Deeper than primes - Continuation

Status
Not open for further replies.
punshhh said:
Run that by me again, using different phraselogy if possible ( to aid my interpretation).
Click to expand...

Typical view is that we have nothing, then maybe uncaused 'fluctuation', a big bang followed by universal expansion, all 'moments' of this linear narrative being unique as they are sequential and only occurring once. Added into this mix are laws of conservation of information. Simply put, the typical view is that all uniquely occurring 'moments' must be recorded in terms of information. This provides problems when space-time destruction is observed (e.g. blackholes), and therefore the premise that holographic event horizons must always record information. Entropy increases but information is not destroyed (even if tricky / impossible to extrapolate).

My view is that underlying reality is a universal replicator. As such the universe is not 'created', it is always contained within the simple nature of universal underlying reality, the fundamental backbone of the causal chain. As such, it is perfectly possible to observe space-time creation and space-time destruction, since this is just one loop of what subjectively appears as a cycle.. Just as (not so simple) chains of DNA contain the information for a causal chain that leads to genotypic expression, simple universal underlying reality (the tandem dance of nothing/everything plus causality), leads to the universe exactly as we find it.

In this way, abiogenesis also becomes less difficult to explain. For we see that complex replicators involve more simple replicators on which to build. As, such, the process of abiogenesis continues to occur, relying on the causal chain replication / creation of atoms, molecules etc.
 
doronshadmi said:
Maybe http://www.scribd.com/doc/85046673/Dear-Conor-Mayo can add something to your view.
Click to expand...

I can't help but notice a similarity with your mathematical branching and this http://www.pri.org/stories/science/...hat-moves-is-based-on-a-flow-system-8742.html

I'd suggest, however, that you can't get an ought from an is. Which is why I don't see the application to ethics and so forth. I don't see evidence for free will/agency, which somewhat limits my scope on moral philosophy. The universe can neither be controlled by thinking - nor by direct perception. Rather, thinking - or direct perception - are both forms of universal expression that somewhat control those parts of the universe we perceive as a 'self'.

Regarding the meditation on the straight line - you do realise that there is no such thing as an actual straight line in the physically expressed universe? The appearance of a straight line is an optical illusion of macro vision. I'm not sure what this practice has to do with the branching of mathematics.
 
Last edited:
keyfeatures said:
Added into this mix are laws of conservation of information. Simply put, the typical view is that all uniquely occurring 'moments' must be recorded in terms of information.
Click to expand...
I agree that information is preserved in a sense, perhaps propagated is a better word. But "must be recorded" is rather clumsy. Hence the trouble in the rest of the paragraph...

This provides problems when space-time destruction is observed (e.g. blackholes), and therefore the premise that holographic event horizons must always record information. Entropy increases but information is not destroyed (even if tricky / impossible to extrapolate).
Click to expand...
You need to learn more subtle thinking and crafting of concepts. This is a bull in a china shop and please explain "holographic event horizons"

My view is that underlying reality is a universal replicator. As such the universe is not 'created', it is always contained within the simple nature of universal underlying reality, the fundamental backbone of the causal chain. As such, it is perfectly possible to observe space-time creation and space-time destruction, since this is just one loop of what subjectively appears as a cycle.. Just as (not so simple) chains of DNA contain the information for a causal chain that leads to genotypic expression, simple universal underlying reality (the tandem dance of nothing/everything plus causality), leads to the universe exactly as we find it.
Click to expand...
Yes I agree with the gist of this, the wording and clashing of concepts is a jarring cacophany of noise and their are folk here who would tear it to pieces.

In this way, abiogenesis also becomes less difficult to explain. For we see that complex replicators involve more simple replicators on which to build. As, such, the process of abiogenesis continues to occur, relying on the causal chain replication / creation of atoms, molecules etc.
Click to expand...
Again I agree with the gist of this but it is so thread bare as to be meaningless to most people.

Are you hinting at a natural hierarchy of conscious entities/intelligences which we as embryonic creators fit into?
 
Last edited:
punshhh said:
You need to learn more subtle thinking and crafting of concepts. This is a bull in a china shop and please explain "holographic event horizons"
Click to expand...

And, if I may be forgiven for returning one of my own value judgements, you might show more humility when presented with the bare bones of an argument and a complete lack of information on the person posting them. I am here to learn, not browbeat or be browbeaten. Therefore, I prefer to engage with those who show respect for the position of others, ask for more information if interested or put their counter position in a fair spirit of exchange. If you are genuinely interested, here is some introductory information on the holographic principle.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holographic_principle Specifically, see this para;

The holographic principle was inspired by black hole thermodynamics, which implies that the maximal entropy in any region scales with the radius squared, and not cubed as might be expected. In the case of a black hole, the insight was that the informational content of all the objects which have fallen into the hole can be entirely contained in surface fluctuations of the event horizon. The holographic principle resolves the black hole information paradox within the framework of string theory.
 
Last edited:
punshhh said:
Are you hinting at a natural hierarchy of conscious entities/intelligences which we as embryonic creators fit into?
Click to expand...

Not really, no. I'm suggesting that the definition of what constitutes life in terms of replication is not so black and white. There is, in fact, a lot of what might be considered lifeless replication going on all the time. And the idea of 'self-replication' to distinguish lifeform from non-lifeform again has a misplaced agency to it. Lifeform replication is, simply, a more complex chain. If we look at the building blocks of life and subdivide into smaller and smaller parts we find that each has to have a means of replicating and then enables the more complex replication of the next stage. The wave packets of electrons need to be 'replicated', for example. Each of the elements had to evolve, in a causal chain that needed to be replicated. This is elemental creation / replication is still occurring.

It is important to separate intelligence from consciousness. They are not synonymous terms. Intelligence does not need to be conscious. Currently we have computers that can score 150 in an IQ test. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/02/120214100719.htm
 
Last edited:
keyfeatures said:
And, if I may be forgiven for returning one of my own value judgements, you might show more humility when presented with the bare bones of an argument and a complete lack of information on the person posting them. I am here to learn, not browbeat or be browbeaten. Therefore, I prefer to engage with those who show respect for the position of others, ask for more information if interested or put their counter position in a fair spirit of exchange. If you are genuinely interested, here is some introductory information on the holographic principle.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holographic_principle Specifically, see this para;

The holographic principle was inspired by black hole thermodynamics, which implies that the maximal entropy in any region scales with the radius squared, and not cubed as might be expected. In the case of a black hole, the insight was that the informational content of all the objects which have fallen into the hole can be entirely contained in surface fluctuations of the event horizon. The holographic principle resolves the black hole information paradox within the framework of string theory.
Click to expand...

I apologize for my aggressive style, you will find though that posters on these boards will challenge your ideas more aggressively than me or tell you that you are talking nonsense or pseudoscience.

It seems to me that the holographic principle is a compromise to suit mathematical abstractions in a speculative model.

However I do consider an analogous concept in speculation on finite manifestation. I would think that such philosophical musings are not at this stage compatible with hard science or maths.

Thus my impression of familiar philosophical ideas referred to using an unfamiliar scientific language.
 
Last edited:
I am so enjoying your conversation :)

It seems you have managed to completely baffle Doron! A feat to be proud of!
 
realpaladin said:
I am so enjoying your conversation :)

It seems you have managed to completely baffle Doron! A feat to be proud of!
Click to expand...

A mere pause. Never underestimate the power of direct perception coupled with gibberish in its rawest form. He'll be back to posting non sequiturs and contradictions in no time.
 
keyfeatures said:
Not really, no. I'm suggesting that the definition of what constitutes life in terms of replication is not so black and white. There is, in fact, a lot of what might be considered lifeless replication going on all the time. And the idea of 'self-replication' to distinguish lifeform from non-lifeform again has a misplaced agency to it. Lifeform replication is, simply, a more complex chain. If we look at the building blocks of life and subdivide into smaller and smaller parts we find that each has to have a means of replicating and then enables the more complex replication of the next stage. The wave packets of electrons need to be 'replicated', for example. Each of the elements had to evolve, in a causal chain that needed to be replicated. This is elemental creation / replication is still occurring.

It is important to separate intelligence from consciousness. They are not synonymous terms. Intelligence does not need to be conscious. Currently we have computers that can score 150 in an IQ test. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/02/120214100719.htm
Click to expand...

Yes, I agree that intelligence and consciousness are quite different and should not be confused.

I would expect highly evolved life forms to be conscious, but synthetic intelligences may well not be.

I suggest a philosophical idea that in the greater scheme of reality (beyond our quiet backwater) highly evolved lifeforms play a role in the expression of the subjects precipitated from unity.
 
punshhh said:
I apologize for my aggressive style, you will find though that posters on these boards will challenge your ideas more aggressively than me or tell you that you are talking nonsense or pseudoscience.

It seems to me that the holographic principle is a compromise to suit mathematical abstractions in a speculative model.

However I do consider an analogous concept in speculation on finite manifestation. I would think that such philosophical musings are not at this stage compatible with hard science or maths.

Thus my impression of familiar philosophical ideas referred to using an unfamiliar scientific language.
Click to expand...

HP is actually quite a widely accepted solution to the physical paradox suggested by Hawking's theory of black hole evaporation / loss of information. However, as you correctly suggest, it forms part of various speculative models. We do not actually have a non-speculative model. My own thinking is that HP is not required if we see underlying universal reality (admittedly a fuzzy term) as a constant which creates a block universe. If underlying universal reality is the replicator, it contains the information and cannot be destroyed.

Your apology is accepted. I'm sure, like any forum, there are those who are only too ready to shoot at anyone putting forward an opinion. Challenging ideas is good. I've not time for ego poseurs and self-appointed forum 'experts', however. There is always someone with more knowledge or greater intelligence. People would do well to remember that.
 
keyfeatures said:
I can't help but notice a similarity with your mathematical branching and this http://www.pri.org/stories/science/...hat-moves-is-based-on-a-flow-system-8742.html
Click to expand...
There is no similarity, since "movement only" is only the expressed and changeable aspect of a given realm, which is derived from the inability of collection of lower (mathematical or physical) spaces or sub-spaces (which are an association among lower (mathematical or physical) spaces and a given (mathematical or physical) space to reach the power of the continuum of a given (mathematical or physical) space > 0.

Your awareness is still trapped only at the naturally subjective and naturally changeable realm, which is naturally changeable and naturally subjective exactly because no amount of collection of lower spaces or sub-spaces have the power of the continuum of a given higher (mathematical or physical) space.

keyfeatures said:
I'd suggest, however, that you can't get an ought from an is. Which is why I don't see the application to ethics and so forth. I don't see evidence for free will/agency, which somewhat limits my scope on moral philosophy. The universe can neither be controlled by thinking - nor by direct perception. Rather, thinking - or direct perception - are both forms of universal expression that somewhat control those parts of the universe we perceive as a 'self'.
Click to expand...
Your awareness is trapped at the level of naturally subjective and changeable level of collections, without any awareness of the power of the continuum, which is the objective unchanged non-local "glue" among lower spaces and\or sub-spaces.

keyfeatures said:
Regarding the meditation on the straight line - you do realise that there is no such thing as an actual straight line in the physically expressed universe? The appearance of a straight line is an optical illusion of macro vision. I'm not sure what this practice has to do with the branching of mathematics.
Click to expand...
You have missed the fact that:

1) It is an analogy, where any analogy is restricted only to the level of thoughts, which is naturally subjective.

2) By using the restrictions of the analogy, we show Unity in terms of 1-dimensional space, which is not restricted to its curved or straight form, such that it enables to link these forms by Unity awareness.

keyfeatures, as long as your awareness is restricted only to the subjective level of collection of thoughts, you have no change to get the calm objective level of awareness (represented by the analogy of straight 1-dimensional form) and you have no chance to get Unity as represented by this analogy by using 1-dimensional space, which is curved AND straight.


keyfeatures said:
I can't help ...
Click to expand...
You can help, by at least directly being aware of the objective non-personal and non-local state at the basis of your naturally changeable and subjective level of thoughts.

Without at least directly being aware of the objective non-personal and non-local state, one awareness can't be developed into Unity awareness, which is not restricted to the polychotomy among Ethics and logical reasoning.
 
Last edited:
doronshadmi said:
keyfeatures, as long as your awareness is restricted only to the subjective level of collection of thoughts, you have no change to get the calm objective level of awareness (represented by the analogy of straight 1-dimensional form) and you have no chance to get Unity as represented by this analogy by using 1-dimensional space, which is curved AND straight.
Click to expand...


Yes, I didn't realise it was an analogy. This surprises me because an analogy is the ultimate in symbolic thinking, and I assumed the purpose of meditating (TM) was to free the conscious mind of such trapped symbolic thinking, only communicating back the symbolic after meditation and once insight had been reached.
 
doronshadmi said:
You can help, by at least directly being aware of the objective non-personal and non-local state at the basis of your naturally changeable and subjective level of thoughts.

Without at least directly being aware of the objective non-personal and non-local state, one awareness can't be developed into Unity awareness, which is not restricted to the polychotomy among Ethics and logical reasoning.
Click to expand...

I am 'aware' of this. Awareness of something does not mean existing in that state. Indeed, I strongly argue that consciousness and thought are not a function of the brain alone. Just as driving is not a function of cars alone. However, this perception does not give me the superhuman powers of being able to remove subjectivity from thinking or awareness. Just as a sense that there is no free will does not (cannot) prevent me from feeling as if there is in an everyday, moment to moment way.
 
keyfeatures said:
I am 'aware' of this.
Click to expand...
No, you are aware about this as long as you get it only at the naturally subjective and changeable level of thoughts.

Some analogy: Talking about silence is not silence in itself.

Maybe http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7763358&postcount=172 can help you.

EDIT:
keyfeatures said:
I strongly argue that consciousness and thought are not a function of the brain alone.
Click to expand...
As long as your arguments are done only at the level of thoughts, they are only aware about the argued (they are not actually aware of the argued).
 
Last edited:
keyfeatures said:
HP is actually quite a widely accepted solution to the physical paradox suggested by Hawking's theory of black hole evaporation / loss of information. However, as you correctly suggest, it forms part of various speculative models. We do not actually have a non-speculative model. My own thinking is that HP is not required if we see underlying universal reality (admittedly a fuzzy term) as a constant which creates a block universe. If underlying universal reality is the replicator, it contains the information and cannot be destroyed.
Click to expand...
I agree in essence with your position here, but I cannot agree to the specific language you are using. It seems inappropriate to commandeer scientific terminology to express thoughts of a purely philosophical nature. You will come unstuck if you follow this approach in the science, maths, technology section.

Also I respect what physicists at the forefront of these ideas are doing, but it is clearly so hypothetical, that it is rendered essentially meaningless when taken out of the specific context in which it is proposed.

Your apology is accepted. I'm sure, like any forum, there are those who are only too ready to shoot at anyone putting forward an opinion. Challenging ideas is good. I've not time for ego poseurs and self-appointed forum 'experts', however. There is always someone with more knowledge or greater intelligence. People would do well to remember that.
Click to expand...
Thankyou, be prepaired for some quite strong challenges to your ideas here and when they are made it is better to keep your head down rather than try to talk your way out of it.
 
doronshadmi said:
No, you are aware about this as long as you get it only at the naturally subjective and changeable level of thoughts.

Some analogy: Talking about silence is not silence in itself.

Maybe http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7763358&postcount=172 can help you.

EDIT:

As long as your arguments are done only at the level of thoughts, they are only aware about the argued (they are not actually aware of the argued).
Click to expand...


I'd suggest there is little difference in being aware about / aware of. However, there is a difference in terms of being the thing. E.g. "I am aware of silence" vs. "I am silence" or "I am aware of unity" vs. "I am unity". My suggestion is you can't change the reality of space-time. I might be aware of an objective state but I can be an objective state. Being the daughter of a magician, I've learned to know the difference between illusion and magic.
 
keyfeatures said:
Awareness of something does not mean existing in that state.
Click to expand...
You are wrong, the right one is this: Awareness about something does not mean existing in that state.

Aware of ≠ Aware about and currently you are at the stat of being aware about.
 
punshhh said:
I agree in essence with your position here, but I cannot agree to the specific language you are using. It seems inappropriate to commandeer scientific terminology to express thoughts of a purely philosophical nature. You will come unstuck if you follow this approach in the science, maths, technology section.

Also I respect what physicists at the forefront of these ideas are doing, but it is clearly so hypothetical, that it is rendered essentially meaningless when taken out of the specific context in which it is proposed.

Thankyou, be prepaired for some quite strong challenges to your ideas here and when they are made it is better to keep your head down rather than try to talk your way out of it.
Click to expand...

Just like electricity and magnetism, don't forget who separated science from philosophy in the first place. And who might stick them back together again.
 
keyfeatures said:
I'd suggest there is little difference in being aware about / aware of.
Click to expand...
Being aware of X is actually being X.

Being aware about X is not actually being X.

keyfeatures said:
However, there is a difference in terms of being the thing. E.g. "I am aware of silence" vs. "I am silence"
Click to expand...
This is the best you can get by only being aware about X.
 
Last edited:
doronshadmi said:
Being aware of X is actually being X.

Being aware about X is not actually being X.


This is what you get by being aware about X.
Click to expand...

I'm aware of Napoleon Bonaparte.

If you wish to be a success in the world, promise everything, deliver nothing.
 
keyfeatures said:
I'm aware of Napoleon Bonaparte
Click to expand...
No, you are aware about Napoleon Bonaparte.

Furthermore, no already expressed (abstract or physical) phenomena is aware of already expressed phenomena at the level of already expressed phenomena.

It can be done only by actually being at Unity awareness, which enables any subjective aspect of being to be also aware of the objective aspect of being, which is naturally non-personal.
 
Last edited:
keyfeatures said:
Just like electricity and magnetism, don't forget who separated science from philosophy in the first place. And who might stick them back together again.
Click to expand...

Yes and their long lost sibling, theology.
 
Last edited:
doronshadmi said:
No, you are aware about Napoleon Bonaparte.

Furthermore, no already expressed (abstract or physical) phenomena is aware of already expressed phenomena at the level of already expressed phenomena.

It can be done only by actually being at Unity awareness, which enables any subjective aspect of being to be also aware of the objective aspect of being, which is naturally non-personal.
Click to expand...

So if I can be aware of the Unity (through TM), can I also be aware of Napolean Bonaparte would you say? In other words, if I can be the Unity, can I also be Napolean Bonaparte? Can a person be another person? If so, what happens to the original person? If I become the Unity, what happens to the original Unity? And, furthermore, what happens to me?
 
keyfeatures said:
So if I can be aware of the Unity (through TM), can I also be aware of Napolean Bonaparte would you say? In other words, if I can be the Unity, can I also be Napolean Bonaparte? Can a person be another person? If so, what happens to the original person? If I become the Unity, what happens to the original Unity? And, furthermore, what happens to me?
Click to expand...
Napolean Bonaparte and you, are essentially Unity, which is the source of originality and polychotomy.

The reasoning of your questions is done at the level of polychtomy, which is not the opposite of Unity, but it is its some limited expression.

Some analogy: no collection of lower (abstract or physical) spaces have the power of the continuum of a given (abstract or physical) space > 0.

Unity can be everything (where everything is restricted to collections), everything can't be Unity ( http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=8082203&postcount=604 ).

Unity (the thing) can be NOthing AND YESthing.

NOthing AND YESthing can't be Unity (the thing).
 
Last edited:
post #832

So being a YESthing, I can't be unity? (not sure I want to be a YESthing...)

ETA; Oh sorry, I see you said that a YESthing polychotomy is still Unity at the top of the post. But not at the bottom of the post. Perhaps I misunderstand. There appears to be a contradiction here. Perhaps one must just embrace contradiction. Paraconsistent logical pathways...
 
Last edited:
keyfeatures said:
post #832

So being a YESthing, I can't be unity? (not sure I want to be a YESthing...)

ETA; Oh sorry, I see you said that a YESthing polychotomy is still Unity at the top of the post. But not at the bottom of the post. Perhaps I misunderstand. There appears to be a contradiction here. Perhaps one must just embrace contradiction. Paraconsistent logical pathways...
Click to expand...

Unity (the thing) can be NOthing AND YESthing AND SOMEthing AND EVERYthing ( http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=8082203&postcount=604 ).

NOthing AND YESthing AND SOMEthing AND EVERYthing can't be Unity (the thing).

So there is no contradiction.

Contradiction is possible only among (abstract or physical) expressions at the level of polyhotomy, which is, again, not the opposite of Unity.
 
Last edited:
Last edited:
keyfeatures said:
So being a YESthing , I can't be unity?
Click to expand...
No because YESthing (that has no successor) is defined at the level of polychotomy as the opposite of NOthing (that has no predecessor), or the objective calm aspect of awareness w.r.t the subjective aspect of collection of thoughts' activity.

Since you are currently closed under physical models, maybe http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7796635&postcount=219 can contribute something to you.
 
Last edited:
Unity is not a collection of polychotomous expressions and not the opposite of Polychotomy because of a very simple reason, which is:

It is not the sum of polychotomous expressions, where this fact enables their non-entropic realm.

The current mathematical paradigm is entropic-only exactly because polychotomous expressions are summable, or in other words, Unity is not known.

-----------------------------

It has to be stressed that there is no room for infinitely many polychotomous expressions (collections) in the first place, if they are summable, where summable means that there is an accurate cardinality of a given infinite collection.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom