Philosophy Discussion Forums

Posted: **August 4th, 2016, 6:53 pm**

One of the ironies of philosophy forums is the tentativeness with which the bleeding obvious is agreed to, contrasted with the iron certainty of statements about the highly speculative.

When it comes down to seeking something solid and real, I find it hard to go past the Sun, Earth and Moon. The solidity of the precariously thin layer of "fizzy stuff" on the Earth's surface that we call "life" and the thin soup of various energies and forces between massive entities that we call "space" are rather more ephemeral.

I am struck by the scale difference between our supposed "pale blue dot" (ie. monolith in space) and us wee animals. The size difference is so vast that we can only comprehend it mathematically. As far as humanity is concerned, the Earth's core is so inaccessible that it might as well be considered to be another dimension of reality.

It is truly impossible to mentally comprehend the scale of the sphere directly underneath you, of which you are a tiny part, and any sincere attempt to do so via thought experiment inevitably results in the vertigo of "does-not-compute".

Aside from scale, intensity also matters. While stars (and black holes) are the most energetic parts of the reality, brains are seemingly the most complex parts. This line of thought feels like it could go somewhere interesting but I don't yet have the philosophical chops to go there. All help appreciated :)

Posted: **August 5th, 2016, 1:49 am**

"R6...1a} metaphysical-1, mind/intellect/concept ex concept of Concepts, Space, God, Universe, Nature, Cosmos dogs, cats etc...,"

RM
I still don't get it. How can the mere concept of say...Space...be a kind of existence?

So, Rainman, you appear to believe that concepts don't exist, for what they are and I have cleary and concisely defined and found in many dictionarys... metaphysical-1, mind/intellect/concepts.

Again three primary kinds of existence of 1} "U"niverse:

.....1a} metaphysical-1, mind/intellect/concepts
---------------line of demarcat-on---------------
...1b} metaphysical-2, macro-infinite non-occupied space, that , embraces the following.
....1c} finite, occupied space Universe.

Code: Select all

 There are no "kinds" of existence.

Use what ever identifier that suits your fancy, kinds/type/catagories/classifications etc.....that exist in the catagory for what they are.

Either something exists or it doesn't.

Concepts of Unicorns exist. Drawings of unicorns exist. Clay unicorns exist. Virtual unicorns exist. No biological unicorns exist.

A 6th regular/symmetrical polyhedron does not exist and cannot conceptually exist, ergo cannot be drawn, other than some making such a statement, or writing it. It is false concept that cannot be expressed in any medium visually.

Concepts of dogs do exist as metaphysical-1, mind/intellect/concepts. If you dont believe concepts exist, then why is it, that, those words and all the ones I correlate to them, are found in the dictionary? Metaphysical-1, concepts are very common and absolute necessity for the present state of affairs on Earth the humans are responsible for. How can you not believe concepts exist is the real question.

Maybe you just mean that "space" exists.

Read my lips, again, two primary kinds of space exist;

...1b} macro-infinite non-occupied space, that, embraces the following,

....1c} finite, occupied space Universe.

This is simple stuff. Your overthinking or have some kind of relgious or whatever precondition that prevents you from comprehending obvious truths.

I would agree with that if you could show me how we can observe its existence.

I don't recall saying that, "we observe" metaphysical-1, mind/intellect/concepts. They exist for what they are. If you don't believe concepts exist and metaphysical-1, mind/intellect, then I'm not sure a dictionary or any number. We deduce and accept metaphysical-1, mind/intellect/concepts for what they are.

They are energy-less, no mass, no weight, no color, no taste, no spin, etc......

Occupied space has mass, weight sometimes color, charge, spin, trajectory frequency etc....

Macro-infinite non-occupied space has not properties ergo no charge, no mass, frequency no color, etc...

Can we see space, or hear it..

OF course we can see occupied space. Are kidding or on some kind of medication ;--) My computer occupys space and I see it dude.

or measure it with a mass spectrometer

occupied space is obvious dude.

or taste it or see it in an electron microscope?

Some occupied space we can taste, some we cannot. How can you not know what occupied space is?

No. We pretend we can measure it but really we are measuring distance between objects not anything we can call space.

Huh? What you talking about? You appear to convoluting the three primary kinds of existence Ive laid out, as tho there are one in the same. Their not dude. C,mon Rainman, this is simple stuff, if you don't skew an convolute it into something Ive not stated. imho

You need to start with a dictionary. I know some people around despise dictionaries but they are what humanity has to approach some semblance of common agreement. imho

Maybe via the dictionary you can expand your mind enough to comprehend some rather simple and obvious truths I have laid out concisely and clearly. imho

Put all of your religious and conventional educational preconditioning aside so as to observe truth as it exists for all who seek it, those who don't and those who scoff at it. Simple. imho

Humanity has only broaden their scope of what exists, not gotten narrower, over the last 3 - 7 millions years. imho

r6

-- Updated August 5th, 2016, 1:11 pm to add the following --

Rr6 wrote: Humanity has only broaden their scope of what exists, not gotten narrower, over the last 3 - 7 millions years. imho

In private message, BG, is concerned about use of millions of years, instead thousands of years for humanitys broadening of their scope of understanding.

I read some years back, that, via genetics, they have determined the split between apes and humans took place approximate 7 million years ago.

We have evidence of human existence back to some 3 million years ago. I think my statement stands as stated.

BG, asks for my age in same message. I do not like to give out to much personal information on the net. Suffice it to say, those who read my posts, will be able to discern some clues to my approximate age from various information Ive put forward. Ex, Ive been aware of greenhouse effect since Fuller first mentioned in his 1979 book "Critical Path: Speculative History of Humanity".

1} "U"niverse is the top of the cosmic heirarchy ergo the most comprehensively inclusive word/term.

....1a} metaphysical-1, mind/intellect/concepts ex concept of Concepts, God, Dogs, Space, Universe, Red Trucks, Nature, Consciousness etc....
............1aa} absolute truth ex there exist five and only five regular/symmetrical polyhedra of Universe,
............1aaa} relative truth ex the sky is blue, the trucks are red.

---------------line of demarcation---------------------

....1b} metaphysical-2, macro-infinite non-occupied space, that, embraces the following,

.....1c} finite, occupied space Universe aka Uni-Verse
..........1cc} fermions and bosons or any collective aggregate thereof as our observed physical/energy, reality, time, frequency, motion etc....,

..........1ccc} metaphysical-3, gravity,

...........1cccc} metaphysical-4, dark energy.

We deduce the existence of the above, 1b, macro-infinite non-occupied space, via our understanding of Universe being a finite integral/wholistic system.

Finite = integral

Infinite = non-integral

We also deduce the existence of metaphysical-1, mind/intellect/concept via our conscious experiences i.e. we do not observe a concept running across the road in front of us, yet, it is obvious to me, and most common sense people, that, metaphysical-1, mind/intellect/concept exists, as what it is.

Denying the existence of metaphysical-1, mind/intellect/concepts is also denying the existence of " I " in "I"-verse. We observe an ongoing biological entity--- the verse ---and apply the conceptual identifier " I " to that verse.

We deduce time ( temporal } because are brains operate { temporal lobes } at speeds, less than those of speed-of-radiation. The verse in " I "-verse is what we observe via our senses.

Observed time is what deduce via our senses ( temporal lobes/brain ). NOt to mention time is inherent to any verse involving any occupied space involving fermions, bosons and any collection thereof.

..."I think that time is the biggest mystery of them all, and that it is somehow tied into and dependent upon our consciousness."....Kieth Mayes?

http://www.thekeyboard.org.uk/What%20is%20Time.htm

Ha, finally I find someone else who agrees with at least one of the concepts Ive been espousing for 20 years or more.

...." I cannot imagine anything 'real' that we could apply an infinite number to. The only thing I can imagine that could be really infinite is nothing, the 'nothing' I described earlier in Where did the universe come from? and we have no idea if that exists."....

The truth exists, for those who seek it, those who don't, and those who scoff at it.

r6

Posted: **August 5th, 2016, 3:29 pm**

Belinda said: There is one way out of this dilemma that thought is all that exists. The way out is by way of neuroscience which demonstrates that thought and the material aspects of brain-mind and even of body proper correlate with each other.

I said: What do you mean by "correlate with each other"?

Belinda said: I should have said that mind events and brain events invariably correlate with each other...

You haven't defined what you mean by "correlate," perhaps you could give an example. How would you expect neuroscience to demonstrate that thought and the material aspects of brain-mind/body correlate?

Posted: **August 5th, 2016, 3:59 pm**

Re: "You need to start with a dictionary. I know some people around despise dictionaries but they are what humanity has to approach some semblance of common agreement. imho"
I looked up "exist". It means, "to have an objective reality." Note...not a subjective reality...an objective reality. A concept is subjective. It doesn't exist in any scientific way. Oh well. We will just have to disagree. Maybe we need our two different dictionaries to come to an agreement. I can't get anywhere with your ideas because we can't communicate the basics. This happens a lot.

Posted: **August 5th, 2016, 4:28 pm**

Rainman, Yes, Rr6 speaks of concepts such as "unoccupied space," which has no properties. He doesn't seem to realize that he has crossed over from the province of science into that of faith.

Posted: **August 6th, 2016, 5:21 am**

Felix wrote:
Belinda said: There is one way out of this dilemma that thought is all that exists. The way out is by way of neuroscience which demonstrates that thought and the material aspects of brain-mind and even of body proper correlate with each other.

I said: What do you mean by "correlate with each other"?

Belinda said: I should have said that mind events and brain events invariably correlate with each other...
You haven't defined what you mean by "correlate," perhaps you could give an example. How would you expect neuroscience to demonstrate that thought and the material aspects of brain-mind/body correlate?

1.Brain scans correlate with subjective reports from the subjects of the scans, and/or with behavioural signs that a clinician can view.

2. Chemical analyses such as studies of metabolic hormones on the one hand and , on the other hand behaviour, subjective reports, and objective observations of the subject do correlate, and those correlations are successfully used as bases for therapy. It's an accepted fact that pathology of the thyroid gland affects the subject's feelings and consequently their thoughts and beliefs.

A similar case involving correlation between mental and organic can be made for other endocrine conditions.

3. Post mortem examinations reveal pathological causes of brain-mind diseases to the extent that positive or negative correlations are significant for theory of the pathology of brain-mind lesions.E.g . Alzheimers. E.g. some brain tumours.

4. I cannot tell you how scientists investigate psychoactive chemicals naturally occurring in living brains but scientists know that the cycles of chemical functioning correlate with several states of consciousness.

Posted: **August 6th, 2016, 3:36 pm**

Belinda, Yes, but those are all general correlations, not the precise correlation of thought and brain-mind to which you alluded when you said, "There is one way out of this dilemma that thought is all that exists. The way out is by way of neuroscience which demonstrates that thought and the material aspects of brain-mind and even of body proper correlate with each other." or "I should have said that mind events and brain events invariably correlate with each other."

Science has been unable to discern any direct correlation between thought and neurobiology let alone an "invariable" one.

Posted: **August 6th, 2016, 10:05 pm**

Ensetveritas12 wrote:Regarding the explanation of life that's given here I don't see how two forces in the universe (order and chaos) could actually be called the "ratio" of life itself, it rather seems to me as something taken from the doctrines of Plotino mixed-up with some Neopithagorean belief of the war of the opposite, it's something we can find already in the Heraclitean theory of the fire as founder of being.

I have never heard of the philosophers that you named, so if you are accusing me of plagiarism in this regard, you are mistaken. Furthermore, there is a fallacy to your argument; even if I had plagiarized other thinkers, that in itself would not disprove my thesis.

Ensetveritas12 wrote:For instance, if we understand that the essence of chaos is the absence of order we will very easily understand why it can't be called a force, as it can't be considered a being that which is only the absence of a perfection of a being.

I never said that chaos is the absence of order. The chaos that you envision is like darkness; darkness is not really a thing in itself, only the lack of a thing (i.e., light). But the chaos that I propose is different; it is a thing in itself, every bit as substantial as order. Consider the quantum foam: the quantum foam is a field of virtual particles which randomly pop in and out of existence, and this field makes up the fabric of the universe. The randomness, erraticness – the chaos – of the quantum foam is not merely a lack of order, it is a thing in itself.

Greta wrote: Nope, greater order is objectively occurring in local areas.

I'm not quite sure what you mean by "local areas". I assume you mean on Earth. I don't know of any way to objectively quantify order and chaos to see if one is more prevalent than the other. All I know is that examples of order tend to be accompanied by examples of chaos. Evolution is an example of order, yet there are evolutionary dead-ends, genetic drift, and the many useless results of genetic mutation. The human body is a great example of order, yet the human body is plagued by various diseases, disorders, and defects. Blindness, deafness, retardation, deformity, mental illness, etc. My thesis does not say that there is more chaos than order, only that the two forces are opposite sides of the same coin, inextricably related.

You have assumed an angle for me that is almost exactly opposite to my point. No one says that the increasing order has to do us any favours. I would suggest that, more likely, most humans will act as fodder for increasing pockets of complexity. By the same token, a growing baby doesn't have to do its cells and bacteria any favours either. In fact, animal, plant and fungi mechanisms routinely kill off their own cells in the process of growing.

I think you misunderstood my previous point. I was responding to something you said earlier about life possibly having some kind of purpose or there being a "point to it all." Here you were implying some kind of definitive, a priori purpose. My point was that you will never find an "official" point to life, there is only an "in effect" point to life. The human species itself is a vessel for the duality of entasy. Thus, there will be many people who will go through the course of their lives and accomplish little of worth; their lives will be essentially futile. On the other hand, there will be others who will make great use of their time on this earth. Those whose lives prove futile have not failed in some cosmic mission, and the ones whose lives prove useful have not succeeded in it. These different groups of people simply express different facets of entasy.

Yes they are - they out-competed them, driving most to extinction aside from some especially well-armed animals (in nature, if you don't have brains then armaments are the next best thing).

I see Gould's issue as ideology in (understandably) opposing theist claims at the time of human divinity. However, in a relatively stable environment, greater complexity means greater attention and comprehension of detail in achieving goals (mating, eating, avoiding being eaten, seeking shelter). Highly specialised animals, however, can be vulnerable to major change, with their detailed adaptations rendered pointless. Humans are the epitome of high specialisation, except that our eusocial structures and concomitant capabilities allow us to persist in situations that overcome other species. Today our numbers and empowerment are so great that only the largest of catastrophes can wipe us out.

Nature doesn't look like a Gouldian "democracy" to me, more like repeating fractal dynamics creating cycling hierarchies - complex entities controlling simpler entities.

In the 14th century, bubonic plague wiped out a third of the European population. The plague was caused by a bacteria species. Bacteria are not particularly complex or intelligent life forms, yet they are still a force to be reckoned with even to the mighty Homo sapiens. Cockroaches are everywhere, and they are said to be able to survive a nuclear bomb explosion. The tardigrade is a microscopic organism that can survive just about anything, even the vacuum of space. The shark is not a particularly intelligent animal, yet its ferocity has allowed it to survive since the age of the dinosaurs. I don't think survival is all about intelligence and complexity; it's more about finding a good niche in the ecosystem.

It is also good to keep in mind how young our species is. We have only been around for a few hundred thousand years, which is nothing compared to species that have been around for tens or hundreds of millions of years. Recorded history only goes back 5,000 years or so, and only in the past three or four hundred years have we had any significant power over our environment in terms of technology. There are many other species that have survived for much longer and overcome more environmental upheavals. You seem to have much faith in the intelligence and resilience of our species, but only time will tell if that faith is well-founded. Also remember that the technology of humans, which you so fervently praise, comes at great cost to the environment. Many non-renewable resources are drained to exhaustion in order to feed our voracious need for food, power, materials, luxuries, etc. There is a good chance that the modern technology which you think is so important may end up burning itself out within the next few hundred years. From that point in the future, the era of modern technology will have been like a single spark in a fireworks show, something radiant and spectacular for a moment but which quickly fades away.

Biology's goal is one with which we are all familiar - to survive to maturity and propagate whatever it is that one is compelled to propagate (noting that we are currently displaying our compulsion to propagate our memes).

I don't believe that biology's goal is to propagate. It is my understanding that the reproductive tendencies of organisms is merely a prerequisite of existence itself. Life on this planet presumably began as simple, microscopic organisms. The kinds of these organisms that did not somehow make copies of themselves have since died and are no longer among us. On the other hand, other organisms did begin to make copies of themselves. Subsequently, the organisms with the proclivity for reproduction are the only kinds of organisms that still exist today. Thus, the case could be made that we do not live to reproduce but rather we reproduce because we are necessarily the descendants of beings that reproduced, and from those ancestors we have inherited the urge to reproduce. There is a very circular logic to the process.

Aside from flukey microbes enjoying a trillions-to-one possibility of panspermia, what other species has even the slightest potential to carry DNA from the biosphere to other worlds before the Earth becomes uninhabitable? Only humans, or whatever intelligent technologically-enhanced beings that follow us. Without human intelligence the entire story of the Earth and biosphere ends when the Sun expands. As you say, life is compelled to survive and only intelligence has the potential to achieve that in the longer term.

Well, I guess since the tardigrade can survive the vacuum of space, it may have a chance of colonizing some other planet at some point in the future. And yes, in theory humans have the potential to leave Earth and colonize other planets. But this is only a theory. So far, the only extraterrestial body that man has set foot on is the moon, which, in astronomical terms, is like going to one's own backyard. We have sent a rover to Mars and a probe to Jupiter, but this is still a long way from mass extraterrestial emigration and colonization. Furthermore, if the sun were to expand, we may need to leave the solar system entirely, which is an even more difficult feat. And then there is the issue of terraforming. I think your concept of extraterrestrial emigration is only theoretical at the moment, and a theoretical idea is not a good foundation for your argument.

Posted: **August 7th, 2016, 5:53 am**

Felix wrote:Belinda, Yes, but those are all general correlations, not the precise correlation of thought and brain-mind to which you alluded when you said, "There is one way out of this dilemma that thought is all that exists. The way out is by way of neuroscience which demonstrates that thought and the material aspects of brain-mind and even of body proper correlate with each other." or "I should have said that mind events and brain events invariably correlate with each other."

Science has been unable to discern any direct correlation between thought and neurobiology let alone an "invariable" one.

Do you mean the inductive gap? Or do you mean that neurobiological knowledge lags behind other biological knowledge?

If neither of the above then I don't understand your objection, Felix

Posted: **August 7th, 2016, 6:38 am**

Mysterio448 wrote:I don't know of any way to objectively quantify order and chaos to see if one is more prevalent than the other. All I know is that examples of order tend to be accompanied by examples of chaos. Evolution is an example of order, yet there are evolutionary dead-ends, genetic drift, and the many useless results of genetic mutation. The human body is a great example of order, yet the human body is plagued by various diseases, disorders, and defects. Blindness, deafness, retardation, deformity, mental illness, etc. My thesis does not say that there is more chaos than order, only that the two forces are opposite sides of the same coin, inextricably related.

I'm fine with that. The way life works is effectively by borrowing energy from the environment, which is used to resist entropy and keep itself together. In doing so they add to the entropy of the environment. Yes, chaos is obviously intrinsic, but not uniform.

Mysterioso wrote:

I was responding to something you said earlier about life possibly having some kind of purpose or there being a "point to it all." Here you were implying some kind of definitive, a priori purpose. My point was that you will never find an "official" point to life, there is only an "in effect" point to life. The human species itself is a vessel for the duality of entasy. Thus, there will be many people who will go through the course of their lives and accomplish little of worth; their lives will be essentially futile. On the other hand, there will be others who will make great use of their time on this earth. Those whose lives prove futile have not failed in some cosmic mission, and the ones whose lives prove useful have not succeeded in it. These different groups of people simply express different facets of entasy.

Still agreeing. Each of us is one perspective amongst many. No one else has our singular perspective.

Mysterioso wrote:

I don't think survival is all about intelligence and complexity; it's more about finding a good niche in the ecosystem.

If you are human then it's about creating that niche (and then finding a niche within the ensuing human society). Humans have occupied most places on Earth and can now travel to space. Some microbes can go into space too, but you need intelligence to do it of your own own volition and with control.

Mysterioso wrote:

You seem to have much faith in the intelligence and resilience of our species, but only time will tell if that faith is well-founded. Also remember that the technology of humans, which you so fervently praise, comes at great cost to the environment. Many non-renewable resources are drained to exhaustion in order to feed our voracious need for food, power, materials, luxuries, etc. There is a good chance that the modern technology which you think is so important may end up burning itself out within the next few hundred years. From that point in the future, the era of modern technology will have been like a single spark in a fireworks show, something radiant and spectacular for a moment but which quickly fades away.

The biosphere is doomed. There is only one way it can survive for another billion years - to send parts of itself into space to resettle elsewhere. That's the situation. Natural panspermia is theoretically possible but the odds of chaotically ejected microbes landing on a viable body in space are minuscule. So, either humans find a way or it's game over. I think that humanity's achievements are so extraordinary that I am confident that at least aspects of our cultures will survive rather than burn out.

A further thought. In reproduction we don't provide so much a piece of ourselves but genetic instructions carried by biological robots. It may be that humans will die out as you predict and Earth's genetic inheritance is then propagated by the AI we create. Many see AI as an existential threat but they may also take on unexpected roles.

Mysterioso wrote:

I don't believe that biology's goal is to propagate. It is my understanding that the reproductive tendencies of organisms is merely a prerequisite of existence itself.

Yes, but for practical means and purposes there is no difference. For a very long time, organisms have been utterly compelled to grow and propagate. That's emergence. Microbes don't seem to have any goals but creatures with brains are certainly compelled to breed, to grow, to expand influence etc.

Mysterioso wrote:

Well, I guess since the tardigrade can survive the vacuum of space, it may have a chance of colonizing some other planet at some point in the future. And yes, in theory humans have the potential to leave Earth and colonize other planets. But this is only a theory. So far, the only extraterrestial body that man has set foot on is the moon, which, in astronomical terms, is like going to one's own backyard. We have sent a rover to Mars and a probe to Jupiter, but this is still a long way from mass extraterrestial emigration and colonization. Furthermore, if the sun were to expand, we may need to leave the solar system entirely, which is an even more difficult feat. And then there is the issue of terraforming. I think your concept of extraterrestrial emigration is only theoretical at the moment, and a theoretical idea is not a good foundation for your argument.

Don't put too much faith in water bears. Hardy as they are, they will dehydrate past the point of no return if in space and exposed to radiation for long enough. Ice-living autotrophs that go into long term suspended animation might last for a fair while if tucked into a protected ice pockets in asteroids. Still, hitting potentially habitable objects in the vastness of space is a tall order.

My views are certainly hypothetical, but based on the evidence of the extraordinary progression of humanity in a very short space of time. We made extraordinary progress in the last hundred years and I believe that environmental challenges will only accelerate that progress. Our governments are fond of declaring wars on abstractions and there's surely a "war against environmental threats" afoot, as you noted. It is during wartime that advances tend to accelerate due to increased focused activity.

A sticking point, of course, is that progress and damage are not equitable. Many groups are at extreme risk while some much smaller groups face precious little risk by comparison. This is not a pretty scenario but that's how events are unfolding.

Posted: **August 7th, 2016, 3:39 pm**

There is no reason to suppose that chaos exists, only degrees of order. Chaos is not a thing-in-itself any more than Nothing is. It makes about as much sense to say that Order and Chaos are cosmic forces as it does to say that Something and Nothing are cosmic forces.

Consider the quantum foam: the quantum foam is a field of virtual particles which randomly pop in and out of existence, and this field makes up the fabric of the universe. The randomness, erraticness – the chaos – of the quantum foam is not merely a lack of order, it is a thing in itself.

Quantum particles are not like the Cheshire Cat, they do not "pop in and out of existence," leaving only their smile behind. They are energetically transformed/transposed.

Posted: **August 7th, 2016, 5:38 pm**

Felix wrote:There is no reason to suppose that chaos exists, only degrees of order. Chaos is not a thing-in-itself any more than Nothing is. It makes about as much sense to say that Order and Chaos are cosmic forces as it does to say that Something and Nothing are cosmic forces.

Your distinction seems arbitrary to me. You seem to just arbitrarily put emphasis on order over chaos. But is there any difference between chaos being a deprivation of order and order being a deprivation of chaos? Also, your analogy between something and nothing is not relevant to the relationship between order and chaos. Chaos has the ability to spontaneously produce order, and order has the ability to spontaneously yield chaos. However, something and nothing have no such relationship: nothing does not produce something, nor does something degrade to nothing. If you've read my thesis as proposed in the OP, it should be obvious that thinking of chaos as being a lack of order rather than its own thing doesn't aid in understanding the concept. Even if you assume that there is no chaos but only more order and less order, this still doesn't explain what causes the order to increase or decrease. And how does your view explain a phenomenon like quantum superposition? This phenomenon fits perfectly into my model. It is much better just to think of order and chaos as being two distinct yet united forces, different forms of the same thing.

Quantum particles are not like the Cheshire Cat, they do not "pop in and out of existence," leaving only their smile behind. They are energetically transformed/transposed.

All the sources I've read say that the particles of the quantum foam do spontaneously appear and annihilate at minuscule spans of space and time. Where are your sources that tell you otherwise?

Posted: **August 8th, 2016, 1:31 am**

Mysterio448: Even if you assume that there is no chaos but only more order and less order, this still doesn't explain what causes the order to increase or decrease.

As I said, the transformation of energy.... The first law of thermodynamics, the law of conservation of energy, states that the energy of a closed system must remain constant — it can neither increase nor decrease without interference from outside. The universe is a closed system and therefore the total amount of energy in existence has always been the same. The forms that energy takes, however, change constantly.

Mysterio448: And how does your view explain a phenomenon like quantum superposition?

I don't see a discrepancy, we cannot actually observe superposition so can only conjecture exactly what is happening. There are many competing interpretations of quantum mechanics, but as far as I know, none of them posit that quantum particles pop in and out of existence - although I suppose the many worlds theory may suggest that.

Posted: **August 8th, 2016, 2:56 am**

Felix wrote:

The universe is a closed system and therefore the total amount of energy in existence has always been the same. The forms that energy takes, however, change constantly.

If all the metabolic forms were to cease and their constituents be metabolically inert then all that would remain would be sterile rocks and dust etc. The universe would be sterile. How could it be that a universe that contained the more complex metabolic systems has the same amount of energy to one that was made of sterile rocks and dust?

Posted: **August 8th, 2016, 3:11 am**

Belinda wrote:Felix wrote:

The universe is a closed system and therefore the total amount of energy in existence has always been the same. The forms that energy takes, however, change constantly.
If all the metabolic forms were to cease and their constituents be metabolically inert then all that would remain would be sterile rocks and dust etc. The universe would be sterile. How could it be that a universe that contained the more complex metabolic systems has the same amount of energy to one that was made of sterile rocks and dust?

It happens through some rocks and dust attracting more material to itself via gravity and collisions. The more material the proto-planet that was once the Earth accreted, the more stable the structure became - at the expense of the stability and order of its surrounds. Over time the planet "clears its space" - being much more ordered while its surrounds are highly diffuse and chaotic.

A baby is born. A little bundle of order. The only way it can survive is at the expense of order elsewhere, at first borrowed from weary parents. In time the growing child increasingly consumes products of plants and other animals so as to maintain the order of its system. Obviously the plants and animals consumed are thoroughly disordered to facilitate the child's retention of order.

Stars, planets, moons and biology all sustain their own order at the expense of the order of other entities but the order created is always less than the disorder it causes. So entropy increases. Apparently.

Philosophy Discussion Forums

The Explanation of Life

Re: The Explanation of Life

Re: The Explanation of Life

Re: The Explanation of Life

Re: The Explanation of Life

Re: The Explanation of Life

Re: The Explanation of Life

Re: The Explanation of Life

Re: The Explanation of Life

Re: The Explanation of Life

Re: The Explanation of Life

Re: The Explanation of Life

Re: The Explanation of Life

Re: The Explanation of Life

Re: The Explanation of Life

Re: The Explanation of Life