Quantum and Digital Physics argument for the existence of God.
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
08-07-2015, 07:14 AM
RE: Quantum and Digital Physics argument for the existence of God.
(07-07-2015 08:54 PM)ideasonscribe Wrote:  Although I've just addressed this, some of you seem to have either ignored the comment or simply didn't read it.
Some of you seem to still be implying I am using a god-of-the-gaps argument.
I probably shouldn't be re-iterating this as the comments by some of you seem more like you're being antagonizing rather than actually responding to the OP, but I'll do this for clarification purposes if not anything else.

When someone uses the god-of-the-gaps argument, they are often using god as a "solve all" solution to the problem of the gap. Essentially, god is defined in this situation as a mysterious being that is 'all powerful', 'all present' and 'all knowing', therefore it somehow makes sense that such a being is responsible for a particular phenomena.
However, I am not plugging in some unknown mysterious, all powerful being. I've defined my terms into a coherent definition that is compatible with science. We are familiar with minds and how they process information, so there is nothing 'mysterious' about that.
I am coming to a conclusion based on an inference to the best explanation. If I found that the Multiverse Hypothesis was the best explanation, then I would be arguing for the Multiverse Hypothesis.
If you still would like to challenge that this is a god-of-the-gaps argument, then I ask that you answer this question:
What, then do you say to those who use this same argument to support the existence of multiple universes? Are they using a 'multiverse-of-the-gaps' argument?
You will have to carefully distinguish between a legitimate god-of-the-gaps argument and an inference to the best explanation.

all light hearted kidding aside, we can sit around all day and make up philosophical fabrications about causals for things we do not know the answers to all day, but since they all exist in the philosophical realm of "wouldn't it be cool if Norgg existed" level of thought exercises, in the end they are all arguments for which comic book hero is stronger. Thus irrelevant. There is no such thing as "legitimate god-of-the-gaps" argument just like there is no legitimate argument for Norgg. We can proffer various hypothesis for multiple universes, extra dimensions, extra-terrestrial creators, magical genies who create universe etc based on observable known laws of the universe, but nothing proves those known laws of the universe apply to all existence....so again, we go right back to philosophical musings perpetuated by the smacking sound of our lips in an entertaining display of neurological farting.

"Belief is so often the death of reason" - Qyburn, Game of Thrones

"The Christian community continues to exist because the conclusions of the critical study of the Bible are largely withheld from them." -Hans Conzelmann (1915-1989)
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like goodwithoutgod's post
08-07-2015, 07:28 AM
RE: Quantum and Digital Physics argument for the existence of God.
Idea - you are advocating that life, the universe and everything is digital and essentially is the Matrix with a large complex computer system running the whole show.

I can make it a step easier and claim that I am the only brain that exists and electrical impulses feed to me and create everything that I will ever experience.

Or I can make the assumption that this universe is natural, which coincidentally matches my observations of said universe.

Insanity - doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Rahn127's post
08-07-2015, 07:41 AM
RE: Quantum and Digital Physics argument for the existence of God.
(08-07-2015 07:12 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  I could care less.

Actually, it's "I couldn't care less".

(08-07-2015 07:12 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  Look at the people that neg repped me. You see what company you put yourself in?

People you disagree with?
So far I agree with at least one of them - "Resorts to insults and personal attacks. Needs to grow up. "
Absolutely.


(08-07-2015 07:12 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  I get that you don't want to, and CAN'T answer any relevant questions. When and IF you write even one relevant intelligent paper here, then someone may take you seriously.

I don't need anyone here to take me seriously. I have plenty of that already. So far, the host of Heretical Minds at Atheist Analysis was quite interested in my material and wants me to write for the science portion of his blog.
Most of the audience was quite receptive as well.
I've also emailed Dr S. James Gates (prefers to go by "Jim") with my material and he didn't agree, but he certainly was interested, and didn't act like a complete douchery doo about it.
Being an ass to everyone you disagree with doesn't seem like a very productive way to behave.


(08-07-2015 07:12 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  WHAT DOES ANY OF THIS HAVE TO DO WITH A GOD ? The god YOU posited in YOUR OP ?

You keep trying with this question even though I've repeatedly explained this and then chose to stop repeating myself. I know you don't like reading (so it seems), but it may save you a headache or two. Thumbsup

“What you believe to be true will control you, whether it’s true or not.”

—Jeremy LaBorde
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-07-2015, 07:53 AM
RE: Quantum and Digital Physics argument for the existence of God.
Actually, just as a reader I am wondering about this god thing too. You said in the OP that you had become an atheist. So why all this talk of a god or creator? And then we get into the who created the creator thing......

On it goes.

BTW. Are you Australian?

NOTE: Member, Tomasia uses this site to slander other individuals. He then later proclaims it a joke, but not in public.
I will call him a liar and a dog here and now.
Banjo.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Banjo's post
08-07-2015, 08:04 AM
RE: Quantum and Digital Physics argument for the existence of God.
OP, you never answered my question. I still want to know. What is "Digital Physics"? Does it keep time better than "Analog Physics"?

I suspect you used some buzzwords to create an impressive sounding thread title. You have three in there: Quantum, Digital and Physics. That's a level 3 Chopraism.

Doc
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like docskeptic's post
08-07-2015, 08:27 AM (This post was last modified: 08-07-2015 08:32 AM by The Organic Chemist.)
RE: Quantum and Digital Physics argument for the existence of God.
(07-07-2015 08:54 PM)ideasonscribe Wrote:  Some of you seem to still be implying I am using a god-of-the-gaps argument.
I probably shouldn't be re-iterating this as the comments by some of you seem more like you're being antagonizing rather than actually responding to the OP, but I'll do this for clarification purposes if not anything else.

Yes. You. Are.

In everything you have stated so far, whether true or false, in no way point to some existential consciousness. What you are doing is no different than what people used to do with lightning. Just look at your locality section for instance. Right or wrong, does this need some supernatural influence? If so, on what grounds are you basing this assertion?

(07-07-2015 08:54 PM)ideasonscribe Wrote:  When someone uses the god-of-the-gaps argument, they are often using god as a "solve all" solution to the problem of the gap. Essentially, god is defined in this situation as a mysterious being that is 'all powerful', 'all present' and 'all knowing', therefore it somehow makes sense that such a being is responsible for a particular phenomena.
However, I am not plugging in some unknown mysterious, all powerful being. I've defined my terms into a coherent definition that is compatible with science. We are familiar with minds and how they process information, so there is nothing 'mysterious' about that.

No, you only generally defined god (see post 9). I asked how YOU define god in post 18 and I can't find you ever defining it in your own terms in another place. Certainly correct me if I'm wrong, that jackass Diddo caused a few unnecessary pages. Your 4 points of the definition have in no way any scientific application since all four have no evidentiary foundation to begin with. If you want to have all 4 points as your definition in a scientific context, then all 4 points must first be established as true with verifiable and repeatable results to establish that the hypothesis is indeed true. By what experiment did you discern that any of the 4 points are indeed indicative of a god? If you can't do that, then the foundation of your argument collapses before it begins. As I see it, they claims in the definition are non-falsifiable and therefore must be either discarded or verified first.

(07-07-2015 08:54 PM)ideasonscribe Wrote:  I am coming to a conclusion based on an inference to the best explanation. If I found that the Multiverse Hypothesis was the best explanation, then I would be arguing for the Multiverse Hypothesis.

Even if the multiverse were the reality of the cosmos, how can you infer what happens outside of the cosmos? I have yet to see a serious physicist not say that the nature of matter, physics, chemistry may be completely different and we have no way of knowing at this time even whether mathematics as we know it even works. Thanks for calling it a hypothesis BTW.


(07-07-2015 08:54 PM)ideasonscribe Wrote:  If you still would like to challenge that this is a god-of-the-gaps argument, then I ask that you answer this question:
What, then do you say to those who use this same argument to support the existence of multiple universes? Are they using a 'multiverse-of-the-gaps' argument?
You will have to carefully distinguish between a legitimate god-of-the-gaps argument and an inference to the best explanation.

I do challenge that you are using a GOTG argument. IMO, any GOTG argument entails crediting the supernatural with something that we do not understand. In your case, you are saying the multiverse. William Lane Craig doesn't go that far but whether there are 1 or 100 universes, it is still basically Kalam. You even said that you are making an inference as the best explanation. Inferring something when we have little idea how something completely works is no different than the GOTG.

"If we are honest—and scientists have to be—we must admit that religion is a jumble of false assertions, with no basis in reality.
The very idea of God is a product of the human imagination."
- Paul Dirac
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-07-2015, 08:29 AM
RE: Quantum and Digital Physics argument for the existence of God.
(08-07-2015 08:04 AM)docskeptic Wrote:  OP, you never answered my question. I still want to know. What is "Digital Physics"? Does it keep time better than "Analog Physics"?

I suspect you used some buzzwords to create an impressive sounding thread title. You have three in there: Quantum, Digital and Physics. That's a level 3 Chopraism.

Doc

It was formed after the break-up of Digital Underground.

"If we are honest—and scientists have to be—we must admit that religion is a jumble of false assertions, with no basis in reality.
The very idea of God is a product of the human imagination."
- Paul Dirac
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-07-2015, 08:30 AM (This post was last modified: 08-07-2015 08:39 AM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: Quantum and Digital Physics argument for the existence of God.
(08-07-2015 07:41 AM)ideasonscribe Wrote:  People you disagree with?
So far I agree with at least one of them - "Resorts to insults and personal attacks. Needs to grow up. "
Absolutely.

No. All insane nuts, most of whom have been banned. Apparently you fit right in. I make it my job here to challenge internet nuts like you. You ALL come here with your "special" shit, (which is not special) and say it supports the gods. Then you refuse to define your terms in any coherent way, or explain how.

(08-07-2015 07:41 AM)ideasonscribe Wrote:  I don't need anyone here to take me seriously. I have plenty of that already. So far, the host of Heretical Minds at Atheist Analysis was quite interested in my material and wants me to write for the science portion of his blog.Most of the audience was quite receptive as well.

Good for them. I'm not impressed.

(08-07-2015 07:41 AM)ideasonscribe Wrote:  I've also emailed Dr S. James Gates (prefers to go by "Jim") with my material and he didn't agree, but he certainly was interested, and didn't act like a complete douchery doo about it. Being an ass to everyone you disagree with doesn't seem like a very productive way to behave.

Well la tee da.
If I need any advice from the likes of you, who has been here a couple days, I'll be sure and ask. Sorry you conflate being told you have not adequatly answered the questions posed to you about YOUR OP as "being an ass", but obviously you had NO plans to actually answer the questions at hand put to you, and still refuse.


(08-07-2015 07:12 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  WHAT DOES ANY OF THIS HAVE TO DO WITH A GOD ? The god YOU posited in YOUR OP ?

(08-07-2015 07:41 AM)ideasonscribe Wrote:  You keep trying with this question even though I've repeatedly explained this and then chose to stop repeating myself. I know you don't like reading (so it seems), but it may save you a headache or two. Thumbsup

So. You have no answer as to why you conflated these two completely separate subjects. You have no coherent definition for a god, you have answered NONE of the real inconvenient points here I and others have asked, and you refuse to answer this one question also.

You are pathetic.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-07-2015, 08:40 AM
RE: Quantum and Digital Physics argument for the existence of God.
(08-07-2015 08:04 AM)docskeptic Wrote:  OP, you never answered my question. I still want to know. What is "Digital Physics"? Does it keep time better than "Analog Physics"?

I suspect you used some buzzwords to create an impressive sounding thread title. You have three in there: Quantum, Digital and Physics. That's a level 3 Chopraism.

Doc

Don't hold your breath. He only answers convenient questions, and is obvioulsy VERY impressed with himslef and his new toy.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-07-2015, 08:42 AM
RE: Quantum and Digital Physics argument for the existence of God.
(08-07-2015 07:53 AM)Banjo Wrote:  Actually, just as a reader I am wondering about this god thing too. You said in the OP that you had become an atheist. So why all this talk of a god or creator? And then we get into the who created the creator thing......

On it goes.

BTW. Are you Australian?


I was raised Pentecostal, and didn't really conform to what my mother had tried to raise me in the Pentecostal church. It was all nonsense to me. I later was a more dedicated Christian, but more of a Baptist/Calvinist. I made a few posts here a couple years back trying to defend the Christian faith.

I joined the U.S. Navy after High School and that's when I began to become an atheist.
I realized after discussing things with other atheists and doing loads of research that what I believed did not actually line up with reality.

Then I got into Quantum Physics, and I started to find that my Materialistic view was untenable. Shortly after that, I found that the reason I was an atheist was only based on the contrary to my previous religious beliefs. I've always been one to avoid bias as much as possible and try to side with reality as much as possible in the process.
That being the case, I was convinced, based on QM and a few other things, that our universe was in fact the result of information processing. After looking at the theories that we have that help explain this phenomena, I found that it was actually much simpler to assert that minds process information much more smoothly and efficiently.
Other theories propose that a highly advanced computer is processing our reality. I have explained why I am uncomfortable with the amount of assumptions under this idea.
The Many-Worlds concept is a pretty interesting idea, and it's almost convincing (I was actually convinced of it for a short time), however it also suffers from problems mentioned earlier.
My idea of a consciousness is inconclusive, obviously. I don't fully believe it's true, but I am more convinced of it than the others.
So I'm here sharing the details so far.
Seeing as many people here would likely be interested in the science we are getting into these days, I figured I would share an interesting argument that may not have been shared here before.

And the whole "who created the creator?" thing. That's totally fine with me. I don't have any assumptions about it other than it processes information that makes the universe do all of it's strange and crazy things.
If it's simply another being of many, that's cool too. I have no idea. I'm just getting as far as I can with the information we have so far.


So I am not Australian, but I have been to Australia and I love it.
I've been to Brisbane, Adelaide and Sydney. I fell in love with Australia because of the people. They shocked me with how friendly and hospitable they all were.
I would just walk up to a huge group of Australians at a club or a bar and they would all just start talking to me like I was already a part of their group. I had so much fun. Smile

Why do you ask, btw?

“What you believe to be true will control you, whether it’s true or not.”

—Jeremy LaBorde
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: