Ostronomos
Well-Known Member
This lecture really showcases Langan's intellect. It is my pleasure to bring it to you guys.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Presenting Langan's Lecture at Berkley
- Thread starter Ostronomos
- Start date
This lecture really showcases Langan's intellect. It is my pleasure to bring it to you guys.
Ostronomos
Well-Known Member
As many of you might be aware, having read the Reality Self-simulation Principle by Christopher Langan, there are layers to reality. N, the non-terminal or metaphysical pre-reality that created the multi-verse, and T, the display or physical domain of each and every universe.
Langan has intelligence in spades. Therefore, we can trust his judgements moreso than the vast majority. And he is not classified as a mere believer, but a "knower of God".
I too can be classed this way. And I achieve new heights of genius every now and again.
Reality's metaphysical domain processes the information and alternates between processor and display stages. Where the display can be analogously understood as collapse of the wavefunction.
Langan has intelligence in spades. Therefore, we can trust his judgements moreso than the vast majority. And he is not classified as a mere believer, but a "knower of God".
I too can be classed this way. And I achieve new heights of genius every now and again.
Reality's metaphysical domain processes the information and alternates between processor and display stages. Where the display can be analogously understood as collapse of the wavefunction.
Ostronomos
Well-Known Member
God is non-intuitive. But so is Quantum Mechanics.
Ostronomos
Well-Known Member
And now for the moment of truth.
Wigner says that the unreasonable effectiveness of mathematics reflects a deeper truth:
The Unreasonable Effectiveness of Mathematics in the Natural Sciences - Wikipedia
Wigner says that the unreasonable effectiveness of mathematics reflects a deeper truth:
The Unreasonable Effectiveness of Mathematics in the Natural Sciences - Wikipedia
Last edited:
Ostronomos
Well-Known Member
In the eliminative materialist view, there are no mental states at all, just physical states. Your pain isn’t your nerves. You don’t have pain. You just have nerves. Yet one presumes that eliminative materialists still request Novocaine at the dentist’s office. That’s not, mind you, because they don’t want pain (which does not exist) but because they don’t want (for some reason) the physical state of their nerves that we plain folk erroneously call “pain.”
By now, you may see the problem here: How do we believe that there are no beliefs? If eliminative materialism is true, then their own belief in eliminative materialism isn’t a belief. It’s a physical state, a certain concentration of neurochemicals that we (the uninitiated) foolishly call a belief. So a disagreement between an eliminative materialist and a dualist isn’t really a disagreement at all. It’s just two different concentrations of brain dopamine or whatever. Exactly how these chemicals in different skulls get into a “disagreement” is left vague.
Taken from: Why the Mind Can’t Just Be the Brain
By now, you may see the problem here: How do we believe that there are no beliefs? If eliminative materialism is true, then their own belief in eliminative materialism isn’t a belief. It’s a physical state, a certain concentration of neurochemicals that we (the uninitiated) foolishly call a belief. So a disagreement between an eliminative materialist and a dualist isn’t really a disagreement at all. It’s just two different concentrations of brain dopamine or whatever. Exactly how these chemicals in different skulls get into a “disagreement” is left vague.
Taken from: Why the Mind Can’t Just Be the Brain