Quantum and Digital Physics argument for the existence of God.
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
07-07-2015, 07:47 AM
RE: Quantum and Digital Physics argument for the existence of God.
(07-07-2015 07:37 AM)TheInquisition Wrote:  
(07-07-2015 07:23 AM)The Organic Chemist Wrote:  This is just stupid. If there was no knowledge without the bible, then how come the technologies referred to in the bible were developed? Without knowledge, writing would not have even been developed nor the papyrus it was written on. You seriously can't be this clueless. Is this clown a Poe?

Diddo is attention seeking, if he/she posts stupidity, they'll get attention. Apparently Diddo doesn't care if it's the wrong type of attention.

I see. I guess if we stop feeding it then it should go away.

"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
[+] 1 user Likes The Organic Chemist's post
07-07-2015, 07:52 AM
RE: Quantum and Digital Physics argument for the existence of God.
(05-07-2015 04:39 AM)ideasonscribe Wrote:  The results of experiments seemed to show that matter is dependent on observation, or 'measurement', to exist in any defined location.

So, what's this? Like "If a tree falls in the woods and no one is around to hear it, it doesn't exist"?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes RobbyPants's post
07-07-2015, 08:35 AM
RE: Quantum and Digital Physics argument for the existence of God.
What is "Digital Physics"?

Doc
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes docskeptic's post
07-07-2015, 10:42 AM (This post was last modified: 07-07-2015 11:16 AM by ideasonscribe.)
RE: Quantum and Digital Physics argument for the existence of God.
Ok, so some of you guys brought some excellent questions. I'll try to sneak in here and answer them as quickly as I can, while still being thorough, before my son wakes up:

(05-07-2015 07:31 AM)The Organic Chemist Wrote:  2) In a more general note. I fail to see how you made the leap to a god for any of this. You did reference some interesting studies/results, but you never tied it to any conscious higher being. Unless you are going to do that in a subsequent post. While I understand that you were trying to keep it out of the TL/DR realm, I think you may have missed your mark as I really didn't see you actually argue for either of your 2 points. Bucky sort of pointed that out already.

Ok, so I think you already saw where I eventually officially defined what I meant by 'god' and how it applied here.
Since I have the opportunity, I want to go ahead and elaborate even more. This may confuse you and/or others here, and I really want to avoid that if possible.

So when I say that this is an argument for the existence of 'god', I will admit that my terminology here is a bit ambiguous in a sense.
I am just calling whatever it is I am arguing for 'god' for relevance. In other places that I've brought this argument (most recently The Atheist Analysis show), I referred to this as Intelligent Platonic Information-Processing Consciousness (IPIC) and avoided using the term 'god' as much as possible.
At the floor level, I am arguing for a computable universe and against a purely observer-independent universe that is contingent on information processing.
Where I draw my information-processing consciousness from is alluding to an alternative to other theories such as the Many-Worlds Interpretation and the Simulation Hypothesis.

The MWI suffers from the Preferred Basis Problem as well as rectifying the Born Rule.
The Simulation Hypothesis makes too many uncomfortable assumptions - 1.) That we reach a post-human age.
2.) That we find a way to create identical universe simulations (which would potentially take a computer larger than the size of our universe to perform every qubit transaction of our universe).
3.) That we find a way to create self-aware beings in these simulations.
A question that someone brought up recently was - "How would we know if we had created real conscious simulated beings and not just something equivalent to Philosophical Zombies"? [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_zombie]).

A sentient consciousness seems the best alternative without making as many assumptions off the bat.
Granted, there are still assumptions, just not nearly as many.

I want to go ahead to clear up the question of what kind of 'god' I am arguing for here - I am not arguing for any 'kind' of god here. My god claim is neutral. In fact, I'm only arguing the coincidental similarities that this shares with the general definition of god.

What I believe, is that if we did get a closer look, experimentally, at what was processing the universe, we would no longer call it 'god'.
What I am say is this -
"This thing here, that's what we've been calling "god""



(05-07-2015 07:31 AM)The Organic Chemist Wrote:  3) I don't think you can draw much of a conclusion for a conscious being with Bell's inequality considering there have been no loophole-free experiments done yet (to my knowledge). That is drawing a conclusion with insufficient data.

So I think you had commented later on this, but essentially the general attempt to escape non-locality has been similar to a "loophole-of-the-gaps" chase. These experiments have me on the edge of my seat, a lot like the test for the Higgs Particle had a lot of others on the edge of theirs. They are basically testing for something that we already pretty much know is the case. It's just that one piece that we're looking for to confirm our suspicions.
Yes, we still have one more loophole to go, but so far, they've all been simultaneously closed successfully while violating local-realism.

This is five years ago:
"In the current experiment, the physicists simultaneously ruled out both the locality loophole and the freedom-of-choice loophole. They performed a Bell test between the Canary Islands of La Palma and Tenerife, located 144 km apart."
(http://phys.org/news/2010-11-physicists-...lism.html)

In the article, they also state that the experiment should be capable of closing the last loophole within the "next five years" which was almost five years ago. I've recently emailed PNAS as well as the Fermilab to see if there had been much progress. I will probably be back on here if they do respond and see if anyone's interested in their response.

So an important proof by contradiction that really helps establish our suspicions of bell's tests is the Kochen-Specker Theorem.
One aspect of this theorem shows how it's theoretically impossible for any particle to have a predefined value (or spin) prior to measurement.
Here's a really simple illustration of this proof - https://plus.maths.org/content/proof-koc...er-theorem

A lot of people seem to either just ignore the Kochen-Specker proof or just haven't really heard of it. It's extremely important as it rules out just about any Hidden Variable interpretation of QM.

(05-07-2015 07:31 AM)The Organic Chemist Wrote:  4) You seem to be drawing a conclusion in your mind before we have a good understanding of what we are even looking at. When I was doing quantum mechanics in grad school (several ears ago BTW, I know it has progressed some), the problem was very easy to see (i.e. where classical mechanics fail for particle physics) but in spite of many, many great physicists, we still don't understand why. You seem to be trying to draw a conclusion from a poorly understood relationship although you never really stated how this points to a deity. Logically, the quantum world must apply to large objects in some way but we just don't understand the relationship. Yet. Yeah, QM describes the atoms of a spoon but can't describe the spoon itself. This still does not mean there was a conscious superbeing.

I think this has been addressed. If not, please let me know.

(05-07-2015 07:31 AM)The Organic Chemist Wrote:  5) Is the universe a hologram or simulation? This entire section was about experiments that are being run and only 1 that had some data. Don't you think that this is a little early to be drawing a conclusion? I also read Hanada's paper. While the results are interesting, I still fail to see how this even begins to describe a god in any sense. This brings me to my final point about your last section.

So this is another question-begging section.
I am actually completely unconvinced that our universe is a hologram. At least not in the sense that we usually mean it.
This section of my argument is intended to point to our universe as computable information.
I've since updated my argument to exclude the term "hologram" or "simulation". Instead, point 4 states that our universe is made of information. More specifically, Block Linear Self Dual Error Correcting Code. This code, discovered by Theoretical Physicist Dr. S. James Gates of the University of Maryland shows how not only our universe is made of bits and "strings" of 1's and 0's, but that these bits are self-error-correcting. I'll refer you to him explaining this for the first time to Niel Degrasse Tyson:





(05-07-2015 07:31 AM)The Organic Chemist Wrote:  You also cite arXiv which is a moderated publication but it is not peer reviewed. Therefore, these ideas need to go through the wringer of peer review first before you can really take stock in them. Some of these may have been ideas that were in development at the time but the researcher has since discarded the idea. It's not to say that they are wrong, but they may just be that, ideas. Something to keep in mind.

That's true, some of the material that I'm using is on arXiv. Now, I wanted to also make sure that all of my material was open to fact-checking. In this thread, you are more than welcome to showing material that counters what I'm saying here. I am very open to that.
I've been trying to make sure over the past few years that what I am following up on is based on current information. I am always up for updates.

“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
07-07-2015, 11:01 AM
RE: Quantum and Digital Physics argument for the existence of God.
(07-07-2015 06:17 AM)diddo97 Wrote:  
(07-07-2015 06:14 AM)ClydeLee Wrote:  [Image: Holy-Bible-written-by-man-atheism-17955712-1050-839.jpg]

there can be no knowledge without the bible... despite there being knowledge BEFORE the bible was written according TO THE BIBLE. Making it a completely contradictory statement. Well done kid.

That is a very good point. However, atheism remains baseless.

I'm sure Sye Ten appreciates that you suck his dick ... but really, atheism is the default position. Therefore it needs no "base". What YOU need, is some evidence. Too bad you gots none, *up in there*.

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
07-07-2015, 11:08 AM (This post was last modified: 07-07-2015 11:17 AM by ideasonscribe.)
RE: Quantum and Digital Physics argument for the existence of God.
(05-07-2015 08:30 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  Al yet another "god of the gaps". "Causation" requires space-time. Information "processing" requires time. "Outside" in the absence of space is meaningless.

A fair couple of points you make.
First, I want to note that I have not made any mention to the concept of time in relation to this being.
When I talk about "time", I refer to it as one of four dimensions.
Being in the fifth dimension, for example, would not be the same as being "outside" the universe in the way that some religious apologists seem to hint at.
I don't if I've shared this yet, but Niel does a pretty good job of explaining such a scenario - (The relevant part starts at about 12:15)



As well as Carl Sagan's explanation of our own dimensions -



So to get a better understanding of what I'm talking about, if you imagine yourself playing the Sims, you can imagine how the "time" in the world of the Sims would actually be in a different realm than our own. Granted you were the coder, you would essentially have access to any time in the world of the Sims.
It's a bit of an obscure example since it's so primitive in comparison, but it's simply an example.

(05-07-2015 08:30 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  Then why doesn't she do something about all the starving babies ?

Since I've not made any argument in reference to this thing being "all-good", I'm not sure your relevance with this statement.

(05-07-2015 07:01 AM)ideasonscribe Wrote:  Then your god is a giant dick. You know how many kids died from cancer yesterday?

Again, I don't make any assumptions as to what kind of personality this thing has.

However, perhaps I can make a little point here to ponder - If our reality is really just a grand illusion in the mind of a cosmic consciousness... this never technically happened. Wink
It's about as simple and pointless as what you're implying in this thread.

(05-07-2015 08:30 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  And WE are conscious. Chaos Theory has proven then it this universe, order arises spontaneously. See my name ? I am a bucky ball. I know about these things. Tongue

You kind of went in a strange direction. Not sure how to respond here. :/

(05-07-2015 08:30 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  None of any of this leads to any deities. "God" is a bad habit your brain has, you need to divest yourself of. Big Grin

I'm quite aware of the apparent evangelical need for many atheists to "rid" the idea of god from everyone's mind. I am not here to convince someone I have a "competent" brain by simply shrugging off an idea that they don't like. I am going to look at reality as neutrally as possible and come as close to the truth about our world as is currently possible. Just "divesting" myself of the concept of god altogether is certainly not a neutral approach.

“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
07-07-2015, 11:36 AM
RE: Quantum and Digital Physics argument for the existence of God.
(07-07-2015 11:08 AM)ideasonscribe Wrote:  
(05-07-2015 08:30 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  Al yet another "god of the gaps". "Causation" requires space-time. Information "processing" requires time. "Outside" in the absence of space is meaningless.

A fair couple of points you make.
First, I want to note that I have not made any mention to the concept of time in relation to this being.
When I talk about "time", I refer to it as one of four dimensions.
Being in the fifth dimension, for example, would not be the same as being "outside" the universe in the way that some religious apologists seem to hint at.
I don't if I've shared this yet, but Niel does a pretty good job of explaining such a scenario - (The relevant part starts at about 12:15)



As well as Carl Sagan's explanation of our own dimensions -



So to get a better understanding of what I'm talking about, if you imagine yourself playing the Sims, you can imagine how the "time" in the world of the Sims would actually be in a different realm than our own. Granted you were the coder, you would essentially have access to any time in the world of the Sims.
It's a bit of an obscure example since it's so primitive in comparison, but it's simply an example.

(05-07-2015 08:30 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  Then why doesn't she do something about all the starving babies ?

Since I've not made any argument in reference to this thing being "all-good", I'm not sure your relevance with this statement.

(05-07-2015 07:01 AM)ideasonscribe Wrote:  Then your god is a giant dick. You know how many kids died from cancer yesterday?

Again, I don't make any assumptions as to what kind of personality this thing has.

However, perhaps I can make a little point here to ponder - If our reality is really just a grand illusion in the mind of a cosmic consciousness... this never technically happened. Wink
It's about as simple and pointless as what you're implying in this thread.

(05-07-2015 08:30 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  And WE are conscious. Chaos Theory has proven then it this universe, order arises spontaneously. See my name ? I am a bucky ball. I know about these things. Tongue

You kind of went in a strange direction. Not sure how to respond here. :/

(05-07-2015 08:30 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  None of any of this leads to any deities. "God" is a bad habit your brain has, you need to divest yourself of. Big Grin

I'm quite aware of the apparent evangelical need for many atheists to "rid" the idea of god from everyone's mind. I am not here to convince someone I have a "competent" brain by simply shrugging off an idea that they don't like. I am going to look at reality as neutrally as possible and come as close to the truth about our world as is currently possible. Just "divesting" myself of the concept of god altogether is certainly not a neutral approach.

You're repackaging the Kalaam argument. There is still no proof of any of these dimensions or whatever you're asserting.

Why would a god be an explanation to everything as opposed to a natural explanation?

BTW-this is a gish gallop, negative points already given.

Gods derive their power from post-hoc rationalizations. -The Inquisition

Using the supernatural to explain events in your life is a failure of the intellect to comprehend the world around you. -The Inquisition
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
07-07-2015, 11:49 AM
RE: Quantum and Digital Physics argument for the existence of God.
(07-07-2015 11:36 AM)TheInquisition Wrote:  You're repackaging the Kalaam argument. There is still no proof of any of these dimensions or whatever you're asserting.

This is usually the only thing most critiques of this material have had so far. Only a few people (Like The Organic Chemist, for example) have actually gone into the material itself and given a real response. For that reason, I usually just dismiss folks like yourself as easily as you dismiss me and my material.
It's basically like saying to every argument you disagree with "That's not evidence/You're wrong" and then leaving the room. People are left scratching their heads wondering who is going to drop-kick the next person that comes in and says that.
I can also tell how quickly you skimmed through my comments. You're not here to give a shit, so why should I?

(07-07-2015 11:36 AM)TheInquisition Wrote:  BTW-this is a gish gallop, negative points already given.

"Gish Gallop":

"The Gish Gallop is the debating technique of drowning an opponent in such a torrent of small arguments that the opponent cannot possibly answer or address each one in real time. More often than not, these myriad arguments are full of half-truths, lies, and straw-man arguments — the only condition is that there be many of them, not that they be particularly compelling on their own. They may be escape hatches or "gotcha" arguments that are specifically designed to be brief, but take a long time to unravel. Thus, galloping is frequently used in timed debates (especially by creationists) to overwhelm one's opponent."
- Rational Wiki (http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Gish_Gallop)

So since I've already stated that my argument has been broken down to appeal to the lay person, and since I've already stated that I am here to answer any questions and elaborate on any point, I think we can safely discard your assertion that I'm using a "gish gallop" approach here.
Drinking Beverage

“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
07-07-2015, 12:37 PM
RE: Quantum and Digital Physics argument for the existence of God.
(07-07-2015 06:17 AM)diddo97 Wrote:  
(07-07-2015 06:14 AM)ClydeLee Wrote:  there can be no knowledge without the bible... despite there being knowledge BEFORE the bible was written according TO THE BIBLE. Making it a completely contradictory statement. Well done kid.

That is a very good point. However, atheism remains baseless.

Translation: I don't know what I'm talking about, that point has become irrefutably evident, but I'm going to keep on talking.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes RobbyPants's post
07-07-2015, 06:22 PM
RE: Quantum and Digital Physics argument for the existence of God.
Gasp

Unsure

Blink

Facepalm

Dodgy

"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
[+] 4 users Like goodwithoutgod's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: