Idealism

nebula
Theist
Posts: 78
Joined: 2011-07-30
User is offlineOffline
Idealism

I'm a monistic idealist and believe our universe is made of information rather than matter.  It seems to make a lot more sense than either materialism or dualism.

One reason is conservation of energy.  For example, if extra terrestrials intentionally created our universe, it would make more sense for them to do this as a simulation.  Why would they waste all the energy required to do it for real?  With enough processing power simulating a universe on a computer doesn't seem like that far fetched of an idea.  Some being, phenomenon, quantum fluctuation, whatever producing an infinite amount of "real" energy and pressure in a singularity is more implausible.             

We, of course, can't tell the difference whether our universe is real or a simulation because we are only interpreting the data received through our senses, which is pure information.

The double slit experiment shows that matter behaves like a wave (degrees of certainty) until a conscious observer collects information about it and only then does it behave like particles/atoms/buckyballs etc.   Idealism explains this without having to postulate string theory, 11 dimensions and all that.     

So for the materialists (and dualists), why do you have such a strong belief in the objective, observer-independent reality of physical matter? Are you skeptical of it at all?   


nebula
Theist
Posts: 78
Joined: 2011-07-30
User is offlineOffline
Ktulu: OK, you win on point

Ktulu: OK, you win on point 2.   Simulation Hypothesis as I have been describing it has more assumptions pertaining to the origin of our universe than Multiverse does.   Because of this, I'm getting rid of the extra-terrestrials in order to have fewer assumptions.     

First, I don't accept the existence of any mind-independent thing in our universe as a "given."  The objective, mind-independent reality of matter is something that you personally accept on faith and includes the objective existence of virtual particles in a vacuum, oxygen, water, neurons, etc.  Their objective existence is the very thing I'm arguing against so if you want to posit the objective existence of virtual particles within or without our universe, I take that as one of your assumptions.

Without the existence of mind and sensory information we would not be able to have this conversation.  So if you want to make some reductionist argument that mind/self awareness/thought doesn't exist then go ahead and do it but unless you prove that I'm taking the existence of mind in our universe as a given. 

So, the one thing in our universe that is as close as you can get to nothing while still being something that we also know to exist is not an absolute vacuum but mind.   Therefore, that is what exists outside of our universe.  There is no evidence that mind is any different than computation, so what I am suggesting is that there is something outside of our universe capable of computation, some type of information system, which I will refer to as "God."

So now, as far as the origin of our universe is concerned, we both have the same number of assumptions.  However, my hypothesis is better because it assumes that something we KNOW exists within our universe - mind or computation - also exists outside of it, whereas your theory assumes things within our universe that we have to accept on faith - mind-independent, virtual particles within a vacuum - also exist outside of it.

"...over EONS (periods of time that would make the life of our entire universe seem extremely quick), you have one of the particle/anti-particle pairs generated with enough energy that before they have a chance to cancel themselves out, inflation takes over"  

This is two assumptions: 1. These particle/anti-particle pairs existed before our universe.   2.  Inflation took over.

"God did it."  

This is two assumptions:  Mind/computation existed before our universe.  This mind/computation intentionally created our universe.  

It seems I don't have any infinite regression problem at all.   I don't have to explain what caused mind any more than you have to explain what caused the vacuum with particle/anti-particle pairs.   If I do, why?  

 


Ktulu
atheist
Posts: 1830
Joined: 2010-12-21
User is offlineOffline
nebula wrote:First, I don't

nebula wrote:
First, I don't accept the existence of any mind-independent thing in our universe as a "given."  The objective, mind-independent reality of matter is something that you personally accept on faith and includes the objective existence of virtual particles in a vacuum, oxygen, water, neurons, etc.  Their objective existence is the very thing I'm arguing against so if you want to posit the objective existence of virtual particles within or without our universe, I take that as one of your assumptions. 

Well, you cannot simply fall back on epistemic nihilsm, and draw a conclusion of a simulated universe from it.  I believe that solipsism is at best self defeating, and again not meant to answer any questions.  

Now we're getting into epistemology, and I was hoping to stay away from that whole philosophical mess, but since you brought it up... You must first define what you consider as existence.  If you take the absolute epistemic minimalistic approach and go for "Cogito, ergo sum" as the only 100% certain statement, unless expanded upon with concrete definitions, you cannot arrive at any concrete conclusion.  

Since your theory is supported by actual data provided by physical phenomena "The double slit experiment shows that matter behaves like a wave (degrees of certainty) until a conscious observer collects information about it and only then does it behave like particles/atoms/buckyballs etc.   Idealism explains this without having to postulate string theory, 11 dimensions and all that. "; such as the double slit experiment.  I will assume that your definition of existence at the very least encompasses particles, and by extension, the frame of reference in which the questionable behavior is observed.  

Therefore, you cannot use physical data to refute the fact that physical data exists.  Smiling

 

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


nebula
Theist
Posts: 78
Joined: 2011-07-30
User is offlineOffline
Ktulu wrote:Since your

Ktulu wrote:
Since your theory is supported by actual data provided by physical phenomena "The double slit experiment shows that matter behaves like a wave (degrees of certainty) until a conscious observer collects information about it and only then does it behave like particles/atoms/buckyballs etc.   Idealism explains this without having to postulate string theory, 11 dimensions and all that. "; such as the double slit experiment.  I will assume that your definition of existence at the very least encompasses particles, and by extension, the frame of reference in which the questionable behavior is observed.  

Therefore, you cannot use physical data to refute the fact that physical data exists.  Smiling

Let me clarify this a little because I think I see what you're honing in on: "I don't accept the existence of any mind-independent thing in our universe."   Scratch that.   I didn't want to use the word "objective" 5 times in that short paragraph.   I thought 4 times would be enough.     

In post 43 I said "….matter behaves like a wave (probability distribution) until a conscious observer (anything aware of its surroundings) collects information through his or her senses." In post #50 I said "That is because the simulation continues regardless of whether or not it is rendered for anyone.   That is how it maintains historical consistency" and in post 56 I said this again: "The simulation is always running regardless of whether or not it's being rendered for anyone.." 

Everything in our universe does exist as a probability distribution, and this data is rendered for conscious observers as sensory information, as needed.   What I mean by "reality is not objective" is that it only exists as data.   What I don't mean by "reality is not objective" is that we are each in our own reality.   We're not.   We're all in the same simulated reality.   Simulated reality doesn't mean non-reality.    I doesn't mean there are no rules.   The laws of physics apply, just like the physics programmed into a video game apply in the game.    If in a video game the physics programming only lets your character jump a foot off the ground, your character can only jump a foot off the ground.  You can test out those physics in the game, try to jump 10 feet off the ground.   You can't.  

Your last line says I'm refuting that physical data exists.   I'm not refuting that data exists, I'm refuting that matter exists as anything other than data.   There is a difference.   I CAN use physical phenomena to refute that matter exists objectively (or as anything other than data) and I explained how the double slit experiment proves this in post 35.             


nebula
Theist
Posts: 78
Joined: 2011-07-30
User is offlineOffline
P.S. To avoid any

P.S. To avoid any misunderstandings about the programming of video games vs how I think the evolution of our simulated reality works, please note what I said in post 55:

"I believe that yeah, a universe simulation begins with a simulated big bang and then stars/planets/life evolve from there.   In fact, if you check out Conway's Game of Life you can see how putting some very simple rules into place allows these little "lifeforms" called Cellular Automata to evolve."

Also, I think the physical laws evolve just like everything else.   The constants that we have here in the Milky Way aren't the same as those elsewhere in the universe:  http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/09/100909004112.htm


nebula
Theist
Posts: 78
Joined: 2011-07-30
User is offlineOffline
Now I will throw some random

Now I will throw some random stuff out there in order to make my position clearer and give you all more opportunity to inspect it for weaknesses.  

1. In post 99, Ktulu writes this little gem:

Ktulu wrote:

Therefore, something like what we experience as "space-time" must exist outside our universe.


OK, well in our universe space and time evolve from the big bang.  He claims there is an "exo-universe" out there, which would presumably make our universe a universe within a universe.   However, he doesn't go into detail about the origin of this exo-universe.   Since no one has called Ktulu on the above quote, I assume this is a belief you all share.     

Therefore, beginning with post 101, computation outside of our universe no longer requires any "real" physical matter, such as a computer made out of semi-conductors.   I am leaving it as vague as Ktulu.   Here is my version: "Therefore, something like what we experience as "mind" must exist outside our universe."      

2.   Here is my "God" conception or what I am referring to by "something like what we experience as mind":   An omnipotent, omniscient, perfect deity who likes the song Kumbaya.   Actually, wait, that's not what I mean.   The only assumption I have about this mind out there is that it is a finite system capable of computation.   It most likely began as something that was originally able to choose between two different states, evolved from there and is still evolving, just like everything else.   For example, if you can choose between 1 and 0, this opens up the possibility for 1100, or 1010 etc. and everything we know as reality can be described by some succession of ones and zeroes.          

3.   The only thing that I can know for sure is that my own mind exists.   I can't know that any of your minds exist.   The existence of your minds is something that I accept on faith.   I don't think any of you are solipsists so you also accept the existence of other minds on faith (unless you are reductionists who don't believe minds exist at all). 

However, you guys take it a step further.   At the very most, we can say that sensory information is information.   To say that sensory information represents objective "stuff" is a completely unsupported claim.   In fact, the scientifically reproducible double slit experiment (and its variations) contradicts that idea.   It has been done thousands of times and always indicates that matter is in reality only data.   It is irrational to deny this.

OK, dogpile me.    
 


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10484
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
Re:

Re: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/09/100909004112.htm

I wouldn't read into that too much. The methods they use provide a second possibility: that the laws of physics change over time. The universe could be completely uniform and we'd be unable to tell, simply because the evidence incoming is millions or billions or both of years old. If they correlated the data and found EM different at two stars of the same distance then the evidence would be more convincing. I don't get the impression they did that though.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10484
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
"OK, well in our universe

"OK, well in our universe space and time evolve from the big bang.  He claims there is an "exo-universe" out there, which would presumably make our universe a universe within a universe.   However, he doesn't go into detail about the origin of this exo-universe.   Since no one has called Ktulu on the above quote, I assume this is a belief you all share."

I'd say it's a possibility, not that I believe it.
The origin would presumably be the same, a big bang.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Ktulu
atheist
Posts: 1830
Joined: 2010-12-21
User is offlineOffline
nebula wrote:Now I will

nebula wrote:

Now I will throw some random stuff out there in order to make my position clearer and give you all more opportunity to inspect it for weaknesses.  

1. In post 99, Ktulu writes this little gem:

Ktulu wrote:

Therefore, something like what we experience as "space-time" must exist outside our universe.


OK, well in our universe space and time evolve from the big bang.  He claims there is an "exo-universe" out there, which would presumably make our universe a universe within a universe.   However, he doesn't go into detail about the origin of this exo-universe.   Since no one has called Ktulu on the above quote, I assume this is a belief you all share.     

Therefore, beginning with post 101, computation outside of our universe no longer requires any "real" physical matter, such as a computer made out of semi-conductors.   I am leaving it as vague as Ktulu.   Here is my version: "Therefore, something like what we experience as "mind" must exist outside our universe."      

2.   Here is my "God" conception or what I am referring to by "something like what we experience as mind":   An omnipotent, omniscient, perfect deity who likes the song Kumbaya.   Actually, wait, that's not what I mean.   The only assumption I have about this mind out there is that it is a finite system capable of computation.   It most likely began as something that was originally able to choose between two different states, evolved from there and is still evolving, just like everything else.   For example, if you can choose between 1 and 0, this opens up the possibility for 1100, or 1010 etc. and everything we know as reality can be described by some succession of ones and zeroes.          

3.   The only thing that I can know for sure is that my own mind exists.   I can't know that any of your minds exist.   The existence of your minds is something that I accept on faith.   I don't think any of you are solipsists so you also accept the existence of other minds on faith (unless you are reductionists who don't believe minds exist at all). 

However, you guys take it a step further.   At the very most, we can say that sensory information is information.   To say that sensory information represents objective "stuff" is a completely unsupported claim.   In fact, the scientifically reproducible double slit experiment (and its variations) contradicts that idea.   It has been done thousands of times and always indicates that matter is in reality only data.   It is irrational to deny this.

OK, dogpile me.    
 

I don't have a lot of time, so I will just respond to the one thing.  I do not claim to believe this as being the case.  I'm simply making a case that this is a better alternative.  Nobody, and I mean NOBODY knows what went on before the big bang, but if you have to assume anything, it would be some sort of a frame of reference, and nothing more.  A "mind" by comparison is infinitely more complex AND it requires a frame of reference by definition of it being a "thing".  I will elaborate more on this when I have more time.

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


nebula
Theist
Posts: 78
Joined: 2011-07-30
User is offlineOffline
I am making a case that God

I am making a case that God is a better alternative.   We don't have evidence that particles exist as anything other than data within our own universe, let alone without it.   Regardless of how complex mind is or what you think the prerequisites for it are, we know for sure that it exists.    So please respond to that specifically rather than talk more about the prerequisites for mind because you have already done that.   I got it, you claim you need stuff first before mind can exist, now prove that this stuff exists (as anything other than data) in the first place.   Or, another option is to prove that our minds/self awareness do NOT exist.   


nebula
Theist
Posts: 78
Joined: 2011-07-30
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote:The origin

Vastet wrote:
The origin would presumably be the same, a big bang.

Right, but now we need an explanation for what caused THAT big bang, hence an infinite regression.   That's why I don't have to explain how God came into existence, or I can just say another God and another God and another God, matching Ktulu's infinite regression.   Turtles all the way down.


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10484
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
There is no infinite

There is no infinite regression with this hypothesis. A big bang is presumably simply a quantum event that spews energy and anti energy into existence, where it expands at an accelerated rate. It can happen a billion times in a billion places and all of them could be within the same universe. It is not the creation of a universe, but a white hole.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


nebula
Theist
Posts: 78
Joined: 2011-07-30
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote:There is no

Vastet wrote:
There is no infinite regression with this hypothesis. A big bang is presumably simply a quantum event that spews energy and anti energy into existence, where it expands at an accelerated rate. It can happen a billion times in a billion places and all of them could be within the same universe. It is not the creation of a universe, but a white hole.

OH (headslap)!  Here and this whole time I have been thinking the big bang had something to do with the birth and early development of the universe.   But you're saying no, a big bang is actually the creation of a white hole.   Oh boy, it looks like it's back to the drawing board for me.  I'm going to have to brush up on my cosmology.  Yep, it's going to need some work.  

I just want to say though that I learned a lot from your post.   It was clear, well written, informative and enlightening.   You sir, are a scholar and a gentleman.   I shall be on my way.

Vastet......what THE FUCK are you talking about?  


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10484
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
" time I have been thinking

" time I have been thinking the big bang had something to do with the birth and early development of the universe."

Well you were wrong. If you'd said "observable universe" you'd have been right.

"But you're saying no, a big bang is actually the creation of a white hole."

In this hypothesis. Taking comments out of context don't make you look very intelligent or interested in conversation.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


nebula
Theist
Posts: 78
Joined: 2011-07-30
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote:" time I have

Vastet wrote:
" time I have been thinking the big bang had something to do with the birth and early development of the universe." Well you were wrong. If you'd said "observable universe" you'd have been right. "But you're saying no, a big bang is actually the creation of a white hole." In this hypothesis. Taking comments out of context don't make you look very intelligent or interested in conversation.

Are you a hunt and peck typer?   I haven't understood a word you've said over your past two posts.   OK, I'll explain how Ktulu's hypothesis is an infinite regression but I thought it was obvious.   You just sit back and point out where I'm wrong.  I don't understand the white hole part at all because you are too lazy to explain anything.   You may as well have said, "Not an infinite regression - white hole."   I'm not taking anything out of context!   What do white holes have to do with anything?      

Ktulu says there is an exo-universe outside of our universe, with space.  Lets call this exo-universe EU1.  Ktulu says that in EU1, inflation takes over a particle/anti-particle pair before they cancel out and that was likely the origin of our universe.   With me so far? 

OK, what was the origin of universe EU1?   I am saying it must have been inflation taking over a particle/anti-particle pair in a THIRD universe we will call EU2.   What was the origin of universe EU2?   I imagine it must have been inflation taking over a particle/anti-particle pair in a fourth universe called EU3.  What was the origin of universe EU3?   I imagine it must have been inflation taking over a particle/anti-particle pair in a fifth universe called EU4. What was the origin of universe EU4?   I imagine it must have been inflation taking over a particle/anti-particle pair in a sixth universe called EU5.  What was the origin of universe EU5?   I imagine it must have been inflation taking over a particle/anti-particle pair in a seventh universe called EU6.   And on and on Vastet.   Now what do white holes have to do with this?


nebula
Theist
Posts: 78
Joined: 2011-07-30
User is offlineOffline
Vastet, sorry for being

Vastet, sorry for being rude.   I just felt like you were taking a little 4 sentence pot shot at my argument without putting any effort into it.   I felt that if it was longer, maybe I would have understood.   I knew it would take a lot of typing to respond and get to the bottom of what you were saying and I got frustrated.   I still don't understand so please explain.  Thanks.


A_Nony_Mouse
A_Nony_Mouse's picture
Posts: 2880
Joined: 2008-04-23
User is offlineOffline
.

nebula wrote:

I'm a monistic idealist and believe our universe is made of information rather than matter.  It seems to make a lot more sense than either materialism or dualism.

Beliefs are immaterial. There is only physical evidence.

Quote:
One reason is conservation of energy.  For example, if extra terrestrials intentionally created our universe, it would make more sense for them to do this as a simulation.

What material device would be used to create the simulation? Or would it be a simulation of a simulation of a simulation ad infinitum? And of so, you have added nothing.

Quote:
Why would they waste all the energy required to do it for real?

Who would waste 300 hp on a car when walking would suffice? You presuppose the nature of energy and its cost and availability to your space aliens and that it would be "cheaper" than the equipment to create the simulation. These are facts obviously not in evidence.

pquote]With enough processing power simulating a universe on a computer doesn't seem like that far fetched of an idea.  Some being, phenomenon, quantum fluctuation, whatever producing an infinite amount of "real" energy and pressure in a singularity is more implausible.

We, of course, can't tell the difference whether our universe is real or a simulation because we are only interpreting the data received through our senses, which is pure information.

Simulating us would be superfluous.

Quote:
The double slit experiment shows that matter behaves like a wave (degrees of certainty) until a conscious observer collects information about it and only then does it behave like particles/atoms/buckyballs etc.   Idealism explains this without having to postulate string theory, 11 dimensions and all that.
So does quantum mechanics.
Quote:


So for the materialists (and dualists), why do you have such a strong belief in the objective, observer-independent reality of physical matter? Are you skeptical of it at all?

It is indistinguishable from a solely information one as none of your supposition can be verified as to which would be easier or cheaper or whatever. If different views of reality are indistinguishible it either does not matter which is right or that they are both wrong.

OTOH I think I could show with information theory that an exact simulation of this universe (not an approximation) is necessarily more complex than the universe itself unless one assumes those conducting the simulation insist upon total ignorance of any aspect of the simulation. Once information about it needs be extracted it becomes more complicated. Your problem becomes extracting that information changes the simulation by that two slit example among others and as such an exact simulationis not possible.

Jews stole the land. The owners want it back. That is all anyone needs to know about Israel. That is all there is to know about Israel.

www.ussliberty.org

www.giwersworld.org/made-in-alexandria/index.html

www.giwersworld.org/00_files/zion-hit-points.phtml


Ktulu
atheist
Posts: 1830
Joined: 2010-12-21
User is offlineOffline
nebula wrote:OK, what was

nebula wrote:

OK, what was the origin of universe EU1?   I am saying it must have been inflation taking over a particle/anti-particle pair in a THIRD universe we will call EU2.   What was the origin of universe EU2?   I imagine it must have been inflation taking over a particle/anti-particle pair in a fourth universe called EU3.  What was the origin of universe EU3?   I imagine it must have been inflation taking over a particle/anti-particle pair in a fifth universe called EU4. What was the origin of universe EU4?   I imagine it must have been inflation taking over a particle/anti-particle pair in a sixth universe called EU5.  What was the origin of universe EU5?   I imagine it must have been inflation taking over a particle/anti-particle pair in a seventh universe called EU6.   And on and on Vastet.   Now what do white holes have to do with this?

As Vastet pointed out, this THEORY, implies the fabric of space-time as the METAverse.  This METAverse is eternal, we imply that it IS (as in exists) because there is something rather then nothing.  Basically, if there is something, there has always been something, because if there was nothing, there always will be nothing.  You cannot get something out of nothing.  So, the theory goes, since there is something, there must have always been something.  You cannot dispute this with any one theory, be it the "god did it", "brane colide theory", "multiverse", "insert your pet theory", they would all imply that something has always existed.  

Now, the way that this works is like this.  We have established that something has always existed, we have no idea what this something is, and likely never will.  I'm ok with that.  But now, for shits and giggles, let's take a shot at it and try and figure out what would explain our universe's current conditions.

You suggest that "god did it"... Ok, it's a theory... I ask you, what is god? You start out by saying that god is an alien civilization advanced enough to create a simulation that we currently live in.  Ok, there's no real way to dispute that, because it's not a falsifiable theory.  You can always move the goal posts and say "well, the aliens wanted the universe to seem that way".  Even if I find a way to somehow see past the Big Bang (not possible, but bear with me), you can just say, "well, that's simulated too".  It's the analogous to the "Satan buried the fossils to lead us from Jesus." theory.  You can always just cope out by introducing these "omni-everything" beings.  This theory does nothing to explain our current universe, it just creates excuses.  

We're suggesting that "space-time" has a property such that it creates particle-antiparticle virtual pairs.  These pairs always cancel themselves out, or try to, except in the INFINITESIMALLY small chance that the virtual pair has enough energy for inflation to kick in.  Once that limit has been reached, inflation basically creates an explosion with the result of the observable universe.  Eventually the universe, driven by dark energy (which may very well be vacuum energy or this same property of virtual particle pairs), expands to infinity, and becomes more or less like the METAverse, at which point you would be hard pressed to tell the distinction between the metaverse and our universe. 

Now, what are we actually suggesting?  We're basing this on two assumptions.  1.  vacuum energy, which has observable effects.  2. inflation, which makes observable predictions.  This theory is both falsifiable (just prove either of these wrong and you have destroyed the the theory) and moves our understanding forward.  

What are you suggesting? God did it... assumptions? well pretty much everything god related... you're not really explaining anything or defining god so... I could say that our universe is a unicorn's fart, it carries just as much scientific weight. 

This is how I see things from a scientific perspective.  Now, if you want to have a philosophical discussion on epistemology, I could entertain you but you can't really build a scientific theory out of philosophy alone, you need some sort of pragmatic application, otherwise it's just mental masturbation.  

I consider that to be a whole other argument/subject.

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


nebula
Theist
Posts: 78
Joined: 2011-07-30
User is offlineOffline
Ktulu wrote:As Vastet

Ktulu wrote:

As Vastet pointed out, this THEORY, implies the fabric of space-time as the METAverse.  This METAverse is eternal, we imply that it IS (as in exists) because there is something rather then nothing.  Basically, if there is something, there has always been something, because if there was nothing, there always will be nothing.  You cannot get something out of nothing.  So, the theory goes, since there is something, there must have always been something.  You cannot dispute this with any one theory, be it the "god did it", "brane colide theory", "multiverse", "insert your pet theory", they would all imply that something has always existed.

 

Great.   Then God has always existed.   No problem.
 

Ktulu wrote:

Now, the way that this works is like this.  We have established that something has always existed, we have no idea what this something is, and likely never will.  I'm ok with that.  But now, for shits and giggles, let's take a shot at it and try and figure out what would explain our universe's current conditions.

 

OK, let's do it.    
 

Ktulu wrote:
You suggest that "god did it"... Ok, it's a theory... I ask you, what is god?

 

As I said in post 105, a finite system capable of computation.  
 

Ktulu wrote:

You start out by saying that god is an alien civilization advanced enough to create a simulation that we currently live in.  Ok, there's no real way to dispute that, because it's not a falsifiable theory.

 

Can we test the theory that after eons inflation kicks in when a particle/antiparticle pair has enough energy?  As I said in post 101, I got rid of the aliens so I don't even see why you're referring to them so much in this post.   It's God now.     
 

Ktulu wrote:

You can always move the goal posts and say "well, the aliens wanted the universe to seem that way".

In post 69 I did say something kind of like this, the Matrix quote and that.   However now I'm saying God only initiated the big bang and let the simulation evolve naturally.   That's simpler.   So, God didn't want the universe to seem any particular way because it didn't know what would happen after the big bang.       
 

Ktulu wrote:
 
Even if I find a way to somehow see past the Big Bang (not possible, but bear with me), you can just say, "well, that's simulated too".

 

Every night when you dream, you see stuff that is not part of the universe.   That is a different (personal) data stream than the one we're connected to when we're conscious.   And the stuff in dreams is simulated as well, so you're right.  
 

Ktulu wrote:

It's the analogous to the "Satan buried the fossils to lead us from Jesus." theory.  You can always just cope out by introducing these "omni-everything" beings.  This theory does nothing to explain our current universe, it just creates excuses.

 

It does explain our current universe.   I'm just using God to have something to start off the big bang, just like you're using METAverse.    So, I'm not coping out any more than you are.   The only difference is that you like METAverse and I like God better.   I'm not making excuses, you're making excuses.  
 

Ktulu wrote:

We're suggesting that "space-time" has a property such that it creates particle-antiparticle virtual pairs.  These pairs always cancel themselves out, or try to, except in the INFINITESIMALLY small chance that the virtual pair has enough energy for inflation to kick in.  Once that limit has been reached, inflation basically creates an explosion with the result of the observable universe.  Eventually the universe, driven by dark energy (which may very well be vacuum energy or this same property of virtual particle pairs), expands to infinity, and becomes more or less like the METAverse, at which point you would be hard pressed to tell the distinction between the metaverse and our universe.
Now, what are we actually suggesting?  We're basing this on two assumptions.  1.  vacuum energy, which has observable effects.  2. inflation, which makes observable predictions.  This theory is both falsifiable (just prove either of these wrong and you have destroyed the the theory) and moves our understanding forward.

 

Whatever you discover through science, you are just discovering things about the simulation, or virtual reality if you prefer.   I don't see that as being a problem at all, or how that's a cop out.   I don't think you can explain how it's a problem in any tangible way.   The real issue is that you don't want our universe to be a simulation, or for God to be the cause of it.   It's just your personal bias, nothing more.  
 

Ktulu wrote:
 
What are you suggesting? God did it... assumptions? well pretty much everything god related... you're not really explaining anything or defining god so... I could say that our universe is a unicorn's fart, it carries just as much scientific weight. 

 

What do you mean by "everything god related?"   Is that the beginning of one of your straw man arguments?   I'm not explaining anything?  In post 35 I explained how we get the classical world out of QM.   Can you do that?  As far as defining God, did you get a chance to read post 105?   Look at my number 2 point in that one (however, it's eternal now - now that I know about METAverse). 
 

Ktulu wrote:

This is how I see things from a scientific perspective.  Now, if you want to have a philosophical discussion on epistemology, I could entertain you but you can't really build a scientific theory out of philosophy alone, you need some sort of pragmatic application, otherwise it's just mental masturbation.  
I consider that to be a whole other argument/subject.

 

There are scientific idealists.   Read that Wired article.   When you say you can't build a scientific theory out of philosophy alone, everything after the big bang is the same.   Science is done in exactly the same way with the exception of maybe theoretical physics, i.e. no string theory etc.  
 

I know why you want to steer it away from this whole other argument/subject.   It's because that's where you have to admit that you are a faith based believer in something there is absolutely no evidence for, i.e. that matter exists as anything other than data.   You also have to go to extremely absurd lengths to explain away the results of the double slit experiment (i.e. parallel worlds with doppelgangers).   And you know that these two things will make you look like an irrational fool.  

 


nebula
Theist
Posts: 78
Joined: 2011-07-30
User is offlineOffline
A_Nony_Mouse wrote:Once

A_Nony_Mouse wrote:
Once information about it needs be extracted it becomes more complicated. Your problem becomes extracting that information changes the simulation by that two slit example among others and as such an exact simulationis not possible.

Read through the thread dude.   Ktulu already tried the uncertainty principle and it failed him miserably.  


Ktulu
atheist
Posts: 1830
Joined: 2010-12-21
User is offlineOffline
nebula wrote:A_Nony_Mouse

nebula wrote:

A_Nony_Mouse wrote:
Once information about it needs be extracted it becomes more complicated. Your problem becomes extracting that information changes the simulation by that two slit example among others and as such an exact simulationis not possible.

Read through the thread dude.   Ktulu already tried the uncertainty principle and it failed him miserably.  

Munchkin, I'm fighting hard to hold back my inner asshole.  Nothing brings out my inner asshole like silly comments.  First of all, I didn't "try" the uncertainty principle, I was explaining my understanding of it, and if that was correct, it followed that your understanding was incorrect.  You failed to show me how my understanding was incorrect.  I dropped that because it seemed the whole thing was swept under the rug.  You cannot explain away the uncertainty principle by saying "god did it" that's just silly, and it is a miserable fail, if you want to look at it that way. 

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


Ktulu
atheist
Posts: 1830
Joined: 2010-12-21
User is offlineOffline
nebula wrote: Great.  

nebula wrote:

 

Great.   Then God has always existed.   No problem.

 

What is god?  That sentence reads like this, "Then FRANGMUGINS always existed.  No problem."  You cannot say god without defining it.

nebula wrote:

As I said in post 105, a finite system capable of computation.  

 

Oh, I'm sorry, I thought we were being serious.  How is that a definition? my freaking wrist watch is a finite system capable of computation.  In fact, my coffee maker is one also.  Is my coffee maker god?  How does this system exist without the frame of reference that you are trying to prove doesn't exist?  Please try again, and be more specific.  

nebula wrote:
 

Can we test the theory that after eons inflation kicks in when a particle/antiparticle pair has enough energy?  As I said in post 101, I got rid of the aliens so I don't even see why you're referring to them so much in this post.   It's God now.     


 

No, we cannot, silly willy, but we can test that particle/antiparticle pairs do pop in and out of existence.  And we can extrapolate from that, or falsify that.  Wait, so you rename your "aliens" "finite system capable of computation" and you expect me to take that definition and run with it.  I rename my whole theory "FRANGMUGINS did it", and I don't need to explain anything about FRANGMUGINS because this is how your logic work.

nebula wrote:

Ktulu wrote:

You can always move the goal posts and say "well, the aliens wanted the universe to seem that way".

In post 69 I did say something kind of like this, the Matrix quote and that.   However now I'm saying God only initiated the big bang and let the simulation evolve naturally.   That's simpler.   So, God didn't want the universe to seem any particular way because it didn't know what would happen after the big bang.       
 

Case, and point.  "it is this way because it is designed this way"...  here's an analogy "Satan introduced the uncertainty principle so we can doubt physical stuff god created", I don't need to actually explain anything, I can just chuck it up to this magical "finite system capable of computation".  

nebula wrote:

Every night when you dream, you see stuff that is not part of the universe.   That is a different (personal) data stream than the one we're connected to when we're conscious.   And the stuff in dreams is simulated as well, so you're right.  
 

now you're just being silly.

 

Quote:

It does explain our current universe.   I'm just using God to have something to start off the big bang, just like you're using METAverse.    So, I'm not coping out any more than you are.   The only difference is that you like METAverse and I like God better.   I'm not making excuses, you're making excuses.  
 

No, cupcake, when you're saying God, to me it sounds like, FRANGMUGINS.  It is a nonsense term.  When I say "METAverse" I mean a frame of reference,  I mean the most basic "SOMETHING" you can possibly have, and I'm even going on about the properties of such a thing.  While both theories are not falsifiable, I make an effort to base my wild ass guessing on some sort logic/science, you're basing yours on "The Matrix".  And remember, my claim is that we CANNOT EVER KNOW! this is strictly an academic 

Quote:

Whatever you discover through science, you are just discovering things about the simulation, or virtual reality if you prefer.   I don't see that as being a problem at all, or how that's a cop out.   I don't think you can explain how it's a problem in any tangible way.   The real issue is that you don't want our universe to be a simulation, or for God to be the cause of it.   It's just your personal bias, nothing more.  
 

Right, I forgot, Satan buried the fossils... the simulation was meant to look that way... I don't see this as being a problem either, this is by no means a cop out. 

Quote:
 

What do you mean by "everything god related?"   Is that the beginning of one of your straw man arguments?   I'm not explaining anything?  In post 35 I explained how we get the classical world out of QM.   Can you do that?  As far as defining God, did you get a chance to read post 105?   Look at my number 2 point in that one (however, it's eternal now - now that I know about METAverse). 
 

I have nothing to "straw man" because you have yet to define what you mean by god in any satisfactory way. 


Quote:
 

There are scientific idealists.   Read that Wired article.   When you say you can't build a scientific theory out of philosophy alone, everything after the big bang is the same.   Science is done in exactly the same way with the exception of maybe theoretical physics, i.e. no string theory etc.  
 

An Wired article does not science make. I'm not even going to go down the philosophy standing on it's own argument because I don't want to open that can of worms.

Quote:

I know why you want to steer it away from this whole other argument/subject.   It's because that's where you have to admit that you are a faith based believer in something there is absolutely no evidence for, i.e. that matter exists as anything other than data.   You also have to go to extremely absurd lengths to explain away the results of the double slit experiment (i.e. parallel worlds with doppelgangers).   And you know that these two things will make you look like an irrational fool.  

 

Honey bunch, I'm getting a little bored with this whole argument because you seem to genuinely ignore any rational explanation... You also seem to think that you have this whole thing down pat, which you don't.  I liked "The Matrix" as much as the next guy, but you're not Neo, and this is the really real world.  If you take the red pill, you shouldn't drive heavy machinery, the blue pill is non drowsy.  

I don't have any issue with you believing whatever the hell you want, but if you start ignoring science and relying on Hollywood for your theories, it is a short step from there to sacrificing your cat to the "finite system capable of computation".  You may not do it, but some other numbnut would.  I mean, who cares if it's all just mathematics, you're not really killing the cat, you're just destroying an algorithm...

I will continue this discussion if you stop quoting numbers, I don't have time to re-read the whole thread, copy and paste what you're referring to. 

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


nebula
Theist
Posts: 78
Joined: 2011-07-30
User is offlineOffline
Ktulu wrote:Munchkin, I'm

Ktulu wrote:

Munchkin, I'm fighting hard to hold back my inner asshole.  Nothing brings out my inner asshole like silly comments.  First of all, I didn't "try" the uncertainty principle, I was explaining my understanding of it, and if that was correct, it followed that your understanding was incorrect.  You failed to show me how my understanding was incorrect.  I dropped that because it seemed the whole thing was swept under the rug.  You cannot explain away the uncertainty principle by saying "god did it" that's just silly, and it is a miserable fail, if you want to look at it that way. 

In post 30, I provided documentation showing that the delayed choice quantum eraser proves the uncertainty principle is not the determining factor to whether you get clump or interference.   You ignored it.  

In post 33, I provided documentation showing they have done the regular double slit experiment in which they leave the detectors running but do not record the data and end up with an interference pattern every time, proving the uncertainty principle is not the determining factor.   You ignored it.

In post 78, x provided documentation that indicates the uncertainty principle was never the determining factor.   I thought you were coming around at that point because in post 79 your mind equaled blown, but I guess I underestimated your pig-headedness and refusal to acknowledge facts.

God did it?   Is your objective, solid matter, physical reality historically consistent?   If so then by your logic that means METAverse did it, or at least caused it.   So that works both ways.   All I have to do is substitute METAverse for God.   Your laughable straw man arguments will not work.  

In posts 25 and 33, I explained to you how the results of the double slit experiment have to do with historical consistency.   But you ignored this of course, preferring instead to debate with your straw man, which you constructed out of my sloppily written sentence in the OP.   Because of this, you continued on with your bizarre, unfalsifiable, robot double-slit experiment which was the equivalent of:  "If a tree falls in the woods and no one is there to hear it, does it make a sound?   Yes.   To prove this, let's do a thought experiment.   You have two patches of forest, one with an observer and another without one.   A tree falls in each of them and in each a sound is produced, regardless of whether they have an observer or not.    You will see from this that an observer makes no difference, so lets put away the consciousness making a difference nonsense."

There really is no hope for you, is there Ktulu?    


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10484
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
"I haven't understood a word

"I haven't understood a word you've said over your past two posts."

Then either your English or your science knowledge is insufficient to have this conversation.

""Not an infinite regression - white hole."   I'm not taking anything out of context!   What do white holes have to do with anything?"

Look it up.

"Ktulu says there is an exo-universe outside of our universe, with space."

First of all he proposes, not states. Significant difference.
Secondly, he's doing it for your benefit, as it presupposes an unnecessary second universe. Let me explain this to you in the most simple, basic way possible. If a big bang happened right here and now, it wouldn't necessarily be a new universe inside an old one, it would necessarily be new energy within the old universe. That's it. End of story. The big bang was a fountain of energy.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10484
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
There was never an origin

There was never an origin because there was always space. There is no infinite regression because there was no beginning.

"Now what do white holes have to do with this?"

If you knew what one was you wouldn't be asking.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


A_Nony_Mouse
A_Nony_Mouse's picture
Posts: 2880
Joined: 2008-04-23
User is offlineOffline
.

nebula wrote:
A_Nony_Mouse wrote:
Once information about it needs be extracted it becomes more complicated. Your problem becomes extracting that information changes the simulation by that two slit example among others and as such an exact simulationis not possible.

Read through the thread dude.   Ktulu already tried the uncertainty principle and it failed him miserably.

Please re-read what I said. EXTRACTING information about the simulation negates the simulation. If the simulation is to be run in ignorance of what it happening then there is no problem other than explaining why the valueless exercise. However if it is possible to extract information without changing the simulation then it is not a correct simulation.

The larger issue is a simulation where one knows what it going on is necessarily more complicated than the "real" thing. This challenges your premise that simulation is for some reason more desirable.

 

Jews stole the land. The owners want it back. That is all anyone needs to know about Israel. That is all there is to know about Israel.

www.ussliberty.org

www.giwersworld.org/made-in-alexandria/index.html

www.giwersworld.org/00_files/zion-hit-points.phtml


A_Nony_Mouse
A_Nony_Mouse's picture
Posts: 2880
Joined: 2008-04-23
User is offlineOffline
.

nebula wrote:
Great.   Then God has always existed.   No problem.

Are you just another theist trying to sneak in your beliefs under cover pseudo reason?

WHICH godS have always existed?

Yes there is a problem introducing the magical gods explanation as you raise a huge number of related issues such as the most obvious question of which gods.

 

Jews stole the land. The owners want it back. That is all anyone needs to know about Israel. That is all there is to know about Israel.

www.ussliberty.org

www.giwersworld.org/made-in-alexandria/index.html

www.giwersworld.org/00_files/zion-hit-points.phtml


A_Nony_Mouse
A_Nony_Mouse's picture
Posts: 2880
Joined: 2008-04-23
User is offlineOffline
.

Ktulu wrote:
Honey bunch, I'm getting a little bored with this whole argument because you seem to genuinely ignore any rational explanation... You also seem to think that you have this whole thing down pat, which you don't.  I liked "The Matrix" as much as the next guy, but you're not Neo, and this is the really real world.  If you take the red pill, you shouldn't drive heavy machinery, the blue pill is non drowsy. 

If you take the red pill and nothing changes the matrix is identical to reality. If indistinguishable it makes no difference.

 

Jews stole the land. The owners want it back. That is all anyone needs to know about Israel. That is all there is to know about Israel.

www.ussliberty.org

www.giwersworld.org/made-in-alexandria/index.html

www.giwersworld.org/00_files/zion-hit-points.phtml


nebula
Theist
Posts: 78
Joined: 2011-07-30
User is offlineOffline
Ktulu wrote:What is god?

Ktulu wrote:
What is god?  That sentence reads like this, "Then FRANGMUGINS always existed.  No problem."  You cannot say god without defining it.

 

Do you know what mind or consciousness is?   I don't mean do you have an explanation for it, I'm just asking if you have any intuitive understanding of the words "mind," "consciousness," "self-awareness."  Well that's what God is, mind, which is the same as computation.  What level of detail are you going into about METAverse?   All I've heard about it from you is that it's eternal and has some particle/anti-particle pairs.  

However, I don't need any more of a definition than that because I don't care about METAverse or God.    They are just conventions to start off a universe.    Our universe could have started with inflation taking over a particle/anti-particle pair, yet a form of  Idealism is true nevertheless.   Have you ever thought of that?    Ever look into Holographic Principle at all or are you only into your beloved uncertainty principle (and Multiverse I guess)?         
 

Ktulu wrote:
 Oh, I'm sorry, I thought we were being serious.  How is that a definition? my freaking wrist watch is a finite system capable of computation.  In fact, my coffee maker is one also.  Is my coffee maker god?  How does this system exist without the frame of reference that you are trying to prove doesn't exist?  Please try again, and be more specific.
 

 

Actually, I don't have to prove your frame of reference doesn't exist.   It is you who is making the positive claim, so you have to prove that it does.   If you have evidence that sensory information represents something besides data please let me have it.   We don't have any experience with matter directly, our only experience is with sensory information.   Therefore, the rational approach is: until new evidence comes along that proves otherwise, information is information.   I know this isn't convenient for you but too bad.        
 

Ktulu wrote:
 No, we cannot, silly willy, but we can test that particle/antiparticle pairs do pop in and out of existence.  And we can extrapolate from that, or falsify that.  Wait, so you rename your "aliens" "finite system capable of computation" and you expect me to take that definition and run with it.  I rename my whole theory "FRANGMUGINS did it", and I don't need to explain anything about FRANGMUGINS because this is how your logic work.

 

Oh we can extrapolate from that or falsify?   Well then, we can test whether or not people experience something they call self-awareness and extrapolate from that or falsify.   Again, it works both ways.
 

The aliens had a computer that was made of objective matter and this computer was a finite system capable of computation.   Now, the finite system capable of computation has a name, God.   It doesn't need any matter to exist because you have not proven that matter exists as anything other than data.   I on the other hand, have a stronger argument because I have proven that mind exists - that is how we are able to think.
 

Ktulu wrote:
Case, and point.  "it is this way because it is designed this way"...  here's an analogy "Satan introduced the uncertainty principle so we can doubt physical stuff god created", I don't need to actually explain anything, I can just chuck it up to this magical "finite system capable of computation".

 

You have a never-ending procession of straw men that you send out one by one.   I can barely get through a sentence of yours without encountering one to three of them.   First, God didn't design anything.   It just initiated the virtual reality with a big bang and let it evolve into the universe we know today, with all the "design" you keep referring to occurring naturally through evolution rather than having been specifically intended.
 

What doesn't science have to explain if Idealism/Digital Physics is true?   Things going on OUTSIDE of our universe that we can't test anyway?  The origin of our universe?   How about focusing on what is IN our universe?    There are tons of phenomena that need to be explained by science, things to discover etc.   As I asked before, how is the word "magic" called for?   Do you believe computation is magic?           
 

Ktulu wrote:

now you're just being silly.

 

No.   That really is the case.
 

Ktulu wrote:

No, cupcake, when you're saying God, to me it sounds like, FRANGMUGINS.  It is a nonsense term.  When I say "METAverse" I mean a frame of reference,  I mean the most basic "SOMETHING" you can possibly have, and I'm even going on about the properties of such a thing.  While both theories are not falsifiable, I make an effort to base my wild ass guessing on some sort logic/science, you're basing yours on "The Matrix".  And remember, my claim is that we CANNOT EVER KNOW! this is strictly an academic 

 

You don't make an effort to base your guessing on logic/science because you non-skeptically base it on FAITH in the unproven notion that matter exists as anything other than data.   I cannot ever know that God exists either, but so what?   I don't care about the origin of our universe anyway.
 

Ktulu wrote:

Right, I forgot, Satan buried the fossils... the simulation was meant to look that way... I don't see this as being a problem either, this is by no means a cop out. 

 

No Mr. Straw Man, for the umpteenth time, our reality wasn't meant to look ANY way.   It just evolved that way.    
 

Ktulu wrote:

I have nothing to "straw man" because you have yet to define what you mean by god in any satisfactory way.

 

"Something like what we experience as mind" yo.  
 

Ktulu wrote:

An Wired article does not science make. I'm not even going to go down the philosophy standing on it's own argument because I don't want to open that can of worms.

 

Fine.     
 

Ktulu wrote:

Honey bunch, I'm getting a little bored with this whole argument because you seem to genuinely ignore any rational explanation... You also seem to think that you have this whole thing down pat, which you don't.  I liked "The Matrix" as much as the next guy, but you're not Neo, and this is the really real world.  If you take the red pill, you shouldn't drive heavy machinery, the blue pill is non drowsy.  
I don't have any issue with you believing whatever the hell you want, but if you start ignoring science and relying on Hollywood for your theories, it is a short step from there to sacrificing your cat to the "finite system capable of computation".  You may not do it, but some other numbnut would.  I mean, who cares if it's all just mathematics, you're not really killing the cat, you're just destroying an algorithm...
I will continue this discussion if you stop quoting numbers, I don't have time to re-read the whole thread, copy and paste what you're referring to.


How is an unfounded belief in something there is no evidence for (that matter exists as anything other than data) rational?   Your Hollywood argument here is the weakest, most pathetic, desperate ploy I have ever seen in my entire life, but I will try it out myself anyway:   Your argument fails because it features an objective, physical matter reality just like A Night at the Roxbury does.    This isn't Holywood kid.   Get your head out of the clouds.      


nebula
Theist
Posts: 78
Joined: 2011-07-30
User is offlineOffline
A_Nony_Mouse wrote:Please

A_Nony_Mouse wrote:

Please re-read what I said. EXTRACTING information about the simulation negates the simulation. If the simulation is to be run in ignorance of what it happening then there is no problem other than explaining why the valueless exercise. However if it is possible to extract information without changing the simulation then it is not a correct simulation.

The larger issue is a simulation where one knows what it going on is necessarily more complicated than the "real" thing. This challenges your premise that simulation is for some reason more desirable.

Do you prefer the word "virtual?"   If so I will use that instead.
Dictionary.com:
vir·tu·al
   [vur-choo-uhl] Show IPA
adjective
1.
being such in power, force, or effect, though not actually or expressly such: a virtual dependence on charity.
 


nebula
Theist
Posts: 78
Joined: 2011-07-30
User is offlineOffline
A_Nony_Mouse,Can you

A_Nony_Mouse,

Can you document what you are saying?   I have read a couple articles like this http://vcgl.jacobs-university.de/wp-content/uploads/2010/04/rosenthal_vizworkshop_2007.pdf and I can't find anything that says extracting information negates a simulation.   I want to see if this is a problem for the "extra-terrestrial run simulation" version of the argument.

With the "God version" I don't see how it's a problem because the information system running the simulation is the only observer of the simulation.   No extraction is necessary.  


nebula
Theist
Posts: 78
Joined: 2011-07-30
User is offlineOffline
A_Nony_Mouse wrote:Are you

A_Nony_Mouse wrote:

Are you just another theist trying to sneak in your beliefs under cover pseudo reason?

WHICH godS have always existed?

Yes there is a problem introducing the magical gods explanation as you raise a huge number of related issues such as the most obvious question of which gods.

 

Which god?   Um let's see.   Ra.   Is that what you're looking for?   Something like that?  OK you got me, Ra.   I guess this means I can never be one of the cool kids sitting around in a circle jerk talking about how clever you all are for not believing in any gods.   Oh well.

I do sympathize with your plight though.   I don't think you should have to believe in Jesus in order to get elected president of the U.S. and stuff like that.    But this isn't really theism vs. atheism, it's idealism vs. physicalism.   

As I said in post 101, I'm using a god right now to have to have something to initiate the big bang because it has fewer assumptions than the previous version of this argument involving extra terrestrials.   I do personally believe in some type of deity as well which I like to call the Absolute or Ground of All Being, as I mentioned in post 63 (thanks for reading through the thread) but I have no idea what it is.   

Naturally, I don't know if the Absolute is directly responsible for our big bang or if some type of extra terrestrial is, or if some sub-deity is responsible, or if there is any difference between some forms of extra-terrestrial life and a sub deity, or if there was a completely "unintended by anyone" origin of our universe etc. etc. etc.   It really doesn't matter but people kept bringing up first cause over and over again so I had to deal with it, and also reduce my number of assumptions to compete with Multiverse.   

The only thing I'm sure of is that physicalism is an irrational position.   There is evidence that sensory information exists but no evidence that matter does.   Therefore, I don't believe that matter exists as anything other than data until evidence to the contrary comes in.  Hence you are all getting served as far as skepticism goes.                 

 

 


nebula
Theist
Posts: 78
Joined: 2011-07-30
User is offlineOffline
You know what?   Fuck

You know what?   Fuck God.   Fuck him right in his stupid ass.   I'm an atheist now.  Can they change my badge to atheist?   That way I can argue this easier.    Here's my new argument.   There is some origin of our universe.   Maybe it's inflation taking over some VIRTUAL particles in a METAverse like Ktulu said.   However, our universe is made of information and it is historically consistent, as proven by the double slit experiment.      

But one more thing about God before I assign him to oblivion.   Have you guys read this article:  http://www.ebonmusings.org/atheism/greatergod.html  It's pretty good.   OK.   I'm done with God now.   Please don't ask me any more questions about it.   Introducing God into this argument blew up in my face and you guys have convinced me that belief in sky daddies is irrational.   The only difference between you and me now is that you're physicalists and I'm not.   That's what the argument is about.  


Ktulu
atheist
Posts: 1830
Joined: 2010-12-21
User is offlineOffline
nebula wrote:You know

nebula wrote:

You know what?   Fuck God.   Fuck him right in his stupid ass.   I'm an atheist now.  Can they change my badge to atheist?   That way I can argue this easier.    Here's my new argument.   There is some origin of our universe.   Maybe it's inflation taking over some VIRTUAL particles in a METAverse like Ktulu said.   However, our universe is made of information and it is historically consistent, as proven by the double slit experiment.      

But one more thing about God before I assign him to oblivion.   Have you guys read this article:  http://www.ebonmusings.org/atheism/greatergod.html  It's pretty good.   OK.   I'm done with God now.   Please don't ask me any more questions about it.   Introducing God into this argument blew up in my face and you guys have convinced me that belief in sky daddies is irrational.   The only difference between you and me now is that you're physicalists and I'm not.   That's what the argument is about.  

hehe, at least you're funny. Smiling, I'll respond to your post when I get a bit of time.  

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


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10484
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
I'd like to address

I'd like to address something I failed to previously.

nebula wrote:

Vastet, sorry for being rude.   I just felt like you were taking a little 4 sentence pot shot at my argument without putting any effort into it.   I felt that if it was longer, maybe I would have understood.   I knew it would take a lot of typing to respond and get to the bottom of what you were saying and I got frustrated.   I still don't understand so please explain.  Thanks.

I also apologise for any remark that sermed flippant or rude or insulting. Sometimes frustration bleeds through, and we're all emotional sometimes. That we can step back and calm down before going at it again is what gives me hope for the species.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


nebula
Theist
Posts: 78
Joined: 2011-07-30
User is offlineOffline
Grrr at the dead link in

Grrr at the dead link in 132.   It's off topic but here (I'm evangelizing): www.ebonmusings.org/atheism/greatergod.html

OK, done with God now.   I have to take some time to research this new argument but when I get back you guys are in TROUBLE.   Just a taste - two words: Cellular Automata.     


Teralek
Theist
Teralek's picture
Posts: 614
Joined: 2010-07-15
User is offlineOffline
Reading through all of this

Reading through all of this gives me an headache. If we are not stopped from knowing QM by some fundamental reality we are going to be by the limitations of human computing power...

Ktulu wrote:

I just want to thank you for bringing this discussion up, there is a "home version" of the experiment you can perform with polarized glass.  I plan on setting it up soon, and I suggest you should too if you're this interested in it.  It definitely ranks up there with cool beans.   

Have you set up the home version?

 

Ktulu wrote:

I've had two glasses of wine, so naturally, I feel like typing Smiling.  We need to take this discussion back to the basics.  Let me address a past misunderstanding, namely the foundation of QM, the uncertainty principle.  What it basically states is that one may not simultaneously know ANYTHING'S position and it's velocity greater then the Plank's constant.  This isn't necessarily a particle, it could be a bullet, pool ball, car or whatever you like.

Now, why is that? It's a pretty bold statement, in fact if you could figure out a particle's position and velocity with a greater accuracy then h (Plank's constant) then you would overthrow QM as we know it.  Is it because we simply do not have the proper instruments? Or maybe we don't know enough about particles.  Well no, it turns out it has to do with WAVES, and how we MEASURE stuff.  It goes back to the whole detector thingy.  How do you "detect" stuff in the macro world? you look at it.  But what is "looking" at something? well, it is the act of measuring the REFLECTED wave length of the photons (for the sake of the argument we'll limit ourselves to the visible spectrum, in principle the only difference between Gama rays and the colour blue is the frequency).

Ok, so we've established that "observing" means measuring the reflected photons, not just in QM but in our day to day life.  So let's go back to trying to measure a particle's velocity and position.  You would need to "shine" a sort of light at it in order to figure out what its velocity is, and some sort of a screen to detect its position.  Now let's say you need it's velocity very accurately, what you need to do is increase the frequency of the light you "shine" on it.  This has the effect of interacting with the particle more, thereby randomly (random force within the wave function) influencing it's position.  So the more you increase the frequency, the less you will know where it hits the screen.  The less frequency you have, the less chance of a detection of velocity, but more accurate position on the screen.  

It is not because we "shine" light on the experiments that the wave function collapses. It is not because of WAVES and how we MEASURE stuff. It is because there is a fundamental limit on nature on how precisely we can "know". Google it. In other words this means that a particle does not have a definite position and momentum at a given time. It is not a question of measurement. If it wasn’t the case it would imply that particles had indeed a specified position and momentum at a given time but it is impossible for us to know.

"From the axioms of QM and the math that is used to build observables and states of systems, it turns out that position and velocity (and also momentum, because momentum p = mv) are what are called "canonical conjugates", and they cannot be both be "sharply localized". That is, we cannot measure them both to an arbitrary level of precision. It is a mathematical fact that any function and its Fourier transform cannot both be made sharp.
This is a purely a mathematical fact and so has nothing to do with our ability to do experiments or our present-day technology. As long as QM is based on the present mathematical theory, it cannot be done using the mathematics we have."

In the lab set there is light from the lamps in the ceiling interfering with the electrons and other photons. There is always minimal interference in ANY experimental set because even vacuum is not empty.

Now QM is really really spooky. In the double slit experiment a detector apparently changes the outcome of the experiment. Is the detector changing the particle in a direct physical way? No because the detector has the same effect on the particle as the background radiation... there is no qualitative difference. Moreover how can a passive detector change the behavior of an experiment coherently? It should have a random outcome, sometimes wave, sometimes particle...

I believe it's not the detector that is changing anything but it is giving us a hint about the nature of matter.

Much larger particles like BIG molecules exhibit this same wave/particle duality and these particles are MUCH less affected by light.

This is why Nebula hypothesis have a lot to go on.

Nebula seemed resigned at the end to the relentless denial of his hypothesis. Something to be expected here from any non purely physicalist hypothesis. We all suffer from fundamentalism to some degree.

I have seen here also other inconsistencies, that I have also seen time again on other OPs.

Like saying that the Universe started has virtual particles that jumped some threshold and inflated into the Universe has we know it. This natural particle creation is the same that we can observe in vacuum energy. By implication if this was the case, space/time would be riddled with countless big bangs because there is an infinite virtual particle creation in the WHOLE of the Universe at any given time. Thus even in extremely small chances BB would occour frequently.

Furthermore space/time itself is expanding meaning the background where vacuum energy exists might not have existed at all in the Beggining.

Where is all the antimatter BTW?!?

It is worth mentioning though that if Ktulu was defending his theory on a Theist forum I would be backing him like I'm backing Nebula now.

This whole thing about the holographic Universe and speccially about the nature of reality being more Information than matter made more sense to me after a lecture I saw on youtube from Raphael Bousso.

Also explaining the fundamental speed of light limit from relativity makes much more sense to me if you say speed of information instead.

Keep up with the good wine! 

 

______________________________________________________________
"I once prayed to god for a bike, but quickly found out he didnt work that way...so I stole a bike and prayed for his forgiveness"

"All matter originates and exists only by virtue of a force... We must assume behind this force the existence of a conscious and intelligent Mind. This Mind is the matrix of all matter." (Max Planck)

"the existence of mind in some organism on some planet in the universe is surely a fact of fundamental significance. Through conscious beings the universe has generated self-awareness. This can be no trivial detail, no minor byproduct of mindless, purposeless forces. We are truly meant to be here." Paul Davies


Teralek
Theist
Teralek's picture
Posts: 614
Joined: 2010-07-15
User is offlineOffline
 OH but let me add that I

 OH but let me add that I CANNOT be an idealist as well!

There is something! I might not be able to discribe it precisely but there is for sure something outside my mind.

If reality didn't exist in some coherent form, blind people would walk through walls that were completely absent of their minds.

______________________________________________________________
"I once prayed to god for a bike, but quickly found out he didnt work that way...so I stole a bike and prayed for his forgiveness"

"All matter originates and exists only by virtue of a force... We must assume behind this force the existence of a conscious and intelligent Mind. This Mind is the matrix of all matter." (Max Planck)

"the existence of mind in some organism on some planet in the universe is surely a fact of fundamental significance. Through conscious beings the universe has generated self-awareness. This can be no trivial detail, no minor byproduct of mindless, purposeless forces. We are truly meant to be here." Paul Davies