Thought Experiment Regarding God

Originally posted by intrptr
reply to post by ImaFungi

 

Sorry, I replied twice...

That does nothing to prove this and you cant even explain how this would be theoretically possible

So you want proof. Goood. Keep seeking the "truth". When you get your answer, you will know. Don't be so impatient, life is a life long process. A yearning burning mind is the best form of prayer there is. I don't mean sunday church prayer either. Go outside at night and stare up at the sky and wonder... that is true worship.

You will be answered eventually, I can tell. You have a burning desire. That does not go unanswered.

Yep, thanks for your input. Do you think God created the universe?

Originally posted by ImaFungi
I just want to think about what may be true...

Don't we all? It is why we ask so many questions. We seek a truth, find the truth, then seek another truth.

The whole god concept is not a red herring because it potentially may be true

Faith is not truth. It is hope of truth. Therein lies the red herring.

Do you think it is impossible for a God to have created this universe?

Loaded question.

Why do humans, especially religious ones, put God up on some convenient pedestal where they have to understand folktales and meditations levels to be more in "tune" with God?:

For example thought process? Obviously if someone is full of addictions like food, video games, alcohol, drugs porn sex etc they aren't thinking... they are CONSUMING. America wants people to CONSUME to think, because while they're thinking they're rarely consuming, and that means less tax dollars spent for funding worldwide terror and genocide, while they are thinking instead of consuming and funding it all. (Americans are essentially war slaves/machines).

In contrasts, the thinking process is some manifestation of God consciousness. God isn't up in the sky somewhere, for even up in the sky is relative and irrelevant in the universe.We are all part of God, existence, sentient concious, what we think and what we choose to do decides whether we are at harmony with God's love/existence... or spitefully against it.

reply to post by KamaSutra


Religion is the oldest form of brainwashing known to man. One needs only look at the control it has over peoples lives, the division it has created between brothers, not to mention the cash flow, genocide, wars, paedophilia, and all that other good stuff. When it's one rule for them and one rule for you, and they make the rules, you are just a slave. They might give it a nice name and put a cause behind it, but it's still slavery. Emotional and psychological slavery. That's my take on it anyhoo.

reply to post by ImaFungi

Is it possible for a reality to ever exist that does not follow laws and causality/logic ( interpret reality as a system, which exists as a whole (reality) because of each part (bits of information) and how each part reacts to each other)?

The system that comes to mind is the human body. If it gets cancer, then the cancer system is not following the causality/logic of the healthy body. The cancer is transposing its own system to replace the humans healthy system of cells.

I also read somewhere that cancer cells can communicate by some system of tranmisssion of signals to eachother. Therefore this raises idea that one human body system with cancer , the cancer can transmit to another human body system somewhere else.

reply to post by ImaFungi

Do you think God created the universe?

If you use that like what the bible says, no. I think men wrote that from their even more limited understanding of the Universe thousands of years ago.

I do think DNA, the seed, an egg, and the magic of the womb were "created". I don't believe they "evolved".

Originally posted by threewisemonkeys


Faith is not truth. It is hope of truth. Therein lies the red herring.

I said there is a potential of God existing, I am not offering any qualities of this God, I am only saying either an intelligence created this universe, or one didnt. Has nothing to do with faith, there is a truth, and it can potentially be discerned.

Loaded question.

How so, to me it seems rather straight forward. Either an intelligence had something to do with the creation of this universe or not. Using your logic,reason,ration and knowledge of the universe...what is your opinion? Did a God create this universe or not? If you think one did not, then I would ask; Is it impossible for a God to create a universe?

Originally posted by intrptr
reply to post by ImaFungi

 

Do you think God created the universe?

If you use that like what the bible says, no. I think men wrote that from their even more limited understanding of the Universe thousands of years ago.

I do think DNA, the seed, an egg, and the magic of the womb were "created". I don't believe they "evolved".

Hm, no when I say God, I am not referring to any book or knowledge of this God, only to the fact that this elegant universal system exists somewhere in time and space, and is made of a lot of somethings, and I didnt put it here, so it is logically possible that something with the capabilities of creating order did.

Ok, now what do you mean by they were created?... please dont tell me you dont 'believe' in evolution.

ANYTHING is possible,

I had to post just to say i like the way you think O.P.
A small thought because reading this thread so far has fried my brain(in a fun way)

Just because we observe something or have a theory for it doesn't make it real,
beyond what we taste and touch,how can we know the universe is infinate.
You could even go as far as everything is an illusion.

So again anything is possible.

Yeh you pickled my brain

reply to post by ImaFungi

Ok, now what do you mean by they were created?

I mean what we call the Genetic Code. It is "encoded", right? Who programmed that? Who did that? That "creator".

reply to post by AthlonSavage


You raise a very interesting point. I remember hearing a story a long time ago about Native Americans I believe. Bit vague but bare with me. There was something about the U.S. training special forces using Native American Indians. They noticed that whenever someone approached their camp it was always the Indian who awoke first. Baffled them for a while so they asked the Indian what the deal was, why did he always wake first? The indian said something about it being something to do with his long hair. He could sense when someone had entered his space, so to speak, and it would rouse him. So, they stopped cutting their hair. As the story goes, the soldiers soon found that as their hair grew, they became more "aware" of their surroundings, even in sleep. I do not know how factual this story is but it is an interesting one non the less. Look at it in this context; how many religions have "rules" about hair growth? Be it a beard be it the head hair, and how many of these rules have to do with being "closer" or "nearer" to God.

Presume we have the capacity to feel more. Be more aware of our surroundings and each other. Have more empathy towards one another. Perhaps actually feel a little of what others feel (as opposed to just saying "i know how you feel" when in reality you do not). It would be a powerful thing. A good thing. Some might call it voodoo magic, some might say its the power of God. Personally I think we do ourselves a sever injustice as a species in doing so. Stop giving someone else the credit.

Originally posted by intrptr
reply to post by ImaFungi

 

Ok, now what do you mean by they were created?

I mean what we call the Genetic Code. It is "encoded", right? Who programmed that? Who did that? That "creator".

Well biologists who dont believe in intelligent design would tell you time, chemistry/biology, physical laws, and trial and error...

but I would tell them thats the same way we intelligently create anything

Originally posted by threewisemonkeys
Stop giving someone else the credit.

No need to give anyone credit for the things you do. But do you give the people who invent your car or build your home or computer credit? Does an artist deserve credit for creating a painting? Does a father and mother deserve credit for creating a child? If a God created this universe would it deserve any credit in doing so?
When we create an AI with consciousness of its own, will the creators of that AI deserve any credit?

reply to post by ImaFungi


Explanation: S&F!

Ok so we are in the philosophy forum and not the science and technology forum and therefor I can put aside any facts and just rely on pure logic and reason to put forward my argument.

I invoke and summon Descartes ...



And clear the current table of evidence ...

And now to address the questions posed in the OP.

Working off of the only foundation I have left ... which is fully laid out in the above vid ... I find myself left with the tools of ...

Logic

Mathematics

And I submit that both the 1st and 2nd queries posed in the OP can be deeply answered by the Possible World modal logic.

So generally ...

Possibility, necessity, and contingency
Further information: Modal logic#The ontology of possibility
Those theorists who use the concept of possible worlds consider the actual world to be one of the many possible worlds. For each distinct way the world could have been, there is said to be a distinct possible world; the actual world is the one we in fact live in. Among such theorists there is disagreement about the nature of possible worlds; their precise ontological status is disputed, and especially the difference, if any, in ontological status between the actual world and all the other possible worlds. One position on these matters is set forth in David Lewis's modal realism (see below). There is a close relation between propositions and possible worlds. We note that every proposition is either true or false at any given possible world; then the modal status of a proposition is understood in terms of the worlds in which it is true and worlds in which it is false. The following are among the assertions we may now usefully make:

True propositions are those that are true in the actual world (for example: "Richard Nixon became President in 1969").
False propositions are those that are false in the actual world (for example: "Ronald Reagan became President in 1969").
Possible propositions are those that are true in at least one possible world (for example: "Hubert Humphrey became President in 1969"). Note: This includes propositions which are necessarily true, in the sense below.
Impossible propositions (or necessarily false propositions) are those that are true in no possible world (for example: "Melissa and Toby are taller than each other at the same time").
Necessarily true propositions (often simply called necessary propositions) are those that are true in all possible worlds (for example: "2 + 2 = 4"; "all bachelors are unmarried").
Contingent propositions are those that are true in some possible worlds and false in others (for example: "Richard Nixon became President in 1969" is contingently true and "Hubert Humphrey became President in 1969" is contingently false).
The idea of possible worlds is most commonly attributed to Gottfried Leibniz, who spoke of possible worlds as ideas in the mind of God and used the notion to argue that our actually created world must be "the best of all possible worlds". However, scholars have also found implicit traces of the idea in the works of Al-Ghazali (The Incoherence of the Philosophers), Averroes (The Incoherence of the Incoherence),Fakhr al-Din al-Razi (Matalib al-'Aliya) and John Duns Scotus. The modern philosophical use of the notion was pioneered by David Lewis and Saul Kripke.

And specifically ...

Formal semantics of modal logics
Main article: Modal logic#Semantics
A semantics for modal logic was first introduced in the 1950s work of Saul Kripke and his colleagues.
A statement in modal logic that is possible is said to be true in at least one possible world; a statement that is necessary is said to be true in all possible worlds.

Therefor that leads logically from a possible world to a Many Worlds Interpretation

The many-worlds interpretation is an interpretation of quantum mechanics that asserts the objective reality of the universal wavefunction and denies the actuality of wavefunction collapse. Many-worlds implies that all possible alternative histories and futures are real, each representing an actual "world" (or "universe"). It is also referred to as MWI, the relative state formulation, the Everett interpretation, the theory of the universal wavefunction, many-universes interpretation, or just many-worlds.

See also ... Vaidman, Lev, "Many-Worlds Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics", The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Fall 2008 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.), [plato.stanford.edu]

Continued next post ...

reply to post by ImaFungi


Continued from previous post ...

Explanation: And that (see previous post) leads logically to a 'possible' Multiverse

The multiverse (or meta-universe) is the hypothetical set of multiple possible universes (including the historical universe we consistently experience) that together comprise everything that exists and can exist: the entirety of space, time, matter, and energy as well as the physical laws and constants that describe them. The term was coined in 1895 by the American philosopher and psychologist William James. The various universes within the multiverse are sometimes called parallel universes.

The structure of the multiverse, the nature of each universe within it and the relationship between the various constituent universes, depend on the specific multiverse hypothesis considered. Multiple universes have been hypothesized in cosmology, physics, astronomy, religion, philosophy, transpersonal psychology and fiction, particularly in science fiction and fantasy. In these contexts, parallel universes are also called "alternative universes", "quantum universes", "interpenetrating dimensions", "parallel dimensions", "parallel worlds", "alternative realities", "alternative timelines", and "dimensional planes," among others.

So Yes it is possible to logically have these other realms that are spoken of in the OP.

And they can all be described by Set Theory

Set theory is the branch of mathematics that studies sets, which are collections of objects. Although any type of object can be collected into a set, set theory is applied most often to objects that are relevant to mathematics. The language of set theory can be used in the definitions of nearly all mathematical objects.

The modern study of set theory was initiated by Georg Cantor and Richard Dedekind in the 1870s. After the discovery of paradoxes in naive set theory, numerous axiom systems were proposed in the early twentieth century, of which the Zermelo–Fraenkel axioms, with the axiom of choice, are the best-known.

Set theory is commonly employed as a foundational system for mathematics, particularly in the form of Zermelo–Fraenkel set theory with the axiom of choice. Beyond its foundational role, set theory is a branch of mathematics in its own right, with an active research community. Contemporary research into set theory includes a diverse collection of topics, ranging from the structure of the real number line to the study of the consistency of large cardinals.

Personal Disclosure: I shall attempt to detail possible logical ways of bootstrapping a multiverse (set = infinity) out of nothing (a nullset) using set theory and mainly the logical NOT (!, ¬) function which is a simple invertion of any sets state.

So I start with a nullset (0) that I lable as the 'Source' of all the infinite subsets ( ∞infinity) labled as the 'Multiverse' that evolve from it.

I shall also be using percentages as an accounting auditing measure.

Source = nullset = 0% = (0)
Multiverse = subsets = 100% = ( ∞infinity)

And the logical pathway from the Source to the Multiverse set is to apply the NOT (!, ¬) function

Source NOT (!, ¬) >= Multiverse
0% NOT (!, ¬) >= 100%
(0) NOT (!, ¬) >= ( ∞infinity)

In quantum mechanics and becuase we need an observer to collapse the wave function (although there is some debate about that and I go in detail about that further below) and so we have a another way of seeing both states and hence 2 more catagories ...

Source = The Observer

Multiverse = The Observed

The Observer is NOT (!, ¬) equal to The Observed and therefor being greater than The Observer is the prefered and consequently the logical orginal prime hyperset of all sets aka The Observed.

This is simply stated as an axiom in which "All sets must self assess to maintain their own integrity as a set and therefor automatically collapse [NOT (!, ¬) function] their own wavefunction from 0 >= ∞infintity down to a single discrete value of quanta ranging between the values of 0 and ∞infinity aka eigen value."

From the Many worlds interpretation

Interpreting wavefunction collapse
As with the other interpretations of quantum mechanics, the many-worlds interpretation is motivated by behavior that can be illustrated by the double-slit experiment. When particles of light (or anything else) are passed through the double slit, a calculation assuming wave-like behavior of light can be used to identify where the particles are likely to be observed. Yet when the particles are observed in this experiment, they appear as particles (i.e., at definite places) and not as non-localized waves.

Continued next post ...

reply to post by ImaFungi


Explanation: Continued from previous post which carries on from my personal disclosure as to how I would logically construct a self perpetuating self contained self causal multiverse ...

Some versions of the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics proposed a process of "collapse" in which an indeterminate quantum system would probabilistically collapse down onto, or select, just one determinate outcome to "explain" this phenomenon of observation. Wavefunction collapse was widely regarded as artificial and ad hoc[citation needed], so an alternative interpretation in which the behavior of measurement could be understood from more fundamental physical principles was considered desirable.

Everett's Ph.D. work provided such an alternative interpretation. Everett noted that for a composite system – for example a subject (the "observer" or measuring apparatus) observing an object (the "observed" system, such as a particle) – the statement that either the observer or the observed has a well-defined state is meaningless; in modern parlance the observer and the observed have become entangled; we can only specify the state of one relative to the other, i.e., the state of the observer and the observed are correlated after the observation is made. This led Everett to derive from the unitary, deterministic dynamics alone (i.e., without assuming wavefunction collapse) the notion of a relativity of states.

Everett noticed that the unitary, deterministic dynamics alone decreed that after an observation is made each element of the quantum superposition of the combined subject–object wavefunction contains two "relative states": a "collapsed" object state and an associated observer who has observed the same collapsed outcome; what the observer sees and the state of the object have become correlated by the act of measurement or observation. The subsequent evolution of each pair of relative subject–object states proceeds with complete indifference as to the presence or absence of the other elements, as if wavefunction collapse has occurred, which has the consequence that later observations are always consistent with the earlier observations. Thus the appearance of the object's wavefunction's collapse has emerged from the unitary, deterministic theory itself. (This answered Einstein's early criticism of quantum theory, that the theory should define what is observed, not for the observables to define the theory). Since the wavefunction appears to have collapsed then, Everett reasoned, there was no need to actually assume that it had collapsed. And so, invoking Occam's razor, he removed the postulate of wavefunction collapse from the theory.

Hence ...

Probability
A consequence of removing wavefunction collapse from the quantum formalism is that the Born rule requires derivation, since many-worlds claims to derive its interpretation from the formalism. Attempts have been made, by many-world advocates and others, over the years to derive the Born rule, rather than just conventionally assume it, so as to reproduce all the required statistical behaviour associated with quantum mechanics. There is no consensus on whether this has been successful.

Born Rule

The Born rule (also called the Born law, Born's rule, or Born's law) is a law of quantum mechanics which gives the probability that a measurement on a quantum system will yield a given result. It is named after its originator, the physicist Max Born. The Born rule is one of the key principles of quantum mechanics. There have been many attempts to derive the Born rule from the other assumptions of quantum mechanics, with inconclusive results.

Specifically ...

Picture contains link.

I shall be using Venn Diagrams to help try derive The Born rule.

Personal Disclosure on my Personal Disclosure: And I will post that and them as soon as I have created and uploaded them which is going to take me a while ... So please digest as much of the above data as one can in the meantime ok!

Plus due to space requirements of previous posts I leave the following extra refrerence material to consider ...

Negation

Logic Gates

NOT Gate

Originally posted by ImaFungi
I am only saying either an intelligence created this universe, or one didnt. Has nothing to do with faith, there is a truth, and it can potentially be discerned.

In which case, given the complete lack of any concrete evidence of the existence of an entity with the power to create and destroy universes at will, one didn't. The amount of faith required to believe it to be the case, well, it's a ludicrous idea.

How so?

The presumption is that there is a God as defined in this context (an entity with the power to create and destroy universes at will,). If it is not clear what God is, how am I to ascertain what it can or cannot do. This being the case, whether I answered yes or no, I could be unknowing lying as there may or may not be a God as you are defining it. You cannot have truth when you do not have all the facts. Best you can do is an educated guess and that aint truth.

No need to give anyone credit for the things you do

I don't understand why we need to invent a God to give credit to, for the universe being an amazing place full of wonders. It's just not very rational. Gods didn't produce thunder and lightening and they didn't create the universe. It's only a matter of time until we figure it out, and then the "believers" will need to find some other thing to latch onto. Unless in the meantime we can once and for all put this mythical sky man to rest and write it off as a case of long term bad judgement on our parts and move on to better things. I wont hold my breath though.

reply to post by OmegaLogos


Wow thanks a lot OL Thats a lot to take in but I think I followed.

I personally have a problem with your sets and logical functions. Was that your way of expressing how a universe or multiverse can come from nothing? you defined the source of everything as nothing, however we know that stuff that exists has physical qualities, is this source definable in a physical manner, and if not, how can it be said to exist, and if its not physical and cannot be said to exist, how can it give rise to everything that can be considered existing and physical?

The whole observer -wave function thing is interesting... (for me personally thinking of things in terms of A) God created this universe; what are the consequences of that..... B) God did not create the universe; what are the consequences of that.... is a helpful way to do it) If God created the universe then there is an objective reality independent and exact regardless of bias perspective, ( however it does bring up the question, is that only so because God is observing the universe, or because he planned it or designed it?) The universe seems like a different place for a maggot, for a tree, for a butterfly, for a bat, for a baby, for a man, for a woman, for an alien, for a cat, for God, for our scientific instruments and models... but whose perception and comprehension is correct? If there is no god, is there no such thing as correct perspective, is there no such thing as correct anything, because there is nothing about the universe that can know anything about the universe except the 'observers' with senses who can know anything about the universe... Idk... I tend to think whether God created the universe or not, the universe is a causal,physically logical system, which follows laws and has a quantity. Because its causal I think there are correct interpretations and correct perspectives, I.e. if I were to say there are clouds because I dropped a rock on my toe this morning, even if noone corrects me, even if there is no god, I am universally wrong with my inner computation of logic, because it does not match up with the truth of what actually happens. So in that sense I do believe there is always a truth even if there is no enforcer.

Ok, I also dont believe in many worlds interpretation because, there is no evidence for it and its unnecessary and makes no sense. It breaks conservation of energy laws and materialism, and just makes no sense... I dont get how people think that can even be a possibility. What is the motivation behind that theory, what started that idea, double slit?

thanks again for the contribution OL, it was great indeed. Descartes vid was nice too

Originally posted by threewisemonkeys

The presumption is that there is a God as defined in this context (an entity with the power to create and destroy universes at will,). If it is not clear what God is, how am I to ascertain what it can or cannot do. This being the case, whether I answered yes or no, I could be unknowing lying as there may or may not be a God as you are defining it. You cannot have truth when you do not have all the facts. Best you can do is an educated guess and that aint truth.

That is a context you defined, the presumption is that it is possible for this universe to have been created by an intelligent entity. ^ that is the clarity of what God is, we don't know any details about this potential being, except that you and I arose in this universe, and we dont remember creating this place, we have no a priori knowledge, so it is plausible that something which is similar to what we know of as intelligence created this universe. I never said it is truth, I asked for your educated guess, Im curious what you think is the truth and why.

I don't understand why we need to invent a God to give credit to, for the universe being an amazing place full of wonders. It's just not very rational. Gods didn't produce thunder and lightening and they didn't create the universe. It's only a matter of time until we figure it out, and then the "believers" will need to find some other thing to latch onto. Unless in the meantime we can once and for all put this mythical sky man to rest and write it off as a case of long term bad judgement on our parts and move on to better things. I wont hold my breath though.

Its not about a need to invent a God to give credit to, its about not ignoring the potential a God created the universe. Oh you think the word "God" means mythical sky man, thats your own personal interpretation and understanding you know that right? You know that debunking the bible or quran does not debunk the existence of a God, if one created the universe? Dont you care about the truth? Dont you see that a potential truth may be the existence of God ( and before you say a potential truth might be a flying sphagetti monster, I hope you understand why that is an irrational argument, if not; The universe exists...either a God created one or not, that argument and the potential for that, is a lot more probabilistically relevant and potentially truthful then flying spaghetti men...dont worry about any mythical or mystical thing or anything man has ever said.. only worry about the fact the universe exists, and logically, there is about an equal chance a God created it or didnt. If you think it is more rational to believe a flying spaghetti monster created the universe, then that is your prerogative, but that is adding a very descriptive detail on a very unknown.)

Also I didnt really want this thread to be about whether God exists or not ( even though I dont have a problem discussing this): I was more so looking for thoughts on whether it is conceivably possible for a God to exist and create a universe. A system that is self contained and separate from the one it exists in, and whether that system could be an extension of his reality like our computers are aspects and made of the same reality everything else is, but use materials in such a way that novel information, computation, and events and activities can take place with their functions. I was also wondering if it is ever possible for their to be brought into existence something that is composed of an original fundamental matter different from what exists in the reality., um its seemingly hard to express but I tried in the OP, are we fated to only use atoms and subatomic particles of energy/matter and and limited by the laws,, or is it possible to create a new realm which is composed of nothing like atoms (or particles, or energy, or matter,) getting really down to it, im interested in; if this universe is the only thing that exists, the only reality, then what is so significant about the aesthetics, physics, style, constituents, and abilities of this universe, its size, scale... If this is all that exists, what causes it to be so sophisticated and orderly and of such an exact type,, idkidk. Understand I accept that the universe exists and I exist completely... I am just trying to think about it

reply to post by ImaFungi

Well biologists who dont believe in intelligent design would tell you time, chemistry/biology, physical laws, and trial and error...

but I would tell them thats the same way we intelligently create anything

You rest my case.