| Topic: |
Science > Physics |
| User: |
"mike3" |
| Date: |
25 Apr 2007 09:59:24 PM |
| Object: |
New argument for God's existence? |
Hi.
I saw this:
http://www.newdualism.org/papers/R.Henry/436029a.pdf
Notice:
"Physicists shy from the truth because
the truth is so alien to everyday physics. A
common way to evade the mental Universe
is to invoke 'decoherence' - the
notion that 'the physical environment' is
sufficient to create reality, independent of
the human mind. Yet the idea that any
irreversible act of amplification is necessary
to collapse the wave function is
known to be wrong: in 'Renninger-type'
experiments, the wave function is collapsed
simply by your human mind seeing
nothing. The Universe is entirely mental."
Now, for the God argument. First off, the human mind _did not always
exist_! That is a fact! In fact, compared to the time the Universe has
existed, the time we have existed is less than the twinkling of an
eye! If this viewpoint above is correct, then there must have been
some pre-existing mind to generate the universe. God, anyone?
.
|
|
| User: "mike3" |
|
| Title: Re: New argument for God's existence? |
03 May 2007 06:45:43 PM |
|
|
On May 3, 4:11 pm, Kelsey Bjarnason <kbjarna...@ncoldns.com> wrote:
[snips]
On Wed, 02 May 2007 13:39:43 -0700, mike3 wrote:
There "must" have been since if you _assume_ that the universe
is all based on mind, and you _assume_ that the universe existed
before humans did, then whatever mind that made it exist before
us was not human (duh). It must also have been able to exist
during the Big Bang too in order to make it.
The argument, of course, depends on the validity of it's two
assumptions. It seems fairly well-proven that the universe existed
long before humans, so then we'd have to look at the assumption
of "universe based on mind" if we want to see if we can glean
anything from this line of argument.
Indeed, we would, yet you completely fail to do so. A good way to
convince us such an argument has merit, that.
To do what? To look at the universe-from-mind idea? What is your
opinion on it, and why it does not work?
.
|
|
|
| User: "mike3" |
|
| Title: Re: New argument for God's existence? |
03 May 2007 06:47:27 PM |
|
|
On May 3, 5:45 pm, mike3 <mike4...@yahoo.com> wrote:
On May 3, 4:11 pm, Kelsey Bjarnason <kbjarna...@ncoldns.com> wrote:
[snips]
On Wed, 02 May 2007 13:39:43 -0700, mike3 wrote:
There "must" have been since if you _assume_ that the universe
is all based on mind, and you _assume_ that the universe existed
before humans did, then whatever mind that made it exist before
us was not human (duh). It must also have been able to exist
during the Big Bang too in order to make it.
The argument, of course, depends on the validity of it's two
assumptions. It seems fairly well-proven that the universe existed
long before humans, so then we'd have to look at the assumption
of "universe based on mind" if we want to see if we can glean
anything from this line of argument.
Indeed, we would, yet you completely fail to do so. A good way to
convince us such an argument has merit, that.
To do what? To look at the universe-from-mind idea? What is your
opinion on it, and why it does not work?
Addendum, just in case you might want to know: I'm pretty much
neutral on UFM right now and whether or not it has any worth -- I
don't really have enough stuff to conclude any way or another,
not even personal experience or views, but I was trying to
explore some consequences of what would be the case if UFM
was true.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Kelsey Bjarnason" |
|
| Title: Re: New argument for God's existence? |
03 May 2007 08:41:06 PM |
|
|
[snips]
On Thu, 03 May 2007 16:45:43 -0700, mike3 wrote:
There "must" have been since if you _assume_ that the universe
is all based on mind, and you _assume_ that the universe existed
before humans did
....
long before humans, so then we'd have to look at the assumption
of "universe based on mind" if we want to see if we can glean
anything from this line of argument.
Indeed, we would, yet you completely fail to do so. A good way to
convince us such an argument has merit, that.
To do what? To look at the universe-from-mind idea? What is your
opinion on it, and why it does not work?
It's *your* idea, *you* support it. You can start by explaining why the
universe is "based on mind" - no, even before that, you might explain what
the heck that is supposed to mean, if indeed anything.
Then, of course, you'll proceed to demonstrate that there is, in fact,
such a mind, upon which this notion can be built.
No? Fine; then we can discard it as nonsense.
.
|
|
|
| User: "mike3" |
|
| Title: Re: New argument for God's existence? |
03 May 2007 08:59:49 PM |
|
|
On May 3, 7:41 pm, Kelsey Bjarnason <kbjarna...@ncoldns.com> wrote:
[snips]
On Thu, 03 May 2007 16:45:43 -0700, mike3 wrote:
There "must" have been since if you _assume_ that the universe
is all based on mind, and you _assume_ that the universe existed
before humans did
...
long before humans, so then we'd have to look at the assumption
of "universe based on mind" if we want to see if we can glean
anything from this line of argument.
Indeed, we would, yet you completely fail to do so. A good way to
convince us such an argument has merit, that.
To do what? To look at the universe-from-mind idea? What is your
opinion on it, and why it does not work?
It's *your* idea, *you* support it. You can start by explaining why the
universe is "based on mind" - no, even before that, you might explain what
the heck that is supposed to mean, if indeed anything.
Actually, it is not "my" idea. I cited it from another
source.
What does "universe based on mind" mean? Well,
it means that our minds are necessary for creating
reality. That's what the paper says, no?:
"Michael Frayn gives these word to Niels
Bohr: "we discover that... the Universe
exists... only through the understanding
lodged inside the human head.""
Then, of course, you'll proceed to demonstrate that there is, in fact,
such a mind, upon which this notion can be built.
No? Fine; then we can discard it as nonsense.
Well, the mind it purports for the universe existing
in is our minds, which do, in fact, exist. I trust
this final bit (that they exist) is self-evident and
requires no demonstration to test. I mean, you know
you exist, right? You can tell your mind exists,
can't you? There, then that should be all the
demonstration you need.
The problem is though is that is my deduction from
UFM valid, or even UFM itself? Is UFM as just
defined a workable idea, and is my deduction
of a possible implication valid?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Kelsey Bjarnason" |
|
| Title: Re: New argument for God's existence? |
03 May 2007 09:55:04 PM |
|
|
[snips]
On Thu, 03 May 2007 18:59:49 -0700, mike3 wrote:
What does "universe based on mind" mean? Well, it means that our minds
are necessary for creating reality. That's what the paper says, no?:
You tell us; you're the one bringing it in here, no?
Well, the mind it purports for the universe existing in is our minds,
which do, in fact, exist.
The pink wind-up bunny sitting atop my monitor exists, too. Doesn't mean
the universe or reality is in any way dependent upon it.
exist, right? You can tell your mind exists, can't you? There, then that
should be all the demonstration you need.
No, that simply demonstrates my mind exists.
.
|
|
|
| User: "mike3" |
|
| Title: Re: New argument for God's existence? |
07 May 2007 11:13:22 PM |
|
|
On May 3, 8:55 pm, Kelsey Bjarnason <kbjarna...@ncoldns.com> wrote:
[snips]
On Thu, 03 May 2007 18:59:49 -0700, mike3 wrote:
What does "universe based on mind" mean? Well, it means that our minds
are necessary for creating reality. That's what the paper says, no?:
You tell us; you're the one bringing it in here, no?
Well, I cannot see it meaning anything else, so that has
to be what it means. That is the definition you wanted,
now you've got to work with it. That is, for the
purpose of this discussion, how UFM has been
defined.
Well, the mind it purports for the universe existing in is our minds,
which do, in fact, exist.
The pink wind-up bunny sitting atop my monitor exists, too. Doesn't mean
the universe or reality is in any way dependent upon it.
So then, basically, you have realized that UFM does not work, and/or
the universe is not dependent on mind. Why is this, anyway? I'm not
saying it _is_ dependent on mind (as far as UFM goes I'm fairly
neutral, I was just tossing it out here), but I'm curious as to what
you
see wrong with the idea that would prevent it from being at least
plausible, even if there is no way to prove it outright.
exist, right? You can tell your mind exists, can't you? There, then that
should be all the demonstration you need.
No, that simply demonstrates my mind exists.
Yes, that's what it demonstrates. You wanted to know if a mind
existed that the notion of UFM is based on. The answer is yes,
it is our own minds. You asked:
"It's *your* idea, *you* support it. You can start by explaining why
the
universe is "based on mind" - no, even before that, you might explain
what
the heck that is supposed to mean, if indeed anything.
Then, of course, you'll proceed to demonstrate that there is, in
fact,
such a mind, upon which this notion can be built. "
So I explained what UFM or "universe based on mind" meant,
and the mind that it is based on is the human mind, from which it
is obviously possible to prove exists, well it does, since you
yourself have one.
So now with UFM bruought up to at least a _possible_ idea,
what do you consider bad about the idea? I'm not sure if it's good
or not, but I'd be *curious* to know what you consider a problem
with it, why it is implausible or wrong. This is not an attempt to
"prove" the idea, it is an attempt to hear your opinion about the
idea and it's flaws/merits. I could care less if the idea was right
or wrong. It's just a curiosity more than anything else.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Nick" |
|
| Title: Re: New argument for God's existence? |
08 May 2007 12:18:27 AM |
|
|
On May 7, 9:13 pm, mike3 <mike4...@yahoo.com> wrote:
On May 3, 8:55 pm, Kelsey Bjarnason <kbjarna...@ncoldns.com> wrote:
[snips]
On Thu, 03 May 2007 18:59:49 -0700, mike3 wrote:
What does "universe based on mind" mean? Well, it means that our minds
are necessary for creating reality. That's what the paper says, no?:
You tell us; you're the one bringing it in here, no?
Well, I cannot see it meaning anything else, so that has
to be what it means. That is the definition you wanted,
now you've got to work with it. That is, for the
purpose of this discussion, how UFM has been
defined.
Well, the mind it purports for the universe existing in is our minds,
which do, in fact, exist.
The pink wind-up bunny sitting atop my monitor exists, too. Doesn't mean
the universe or reality is in any way dependent upon it.
So then, basically, you have realized that UFM does not work, and/or
the universe is not dependent on mind. Why is this, anyway? I'm not
saying it _is_ dependent on mind (as far as UFM goes I'm fairly
neutral, I was just tossing it out here), but I'm curious as to what
you
see wrong with the idea that would prevent it from being at least
plausible, even if there is no way to prove it outright.
exist, right? You can tell your mind exists, can't you? There, then that
should be all the demonstration you need.
No, that simply demonstrates my mind exists.
Yes, that's what it demonstrates. You wanted to know if a mind
existed that the notion of UFM is based on. The answer is yes,
it is our own minds. You asked:
"It's *your* idea, *you* support it. You can start by explaining why
the
universe is "based on mind" - no, even before that, you might explain
what
the heck that is supposed to mean, if indeed anything.
Then, of course, you'll proceed to demonstrate that there is, in
fact,
such a mind, upon which this notion can be built. "
So I explained what UFM or "universe based on mind" meant,
and the mind that it is based on is the human mind, from which it
is obviously possible to prove exists, well it does, since you
yourself have one.
So now with UFM bruought up to at least a _possible_ idea,
what do you consider bad about the idea? I'm not sure if it's good
or not, but I'd be *curious* to know what you consider a problem
with it, why it is implausible or wrong. This is not an attempt to
"prove" the idea, it is an attempt to hear your opinion about the
idea and it's flaws/merits. I could care less if the idea was right
or wrong. It's just a curiosity more than anything else.
OBSERVER CREATED REALITY IS BUNK.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Kelsey Bjarnason" |
|
| Title: Re: New argument for God's existence? |
08 May 2007 03:15:04 AM |
|
|
[snips]
On Mon, 07 May 2007 21:13:22 -0700, mike3 wrote:
So then, basically, you have realized that UFM does not work, and/or
the universe is not dependent on mind. Why is this, anyway? I'm not
saying it _is_ dependent on mind (as far as UFM goes I'm fairly
neutral, I was just tossing it out here), but I'm curious as to what
you
see wrong with the idea that would prevent it from being at least
plausible, even if there is no way to prove it outright.
It asserts a direction of causality: the cause (mind) results in the
effect (universe). Of course, for this to work, that very causality must
be violated - mind requires universe in which to exist, which means
universe must come first, yet UFM has mind coming first, causing universe.
Then there's the niggling little problem of _what_ mind? Yours? Mine?
Someone else's? Since few of us conceptualize the universe the same way,
it seems wholly unlikely we could collectively arrive at this, so we're
left with individuals - but which one or ones? No clue, no way to tell.
Next we have the problem of a simple lack of reason to suspect that UFM is
valid in any form; there is a certain logic in mind from universe, insofar
as mind appears to be a function of the brain and the brain is part of the
universe, but there's no apparent basis for going the other way - how does
mind exist without universe, why should we suspect this is even possible,
where's the evidence to support the notion?
Then there's the issue of utility. Assume we grant that UFM might be
valid; does it offer us anything useful? Does it bring with it new
explanatory power? Does it simplify existing explanations? In short, is
it worth the time to read the thesis? If not, then correct or not, who
really cares?
exist, right? You can tell your mind exists, can't you? There, then that
should be all the demonstration you need.
No, that simply demonstrates my mind exists.
Yes, that's what it demonstrates. You wanted to know if a mind
existed that the notion of UFM is based on. The answer is yes,
it is our own minds. You asked:
There's a difference between mind existing and mind somehow causing
universe. You skipped half the equation.
"It's *your* idea, *you* support it. You can start by explaining why
the
universe is "based on mind"
So I explained what UFM or "universe based on mind" meant,
and the mind that it is based on is the human mind
Umm... that's simply an assertion without foundation. Demonstrate how the
universe arises from mind - show the causal relationship.
implausible or wrong. This is not an attempt to "prove" the idea, it is
an attempt to hear your opinion about the idea and it's flaws/merits.
Well, in all honesty, it strikes me as both wrong and totally
insignificant. A complete yawner.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "mike3" |
|
| Title: Re: New argument for God's existence? |
02 May 2007 03:38:27 PM |
|
|
On Apr 26, 9:02 am, Uncle Al <Uncle...@hate.spam.net> wrote:
mike3 wrote:
[snip crap]
...the wave function is collapsed
simply by your human mind seeing
nothing. The Universe is entirely mental."
What created galaxies before life existed to look at them?
Exactly the point I was trying to make...
Now, for the God argument. First off, the human mind _did not always
exist_! That is a fact! In fact, compared to the time the Universe has
existed, the time we have existed is less than the twinkling of an
eye! If this viewpoint above is correct, then there must have been
some pre-existing mind to generate the universe. God, anyone?
Circular reasoning. What was extant to observe God? Now you have
that tower of tortoises going all the way down under the elephant, and
the universe won't be Euclidean for the excess mass.
So then you are saying that if some pre-existing mind existed,
then there must have been other minds before it to observe them.
However this assumes that the universe-from-mind (UFM)
principle apples to that "universal" mind. The recursion must
stop at some point. You may wish to argue from, say, Occam's
razor, that maybe we should go for broke and not assume this
mind exists, but if UFM logically implies that it does, then we
also have to throw out UFM (not necessarily impossible since
nobody has proven UFM's validity.). Of course the reasoning
could be wrong, too.
The "reasoning" is that if we assume the universe existed before
humans and that the universe is created by mind, then some
mind must have existed before humans (otherwise the universe
would not have existed before humans -- contradicting one
of our assumptions), and must have existed all the way back to
the very beginning of the Universe, the Big Bang. Where is the
circularity of this reasoning? Perhaps my initial phrasing was
not as good as this one.
Hindus have 300 million gods. How are they doing: flush
toilets/capita, Calories/capita-day, average age of mortality?
Not very good, but I am not choosing to attach any specific
conceptions of the mind's motives, desires, etc. to it, just
discussing the concept in general.
--
Uncle Alhttp://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/lajos.htm#a2
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "BioFreak" |
|
| Title: Re: New argument for God's existence? |
28 Apr 2007 01:53:58 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 26 Apr 2007 08:02:36 -0700, Uncle Al wrote:
Hindus have 300 million gods. How are they doing: flush
toilets/capita, Calories/capita-day, average age of mortality?
http://www.geocities.com/sataniccrimemultimedia/harr.jpg
--
"agar rAhe eslAhe keshvar rA mijuyim be hich vajh
nabAyad nazar be yek noghteh va be yek markaz
mesle _majles_, _dowlat_, _farhang_, _artesh_,
_bAnk_, _behdAsht_, _bAzAr_, ... biyafkanim, va
donbAle rAhehalhAye fowri gashteh, az yek fard
mesle _nakhostvazir_, _vakil_, _mollA_, _mo'allem_
va gheyreh entezAre eslAh dAshteh bAshim. nazar
bAyad be tamAme afrAde mellat bAshad. _AfrAd_
bAyad eslAh shavand, va in eslAh bAyad davAm va
baghA dAshteh bAshad tA natijeye matlub va mofidi
hAsel gardad."
- Mehdi Bazargan
.
|
|
|
| User: "mike3" |
|
| Title: Re: New argument for God's existence? |
02 May 2007 03:40:02 PM |
|
|
On Apr 28, 12:53 pm, BioFreak <BioFr...@FakeAddress.com> wrote:
On Thu, 26 Apr 2007 08:02:36 -0700, Uncle Al wrote:
Hindus have 300 million gods. How are they doing: flush
toilets/capita, Calories/capita-day, average age of mortality?
http://www.geocities.com/sataniccrimemultimedia/harr.jpg
--
"agar rAhe eslAhe keshvar rA mijuyim be hich vajh
nabAyad nazar be yek noghteh va be yek markaz
mesle _majles_, _dowlat_, _farhang_, _artesh_,
_bAnk_, _behdAsht_, _bAzAr_, ... biyafkanim, va
donbAle rAhehalhAye fowri gashteh, az yek fard
mesle _nakhostvazir_, _vakil_, _mollA_, _mo'allem_
va gheyreh entezAre eslAh dAshteh bAshim. nazar
bAyad be tamAme afrAde mellat bAshad. _AfrAd_
bAyad eslAh shavand, va in eslAh bAyad davAm va
baghA dAshteh bAshad tA natijeye matlub va mofidi
hAsel gardad."
- Mehdi Bazargan
What sort of language is that, anyway?
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
