Imagining something new?
Can you give an example of anyone ever imagining something that did not previously exist?
Meedan
What is your definifion of "new"? Would a new (non-existing) word in English qualify?
Tom
Have you imagined anything new - anything that is not based on things that you have already experienced, anything that is not formed from previous ideas? I think it is almost universally accepted that everything that we 'imagine' is a re-ordering or re-arrangement of ideas we have already experienced.
A new word in the English language is not new, since you are re-arranging letters and sounds that you have experienced.
Meedan
OK, lets try to adopt your definition of "new" to the scale of the Universe and see where it leads.
Since (acording to your assumption) there cannot be "anything new" in this Universe, it means that everything exists in it since the Big Bang.
In particular, this implies that the INFORMATION exists since the beginning of this Universe too. Now, for information to exist - it has to be encoded. Encoding cannot be random or else information would not be retrievable. Encoding has to be systematic, coherent and intelligent.
Hence, since the Universe contains information, Intellect had to exist BEFORE anything in this Universe existed. For consequences of this conclusion, please read The Freedom of Choice book again. If you are interested to find out how could the information appear in the Universe after the Big Bang, please study this article
If Objective Truth exists - it emerges no matter what assumptions you make, providing that your assumptions are not self-contradicting.
Tom
I don't see what anything you just said has to do with imagining 'new' things. I didn't say that there cannot be anything new in the universe, whether that is true or not is irrelevant. If you read what I actually said, you'll see that I mean that we cannot IMAGINE any 'new' concepts or ideas. I know that you wouldn't be able to tell me something new that you think you have imagined (due to the limitation of language), but I invite you to study your own mind and find out that it is not possible anyway.
Meedan
Let's suppose that it is impossible. If so, by the same definition, it is also impossible for anything in the Universe to be "new". All things have to be made by re-ordering and re-arrangement of atoms, ideas and other things that exist, isn't it so? This leads to my conclusion expressed above.
Incidentally this conclusion is consistent with one of the most fundamental laws of physics, saying that entropy (chaos) can only increase. My logic explains where did the primordial "order" in the Universe come from and what was its Purpose. Please read The Freedom of Choice book for details.
Tom
That sounds like circular reasoning now. There can be an infinite number of theories for the start of the universe. In fact, there is NOTHING stopping the universe from just 'appearing' from nothing. You can try to investigate why you find this so hard to accept perhaps. What we are fortunate enough to be able to verify with OBSERVATION, though, is that minds cannot imagine something 'new'. This means that a mind cannot have imagined the universe, unless it had already experienced it. I'm sure you would agree that, for this topic, OBSERVATION is better than 'common-sense'.
Meedan
Are you trying to say that atoms made themselves out of nothing? Great. Please tell me HOW they made themselves. Perhaps you can help them making themselves, make plenty of gold and become rich?
Since my own OBSERVATIONS confirm that the Universe functions intelligently, I prefer to focus on a more likely scenario.
Even if we assume that Great Intellect could not imagine this Universe before experiencing something similar, we cannot exclude the possibility that this Universe is an improvement to many simpler systems that GI designed during its conscious evolution. Since everything material is bound to decay back to nothing anyway, this Universe is just one of the many in a series. For more details please study this article.
In any case, we should focus on THIS Universe, because this is where we exist. If you are unable and/or unwilling to appreciate how and why this Universe works - sooner or later you will cause our own self-destruction. For more details please study this article.
And remember, that the above reasoning is a result of adopting your dogma that "nothing new can exist".
Tom
Don't confuse the way things work inside this universe, to the way things could have worked before/external to it.
Meedan
Be careful. Restricting the context leads to severe mis-interpretation of observable Reality. Please let me give some examples.
Imagine people who restrict their context to "this" Earth only, because they cannot imagine (or dismiss) any need for a "bigger picture". Observing the Sun and stars at night they notice that everything moves around Earth. They have a proof of it and are able to call millions of wittnesses to confirm the truth of their observations. Hence, they conclude that Earth is the Centre of Everything, because everything else moves around it and ridicule/punish anyone who dares to think otherwise.
Another example. Thousands of people report seeing "falling stars" every night that is clear enough to see stars. On the basis of their observations, they conclude that "stars fall from the sky".
In order to understand your observations, it is necessary to step OUTSIDE the system and consider it in a wider context. Observations themselves are not enough. What matters is not what you perceive or observe, but what you are able to Understand. Not appearances, but what is BEHIND them is the most important.
From above examples it is clear that if you want to get some insight into why this Universe exists, you need to step OUTSIDE it. If you restrict your context in any way, your conclusions will be no better that the conclusion that "stars fall from the sky".
Tom
Aha! You say 'Don't restrict your context'. From a molecular perspective a pedal is MANY, from a pedal perspective a bike is MANY. From a bike perspective, bike, pedal, and molecule are each ONE. Hence, as we narrow context everything becomes increasingly MANY. As we broaden context more and more become ONE. So from the broadest context ALL is ONE. Just want to point out that this above perspective contradicts your abhorrence of ONENESS.
Mitch
You have restricted your context to bicycle (material reality) and arithmetics without even noticing it. Hence, your conclusion is no more accurate than the conclusion that "stars fall from the sky".
If you were intelligent enough to include in your considerations consciousness (conscious needs) and conditions needed for molecules (material reality) to exist, your conclusion would be different.
Tom
The Great Intellect could not have imagined ANY matter at all. You haven't yet addressed this.
Meedan
Imagine that "matter" in this Universe is an intelligent improvement to something that existed in the previous Universe.
Then imagine an infinite series of Universes like this and go to the limit. What is the simplest self-improving information processing system that you can imagine?
This Universe is a result of conscious evolution of the intelligent entity (GI) who gradually evolved to be able to imagine and create "initial conditions" for everything that exists in this Universe. For more details please read this article.
The scenario of Universe evolution from very simple to very complex that we observe today is infinite number of times more probable than the scenario of this Universe appearing by chance.
Tom
According to your theory, an intellect would be the simplest self-improving information system, since you class mind as fundamental and irreducible. But no matter how simple you take the "matter", an intellect could not have imagined it. Please EXPLAIN how the G.I. could have imagined ANY form of what we call 'matter'. You are making the extra-ordinary claim here, so it needs at least a hypothetical explanation. So far you seem to be avoiding answering the question.
Meedan
There is nothing extraordinary in considering the most likely scenario.
Please make an effort to note that what we call "matter" is just a perturbation of Nothing. Can't you imagine it?
Since Nothing existed before anything else - as soon as any perturbation of it occurred (even if it was random and unstable) we can claim that some "primordial matter" (something) appeared. These "primordial perturbations" provided an opportunity to store information. We can even say that at this stage some random information (i.e. random thought) existed. This event, due to its simplicity, is an infinite number of times more probable than the event of THIS complex Universe appearing in a similar way.
The primordial information "experienced" various kinds of "primordial matter" (an information carrier for itself), simply because there was nothing else to experience.
Irreducible: Your statement demonstrates that you do not grasp my ideas. The only thing that I consider irreducible is The Singular Nothing. Information (including that in consciousness) is reducible, because it can (and does) cease to exist. It can become erased, corrupted or it can vanish when the media that carries it disintegrates.
Please make another effort to note that all "matter" decays back to nothing. The only thing that is theoretically and actually sustainable (not only in this Universe) is information. The reason for this is simple: information can exist indefinitely, even if the storage medium that holds it is temporary. All that needs to be done to maintain the information indefinitely is to make a fresh copy of it before the storage medium that holds it becomes useless. DonÂ’t we do it to hard disks in our computers? I am quite convinced that GI has been doing it to sustain itself for a Long Time (perturbing Nothing with fresh oscillations to make copies of information) before it became evolved enough to imagine this Universe.
As you can see, even if we assume that "intellect cannot imagine anything new" as you insist - my scenario remains most likely. The most likely object to sustain itself and evolve all by itself from Nothing is Intellect.
Tom
One of the first statements on which the entire "The Freedom of Choice" book hinges on is the following: "GREAT Intellect had to exist FIRST -- before any Life in the Universe came to existence". It is a false statement, because theoretically there's nothing stopping the universe from just "happening" with all its evident complexity.
Vesselin
Whoever brainwashed this belief into your head did a pretty good job, because you don't even bother to analyze it.
Please read The Freedom of Choice book (and this Forum) 3 more times and try to make an effort to note that as a practical engineer I have chosen to consider a more probable scenario. Not just a little more probable. My scenario is almost an infinite number of times more probable than the one you adopted above without questioning.
You have The Freedom of Choice to choose whatever you like and I won't interfere with your choices. You are welcome to choose a lottery to sustain yourself. You can also choose to wait for your house to build itself. If you do - you may experience some consequences of waiting for your income and house "just happening"... Good luck.
Tom
I like your arguments a lot Tom, they're both funny and make a lot of sense. I can imagine however that when discussing this, an opposing argument would be that evolution/the universe had an infinite amount of time (or very close) to evolve, therefore it could just happen.
But I guess the keyword is sustain. If people lived an infinite time they could probably win a million on a lottery, but how do they sustain themselves during the very long time that they don't win? A million is not an infinite amount...
Andreas
Not only that. They would have to USE resources just to enter the lottery. When would such resources come from?
Also, a "lottery" with all "system" supporting it would need to continue to exist infinitely long.
Sustain is indeed a very important requirement. From physics we know that things can only disintegrate (entropy can only increase). If we just "wait for things to happen" - whatever appears would disintegrate faster than anything "better" appearing.
Using the "lottery" analogy - money would disappear faster than "wins" could compensate.
In any case, I think it is more practical (and wiser) to consider the most probable scenario - evolution of intellect and the systematic improvements of series of Universes since The Beginning.
Tom
