KF on Proof

_{Barry Arrington

July 29, 2021

Intelligent Design}

Share: Facebook; Twitter/X; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

KF’s comment to a prior post deserves its own OP. If only people understood the simple, yet profound, point KF is making. KF writes:

Proof is a term too often used more for rhetorical impact than for humble acknowledgement of the achievements and limitations of human reasoning and deduction especially. As such, we must bear Godel in mind, truth and proof are very different, and axiomatic systems for complicated areas face incompleteness and/or possible incoherence. Even mathematics is not an absolutely certain discipline. Science cannot prove beyond such and such has so far passed certain empirical tests and may be taken as so far reliable, when it is at its best. Too often it is not and becomes a lab coat that gives unwarranted credibility to ideology. So, we end up at pisteis, rhetorical proof, where we seek to provide reasonable warrant for beliefs or opinions etc, and must reckon with the issues lurking behind pathos, ethos, logos. We are in the end, faith-driven reasoners, the issue is which faith, which set of first plausibles, why and why in light of comparative difficulties. But to get that far we must first make sure that we do not undermine the basic credibility of responsible reason through sawing off the branch on which we all must sit, the error of hyperskepticism.

Comments

MNY, topsy-turvy. KFkairosfocus_{August 3, 2021
August
08
Aug
3
03
2021
10:03 PM
10
10
03
PM
PDT}

All besides the point argumentation. The problem area is subjectvity, not objectivity. The logic used in common discourse with subjective opinions, like to say that something is beautiful, is that a subjective opinion is chosen, and that the opinion expresses what it is that makes a choice. Which means the spirit makes choices, and is identified with a chosen opinion. From this derives the creationist conceptual scheme: 1. Creator / chooses / spiritual / subjective / opinion 2. Creation / chosen / material / objective / fact So we obtain the fundamentals of reasoning, the concepts of opinion and fact, from the creationist conceptual scheme. The creationist conceptual scheme, engrained as it is in common discourse understanding of things, should be recognized as the default. It is very obvious that the people who throw out subjectivity and emotions, predominantly atheists, but including many religious, are the people that are causing the systemic problems. The people who argue God is a neccessary objective being, betray their wrong philosophy by that they do not acknowledge human emotions, on a properly subjective basis. It betrays that their argument for God as a neccessary objective being, is an argument against subjectivity in general, and not just an argument against subjectivity in regards to God. And because of this philosophy, atheists get a free pass in their largescale destruction of subjectivity, because they are not opposed for it by the religious. It then makes perfect sense that an ideology like nazism could have taken hold, in a country where the vast majority was educated in Christianity, because the religious did nothing much to teach that personal character is a subjective issue, and not a matter of biological fact. The evidence clearly shows that lack of acceptance of subjectivity is what causes societal catastrophy, and not this lack of acceptance of objectivity, proof.mohammadnursyamsu_{August 3, 2021
August
08
Aug
3
03
2021
02:47 PM
2
02
47
PM
PDT}

WJM, meaning comes from mind but readily finds expression in functional manipulation of things in the world, e.g. when we talk we manipulate vibrations to transmit meaningful sounds. Similarly, we create tools, buildings and many artifacts including those of information technology. Such, we are using to interact over a global information structure, the Internet. In this case such involves typing -- use of our hands and equipment that expresses information using a keyboard -- and coded alphanumeric signals. The living cell has in it coded alphanumeric algorithmic information, in D/RNA. And so, meaning may be expressed in the physical world, acquiring a degree of independence of us. KFkairosfocus_{August 2, 2021
August
08
Aug
2
02
2021
11:41 PM
11
11
41
PM
PDT}

Kairosfocus WJM, framing physics in a worldviews context is hardly relevant to the matter of first steps in reasoning informed by first truths, first facts, first principles and duties.
:) Imagine a child playing a computer game and by chance has touched few keys and appeared a line of code and is very proud of him and tell everyone what he discovered that the game is not a game ...Lieutenant Commander Data_{August 2, 2021
August
08
Aug
2
02
2021
01:05 PM
1
01
05
PM
PDT}

One of the interesting aspects of the video AD referred to was in their explanation of what information is: information is meaning. What is meaning? All meaning is derived from comparison and contrast. This goes back to the fundamental principles of logic: identity, excluded middle and non-contradiction. There is no comparison, thus no meaning, without those principles at the root of it. Also, meaning only exists in a conscious mind. It is observed and experienced by individuals who live in a logical "world" (fundamental principles) where comparisons and contrasts can be drawn. It also requires what is experienced a consistent sequence of experiences, which is developed in another set of mental phenomenal we call "memory." These comparative and contrasting sequences of experience might be said to provide meaning to the conscious mind, but, under the theory, this is not what is actually going on. Meaning, in its broadest sense (from basic logical principles) is an essential commodity for the very existence of consciousness. From a non-temporal perspective, consciousness, meaning and the reality that must exist to support that meaning can be said to be eternally coexistent. From the theory, which corresponds to my IRT, all possible meanings are being simultaneously experienced in "universal" consciousness. Exploring this a bit further, particular meanings require both a particular "character" and corresponding context providing the necessary comparisons and contrasts. This might be best expressed in literary terms with various kinds of conscious characters and contexts that express the meaning of that character's life, so to speak. The lover, the sage, the caregiver, the rebel, the everyman, etc, and various mixtures of these general character archetypes. According to the implications of this theory, the realities we experience are not only the physical "manifestation" of this meaning, but it also accounts for much of emotional and psychological reactions and a many of our own thoughts: they are the expressions of this mixture of meaning, of your internal, usually subconscious, idea of who, what and where you are, and what you are doing and why. It's kind of interesting to interact with people and assess what kind of character traits they have from this perspective - how they see things, organize them, their reactions, etc.William J Murray_{August 2, 2021
August
08
Aug
2
02
2021
06:40 AM
6
06
40
AM
PDT}

WJM, framing physics in a worldviews context is hardly relevant to the matter of first steps in reasoning informed by first truths, first facts, first principles and duties. One, however must creep before one walks much less runs and flies. Considerable knowledge base at civilisation level has to be developed to get to the point where physics is a possible discipline. And, such is not done at serious level by ordinary people with equivalent of high school diplomas. You have compared creeping with space flight and rocket science. KFkairosfocus_{August 2, 2021
August
08
Aug
2
02
2021
05:02 AM
5
05
02
AM
PDT}

F/N: we can readily observe that the basic point on proofs and their limits clearly stands.kairosfocus_{August 2, 2021
August
08
Aug
2
02
2021
04:48 AM
4
04
48
AM
PDT}

F/N: On reality is made of information, it would be a fairer summary that it is framed mathematically. Where, mathematics -- cf here [this came up earlier in the L&FP series] -- has two poles: the substance of structure and quantity, and the study of such. A core of that structure is built into any possible world, starting with distinct identity, giving math utter universality tied to logic of being for any possible world. Other aspects specify a given world, in effect its particular framework, and in our case reflect fine tuning in many ways. Much of this will be quantitative and structural, often as intelligible laws such as those of thermodynamics. Where energy is the currency of time, events occur as constrained by energy flow dynamics, tied to causal-temporal patterns. This framework points to design of our world in ways that enable terrestrial planet, C-chem, aqueous medium cell based life starting with element abundance with H He C O topping the list and N nearby. H is root, He is gateway to the periodic table through stellar fusion etc, O gives us water, C gives us organic chem, N gives us proteins. These being highly information rich molecules. KF PS: Functionally specific information can also be found in special configurations. PPS: That we find a lawful cosmos with fine tuning points to design, it does not require or promote a simulation-world. Note, energy and mass are interchangeable and energy flow is at the heart of time. Indeed, the type of cosmos we see points away from what would be the likeliest sim world on a multiverse type model, a Boltzmann brain fluctuation. PPPS: Energy can be associated with ordering or organisation but also with disorder and chaos, indeed the 2nd law is about a trend to dissipate concentrations of energy. Energy has distinct characteristics from information, in short, and a rhetoric pivoting on staged mini debates lost by modern Simplicios does not hack it as a serious discussion.kairosfocus_{August 2, 2021
August
08
Aug
2
02
2021
04:47 AM
4
04
47
AM
PDT}

AD @76, Yes, I've seen that video. The video is a good way of seeing how difficult coming to an understanding of these concepts is, and how difficult it is to even use common language in trying to describe these things.William J Murray_{August 2, 2021
August
08
Aug
2
02
2021
02:36 AM
2
02
36
AM
PDT}

PPS: BTW, since C19, there has been a well known framework for the value of c, starting with the wave equation for electromagnetic waves, the dielectric constant and magnetic permittivity of free space. That is, light was found to be a form of electromagnetic waves which -- per the mathematics of waves in a medium -- propagates at a speed set by basic properties of space itself. And yes space itself is a physical entity with definite properties. Further to such, Wiki can be called as witness to the current state of affairs:
The speed of light in vacuum, commonly denoted c, is a universal physical constant important in many areas of physics. Its exact value is defined as 299792458 metres per second (approximately 300000 km/s, or 186000 mi/s [--> more useful, 300 m/microsecond]).[Note 3] It is exact because, by international agreement, a metre is defined as the length of the path travelled by light in vacuum during a time interval of 1 / 299792458 second.[Note 4][3] According to special relativity, c is the upper limit for the speed at which conventional matter, energy or any signal carrying information can travel through space. Though this speed is most commonly associated with light, it is also the speed at which all massless particles and field perturbations travel in vacuum, including electromagnetic radiation (of which light is a small range in the frequency spectrum) and gravitational waves. Such particles and waves travel at c regardless of the motion of the source or the inertial reference frame of the observer. Particles with nonzero rest mass can approach c, but can never actually reach it, regardless of the frame of reference in which their speed is measured. In the special and general theories of relativity, c interrelates space and time, and also appears in the famous equation of mass–energy equivalence, E = mc^2.[4] In some cases objects or waves may appear to travel faster than light (e.g. phase velocities of waves, the appearance of certain high-speed astronomical objects, and particular quantum effects). The expansion of the universe is understood to exceed the speed of light beyond a certain boundary.
The vid's remarks on the speed of light are a bit of a clanger given something as accessible as this. As for wider suggestions on theories of everything, pardon my wait-see attitude.kairosfocus_{August 1, 2021
August
08
Aug
1
01
2021
11:53 PM
11
11
53
PM
PDT}

AD, pardon, but there is not much there there, given that we are dealing with two widely divergent issues. Your linked video starts with crystallography, which discipline takes the independent, observable physical world and contents including atoms, ions, crystals and amorphous solids seriously, also taking the testimony of our senses and first facts seriously.* Despite projections of strawman caricatures, it is clear enough that WJM has advocated in effect a modified, networked panpsychism, which starts by exploiting the fact that our experience is self-aware to suggest or invite that our first facts of experience, of being embodied in a wider world independent of our particular perceptions and views, are dubious or delusional. Notice, his reaction to the standard meaning of the term, embodiment; he cannot concede that the general prevailing common sense understanding of our race, embedded in the standard meaning of relevant words -- for cause -- is that we are living self-aware, rational, communicative creatures of bodily form who experience a common world, starting with the first facts of our conscious self- and world- awareness. On either case, his view is self-referential and inviting of plato's cave style grand delusions in a cascade. Such views are self-referential and self-discrediting as one's own perceptions are caught up in the web too. KF *PS: Yes, the narrator goes on to talk about a research group's speculations on "all of reality" as a case of 8 --> 4 --> 3 + t projection, but instantly all of reality is another monism, physicalism which is self-referentially discrediting by implicitly reducing free responsible reason to GIGO-limited computation on a dynamic-stochastic substrate. Yes they talk of consciousness as a new element but in fact it is an old one, the world and underlying reality must be such that free responsible rational physicists who are morally governed creatures can exist. That precludes physicalism, for reasons as outlined. More can be said but this should be enough for practical purposes.kairosfocus_{August 1, 2021
August
08
Aug
1
01
2021
11:37 PM
11
11
37
PM
PDT}

They obviously think that this is emergent, without a necessary creator. I think it quite vindicates BA77 and Jesus Christ as the theory of everything. This screams primary designer and that it all just happened accidentally is to contort away from the obvious.AnimatedDust_{August 1, 2021
August
08
Aug
1
01
2021
05:12 PM
5
05
12
PM
PDT}

I found this helpful, based on a link you gave, WJM. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w0ztlIAYTCU KF, you need to watch this, and then explain how it's wrong. Show your work. WJM, have you seen this? Seems to be the 101 of IRT.AnimatedDust_{August 1, 2021
August
08
Aug
1
01
2021
04:53 PM
4
04
53
PM
PDT}

I want to complain again about the lack of acknowledgement of subjectivity, in all of this. It is all just about objectivity. While atheists have an excellent acceptance of objectivity, with the scientific method. To a very high level of technological achievement. There is basically no problem at all with objectivity. Subjectivity on the other hand is getting totally destroyed by atheists. People are having very severe problems with subjectivity, as shown by the very high level of mental illness among college students. And just the all round bad subjective judgements of students.mohammadnursyamsu_{August 1, 2021
August
08
Aug
1
01
2021
04:52 PM
4
04
52
PM
PDT}

WJM:
First, IRT does not cast embodiment or our experience of physicality into doubt
Yes it does, that is regrettably plain from your own words. This begins to look like equivocation, similar to your attempt to idiosyncratically redefine what it means to be embodied. Where, no you do not get to personalise standard usage as though it were the dubious suggestion of the other you disagree with. You have already been adequately answered that first your scheme undercuts validity of any observations and reasoning, much less scientific ones. Further, I find it almost amusing but then sad to see the way things like quantum theory are seized upon to try to deny that solidity, liquidity, gaseousness and associated physical entities and interactions somehow go poof. Drawing out microstructure does not change how a solid body retains volume and shape up to elastic deformation, etc. Nor is it a typical view of modern or contemporary physics that the physical world is not independent of our particular perceptions etc. And more. KFkairosfocus_{August 1, 2021
August
08
Aug
1
01
2021
10:00 AM
10
10
00
AM
PDT}

WJM you need to find out what the logic is that is used in ordinary common discourse, which is the creationist conceptual scheme, and then precisely explain the difference between that, and your IRT theory. Build a bridge from common discourse understanding to IRT understanding. You yourself use ordinary common discourse in daily life, like we all do. So then you say one thing is true with the logic used in ordinary common discourse, and then you say something else is true, with the logic of IRT theory. That is ofcourse duplicity, lying, if you say different things are true simultaneously. That is why you must build a bridge of understanding between common discourse and IRT theory.mohammadnursyamsu_{August 1, 2021
August
08
Aug
1
01
2021
09:26 AM
9
09
26
AM
PDT}

KF said:
Now, this falls apart for the very reason already shown. Grand delusion cascade. If our experience OF conscious, self-aware embodiment as a creature in a world is dubious or delusion, there is no remaining credibility for the mindedness to be trusted in perceptions, inferences, deductions, conclusions. Grand delusion is self-defeating and absurd. This leaves common sense on the table. Yes error prone but correct-able.
I want to examine this for the benefit of people other than KF, because I realize KF is immune to this explanation. First, IRT does not cast embodiment or our experience of physicality into doubt, even if KF want to insist on his specific interpretation of what those terms mean (under his worldview.) What IRT does is provide a different interpretation of the experience of embodiment and physicality and what that experience represents, which is completely supported and verified by @100 years of experimental results, while KF's interpretation has been effectively disproved by those repeated, verified results. Second, this doesn't mean "there is no remaining credibility for the mindedness to be trusted in perceptions, inferences, deductions, conclusions." It just means that KF's interpretive worldview no longer has credibility. KF is confusing "mindedness" for his interpretation because he cannot, apparently, see beyond his particular interpretation, or even see it as an interpretation. Indeed, he has insisted his worldview arrangement is not an interpretation, but is itself "manifestly" present in the experience itself. However, dream-world experiences of embodiment and a physical world show us that these experience are open to interpretation; he interprets one set of experiences as "manifestly" that of an independent-of-mind material/physical world, and the other as and internal experience generated by mental thought/information. This example clearly demonstrates that both are categorical interpretations of the experience of embodiment and physicality. The idea that the category of mental experiences we used to call the independent material world is is just that - a category of mental experiences, without the unnecessary baggage of there being an actual independent material world that also must be explained - in no way diminishes or undermines the absolute nature of logic or math in those experiences; in fact, the theory holds logic and math as being that which undergirds and regulates all sentient experience. It is that which processes information into the experience of embodiment and physicality. KF's responses come from his vague concept of "mindedness" as if all of mind is one kind of mental protoplasm. We are internally aware of entirely different categories of mental experience. Compare logic and math to imagination. These are categorically different and nobody here mistakes one for the other, or finds that because we also have imagination, or experience hallucinations or have perceptual errors, this also means the credibility of logic and math is undermined. That's nonsense. So, reinterpreting embodiment and the "waking physical world" as also 100% mental experience simply makes it another category of mental experience. It doesn't mean it produces self-referential delusion any more than admitting that because logic and math are internal, mental experiences they lead to self-referential delusion. That's absurd. In much the same manner that we realize, with math and logic, that we are sharing an entirely internal, mental experience among all observers (experiencers,) we can posit that what we call a shared, physical world is a similarly shared set of processed mental information. We can and do obviously share abstract, mental information in the form of logic and math; there is no reason why that would be the only mental information we have shared, group experience of. Generally, in non-quantum science, we are examining this shared experiential world, one category of mental experience. With quantum and information theory science, we are examining the nature of the pre-experiential information itself, which can only be characterized as informational potential, not as "matter" or "energy," which are themselves experiential expressions of the informational potential. So, there is no indicated "grand delusion." Logic and reason are not undermined in the slightest. The only thing here that is undermined is KF's particular interpretation, what his entire ontological/epistemological worldview depends on.William J Murray_{August 1, 2021
August
08
Aug
1
01
2021
07:12 AM
7
07
12
AM
PDT}

With all this talk of a duty to truth, apparently this duty does not yet involve formulating the logic of objectivity and fact, and formulating the logic of subjectivity and opinion. Objectivity: A fact is obtained by evidence of a creation, forcing to produce a 1 to 1 corresponding model of it, in the mind. Example: To measure the circumference of the moon, what it consists of, the craters on it's surface etc., all these facts together provide a 1 to 1 corresponding model of the moon, in the mind, forced by the evidence of it. Subjectivity: A personal opinion is chosen, and expresses what it is that makes a choice. Example: To say a painting is beautiful. The opinion is formed by spontaneous expression of emotion with free will, thus chosen. The opinion expresses a love for the way the painting looks. Subjectivity and objectivity in one coherent conceptual scheme: 1. Creator / chooses / spiritual / subjective / opinion 2. Creation / chosen / material / objective / fact So now then, do your duty to the truth, and evaluate the truth of the creationist conceptual scheme.mohammadnursyamsu_{August 1, 2021
August
08
Aug
1
01
2021
06:07 AM
6
06
07
AM
PDT}

PS: SEP on Panpsychism:
Panpsychism is the view that mentality is fundamental and ubiquitous in the natural world. The view has a long and venerable history in philosophical traditions of both East and West, and has recently enjoyed a revival in analytic philosophy. For its proponents panpsychism offers an attractive middle way between physicalism on the one hand and dualism on the other. The worry with dualism—the view that mind and matter are fundamentally different kinds of thing—is that it leaves us with a radically disunified picture of nature, and the deep difficulty of understanding how mind and brain interact. And whilst physicalism offers a simple and unified vision of the world, this is arguably at the cost of being unable to give a satisfactory account of the emergence of human and animal consciousness. Panpsychism, strange as it may sound on first hearing, promises a satisfying account of the human mind within a unified conception of nature.
Adapt, to rendering physical things dubious, peripheral or delusional so that say our embodiment evaporates into a perception. We're there. We can call this, simulationism with a network of local nodes. It may not be how WJM arrived at his views, but it effectively captures its substance. Now, this falls apart for the very reason already shown. Grand delusion cascade. If our experience OF conscious, self-aware embodiment as a creature in a world is dubious or delusion, there is no remaining credibility for the mindedness to be trusted in perceptions, inferences, deductions, conclusions. Grand delusion is self-defeating and absurd. This leaves common sense on the table. Yes error prone but correct-able. Next, we may freely exert the principle that the only worldviews that are viable are those that take first facts seriously as point of departure. Facts of self-aware rational responsible freedom and embodiment. That makes a two-tier controller cdybernetic loop model a viable one. More generally, onward, any species of monism fails to adequately resolve the problem of the one and the many as does platonic style dualism. Monism of mind fails just as badly as monism of matter/physicalism. Simulationism, too. Instead, let us take GIGO-limited computational substrates seriously. They are inherently non-rational, being driven by organisation of units and processing of signals based on dynamic-stochastic physical processes. Such are not free to reason, despite a world of literature on autonomous self aware computers, such are fantasies. We need to recognise a type of reality that exhibits freedom and serves as oracle to the sort of Smith model cybernetic loop discussed. This is at level of experience. Onward, we may think our way to root of reality adequate to account for such, especially given that rationality is morally governed starting with first duties that routinely manifest in our conversations and quarrels etc. That is worldviews analysis turning on comparative difficulties. However, common sense recognition of first principles, first duties and first facts comes first. Without that, we don't have a leg to stand on. And yes, at base level, there is not an infinite variety of basic worldviews. That is not focal for logic and first principles but it is worth noting.kairosfocus_{August 1, 2021
August
08
Aug
1
01
2021
05:59 AM
5
05
59
AM
PDT}

KF, None of what you said above applies to actual IRT; it only applies to your straw man, ERT interpretation of it. You have no idea what you are talking about.William J Murray_{August 1, 2021
August
08
Aug
1
01
2021
05:40 AM
5
05
40
AM
PDT}

WJM, on the contrary, I have for cause noted the self-referential incoherence of what is a form of panpsychism or pantheism/panentheism. Once the first facts of consciousness are turned into a morass of doubts and delusions, this discredits mindedness and rationality. Such views manifest grand delusion cascades and fail. It is not for nothing that I have pointed, from Reid, Moore, Plantinga, Bradley and others, that we need to start from taking common sense seriously. S/he who infers that we cannot know external independent-of-ourselves reality is already implying a knowledge claim about such, that it is closed to knowledge, inviting the sort of it isn't there theme. Experience of the in common world is downgraded into its a dream, individual only by being a local vortex in the grand scheme or better dreamscape. This directly implies precisely the self-referential discredit of conscious rational life long since pointed out. Tracing the ideas history in a nutshell, once the door is opened to global hyperskeptical doubts and/or grand, Plato's Cave style delusions. The result is an endless cascade of delusion and doubt; which, is both self-referential and incoherent. KFkairosfocus_{August 1, 2021
August
08
Aug
1
01
2021
05:34 AM
5
05
34
AM
PDT}

So, what I've linked to above is a whole scientific research team that is developing a meta-reality theory that says the same exact thing I've been working on for decades and have been writing about here for what, over a year now? Doesn't seem quite so crazy now, eh? heheheWilliam J Murray_{August 1, 2021
August
08
Aug
1
01
2021
05:23 AM
5
05
23
AM
PDT}

KF, You have no idea what you're talking about when it comes to IRT. Please stop acting like you do.William J Murray_{August 1, 2021
August
08
Aug
1
01
2021
05:21 AM
5
05
21
AM
PDT}

WJM, "Nothing is actually “external” of any of us, in my IRT" already directly implies that the embodiment and external world we experience is a Plato's Cave style shadow show, i.e. though you will likely refuse to acknowledge, this is level 1 in a grand delusion cascade. Next, "we, and all potential information, are internal of each other, all aspects of the same single “universal” mind/consciousness," implies that individuality is a grand delusion; that is, the responsible rational freedom required for credible thought evaporates. The point is, once we substitute a grand delusion-inviting frame and put it in the place of common sense, we are looking at self-referential discredit of the mind and general absurdity. The incoherence of trying to restructure the world of thought on a broken foundation is manifest. And of course with pervasive error as the implicit perspective, views are essentially arbitrary, ill founded constructs, where mere novelty is substituted for soundness. Such utterly self-destructs. KFkairosfocus_{August 1, 2021
August
08
Aug
1
01
2021
05:16 AM
5
05
16
AM
PDT}

More from that paper:
We claim above that materialism, panpsychism, and information theoretic ontologies do not explain the origin of the fundamental stuff and that the self-simulation hypothesis does. Those three ontologies do not try to explain the origin of the fundamental things. Similar to most religions, all three are creationist insofar as saying there is one fundamental thing that creates all others but which itself has no creator. The self-simulation hypothesis recognizes that: (1) thoughts called choices of what to think; and (2) thoughts called the experience of those chosen thoughts are fundamental and that one explains the other via the self-simulation creative process of self-actualization. Materialism does not say that fundamental physical stuff created itself. Digital physics does not say fundamental information created itself. Panpsychism typically does not say that the universal consciousness created itself. They say that fundamental things “just are” with no explanation. In this paper, we build a logical thesis that does not contradict the parts of these other three ontologies that claim the fundamentality of “physical = materialism”, “information = digital physics”, and “consciousness = panpsychism”. For us, all three things, physicality, information, and consciousness, are fundamental. We show how they are equivalent and discuss a categorization and origin scheme that simply goes further into the process of relating and explaining than those more limited ontologies that stop at “it just is”. Instead, using code theory, we provide theoretical structure suggesting how reality self-simulates. We provide various forms of evidence-based rationale.
William J Murray_{August 1, 2021
August
08
Aug
1
01
2021
05:00 AM
5
05
00
AM
PDT}

The paper being accessed by these articles: https://www.mdpi.com/1099-4300/22/2/247/htm The website of group that is researching and developing this "meta-reality" theory: https://quantumgravityresearch.org/ From the paper:
“Which is the real universe?” is resolved because all information that is thought of is real and there is nothing outside of thought or consciousness. In the simulation hypothesis, the simulations are a fake reality. In the self-simulation hypothesis, they are real.
William J Murray_{August 1, 2021
August
08
Aug
1
01
2021
04:53 AM
4
04
53
AM
PDT}

From: https://bigthink.com/surprising-science/new-hypothesis-argues-the-universe-simulates-itself-into-existence?rebelltitem=4#rebelltitem4
Under this proposal, the entire simulation of everything in existence is just one "grand thought." How would the simulation itself be originated? It was always there, say the researchers, explaining the concept of "timeless emergentism." According to this idea, time isn't there at all. Instead, the all-encompassing thought that is our reality offers a nested semblance of a hierarchical order, full of "sub-thoughts" ... In correspondence with Big Think, physicist David Chester elaborated: "While many scientists presume materialism to be true, we believe that quantum mechanics may provide hints that our reality is a mental construct. Recent advances in quantum gravity, such as seeing spacetime emergent via a hologram, also is a hint that spacetime is not fundamental. This is also compatible with ancient Hermetic and Indian philosophy. In a sense, the mental construct of reality creates spacetime to efficiently understand itself by creating a network of subconscious entities that can interact and explore the totality of possibilities."
Although they use the word "simulation," what they are talking about is "what reality is," and just using the word "simulation" as an analogous referrant. Our minds aren't creating a simulation of a "reaL" version that resides elsewhere; the "simulation" is all there is, so it is reality.William J Murray_{August 1, 2021
August
08
Aug
1
01
2021
04:14 AM
4
04
14
AM
PDT}

The evidence is clear: consciousness acting on information (as potential) causes our reality experience, including the experience of space-time orientation. Regardless of whether or not we can visualize what all this means, it seems to me to be more important to consider: what does this mean in a practical sense?William J Murray_{August 1, 2021
August
08
Aug
1
01
2021
03:59 AM
3
03
59
AM
PDT}

SA said:
I think this conflicts with your other statement however. In the other case, you affirmed that our experience is informed by data that we take in. WJM’s view, however, is that there is no external data and everything is generated by our own mind.
To try to clear this up: Nothing is actually "external" of any of us, in my IRT - we, and all potential information, are internal of each other, all aspects of the same single "universal" mind/consciousness, all with internal access to all potential. Now, if one can properly understand that, one can understand that even though someone else is internal of me, they are also external of my own self-identity. Infinite informational potential is within, but external of that subset which is being processed into my experience. This can be difficult to understand, but to try to make it more clear: even when I look out into the world with my eyes; even under the old paradigm; I am having that entire experience within, not "out there." That experience occurs entirely in my mind, where all experience occurs. Yet, it looks and feels and sounds like it is "out there." It doesn't matter if that information is coming from "out there;" the experience itself occurs within and is built with abstract information; everything you experience is occurring within you regardless. MRT just does away with a entire order of existence that doesn't add anything significant to the equation. A certain set of information and the way it is being processed into experience can be what many people are experiencing; so what we call the objective, physical world, with these other people represented in it, is a uniform, reliable physical experience we're all having internally, even though our consciousness is representing it to as an external landscape - it's actually an internal landscape.William J Murray_{August 1, 2021
August
08
Aug
1
01
2021
03:45 AM
3
03
45
AM
PDT}

PPS: Our understanding of the microscopic substructure of the world does not undermine its soundness. As I have noted ever so many times (including above) a solid body, retains shape and volume up to elastic deformations, a liquid is unable to resist internal shear and flows but holds volume, a gas has neither defined volume nor shape. The ground or floor underfoot is solid, the air about is gaseous, the seas are liquid. We can explore London forces, molecules, atoms and particles, fields etc and such do not change the reality of the macro-scale as described.kairosfocus_{July 31, 2021
July
07
Jul
31
31
2021
06:14 PM
6
06
14
PM
PDT}

1 2 3 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply