Some thoughts on Existence, God and Religion

this is still a small view because of "the" world, when there are billions of them. and i don't mean that metaphysically. one planet might be as good as a universe to one person, but to the universe, one planet, or even its solar system, is less then one micro micro grain of sand.

there are perhaps psyonic effects. there are certainly statistical ones. reality is what DOESN'T depend upon our observation of it.
just because the ego, or even the collective ego, doesn't want to let go, doesn't make it about us, at all.

 

Really?

The topic of the Debate is "Is the Universe a Computer Simulation?"

I guess that is why the video is titled "Is the Universe a Computer Simulation?" and why Neil DeGrasse Tyson also said at the beginning that tonight’s topic is "Is the Universe a Computer Simulation?" And so, I don’t know why but I thought that is what the topic was.

And I'm going to go out on a limb and say you’re a dullard, because I watched entire thing all the way to the after “debate” questions.

I said why I was disappointed, I can’t help it if you find yourself satisfied with opinions and a dearth evidence.

 

And your point in asking all these questions is?

No it really doesn't, you brought it up but nothing you said really lead to it.​

Aside from that the video seems to use atomic shell theory which is a bit passé, the question should first be asked what "touch" is?

 

There may be some physicists that would disagree with your thought that “reality is what DOESN'T depend upon our observation of it” because in their experiments they have found that reality does seem to depend on observation

Also we may not be the only ones observing.

 

You'd be wrong on that limb, ad hominem attacks... clearly the sign of a confident intellect

 

Your solipsism , yes , it defies all authority with its stubborn dullness .

 

You started it so I guess what you say applies to you.

 

I merely relplied in kind to his remark to me.

 

yes, it did, I said those were some things I had been thinking about but then I also said a “sort of neural net” not an actual one. If you are familiar with Maya then you would also know that is about illusion and not about actual neural nets.

First just because you are familiar with neural nets that have an underlying system to run on does not mean all “neural nets” would have one, especially since we are talking about a “sort neural net” and perhaps not an actual neural net. Second, physicists study the underlying systems of the Universe without allowing themselves to be deterred from those studies by your “Ad infinitum”.

The word “touch” comes from before the knowledge of quantum mechanics we have now and is a description of a sensation we feel and that feeling does not change because we have a better understanding of what is happening. I agree that on an atomic level we can “see” that there can be no “touching” mainly because the existence of matter itself maybe an unreality.

So then you agree the shell theory is a bit passé.

 

no, the effect of the means of observation, is not a matter of preconceived notions. this is what they are referring to. things there is no other way to observe then to observe the results of interfering with them.
this is a typical misunderstanding of meaning used as an excuse for self deception.

as for not being the only ones observing, that much is certanly true. i, for example, may very well not be entirely part of the 'we' you in all likelihood assume.
rather to the point 'we' are NOT the reason everything else, or even anything else, exists. 'we' are just another part of the 'scenery' (of the universe, not just this planet),
along with everything else, neither more nor less.
and that includes these 'other observers' too. all of them.

 

You might find this video interesting:

Okay

You seem to be eliminating possibilities without giving any reason why you are doing so. There is the possibility that "I" am the only reason the Universe exists and that "you" only exist because I want someone to talk to and along that same line we all may be the "dream" (Maya perhaps) of a "great observer" for which the universe exists.


It could also be that each one of us is the "I" and the reason the universe exists. Perhaps each of us is an emergent part of a “great communal consciousness”. If that is the case, there may be a way to access that “great communal consciousness”, enlightenment perhaps and have a understanding about the universe that is beyond what is accessible by people that do not have access to the “great communal consciousness”.

 

Maybe the entire universe is a system that supports a reality or a type of neural net. Everything is connected to everything else according to quantum theory.

 

"Neural net" sounds a bit material, but what you're saying is similar to the Hindu view that we are all one with the divine consciousness (Brahman) and have "forgotten" it. Gnostic Christians had a similar view, and thought the main mission of Jesus was to enlighten us to the God within us.

 

The repression of consciousness is imposed upon children . The Oneness is never forgotten , rather
it is protected in a wild place , and it is feared by an over-organizing society who itself would be the
Oneness . This is pretentiousness , and absurdly stressful . Smoking ganja has been prescribed to help
this condition . Probably the remedy should be disorganized , eh ? That would be consistent with Divine
Anarchy , which is very much trusting in a wholeness of mind .

 

Yes, that is kind of what I had in mind.

 

the first line is completely true, the rest, like all belief is speculation. as such things go, it is certainly one of the most positive and probable. i would add one little detail though, that a true anarchy, that is, a complete absence of hierarchy, depends utterly upon universally mutual consideration.

the magic is the strangeness itself.

it does not come from defying logic.
there is nothing to stop a billion gods from existing, should each of them happen to choose to do so,
and equally nothing to compel, even a single one of them, to have anything to do, with what anyone wants to think they know about it.

reality is that the unknown is unknown.

the universal wonder of strangeness exists.
we can see it expressed in emergent phenomena, like a rainbow, or the hive mind of insects,
but as soon as we try to pin down anything more about it, then that it exists, we enter the realm of speculation.

it is also illogical to expect goodness to come from anything wishing to be feared,
and while it is tempting to assume the existence of infallibility,
nothing observable, actually requires its existence.

so the only other nature reality has, then that of not requiring to be known,
is a diversity greater then any, or even all together of us, can even begin to imagine.

again my main point: nothing that exists, depends for its doing so, upon being known, or known of, even slightly, by anything else.

in diversity being the nature of reality, there is inconvenience, even fear, this i must grant, but there is also hope, wonder and beauty.
(it is also 'the only game in town' which is not up to us anyway)

 

[QUOTE ...
You seem to be eliminating possibilities without giving any reason why you are doing so. There is the possibility that "I" am the only reason the Universe exists and that "you" only exist because I want someone to talk to and along that same line we all may be the "dream" (Maya perhaps) of a "great observer" for which the universe exists... [/QUOTE]

i'm not eliminating possibility here, but i do find the idea of 'one of anything' less then compelling, counter-intuitive, and inconsistent with anything observable.

sure i could be imagining you,
but, i can still stub my toe in the dark, without having to know there is anything there to stub it on.

haven't had much success lately with levitating
or trying to summon solid objects into existence out of my imagination
without the use of tools and materials and skills in the use of them either.