A Universe from Nothing?

[godnotgod]

Yes. Just like the atoms that make up a copper wire become part of that copper wire and without which there would not be a copper wire. At what point does a collection of copper atoms become a copper wire?

You don't understand how to utililize analogies very well, do you?

MATERIAL atoms make up MATERIAL copper wire. No problem.

How does non-life become life; unconscious become conscious?

How does the material brain create non-material consciousness?

(I know: you conveniently 'solve' this puzzle by simply making consciousness 'physical'. IOW, consciousness IS the chemistry; humans are nothing more than chemical factories; or at least flesh-bags of blood 'n bones; or as some say 'meat sacks'. Ugh!)

 

[godnotgod]

Yes, every particle type corresponds to a field type and every field type corresponds to a particle type.

So there are electron fields, essentially described as probability waves for detecting electrons (the particles).

And yes, the degree of excitation of that field tells how many particles there are.

That's not what he said: he said that particles in reality are fields.

 

[godnotgod]

Simple. Information is produced in any causal interaction where the result is limited in the types of causes it has.

So, for example, a ball-shaped hole through a window provides information on the size and type of ball that went through that window. Any interaction that preserves the form of that hole will also preserve that information. If it changes the form of the hole, but in a way that still places limits on the ball, then the information was 'processed' into another form of information. This can clearly happen even without an intelligence.



Wow. I make a quick joke and you focus on it. Someone certainly has problems with sexuality here.

Yes, you. But the real gist of your original comment was designed to belittle and discredit. That you immediately associated it with masturbation is tell-tale.

"a ball-shaped hole through a window provides information "

What is being provided information? For information to mean anything, it must be transferred from x to y and processed.

 

[godnotgod]

I don't think there is a hard line for this. As the chemical interactions get more complex, they get to the point where they can reproduce and maintain homeostasis. They are them alive.

In a similar way, as the processing of information gets more complex, it eventually has a representation of the external world and that is then consciousness.

Whether a planarium is conscious is a matter of definition, I suspect. But it is clearly alive.

Essentially, you're just making stuff up. How do you suppose that something can go from unconscious dead matter to conscious living matter? Just to say that chemicals reach a state of critical mass does not explain anything. It's just a silly idea that equates to driving a square peg into a round hole to make things make sense. They don't 'make sense' because nature itself is not rational. But the rational mind thinks it can explain away everything. Instead it ends up in paradox, and then dismisses it by making up convenient 'explanations', such as 'Emergent Theory'.

 

[godnotgod]

Consciousness existing outside of the brain, without evidences to support it, is supernatural.

Your claims that the universe is conscious and possess intelligence are the very idea of anthropomorphic superstition, and that lead to the belief in supernatural.
.

I repeat: the original meaning of 'supernatural' meant 'above', as in 'dominant'. I am not referring to anything above or dominant of nature; I am referring to that which is a power and intelligence within nature itself. IOW, they are one and the same. There is no separate agent of power over and above nature.

To say that consciousness is non-local in no way implies anthropomorphism. I am not saying that such consciousness has a human form. In fact, I am saying that it is completely formless. And it is out of the formless that all form emerges, as all wave-forms emerge from the formless sea, and return to it. It is out of formless consciousness that the forms of the universe are being manifested and being transformed in every moment.

 

[godnotgod]

Well, as you say, interaction is a form of information processing, but not all interactions require intelligence. So your claim that all information processing requires intelligence is faulty.

So, for example, when two objects exert a gravitational interaction on each other, no intelligence is required for that interaction. But it is still a type of reactivity. It is also neither 'growth' nor 'reproduction'. The interaction can, however, encapsulate information (for example, energy level of the system).

All that is required for information and information processing is a causal interaction where the result limits the possible causes leading to that result. That limitation is a form of information. And further interaction that maintains the limitation on prior causes is information processing whether or not it involves intelligence.

Using your analogy of a computer, which can function without human intelligence, was originally programmed with human intelligence, even though the currently running program does not, or no longer requires it. Likewise, the intelligence behind the universe has already programmed some things, such as the structure and behavior of atoms, so their behavior appears to be without consciousness. What you would call 'the laws of physics'.

 

[gnostic]

To say that consciousness is non-local in no way implies anthropomorphism.

That would be true, only if you didn't apply consciousness and intelligence to the universe.

In fact, I am saying that it is completely formless. And it is out of the formless that all form emerges, as all wave-forms emerge from the formless sea, and return to it. It is out of formless consciousness that the forms of the universe are being manifested and being transformed in every moment.

Again, you are projecting.

 

[gnostic]

Essentially, you're just making stuff up. How do you suppose that something can go from unconscious dead matter to conscious living matter? Just to say that chemicals reach a state of critical mass does not explain anything. It's just a silly idea that equates to driving a square peg into a round hole to make things make sense.

Actually, that exactly what you are doing.

You are trying to projecting your fantasy or belief with that of nature and science of nature. Nature and belief are two different block shapes.

Nature doesn't require consciousness, nor intelligence, to react chemically the way they do.

Take H2O for instance, the molecule of water.

In the normal temperature, it is in liquid state, but when it reach a specific temperature, the water will turn to ice at zero degree or evaporate into vapour or steam at 100 degrees Celsius.

H2O don't require either intelligence or consciousness, to change from one state or another.

The atoms bonded together in certain ways, as elements, as molecules or as compounds, will have different structures and different properties, that doesn't require guidance from consciousness or intelligence.

Not everything is about consciousness or intelligence. The world and even the universe can exist without these anthropomorphic attributes that you have assigned to them.

 

[godnotgod]

Can you tell me the point at which the running computer program leaves off and the outside world begins?
.

Such silliness, and coming from a science-oriented mentality, yet!

THINK:

The running computer program is created by a human in the outside world of the computer.

 

[godnotgod]

That would be true, only if you didn't apply consciousness and intelligence to the universe.

Again, you are projecting.

Consciousness has form? Where?

Consciousness and intelligence applied to the universe does not mean to apply a human form to the universe. You are assuming/extrapolating way too much. Anthropomorphic simply means to project human form and characteristics onto something non-human.

an·thro·po·mor·phic
ˌanTHrəpəˈmôrfik/
adjective

1. relating to or characterized by anthropomorphism.
   • having human characteristics.
     "anthropomorphic bears and monkeys"

I said the universe was conscious and intelligent; not that it was an antrhopomorphic intelligence. You are the one projecting something onto what I am saying that is simply not there.

 

[godnotgod]

Actually, that exactly what you are doing.

You are trying to projecting your fantasy or belief with that of nature and science of nature. Nature and belief are two different block shapes.

Nature doesn't require consciousness, nor intelligence, to react chemically the way they do.

Take H2O for instance, the molecule of water.

In the normal temperature, it is in liquid state, but when it reach a specific temperature, the water will turn to ice at zero degree or evaporate into vapour or steam at 100 degrees Celsius.

H2O don't require either intelligence or consciousness, to change from one state or another.

The atoms bonded together in certain ways, as elements, as molecules or as compounds, will have different structures and different properties, that doesn't require guidance from consciousness or intelligence.

Not everything is about consciousness or intelligence. The world and even the universe can exist without these anthropomorphic attributes that you have assigned to them.

You continue to use the word 'anthropomorphic' incorrectly, even after I have provided you with a dictionary definition, along with my explanation as to why a conscious intelligent universe is not anthropomorphic, unless I am assigning to it human form and characteristics, which I clearly have not done. Is something wrong with your hearing, or reading comprehension?

Yes, the bonding of hydrogen to oxygen is an intelligent process involving information.

Q: If you, as a conscious human, decided you wanted to create your own food supply within your body, what level of intelligence would you require to do so, or would you require none at all?

A simple blade of grass, without a brain, does exactly that via the process of photosynthesis. For you to even approach a crude working model to do the same thing would require a very high level of intelligence and creativity. Humans are considered far greater intellectually than a blade of grass, and yet cannot execute the function of manufacturing their own energy supply as a blade of grass can do.

H2O, in changing from one state to another, has achieved a balance in nature that for you to equal as an intelligent being, would require a sophistication and creativity beyond your wildest imagination. The kind of intelligence we are referring to in nature is not the same kind of intelligence that man has at his disposal. It is of a far greater scope and depth. Michio Kaku, in throwing up his hands in frustration and defeat when attempting to reconcile Relativity with Quantum Mechanics, was forced to declare: 'Nature is smarter than we are'.

 

[godnotgod]

Crackpot alert! The content of your link is bogus.



First, I agree that the classical notion of a particle does not fit with modern physics. But neither does the classical notion of a wave. Both need to be modified in light of quantum mechanics.

Every 'particle' corresponds to a 'wave' and every 'wave' corresponds to a 'particle'. Specifically, the waves describe the probability of detecting a particle. They are probability waves.



Sorry, but this is wrong. In stable situations (like electrons in atomic orbitals), you can think of the probability wave as being a type of standing wave, but for free particles this is no longer the case.

The rest is sheer crackpottery.

Blaze Labs disagrees with you:

"In a 3D standing waves, a structure, with all charactesitics of a platonic solid, is formed for each standing wave mode. Within an atom, which is the building block of matter, the platonic solid is not formed by salt or known particles, but by electromagnetic waves in vacuum. The final result, the standing wave structure, is one which has a structure, an inertia, a reaction to other standing wave structures, and a reaction to external EM waves, all characteristics of what we use to call 'a particle', which can be felt and seen. As we shall see later on, particles are point effects of the standing wave nodes."

The Particle: From waves to particles

 

[Polymath257]

Such silliness, and coming from a science-oriented mentality, yet!

THINK:

The running computer program is created by a human in the outside world of the computer.

Irrelevant to saying where the process is located.

 

[Polymath257]

Nope. You are referring to MIND, not consciousness. Consciousness is not a process. Mind as the thought process analogous to the computer program. I am not speaking about mind, but consciousness. So with that understanding, how is consciousness limited to the physical brain? In fact, how can a physical brain contain and limit that which is non-physical, namely, consciousness?

Only minds are conscious.

 

[Polymath257]

That was one option you cited, but the other was that of the universe containing a collection of things, which you cited as one possibility. I only asked how that is possible, that's all. Return to your post so you can see that you said it was a matter of context which was the case.

In that interpretation, all matter, energy, and space are in the universe. I often extend that to time also. So, no, in that case, the universe is NOT a vessel.

 

[Polymath257]

Yes, you. But the real gist of your original comment was designed to belittle and discredit. That you immediately associated it with masturbation is tell-tale.

Huh? Yes, almost everyone masturbates. I'm not ashamed of doing so. I also have sex with my wife.

You described the universe as a deity playing games with itself. That's why I described it as masturbatory. You seemed to think that was a discredit.

Now, I do think the scenario is rather silly, but not because of the masturbation aspect.

"a ball-shaped hole through a window provides information "

What is being provided information? For information to mean anything, it must be transferred from x to y and processed.

Wrong. Here, the information produced concerns at last the size of the ball and potentially how fast it was going.

If the window was then shattered, but in such a way that it could be reconstructed, then the information was changed (processed).

 

[Polymath257]

Essentially, you're just making stuff up. How do you suppose that something can go from unconscious dead matter to conscious living matter? Just to say that chemicals reach a state of critical mass does not explain anything. It's just a silly idea that equates to driving a square peg into a round hole to make things make sense. They don't 'make sense' because nature itself is not rational. But the rational mind thinks it can explain away everything. Instead it ends up in paradox, and then dismisses it by making up convenient 'explanations', such as 'Emergent Theory'.

I agree that we don't completely understand the process. We know a lot more about life than consciousness in this regard, partly because there are usable definitions of 'life'.

So, some of the essentials of life are reproduction, growth, and maintenance of internal state. Nothing in this list requires anything other than the atoms that make up our bodies. And those atoms are NOT alive. SO, yes, living things are made of 'dead' matter (I prefer to say non-living matter).

As for consciousness, there are clearly some definitional problems. Any definition of the concept that makes a rock conscious is clearly wrong in my mind though. Consciousness requires the information processing of the complexity that happens in brains. Now, do all brains produce consciousness? I don't know. I guess not. Are insects conscious? That may well be a matter of definition. But at least humans are conscious. Most mammals seem to be conscious. Birds also seem to be. I'm not sure about fish, for example. And I am pretty sure jelly fish are not.

You see what I am doing? I am outlining examples of a phenomenon I want to characterize and study. I don't assume there is a previous concept that is understood by all. Instread, I give examples and possible borderline cases and seek a definition that fits those criteria.

From what I can see, all conscious things so far are living things. The converse is probably false, though. Life is easier to achieve than consciousness. I allow for complex computer systems to be conscious though. They seem to have the right type of information processing capabilities.

But in all cases, life and consciousness are properties of physical systems made out of non-living and non-conscious components.

 

[Polymath257]

Using your analogy of a computer, which can function without human intelligence, was originally programmed with human intelligence, even though the currently running program does not, or no longer requires it. Likewise, the intelligence behind the universe has already programmed some things, such as the structure and behavior of atoms, so their behavior appears to be without consciousness. What you would call 'the laws of physics'.

Well, tat is an assumption that the laws of physics are 'programmed'. Let's look at this more closely.

How is it that a computer can be programmed? Well, because of its physical properties, it can store and process information represented digitally. It is only able to be programmed because of the laws of physics.

So, for the laws of physics to be a program, there have to be *deeper* laws of physics that allow that programming. To have an intelligence ( a very complex system) that is able to program also requires those deeper laws.

Clearly, that gets into an infinite regress quite quickly. The more rational way to proceed is to consider the natural laws as basic and not in need of 'programming' or even 'design': they just are. Things have properties and interact because of those properties. The ways they interact are the laws of physics.

 

[Polymath257]

Blaze Labs disagrees with you:

"In a 3D standing waves, a structure, with all charactesitics of a platonic solid, is formed for each standing wave mode. Within an atom, which is the building block of matter, the platonic solid is not formed by salt or known particles, but by electromagnetic waves in vacuum. The final result, the standing wave structure, is one which has a structure, an inertia, a reaction to other standing wave structures, and a reaction to external EM waves, all characteristics of what we use to call 'a particle', which can be felt and seen. As we shall see later on, particles are point effects of the standing wave nodes."

The Particle: From waves to particles

Yes. So? To be disagreed with by a crackpot is not a bad thing.

This site shows a very low level of understanding of the complexities seen in the real world. Sorry, but you are basing your ideas on crackpottery.

 

[Polymath257]

You continue to use the word 'anthropomorphic' incorrectly, even after I have provided you with a dictionary definition, along with my explanation as to why a conscious intelligent universe is not anthropomorphic, unless I am assigning to it human form and characteristics, which I clearly have not done. Is something wrong with your hearing, or reading comprehension?

Yes, the bonding of hydrogen to oxygen is an intelligent process involving information.

No, it is a *non-intelligent* process involving information.

Q: If you, as a conscious human, decided you wanted to create your own food supply within your body, what level of intelligence would you require to do so, or would you require none at all?

A simple blade of grass, without a brain, does exactly that via the process of photosynthesis. For you to even approach a crude working model to do the same thing would require a very high level of intelligence and creativity. Humans are considered far greater intellectually than a blade of grass, and yet cannot execute the function of manufacturing their own energy supply as a blade of grass can do.

What does this have to do with H2O? No intelligence was required to produce grass. And no intelligence is required for grass to produce its 'food'.

H2O, in changing from one state to another, has achieved a balance in nature that for you to equal as an intelligent being, would require a sophistication and creativity beyond your wildest imagination. The kind of intelligence we are referring to in nature is not the same kind of intelligence that man has at his disposal. It is of a far greater scope and depth. Michio Kaku, in throwing up his hands in frustration and defeat when attempting to reconcile Relativity with Quantum Mechanics, was forced to declare: 'Nature is smarter than we are'.

It was a *joke*.