Re: If human beings are nothing more than matter, why are you conscious as yourself?
On 31 Oct 2013, at 19:34, Richard Ruquist wrote: Bruno: It is the Indra net of universal numbers reflecting themselves which exists as consequences of the laws of addition or multiplication. Richard: Very Platonic and that is perhaps what programs the Metaverse number net. But from my Aristotelian viewpoint, it is the Indra net of universal numbers that institutes the laws of addition and multiplication. Physics first. No problem, Richard. But then UDA shows that our bodies are not machines. You better have to say no to the doctor. Then, physics first, or its idealist counterpart sense or consciousness first take what I want to understand for granted. Also, your own theory seems to take the number for granted. So ... Bruno On Thu, Oct 31, 2013 at 1:27 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 30 Oct 2013, at 16:35, Richard Ruquist wrote: Richard: Here are a few quotes from http://www.sciencemeetsreligion.org/physics/multiverse.php that indicate that the current discussion of quantum physics, string physics and cosmology is really all about whether or not there is a god creator. Atheistic scientists like Hawking prefer MWI (Many World Interpretation of quantum mechanics) which predicts a multiverse of overlapping, parallel, unobservable universes. But many if not most scientists find such a notion anathema even though it seems to be the only way to make sense out of quantum theory. I find it interesting that comp seemingly supports the Hindu concept of maya as well as MWI. Without MWI, I would have never have believed in comp, nor in Hinduism perhaps. Hard to say. Excerpts: Needless to say, many theologically-minded persons view the multiverse as a futile and pathetic attempt to avoid the notion that God is the Designer of the universe. Philosopher-theologian Neil Manson described the multiverse as the last resort for the desperate atheist [Davies2007, pg. 265]. Yes, but then there is the two slits experiments, and the many- dreams in arithmetic, is an arithmetical reality (be them weird zombie-full histories, or conscious one). Paul Davies: Davies, a leading physicist, notes that the multiverse represents an inconceivably flagrant violation of Occam's razor -- postulating an enormous ensemble of essentially unobservable universes, just to explain our own. What's more, if the multiverse exists, then not only would universes like ours exist, but also vastly more universes where advanced technological civilizations acquire the power to simulate universes like ours on computer. Thus our entire universe, including all intelligent residents, are merely avatars in some computer simulation. In that case, how can we possibly take the laws of nature seriously? [Davies2007, pg. 179-185]. David Gross: As a leading string theorist, he invokes Winston Churchill in urging fellow researchers to Never, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever give up in seeking a single, compelling theory that eliminates the need for anthropic/multiverse arguments [Susskind2005, pg. 355]. Joseph Polchinski: Polchinski is one of the leading researchers in string theory, but he sees no alternative to the multiverse- anthropic view [Susskind2005, pg. 350]. Steven Weinberg: For what it is worth, I hope that [the multiverse- anthropic view] is not the case. As a theoretical physicist, I would like to see us able to make precise predictions, not vague statements that certain constants have to be in a range that is more or less favorable to life. I hope that string theory really will provide a basis for a final theory and that this theory will turn out to have enough predictive power to be able to prescribe values for all the constants of nature including the cosmological constant. We shall see. [Weinberg1993, pg. 229]. Richard: I assumed digital physics (ie., creation from math computations) in a quantum holographic string universe and metaverse in the hope to avoid both a creator and a MWI multiverse. It turned out that the computational machine of the metaverse (based on string theory) is somewhat like a god that creates a host of big bang universes containing matter and energy, but is an entirely natural (or supernatural) phenomenon, assuming of course that the Metaverse has a nature. But I am at a loss to say what creates or programs the Metaverse, unless it is turtles all the way down. It is the Indra net of universal numbers reflecting themselves which exists as consequences of the laws of addition or multiplication. If I can survive with a digital brain, it has to be something like that. Bruno On Wed, Oct 30, 2013 at 1:07 AM, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote: A Quora answer to the following question. Nothing new for me here probably, but It's maybe organized in a more concise way. Philosophy: If human beings are nothing more than matter, why are
Re: If human beings are nothing more than matter, why are you conscious as yourself?
Come on Craig, admit you wrote that. It's the last paragraph that is the dead give-away. On Wednesday, October 30, 2013 4:07:59 PM UTC+11, Craig Weinberg wrote: A Quora answer to the following question. Nothing new for me here probably, but It's maybe organized in a more concise way. Philosophy: If human beings are nothing more than matter, why are you conscious as yourself?http://www.quora.com/Philosophy/If-human-beings-are-nothing-more-than-matter-why-are-you-conscious-as-yourself The implication of materialism is that we are in essence wet robots, without free will, just chemical reactions. But if this is true and we are conscious, then does it logically follow that all chemical reactions have consciousness to some degree? If the human mind is just an extremely advanced computer, then at what point does consciousness occur? We don’t know that chemical reactions are unconscious, but if they were, then it makes sense that the entire universe would also be unconscious. It is very tricky to examine the issue of consciousness and to draw parallels within common experience without unintentionally smuggling in our own expectations from consciousness itself. This is the Petito principii or circular reasoning which derails most fair considerations of consciousness before they even begin in earnest. Unlike a clock which is made up of gears, or a particular sized pile of hay, the addition of consciousness has no conceivable consequence to the physical function of a body. While we can observe a haystack burst into flames because it has grown too hot, we cannot look at the behavior of a human body see any special difference from the behavior of any other physical body. There is complexity, but complexity alone need not point to anything beyond an adjacency of simple parts and isolated chains of effects. Just as no degree of complication within a clock’s mechanism would suddenly turn into a Shakespearean sonnet, the assumption of universal substitution is not necessarily appropriate for all phenomena, and for consciousness in particular. To get a color image, for instance, we need to print in colored dots, not black and white. Color TV programs cannot be broadcast over a monochrome display without losing their color. Unlike chemical or mechanical transformation, the nature of awareness is not implicated in the shuffling of material particles from one place or another. Any natural force can be used to do that. We have no scientific reason to insist that conscious participation and aesthetic appreciation is derived from some simpler functioning of complex systems. To the contrary, ‘complexity’, and ‘system’ can only make sense in the context of a window of perception and attention. Without some teleological intent to see one part as part of a whole, and to compare remembered events with current perceptions, there is no such thing as ‘function’ at all. There are several important points wrapped up in this question, which I will try to sum up. *1. The failure to consider consciousness metaphysically.* This is the most important and most intractable issue, for three reasons: - because it is difficult for anyone to try to put their mind outside of mind. It’s annoying, and winds up feeling foolish and disoriented. - because it is difficult in particular for the very people who need most to get past the difficulty. I have found that most people who are good with logic and scientific reasoning are not necessarily capable of doing what others can. The skillset appears to be neurological, like handedness or gender orientation. - because those who do have difficulty with thinking this way are often not used to intellectual challenges that escape their grasp, their reaction is so defensive that they react with intolerance. It’s not their fault, but it cannot be cured it seems. Some people cannot see 3-D Magic Eye art. Some cannot program their way out of a paper bag. In this case it is the ability to consider consciousness from a prospective rather than a retrospective view which can prove so inaccessible to so many people, that frothing at the mouth and babbling about unicorns, magic, and the supernatural is considered a reasonable and scientific, skeptical response. Of course, it is none of those things, but it takes a lot of patience and courage to be able to recognize one’s own prejudices, especially when we are used to being the ones telling others about their biases. *2. The taboo against metaphysics, panpsychism, and transrationality* Long after Einstein, Gödel, and Heisenberg shattered the Humpty Dumpty certainties of classical math and physics, we are still trying to piece him back together. Regardless of how much we learn about the strange properties of matter, time, energy, biology, and neurology, there are a huge
Re: If human beings are nothing more than matter, why are you conscious as yourself?
Bruno: No problem, Richard. But then UDA shows that our bodies are not machines. You better have to say no to the doctor. Richard: Indeed I would. But I wonder how UDA shows that our bodies are not machines. What else could they be? Bruno: Then, physics first, or its idealist counterpart sense or consciousness first take what I want to understand for granted. Richard: A physics first theory implies an infinite regress as the Indra net of numbers implies the need for a higher order net for its implication, whereas a numbers first theory appears to have a starting point in arithmetic and logic that could be called God, not that God is pejorative. My primary concern is also to understand consciousness. Bruno: Also, your own theory seems to take the number for granted. So .. Richard: Not sure what you mean by that. I say that comp takes arithmetic and logic for granted. I suggest that the real difference between us, other than the fact that you have developed a theory whereas my model is entirely conjecture, is that I conjecture a Metaverse (or Megaverse) that is sufficiently complete to compute physical matter along with a Universe (for which comp seems to apply) that computes a MWI dream-world that is conscious and interacts (rather than coheres) with the pre-existing SWI matter-world in a mind-matter dualism. Thank you for your continuing interest. On Fri, Nov 1, 2013 at 4:03 AM, Pierz pier...@gmail.com wrote: Come on Craig, admit you wrote that. It's the last paragraph that is the dead give-away. On Wednesday, October 30, 2013 4:07:59 PM UTC+11, Craig Weinberg wrote: A Quora answer to the following question. Nothing new for me here probably, but It's maybe organized in a more concise way. Philosophy: If human beings are nothing more than matter, why are you conscious as yourself?http://www.quora.com/Philosophy/If-human-beings-are-nothing-more-than-matter-why-are-you-conscious-as-yourself The implication of materialism is that we are in essence wet robots, without free will, just chemical reactions. But if this is true and we are conscious, then does it logically follow that all chemical reactions have consciousness to some degree? If the human mind is just an extremely advanced computer, then at what point does consciousness occur? We don’t know that chemical reactions are unconscious, but if they were, then it makes sense that the entire universe would also be unconscious. It is very tricky to examine the issue of consciousness and to draw parallels within common experience without unintentionally smuggling in our own expectations from consciousness itself. This is the Petito principii or circular reasoning which derails most fair considerations of consciousness before they even begin in earnest. Unlike a clock which is made up of gears, or a particular sized pile of hay, the addition of consciousness has no conceivable consequence to the physical function of a body. While we can observe a haystack burst into flames because it has grown too hot, we cannot look at the behavior of a human body see any special difference from the behavior of any other physical body. There is complexity, but complexity alone need not point to anything beyond an adjacency of simple parts and isolated chains of effects. Just as no degree of complication within a clock’s mechanism would suddenly turn into a Shakespearean sonnet, the assumption of universal substitution is not necessarily appropriate for all phenomena, and for consciousness in particular. To get a color image, for instance, we need to print in colored dots, not black and white. Color TV programs cannot be broadcast over a monochrome display without losing their color. Unlike chemical or mechanical transformation, the nature of awareness is not implicated in the shuffling of material particles from one place or another. Any natural force can be used to do that. We have no scientific reason to insist that conscious participation and aesthetic appreciation is derived from some simpler functioning of complex systems. To the contrary, ‘complexity’, and ‘system’ can only make sense in the context of a window of perception and attention. Without some teleological intent to see one part as part of a whole, and to compare remembered events with current perceptions, there is no such thing as ‘function’ at all. There are several important points wrapped up in this question, which I will try to sum up. *1. The failure to consider consciousness metaphysically.* This is the most important and most intractable issue, for three reasons: - because it is difficult for anyone to try to put their mind outside of mind. It’s annoying, and winds up feeling foolish and disoriented. - because it is difficult in particular for the very people who need most to get past the difficulty. I have found that most people who are good with logic and scientific reasoning are not necessarily capable of
Re: If human beings are nothing more than matter, why are you conscious as yourself?
On 01 Nov 2013, at 11:19, Richard Ruquist wrote: Bruno: No problem, Richard. But then UDA shows that our bodies are not machines. You better have to say no to the doctor. Richard: Indeed I would. OK. That is clear, and makes your work coherent with respect to comp. But I wonder how UDA shows that our bodies are not machines. What else could they be? Material bodies are persistent mental patterns, in the mind of some machines, which have to appear through the FPI applied to relative state of (universal) machine. It is a easy, but quite tedious (and not that easy, due to little traps hidden there, exercise to show that arithmetic (a tiny part of arithmetical truth) emulates computations (indeed, like the UD, *all* computations). Then accepting comp, this contains all subjective experiences. UDA shows that if we look at ourselves or at our neighborhood, below our substitution level, we should see the manifestations of all the computations going through our state, and what we take as our bodies, is in fact a summary of all computations going trough the computational states defining our (classical, plausibly) computations. I took that idea as a refutation of comp, until I read EPR and Everett (a long time ago). Bruno: Then, physics first, or its idealist counterpart sense or consciousness first take what I want to understand for granted. Richard: A physics first theory implies an infinite regress as the Indra net of numbers implies the need for a higher order net for its implication, OK, but thanks to the arithmetization of meta-arithmetic, arithmetic internalizes the higher order. So, ontologically, we don't need to go outside of arithmetic. whereas a numbers first theory appears to have a starting point in arithmetic and logic Indeed. that could be called God, not that God is pejorative. OK. Like in Kronecker's assertion that God created the integers. It means mainly that no one can understand where the integers come from. It is not an explanation of where the numbers comes from, as the god notion is far more intricate and complex than numbers. Wit the arithmetical interpretation of Plotinus, that is made clear by identifying (even if provisorily) God and (arithmetical) Truth (as did Plato/Pythagorus). My primary concern is also to understand consciousness. That is nice. There are many scientist who don't genuinely understand the problem of consciousness (and others who grasp it a little bit, but prefer to forget it or to provide ad hoc solutions). But I consider that matter is also quite mysterious, and that a solution of the consciousness/matter problem should explain both at once (which is normal with comp, because matter, as we experience it, is (at least) an experience of consciousness). Bruno: Also, your own theory seems to take the number for granted. So .. Richard: Not sure what you mean by that. I say that comp takes arithmetic and logic for granted. That's correct. But all the books I have on String theory (not much, I have three books on String Theory) assumes the intuition of numbers. (And even sometimes Ramanujan type of intuition, like 1+2+3+... = -1/12, which I love, but is demanding to understand the meaning). I suggest that the real difference between us, other than the fact that you have developed a theory whereas my model is entirely conjecture, is that I conjecture a Metaverse (or Megaverse) that is sufficiently complete to compute physical matter along with a Universe (for which comp seems to apply) that computes a MWI dream- world that is conscious and interacts (rather than coheres) with the pre-existing SWI matter-world in a mind-matter dualism. That is interesting, and who know, perhaps correct. It is difficult, because String Theory, by itself, is very difficult. And it is Bohmian, in the sense that I suspect that you add complexity to avoid the many-mutiplication, which for a computationalist, is as natural as the many-numbers, which we learn in high school. May I ask you what you think about this work: http://arxiv.org/abs/0806.0051 Take your time, (it is not an easy read), but that might also relate comp and string theory in some non trivial way, ... or it is trivial, but I can't judge. Bruno Thank you for your continuing interest. On Fri, Nov 1, 2013 at 4:03 AM, Pierz pier...@gmail.com wrote: Come on Craig, admit you wrote that. It's the last paragraph that is the dead give-away. On Wednesday, October 30, 2013 4:07:59 PM UTC+11, Craig Weinberg wrote: A Quora answer to the following question. Nothing new for me here probably, but It's maybe organized in a more concise way. Philosophy: If human beings are nothing more than matter, why are you conscious as yourself? The implication of materialism is that we are in essence wet robots, without free will, just chemical reactions. But if this is
Re: If human beings are nothing more than matter, why are you conscious as yourself?
On 30 Oct 2013, at 06:07, Craig Weinberg wrote: A Quora answer to the following question. Nothing new for me here probably, but It's maybe organized in a more concise way. Philosophy: If human beings are nothing more than matter, why are you conscious as yourself? The implication of materialism is that we are in essence wet robots, without free will, just chemical reactions. But if this is true and we are conscious, then does it logically follow that all chemical reactions have consciousness to some degree? If the human mind is just an extremely advanced computer, then at what point does consciousness occur? Before it begins to dream about matter, and after it get enough self- reference ability. You are quoting someone believing that comp is compatible with materialism, but we should know better. Bruno http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: If human beings are nothing more than matter, why are you conscious as yourself?
On 31 October 2013 16:46, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote: On Wednesday, October 30, 2013 9:53:17 PM UTC-4, Liz R wrote: On 31 October 2013 14:46, Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.com wrote: On Wednesday, October 30, 2013 8:00:58 PM UTC-4, Liz R wrote: This is one of the big questions along with something rather than nothing etc. That one is easy. Nothing cannot exist. Nothing is an idea that something has about the absence of everything. Buddhists, Bruno and Max Tegmark would perhaps beg to differ - they would claim that nothing exists except for abstract entities, and that the existence of those causes the appearance of something else existing. That could only be true if by nothing we really mean anything we want. I only tolerate an absolutely literal definition of no-thing, otherwise why bother even using a word? Nothing cannot lead to anything, or else it is really the potential for something in particular, at the very least. True nothing is can never be related to anything in any way, even potentially or theoretically. No, by nothing they mean only that which must exist from logical necessity. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: If human beings are nothing more than matter, why are you conscious as yourself?
Bruno: It is the Indra net of universal numbers reflecting themselves which exists as consequences of the laws of addition or multiplication. Richard: Very Platonic and that is perhaps what programs the Metaverse number net. But from my Aristotelian viewpoint, it is the Indra net of universal numbers that institutes the laws of addition and multiplication. Physics first. On Thu, Oct 31, 2013 at 1:27 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 30 Oct 2013, at 16:35, Richard Ruquist wrote: Richard: Here are a few quotes from http://www.sciencemeetsreligion.org/physics/multiverse.php that indicate that the current discussion of quantum physics, string physics and cosmology is really all about whether or not there is a god creator. Atheistic scientists like Hawking prefer MWI (Many World Interpretation of quantum mechanics) which predicts a multiverse of overlapping, parallel, unobservable universes. But many if not most scientists find such a notion anathema even though it seems to be the only way to make sense out of quantum theory. I find it interesting that comp seemingly supports the Hindu concept of maya as well as MWI. Without MWI, I would have never have believed in comp, nor in Hinduism perhaps. Hard to say. Excerpts: Needless to say, many theologically-minded persons view the multiverse as a futile and pathetic attempt to avoid the notion that God is the Designer of the universe. Philosopher-theologian Neil Manson described the multiverse as the last resort for the desperate atheist [Davies2007http://www.sciencemeetsreligion.org/resources/bibliography.html#Davies2007, pg. 265]. Yes, but then there is the two slits experiments, and the many-dreams in arithmetic, is an arithmetical reality (be them weird zombie-full histories, or conscious one). * * *Paul Davies*: Davies, a leading physicist, notes that the multiverse represents an inconceivably flagrant violation of Occam's razor -- postulating an enormous ensemble of essentially unobservable universes, just to explain our own. What's more, if the multiverse exists, then not only would universes like ours exist, but also vastly more universes where advanced technological civilizations acquire the power to *simulate* universes like ours on computer. Thus our entire universe, including all intelligent residents, are merely avatars in some computer simulation. In that case, how can we possibly take the laws of nature seriously? [ Davies2007http://www.sciencemeetsreligion.org/resources/bibliography.html#Davies2007, pg. 179-185]. * * *David Gross*: As a leading string theorist, he invokes Winston Churchill in urging fellow researchers to Never, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever give up in seeking a single, compelling theory that eliminates the need for anthropic/multiverse arguments [Susskind2005http://www.sciencemeetsreligion.org/resources/bibliography.html#Susskind2005 , pg. 355]. * * *Joseph Polchinski*: Polchinski is one of the leading researchers in string theory, but he sees no alternative to the multiverse-anthropic view [ Susskind2005http://www.sciencemeetsreligion.org/resources/bibliography.html#Susskind2005, pg. 350]. * * *Steven Weinberg*: For what it is worth, I hope that [the multiverse-anthropic view] is not the case. As a theoretical physicist, I would like to see us able to make precise predictions, not vague statements that certain constants have to be in a range that is more or less favorable to life. I hope that string theory really will provide a basis for a final theory and that this theory will turn out to have enough predictive power to be able to prescribe values for all the constants of nature including the cosmological constant. We shall see. [Weinberg1993http://www.sciencemeetsreligion.org/resources/bibliography.html#Weinberg1993, pg. 229]. Richard: I assumed digital physics (ie., creation from math computations) in a quantum holographic string universe and metaverse in the hope to avoid both a creator and a MWI multiverse. It turned out that the computational machine of the metaverse (based on string theory) is somewhat like a god that creates a host of big bang universes containing matter and energy, but is an entirely natural (or supernatural) phenomenon, assuming of course that the Metaverse has a nature. But I am at a loss to say what creates or programs the Metaverse, unless it is turtles all the way down. It is the Indra net of universal numbers reflecting themselves which exists as consequences of the laws of addition or multiplication. If I can survive with a digital brain, it has to be something like that. Bruno On Wed, Oct 30, 2013 at 1:07 AM, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.comwrote: A Quora answer to the following question. Nothing new for me here probably, but It's maybe organized in a more concise way. Philosophy: If human beings are nothing more than matter, why are you conscious as
Re: If human beings are nothing more than matter, why are you conscious as yourself?
On Wednesday, October 30, 2013 11:35:57 AM UTC-4, yanniru wrote: Richard: Here are a few quotes from http://www.sciencemeetsreligion.org/physics/multiverse.php that indicate that the current discussion of quantum physics, string physics and cosmology is really all about whether or not there is a god creator. Atheistic scientists like Hawking prefer MWI (Many World Interpretation of quantum mechanics) which predicts a multiverse of overlapping, parallel, unobservable universes. But many if not most scientists find such a notion anathema even though it seems to be the only way to make sense out of quantum theory. I find it interesting that comp seemingly supports the Hindu concept of maya as well as MWI. Excerpts: Needless to say, many theologically-minded persons view the multiverse as a futile and pathetic attempt to avoid the notion that God is the Designer of the universe. Philosopher-theologian Neil Manson described the multiverse as the last resort for the desperate atheist [Davies2007http://www.sciencemeetsreligion.org/resources/bibliography.html#Davies2007, pg. 265]. * * *Paul Davies*: Davies, a leading physicist, notes that the multiverse represents an inconceivably flagrant violation of Occam's razor -- postulating an enormous ensemble of essentially unobservable universes, just to explain our own. What's more, if the multiverse exists, then not only would universes like ours exist, but also vastly more universes where advanced technological civilizations acquire the power to *simulate* universes like ours on computer. Thus our entire universe, including all intelligent residents, are merely avatars in some computer simulation. In that case, how can we possibly take the laws of nature seriously? [ Davies2007http://www.sciencemeetsreligion.org/resources/bibliography.html#Davies2007, pg. 179-185]. * * *David Gross*: As a leading string theorist, he invokes Winston Churchill in urging fellow researchers to Never, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever give up in seeking a single, compelling theory that eliminates the need for anthropic/multiverse arguments [Susskind2005http://www.sciencemeetsreligion.org/resources/bibliography.html#Susskind2005 , pg. 355]. * * *Joseph Polchinski*: Polchinski is one of the leading researchers in string theory, but he sees no alternative to the multiverse-anthropic view [ Susskind2005http://www.sciencemeetsreligion.org/resources/bibliography.html#Susskind2005, pg. 350]. * * *Steven Weinberg*: For what it is worth, I hope that [the multiverse-anthropic view] is not the case. As a theoretical physicist, I would like to see us able to make precise predictions, not vague statements that certain constants have to be in a range that is more or less favorable to life. I hope that string theory really will provide a basis for a final theory and that this theory will turn out to have enough predictive power to be able to prescribe values for all the constants of nature including the cosmological constant. We shall see. [Weinberg1993http://www.sciencemeetsreligion.org/resources/bibliography.html#Weinberg1993, pg. 229]. Richard: I assumed digital physics (ie., creation from math computations) in a quantum holographic string universe and metaverse in the hope to avoid both a creator and a MWI multiverse. It turned out that the computational machine of the metaverse (based on string theory) is somewhat like a god that creates a host of big bang universes containing matter and energy, but is an entirely natural (or supernatural) phenomenon, assuming of course that the Metaverse has a nature. But I am at a loss to say what creates or programs the Metaverse, unless it is turtles all the way down. If the primordial identity is sense, then we don't need a Metaverse which exhausts possibilities with literal creation. Instead, possibilities are driven by nested intention. Sense is elliptical. Unlike a computation, sense does not need to repeat itself in order to get the point. It can deliver a set of associations through a broad gesture that is multivalent and meta-phoric. Through gravity (entropy squared), the universe is reigned in and Occam's catastrophe is ground to insignificance and crushed into black holes. The universe is not only singular, it is absolute singularity itself. The essence of boundaryless simplicity, unrepeatability, and uniqueness. Craig On Wed, Oct 30, 2013 at 1:07 AM, Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.comjavascript: wrote: A Quora answer to the following question. Nothing new for me here probably, but It's maybe organized in a more concise way. Philosophy: If human beings are nothing more than matter, why are you conscious as yourself?http://www.quora.com/Philosophy/If-human-beings-are-nothing-more-than-matter-why-are-you-conscious-as-yourself The implication of materialism is that we are in
Re: If human beings are nothing more than matter, why are you conscious as yourself?
For me your philosophy is un-understandable poetry. Now that I finally have some understanding of the import of Bruno's comp perhaps I should try to understand your concept of sense. Richard On Wed, Oct 30, 2013 at 11:51 AM, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.comwrote: On Wednesday, October 30, 2013 11:35:57 AM UTC-4, yanniru wrote: Richard: Here are a few quotes from http://www.** sciencemeetsreligion.org/**physics/multiverse.phphttp://www.sciencemeetsreligion.org/physics/multiverse.php that **indicate that the current discussion of quantum physics, string physics and cosmology is really all about whether or not there is a god creator. Atheistic scientists like Hawking prefer MWI (Many World Interpretation of quantum mechanics) which predicts a multiverse of overlapping, parallel, unobservable universes. But many if not most scientists find such a notion anathema even though it seems to be the only way to make sense out of quantum theory. I find it interesting that comp seemingly supports the Hindu concept of maya as well as MWI. Excerpts: Needless to say, many theologically-minded persons view the multiverse as a futile and pathetic attempt to avoid the notion that God is the Designer of the universe. Philosopher-theologian Neil Manson described the multiverse as the last resort for the desperate atheist [Davies2007http://www.sciencemeetsreligion.org/resources/bibliography.html#Davies2007, pg. 265]. * * *Paul Davies*: Davies, a leading physicist, notes that the multiverse represents an inconceivably flagrant violation of Occam's razor -- postulating an enormous ensemble of essentially unobservable universes, just to explain our own. What's more, if the multiverse exists, then not only would universes like ours exist, but also vastly more universes where advanced technological civilizations acquire the power to *simulate* universes like ours on computer. Thus our entire universe, including all intelligent residents, are merely avatars in some computer simulation. In that case, how can we possibly take the laws of nature seriously? [ Davies2007http://www.sciencemeetsreligion.org/resources/bibliography.html#Davies2007, pg. 179-185]. * * *David Gross*: As a leading string theorist, he invokes Winston Churchill in urging fellow researchers to Never, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever give up in seeking a single, compelling theory that eliminates the need for anthropic/multiverse arguments [Susskind2005http://www.sciencemeetsreligion.org/resources/bibliography.html#Susskind2005 , pg. 355]. * * *Joseph Polchinski*: Polchinski is one of the leading researchers in string theory, but he sees no alternative to the multiverse-anthropic view [ Susskind2005http://www.sciencemeetsreligion.org/resources/bibliography.html#Susskind2005, pg. 350]. * * *Steven Weinberg*: For what it is worth, I hope that [the multiverse-anthropic view] is not the case. As a theoretical physicist, I would like to see us able to make precise predictions, not vague statements that certain constants have to be in a range that is more or less favorable to life. I hope that string theory really will provide a basis for a final theory and that this theory will turn out to have enough predictive power to be able to prescribe values for all the constants of nature including the cosmological constant. We shall see. [Weinberg1993http://www.sciencemeetsreligion.org/resources/bibliography.html#Weinberg1993, pg. 229]. Richard: I assumed digital physics (ie., creation from math computations) in a quantum holographic string universe and metaverse in the hope to avoid both a creator and a MWI multiverse. It turned out that the computational machine of the metaverse (based on string theory) is somewhat like a god that creates a host of big bang universes containing matter and energy, but is an entirely natural (or supernatural) phenomenon, assuming of course that the Metaverse has a nature. But I am at a loss to say what creates or programs the Metaverse, unless it is turtles all the way down. If the primordial identity is sense, then we don't need a Metaverse which exhausts possibilities with literal creation. Instead, possibilities are driven by nested intention. Sense is elliptical. Unlike a computation, sense does not need to repeat itself in order to get the point. It can deliver a set of associations through a broad gesture that is multivalent and meta-phoric. Through gravity (entropy squared), the universe is reigned in and Occam's catastrophe is ground to insignificance and crushed into black holes. The universe is not only singular, it is absolute singularity itself. The essence of boundaryless simplicity, unrepeatability, and uniqueness. Craig On Wed, Oct 30, 2013 at 1:07 AM, Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.comwrote: A Quora answer to the following question. Nothing new for me here probably, but It's maybe organized in a more
Re: If human beings are nothing more than matter, why are you conscious as yourself?
On 30 October 2013 16:07, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote: We don’t know that chemical reactions are unconscious... The brain is chemical reactions and consciousness seems to happen when these chemical reactions happen, and not when they don't happen. This we know. We don't know if consciousness of a strange type happens when a hammer hits a nail, for example. It might, it might not. The hammer might also have free will: I hit the nail because I decided to hit the nail. If I didn't decide to hit the nail I wouldn't have hit it. Sure, my action could be ascribed to a series of mechanistic events, but these mechanistic events follow from my decision, not the other way around. -- Stathis Papaioannou -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: If human beings are nothing more than matter, why are you conscious as yourself?
This is one of the big questions along with something rather than nothing etc. On 31 October 2013 12:35, Stathis Papaioannou stath...@gmail.com wrote: On 30 October 2013 16:07, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote: We don’t know that chemical reactions are unconscious... The brain is chemical reactions and consciousness seems to happen when these chemical reactions happen, and not when they don't happen. This we know. We don't know if consciousness of a strange type happens when a hammer hits a nail, for example. It might, it might not. The hammer might also have free will: I hit the nail because I decided to hit the nail. If I didn't decide to hit the nail I wouldn't have hit it. Sure, my action could be ascribed to a series of mechanistic events, but these mechanistic events follow from my decision, not the other way around. -- Stathis Papaioannou -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: If human beings are nothing more than matter, why are you conscious as yourself?
On Wednesday, October 30, 2013 7:35:26 PM UTC-4, stathisp wrote: On 30 October 2013 16:07, Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.com javascript: wrote: We don’t know that chemical reactions are unconscious... The brain is chemical reactions and consciousness seems to happen when these chemical reactions happen, and not when they don't happen. You are talking about *our personal consciousness*. I am not. It is as if you were telling me that because the lights go off when you turn off the switch, there can be no such thing as the power grid. This we know. We don't know if consciousness of a strange type happens when a hammer hits a nail, for example. It might, it might not. The hammer might also have free will: I hit the nail because I decided to hit the nail. If I didn't decide to hit the nail I wouldn't have hit it. Sure, my action could be ascribed to a series of mechanistic events, but these mechanistic events follow from my decision, not the other way around. To project your own free will onto an inanimate object facetiously is not an argument against the fact that you have free will to begin with to project. Arguing against free will is meaningless. If you are right, then your opinion is involuntary and it doesn't matter whether anyone agrees or not because they have no choice either. Only someone with free will can participate in an argument and care about the outcome. Craig -- Stathis Papaioannou -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: If human beings are nothing more than matter, why are you conscious as yourself?
On 31 October 2013 14:46, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote: On Wednesday, October 30, 2013 8:00:58 PM UTC-4, Liz R wrote: This is one of the big questions along with something rather than nothing etc. That one is easy. Nothing cannot exist. Nothing is an idea that something has about the absence of everything. Buddhists, Bruno and Max Tegmark would perhaps beg to differ - they would claim that nothing exists except for abstract entities, and that the existence of those causes the appearance of something else existing. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: If human beings are nothing more than matter, why are you conscious as yourself?
On 10/30/2013 6:53 PM, LizR wrote: On 31 October 2013 14:46, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com mailto:whatsons...@gmail.com wrote: On Wednesday, October 30, 2013 8:00:58 PM UTC-4, Liz R wrote: This is one of the big questions along with something rather than nothing etc. That one is easy. Nothing cannot exist. Nothing is an idea that something has about the absence of everything. Buddhists, Bruno and Max Tegmark would perhaps beg to differ - they would claim that nothing exists except for abstract entities, and that the existence of those causes the appearance of something else existing. Nothing: Nothing is an awe-inspiring yet essentially undigested concept, highly esteemed by writers of a mystical or existentialist tendency, but by most others regarded with anxiety, nausea, or panic. --- The Encyclopedia of Philosophy What is there? Everything! So what isn't there? Nothing! --- Norm Levitt, after W. V. O. Quine In the beginning there was nothing. And the Lord said, 'Let there be light.' and there was still nothing, but now you could see it. --- Terry Pratchet The reason that there is Something rather than Nothing is that Nothing is unstable. -- Frank Wilczek, Nobel Laureate, phyiscs 2004 The universe is just nothing, rearranged. --- Yonatan Fishman -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: If human beings are nothing more than matter, why are you conscious as yourself?
On 31 October 2013 15:19, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 10/30/2013 6:53 PM, LizR wrote: On 31 October 2013 14:46, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote: On Wednesday, October 30, 2013 8:00:58 PM UTC-4, Liz R wrote: This is one of the big questions along with something rather than nothing etc. That one is easy. Nothing cannot exist. Nothing is an idea that something has about the absence of everything. Buddhists, Bruno and Max Tegmark would perhaps beg to differ - they would claim that nothing exists except for abstract entities, and that the existence of those causes the appearance of something else existing. Oh, and Russell Standish, obviously! (Oops!) -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: If human beings are nothing more than matter, why are you conscious as yourself?
On Wednesday, October 30, 2013 9:53:17 PM UTC-4, Liz R wrote: On 31 October 2013 14:46, Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.com javascript: wrote: On Wednesday, October 30, 2013 8:00:58 PM UTC-4, Liz R wrote: This is one of the big questions along with something rather than nothing etc. That one is easy. Nothing cannot exist. Nothing is an idea that something has about the absence of everything. Buddhists, Bruno and Max Tegmark would perhaps beg to differ - they would claim that nothing exists except for abstract entities, and that the existence of those causes the appearance of something else existing. That could only be true if by nothing we really mean anything we want. I only tolerate an absolutely literal definition of no-thing, otherwise why bother even using a word? Nothing cannot lead to anything, or else it is really the potential for something in particular, at the very least. True nothing is can never be related to anything in any way, even potentially or theoretically. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: If human beings are nothing more than matter, why are you conscious as yourself?
On Tue, Oct 29, 2013 at 11:07 PM, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.comwrote: A Quora answer to the following question. Nothing new for me here probably, but It's maybe organized in a more concise way. Philosophy: If human beings are nothing more than matter, why are you conscious as yourself?http://www.quora.com/Philosophy/If-human-beings-are-nothing-more-than-matter-why-are-you-conscious-as-yourself I think the question itself derives from extrapolating the explanatory power of reductionism too far. It is like trying to explain the saltiness of potato chips by assuming there must be some more fundamental salt-like quality inherent in the quarks that make up the potato chip. This would be wrong, saltiness can only arise at levels much higher than those of individual quarks and electrons. You would not expect to find saltiness in a quark, so why expect to find consciousness in a molecule? Jason -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
If human beings are nothing more than matter, why are you conscious as yourself?
A Quora answer to the following question. Nothing new for me here probably, but It's maybe organized in a more concise way. Philosophy: If human beings are nothing more than matter, why are you conscious as yourself?http://www.quora.com/Philosophy/If-human-beings-are-nothing-more-than-matter-why-are-you-conscious-as-yourself The implication of materialism is that we are in essence wet robots, without free will, just chemical reactions. But if this is true and we are conscious, then does it logically follow that all chemical reactions have consciousness to some degree? If the human mind is just an extremely advanced computer, then at what point does consciousness occur? We don’t know that chemical reactions are unconscious, but if they were, then it makes sense that the entire universe would also be unconscious. It is very tricky to examine the issue of consciousness and to draw parallels within common experience without unintentionally smuggling in our own expectations from consciousness itself. This is the Petito principii or circular reasoning which derails most fair considerations of consciousness before they even begin in earnest. Unlike a clock which is made up of gears, or a particular sized pile of hay, the addition of consciousness has no conceivable consequence to the physical function of a body. While we can observe a haystack burst into flames because it has grown too hot, we cannot look at the behavior of a human body see any special difference from the behavior of any other physical body. There is complexity, but complexity alone need not point to anything beyond an adjacency of simple parts and isolated chains of effects. Just as no degree of complication within a clock’s mechanism would suddenly turn into a Shakespearean sonnet, the assumption of universal substitution is not necessarily appropriate for all phenomena, and for consciousness in particular. To get a color image, for instance, we need to print in colored dots, not black and white. Color TV programs cannot be broadcast over a monochrome display without losing their color. Unlike chemical or mechanical transformation, the nature of awareness is not implicated in the shuffling of material particles from one place or another. Any natural force can be used to do that. We have no scientific reason to insist that conscious participation and aesthetic appreciation is derived from some simpler functioning of complex systems. To the contrary, ‘complexity’, and ‘system’ can only make sense in the context of a window of perception and attention. Without some teleological intent to see one part as part of a whole, and to compare remembered events with current perceptions, there is no such thing as ‘function’ at all. There are several important points wrapped up in this question, which I will try to sum up. *1. The failure to consider consciousness metaphysically.* This is the most important and most intractable issue, for three reasons: - because it is difficult for anyone to try to put their mind outside of mind. It’s annoying, and winds up feeling foolish and disoriented. - because it is difficult in particular for the very people who need most to get past the difficulty. I have found that most people who are good with logic and scientific reasoning are not necessarily capable of doing what others can. The skillset appears to be neurological, like handedness or gender orientation. - because those who do have difficulty with thinking this way are often not used to intellectual challenges that escape their grasp, their reaction is so defensive that they react with intolerance. It’s not their fault, but it cannot be cured it seems. Some people cannot see 3-D Magic Eye art. Some cannot program their way out of a paper bag. In this case it is the ability to consider consciousness from a prospective rather than a retrospective view which can prove so inaccessible to so many people, that frothing at the mouth and babbling about unicorns, magic, and the supernatural is considered a reasonable and scientific, skeptical response. Of course, it is none of those things, but it takes a lot of patience and courage to be able to recognize one’s own prejudices, especially when we are used to being the ones telling others about their biases. *2. The taboo against metaphysics, panpsychism, and transrationality* Long after Einstein, Gödel, and Heisenberg shattered the Humpty Dumpty certainties of classical math and physics, we are still trying to piece him back together. Regardless of how much we learn about the strange properties of matter, time, energy, biology, and neurology, there are a huge number of very intelligent people who are convinced that we will only know the truth about the universe when it all looks like a vast deterministic mechanism. The compulsion to reduce awareness to passive mathematical or
