The Mind of Everything/Demystifying Self-Awareness

[Ben Dhyan]

The universe will get "infinitely" more complex in every next moment.

Where is your proof that the universe is getting more complex, and to whom?

 

[cladking]

Where is your proof that the universe is getting more complex, and to whom?

I doubt it's getting any more "complex". Of course I don't believe in "laws of nature" and for all I know it is getting more or less complex.

I am merely saying that reality is a cascade event and the longer it continues the less probable the then current conditions become. What are the odds some specific individual with specific genes will be born in 100 years? 1000 years? 10,000,000,000 years? Or ten million quadrillion years? For that matter how do you predict the actions of an individual who will be born in one year?

You can call this "randomness" or "predetermination". You can call it "chaos" or "complexity" but the fact is reality is playing out in wholly unpredictable ways that become less probable by the moment. No matter how reality plays out the fact is it is still real and still one reality. And the odds against this is the largest practical number and all numbers, all odds, are a subset of this number. Of course this final point is is a fine one since one could try to compute the odds of an apple falling "up". We are unable to put a meaningful number on such things because we don't yet know the logic that makes reality unfold as it does and might never know all of it. Or to state it another way, I would maintain that we'll never be able to make predictions far into the future or of tiny events so the odds against this emerging reality will remain the largest possible number even as it continues to increase by orders of magnitude in every fraction of a moment.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

I doubt it's getting any more "complex". Of course I don't believe in "laws of nature" and for all I know it is getting more or less complex.

I am merely saying that reality is a cascade event and the longer it continues the less probable the then current conditions become. What are the odds some specific individual with specific genes will be born in 100 years? 1000 years? 10,000,000,000 years? Or ten million quadrillion years? For that matter how do you predict the actions of an individual who will be born in one year?

You can call this "randomness" or "predetermination". You can call it "chaos" or "complexity" but the fact is reality is playing out in wholly unpredictable ways that become less probable by the moment. No matter how reality plays out the fact is it is still real and still one reality. And the odds against this is the largest practical number and all numbers, all odds, are a subset of this number. Of course this final point is is a fine one since one could try to compute the odds of an apple falling "up". We are unable to put a meaningful number on such things because we don't yet know the logic that makes reality unfold as it does and might never know all of it. Or to state it another way, I would maintain that we'll never be able to make predictions far into the future or of tiny events so the odds against this emerging reality will remain the largest possible number even as it continues to increase by orders of magnitude in every fraction of a moment.

Universal principles of nature are immutable, and play out everywhere invariably in time and space, to suggest otherwise is silly unless you have proof to the contrary that nature is random and devoid of principles. Not be able to predict accurately the future actions of intelligent creatures has nothing to do with the so called 'laws of nature'.

 

[Etritonakin]

So what do you understand it was that preceded the 'singularity', that first made it generally possible and then specifically possible?

Everything which is complex is obviously made of the more-simple, but also the most-simple.
Therefore the original "stuff" is actually all around us -is everything in new arrangements -so we ought to have the necessary evidence available to continue to study -though we ought to be able to get fairly close using logic, math, etc. I'd imagine something of a binary nature (yet somewhat elastic rather than strictly two-state digital) with something to drive increased complexity.
The most simple possible state/s which could also become that which now exists would make all generally possible. It seems absolutely logical and necessary to me that -especially in reference to simplicity -a psychology/self-awareness first developed which could then specify (especially specifying that which would perfectly suit the developing needs of such).

First -a creative "self" is literally an impossibility generator -a specifier of things which were first general. That's what it does. It is that which is required to understand the present nature of things enough to alter the course of that nature. Second, it would do so in ways which indicated its existence, as it would make choices based on the fact of its own existence and consideration of its future.

The vast universe -(a prepared space to do stuff), adaptive life in countless varieties (near-infinite newness), mankind's (or similar) future as inheritors of the universe, looking outward in awe and wonder to space and perhaps infinite numbers of worlds and possibilities -(self-replication after realization of uniqueness... considering the future of self-replications) are exactly what a original developing psychology would be expected to eventually do -and is therefore indicative of such. It would not need to BE specified itself before the point of self-awareness, as it would not be very specific in early stages. There would not initially be much of a self or environment. It would be a simple self/environment essentially looking at an accurate mirror image of sorts.

Ironically, I began thinking about it after reading the quote “In the beginning, there was simplicity” by Richard Dawkins.
I suppose that is in answer to the idea that in the beginning there was God, etc., but I thought about his point in relation to the singularity -which seems quite far from simple.

The idea makes perfect sense -as does the idea that any life form which may have had something to do with man's development or even creation would have had to evolve (can't remember his exact quote on that) -but I take that to mean develop in the broadest sense -not just DNA-based evolution.

So... I wondered what might be between greatest possible simplicity and the singularity -and wondered about the possibility of God evolving from that simplicity.
That is to say that "everything" developed to the point of self-awareness -then creativity, etc.
It would still have been "God" -even before self-awareness... it just would not have developed to that point yet.

Then I realized that many things in the bible -even quotes from God -actually do indicate that God developed rather than having always existed in the same state.

So -the two seemingly-opposed statements concerning the beginning could both be true.

It would be perfectly natural... that which is required for thought and logic would have been present... and such is known to produce extreme specificity and extreme purposeful complexity.

Furthermore, that position would actually grant the God-like attributes of omniscience, omnipotence and omnipresence.

It's not an unscientific idea in any way -and it answers every question perfectly.

I believe "self" and environment are actually completely interdependent overall.
That is to say... a self can not be much of a self without an environment -obviously, but an environment could not have become much of an environment without a self -and both developed in tandem in early stages.
It may not seem so from our perspective -as the environment is/was extremely augmented in comparison to OUR selves -but without an original self, we are actually left with no explanation for the development of environment. The singularity and big bang are the fact -not the explanation for the fact.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Everything which is complex is obviously made of the more-simple, but also the most-simple.
Therefore the original "stuff" is actually all around us -is everything in new arrangements -so we ought to have the necessary evidence available to continue to study -though we ought to be able to get fairly close using logic, math, etc. I'd imagine something of a binary nature (yet somewhat elastic rather than strictly two-state digital) with something to drive increased complexity.
The most simple possible state/s which could also become that which now exists would make all generally possible. It seems absolutely logical and necessary to me that -especially in reference to simplicity -a psychology/self-awareness first developed which could then specify (especially specifying that which would perfectly suit the developing needs of such).

First -a creative "self" is literally an impossibility generator -a specifier of things which were first general. That's what it does. It is that which is required to understand the present nature of things enough to alter the course of that nature. Second, it would do so in ways which indicated its existence, as it would make choices based on the fact of its own existence and consideration of its future.

The vast universe -(a prepared space to do stuff), adaptive life in countless varieties (near-infinite newness), mankind's (or similar) future as inheritors of the universe, looking outward in awe and wonder to space and perhaps infinite numbers of worlds and possibilities -(self-replication after realization of uniqueness... considering the future of self-replications) are exactly what a original developing psychology would be expected to eventually do -and is therefore indicative of such. It would not need to BE specified itself before the point of self-awareness, as it would not be very specific in early stages. There would not initially be much of a self or environment. It would be a simple self/environment essentially looking at an accurate mirror image of sorts.

Ironically, I began thinking about it after reading the quote “In the beginning, there was simplicity” by Richard Dawkins.
I suppose that is in answer to the idea that in the beginning there was God, etc., but I thought about his point in relation to the singularity -which seems quite far from simple.

The idea makes perfect sense -as does the idea that any life form which may have had something to do with man's development or even creation would have had to evolve (can't remember his exact quote on that) -but I take that to mean develop in the broadest sense -not just DNA-based evolution.

So... I wondered what might be between greatest possible simplicity and the singularity -and wondered about the possibility of God evolving from that simplicity.
That is to say that "everything" developed to the point of self-awareness -then creativity, etc.
It would still have been "God" -even before self-awareness... it just would not have developed to that point yet.

Then I realized that many things in the bible -even quotes from God -actually do indicate that God developed rather than having always existed in the same state.

So -the two seemingly-opposed statements concerning the beginning could both be true.

It would be perfectly natural... that which is required for thought and logic would have been present... and such is known to produce extreme specificity and extreme purposeful complexity.

Furthermore, that position would actually grant the God-like attributes of omniscience, omnipotence and omnipresence.

It's not an unscientific idea in any way -and it answers every question perfectly.

I believe "self" and environment are actually completely interdependent overall.
That is to say... a self can not be much of a self without an environment -obviously, but an environment could not have become much of an environment without a self -and both developed in tandem in early stages.
It may not seem so from our perspective -as the environment is/was extremely augmented in comparison to OUR selves -but without an original self, we are actually left with no explanation for the development of environment. The singularity and big bang are the fact -not the explanation for the fact.

I thank you for your extensive and thoughtful reply. However I do not accept anything that I do not understand, that is not to say that some things I don't understand aren't true, just that I don't yet understand it.

So the question of the source of a singularity does not have any answer I can yet understand as logical.. Can you provide a logical explanation that is understandable? All else you discussed is speculative until you can establish how it began, assuming you believe the nature of existence is not eternal and that there was a beginning. Btw, I do understand that all manifestation observable by science had a beginning, but that only constitutes 5% of existence, the 'dark' un-manifested stuff 95%.

 

[Etritonakin]

I thank you for your extensive and thoughtful reply. However I do not accept anything that I do not understand, that is not to say that some things I don't understand aren't true, just that I don't yet understand it.

So the question of the source of a singularity does not have any answer I can yet understand as logical.. Can you provide a logical explanation that is understandable? All else you discussed is speculative until you can establish how it began, assuming you believe the nature of existence is not eternal and that there was a beginning. Btw, I do understand that all manifestation observable by science had a beginning, but that only constitutes 5% of existence, the 'dark' un-manifested stuff 95%.

There could have been no beginning inasmuch as there could never have been absolute nothing -because absolute nothing could not produce anything or be anything by definition. Whatever is just is -just was "always" -but time really does not apply in the same way to simplicity. What is a day without any stars or planets -or anything else?

There was a beginning in terms of development moving from simple to complex.

It is important to consider what everything actually became -actually is -actually was.

Consider any material thing -let's say a spoon. A spoon is not a spoon -it is a collection of atoms arranged as some metal or alloy.
Those atoms are not atoms, though -they are electrons. protons, etc. -which -you guessed it -are not actually those things, either -things just keep getting more simple until they can't anymore.

Now consider yourself -or another -and the same things can be said.
Everything -including ourselves -must be made of the most simple things.
Our reality is by way of arrangement of -and interaction between arrangements of -those most simple things.
In that way, overall reality is very much like cyberspace.

Even the laws of physics would be based on most basic, simple laws -which would the the basic characteristics of those most basic things.

So... everything is real stuff -but not really -if real is permanent. The very basic stuff is permanent/always exists and is dynamic -but arrangements do not necessarily remain as they are.

We know that those simple things are now arranged as two basic things -an overall environment -and many "selves" or life forms of various description within that environment.

So... the question is really how a bunch of simple cosmic ones and zeroes became both a universe and selves able to perceive it as such.

Will write more later....

 

[Ben Dhyan]

There could have been no beginning inasmuch as there could never have been absolute nothing -because absolute nothing could not produce anything or be anything by definition. Whatever is just is -just was "always" -but time really does not apply in the same way to simplicity. What is a day without any stars or planets -or anything else?

There was a beginning in terms of development moving from simple to complex.

It is important to consider what everything actually became -actually is -actually was.

Consider any material thing -let's say a spoon. A spoon is not a spoon -it is a collection of atoms arranged as some metal or alloy.
Those atoms are not atoms, though -they are electrons. protons, etc. -which -you guessed it -are not actually those things, either -things just keep getting more simple until they can't anymore.

Now consider yourself -or another -and the same things can be said.
Everything -including ourselves -must be made of the most simple things.
Our reality is by way of arrangement of -and interaction between arrangements of -those most simple things.
In that way, overall reality is very much like cyberspace.

Even the laws of physics would be based on most basic, simple laws -which would the the basic characteristics of those most basic things.

So... everything is real stuff -but not really -if real is permanent. The very basic stuff is permanent/always exists and is dynamic -but arrangements do not necessarily remain as they are.

We know that those simple things are now arranged as two basic things -an overall environment -and many "selves" or life forms of various description within that environment.

So... the question is really how a bunch of simple cosmic ones and zeroes became both a universe and selves able to perceive it as such.

Will write more later....

Ok, so I agree there could not have been a beginning to this source for the reason you gave, and I agree that it must be eternal, beyond time. But what about space, is this source infinite in space or limited?
So that you don't get too far ahead of my understanding, let us deal with the underlying basics first if you don't mind.

 

[ppp]

There could have been no beginning inasmuch as there could never have been absolute nothing -because absolute nothing could not produce anything or be anything by definition. Whatever is just is -just was "always" -but time really does not apply in the same way to simplicity. What is a day without any stars or planets -or anything else?

I would go so far as to say that non-being cannot be. It is literally a contradiction. So there was always something. Whatever that is...who knows?

 

[cladking]

I would go so far as to say that non-being cannot be. It is literally a contradiction. So there was always something. Whatever that is...who knows?

Everything that exists has a cause. Therefore the first thing to exist had a cause and could not be the first thing to exist.

Perhaps this paradox can be resolved by assuming a relationship between time and energy. Time alone is eternal and generates energy which in sufficient amounts becomes mass.

 

[ppp]

Everything that exists has a cause.

As I said, I don't buy that premise, for the reason provided.

 

[cladking]

As I said, I don't buy that premise, for the reason provided.

I suggested that whatever always was is, always will be time.

 

[Etritonakin]

Ok, so I agree there could not have been a beginning to this source for the reason you gave, and I agree that it must be eternal, beyond time. But what about space, is this source infinite in space or limited?
So that you don't get too far ahead of my understanding, let us deal with the underlying basics first if you don't mind.

I am not saying I know all of this to be true, but much seems to me that it must be true logically.

I am just starting to think about a lot of this, so my thoughts are all over the place and I may not know how to explain them well yet.

Getting back to everything as an arrangement and perceptions thereof...
Let's say the only things which "actually" exist are two simple things which interact -and become arranged more complexly.... due to the fact that such is the most simple state possible -which could also become what now exists. (at least in my imagination at the present time -but reverse-engineering should be possible only by using the basic language of reality)
let's call them reality bits.... so reality has some sort of most basic machine code. Just as with computers, everything else is how those multiples of reality bits are arranged, processed, perceived, etc. -and the "limits" are how many of those bits can exist and become arranged.
They may have actually stumbled on the basic nature of reality when beginning to create cyberspace -as they had to start with a representation of the most basic things possible -the foundation.

They would be different than binary code in that the two simple things would not be a representation, but real, existing, permanent things with real basic properties.
They would be most basic everything possible. Most basic math, most basic logic, most basic physics..... most basic "self"/awareness/self-awareness.... and everything else.
At greatest possible simplicity, the properties we associate with physical reality, for example, would not yet exist. Atoms would not have their properties/potential for interactions....because they would not yet exist as such -as the two most basic thing were not yet arranged as such.
So.... there would be no complex environment or self in simplicity -but simple environment and self -because both of those things eventually happened and are the two basic things which do happen -stuff and awareness of stuff.

The most basic properties of those two things could be as simple as the mere fact that they exist and interact/bump into each other -whatever -but that is about all that is necessary to become all else/the perception of all else. Where one thing or part of a thing does something to another thing or part of a thing, there is most basic perception/being affected -and most basic something to perceive/be affected by -which then reacts -and interaction continues.

Space, then would be a whoooooooole lot of those most basic interactions in an arrangement we perceive as such by our own arrangement/design -as well as based on the point from which we perceive -as the "center" of a human self -location -would be/be near one set of those interactions among all others. The environment/earth/space is an arrangement which is dynamic, interactive and has stored potential for interaction based on arrangement -and we are conscious directors of potential. The environment will cause us to perceive -we will perceive interactions based on properties afforded by the logic/math of the arrangements of environment and self -which will do what they will do when in sufficient proximity to each other -and due to our arrangement/design we may understand all of this to a degree which allows us to direct it -decide its future course and arrangement. We have the potential to literally wrap our heads around everything and find the necessary point of interface to change anything -but that may already be true of the original who would be the sum of all interactions -originating from greatest simplicity -not just a portion of all, behind a wall of complexity, as we are now.

 

[cladking]

Universal principles of nature are immutable, and play out everywhere invariably in time and space, to suggest otherwise is silly unless you have proof to the contrary that nature is random and devoid of principles.

I shouldda stayed out of this thread.

I am merely suggesting that the only "immutable law" is logic. There are no "laws of nature" merely a logical unfolding of events caused by logical and unpredictable forces. Math describes reality well not because it is magical but because it is logical. Mathematics is logic quantified and reality is logic manifest. Of course there is a lot of correspondence.

 

[ppp]

I suggested that whatever always was is, always will be time.

Ah, I see what you are saying. It would be interesting if that was a possibility.

 

[ppp]

I shouldda stayed out of this thread.

I am merely suggesting that the only "immutable law" is logic. There are no "laws of nature" merely a logical unfolding of events caused by logical and unpredictable forces. Math describes reality well not because it is magical but because it is logical. Mathematics is logic quantified and reality is logic manifest. Of course there is a lot of correspondence.

I like that.

 

[Etritonakin]

I shouldda stayed out of this thread.

I am merely suggesting that the only "immutable law" is logic. There are no "laws of nature" merely a logical unfolding of events caused by logical and unpredictable forces. Math describes reality well not because it is magical but because it is logical. Mathematics is logic quantified and reality is logic manifest. Of course there is a lot of correspondence.

There are no "laws of nature" merely a logical unfolding of events....

...somewhat like human law. no traffic laws without traffic... no complex physical laws before the physical universe existed -only new laws as a result of new complex arrangement of very basic events....
the only "real" law is what allows for most basic events.

Once things happen, new dependent laws can exist -but also cease to exist if events cause them to become un-arranged.

 

[cladking]

Once things happen, new dependent laws can exist -but also cease to exist if events cause them to become un-arranged.

Maybe. But my guess is that the logic "exists" even where conditions are not yet met. If there were suddenly a vice 3' off the floor it would fall. If the universe falls in on itself when it hits some critical mass then the logic that causes it will exist even before it happens.

A lot of logic was irrelevant before the (initial) big bang probably.

We simply can't know such things at this time but I've always liked the concept of time and energy being related. It might explain the constants and what preceded the big bang. Physics is mostly stuck now. Or maybe there's no such thing as a "unified field theory" but until we have some theory to explain why gravity exists and its nature I will consider it stuck. Experiment in physics is getting tougher and tougher and we might be permanently stuck or soon will be.

I believe there are means to study such things using a non-reductionistic science but I seem to be alone in this belief.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

I am not saying I know all of this to be true, but much seems to me that it must be true logically.

I am just starting to think about a lot of this, so my thoughts are all over the place and I may not know how to explain them well yet.

Getting back to everything as an arrangement and perceptions thereof...
Let's say the only things which "actually" exist are two simple things which interact -and become arranged more complexly.... due to the fact that such is the most simple state possible -which could also become what now exists. (at least in my imagination at the present time -but reverse-engineering should be possible only by using the basic language of reality)
let's call them reality bits.... so reality has some sort of most basic machine code. Just as with computers, everything else is how those multiples of reality bits are arranged, processed, perceived, etc. -and the "limits" are how many of those bits can exist and become arranged.
They may have actually stumbled on the basic nature of reality when beginning to create cyberspace -as they had to start with a representation of the most basic things possible -the foundation.

They would be different than binary code in that the two simple things would not be a representation, but real, existing, permanent things with real basic properties.
They would be most basic everything possible. Most basic math, most basic logic, most basic physics..... most basic "self"/awareness/self-awareness.... and everything else.
At greatest possible simplicity, the properties we associate with physical reality, for example, would not yet exist. Atoms would not have their properties/potential for interactions....because they would not yet exist as such -as the two most basic thing were not yet arranged as such.
So.... there would be no complex environment or self in simplicity -but simple environment and self -because both of those things eventually happened and are the two basic things which do happen -stuff and awareness of stuff.

The most basic properties of those two things could be as simple as the mere fact that they exist and interact/bump into each other -whatever -but that is about all that is necessary to become all else/the perception of all else. Where one thing or part of a thing does something to another thing or part of a thing, there is most basic perception/being affected -and most basic something to perceive/be affected by -which then reacts -and interaction continues.

Space, then would be a whoooooooole lot of those most basic interactions in an arrangement we perceive as such by our own arrangement/design -as well as based on the point from which we perceive -as the "center" of a human self -location -would be/be near one set of those interactions among all others. The environment/earth/space is an arrangement which is dynamic, interactive and has stored potential for interaction based on arrangement -and we are conscious directors of potential. The environment will cause us to perceive -we will perceive interactions based on properties afforded by the logic/math of the arrangements of environment and self -which will do what they will do when in sufficient proximity to each other -and due to our arrangement/design we may understand all of this to a degree which allows us to direct it -decide its future course and arrangement. We have the potential to literally wrap our heads around everything and find the necessary point of interface to change anything -but that may already be true of the original who would be the sum of all interactions -originating from greatest simplicity -not just a portion of all, behind a wall of complexity, as we are now.

So what is in the space between those two things interacting with each other?

 

[Ben Dhyan]

I shouldda stayed out of this thread.

I am merely suggesting that the only "immutable law" is logic. There are no "laws of nature" merely a logical unfolding of events caused by logical and unpredictable forces. Math describes reality well not because it is magical but because it is logical. Mathematics is logic quantified and reality is logic manifest. Of course there is a lot of correspondence.

By laws of nature, we are referring to the principles of nature observed by man. The logic observed in nature could be called laws of nature.

 

[Etritonakin]

Maybe. But my guess is that the logic "exists" even where conditions are not yet met. If there were suddenly a vice 3' off the floor it would fall. If the universe falls in on itself when it hits some critical mass then the logic that causes it will exist even before it happens.

A lot of logic was irrelevant before the (initial) big bang probably.

We simply can't know such things at this time but I've always liked the concept of time and energy being related. It might explain the constants and what preceded the big bang. Physics is mostly stuck now. Or maybe there's no such thing as a "unified field theory" but until we have some theory to explain why gravity exists and its nature I will consider it stuck. Experiment in physics is getting tougher and tougher and we might be permanently stuck or soon will be.

I believe there are means to study such things using a non-reductionistic science but I seem to be alone in this belief.

That's what I was getting at -there must be some permanent foundation