lucent Wrote:The reason it doesn't explain it is because the energy of the explosion would have reduced the initial ordering into complete chaos nearly instantly.
Thermodynamics explains this very self-ordering through a combination of entropy growth, energy transfer, and electrostatics/gravity.
Now, this discussion is not about the origins of the universe. Said origins have no bearing on my response. Therefore I won't respond to anymore of these tertiary comments you have. If you want to discuss them, start a new thread or provide a link.
Otherwise, may we return to the discussion at hand, which is about subjectivity?
...
lucent Wrote:It could just be entirely God.
You can't have a background system. A background is anything that interacts with/knows all other systems. As I have said, you cannot have a background and a subjective universe. Calling the background God is just as useful as calling the background 'toro's magic school bus': it's still a background. Calling Pluto a dwarf planet does not affect its orbit in any way. Similarly, if we define God as the background, then God doesn't exist.
So, ironically, I suppose we agree lucent: God doesn't exist.
lucent Wrote:Well, I would say it raises more questions than it answers.
So far you have raised two. One was contained within the explanation itself, and has now been answered twice more.
Regarding your question of my comment on neural signals... If we assume human consciousness isn't neural signals, we still arrive at the same conclusion.
We experience the world subjectively. This is fact. Therefore, we must be separable, individual systems.
If separable systems interact with one another physically, they become entangled. This is a fact.
Hence, whether it is our neural signals, our consciousnesses, our souls, or our Molony Trinkles (copyright pending), because they are separate, they never directly interact.
If we assume there is no common background, then because they don't interact with each other, each system is itself the universe and therefore all existence within the closed system. This explains subjectivity: I am me, because I am not you.
If we assume there is a common background, we run into the quandary. Why are we existence, but part of a bigger existence? Why am I me, and you you?
Souls assume separate existence (subjectivity). God assumes common background (objectivity). This requires complex explanation to tie the contradictory aspects together.
Relationalism assumes separate existence (subjectivity). This is the explanation.
Explain how this is more complicated.
