What if God is weak?

[seeds]

There is absolutely nothing about the mysterious essence of life and consciousness that can be reduced to atoms and quantum wavicles, otherwise there would be no such thing as the “hard problem” of consciousness.

That's magical thinking - argument from ignorance. We do not need to reduce consciousness to atoms/quarks Brains can be reduces to atoms/quarks. Consciousness is an emergent property of brains, so need to synthesize consciousness from neuroscientific knowledge ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GARpWOLqP6E )

I have no problem in thinking that consciousness is an emergent property of brains.

The problem I have is in the idea that Schrödinger’s wave equation could somehow be applied to the essence of life in the same way it is applied to subatomic particles.

Therefore, in response to your accusations of “magical thinking” and “arguments from ignorance,” and in the helpful spirit of saving you from the annoying and often ignored effort of having to click on a link ...

...I am simply going to copy and paste an ever-so-slightly altered argument I made to uwot in an alternate thread:

According to certain interpretations of quantum mechanics, it requires the presence of something that is capable of making an observation (a measurement) in order to transform (collapse) the waving fields of quantum information into positionally-fixed, 3-D phenomena.

However (and allegedly), no such thing existed until billions of years after the Big Bang, which means that until consciousness arrived on the scene, the universe basically existed in a context that is metaphorically represented by this...



In which case, I’ll ask the same question that I asked you almost a year ago....

How in the world did nebulous fields (waves) of random and chaotically dispersed energy and information (or “stuff,” if you prefer), again, how did it “know” how to self-adjust its waveform attributes in such a way that would cause the three-dimensional phenomena appearing up in the context of what physicists call “local reality” to be so essential and appealing to the five senses of consciousness?

In other words, how did unguided and unconscious (mindless) algorithmic processes...

(without any way of determining what the universe’s three-dimensional phenomena would actually look like, feel like, sound like, smell like, and taste like to consciousness)

...again, how did the primordial quantum processes “blindly predetermine” that in the presence of some future consciousness, a 3-D setting consisting of fragrant vines of blooming honeysuckle, and beautiful mountain streams, and a vast cornucopia of delicious foods, etc., would suddenly emerge from the patterns of information once a so-called “measurement” (observation) is made?

I’m talking about measurements made by living beings in a three-dimensional context that this...



...(the unconscious post-Bang quantum) could not possibly have “known” it had created until, again, consciousness arrived on the scene to collapse the waves.

It is a totally circular dilemma that arises if one believes that consciousness is an “emergent property” of an already ordered 3-D state of matter when in fact there can be no 3-D state of matter without the presence of consciousness.
_______

Now with that being said, let me tell you what real “magical thinking” is:

Magical thinking is a belief that without the slightest hint of teleological impetus or mindful guidance, something resembling this...



(i.e., the random and chaotic state of the quantum in the aftermath of an alleged Big Bang)

...not only transformed itself into this...



...but also meticulously equiped the orb on the left with every possible ingredient and process necessary to awaken us into existence.

Now that is “magical thinking.”
_______

[TimeSeeker]

According to certain interpretations of quantum mechanics, it requires the presence of something that is capable of making an observation (a measurement) in order to transform (collapse) the waving fields of quantum information into positionally-fixed, 3-D phenomena.

However (and allegedly), no such thing existed until billions of years after the Big Bang, which means that until consciousness arrived on the scene, the universe basically existed in a context that is metaphorically represented by this...

No. An passive observer is NOT required. An active intereter is required. I do not care for the Copenhagen interpretation - it is an epistemic phenomenon.

The Curry-Howard isomorphism ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curry%E2% ... espondence ) tells us that mathematical proofs compute. And so if there is something that can compute (actively interpret) the proof to a mathematical equation - then the computation of the proof IS the ontology. Whether there is somebody to observe it or not. Naturally! We already entrust computers to fly airplanes while the human pilot sleeps. You go ahead and convince yourself that the computer is not computing because nobody is watching it.

The universe is the quantum computer. It "speaks" Lambda calculus ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lambda_calculus )

IMagical thinking is a belief that without the slightest hint of teleological impetus or mindful guidance, something resembling this...



(i.e., the random and chaotic state of the quantum in the aftermath of an alleged Big Bang)

...not only transformed itself into this...



...but also meticulously equiped the orb on the left with every possible ingredient and process necessary to awaken us into existence.

Now that is “magical thinking.”
_______

No. It's just computation. Very very very complex computation, with very very very many iterations with probabilities so tiny that one could call the sheer odds of our existence to be 'magical'. While you are marvelling at the Earth you are forgetting to marvel at all the other planets which are anything but friendly to our existence - you've cherry-picked your data and you are ignoring the anthropic principle ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropic_principle )

Entropy + ANY rule (laws of physics) produce patterns: http://blog.stephenwolfram.com/2017/05/ ... year-view/

Consciousness is one kind of pattern: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boltzmann_brain

What you are contriving is a sophisticated God-of-the-gaps argument. And the gap that you are busy filling is your epistemic ignorance. Life is so much easier if you just said "I don't know".

Then you could fill that gap with knowledge from the fields of computation and complexity science which address all of your concerns and turn the "impossible" to "highly improbable".

[Dontaskme]

Form is not other than formlessness. Nonduality means embracing both, not elevating one over the other.

Relative and Absolute must be ONE. God's creation is not separate from God, it IS God.

.

[Reflex]

]
No. It's just computation. Very very very complex computation, with very very very many iterations with probabilities so tiny that one could call the sheer odds of our existence to be 'magical'. While you are marvelling at the Earth you are forgetting to marvel at all the other planets which are anything but friendly to our existence - you've cherry-picked your data and you are ignoring the anthropic principle ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropic_principle )

Entropy + ANY rule (laws of physics) produce patterns: http://blog.stephenwolfram.com/2017/05/ ... year-view/

Consciousness is one kind of pattern: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boltzmann_brain

What you are contriving is a sophisticated God-of-the-gaps argument. And the gap that you are busy filling is your epistemic ignorance. Life is so much easier if you just said "I don't know".

Then you could fill that gap with knowledge from the fields of computation and complexity science which address all of your concerns and turn the "impossible" to "highly improbable".

Why the laws of physics? What if “God” is an immeasurably weak field of influence?

Multiverse theory (for example) is chance-in-the-gaps to fill your epistemically ignorance. Life is so much richer if you just appreciate the mystery. ”In the end we know God as unknown.”

[Ramu]

Consciousness is NOT an emergent property of brains. I
The statement that consciousness comes from brains is nothing more than a flimsy metaphysical assumption that collapses upon further metaphysical examination. Of course most scientifically minded people ignore metaphysics which produces sloppy science at best.

[Reflex]

Consciousness is NOT an emergent property of brains. I
The statement that consciousness comes from brains is nothing more than a flimsy metaphysical assumption that collapses upon further metaphysical examination. Of course most scientifically minded people ignore metaphysics which produces sloppy science at best.

Agreed. It’s sloppy thinking.

[TimeSeeker]

Why the laws of physics? What if “God” is an immeasurably weak field of influence?

If it is immeasurably weak then how would you ever discover it or come to learn about it?

Multiverse theory (for example) is chance-in-the-gaps to fill your epistemically ignorance.

More like a chance to over-step the boundaries of epistemology. Theories are not knowledge. Theories are theories. They are narratives, interpretation and imagination which MAY one day produce something testable. Until then - they are not knowledge.

Life is so much richer if you just appreciate the mystery. ”In the end we know God as unknown.”

Life is so much more fun when you actually stop lying to yourself and utter the phrase "I don't know, lets figure it out!"

[Reflex]

There’s nothing to figure out (except for said rules). Nothing is definite.

[TimeSeeker]

There’s nothing to figure out (except for said rules). Nothing is definite.

My goals and desires are definite.

And figuring out the rules (and even breaking them) aligns with my goals and desires.

Seeing my ideas become reality - aligns with my goals and desires.

[Reflex]

There’s nothing to figure out (except for said rules). Nothing is definite.

My goals and desires are definite.

And figuring out the rules (and even breaking them) aligns with my goals and desires.

Seeing my ideas become reality - aligns with my goals and desires.

That’s the problem.

[seeds]

According to certain interpretations of quantum mechanics, it requires the presence of something that is capable of making an observation (a measurement) in order to transform (collapse) the waving fields of quantum information into positionally-fixed, 3-D phenomena.

However (and allegedly), no such thing existed until billions of years after the Big Bang, which means that until consciousness arrived on the scene, the universe basically existed in a context that is metaphorically represented by this...

No. An passive observer is NOT required. An active intereter is required. I do not care for the Copenhagen interpretation - it is an epistemic phenomenon.

The Curry-Howard isomorphism ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curry%E2% ... espondence ) tells us that mathematical proofs compute. And so if there is something that can compute (actively interpret) the proof to a mathematical equation - then the computation of the proof IS the ontology. Whether there is somebody to observe it or not. Naturally! We already entrust computers to fly airplanes while the human pilot sleeps. You go ahead and convince yourself that the computer is not computing because nobody is watching it.

You sure do make brash assumptions.

For just like you, I also believe that the underlying workings of the universe are computer-like in their processing.

To quote myself again from that alternate thread:

...to introduce another metaphor into the mix, I personally believe that the phenomenon of gravity, along with every other phenomenon encountered up at the “local” level of reality, is a “software” issue.

In other words, we experience the phenomenon of what we call gravity because it is a part of the underlying “coding” of reality itself – a coding that is metaphorically similar to the coding that underlies the virtual phenomena of a video game, or a DVD movie, or a laser hologram, or even that of our thoughts and dreams.
_______

So clearly, I follow a somewhat similar line of reasoning as you.

Now, without making any snap judgments as to who might be right or who might be wrong, it would appear that the primary difference between our approaches is that while you seem to believe that the serendipitous (chance) outcome of “very very very many iterations” of computational probabilities is responsible for the creation of the universe,...

...I, on the other hand, believe that a higher level of consciousness and intelligence is involved - an intelligence that is way beyond the mythological nonsense handed down to us from ancient minds.

Furthermore, and to directly address this...

You go ahead and convince yourself that the computer is not computing because nobody is watching it.

...I have often used the analogy of how you can remove the monitor and speakers from a running DVD player (or computer game)...

(i.e., the simplistic metaphorical equivalent of removing observers from the universe)

...and yet despite the fact that the raucous action of the movie is no longer appearing in its two-dimensional context up on a screen, the running DVD will still cycle through the movie’s algorithms.

Well, I suggest that something similar to that applies to the dynamic processes taking place in the quantum relative to the three-dimensional phenomena of the universe.

In other words, just as a DVD needs a monitor and speakers to explicate and display that which is encoded in the bumps and pits on the disc, likewise, so does the quantum need the involvement of life and consciousness to explicate and display that which is encoded in the peaks and troughs of the quantum waves (or whatever form the information may actually exist in).

Remember what you said to me earlier...

I see similarities in your thought-patterns to mine, but our languages to describe it seem very very different.

In which case, other than our diametrically opposed assumptions regarding chance vs intention, I think we are at least on the same page with respect to the phenomenal structures of the universe being founded upon algorithmic processes.

(Continued in next post)
_______

[seeds]

_______

(Continued from prior post)

Magical thinking is a belief that without the slightest hint of teleological impetus or mindful guidance, something resembling this...



(i.e., the random and chaotic state of the quantum in the aftermath of an alleged Big Bang)

...not only transformed itself into this...



...but also meticulously equiped the orb on the left with every possible ingredient and process necessary to awaken us into existence.

Now that is “magical thinking.”
_______

No. It's just computation. Very very very complex computation, with very very very many iterations with probabilities so tiny that one could call the sheer odds of our existence to be 'magical'. While you are marvelling at the Earth you are forgetting to marvel at all the other planets which are anything but friendly to our existence - you've cherry-picked your data and you are ignoring the anthropic principle ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropic_principle )

It’s pretty much a given that we all cherry-pick data that supports our personal biases and arguments, including you.

Furthermore, what makes you think I’m forgetting about the other planets?

For all we know, the other planets could be playing some vital role in the stability of our existence - perhaps a “cog-like” role in the greater “machine” of the solar “system” - a role that we cannot fully understand at this moment.

At the very least (considering the vastness of universal time scales) they could be a source of future resources once humans get their act together and venture outward in a greater and more serious exploration of space.

What you are contriving is a sophisticated God-of-the-gaps argument. And the gap that you are busy filling is your epistemic ignorance. Life is so much easier if you just said "I don't know".

Setting aside your insulting approach regarding someone’s “epistemic ignorance,” along with your use of such worn-out clichés as “God-of-the-gaps”...

...it seems a tad hypocritical of you to suggest that life is so much easier if you just say “I don’t know,” while simultaneously coming off as someone who appears to be absolutely certain of the wrongness and fallibility of everything else other than your own personal theory.

In other words, how about practicing what you preach?
_______

[TimeSeeker]

That’s the problem.

And that's an appeal to authority.

Is there an objective authority which decides what is and isn't problem.

Other than your ego?

[TimeSeeker]

Setting aside your insulting approach regarding someone’s “epistemic ignorance,” along with your use of such worn-out clichés as “God-of-the-gaps”...

...it seems a tad hypocritical of you to suggest that life is so much easier if you just say “I don’t know,” while simultaneously coming off as someone who appears to be absolutely certain of the wrongness and fallibility of everything else other than your own personal theory.

In other words, how about practicing what you preach?

I do practice what I preach - the fact that you interpret the phrase 'epistemic ignorance' as an insult of sorts, where I simply accept it as an assertion about my own state of mind is evidence to that. I know that I know very very little. But how do we determine that my 'very little' is objectively more or less than your 'very much". Maybe we have different standards for 'quantifying the amount of knowledge one possess' ?

My epistemology is based on physics, mathematics, statistics and computer science. Which (as far as I can tell) are the most precise tools for expressing human knowledge so far.

Everything I say is testable, falsifiable and reproducible. It is scientific and so "agreeing" or "disagreeing" with me is a matter of you accepting or rejecting the evidence.

On the other hand, I WILL provide you with falsifiers to your own claims (e.g I will show you that you are wrong) and I will offer you a better model/explanation (which I have done by pointing you to complexity theory). You get to decide whether you update your mental model of reality or whether you disregard my feedback.

I very much expect YOU to do the same to me. Point out to where I am wrong and offer me a better model. Teach me!

So, very sorry. I prefer not knowing to having made up answers. Adding a "God" to my model teaches me nothing of value. Now I have to say "I don't know" twice.

Once to "Where does the universe come from?" and once to "Where does God come from"?
By adding 'God' to the equation you have turned 1 unknown into 2 unknowns. So, objectively I could say that you have made us twice as ignorant as before.

This pursuit for grounding, for foundationalism - it is turtles all the way down!

[TimeSeeker]

Now, without making any snap judgments as to who might be right or who might be wrong, it would appear that the primary difference between our approaches is that while you seem to believe that the serendipitous (chance) outcome of “very very very many iterations” of computational probabilities is responsible for the creation of the universe,...

...I, on the other hand, believe that a higher level of consciousness and intelligence is involved - an intelligence that is way beyond the mythological nonsense handed down to us from ancient minds.

And in that simple choice you disregard the anthropic principle.

...and yet despite the fact that the raucous action of the movie is no longer appearing in its two-dimensional context up on a screen, the running DVD will still cycle through the movie’s algorithms.

You have ignored a few vital steps in the process. Encoding/decoding ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coding_theory ).

The movie has no algorithm. The data on the DVD is just data - without interpretation it is very difficult to extract any meaning from it.
All the RULES (algorithm) for turning that data into something else is in the DVD player itself.

And so the laser beam reads the DVD and converts it into a VIDEO data. Either digital signal (HDMI) or analogue signal (RCA - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Composite_video ).

All that has happened is that the data on the DVD has been converted from one format to another. And if you add a TV into the equation - it converts the data into yet another format - analogue.

The philosophical thought experiment is better conveyed here: https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/1 ... 379570.pdf

Well, I suggest that something similar to that applies to the dynamic processes taking place in the quantum relative to the three-dimensional phenomena of the universe.

Yeah, but without an interpreter who transforms the data into something meaningful - it doesn't matter. It is as good as entropy.

Interpretation requires rules for decoding the data. Teleology.

I subscribe to this paradigm: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physical_information