@@marcv2648 of course he did! Are you watching another video while watching this video! He says counciessness is a result of strong emergence .100% correct
Has anyone noticed that what we perceive more easily as being “routine and regular” we accept more quickly and with less questioning as somehow being “resolved”? And what we can’t perceive with our ordinary sensory inputs, like “consciousness”, we call a “hard” problem. We can’t explain the laws of motion, or the 4 “fundamental” forces, any more than we can explain the laws of consciousness. We just accept the first as existing and go on from there. We need to do that with consciousness.
''Emergence'' is a quality that is n o t in the sum of the independent parts of a ''whole'' but, of a whole whose parts are under conditions of interactions/correlations. (Whole = Independent Parts + Interactions/Correlations.) For example, the quality ''red'' is not simply a frequency of the visible spectrum per se but it emerges under the condition of its interaction with the visual system of a brain and the specific sensation/emotion that it evokes in a body. It's the job of science to describe faithfully/fruitfully the conditions of the emergence of ''qualia'' up to their sensation/experience, directly in oneself and/or in other bodies by self consistent inference. (In this view, there is no consciousness of a ''qualia'', say ''red'', without the condition of a brain and its body to experience the sensation or to proclaim it self consistently.)
Consciousness have a character my dearest brother. I am really happy with you. I never expected that as a simple definition, yet it came out in a powerful manner.
I'm not a big fan of the *additional qualifiers* that get added to these constructs (i.e., hard, soft, strong, weak, etc.). We observe different stages of emergence and then assign "strong" or "weak" depending on the end result. But these qualifiers are based on *human-assigned value* that I don't believe "Existence" ever cared about during the emergence. *Example:* Let's say over time, a certain type of matter starts joining together and forms a new mineral that has taken on different shapes over the time of its emergence. We'll call this mineral "Ballium." Early on, this Ballium was amorphic; later it' became more pancake-shaped, even later it ended up rhomboid. Then millions of years later, this new mineral ends up being spherical-shaped. We would label this "Weak Emergence" because there's nothing special about it to earn a lofty "Hard Emergence" tag. However, because the mineral is now spherical, it rolls down whatever hills it forms on and collects at the bottom along with millions of other spherical-shaped Ballium balls. A consequence of this conglomeration of Ballium balls is that it filters water and adds a special mineral that allows a specific lifeform to flourish whereas it cannot survive anywhere else without this specific mineral-laced water. Suddenly our "Ballium balls" now get labeled as "Strong Emergence" because of its strangely positive impact on nature and it's inexplicable connection with the emergence and survival of the once-doomed lifeform. Then we all write a bunch of scientific papers trying to decide if the Ballium Balls were intentionally designed to do what they do or if it was all just a random phenomenon.
Weak and strong emergence are semantically different. "Weak emergence" refers to properties of complex systems which are "interesting" but can be obtained in a simulated version of the system that only considers the properties of its fundamental components. "Strong emergence" refers to properties of complex systems that cannot be explained by the features of the fundamental parts of the system, no matter how complex the simulation is. Obviously, no case of strong emergence has been confirmed in physics, since all systems in the universe, no matter how complex, are supposed to follow the laws of particle interactions.
@@abhisheklimbu9609 *"In a nutshell, it's all random events."* ... We observe order, repeatability, and structure in the universe, so it's not all random.
the guy in the video claims that consciousness is strong emergence, and is therefore not derivable from physics, but comes from an additional law of nature that god added. complete nonsense
In the discussions of about emergence and especially so-called strong emergence or top-down emergence there is some confusion as to how far back an analysis needs to be done about a particular topic of discussion. For example, strong emergence proponents say that economic/commercial cause/effects are not to be found in the laws of physics e.g. when the technology improves and the prices of computers fall, more people start buying computers, and they see - prices going down actually made a person buy computers is nowhere in the laws of physics. Checkmate! Not really. For this case one cannot only start arbitrarily at the point where the prices of computers dropped and that affected how many people bought the computer. For this you have to understand how the commerce evolved, how people want to maximize what they have based on the limited money they may earn. And all of this started when humans evolved and started doing barter (first) with exchange of goods, and so on....and before that how they evolved and so on....and ultimately we can got how the life came about etc. Yes if one insists on physical explanation of some of the higher level concepts, one has to some times go back tracking enough to understand the full phenomenon. In fact one of the other videos on CTT, George Ellis, a great scientists, makes such a comment (in the episode named "George F. R. Ellis - Metaphysics vs. Materialism?") about computer programs and how they can make thing happen in real word, which he claims is a top-down causation. Really, George? And frankly that really surprised me that he is doing such short-sighted argument based on a, what I call, past-truncated analysis. Higher order systems like Economics, have higher order explanations in the lingo/terminology/concepts of that level. If you want to downshift to the lower lever fields, you have to downshift the explanation and sometimes do a longer past duration analysis to find the explanation at the lower levels. For example the behavior of humans at social and economic level can be explained in social and economic terms. But if you want to start going down to biological, chemical, physical level, you have to downshift the explanations to evolution, biochemistry, molecular biology, molecular chemistry, and atomic physics as one descends the levels, and also one has to extends the past time horizon to complete the analysis to boil down to physical explanations. Sara Walker and Lee Cronin's Assembly theory explains this aspect very well.
2:52 photons are only visible when they strike an object, as it is with electrochemical and consciousness. The connection between motion/matter and pain = nocicereceptors that send neurotransmissions to the brain. Literally the word “transmit” means to send, to spread!! Sounds like motion to me. And you think, this guy made a bunch of sense up to the 2:52 mark. 😅
How do we make science in our brains? Our visual systems are the most advanced systems in nature and perform natural science by perceiving the movement and timing of objects. It is also highly integrated into the sensorimotor system.
Matter is energy and energy is motion, or movement. Time and space are not fundamental. They are both emergent from the presence of energy. The most fundamental question currently is, energy is the motion of ultimately what? Ripples in various fields? What are fields?
We've got to get off our high horse here. We have built our sciences around what we can physically see, the quantum world and the cosmos doesn't work the same and we shouldn't expect them to. Let's the drop the over 2,000 year old conversation of god and embrace new thinking, its stifling us.
The Challenge of Consciousness However, consciousness presents a unique challenge. While we can explain many aspects of human behavior and cognition in terms of physical processes, the subjective experience of consciousness seems to defy a purely physical explanation. This has led some to argue that there may be aspects of reality that cannot be fully understood through physics alone. This is classic argument from incredibility. A phenomena seems to defy pure physical explanation therefore some aspects of reality cannot be fully understood through physics alone. Most are vague about what is missing. I suspect the supernatural is what they don't want to say.
9:15 Complex (potentially nearly chaotic) systems do “unexpected” things when viewed from the perspective of someone whose understanding is at that “emergent level”.
Well, since no system or scale is closed, unaffected by additional factors emerging from different factor balances occurring at any point in spacetime, all systems, given sufficient time for dynamical change, are unpredictable. If any variable is unpredictable at any scale, a corollary, then the system itself is unpredictable. No stasis appears to exist. The appearance pver short time frames alone, suggects, then, that all systems are chaotic, though we observe during an existence, even if measured by stratigraphic, isotopic, or other factors, which you will notice, have isruptive, recursive, reversal or conflating dynamical variations over time - isotopic ratios being one measurement factor shown to experience such disruption - we cannot measure beyond a disruptive event. Chaotic, unpredictable systems vary but due to the inability to statically or statistically quantify some seemingly independent variables in a proposed closed system, do range within limits, until some sufficient, not necessarily large, variation occurs, a vague "stability" seems to arise. Now, that's all a mere interpretation of the simple math of sets, systems, and any number of variables 3 or above, that appear to be independent. Philosophy is intended to be logical, or to use logic, but just as physics measures from "rest" states or factors theoretically unaffected by minute scaling or "absence", some errors intrude. So, both infinitesimal and cosmological scale measurement, useful in quantification, contribute also to unmeasurable mathematical and dynamic errors. Philosophical questions can intrigue scientists, but their sole utility in mathematics, is to expose possibly measurable variables. This is why, if one can extract any statistically experienced factor, it may become useful in balancing equations. There is an oddity in emergent phenomena, in that they are behaviorally, that is, mathematically, physically, or at more derived scales, similarly constructed to behaviors ( vector, tensor, scalar sums or isolates) occurring at different scales. From cosmology through biology, one witnesses this consistently. Useful hypotheses are constructed , and any individual human's withdrawal from rigorous critical and specific appraisal, has to do with interest, or cognitive bias, or complete cognitive error, as exhibited by commenters explaining it all away through misattributing a phenomenon to their dog, misspelled by so many.
Its the other way round mathematics and "laws" of physics emerge from the underlying dynamical system. The "laws" of physics is like an empirical formula in chemistry.
6:29 "Physics won't get that wrong. Physics can't get that wrong ..." Robt: "Does it follow from what you say that the world is deterministic?". Answer: "No because physics might be deterministic, it might be indeterministic." The guest SHOULD have answered, "Yes, it is deterministic" because Robt was asking about the Universe, not about the laws that govern it.
The guest was saying that "physics can't get that wrong", meaning that it can only be one way. That's being deterministic. Now whether the laws themselves also can only be one way is another matter. He was saying that we don't know about that yet. All that, I agree, is true, but Robert was asking if the universe we live in is deterministic or not. Since it's governed by the laws of physics we have, it must be. There could be other universes that have different laws that are also deterministic in their own way. I think the guest misunderstood Robert's question.
@@workingTchr but the laws we have are not deterministic. Well - General Relatively is deterministic but Quantum Mechanics definitely isn't deterministic. There are interpretations of QM which imagine ways the model could be altered to be deterministic but they add nothing to it's predictive power and they don't help solve the measurement problem. So we're left with: - deterministic general relativity which doesn't fit with... - probabilistic quantum mechanics And neither can make any sense of consciousness. So i don't think we know whether the evolution of the universe itself is deterministic, probabilistic or dependent in at least some ways on conscious free will. I don't understand how anyone can be certain the universe itself is any of these possibilities 🤷🏻
It's a real conundrum. But it's not that we can be certain the universe is deterministic or not. The laws of physics that we've discovered (Newton, Einstein, Maxwell, etc) _leave no room_ for non-determinisn. Maybe someday we'll discover a law that is non-deterministic, but so far we haven't. I, for one, am not certain that the universe is deterministic but everything seems to point to that from what we have discovered. Probabilistic quantum mechanics is an odd one. It's not deterministic in the conventional sense, but it is deterministic within the limits it sets for how things behave. For example, QM can say _for certain_ that a particle has an 80.7% probability of being in a particular region, that it has a 10.2% probability of being in a different region. So even within QM there is something deterministic going on.
@@workingTchr true but, being pedantic, strictly we haven't discovered laws of physics, we have invented models which do a good but not perfect job of describing and predicting physical systems. I know it sounds like semantics but i think there's a real difference. Regards there being no room for non-deterniministic systems in those models/laws i think our own conscious experience of making decisions is empirical evidence of non-deterniministic systems completely unaccounted for in our best models/laws. I realise most scientists & philosophers don't see it that way but i strongly believe that's just a mistake and an example of groupthink. Regards quantum mechanics' deterministic element - the Schroedinger equation. Yes, it's deterministic but it doesn't get us anywhere by itself because we have no clue what drives the collapse into particular measurements we actually experience. The measurement problem is real and very extant. Something else I'd add which is much more speculative and i may not be able to convey very clearly but I've found interesting to think about... Consider a murmuration of starlings. From a distance it can appear at first glance to be a single entity with a single mind. On closer inspection it's a large number of individual birds each following very simple deterministic flight rules based off only the movements of the 6 or 7 birds closest to it. On even closer inspection each bird appears to be an individual entity with a mind of it's own and when not in a murmuration is capable of many more complex and diverse behaviours which we cannot identify a set of simple deterministic rules. Go closer still we find the individual bird is actually a group of trillions of cells interacting with each other. We can identify some apparently deterministic rules that govern some cellular behaviour but mostly we don't understand how cells behave in anything like complete detail. Go deeper still and each cell is composed of 100 trillion atoms and finally we have very well defined deretmimstic rules for their behaviour... ... except we don't, we just have quantum mechanics with it's measurement problem. Tye nascent field of quatum biology has already demonstrated at least 4 biological phenomena which depend on quantum effects e.g. electron capture during photosynthesis. Now what i wonder is whether we are simply missing much greater quatum weirdness within complex biological systems than we've already discovered in the very simple quantum systems we've studied in detail. I wonder if something like the murmuration of starlings layers of apparently different causality might rear it's head at the most fundamental levels. The question then is what is the nature of causality at the actual fundamental level, whatever that is (because QM seems to imply that we are currently unable to directly empirically probe whatever lies beneath particle interactions. So it's plausible to me at least that the apparent deterministic causality we observe at some levels might actually just be a special case of interacting entites whose fundamental causal nature is not deterministic just like the conscious starlings restricted by the desire to fly in close formation find themselves restricted to a small deterministic rules set when actually they may be capable of free will in other, less constrained situations. Sorry - long winded but i struggle to put my thoughts on this subject into writing!
I believe that one of the things physics isn't able to describe ot explain via the current models is symbolic language, including things like money. I don't see how it's possible for one physical system to represent another entirely different physics system let alone an abstract concept in the absence of a conscious mind with causal powers to influence the physical system used as the symbol. Physical systems in our current models are just whatever they intrinsically are. They have no feelings or thoughts. They cannot "mean" something else or indeed mean anything at all.
Your middle paragraph is like saying you don't see how you are posting this message for others to see. Or you don't see how you just watched this video.
@@someonenotnoone are conscious minds not involved in those things then? Show me a physical system using symbolic representation that's not had conscious input at any stage. Better still, explain to me how that would even work.
Plato conveys a 'twofold' ignorance hidden in the 1st Alcibiades. It's what I understand Avidya to be also. Not knowing something is not a problem. One thinking that they do know, of something, when really they do not, is great, err. Perhaps it's a good to know that we don't know.
ServalM • It doesn't matter. You should know no matter what. The unknown threshold is always there, but you should always cross that threshold, because the true natural dynamic of the Universe, which is highly and tightly CAUSAL, doesn't forbid it, no matter what.
5:20 so let's put consciousness aside because I certainly agree that seems to be a category by itself the claim is sitll in biology throughout biology that there are laws regularity kinds natural things at these levesl that emerge in a strong way so that in principle those things that happened could never under the most advanced physics in can never in principle be explained by the motion of matter at the most fundamental level. 5:53 TM: yeah ... 7:21 I have difficulty personally understanding the claim without invoking some non-physical stuff which that people don't do how there are in principle when you get certain physical things together at the fundamental level when you bring them together at levels of biology or whatever that suddenly you create a condition that could not be predicted from by analyzing what was below (right) they happen and when they happen boom there's something new am I getting that wrong I mean what's the argument on the other side. 7:59 TM
Problem is, putting the parts together don’t make the whole of parts “living”…. He’s tryna say the what but erroneously presumes that such equates to the why, for which he never was able to adequately explain anyway. Look into “Processual-Emergent Properties” of living systems and see how Foundational Materialism fails to address the emergent aspect of PE properties. Contrary to such, Aristotle’s Hylomorphism (matter and form) does explain PE. Scholarly works by Denis Walsh, Fermin Fulda, and Dan Nicholson literally demonstrate on a natural biology level how physics is wrong when appropriating (e.g., agentialism) for living systems.
Another thing that can’t be explained by physics is the fact that life is the only thing that can react to anything without direct physical stimulus. In Boot Camp, a drill instructor can command you to get down and give him 20 push-ups. When you do it , thats an action and reaction without anything being directly acted upon.
@@5piles When considering what is likely, we should consider known phenomena first. We know that it is possible for a neural network, such as the brain, to interpret an audio signal and take action on it. We can explain this entirely in physical terms without appeal to unobserved phenomena.
This episode must be for holy week, "...without money and without price", except that because it is cheaper to receive then send information it seems like external fields can resolve human behaviors is a predictable ways
I don't think consciousness could be explained by physics now or in the future. It would still require some new knowledge we don't have yet. Consciousness requires consciousness to detect and its a prerequisite for all other inquiry. Its fundamental.
Hey Bob, after wandering the globe seeking answers to life the universe and everything for years, and after a myriad of interviews with experts in their own fields of scientific research, are you any closer to truth? Or is God still lurking in the background?
all levels are somehow interwoven into our physical reality... the same as an aquarium is required to hold the water... the water to hold organic molecules, and ultimately complex living organisms...
Yup. Nice example. Consubstantial is a term, I think, needs be essentially acknowledged in all inquiries as it posits nested degrees or levels. Especially because it's one with emanation. Too, the Aether has been referred to as an ocean, or the 'Primordial waters'. All such things are perturbation modalities of the Aether and also the medium for all relations and everything. Perturbation modalities: water, ice, steam, snow, hail, rivers, oceans, fog, humidity. It's all water. Tesla: light is a sound wave in the Aether, and is the Aether itself.
@@S3RAVA3LMthat's right S3R... from an infinitesimal perspective, it seems as the Universe is limited only to one's imagination and propensity of understanding...
A good example is DNA itself. The order of nucleotites is not preferred by laws of physics or by laws of chemistry. Much like letters in a book. Therefore physics can not predict or derive the DNA ‘code’. The only thing the physicist will appeal to is randomness (which is problematic because that is not a physical law). If laws of physics did produce dna you would get the same sequence every time, much like a crystal lattice etc. And of course a book itself is another example, although it is linked to the problem of consciousness. There is absolutely no way a physicist can predict or derive the order of letters in a book from the laws themselves, or the arrangement of matter in any other man made object like a car or an airplane for example. These things exist within the laws of physics but can not be explained by them. These things require another explanation. And to finish off with a paraphrase from Paul Davies the laws themselves, why do they take the form that they do, why these set of laws? Why this set of constants, why this set of initial conditions. Can physicists formulate a circular explanation where the laws explain themselves?
Pain sensors, in neuroscience, largely hpc neurons, detecting noxious, that is, stimuli damaging to an organism, were very useful, and thus selected evolutionarily. It is useful to motile organisms, which can move up or down molecular gradients. There exist specific other neural sensors, responding to light pressure, heavy pressure, nonnoxious heat, nonnoxious cold. The discourse above indulges in significant cognitive errors: Consciousness is self-monitoring by an organism. This is understood quite well in modern neurosciences. Any organism that can respond to change, can be regarded as basically conscious. This can be slow, hormonal variance in response, in motile organisms, as well as useful in sessile organisms. Th errors of both interlocutors in the video, are so egregiously in error concerning this alone, that the discussion is completely moot relative to reality. One can only suggest a more comprehensive biological and mathematical curiculum in whatever education they received, as well as a FAR stricter logic instructor for the "philosopher" -- see my reply below to a commentor who introduced complex "almost chaotic" systems, presumably referring to dynamical systems, for some basic English attempt to outline mathematics without use of that concise language, as youtube comment rarely extends into the full course necessary to understand even basic mathematics like set theory,
Consciousness as self-monitoring by an organism seems like a good answer, but things get more complicated when you consider meta-consciousness, or consciousness about consciousness. From what we can tell, among the myriad of organisms in the world humans are the only ones that are conscious of their consciousness, that can reflect on the fact that they can reflect, and reflect on that, and then on that... The neurosciences still have a long way to catch up with this question, in the self-monitoring of the self-monitoring without limit. Another way to put this is that we have the tools to know a lot about the neuroscience of pain, but not of suffering.
There is the deterministic and there is the indeterministic. There is also what is known about deterministic processes and what remain unknown. What is unknown about deterministic processes is, in effect, indeterministic. And what that means is that 'There is the deterministic and there is the indeterministic' is a meaningless statement---or maybe just utterly irrelevant.
Determinism isn’t about states of knowledge. When Copernicus described the motions of the planets he didn’t know why they moved that way, just that they did. That doesn’t mean it was nondeterministic, and in fact the regularity of their motion is what caused Kepler and Newton to try to reason about the causal factors. So we can infer determinism even if we cannot observe the chain of causation. Determinism and indeterminism are about the nature of a phenomenon, not our knowledge about it.
@@simonhibbs887 For some reason I cannot really take in your post. However, I am not going to let that stop me from answering. If everything is determined, then for all practical...... No, I sense there is some ambiguity--equivacation going on here with determine--deterministic. To measure something is to determine it. To ascertain something is to determine it to be this or that. Does indeterministic mean 'can never be determined'? The problem is not with the realities, the problem is in the language we use to describe the realities, in the way we use the language.
@@arthurwieczorek4894 Oh, I think I see the issue. In this context determinism and indeterminism are being used in the context of causation. Is a given outcome of a process determined by previous states or not. Determinism is the position that previous states ‘determine’ future states, in accordance with the laws of physics. Indeterminism is the position that some future states are not caused by prior conditions in this way. The principle point of contention is usually whether our choices are determined or not.
@@arthurwieczorek4894Haha, yes, but in all seriousness, it’s about following the data where it leads and being open to drawing the best hypothesis along the way and not being hindered by unsupported presuppositions. I’ll ask anyone to Imagine if a future alien life form finds an abandoned Lunar Rover on our moon and after analyzing it speculates that it is the result of “mindless chance”, and physics/chemistry alone, and - with folded arms - places the burden of proof on those that speculate “something more”. Wouldn’t that be utterly ridiculous? Would we say that was good science? Of course not. The honest pursuit of Truth follows the data where it leads. If the data seems to be suggesting there is more to consciousness than can be answered by physics and chemistry alone, then so be it. Possibly you agree. So many don't.
@@steve_____K307 With your argument you come roaring out the gate and down the course. Then you screech to a halt and put a toe across the finish line. 'Data seems to suggest there is something more to consciousness than physics and chemistry can explain.' And that something more is what?? I will anticipate your answer and say, you're got nothing but hot air. "Go where the data leads, drawing the best hypothesis"---BS. Sir if you really had something you would have powered across that line. I wait to see what kind of mish-mash of science and theology you come up with.
So the Land Rover is supposed to represent consciousness, or a watch in Paley's classic argument. I'll bet UA-cam has got more than one answer to that argument in its files. Let me explore this. Land Rover, consciousness, the watch on South Sentinel island = A. A is 1) A natural object never before seen, 2) A an artifact of an advanced intelligence or civilization, 3) A miraculous object, 4) We just don't know,5) (You fill in the blank.). From here l don't exactly know where to go. I will point out that of the three, the watch and the LR are much more closely related things than consciousness---the consciousness that I for one assume is found only in animals and as such has been a feature of this planet for, what, 500 million years.
Humans have a variety of cognitive capacities including sensing our environment, physiological responses, predicting future states and outcomes, reasoning about the mental states of others, introspecting and reasoning about our own mental state, etc. These are all functional behaviours that serve an evolutionary role in our success and survival. I think as they have evolved in our, together they are consciousness. It’s not something extra added on.
there is nothing cognitive about any part of the body. the human body lacks any emergent property of cognition eg. awareness of blue. contrary to francis cricks claims, correctly assembled rods and cones in a petridish does not mean there are colors and shapes in the petridish.
@@simonhibbs887 Yes. I'd say it as, mind is DNA's way of making more DNA following a conservation of chemical structure regularly infinite nature. Of course DNA doesn't know it is creating mind. Minds, consciousness, just result in the conservation mentioned. Mind is an emergent developmental property across species.
@@arthurwieczorek4894 problem is there are no such emergent properties of consciousness. not in dna, neural correlates, any fully mapped out basic brains, etcetc.
@@5piles "Emergent properties of consciousness." That confuses me. I thought we were talking about consciousness as an emergent property, or phenomenon.
Mr. Kuhn needs to be praised for his effort in probing a diverse cross-section of some of the most brilliant people in the world. What's interesting after watching this series over the years is how his interviewees vary, even disagree with each other on the most fundamental questions, such as: Why is there something instead of just nothing? I'm waiting for a series where these people will tell me if Santa Claus was real or not. I can't wait!
@@5piles Tell Robert that, because it's him that keeps asking that question and others. Maybe he should interview you so that you can clarify it for him. 😉
"God" - is a bad word today? I myself don't believe in God. Acknowleding that existence is, and here i am, and everything of science - why would God need anybodies belief? Why would people settle with a belief about God when there is, all of this i.e. science, music, being, existence, intellect, life, experience, the sun stars and moon.... Guess what though.... ? some people say when science reveals what is a mystery, that it was never "god" in the first place, but simply natural phenomena. Does anybody know what this means or am i the only one? It means their idea of God was worst than a 1st grader in elementary school. The God of Plato is not the God of religion. The God in the mind of man is not akin to 'the Absolute'. The Brahman of Hinduism is not the God of some atheist here commenting whom they deny and mock - these poor people have no idea what they're doing. God doesn't care if you believe in him or worship him - no man escapes the law( cause and effect). God doesn't have you pay taxes, property taxes, or make up policy that puts you into bondage. Nor do humans give life, or Intellect, or Reason, or the laws, nature, light, harmony, the good, beauty, wisdom. Are people still hurt about the santa clause thing? Therefore they'll never believe in anything ever again, and thus they mock God? So the root of this behavior, in mocking God, is from childhood trauma. Maybe it's that people haven't the courage to leave the consensus, therefore they care more about outside validation than being true to heart? It most definitely isn't an easy walk. Personally, i wont be reading any academicians books today - penrose, guth, crouse, wittin, these are persons just not worth your time, energy, consideration. Why i like God is because i acknowledge the laws. I like Wisdom, Truth, Justice, Harmony, the virtues, Knowledge, Intellect, wonder, imagination, Reason, Light, colors, beauty, meaning, expression, discovery, unity, logic, self reflection. I like this more than money, more than wordly authority or outside validation; more than being apart of some trite group like a religion or academic circle. Obviously there is a God. If you want to come nearer to this God you have to throw away your minds ideal of. Apophatic dialectic and retroduction is what the Giants utilized, for in this pursuit of the Unknown. People cleave to whatever trite transistory trash that they can use to reify themselves. That is what you want to through away. All the people who mock God and those whom are "believers' or theists.... get this, because it's a good one.... they who mock God, are not mocking truly, God, but their minds idea of God they mock. Too, they judge the religious people and think it's funny to make fun of them - only exposes their character; they're not men or leaders. And these fools idea of God which they unwittingly mock, certainly warrents disdain. Therefore they actually mock a part of themselves, all the while they smile and laugh lolololololololol - repugnant, right. Isn't it funny though? Scriputures have been compiled regarding it. Bhagavad Gita. The great battle is in your mind. They say it's most difficult to overcome the mind. No.... there most certainly is something...call it what you wish, or go and cower. Fortunately i found the real books worth study, but i see nobody cares...
There may well be a specific reason our universe exists, and if you want to call that reason god and think about it in that way, that’s fine. Likewise if you choose to think of wisdom, justice, harmony, and so on in terms of divine inspiration, I have no criticism of that position. I wouldn’t use that term myself, but it’s just a label so that’s not a concern for me. All I’d say about that is that I think the nature of such a phenomenon is unknowable, and I choose not to believe in unknowable things. So my atheism is not a positive claim that such a phenomenon does not exist, as I said I think that’s unknowable, but is a lack of belief in the existence of a hypothetical unknowable cause. What I do argue against are what I perceive as: Misrepresentations of the scientific method, misrepresentations of scientific knowledge or its nature, invalid arguments for the existence of a ‘god’ with particular unjustified attributes, misrepresentations of physicalism, etc. Basically I defend my philosophical positions. When I do poke fun is when such misrepresentations are particularly obviously incoherent, or are made in a childish or aggressive manner. You and I have clashed a few times. I can see you are very passionate about your philosophical commitments and devoted to study. I think those are all admirable qualities.
Why should we pretend that physics can supposedly tell us when we're going to reach into our pocket to pay the cashier for our groceries when we still haven't the faintest clue as to whether the synchronization of pendulums can be reduced to Newtonian mechanics?
I admire TM, but biological, psychological, and social phenomena will never be explained by physics. The key terms of these sciences cannot even be given definitions in terms of fundamental physics. Not just mind or consciousness. How to derive the rule for population dynamics, dN/dt = r N (1 - N/K), from anything in fundamental physics? Tim is really wrong about the definition of "physical" -- it can't mean just "located in space," or "dependent on mass-energy." It is narrower than that.
When it comes to money the elephant in the room is the federal government that sets the value of money by law. Isaac Newton served as head of the Treasury and hung counterfeiters..
We are all just vibrations in the Higgs field. We created things: money, biology, etc as a way to understand our existence. I can make up a new sandwich and call it some random name but that doesn’t mean that thing exists, it’s just a way for my senses to understand it.
Can physics predict the dynamics of two competing populations of animals? I don't see that happening, There are some properties that 'emerge' from lower levels of biological organization. Reductionism has its limits and emergent properties have their own laws. IMHO
Physics can predict the dynamics of two competing populations. Some measurements would be harder than others, but in principle, everything could be quantified and predicted.
@@dr_shrinkercan you predict deez nuts? Can you predict the theory of bowffa? Bowffa deez nuts?? Can physics explain why there is something rather than nothing?
@@dr_shrinker Would you mind sharing how you think this can happen? I mean like from first principals, from the presence of fundamental quantum fields.
I don't understand! After all these years, and talking to many of the most gifted minds we have, you seem no 'closer to truth' than you've ever been. Of course emergence is a reality, that one plus one equals three. Hydrogen and oxygen equals water (something "fundamentally new"). Sodium and chlorine is table salt. And this is just looking at the first three periods of the periodic table, and something everyone is familiar with, and understands... except it seems you!!! Please accept this criticism in good faith...
Laws of physics are mental. They change. Emergence? When there is something more physics just say it emerges, not knowing or telling if the emergence is of higher order. Everything that is important is they emerge, not questioning wheter they just comu through.... Emergence is comning through, not comming from.....
Are there smaller physical things that electromagnetism emerges from? Is "consciousness" really small physical stuff that can't be detected by physics?
@wagfinpis I don't think electromagnetism emerges from any "thing" but is a relationship between opposing things, i.e. things with a negative charge and things with a positive charge. Likewise, I don't think consciousness is a thing but is a relationship between the internal and the external.
¿Por qué tengo que llamar al programa desde el trabajo para decir que descubrí la naturaleza de la adicción, Dios y el dinero y otros vitales conocimientos que salvan vidas hace mucho tiempo? ¿Alguien entenderá algo o todavía no?. Solo tenemos una vida y si Dios existe no va a dejar de existir por mucho que se crea. La verdad importa y el universo fue creado por Dios de si mismo de una eterna existencia. Dios es simplemente el Tiempo y Espacio que lo sabe todo, nada más. Necesito que se me preste atención porque hablo de Dios y no de religión. Necesito que sea noticia el descubrimiento de que el ateísmo es una falacia lógica, ¿estoy pidiendo mucho o demasiado? Mi verdad obvia es el ateísmo es una falacia lógica que asume Dios es la idea religiosa del creador de la creación y concluye erróneamente que el creador no existe porque una idea particular de Dios no existe. ¿Y si no tuvieses que rezar y adorar a nadie creerías que Dios es perfecto, como a tí te gustaría que fuese? Dios es literalmente todo y nada más. Somos literalmente la personalidad, vida, psicología del universo. Dios es existencia consciente experimentando una vida. Si morimos Dios muere. Si sobrevivimos Dios sobrevive. Vida y muerte están conectadas, todo es la misma sustancia transfomándose. Si me dejan leer algún poema de amor a la humanidad pues bien y sino lo intento la próxima semana, y si dicen que molesto pues me voy y busco a alguien que esté interesado en escuchar entendimientos de la realidad que contradigan los propios. Y así seguimos malamente. Se tiene que entender que soy una persona con conocimiento, artista y poeta, no soy un charlatán buscando atención. Gracias por su atención.
'Fundamentally new'. Sounds like a human assessment. What we regard as 'fundamentally new' says more about us and our state of knowledge than it does about the physics---chemistry---biology thing.
Some interoceptive sensors end up responding when oxygen deprivation , ROS, or other stressors occur in certain tissues. Oergeneralization, however, is inaccurate, and leads to cognitive errors and delusions.
He doesn't understand what is a strong emergence in REALITY. Like many other "scientific" parrots he can describe theories and create hypotheses, but he doesn't have the mental prowess to choose which is truly which in true REALITY.
How would a person know? To a person looking up in the sky it looks as though the sun travels across the sky. It also looks as though the Earth is rotating around its axis. To know if what decides is the brain or a spirit we would need a way to test which is correct. I think people who give either answer are telling the truth to the best of their ability.
Do you accept God exists? First you have to understand God exists to understand how is God. Have you read Spinoza? Spinoza's God is not just the universe, Spinoza's God is not atheism. My concept of God coincides fundamentally with Spinoza's and God is everything that exist and the universe was designed by God. God created self from self because from nothing can not be created something. Spinoza was a rational philosopher like me, not a preacher or believer. I didn't read Spinoza and I came up with the same concept of God, what does it mean? Spinoza's God is a healthy, realistic, truthful alternative to religion that atheists have cancelled saying Spinoza's God is like no God. Why? ¡Spinoza wanted to end religion and was cancelled and is still being cancelled by atheists! Do you understand? I am trying to end religion and I am cancelled by atheists. The truth is atheism is a logical fallacy that assumes God is the religious idea of the creator of the creation to conclude wrongly no creator exists because a particular idea of God doesn’t exist. To end the war the discovery that atheism is a logical fallacy has to be news. Thank you.
@@tonyatkinson2210 You have to understand why atheists lie about Spinoza's God when Spinoza tried to end religion with a truthful and sensible concept of the intelligent creator of the universe. I am cancelled trying to end religion like Spinoza was cancelled by atheists. What does it mean? There would be no religion if atheists had not lied saying Spinoza's God is like no God. Atheists want you to believe the rationalist philosopher Spinoza wrote about God to explain God is the universe therefore death is the end. Do you believe me? I challenge you to read what Spinoza actually said about God. The truth is still atheism is a logical fallacy that assumes God is the religious idea of the creator of the creation to conclude wrongly no creator exists because a particular idea of God doesn’t exist. To end the war the discovery that atheism is a logical fallacy has to be news. If you are an atheist reading this loving poem my question for you is "if you don't want the end of religion what do you live for?". God is literally everything because from nothing can not be created something. Logically everything comes from self, reality is created from reality, what has a beginning of existence must be created from what is eternal. Thank you.
"What is Strong Emergence?" There is no such thing as emergence let alone strong emergence, fyi... Well, let me help enlighten you, as follows : Emergence is an idea concocted by guilty conscience to lessen their pain... this is a consequence of ruling out any existence beyond physical in favor of limiting science to material inquiry where RANDOMNESS or EMERGENCE is the excuse for their failure to explain how energy or matter came to be. This somehow makes them feel NO SENSE of any Accountability so to ease their pain... ...of course, by believing that the source of all physical existence is RANDOM or EMERGENT or by ACCIDENT, then you can not feel accountable for all the evils that you do as all just products of accidental existence...and, also, being a FREE-LOADER is just fine with you as you have no God to thank to for all the free blessings you benefit... correct ? So, be honest at least. You have chosen RANDOM over God because you do not want to be accountable for everyting you do as just products of ACCIDENT where you can rob, rape, murder your neighbor when life turns sour, or even aborting, raping, killing your own family because you have no God to worry... Don't you still not understand how TOXIC your Emergent Material Science is that is destroying this world ?
Let get It seriously. Guys doesnt knows nothing about phich. For instance knows fundamental phich pictures around world he did not quite believes this but show phich within Rambling phich . Iol.
Robert is the fashion goat.
Very true
He always drippin
Is it possible that RLK did not ever have a moustache? Would that change the outcome of the conversation? Would we even be watching this at all?
1:50 breathtaking zoom in, kudos to the photographer🌟
I thought the same damn thing. That zoom transported me.
Maudlin seems to always see right through to the heart of the matter.
He never addressed strong emergence. As in downward emergence. He doesn't seem to fully conceptualize emergence at all.
@@marcv2648 ua-cam.com/video/w01qa9NAA6E/v-deo.html he addresses it in this video, simply denying it's existence/coherence.
@@marcv2648 of course he did! Are you watching another video while watching this video! He says counciessness is a result of strong emergence .100% correct
Clearly explained the differences between physics and other sciences
why the problem with emerging chaos once you have the right ingredients - chaos and emerging properties is interwoven into order on a base level
the most unforgiveable of all the fallacies - the argument from person incredulity
Maudlin is excellent.
Has anyone noticed that what we perceive more easily as being “routine and regular” we accept more quickly and with less questioning as somehow being “resolved”?
And what we can’t perceive with our ordinary sensory inputs, like “consciousness”, we call a “hard” problem.
We can’t explain the laws of motion, or the 4 “fundamental” forces, any more than we can explain the laws of consciousness.
We just accept the first as existing and go on from there.
We need to do that with consciousness.
''Emergence'' is a quality that is n o t in the sum of the independent parts of a ''whole'' but, of a whole whose parts are under conditions of interactions/correlations.
(Whole = Independent Parts + Interactions/Correlations.)
For example, the quality ''red'' is not simply a frequency of the visible spectrum per se but it emerges under the condition of its interaction with the visual system of a brain and the specific sensation/emotion that it evokes in a body. It's the job of science to describe faithfully/fruitfully the conditions of the emergence of ''qualia'' up to their sensation/experience, directly in oneself and/or in other bodies by self consistent inference.
(In this view, there is no consciousness of a ''qualia'', say ''red'', without the condition of a brain and its body to experience the sensation or to proclaim it self consistently.)
Consciousness have a character my dearest brother. I am really happy with you. I never expected that as a simple definition, yet it came out in a powerful manner.
I'm not a big fan of the *additional qualifiers* that get added to these constructs (i.e., hard, soft, strong, weak, etc.). We observe different stages of emergence and then assign "strong" or "weak" depending on the end result. But these qualifiers are based on *human-assigned value* that I don't believe "Existence" ever cared about during the emergence.
*Example:* Let's say over time, a certain type of matter starts joining together and forms a new mineral that has taken on different shapes over the time of its emergence. We'll call this mineral "Ballium." Early on, this Ballium was amorphic; later it' became more pancake-shaped, even later it ended up rhomboid. Then millions of years later, this new mineral ends up being spherical-shaped.
We would label this "Weak Emergence" because there's nothing special about it to earn a lofty "Hard Emergence" tag.
However, because the mineral is now spherical, it rolls down whatever hills it forms on and collects at the bottom along with millions of other spherical-shaped Ballium balls. A consequence of this conglomeration of Ballium balls is that it filters water and adds a special mineral that allows a specific lifeform to flourish whereas it cannot survive anywhere else without this specific mineral-laced water.
Suddenly our "Ballium balls" now get labeled as "Strong Emergence" because of its strangely positive impact on nature and it's inexplicable connection with the emergence and survival of the once-doomed lifeform.
Then we all write a bunch of scientific papers trying to decide if the Ballium Balls were intentionally designed to do what they do or if it was all just a random phenomenon.
Weak and strong emergence are semantically different. "Weak emergence" refers to properties of complex systems which are "interesting" but can be obtained in a simulated version of the system that only considers the properties of its fundamental components.
"Strong emergence" refers to properties of complex systems that cannot be explained by the features of the fundamental parts of the system, no matter how complex the simulation is. Obviously, no case of strong emergence has been confirmed in physics, since all systems in the universe, no matter how complex, are supposed to follow the laws of particle interactions.
In a nutshell, it's all random events.
as someone once said of western philosophy...' the pouring of the empty into the void'
@@abhisheklimbu9609 *"In a nutshell, it's all random events."*
... We observe order, repeatability, and structure in the universe, so it's not all random.
the guy in the video claims that consciousness is strong emergence, and is therefore not derivable from physics, but comes from an additional law of nature that god added. complete nonsense
In the discussions of about emergence and especially so-called strong emergence or top-down emergence there is some confusion as to how far back an analysis needs to be done about a particular topic of discussion. For example, strong emergence proponents say that economic/commercial cause/effects are not to be found in the laws of physics e.g. when the technology improves and the prices of computers fall, more people start buying computers, and they see - prices going down actually made a person buy computers is nowhere in the laws of physics. Checkmate! Not really. For this case one cannot only start arbitrarily at the point where the prices of computers dropped and that affected how many people bought the computer. For this you have to understand how the commerce evolved, how people want to maximize what they have based on the limited money they may earn. And all of this started when humans evolved and started doing barter (first) with exchange of goods, and so on....and before that how they evolved and so on....and ultimately we can got how the life came about etc. Yes if one insists on physical explanation of some of the higher level concepts, one has to some times go back tracking enough to understand the full phenomenon. In fact one of the other videos on CTT, George Ellis, a great scientists, makes such a comment (in the episode named "George F. R. Ellis - Metaphysics vs. Materialism?") about computer programs and how they can make thing happen in real word, which he claims is a top-down causation. Really, George? And frankly that really surprised me that he is doing such short-sighted argument based on a, what I call, past-truncated analysis. Higher order systems like Economics, have higher order explanations in the lingo/terminology/concepts of that level. If you want to downshift to the lower lever fields, you have to downshift the explanation and sometimes do a longer past duration analysis to find the explanation at the lower levels. For example the behavior of humans at social and economic level can be explained in social and economic terms. But if you want to start going down to biological, chemical, physical level, you have to downshift the explanations to evolution, biochemistry, molecular biology, molecular chemistry, and atomic physics as one descends the levels, and also one has to extends the past time horizon to complete the analysis to boil down to physical explanations. Sara Walker and Lee Cronin's Assembly theory explains this aspect very well.
2:52 photons are only visible when they strike an object, as it is with electrochemical and consciousness.
The connection between motion/matter and pain = nocicereceptors that send neurotransmissions to the brain. Literally the word “transmit” means to send, to spread!! Sounds like motion to me.
And you think, this guy made a bunch of sense up to the 2:52 mark. 😅
you give a nice prayer but its not relevant to science.
How do we make science in our brains? Our visual systems are the most advanced systems in nature and perform natural science by perceiving the movement and timing of objects. It is also highly integrated into the sensorimotor system.
Matter is energy and energy is motion, or movement. Time and space are not fundamental. They are both emergent from the presence of energy. The most fundamental question currently is, energy is the motion of ultimately what? Ripples in various fields? What are fields?
Tat Tvam Asi.
Strong emergence = a conception that is refound as an outer existence.
Weak emergence = a conception that is't refound as an outer existence.
We've got to get off our high horse here. We have built our sciences around what we can physically see, the quantum world and the cosmos doesn't work the same and we shouldn't expect them to. Let's the drop the over 2,000 year old conversation of god and embrace new thinking, its stifling us.
Ions in the brain move from nerve cell to nerve cell. That's "matter in motion."
Art isn't art. It's just an ability to bend light in some form or fashion.
It is Pure Speculation.
The Challenge of Consciousness
However, consciousness presents a unique challenge. While we can explain many aspects of human behavior and cognition in terms of physical processes, the subjective experience of consciousness seems to defy a purely physical explanation. This has led some to argue that there may be aspects of reality that cannot be fully understood through physics alone.
This is classic argument from incredibility. A phenomena seems to defy pure physical explanation therefore some aspects of reality cannot be fully understood through physics alone. Most are vague about what is missing. I suspect the supernatural is what they don't want to say.
9:15 Complex (potentially nearly chaotic) systems do “unexpected” things when viewed from the perspective of someone whose understanding is at that “emergent level”.
Well, since no system or scale is closed, unaffected by additional factors emerging from different factor balances occurring at any point in spacetime, all systems, given sufficient time for dynamical change, are unpredictable.
If any variable is unpredictable at any scale, a corollary, then the system itself is unpredictable.
No stasis appears to exist. The appearance pver short time frames alone, suggects, then, that all systems are chaotic, though we observe during an existence, even if measured by stratigraphic, isotopic, or other factors, which you will notice, have isruptive, recursive, reversal or conflating dynamical variations over time - isotopic ratios being one measurement factor shown to experience such disruption - we cannot measure beyond a disruptive event.
Chaotic, unpredictable systems vary but due to the inability to statically or statistically quantify some seemingly independent variables in a proposed closed system, do range within limits, until some sufficient, not necessarily large, variation occurs, a vague "stability" seems to arise.
Now, that's all a mere interpretation of the simple math of sets, systems, and any number of variables 3 or above, that appear to be independent.
Philosophy is intended to be logical, or to use logic, but just as physics measures from "rest" states or factors theoretically unaffected by minute scaling or "absence", some errors intrude.
So, both infinitesimal and cosmological scale measurement, useful in quantification, contribute also to unmeasurable mathematical and dynamic errors.
Philosophical questions can intrigue scientists, but their sole utility in mathematics, is to expose possibly measurable variables.
This is why, if one can extract any statistically experienced factor, it may become useful in balancing equations.
There is an oddity in emergent phenomena, in that they are behaviorally, that is, mathematically, physically, or at more derived scales, similarly constructed to behaviors ( vector, tensor, scalar sums or isolates) occurring at different scales.
From cosmology through biology, one witnesses this consistently.
Useful hypotheses are constructed , and any individual human's withdrawal from rigorous critical and specific appraisal, has to do with interest, or cognitive bias, or complete cognitive error, as exhibited by commenters explaining it all away through misattributing a phenomenon to their dog, misspelled by so many.
@@briseboy
IfUSāSō, & I did say NEAR CHAOTIC for a reason.
@@briseboythat’s a very long comment in which a number of semantic errors are made. Stringing words together doesn’t mean that they make sense.
how might laws of nature emerge from mathematics?
Its the other way round mathematics and "laws" of physics emerge from the underlying dynamical system. The "laws" of physics is like an empirical formula in chemistry.
6:29 "Physics won't get that wrong. Physics can't get that wrong ..." Robt: "Does it follow from what you say that the world is deterministic?". Answer: "No because physics might be deterministic, it might be indeterministic." The guest SHOULD have answered, "Yes, it is deterministic" because Robt was asking about the Universe, not about the laws that govern it.
How do you know the universe is deterministic if not via the predictive power of our physical models?
The guest was saying that "physics can't get that wrong", meaning that it can only be one way. That's being deterministic. Now whether the laws themselves also can only be one way is another matter. He was saying that we don't know about that yet. All that, I agree, is true, but Robert was asking if the universe we live in is deterministic or not. Since it's governed by the laws of physics we have, it must be. There could be other universes that have different laws that are also deterministic in their own way. I think the guest misunderstood Robert's question.
@@workingTchr but the laws we have are not deterministic. Well - General Relatively is deterministic but Quantum Mechanics definitely isn't deterministic. There are interpretations of QM which imagine ways the model could be altered to be deterministic but they add nothing to it's predictive power and they don't help solve the measurement problem.
So we're left with:
- deterministic general relativity which doesn't fit with...
- probabilistic quantum mechanics
And neither can make any sense of consciousness.
So i don't think we know whether the evolution of the universe itself is deterministic, probabilistic or dependent in at least some ways on conscious free will.
I don't understand how anyone can be certain the universe itself is any of these possibilities 🤷🏻
It's a real conundrum. But it's not that we can be certain the universe is deterministic or not. The laws of physics that we've discovered (Newton, Einstein, Maxwell, etc) _leave no room_ for non-determinisn. Maybe someday we'll discover a law that is non-deterministic, but so far we haven't. I, for one, am not certain that the universe is deterministic but everything seems to point to that from what we have discovered. Probabilistic quantum mechanics is an odd one. It's not deterministic in the conventional sense, but it is deterministic within the limits it sets for how things behave. For example, QM can say _for certain_ that a particle has an 80.7% probability of being in a particular region, that it has a 10.2% probability of being in a different region. So even within QM there is something deterministic going on.
@@workingTchr true but, being pedantic, strictly we haven't discovered laws of physics, we have invented models which do a good but not perfect job of describing and predicting physical systems. I know it sounds like semantics but i think there's a real difference.
Regards there being no room for non-deterniministic systems in those models/laws i think our own conscious experience of making decisions is empirical evidence of non-deterniministic systems completely unaccounted for in our best models/laws. I realise most scientists & philosophers don't see it that way but i strongly believe that's just a mistake and an example of groupthink.
Regards quantum mechanics' deterministic element - the Schroedinger equation. Yes, it's deterministic but it doesn't get us anywhere by itself because we have no clue what drives the collapse into particular measurements we actually experience. The measurement problem is real and very extant.
Something else I'd add which is much more speculative and i may not be able to convey very clearly but I've found interesting to think about...
Consider a murmuration of starlings.
From a distance it can appear at first glance to be a single entity with a single mind.
On closer inspection it's a large number of individual birds each following very simple deterministic flight rules based off only the movements of the 6 or 7 birds closest to it.
On even closer inspection each bird appears to be an individual entity with a mind of it's own and when not in a murmuration is capable of many more complex and diverse behaviours which we cannot identify a set of simple deterministic rules.
Go closer still we find the individual bird is actually a group of trillions of cells interacting with each other. We can identify some apparently deterministic rules that govern some cellular behaviour but mostly we don't understand how cells behave in anything like complete detail.
Go deeper still and each cell is composed of 100 trillion atoms and finally we have very well defined deretmimstic rules for their behaviour...
... except we don't, we just have quantum mechanics with it's measurement problem. Tye nascent field of quatum biology has already demonstrated at least 4 biological phenomena which depend on quantum effects e.g. electron capture during photosynthesis.
Now what i wonder is whether we are simply missing much greater quatum weirdness within complex biological systems than we've already discovered in the very simple quantum systems we've studied in detail. I wonder if something like the murmuration of starlings layers of apparently different causality might rear it's head at the most fundamental levels.
The question then is what is the nature of causality at the actual fundamental level, whatever that is (because QM seems to imply that we are currently unable to directly empirically probe whatever lies beneath particle interactions.
So it's plausible to me at least that the apparent deterministic causality we observe at some levels might actually just be a special case of interacting entites whose fundamental causal nature is not deterministic just like the conscious starlings restricted by the desire to fly in close formation find themselves restricted to a small deterministic rules set when actually they may be capable of free will in other, less constrained situations.
Sorry - long winded but i struggle to put my thoughts on this subject into writing!
I believe that one of the things physics isn't able to describe ot explain via the current models is symbolic language, including things like money.
I don't see how it's possible for one physical system to represent another entirely different physics system let alone an abstract concept in the absence of a conscious mind with causal powers to influence the physical system used as the symbol.
Physical systems in our current models are just whatever they intrinsically are. They have no feelings or thoughts. They cannot "mean" something else or indeed mean anything at all.
Yes - You have succinctly described the deep mystery of consciousness.
Your middle paragraph is like saying you don't see how you are posting this message for others to see. Or you don't see how you just watched this video.
@@someonenotnoone are conscious minds not involved in those things then? Show me a physical system using symbolic representation that's not had conscious input at any stage. Better still, explain to me how that would even work.
Mental world is the foundation of laws of nature and space-time
metaphysical Idealism
@@RayMottarelly kind of 👍
Space-time is not something solid. It changes so it can have any definite rules which are always the same
how would determinism emerge from randomness?
Because Determinism, if it even exists, is really only randomness at a masquerade ball.
I like this channel it makes me think science is foreplay...
And how physics came to be?
7:18 Robert has understood that he has not understood anything.
Plato conveys a 'twofold' ignorance hidden in the 1st Alcibiades. It's what I understand Avidya to be also. Not knowing something is not a problem. One thinking that they do know, of something, when really they do not, is great, err. Perhaps it's a good to know that we don't know.
ServalM • It doesn't matter.
You should know no matter what.
The unknown threshold is always there, but you should always cross that threshold, because the true natural dynamic of the Universe, which is highly and tightly CAUSAL, doesn't forbid it, no matter what.
5:20 so let's put consciousness aside because I certainly agree that seems to be a category by itself the claim is sitll in biology throughout biology that there are laws regularity kinds natural things at these levesl that emerge in a strong way so that in principle those things that happened could never under the most advanced physics in can never in principle be explained by the motion of matter at the most fundamental level. 5:53 TM: yeah ... 7:21 I have difficulty personally understanding the claim without invoking some non-physical stuff which that people don't do how there are in principle when you get certain physical things together at the fundamental level when you bring them together at levels of biology or whatever that suddenly you create a condition that could not be predicted from by analyzing what was below (right) they happen and when they happen boom there's something new am I getting that wrong I mean what's the argument on the other side. 7:59 TM
Problem is, putting the parts together don’t make the whole of parts “living”…. He’s tryna say the what but erroneously presumes that such equates to the why, for which he never was able to adequately explain anyway. Look into “Processual-Emergent Properties” of living systems and see how Foundational Materialism fails to address the emergent aspect of PE properties. Contrary to such, Aristotle’s Hylomorphism (matter and form) does explain PE. Scholarly works by Denis Walsh, Fermin Fulda, and Dan Nicholson literally demonstrate on a natural biology level how physics is wrong when appropriating (e.g., agentialism) for living systems.
Another thing that can’t be explained by physics is the fact that life is the only thing that can react to anything without direct physical stimulus. In Boot Camp, a drill instructor can command you to get down and give him 20 push-ups. When you do it , thats an action and reaction without anything being directly acted upon.
Well quantum observations might seem to also do that and theories of gravity are casually predictable but no graviton has been found to exist either.
Your neurophysiology is being acted on by an instruction.
@@simonhibbs887 total speculation. its just as likely mind acts on biology the way all space curvature acts on biology without touching it.
@@5piles When considering what is likely, we should consider known phenomena first. We know that it is possible for a neural network, such as the brain, to interpret an audio signal and take action on it. We can explain this entirely in physical terms without appeal to unobserved phenomena.
I've already answered this silly question.
Just make up something to keep his happy.
This episode must be for holy week, "...without money and without price", except that because it is cheaper to receive then send information it seems like external fields can resolve human behaviors is a predictable ways
I don't think consciousness could be explained by physics now or in the future. It would still require some new knowledge we don't have yet. Consciousness requires consciousness to detect and its a prerequisite for all other inquiry. Its fundamental.
Hey Bob, after wandering the globe seeking answers to life the universe and everything for years, and after a myriad of interviews with experts in their own fields of scientific research, are you any closer to truth?
Or is God still lurking in the background?
lol!
Tune in next big bounce, with Bob, beyond space-time for the perfectly ordered string of questions that produces the Grand Unified Interview.
all levels are somehow interwoven into our physical reality... the same as an aquarium is required to hold the water... the water to hold organic molecules, and ultimately complex living organisms...
Yup. Nice example. Consubstantial is a term, I think, needs be essentially acknowledged in all inquiries as it posits nested degrees or levels. Especially because it's one with emanation. Too, the Aether has been referred to as an ocean, or the 'Primordial waters'. All such things are perturbation modalities of the Aether and also the medium for all relations and everything.
Perturbation modalities: water, ice, steam, snow, hail, rivers, oceans, fog, humidity. It's all water.
Tesla: light is a sound wave in the Aether, and is the Aether itself.
@@S3RAVA3LMthat's right S3R... from an infinitesimal perspective, it seems as the Universe is limited only to one's imagination and propensity of understanding...
A good example is DNA itself. The order of nucleotites is not preferred by laws of physics or by laws of chemistry. Much like letters in a book. Therefore physics can not predict or derive the DNA ‘code’. The only thing the physicist will appeal to is randomness (which is problematic because that is not a physical law). If laws of physics did produce dna you would get the same sequence every time, much like a crystal lattice etc. And of course a book itself is another example, although it is linked to the problem of consciousness. There is absolutely no way a physicist can predict or derive the order of letters in a book from the laws themselves, or the arrangement of matter in any other man made object like a car or an airplane for example. These things exist within the laws of physics but can not be explained by them. These things require another explanation. And to finish off with a paraphrase from Paul Davies the laws themselves, why do they take the form that they do, why these set of laws? Why this set of constants, why this set of initial conditions. Can physicists formulate a circular explanation where the laws explain themselves?
Pain sensors, in neuroscience, largely hpc neurons, detecting noxious, that is, stimuli damaging to an organism, were very useful, and thus selected evolutionarily.
It is useful to motile organisms, which can move up or down molecular gradients. There exist specific other neural sensors, responding to light pressure, heavy pressure, nonnoxious heat, nonnoxious cold.
The discourse above indulges in significant cognitive errors:
Consciousness is self-monitoring by an organism. This is understood quite well in modern neurosciences.
Any organism that can respond to change, can be regarded as basically conscious. This can be slow, hormonal variance in response, in motile organisms, as well as useful in sessile organisms.
Th errors of both interlocutors in the video, are so egregiously in error concerning this alone, that the discussion is completely moot relative to reality.
One can only suggest a more comprehensive biological and mathematical curiculum in whatever education they received, as well as a FAR stricter logic instructor for the "philosopher"
-- see my reply below to a commentor who introduced complex "almost chaotic" systems, presumably referring to dynamical systems, for some basic English attempt to outline mathematics without use of that concise language, as youtube comment rarely extends into the full course necessary to understand even basic mathematics like set theory,
Consciousness as self-monitoring by an organism seems like a good answer, but things get more complicated when you consider meta-consciousness, or consciousness about consciousness. From what we can tell, among the myriad of organisms in the world humans are the only ones that are conscious of their consciousness, that can reflect on the fact that they can reflect, and reflect on that, and then on that... The neurosciences still have a long way to catch up with this question, in the self-monitoring of the self-monitoring without limit. Another way to put this is that we have the tools to know a lot about the neuroscience of pain, but not of suffering.
There is the deterministic and there is the indeterministic. There is also what is known about deterministic processes and what remain unknown. What is unknown about deterministic processes is, in effect, indeterministic. And what that means is that 'There is the deterministic and there is the indeterministic' is a meaningless statement---or maybe just utterly irrelevant.
Determinism isn’t about states of knowledge. When Copernicus described the motions of the planets he didn’t know why they moved that way, just that they did. That doesn’t mean it was nondeterministic, and in fact the regularity of their motion is what caused Kepler and Newton to try to reason about the causal factors. So we can infer determinism even if we cannot observe the chain of causation. Determinism and indeterminism are about the nature of a phenomenon, not our knowledge about it.
@@simonhibbs887 For some reason I cannot really take in your post. However, I am not going to let that stop me from answering.
If everything is determined, then for all practical...... No, I sense there is some ambiguity--equivacation going on here with determine--deterministic. To measure something is to determine it. To ascertain something is to determine it to be this or that. Does indeterministic mean 'can never be determined'? The problem is not with the realities, the problem is in the language we use to describe the realities, in the way we use the language.
@@arthurwieczorek4894 Oh, I think I see the issue. In this context determinism and indeterminism are being used in the context of causation. Is a given outcome of a process determined by previous states or not. Determinism is the position that previous states ‘determine’ future states, in accordance with the laws of physics. Indeterminism is the position that some future states are not caused by prior conditions in this way. The principle point of contention is usually whether our choices are determined or not.
Nobody says nothing about billions of particles existing in various states before reaching quantum level
physical laws are not laws, they are inherent limits...
Drumheller hoodoos? I have no idea how they were made possibly by dinosaurs and their teeth?
Physics, chemistry, biology.
Physics, chemistry, biology, conscientiousness, math, logic, morality.
@@steve_____K307 I'd put it, '...---biology---morality---math & logic---General Semantics---football.' But yes.
@@arthurwieczorek4894Haha, yes, but in all seriousness, it’s about following the data where it leads and being open to drawing the best hypothesis along the way and not being hindered by unsupported presuppositions. I’ll ask anyone to Imagine if a future alien life form finds an abandoned Lunar Rover on our moon and after analyzing it speculates that it is the result of “mindless chance”, and physics/chemistry alone, and - with folded arms - places the burden of proof on those that speculate “something more”. Wouldn’t that be utterly ridiculous? Would we say that was good science? Of course not. The honest pursuit of Truth follows the data where it leads. If the data seems to be suggesting there is more to consciousness than can be answered by physics and chemistry alone, then so be it. Possibly you agree. So many don't.
@@steve_____K307 With your argument you come roaring out the gate and down the course. Then you screech to a halt and put a toe across the finish line. 'Data seems to suggest there is something more to consciousness than physics and chemistry can explain.' And that something more is what?? I will anticipate your answer and say, you're got nothing but hot air. "Go where the data leads, drawing the best hypothesis"---BS. Sir if you really had something you would have powered across that line. I wait to see what kind of mish-mash of science and theology you come up with.
So the Land Rover is supposed to represent consciousness, or a watch in Paley's classic argument. I'll bet UA-cam has got more than one answer to that argument in its files. Let me explore this. Land Rover, consciousness, the watch on South Sentinel island = A. A is 1) A natural object never before seen, 2) A an artifact of an advanced intelligence or civilization, 3) A miraculous object, 4) We just don't know,5) (You fill in the blank.). From here l don't exactly know where to go. I will point out that of the three, the watch and the LR are much more closely related things than consciousness---the consciousness that I for one assume is found only in animals and as such has been a feature of this planet for, what, 500 million years.
Emergence is a word that is science's version of ,,,,God of the gaps.
Is consciousness electro-chemical activity in the brain and body? Sounds right to me. So what does consciousness do and what is it for?
Humans have a variety of cognitive capacities including sensing our environment, physiological responses, predicting future states and outcomes, reasoning about the mental states of others, introspecting and reasoning about our own mental state, etc. These are all functional behaviours that serve an evolutionary role in our success and survival. I think as they have evolved in our, together they are consciousness. It’s not something extra added on.
there is nothing cognitive about any part of the body. the human body lacks any emergent property of cognition eg. awareness of blue. contrary to francis cricks claims, correctly assembled rods and cones in a petridish does not mean there are colors and shapes in the petridish.
@@simonhibbs887 Yes. I'd say it as, mind is DNA's way of making more DNA following a conservation of chemical structure regularly infinite nature. Of course DNA doesn't know it is creating mind. Minds, consciousness, just result in the conservation mentioned. Mind is an emergent developmental property across species.
@@arthurwieczorek4894 problem is there are no such emergent properties of consciousness. not in dna, neural correlates, any fully mapped out basic brains, etcetc.
@@5piles "Emergent properties of consciousness." That confuses me. I thought we were talking about consciousness as an emergent property, or phenomenon.
Mr. Kuhn needs to be praised for his effort in probing a diverse cross-section of some of the most brilliant people in the world. What's interesting after watching this series over the years is how his interviewees vary, even disagree with each other on the most fundamental questions, such as: Why is there something instead of just nothing? I'm waiting for a series where these people will tell me if Santa Claus was real or not. I can't wait!
nothing means nothing. its self-canceling, so all manner of existence pervades. thats one of the easier quandaries.
@@5piles Tell Robert that, because it's him that keeps asking that question and others. Maybe he should interview you so that you can clarify it for him. 😉
Both interlocutors induce and use terms inducing, cognitive errors.
I do not suggest either be used in other ways than as exhibits of such errors.
"God" - is a bad word today? I myself don't believe in God. Acknowleding that existence is, and here i am, and everything of science - why would God need anybodies belief? Why would people settle with a belief about God when there is, all of this i.e. science, music, being, existence, intellect, life, experience, the sun stars and moon....
Guess what though.... ? some people say when science reveals what is a mystery, that it was never "god" in the first place, but simply natural phenomena. Does anybody know what this means or am i the only one? It means their idea of God was worst than a 1st grader in elementary school. The God of Plato is not the God of religion. The God in the mind of man is not akin to 'the Absolute'. The Brahman of Hinduism is not the God of some atheist here commenting whom they deny and mock - these poor people have no idea what they're doing.
God doesn't care if you believe in him or worship him - no man escapes the law( cause and effect). God doesn't have you pay taxes, property taxes, or make up policy that puts you into bondage. Nor do humans give life, or Intellect, or Reason, or the laws, nature, light, harmony, the good, beauty, wisdom.
Are people still hurt about the santa clause thing? Therefore they'll never believe in anything ever again, and thus they mock God? So the root of this behavior, in mocking God, is from childhood trauma. Maybe it's that people haven't the courage to leave the consensus, therefore they care more about outside validation than being true to heart? It most definitely isn't an easy walk. Personally, i wont be reading any academicians books today - penrose, guth, crouse, wittin, these are persons just not worth your time, energy, consideration.
Why i like God is because i acknowledge the laws. I like Wisdom, Truth, Justice, Harmony, the virtues, Knowledge, Intellect, wonder, imagination, Reason, Light, colors, beauty, meaning, expression, discovery, unity, logic, self reflection. I like this more than money, more than wordly authority or outside validation; more than being apart of some trite group like a religion or academic circle.
Obviously there is a God. If you want to come nearer to this God you have to throw away your minds ideal of. Apophatic dialectic and retroduction is what the Giants utilized, for in this pursuit of the Unknown.
People cleave to whatever trite transistory trash that they can use to reify themselves. That is what you want to through away.
All the people who mock God and those whom are "believers' or theists.... get this, because it's a good one.... they who mock God, are not mocking truly, God, but their minds idea of God they mock. Too, they judge the religious people and think it's funny to make fun of them - only exposes their character; they're not men or leaders. And these fools idea of God which they unwittingly mock, certainly warrents disdain. Therefore they actually mock a part of themselves, all the while they smile and laugh lolololololololol - repugnant, right.
Isn't it funny though?
Scriputures have been compiled regarding it. Bhagavad Gita. The great battle is in your mind. They say it's most difficult to overcome the mind.
No.... there most certainly is something...call it what you wish, or go and cower.
Fortunately i found the real books worth study, but i see nobody cares...
There may well be a specific reason our universe exists, and if you want to call that reason god and think about it in that way, that’s fine. Likewise if you choose to think of wisdom, justice, harmony, and so on in terms of divine inspiration, I have no criticism of that position. I wouldn’t use that term myself, but it’s just a label so that’s not a concern for me. All I’d say about that is that I think the nature of such a phenomenon is unknowable, and I choose not to believe in unknowable things. So my atheism is not a positive claim that such a phenomenon does not exist, as I said I think that’s unknowable, but is a lack of belief in the existence of a hypothetical unknowable cause.
What I do argue against are what I perceive as: Misrepresentations of the scientific method, misrepresentations of scientific knowledge or its nature, invalid arguments for the existence of a ‘god’ with particular unjustified attributes, misrepresentations of physicalism, etc. Basically I defend my philosophical positions. When I do poke fun is when such misrepresentations are particularly obviously incoherent, or are made in a childish or aggressive manner.
You and I have clashed a few times. I can see you are very passionate about your philosophical commitments and devoted to study. I think those are all admirable qualities.
how does randomness emerge from laws of nature?
I love science but subjective science or consciousness beats it.
It’s when you are on the lavatory and have a massive dump - strong emergence
Why should we pretend that physics can supposedly tell us when we're going to reach into our pocket to pay the cashier for our groceries when we still haven't the faintest clue as to whether the synchronization of pendulums can be reduced to Newtonian mechanics?
In principle you can reduce the synch of a pendulum. But the calculations are so vast and minute, it’s not practical.
If biology could be explained by physics alone it would be called physics, not biology.
I admire TM, but biological, psychological, and social phenomena will never be explained by physics. The key terms of these sciences cannot even be given definitions in terms of fundamental physics. Not just mind or consciousness. How to derive the rule for population dynamics, dN/dt = r N (1 - N/K), from anything in fundamental physics? Tim is really wrong about the definition of "physical" -- it can't mean just "located in space," or "dependent on mass-energy." It is narrower than that.
Review strong and weak emergence in the Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy. I think he is really referring to weak emergence.
When it comes to money the elephant in the room is the federal government that sets the value of money by law. Isaac Newton served as head of the Treasury and hung counterfeiters..
The question was about strong emergence. He never addresses it. I don't think he understands the distinction at all.
He clearly doesn't believe in strong emergence
Maudlin seems to be making a case for the ideological supremacy of mathematical physics.
We are all just vibrations in the Higgs field. We created things: money, biology, etc as a way to understand our existence. I can make up a new sandwich and call it some random name but that doesn’t mean that thing exists, it’s just a way for my senses to understand it.
Can physics predict the dynamics of two competing populations of animals? I don't see that happening, There are some properties that 'emerge' from lower levels of biological organization. Reductionism has its limits and emergent properties have their own laws. IMHO
Physics can predict the dynamics of two competing populations. Some measurements would be harder than others, but in principle, everything could be quantified and predicted.
@@dr_shrinkercan you predict deez nuts? Can you predict the theory of bowffa? Bowffa deez nuts?? Can physics explain why there is something rather than nothing?
@@dr_shrinker Would you mind sharing how you think this can happen? I mean like from first principals, from the presence of fundamental quantum fields.
Clearly a wrong person to talk about strong emergence.
Wrong
Neat.
Neat because physics seems impregnable thanks to maths.
In principle physics can fine tune anything critical or imagined.
I don't understand! After all these years, and talking to many of the most gifted minds we have, you seem no 'closer to truth' than you've ever been. Of course emergence is a reality, that one plus one equals three. Hydrogen and oxygen equals water (something "fundamentally new"). Sodium and chlorine is table salt. And this is just looking at the first three periods of the periodic table, and something everyone is familiar with, and understands... except it seems you!!! Please accept this criticism in good faith...
Might one revisit fundamental physics if you think it’s that simple and straightforward.
Laws of physics are mental. They change. Emergence? When there is something more physics just say it emerges, not knowing or telling if the emergence is of higher order. Everything that is important is they emerge, not questioning wheter they just comu through.... Emergence is comning through, not comming from.....
Emergence definitions include more that you assert.
It's what happens when you eat too much spinach.
Asymmetry and the unity of opposites is the most fundamental law of reality. Without it, you have no reality at all.
This is a fancy way of saying what? The universe is fine tuned? There's a big spirit guiding us?
@@Buzz_Kill71 You can imply from it whatever you want. It is what it is.
Are there smaller physical things that electromagnetism emerges from? Is "consciousness" really small physical stuff that can't be detected by physics?
@wagfinpis I don't think electromagnetism emerges from any "thing" but is a relationship between opposing things, i.e. things with a negative charge and things with a positive charge. Likewise, I don't think consciousness is a thing but is a relationship between the internal and the external.
¿Por qué tengo que llamar al programa desde el trabajo para decir que descubrí la naturaleza de la adicción, Dios y el dinero y otros vitales conocimientos que salvan vidas hace mucho tiempo? ¿Alguien entenderá algo o todavía no?. Solo tenemos una vida y si Dios existe no va a dejar de existir por mucho que se crea. La verdad importa y el universo fue creado por Dios de si mismo de una eterna existencia. Dios es simplemente el Tiempo y Espacio que lo sabe todo, nada más. Necesito que se me preste atención porque hablo de Dios y no de religión. Necesito que sea noticia el descubrimiento de que el ateísmo es una falacia lógica, ¿estoy pidiendo mucho o demasiado? Mi verdad obvia es el ateísmo es una falacia lógica que asume Dios es la idea religiosa del creador de la creación y concluye erróneamente que el creador no existe porque una idea particular de Dios no existe. ¿Y si no tuvieses que rezar y adorar a nadie creerías que Dios es perfecto, como a tí te gustaría que fuese? Dios es literalmente todo y nada más. Somos literalmente la personalidad, vida, psicología del universo. Dios es existencia consciente experimentando una vida. Si morimos Dios muere. Si sobrevivimos Dios sobrevive. Vida y muerte están conectadas, todo es la misma sustancia transfomándose. Si me dejan leer algún poema de amor a la humanidad pues bien y sino lo intento la próxima semana, y si dicen que molesto pues me voy y busco a alguien que esté interesado en escuchar entendimientos de la realidad que contradigan los propios. Y así seguimos malamente. Se tiene que entender que soy una persona con conocimiento, artista y poeta, no soy un charlatán buscando atención. Gracias por su atención.
'Fundamentally new'. Sounds like a human assessment. What we regard as 'fundamentally new' says more about us and our state of knowledge than it does about the physics---chemistry---biology thing.
pain is blocked energy
Some interoceptive sensors end up responding when oxygen deprivation , ROS, or other stressors occur in certain tissues.
Oergeneralization, however, is inaccurate, and leads to cognitive errors and delusions.
I want to see Robert Kuhn interview Larry David
lol! Before the motion of matter could take place “the Four Laws of Nature” and materialism itself had to be invented by the Judeo/Christian GOD.
Everything you know have "two" faces.
Principle and attribute? What are two faces?
He doesn't understand what is a strong emergence in REALITY.
Like many other "scientific" parrots he can describe theories and create hypotheses, but he doesn't have the mental prowess to choose which is truly which in true REALITY.
I suppose you do?
dr skinner • Yes, I do.
Why not? Is it somehow forbidden to know it all correctly? 🤔😏
He’s a philosopher, not a scientist.
simonhibbs8 • Even worse!😂👍👍
( Although, in your opinion, is philosophy completely and absolutely separated from science? 🤔 )
@@mikel4879 saying you understand and demonstrating you do are two different things.
Is it your physical quantum mind that decides or is it your spirit that decides? Tell the truth.
How would a person know? To a person looking up in the sky it looks as though the sun travels across the sky. It also looks as though the Earth is rotating around its axis. To know if what decides is the brain or a spirit we would need a way to test which is correct. I think people who give either answer are telling the truth to the best of their ability.
@@simonhibbs887 I know I can decide regardless of the status of my quantum brain which otherwise changes like the direction of the wind.
A false dichotomy. Define "spirit" unless you mean aromatic compounds like alcohol and the bullsht that constitutes completely fictional religion.
@@briseboy Take another swig. Then think about it.
@@JungleJargon How do you know this, have you observed the status of your quantum brain?
Do you accept God exists? First you have to understand God exists to understand how is God. Have you read Spinoza? Spinoza's God is not just the universe, Spinoza's God is not atheism. My concept of God coincides fundamentally with Spinoza's and God is everything that exist and the universe was designed by God. God created self from self because from nothing can not be created something. Spinoza was a rational philosopher like me, not a preacher or believer. I didn't read Spinoza and I came up with the same concept of God, what does it mean? Spinoza's God is a healthy, realistic, truthful alternative to religion that atheists have cancelled saying Spinoza's God is like no God. Why? ¡Spinoza wanted to end religion and was cancelled and is still being cancelled by atheists! Do you understand? I am trying to end religion and I am cancelled by atheists. The truth is atheism is a logical fallacy that assumes God is the religious idea of the creator of the creation to conclude wrongly no creator exists because a particular idea of God doesn’t exist. To end the war the discovery that atheism is a logical fallacy has to be news. Thank you.
“God created self from self” . Sort of breezed past that one didn’t you .
@@tonyatkinson2210 You have to understand why atheists lie about Spinoza's God when Spinoza tried to end religion with a truthful and sensible concept of the intelligent creator of the universe. I am cancelled trying to end religion like Spinoza was cancelled by atheists. What does it mean? There would be no religion if atheists had not lied saying Spinoza's God is like no God. Atheists want you to believe the rationalist philosopher Spinoza wrote about God to explain God is the universe therefore death is the end. Do you believe me? I challenge you to read what Spinoza actually said about God. The truth is still atheism is a logical fallacy that assumes God is the religious idea of the creator of the creation to conclude wrongly no creator exists because a particular idea of God doesn’t exist. To end the war the discovery that atheism is a logical fallacy has to be news. If you are an atheist reading this loving poem my question for you is "if you don't want the end of religion what do you live for?". God is literally everything because from nothing can not be created something. Logically everything comes from self, reality is created from reality, what has a beginning of existence must be created from what is eternal. Thank you.
"What is Strong Emergence?"
There is no such thing as emergence let alone strong emergence, fyi... Well, let me help enlighten you, as follows :
Emergence is an idea concocted by guilty conscience to lessen their pain... this is a consequence of ruling out any existence beyond physical in favor of limiting science to material inquiry where RANDOMNESS or EMERGENCE is the excuse for their failure to explain how energy or matter came to be. This somehow makes them feel NO SENSE of any Accountability so to ease their pain...
...of course, by believing that the source of all physical existence is RANDOM or EMERGENT or by ACCIDENT, then you can not feel accountable for all the evils that you do as all just products of accidental existence...and, also, being a FREE-LOADER is just fine with you as you have no God to thank to for all the free blessings you benefit... correct ?
So, be honest at least. You have chosen RANDOM over God because you do not want to be accountable for everyting you do as just products of ACCIDENT where you can rob, rape, murder your neighbor when life turns sour, or even aborting, raping, killing your own family because you have no God to worry...
Don't you still not understand how TOXIC your Emergent Material Science is that is destroying this world ?
Let get It seriously. Guys doesnt knows nothing about phich. For instance knows fundamental phich pictures around world he did not quite believes this but show phich within Rambling phich . Iol.
You forget to take your meds again, Mr. Dunning-Kruger?
Hi Maxwell, please sit down...
Sheesh. Talk about knowing nothing.
Phich?