There is no evidence of God

[Thief]

I have no clue what this means lol.

Really?.......

 

[nash8]

There's not much point or explanation then toward so many copies of a device that can do only one thing.....
render unique souls on each occasion.

I consider the abundance the evidence in support.

What's the device? What is the only thing that you think it can do? Render unique souls on occasion, every soul is unique, no occasion required.

What is the abuncance of evidence in support, what does it support and/or not support.

I don't get how you responded with this to my post.

Oh dear... Considering the posting history of the poster who is saying this, I'm going to take any assessment of ignorance or intelligence with a grain of salt.

Lol, I say the same thing to you sir.

That's great. Unfortunately, its irrelevant.

How so? You accused someones opinion of being misleading and/or false. I said that their opinion was neither to me. It might be irrelevant to this thread topic, but so was your original statement, so what's your point?

"Being ridiculous" isn't really an argument, and I don't recall noticing ANY relevant criticism or counter-argument from you at all. If you'd kindly refer me to the post #...

I don't think anyone has the ability to criticize or counter-argue anything you say so your probably right.

Don't worry- I won't "dish" out belly-aching and whining in place of actual arguments. Thus I can request that others do the same.

WWWAAAAYYYY to late for that.

I glanced at the page, it didn't appear to say anything remotely like what you claim it is saying here. Perhaps you'd like to quote the specific section you believe implies that "if any part of the universe were to be deemed 'conscious' then every other part of the universe would be deemed conscious as well"? (and don't worry, I'm not a vicious pedant like your boyfriend so I won't throw a temper tantrum that you've referred to a wikipedia page...)

That theory states that the entire universe is essentially nothing but a hologram. If you take any piece of a hologram, you get the image of the entire hologram within the piece that you seperated it from, albeit at a lower resolution than the whole.

The same goes in reverse, if you take a small piece of the whole then you essentially get a small "replication" of the whole. This small piece of the whole contains all of the same qualities that the whole does. Thus, if any piece of the whole has conciousness then the entire whole has conciousness, because they are essentially the same "image". However this does not imply that everything is concious in the exact same manner, just that all things within the universe including the universe itself would be concious on some level.

Really?.......

REALLY

 

[nash8]

(and don't worry, I'm not a vicious pedant like your boyfriend so I won't throw a temper tantrum that you've referred to a wikipedia page...)

And as far as this, I'm sorry if you think that my admiration of someone with an obviously extensive knowledge base and high intelligence level is unfounded.

Pedant or not, he provided extensive sources to support his opinion, and after many responses asking for evidence to support your opinion, you come back with a single wiki article, you gotta be kidding me, I'd be mad too. Not downing wiki at all, as I think it might be one of the greatest inventions of the 21st centruy, but at the same time it does not compare in legitimacy, to any of the sources that he provided.

But then again, maybe he's not as smart as I thought he was, seeing as that he spent that amount of effort supplying sources for you, not recognizing that your were probably going to try and refute them with more of your own opinions, or even better, a wiki page that he probably had some part in writing lol.

But on the other hand, if I was as smart as he was, I probably wouldn't have even bothered responding to your posts, so you got more from him than I would have given you.

 

[Enai de a lukal]

In other words, you're going to avoid backing up your claim and responding to this-

I glanced at the page, it didn't appear to say anything remotely like what you claim it is saying here. Perhaps you'd like to quote the specific section you believe implies that "if any part of the universe were to be deemed 'conscious' then every other part of the universe would be deemed conscious as well"?

Mmmmmk!

 

[Enai de a lukal]

after many responses asking for evidence to support your opinion, you come back with a single wiki article

Either your memory is hazy, or you're being blatantly dishonest, but I've never cited Wikipedia in reponse to a request for evidence for my position. Regarding a factual issue, I referred to the Wikipedia page for quick reference (as virtually everyone is wont to do at some time or other) and asked whether it was mistaken (i.e. not exactly the standard procedure if one is citing a source in defense of their position)... In any case, that the lowest common denominator of this forum is easily mislead by irrelevant scholarly citations isn't much of a surprise to me; I'm guessing that is precisely why this strategy is adopted in the first place; whatever else it does, it makes a good smokescreen...

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Either your memory is hazy, or you're being blatantly dishonest, but I've never cited Wikipedia in reponse to a request for evidence for my position.

This is true. You haven't been capable of citing anything at all in response to a request for your position. You relied on Wikipedia to challenge a position, and when you were given better sources you simply regurgitated your baseless nonsense over and over and over again. You answer no questions, you give no evidence for your claims, you cite nothing for your positions, and you give no reasons other than your assertions for why anything you say should be taken seriously by anyone.

I'm sure that's worked out for you quite well among those who already agree with you.

 

[nash8]

In other words, you're going to avoid backing up your claim and responding to this-



Mmmmmk!

Holography

Either your memory is hazy, or you're being blatantly dishonest, but I've never cited Wikipedia in reponse to a request for evidence for my position.

So I guess asking for the confirmation of the factuality of a wikipedia article opposing someone elses viewpoint doesn't count as a response for a request for evidence to support your position?

Regarding a factual issue, I referred to the Wikipedia page for quick reference (as virtually everyone is wont to do at some time or other) and asked whether it was mistaken

Good job!!!!

(i.e. not exactly the standard procedure if one is citing a source in defense of their position)...

I would agree.

In any case, that the lowest common denominator of this forum is easily mislead by irrelevant scholarly citations isn't much of a surprise to me;

As a member of the lowest common denominator of this forum, I don't really follow most scholarly citations that much, so I don't know how I could be mislead by them. Almost the entirety of my knowledge is based from Wikipedia.

It however, was my analysis of the relevance of the scholarly citations in reference to the argument was what actually "mislead" me. I guess I got "smokescreened" from an argument that I really didn't care about. I hate it when I don't get to see something that I don't care about.

 

[Thief]

What's the device? What is the only thing that you think it can do? Render unique souls on occasion, every soul is unique, no occasion required.

REALLY

That device would be the human body....obviously.
Each one of us would be that each occasion.

Fresh perspective....every time.

 

[Enai de a lukal]

Holography

Um, ok... Why don't you just spit out what you're trying to say? You can't be bothered to write a few sentences explaining wtf you have in mind, so I have to guess? Is the point that there is a principle in physics called the "holographic principle", and that pieces of holograms contain the whole image... Therefore the universe is conscious?

Care to connect point A to point Z for me?

 

[nash8]

That device would be the human body....obviously.
Each one of us would be that each occasion.

Fresh perspective....every time.

Yes, I think. I am still utterly confused though. But yes the human body would be the device through which the light flowed. It would be a fresh perspective in some sense, but you would still carry "beliefs" that were engrained into the code of your being. But any beliefs that weren't strong enough to be engrained into the code would be lost.

Um, ok... Why don't you just spit out what you're trying to say? You can't be bothered to write a few sentences explaining wtf you have in mind, so I have to guess? Is the point that there is a principle in physics called the "holographic principle", and that pieces of holograms contain the whole image... Therefore the universe is conscious?

Care to connect point A to point Z for me?

You already said it. If the universe is a hologram, then any piece of that hologram, contains the image of the whole. Thus, if a part of the whole contained conciousness, then the whole would contain consciousness. But then again, that would make every part of the universe concious to some degree, so it all goes back to your opinion on what defines conciousness?

Also, if resolution of the image pertains to level of conciousness then the universe would be all knowing within the parameters of it's existence since it would be the highest resolution.

 

[Enai de a lukal]

You already said it. If the universe is a hologram, then any piece of that hologram, contains the image of the whole. Thus, if a part of the whole contained conciousness, then the whole would contain consciousness.

Ok, but your Wiki article didn't say that "the universe is a hologram"- its called "the holographic universe", and it seems to say that the universe is sort of like a hologram in a certain respects; not that the universe is a hologram, and thus that everything that is true of holograms (such as your crucial claim here) is also true of the universe. The article on the holographic principle doesn't seem to make any such claim, which is why I asked you to be more explicit and point out where it says any such thing, if I'm simply missing it.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Ok, but your Wiki article didn't say that "the universe is a hologram"- its called "the holographic universe", and it seems to say that the universe is sort of like a hologram in a certain respects

There are more than one holographic cosmologies. For example, a book that was a complete waste of money because it always appears in full every time I Google it:

The Holographic Anthropic Multiverse: Formalizing the Complex Geometry of Reality (Series on Knots and Everything)

I paid over $100 for what you get for free. At any rate, the authors go into a multiverse holographic cosmology. It's also theistic. I don't know what the article in question is or says, but it could be that it was trying to be as general as possible.

 

[Enai de a lukal]

There are more than one holographic cosmologies. For example, a book that was a complete waste of money because it always appears in full every time I Google it:

The Holographic Anthropic Multiverse: Formalizing the Complex Geometry of Reality (Series on Knots and Everything)

I paid over $100 for what you get for free. At any rate, the authors go into a multiverse holographic cosmology. It's also theistic. I don't know what the article in question is or says, but it could be that it was trying to be as general as possible.

An interesting link (thanks, btw), although at first blush I can't really find a direct answer to my question except for this; under “What is the Holographic Universe”, it says-

“A Conscious Universe Requires An Additional Teleological Or Anthropic (Noetic) Action Principle Guiding Evolution And Governing Hierarchical Complex Self-Organization”. (p.50)

Which is explained earlier with respect to the anthropic principle-

"Carter defined the two forms of the Anthropic Principle currently in use, the ‘weak’ anthropic principle referring to the idea of privileged spacetime locations in the universe, and the ‘strong’ form of the anthropic principle which has addressed the values of the fundamental constants of nature. Barrow and Tipler in a detailed work formed different definitions of the weak and strong anthropic principles. They also argue extensively that it is highly probable that human life is the only intelligent life in the Milky Way galaxy. We strongly disagree. We believe that intelligent life is the rule, not the exception and that this is what the anthropic principle is all about. This is suggested twice in Carl Sagan’s Hollywood film Contact, if not: “it would be an awful waste of space”.

Weinberg suggests the Anthropic Principle could be utilized by cosmologists opposed to theism as a ‘turning point’ in science by applying it to the string landscape to "... explain how the constants of nature that we observe can take values suitable for life without being fine-tuned by a benevolent creator”. Interesting that the same principle can be used for opposite purposes.Weinberg’s view is opposite to the anthropic views presented here. We propose that teleological or eutaxiological bases are tantamount to the essence of anthropic cosmology itself suggesting that the anthropic principle entails an additional action principle driving or guiding cosmological evolution in opposition to the postulate of random Darwinian or naturalistic evolution of Big Bang cosmologies. This new action is believed to be synonymous with the action of the unitary field which historically has also been equated with chi, ki, prana, the élan vital or spirit of God" (p33)

In any case, the article is far too long and too technical for me to easily find all the explanation of this "additional action principle", the driving force behind this teleological process (or the bit about the "conscious universe" which was the original question); but its obviously an interesting subject- if anyone were to ever bother to write up a thread on the subject (as it undoubtedly deserves its own thread), I'd certainly check it out.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

although at first blush I can't really find a direct answer to my question

As I said, not knowing what article it is that the disagreement concerns, I was using the link merely to demonstrate that there is no the holographic universe exactly, but rather a set of related cosmologies. In the monograph that I linked to, it is not a holographic multiverse, not universe. Things like multiverse cosmologies, and holographic cosmologies are, like classes of QM interpretations (multiverse interpretations are a class of both QM interpretations and cosmological models) related models motivated (usually) by a particular kind of solution to a problem in theoretical physics, cosmology, particle physics, etc. Quantum gravity, or just gravity in general, is a primary motivation as it is the central missing link between the two most successful theoretical frameworks in physics: relativity and QM.

Basically, what might be true for some holographic cosmologies may not be true even for those motivated by the same reason. And thus whatever the disagreement is about may over this (wiki?) article may reflect the fact that the article was more general in order to encapsulate a class of cosmologies rather than the holographic universe of e.g., Susskind (which is certainly different than that of Amoroso & Rauscher).

except for this; under “What is the Holographic Universe”, it says-

“A Conscious Universe Requires An Additional Teleological Or Anthropic (Noetic) Action Principle Guiding Evolution And Governing Hierarchical Complex Self-Organization”. (p.50)

Which is explained earlier with respect to the anthropic principle-

"Carter defined the two forms of the Anthropic Principle currently in use, the ‘weak’ anthropic principle referring to the idea of privileged spacetime locations in the universe, and the ‘strong’ form of the anthropic principle which has addressed the values of the fundamental constants of nature. Barrow and Tipler in a detailed work...

Carter (if memory serves) coined the term, while Barrow and Tipler made it famous in their 1986 or 87 Cosmological Anthropic Principle, an oft cited work by Christian theists who have never read it. The authors divide the anthropic principle into weaker an stronger versions, that of Susskind & Carter being the weaker and theistic cosmologies being (more or less) stronger or strongest. Ironically, both the anthropic principle an multiverse theory are held generally (even by specialists) to be unscientific or desirable because the one supposedly is too much like a theistic cosmology while the other removes the need for any creator, and neither of these views is true. Susskind and Weinberg (this guy: "Weinberg suggests the Anthropic Principle...") both subscribe to the multiverse theory because they believe it removes any need for a creator, while the authors of the monograph I linked to believe that it is the evidence of or for a creator.

In any case, the article is far too long

It's a monograph, part of a series (knots & everything) that mainly concerns mathematical aspects of physics (particularly topological aspects). I just can't stand that I paid $100+ and every time I've gone to link to the Google books version so far, I've found a full .pdf version. Also, as I said, I didn't expect that you'd read it (not in full certainly), just that I wished to show the "holographic universe" is not so singular a theory, and that may be related to whatever it is the disagreement about what it entails is about.

 

[nash8]

Ok, but your Wiki article didn't say that "the universe is a hologram"- its called "the holographic universe", and it seems to say that the universe is sort of like a hologram in a certain respects; not that the universe is a hologram, and thus that everything that is true of holograms (such as your crucial claim here) is also true of the universe. The article on the holographic principle doesn't seem to make any such claim, which is why I asked you to be more explicit and point out where it says any such thing, if I'm simply missing it.

From what I understand, which is admittedly little, the holographic universe is based on the theory that the universe as we see it was created by some light source being directed as if it were a laser through an object which creates an image of the object. This is a very crude representation of it, but it gets the point across.
How a Holographic Universe Emerged From Fight With Stephen Hawking - Wired Science

The same process is essentially how a hologram is created in the real world. A laser (concentrated light source) is projected through a medium to create a light image of whatever is wanted to be created.
Holography

From the quantum mechanical aspect of it. The way I understand it is that the hologram is represented by the light source being imprented on the medium of a black hole. As far as the calculations for how it works in reference to the event horizon of a black hole and how all this works mathematically, I have no idea. But essentially, the light source and the medium through which the light is projected would essentially exist outside of what we call the universe, but at the same time they are representative of those objects as the universe is essentially a "light model" of them.

I don't have any idea of what the light source is, nor the medium through which it is projected, so I, personally, don't qualify them as God myself because I don't can't form any opinions on their attributes or anything about them. Everytime I try to think about it all I can come up with is the quote from the Toa Te Cheng, Paraphrasing here:

"The Tao gave birth to The Great one, The Great One gave birth to The Two, The Two gave birth to The Three, And The Three gave birth to all creation"

The Tao would be the light source, the medium would be the Great one, The Two would be light and dark as we percieve it in the universe, and the three would be the light and dark combined into one as the universe.

Then you have, "The Tao that can be spoken of is not The Great Tao". That's all I ever come up with when I think about those concepts, and I'm not even that into Taoist philosophy lol.

So according to this theory, the universe would be a hologram in every sense of the word. The only question, the same as we have in reference to QM, is do the laws we observe of a hologram according to everyday human perception, also apply to a hologram on such a large or small scale, depending upon your perception? If they do, and the holographic universe acts just like a hologram in real life, then we can assume that everything in the universe contains some level of concsiosness, from rocks to the entire universe itself. The level of consciousness would then depend, in my opinion, on the "resolution" of the piece of the hologram that you are.

Lastly, I would also like to say that that this theory has largely been disregarded by science as a plausible theory of the universe for one reason or another. I was simply stating there is a scientific theory that supports the universe as a god-concept. And my personal opinion is that if Stehpan Hawking supported it at some point than it deserves some type of further inspection.

An interesting link (thanks, btw), although at first blush I can't really find a direct answer to my question except for this; under “What is the Holographic Universe”, it says-

In any case, the article is far too long and too technical for me to easily find all the explanation of this "additional action principle", the driving force behind this teleological process (or the bit about the "conscious universe" which was the original question); but its obviously an interesting subject- if anyone were to ever bother to write up a thread on the subject (as it undoubtedly deserves its own thread), I'd certainly check it out.

I can't even begin to fathom this "additional action principle", but I would assume it would be akin to the "laser" or the "medium" that would be used to create a normal hologram, but I really have no idea because my brain just starts hurting when I try to think about it. But I am definitely open to possible explenations if you would like to offer.

Basically, what might be true for some holographic cosmologies may not be true even for those motivated by the same reason. And thus whatever the disagreement is about may over this (wiki?) article may reflect the fact that the article was more general in order to encapsulate a class of cosmologies rather than the holographic universe of e.g., Susskind (which is certainly different than that of Amoroso & Rauscher).

Holographic principle - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This is the article, and admittedly it does not do a good job a capturing my theory, and in reality doesn't neccesarily support my theory at all.

except for this; under “What is the Holographic Universe”, it says-

“A Conscious Universe Requires An Additional Teleological Or Anthropic (Noetic) Action Principle Guiding Evolution And Governing Hierarchical Complex Self-Organization”.

Wouldn't this be identical to the light source that would be neccesary to create the "hologram" in the first place?

Ironically, both the anthropic principle an multiverse theory are held generally (even by specialists) to be unscientific or desirable because the one supposedly is too much like a theistic cosmology while the other removes the need for any creator, and neither of these views is true. Susskind and Weinberg (this guy: "Weinberg suggests the Anthropic Principle...") both subscribe to the multiverse theory because they believe it removes any need for a creator, while the authors of the monograph I linked to believe that it is the evidence of or for a creator.

That is the definition of irony. It's not scientific because it promotes the need for a creator, but it's also unscientific because it removes the need for a creator lol. Sounds like perfect science to me.

What about the testing procedures for the theory. The wiki article does mention real life testing procedures, but says that the results observed in the experiment have not been claimed by quantum gravity researchers and seem to contradict string theory calculations as well.

My question is, don't string theory and quantum loop gravity contradict each other to an extent? My understanding was that if string theory proved to be true than quantum loop gravity would not be likely to be true, and vice versa? I don't know how this would correlate, but wouldn't it be dependent on what theory was proved to be true before this theory could be tested, otherwise calculations would be innaccurate?

I just can't stand that I paid $100+ and every time I've gone to link to the Google books version so far, I've found a full .pdf version.

EPIC FAIL

 

[Enai de a lukal]

The only question... is do the laws we observe of a hologram according to everyday human perception, also apply to a hologram on such a large or small scale, depending upon your perception? If they do, and the holographic universe acts just like a hologram in real life, then we can assume that everything in the universe contains some level of concsiosness, from rocks to the entire universe itself.

Right- and the fact that the proposal is named "holographic universe" based on similarities between the model and actual holograms may well not mean that "the holographic universe acts just like a hologram" in the relevant sense; and nothing I was able to find on either the Wiki page or the pdf article seemed to imply that it would. Moreover, even if this is indeed an implication of this proposal, it likely doesn't mean what we're talking about here- that the universe is conscious in the same sense that human beings are conscious (anymore than it should mean that human beings have feathers); i.e. that every aspect of the universe has all of the properties that every other aspect of the universe has, and in the same manner.

Lastly, I would also like to say that that this theory has largely been disregarded by science as a plausible theory of the universe for one reason or another. I was simply stating there is a scientific theory that supports the universe as a god-concept.

That's pretty crucial though; if it is not a credible hypothesis, then even if it is congruent with a particular religious notion, it doesn't really add any presumption of truth or accuracy to this notion.

 

[nash8]

Right- and the fact that the proposal is named "holographic universe" based on similarities between the model and actual holograms may well not mean that "the holographic universe acts just like a hologram" in the relevant sense; and nothing I was able to find on either the Wiki page or the pdf article seemed to imply that it would. Moreover, even if this is indeed an implication of this proposal, it likely doesn't mean what we're talking about here- that the universe is conscious in the same sense that human beings are conscious (anymore than it should mean that human beings have feathers); i.e. that every aspect of the universe has all of the properties that every other aspect of the universe has, and in the same manner.

Indeed, which is why I said that we can't say assume qualities about something as large as the universe on a smaller scale, much like quantum phsysics not acting according to the laws of classic physics. And I most certainly agree that all things are concious in the same way that humans are. But according to my own personal theory, of the resolution of the image being indicative of the level of conciousness, it would imply the universe as "all knowing" seeing as it was the highest resolution of the image. Just my own logical personal interpetation, no scientific evidence.

Did you get the article with Stephen Hawking? It expressed the theory behind the "holographic" description. It basically states that the universe was created the in the same "manner" that a hologram is created in "real life". Projection of a concentrated light source through a "prism" (don't know if that's a good word for it), which is projected on a medium. Assuming the hologram of the universe is representative of a hologram that humans can make, unfalsifiable claim most definitely, that's how it would work.

According to the theory, the light source fits into calculations about the behavior of light on the event horizion of a black hole, which would be the other "half" of the universe before the big bang. Although these have not correlated, much of it depends on calculations that we have not formed a very credible basis for such as quantum loop gravity, as well as string theory. Since we haven't really formed a solid foundation for these two principles, and they would play heavily in the interaction of light on the event horizon of a black hole, it would be hard to make any substantial caclulations, at least in my opinion.

That's pretty crucial though; if it is not a credible hypothesis, then even if it is congruent with a particular religious notion, it doesn't really add any presumption of truth or accuracy to this notion.

Stephen Hawking supported it, that's enough for me lol.