[Split Thread] Does the universe care or need to care?

!Kaggen · 24th August 2009, 08:18 AM

Originally Posted by Ron_Tomkins

The Universe does not need to know nor care about these things for them to have always existed/been true, no more than it does not know nor care how particles interact for them to have existed long before we existed and became aware of their behaviour.

If anything, we recreate on the facts by talking about them and studying them. But that's just a semantic issue and has nothing to do with actually creating something, regardless of the similarity of the words.

Can I am assume you are speaking on behalf of the universe?
If not then

Ron_Tomkins · 24th August 2009, 08:25 AM

Originally Posted by !Kaggen

Can I am assume you are speaking on behalf of the universe?

You can assume whatever you want, but that won't make it any more true.

!Kaggen · 24th August 2009, 08:31 AM

Originally Posted by Ron_Tomkins

You can assume whatever you want, but that won't make it any more true.

Hmm, does this also apply to your assumptions below?

Originally Posted by Ron_Tomkins

The Universe does not need to know nor care about these things for them to have always existed/been true, no more than it does not know nor care how particles interact for them to have existed long before we existed and became aware of their behaviour.

If anything, we recreate on the facts by talking about them and studying them. But that's just a semantic issue and has nothing to do with actually creating something, regardless of the similarity of the words.

Ron_Tomkins · 24th August 2009, 08:37 AM

Yes, it applies.

I said the Universe does not need to know nor care about these truths, for them to be true. I never claimed it does know or doesn't know. That would be speaking in behalf of the Universe.

!Kaggen · 24th August 2009, 08:46 AM

Originally Posted by !Kaggen

Hmm, does this also apply to your assumptions below?

Originally Posted by Ron_Tomkins

Yes, it applies.

I said the Universe does not need to know nor care about these truths, for them to be true. I never claimed it does know or doesn't know. That would be speaking in behalf of the Universe.

I see, the a priori predicate now overcomes the problem of a priori knowledge.

Ron_Tomkins · 24th August 2009, 08:49 AM

I'm not following you.

!Kaggen · 24th August 2009, 08:54 AM

Originally Posted by Ron_Tomkins

I'm not following you.

You avoided the assumption of a knowing universe, but stick to the assumption of a non-caring, non-needing universe.

Ron_Tomkins · 24th August 2009, 08:57 AM

There's absolutely zero evidence that the Universe knows or cares.
Until there's a slight speck of evidence of such thing, discussing such things is as absurd as considering the possibility of a giant flying silver mickey mouse shaped cup.

!Kaggen · 24th August 2009, 09:08 AM

Originally Posted by Ron_Tomkins

There's absolutely zero evidence that the Universe knows or cares.

As far as knowledge is concerned you've covered this adequately

Originally Posted by Ron_Tomkins

I never claimed it does know or doesn't know. That would be speaking in behalf of the Universe.

as far as "cares" and "needs"

are you claiming the universe doesn't care or need?

Ron_Tomkins · 24th August 2009, 09:13 AM

Originally Posted by !Kaggen

are you claiming the universe doesn't care or need?

I'm only gonna spoil you this one time, cause I shouldn't have to repeat what I said. You can go back and read it.

I said the Universe does not have to care nor need for what we observe in nature to be true.
*There is no evidence of the Universe showing an awareness of these things.
*It is very likely the Universe does not know nor care, given the data we have.

Apply this to any other made-up argument such as "Are invisible flying purple dragons the hidden cause for the laws of gravitation?". The same reasoning applies.

!Kaggen · 24th August 2009, 09:14 AM

Originally Posted by Tumbleweed

You discover inherent relationships between events in nature and invent the math to explain them in a predictable way

Yes, exactly

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=150655

!Kaggen · 24th August 2009, 09:27 AM

Originally Posted by Ron_Tomkins

I'm only gonna spoil you this one time, cause I shouldn't have to repeat what I said. You can go back and read it.

Ah thanks. I have been reading your posts, perhaps too carefully.

Originally Posted by Ron_Tomkins

I said the Universe does not have to care nor need for what we observe in nature to be true.

And I asked you if you are talking on behalf of the universe.

Originally Posted by Ron_Tomkins

*There is no evidence of thye Universe showing an awareness of these things.

That is another question altogether. I was questioning you're awareness of these things.

Originally Posted by Ron_Tomkins

*It is very likely the Universe does not know nor care, given the data we have.

Originally Posted by Ron_Tomkins

I never claimed it does know or doesn't know. That would be speaking in behalf of the Universe.

So now you claim that the universe doesn't know after you said you never said this and qualify this with likelihood due to data.

Originally Posted by Ron_Tomkins

Apply this to any other made-up argument such as "Are invisible flying purple dragons the hidden cause for the laws of gravitation?". The same reasoning applies.

Nope, the universe is a reality, flying purple dragons are not. Reasoning without a basis in reality is pleasant, but not true.

Ron_Tomkins · 24th August 2009, 09:31 AM

Originally Posted by !Kaggen

So now you claim that the universe doesn't know after you said you never said this and qualify this with likelihood due to data.

You keep claiming that I said that the Universe knows or doesn't know.
I said it is "very likely" the Universe doesn't know, givne the facts we have.
Again, I shouldn't be spoiling you. You really do need to read carefully. Stop putting words in my mouth.

Originally Posted by !Kaggen

Nope, the universe is a reality, flying purple dragons are not. Reasoning without a basis in reality is pleasant, but not true.

The reasoning you used to conclude that flying purple dragons are not real, is the same reasoning we apply to say that the idea of a conscious Universe is not consistent with the facts.

!Kaggen · 24th August 2009, 10:24 AM

Originally Posted by Ron_Tomkins

You keep claiming that I said that the Universe knows or doesn't know.
I said it is "very likely" the Universe doesn't know, givne the facts we have.
Again, I shouldn't be spoiling you. You really do need to read carefully. Stop putting words in my mouth.

Although it is

Originally Posted by Ron_Tomkins

just a semantic issue

IMO you started the "very likely", "data" and "given the facts" qualifications a bit late.

Your original post below was far from emphasizing these aspects of your argument.

A reminder

Originally Posted by Ron_Tomkins

The Universe does not need to know nor care about these things for them to have always existed/been true, no more than it does not know nor care how particles interact for them to have existed long before we existed and became aware of their behaviour.

Originally Posted by Ron_Tomkins

The reasoning you used to conclude that flying purple dragons are not real, is the same reasoning we apply to say that the idea of a conscious Universe is not consistent with the facts.

No nothing to do with reasoning. Its called an empirical observation.

P.S. save the patronizing "spoil you" its getting a bit stale

Ron_Tomkins · 24th August 2009, 11:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ron_Tomkins
You keep claiming that I said that the Universe knows or doesn't know.
I said it is "very likely" the Universe doesn't know, given the facts we have.
Again, I shouldn't be spoiling you. You really do need to read carefully. Stop putting words in my mouth.

Originally Posted by !Kaggen

Although it is

"It is" what? What specifically are you addressing from my post?

Originally Posted by !Kaggen

No nothing to do with reasoning. Its called an empirical observation.

So what's your point?

Originally Posted by !Kaggen

P.S. save the patronizing "spoil you" its getting a bit stale

Since it is clear we're not getting anywhere (and to be honest with you, at this juncture I don't even know what your point is or what specifically are you disagreeing with me on), let me rephrase and summarize what I've claimed so far:

From our observations of the natural world, the theory of a "Conscious Universe" is not necessary to explain the phenomena that we see in nature.

That's what I mean by "The Universe does not have to know what it does". It translates as: "From our observations of the natural phenomena, we don't need the explanation of a Conscious Universe. It is as redundant as the theory of a God that sets the initial conditions of the Universe"
It doesn't translate as "The Universe is definitively not conscious". That is not what I am saying.

And the reason I started this claim in the first place is to address the question of wether mathematics have always existed or were created. From our observations and studies, they seem to most likely have always existed and the Universe does not need to be "conscious" of this, in the same way that we do not need to be conscious of all the perfectly mathematically measurable processes that happen in our organism (digestion, blood circulation, breathing etc), while we lead our daily lives.
What we did invent (and you agreed with this in a reply to someone else's post) was the language to express the mathematical values.

Philosaur · 24th August 2009, 01:22 PM

Originally Posted by Ron_Tomkins

The Universe does not need to know nor care...

!Kaggen: you fail the reading comprehension test!

Ron said only that the universe does not *need* to know or care, not that it doesn't know or care. "Need" here modifies "to know" and "to care".

Quote:

We still did not know until we built a bomb and pushed the bottom.

How do you push the bottom?

Quote:

I see, the a priori predicate now overcomes the problem of a priori knowledge.

It's like someone threw Kant's critiques into a blender. Oh look, here's more:

Quote:

The difficulty of understanding concepts relationships to percepts is that the cognitive process gives us the impression of subject/object relationship which is not reality until they are re-combined.

Quote:

The fact that you know language does not automatically mean that you understand this:

It's apparent you don't understand it either.

Quote:

As Goethe put it "there is nothing outside of nature"

Or as Wittgenstein said: "Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent."

!Kaggen · 24th August 2009, 02:29 PM

Originally Posted by Ron_Tomkins

From our observations of the natural world, the theory of a "Conscious Universe" is not necessary to explain the phenomena that we see in nature.

That's what I mean by "The Universe does not have to know what it does". It translates as: "From our observations of the natural phenomena, we don't need the explanation of a Conscious Universe. It is as redundant as the theory of a God that sets the initial conditions of the Universe"

It doesn't translate as "The Universe is definitively not conscious". That is not what I am saying.

However we do need conscious humans.

Originally Posted by Ron_Tomkins

And the reason I started this claim in the first place is to address the question of wether mathematics have always existed or were created. They have always existed and the Universe does not need to be "conscious" of this, in the same way that we do not need to be conscious of all the perfectly mathematically measurable processes that happen in our organism, while we lead our daily lives.
What we did invent (and you agreed with this in a reply to someone else's post) was the language to express the mathematical values.

I have a problem with this "bold italic part". A bit Platonic for my taste.

!Kaggen · 24th August 2009, 02:36 PM

Originally Posted by Philosaur

Or as Wittgenstein said: "Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent."

Wittgenstein obviously had a big mouth, but poor eyesight

proudnonbbeliever · 24th August 2009, 02:41 PM

you push the bottom with your hands

six7s · 24th August 2009, 03:55 PM

Originally Posted by proudnonbbeliever

you push the bottom with your hands

Is that synonymous with 'digitally'?

----------

Please resist the urge to anthropomorphise the Universe... otherwise it'll get really pissed off and bite you on the arse

Twiler · 24th August 2009, 03:58 PM

If the universe had a mind, where would it be stored?

Cainkane1 · 24th August 2009, 04:03 PM

I asked a similar question here called Does the Universe need a reason to exist? The answer I expected was no and the answer is no. Does the Universe care or need to care? The answer is no and no.

six7s · 24th August 2009, 04:31 PM

Originally Posted by Twiler

If the universe had a mind, where would it be stored?

In the FSM's IPU stables, of course!

Ron_Tomkins · 25th August 2009, 08:04 AM

Quote:

Ron_Tomkins

From our observations of the natural world, the theory of a "Conscious Universe" is not necessary to explain the phenomena that we see in nature.

That's what I mean by "The Universe does not have to know what it does". It translates as: "From our observations of the natural phenomena, we don't need the explanation of a Conscious Universe. It is as redundant as the theory of a God that sets the initial conditions of the Universe"

It doesn't translate as "The Universe is definitively not conscious". That is not what I am saying.

Originally Posted by !Kaggen

However we do need conscious humans.

Yes. We do need the conscious humans to discover the math. So? Again, do you have a point? And if so, what is it?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ron_Tomkins
And the reason I started this claim in the first place is to address the question of wether mathematics have always existed or were created. They have always existed and the Universe does not need to be "conscious" of this, in the same way that we do not need to be conscious of all the perfectly mathematically measurable processes that happen in our organism, while we lead our daily lives.
What we did invent (and you agreed with this in a reply to someone else's post) was the language to express the mathematical values.

Originally Posted by !Kaggen

I have a problem with this "bold italic part". A bit Platonic for my taste.

Other than getting nit picky about how I phrase things, do you have a point?

At this rate, I have every reason to believe, you don't.
If you do, lets hear it.

!Kaggen · 26th August 2009, 10:04 PM

Originally Posted by Ron_Tomkins

So? Again, do you have a point? And if so, what is it?

do you have a point?

At this rate, I have every reason to believe, you don't.
If you do, lets hear it.

Its a good idea to to be precise when expressing opinions about the origin of mathematics.

Ron_Tomkins · 27th August 2009, 07:45 AM

Okay. Then I'll say for the sake of the argument that yes, maybe the Universe is still not expressed in perfectly mathematical codes, as we still haven't evolved enough to be able to create a perfectly unifying mathematical model of the universe (though we keep getting better over time).

Beerina · 27th August 2009, 12:30 PM

The closest you could come to suggesting the universe "cares" is the suggestion by a physicist (whose name escapes me at the moment, and I'm lazy) that, if a universe births baby universes (either completely or partially inaccessible) with (completely or partially) re-juggled physical laws and constants, and so on, that this will be a sort of evolutionary process where child universes will tend to be born with physical constants that yield more likelihood of themselves birthing child universes.

And thus said universes might be more likely to generate physics capable of supporting biological evolution and consciousness insofar as those physical process happen to, purely coincidently, overlap.

Dancing David · 27th August 2009, 12:43 PM

Originally Posted by !Kaggen

I see, the a priori predicate now overcomes the problem of a priori knowledge.

AH Still stuck in your assumptions about what words mean, the universe does not care under any defintion of caring.

Mere semantics will not save you, you have to define caring and then demonstrate that the universe does care.

Otherwise the universe does not care.

Dancing David · 27th August 2009, 12:44 PM

Originally Posted by !Kaggen

Its a good idea to to be precise when expressing opinions about the origin of mathematics.

It would be a good idea for you to actually express some ideas and stop hiding is sophistry.

Third Eye Open · 27th August 2009, 02:05 PM

The universe does not have the ability to care.

And even if the universe was somehow conscious, I don't think it could care about us anymore than you can care about a single skin cell.

blobru · 27th August 2009, 05:43 PM

Originally Posted by Beerina

The closest you could come to suggesting the universe "cares" is the suggestion by a physicist (whose name escapes me at the moment, and I'm lazy) that, if a universe births baby universes (either completely or partially inaccessible) with (completely or partially) re-juggled physical laws and constants, and so on, that this will be a sort of evolutionary process where child universes will tend to be born with physical constants that yield more likelihood of themselves birthing child universes.

And thus said universes might be more likely to generate physics capable of supporting biological evolution and consciousness insofar as those physical process happen to, purely coincidently, overlap.

Steven Weinberg^WP? or Leonard Susskind^WP?

!Kaggen · 28th August 2009, 12:51 PM

Originally Posted by Dancing David

AH Still stuck in your assumptions about what words mean, the universe does not care under any defintion of caring.

Mere semantics will not save you, you have to define caring and then demonstrate that the universe does care.

Otherwise the universe does not care.

Hi David, back again

Please find the post I said the universe cared.

Originally Posted by Dancing David

It would be a good idea for you to actually express some ideas and stop hiding is sophistry.

I know your fond of assumptions, but this is pushing the envelope.
An actual argument for sophistry would be reasonable or is reason exempt when your "assumption force" is strong.

Dancing David · 28th August 2009, 01:21 PM

Originally Posted by !Kaggen

Hi David, back again

Please find the post I said the universe cared.

I know your fond of assumptions, but this is pushing the envelope.
An actual argument for sophistry would be reasonable or is reason exempt when your "assumption force" is strong.

Your counter argument was sophistry as it merely engaged in semantic waffling.

!Kaggen · 28th August 2009, 01:55 PM

Originally Posted by Dancing David

Your counter argument was sophistry as it merely engaged in semantic waffling.

And what was it exactly I was counter arguing about?
You still think the universe cares thingy, I suppose.
You'll have to ask Darat about that as he invented this thread and then put my username as the OP.

24th August 2009, 08:18 AM	#1
!Kaggen Illuminator Join Date: Jul 2009 Location: Cape Town Posts: 3,432	Does the universe care or need to care? Originally Posted by Ron_Tomkins The Universe does not need to know nor care about these things for them to have always existed/been true, no more than it does not know nor care how particles interact for them to have existed long before we existed and became aware of their behaviour. If anything, we recreate on the facts by talking about them and studying them. But that's just a semantic issue and has nothing to do with actually creating something, regardless of the similarity of the words. Can I am assume you are speaking on behalf of the universe? If not then

24th August 2009, 08:25 AM	#2
Ron_Tomkins Satan's Helper Join Date: Oct 2007 Location: NYC Posts: 31,985	Originally Posted by !Kaggen Can I am assume you are speaking on behalf of the universe? You can assume whatever you want, but that won't make it any more true.
	__________________ "I am a collection of water, calcium and organic molecules called Carl Sagan" Carl Sagan

24th August 2009, 08:37 AM	#4
Ron_Tomkins Satan's Helper Join Date: Oct 2007 Location: NYC Posts: 31,985	Yes, it applies. I said the Universe does not need to know nor care about these truths, for them to be true. I never claimed it does know or doesn't know. That would be speaking in behalf of the Universe.
	__________________ "I am a collection of water, calcium and organic molecules called Carl Sagan" Carl Sagan

24th August 2009, 08:49 AM	#6
Ron_Tomkins Satan's Helper Join Date: Oct 2007 Location: NYC Posts: 31,985	I'm not following you.
	__________________ "I am a collection of water, calcium and organic molecules called Carl Sagan" Carl Sagan

24th August 2009, 08:57 AM	#8
Ron_Tomkins Satan's Helper Join Date: Oct 2007 Location: NYC Posts: 31,985	There's absolutely zero evidence that the Universe knows or cares. Until there's a slight speck of evidence of such thing, discussing such things is as absurd as considering the possibility of a giant flying silver mickey mouse shaped cup.
	__________________ "I am a collection of water, calcium and organic molecules called Carl Sagan" Carl Sagan

24th August 2009, 08:31 AM	#3
!Kaggen Illuminator Join Date: Jul 2009 Location: Cape Town Posts: 3,432	Originally Posted by Ron_Tomkins You can assume whatever you want, but that won't make it any more true. Hmm, does this also apply to your assumptions below? Originally Posted by Ron_Tomkins The Universe does not need to know nor care about these things for them to have always existed/been true, no more than it does not know nor care how particles interact for them to have existed long before we existed and became aware of their behaviour. If anything, we recreate on the facts by talking about them and studying them. But that's just a semantic issue and has nothing to do with actually creating something, regardless of the similarity of the words.

24th August 2009, 08:46 AM	#5
!Kaggen Illuminator Join Date: Jul 2009 Location: Cape Town Posts: 3,432	Originally Posted by !Kaggen Hmm, does this also apply to your assumptions below? Originally Posted by Ron_Tomkins Yes, it applies. I said the Universe does not need to know nor care about these truths, for them to be true. I never claimed it does know or doesn't know. That would be speaking in behalf of the Universe. I see, the a priori predicate now overcomes the problem of a priori knowledge.

24th August 2009, 08:54 AM	#7
!Kaggen Illuminator Join Date: Jul 2009 Location: Cape Town Posts: 3,432	Originally Posted by Ron_Tomkins I'm not following you. You avoided the assumption of a knowing universe, but stick to the assumption of a non-caring, non-needing universe.

24th August 2009, 09:08 AM	#9
!Kaggen Illuminator Join Date: Jul 2009 Location: Cape Town Posts: 3,432	Originally Posted by Ron_Tomkins There's absolutely zero evidence that the Universe knows or cares. As far as knowledge is concerned you've covered this adequately Originally Posted by Ron_Tomkins I never claimed it *does* know or *doesn't* know. That would be speaking in behalf of the Universe. as far as "cares" and "needs" are you claiming the universe *doesn't* care or need?

24th August 2009, 09:13 AM	#10
Ron_Tomkins Satan's Helper Join Date: Oct 2007 Location: NYC Posts: 31,985	Originally Posted by !Kaggen are you claiming the universe *doesn't* care or need? I'm only gonna spoil you this one time, cause I shouldn't have to repeat what I said. You can go back and read it. I said the Universe does not have to care nor need for what we observe in nature to be true. There is no evidence of the Universe showing an awareness of these things. It is very likely the Universe does not know nor care, given the data we have. Apply this to any other made-up argument such as "Are invisible flying purple dragons the hidden cause for the laws of gravitation?". The same reasoning applies.
	__________________ "I am a collection of water, calcium and organic molecules called Carl Sagan" Carl Sagan Last edited by Ron_Tomkins; 24th August 2009 at 09:21 AM.

24th August 2009, 09:14 AM	#11
!Kaggen Illuminator Join Date: Jul 2009 Location: Cape Town Posts: 3,432	Originally Posted by Tumbleweed You discover inherent relationships between events in nature and invent the math to explain them in a predictable way Yes, exactly http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=150655

24th August 2009, 09:27 AM	#12
!Kaggen Illuminator Join Date: Jul 2009 Location: Cape Town Posts: 3,432	Originally Posted by Ron_Tomkins I'm only gonna spoil you this one time, cause I shouldn't have to repeat what I said. You can go back and read it. Ah thanks. I have been reading your posts, perhaps too carefully. Originally Posted by Ron_Tomkins I said the Universe does not have to care nor need for what we observe in nature to be true. And I asked you if you are talking on behalf of the universe. Originally Posted by Ron_Tomkins There is no evidence of thye Universe showing an awareness of these things. That is another question altogether. I was questioning you're awareness of these things. Originally Posted by Ron_Tomkins* It is very likely the Universe does not know nor care, given the data we have. Originally Posted by Ron_Tomkins* I never claimed it does know or doesn't know. That would be speaking in behalf of the Universe. So now you claim that the universe doesn't know after you said you never said this and qualify this with likelihood due to data. Originally Posted by Ron_Tomkins Apply this to any other made-up argument such as "Are invisible flying purple dragons the hidden cause for the laws of gravitation?". The same reasoning applies. Nope, the universe is a reality, flying purple dragons are not. Reasoning without a basis in reality is pleasant, but not true.

24th August 2009, 09:31 AM	#13
Ron_Tomkins Satan's Helper Join Date: Oct 2007 Location: NYC Posts: 31,985	Originally Posted by !Kaggen So now you claim that the universe doesn't know after you said you never said this and qualify this with likelihood due to data. You keep claiming that I said that the Universe knows or doesn't know. I said it is "very likely" the Universe doesn't know, givne the facts we have. Again, I shouldn't be spoiling you. You really do need to read carefully. Stop putting words in my mouth. Originally Posted by !Kaggen Nope, the universe is a reality, flying purple dragons are not. Reasoning without a basis in reality is pleasant, but not true. The reasoning you used to conclude that flying purple dragons are not real, is the same reasoning we apply to say that the idea of a conscious Universe is not consistent with the facts.
	__________________ "I am a collection of water, calcium and organic molecules called Carl Sagan" Carl Sagan

24th August 2009, 10:24 AM	#14
!Kaggen Illuminator Join Date: Jul 2009 Location: Cape Town Posts: 3,432	Originally Posted by Ron_Tomkins You keep claiming that I said that the Universe knows or doesn't know. I said it is "very likely" the Universe doesn't know, givne the facts we have. Again, I shouldn't be spoiling you. You really do need to read carefully. Stop putting words in my mouth. Although it is Originally Posted by Ron_Tomkins just a semantic issue IMO you started the "very likely", "data" and "given the facts" qualifications a bit late. Your original post below was far from emphasizing these aspects of your argument. A reminder Originally Posted by Ron_Tomkins The Universe does not need to know nor care about these things for them to have always existed/been true, no more than it does not know nor care how particles interact for them to have existed long before we existed and became aware of their behaviour. Originally Posted by Ron_Tomkins The reasoning you used to conclude that flying purple dragons are not real, is the same reasoning we apply to say that the idea of a conscious Universe is not consistent with the facts. No nothing to do with reasoning. Its called an empirical observation. P.S. save the patronizing "spoil you" its getting a bit stale

24th August 2009, 11:33 AM	#15
Ron_Tomkins Satan's Helper Join Date: Oct 2007 Location: NYC Posts: 31,985	Quote: Originally Posted by Ron_Tomkins You keep claiming that I said that the Universe knows or doesn't know. I said it is "very likely" the Universe doesn't know, given the facts we have. Again, I shouldn't be spoiling you. You really do need to read carefully. Stop putting words in my mouth. Originally Posted by !Kaggen Although it is "It is" what? What specifically are you addressing from my post? Originally Posted by !Kaggen No nothing to do with reasoning. Its called an empirical observation. So what's your point? Originally Posted by !Kaggen P.S. save the patronizing "spoil you" its getting a bit stale Since it is clear we're not getting anywhere (and to be honest with you, at this juncture I don't even know what your point is or what specifically are you disagreeing with me on), let me rephrase and summarize what I've claimed so far: From our observations of the natural world, the theory of a "Conscious Universe" is not necessary to explain the phenomena that we see in nature. That's what I mean by "The Universe does not have to know what it does". It translates as: "From our observations of the natural phenomena, we don't need the explanation of a Conscious Universe. It is as redundant as the theory of a God that sets the initial conditions of the Universe" It doesn't translate as "The Universe is definitively not conscious". That is not what I am saying. And the reason I started this claim in the first place is to address the question of wether mathematics have always existed or were created. From our observations and studies, they seem to most likely have always existed and the Universe does not need to be "conscious" of this, in the same way that we do not need to be conscious of all the perfectly mathematically measurable processes that happen in our organism (digestion, blood circulation, breathing etc), while we lead our daily lives. What we did invent (and you agreed with this in a reply to someone else's post) was the language to express the mathematical values.
	__________________ "I am a collection of water, calcium and organic molecules called Carl Sagan" Carl Sagan Last edited by Ron_Tomkins; 24th August 2009 at 11:59 AM.

24th August 2009, 01:22 PM	#16
Philosaur Muse Join Date: Mar 2009 Posts: 971	Originally Posted by Ron_Tomkins The Universe does not need to know nor care... !Kaggen: you fail the reading comprehension test! Ron said only that the universe does not need to know or care, not that it doesn't know or care. "Need" here modifies "to know" and "to care". Quote: We still did not know until we built a bomb and pushed the bottom. How do you push the bottom? Quote: I see, the a priori predicate now overcomes the problem of a priori knowledge. It's like someone threw Kant's critiques into a blender. Oh look, here's more: Quote: The difficulty of understanding concepts relationships to percepts is that the cognitive process gives us the impression of subject/object relationship which is not reality until they are re-combined. Quote: The fact that you know language does not automatically mean that you understand this: It's apparent you don't understand it either. Quote: As Goethe put it "there is nothing outside of nature" Or as Wittgenstein said: "Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent."
Philosaur Muse Join Date: Mar 2009 Posts: 971

24th August 2009, 02:29 PM	#17
!Kaggen Illuminator Join Date: Jul 2009 Location: Cape Town Posts: 3,432	Originally Posted by Ron_Tomkins From our observations of the natural world, the theory of a "Conscious Universe" is not necessary to explain the phenomena that we see in nature. That's what I mean by "The Universe does not have to know what it does". It translates as: "From our observations of the natural phenomena, we don't need the explanation of a Conscious Universe. It is as redundant as the theory of a God that sets the initial conditions of the Universe" It doesn't translate as "The Universe is definitively not conscious". That is not what I am saying. However we do need conscious humans. Originally Posted by Ron_Tomkins And the reason I started this claim in the first place is to address the question of wether mathematics have always existed or were created. They have always existed and the Universe does not need to be "conscious" of this, in the same way that we do not need to be conscious of all the perfectly mathematically measurable processes that happen in our organism, while we lead our daily lives. What we did invent (and you agreed with this in a reply to someone else's post) was the language to express the mathematical values. I have a problem with this "bold italic part". A bit Platonic for my taste.

24th August 2009, 02:36 PM	#18
!Kaggen Illuminator Join Date: Jul 2009 Location: Cape Town Posts: 3,432	Originally Posted by Philosaur Or as Wittgenstein said: "Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent." Wittgenstein obviously had a big mouth, but poor eyesight

24th August 2009, 02:41 PM	#19
proudnonbbeliever Critical Thinker Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: Down Under Posts: 257	you push the bottom with your hands
	__________________ Officially given up on reasoning with theists to understand them, focusing on swords now. Hail CROM!

24th August 2009, 03:55 PM	#20
six7s veretic Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Aotearoa Posts: 8,710	Originally Posted by proudnonbbeliever you push the bottom with your hands Is that synonymous with 'digitally'? ---------- Please resist the urge to anthropomorphise the Universe... otherwise it'll get really pissed off and bite you on the arse
	__________________ Evolution and the rest of reality fascinates the be-jeebus out of me!

24th August 2009, 03:58 PM	#21
Twiler Master Poster Join Date: Aug 2008 Posts: 2,494	If the universe had a mind, where would it be stored?
Twiler Master Poster Join Date: Aug 2008 Posts: 2,494

24th August 2009, 04:03 PM	#22
Cainkane1 Philosopher Join Date: Jul 2005 Location: The great American southeast Posts: 7,186	I asked a similar question here called Does the Universe need a reason to exist? The answer I expected was no and the answer is no. Does the Universe care or need to care? The answer is no and no.
	__________________ If at first you don't succeed try try again. Then if you fail to succeed to Hell with that. Try something else.

24th August 2009, 04:31 PM	#23
six7s veretic Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Aotearoa Posts: 8,710	Originally Posted by Twiler If the universe had a mind, where would it be stored? In the FSM's IPU stables, of course!
	__________________ Evolution and the rest of reality fascinates the be-jeebus out of me!

25th August 2009, 08:04 AM	#24
Ron_Tomkins Satan's Helper Join Date: Oct 2007 Location: NYC Posts: 31,985	Quote: Ron_Tomkins From our observations of the natural world, the theory of a "Conscious Universe" is not necessary to explain the phenomena that we see in nature. That's what I mean by "The Universe does not have to know what it does". It translates as: "From our observations of the natural phenomena, we don't need the explanation of a Conscious Universe. It is as redundant as the theory of a God that sets the initial conditions of the Universe" It doesn't translate as "The Universe is definitively not conscious". That is not what I am saying. Originally Posted by !Kaggen However we do need conscious humans. Yes. We do need the conscious humans to discover the math. So? Again, do you have a point? And if so, what is it? Quote: Originally Posted by Ron_Tomkins And the reason I started this claim in the first place is to address the question of wether mathematics have always existed or were created. They have always existed and the Universe does not need to be "conscious" of this, in the same way that we do not need to be conscious of all the perfectly mathematically measurable processes that happen in our organism, while we lead our daily lives. What we did invent (and you agreed with this in a reply to someone else's post) was the language to express the mathematical values. Originally Posted by !Kaggen I have a problem with this "bold italic part". A bit Platonic for my taste. Other than getting nit picky about how I phrase things, do you have a point? At this rate, I have every reason to believe, you don't. If you do, lets hear it.
	__________________ "I am a collection of water, calcium and organic molecules called Carl Sagan" Carl Sagan

26th August 2009, 10:04 PM	#25
!Kaggen Illuminator Join Date: Jul 2009 Location: Cape Town Posts: 3,432	Originally Posted by Ron_Tomkins So? Again, do you have a point? And if so, what is it? do you have a point? At this rate, I have every reason to believe, you don't. If you do, lets hear it. Its a good idea to to be precise when expressing opinions about the origin of mathematics.

27th August 2009, 07:45 AM	#26
Ron_Tomkins Satan's Helper Join Date: Oct 2007 Location: NYC Posts: 31,985	Okay. Then I'll say for the sake of the argument that yes, maybe the Universe is still not expressed in perfectly mathematical codes, as we still haven't evolved enough to be able to create a perfectly unifying mathematical model of the universe (though we keep getting better over time).
	__________________ "I am a collection of water, calcium and organic molecules called Carl Sagan" Carl Sagan

27th August 2009, 12:30 PM	#27
Beerina Sarcastic Conqueror of Notions Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: A floating island above the clouds Posts: 23,835	The closest you could come to suggesting the universe "cares" is the suggestion by a physicist (whose name escapes me at the moment, and I'm lazy) that, if a universe births baby universes (either completely or partially inaccessible) with (completely or partially) re-juggled physical laws and constants, and so on, that this will be a sort of evolutionary process where child universes will tend to be born with physical constants that yield more likelihood of themselves birthing child universes. And thus said universes might be more likely to generate physics capable of supporting biological evolution and consciousness insofar as those physical process happen to, purely coincidently, overlap.
	__________________ "Great innovations should not be forced [by way of] slender majorities." - Thomas Jefferson The government should nationalize it! Socialized, single-payer video game development and sales *now!* More, cheaper, better games, right? Right?

27th August 2009, 12:43 PM	#28
Dancing David Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Central Illinois Posts: 34,695	Originally Posted by !Kaggen I see, the a priori predicate now overcomes the problem of a priori knowledge. AH Still stuck in your assumptions about what words mean, the universe does not care under any defintion of caring. Mere semantics will not save you, you have to define caring and then demonstrate that the universe does care. Otherwise the universe does not care.
	__________________ Hell, dynamiting fish in a barrel is more challenging. - Ladewig I suspect you are a sandwich, metaphorically speaking. -Donn And a shot rang out. Now Space is doing time... -Ben Burch You built the toilet - don't complain when people crap in it. _Kid Eager

27th August 2009, 12:44 PM	#29
Dancing David Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Central Illinois Posts: 34,695	Originally Posted by !Kaggen Its a good idea to to be precise when expressing opinions about the origin of mathematics. It would be a good idea for you to actually express some ideas and stop hiding is sophistry.
	__________________ Hell, dynamiting fish in a barrel is more challenging. - Ladewig I suspect you are a sandwich, metaphorically speaking. -Donn And a shot rang out. Now Space is doing time... -Ben Burch You built the toilet - don't complain when people crap in it. _Kid Eager

27th August 2009, 02:05 PM	#30
Third Eye Open Graduate Poster Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: Washington state, USA Posts: 1,402	The universe does not have the ability to care. And even if the universe was somehow conscious, I don't think it could care about us anymore than you can care about a single skin cell.
	__________________ "Against stupidity the gods themselves contend in vain."- Friedrich von Schiller "I do not find in orthodox Christianity one redeeming feature." - Thomas Jefferson "Let all your troubles go, cling to the joy of living..." - Heavenly Last edited by Third Eye Open; 27th August 2009 at 02:07 PM.

27th August 2009, 05:43 PM	#31
blobru Philosopher Join Date: May 2007 Posts: 6,587	Originally Posted by Beerina The closest you could come to suggesting the universe "cares" is the suggestion by a physicist (whose name escapes me at the moment, and I'm lazy) that, if a universe births baby universes (either completely or partially inaccessible) with (completely or partially) re-juggled physical laws and constants, and so on, that this will be a sort of evolutionary process where child universes will tend to be born with physical constants that yield more likelihood of themselves birthing child universes. And thus said universes might be more likely to generate physics capable of supporting biological evolution and consciousness insofar as those physical process happen to, purely coincidently, overlap. Steven Weinberg^WP? or Leonard Susskind^WP?
blobru Philosopher Join Date: May 2007 Posts: 6,587	__________________ "Say to them, 'I am Nobody!'" -- Ulysses to the Cyclops "Never mind. I can't read." -- Hokulele to the Easter Bunny Last edited by blobru; 27th August 2009 at 05:46 PM.

28th August 2009, 12:51 PM	#32
!Kaggen Illuminator Join Date: Jul 2009 Location: Cape Town Posts: 3,432	Originally Posted by Dancing David AH Still stuck in your assumptions about what words mean, the universe does not care under any defintion of caring. Mere semantics will not save you, you have to define caring and then demonstrate that the universe does care. Otherwise the universe does not care. Hi David, back again Please find the post I said the universe cared. Originally Posted by Dancing David It would be a good idea for you to actually express some ideas and stop hiding is sophistry. I know your fond of assumptions, but this is pushing the envelope. An actual argument for sophistry would be reasonable or is reason exempt when your "assumption force" is strong.

28th August 2009, 01:21 PM	#33
Dancing David Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Central Illinois Posts: 34,695	Originally Posted by !Kaggen Hi David, back again Please find the post I said the universe cared. I know your fond of assumptions, but this is pushing the envelope. An actual argument for sophistry would be reasonable or is reason exempt when your "assumption force" is strong. Your counter argument was sophistry as it merely engaged in semantic waffling.
	__________________ Hell, dynamiting fish in a barrel is more challenging. - Ladewig I suspect you are a sandwich, metaphorically speaking. -Donn And a shot rang out. Now Space is doing time... -Ben Burch You built the toilet - don't complain when people crap in it. _Kid Eager

28th August 2009, 01:55 PM	#34
!Kaggen Illuminator Join Date: Jul 2009 Location: Cape Town Posts: 3,432	Originally Posted by Dancing David Your counter argument was sophistry as it merely engaged in semantic waffling. And what was it exactly I was counter arguing about? You still think the universe cares thingy, I suppose. You'll have to ask Darat about that as he invented this thread and then put my username as the OP.
	Last edited by !Kaggen; 28th August 2009 at 01:55 PM. Reason: grammer