66 replies to this topic

[bwu910]

Again, we all must understand that no matter what anyone posits, it can not be counted as valid unless it has an objective reference point. Therefore, we are now going to venture into the understanding of existence:

Consciousness, mass and energy are the three macro components of existence. Those three components are inextricably linked and must be integrated into all physical understanding and mathematical accounts of our universe. If only the mass and energy components existed, then all existence would be predictable and predestined through the dynamics of nature and physics. But further research and refinement of data will show that seemingly predictable actions of the universe are actually unpredictable from a mass and energy accounting alone.

Stated another way: SPACE, TIME, CONSCIOUSNESS AND EXISTENCE ARE ETERNAL- THEY HAVE NO BEGINNING OR END. Throughout time-eternal, stars, solar systems, and Earthlike planets constantly form anew.

Now that brings us back to the subject: EXISTENCE

Most existence throughout the universe exist as an open-ended electroplasma, always evolving through its interacting matter(M) and energy(E) fields or modes. Those two fields of existence eternally interchange in a relationship expressed by einstein as M=E/c2 (from E=Mc2), with c being the universal constant representing the velocity of light.

So, for the layman: EXISTENCE EXIST!

That brings me to the abbreviations SIGU's. In it's full contexts would be termed -Super Inflation GravityUnits. Super Inflation Gravity Units are the fundamental particle accelerators of existence. The only documents that were created to explain existence has been the Holy Bible( in genesis). For the record, existence Exist! who created existence and why of the universe questions are unintellectual questions that cannot and need not be answered because there is no casual explanation neither reference points that exist, or unless one excepts the contradiction that existence do not exist. Furthermore, concerning existence, one should understand that existence is axiomatic and irreduceable, with everything created as elements of existence. Existence is eternal, whereby explaing that forever really means forever. Time is eternal, therefore the concept that we embrace doesn't exist in existence.

-BWU

Fields and Forces are the result of noneuclidean geometries and symmetries in space. Thus, there are no unaccounted, spooky "actions at a distance". Superstring theory, which would involve the geometries and mathematics of gravityUnits, consist of sixteen dimensions or, in actuality, ten dimensions because six dimensions are redundant. Those ten dimensions can, inturn split into a rolled-up six deminsions in which time, space, motion, and entrophy do not exist and the unrolled four dimensions of our current observable universe in which time, space, motion, and entrophy do exist.

-BWU

[JohnDoe1234]

If only the mass and energy components existed, then all existence would be predictable and predestined through the dynamics of nature and physics. But further research and refinement of data will show that seemingly predictable actions of the universe are actually unpredictable from a mass and energy accounting alone

You are speaking of determinism. Please demonstrate a fundamental interaction that cannot be predicted. The only reason why nature seems so unpredictable, is because it is so complex, we are not capable of keeping track of the state of each and every subatomic particle and its constituents and hence cannot predict how a specific situation will turn out.

Also, why do you insist that consciousness is as fundamental as matter and energy? As another post of yours clearly shows that it was a very recent development and is the result of a lot of abstraction. A theory is best when it does not conflict itself.

[bwu910]

To reply: Making the switch from perceptivity centered to conceptuality centered cannot be predicted by noone but the creator(the indivdual).

Perception is always concerned with events, whereas conception is primarily concerned with interrelations between events. And the universe is the complex aggregate of the whole interrelations of events in existence. In order to comprehend that complex aggregate of interrelations known as the universe, one must transcend the seeming subjective reality of perceptual experience and construct a conceptual map in concordance with logic that best reflects the underlying design principles of the universe. By moving from perceptivity-centered to conceptuality-centered, one enters the realm of objective reality that gives the power to harness and control the universe( power that can only be claimed only by a conscious being.
-BWU

For the record: Reality is conceptual

[JohnDoe1234]

Ok, tell me if I have this wrong, but you are saying that once something becomes conscious it makes a shift from being perception-centered to conception-centered. But, conscious beings are capable of perception. What do you mean by this? Are you saying that no one can predict when something attains consciousness?

I am guessing this conceptual map you are speaking of is math? Because math allows us to go further and comprehend more that we could with merely our senses.

By moving from perceptivity-centered to conceptuality-centered, one enters the realm of objective reality that gives the power to harness and control the universe( power that can only be claimed only by a conscious being.

The Roomba can harness and control my carpet (which is a portion of the universe), but I don't consider it to be conscious.

[braz]

The only reason why nature seems so unpredictable, is because it is so complex, we are not capable of keeping track of the state of each and every subatomic particle and its constituents and hence cannot predict how a specific situation will turn out.

The thing is, we can't even predict the position of a single particle, according the Heisenberg's uncertainty principle. We can't say with complete certainty where a partcile will end up next, so we can only use a probability distribution. Sure, there might be hidden variables which somehow control the behavior of each and single particle as Einstein had advocated, but modern research has not yet establish such forces. It seems that on the quantum level, the universe is ruled by chance and randomness.

[bwu910]

JOSEPH ASKED " WHY DO YOU INSIST THAT CONSCIOUSNESS IS AS FUNDAMENTAL AS MATTER AND ENERGY?"

Now, my friend, back to the subject matter "Existence/Life". Hone in!

Life is a common, natural phenomenon of existence that quickly evolves into conscious life, making conscious life the third, fundamental component of existence. Not only that, but consciousness is the controlling component as it takes over and controls mass and energy to serve the needs of consciousness.

-BWU

[JohnDoe1234]

Yeah braz, I've studied a bit into Heisenberg's stuff a while back, but most would agree that our ability to think is mediated by the materials that our brain is made up of, and with that said, the current "unpredictableness" of quantum interactions plays a very very small role in the functioning of our brains. So, I still think that even though we do not understand why these interactions take place at certain times and maybe not others, that does not mean that they are random, they only seem that way because we do not yet have the full story. I don't know, but it sure is hard to come up with a random number... infact, it is impossible! You can take any given (fully understood, and constant) system and replay it an infinite number of times and the same thing will happen each time, no random states or values will crop up. I think the same goes for our universe (and possibly ones "parallel" to ours). It doesn't seem that unreasonable to say that everything that occurs has to have a cause or previous state.

bwu910, We have already established that consciousness is capable of using materials in the universe for its own gain, however, I still fail to see the reasoning behind labeling it a fundamental component. Pretend you can look at the universe as a whole, now, you may see a few little marbles of life scattered here and there, maybe a dozen or so... and if you look at each one of these little marbles, you notice that life only exists on the outer skin of each of these marbles. And only a small percentage of the biomass on each of the marbles is conscious (most biomass is plant-life). So, we can derive from that... mass/energy is independent of consciousness, but since life can only exist where matter/energy is, we must also conclude that consciousness is dependent on mass/energy.

Stated another way: SPACE, TIME, CONSCIOUSNESS AND EXISTENCE ARE ETERNAL- THEY HAVE NO BEGINNING OR END

These don't play well together...

Consciousness came into existence on this planet about 3000 years ago

So... um... I'm lost.

[bwu910]

Take me on that offer and I will log off now and get to work( in delivering you valid conceptual incontext information packages to you to uphold BWU ( BusinessWithinU ).

" All human's have the natural desire to know "

-Aristotle


-BWU

[JohnDoe1234]

Um... ok, sure.

[bwu910]

Brandon White
Box 423
Southern pines, NC
28388


-BWU

will be expecting

[JohnDoe1234]

Will be expecting what? what are you on man? geeze... you just totally flew off topic here...

EDIT: The money? This is funny.

[Live Forever]

bwu, it is hard to follow what you are saying....and why did you post your address?

[bwu910]

The address is for when you requested me to verify the communication of the old and I offered to write you a ten to eleven page manuscript for $500 dollars for my life time subscription here, and you replied : um, ok!

[JohnDoe1234]

I said "um, ok!" as sarcasm, you can't expect me to pay you $500 for a ten page paper, if you should have already written that much if you thought your theory was of any importance. You have started a discussion relating to your theory, and I am merely asking questions, and conversing with you. It isn't very appealing to have "Shareware posts" if I may coin a term. Are you saying that you will discuss your theory no more? And that anything more that you may divulge comes at a price? That is just silly.

Look man, I am just curious as to why you think what you do, and that is what you get when you post extremely controversial theories.

[MichaelAnissimov]

First things first. How do I become a God-Man too?

Again, we all must understand that no matter what anyone posits, it can not be counted as valid unless it has an objective reference point.

But there is no such thing as a truly objective reference. All we really have is trial and error - the Scientific Method, essentially. Everything is probabilistic. We must always own up to the possibility that things are not what they seem, that the world, including us, could have been created 5 minutes ago by aliens who took the trouble to give us false memories all the way back until our birth.

Consciousness, mass and energy are the three macro components of existence.

Consciousness is built on particular arrangements of matter and energy. Mass-energy is the primal stuff. The consciousness just happened to pop up on some tiny planet in some minute corner of this fantastically huge multiverse. Compared to mass-energy, it's utterly insignificant, and is only noteworthy by virtue of the fact that all conscious observers capable of reflecting on the universe are by definition conscious.

If only the mass and energy components existed, then all existence would be predictable and predestined through the dynamics of nature and physics. But further research and refinement of data will show that seemingly predictable actions of the universe are actually unpredictable from a mass and energy accounting alone.

Okay. Where's the scientific paper presenting that research? In quantum mechanics, the wave function can collapse without any sort of conscious observer. For example, see the entry from the "observer effect" on Wikipedia:

"A common lay misuse of the term refers to quantum mechanics, where, if the outcome of an event has not been observed, it exists in a state of 'superposition', which is akin to being in all possible states at once. In the famous thought experiment known as Schrödinger's cat the cat is supposedly neither alive nor dead until observed — until that time, the cat is both alive and dead (technically half-alive and half-dead in probability terms). However, modern quantum physicists, in resolving Schrödinger's seeming paradox, now understand that the acts of 'observation' and 'measurement' must also be defined in quantum terms before the question makes sense. From this point of view, there is no 'observer effect', only one vastly entangled quantum system.

Heisenberg uncertainty principle is also frequently, but incorrectly, confused with the "observer effect". The uncertainty principle actually describes how precisely we may measure the position and momentum of a particle at the same time — if we increase the precision in measuring one quantity, we are forced to lose precision in measuring the other. Thus, the uncertainty principle deals with measurement, and not observation. The idea that the Uncertainty Principle is caused by disturbance (and hence by observation) is no longer considered to be valid, although it was extant in the early years of quantum mechanics, and is often repeated in popular treatments."

Well whaddaya know? It looks consciousness-centered Privileged Observer Status spooky-juice ain't necessary after all!

Stated another way: SPACE, TIME, CONSCIOUSNESS AND EXISTENCE ARE ETERNAL- THEY HAVE NO BEGINNING OR END. Throughout time-eternal, stars, solar systems, and Earthlike planets constantly form anew.

Ever heard of the Heat Death? But really, you're right. In the multiverse, which is the totality of existence, every possible outcome is realized. It's true, you doubters. Look it up.

So, for the layman: EXISTENCE EXIST!

But how can you know that?

That brings me to the abbreviations SIGU's. In it's full contexts would be termed -Super Inflation GravityUnits. Super Inflation Gravity Units are the fundamental particle accelerators of existence. The only documents that were created to explain existence has been the Holy Bible( in genesis). For the record, existence Exist! who created existence and why of the universe questions are unintellectual questions that cannot and need not be answered because there is no casual explanation neither reference points that exist, or unless one excepts the contradiction that existence do not exist. Furthermore, concerning existence, one should understand that existence is axiomatic and irreduceable, with everything created as elements of existence. Existence is eternal, whereby explaing that forever really means forever. Time is eternal, therefore the concept that we embrace doesn't exist in existence.

The way the narrative breaks down in this paragraph is just spectacular.

[jdog]

I'm confused as well. Either there is some psychic communication going on, or someone has deleted some of their posts.

Anyway, to bwu: I certainly agree with Joseph, in that conscious-ness is not a fundamental requirement for existance. Either you (bwu) have a different conceptual framework for consciousness, or you've been smoking something (not that that necessarily is a bad thing...)

Regarding "transcending" seemingly subjective reality, would you mind giving a little detail as to how one might go about doing this?

Joseph: Do you think the concept of 'randomness' is just an illusion?

[JohnDoe1234]

I'm confused as well. Either there is some psychic communication going on, or someone has deleted some of their posts.

I gave the thread a quick glance, and it doesn't appear that he's deleted any of his posts... but I admit, the whole discussion is a bit cryptic

Joseph: Do you think the concept of 'randomness' is just an illusion?

Yes, I am leaning that direction... I just don't see how something could seemingly pop up out of no where, in my view, everything has to have a cause, but then I risk an infinite regress where the universe or whatever chain of events that caused it has existed forever. From what I have read about determinism, I could best describe myself as a Hard Determinist. Meaning that there is only one possible outcome for any given system either on its first run, or its repeated run with repeated input.

Essentially, I am saying that free will is an illusion also, I guess the best analogy that I could provide would be for someone to try to write a random number generator for a computer... you can do it, but the generator needs a seed (thus rendering its 'randomness' predictable).

So, that's what I meant when I spoke of determinism and predicting fundamental interactions

[Live Forever]

Moving this to philosophy, just a heads up.

[bwu910]

Micheal A., In short, everyone that has existed were born God-Man and God-Women, creators and controllers of existence. Their existence and every thing that moves were to be integrated in ones mind with option to be of value or disvalue. Let us use an example: Inside the living organism exist many components. As you would realize, all components are specialized in doing their job that eventually will be of value to the living whole without limits or sacrafice. And to get to the point, we are the highest evolution that stands on it's final evolution, the evolution into the the God-Man, the evolution into discarding all myths and irrationalities, mysticisms and dishonesties. The evolution into acknowledging that their isn't no Man of God but a God of Man( the God-Man) with no dichotomy. Yes! I believe in God, and God is real, however not the mystical God somewhere in an unknown place with his iron rod waiting for you to make a mistake. But, I know the God when man experiences that psychological shift, that evolutionary leap out of the bicameral mentality into human consciousness. Then he will become the God-Man.

-BWU

Edited by bwu910, 30 April 2007 - 06:22 PM.

[bwu910]

The Bible is a fascinating and priceless account of man-kinds mental leap from the bicameral mind to the conscious mind(ie,. reference the old testament to the gospels).


-BWU

[bwu910]

Look man, I am just curious as to why you think what you do, and that is what you get when you post extremely controversial theories.-Joseph

Yes, that is what you get when you apply something different, when you seem to not think on the established differences of others. That is why I posited that all can be spoken, but if it cannot be referenced by facts but yourself, it is an subjective assertion and therefore invalid to the listener. And of course, it will be controversal to those that are established... Thats just how me and you can go to Southern Pines North Carolina and say "hello we are members of IMMINST Organization and our goal is to bring eternal life to this world", they will say 2 things verbly or physically expressed: 1)We have to die, God said so!(myth) or we are made to die(myth). Why because that is what is established therefore making everything else controversal.

-BWU

[DJS]

Yes, I am leaning that direction... I just don't see how something could seemingly pop up out of no where, in my view, everything has to have a cause, but then I risk an infinite regress where the universe or whatever chain of events that caused it has existed forever. From what I have read about determinism, I could best describe myself as a Hard Determinist. Meaning that there is only one possible outcome for any given system either on its first run, or its repeated run with repeated input.

Essentially, I am saying that free will is an illusion also, I guess the best analogy that I could provide would be for someone to try to write a random number generator for a computer... you can do it, but the generator needs a seed (thus rendering its 'randomness' predictable).

So, that's what I meant when I spoke of determinism and predicting fundamental interactions

Wiki - Hidden Variable Theory

[JohnDoe1234]

Thanks Don, that is some interesting stuff.

[DJS]

No problem, Joe. For some reason your comments reminded me of Einstein famous quip that "God doesn't play dice".

[eternaltraveler]

Essentially, I am saying that free will is an illusion also, I guess the best analogy that I could provide would be for someone to try to write a random number generator for a computer... you can do it, but the generator needs a seed (thus rendering its 'randomness' predictable)

how exactly would randomness manage to make free will exist anyway? Just because the outcome of a mind cannot be predicted doesn't make it free. Just gives an even better illusion of freedom.

[DJS]

how exactly would randomness manage to make free will exist anyway?  Just because the outcome of a mind cannot be predicted doesn't make it free.  Just gives an even better illusion of freedom.

For sure. The point you bring up is what I always harp on in free will debates. Random and non-random events both still go under the rubric of *causation*. Essentially, what classical, or as I like to think of it, "spooky" free will demands is that an agent is causally isolated from the rest of the world - that it is its own first cause, a "causa sui". The term causa sui is usually reserved for theistic arguments about God, and in both cases the usage indicates a rejection of the principle of causality. Of course, it begs the question and is untenable without a retreat to cartesian dualism. I have witness new fangled attempts at a defense made (ala hofstadter) by those who claim that the recursive nature of cybernetic systems somehow produces free will, but as the whole system is, ultimately, a product of its environment I fail to see how this is a credible argument.

Volitional free will, the position which is argued for by compatibilism, is another matter entirely. If one defines freedom as the capacity to act autonomously, and uncoerced by existing external forces, then various degrees of free will are attainable. A decent presentation of this position can be found in Dennett's Freedom Evolves.

[JohnDoe1234]

Essentially, I am saying that free will is an illusion also, I guess the best analogy that I could provide would be for someone to try to write a random number generator for a computer... you can do it, but the generator needs a seed (thus rendering its 'randomness' predictable)

how exactly would randomness manage to make free will exist anyway? Just because the outcome of a mind cannot be predicted doesn't make it free. Just gives an even better illusion of freedom.

Well, that's not exactly what I am advocating, I tend to just lump them together because I often see both terms together in arguments that support free will. Free will definitely cannot exist if you eliminate so called 'randomness' and so I spend most of my time within arguments like these trying to explain how it cannot exist, it is a kind of buy one get one free deal as I see it. In reality, I cannot even imagine a system that would allow for the existence of free will, but whatever that system may be, it would have to be outside of the system which observes its actions, that is as close as I can get.

If one defines freedom as the capacity to act autonomously, and uncoerced by existing external forces, then various degrees of free will are attainable

I still feel that people who make this argument are making no progress towards proving that free will is possible. Sure, it does allow them to escape that first 'observing system' but the object which claims to have free will has to be part of a larger system which once again produces a condition where free will cannot exist.

A way to create a very elaborate illusion of free will to a given observing system, you could give the object or system that claims to have free will the ability to use parallel observing systems in its decision making. I think that attaining free will is like trying to count to infinity, sure can try it, and you can make progress towards it... but you will never get there.

Sorry for the short, sloppily put together post, but I have to head off to school.

[DJS]

I still feel that people who make this argument are making no progress towards proving that free will is possible.

I guess then that the three hundred year procession of Compatibilist philosophers from Hume to Dennett have just been mucking things up! )

[Kalepha]

I think that attaining free will is like trying to count to infinity, sure can try it, and you can make progress towards it... but you will never get there.

You are now just one intuitive step away from seeing the beauty of compatibilism. You get to keep your sense of free will precisely because you can't perceive the relevant dimensional infinities, all while it isn't necessary to deny determinism. Who could ask for more?

[Kalepha]

In that light, it's also worth noting a more specific reason why libertarianism doesn't solve anything important even though it would seem that it would be harmless since you nonetheless get to keep your sense of free will. A libertarian fears determinism because he wants an open-ended future. But the libertarian hasn't thought it through. To want an open-ended future is to want chaos, and to want chaos is to want to improve the chances of your destruction. The libertarian fails to see that no matter how disciplined he is (a trait he assumptively finds repulsive in compatibilists), he could never wrap around the infinities. Thus, the libertarian's fear is unfounded and self-destructive, precisely the opposite of the intention he might've wasted most of his base life to craft carefully, deterministically no less.