Etritonakin
Well-Known Member
Someone recently advised me to not underestimate that of which nature was capable.
Referenced from the singularity/big bang, nature from that point is very capable due to relatively complex/specific arrangement.
However, how nature became capable has not been explained.
As present nature once did not exist as such, its present configuration cannot be most-basic nature.
If any material or force is considered, it is true that there is an extreme difference between that which anything will do based on its basic nature at any point and that which can be accomplished with it by a creative intelligence.
In other words, nature is actually not very capable until it becomes capable by becoming self-aware, knowledgeable and creative.
If very complex and interactive things (wood... pile vs bridge, metal... blob vs muscle car, stone... door stop vs cathedral) cannot become much else comparatively in the absence of creativity NOW -should we expect their very simple components to be very capable?
Does not simplicity allow for all things only generally -and complexity specifically?
More-basic things have more-basic properties -so less specific capability. Why would the most basic itself (pre-universe) be very capable -and the very complex not very capable?
Though it may seem counterintuitive, far less would be required for the pre-universe development of self-awareness and creativity than for a universe prior to such! Any simple interaction is simple awareness and can be the basis of logical processing -and there would be far less of which to be aware early on! Then the simple would have the capability of knowledgeably specifying -therefore of becoming specific! It would require little more than basic logic/increasingly complex interaction -and then gaining a perspective -essentially looking into a simple mirror at some point.
Both the universe and creativity have always been generally possible -but what would make each specifically possible -and in what order?
From our perspective, it seems that there was a singularity and big bang, then the entire extremely-complex universe developed, then self-awareness and creativity developed -but that is actually reverse logical order!
How could the nearest possible things to nothing have any specific capability?
Why would the very complex and capable human mind struggle to reverse engineer that which was produced without any specific capability at all? How is nothing more capable than a mind? Why would a stirring pool of the cosmic equivalent of ones and zeroes (far less complex than a blob or pile of whatever) -become a universe, elements, forces, stars, planets, DNA, physical life.... before developing any logical processing ability?
"Nature" is only capable of running its course -not altering its course -until it first develops capability -which is its natural course.
Even at this moment -regardless of what is considered, the difference between very-basically capable and very capable is the development of awareness -a mind -a self. That IS capability.
Referenced from the singularity/big bang, nature from that point is very capable due to relatively complex/specific arrangement.
However, how nature became capable has not been explained.
As present nature once did not exist as such, its present configuration cannot be most-basic nature.
If any material or force is considered, it is true that there is an extreme difference between that which anything will do based on its basic nature at any point and that which can be accomplished with it by a creative intelligence.
In other words, nature is actually not very capable until it becomes capable by becoming self-aware, knowledgeable and creative.
If very complex and interactive things (wood... pile vs bridge, metal... blob vs muscle car, stone... door stop vs cathedral) cannot become much else comparatively in the absence of creativity NOW -should we expect their very simple components to be very capable?
Does not simplicity allow for all things only generally -and complexity specifically?
More-basic things have more-basic properties -so less specific capability. Why would the most basic itself (pre-universe) be very capable -and the very complex not very capable?
Though it may seem counterintuitive, far less would be required for the pre-universe development of self-awareness and creativity than for a universe prior to such! Any simple interaction is simple awareness and can be the basis of logical processing -and there would be far less of which to be aware early on! Then the simple would have the capability of knowledgeably specifying -therefore of becoming specific! It would require little more than basic logic/increasingly complex interaction -and then gaining a perspective -essentially looking into a simple mirror at some point.
Both the universe and creativity have always been generally possible -but what would make each specifically possible -and in what order?
From our perspective, it seems that there was a singularity and big bang, then the entire extremely-complex universe developed, then self-awareness and creativity developed -but that is actually reverse logical order!
How could the nearest possible things to nothing have any specific capability?
Why would the very complex and capable human mind struggle to reverse engineer that which was produced without any specific capability at all? How is nothing more capable than a mind? Why would a stirring pool of the cosmic equivalent of ones and zeroes (far less complex than a blob or pile of whatever) -become a universe, elements, forces, stars, planets, DNA, physical life.... before developing any logical processing ability?
"Nature" is only capable of running its course -not altering its course -until it first develops capability -which is its natural course.
Even at this moment -regardless of what is considered, the difference between very-basically capable and very capable is the development of awareness -a mind -a self. That IS capability.
Last edited: