Computer Scientists Prove God Exists

[the joint]

And?  It is better referred to as a belief.

A belief is not a truth, though, since truth is objective. Unless you're just using words to mean whatever you want them to mean (like Big Brother in 1984)

Whatever you believe is true.

Sorry, dank, that makes no sense.  If what you say is accurate, then everything Rassah believes is true and you shouldn't even be debating him.  It would also mean that there's never such a thing as a false belief. 

[1714165356]

1714165356

[1714165356]

1714165356

[1714165356]

1714165356

[1714165356]

1714165356

[1714165356]

1714165356

[Vod]

And?  It is better referred to as a belief.

A belief is not a truth, though, since truth is objective. Unless you're just using words to mean whatever you want them to mean (like Big Brother in 1984)

Whatever you believe is true.

I believe you are going to make a payment to Squall this month.

Can you confirm this in the repayment thread?

[dank]

If he truly believes it, it is true.  Believes formulate your reality.  What you see and feel, you sense it because you believe in it's presence.  If you believe you see more than what meets the eye, it will become so.

If you believe you're limited to the capabilities of humans, it becomes true.  If you believe you are limitless, it becomes true.

By nature, a belief isn't false, but disbelief is.

A belief is more than a thought, it is a power of manifestation.  You believe you have thoughts.

[the joint]

Here's one for you, @Rassah, since you assume an absolute separation between objective and subjective reality, or what you consider 'real' and 'unreal' respectively.  If we acknowledge the phenomenon of cognition in general as a "real" event that can lead to the formation of entirely "unreal" concepts, don't we have a huge problem on our hands?  How can something real produce something totally and utterly unreal?

What is actually being produced? If I project an image of a house on a white screen, am I producing a house? Or just a concept that looks like/represents a house?

You could say that an imagination is like a Universe in that the content of one's imagination obeys certain rules and laws; one of these rules is that imaginative content is binary, and accordingly we can not imagine simultaneous yes/no states (try imagining a shirt that is both red and not red).  

I think imagination isn't following rules and laws, so much as it is following whatever we are capable of imagining based on our limited experience. Ever notice that all aliens in all our fiction are either humanoid, or resemble some other creature found on out planet? Creating something completely new and never before imagines is a difficult skill (we give out PhD's for such a task).
Ironically, while we can't imagine a shirt that is both red and not red, or an element that is there and is not there at the same time, that is, in fact, how the universe works on a quantum level. So, technically, our imagination is even too limited to imagine how the universe actually exists in our objective, observable reality. The funny thing is that people are claiming that our universe is only limited by our imagination, when the trust is that the our imagination is limiting our understanding of the universe.

@Rassah, when you talk about some objective reality that can exist totally independent of any subjectivity or observation, you make a logical fallacy (actually two) by imposing an assumption that happens to be false upon a hypothetical scenario that has never been observed, and in fact could never be observed.

Think of it this way. I can observe what is in my room right now. You can't. Just because you can't observe what is here, does not mean that this room doesn't exist. Someone else can, and is, observing it. Extending that to the rest of the universe, just because we are not observing it right now, doesn't mean someone else isn't. And, to me, anyway, its easy to come to the conclusion that just because I am not observing something else in the universe, that it doesn't exist. To think otherwise would be to believe that the unviverse doesn't exist where people are not seeing it, and is constantly being spontaneously created and destroyed as we walk through places, or even pan our vision across a landscape. Actually, that is something that humans do believe when they go through child spychological developlent. If you hide a ball away from a 1 year old, he will believe that it simply no longer exists. Object permanence is the term for the thing we learn when we grow up.

Your assumption is actually your conclusion; you assume that objectivity and subjectivity are mutually exclusive.

Aren't they by definition? Otherwise I would have to rethink my political view as an objectivist.

But, how could you possibly observe a Universe that is totally absent of observation?  This is an inherent contradiction and it could never possibly happen.  I find it really interesting that you're forming conclusions about a totally hypothetical and non-empirical event when you're such a stark advocate of empirical study and the scientific method.

Actually, I propose the exact opposite. Somewhat. What you describe there is EXACTLY my complaint about subjective universes, imagines realities, gods, and unicorns. As you say, "how could you possibly observe a Universe that is totally absent of observation?" By this universe I mean one in which a god, or some other imagines creature, exists. If you can't, then it has no relevance on us. Such a god would just angrily wave his arms at me, and have them pass through me without ever having an effect on my life. As for the parts of the universe we can't observe, the only assumption I make is that the rest of the universe follows the laws of physics that I have observed the universe following around me (around me includes things we see out in space with our telescopes). I think it's pretty logical to assume that the universe is consistent with the laws of physics, regardless of whether I am paying attention to them. Isn't it?

1)  The fact that a projection of a house isn't actually a house doesn't mean the projection doesn't exist.  Likewise, the fact that a mere concept of a house isn't actually a house doesn't mean it doesn't exist.  The difference is that the projection of a house on a screen is empirical while the concept is not, but rather is abstract (i.e. mental...non-physical).  But you treat it as though even the concept doesn't exist which leaves you with an impossible task of explaining how you can experience something which doesn't exist or is totally unreal.

2)  Of course imagination follows rules.   The fact that you can't imagine simultaneous yes/no states (e.g. the both 'red' and 'non-red' shirt) implies a constraint.  Constraints are imposed by rules and laws.  That's where structure comes from...rules and laws.  Without rules or laws, your concepts could have no form...no structure...no definition.  To suggest imagination doesn't adhere to any rules would actually imply that it transcends all rule and law.  I don't think this is what either of us would suggest.

3) For the sake of simplicity, let's assume a pure dichotomy:  Either there is 1) at least one observer in the Universe and 2) there are absolutely no observers in the Universe.

In scenario 1, the Universe exists. Reality exists.  If that person is in your room, your room exists.  But as soon as that person leaves the room, asserting that the room exists (and that it is still the same room) flies out the window.  Why?  Because it's always possible to imagine a case in which you could be deceived.  So, maybe you'll go to the mall and you say your room still exists, but what you don't know is that a termite colony ate the wall between your room and the next room and now the state of that room has changed.  

In scenario 2, the Universe can't be asserted to exist.  The act of observation is an act of measurement.  Without measurement, we cannot define anything.  Without definition, there is no structure to uphold the concept.  Measurement is absolutely required to define an event (e.g. such as calling something "a Universe" to begin with).  You can't even so much as label anything without observation to give you a preliminary measurement.

By the way, you could learn one HELL of a lot from children.  The Biblical quote that says something like "those with minds like children will enter the kingdom of Heaven" or something like that is wise as hell.  I highly suggest you take some time to think about why that is.  Children generally cope with stress better and much more realistically than adults, they aren't quick to judge things according to their personal biases, etc.  And, when they lose something, they don't sulk and bitch about it endlessly.  Object permanence isn't everything its cracked up to be, not to mention that quantum mechanics would have a field day with a such a concept.

4)  Remember, everything is defined not only by what it is, but also by what it is not.  You're simply defining subjectivity and objectivity according to their differences and not their similarities, and while differences exist (of course), differences can only arise out of similarity.  As I've tried to tell you, trying to argue against this is attempting to argue against logical precedents that have been recognized and set millenia ago.  You can refuse to believe it all you want, but it's hard not to just keep saying, "No, you're wrong, I know you're wrong, thousands of philosophers and mathematicians know you're wrong, so you're just wrong."  It's really not even hard to grasp.  If you can't even recognize that everything in existence shares a fundamental similarity of existing and thus a fundamental characteristic of identity, then I don't know what else to tell you.  I can only keep telling you that you're dead wrong.  Seriously, you need to concede this point.  

Edit 5)  Why are you talking about "physical laws" which are abstract and non-physical?  If you're going to acknowledge that physical things abide by non-physical laws, then why don't even attempt to include those laws in your interpretation of reality?  Do you believe something non-physical and abstract is objective?  Or do you think that, perhaps (as I do), that another word for abstract might be...mental?

[Rassah]

You learn about the world by forming a series of abstract categorical relationships about it.  This literally defines the way reality appears to you.  There is no wall for you to bump your nonexistent head upon unless categorical relationships exist between concepts such as "head" and "wall" and "you.". Without subjectivity, all that objective information is rendered completely unintelligible and is therefore meaningless.  

This is probably the main point of disagreement for us. I believe that, regardless of what concepts I might have about heads, walls, and me, that that wall will exist there, and will stop all heads from going through it if they attempt to. I.e. objective reality exists regardless of our subjective concepts, and we just make subjective meanings and concepts about the objective reality that exists around us as a way of trying to understand and categorize it. Thus there is a single objective truth, which is that stuff exists in whatever form it exists. We just try our best to interpret and conceptualize it based on our limited perception. To ignore or throw out this truth would mean basically danking the whole world's existence.

EDIT: Reading your stuff in the contexts of just your stuff, I'm realizing I may have been totally danked in the head regarding my views of what you are actually trying to say, conflating your and his claims to be saying something similar. Am I right that you are actually saying two completely different things, and he's just nuts?

[Kouye]

In scenario 2, the Universe can't be asserted to exist.  The act of observation is an act of measurement.  Without measurement, we cannot define anything.  Without definition, there is no structure to uphold the concept.  Measurement is absolutely required to define an event (e.g. such as calling something "a Universe" to begin with).  You can't even so much as label anything without observation to give you a preliminary measurement.

Then how can you be talking about a measurement? Have you measured it?

[the joint]

You learn about the world by forming a series of abstract categorical relationships about it.  This literally defines the way reality appears to you.  There is no wall for you to bump your nonexistent head upon unless categorical relationships exist between concepts such as "head" and "wall" and "you.". Without subjectivity, all that objective information is rendered completely unintelligible and is therefore meaningless.  

This is probably the main point of disagreement for us. I believe that, regardless of what concepts I might have about heads, walls, and me, that that wall will exist there, and will stop all heads from going through it if they attempt to. I.e. objective reality exists regardless of our subjective concepts, and we just make subjective meanings and concepts about the objective reality that exists around us as a way of trying to understand and categorize it. Thus there is a single objective truth, which is that stuff exists in whatever form it exists. We just try our best to interpret and conceptualize it based on our limited perception. To ignore or throw out this truth would mean basically danking the whole world's existence.

EDIT: Reading your stuff in the contexts of just your stuff, I'm realizing I may have been totally danked in the head regarding my views of what you are actually trying to say, conflating your and his claims to be saying something similar. Am I right that you are actually saying two completely different things, and he's just nuts?

1)  I think the problem is that I'm making a fine distinction that you're not picking up on.  We both agree that there is a single objective truth regardless of what we think that truth is.  I think we can also agree that there is objective information out there, and this objective information makes up walls and such.  I won't even necessarily contend that the information that makes up the wall ceases to exist in a Universe with no observers and no subjectivity.  The fine distinction I'm making is this: if information is not being communicated, then that information is utterly unintelligible.  If the information is utterly unintelligible, then we cannot call it a wall because a wall is intelligible...it has 'wall-ness' so-to-speak.  When you remove all observers from the Universe, you remove all entities that are capable of rendering the available information in an intelligible way.  And while this information might somehow continue to be available absent of any observers, we cannot in any way say that there will still be a 'wall' anywhere because the Universe you're describing has no way to communicate or render 'wall-ness'.


2)  As weird as it is, I both think he's nuts and I think he says some accurate things.  Unfortunately, it's pretty easy to make any statement and convincingly argue it to be true in one context or another.  The problem is that when one starts switching the context of their argument, contradictions are bound to arise.

Dank seems to be saying that because anything can be true in a certain context (e.g. If Bob likes pizza, and if Mike likes pizza, then Bob is Mike...to the extent that they are both pizza-likers).  He also seems to be suggesting that because anything can be true in a certain context, you can discover or even manipulate truth if you just "believe" in your own ideas with enough intensity.  In contrast, I'm asserting that 1) there is a set or context that contains all other sets and contexts, thereby uniting all subsets within a common linguistic or mathematical landscape, and that 2) there is a way to act as though you yourself are reasoning from this greater set about all lower sets, thereby creating a model that remains internally consistent at the highest possible level of generality.

Dank does, however, seems to place an emphasis on learning through direct experiences (which is why he uses LSD and such) to uncover truth in a different way.  I absolutely believe this approach is valid, and I would in no way rule out "tripping" as a valid means of accessing otherwise inaccessible information and/or re-rendering the same information in a new way.  I personally think our minds are more or less 'tuned' to a certain frequency of energy at one time or another and that there are ways of fucking with the dial.  He seems to share a similar belief (he advocates drug consumption while I advocate meditation).

[dank]

LSD shows you god.  You'll find the Akashic records, the universe and your soul.

I learned more about life in four trips than all of high school.  Granted, my friends and environment were a big part of that.

It compiles all your previous knowledge and experiences and gives you a global/decentralized perspective of it.

[the joint]

LSD shows you god.  You'll find the Akashic records, the universe and your soul.

I learned more about life in four trips than all of high school.  Granted, my friends and environment were a big part of that.

It compiles all your previous knowledge and experiences and gives you a global/decentralized perspective of it.

Trust me, it's way cooler when you don't have to sacrifice your motor skills, and when you don't have to pay some guy with smelly dreadlocks 10 bucks to suck on a sugar cube.  LSD imposes certain obvious constraints at the same time it removes others.

[dank]

Idk I guess it varies for everyone.  After I became experienced I had no difficulty weaving through cars at 100mph on 60 hits, and even the third time I tried it I was able to hit 100 with a car full of kids on acid that had absolutely no doubts in my ability.  We even raced our neighbor and his motorcycle on the beach road, good times.

And let us not forget the glorious time dank caught two JUMBO sized marshmallows in his mouth, first try, from ten feet away, whilst tripping.

[darkmule]

LSD shows you god.  You'll find the Akashic records, the universe and your soul.

I learned more about life in four trips than all of high school.

Then you were paying much less attention in high school than you should have.

Because all LSD shows you is your own perceptions and maybe the content of your own mind.  So if you started out an idiot, LSD isn't going to turn you into a genius.

[dank]

I definitely paid attention, when I wasn't sleeping, but by senior year I had enough partaking in bullwork.  I'd rather just listen and understand than copy what people say.  Public school is sorta a joke, high school mainly taught the same things over the years and just reinforced them.  Then there was the fearmongering propaganda teachers/curriculum.  School feeds the ego, only paints half the picture.

Don't get me wrong, I learned a lot through school.  But none if it clicked until I took psychedelics to fill in the rest of the canvas.  You have two halves of your brain and one half is largely under utilized.

LSD teaches you philosophy, something that school greatly misses.  LSD can give you a higher understanding and awareness.  It's all about set and setting.  If your mind seeks answers, answers it shall find.  If your environment encourages positive evolution of the mind, you will gain a lot from it.

The question on finding your own understanding of reality, is, can you pass the acid test?  Are you open to a greater shift of understanding of how you perceive the world?

And I'm with you joint, meditation is the key.  Anything you can find with LSD can be found without, though LSD compiles years of meditation into 10-12 hours of your life.

[darkmule]

LSD teaches you philosophy, something that school greatly misses.

LSD doesn't teach you shit.  A chemical can't teach.  

At most, what it does is screw up your physical brain to the point that it disables inhibiting mechanisms of your mind that prevent you from recognizing some things you already knew, or recognizing that a lot of things you thought you knew were utter bullshit.  It is more of a sledgehammer than a scalpel.

Most of the reason such a physically harmless chemical is treated in such an hysterical manner by governments is that it tends to smash to flinders delusional concepts that the government has spent billions of dollars brainwashing you and the rest of the citizens to believe.

I think Timothy Leary was reckless and irresponsible in promoting LSD as some kind of panacea, but I do agree with him that it has quite positive characteristics.

I have not dropped in over 10 years and would not do it lightly, but I think it would be a good preparation for death, when I realize my time is near.

[KeyserSozeMC]

THE EARTH IS FLAT!












































For real.

[dank]

LSD teaches you philosophy, something that school greatly misses.

LSD doesn't teach you shit.  A chemical can't teach.  

At most, what it does is screw up your physical brain to the point that it disables inhibiting mechanisms of your mind that prevent you from recognizing some things you already knew, or recognizing that a lot of things you thought you knew were utter bullshit.  It is more of a sledgehammer than a scalpel.

Most of the reason such a physically harmless chemical is treated in such an hysterical manner by governments is that it tends to smash to flinders delusional concepts that the government has spent billions of dollars brainwashing you and the rest of the citizens to believe.

I think Timothy Leary was reckless and irresponsible in promoting LSD as some kind of panacea, but I do agree with him that it has quite positive characteristics.

I have not dropped in over 10 years and would not do it lightly, but I think it would be a good preparation for death, when I realize my time is near.

It surely does enable you to learn more than you could perceive with a regular egoistic mindset.  In the simplest terms, LSD decreases your ego and connects you to your soul.  Your soul being your positive part of you which knows all.  The key is to keep your ego decreased even after your trip has ended to keep this connection with you.

You can say LSD is not a teacher but I wouldn't have been able to learn so much about the universe in such little time without it, I simply wouldn't have been connected to the correct frequencies to do so.

Or is it because the government knows acid shows people the truth and the truth is that the government is a parasitic entity that withholds evolution of mankind?

[kazzy]

So what if god exists? What about the aliens? o_0

[dank]

Aliens are gods.

[pedrog]

So what if god exists? What about the aliens? o_0

Oh, they're out there.

[tom.hashemi]

As far as I'm concerned, gods have to prove their existence to me if they want me to believe in them, not the other way round, this looks a lot like fake or very dodgy science to me to make it seem that religious people are correct.

Doesn't that defy the point of a God though? Once a God proves its existence then belief goes out the window.

[yogi]

As far as I'm concerned, gods have to prove their existence to me if they want me to believe in them, not the other way round, this looks a lot like fake or very dodgy science to me to make it seem that religious people are correct.

Doesn't that defy the point of a God though? Once a God proves its existence then belief goes out the window.

No, God can expose himself, he will still be God, and you would still need faith to believe he is. The reason why religious people say God can't expose himself, is because it explains the complete lack of evidence. This avoids having to accept the existential realities of existence.