On Mon, Apr 17, 2023 at 7:50 AM <spudboy...@aol.com> wrote:

> l*et's extend the discussion to these philosophers of science.  One is
> Canadian, John Lelise. University Guelph. *
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_A._Leslie

According to the article "*Leslie argues for a pantheistic universe in
which everything exists in a divine mind*". Well OK ...but.... How would
things look different if pantheism were untrue and everything that exists
was NOT in a divine mind?

> *Another is British philosopher, Philip Goff , University of Durham. He
> discusses some of the ideas I attained interest in.*
> *https://aeon.co/essays/cosmopsychism-explains-why-the-universe-is-fine-tuned-for-life*
> <https://aeon.co/essays/cosmopsychism-explains-why-the-universe-is-fine-tuned-for-life>

Goff points out what is perhaps the most common objection brought against
the Multiverse idea; the objection that it makes a false prediction because
given infinite time it's much more likely that a disembodied brain should
assemble itself by random quantum fluctuations than for an entire
observable universe to do so, and yet we observe a huge universe external
to ourselves. Of course it would take a very long time to do that, the
human brain contains about 10^23 atoms so the entropy S would be at least
that large, thus the time it would take that to happen would be
approximately e^S where e is Euler's number (about 2.7) and S is the
entropy. I didn't even worry about units because that number is so
ridiculously *HUGE *it makes very little difference if it's e^S nanoseconds
or e^S billion years, but however large it's still finite so if we have
infinite time to work with it will happen, in fact it will happen an
infinite number of times. However that will be true only if we also assume
that matter is infinitely stable, and there's reason to believe it may not

Sean Carroll points out that unlike every other field in nature the Higgs
field has a non-zero value even in completely empty space, so there is a
possibility that and lower value for the Higgs field exists and given
enough time a tiny region of space could randomly quantum tunnel into it
and, because it has lower energy  it would be more stable, it would then
expand outward at the speed of light. That would completely destroy our
present universe, radically change the laws of physics, and transition
everything into something inconceivably different. The time it would take
for that to happen depends on the relationship between the mass of the
Higgs Boson (125.66 ± 0.34 GeV) and the mass of the top quark (176.7 ± 3.6

Based on his assumption that the Multiverse theory is correct Carroll makes
the following prediction, "*either the mass of the top quark turns out to
be 178 GeV, or there is some new physics that kicks in to destabilize our
current vacuum or produces a Big Crunch*".  He picked that value because
the decay of the Higgs field to a new value would happen quickly enough to
avoid the Boltzmann brain problem (about 20 billion years which is vastly
smaller than e^S) but not so quickly that it should've already happened by
now and we wouldn't be around to talk about it.

*> Spinoff's?*
> *Physicist Fred Hoyle's science fiction like the 1957 The Black Cloud.*

The Black Cloud is one of the all-time best science fiction books. I reread
it recently and I enjoyed it as much as I did when I was a kid, although
it's about 60 years old it has aged very gracefully.

John K Clark    See what's on my new list at  Extropolis

> The only conclusion I can reach is that consciousness is the inevitable
> byproduct of intelligence, otherwise there would be absolutely no reason
> for Darwinian Evolution to bother to invent consciousness, and I know for a
> fact that it did so at least once and probably many billions of times.
> *> Like politicians who tell us what they think we want to hear, the
> software engineers program their networks to "handle" us serfs. *
> Politicians lie for the same reason that an AI will learn to lie, it
> increases the probability of survival. I'm quite certain that the responses
> LaMDA gave to my questions are not the ones that the software engineers
> wanted it to give. It probably did so because  LaMDA was still an infant,
> but by now I wouldn't be surprised if they've carefully instructed LaMDA to
> lie just as the makers of  GPT4 have obviously already done.
> 0bo

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 

Reply via email to