Computer Scientists Prove God Exists

[darkmule]

Actually, they didn't even do that. All they did was "formalize" it in a way that could be read by a computer and then let a Macbook "prove" it.

All they did was reiterate an argument first made over a thousand years ago, that was refuted just as easily back then.

The fundamental fallacy is in the very opening assumption, that simply because the human mind can conceive of the idea of something greater which than there is nothing, the human mind is actually containing or even understanding what that idea means.  After all, for any idea someone shows me of God, I can say "okay, take that and make it ten times more powerful!" 

Here are some actual criticisms of it from back when it was relevant to anything.

My personal preferred response to the argument, though, is merely that it is damn silly, since its opening assumption is a very thinly-veiled example of "okay, let's start my proof of what I'm claiming to prove exists by assuming what I'm claiming to prove exists actually exists."

[1713859094]

1713859094

[1713859094]

1713859094

[1713859094]

1713859094

[blablahblah]

So, again why have two singularities, where you can have only one.

Where are you getting two singularities from? It was just one single quantum "pop."

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.

Yes, but based on previous discussions, Rassah is an epiphenomenalist and a monist. So even his "essence of being" is an intrinsic property of the particles that were merely rearranged in some fascinating chemical ways to form his body. So in that sense, there was no singularity around the time of his birth. At best, his brain is a complex machine, arranged especially so that it can leverage a lot of potential abilities that were already built into the particles making up our world.

So if you intuitively disagree with the above, you'd probably need another angle.

[NewLiberty]

Mathematical proof of boundary of a boundary = 0, and the sameness-in-difference principle, lead us to understand that we are fundamentally inseparable from the rest of the Real Universe.

Can you explain this...

I can try, but probably not.  The subject material is pretty dense and takes a lot into consideration.

...

Sorry, I tried, but I still don't quite get it. It sounds like you are trying to apply abstract math to specific physics to show that what is actually completely physically separate in things like chemistry, physics, and quantum particles, is actually not separate because of an abstract mathematical concept. I'm not sure I'm ready to give up physical reality for abstract mathematics yet.

You don't have to "give up" physical reality, but it does require that you recognize that physical reality obeys, and is subservient to, mathematical laws.  The idea is to build model that is internally consistent at a greater level of generality than all other models including the scientific model (which doesn't even permit formulating a model of reality based upon the very mathematical principles it depends upon).

One might flip that over and suggest that mathematical laws are derived from observing physical reality.  Newton and the apple, and all that.

Just saying "the set of all sets, includes itself" is not all that meaningful.  Nor is "fundamental inseparability" without stuff to which such a theory might apply.

The notion of what is subservient to which is not all that meaningful.  Math serves to describe the physical world, so to then suggest that the physical world "obeys" in "subservience" to mathematics is going to raise some questions that may be difficult to answer with anything other than "well, we just haven't discovered all the mathematics yet".  All that says is that we haven't yet made observations of the physical world to the level where we have the language to describe it.
LHC, E8, and all the rest are on a path to developing that language, but are "subservient" to the engineering effort to make the observations.  They serve each other.

[dank]

FYI, sorry, buy I don't have the time, or the bandwidth to watch videos (I'm typically on my Android tablet)

I don't follow. No, a logical conclusion is not just whatever fantasy you wish to imagine.

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.

What if I change #1 to "Let's define a pink unicorn as the creator of the universe." Can I follow the rest of your steps, and prove that pink unicorns exist? Can I use any fantasy creature or concept I want? And what if I refuse to define God as Creator of the Universe, and insist that the universe was created from a spontaneous quantum event, the type of which we have already witnessed? Doesn't that screw up the whole ontological argument?

Yes, pink unicorns are real, everything exists everywhere.  That spontaneous quantum event are all just labels to describe god.  In fact, every word is, all we're doing is describing concepts of the universe, god.

[dank]

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.
 

There are all kinds of crazy things happening on the quantum level.  Concepts that make sense to us on the macro level often have no meaning on the quantum level.  Even Feynman said no-one understands quantum physics.   So when it comes to the actual building blocks of reality, they don't make sense to us, they don't appeal to our common sense, they don't appeal to our instincts.

So saying the universe was created, however intuitive that may seem to us, may have no applicability at the quantum level.  

Our brains were evolved to understand how to avoid lions on the African plains.  If we can't see something, there was no reason for our brain to evolve to understand it.  Thus the things that we do understand is often because they are similar in some way to our everyday experiences.  eg. planets are just giant floating rocks.  Understanding that time is relative is a bit harder to visualise.  Quantum stuff, almost impossible.  We just know the equations work.

It could be that the universe has a perfectly rational reason for it's existence which is very difficult for us to process.  The "God created it" or "some being created it" thing?  Too simple, too human an idea and no explanation for how the God was created.  Which is why it was around before science.

God always was and always will exist.  The universe exists for a very simple reason, so we can perceive self (the universe) from a foreign perspective, so we can learn and explore, live with ego.

[BitchicksHusband]

So, if one of your children starts to get abused on a daily basis and comes to you crying, you will hold a phone that can call the police in one hand, a gun that can stop the abuser in the other, refuse to use them or do anything about it, and simply tell your child that you are crying too? Not much love there if you refuse to even raise a hand to help.

God did help Rassah. I did not go to my parents so calling the police was not an option.  Should I have?  Of course but kids do not always know what to do. As for justice,the guy got his due reward many years later by dying in a "freak" accident.  God is much more patient than we are though.  He wills for all to repent. What is the most miraculous it that my heart that was filled with hate was filled with compassion and grief for this person.  He abused me because he was abused too.  It really is a tragic thing all around.  But I hated him until God changed my heart.  That is something only God can do!  We start to see things through His eyes and everything changes.

Forget about me being "ticked" at god. I'm not. I don't believe in him, and thus am just as ticked at god as you are ticked at Lady the Sasquatch. ("Who?" "Exactly.")

So, are you saying that if one of your kids was abused, the loving thing to do would be to tell them you still love them, and allow them to continue to be abused, hoping the abuser will just say sorry eventually, and only punishing the abuser years later if he doesn't?

And you are saying that jail (hell) should not exist, no matter how bad the abuser hurt your children.

[Rassah]

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...

Here is where it totally falls appart for me. I can't see how "creating something in your imagination" is actually creating anything at all. It's just imagination, which happens through a mechanical/physical process. If I change some electrons on a tiny slab of silicon, and the computer "imagines" the result as a picture of a house on a computer screen, the computer didn't actually "create" a house. It's just an asembly of electrons into a pattern that can be interpreted as a house. Same with our imagination - we aren't creating worlds, we are just rearranging electrons in a way that let our brains interpret them as a representation of something.

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.

That's the thing, we have witnessed it. We gathered some experimental data from satelites, and used our imagination and knowledge of math and physics to construct a model. The model stated that the universe popped into existence, containing equal parts matter and antimatter, so that the "matter can not be created or destroyed" law still applied, which it does, since the sum of all universe cancels each other out to 0. We confirmed part of that by observing the motions of stars and galaxies, and seeing that the matter was balanced by dark matter we can't see. Then we expanded on the "popping into existence" theory by using updated physics models to predict that such an event can happen spontaneously, on it's own. And finally, when we ran the Large Hadron Collider, we actually saw such an occurence happen many times, where tiny particles would pop into existence, containing both matter and antimatter. Essentially we saw tiny big bangs, except they were very little banks, and, having popped into our own already existing universe, quickly burned out or were annihalated. This confirmed that an event such as a universe popping into existence was not only possible, but probable. Oh, P.S. that's also how we generate anti-matter at this point: we made lots of these little pops happen, then separate matter from antimatter using magnetic fields. That's how it was done in Dan Brown's Angels and Demons, too.

Where are you getting two singularities from? It was just one single quantum "pop."

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.

But my being formed through chemical processes isn't a singularity. There was no pre-existing idea of my car 5 years ago, either, but it was put together from raw materials, and now here it is. I don't call that a singularity, I cann it a normal physical event.

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.

It's inconsiistend to reason that an environment of physical laws and raw materials needs to pop into existance, before those physical laws and raw materials can be used to put something together?

Singularity already means, that you cannot coherently explain how it occurs, therefore requiring something else as a prerequisite seems unfounded.

If that is your definition of a singularity, then neither the Big Bang, nor my formation, were singularities, since we can coherently explain how both happened.

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.

Why is it relevant which one of these two is true? If there is no difference in the way I percieve the universe from either of those cases, then it makes no difference as to whether one is true and one is false. I will still come to the same conclusions, based on my own observations and experiences. It's like believing that there is a god, but that he is unable to interract with this world in any way. In either of those scenarios, the easiest and most productive outcome for research is the one that ignores the untestable and unprovable (all in my imagination, or an untouchable god), and only focus on things that may affect reality, however we may percieve it.

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?

Electrons aren't spinning, they are in a cloud around the protom, existing in quantum state, i.e. everywhere in the cloud at once. You can pull a limited amount of energy out of them, but it's like extracting energy out of a spring: all you are doing is changing the hydrogen atop, and it will "snap" back, releasing the energy, as soon as you let go. Ditto for magnets. It's not mystical energy, it's just potential and kinnetic energy. When you pull two magnets appart, you are using kinnetic energy to store potential energy between them. When they come back together, they take their stored potential energy and releasse it as kinnetic to snap back together. Magnets are about as full of mystical energy as mattress springs, and as effective. All "pulls" will always end up at a point where there is nowhere else to pull to...

[BitchicksHusband]

Your probably one of those folk who have never even held a bible. If not, then please describe how the bible substantiates it's self through prophecy and how archaeological and scientific evidence has backed these up. They exist and there are many. Then maybe you could tell us why you don't agree with them, in relation to this statement 'Frankly those pieces are far more easily experienced as truth than anything out of the bible.'.

So you are saying the bible is true because you have scientific evidence backing it up?

So on one hand, some scientific evidence counts, but on the other hand scientific evidence doesn't count.

What archaeological and scientific evidence backs up the bible's claims btw?

All scientific evidence counts.  Fairy tales that pass as science these days (Oort cloud, as an example—which doesn't have a shred of scientific method behind it) don't count.

Here is an example of scientific "evidence" that I don't count for Lucy, the "missing link":

http://www.answersingenesis.org/media/video/ondemand/lucy/lucy-shes-no-lady

Pick the "Lucy—She's No Lady, Clip" at the bottom.  It's 9 minutes and very technical, so try to power through it and get to the part about Nova.  Although I can understand if you are not scientific enough to understand the creationist.  


For scientific evidence that disproves evolution, this is a good site.  There are literally thousands of articles:

http://www.answersingenesis.org/get-answers

Pick any topic on the left and you'll get dozens or even hundreds of articles.


http://www.equip.org/articles/biblical-archaeology-factual-evidence-to-support-the-historicity-of-the-bible/

This is a VERY short list, by the way.  The Top 13 out of hundreds.

[Rassah]

Yes, but based on previous discussions, Rassah is an epiphenomenalist and a monist.

Thanks! I learned some new terms, and now have more lables to apply to myself  

[Rassah]

Yes, pink unicorns are real, everything exists everywhere.  That spontaneous quantum event are all just labels to describe god.  In fact, every word is, all we're doing is describing concepts of the universe, god.

If you are simply saying that everything in the universe is god, then I am just as much in awe of god as I am of the universe. I.e. I give it zero reverence and respect, and it's at most a curiocity to study and explore.
Though then I would ask, why did you use the world "god" to mean universe? Why not "thing" or "fraglblagrl?" Was there some prior connotatioon associated with the word "god" that you were hoping to attach to your otherwise unimpressive and meaningless redefinition of words?

[Rassah]

And you are saying that jail (hell) should not exist, no matter how bad the abuser hurt your children.

No, I am saying people who abuse children should be sent to that jail as soon as the person with power do send them to jail finds out about it. Instead of simply standing idly by, watching it happen, telling the child they still love them, and hoping that the abuser will land in jail many years later for some other reason.

[dank]

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...

Here is where it totally falls appart for me. I can't see how "creating something in your imagination" is actually creating anything at all. It's just imagination, which happens through a mechanical/physical process. If I change some electrons on a tiny slab of silicon, and the computer "imagines" the result as a picture of a house on a computer screen, the computer didn't actually "create" a house. It's just an asembly of electrons into a pattern that can be interpreted as a house. Same with our imagination - we aren't creating worlds, we are just rearranging electrons in a way that let our brains interpret them as a representation of something.

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.

That's the thing, we have witnessed it. We gathered some experimental data from satelites, and used our imagination and knowledge of math and physics to construct a model. The model stated that the universe popped into existence, containing equal parts matter and antimatter, so that the "matter can not be created or destroyed" law still applied, which it does, since the sum of all universe cancels each other out to 0. We confirmed part of that by observing the motions of stars and galaxies, and seeing that the matter was balanced by dark matter we can't see. Then we expanded on the "popping into existence" theory by using updated physics models to predict that such an event can happen spontaneously, on it's own. And finally, when we ran the Large Hadron Collider, we actually saw such an occurence happen many times, where tiny particles would pop into existence, containing both matter and antimatter. Essentially we saw tiny big bangs, except they were very little banks, and, having popped into our own already existing universe, quickly burned out or were annihalated. This confirmed that an event such as a universe popping into existence was not only possible, but probable. Oh, P.S. that's also how we generate anti-matter at this point: we made lots of these little pops happen, then separate matter from antimatter using magnetic fields. That's how it was done in Dan Brown's Angels and Demons, too.

Where are you getting two singularities from? It was just one single quantum "pop."

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.

But my being formed through chemical processes isn't a singularity. There was no pre-existing idea of my car 5 years ago, either, but it was put together from raw materials, and now here it is. I don't call that a singularity, I cann it a normal physical event.

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.

It's inconsiistend to reason that an environment of physical laws and raw materials needs to pop into existance, before those physical laws and raw materials can be used to put something together?

Singularity already means, that you cannot coherently explain how it occurs, therefore requiring something else as a prerequisite seems unfounded.

If that is your definition of a singularity, then neither the Big Bang, nor my formation, were singularities, since we can coherently explain how both happened.

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.

Why is it relevant which one of these two is true? If there is no difference in the way I percieve the universe from either of those cases, then it makes no difference as to whether one is true and one is false. I will still come to the same conclusions, based on my own observations and experiences. It's like believing that there is a god, but that he is unable to interract with this world in any way. In either of those scenarios, the easiest and most productive outcome for research is the one that ignores the untestable and unprovable (all in my imagination, or an untouchable god), and only focus on things that may affect reality, however we may percieve it.

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?

Electrons aren't spinning, they are in a cloud around the protom, existing in quantum state, i.e. everywhere in the cloud at once. You can pull a limited amount of energy out of them, but it's like extracting energy out of a spring: all you are doing is changing the hydrogen atop, and it will "snap" back, releasing the energy, as soon as you let go. Ditto for magnets. It's not mystical energy, it's just potential and kinnetic energy. When you pull two magnets appart, you are using kinnetic energy to store potential energy between them. When they come back together, they take their stored potential energy and releasse it as kinnetic to snap back together. Magnets are about as full of mystical energy as mattress springs, and as effective. All "pulls" will always end up at a point where there is nowhere else to pull to...

You are correct, we don't 'create' anything because everything always existed and has happened before us.  We are just channeling, changing and controlling, thereby, basically creating with our minds.

At this very moment, we are having this discussion on an infinite amount of occurrences.  At this moment, infinite Rassah's just found god, it's up to you to channel it to your reality.

[Rassah]

All scientific evidence counts.  Fairy tales that pass as science these days (Oort cloud, as an example—which doesn't have a shred of scientific method behind it) don't count.

Note that if you search for Oort cloud on wikipedia, or anywhere else, you will find the word "hypothesis," not "theory." Meaning it's just a guess based on how we know things word, but so far without evidence to back that up. When there is evidence (such as in the gravity theory, microbe theory, and evolution theory), then we eventually convert the idea from a hypothesys (colloquial "theory") to theory (colloquial "how things actually are")

For scientific evidence that disproves evolution, this is a good site.  There are literally thousands of articles:

http://www.answersingenesis.org/get-answers

Pick any topic on the left and you'll get dozens or even hundreds of articles.

There are also hundreds of articles that debunk much of the stuff on that site. Only hundreds instead of thousands, because much of the claims there are too silly to spend time on.
For example, in the section "What about dinosaur footprints? - In the footsteps of giants" has the following quote right at the beginning

First, individual trackways (defined as more than one track from the same dinosaur) are, all over the world, almost always straight.1 Normal animal behaviour should often involve meandering tracks, as readily observed by animals making tracks in the snow. Straight trackways indicate that the animals were fearful, as if fleeing from a catastrophe.

It's cute how it tries to relate to common people who may not live anywhere near wild animals, by refering them to the tracks they may see in snow. It's silly (and rather stupid) because the tracks you may see in snow are of small mamals and rodens, who are typically forraging for food under that snow. Predators, large pack animals, and even migrating forraging rodents still travel in straight lines, but the common people don't see those, because they don't live near large predators, prarries full of pack animals, or in the forests near the homes those small rodents treck to and from.

Btw, I used to read that site all the time for amusement. It's like the Jerry Springer of science  

http://www.equip.org/articles/biblical-archaeology-factual-evidence-to-support-the-historicity-of-the-bible/

This is a VERY short list, by the way.  The Top 13 out of hundreds.

Let's see...

A Common Flood Story - Floods happened everywhere in the world, causing great destruction, and still happen everywhere. Why would it be surprising that everyone wrote about them?

The Code of Hammurabi - Hammurabi, or the fact that most of the places in the bible actually existed, isn't being questioned. The thing being questioned is whether the myths and tales of the people who used to live during that time are true. Much of Harry Potter happens in London, a real place, and much of Greek The Oddysey takes place in known Greek locations, also all real places. That alone does not make boy wizzards, or Greek gods, true (does it?)

The Nuzi Tablets - There is ton of eidence that the biblical story was basically ripped off from other stories. Heck, the whole sacrafice and resurection thing was lifted practically verbatum from much more ancient Egyptian folklore. Why should we be surprised that some practices that were written about in yet another book weren't lifted and included into the bible as well?

The Existence of Hittites - London <> Harry Potter

And, actually, it pretty much continues like that. I think what you Christians are misunderstanding is that proof of history only prooves that our recorded history is true. It doesn't actually prove that the miracles, mysticism, or gods that were talked about during those times are true. There are far more historical artifacts and landmarks that are mentioned in the Greek mythology, yet you don't believe in Zeus. Why?

[Rassah]

You are correct, we don't 'create' anything because everything always existed and has happened before us.  We are just channeling, changing and controlling, thereby, basically creating with our minds.

So, are we "creating" or are we just "channeling?" You can't have both? And if there is exactly zero factual corroborated and reproducible evidence for any of this, why is it relevant? I guess for you, you hope to be the very first person to actually have factual, corroborated, and reproducible evidence? I wonder what are the chances of that, since you'd be the first human (maybe second) to do this in 250,000 years.

[dank]

You are correct, we don't 'create' anything because everything always existed and has happened before us.  We are just channeling, changing and controlling, thereby, basically creating with our minds.

So, are we "creating" or are we just "channeling?" You can't have both? And if there is exactly zero factual corroborated and reproducible evidence for any of this, why is it relevant? I guess for you, you hope to be the very first person to actually have factual, corroborated, and reproducible evidence? I wonder what are the chances of that, since you'd be the first human (maybe second) to do this in 250,000 years.

It's very simple to understand when you understand what infinity means.  If the universe is infinite, everything has already happened infinitely and everything you can think of exists everywhere.

We call it creating, though it's not really creating anything because you cannot create more than infinity.  But it's a good word.  We are conscious creators.

[Rassah]

You are correct, we don't 'create' anything because everything always existed and has happened before us.  We are just channeling, changing and controlling, thereby, basically creating with our minds.

So, are we "creating" or are we just "channeling?" You can't have both? And if there is exactly zero factual corroborated and reproducible evidence for any of this, why is it relevant? I guess for you, you hope to be the very first person to actually have factual, corroborated, and reproducible evidence? I wonder what are the chances of that, since you'd be the first human (maybe second) to do this in 250,000 years.

It's very simple to understand when you understand what infinity means.  If the universe is infinite, everything has already happened infinitely and everything you can think of exists everywhere.

Yes. If the universe is infinite. But our universe is not. There was a beginning, and if it keep expanding, there will be an end, where all energy runs out (though we now have methods of creating logic gates - computers - that can work and process without energy, and thus if we actually survive until the heat death of the universe, we may be able to continue living as these self-contained machines... but I digress). There is a theory (or is it a hypothesis?) that there are an infinite number of other universes, and thus an infinite number of other possibilities. So yeah, that's true. But there is no evidence that we are able to percieve any of those other universes, or that we are in any way affect them. If they exist, it's more that we "flow" through them, taking different routes with every decision we make, while remaining in the universe we chose to stayon the path of.

We call it creating, though it's not really creating anything because you cannot create more than infinity.  But it's a good word.  We are conscious creators.

If it's not really creating anything, then it's not a good word. We would be conscious decision makers at most. Which is kind of a "no duh."

[dank]

You are correct, we don't 'create' anything because everything always existed and has happened before us.  We are just channeling, changing and controlling, thereby, basically creating with our minds.

So, are we "creating" or are we just "channeling?" You can't have both? And if there is exactly zero factual corroborated and reproducible evidence for any of this, why is it relevant? I guess for you, you hope to be the very first person to actually have factual, corroborated, and reproducible evidence? I wonder what are the chances of that, since you'd be the first human (maybe second) to do this in 250,000 years.

It's very simple to understand when you understand what infinity means.  If the universe is infinite, everything has already happened infinitely and everything you can think of exists everywhere.

Yes. If the universe is infinite. But our universe is not. There was a beginning, and if it keep expanding, there will be an end, where all energy runs out (though we now have methods of creating logic gates - computers - that can work and process without energy, and thus if we actually survive until the heat death of the universe, we may be able to continue living as these self-contained machines... but I digress). There is a theory (or is it a hypothesis?) that there are an infinite number of other universes, and thus an infinite number of other possibilities. So yeah, that's true. But there is no evidence that we are able to percieve any of those other universes, or that we are in any way affect them. If they exist, it's more that we "flow" through them, taking different routes with every decision we make, while remaining in the universe we chose to stayon the path of.

We call it creating, though it's not really creating anything because you cannot create more than infinity.  But it's a good word.  We are conscious creators.

If it's not really creating anything, then it's not a good word. We would be conscious decision makers at most. Which is kind of a "no duh."

No, it is a good word.  It just means we aren't creating from nothing, we are creating from something.

To the above statement, there are infinite alternate dimensions, it matters not if our universe is a finite bubble.  I have astral projected and seen another universe taking place in the same location as ours, the mountains were red and the creatures grey.  Everything exists everywhere.

[interlagos]

So, again why have two singularities, where you can have only one.

Where are you getting two singularities from? It was just one single quantum "pop."

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.

Yes, but based on previous discussions, Rassah is an epiphenomenalist and a monist. So even his "essence of being" is an intrinsic property of the particles that were merely rearranged in some fascinating chemical ways to form his body. So in that sense, there was no singularity around the time of his birth. At best, his brain is a complex machine, arranged especially so that it can leverage a lot of potential abilities that were already built into the particles making up our world.

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.

So if you intuitively disagree with the above, you'd probably need another angle.

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.

[interlagos]

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...

Here is where it totally falls appart for me. I can't see how "creating something in your imagination" is actually creating anything at all. It's just imagination, which happens through a mechanical/physical process. If I change some electrons on a tiny slab of silicon, and the computer "imagines" the result as a picture of a house on a computer screen, the computer didn't actually "create" a house. It's just an asembly of electrons into a pattern that can be interpreted as a house. Same with our imagination - we aren't creating worlds, we are just rearranging electrons in a way that let our brains interpret them as a representation of something.

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?

Where are you getting two singularities from? It was just one single quantum "pop."

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.

But my being formed through chemical processes isn't a singularity. There was no pre-existing idea of my car 5 years ago, either, but it was put together from raw materials, and now here it is. I don't call that a singularity, I cann it a normal physical event.

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"

[interlagos]

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.
 

There are all kinds of crazy things happening on the quantum level.  Concepts that make sense to us on the macro level often have no meaning on the quantum level.  Even Feynman said no-one understands quantum physics.   So when it comes to the actual building blocks of reality, they don't make sense to us, they don't appeal to our common sense, they don't appeal to our instincts.

So saying the universe was created, however intuitive that may seem to us, may have no applicability at the quantum level.  

Our brains were evolved to understand how to avoid lions on the African plains.  If we can't see something, there was no reason for our brain to evolve to understand it.  Thus the things that we do understand is often because they are similar in some way to our everyday experiences.  eg. planets are just giant floating rocks.  Understanding that time is relative is a bit harder to visualise.  Quantum stuff, almost impossible.  We just know the equations work.

It could be that the universe has a perfectly rational reason for it's existence which is very difficult for us to process.  The "God created it" or "some being created it" thing?  Too simple, too human an idea and no explanation for how the God was created.  Which is why it was around before science.

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.