Identity/Creativity: Necessary Intermediate Stage

[Etritonakin]

I do that too...especially when talking about stuff at the highest level...I was having a little trouble following what you are saying. I have to go back and re-read the original post and re-think. Sometimes it means I've headed in the wrong direction in my own mind.

The trick with this sort of topic is to ground one's intuitions firmly in the metaphors that they always reference. As soon as we start abstracting intuitively without reference to the bodily metaphors that our abstract ideas come from we can enter a space-less-timeless void where thought is a little too free to wander and i have often gotten lost.

For me it is a tricky subject to understand the difference between what is created and what is not especially as some want to claim that the whole Universe is something created by a someone. The problem for me is that this is self-referential and that to say the Universe is created threatens to undo the very meaning this statement. Without a way to distinguish between the created and the "natural" the very idea becomes useless and meaningless. It is equivalent to "All Cretans are liars, I am a Cretan."

The origin and source of the Universe as a whole is a great place to create intuitive philosophies precisely because it provides a sort of mouse hole out of the walls of our practical experience and into another realm where we can feel free from the constraints of common understanding and even, to some extent, common sense. Such philosophizing is deeply gratifying and useful for re-imagining the world especially when it becomes deeply mired in its own sense of futility.

My imaginings regarding the Nothing-Yet of Infinite Potential was that if such were a personality then It would immediately be a lonely one who had no measure against which to objectively determine its own power, knowledge or value. Its primary motivation would be to prove to itself It did, in fact, exist at all. In so doing, creation would spill out...but even that would not satisfy without a truly Other being to second guess It and also to validate It.

But clearly this is all a projection of my own psyche. If I were the Creator, I would be afraid to be alone and unable to measure my power or value. I would be concerned that I was merely a hallucination alone in a vast nothing. My creating would be a cosmic displacement of my true underlying desire to be known by some Other.

But all such musings are projections as we have only the vast range of our human experience and ideas with which to venture out into the mystery of the unknown.

I think self-reference is just fine for reverse-engineering -because we must be made of the same stuff as an original would be -the difference being that we are based on the complexity of the atoms, etc., which must be composed of more elemental things. I believe the term "elements" was even chosen because it was believed that they were essentially the most basic building blocks. Perhaps it is a bit of a misnomer given that much more elemental things are being discovered.
Anyway -we actually have all of the evidence around us and in us -because it is not as if anything has gone away.

Self-reference actually becomes a problem, however, when we only reference that which we presently know or experience. It would seem that our capabilities must have been preceded by the Big Bang, elements, etc. -and that is true of us on our level -but the Big Bang must have been preceded by something.

If we do not consider that, we are essentially accepting that the horse should logically follow the cart -regardless of what preceded the Big Bang.

In actuality, we have a big cart to consider -but also that we are a little horse drawing a little cart on our level (creativity preceding that which it makes possible). We are missing a big horse -and it is quite logical to believe it should resemble the little horse.

The big horse would be made of the same stuff as the little horse -but on a more basic level -which would actually allow for greater power (not being subject to complexity at our level). We know that basic stuff became an entire universe -so why would we believe it impossible for it to have first become something able to "create" a universe?

We have consistently proved our initial thoughts to be wrong about life -and even intelligence/learning -and have consistently found such where they "should not" be.

We are also a bit stuck on the evolution VS creation thing -when they are both stages of the same overall thing. On our level we see development/creator/creation -but preceding us we only SEE creation.

Some believe all which preceded man was natural development alone -without creativity -but creativity IS a natural development which logically precedes created stuff.
Showing that original "nature" must have been mirrored/modeled in memory/imagination, altered to suit the needs/desires/will of a self-aware creator in the form of the universe seems difficult, but -especially when referenced against the greatest degree of simplicity -something must have developed before the universe which was capable of processing pre-universe nature into the universe, and the nature of the universe -a vast and complex interactive environment prepared before and producing an infinite/near-infinite variety of life forms which have no say whatsoever in their own development -but essentially awaken as already-increasingly-complex and -capable individuals -able to not only interact with, but deeply experience -even appreciate and enjoy -absolutely screams creativity was necessary -and that the universe was created FOR those life forms -and the ORIGINAL creator.

One reason is what you said about how an original creator would (paraphrasing) "feel" -because once a creator developed, psychology would ensue -and "the universe" answers and fulfills all such psychological questions and needs. "Simplicity" would have no reason or ability to become specifically the universe unless first becoming self-aware, creative, etc.

 

[sealchan]

I think self-reference is just fine for reverse-engineering -because we must be made of the same stuff as an original would be -the difference being that we are based on the complexity of the atoms, etc., which must be composed of more elemental things. I believe the term "elements" was even chosen because it was believed that they were essentially the most basic building blocks. Perhaps it is a bit of a misnomer given that much more elemental things are being discovered.
Anyway -we actually have all of the evidence around us and in us -because it is not as if anything has gone away.

Self-reference actually becomes a problem, however, when we only reference that which we presently know or experience. It would seem that our capabilities must have been preceded by the Big Bang, elements, etc. -and that is true of us on our level -but the Big Bang must have been preceded by something.

If we do not consider that, we are essentially accepting that the horse should logically follow the cart -regardless of what preceded the Big Bang.

In actuality, we have a big cart to consider -but also that we are a little horse drawing a little cart on our level (creativity preceding that which it makes possible). We are missing a big horse -and it is quite logical to believe it should resemble the little horse.

The big horse would be made of the same stuff as the little horse -but on a more basic level -which would actually allow for greater power (not being subject to complexity at our level). We know that basic stuff became an entire universe -so why would we believe it impossible for it to have first become something able to "create" a universe?

We have consistently proved our initial thoughts to be wrong about life -and even intelligence/learning -and have consistently found such where they "should not" be.

We are also a bit stuck on the evolution VS creation thing -when they are both stages of the same overall thing. On our level we see development/creator/creation -but preceding us we only SEE creation.

I've only recently begun to think seriously about how there must have been a rich, creative background out of which the Universe arose. This is because science has no neatly "sealed up" many of the loose threads until it appears that we should reasonably consider that the Universe arose out of nothing. It, at the very least, has the argument of elegance if not practical experience which teaches us that everything arises out of a rich background of what came before.

Elegance is not a bad way to go, but something tells me (perhaps, most strongly what tells me is the history of the physical sciences themselves with prominent voices ready to wrap it all up time after time) that there will always need to be a little door open so that the elegance won't stand in the way of our next deep discovery.

 

[Etritonakin]

I've only recently begun to think seriously about how there must have been a rich, creative background out of which the Universe arose. This is because science has no neatly "sealed up" many of the loose threads until it appears that we should reasonably consider that the Universe arose out of nothing. It, at the very least, has the argument of elegance if not practical experience which teaches us that everything arises out of a rich background of what came before.

Elegance is not a bad way to go, but something tells me (perhaps, most strongly what tells me is the history of the physical sciences themselves with prominent voices ready to wrap it all up time after time) that there will always need to be a little door open so that the elegance won't stand in the way of our next deep discovery.

please note edit to the end of my last post -and I will try to respond to this later

 

[wellwisher]

We, as individuals, exist at a point of time. Many other things, besides us, also exist in this same point of time, each for a finite duration of time.

Say, God existed, before there was time. He would exist in a state of temporal nothingness. Without time, we and all things temporal, could not exist, since we require time, and a duration of time, to be expressed.

The only things that would exist, with God, are those things that are timeless, and eternal in terms of duration. Before time, is implicit of before temporal reality. Timeless and eternal reality, could exist, since this is independent of time.

The universe from nothing, is connected to a transition from timelessness, into time with the appearance of temporal or time based things, with a finite duration. If we step out of time, there are still timeless and eternal things; infinite duration. This could be expressed with math, if so desired.

Say we lived in a pure energy universe, that did not yet contain any matter. We would not know that the universe was made of energy, since all the modern tools, used to measure energy, are composed of matter. Without matter, there is no way to measure energy, therefore it would not appear to exist. The speed of light of energy, would place all this energy outside of time.

Matter, is temporal and therefore requires time. Matter provides a matrix by which we can represent energy, within time. Before time, amounts to before matter, but not necessarily before energy. The big bang is associated with time zero or when time appears. This is when matter first condenses from a singularity. There is a connection between matter and time. Matter contains time potential. Let there by light, is implicit of matter appearing, so energy, as light, could be expressed in time.

If you were to create matter from energy, in the lab, matter and anti-matter pairs, only appear at the upper limits of energy. You need to go to gamma and beyond, for matter to appear. Therefore, to go from a timeless and eternal state, into a temporal state with time (via matter) we need to form upper limit energy, until matter appears; brooding over the deep. With this condensed energy, called matter, will also come time.

Temporal and time is not meant to be permanent, since it contains free energy, that is part of the eternal reference. It needs to lower potential. The result is temporal force; exothermic with increasing entropy.

 

[wellwisher]

For the sake of this topic and simplicity, you should limit your comments to "GodDidIt"

In chemistry, entropy is more than complexity. Entropy is also a state variable. Based on experimental observations, entropy has a fixed value, for any given state of matter. For example, the entropy of water at 25C and 1 atmosphere of pressure, is 6.6177 J ˣ mol-1 ˣ K-1 (25 °C). This entropy value is always the same no matter who measures it, and is independent of how the water reaches this final state.

Entropy is not a measure of randomness. Rather entropy is a measure of specific order, due its fixed value for any given state of matter. GodDidIt is all about order. Random worships a different god, who has little to do with entropy, since entropy is fixed for a given state of matter. Entropy is like a specific identity tag in terms of the facade of matter.

Entropy, in terms of increasing complexity, in light of entropy being a state variable, means as complexity increases, each successive state, also defines a very specific amount of entropy. Going from one state of complexity to another increases the entropy by a very specific amount. Evolution is driven by the second law. It is not random, as modern science assumes, since entropy is a state variable. The random assumptions behind evolution is not consistent with the concept of entropy within chemistry. They use a more philosophical spin off definition of entropy.

Let me go back to free energy G=H-TS. Consider the mother cell who is gathering resources in preparation for her cell cycle. She is storing internal energy; enthalpy H, within all the materials collected that will be needed to form two daughter cells. This is also increases her structural free energy value; G.

When G reaches a critical point; critical amount of free energy, the mother cell begins her cell cycle, so the free energy can decrease to a minimum; daughter cells. At the same time, many of her stored materials will ultimately be distributed between her two daughter cells. This means lowering her free energy cannot just be done with H; metabolism and synthesis. She will also need to increase entropy S, to help lower her free energy. With S being a state variable, she goes through a very precise series of complex states, of lowering are free energy, each decreasing enthalpy, while increasing entropy, until her two daughter cells form. Each of these states is part of a natural and repeatable design; anticipated best path.

Consider now the cell that we call neurons. Neurons are unique, in that they never divide after a certain point very early in our life. They are perpetual cells, that never become mother cells. They will continue to grow and add materials; branching, which amount to increasing free energy G and internal energy H. However, they do not express the lowering of free energy via the balance H and S of cell cycles. Instead they express the lowering of free energy through a higher proportion of entropy sequential changes of state for the stored materials into axons, dendrites, synapses, firing and data transmission.

All together, this global entropy expression results in the entropy state called consciousness, which itself is a state variable; identity tag called you. Consciousness also expresses free energy, though changing fixed states of thought complexity; entropy.

The idea of a God implies that there is a plan based on specific states. This plan implies things already existing in a blue print, before they occur; cell cycles. This is consistent with the concept of a state variable, and the movement between state of increasing complexity S. This is driven by the need to lower free energy G, as life increases; H, as it grows. G=H-TS. Neurons alter the nature of the game, so that S accounts for more of the needed structural change in G.

 

[tas8831]

Still waiting for you to show courts snip out 16% of one, 23% of the other, then use algorithms to randomly match segments to show relationship or guilt of a subject.....

By your argument we could convict anyone of a crime by randomly matching using algorithms..... sorry, doesn’t work that way.....

Hoping you will read this:

Use of court-approved science to assess primate phylogeny... or the case of the mistaken YEC

 

[ecco]

All together, this global entropy expression results in the entropy state called consciousness, which itself is a state variable; identity tag called you. Consciousness also expresses free energy, though changing fixed states of thought complexity; entropy.

In a word: woo. In a few words: pseudoscientific woo. This is so typical of people taking a tiny bit of science, turning it into junk, and making money by selling books to the believers.

The idea of a God implies that there is a plan based on specific states. This plan implies things already existing in a blue print, before they occur; cell cycles. This is consistent with the concept of a state variable, and the movement between state of increasing complexity S. This is driven by the need to lower free energy G, as life increases; H, as it grows. G=H-TS. Neurons alter the nature of the game, so that S accounts for more of the needed structural change in G.

Is the above your own concept or are you copying from an unnamed source?

 

[gnostic]

Our particular bodies could not exist without the elements, but an interface of similar function could exist.
If the brain is the hardware and the mind the software, any predictable interactions could be configured to process data.

Similarly, on our level, that which a computer does can be done using various things configured the same way. Whereas we use electrons in conductors and semiconductors, etc., older civilizations used water flowing through systems to perform similar calculations.

Man is presently building subatomic quantum computers which illustrate this principle.

Back to complexity..... It is absolutely understandable that "science" does not see complexity as evidence of design.
After all, it has essentially reverse-engineered the universe to its point of initiation and has not seen where a designer would be necessary. From considered evidence, it would seem that it just happened this way.

However, "science" itself requires scienTISTS. ScienTISTS are essentially considering the part of the iceberg above water -and do not really factor themselves into the equation -as part of the available evidence.

One interesting thing to note is that without their extremely capable creative minds, they would not be ABLE to REVERSE engineer the universe -but a much more simple mind could reverse-engineer something much more simple.

That which is also not usually considered is what was possible before their minds existed, and what became possible after their minds existed. Still -they did not just exist all at once -they developed one way or another (on our level, in many individual successive reproductive physical life forms) -and more became increasingly possible as they became increasingly capable.

It is also very true that complexity did not require a designer INITIALLY -UP TO A CERTAIN POINT (unless you count whatever dynamic components/forces resulted in configurations which were OF a design as a simple designer which became more complex and led to complex, self-aware designers) -but even on our level it is very obvious that it DOES RESULT in increasingly-capable designers which then make things increasingly possible -and DOES result in complex awareness, self-awareness, etc.

(It is NOT the medium which matters, but the emergent pattern made possible by anything which may act similarly.)

(It is also understandable that many are happy just proving annoying religious people wrong about stuff -and that religious people have made many a mind clamp shut at the very mention of a previous creative intelligence)

The problems with analogy of making computers, is your comparison to some intelligence creating the universe. They are not the same things.

Yes, man have created the hardware and software, that’s pretty much is self-evident. We know that they are capable to design and create. The people who make man-made things, are not invisible entities.

What isn’t self-evident is the universe being created by some “invisible” creative, intelligent and conscious entity, be they called Designer(s), Creator(s), God(s), Brahman, or some advanced aliens. There are no evidences for mysterious Intelligent Designer or God that created the universe, the Milky Way, Solar System, or Earth itself.

You are lacking evidences. All you have provided are some faulty analogies and unsubstantiated opinions, and these are not evidences for anything.

 

[gnostic]

Wasn’t aware that statistical computations of nothing observed proved anything. Proof requires observation and testing. Observation and testing has returned null....

No, you are confusing proof with evidence.

It is evidence that can be observed and tested, not proof.

Proof is a logical or mathematical statement.

Example of mathematical statement is an equation or formula. When a scientist or mathematician “prove” or “disprove” something, the proving is the result of solving the equations, attempting to simplify a complex equation; that what science and mathematics worlds mean by “proof”.

The equations (proofs) themselves are not evidences. They are works of using man’s logic, using variables, constants and numbers that is representative or model of the real world. But the equations themselves are not real.

So you must remember that the real world don’t always conform to equations (proofs). Which would or could mean the proofs/equations are wrong.

Proofs and maths are useful tools used in science, but they don’t verify or validate any hypothesis. Only evidences can do that.

That’s why science required evidences to be considered true, not proofs.

The very least you can do, it to learn and use the right words with the correct contexts when talking about science.