Atheists Answer This Question: How Can a Limited Intelligence Contain a Greater Intelligence? The Mystics and Physicist's God.

HeyZeus
Posts: 41
Joined: 2011-04-06
User is offlineOffline
Atheists Answer This Question: How Can a Limited Intelligence Contain a Greater Intelligence? The Mystics and Physicist's God.

 http://www.lordandme.com/2011/04/proof-of-god-in-three-steps.html

A Proof of God in Three Steps

If by the end of this you don’t feel God running through your veins and moving through your spinal cord like a shiver… you probably should’ve smoked more weed before reading further than this line. For this is not addressed to those who think God can’t be found in the more fluid states of human consciousness… that is actually God’s permanent address. He’s that gust of breeze at dawn that can only be fully experienced when one is naked. A mind clad in corporate suits and leather shoes would find the touch of God unpleasant; like the brush against a stranger’s body on public transport; something otherwise entirely natural but repulsively inappropriate under the arbitrary paradigms of human civilization.

So leave your shoes outside and follow me. Only the bare of feet are entertained here. But do bring your mind along. You’re going to need it. This is after all, a scientific, rational proof of God.

Your Skin Does Not Contain You

Her name, is Jill Bolte Taylor. She studied the brain at Harvard and Indiana University and went on to establish herself as one of the leading neuroanatomists in the world. One morning she woke up, got out of bed, undressed, got into the shower and as she was taking the shower, realized that she could no longer discern where her hand ended and the tiled wall against which it was resting, began. The boundaries of her being, the outlines of her physical self that she used to differentiate between herself and the world around her, had disappeared. Jill Bolte Taylor was no more. There was only the continuous ocean of energy that extended all the way from her body to the ends of the universe. And she was a part of it. And she could see it and feel it, clear as the fucking daylight.

What did she do? She reminded herself that she was having a stroke; that her brain was gradually shutting down, one hemisphere at a time. That feeling of limitlessness, that was her left brain giving up. She suddenly had a powerful insight; it was her brain that told her that she was separate from the universe. It was her brain that defined her self for her, her brain that was the source of her self-awareness, her brain that explained her how she looked like, and howother things were and how she existed in relation to other things. The reality was, the shower curtain and her hand were more alike than they were different. They were both made of energy.

Everything in the universe is made up of either matter or energy. One of the implications of Einstein’s theory of relativity is the idea calledenergy-matter duality. It goes something like this; matter is, at the very fundamental level, just energy concentrated at a point, and energy is, to generalize a little bit, matter exhibiting wave behavior. Matter can be broken into pieces or fused together to release large amounts of energy and similarly energy can be captured inside matter through changing the state of matter. Matter is energy, and energy is matter. It’s all basically the same thing.

Now, since everything is the same, then the boundaries, limits, containers and skins we imagine upon entities are essentially as much a matter of perception as they are a matter of objective reality. We don’t really know where one thing ends and the other begins, we just imagine arbitrary outlines because that helps us operate in the world in a more efficient and survival savvy way. Consider any two objects, the coffee mug sitting next to your type writer and the workstation it’s resting its bottom on. Now, you’d like to imagine these two things as being separate from one another, but the truth is, there is an ongoing exchange of energy and matter taking place at all times across the boundary where the base of the cup and the tabletop meet. The most obvious of these transactions is the exchange of quanta of energy in the form of heat. Also, all matter at all times is always decaying and giving off some amount of radioactivity; too small to have any significance in our lives, but this barter is still always taking place; taking place right in front of your eyes and right across the boundaries that you would imagine impermeable for matter. All boundaries everywhere are only impermeable for some percentage of some forms of energy or matter. There isn’t a cup out there that holds everything, always, forever.

When we define an entity as an object separate from its surroundings, we are making a subconscious choice to ignore the multitude of uninterrupted connections that the object maintains with its habitat. The cup is connected to the desk, which is connected to the floor and the air around it, which is connected to everything else in the room, which is connected to the rest of building which is connected to the atmosphere and hence the entire planet. The planet in turn, is connected to outer space and hence to the entire universe. Everything is one interconnected blob of energy in its multiple manifest forms. Even “empty” space-time has background energy. Energy is everywhere; it forms the base fabric of our universe. We are not separate from it, we are only concentrated little lumps in the grand custard of energy that is our universe.

The distinction between entities seems even more meaningless when one of those entities is a living thing. Self-awareness or the ability to see yourself as separate from the space you inhabit, isn’t the rule in the world of consciousness, it’s an anomaly. It’s not a fact or self-evident universal truth, it’s just a cognitive skill that some species have evolved and honed into a ruthless über-survivalist weapon. Right now there are hundred of thousands of living species traveling back and forth almost unhindered across the boundary of your self that you call your skin; not to say anything of the heat exchange or other forms of energy barter your body constantly engages in at all times. Your skin is no boundary, it’s just an input output device you’ve evolved to better control the exchange of energy and matter. You are not separate from your surroundings; your mind just tells you you are because this worldview increases your chances of survival and propagation.

Everything is connected. It’s all energy, and so are we; a tiny globule of energy in a big abounding mass of it. Mystics felt this truth in their bones centuries ago. Today, scientistsknow it for a fact.

As her mind flickered Jill Bolte Taylor saw, felt, heard, smelled and tasted this fact in her entire body, and came to a realization of it deeper than the mystics could have enjoyed or other scientists discerned. Jill met God like only a twenty-first century neuroanatomist having a stroke could have.

Decision Diamonds are Forever

There’s a delusion at play here, a hoax, the greatest perhaps in the history of consciousness. We are all victims of it and we’re the perpetrators too. We start running the trick on ourselves the moment we are born, then we continue to layer upon it further magma of fiction, with each layer thickening the artificial profundity of the illusion. But an illusion it is, and in moments of quiet reflection -trying perhaps to imagine what it would be like to ride a beam of light, or watching a bush burn in the desert under a starlit night, or tuning in to the rhythms of the universe uninterrupted after completely losing all hearing- we sometimes finally break through. We see the illusion for what it is, an illusion. We realize that the world of matter that our souls had so obsessed over for so long is only a minor and probably insignificant slice of our entire existence; that our true selves extend from the heavens to hell, that the material form we take in this life does not define us. That the fundamental unit of our existence is not a cell or an atom or a quark, it’s a decision diamond.

What’s a decision diamond, you ask. It’s the fundamental unit of intelligence. An if-then structure with a binary output, any simple rule that says, if condition A is satisfied then do X otherwise do Y. We are not made of cells or atoms, we are made of millions of trillions of these decision diamonds, interconnected, nested, serially or parallel linked to each other to construct the grand symphonies of our consciousness and souls. These decision diamonds are mostly expressed in the form of energy -as the ever morphing cloud of electrical sparks that resides on our neural network- and only partly implemented upon matter as atoms or cells that make up our body, but to take off from there and conclude that we are made of atoms or cells would be like saying that a book is made of ink and paper. It may be true in a strictly physical sense, but it is not the Truth. Mere pigment and papyrus not a volume make.

Now ponder this, everything in the universe, including the universe itself, is made up of these decision diamonds. A collection of these diamonds in any combination, can be called an “Intelligence”. And just as there are single cellular organisms, there are single diamond Intelligences. The light switch on the wall next to you for instance that knows whether to turn the light on or off based on the position you put it in, is a single diamond Intelligence. The light switch and all the other objects we consider non-living things, have most of their intelligence implemented upon matter, and coded in their physical form as the laws of physics and chemistry that govern their behavior. For a more complex Intelligence like us or the universe, most of the algorithmic compilation of decision diamonds is expressed in various designs upon energy, electromagnetic sparks or networks of heat or light exchange. Ultimately it’s the diamonds that make up everything, energy or matter are just the languages the poetry is written in.

So, to summarize so far, you are made of decision diamonds expressed as either matter or energy. But matter and energy are the same thing. Also, the rest of the universe is a material or energetic representation of decision diamonds too so there’s no way you can be separate from the universe, you’re a part. You are just a drop in an ocean of Intelligence. You have individual properties, a little more salt maybe, a higher degree of self-awareness, more of an inclination for communication, but that’s about it. The enumeration of similarities is a whole datacenter with millions of servers compared to the small laundry list of differences.

Are you getting a better picture of the universe now? And your place in the universe? No? Take a couple more puffs and let the universe invade you. Expand yourself to see that you can encompass entire galaxies in your arms.

Proof in the Pudding

I’ve changed my mind, I’d no longer try to prove anything. Now that we’ve established that the universe is one big pudding of intelligence expressed as energy, and we are but a chunk within that pudding, I’ll just leave you with a question.

And the question is this. If we are, but a small part of the greater intelligence of the universe, and we are self-aware and cognizant, how can the universe NOT be self-aware and cognizant?

And what do you call this greater intelligence of the universe and everything beyond, that we cannot even begin to completely understand, that is part of us and includes us, that is therefore at least as self-aware and as complex as us, that knows everything instantaneously and is everywhere, all the time? What do you call it?

Names, names. There are a few out there, but I think they all fall short. For trapping something infinite in the finite bounds of a label, now that's what I call true blasphemy.

Mod edit: I fixed this giant block of incoherent text. Well....it's still incoherent, but at least it's readable now.


robj101
atheist
robj101's picture
Posts: 2481
Joined: 2010-02-20
User is offlineOffline
TGBaker wrote:robj101

TGBaker wrote:

robj101 wrote:

TGBaker wrote:

BobSpence1 wrote:

Moral frameworks, 'meaning', and 'purpose', only have meaning and definition within the context of a particular conscious group or individual.

Based on all our relevant observations, consciousness is an emergent property of a certain category of complex structures.

In the case of an individual, it grows from zero at fertilization to real values as the organism matures. It is not something that somehow gets absorbed from some  'intelligence' in the environment, so there is absolutely no logical requirement that 'nature' or 'the universe' be intelligent, any more than that it have the capability of forming an image of its surroundings and encoding that in nerve impulses or whatever, ie eyes are also emergent structures.

In the case of life on Earth collectively, the emergence of forms capable of intelligence emerged over time from forms which originally had none.

Comparing simple non-linear processes, which is what the formation of ice from liquid water is, to 'intelligence', is a meaningless metaphorical stretch. There is, arguably, a continuum there, as the capability for more complex interaction with the environment grows, but to not recognise the enormous differences in levels of complexity is to make the concept of 'intelligence' meaningless.

A complex intelligent entity does not require more 'raw' information content than the equivalent amount of rock, where in physics, 'information' refers to the description of the position/momentum of each constituent particle within a specified volume. I think the 'holographic principle' postulates that that 'information' can be considered as encoded on the bounding surface of the volume.

It is a common mistake to conflate such raw information, which is considered to be conserved, with the higher level idea of specific information describing the organization of structures required to generate specific capabilities, whether they be the ability of complex machinery to serve as means of transportation - cars, aircraft - or do complex calculations, or be able to display what we recognize as conscious, intelligent behavior, or the ability to reproduce oneself.

That specific organization is not conserved - the pattern, the structure, can completely disappear, if the basic elements are re-arranged sufficiently.

 

I agree. That is why at most you could speculate about the "source" as being a ground for information or intelligence but not informed or intelligent itself.  So we are ultimately for more complicated than our originating source a directly opposite view from that of theism.  Raw information ( I like that term ) is simple data it is the interaction and the emerging complexity that forms meaning as meaning is contextual and relative to its function and environment. I still think that we can not discount that the interconnectivity of things could well be the raw basis of what becomes human consciousness. It is semantics whether we equate that aspect as consciousness or proto-consciousness itself or simply designate it as the aspect of matter that gives rise to emergent consciousness.  Consciousness certainly can be limited to the type of complex processing known only in brains. In such cases philosophers and scientists still anthropocentrically call this interaction awareness of one particle for another. In looking at single cell organisms it is amazing how that still have a functional awareness of their environment without a nervous system.  This has to do with the cell membrane and openings for protein processing. our real problem as Wittgenstein pointed out is language. It makes us posit things that are not real but linguistic (logical) in nature.


 

 

Could you prove something is not looking at us through a microscope, seeing us as we see a "single celled organism" or even that it's not calling our "entire" universe a single celled organism?

Well the fact that we can ask exactly your question allows that we have some understanding as to ways to search and things for which to look.  The question is a lot like Russell's tea pot.  You probably can't prove that there's not a tea pot orbiting the earth but what is the likelihood, why would I think such and what is the plausibility?  We can break down the question further. What is meant by being seen?  We have a visual system whererby we exploit light, photons and the light spectrum along with modules in the brain that are dedicated to forms such as as horizontal and vertical lines, a module for facial recognition, and a module that brings about a certainty threshold that allows us to say we "know'.  So if we are to say "seen' are we speaking metaphorically of the alleged consciousness or something like understanding "Oh I see"  The idea of the precursor of the Big bang as being as complicated as our brain functions and its activity called mind is far more implausible than a simple field state from which complexity slowly evolves or emerges as history seems to indicate. Bobspense1 has posted quite a bit and well on this issue which certainaly more definitive than what I have to say on the subject.  Another issue your question raises is of subjective space-time objectification. That is to say if an intelligence sees the whole universe as a single celled organism then the particulars such as our history, science and knowledge would not be obvious.  The question of what objects are is a relational thing though very seldom considered.



 

If I were to posit this super intelligence and say that it was looking at a mountain range.  Would it see the trees and the leafs as green and blown about by the wind. What if a thousand years was like a minute to this intellect? Would it see a mist of green  followed by some yellows and reds then brown and perhaps the white fog we call snow. Would the mountains themselves be more like waves of water as they erode and are changed by the seasons.  Just as we see clouds as non-solid things so would an intelligence with this temporal relation see trees as no more than clouds.  What we consider on the macroscopic level as objects are completely dependent on our subjective temporal and spatial perception which is largely set by brain functioning and can change drastically because of disease or stroke or damage to certain areas of module specialisation.


 

 

Keep in mind I wasn't discussing a "super intelligence" nor any type of god. I'm talking about our very real and potentially very limited intelligence as opposed to that of a single celled organism in contrast to what might be looking at us that could actually be no more intelligent and perhaps even less on the greater scale of things.

I'm of a mind that we are very limited but I would hardly relate my theory to that of the orbiting teapot. We have evidence right now that we can see things on a much smaller scale (down to an sub atomic particles (so far)) so why couldn't something else have the same. Of course on this level things would work so very differently, all the laws we know would likely be out the window.

Joe Rogan is in a sense close to what I think though not quite ..lol.

No one has really been able to keep up with me on this idea but it's hard for me to really explain it well, I didn't exactly go to Harvard, but the conversation reminds me of it and it seemed an opportunity to throw it out there and I would like to see if it could be disproven or if anyone else actually thinks it is plausible. In my head it is so much more plausible than any "gods".

Faith is the word but next to that snugged up closely "lie's" the want.
"By simple common sense I don't believe in god, in none."-Charlie Chaplin


TGBaker
atheist
TGBaker's picture
Posts: 1367
Joined: 2011-02-06
User is offlineOffline
robj101 wrote:TGBaker

robj101 wrote:

TGBaker wrote:

robj101 wrote:

TGBaker wrote:

BobSpence1 wrote:

Moral frameworks, 'meaning', and 'purpose', only have meaning and definition within the context of a particular conscious group or individual.

Based on all our relevant observations, consciousness is an emergent property of a certain category of complex structures.

In the case of an individual, it grows from zero at fertilization to real values as the organism matures. It is not something that somehow gets absorbed from some  'intelligence' in the environment, so there is absolutely no logical requirement that 'nature' or 'the universe' be intelligent, any more than that it have the capability of forming an image of its surroundings and encoding that in nerve impulses or whatever, ie eyes are also emergent structures.

In the case of life on Earth collectively, the emergence of forms capable of intelligence emerged over time from forms which originally had none.

Comparing simple non-linear processes, which is what the formation of ice from liquid water is, to 'intelligence', is a meaningless metaphorical stretch. There is, arguably, a continuum there, as the capability for more complex interaction with the environment grows, but to not recognise the enormous differences in levels of complexity is to make the concept of 'intelligence' meaningless.

A complex intelligent entity does not require more 'raw' information content than the equivalent amount of rock, where in physics, 'information' refers to the description of the position/momentum of each constituent particle within a specified volume. I think the 'holographic principle' postulates that that 'information' can be considered as encoded on the bounding surface of the volume.

It is a common mistake to conflate such raw information, which is considered to be conserved, with the higher level idea of specific information describing the organization of structures required to generate specific capabilities, whether they be the ability of complex machinery to serve as means of transportation - cars, aircraft - or do complex calculations, or be able to display what we recognize as conscious, intelligent behavior, or the ability to reproduce oneself.

That specific organization is not conserved - the pattern, the structure, can completely disappear, if the basic elements are re-arranged sufficiently.

 

I agree. That is why at most you could speculate about the "source" as being a ground for information or intelligence but not informed or intelligent itself.  So we are ultimately for more complicated than our originating source a directly opposite view from that of theism.  Raw information ( I like that term ) is simple data it is the interaction and the emerging complexity that forms meaning as meaning is contextual and relative to its function and environment. I still think that we can not discount that the interconnectivity of things could well be the raw basis of what becomes human consciousness. It is semantics whether we equate that aspect as consciousness or proto-consciousness itself or simply designate it as the aspect of matter that gives rise to emergent consciousness.  Consciousness certainly can be limited to the type of complex processing known only in brains. In such cases philosophers and scientists still anthropocentrically call this interaction awareness of one particle for another. In looking at single cell organisms it is amazing how that still have a functional awareness of their environment without a nervous system.  This has to do with the cell membrane and openings for protein processing. our real problem as Wittgenstein pointed out is language. It makes us posit things that are not real but linguistic (logical) in nature.


 

 

Could you prove something is not looking at us through a microscope, seeing us as we see a "single celled organism" or even that it's not calling our "entire" universe a single celled organism?

Well the fact that we can ask exactly your question allows that we have some understanding as to ways to search and things for which to look.  The question is a lot like Russell's tea pot.  You probably can't prove that there's not a tea pot orbiting the earth but what is the likelihood, why would I think such and what is the plausibility?  We can break down the question further. What is meant by being seen?  We have a visual system whererby we exploit light, photons and the light spectrum along with modules in the brain that are dedicated to forms such as as horizontal and vertical lines, a module for facial recognition, and a module that brings about a certainty threshold that allows us to say we "know'.  So if we are to say "seen' are we speaking metaphorically of the alleged consciousness or something like understanding "Oh I see"  The idea of the precursor of the Big bang as being as complicated as our brain functions and its activity called mind is far more implausible than a simple field state from which complexity slowly evolves or emerges as history seems to indicate. Bobspense1 has posted quite a bit and well on this issue which certainaly more definitive than what I have to say on the subject.  Another issue your question raises is of subjective space-time objectification. That is to say if an intelligence sees the whole universe as a single celled organism then the particulars such as our history, science and knowledge would not be obvious.  The question of what objects are is a relational thing though very seldom considered.



 

If I were to posit this super intelligence and say that it was looking at a mountain range.  Would it see the trees and the leafs as green and blown about by the wind. What if a thousand years was like a minute to this intellect? Would it see a mist of green  followed by some yellows and reds then brown and perhaps the white fog we call snow. Would the mountains themselves be more like waves of water as they erode and are changed by the seasons.  Just as we see clouds as non-solid things so would an intelligence with this temporal relation see trees as no more than clouds.  What we consider on the macroscopic level as objects are completely dependent on our subjective temporal and spatial perception which is largely set by brain functioning and can change drastically because of disease or stroke or damage to certain areas of module specialisation.


 

 

Keep in mind I wasn't discussing a "super intelligence" nor any type of god. I'm talking about our very real and potentially very limited intelligence as opposed to that of a single celled organism in contrast to what might be looking at us that could actually be no more intelligent and perhaps even less on the greater scale of things.

I'm of a mind that we are very limited but I would hardly relate my theory to that of the orbiting teapot. We have evidence right now that we can see things on a much smaller scale (down to an sub atomic particles (so far)) so why couldn't something else have the same. Of course on this level things would work so very differently, all the laws we know would likely be out the window.

Joe Rogan is in a sense close to what I think though not quite ..lol.

No one has really been able to keep up with me on this idea but it's hard for me to really explain it well, I didn't exactly go to Harvard, but the conversation reminds me of it and it seemed an opportunity to throw it out there and I would like to see if it could be disproven or if anyone else actually thinks it is plausible. In my head it is so much more plausible than any "gods".

There is a theory of corporate consciousness. The ant colony is used as an example where the individual ants have very little comprehension but as a a group can herd beetles to chambers and keep them to be milked  and cultivate fungus in another chamber for food.  I would not discount that sort of emergent consciousness.   In that case the individual  ants or  people would function as aspects of a corporate mind much as there are modules of the brain that have some specialization.  It would be hard to determine such a hypothesis or idea. You would need to look for higher level causality effecting lower level causality.  Such events might look trans-causal or synchronisitic ( in the Jungian / Niels Bohr/ Wolfgang Pauli sense). " A peculiar interdependence of objective events with the psychological state of the observer  in which two or more causally non-related events have meaningful consequence.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synchronicity

Synchronicity is the experience of two or more events, that are apparently causally unrelated or unlikely to occur together by chance, that are observed to occur together in a meaningful manner. The concept of synchronicity was first described by Swiss psychologist Carl Gustav Jung in the 1920s.[1]

The concept does not question, or compete with, the notion of causality. Instead, it maintains that just as events may be grouped by cause, they may also be grouped by their meaning. Since meaning is a complex mental construction, subject to conscious and unconscious influence, not every correlation in the grouping of events by meaning needs to have an explanation in terms of cause and effect.

The idea of synchronicity is that the conceptual relationship of minds, defined as the relationship between ideas, is intricately structured in its own logical way and gives rise to relationships that are not causal in nature. These relationships can manifest themselves as simultaneous occurrences that are meaningfully related.

Synchronistic events reveal an underlying pattern, a conceptual framework that encompasses, but is larger than, any of the systems that display the synchronicity. The suggestion of a larger framework is essential to satisfy the definition of synchronicity as originally developed by Carl Gustav Jung.[2]

Jung coined the word to describe what he called "temporally coincident occurrences of acausal events." Jung variously described synchronicity as an "acausal connecting principle", "meaningful coincidence" and "acausal parallelism". Jung introduced the concept as early as the 1920s but only gave a full statement of it in 1951 in an Eranos lecture[3] and in 1952, published a paper, Synchronicity — An Acausal Connecting Principle, in a volume with a related study by the physicist (and Nobel laureate) Wolfgang Pauli.[4]

It was a principle that Jung felt gave conclusive evidence for his concepts of archetypes and the collective unconscious,[5] in that it was descriptive of a governing dynamic that underlies the whole of human experience and history—social, emotional, psychological, and spiritual. Concurrent events that first appear to be coincidental but later turn out to be causally related are termed incoincident.

Jung believed that many experiences that are coincidences due to chance in terms of causality suggested the manifestation of parallel events or circumstances in terms of meaning, reflecting this governing dynamic.[6]

Even at Jung's presentation of his work on synchronicity in 1951 at an Eranos lecture his ideas on synchronicity were still evolving. Following discussions with both Albert Einstein and Wolfgang Pauli Jung believed that there were parallels between synchronicity and aspects of relativity theory and quantum mechanics. Jung was transfixed by the idea that life was not a series of random events but rather an expression of a deeper order, which he and Pauli referred to as Unus mundus. This deeper order led to the insights that a person was both embedded in an orderly framework and was the focus of that orderly framework and that the realisation of this was more than just an intellectual exercise but also having elements of a spiritual awakening. From the religious perspective synchronicity shares similar characteristics of an "intervention of grace". Jung also believed that synchronicity served a similar role in a person's life to dreams with the purpose of shifting a person's egocentric conscious thinking to greater wholeness.

 The fact that Einstein, Bohr and Pauli saw something to Jung's idea of sychronicity has made me continue to research it over the years.  We are a colony of differnet typ of cells that work cooperatively to form us as an organism.  That we could as a species form a higher consciousness has been proposed by many.  Again apart from this somewhat wild ass theory I have found nothing that would be evidentiary. There are also the consciousness thought experiments where each person in China takes the place of a neuron and either signals 1 or zero. The theory of some A.I. people is that the process would be conscious!!!!

 

"You can't write a chord ugly enough to say what you want to say sometimes, so you have to rely on a giraffe filled with whip cream."--Frank Zappa

http://atheisticgod.blogspot.com/ Books on atheism


Ktulu
atheist
Posts: 1830
Joined: 2010-12-21
User is offlineOffline
robj101 wrote:Keep in mind I

robj101 wrote:

Keep in mind I wasn't discussing a "super intelligence" nor any type of god. I'm talking about our very real and potentially very limited intelligence as opposed to that of a single celled organism in contrast to what might be looking at us that could actually be no more intelligent and perhaps even less on the greater scale of things.

For one thing, single cell organisms can hardly be called intelligent.  Your idea works fine as a fantasy plot, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Under_the_Dome, but what's the point of proposing it as reality.  I think what TG was trying to say was, when considering two hypothesis, you should try for the most plausible.  Occam's razor is a good tool because it helps you save energy.  Think of it this way, if every new assertion equals an amount of energy indirectly proportional to its plausibility, the less plausible the assertion, the more energy you have to spend to support your hypothesis.  

The hypothesis that requires the least amount of energy in the end, is usually the correct one.

robj101 wrote:

I'm of a mind that we are very limited but I would hardly relate my theory to that of the orbiting teapot. We have evidence right now that we can see things on a much smaller scale (down to an sub atomic particles (so far)) so why couldn't something else have the same. Of course on this level things would work so very differently, all the laws we know would likely be out the window.

Joe Rogan is in a sense close to what I think though not quite ..lol.

No one has really been able to keep up with me on this idea but it's hard for me to really explain it well, I didn't exactly go to Harvard, but the conversation reminds me of it and it seemed an opportunity to throw it out there and I would like to see if it could be disproven or if anyone else actually thinks it is plausible. In my head it is so much more plausible than any "gods".

What you're describing is exactly as a god, not a Abrahamic god, but most other gods in history.  I think I'm with you on the idea, and again, TG mentioned Russell's Teapot , as an example of plausibility, and burden of proof proportional to the claim.  The universe in a grain of sand idea has been exploited to the degree of cliche in classic sci-fi.  

William Blake wrote:

 

To see a world in a grain of sand,

And a heaven in a wild flower,

Hold infinity in the palm of your hand,

And eternity in an hour.

 

"Don't seek these laws to understand. Only the mad can comprehend..." -- George Cosbuc


robj101
atheist
robj101's picture
Posts: 2481
Joined: 2010-02-20
User is offlineOffline
Ktulu wrote: What you're

Ktulu wrote:

 

What you're describing is exactly as a god, not a Abrahamic god, but most other gods in history.  I think I'm with you on the idea, and again, TG mentioned Russell's Teapot , as an example of plausibility, and burden of proof proportional to the claim.  The universe in a grain of sand idea has been exploited to the degree of cliche in classic sci-fi.  

 

 

So then compared to a skin cell we are gods? I'm not seeing it. I mentioned our limited intelligence and I don't deny a god is any less plausible than a teapot or a leprechaun though my senses have never shown me a god or evidence of anything related that is intelligent having a direct impact on our existence.

But again, so as far as your kidney is concerned, you are it's "god" ? I may be intelligent but I didn't willfully "create" my kidney let alone from dust =)

Faith is the word but next to that snugged up closely "lie's" the want.
"By simple common sense I don't believe in god, in none."-Charlie Chaplin