To be, is to be perceived". — chiknsld

So I exist a 1000 times?

stated, "no one has ever been able to explain how anything out there to can get in here (pointing to his head). — Constance

Is that so difficult to explain? Why? The world is constantly projected into our brain. Except when we sleep or are absent in thought or pondering. The brain is the receiver and creator at once.

The law of causality is absolutely coercive to the understanding regardless of any and all to the contrary — Constance

The universe was created. Still, it was not physically caused.

The motion of the ball on the Norton dome is not caused.

In other words truth as consistency rather than truth as correspondence? — Joshs

Both. And truth as really being there. The mental and physical world are dependent on each other. Structures in the physical world engrave themselves in our brain and the brainstructures inform the physical world. We can perceive all levels of strucure as we, our bodies, move in the physical world and we actively (experiments) or passively give shape to the world and have all right to call our perception objective. Like I wrote before, a particle physicist sees indivisible pointlike massless quarks and leptons, while I perceive triplets of geometric nonpointlike massless preons gaining mass by interaction. I could, as I read somewhere, imagine that these particles are green dragons avoiding detection but I dont. I prefer the view that they are love and hate particles, charged with a mystical load to repulse or attract (the three basic charges in physics, exactly the right ones). Experiment has to decide which one is true, but some things are obvious a priori.

so what's 1 with a trillion zero's? closer to infinite — universeness

A lot closer than a 1 with 24 zeros!

You really think man is able to construct a living 3d structure of neuronlike material, many of which are interlinked, with variable connection strengths?

A one with 24 zeros, like for a computerchip, is zero in comparison.

Imagine that. Im on the edge of a forrest area, typing about infinity on my phone, while the dog is in fight with a trunk, after she has chased away another dog (shes in heat), and the gods above enjoy it! If that aint philosophical romantics...

What?? there is no number big enough to be called infinity, that's just mathematical fact! — universeness

For all practical purposes a 1 with 10exp20 is infinite...

Your number has nothing to do with the memory capacity of the human brain. — universeness

It is the capacity.

Your number has nothing to do with the memory capacity of the human brain. — universeness

It seems a big enough number to be called infinity. The brain can contain all physical structures of the universe. That's more than I can say for a memory chip. A 1 followed by 10exp20 zeros is a pretty big number. There are 10exp 90 particles in the visible universe. A 1 followed by only 80 zeros. A computer memory has just 10exp30....

at 10^ 24 bytes — universeness

Read good the number I wrote.

No it doesn't, its memory capacity is as far away from the infinite as the number 1 is. — universeness

By virtual infinite, I mean 10exp(10exp20). More or less. A bit more even, as I rounded off downwards.

So computer speed and storage capacity can easily equal and in fact way surpass the capacity of the human brain — universeness

The brain has virtual infinite memory capacity. Try to implement that on a computer. The only thing computers excell in is speed.

An entirely abstract concept, along the lines of showing how the speed of light can be exceeded given that two beams of light whose paths converge when directed toward each other askew, and the point at which the they merge moves along the line of convergence at a rate faster than the velocities of each — Constance

Not sure why you bring this up. Isn't it clear that the point of light projected by a rotating laser on the inside of a huge sphere doesnt actually travel at all?

when we speak of the world, we have revealed the way the world "shows itself"? — Constance

We havent revealed the way it shows itself. But what is revealed gives you information. The particle physicist sees different aspects of reality (and even here different things are seen as where some see massless quarks and leptons as fundamental point particles interacting with s Higgs field to give them mass I see massless geometrical, nonpointlike interacting triplets of preons) as the nuclear physicist, who sees different things than the molecular biologist, etc.

have a horrible feeling we’ve talked before — I like sushi

Believe it or not, I just had a deja vu while writing to Gregory!

Why can't a dream be evidence for creation? In the short story I write Ill tell more about it. Im not English though, so it takes a bit to complete it. A translation machine doesnt work!

Either way, prove me wrong and explain what you know of the supernatural. I don’t see anything to suggest there is anything other than what is nor can I personally see a way justify dualism - ie. Supernatural (beyond nature) because I frame everything in the universe as ‘natural’ and don’t side with ‘supernatural’ as a replacement for ‘we don’t know therefore god’. That just makes no sense to me. — I like sushi

In a dream, during thinking on this forum, and by my cosmological model, it became clear. Add the fact that there never had been more talk about gods on this forum, and my psychosis is complete!

Your unconventional polytheism is not satisfying — Gregory

It is to me. On top of science, which cant give meaning, it gives meaning. We are not just collections of particles obeying the new God of Dawkinskian evolution.

Take this: Hakim Uluseyi proposes the construction of a space Ark. To preserve us and get away from annihilation (we probably have self-induced by the application of science in the first place!).

I mean, uploading our minds into a quantum computer, meeting alien intelligences, the last step in evolution, the awakening of the cosmos after 13 billion years at last... Get real!

It's a mathematical operation, actually a pure logic game. — Agent Smith

But how would you program that thought, a clear and sound mental happening, on a computer?

What evidence for some "person" out there from matter? — Gregory

They exist outside of spacetime and the matter in it.

Does a baby who suffers cause it's own suffering or is it forced into a theodicy God never endured? — Gregory

The gods endured suffering too. Why not?

Thinking 1+1=3. How would you program that thought on a computer?

By the way, can you give me one example of a mind process that you believe is not programmable — Agent Smith

All of them.

Have you ever thought about AS?

I don't quite get the resistance to such a simple and intuitive idea — Agent Smith

What intuitive idea?

Let's meet at the halfway point. Would you agree that one of the things the brain is known for, in fact defines it, namely logic, is programmable (algorithm). Too, isn't it true that AI can recognize patterns? I might've missed a spot or two — Agent Smith

Logic is a way of thinking. If A then B, and if C assumed true together with A the C is B if A and C in the same class of truth. Something like that. Its just a train of thoughts running on your neural network. Unprogrammed. But structured by strengthened connections between neurons, which is how memories form.

My own argument against God is that we are images of God but are forced to suffer while God is not forced to suffer. This is not symmetrical because one would expect God to have the power to get us to heaven effortlessly like he is in heaven — Gregory

This argument presumes we are forced to suffer. What if we are forced to life, created to live like the gods did?

The teleological argument looks for signs of God in nature. Carroll looks for things that one would expect but doesn't find and so concludes one cannot expect signs from nature — Gregory

What about nature itself? Seems pretty solid evidence.

That's like you taking credit for a house I built.
Evolution and natural selection produced what you cite above not god. — universeness

Yes, evolution took place. And natural selection took place. But they didn't create the stuff necessary for evolution and the creatures evolving.

On TV; "chapter 113: a creation program" Seriously! About artificial reality and simulation, imaginary loops...
"We have reached the point technology allows us with virtual characters. If we learn more and more we can fool...blah blah. The machine is able to control our minds, if they want to..."

Carroll is using teleological arguments against themselves, not saying that teleological arguments are logical. An illogical argument follows its own logic — Gregory

Not sure I follow. Can you rephrase again his teleological argument?

How can there be more than one God? — Gregory

There are as many gods as there were, are, and will be creatures in our universe. Why can't that be?

It's you!
No it's not me it's you!
No it's not me it's you!.....until we both pass out from the beer! :rofl: — universeness

But you pass out last! :lol:

Coincidentally, I see a science propaganda doc on tv. On SCIdiscoveryscience (and telling my wife not to take it too seriously!). About the technological singularity, computers creating life like gods... Aliens on Gliese colonyzing everything by a quantum computer...

There is no logical fallacy in Carroll's argument. Not all arguments follow symbolism — Gregory

The logical fallacy is that his observation that there is no evil implying there would be a god because we obey that god is an unreality. It's a false assumption.

If they are not eternal and not infinite then they are just like us. So then what is the difference? We are effectively ‘gods’ in the sense you seem to have outlined. — I like sushi

There is a great/big difference. Gods have the power of creation. Dumb physical laws are too stupid to create themselves. Hawking asked what breaths life into the equations. It where the gods.

The surprise I have in mind is usually just ignored. Paradoxes like Zeno's should be telling us that geometry and reality are very different, and geometry is just an expression of intuitive logical thinking. The surprise is that structural contradictions indicates not just that logic is quirky in the world that is not logical, but that this illogical world is altogether not logic. And so our thoughts about it do not "represent" it. — Constance

Our thought about reality resonate with reality. Reality projects itself into our brain constantly if we walk around in it. Via the senses. They constantly receive update about the actual state and our brain creates an image while we walk. Space is part of that image. It's the sauce between material objects in which they and we, our bodies, move. It can even be thought as made up of stuff, hidden variables and virtual particles.

But it does further illustrate the point that when we face the world, we impose a familiar image or idea to assimilate it. We invent problems like God and evil, arrows and the like defying logic, and the rest. Space bending — Constance

The world shows itself as it is. We dont invent things to assimilate this. Gods, good and evil, bent space, they are real things. Bent space is made visible by the the masses in it.

Does he understand that a spontaneous cause is apodictically impossible. I wonder this regarding your thoughts: do you not see that space cannot bend, not because Einstein was wrong, but because the c0oncept is nonsense — Constance

Spontaneous cause is possible. Read about the Norton dome. I don't see why it is nonsense. You can bend space with a stick in it even! If the universe grows older, a stick in it will get torn apart by expanding space. I would agree if you said you can't cut space in pieces.

okay, so we’re gods — I like sushi

Huh?

. We just seem to differ in what we define as ‘god — I like sushi

Not just about the definition of god. Also about their existence. You see them as truly existent only in relation to the human endeavor and not as existing outside the universe. All this talk about gods...and I overlook the dog looking at me with asking eyes and wiggling tale.

so the ‘infinite’ and ‘eternal’ are not for me to comment upon much. — I like sushi

The gods are not eternal and infinite. Heaven is, like the universe.

And the ‘gods’ are infinite and eternal (as you say) — I like sushi

That's not what I think. I think they are just like any creature on Earth.