Is Life a Dialogue or a Monologue?

[Quantum Quack]

Well, you need to make up your mind if Mathematics can exist without sentience or if God is a mathematician. Our reverse engineering has established that emergent reality is still based on probabilistic mathematical functions without requiring any emotional motivated action, other than the universal law of "movement in the direction of greatest satisfaction" and it's derivatives.

IMO all you have achieved is the insight that the universe uses what appears to our egos as a probabilistic mathematical function.
You are actually declaring just how clever the universe intuitively is. Whether sentient or not is more a theosophical debate.


"Probability" is an expression of chance is it not?
"The only way the universe ( God) can play dice is via the use of humans who love to gamble".

 

[Quantum Quack]

Which proves the absence of a "caretaker". Why create something when you are going to destroy it anyway? Or is it a matter of neglect? Do we now need a psychological profile of God?

It appears you are somewhat fixated, as are most people, on some pre-conception of what a God may be. ( Typically a reflection of our egocentric selves)
Does it have to be sentient? ( could it be purely intuitive/reflexive intelligence)
Does consciousness have to be articulated and self animated?
For all we know and can prove a grain of salt may very well be conscious and self aware but due to it's material an inanimate structure unable to express it.

As for the absolute universal constant. It references a "thing" that is absolutely constant in absolutely all circumstances universally.
In mathematics what grants a number such as one the consistent value of one?
1=1 because ?
x=x because?

 

[Write4U]

It appears you are somewhat fixated, as are most people, on some pre-conception of what a God may be. ( Typically a reflection of our egocentric selves)

No, I can't let that pass. Whatever my perspective is in regard to the science of the properties of the universe, no one can accuse me of not relying on my understanding of science, right or wrong!

OTOH, relying on a God which can only be metaphorically described, IMHO, is the height of intellectual hubris. You even admit you do not understand the properties of your God, yet you presume to question my understanding of science or motives for posting anything at all. My agenda is science. your agenda is mysticism.
As to an expression of self-indulgent ego; Man was created in the image of an eternal God!? Please..

Does it have to be sentient? ( could it be purely intuitive/reflexive intelligence)

Yes, God has to be sentient. Else it's called Quantum Mechanics.

Does consciousness have to be articulated and self animated?

Yes, else you are unconscious, by definition.

The point is that conscious intelligence is at least sentient, whereas a pseudo-intelligence, such as mathematical functions, does not need to be conscious.

For all we know and can prove a grain of salt may very well be conscious and self-aware but due to its material an inanimate structure unable to express it.

No, you are obfuscating. Salt still functions in accordance with quantum mechanics, in spite of its lack of consciousness.

Roger Penrose proposes that quantum mechanics are a form of mathematical pseudo-intelligence, which experiences a "bing" during a "quantum treshold" event.

As for the absolute universal constant. It references a "thing" that is absolutely constant in all circumstances universally.
In mathematics what grants a number such as one the consistent value of one?
1=1 because ? x=x because?

That "thing" is Bohm's "Wholeness and the Implicate Order", the mathematical constants, all seeking order, that allow universal potentials to become expressed in OUR reality.
This is a result of dynamical, ever changing, potential fields which make up the Wholeness. A hierarchical mathematical cascading wave function, collapsing into reality by the quantum wave function collapse.

1 = 1 is a useless equation, unless taken as a self-referential function. Same for x = x

But as far as equations go:
1 = the intrinsic value of any singular wholeness.
Not because God made it that way. It's a human mathematical "symbolized" value......

x = the mathematical potential value of every single component or constituent sets, patterns which are constituent parts of the wholeness singularity.
Not because God ordained the value of everything contained within the universe.
It's the inherent mathematical potentials in and of all things, which determine the mathematical results, even in physics...

As Tegmark sys; " The difference between a live beetle and a dead beetle lies only in the difference between constituent patterns". Everything else is exactly the same.

When things are experiencing optimum internal physical "patterns" (implicate orders) they have "reached" a state of satisfactory equilibrium in accordance with the law of "movement in the direction of greatest satisfaction", but it never stops......

 

[Quantum Quack]

No, I can't let that pass. Whatever my perspective is in regard to the science of the properties of the universe, no one can accuse me of not relying on my understanding of science, right or wrong!

OTOH, relying on a God which can only be metaphorically described, IMHO, is the height of intellectual hubris. You even admit you do not understand the properties of your God, yet you presume to question my understanding of science or motives for posting anything at all. My agenda is science. your agenda is mysticism.
As to an expression of self-indulgent ego; Man was created in the image of an eternal God!? Please..
Yes, God has to be sentient. Else it's called Quantum Mechanics. Yes, else you are unconscious, by definition.

The point is that conscious intelligence is at least sentient, whereas a pseudo-intelligence, such as mathematical functions, does not need to be conscious. No, you are obfuscating. Salt still functions in accordance with quantum mechanics, in spite of its lack of consciousness.

Roger Penrose proposes that quantum mechanics are a form of mathematical pseudo-intelligence, which experiences a "bing" during a "quantum treshold" event.
That "thing" is Bohm's "Wholeness and the Implicate Order", the mathematical constants, all seeking order, that allow universal potentials to become expressed in OUR reality.
This is a result of dynamical, ever changing, potential fields which make up the Wholeness. A hierarchical mathematical cascading wave function, collapsing into reality by the quantum wave function collapse.

1 = 1 is a useless equation, unless taken as a self-referential function. Same for x = x

But as far as equations go:
1 = the intrinsic value of any singular wholeness.
Not because God made it that way. It's a human mathematical "symbolized" value......

x = the mathematical potential value of every single component or constituent sets, patterns which are constituent parts of the wholeness singularity.
Not because God ordained the value of everything contained within the universe.
It's the inherent mathematical potentials in and of all things, which determine the mathematical results, even in physics...

As Tegmark sys; " The difference between a live beetle and a dead beetle lies only in the difference between constituent patterns". Everything else is exactly the same.

When things are experiencing optimum internal physical "patterns" (implicate orders) they have "reached" a state of satisfactory equilibrium in accordance with the law of "movement in the direction of greatest satisfaction", but it never stops......

...a puzzling post..

 

[Write4U]

...a puzzling post..

Not really...follow the chronology..........look for "common denominators" in nature.

 

[Write4U]

IMO all you have achieved is the insight that the universe uses what appears to our egos as a probabilistic mathematical function.
You are actually declaring just how clever the universe intuitively is. Whether sentient or not is more a theosophical debate.

Yes, when all else is more complicated than a pseudo-intelligent mathematical universal operation system which can match any other creative function.

God is not a fractal. Right?

OTOH, a purely mathematical fractal can form any geometry as well and efficiently as any other form of motivated intelligence . It requires no sentience, intelligence, consciousness, it is the simple chronological iteration of a simple mathematical pattern. It is truly an awesome potential of the universal wholeness.

Check out CDT (causal dynamical triangulation). It attempts to show how the spacetime fabric itself evolves, let alone the rest of potential realities.

Causal dynamical triangulations.
That hardly constituted proof, however, and causal set theory has offered few other predictions that could be tested. Some physicists have found it much more fruitful to use computer simulations. The idea, which dates back to the early 1990s, is to approximate the unknown fundamental constituents with tiny chunks of ordinary space-time caught up in a roiling sea of quantum fluctuations, and to follow how these chunks spontaneously glue themselves together into larger structures.

http://ronmorehead.com/the-fabric-of-reality-causal-dynamical-triangulations/

And emerging quantum patterns.........

In 2006, Ashtekar and his colleagues reported7 a series of simulations that took advantage of that fact, using the loop quantum gravity version of Einstein's equations to run the clock backwards and visualize what happened before the Big Bang. The reversed cosmos contracted towards the Big Bang, as expected. But as it approached the fundamental size limit dictated by loop quantum gravity, a repulsive force kicked in and kept the singularity open, turning it into a tunnel to a cosmos that preceded our own.

https://www.nature.com/news/theoretical-physics-the-origins-of-space-and-time-1.13613

 

[sideshowbob]

however we can conclude/predict that if an organism fails the sustainability test it will inevitably perish.

What "sustainability test"?

 

[Write4U]

What "sustainability test"?

A meteor landing on your head..?

 

[sweetpea]

Consider this notion:
"It only requires one absolute universal constant for order to evolve from chaos"

Here are some constants... Electrons (negative) always repel electrons. Protons (positive) and electrons always attract each other. A chemical process runs until a balance or equilibrium is found between these particles, that is between positive and negative charges.
A believed god is in a state of flux until then.

 

[Write4U]

Here are some constants... Electrons (negative) always repel electrons. Protons (positive) and electrons always attract each other. A chemical process runs until a balance or equilibrium is found between these particles, that is between positive and negative charges.
A believed god is in a state of flux until then.

I understand the irony...

Most people lose sight of the fact that everything in the universe is made up from three fundamental particles, 1 positive, 1 negative, 1 neutral.

I find it really remarkable that anyone can casually cite some totally unknown condition named "god" as a universal phenomenon, without being held to rigorous scientific account.

Just because a lot of people believe in a condition which has been identified by the title God, but cannot be defined in any coherent or logical way? Where are the outcries of "incomprehensibility"?

I get raked over the coals for using a scientific phrase incorrectly and positing unsupported "beliefs" (skating on thin ice), but a religious person gets to skate on no ice without warning. Curiously.... It must be God?

Is everybody secretly scared of a God ? Seems all great apes are, to a degree.
But when it comes to humans, are atheists still scared of religious people? I am....

 

[Write4U]

W4U said,
No one proposes randomness. It's all mathematical. It cannot be otherwise.

QQ said,
And thus purely a mind generated "idea" of what we observe. Yes?

Come to think of it, NO.

As I posted before, when cosmologists find evidence of a mathematical pattern or function, they are "discovering" what is already there, not "generating" what we observe.

OTOH, God is a purely mind generated concept. There is no evidence of its existence at all.

As Anil Seth posits, out brains make "best guesses" of what is out there and found that applied mathematics support our "best guesses" (understanding) of the phenomenon we call the Universe, whereas the "best guess" of an undefinable God being instrumental in the creation and evolution of the universe is clearly unsupported by any mathematical or other verifiable standard.

It reminds me of the fable "The emperor's new clothes", and I'm the little boy just making an observation...

 

[Quantum Quack]

Here are some constants... Electrons (negative) always repel electrons. Protons (positive) and electrons always attract each other. A chemical process runs until a balance or equilibrium is found between these particles, that is between positive and negative charges.
A believed god is in a state of flux until then.

and what exactly is a "charge" ?
Why is the phenomena (not the value) a constant?
What exactly is the phenomena magnetism? (what is it's genesis?)
with out resorting to inevitably to "it just is".

 

[Quantum Quack]

OTOH, God is a purely mind generated concept. There is no evidence of its existence at all.

...then why are you fixated on your preconception of what God is?
After all...isn't becoming a God what science is all about?
What is the whole point of science?
What is it's ultimate ambition?

Just curious...

 

[Quantum Quack]

Most people lose sight of the fact that everything in the universe is made up from three fundamental particles, 1 positive, 1 negative, 1 neutral.

According to those who have theorized and modeled what they have observed perhaps?
as Einstein said "...'tis just a theory"...and will be replaced as soon as a better one comes along....
so to claim it as fact and true is most unscientific of you...

 

[Write4U]

...then why are you fixated on your preconception of what God is?
After all...isn't becoming a God what science is all about?

No, my ambitions don't reach that far. I prefer a more modest and humble outlook on nature and natural dynamical (animated) mathematical patterns.

Just curious...

I have no perception of what god is, I am an atheist. Religious people tell me their preconception of god and I find it "absurd", a phrase used against me when I mentioned "wave function collapse", which is the real thing.

QQ, why are you asking me what I cannot answer? My preconception is that there is no such thing as a sentient and motivated causality. That's why I am an atheist.

But if you are a theist, why don't you tell me what your fixation on your preconception of what god is? Do you have any answers? If not, then you are by default an atheist, no?.....

Arguing for something without a preconception of what it is, is just absurd, IMHO.

p.s. nothing I say is meant to be personal, it is my general outlook on scriptural religions only.
Now, Philosophy is another ball game......

 

[Quantum Quack]

I have no perception of what god is, I am an atheist. Religious people tell me their perception of god and I find it "absurd", a phrase used against me when I mentioned "wave function collapse", which is a real thing.

QQ, why are you asking me what I cannot answer? My preconception is that there is no such thing as a sentient causality. That's why I am an atheist.

But if you are a theist, why don't you tell me what your fixation on your preconception of what god is? Do you have any answers? If not, then you are by default an atheist, no?.....

Yet that is what science is striving to become.. a sentient God of sentient causality?
Why?
Because a sentient God of causality has yet to evolve....and science is attempting to do just that, evolve to fill the vacancy....

"The God of our dreams is what we wish to become" - anon

Read some Nietzsche, especially "The will to power" for some insight..and expand on it for further understanding of human nature... perhaps

It is at the heart of the human races egocentricity. IMO

 

[Write4U]

Yet that is what science is striving to become.. a sentient God of sentient causality?
Why?
Because a sentient God of causality has yet to evolve....and science is attempting to do just that, evolve to fill the vacancy....

If this god is yet to evolve, what is all the hullaballoo of omnipotence all about? And who is the expert in the field of "spiritual evolution"? And why is spiritual language so "confounded". It sure isn't God, is it?

"The God of our dreams is what we wish to become" - anon

From another thread;

Read your bible folks and understand the nonsense you endorse when you offer the good book as your moral authority.
Read the bible cover to cover and become a thinking atheist.
Alex

Thanks Alex, exactly my sentiments.

Read some Nietzsche, especially "The will to power" for some insight..and expand on it for further understanding of human nature... perhaps It is at the heart of the human races egocentricity. IMO

Well perhaps they had not yet come to the realization that all these emotions are founded in the universal constant of "movement in the direction of greatest satisfaction", which when taken to psychological extremes becomes "greed" and "god-complexes". We have an example in the WH.

OTOH, If taken to scientific mathematical evolutionary extremes, it explains why gravity works, even in black holes. You see the difference?[/QUOTE]

 

[Xelasnave.1947]

What is the whole point of science?

The point of science is to offer models that can make some sense of our observations and make repeatable testable predictions.


The church had the Earth at the center and science taking the observations produced a model giving us a perhaps more correct version of the reality.

Science is right until a better model comes along whereas religion dogedly holds onto a vission of reality made up in the bronze age by superstitious folk who did not know where the Sun went at night.

Religion has been working on its act for thousands of years and has not made any significant progress nor has the object of its attention shown itself in any way that enables observation that supports any belief in that entity.

Science and scientific method is relatively new however in its short application to understanding reality has enabled humans to do things beyond the comprehension of those who could only attribute nature to a god and did not know where the Sun went at night.

Science as an intitution has its problems (due to humans not its prescribed method) but these problems have a greater chance of resolution in an environment where new ideas are respected when supported by observation and testable prediction.

Sure folk like to hang onto ideas that is common between religion and science however in science all ideas require support and open to challenge from better science...where do we find better religion?

Religion fills a need to know with superstition whereas science fills the need to know with reliable testable explainations ... and one only has to look at our modern age to realise that without science we would still be herding goats and wondering where the Sun went at night.
There are many branches of science but all follow the scientific method which is basically a " put up or shut up" approach.

Science does not have all the answers and it does not say such but it supports all claims with observation and evidence allowing our models to make reliable testable predictions... however religion claims to have all the answers and yet offers nothing by way of observation or testable prediction.

It is based on a demand to accept and never question its good book.

Science does not seek to challenge religion but the facts it observes challenges the made up notions of the bronze age...
All scientific models are correct and if any have only one flaw the whole model is rejected.

Imagine how that approach would cause religion to be thrown out...

The good books account of creation contains more than one mistake and if it were a scientific model would be rejected.

Religion is not the enemy of science ...science says what it says, supports what it says and happy to embrace change....
Religion cant change and wont change and in time it will be those qualities that may see it disappear due to irrellevance.

Alex

 

[Quantum Quack]

Well perhaps they had not yet come to the realization that all these emotions are founded in the universal constant of "movement in the direction of greatest satisfaction", which when taken to psychological extremes becomes "greed" and "god-complexes". We have an example in the WH.

you may have inadvertently agreed with me ... lol
Yes indeed it is all about the evolution of sustainable success (EOSS)

We know that the universe as it stands, will ultimately face it's own extinction, a heat death I think they call it...
The only way that the universe can as a whole achieve eternal sustainability is with the evolution of a sentient first causer..... (re: oblique reference to Mayan prophecy 12/2012) thus an underpinning primary driver for human egocentric behavior may be considered.
so yes I agree using your terms "movement in the direction of greatest satisfaction" inevitably must lead to the emergence of a sentient "God" ( probably one that has never read the bible , the Quran, the Torah or studied the Yogic masters of the East and so on... )
Science is seeking to become that sentient God of first cause... IMO
Ultimately the most significant challenge being to find a way to avert the death of the universe and achieve sustainable success....

 

[Write4U]

According to those who have theorized and modeled what they have observed perhaps?
as Einstein said "...'tis just a theory"...and will be replaced as soon as a better one comes along....
so to claim it as fact and true is most unscientific of you...

Do you believe that the three identified fundamental building blocks of all physical reality require further evolution or a better model?

Compare the copious scientific literature about particle physics with the copious theist scriptures.

Which employs and presents a more rigorous "acceptable standard" of research and years of study, verification, and repeatable tests as compared to a voice emanating from a burning bush, which indisputably establishes the existence of a spiritual sentient causality?

And a human gets to claim he is the voice of the Father?
For some unscientific statements check out ;
John 8:12-58 and John 14:6
https://biblehub.com/john/8-12.htm
https://biblehub.com/john/14-6.htm

With due respect QQ, if you are theist, why are you asking my opinion on the question and properties of God, and then question my integrity in regard to the scientific method of science and scientists.
I am the atheist, as was Einstein, remember?
You are supposed to persuade me of the existence of God with at least a modicum of scientific rigor, no?