That's essential, now consider nobody has this knowledge except you, it's secret, how would you use it to your advantage? — SpaceDweller

You mean I play the devil? Should I make others know? Eeeeehhh.... if I were the only one knowing it, as God had in mind that only He should know this, I would make everybody know, if I were the devil. To spread the evil, as I love (being the devil) evil. But I would at the same time give the knowledge of good. As the devil, I would make people human!

But what is your approach to discover what that is? — SpaceDweller

I don't have an approach to discover what that is. I asked why you claim that there wasn't science in the time it was written.

What if our experience in life were a simulation and not reality directly, but reality is 100% identical to the simulation. When we interact with the simulation it has the same effects on reality — TiredThinker

This presupposes that you, body and brain, are not simulated. And in there lies the impossibility.

The lounge area?

In time when this story was written there was no science — SpaceDweller

There was a whole lot of knowledge! That's what science is about: knowledge. How else were houses built, roads constructed, or wine be packed?

What you ask requires theology. — SpaceDweller

Then this whole thread is useless.

I see, but we are here talking about specific God, God in the garden of Eden is Abrahamic God which has all the properties that wiki defines. — SpaceDweller

The God that Wikipedia defines? How ever can you define God? That's blasphemy. If Wiki means that almighty, all-knowing, only-doing-good God, then the picture is a truly disturbed one. Keeping out of touch with human reality infinitely. Although it gives a certain sense of feeling protected. Nevertheless, it's an inhuman God. If he could do anything he wants, who knows what terrible things can happen? In the name of his absolute knowledge of the good. If he was omnipotent, why he couldn't he have prevented an angel from falling? It should be possible, if he knows everything.

However, a philosophical discussion is supposed to accept each postulated opinon as fodder for rational discourse. — Gnomon

:100:

The notion of 'God' has already flunked out due to the impossibility of a composite being First and Fundamental. Not even the tiny proton could be Fundamental because its parts would have to be more so. — PoeticUniverse

Hey! There you are again! What happened to the poems you posted in a thread about philosophical poems? Why did you delete it? :sad:

Why has that notion of God flunked out. Can't there be an eternal first and Fundamental divine world? Why not? All properties of our observable (and non-observable) universe can be projected on them. You might ask, then what's the sense in creating a similar universe?

I'm very, very, very pessimistic. The modern political system is mainly a free market defending, capitalistic, technocratic, science-based, production and consumption directed, working-ethos-promoting, programming, nature- confining and-fencing, normalizing, weaponizing, law-constructing institute, with global panoptic aspirations, with secondary attention for Nature. Nature already shows the first signs of fighting back and She will one day roar and tremble, to shed people off Her once furry skin, that people have managed to turn from an enjoyable colorfull, varied, vivid and friendly look into a scarred, pale, bleeding, hair-deprived, flattened, concrete-beaten, artificial, linear, smoking structure, by means of superstores, super fires, and Earth quakes, in an apocalyptic event of which we can't even imagine the powers of destruction at work. Then it will be silent, and Nature will be so kind to give us a second chance. I hope they will have learned by then.

In the lab, experimental computers programmed to evolve on their own — Enrique

Doesn't there lurk a contradiction here? How can something evolve on its own, while being programmed?

have spontaneously adapted connections between logic gates that are mediated by supervening electromagnetic fields. — Enrique

What are supervening EM fields? I mean, what are their origins? If they, instead of the wiring, are the cause of circuitry change, what is the material motor that drives?

Is the same going on in the brain, according to CEMI? If so, then what is the material generator that gives rise to the EM fields that drive neuronal circuitry change?

I think a field is too symmetrical a phenomenon whereas consc. Is more asymmetric. — Varde

A real or virtual photon field can be as asymmetrical as the matter that produces them.

Philosophy and religion have combined origins, — Jack Cummins

What are the combined origins? What are the origins and how are they combined? Common origins maybe?

Nirvana is the exact opposite from a divine being, blessed with an absolute omnipotence, omnisapiency, and omnimorality. It's an absolute state of omni-absency, total absolute nothingness.

Nirvana is an endless dreamless sleep.

Yes, but that doesn't mean that God lacks the ability to cease to exist, for he can cease to be perfect whenever he wants. — Bartricks

If God doesn't lack the ability to cease to exist, and in his infinite wisdom decides it's better not to exist anymore, then he won't be OO&O anymore. He will have returned to absolute divine infinite nothingness. From which there is no escape. Or is there? From his Omnipotence we can conclude this he can do, including his Omnisapience. From the perspective of his omnibenevolence it's completely understandable: to free humanity from his evil presence.

, if a politician says he/she upholds "family values", then that's an excuse to not do anything for anybody in terms of implementing laws that could help people in need. Why? Because they have a family to support them. — Manuel

Exactly! All that talk about family values offers a neat way out of values that are non-value-like. The anti-family values are shunt from law implementation and law-making. Having consequences for the people who don't give a shit about family-values. Making society family-racist, so to speak. Same holds for the so popular free-market values. There is nowadays no escape from advertisement. The gathering of money and goods has never been so popular, and while one person wallows in billions of dollars, drinking from golden taps and letting his jet fly him automatically around the globe, others look for a place to sleep and a meal to eat. But hey, it's a free market...

It seems to me, it is more useful to know how to navigate the emotional spectrum than understanding the purpose of thought.
3d — TheQuestion

Knowing how to navigate is not part of the intelligence measured in the IQ. In measuring IQ, a certain kind of knowledge is measured. Knowledge that is useless in daily life. The subject is kindly invited to solve abstract problems in a context of temporal pressure. Numbers are assigned to succeeding or not within a window of time. If one doesn't like the pressure of time (as there also is when an exam is taken, giving pupils the nerves and a hindrance of their intelligence, and afterwards the result of the exam is considered a measure of their knowledge, showing a creepy importance of facts and figures), the intelligence is already influenced, and the speed with one solves abstract formal knowledge (like the famous finding of the age of Diophantus, or solving a geometrical fit problem), which anyone can solve, if they were interested and given enough time. In daily life one is helpless with such knowledge, which is useful only in reality-detached institutions like universities or labs, in which even money is to be made and a Scala of scientific money prizes is to be found, and the amounts of money are amazing truly! So, for money the IQ could be useful. But normally, a groundbreaking money-winning scientific breakthrough involves creativity.

Same for IQ.

I'll just provide my usual commentary on your theories about consciousness and then leave you alone. CEMI is an unsupported, far-fetched theory of the origins of consciousness. As far as I can tell "coherence field theory" is just another name for your attempts to use the so-called "weirdness" of quantum mechanics to explain consciousness with no scientific basis. This is not science, it's pseudo-science. — T Clark

Science and pseudo-science are part of one and the same body: science. Calling something "pseudo", also in science, bears witness to a conformation to the standard. If you actually knew science, instead of following the gossip spread, like the gossip that calls this theory "pseudo" science, you would see it tries to approach consciousness indeed on basis of QM, but without you having actual knowledge of QM. I think it's this lack of knowledge that makes you say it's pseudo. And even if it was pseudo, then what? The pseudo of today is the standard tomorrow. The theory in the thread is one of the scientific theories among many. Calling it pseudo already at the start, without having looked in it (and I'm sure you haven't and are ignorant about its ingredients), only goes to show that you repeat gossip like a parrot, following the so-called expert opinion. Trying to beat it already at the start on the base of irrational underbelly feelings. So take your pick. Either shut up, or engage. I think the last is hard for you. Remains the former. Luckily you said to leave the @Enrique alone. I'm not sure what your motivation was to even comment. Besides providing an irrational and non-constructive commentary/critique. But if you wanna do so, who am I to stop you?

No. It has to do with an economic system dating back to the late 70's in which economic policies were forced down people's throat under the guise of freedom, etc. And much more, long story. — Manuel

Ah yes. It still happens today. In an increasingly wicked and thought-through fashion. For example, there are many advertisements in which "individuality" is pushed upon. I'm not sure if you point at advertisement, or commercials (both part of an economy based on endless inflating production and consumption of the products) but I think I get your message. Advertisements claiming that that all we see is constructed by us, directing away our attention from Nature. Commerce in the service of a system that assigns us an individuality, while in fact it makes people more unified than ever. In the name of personal freedom and individuality.

I thought more physicists would be present here. It's kinda frustrating.

In order to discuss God's existence you need to agree on some of its traits. — Cidat

Indeed. I don't think, as is here assumed, and more general in the Bible, Tora, and Khoran, that God is infinite in all three qualities, power, knowledge, and Goodness. Giving rise to a kind of disturbing picture.

Ah:

Orchestrated objective reduction (Orch OR) is a controversial hypothesis that postulates that consciousness originates at the quantum level inside neurons, rather than the conventional view that it is a product of connections between neurons.


Even deeper,: the mental stuff is the charge of matter. The Orch-or says what every materialist says. That it arises from a material proces, in the neurons. In a sense the are right. The material processes are complicated but they are not the reason for "the mental". They merely offer the mental structures to develop in.

The idea of the family used as excuse for implementing market discipline kind-of thing? — Manuel

Do you mean the pictures of family happiness in advertising?

, I still maintain that ["physical" = "material"] ≠ "real". There exist real things which are immaterial, and which are material to our discussion for their being real. :grin: — Michael Zwingli

The real material we are talking here consists of the immaterial content of matter and the potentiality of the mediating fields, which contains no charge (though in the color charge domain, the mediating potential, the gluons can itself contain charge, so mental and matter are one at the base level of physics), as photons are charge neutral, not possessing it.

There exist real things which are immaterial, and which are material to our discussion for their being real. :grin: — Michael Zwingli

That's exactly what I think. This immaterial stuff resides inside of matter. It's it charge, of which physicists, like myself have absolutely exactly and positively zero understanding. No physicist can explain to you what electric charge or hyper color charge is. You can say that it's a vibration of strings, of closed ones (gravity and mass) or open ones (the other 3 forces and 7 charges) in an abstract 6D Calabi-Yau manifold (by string physicists wrongly claimed as a curled up extension of the wide 3d space). Or however, but you will always shift the question. Concluding that basically it's immaterial. Charge settles on the inner. A kind of duality indeed. But hey, aren't there two realities? A mental one and a physical one? United by means of our bodies? The last beings basically our identity?

Haha, this may be above my pay grade. — Michael Zwingli

Don't laugh! I'm serious...

:smile:

. I would argue that both science and logic can and do ‘prove’ gods existence. — Robbie84

Prove in what sense? Don't you think the very existence of existence is proof?

As for a photon, it is a quantum of electromagnetic energy which may be, and is useful to physicists when considered as a particle, but is in actuality not a particle of matter. A photon has no "rest mass". — Michael Zwingli

A photon is pure potential energy. It has no mass indeed, but so can matter particles, possessing real non-potential energy. That is, kinetic energy. Realized by the potency of the photon.

I mean virtual in the sense of opposite to real particles. Real particles have a fixed energy momentum relation, as in classical mechanics Virtual particles lack this property. Giving rise to the strangeness of QM. In a sense all particles are virtual, hence real.

Suppose there was a girl, just one. And nobody else. — Benj96

This is not a supposition. It's a true fact in my world.

How can one possibly know how long the vaccination offers reasonable protection? The pharmaceutical companies will offer certainly a highly biased timespan. In favor of a higher production of the vaccine. So-called Independent institutions of knowledge have no clue yet.

Existent, but surely not physical. — Michael Zwingli

I can hold a bottle of photons in front of you, or a magnet. Force fields are virtual particle fields. Though virtual, very real. A photon is a real manifestation of its virtual vacuum state. A real charged particle is surrounded by a virtual cloud of force mediating particles (don't confuse virtual with non-real though). These virtual surrounding fields can get real when real charged particles interact with other charges particles. Like real photons.

Anima et materia
Sunt magnopere ab invicem
Anima in materia
Refert circa animam
Et donum divinum
Ultimum dualitatem
Subridens corpus tertium

Sancta Trinitas

Physics deals with force and energy as well as matter, and these are non-physical, yet assumed by physicists to exist. — Michael Zwingli

Matter, force, and energy non-physical? They are as physical as it can get! And existent.

Illusions are errors in consciousness. Only a sentient being capable of judgement can be subject to them. — Wayfarer

So if I hear a piece of music and my consciousness errs, the music is an illusion only? I consider the music very real! Maybe the physical part of the music can be wrongly interpreted, that's true. It is an illusion that the sound pattern is an infinite sum of mutually orthonormal cosine waves. As a member of mankind, a sentient being, I can indeed judge if my interpretation errs.

In philosophy, there's no way around reading, and reading a lot. — baker

This assumes that practicing philosophy must include written words. Which doesn't have to be the case. In an oral culture, you can still practice philosophy. By means of talking with one another, which is more or less done here too. And in an abstract sense, by reading a philosophical book you talk in a one-way direction with the author. And this talk is rather fixed, though of course interpretable in more than one way. You get subjected to philosophical frameworks, of which it's the question if your interpretation resides in the frame as thought by the writer. You cannot ask the writer questions, a necessary ingredient of philosophy as I see it. A good philosophical book must not explain a worldview, but instead must be used to free us from the tyranny of Truth. Of course you can also philosophize within a worldview itself, as western philosophy does within the frame of science. Once, in old Greece, philosophy, science, and math formed a smooth whole. Nowadays, these three are artificially separated and it happens frequently that people are redirected to one of the other two fields. I experienced that after I asked a question about the memory (on this forum, a few days ago). It was suggested this was not the place to ask. Because neuroscience, cognitive science, etc. must be addressed to understand memory. Even if so, why not bring it up? Anyhow, reading can do good as well as bad, like people can be both. It's not obliged though and in a world without books philosophy is possible.

There now arises a new danger. The non-vaxed are shunt from places where everyone is vaxed. So the vaccination didn't work at all? At least, so it feels. Even when vaccinated, the values live in fear. And of course, fear is good. For money making (more vaccins to be sold, the third world still not having enough of them, while here people are injected a third shot) and in politics. It's fear that makes values yearn for laws to make vaccines obliged. Unnecessary, almost manic fear for viral intrusion, used by the manufactors of that indirect anti-viral stuff to make sales go up. Big money rules again. Imagine: a vaccinated man asked me to keep distance!

It's so easy: the problem is for the wrong reasons called hard. It assumes consciousness can be translated into a theoretical framework. In the materialistic framework it's obviously called an illusion, to mapped one to one to supercomplex matter evolutions. I, on the other hand, assign a real existing content to matter, call it physical charge, like the electric and color charges. ust as abstract, but more in touch with reality. From whatever perspective, it doesn't take away the conscious experience itself. Which is divine.

Neither science, nor logic, can disprove God. Though you can make a study of His qualities and even apply logic to him. God can be very logical. Hawking even said He is a mathematician. I think one of them indeed has mathematical powers, but a lot stronger ones than us, simple mortals. To disprove the gods is to deny their existence.

EM field fluctuations are virtual photons. IMAGE these fields that take care of interactions between charged particles. But there have to be charged particles first to create them. There are no pure photon field fluctuations in an empty space, without real particles. Only those generated by virtual particle pairs. These are the cause for the collapse of eigenstates in for example the eigenstatess of the electron around the proton (which you would expect the field of the proton to be but this isn't). If the coherent state is an eigenstate, and there are lower energy eigenstates to collapse into, then the same fluctuations can induce such a transition, such a "collapse" (which is not a real collapse in the sense that a superposition is destroyed). The superposition (which is what coherence is about) of the state itself cannot be destroyed. This can only be achieved by a measurement of the state, which is nothing more than an interaction of the state with real particles (calling this a measurement stems from the old days of QM when it was stupidly though that only measurements truly made by conscious human beings could due the trick; how pretentious!).

WTF are Orch-or and CEMI? Two friends who must throw a ring into the vulcano of eternal doom?