Odysseus
Legend
Trump = Disaster
Posts: 41,098
|
Post by Odysseus on Nov 11, 2023 9:03:01 GMT
Other than that a lot of people think there is a God, I would tend to say no. There is no God. It's just an invention to keep people happy, in-line, neighborly, good, etc.
Except when it might come to a religious war. Then all bets are off.
|
|
|
|
Post by Mercy for All on Nov 11, 2023 21:42:32 GMT
Other than that a lot of people think there is a God, I would tend to say no. There is no God. It's just an invention to keep people happy, in-line, neighborly, good, etc.
Except when it might come to a religious war. Then all bets are off.
"I didn’t go to religion to make me happy. I always knew a bottle of Port would do that. If you want a religion to make you feel really comfortable, I certainly don’t recommend Christianity." - C.S. Lewis |
|
|
|
Post by Running Deer on Nov 19, 2023 18:47:20 GMT
Nah. There may be some Ground of Being, some Oversoul, some Paramatma, some Thing That Makes Existence Possible Because it Exists. I doubt it, but there may be. At any rate, it's probably impossible to find any evidence for or against its existence.
But there's no ghost with magic powers and the personality of a Bronze Age king.
|
|
|
|
Post by DaveJavu on Nov 23, 2023 9:32:20 GMT
Other than that a lot of people think there is a God, I would tend to say no. There is no God. It's just an invention to keep people happy, in-line, neighborly, good, etc.
Except when it might come to a religious war. Then all bets are off.
"I didn’t go to religion to make me happy. I always knew a bottle of Port would do that. If you want a religion to make you feel really comfortable, I certainly don’t recommend Christianity." - C.S. Lewis Even if we admit that someone, instead of something, was at the origin of the universe, which I don't but for the sake of discussing the possibility I do, IOW, that the universe was deliberate instead of just accidental, there is still zero chance that that someone was precisely the way you (or someone else) says it is, given that the possibilities are infinite and reality is one. Plus it's not about a god creating the universe, really, it's about "him" recreating us in some other (highly hypothetical place where the laws of physics don't apply) after we're dead and letting us "live" there forever. It's about this entire, immense universe only existing so that we, on that tiny grain of sand can pass (some kind of a test) that will allow us to live forever in an idyllic place, or not. That seems a little bit egocentric to think that a gigantic beach has been created so that a little grain of sand may exist and solely for that purpose. Thoughts? |
|
|
|
Post by Mercy for All on Nov 23, 2023 15:02:51 GMT
"I didn’t go to religion to make me happy. I always knew a bottle of Port would do that. If you want a religion to make you feel really comfortable, I certainly don’t recommend Christianity." - C.S. Lewis Even if we admit that someone, instead of something, was at the origin of the universe, which I don't but for the sake of discussing the possibility I do, IOW, that the universe was deliberate instead of just accidental, there is still zero chance that that someone was precisely the way you (or someone else) says it is, given that the possibilities are infinite and reality is one. Absolutely. I think any claim that this "Someone" is "precisely the way any human says it is" would be automatically suspect. But the fact that we cannot know everything doesn't mean that we automatically know nothing. Seems to me that current scientific theory has been suggesting for some time now that what we experience as "physical reality" is actually some kind of limited interface with an underlying reality that depends, to a great extent, on conscious observation (the ultimate case of "if a tree falls in a forest"). It actually seems arrogant to me to assume that this "present physical reality" represents the sum total or ultimate representation of "what is." Theoretical physicists these days sound more like theologians than naturalist scientists, positing that "consciousness" is a truer representation of what underlies reality, rather than things like quarks. |
|
|
|
Post by Running Deer on Nov 26, 2023 20:51:17 GMT
I think the current theory is that our minds produce an experience that is informed by sensory data, but those experiences are representations created by the mind to interpret sense data. That is, we can say that the light reflecting off an apple is a certain wavelength, but our minds produce the experience that "this apple is green". More weirdly, we know that atoms and molecules are mostly empty, but our minds produce the experience that the apple is a solid, continuous object. Why do we perceive apples as solid when they are mostly empty? Why do we not perceive the molecules, atoms, and quarks in the apple? No one really has a good answer for that except that we evolved that way.
I do not think "intersecting, interacting quantum fields" is really like consciousness. It's worth noting that "observer" in quantum physics is NOT a conscious observer.
|
|
|
|
Post by Mercy for All on Nov 26, 2023 21:41:54 GMT
I think the current theory is that our minds produce an experience that is informed by sensory data, but those experiences are representations created by the mind to interpret sense data. That is, we can say that the light reflecting off an apple is a certain wavelength, but our minds produce the experience that "this apple is green". More weirdly, we know that atoms and molecules are mostly empty, but our minds produce the experience that the apple is a solid, continuous object. Why do we perceive apples as solid when they are mostly empty? Why do we not perceive the molecules, atoms, and quarks in the apple? No one really has a good answer for that except that we evolved that way. I do not think "intersecting, interacting quantum fields" is really like consciousness. It's worth noting that "observer" in quantum physics is NOT a conscious observer. But there is also "observer theory"—an extrapolation of manifestation of quantum effects like quantum wave collapse, the idea that "if nobody is looking at that object," it doesn't exist as such, other than as some kind of quantum potential. If that is true, the "sensory data" isn't really "there" (or maybe, doesn't "represent reality") until it is consciously perceived...which is pretty counter-intuitive. But quantum behaviour is counter-intuitive. |
|
|
|
Post by DaveJavu on Nov 27, 2023 23:17:20 GMT
I think the current theory is that our minds produce an experience that is informed by sensory data, but those experiences are representations created by the mind to interpret sense data. That is, we can say that the light reflecting off an apple is a certain wavelength, but our minds produce the experience that "this apple is green". More weirdly, we know that atoms and molecules are mostly empty, but our minds produce the experience that the apple is a solid, continuous object. Why do we perceive apples as solid when they are mostly empty? Why do we not perceive the molecules, atoms, and quarks in the apple? No one really has a good answer for that except that we evolved that way. I do not think "intersecting, interacting quantum fields" is really like consciousness. It's worth noting that "observer" in quantum physics is NOT a conscious observer. But there is also "observer theory"—an extrapolation of manifestation of quantum effects like quantum wave collapse, the idea that "if nobody is looking at that object," it doesn't exist as such, other than as some kind of quantum potential. If that is true, the "sensory data" isn't really "there" (or maybe, doesn't "represent reality") until it is consciously perceived...which is pretty counter-intuitive. But quantum behaviour is counter-intuitive. I am sorry but Quantum Theory has nothing to do with "consciously perceived", it's about measure. "Measure" doesn't need someone to be present. Say if the measures were automatically printed on paper, you wouldn't argue that the prints would change the instant someone is "perceiving them consciously", would you? I mean, that would be quite different from an electron altering its state, wouldn't it? A particle being in one of two state is one thing, the letters on a paper CHANGING is quite another! That's just voodoo. |
|
|
|
Post by Running Deer on Nov 27, 2023 23:56:38 GMT
If no one is seeing the green apple, it's not being perceived as one. I think the object still exists in whatever its true form is (fundamental particles or vibrating strings or intersecting quantum fields or or or...), but the experience of the object as a green apple does not. At this time, it's not known how the odd world of quantum effects can make our boring Newtonian world.
However, this is not anything like consciousness being the substance of reality.
To put another wrinkle in it, we perceive things unconsciously, as well. Or maybe I should say, we receive sensory data that our brain just ignores. Weirder yet, we receive and make decisions about sensory data without even being conscious of anything happening. This happens on a long drive, when I zone out of conscious attention to my driving, all while receiving sensory data about the car and adjusting my driving accordingly.
|
|
|
|
Post by DaveJavu on Nov 28, 2023 0:16:35 GMT
If no one is seeing the green apple, it's not being perceived as one. I think the object still exists in whatever its true form is (fundamental particles or vibrating strings or intersecting quantum fields or or or...), but the experience of the object as a green apple does not. At this time, it's not known how the odd world of quantum effects can make our boring Newtonian world. However, this is not anything like consciousness being the substance of reality. To put another wrinkle in it, we perceive things unconsciously, as well. Or maybe I should say, we receive sensory data that our brain just ignores. Weirder yet, we receive and make decisions about sensory data without even being conscious of anything happening. This happens on a long drive, when I zone out of conscious attention to my driving, all while receiving sensory data about the car and adjusting my driving accordingly. I am sorry but this is just fantasy and has nothing to do with the Quantum Theory which is about particles and not at all about some supposed "state of mind". The idea that the mind alters reality is on the same level as astrology or that guy that made people think he could bend spoons with his mind. |
|
|
|
Post by Mercy for All on Nov 28, 2023 3:05:12 GMT
But there is also "observer theory"—an extrapolation of manifestation of quantum effects like quantum wave collapse, the idea that "if nobody is looking at that object," it doesn't exist as such, other than as some kind of quantum potential. If that is true, the "sensory data" isn't really "there" (or maybe, doesn't "represent reality") until it is consciously perceived...which is pretty counter-intuitive. But quantum behaviour is counter-intuitive. I am sorry but Quantum Theory has nothing to do with "consciously perceived", it's about measure. "Measure" doesn't need someone to be present. Say if the measures were automatically printed on paper, you wouldn't argue that the prints would change the instant someone is "perceiving them consciously", would you? I mean, that would be quite different from an electron altering its state, wouldn't it? A particle being in one of two state is one thing, the letters on a paper CHANGING is quite another! That's just voodoo. Check out multimodal user interface theory. |
|
|
|
Post by DaveJavu on Nov 28, 2023 17:20:12 GMT
I am sorry but Quantum Theory has nothing to do with "consciously perceived", it's about measure. "Measure" doesn't need someone to be present. Say if the measures were automatically printed on paper, you wouldn't argue that the prints would change the instant someone is "perceiving them consciously", would you? I mean, that would be quite different from an electron altering its state, wouldn't it? A particle being in one of two state is one thing, the letters on a paper CHANGING is quite another! That's just voodoo. Check out multimodal user interface theory. That doesn't mean that I have to agree with that, does it? Personally, I think it's stupid regardless of whom originated the theory. |
|
|
|
Post by Mercy for All on Nov 28, 2023 17:31:07 GMT
Check out multimodal user interface theory. That doesn't mean that I have to agree with that, does it? Personally, I think it's stupid regardless of whom originated the theory. No, you don't have to agree with it. But to presume that "physical reality as we perceive it" represents anything more than a very limited view or model of reality itself is hardly a supportable position. What we "perceive" has more to do with our aims than it does "the objective reality that we are actually looking at." Rather than simply dismiss something like a multimodal user interface view out of hand, it might be worth actually looking into it and considering its claims and implications. |
|
|
|
Post by DaveJavu on Nov 28, 2023 17:38:21 GMT
That doesn't mean that I have to agree with that, does it? Personally, I think it's stupid regardless of whom originated the theory. No, you don't have to agree with it. But to presume that "physical reality as we perceive it" represents anything more than a very limited view or model of reality itself is hardly a supportable position. What we "perceive" has more to do with our aims than it does "the objective reality that we are actually looking at." Rather than simply dismiss something like a multimodal user interface view out of hand, it might be worth actually looking into it and considering its claims and implications. I am just arguing that most things around us are not subject to "quantum fluctuations" regardless of whether we perceive them or not. In modern science and technology, enormous quantities of data are never ever looked at directly by any witnesses, yet they are used to calculate things (like details of planes or rockets) that our lives sometimes depends on. How would that work if direct conscious perception was fundamental in fixing reality? |
|
|
|
Post by Mercy for All on Nov 28, 2023 21:46:31 GMT
No, you don't have to agree with it. But to presume that "physical reality as we perceive it" represents anything more than a very limited view or model of reality itself is hardly a supportable position. What we "perceive" has more to do with our aims than it does "the objective reality that we are actually looking at." Rather than simply dismiss something like a multimodal user interface view out of hand, it might be worth actually looking into it and considering its claims and implications. I am just arguing that most things around us are not subject to "quantum fluctuations" regardless of whether we perceive them or not. In modern science and technology, enormous quantities of data are never ever looked at directly by any witnesses, yet they are used to calculate things (like details of planes or rockets) that our lives sometimes depends on. How would that work if direct conscious perception was fundamental in fixing reality? Arguably in very similar ways to you running software on your computer, which is run on top of the operating system, which itself is running on a substrate of a hexadecimal "language" which itself is running on a substrate of binary code. Quantum entanglement, one "counter-intuitive quantum effect," has already been observed at a macro level: www.sciencealert.com/quantum-entanglement-has-now-been-directly-observed-at-the-macroscopic-scale |
|
|
|
Post by DaveJavu on Nov 29, 2023 23:08:08 GMT
I am just arguing that most things around us are not subject to "quantum fluctuations" regardless of whether we perceive them or not. In modern science and technology, enormous quantities of data are never ever looked at directly by any witnesses, yet they are used to calculate things (like details of planes or rockets) that our lives sometimes depends on. How would that work if direct conscious perception was fundamental in fixing reality? Arguably in very similar ways to you running software on your computer, which is run on top of the operating system, which itself is running on a substrate of a hexadecimal "language" which itself is running on a substrate of binary code. You're not making much sense. How is that relevant to data being recorded and never consciously perceived? Irrelevant. We're talking about conscious perception not quantum mechanics in general. I never said I disagreed with Quantum entanglement or Quantum mechanics in general. What gave you the bizarre impression that I did? |
|
|
|
Post by Mercy for All on Nov 29, 2023 23:22:14 GMT
Arguably in very similar ways to you running software on your computer, which is run on top of the operating system, which itself is running on a substrate of a hexadecimal "language" which itself is running on a substrate of binary code. You're not making much sense. How is that relevant to data being recorded and never consciously perceived? Did you actually look into that theory? It's an analogy to what the theory says...as software is "layers of languages," etc., our perception of reality is actually an interface...one or two layers "up" from "actual reality." What we think of as "actual reality" is really more of "just an interpretation," albeit a useful one. The point is that quantum activity doesn't seem to be relevant to macro scales (beyond probabilities of cumulative quantum effects). Or...well, it didn't. But now it has been demonstrated that it can be relevant. |
|
|
|
Post by DaveJavu on Nov 29, 2023 23:31:30 GMT
You're not making much sense. How is that relevant to data being recorded and never consciously perceived? Did you actually look into that theory? It's an analogy to what the theory says...as software is "layers of languages," etc., our perception of reality is actually an interface...one or two layers "up" from "actual reality." What we think of as "actual reality" is really more of "just an interpretation," albeit a useful one. I never said otherwise. But what does that have to do with data being measured and never ever consciously perceived? Layers or not. You have quantum events that happen, are recorded and then used in calculations, all the while never ever being consciously perceived by anyone. If conscious perception were that fundamental to "making reality", sooner or later there would be a problem... There isn't. Still not seeing what that has ton do with our current discussion. Things change... Is that what you're trying to say? |
|
|
|
Post by DaveJavu on Nov 29, 2023 23:38:48 GMT
You're not making much sense. How is that relevant to data being recorded and never consciously perceived? Did you actually look into that theory? It's an analogy to what the theory says...as software is "layers of languages," etc., our perception of reality is actually an interface...one or two layers "up" from "actual reality." What we think of as "actual reality" is really more of "just an interpretation," albeit a useful one. The point is that quantum activity doesn't seem to be relevant to macro scales (beyond probabilities of cumulative quantum effects). Or...well, it didn't. But now it has been demonstrated that it can be relevant. Just a general observation: You seem to be jumping into all sorts of hasty conclusions. Like, because I disagree with one thing then I must also disagree with another and instead of keeping your focus on the subject at hand jumping from subject to subject all the while making a plethora of assumptions about what I must think. |
|
|
|
Post by Mercy for All on Nov 30, 2023 0:25:46 GMT
Did you actually look into that theory? It's an analogy to what the theory says...as software is "layers of languages," etc., our perception of reality is actually an interface...one or two layers "up" from "actual reality." What we think of as "actual reality" is really more of "just an interpretation," albeit a useful one. The point is that quantum activity doesn't seem to be relevant to macro scales (beyond probabilities of cumulative quantum effects). Or...well, it didn't. But now it has been demonstrated that it can be relevant. Just a general observation: You seem to be jumping into all sorts of hasty conclusions. Like, because I disagree with one thing then I must also disagree with another and instead of keeping your focus on the subject at hand jumping from subject to subject all the while making a plethora of assumptions about what I must think. Not really. It's a conversation. Not everything I post is a refutation of what I think you think. I did, however, presume that you thought that quantum effects were "only micro and not macro"—probably because that's what I thought. To a large extent, I still do; cases of macro entanglement seem to require very special and controlled circumstances. Anyway, the whole point (going way back) was that "the way things are" is not limited to what we perceive and experience. |
|
