When did “consciousness” enter the Universe?

[Astrid]

Which side acknowledges belief/faith as such? ideally both, but not always.

That really has nothing to do with what I said.

The equivocation thing with faith and belief
serves only to obscure, and should be dropped.

 

[Bradskii]

^ You could probably dig up a lot of quotes from him saying roughly the same thing, if you were previously unaware of him mentioning this, you managed to validate it for yourself- that's great.

Can I ask a favour? Please don't treat me like a moron. Thanks.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

When it comes to the explanatory power concerning one particular large encompassing object - this phenomena suddenly becomes off-limits for some. (Not Andrei Linde)

If you mean the idea that some alien might have manipulated spacetime to make a 'pocket' universe which turns out to be ours, I think most cosmologists would acknowledge it as a possibility, but probably a remote one, because while it's theoretically possible to produce pocket or bubble universes (it's the mechanism behind the inflationary multiverse), there's no known theoretical way to set the physical parameters to specific values, and it would also kick the can down the road in as much as the parameters of the alien universe would need to be as finely tuned to be capable of supporting life as ours is supposed to be... IOW it's not a particularly useful explanation.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

That really has nothing to do with what I said.

The equivocation thing with faith and belief
serves only to obscure, and should be dropped.

'Blind faith is faith which does not recognize itself as such'

 

[Guy Threepwood]

If you mean the idea that some alien might have manipulated spacetime to make a 'pocket' universe which turns out to be ours, I think most cosmologists would acknowledge it as a possibility, but probably a remote one, because while it's theoretically possible to produce pocket or bubble universes (it's the mechanism behind the inflationary multiverse), there's no known theoretical way to set the physical parameters to specific values, and it would also kick the can down the road in as much as the parameters of the alien universe would need to be as finely tuned to be capable of supporting life as ours is supposed to be... IOW it's not a particularly useful explanation.

"there's no known theoretical way to set the physical parameters to specific values"
applies to natural causes also, and there's also no known mechanism to prevent intentionally setting the physical parameters either.

And clearly the ability to set them would result in a far higher success rate than blind chance.
In which case the belief in our universe being created by purely naturalistic mechanisms - would also depend entirely on faith in the 'virgin birth' or 'immaculate conception' of our universe- rather than what would inevitably become a far greater number of common-or-garden 'knock offs'

What would make us so special?

i.e. the multiverse must be able to create anything, with one exception; anything that could ever be described as God, which would defeat the whole purpose of the theory in the first place .. yet more arbitrary restrictions necessary to constrain possibilities to the desired outcome.

 

[tas8831]

'Blind faith is faith which does not recognize itself as such'

Hi there! I know you never follow up for some reason, but I wanted to thank you again for, unwittingly, I am sure, totally undermining a common creationist argument about big numbers of genetic changes being "needed" for evolution and there not being enough time.
One of the pitfalls, I suppose, of not thinking through knee-jerk retorts or updating archived 'comebacks.' I mean, you've been hawking the 'short necked giraffe' thing for what - 5 years?

 

[Guy Threepwood]

False negatives and false positives are still relative to the patterns the observer conceives. So are the constraints which defines the patterns. Any truth about such signal patterns is also relative.
You might be interested in the truth ... but the truth you seek is in your mind.

Well sure, and ultimately as Darwin said, can we really trust anything that springs from the mind of a Monkey?

But the most objective measure we have for anything is math, and that's how we know beyond any reasonable doubt, that the gambler playing 4 royal flushes in a row is cheating (intelligent design v chance). And this proof lies objectively in the 'symbolic (representational) information' conveyed by the sequence of cards- again no appeal to 'magic' or the 'supernatural' required to make this conclusion.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

"there's no known theoretical way to set the physical parameters to specific values"
applies to natural causes also, and there's also no known mechanism to prevent intentionally setting the physical parameters either.

It's clear that the parameters will have some values, just as we know that measuring an entangled particle will give some value, but we don't know how those parameters could be set to specific values, any more than we know how to set an entangled particle to some specific value.

If you want to produce testable hypotheses, it helps to start with what is known and what is thought to be theoretically possible before considering more speculative ideas. When you start speculating in multiple dependent unknowns without any relation to the known or theoretically possible (like unknown intentional agencies with unknown capabilities beyond our theoretical understanding), there is no leverage or utility for enquiry; no 'explanation' of that kind is any more useful than any other. It's no different from myth, magic, & legend.

i.e. the multiverse must be able to create anything, with one exception, anything that could ever be described as God, which would defeat the whole purpose of the theory in the first place .. yet more arbitrary restrictions necessary to constrain possibilities to the desired outcome.

No, multiverses are predictions of existing theories about the universe. They only exist as predictions of our understanding of fundamental physics, and they can only produce what is consistent with fundamental physical laws. That would potentially include any possible combination of possible parameter values, so anything conceivable consistent with those fundamental laws.

It might be the case that our universe was created in an alien physics experiment, and it might be the case that life on Earth was seeded by robotic probes from another galaxy, these are understood to be theoretically possible, but unless we have good reason for supposing them to be likely or to have occurred, i.e. specific supporting evidence, we have no good reason to take such ideas seriously. That is even more the case for speculations about what is not known to be theoretically possible or is known not to be theoretically possible under the fundamental laws as we know them.

As I've said before, if you can show how an intentional creator agency, creating our universe with the specific parameter values it has, is any better an explanation, given reasonable criteria for a good explanation, than 'Magic', I'll defend its position as second-worst explanation.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Can I ask a favour? Please don't treat me like a moron. Thanks.

For the record, you sound like a pretty thoughtful intelligent person to me.

If I thought you were a moron, I would probably just ignore your posts.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

It's clear that the parameters will have some values, just as we know that measuring an entangled particle will give some value, but we don't know how those parameters could be set to specific values, any more than we know how to set an entangled particle to some specific value.

If you want to produce testable hypotheses, it helps to start with what is known and what is thought to be theoretically possible before considering more speculative ideas. When you start speculating in multiple dependent unknowns without any relation to the known or theoretically possible (like unknown intentional agencies with unknown capabilities beyond our theoretical understanding), there is no leverage or utility for enquiry; no 'explanation' of that kind is any more useful than any other. It's no different from myth, magic, & legend.


No, multiverses are predictions of existing theories about the universe. They only exist as predictions of our understanding of fundamental physics, and they can only produce what is consistent with fundamental physical laws. That would potentially include any possible combination of possible parameter values, so anything conceivable consistent with those fundamental laws.

It might be the case that our universe was created in an alien physics experiment, and it might be the case that life on Earth was seeded by robotic probes from another galaxy, these are understood to be theoretically possible, but unless we have good reason for supposing them to be likely or to have occurred, i.e. specific supporting evidence, we have no good reason to take such ideas seriously. That is even more the case for speculations about what is not known to be theoretically possible or is known not to be theoretically possible under the fundamental laws as we know them.

As I've said before, if you can show how an intentional creator agency, creating our universe with the specific parameter values it has, is any better an explanation, given reasonable criteria for a good explanation, than 'Magic', I'll defend its position as second-worst explanation.

Thanks for the detailed response, and I think we agree on much of that.

Regarding what we know is theoretically possible then- I think we agree we have to at least allow both (which is not always conceded by some so that's a start!) Which brings us to the question- which would be the least improbable?

I have a very old copy of Origin of Species on my desk, I can explain all the materials on some chemical level by purely 'naturalistic' mechanisms. From the ink to the paper to the binding to the cover- I could just about get by without intelligent design. The thing I cannot explain by naturalistic mechanisms is the information content.

Having said that yes, it must be allowed, that one of his 'ancestors' blindfolded at a typewriter, could type the same book: i.e. A monkey's random keystrokes 'would potentially include any possible combination of possible parameter values, so anything conceivable consistent with those fundamental laws.'

The reason it is a very poor competitor as an explanation for the book, is because those possible combinations include an infinite number that are utterly unintelligible. That is they specify no symbolic (representational) information. Whereas the same mechanisms in the hands of a creative intelligence will usually convey meaning of some sort.

The fundamental power of explanation here is not merely intelligence but the capacity for anticipation.
A phenomena unique to creative intelligence.

The book not only does exist, but in practice only can exist because of the desire, will to make it so.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Thanks for the detailed response, and I think we agree on much of that.

Regarding what we know is theoretically possible then- I think we agree we have to at least allow both (which is not always conceded by some so that's a start!) Which brings us to the question- which would be the least improbable?

I have a very old copy of Origin of Species on my desk, I can explain all the materials on some chemical level by purely 'naturalistic' mechanisms. From the ink to the paper to the binding to the cover- I could just about get by without intelligent design. The thing I cannot explain by naturalistic mechanisms is the information content.

Having said that yes, it must be allowed, that one of his 'ancestors' blindfolded at a typewriter, could type the same book: i.e. A monkey's random keystrokes 'would potentially include any possible combination of possible parameter values, so anything conceivable consistent with those fundamental laws.'

The reason it is a very poor competitor as an explanation for the book, is because those possible combinations include an infinite number that are utterly unintelligible. That is they specify no symbolic (representational) information. Whereas the same mechanisms in the hands of a creative intelligence will usually convey meaning of some sort.

The fundamental power of explanation here is not merely intelligence but the capacity for anticipation.
A phenomena unique to creative intelligence.

The book not only does exist, but in practice only can exist because of the desire, will to make it so.

We know how books are made and who makes them. We know that we developed the cognitive, physical, technical, and cultural means to produce books. We know that this occurred over hundreds of thousands of years, following millions of years of evolution laying the groundwork for these developments. It's a wonderful thing, but no mystery.

 

[Astrid]

'Blind faith is faith which does not recognize itself as such'

Off topic, irrelevant again

 

[Astrid]

For the record, you sound like a pretty thoughtful intelligent person to me.

If I thought you were a moron, I would probably just ignore your posts.

My Mom never told me she loves me, nor I her.
I've never told anyone that I love them.
It is not our culture to do so, to speak of
our love or respect for someone.
Words are cheap, we believe only in
showing our regard through our actions- which
speak far louder than any words.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

We know how books are made and who makes them. We know that we developed the cognitive, physical, technical, and cultural means to produce books. We know that this occurred over hundreds of thousands of years, following millions of years of evolution laying the groundwork for these developments. It's a wonderful thing, but no mystery.

Well exactly- the mystery is not how volumes of symbolic (representational) information can be created.

The mystery is only how they could ever be created without creativity.

 

[SelfSim]

Well exactly- the mystery is not how volumes of symbolic (representational) information can be created.

The mystery is only how they could ever be created without creativity.

The real mystery is whether or not we are capable of escaping the confines of our own symbolic representations inherent to the meaning of creativity, in order to conclude the existence of it independently from us.

 

[Astrid]

The real mystery is whether or not we are capable of escaping the confines of our own symbolic representations inherent to the meaning of creativity, in order to conclude the existence of it independently from us.

Likely few see a problem with dumb old rocks and water
forming a gorgeous crystal cave.
Where's the line between dull inert and "only a (C)reator can do it"?

 

[SelfSim]

Likely few see a problem with dumb old rocks and water forming a gorgeous crystal cave.
Where's the line between dull inert and "only a (C)reator can do it"?

I had a haircut in my back yard the other day. Later I saw a raven/black crow actually bundling the scattered mess of my small tufts of hair left on the grass into one big bundle. It flew away with it in all its beak in only one flight. I had a good chuckle and thought how creative that bird was. Then I wondered whether or not it was just me relating to what I'd just witnessed as what I mean by 'creativity', or whether the bird actually knew it was being 'creative'?

I went inside smiling and by sheer fluke I happened to stumble across that day's science news release, here. I found an almost unpronouceable scientific term for it: 'kleptotrichy'.

Interestingly, the expert animal behaviorist in that article, also notes: “Popular observations precede science rather than the other way around, which is a valid way to do science”. But does that science there, have anything to do with either kleptotrichy or creativity, existing independently from whatever those terms mean to us humans? Are we just reading what those terms mean into what we see there? Where does the real creativity exist there, in coming up with those terms and their meanings? Who is the real creator exhibiting the creativity there?
My working answer to that is simply: 'Its us', because that's where the evidence at hand leads us ...

 

[Astrid]

I had a haircut in my back yard the other day. Later I saw a raven/black crow actually bundling the scattered mess of my small tufts of hair left on the grass into one big bundle. It flew away with it in all its beak in only one flight. I had a good chuckle and thought how creative that bird was. Then I wondered whether or not it was just me relating to what I'd just witnessed as what I mean by 'creativity', or whether the bird actually knew it was being 'creative'?

I went inside smiling and by sheer fluke I happened to stumble across that day's science news release, here. I found an almost unpronouceable scientific term for it: 'kleptotrichy'.

Interestingly, the expert animal behaviorist in that article, also notes: “Popular observations precede science rather than the other way around, which is a valid way to do science”. But does that science there, have anything to do with either kleptotrichy or creativity, existing independently from whatever those terms mean to us humans? Are we just reading what those terms mean into what we see there? Where does the real creativity exist there, in coming up with those terms and their meanings? Who is the real creator exhibiting the creativity there?
My working answer to that is simply: 'Its us', because that's where the evidence at hand leads us ...

Interesting! A new word to add to such as "crepuscular".

I do hope the black kites here won't take to plucking
long black hair.
But then there's so many of us to choose among and
I blend in rather well.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

The real mystery is whether or not we are capable of escaping the confines of our own symbolic representations inherent to the meaning of creativity, in order to conclude the existence of it independently from us.

Ah yes, now here we are getting into some pretty advanced and controversial scientific research..
I'll see if I can find links to the peer reviewed papers, but I do recall the claim; that after extensive training, a dog called Rover was taught to actually sit upon hearing the command 'sit' in anticipation of receiving a doggy treat.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Well exactly- the mystery is not how volumes of symbolic (representational) information can be created.

The mystery is only how they could ever be created without creativity.

Such as what? DNA? we know how DNA information accumulates. Evolution is a creative process.