Technological advancements don't necessarily imply growth. You can still develop science and technology in a balanced economy to achieve better efficiency. Basically, you can do the same for less or do more with the same.

... there are always good parallel realities to shift to.

This one has Bitcoin, the one I was 3 years ago didn't.

By reading your responses, I just realized that there is another answer to the question "Who am I?".
And that answer is "I just don't wanna know".

I do appreciate the persistence with which you defend your position and acknowledge it just as valid as any other. Arguing any further might not be of much value, as the meaning we put behind words starts to diverge rapidly at this stage. I wonder how people can agree on anything at all, if everyone understands something different for the words they use. Was there meaning or the word first? Or are they just two inseparable parts of the same one thing, a living paradox, where none can get the ultimate edge of another?

I agree that you are inseparable from your experience, including the experience of living in a Universe, be it a simulation, a "real" thing or just a dream. In that sense, "It is You and You are It" and "We are all One and the Same".

As a compensation for the time and effort spent on this discussion by many, I would like to suggest watching two wonderful movies, that the electrons in our brains have spontaneously created "by chance"

"The Game" (1997) with Michael Douglas
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0119174/

"The Truman Show" (1998) with Jim Carrey
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0120382/

Have fun!

Here you assume, that the quantum level is more fundamental than our perception of it.
However, the quantum level have clearly demonstrated that it is not independent from our observation of it and therefore is not a separate fundamental reality onto itself.

The atoms that make up our brains are equal citizens on that quantum level with other particles. So how can our brain give rise to our consciousness, if its constituents are dependent on how we look at it?

In other words, the brain is only a brain when we look at it.

The experience of creating something in imagination is more immediate, than your interpretation of it as simply rearranging the electrons in the brain. So why do you prefer some very complex interpretation over the immediate experience? You can also create something in physical reality after you imagine it, don't you have a concept of a house with all those drawings before you go and build it?


But there is a clear distinction (for you) between chemical processes before your birth and after. So is there a particular chemical process that makes you who you are? Isn't that process a pre-existing idea of you then?

The car example is irrelevant to this discussion, as anything else you call yours, simply because for something to be yours you need to be you to begin with. Your car is not you, so it is not so interesting how it came to be. The funny thing is that according to this train of thought your brain also is not you. You need to go deeper, or should I say "outside"

Yes, I do remember that conversation in one of the Atlas threads from about a year ago or so. It is an important point to understand before we can move any further.

So, there are two options here, either we have per-existent idea of "you" before your birth or we have a singularity. I cannot see any way around it, no matter how certain belief system is called.

If the substance of "you" is a particular configuration of atoms waiting to arrange themselves in a certain way, then that's already a pre-existent idea of "you". Can we agree on that?

PS: when I say "you", readers should think about themselves and replace it with "I" for this argument to work properly.


I see how it might be tricky to make the first step backwards, so maybe another angle is to make an explicit step forward first and then demonstrate how going back from there is at least possible.

In this regard, making step forward would be building a very realistic computer simulation, which would block person's current memory and perception of physical reality for the duration of the game session. Something like decent VR helmet with good response time for blocking physical reality and injection of some substance to temporarily block current memory would do the job. All this is real physical stuff from off-the-shelf components, so no imaginary fantasies here.

Then ask that person the same questions while in the game session and see how ridiculous the answers would sound. Something like: "how did you get here?" - "oh, I don't know, maybe I am just an arrangement of some bits in this place, or some quantum flop of energy...". It is very easy to see, that simulation itself didn't create that person (the actual physical player), but only altered the perception of reality for a while. By the time the player thought he was dead in the game, he woke up in his cozy chair with a great deal of surprise on his face.

This is place is no different.

It's ok. I'm on an tablet myself, and typing quickly is sometimes troublesome.
The video contains (apart from the main train of thought) many quotes from great scientists of the past, where they expressed their fundamental understanding of reality.


Yes, you can call it anything you want, even a Flying Spaghetti Monster, it's just a label or shortcut for "Creator of the Universe(s)", so that I don't have to repeat that whole phrase in the rest of the argument.

But it is important to substitute the definition back when we conclude the argument. Which is:
Creator of the Universe(s) exists in reality.

If you refuse the idea of creator at all, then you will face contradiction the minute you create something in your imagination, like that "spontaneous quantum event" you mentioned. And by the way we didn't witness it, we reconstructed it in our imagination, based on some experimental data from the satelites, but there is no certainty, that this particular reconstruction is unique.


The one is the emergence of physical universe, the other is the emergence of you. You have agreed, that there was no pre-existing idea of you 1 year before your birth in this universe, so your emergence in it is a singularity.

The inconsistency in your reasoning, is that you require (for no obvious reasons) first singularity (the universe) to occur first in order for second singularity (you) to follow. Singularity already means, that you cannot coherently explain how it occurs, therefore requiring something else as a prerequisite seems unfounded.

There is another good argument to think of "you" as a primary (and maybe only) singularity. There are two possibilities - one is that physical universe exists and you perceive it, and the other is that physical universe is just an elaborate product of your imagination. Out of these two possibilities physical universe exists only in one case, while you exist in both. Another way of saying this, is that you cannot know about anything else (including physical universe) with higher degree of certainty, than you know about your own existence.
The moment, you say "I know something", validates your own existence immediately and unconditionally.


The evidence is about two lectures from Google Talks, where scientists presented experimental data that matched scientific criteria for "statistically significant" result. Which in normal language simply means, that data cannot be explained by chance.

If you want to ask why isn't this research mainstream, you should ask yourself who funds mainstream science and what is the agenda there, like with mainstream media and mainstream monetary system.

As to the perpetual motion machines, I have always wondered if simple hydrogen atom is a good model for that. Will the electron ever run out of juice, if the atom left alone indefinitely? What about permanent magnets, where spins of those "perpetual" electrons are aligned and therefore can be used to pull things?

Even though some people set themselves on a different path and decided to study the external world instead of looking into one's self, many of them came to the same conclusions:

"The Primacy Of Consciousness" (1:09:07) by Peter Russell (physicist)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-d4ugppcRUE

Science is just one of the many hide-n-seek games in Creation. When you put your "player" in the Universe you created, you want it to not remember how it got there, so that it would begin its journey of exploration, be it science, art or even religion, it's up in the air.


Then my ontological argument still stands. Which is the following:

1) Let's define "God" as "Creator of the Universe(s)", it doesn't imply existence of God at this point, just a label.

2) Let's define "You" as an empirical evidence of your existence, which also allows you to have "Imagination"(basically an axiom, you agreed this Universe has "You" in it, that's good enough).

3) Let's assume that in "Imagination" everything is possible, some people in the beginning of this thread claimed just that in response to some religious discussions, so it shouldn't be a stretch (let it be an axiom too).

4) Now, every Universe "You" create in your "Imagination", where "You" emerge as a product of that Universe's laws, always leads to "God" (as per definition 1) equals "You" (or you would never emerge in any such Universe, because you are already the one imagining it).

5) There is empirical evidence that "You" emerged in this physical real Universe. As all such Universes (where "You" emerged) led to "God" equals "You" in your "Imagination", and that already encompassed all possibilities (according to 3), it necessarily leads to having empirical evidence of "God"'s existence (according to 2). Therefore "God" exists in reality.


I used more generic term for singularity here (instead of a black hole, which indeed has mathematical model).
Singularity is where laws breakdown, it's that part when something comes out of nothing kinda thingy.

In that regard, even if you have a model for Big Bang as a collision of P-branes as per M-theory, the singularity would eventually hide in the explanation, where those branes came from.

So, again why have two singularities, where you can have only one. And if Occam's razor doesn't apply, then things get worse from the mere fact that those singularities are nested, meaning multiplying already infinitely small probabilities of any of them occurring independently.


Yes, there is evidence that brain receives consciousness as demonstrated by scientific research (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=141298.msg1514618#msg1514618)

If you damage your player's receiver to the point, that it can no longer coherently function, the player would die and you (as a consciousness) would be out of this particular game. But as a living paradox, you can never settle to rest, you always were and you always will be.

Regarding the term omnipotent, I have explained in this thread, that every omnipotent unconstrained consciousness (or God), would eventually end up testing the limits of its power, because everything else would be created in an instant. The only thing that would have any lasting "experience" is constantly creating conditions, where you begin facing limits of your power, because that's how powerful you are. You can think of God as a living paradox, and that's where every omnipotent unconstrained God would eventually end up. That's where we all ended up, here on Earth, playing all the same game, testing the limits of our powers.

Weren't those sheep herders also prerequisite to the fairy tale you call "science"?
So, if having a logical conclusion is a mere fantasy of my imagination, then it must be as real as what you call science or "real" world. There is no difference.


So now you have two singularities, one where physical universe emerged out of Big Bang and the other where you as a consciousness emerged out of that physical universe, where there was no prior concept of you. What makes you choose the model with two singularities instead of just one, where you exist unconditionally and the rest is a product (sometimes very elaborate) of your imagination. Shouldn't Occam's razor apply here?


There is no conclusive evidence, that brain creates consciousness, but there is some evidence (tabooed by "science" by the way), that brain receives consciousness. And if brain does really only receive consciousness that exists unconditionally, then it is consistent with the model, where you imagine the Universe and then you put yourself there as a player.

Imagining might involve building very complex mathematical model with physical laws, so it is not just fantasy.

God is not a measure of how much others worship you, but a measure of how much you can create. If you can create anything at all, then the next logical step would be to ask - can I create more?

Then you get to the point, when you're wondering if you can create the condition, where you would begin facing the limits to your creative powers and that leads to a paradox. Or maybe it's the paradox, that led you to begin creating in the first place, because paradox simply is, there was nothing before it, there is nothing after it, but it cannot just settle to rest either, that's what existence really is and that's where we live in

I'm not sure, that having sheep herders as a prerequisite to creation is a scientific way to approach things, especially in the realm of mathematics. This thread is about finding God in logic and I just demonstrated that no matter how you spin it, it is always there.


It doesn't explain how you got here at all. Your parents became yours only after the fact. A year before your birth there was no such concept as "your parents", because all people were equally relevant to you at that point. And if they were all equal, then why did you emerge at all? What triggered that in the Universe?

The only logical conclusion is that you existed at least as a concept, as an idea, before your physical birth.
And if you take that a few steps further you will understand that you are an idea onto itself, the zero point, which transcends even time itself.

What I am saying is this. Let's define God as the creator of the Universe and let's assume that your imagination is an unbiased pure nothingness, that everything comes out from. Then no matter what Universe you create in your imagination, which also has you in it, what you get is "God" equals "You".

Don't you agree that this Universe has you in it? How did you get here?

Then what you get is "God" equals "You"


I would still be the one, who designed the one, ... , who designed the one, who created those laws.
In my imagination I am the root to everything. You can't exclude "yourself" from "your" imagination.

Well you can refine then that "in imagination land everything that is logical is possible", then what you will arrive at is that your model of the universe is illogical. Isn't that sufficient enough?

There is no tautology here. Simple logic. Assume that in imagination land everything is possible. Then it is very easy to demonstrate, that you cannot imagine the universe guided by physical laws alone, which would give birth to you (it is important point, not just any abstract universe, but the one which has you in it), because you are already the one imagining it in the first place. Do you follow? You can't have both - yourself sporadically emerging as product of physical laws and yourself designing those laws to begin with, it leads to contradiction.



You don't have to invent anything. The power of the paradox is that it's the only thing that has substance to it. Statements that are logically true or false are static and in that sense are dead. Conclusions like A leads to B and B leads to C are transitory, they are paths of creation. The paradox is a living energy, it is the engine of creation, the perpetuum mobile of a kind. It can never settle.

By giving people a free will, God attempts to create a condition, where it begins facing the limits of its power. If we consider two equal opposites - positive and negative, then having a free will to choose between the two makes the whole thing slightly more positive, because having choice is a "good" thing. Therefore by giving choice, positive (or God) paradoxically becomes the greater attractor, and that gives creation it's momentum, that sets things in motion, so to speak.

Another way to say this, is that God loves you so much, that it allows you to think and witness, that you are not loved at all.

There is no tautology here. Simple logic. Assume that in imagination land everything is possible. Then it is very easy to demonstrate, that you cannot imagine the universe guided by physical laws alone, which would give birth to you (it is important point, not just any abstract universe, but the one which has you in it), because you are already the one imagining it in the first place. Do you follow? You can't have both - yourself sporadically emerging as product of physical laws and yourself designing those laws to begin with, it leads to contradiction.

Another way to think of God is to understand it as a process of resolution of a logical paradox, which arises from the statement "all powerful".

If God is all powerful, then he must be able to create a condition, where it would begin facing limits of its power.

The paradox is then in the fact, that in both cases the statement leads to contradiction.
If God cannot create that condition, then he is not all powerful.
If he can, then he will begin facing limits of its power.

I believe existence is the momentum of this paradox. It was never created, but it can never settle.

Even though the word "love" is heavily overused and might not be understood properly by many it is indeed a very powerful force of its own and God is in that sense the strongest attractor with the strongest gravity pull.

"What is God" (2:40)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H0oiGak1F_s

So you just demonstated how you and I and others exist prior to any Universe that operates according to physical laws without any sort of God. Congratulations!

Therefore God is a collective of all of us

Regarding the question of relevance, even though many do already understand that consciousness is the root to all the experience and in that sense has primacy over allegedly "real" physical reality, it is also important to understand that we do live in a collective reality, to which we donate part of our energy to maintain the common framework of rules on the automatic unconscious level. That's why it is so hard for individual aware "players" to manifest things if they go against common rules, things like defying gravity with your will or walking through the wall. There is unconscious part of you, that has agreed a priory that this is not allowed.

But the tricky part is that the rules, that constitute physical reality, don't exist as an idea onto itself. So by studying the physical reality we're actually trying to figure out what is it, that we have agreed collectively to be true and not some fundamental underlying level of existence.

Here is a piece on the topic for those who want to learn more about the actual structure in place. I cannot prove that what is being said is absolute truth, but can only suggest it as yet another point of view and point out, that the source of information has demonstrated the level of consistency over the past 30 years, that cannot be easily written off as guessing or making things up.

"Game of Chess"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X5aPEzAKw3A

One more thing. If laws of physical reality can eventually be defied, as our collective unconscious slowly begins loosening on maintaining its (physical reality's) rigid structure, there are fundamental laws of existence, that cannot be changed.

"Four Laws of Creation"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fiotqFbgonM