Do you think that this semiotic dimension that all living things possess emerged from nothing, or was it enfolded somehow into the fabric of the Universe? — Watchmaker

That's what Yockey says is undecideable. — Wayfarer

Regarding the semiosis/matter interface. A new distinction is being introduced to quantum theory: superradiance vs. subradiance. The external regions of complex macromolecules are superradiant, meaning they reemit more light energy upon absorption, while internal regions are subradiant, meaning they store absorbed energy more readily in a sort of endothermic coherence (as I understand it). Most of a molecule's functional components are located in the superradiant region or around the boundary.

In a purely photonic field (assessed with computer simulations, probably an idealized model derived from statistical compiling of experimental data), energy is dissipated by emission at an accelerating rate, with energy swirling around the subradiant domain while a sort of emission inertia happens, until the subradiant field rapidly shrinks to multiple small domains and then a single point.

In a macromolecule, I'm thinking that rate of emission vs. rate of absorption might be equilibrated by structure of the superradiant/subradiant divide, causing cooccurring emission and absorption to avoid reaching the tipping point where dissipation accelerates rapidly enough to dissolve the atomic energy field's cohesion, making biomolecules such as proteins a sort of perpetual motion entropy/enthalpy machine akin to an ecosystem.

I don't really know much about it yet, but your posts reminded me that what you're calling semiosis might soon be proven intrinsic to matter at very basic levels of emergence, simply by way of discerning inanimate mechanisms involved. So the issue could turn out to be decidable. Perhaps this equilibrium even emerges fractally, at a wide range of scales, so that the entire universe obeys the same energy flow distribution principles as an organism and might be living in a sense that we could aptly define as biological. If you want to research this and tell me what you find, I'd be interested.

Anyhow, a monistic dualism as stable equilibrium in superradiant vs. subradiant energy flow might be fundamental to life and render the universe a kind of organism.

Still materialist. And speculative materialism at that. Not my cup of tea.

Still materialist. And speculative materialism at that. Not my cup of tea. — Wayfarer

A materialist proof for the existence of God would be wild.

I have a question on causality.

Ghosts don't exist. Yet, when all alone in an empty house on a dark, stormy night we experience fear, cold sweats, palpitations, dry mouths, a lump in the throat, trembling, weak knees, and even pant-wetting. Is this causation? How can something that doesn't exist cause anything? Perhaps we assume ghosts exist, but then an assumption is many steps removed from truth/reality/fact!

Wouldn't a materialist proof for the existence of God would equate to panpsychism?

A materialist proof for the existence of God would be wild. — Enrique

I think Aristotle's proof is amenable to materialism. I don't think materialism as we understand it existed back then.

I suppose materialism would then be closer to panpsychism than physicalism, which works for me. Subtleties might exist that mean atoms aren't perceiving, only emergent structures, though at very basic levels of emergence. That's the view I subscribe to, called panprotopsychism.