existence of the universe, God, and physics

[Skidoo]

A few eV discharged by neural conduction? Surly that can't be the final measure of mental potential.

[Metric]

Of course not, but it sets the energy scale of the required physics. At the scale of a few eV, you certainly don't need the full standard model (to say nothing about next-generation theories). In fact, you'd want to simplify and make approximations left and right to get down to a model that you could actually hope to simulate with enough computing power some day -- but that's still incredibly ambitious...

[FortunaMaximus]

Yes, it is, but that is not to say it isn't a noble ambition. I've been mulling over cybernetics theory and keeping an eye on bioinformatics developments, trying to tie the two together in a coordinated POV.

The long-term implications, especially with the increase in raw computing power could be quite staggering.

I think it is theortically possible to map the processes of the brain as a whole, MRI, EEG, etc. The how eludes me though, at this point.

And the fact that computing packs, or seems to be able to pack denser data sets in a silicate/electrical setting on a mass utility basis than the Universe does naturally makes me wonder.

As far as practicality, heh. Maybe that's not my following.

[Skidoo]

Okay. Maybe one knows the energies (wavelengths) and physical components for each part (as arbitrarily defined), but it could be that the whole is not merely an extreme superposition but rather demands entirely new (and unknowable to the brain itself) phenomena.

[MoreGentilythanU]

excellent post metric.

[signal]

[ QUOTE ]
Now some definitions from this point of view: Virtually everyone believes that there is a something which grants our particular set of physical laws reality. If you believe (or assume) that this something has some properties vaguely similar to what we would call consciousness or self-awareness or personality, then you call this something God, and people call you a theist or deist. If you believe (or assume) that this something does not have consciousness or personality associated with it, then I'm not sure what you call it -- maybe just "something" for now, but in any case other people call you an atheist. But my contention is that whatever this "something" is, it is almost certainly not described by physics in the usual sense of the word, though we all believe in "it" in one way or another.


[/ QUOTE ]

I don't have much to add to yr post except some disconnected comments. I am, however, interested in all the subjects yr post touched. Just some comments hopefully they will not suck too much.
I quoted the above so as to juxtapose another quote I read from Alan Watts some time ago (paraphrasing):

'If you agree that you are a part of the universe (tautologically defined as reality is all that is real...) then in a sense the universe is aware of itself.'

I understand what you are saying about physical laws... nomology as some say.... what ensures their validity for all time t, are they dynamic, etc

But, I think if we can agree that space is something that can be understood (even by the limited intellect of man) then perhaps time can be understood in a similar manner. That is time could be perceived analogously to a manner in which we as humans can perceive space.

There are other issues which remain and writers are exposing these things as time passes as well. Subjects like qualia, epiphenomenalism, etc, seem to either argue for or against psycho-physical laws... how do these fit into the philosophy of mind too?

But we have to realize the possibility that there is a certain unknowable quadrant that composes the human mind... I ran into this wall when all I thought about was determinism/indeterminism and the other possibilities: i read Kant, Hume, Honderich, Chalmers (and all the writers he has collected on his site), etc and finally I concluded I am either not smart enough or ...

I work in physics these days. I study entangled photons. It seems a reasonable thing to do since we have quite an adversary here.

I think it may be my (our?) fate to live and die in awe.

So I apologize for the disjointed (desultory) post... I will be at foxwoods tomorrow though.

ps I think you are driving at panpsychism type stuff... is this true? Even though I am in the science field I realize it has its limitations so one mustbe careful in its applications.

cordially,
.

[FortunaMaximus]

Intriguing post.

[ QUOTE ]
And the fact that computing packs, or seems to be able to pack denser data sets in a silicate/electrical setting on a mass utility basis than the Universe does naturally makes me wonder.

[/ QUOTE ]

Some more thoughts:

Yes, improvising and tinkering by the day. Hourly, even. See, time has a perceptual feel to me I don't see in most humans. Accidental.

Uh, 4 orbits in, I realize mortality's an irrational unprovable. Adults didn't seem to get it. Dumbman trigger myself to forget it, have had 1/2 dozen crunches since then. Clearer, vaster. Causes mental instability.

But solid frame of references now, slowdown triggers. A woman, of course.

Not a tautological, but dualological. Photon entanglement only has validity within a light cone (Universal), um. There's temporal enclosure, and self-imposed limits. Superluminal travel requires negative mass, wormholes, etc.

Realized in the bigger picture, easily provable in a multiconal Universe. Distances between two Universes are immeasurable, as it's a pulsed loop. Get the parameters correct, trigger a superluminal enclosing mass/energy, it'll pull a Jaylene Slide, virtual walls. Zerotime, but there's a rubberband effect that lands you in Universes with same exact parameters to .9999 -> 1.000 -> -1.000 <--- .9999...

The trigger effect occurs and causality is self-saved during the float interval.

Backdraft effects within the original spacetime, ripples in the steady state should cause vacuum ripples and energy imbalances.

Those imbalances should trigger other singularities that are created with same potential conditions for a new Universe. Tose singularities are merely an infinte nut packed in a finite shell with finite light cone/potential for infinity expansion. Note that it is impossible to create a Big Bang singularity without using the whole Universe.

And the set expands. The uncertainities effectively keep the overall cohesiveness of a single Universe in a quantum variant state.

And complexity increases as there are more triggers, denser elements, denser conditions for life, emergent properties of awareness. Noospheric expansion would be a logical causative effect.

It's bigger than God. Even she looks across the shores and wonder what the [censored]'s going on. She's pretty sure she started something, doesn't know what. Doesn't know who woke up first either.

Anyway. As for the misfires, I don't know. Treat information as having the same inviolability as mass/energy.

And information is merely an emergent property of mathematics, a denser, more fluid layer of logic, with positive and negative and zerostate properties.

Still a lot to disentangle, but that's the best I'll allow myself to do tonight. Can't outrun myself again.

Take care,

K.

[John21]

[ QUOTE ]
'If you agree that you are a part of the universe (tautologically defined as reality is all that is real...) then in a sense the universe is aware of itself.'

[/ QUOTE ]

Where I run into trouble is trying to conceive of how this could be, without an extra mental dimension or some kind of transcendent quality inherent to awareness/consciousness.

If we define the physical world as ultimately some type of vibration or wave function in space, and conclude that we are aware of this, we could explain this definition casually. But the problem, as I see it, is that what we observe (waves) are what we ultimately observe them with. So whether it's an electron microscope, our eyes or even the neural activity in our brain, the very stuff we observe is the stuff doing the observing.

I'm sure you're aware of all this, but I'm just using the example to highlight the idea of inter-connectedness that must be present, at least on the physical level. From the star through the telescope, into our eyes, and finally the neurons in our brain, it seems there must be an unbroken line of connection. That does well to explain the physical aspect of reality, but the only way for us to actually become aware of it (waves), is if it is aware of itself, i.e. having some quality of self-awareness inherent within itself.

But frankly, I don't see how this could be so. However our ideas of reality are conceived, we ultimately end up referring to the dimensional aspects of it. So no matter how many dimensions we attribute to reality, we end up asking ourselves: if everything is interconnected how can a dimension be aware of itself? With awareness implying some type of self-reference, how could it get out of its own dimension to view itself?

I haven't run across a satisfactory answer to those questions, which leads me to doubt that the properties of awareness are inherent within physical reality. But if we grant awareness as being self-evident and at the same time conclude that awareness isn't a property of physical reality, then where does it come from?

One possible conclusion I've reached is that awareness has a transcendent nature. I use the term transcendent loosely, and it could better be described as transducent. If we can logically separate physical reality from our awareness of it, I think we could begin to define another fundamental interaction. So, akin to the way induction occurs in the electro-magnetic interaction - physical reality induces awareness.

That conclusion has led me to speculate on the possibility of the process being reversed, and asking if awareness can induce physical reality. My conclusion, unlike the transcendentalists, is no. However, it may not require inducing the entire spectrum of reality, only one dimension. And the one dimension I've settled on is time.

It's just speculation of course, but the idea that physical reality induces the aspect of space on mind and the mind induces the aspect of time on space, and concluding that it's a fundamental interaction, seems intriguing to me. But I'm a nut-job.

[Skidoo]

[ QUOTE ]
I quoted the above so as to juxtapose another quote I read from Alan Watts some time ago (paraphrasing):

'If you agree that you are a part of the universe (tautologically defined as reality is all that is real...) then in a sense the universe is aware of itself.'

[/ QUOTE ]

If you agree that you are a part of the universe, then a part of the universe is aware of itself.

Metric,

Can the cause of the universe be inferred through measurement within the universe?

[Metric]

[ QUOTE ]
Metric,

Can the cause of the universe be inferred through measurement within the universe?

[/ QUOTE ]
That's the million dollar question. I suppose one point of my post is that I don't see any reason to expect the answer to be "yes," if confined to the structure of physics, which merely attempts to build better predictive models of stuff happening within the universe.