No it doesn’t. If you mean it, that’s very worrying. So you don’t, which is worrying in a different way but not as much. The willful ignorance is sad.
[quote=“martin-peter-clarke, post:101, topic:7725, full:true”]
No it doesn’t. If you mean it, that’s very worrying. So you don’t, which is worrying in a different way but not as much. The willful ignorance is sad.
I am still waiting for something substantial from you . So I’ll give you something to worry about.
Pretty soon I am going to decide that you are not worth listening to at all and place you on my ignore list.
But it does offer the curious an opportunity to learn about some of the background to his thinking.
Not to be pissed on. Ever hear the story of leading a horse to water?
Not that I’m into a quasi-intelligent universe, I don’t understand why it’s needed to begin with. I’m more into finding my answers within Earth’s biological history. I think it’s way more relevant than any of the pie in sky stuff . . .
[quote=“citizenschallengev4, post:103, topic:7725”]
But it does offer the curious an opportunity to learn about some of the background to his thinking.Not to be pissed on. Ever hear the story of leading a horse to water?
Not that I’m into a quasi-intelligent universe, I don’t understand why it’s needed to begin with. I’m more into finding my answers within Earth’s biological history. I think it’s way more relevant than any of the pie in sky stuff . . .
I can respect that.
Background to my thinking.?
One of the most fundamental paradigms in science is that of “Cause and Effect”
Determinism
Determinism often is taken to mean causal determinism, which in physics is known as cause-and-effect. It is the concept that events within a given paradigm are bound by causality in such a way that any state (of an object or event) is completely determined by prior states .
IMO, determinism requires an orderly and consistent processing of;
Input → Function → Output
In Theism that causal ordering agency is provided by an intelligent motivated sentient creator, named "God.
I don’t believe in an intelligent motivated sentient creator agent…
I believe in a non-sentient quasi-intelligent creative function as a causal ordering process, such as experienced with "Input → Mathematical function → Output.
For that process to be able to express itself consistently there must be a, what David Bohm called, a “guiding equation” and that must be an essential part of the spacetime fabric to be universally true.
There is indisputable proof that determinism can only be true if the natural data processing functions have a mathematical aspect that is inherent in the Logic of the Spacetime geometry.
Hence my preference for a mathematical universe where causality is achieved via quasi-intelligent mathematical guiding equations.
Until someone comes up with a better model I’ll defend this one, if only for the fact that all our sciences depend on the reliability of relational values being processed via mathematical functions.
Write4u has referred to: “God as conventionally defined”.
.
[George Hammond, a.k.a. Kurvature66]
… There is no such thing as a “conventional definition of God” unless you intend to cite the entire King James Bible ! This is because no one actually knows precisely what God is.
…Up until now, that is, since Hammond has only recently discovered the world’s first scientific proof of God.
… According to Hammond, see:
… (PDF) The first experimental measurement of God; to a 2-decimal point accuracy | George E Hammond - Academia.edu
the scientifically precise “definition of God” is:
.
… Scientific Definition of God
… God is an Einsteinian curvature
… of subjective space-time.
.
…Objective space-time is measured by clocks and rulers. Subjective space-time is measured relative to your own body size (say foot size) and your own mental speed.
… The perceptual speed of the average adult of is 16 bits/sec and was discovered over 100 years ago when Thomas Edison found the minimum film speed for a movie projector was 16 frames/sec. It increases linearly with age under 18 and with intelligence generally.
… The term “curvature” in Relativity does not mean anything is curved, it arises from the fact that if you draw a picture on a balloon and blow it up the picture will get larger as the radius of “curvature” of the balloon increases. This is similar to Einstein’s space-time metric [xyzt] which blows up like a balloon as the universe expands.
… So now we do have, a precise scientific definition of God !
.
… Write4u has also said: “to call a curvature of space by the name God is wholly inappropriate, IMO.”
.
[George Hammond, a.k.a. Kurvature66]
… Since my above mentioned 1200 word paper shows how the curvature of “subjective” space-time is the most powerful force known to human existence or human history, there is no doubt that it is entirely appropriate to call the “curvature of human reality” the “God” of the Bible !
… George Hammond MS physics Cape Cod MA USA
And I don’t see how “a non-sentient quasi-intelligent creative function as a causal ordering process” informs our actual living day to days.
I founds Earth’s evolutionary processes is way more relevant to me, if we really want to understand Determinism as it plays out in real life situations, as opposed to mathematical formulations. And dreaming about dimensions totally beyond our grasp.
(Mind you, I have nothing again math, it’s a wonderful tool, discovery, invention.)
That’s because we, each of us, creates our own gods out of the fabric of our own imagination, with a little help from caregivers and society.
One more time:
Our Mind and consciousness is the interior reflection of our living body ( both its interior housekeeping and external interaction with the environment ). We simply cannot have one without the other.
We are embedded within an interconnected web of life. We are creatures who are the direct product of Earth’s Pageant of Evolution. Why isn’t that reflected in modern philosophical discourse?
Learning to appreciate the deep-time of Evolution puts an entirely different richer light upon our interior existence. An awareness that encompasses the whole of time, and this planet that created us, and the pageant of creatures that preceded us.
It also gives us a deeper appreciation for the continuity of life. Life is good, life is precious, but death is no enemy, painful though it may be. Death is part of the cycle that brings forth new life. Revel in the pageant you are blessed enough to be witnessing. While you can.
As for God?
Who is “God,” but a creation of our unique complex human minds dealing with our day to days?
Where did God come from?
From human curiosity and wonder. From puzzling over observations, contemplating questions, seeking answers. From love and hunger and fears in the night and glorying in the warming sunrise. From contemplating the suddenly dead carcass of a loved one. From buried memories of being coddled within mom’s loving protective bosom and missing those who are gone.
From our need for someone truly personal, who’s always there, never dying, ready to listen to our constant chatter, ideas, complaints, fears, longings, wishes, all of it in complete confidence.
Think about it, our relationship with our god is the most intimate relationship of our lives and reflects our ego in every way. All of it, happening within our mind, or more descriptively, within our Mindscape.
Point being, we are the product of our Earth - and God is the product of our mind. That’s why our conceptions of God always wind up driven by our Ego, not by some outside force.
Nothing wrong with that, if only we could bring ourselves to explicitly recognize as much.
Three questions.
Is your God sentient?
If not what are its attributes?
If they are mathematical how does that disagree with my position?
I agree. That is why I don’t use the term God. It has been misinterpreted much too long to be of any use in a scientific sense.
This is why I use the term objective term “mathematical guiding equation” (universal algorithms) . Those are what we use to study the universe and how it works.
And whereas mathematical guiding equations appear to function in an intelligent manner, they are not of a conscious nature and therefore the term quasi-intelligent is appropriate.
Well as much as I respect you and enjoy discussing these things with you, I see little difference between your mathematical guiding equation and god. It’s another human grasping for god, where you’ll never find it.
Which is exactly what I mean when I raise this Abrahamic Mindset in my stuff.
That arrogant human expectation that we are sharp enough to fill in all the pieces, that allows our philosophy to turn into so much rhetorical fancy dancing, such as the Chalmers, and others, pump out without end. Which, sometimes I think, is what Martin, with all his smug all-knowing cynicism, is trying to highlight.
Yes, but you are addressing a different category of inquiry.
Kurvature is speaking of a universal causal agency, but if I understand it he is not proposing a motivated sentient agency on which all theist scripture is based.
That puts his proposition in the same category of reasoning as mine.
Spacetime curvature is a universal geometry and as such has causal mathematical properties.
I am not sure if I see it exactly from that perspective, but I’d like to hear more.
Kurvature, I’d like your impression of CDT
Causal dynamical triangulation (abbreviated as CDT) theorized by Renate Loll, Jan Ambjørn and Jerzy Jurkiewicz, is an approach to quantum gravity that like loop quantum gravity is background independent.
This means that it does not assume any pre-existing arena (dimensional space), but rather attempts to show how the spacetime fabric itself evolves.
There is evidence [1] that at large scales CDT approximates the familiar 4-dimensional spacetime, but shows spacetime to be 2-dimensional near the Planck scale, and reveals a fractal structure on slices of constant time. These interesting results agree with the findings of Lauscher and Reuter, who use an approach called Quantum Einstein Gravity, and with other recent theoretical work.
Damned straight about that one. And this other side of it, is the one I think is more relevant, while all the pie in the sky stuff is just that, pie in the sky, beyond our ability to know, vaporous educated guesses, that can all be shot down by another expert with a different take on philosophy.
Not that physics and math isn’t cool, and that all sorts of real science has grown out of it, but it still has gross limits to actually helping shed light upon our human condition - which is what I’m all about.
I haven’t the slightest inclination toward the deep math and physics, I’m fascinated enough to understand some outlines, occasionally delve into this or that a little deeper, till my heads spinning and I back off to stuff I can understand. Such as actual biology and living systems and our landscapes & biosphere and family, community, generations always moving forward and what the hell are we doing on this earth anyways. That sort of stuff is endlessly fascinating to me.
NOVEMBER 30, 2021
A preview of Cc’s “Hoffman playing Basketball in zero-gravity” a critical review of his “Case Against Reality”
I’ve put together this 9 page preview of my “Hoffman playing basketball in zero-gravity” critique in order to send a hard copy to scientists and others who’s work I’ve featured during this project, maybe even get a little feedback.
I’m sharing because during the year I worked on this project my homework has evolved into a rich student resource, with copious links, references and insights for the young critical thinker writing a paper or report. Especially those that want to dig into Donald Hoffman’s Case Against Reality, for themselves, this is a goldmine.
That’s also why I’m taking the opportunity to post this online and send hard copies to some others. You see, I’m trying to find out if this resonates with anyone out there in the world beyond my rural Colorado cabin. If the following does resonates with you, I’d love to hear from you. Serious feedback, critique, suggestions, networking is invited.
7) Distilling my 66 years worth of wondering at this magnificent pageant unfolding around me:
No, you are not seeing this clearly from my perspective. I completely agree with you on your objections to a scriptural God .
That is why I reject the term God altogether.
You keep insisting that my perspective is of a theist nature, yet in the same breath you cite “evolution by natural selection” as the creative agency on earth. I don’t say you have a theist perspective on that, do I?
Why do you insist that I am unable to distinguish between completely opposite perspectives.
My universe has no Godly agency. It has a purely stochastic Logical essence that acts as a mathematical guiding equation of physical relationships.
The universe does not function intelligently, that’s theism. You pray to it.
The universe functions quasi intelligently, that’s atheism. You use the mathematics.
I dare say that in your perspective of Earthly processes you use the same mathematical arguments as I do for the universe. You just use them in an entirely valid and important but different context.
As I have shown, I have first-hand experience with living in close relationship with the Nature of Earth. I do not worship, nor pray to the earth. I used its natural mathematical properties to run a small farm.
…thanks for your interest write4u, for someone your age, you’ve got a big head start on figuring out what God is ! And you don’t need to tell me why, I already know why.
… George Hammond MS physics Cape Cod MA USA
Ok, but why do you feel the need to compare this to theism?
I don’t accuse you of worshipping Earthly processes in a theistic manner.
I understand your perspective and I agree!
I guess I need to present my case with more clarity to convince you that there is no “need” for my perspective. The universe doesn’t give a damn about me. i am no more than a microbiome, a collection of living organisms on an obscure planet in a corner of an average galaxy inside the geometry of an expanding universe.
quote; [Hammond a.k.a. Kurvature66]
… Yes, the God proven by my theory is identically the well known “anthropomorphic God of the Bible”.
Hmmmmm, for a moment I thought we might be on a similar plane, but…
I’m sorry to say that from your answer, you and I have completely opposing perspectives.
I do not believe in a pantheistic sentient universe. I believe in a mathematical universe and mathematics are not sentient. Period!
p.s. I believe that I am older than you, perhaps a little wiser?
I would say that a no sentient mathematical universe is the most rational and plausible solution.
I would not imagine a pantheistic sentient universe. I would imagine an universe from which every being, every component share a part of its spirit, more an animistic one. (no sure about my English here). It does not imply that the spirit of the universe be conscious or interested about what happen to any component.
But i am conscious it is a dream.
We’re apparently dealing with octogenarian backgrounds, which explains everything. I would never piss on a wiki article. Even the one that I know is complete whitewashed garbage from a military intelligence perspective. Our titans cannot be led to water, they are a coupla old mustangs.
And what well do you drink from? I am still waiting for a substantive posit from you.
While we’re waiting.
1 Like
No you’re not. We are separated epistemologically and semantically by a common language.