7 of 9
7
A universe from nothing… BS
Posted: 23 January 2012 07:21 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 91 ]  
Newbie
Rank
Total Posts:  17
Joined  2011-11-18
Michael Kean - 23 January 2012 06:31 PM

Ok - so no strong emergence or weak emergence either, just “freeze frame” magic!  Good luck with that trick, rammaq.  Or if not magic then god-like mystery and dogma backed by absolutely nothing you can point to in reality!

I didn’t say that there is no weak emergence, did I? As srrr has explained, weak emergence happens, but it doesn’t mean that hitherto non-existent things can pop into existence. There can be change without new objects or properties coming into existence.

And if there is no fundamental level then of what use are your diagrams?  They don’t explain anything!  And for the same reason, neither does srrr’s idea of “primordial consciousness” or panpsychism or Platonic idealism.

Where did I say that there is no fundamental level?

So you’re left with three choices - strong emergence’s magic, “it always existed” dogma or weak emergence’s reality.  Think again…

Weak emergence is perfectly compatible with my ‘it always existed’ dogma. smile

Profile
 
 
Posted: 23 January 2012 09:16 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 92 ]  
Member
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  173
Joined  2011-10-16
rammaq - 23 January 2012 07:21 PM
Michael Kean - 23 January 2012 06:31 PM

Ok - so no strong emergence or weak emergence either, just “freeze frame” magic!  Good luck with that trick, rammaq.  Or if not magic then god-like mystery and dogma backed by absolutely nothing you can point to in reality!

I didn’t say that there is no weak emergence, did I? As srrr has explained, weak emergence happens, but it doesn’t mean that hitherto non-existent things can pop into existence. There can be change without new objects or properties coming into existence.

And if there is no fundamental level then of what use are your diagrams?  They don’t explain anything!  And for the same reason, neither does srrr’s idea of “primordial consciousness” or panpsychism or Platonic idealism.

Where did I say that there is no fundamental level?

So you’re left with three choices - strong emergence’s magic, “it always existed” dogma or weak emergence’s reality.  Think again…

Weak emergence is perfectly compatible with my ‘it always existed’ dogma. smile

Why do you guys always twist what you say?  Yes it’s easy for you guys to get on the emergence bandwagon while it suits you but what about when it comes to the point we were discussing - at the point of fundamental particles or primordial consciousness?  The question is, do these weakly emerge?  If fundamental particles weakly emerge then your diagrams are pretty useless, aren’t they.  This is the point: Weak emergence of fundamental particles and primordial consciousness are not compatible with dogmas that say they “always existed”.  So when you say you believe in weak emergence, you only partly believe in it.  For your fundamental particles and srrr’s primordial consciousness you seem to believe in “something from nothing”!

[ Edited: 23 January 2012 09:46 PM by Michael Kean]
 Signature 

“That all men are by nature equally free and independent, and have certain inherent rights, of which, when they enter into a state of society, they cannot, by any compact, deprive or divest their posterity; namely, the enjoyment of life and liberty, with the means of acquiring and possessing property, and pursuing and obtaining happiness and safety.”  (The first article of the Virginia Declaration of Rights adopted unanimously by the Virginia Convention of Delegates on June 12, 1776)

Profile
 
 
Posted: 23 January 2012 09:43 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 93 ]  
Member
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  233
Joined  2011-10-22
Michael Kean - 23 January 2012 09:16 PM

Why do you guys always twist what you say?  Yes it’s easy for you guys to get on the emergence bandwagon while it suits you but what about when it comes to the point we were discussing - at the point of fundamental particles or primordial consciousness?  The question was, do these weakly emerge?  If fundamental particles weakly emerge then your diagrams are pretty useless, aren’t they.  This is the point: Weak emergence of fundamental particles and primordial consciousness are not compatible with dogmas that say they “always existed”.

Lets go back to the two planets. Lets assume the two planets, their motion, and the spacetime they exist in are fundamental. So the two planets move away from eachother. First they are 1 million km apart (situation A), then 2 million km apart. So situation B weakly emerged out of situation A. Yet, the planets didnt pop into existence at any point. Neither did their motion, or the spacetime. So as Ramaq said: there can be change without new objects or properties coming into existence. Instead of “weak emergence”, maybe you should simply think of it as “change”, because i can see you still think that “emerge” means that something pops into existence.


So a consciousness can exist, and also change (aka weakly emerge). A simple example of this is when you watch TV. One moment you see this color (situation A), the next you see another color (B), then you see yet another one(C). So here you have 3 weakly emergent conscious states (the experiences had changed over time), yet you were still conscious all along. It is no different for PC.

[ Edited: 23 January 2012 09:54 PM by srrr]
Profile
 
 
Posted: 23 January 2012 09:52 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 94 ]  
Member
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  173
Joined  2011-10-16
srrr - 23 January 2012 09:43 PM

[Lets go back to the two planets. Lets assume the two planets, their motion, and the spacetime they exist in are fundamental.

No, let’s not.  Once you do you accept something from nothing (strong emergence) or at least something for nothing (aka “always existed”).  Both concepts, using your own term, are BS.

[ Edited: 23 January 2012 10:02 PM by Michael Kean]
 Signature 

“That all men are by nature equally free and independent, and have certain inherent rights, of which, when they enter into a state of society, they cannot, by any compact, deprive or divest their posterity; namely, the enjoyment of life and liberty, with the means of acquiring and possessing property, and pursuing and obtaining happiness and safety.”  (The first article of the Virginia Declaration of Rights adopted unanimously by the Virginia Convention of Delegates on June 12, 1776)

Profile
 
 
Posted: 23 January 2012 09:55 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 95 ]  
Member
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  233
Joined  2011-10-22
Michael Kean - 23 January 2012 09:52 PM
srrr - 23 January 2012 09:43 PM

[Lets go back to the two planets. Lets assume the two planets, their motion, and the spacetime they exist in are fundamental.

No, let’s not.  Once you do you accept something from nothing (strong emergence) or at least something for nothing (aka “always existed”).  Both concepts, using your own term, are BS.

Fundamental means the always existed. It doesnt mean they didnt exist first and then came into existence.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 23 January 2012 10:00 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 96 ]  
Member
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  173
Joined  2011-10-16
srrr - 23 January 2012 09:55 PM

[Fundamental means the always existed. It doesnt mean they didnt exist first and then came into existence.

Yes fundamental means always existed - and that means something for nothing.  This is slightly different to something from nothing, but is still BS in your own terms.

 Signature 

“That all men are by nature equally free and independent, and have certain inherent rights, of which, when they enter into a state of society, they cannot, by any compact, deprive or divest their posterity; namely, the enjoyment of life and liberty, with the means of acquiring and possessing property, and pursuing and obtaining happiness and safety.”  (The first article of the Virginia Declaration of Rights adopted unanimously by the Virginia Convention of Delegates on June 12, 1776)

Profile
 
 
Posted: 24 January 2012 03:30 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 97 ]  
Member
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  233
Joined  2011-10-22
Michael Kean - 23 January 2012 10:00 PM
srrr - 23 January 2012 09:55 PM

[Fundamental means the always existed. It doesnt mean they didnt exist first and then came into existence.

Yes fundamental means always existed - and that means something for nothing.  This is slightly different to something from nothing, but is still BS in your own terms.

What is “something for nothing”?


Are you saying that the motion of planets is BS? What ive said is entirely natural and it is how science tells us the universe works.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 24 January 2012 03:46 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 98 ]  
Member
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  233
Joined  2011-10-22
Michael Kean - 23 January 2012 02:23 PM

What else should you reason with?  What about letting cutting-edge science out of your pre-conceived philosophical boxes so it can get on with doing science?  Science doesn’t need your “physicalist” straightjacket to do science.  And who is talking about strong emergence as you define it besides you?  All it does is muddy the waters.

Cutting edge science supports exactly what ive said. The progress of science from considering atoms to be fundamental, to now elementary particles (and onwards towards strings, loops of spacetime, information or something else) has always been a case of weak emergence: they found that the higher level ingredients (for example the atom) can be explained in terms of more basic ingredients (elementary particles).


Whatever you pick out to be fundamental, anyone who believes that objective reality existed before consciousness came about, accepts that something objective (thus non-arbitrary and non-tentative) exists.

Exactly.  Something your downplaying of quantative differences fails to do.

Just because something is socially useful, doesnt mean it exists. The idea of a christian god may be useful for many people, that doesnt mean it exists either.


Btw im not downplaying quantitative differences. Quantitative differences account for all the differences between physical objects. There is nothing to be downplayed there, thats just the way nature works.

[ Edited: 24 January 2012 03:53 AM by srrr]
Profile
 
 
Posted: 24 January 2012 05:48 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 99 ]  
Member
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  233
Joined  2011-10-22
Michael Kean - 23 January 2012 06:31 PM

Ok - so no strong emergence or weak emergence either, just “freeze frame” magic!

There is the root of your misunderstanding. If something exists at the fundamental level, it doesnt mean tis “frozen” motionless or unchanging. A simple example is if motion were fundamental (which im not saying it is).

Profile
 
 
Posted: 24 January 2012 06:02 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 100 ]  
Member
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  233
Joined  2011-10-22
Michael Kean - 23 January 2012 02:49 PM

Houses ‘emerge’ from bricks and not vice versa.

Houses dont emerge from bricks… houses ARE bricks. And the bricks ARE elementary particles and fundamental forces.


“house” is just a redundant (but socially useful) label we humans assign to the configuration of particles. A japanese person for instance may call it something entirely different than “house”. But physically its still just the same particles.

[ Edited: 24 January 2012 06:11 AM by srrr]
Profile
 
 
Posted: 24 January 2012 01:51 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 101 ]  
Member
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  173
Joined  2011-10-16
srrr - 24 January 2012 03:30 AM
Michael Kean - 23 January 2012 10:00 PM
srrr - 23 January 2012 09:55 PM

[Fundamental means the always existed. It doesnt mean they didnt exist first and then came into existence.

Yes fundamental means always existed - and that means something for nothing.  This is slightly different to something from nothing, but is still BS in your own terms.

What is “something for nothing”?

Yeah - good question.  You claim “something for nothing” when you claim something “always existed”.  When you say primordial consciousness always existed you claim that it is infallible even if you allow it to change over time from that point on.  A bit like the infallibility of the Christian God that is allowed to change His message of salvation over time.  When you claim primordial consciousness always existed you claim that it is divine.


So let me think.  What can we compare your infallible and divine primordial consciousness to?  Well yes, anything divine has divine power, divine right, divine authority; divine prerogative.  Ringing any bells yet?  What about divine revelation? No?  What about the infallible Word of primordial consciousness?  Hasn’t been revealed to you yet?  Don’t worry, as your divine enlightenment catches on, all will be revealed!  Maybe not to you, because maybe you are at a level too low for such esoteric truths - but sooner or later a divine priesthood will arise to organise society “the way it should be”.  Probably won’t take all that long and the name “primordial consciousness” itself will be banned - or at least capitalised “for goodness sake”!  Yes infallible, divine Primordial Consciousness really does explain Everything according to Srrr doesn’t it.  Sorry, just drifting into an elated, ecstatic and dreamy trance at this point…

 Signature 

“That all men are by nature equally free and independent, and have certain inherent rights, of which, when they enter into a state of society, they cannot, by any compact, deprive or divest their posterity; namely, the enjoyment of life and liberty, with the means of acquiring and possessing property, and pursuing and obtaining happiness and safety.”  (The first article of the Virginia Declaration of Rights adopted unanimously by the Virginia Convention of Delegates on June 12, 1776)

Profile
 
 
Posted: 24 January 2012 02:50 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 102 ]  
Newbie
Rank
Total Posts:  17
Joined  2011-11-18

Some materialists believe that matter always existed, does that mean matter is divine?
‘Always existed’ = ‘divine’ is a non-sequitur, in my view.

And even if it were true, it would still not be a rational argument to say ‘if consciousness did always exist, then it would be divine, therefore consciousness cannot have always existed’. That you feel uneasy about the divine does not mean that it doesn’t exist.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 24 January 2012 03:52 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 103 ]  
Member
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  173
Joined  2011-10-16
rammaq - 24 January 2012 02:50 PM

Some materialists believe that matter always existed, does that mean matter is divine?
‘Always existed’ = ‘divine’ is a non-sequitur, in my view.

And even if it were true, it would still not be a rational argument to say ‘if consciousness did always exist, then it would be divine, therefore consciousness cannot have always existed’. That you feel uneasy about the divine does not mean that it doesn’t exist.

1. I think the idea that “some materialist believe that matter always existed” is the very idea being boldly challenged by modern theories such as that presented in Cahill’s paper.  And Krauss also supports the idea that we can no longer think about nothing (and something) as we have perhaps considered them before QM came along.  So your philosophical materialism will pass away in the light of science’s discoveries and successes.  Science will not be held captive by the past and its philosophical boxes.  So your statement that some materialists believe that matter always existed is irrelevant except that it supports the idea that anyone who believes anything always existed seem always to be proven wrong eventually.
2. You object to the word divine, but not to the word infallible I assume.  If something always existed, surely not even you can deny it is infallible by definition?  The only difference between infallible and divine is time.  Given enough time, even your ‘infallible level’, let alone ‘infalliible consciousness’, will morph into something divine…
3. Consciousness could not have always existed for one simple reason: There is not anything that always existed.  All claims to the contrary are not based on observation and the rigours of science; they are based on dogma.  This dogmatic claim is the reason why “divinity” is just around the corner for you and srrr…


Just in case you’ve missed the meaning of dogma somehow, here is the definition from Wikipedia:

Dogma is the established belief or doctrine held by a religion, or a particular group or organization[1]. It is authoritative and not to be disputed, doubted, or diverged from, by the practitioners or believers. Although it generally refers to religious beliefs that are accepted without reason or evidence, they can refer to acceptable opinions of philosophers or philosophical schools, public decrees, or issued decisions of political authorities.

[ Edited: 24 January 2012 03:56 PM by Michael Kean]
 Signature 

“That all men are by nature equally free and independent, and have certain inherent rights, of which, when they enter into a state of society, they cannot, by any compact, deprive or divest their posterity; namely, the enjoyment of life and liberty, with the means of acquiring and possessing property, and pursuing and obtaining happiness and safety.”  (The first article of the Virginia Declaration of Rights adopted unanimously by the Virginia Convention of Delegates on June 12, 1776)

Profile
 
 
Posted: 24 January 2012 09:41 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 104 ]  
Member
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  233
Joined  2011-10-22
Michael Kean - 24 January 2012 01:51 PM

... even if you allow it to change over time from that point on.

And before that point also. Your idea that something fundamental cannot be subject to change and is frozen motionless, is refuted by simply making (for example) motion fundamental.


So, please explain why change cannot be fundamental.


Also your assumption that a fundamental consciousness is an unchanging consciousness, is contradicted by natural examples of consciousness. Can you give one example of an unchanging consciousness out there in nature?

[ Edited: 24 January 2012 09:53 PM by srrr]
Profile
 
 
Posted: 24 January 2012 10:52 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 105 ]  
Member
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  173
Joined  2011-10-16
srrr - 24 January 2012 09:41 PM
Michael Kean - 24 January 2012 01:51 PM

... even if you allow it to change over time from that point on.

And before that point also. Your idea that something fundamental cannot be subject to change and is frozen motionless, is refuted by simply making (for example) motion fundamental.


So, please explain why change cannot be fundamental.


Also your assumption that a fundamental consciousness is an unchanging consciousness, is contradicted by natural examples of consciousness. Can you give one example of an unchanging consciousness out there in nature?

Srrr, it is the adherence to a dogma that is fixed, not the contents of that dogma.  Your dogma is that primordial consciousness always existed.  Is there any movement or change in that belief, or are you sticking to that fixation?  I’d be a lot happier if you said “maybe PC weakly emerged but maybe it didn’t”.  Then I could see you have an open mind.  Likewise, “maybe there are fundamental particles, but maybe there aren’t”.  That way you give the reader the choice to make up their own mind on the topic.  But if you want to make a bold claim then you need to support it - not just say “that’s it”.  Look carefully at the topic of this thread you chose.  You have totally bagged a prominent scientist and author writing in his own area of expertise.  So when you say we get PC no matter what, i.e. “for nothing”, i.e. without any precedent, don’t you think someone like myself is going to think that rather contradictory?  Why is it ok for you to claim something for nothing and not someone like Dr Krauss?  Don’t you think you should apologise to Dr Krauss? smile

[ Edited: 24 January 2012 11:07 PM by Michael Kean]
 Signature 

“That all men are by nature equally free and independent, and have certain inherent rights, of which, when they enter into a state of society, they cannot, by any compact, deprive or divest their posterity; namely, the enjoyment of life and liberty, with the means of acquiring and possessing property, and pursuing and obtaining happiness and safety.”  (The first article of the Virginia Declaration of Rights adopted unanimously by the Virginia Convention of Delegates on June 12, 1776)

Profile
 
 
   
7 of 9
7
 
RSS 2.0     Atom Feed