Leo is wrong about random mutation

[Scholar]

9 hours ago, Carl-Richard said:

@Scholar

Is randomness an innate property of reality, or is it just our inability to predict some aspect of it?

It is innate. True randomness is true and complete freedom. It is not merely our inability to predict it, prediction would mean restriction, and restriction would mean lack of freedom.

But it could also just be similar to computer generated noise, which is not truly free in that sense. I predict with computer generated noise you would still have the self-emergence of these types of complex life-structures, and I think this will be proven sooner or later.

The only problem with computation is that it is more restricted, it is a simulated physicality that is not exposed to the same metaphysical dynamics as direct physical reality is. While some metaphysical mathematical principles are preserved throughout, some of the relationships will be different in computer simulations than in physical reality. It's hard to predict what exactly will be possible with machine learning.

[Schizophonia]

8 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

Randomness is just human ignorance. Nothing about God is random.

 

[Scholar]

Leo is too close minded to recognize that randomness is actually part of the freedom of existence. Nothing about existence is random, but randomness wasn't randomly implemented. That's kind of what he is confusing in my view, because of his dualistic way of looking at all of this.

 

The whole beauty of the system is that the metaphysical structures as laid out in such away that evolution will lead to self-realization while being steered by true randomness, true freedom. This leads to all the variety in life you can see, and an inevitable self-exploration of all possibilities.

That's the function of true freedom, or true randomness, intentionless, unguided, causeless.

Edited September 26, 2023 by Scholar

[Scholar]

The point of randomness, or freedom, is that, given a certain system, you feed randomness into it so that ALL possibilities are explored. Because, that's what randomness does, eventually it will explore all possible pathways, because it is so free.

Now, the metaphysical structure is upheld in such a way that it will naturally give rise and move towards self-realization, but in the context of free will, which is what randomness is. It's the openness to infinite possibilities.

 

When you are open to infinite possibilities, and the structure will reward itself whenever a certain possibility is explored, you will see that, from this openness to infinity, you will actually self-construct the object from nothingness.

All possible objects, self-constructed from nothingness based on a "goal".

 

This is what machine learning exploits, on a metaphysical level, and it is the same tihng evolution exploits. You can find ALL possible solution if you are open to infinity, which is what randomness is.  Randomness is complete unbiasedness.

This is why life can construct itself into any function imaginable just by being open to infinite, to randomness.

 

Through randomness, or freedom, or openness to infinity, you can manifest any object given a desired function without even knowing about any of the objects prior to it's manifestation. That is the genius of this system, and this is what actual creativity is.

 

And I am not exaggerating that someone will get a nobel prize and be considered the equivalent of Darwin's theory of evolution by formalizing in a scientific way what I described above, this will be the most significant scientific discovery, possibly ever.

Edited September 26, 2023 by Scholar

[Scholar]

This is how evolution works:

You have a system which will inevitably favour certain functions due to it's metaphysical limitation.

Within that system, you have metaphysical holes that lead into true infinite, complete randomness and freedom.

Through these holes in the system (which are not necessarily physical, though they could be), you then get complex structures emerging due to access to infinite possibilities and a bias towards certian functions. Over time, you will get infinite complex structures serving a certain function.

 

So, the function comes first, and then using freedom/randomness/openness to infinity you will have the self-emergence of physical objects that fit that function. Because you are accessing infinity, you will have access to any object that could possibly exist, as infinity will contain that object.

 

So, you basically pull out of infinity the specific structure that will serve the specific function which the system is biased towards. And you can only do this if there is actual randomness, actual freedom. The more free it is, the more infinite it is, the more access you to infinite forms, complexity and relationships.

This is why ego makes you less creative, because it limits access to infinity in this sense, and it also limits the functions that will be allowed to self-emerge.

 

This is what the brain does when it is being creative. This is what evolution does when it is being creative. This is what machine learning does to construct the incomprehensibly complex and interconnected structures that will be able to carry out any given function as if it was magic.

 

 

I am almost certain you could create a mathematical proof for all of this. Because that's how genius the creator was. It is all so interconnect that you can understand and actually come into contact with it's undeniable reality through even something like math.

Edited September 26, 2023 by Scholar

[Scholar]

All randomness is, is complete lack of bias. And lack of bias is simply infinity.

So, randomness, in evolution and machine learning, is just a lack of bias and therefore access to infinity, which will contain any structure imaginable. (imaginable simply means it exist within infinite nothingness)

 

Now, we have to be careful because we can talk about certain types of unbiasedness. In terms of the physical universe, we would be talking about an unbiasdness related to motion in 3D space.

For example, if you can randomply pick a number from 1-100, and you then create a system around this random picking that will preserve a certain function, you could, given enough time, pull out of this infinity (the infinite possibilities of relationships between 1-100) any of those possibilities or complex relationships that would serve the function you have determined. It will literally manifest out of nothing, meaning, out of infinity, through complete lack of bias, complete freedom, completey randomness.

 

 

Really, evolution simply is this process. It is literally the coming into existence of infinite shapes through the design of the universe, which will biased towards a specific function which is God-Realization. But even if the whole system is biased, there is total unbiasedness within it.

 

 

What machine learning creators are doing, which they are not yet realizing, is manifesting complex structures fitting a certain function from literally infinity using randomness/freedom. They pull these relationships, these complex structures, out of infinity. That's what is happening.

Edited September 26, 2023 by Scholar

[Carl-Richard]

@Scholar

Biologists used to think genetic mutation was random, but today they propose that mutation happens at different rates depending on the location in the genome and survivability of the organism. What do you make of this?

Edited September 26, 2023 by Carl-Richard

[Scholar]

23 minutes ago, Carl-Richard said:

@Scholar

Biologists used to think genetic mutation was largely random, but today they propose that mutation happens at different rates depending on the location in the genome and survivability of the organism. What do you make of this?

We are just talking about different types of randomness here.

I hope you read my last few posts because they should make this clear, and I wonder if you disagree with that.

 

What needs to be understood is that, given enough freedom, it will take infinite amount of time to let a certain structure emerge if the process remains completely free and unbiased. This is why selection by function is a thing, because this way it does not take infinite time, which in a physical universe is of course the only way complex life structures could emerge.

 

Within infinity, which you interface through randomness/unbiasedness/freedom (we really need a better word for this), exist all possible objects, all possible biological creatures and so forth. At least when we talk about the infinity of this particular kind of physicality (spacetime with these particular laws of nature etc).

If you were to pick atoms at random, so that you would randomly simply manifest them into space, given infinite amount of time, you could manifest ALL possible physical manifestations simply through complete random manifestation of atoms.

Now, obviously this would take infinite time, so to your mind it seems useless. But you are missing the metaphysical point here. You can manifest literally all possible objects that could exist within this physical reality simply by randomly picking atoms. What this means is that, through randomness, through unbiasedness and freedom, you have access to infinity and all that exists within it. Now, you require time to pull out of infinity any given object, depending on it's complexity, but you can actually manifest it.

Now, to reduce the time it takes to manifest any given object, we have to actually start becoming biased. The more we select for function, the more constrained the possibilities we pull from become, and the less time it takes to manifest objects. But, if we become too biased, certain complexities become impossible, because the selection process becomes too "close minded". This is actually what it means to be close minded, and it also applies to evolution and machine learning. This is the nature of creativity.

 

So, the way the physical universe is constructed is such that there is a balance between selection and freedom. This balance is such that it takes billions of years for sapience to emerge from nothingness, to be pulled out of infinity through the evolutionary selection process.

 

 

What you are talking about is simply structures that have emerged through that freedom. You have to make a difference here between the metaphysical nature of evolution and the biological nature of evolution. Certain biological dynamics that restrict randomness evolved because of the overarching metaphysical function that is being pursued.

The biologists are completely clueless about any of this, until maybe some mathematician will come around and create the proof for what I am describing.

Edited September 26, 2023 by Scholar

[zurew]

1 hour ago, Scholar said:

Really, evolution simply is this process. It is literally the coming into existence of infinite shapes through the design of the universe, which will biased towards a specific function which is God-Realization. But even if the whole system is biased, there is total unbiasedness within it.

an endpoint (God realization) is given in the metaphysical structure of reality, but how much time it takes to get there and how you get there is random(or in other words , totally free/ unbound)

.

Is that roughly your position or I should reread your posts?

[Scholar]

6 minutes ago, zurew said:

an endpoint (God realization) is given in the metaphysical structure of reality, but how much time it takes to get there and how you get there is random(or in other words , totally free/ unbound)

.

Is that roughly your position or I should reread your posts?

It's not an endpoint, it is a function.

And you are missing the point. It's not that how we get there is random, it's that randomness/freedom is how everything with complexity in this universe is manifested from infinity into particularity. Or in otherwords, randomness/unbiasdness/freedom is the way physical reality interfaces with infinity and pulls out of infinite nothingness the objects that then will fit any given function.

 

You can realize this is true, and that this is so obvious, it is almost laughable how you could have been so blind to this before the moment of realization.

 

The human body in all it's complexity was literally pulled out of infinity through a dynamic of freedom and selection. This is how imagination works, this is how creation works, this is what Creativity is.

 

The universe itself, like your brain, is connected to infinity through metaphysical freedom, which is what randomness is.

Edited September 26, 2023 by Scholar

[Scholar]

If we truly understand how selection for function and randomness relates to each other, our technological abilities will go beyond anything you can currently imagine. We could literally pull out of infinity any object we want.

The beautiful thing is, all you need to have is the function. You won't even know what the object will be that will fit that function. you will not know or be able to predict how it will look, and most likely you will not even be able to understand how it works once it is manifested. But it will be there, because it is contained in infinity. It will self emerge if you are intelligent enough to create the conditions in which that object is selected for.

We will have access to Creativity itself, to the process of Creation. We currently already do have that access, our minds exploit the same dynamics, but that will be a completely different level of Creativity.

 

There will be scientists calculating how long it will take to manifest certain objects into existence given their complexity. Some objects will probably take decades, hundreds of years to manifest. There will be a rat race of who can first manifest these objects.

[Carl-Richard]

48 minutes ago, Scholar said:

We are just talking about different types of randomness here.

That is my point. You're disagreeing about language, not substance.

 

48 minutes ago, Scholar said:

I hope you read my last few posts because they should make this clear, and I wonder if you disagree with that.

I just hear you describing infinite intelligence using the word randomness.

Edited September 26, 2023 by Carl-Richard

[Scholar]

8 minutes ago, Carl-Richard said:

That is exactly my point. You're disagreeing about language, not substance.

 

I just hear you describing infinite intelligence using the word randomness.

Well then you fundamentally are not comprehending what I am writing. you coudl do the same with noise generated by a computer.

You think there is some magical intelligence, you are completely missing the point. It's literally random noise, no intelligence whatsoever. Forget that whole intelligence thing. That is not at all required for what I am talking, other than for the construction of the whole system.

 

I am not saying within randomness there is this mystical intelligence that allows everything to arise. No, I am actually saying it is mathematically random, and that is actually what freedom is. And that mathemetical randomness is how you interface with infinity. And that infinity is completely abstract and stable. It's not some deep intelligence magical force.

It's like all the objects that can exist between 5 points if you connect them. All possible objects are infinity, and by literally picking random connections between these points, through rolling a dice, you would eventually get all possible objects that could exist between those 5 points.

That's what I am describing, and you are just pretending I am saying the same thing as Leo. You don't understand what Leo is saying and you don't understand what I am saying.

 

 

What I am saying you could describe with math, and if you manage to do so, you will be able to rule the world.

Edited September 26, 2023 by Scholar

[Carl-Richard]

6 minutes ago, Scholar said:

Well then you fundamentally are not comprehending what I am writing. you coudl do the same with noise generated by a computer.

You think there is some magical intelligence, you are completely missing the point. It's literally random noise, no intelligence whatsoever. Forget that whole intelligence thing. That is not at all required for what I am talking, other than for the construction of the whole system.

 

I am not saying within randomness there is this mystical intelligence that allows everything to arise. No, I am actually saying it is mathematically random, and that is actually what freedom is. And that mathemetical randomness is how you interface with infinity. And that infinity is completely abstract and stable. It's not some deep intelligence magical force.

It's like all the objects that can exist between 5 points if you connect them. All possible objects are infinity, and by literally picking random connections between these points, through rolling a dice, you would eventually get all possible objects that could exist between those 5 points.

That's what I am describing, and you are just pretending I am saying the same thing as Leo. You don't understand what Leo is saying and you don't understand what I am saying.

 

 

What I am saying you could describe with math, and if you manage to do so, you will be able to rule the world.

What does this have to do with genetic mutation?

[Scholar]

8 minutes ago, Carl-Richard said:

What does this have to do with genetic mutation?

It's unfathomable to me how you could not understand this after I reiterated the point I made in 4 different ways over multiple posts.

 

Genetic mutation is the way through which abstract objects (complexity relationships between atoms) within infinity are pulled into existence through a given degree of freedom.

Meaning, that within infinity already exist all possible complex relationship-structures between atoms, and through random noise and selection for function, you pull those complex relationship-structures out of abstract infinity/nothingness and manifest them into physical existence.

That is what creativity is, that is what creation as a whole is.

 

 

The reason why this is so metaphysically relevant is that, how could you possibly imagine something that you do not know? Contemplate this. How could you actually imagine something completely foreign to you, something completely novel? You cannot do so by remixing old data, as that would not be what we constitute as novel data here. You can do so by selection for a function and random noise. Random noise in this instance is just an exploration of infinity, and the selection for function then crystalizes certain pathways until the function is completed.

If you can describe this in math, how exactly selection for function and freedom relates to each other, you could in principle find ways to construct any object of any function that is possible within this physical reality, given enough time.

Edited September 26, 2023 by Scholar

[Carl-Richard]

@Scholar

I can concede that I don't understand what you're saying, but I do understand what Leo is saying. He is saying what Bernardo Kastrup is saying here:

47:56

 

And I think the lack of understanding is largely on you. If you want to use the word "randomness" in some idiosyncratic way, go ahead, but you can also choose to be more strategic. It's only a language game after all. Choose the language game that communicates the concept the best in any given situation (and that may require more work on your part). It also helps to think that failing to make yourself understood is more a failure on your part than somebody else's part, whether or not that is actually true.

Edited September 26, 2023 by Carl-Richard

[Scholar]

8 minutes ago, Carl-Richard said:

@Scholar

I can concede that I don't understand what you're saying, but I do understand what Leo is saying. He is saying what Bernardo Kastrup is saying here:

47:56

 

And I think the lack of understanding is largely on you. If you want to use the word "randomness" in some idiosyncratic way that nobody understands but you, go ahead, but you can also choose to be more strategic. It's only a language game after all. Choose the language game that communicates the concept the best in any given situation (and that may require more work on your part). It helps to think that failing to make yourself understood is more a failure on your part than somebody else's part.

It is actually you who is using it in some idosyncratic way. I just mean the common understanding of randomness, nothing more. But you keep pretending I mean some divine intelligence which I do not. You think when I say randomness I actually mean anything but the common mathematical conception of randomness, or random noise. But I don't. When I say "Freedom = Randomness" I don't mean that what I mean by randomness is some spiritual notion of metaphysical freedom, I mean it the exact other way around. I mean that freedom literally is just randomness, that's what it is.

 

Kastrup is completely wrong. Randomness, actual chaotic noise, is the prerequisite of creation itself. He also misses that nothing has to be "metaphysically" random or "actually" random, to actually be functionally random. Computer noise is functionally random, and using computer noise you can do all the same things I described. What matters is that all possibilities are explored.

 

 

Think about it this way:

The human physical body exists in infinity.

Randomness + Selection for Function + Time = Human body

 

You "tickle" into existence the human body out of abstract infinity, which serves certain functions, through randomness and selection and time.

That's what evolution is, that's what machine learning is, that's what creativity itself is, both the creativity that allowed this universe emerge, as well as artistic human creativity, mathematical human creativity and so forth. It all works like this.

 

 

It's not my fault you are projection your own notions onto me because you are trying too hard to confirm to yourself the presumptions you made at the beginning of this conversation.

Edited September 26, 2023 by Scholar

[Carl-Richard]

1 minute ago, Scholar said:

It is actually you who is using it in some idosyncratic way.

Leo, Bernardo, biologists and me are using an idiosyncratic definition of randomness?

 

1 minute ago, Scholar said:

I just mean the common understanding of randomness, nothing more.

That doesn't mean anything.

[Scholar]

4 minutes ago, Carl-Richard said:

Leo, Bernardo, biologists and me are using an idiosyncratic definition of randomness?

 

That doesn't mean anything.

No, you are pretending you are not understanding what I am saying. Leo knows exactly what he means by random, he means exactly what I mean by random, that's why he disagrees with me. You are the one who is being dense here. Biologists also understand what randomness means.

Kastrup also means what I mean by random, that's why he says it does not actually exist. He is wrong, lol!

 

4 minutes ago, Carl-Richard said:

That doesn't mean anything.

"the quality or state of lacking a pattern or principle of organization, unpredictability."

 

 

You are simply not even contending with what I am writing. You are incapable of responding to the substance of what I am describing.

Edited September 26, 2023 by Scholar

[Carl-Richard]

@Scholar Ok, so if you are all using the same definition, why does Leo and Bernardo conclude that randomness is just our failure to predict reality while you don't? Maybe I am a bit dense today