Quantum and Digital Physics argument for the existence of God.
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
31-08-2015, 08:32 AM
RE: Quantum and Digital Physics argument for the existence of God.
(31-08-2015 08:00 AM)ideasonscribe Wrote:  Do you have some reasons behind your "It really doesn't" statement based on what you've read so far?

Yes.

You equivocate between the terms "hologram" and "simulation", attempt to insert a distinction between brains and computers where none exists, commit the special pleading fallacy when stating that a simulated universe is most likely run by a brain since a computer that large would be impractical, and make a fallacious argument for consciousness without a material framework.

I have mentioned this before.

(31-08-2015 08:03 AM)ideasonscribe Wrote:  Slight correction here: There is no way we can know it is real.

Yes, you said that.

It's still a garage dragon, and does not exist by definition. A claim that can never, ever be proven true under any circumstance is false.

"Owl," said Rabbit shortly, "you and I have brains. The others have fluff. If there is any thinking to be done in this Forest - and when I say thinking I mean thinking - you and I must do it."
- A. A. Milne, The House at Pooh Corner
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
31-08-2015, 08:41 AM
RE: Quantum and Digital Physics argument for the existence of God.
(30-08-2015 08:29 PM)Peebothuhul Wrote:  I thought some one had linked through to that page on 'Nature' before?

Any one remember the link? Or the gist of the other thread?

I linked to point out to BlowJob that his assertion that the meaning of Bell's Inequality was settled.

In this case a reference to a paper is not peer review of the paper.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
31-08-2015, 08:45 AM
RE: Quantum and Digital Physics argument for the existence of God.
(30-08-2015 08:55 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  The brain is a computer.

Accurate but not sufficient, says Dennett. "Crazy talk," says Nicolelis. 10 reasons why the brain is not like a computer. Just throwing that out there. Angel

living word
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes houseofcantor's post
31-08-2015, 08:59 AM
RE: Quantum and Digital Physics argument for the existence of God.
(31-08-2015 08:32 AM)Unbeliever Wrote:  
(31-08-2015 08:00 AM)ideasonscribe Wrote:  Do you have some reasons behind your "It really doesn't" statement based on what you've read so far?

Yes.

You equivocate between the terms "hologram" and "simulation", attempt to insert a distinction between brains and computers where none exists, commit the special pleading fallacy when stating that a simulated universe is most likely run by a brain since a computer that large would be impractical, and make a fallacious argument for consciousness without a material framework.

I have mentioned this before.

You did mention that before, and since it had already been addressed in this thread, I didn't respond.

I am not equivocating between the terms "hologram" and "simulation" as I pointed out that this could be evidence of either, or. Something that is inconclusive, obviously.

The distinction between brains and computers were sentience vs non-sentience and platonic information processing (conscious processing) vs non-conscious information processing. This distinction was made based on the calculations of how much would need to be processed and what it would take to process such information.

Showing the impracticality of the size of something and positing an alternative that seems more practical given such a problem is not "Special Pleading".
Special pleading would be if I said that the mind processing the universe was actually a brain that was just as large as the computer but somehow didn't suffer from impracticality based on it's size anyway.

And lastly, I've pointed out that this argument is largely speculative and inconclusive.
An argument being inconclusive is not the same as a fallacious argument except for the fact that it is inconclusive.

“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
31-08-2015, 09:03 AM
RE: Quantum and Digital Physics argument for the existence of God.
(31-08-2015 08:45 AM)houseofcantor Wrote:  
(30-08-2015 08:55 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  The brain is a computer.

Accurate but not sufficient, says Dennett. "Crazy talk," says Nicolelis. 10 reasons why the brain is not like a computer. Just throwing that out there. Angel

Here's another article with more research of the same result:

http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/...77306.html


This is unfortunate as I would love to be able to one day 'download' my mind onto a computer and potentially live for much longer. Then again, how would I know that that version of my mind was actually 'me'?
This could be a whole new thread...

“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
31-08-2015, 09:07 AM
RE: Quantum and Digital Physics argument for the existence of God.
(31-08-2015 08:41 AM)Chas Wrote:  
(30-08-2015 08:29 PM)Peebothuhul Wrote:  I thought some one had linked through to that page on 'Nature' before?

Any one remember the link? Or the gist of the other thread?

I linked to point out to BlowJob that his assertion that the meaning of Bell's Inequality was settled.

In this case a reference to a paper is not peer review of the paper.

I've already posted the peer-reviewed paper: http://www.nature.com/news/quantum-spook...NatureNews


The peer-review reference is at the end of the page: doi:10.1038/nature.2015.18255

“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
31-08-2015, 09:11 AM
RE: Quantum and Digital Physics argument for the existence of God.
(31-08-2015 01:54 AM)ideasonscribe Wrote:  
(31-08-2015 01:39 AM)Peebothuhul Wrote:  Except said deity STILL cannot exceed or break the boundaries which are imposed by the speed of light. That's a problem, isn't it? Said deity simply can not be every where it needs to be at once. Our reality simply will not allow such a thing to be.

Entanglement is an example of something violating relativity. That's the first thing that comes to mind when someone says something cannot exceed the speed of light. As I have just linked to, Bell's Theorem shows such a violation.

No, it does not.

Entanglement is a consequence of past interaction. It means that future measurements will be correlated in a specific way - not that one is affecting the other, but that both are evolving from a joint state. There is no way to create entanglement without (relativistic) interaction between the entities.

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like cjlr's post
31-08-2015, 09:16 AM (This post was last modified: 31-08-2015 09:20 AM by Unbeliever.)
RE: Quantum and Digital Physics argument for the existence of God.
(31-08-2015 08:45 AM)houseofcantor Wrote:  
(30-08-2015 08:55 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  The brain is a computer.

Accurate but not sufficient, says Dennett.

Quote:Writing in the Edge, Dennett admits that he has been wrong about the brain — but he's not backing down from the foundations set down by Turing and Alonzo Church in the first half of the 20th century; cognitive functionalism is still very much alive and well.

But rather than looking at the brain as a series of small and discrete sub-systems, Dennett has been considering the role of individual neurons. Moreover, he's impressed with how remarkably plastic and adaptable the brain is. Today's computers, which are designed from the top down, could never adjust to dramatically changing internal and external conditions...

More adaptable and complicated than the ones that we use today. Still a computer.

(31-08-2015 08:45 AM)houseofcantor Wrote:  "Crazy talk," says Nicolelis.

The entire field of neuroscience would seem to disagree with him. Particularly notable are Christof Koch, computational neuroscientist, who is exploring the computational basis for consciousness, and Henry Markram, head of the Blue Brain Project, an extended practical research project attempting to create a mechanical copy of a neural net which has made great strides in recent years.

Nicolelis can be as incredulous as he wants, but the evidence against him is mounting.

(31-08-2015 08:45 AM)houseofcantor Wrote:  10 reasons why the brain is not like a computer.

None of which actually addresses why the brain is not like a computer, but rather how the brain is unlike the specific types of computers that we use today.

The brain is a computer. Literally. It computes. It is a Turing-complete device. All Turing-complete devices are, by definition, computers. It is massively complicated and makes use of mechanics that are not yet fully understood, and which do not have direct comparisons in digital computing, but it is still a computer.

"Owl," said Rabbit shortly, "you and I have brains. The others have fluff. If there is any thinking to be done in this Forest - and when I say thinking I mean thinking - you and I must do it."
- A. A. Milne, The House at Pooh Corner
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Unbeliever's post
31-08-2015, 09:20 AM
RE: Quantum and Digital Physics argument for the existence of God.
(31-08-2015 08:59 AM)ideasonscribe Wrote:  I am not equivocating between the terms "hologram" and "simulation"

You are.

(31-08-2015 08:59 AM)ideasonscribe Wrote:  as I pointed out that this could be evidence of either, or.

No, it couldn't - unless, as above, you are equivocating between "hologram" and "simulation".

(31-08-2015 08:59 AM)ideasonscribe Wrote:  The distinction between brains and computers were sentience vs non-sentience and platonic information processing (conscious processing) vs non-conscious information processing.

Which is not actually a distinction, as the brain is a computer.

Whether or not it is conscious is irrelevant. It still processes information through computation.

(31-08-2015 08:59 AM)ideasonscribe Wrote:  This distinction was made based on the calculations of how much would need to be processed and what it would take to process such information.

Showing the impracticality of the size of something and positing an alternative that seems more practical given such a problem is not "Special Pleading".

Save that you never actually pointed to any calculations which said that you would need a much smaller brain than any other type of computer, or gave a reason as to why getting a brain of that size - which is still substantially larger and more complex than normal, exactly as it would be with any other type of computer - would be any easier than simply having a computer.

That is special pleading.

(31-08-2015 08:59 AM)ideasonscribe Wrote:  And lastly, I've pointed out that this argument is largely speculative and inconclusive.

It's also nonsense. What is your point?

(31-08-2015 08:59 AM)ideasonscribe Wrote:  An argument being inconclusive is not the same as a fallacious argument

No, but it is also fallacious.

"Owl," said Rabbit shortly, "you and I have brains. The others have fluff. If there is any thinking to be done in this Forest - and when I say thinking I mean thinking - you and I must do it."
- A. A. Milne, The House at Pooh Corner
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
31-08-2015, 09:25 AM
RE: Quantum and Digital Physics argument for the existence of God.
Unbeliever, I see you're bringing me in circles and sometimes simply disagreeing for the sake of disagreeing. Sorry, but I'm not in the mood at the moment.

I'm off to bed folks.
Night, tight.

“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: