No, some of us would be obviously right relative to the cubit system, some of us obviously wrong, and some of us neither. — bongo fury

Using a cubit instead of visual verification highlights the issue in a physical way. The cubit system is based on the measure of one's own arm. As long as everyone measured with their arm they are technically right as I understand it.

And then the puzzle is to specify the smallest (or largest) number of microns that is no longer a cubit. — bongo fury

You don't add or subtract length to your arm to meet a standard, so this is incoherent.

Narrow tolerances or precise tolerances? — bongo fury

Industry term for a small margin of error. The narrower the tolerance, the higher degree of measuring precision.

Unbounded precisely, i.e. not graph 4; or unbounded ever i.e. graph 2? Or unbounded how? — bongo fury

It's the length of your forearm to middle finger. If your working with multiple people then I imagine the "foreman's cubit" is fabricated and used as a local standard.

The next step I believe was the use of barley corns to measure an inch. You had to have 3 of them. It's a more precise measure that assumed the variance in barley corn lengths averaged out well enough to be useful. Now we use like the planck length against some measure of gravity or something.

It's a novelty of a self-referential measuring tolerance. We'd all produce a different cubit if measured to the micron. We'd all be right relative to our arms and wrong relative to the others. So, people don't use tight tolerances for measures with unbounded variances. I wouldn't buy lumber from a short armed man 3000 years ago.

What bothers me is this atmosphere of self congratulation as if you idiots really think you're better than religious people some how. You're not. You're exactly like them except you have advantages they didn't have. — frank

It's philosophy; if wasn't for the dopamine that results from light intellectual narcissism none the universes mysteries would be solved. In theory...

↪Cheshire Panpsychism is a position on the separate question of what God is (or would be, if he existed). One can take any of the aforementioned positions on any notion of what God is, and take a different position on each different notion of God. — Pfhorrest

Looking it over it seems like you would have to ascribe a "will" or at least disposition to a collective mind in order to claim Panpsychism is a type of God. It seems like the closest thing rational conjecture can get towards i.e. the only thing one might reasonably pray to without the need for a storybook. It seems distinct enough not to be called God, but significant enough to destabilize an entrenched atheist with a soft spot for western notions of karma.

↪Cheshire What do you think? — Banno

Regarding Panpsychism
It seems a bit too coherent to throw in and measure along side the definitions of a Christian God that are usually the subject of the debate. But, it doesn't come with any greater amount of evidence. The concept was tossed out by the church and then later by logical positivist so it was probably right. It's a bit new to me, guess I'm D on this one.

Where does Panpsychism fall?

The distinct and separate substance of substance dualism are not able to exchange energy, for neither one cannot walk the walk and talk the talk of the other. — PoeticUniverse

Well, if that was the case they wouldn't be found working together. Maybe they aren't interchangeable but some type of exchange ought be taking place.

Information _about_ stuff? Because all information about any system is in the system. Any copies of the system's information are, at best, just that -- copies -- at worst, erroneous, and typically incomplete. This is why simulation theory fails for me: the most efficient way to simulate a universe is to build it. — Kenosha Kid

I'm not a fan of simulation theory because it has a built in infinite regression. But, suppose you wanted to build it; you would have to have some way of informing matter how it is to be arranged. Supposedly we could vaporize an object and the information about what it was remains.

I don't understand it but supposedly the Higgs tells matter what it's mass is supposed to be.

I don't think it's necessary to invent a new material to explain why people think and trees don't in a complex sense. Remove a person's brain and their opinions will follow it. How the brain or tree is arranged is an emergent aspect, but they are both just carbon persisting.

Why not 2 types of stuff. Stuff and the information about stuff. Pretty much how Fedex sees the world. And they seem to navigate it well.

So what to do? I think I'd prefer to have been not been embodied in the first place. — Inyenzi

I have an insane explanation for that if it helps. I think the mind is arranged a bit like Alpha Zero. An executive system that tricks two players into thinking they are one person. The two are forced to make decisions that represent different interests. The executive system gives feedback on whether a move was good or safe. I think one side is connected to a threat response system and the other our emotional system. When under threat we either physically or chemically escape. So, when there is no positive emotional feedback we start trying to hack the system creating dangerous situations or skipping the middleman and doing drugs.

No. It's not. And that's why Popper is wrong. — counterpunch

Actually Popper's only hard thesis was that humans and as a result their knowledge is subject to error. So, if you prove him wrong you are proving him right.

Why instead we differentiate between stuff and what stuff does is beyond me. — Kenosha Kid

Is this really an accurate generalization? I've read some of the material provided but this makes some sense. So, the argument is whether the "what stuff does" has a separate existence from stuff itself and not just a function of the arrangement of stuff?

God is ok with that that’s all I can say. Odd though ? Probably — Deus

You mean you are ok with it. "He" agree with everything you think?

Not at all my faith is firm here I just enjoy a bit of written jousting. — Deus

Treating a belief in God as a bit of sport seems odd to me.

Apologies … — Deus

I'm not offended just curious. If I had subjective undeniable evidence, then this whole "what part did God do" song and dance would be unnecessary. I think you are looking for a reason to believe it; or it appears as the case.

Not at all! My faith goes beyond that through first hand experience or religious experience which was refreshing to say the least. — Deus

So, what is the point of leaning on this need to inject one's religion into a secular science?

We sure as hell did not pop into existence by accident some God had a hand in all of this can assure you of that. — Deus

Really, if this was shown to be false you would stop believing?

Well, an inquiry into "facts" is ideal if anyone wants to borrow that word. Because often non-facts are confused or masked as facts. — skyblack

The word in the this case was to highlight undue emphasis not confuse the matter.

To say 'God did it' has no explanatory power. It's using a mystery to explain a mystery. Might as well say the Magic Man did it. Or aliens... — Tom Storm

I agree. And if God happens to be an emergent feature of the universe it would also be false.

Just making an assumption I do not think the almighty would reveal himself to everyone all at once. Perhaps to the occasional individual. — Deus

But you stated it as fact and said it's the reason for atheist.

He’s a funny guy got a wicked sense of humour I tell you. If he told us he existed all scientific progress would come to a halt and we would be to dependable on him…this is the reason why there are so many atheists it’s all a bit hush hush. — Deus

You suppose to know the outcome of God undeniably presenting itself to the world? Seems bold, like you imagine God thinks just like you. I think the atheists are being honest.

That's not the case. A large majority are explicitly atheist. — Banno

If they changed their mind; would they say anything?

I don't think this trend is isolated to this subject.

There's space and the things in it or things and the space in between; is that 1 or 2?

Is agnosticism a better position than atheism? — Deus

It's useful if you have a belief in something, but are pretty sure all religions are wrong. So, for the sake of communication perhaps agnosticism better represents your position to other theist. But, to atheist it really could go either way. I believe I 'saw' something, but any evidence would just look irrational; like free association or something.

Participatory realism maybe; I wouldn't assume simulation theory and then start drawing implications. It seems like predicting a unicorn's diet.

They managed to create Alpha Zero using two players and a coach. I suspect we have a similar setup and the illusion of a single mind.

I was thinking something a little more bizarre and speculative. Like, information informs space about the mass of an object or something unintelligible like that.

I selected information specifically referring to the spin of entangled particles. Is that inaccurate?

If information is lost during Hawking radiation, then it can exist apart from matter.

I kind of agree. Does it matter who asserts and who negates? Are you equating 'heap' with 'allegedly a heap' or with 'unanimously a heap'? (Or both or neither, or something else.) — bongo fury

As a little check and balance I'm trying to use answers that would hold for heap making or hole(non-specified dimensions) digging at the same time.

Well, the agent with the shovel would have to believe the heap or hole was sufficient to the context. In example, the hole big enough to contain X or grain amount by estimated volume X. The agent may or may not be working to a 2nd parties expectations. So, for the simplest heap or hole it is who controls the dimensions of the heap or hole.

When you add a second party it becomes a matter of wanting a heap or hole of relative size. I don't think it still remains a non-heap/hole if within reason. Otherwise we could debate whether it was a golf shoe should some one insist upon it; which isn't useful discourse.

Remembering to be polite to people that are doing their job. Not treating them as a means to an end. Acknowledging any service was a job and a favor in some sense.

If we assume that reality exist, we are forced to assume the existence of something opposed to reality: — Angelo

Mine are called dreams.
Number 2 seems to lack information content. 3.Generally the existence of brains is presupposed.

This means that the assumption of the existence of reality leads us to the necessary conclusion that we have no way to think about it — Angelo

Number 4 doesn't follow and is arguably being demonstrated as false by it's utterance.

If we have no way to think about reality, than it doesn’t exist — Angelo

Well we do have a way so it does by your logic.

realiability — Angelo

I didn't read past this word. The world is judgmental.

Nothing here talks about a computer that is running a simulation. Rather, it is a series of assertions that having your brain located in your skull makes the world a simulation.

Chances are not 50-50, they are 100-0. It’s a matter of consistency: we have no way to deny that we live in a simulation, because it is the result of assuming the existence of reality. — Angelo

We do not live in a simulation. Or if we do none of the stated reasons compel us to believe it. Demonstrating the use of a brain is not evidence in support of your argument. Because, it begs the question and is marginally absurd.

Do you think you can work in an extra dimension for information. It seems to travel through space faster than min. resistance can account for or faster than light.

The grain doesn't transform a non-heap into a heap. An assertion without negation does.

I don't know what you're talking about. Purposes. For your life here to have a purpose, either you or the environment in which you find yourself needed to have been created.....for a purpose. And that purpose will be the purpose of your life. Simple. — Bartricks

You couldn't pass a Turing test.

I believe in the existence of an omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent person. And that's the standard definition of God. By contrast, what you're using the word 'God' to denote is a potato. — Bartricks

My God has enormous feet. It is the definition of a "super person". It's derived from imagination.

We know one non-simulation is necessary and zero simulations are necessary. Currently I can only identify one reality. I'm going to assume it's the necessary one.

If God exists, then the purpose of our lives is easily discernible by some rational reflection. — Bartricks

The term is called making a "wild guess".

determined by what motivated your parents to create you. — Bartricks

You said rational reflection created this masterpiece? Are you the type that assembles a jig saw puzzle with a hammer? What was the worse idea that this replaced?

Them main point, however, is that you - we - don't get to determine the purpose of our lives. — Bartricks

Even if I assumed your previous statements were correct this wouldn't follow in any definitive sense.

No, I think you don't believe in God. You believe in a potato. — Bartricks

Closer to a potato than modified santa claus, but I also don't think you believe in God, because it's not what I believe in.

You mean to say, I don't believe you.

If God exists, what possible reason is there to think that this life's purpose is to, well, look at stuff or any of that other guff you mentioned? It's just silly and self-indulgent and unreflective. — Bartricks

My concept of God is better suited to the purpose I mentioned. It's something closer to integrated information theory than perhaps children's stories.

You think an all knowing, all good, all powerful person would make you languish here in ignorance if they loved you? — Bartricks

I don't think this definition is even relevant. It's a description of what a person would be as God or imagining themselves as God. It's a version for children's stories put forward.

You think a good person would subject you to a lifetime in a world like that if they were fond of you? If you were a good, innocent person that they loved??? Blimey!! How deluded are you? — Bartricks

It's another example as "person god"; I don't think it is the way things are so I don't have to consider the conflict you seem to be concerned about.