> > > > GK: I say we were not against all odds. In fact at t-minus 10^-43 seconds life was going to happen. That is fairly sound with, or without a god.
> > > 
> > > That sounds like a form of faith to me. Can you explain your reasoning?
> > 
> > 
> > GK: Yes .I do have faith I think. we all have some faith I believe. I have faith in the periodic table. 
> > 
> > When leptons and quarks formed they were going to follow the set of rules. That soup of particles was going to do what that soup of particle do. They were going to form stars. Big ones. I mean really big ones.
> > 
> > That first generation of starts then seeded the universe with the materials that we see today. "carbon", hydrogen, and oxygen, would have been very abundant. Along with the rest of the 2-4 rows. Given the tempura gradients that were around. The Corbon-water Goldie lock zone was going to be present.
> 
> To me you are describing the process we discovered and the fact that we live in the Goldylocks zone. We have to live here or we wouldn't be here. Do you think it is all luck? 
> > 
> > GK: What would have been more surprising is if the periodic table didn't act like the periodic table.
> 
> It is something we discovered. we don't know why it acts that way. Fred Hoyle described the making of carbon in the intense pressure inside stars requiring very exact conditions of resonance,and thought 'somebody monkeyed with the works' to paraphrase him. Did the fine-tuning to allow life just happen?
> > 
> > GK: The surprising "uneven mix" of anti mater/matter? I think it is supervising that they are supervised to tell you the truth. I am not supervise they are as arrogant as they are, but I am surprised they are taking tit to the level they are.
> 
> You don't think antimatter is rare, compared to matter?
> 
> > GK: And the scientist to get paid to talk about it.
> 
> Scientists live on grants. Do you trust them? 
> > 
> > GK: As usual, we can throw probably, for me, and I am not sure of anything, all over this post.
> 
> But you seem sure life had to appear in the form of humans?
>>
your right, nobody knows how it works so it is useless for me to base a conclusion on what we don't know. If you noticed I only used what is basically known.-No, I did not say that about anti matter. What I said is that based on how much we don't know it surprises me that scientist think that a math formula that predicts absolute uniformity is the way it should be. It is like assuming type1 supernova explosions start at the exact center of the start. I mean if you look at the temperature and time scales. The probability of absolute uniformity is kind of funny to me. I would assume it wasn't uniform based on what we see around us. thats 100% uniformity. not 99.999999%
 
Scientist? Trust and verify. Trust and verify. Some of the meanest people I know were considered very smart. Boy were they supervised when I showed I up. -no, I am not sure. I am as sure as you and dwh. I lay out what we have. Tats where I start.

New studies on top down causation:

https://www.quantamagazine.org/a-theory-of-reality-as-more-than-the-sum-of-its-parts-20...

"Hoel’s theory, called “causal emergence,” roundly rejects this reductionist assumption.

“Causal emergence is a way of claiming that your agent description is really real,” said Hoel, a postdoctoral researcher at Columbia University who first proposed the idea with Larissa Albantakis and Giulio Tononi of the University of Wisconsin, Madison. “If you just say something like, ‘Oh, my atoms made me do it’ — well, that might not be true. And it might be provably not true.”

"Using the mathematical language of information theory, Hoel and his collaborators claim to show that new causes — things that produce effects — can emerge at macroscopic scales. They say coarse-grained macroscopic states of a physical system (such as the psychological state of a brain) can have more causal power over the system’s future than a more detailed, fine-grained description of the system possibly could.

"In a May paper in the journal Entropy, Hoel placed causal emergence on a firmer theoretical footing by showing that macro scales gain causal power in exactly the same way, mathematically, that error-correcting codes increase the amount of information that can be sent over information channels. Just as codes reduce noise (and thus uncertainty) in transmitted data — Claude Shannon’s 1948 insight that formed the bedrock of information theory — Hoel claims that macro states also reduce noise and uncertainty in a system’s causal structure, strengthening causal relationships and making the system’s behavior more deterministic.

***

"Their ultimate usefulness in explaining the world and its mysteries — including consciousness, other kinds of emergence, and the relationships between the micro and macro levels of reality — will come down to whether Hoel has nailed the notoriously tricky notion of causation: Namely, what’s a cause? “If you brought 20 practicing scientists into a room and asked what causation was, they would all disagree,” DeDeo said. “We get mixed up about it.”

***

"philosophers have argued that causal power existing at two scales at once would be twice what the world needs; to avoid double-counting, the “exclusion argument” says all causal power must originate at the micro level. But it’s almost always easier to discuss causes and effects in terms of macroscopic entities.

***

"Tononi conceives of consciousness as information: bits that are encoded not in the states of individual neurons, but in the complex networking of neurons, which link together in the brain into larger and larger ensembles. Tononi argues that this special “integrated information” corresponds to the unified, integrated state that we experience as subjective awareness.

***

"With Albantakis and Tononi, Hoel formalized a measure of causal power called “effective information,” which indicates how effectively a particular state influences the future state of a system. (Effective information can be used to help calculate integrated information, but it is simpler and more general and, as a measure of causal power, does not rely on Tononi’s other ideas about consciousness.)

***

"For any given system, effective information peaks at the scale with the largest and most reliable causal structure. In addition to conscious agents, Hoel says this might pick out the natural scales of rocks, tsunamis, planets and all other objects that we normally notice in the world. “And the reason why we’re tuned into them evolutionarily [might be] because they are reliable and effective, but that also means they are causally emergent,” Hoel said. [Comment: I feel this means it takes a whole brain to have consciousness]

***

"Hoel and his collaborators aim to show that higher-level causes — as well as agents and other macroscopic things — ontologically exist. The distinction relates to one that the philosopher David Chalmers makes about consciousness: There’s the “easy problem” of how neural circuitry gives rise to complex behaviors, and the “hard problem,” which asks, essentially, what distinguishes conscious beings from lifeless automatons.

***

"Causation “is really the measure or quantity that is necessary to identify where in this whole state of the universe do I have groups of elements that make up entities? … Causation is what you need to give structure to the universe.” Treating causes as real is a necessary tool for making sense of the world."

Comment: Can one prove causation is top down? Just consciousness or God's consciousness? Huge article. Should read all.