Quantum and Digital Physics argument for the existence of God.
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
10-07-2015, 06:25 AM (This post was last modified: 10-07-2015 06:29 AM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: Quantum and Digital Physics argument for the existence of God.
(09-07-2015 06:19 AM)ideasonscribe Wrote:  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'.

You're like the third or fourth nut who came here in the last few months to claim that an extra-corporeal "intelligence" is a god. there is NO EVIDENCE that "minds" work in the absence of complex biological systems, AND that mind would HAVE to "operate", in space-time. THAT is no god. So don't call ANY of this an "argument for god", (the definition for which YOU copy=pasted). Whatever it is, it's not about a god.


(09-07-2015 06:19 AM)ideasonscribe Wrote:  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.

I have no "problems". YOUR *problem* is YOU claimed all this was an "argument for a god".

(09-07-2015 06:19 AM)ideasonscribe Wrote:  So what is this statement about? Like I said, he is automatically assuming I am making a religious argument about a religious deity.

(09-07-2015 06:19 AM)ideasonscribe Wrote:  I humored this with an answer, and I really shouldn't have.

You *humor* no one but yourself. I get what you're trying to do.

(09-07-2015 06:19 AM)ideasonscribe Wrote:  "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."

It's not "an interesting idea". It's a CRAP idea. There is no EVIDENCE for it, and YOU don't even GET what's incoherent about a god "processing:" information".

(09-07-2015 06:19 AM)ideasonscribe Wrote:  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".

No. I read your garbage, and you wrote nothing "interesting". Don't tell me what I think, you pompous ass. YOU used the word "god" in your OP, and when asked, FAILED to provide any intelligent support for your USE of that word.

This is not "your thread". This is TTA. If you post on TTA, you can expect ATHEISTS, who want DEFINITIONS, coherent definitions, to ask you for them. You have none.

(09-07-2015 06:19 AM)ideasonscribe Wrote:  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.

Because you're just the latest in a LONG line who think this is the place to get away with crap SPECULATIONS they name "god".

(09-07-2015 06:19 AM)ideasonscribe Wrote:  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.

But you provided not a shred of support for the concept of "mind arising" from anything from anything else that what we know it arises from. Just more speculation, with NO SUPPORT or evidence.

(09-07-2015 06:19 AM)ideasonscribe Wrote:  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).

You ignored EVERY relevant question. No one was attacking anyone's "character". You can't stand the fact your stupid idea was questioned.

(09-07-2015 06:19 AM)ideasonscribe Wrote:  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)

Save it. You can stop with the attempts at sympathy garnering and "I have to go feed the baby" appeals for attention.

(09-07-2015 06:19 AM)ideasonscribe Wrote:  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.

You're not really a "theist". You can't even define what a "god" is or means.

(09-07-2015 06:19 AM)ideasonscribe Wrote:  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.

But YOU named your OP an "argument for god". Facepalm ... Weeping

Congratulations in advance. Ah yes. No doubt you will get the Nobel, just like Dr. Higgs did. Gasp

I think you have no clue what you're doing,
just like you had no clue what to ask when you first came here, and had to ask US to tell you what to ask.

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
[+] 1 user Likes Bucky Ball's post
10-07-2015, 06:50 AM (This post was last modified: 10-07-2015 06:54 AM by ideasonscribe.)
RE: Quantum and Digital Physics argument for the existence of God.
Yeah, I honestly don't understand what people like about you, Bucky. Perhaps you're simply different to other atheists. You seem like you'd be the guy that intentionally let a door literally hit me in the face if you were to meet me in real life.

So yeah, you're pretty useless in here, so I'm not going to bother responding to your nonsense anymore.

Btw, every time I read your responses, I can't help but read them as if you're talking in the voice of Captain Kirk every time you CAPITALIZE your emphasis.





Laugh out load

Fuck, you're an annoying shit.

“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, 07:10 AM
RE: Quantum and Digital Physics argument for the existence of God.
(10-07-2015 06:50 AM)ideasonscribe Wrote:  Yeah, I honestly don't understand what people like about you, Bucky. Perhaps you're simply different to other atheists. You seem like you'd be the guy that intentionally let a door literally hit me in the face if you were to meet me in real life.

So yeah, you're pretty useless in here, so I'm not going to bother responding to your nonsense anymore.

Btw, every time I read your responses, I can't help but read them as if you're talking in the voice of Captain Kirk every time you CAPITALIZE your emphasis.





Laugh out load

Fuck, you're an annoying shit.

Yeah I know. Poor baby. I do ask annoying questions. None of which you can provide ANY answers for. We all see that. You keep saying you won't answer. Yet here you are again. IF you REALLY had a "argument" for a god, would you be at TTA ?

And BTW its "different FROM" other atheists, not "different to". I see you cannot STILL help yourself and NEED to lump people in camps, and can ONLY think of ideas in reference to the gods or no gods.

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, 07:18 AM (This post was last modified: 10-07-2015 07:22 AM by ideasonscribe.)
RE: Quantum and Digital Physics argument for the existence of God.
It's different "to" other atheists because I'm referring to how you behave 'towards' atheists as opposed to me. Your very first comment on this thread shows you were here to start a fight.

“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, 07:37 AM
RE: Quantum and Digital Physics argument for the existence of God.
I haven't read the whole thread but...

(05-07-2015 07:01 AM)ideasonscribe Wrote:  This argument supports several characteristics of a general definition of 'god'.

1.) God is generally defined as the intelligent causal agent of our reality.
The being in this argument is intelligent, as intelligence is required to process platonic (coherent) information.
2.) God is generally defined as omnipresent.
The being in this argument would be outside our four dimensions.
Being that technically anyone in the fifth dimension is no longer bound to where you are in time, you would have access to the dimension of time at will. You would appear to be omnipresent as a result.
3.) God is generally defined as omnipotent.
This is compatible with something that processes the information that our universe is made of. If you were processing all the information that makes up our universe, you would be capable of altering any information at will. You would technically be "omnipotent".
4.) This obviously applies to omniscience as well since the being processing the information needs to know what they are processing.

This sounds logical and all, but so do many plots in fiction. The fact that it can be explained does not prove it. What I mean is, that you can conceive a new universe for a novel and everything is perfectly logical in that universe, so it makes sense. But that doesn't mean it's true.

I'm trying to say that the fact that you explained how "omnipotent" and "omniscient" work, and the fact that they might make sense with those explanations, does not prove it's reality. So, what is this based on? What evidence do you have to say that there is a being with these features? Certainly in some way you have (or someone else for you) ascertained them.

孤独 - The Out Crowd
Life is a flash of light between two eternities of darkness.
[Image: Schermata%202014-10-24%20alle%2012.39.01.png]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes The Polyglot Atheist's post
10-07-2015, 08:32 AM
RE: Quantum and Digital Physics argument for the existence of God.
(10-07-2015 07:37 AM)The Polyglot Atheist Wrote:  This sounds logical and all, but so do many plots in fiction. The fact that it can be explained does not prove it. What I mean is, that you can conceive a new universe for a novel and everything is perfectly logical in that universe, so it makes sense. But that doesn't mean it's true.

I'm trying to say that the fact that you explained how "omnipotent" and "omniscient" work, and the fact that they might make sense with those explanations, does not prove it's reality. So, what is this based on? What evidence do you have to say that there is a being with these features? Certainly in some way you have (or someone else for you) ascertained them.

Later in this thread I explain that this argument is not a conclusive argument. It is, instead, a different way to look at other theories like the Many Worlds interpretation of the wave function, or the Simulation Hypothesis.
In this argument, the only actual qualities I give this idea are only the ones necessary - Information-processing and Consciousness.
The other characteristics are basically what I refer to as "coincidental" in that they are compatible with the characteristics of information-processing and consciousness.
So it's not the other way around, although a few have assumed so several times so far, and one continues to do so.

I've emphasized that this is an inconclusive argument, and why I emphasize that is again because I want to focus on the alternative to the other theories.

You might notice as your reading through that one in particular, Bucky, has seen this entire thing as an attempt to prove the existence of some religious god in a 'veil' of scientific gibberish.
Without getting out of that mindset, we aren't going to actually progress into any kind of serious discussion. So if you're willing to talk about this as speculation, instead of looking at me like I'm wearing a tin hat, then I think we might have some interesting conversation. Smile

“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, 08:43 AM
RE: Quantum and Digital Physics argument for the existence of God.
I understand, but you see, even if you found Bucky's method of expressing his ideas a bit too abrasive, he made a good point about the terminology. You say this is not to prove some religious god, but I fail to find another meaning of "god".

  1. If you mean a divine being, then this is a religious topic.
  2. If you mean a creator, then this being must have immense powers and can be compared to a god.
  3. And if you don't mean god in the typical sense, I'd suggest using another term, because "god" is identified as a divine being who created the universe and rules it more or less directly.

孤独 - The Out Crowd
Life is a flash of light between two eternities of darkness.
[Image: Schermata%202014-10-24%20alle%2012.39.01.png]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like The Polyglot Atheist's post
10-07-2015, 08:47 AM (This post was last modified: 10-07-2015 09:19 AM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: Quantum and Digital Physics argument for the existence of God.
(10-07-2015 07:18 AM)ideasonscribe Wrote:  Your very first comment on this thread shows you were here to start a fight.

You ARE an atheist.
You claim to be a theist. You are not a theist.

I behave towards all internet loonies, no matter their stripes, such as you, EXACTLY as I do towards you.

You all want to redefine terms and use them your own way, and insist others accept your defintions.

You cannot support anything you say with any sort of coherent argument. You refuse to address questions posed to you, and explain why we should "name" your bullshit idea a "god", and get all slippery slimey "Oh I'm just asking questions" when challenged. You are an intelectual fraud. We get that a lot here. You think your ideas are VERY VERY special. They are not.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2...ger_effect

And thanks for the Kirk video. Deflection as per your USUAL. Tongue
When I asked you "A simulation of what, and there goes 'free will' " instead of actually answering the question you lit on the "free will" and totally ignoraed the important question "simulation of what" ... oh wait ... "simualtion of WHAT".

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, 09:16 AM
RE: Quantum and Digital Physics argument for the existence of God.
(10-07-2015 08:43 AM)The Polyglot Atheist Wrote:  I understand, but you see, even if you found Bucky's method of expressing his ideas a bit too abrasive, he made a good point about the terminology. You say this is not to prove some religious god, but I fail to find another meaning of "god".

This is not to "prove" anything. That's the point of speculation - it's just speculation.

Also, it's not only Bucky's approach that I'm referring to. It's his misunderstanding of the points that I'm making. He is repeatedly misunderstanding everything I'm saying and then saying I'm just dodging questions even though I'm answering nearly every question in this thread to the best of my knowledge. So his "method of expressing his ideas" is really just someone stomping their feet around in a room I created to have civil discussion. It's childish.
His point about the terminology is the same you're trying to explain here. Instead of understanding what I'm saying - "This being shares the same characteristics as 'god'", you're insisting that I'm actually saying "This being is god".

That's totally fine if I should not use the word "god". What do you think will be the difference in response if I instead make a thread titled "Quantum and Digital Physics argument for the existence of Intelligent Platonic Information-Processing Consciousness"?
Do you think someone like Bucky will come in there and actually behave like a civilized human being in that lobby? I can bet you money that Bucky would likely be no different - going in there and saying something to the effect of "Theists, painted into a corner of desperation, have this one last "gap" to hide their nonsense in."

I'm not sure how else to explain this any more clearer - What I am talking about is not "god" in the religious sense that you're referring to. What I am talking about has a specific definition and consequently shares some of the same characteristics as the base definition of "god".
So I gave one example which was - If you were to somehow step into the fifth dimension. You would be considered omnipresent. You would have access to the entire timeline of the universe no different than we have access to x,y, and z (our three dimensions).
This example went right over peoples heads. I'm not saying definitively that this means it's "omnipresent". I am saying that it means that it would appear to be omnipresent to us. Very speculative, right? Exactly. Thumbsup


(10-07-2015 08:43 AM)The Polyglot Atheist Wrote:  
  1. If you mean a divine being, then this is a religious topic.

I don't characterize this as divine.

(10-07-2015 08:43 AM)The Polyglot Atheist Wrote:  
  • If you mean a creator, then this being must have immense powers and can be compared to a god.

  • Compared to is different than actually being a god.

    (10-07-2015 08:43 AM)The Polyglot Atheist Wrote:  
  • And if you don't mean god in the typical sense, I'd suggest using another term, because "god" is identified as a divine being who created the universe and rules it more or less directly.

  • I mean 'god' in a narrow sense for the purpose of argument, that is all.

    “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, 09:22 AM
    RE: Quantum and Digital Physics argument for the existence of God.
    I have a question for you, The Polyglot Atheist. Perhaps we can better understand terms this way.

    If the term "god" is interchangeable in a religious sense (i.e. different religions define god in several different ways), then what definition are you going by? So far, I've been trying to go simply by the base characteristics you find in most general definitions of 'god' - i.e. Omnipotence, Omnipresence, and Omniscience.
    If I miss understand anything, it seems like it would be the sum of those three terms.
    As far as I know, however, the term 'god' is more or less an abstract term that is molded into different shapes depending on who you're talking to.

    “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: