Does the Mandelbrot Set prove the Mind of God behind what we see.

[sjastro]

Not only that there is evdience for consciousness beyond brain. There is NDE and also experiements and studies with psychodelics, transcedental meditation and remote viewing..........
..............Our experience is a window into our soul, into a deeper understanding of reality.

What are you ultimately trying to state here, by claiming this supposed evidence is consistent with wavefunction collapse through some universal consciousness as envisaged by Stapp?
If so, you are incorrect as Stapp has provided an interpretation of quantum mechanics and like wavefunction collapse via the Copenhagen interpretation it doesn’t prove anything let alone being supported by observation as the wavefunction is unobservable.

We only observe the final result (measurement) not how it got there.
Despite not knowing or even understanding how the measurement is obtained, an overwhelmingly number of physicists support an interpretation where consciousness is not involved whether it be wavefunction collapse type interpretations (Copenhagen, Pilot Wave) or non-collapse (Many Worlds).

The reason for this is that measuring devices are also “observers” and are clearly not conscious.
CCD cameras used for astro-imaging serve as an example of this and are sophisticated photon counters.
Light composed of photons has a quantum nature and the camera counts the number of photons at any given location on the CCD as shown.

The variation in the pixel value from exposure to exposure results in what is known as quantum noise or in the language of electrical engineering shot noise.
It is easily explained as a statistical variation and doesn’t require exotic explanations such as the CCD or photons possessing consciousness.

 

[stevevw]

I don't really care what the "philosophers" say. I've been thousands of scientific conversations, read hundreds (probably thousands) of scientific papers, and for some reason I'd never even heard of this "Hard Problem of Consciousness" until maybe 5 years ago, and it wasn't in any professional context. I'm not even sure what it is.

So therefore thats telling in that you are not familiar with such a well known idea within Consciousness Studies and perhaps being unaware of many other things. I would say of one is to dismiss an entire field or research as Woo before even understanding what it entails is not very scientific.

But it also reveals a difference in thinking, assumptions and paradigms. That it takes a different mindset to be open to understanding consciousness from the view of those supporting the ideas I linked. In fact that is what the Hard Problem is about. Its about two paradinamically different ways of thinking and understanding about fundemental reality.

We like measuring our empiricles. If you're saying we don't have a consensus model for the mechanism of consciousness, so what? There are many things in science that we know a lot about, but haven't worked out a definitive mechanism.

No not a consensus model as that will only contain quantifying behaviour such as the NCC which is fairly agreed upon. I am talking about a Theory of Consciousness which explains its nature, why NCC should prooduce the experience about 'what it is like' to be something. That is beyond a materialistic explanation even if we mapped every brain activity there was.

Cut him some slack. Galileo started to rescue physics from the millennia of damage done by philosophy. He couldn't fix everything. (This also goes to my earlier posts about pre-implanted supernatural biases. It takes time to collectively lift ourselves from the muck.)

Believe it or not we all have pre-implanted supernatural biases. Material science believes in matter is fundemental reality and there is no supernatural, Thats a belief not science. It comes to the table with a priori and not an open mind to all possible forms of knowledge in how we understand reality. It can only claim other ideas are Woo according to its limited epistemics. Beyond that its unjustified,

Show a mechanism for this signal that interacts with ordinary matter. (A Lagrangian would be great, but I'd take anything at this point.) Why can't we detect it?

We may be detecting it but are attributing this to other reasons. The material explanation that say NDE is just the physical brain playing tricks or hallucinations. Intuition and remote viewing is explained away as coincidence ect. Same behaviour just different explanations according to a priori assumption and belief about the makeup of fundemnetal reality.

There are probably many effects happening but we are not yet open to them because most research is resisted. I think the Mind as far as consciousness itself can only be understood by getting the evdience of its behaviour directly from the subject. The more we collect about the annomelies we experience the more we will understand. But you canot quantify subjective experiences.

Remote viewing is fraud.

How do you know. Experiments have resulted in a higher than chance outcome.

Oh, great "qualia".

lol, see I can tell you have no time or tolerance for alternative ideas. Qualia is a common used word in Consciousness studies (which you seem to have little knowledge of). Its just like say the word Matter, or Mass or maybe the senses is used in science. Thats what I am saying different paradigms with different language, meanings, principles, assumptions ect.

I think I've already decided from your presented examples that I have no use for Chalmers.

Ok well he is well respected within the Consciousness Studies field.

 

[stevevw]

What are you ultimately trying to state here, by claiming this supposed evidence is consistent with wavefunction collapse through some universal consciousness as envisaged by Stapp?
If so, you are incorrect as Stapp has provided an interpretation of quantum mechanics and like wavefunction collapse via the Copenhagen interpretation it doesn’t prove anything let alone being supported by observation as the wavefunction is unobservable.

Exactly so interpreting the data from QM is up for interpretation and no interpretation including the ones that oppose consciousness as fundement are correct. Its about how a interpretation can best fit the data, is the simplest in explaining things.

This is why we have seen a rise in ideas making the conscious observer fundemental in the equation and not an outsider. This is why there are many ideas, interpretations with Mind and Consciousness as fundemental.

One thing about all interpretations is that they require counterintuitive ideas to make them work. So in some way no matter which interpretation its going to take a complete paradigm shift to the mainsteam standard ideas.

We only observe the final result (measurement) not how it got there.

Actually we observe a moment in time that has come from the past and is heading to the future. In that sense the present tense seems special in the conext or time and space. But strangle the past can come back to become like the present again by the experience being relived. Or how the past we all once believed was reality can be changed in an instant by new knowledge. Suddenly the world we thought was real has changed as though everyones past has also changed.

Despite not knowing or even understanding how the measurement is obtained, an overwhelmingly number of physicists support an interpretation where consciousness is not involved whether it be wavefunction collapse type interpretations (Copenhagen, Pilot Wave) or non-collapse (Many Worlds).

Yes and many others think it should be involved like Stapp, Wheeler, Wigner, Planck and Heisenberg. Like Stapp says why should we take the measure from some device outside ourselves connecting the observer to reality. Why not take it direct from the observer as that is the first and only position we have.

The reason for this is that measuring devices are also “observers” and are clearly not conscious.
CCD cameras used for astro-imaging serve as an example of this and are sophisticated photon counters.
Light composed of photons has a quantum nature and the camera counts the number of photons at any given location on the CCD as shown.

View attachment 340397​

The variation in the pixel value from exposure to exposure results in what is known as quantum noise or in the language of electrical engineering shot noise.
It is easily explained as a statistical variation and doesn’t require exotic explanations such as the CCD or photons possessing consciousness.

Exotic explanations. I think the Many Worlds and ideas like String theory with 11 dimensions are exotic explanations.

 

[stevevw]

Yeah. For instance, 1/7 is 0.142857142857 repeating. But that is just simple division bro.

But the patterns for the numbers are found in fractals which are found in the mandelbrot set. These patterns show order out of chaos within nature.

 

[Hans Blaster]

So therefore thats telling in that you are not familiar with such a well known idea within Consciousness Studies and perhaps being unaware of many other things.

I'm just telling you that I do physics, and not neurobiology or psychology. That's all. And, yes, I never heard of these ideas.

I would say of one is to dismiss an entire field or research as Woo before even understanding what it entails is not very scientific.

I have called nothing "woo". Quit attributing that word to me.

But I think you are missing something important. In couple decades of working in physics I have never come across the notion that "consciousness" is fundamental. Not once. The branches of physics that study the fundamental properties of the Universe do not use consciousness. Period.

But it also reveals a difference in thinking, assumptions and paradigms. That it takes a different mindset to be open to understanding consciousness from the view of those supporting the ideas I linked. In fact that is what the Hard Problem is about. Its about two paradinamically different ways of thinking and understanding about fundemental reality.

Sigh. That's what I'm trying to tell you. I view this as a physics problem, because if you want to claim that consciousness is fundamental, it must show up in physics. It doesn't.

No not a consensus model as that will only contain quantifying behaviour such as the NCC which is fairly agreed upon. I am talking about a Theory of Consciousness which explains its nature, why NCC should prooduce the experience about 'what it is like' to be something. That is beyond a materialistic explanation even if we mapped every brain activity there was.

Believe it or not we all have pre-implanted supernatural biases.

That's what I was trying to tell you. You and I and everyone else had people planting supernatural biases into our thinking. It takes a lot to overcome that. I still struggle with it.

Material science believes in matter is fundemental reality and there is no supernatural, Thats a belief not science.

There is lot confused about this statement. What you calll "material science" is just what the rest of us call "science". There is no immaterial science. Science studies the material or physical or natural (depending on what term you'd like to use.)

Second "material(s) science" is branch of physical science between solid state physics and engineering that studies the properties of materials and works to develop new materials. That's what I think of when you use that term.

It comes to the table with a priori and not an open mind to all possible forms of knowledge in how we understand reality. It can only claim other ideas are Woo according to its limited epistemics. Beyond that its unjustified,

Science is inherently naturalistic. If you can't handle that fact, maybe this isn't the sub-forum for you.

We may be detecting it but are attributing this to other reasons. The material explanation that say NDE is just the physical brain playing tricks or hallucinations. Intuition and remote viewing is explained away as coincidence ect. Same behaviour just different explanations according to a priori assumption and belief about the makeup of fundemnetal reality.

There are probably many effects happening but we are not yet open to them because most research is resisted. I think the Mind as far as consciousness itself can only be understood by getting the evdience of its behaviour directly from the subject. The more we collect about the annomelies we experience the more we will understand. But you canot quantify subjective experiences.

Is it fundamental or not? If it is where is the particle?

How do you know. Experiments have resulted in a higher than chance outcome.

LOL. Remote viewing is *not* demonstrated.

lol, see I can tell you have no time or tolerance for alternative ideas. Qualia is a common used word in Consciousness studies (which you seem to have little knowledge of). Its just like say the word Matter, or Mass or maybe the senses is used in science. Thats what I am saying different paradigms with different language, meanings, principles, assumptions ect.

Ok well he is well respected within the Consciousness Studies field.

Qualia is philosophy and so is a good deal of "consciousness studies". This is the science board, not the philosophy board.

 

[sjastro]

Exactly so interpreting the data from QM is up for interpretation and no interpretation including the ones that oppose consciousness as fundement are correct. Its about how a interpretation can best fit the data, is the simplest in explaining things.

This is why we have seen a rise in ideas making the conscious observer fundemental in the equation and not an outsider. This is why there are many ideas, interpretations with Mind and Consciousness as fundemental.

One thing about all interpretations is that they require counterintuitive ideas to make them work. So in some way no matter which interpretation its going to take a complete paradigm shift to the mainsteam standard ideas.

Your response indicates a failure to differentiate between theory and interpretation in QM.
Quantum mechanical interpretations are not theories per se, they attempt to explain the mathematical model of QM in terms of reality and are not based on fundamentals.

The fundamentals for QM are in mathematical model itself and for basic (non-perturbation, non-relativistic) QM, the mathematical model is built around Hilbert spaces and linear algebra as illustrated and is the same for each interpretation.

Actually we observe a moment in time that has come from the past and is heading to the future. In that sense the present tense seems special in the conext or time and space. But strangle the past can come back to become like the present again by the experience being relived. Or how the past we all once believed was reality can be changed in an instant by new knowledge. Suddenly the world we thought was real has changed as though everyones past has also changed.

That’s not what I meant.
Before a measurement is made the system is in a superposition state defined by a wavefunction which is not observable.
We only observe the measurement not how the wavefunction collapsed or any other QM interpretation.

Yes and many others think it should be involved like Stapp, Wheeler, Wigner, Planck and Heisenberg. Like Stapp says why should we take the measure from some device outside ourselves connecting the observer to reality. Why not take it direct from the observer as that is the first and only position we have.

The facts are the role of consciousness in QM is very much a fringe idea and the CCD example highlights why this is the case as quantum noise is nothing more than statistical noise and is related to classical or Poisson noise.
The clue is in the name which is a type of statistical distribution and classical noise doesn’t rely on consciousness as being a cause.

Exotic explanations. I think the Many Worlds and ideas like String theory with 11 dimensions are exotic explanations.

Any QM interpretation is exotic because we can never observe the mechanism while String Theory is not mainstream science rejected by many as not even being science as it is unfalsifiable.

 

[stevevw]

Your response indicates a failure to differentiate between theory and interpretation in QM.
Quantum mechanical interpretations are not theories per se, they attempt to explain the mathematical model of QM in terms of reality and are not based on fundamentals.

The fundamentals for QM are in mathematical model itself and for basic (non-perturbation, non-relativistic) QM, the mathematical model is built around Hilbert spaces and linear algebra as illustrated and is the same for each interpretation.

There are also ideas that incorporate consciousness and subjective experiences into the equation. Math models seem abstracted from real world experiences so it seems logical that we should incorporate first hand conscious experience and not rely only on third party abstractions.

I would have thought the interpretations of QM was based on the fundementals are this is what forms the basis depending on the interpretation.

Heres just a few of the ways consciousness is incorporated into the equation using Math and Information theory. Thats not counting ideas like Panphysicism and Integrated Information theory which is also based on Math.

The Mathematical Structure of Integrated Information Theory

Frontiers | The Mathematical Structure of Integrated Information Theory

Integrated Information Theory is one of the leading models of consciousness. It aims to describe both the quality and quantity of the conscious experience of...

www.frontiersin.org

Fundamental Mathematics of Consciousness
https://digitalcommons.chapman.edu/...ttpsredir=1&article=1321&context=scs_articles
MATHEMATICAL FRAMEWORKS FOR CONSCIOUSNESS
View of Mathematical Frameworks for Consciousness
Consciousness as a State of Matter
[1401.1219] Consciousness as a State of Matter
A Relativistic Theory of Consciousness

Frontiers | A Relativistic Theory of Consciousness

In recent decades, the scientific study of consciousness has significantly increased our understanding of this elusive phenomenon. Yet, despite this critical...

www.frontiersin.org

A Hilbert Space Geometric Representation of Shared Awareness and Joint Decision Making
https://digitalcommons.odu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1021&context=emse_etds
Human Cognition Surpasses the Nonlocality Tsirelson Bound: Is Mind Outside of Spacetime?
https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/2301/2301.12931.pdf
Hard Problem and Free Will: An Information-Theoretical Approach
Hard Problem and Free Will: An Information-Theoretical Approach

View attachment 340405​

That’s not what I meant.
Before a measurement is made the system is in a superposition state defined by a wavefunction which is not observable.
We only observe the measurement not how the wavefunction collapsed or any other QM interpretation.

Yes we observe a fixed state as opposed to waves or the underlying superposition. But I though the interpretation of the wave collaspe is the destinguishing factor that is different for each interpretation. One the observer or conscious observation or awareness or choices collapse the wave function into what we observe. In the many Worlds interpretation the collapse opens up a new alternative reality.

I think the observer creating reality seems to make more sense because the only true measure of anything is from conscious experience. So when we make choices, measurements about the world we are actually creating reality. Our questions and measurements can reveal new information which changes or reveals a new reality from the sub atomic level to the macro level.

It just happens so fast in the micro level that we don't see it with our classical eyes. But we do get glimpses of this wavey world through our conscious experience which is non local. Such as through NDE, Transcedental meditation and Intuition.

The facts are the role of consciousness in QM is very much a fringe idea and the CCD example highlights why this is the case as quantum noise is nothing more than statistical noise and is related to classical or Poisson noise.
The clue is in the name which is a type of statistical distribution and classical noise doesn’t rely on consciousness as being a cause.

I would have thought consciousness is at the heart of QM. Of all phenomena consciousness seems most like how the quantum world behaves in that its non local. EXperience, Mind cannot be limited to time and space. Like I said many of the pioneers of QM thought Mind and Consciousness were key elements. Even back then they seen the relation. QM and Consciousness is probably the fastest growing and most promising area of research.

Any QM interpretation is exotic because we can never observe the mechanism while String Theory is not mainstream science rejected by many as not even being science as it is unfalsifiable.

So therefore any explanation whether it comes from mainstream science or the fringes is going to be counter intuitive and require a paradigm shift in thinking. So why would these ides mentioned be so controversial. It would seem to be its because their controversial, in conflict with the current materialist paradigm that they are of interest and potentially right.

 

[Hans Blaster]

In response to this statement:

The fundamentals for QM are in mathematical model itself and for basic (non-perturbation, non-relativistic) QM, the mathematical model is built around Hilbert spaces and linear algebra as illustrated and is the same for each interpretation.

which is about the structure of the QM mathematical form and (as noted) unaltered by interpretation you wrote:

There are also ideas that incorporate consciousness and subjective experiences into the equation. Math models seem abstracted from real world experiences so it seems logical that we should incorporate first hand conscious experience and not rely only on third party abstractions.

I would have thought the interpretations of QM was based on the fundementals are this is what forms the basis depending on the interpretation.

After this you posted a whole bunch of stuff about mathematical models for consciousness, but those don't have anything to do with the structure of QM. It's as if you are striving to skip any discussion of the actual fundamental physics involved, whether that be QM or fundamental interactions, etc.

So let's get down to brass tacks on the physics/consciousness thing with three ideas coupling the two.

Idea 1: QM enables consciousness. This is at the heart of the Penrose idea given earlier. Some quantum effects in a macromolecule (like a tubule) enable neurons to develop consciousness.

Idea 2: Consciousness is fundamental and pervasive in the Universe. In the standard language of physics this would mean a consciousness field and associated particles. For this consciousness to interact and animate brains & bodies it would have to have the appropriate strength and range. Particle physics experiments have already probed all of the relevant phase space and should have discovered such a field.

Idea 3: QM requires consciousness. Here we need to think about how QM describes things and particularly results. If we build a QM model of a hydrogen atom all we need is the quantum formulation (the Schrödinger equation) and the basic properties of the two charged particles and the behavior of the hydrogen atom just pops out. (As they say in QM: Shut up and calculate.) Extend that to the more sophisticated Dirac equation or to any of the versions of quantum field theory and you can derive the properties of the complex atoms, chemical bonds, molecules, nuclei, the band structures of semi-conductors, and interactions in particle colliders. Not a single one of those calculations requires some sort of "consciousness" as an input. Not a one. They don't tell us what the quantum states are *really* doing as that requires interpretation and that interpretation *could* include "consciousness". (But to *require* consciousness to drive QM would require that one believe that quantum interactions that emit light in places where there aren't even planets are caused by a consciousness. That seems a bit of a stretch.

N. 1 is an interesting idea, perhaps a way to permit some sort of free will. N. 2 is basically excluded at this point. N. 3 is speculative and unnecessary. It would require proof and that isn't coming from the physics at this point.

 

[sjastro]

There are also ideas that incorporate consciousness and subjective experiences into the equation. Math models seem abstracted from real world experiences so it seems logical that we should incorporate first hand conscious experience and not rely only on third party abstractions.

I would have thought the interpretations of QM was based on the fundementals are this is what forms the basis depending on the interpretation.

Heres just a few of the ways consciousness is incorporated into the equation using Math and Information theory. Thats not counting ideas like Panphysicism and Integrated Information theory which is also based on Math.

The Mathematical Structure of Integrated Information Theory

Frontiers | The Mathematical Structure of Integrated Information Theory

Integrated Information Theory is one of the leading models of consciousness. It aims to describe both the quality and quantity of the conscious experience of...

www.frontiersin.org

Fundamental Mathematics of Consciousness
https://digitalcommons.chapman.edu/...ttpsredir=1&article=1321&context=scs_articles
MATHEMATICAL FRAMEWORKS FOR CONSCIOUSNESS
View of Mathematical Frameworks for Consciousness
Consciousness as a State of Matter
[1401.1219] Consciousness as a State of Matter
A Relativistic Theory of Consciousness

Frontiers | A Relativistic Theory of Consciousness

In recent decades, the scientific study of consciousness has significantly increased our understanding of this elusive phenomenon. Yet, despite this critical...

www.frontiersin.org

A Hilbert Space Geometric Representation of Shared Awareness and Joint Decision Making
https://digitalcommons.odu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1021&context=emse_etds
Human Cognition Surpasses the Nonlocality Tsirelson Bound: Is Mind Outside of Spacetime?
https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/2301/2301.12931.pdf
Hard Problem and Free Will: An Information-Theoretical Approach
Hard Problem and Free Will: An Information-Theoretical Approach

Yes we observe a fixed state as opposed to waves or the underlying superposition. But I though the interpretation of the wave collaspe is the destinguishing factor that is different for each interpretation. One the observer or conscious observation or awareness or choices collapse the wave function into what we observe. In the many Worlds interpretation the collapse opens up a new alternative reality.

I think the observer creating reality seems to make more sense because the only true measure of anything is from conscious experience. So when we make choices, measurements about the world we are actually creating reality. Our questions and measurements can reveal new information which changes or reveals a new reality from the sub atomic level to the macro level.

It just happens so fast in the micro level that we don't see it with our classical eyes. But we do get glimpses of this wavey world through our conscious experience which is non local. Such as through NDE, Transcedental meditation and Intuition.

I would have thought consciousness is at the heart of QM. Of all phenomena consciousness seems most like how the quantum world behaves in that its non local. EXperience, Mind cannot be limited to time and space. Like I said many of the pioneers of QM thought Mind and Consciousness were key elements. Even back then they seen the relation. QM and Consciousness is probably the fastest growing and most promising area of research.

So therefore any explanation whether it comes from mainstream science or the fringes is going to be counter intuitive and require a paradigm shift in thinking. So why would these ides mentioned be so controversial. It would seem to be its because their controversial, in conflict with the current materialist paradigm that they are of interest and potentially right.

Now seriously all you have done here is to perform an internet search using terms such as “Hilbert space”, “awareness”, “consciousness” as examples which comes across as an exercise in confirmation bias.
A quick look at your links indicates they fall into two broad categories of either having nothing to do with the mathematics of QM or provides yet another interpretation of QM.

A common example for interpretation in physics are Maxwell’s equations which were built around the work of experimenters such as Faraday.
In this case the mathematics is an interpretation of the experimental results.
Interpretations of QM are quite the opposite as it is the mathematics that is subject to the interpretation which can also be contradictory.
For example, in the Copenhagen interpretation, QM is non-deterministic using mathematical wavefunctions whereas in Many Worlds and Pilot Wave, QM is deterministic and the wavefunctions are real.

Basic QM is built around matrix mechanics using Hilbert spaces which are purely mathematical and not grounded in any form of reality.
The fact there are so many different interpretations of QM which contradict each other indicates the human need of making sense by imposing one's own version of reality on a subject which the physicist Leonard Susskind described as impossible to understand.

 

[AV1611VET]

Does the Mandelbrot Set prove the Mind of God behind what we see?

If it does, it would benefit atheists more than anyone.

A close second would be agnostics.

 

[Kylie]

But that implies then that the fundemental reality of the universe is non physical ontology.

Care to go into more detail?

 

[stevevw]

Care to go into more detail?

This is dependent on which interpretation of quantum physics you want to go with. It has been suggested by many physicists including some of its pioneers since the discovery of quantum physics that at the bottom, the underlying reality is not a physical ontology but non physical.

I mean go back before the Big Bang what actual physical stuff was around. So ultimately something physical has to have come from something non physical at one point.

Objective Reality Doesn't Exist, Quantum Experiment Shows

Objective Reality Doesn't Exist, Quantum Experiment Shows

A quantum experiment raises deeply philosophical questions about the fundamental nature of reality.

www.livescience.com

The “von Neumann–Wigner interpretation”, also described as “consciousness causes collapse” of Ψ, postulates that consciousness is an essential factor in quantum measurements. Časlav Brukner at the University of Vienna showed that, under certain assumptions, Wigner's idea can be used to formally prove that measurements in quantum mechanics are subjective to observers.
https://phys.org/news/2019-11-quantum-physics-reality-doesnt.html

How could the Big Bang arise from nothing?

How could the Big Bang arise from nothing?

Some argue the Big Bang was a rebirth rather than a birth.

theconversation.com

 

[The Barbarian]

Is this a sign of some underlying Mind behind nature.

I think so. The reasonableness of nature is telling us something important. I'm no "intelligent design" advocate, but the notion of a universe "front loaded" to produce all these wonders, makes sense to me.

 

[stevevw]

I think so. The reasonableness of nature is telling us something important. I'm no "intelligent design" advocate, but the notion of a universe "front loaded" to produce all these wonders, makes sense to me.

Yes I agree, its the most simple explanation without having to come up with ideas that seem to forever need more and more complex and perhaps even more outlandish explanations.

 

[partinobodycular]

Yes I agree, its the most simple explanation without having to come up with ideas that seem to forever need more and more complex and perhaps even more outlandish explanations.

You mean like an explanation that involves hierarchies of angels and demons, and six days of creation, and forbidden fruit, and a global flood, and a tower of Babel, and a talking ass, and a burning bush, and a parting sea, and a couple of tablets, and forty years in the desert, and an incarnated God, and a miraculous resurrection, and a white throne judgment, and heaven and hell, and heavenly choirs, and a book and a church divinely inspired to vainly attempt to explain it all.

You mean a ridiculously complex explanation like that?

The simplest explanation is that the first cause is something akin to quantum mechanic's fields or metaphysic's prime matter... pure potentiality, in which anything that can exist, does exist, and there's no need for any complex explanations for why. Things exist simply because they can. And the only thing that needs explaining is why you happen to be experiencing this particular version of reality instead of another one.

But by far the least likely explanation is the one proposed by fundamentalist Christians... even a simulated reality is more likely. You're still free to believe whatever you want to, but don't try to pass it off as being simple unless you're specifically trying not to be rational.

 

[Mountainmike]

But that implies then that the fundemental reality of the universe is non physical ontology.

Watching this thread I observe a few things.

1/ that kylies statement is indicative of one of the big misunderstandings of non scientists.
The statement should read that maths is the language used to describe and model OBSERVATIONS of the universe, which are not the same as the universe. The nett sum of all observations of the universe, or model of them are not the same entity as the universe. Materialists always confuse the two.

2/ you ( rightly) raised the physical demonstration Of the Wigner’s friend paradox, but the materialists are not getting it . The experimental demonstration of what was long presumed from Copenhagen , that Observations are NOT objective Is far reaching and profound since the materialist assumptiom is of an objective universe.

3/ Materialist scientists may not “ like” philosophy, but they are stuck with it. Like error bounds: “ knowing the limits of what you can know “ is a qualifier on all observations and models. All scientists are engaging in philosophy whether they like it or are even aware of it.

4/ Occams razor contains a subjective element As to what is simple .
In models minimising entropy is a “simple concept” and commonly used , but which can yield more complex maths. So is simple an objective concept, or in the eye of the beholder?

 

[Hans Blaster]

3/ Materialist scientists

Are you going to raise the spectre of non-material scientists next?

 

[stevevw]

You mean like an explanation that involves hierarchies of angels and demons, and six days of creation, and forbidden fruit, and a global flood, and a tower of Babel, and a talking ass, and a burning bush, and a parting sea, and a couple of tablets, and forty years in the desert, and an incarnated God, and a miraculous resurrection, and a white throne judgment, and heaven and hell, and heavenly choirs, and a book and a church divinely inspired to vainly attempt to explain it all.

You mean a ridiculously complex explanation like that?

Ah no, I was thinking more along the lines of Mind behind the creation of material reality. All the evidence point to some mind behind things whether that be the Mandelbrot set, a universe made of Math, quantum interpretation that place the obersver central, consciousness, Panphysicism, Information and knowledge being fundemental or the fine tuned universe for intelligent conscious beings.

Making Mind fundemental to reality is the simplest explanation for material reality. The material schema of matter whether the quantum vacumn, fields, forces, chemicals or particles cannot create itself. When we get right down to the bottom we have Mind and whatever that form took it makes more sense that this was the basis for everything because it precedes all matter. It creates objective reality.

The simplest explanation is that the first cause is something akin to quantum mechanic's fields or metaphysic's prime matter... pure potentiality, in which anything that can exist, does exist, and there's no need for any complex explanations for why. Things exist simply because they can. And the only thing that needs explaining is why you happen to be experiencing this particular version of reality instead of another one.

That is assuming that quantum vacumn needed no beginning when its something along the lines on a material cause that needed a cause and we go backwards ad infinity. Thats why its complicated. The complication ideas to try and address this like String theory is complicated because its impossible to explain fundemental reality in this way.

Then theres the problem of how the end result was that this random reality we experience produced the very beings who could experience it and look back upon itself like the universe ultimately produced a Mind to look at itself. Thats when the material ontology gets even more complicated with ideas like the Multiverse.

But by far the least likely explanation is the one proposed by fundamentalist Christians... even a simulated reality is more likely. You're still free to believe whatever you want to, but don't try to pass it off as being simple unless you're specifically trying not to be rational.

Your creating a strawman. I am talking about Mind something that forms the basis for many scientific ideas from yes religion but more about the ability of humans to believe, too look to the skies and transcend their earthly existence. But also in QM, Information Theory, Consciousness studies and as with this thread Math like theorectical physics based primarily on math which seems to work so well.

The stories we see in ancient times about creation are attempts to explain that transcedent realm most people intuit. The Mind or intelligence behind what we see. But there is always truth in the stories, fables and myth we have passed down about the world and our beginnings. Every civilization has expressed this and its being dismissive and unreal and to dismiss all that as superstition that has nothing to do with perhaps revealing insight into fundemental reality.

 

[Hans Blaster]

The stories we see in ancient times about creation are attempts to explain that transcedent realm most people intuit. The Mind or intelligence behind what we see. But there is always truth in the stories, fables and myth we have passed down about the world and our beginnings. Every civilization has expressed this and its being dismissive and unreal and to dismiss all that as superstition that has nothing to do with perhaps revealing insight into fundemental reality.

And with proper training we can overcome these conclusions that are unsupported by evidence. Isn't science a wonderful tool?

 

[Hans Blaster]

That is assuming that quantum vacumn needed no beginning when its something along the lines on a material cause that needed a cause and we go backwards ad infinity. Thats why its complicated. The complication ideas to try and address this like String theory is complicated because its impossible to explain fundemental reality in this way.

Then theres the problem of how the end result was that this random reality we experience produced the very beings who could experience it and look back upon itself like the universe ultimately produced a Mind to look at itself. Thats when the material ontology gets even more complicated with ideas like the Multiverse.

It's not really that complicated. If the generator of universes/big bangs always existed there would be no reason needed or concern about regression. It is just a brute fact, something that is. If there was no way for a universe to be generated, then there would be no one to ask the silly question "why is there something rather than nothing?". If there was nothing, then no one would exist to ask the question.