Leo is wrong about random mutation

[Loveeee]

44 minutes ago, Scholar said:

You reduce the possibilities through the control for function, which is achieved through the very structure of the universe.

 

These people assume that the process is fully random, which it is not. Randomness is one necessary component for the emergence of functional complexities. But the system overall, much like machine learning, has designed into itself the selection for a certain bias.

 

Now, in the universe, this selection is not as crude as human made evolutionary simulations. Rather, it happens as the result of the unity of physical and metaphysical relationships. You won't be able to point at the selection process, it will escape you, unless you grasp how the whole system operates as a unity.

The way it happens is that you imagine it right now 

Edited September 26, 2023 by Loveeee

[Scholar]

11 minutes ago, Loveeee said:

The way it happens is that you imagine it right now 

Sure but that doesn't really help you in any way. That's just a given.

By you, you mean existence, and by happens, you mean existence, and by imagine, you mean existence.

So, it exists because existences makes it exist.

 

That just doesn't help us with anything. And by the way, you imagine it the same way, you just don't know it yet.

[Scholar]

For now, I will simplify it for you guys like this, and I want you to then contemplate the significance of what is being said:

Taken a physical system and manifesting atoms randomly: if you are manifesting those atoms in an actually random way,  given infinite time, you will manifest every object that could physically exist, including all possible complexity and function.

If the way the atoms manifested are not actually random, meaning, there is a bias to how they are manifested, you will not actually manifest all possible complexity and function. The more biased your system is, the less things will get explored, but the less time it will take to explore all those possible complexities within the bias constraints you have created.

You should recognize this as a mathematiclal fact, and you need to understand how significant this fact is.

 

The fundamental problem for Creativity is: You do not know the physical objects before they are manifested, so by which means will you possibly get an object that fits your function?

You don't know even what the object should look like, let alone how to get there using the manifestation of atoms.

 

 

Now, if you look at machine learning, we face the same problem: What does a neural pattern that can visualize images look like? How could we possibly even know that, given the complexity that is required for the ability to visualize images? It's impossible to intentionally design such a system, because it is impossible to use linear, logical thought to understand complex systems. It's simply not possible if the complexity is high enough.

The only way you could possibly, and this is metaphysical, come to arrive at such complexity, is by selecting for function and giving the system certain freedom of exploration. Given the logic-structure of neurons, you can create an object that will fit your function (visualizing images), if you create the right parameters between free exploration and evolutionary-function selection.

You limit the types of things that are explored within the given infinity (because it would take too much time to ever manifest these complexities that way), and bias them towards certain functions. Using this, you will eventually have a complexity emerging that will fit the function you have created.

You will not understand that complexity, you will not even understand, truly, how the complexity emerged. Because it cannot be understood in linear terms.

 

True Infinity can only be accessed through a complete lack of bias, which is what randomness is. It has no pattern in it, it will not choose anything for any reason, it is utterly and fully causal-less. That's how you access to infinity, and from infinity you gain all complexity possible, and all objects that could exist. And that's how creativity works, that's how you can basically come up with any idea that could possible exist. You don't construct them from the buttom up by somehow know how they are supposed to be constructed. If you think that's how it works, you don't understand creativity. It is by having a constraint (function constraint) and accessing infinity through freedom.

 

This is the only possible way to arrive at such complexities, and if you contemplate this for long enough, you will realize why it is the case. I don't have time, nor really the motivation, to be hand-holding you guys through the contemplative process especially considering there is this much resistance, so if you are genuinely curious about this, I have faith that you will be able to use what I said and contemplate it in such a way where you will see exactly what I mean.

Edited September 27, 2023 by Scholar

[Scholar]

Creativity = Free Will

Will is the Function, and Free is the Freedom of exploration.

So, the universe has a function, yet within it there are degrees of actual freedom, which is what randomness is.

 

This way, the randomness, given enough time, will fulfill the function necessarily, and yet, explore all the possible things that are to be discovered within God's Infinity, given that particular bias.

And that's the whole point of the universe. God want's to maximally come to know himself. And this is the process.

This is how Infinity is explored, how things within infinity are manifested into any given physical system.

 

And then, this is one of infinite universes, of course. You can apply this to the collective of universes as well, Free Will.

Edited September 27, 2023 by Scholar

[Scholar]

The problem with you guys is that you think God is like, steering evolution through some sort of magical, direct intervention.

This is actually an insult to God's intelligence. He doesn't have a need for these types of cheap tricks.

 

You think he is so dumb he cannot construct a perfectly understandable system that will manifest his infinitude through perfectly understandable mechanisms? 

[zurew]

21 hours ago, Scholar said:

The more degrees of freedom you have, the more potential for novel information there is. How could this not be the case?

18 hours ago, Scholar said:

You are just presupposing different patterns, but where do the new patterns come from? That's what you need to explain.

You can have a model of a completely predetermined universe, where all the possible patterns and content are metaphysically built in and when you think you actually create something new or novel - you don't really. You just discover something that was always there. That discovery process doesn't need the requirement of randomness or freedom or freewill.

 

If what you care about is giving an explanation or creating a model to explain the notion of "How is novelty created", that case you don't necessarily need  the idea of "new patterns".

You can have a universe with a stagnant quantity of finite patterns and still have novelty this way: 1) put input in  2) take the generated output out  3) feed back the earlier generated output.  So this way you can pick one thing and transform it over and over again and by that you can create new/novel things (assuming this fits your definition of novelty).

I explained the same idea in my previous post just with different words:

20 hours ago, zurew said:

But also you can use the same pattern and generate new results - if you have a system,where the rules could stay the same, but the rules could change the content in a given system in a way, where applying the same rules over and over again will generate new/different results (because you apply the same rules on a changed content)

 

[zurew]

Btw when it comes to computing random is not really random, it just seems that way, but that randomness is done in a predetermined way.

[Carl-Richard]

14 hours ago, Scholar said:

Taken a physical system and manifesting atoms randomly: if you are manifesting those atoms in an actually random way,  given infinite time, you will manifest every object that could physically exist, including all possible complexity and function.

But here, for randomness to work the way you're describing, you need to presuppose manifestation (and atoms and time), which are patterns. Why are they patterns? Because they are a certain way, they unfold a certain way, and patterns are of course not random. But how do patterns arise? They simply do, through pure creativity.

So whatever randomness you're talking about is contingent on presupposed patterns, and therefore I don't think it's even necessary to invoke such a distinction. Infinity doesn't need anything but itself to be infinite.

Edited September 28, 2023 by Carl-Richard

[Scholar]

On 27.9.2023 at 1:53 PM, zurew said:

You can have a model of a completely predetermined universe, where all the possible patterns and content are metaphysically built in and when you think you actually create something new or novel - you don't really. You just discover something that was always there. That discovery process doesn't need the requirement of randomness or freedom or freewill.

 

If what you care about is giving an explanation or creating a model to explain the notion of "How is novelty created", that case you don't necessarily need  the idea of "new patterns".

You can have a universe with a stagnant quantity of finite patterns and still have novelty this way: 1) put input in  2) take the generated output out  3) feed back the earlier generated output.  So this way you can pick one thing and transform it over and over again and by that you can create new/novel things (assuming this fits your definition of novelty).

I explained the same idea in my previous post just with different words:

 

You don't understand the problem. It's not about true novelty, there is no such thing as true novelty. It's about how to pull complexity out of infinity.

And again, it doesn't have to be truly random (even though it absolutely is, you can verify the nature of Free Will in your own experience) to be functionally random and fully explorative.

To can still be functionally free, despite being predeterministic, which it is not, but I will not bother to even try to communicate this to you.

 

You severely underestimate the problem of complexity, and you are actually not explaining anything mechanistically. i could not use your explanations for anything, whereas what I am pointed out is and will be used to create complexity in machien learning. And someone will get a noble prize for it eventually.

 

 

On 28.9.2023 at 2:33 AM, Carl-Richard said:

But here, for randomness to work the way you're describing, you need to presuppose manifestation (and atoms and time), which are patterns. Why are they patterns? Because they are a certain way, they unfold a certain way, and patterns are of course not random. But how do patterns arise? They simply do, through pure creativity.

So whatever randomness you're talking about is contingent on presupposed patterns, and therefore I don't think it's even necessary to invoke such a distinction. Infinity doesn't need anything but itself to be infinite.

You are not grasping what I am saying. I never said the system is completely random, have you actually read anything I said? I said a certain degree of randomness is necessitated to explore infinity and manifest complexity, in other words, a certain amount of freedom in relationship to function-limitation.

This is how machine learning works, this is how evolution works and how creativity works.

 

The point of randomness in computation is specifically to lack pattern. That's the point, it doesn't matter whether it is predeterministic or not. The whole point is to allow for degrees of free exploration, which, the more patternless it is, the more free it is, and the longer it requires to arrive at any given form of complexity.

 

No, the randomness is not contigent on the patterns, they all are contigent on the source of existence in a complete unity. While Leo dismisses physicalism too much and throws the baby out with the bathwater, you are way to stuck in physicalist metaphysics.

 

Randomness is infinity, that's what you are not seeing. Absolute Nothingness, Absolute Freedom. That's what Infinity is.

 

 

I can see you guys have not done the prequisite contemplative work to even engage with what I am saying, so it's a waste of time for all of us to continue to do so. Come back after hundreds of hours of thinking deeply about all of this. You have the most laughable, simplistic understanding imaginable.

 

Actually, knowing that both of you are stuck in rationalist type of cognition, I wager that you do not even have the requisitive cognitive capacities to properly engage with this topic. You are way to linearlistic, which the entire point of this is to showcase how reality is not linearlistic. You cannot see how the potential, the "possible future" as you would look at it, actually manifests and informs that which is "prior". To you this idea is unfathomable, but reality isn't as simple and silly as you deem it to be. It doesn't care about your notions of linearity.

If you try to imagine this outside of your logic you will have much easier time grasping it.

 

The problem is, when I put it in terms of logic, you will not understand what is being said. You could frame it this way:

Freedom is necessary to pull complex forms from abstract infinity, meaning, abstract infinity is what informs (manifests) complexity in concrete reality.

 

How that is the case I have explained to you already. And this is just a conceptual framework. This is one way of looking at it, but the problem is, it will be difficult to even grasp how the concepts relates if you don't see the actual unity of what is transpiring.

For people like you, sadly, it will take actual mathematical proof to make this undeniable. You will still not get it, but you won't be able to deny it any longer, at least the core principle of it.

You will probably still try to deny it's relationship to concrete reality. We will have this employed in machine learning, creating structures with biological complexity (as we already are doing), and you will still deny this is how reality works, and you will still deny this is what creativity is.

Edited October 1, 2023 by Scholar

[Scholar]

Okay, considering you are basically stubborn mules, let's reverse this exercise:

Why is it that through trial and error, given enough time, one can arrive at the correct "solution" or correct "pathway" to a certain level of complexity?

Why is it that in machine learning, we can create a certain neuralnet environment, and using trial and error mechanisms, over time arrive at a neural network that can solve a certain problem, therefore have a specific set of complexity within it?

 

And don't give me some surface level answer. It will seem self evident that this has to be the case "Of course, because over time you will explore all possible avenues!".

But contemplate this on a deeper level, how is any of this possible, how is this even an aspect of reality and existence? What does this truly mean, in terms of metaphysics and math? What does this mean for there to be "possible avenues"?

What happens when I do this trial and error randomly? What happens if I have a certain pattern that I do this by? What happens if my pattern is too rigid, or too lose? Why? What does that mean in relationship to freedom? What is freedom? What is Will? What is function? How does function relate to complexity?

 

This is the last advice I will give you guys, you can either engage with this properly, or not. The major problem is that you guys are actually lazy. You don't even bother to truly grasp what I am communicating, all you do is, at the first point of resistance where your own conceptual framework disagrees with mine (or seems to disagrees considering you don't grasp what Is being said), you will interject and point out how wrong that is and how your viewpoint is correct. There is no humility whatsoever in the engagement. So, do the contemplation yourself, because what you have been providing me so far tells me you have not been doing very much thinking in this regard at all.

Edited October 1, 2023 by Scholar

[Carl-Richard]

@Scholar The hubris is not helping. I think this is a part of the disconnect that is happening: when we're talking about metaphysics, often it involves reducing something to the most fundamental thing there is. This is what I think Leo is doing: "nothing is random; everything is patterns". He tries to give you the most fundamental one thing there is. You on the other hand are doing an investigation into some secondary aspect (which you can still call metaphysics, but still, it's secondary), which you've conceded yourself, but yet you're not seeing that this causes you to talk past what Leo is saying.

Edited October 1, 2023 by Carl-Richard

[Leo Gura]

57 minutes ago, Scholar said:

you are basically stubborn mules

Said the parrot.

Edited October 1, 2023 by Leo Gura

[Scholar]

14 minutes ago, Carl-Richard said:

@Scholar The hubris is not helping. I think this is a part of the disconnect that is happening: when we're talking about metaphysics, often it involves reducing something to the most fundamental thing there is. This is what I think Leo is doing: "nothing is random; everything is patterns". He tries to give you the most fundamental one thing there is. You on the other hand are doing an investigation into some secondary aspect (which you can still call metaphysics, but still, it's secondary), which you've conceded yourself, but yet you're not seeing that this causes you to talk past what Leo is saying.

No, Leo was making specific claims about evolution, this isn't about the deepest metaphysical truth in the sense you are referencing.

It's about how actual reality constructs complexity.

In a sense, I agree with the scientists that it is "random" to some degree, which to me just means there are degrees of freedom in the system. But the scientist fundamentally underestimates this truth. They don't understand how significant it is, that from this degree of freedom, complexity emerges. And they do not understand that the degree of freedom is necessary for complexity and variety as we see it in evolution. They also don't understand that reality is constructed in such a way to select for function, which they take for granted.

 

Leo is saying it's not random because the universe is intelligent. But he misses the point that, the randomness, the degree of freedom, is actually how functional complexity is manifested.

That is the most central point of what I am communicating. I am telling you specifically how functional complexity is manifested, and you can actually use that knowledge in practice.

Leo never said this, at least I am not aware of it, because he has not made this specific connection. Now, you can always water everything down into complete insignificance by saying "Oh it's all the same thing anyways", but this doesn't help you understand anything. I am giving you extremely practical advice that also has significant, deep metaphysical implications.

 

Now, how I frame the issue is relative. You can frame it in a different way, sure, but you are not doing that, and Leo has not been doing that. He has not been touched this specific aspect.

Edited October 1, 2023 by Scholar

[Scholar]

1 minute ago, Leo Gura said:

And you are a parrot.

Parroting who?

So you disagree that functional complexity is manifested into existence through Free Will/Creativity?

[Leo Gura]

2 minutes ago, Scholar said:

Parroting who?

Me!

Quote

So you disagree that functional complexity is manifested into existence through Free Will/Creativity?

I was not talking about the content of your arguments.

Your agruments are not bad. I just don't believe in randomness. It's a tricky question for sure.

Edited October 1, 2023 by Leo Gura

[Scholar]

Just now, Leo Gura said:

Me!

I have never seen you talk about this. When did you make these points?

[Leo Gura]

Just now, Scholar said:

I have never seen you talk about this. When did you make these points?

You used my term "stubborn mules".

[Scholar]

Just now, Leo Gura said:

You used my term "stubborn mules".

What else would I call them?

[Carl-Richard]

45 minutes ago, Scholar said:

No, Leo was making specific claims about evolution, this isn't about the deepest metaphysical truth in the sense you are referencing.

Well, I disagree. I do think he was pointing to metaphysical bedrock. He almost always does that. But you could ask him yourself.

When Leo says "randomness is just human ignorance", then he is talking about evolution. Evolution is a framework for describing, explaining and predicting reality. If we fail to predict something, we call it random (which used to apply to genetic mutation, but as I said earlier, today it's not as straightforward). But that is just a failure of humans, i.e. human ignorance. Metaphysical bedrock is beyond all that, beyond humans coming up with a framework to try to predict some behavior.

Edited October 1, 2023 by Carl-Richard

[Leo Gura]

24 minutes ago, Scholar said:

What else would I call them?

You could be more creative with your insults.

Edited October 1, 2023 by Leo Gura