| Author | Message | ||
     Aesquire |
Seems to me that argument is arrogant. If an intelligence must perceive reality for it to exist. Then..... I haven't seen proof of that. It sure seems that perception influences reality. I'm not sure that reality doesn't exist when I'm not watching. What is arrogant is the notion that there can only be 2 perceivers. Us, and God. What about the Martians? There are billions of stars and no reason to doubt there are other life forms out there. They could certainly see distant galaxies..... We have found bacteria under the ground that out masses humanity. Those were there before we knew they were. Does their perception create the rock they live in? At which point I say "I don't know." | ||
| Aesquire |
I'm not saying you can't use QM to argue for the existence of a deity. Just that that argument is bogus. | ||
| Brumbear |
Hey If my Aunt had balls she would be my uncle that's some seriously quantum stuff right there. | ||
| Pwnzor |
I did not read or hear where anyone said there could be only two "perceivers". I firmly believe that there is "alien" life elsewhere in the universe. I firmly believe that it was also created by God. What we perceive as evolution, or the transitive state of various species, these are just a few of God's wonders. What's arrogant is assuming that any of us truly understands the nature of perception itself. | ||
| Blake |
Patrick, Are you talking about my attempt at a brief logical re-statement of the video's reasoned argument? If so, ... "I haven't seen proof of that" Quantum physicists apparently have, at least to some extent, but then again "proof" is a lofty, nearly unreachable criteria. I like "more plausible than not" except in court, where "beyond reasonable doubt" seems best. If certain proof is required, nothing is feasible for intellectual analysis. Not even the foundations of science (primary philosophical assumptions) have been proven. But regardless, my point was that the argument is in no way circular, that if the premises are true, it holds. You stated that it had a lot of circularity. >>> What is arrogant is the notion that there can only be 2 perceivers. Us, and God. Not sure where you got that there must only be two perceivers. Nothing in either premise or conclusion so limits the scope of conscious observers. If you weren't talking about my attempt at a brief logical version of the video's argument, never mind.  | ||
| Blake |
>>> Aesquire Posted on Thursday, January 30, 2014 - 08:24 pm: I'm not saying you can't use QM to argue for the existence of a deity. Just that that argument is bogus. Why is it "bogus"? Logically/philosophically speaking I mean. Are you just picking on QM? Is it valid to employ any form of science in an argument for the existence of theism? | ||
| Aesquire |
Perhaps I have misunderstood one of the points. And At this point, I'm confused as to which one from the video I'm rebutting.... so carry on. Pwnzor's post above. 4 lines. line 1. ah? oops. I don't think I'm arguing with you, but with a statement from video... I think. lines 2-4, Yep, pretty much agree. It certainly is valid to employ science in the pursuit of the truth. I'm naturally skeptical of proof of the existence of a god. There's been a lot of twisty thinking for a very long time. The Hitchhikers Guide joke is a perfect example. http://www.stlyrics.com/songs/m/montypython9364/ph ilosophersbeerdrinkingsong313377.html | ||
| Ft_bstrd |
Would the observer have to be self aware? Can a bacteria be? As far as aliens, there is NO proof that they exist. There are formulas that predict the potential of their existence, but there is no direct proof. Wouldn't a "firm belief" in aliens without proof be more akin to faith than would be a replicable quantum mechanics experience? My mind is still blown that matter changes behavior based upon whether it is being observed or not. | ||
| Blake |
I watched the thing twice and did some more youtubing and reading before gaining a tenuous grasp of the "debunking materialism" video. | ||
| Blake |
I think "evidence" is more useful a term than "proof." And to echo-edit Jeremy's statement, there's no evidence of contingent conscious life beyond planet Earth. | ||
| Aesquire |
I just assume they'll come to ask us why Firefly was canceled. When depends on how far away they are. They may be on their way here already to destroy us for My Mother The Car. I don't have a "firm belief" in Aliens, they just make sense. I'll be disappointed if never contact them, but the odds are we'll all be gone before they pick up I Love Lucy. Entire civilizations have come & gone just since the last ice age. How likely it is that somewhere, somewhen, intelligent life came to be ( by whatever means, "x created them" is fine by me but the definition of x is still a question ) is at least 1. We're here and we laughingly think we're intelligent. Big Universe. Just because we haven't picked up their porn doesn't mean they are not there. We may be listening intently with an FM radio while they use pulse modulation of neutrino beams. Heck, my old tv won't pick up terrestrial tv anymore. Put Marconi next to a tv tower, what does he hear in his earphones? What are the odds that someone close enough to pick up is using the right level of tech for us to even see the signal? I'll look at the vid again. damn cat. | ||
| Ft_bstrd |
Pwnzor mentioned he has a "firm belief". Don't want you thinking I'm putting words in your mouth Aesquire. I just find it interesting that for some there is a stronger belief, without ANY corroberating evidence, that aliens exist than there is in a God. | ||
| Blake |
Have you met Froggy? | ||
| Ft_bstrd |
Yes. Many times. I find him charming, intelligent and entertaining. | ||
| Blake |
Yes, of course. The intended humor missed the mark. | ||
| Ft_bstrd |
Nah, I was being intentionally obtuse.  | ||
| Tankhead |
1. Absent an observing consciousness, material does not exist. 2. Before the existence of any conscious contingent inhabitant of the universe, material comprising the universe existed and continues to exist. Isn't that directly and absolutely contradictory? | ||
| Sifo |
1. Absent an observing consciousness, material does not exist. 2. Before the existence of any conscious contingent inhabitant of the universe, material comprising the universe existed and continues to exist. Isn't that directly and absolutely contradictory? I was pretty confused by that too, but I've decided to most just follow this conversation. The two slot experiment is fascinating, along with it's implications. I'm just not clear that it implies God exists. In fact, the second video of the original post does mention a theory that could explain things very differently, but it's dismissed. Perhaps justly. I'm really not sure. Are there other theories? Even absent other theories at this point, we many not have a theory that explains reality. If there is such a thing. I wonder what PETA thinks about the cat? | ||
| Hootowl |
I'm pretty sure you've got that last part exactly backwards. According to the video, the consciousness exited prior to material existing in the universe. It existed, and continues to exist. It also follows that it will continue to exist should the material universe come to an end. Unless I horribly misinterpreted the information in the clip. | ||
| Blake |
>>> Isn't that directly and absolutely contradictory? Not at all. The words "inhabitants" and "contingent" are key. The alternative is that conscious life contingent upon and inhabiting the universe existed from the beginning of time (the Big Bang). That of course is absurd, thus a greater consciousness that transcended space and time must have existed causally prior to the Big Bang. Otherwise, the universe could never have come to exist. | ||
| Midknyte |
Just because we haven't picked up their porn doesn't mean they are not there. We may be listening intently with an FM radio while they use pulse modulation of neutrino beams. You had me at neutrino porn  | ||
| Blake |
Or what Jeff said. | ||
| Pwnzor |
Wouldn't a "firm belief" in aliens without proof be more akin to faith My firm belief, to be specific, is that God created the universe and everything in it. That is the basis of my faith. Have you met Froggy? Yep. line 1. ah? oops. I don't think I'm arguing with you, I don't think so either. Perhaps I misinterpreted what you said. The point I was making is that what we see, what we think we see, and what is are not often the same thing. Some might say not always, but I say not often. | ||
| Ourdee |
Are there stars, planets, galaxies that have yet to be observed. Do they materially exist or not? The hubble was pointed at a dark area for days at a time. It observed a large number of previously unknown to us galaxies. Does this mean that instead of being humans having spiritual experiences that we are instead spiritual beings having human experiences? I read a book by Michael J. Behe, "Darwin's Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution" I found it to be a pretty good argument for theism. The Cat In The Hat? You never questioned the existence of Thing 1 and Thing 2? A part of sound has to do with the presence of an ear to hear it. Otherwise there is no sound. So an un-witnessed tree falling not only does not make sound, it also does not fall? Brumbear, Who would be willing to witness your aunt/uncle's balls? That may however explain the whiskers she/he has. Would the theory argue for the oneness of the Deity? If there were more than one Deity/Observer would we be trapped back in the billions of worlds hypothesis? Pwnzor, The point I was making is that what we see, what we think we see, and what is are not often the same thing. Some might say not always, but I say not often. +1 We see through a glass darkly. Marconi only hears what Tesla allows him to plagiarize. | ||
| Ourdee |
Blake, Did the tangents of this thread exist prior to your reading them? | ||
| Blake |
In a wave of potentialities? More . . . http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H6HLjpj4Nt4&sns | ||
| Ourdee |
In a wave of potentialities? Would have been an answer of sorts without the question mark. The video explained a question, sort of. I was wanting to know if an observer was looking but not paying attention could they influence the outcome. Looks like they would cause a wave pattern until another observer became cognizant or the inattentive one focused on the task at hand. | ||
| Mr_grumpy |
If the universe is infinite there's nothing outside it, therefore everything that exists must be inside it including any creator. So the creator must have created themself at the same time as they created the universe. If we accept that the universe is infinite, we must then accept that every possibility, however unlikely or bizarre, must exist within it. Therefore in an infinite universe God and Aliens exist. However if we consider that the universe is finite, then we must also accept that it is contained within something bigger, & may possibly have been created by a higher being. It may be the case that we live in a finite universe which is but a minuscule part of a greater whole, & that mankind, far from being "The chosen few" are but an impurity or a vaguely interesting side effect. My personal belief is that there must be a higher form of life than us. Whether or not it's GOD, a God, or several Gods playing a complicated game where we're just part of the playing pieces, I have no way of knowing. Infinite universe or not, my tape measure doesn't go that far. God (if he exists) knows who I am & what sort of a person I am. I'm more than happy to be judged by a supreme being, but I won't stand to be told what I should believe & how I should act by people no better than I who purport to speak for a higher power. God may or may not exist, I may or may not find out when I pop my clogs. Religion does exist, I've seen what it does, I don't want any of it. Love, light and peace to all.  | ||
| Court |
 | ||
| Pwnzor |
Infinity is not a number. It's a word to describe the indescribable. Nothing more or less. |
