GENIUS FORUMS

Continued from "God theory" topic.

Pincho Paxton wrote:You can't say that everything is determined. The universe had to start from nothing, and therefore other things can happen without cause as well. Probably observation. Even better.. self observation.

First of all, what do you mean by "universe"?

I define the Universe to be absolutely everything, and therefore it doesn't mean anything to speak of it "starting".

Can you give me an explanation of what you mean by "universe" and why you think it had to start from nothing.

A huge orchard grows on a planet of all trees. The orchard to the birds is absolutely everything. But the orchard started from a single seed, and the seed was not there for all time, it evolved. The very first stage required a tiny particle that did absolutely nothing. It had no form of cause to give it an effect. It just sat there spinning in two different direction at the same time, because the direction that it should go had no form of energy to push it. Yet it could spin already without energy. This particle could only choose a direction through self observation. It had to create effect without cause. This particle had to have unaided perpetual motion.

Pincho Paxton wrote:A huge orchard grows on a planet of all trees. The orchard to the birds is absolutely everything.

So I take it that the orchard is what you are calling the "universe", and that it is not absolutely everything, but the stupid birds think it is because they don't know any better.

The very first stage required a tiny particle that did absolutely nothing. It had no form of cause to give it an effect.

Why not just say that the orchard was caused by that which is not the orchard?

Of course, the stupid birds can't conceive of "not the orchard", but we have a broader view.

Why not just say that the orchard was caused by that which is not the orchard?

Because that is the way that You think, and that is why you made this thread.

I can't argue with that. :-)

So the end result of this thread is that Kevin is right that everything is determined when "the universe" refers to everything, but that Pincho is right that everything is not determined when "the universe" only refers to some things.

A: How do we know about this "law" of cause and effect?

B: Simple -- we have never observed an effect without a cause.

A: Does that make "causality" an absolute truth?

B: Nope.

A: But we have defined "effect" such that every one must have a "cause".

B: Unfortunately. We must remember that the words "cause" and "effect" were originally created to describe some natural phenomenon. We have indeed never seen his phenomenon fail. However to extrapolate and say that our induction is a law of "The Totality" or "The Universe" would be an error.

A: Well it seems to me that it might actually not be an error, so to speak. The "Universe" we are talking about is simply the one human beings can know of and however much we know there is no reason to suspect that nothing is hidden from us.

B: Indeed, that is the comedy that the Gods enjoy -- watching people so deluded trying to harness "The Universe" for their own means as though their metaphysics was something real. And at the same time they are busy rebuking all feelings and emotions as illusions, which are probably the most real thing they have!

B: Simple -- we have never observed an effect without a cause.

First I need to drag this link into the argument...

http://whyfiles.org/shorties/133quantum_leap/

Then I need to say that the cause of the spin in the particle was created by observation. However, there was no cause for the direction of the spin. The direction of the spin was a decision made by the particle itself.. somehow. Now this decision is somehow connected with sentiency. We need to find out exactly what sentiency is, because here we have a case where observation is transmitted as a form of perpetual motion. A spin without energy transmission. When I touch my nose, I could infact say that I am observing my own particles to make them move reather than spin, and the movement could just be based on the initial spin direction which was observed in the physical test in the link. If these particles have no history, and only become active through observation, and observation is based in the present then you could say that sentiency is to be aware of the present, and only live in the present.

Now to carry this a bit further.. light is another element that requires observation to become active. Observation is a sentient force, but light is reaching the Earth from a distance that is so far away that the light is reaching Earth before sentient life lived here. So this is another case for sentience from something other than molecular life forms. How low level can sentience get?

Can sentience get low level enough for a particle to have sentience?

Can a particle observe another particle?

Once sentience is determined, you can have a decisive universe, and cause is just a matter of choice. At a very low level.. (particle level) a particle with sentience has only two choices. Spin clockwise, or spin counter-clockwise. This is a random as you can get. It's like touch your nose, touch your toes. You feel like you are making the decision, and I'm pretty sure that because sentiency occurs in the present, and has no history, that you are actually making that decision.

Pincho Paxton wrote:Then I need to say that the cause of the spin in the particle was created by observation. However, there was no cause for the direction of the spin.

There is a significant difference between "there was no cause" and "there was no known cause."

There is a significant difference between "there was no cause" and "there was no known cause."

True, but according to the thread, the particle was spinning in both directions at once, a sort of .. no state. And as soon as it was observed it took a state. The opposite state was passed to its twin faster than the speed of light.. infact.. instantly. Now, a decision that is instant, is surely what we search for with sentience, and surely has no time for cause to take place. Anyway it is interesting, so I have made a little picture for what I call sentience...




And if you can have a sentient state, you can make a decision all by yourself, and not like a recording.

When the discussion goes into particles and QuPhys the signal-to-noise-ratio will significantly drop immediately.

A couple of questions.


"The opposite state was passed to its twin faster than the speed of light.. infact.. instantly."

I wonder, how important the time to the moment of verification of the result is? You make a significant assumption to the reality of what goes on 'at the distance' while you wait. That reality must come to you and it will still need all the time it takes to make it one.

Could it possibly be that it is not about the particle but the observer observing the different side of the same thing all the time? That things move or pass information is just a narrow slice of pie with illusion sprinkled on top?

Part 1... I wonder, how important the time to the moment of verification of the result is? You make a significant assumption to the reality of what goes on 'at the distance' while you wait. That reality must come to you and it will still need all the time it takes to make it one.

Part 2... Could it possibly be that it is not about the particle but the observer observing the different side of the same thing all the time? That things move or pass information is just a narrow slice of pie with illusion sprinkled on top?

Hard to read this as pure English. Part 1 seems to be about your own response time to varyfying that the spin has gone clockwise, or counterclockwise. Scientists said instantly, I just have to trust the experiment. This is not the first time that I have read about it, and they always say instantly.. faster than light.

Part 2... Seems to say that all things are an optical illusion. Well.. all things that we see are made from millions of other things. Not sure if that is an optical illusion though, because we are aware of the illusion in the first place.

Pincho wrote:Hard to read this as pure English. Part 1 seems to be about your own response time to varyfying that the spin has gone clockwise, or counterclockwise. Scientists said instantly, I just have to trust the experiment. This is not the first time that I have read about it, and they always say instantly.. faster than light.

The information about the two things buzzing in...formation must meet at you at some o'clock. The instancy and faster than light is illusion. The connection between the two instances of the particle-duo remains and as the information of the two fronts 'are' arriving to you, they will meet and change information, and the reality appears to you as if they had done something amazing. The problem is the language regarding time. The language creates a strict narrative along which things can and must happen. You are forcing a sequence of causal relationships by your understanding of time. You might imagine the time being the last thing decided on in the causal network. It happens at you.

Pincho wrote:Part 2... Seems to say that all things are an optical illusion. Well.. all things that we see are made from millions of other things. Not sure if that is an optical illusion though, because we are aware of the illusion in the first place.

The illusion is what you read into it. What appears, appears. What you make of it, you make of it. The illusion is accepting further illusion based on false logic that derives on earlier illusion. You accepted some reality long ago and do not question it.

First.. I'm not sure if you saw my link, because you talk of buzzing, and measuring the time..etc...

http://whyfiles.org/shorties/133quantum_leap/

The distance between the two objects can be light years apart, and you still get an instant response, which rules out the time that it takes to measure the response.

Pincho wrote:The distance between the two objects can be light years apart, and you still get an instant response, which rules out the time that it takes to measure the response.

I have read about it before and know what you are trying to say. What I am saying is that, of course, the distance between the objects is meaningless. Read what I wrote again and pay very close attention to the meaning of:

information
in formation
change information
change in formation

becoming reality that appears

The All is without cause, which is probably the most mind-blowing fact available to men.

The All is without an EXTERNAL cause, not without cause.

How could something not have a cause? Give me an example in which there is no cause?

Exactly.

Something that does not have a cause, simply doesn't exist.

causality doesn't work at all, strictly speaking, it is just a pragmatic way of looking at the world

its purely imaginary though, I hope people realize this...

ultimately speaking there is no causality, everything just is, and if you think A caused B and B caused C, you are just playing a mental game with yourself, although it is a useful game pragmatically...not philosophically

Maybe I should refrase what I am saying about the particle which has two states at once.

The argument Cause = Effect seems to imply that the universe is linear, and everything we do is like a recorded message.

However. The particle has two states at the same time. It is revolving both clockwise, and anti-clockwise at the same time. My symbol shows this as a sort of mathmatics. See above..

Surely when something is in two states at the same time it can break the linear interpretation of the universe?

If we could observe the particle, and it spins clockwise, can we speculate that if we could go back in time, and observe it again, that it might spin anti-clockwise?

And I add that the particle can react faster than the speed of light, and possibly faster than the universe ages. which would mean that time has no meaning to this particle. Therefore it can change states even at the same time in history.

TRUE RANDOMIZATION.

On Earth, everything has a cause. It’s rational to suppose that causal law is true for the universe.

Prior to the Big Bang, all matter was supposed to have been concentrated into a single indefinable point. So there was no space or time, because time is considered to be a measurement of action (in space) between one particle and another. So the universe is thought to have “begun” at the Big Bang, but this doesn’t explain why the single point of energy exploded in the first place. So the universe had to have existed prior to the Big Bang.

Maybe if our universe is rushing outwards, then another universe may also be rushing inwards. So if the total sum of energy in our universe has a fixed quantity, then that same quantity may be experienced elsewhere as a negative quality.

At the same time the Big Bang exploded in positive energy, our inner universe was simultaneously imploding. This could be a hidden feature of how energy works. Dark matter theoretically exists, so maybe all positive energy has its negative counterpart (just as all matter has its anti-matter, leading to annihilation if they meet).

There could be a Yin/Yang quality to the universe. Where ever there’s an increase in entropy and a forward flow in time in our world, there’s a corresponding decrease in entropy and a backward flow in time elsewhere.

Causality would be a fundamental rule for both universes.

If anyone involved in this thread had read David's "Wisdom of the Infinite" (or the cause and effect part), they would realise there are two somewhat, but not totally distinct ways to think of and perceive "causality" - temporal, linear: empirical, and non-temporal: logical.

All those involved in this discussion need to state how they are defining "cause".

Bilby wrote:On Earth, everything has a cause. It’s rational to suppose that causal law is true for the universe.

Prior to the Big Bang, all matter was supposed to have been concentrated into a single indefinable point. So there was no space or time, because time is considered to be a measurement of action (in space) between one particle and another. So the universe is thought to have “begun” at the Big Bang, but this doesn’t explain why the single point of energy exploded in the first place. So the universe had to have existed prior to the Big Bang.

Maybe if our universe is rushing outwards, then another universe may also be rushing inwards. So if the total sum of energy in our universe has a fixed quantity, then that same quantity may be experienced elsewhere as a negative quality.

At the same time the Big Bang exploded in positive energy, our inner universe was simultaneously imploding. This could be a hidden feature of how energy works. Dark matter theoretically exists, so maybe all positive energy has its negative counterpart (just as all matter has its anti-matter, leading to annihilation if they meet).

There could be a Yin/Yang quality to the universe. Where ever there’s an increase in entropy and a forward flow in time in our world, there’s a corresponding decrease in entropy and a backward flow in time elsewhere.

Causality would be a fundamental rule for both universes.

Sorry to say that the Big Bang has no meaning to me. It just doesn't work at all for me. It falls apart in science too. The beginning of the universe can be explained in other, better ways. Lots of tiny bangs for example. I have my own theory, but I don't want to go into it here, apart from to say that it is far less linear than the big bang.

Dan Rowden wrote:If anyone involved in this thread had read David's "Wisdom of the Infinite" (or the cause and effect part), they would realise there are two somewhat, but not totally distinct ways to think of and perceive "causality" - temporal, linear: empirical, and non-temporal: logical.

All those involved in this discussion need to state how they are defining "cause".

Just read it, and the writer is missing a lot of new information which I have posted here about the two state particles. If he knew about this situation, he probably would not have written the document in the first place.

How about a new picture to demonstrate my thoughts on this...



I might not actually be saying that things are without a cause. I am more likely saying that an cause can have two effects, which is a bit different. So I admit to being partly wrong in my first analysis of the situation. I was merely trying to indicate that the things that we do are not totally linear.

So, although the leaf floats down from a tree, obeying the cause, and effects of nature. I can grab the leaf using sentience, and alter the linear state of the leaf's path, and break the linear state of the universe.