Amazing conversation.

Well about 95% of that went over my head.

@liarspeaksthetruth

10 ай бұрын

Allow me to summarize: "We don't know, therefore God." Mostly word salad that needs more substance. Another way to put it: "Something is going on, but there's no way to know what."

Now, we’re getting to the good stuff.

I have to listen to that again…..

Basically, its nihilistic creativity beyond form and purpose . It makes sense, because the world created nominalism, not the other way around. All we truly know is that we are in the middle of something.

Stuart Kaufman is one of the few interviewees in this series who actually makes any sense.

@cheponis

10 ай бұрын

I needed to listen to him several times to understand what he was saying. It's not obvious.

@christophercousins184

10 ай бұрын

Could you explain it to me? I'm not being facetious, I honestly don't understand either the utility or predictive value of his thesis... Or is that the point? That the way I'm framing my question is Newtonian, secular, reductionist and simply will never explain everything?

@JeffBedrick

10 ай бұрын

@@christophercousins184 Kauffman gave a previous interview in this same series in which he describes his theory about the self-organization of complex adaptive systems in much more depth. There are also many articles about his theories. Briefly, he explains that nature, instead of following a prescribed plan, is spontaneous and opportunistic, thereby constantly setting the stage for its own unlimited creative potential. The example he gives is the evolution of a fish's air bladder, which then becomes an environment for the evolution of new forms of bacteria and parasites that would not have otherwise existed. Extrapolate this example to all of nature, and then you begin to see the unlimited potential. I hope that helps.

@christophercousins184

10 ай бұрын

@@JeffBedrick Thank you. I will look at his stuff, for sure... Well, I'm glad you replied because I actually was thinking he was implying that there's a plan and "evolution" was coming up with "solutions" out of the box (as it were). Your explanation not only makes more sense, but now I see what he's trying to say... I definitely want to look at more of his stuff as I find him compelling, but not always very clear. And, I would like to see if he has ideas about how to falsify these notions. Thanks again, best to you.

@oskarngo9138

10 ай бұрын

No.. If the world is self-organizing.. there won’t be things like: Climate Change; Global-Conflicts; Global Pollution; Scarcity..etc... The Earth biome is a thin; fragile thing that can be easily disrupted.... If the world is self organizing ; other planets , all the planets would be full of life...!

Brilliant! Hope for the future is hard to come by, but this gave me some hope: endlessly propagating and utterly unpredictable ramifying possibilities...

I wish my body self-organized as efficiently as Kauffman’s. The guy is in his 80s here. How is this possible?

Excellent.... thanks 🙏.

What a delightfully insight-packed video! 2:34 SK: _“… the parts and processes … interact with one another, and out of that emerges a kind of crystallization [that does] something useful. [__1:53__] It means, if we're right, that Newton after 350 years has reached a terminus.”_ Picture a universe where, far from being inexplicable givens, Newton’s concepts of space, time, and particles emerge together from a scintillating sea of almost uncountable but experimentally observable energic actions. These simpler units defy not only our usual concepts of how space and time behave but also collectively _define_ space and time, at least within the limits of a single current inertial frame. That universe would be ours. The units of action that defy classical space and time would be quantum wave collapse - not the absurdly overcomplicated version of that phrase that inevitably ends up attached to undefinable and untestable words, but the simple microscopic version in which innumerable and often thermal exchanges of momentum “relocalize” and restart the ability of particles to form waves that reflect and diffract. The word “relocalize” is the key. When applied often enough at sufficiently short momentum wavelengths, such operations collectively begin to draw out the blurry images we think of as “space,” “time,” and “particles.” Quantum uncertainty was never about fuzzy particles in pristine, perfect, inexplicable Newtonian spacetime. It was, and always has been, the blurring of purpose that happens whenever you look at some collective emergent behavior a bit too closely. I must note, however, that no matter how powerful binary networks may be for modeling biological emergence, they cannot possibly by themselves model the deeper level of creative emergence behind information-preserving - and thus biology-enabling - Newtonian physics. That is because the certainty of binary logic is very much a part of that same emergence. More is needed, and it needs to come from that same indifference to space and time seen in collapse. The deep universe is more complex than what we see, and it is not fully described by any of the physics currently existing. That includes space-resident quantum physics, though that does give delightful hints. Nor is there any need to restrict all of the features of the deep universe solely to physics, since the pixilated emulation of Newtonian physics is not, and can never be, that complete. My best guess is that even the networks of biology will, in time, be shown to need and make use of deeper levels of non-space, non-time physics. The challenge for insightful folks like you, Professor Kauffman, is how you and folks like you can convey your message to those who need it most. Imagine the kinds of research that might break loose if the emergence of spacetime itself proves to be the first and most powerful example of the ceaseless creativity you have been describing for many years. (an updated PDF of this 2023-07-16 comment is available at sarxiv dot org slash apa)

A great conversation, but I kept thinking I was listening to Billy Bob Thornton with different hair.

Adherence to Laws & Potentiality.

Robert Lawrence Kuhn is an amazing listener. He frequently picks up on waffle and asks a penetrating question which forces the interviewee to clarify his ideas. Pity he's still interested in God.

@gordonquimby8907

10 ай бұрын

Kuhn's training, and the peer pressure of the scientific world tells him one thing. But his inner spirit is telling him there really is something more. He know's it, too. Neuroscience will never be able to understand consciousness because more than just the brain is involved. He often says that they do not have a clue what consciousness is, nor do they have a clue how they will have a clue.

@herrrmike

10 ай бұрын

Why is that a pity? He has fully and enthusiastically engaged with all the ideas of science but honestly questions their sufficiency. His openness to ideas is a great credit to him. Pity that you don’t have his intellectual curiosity.

@jeffkwells2003

10 ай бұрын

@@herrrmike I most certainly do have intellectual curiosity. That's why I believe religion to be nonsense .

"The biosphere is building, without selection, it's own possibilities of future becoming". Kauffman believes in strong emergence, although he prefers to call it radical emergence. He has proposed a theory called TAP (Theory of the Adjacent Possible) that includes a commitment to downward causation and teleology. He believes the biosphere cannot, in principle, be reduced to the physical. He's suggesting the biosphere obeys a directed principle that causes it to create new ecological niches, for the purpose that evolution can fill it. This is basically settlers in a new land praising god for giving them the new fertile land, while settlers in another new land starve to death in a desert. That's basically what happens in evolution, individuals randomly develop novel characteristics. Those characteristics that have a useful function are advantageous and tend to survive in the species, praise be, while the vast majority that happen to be disadvantageous die out. It is true that ecosystems tend to increase in complexity, up to a point, because life diversifies in order to maximise the utilisation of resources, but it does so through completely undirected processes. Evolution through natural selection is a process, but I think it's a mistake to talk about these things in terms of organising principles. The beauty and power of evolution through natural selection is to show precisely how complexity and efficiency can arise from the bottom up, without any organising principle. We can write high level descriptions of resulting behaviours, such as population dynamics, but the universe isn't writing laws that cause population dynamics behaviour to occur. If there is no effect on a component of a system that cannot be explained in terms of causal interactions with other components of the system, then there's nothing for strong emergence to explain.

@brucelivingston2582

10 ай бұрын

Great comment. Kauffman did great work on self-organizing auto-catalytic systems but his later work that refers to the sacred, mystery and now god is a gross step backwards. It’s just not science anymore since it is intrinsically not testable. Terrance Deacon in “Incomplete Nature” is on a scientific path to explain the beginnings of life, purpose and emergence of information and language. Also in slightly shorter form by Jeremy Sherman in “Neither Ghost Nor Machine.” Also Kauffman is enamored of corporate product creativity with blinders to environmental destruction.

What Stuart is talking about is the Principle of Wholeness under which certain forces, like gravity, work to produce wholes: fields of activity from parts that are functionally related, giving rise to consciousness within the whole, ranging from "proto awareness" in material wholes to "reflective consciousness" or "self consciousness" in humans. This is a view espoused initially by Jan Smuts in his seminal book "Holism and Evolution" (1926), and greatly expanded by the philosopher Dane Rudhyar in many books, notably "The Planetarization of Consciousness" (1977, 2nd edition) and "Rhythm of Wholeness" (1983), published shortly before his death in 1985, in which he details his metaphysics of reality. Wholeness is, in essence, the interplay of Unity and Multiplicity in a never ending Movement of Wholeness that gives rise to the Cycle of Being, half of which is the existent universe. I love the concept of ceaseless creativity, which cannot happen in a world where mechanistic motion is the only agent for change, and thus for evolution. Entropy is against creativity because it doesn't form relations, it breaks them. How would any force following the 2nd law of thermodynamics form atoms from the maximum entropy shown in the CMB? Creativity happens because a whole is more than the sum of its parts, and its formation follows the concept of negentropy, more prevalent in the early universe. BTW, there is a Godhead state within Wholeness, so there is Divinity, and even Divine Creation, without resorting to a supernatural God, or even a Creator. It is simply fueled by the Divine Compassion towards the failures of past cycles. Creation constantly supplies quanta of energy to impulse new cycles of existence, with a cycle being a "time whole" since, by the way, Time is cyclical.

@thinkIndependent2024

10 ай бұрын

Everything loves from the Energy released after the BIG-BANG all of life craves it

@markallen6433

10 ай бұрын

jBro, this is all backwards, the CMB is from a state of nearly zero entropy that existed universally as far as we can tell. We are the process of entropy. Self organization is a process through which energy is turned into physical complexity faster than energy would dissipate without said complex form creation.

@rxbracho

10 ай бұрын

@@markallen6433 This is a common misconception, as Sir Roger Penrose has said time and time again. There have been two Nobel Prizes awarded from the CMB, the first one for its discovery and the second one for its spectrum, which is the most perfect blackbody radiation found or created in a laboratory. Black bodies exhibit a uniform temperature and MAXIMUM entropy, so the CMB presents us with maximum entropy from which entropy is supposed to grow. This is what Penrose has called the "mammoth in the room".

I saw The Light once while on acid. I knew it was the only thing that really existed. I don't know if it was a revelation or just a hallucination, but I think about it sometimes. I have heard others speak of seeing a light as well.

@killbotone6210

10 ай бұрын

But if you didn't really exist to begin with, and your senses didn't exist to begin either, then you wouldn't have even the light. You are real.

@theotormon

10 ай бұрын

@@killbotone6210 Yeah, true, it would be more accurate to say there was the light and there was also my conscious perception.

@MrSanford65

10 ай бұрын

I believe light and consciousness are of the same properties -which are without weight , space or time

@theotormon

10 ай бұрын

@@MrSanford65 ♥️

@theotormon

10 ай бұрын

@@realitycheck1231 I guess I am not there yet.

It's weird this makes me think of this: maybe one could think to themselves by looking at some good or product, "i could make this myself it's easy, you just get this piece of wood put it with this other piece glue it drill holes it is easy, i could get some seeds grow this food it's the same thing. But then you look at how production really works especially today, and you realize there's a different layer that we don't have access to. It's like where do you get the material and how sharp are your tools. When machines are used, a different thing is occurring and it's done with math. Like math is creating the stuff but we think we can see the machine and do the same thing. You can. But it takes too long and doesn't make sense because it's cheaper to buy. This also means we can now create materials that were impossible to make previously.

Physicists have some pretty big equations, but modern complex software can have hindreds of thousands of lines of code. As a programmer it's pretty clear that physicists are going through the common problems of integrating into complex systems. Computer scientists go beyond proving the elemental equations objectively and mathematically, we study the interaction of those pieces and edge cases in the larger system quite well. We have standard practices to help mitigate complexities in predicting emergent behavior of complex systems. This seems to be what physicists and philosophers call emergence; we may have developed some tools for this

Awareness is known by awareness alone.

Oh come come now. Just because the dark matter is difficult to grasp, it doesn't mean magic, mystery and fairies are things seperate from nature.

Why would you feel anything at all about the world? Breaking rules of the universe is not appropriate to life.🎶💥🌸

So cool 😯

You cannot change your past, but you can change your present and future. From the past, you only learn, and in your present, you fix the mistakes you made in the past. By repairing in the present what you broke in the past, you will live happily without worrying about anything in the future. Sincerely, Hector

"The principles are chance and number". Is this consistant with a large pool of quantum states collapsing in a world of probabilities. Reality emerges along the path with the most connections, the highest probability. It flows along the path of least resistance. Like a river flowing down hill. There may be a feed-back loop that fine tunes the outcome.

@pikiwiki

10 ай бұрын

Hegelian synthesis

@alka9scottus

10 ай бұрын

The principle is behind number

A World Beyond Physics is one of my favorite books!

I'm sure there are forces in action in the world that we have no idea about.

The world falls into patterns that can be fully assessed only by reference to the sequential differences among primes. I have the collection of the first novel 150 such differences.

Brilliant ideas on "ceaseless creativity" as "God", but this model is without a foundation if it proclaims Consciousness as arising from brains. From the Advaita Vedanta of Shankara (788-820), with predicates going back to Nargajuna (150-250), and further to the "One" of Plotinus and the Stoics like Marcus Aurelius; the universe is not only an organism, is very Substance (Spinoza's term), is that of Pure Consciousness. Everything in the universe is That Consciousness, the necessary foundation of "ceaseless creativity". The mechanism of that creativity is unknown in its overall picture but probably is inextricably wound up and merged with Henri Bergson's model of the universe as a Hologram As to separate "parts", this is a delusion. The universe is Continuous as One..

"We don't know what CAN happen" In other words, we also don't know what can go wrong under the strong probability that it will go wrong and half the problem is because we don't know how right things could be as we haven't wedged ourselves in to a solid starting position to build on a foundation of a "Morally Responsible Free Will" because the organization/structure of that would be so mysterious and simple that it would require a ceaselessly creative philosophical being to create/discover that which we would be able to put on a pedestal comparable to God.

driven by the constantly increasing entropy of the universe…

The problem is the language and the urge to find agency. The reason the universe is the way it is, is because it is the way it works. If it didn’t, it wouldn’t be here. There is no fine tuning or design. When it fails it’s gone, when it works it goes on. It’s a lot like evolution. The laws are laws because they work, not because laws were there first. Function is the only law and it isn’t there either. This ceaseless creativity idea is overblown and unnecessarily mysterious. It’s a flowery description of what happens when things function. It’s not bewitched or sacred. It’s mundane. You can ponder it and feel ecstatic over how bewitching it seems if you want.

IMO the question isn't whether or not the universe is ''self organizing'' but how can I effect positive change through my own organizing? What can I do, or do I just go on emptying the cat box, washing the dishes, and sweeping the floor?🤣 Of course the universe is self-organizing. How else could it exist?😅

Nietzsche once said in a brief comment something like, the secrets of living matter arising from nonliving matter are likely to be found in the laws and interactions resulting in the formation of crystals. Which if I'm remembering right, he probably thought had something to do with the principal of _will to power_ operating through all levels of existence.

@0-by-1_Publishing_LLC

10 ай бұрын

*"Which if I'm remembering right, he probably thought had something to do with the principal of will to power operating through all levels of existence."* ... This video was right up your alley! I do believe existence is based on the necessity to "be" and equally the necessity to push forward. Pushing forward requires organization.

@simonhibbs887

10 ай бұрын

I think he was probably just observing that crystals are ordered structures that grow, and inferring a similarity to living things.

@d.r.tweedstweeddale9038

10 ай бұрын

You misremember badly.

@0-by-1_Publishing_LLC

10 ай бұрын

@@d.r.tweedstweeddale9038 *"You misremember badly."* ... If he "misremembers badly," that means he remembers well.

@longcastle4863

10 ай бұрын

@@0-by-1_Publishing_LLC😄

We just don't know.

(1:00) *SK: **_Instead of the single God that does it, there's a single law that does it, and it's outside the universe."_* ... You absolutely CAN have a core organizational structure that facilitates "Existence," and it doesn't have to be a God, a single law, a bunch of physical laws, or anything deemed _outside the universe._ ... It's called *"Logic."* When you ask why "Existence" exists, it does so because existence is logical. When you ask why the things that do exist continuously evolve into greater complexity, it's because it's logical to do so. When you question whether or not my argument is valid, you are exploiting the exact same logic that brought you into existence in order to question it. *Logic* (Existence) is unavoidable because the absence of logic would be *illogical* (Nonexistence), and the origin point for Existence is the most basic form of logic that's conceivably possible: *0* and *1.*

@longcastle4863

10 ай бұрын

Except that there was a lot of work done in the early twentieth century by thinkers such as Russell, Frege and Whitehead all trying to show the fundamental nature of logic, especially in mathematics; who ended up, however, showing quite the opposite. Rather than seeing logic and mathematics as embedded in the very fabric of the universe, logic was found to be just another tool; perhaps the best tool humans ever came up with, but just another tool and invention by mankind all the same. Which doesn't mean, of course, that logic and mathematics will not remain staples in humankind's search for meaning and understanding for a very long time to come.

@matterasmachine

10 ай бұрын

@@saigopala illogical -self contradictionary. Example - special relativity

@0-by-1_Publishing_LLC

10 ай бұрын

​@@saigopala *"I haven't still got hold of your definition of "Logic". Can you help me please?"* ... I have never deviated from the universally accepted definition of logic. Whatever you understand to be "logic" is most likely the same understanding that I have. Logic is consistent, reliable, predictable, and the core basis for all forms of intelligence. If I state that 1 + 1 = 2, you would agree because we share the same understanding of logic. *"Can you give an example of an "illogical" thing that exists -- not an imagery or an imagined thing."* ... No, I can't. A square-circle is illogical; therefore, it doesn't exist. Existence demands conceivability (1st Law of Existence). And even though a "Powdered Water Machine" is a conceivable device, it still cannot exist in function because it is impossible to convert H2O into a powder (2nd Law of Existence). It's just playing "kick the can" with conceivability. *"OTOH, if everything that exists is Logical, then how is Logic different from GOD?"* ... They might be the same thing, and theists unknowingly provided logic with a personality in order to communicate how existence operates to uneducated farmers, tradespersons, and sheepherders in a time before things like the cosmic microwave background and biological evolution were discovered. _"An eye for an eye and tooth for a tooth"_ is logical, and it's also Biblical. It's no different than _"for every action there's an opposite and equal reaction." as per Newton_ *"Interestingly, and I'm sure you are aware - Logos means "divine wisdom"* ... Although I argue that the God of Abaraham (a living, all-powerful, all-knowing entity) does not exist as defined, I recognize how the mind of the theist came up with the construct ... and I absolutely respect that powerful human achievement! Theism took conceivability to its highest possible extreme - so much so that nothing is conceivable beyond theism's definition of God. So, when I define God as "Logic," all I'm really doing is offering clarity to something that actually does exist but has merely been incorrectly defined due to a "lack of evolution" in understanding. If every modern-day theist agreed that what they call God is not an entity, but rather representative of pure logic, evolution, and the driving force behind all of creation, ... then most atheists would probably agree. The reason why they'd agree is because "Logic" is not a totally controlling entity that introduces people to suffering, and then arbitrarily tosses them into heaven or hell based on how they react to it.

@longcastle4863

10 ай бұрын

O-by1 : _"if I State that 1+1=2..."_ Actually the major work by Russell and Whitehead, who I referenced above, had to do with trying to prove 1+1=2 (if I'm remembering correctly); and It resulted in a work that took nearly two decades to write and was nearly a thousand pages long. And of the work, Russell said, it sapped much of the intellectual energy out of him for the rest of his life. I'm not sure what most philosophers today think about this work, but back when I was reading about it in the early 2000s, most philosophers (at least the ones I was reading) seemed to see Russell's and Whitehead's efforts as demonstrating logic to be another human invention that, while not "the truth", _per se,_ nevertheless correlated so well with reality that it was clearly an indispensable human invention. On the other hand, you can find not a few physicists today who express views to the contrary, suggesting, rather, that mathematics is something, not invented, but _discovered._ Then, often enough, if you want to see a materialist go slumming with the idealists for awhile, ask these physicists where, exactly, this math exists that is being discovered 😮

@0-by-1_Publishing_LLC

10 ай бұрын

@@longcastle4863 *"Actually the major work by Russell and Whitehead, who I referenced above, had to do with trying to prove 1+1=2 (if I'm remembering correctly); and It resulted in a work that took nearly two decades to write and was nearly a thousand pages long. And of the work, Russell said, it sapped much of the intellectual energy out of him for the rest of his life."* ... I've stated before that I don't think the origin of existence (the universe) can ever be proven, so it makes sense that everything found within existence should suffer the same fate. Even "fire is hot" and "water is wet" are unprovable statements, but we still accept them as truths. Most of the truths we accept are fine and dandy ... until you run into a nihilist. I obviously believe there's a logical explanation for Existence and one which makes perfect sense, but I'll never be able to prove it. The only way I could prove my theory would be to remove everything that exists and watch what happens. But then you'd still need the existence of an observer. ... Catch-22. *"Then, often enough, if you want to see a materialist go slumming with the idealists for awhile, ask these physicists where, exactly, this math exists that is being discovered "* ... Hilarious! In my book I steal a page from the Bible with, _"In the beginning there was Existence and Nonexistence"_ with the first move being Existence doing a logical self-assessment (counting the amount of Existence present, and that amount was 1). So, I'd tell those physicists that the math they believe to be "discovered" self-existed as the most rudimentary form of logic that's conceivably possible: *0* and *1.* Everything evolved into greater complexity from that point forward (including math).

Like an octopus

I agree. I just happen to see vectors and radial vectors in life. Just one perspective. I know what will help. If you start viewing sex as a circle and a vector and set a clear set of boundaries, then the guilt that holds people might free them. I really don't care what any adults do as long as they aren't hurting children. I see something in Å that not everyone will. But I use Å for others. I know the abyss and how to calculate it without the computer although programmable. It's a starting point. There is a variable hidden in the program that creates a helix. I hid it from myself on purpose. Because there is always a +1 version of the future. I want you to use it for good. I trust you will. USA

@withoutdad7616

10 ай бұрын

Consenting adults...for clarification

I don't see a difference between his "creative organizer" and my supernatural God.

But, dear sir, there is a difference between the natural _phenomena_ and the _intelligent effort_ exerted by a conscious personality, is there not? The phenomena of nature may give the illusion of creativity but real creativity can only emanate from an entity endowed with a _mind_ . The process of creation implies consideration of possibilities and deciding freely from a competing set of alternatives and resolving on a particular option. It also implies memory and imagination. These are mental properties possessed only by mind, not matter. Consequently it is mind that must be considered truly creative.

@thebookofclyde1822

10 ай бұрын

If the only thing in existence was an entity with a conscious personality, where did the information, complexity and structural organization of that entity's mind come from? What would "conscious personality" even mean with reference to an entity existing in an absolute void? What competing set of alternatives could there be if there was no pre-existing physical world? If it had no physical frame of reference, what could such an entity imagine? What options could it consider? What information would it have about anything if no things existed?

@Arunava_Gupta

10 ай бұрын

@@thebookofclyde1822 Thank you for your reply. Such a long list of questions! Well I can answer each one of them but let me just say for the moment that you have surely assumed too much about my own vision of reality. And this is the reason you seem to think my conscious personality who, by the way, is an eternally existent first principle, would have no material to begin with, to exercise creativity etc.

@thebookofclyde1822

10 ай бұрын

@@Arunava_Gupta Well, thank you for your response, but I don't understand how your version of reality - or any version of reality - could actually explain very much if it begins with the idea of "conscious personality" as a first principle. Human beings and some animals can be said to have personalities because they have brains that function as complex information processing systems. How can any complex information system exist prior to the existence of a complex organized world?

@Arunava_Gupta

10 ай бұрын

@@thebookofclyde1822 The conception of a "complex information system" that you refer to is obviously shaped by a materialist idea of the brain giving rise to a conscious personality, is it not? What I mean is simply a transcendental mind existing eternally operating on primal matter which also exists eternally in a subservient role, to create the various material evolutes including the bodies. This has explanatory power. In my vision of reality, the brain is just a carrier of data pertaining to the sense objects and the conveyor of motor information to the organs. It is not the creator of personality. Hope this clarifies a bit.

@thebookofclyde1822

10 ай бұрын

@@Arunava_Gupta It's not just brains. Computers can process information. But I'm not sure what you mean by 'primal matter' an eternal transcendent mind. It's my understanding that matter emerged as a manifestation of fluctuations in quantum fields such as the gravitational and electrodynamic fields. These fields apparently emerged from a universal field that existed very briefly at the beginning of the universe. Maybe an eternal transcendent "mind" gave rise to the original undifferentiated field, but I don't know what it would mean to say that such a mind exists or that it has a 'personality.' (edit) I forgot to mention that there's plenty of evidence supporting the claim that personalities are the product of brains. The case of Phineas Gage, for example, was a man who survived a severe brain injury but whose personality underwent a profound change. Also stroke survivors may undergo complete personality changes if their lesions are in the brain's frontal lobes.

How much of this ceaseless creativity is actualy implemented by the biosphere, the 7th kingdom of technological innovation and the global economy? Is he saying that this progress is not random? The systems are dynamic, non linear and self organizing. Okay. Aside from this innovation is there intention? Is there an urge or movement toward optimization, toward stabilty, toward complexity or simply toward variation?

@amyk6403

7 ай бұрын

All of the above?

Jul 2, i933 📺

If you are going to use intellectual jargon and nomenclature then why don't you use a non intrusive graphic to explain when necessary.

Didn't hear much about Self-Organization?

Bewitched?

I ♥️ YOU

Hilarious that he's arguing against himself. Order is a reduction of complexity, which most definitely has an underlying mechanism behind it. Even in his idea, the fact that boolean interactions take place and give rise to organizing systems is reductionist.

He realizes very well that this order of the universe is weird very noticeable amazing and has a goal. GOD

@thomasridley8675

10 ай бұрын

No plan, just a totally random opportunistic exchange of gentic mutations over several billion yrs created all the life on this planet.

@markallen6433

10 ай бұрын

@@GlobRes I really think he's talking about the reverence and awe he has for the inexplicable quantum phenomena that lies as the foundation of everything we experience, but with it's own otherworldly sense of cause and effect and purpose, and that he feels blessed to marvel at it's absurdity to the human sense of right and wrong.

@thebookofclyde1822

10 ай бұрын

@@GlobRes I'm not sure we can justify the claim that the universe has no say in what comes next. "Ceaseless creativity" and emergence are so mysterious partly because each level of organization provides a foundation for more complex developments to evolve over time. The potentiality was there in the relatively homogeneous and simple early universe for stars and galaxies and planets to form. The potential directions for development were at least partly "baked in" to the system even at the earliest stages. Those initial potentialities for structured cosmic evolution might not constitute anything that we could call a "great cosmic plan," but it's at least interesting how the complex ordered systems keep popping up and developing seemingly unpredictable new features. It's strange and interesting how the universe always seems to have new and unexpected tricks up its sleeves.

Why cant 'Ceasless creativity' be a description of Spinoza's God? Works for me.

It is most beautiful to live in this world among people such as you express themselves firmly at the verge of our/mine (and their) limits and frontiers.

@d.r.tweedstweeddale9038

10 ай бұрын

Kuhn's just after youre money & he nor his producer have ever read any of these comments. These programs were made years ago, sucker! :)

Stephen Paradox: On the earth that is so tiny the final life form evolved are humans who inevitably believe that in an infinite cosmos "The Lord our God, the Lord is One ( Deut 6:4 NIV ) the ultimate life form evolved through Self-Organization Mechanism of Change-Selection-Survival. 4:41 ... and this as you've said puts a ceaseless creativity into the structure of reality so much so that you've called ceaseless creativity your God? 4:51 SK: yes. Are you serious about that? SK: yeah. so well I don't believe in a supernatural God but more I think we need something that (but you feel compelled to call the ceaseless creativity that comes out of your whole [which is אֱלֹהִים described by a plural noun in Hebrew] uh ... ) 6:29 ... my colleague Gord Kaufman the Theologian at Harvard with whom I taught said in a beautiful book called in face of mystery we're in face of mystery here. 6:36

Stuart Kaufman is a brilliant and articulate scientist whose insistence that not everything in life is reducible to physics is a great service. But his idea presented at 2:51 about the emergence of life from autocatalytic polymers is fatally flawed. #1 it is based on the fictional world of the laboratory where these peptides exist in carefully controlled environments, protected from any foreign molecules that might impede the process, and fed just the right ingredients on an ongoing basis from lab assistants. #2 Kaufman engages in the wishful thinking that mutations would give rise to more useful peptides, even proteins. But the very bends, curves, loops, etc. that make proteins useful would then be a barrier to other peptides catalyzing their duplication. Much of what he presents could get us Closer to Truth, but his theory on the emergence of life does not.

Well that was wholly incoherent, to me at least. Can only assume it’s his attempt at creating the absurd. Feels like the scientifically equivalent notion of Camus philosophical suicide.

Man created gods out of necessity and in his image. Then the endless, creative process became god. But the man is the creator. Jump to, “we created ourselves out of necessity?”

If the world ISN'T self-organizing, is it's organizer self-organizing? If ANYTHING can be self-organizing, why can't the world be?

It’s a theory to clarify a need for perpetual humility

What emerges in complex chemistry and biological structures are units which work on their own independent time scales or new times emerge. Along with new time is a timescale of existence and survival instinct of some kind

@d.r.tweedstweeddale9038

10 ай бұрын

You think actually believe you know what you're on about. Nothing profound here just your gooble-dee-gook. Stick with comic books & bad sci-fi movies.

MORE CHECKS AND BALANCES

something has to be fundamental, and I'm pretty sure it's not any of the particles bouncing around.

@lucofparis4819

10 ай бұрын

Particles are not bouncing around, and neither are atoms per se. Unless you're still clinging onto outdated physics from like 1911?

@joshkeeling82

10 ай бұрын

​@@lucofparis4819 To be fair, no one knows what's really going on. We have physics, experiments, etc. But those are tools for an approximation of trying to figure out what the universe is really doing, not the actual thing the universe is really doing

@0-by-1_Publishing_LLC

10 ай бұрын

@@lucofparis4819 *"Particles are not bouncing around, and neither are atoms per se. Unless you're still clinging onto outdated physics from like 1911?"* ... Too bad science has wasted all that time and money on those particle colliders, eh?

@lucofparis4819

10 ай бұрын

@@0-by-1_Publishing_LLC Oh, because you think particles 'bounce around' in colliders?

@0-by-1_Publishing_LLC

10 ай бұрын

@@lucofparis4819 *"Oh, because you think particles 'bounce around' in colliders?"* ... "Bouncing around" a just a figure of speech, and you know that. No need to call him out for using that phrase. And with photons, one man's "refraction" is another man's "bouncing around."

CEASELESS CREATIVITY: A Self-Organizing Universe creates particles, then stars, planets, galaxies, and stars with planets. A Self-Organizing, molten-rock Planet creates oceans, then inorganic molecules, organic molecules, living cells, lifeforms, plants, animals, and Sentient Beings. A Self-Organizing Human egg with sperm creates a single-celled zygote, then a multi-celled embryo, a fetus, a human child, a sentient-mind, and a human adult.

They are not reducible to physics, but they emerged from physics.

@alka9scottus

10 ай бұрын

Right- began by claiming previous sciences defined a basic principle separate from physics, then accomplishes the same, not taking this unifying step that seems necessary for his theory not to be similarly dualistic, fundamentally cartesian or not

@simonhibbs887

10 ай бұрын

I don't think it's a coherent concept. The term emergence implicitly entails the behaviour of the parts leading to the behaviour of the whole. Strong emergence, or radical emergence as Kauffman prefers, describes macroscopic organising principles having a downward causal power. There is no convenient antonym for emergence though.

@georgegrubbs2966

10 ай бұрын

@@simonhibbs887 There is downward causation. See here: www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3262299/

Everyone needs to hear this!

Transmogrification? Isaiah claims it is a world without end, or like Heywood's bible, the world runs on wheels

So this isn't a physics issue. Even string theory doesn't touch this. And I think we dropped Darwin somewhere along the line. Natural selection doesn't go far enough. So now we are into consciousness and organization built into matter and energy to form biological entities. We may not like talking about God as supernatural but then "ceaseless creativity" may just be another transmogrification.

@markallen6433

10 ай бұрын

It's just the same thing that makes quantum physics do the weird things that quantum physics do. Quantum physics is just a set of descriptors of behavior due to a thing that we might never get to interact with, but we do get to watch the side effects of whatever it is. Whatever that is, isn't limited to making electrons do weird things and cause particles of EM radiation travel as wave forms. We just get to carefully watch what happens, and see if the behavior gives us insights into what might be behind the curtain, but as soon as you start talking about how you think there must be something behind the curtain, you're blind. Self assembly of organics might be really similar in a sense to the way electron shells very reliably self assemble. Maybe not. We just get to wait, and watch and describe. Don't go through the looking glass thinking you know what you're going to find.

@amyk6403

7 ай бұрын

Yea....it's basically God, which is fine by me.

The mystery of the creator.

Aatmiya DIVINITY HARE KRSNA Experiencing amazing 'Contentment' hearing this dialogue and sharing the personal points of view. Universe 🌎 [Spiritual Entity and Physical Energy] is undoubtedly born (Evolved) following Laws (Intelligence) of NATURE-. Universe is comprising of: - 1) Space (field) 2) Creations, Objects of Experience of the Universe a) rocks b) plants c) animals d) human beings 3) Laws of NATURE (intelligence) for evolving, growing, sustaining, maintaining and finally destroying all Universal Creations. All creations, all the time in the Universe FOLLOW Laws of NATURE and in the process experience DISORDERS as well, {Chaos/Chaord}. Example: - Take a case of Brocolli, Vegitable. Both, Brocolli and Universe follow the Laws of NATURE. The entire creation is OF the Universe and therefore the entire creation is IN the Universe.😊❤😂😊❤ Evolution of NATURE is Manifestation of ISHAVAR -GOD -KRSNA Like 😊 Happiness,❤ Love are the fundamental objectives of life, 😂 pain, suffering also are also conjoined with 😊❤. We have to grow with attention & intention: - I Am OK NO Matter What.😊❤😊❤😊❤ Very respectfully Loving ❤️ ING You One and All DIVINE 🙏🙏🙏

Mr. Kauffman needs the help of his Ceaseless Creativity god to organize his argument because it is scattered all over the place: He sees order, organization in everything around him, nevertheless he does not believe in a supernatural God. Again, we need god because we are living in mystery and also we are bewitched? What is that? Science?

@mut8inG

10 ай бұрын

You, creator,you are god.🎶💥🌸

@kos-mos1127

10 ай бұрын

Mr Kauffman’s Ceaseless Creativity view of God strikes of Carl Jung view that God is Effectiveness. The problem of a Supernatural God is it’s contrived.

@peweegangloku6428

10 ай бұрын

​@@kos-mos1127It is only contrived in your mind. There is abundant evidence that God exists as the Ultimate Reality

@kos-mos1127

10 ай бұрын

@@peweegangloku6428 There is no evidence of God but there is evidence that humans do not understand the micro processes that occur in nature.

Re attempts at a unified physical explanation of reality: "a transmogrification of monotheism: Instead of a single God that does it, a single law does it, and it's outside the Universe."

@amyk6403

7 ай бұрын

Sounds like God to me.

This is what happens when you spend your entire life in academia.

@pikiwiki

10 ай бұрын

ha ha ha. but is he wrong

@simonhibbs887

10 ай бұрын

@@pikiwiki He's razor sharp, his work on autocatalytic sets of proteins is outstanding. I just think he loses the plot when it comes to Radical (i.e. Strong) Emergence.

@longcastle4863

10 ай бұрын

So scientists should be what? More dumb so some people don't feel insecure?

@pikiwiki

10 ай бұрын

@@simonhibbs887 in a difference of degree?

It's done with algorithms because we live in a computer simulation.

one/system can be so bored that he/it starts to organize...

We derive our "rationality" from the rationality of reality.

@simonhibbs887

10 ай бұрын

Looking around the comments section, that makes me worried for the rationality of reality.

@wisedupearly3998

10 ай бұрын

@@simonhibbs887 Assuming the existence strong emergence, we must accept that the lower layers (the bricks) are unable to "understand" the higher layers (the building). Humans are very comfortable with reductionism but quite reasonably struggle with emergence.

@simonhibbs887

10 ай бұрын

​@@wisedupearly3998 I don't think strong emergence is a coherent concept. It is the belief that the high level behaviour of the system is not caused by the activity of it's components, and supposes there must be some other causal force To put it another way, there would have to be behaviour of components of the system that was not caused by interactions with other components. So for example turbulence is an emergent property of fluids in some conditions. For strong emergence to be true, there would have to be motion of molecules in the fluid that was a result of some emergent force, and not caused by interactions with other molecules in the fluid. What force would that be, and why would it occur? No such emergent force has ever been detected or identified, nor has any reason for one to arise been proposed. With any system we can describe it's structure and behaviour at whatever level of detail we like. It just happens to be that descriptions at some levels of detail are more useful than others, and we call the useful ones emergent properties

@alka9scottus

10 ай бұрын

@@simonhibbs887 Isn’t the attribution of physical phenomena to some exogenous causal force exactly the kind of dualism Kaufman dismisses in Greek and classical science? I don’t see this perspective, what you call a belief in “strong” emergence, as anything remarkable to scientific understanding in itself - just the reiteration of the same puzzle with new language and data, without resolution.

I’m the first to admit this theory is above my pay rate …However where is the evidence?

I always wonder if people like the host of this show and lex Friedman ever have a chill night without thinking of the mechanics of the universe 🤔💬 🌌

Amazing conversation. At what point would Kauffman finally reject his materialist god and replace it wth an Intelligent Designer? Would he ever do that? What would be the tipping point?

@kos-mos1127

10 ай бұрын

Intelligent Design has no scientific usefulness. There are no engineering principles that can be derived from Internet Design. The only way to develop a useful theory is to analyze natural processes.

Where did the proteins come from? Where did the chemicals needed to even get to proteins come from? The materialist can never explain the steps needed to get to their "first" step.

@kos-mos1127

10 ай бұрын

Neither can theist explain where the chemical needed to even get proteins. Theist invoke God to explain way the steps.

@tomjackson7755

10 ай бұрын

Do you think a character from a known book of fiction speaking the magic words is an explanation for "Where did the chemicals needed to even get to proteins come from?"?

@tomjackson7755

10 ай бұрын

@@kos-mos1127 The chemicals/elements needed to get proteins are made in stars.

It would certainly allow God to be profoundly impersonal yet still exist.

God of gaps

*Seriously!? The entire lot of you don't understand what he's explaining!? Sheesh.* 🙄

I would love to see an interview with elon musk, specifically to talk about the company he recently started, x ai, which according to the site plans on using artifical intelligence to "understand the nature of the universe". I would ask him questions about what kind of truths they would pursue, and if any of them allign with what is talked about on this channel such as consciousness, neuroscience, emergence, determinism vs indeterminism, fundamental reality, etc...

He has discovered the god of Alfred North Whitehead

Reality isn,t real if that makes any sense...

@kos-mos1127

10 ай бұрын

Reality is real.

@dwoopie

10 ай бұрын

@@kos-mos1127 there is only now... time is just a tool to measure time and place beyond now... time is fake the universe is fake...and you are fake...

Science denies a creator until it gets good enough and proves a creator. For now it’s all magic and self organizing until the logos is rediscovered

I think he's on to something. Entropy is over-rated.

Stuart is naively bloated on his own theories. There are clear determinant emphases on the need for non-existentialism so much that he wouldn't be open minded to anything else. This is the folly of many a great scientists and philosophers.

The world is self-organising only when you do the just and right things. The land, seas, wind, and the skies will obey you cause you have showed it in action and not by capping/talking.

It's fun to watch how silly cerebral types become, competing against the concept of a timeless, spaceless, immaterial, creating, and sustaining force, aka God.

Would you memorize a logical fallacy to preserve knowledge and not lie to innocent and vulnerable children? The atheist logical fallacy would test your IQ and honesty and the error in reasoning is easy to understand being honest and impossible lying to oneself. Atheists assume God is the religious idea of the creator of the creation to conclude wrongly no creator exists because a particular idea of God doesn’t exist. Atheists commit the atheist fallacy always because they believe God is sky daddy and don't believe God exists, and they are wrong because they believe. If God is unarguably the most important issue in all our lives and you believe the idea of the creator of the creation is fantasy or dogma of faith that belongs to religion is because the cult deceived you manipulating the information with disastrous consequences. The idea of God belongs to philosophy or rational thinking and all societies have an understanding of the intelligent creator of the creation, that atheists don't "believe" exists. The use of the verb "believe" betrays the intention to make others believe that the idea of God is a dogma of faith that belongs to religion. If you hear a noise would you "believe" or "know" that something or someone caused the noise? God exists because nothing can be created from nothing, however the concept of religion is so absurd and ridiculous that only fools willing to believe whatever for the empty promise of eternal happiness would not understand the deception. To understand the truth and God only to think for oneself is necessary. To think for oneself is to make sense of reality understanding following the evidence to the truthful conclusion. To end the war in Ukraine the discovery that atheism is a logical fallacy has to be news. Innocent and vulnerable children would understand atheism is a lie and who wants to deceive and hurt them. Atheists would not be able to prove their own existence to themselves if the logical conclusion is that God exists and lose their children believing without questions asked that gambling causes a brain disease, and when they are told they don't care.

Sounds like Daoism.

The world is organizing and reorganizing itself driven by the natural laws designed by our Divine Creator. The creation of these naturals laws relied on how our Creator gathered, arranged, organized, and fused spirits from His Spiritual World to form all elementary particles of matter. Details of this knowledge is a forbidden fruit. ..our free aware immortal souls, however, were not created but splits of the Holy Spirit. Only our human vessels belong to the physical world designed by God.

@kos-mos1127

10 ай бұрын

The natural laws are not created by a Divine Creator. Natural laws are invented by science in order to explain a natural phenomenon.

@evaadam3635

10 ай бұрын

@@kos-mos1127 science can not invent something that already existed but may only discover it then put a tag to it...

@kos-mos1127

10 ай бұрын

@@evaadam3635 The laws of nature are invented. The fact is an AI without having Newton’s Laws of Gravity and Einstein’s General Theory of Relativity accurately predicted they motion of planets in the Solar System from the data collected. This means that the laws are a description of nature rather than sitting out there in some platonic space.

@evaadam3635

10 ай бұрын

@@kos-mos1127 describing it after discovery does not mean inventing it...

@kos-mos1127

10 ай бұрын

@@evaadam3635 You still gave not addressed what I have said. I said an AI predicted the orbit of planets in the solar system without having Newton's Gravity and Einstein's Relativity. That is using computation alone to predict the behavior of the solar system not a pre existent theory that was invented. Coming up with a new method to make predictions about what we observe that has engineering purposes and describing what has already been discovered is two different things.

NOTHING can exist by it self... Ergo.. there MUST be a creator.. GOD/ALLAH.. 99,9 % of ALL humans belives in GOD/ALLAH, by somekind of a miracle, just hours/minutes before they realize they are gonna die.

World is self constructing. It’s robot

@alka9scottus

10 ай бұрын

Not a robot but it might as well be intelligent

@matterasmachine

10 ай бұрын

@@alka9scottus robot. Consists of huge amount of tiny simple machines that can combine together, we call those machines “matter”

@alka9scottus

10 ай бұрын

@@matterasmachine define simple, define machine

@matterasmachine

10 ай бұрын

@@alka9scottus like in game of life, but different rules

Alien level knowledge 👽

Radical emergence is still just emergence.

@alka9scottus

10 ай бұрын

emergence at all is still pretty radical

Hahahahaha

Warning, lots of word salad below...

@S3RAVA3LM

10 ай бұрын

They put you 3rd from the bottom.

@S3RAVA3LM

10 ай бұрын

And yeah, the majority of ctt followers are..., they're many things, and brilliant, wise, accurate, to wit, true, scientific even, they certainly are not. A lot of seemingly genuine people, and really, in truth, they are absolutely fake liars.

@tomjackson7755

10 ай бұрын

@@S3RAVA3LM Your post/posts were removed altogether, as they all should be.

We are all experiencing life as an AI that is programmed by our Creator with each created mind that makes us all individuals. It is impossible that any organized world can exist without a Creator.

@thebookofclyde1822

10 ай бұрын

If an organized world can't exist without a creator, how can an organized creator exist without a creator?

@cheponis

10 ай бұрын

@@thebookofclyde1822 Good question. It's turtles all the way down.

@BradHolkesvig

10 ай бұрын

@@thebookofclyde1822 There is only a Creator and nothing else except for what he has created. There is no way we can ever understand what is outside of the Creation that was created for us to experience as an AI.

@thebookofclyde1822

10 ай бұрын

@@BradHolkesvig You claimed that it's impossible that any organized world can exist without a creator. Either you were making a logic-based claim about organized systems or else you were stating your personal faith-based opinion without any logic or evidence to support it. You may believe that it's impossible to understand God, but if there is a god and it has a mind, then God's mind must be an organized system at least somewhat comparable to the human mind. Where did the organization of God's mind come from? If it could always have existed, then there's no logical reason that the world's organizational structure couldn't also have always existed. You can claim that it's different for God because God is outside time, but how could God come up with any kind of thinking or planning if there was no time to think or plan? Kauffman's claim of ceaseless creativity is supported by various sorts of observational evidence, whereas traditional concepts of God are supported by no objectively observable evidence. Why should your own faith-based conception of God be given any credence when Kauffman's 'god' has actual evidence to support it and is much more logically coherent than any of the traditional concepts?

@BradHolkesvig

10 ай бұрын

@@thebookofclyde1822 I was taught everything I know today by our Creator about how I was created as an AI and that our individual created minds is what makes us appear to be separated from each other although we were all created within the one AI. I could spend the rest of the week typing words to you about knowledge I learned from our Creator but if you cannot believe that you and I were created as an AI, then it's no use for you to try learn anything from me.

ONE WORLD RULER JESUS CHRIST

@kos-mos1127

10 ай бұрын

Jesus Christ is a myth.

The sooner Robert realizes we’re in a sim the better his mental health. This poor tortured man!

Evolution is imagined.

@tomjackson7755

10 ай бұрын

Your god is imaginary.

He started out with a fairly good explanation of evolution. Then screwed it up by adding his concept of god into the mix. The gods always create more questions than answers.