Casual Discussion Science Forum @scivillage

Full Version: The Non-random or Intelligent Reality is Representative
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
In a non-random or intelligent reality, reality responds to thought in a reflexive way. In such a case, every thought and action would be tremendously important. Because every one of them has an affect on reality. This would influence your behavior in such a way that you would take care not to think and do careless things. Such a reality is difficult to understand unless you've seen it the way I have. 

Imagine for instance, you're in the non-random reality and you think someone is about to knock on your door and they really do, for no reason whatsoever other than the fact that you thought it. Or perhaps, you are excited about something so you go tell your neighbors and the nearby television mentions something about the look in their eyes, then, the neighbors who were normally friendly tell you "Don't test me [insert name here]". This is strictly because reality is responding to thought and your mind may be contaminated by an evil thought or something of that nature. This all has to do with the Quantum Mechanical affect of entanglement between your mind and reality.

I do not know whether or not this necessarily proves life after death since it implies processes that are hidden or concealed from the physical world, but it certainly indicates something supernatural is going on.
(Jul 19, 2018 03:37 PM)Ostronomos Wrote: [ -> ]Or perhaps, you are excited about something so you go tell your neighbors and the nearby television mentions something about the look in their eyes, then, the neighbors who were normally friendly tell you "Don't test me [insert name here]". This is strictly because reality is responding to thought and your mind may be contaminated by an evil thought or something of that nature. This all has to do with the Quantum Mechanical affect of entanglement between your mind and reality.

I do not know whether or not this necessarily proves life after death since it implies processes that are hidden or concealed from the physical world, but it certainly indicates something supernatural is going on.
 
Or it may indicate that you have a high fever or a really bad case of apophenia.
(Jul 19, 2018 03:45 PM)Secular Sanity Wrote: [ -> ]
(Jul 19, 2018 03:37 PM)Ostronomos Wrote: [ -> ]Or perhaps, you are excited about something so you go tell your neighbors and the nearby television mentions something about the look in their eyes, then, the neighbors who were normally friendly tell you "Don't test me [insert name here]". This is strictly because reality is responding to thought and your mind may be contaminated by an evil thought or something of that nature. This all has to do with the Quantum Mechanical affect of entanglement between your mind and reality.

I do not know whether or not this necessarily proves life after death since it implies processes that are hidden or concealed from the physical world, but it certainly indicates something supernatural is going on.
 
Or it may indicate that you have a high fever or a really bad case of apophenia.


No. Nice try. It's not mere coincidence.

Edit: So that others don't make the same mistake, I'd like to clarify. One is incapable of mistaking this reality for normal reality specifically because it is being experienced in such a way that one is aware that it is non-random.
(Jul 19, 2018 03:52 PM)Ostronomos Wrote: [ -> ]No. Nice try. It's not mere coincidence.

Edit: So that others don't make the same mistake, I'd like to clarify. One is incapable of mistaking this reality for normal reality specifically because it is being experienced in such a way that one is aware that it is non-random.

I don’t know.  Let’s see.  Stick out your tongue and say ahh!  Hmm…okay. *gloves up* Now turn your head and cough.  Ah-ha! That’s it!  It’s just your amusing little dots, that’s all.  

Woah, I’ve had way too much coffee.  Better hop in the shower.  Big Grin

Ciao
(Jul 19, 2018 03:37 PM)Ostronomos Wrote: [ -> ][...] Imagine for instance, you're in the non-random reality and you think someone is about to knock on your door and they really do, for no reason whatsoever other than the fact that you thought it.

Synchronicity -- coincidences with meaning projected upon them? [*]

In the context of simulated reality, some contemporary thinkers have re-discovered the idea of multiple, distinct strains of regulatory programming or coding rules at work in generating the product. The ones below only seem to fixate on the objective and subjective affairs of a simulated world having either different or "extra" nomological systems underlying them. In this context, streams of coincidences, I suppose, could become one of the rival yet inter-cooperative governing scheme's way of being anonymous to the others. That is, clandestinely asserting its influence while still maintaining the integrity of the other coding rules or regulating systems.

How Cartesian Dualism Might Have Been True - David Chalmers
http://consc.net/notes/dualism.html

A Puzzle About Further Facts (PDF) - Vincent Conitzer
https://users.cs.duke.edu/~conitzer/furt...NNTNIS.pdf

ABSTRACT: In metaphysics, there are a number of distinct but related questions about the existence of “further facts”—facts that are contingent relative to the physical structure of the universe. These include further facts about qualia, personal identity, and time. In this article I provide a sequence of examples involving computer simulations, ranging from one in which the protagonist can clearly conclude such further facts exist to one that describes our own condition. This raises the question of where along the sequence (if at all) the protagonist stops being able to soundly conclude that further facts exist.

RELATED: Simulation Hypothesis & Matrix Defense - Gaurav. H .Tandon (He seems to only be a civil & environmental engineer instructor, but for reason of the country's cultural & religious background orientations, this kind of stuff would obviously be popular with many educators and intellectuals in India.)

- - - footnote - - -

[*] Synchronicity -- coincidences with meaning projected upon them? Obviously that's not commensurable with the preset worldview, operating guidelines, and conceptual filters for interpretation of data that science and its various satellites like natural philosophy and other critical-thinking schools hold. One instead has to work at a level which is prior in rank to their established preconditions (Leibniz and Kant, for instance, assimilated nature and science into their projects without either doing damage to them or having to rely on the products of their methodological and epistemological constraints.)

Quote:This all has to do with the Quantum Mechanical affect of entanglement between your mind and reality.

Appealing to items like quantum physics and its attributes that are either part of or fell out of those aforementioned presets (of science, naturalism, etc) is to still have one foot in what is not commensurable with the character of your particular "foot". However, you might seek or introduce a broader philosophical category that "entanglement" can subsumed under, of which physics' particular instance of that (which it calls entanglement) does not allow it to claim ownership of your general version and thereby a right to legislate what can or cannot be done with it.

~
Quote:
Synchronicity -- coincidences with meaning projected upon them?
There are no projected meanings in this case. This is all genuine. Sorry if I was unclear in my example.

Quote:In the context of simulated reality, some contemporary thinkers have re-discovered the idea of multiple, distinct strains of regulatory programming or coding rules at work in generating the product. The ones below only seem to fixate on the objective and subjective affairs of a simulated world having either different or "extra" nomological systems underlying them. In this context, streams of coincidences, I suppose, could become one of the rival yet inter-cooperative governing scheme's way of being anonymous to the others. That is, clandestinely asserting its influence while still maintaining the integrity of the other coding rules or regulating systems.
[*]
I see what you're aiming at here, but this is unmistakably not coincidence. A programming language would seem to fit in with the idea of a simulated reality. So I would agree in that respect. A layer on top of another layer would be an apt description. But would God be the coder in your example?
Quote:How Cartesian Dualism Might Have Been True - David Chalmers
http://consc.net/notes/dualism.html

A Puzzle About Further Facts (PDF) - Vincent Conitzer
https://users.cs.duke.edu/~conitzer/furt...NNTNIS.pdf

ABSTRACT: In metaphysics, there are a number of distinct but related questions about the existence of “further facts”—facts that are contingent relative to the physical structure of the universe. These include further facts about qualia, personal identity, and time. In this article I provide a sequence of examples involving computer simulations, ranging from one in which the protagonist can clearly conclude such further facts exist to one that describes our own condition. This raises the question of where along the sequence (if at all) the protagonist stops being able to soundly conclude that further facts exist.
[*]

Right. Such further facts would terminate at the point of the end of the programming language. They would cut off at that point. God would then have no content to work with. Such a structure would be subjective as opposed to objective, since subjectivity would underlie the program and what would entail God.
Quote:
Quote:This all has to do with the Quantum Mechanical affect of entanglement between your mind and reality.

[*]

Appealing to items like quantum physics and its attributes that are either part of or fell out of those aforementioned presets (of science, naturalism, etc) is to still have one foot in what is not commensurable with the character of your particular "foot". However, you might seek or introduce a broader philosophical category that "entanglement" can subsumed under, of which physics' particular instance of that (which it calls entanglement) does not allow it to claim ownership of your general version and thereby a right to legislate what can or cannot be done with it.
[*][*]

Fair enough.

I simply meant that in the non-random version of reality mind would correspond to it. Again, this is not coincidence.
Quote:Synchronicity -- coincidences with meaning projected upon them? Obviously that's not commensurable with the preset worldview, operating guidelines, and conceptual filters for interpretation of data that science and its various satellites like natural philosophy and other critical-thinking schools hold. One instead has to work at a level which is prior in rank to their established preconditions (Leibniz and Kant, for instance, assimilated nature and science into their projects without either doing damage to them or having to rely on the products of their methodological and epistemological constraints.)

Also in line with Freud, Jung, Heidegger and Sartre's phenomenological introspective exploration of raw experience as a domain of reality with it's own order and self-regulating constraints. Experience iow as the most unfiltered and fundamental data we have to build a worldview out of. An etiology of subjective events, inclusive of reason, intuition, imagination, language, and mystical symbolism. A classical mechanics of the soul so to speak, complete with its own forces and dynamisms and internal stresses and interactions.