I'm making a religion based on Emergence.

[minuspace]

self-organization is key to this, but the wording is not good.
gathering we are all big fans of thermodynamics and dynamic systems,
self-organization sounds counter-intuitive. "Dis-z-organized"...
I was reading the "changing images of man" and 'they' also saw the then
current implementation of decentralized anarchy as ineffectual.
Not being a philosopher, I have no idea what they are talking about,
however, I think a shared value system is coming

KAI: "taking and giving" -> sharing (relational, not personal?)

move translational to radial: taking-giving -> centrifugal / centripetal?

(still not there but beyond the vector we go...)

[Triple Zero]

My change in understanding of Emergence has come from reading the Less Wrong sequences, and is twofold:

1. Emergence often gets thrown around as a semantic stopsign which prevents further exploration. Therefore I don't want to wield it that way.

2. The universe really does reduce to elementary fields. If I use emergence as explanatory, the explanation of everything above elementary fields is "Emergence!" How useful is that really?

Instead of being an explanatory item, my new use of emergence is the universal tendency of interacting elementary fields to produce categorical nova.

For the moment anyway. I'm sorta struggling with this right now.

I personally always used it as an "exploratory item", if that makes sense. Sort of like, "hey all these systems kind of do this thing, in a sort of vague but fundamentally similar way, I wonder what's up with that". Also, it allows me to believe that certain things are possible, like intelligence or self-consciousness emerging from a deterministic system. And while it doesn't explain me how these things are possible, I actually like that Emergence allows me to sidestep that question for a moment, to suspend disbelief, so to say, in order to research the conditions under which this phenomenon takes place. Then, as you let the system run, the magic emerging trick will (might) happen, and you got this new thing. Without having to understand how the system itself does it.
But that's me. I want to create emergent systems. Been programming tiny complex systems since I was 17. It's just too easy to create a system of such complexity that it becomes impossible to understand what exactly is going on. And I think it's a shame to just ignore those systems because you cannot and probably will never truly fathom their inner workings.

[Doktor Howl]

Useless spamming removed.

[Bebek Sincap Ratatosk]

My change in understanding of Emergence has come from reading the Less Wrong sequences, and is twofold:

1. Emergence often gets thrown around as a semantic stopsign which prevents further exploration. Therefore I don't want to wield it that way.

2. The universe really does reduce to elementary fields. If I use emergence as explanatory, the explanation of everything above elementary fields is "Emergence!" How useful is that really?

Instead of being an explanatory item, my new use of emergence is the universal tendency of interacting elementary fields to produce categorical nova.

For the moment anyway. I'm sorta struggling with this right now.

I personally always used it as an "exploratory item", if that makes sense. Sort of like, "hey all these systems kind of do this thing, in a sort of vague but fundamentally similar way, I wonder what's up with that". Also, it allows me to believe that certain things are possible, like intelligence or self-consciousness emerging from a deterministic system. And while it doesn't explain me how these things are possible, I actually like that Emergence allows me to sidestep that question for a moment, to suspend disbelief, so to say, in order to research the conditions under which this phenomenon takes place. Then, as you let the system run, the magic emerging trick will (might) happen, and you got this new thing. Without having to understand how the system itself does it.
But that's me. I want to create emergent systems. Been programming tiny complex systems since I was 17. It's just too easy to create a system of such complexity that it becomes impossible to understand what exactly is going on. And I think it's a shame to just ignore those systems because you cannot and probably will never truly fathom their inner workings.

Since we are alwyas dealing in models, I think its OK to have a stop sign in the model... because the model can't model everything. Now, of course having a model of the stopsign in deeper detail would be extra useful

"And X in this model happens because of Emergence!*"



*see model E for a detailed look at Emergence

[Kai]

My change in understanding of Emergence has come from reading the Less Wrong sequences, and is twofold:

1. Emergence often gets thrown around as a semantic stopsign which prevents further exploration. Therefore I don't want to wield it that way.

2. The universe really does reduce to elementary fields. If I use emergence as explanatory, the explanation of everything above elementary fields is "Emergence!" How useful is that really?

Instead of being an explanatory item, my new use of emergence is the universal tendency of interacting elementary fields to produce categorical nova.

For the moment anyway. I'm sorta struggling with this right now.

I personally always used it as an "exploratory item", if that makes sense. Sort of like, "hey all these systems kind of do this thing, in a sort of vague but fundamentally similar way, I wonder what's up with that". Also, it allows me to believe that certain things are possible, like intelligence or self-consciousness emerging from a deterministic system. And while it doesn't explain me how these things are possible, I actually like that Emergence allows me to sidestep that question for a moment, to suspend disbelief, so to say, in order to research the conditions under which this phenomenon takes place. Then, as you let the system run, the magic emerging trick will (might) happen, and you got this new thing. Without having to understand how the system itself does it.
But that's me. I want to create emergent systems. Been programming tiny complex systems since I was 17. It's just too easy to create a system of such complexity that it becomes impossible to understand what exactly is going on. And I think it's a shame to just ignore those systems because you cannot and probably will never truly fathom their inner workings.

Since we are alwyas dealing in models, I think its OK to have a stop sign in the model... because the model can't model everything. Now, of course having a model of the stopsign in deeper detail would be extra useful

"And X in this model happens because of Emergence!*"



*see model E for a detailed look at Emergence

Eh. All of reality boils down to complex amplitudes in distinct configuration. Which means that categorical nova are a product of configurations of exponentially increasing complexity.

[The Great Pope of OUTSIDE]

Hoooooooookay. I have just read through every single post in this thread, because I find it really interesting, but there's a lot to go through and a lot of points I want to make in a short time. So, here goes.

1) The first thing I want to ask is what are the implications of these beliefs as far as morality goes? A key factor of all religions is a set of morals which describe how humans should interact with each other, and with the world around them. For Sustainability, what are the set of morals, and how do the key beliefs lend themselves to those morals? Basically, if you are going to write this book (which I think you should) what will the list look like that says, "This is what people should do, and why?"

2) This point is me stating honestly again what I see, and please don't get angry with me, I'm just trying to point something out that could be fixed. As of right now, the way you describe your beliefs seem very pretentious. You get angry at "stupid questions" and yet as far as I can tell, there is not yet one all-encompassing description of what this belief is and what its implications are in a basic and easy to understand format. The thing is, any religion HAS to be tolerant of the "stupid" questions and be able to answer them, because you can't expect that everyone, or even ANYONE else will have the same beliefs or core ideals as you. You can't just brush away the stupid questions like they don't matter, because they do in fact matter a lot, and it's only after those questions have been addressed and answered that you can begin to debate the higher implications of your beliefs with those who have a basic understanding of where you're coming from.

3) I will argue that this religion SHOULD in fact be written and published in a book easily accessible to the masses. Why? Because a religion based on emergence where the purpose is to allow people to understand that they are a part of a huger world so that they can work together for the common good of that world becomes totally ineffective if it is left as a religion for one person alone. Besides, I've seen the basics of this idea bumping around in the heads of a LOT of people, but no one as far as I know has gone so far as to try to make a coherent religion out of it. I think you would find a wider audience than you expect. BUT--in order to succeed in this, you will have to beat out your ideas a lot more, until you can conceivably make all the basic fundamentals and profound realizations contained in a single book. Yes you could add some of the cool science, and some semantic arguments, but in the end it would have to be a religion, and the core of any religion is the fundamental beliefs and morals, and as far as this religion goes, it would have to leave room to allow science to grow and change and still remain relevant.

4) As far as writing this goes, I would actually suggest following a format similar to the Koran. I'm not a Muslim, but I have read bits and pieces of it before, and the way it is written is very simple, but also very beautiful and profound. It is truly a literary accomplishment worthy of awe, and if you want to make a religion based on the beliefs of a single individual be accepted widely around the world, I can think of no better example than Mohamed the Prophet.

I think those were all the points I wanted to make. Anyway, I definitely think you should go for this Kai, actually write this book and create this religion, because I think this is one that will really find a wide audience, and may actually find its footing as a serious philosophy among many. And from all the people I've ever talked to, you have the best background and the most knowledge to actually make this a possibility. So don't lose hope, just keep working on sculpting your ideals into a recognizable masterpiece.

[Kai]

Hoooooooookay. I have just read through every single post in this thread, because I find it really interesting, but there's a lot to go through and a lot of points I want to make in a short time. So, here goes.

1) The first thing I want to ask is what are the implications of these beliefs as far as morality goes? A key factor of all religions is a set of morals which describe how humans should interact with each other, and with the world around them. For Sustainability, what are the set of morals, and how do the key beliefs lend themselves to those morals? Basically, if you are going to write this book (which I think you should) what will the list look like that says, "This is what people should do, and why?"

2) This point is me stating honestly again what I see, and please don't get angry with me, I'm just trying to point something out that could be fixed. As of right now, the way you describe your beliefs seem very pretentious. You get angry at "stupid questions" and yet as far as I can tell, there is not yet one all-encompassing description of what this belief is and what its implications are in a basic and easy to understand format. The thing is, any religion HAS to be tolerant of the "stupid" questions and be able to answer them, because you can't expect that everyone, or even ANYONE else will have the same beliefs or core ideals as you. You can't just brush away the stupid questions like they don't matter, because they do in fact matter a lot, and it's only after those questions have been addressed and answered that you can begin to debate the higher implications of your beliefs with those who have a basic understanding of where you're coming from.

3) I will argue that this religion SHOULD in fact be written and published in a book easily accessible to the masses. Why? Because a religion based on emergence where the purpose is to allow people to understand that they are a part of a huger world so that they can work together for the common good of that world becomes totally ineffective if it is left as a religion for one person alone. Besides, I've seen the basics of this idea bumping around in the heads of a LOT of people, but no one as far as I know has gone so far as to try to make a coherent religion out of it. I think you would find a wider audience than you expect. BUT--in order to succeed in this, you will have to beat out your ideas a lot more, until you can conceivably make all the basic fundamentals and profound realizations contained in a single book. Yes you could add some of the cool science, and some semantic arguments, but in the end it would have to be a religion, and the core of any religion is the fundamental beliefs and morals, and as far as this religion goes, it would have to leave room to allow science to grow and change and still remain relevant.

4) As far as writing this goes, I would actually suggest following a format similar to the Koran. I'm not a Muslim, but I have read bits and pieces of it before, and the way it is written is very simple, but also very beautiful and profound. It is truly a literary accomplishment worthy of awe, and if you want to make a religion based on the beliefs of a single individual be accepted widely around the world, I can think of no better example than Mohamed the Prophet.

I think those were all the points I wanted to make. Anyway, I definitely think you should go for this Kai, actually write this book and create this religion, because I think this is one that will really find a wide audience, and may actually find its footing as a serious philosophy among many. And from all the people I've ever talked to, you have the best background and the most knowledge to actually make this a possibility. So don't lose hope, just keep working on sculpting your ideals into a recognizable masterpiece.

I don't necessarily anticipate reality the way I did when I first wrote this thread. In other words, my anticipations of reality (=beliefs) have changed. For example, I now know that using "emergence" as a godhead is an undescriptive copout. It doesn't explain anything. And if it seems somewhat pretentious, then perhaps thats because it /is/. I'm not planing on writing a book anytime in the near future, assuming that I haven't already completely abandoned this project, and if I did, it would be more like The Process of Sustaining, which is very much in the style of the Tao Te Ching.

I still consider myself a religious naturalist, but my beliefs change as I learn. Right now, the Less Wrong Sequences have had a large impact. Next year it might be something else. I like this thread because it catalogs part of my journey. And I've glad you've taken an interest, as flawed as the subject matter may be.

[minuspace]

are we done with analysis?

[Kai]

are we done with analysis?

What do you mean?

[minuspace]

The subtraction of synthesis from unity, you understand?-)

[Cramulus]

do you have a question or comment or something?

[minuspace]

Awesome!

[Jasper]

Incredible!  He's masking his brilliant insights in the form of blatant non-sequiturs!  It's edgy!  It's fresh!  We love it!  Now get out!

[minuspace]

a mindless recapitulation:

1) the theory of emergence points to how we are interactively processing its project
2) the source of emergence is the future
3) the project of emergence is the future
4) the future is waiting for us to catch-up

just in from the cracker:

I'm sorry to hear about the damage to your place, and hope things will be okay?

I've also come across Michio Kaku and find him quite compelling, although my
knowledge of the field is that of a layman.  The turn physics has taken re:
quantum mechanics / string / multiverse, I think, is what eventually led me
to philosophy.  The "radical-idealism" that then emerges is something I
can only conceptualize, and not deal with mathematically.  One of the thoughts
on the matter that I fall back on is that: the travesty of philosophy
is not that
we cannot reconcile materialism with idealism, rather, the problem is that the
question of an "external" world was ever posed in the first place.  My radical-
idealism is one that deconstructs the relationship between subject and object,
leaving me with a kind of "temporal-idealism".  For me the
distinctions that occur
in nature are primarily temporal, not spatial.  Space lends itself to
the logic of
non-contradiction.  Two things cannot occupy the same space: a thing cannot
be both itself and not.  Now we know on the quantum level this is not
true, furthermore
most of the problems we have in philosophy cannot be solved using traditional
logic.  I cannot formally articulate my new logic, however, I can
start thinking
in the right way when picking away at time's internal structure.  Stripping away
any linear conception of time we are only left with the Present Moment.
Now, this Present Now is particular because it has three entirely different
aspects that co-exist: the sense of having been, the sense of being present,
and the sense of becoming.  Referring to past, present, and future,
respectively.
If we were to think of these phases of time conceptually, using a
spatial framework
we run-up against a kind of incompleteness theorem whereby we cannot provide
a ground of their unity.  The simple way I think of this is asking
"how is it that
I have this sense of already having been?"  I love the deceptive simplicity.
But down the rabbit hole we go.  The past is clearly not what we think it is,
as a matter of fact, it hardly ever is.  We seem to forget that all of what we
think of in the past is actually imagination at work in the present.
Things and
events from the past are created retroactively.  Great, we've all had
that thought,
so what?  Well, the past is not comprised of things, there are no
things in the past.
If nothing is in the past, it may as well not exist.  But surely
that's not true?
The past does exist, but how it presents itself to us, is only as a
horizon of already
having been.  One way to describe it is as a positive indeterminate.
Looking-back,
the past is blank, indeterminate, but it is "there", thus extant in a
"positive" manner,
representing a plenum rather than an absence.  Once this hurdle of thought can
be overcome, I start thinking about what it means to have this sense of already
having been?  How is it possibly to understand "already"?  Logically, we think
the past is "already" retained for us so we can understand what it means to
reproduce something in our imagination as referring to the same event that
happened before in the past.  How do we retain events?  How is it possible to
distinguish memory from pure imagination?  How do we know it actually happened?
Again, back to the question, simple, how do we know anything ever happened?
The crude answer:  I was there!  The retort: how do you know?  The same
problems occur when questioning the persistence of identity through time:
how am I or things both the same and different?  Subconsciously, I think we
all make recourse to the shadow of a transcendental identity that
unifies everything.
That again just begs the question of what unifies the transcendental
and the empirical.

Well, now, that was quite a rant and still did not answer any
questions.  Forgive me
but it has been a while since I engaged in this kind of thinking.
There are a few
more steps that need to be fleshed out, however, I think it would be
miserable to
have read this far without anything really being said.  So, long story
short, the
unity of time is expressed in the interdependence of the three phases. The key
to this elaboration being how the becoming of now is now as the anticipation of
becoming, unlocking now as having been through becoming.  I know this does
not seem to say much but there is a hint there for an ontological framework
that maybe I should work on some more

[BadBeast]

Been lurking this thread, on and off for a while now, so I just re-read it all, and although it doesn't always sequence it's factors in a equational or mathematically formulaic model, and often seems to shy away from a linear or causal logic, it really doesn't matter that it's factors have a sliding scale of relevance. This seems to be a necessary quality, and permeates the whole project like an algorithm that ties where you are, with any of the potential points of emergence.    So theoretically, if I can find the prime moment, & synchronise the tenses, then source, time, and awareness should all emerge as one accessible, subjective point in the spaces between the project's "less wrong" sequences. 
(Tell me if I'm not getting it) The only hidden variable, to me, is exactly where emergence becomes the moment of understanding.  Even as I write this, I can see that doesn't matter because it's already become accessible, it's just not been realised yet. The point of emergence is always going to be the last factor, of the least wrong sequence. And the realisation, is the first point of the next sequence.
The moment of understanding is the only part of the whole project that is never fixed into any other part.   
I'm losing it a bit now, but that's necessary too, because part of the next less wrong sequence, is to find it again.
Onwards, and upwards.