. Aspects of existence (i.e. entities) consisting of structures sufficiently complex for computing defeasible models of said aspects of existence (i.e. entities). — 180 Proof

That's a non-sequitur fallacy based on a wrong premise with it's roots in being a faithful disciple, (a prodigy even, maybe!) in the modern-day church of computer science. Firstly, there is no computing going on, insofar complex systems are involved, and secondly, there is no need whatsoever for models to be defeasible.

So, being a disciple (maybe even a prodigy variant!), gives little credibility to your woowoo musings, supposedly being a definition of the physical... A caleidoscopic, panoptically pandemonic fantasmagoriac apotheosis. No more, no less.

Shared darkness might be closer to reality than the lonely night. I'll leave on a light... The Enlightenment hallucination, bathing the the Earth globally in it's hot radiation, might be a mass hallucination farther from the truth than the reality many lonely wanderers perceive.

False dichotomy. Category errors. Hasty generalizations. Cornucopia of nonsense, ... but you already 'know" this so I won't bother spoon-feeding the breakdown. — 180 Proof

Call it whatever you like, my dear. You ain't got a story about the origin.

A shared hallucination is closer to reality than one specific to an individual by virtue of consistency in the group that experiences it. — Agent Smith

The opposite though, mìght be the case as well.

theism is soundly demonstrated to be true AND — 180 Proof

Unless you give a physical explanation of the genesis story of the quantum vacuum, gods exist. Untill now the best that can be done is push the genesis back in time.

Suppose that belief or faith had the intrinsic property of manifesting into reality whatever is believed. For example if I believe a delicious cheesy, tomato and dough based circle exists then pizza becomes a thing. — Benj96

:lol:

I thought, a vision of gods is the belief or faith. Then the pizza circle moved in...

We seem to be, for the most part, stupid apes. — Tom Storm

Yeah, it's great to be a chimp!

Qpa!!
The Nickolast logic fallacy

If we blah blah and iff blah blah is blah blah, the blah blah can't logically blah blah blah. Hencs gods are non-blah blah.

That's the lol fallacy," bla bla...thus god...right? — Nickolasgaspar

Right! :lol:

I want, as you suggest, to simulate something and apply that simulation to myself and, perhaps to you.

I want to simulate Logic and Reason, and Objectivity, verbal of course, and apply them to me and to thee. — Ken Edwards

I'm not sure, dear brother Ken, if you can simulate logic and reason. They are part of our constant inner simulation of the big great object world we walk through and look against. Walking through the forrest, it's continuously projected into my inner universe, continuously simulated and given shape, in form, color, sound, and smells, while I'm on the outlook for pretty dead tree chunks, prefabricated by nature in endless varieties of forms. The other day, while playing with the dog, I discovered a lovely piece. But a bit heavy. A fat thick tree bottom piece, shaped by life, death, rain, wind and time. We can potentially simulate the whole universe (I once did a calculation how many different patterns can run on the neural network: a 1 followed by 10exp20 zeroes! Compare with the number of particles in the observable universe, which is a 1 followed by a meager 91 zeroes...).

So instead of simulating logic and reason, use them in your walk, in your quest for shape, color, and beauty.

Creative greetings from a living walking body between the inner and outer universe.

Yours truly, Il guercio

.....bla bla bla...thus god.....lol — Nickolasgaspar

That's the lol fallacy, dear Nickolast! :lol:

Why Feynman didn't think of that! He wasn't as cleaver as you are. — Nickolasgaspar

Feynman was only joking, surely... Look here Nickolas, humanity has come to the terrible point that personal relations are based on coming to know each other. "I like to know you...". WTF?

..bla bla bla bla...thus god ...right? lol — Nickolasgaspar

Yeah, it were these crazy human gods, jealous of all the other god species and their own species alike.

I don't know that, you were introduced as a 35yo woman. — Nickolasgaspar

Yes! A 35 year old WonderMan, a Wo-man!

Now the rest of your comment has nothing to do with your ignorant claim under the the artifact "in the name science" — Nickolasgaspar

In the name of science, telescopes are pointed at the sky, smaller and smaller particles with higher an higher energies smashed into each other, and in between these two scales nature is tortured and interrogated with ever increasingly brighter and by now burning searching lights of the Enlightenment. Because of this seemingly never-ending enterprise (ironically called "progress"), nature gets fucked more and more, and increasingly unbalanced, leading to an armageddon compared to which the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah shrinks into insignificance.

a — intpath32

The most lazy and weak answer sofar. Not even an attempt was made to use the capital A. Great! :lol:

Why you use the descriptive fallacy of calling me mrs. Hillary? I'm a mr, my dear Nickolast. So that's a first fallacy, based on ignorance. Concerning the description of my intellectual performances, compared to your standards of intelligence my brain world must be a logical horror indeed. But in relation to the real world it's better equipped and more reliable. My brain isn't a logically programmed structure, or simulating it is. Knowledge about the physical world can be produced only by interacting with it, and because of that, lives will be sacrificed to obtain it and once that knowledge is there you should not be surprised it is used in favor as well as against life. Simple as that.

I've never heard of a terrorist blowing stuff up in the name of evolution. — universeness

What about all life killed in the name of science, the atom bomb, the knowledge terrorists possess to create bombs, the airplanes used in 9/11?

This is the most philosophical answer I have seen so far. :clap:

Then you’re not reading the same scientists I am — Joshs

Dunno. But I do know that language, insofar the genesis of ideas is concerned (and thus realities) has not a profound influence and certainly not as once thought.

, you have to abandon physical causal determinism. Physics won’t collapse if you do. We can still use it the same old way we have been , but we can be more insightful about its limitations and the ways it will need to change in order to keep up with the social sciences and philosophy. There are more and more physicists today who are ready to abandon determinism. — Joshs

Physical causal determinism applies to all levels of complexity. Free will has to be a determined will. Only other will can take away it's freedom, and because we interact with other wills and the world, no will is completely free.

Being determined is different from being programmed.

If life is based on processes that are completely determined then in a sense, yes, they are programmed. In order to understand living and human creativity without needing gods — Joshs

No, for that we don't need gods. Only to understand from where the basic ingredients come, gods are needed. And by understanding life, we understand the gods!

For me the issue isn’t ‘can we create life’, but why would we want to? Would you want to create the big bang, as opposed to understanding it or creating a computer
model of it ? Would that be useful to you? We don’t , and can’t , recreate the past because we take our past along with us. The past comes already pre-interpreted by our present. That is why our past is always ahead of us — Joshs

Indeed, why should we want to if we can't. Why not being satisfied with life that's there and taking care of it? To create life we need to create a new big bang! Needless to say, that's too much!

For the sake of convenience , physics has assumed the concept of law-governed deterministic objects with persisting properties and attributes , but this is just a useful abstraction — Joshs

All processes are completely determined, no matter how complex. That's not for a sake of convenience, but it's how it is. If we are not even able to make a neuron appear, then a form of life won't appear. Computers might have unforeseeable processes as outcome, but they still stem from a program. Life isn't programmed.

To create life simply means to wipe us out in order to regress to an older time scale — Joshs

That's what creating death is.

And to create knowledge you need life , and to have life you first must have an inorganic word. Human creativity is not backward looking. We don’t recapitalw what already happened , and the levels of evolutionary complexity that preceded humans and human knowledge creation — Joshs

As long as we can create the circumstances in which live evolves, we haven't created life. As life itself is part of the circumstances we can't create it, no matter how a programmed version in a computer looks like it.

For humans to ‘create’ life , molecules or anything else is not to duplicate an earlier time scale of evolution — Joshs

And that time scale of evolution is the only scale in which life evolved. Nothing coming out of the hands of evolved life is life.

Yes, life evolves naturally , and the human capacity for technological invention belongs to that natural
order of evolution. Our aims and goals further the evolution of the complexity of nature. — Joshs

Nonsense. That what comes from our hands and minds is not to further evolution. Evolution of life, a freely developing process, is a different process than what we let freely develop in a lab or anything coming out of it.

All we do is place certain elements in proximity to others under certain conditions . We have discovered from trial and error that this leads to the formation of the molecules we desire. But the dynamics necessary to allow these molecules to stick together are akin to the guiding function of a dna strand in conjunction with the cellular environment. We don’t create these dynamics any more than we create dna. In both case , we combine and recombine what has already been created. — Joshs

We can't create the circumstances to let a DNA molecule appear or a cell or a neuron, or a form of life. To create life you need life in the first place.

I look from the scientific side. Not the philosophic side.

Extremist behaviour does have many triggers, that's true, but dogmatic fervour about gods is certainly one of those main triggers. — universeness

Thus can be dogma about evolution.

I said I could appear as an avatar within a virtual world WITHOUT destroying it, so what do you mean? — universeness

Ah. Well, they could do so by means of QM.

ITs what logic tells us — Nickolasgaspar

Logic tells us nothing about the existence of gods.

you can not do that mrs Hillary. — Nickolasgaspar

It's that what Sir Popper tells us?

It can result in extremism and extreme behaviour. — universeness

Virtual anything can lead to that behavior. Being dogmatic tells nothing about your attitudes.

Again they sound incompetent if they can't appear without destroying our world.
I can appear in a virtual world as an avatar and not destroy the computer in the process.
So I can do what your gods cant? — universeness

Again, so what? You might appear in your videogame and destroy it. But why should they do that? Why they had created it in the first place? Should they destroy it because human gods fucked up a little?

That would make me as dogmatic as theists! We have already had that chat! — universeness

I know, but Dawkins is just as dogmatic then.

So the existence of Logical Fallacies alone SHOULD remind you that you can not accept a claim before it is objectively verified....and claim that you are a reasonable individual. — Nickolasgaspar

I accept the claim untill it's falsified.

That would make me as dogmatic as theists! We have already had that chat! — universeness

And what's wrong with being dogmatic?

Then they are not very impressive. They created a 3D space they cant appear in.
If I create a virtual world, I can appear inside it as an avatar. — universeness

Who says they wanna be impressive? The world would break apart if they appeared in the macro domain.

thought you were not interested in convincing me? hahaha — Nickolasgaspar

I'm not. If you don't wanna believe, Its up to you. Merely defending myself. Jesus Nickolast, aren't your jaws aching from your laughter? Or is it crying? Because of me?

what gods and universeness's inability to understand how we define probabilities have to do with a discussion on how Pseudo Philosophical solutions (Economics/Politics) have meshed up our lives? — Nickolasgaspar

Because such a solution, such a dystopia, is the result of a way of life that has moved away from a heavenly kind of life. The human gods were responsible for this. We, as their material copies, could show them how to improve.

As I have explained to you, you can not do that. You can not provide a probability number on a supernatural claim
— Nickolasgaspar

Yes you can Mr Minutia! — universeness

For a probability you need a number of created universes and non-created ones. Their ratio gives your probability...

The time to accept their existence is only after you have managed to objectively verify their existence... — Nickolasgaspar

Wrong, dear Nickolast... Their existence comes first. Whether we are able to "objectively verify" their existence remains to be seen. Their existence is for me objectively verified in dream and thought.

That means I am ALMOST 100% sure gods don't exist. I hope you understand a bit better now, you pompous ass. — universeness

But then why not say you are 100% sure?

All they have to do is show up and submit themselves to authentication tests. If they do that then we can both say hello to them. I think I will probably try to attack them for all the vile things they let happen in the past. We can release our responsibility for the actions of nefarious humans past and present, to them.
I would be happy to do that. Maybe that's why they don't show up. They are big fearties! — universeness

What if the can't show up? It would go against the rules of the material they created. One possibility is by means of the rules of quantum mechanics, but these effects are small and probably only present in dreams (in which I saw their jungle tinkerings!). Most parts of the universe haven't been investigated and maybe they showed themselves to a more advanced species already.