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, 12:43 PM
RE: Quantum and Digital Physics argument for the existence of God.
(08-07-2015 10:53 AM)ideasonscribe Wrote:  The way this argument was written was intended to encourage more questions. If you think I've presented this as a conclusive argument, you're missing the point, and you're not asking the right questions.

Let me quote you from your OP:


"This argument/essay has been intentionally articulated to beg more questions while simultaneously providing the necessary substance for it's validity." So far, at least 3 of your sources don't hold up to scrutiny.

"The information processing the hologram is coming from a mind - rather than a highly advanced computer." One of the sources you provided earlier specifically identifies this mind as that of our distant descendants working on powerful computers in which we exist as a simulation. No "God" or "cosmic mind" need be posited.

Also, you made this assertion as a non-sequitur. Nothing you posited earlier has anything at all to do with your last statement.

"The universe is possibly a hologram or virtual simulation and we can test this." To back this up you say "Is this concept testable? Absolutely. The concept is currently being experimentally tested at the Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory.
http://www.fnal.gov/pub/presspass/press_...40826.html

I've sent an email to FNAL with a request for the results of the experiment. The data is expected to be reviewed this year."

Why didn't you wait for the result and then post? What if the test comes back negative or false? You seem confused about the concepts of hypothesis and theory. I would suggest you look up the definitions.

Doc
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 6 users Like docskeptic's post
08-07-2015, 06:16 PM
RE: Quantum and Digital Physics argument for the existence of God.
I'll be back after work to respond.

“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
09-07-2015, 04:49 AM
RE: Quantum and Digital Physics argument for the existence of God.
I believe I already commented on this, but I wanted to add a couple notes:

(08-07-2015 10:34 AM)docskeptic Wrote:  There's just one teeny-weeny problem. Your fifth postulate is presented as fact...

Not at all. I have not stated that my argument is solid fact, nor that it is conclusive in any way.
In fact, I readily admit that my fifth point is speculation. I don't understand what the disconnect is here.

(08-07-2015 10:34 AM)docskeptic Wrote:  The "sources" that you provided as authorities for this statement say nothing of "the cosmic mind". The first source is just Quantum Mechanics 101 for the lay audience and your second link is broken (in fact, there are other broken links in your OP).

There are no legitimate peer-reviewed sources for a "cosmic mind". I never said there was. This argument is not meant to be presenting a conclusive idea that the science community has already expanded upon. I am simply laying out my "argument" for what I see in the data.
I am not so great at formulating my own arguments. So I apologize that this isn't exactly structure correctly. I'm still working on it.
However, I am much more comfortable with writing up exhaustive essays that more clearly cover every detail of my research.
I may actually just make another thread sometime soon that is a large compilation of research in this topic and a more elaborate explanation for why it is I favor this alternative to the more exotic ones now in the market.
I did something similar to this in Quora, and it wasn't all that bad.

“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
[+] 1 user Likes ideasonscribe's post
09-07-2015, 06:19 AM
RE: Quantum and Digital Physics argument for the existence of God.
(08-07-2015 11:21 AM)The Organic Chemist Wrote:  Well this just took a turn. I am not sure whether you meant it but that was a rather pompous statement. We're not asking the right questions? If you have something to share and we aren't aware of it, that is your own fault, not ours.

That was not at all meant as a pompous statement. I have made that point clear since my original post.
It says this right in my post - "NOTE: This argument/essay has been intentionally articulated to beg more questions".

One of the first comments I get is: "You have merely traded one set of crazy ideas for another set of crazy ideas."
Certainly doesn't help.

Bucky Ball's first comment starts with "It's a crap idea. Theists, painted into a corner of desperation, have this one last "gap" to hide their nonsense in."

Then he "asks" (or implies, rather) a good question:

"1. There is no coherent definition of the word "god", nor does this idea support any of the gods that humans have ever cooked up."

So I answered that question because it seemed to pertain somewhat to my essay.

Then, his second "question":
"2. There is no evidence for a god. Logic is necessary, but not sufficient. Many logical systems are 100 % correct, but do not obtain in reality."

Wasn't something that was completely relevant. It could be re-worded to be more on-track. However, at reading this question, it appeared as if Bucky Ball didn't quite understand that I am not trying to literally describe a mysterious, supernatural deity. At the most basic level, I am arguing for a consciousness that processes the information in our universe. What I try to explain further is that what I am arguing for is what we have been calling 'god'.
I don't know how to explain this any clearer.

So if Bucky has been able to demonstrate anything successfully, it's that I shouldn't call this an "argument for the existence of god", nor even an "argument" for that matter. That's fine. I'm not adamant about this arguments solidity. I am pretty strict about how people interpret what I say or what I am really trying to demonstrate, however. So that's where my push-back is coming from.

(08-07-2015 11:21 AM)The Organic Chemist Wrote:  The questions that we are asking are basically trying to figure out the parts you left out or appear fallacious. For all of his vinegar, Bucky has illustrated some problems and I don't think you have adequately addressed them.

Bucky Ball also doesn't think I've adequately addressed his problems, even though I've tried to explain myself clearly several times.
Some of the points hes made I have ignored because they either completely misunderstand a point that is already explained somewhere else, or had already been explained to him before (he just didn't like the answer, so he asked again and said I ignored him).

Here, Bucky Ball demonstrates that he believes this is a purely religious argument and makes that presumption in his statement:
""The universe is likely a hologram or virtual simulation and we can test this." Great. A simulation of what, and you can kiss "free will" good-bye.""

Free will? Nothing in my argument gives a shit about "free will". Nothing at all. So what is this statement about? Like I said, he is automatically assuming I am making a religious argument about a religious deity.
I humored this with an answer, and I really shouldn't have.
It was mostly because of his question within his statement that was "A simulation of what?" What I was going to respond with originally was that the question was answered in what he quoted me saying "The universe is likely a hologram or virtual simulation". The answer is, 'a simulation of the universe'. However, I didn't understand how Bucky Ball couldn't understand this, and/or whether he was being serious about his question, granted I was also distracted by his inserted presumptions I just mentioned.

Bucky Ball's next "question:
""The information processing the hologram is coming from a mind - rather than a highly advanced computer." --- No evidence. At all."
So instead of asking "What evidence is there that the information processing the hologram is coming from a mind?" He just simply stated - No evidence. At all.

Had he asked it appropriately, I would have answered and made this clearer a long time ago with - "The idea that the mind is processing the universe is speculative, but an interesting idea that seems to be compatible with the data I'm presenting."
Yeah, I could have made that clear from the get-go, but I can tell that this guy came on here right off the bat with presumptions about my thread before entering the thread by reading the title "Quantum and Digital Physics argument for the existence of god". As soon as he read "god", he most likely thought "this is going to be garbage".
The first words he wrote on this thread was "It's a crap idea".
If that isn't antagonistic, then nothing is. Why not start with something like "It's a speculative idea at best". I would not have seen that as nearly as offensive as I can understand that a lot better and I empathize with that.

This next one is more appropriate for my material: "We know that "minds" arise ONLY from brain systems (so far). There is no brain for this system to arise from. "

Then I try to explain that this whole premise is dependent on a few concepts within QM Theory.
Namely - What is 'observation'?
What is 'consciousness'?
And lastly - What is the relationship of the quantum world with the classical world.

Being that we have been demonstrating interference patterns in classical objects, I also tried to demonstrate that - since our brain is, after all, a classical object.
If you don't agree, that's fine, but that's what this thread is for - to talk about what we disagree about. Not to attack my character and the fact that I was unable to get to every question (I have a life after all folks).


(08-07-2015 11:21 AM)The Organic Chemist Wrote:  I have also pointed out some problems and Doc did as well. Instead of addressing many of the problems, you have instead sort of hand-waved or ignored some of the problems.

Sort of? I am not intentionally inadequately answering questions. If you don't understand what I'm saying, just ask me to explain something. I don't understand the need for personal attacks when someone is harder to understand.
It's a common trait for someone with Asperger to have communicative issues like this, so I am not surprised that I am having this issue. What surprises me is the response to this issue. Presuming I'm doing so intentionally. (Not to say that you are, The Organic Chemist, or that you have personally attacked me, yet)


(08-07-2015 11:21 AM)The Organic Chemist Wrote:  Doc is right to point out what he did and the best you can do is tell him that he didn't ask the right questions or just didn't get it.

Right, because that's what I was wanting people to do from the start - Ask the questions that the original material is begging.
I stated this in my post! Instead, people seemed to have skimmed through it and just give a typical anti-theistic response.
So I've clarified in the last comment I just posted to Doc about what he "pointed out". Hopefully that makes more sense now.

(08-07-2015 11:21 AM)The Organic Chemist Wrote:  I thought QM pointed to what you were getting at many years ago as well.

You thought QM pointed to a cosmic consciousness? I'm not sure if that's what you mean here, but if it is, I find that hard to believe. Most people I know have a more "instrumentalist" interpretation of QM - the epitome of the statement "Shut up and calculate". Most people I know (That know anything about QM, that is) tend to think of QM as a neat way to make super cool technology.


(08-07-2015 11:21 AM)The Organic Chemist Wrote:  However, I also realized that to do basically what you are doing is as fallacious as any other religious claim that makes unfounded leaps.

So far, my argument doesn't claim to be truth, like religious claims do. My argument is falsifiable, unlike religious claims. (and yes, I have thought of ways to falsify the cosmic consciousness. One could do so by showing that the error-correcting codes in supersymmetry can structure themselves. Dr. James Gates believes they can. He does a talk on his codes in relation to genetics and how he believes these codes can 'evolve'.)
You guys keep saying I'm making a 'leap'. Yep, I'm making a leap. And I would like to talk about the science and how this idea relates to the Many-Worlds idea, or the Simulation idea. Both of which make "leaps". I am (attempting) to present this idea like one would present those two ideas - with some evidence and some speculation.

“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
[+] 1 user Likes ideasonscribe's post
09-07-2015, 07:36 AM
RE: Quantum and Digital Physics argument for the existence of God.
In the middle of writing my next response, baby Miles wants attention. Confused

Hang in there and try not to get all flustered about things that haven't been answered yet.
Thank you.

“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
09-07-2015, 08:16 AM
RE: Quantum and Digital Physics argument for the existence of God.
(08-07-2015 12:43 PM)docskeptic Wrote:  Let me quote you from your OP:

"This argument/essay has been intentionally articulated to beg more questions while simultaneously providing the necessary substance for it's validity." So far, at least 3 of your sources don't hold up to scrutiny.

"The information processing the hologram is coming from a mind - rather than a highly advanced computer." One of the sources you provided earlier specifically identifies this mind as that of our distant descendants working on powerful computers in which we exist as a simulation. No "God" or "cosmic mind" need be posited.

The source you linked was used in point 4 "The universe is probably a hologram or virtual reality and we can test this."
It was not used in point 5.
So since I used that source in context to evidence that our universe is likely virtual, then it certainly does hold up to scrutiny. It's only point is to show that we can test this and even are testing this.

So let's look at the source you linked -
arxiv.org/pdf/1210.1847.pdf

You are likely referring to this statement in the introduction here - "Extrapolations to the distant futurity of trends in the growth of high-performance com-puting (HPC) have led philosophers to question —in a logically compelling way— whether the universe that we currently inhabit is a numerical simulation performed by our distant descendants."

And this is one of the alternatives that I've mentioned quite a few times in here. One that I am less convinced of since it seems to make the assumptions that we will reach a post-human age. So yes, the article mentions that scenario, but the actual point of the article, and the reason I used it as a 'source' in point 4 instead of point 5 was to show that this hypothesis is testable and is currently being tested.

In a recent episode of Through The Wormhole, an admittedly sometimes abstract and obscure show, Silas Beane, Nuclear Physicist at the University of Washington explains a little about what they are looking for in these experiments. If you notice, he is also the first person listed in the article you're talking about:





The "cosmic mind" is an alternative to the supposed theories by Nick Bostrom and Hugh Everett. I think I've said this now over ten times in this thread. I realllllly hope you guys understand this now. <.<

(08-07-2015 12:43 PM)docskeptic Wrote:  Also, you made this assertion as a non-sequitur. Nothing you posited earlier has anything at all to do with your last statement.

You threw me off here a little. I can guess that your first sentence "Also, you made this assertion as a non-sequitur" is referring to my final point being a cosmic consciousness processing the universe.
That is certainly the case in terms of "logically" following the premises. That's true. We've pretty much established that this is an incomplete argument that sucks ass. I'll deal with it.
I'm definitely no physicist, so I'm not pretending my argument is iron clad. Just that there are some points to be made here.
One thing I really tried to demonstrate is that this idea is a simpler alternative to other theories.
I am thinking about writing another thread (maybe not in the Atheism and Theism section) that is a more exhaustive exploration through the data.
My email is full of thousands of emails that I've sent to myself with loads of information. I just need to get it all organized and present it as just a huge essay - not an argument.
Although, I'll probably keep my argument - It still has some grounding in conversation... if you're not assuming I'm just another WLC-loving theist trying to "hold on" to god.
I just need to re-articulate the argument and do more fact-checking.

(08-07-2015 12:43 PM)docskeptic Wrote:  "The universe is possibly a hologram or virtual simulation and we can test this." To back this up you say "Is this concept testable? Absolutely. The concept is currently being experimentally tested at the Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory.
http://www.fnal.gov/pub/presspass/press_...40826.html

I've sent an email to FNAL with a request for the results of the experiment. The data is expected to be reviewed this year."

Why didn't you wait for the result and then post?

The point in this part of the argument is to show that the hypothesis is testable. I'm not trying to show that we definitely live in a virtual simulation. That would be fine on it's own, but it would only somewhat confirm my suspicions based on the data we already have about our universe.
One of the reasons I put this point in here was not to show that we live in a simulation, but to answer one of the questions posited to me in the past - The virtual reality concept is untestable, therefore it's not science. I disagreed, but I had to put my argument back onto the shelf and let it collect dust for a while. I then run into these interesting articles about "Constraints on our Universe as a Numerical Simulation". That was interesting, and was surprised to find that this was a beautiful way to actually test something that someone else told me was untestable.
My argument made an advancement and so I pointed this out.
But yes, I don't need the Fermilab to respond to my email and tell me that the results were positive in order for this point to make sense. Just like many had their suspicions confirmed about the Higgs Particle when it was finally found, I am also almost completely convinced of what the results will be based on other relevant data.

(08-07-2015 12:43 PM)docskeptic Wrote:  What if the test comes back negative or false? You seem confused about the concepts of hypothesis and theory. I would suggest you look up the definitions.

In the context of the tests they are conducting, that will either mean that we are in an advanced simulation with "improved Wilson fermion discretization", or that our universe is not a simulation. That would mean I would need to update my information here. However, it would still stand that our universe is made of information. It wouldn't completely undermine the argument itself.
It's certainly a good point, though.

And I am quite aware of the terms 'hypothesis' and 'theory'. I don't need to look up the definitions.

“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
09-07-2015, 06:29 PM
RE: Quantum and Digital Physics argument for the existence of God.
Even if these elements were collected in examination and held some value to them... it doesn't come close to proving the excessive manners of poorly analogized terms that are used.

If you did show how the universe operated on a graphical manner or that there was a constant vibration/sound component all across the universe vibrating on it's entire formation. Where is any of the logical steps without more assumptions to make analogies that it's something "virtual" or carries any of the constructed like elements those terminologies carry?

"Allow there to be a spectrum in all that you see" - Neil Degrasse Tyson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
10-07-2015, 04:53 AM
RE: Quantum and Digital Physics argument for the existence of God.
(09-07-2015 06:29 PM)ClydeLee Wrote:  Even if these elements were collected in examination and held some value to them... it doesn't come close to proving the excessive manners of poorly analogized terms that are used.

If you did show how the universe operated on a graphical manner or that there was a constant vibration/sound component all across the universe vibrating on it's entire formation. Where is any of the logical steps without more assumptions to make analogies that it's something "virtual" or carries any of the constructed like elements those terminologies carry?

You may need to re-word this so I don't assume you mean something you don't.

So far, it sounds like you're asking something along the lines of why we say things like "virtual reality" or "Simulation" or "Hologram". Which is a good question if that's what you're asking.
I would say that we base many of our models on things we observe in our experience. So when we talk about other "universes", we are using the term "universe" to describe what we think is happening "outside" our universe based on the kinds of things we observe inside our own.

Anyways, if I answered a question you didn't ask, I apologize.
Just trying to keep the response-nazis off me. Rolleyes

Btw, where is Vosur? Normally I see him on my thread by now. He hasn't failed to present his $.02 in nearly any post I've made in the past.

“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
10-07-2015, 05:39 AM
RE: Quantum and Digital Physics argument for the existence of God.
(10-07-2015 04:53 AM)ideasonscribe Wrote:  Btw, where is Vosur? Normally I see him on my thread by now. He hasn't failed to present his $.02 in nearly any post I've made in the past.

He's had his fill of the internet nuts du jour dropping in here, as they nowhere else to go, to poop out their nonsense.

Not even an original idea. Facepalm




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
10-07-2015, 06:21 AM
RE: Quantum and Digital Physics argument for the existence of God.
(10-07-2015 05:39 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  Not even an original idea. Facepalm

Seems like you're implying I have somehow said any of this was an original idea of mine.
Largely, this is the work of others. I've simply tried to put what I see in the data into argument form.
And your point for this being something you've heard about before is?

(10-07-2015 05:39 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  


I love Brian Greene. He and Dawkins are especially hilarious in this clip.

Although, Dawkins makes a terrible counter-argument. I don't think he was actually trying to make a real counter-argument against the idea of some "pimply youth" being the creator of our simulated universe.
From the looks of it, he was just throwing some thoughts out there.

So his argument is basically - One would be tempted, if this world was a simulation, to 'tinker' with the simulation and do crazy things like make people fly and whatnot. We don't see that.

No. Not really astute.

“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: