The sophistication of how to use knowledge is arguable to no end. But for
reasons of fascination you may thread two wires between knowledge and
consciousness. The more conscious an entity is, the more it can observe and
reflect upon its environment and use knowledge to pursue its fundamental goal
(stay conscious).
Given every bit of the universe from the Big Bang to where we are now, you can
weave these two threads between various forms of self-organizing matter with
varying levels of knowledge or sophistication building layers upon layers. All
in order to ensure a state of continuity is achieved by ever lasting
consciousness being pushed out into higher life forms reaching greater and
greater knowledge, and consciousness, or you may call it novelty.
It’s not so much life wants to exist, it’s that consciousness wants to exist
and keeps evolving into higher forms of complexity and in order to exist must
create various supporting systems that we understand as the observable universe.
On Nov 18, 2019, 16:33 -0800, Philip Thrift <cloudver...@gmail.com>, wrote:
>
>
> On Monday, November 18, 2019 at 3:48:35 PM UTC-6, Brent wrote:
> >
> > In using path integrals you arrive a probabilities for various possible
> > outcomes. But that's not the end of the science. You also
> > observe/measure/experience some particular outcome. And then you compute
> > future path integrals starting from the observed state...using the observed
> > state implies you went from a state of uncertainty expressed by
> > probabilities to a state of certainty regarding the new state....aka using
> > knowledge.
> >
> > Brent
>
>
>
>
> Knowledge is something having to do with human brains ("knowing"), and when
> they became the "engines" of speaking and writing, then knowledge could be
> communicated between intelligent beings. (Perhaps other primates too are
> knowledge-able, but that's debatable.)
>
> Now it seems to me that in the first few billion years at least of the
> universe (after the Big Bang) there were no knowledge-able beings, There
> hadn't been time for them to evolve anywhere.
>
> But during that time quantum processes (and chemical, and at least somewhere
> at some point biological precesses) were going along fine without any
> knowledge-able beings exiting, and thus there was no knowledge changing" --
> because there was no knowledge during that time.
>
> So how is knowledge needed as a concept in any way in QM when QM processes
> were occurring in the universe fine before knowledge existed?
>
> Whoever put "knowledge: in QM screwed up.
>
> @philipthrift
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> 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-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To view this discussion on the web visit
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/58fa8c1a-ebdf-46c6-aada-418fde337e0f%40googlegroups.com.
--
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-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/c6f09c1d-6452-4665-8f98-257dbcc4328e%40Spark.
