• Blog

  • The Multiverse and Existential Scale | Robert Lawrence Kuhn

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.

                                  Georgina Woodward he mind body problem
                                  The mind body problem
                                  To be aware of anything requires the observer, either exist as a material object or a specialized part of it, the whole having other functions too. Or be generated by a material object. An immaterial consequence of the activity of necessary parts . the observer needs both the necessary structure and the structure, provided with energy to perform work, it’s function. This is as much an energetic happening as a static material structure, A human organism does more than just the functions of an observer. There is no specialized part. The whole peripheral nervous system, CNS, all sense organs and internal receptors, inside and on surface of the body.
                                  The humans sensory system can’t survive alone. It needs the rest of the body for maintenance and protection, while it increases survival of the body and its kind in the following ways. Internal monitoring improved homeostasis by influence on behaviour and within the external environment avoidance of hazards and predation, location of resources and mates. Connected to the musculature, voluntary and visceral, and the endocrine-hormone (feelings) system. Whether included or not depends on whether one wants to include responses to awareness as part of awareness or not

                                      Georgina Woodward
                                      Human primary senses
                                      Sound requires matter for it to be transmitted, usually air. “in space no one can hear you scream’ from Alien films franchise.
                                      Electromagnetic radiation, including visible light, and other wavelengths; these according to, the alternative explanatory framework, presented, require the void between and within matter and fermion particles not be empty space but a base (like base of a soup.)that is best thought of as part of the environment rather than part of the identity of the photon particle; which sympathetically vibrates with the photon, and can interfere with itself if divided and recombined, and the disturbance caused can effect the photon’s location. This is the situation for any particle or object small and without sufficient mass to be Influenced by quantum scale effects. This excludes most macroscopic and astronomical objects. Having a mass that is also insignificant with regard to gravity. any effect on it or of it on other matter, probably unnoticed because of the happenings in the quantum scale environment.

                                          Georgina Woodward
                                          How accurate is awareness? We have awareness of an external and internal environment because of sensory receipt and processing of the sensory information into a partial, subjective, relative semblance of the source (material, matter, object) with variable likeness to the source that at exists and where it exists in space, according to;
                                          1. excess input to the sense without sufficient filtration may distract/overwhelm concentration
                                          2. The quality and amount of information available. 2b. How recently acquired.
                                          3. How good ‘would be observer’ and observed are, at receiving and processing sensory information 3b. Type and number of sensors
                                          4. How good is the ‘would be’ observed is at Concealment, i.e. How good is the 'would be’ observed is at avoiding detection.
                                          5. How good it is at minimizing the sensory Information availability to locate and or identify it, and it’s possible vulnerabilities. Hiding to leave minimal clues.
                                          6. How good is the would be observer at hunting in general?
                                          7. Has the ‘would be’ observer learned and developed the skill of finding creatures of the observed’s kind in particular. is it a specialist hunter?
                                          7b. Do they have a predator /prey relationship in nature, that has co-evolved.
                                          8. How conducive is the environment to concealment, camouflage, distraction, misdirection, avoiding contact using genuine fierceness, and bravado. How much the observed have changed form during the observation period, the attention devoted to the subject, observed in the accuracy of semblance drawn from memory.

                                              Georgina Woodward
                                              Georgina,

                                              You have never even been able to define what you mean by the word "consciousness". lol

                                              You merely assume consciousness, and then start quibbling about its efficacy. lol.

                                              Consciousness is a pitiful and inadequate thing, according to you. In effect, what you are claiming is that observers can't observe, hunters can't hunt, and physicists can't do physics. lol.

                                              First off, before you start quibbling about consciousness, define what you even mean by the word “consciousness”.

                                                  Lorraine Ford
                                                  I am using the word consciousness to mean awareness of things/matter; mostly materials and objects; and energy; changes, happenings, processes. This includes both internal and external awareness.

                                                  I have suggested that internal awareness aids behavioural homeostasis.
                                                  Homeostasis is important for correct functioning of the organism or device. External awareness increases fitness by aiding survival. This enables location and identification of resources needed for maintenance of life, mates for reproduction and to avoid hazards and predation.

                                                  Response to awareness may be best included as it is used as an indicator of consciousness (For practicality). The endocrine hormone system by which feelings are generated and musculature generating movement. Brain scans of ‘locked in’ paralyzed persons has shown activity consistent with consciousness despite severe disability and lack of bodily response. So in theory a noticeable response is not necessary for consciousnesses to occur. i don’t consider mere response to be consciousness. it is an emergent consequence of structure that enables it. But not simpler constituent materials, How is this possible? Are we mere receivers of consciousness that exists independently of us, in the external environment, and is available to all? This is a question usually asked by those just thinking of consciousness as external awareness. Thought of as some kind of signal and different from material reality itself i.e. not it.

                                                  There is argument about whether the brain is sufficient to produce consciousness. i would say one cannot be conscious without the means to normally detect what you are conscious of. Meditative practice can involve blocking of sensory inputs either physically or mentally with-the aim of generating an altered state of consciousness. (awareness of one’s self and the world outside. including others.

                                                  I don't think a brain is enough although the majority of processing occurs there. We need something to be aware of and means of detection, hence the sense organs, receptors, peripheral nervous system working with the central nervous system at least. (see earlier writing on response) Without sensory input the brain can still produce experience such as dreams and imagination or flights of fancy. The difference is, the brain independent input roots it’s immaterial product in the independent material reality that has had existence, while not being exactly it.