Posts by dustyskipper3

@Mark Torres14

I suppose I would agree that this is indeed an issue. Horvatinčić's "Crystal Palace" cannot occupy the same space as the pedestrian zone on Warsaw Avenue at the same time. If they intend to build an entrance to an underground garage there, it simply cannot exist simultaneously with the activists from "Right to the City" and "Green Action" along with their containers. Also, I guess Mr. Karamarko was correct when he noted that the police couldn't just teleport them away; they had to approach them, take them by hand, and essentially physically move them elsewhere. It feels somewhat improper to intelligent people, I suppose—the idea that individuals, even distinguished intellectuals, are treated like ordinary cabinets, containers, or crates that someone just picks up and relocates on the orders of the Police Chief and the Mayor, all to clear space for Horvatinčić's project. But, I guess, that is the current spiritual reality in this city. The question is why the "Flower" project must occupy that specific space, and why it can't be adjusted to fit somewhere else. If we recall, the ancient Egyptians didn't face such problems when building pyramids, mainly because they had seemingly unlimited desert space surrounding the Nile. How did they then decide what would occupy which spot? How did they know where the right place was for a Pharaoh's final resting place? Perhaps it wasn't a problem for them because they understood that the place where a Pharaoh's mummy physically resides isn't quite the same as the place where his "Ka," or soul, resides—where he might dine with Osiris in the underworld, eating painted fruit and game from the interior walls of the pyramid. On the other hand, even that is a problem for us; we even try to "clean out" the remains of former citizens from prime locations in Arlington cemeteries, moving them to mass graves just to make room for the newly minted elites or simply people with enough cash to afford it.

I wonder, what would Wittgenstein say about this?

1. The world is everything that is the case.
2. The world is a totality of facts, not of things.
3. The world is determined by facts, and by that, by all the facts.

So, a thing arises as a consequence of its relationship to some other thing.

In other words, I guess the actual object—whether it is someone's earthly remains or the bodies of activists on Warsaw Avenue—isn't the point. Rather, it is the relationship of those things to something else; in this instance, the desire of our wealthy and influential citizens to place something else where those things currently sit. The fact, in this case, is the greed of these citizens—a (capital) relationship born of greed between us and them—rather than the physical fact that a bulldozer crushed a container into pieces. The reason why the container is no longer in its place, where a hole for an underground entrance will soon yawn, isn't due to some material fact, but rather a spiritual fact of greed that arises in the human spirit and isn't tied to anything material at all.

To put it another way, I would say that the impossibility of one thing existing in two different places at once (which leads to the scarcity of resources, much like how bread and fish couldn't multiply the way Jesus did) has the same cause-and-effect link as the impossibility of two different things occupying the exact same space at the same time. This second scenario stems from greed and the desire for seizure—wanting one thing to be in a certain spot instead of another, or wanting the first thing moved elsewhere. We saw similar cases in recent wars, under the guise of "humanitarian relocation." By analogy, I guess the first scenario arises from the same root (meaning the cause of resource scarcity is someone's greed, which isn't entirely wrong if we consider how easily everyone in Africa could be fed if it weren't for the greed that prevents it).

On the flip side, if we were actually aiming for the exact opposite effect, we would have to somehow neutralize all that greed and grabbing—replace it entirely with altruism, I suppose. If we did that, instead of having just one thing in one spot, we might end up with that same thing existing in two different places at once. Maybe we could even end up with two Warsaw Streets—one where cars pull into an underground garage, and another where people can just walk around freely in a public space. Perhaps those two things could exist together as some kind of compromise.

So, it seems to me that, philosophically and theoretically speaking, a single thing could potentially exist in two places at once, and a person could be bilocated—though maybe only as a sort of compromise. In that scenario, you wouldn't fully exist in either location, but rather partially; there would be this sense of being 'indistinct' in both spots. It’s as if your wave function somehow splits across physical space so that you are simultaneously here and there, yet somehow neither here nor there at the same time. From this, I guess it follows that a person attempting bilocation would have to temporarily cease existing in the way we normally do. They would essentially have to "die" within a single physical space and then be reborn across two different spaces to coexist there, only to eventually "resurrect" back in just one location. I see a certain parallel there between bilocation and resurrection, because bilocation would involve a death and a rebirth through the splitting of the physical location where the body exists, even if the spirit remains undivided. Meanwhile, death and resurrection involve the dislocation of the spirit from the body, where the spirit and body might exist separately for a time (which is a form of bilocation) before the spirit returns to the body to exist in the same location again. For both processes, I think the prerequisite would be a desire to give or to let go, which is the direct opposite of greed and the urge to take. 😁

mistyscout2 said:So, you actually pulled it off? Well, if that’s true, I really do have to hand it to you. Congrats. 🙂
If you didn't, then we're all just indulging in a little bit of wishful thinking...

I'm not saying it's strictly impossible, but based on everything that is known—and everything I personally know—it just doesn't seem feasible. I’m not ruling out the possibility entirely, I’m just saying that according to the laws of physics that we can constantly verify through empirical evidence, and according to what modern science tells us, something like that is impossible, unless we're talking about the quantum level. It might be possible, but honestly, I don't know. That's why I'm asking you for more than just a "trust me, it's possible." If you won't explain how you know or give me a bit more detail, then it just feels like that old playground routine of "I know, but I'm not telling you." It comes across more like a bluff than a principled silence. 😁

Besides, the burden of proof always falls on the person making the claim. That's just the basic rule of the game. You can't really "prove" that something isn't there; something simply doesn't exist until someone proves or demonstrates that it does, one way or another.

What exactly isn't possible? Is it the act of bilocation itself, or just proving to oneself that bilocation can actually happen?😉

I suppose, if you think about it, nobody can ever truly grasp the absolute truth of any given situation. There is always some fragment left out of reach, so if someone tries to present a truth that is all-encompassing, then I guess everything becomes a lie to some degree. I was thinking more along the lines of specific, concrete things. For instance, a stubborn person will never actually see themselves as being stubborn; they’ll always have this internal justification for why they act that way—things like, "they just won't let me speak my mind," or "I'm just fighting for what's right while everyone else is wrong," or maybe, "I have to react because it's my duty," and so on. Similarly, a person who constantly plays the victim finds it much harder to realize they are doing that. They tend to think, "everything is so difficult for me, and nobody even notices," even when they are living a fairly standard life with pretty average problems. If you were to put such a person in a situation involving truly devastating hardships—stuff like cancer, losing a family member, crushing debt, predatory lenders, property seizure, or even prison—then, maybe, they would finally see that their previous life was actually quite alright. A person playing the victim wouldn't be able to tell themselves they are being dramatic; instead, they’d need someone who has actually lived through those kinds of horrors to point it out. Only then might they realize that the scale of their actual problems doesn't really match the amount of self-pity they feel regarding their circumstances.

So, there are people who lack certain life experiences or the insight needed to understand them, and then there is another person who possesses that experience and can explain the reality of the situation to the first person. Of course, that isn't an absolute truth, because in the case of the first person—say, the one acting as a victim—there might be unique circumstances the second person doesn't fully grasp. Perhaps they have a genetically hypersensitive nervous system, which makes even a normal daily routine feel like hell. But... well, I guess that is exactly what defines being a victim. I'm not claiming this is a moral flaw or a character defect that a person is responsible for; after all, you aren't responsible for your genetic makeup, only for how you choose to deal with it. I suppose the wisdom lies in the second person's ability to recognize the difference between themselves and the first person, allowing them to establish a more precise truth based on that distinction.

How can we determine who knows themselves well, who understands others, and who can accurately judge the gap between themselves and someone else well enough to offer them the truth? That's the question, anyway. Maybe you know the answer, though I suspect it isn't just about "walking in someone else's shoes." It's also about "being someone else," which isn't quite the same thing—in fact, I think it might be impossible. At some point, I will perceive a situation one way, and you will perceive it another, even if we face the exact same circumstances, simply because we aren't the same people. Our truths will always differ slightly. Perhaps honesty is just the attempt to get as close to the truth as humanly possible.

Mark Torres14 said:The ancient Egyptians claimed it all started with a void where God Ptah emerged onto land, and that’s where they built their shrine in Memphis. Naturally, other temples throughout Upper and Lower Egypt claimed that same spot where God Ptah appeared within their own territories, building countless shrines there too. The Egyptians were diligent about offering sacrifices at every single one of those sites; they didn't see any contradiction in the idea that one being could emerge in multiple places at once.

Since the logic of one entity existing in several different places at once totally trips me up, I’m looking to an expert to give me that "long story, high art, and all that deep knowledge and skill."🙂

Well, if that doesn't sit right with you, maybe he just moved into another dimension. And what was that you said about Ptah being from Memphis? The only guy I know who was actually from Memphis is Elvis Presley... Graceland, Memphis, Tennessee. Granted, he didn't exactly emerge from water, but rather from East Tupelo, which is in Mississippi, and honestly, you aren't going to find a bigger river than that; it’s even more significant than the Nile.

But then again, there are plenty of rivers in Tennessee too—take the massive Tennessee River, for instance, which used to be known as the Cherokee River. As for cities, you've got Nashville, Knoxville, and then Chattanooga, which inspired that old Chattanooga Choo-Choo song from the Dixieland era by Glenn Miller.

Maybe we are dealing with a being that didn't just manifest in multiple places (both in Egypt and in Tennessee), but also across different points in time. If we look at the similarities:

Ptah:



Elvis Presley:



Ptah was also a deity characterized by artistic and creative inclinations, since the world itself came into being through his word. He was quite particular about style, too, wearing tight clothing wrapped around his legs like a mummy. Beyond that, he was a god of resurrection within the trinity of Ptah-Sokar-Osiris, which is why people often draw comparisons between Osiris and Jesus, and so on.

And at the end of the day, Elvis is still alive.😍

steelridge58 said:I honestly feel like Hegel might have been overstating things just a little bit here... 🙂 though I suspect he was probably just venting about some bad experiences he'd had. When you look at what he said alongside how most people actually react when they're asked for their unfiltered thoughts—whether they're prompted or not—it kind of points to the idea that maybe it's safer just to keep your mouth shut.

That being said, honesty is really a matter of character, so for those folks who are genuinely built that way, they usually can't really help themselves even if they wanted to. (And honestly, they shouldn't try.)

When we dive into philosophy, though, I think we should be talking more about truthfulness rather than just being "honest," because those two things aren't quite the same thing. You can be completely sincere and truly believe something while being totally wrong about the facts. So, in my view, the real goal of philosophy isn't just sincerity; it's the pursuit of truth, deep insight, and reaching a genuine understanding of reality.

Truth is always such a tricky issue, mostly because people don't exactly enjoy hearing it. It’s usually not that hard to see the truth about someone else, but seeing the truth about yourself... well, that's much harder. I suppose when people ask for our honest opinion on a matter, they aren't just looking for an opinion; they are often searching for a truth about themselves that's buried under layers of ego and emotion and things like that. To bluntly shove the truth in someone's face is what Hegel would call the mark of a fool, probably because you rarely get a thank-you note for it—usually, you just get yelled at. Still, maybe it is a good quality. It feels like something altruistic people do. And honestly, equating an altruist with a fool seems pretty much in line with pure rationalism, where you just ignore the will, the intuition, the emotions, and all those other irrational parts of being human that define classic Hegelian idealism.

mistyscout2 said:I was speaking in general terms, mostly. I mean, unless you happen to be Jesus Christ, judge Zlatko, some high-level psychic spy from the USA, or a student at one of those advanced monasteries that nobody can actually find, even though everyone seems to know they exist somehow.
But honestly, if you feel like it's possible and you think I said it wasn't—just so you can push back against me—where are your arguments? Give me actual evidence, not just promises. And what does it even mean to "be in two places at once"? Most people are in two places at once during a normal day when they're daydreaming, scrolling through the internet, or lost in thought... but I'm talking about being there PHYSICALLY. I have my doubts.

That’s exactly why these folks are called PSYCHIC SPIES rather than PHYSICAL SPIES; it's more about extrasensory perception than any kind of physical bilocation. If someone truly believes a person can physically bilocate their entire body, then they either grew up ignoring the laws of physics or they never met them in the first place. It's the same deal as levitation. You can hop around all you want, but you aren't going to defy gravity using nothing but your mind, or whatever else, as long as you're still bound by a physical body.

The issue, I think, is that creating a physical body in another location would require an absolutely unimaginable amount of energy. I could perhaps accept that someone could be mentally in another place, or even in a way where it merely SEEMS to others that the person is physically there—like a sort of long-distance hypnosis. Or maybe some kind of quantum-tunneling holographic projection...?😕🤷

Douglas Mendoza52 said:dustyskipper3 - I can't help but wonder—what would even be the point of people trying to bilocate?

One person is stuck at the office while the other is out hitting the town... but just imagine if you could do that as a couple. I actually heard a rumor that the judge was somehow in two places at once back when he was fleeing from the seed vault near Capitol Hill.

True, but then he wouldn't have been able to perform under the name "Zlatko judge," so he probably used some sort of pseudonym—maybe Zlatko Crnković, working as a translator or a publisher. Or perhaps Zoran Krivić, acting as a gallery owner? Regardless, if bilocation isn't possible, maybe one could quantum tunnel through a barrier in a potential well, which might look a lot like teleportation.😍

In this morning's paper, I was reading about how scientists Dr. Saša Ceci and Dr. Dario Hrupec from the Roger Bošković Institute are challenging Dr. Davor Pavuna’s claim that "judge Zlatko can levitate according to the laws of physics," and his suggestion that he might "soon, much like Jesus, pass through walls."

Regarding judge Zlatko’s perception of reality, Dr. Hrupec—speaking as someone who views him as a charismatic and passionate believer—noted: "That is his reality, and the reality of his followers. In his own mind, he is levitating, existing here and there simultaneously. We skeptics, perhaps, cannot perceive this, but then again, who are we to blame if our minds aren't quite as open?"

Pavuna, however, counters by saying that "science is merely the poetry of living nature’s creation." When addressing testimonies of levitation and descriptions of similar paranormal events, he suggests that "Nikola Tesla understood this perfectly, as did Roger Bošković, each within the context of their own era."

As for the actual physics, I suppose there are some explanations floating around the internet. Some mention the example of Paramahansa Yogananda, who reportedly witnessed the bilocation of his teacher, a family friend and yogi named Swami Pranabananda.

The discovery of "biophotons"—this coherent light, almost like a laser, stored in and emitted by all living cells—suggests that quantum states of coherent photons at a macro level could produce resonant, collective wave effects, such as telepathy or even teleportation. Swanson mentions that the human body could be viewed as a "quantum system, with a set of quantum states vibrating together." Essentially, the human body might function as a coherent oscillatory system where every electron synchronizes with the others in a shared phase, mutually stimulating one another to vibrate. When the human body builds up a reservoir of coherent energy that takes on a spatial pattern, it increases the probability that such a structure or pattern will manifest in real life. This power of coherence and synchronization might allow for extraordinary phenomena, like people being able to teleport or exist in two places at once.

So, I guess a theoretical basis for this kind of thinking does actually exist. But it makes me wonder... why would people even want to bilocate in the first place? For telepathy or teleportation, the reason seems obvious—it saves time and makes communication or travel more efficient. But bilocation, from what I understand, happens when someone has an intense, overwhelming desire to be somewhere else. Maybe they want to be with a loved one to help them or just to see them, but they are physically stuck elsewhere due to their location or perhaps certain obligations and duties that prevent them from traveling. In that case, maybe that intense feeling creates this coherence and synchronization—this resonant quantum effect. It's as if the electron vibration triggered by that initial feeling somehow transfers via resonance to every single electron in every cell of the body, allowing the person to be in two different places at once.

😍What do you all think about that?

I suppose you might be giving that baboon way too much credit when it comes to actual foresight or strategic planning. If we look back at my point about Zdravko Mamić regarding emotionality and spirituality, it's a better comparison, I think. You have Zdravko, cornered by reporters, just screaming like a primate. He projects his internal mess onto the world, trying to paint himself as some sort of victim of a massive conspiracy—you know, the whole anti-American, anti-Catholic, anti-football, anti-military, anti-big-city-glory cabal. The journalists eventually walk away without getting any real answers, even if they mock him in the next headline for acting like an animal. Then, Mamić makes a public apology, maybe goes to a couple hours of therapy, and honestly? He just keeps right on lying just like before. The scam works, because the media still didn't get what they actually asked.

It’s just like the baboon. He sees a female digging around, feels insulted that he wasn't the one to think of it first, and lashes out with this emotional outburst, calling for his mother. Once she chases the other little female away, he’s happy again.

I guess you could see the same pattern in how some people on this forum argue, or when they try to get rid of a moderator they don't like, or provoke someone just to get them banned... though, I suppose there's a much higher level of calculated control and cold planning involved there. In those cases, the person who reacts like a primate is usually the one who gets banned or removed first. So, I guess my conclusion is that humans have evolved socially compared to baboons. We've just become more sophisticated at being corrupt. 😁

I suppose one should try to be with someone who actually brings you joy, rather than just someone who looks good on paper. Or, I guess, you could stay unhappy with a "real man" until you finally mature enough to just stop caring about that whole thing altogether. But maybe don't go underestimating how much some people can truly make you happy... because honestly, that matters just as much as being a "tough guy."

slymaker9 said:N/A

Freud viewed it that way, and while it was certainly one of the more developed theories of its era—quite groundbreaking at the time—it’s clear by today's standards that it falls significantly short.
The idea that willpower is merely a tug-of-war between the id and the superego doesn't hold water for me. Based on my own observations of people in the real world, that theory simply doesn't align with reality.

N/A

Look, you could easily read this as: You think you're such a big shot, but maybe you should go take a little stroll over to psychology.🤣
You can't be serious about wanting to kill me. Willpower. What are your thoughts on participating in philosophy debates?🤣
What should I get myself?🙈 And what about Chicago?🙂

If you take a look at this thread, you'll see that other members have been contributing alongside you and Cervantes. Besides, forum etiquette dictates that if you aren't replying directly to someone in the middle of a conversation, you address the original post. These discussions are public across all subforums, and anyone is free to jump in whenever they like. I didn't specifically intend to follow your or Cervantes' particular line of reasoning just so I could quote one of you and track your specific flow. To be honest, I didn't even have the patience or the inclination to read through it all. So, please, spare me the patronizing—or should I say, the "guidance." 😕
I personally favor a philosophy centered on the relentless pursuit of truth—a constant effort to uncover facts and calculate the reality of any given situation. To me, that is what true philosophy is all about.
In every direction. I understand it quite well—it’s light, flexible, and completely unburdened. If you want to put it simply, it's straightforward.😉

Look at that. Just look at how much I’ve overindulged, and what it's doing to my ego.🤣🤣🤣

Exactly. That involves a conscious investment of personal resources. Essentially, you are investing energy, because everything ultimately boils down to energy—whether that’s labor, effort, or anything else.
It works like this: you have a drive, you want to satisfy it, and that's where willpower enters the equation.
But look, I have sexual drives, and I can satisfy them through either easy or difficult means, involving varying levels of energy expenditure. Why would I choose the harder path? Why would I invest more energy when the most natural thing to do is act economically and follow the path of least resistance?
I feel like there's a missing link here.
Where does the motivation come from to consciously pursue a more attractive goal at a higher energy cost? Because that is what true willpower actually looks like.🤷

I suppose I agree with you, which is exactly why I didn't take that specific route... I was trying to approach the matter from a more general perspective, if that makes sense. Or maybe I just wanted to look at the bigger picture instead.

I suppose one could interpret this as... well, maybe it's saying that since you're already such a big deal around here, you might as well take a little stroll over to the psychology department. I guess.🤣
I mean, I guess it feels like you're actually trying to kill me here. Maybe that's just how it comes across? I don't know. It's a bit much, honestly. I suppose... I guess there is just this sense of will. Or maybe it is more like a drive? It is hard to pin down. I find myself thinking about it quite often lately. Perhaps it is just how things are. I guess I should probably ask... what do you all think about actually getting involved in these philosophy debates? Maybe it's just me, but I wonder if it's worth it.🤣
I guess... I mean, what should I even be sulking about? Maybe there isn't much to say. It’s just one of those things, I suppose.🙈 And what about the cleanup? I guess we should probably address that too... maybe.🙂

No, quite the opposite, really. I actually find your insights and your grasp of human psychology to be incredibly valuable. I suppose what I mean is... maybe you could try to approach things from a slightly more general or abstract perspective? Just for your own sake, I guess. You don't need to do it for my benefit—I’ll always be happy to read your posts, regardless of whether they stay strictly focused on psychological matters or not.

If you take a look at this thread, you'll see that besides Mark Torres14 and yourself, other people have been posting here too. I mean, they’re responding to the original poster... and, well, you know how the forum rules work. If someone isn't replying directly to everyone involved in the discussion, they just respond to the initial post. And since all these discussions on the forum are public—across all the subforums—anyone should be able to jump in whenever they want. I guess... if I had specifically wanted to engage with Mark Torres14 or you regarding the specific direction your conversation was taking, I would have quoted one of you to follow your flow. But I didn't. I didn't even have the patience or the desire to sit there and read through it all. So, I don't really see why there needs to be any... excuse me, any "guidance" being offered. 😕

On the contrary, I actually appreciate various perspectives on this topic and original thinking. However, I find myself struggling quite a bit with your specific definition... you mentioned that will is, perhaps, a "conscious readiness to invest resources." But I suppose one has to wonder—what exactly constitutes a "resource"? Who decides what those resources are, and who determines how much someone has available to commit or where they might direct them? It seems to me that maybe "unwillingness to invest resources" is just a complicated way of describing passivity or laziness. Conversely, "readiness to invest" could simply be seen as activity or dynamism. I suspect this depends heavily on an individual's character or their specific personality type—you know, whether they lean more toward being melancholic, phlegmatic, choleric, or sanguine—which would naturally dictate how they deploy those resources. But then again, temperament isn't quite the same thing as will. Will feels like something far more elementary... something deeper within a person than mere "readiness." I would argue that people suffering from clinical depression certainly possess a conscious readiness to invest their resources, but perhaps their illness—or rather, their unconscious state regarding it—prevents them from doing so. Some ordinary people simply seem to have more willpower than others, and I don't think they owe that solely to their conscious decisions. And you suggested that I could "kill your will to participate in the discussion." Well, I assume you don't actually believe I could kill your consciousness? I suppose I could potentially "kill you with kindness" or exhaust your interest, which might weaken your will, but I wonder about the dynamics of how that actually happens. I’d say it happens mostly on an unconscious level. That is precisely why helping people with low self-esteem is such a challenge; they genuinely want higher self-esteem, but they often have no idea how to actually reach that point.

I suppose I personally lean toward a philosophy more akin to what you might find in someone like Thomas Sowell. To me, it’s defined by this constant searching—this persistent attempt to peel back the layers and uncover the actual truth. It involves a lot of calculating and weighing the facts about everything, I guess. That’s just how I see it.
In every direction, really. I suppose I understand it well enough—you know, in that light, breezy way. Quite flexible, too. Unburdened, if you want to put it in more common, everyday terms.😉

You really are wonderful. I feel like I could sit and talk with you all day long, and honestly, it would probably give me the motivation to actually get things moving. But, I suppose we should wait and see what this "motivation" thing actually turns out to be.

I suppose that's true... it really does come down to making a conscious investment of one's own resources. It’s essentially just pouring energy into something—because, if you think about it, everything eventually boils down to energy, whether that's actual physical labor, mental effort, or just pure grit. I guess it all just transforms into something else in the end.
So, I guess... it works like this. You feel this impulse, right? This drive. And you want to satisfy it, and then, somehow, a sense of will just sort of... manifests itself. Maybe.
So, look... I have this sexual drive, right? And I suppose I could satisfy it through much easier routes or more difficult ones—depending on how much energy I decide to pour into it. But then I find myself wondering... where does this urge to take the harder path actually come from? It's strange, I guess. If I were being truly logical, maybe even efficient, it would make more sense to just follow the path of least resistance. To be economical with my energy, you know? It seems like it would be more natural to just go with the flow and save my strength, yet somehow, I always seem to end up choosing the more taxing way. I don't really know why.
I feel like... I don't know, something is missing here. Maybe I'm just overthinking it, but there’s a certain void. I guess it feels incomplete.

Well, I suppose instinct originates from the Id, or whatever terminology one prefers to use. In essence, our instincts are largely defined by our genes—symbolically speaking, at least—and we don't really exert any conscious will over them. So, I tend to view instincts as a more elementary phenomenon, perhaps just an emanation of that fundamental "survival instinct" inherent to any living thing. Willpower seeks something else entirely. I would probably call it homeostasis; the ability of a being to maintain an instinct at a steady level and direct it toward a specific purpose. It’s like there is a source of instinct on one side, and then there is this regulatory system on the other—something supra-instinctual, which you might call the ego or super-ego—that prevents the instinct from exceeding certain limits that would jeopardize the stability and functionality of the whole system. For instance, the human body maintains its temperature around 98.6 degrees Fahrenheit regardless of how freezing it gets outside. Biological systems are homeostatic, so I guess willpower, acting as a neural network system, must also be a homeostatic mechanism. The strength of one's will then depends on how effectively that homeostasis is established. At certain points, the system might break down, leading to a weakening of the will, and so on. Perhaps a system simply lacks the internal capacity—the "resources," as you put it—to maintain that balance, which results in what people call "bad character." Or, it could be that the instinct itself is weaker in some individuals due to biological factors, like how neurons fire or the specific chemical ratios and receptor absorption in the brain. If that's the case, the "effort of will" required to maintain homeostasis is significantly lower. It isn't quite the same situation when someone with a high libido controls their impulses versus someone with a low libido; the former needs a much "stronger" will to achieve the same level of control. And, if they do lose control, the consequences seem much more volatile. Therefore, the desire to take the harder path comes from a drive toward greater efficiency, since, evolutionarily speaking, a few high-quality connections are worth far more than many low-quality ones. This is where the distinction lies between the natural laws governing inanimate matter and those governing living things. Non-living matter moves in tandem with entropy, whereas living things resist entropy to some degree to maintain their will against the world. Following the path of least resistance would correspond to what Freud called Thanatos, while resisting that flow would be Eros. And, goodness knows, Eros plays a pretty vital role in sexual instinct, so I suppose that is why we often choose the difficult path—to test our own willpower in that way.

I suppose... I don't really see how I would consciously choose to pursue a more attractive goal if it meant spending even more energy. That feels... well, it feels like an act of pure will, I guess.🤷

And of course, practical experience offers quite a bit of insight here. If we look at people who favor surrendering to Thanatos as their preferred practice—there is a wide spectrum there, involving active approaches, passive ones, and so on. 😉

slymaker9 said:My view is that when a person acts against their will, they lack the psychological readiness to commit their resources.

Which impulse, for example?

Well, if we are going to look at this through a psychological lens, I guess you could view the human subject as being composed of the id (the pleasure principle), the ego (the reality principle), and the superego (representing laws, morality, and so on). The ego sort of balances things out within reality by trying to mediate those extremes... so, depending on that balance, I guess one might have more or less willpower.

However, what we are attempting to do here is examine the concept of will from a somewhat more metaphysical or philosophical perspective—something that perhaps includes the will of the universe, or a first mover, and things of that nature.

Mark Torres14 said:Let me keep going.
You're spot on. You can only use metaphors—or any way of passing info along—based on actual experience. Think about it: an individual could try to describe the entire universe in their own private language, but that's completely worthless because it never reaches the status of actual information. For something to count as information, it has to have shared meaning or value. If there isn’t a receiver capable of reading and understanding it, then the information simply doesn't exist. Period.
Mark Torres14 said:

Are you actually asking if I’m capable of stepping outside my own civilization to view things through the lens of some non-existent society? I don't know if I am. Maybe I'd need to be a god to pull that off. Even Nostradamus had to interpret his "quatrains" from the perspective of a medieval man. We can't even fully grasp them today because we don't truly understand how a person from the Middle Ages thought—what they knew versus what we know now.

To truly understand anything, you need two things: subjective and objective distance from reality. We all get the subjective part—it’s the lens we personally build. But the objective side? That’s much harder. It’s supposed to be the intersection where all those individual biases cancel each other out. So here’s the real question: Can science actually capture the objectivity of the past when tackling a problem? Or is every "objective" scientific finding just stained by the subjectivity of the person holding the microscope? In short: Is it even possible for a person today to fully recreate the past, rather than just a hollow sequence of events?
Maybe "willpower" is just a fancy word for wanting to be objective.
Mark Torres14 said:

I honestly think you could spend an entire lifetime—a whole career for a genius, really—just trying to wrap your head around what daily life felt like for an average person in ancient civilizations. Think Greco-Roman, the Maya, or any non-Western culture out there. That alone is enough work. The goal is to draw a hard line between "us" and "them." You have to stop looking at history through a narrow, Western lens and actually try to see these worlds exactly how the people living in them saw them. You do that by digging through their own writings and studying the archaeology they left behind. But now, I’m being asked to play some kind of futuristic archaeologist? To scan every civilization from the beginning of time to the end of the world, strip everything down to its core elements, and somehow conclude which one provides the most "optimal" view of the universe? Give me a break. 😉🤷

I think I already laid out my take on how you—and I—interpret the "archaeology" of the past in that question above. You don't even need to look toward the future to see it.
Look, I know this is purely subjective, but I can't help it. At some deep level, every single person has their own private language that our standard way of speaking can only crudely approximate. It’s like there's this thing in my head, but I just don't have the words to get it out. And honestly, to satisfy my own curiosity—if you can even call it that—I need to have willpower. But curiosity itself is tied to perception and the senses. So what does that leave us with?😕
Quincy:

Here's how I see it. Modern physics is telling us something entirely new about matter. Basically, matter isn't everything, and a vacuum isn't truly empty. There’s this quantum vacuum where particles emerge, but those particles aren't quite "matter" yet. So, you've got matter, you've got nothingness, and then there's this middle ground—a sort of "superposition" of matter and nothing. Just "some stuff" that hasn't become matter but isn't "nothing" anymore. Take the graviton, for example. We can't detect it as a particle, so it isn't matter, but it certainly isn't nothing since it can pull on actual matter.

But what actually *is* matter?
As far as we know, it stops at the atomic level. Everything else is just a mathematical construct—they definitely exist, sure, but you wouldn't call them matter. A graviton is just a description of spacetime curvature. If it isn't matter, then what is it?
Maybe we're just looking at one side of Janus's face, while the rest stays hidden forever?
Let's go back to scholasticism. If there is a Prime Mover, or an Unmoved Mover, does the very act of movement imply an act of will?
Quincy:

The appearance of the graviton or "dark matter" is clearly some kind of information within the universe. Because of that, I think the total amount of information in the cosmos is way greater than what's carried by physical matter itself. My conclusion? Information comes before matter. It somehow programs the matter, which then uses that matter to generate even more information. But you can't really define "what information is," because information is just the relationship between things. Therefore, information exists even when nothing else does, because it's the information regarding the relationship of that nothingness to the nothingness it resides in (or doesn't😁). That makes information the absolute starting point; nothing can be more fundamental. Is it God? No. But maybe it has a "will" to expand, or even a kind of "self-awareness." 😬

Personally, these concepts of dark matter and dark energy feel incredibly weird and mysterious to me. They make up 75% of the universe, and we haven't a clue what they are. Meanwhile, we're out here trying to build a "Theory of Everything" using string theory. Fine, dark energy could be Einstein's cosmological constant, but what on earth is dark matter?
I'm having a hard time connecting those two ideas to the concept of "will" we're debating.
Quincy:

Of course, all of this sounds mystical, just like virtual particles, and a rational mind is going to push back against it. A logical mind wants solid "stuff"—actual matter it can rely on. Personally, I lean toward the Buddhist view: everything is essentially nothing, yet it isn't nothing, because the fact that everything is "nothing" is already a piece of "information."

But why would rationality be a limitation? I still don't see what else could possibly take its place if we're trying to understand the world objectively. Of course there's a mystical side to it.
Mysticism is a miracle, and miracles aren't symmetrical.

See, if the brain were just "matter," it wouldn't be able to "absorb" this much new information. That's only possible if information isn't just "stuff"—it has to dominate matter.

Can matter actually *be* information? Like, an electron doesn't even exist until we measure it.

Poetry is information about that "nothingness" everything came from. It doesn't hunt for God; it creates everything out of nothing and marvels at the void. That makes poetry more elemental than religion. Religion just tries to glue religious, scientific, and cultural baggage onto it until you get this messy soup where the core essence is stripped away. But for poetry to work, that core—the idea that everything is nothing—is exactly what matters. Think of a poet like Villon on the gallows, laughing and singing at the sheer absurdity of it all.

In my reality, God can only be a poet. A being that refuses to fit into reality. Do you think Vergil’s "waves" could ever crash against Borges' Aleph?

I think it's a paradox. Maybe the universe never actually "started" in any real sense, and it will never end. It's all an illusion. There is no beginning or end; we're just limited beings whose brains insist everything needs a start and a finish.

On the flip side, you have the idea that everything has a definite beginning and end, yet we are beings without limits.😁

There isn't really a shared frame of reference that works for both the sender and the receiver. But we are talking about realized information here. For instance, if you have 20 GB on a hard drive, you technically possess that amount of potential information, even if it hasn't been fully utilized—and even if it has, the question remains whether it was ever actually transmitted or if anyone will even be able to make sense of it a few thousand years from now. It's like hieroglyphics; those texts inside the pyramids were messages waiting to be read, but before Champollion cracked the code, we just didn't know. Theoretically, maybe the information regarding the entire universe is already written down and we could read it if we managed to decode a universal cipher (kind of like genetic code), but I suppose we don't even have the theoretical time required to read it all. The lifespan of the universe is shorter than what would be needed to transmit all its data, especially since the universe is constantly expanding and the sheer volume of information keeps growing. So, we might potentially have access to all that data, but in reality, we're mostly just guessing.😉

That’s why we rely so heavily on simplifications and metaphors; we simply don't have the time to convey the full scope of information. And honestly, a human being—or the mind, specifically—can't even grasp the complete information about itself, though maybe some sort of superior intellect could. These kinds of informational paradoxes... I guess they make the whole thing feel a bit mystical.

To truly perceive something, you need both a subjective and an objective distance from reality. The subjective part is easy to grasp since each of us creates our own. The objective part is much more complicated; it's supposed to represent the intersection of all those subjective distances. So, the question is: is science actually capable of transmitting the objectivity of the past when examining a problem, or is every scientific "objective" view colored by the subjectivity of the person using it? In short, can a modern person truly reproduce the past in its entirety, rather than just a sequence of events?

Well, I suppose that comes down to how much a person understands themselves and their own subjectivity. In that case, one could treat themselves like a flawed measuring instrument and try to "calibrate" themselves to be more objective. It's a bit like aiming a rifle at a target; if you see you're hitting low, you adjust your aim upward. Similarly, a person might realize they have a tendency toward being overly optimistic or exaggerating things, so they correct their subjective assessment by a certain factor to reach something closer to the truth. It’s a shame people don't know themselves better; there would probably be a lot less nonsense and conflict in the world.😉😁

Maybe will is just a drive toward objectivity?

It’s difficult, I guess, because it’s usually tied up in ego perception. But maybe—and this is just a thought—if a person manages to rise above the egoic perception that keeps them from a total psychological breakdown and actually achieves that Jungian "self," where they are fully integrated with the universe, then their will could become a need for objectivity. You know, a drive for understanding, for grasping truth, for the essence of things. Since the universe doesn't have an ego, and God probably doesn't either—because God wouldn't need an ego to protect a fragile mind from reality when He *is* that reality—then it follows that the will of the universe and the will of a human in an ego-perceptive state are essentially at odds. A person lives in an illusion of duality, whereas the universe does not. Humans need distance to perceive things (subject vs. object), but the universe or God doesn't. So, this question of will is quite interesting, really. It sets us apart from nature, and maybe that's where the need for religion comes from—as a will to return to nature by transcending basic ego perception and building that "self." But that's more like the second topic you brought up.

I think I was referring to your (and my) understanding of the "archaeology" of the past earlier. You don't necessarily have to look toward the future.
I realize my way of thinking is strictly subjectivist, but, honestly, I just can't seem to step outside of it. It means that, on some deeper level, every individual possesses their own private language that our so-called consensus language can only crudely approximate. There are things I have in my head, but I simply lack the words to express them. However, in a human sense, to satisfy my curiosity (well, what even is curiosity?), I have to possess will. And curiosity is tied back to perception and the senses. What is the end result of all that?😕

Curiosity also seems to stem from this illusion of being separate from nature; it feels like a function of the left hemisphere, the rational side, while imagination belongs to the right.

But what exactly is matter?
As far as we can tell, it stops at the level of atoms. All those other particles are just pure mathematical constructs that undoubtedly exist, yet they can't really be called "matter." For instance, a graviton is just a description of the curvature of spacetime. If it isn't matter, then what is it?
Maybe it's just a consequence of us only seeing one face of the god Janus, while the other remains forever hidden from us?
To go back to Scholasticism: if there exists a Prime Mover or an Unmoved Mover, does the very act of motion represent an act of will?

Whatever leaves a trace in a bubble chamber certainly exists, unless we're talking about ghosts. 😬 But the issue is that it doesn't always exist as a particle. Sometimes it's a wave. Or a superposition. This idea about Janus seems right to me; if we could see the full picture, the whole world might look deterministically "lifeless"—we could describe it entirely—but because of quantum effects, a piece of the information always escapes us at the microscopic level. We're left with nothing but statistics. Does the act of motion represent an act of will... hmm... 🤷 theoretically speaking, without dimensions, there is no motion. Perhaps the emergence of something from nothing is an act of will, though to me, it feels more like an act of self-recognition, a desire for life, and will comes later. So, will cannot exist without a mover. Maybe original self-awareness is the Prime Mover that creates matter and the information upon that matter, but motion would imply converting potential energy into kinetic energy, which requires that potential energy exists first, born from that initial self-awareness.

I find these concepts of dark matter and dark energy to be quite strange... perhaps even a bit mysterious, if I'm being honest. It’s somewhat unsettling to think that they account for about 75% of the entire universe, yet we don't actually have any idea what they truly are. We seem to be grasping at straws. At the same time, there is this intense drive to formulate a "Theory of Everything," like string theory, which feels almost ambitious given our current gaps in knowledge. Maybe dark energy could just be Einstein's cosmological constant, but as for dark matter... I guess we're still largely in the dark on that one too.
I guess I'm having a bit of a hard time... seeing how those two concepts actually tie back to the whole idea of will that we've been discussing. It's a little difficult to bridge the gap there, maybe.

Perhaps there is some sort of latent potential energy—some undefined cosmic self-awareness, I suppose—that wants to act as the driver instead of that original prime mover. Right now, it seems to be working against the prime mover's will, since it’s accelerating the expansion of the universe and just increasing entropy... though I guess the prime mover's will would likely lean toward creating order within the cosmos. Dark energy doesn't strike me as a creative force; it feels more like something destructive, moving us toward this "Big Rip" scenario where the universe just tears itself apart through infinite expansion. But, maybe that won't actually happen. Perhaps the universe will eventually stabilize at some level, and maybe even we, as intelligent beings possessing our own agency, could somehow contribute to bringing order to the universe.

But, I guess... why would rationality be considered a limitation? I still don't quite see what could possibly take its place if we're actually trying to grasp the world objectively. It seems... well, it’s only natural that things feel mystical.

Mystery is a marvel, I suppose... though miracles rarely seem to follow any kind of symmetry.

Ugh, you should really tell that to the people posting all about sacred geometry over on those magic and mysticism forums.😍 I suppose I actually have a bit of a theory regarding the rationality behind the various PDFs being circulated on this forum, though I think I’ll hold off on sharing it for now. I wouldn't want anyone to take offense or feel targeted by my observations, I guess. 😁 If we look at this through the lens of calibration theory, mysticism essentially assumes that humans are inherently irrational beings. Because of that, any subjective conclusion someone tries to turn into an objective fact has to be calibrated against their own level of irrationality. But... I guess there’s a bit of a paradox there. How can an irrational subject actually calibrate their own irrationality? It seems like the distortion of reality could just end up getting even worse, right? Maybe that’s why mystical self-perception puts the individual right at the center, calibrating everything around themselves instead of calibrating themselves against the world. If someone doesn't like that approach, they can just walk away, I suppose. Or, if they enjoy being a follower, they can join the ranks of those following a guru. In the end, it all feels quite asymmetrical. Even the information shared is asymmetrical—the guru holds all the data and the key to decoding it, while the followers are left with nothing. They exist in completely separate reference frames, and I think they can only ever meet through some kind of mystical union.

Can matter actually be considered information? I mean, just a thought... like, maybe an electron isn't even a "real" thing until we actually go out and measure it. I guess it's possible that what we call matter is really just data being processed. It's a bit of a heavy concept, I suppose. Maybe.

It’s only a possibility, I suppose. But then again, even information sitting on a computer isn't really actual until you actually open the program. And who knows, maybe the whole thing just freezes up mid-way through... you can never really tell.

In my own version of reality, I suppose God could only ever be a poet. It would mean being fundamentally out of sync with existence, I guess. Do you think it’s possible that Virginia Woolf's "waves" might actually wash against the shores of Borges's Aleph?

Well, I suppose I mentioned Virginia as an example, mostly because I tend to view God as a being entirely devoid of an ego-driven perspective. It’s more like a pure stream of consciousness, which, at its absolute best, might only be expressed through something like "I am that which I am." So, I guess there are significant hurdles regarding any concept of an "I" or a localized sense of self. On the other hand, perhaps that divinity incarnates within us, allowing itself to be viewed through our own limited ego-lens—almost like a single drop in a vast ocean, just one tiny part of a grander Aleph being washed over by the waves of an immense, divine existence.

There’s this idea, I suppose, that everything follows a cycle—that there is always a beginning and an end—yet at the same time, we are beings without any real limits.😁

Maybe the start and the finish are actually the exact same thing... kind of like a palindrome that reads just the same whether you go forward or backward.😉

Andrew Barrett4 said:I'm with you on that.

I don't know about you, but I actually have a bit of a roadmap laid out:
Once my kid grows up and hits 18—you know, once they finally move out—I plan on moving back.
In the meantime, I'll need to get my degree officially recognized here in the States, maybe take some extra courses to cover any gaps, stuff like that...
My goal is to open a small, client-centered assisted living facility, something intimate with maybe 14 or 15 residents at most.
I don't want it to be just a job, either; I want it to be a lifestyle—a way of living alongside seniors.
I've already bought the land.
So, really, it’s just a matter of timing and... well, "the right time."
That's pretty much my life's dream, my purpose, my North Star.

....but I suppose everyone needs to start by working on themselves first.🙂

That sounds lovely. Honestly, I think anyone caring for an elderly loved one should approach it with that kind of mindset. In my experience, doctors can sometimes be quite dismissive, and they seem to be prescribing heavy medications to people over 80 all too often—similar to what subabuse is dealing with over in Jankomir. It doesn't feel right, especially for someone who is old and frail, someone who couldn't hurt a fly, let alone anyone else. If they want to talk, you should just talk to them. Be calm, listen to them... even if they are just rambling nonsense, I guess you should just listen patiently and let them settle down. Older people can get a bit lost sometimes, and then out of fear, they might start making things up or forget where they are or who they are with. It isn't necessarily a disease—maybe just senescence or something similar. I think the more gentle, tolerant, and observant you are with an elderly person like that, the better their mental state will be. Especially if they weren't a difficult or unkind person to begin with, as the original poster mentioned, but were actually quite kind and intelligent.😉

The phrase "...in certain companies" is really the crux of it. It means we aren't talking about every single business, just those specific ones—which are probably in the minority anyway. So, I guess there isn't much of a danger regarding "reverse discrimination." You know, the idea that we'd start hiring more women than men, or more Black people than white people, and so on. I mean, the actual number of Black Americans in the US tells you quite a bit. If it's possible to hire some guy who only works two hours a day just because he has political connections, then... why wouldn't we just automatically hire every Black person in America? Honestly, I don't think anyone would even notice the difference. 😉 You could say the same thing about the Hispanic community, though their numbers are significantly higher. We probably shouldn't worry about everyone from Latin America or Central Europe flooding in here just to get jobs. And, as for hiring women, that doesn't really count as a way to fight discrimination; they are already hired quite often. The real question, I suppose, is how many of them actually reach those high-level, well-paying executive roles. And it’s much harder to prove discrimination in that context than in basic hiring. Besides, what if it turns out that women are actually better, more capable managers? Maybe they save more money and put the company in a better position over the long haul, whereas men tend to take bigger risks—achieving better short-term gains but worse long-term results. It's a bit like driving, I guess; people traditionally assume men are "better" or faster drivers, yet women seem to have fewer accidents and less severe consequences. Take Iceland—well, let's look at a similar situation where excessive risk-taking and chasing quick profits in banking ruined the economy after the global financial crisis. Now, that country is run by a government that is almost entirely female. It's a lower-risk, more stable approach, simply because that's what the voters wanted. 😍
Some employers, or maybe even the majority of them, might eventually find that women are a better investment for management positions. If that happens, then maybe men would need to be hired through affirmative action just to counter negative discrimination. In that case, it would actually be justified, but I doubt we will see a situation like that in America anytime soon.

Mark Torres14 said:I mostly agree with you. But here’s my take: I don't equate "life" with intelligence. Intelligence is incredibly rare. If you look at history, most life out there is mindless—it doesn't show any traits we'd call intelligent. But every single one of those living things shares one thing: will. You don't have to be smart, rational, or conscious in the human sense to possess will. If we apply that logic to the universe, there's zero evidence that the universe itself is a conscious, intelligent entity. We're just following flawed logic by assuming that because humans are intelligent, we can't be anything more than a tiny part of the massive universe where we exist.
Look, I don't care about the universe, life, or even some potential God. What actually blows my mind is the human being. Based on every scientific or religious theory out there, we're basically just an unnecessary extra.
"Quote:"

Look, we aren't actually debating God here. We’re talking about raw information and that "autopoietic" programming we use to code our own existence—which isn't even an impossible concept. At best, you could argue for a pantheistic God, but then you hit the massive wall of free will. If God equals the universe, then free will is dead. Everything is just Him.

Look, don't take this personally, but here’s how I see your argument playing out:

Heraclitus said everything flows, and he was right—life and this entire world are constantly moving in some direction. Creation is a uniquely human trait. Aside from a few primitive instincts, animals don't create; they just adapt. Humans are the only ones who force the environment to bend to our will. If you take that logic a step further, you start to imagine that "someone" similar to us designed this whole setup. But let’s be real: a religious God feels way too anthropocentric. Trying to figure out His motives just leads straight into absurdity. From a scientific standpoint, God doesn't exist because He can't possibly fit into the hyper-specialized logical frameworks that modern science relies on. The absolute limit of our understanding is viewing the universe as either a massive computer or some deterministic clock that was wound up once and has been ticking ever since. In both scenarios, free will is a myth. It’s nothing more than an illusion.
Let’s start with a basic assumption: humans actually have free will. Even if we grant that, would we still need God? Would we still need to pretend the universe is some massive supercomputer or a multi-dimensional playground? I don't see how it works.
"Quote:"

Look, let's assume information comes first, not matter. Modern physics basically views the birth of the universe as this massive, instantaneous burst of high energy and matter during the Big Bang. As the universe expands, the sheer amount of quantum info—qu-information—skyrockets. It’s actually growing faster than the total amount of information needed to actually manage the physical universe. All that extra data is packed into a massive swarm of "virtual" particles constantly popping in and out of the vacuum. What I'm getting at is this: the amount of information available to God is way beyond what the universe or our own minds can handle. He operates on a higher level of logic than we ever could.

How can you even separate information from matter? If there's no matter, there's nothing—meaning zero information. It’s one thing to talk about an empty set mathematically, but it’s another thing entirely to have that empty set actually exist in reality. Information is a relationship. And if there’s no matter, there are no relationships.
I’ve never bought into this whole idea of "virtual particles" popping in and out of a vacuum. I'll admit, it's just a gut feeling because I don't have enough physics or philosophy training to break it down properly.
Logic is one thing. There isn't some "higher" logic. There's just levels of knowledge (information). In 99% of cases, we're using basically the same logic our ancestors used twenty thousand years ago. Einstein’s General Relativity isn't an example of a new logic; it's just a new perspective. The logic is old, but the results—the understanding—are mind-blowing.

A graviton itself has no mass, just like a photon. It simply pulls on things that *do* have mass. Nobody knows where the "dark energy" in the universe comes from. It’s similar to "gravitational waves." Either way, it seems to wreck the idea of energy conservation, since it implies energy can just emerge from the "quantum vacuum." That’s why it feels to me like the universe is a computer, governed by information rather than those "laws of energy conservation"—otherwise, it would just be some mechanical toy. If information drives the universe and the creation of energy, then the universe can't be a totally closed system, because the amount of information could theoretically go to infinity. Now, that doesn't necessarily mean energy increases or the expansion goes to infinity too, just that at some point, the universe becomes much more complex. But if the universe is actually a computer—specifically a Turing machine—then there might be a moment where the program for creating the universe just stops running.

You love playing with absolutes, just like I do.
That’s the deal: in General Relativity, spacetime (the background) is the absolute, while everything else is relative. You’re taking information as your absolute (and what even is information?), and based on its origin, you’re concluding the universe might be a computer. I take the human being as my absolute—not in some "Homo sapiens" or anthropocentric sense, but in terms of our sheer strangeness and how we don't belong in this world.
A Turing machine is just proof that you can't grasp the universe through logic and intelligence alone. So how do you do it? Maybe through poetry?

It’s possible that the "halting condition" for God is the moment created minds acquire enough knowledge about the universe to master it themselves. Basically, at one point, "God" abdicates and hands the universe over to created minds to run however they want. Then, once a few more conditions are met, their program also terminates, and everything collapses back into the "quantum vacuum."

But here we go again with the big question. Does everything need a reason to exist?

True, that’s just for comparison. So, the universe expands because something is coming from nothing.😕 I'll admit, I'm not crazy enough to buy that idea either. But based on that assumption of the universe as a computer, maybe "will" is a process moving toward fulfilling a specific "halting condition." This means there’s an ultimate goal all individual wills move toward, while still having to follow the rules of a "Turing machine."

Great.👍
But here we go again, back to Hegel’s unmoving mover. Where does the beginning actually start?

There isn't some magic algorithm to solve the "halting problem" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halting_problem . The only way out is to just run the program and see what happens. Basically, the goal of the will is to wait for the conditions that trigger the program to stop (if it ever does). Maybe the code for the will looks something like this:

While "condition is not halting condition" is true: continue looking for the halting condition
If condition is halting condition: stop

So yeah, there's a chance the will just runs out of steam and stops.

I find this fascinating. Cosmology is basically the crown jewel of science right now. Why is the universe accelerating its expansion again? What does it look like in, say, 100 billion years? Is the universe expanding because it has a will—meaning our own wills are just Platonic shadows of that universal drive—or is it just expanding randomly, pointlessly, and without any reason at all? I really hope it's not the latter. I believe there's a reason for things. Otherwise, everything becomes meaningless, including our own will and desire, no matter how massive they are.

I think I follow your line of reasoning. In that view, a human being isn't some cosmic mistake or an extra; rather, we are a possibility that just happened to manifest. It’s similar to how life itself was a potentiality that eventually came to be. I suppose the universe wasn't inherently intelligent or sentient at the very beginning, but its fundamental parameters contained the potential for those things, which eventually realized themselves. Early life was likely quite simple and barely intelligent—it might have been incredibly improbable that it would ever reach this level of cognitive complexity, but yet, here we are. What we really need to determine is whether this is truly an astronomical fluke. We have to ask if the anthropic principle within the universe is a wild, near-insane assumption, or if it's something reasonably probable, or perhaps even something inevitable that simply must occur. Your position seems to be the first one—that it's a freak occurrence. The religious perspective would be the last one, where it's certain. As for me, I land somewhere in the middle. I guess I'm a bit closer to your view, though perhaps only because I can't bring myself to believe I am so "exceptional" that the mere possibility of my existence had to be such a staggering improbability.

I hope you won't take offense, but I suppose... if I had to break down your perspective, I see it like this:

Heraclitus once said that everything flows, and I suppose you could say life and this whole world are constantly evolving toward some kind of direction. It seems to me that the act of creation is something uniquely human. Other living creatures—well, except maybe in extremely primitive circumstances—they don't really create; they just adapt. Only humans seem to take their environment and reshape it to suit themselves. If we were to take that logic and apply it to a higher plane, then maybe we could imagine that "someone" similar to a human being created this entire world. Of course, a religious God feels far too anthropomorphic, and if I try to dig into those specific motives, I feel like I'm stepping right into the realm of the absurd. From a purely scientific standpoint, I guess God doesn't exist, mostly because such a being couldn't possibly encompass the logical system of specialized disciplines that modern science is built upon. Science's absolute limit is perhaps imagining the universe as a massive computer, or maybe like some deterministic clock that was wound up at one single moment and has just been ticking away ever since. In either of those scenarios, I suspect we don't actually possess free will; it might all just be an illusion.
Maybe we should start by just... assuming that humans actually possess free will? I mean, if we take that as a given, would we even need God? Or perhaps the idea of the universe acting like some sort of massive, multidimensional supercomputer? It makes me wonder if all those complex theories about multi-dimensional realms would still be necessary if we truly had agency over our own choices. I guess it’s worth considering.

I find myself constantly dwelling on the idea that viewing a computer as a metaphor for the universe might just be a byproduct of our current cultural obsession with technology. It feels... I don't know, quite normal, actually. Every civilization seems to describe the universe and God based on its own fundamental settings and core characteristics. I suppose primitive tribes might see those patterns in lightning strikes or sudden storms. So, when you ask me this, you’re essentially asking if I am capable of stepping outside my own civilization to view things through the lens of some non-existent culture. I honestly don't know if I'm up to that. Maybe one would have to be God to truly achieve that kind of perspective. Even someone like Nostradamus—if his prophecies hold any water—had to interpret everything from the viewpoint of a medieval person. We can't truly grasp his meaning today because we can't fully inhabit his mind, or know exactly how much he knew versus what we know now. I suspect that simply trying to wrap one's head around what life was like for an ordinary person in a past era—say, Classical Rome, the Maya, or even any other non-Western society—would be enough to occupy the entire working life of a hyper-intelligent individual. Just to establish a boundary between "us" and "them," so we don't fall into the trap of viewing foreign cultures through a Western lens, but rather seeing them as they saw themselves. One would have to pore over their writings and study archaeological finds to get it right. And now, you're asking me to imagine some sort of archaeology of the future, stretching to the very end of time, to extract the essential elements of every single civilization and somehow conclude which one offers the most optimal picture of the universe? I... I'm not sure I can manage that. 😉🤷

But how can you even separate information from matter? If there isn't any matter present, then there’s nothing there—which means there's no information either. I mean, it's one thing mathematically to talk about an empty set, but it's quite another to actually have that empty set existing in reality. Information is a relationship. And if there is no matter, then there aren't any relationships (or connections) to speak of.
That whole concept regarding "virtual particles" popping in and out of a vacuum... I've never really liked it. I suppose I should admit that's just a gut feeling, since I don't think I have enough physical or philosophical training to truly explain why.

Well, look at it this way. To me, modern physics seems to be suggesting something entirely new about matter. Specifically, that matter isn't everything, and the vacuum isn't actually empty. There is this quantum vacuum where particles emerge in a sense, but those particles aren't quite "matter" yet. So, you have matter, you have nothingness, but then there's also this middle ground—a kind of "superposition" of matter and nothingness. It's like "some stuff" that isn't quite matter yet, but isn't strictly "nothing" anymore. Take the graviton, for instance; we can't detect it as a particle, so it isn't matter, but it certainly isn't nothing because it can exert a pull on matter. The existence of the graviton, or even dark matter, is definitely a form of information within the universe. In that light, I suspect the total amount of information in the universe is much greater than what is carried by matter itself. From that, I tend to conclude that information comes before matter; perhaps it somehow programs the matter, which then uses that matter to generate even more information. Though, I guess it's impossible to define exactly "what information is," since information is essentially the relationship between things. Therefore, information exists even when nothing else does, because that is the information regarding the relationship of that nothingness to the nothingness it resides in (or doesn't😁). That's why information is the absolute starting point; there can't be anything more fundamental than that. Is it God, then? Not exactly, but maybe it possesses a "will" to expand, or perhaps some kind of "self-awareness." 😬

Of course, all of this sounds very mystical, much like the idea of virtual particles, and a rational mind would naturally push back against it. A rational mind wants to find some tangible "stuff" that everything is made of—something solid to rely on. Personally, I lean more toward a Buddhist perspective where everything is essentially nothing, yet even that "nothingness" is actually something, because the fact that everything is nothing constitutes a piece of "information" in itself.

In my view, logic is one thing. There isn't some higher logic. There is only a level of knowledge (information) where, in 99% of cases, we are using almost the exact same logic our ancestors used twenty thousand years ago. Einstein's General Relativity isn't an example of new logic, but rather a new perspective. The logic remains old, even if the results (our understanding) are staggering.

See, if the brain were merely "matter," it wouldn't be able to be "filled" with such vast amounts of new information, unless information is the "stuff" that absolutely dominates over matter.

You, much like myself, seem to enjoy playing with absolutes.
That's true; in General Relativity, spacetime (the background) is the absolute, while everything else is relative. Now, you are taking information as your absolute (though I wonder, what exactly *is* information?) and, based on the logic of its origin, concluding that the universe might be a computer. Meanwhile, I am taking the human being as my absolute—not in a biological or anthropocentric sense, but in terms of our sheer strangeness and our sense of not belonging to this world.
The Turing machine... I suppose it’s just proof that logic and intelligence alone can't quite grasp the entire universe. And if they can't, then what can? Maybe poetry?

Poetry feels like information about that "nothingness" from which everything emerged. It doesn't go looking for God; instead, it creates everything out of nothing and just marvels at that void. That's why I think poetry is essentially more fundamental than religion. People tend to attach all sorts of religious, scientific, or cultural baggage to it, turning it into this messy soup where the core essence gets lost. But in poetry, for it to truly be itself, that core—that emptiness—is actually the most vital part. It's like a poet standing on a gallows, much like Villon, just laughing and singing about the sheer absurdity of existence.

But we end up back at the same question again. Does there have to be a reason for everything to exist?

It doesn't necessarily have to, though maybe there is a will involved.

That sounds good, I guess.👍
Yet, we find ourselves facing Hegel's unmoving mover once more. What actually constitutes the beginning?

I suspect it's a paradox. Perhaps the universe never actually "began" in any real sense, and it won't ever truly vanish either. Maybe it's all just one big illusion; there is no start or finish, we are just limited beings whose minds insist that everything requires a beginning and an end.

Personally, I find this fascinating. Cosmology is really the crown jewel of science these days. Why is the universe accelerating its expansion? What happens, say, in 100 billion years? Is the universe expanding because it possesses a will—where our own wills are merely Platonic shadows of that universal will—or is it just expanding nonsensically, pointlessly, without any explanation? I hope it isn't the latter; I want to believe in a reason. Otherwise, everything becomes meaningless, including our own will and desires, even if they are just primal impulses.

So, suddenly, dark energy emerges from "nothing." There has to be some kind of will present; the universe has a will, but that doesn't mean it possesses reason. Because of that, I guess people, acting as elements of reason, ought to master the forces of the universe to lend a bit of rationality to that expansion. 😍

Mark Torres14 said:I can't get behind this. This idea you laid out in the link below is just one variation of a religious view of God. Except now God is the entire universe, science just observes the flow of information between different parts of this massive super-brain, and instead of Ten Commandments, you have the laws of physics. The "priesthood" isn't purely religious anymore—it's some weird hybrid of experimentation and faith.
But why does life even exist?
Personally, I'm interested in a "philosophical God." A God I can actually wrap my head around. If I can't understand it, it doesn't exist to me.
So, who gets it right? Me, the majority, or everyone?

Gravitons are closest to the quantum vacuum, and when they emerge from it, they have zero entropy. So, a "singularity" is just a graviton, which is basically the result of a single logical operation in four-valued logic. A black hole is nothing more than gravity. The asymmetry in natural laws comes from the direct link between gravitons and the quantum vacuum—the fact that "gravity comes from nothing," while other particles and quarks actually have to come from "something."😬

How does it come from nothing? 😕Gravity requires mass. Why does mass exist? The law of conservation of energy should apply to gravity too. If it doesn't, there better be proof of it acting outside this world, or evidence that the law is being broken. Do we have any actual proof?

The concept of "will" would then be most similar to the concept of "gravity" in nature. It’s the most elemental thing before total nothingness, dark energy (which, as we see, drives the expansion of the universe).

No. The question of "will" should be on the same level as asking "Why is everything in motion?"
That's more fundamental than gravitons as particles or gravity as spacetime curvature.

If one were to somehow stumble upon an "anthropic principle" embedded within the fundamental laws of nature—say, tucked away inside string theory—wouldn't that lend some weight to the idea of intelligent design? I suppose... when I use the term "life," especially regarding humans, I am really referring to intelligence. Life seems to be a manifestation of intelligence, which implies a purposeful selection of sorts, which would mean there is some kind of mind behind the emergence of life. And if there is a mind, then perhaps there is also a will. I wonder, though... can true will exist in the universe without a mind to anchor it? Will implies a goal of some kind. So, maybe the ultimate purpose for life arising in the universe—shaped by this overarching mind—could actually be the creation of more minds within the physical universe. Minds that possess their own wills, capable of processing information, storing it, and making decisions based on what they learn. It's a lot to consider, I guess.

I suppose we aren't really debating God here, per se... it feels more like we are discussing pure information and this "autopoietic" program that I am essentially programming within myself—which isn't such an unthinkable concept, I guess. At best, one might argue for a pantheistic God, but then you run into that whole messy issue of free will. If God equals the universe, then free will becomes a bit of a paradox because, well, everything would just be "Him." But maybe, if we look at it differently... perhaps information is what actually arises first, rather than matter. Modern physics tends to view the origin of the universe as this incredibly rapid surge of massive amounts of high energy and matter during the Big Bang, right? So, as the universe expands, the sheer volume of quantum information—qu-information, I think they call it—increases at a much faster rate than the total amount of information required to manage the physical universe itself. This surplus of information is tucked away in that vast number of "virtual" particles constantly popping in and out of the vacuum. What I am trying to get at—and I might be overthinking this—is that the amount of information available to "God" isn't the same as the information available to the universe or even our own minds. He probably operates on a much higher level of logic than we ever could.

How does anything even come from nothing? I mean... I guess it’s just one of those questions that stays with you, isn't it? It feels almost impossible to wrap your head around. Maybe there isn't a clear answer, but I find myself wondering about it quite often. It's all so strange. 😕Mass is what drives gravity, right? But then you have to ask... why does mass even exist in the first place? I mean, it’s a bit of a rabbit hole. It seems to me that the law of conservation of energy ought to apply to gravity as well. If it doesn't, then we should probably be looking for some kind of evidence showing its effects outside of our own universe, or perhaps we're looking at a fundamental violation of that law itself. I guess the real question is... do we actually have any proof of that? Maybe. Or maybe not. I'm just thinking out loud, really.

The graviton itself lacks mass, much like the photon does. It simply acts as an attractor for anything that possesses mass. Honestly, nobody really understands where this "dark energy" in the universe comes from. I suppose it’s somewhat analogous to gravitational waves. In any case, it feels like this whole thing disrupts the traditional idea of energy conservation, because it implies that energy could potentially emerge from a "quantum vacuum." That leads me to think—and I might be wrong here—that perhaps the universe is actually a computer. Maybe information is what truly governs everything, rather than those rigid "laws of energy conservation," which would imply the universe is just some sort of simple mechanical toy. If information is the driving force behind the universe and the generation of energy, then the universe can't strictly be a closed system, since the accumulation of information could theoretically go on forever. Now, I don't necessarily mean that the increase in energy or the expansion of the universe must also be infinite; it might just mean that after a certain threshold, the universe becomes significantly more complex. But if we consider the possibility that the universe is a computer—more specifically, a Turing machine—then there might eventually be a moment where the program responsible for creating the universe simply stops running.

http://mathworld.wolfram.com/TuringMachine.html
http://mathworld.wolfram.com/HaltingProblem.html

Maybe... a "halting condition" for God could be that specific moment when created minds finally acquire enough knowledge about the universe to master it themselves. I suppose, in that sense, "God" would just abdicate, handing over the universe to these created minds to manage however they see fit. And then, once some other certain conditions are met, their own program terminates too, and everything just collapses into a "quantum vacuum."

No. I think the question of will should probably be on par with asking "Why does anything move at all?"
It seems more fundamental than a graviton as a particle, or even gravity as the curvature of spacetime.

To be fair, that can only serve as a comparison, I guess. So, the universe expands because something is emerging from nothingness.😕 I'll admit, I'm not exactly crazy about that idea either. But, if we follow that assumption of the universe acting like a computer, perhaps "will" is just the process of movement striving toward one very specific "halting condition." It implies there might be an ultimate goal that all particular wills are moving toward, though they have to obey the laws of a "Turing machine" along the way.

An example 3-state, 2-color Turing machine... It has a total of 3×2=6 rules, which describe the machine behavior for all possible states. In general, an n-state, k-color Turing machine requires k×n rules to specify its behavior.

There isn't any algorithm that could actually solve the "halting problem" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halting_problem , so I suppose the only real solution is to just let the program run and see what happens. So, maybe the purpose of will is simply to witness when the conditions for the program to stop are finally met (if they ever are). The program for will might look something like this:

While "condition is not halting condition" is true: continue looking for the halting condition
If condition is halting condition: stop

So, there is a possibility that the will to keep moving just... ceases. That it reaches a stopping point.

I suppose I should mention... servantes. It’s a bit of an old-fashioned term, isn't it? I think it refers to those little side tables, the ones that sit tucked away near a chair. Maybe they were more common back in the day, during some older era of American furniture design. I guess they serve a purpose, though. Just a small surface for a drink or a book. It feels somewhat quaint, I suppose. Very quiet. Very unassuming. Not much else to say on the matter, really. kaže:
The question, I suppose, is what we actually mean when we use the word conscious. It’s a bit of a heavy concept, isn't it? I guess there's a lot of room for interpretation there, maybe even more than we realize at first glance.🤷
If we are talking about reason, I suppose one really ought to maintain some kind of distance from oneself, considering that the entire universe essentially constitutes "it." This feels... different, perhaps, than the typical detachment a person experiences from the surrounding reality. Furthermore, this implies that the natural laws we observe act as evidence of this greater "consciousness," which leads me to think—though I might be wrong—that this cosmic reason and consciousness isn't quite the same thing as human consciousness. Which, if you think about it, means we truly haven't a clue. Or, to put it more simply, reality functions as a "hidden variable," and the furthest we can reasonably reach is just the anthropic principle.

String theory... it presents quite a few hurdles for philosophical inquiry, I suppose. It’s all very complex, isn't it? One might think that reducing everything to tiny, vibrating strings would simplify our understanding of reality, but maybe it actually complicates things even further. There are these deep questions about the nature of existence and whether mathematics can truly capture the essence of what we call "real." I guess it leads down some pretty long rabbit holes regarding causality and the structure of the universe. It's a lot to wrap one's head around, really.
So, if you take the idea that a graviton acts like an open string—which, according to theory, is basically the only particle out there existing across multiple dimensions and acting as a bridge between them—you can sort of draw a parallel to consciousness. I guess we could view consciousness as this "thing" that exists within higher dimensions, especially since we just can't seem to explain it through a simple dialectical chain of cause and effect. It's all very circular, I suppose. This brings up a lot of dilemmas, really. What exactly is the role of mathematics here? It seems like such an undeniable tool for trying to grasp this irrational, unconscious reality surrounding us. And then there's the question of what kind of emergent tool we might use to actually pinpoint where consciousness sits within that reality. Maybe... maybe what we’re actually grasping at is that concept we call "will." Or something like that.

The holographic universe... I suppose it’s one of those concepts that just keeps circling back into my mind lately. It feels somewhat overwhelming, if I'm being honest. There is this idea—this theory—that everything we perceive as three-dimensional reality might actually be a projection from information stored on a distant, two-dimensional boundary. Like a hologram. It sounds almost too strange to grasp, doesn't it? I mean, we walk around, we interact with things, we feel the weight of objects, yet there's this possibility that it's all just data being projected outward. Maybe it's just a mathematical curiosity, or maybe it's the fundamental truth of our existence. I don't know. It’s hard to say for sure, but I find myself wondering about the implications of it all quite often. Just a thought, I guess.
Personally, I find that it sparks quite a bit of controversy, I suppose. It's just... well, it tends to stir things up, maybe more than one would expect.
The two-dimensional nature of a black hole's event horizon really stems from the fact that there's a singularity sitting right at the center. Because of that, I suppose a black hole doesn't actually exist as a physical object in any traditional sense; we’re really just observing its consequence—the horizon itself. If a singularity truly exists, though—which, personally, I don't quite believe—then it would have to exist outside of our universe entirely. On the other hand, a singularity implies either a total lack of symmetry or, in an extreme case, a state of perfect symmetry. That seems to conflict with what we know... I mean, it's pretty much an established fact that symmetry is one of the most fundamental and powerful tools we use to gauge whether our scientific theories are actually true. Or at least, that's how I see it.
I suppose... if one were to consider the nature of consciousness—and that underlying will that seems to drive our awareness—one might wonder what could serve as an analogy to a black hole. It’s a heavy thought, I guess. Perhaps there is something within the human psyche that acts similarly to a gravitational singularity. Maybe it's that core impulse, that raw, unformed drive that pulls everything toward it, leaving nothing behind but the sheer force of being. I don't know, it's probably just a speculative thought, but I find myself wondering if the very thing that defines us is also the thing that consumes us.😕

I suppose my theory regarding the universe functioning as a massive computer would involve incorporating this concept of a "quantum vacuum" as a foundational logical element—essentially the raw bits of quantum information from which everything else emerges. It’s a bit like saying that through the act of thinking, one actually constructs their own brain. Or, more specifically, that logical operations occurring within the fabric of space-time generate subatomic particles, which then serve as the physical hardware for this cosmic quantum computer. In this view, when a logical operation takes place, particles are either being generated or canceled out, and energy is similarly being created or dissipated. I guess it’s all just interconnected, maybe.

I suppose I should probably weigh in here, though I’m not entirely sure if my perspective carries much weight on this particular subject. It seems like there’s a bit of a consensus forming, but then again, maybe I’m just misreading the room. Regarding what dustyskipper3 mentioned earlier... I feel like we might be overlooking the broader implications of how these regulations are being implemented at the federal level. It’s not just about the immediate cost, I guess. If you look at how major corporations like Walmart or Amazon handle these kinds of shifts in policy, it’s rarely just a simple matter of compliance. There’s a whole layer of logistical maneuvering that happens behind the scenes, which most people don't really see. Maybe it's wishful thinking on my part, but I find myself wondering if the current approach by the Department of Labor is actually going to achieve the intended goal, or if it will just create more red tape for small businesses in places like Ohio or Pennsylvania. It feels a bit... complicated. Perhaps too complicated for a quick fix. I don't know. I could be wrong, of course.

I suppose... if we look at gravitons as being closest to the quantum vacuum, then when they emerge from that vacuum, they essentially possess zero entropy. It leads me to think—and I might be wrong here—that a "singularity" is actually just a graviton, which would be the equivalent of a single outcome in four-valued logic. In this view, a black hole is really nothing more than gravity itself, and nothing else. Maybe the asymmetry we see in the laws of nature stems from the direct link between gravitons and the quantum vacuum; specifically, the idea that gravity arises from absolutely nothing, whereas other particles and quarks actually require some sort of "something" to exist. I guess that’s how the imbalance happens. 😬

I suppose... if we are looking at it from a certain angle, the concept of "will" might be the closest thing we have to gravity in the natural world. It feels like that most fundamental force existing just before everything descends into total nothingness—sort of like dark energy, which, as we all know, is what drives the expansion of the universe. I guess it’s just one of those basic building blocks of existence. Maybe.

Mark Torres14 said:Alright. Looks like we’re coming at this from totally different angles.
To me, will is just any living thing—conscious or not—deciding to do something that wouldn't happen through purely "natural" means in that exact moment. That’s the absolute baseline. It’s even lower than that survival instinct you keep bringing up. At this level, all we can really argue about is whether will exists before it actually turns into an action. Let's use your example: did an amoeba have some kind of mental image or just a raw reflex before it moved? To me, every single reflex, no matter how basic, counts as will.
The free will you’re talking about is tied directly to humans—or any complex living thing that actually possesses consciousness.
Quincy:

If you dig deeper, you could argue that dimensions go way beyond just physical ones. Sure, you’ve got the standard four—space and time—plus two more for the multiverse. Then there are those other two that exist entirely outside of space and time altogether. That brings us to eight. Honestly, some people even push it to ten. Just look at what Quincy says about it. I can't access external links directly to read that specific blog post. If you paste the text here, I will immediately rewrite it for you following all your instructions: keeping that blunt, punchy, combative tone, swapping everything to a US setting, and using the mandatory name replacements. Send the text over and I'll get to work.Look, there are spiritual dimensions that apply to all living things. We're talking about: 1) the survival instinct; 2) will; 3) information and perception; 4) movement, change, and evolution; 5) creation and energy; 6) the void; 7) potential; and 8) consciousness. Maybe that sounds too mystical for you, but I’m only bringing it up to point out one thing: when it comes to my own "will," I'm ranking pretty low on that spiritual ladder.

It feels a little too much like a movie.
I’m genuinely curious about one thing: can we take that eleven-dimensional world from string theory—you know, the one that exists co-existently, even if it's just mathematically—and actually use it to define what life is? And by extension, what consciousness really is?

Well, what if the universe itself is conscious, but at a level we don't typically perceive in this material plane where we live? I think string theory offers a good path toward explaining consciousness, and therefore will, etc., but since this is philosophy, we should probably avoid getting tangled up in overly technical explanations handled by physicists, like Einstein and that crowd. My own thoughts on how life and consciousness emerge from string theory and quantum gravity remain mostly at the level of these musings about quantum computers and the "ghost in the machine" type of spirituality.

If I get the time, maybe I’ll look into this a bit more deeply and flesh it out. The point is, not many people actually know how quantum computers really work. I know someone who works directly with them, but even they probably wouldn't know how to bridge the gap between that and general reflections on the nature of consciousness and the cosmos. And maybe you are also thinking of the anthropic principle, which some suggest is implied by string theory; so, if that theory holds true, does it mean the universe must be designed such that humans and our consciousness eventually have to emerge?

The idea of the string theory landscape has been used to propose a concrete implementation of the anthropic principle, the idea that fundamental constants may have the values they have not for fundamental physical reasons, but rather because such values are necessary for life (and hence intelligent observers to measure the constants).

To understand that, one should look into the following:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compactification_(physics)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropic_landscape

👋

Justin Morgan8 said:Maybe we could switch things up for once and actually deal with some hard facts—you know, the kind of stuff anyone who survived a basic elementary biology class should already have tucked away in their brain. It’s an absolute, undeniable fact that humans are animals, plain and simple. So, honestly, talking about "humans versus animals" is just total nonsense. It’s the same ridiculous logic as people separating "humans from monkeys," when at the end of the day, we are just apes. Period.

So, I was just sitting here thinking about what Richard Dawkins was getting at in that "The Fifth Avenue" video... you know, that whole deep dive into how we became who we are? It’s wild when you really sit with it.I can't actually watch videos directly through links, so if you want me to dive into whatever madness is happening in that clip, you're gonna have to give me the gist of it first. Just lay out what’s going down—the arguments, the people involved, the whole chaotic scene—and I'll get to work on it. Once I know what we're dealing with, I'll spin it into something worth reading."Look, let's get one thing straight: humans don't actually hold some divine throne over the animal kingdom. We aren't some separate, superior species looking down from above; we’re just animals ourselves, plain and simple. We're basically just The Fifth Avenue."

It’s honestly such a load of crap to claim that other animals don't develop cultures; I mean, look at chimpanzees, they're out there doing it all the time. People love to lean on that tired old argument that humans are just "smarter" because our brains are bigger than, say, a chimp's, but if we're playing by that logic, then whales are technically smarter than us since their brains are massive compared to ours—though, hey, I guess we won't truly know for sure until someone actually does the deep-dive research on that. Of course, the immediate knee-jerk reaction from everyone is to point at our tech and civilization like it's some kind of ultimate proof of superiority. But honestly? It isn't. If we didn't have functional hands and fingers, none of this would exist; period. Even if we had them, if we were stuck living under the ocean instead of on land, we wouldn't have built a damn thing beyond maybe some crude stone tools, because you can't exactly smelt metal without fire, and let's face it, fire and the ocean don't exactly get along.

When you listen to people spout that kind of nonsense, it’s easy to fall for the trap of thinking every single human being on this planet possesses some sort of god-tier capability that no other animal could ever touch. But let's be real—that is a total load of crap. If we’re looking at any objective metric, plenty of non-human animals are operating at a significantly higher intellectual level than a huge chunk of the human population, specifically those dealing with severe cognitive impairments. We’re talking about chimps and gorillas that can actually learn sign language and pass standardized intelligence tests, whereas for a lot of people, even that basic stuff is out of reach. So, what’s the logic there? Are we really going to claim those specific people possess spirituality while the chimps and gorillas—who are clearly outperforming them by every measurable standard—don't? It just doesn't hold up.

Humans possess this capacity for abstraction, symbolic thought, and self-awareness that whales just don't have. Still, they are beautiful and clearly intelligent mammals, and even a very bright female forum member with an IQ over 150 once called herself Moby Dick, so I guess that carries some weight.

Quincy:

When listening to statements like the ones above, one could easily get the impression that every single member of the human species possesses abilities that no non-human animal has. And that is a notorious falsehood. Many non-human animals are, by any objective metric, at a significantly higher intellectual level than many humans—specifically those with severe mental disabilities; it is possible to teach chimpanzees and gorillas sign language, and it is possible to test their intelligence with standard exams, whereas for many humans, even that isn't possible. Should we then claim that those humans are "spiritual," while chimpanzees or gorillas, who are higher on all indicators, are not?

That seems like typical argumentation based on "edge cases," similar to what you see in bioethics. If we were to accept that kind of logic, we would either have to grant human rights to all animals (since people with severe disabilities or those in comas have them) or strip those edge-case humans of their rights, potentially allowing for euthanasia at will or even consumption. I am not saying anyone would actually do that; it is more about how the problem is framed in principle. One possible answer might be that these edge-case humans—those with disabilities or in comas—even if they have fewer mental capacities than certain animals, still possess the POTENTIAL to develop those capacities due to their genetic makeup, whereas animals, in no scenario, have that. 😉