Why am I me?

[R-e-n-n-a-t]

Oh Cthulhu, not this old post again.

[toro]

God created the universe out of what then, since nothing isn't an option?

Well, God can break the rules.

"Dynamical interactions" don't explain it.

Please explain to me what aspect of the 'ordering' process is not explained by the dynamical interactions between potential fields. This appears to contradict my understanding of physics. Systems 'order' due the relationships between they and their interacting fields.

I would also ask why God is any less probable than any of those theories.

God is not a theory as it only add an unnecessary step, says "stop asking", and makes no distinct future predictions.

Design in the Universe is so obvious that the "multiple universe theory" is proposed to eliminate the problem of the impossibility of the odds against such a Universe like ours from spontaneously occuring.

This makes no sense. There are a wide variety of interpretations which have multiple universes and I cannot ascertain to which you are referring based on your post. Some of them have no bearing on the topic at hand. Some of them validate object existence. Some validate subjective existence.

Rarity is not an indication of design, and as it is off topic, I suggest starting a new thread or referencing an existing one if you want to discuss it.

I will suggest that the problem people have with God has nothing to do with probability and everything to do with an imagined right to complete freedom for self-determination which isn't even logically possible without God.

This is nonsense. The topic of non-determinism is still contested amongst Christians. Furthermore, physics largely makes no assumptions about will, so the problem of your suggestion is wrong.

What if in this example everyone is a part of God?

That would require a background system...

This is only possible if we assume there is no objective background universe of which we are interacting.

I brought this up as an example to explain the apparent contradiction of our subjective existence in an objective world (read: thread topic).

This explanation creates a rather simple solution: the world isn't objective.

[R-e-n-n-a-t]

At least Lucent is getting his ass handed to him on this old post...

[lucent]

Please explain to me what aspect of the 'ordering' process is not explained by the dynamical interactions between potential fields. This appears to contradict my understanding of physics. Systems 'order' due the relationships between they and their interacting fields.

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.

God is not a theory as it only add an unnecessary step, says "stop asking", and makes no distinct future predictions.

Attributing agency to God does not diminish inquiry into mechanisms. It is not "unnecessary" since all research into origins ends in a black hole of obfuscation. You have to get mass from somewhere, and it isn't out of nothing. The bible made predictions that it took science thousands of years to figure out. It predicted the Universe had a beginning, which science had always denied until recently. It also predicted the Universe has an ending, which again science denied until more recently.

Rarity is not an indication of design, and as it is off topic, I suggest starting a new thread or referencing an existing one if you want to discuss it.

The Universe as it is, fine tuned for life, is virtually mathematically impossible to arise by itself. Scientists largely accept that the Universe has at least the "appearance" of design. There is a conspiracy in the laws of physics for life, a set of 30 or so values that if altered in any way would make life impossible. The concordance of these values is mathematically unlikely, to say the least. To make it mathematically probable, you have to postulate multiple universes, but that of course leads to larger problems, and is even more improbable.

The science of origins is nothing but a chain of infinite regress. Either science has to explain how something came from nothing, or it has to deal with an eternal first cause.

This is nonsense. The topic of non-determinism is still contested amongst Christians. Furthermore, physics largely makes no assumptions about will, so the problem of your suggestion is wrong.

What I am talking about is personal autonomy to "do whatever you want". It is a rejection of Gods authority, not of His probability. Yes, there is a debate in Christianity about non-determinilism, but that doesn't speak to the problem I am raising. I am saying that personal autonomy is completely impossible without God, whether He grants it or not.

When you have rationality stemming from irrational forces, when all thought is based on unconscious processes which are themselves undergirded by chemicals, you have no hope of freedom. You will live and die according to things you will never understand, a virtual automoton. Only God can grant you any significant freedom.

That would require a background system...

It could just be entirely God.

I brought this up as an example to explain the apparent contradiction of our subjective existence in an objective world (read: thread topic).

This explanation creates a rather simple solution: the world isn't objective.

Well, I would say it raises more questions than it answers.

[toro]

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?

...

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.

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.

[lucent]

Otherwise, may we return to the discussion at hand, which is about subjectivity?

Your original reply to me addressed all of these topics, and those were the terms under which we began our conversation. It is unfair for you to cherry pick 3 sentences out of my reply and brush off the rest, when you are the one who raised these questions to begin with. I'll address your reply anyway.

Thermodynamics explains this very self-ordering through a combination of entropy growth, energy transfer, and electrostatics/gravity.

Which violates the 2nd laws of thermodynamics, by saying you are going from the initial explosion to a self-organized more highly ordered and complex state.

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.

No, we don't agree. I didn't suggest a background system, I suggested the system itself is God.

We experience the world subjectively. This is fact. Therefore, we must be separable, individual systems.

Non sequiter. First, we only *appear* to experience the world subjectively, so this is not a fact. What you're suggesting is metaphysics, for which there is no evidence. Can you even prove that there are other minds? No. Second even I granted you this premise the conclusion does not follow. This idea of "separable" isn't even coherent. In what sense are human beings separable from their environment, or from other humans? Do humans just pop into existence as is? No, they are created by other human beings. How do you separate a fetus from a pregnant mother? This is wild conjecture.

If separable systems interact with one another physically, they become entangled. This is a fact.

This statement..

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.

..contradicts this statement. Btw, what are "Molony Trinkles"?

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.

This explains absolutely zero. Can you explain why we should even assume that? And if we do assume that, then how was the system set up, how did it get this way? What is the nature of each separate existence? How do you explain natural processes?

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.

God is omni (all), both objective and subjective. Whatever God creates is not God (ie, finite)

Relationalism assumes separate existence (subjectivity). This is the explanation.

Explain how this is more complicated.

It's not even coherent.

[toro]

No, we don't agree. I didn't suggest a background system, I suggested the system itself is God.

Read my post again.

Non sequiter. First, we only *appear* to experience the world subjectively, so this is not a fact. What you're suggesting is metaphysics, for which there is no evidence. Can you even prove that there are other minds? No. Second even I granted you this premise the conclusion does not follow. This idea of "separable" isn't even coherent.

If we aren't going to assume equality between POVs, then we have no discussion and you are assuming you are correct.

Separate systems are perfectly coherent: there are multiple systems whose values appear to change in a non-deterministic fashion upon observation (interaction). This is the only physical explanation that explains entanglement, which is observed in numerous experiments examining the decays of state. How the interaction takes place is the point of explanation. Hence separate systems are, in as much as one can say about anything, fact.

I am pointing out that one interpretation of QM suggests that all systems are equal, and there is no background. This means that from the POV of one system, anything it is not entangled/interacting with at any given moment does not exist. Therefore, the entirety of existence from the POV of that system is the value it currently has. This interpretation suggests this is what existence is: a specific value of a specific isolated system. As the systems are isolated from one another, they all exist in their own frame of reference (POV) and with no background frame within which they exist or interact, they remain isolated and exist separate from one another. There are other interpretations of QM, none of them happen to address this problem.

This explains subjectivity if we assume subjectivity exists. If we don't, then since I exist, you don't and neither does God.

In what sense are human beings separable from their environment, or from other humans? Do humans just pop into existence as is? No, they are created by other human beings.

Humans are a large collection of interacting molecular quantum systems that continually become entangled and become decoupled. The entanglement occurs on a molecular level and the interaction between these systems does not occur simultaneously in time. Hence, we as physical bodies aren't single quantum systems. Parts entangle, then decouple, then entangle with a different parameters, etc. The photon from the sun interacts with our eye. This creates a chemical change which induces charge transfer. This charge transfer continues, eventually reaching separate parts of the brain in a chain of interactions. These interactions occur in time, meaning that once the signal has left the eye, a new photon hits the eyes, decoupling it from the neighboring molecule. The process starts over and is phenomenologically identical to other environmental interacts such as skin and surfaces, etc.

How do you separate a fetus from a pregnant mother?

Abortion.

This explains absolutely zero. Can you explain why we should even assume that?

Because if we don't, we are assuming one of us is right and everyone else is wrong.

What is the nature of each separate existence?

Explain what you mean by "nature of".

God is omni (all), both objective and subjective. Whatever God creates is not God (ie, finite)

You are now defining God as something illogical. You cannot have objective existence and subjective existence simultaneously. This is the problem of the discussion.

Saying, "well, it's God." does not address anything. You have simply called the problem by another name.

A: "My computer is turned on, but the power chord is unplugged."
B: "That's a patimony skuffle rod."
A: "So? Why is it turned on?"
B: "That's a patimony skuffle rod."

[Phaedra]

How do you separate a fetus from a pregnant mother?

Abortion.

[lucent]

Separate systems are perfectly coherent: there are multiple systems whose values appear to change in a non-deterministic fashion upon observation (interaction). This is the only physical explanation that explains entanglement, which is observed in numerous experiments examining the decays of state. How the interaction takes place is the point of explanation. Hence separate systems are, in as much as one can say about anything, fact.

It's a logically incoherent definition since all the systems are functionally interdependent, thus former a larger system, and all having a common origin. A Universe full of universes is still a Universe.

I am pointing out that one interpretation of QM suggests that all systems are equal, and there is no background. This means that from the POV of one system, anything it is not entangled/interacting with at any given moment does not exist. Therefore, the entirety of existence from the POV of that system is the value it currently has. This interpretation suggests this is what existence is: a specific value of a specific isolated system. As the systems are isolated from one another, they all exist in their own frame of reference (POV) and with no background frame within which they exist or interact, they remain isolated and exist separate from one another. There are other interpretations of QM, none of them happen to address this problem.

What exactly is this interpretation of QM specifically?

Humans are a large collection of interacting molecular quantum systems that continually become entangled and become decoupled. The entanglement occurs on a molecular level and the interaction between these systems does not occur simultaneously in time. Hence, we as physical bodies aren't single quantum systems. Parts entangle, then decouple, then entangle with a different parameters, etc. The photon from the sun interacts with our eye. This creates a chemical change which induces charge transfer. This charge transfer continues, eventually reaching separate parts of the brain in a chain of interactions. These interactions occur in time, meaning that once the signal has left the eye, a new photon hits the eyes, decoupling it from the neighboring molecule. The process starts over and is phenomenologically identical to other environmental interacts such as skin and surfaces, etc.

Yes and all objects are 99 percent empty space and the appearance of solidity stems from the interaction of energy fields. You can reduce everything down to some process which is alien to what it is explaining. Yet, what is interesting is the interaction of this information with our consciousness; our persistant self-awareness which interprets everything through the lens of awareness, which is transcendent of mechanisms.

Abortion.

It's a hole in your theory is what it is. You have to get from two beings being one in one system to two separate systems which is logically incoherent given your premises.

Because if we don't, we are assuming one of us is right and everyone else is wrong.

One of us is right and one of us is wrong. It doesn't speak for everyone else.

Explain what you mean by "nature of".

If you want to reduce each person to a system which is a self contained "universe", just receiving signals from entanglements from other such universes, what is the character or quality of that existence. it sounds like nothing more than a computer processing information and any awareness or individuality is illusionary, like some kind of matrix.

You are now defining God as something illogical. You cannot have objective existence and subjective existence simultaneously. This is the problem of the discussion.

Trying to understand it without God is the problem. That's what is leading to this bizarre speculation about QM realities.

God is objective in that He knows everything and every possible perspective simultaneously. God is subjective in that He is arbitrary.

[Welsh cake]

It's a logically incoherent definition since all the systems are functionally interdependent, thus former a larger system, and all having a common origin. A Universe full of universes is still a Universe.

No. A conceptual ensemble of all possible universes is called an Omniverse, not Universe. Within the context of physical cosmology ours [universe] having only one set of "physical laws and constants that governs it, whereas the Omniverse has all possible laws of physics.

The concept is not incoherent.