Printable View
If modern particle physics is correct in describing all matter/energy as nothing more than bits of information then reality can be described as a self organizing information storage (matter) and transfer (enegry) matrix which is essentially a description of an evolving intelligent computer, therefore god.
Keyword: "If."
Checkmate Atheists.
Keyword: "god".
There is nothing godly about that.Quote:
Originally Posted by Xaqaria
This is not a proof for god, more of a redefining the definition of "god". If someone says "god exists", my response is always "define god".Quote:
Originally Posted by Xaqaria
You are using the word you're defining in the definition.
Modern physicas doesn't understand quantum particles and other stuff.
Therefore there is no final clear truth in the world, the 2+2 may not be 4, once we understand the quantum particles and other stuff better.
So there can now be only belief to something.
The definition of God doesn't exist, so we cannot talk about it much, we don't know what we are talking about.
I wouldn't consider this a checkmate. Nor would I consider it a check. There's no checkmating anybody in a debate over whether or not there is a god.
OP- I don't think very many scientists accept that theory. It seems far from plausible to me that matter is information. Matter is matter. Sure, matter can be used to STORE information. But that doesn't make matter information. One can view matter as information. But that doesn't make matter information. So unless you can convince the vast majority of the world that matter is information, your entire argument is invalid.
And even if you could prove to us that matter was information, other than using a fallacious appeal to authority that is also incorrect ("Modern Particle Physics" sounds smart and sciency, doesn't it?), then you would have to convince us that a complex universe of information interchange means that God exists. Yes, our universe is incredibly dynamic. I am willing to accept that many things are possible within the universe given the properties of elements that we have yet to discover. I'm even open to the possibility of living entities that possess abilities we would consider "Godly". But I don't believe that a God created our universe, or that our universe itself is a god. If anything, I would not be surprised if the universe created a god-like entity. But all things exist because of change. That's my belief, and until I see a photo of you and god at the Super-Bowl, I won't change them.
A self organizing/evolving quantum computer that encompasses and is the source of everything in the known universe is not an adequate definition for god? It is omniscient because all phenomena are included in its memory (matter) and thought processes (energy transfer). It is omnipresent as all time and space are part of its structure. It is omnipotent as all "power" is a function of the interactions between its parts. What does it lack in order to be legitimately called god?
"Matter is matter" is a meaningless tautology. I don't think it is necessary for me to give a disertation on quantum theory as any info I could give you is readily available for your own study. It actually is generally accepted that on the sub atomic level, nothing can be described as existing in and of itself and can only be understood as information transference interactions.
The universe is omnipresent, in that it encompasses everything and every time period.
But for me to consider it a god, it needs to be omniscient and omnipotent.
In order for it to know all things it would have to be a conscious entity. For it to be all-powerful it would need to be a conscious entity so that it could control its power.
What I'm saying is that there is no proof that Matter is "Memory", and Energy is "Thought". If those two things were true, then perhaps the universe is god. But the universe is not a conscious entity, as it has no memory and no thought. Since there's no proof of a statement so important to your argument, then your argument does not prove anything.
Well what is the definition of memory? The most encompassing definition I can find is
Memory-the capacity to store data, or the components in which data is stored. Matter is a store of energy, and energy can only be described by the data surrounding its interactions.
What is thought? I can't find a definition that isn't set in an anthropocentric framework so its hard to apply that one to something outside human consciousness. It seems to me that thought is a particular pattern of energy transfer. If you could consider a computer's calculations as rudimentary thought, then all they are are a particular pattern of energy in the form of electrons going from one place to another, input and ouput. Energy in the universe only exists inthe same fashion.
No I'm not?Quote:
Originally Posted by Phion
We can also apply Spinoza's argument for a conscious universe to this thread which can be paraphrased as;
We are conscious and a part of the universe therefore the universe is conscious. You may say that a rock isn't or doesn't appear conscious and so our consciousness does not mean that the whole universe is conscious however the fact that my pinky finger is not conscious by itself does not negate the fact that I as a whole entity am conscious.
This supports my argument however it is still my position that matter and energy in themselves are a conscious computer with or without the presence of individual conscious beings.
Conscious volition?Quote:
Originally Posted by Xaqaria
Honestly, I'm a bit of a pantheist myself, so to consider the totality of existence "god" is not far fetched, IMO. If this is useful to you in establishing your personal connection to the universe and what you consider "god", that's fine. Claiming this is a "proof" of god, however, is a extraordinary claim. Your statements are rampant with fallacy.
Ok, I suppose this could be a adequate metaphor for the universe. But, in actuality, what/where is this "quantum computer"?Quote:
Originally Posted by Xaqaria
I'm not sure how you jump to the claim that the universe has "memory" and "thought processes". Omniscient implies knowing everything, not being everything.Quote:
Originally Posted by Xaqaria
Here, you are basically saying all space and time is present everywhere in space in time.Quote:
Originally Posted by Xaqaria
Memory has a variety of definitions, but we are not talking about a memory foam mattress here, we're talking about conscious memory. Here's what Meriam-Webster says:Quote:
Originally Posted by Xaqaria
"the power or process of reproducing or recalling what has been learned and retained especially through associative mechanisms"
In what way does energy and matter recall or learn?
Also, since it seems you're not clear on this, is the definition of proof:
"something that induces certainty or establishes validity"
logical proof
Definition:
An argument based on inductive or deductive reasoning. In classical rhetoric, logos.
I honestly don't want to discuss this much more because it is nearly irrelevant and I didn't even use the formal syntax of a logical proof and yet it is essentially an accurate description of how the op presented. There is a difference between the general english word "proof" and a logical proof.
What/ where is the quantum computer? The universe is comprised of quanta; subatomic bits of information whose interactions form all matter and energy, which organize themselves into different patterns forming the structure of the known universe. That is what I called a quantum computer that calculates future states from the waveform of possibilities that is described by quantum indeterminacy and then manifests those states in sequence which we experience as time.
Matter and energy learn in many different ways, I'll give a few examples.
1. In experiments with quantum phenomena, it has been learned that the state of a quantum is indeterminant until it is observed, but after the moment of observation it will retain that specific stae and will not revert back to its indeterminant state, so it has "learned" its state through observation.
2. Quantum entanglement experiments show that two particles that have become entangled remain connected and appear to affect each other "at a distance" in the future, and so they have "learned" their connection in some way.
3. When energy is converted to matter it happens according to very specific laws and so if a certain amount of energy goes in, it can be taken for granted that a certain amount of energy will come out when it eventually decays, so it "remembers" the information about the amounts of energy it stores.
Normally I would post links explaining the terms that I've used but it is difficult since my only computer right now is actually a smart phone so feel free to look up terms like entanglement if you haven't heard of them since they have very specific meanings.
Xaqaria,
You actually have some interesting ideas. I agree that term "proof" differs slightly in meaning whether its concerning a philosophical proof versus a scientific proof. I see neither inductive or deductive reasoning in your arguments, however. I believe this was mentioned in your other thread, but the word "proof" is something that shouldn't be taken lightly. If you had titled your threads "my theories on how god is manifest in quantum mechanics" or something like that, I imagine everyone would be more open to discussion about it. As soon as you say "proof of god" people are going to attack that.
If you want a serious discussion around your ideas, change your terminology a bit and be a little more humble. If you want to continue to have short lived debates, where others attack and dismantle your theories, continue to use the word "proof".
And yes, I've heard of quantum entanglement before.
I guess if no one can get past one word taken out of context then the discussion will be very short lived indeed, but the reason for that doesn't have much to do with the word in question.
Also, there is no such thing as a scientific proof.
So this is not suggestion of an independent, separate, personal God... but that the very fabric of existence, as if every single thing is interconnected like firing neurons in a brain, is God itself - the process?
If so, who cares if you wanna call it God, aether, essence, a robot or whatever? For it then ultimately becomes a verb and not a noun. I can subscribe to this, but giving it the word God... is misinforming.
Such an entity would necessarily be capable of behaving in the manner ascribed to " personal gods" since this type of god is everything and is capable of anything that is possible so I don't understand the distinction.
I also don't understand your description of such a god as "independent, seperate" since it is generally accepted that god is omnipresent (everywhere and in everything).
My description is that God is typically viewed as a bearded man in the sky. Irrespective of his omnipresence, metaphorically you'd describe that as sort of separate and independent insofar that it is a thing or is capable of becoming a thing.... at least in comparison to that which is everything, for that cannot be a thing.... it is the very interconnectedness of everything.
Hmm, I think you're seeing this different to me. If you ascribe consciousness or free will/choice to this stuff you're calling God, then I can't accept that. Though it follows why you'd then call it God. I agree there. However, what I refer to has no consciousness or free will/choice, and so would not be God, but at best an algorithm.
In fact, what I refer to and what I thought you were referring to is the Tao. Not a God.
If god is every thing then obviously it is capable of being a thing. If I have consciousness and free will and I am a part of god, then my consciousness and free will is god's consciousness and free will. The tao that can be spoken is not the eternal tao. In other words, as soon as you say what the tao is or is not, you are wrong.
The bearded man in the sky is a conceptualization for god; a particularly dated and outmoded one. "God" is a conceptualization for god. The tao is a conceptualization for god, or vice versa if that is your particular perspective.
Perhaps a story is in order; a wise yogi was once asked by four blind men to describe the tao. Instead, he brought the men to an elephant that was nearby and asked them all to describe it. One man felt the elephant's trunk and said
"the elephant is like a snake"
Another man felt the elephant's leg and said
"No the elephant is like a tree"
Another man felt the elephant's side and said
" the elephant is like a wall"
The last man felt the elephant's ear and said
"The elephant is like a palm leaf"
The wise yogi responded by saying
"The elephant is like the tao."
I'm sure I butchered that story but hopefully you get the idea. You can replace the word god in this thread with tao or universe if you want to. The implications remain the same.
No, the Tao that can be spoken of is not the Tao because it is not a THING that you can describe. And the closest you can say, is that it is the very process of change and interconnectedness, a verb not a noun. If you want to call a pattern that emerges due to strict physical laws, God, then so be it. But we differ here.
All I take from that story is a scientific one, which I believe the Tao harmonises with: that below the veil of concept/object and difference one finds everything is composed of exactly the same essence - whether that be a combination of 108 elements, atoms, or strings. At this level, there seems to be no real conceptual or qualitative difference. At this level, the elephant is close to the Tao, of course.
No one would call the Tao, God, based on what I've said. Based on readings of the Tao compared to readings of 'God' you get completely different conceptualisations. That's obvious.
Yes, you can clumsily say that it is God, you can replace the word, but you're just forcing reconceptualisation to make something astonishing fit 'God'. If you do this, I can call anything God and then there's no sense of meaning.
I think what I'm trying to get at, simply, is this:
God is typically conceived as an agent.
The Tao is conceived of as a mechanism.
Evidently, people that subscribe to God say he is an agent of that mechanism, that he caused it. That I do not believe you can prove, and hence I do not believe in God. The Tao, however, needs no 'proof', it's self-evident: symmetry, order, physical laws, fundamental forces, mathematics, and thus patterns are everywhere. This is the Tao; this is a mechanism. You cannot grasp, taste, smell or directly perceive the Tao because it is abstract, a mere metaphorical reference to this structure and change. It is not God - far from it.
And this, I do not follow. It presumes complexity to simplicity, rather than simplicity to complexity.Quote:
Originally Posted by Xaqaria
Simply put, something potentially blind and stupid (universe) operating on some physical laws can give rise to complex elements in the system which have emergent consciousness. This does not imply that the universe is conscious. I think this is simple. If I let some special kind of evolutionary algorithm run on my system with a finite amount of variables, and after some time, an AI emerges with consciousness, I would not then say: The AI is part of the algorithm and variables, and so they have consciousness too.
If you were that AI, in a population of similar AI, you could reason that there is a mechanism giving rise to your existence. That there was a certain law and order, structure and patterns. A mechanism at play; the Tao. This would be self-evident. You could not say, without mere guessing, that: 'wait a minute, something must've created these algorithms and variables for us to exist'. That must be an agent; a God. In this particular example, there was an agent; a God. I made the algorithm and provided the variables.
So all you are trying to say is that the Universe=God? How is that logic productive? Simply adding another synonym to something we already have a word for doesn't solve anything... It's completely useless.