For me your philosophy is un-understandable poetry. Now that I finally have some understanding of the import of Bruno's comp perhaps I should try to understand your concept of sense. Richard
On Wed, Oct 30, 2013 at 11:51 AM, Craig Weinberg <[email protected]>wrote: > > > On Wednesday, October 30, 2013 11:35:57 AM UTC-4, yanniru wrote: >> >> Richard: Here are a few quotes from http://www.** >> sciencemeetsreligion.org/**physics/multiverse.php<http://www.sciencemeetsreligion.org/physics/multiverse.php> >> that **indicate that the current discussion of quantum physics, string >> physics and cosmology is really all about whether or not there is a god >> creator. Atheistic scientists like Hawking prefer MWI (Many World >> Interpretation of quantum mechanics) which predicts a multiverse of >> overlapping, parallel, unobservable universes. But many if not most >> scientists find such a notion anathema even though it seems to be the only >> way to make sense out of quantum theory. I find it interesting that comp >> seemingly supports the Hindu concept of maya as well as MWI. >> >> >> Excerpts: >> >> Needless to say, many theologically-minded persons view the multiverse as >> a futile and pathetic attempt to avoid the notion that God is the Designer >> of the universe. Philosopher-theologian Neil Manson described the >> multiverse as "the last resort for the desperate atheist" >> [Davies2007<http://www.sciencemeetsreligion.org/resources/bibliography.html#Davies2007>, >> pg. 265]. >> >> * >> * >> >> *Paul Davies*: Davies, a leading physicist, notes that the multiverse >> represents an inconceivably flagrant violation of Occam's razor -- >> postulating an enormous ensemble of essentially unobservable universes, >> just to explain our own. What's more, if the multiverse exists, then not >> only would universes like ours exist, but also vastly more universes where >> advanced technological civilizations acquire the power to *simulate* >> universes >> like ours on computer. Thus our entire universe, including all >> "intelligent" residents, are merely avatars in some computer simulation. In >> that case, how can we possibly take the "laws of nature" seriously? [ >> Davies2007<http://www.sciencemeetsreligion.org/resources/bibliography.html#Davies2007>, >> pg. 179-185]. >> >> * >> * >> >> *David Gross*: As a leading string theorist, he invokes Winston >> Churchill in urging fellow researchers to "Never, ever, ever, ever, ever, >> ever, ever, ever give up" in seeking a single, compelling theory that >> eliminates the need for anthropic/multiverse arguments >> [Susskind2005<http://www.sciencemeetsreligion.org/resources/bibliography.html#Susskind2005> >> , >> >> pg. 355]. >> >> * >> * >> >> *Joseph Polchinski*: Polchinski is one of the leading researchers in >> string theory, but he sees no alternative to the multiverse-anthropic view [ >> Susskind2005<http://www.sciencemeetsreligion.org/resources/bibliography.html#Susskind2005>, >> pg. 350]. >> >> * >> * >> >> *Steven Weinberg*: "For what it is worth, I hope that [the >> multiverse-anthropic view] is not the case. As a theoretical physicist, I >> would like to see us able to make precise predictions, not vague statements >> that certain constants have to be in a range that is more or less favorable >> to life. I hope that string theory really will provide a basis for a final >> theory and that this theory will turn out to have enough predictive power >> to be able to prescribe values for all the constants of nature including >> the cosmological constant. We shall see." >> [Weinberg1993<http://www.sciencemeetsreligion.org/resources/bibliography.html#Weinberg1993>, >> pg. 229]. >> >> >> Richard: I assumed digital physics (ie., creation from math >> computations) in a quantum holographic string universe and metaverse in the >> hope to avoid both a creator and a MWI multiverse. It turned out that the >> computational machine of the metaverse (based on string theory) is somewhat >> like a god that creates a host of big bang universes containing matter and >> energy, but is an entirely natural (or supernatural) phenomenon, assuming >> of course that the Metaverse has a nature. But I am at a loss to say what >> creates or programs the Metaverse, unless it is turtles all the way down. >> > > If the primordial identity is sense, then we don't need a Metaverse which > exhausts possibilities with literal creation. Instead, possibilities are > driven by nested intention. Sense is elliptical. Unlike a computation, > sense does not need to repeat itself in order to get the point. It can > deliver a set of associations through a broad gesture that is multivalent > and meta-phoric. Through gravity (entropy squared), the universe is reigned > in and Occam's catastrophe is ground to insignificance and crushed into > black holes. The universe is not only singular, it is absolute singularity > itself. The essence of boundaryless simplicity, unrepeatability, and > uniqueness. > > Craig > > >> >> >> >> On Wed, Oct 30, 2013 at 1:07 AM, Craig Weinberg <[email protected]>wrote: >> >>> A Quora answer to the following question. Nothing new for me here >>> probably, but It's maybe organized in a more concise way. >>> >>> >>>> Philosophy: If human beings are nothing more than matter, why are you >>>> conscious as >>>> yourself?<http://www.quora.com/Philosophy/If-human-beings-are-nothing-more-than-matter-why-are-you-conscious-as-yourself> >>>> The implication of materialism is that we are in essence wet robots, >>>> without free will, just chemical reactions. But if this is true and we are >>>> conscious, then does it logically follow that all chemical reactions have >>>> "consciousness" to some degree? If the human mind is just an extremely >>>> advanced computer, then at what point does "consciousness" occur? >>>> >>> >>> We don’t know that chemical reactions are unconscious, but if they were, >>> then it makes sense that the entire universe would also be unconscious. It >>> is very tricky to examine the issue of consciousness and to draw parallels >>> within common experience without unintentionally smuggling in our own >>> expectations from consciousness itself. This is the Petito principii or >>> circular reasoning which derails most fair considerations of consciousness >>> before they even begin in earnest. >>> >>> Unlike a clock which is made up of gears, or a particular sized pile of >>> hay, the addition of consciousness has no conceivable consequence to the >>> physical function of a body. While we can observe a haystack burst into >>> flames because it has grown too hot, we cannot look at the behavior of a >>> human body see any special difference from the behavior of any other >>> physical body. There is complexity, but complexity alone need not point to >>> anything beyond an adjacency of simple parts and isolated chains of effects. >>> >>> Just as no degree of complication within a clock’s mechanism would >>> suddenly turn into a Shakespearean sonnet, the assumption of universal >>> substitution is not necessarily appropriate for all phenomena, and for >>> consciousness in particular. To get a color image, for instance, we need to >>> print in colored dots, not black and white. Color TV programs cannot be >>> broadcast over a monochrome display without losing their color. >>> >>> Unlike chemical or mechanical transformation, the nature of awareness is >>> not implicated in the shuffling of material particles from one place or >>> another. Any natural force can be used to do that. We have no scientific >>> reason to insist that conscious participation and aesthetic appreciation is >>> derived from some simpler functioning of complex systems. To the contrary, >>> ‘complexity’, and ‘system’ can only make sense in the context of a window >>> of perception and attention. Without some teleological intent to see one >>> part as part of a whole, and to compare remembered events with current >>> perceptions, there is no such thing as ‘function’ at all. >>> >>> There are several important points wrapped up in this question, which I >>> will try to sum up. >>> >>> *1. The failure to consider consciousness metaphysically.* >>> >>> This is the most important and most intractable issue, for three reasons: >>> >>> >>> - because it is difficult for anyone to try to put their mind >>> outside of mind. It’s annoying, and winds up feeling foolish and >>> disoriented. >>> - because it is difficult in particular for the very people who need >>> most to get past the difficulty. I have found that most people who are >>> good >>> with logic and scientific reasoning are not necessarily capable of doing >>> what others can. The skillset appears to be neurological, like handedness >>> or gender orientation. >>> - because those who do have difficulty with thinking this way are >>> often not used to intellectual challenges that escape their grasp, their >>> reaction is so defensive that they react with intolerance. It’s not their >>> fault, but it cannot be cured it seems. Some people cannot see 3-D Magic >>> Eye art. Some cannot program their way out of a paper bag. In this case >>> it >>> is the ability to consider consciousness from a prospective rather than a >>> retrospective view which can prove so inaccessible to so many people, >>> that >>> frothing at the mouth and babbling about unicorns, magic, and the >>> supernatural is considered a reasonable and scientific, skeptical >>> response. >>> Of course, it is none of those things, but it takes a lot of patience and >>> courage to be able to recognize one’s own prejudices, especially when we >>> are used to being the ones telling others about their biases. >>> >>> >>> *2. The taboo against metaphysics, panpsychism, and transrationality* >>> >>> Long after Einstein, Gödel, and Heisenberg shattered the Humpty Dumpty >>> certainties of classical math and physics, we are still trying to piece him >>> back together. Regardless of how much we learn about the strange properties >>> of matter, time, energy, biology, and neurology, there are a huge number of >>> very intelligent people who are convinced that we will only know the truth >>> about the universe when it all looks like a vast deterministic mechanism. >>> >>> The compulsion to reduce awareness to passive mathematical or physical >>> states is ironic, given that the defense of automaticity is often >>> accompanied by very hands on personal intention. Even when it is pointed >>> out that arguing against free will is futile (since someone without free >>> will could not change their own opinion about it even if they wanted to, >>> let alone someone else’s opinion), the mind of the determined determinist >>> will always find a way of insist upon being in the right, even when they >>> are ultimately sawing of the limb that they are sitting on. >>> >>> When it comes to anything that suggests the possibility of non-human >>> awareness, many people not only become personally uncomfortable, but they >>> become socially uncomfortable as well. The taboo against unconventional >>> views on science (even when backed by anthropological universality) is so >>> pervasive and xenophobic that it is career suicide for a working scientist >>> to publicly acknowledge them in any but the most condescending tones. >>> >>> *3. The pathetic fallacy* >>> >>> The pathetic fallacy is to take a metaphor in which some inanimate >>> object is given a human quality (“The camera loves you”), and take it >>> literally. While I count myself among those who once saw computation and >>> pattern as being the only ingredient necessary for awareness or life, my >>> understanding now is that no pattern can exist without a capacity for >>> pattern recognition. The ability to receive and make sense of the real >>> world is not a matter of generic relations of disembodied bits of >>> “information”, but is in fact the concrete reality of the cosmos. The >>> universe does not exist for us humans, but it cannot exist as silent, >>> unconscious, intangible physics for billions of years and then suddenly >>> invent the whole of sensation, emotion, intuition, cognition, etc, just for >>> some hominids on this backwater planet. It now strikes me as profoundly >>> anthropocentric to imagine that the entire universe could be devoid of >>> perceptual content until life evolved. >>> >>> In my view, the universe itself is nothing but a continuum of qualities >>> of consciousness. These qualities, however, relate to experienced contexts. >>> We cannot take the human-ness out of a human and put it into a machine. >>> Biology has mechanisms and performs computation, but if that’s it was doing >>> then the inside of the brain would look like logic, not like sex and >>> violence and musical theater. >>> >>> -- >>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google >>> Groups "Everything List" group. >>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send >>> an email to everything-li...@**googlegroups.com. >>> To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.**com. >>> Visit this group at >>> http://groups.google.com/**group/everything-list<http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list> >>> . >>> For more options, visit >>> https://groups.google.com/**groups/opt_out<https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out> >>> . >>> >> >> -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Everything List" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to [email protected]. > To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. > Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
