Theory of monism panpsychism - Wikiversity
What do you think of these?
What specifically did you want to debate? Panpsychism is unsupported by any objective evidence, we had someone peddling it on here a while back, it was a long tedious thread, but at the end all he had was an empty bag of irrational subjective arguments, that he kept repeating ad nauseam.
I would like to debate any of the proofs in that link.
You will need to post one before anyone can take a look, but prima facie if a proof existed that had been peer reviewed for panpsychism, it would be global news, so first maybe explain why it seems to be breaking here yet again, only I am extremely dubious.
FYI, this was the same claim the other poster made, and again he had an empty bag.
1 Like
Ok I will post the theory under review;
predicate; T:___is a thing.
metalogic; |-(β!{}), ({}β‘{}), ({}={}), ({}β{}), ({}:{}β{}), (β{}ββ{}), ({}>>{}), ({}β{}), ({}β{})
logic; |-(β!{})β({}β‘{})β({}={})β({}β{})β({}:{}β{})β(β{}ββ{} )β({}>>{})β({}β{})β({}β{})
[({}:{}β{})β§(β{}ββ{})β§({}>>{})], ({}β{})
[|-(β!{})β§({}β‘{})β§({}={})β§({}β{})β§({}:{}β{})β§(β{}ββ{} )β§({}>>{})β§({}β{})], ({}β{})
[({}β{})β§({}β{})], (ββx=β!U)Tx
({}>>{}), (U<<>>βx)Tx
β(ββx=β!U)Txβ(U<<>>βx)Txβ(βxβUββx)Txββ¦
(βE=Ek+Ep)β§(E=mc^2)β§(E=Δ§Ο/2)β§(P=β«βEdv)β(βxβEββx)Txβ(Uβ‘E)ββ¦
((ββxβ‘β!E)β§(E<<>>βx))Txβ(E>>E)β§(βPβEββP)
|-(β!{}), assuming nothing, I,e, using no non-logical axioms, it follows that there is an assuming, or thinking. This particular thinking amounts to the existence of one empty set or the word nothing.
β({}β‘{}), therefore nothing is nothing;
β({}={}), therefore nothing equals nothing,
β({}β{}), therefore nothing implies nothing,
β({}:{}β{}) therefore nothing has the property of nothing,
β(β{}ββ{}) therefore nothing exists as nothing,
β({}>>{}), therefore nothing is the cause of nothing,
β({}β{}), therefore nothing is in nothing,
β({}β{}), therefore nothing is made of nothing,
??? therefore nothing is nonexistence,
??? therefore nowhere and at no time has nothing existed.
β(ββx=β!U)Tx, therefore the sum of everything equals by generalization the existence of one universe
β(U<<>>βx)Tx, therefore the universe is causal with everything
β(βxβUββx)Tx, therefore everything is in the universe and is made of the universe (the universe has substance)
β(βE=Ek+Ep)β§(E=mc^2)β§(E=Δ§Ο/2)β§(P=β«βEdv), therefore there is conservation of energy, it cannot be created nor destroyed, it is therefore eternal; and from mass-energy equivalence, it is immanently omnipresent, and from zero-point energy, it is transcendently omnipresent, and infinite; and from power-integral it solves the omnipotence paradoxes: For example, it cannot create a finite rock that it infinite cannot lift, and it cannot destroy itself, power is the transformation of energy not the destruction of energy
β(βxβEββx)Tx, therefore everything is in energy and made of energy
β(Uβ‘E), therefore the universe is energy
β((ββxβ‘β!E)β§(E<<>>βx))Tx, therefore the sum of everything is one energy, and energy is causal with everything
β(E>>E)β§(βPβEββP), therefore energy is self-causal, self-deterministic, cybernetically teleological, where self determinism is consciousness, where energy is consciousness, and all power is in energy and made of energy, omnipotence intelligence is proportional to energy density, where a heavy metal chamber or a gold crown will increase our intelligence
Great, why hasnβt it been published, and peer reviewed?
1 Like
Itβs under wikiversity public review.
If it passes public review it will eventually be peer reviewed.
When that happens come back, and let us know. Meantime I am sure someone here will take a look, and offer their thoughts.
I am curious why you brought it to an atheist forum? Surely a mathematics forum would be a better place to offer up a proof.
1 Like
If you would like to discuss a peer reviewed paper;
http://knowledgebase.ctmu.net/wp-content/uploads/2018/10/Langan_CTMU_0929021-1.pdf
I am off to bed actually, early start, but maybe someone will take a look. Welcome to AR.
Good night. TY
Do you know of any mathematics forums that consider ontology and theology?
If you want to discuss a paper, it is expected that you at the very least give us a summary of the paper, and present the topic(s) you want to discuss. So: What is the paper about, and exactly what from that paper do you want to discuss?
Edit: Oh, and in which journal is it published?
1 Like
Inasmuch as science is observational or perceptual in nature, the goal of providing a scientific model and mechanism for the evolution of complex systems ultimately requires a supporting theory of reality of which perception itself is the model (or theory-to-universe mapping). Where information is the abstract currency of perception, such a theory must incorporate the theory of information while extending the information concept to incorporate reflexive self-processing in order to achieve an intrinsic (self-contained) description of reality. This extension is associated with a limiting formulation of model theory identifying mental and physical reality, resulting in a reflexively self-generating, self-modeling theory of reality identical to its universe on the syntactic level. By the nature of its derivation, this theory, the Cognitive Theoretic
Model of the Universe or CTMU, can be regarded as a supertautological reality-theoretic extension of logic.
Uniting the theory of reality with an advanced form of computational language theory, the CTMU describes reality as a Self-Configuring Self-Processing Language or SCSPL, a reflexive intrinsic language characterized not only by self-reference and recursive self-definition, but full self-configuration and self execution (reflexive read-write functionality). SCSPL reality embodies a dual-aspect monism consisting of
infocognition, self-transducing information residing in self-recognizing SCSPL elements called syntactic operators. The CTMU identifies itself with the structure of these operators and thus with the distributive syntax of its self-modeling SCSPL universe, including the reflexive grammar by which the universe refines
itself from unbound telesis or UBT, a primordial realm of infocognitive potential free of informational constraint. Under the guidance of a limiting (intrinsic) form of anthropic principle called the Telic Principle, SCSPL evolves by telic recursion, jointly configuring syntax and state while maximizing a generalized self
selection parameter and adjusting on the fly to freely-changing internal conditions. SCSPL relates space, time and object by means of conspansive duality and conspansion, an SCSPL-grammatical process featuring an alternation between dual phases of existence associated with design and actualization and related to the familiar wave-particle duality of quantum mechanics. By distributing the design phase of reality over the actualization phase, conspansive spacetime also provides a distributed mechanism for Intelligent Design, adjoining to the restrictive principle of natural selection a basic means of generating information and complexity. Addressing physical evolution on not only the biological but cosmic level, the
CTMU addresses the most evident deficiencies and paradoxes associated with conventional discrete and continuum models of reality, including temporal directionality and accelerating cosmic expansion, while preserving virtually all of the major benefits of current scientific and mathematical paradigms.
We can discuss anything in the paper; in other words feel free to rebut any of it. Because is amount to a proof of the existence of God.
This is unfamiliar lingo to me. Can you reformulate it so that non-experts in the field can understand it?
It was published in Noesis and also Complexity, Information, and Design
I cannot find that journal, but I found this:
The International Society for Complexity, Information, and Design (ISCID) was a creationism advocacy organization that described itself as βa cross-disciplinary professional society that investigates complex systems apart from external programmatic constraints like materialism, naturalism, or reductionism.β[1][2] It was founded and led by figures associated with the intelligent design movement, such as William A. Dembski and Michael Behe.[3]
(International Society for Complexity, Information, and Design - Wikipedia)
Does this paper have anything to do with creationism?
And, Noesis, is this the correct journal? https://noesisjournal.com/
If so, it is an undergraduate journal, and the paper would not be in the research front.
Yes and yes
Here is a rudimentary, overall, βbig pictureβ impression of Chris Langanβs Cognitive-Theoretic Model of the Universe (CTMU).
Matter can be reduced to atoms, atoms can be reduced to subatomic particles, etc, etc. Eventually, if we keep reducing in this manner, we get to the most fundamental constituents of reality: information. The universe can be conceived as a vast arrangement of information: ones and zeros and the mathematical relationships between them. However this binary distinction depends on an active medium common to their mutual definition in which 1 and 0 may be expressed as βdifference in sameness.β
At the same time, all of the information we have about the universe comes to us in the form of conscious perceptions. It is only through consciousness that we can perceive or know anything at all. Thus, our reality can just as well be conceived as a vast network of conscious experiences: perceptions and the laws which govern them.
Now, by definition, reality contains everything that exists. There is nothing outside reality. This means that its informational, perceptual content, the rules it obeys, and indeed its very existence, cannot have been determined by anything external to it. It follows that reality contains all of the conditions necessary for its own existence. Its mere possibility is enough to ensure that it generates itself. It is sort of like a self-executing algorithm that generates the mind in which the algorithm itself is known.
Although this mind (Godβs mind) sits in knowledge of itself in an unchanging, eternal way, it contains within it all of the processes required for it to refine itself into existence out of nothingness. As such, consciousness is stratified: the bottom stratum is the all-knowing mind of God, and within this all-knowing mind of God is contained all of the more superficial strata of consciousness that are inherent in the creation process. In other words, God is aware of all the steps in its own creation. However, from the vantage point of these more superficial strata, the universe appears as a physical entity unfolding in physical space. Our human minds are pieces of these more superficial strata. To us, things look like they are still unfolding.
And recall that our conscious minds are contained within Godβs consciousness. As such, we retain the creative power and freedom of God on a scale that is localized in time and space. We can choose to act in a way that facilitates the execution of the self-creating algorithm that creates God, or we can choose to act in a way that is not useful to this end, which is known as the βtelosβ of this particular reality. If we choose to act in a way that is in line with the telos, those parts of our minds that match the mind of God get preserved and we basically move closer to the all-knowing substratum, or the consciousness of God. If we act against the telos, what happens may be that those elements of our minds that do not match the mind of God get recycled endlessly until they properly refine themselves. The eternal unchanging nature of the overall God consciousness is preserved despite our free choices because the system continually adjusts itself in such a way that even though it is changing internally it remains eternal overall.
In short, reality itself is a self-refining informational system which, due to its form, cannot NOT exist. Even if there is nothingness, this system will exist and know itself and all of the localized conscious minds within its creation process will experience its informational structure as real, physical, etc. It is thus self-creating, as it requires nothing outside of itself to exist.
actually I donβt like that summary
there was one on the internet, but the link no longer works
That author is a known crackpot.
2 Likes