• Blog

  • The Multiverse and Existential Scale | Robert Lawrence Kuhn

There is no essential difference between the particle interactions that are happening in a living thing, like a human being, and the particle interactions that are happening on the ice planet Neptune. What is possible, what intrinsic aspects of the world are emphasized, the difference between a person and a planet or a rock, depends on what the particle environment of the particles will allow (1).

Contrary to what Georgina seems to be saying, the particles, and any subsequent atoms, molecules, and living things, are not deceiving themselves in their interactions with their environments; they are not being tricked by their environments.

The world, with its interactions, is a moving system, but it has often been noted that a set of equations cannot represent a viable moving system. I’m claiming that a viable moving real-world system requires logical aspects, as well as the aspects of the system that are represented by the equations and the numbers.

And when it comes to living things, different intrinsic aspects of the real-world moving system have more emphasis. With living things, the aspects that have more emphasis are the logical aspects of the real-world system.

These logical aspects of the real-world system are the very same aspects of the world that can’t be explained when the question is asked: "Why is there anything at all, why not nothing?"

…………………………………………….

  1. This “possibility” and probability are high-level human ways of analysing the world; possibility and probability are not actually existing low-level component parts of the world.

    Lorraine Ford
    Contrary to what Georgina seems to be saying, the particles, and any subsequent atoms, molecules, and living things, are not deceiving themselves in their interactions with their environments; they are not being tricked by their environments.
    Lorraine you are completely misrepresenting what I have said, once again. I have not said that particles are tricked by their environment or particles, molecules, simple materials are decieving themselves ,in their interactions with the environment. I am not a pan psychist . I think these simple things do what they must, obeying the local laws of nature. Given the local matter, energy, space fillling substance and relationships between. The animation of the Milky way is likely is due to the energy it inherited at formation, since energy is not created or destroyed, only changes kind .

      Lorraine Ford

      @"Lorraine Ford"#p1689
      Contrary to what Georgina seems to be saying, the particles, and any subsequent atoms, molecules, and living things, are not deceiving themselves in their interactions with their environments; they are not being tricked by their environments. Lorraoine Ford
      Lorraine you are completely misrepresenting what I have said, once again. I have not said that particles are tricked by their environment or particles, molecules, simple materials are decieving themselves ,in their interactions with the environment. I am not a pan psychist . I think these simple things do what they must, obeying the local laws of nature. Given the local matter, energy, space fillling substance and relationships between. The animation of the Milky way is likely is due to the energy it inherited at formation, since energy is not created or destroyed, only changes kind. Georgina Wodward.

          Georgina Woodward
          A living organism,such as a human being,is a material object made or many particles, but not just that,
          An organism is not just a collection of particles , it has organisation, The particles making it are arramged into conected tissues each having a function which aids survival of that organism or its species through reproduction.. The tissues includes the brain with its structure. Organisation of the particles allows energent function, that just a collection of the same number of particles that are not organised doesn't have. With this level of organisation comes the emergent ability to receive sensory input and processing of it into observation products. Organisation that allow the living thing awareness of the external environment by processing of sensory information is cpable of being informed by it and also vulnerable to incorrect conclusions .

              Georgina Woodward
              Were your fingers not working, again, Georgina? That is strange, because your fingers seemed to be working perfectly well, when you recently blatantly placed 10 (?, I’ve lost count of the number) advertisements on this platform for your family’s commercial products.

              Seemingly, this is what you and your family have been on about all these years, with your self-published family books, and your blind-men-and-elephants’ analogies: the world is inherently full of illusion; and physicists are therefore deluded about the world.

                  Lorraine Ford
                  You are not addressing the content of my last message but changing the subject. As I've saisd I am not asking for money but sharing something Iike for free. Some people may like or appreciate it (Not you obviosly) Your reply is mistaken, petty and vindictive.

                      Georgina Woodward
                      That too is another strange belief of yours, Georgina, because no one has yet found anything that “emerges” from complex systems except the superficial appearance of something emerging. That is why people are forced to conclude that panpsychism makes more logical sense.

                          Georgina Woodward
                          Re your: "I am not asking for money but sharing something Iike for free." That is typical salesperson-spiel.

                            Lorraine Ford
                            I should add that logical elements, describable as “the system’s knowledge of itself”, or “the system’s ability to interrogate itself”, are required in order to create a complex system in the first place.

                            Symbols for the logical elements that represent “the system’s knowledge of itself” are required in order to create a complex system, as well as the symbols for the equations and numbers. Equations and numbers alone cannot represent all the necessary aspects that are required to make a viable system.

                            In other words, logical elements like “the system’s knowledge of itself” or “the system’s ability to interrogate itself”, do NOT emerge from a system, but are required to in order to create a viable system in the first place.

                            My point being that there is NO system or organisation (e.g. of particles, or tissues, or other matter) without the pre-existence of these logical elements in the world.

                              Lorraine Ford
                              No existant thing, such as a weasel from a burrow or smoke from a chimney, emerges from a complexs system because of the complexity. that is the wrong meaning of the word in this context.
                              What is meant by emergence in this context is a new function can occur because a new structure has formed that can perform that function , -not posssiblee for earlier precursors. The eggshell termite mound and aeroplane wing-shape were given to you as eamples where thiat kind of emewrgence occurs.

                                  Systems can’t be assumed; life can’t be assumed.

                                  One of the topics of this discussion is: "Why is there anything at all, why not nothing?"

                                  This could perhaps be rephrased as: “Why does a viable moving system with structure exist? But first, what are the necessary component parts of a viable moving system with structure?”

                                  What are the necessary component parts of a viable moving system with structure?
                                  The equations that represent laws-of-nature, with their associated numbers, cannot create structure, including life, because collectively, they don’t even represent a viable system, let alone a moving system. As many physicists have, in effect, noted: something is missing.

                                  But it is already well known that to symbolically represent a viable moving system, you need logical connectives, as well as the equations and numbers. Logical connectives are the necessary aspects of a system that represent the system’s knowledge of itself and the system’s ability to move itself.

                                  In other words, a viable, moving, standalone, self-powered and self-sufficient real-world system needs to:

                                  • Know its own categories and numbers; and
                                  • Creatively jump its own numbers that apply to the categories. (And it should be noted that physicists know very well that law-of-nature relationships are necessary, but not sufficient, to handle the numbers during situations and interactions).

                                  So, these are the necessary logical aspects of a viable moving real-world system that can potentially create structure, including life:

                                  • Knowledge aspects; and
                                  • Creative aspects.

                                  Why does a viable moving system with structure exist?
                                  What needs to be explained are ALL the necessary component parts of a viable moving system, that can potentially create structure. I.e., what needs to be explained are the logical aspects, as well as the aspects that can be represented by equations and numbers.

                                  However, while the aspects that can be represented by equations and numbers can potentially be explained, the logical aspects, i.e. the aspects that know and the aspects that create, can’t be explained.

                                    Lorraine Ford
                                    I should also add that weather “systems” and computer “systems” are not viable, standalone, self-powered and self-sufficient systems, unless you include the underlying fundamental-level system of law-of-nature relationships between categories, the numbers that apply to the categories, and the logical connectives and inputs that make the whole system work.

                                    And while there are external inputs to weather “systems” and computer “systems”, there are no external inputs to the standalone, self-powered and self-sufficient, real-world system. There are only internal inputs to the real-world system, and these internal inputs can only come in the form of "number jumps".

                                      Lorraine Ford

                                      No, Georgina. You have assumed life. LOL. Lorraine
                                      And then you have assumed that something emerges from pre-existing life. lol.
                                      Systems can’t be assumed; life can’t be assumed. Lorraine Ford

                                      I was just exlaining how 'emerge ' is used. I don't see how the objection is relvant. Some stuctures have functions that others do not, for example an aeroplane wing is fabicated from materials that do not have lift as a property, but the finished wing does because of its shape.

                                        I think that possibly one of the best antidotes to some of the nonsense theories of physics, mathematics, or religion, would be to ask: "Why is there anything at all, why not nothing?", and refusing to put up with the inevitable nonsense answers.

                                        Because saying that underlying the world (i.e. universe) is a pre-existing mathematical system is a nonsense answer. Because there are already actual things in this vision of the world: there is actual ordered structure (categories, relationships, and/or numbers), and there is actual movement in the structure.

                                        But where does this ordered structure come from, and where does movement come from? Saying “I don’t know” is a pathetic, nonsense answer, and shouldn’t be accepted, because the answer to the question is inevitably a statement about the inherent nature and physics of the world to this day.

                                        In the end, one has to:

                                        • Assume a standalone, self-contained, self-powered and self-sufficient world, with no outside to it, and consequently, no meddling from the outside.
                                        • Assuming this standalone, self-sufficient world, one has to say that an aspect of the world created the structure, an aspect of the world creatively moves the structure, and an aspect of the world knows about the structure and its movement.

                                          Lorraine Ford
                                          (continued)

                                          I think that those people spouting the most egregious, disconnected-from-the-world nonsense, e.g. the nonsense coming from mathematician Gregory Chaitin and other mathematicians, need to go on a reality-check bootcamp, where they are forced to confront the question: "Why is there any structure at all, why not nothing?" and “Why is this structure moving?”.

                                          Saying “I don’t know” is a pathetic, nonsense answer, and wouldn’t be accepted, if I was running the bootcamp!! 😊

                                            The world is necessarily a self-sufficient entity: there is no meddling from the outside because the world has no outside, by definition. So, the world necessarily created its own mathematical structure, i.e. its own categories, relationships and numbers. In other words, the world is what we would call “God”, not to be confused with the innumerable overwrought mythologies that have been built up around the idea of a “God”.

                                            Clearly, the aspect of the world that created the structural categories, relationships and numbers, and the on-the-spot aspect that knows the structure, and the on-the-spot aspect that moves the numbers: these 3 aspects of the world are different to the structure. These primary underlying aspects of the world are what we would call “creativity” and “consciousness”, and they seem to be on-the-spot and particle-ised, not global.

                                            But there seems to be lot of wrong-headed people, you will see them on the internet, who say that an underlying mathematical structure just exists at the foundations of the world, and strangely, nobody thinks to ask any further probing questions about how the structure got there.

                                            And these people all assume that the structure automatically moves itself, and that the aspect of the world that knows about the structure and its movement, i.e. consciousness, emerges much later out of the complexity of it all.

                                            These people, who think that mathematical structure and movement just automatically exist, no questions asked, seem to have a straitjacket on their minds.

                                            It is a refreshing change when people like Chris Fuchs, Professor of Physics at the University of Massachusetts, say: "There is no one way the world is because the world is still in creation, still being hammered out."

                                            A mathematician is a conscious person sitting at a desk, moving and manipulating man-made symbols on a piece of paper, who tells themself that what they are really doing is exploring realms outside of the universe.

                                            This self-deception of (some) mathematicians occurs when they cut themselves, with their consciousness and agency, out of the picture.

                                            So, these mathematicians, and a whole lot of other people including physicists, and you will see them on the internet, have come to religiously believe that a real-life mathematical system of categories, relationships and numbers, that is moving, can simply exist, without anything creating it, without anything knowing it, and without anything moving it.

                                            And this is why these very same people can’t answer the question "Why is there anything at all, why not nothing?".

                                            Is immaterial consciousness received from the environment or is it degenerated by the material brain?
                                            Both can be correct descriptions as long as we accept that we don’t access the source material reality existing but the sensory data existing instead which we process into a subjective (Individual person with individual nervous system) and relative (individual viewpoint due to unique location in space at a time) awareness. That is also partial, not-Now exactly, may be distorted images pertaining to different times amalgamated especially in hypothetical near light speed scenarios. By associating learning and memory that may be relevant we get to individual perception.

                                            Requirements for sensory perception
                                            Having no awareness at all of something is subjectively the same as the things non existence. Though, in importantly, not the same as absolute, objective non existence. Absence of the material or object means they will not have released sensory data into the environment that is potentially receivable. No awareness can mean no sensory data was received (effectively the same as if there was nothing to receive.)
                                            This is relevant to understanding waves in space filling base substance, rather than particle-wave superposition. It provides no sensory data to tell of its existence, therefore subjectively it is not there. It can be inferred from effects. Waves can explain quantum behaviour and are well known in nature at many scales. Needed in the environment for awareness.
                                            Basic requirement for the primordial enviroment alone, substance that can be differentiated into existing particles, collections of particles having a specific structure, i,e,matter ,energy to allow the differentiation to happen.