Total Posts:22|Showing Posts:1-22

# On causality

 Posts: 13,774 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 3/15/2014 6:12:15 PMPosted: 4 years agoThis was made using excerpts I pulled from various sources. I hope it's not too hard to follow :)Reality, i.e. the real universe, contains all and only that which is real. The reality concept is analytically self-contained; if there were something outside reality that were real enough to affect or influence reality, it would be inside reality, and this contradiction invalidates any supposition of an external reality (up to observational or theoretical relevance).In sentential logic, a tautology is an expression of functor-related sentential variables that is always true, regardless of the truth values assigned to its sentential variables themselves. A tautology has three key properties: it is universally (syntactically) true, it is thus self-referential (true even of itself and therefore closed under recursive self-composition), and its implications remain consistent under inferential operations preserving these properties. That is, every tautology is a self-consistent circularity of universal scope, possessing validity by virtue of closure under self-composition, comprehensiveness (non-exclusion of truth), and consistency (freedom from irresolvable paradox). But tautologies are not merely consistent unto themselves; they are mutually consistent under mutual composition, making sentential logic as much a "self-consistent circularity of universal scope" as any one of its tautologies. Two-valued logic is something without which reality could not exist. If it were eliminated, then true and false, real and unreal, and existence and nonexistence could not be distinguished, and the merest act of perception or cognition would be utterly impossible.Reality is a relation, and every relation is a syndiffeonic relation exhibiting syndiffeonesis or "difference-in-sameness". Therefore, reality is a syndiffeonic relation. Syndiffeonesis implies that any assertion to the effect that two things are different implies that they are reductively the same; if their difference is real, then they both reduce to a common reality and are to that extent similar. Syndiffeonesis, the most general of all reductive principles, forms the basis of a new view of the relational structure of reality [ Syndiffeonesis is necessary to show why there is a single reality]The ultimate "boundary of the boundary" of the universe is UBT, a primordial realm of infocognitive potential free of informational constraint. In CTMU cosmogony, "nothingness" is informationally defined as zero constraint or pure freedom (unbound telesis or UBT), and the apparent construction of the universe is explained as a self-restriction of this potential. In a realm of unbound ontological potential, defining a constraint is not as simple as merely writing it down; because constraints act restrictively on content, constraint and content must be defined simultaneously in a unified syntax-state relationshipDeterminacy and indeterminacy...at first glance, there seems to be no middle ground. Events are either causally connected or they are not, and if they are not, then the future would seem to be utterly independent of the past. Either we use causality to connect the dots and draw a coherent picture of time, or we settle for a random scattering of independent dots without spatial or temporal pattern and thus without meaning.But there is another possibility after all: self-determinacy. Self-determinacy is like a circuitous boundary separating the poles of the above dichotomy...a reflexive and therefore closed boundary, the formation of which involves neither preexisting laws nor external structure. Thus, it is the type of causal attribution suitable for a perfectly self-contained system. Self-determinacy is a deep but subtle concept, owing largely to the fact that unlike either determinacy or randomness, it is a source of bona fide meaning. Where a system determines its own composition, properties and evolution independently of external laws or structures, it can determine its own meaning, and ensure by its self configuration that its inhabitants are crucially implicated therein.Accordingly, the universe must adopt a reflexive form in which it can "select itself" for self-defined existence, with the selection function identical to that which is selected. This means that it must take a certain general or "initial" form, the MU form, which contains all of the requisites for generating the contents of reality. Due to hology, whereby the self-contained universe has nothing but itself of which to consist, this form is self-distributed.One might at first be tempted to object that there is no reason to believe that the universe does not simply "exist", and thus that self-selection is unnecessary. However, this is not a valid position. First, it involves a more or less subtle appeal to something external to the universe, namely a prior/external informational medium or "syntax" of existence; if such a syntax were sufficiently relevant to this reality, i.e. sufficiently real, to support its existence, then it would be analytically included in reality (as defined up to perceptual relevance). Second, active self-selection is indeed necessary, for existence is not merely a state but a process; the universe must internally distinguish that which it is from that which it is not, and passivity is ruled out because it would again imply the involvement of a complementary active principle of external origin...If there were no real (internal) distinction between them, real as opposed to unreal would fall apart and reality could not exist.Continued below
 Posts: 13,774 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 3/15/2014 6:12:26 PMPosted: 4 years agoThe "no gaps" criterion of MAP permits no critical explanatory holes omitting any essential aspect of structure. What this means can best be illustrated by means of a recurrent fallacy: "The existence of the universe is given and therefore in no need of explanation." The phrase is given is incomplete; it has hidden "loose ends" corresponding to that by which existence is given, the means by which it is given, and the reason for which it is given. If the source, means and reason are actually real, then they are inside reality, and the explanatory gap exists only in the mind of the claimant rather than in the self-explanatory network of reality itself.On the other hand, omitting this phrase (is given) results in something like "the existence of the universe is inexplicable". However, this amounts to the assertion that the universe has no identifiable basis or medium of existence, not even itself"i.e., that no explanatory function can be defined on the explanandum, and that the universe is somehow prohibited from serving as its own source, means, or reason [and why settle for inexplicability when there's a perfectly logical alternative?]Ordinary feedback, describing the evolution of mechanical (and with somewhat less success, biological) systems, is cyclical or recursive. The system and its components repeatedly call on internal structures, routines and actuation mechanisms in order to acquire input, generate corresponding internal information, internally communicate and process this information, and evolve to appropriate states in light of input and programming. However, where the object is to describe the evolution of a system from a state in which there is no information or programming (information-processing syntax) at all, a new kind of feedback is required: telic feedback.The currency of telic feedback is a quantifiable self-selection parameter, generalized utility, a generalized property of law and state in the maximization of which they undergo mutual refinement (note that generalized utility is self-descriptive or autologous, intrinsically and retroactively defined within the system, and "pre-informational" in the sense that it assigns no specific property to any specific object).Through telic feedback, a system retroactively self-configures by reflexively applying a "generalized utility function" to its internal existential potential or possible futures. In effect, the system brings itself into existence as a means of atemporal communication between its past and future whereby law and state, syntax and informational content, generate and refine each other across time to maximize total systemic self-utility. This defines a situation in which the true temporal identity of the system is a distributed point of temporal equilibrium that is both between and inclusive of past and future. In this sense, the system is timeless or atemporal.A system that evolves by means of telic recursion - and ultimately, every system must either be, or be embedded in, such a system as a condition of existence - is not merely computational, but protocomputational. That is, its primary level of processing configures its secondary (computational and informational) level of processing by telic recursion. Telic recursion can be regarded as the self-determinative mechanism of not only cosmogony, but a natural, scientific form of teleology.In a self-deterministic system, causal regression leads to a completely intrinsic self-generative process. In any system that is not ultimately self-deterministic, including any system that is either random or deterministic in the standard extrinsic sense, causal regression terminates at null causality or does not terminate. In either of the latter two cases, science can fully explain nothing; in the absence of a final cause, even material and efficient causes are subject to causal regression toward ever more basic (prior and embedding) substances and processes, or if random in origin, toward primitive acausality. So given that explanation is largely what science is all about, science would seem to have no choice but to treat the universe as a self-deterministic, causally self-contained system. In any case, the self-containment of the real universe is implied by the following contradiction: if there were any external entity or influence that were sufficiently real to affect the real universe, then by virtue of its reality, it would by definition be internal to the real universe.Given that the self-containment of nature implies causal closure implies self-determinism implies self-actualization, how is self-actualization to be achieved? Obviously, nature must select some possible form in which to self-actualize. Since a self-contained, causally closed universe does not have the luxury of external guidance, it needs to generate an intrinsic self-selection criterion in order to do this. Since utility is the name already given to the attribute which is maximized by any rational choice function, and since a totally self-actualizing system has the privilege of defining its own standard of rationality, we may as well speak of this self-selection criterion in terms of global or generic self-utility. That is, the self-actualizing universe must generate and retrieve information on the intrinsic utility content of various possible forms that it might take.And now we come to what might be seen as the pivotal question: what is the goal of self-actualization? Conveniently enough, this question contains its own answer: self-actualization, a generic analogue of Aristotelian final causation and thus of teleology, is its own inevitable outcome and thus its own goal. Whatever its specific details may be, they are actualized by the universe alone, and this means that they are mere specific instances of cosmic self-actualization. Although the word "goal" has subjective connotations -- for example, some definitions stipulate that a goal must be the object of an instinctual drive or other subjective impulse -- we could easily adopt a reductive or functionalist approach to such terms, taking them to reduce or refer to the objective features of reality.It is important to be clear on the relationship between utility and causality. Utility is simply a generic selection criterion essential to the only cosmologically acceptable form of causality, namely self-determinism. The subjective gratification associated with positive utility in the biological and psychological realms is ultimately beside the point. No longer need natural processes be explained under suspicion of anthropomorphism; causal explanations need no longer implicitly refer to instinctive drives and subjective motivations. Instead, they can refer directly to a generic objective "drive", namely intrinsic causality"the "drive" of the universe to maximize an intrinsic self-selection criterion over various relational strata within the bounds of its internal constraints.In other words, the universe must possess a global analogue of free will that lets it internally define and calibrate the very scale on which its intrinsic value is internally measured.
 Posts: 13,774 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 3/15/2014 7:49:20 PMPosted: 4 years agoAnd yes, if you were wondering, this implies the existence of you-know-Who.
 Posts: 4,865 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 3/15/2014 7:58:33 PMPosted: 4 years agoI'll read it when I get the chance."Delete your fvcking sig" -1hard "primal man had the habit, when he came into contact with fire, of satisfying the infantile desire connected with it, by putting it out with a stream of his urine... Putting out the fire by micturating was therefore a kind of sexual act with a male, an enjoyment of sexual potency in a homosexual competition."
 Posts: 3,749 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 3/16/2014 1:17:18 PMPosted: 4 years agoWhoa, what a rush, awesome trip dude.Far out man."It is one of the commonest of mistakes to consider that the limit of our power of perception is also the limit of all there is to perceive." " C. W. Leadbeater
 Posts: 13,774 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 3/16/2014 3:30:48 PMPosted: 4 years agoAt 3/16/2014 1:17:18 PM, Sidewalker wrote:Whoa, what a rush, awesome trip dude.Far out man.You're such a punk lol
 Posts: 3,749 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 3/16/2014 5:07:45 PMPosted: 4 years agoAt 3/16/2014 3:30:48 PM, dylancatlow wrote:At 3/16/2014 1:17:18 PM, Sidewalker wrote:Whoa, what a rush, awesome trip dude.Far out man.You're such a punk lolWell, speaking sententially, it's really just a supertautological syndiffeonesic syntax of ectomorphic punk conspansion."It is one of the commonest of mistakes to consider that the limit of our power of perception is also the limit of all there is to perceive." " C. W. Leadbeater
 Posts: 13,774 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 3/18/2014 4:18:19 PMPosted: 4 years agoAt 3/16/2014 5:07:45 PM, Sidewalker wrote:At 3/16/2014 3:30:48 PM, dylancatlow wrote:At 3/16/2014 1:17:18 PM, Sidewalker wrote:Whoa, what a rush, awesome trip dude.Far out man.You're such a punk lolWell, speaking sententially, it's really just a supertautological syndiffeonesic syntax of ectomorphic punk conspansion.What about this was confusing for you? Besides the first four paragraphs (which are essentially background information) I think it flows very smoothly and isn't really hard to understand.
 Posts: 1 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 3/18/2014 5:05:41 PMPosted: 4 years agoAt 3/18/2014 4:18:19 PM, dylancatlow wrote:At 3/16/2014 5:07:45 PM, Sidewalker wrote:At 3/16/2014 3:30:48 PM, dylancatlow wrote:At 3/16/2014 1:17:18 PM, Sidewalker wrote:Whoa, what a rush, awesome trip dude.Far out man.You're such a punk lolWell, speaking sententially, it's really just a supertautological syndiffeonesic syntax of ectomorphic punk conspansion.What about this was confusing for you? Besides the first four paragraphs (which are essentially background information) I think it flows very smoothly and isn't really hard to understand.I'm actually shocked how little explicit response CTMU is getting considering its truth value. It's disgraceful.
 Posts: 3,266 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 3/22/2014 2:36:35 PMPosted: 4 years agoAt 3/15/2014 6:12:15 PM, dylancatlow wrote:Reality, i.e. the real universe, contains all and only that which is real...I can accept that tautology, for now...Two-valued logic is something without which reality could not exist.I agree fully.If it were eliminated, then true and false, real and unreal, and existence and nonexistence could not be distinguished, and the merest act of perception or cognition would be utterly impossible.And the merest act of perception or cognition would be utterly impossible because there would exist no difference between perception and imperception or cognition and non-cognition. What I am not sure of is whether "you" are drawing a distinction between the members of set A {true, real, existence} and/or a distinction between the members of set B {false, unreal, non-existence}?Syndiffeonesis implies that any assertion to the effect that two things are different implies that they are reductively the same; if their difference is real, then they both reduce to a common reality and are to that extent similar.By that reasoning, the assertion that two things are different like reality and non-reality, implies that reality and non-reality are reductively the same; since their difference is real, then they both reduce to a common reality and are to that extent similar. So, I see 2 failures here: (1) reality and non-reality are not the same, (2) reality cannot be a part of the same reality that includes non-reality....reality is a syndiffeonic relation.Clearly this is false, as I have shown above.Seems to me that much of this came from: http://megafoundation.org... so I will proceed from there.After Syndiffeonesis, it speaks of the MAP principal. I find a major flaw in this concept because the definition given for reality essentially makes "Meta-Reality" = "Unreality" as well as imply that the mind is also unreality, which contradicts the definition of reality. As such, the CTMU falls apart.I'll stop here for now because it seems to be grossly inconsistent. If you can show me that my understanding of it so far is incorrect, it would be appreciated.I will read the theory further, in case there is something I am missing.WOS : At 10/3/2012 4:28:52 AM, Wallstreetatheist wrote: : Without nothing existing, you couldn't have something.
 Posts: 3,749 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 3/22/2014 7:29:04 PMPosted: 4 years agoAt 3/22/2014 2:36:35 PM, tBoonePickens wrote:At 3/15/2014 6:12:15 PM, dylancatlow wrote:Reality, i.e. the real universe, contains all and only that which is real...I can accept that tautology, for now...Two-valued logic is something without which reality could not exist.I agree fully.If it were eliminated, then true and false, real and unreal, and existence and nonexistence could not be distinguished, and the merest act of perception or cognition would be utterly impossible.And the merest act of perception or cognition would be utterly impossible because there would exist no difference between perception and imperception or cognition and non-cognition. What I am not sure of is whether "you" are drawing a distinction between the members of set A {true, real, existence} and/or a distinction between the members of set B {false, unreal, non-existence}?Syndiffeonesis implies that any assertion to the effect that two things are different implies that they are reductively the same; if their difference is real, then they both reduce to a common reality and are to that extent similar.By that reasoning, the assertion that two things are different like reality and non-reality, implies that reality and non-reality are reductively the same; since their difference is real, then they both reduce to a common reality and are to that extent similar. So, I see 2 failures here: (1) reality and non-reality are not the same, (2) reality cannot be a part of the same reality that includes non-reality....reality is a syndiffeonic relation.Clearly this is false, as I have shown above.Seems to me that much of this came from: http://megafoundation.org... so I will proceed from there.After Syndiffeonesis, it speaks of the MAP principal. I find a major flaw in this concept because the definition given for reality essentially makes "Meta-Reality" = "Unreality" as well as imply that the mind is also unreality, which contradicts the definition of reality. As such, the CTMU falls apart.I'll stop here for now because it seems to be grossly inconsistent. If you can show me that my understanding of it so far is incorrect, it would be appreciated.I will read the theory further, in case there is something I am missing.tBoonePickens!!!Long time no see, been wondering where you went.Welcome back!"It is one of the commonest of mistakes to consider that the limit of our power of perception is also the limit of all there is to perceive." " C. W. Leadbeater
 Posts: 13,774 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 3/23/2014 9:00:39 PMPosted: 4 years agoAt 3/22/2014 2:36:35 PM, tBoonePickens wrote:At 3/15/2014 6:12:15 PM, dylancatlow wrote:Reality, i.e. the real universe, contains all and only that which is real...I can accept that tautology, for now...Two-valued logic is something without which reality could not exist.I agree fully.If it were eliminated, then true and false, real and unreal, and existence and nonexistence could not be distinguished, and the merest act of perception or cognition would be utterly impossible.And the merest act of perception or cognition would be utterly impossible because there would exist no difference between perception and imperception or cognition and non-cognition. What I am not sure of is whether "you" are drawing a distinction between the members of set A {true, real, existence} and/or a distinction between the members of set B {false, unreal, non-existence}?Syndiffeonesis implies that any assertion to the effect that two things are different implies that they are reductively the same; if their difference is real, then they both reduce to a common reality and are to that extent similar.By that reasoning, the assertion that two things are different like reality and non-reality, implies that reality and non-reality are reductively the same; since their difference is real, then they both reduce to a common reality and are to that extent similar. So, I see 2 failures here: (1) reality and non-reality are not the same, (2) reality cannot be a part of the same reality that includes non-reality....reality is a syndiffeonic relation.Clearly this is false, as I have shown above.Seems to me that much of this came from: http://megafoundation.org... so I will proceed from there.After Syndiffeonesis, it speaks of the MAP principal. I find a major flaw in this concept because the definition given for reality essentially makes "Meta-Reality" = "Unreality" as well as imply that the mind is also unreality, which contradicts the definition of reality. As such, the CTMU falls apart.I'll stop here for now because it seems to be grossly inconsistent. If you can show me that my understanding of it so far is incorrect, it would be appreciated.I will read the theory further, in case there is something I am missing.The principle of Syndiffeonesis says that if the difference between two things is real, then they both reduce to a common reality. Non-reality is, by definition, not something. Do you really think the author of the CTMU hadn't thought of that?
 Posts: 3,266 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 3/25/2014 9:06:02 AMPosted: 4 years agoAt 3/22/2014 7:29:04 PM, Sidewalker wrote:At 3/22/2014 2:36:35 PM, tBoonePickens wrote:At 3/15/2014 6:12:15 PM, dylancatlow wrote:Reality, i.e. the real universe, contains all and only that which is real...I can accept that tautology, for now...Two-valued logic is something without which reality could not exist.I agree fully.If it were eliminated, then true and false, real and unreal, and existence and nonexistence could not be distinguished, and the merest act of perception or cognition would be utterly impossible.And the merest act of perception or cognition would be utterly impossible because there would exist no difference between perception and imperception or cognition and non-cognition. What I am not sure of is whether "you" are drawing a distinction between the members of set A {true, real, existence} and/or a distinction between the members of set B {false, unreal, non-existence}?Syndiffeonesis implies that any assertion to the effect that two things are different implies that they are reductively the same; if their difference is real, then they both reduce to a common reality and are to that extent similar.By that reasoning, the assertion that two things are different like reality and non-reality, implies that reality and non-reality are reductively the same; since their difference is real, then they both reduce to a common reality and are to that extent similar. So, I see 2 failures here: (1) reality and non-reality are not the same, (2) reality cannot be a part of the same reality that includes non-reality....reality is a syndiffeonic relation.Clearly this is false, as I have shown above.Seems to me that much of this came from: http://megafoundation.org... so I will proceed from there.After Syndiffeonesis, it speaks of the MAP principal. I find a major flaw in this concept because the definition given for reality essentially makes "Meta-Reality" = "Unreality" as well as imply that the mind is also unreality, which contradicts the definition of reality. As such, the CTMU falls apart.I'll stop here for now because it seems to be grossly inconsistent. If you can show me that my understanding of it so far is incorrect, it would be appreciated.I will read the theory further, in case there is something I am missing.tBoonePickens!!!Long time no see, been wondering where you went.Welcome back!Thanks SIdewalker! Good to be back!WOS : At 10/3/2012 4:28:52 AM, Wallstreetatheist wrote: : Without nothing existing, you couldn't have something.
 Posts: 3,266 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 3/25/2014 9:14:34 AMPosted: 4 years agoAt 3/23/2014 9:00:39 PM, dylancatlow wrote:The principle of Syndiffeonesis says that if the difference between two things is real, then they both reduce to a common reality. Non-reality is, by definition, not something.OK. So explain then how Reality is Syndiffeonic.Also, you never addressed the problems with the MAP principal. In the MAP principal, "Meta-Reality" lies in the domain of Non-reality. It also has 2 Realities where one lies inside the other. This create the problem that everything outside the smaller reality (Mind, larger Reality, Meta-Reality) is Non-reality, etc.Do you really think the author of the CTMU hadn't thought of that?If I had a nickle for every time I heard that...WOS : At 10/3/2012 4:28:52 AM, Wallstreetatheist wrote: : Without nothing existing, you couldn't have something.