quantum level.

Superposition in principle, in accordance with the law, you endorse. Superposition as a real phenomenon in practice, which would be an exception to non-contradiction, you reject. This means you, like some logicians, put superposition vis-a-vis non-contradiction into a box wherein it's a principle of QM you accept as legal but reject in practice. I claim you can't have it both ways.
As for your justification, what bearing has intuition upon the question of superposition vis-a-vis non-contradiction?
I think superposition vis-a-vis non-contradiction is a major theme within our dialog.
Upward dimensional expansion takes infinity-undefined and rationalizes it into an integer.
— ucarr
I have already stated that I completely disagree with you labelling of superposition as an 'exception' to the logic rule of non-contradiction.

Paradox is the portal to the next higher dimensional expansion. Superposition of a particle is a formerly 3D expanded particle one-upped to 4D expansion. At the level of 4D expansion, there is no contradiction within what we, at the level of 3D expansion, refer to as superposition.
— ucarr

There is no paradox in superposition!

...historical 'urban myths' may or may not be actually true... Does that means this process was part of... traditional religious practice?

Going One Dimension Higher
— ucarr
Did you notice how the presenter struggled to represent a 4D shape on a 2D drawing surface.
Are you familiar with the Calabi-Yau manifolds of superstring theory?

Such image notions of multi-dimensions is quite old hat now and does not, imo, do much to aid human conception of such. I do not see how any such attempted visualisations aid your claims about paradox, layered space, dalliances with theism, notions of determinism vs random happenstance, etc.

What does it mean to say that the universe is closed?

This means that for a moral precept to be deemed verified logical and practical, it must first be vetted by a broad consensus of numerous people across a wide demographic.

As a secular humanist, do you not have a deep interest in cosmic sentience as sourced from secular humanist science? As for it being a goal approached asymptotically, do you not have serious speculation about evolving science making a close approach, as evidenced by your deep interest in an information singularity?

... cosmic sentience ...

Please click on the link below to hear physicist Brian Cox talk about the universe in a way that nicely dovetails with a part of my theory about human cognition (evolving as a simulation of original cosmic sentience). To be sure, Cox gives no indication of believing in original, supernatural, cosmic sentience. I don't mean to falsely ascribe to him such belief.

Even if superposition proves to be limited to the sub-atomic scale (I don't expect this to be the case), its confinement there is irrelevant to my argument: sub-atomic superposition has a constitutive bearing upon logical relations regardless of the scientific-evidentiary question about the scale at which it propagates.

Let’s avoid mixing apples with oranges. The integrity of logical relations is a separate category from the integrity of experimental evidence. You’re trying to use the latter to counter-example the former. Your attempt exemplifies irrelevance.

You can only counter-example my symbolic logic representation of superposition as an exception to non-contradiction through use of another symbolic logic statement that reveals a fatal logical flaw in my symbolic logic statement.

Why Non-Contradiction Needs to Soften
A_not-A_B ? B_not-B_A

the fourth spacial dimension is present within our 3D-spatial universe in collapsed form. This collapsed form is exemplified by superposition. Superposition, in collapsed form at the level of a 3D-spatial universe stands as an exception to non-contradiction at the level of 3D-spatial universe logic. At the level of a 4D-spatial universe, wherein the fourth spatial dimension is expanded, the paradox is resolved within 4D-spatial universe logic which, for contrast with 3D-spatial universe logic, I will name as hyper-logic.

You need to utilize hyper-logic for your counter-example to my claim superposition is an exception to non-contradiction. It's a winning argument over a limited domain.

Speaking more generally, the logic of each multi-dimensional matrix will be contradicted at the dimensional boundaries of that matrix. This is why I claim paradox is a portal to the next higher dimensional expansion. Paradox is the gateway between the levels of the multi-dimensional matrices of our upwardly multiplexing poly-verse.

If you click on the link below, Toby, in less than one minute, will explain what I'm elaborating here.

Going One Dimension Higher

... cosmic sentience ...
— ucarr
– of what? 'Of only itself' is indistinguishable from non-sentience. If it's "cosmic", then what else is there for it to experience other than 'the cosmos' itself? "Cosmic sentience" seems a category error to me premised on a compositional fallacy – thus, an empty name (e.g. five-sided triangle).

... cosmic sentience ...
— ucarr
– of what? 'Of only itself' is indistinguishable from non-sentience.

"Cosmic sentience" seems a category error to me premised on a compositional fallacy...

Please click on the link below to hear physicist Brian Cox talk about the universe in a way that nicely dovetails with a part of my theory about human cognition (evolving as a simulation of original cosmic sentience). To be sure, Cox gives no indication of believing in original, supernatural, cosmic sentience. I don't mean to falsely ascribe to him such belief.
— ucarr

I watched it, and you confirm yourself what I have emboldened in your above quote I think your projections of what he is saying is your attempt to try to get it to 'dovetail,' with a part of your theory but I don't think that attempt is successful.

Even if superposition proves to be limited to the sub-atomic scale (I don't expect this to be the case), its confinement there is irrelevant to my argument: sub-atomic superposition has a constitutive bearing upon logical relations regardless of the scientific-evidentiary question about the scale at which it propagates.
— ucarr
You need to be much clearer on what I have emboldened above. If you are just repeating that superposition violates the logic law of non-contradiction then we are just engaging in a panto exchange on that issue. 'Oh yes it does,' 'oh no it doesn't.'

I have no idea what you are referring to here? Are you talking about this?:
Why Non-Contradiction Needs to Soften
A_not-A_B ? B_not-B_A
— ucarr

the fourth spacial dimension is present within our 3D-spatial universe in collapsed form.

Your first sentence in the above quote, has no empirical evidence to support it in physics.

Speaking more generally, the logic of each multi-dimensional matrix will be contradicted at the dimensional boundaries of that matrix. This is why I claim paradox is a portal to the next higher dimensional expansion. Paradox is the gateway between the levels of the multi-dimensional matrices of our upwardly multiplexing poly-verse.
— ucarr
This just sounds like word salad sci-fi to me ucarr.

Where does it say the universe is like a black hole?

In any case, if the universe is open system, then we are being mislead by insisting on analyzing it in terms of entropy, so here I would suppose we'd agree.

If, however, it turns out to be a closed system, then understanding the universe through entropy is sensible, but even here, one should be somewhat careful as to not spread the concept of entropy through every phenomenon, rendering the term more-or-less meaningless.

I would be forced to guess that nothing could affect the universe, in principle, which goes beyond itself, such as whatever "space" or "domain" or, I know not what, the universe is expanding to - in this case nothing "outside" the universe prevents its expansion.

To argue [entropy] has an effect on every possible system, looks to me like a extremely strong extrapolation from the origins of the concept.

Sorry, I can't follow your (seemingly non sequitur) responses.

If it's "cosmic", then what else is there for it to experience other than 'the cosmos' itself? "

... cosmic sentience ...
— ucarr
– of what? 'Of only itself' is indistinguishable from non-sentience.

This is you positing ...

This is you claiming ... AND also claiming ...

Cox and I describe a continuity from matter-energy to sentience within the animal kingdom. Cox and I ask what it means to be sentient matter-energy that examines itself. He and I conclude that sentient matter is an example of the cosmos examining itself. How is this not a description, on both our parts (include Sagan as well), of cosmic sentience?

The argument goes thus: logic, which can be defined as an organizing principle for correctly assembling continuities, encounters superposition as a modifying organizing principle. This means logic faces a logical imperative to subsume and thus reconfigure itself to accommodate the discovery that non-contradiction is conditional, not absolute. This accommodation parallels the accommodations of Newtonian physics after the advent of Relativity.

I think the below video briefly talks about heat energy from a system being radiated into a fourth spatial dimension.

I'm reminding you how she shows a progression from the 0D point through the 5D penteract.

This also shows how there is no solitary self. The self can only be itself through entanglement with another self. This is my argument for an essentially binary universe. This argument, in turn, grounds my claim there are no closed systems.

Now, of course, you think the above is just more word salad. That's why your best chance to cotton to its meaning is to scan said meaning through your own laughter. The strangeness of our universe is sometimes funny.

If it's "cosmic", then what else is there for it to experience other than 'the cosmos' itself?

This is you positing ...
Strawman. I've made no such posit.

... cosmic sentience ...
– of what? 'Of only itself' is indistinguishable from non-sentience.

This is you claiming ... AND also claiming ...
Strawman again. I've made no identity claims. 'X indistinguishable from ~X' merely implies a distinction without a difference – conceptual nonsense, not a contradiction in terms – the phrase "cosmic sentience" does not make sense and therefore does not refer.

• First you get life, evolution, and the first intelligent life. This is the start of being coming to know itself as self.
• This journey of (self) discovery isn't complete until all the aspects of being are known by being, and so the story continues with the evolution of languages, science, and technology.
• This eventually gives rise to various versions of digital computing, genetic engineering, synthetic life, cybernetic implants, and artificial intelligence across a range of worlds that have produced lifeforms that develop to our level of technology.
• Down the road, this results in some species spreading out across their solar system to find more resources to keep the process of life and civilization going.
• In time, some species will begin to move between the stars.
• Because alien civilizations also face selection pressures-- survival of the fittest in an anarchic environment-- species will need to keep making strides in their ability to understand and manipulate nature. After all, technological development is a key determinant to who wins wars.
• Long down the road we have planet-sized brains thinking unimaginable thoughts, powered by a grid of Dyson Spheres. Massive synthetic lifeforms will live in the gentle tides of supermassive black holes so that the computation occurring across their galaxy-spanning empires occurs much faster relative to their frame of reference, enabling them to plumb the depths of being and nature.
• Eventually, one such entity will become ascendent, conquering the others. An entity that feasts on quasars for its energy sources as it fathoms itself will draw near to and attain the Absolute, incorporating all of reality into itself, fathoming its entire history and all possibilities therein.

the phrase "cosmic sentience" does not make sense and therefore does not refer.

Brian Cox and Carl Sagan describe a conversion of fundamental energy/matter to sentience of some existents within this universe. You invoke a term like 'continuity' to try to find a gap where you can fit your claim of an underlying/first cause/prime mover 'intent' to the process. Brian and Carl are very careful to state that WE, humans, are the medium through which our collective effort, could be romantically described as 'the cosmos examining itself.' They offer this notion, as a possible 'emergent' networking of all efforts of all sentient life, trying to understand the structure and workings of the universe they exist within. Neither scientist has ever supported your notion of a cosmic intent, which predates the random happenstance event of life forming in this universe/cosmos. So you are wrong in your assumption imo.
Why don't you send Brian Cox an email and ask him. I predict he will dismiss your 'cosmic intent' notion that you have labelled 'cosmic sentience,' either outright, or by stating something like, 'well, no one knows for sure, but I don't think such a first cause agent of 'intent' has ever existed.' Carl Sagan would have certainly dismissed it as highly unlikely imo.

Brian and Carl are very careful to state that WE, humans, are the medium through which our collective effort, could be romantically described as 'the cosmos examining itself.'

You invoke a term like 'continuity' to try to find a gap where you can fit your claim of an underlying/first cause/prime mover 'intent' to the process.

Your mathematical propositional logic is skewed. Superposition demonstrates that at a sub-atomic level, an atom can be at two places at the same instant in time. This is not a contradiction, it does not violate any propositional logic law. Object A appears at coordinate (x, y, z), at time unit (t). Also at time unit (t), object A appears at coordinate (x1, y1, z1). This can be experimentally demonstrated. You keep performing an equivocation fallacy by suggesting that A = A ? ¬ A = A relates to superposition.
Can you cite mathematicians and physicists that agree with you that the propositional logic statement A = A ? ¬ A = A, relates to superposition?
My go to guy on TPF for mathematical insights is jgill
Perhaps he would comment on the above.

Nowhere in this video does the physicist mention any notion, at all, of energy being radiated into a fourth spatial dimension ucarr!!!

This also shows how there is no solitary self. The self can only be itself through entanglement with another self. This is my argument for an essentially binary universe. This argument, in turn, grounds my claim there are no closed systems.
— ucarr
Pure speculation on your part, with no compelling scientific evidence to support it. Not much different from a theist insisting that they know, that they know, that they know, that Jesus Christ is god!

I realise I must sound mocking towards you at times ucarr and I apologise for that. I do honestly enjoy the way you think. You are not merely an irrational theist, you go into great depths in how you make connections between concepts and I think that is to be applauded. I just don't agree with some of your conclusions/personal projections. I think it would be more accurate for you to consider my dissent towards you as more based on a mix of academic and layperson complaint, rather than attempts at personal mockery towards you on my part.

How would a notion like cosmic 'intent'/god/a deterministic universe etc relate to a notion/prediction such as humans developing an AGI or causing a technological singularity which results in an AGI eventually creating an ASI, all of which may result in humans being made extinct/getting replaced or becoming a merged aspect of some future ASI.

Surely if an original 'intent' existed, then it could have gone straight to the ASI state, why would it create over 13.8 billion years of deterministic events, that just seems a total waste of time to me.

I don't see why "all of existence" should include or not include an open or closed system,

I don't personally see empirical evidence to suggest either. The issue about using entropy too broadly remains in both, only that in one case it is wrong in principle...

...and in the other case, it should be applied with care. No more than that, as I see it.

It may be that our role on this planet is not to worship God - but to create him.
— Arthur C. Clarke
At my most speculative, I'm attracted to pandeism because it is more consistent with my philosophical (& methodological) naturalism – all we rigorously know and observe – than any other deity / divinity concept.

How would a notion like cosmic 'intent'/god/a deterministic universe etc relate to a notion/prediction such as humans developing an AGI or causing a technological singularity which results in an AGI eventually creating an ASI, all of which may result in humans being made extinct/getting replaced or becoming a merged aspect of some future ASI.

I for one am confident that, behind all the smoke and mirrors in the Phenomenology and the Logic, what Big Heg is really talking about is space battle cruisers and cool space fighters battling it out for galactic supremacy.

Again, this collective sentience, which might be moving (notice I didn't say "evolving") toward an inflection point expressed as the information singularity, or the point of no return from unstoppable ASI, marks another quantum leap (from AGI to ASI) wholly outside of evolution?

In your first sentence, you seem to be saying the appearance of sentient life on earth was not part of evolution; it was a quantum leap from non-sentience to sentience without any transitional period connecting the two states. Am I understanding you correctly?

Again, this collective sentience, which might be moving (notice I didn't say "evolving") toward an inflection point expressed as the information singularity, or the point of no return from unstoppable ASI, marks another quantum leap (from AGI to ASI) wholly outside of evolution?

As for my alleged "God of the gaps" argument, my thinking is, thanks to you, evolving. If super-nature as a higher-order of nature is logically possible, then the unevolved inflection point cum information singularity that instantiates ASI might be said higher-order of nature, i.e., super-nature.

By equivocation fallacy I understand you are charging me with using an ambiguous term such that: in statement A the term has meaning 1; in statement B the term has meaning 2. Ultimately, you say, I'm pretending the term's meaning is the same in both statements.

The paradox I'm claiming for A = A ? ¬ A = A lies rooted in the equivocation inherent in the claim A wholly occupies two different locations simultaneously.

Superposition IS equivocation fallacy. My propositional logic statement highlights this fact. That's why it's natural to charge me with the violation. Those of us embracing QM are collectively endorsing equivocation fallacy. Why is is logical to do this? It's logical because QM demands equivocation of the equivocation fallacy. This is a confusing way of saying superposition is equivocation and it's not.

This is a good linear time argument within a Newtonian, 3-space universe. After we usher in Relativity_QM, however, the possibility that a 13.8 billion time interval and an ASI cosmic sentience are coincidental exists.

Could it be that during a lull in the fighting we're all on the same page?

that a 13.8 billion time interval and an ASI cosmic sentience are coincidental exists.

For me, these leaps of faith you make are fun, (NOT in the mocking sense!!!!) but are not rigorous enough to satisfy even layman level, scientific skepticism.

"Inside" and "outside" become obscure terms as applied to the universe. A bit like speaking of up or down or east and west. Not exactly, but similar.

In your first sentence, you seem to be saying the appearance of sentient life on earth was not part of evolution; it was a quantum leap from non-sentience to sentience without any transitional period connecting the two states. Am I understanding you correctly?

Evolution offers no evidence at all regarding the mechanism by which life appeared on Earth. Theories such as abiogenesis and panspermia are not part of the claims and demonstrations of Darwinian evolution. They are theoretical projections that are logical traces, back from such time periods as the Cambrian. The likelihood that abiogenesis occurred in some form somewhere is very strong imo, but we have no actual evidence of abiogenesis.

You are projecting human actions and ability, anthropomorphically, onto your notion of a universe with intent.

As for my alleged "God of the gaps" argument, my thinking is, thanks to you, evolving. If super-nature as a higher-order of nature is logically possible, then the unevolved inflection point cum information singularity that instantiates ASI might be said higher-order of nature, i.e., super-nature.
— ucarr
Do you not see here, that it's you who likes to make such big 'leaps of faith.' Surely you can see that is what you are doing.

Using propositional logic, we can propose that based on empirical evidence, superposition is true. So, SP=True. The law of identity states that each thing is identical with itself, so we can write SP=SP. Under the law of non-contradiction, we have that the two propositions "SP is the case" and "SP is not the case" are mutually exclusive. Superposition therefore does not violate the law of non-contradiction!

Under the law of non-contradiction, we have that the two propositions "SP is the case" and "SP is not the case" are mutually exclusive. Superposition therefore does not violate the law of non-contradiction!

Superposition IS equivocation fallacy.

No it's not, how can it be, when it can be demonstrated?

Superposition may be being misinterpreted, for example, perhaps, an atom can appear to appear in more than one place at the same instant of time, due to some effect we don't understand, that's akin to something like gravitational lensing. Such remains possible, but that does not make superposition an equivocation fallacy

You just have a mind that is determined to find a t.o.e (theory of everything), that can link complicated concepts together into a very easy to understand final solution such as 'god did it,' or 'cosmic intent' is the only landing zone we need.

The universe just wont be the way you want it to be ucarr. Your own HH quote should have prepared you for that, well enough.

I had assumed you were an atheist, through and through,

... well, perhaps pandeism is pretty close to atheism, as such a divinity would be ...

A woo-free speculation much more consistent with the observed universe of natural science

... which paraphrases Epicurus' observation about death: when we are, "God" is not; when "God" is, we are not.

If I understand this list correctly, you are positing an eternal cycle, via your numbering of events, yes?

Does event 1, 'not deity' just mean the deity is no longer involved?

Does event 1 'Deity becomes' suggest a 'before' when deity did not exist?

Does this list mean that you accept that a first cause with intent is likely or 'at your most speculative?'

Do you think the universe is fully deterministic, ...

What do you make of the following [...]

Anyway, at most, I'm agnostic about pandeism (which I refer to it as a speculation, and not as a belief or claim).

Macro, not micro

we're looking through a QM lens. Through that lens SP ? ¬ SP are not mutually exclusive because, by definition, SP means
SP = ¬SP! How else could the same identity be in two places at once. We're not talking about identical twins. We're talking about the same identity being simultaneously located in two different places. With SP we're saying: A is in position 1 and not in position 1 because A = ¬A which is in position 2 AND A is in position 2 and not in position 2 because A = ¬A which is in position 1. How "you as you" is "not you" is hard for us to wrap our brains around, but that's what QM compels us to do.

What do you make of the following: 2x + 3x ? 5x; when x = 2, we get: 4 + 6 ? 10 > a distinction (in expression) without difference is NOT conceptual nonsense. It is not a straw man argument; it is math reality.

Non sequiturs.

... cosmic sentience ...
– of what? 'Of only itself' is indistinguishable from non-sentience.

we're looking through a QM lens. Through that lens SP ? ¬ SP are not mutually exclusive because, by definition, SP means
SP = ¬SP! How else could the same identity be in two places at once. We're not talking about identical twins. We're talking about the same identity being simultaneously located in two different places. With SP we're saying: A is in position 1 and not in position 1 because A = ¬A which is in position 2 AND A is in position 2 and not in position 2 because A = ¬A which is in position 1. How "you as you" is "not you" is hard for us to wrap our brains around, but that's what QM compels us to do.

Our QM elaboration here shows how the non-locality of the wave-function identity expands details exponentially. These are the details of the logical relations about where we are in spacetime.

No, your logic is flawed here. 'A is in position 1 and not in position 1' is not what superposition demonstrates!!!! Superposition demonstrates that A is in position 1 and is also in position 2, so your connection of A = ¬A cannot be made!!! Superposition suggests that all states that can happen will happen, but in different spatial coordinates, perhaps in a multi-verse.

I know you won’t be persuaded by my argument. We have a fundamental disagreement.

Macro, not micro
— 180 Proof

But macro objects are combinations of micro objects, are they not?

If you believe that the macro universe is deterministic but the micro or sub-atomic universe is not, then is it size or the complexity of combinatorials or both, that makes all future events in the macroscopic universe, deterministic?

Am I misinterpreting your meaning, again?

You are correct, and our exchange on the phenomena of superposition has reached impasse, but it was fun.

What do you make of the following: 2x + 3x ? 5x; when x = 2, we get: 4 + 6 ? 10 > a distinction (in expression) without difference is NOT conceptual nonsense. It is not a straw man argument; it is math reality.
— ucarr

Non sequiturs.
— 180 Proof

Regarding the math identity equation, are you claiming that either: a) It is not a valid example of a distinction without difference that is not conceptual nonsense or b) It is irrelevant to your below claim:

... cosmic sentience ...
– of what? 'Of only itself' is indistinguishable from non-sentience.
— 180 Proof

Neither. I've no idea what you're talking about; do you?

I think "events" are micro phenomena (i.e. relations) and "objects" (i.e. asymmetric event-patterns aka "structures, processes") are macro – emergent – phenomena (i.e. ensembles, combinatorials); thus, "events" are a-causal, or random (i.e. noise) whereas "objects" are causal, or non-random (i.e. signals).

More precisely, as you know, the universe is quantum (micro) and classical (macro) whereby the latter is, AFAIK, generated according to the law of large numbers (LLN) – averaging – of the former (à la Seurat's pointillism, pixellated images of LCD monitors, holograms, etc).

...the establishmentarians of science have existential contradiction confined to the minute realms of elementary particles.

"events" are a-causal, or random (i.e. noise)

Do environmental forces such as temperature, gravitation and radiation impact "events?"

To clarify: I think "events" are micro phenomena (i.e. relations) and "objects" (i.e. asymmetric event-patterns aka "structures, processes") are macro – emergent – phenomena (i.e. ensembles, combinatorials); thus, "events" are a-causal, or random (i.e. noise) whereas "objects" are causal, or non-random (i.e. signals).

Do environmental forces such as temperature, gravitation and radiation impact "events?"
— ucarr
They are measures – self-organizing complexity (i.e. entropy) – of micro (quantum) events. Anyway, so what's your point?

My point is trying to examine whether self-organizing systems, accountable for self-organizing complexity, possess purpose. Are they instead automatons?

Are you a panpsychist ucarr?

'the universe' is like a Möbius loop – an eternal cycle – wherein the topological 'twist' (ouroboros-like) corresponds to big bangs/big crunches (or white holes/black holes) Q-tunneling between bi-polar (i.e. positive-to-negative / matter-to-antimatter), quantum gravity manifolds consisting of strange-looping (or fractal-like) configurations (entropy gradients) of variable mass-energy densities ...

...it seems to me that Occam's Razor dispenses with ad hoc – unwarranted – notions of "panpsychism" and "super-nature"

• My belief in super-nature doesn’t entail belief in an anything-goes realm of hobgoblins and the like. I’m not trying to squeeze an inscrutable god into those gaps in scientific theory populated by suppositions not fully verified as facts.

• My super-nature, on the basis of speculation, I believe to be similar to Kantian noumena. (I haven’t yet embarked on reading Kant, thus the designation of speculation).

The earth tells us life in our universe is possible.

That matter and energy are neither created nor destroyed tells us our universe is eternal.

Combination: within the environment of time never ending, all possibilities will be realized

Life, a realized possibility on earth, has always been an inevitability — ucarr

Could you define the word 'universe' here? Do you mean the space-time universe or the 'world as a whole'. These are very different things.

Why do you (seem to) equate "incompleteness" with "openness"? For instance, a transcendental number such as Pi is closed (i.e. defined) even though its expression is incompletable (i.e. unbounded).

Maybe the comparison doesn't work because Pi is an abstract entity and "the universe" is a / the concrete entity.

Well, if "the universe is an open network of subsystems", tell us what accounts for e.g. the inviolability of fundamental conservation laws. :chin:

QM tells us particle pairs entanglements are instantaneous across distance.

Well, if "the universe is an open network of subsystems", tell us what accounts for e.g. the inviolability of fundamental conservation laws.

I don't think so. QM suggests that "distance" – spacetime (i.e. gravity) – does not obtain at planck scales.

• Is it established that gravitons have a measurement at the planck scale?

• Is there a basic unit of spacetime?

• If you scale below the basic unit of spacetime do you arrive at immeasurable infinite values?

• Has string theory weighed-in on the domain of entanglement?

Well, if "the universe is an open network of subsystems", tell us what accounts for e.g. the inviolability of fundamental conservation laws.

**The network of subsystems is not open due to a contest of forces pitting the contraction due to gravitational attraction against the expansion due to free energy; it is open because it is self-transcendent.

You're speculating outside of known physics (i.e. absent a falsifiable theory of QG)...

QM tells us particle-pairs entanglements are instantaneous across distance.

I don't think so. QM suggests that "distance" – spacetime (i.e. gravity) – does not obtain at planck scales.

If spacetime, the ground of matter_energy_motion, doesn't obtain at planck scales, then how is it that at the singularity, a realm scaled below planck scales, expansion involves stupendous heat, a phenomenon rooted in spacetime?

Well, if "the universe is an open network of subsystems", tell us what accounts for e.g. the inviolability of fundamental conservation laws.

By universe I mean: space-time universe.

There are axiomatic ambiguities perplexing both math models and the material systems they model. The quest for T.O.E. might be quixotic.

Well, if "the universe is an open network of subsystems", tell us what accounts for e.g. the inviolability of fundamental conservation laws.

We're now talking past each other (and neither of us are physicists anyway).

By universe I mean: space-time universe.
— ucarr

In this case you're not speaking of a fundamental theory, .

There are axiomatic ambiguities perplexing both math models and the material systems they model. The quest for T.O.E. might be quixotic.

They can be overcome. They have no impact on my TOE. I won't expand because to do so would mean going off topic. I'll just say that a TOE must explain more than every ;thing'. since it must explain where 'things' come from. (As Kant recognized). A discussion for a different thread, though, and not relevant to the topic of entropy. . ..... .

Are you asking how an open network of subsystems configures conservation within its domain?

Do you perceive a conflict between conservation and and something implied by an open network of subsystems?

What does it mean to talk past someone?

Why should not the general public talk about the concept "universe"?

What did you think I was saying about the concept "universe"?

Why was your impression of what I might be saying about the concept "universe" of interest to you?

Your TOE configures "everything" and its origin as discrete things?

...if "the universe is an open network of subsystems", tell us what accounts for e.g. the inviolability of fundamental conservation laws. :chin:

Are you asking how an open network of subsystems configures conservation within its domain?
— ucarr
No.

Your 'speculative causal non-closure' which is inconsistent with the fundamental conservation laws of physics.

Your TOE configures "everything" and its origin as discrete things?

Not ultimately discrete...

...if there are not two things then discreteness is not an issue. In a sense there would be two worlds, one composed of things and one,empty of all things...

Thus the line from the poet Rumi, 'I have put duality behind me, I have seen that the two worlds are one.'

You might like to check out Nagarjuna's doctrine of 'two truths' or 'worlds' since it is designed to help us understand the relationship between the world of things and the world from which they emerge. . .

Is the world empty of all things a spiritual world, or a material world?

Is your postulation of the conjoined two-world one that renders it paradoxical?

Are you saying the two worlds, being equivalent, preclude the matter/spirit duality?

Is causally closed somewhere in the neighborhood of necessarily closed?

Is speculative, causal, non-closure in the neighborhood of necessarily open?

Do you think my supposed quest for a necessarily open universe is a quest for establishment of cosmic sentience?

Do you think a causally open universe implies an increase of mass_energy that violates the 1st law of thermodynamics?

Do you think a causally closed universe entails a partially deterministic universe?

Conjecturing a causally open universe that is transcendent non-ontically, what do you imagine such a universe would look like structurally speaking? Would it be consistent with conservation?

Do you see that one implication of your statements is that atheism is predicated upon a monist metaphysics?

Do you see that an implication of monist metaphysics is that the metaphysics of theism, with its dualism of mass_energy/spirit, propounds a false binary?

I think you're claiming that the universe is not causally closed and therefore the effect of 'some ontologically transcendent cause'.

Do you think my supposed quest for a necessarily open universe is a quest for establishment of cosmic sentience?
You tell me, ucarr. The term "cosmic sentience" seems to me oxymoronic.

I think substance dualism (i.e. "mass-energy / spirit") is inconsistent – theoretically incompatible – with fundamental conservation laws and the principle of causal closure in physics.

Do you perceive a conflict between conservation and and something implied by an open network of subsystems?
Yes.

Do you think a causally open universe implies an increase of mass_energy that violates the 1st law of thermodynamics?
Yes, either net increase or net decrease.

If it's incorrect to consider your acceptable universe an example of naturalist monism, then please explain why.

If it's incorrect to consider your acceptable universe an example of naturalist monism, then please explain why

I'm talking about the problematic implications of your speculative claims with respect to known physics and you're talking about what metaphysics you surmise is implied by my objections to your supernaturalistic (i.e. substance dualist) metaphysics.

The supernatural? If so, that's just not good enough! For many many reasons, including the fact that the supernatural or super-nature or god, are unfalsifiable proposals.

If it's incorrect to consider your acceptable universe an example of naturalist monism, then please explain why.
— ucarr

Non sequitur again. A further example of us talking past each other – I'm talking about the problematic implications of your speculative claims with respect to known physics and you're talking about what metaphysics you surmise is implied by my objections to your supernaturalistic (i.e. substance dualist) metaphysics.

Well, if "the universe is an open network of subsystems", tell us what accounts for e.g. the inviolability of fundamental conservation laws. :chin:

• QM tells us particle pairs entanglements are instantaneous across distance. Conservation laws support this such that distance across a boundary, even across a final boundary encompassing everything, allows entanglement.*

• This is another way of saying there is no all-encompassing boundary. (This is also a way of saying the network of subsystems is partially determinate.)**

• *Why would entanglement, even if uncheckable, become theoretically invalidated across an "everything" boundary?

• **The network of subsystems is not open due to a contest of forces pitting the contraction due to gravitational attraction against the expansion due to free energy; it is open because it is self-transcendent.

• The partial determinism of the network of subsystems doesn't dwell within an equivalence with expansion; its expansion, being non-linear, means increase of complexity mixed with increase of volume.

QM tells us particle pairs entanglements are instantaneous across distance.
— ucarr
I don't think so. QM suggests that "distance" – spacetime (i.e. gravity) – does not obtain at planck scales. Conservation laws, derived from Noether's theorem(s), make QM possible (or intelligible) as well as being classically observable. Anyway, I assumed from what you wrote previously that you were referring to the post-planck era of "the universe" ... I don't see how either QM or entanglement relevantly address my question.

you're talking about what metaphysics you surmise is implied by my objections to [b]your supernaturalistic (i.e. substance dualist) metaphysics.[/b]

Since you're dismissing the metaphysics of my super-naturalistic universe as fiction

If it's incorrect to consider your acceptable universe an example of naturalist monism, then please explain why

I'm talking about the problematic implications of your speculative claims with respect to known physics and you're talking about what metaphysics you surmise is implied by my objections to your supernaturalistic (i.e. substance dualist) metaphysics.

I often misinterpret 180 Proof, as I don't have his in-depth knowledge of academic philosophy but I don't think he is concerned with or particularly disagrees with your definition of 'natural monism,' based on a description of monism, such as:
A theory or doctrine that denies the existence of a distinction or duality in a particular sphere, such as that between matter and mind, or God and the world.

I think his point here is that you have no compelling argument or evidence to counter the scientific proposal that the universe is a closed system.

QM suggests that "distance" – spacetime (i.e. gravity) – does not obtain at planck scales.

What mechanism are you suggesting, demonstrates it (an open universe)? The supernatural? If so, that's just not good enough! For many many reasons, including the fact that the supernatural or super-nature or god, are unfalsifiable proposals.

• **The network of subsystems is not open due to a contest of forces pitting the contraction due to gravitational attraction against the expansion due to free energy; it is open because it is self-transcendent.

• The partial determinism of the network of subsystems doesn't dwell within an equivalence with expansion; its expansion, being non-linear, means increase of complexity mixed with parsible, conserved volume.

My [s]claims[/s][speculations] are falsifiable...

Since you're dismissing the metaphysics of my super-naturalistic universe as fiction

I have asked you to physically square the supernaturalistic circle, so to speak...

QM tells us particle pairs entanglements are instantaneous across distance.
— ucarr
I don't think so. QM suggests that "distance" – spacetime (i.e. gravity) – does not obtain at planck scales.

Your pseudo-scientistic supernaturalism, ucarr, is unintelligible – mostly word-salad – to me.

My [s]claims[/s][speculations] are falsifiable...
— ucarr
How so? For example –

If paired-particles are instant communication across unspecified distance, that range exceeds the measureable space within a physically closed universe.

This argument might be false, as suggested by your specific counter-narrative; it is not unintelligible.

Your pseudo-scientistic supernaturalism, ucarr, is unintelligible – mostly word-salad – to me.

QM tells us particle pairs entanglements are instantaneous across distance. Conservation laws support this such that distance across a boundary, even across a final boundary encompassing everything, allows entanglement.*

This is another way of saying there is no all-encompassing boundary. (This is also a way of saying the network of subsystems is partially determinate.)**

Below are two important claims from my already-posted counter-narrative to the conservation argument:

**The network of subsystems is not open due to a contest of forces pitting the contraction due to gravitational attraction against the expansion due to free energy; it is open because it is self-transcendent.

The partial determinism of the network of subsystems doesn't dwell within an equivalence with expansion; its expansion, being non-linear, means increase of complexity mixed with parsible, conserved volume.

My claims are falsifiable, so have at them.

*The argument goes thus: If paired-particles are instant communication across unspecified distance, that range exceeds the measureable space within a physically closed universe. This argument might be false, as suggested by your specific counter-narrative; it is not unintelligible.

Well, if "the universe is an open network of subsystems", tell us what accounts for e.g. the inviolability of fundamental conservation laws. :chin:

QM tells us particle pairs entanglements are instantaneous across distance. Conservation laws support this such that distance across a boundary, even across a final boundary encompassing everything, allows entanglement.*

QM tells us particle pairs entanglements are instantaneous across distance.
— ucarr
I don't think so. QM suggests that "distance" – spacetime (i.e. gravity) – does not obtain at planck scales. Conservation laws, derived from Noether's theorem(s), make QM possible (or intelligible) as well as being classically observable. Anyway, I assumed from what you wrote previously that you were referring to the post-planck era of "the universe" ...I don't see how either QM or entanglement relevantly address my question:
Well, if "the universe is an open network of subsystems", tell us what accounts for e.g. the inviolability of fundamental conservation laws.

Your pseudo-scientistic supernaturalism, ucarr, is unintelligible – mostly word-salad – to me.

...my objection to your claim of "causal non-closure of the universe" is physical... (i.e. theoretical-observational)

observing one "paired particle" does not "instantly communicate" – causally affect – the other "paired particle", but only reveals what was unknown, or unknowable, before either "paired particle" was measured. Entanglement = "paired particle" correlations prior to measurement.

This argument might be false, as suggested by your specific counter-narrative; it is not unintelligible.
I did not claim or imply that your "argument is unintelligible"; rather that the implication of 'compatibility of your supernaturalism with fundamental conservation laws' is not even false.

Your pseudo-scientistic supernaturalism, ucarr, is unintelligible – mostly word-salad – to me.

QM tells us particle pairs entanglements are instantaneous across distance. Conservation laws support this such that distance across a boundary, even across a final boundary encompassing everything, allows entanglement.*

This is another way of saying there is no all-encompassing boundary. (This is also a way of saying the network of subsystems is partially determinate.)**
— ucarr

I have no idea what this means!

There are many many youtube offerings on classical and quantum superposition and quantum entanglement. Why don't you choose one, watch it, consider its content and then reform and present your projections of what is described from the science based, youtube presentation you choose and provide a link to.

This is good advice and I'm taking it.

You employ terms here which are not rigorously defined or explained. You cannot do that when the discussion is at an advanced scientific level. What do you mean by 'free energy,' is this comparable with the established (but still poorly named) dark energy?

What is self-transcendent? How would you fully explain the mechanism of a property of a substance or 'space' which is self-transcendent. You cant just insert terminology into a scientific debate, without a rigorous treatment of what exactly you are referring to and what claims your are introducing by your use of a term. Otherwise 'invalid word salad' will be the resulting accusation directed at you, as has already been done by myself and 180 Proof

Which functions/processes of your 'network of subsystems' are deterministic. You have to offer some detail regarding 'subsystems' and 'partial determinism'. Give one clear example of a subsystem you are referring to and then describe at least one of it's processes/functions which you claim are partially or fully determined and why you think so, otherwise, you are just making broad generalised speculations that have almost no predictive power at all.

Are you confusing 'pair production' with quantum entanglement?
If you type into google, something like:
Does pair production always produce entangled particles?
As I just did, you will get:
No. The other photon might even be forbidden to produce a pair over by itself all by itself since there might be no nucleus over by it. The other photon doesn't have to copy what the first one does. But many things could happen to the entanglement. And that is partly because there are many ways the photons could have been entangled.

There is no 'instant communication,' based on information travelling over a distance at faster than light speed, happening, in quantum entanglement. It is the correlation within the system that allows the state of the entangled particle to be instantly known when you measure the state of one of them.

180 Proof rejects my claim of "instantaneous communication" across distance. I consider the claim a possibility.

Does a unitary object like a wooden, twelve-inch ruler have dimensional extensions instantaneous in its unity?

Is it rather that the dimensional extensions of "unitary" objects are actually repetitive assemblages across an interval of time? This latter perception might stand up as a visual for classical QM.

Since entanglement is independent of distance, and since entanglement as a physical reality of our material universe has been repeatedly confirmed as real, it makes sense to argue that the unspecifiable scope of entanglement as a physical reality of our universe suggests its volume is likewise unspecifiable, i.e., open. Even with our material universe authoritatively understood as a bounded infinity, I don't see that as unspecifiable volume of spacetime.

I did not claim or imply that your "argument is unintelligible"; rather that the implication of 'compatibility of your supernaturalism with fundamental conservation laws' is not even false.
— 180 Proof

Your pseudo-scientistic supernaturalism, ucarr, is unintelligible – mostly word-salad – to me.
— 180 Proof

How do you reconcile the two above quotes?

I think that heat, being unavailable to do work, and thus being an entropic drain on whatever system produces it, examples free energy. For example, when your ventilation system channels the heat off the engine into your car's interior for climate control, that's the disintegration of your engine providing heat energy to do work independently from the engine's operation. It's free energy available for reuse. My overarching theme: questioning the reality of entropy, questions whether entropy is systemic increase of disorder or just local energy exchange between systems.

Self-transcendent - pardon the following religion-talk (you asked a question and I'm answering) - examples on earth as the triune Christian God: father_son_holy ghost. Vast multitudes reject this configuration as fiction. Okay. Consider: the familiar puzzles of origin boundary ontology. Is the original being utterly alone without circumambient context? Doesn't that lead straight into Russell's Paradox? Is the original being self-caused? Does that imply some type of weird bifurcation of the self into two selves who, at the same time, are one? If the original being is uncaused, does that mean existence is an inscrutable mystery? Well, the trinity makes a way forward through this morass with self-transcendence.

A more rational argument might be along the lines of an emergent property featuring complexity as a supervenience independent of its anterior substrates. Anyhow, it's speculation about upward-evolution without demand for extra mass_energy.

Consider a wooden, twelve-inch ruler. Does the one inch marking on the ruler communicate with the ten inch marking on the unitary ruler? Is the communication, if it exists, instantaneous?

Entanglement =/= "instant communication" (or communication of any kind).

E.g. Two opaque envelopes are sealed wherein one contains a dollar bill and the other does not, but we do not know which; one of us travels with one envelope to the moon and then opens the envelope and learns at that instant the content – state – of the other envelope on Earth; ergo, no "communication" between envelopes, just past correlation of information about the paired envelopes.

In other words, observing one "paired particle" does not "instantly communicate" – causally affect

– the other "paired particle", but only reveals what was unknown, or unknowable, before either "paired particle" was measured. Entanglement = "paired particle" correlations prior to measurement.

With respect to the quotes above, I referred explicitly to your groundless notions (e.g. "super-nature", "causal non-closure of the universe", "instantaneous communication", "cosmic sentience", etc) and not to your "argument" as such; "not even false" is, more or less, synonymous with (or implies) "unintelligible word-salad".

Heat is produced via dynamism or 'excitation,' that IS work.

Heat can raise the temperature of cold people in a car, again that heat, is doing the work of raising the temperature of the cold people in the car.

There is no situation here that demonstrates 'heat' energy unavailable to do work.

Is the heat that comes from the Sun that does not reach any of the planets/moons/etc within our solar system, and just dissipates in space and becomes less and less 'excited,' unavailable to do work?

I think it's better to rely on those who are willing to do the very hard, long, sometimes very tedious scientific work that can take at least your entire lifetimes effort and investment, with no confidence at all that that will be enough, to fill such gaps with discovered truths.

Until something like CCC is fully fleshed out and proved, we just have to be content with we just don't know yet and not just throw in lazy minded theistic posits which can become so pernicious to the everyday lives of our species, when nefarious individuals get hold of such woo woo concepts and use them to create such horrific concepts as the divine right of some dickhead to call themselves King Or Queen or Messiah or Pope etc and allows them to make the lives of so many people f****** miserable or/and allows religious based, messed up moral code to be passed off as word of god BS, that only serves as a mechanism, used by a nefarious evil few, to control and sycophantically live off a duped majority.

...if the markings on the ruler comply with the way a standard ruler is formed, then you can confidently predict the value of the marker to the immediate left or right of the mark you reveal. You can then further predict the marks to the immediate left and right of those, and so on. This analogy fails when you try to then predict the ruler marks at either extreme of the rulers extent, if you don't know what the extent is. In entanglement, the extent of the ruler does not matter, but it will have an extent and will have coordinates. Your projections suggest a situation where one of the entangled particles might not have knowable coordinates, as they factually exist, in a kind of unbounded infinity of possibilities, which you are projecting straight into a 'super-natural' coordinate, which you paradoxically present via propositional logic, as existing and not existing (or is transcendent). I see no value to our discussion in you doing/offering that, as it provides nothing useful to us, other than, 'can we not just settle for god did it...

...'can we not just settle for god did it.'

I struggle to understand how you fail to see that The Trinity, centuries before QM, claimed the superposition of three entities, one of them flesh and blood.

From this I understand you assess my arguments as would-be-science-cum-malarkey. Beneath my flourishes of science-athwart jargon you see a simple, monotonous refrain: God did it. Just believe.

Given this reality of how I'm generally received here, I gratefully thank you and 180 and others for dialoguing with me here. You've shown great patience and generosity towards a lot of malarkey-spewing whimsy.

It would be wrong for me to continue going on as before. It would be wrong for me to continue tying up the human resources of the very accomplished and legitimate philosophy mavens herein. Given the cogency of your above statement as representative of a consensus of astute thinkers herein, I'm ready to leave off with my whimsical speculations. I haven't done so already because I have a very weak control over the meteoric flights of fancy of my imagination.

Having said that, I struggle to understand how you fail to see that The Trinity, centuries before QM, claimed the superposition of three entities, one of them flesh and blood. It takes no deep insight to see the parallel between The Trinity and the physical reality of entangled elementary particles. The QM scale/classical scale divide matters, but is it more than perception impacted by context? Even if it is, I think QM lends a bit of credence to The Trinity as an abstract concept attempting to navigate origin boundary ontology.

Connecting the trinity with quantum entanglement completely fails when you try to sneak in teleology and intent as part of the posit.

I hope you decide to pursue your decision to study some of the youtube stuff on QM, and come back to us on this thread, regarding it's connection with entropy and your musings on teleology, intent and theism.

We two, fully accept 180 Proof's reminder that none of the three of us are physicists and we can only at best, skirt around the edges of the subject, but, I regularly make 'improvements' in my understanding of physics, by reading some books and watching some youtube stuff on the wide range of physics topics that exist.

It may be that our role on this planet is not to worship God - but to create him.
— Arthur C. Clarke
At my most speculative, I'm attracted to pandeism because it is more consistent with my philosophical (& methodological) naturalism – all we rigorously know and observe – than any other deity / divinity concept.

I struggle to understand how you fail to see that The Trinity, centuries before QM, claimed the superposition of three entities, one of them flesh and blood.
— ucarr
:yikes: wtf ...

Near the end of the video, with four seconds remaining, pause the video so you can study the graphic displayed there.

Near the end of the video, with four seconds remaining, pause the video so you can study the graphic displayed there.
— ucarr

I have encountered this diagram before on youtube. It has been used by such con men as Kent Hovind and his son Eric Hovind. This 'trinity' video and it's content are pure hokum. The diagram is useless and meaningless.

Victor's response on Quora:

Click on the link below and watch the short YouTube video.

Trinity [s]Logic[/s]

I had assumed you were an atheist, through and through,
— universeness
Insofar as atheism means theism is not true and therefore theistic deities are fictions, I am "an atheist through and through", which I've stated already ..
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/789507

?universeness My near-"ignostic" position is that theistic gods are fictions (atheism re: tokens) because the sine non qua claims of theism are not true (antitheism re: type). Thus, as far as I'm concerned, religious scriptures are canonized allegories just as religious practices are applied superstitions, and are only worth discussing or opposing when they are used (by theocratic fundies or ignorant/hypocritical literalists) to "justify" coercing obedience to the prerogatives of religious leaders and their functionaries.

…when we are, "God" is not; when "God" is, we are not.

Trinity [s]Logic[/s]
— ucarr
I clicked the link but I didn't bother watching.

Twelve years of primary & seconary Jesuit education (four years of Latin, one year of Greek) and in particular study of the theological apologetics of Early Church Fathers, etc have left me confident that I understand the 'Doctrine of the Holy Trinity' well enough already.

As for the rest of your post ... :roll:

If you wish to engage me in a direct discussion on an aspect of religious dogma, such as the trinity, then we can do so by PM...

Let's do it. Shall I start?

My ninety per cent confidence you will not commit to such a written statement is bolstered by your speculation about pan deism. You allow hedge room for a deity within your metaphysical commitments because, as I’ve been speculating, deep down you know you have an immortal soul:

Here is an old challenge I have been making to devoted theists, since I was around 20 (I am now 59).
Let's see if the Christian god can stop me from finishing this sentence ...... looks like it can't.

Are you willing to commit yourself, in the emphatic mode of your above words, to a written statement declaring that you permanently reject the personal presence of the Holy Spirit as a worthless and meaningless fiction?

My job, as a believer ...

Are you willing to commit yourself, in the emphatic mode of your above words, to a written statement declaring that you permanently reject the personal presence of the Holy Spirit as a worthless and meaningless fiction?
I don't understand this question in light of the above.

Twelve years of primary & seconary Jesuit education (four years of Latin, one year of Greek)... have left me confident that I understand the 'Doctrine of the Holy Trinity' well enough already.

My job, as a believer ...
— ucarr
... does not trump your responsibilities as a thinker (especially here on TPF), at minimum, not to degenerate 'philosophical discussions' into proselytizing cant rationalized by vapid, dogmatic, apologia (or woo woo). :brow:

God won't stop you from doing what you are empowered to do. The gates of Hell are locked from the inside. Those dwelling therein are there by personal choice firmly established.

If you are willing to commit to writing your permanent rejection of the Holy Spirit, I want it understood you choose to do so for reasons quite beyond the issues of a debate. If you do this thing, it should be borne of a deep and abiding belief that the God of Christianity is one you wish permanent and insuperable separation from. This state of ultimate separation from God is the proper definition of Hell.

Please do not act under my influence. My job, as a believer, is to nudge you in the opposite direction. I acknowledge I can't persuade you in any significant way. Your final outcome is based upon your nature, your will and your personal choices.

Your mocking tone signals to me an attitude lacking in seriousness. Good! Mock me forever. Never mock God! You say if Yahweh exists, it is an evil monster. This is exactly what the infernal one wishes you to believe. Satan, who proceeds by deception, reaches his apex of power when he hoodwinks a living soul into believing things are exactly opposite to reality. When a living soul believes Good is Evil and Evil (in this instance: "proof" of God's non-existence via your supposed harmless commitment to disdain God in writing) is Good, damnation triumphs over innocence. Even so, if you willfully cross the line into mockery and permanent rejection of the Holy Spirit, you will not be forgiven this transgression.

I don't expect 180 Proof to react in a manner similar to yours. If I'm right about him likely dodging any definitive statement about him committing to permanent rejection of the Holy Spirit, take note of it. He is your ally in atheism. If you see him deviate from the atheist party line, perhaps with subtlety and guile, let him influence you. He's not niave about the Holy Trinity.

The hell you speak of is a product of your own primal fear. It only exists in your mind, put there by liars.

Even though I easily met your challenge, your irrational fear makes you cling to the hope that your god is biding its time and will deal with me later.

If you are willing to commit to writing your permanent rejection of the Holy Spirit, I want it understood you choose to do so for reasons quite beyond the issues of a debate. If you do this thing, it should be borne of a deep and abiding belief that the God of Christianity is one you wish permanent and insuperable separation from. This state of ultimate separation from God is the proper definition of Hell.
— ucarr
So let it be written, so let it be done ......

I release you from any responsibility or influence ucarr regarding the non-existence of my... soul

Let's say your god and it's friend/enforcer Satan exists, and I go to hell, then I would scream and ask for forgiveness, within seconds of being tortured.

...your god does nothing, whilst innocent humans suffer terrible events, here on Earth, every day.

So, it would not listen to my pleas, as you have stated, because 'you will not be forgiven this transgression.'

If your god exists then it had better not forgive me, no matter how much I beg, under torture, as that would make it a liar and a fake. I am happy to be tortured by the supernatural for eternity, as I have lived my life, standing against all human tyranny. Your god, if it existed would be the biggest tyrant ever. So It would have to face my judgement, not me face it's judgement. Your god, if it exists is a fool, if it does not fear the judgement of all those humans/animals etc who have suffered, due to its incompetent creation.

I will still respect your skills to think in interesting ways.

Be content that bad atheists like me will suffer for eternity, for my unforgivable crime of rejecting primal fear and irrationality, whilst you will be in heaven, constantly telling a god how wonderful you think it is.

At best your post is disingenuous since "the question" is merely rhetorical given my previously stated philosophical commitments. Again, ucarr, for 45 years now I haven't had any religious or supernatural beliefs whatsoever as I reject all species of magical thinking (such as yours :sparkle:).

Is belief in the Trinity magical thinking?

At best your post is disingenuous since "the question" is merely rhetorical given my previously stated philosophical commitments. Again, ucarr, for 45 years now I haven't had any religious or supernatural beliefs whatsoever as I reject all species of magical thinking (such as yours :sparkle:).

Is belief in the Trinity magical thinking?
— ucarr
No doubt.

You think I want God to banish you to hell in reaction to our exchange of ideas within a debate? I'm a sinner, but I certainly hope I'm not guilty of what you charge me with.

Yes, I harbor primal fears; you don't? Some of them are irrational. Are none of your thoughts irrational?

In your above statements, you show your likeness to God. I'm honored by your willingness to share with me your sacred devotion to other humans.

And you have proven me (us) wrong, sir, that you can reason cogently and honestly.

I have one simple question to ask you that, I think, will prove that you do not truly believe your... words. I’m confident, up to the level of ninety per cent, that you will not answer my simple question because it would mean immersing yourself within a commitment I do not expect you make.

Are you willing to commit yourself, in the emphatic mode of your ...words, to a written statement declaring that you permanently reject the personal presence of the Holy Spirit as a worthless and meaningless fiction?

No, you keep missing my main message to you. I am as disappointed with your dalliances with theism as you are with my total rejection of theism. All of your uses of theistic terminology such as god, satan, christian, heaven, hell etc have a high cringe factor for me, as they dilute your status as a critical thinker and a skeptic in my eyes. I experience more concern from that, than I do about any threat that I will suffer for eternity is a non-existent christian hell.

Of course I harbour primal fears and of course I experience irrational thought and they have had more power over me in the past than they do now. I have defeated both in the sense that they do not dictate to my critical faculty. My reason overwhelms them.

I could never be as evil as the christian notion of a god, as a quartet (imo) of vile (multiple/schizophrenic) personalities, as absent father, magical son, 'silly' and ridiculous holy ghost and enforcer satan.

I remain interested in your treatment of a youtube video on any aspect of QM.
My final expression of my opinion of your dalliances with theism is: :roll:

Since you disbelieve God and Satan are enemies, do you also disbelieve there's spiritual warfare permeating human experience?

I'm willing to eliminate further discussion of God in my dialogs with you and 180 Proof.

I use the term spiritual, as referring to human breathing and movement and nothing of the transcendent or esoteric.

I would never attempt to restrict your freedom to express yourself, no matter how much I might disagree with the focus of your expression. I might be frustrated that I cannot change your mind, but I will defend your freedom of expression as long as you do not incite violence.

I use the term spiritual, as referring to human breathing and movement and nothing of the transcendent or esoteric.

Do you dismiss yoga?

180 Proof, c2008:If X is Transcendent AND if X is a Fact, then X belongs to TF-set. The set's okay, there just are not any members (so far) which (can) satisfy both rules  simultaneously.

Wikipedia:In philosophy, supervenience refers to a relation between sets of properties or sets of facts. X is said to supervene on Y if and only if some difference in Y is necessary for any difference in X to be possible.

Regarding the first sentence of your quote, you posit the conditional that a transcendent T is coupled with a transcendent F such that they instantiate membership within TF-set.

To wit: IFF TF-set has two membership rules – (1) X is transcendent, (2) X is a fact, THEN there is not any X that satisfies both membership rules; THEREFORE TF-set does not have any actual members.

Is this paraphrase any clearer?

Hello 180 Proof, can you talk a little bit about how you understand supervenience?

I ask for your thoughts on supervenience because within the context of sets of logical relations, I, more-or-less, equate supervenience and transcendence.

Here's how I understand your communication:

The property of transcendence and the cognitive entity "fact" are mutually exclusive. Given this, there is and cannot be any set of transcendent facts.

Did you ignore my questions to you because you think them evidence of my misapprehension of your communication?

Since, in my view, transcendence_supervenience are similar, ...

You've completely misread what I wrote. The argument does not refer to "transcendent T" or "transcendent F".

IFF TF-set has two membership rules – (1) X is transcendent, (2) X is a fact, THEN there is not any X that satisfies both membership rules; THEREFORE TF-set does not have any actual members.

To transcend a fact isn'tcremotely "similar" to a property or process supervening on a fact.

If X is Transcendent AND if X is a Fact, then X belongs to TF-set. The set's okay, there just are not any members (so far) which (can) satisfy both rules  simultaneously.

You have quoted my demonstration; show it is invalid as is or concede the point. I've no interest in trying to persuade you of anything, ucarr.

Regarding the first sentence of your quote, you posit the conditional that a transcendent T is coupled with a transcendent F such that they instantiate membership within TF-set.

Since both f(t) + f(f) = f(t+f) and f(t+f) = {t,f}, then X, a transcendent fact TF transcends itself and thus TF and its transcendence {t,f} reciprocally vary i.e., transcend each other. This is higher-order transcendence_supervenience as determined by the paradoxicality of self-transcendence (a transcendent fact).

So your first sentence contradicts your second sentence. Instead of: The set's okay, there just are not any members (so far) which (can) satisfy both rules simultaneously, we have: The set's okay, and its members transcend_supervene each other, albeit paradoxically. Self-transcendence, when misread through the lens of Newtonian determinism, acquires the appearance of an empty set.

You've completely misread what I wrote. The argument does not refer to "transcendent T" or "transcendent F". You're objecting to a strawman, ucarr, rather than what I wrote.

Since "posit" means: put forward as a basis of argument, and you put forward as a basis of argument that:

IFF TF-set has two membership rules – (1) X is transcendent, (2) X is a fact, THEN there is not any X that satisfies both membership rules; THEREFORE TF-set does not have any actual members.
— 180 Proof

then my saying, as interpretation of your argument that: membership rule (1) X is transcendent means X = transcendent (per rule (1) seems correct as does rule (2) X is a fact interpreted as meaning X = fact (per rule (2).

You've only defended your own misreading (?180 Proof)¹ – res ipsa loquitur. Again, ucarr, invalidate what I actually argue¹ or concede the point.

IFF TF-set has two membership rules – (1) X is transcendent, (2) X is a fact, THEN there is not any X that satisfies both membership rules...

Regarding the first sentence of your quote, you posit the conditional that a transcendent T is coupled with a transcendent F such that they instantiate membership within TF-set.

Since both f(t) + f(f) = f(t+f) and f(t+f) = {t,f}, then X, a transcendent fact TF transcends itself and thus TF and its transcendence {t,f} reciprocally vary i.e., transcend each other. This is higher-order transcendence_supervenience as determined by the paradoxicality of self-transcendence (a transcendent fact).

So your first sentence contradicts your second sentence. Instead of: The set's okay, there just are not any members (so far) which (can) satisfy both rules simultaneously, we have: The set's okay, and its members transcend_supervene each other, albeit paradoxically. Self-transcendence, when misread through the lens of Newtonian determinism, acquires the appearance of an empty set.

This is a declaration "X" and "fact" are mutually exclusive.

This is a declaration "X" and "fact" are mutually exclusive.

Here's how I understand your communication:

The property of transcendence and the cognitive entity "fact" are mutually exclusive. Given this, there is and cannot be any set of transcendent facts.
— ucarr

:up:

The upshot of the above argument follows from conceptualizing the wave function as a member of a set. Before measurement, its presence within a set, being probable, suggests the set is empty whereas, in fact, the occupation of the set by probable members positions said occupation somewhere between empty and occupied. This is an argument that denies TF-set is empty.