Please rebut this post

[James Hodge]

 Hi, I will try to lay out my understanding as simply as I can and I want someone to convince me I am barking up the wrong tree. Okay, so this thing called God is omniscient omnipresent, everlasting and infinite right? I mean theoretically.So then it must be everywhere at once. So it is All That Is, by definition. Okay, so we know that God is  All That Is, by definition. Now the question cannot be; "does All That Is exist?" but rather, should it start with capitals? I mean is it conscious and self aware? Now I could say the fact that All that is contains self aware individuals shows that All That Is must be somewhat conscious but this might be seen as somewhat of a tautology.Yet, however, Young's double slit experiment shows that particles of light are collapsed from waves to particles by consciousness and this experiment has been replicated with particles as large as Carbon60 molecules. So we know that even tiny, insignificant particles react to conscious human awareness. So this proves that all things are linked by some non physical force called consciousnes...So All That Is has conscious self awareness.

[James Hodge]

 Oh and I forgot, God is all powerful too. So something that is omnipresent and all powerfull must be everything. If you are inside every atomic particle and can manipulate said atomic particle at will then you are truly everything in the truest sense. God is All That Is and All That Is has self aware consciuosness.

[Libertus]

Hi, I will try to lay out my understanding as simply as I can and I want someone to convince me I am barking up the wrong tree. Okay, so this thing called God is omniscient omnipresent, everlasting and infinite right?

That doesn't make any sense to me, as I don't believe in a god. It's like saying, "Unicorns have horseshoes, right?" How / why / what are you talking about? Everything that you were saying after that is meaningless to me, too. They are unfalsifiable claims about concepts, ideas in your head. You're basically just rambling, halucinating, like a man in a delirium. There is no tree.

Yet, however, Young's double slit experiment shows that particles of light are collapsed from waves to particles by consciousness and this experiment has been replicated with particles as large as Carbon60 molecules. So we know that even tiny, insignificant particles react to conscious human awareness. So this proves that all things are linked by some non physical force called consciousnes...So All That Is has conscious self awareness.

I don't believe Young's experiment is in any way related to these ramblings. I'm by no means a scientist, but I have searched the Wikipedia page for words like "conscious" and "aware" and found nothing. So I highly suspect that this is another case of fallacy from quantum physics:

Using quantum physics in
an attempt to support your claim, when in no way is your claim related
to quantum physics.

 [...]

The mysterious nature of quantum physics is a breeding
ground for superstition, religious claims, “proof” of God, universal
consciousness, and many other unfalsifiable claims.

[Rick Horton]

 

 Hi, I will try to lay out my understanding as simply as I can and I want someone to convince me I am barking up the wrong tree. Okay, so this thing called God is omniscient omnipresent, everlasting and infinite right? I mean theoretically.So then it must be everywhere at once. So it is All That Is, by definition. Okay, so we know that God is  All That Is, by definition. Now the question cannot be; "does All That Is exist?" but rather, should it start with capitals? I mean is it conscious and self aware? Now I could say the fact that All that is contains self aware individuals shows that All That Is must be somewhat conscious but this might be seen as somewhat of a tautology.Yet, however, Young's double slit experiment shows that particles of light are collapsed from waves to particles by consciousness and this experiment has been replicated with particles as large as Carbon60 molecules. So we know that even tiny, insignificant particles react to conscious human awareness. So this proves that all things are linked by some non physical force called consciousnes...So All That Is has conscious self awareness.

 

You've made very astute and interesting points. If all that is "is" God, and has consciousness, and control, then all that is contains God's presense. 

I think there are a few passages in the Bible that even refer to your point, which even strengthens your perspective. I mean it's eloquent as an explanation and (I wish I could remember those passages. I'll try and find them) it is really powerful in what the meaning is. I'm not going to rebut it since I quite like where you've gone so far, so I'll just keep watching the thread unfold. However, if God is in everything I want to look at everything. The nature of God can be seen that way, at least on the scale we can possibly know him by. So my tentative conclusion would be that since we can see the nature of "God" by evaluating nature, we can tell that God is probably very into competition and not so into equality.

[RestoringGuy]

 

Yet, however, Young's double slit experiment shows that particles of light are collapsed from waves to particles by consciousness and this experiment has been replicated with particles as large as Carbon60 molecules. So we know that even tiny, insignificant particles react to conscious human awareness. So this proves that all things are linked by some non physical force called consciousnes...So All That Is has conscious self awareness.

I don't believe Young's experiment is in any way related to these ramblings. I'm by no means a scientist, but I have searched the Wikipedia page for words like "conscious" and "aware" and found nothing. So I highly suspect that this is another case of fallacy from quantum physics:

 

I accept the "objective reduction" theory, which says there is interaction with the environment (usually by way of gravity) that forces the wavefunction to collapse.  Consciousness has never been shown to be necessary for wavefunction collapse, although I don't deny that consciousness is related to quantum mechanics in the same way nearly all chaotic phenomena are sensitive to it.  But just from a gut level, it seems strange to me that some physicists will accept that gravity connects every particle to every other particle, but at the same time they believe some particles are isolated enough that they can pretend to be unaffected until the trajectory is examined twelve minutes later by some dude glancing at a computer printout.

 

[Rick Horton]

 

 

I accept the "objective reduction" theory, which says there is interaction with the environment (usually by way of gravity) that forces the wavefunction to collapse.  Consciousness has never been shown to be necessary for wavefunction collapse, although I don't deny that consciousness is related to quantum mechanics in the same way nearly all chaotic phenomena are sensitive to it.  But just from a gut level, it seems strange to me that some physicists will accept that gravity connects every particle to every other particle, but at the same time they believe some particles are isolated enough that they can pretend to be unaffected until the trajectory is examined twelve minutes later by some dude glancing at a computer printout.

 

Can you clarify your position?

[James Hodge]

 No I am not saying that unicorns have horseshoes. I am saying that All That Is exists and therefore God does as they are exactly the same thing. When people refer to God, they refer, really, to all that is, not a unicorn. Now accusing me of rambling is hardly a way to win the conversation. Surely if I am making no sense you can just show I am rambling by proving the silliness of my statement. People may as well say, All That Is... is just, is true is awesome. That is what they mean when they say God. On the second point, "I don't believe Young's experiment is in any way related to these ramblings." well your belief has nothing to do with anything. Young's double slit experiment shows the conscious link between matter, that is to say, al that is, or what people refer to as God. Once again your beliefs have nout to do with shit.

[James Hodge]

 

No I am not saying that unicorns have horseshoes. I am saying that All That Is exists and therefore God does as they are exactly the same thing. When people refer to God, they refer, really, to all that is, not a unicorn. Now accusing me of rambling is hardly a way to win the conversation. Surely if I am making no sense you can just show I am rambling by proving the silliness of my statement. People may as well say, All That Is... is just, is true is awesome. That is what they mean when they say God. On the second point, "I don't believe Young's experiment is in any way related to these ramblings." well your belief has nothing to do with anything. Young's double slit experiment shows the conscious link between matter, that is to say, al that is, or what people refer to as God. Once again your beliefs have nout to do with shit.

[Muninn]

Is there any reason why you are choosing that particular interpretation of quantum physics/double slit experiment?  A couple years back I was VERY interested in quantum physics and read almost every science magazine article and physics book for the layman at the local library. One interesting things I found was the difference of opinion between physicists, many of whom would argue that the interpretation that you seem to be speaking about is an unnecessary conflation of the map (calculations of probability) and the terrain.

[Muninn]

((I'm sure it would have been fine, but I should point out that my question was to James Hodge))

[James Hodge]

 

Is there any reason why you are choosing that particular interpretation of quantum physics/double slit experiment?  A couple years back I was VERY interested in quantum physics and read almost every science magazine article and physics book for the layman at the local library. One interesting things I found was the difference of opinion between physicists, many of whom would argue that the interpretation that you seem to be speaking about is an unnecessary conflation of the map (calculations of probability) and the terrain.

 

Yes I am trying to get to grips with the format here too. What is the alternative interpretation exactly? As I understand it, the act of observation causes a wave of probability to collapse into a particle of actuation.But if this is not true, tell me. I must admit, my first understanding of this experiment came from the 'dr quantum' you tube video! But as Stef has said, if there are any double blind, repeatable studies showing non physical force, let me know. As I understand, the act of observation is not physically altering or affecting the wave, but yet it collapses to a particle simply through the act of being observed. I have heard this experiment quoted many times with this understanding and have never heard any alternative interpretation but I am all ears.

[Libertus]

No I am not saying that unicorns have horseshoes.

You conveniently forgot that I quoted the exact sentence I was referring to. So here it is AGAIN.

Okay, so this thing called God is omniscient omnipresent, everlasting and infinite right?

This sentence has exactly the same structure as saying "unicorns have horseshoes", that is: "Halucination / concept A has property x". So don't tell me that is not what you were doing.

I am saying that All That Is exists and therefore God does as they are exactly the same thing.

Non-sense.

When people refer to God, they refer, really, to all that is, not a unicorn.

Non-sense. "All that is" is nothing but a bunch of stuff. You're not making statements about the outside world by giving it the name "God", but describing your inside world. This is about YOUR state of mind and nothing else. You're basically saying "help! I'm going insane!"

Now accusing me of rambling is hardly a way to win the conversation.

There is no way any of us can 'win the conversation', whatever that means, because you're not making a falsifiable statement. You're rambling. That means, I can't win anything, and neither can you.

On the second point, "I don't believe Young's experiment is in any way related to these ramblings." well your belief has nothing to do with anything. Young's double slit experiment shows the conscious link between matter, that is to say, al that is, or what people refer to as God. Once again your beliefs have nout to do with shit.

This is not about my beliefs, you're right about that. That's why I have uttered no belief of mine, you're the one spouting things he 'believes'. I was trying to explain to you the obvious logical fallacy you were committing: applying the principles of quantum theory in a context outside of quantum theory. That is what you were doing, and you don't seem to understand why that even is considered a fallacy. It is a VERY common error in religious and theist reasoning, and it has been pointed out since quantum theory has first been published. Yet people still fall for it, including you. You can choose to keep arguing the points I am making, or not. Your call. But don't forget, it was you who posted a question, I answered it to the best of my knowledge and ability. You basically begged me to rebut this post (headline: 'please'). Never forget that. I'm here on your call.

[RestoringGuy]

 

 

 

I accept the "objective reduction" theory, which says there is interaction with the environment (usually by way of gravity) that forces the wavefunction to collapse.  Consciousness has never been shown to be necessary for wavefunction collapse, although I don't deny that consciousness is related to quantum mechanics in the same way nearly all chaotic phenomena are sensitive to it.  But just from a gut level, it seems strange to me that some physicists will accept that gravity connects every particle to every other particle, but at the same time they believe some particles are isolated enough that they can pretend to be unaffected until the trajectory is examined twelve minutes later by some dude glancing at a computer printout.

 

Can you clarify your position?

 

The theory of Objective Reduction is described at:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orchestrated_objective_reduction

To my knowledge, it is the only theory that holds that wavefunctions collapse objectively and holds that consciousness (free will) is not dependent on algorithms (classical physical determinism).  I find it compelling because it avoids the logical paradoxes of the determinists, while at the same time refuting the crackpot quantum spoonbenders.

 

[eldudethedude]

The only reasoning that matters is this:

Does YOUR god word resolve to a concept or object? 

If YOUR god has form, then he's an object. Proceed to illustrate YOUR god and show us YOUR theory about how He created the Universe... or whatever.

If YOUR god does not have form/structure, then he's a concept. Then your god doesn't exist by definition. 

Only physical objects exist. So that's it, after answering that we're done. 

[Mister Mister]

    God etymologically means "one who is invoked or implored". Theological positions like Deism or Pantheism (which you are arguing I believe)  or Panentheism generally don't accept the idea of deity whose curry we can favor to get the benefit of his/her/its power in our lives.  If you are rejecting this concept, then I suggest that we leave behind the word God in favor of the word Universe - feel free to suggest an alternative.

"All that is is just a bunch of stuff" don't you think it's a little intellectually arrogant to assume you can dismissively describe the Universe as if the book is closed on what is and isn't? Isn't it interesting that some of that "stuff" is organized into a complex thinking organism, typing on a computer and describing itself?

    Universe is by definition All that Is (so please don't talk to me about multiple universes).  So the question you are posing is "Is the Universe conscious/self-aware/alive?".  I might rephrase this "Is there a Conscious/Creative process involved in the organization of matter?"  How would we go about proving/disproving or exploring this idea?  First we'd need to define consciousness/life which has been difficult for science and philosophy.

  I don't think quantum physics is very helpful, there are some interesting experiments of very small phenomena, some equations which describe/predict these measurements, and a WHOLE bunch of bizarre and illogical interpretations.  It is only useful I think in showing that seemingly solid matter is not so easy to define.  The atomist reductionist viewpoint has gotten so ridiculous that scientists are now spending billions of dollars of (government) money and sapping the power from half of Europe to generate a contained nuclear explosion, have computers measure it, in the hopes of discovering the "fundamental building block of matter" or "God particle".

  But the real interesting question for me is how do we account for the self-organization and seeming negative entropy we see in matter at all scales?  What is the source of motion/matter/energy?  I'm interested in approaching these questions from a humble perspective, and not dismissive and meaningless answers like God or the Big Bang.

[James Hodge]

 

No I am not saying that unicorns have horseshoes.

You conveniently forgot that I quoted the exact sentence I was referring to. So here it is AGAIN.

Okay, so this thing called God is omniscient omnipresent, everlasting and infinite right?

This sentence has exactly the same structure as saying "unicorns have horseshoes", that is: "Halucination / concept A has property x". So don't tell me that is not what you were doing.

I am saying that All That Is exists and therefore God does as they are exactly the same thing.

Non-sense.

When people refer to God, they refer, really, to all that is, not a unicorn.

Non-sense. "All that is" is nothing but a bunch of stuff. You're not making statements about the outside world by giving it the name "God", but describing your inside world. This is about YOUR state of mind and nothing else. You're basically saying "help! I'm going insane!"

Now accusing me of rambling is hardly a way to win the conversation.

There is no way any of us can 'win the conversation', whatever that means, because you're not making a falsifiable statement. You're rambling. That means, I can't win anything, and neither can you.

On the second point, "I don't believe Young's experiment is in any way related to these ramblings." well your belief has nothing to do with anything. Young's double slit experiment shows the conscious link between matter, that is to say, al that is, or what people refer to as God. Once again your beliefs have nout to do with shit.

This is not about my beliefs, you're right about that. That's why I have uttered no belief of mine, you're the one spouting things he 'believes'. I was trying to explain to you the obvious logical fallacy you were committing: applying the principles of quantum theory in a context outside of quantum theory. That is what you were doing, and you don't seem to understand why that even is considered a fallacy. It is a VERY common error in religious and theist reasoning, and it has been pointed out since quantum theory has first been published. Yet people still fall for it, including you. You can choose to keep arguing the points I am making, or not. Your call. But don't forget, it was you who posted a question, I answered it to the best of my knowledge and ability. You basically begged me to rebut this post (headline: 'please'). Never forget that. I'm here on your call.

 

I was asking if the concept of God was omniscient etc, not really stating that God is omniscient, that's why my next sentence was "I mean theoretically" to drive home the fact that I was asking about the concept of God.I don't see how people's concept of God being equal to those same peoples concept of 'all that is' is nonsense, it's a fact. Most people, when they say God, really mean 'all that is'. It's true. I don't feel insane, and I'm not trying to make a statement about the outside world or my world. I am laying down my understanding, flawed as it may be. Once again, I am trying not to ramble as this seems so very simple to me. I am not spouting things 'I believe', this is simply the way I understand things. Okay once again with the quantum thing, I was trying to point out that there are repeatable experiments to show that all matter is conscious to some degree as electrons, photons and even carbon60 molecules react to observation as if they know that they are being watched. It is not quatum theory, it's a damn experiment. I don't see why you are so vitriolic and condescending. Thankyou, I appreciate your time and effort to rebut this post.

[James Hodge]

 

The only reasoning that matters is this:

Does YOUR god word resolve to a concept or object? 

If YOUR god has form, then he's an object. Proceed to illustrate YOUR god and show us YOUR theory about how He created the Universe... or whatever.

If YOUR god does not have form/structure, then he's a concept. Then your god doesn't exist by definition. 

Only physical objects exist. So that's it, after answering that we're done. 

 

Thank you, I think this is the best and most cogent answer I have had so far. I would have to reply, an infinite object. Okay well I would say that God/All That Is did not create the uinverse, but that this universe is part of all that is. All that is has always existed and always will. I think "all that is" is an infinite object of which you are part, as am I. In fact All That Is would not be complete without you.

[James Hodge]

 

    God etymologically means "one who is invoked or implored". Theological positions like Deism or Pantheism (which you are arguing I believe)  or Panentheism generally don't accept the idea of deity whose curry we can favor to get the benefit of his/her/its power in our lives.  If you are rejecting this concept, then I suggest that we leave behind the word God in favor of the word Universe - feel free to suggest an alternative.

"All that is is just a bunch of stuff" don't you think it's a little intellectually arrogant to assume you can dismissively describe the Universe as if the book is closed on what is and isn't? Isn't it interesting that some of that "stuff" is organized into a complex thinking organism, typing on a computer and describing itself?

    Universe is by definition All that Is (so please don't talk to me about multiple universes).  So the question you are posing is "Is the Universe conscious/self-aware/alive?".  I might rephrase this "Is there a Conscious/Creative process involved in the organization of matter?"  How would we go about proving/disproving or exploring this idea?  First we'd need to define consciousness/life which has been difficult for science and philosophy.

  I don't think quantum physics is very helpful, there are some interesting experiments of very small phenomena, some equations which describe/predict these measurements, and a WHOLE bunch of bizarre and illogical interpretations.  It is only useful I think in showing that seemingly solid matter is not so easy to define.  The atomist reductionist viewpoint has gotten so ridiculous that scientists are now spending billions of dollars of (government) money and sapping the power from half of Europe to generate a contained nuclear explosion, have computers measure it, in the hopes of discovering the "fundamental building block of matter" or "God particle".

  But the real interesting question for me is how do we account for the self-organization and seeming negative entropy we see in matter at all scales?  What is the source of motion/matter/energy?  I'm interested in approaching these questions from a humble perspective, and not dismissive and meaningless answers like God or the Big Bang.

 

Brilliant, you got me, I agree 'Universe' is a more appropriate term than God. I can agree to leave quantum physics alone as I was really refering to a fascinating experiment rather than quantum theory which I agree can be a rabbit warren. I basically agree with your post. Thanks, I think i will avoid the term God as it seems to have too many conotations of old men in the sky and unicorns. As far as I understand the source of matter/motion/energy is consciousness or thought. I don't know how to prove this and have no evidence but it just seems like the only thing that can transition between physical and non physical.

[RestoringGuy]

 

As far as I understand the source of matter/motion/energy is consciousness or thought. I don't know how to prove this and have no evidence but it just seems like the only thing that can transition between physical and non physical.

 

I think we objectively transition between physical and nonphysical all the time.   If I touch a rock and you touch the same rock, we are contacting the same object.  Physicality is present and the only way we can know about the "same" rock.  Mathematics provides another method of contact.  A theorem can be proven independently by two people.  They each contact the same "object".  Now the mathematical objects are not things we can touch.  But they exist because the patterns we see in our minds can be reproduced just as scientific experiments can be reproduced.  It is never the case that some mathematician wakes up and finds the Pythagorean Theorem to suddenly be false.  But things like unicorns and gods depend on our imagination -- they are mentally optional and manifest themselves physically on insofar as people act on their belief.  By contact with mathematics I am saying we and whomever else in the universe who stumbles across the same mathematical objects and proofs are transitioning between something physical and nonphysical.  Otherwise if mathematics is "purely mental" and conjured up by the mathematician, we would have a hard time explaining how such mental patterns travel the first time a proof is done.

 

[TheRobin]

just to rebut the quantum argument: You're using the words "observed" and "watched" in an ambiguous manner here. When you talk of watching something that invovles consciousness and most importantly our eyes. When you talk about qunatum stuff, our conciousness has nothing to do with it (you can't see these particles or moelcules with your eyes, just to point out the obvious here). What is being observed is a machine designed to measure these particles, not the particles. So consciousness has nothing to do with it. Especially when you consider, that people will look at the results (i.e. where conciousness comes into play) after the particle has already behaved the way it did.And to say that therefore "all matter is conscious to some degree" is even more fallacious, as there's no way of measuring conciousness, so that's by definition not a verifiable hypothesis. (Unless you know of a way to measure whether something is conscious or not)

[fingolfin]

 

 

The only reasoning that matters is this:

Does YOUR god word resolve to a concept or object? 

If YOUR god has form, then he's an object. Proceed to illustrate YOUR god and show us YOUR theory about how He created the Universe... or whatever.

If YOUR god does not have form/structure, then he's a concept. Then your god doesn't exist by definition. 

Only physical objects exist. So that's it, after answering that we're done. 

 

Thank you, I think this is the best and most cogent answer I have had so far. I would have to reply, an infinite object. Okay well I would say that God/All That Is did not create the uinverse, but that this universe is part of all that is. All that is has always existed and always will. I think "all that is" is an infinite object of which you are part, as am I. In fact All That Is would not be complete without you.

 

Ah, but you see you can't modify the noun of reality (i.e. physical object) with an irrational adjective "infinity". Objects are bounded ("finite") by nature i.e. by definition. All objects have a border, a contour against the background; shape is conceptually surrounded by space/nothing. You have to have spatial separation to conceive of any object. Even a lone object in the entire Universe is still bordered by space, regardless of "size", which is relative to other objects anyway. We can always "zoom out" in our Mind's Eye and realize the object is still limited by the prison of space.

An infinite object, although grammatically and contextually impossible, would mean something like one continuous block of matter, with no gaps or spaces. So no–thing could move. You couldn't do anything with this giant single megabloc! 

Infinite itself is an irrational adjective but I won't go into that here. So if your god is an object, the next challenge is to go about using him/it in a theory. E.g. how god created the universe in zero-time.

 

[fingolfin]

 

 

You basically begged me to rebut this post (headline: 'please'). Never forget that. I'm here on your call.

 

This isn't productive or relevant though. Just make the arguments. Colour them up with fluff if you like (I don't mind sarcasm or insults personally), but don't use all fluff and no arguments! All honest questions should be encouraged.

[LovePrevails]

 

 Hi, I will try to lay out my understanding as simply as I can and I want someone to convince me I am barking up the wrong tree. Okay, so this thing called God is omniscient omnipresent, everlasting and infinite right? I mean theoretically.So then it must be everywhere at once. So it is All That Is, by definition. Okay, so we know that God is  All That Is, by definition. Now the question cannot be; "does All That Is exist?" but rather, should it start with capitals? I mean is it conscious and self aware? Now I could say the fact that All that is contains self aware individuals shows that All That Is must be somewhat conscious but this might be seen as somewhat of a tautology.Yet, however, Young's double slit experiment shows that particles of light are collapsed from waves to particles by consciousness and this experiment has been replicated with particles as large as Carbon60 molecules. So we know that even tiny, insignificant particles react to conscious human awareness. So this proves that all things are linked by some non physical force called consciousnes...So All That Is has conscious self awareness.

 

This is a logical fallacy called a "scope shift"

A tree is made up of a bunch of cells

therefor a bunch of cells are a tree and all a tree is is a bunch of cells

well no, a tree has emergeant qualities over and above what a bunch of cells do

and a bunch of cells could just as easily not constitute a tree

 

I don't know if I could articulate this well, but I hope it gets the jist across

[Rick Horton]

 

 

 

 

I accept the "objective reduction" theory, which says there is interaction with the environment (usually by way of gravity) that forces the wavefunction to collapse.  Consciousness has never been shown to be necessary for wavefunction collapse, although I don't deny that consciousness is related to quantum mechanics in the same way nearly all chaotic phenomena are sensitive to it.  But just from a gut level, it seems strange to me that some physicists will accept that gravity connects every particle to every other particle, but at the same time they believe some particles are isolated enough that they can pretend to be unaffected until the trajectory is examined twelve minutes later by some dude glancing at a computer printout.

 

Can you clarify your position?

 

The theory of Objective Reduction is described at:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orchestrated_objective_reduction

To my knowledge, it is the only theory that holds that wavefunctions collapse objectively and holds that consciousness (free will) is not dependent on algorithms (classical physical determinism).  I find it compelling because it avoids the logical paradoxes of the determinists, while at the same time refuting the crackpot quantum spoonbenders.

 

 

Thank you sir

[Chisleu]

Crackpots?

To the OP: You don't get to define God.

[Rick Horton]

 

Crackpots?

To the OP: You don't get to define God.

 

That's ridiculous. And you do?  Look over here. If you study the MULTIPLE variations of God, there is at least one that fits what the OP is saying, so I think you should correct yourself.

God is often conceived as the supreme being and principal object of faith.^[1] In theism, God is the creator and sustainer of the universe. In deism, God is the creator (but not the sustainer) of the universe. In pantheism, God is the universe itself.

[James Hodge]

 

 

 

The only reasoning that matters is this:

Does YOUR god word resolve to a concept or object? 

If YOUR god has form, then he's an object. Proceed to illustrate YOUR god and show us YOUR theory about how He created the Universe... or whatever.

If YOUR god does not have form/structure, then he's a concept. Then your god doesn't exist by definition. 

Only physical objects exist. So that's it, after answering that we're done. 

 

Thank you, I think this is the best and most cogent answer I have had so far. I would have to reply, an infinite object. Okay well I would say that God/All That Is did not create the uinverse, but that this universe is part of all that is. All that is has always existed and always will. I think "all that is" is an infinite object of which you are part, as am I. In fact All That Is would not be complete without you.

 

Ah, but you see you can't modify the noun of reality (i.e. physical object) with an irrational adjective "infinity". Objects are bounded ("finite") by nature i.e. by definition. All objects have a border, a contour against the background; shape is conceptually surrounded by space/nothing. You have to have spatial separation to conceive of any object. Even a lone object in the entire Universe is still bordered by space, regardless of "size", which is relative to other objects anyway. We can always "zoom out" in our Mind's Eye and realize the object is still limited by the prison of space.

An infinite object, although grammatically and contextually impossible, would mean something like one continuous block of matter, with no gaps or spaces. So no–thing could move. You couldn't do anything with this giant single megabloc! 

Infinite itself is an irrational adjective but I won't go into that here. So if your god is an object, the next challenge is to go about using him/it in a theory. E.g. how god created the universe in zero-time.

 

 

Touche. Well then, if this universe is not infinite, which it may not be, then let us say it is really big. I am willing to concede that. Once again I do not think God created the universe, I think God IS the universe. And I think the universe is without begining or end, because the alternative is illogical. According to Wikipedia, the first person to propose the big bang theory was a catholic priest called Georges Lemaître. The big bang theory makes no logical sense at all. First there was nothing, then out of this nothing came something... completely illogical. In fact impossible, you cannot get something from nothing. If you want to go down that route then you have to tell me your theory of how something came from nothing. If there is an alternative I have missed, let me know.

[James Hodge]

 

just to rebut the quantum argument: You're using the words "observed" and "watched" in an ambiguous manner here. When you talk of watching something that invovles consciousness and most importantly our eyes. When you talk about qunatum stuff, our conciousness has nothing to do with it (you can't see these particles or moelcules with your eyes, just to point out the obvious here). What is being observed is a machine designed to measure these particles, not the particles. So consciousness has nothing to do with it. Especially when you consider, that people will look at the results (i.e. where conciousness comes into play) after the particle has already behaved the way it did.

And to say that therefore "all matter is conscious to some degree" is even more fallacious, as there's no way of measuring conciousness, so that's by definition not a verifiable hypothesis. (Unless you know of a way to measure whether something is conscious or not)

 

Okay but it still leaves the question of how does the wave know it is being measured? As I understand it the measuring device is not supposed to interfere with the wave. It may be fallacious but it seems an important part of our reality that things communicate without physicality. I see your point that the wave collapses before human conscious intervention. What the experiment demonstrated to me was a non physical aspect to our environment, that matter is only a wave of possibility until something else asks 'where are you?' and it is only then that the matter says 'oh, here I am', if you follow.

[James Hodge]

 

 

 Hi, I will try to lay out my understanding as simply as I can and I want someone to convince me I am barking up the wrong tree. Okay, so this thing called God is omniscient omnipresent, everlasting and infinite right? I mean theoretically.So then it must be everywhere at once. So it is All That Is, by definition. Okay, so we know that God is  All That Is, by definition. Now the question cannot be; "does All That Is exist?" but rather, should it start with capitals? I mean is it conscious and self aware? Now I could say the fact that All that is contains self aware individuals shows that All That Is must be somewhat conscious but this might be seen as somewhat of a tautology.Yet, however, Young's double slit experiment shows that particles of light are collapsed from waves to particles by consciousness and this experiment has been replicated with particles as large as Carbon60 molecules. So we know that even tiny, insignificant particles react to conscious human awareness. So this proves that all things are linked by some non physical force called consciousnes...So All That Is has conscious self awareness.

 

This is a logical fallacy called a "scope shift"

A tree is made up of a bunch of cells

therefor a bunch of cells are a tree and all a tree is is a bunch of cells

well no, a tree has emergeant qualities over and above what a bunch of cells do

and a bunch of cells could just as easily not constitute a tree

 

I don't know if I could articulate this well, but I hope it gets the jist across

 

I think I get what your saying and I think I agree. The fact that our universe (or an entity) is made up of things does not mean 'a group of things' are an entity, right? What I am pondering is, are people correct to refer to our universe as an entity? Well, it does seem to be self organising with emergent qualities. We and animals could be likened to twigs and leaves. It organised itself into beings that can self accuate.

[TheRobin]

 

 

just to rebut the quantum argument: You're using the words "observed" and "watched" in an ambiguous manner here. When you talk of watching something that invovles consciousness and most importantly our eyes. When you talk about qunatum stuff, our conciousness has nothing to do with it (you can't see these particles or moelcules with your eyes, just to point out the obvious here). What is being observed is a machine designed to measure these particles, not the particles. So consciousness has nothing to do with it. Especially when you consider, that people will look at the results (i.e. where conciousness comes into play) after the particle has already behaved the way it did.

And to say that therefore "all matter is conscious to some degree" is even more fallacious, as there's no way of measuring conciousness, so that's by definition not a verifiable hypothesis. (Unless you know of a way to measure whether something is conscious or not)

 

Okay but it still leaves the question of how does the wave know it is being measured? As I understand it the measuring device is not supposed to interfere with the wave. It may be fallacious but it seems an important part of our reality that things communicate without physicality. I see your point that the wave collapses before human conscious intervention. What the experiment demonstrated to me was a non physical aspect to our environment, that matter is only a wave of possibility until something else asks 'where are you?' and it is only then that the matter says 'oh, here I am', if you follow.

 

First of all, I don't think we know that whatever is being measured is a wave (the fact that it can be accurately described as a awave of probability isn't the same as saying that the thing in question is in fact a wave. Partly also because a wave isn't a thing but a form of movement. And certainly no one can say it knows anything (as that implies conciousness of some sort)).
And the device surely does interfere (else no measuring would take please), but just so little that it's not supposed to disturb the measured thing in question that much. But I know too little about the math/experiments/devises used etc. to give any good answer here.

I'm also not sure what you mean with "non-physical". Could you give me an example of something non-phyiscal that is verifiable/falsifiable?

[RestoringGuy]

 

First of all, I don't think we know that whatever is being measured is a wave (the fact that it can be accurately described as a awave of probability isn't the same as saying that the thing in question is in fact a wave. Partly also because a wave isn't a thing but a form of movement. And certainly no one can say it knows anything (as that implies conciousness of some sort)).
And the device surely does interfere (else no measuring would take please), but just so little that it's not supposed to disturb the measured thing in question that much. But I know too little about the math/experiments/devises used etc. to give any good answer here.

I'm also not sure what you mean with "non-physical". Could you give me an example of something non-phyiscal that is verifiable/falsifiable?

 

I don't see how the word "is" can mean more than what can be subjected to a testable description.  A thing momentarily unaccompanied by a form of movement is unobservable.  I thnk that is why energy of interaction is important in QM.  We need movement to test theories.  The objects of mathematics are verifiiable, but non-physical.  You could build three computers out of silicon, spinning gears, and pure energy, and if they start out with some basic axioms, they would produce the same mathematical results.   Physicality is required to do the mathematical verification, but the endurance of the (non-physical) truths they prove remains because you can isolate the machines or destroy them and later repeat the experiment.

 

 

[LovePrevails]

 

 

 

 Hi, I will try to lay out my understanding as simply as I can and I want someone to convince me I am barking up the wrong tree. Okay, so this thing called God is omniscient omnipresent, everlasting and infinite right? I mean theoretically.So then it must be everywhere at once. So it is All That Is, by definition. Okay, so we know that God is  All That Is, by definition. Now the question cannot be; "does All That Is exist?" but rather, should it start with capitals? I mean is it conscious and self aware? Now I could say the fact that All that is contains self aware individuals shows that All That Is must be somewhat conscious but this might be seen as somewhat of a tautology.Yet, however, Young's double slit experiment shows that particles of light are collapsed from waves to particles by consciousness and this experiment has been replicated with particles as large as Carbon60 molecules. So we know that even tiny, insignificant particles react to conscious human awareness. So this proves that all things are linked by some non physical force called consciousnes...So All That Is has conscious self awareness.

 

This is a logical fallacy called a "scope shift"

A tree is made up of a bunch of cells

therefor a bunch of cells are a tree and all a tree is is a bunch of cells

well no, a tree has emergeant qualities over and above what a bunch of cells do

and a bunch of cells could just as easily not constitute a tree

 

I don't know if I could articulate this well, but I hope it gets the jist across

 

I think I get what your saying and I think I agree. The fact that our universe (or an entity) is made up of things does not mean 'a group of things' are an entity, right? What I am pondering is, are people correct to refer to our universe as an entity? Well, it does seem to be self organising with emergent qualities. We and animals could be likened to twigs and leaves. It organised itself into beings that can self accuate.

 

Do we have any way of knowing yet? 

It is a scope shift because the scope of the conclusion is wider than the scope of the evidence for
it.

To clarify: "this is famously exemplified by the fallacy in Bertrand Russel’s
reasoning where Russell cites the example of a stick half-immersed in water
which appears bent even though it is not to argue that because the stick is not
bent it must not be the actual stick we are seeing in order to argue that what
we perceive are not physical, mind-independent objects, but Sense Data,
mind-dependent objects which we conjure into existence Wittgenstein identified
a fundamental flaw in this argument, claiming that the semantics of the
suggestion that we see “something”  bent
was a rhetorical ploy which begs the question by assuming that because we see
perceive something bent, something bent actually exists."

[TheRobin]

 

 

First of all, I don't think we know that whatever is being measured is a wave (the fact that it can be accurately described as a awave of probability isn't the same as saying that the thing in question is in fact a wave. Partly also because a wave isn't a thing but a form of movement. And certainly no one can say it knows anything (as that implies conciousness of some sort)).
And the device surely does interfere (else no measuring would take please), but just so little that it's not supposed to disturb the measured thing in question that much. But I know too little about the math/experiments/devises used etc. to give any good answer here.

I'm also not sure what you mean with "non-physical". Could you give me an example of something non-phyiscal that is verifiable/falsifiable?

 

I don't see how the word "is" can mean more than what can be subjected to a testable description.  A thing momentarily unaccompanied by a form of movement is unobservable.  I thnk that is why energy of interaction is important in QM.  We need movement to test theories.  The objects of mathematics are verifiiable, but non-physical.  You could build three computers out of silicon, spinning gears, and pure energy, and if they start out with some basic axioms, they would produce the same mathematical results.   Physicality is required to do the mathematical verification, but the endurance of the (non-physical) truths they prove remains because you can isolate the machines or destroy them and later repeat the experiment.

 

 

 

You seem to use the word "truth" and "verify" in a manner that doesn't need reality accompanying it.
"verify", as I understand it, is when you check whether a claim about reality actually matches that reality. Mathematics doesn't make such claims to begin with.
Math can be validated (as in checked against the premises to see if it holds logically) and can be correct or incorrect. But I don't see how truth or verification comes into play when doing math.

Maybe as a better example: You can validate the conclusion of a syllogism relative to its premises, but that's not the same as saying the conclusion or its premises are true. So validation and verficiation are two different things. Or at least the way I use and understand the terms. But if verification and truth don't have anythign to do with reality, then pretty much anything could hypotheically called "true", so I don't see how it would be useful to use them that way.

Hope that makes some sense.

p.s. I'm not really sure how all the stuff about movement relates to the topic, or what you even really mean with it (I mean I get a vague idea, but nothing tangible), so I hope you don't mind if I just leave that out here. If you think it's relevant then please rephrase it a bit, cause as it stands now I don't see the relevance or what you even mean exactly.

[RestoringGuy]

 

You seem to use the word "truth" and "verify" in a manner that doesn't need reality accompanying it.
"verify", as I understand it, is when you check whether a claim about reality actually matches that reality. Mathematics doesn't make such claims to begin with.
Math can be validated (as in checked against the premises to see if it holds logically) and can be correct or incorrect. But I don't see how truth or verification comes into play when doing math.

 

I use the words in the sense that verification requires physical reality.  But truth does not, because we all seem to accept a truth even after the verification experiment has been destroyed (otherwise how can you say that things are real once they become momentarily unobserved, you have now lost the physical link you have to them).  For a thing to be "real", must it not reproducibly persist in order to demonstrate it is not simply a mental construct?

 

Maybe
as a better example: You can validate the conclusion of a syllogism
relative to its premises, but that's not the same as saying the
conclusion or its premises are true. So validation and verficiation are
two different things. Or at least the way I use and understand the
terms. But if verification and truth don't have anythign to do with
reality, then pretty much anything could hypotheically called "true", so
I don't see how it would be useful to use them that way.

 

That is a good way to phrase it.  Conclusions are relative to the premises.  But whether or not that is true is the mathematical fact that is being uncovered.  If mathematics shows "A implies B", I am not saying B is inherently true or real.  I am saying that the full sentence "A implies B" is true and real.  No, you can't call pretty much anything "true", because the negative claim is false.  If you concede that mathematics can prove "A implies B", then it is a reproducible truth and further the negation "A and not B" can never be true, it is universally falsifiable.  Reality is not exclusively that which is physically tangible; one cannot touch gravity yet most people describe gravity as real.   A thing can be said to be "real" so long as it's testable/provable, and whether it is made of solid matter at a given moment does not seem relevant.  By checking whether something "actually matches reality", what are the things you are comparing?  Your belief is compared to some observation, and to weed out errors that test must be repeatable, correct?  Furthermore, whether or not that belief leads to predictable future events, that also lends credibility to that belief.  Yet when we make a mathematical proof, we present a physical artifact (a "proof") that our conjecture is true, verifiable by other mathematicians.  It predicts future events, because we now know which side of the fence (true/false) the conjecture must fall for all mathematicians in all of time.

I think this is relevant because the claims about quantum mechanics and consciousness are plagued with strange conclusions about psychic powers, or the alternate view that somehow QM is irrelevant because our minds are thought to be deterministic pinball machines and that we cannot "know" anything unless the atoms of our brain are externally forced into doing so.  By emphasizing mathematics, I am saying there is a mathematical world that is verifiable.  It is testable.  You can build a bunch of computers and they will all behave the same general way.  We need not test every object to say gravity is real and predicts future events.  But we believe a gravitational law is likely to be true on a new planet never visited.  Mathematics is perhaps more real, holding everywhere.  To explain how we can know about this kind of truth (rather than call math an imaginary construct), our brains require a way to discover such things (QM), and a way to subject them to physical verification (experiments with computers and various stochastic and deterministic methods).

 

[James Hodge]

 

 

 

just to rebut the quantum argument: You're using the words "observed" and "watched" in an ambiguous manner here. When you talk of watching something that invovles consciousness and most importantly our eyes. When you talk about qunatum stuff, our conciousness has nothing to do with it (you can't see these particles or moelcules with your eyes, just to point out the obvious here). What is being observed is a machine designed to measure these particles, not the particles. So consciousness has nothing to do with it. Especially when you consider, that people will look at the results (i.e. where conciousness comes into play) after the particle has already behaved the way it did.

And to say that therefore "all matter is conscious to some degree" is even more fallacious, as there's no way of measuring conciousness, so that's by definition not a verifiable hypothesis. (Unless you know of a way to measure whether something is conscious or not)

 

Okay but it still leaves the question of how does the wave know it is being measured? As I understand it the measuring device is not supposed to interfere with the wave. It may be fallacious but it seems an important part of our reality that things communicate without physicality. I see your point that the wave collapses before human conscious intervention. What the experiment demonstrated to me was a non physical aspect to our environment, that matter is only a wave of possibility until something else asks 'where are you?' and it is only then that the matter says 'oh, here I am', if you follow.

 

First of all, I don't think we know that whatever is being measured is a wave (the fact that it can be accurately described as a awave of probability isn't the same as saying that the thing in question is in fact a wave. Partly also because a wave isn't a thing but a form of movement. And certainly no one can say it knows anything (as that implies conciousness of some sort)).
And the device surely does interfere (else no measuring would take please), but just so little that it's not supposed to disturb the measured thing in question that much. But I know too little about the math/experiments/devises used etc. to give any good answer here.

I'm also not sure what you mean with "non-physical". Could you give me an example of something non-phyiscal that is verifiable/falsifiable?

 

If the observation device interferes with the wave, how so? It is a recorder set up over both slits to recieve photons that were already there, it is not adding anything to the equation. As for 'know', yes well , like I said it is not being interfered with yet it changes it function, so I can't say it reacts as there is nothing to react to. If you could explain to me how  the recorder device interferes with the wave, I'd appreciate it. Another person recently pointed out to me thtat mathmatical equations are non-physical things that are real.