I think I found a way for the infinite consciousness to be falsafiable

Cpt_pineapple
atheist
Cpt_pineapple's picture
Posts: 5492
Joined: 2007-04-12
User is offlineOffline
I think I found a way for the infinite consciousness to be falsafiable

The Black Hole information paradox.

 Basically, Hawking radiation emitted by a Black Hole is independent of the hole itself and hence cannot provide information of what fell into the hole. 

Now, if data/information can be destroyed, then the infinite conscioussness is in a rut.

However, it it could be resolved by transfering the information to other universes (Einstien-Rosen bridges), if that is the case, then I'm still good to go. Once the LHC is turned on, we may get better insight into the nature of black holes (Since it may produce minature ones).

 

Well, what do you think? 


Cpt_pineapple
atheist
Cpt_pineapple's picture
Posts: 5492
Joined: 2007-04-12
User is offlineOffline
Of course, if the multiverse

Of course, if the multiverse theory is right, then it by no means proves it per se, but if the data/information is indeed destroyed then it's most likely false.


wavefreak
Theist
wavefreak's picture
Posts: 1825
Joined: 2007-05-10
User is offlineOffline
Isn't this a bit like which

Isn't this a bit like which came first the chicken or the egg? Which came first, the infinite conciousness or the substrate on which it exists? For it to be the conciousness, it would have to be non-material since the material would need to first exist for the conciousness to arise. But this invokes the supernatural which I have trouble with.


Cpt_pineapple
atheist
Cpt_pineapple's picture
Posts: 5492
Joined: 2007-04-12
User is offlineOffline
wavefreak wrote: Isn't this

wavefreak wrote:
Isn't this a bit like which came first the chicken or the egg? Which came first, the infinite conciousness or the substrate on which it exists? For it to be the conciousness, it would have to be non-material since the material would need to first exist for the conciousness to arise. But this invokes the supernatural which I have trouble with.

 

It's NOT supernatural. It always existed just in different forms. 


Cernunnos
Cernunnos's picture
Posts: 146
Joined: 2007-07-04
User is offlineOffline
I think black holes

I think black holes evaporate.  

What about the state of maximum entropy or the heat death of the universe?

I thought your idea was that the potential for consciousness continues from one universe to another where the act of creating new universes guarantees perpetual potential. I say this as the condition of maximum entropy (or near to) may well be a better place for new universes to emerge through quantum flux capacitors Smiling

I often say that when you can measure what you are speaking about, and express it in numbers, you know something about it; but when you cannot measure it, when you cannot express it in numbers, your knowledge is of a meagre and unsatisfactory kind.


magilum
Posts: 2410
Joined: 2007-03-07
User is offlineOffline
Where's the consciousness

Where's the consciousness part come in?


Cpt_pineapple
atheist
Cpt_pineapple's picture
Posts: 5492
Joined: 2007-04-12
User is offlineOffline
Cernunnos wrote: I think

Cernunnos wrote:

I think black holes evaporate.

True, but the question is can we get information from it?

 

Quote:
 

What about the state of maximum entropy or the heat death of the universe?

What about it? Multiverse theory states that new univerese are being born.

 

 

Quote:
 

I thought your idea was that the potential for consciousness continues from one universe to another where the act of creating new universes guarantees perpetual potential.

Finally somebody who actually understands what I'm saying. If the bridges/multiverse are bunk, then I'm in trouble. But by all indications, I'm still good Smiling

 

Quote:

I say this as the condition of maximum entropy (or near to) may well be a better place for new universes to emerge through quantum flux capacitors Smiling

Really?  


Cpt_pineapple
atheist
Cpt_pineapple's picture
Posts: 5492
Joined: 2007-04-12
User is offlineOffline
magilum wrote: Where's the

magilum wrote:
Where's the consciousness part come in?

 

I'm pretty sure you read my infinite consciousness topic, since I'm pretty sure you posted in it.


magilum
Posts: 2410
Joined: 2007-03-07
User is offlineOffline
Cpt_pineapple

Cpt_pineapple wrote:

magilum wrote:
Where's the consciousness part come in?

 

I'm pretty sure you read my infinite consciousness topic, since I'm pretty sure you posted in it.


It wasn't clear what was meant by consciousness there either.


magilum
Posts: 2410
Joined: 2007-03-07
User is offlineOffline
Maybe I just don't get it.

Maybe I just don't get it. Cos it sounds like a philosophical non-sequitur dovetailed to theoretical physics.


Cernunnos
Cernunnos's picture
Posts: 146
Joined: 2007-07-04
User is offlineOffline
The universe is said to

The universe is said to have started from a singularity. A chaotic point that fluctuates arbitrarily and eventually causing a scalar field (something that causes a force) that has a dominating magnitude. This causes accelerating expansion that can then reheat into the observed big bang.  Pretty much the notion of inflation.

Now to occur you need some randomly fluctuating system, this is more likely to occur in a state of high entropy (future of universe) than low entropy (the state before inflation). This is to say that the dominating scalar field that creates the 'bubble' happens in a state of high entropy rather than a singularity. Thus our universe is not the whole story and is most likely a baby in an eternal system. Baby universes ar cut off from their parent though.

However this does ignore some of the weird stuff that could occur in singularities + does not agree with current inflation theory. 

A case can be made that our universe is the 'only one' as empty space could create a universe (the void is unstable due to dark energy - a 'uniform' energy of space) and the fate of the universe is not maximum entropy as the expansion of space is faster than the increase in entropy (more room for entropy to increase). Here I would pull Ockham's razor in that multiverse idea is in fact simpler! 

 

 

I often say that when you can measure what you are speaking about, and express it in numbers, you know something about it; but when you cannot measure it, when you cannot express it in numbers, your knowledge is of a meagre and unsatisfactory kind.


Hambydammit
High Level DonorModeratorRRS Core Member
Hambydammit's picture
Posts: 8657
Joined: 2006-10-22
User is offlineOffline
I still don't see a

I still don't see a connection.

For you to postulate consciousness of this scale, you must have:

1) a gap in scientific theory that this consciousness would fill

2) a theory of precisely what this consciousness is and what it does.

3) a plausible reason for this to have come into existence

All I have seen in any of your speculations is an attempt to make your creation fit into the existing scientific model.

You're doing it completely ass-backwards.

 

Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin

http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism


CrimsonEdge
CrimsonEdge's picture
Posts: 499
Joined: 2007-01-02
User is offlineOffline
Hambydammit wrote:

Hambydammit wrote:
You're doing it completely ass-backwards.

Or to compare, you're doing exactly what Creationists are doing.

Edit: I was also under the impression that black holes 'dried' out after a point. 


Cpt_pineapple
atheist
Cpt_pineapple's picture
Posts: 5492
Joined: 2007-04-12
User is offlineOffline
Cernunnos wrote: A case

Cernunnos wrote:

A case can be made that our universe is the 'only one' as empty space could create a universe (the void is unstable due to dark energy - a 'uniform' energy of space) and the fate of the universe is not maximum entropy as the expansion of space is faster than the increase in entropy (more room for entropy to increase). Here I would pull Ockham's razor in that multiverse idea is in fact simpler! 

I like the multiverse idea better, so that's why I accept it.

 

Hambydammit wrote:

1) a gap in scientific theory that this consciousness would fill

If I did that, than you'd accuse me of an 'Argument from Ignorance' 

 

Quote:
 

2) a theory of precisely what this consciousness is and what it does.

 Consciousness is the ability to independently process data. A computer, for example,  is not conscious because it relies on programs (written by sentient beings (us).) to process the data.

 

Quote:
 

3) a plausible reason for this to have come into existence

 

 Physics may never go past the Planck Era.


Cernunnos
Cernunnos's picture
Posts: 146
Joined: 2007-07-04
User is offlineOffline
Consciousness is a natural

Consciousness is a natural phenomenon.

If the progression observed in our universe is eternally repeating consciousness can be thought of as infinite. The progression is from big bang to 'nothing'.

I strongly dislike the term infinite consciousness as I find it abstruse and feel no need to single consciousness out when discussing how existence/reality could be eternal.

I do not think the idea is that consciousness is pervasive.

I often say that when you can measure what you are speaking about, and express it in numbers, you know something about it; but when you cannot measure it, when you cannot express it in numbers, your knowledge is of a meagre and unsatisfactory kind.


Hambydammit
High Level DonorModeratorRRS Core Member
Hambydammit's picture
Posts: 8657
Joined: 2006-10-22
User is offlineOffline
Quote: Hambydammit wrote:

Quote:
Hambydammit wrote:

1) a gap in scientific theory that this consciousness would fill

If I did that, than you'd accuse me of an 'Argument from Ignorance'

No, Pineapple.  You just don't understand what I'm asking for.  An argument from ignorance is saying, "We don't know why, so X is true." A gap that this consciousness would fill would be something like "X is not explained by our current theory.  The math would work if Y were the case, so I will begin to look for signs of Y."

So far, you have not provided such a gap, or even begun to speculate as to which physics theories are missing a variable which would turn out to be your infinite consciousness.

 

Quote:

 

2) a theory of precisely what this consciousness is and what it does.

 Consciousness is the ability to independently process data. A computer, for example,  is not conscious because it relies on programs (written by sentient beings (us).) to process the data.

Pineapple, I didn't ask you what "consciousness" is.  I asked what "infinite consciousness" is.  The answer, to be scientific, would have to incorporate the answer to #1, which you have not yet provided.

 

Quote:

Quote:
 

3) a plausible reason for this to have come into existence

 

 Physics may never go past the Planck Era.

So, you're speculating without any basis.  At least you admit that it's an argument from ignorance.  I can dismiss it thoroughly now.

 

Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin

http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism


Cpt_pineapple
atheist
Cpt_pineapple's picture
Posts: 5492
Joined: 2007-04-12
User is offlineOffline
Hambydammit wrote: So,

Hambydammit wrote:

So, you're speculating without any basis. At least you admit that it's an argument from ignorance. I can dismiss it thoroughly now.

 

 

 If the multiverse theory is confirmed it could give us insight as to the planck era. The time before the Planck Era is the state of the singularity proir to the initial expansion.

The Multiverse on the other hand could give use insight since our universe could have budded off another one. (Causing said intial expansion)

That is the basis of my speculation. 


Hambydammit
High Level DonorModeratorRRS Core Member
Hambydammit's picture
Posts: 8657
Joined: 2006-10-22
User is offlineOffline
Quote: If the multiverse

Quote:
If the multiverse theory is confirmed it could give us insight as to the planck era. The time before the Planck Era is the state of the singularity proir to the initial expansion.

The multiverse, at this time, is unfalsifiable, unless there's been a breakthrough I'm not aware of.

So, you're basing your theory on an unfalsifiable idea. Might as well go back to claiming the supernatural.

Quote:
The Multiverse on the other hand could give use insight since our universe could have budded off another one. (Causing said intial expansion)

If the multiverse is ever proven, then we'll know something about it. Until then, don't you think you're jumping the gun a bit? Forming theories based on properties of something that is unproven and unfalsifiable?

Quote:
That is the basis of my speculation.

At least you again admit that it's completely unfalsifiable and undefined speculation. I feel comfortable lumping it in with that other theory that is unfalsifiable and undefined until such a time as you can separate it with some hard science.

 

Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin

http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism


Cpt_pineapple
atheist
Cpt_pineapple's picture
Posts: 5492
Joined: 2007-04-12
User is offlineOffline
Hambydammit wrote: Quote:

Hambydammit wrote:

Quote:
If the multiverse theory is confirmed it could give us insight as to the planck era. The time before the Planck Era is the state of the singularity proir to the initial expansion.

The multiverse, at this time, is unfalsifiable, unless there's been a breakthrough I'm not aware of.

So, you're basing your theory on an unfalsifiable idea. Might as well go back to claiming the supernatural.

Read Parallel worlds by Michio Kaku 

 

Now, you're making an argument from ignorance Smiling 



Hambydammit
High Level DonorModeratorRRS Core Member
Hambydammit's picture
Posts: 8657
Joined: 2006-10-22
User is offlineOffline
It's actually on my  "To

It's actually on my  "To Read List."  Unfortunately, it's a long list, and that's a bit of the way down.

So, after having read the book, are you prepared to say that the multiverse is falsifiable and that we know something about what it is, not just what it might be if it becomes falsifiable?

I've heard interviews with Michio Kaku, and read some of his essays.  He often ventures into the realms of speculation and unfalsifiability.  He admits this.

Now, you're making an argument from authority.

 

Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin

http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism


Hambydammit
High Level DonorModeratorRRS Core Member
Hambydammit's picture
Posts: 8657
Joined: 2006-10-22
User is offlineOffline
Furthermore, you need to

Furthermore, you need to give these threads a quick read:

http://www.rationalresponders.com/argument_and_debate_forms_and_techniques_part_1

Parts 2 and 3 are child pages at the bottom.  Once you've reviewed the rules of debate, you'll see that it's quite impossible for me to make an argument from ignorance in the above post.  You have made a claim, and have not offered supporting evidence.  I have pointed out your lack of evidence, and have offered my own counter-evidence, namely that to the best of my knowledge, the multiverse is not falsifiable.   This is an accurate account of what I believe to be true, not an argument from ignorance.

Until you can demonstrate that I am wrong, your position is unsupported, and the status-quo is presumed to be correct.

 

Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin

http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism


Cpt_pineapple
atheist
Cpt_pineapple's picture
Posts: 5492
Joined: 2007-04-12
User is offlineOffline
Hambydammit wrote: Now,

Hambydammit wrote:

Now, you're making an argument from authority.

 

No, it's not. You said the multiverse is unfalsiable. I corrected you by pointing you to the book where Kaku says how it could be.

Sloan sky survey

 L.I.S.A probe

Dark matter detection etc....

 

 


Cpt_pineapple
atheist
Cpt_pineapple's picture
Posts: 5492
Joined: 2007-04-12
User is offlineOffline
Hambydammit wrote: I've

Hambydammit wrote:

I've heard interviews with Michio Kaku, and read some of his essays. He often ventures into the realms of speculation and unfalsifiability. He admits this.

 

 

He does. But I personally think that science would be incrediablly boring if we couldn't speculate. 


Hambydammit
High Level DonorModeratorRRS Core Member
Hambydammit's picture
Posts: 8657
Joined: 2006-10-22
User is offlineOffline
Pineapple, you refuse to

Pineapple, you refuse to address my main point:

Speculation is only science when it addresses something we already know.  You've invented something that doesn't fill any gaps, doesn't solve any problems, and doesn't answer any questions.  You can speculate all you want about infinite consciousness, but there's no gap for it to fill.  There's no mathematics which would suddenly work with it.

Furthermore, you didn't address my direct question.  Does Kaku provide the mathematics by which we can falsify the multiverse concept?  Did he at the very least provide the path by which the mathematics can be attempted, if the math is not yet "discovered"?

If he did, then I stand rebutted, but my objection was NOT an argument from ignorance.  It was an objection to your unsubstantiated claims.  Read the section on burden of proof and status quo.

Unless Kaku has provided falsifiability for the multiverse, it IS speculation, and you DID make an argument from authority.

 

 

Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin

http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism


Cpt_pineapple
atheist
Cpt_pineapple's picture
Posts: 5492
Joined: 2007-04-12
User is offlineOffline
Hambydammit

Hambydammit wrote:

Pineapple, you refuse to address my main point:

Speculation is only science when it addresses something we already know. You've invented something that doesn't fill any gaps, doesn't solve any problems, and doesn't answer any questions. You can speculate all you want about infinite consciousness, but there's no gap for it to fill. There's no mathematics which would suddenly work with it.

Furthermore, you didn't address my direct question. Does Kaku provide the mathematics by which we can falsify the multiverse concept? Did he at the very least provide the path by which the mathematics can be attempted, if the math is not yet "discovered"?

If he did, then I stand rebutted, but my objection was NOT an argument from ignorance. It was an objection to your unsubstantiated claims. Read the section on burden of proof and status quo.

Unless Kaku has provided falsifiability for the multiverse, it IS speculation, and you DID make an argument from authority.

 

 

 

Normally, the creation of quantum balk holes should take place at the Planck energy, whihc is a quadrillion times beyond the enerogy of the LHC. But if a parallel universe exists within a milimeter of our universe, this reduces the energy at which quantum gravitational effects become measurable, putting mini-black holes within reach of the LHC 

Parallel worlds page 278 


Cpt_pineapple
atheist
Cpt_pineapple's picture
Posts: 5492
Joined: 2007-04-12
User is offlineOffline
Here's another one:   My

Here's another one:

 

My own view is that the verification of string theory might come entirely from pure mathematics, rather than from experiment. Since string theory is supoosed to be a theory of everything, it should be a theory of everyday energies as well as cosmic ones. THus, if we can finally solve the theory completely, we should be able to calculate teh properties of ordinary objects, not just exotic ones found in outer space. For example, if string thery can calculate the masses the proton, neutron, and electron fromt eh first principles, this would be an accomplishment of the first magnitude. In all models of physics (except string theory), the masses of these familiar particles are put in by hand. We do not need an LHC in some sense, to verify the theory, since we already know the masses of scores of subatomic particles, all of which sould be determined by string theory with no adjustable parameters.

 

page 282-283 Parallel worlds. 

 


Cpt_pineapple
atheist
Cpt_pineapple's picture
Posts: 5492
Joined: 2007-04-12
User is offlineOffline
Hambydammit

Hambydammit wrote:

Pineapple, you refuse to address my main point:

Speculation is only science when it addresses something we already know. You've invented something that doesn't fill any gaps, doesn't solve any problems, and doesn't answer any questions. You can speculate all you want about infinite consciousness, but there's no gap for it to fill. There's no mathematics which would suddenly work with it.

 

 

But that's were you're wrong young grasshopper.

The digital physic/it from bit could provide solutions to quantum paradoxes.

 

For example consider the cat in the box.

ANY form of data leaving/enetering the box will collapse the wavefunction of the cat. This is true for any system such as the EPR paradox for example.

 

There is your 'void' Smiling 


evil religion
evil religion's picture
Posts: 232
Joined: 2006-10-20
User is offlineOffline
Cpt_pineapple wrote:

Cpt_pineapple wrote:

The Black Hole information paradox.

Basically, Hawking radiation emitted by a Black Hole is independent of the hole itself and hence cannot provide information of what fell into the hole.

Now, if data/information can be destroyed, then the infinite conscioussness is in a rut.

However, it it could be resolved by transfering the information to other universes (Einstien-Rosen bridges), if that is the case, then I'm still good to go. Once the LHC is turned on, we may get better insight into the nature of black holes (Since it may produce minature ones).

 

Well, what do you think?

Run that by me again? How does this provide falsification criteria for the "infinite conciousness"? You seem to be suggesting that if data can be destroyed by a black holes (as it currently seems to be) then the infinte conciousness is falsified. You then seem to spend the rest of the thread speculating on how data may not actually be destroyed after all. In other words you seem to be trying to justify your pre determined conclusion by speculation about possible loop holes. So you neatly provide get out clauses for the destruction of data - thus, regardless of what the LHC tells us the idea of "infinte conciousness" still remains unfalsified and unfalsifiable!

 


CrimsonEdge
CrimsonEdge's picture
Posts: 499
Joined: 2007-01-02
User is offlineOffline
Cpt_pineapple

Cpt_pineapple wrote:
Hambydammit wrote:

Now, you're making an argument from authority.

 

No, it's not. You said the multiverse is unfalsiable. I corrected you by pointing you to the book where Kaku says how it could be.

Sloan sky survey

L.I.S.A probe

Dark matter detection etc....

 

How it could be doesn't exactly say that it is. Again, nothing but speculation without any hard facts.

The sky could be blue because a god made it that way. I can write a book on how this could be true, but it doesn't make it true.


deludedgod
Rational VIP!ScientistDeluded God
deludedgod's picture
Posts: 3221
Joined: 2007-01-28
User is offlineOffline
All of you, shut up.

All of you, shut up.

Now, listen children.

In science and mathematics, we have hypothesis which are put forth based on tentative evidence and plausability. If something has mathematical basis which makes it very likely to be true we call it a conjecture. We might regard multiverse as in this stage of the scientific heirarchy at present. You are confusing present falsifiability with absolute falsifiability. If we have a mathematical conjecture where our present technology does not allow us to confirm or eliminate the hypothesis, we simply wait until such technology develops. In this case, we need to wait until the SLOAN sky survey and the LISA Gravity Wave Detectors come online. Until then, given that there is good circumstantial (but not absolute) evidence for the Multiverse proposition, agnosticism towards the position is a logical choice. Remember Dawkins? Remember when he was talking about instead of a position of absolute agnosticism or absolute strong atheism, we work in terms of probabilities?? Same here. The Multiverse proposition has good evidence to suggest its plausability, but no evidence to confirm it. This is the same with Guth's Inflation, which you were all happy with when I brought it up in my essay on the absurdity of the cosmological argument. The evidence which will confirm or eliminate the proposition is called the "smoking gun". For that, you will have to wait several more years.

For further reading on this matter:

http://www.rationalresponders.com/the_argument_from_ignorance_and_its_uses_and_abuses

Especially reference the ideas raised about the continuum of probability of the validity of empirical claims.

Now, I dislike the idea of "infinite consciousness" since

a) Neuroscience indicates consciousness is the product of brains, which are discrete entities

b) Information physics does not allow for a conscious entity to be infinite. That would break the 2nd law of thermodynamics. Remember how long I spent ripping that apart in this essay:

http://www.rationalresponders.com/the_absurdity_of_the_cosmological_argument

Oh, by the way, consciousness is much, much more, Cpt, then the ability to indepedently process information. Every cell in your body has the capability of doing that. Every aspiring molecular biologists learns that in cell dynamics 101: Cells are discrete information-processing entities. The biological processes of transcription, translation, transduction, ion pumping, synaptic shuttling, allosteric control, molecular switches are all indepedent information processing occurances. Information is that which is being percieved while consciousness is that which is perceiving. Granted, consciousness in turn is based on matter, which in turn is based on information. However, consciousness is a discrete process, not an absolute continuum process.

"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.

-Me

Books about atheism


Hambydammit
High Level DonorModeratorRRS Core Member
Hambydammit's picture
Posts: 8657
Joined: 2006-10-22
User is offlineOffline
Quote: In science and

Quote:
In science and mathematics, we have hypothesis which are put forth based on tentative evidence and plausability.

hambydammit wrote:
Speculation is only science when it addresses something we already know.

Finally, a scientist to say what I'm saying, only with real words. If we don't know something about something, we can't even form a hypothesis. Without knowing something, we don't even know about plausibility.

Quote:
If something has mathematical basis which makes it very likely to be true we call it a conjecture. We might regard multiverse as in this stage of the scientific heirarchy at present. You are confusing present falsifiability with absolute falsifiability.

hambydammit wrote:
Did he at the very least provide the path by which the mathematics can be attempted, if the math is not yet "discovered"?

I believe I allowed for this in my question. In fact, I believe I specifically asked for it. In re-reading the post, I believe it's clear I was specifically including the possibility of falsifiability in the future.

Quote:
If we have a mathematical conjecture where our present technology does not allow us to confirm or eliminate the hypothesis, we simply wait until such technology develops. In this case, we need to wait until the SLOAN sky survey and the LISA Gravity Wave Detectors come online. Until then, given that there is good circumstantial (but not absolute) evidence for the Multiverse proposition, agnosticism towards the position is a logical choice.

Which was my point when I mentioned the status quo:

hambydammit wrote:
Until you can demonstrate that I am wrong, your position is unsupported, and the status-quo is presumed to be correct.

Quote:

Now, I dislike the idea of "infinite consciousness" since

a) Neuroscience indicates consciousness is the product of brains, which are discrete entities

Thus, I asked for, "2) a theory of precisely what this consciousness is and what it does."

Quote:
b) Information physics does not allow for a conscious entity to be infinite.

And thus, I asked for, "

2) a theory of precisely what this consciousness is and what it does.

3) a plausible reason for this to have come into existence"

In effect, I have been asking, for weeks, for Cpt to provide some science to support his claims, which, in light of your clarifications regarding the multiverse, seem to still be nothing more than wild, unsubstantiated speculation.

I have been trying to impress upon Cpt that I have no position, and no need for any position, other than the observation that he has no theory! He has wild speculation, and the only scientifically defendable position with regard to it is agnostic indifference until such a time as he can produce anything that makes it plausible.

 

 

Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin

http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism


Cernunnos
Cernunnos's picture
Posts: 146
Joined: 2007-07-04
User is offlineOffline
I would say that the notion

I would say that the notion of multiverses is a prediction rather than a theory and to gain credence the laws of physics will have to be known sufficiently well. A theory can make both testable and untestable predictions, the multiverse is a prediction in a theory and as such does not need to be observed itself. Yet becoming accepted will depend upon the accuracy of our model of the universe(s).

There is circumstantial evidence from the anthropic principle.

I often say that when you can measure what you are speaking about, and express it in numbers, you know something about it; but when you cannot measure it, when you cannot express it in numbers, your knowledge is of a meagre and unsatisfactory kind.


deludedgod
Rational VIP!ScientistDeluded God
deludedgod's picture
Posts: 3221
Joined: 2007-01-28
User is offlineOffline
Quote: There is

Quote:

There is circumstantial evidence from the anthropic principle.

Light dawns. 

"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.

-Me

Books about atheism


rexlunae
rexlunae's picture
Posts: 378
Joined: 2007-01-07
User is offlineOffline
Am I the only one reading

Am I the only one reading who, even after all his attempts to explain the idea of "infinite consciousness", cannot understand what the good Cpt means by it?

It's only the fairy tales they believe.


Hambydammit
High Level DonorModeratorRRS Core Member
Hambydammit's picture
Posts: 8657
Joined: 2006-10-22
User is offlineOffline
Quote: I would say that

Quote:

I would say that the notion of multiverses is a prediction rather than a theory and to gain credence the laws of physics will have to be known sufficiently well. A theory can make both testable and untestable predictions, the multiverse is a prediction in a theory and as such does not need to be observed itself. Yet becoming accepted will depend upon the accuracy of our model of the universe(s).

There is circumstantial evidence from the anthropic principle.

This sounds suspiciously like a sound response to my original statement.

For those of us harping on proper critical thinking (only me, I think) this is the first response to my statement about the multiverse that actually addresses it.

So, if everyone is ok agreeing that the multiverse is a prediction that is untestable at present, we can move on from this point and let Cpt proceed with his presentation of

1) How he reconciles current understanding of consciousness with "infinite consciousness"

2) What infinite consciousness does

3) How infinite consciousness fits into the predictions/hypotheses regarding the universe/multiverse, i.e. what questions it answers.

Despite our little digression into what status the concept of the multiverse has, I still haven't seen anything proposed that incorporates a coherent "infinite consciousness" with a "multiverse" such that this idea has any validity.

 

 

 

Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin

http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism


Cpt_pineapple
atheist
Cpt_pineapple's picture
Posts: 5492
Joined: 2007-04-12
User is offlineOffline
deludedgod wrote: Now, I

deludedgod wrote:

Now, I dislike the idea of "infinite consciousness" since

a) Neuroscience indicates consciousness is the product of brains, which are discrete entities

I thought the brains generate consciousness by the inequalities in neurons.  That brains generate consciousness by processing the data given off by the neurons.

 

Quote:
 

b) Information physics does not allow for a conscious entity to be infinite. That would break the 2nd law of thermodynamics. Remember how long I spent ripping that apart in this essay: 

http://www.rationalresponders.com/the_absurdity_of_the_cosmological_argument

I'm talking infinite potiental. I have mentioned it several times in my infinite consciousness topic.

 

 

Quote:

Oh, by the way, consciousness is much, much more, Cpt, then the ability to indepedently process information. Every cell in your body has the capability of doing that. Every aspiring molecular biologists learns that in cell dynamics 101: Cells are discrete information-processing entities. The biological processes of transcription, translation, transduction, ion pumping, synaptic shuttling, allosteric control, molecular switches are all indepedent information processing occurances. Information is that which is being percieved while consciousness is that which is perceiving. Granted, consciousness in turn is based on matter, which in turn is based on information. However, consciousness is a discrete process, not an absolute continuum process.

 

Doesn't evolution say our consciousness developed in stages?  That there are different stages of consciousness?

That is my point. There are different levels of consciousness. 

 

 

 

Hammby, I already said, it from bit can be applied to quantum paradoxes. 

 


Cpt_pineapple
atheist
Cpt_pineapple's picture
Posts: 5492
Joined: 2007-04-12
User is offlineOffline
Since I have been trying to

Since I have been trying to put the infinite consciousness into my own words and obviously failed, I will now make quotes from  The God Theory to show what I mean.:

 

Bernard Haisch wrote:

 The esoteric traditions tell us that creation by subtraction is on of the fundamental truths underlying reality. Put in terms that relate to the God Theory, these traditions teach that creation of the real (manifest) involves subtraction from infinite potential.

 Return for a minute to the slide projector. Turn it on without any slide inserted and project the pure white light onto the screen. That white light contains the potential to create every image you can imagine-your Thanksgiving family gathering, your tip to teh Rockies......... Every one of these images and an infinite number of others are contained in potentia in the formless light flowing from the bulb to the screen. All you have to do to project the picture you want is put in the slide that subtracts the proper colors in the proper places. The white light is thus the source of infinite possibility (emphaize mine), and you create the desired image by intelligent subtraction, causing the real to emerge from the possible. By limiting the infinitely possible, you create the finitely real(emphasize his).

God Theory pages 28-29 

 

That's where the multiverse comes in (Which is testable by L.I.S.A etc..). Each universe is a slide.

 

Now where does this come in for solving something? As I mentioned before, the Digital model (which this is based) could help solve quantum paradoxes as I outlined in a previous post.  

Capiche? 


Cernunnos
Cernunnos's picture
Posts: 146
Joined: 2007-07-04
User is offlineOffline
If you create 2 infinite

If you create 2 infinite sets one of all positive numbers and one of all negative numbers and then add all the numbers the result is 0.

To me it is more like an analogy of how something comes from nothing or resulting complexity from breaking symmetry. 

I like the godly undercurrent in Haischs' spiel "white light" and "intelligent subtraction" good fun Smiling

My message to this God: "he that breaks a thing to find out what it is has left the path of wisdom." 

I often say that when you can measure what you are speaking about, and express it in numbers, you know something about it; but when you cannot measure it, when you cannot express it in numbers, your knowledge is of a meagre and unsatisfactory kind.


Cpt_pineapple
atheist
Cpt_pineapple's picture
Posts: 5492
Joined: 2007-04-12
User is offlineOffline
Cernunnos wrote: If you

Cernunnos wrote:

If you create 2 infinite sets one of all positive numbers and one of all negative numbers and then add all the numbers the result is 0.


To me it is more like an analogy of how something comes from nothing or resulting complexity from breaking symmetry.

 I can see where your getting symmetry breaking, but where the statement about nothing?

I don't see how yor example above (the positive/negative number sets) can be applied to this.

 

Quote:
 

My message to this God: "he that breaks a thing to find out what it is has left the path of wisdom."

*gong* 

 


rexlunae
rexlunae's picture
Posts: 378
Joined: 2007-01-07
User is offlineOffline
Cpt_pineapple wrote: Since

Cpt_pineapple wrote:

Since I have been trying to put the infinite consciousness into my own words and obviously failed, I will now make quotes from  The God Theory to show what I mean.:

 

Bernard Haisch wrote:

 The esoteric traditions tell us that creation by subtraction is on of the fundamental truths underlying reality. Put in terms that relate to the God Theory, these traditions teach that creation of the real (manifest) involves subtraction from infinite potential.

 Return for a minute to the slide projector. Turn it on without any slide inserted and project the pure white light onto the screen. That white light contains the potential to create every image you can imagine-your Thanksgiving family gathering, your tip to teh Rockies......... Every one of these images and an infinite number of others are contained in potentia in the formless light flowing from the bulb to the screen. All you have to do to project the picture you want is put in the slide that subtracts the proper colors in the proper places. The white light is thus the source of infinite possibility (emphaize mine), and you create the desired image by intelligent subtraction, causing the real to emerge from the possible. By limiting the infinitely possible, you create the finitely real(emphasize his).

God Theory pages 28-29 

 

That's where the multiverse comes in (Which is testable by L.I.S.A etc..). Each universe is a slide.

 

Now where does this come in for solving something? As I mentioned before, the Digital model (which this is based) could help solve quantum paradoxes as I outlined in a previous post.  

Capiche? 

So, you are defining God to be the set of all possible universes, or perhaps the set of possibilities itself? Perhaps this description is too simple....

So, assuming there is no major flaw in that description, doesn't it cause problems when you try to describe god as existing? How does the concept of existence apply to such a thing? Or intelligence? Why do you call it God?

It's only the fairy tales they believe.


CrimsonEdge
CrimsonEdge's picture
Posts: 499
Joined: 2007-01-02
User is offlineOffline
rexlunae wrote: Why do you

rexlunae wrote:
Why do you call it God?

That's what I'm wondering. 


Hambydammit
High Level DonorModeratorRRS Core Member
Hambydammit's picture
Posts: 8657
Joined: 2006-10-22
User is offlineOffline
Quote: So, you are

Quote:

So, you are defining God to be the set of all possible universes, or perhaps the set of possibilities itself? Perhaps this description is too simple....

So, assuming there is no major flaw in that description, doesn't it cause problems when you try to describe god as existing? How does the concept of existence apply to such a thing? Or intelligence? Why do you call it God?

And for the umpteenth time, I really would like to know where the leap from all possible universes to "infinite consciousness" occurs, and how in the multiverse it is possible for the multiverse to be conscious, since we know consciousness to be the state of sentience in living beings, life being a replicating system that passes genetic information to descendents.

 

Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin

http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism


inspectormustard
atheist
inspectormustard's picture
Posts: 537
Joined: 2006-11-21
User is offlineOffline
Cpt_pineapple

Cpt_pineapple wrote:
deludedgod wrote:

Now, I dislike the idea of "infinite consciousness" since

a) Neuroscience indicates consciousness is the product of brains, which are discrete entities

I thought the brains generate consciousness by the inequalities in neurons. That brains generate consciousness by processing the data given off by the neurons.

Nope, that's merely a basic explanation of how a neural network processes information. It would be more accurate to say that neurons generate signals in order to recieve the signals they prefer, and the collective result of that is information processing.

Information processing is still not consiousness. Here's an illustration that might help to show what leads to what:

 transistor :: circuit :: computer :: program :: modular evolvablity :: logic and external prediction :: self-reflection and imagination (consiousness)

or

neuron :: neural collumn :: brain :: instincts :: learning :: logic and external prediction :: self-reflection and imagination (consiousness)

Instances which fall short of the final step may seem consious or even be capable of learning, but they are not concious as they are unable to adapt their learning process.

 Even something as "amazing" as the ability to learn does not generate consciousness; most animals are not conscious. Some are barely conscious. What sets us apart is our internal simulative and predictive abilities, and our inclusion of ourselves in those simulations and predictions.


Cpt_pineapple
atheist
Cpt_pineapple's picture
Posts: 5492
Joined: 2007-04-12
User is offlineOffline
Hambydammit wrote: And for

Hambydammit wrote:

And for the umpteenth time, I really would like to know where the leap from all possible universes to "infinite consciousness" occurs, and how in the multiverse it is possible for the multiverse to be conscious, since we know consciousness to be the state of sentience in living beings, life being a replicating system that passes genetic information to descendents.

 

You are confusing our level of consciousness, with what I'm getting at. I have said several times (including in that quote), that the infinite consciousness is potiental. Potiental to be our level of consciousness.

In order to achieve this level, it must limit (filter) out from the infinte potiental

Now do you see?  


Hambydammit
High Level DonorModeratorRRS Core Member
Hambydammit's picture
Posts: 8657
Joined: 2006-10-22
User is offlineOffline
Quote: You are confusing

Quote:

You are confusing our level of consciousness, with what I'm getting at. I have said several times (including in that quote), that the infinite consciousness is potiental. Potiental to be our level of consciousness.

In order to achieve this level, it must limit (filter) out from the infinte potiental

Now do you see? 

No.

1) Infinite Potential

2) Filter

3) Stuff exists

4) Infinite consciousness

3-4 do not follow, or if they do, you've provided absolutely no link.

 

Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin

http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism


Cpt_pineapple
atheist
Cpt_pineapple's picture
Posts: 5492
Joined: 2007-04-12
User is offlineOffline
Now you are presenting this

Now you are presenting this in a way I can address.  

 

 

Hambydammit wrote:

 

3-4 do not follow, or if they do, you've provided absolutely no link.

I'll try to explain now. 

 

Quote:

 

3) Stuff exists

This may take me into the Higgs mechanism. I'll try to present it as clearly as I can.

 Beleive it or not, even matter uses data to communicate. For example, W Bosons communicate the weak force. They have a rather small range (off the top of my head, I think it's 10^-17m). This range is what gives it mass. This is where the Higgs mechanism comes in (which is testable with the LHC.). Basically, the Higgs mechanism limits the range of the weak force giving it mass. (It does not do this with photons however, hence photons are massless and have infinite range.).

So the point is that by limiting the potiental you create the finitely real. Matter/mass is no exception.

 

Quote:

 

4) Infinite consciousness

This is what does the limiting. 

 


Cpt_pineapple
atheist
Cpt_pineapple's picture
Posts: 5492
Joined: 2007-04-12
User is offlineOffline
inspectormustard

inspectormustard wrote:
Cpt_pineapple wrote:
deludedgod wrote:

Now, I dislike the idea of "infinite consciousness" since

a) Neuroscience indicates consciousness is the product of brains, which are discrete entities

I thought the brains generate consciousness by the inequalities in neurons. That brains generate consciousness by processing the data given off by the neurons.

Nope, that's merely a basic explanation of how a neural network processes information. It would be more accurate to say that neurons generate signals in order to recieve the signals they prefer, and the collective result of that is information processing.

Information processing is still not consiousness. Here's an illustration that might help to show what leads to what:

transistor :: circuit :: computer :: program :: modular evolvablity :: logic and external prediction :: self-reflection and imagination (consiousness)

or

neuron :: neural collumn :: brain :: instincts :: learning :: logic and external prediction :: self-reflection and imagination (consiousness)

Instances which fall short of the final step may seem consious or even be capable of learning, but they are not concious as they are unable to adapt their learning process.

Is that your definition of consciousness? The ability to adapt their learning process?

Quote:
 

Even something as "amazing" as the ability to learn does not generate consciousness; most animals are not conscious. Some are barely conscious. What sets us apart is our internal simulative and predictive abilities, and our inclusion of ourselves in those simulations and predictions.

I disagree. I think all animals are conscious, just not at our level. 


Hambydammit
High Level DonorModeratorRRS Core Member
Hambydammit's picture
Posts: 8657
Joined: 2006-10-22
User is offlineOffline
Quote: This may take me

Quote:

This may take me into the Higgs mechanism. I'll try to present it as clearly as I can.

Beleive it or not, even matter uses data to communicate. For example, W Bosons communicate the weak force. They have a rather small range (off the top of my head, I think it's 10^-17m). This range is what gives it mass. This is where the Higgs mechanism comes in (which is testable with the LHC.). Basically, the Higgs mechanism limits the range of the weak force giving it mass. (It does not do this with photons however, hence photons are massless and have infinite range.).

So the point is that by limiting the potiental you create the finitely real. Matter/mass is no exception.

Right. Limiting potential creates the finitely real. Another way of saying that is "Anything that is finitely real has limits." The word "create" is tricky there, and I refuse to let this word influence the argument. As far as I can tell, we're still talking about the transition from singularity to post-Planck existence, and "create" doesn't seem nearly as appropriate as "cause," but honestly, I don't think any of this is relevant, as you will see.

Quote:

4) Infinite consciousness

This is what does the limiting.

Can we all join hands and say NON SEQUITUR!

You nakedly assert that something is "doing the limiting" and that it is conscious, blithely ignoring what consciousness is. You jump from a philosophical way of looking at finite existence into the existence of a universe-sized brain.

It's a gigantic, unsupported leap. Every new idea you've come up with to support it is simply a different way of describing what we observe as the existent universe. You then, each and every time, with one sentence or less, say, "See, that's god."

That's a non sequitur. There's no connection.

 

Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin

http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism


Cpt_pineapple
atheist
Cpt_pineapple's picture
Posts: 5492
Joined: 2007-04-12
User is offlineOffline
Hambydammit wrote: Right.

Hambydammit wrote:

Right. Limiting potential creates the finitely real. Another way of saying that is "Anything that is finitely real has limits." The word "create" is tricky there, and I refuse to let this word influence the argument. As far as I can tell, we're still talking about the transition from singularity to post-Planck existence, and "create" doesn't seem nearly as appropriate as "cause," but honestly, I don't think any of this is relevant, as you will see.

If you want me to go back up to the Planck Era, I can, but the same thing applies, data exchange determined the parameters. Our universe could be completley different. 

 

 

Quote:
Quote:

4) Infinite consciousness

This is what does the limiting.

Can we all join hands and say NON SEQUITUR!

You nakedly assert that something is "doing the limiting" and that it is conscious, blithely ignoring what consciousness is. You jump from a philosophical way of looking at finite existence into the existence of a universe-sized brain.

 

 I already explained what I think consciousnes is.

 Who said anything about a universe sized brain?  Once again, you are applying our level of consciousness to what I say to be the infinite consciousness.

 

Quote:
 

It's a gigantic, unsupported leap. Every new idea you've come up with to support it is simply a different way of describing what we observe as the existent universe. You then, each and every time, with one sentence or less, say, "See, that's god."

That's a non sequitur. There's no connection.

I didn't come up with the idea of multiverse or Higgs mechanism.

The infinte consciousness is a different way of describing the universe that I find more satisfying than other models. 


inspectormustard
atheist
inspectormustard's picture
Posts: 537
Joined: 2006-11-21
User is offlineOffline
Cpt_pineapple wrote:

Cpt_pineapple wrote:

Is that your definition of consciousness? The ability to adapt their learning process?

 

My Oxford Dictionary states that consciousness is the state of being conscious as well as one’s awareness or perception of something. Typically sentience, or the ability to feel emotively about things, is implied as well. Producing something that can learn is pretty easy; producing something that can learn how to learn (metalearn) is harder than hard. Adding emotional states are trivial and usually neglected as they are not useful in solving anything but cognitive problems and prompting them is difficult (though well known) to implement.

Cpt_pineapple wrote:
Quote:

Even something as "amazing" as the ability to learn does not generate consciousness; most animals are not conscious. Some are barely conscious. What sets us apart is our internal simulative and predictive abilities, and our inclusion of ourselves in those simulations and predictions.

I disagree. I think all animals are conscious, just not at our level.

If it is your opinion that at least everything up to mice are even semi-conscious then I would direct you to the works of those scientists who have recently completed simulation of the equivalent of half a mouse's brain at one-tenth speed. The simulation will grow as technology progresses. If that is consciousness then we're already playing god and may begin to ponder the ghost in the machine questions.

Seeing as consciousness did not unexpectedly arise, we must wait until technology catches up with our cognitive conjecture. Had it shown up in such a model it would have been a great suprise, there would have been a media explosion, politics would be in an uproar (do androids have human rights?), and we'd have to figure out why it broke the model.

 

Cpt_pineapple wrote:

 I already explained what I think consciousnes is.

What you think has no causal relation to what is true. You're inferring a top-down relationship between reality and consciousness where consciousness is actually something that develops within the constraints of reality. Consciousness is not the filtered set of all things; the problem with producing consciousness therefore is not having a lot of stuff to filter but rather having a non-linear filter through which information is run. Perhaps sometime I will write out an exhaustive formula of our current model of consciousness, but in the meantime rest assured that even the compex movement of cosmic bodies do not constitute a sufficient non-linear economy to produce conscious thought.


ABx
Posts: 195
Joined: 2007-02-26
User is offlineOffline
I rather like Jeff Hawkins'

I rather like Jeff Hawkins' definition of intelligence, which is that it's defined not by behavior, but by prediction (ie the ability to process information and create a prediction).
http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/view/id/125

I'm curious, how would that fit into all of this?