What if the Universe is an Open System?

TOE'S TOP LINKS:
- Become a YouTube Member Here:

SPONSORS (please check them out to support TOE):

Other Links:

#science #nondualism #biology

[bharaths]

Hey Curt, I just wanted to say some of us here are facing the music of life and keeping pace with the beats is brutal at times. In those times we reach out desperately to break from impossible limitations and circumstances life puts on us. These talks are a light to folks like me that are trying to not drown into the darkness of the night

[isatousarr]

Considering the universe as an open system challenges our traditional understanding of thermodynamics and cosmology. In an open system, energy and matter can be exchanged with the surroundings, suggesting that the universe might continuously interact with external influences beyond our current comprehension. This perspective could imply that the universe is not a closed entity, confined to its own laws, but rather a dynamic system that evolves through complex interactions with other systems or dimensions. Such a viewpoint raises profound questions about the nature of existence, the origins of cosmic phenomena, and the fundamental laws governing our reality. If the universe is indeed an open system, it could mean that its evolution is influenced by factors we have yet to discover, potentially offering insights into dark matter, dark energy, and the very fabric of space-time. Embracing this idea invites us to rethink our place in the cosmos and explore the interconnectedness of all things, both known and unknown. Ultimately, the concept of an open universe opens avenues for new scientific inquiry and philosophical exploration, challenging us to expand our understanding of the universe and our role within it.

[brandonb]

I lean toward an open system universe that seeks evermore NOVELTY!
It may not require us to “unify” the theories, but concentrate on what we can SEE happening at the BOUNDARIES. 😊✌🏼

[einseele]

I would like to propose that an open universe does not necessarily means "no boundaries" In other words, an infinite object can have borders of some kind, for instance Mandelbrot. One can say that numbers not pertaining to the Mandelbrot set are "outside" of the Mandelbrot Universe, but for those living "within" the set, that object is infinite, and open. We could also say that the collection of numbers outside the set are also an open Universe with limits, they cannot enter the Mandelbrot Universe.This is a quantum question. Open and Closed Universes are superposed objects and there is not a deterministic answer.

[no-one-in-particular]

I agree with Wittgenstein - all these philosophical problems are language games and stem from the language being not precise enough. Langauge was not designed by a committee for this purpose but came about spontaneously, so no wonder it is inadequate

[rorysawtelle]

Thank you for this clip! I really enjoy the variety and quality of conversations you have here, and I love listening to Dennis Noble. I like how he thinks and expresses his ideas.

Speaking of ideas, while combinatorial explosion is a phenomenal problem in biology as Dennis Noble states, it is also an equally observed phenomenal problem at the other end of the spectrum when you consider the fine-tuning aspect of the universe.

In biology the set of possible combinations is exponentially large while in the big bang the set of possible combinations at the singularity (a placeholder for physics we don't yet fully understand) does not even exist. Sounds like a bit of paradox, maybe.

This combinatorial explosion paradox(?) as such is handled quite simply, and elegantly in both cases by the existence of one thing – a recipe - which is another way to say a list of “many arbitrary and very precise constants”.

For example, have you ever been sent to the grocery store with a recipe as your shopping list?

The combinatorial options for shopping bag contents could fill all of the cars in the parking lot.

However, if you can read the writing on the note and are able to follow the recipe and locate the aisles where each individual ingredient can be found you will take a bag or two of groceries home and - Poof! – your mom turns those ingredients into Grandma’s lasagna.

Now at the dinner table be sure to let your mother and grandmother know that the lasagna is here strictly due to natural and undirected processes as an emergent property and no mind was involved.

Good luck with that!! :)

[francescoangeli]

One way to look at it is that the Universe with the capital U, Reality with the capital R, is open because it's a process, it's temporal, it's continuously and incessantly in the making. It's a creative, novelty generating process. So it's open not to "something else", but to itself, to its own unfolding, its own development, its own novelty. Reality continuously transcends itself.

[aivkara]

What a great mind Denis Noble has! Thank you for hosting him :)

[geronimosbones]

How does a wave interact with an ocean? When you understand the point of that question, you'll underatand why dualism is wrong but can look right. When you understand that question you understand why reductionism is wrong but can be useful. When you understand that question you can learn what nonduality is saying. When you understand nonduality, you can finally understand how nature can appear as a material system filled with atoms and molecules in a physical spacetime universe but ultimately be nothing more than a holographic interface of the mind to relate to a noumenal base reality which is far simpler than most materialists can yet comprehend.

You THINK reality is complicated, but all you're doing is breaking rocks down to pebbles and saying rocks are just collections of pebbles stuck together. And pebbles are sand stuck together. And sand is molecules stuck together, and molecules are atoms stuck together, and atoms are subatomic particles and so on.

Your looking at smaller and smaller waves on the ocean of consciousness.

Now... how does a wave interact with an ocean?

My friends, there is nothing in science that cannot be better understood within a context of nondual metaphysics.

Nothing in science must be thrown out. Everything that is confirmed via observation is valid.

It is simply the underlying substrate, the fundamental nature of reality that they must come to terms with.

Once they do, once they realize they've been going about this all wrong... then we can finally figure out just how easy it really is or isn't to journey to the stars.

This sounds like mystical woo right now. But so did quantum physics in its infancy.

We're on the verge of science finally dropping it's obsession with materialism and physicalism, but we're not there yet.

We need more guys like donnald Hoffman and Bernardo Kastrup. We need more people willing to look at both ancient metaphysics with an open mind, and see if we can't take science further by opening the door to the much more fundamental potential found in metaphysics.

I believe we took a wrong turn when we allowed dogmatic materialism to rule accademia.

But then. We've let a lot of misguided and nefarious agendas control accademia for a long time.

We need open minds again. Not quasipolitical gatekeepers and dogmatic scientism.

[carborundum]

Universal toroid theory contains finite infinity. The mechanism of mass is subject to a finite expression within an eternal universe and yet is eternal in 'spirit'
Held in one of Rupert Sheldrakes Chreodes in the void created within the extremes of matter.

[Zayden.]

If you stick with materialism, the answer is straightforward and clear, always providing direction for further knowledge. The universe is everything that exists. It is unbounded, limitless and infinite. A boundary always has to have something outside of it. But by definition there is nothing outside of it, because the universe is everything.

[SimonJackson]

And mapping the 0 to 1 interval to the 1 to infinity interval is possible by maths. It would have a natural yard stick preference though.

[tgenov]

@6:30 The open/closed system terminology breaks down here.

To compute any closed system you have to replicate its state into the computation/simulation.
But you can't do that without interacting with it. So you have to open the closed system. What?

We run into other kind of conceptual difficulties here. Those of intensional vs extensional equality in Mathematics. Is a perfect computation/simulation of the universe identical to the universe?

And then there's the no-cloning theorem...

All paradigms of thought are wrong in the limit. Some of them are useful.

[CYIERPUNK]

god bless Denis, what a wonderful soul ; thank you so much Curt for doing these interviews and sharing them with the world

[roymillsjnr]

There are forces at work in the universe that reacts with solid matter, like a radio wave sends a picture to a TV, it's same with some plants that how do they know what a human is and the internal workings, but it does, thus it is receiving information that is not physical in matter sense, but it decodes it .
There's many more aspects to the universe on how it reacts .

[KaliFissure]

People are looking for things, not processes.

Conciousness is trivial and is simply perception.

Sentience, which more and more things seem to show, is the feedback loop between sensation/perception and agency.

First, anything with perception must have a desire for homeostasis. A perturbation from that is sensation.

Once there is also agency there can be a construction of connection between goal, homeostasis, and agency to modify local conditions to achieve.

But it is a process, an active, metastable condition. If you interrupt it ceases.
Luckily it builds its own waveguide. So it can be kick started

[baneverything]

Has anyone done a study on the possible connection between major earthquake faults and odd/unusual effects on the human brain and nervous system?

[alexsuited]

Tough question Curt, 🤔. As of today, I would say the universe and the matter verse are separate entirely. And in saying that, to survive in an open universe, you would need to have closed systems. So the answer is that the universe is an open system. Now, the only question I have really is how many closed systems are we in. Assuming we are a part of a great attractor system, which I'm really leaning towards, then the space around our galactic system may be a bigger closed system. If the universe is open. It gets very tricky at this point, but it makes sense. Looking at the CMB info, I think there's a cut-off, and it may be 1 step up. Peace ✌️ 😎. Tough sledding.

[i.k.]

Open to emerging complexity that cannot be reduced to single interactions of individual components, but it is the product (not the sum) of each interaction. This view of complexity has affinity to quantum mechanics where the quantum state is a product- state, in which you can find new classical states if you make a measurement. These new results arising from the pure quantum state give reason to more complexity = to more "openness" to new acting entities.

[peterfiset]

Wondering about the computing power of all the particles (10^82) over the life of the universe. Especially interested in how much computing power would exist at the earliest moments "if" everything was in quantum superposition, and without black holes. Maybe the results of the quantum computation of the earliest qbit setup answers the question - what happens in the next moment of this present Universe.