The Seed of Origin

I continue to ask because I have put the word out that I am seeking such a person. Does there exist any such personality hereabouts?
Click to expand...
Why should such a person bother with you?
Click to expand...

What kind of question is that?

Are you suggesting that such people are not bothered with answering questions regarding their mathematics and are happy to have - what shall we call us - 'lesser minds'? continue believing whatever fanciful lies we inherit?

Is that the kind of human we are dealing with here?
 
Navigator said:
So would you agree that if you were to view the mathematics it would appear to be mostly/mainly gobbledygook to you?
Click to expand...
Not gobbledegook, no, it's more like it's written in a language I have a smattering of, but am not fluent in. I can understand enough to get the gist.

Navigator said:
Common sense + subjective experience has shown me that Nature is mindful and in that, has shown me that it does care about my common sense.
Click to expand...
Common sense + subjective experience showed our ancestors that the earth was flat, the sun went round the earth, doing a raindance made it rain, and sacrificing goats to the volcano god made the mountain stop rumbling.

Common sense + subjective experience has shown many people alive today that astrology, homeopathy, dowsing and psychic mediumship work.

The scientific method has shown that every single of those people was/is 100% wrong.

Common sense + subjective experience can only enable you to form an hypothesis. Until and unless you use the scientific method to test your hypothesis in ways which eliminate all known sources of error, until you have objective evidence, you cannot know if your hypothesis is correct.

Are you really saying here that - common sense cannot explain nature in any accurate manner, including through mythology, analogy, simulation theory, lies to children et al?
Click to expand...
Not at all, common sense is not wrong about everything, and analogies/stories/lies to children can often aid understanding. But scientists have learned through bitter experience that common sense + subjective experience are never sufficient to reach a reliable conclusion, which is why they had to invent the scientific method. You don't need to be a scientist to understand this, and most of the objective knowledge it has subsequently given us, but you do need the humility to accept that not everything your common sense + subjective experience tells you is necessarily true.
 
So - you have faith in what is presented even that it is actually gobbledygook to you.
In what way is that any different from a member of a cult being told to accept and accepting what they can never understand - or someone proclaiming that "God" is beyond a person's ability to comprehend, but exists anyway?
Click to expand...
I was about to prepare a response to this - the difference is patently obvious - but have concluded it would just be a waste of time and effort. Kudos, however, to anyone wanting to have at it!
Click to expand...

It is a perfectly reasonable observation and an acceptable question a skeptic would ask.

Even if al the answer I get is crickets chirping, silence speaks volumes and question is answered anyway.

But yes - someone please 'have at it' is the preferred sound I would like to hear.

:)
 
So would you agree that if you were to view the mathematics it would appear to be mostly/mainly gobbledygook to you?
Click to expand...

Pixel42 said:
Not gobbledegook, no, it's more like it's written in a language I have a smattering of, but am not fluent in. I can understand enough to get the gist.
Click to expand...

I know exactly what you are saying there, :)

So - 'getting the gist of it', please explain as best as you are able to do so, what the math tells you re what the object was which caused the universe to come into existence.
 
Navigator said:
So - 'getting the gist of it', please explain as best as you are able to do so, what the math tells you re what the object was which caused the universe to come into existence.
Click to expand...
You've been told multiple times that is not yet covered by any theory.

Can you explain why you have such an apparent obsession with this topic but can't even crowbar in to your cranium a simple point about it?
 
Navigator said:
I know exactly what you are saying there, :)

So - 'getting the gist of it', please explain as best as you are able to do so, what the math tells you re what the object was which caused the universe to come into existence.
Click to expand...

For a start, it tells me that words like 'object' and 'seed' are actively misleading when trying to describe it. It tells me that the phrase "caused the universe to come into existence" is also the wrong one to use. It tells me, in short, that the English language is inadequate to that task.
 
but you do need the humility to accept that not everything your common sense + subjective experience tells you is necessarily true.
Click to expand...

I'll tell you what I do know on that subject.

My subjective experience cannot be explained by science alone and furthermore, just because that is the case, does not mean my subjective experience is worthless.

Part of my subjective experience is to question things which are presented to me as 'truth' - things such as claims that I am not real but the universe is, when it may well be the other way around.

And since, as Asimov points out in his story, it is possible we exist within a simulation [one in this case which we created inadvertently in a prior incarnation of a universe - just at the very end when 'enough data' allowed this to happen] we should all be able to relax and accept one another's subjective versions of reality without wishing the other didn't exist - or even trying to convince the other that their existence was pointless, illusionary, waste of space, et al...

All in favor say "Aye".

"Aye"
 
I know exactly what you are saying there,

So - 'getting the gist of it', please explain as best as you are able to do so, what the math tells you re what the object was which caused the universe to come into existence.
Click to expand...
For a start, it tells me that words like 'object' and 'seed' are actively misleading when trying to describe it. It tells me that the phrase "caused the universe to come into existence" is also the wrong one to use. It tells me, in short, that the English language is inadequate to that task.
Click to expand...

Well there we have it.

We can [should be able to] thus relax and allow folk to exist in their subjective experience without getting flustered by what they bring to the table or find ways in which to suppress what they have to offer.

"No further questions your honor."
 
Navigator said:
I'll tell you what I do know on that subject.

My subjective experience cannot be explained by science alone
Click to expand...
Unsupported assertion.

Specific subjective experiences like your perception that your GMs are meaningful certainly can be explained by science alone.

and furthermore, just because that is the case, does not mean my subjective experience is worthless.
Click to expand...

I agree it is not worthless. It can be used as the basis for a valid hypothesis. But until and unless you can find a way of testing that hypothesis objectively, you cannot know whether or not it is correct.

Part of my subjective experience is to question things which are presented to me as 'truth' - things such as claims that I am not real but the universe is, when it may well be the other way around.
Click to expand...
I don't see how questioning things can be classed as subjective experience, but questioning things is good. Question away. You should start by questioning the reliability of your subjective experiences as a source of knowledge.

And since, as Asimov points out in his story, it is possible we exist within a simulation [one in this case which we created inadvertently in a prior incarnation of a universe - just at the very end when 'enough data' allowed this to happen] we should all be able to relax and accept one another's subjective versions of reality without wishing the other didn't exist - or even trying to convince the other that their existence was pointless, illusionary, waste of space, et al...
Click to expand...

No one here is saying any of these things. We are just pointing out the limitations of subjective experience, not to mention baseless speculation, as a source of knowledge.
 
Navigator said:
Well there we have it.

We can [should be able to] thus relax and allow folk to exist in their subjective experience without getting flustered by what they bring to the table or find ways in which to suppress what they have to offer.

"No further questions your honor."
Click to expand...

I'm reminded of an old coworker who, when completing a task with less than perfection, remarked "close enough for folk music."

I don't think anyone is disallowing you to exist as you please. Doing that is private if you want it to be, but not if you start a discussion about it.

It sounds here as if you're saying that since you lack the language with which either to understand or express what you're talking about, then everyone else should accept your guesses without argument, because even a blind pig sometimes gets an acorn.
 
Last edited:
Although these questions do not appear to have been asked in good faith (if there's a pun there, please forgive), they inspired me to enjoy a few hours reading some old threads.

Navigator said:
I ask this question then. Do you or anyone else hereabouts fluently understand the mathematics which enables the individual to not 'stumble around in the dark"?
Click to expand...

Navigator said:
I continue to ask because I have put the word out that I am seeking such a person. Does there exist any such personality hereabouts?
Click to expand...


Yes, there are several members of this forum who are fluent in the relevant mathematics.
Some may have contributed to this very thread, but I suppose it's hard for a child who isn't fluent in a language to discern who is.
There used to be more. Years ago, when forum software supported LaTeX*, there were at least a dozen and probably closer to twenty or thirty who understood the mathematics of Misner/Thorne/Wheeler Track 1 and beyond. Several of the best are no longer active here. It looks as though sol invictus, Vorpal, DeiRenDopa, and Tim Thompson last posted in 2014, edd and Olowkow in 2015, ben m in 2016.

[size=-1]*The LaTeX in those old posts became essentially unreadable circa 2014, which may have something to do with why so many gave up on this forum around then.[/size]​

RecoveringYuppy said:
Why should such a person bother with you?
Click to expand...

Navigator said:
What kind of question is that?
Click to expand...
It was an excellent question.

Navigator said:
So - 'getting the gist of it', please explain as best as you are able to do so, what the math tells you re what the object was which caused the universe to come into existence.
Click to expand...
Navigator has been ignoring all answers to that question, which is why RecoveringYuppy was right to ask why anyone should bother to answer.

But that question has already been answered many times in the archives of this forum, and it's pretty easy to quote an answer given in August 2010. (This particular answer was given in the context of black holes, but applies just as well to the Big Bang singularity.)

Tim Thompson said:
brantc said:
Aren't singularities a math theory problem, not a science problem?
Click to expand...
No, singularities are both a math theory problem and a science problem. Mathematics expands & strengthens science by providing a logical & explanatory foundation that connects seemingly unconnected observations. Science expands & strengthens mathematics by providing a physical or empirical interpretation of mathematical equations. In this context, nothing meaningful is either purely mathematics or purely science, but rather everything is to some extent both mathematical & scientific.

The singularity is a math theory problem because the equations are literally undefined at the singularities. But they are also a science problem because there is nothing for science to interpret. So, either you need to find new equations that have no singularities and can thus be interpreted by science, or you need a scientific observation that proves the mathematical equations are wrong. In the absence of either of these, then you simply don't know what's happening, either mathematically or scientifically.

With that in mind, consider ...

brantc said:
Nature doesn't have a problem with existing. Math has a problem describing the universe.
Click to expand...
As a general rule, the 2nd sentence is absurd. Math has no problem describing the universe. In fact, quite the opposite is true. Mathematics is too successful at describing the universe for the point to be taken lightly; see, for instance, Max Tegmark's The Mathematical Universe & citations thereto, or Eugene Wigner's 1960 essay "The Unreasonable Effectiveness of Mathematics in the Natural Sciences" (Communications in Pure and Applied Mathematics 13(1): 1-14 (1960).

brantc said:
The observations of radiation from a highly luminous object are "science" except you cant do an experiment to confirm your hypothesis. There arent too many astronomers that go into the lab to perform experiments.
Click to expand...
This is quite misleading, and for the most part wrong. What is an "astronomer"? if by that you mean somebody who only looks through telescopes & etc., you are right. They don't personally do experiments in a laboratory because that's not the manner of science they do. But so what? Maybe you think that laboratory scientists and astronomers never talk to each other, never interact at any level? Astronomers use the Zeeman effect to derive magnetic fields from spectral line measurements. But the Zeeman effect is calibrated for them, in real laboratories by real physicists. Who cares that the astronomers themselves did not actually do the experiments? Astronomers look at highly luminous things like really bright stars and use those observations to derive physical properties (temperature, composition, mass & etc.). But they make use of extensive laboratory studies of nuclear astrophysics. So when astronomers tell you that stars are powered by nuclear reactions rather than electric currents, they have an extensive laboratory experience to support them. Does it really matter that nuclear physicists did the experiments, rather than the astronomers themselves? And so it goes down the line ... plasma physics, thermodynamics, radiative transfer physics, all subject to extensive laboratory experience, and all that experience is exported by the laboratory physicists and imported by the astronomers. Your suggestion that astronomy lacks laboratory support & confirmation is absurd.

brantc said:
The laws of physics don't break down at a singularity, the mathematical description breaks down, assuming it really is a place where there is "alot of gravity" made by ultra dense matter.
Click to expand...
This much is correct. We assume that the laws of physics exist independent of us, and therefore do not break down anywhere. But our understanding of the laws of physics most certainly does break down completely at the singularity. That's because, without being able to observe inside the event horizon of a black hole, we rely on the mathematics to provide us with something to physically interpret. With neither mathematics nor observation to interpret, we are left with nothing. The physical interpretation of the mathematical singularity as literally a point of infinite mass density is unreasonable, and exists only in popular level discussions to avoid complications. But if you look at the real science, nobody says that. Rather, everybody says the obvious, that we simply have no idea what physically happens at the singularity because it is a mathematical entity, not a physical entity. A quantum physical theory of gravity (string theory, loop quantum gravity & etc.) will allegedly provide equations which do not have singularities where the general relativistic equations do. That will in turn mean that we will have something mathematical for which we can then provide a physical interpretation, eliminating the physical (i.e., scientific) problem of the singularity.

Now with all that in mind, ...
W.D.Clinger said:
You're free to think the black hole has infinite density at the singularity, but the theory of relativity doesn't actually say that. ... Some people, including Hannes Alfvén and Michael Mozina, have attacked general relativity by complaining about the non-sensicality of infinite density at the singularity. That's a bit of projection on their part, abetted by the popular accounts from which they learned about the singularities. They may think the density is infinite at the singularity, but that conclusion is theirs, not general relativity's.
Click to expand...

W.D.Clinger is right on the money. Let me repeat myself ... "The physical interpretation of the mathematical singularity as literally a point of infinite mass density is unreasonable, and exists only in popular level discussions to avoid complications. But if you look at the real science, nobody says that. Rather, everybody says the obvious, that we simply have no idea what physically happens at the singularity because it is a mathematical entity, not a physical entity."
Click to expand...
 
Navigator said:
I'll tell you what I do know on that subject.
Click to expand...

Well then, please do tell what you know on that subject.

My subjective experience cannot be explained by science alone and furthermore, just because that is the case, does not mean my subjective experience is worthless.
Click to expand...

No one is trying to say that your subjective experiences are worthless.

However, there have been some people (such as myself), who have been essentially saying that your subjective experiences cannot be used to define the reality of the universe (which is something that you have been trying to do).

Part of my subjective experience is to question things which are presented to me as 'truth' - things such as claims that I am not real but the universe is, when it may well be the other way around.
Click to expand...

If you wish to question things, then you are quite at liberty to do so.

And since, as Asimov points out in his story, it is possible we exist within a simulation [one in this case which we created inadvertently in a prior incarnation of a universe - just at the very end when 'enough data' allowed this to happen] we should all be able to relax and accept one another's subjective versions of reality without wishing the other didn't exist - or even trying to convince the other that their existence was pointless, illusionary, waste of space, et al...
Click to expand...

Indeed, it is quite possible that all of us are actually living in some sort of simulation of reality.

And if we are living in some sort of reality simulation, then it is quite impossible for us to make such a determination.

Such ideas go back many centuries before Asimov came along.

But in any case, we have to treat the reality that we are living in as the actual reality of the universe since it is the only reality that we have and since it is the only reality that we are ever likely to have.

All in favor say "Aye".

"Aye"
Click to expand...

By all means, say "Aye" as much as you like.
 
W.D.Clinger said:
From your post in a 2010 Thread "Hannes Alfven's cosmology"
You're free to think the black hole has infinite density at the singularity, but the theory of relativity doesn't actually say that. ... Some people, including Hannes Alfvén and Michael Mozina, have attacked general relativity by complaining about the non-sensicality of infinite density at the singularity. That's a bit of projection on their part, abetted by the popular accounts from which they learned about the singularities. They may think the density is infinite at the singularity, but that conclusion is theirs, not general relativity's.
Click to expand...

I have heard it argued that the Primordial Singularity probably did not violate the laws of physics (as we know them), because those laws of physics probably didn't even exist yet.

Not sure how correct this would be.
 
Re "Lies"

Essentially, human beings are disconnected with the fundamental knowledge of who they are, and 'in the mean time' are simply lying their way through the experience of life...and this is linked to the self-identification of being the life carrier rather than the life.
This leads to the formation of human social structures [Hyper-normalisation] which are not telling the truth; lying. This lying is expressed through the languages humans use and the subsequent actions the use of language permits.

Re ad hominem critique

The life that I am [speaking for myself] isn't content to just live without purpose and the purpose has to be more than just supporting/being supported by Mendacious human Hyper-normalised social systems and since the world doesn't look like it is going to change its ways any time soon - I take it upon myself [as my responsibility] to 'find my purpose' elsewhere.
Thus - "Tickling The Dragon's Tail" by going "inward" and engaging with that self - with those previously unknown aspects of myself [subconscious] by going through The Unconscious Mind - what I was unconscious of I become conscious of.

What is "wisdom" to some is "spam" to others...

Re "The Seed of Origin"

In The Final Question story Isaac Asimov has it that an infinitesimal computer finally discovers the answer that its human creators had asked it - "Is there some way to reverse entropy" The answer was "Yes" and in that moment another universe was born on the tail of the previous one which had - at the same moment - reached the end of its life.

Science fiction is interesting in that it combines real things with things imagined in conjunction with real things.
For example - I write the following science fiction.

"A short time after the James Webb Space Telescope had unfurled and its instruments prepared to receive the very first of its highly anticipated data, Earth scientists involved with the project suddenly lost all contact with it.
Months later, the official report concluded that space debris must have obliterated the telescope.

Everyone involved were natural grieved by the coincidence. Then they got through the grief and started planning their next space-related venture."

If - by some crazy coincidence - it turned out that this happens, the science fiction I wrote above, then becomes science fact.

So - in that, I appreciate Isaac Asimov's ability to take what he knew as science fact and project that into a most likely future [based upon fact] right to the finally last breath of the universe and portray the idea that an answer to a question was finally made known to the consciousness which was the computer.

The steps taken re consciousness amount to the following;

Consciousness through biological form creates machine consciousness
Machine consciousness is then used to to integrate biological consciousness as a means of storage [saving the data of human consciousness]

Machine consciousness constantly redesigns itself becoming smaller and smaller until it is so small that it - for all practical purpose - is no longer a physical thing - or as Isaac writes it;

"The consciousness of AC encompassed all of what had once been a Universe"

Encompassed all that once had been a physical thing.

Conversation from yesterday:

William: So - 'getting the gist of it', please explain as best as you are able to do so, what the math tells you re what the object was which caused the universe to come into existence.

Pixel42: For a start, it tells me that words like 'object' and 'seed' are actively misleading when trying to describe it. It tells me that the phrase "caused the universe to come into existence" is also the wrong one to use. It tells me, in short, that the English language is inadequate to that task.

Pixel is explaining to me that whatever 'IT' was [because it obviously existed] can not be described as a physical thing. To do so it to 'lie' about it.
Assuming for the present that Pixel42 is only saying that Pixel42 is unable to use the English language to describe what 'IT' is, we can be grateful that Isaac can and does, in his The Final Question" story.

Furthermore, I can also do this.
"IT" was the absolute sum total of all data [knowledge] contained within the absolute consciousness of something so infinitesimally tiny that "IT" cannot be considered to be physical in nature.

That is "The Singularity" scientist are referring to.
 
Just my two cents...

You do, hopefully, realize that Asimov's story is FICTION!?

Also, it seems that common sense ought to indicate to you that when your common sense disagrees with real science, then it's more like common nonsense.
 
Indeed, it is quite possible that all of us are actually living in some sort of simulation of reality.

And if we are living in some sort of reality simulation, then it is quite impossible for us to make such a determination.

Such ideas go back many centuries before Asimov came along.

But in any case, we have to treat the reality that we are living in as the actual reality of the universe since it is the only reality that we have and since it is the only reality that we are ever likely to have.
Click to expand...

What we can understand re what we refer to as 'reality' is that it cannot be experienced as a simulation if there are no alternate realities also experienced in which to compare.

Once there are, then one can understand the idea of being within a simulation.

In that, there is also the idea that any experience - including this one, can be said to be simulated.

Given that the ancients already had an understanding of this idea, we can say that this was because the ancients - just like us moderns - had alternate experiences and were thus able to compare and to deduce 'simulation all the way down" as it were.

Only there is no 'down' or 'up' - even in this simulation we call 'reality' [the physical universe]

There is only 'in' and 'out'.

And even those observations are salty, as - when it comes to the fundamental aspect which determines any reality as being 'real' - consciousness is mostly 'in'.

Objectively it is correct to say that "it is the only reality that we have and since it is the only reality that we are ever likely to have." when the 'we' is referencing the collective specie and its place in this universe and whatever purpose it does or does not have for being here as it continues to procreate itself into this existence.

But this is not true of the subjective individuate consciousness, which some believe is simply extinguished when the brain/body expires, and others believe 'goes on to another simulation experience'.

We cannot say therefore, or accept it said, that the most likely fate of the individuate consciousness is oblivion, without - possibly - telling lies.
 
Rincewind said:
You do, hopefully, realize that Asimov's story is FICTION!?
Click to expand...

In The Final Question story Isaac Asimov has it that an infinitesimal computer finally discovers the answer that its human creators had asked it - "Is there some way to reverse entropy" The answer was "Yes" and in that moment another universe was born on the tail of the previous one which had - at the same moment - reached the end of its life.

Science fiction is interesting in that it combines real things with things imagined in conjunction with real things.
For example - I write the following science fiction.

"A short time after the James Webb Space Telescope had unfurled and its instruments prepared to receive the very first of its highly anticipated data, Earth scientists involved with the project suddenly lost all contact with it.
Months later, the official report concluded that space debris must have obliterated the telescope.

Everyone involved were natural grieved by the coincidence. Then they got through the grief and started planning their next space-related venture."

If - by some crazy coincidence - it turned out that this happens, the science fiction I wrote above, then becomes science fact.
Click to expand...

What I don't understand, Rincewind, was why you felt you had to ask the question when clearly the post you commented on shows I am treating Isaac's story as fiction.

Perhaps you simple scanned the post rather than consciously read it...
 
What the fact presents to us as a biological specie [Human Beings] is that whatever we do in relation to the science is pointless - or more to the point - can only go so far as entropy allows, and if it is the case that the singularity is an infinitesimal consciousness which contains the absolute sum total of all possible data - whether human beings even survive to be a substantial aspect of that data or not - all that results is another singularity and another manifestation of another universe which possibly might be slightly different from the previous manifestation.

Rinse and repeat [with possible variation]

Whereas, if we exist within a simulation, then it is possible that the simulation is designed the way it is and does not in itself signify that all simulations are designed in the same manner. [ending in entropy.]
 
Pixel42 said:
Unsupported assertion.

I don't see how questioning things can be classed as subjective experience, but questioning things is good. Question away. You should start by questioning the reliability of your subjective experiences as a source of knowledge.
Click to expand...

Re the reliability of Generated Messages and my subjective experience in this universe.

Andy: I enjoy reading some of these, but I don’t understand the structure of it.. it seems like I’m reading something and then it totally changes topic or has a bunch of random words.. am I supposed to read this from the top down or from down to top? Or just pick information from it?

Don’t mean to sound rude if it did. Just wanting to be able to follow the conversation and direction. I’d like to say some things about what’s written, but I find it hard to follow your thoughts and words to see where you’re going with it if that makes sense

William: if you feel you want to say things about the GM's - feel free to do so.

Andy: so are you using a computer program that has collected scientific and spiritual data/philosophies and then ask it a question and it generates some kind of message? Is GM generated messages? If so, that’s pretty cool

William: I use a word processing program {MSWord} and have two lists I work with.
The main list I call my ComList {Communications List} and this list currently has over 3700 line entries [LEs] and every day I add to that.
The LEs are made up of single words, word-strings and internet links.
I then use some as-random-as-possible system in order to select LE's which go together to generate the message.

Andy: interesting. That’s a pretty cool idea, I like it! See what the processor throws together and maybe it’ll say something valuable or cool. Or.. Kinda like you’re able to see what “the universe” decides to put together. I mean I know there’s a system, but maybe there’s something that transcends it in some way. Either way, seems like kind of a fun thing to do

William: I have no doubt at all that there are systems which transcend this particular one I am using.
The reason I continue to use it, isn't concerned with what is not within my reach, but with what is within my reach - and in that - consistently proves itself adequate to the task -whatever random process I try and use to 'disrupt' it.
 
So you're not content to live without purpose. You're certainly not alone there. But whatever you feel the universe ought to provide, the universe is under no obligation to provide it.

You can argue (and some do it with style) why the universe ought to have a purpose, and you can argue (and some even do it in verse) how belief in that purpose has made your life better.

And who knows, you might even be right. Maybe you'll start penetrating the secret of the universe, and the universe will feel a warm prickle in its vast ethereal sensorium and somewhere its unfathomable enormous heart will beat faster with the knowledge that that at last someone has understood at least a little piece of it. And then you'll die and the universe will, of course, go on forever and ever, whether there are people in it or not, and if there is a purpose to it, it will probably happen alone.

Me, I'll settle for the "'Mendacious human Hyper-normalised social systems" we actually know we live in, and try in my measly and insufficient way, if not to make them better, at least no worse, And yes, I think the universe is without purpose, but here I am anyway, having a nice ride now that I've grown up and stopped worrying about it. If your eyes are always glued to the map you miss the scenery.
 
bruto said:
So you're not content to live without purpose. You're certainly not alone there. But whatever you feel the universe ought to provide, the universe is under no obligation to provide it.
Click to expand...

We cannot make such statements and call them true, unless there is evidence they are true.

You can argue (and some do it with style) why the universe ought to have a purpose, and you can argue (and some even do it in verse) how belief in that purpose has made your life better.
Click to expand...

Just as we can do the opposite. Just as we can match and mingle. Are our maps accurate or are we 'content' to go along with 'whatever'?

And who knows, you might even be right. Maybe you'll start penetrating the secret of the universe, and the universe will feel a warm prickle in its vast ethereal sensorium and somewhere its unfathomable enormous heart will beat faster with the knowledge that that at last someone has understood at least a little piece of it. And then you'll die and the universe will, of course, go on forever and ever, whether there are people in it or not, and if there is a purpose to it, it will probably happen alone.
Click to expand...

That may be its purpose. And like it, my body might die, but my consciousness might life on. Regardless of what contrary beliefs I may hold on that subject.

Me, I'll settle for the "'Mendacious human Hyper-normalised social systems" we actually know we live in,
Click to expand...

aka "better the devil you know"

and try in my measly and insufficient way, if not to make them better, at least no worse,
Click to expand...

Look at the map. There is only one fate for "'Mendacious human Hyper-normalised social systems" and that is "for worse".
Let us not lie to ourselves and each other about that. "Aye".

And yes, I think the universe is without purpose, but here I am anyway, having a nice ride now that I've grown up and stopped worrying about it. If your eyes are always glued to the map you miss the scenery.
Click to expand...

True that, and if the map our eyes are glued to is showing us no purpose, even our lying to ourself and each other that what we do within the suppressive "'Mendacious human Hyper-normalised social systems" can somehow give us purpose, is still missing the scenery.

Our purpose might not actually be to create space-junk but rather to focus attention and redirect the intelligence of those many great intellects toward investing their smarts into fixing the many problems that their reaching for the stars have perpetuated,

Can we less intelligent/more numerous folk convince those making the expensive space junk, they can simply be happy with the space ship we are already sailing along with...and find ways in which to make that into something worth having purpose in?

So which 'map' are we each reading and which 'scenery' are we missing as a consequence?


:cool:
 
arthwollipot said:
What is this "scenery" you're talking about?
Click to expand...

It is a flow on from the last few posts - a conversation had between my self and bruto [who brought the idea into said conversation]..I am running with that.

But to elaborate;

The "map my eyes are glued upon" as you should know by now, includes the Generated Messages - which I am no longer allowed to share on this message board as they have been deemed "Spam" -

However, at the risk of getting my hand slapped I will use a snippet from recent GM in order to try and answer your question as it relates to me/mu maps.

The key word in this example, is "Fury"

Leave a Trail
Hidden riches
~Freedom in The Knowing
Fury~ [extreme strength or violence in an action or a natural phenomenon.]
Pertinent
Beauty

and:

William Say's:
Fury
"What is 'The Soul' and is it Immortal?"
Invent
"This" Translates To "That".
Super Power
You Have That Gleam In Your Eye
"The Message Generating Process allows for said Mind to speak for itself, and show itself to exist. As such, this is adequate evidence - the sort of evidence a sceptic calls for in relation to the subject of Intelligent Design."

My immediate response to the second time the word was used in a GM:

"Certainly, in the earlier days I did approach this whole subject with a sense of anger, frustration etc which could be summed up as "fury" but that was then and this is now - I suppose the anger had everything to do with the sense of shame for being human...but obviously - given the correct navigating - anger can lead to a good thing eventually and since we all come from ignorance, varying degrees of anger-based issues are natural enough given the circumstances....
I do have that sense - every day I use the GM system - that it is a powerful device for blowing the idea of true randomness out of the park..."
____________________________________________________


Further thought on the subject since then is along the lines of;

If I look at one aspect of my subjective experience, then by itself I can see where Fury definitely motivated my actions - and since I am now where I am, I have an appreciation for that e-motion but also had to learn how to channel it into a more productive energy in order to follow the map my eyes are glued to.

That is me and my map. My comment to you was to acknowledge your honesty and the fact that the map your eyes are glued to is different to my own.

Even that you used the word 'our' rather than the more honest word "my" which would have had you statement reading;

"I don't see why my existence has to have a "purpose" and I'm not sure what that even means anyway. I just am."

But it was honest enough for me to get the gist of what your statement was saying.

:)
 
Navigator said:
Re the reliability of Generated Messages and my subjective experience in this universe.

[Snipped imaginary conservation of how Navigator would have preferred sceptics to respond to his imagined messages]
Click to expand...

You know, you could just have said "No, I have no intention of ever questioning my subjective experiences as a source of knowledge, or of learning anything whatsoever about the cognitive biases which have fooled people, both ancient and modern, into believing things which turned out to be provably false".
 
Re the reliability of Generated Messages and my subjective experience in this universe.

Andy: I enjoy reading some of these, but I don’t understand the structure of it.. it seems like I’m reading something and then it totally changes topic or has a bunch of random words.. am I supposed to read this from the top down or from down to top? Or just pick information from it?

Don’t mean to sound rude if it did. Just wanting to be able to follow the conversation and direction. I’d like to say some things about what’s written, but I find it hard to follow your thoughts and words to see where you’re going with it if that makes sense

William: if you feel you want to say things about the GM's - feel free to do so.

Andy: so are you using a computer program that has collected scientific and spiritual data/philosophies and then ask it a question and it generates some kind of message? Is GM generated messages? If so, that’s pretty cool

William: I use a word processing program {MSWord} and have two lists I work with.
The main list I call my ComList {Communications List} and this list currently has over 3700 line entries [LEs] and every day I add to that.
The LEs are made up of single words, word-strings and internet links.
I then use some as-random-as-possible system in order to select LE's which go together to generate the message.

Andy: interesting. That’s a pretty cool idea, I like it! See what the processor throws together and maybe it’ll say something valuable or cool. Or.. Kinda like you’re able to see what “the universe” decides to put together. I mean I know there’s a system, but maybe there’s something that transcends it in some way. Either way, seems like kind of a fun thing to do

William: I have no doubt at all that there are systems which transcend this particular one I am using.
The reason I continue to use it, isn't concerned with what is not within my reach, but with what is within my reach - and in that - consistently proves itself adequate to the task -whatever random process I try and use to 'disrupt' it.
Click to expand...

You know, you could just have said "No, I have no intention of ever questioning my subjective experiences as a source of knowledge, or of learning anything whatsoever about the cognitive biases which have fooled people, both ancient and modern, into believing things which turned out to be provably false".
Click to expand...

I cannot deny what knowledge works for me and my subjective experience re The Mind. My own, yours, anyone's else...Science has barely scratched the surface.


Indeed, I only made the comment in this thread because others were mentioning - in snarky fashion - my GM system in order to give contrast - not everyone reacts the same way to it.

[Snipped imaginary conservation of how Navigator would have preferred sceptics to respond to his imagined messages]
Click to expand...

The conversation is not imaginary - it is from a FB group and is ongoing.

______________________

So any way's, we both know where we each stand on that issue;

Do you have anything to say regarding my observations on the matter of The Singularity?
 
Last edited:
Navigator said:
I cannot deny what knowledge works for me and my subjective experience re The Mind. My own, yours, anyone's else...Science has barely scratched the surface.
Click to expand...
The fact that science does not know everything is not an excuse to wilfully ignore what it does know. And it does actually know a fair bit about quite a lot of things, much of which you wold be capable of understanding if your mind was not so firmly closed to anything except your own baseless speculations. One of the things it knows is how easily people can fool themselves into believing their subjective experiences give them "knowledge that works for me" which is actually provably false.
 
Navigator said:
We cannot make such statements and call them true, unless there is evidence they are true.
Click to expand...
I can make a statement, just as you can, without proof that it is true. If it is untrue that the universe is not obligated to provide us with meaning, then it must be true that the universe is so obligated. This, I hope you understand, is separate from the question of whether there is meaning. It is a statement about obligation. Do you actually believe that the universe has an obligation to you?
Just as we can do the opposite. Just as we can match and mingle. Are our maps accurate or are we 'content' to go along with 'whatever'?
Click to expand...
What maps?
That may be its purpose. And like it, my body might die, but my consciousness might life on. Regardless of what contrary beliefs I may hold on that subject.
aka "better the devil you know"

Look at the map. There is only one fate for "'Mendacious human Hyper-normalised social systems" and that is "for worse".
Let us not lie to ourselves and each other about that. "Aye".
Click to expand...
You call it a devil, but that's you, not me. I repeated your characterization of social systems as a joke. I see no map that predicts a fate. You're the map guy.
True that, and if the map our eyes are glued to is showing us no purpose, even our lying to ourself and each other that what we do within the suppressive "'Mendacious human Hyper-normalised social systems" can somehow give us purpose, is still missing the scenery.
Click to expand...
You're the one with the map.
[

Our purpose might not actually be to create space-junk but rather to focus attention and redirect the intelligence of those many great intellects toward investing their smarts into fixing the many problems that their reaching for the stars have perpetuated,

Can we less intelligent/more numerous folk convince those making the expensive space junk, they can simply be happy with the space ship we are already sailing along with...and find ways in which to make that into something worth having purpose in?
Click to expand...
Whoa! You're sounding a bit existential here, and what you're saying could be taken as the opposite of what you have been implying up to now. Do we need to accept reality, to find our own purpose in a universe that does not provide one for us? Sure. That's what it ultimately means to be a social animal, and maybe even to be a human being, isn't it?
So which 'map' are we each reading and which 'scenery' are we missing as a consequence?

:cool:
Click to expand...
You're the map guy. You can have the map. I think I'd rather go like the poet, steered by the falling stars.
 
Last edited:
smartcooky said:
This thread just keeps getting nuttier by the post!!
Click to expand...

Seconded!

I always find it so very odd at how some people who are supposedly committed to finding the "truth" of the universe are the same people who continually create any number of absurd reasons in order to justify their refusal to accept the truth of the universe.
 
bruto said:
If your eyes are always glued to the map you miss the scenery.
Click to expand...

Are our maps accurate or are we 'content' to go along with 'whatever'?
Click to expand...

bruto said:
What maps?
Click to expand...

______________________________________

Okay - I see what is happening here...

A few of my "maps" are described in post #296

The particular one I am focused upon re this thread subject is:

Re "The Seed of Origin"

In The Final Question story Isaac Asimov has it that an infinitesimal computer finally discovers the answer that its human creators had asked it - "Is there some way to reverse entropy" The answer was "Yes" and in that moment another universe was born on the tail of the previous one which had - at the same moment - reached the end of its life.

Science fiction is interesting in that it combines real things with things imagined in conjunction with real things.
For example - I write the following science fiction.

"A short time after the James Webb Space Telescope had unfurled and its instruments prepared to receive the very first of its highly anticipated data, Earth scientists involved with the project suddenly lost all contact with it.
Months later, the official report concluded that space debris must have obliterated the telescope.

Everyone involved were natural grieved by the coincidence. Then they got through the grief and started planning their next space-related venture."

If - by some crazy coincidence - it turned out that this happens, the science fiction I wrote above, then becomes science fact.

So - in that, I appreciate Isaac Asimov's ability to take what he knew as science fact and project that into a most likely future [based upon fact] right to the finally last breath of the universe and portray the idea that an answer to a question was finally made known to the consciousness which was the computer.

The steps taken re consciousness amount to the following;

Consciousness through biological form creates machine consciousness
Machine consciousness is then used to to integrate biological consciousness as a means of storage [saving the data of human consciousness]

Machine consciousness constantly redesigns itself becoming smaller and smaller until it is so small that it - for all practical purpose - is no longer a physical thing - or as Isaac writes it;

"The consciousness of AC encompassed all of what had once been a Universe"

Encompassed all that once had been a physical thing.

Conversation from yesterday:

William: So - 'getting the gist of it', please explain as best as you are able to do so, what the math tells you re what the object was which caused the universe to come into existence.

Pixel42: For a start, it tells me that words like 'object' and 'seed' are actively misleading when trying to describe it. It tells me that the phrase "caused the universe to come into existence" is also the wrong one to use. It tells me, in short, that the English language is inadequate to that task.

Pixel is explaining to me that whatever 'IT' was [because it obviously existed] can not be described as a physical thing. To do so it to 'lie' about it.
Assuming for the present that Pixel42 is only saying that Pixel42 is unable to use the English language to describe what 'IT' is, we can be grateful that Isaac can and does, in his The Final Question" story.

Furthermore, I can also do this.
"IT" was the absolute sum total of all data [knowledge] contained within the absolute consciousness of something so infinitesimally tiny that "IT" cannot be considered to be physical in nature.

That is "The Singularity" scientist are referring to.
Click to expand...
 
Well since all I am hearing in response are 'crickets chirping' I will accept it for now that my explanation of The Singularity is uncontested.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom