The Multiverse and Existential Scale | Robert Lawrence Kuhn

Georgina,
I have flagged your spam to the Forum Moderator, saying: "This post is an advertisement for G. Parry/ Woodward's son".

Hi Steve,

I don’t think it is useful to split hairs over knowledge and consciousness. Consciousness is such a controversial topic, that to get in the right ballpark is the aim, not to be entirely precise. Get in the right ballpark first, then split hairs.

I’m saying that the ballpark is that consciousness is a separate, necessary aspect of the real-world system; consciousness (and also creativity) is a logical aspect that is necessary for a viable standalone, self-sufficient, mathematical, real-world system. (And in the context of this thread by Robert Kuhn, I’m saying that consciousness and creativity are the basic aspects whose existence can’t be explained.)

Without going off on a tangent about physical matter like particles and atoms, one can be precise about low-level consciousness: low-level consciousness IS knowledge. Low-level consciousness is point-of-view on-the-spot knowledge of the low-level world. Low-level consciousness is awareness/ experience of the mathematics of the world, i.e. awareness/ experience of what physicists would represent as categories, relationships and numbers.

Consciousness (and knowledge) is always based on the world, because the foundation of ALL higher-level consciousness (and knowledge) is the above-described low-level consciousness/ knowledge of the low-level, physics-level, interactions in the senses.

But the content of higher-level consciousness (and knowledge) is clearly a bit of a concoction (that is why we need science). It is only with higher-level consciousness that one can split hairs about all sorts of things, including distinguishing higher-level knowledge from higher-level consciousness, and distinguishing higher-level consciousness from how higher-level consciousness feels.

Has everyone forgotten that this thread is supposed to be about the size/ units issue in a multiverse, and about “Why is there anything at all, why not nothing?”.

In the context of the subject matter of this thread by Robert Kuhn, I’m saying that consciousness and creativity are the basic aspects of the world whose existence can’t be explained. And I'm saying WHY consciousness is a necessary aspect of the world, but a first-principles aspect of the world that therefore can't be explained.

However, I think that Georgina's off-the-cuff, completely thoughtless, badly-spelled, bad grammar and punctuation, continual dribble of semi-comments, in every single thread on this website, should ALL be flagged.

Lorraine Ford
I should add that this is the FOURTH time in recent weeks that Georgina has placed an ADVERTISEMENT for her son’s music on the FQxI website!!

Lorraine Ford
I don't believe in the multiverse, nor superposition, existential wave function and their suposed collapse. Therefore, to me, the size of the multiverse is a pointless exersize. On the Georege Ellis Existence thread, I have written a solution to the measurement problem.
Why quantum physics does not describe actual reallity. 1. The measurement problem (WHAT AND WHY) 2. Vulnerabilitry to illusion 3. No object permanence in the theorty 4.Has interpreted evidence of filled voids hosting their disturbance, (which can be split into particle and wave and wave, the two pieces intrerfering). The alternative can explain all experiments descibed using superposition. The theory representing instead superposition of a particle-wave, represented by wave fuction that has no definite singularstate until obseved, at which time it forms one definite state out of the possibilities, at a definitelocation according to that observer.5. no clear differentiation of material particle inputs and observation product outputs. 6.human vision does not get involved but plays a important role in the production of the seen 'reality'.
Entanglement was suggested as an explanation of findings, on the understanding that values
of material pop into existence, rather than following a sequence of chage from creation of the particle pair. Being a real occurance relies on the underlying theory being correct. The multiverse was proposed to overcome the issue of the measure ment problem. It is not needed as wave functions are a failed hypotheasis. We should expect different observers to give diferent outcomes as observation products or results as this is what SR WRelativity tells us. Different arrangements of measuring apparatuas too, placed by the experimenter, impose a rererence frame.

Hi Steve,

Re your "I consider philosophically a kind of main function where this pantheism, panpsychism and materialism are considered ... ":

If low-level matter is is some way conscious, then presumably it has to be conscious OF something. What do you think that low-level matter would be conscious of? Or do you think that the consciousness of low-level matter would be devoid of content?

Georgina Woodward
Georgina,

I think that the physics of the world can't make sense without considering the bigger picture real-world system. As I see it, the parts can only make sense in the context of the whole, where the whole is presumably a self-contained, self-sufficient, standalone, system.

Georgina Woodward
Georgina,

Anyone in their right mind would know that this is the fifth ADVERTISMENT you have placed on the FQxI website in the last few days.

Lorraine Ford I don’t think it is useful to split hairs over knowledge and consciousness. Consciousness is such a controversial topic,

This is why we first need to define what we talk about, otherwise we risk to discuss different topics and we only get confused. This is important.

Your definitions are confusing. I saw it in the Landscape discussion/Kuhn too. It does not give much then.

I think the only reasonable definition of some proto-consciousness is from quantum scenarios, but I still have hard to think of it as a reality, in meaning pure ontological states. I have more to learn.
It would make all conscious to some degree (proto-degree). A slime mold would be conscious in the meaning doing choices, selections, have attention.

Lorraine Ford low-level matter

Again, what is it, a definition, pls.

Ulla Mattfolk
Ulla,
I have repeatedly, endlessly, described/ defined/ talked about what I mean by low-level and high-level consciousness, and low-level matter, and the mathematical aspects of the real-world system, etc.
I have asked you several times, but you, a conscious person, have not been able to describe what you mean by the word "consciousness", or what use your consciousness is to you.

Georgina Woodward
I've found out with a quick Google search; The pre-frontal cortex is a mammalian thing. Most developed in the human, small in the cetations, who use two alternative regions having a quite diffferent brain structure. Birds have a different structure that perfoms the same sort of functions as the pre -frontal cortex. Other vertebrates not already mentioned use other structures more dis-similar in function to the pre-frontal cortex.
From this we can implty that not only are the animals different in lifestylte and environment, providing the inputs. Their subjective consciousnes is also different because of the different processing that occurs.

Lorraine Ford Lorraine, in a sense we are on the same wavelenght because we consider a kind of proto consciousness. So what you tell is challenging , that said we have no real explaination about this creativity and consciousness, If they are intrinsic to the fabric of the reality itself, how , it is the reall question. Let s take so your reasoning with the categories, equations, numbers and their relationships being a creativity, what is the main driving force of this creativity permitting so these relationships. It becomes a metaphysical problem , we return at these philosophical and ontological limitations that I explained because it is beyond the simple causes and effects that we know. It is indeed deep when we consider this free will and creativity.
If the numbers, categoroes are like the mass , positions and that the relationships like equations ....are not just features describing the universe but represent something inherent to the creative nature of this universe, so what are these causes and where are the informations, particles or fields of this reasoning,
If the consciousness in a lower level of matters are conscious also, it is due to what, for me it is this 0D main conscious field omniptent outside and inside but of course we cannot affirm and we dont know the process and mechanism. It is a pure panpsychism reasoning and even pantheistic because in this reasoning this consciousness is a reality at all levels and scales. Is it a state lie the mass, charge, the potition .....maybe . Personally if it is the case I doubt that it is conscious of nothing or from nothing, it seesm odd,that is why the outside and inside this universe becomes philosophically relevant to extrapolate. So lol I were to risk a guess, I would suggest that low level matter might be conscious of its own existence , so it is basic yes but these limitations imply that we cannot affirm ihow the materialism, panpsychism and pantheism act with their mechanisms at this quantum and cosmological scales. But this protoconsciousness is a relevant theory becayuse it contributes to higher levels of cnsciousness and when we consider the more complex forms of lifes, it is still more relevant considering the combinations possible inside this universe . So in resume your ideas are very interesting about the mysteries of why we exist . And the idea of consciousness and creativity being irreducible like foundamental elements of the universe is fascinating, Regards, ps thanks for this sharing moment of creative consciousness lol

Lorraine Ford It is there that we arrive at the most important ontological and philosophial question, this protoconsciousness , is it from a mathenmatical accident from nothing, or is it from this 0D of a pantheistic god, all is there but these limitations are a reality ,.......