unreality

Love: Previous discussions: I didn't know which one to continue so I'm making a new topic. I'm too young to have felt "love" in a way others on this forum may have but I've felt a lot of other things and I do know that our experience of the world is biological, chemical, electrical, in its base nature. You can read stuff I've written in both of those topics, I still agree with it. However my point now, to focus on, for those that recognize the electrochemical nature of our consciousness, do you think love in humans is different from love in animals? Why or why not? And if you don't fall in the above camp (due to religious dogma most likely) then how is your definition of love different from mine and do you think it's an infinite thing? In other words I want to know if you're a 'love cynic' or a 'love believer' and why And remember that your brain can fool you. If you take MDMA and fall in love with a painting on the wall does that count as love in its special way? lol

Yes. In general I think it is impossible to look "outside the system" from "within the system", so, as long as we 'exist' in terms relative to this universe, we cannot perceive what that means outside of said 'existence'.

I think that every logical possibility for the fundamental constants, proportions, "laws", whatever, "exists" (although existence is a relative concept). In very few of these possible existences (I don't know if infinite or finite) is there even enough coherence to form basic chemistry, in even fewer do the laws of physics allow the formation of planets or other stable matter units etc. In very much fewer could the existence support the emergence of an entropy-reversing cluster of matter basing its behavior on the low-level laws of the universe and working up, becoming a self-replicating device...... life..... in even fewer could exist life developing to the point of its physical control center acquiring a knowledge of its control center... enough to raise in its hypothetical manipulation of symbols the question of its own existence... That being said, it's not a weird probability that we've found ourself in such a fine-tuned universe, because if all possible starting conditions do exist in this universal mathematical set, then aware lifeforms would only develop in the very very few universes that happen to be fine-tuned for such life. Not to mention it's possible that very very different "lifeforms" could evolve in other universes, following the different rules. It's possible that some form of life could permeate everything. It's like a puddle finding itself a hole and saying "this hole was fine-tuned for me" instead of vice versa

littlej, it just takes the sum that both archlordbr and I came up with from the logarithm and just attempts to approximate the sum with integration. But because of that it can't be 100% exact

ANDES

EMBER

actually, your parenthetical is really interesting. Can you define the differences you believe exist in heaven that suddenly make a utopia possible? Do you believe you still have the ability to think, remember and make critical decisions in heaven?

On a more political note I just stumbled upon a pretty interesting article/propaganda/whateveryouwanttocallit: http://www.radical.org.uk/anarchism/

the greatest challenge in physics of the last 100 years has been trying to unite the macroscopic scale (from bouncing beach balls to colossal galaxies) with the quantum scale (the crazy forces and wave particles of the inner atom's world). There have been many theories but I don't think any have truly "united" the cosmos with the quarks

Yes, this is the Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle that I/we have been talking about I was saying that the only source of randomness I could think of would be a combo attack of CHAOS and the UNCERTAINTY, meaning the initial sensitivity to something that cannot truly be known could lead to something crazy like true randomness, but I also said it was mere speculation and that I didn't know and that I didn't think there was an official scientific position either way. Is it so hard to accept the state of not knowing? And if has been "proven wrong", could you show some evidence suggesting this please? If it really has I would be very interested and excited

I just came across of an example of what I would consider highly complex (not to mention awesome!) http://lab.andre-michelle.com/pulsate

That is not true, I'm sorry. Many random number generators (RNGs) which are better described as PSEUDO-random number generators (PRNGs) use the timestamp of the number generation to affect the outcome. That's not all cases, however, all PRNGs (at least all that I've heard of) use an input called a "seed" to generate a string of random generators, using some kind of function to change the previous number into the next. But no matter what is used, it will only be "pseudo-random" in terms that it's chaotic, yes, unpredictable, yes, but "truly random" (if such a thing exists), no. A computer program cannot (as far as I know) generate something "truly random" because in reality that concept doesn't make sense. The best PRNGs do create statistically distributed pseudorandom numbers, but with the proper information, they can be predicted. It's the nature of a deterministic system. That being said, it hasn't yet been established if the world is deterministic. Use the Force thinks so, but the combination of chaos (extreme sensitivity to initial conditions) plus Heisenberg's Uncertainty principle could lead to some kind of randomness - maybe. I don't know. That's not a controlled enough environment to conclude that randomness is real. It is my belief that NOTHING is. The only way to truly know is two parallel universes running side by side starting from the same seed; however by their very nature it would be impossible to observe the other. You're thinking about this the wrong way. Nothing is "predestined" in terms of a driving intelligence; these are all blind processes. Nothing can be predestined from within the system because it would encapsulate the whole system which would include an encapsulation of itself ad infinitum. In a simulation from the past forward you would never get past the point of infinite recess in the present. No, you have to be outside of the system. Which you aren't. The contents of the subset cannot know or predict of anything predestined, and if by Universe we mean the set of EVERYTHING that it directly means that your life is not predestined in or by anything in this universe (and by our definition of universe, nothing was outside of the universe either). again see my response about number generation inside computers. How exactly did you think computers generated random numbers? Magic? They use "pseudo-chaotic" algorithms with lots of bitshifts and hashcodes and modulus and stuff. This is still scientifically a valid position. As of right now we don't know one way or the other, to the best of my knowledge. {edit - typo}

I just wanted you to admit to yourself that your belief in a god-via-complexity is by nature illogical and fallacious and you only believe it because you want to. As long as you recognize that, I'm totally okay with it. I just didn't want you to delude yourself into believing there was scientific proof behind it. To further clarify, the failure of the "complexity argument" (your original stated reason for believing in a higher power) does not prove the NON-existence of a god, it merely shows that the argument DOESNT prove the existence of the god at all; does this by showing that it's simpler in all cases to apply the template of the god origin to the actual universe instead. (again see my posts a few posts up about the fallacy)

I'm no physicist either but the state of matter in those first planck times of the universe was immersed in physical conditions that might not even be reproducible today. Just because it's a scaled down model of what we have today doesn't make it a simple thing. Read up on this stuff and tell me how simple the early universe was: http://physics.uoregon.edu/~jimbrau/astr123/Notes/Chapter27.html http://preposterousuniverse.com/writings/cosmologyprimer/early.html http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/090217-st-cosmic-dawn.html http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_the_Big_Bang#Very_early_universe Good; so you agree that god is more complex than the universe he created. That's the fallacy

Interesting. But, unfortunately for you, still fallen into the fallacy. Here's why: * you say that the situation at the beginning of the universe was "simpler" than it is now. This is not true * but even if it was true, this makes your god more complex than these initial conditions of the universe, yes? Seeing as he designed them and put them into place * so if god is more complex than the initial conditions, why does there need to be a god to create the initial conditions? Again, the fallacy returns

are you kidding me???????????????????????????????? :o

before we move on, I have to apologize to Use the Force for underestimating the time he'd put into thinking about it. We agree exactly about free will. We only differ in one point: I think that at a certain point in complexity, a self-reference can create "godelian truths", or statements in a logical system (think: the universe) that are true but cannot be proven from within the system, and also "undecidable statements" which cannot be evaluated to true or false (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%B6del_sentence#Examples_of_undecidable_statements, http://tal.forum2.org/geb). These self-referencing paradoxes I think could hold the key as to a "jump" in complexity that allows at the very least self-cognition/awareness/consciousness (whatever you want to call it) but probably not free will, at least not based on the nature of particles in the universe (exactly like you said - either determined or random, leaves no room for some slippery concept called 'choice'). However my lack of belief in 'free will' doesn't mean I sit on the couch all day moping (the Lazy Bones paradox ()). You don't either, but you cited your reason as not knowing what the future holds. Now I do think there's a bit of randomness in the universe at some level or another, or at least extreme sensitivity to initial conditions that, when applied to infinitesimal possibilities (see Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle and the inability to accurately measure certain properties of particles), create chaos out of order. That means I don't believe the future is fixed, nor do I believe it is possible to travel back in time information or particles or waves or energy or anything else (even though those are all the same thing lol) within the same universe (it can create a branchoff universe, but anyway let's not get into time travel lol), so that's not the reason why I believe in responsibility for my actions. My reason for believing in my self-responsibility without believing in free will is twofold: (1) we can't ignore this one - personal experience in life. You can sit around forever waiting for your subconscious to take over your actions all you want, but it doesn't work. Your consciousness is in a constant neurological loop with the vast enormity of the rest of your brain and it works together. If you wait for your hidden daemon (lol) to take over and write your english paper, it's not gonna happen. You are you. (2) regardless of if my choices are fixed with a splash of chaos, they're still "my choices" in the sense that my evolved complex self-aware brain evaluated its input, ran its "wetware" computer programs (so to speak) and created output. I am a conscious witness to this manipulation of sensory & internal data. How big a part the tip of the iceberg (conscious mind) has in the whole neurological decision making process is the more interesting thing to argue about, though neither of us know enough about neuroscience to make it interesting. But i've read some interesting experiments about reaction times and whatnot. Anyway, I think we agree completely, especially if you agree with the two things I just said above

This Argument from Complexity is one of the most basic fallacies in the history of religious debates. It goes something like this: (step 1) *point out many complexities in the universe and biology, facts and examples that hard working scientists have thought of in the past, are studying now, and work on in the future, all with 100x the wonder and amazement that you have because they better understand the intricacies and TRUE complexities in the subject matter than someone reading an internet article* (step 2) *without attempting to marvel at the mystery, order and chaos of the naturally unfolding universe, lump all of these complexities together and say that such things can only arise with the prerequisite that a superadvanced omnipotent omniscient omni-f*cking-everything deity creating all of this - a deity held to be infinitely complex even to the point of true uncomprehendability by mere humans - but not so "mere human" are the humans who have convinced themselves that this deity has created them in "His" image and holds them somehow more special over all the other species of animals, plants and other organisms on the planet* (step 3) *when asked "well where did this deity come from?", provide one of two answers, or both: he came out of nowhere OR he always there* Don't you see the fallacy?????????????? In terms of complexity, "God" is supposed to be infinitely complex. The most complex thing ever, un-comprehendable. At the very least, more complex than the universe he created, just by virtue of his infinite mind being able to imagine this cosmos. In other words, in terms of complexity: GOD IS MORE COMPLEX THAN THE UNIVERSE Do you see now? Do you see? Then you go on to say: "DUE TO ITS COMPLEXITY, I CANNOT BRING MYSELF TO CONCLUDE THAT THE UNIVERSE EITHER CAME OUT OF NOWHERE OR WAS ALWAYS HERE" Then you say: "THUS GOD CREATED THE UNIVERSE. AND GOD EITHER CAME OUT OF NOWHERE OR WAS ALWAYS HERE" Do you see the fallacy yet? The only way to fix your fallacy, gvg, is to assert one of the following things: (a) the universe could have came out of nowhere (b) the universe could have always existed © god is less complex than the universe

I never said I thought there was free will; just that it was far from black and white. Your very nature of thinking it was black and white led you to believe I thought free will was real when I disagreed with you saying it was black and white. If you get me talking on free will you'll hear me talk about a lot of issues that are all interconnected, a lot of philosophy and a lot of computer science stuff, geeky stuff you probably don't care to hear about. If asked directly I would say "we have no free will" but it's a meaningless statement to say "we have no free will" without a lot of context; inherently it means nothing except to scare people or make a bold empty assertion. What matters is other neurological and philosophical concepts attached to these meanings. Okay before I stray too far, my main point was that it's not a simple matter. It's not something you should throw in a pile of "oh things that shouldn't be really worth talking about for too long because they're pretty black and white and i'll convince you i'm right in under 3 pages". This is a terrible attitude to discuss philosophy for two reasons: (1) assuming you're 100% right (2) assuming i disagreed with whatever you thought about free will without: (2a) you knowing whether I knew your position and (2b) you knowing my own position But if you want to be more open-minded and maybe have an intelligent discussion with other people in this board that care about these things and have thought very deeply about them, I suggest you should start a topic, or find one already discussing the issue (there's a few I think). Don't necessarily assume my current thoughts are in perfect tandem with posts I have previously made. In the span of just a few years I have had many experiences and thoughts and revelations. I have enough maturity to realize I am not always right and that there's always room for further contemplation of others' ideas and this has led to many changes in my opinions, along with much introspection on matters of the world, have led me to the precarious philosophical perch on which I stand [edit -typo]

not to turn this into a whole nother debate but the issue of free will is FAR from black and white. And yeah in general politics are way more confusing to debate about because for the most part we don't really know what we're talking about, it's an exercise in the hypothetical

gvg it's ironic that for years i've worried about the exact opposite. That there was no chance at all. That the universe was a matrix of mathematical positions manipulated by a set of physical laws operating on a linear time scale. No chance no chaos no randomness no possibilities. I'm not denying the beauty of that type of system, leading to the complexity it did, but in my opinion that's really impossible. Since reading more about chaos theory, nondeterminism, quantum theory, superpositions, etc, it gave me hope that amid the chaotic dance of particles a beautiful self-propagating self-referencing system can emerge, a paradoxical loop between the fixed nature and the chaotic nature of the universe... something that can seek to understand itself... [edit ... typo]

Use the Force, we can never get anywhere in this discussion if you lack the maturity to recognize that sometimes you can't always be right. I'm not saying you're wrong, I'm saying that the smug condescending way of treating us (as if we're small children and you're teaching us about money for the first time) has been noticed and not appreciated. You need to learn to open your mind a little and consider new ideas, or you won't progress as a person. This goes far beyond a minute forum discussion about economics. I hope you don't treat people like this in real life, it will just create spite. That being said: yes it does; thank you like Izzy said, the government doesn't know when money is burned. The above two quotes are saying the same point. However, your example is flawed. In my scenario, money in the hands of specifically one person is destroyed, perhaps without anyone's knowledge. In what you described above, some proportionality is affected on EVERYONE. Sure, if everyone's money is doubled, stores will jump on the chance to double their prices. But in this case, just one person destroyed his currency, without the knowledge of his fellow islanders (or even with, doesn't matter really). I do agree that inevitably over time the less amount of seashells going around will make them more withheld, more desirable, hence more valuable. But it's not like immediately everything will become 19/20ths as expensive. AGAIN: I agree that if you pump currency into a system, its value will go down (inflation)... and vice versa. However it doesn't work like magic. If Mr. Five goes into the jungle and smashes his seashell with a rock, everybody doesn't magically understand that their seashells are now 20/19ths more worthy. Maybe if he does it front of them they can come to some kind of proportionality agreement (MAYBE, again it's just him that's being affected, everybody isn't getting something multiplied). What does happen is, over time, the process of economics and EXCHANGE (money for goods, goods for goods, even money for money; equivalency!) will readjust values to the availability (SUPPLY and DEMAND are the terms usually used). That's how it changes, and it's fluid, not set in stone. It's not a magical proportional system. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ I think what we're really getting hung up on is the availability issue. Your argument is two part: * houses are hard to make (efforts, materials) * money is easy to make I think that we mistook it for this: * houses are worth more than the equivalent amount of money BECAUSE they are "harder" to make If you did mean blue, you are probably wrong. But if you meant just the green than I agree with you and this was a misunderstanding. In other words, with the first of the green statements, this effort and resource cost that goes into the production of the house, becomes part of its value. The money that transfers hands from buyer to housebuilder goes toward covering these costs. It's not like the builder only charges for the materials and not the labor; nor vice versa. The builder is compensated. Society doesn't care - house or money. What "society" cares about is what people care about and value; in this case, houses, money, etc. Seashells. Shelters. whatever.